This is one of the perennial problems that the dog groups face - the fact that whether or not they sterilise, the dogs still get rounded up. It really is a disincentive to sterilise - and it means that less dogs will get sterilised overall. If the idea is to make Singapore 'safer' than sterilisation should be encouraged.
I remember meeting someone at a conference a few years ago, and he mentioned that because rabies is rampant where he's from (someone had just gotten bitten), sterilisation of dogs was pursued aggressively and they saw fewer people get bitten, and better results healthwise. With less dogs, there will be less attacks, and less incidents obviously. Try and round the dogs up, and there will always be those that elude the traps and will just run around reproducing, meaning there will always be more dogs.
10 comments:
AVA is one bloody useful gahmen dept using silly excuse such as "not to stifle free enterprise" to appeals to shut down the breeding farms in the pasir ris farmay areas and to stop the import of dogs.
It seems to derive a masochistic pleasure of killing the cats and dogs its premises!
Please do something positive and stop just mouthing Sterilisation!
And stop wasting our money in your silly loan of cat traps to people who are using as a legal means of murdering cats and get away with it.
Smart abusers will now let AVA do the job!
I mean..useless gahmen dept!
Omg. $250 to sterilize one dog and $500 to bail one out from AVA. No wonder ASD is so reluctant to get involved in areas where there is no management. Who has so much money to blow? Stupid AVA policies are counterproductive and stuck back in the 60s and 70s. You'd think we'd have progressed from the stage where the only kindness available for stray animals was to kill them.
TODAY Weekend
26th July 2008
Reader: You should not cull strays as you please, AVA
Letter by Jill Hum
I REFER to "The stray dilemma for animal groups" (July 25).
The response and attitude of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) is very disappointing.
The AVA said that it does not "condone the release of sterilised dogs into the environment and it would round up if they are found in public places" - which I suppose means that they will be culled.
Can the AVA then offer solutions on how to find homes for so many sterilised stray animals since many people prefer to buy pedigreed pets rather than give strays a chance?
Evidence has shown time and again that sterilisation is the most effective way to control the stray population. If these sterilised dogs are released back into their original place and do not cause any nuisance, is there a need to cull them?
Animal welfare organisations are already working under many constraints, with funds coming out of their own pockets or from donors. If the sterilised animals are culled, the welfare organisations' time, effort and money will literally come to nought.
The AVA should be more supportive of these groups and work closely with them. Putting advertisements in the media urging people not to abandon their pets does not help much.
I would like to urge people to be more sympathetic toward the plight of these homeless animals. It does not or cost us to share some space with them. It will be a sad day if the only animals we can see are those in the Zoo. Let's not become sterile and soulless.
TODAY Weekend
26th July 2008
Reader: You should not cull strays as you please, AVA
Letter by Jill Hum
I REFER to "The stray dilemma for animal groups" (July 25).
The response and attitude of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) is very disappointing.
The AVA said that it does not "condone the release of sterilised dogs into the environment and it would round up if they are found in public places" - which I suppose means that they will be culled.
Can the AVA then offer solutions on how to find homes for so many sterilised stray animals since many people prefer to buy pedigreed pets rather than give strays a chance?
Evidence has shown time and again that sterilisation is the most effective way to control the stray population. If these sterilised dogs are released back into their original place and do not cause any nuisance, is there a need to cull them?
Animal welfare organisations are already working under many constraints, with funds coming out of their own pockets or from donors. If the sterilised animals are culled, the welfare organisations' time, effort and money will literally come to nought.
The AVA should be more supportive of these groups and work closely with them. Putting advertisements in the media urging people not to abandon their pets does not help much.
I would like to urge people to be more sympathetic toward the plight of these homeless animals. It does not or cost us to share some space with them. It will be a sad day if the only animals we can see are those in the Zoo. Let's not become sterile and soulless.
Don't expect much from Mr Madhavan
Read Said K Madhavan, head of the centre, "They would harass people, harass cyclists and there would be incidents of biting and it's also to save them from misery."
Maybe we should also cull all the old people in old folks home to save them from their misery!
Loan sharks/bullies harass people (some of the harassed could be cyclists). I know some babies/children bite and there are many miserable people (didn't SG rate high on unhappiness?) around. So Mr M - your statement is a sieve - does not hold water.
If a dog is not aggressive, minds its business and keeps out of non-dog-lovers' way - why not "live & let live" ? Dogs do not spread any more diseases than people with unhygienic habits.
AVA would cull dogs if there is a complaint of the PRESENCE of dogs.
There are 4 construction sites within 100-200m of my house-come see if you do not believe. Noise & dust pollution is 24/7 - and there are loads of strangers all over the neighbourhood at all hrs. I called NEA at least 20 times to complain abt excessive noise like cement pouring thru the night and work continues.
Why do some people call ONCE about dogs barking and dogs get removed?
Why are my complaints (made after 10pm) of 24/7 noise pollution for several mths falling on deaf ears? The answer is probably 'carseeno'.
If dogs have a patron like carseeno - they would be protected too. Whether dogs are nuisance or not is not the point - it is what gahmen allows to go on and what is not. If it makes $$$.....what nuisance?
Yes I totally agree...this government has succeed in "breeding" a generation of $$-motivated Singaporeans. Anything that will not benefit the economy is of no value and fit to be culled.
All this talk of an inclusive society is just BS.
To the government, any feedback about dogs and cats are automatically labelled as "nuisance".
The whole bunch of high-salaried employees in the AVA will never want to risk losing their jobs to do what is right. To have things status quo is security to them.
Nice letter in the press, and yes, that's exactly why ASD finds it difficult/expensive to sterilise a dog. Imagine if sterilised dogs are out there, they still get impounded and how much it costs to take them out!
Post a Comment