Saturday, January 31, 2009

Flaws in the argument

Here's AVA's response to an article about Dr Tan Chek Wee that I missed earlier.

I'm glad AVA has said they support the sterilisation of community cats. On the other hand, I know I'm not the only one who thinks their argument is pretty much full of holes.

Dogs are being killed, even though we don't have rabies in Singapore, in the event that the disease might enter Singapore. One shudders to think what this means for the birds, chickens and other fowls - after all, they might get avian flu! Or worse, what if there is another outbreak of SARS? We'd better kill all the people preemptively then - they might get it too!

Also how on earth is educating the public on pet responsibility supposed to help with community animals? While I can understand the importance of stressing responsible pet ownership, these animals we are talking about are already on the street. All the education on the world is not going to change that fact. And even if it could be argued that AVA meant that they want to 'educate' people to open their homes to take in community cats and dogs, most people won't be legally allowed to even own them. Proves a bit of a conundrum doesn't it?


Chinky said...

Dawn your blog date is ahead :)

Chinky said...

It is just like the HDB's "rationale" on the cat ban, AVA just doesn't care what rational people think of their lack of drive to do the right and effective things to help the strays. The weight of their fixed mindset is just impossible to move!

Dawn said...

Oops thanks Chinky :)

Anonymous said...

"Singapore has been free from rabies since 1953". This is from ava website

The hard work of past ppd/ava has made Singapore rabies-free. If Mr Goh directs his attention from existing dogs in SG (no rabies for past 55 yrs) to rabies which he said is "endemic in this region" - then Mr Goh should be looking at strict regulations of dogs that are being brought into SG for sale. Why allow pedigree dogs from overseas (for sale) in such large numbers? Many pedigree dogs are abandoned once the novelty wears off & they add to the increasing 'stray' dog population.
Where is the (Goh's) logic??

I am sure Mr Goh could cite multiple examples where 'stray' cats are 'hygience concerns, even physical threat' if HIS views (in an offical ava response) are facts.

Animal control will remain a "complex issue" as long as there are ostriches (who think they are proverbial wise owls) in a**.

Anonymous said...

Singapore clamour to be first class in many things except the way it treats the strays.
Shame that third countries do better in managing their strays without having to kill!
All this talk of an inclusive compassionate society and the kindness movement is just B***S***
Reason why animal welfarism is not noticed is that activists do not form significant votes!

Anonymous said...

There you go, once again we have government authorities spreading false information: eg. that stray dogs spread rabies. Is it no wonder that so many people still believe that stray animals are dirty and diseased? Why bother to disguise the real reason for culling: to keep the complainers, haters and other kiasi types happy!

Anonymous said...

Yes i do see why the government is bent on perpetuating this myth that strays are dirty and spread disease so that they can continue to kill without any protest from ignorant taxpayers!
No MP will speak up because any expression for animals is perceived to be a sign of weakness. The "smart" MP suggests how to make $$, not how to save strays!

Anonymous said...

The same senseless advice to get stray dogs that are sterilised into homes when local dogs are NOT on the list of HBD-approved breeds!
How on earth to rehome the local dogs?
Recently I met a lady who spends most of her income taking care of stray dogs and she lamented the increasing cost of retrieving dogs caught by AVA!
It is really ironic that there is a dept known as Animal Welfare in the AVA.
AVA is a deathrow! with ceaseless killing of strays!