Is No Kill the answer? Why not llicense pet owners or ban pets.

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

I hope I have the quote from the correct page at South China Morning Post

-see bottom of this post

(the website asked me for a password to enter so I couldn;t check this).

 

My question is this.

 

When the HK SPCA becomes no kill and " By refusing to readily accept healthy

animals from people who have no valid reason to give them up, the society

will immediately make it far harder for many people to do so. Most people,

when forced to confront the reality of what they are doing, will probably be

inclined to think again. " (South China Morning PostWednesday, January 2,

2002 )

what will happen to the poor animals that cruel human owers choose to

disguard.?

 

By not accepting the animals, wont the SPCA be possibly condemning the

animals

to cruel deaths or abandonment?

 

Has any other major city used this approach and impacted

positively on the Cat and Dog abandonment problem?

 

Lastly, pet ownership is a privilige not a right.

If people are so quick to abandon animals, why not legislate against pet

ownership of Cats and Dogs altogether or LICENSE pet owners so the

pet owners need a $100USA licence fee to own a cat or a dog

and regulate or ban the breeding of cats and dogs at the same time

(through legislation).

Has anyone considered seriously considered licensing Pet Owners (not the

animals)?

Pet Owners could be made to satisfy certain criteria including having space

to keep

a pet and signing an agreement to agree to keep the animal for the term of

its

natural life in a responsible and caring environment,

License holders could be policed by an inspector paid for our of license

fees.

 

South China Morning PostWednesday, January 2, 2002

>http://focus.scmp.com/ZZZGLJ7TNVC.html

 

No doubt there will be criticism of the SPCA's new policy, and some of

it will be justified. Certainly it is likely that the most heartless of

owners will still find a way of disposing of unwanted pets, either by

despatching them themselves, or, more likely, by simply abandoning them.

This may lead to an upsurge in cases for the Agriculture and Fisheries

Department to deal with. This will be unfortunate. But it is a necessary

evil in order to attack the complacency with which so many people give up

their pets. The numbers of pet owners acting in this way is nothing short of

shameful. And if a change in SPCA policy can go some way towards projecting

that shame upon those responsible, then the new ''no-kill'' measure will

have been a success.

[Guest guest]

Bunny wrote:

> When the HK SPCA becomes no kill and " By refusing to readily accept

> healthy animals from people who have no valid reason to give them up,

> the society will immediately make it far harder for many people to do so.

> Most people, when forced to confront the reality of what they are doing,

> will probably be inclined to think again. " (South China Morning Post

> Wednesday, January 2, 2002 )

> what will happen to the poor animals that cruel human owners choose to

> disguard.?

>

> By not accepting the animals, wont the SPCA be possibly condemning the

> animals to cruel deaths or abandonment?

These are good points. There is little to be gained by achieving " No Kill "

status for the SPCA only. The goal is " No Kill " status for Hong Kong. To

achieve this, we need the Government to institute certain measures such as

restricting importing, breeding and selling; reforming licensing; promoting

spay and neuter. SPCA has been delaying the switch to " Limited Intake " ( " No

Kill " ) with the hope that the Government would come on board to do their

part. Other cities such as San Francisco and Richmond have found it

necessary to go it alone first and then have the Government come on board

later. It seems that it is necessary to do things this way in order to be

taken seriously by the Government and the Public.

Yes, there is a danger that animals turned away from SPCA will meet

unpleasant fates. SPCA will do its best to minimise this possibility by

counselling people on their alternatives - e.g. try harder to find a home;

treat the illness or behaviour problem; take the animal to a private vet or

Government kennel.

But it should not be the work of a humane society to kill healthy animals

just because the community wants to maintain free trade in the animals.

 

> Has any other major city used this approach and impacted

> positively on the Cat and Dog abandonment problem?

Yes - several. It works!

 

> Lastly, pet ownership is a privilige not a right.

> If people are so quick to abandon animals, why not legislate against pet

> ownership of Cats and Dogs altogether

that would not be accepted by the community at this time.

 

> or LICENSE pet owners so the

> pet owners need a $100USA licence fee to own a cat or a dog

> and regulate or ban the breeding of cats and dogs at the same time

> (through legislation).

that is one of the regulations we would like the Government to introduce.

 

> Has anyone considered seriously considered licensing Pet Owners (not the

> animals)?

> Pet Owners could be made to satisfy certain criteria including having

> space to keep a pet and signing an agreement to agree to keep the animal

> for the term of its natural life in a responsible and caring environment,

> License holders could be policed by an inspector paid for our of license

> fees.

that is another desirable measure - but unlikely to be accepted by the

community at this time.

John.