new ruling on dogs and letters of protest

[Guest guest]

New Straits Times - 22 12.2001

 

Kuala Lumpur City Hall is being taken to task by the Malaysian Kennel

Association as well as pet owners for not having sought their opinion before

implementing the new ruling where only one dog is allowed in homes with an area

of 300sq. metres or less. Pet owners with more than one dog in an area of 300

sq metres or less have until March to get rid their dogs, according to a City

Hall notice.

Association president Dr. Fonseka pointed out that most people kept dogs for

security, some for health reasons and others for the love of pet. He said that

the March deadline is too short a time. He admitted that there were dogs which

caused a lot of nuisance and pet owners did not not look after their animals

well. " We know that there should be rules and regulations and enforcement is

important. For example if pet owners do not clean up after the dog, they should

be fined. And what about goats and cats? City Hall cannot have one regulation

for one category of pets only. It should cover all pets. "

City Hall had announced earlier that the annual dog licence would be increased

from RM10 to RM50. The increase in licence fee is to maintain the pet dog

compound and pay dog catchers. The new ruling falls under the Licensing of Dogs

and Kennel Establishment (Federal Territory) (amendments) By-Laws 2001. Many

complaints from pet owners on the increase in licence fee had been received by

City Hall advisory board member.

 

Meanwhile City Hall is looking into the possibility of implanting microchips in

dogs for monitoring purposes.

 

The Kuala Lumpur SPCA public relations officer Jeanette Low has this to say,

" The present licence fee of RM10 per year is reasonable considering the average

lifespan of a dog is approximately 10 to 15 years. In contrast, a licence fee

of RM50 for the same duration makes a big difference. "

 

So what are the alternatives? According to Low, a dialogue session held between

City Hall and several animal societies some years ago proposed that owners of

neutered dogs pay a lesser amount. While it is impossible to eliminate the

stray population, a little bit of planning will keep the numbers minimal. In the

report the city authority also hoped that the increased licence fee would serve

as a deterrent to ensure that only genuine pet lovers kept dogs.

 

Making licences more expensive will not not deter true animal lovers from

keeping pets. But such a drastic move could well lead to an overnight explosion

of homeless animals. It is rather interesting to note that the cat population

(whether domestic pets or the strays) have been completely neglected in this

exercise. Surely the number of cats surpasses, or at the very least matches the

number of dogs in this country. Felines have litters more often. Save it for

organisations like the SPCA who can only do so much with their limited

resources.

 

 

Letters in protest to the new ruling:

 

Letter 1: I read with anger the way City Hall goes about making insensitive and

unreasonable decisions on dogs without first considering the consequences.

We live in a bungalow house with our dogs. They not only guard the house but

also bring us untold joy with their presence. Although City Hall's restrictions

do not apply to me, I can understand how hard it is for any dog-loving parent to

tell their children that City Hall has signed a decree, whereby they have to

dispose of one of their dogs.

I am sure there are many responsible dog owners facing this predicament.

Killing the extra/excess dogs will not help City Hall alleviate the problems it

claims it faces with stray dogs. In fact, it will only encourage people to

start abandoning their dogs and worsen the situation by turning such dogs into

strays.

 

Letter 2 - Act against cat owners, too.

 

I feel that action should be taken in the case of cats, too. A neighbour of mine

has more than 10 cats in the house and this annoys the neighbourhood as the

cats' excrement is found all over the place.

I hope the Government will make licences compulsory for all animals and fine

owners for the droppings.

It should also ban animals from all eateries as this is the most unhygienic.

 

Letter 3 The solution to the stray dog problem is to adopt the stray. It is

not necessary to feed them with expensive dog food but if you are poor just give

them the leftovers.

Another way is to discourage Malaysians from buying expensive pedigree dogs only

to show off their

financial status. Every State mush have an SPCA or Animal Welfare Society animal

shelters. If everybody contributes RM1 into donation boxes for animal care this

will help finance animal care societies.

 

Letter 3: The new City Hall ruling is not addressing the problem properly but

punishing everyone including the responsible dog owners. There are many

responsible and committed dog owners who will suffer if the new ruling is passed

because they will have to be separated from their loved ones. And what is going

to happen to these 'excess' dogs? Are the authorities going to put people's

beloved one to sleep?

 

Letter 4: City Hall's new regulations on dogs seem to reflect the simple minded

way of the bureaucrats who have been placed there. The lack of careful thought

means that the new regulations will be punishing every dog owner, instead of

cracking down on those who are irresponsible and tackling the core of the

problem. I would be be surprised if the SPCA's six-point proposal falls on deaf

ears as it would mean more work for City Hall staff.

Imagine the additional paperwork if there were different licence fees for spayed

and unspayed dogs. Or the hassle of implementing the spaying programme. I am

also curious why City Hall is silent on cats. There are almost as many if not

more, stray cats running around. A check with the SPCA would show that stray

and unwanted cats are a big headache. In terms of ownership, some households

have more than 10 cats. Any thoughts about limiting or licensing cats as well?

 

Letter 5: I am outraged and extremely disgusted with the new ordinance which

City Hall seeks to enforce by March 2002. City Hall is completely ignorant of

the fact that dogs are regarded as more than mere animals by their owners. How

can City Hall justify its reasoning that to control and protect a species, they

must be killed?

 

Letters in favour of the new ruling:

 

Letter 1: City Hall should remain steadfast in its stand on the new ruling

for dog ownership. Homes with an area of 330 sq metres or less can only keep

one and larger homes not more than two dogs. Much has been said about the love

and care of pets but this is not so in many cases. Some dog owners are so

inconsiderate to those without dogs. They take their dogs for walks so that the

animals may defecate on the road or in front of people's homes. Size matters as

the larger breeds are kept in most homes. Their barking can be heard miles

away. Perhaps the 400 per cent increase in the licence fee appears to be a bit

hefty. A gradual increase from RM20 may be considered.

 

 

Letter 2: I feel that the increase of RM50 in dog licence fees is justified

because those who own dogs are those who can afford to pay for their upkeep.

City Hall should ensure that its enforcement officers summon irresponsible dog

owners who let their dogs roam and urinate and defecate in public places. They

should also summon dog owners whose premises are dirty.