Animal welfare NGOs

Being an animal lover, I always slurp up any article or letter that appears in The Times concerning animals and am greatly saddened by the pique that has developed between two of the leading animal welfare NGOs on the island. It seems to me an extension of the village band club and parish, the football fan and the political party syndrome - all symptoms of the same malaise, and extremely puerile.

The aim of both societies, I hope, is to help any animal in need - that should be enough common ground for them to be able to put their heads together and work on finding ways of how this may best be accomplished. That it needs stating at all suggests to me that the people who indulge in attacking "the other side" are not primarily interested in the welfare of animals - I hope I am wrong here.

I think many of the accusations being slung by either side are unfounded and infuriating. The SPCA was given a bad name by certain malpractices in the past. In order for people to regain their trust in the organisation, it must prove that it no longer puts down animals indiscriminately for lack of space. But still, a bad reputation, once earned, needs time to be corrected.

The Island Sanctuary, far from being "a concentration camp for animals", is a home where each dog is an individual, each responds to a name; the animals take turns to be given a run in the extensive grounds of Fort Tas-Silg and volunteers know the needs, habits, character, likes and dislikes of each dog in their care.

The public is encouraged to take dogs from the sanctuary out for walks on Sundays and anyone may sponsor a dog there if they cannot care for one at home. I know all this from personal experience, having been a volunteer at the sanctuary myself during summer holidays.

The downside of this organisation is that they do not take in just any dogs in need, they have a waiting-list, just like old people's homes have now, and schools used to have. I can understand the reason for this - it is because the handful of volunteers who work (and it is tough work) to look after the dogs throughout the year cannot possibly cope with more, so unless there are more volunteers forthcoming, it is useless to expect the impossible from them.

Unfortunately, many people do not realise just how stretched the human resources of this sanctuary are, to say nothing of its finances of course. Antoine Vella, being an active member of the SPCA, ought to know the costs of keeping dogs, and refrain from making insinuations about "how this money is being spent" (April 16).

I have found that the SPCA people are helpful in collecting dogs on request when this is necessary and it therefore provides an essential service to dogs in dire circumstances - a need which the Island Sanctuary does not address. I do understand that some dogs have to be put down and I sympathise with their predicament when they say they lack space. It is a pity that they are not equipped to cater for dogs which are sponsored by those who find them in the streets and offer to pay for their upkeep.

This happened to me last year. I offered to sponsor a starving and abandoned dog which I had asked the SPCA to pick up. They did so, and were very nice about it, but when I phoned back to find out what had become of the dog and to make good on my offer, nobody knew which one it was, or whether it was still at the SPCA. Talk about looking a gift-horse in the mouth!

I would like to put in a word of praise for Freddy Fenech and his volunteers - they too have their detractors - but in an imperfect world, they are trying their utmost to respond to every call about a dog in trouble. And when a dog is abandoned by all the family it knows, and finds itself alone in unfamiliar territory, vulnerable to the cruelty of human beings and in danger of being maimed by a racing car, that dog cannot wait to be taken in, it will be dead by the time its turn comes and, chances are, the death will be an unpleasant one.

In short, all of our animal welfare organisations have strengths and weaknesses. The good thing is that these are all different, so with some cooperation among all of them, they can help each other out, if they really do care about the animals.

Then there is the government. I know that the government has full hands and empty pockets, but it really must pull its finger out and make identity chips mandatory. Those who default on this should have to pay hefty fines, as they do for parking their cars in the wrong place. Wardens shouldn't just check that dog-walkers are equipped with a doggie bag for debris; they ought to be equipped with some kind of sensor which checks for identity chips in dogs.

People should not be allowed to get away with dumping their problems onto others - for that, essentially, is what abandoning a pet is. Forget the expense to pet owners, that is just one more expense they will have to consider before deciding to adopt a pet. If you can afford to keep a dog, then you can afford the once-in-a-lifetime insertion of an identity chip.

Whatever happened to dog licences, anyway? Can't the chip take their place, or go together with the dog licence? And it is useless mouthing platitudes about educating the public. I've never seen an advert on TV which shows the horrors a dog goes through when it is abandoned.

Most people in Malta refuse to neuter their pets for the most ridiculous reasons (they grow fat; it's cruel; I don't like the idea of it, etc). But it is extremely cruel to allow your bitch to have a litter and then really treat the little ones like litter by dumping them in some godforsaken part of the countryside, or, just as bad, depositing them on the doorstep of some person or organisation who will not have the heart to ignore them.

People need to be made to realise that they cannot treat animals (and other people) like rubbish but this is a slow uphill struggle. The fastest way to people's consciousness is through their pockets, as always.