Franco Farrugia, Pietà
Plight of stray dogs
Those involved in animal-wellbeing, as well as others who love, and who are dedicated to, animals, are surely worried about the latest spate of correspondence and articles in newspapers about dogs on the loose in public places - apparently stray dogs that move about in packs - which, in itself, is justifiably seen as a threat to those who meet these animals.
We have every reason to worry about this matter, because such reports are prone to move public opinion into believing that these dogs should be controlled, and that this "menace" should be removed in every possible manner.
I say it plainly: to see a pack of dogs on the loose is not amusing, certainly. In packs, dogs have the tendency of becoming vicious and dangerous to passers-by as well as other animals, namely cats.
But equally plainly do I state that to put these dogs to sleep by killing them (humane killing does not exist!) is no quick, easy and cheap answer to this problem.
People write, and complain, that animal sanctuaries and NGOs that are into animal welfare are not responding adequately to the urgent needs that come up - animals in distress or "menacing" strays. While people may sometimes, justly, feel frustrated, one has to consider the fact that as things stand now, animal sanctuaries are over-stretched in their work - they are also undermanned since they lack volunteers for the number of heads they have, and they generally have to look after themselves for finances, which are hefty.
Also, animal sanctuaries, in actual fact, are not obliged to answer our calls since they, with the exception of SPCA, are privately run.
Given this situation, may I offer some suggestions:
1. The authority /authorities in charge of that government budget towards animal welfare take/s the urgent decision to re-channel some of the funds, thus reducing some funds from the neutering programme and channelling them into the present animal sanctuaries we have, so that these can help round up these dogs and provide these animals with the shelter that they deserve and need - while at the same time removing this "menace" from our streets. If necessary, the government should provide funds for a makeshift sanctuary/ dog-pound where these animals can be put under control;
2. If there are individuals who are trying to look after dogs and cats in places considered to be unpractical - either because these individuals are using land without the necessary permissions, or for other reasons - they should be immediately helped in a practical manner to re-locate, without in any way making their "mission" impossible;
3. One needs to investigate where these dogs are coming from - dogs do not automatically sprout from nowhere, all of a sudden. One has to check whether such dogs are being set loose as packs, for some unknown purpose.
While I am all out for the neutering programme, I maintain that too many funds from those voted for animal welfare in the last budget have been dedicated towards this programme, to the detriment of equally-pressing needs existing in the animal welfare regime, particularly the running of animal sanctuaries which have been in dire straits for some time, both financially as well as in volunteers.
I hope that the people in authority are reading this appeal, and do something in order to remove these animals from the streets and have them protected and controlled within animal sanctuaries - which is the best solution to the problem.
It is for this reason that I, also, am appealing to these authorities to be practical and to respond to the urgent needs of the animal welfare people who are, after all, at the forefront in the fight in favour of animal well-being.
In this precise moment, we need to strengthen the animal sanctuaries by financially contributing that little bit more, per dog, so that stray dogs are homed and end this "inconvenience" that citizens are facing in some streets and areas.
Readers will notice that I use the words "menace" and "inconvenience" in inverted commas - meaning that I do not believe that these animals are such, in themselves.
They are merely the result of human-induced acts of cruelty and/or sheer ignorance which are, unfortunately, paid for by the poor creatures themselves.
Finally, it would not hurt the local councils' pockets if, every so often, they had to organise some fund-raising activities in favour of animal sanctuaries.
This would put these local councils in a better position to expect animal sanctuaries to round up such creatures of God.
It would be very distressing if this appeal fell on deaf ears!
Popular Stories
In Discussion
9 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Kenneth Cassar
May 20th 2008, 07:11
I understand your concern and your point of view, Mr Gauci. However, do we start killing criminals if the prisons are full-up? I would think we would not. We would instead build larger prisons.
So the fact that there is not enough room for all strays in the sanctuaries (due to negligence by successive governments) is no excuse to start killing them.
We pay taxes to house and feed human criminals in prisons. Some of our taxes should equally go to house all strays, who are definitely innocent of malicious intent.
Killing healthy animals is just treating them as inconvenient trash. That could never be acceptable.
John Gauci
May 19th 2008, 21:40
Franco Farrugia - you make too many assertions without basis. I have visited vets many times and have had to put down my cat of 12 years because of illness. It was a big deal believe me.
No I would not leave a baby with strangers (why a baby only?) but animals pounce on kids unlike strangers which you see coming from afar.
I repeat it is clear that you or members of your family have not been badly bitten or attacked by a pack of strays.
I have also to repeat that my prime objective would be to house the aniamls. But if the situation is, as YOU yourself described, ie. there is no more space to house dogs, in the short term, viscious dogs (which will never be adopted) would unfortunately need to be put down.
In foreign counties, certain animals are put down if they attack humans. This is not out of spite or for capital punishment per se, but the reason is that hungry animals could get used to human food. In a pack each member of the pack learns through observation. There is a risk that the animals would repeat the attack if they get used to human meat.
Franco Farrugia
May 19th 2008, 18:02
@ Mr Gauci - third part:
You claim that 'animals are unpredictable'. ... true enough. I would be the last person to leave a baby unmentored, next to an animal, even if it is the best-behaved dog or cat in the world!!!!!! But, Mr Gauci, the same applies to leaving such an unmentored baby with a human stranger! For, the human being, too, is an animal - and various times we read in the papers things which are enough proof of this.
In conclusion, I sincerely wish that you would come to believe that such animals are not enemies of anybody's children. It is not a case of CHOOSING between your children and stray dogs. Most dogs are quite peaceful. Still, for their sakes and for the sakes of human beings, I am against seeing them continue roaming the streets.
So, you and I, and everyone, why not work together so that all animals in Malta and Gozo would, first of all, stop multiplying - hence, the neutering programme, which is important - and also to have the necessary facilities to house them for the rest of their lives?
Why not bring a halt to breeding, at least for a few years, and let people adopt non-pedigree dogs and cats from the present sanctuaries that we have?
Last but not least, may I invite you to see for yourself the positive effect that the presence of an animal instils in your household. Ignore the prejudice that society may have given you against animals, and see for yourself the beauty ...
... of opening up to the presence of an animal!!!!! It is too beautiful for words! I should know! :-)
Thank you for giving me an opportunity to further speak about animals.
Franco Farrugia
May 19th 2008, 17:54
@ Mr Gauci - 2nd Part:
Dogs mauling children - and adults - are rife in other countries: thank goodness, this never happened in Malta and let me fervently pray it never will. That having been said, however, generally speaking, those dogs behinds such accidents are of species which are human-induced!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I personally do not agree with 'annimali ta' razza'! I do not agree with pedigrees, with those people who think they love animals by breeding cats and dogs! IF IT WERE UP TO ME, I WOULD BAN SUCH BREEDING! And by this, I mean the breeding not only of animals which have turned dangerous thanks to man's intervention, but breeding of all kinds of dogs and cats.
An animal is beautiful in itself ... in its character .... in its natural way it clicks with its human protector ('owner').
So, what you are referring to is cases in which dogs belonging to dangerous breeds go unchecked and become uncontrollable - at the end of the day, it's this 'poor' animals which will have to pay for the omissions of human beings. And according to Mr Gauci, this is irrelevant. Oh, well.
Franco Farrugia
May 19th 2008, 17:46
@ Mr Gauci: Thank you for your exhaustive reaction to my letter. There are a few points which I need to comment about since I do not agree with them. I will divide these points into different missives - and thank timesofmalta.com for their patience!
1. I do not agree with you that there is such a thing as a merciful death, or even 'putting to sleep', with regard to animals. It is just KILLING and nothing else. I can accept an animal being mercifully put to sleep in cases where such animals are so ill that they are in pain and are beyond human intervention. Otherwise, it is nothing short of KILLING. Respectfully, Mr Gauci has never been to a vet and witnessed a human being taking his/her animals to be 'put to sleep' by the vet, and never witnessed the trauma that both human being and pet go through.
2. Of course it is RELEVANT whether human cruelty was behind a dog's story!!! So, human beings - children included! - can get away with murder, literally, and just because a dog is an animals, as soon as that dog snaps, we raise hell and demand its head on a platter! I am sorry, in my opinion, you're wrong, there.
More reactions to your opinions, later.
Kenneth Cassar
May 19th 2008, 13:50
In Malta, as far as I know (and I totally agree with this), we do not have capital punishment, not even for serial killers. Because we live in a civilized society that is not based on revenge, we have to lock up dangerous humans, but never resort to killing them ("humanely" or not).
In the case of dogs, for a tiny island such as Malta, there should not even be a stray problem (by which I do not mean that there would not be any strays, but the number will be small and controllable). The problem is only due to successive governments never taking the issue seriously enough.
The solution, if it were not allowed to grow to the extent it is today, would be fairly simple. It would involve the following:
1. Compulsory micro-chipping and registering of all dogs (and cats).
2. The building of a large sanctuary (or help given to the ones already established).
3. Tougher penalties on the abandonment of pet animals.
4. A ban on breeding.
Of course, now that the problem, due to neglect by successive governments, has grown considerably, action regarding the above will involve larger costs. Nonetheless, out of concern for the dogs themselves, and out of concern for public safety, the resources should be allocated by the government, sooner rather than later. The longer the problem is shelved, the bigger it becomes.
"Putting dogs down" (killing them) is not the ethical solution, considering that, unlike human murderers and other hardened criminals, no one in his right mind can say that the dogs have even the slightest blame.
John Gauci
May 19th 2008, 12:52
A hungry animal (or pack) roaming the streets is a menace. Now whether this is done as a result of sick individuals who abandon their dogs or not is irrelavant. I take it that none of your kids have suffered bites from strays. Fortunately not. But some of us and our kids have with dangerous consequences. In others countries we have read about kids mauled to death by packs of strays.
My heart goes out to animals which are mistreated, but when animals become a menace they should either be rounded up and enclosed in purposely built areas or put to sleep. I know it is playing God by putting an animal to sleep, but we have to protect our children (and ourselves) if no alternatives are found to house them and take good care of them.
I agree about chipping animals so that the owners can be more readily found (and castigated for letting their dogs loose) but we still have a problem with the current strays (right up to chipping is implemented and completed) multiplying in our streets. These dogs can be very hungry and vicious. Once (and if) chipping is implemented, do not assume that the problem will be solved because then we will start having underground breeding of dogs. But at least it helps control the problem.
Always keep in mind, that dogs at the end of the day are animals, thus unpredictable and dangerous. I have many times told off owners of dogs who tell me, u le ma jigdimx dak ! by informing them that they are not the dog's brain and therefore cannot say what it will do.
Franco you make a very good case against humans which are the major cause of the problem, but the reality is, we have to protect our citizens (and visitors), so something must be done. If dogs' homes are full and cannot cope then I see not alternative than putting the dogs to sleep (which is done very mercifully, the dogs do not suffer a bit).
Before I get misinterpreted...my first preference would be to house the dogs, but if the situation is as bad as you mention, then I would choose my children over the dogs hands down. So rather than leave them roaming the streets making a meal out of someone, I would rather we mercifully put them out of circulation. Apologies for hurting anyone's feelings for stating that, but I honestly want to protect my children.
laurence schembri
May 19th 2008, 11:43
Kenneth. have patience, you have heard it over and over again, for the past 20 years to be exact, that a new hospital plus vets will be opened soon for strays, even in the last electoral campaign it was mentioned. Well said to Franco yes! But the animal wefare groups are not privately run, they are voluntarily run, I know two brothers (twins) who are permanently out of cash, for every penny they earn they spend it on animals, being Vets, food and whatever else is needed to elevate the stress put by man on these creatures. We are the culprits and yet we put the blame on the innocents.
Kenneth Cassar
May 19th 2008, 10:30
Well said, Franco.