Ref: http://animalcare.my/2013/05/29/our-proposal-to-the-mpsj/
After waiting for 2 weeks, we were finally informed yesterday that MPSJ would grant us an audience. So, this morning was the much awaited meeting.
We had already earlier spoken with SPCA Kota Kinabalu to learn how they are doing it with their council and we redrafted our proposal as below:
1. To spare all ear-notched animals in the MPSJ area from capture-and-kill.
2. To have “animal-friendly” areas where a feeder will be responsible to take care of the animals (get them neutered and treated if sick) and to spare these animals from capture-and-kill.
3. To increase the rate of dog licenses for unneutered dogs and provide an incentive for the owners of such dogs to get their dogs neutered.
We asked for a 6-month trial period for (2).
In short, MPSJ did not agree with (1) and (2). As for (3), they mentioned that they already have plans for increasing the licenses for unneutered dogs as well as imposing a requirement to get the dogs micro-chipped.
The main reason MPSJ could not agree with (1) and (2) is that by law, any free-roaming animal (without an owner and unleashed) found on public premises is considered a “nuisance” and it is the duty of the local councils to catch these animals.
Hence, they cannot agree to releasing neutered animals back to the street.
Instead of TNR, the council suggested Trap-Neuter-Adopt. Get the animals adopted, they said. Yes, we know that is ideal and we wish we could, but in reality, it isn’t possible to get so many animals adopted.
The council also advised that captured animals (placed at the pound) can be reclaimed or adopted. The procedure is to call MPSJ (03-80237595) to arrange for the reclaim of any captured animal or to adopt an animal (for a fee). But please act fast if your animal has been captured.
The council explained that complaints against stray animals constitute the highest percentage of grievances received by the local council, with complaints against stray dogs topping the list at 70%. They council has to act when complaints are lodged. These complaints range from being bitten and being chased by stray dogs, dogs barking, animals defecating in public places, cats sitting atop cars and climbing onto roofs, etc. And some of these complaints cannot be addressed even if the animals have been neutered. It is the natural behaviour of animals to defecate on the grass or for example, for cats to climb. Unfortunately, humans demand that animals “behave” (as humans do?).
This comes back to what we had always been saying, that animal lovers constitute the minority. We need a bigger voice to speak for the animals, but how can we get this bigger voice? I have no answer to this. The only way we know is through education by example. And perhaps, to awaken the benevolence and compassion in more people?
When the complaining stops, the killing might stop.
Another issue brought up by the council is that there are feeders, but some feeders are not responsible in maintaining cleanliness of the surroundings, thus leading to more complaints from the public. This is a point we’d like highlight here: Feeders, please take care of the cleanliness issue. Please feed your animals responsibly and pick up after them.
Our meeting with MPSJ ended with the following:
1. MPSJ is not ready to consider TNR at this point in time.
2. MPSJ is not able to consider our proposals.
3. From their own research based on the results in other places, TNR does not really work.
4. They will, however, wait and see if Kota Kinabalu and Seberang Perai achieve results.
So, we’re really sorry, folks, but we tried.
We shall continue to provide our subsidies for neutering and medical treatment as per our policy.
This leads us back to square one where we will work at the grassroots providing help to all feeders and rescuers. We were really hoping that the council would at least spare our ear-notched animals, but they have already explained that it is not possible for them to agree to releasing any animal, neutered or not, back to the street.
We wish to thank the 10 feeders who had responded to our call for participation. I have already written to all of them personally to explain the outcome of our meeting with MPSJ and that our proposals were not accepted. We apologise to all of you for being unable to convince the council to let us have a 6-month trial period.
In all fairness, we also understand the council’s stand that it has a duty to the public and there are laws to be followed. We respect the council’s decision in being unable to accept our proposal at this moment (but we hope Kota Kinabalu and Seberang Perai will produce favourable results).
We also wish to again, gently remind all feeders/caregivers/pet owners to take care of their animals responsibly so that their animals will not be viewed as a “nuisance” to the community. And please remember to respect the law. At the end of the day, if we run foul of the law, our animals will be the victims.
With this said, let’s move on and continue doing our small bit for the animals.
Let’s not feel discouraged just because we are a minority. Every life saved is precious. Please remember this.
If we may put in a last word on this: We hope our elected representatives will draw on their compassion and lobby for kinder laws for the stray animals. Killing may temporarily solve the problem, but killing is never a wise solution to any problem.
Thank you.
Comments
9 responses to “Our meeting with MPSJ”
sigh .. really sad to know their decision, but Dr Chan, thank you for trying your best to do so many things!
I do understand why MPSJ is not agreeing cos in my neighborhood, there are plenty of stray dogs and lots of people are afraid to walk by especially the Muslims. These dogs are dirty and defecate everywhere. If only there is a big piece of land for them to roam around freely:(
Sigh! Standard response based on old-set paradigms. As long as these paradigms exist, the local authorities cannot see the bigger picture. I believe that animal lovers are not the minority. Many indifferent or ambivalent people will also support kinder laws if they are given the choice. It seems like we are the minority because (1) we have no local council elections (2) when animal protection groups pro-actively voice up an idea, it gets shot down. 🙁
As for cleanliness issue, sigh … it’s part of the bigger issue of Malaysians who do not seem to know how to keep the public areas clean. Litter here, pile of rubbish there, dirty toilets, etc. Once this bad habit is reduced, the cleanliness of feeding areas will also maintained. Because it then becomes a public culture to keep clean. It’s everybody’s problem!
Thanks, Dr Chan, for your effort and sharing the outcome. Now, that their objections and their reasoning are known, those involved should work to counter them and also come up with new arguments, facts and figures and start petitioning others in position of power. There’s no point to keep on trying to convince the same people whose mindset remained unchanged and uncompromising, especially those politicians who betray our trust and only provide lip service. As Albert Einstein said, insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. My wish is that she who hates strays will be reincarnated herself as a stray to suffer the cruel fate that she wish upon these community animals.
Hi Koo, the officers we met today said they had already done their research and claim that it does not really work even in other countries. We have no actual statistics to provide to them. Whatever we provide from overseas, I suppose, isn’t quite applicable here because of the difference in the cultures. I remember previously, speaking to another person in power, I quoted Singapore, and I was told not to quote Singapore, because again, it is not applicable here. Then who can we quote? The officers said they want to wait and see what happens in Kota Kinabalu and Seberang Perai, but according to one of them who is in touch with Kota Kinabalu City Hall, apparently, KK City Hall informed him that their initial project with 12 TNR dogs has not shown results. We said KK only started in April this year, surely we have to give it more time to see results?
Our next step, if we want to, would be to approach our parliamentarian. But he too has asked for facts and figures. What facts and figures would be applicable then? Only Malaysian statistics? How can we have Malaysian statistics if none of the local councils are willing to even let us try out TNR? How are we EVER going to get any Malaysian facts and figures?
Work at the grassroots then and do our little bit for the animals. Every stray we get neutered translates to many lives saved. That seems to be all we can do for now.
To that officer who provided the argument that the ’12 TNR dogs has not shown results’, I would incredulously counter exactly what “results” are they looking for? TNR means no more puppies from these spayed/neutered 12 dogs and isn’t that the sole purpose of this whole exercise which is humane stray population control? It is obvious that they didn’t know what they were talking about.
The officer’s argument was that apparently, these 12 neutered dogs failed to prevent other dogs from coming into the territory. He was referring to the other “benefit” of TNR where return-to-colony neutered dogs should prevent other dogs from entering their territory. To this, I explained that for the last 5 years in my old neighbourhood, my 6 neutered cats were return-to-colony cats too and in the 6 years, no other cats ever dared to entered their colony, which comprised the section of my road (this is really the truth as Cow & Bunny and all the rest never lost their territorial instinct even after being neutered); they still protected their territory. Neutering removes the sexual instinct but not the territorial instinct. But of course that’s just my own experience for 5 years VS. “the 12 dogs in KK” experience for a few months. The two officers we spoke to said they had already done their research and “TNR does not really work”, even in other countries.
Hey! It obviously worked in Singapore! But wait a minute – in a typical “twisted negative mindset” standard common among our people at the top, anything that worked well in Singapore that is praised by the public will not work in Malaysia. So we must censor Singapore from any of our proposals (Singapore bad example). But anything that does not work in other countries also mean it will not work here regardless of the reasons why it did not work. But the stuff that Singapore does or want to do that is heavily criticized by the general public is suddenly a good idea that Malaysia should take up. Something is very not healthy with the way our authorities think!
If this is the way our leaders think – then how in the world is the Malaysian public ever going to propose new ideas for tackling chronic social problems?
gosh…This post frustrates me. But yes, we shall continue to do good, fight the cause in the right ways, and ….Karma will take care of the rest that we can’t.