Pot calling the kettle black
Letter from Tan Tuan Khoon, Straits Times Forum 24 May 08;
THE report on Tuesday, 'Jurong dogged by strays: Cat & dog lovers at odds', brings back the issue of who is responsible.
The AVA and town councils deal with strays, but they cannot be everywhere all the time. Fanatical cat or dog lovers should appreciate that it is more humane to cull them than to let them suffer and die a slow painful death.
I am an animal lover myself and I used to keep dogs and cats together with birds and rabbits when I was young, but gave them up when I could not find the time to take care of them any more.
I have been vilified for my views, but fanatical cat lovers have refused to acknowledge facts.
Am I or the public to be responsible for the various nuisances caused by cats or cat owners? Why must I close my doors and windows or spend time and money to install 'scare-crows', etc, to prevent cats from entering my home? Who is responsible for the cat's lice/fleas that once infested my home owing to kittens brought into the ceiling by the mother?
I believe that trapping and sending strays to the AVA for disposal is the most effective way for it reduces nuisance problems by at least 90 per cent.
Cats should be tagged with micro-chips like dogs. Not only will it bring disease under control, but cases of nuisance can be traced back to the owner. The Cat Welfare Society's 'vacuum effect theory' is not practical in our highly urbanised society. I know of cat lovers/owners who agree with me. Why are fanatical cat lovers against stray dogs and not cats? This is like the pot calling the kettle black.
Stray cats - SPCA replies
Straits Times Forum 24 May 08;
I REFER to the online letter by Mr Tan Tuan Khoon, 'Remarks light-hearted and responsible' (May 16), on the subject of stray cats in relation to recent comments made by radio DJs.
It is incorrect to assume that feeding stray cats is cruel: The real cruelty would be condoning the starvation of helpless animals. We may be living in a highly urbanised city but a solution to the problem of stray cats would not be found through starving them.
The writer does not appear to have a proper understanding of the issue and his erroneous statements seem to illustrate this. The SPCA thanks Ms Siau Li Chao for writing to the forum, 'To err is human, not animal' (Wednesday), to clarify and to put the debate in perspective.
There will always be insensitive remarks by those who have a dislike for stray cats, but these remarks are not constructive, nor do they contribute to solving the issue. Highlighting stray cats as a 'nuisance' problem and suggesting that people be fined for feeding strays will not foster good relations among the community. In light of the recent cases involving cat abuse where several cats were killed, it is not responsible to emphasise personal or biased views which influence the masses.
Only with the Government and community combining efforts to reduce the stray cat population, and using humane measures like sterilisation, can we hope to see a marked improvement.
Deirdre Moss (Ms)
Executive Officer
SPCA
