We donate to humans but not to animals

Letter from Calvin Teo, Today Online 28 Jul 08;

I REFER to “The stray dilemma for animal groups” (July 25).

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) does have a Responsible Pet Ownership project. Perhaps the AVA can enlighten the public as to how effective the campaign has been?

How has it contributed toward educating the public? What steps have been actively taken to curb the stray population?

Are the penalties imposed for abandonment effective? In effect, has its policies on micro-chipping also contributed to animals being abandoned?

AVA has rightly pointed out sterilised dogs should be re-homed and licenced. How many strays rounded up have actually been re-homed and given a second chance in life? Has an effort been made at all? Or is culling to be the first course of action given the constraints of space?

The fact is this: While we as a nation generously give to charitable causes; even getting someone to part with $10 in aid of animals is difficult.

And the onus falls upon a small group of people who truly embrace animal welfare to take matters into their own hands.

Should we not be supportive and encouraging and work hand in hand with these private individuals and groups rather than adopt the armchair judgmental attitude of condemning strays released back into the environment?

Can more be done?:
Relaxing pet ownership rules might be an answer
Today Online 27 Jul 08;

I REFER to “The stray dilemma for animal groups” (July 25) and “Reader: You should not cull strays as you please, AVA” (July 26-27).

While I agree we should not be releasing sterilised animals back where they came from, there needs to be a solution to the problem.

The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) has a Responsible Pet Ownership project. Perhaps the various authorities, individuals and groups could work in tandem, review the effectiveness of this campaign and come up with some more positive measures to supplement them?

For a start, most strays are mongrels. Perhaps we could consider more laxity for ownership of such dogs in public housing or temporary dog ownership schemes for “factory” dogs.