Why tough decision to put down animals must be made

Straits Times Forum 30 Jul 09;

I REFER to the Forum Online letter by Jeanne Nicole Chan, "Trapping and dumping strays and pets unbecoming in gracious Singapore", on Saturday, in which she asked, "Is there really no way to strive for a 'no kill' shelter?"

The reasons the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) would perform euthanasia include terminal illness or injury where there is no possibility of recovery, behavioural problems that pose a threat to other animals or humans, stray overpopulation, disease transmission, and old age where the quality of life is impaired by major loss of functions.

Sadly, this includes the lack of shelter space which results in shelter overcrowding. Overcrowding threatens the lives of all the animals in our care due to stress, weakened immune systems and increased risk of disease transmission. This requires the SPCA to make difficult decisions about euthanasia based on health, physical, emotional and psychological suffering, and the best interests of the animals receiving care at the shelter.

While some individuals argue that a shelter can easily achieve "no-kill" by refusing to accept surplus animals once it is full, one needs to understand that the consequence of such a move could result in an increase in the number of animals being abandoned on the street or being given up to another shelter or organisation if they have room to take on more. This begs the question: Does the SPCA refuse to accept animals and refer them elsewhere so it can achieve a "no-kill" label?

This no doubt would cause people to question why the SPCA is then abandoning its responsibility to provide shelter (even if it is temporary due to our adoption selection process) to unwanted strays and pets.

To put things into perspective, the SPCA receives 22 or more animals daily (which include those that may be chronically old, sick or injured). This means an average of 600 animals taken in a month, and over 7,000 animals in a year. With only 1,100 being adopted on a yearly basis, the SPCA cannot possibly find homes fast enough for all the animals that come through its doors.

Over the years, the SPCA has moved from blind acceptance to counselling. This includes education on responsible ownership to understanding reasons for giving up the animal to encouraging people to take their pets home again. In most cases though, despite our efforts, we end up taking in the animal and bearing the burden of having to decide the animal's fate.

We dream of the ideal where we do not have to put animals down because they are part of a surplus; and while the SPCA hopes to put into effect this policy some day, it will be able to realise this vision only with the help of a society that respects animals and treats them humanely.

Deirdre Moss (Ms)
Executive Officer
Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals

Trapping and dumping strays and pets unbecoming in gracious Singapore
Straits Times Forum 25 Jul 09;

I REFER to the special report on animal welfare, 'Suffer the little critters' (June 21).

I read with disgust that bizarre behaviour like cat trapping and dog dumping (literally) is happening in our supposedly gracious society.

What can be done to stop such acts, including those of Mr Tony Tan Tuan Khoon ('I help stray cats end their suffering', June 21)? Did the cats suffer? I am sure they did, after, and not before, they were trapped.

I love cats, and have come to know that almost every estate in Singapore has dedicated cat lovers who feed, clear up and sterilise cats. So I cannot concur that Mr Tan is helping the cats in any way. Can such people be penalised under the law?

Microchipping should be compulsory for all dogs to enforce a stronger sense of pet responsibility. The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) puts down many animals because of space constraints, as is often pointed out. As a former volunteer, I find it ironic that only a thin wall separates those awaiting homes from those awaiting death. And the number on the 'condemned' side of the wall is sometimes double or even triple that on the 'adoptable' side. Is there really no way to strive for a 'no kill' shelter?

As there are advertisements to 'Save Gaia', perhaps the authorities should consider ads to 'Save animals'. After all, children should be taught to be kind to animals, as well as the planet.

Jeanne Nicole Chan (Ms)