REMEMBERING SHEENA CAMPAIGN

 

 

 

WELFARE & HUMANE TREATMENT

 

OF

 

DOMESTIC PETS

 

 

 

 

 

This document is prepared by the Remembering Sheena Campaign for submission to The Hon Dato’ Seri Ong Ka Ting, Minister of Housing and Local Government, .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

REMEMBERING SHEENA CAMPAIGN PROPOSAL FOR THE WELFARE & HUMANE TREATMENT OF DOMESTIC PETS IN

 

 

Contents                                                                                                      Pages

 

 

1. Introduction                                                                                                         3

 

1.1  The Law and its Practise                                                                                4

 

1.2  Statistics                                                                                                      4

 

1.3  The Effect                                                                                                      5 / 6

 

1.4  The Victims                                                                                                   6

 

 

2. Our Recommendations.                                                                                         7 / 8

 

2.1   Registration of Domestic Pets                                                                          7 / 8

 

2.2   Domestic Pets Registration Procedures                                                        8

 

2.3   Refusal / Deregistration Procedures for Domestic Pets                                   9

 

2.4   Notification of Refusal / Deregistration of Domestic Pets                                  9

 

2.5   Pet Rule Violation Meeting                                                                          10

 

2.6   Notice of Pet Removal                                                                                 11

 

2.7   Extension of Enforcement Powers                                                                11 / 12

 

2.8   Minimum Standards                                                                                         12

 

2.9   Pet Shops                                                                                                         13 / 14

 

2.10 Breeders                                                                                                           14 / 15

 

2.11 Pet Owners License Fees                                                                            15

 

2.12 Special Dispensation for Disabled                                                                15  

 

 

3. Education                                                                                                             16

 

 

4. Conclusion                                                                                                           17

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.     INTRODUCTION

 

 

Over the years, an increasing number of domestic pets have suffered from the brutal neglect, starvation, merciless beating, torture and killing by cruel owners, most common amongst these are dogs and cats.

 

 

On the other extreme, restrictive rules, particularly for dogs, have been enforced by local councils without due consideration for the bond that these animals have with their adoptive families and the valuable assistance they offer the disabled who are dependent on them as trained Service Dogs i.e. Seeing Eye Dogs and those trained to assist the deaf to “hear”, among others.

 

 

Hence, our two-fold objective in submitting this proposal to the Ministry serves to:

 

• raise the level of humane treatment, care and welfare of domestic pets; and

   

• make suitable recommendations that can be used to draft uniform local council bylaws for adoption in all the States of Malaysia.

   

 

Although we concentrate on dogs and cats, where appropriate, we appeal for these recommendations to encompass other domestic pets as well, regardless of their specie.

 

 

We now proceed to add clarity to the issues and current practises in that contravene the humane treatment, welfare and protection of domestic pets.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1.1       The Law and its Practise:

 

 

Section 44(1)(d) of the Animal Ordinance 1953 provides for a maximum RM200 fine, or a maximum six months jail or both for those convicted of animal cruelty. And yet, this archaic, pre-Merdeka law is rarely, if ever enforced to its full extent.

 

 

Judges mete out fines of RM100 in most cases, and when an animal cruelty case is highlighted in the Media, then perhaps a custodial sentence is passed, but that too of only between one and three days. In most cases, even this is hardly meted out.

 

 

To add insult to injury, the courts return these domestic pets to their cruel owners, even though the law does not require them to do so. Often, the animals are tortured again after a short reprieve.

 

 

1.2       Statistics:

 

 

According to statistics from the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Selangor and Federal Territory ), at least 2,400 cases of cruelty are reported each year in their jurisdiction.

 

 

But between January 2003 and November 2005, only six such cases were prosecuted. It must be noted, however, that every single case resulted in a conviction.

 

 

In most cases, the animals are confined to small spaces, tightly chained, exposed to the elements for long durations, or not given sufficient food and water.

 

 

From the legal standpoint, as animal cruelty cases rarely involve “bodily injuries” to the animals, there is insufficient “physical evidence” to prosecute the culprits.

 

 

1.3       The Effect:

 

 

Just like humans who live under such deplorable conditions, these animals too suffer “emotional scars” that may cause them to become violent and hurt unsuspecting bystanders as they lash out in frustration.

 

 

Research by the Centre for Disease Control and Prevention in the United States (US) found that chained dogs were three times as likely to attack. Also, their statistics indicate that more than 25% of fatal dog bites are by dogs in chains. About 80 jurisdictions in the have legislated the banning or limiting of chaining dogs. But in , dogs kept within the compounds of houses are also chained.

 

 

And in wanting to react quickly to outcries when a dog attacks an innocent bystander, local councils rush to enforce new rules, presumably to “protect” the public from further attacks.

 

 

In doing so, the haste in which these “new rules” are drafted, often defy logic and cause undue stress to animal owners.

 

 

An example of this is Shah Alam City Council (MBSA) which is attempting to “illegally” enforce new anti-dog rules. In doing so, it has classified Rottweilers as “ferocious dogs”, but in the same breath permitted the disabled, who are among society’s most vulnerable groups, to keep them.

 

 

But most ridiculous is their ruling requiring all dog license applicants to have the written consent of neighbours who shall agree to bear all the risks if the dog caused any problems.

 

 

Clearly, the MBSA is reneging on its duty of ensuring a safe environment in housing estates and is merely “passing the buck” to the neighbours of animal owners. This does not auger well or encourage confidence among tax payers.

 

Furthermore, being untrained in animal psychology, the root cause of such attacks – the emotional scars suffered while living under deplorable conditions – are rarely, if ever  looked into by local authorities, and hence, hardly considered in the drafting of these new rules.

 

 

1.4       The Victims:

 

 

A Daschund called Tim was chained so tightly round his neck that the chain became embedded into the skin and a six-inch wound exposed a bloody mess.

 

 

Tim’s suffering continued long after he was saved as he required several operations to remove the embedded chain. His owner fared better as he was only fined RM150 and sentenced to one day in jail. In “justice” akin to Malaysian animal cruelty cases, the court returned poor Tim to his owner.

 

And then we have Sheena, the German Shepherd. Almost starved to death, this poor animal could not be saved and had to be put to sleep. Yet, her owner was only fined RM100. No custodial sentence was passed.

 

 

In the latest case of animal cruelty, a breeder is facing trial under the same Ordinance for allegedly neglecting four of his cats and confining them to very small and filthy cages. He is accused of failing to give them proper treatment, resulting in the cats suffering severe skin disease and conjunctivitis so much so that their pictures in the newspapers did not resemble cats at all. The outcome of this case is pending.

 

 

These are only the recent cases that have come to light. It is anybody’s guess how many other nameless and faceless animals continue to suffer each day because they have yet to be rescued from man’s brutality. In the interest of justice, let it not be said that Tim, Sheena, and other victims like them had suffered or died in vain.

 

2.     OUR RECOMMENDATIONS

 

 

 

We have categorised our recommendations under various sub-headings to address important issues, some of which we have highlighted in the preceding pages. Thus, we hope the Ministry will seriously look into this proposal in light of the far reaching consequences delays or inaction can have for future Malaysians.

 

 

 

2.1     Registration of Domestic Pets:

 

 

 

We suggest that domestic pets, particularly dogs and cats, have a microchip embedded under their skin, and for these animals and their owners to be registered at the local council before a license is issued. We further recommend that such registration be renewed annually. This will ensure that owners can be traced and action taken if their pets are abandoned at some point during the year. As an important element of this move, we recommend that:

 

 

• The Ministry work with suitable bodies to provide microchip embedding services at an affordable cost;

   

 

• Bylaws be enacted providing for owners to be fined RM10,000 for each offence of abandoning their domestic pets;

   

 

• Owners who fail to pay the RM10,000 fine be prosecuted, and if convicted, serve a mandatory one year jail term for each offence of abandonment.;

   

 

• Owners of animals that show emotional and or physical signs of abuse and or neglect shall face RM10,000 and a mandatory one year jail term for each offence;

   

 

• Convicted animal abusers be monitored for at least three years after their release to ensure they do not harm another living creature;

   

• A lifetime ban be imposed on convicted animal abusers of owning, working with or being in the presence of animals;

   

 

As a direct result of the above recommendations, the number of strays in housing estates will decline dramatically, hence, providing for a safer and healthier public environment.

 

 

2.2      Domestic Pet Registration Procedures:

 

 

To effectively monitor the health of domestic pets, retard the growth in the number of abandoned animals and strays and create a culture of responsible pet owners, we recommend the following procedures for the registration of domestic pets.

 

 

• Information and a picture sufficient to identify the pet and to demonstrate that it is a common household pet, be provided by the owner;

   

• A certificate signed by a private or government veterinarian stating that the pet has received all necessary inoculations;

   

• The name, address, and telephone number of one or more responsible parties who agree in writing to care for the pet if the pet owner dies, is incapacitated, or otherwise unable to care for the pet;

   

• A signed statement indicating that the pet owner has read the pet rules and agrees to comply with them;

   

 

• Pets that have been stolen or lost must be reported to the local council within 48 hours of the fact, failing which the owners may be charged with abandonment when the pet cannot be produced during the annual registration process.

   

 

 

 

2.3      Refusal / Deregistration Procedures for Domestic Pets

 

 

The local council may refuse to register a pet for the first time if:

 

• The pet is not a common household pet;

   

• The keeping of the pet would violate any applicable laws;

   

• The pet owner fails to provide complete pet registration information;

   

• The relevant authorities reasonably determine, based on the pet owners’ state of mind and the pet’s temperament, that the pet owner is unable to keep the said  pet in compliance with designated rules and other legal obligations;

   

 

 

2.4      Notification of Refusal / Deregistration of Domestic Pets

 

 

The local council shall notify the pet owner if it refuses to register or perform the annual re-registration of a pet only on grounds of abuse and or neglect.  The notice shall:

 

 

• State the reasons for refusing to register the pet;

   

• Serve reasons (Notification) on the pet owner in accordance with proper procedures;

   

• Combine notice of a pet rule violation if appropriate.

   

 

We recommend that in cases where a pet is not re-registered, it be handed over to an appropriate animal welfare organisation capable of dealing with it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.5             Pet Rule Violation Meeting

 

 

 

All pet owners have a right to be heard if they are accused of violating the pet rules, or if pet registration is declined. In such cases we recommend that the local council call for a public meeting to discuss the matter for the sake of transparency.

 

We further recommend that such a meeting be held within fifteen (15) days from the effective date of service of the Notification of Pet Rule Violation (unless a later date is agreed upon). At the Meeting:

 

 

• The local council and the pet owner shall discuss any alleged pet rule   violation and attempt to correct it and reach an agreeable understanding;

   

 

• In the case where abuse or neglect is apparent, the pet shall be immediately removed to an animal welfare organisation capable of caring for it;

   

 

• The Authority may, as a result of the meeting, allow the pet owner additional time to correct the violation;

   

 

• Whatever decision or agreements, if any, that are made will be reduced to writing, signed by both parties, with one copy for the pet owner and one copy placed in the local council’s pet registration file.

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2.6      Notice of Pet Removal

 

 

If the pet owner and the local council are unable to resolve the pet rule violation at the pet rule violation meeting, or if the local council determines that the pet owner has failed to correct the pet rule violation within any additional time provided for this purpose, the pet shall be immediately removed to an animal welfare organisation. The Notice of Pet Removal affecting this must:

 

 

• Contain a brief statement of the facts used to determine that the pet rule or rules had been violated;

   

 

• State that the pet owner remove the pet within ten (10) working days from the effective date of service of notice or pet removal (or the meeting date, if the notice is served at the meeting);

   

 

• State that failure to remove the pet may result in initiation of procedures for a lifetime ban on the errant owner from keeping pets, and that this action does not exempt the owner from prosecution and other penalties.

   

 

2.7      Extension of Enforcement Powers

 

 

We suggest that powers to enforce local council bylaws pertaining to animal welfare be extended to two bodies – the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) and PAWS Animal Welfare Society (PAWS).

 

 

As these two animal welfare societies are deeply entrenched in alleviating the suffering of animals, this recommendation to “deputise” them as Approved Animal Welfare Officers will serve to:

 

 

• provide them with the “teeth” to act upon complaints that they receive on a daily basis instead of depending on the Veterinary Services Department to act; and

   

• overcome the all too common complaint in the civil service that they are short of manpower too carry out enforcement duties.

   

 

In future, applications may be considered from other animal welfare organisations to be similarly deputised with enforcement powers.

 

 

2.8      Minimum Standards

 

 

 

All animals, like humans, require space and should not be caged for long durations as this will contribute to emotional instability and behavioural problems. However, recognising that most animals are caged at some point, we suggest that provisions be made for local bylaws to enforce the Good Animal Husbandry Practise for Pets as recommended by the Department of Veterinary Services, Ministry of Agriculture. These recommendations are indicated below:

 

 

Species	Minimum Floor Area (sq. ft.)	Minimum Width (ft.)	Minimum Height (Ft.)	Minimum No. of Animals
Puppies (8-16 Weeks)   Less than 3kg   Over 3kg	7          7	2            2	1’7”         1’7”	4            2
Adult Dogs (Height)   Less than 1’4”   1’4” to 2’4”   Over 2’4”