Plans to control stray animal population

A committee within the Animal Welfare Council is working to draw up a system to control the stray animal population and may be proposing the identification of pets.

Lino Vella, head of the department of veterinary services and the council's chairman, said yesterday that if pets were identified, their owners would not be able to just throw them out when they got fed up of them. If they did so, they would be known.

Agreement on this was likely to be reached but the snag was that identification would have to be done against a fee and this would be a problem for the owners of more than one pet.

The committee was now studying the workings of such a system and its pros and cons, Dr Vella said.

As can be seen from the correspondence pages of this edition of The Times (see page 10), the care of stray dogs is a bone of contention between the Society for the Protection and Care of Animals and Island Sanctuary.

Island Sanctuary chairman Claire Gafà defended the sanctuary's "neuter and release" policy, pointing out that this was a lesser evil than the "collect and kill" policy she said was implemented by the SPCA.

Ms Gafà said the "neuter and release" programme was followed all around the world. She explained that whenever people called the sanctuary informing them of strays, the sanctuary told them it could put the dog on the waiting list until there was a vacancy and if the caller was prepared to take responsibility for the animal until then, the sanctuary would neuter it to prevent the stray dog population from growing.

It was true that any animal on the road was at risk but the sanctuary was full and its members could not make miracles. No dogs were put down at the sanctuary, no matter how old, she insisted.

The sanctuary was open about its "neuter and release" policy, Ms Gafà said, acknowledging that it released dogs that were left tied to its premises gates.

SPCA president Barbara Cassar Torreggiani denied that the society practised a "collect and kill" policy, insisting the SPCA believed in a neutering policy and in the need for a neutering campaign. It tried to find the best solutions for the dogs it took in and never closed its doors to new arrivals.

"While we are trying to solve the problem of strays, they are just happy with what they've got."

Ms Cassar Torreggiani said that the society had more animals than the number capable of finding a home.

The SPCA tried to home the animals it took in and it usually managed. It only put to sleep dogs that were not homeable and when it was kind to do so, she said.

She said that in the past, dogs were put to sleep if a home was not found for them after seven days but this was no longer done. Nowadays, dogs were only considered not homeable if a home was not found for them after six months.

SPCA home manager Christel Selis said the society believed that every animal deserved a chance. "There is no joy in putting animals to sleep and it costs money. We only do it when we absolutely need to."

Ms Selis said the SPCA received a government grant of 6c for every animal put to sleep. But putting a puppy to sleep cost a minimum of 60c. For older dogs it cost more. So what interest did the SPCA have in putting animals to sleep just for the sake of it?

SPCA secretary Paul Selis said the association received Lm9,000 in refunds from the government each year when it spent an average of Lm45,000. It made up most of the difference from the homing of animals and this showed that a lot of animals were being homed.

He pointed out that the SPCA's doors were always open and it could not adopt a policy similar to Island Sanctuary's.

Both organisations were asked why there was such bad blood between them, seeing that both were working for the benefit of animals.

Ms Gafà said the sanctuary was a totally voluntary organisation where volunteers gave their all for the sake of the animals while the people at the SPCA did what they did for money.

Ms Cassar Torreggiani answered: "I wish I knew why they are trying to discredit us.

"We're all trying to work for the benefit of animals and we should be working together. We have even talked about this and they offered us to join them at Tas-Silg. We did not take up their offer because as much as we dislike Floriana, it is much more accessible than Tas-Silg".

Asked what he could make of this dispute between the two organisations, Freddie Fenech, of the Abandoned Animals Association, said:

"Only the dogs will suffer as a result. The two organisations are throwing a silly tantrum. Problems are not resolved with those managing organisations fighting among themselves".

Asked whether there was any law or regulations governing strays, Dr Vella said there was no international convention or EU law and each country could choose to have its own system.

The RSPCA in the UK adopted a similar policy to that used by the local SPCA. They collected, waited for seven days to see if their owners would claim the animals and if they were not they tried to home them. When there was no hope they put them to sleep.

The Island Sanctuary did not collect dogs; it took dogs in according to capacity, so it did not put any animals to sleep.

He said the options included having strays picked up, neutered and released.

But although this could control multiplication, there would still be the nuisance of stray animals on the streets.

In other countries, such as Italy, every council had its own compound in which strays collected were kept. This system was recently criticised, Dr Vella said.