Letter published on Monday in the Straits Times
WE HAVE been living in a residential estate of 45 houses for almost 20 years. There are a few stray cats in our estate but I do not see them creating any nuisance.
On Oct 3, my immediate neighbours borrowed a cat trap from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) to trap stray cats. They set up the trap in their garden, with full exposure to the elements.
I understand the rationale for the trap, but I am appalled by the inhumane actions and cruelty to the cats. Because the AVA rounds up trapped cats only on weekdays, a cat trapped on Friday or over the weekend will be in the hot sun or heavy rain and suffer from lack of food and water until the following Monday. As an animal lover, I am disappointed that the AVA endorses such inhumane ways to get rid of stray animals.
On Oct 18, I wrote to the AVA as well as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals to express my concern. I was told there is a maximum two-week loan period for the traps, after which they are taken back by the AVA. I was told that trap borrowers are not allowed to keep them over the weekend.
However, till today, eight weeks after the trap was first set up, it has not been removed by the AVA as promised. Furthermore, the trap remains open every weekend.
I have seen a number of cats caught, banging on the cage and crying pitifully in heavy rain until they were removed by the AVA. Another neighbour's pet cat was also caught, and the owner had to pay the AVA $47 to rescue her injured cat.
I have brought up my case with the AVA repeatedly but have come up against a stone wall.
I understand that one of the AVA's main priorities is to control and reduce the population of stray cats and dogs. However, I believe it is also its duty to ensure it does not disregard the animals' welfare.
With recent media reports of animal abuse and public concern over such behaviour, I believe there is a collective desire among Singaporeans to prevent animal abuse.
Lim Swee Eng (Mdm)
-----------------------------------------------
Here is the replies in response to this forum two days later(today): sister's letter had been published online today.
=============================================
I refer to the letter by Mdm Lim Swee Eng (ST, Nov 27) about the trapping of cats by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) and her neighbours.
As a young Singaporean with an interest in animal welfare, I wish to call for alternatives to cat culling.
The trapping of cats by Mdm Lim's neighbours speaks of a few issues that are typical in our society today - the inability of some to accommodate a few animals in our midst.
I find it appalling that rather than choosing from other options, such as meshing up the gate, her neighbours have opted to use trapping (an euphemism for 'culling') that directly leads to the death of these cats.
Better evidence-based methods can be located at Ms Dawn Kua's (Director of Operations, Cat Welfare Society) blog at http://catwelfare.blogspot.com.
Furthermore, trapping is counter-productive to her neighbours' wish to keep cats out of their house. As there are only a 'few stray cats' in their estate, it is likely that the cats have been sterilised. Once sterilised, the cat population will not grow and they will keep other cats out of their territory.
By choosing to trap and cull these cats, it is likely that new cats will enter the neighours' houses because of the vacuum left by the cats which have been trapped.
The use of culling by the AVA to control the cat population in Singapore should also be questioned and reviewed.
It is evident that the cats were not treated in an ethical manner when they were trapped, but why should we resort to killing animals in the first place?
I find it disappointing that animal abuse is treated as a criminal offence in Singapore, and yet once we define an animal as a 'pest' (with our own ambiguous definitions), it can be legitimately trapped and killed.
However, if we begin to ask ourselves who is responsible for the increase in cat population, we will realise that it is the direct result of human irresponsibility, such as pet abandonment in Singapore. If the root of the problem lies with people, why should animals pay for our mistakes?
I urge the government to look into alternatives to cat culling in Singapore such as sterilisation and laws to make cats legal pets in HDB flats.
Culling is arcane and detrimental towards promoting an inclusive society in Singapore - one that includes cats as well.
Neo Kai Ling (Miss)
==============================
Having read Mdm Lim Swee Eng's letter on stray cats (ST, Nov 27), I cannot agree more with her that the problem, if any, should be dealt with humanely.
I am unable to visualise how much of a problem stray cats can cause to the human beings around them.
Cats, unlike stray dogs, are generally harmless unless antagonised. They look for particular spots to defecate and do not cause problems that human beings are well-known for causing, eg anti-social behaviour, crime, etc.
Above all, children are amused by their presence.
Despite the occasional calls to treat animals with respect following reports about their ill-treatment, we as a society have yet to empathise with their lot.
If the cat population becomes a problem, there are humane ways of curbing it.
We need to have the right mindset, not the notion that animals have no rights to be around in the lives of people.
There is space for species other than human beings and they too have their rightful place to exist among us.
If not, our hopes to be a gracious society will remain just that.
Lim Siak Kwang
=============================================
I refer to the letter "Control stray cats but have some regard for their welfare" (ST, Nov 27).
A search on the internet reveals that there are many humane methods to keep cats out of the garden.
One good site is http://www.garden-supplies-advisor.com/cat-repellent.html that states:
"Cats are generally known to dislike water so a well-aimed bucketful or a squirt with the hose will certainly make an intruder run. After one or two dousings it may learn the lesson and stay away."
The Cat Welfare Society (www.catwelfare.org) has an anti-cat device aptly called the scarcecrow that can be loaned out for such a purpose.
Perhaps the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority can educate house-owners on humane methods of repelling cats instead of delivering and collecting the cat trap.
An unsterilised population of cats will yield an unending supply of new cats to be trapped. If the cats in the estate are sterilised, their number will eventually reduce by natural attrition.
The established cats in the estate would also have been conditioned to keep away from gardens that use humane methods to repel them.
It strikes me as strange that tax-payers are paying for the cost of delivering the traps and subsequently the cost of killing the cats at the AVA, for what is essentially a private problem.
Perhaps this pandering is the reason why some people are not bothered with trying out other methods of repelling the cats and are instead choosing an easy but ineffective and cruel solution.
Dr Tan Chek Wee
No comments:
Post a Comment