Home


  Main Index MAIN
INDEX
FAQ FAQ & HELP FAQ PHOTO GALLERY Who's Online WHO'S
ONLINE
Log in LOG
IN

Home: Dog and Puppies Talk: Dog's Rights and Protection:
Protest?







Ballistic
Member


Apr 16, 2005, 2:45 AM

Post #1 of 11 (1778 views)
Shortcut
Protest? Can't Post

Hi guys I wonder if it would be a good idea to just have an official gathering somewhere to protest the stupidity of this new rule. I think its ridicules the way things are. We need someone to come out with an official petition and we'll all gather in the thousands (hopefully) to protest and ask for a fair ruling.



Like many of you already said, if they want to ban or control the amount of dogs we own, then do the same to cats and other animals. The fact is that its totally outrageous and we should not give in to this. Just because some owners are irresponsible does not mean every one have to suffer.



Instead of just chatting about it, why donít we actually see what we could do to make this right and most importantly fair to everyone, get organized.



So what do we need? A lawyer? and some media people... to get coverage to attract more attention.



How about it? Iím not trying to cause trouble but merely not letting people step all over us.



- A dog is for life, not just for Christmas -


Gus-Gus
Canine Addict

Apr 18, 2005, 4:13 AM

Post #2 of 11 (1745 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ballistic] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

What rule are you referring to?

While I am agreeable with your call for affirmative action, there are some points to consider before proceeding with anything.

Malaysians, in general, are anti-dog. Whatever the race or religion, there are people who are anti-dog and nothing will change their minds. In fact, these people are so hidebound and so determined to find fault with dogs that they cannot see anything positive about dogs or keeping dogs as pets. This type of people would even actively seek out fault to find with dogs and dog owners - anything to "prove" them right for being anti-dog.

When there are people like that, it is hard to proceed with anything to protest your rights because as far as they're concerned, dog owners already have too many rights.

You may feel that you are not an irresponsible dog owner but so too do those you consider to be the irresponsible dog owners. They just don't know or don't care that what they are doing is considered irresponsible. They cannot see or don't care about the impact their behaviour has on other people - whether on other dog owners who do take care of their pets or innocent pedestrians who might feel intimidated by a dog running loose or become fed up of stepping on dog poo. These selfish dog-owners don't care if their dogs become a bother to their neighbours. As far as they're concerned, their neighbours are being unreasonable.

Don't you wonder why these people keep dogs at all? I certainly do. Surely a dog lover would not let their dog wander the streets, in danger of being run over by passing cars; at the mercy of dog thieves, council dog catchers or even more aggressive dogs? What about eating all sorts of weird rubbish that could damage the dogs' health or the risk of picking up all sorts of illnesses and diseases? Also the risk of their dogs mating with other dogs and adding to the numerous stray/ homeless puppies and dogs in the street that add to the negative perceptions of anti-dog people. What about those people who breed from their dogs - not to improve the breed standard but because they think their dog is "cute" and see the sale of the puppies as a way to make quick money? These people are "backyard breeders" and backyard breeders are responsible for more dogs ending up at shelters and pounds than puppy mills.

When you think of people who treat their dogs like that, don't you think there should be restrictions on dog ownership? I do. Yes, it's unfair on people who don't let their dogs roam around; who clean up after their dogs; who keep control of their dogs and don't let them bark incessantly, who exercise responsible dog ownership and spay/ neuter their pets.

Who is to say who should be allowed to have dogs and who shouldn't be allowed to have dogs or how many dogs people should be allowed to keep? The fact is there should be an authority that has that power and in this instance, it is the local council. These councils are draconian and unfairly biased against dogs because in general, it is hard to pin point a trouble making cat or rabbit or gerbil or hamster. A trouble making dog on the other hand, is more easily identifiable, as is it's home and owner.

When it comes down to it, until people learn to take care of their dogs and irresponsible ownership is a rarity, it is better that the local councils place restrictions on dog ownership. It is unfortunate that most of the rules and regulations are absurd and obviously ill-thought out (like needing to build a kennel for the dog when the dog lives indoors and would never need to use the kennel) but the alternative is the current situation: dogs ill-treated; left to wander the streets; breeding indiscriminately and stray dogs and puppies roaming and forming packs or getting knocked down by passing traffic and suffering from the injuries; picking up and dying from painful diseases....... the list of terrible things go on.

Generally, local councils don't enforce the dog ownership restrictions until there are complaints. By the nature of the apathy of Malaysians, that means that the situation has become so intolerable to someone that they have resorted to complaining so often to the council that the council can no longer ignore the complaints. For someone or for a dog/ dogs suffering under the inconsiderate/ selfish behaviour of an irresponsible dog owner, that is a long time.

So, before you proceed with any protest, consider if the restrictions are good or bad for dogs in the long run. The restrictions are irksome for responsible owners but if you're a responsible owner who truly loves dogs, then you will see the need for the restrictions.


"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Ghandi.


Ballistic
Member


Apr 19, 2005, 11:36 PM

Post #3 of 11 (1707 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Gus-Gus] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

Dear Gus gus, Smile



Iím referring to the unfair rules set by certain local district and their response towards concern owners about the situation.



With respect, I do not agree with you completely on your opinion about the rules and regulations. Of course Iím not saying Iím right and we should stage a protest :-) although that might be fun. The reason why I brought such a topic up is to get people who are concern (like yourself) to chip in and fill in the many blanks about whatís happening so we could come up with a solution and propose it to the proper people.



Iím no lawyer or politician so I do not know the actual rule and what exactly is going on or should be done, but from what Iíve been reading, the rules are ridiculous. I was hoping people could come together and do something about it instead of venting out without any answers or directions.



Further more, I think Malaysian in general are not anti-dog but are scared of things they donít know how to deal with. I come from a communication back ground and I think there are other proper ways to educate the public about how to deal with issues and a fair way of resolving them. I also do not agree withí blanketingí the responsibility issue with the excuse that certain people do not know that they are irresponsible, they DO know but donít care.



Itís the same with crime (if I may use this example), we cannot suggest that criminals donít know what they doing is wrong. Itís up to all of us to take ownership for our own actions.



As for restriction of dog ownership, I personally think this should be done by the owners themselves. There might be a learning curve involved but I feel that thatís the best way we learn. I would love to have authorities checking and maintaining the balance of bad owners vs. a total restriction of the amount of dog (which is very stereo typing mentality to begin with) a person/household should have. Iím sure you have see the program Ďanimal precinctí on animal planet, It would be just marvelous to have a department of animal welfare to check on owners and punish them (very heavily) for bad and injustice treatment of animals which sometimes leads to attacks we heir in the news today.



My concerns are more of the canine welfare than the owners. Our pets, whatever they are, is helpless when it comes to brutality and unjust treatment. Itís up to us to be responsible to help protect them.



I do believe a change of approach in how this is done could work out for the better. A straight out restriction is definitely a blatant ignorance for people who care and are concern about the canine industry and future, which could turn to a lot of foul play and cheating schemes, which are already in discussion in the forums.



My 2 cents.

- A dog is for life, not just for Christmas -


Gus-Gus
Canine Addict

Apr 20, 2005, 2:08 AM

Post #4 of 11 (1702 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ballistic] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

i think we are both in agreement, we just have different ideas and approaches to trying to find a solution to the same problem.

I have watched Animal Precinct and yes, they do good work. In the UK, the RSPCA and the police work together to do exactly the same thing. Unfortunately, it is not possible here in Malaysia the way the law stands as well as from the mentality of Malaysians. The SPCA in Malaysia is only an animal welfare association. In fact, it is actually a series of associations with co-operation between the various SPCAs in Malaysia (Selangor, Ipoh, Johor, Penang, Malacca and maybe a few other SPCAs I can't think of at the moment) but it is not one entity. I am most familiar with SPCA Selangor so I cannot speak for the policies or authority of the other SPCAs. When I refer to SPCA here, I mean SPCA Selangor. The SPCA has no right of arrest, seizure or prosecution. Even if they see a dog being battered right in front of them, they cannot forcibly enter someone's premises and seize the dog and arrest the owner. Only the Police have this right and even then, usually the Police don't bother. Even if they bother and arrest the person for animal cruelty, the matter still has to be investigated and the police then recommend the next course of action - to release the person or to prosecute. The case is then forwarded to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) who may decide not to proceed (for whatever reason). This whole time, the SPCA can only recommend the prosecution of the person. The SPCA has to tread carefully throughout in case they jeopardise future cruelty cases. Everytime a cruelty case is not recommended for prosecution by the Police or the DPP doesn't push forward with a prosecution or the judge imposes a lenient sentance, the lack of enforcement erodes the position of the SPCA and diminishes the seriousness of animal cruelty in public perception. It is a downhill slide for everyone.

The law in Malaysia concerning animal cruelty has remained unchanged since 1953. The penalties are a paltry RM200 fine and/ or some jail time - not sure the exact amount at this time. There have been calls for the law to be amended with higher penalties for those found guilty. The law hasn't been amended yet even though there has been talk of it. It has been slow-going but fortunately, the courts have taken the issue far more seriously now and imposing jail time on top of the mandtory fine. Many people think a fine is no big deal, just pay it and go back to their mean lives. Jail time takes the penalty to a different level of public perception. It makes the crime far more serious in the eyes of the public if jail time is imposed.

Concerning your point about educating the public about animal welfare, education is a slow process. There are too many homeless dogs around, too many dogs treated unkindly (let alone cruelly), the list goes on. The only way for the authorities to "handle" it is to impose lots of rules and regulations. I wish we could rely on dog owners to restrict the number of dogs they own or to ensure that all dogs have homes, good living conditions and loving owners but the fact is it if all dog owners were so inclined, these rules and regulations would not necessary. Until enough dog owners can see the importance of responsible dog ownership, council rules and regulations are the only thing that prevents the situation from getting totally out of control.

What I do feel is that there should be more standardisation of rules and regulations with consultation with animal welfare groups as to the reasonableness of them. Imagine if a household has 5 dogs but the council says they can only have 2. What happens to the other 3? Put them to sleep? Send them to the SPCA or other animal shelter? Let them run lose in the street to be someone else's problem? The list of possibilities goes on.... Which is why any rulings and regulations should be discussed with animal welfare groups before they are finalised as council regulations.

In the meantime, the only real course of action we can take as animal lovers is to support the work of the various animal welfare groups (as individuals we have little influence on those in the position of authority) and try to be a positive influence on others about being responsible dog owners and the need to treat all animals with respect, no matter the persons' race, religion or superstition. The education has to start somewhere.

I'm not sure if my opinion is even worth 2sen but if it gives even one person something to think about in respect to animal welfare, then I won't have wasted my time typing this.


"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Ghandi.


Ballistic
Member


Apr 20, 2005, 7:59 PM

Post #5 of 11 (1681 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Gus-Gus] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

Dear Gus Gus Well said, but like you have described earlier, it will take a very long time. But oh well life goes on right?! We'll see how things turn out... fortunately I am not in the affected area, I'm just concern that one day it will soon affect everyone, and that would be very sad. I would love to volunteer to fine/catch and prosecute those involve with animal cruelty... should form a foundation if we have time... gotta quit my job first :-) Nice talking to ya...

- A dog is for life, not just for Christmas -


Gus-Gus
Canine Addict

Apr 21, 2005, 12:14 AM

Post #6 of 11 (1677 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ballistic] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

Hi.

I'm not affected either by any of the rules and regulations. I feel really bad for those who are but I have previously posted information on circumventing the most basic rules and regulations. My suggested methods can only be of use to RESPONSIBLE dog owners. The irresponsible owners will either have to shape up or lose their dogs.

You can help catch those who are cruel to animals without having to quit your job. Just be vigilent and keep your eyes and ears open. If you notice a dog owner being irresponsible, try and speak to them. If that doesn't help the animal's situation then call the SPCA. Animal cruelty doesn't just happen in households - it can happen in pet shops too. If that happens, call the newspapers - The Star and The Malay Mail - and ask them to look into it. No shop needs negative publicity and they certainly don't want Jabatan Haiwan to come a-calling.

Meanwhile, keep up the call for responsiblel pet ownership and never lose hope that one day all animals in Malaysia will get a good life free from cruely and neglect.

Great chatting to you too.


"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Ghandi.


Ballistic
Member


Apr 27, 2005, 2:24 AM

Post #7 of 11 (1611 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Gus-Gus] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

There we go people, now look at Shah Alam! the rules are ridicules. Gus Gus i think even you won't appreciate this one... what's going to happen to all the people with dog by the turn of next year? I really think if you guys keep being complacent you are at the losing end of the deal.



Stand up for your rights, this is suppose to be a free country, our Federal government have not been made aware of how angry this makes other responsible dog owners feel, its time we stick together and change things. Or perhaps vote for another fairer MP/Government.



This cannot and must not happen in the Kelang Valley. I hope.



Come on lah, only corner houses can have dogs? muzzle your dog when you take them out? No dogs allowed in parks? This s down right stupid, I thought the parks were made for the public... and I never thought our MPís/Government could be this inconsiderate.



Hereís an idea: I think everyone in Shah Alam and Subang with dog at home should put their houses up for sale (bluff bluff only lah) and see if the governing body of those areas start to panic, because at the end of the day, the balance of each district is very important to the growth of the nation and when such anger is expressed in numbers people will start taking notice.

- A dog is for life, not just for Christmas -


Gus-Gus
Canine Addict

Apr 27, 2005, 6:27 AM

Post #8 of 11 (1602 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ballistic] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

I agree that the Shah Alam new regulations are absurd. Corner houses only can have dogs? Building a kennel? Yes, I find the regulations ridiculous. I live in a terrace house and I don't have a kennel. I don't need one - my dogs sleep in my bedroom in my bed.

Yes, I agree that there should be protests in this instance. Does anyone know if the by-law been gazetted by Shah Alam Council or is it them just forcing it down the throats of Shah Alam residents and the residents assuming that because the Council says so, it's law? Unless it has been gazetted, it's not the law. I seriously doubt if it has been gazetted or if any of the ridiculous anti-dog by-laws have been gazetted.

Shah Alam residents, please take note and consult a lawyer.


"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Ghandi.


Ballistic
Member


Apr 27, 2005, 5:53 PM

Post #9 of 11 (1594 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Gus-Gus] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

Not too sure about this but I thought I read in the papers that someone living in Shah Alam is suing the state for privacy infringement. I most definitely support her cause.

- A dog is for life, not just for Christmas -


Toy
K9 Maniac


Apr 27, 2005, 6:24 PM

Post #10 of 11 (1587 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Gus-Gus] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

agree with u gus-gus, they say no doesnt mean it is a law. actually if u dont have a choice, just choose to ignore them, they will never evr sue u since there arent a law. juz make sure ur dog not getting out from ur premise, or else they have the right to catch. if they were to do anything to ur dog inside ur premise from outside, i will give full support to sue them, although im not rich (yet) but will try my best to help. we should protest, but be particular. dont blame everything, everybody.


Gus-Gus
Canine Addict

Apr 27, 2005, 6:43 PM

Post #11 of 11 (1581 views)
Shortcut
Re: [Ballistic] Protest? [In reply to] Can't Post

http://www.puppy.com.my/...;;page=unread#unread

Above is the link to some advice that I gave to dog owners facing problems from their local council. This advice only works for RESPONSIBLE DOG owners. If the link doesn't work, the post is titled "Is this happening to you?".


"The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated" Mahatma Ghandi.

 
 




Copyright 2001~ 2002 Hileytech Sdn Bhd , All Rights Reserved.  Disclaimer  Privacy Statement
For comments and Suggestion, Please contact the Webmaster at puppy@puppy.com.my