this week

Animal instincts

Miriam Dunn agrees with the NGOs that the information given so far about the proposed legal changes to animal welfare have produced more questions than answers

This newspaper’s decision to give the subject of animal welfare, or more importantly, animal cruelty, a good airing over the past weeks was nothing if not timely, with the prospect of new legislation on the horizon.

Stories of animal cruelty always raise emotions in all but the most hardhearted of us. Having worked in the media for some years now, I can honestly say that reports or photographs of animals published in newspapers that are the victims of cruelty or negligence generate some of the greatest response.

The case that MaltaToday mentioned of the man who hit a horse with a hammer was one example, while other incidents where the cruelty was even more extreme has lead to numerous readers feeling compelled to put pen to paper.

But while the vast majority of people seem to be abhorred by the thought of inflicting unnecessary pain on a dumb animal, there are enough horror stories around to serve as evidence that a certain portion of the population gets its kicks from torturing or neglecting these creatures.

And unfortunately, with the legislation standing as it does now, the courts are powerless to hand out punishments that most of us would consider anywhere near suitable or appropriate. The much-publicised Lm25 fine that is meted out to offenders and invariably leads to complaints and protests from animal lovers is proof of this.

The animal welfare groups have long been calling for the law to be given an overhaul, a sentiment echoed by many throughout the island. But their satisfaction at hearing there were legislative changes in the pipeline was somewhat tainted by an annoyance that they had not been consulted or given a chance to make a contribution.

The argument of whether the new law could be viewed as a ‘fait accompli’ is open to question.

But having read last week’s interview with the chief government vet, I can understand why the welfare groups have a lot of questions that they feel still need answering and why they want further explanations on some issues.

The move to raise fines for animal cruelty and make imprisonment a possible punishment will be welcomed by many of us. But, even in the next breath, we will add that a punishment, however severe, only works if enforcement is there to ensure an offender is apprehended.

The Island Sanctuary workers have put forward a suggestion that the government should help fund a quota of inspectors from the NGOs, who would work hand in hand with the police on an enforcement level.

This excellent idea, which is one that the authorities should seriously consider taking up, has worked successfully abroad for years. It is a well-known fact that the police have to spread themselves far too thinly, and the arm of the law dealing with animal cruelty – the Administrative Law Enforcement – has one of the most varied portfolios imaginable. Although there would inevitably be teething problems to begin with, I am confident that the police themselves would welcome a contribution from people who are, after all, hardworking, and have, through their commitment to their cause, gained considerable knowledge on animal cruelty. Dare I say it, their dedication might also balance a nonchalance or indifference that some police might have due to the fact that their interest is purely professional.

But perhaps the biggest question mark hanging over the way forward for animal welfare is the manner in which the authorities are dragging their feet over introducing any kind of national neutering programme.

Malta has a serious problem of strays – no one can deny this – and all the animal welfare groups agree that the stray population shows no sign of decreasing.

And while we allow the number of strays to multiply and roam freely about the islands, we are not only failing to address the problem, we are also sentencing these animals to a life of risks and dangers, be they hunger, fast cars or ignorant people who decide that it’s fun to torture a kitten or use a puppy as bait for a dog fight.

The groups that take in strays and do their best to rehome them, or offer them shelter indefinitely, carry out their own neutering, at their own cost. But this is a drop in the ocean compared to the litters of unwanted pups and kittens that are dumped in the countryside or on the rocks and begin reproducing as soon as they are physically able to.

The problem will never be solved unless a neutering programme is introduced and the authorities have to take the initiative in this respect. Relying on the NGOs to lead the way in this area, without giving them the funds to do so, is, surely, a little naughty.