What a breath of fresh air to arrive in Australia and be told that the RSPCA or the Ranger can come and take your pet away if you were reported by say, a neighbor for abusing your pet. Should there be sufficient evidence of animal neglect, you are than prosecuted and fined… these abusers are no different to people who think that they can litter their streets for example or like some women who sweep the dirt barra mil-l’intrata and under their neighbour’s tarġa. It’s all very, very dodgy!

All dogs should be registered and neighbor’s should be encouraged to report a dog which appears missing from their own neighbor’s precinct. Here, a representative of the law would attend the scene and be able to discover the whereabouts of the missing animal. A fine should than be imposed on owners who cannot nominate the place where their dog has either been put down (for example), sold or offered up for adoption. In cases of runaway dogs, these animals should have been micro-chipped for identification purposes and returned to their homes when found. Owners should also be fined for their runaway dogs. In 40 years we have had some ten dogs and a dozen or so cats, some were even strays and some were also successfully returned to their owners, but we have never to date lost a dog or a cat. Animals don’t run away from a good home just like children don’t run away from functional homes. These fines (a consequence of the owner’s neglect)can be looked at as contributions to the community as well as tax payers who assist them in obtaining back their beloved pets.

A home for such pets should be mandatory as part of any city or state, which would be reflective of a thoughtful culture and an evolved society. It’s wonderful to see so many people on this blog jumping to the animals’ defence.

Whilst I agree and support you Daphne on your well presented article, I am somewhat dismayed that the incident with that postman who was merely doing his job and was thus bitten by a dog, (which was clearly doing what it was trained to do) should have been given a “put down” sentence by a magistrate who instead of sentencing the dog, should have sentenced and fined the owners for lacking the responsibility to correctly house a vicious animal. I do not however share your sentiments about, as you stated that “Any stranger who tries to enter property ‘owned’ by dogs is asking for trouble”. I am sure that you didn’t mean to include innocent postmen in that comment. Was there a sign on the property such as “Vicious dog, enter at own risk”? Did the postman know that there was a vicious dog running loose in the property? Where was the letter box? And was there sufficient restraints to stop the dog from attacking neighbors, passers by or mere postmen? I don’t know what was more irresponsible, the judge or the sentence.

Perhaps it’s time that people lent a helping hand to this Saint Freddie Fenech. Or maybe some good hearted lawyer or anyone could offer him some free advice on how to collect donations and perhaps find a way to turnover some profits which could then be used to form some national education on owner’s responsibilities towards their pets through advertising which should of course be directed at these irresponsible dog dumpers.

Dear Janine, you sound quite passionate about your work and clearly you do it well, but I doubt that every dog pound is as well run and organised as the one you work at. I don’t know what sort of regulations are enforced in Malta, but I often hear that corruption is rampant in some areas of public service. And here I am using my democratic right to free speech and am not criticizing any political party. If it is rampant now, it was no less rampant when I was in Malta under labour rule. Corrupt people are exactly that, found in all corners of the earth, under all political parties. So if there is a danger that certain dog pounds are not compliant with regulations such as the ones enforced where you work at, or that there may be a possibility where some shelters end up having no choice in the matter but to admit a large amount of animals due to the high number of strays, than euthanasia will most likely be the most humane path.

And Brigantes, as you correctly quoted Ghandi, let us not forget that there is also divided opinion about euthanasia where I might point out that anti-euthanasia is most likely influenced by christian beliefs which does not make it necessarily right. Than, and although our opinion differs on whether to put these animals down or not, at least let us remember that the intent for these poor animals is to reduce their suffering and in all cases above are well intended.

The right to life is everybody’s right, being a human or an animal. With your reasoning we could all go killing animals left, right and centre but we don’t do we?

We are not forced into vegetarianism, but we do it out of choice. There are people who don’t care where their meat on the dinner plate came from, and there are others who do.

All animals have feelings and they do deserve to liveas much as you and I.Dogs kept in shelters have every right to have quality of life (although you don’t see it) and a good number of them find happy homes. Others live to grow old quite happily.

Do you honestly think that the solution is to kill all the strays because they have no quality of life? I don’t think so.

That’s your opinion. But I and many others think it’s cruel to have a death row in a shelter. And by what criteria is a dog put down? and who decides? Or is it a matter of survival of the fittest? I surely wouldn’t want to be a helper in a death row shelter where one day I’m playing and coexing the dog and the next day he’s dead. Sorry, but i have more compassion.

With regards a “concentration style ” shelter, ours is surely not so. We have a limit of 140 dogs and around 25 volunteers and that’s it. It’s for this reason that we turn people with their unwanted pets away. Our dogs are very well taken care of. They all have names and are not just numbers. We only keep four dogs in each pen. They all get their daily runs and veterenary requirements, love and care from the volunteers.

Dogs are not stressed out with a number of other dogs. It’s coming from their ancestors to live with packs whether its with other dogs or humans. Even when a dog is living with a human it reacts in a competitive manner.

If you think Mr Vella that keeping a number of dogs in a shelter is an act of sellfishness, then please think again. These people don’t do it for fun believe me but because they truly believe that every creature has a right to live and these abandoned dogs deserve a second chance.

[Daphne – I don’t know about that, Janine, though I can see where you’re coming from. The right to life is a human right, not an animal right. If animals had a right to life then we would all be forced into vegetarianism by law. The fact that dogs in their natural state form packs does not mean that dogs in packs are not stressed. The pack is a very stressful experience for all but the top dog, and the weakest are the most stressed out of all. It’s the same when humans form packs, let alone with dogs. The question I ask myself when confronted with hundreds of dogs kept in shelters is: what is it all for? What exactly is the point? I really don’t have an answer to that question.]

It may seem superfluous (but isn’t) to state that animals are not human and have different ‘priorities’, if we want to call them that. They do have a survival instinct but, compared to humans, their determination to remain living at all costs is not as powerful.

This is not the right place for a lengthy discussion of such issues but even a superficial look at what happens in nature shows that the cliche of death being part of life is indeed true.

I sympathise with people who would, if they could, keep all pets alive, no matter what (not being patronising here – I mean what I’m saying). It is impossible however and we had better come to terms with reality. Keeping dogs in concentration camps is not an act of kindness but, ironically, of well-meaning selfishness.

The truth is that shelters in Malta can only treat their dogs properly if they cater for a small number of animals and allow the others to go to ‘death row’ as they unfairly and arrogantly call it.

[Daphne – I agree with you about dogs and shelters. People who love dogs usually make the mistake of anthropomorphising them, but dogs are dogs. They would much rather be with people than with lots of other dogs. Being with lots of other dogs causes them a great deal of stress, because they are permanently in competition/survival mode. I don’t approve of shelters were large numbers of dogs are kept in concentration-camp style. I really believe that they would be better off dead. When you love dogs, it’s easy to make the mistake of applying the anti-euthanasia arguments for people to these animals, but that just doesn’t make sense.]

Seems you are all a little slow.

And I cannot agree more with Daphne, if anyone dares enters without permission in dog’s territory, then he is inviting trouble – and like Daphne, they would first have to take me away before they could even touch my dog!

What the courts should really do is to give some of their own treatment to those that maltreat animals and abandon them in the road.

My own dog was one of these, found on my porch in the middle of the night and I can assure you that since he has found a second home amongst us he has become the best and obedient companion that one could really wish for.

God bless you. You are right. Bye

What are you on about? What have illegal immigrants have to do with animals? What makes you jump to such a conclusion? Well mate you are very wrong here. Seems like you have a problem with these people and surely not I.

Yes, sure I can see how much you love animals buy how tollerant you are. Since you so much dread this “monstrosity” coming in your neighbourhood, maybe you have some other brilliant idea where we could shelter all the strays? Or do you suggest that, being a “nuisance” stray animals should be killed?