http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/printfriendly/0,4139,133432,00.html?
| ANIMALS FOR ADOPTION MAY BE KEPT FOR YEARS |
| IT'S not a dead end for every animal that passes through the SPCA's gates. |
| 18 June 2007 |
| IT'S not a dead end for every animal that passes through the SPCA's gates. As far as possible, the society tries to find new homes for animals that are suitable for adoption. The animals are selected based on their health, temperament and age, and space available. Ms Deirdre Moss, the SPCA's executive officer, said: 'Priority goes to healthy, younger, friendly animals.' 'People want young, friendly, cute animals - and toy breeds are very much in demand.' Sick and injured animals usually do not stand much of a chance, given the limited veterinary and space resources. The same goes for older animals. Ms Moss revealed that generally, animals aged over 6 years are not likely to be considered for adoption. But selection is made on a case-by-case basis. One dog made the cut despite being less than perfect - a chihuahua with a deformed paw. It will be put up for adoption later this year. Ms Moss said it met the selection criteria and has 'a good temperament'. Once the SPCA selects an animal to be put up for adoption, it will keep it for as long as it takes to find it a new owner. Two cross-breed dogs, Boy and Handsome, who are both 4 1/2 years-old, have been at the SPCA for the past two years, waiting to be adopted. Those interested in adopting an animal from the society may take a look at the adoption gallery on the website www.spca.org.sg. Adoption is free, but potential pet-owners have to be prepared to pay for compulsory medical expenses which include the cost of sterilisation, microchipping, vaccination and deworming. |
http://newpaper.asia1.com.sg/news/story/0,4136,133433,00.html?
| Lost your pet? It could be DEAD IN 24 HOURS |
| EVERY day, up to 30 people in Singapore choose to ditch their pets after growing tired of them. |
| 18 June 2007 |
| EVERY day, up to 30 people in Singapore choose to ditch their pets after growing tired of them. But if they think they can ease their consciences by dropping their pets off at the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), they'd better know this: From now on, the SPCA will put down some abandoned pets within 24 hours of receiving the animal. This is because of the overwhelming numbers of unwanted animals left at the non-profit organisation's doorstep daily. Last year, about 9,300 animals were received by the SPCA. Of these, only about 1,300 animals, or barely one in 10, were either adopted by new owners or claimed by owners who lost them. The remaining 8,000 animals had to be put to sleep - that's an average of 22animals aday. The SPCA says that some owners go to the society because they think it will help them take care of their unwanted pets. Instead, they are shown a notice informing them that the surrendered animal could be put to sleep within 24 hours of it being turned in. This has not gone down well with some people. Ms Deirdre Moss, 55, the executive officer of the SPCA, said: 'We have been receiving public feedback through the phone and e-mail, questioning our policy of putting animals to sleep.' OPEN ABOUT IT The criticism has not dampened the society's efforts to be open about the policy. It recently ran advertisements in the media publicising it. Ms Moss said: 'We decided to be more vocal about our policy as it is important that the public understands the consequences of irresponsible pet ownership, and what happens to their abandoned pets.' The reason given by Ms Moss for the society's strict adherence: It does not want to be cruel to the animals by subjecting them to overcrowding and exposing them to the possibilities of disease and fights. Mr Teh Kim Yeu, 29, an operations executive, is one of those who object to this policy. He said: 'It's awful to put an animal to sleep when it is not sick or dying. Animals are living things. They should be given a chance to live.' Mr Teh's remark is one that Ms Moss has heard many times. 'People often say animals are living things. No one knows it more than us and we see living things being discarded every day,' she said. She said the society's position is clear: 'We don't want to put animals to sleep. 'But the buck stops at the SPCA and we are forced to play God due to the sheer physical numbers of animals being surrendered or turned in. 'Half the people who come to our counter may be surprised to learn the animals they are surrendering could be put down. 'In spite of that, most of them still choose to leave the animals with us,' Ms Moss said. 'We may be unpopular for this, but the other alternative is to not accept animals.' 'UNREALISTIC' A no-kill policy has its share of problems. It is 'an unrealistic ideal', Ms Moss said. 'How do we keep 10,000 animals? In two years, it would be 18,000 animals.' A no-kill policy would also mean a selective intake, which in turn could have a detrimental impact on donor support. Ms Moss said: 'The public look to us to be an immediate shelter for animals. 'If we suddenly turn away animals from our door in order to have a no-kill policy, we would lose donor support.' SPCA does not receive any government funding. A common suggestion from observers, such as 33-year-old civil servantMalliga Manu, is this: 'SPCA should look for bigger premises, and make effective use of the space.' She suggests the Government look into funding the SPCA to this end. In response, Ms Moss said space is not the answer because if the animals remain unadopted, the number will keep growing. 'Bigger premises does not mean endless space,' Ms Moss pointed out. Although there are plans to relocate to bigger premises in the next few years, MsMoss said that this could become an excuse for people to turn in even more pets, thinking that the society has more space to house them. What, then, is the solution? 'The only way to reduce the numbers of animals being put down is to reduce the numbers of animals surrendered to us,' MsMoss said. The SPCA wants to send home the message that people should give away unwanted animals only as a last resort. Ms Moss said: 'The bottomline is, please find a solution before bringing them to us. 'The reality that we put animals to sleep may upset some, but can you imagine what it does to us, and the vets who are involved in the process?' |
During the last CNY gathering, my sister-in-law and niece asked me over dinner to help them persuade my brother to agree to them getting a pet puppy.
ReplyDeleteI said okay, but let me ask you some questions first.
1. Who will be taking care of the puppy? Such as bathing it, cleaning after it, trimming its nails ...
2. When the puppy grows up to be an adult dog, it will want to have its own family, so how many dogs can their family support?
As my sister-in-law didn't bring up the subject of neutering, I didn't either.
But if she did, I'll continue with the question "Is it an act of love on your part to neuter your puppy?"
I do love dogs, and when I was a young boy in another country, there was a puppy brought home. I stayed with it until it always looked at me with its adoring puppy eyes.
Soon after though, it was shipped to my grandma's leased cottage in the mountains, where it was the resident guard-dog. I only saw it on some weekends when I went up, and then almost never after I moved to Singapore. Though the dog remembered me, I hardly remembered it.
I don't speak for others, but for myself, an animal kept within the confines of a human building is not getting what it deserves.
Even domesticated animals like dogs have natural instincts and lifecycles.
Neutering an animal is only beneficial to the owner, but what does it mean from a dog's POV?
Are they no different from cattles raised to be slaughtered ... i.e., the benefit in this relationship is only uni-directional?
For those who think of pets in terms of ownership, there is no issue. If not for them, the animal might not exist, or might suffer hardship being a stray. That is assuming it was a stray in the first place.
If that's the case, then spare me the talk of how you love your pet.
I am not presuming animals on the same sentient level as humans, where most I suspect would object to be neutered in return for lifelong shelter, food and care.
I just think animals are great companions to humans, but humans need to think better than their own convenience of how they treat their pets in a manner that is worthy to be termed as "love".
Went to an friend's place recently in Bukit Timah and found he had a dog, friendly creature but noticed she seem to walk with a limp and her legs seem shaky. Friend explained apparently his previous owner(s) threw her down from four stories. My friend adopted her from the SPCA and the bitch has only just begun to be comfortable again around people. Not sure what other abuses she went through and I do not care to think about it.
ReplyDeleteA couple of times, I nearly caught people walking their dogs around HDB estates but did not bother picking up after them. Can't whip out my camera fast enough.
ReplyDeleteJust convinced me more that pet ownership has to be regulated instead of relying solely on education.
I will put it this way, our Ruff is the first living being my husband talks to whenever he comes home. Naturally because Ruff is always the first one to be at the door whenever anybody rings the bell.
ReplyDeleteRuff is toilet-trained with a special kind of diaper lining meant for dogs. He knows where he should do his business because if he decides to be naughty and lay any of his droppings anywhere outside the toilet, he will be grounded in the toilet for 5 minutes. I will see to that.
Ruff doesn't poo when he is out for a 4km run with my husband because he is toilet trained. But he pee frequently outdoors and we dont know how we are going to pick up his pee unless we train him to pee in a recycled mineral water bottle too. By the way, Ruff gets a chance to get out of the house for a jog with my husband at least twice a week.
Ruff is physically fit and healthy as declared by his vet, and he rarely report sick. He gets medical attention whenever he is sick, just like us, as well as his yearly shots.
Ruff has his own single-sized mattress fold into half as his bed.
Ruff doesn't eat our left over food, or junk food. He is strictly allowed to eat his own food only, cooked separately for him without salt and sugar that are bad for his skin. We make sure his canned-food and dog cookies and biscuits and bones are well stocked in the house.
Its a long list but its about there. I have never written anything in detail for Ruff, I think I am going to copy my notes here and paste it in my own site for him.
Ruff is a happy dog.
Good to know. :D
ReplyDeleteMany pets are happy, I do not doubt that.
ReplyDeleteBut for myself, I've come to see pets as something more than just an animal companion for human beings.
If you can do it, then you'd be the first ... in the world.
ReplyDeleteLooking back, I probably must credit my exposure to Dungeons & Dragons for the paradigm shift I have with respect to human-animal relationship (apart from the type where one eats the other).
ReplyDeleteThe notion of an animal as a familiar was most appealing.
While of course the thought of benefitting from the special abilities of the familiar was exciting, the most significant lesson I learned was to rethink of the human-animal relationship from a owner-pet association to a partnership voluntarily entered by both parties, with mutual and equal commitment from each other.
While D&D is only a make-believe RPG, it really helps me to think of many things in life, without the immediate constraints of "reality", to develop and temper ideals of my own.
yes, if we can do it.. probably may be recorded in the World Guinness book too.. XD!
ReplyDeleteI think the goal for dog-training is just for them not to pee indoors except designated areas.
ReplyDeleteFor outdoors, if you observe dogs in general and their sniffing before peeing, they are particular about where they pee, so we can't say they "anyhow pee".
haha! thats good to know. if we control him too much on this, i doubt he will be a happy dog..
ReplyDeleteDidn't know you were a D&D player, but I should have guessed.
ReplyDeleteTechnically speaking, I only played D&D on computers.
ReplyDeleteBut I did love reading through the resource books published by TSR, especially 2nd Ed. era, and Gary Gygax's stuff.
I also used to read most of their Greyhawk, Dragonlance, and Forgotten Realms novels.
Ah, an actually pen & paper RPG is very different from CRPG. :-) (Well, you could game like the CRPG and some do...) Somehow somewhen I will get you into an actual role-playing session. I have been meaning to start again however I don't intend to ever play D&D again. Prefer rules-lite system these days with the emphasis on role-playing not roll-playing.
ReplyDeleteBest campaign I ever ran (and frankly the only one of 2 I ever did) was with Warhammer Fantasy Role-Play and the Enemy Within Campaign. The mechanics were only somewhat better than D&D's (and really down to personal preference) but the atmosphere of the WFRP world and the excellent Shadows over Bogenhafen scenario more than made up for it.
I did read some Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels but wasn't particularly impressed.
As CRPGs go I prefer the Ultima series.
I know, my brother was the one playing with his friends. All I did was read through the reference materials such as Player's Guide, DM Guide, Unearth Arcana, Monster Compendium etc., as well as toy around with the various sided dices.
ReplyDeleteThe original Dragonlance trilogy was quite compelling to me ... even gave me a new perspective to my own Christian faith (and I didn't even know the authors were Christian themselves).
ReplyDeleteSome of the earliest FR novels, such as Moonsea Trilogy and first 6 Drizzt novels, were still the best and far better than recent works.
Oh, and of course, the Finder's Stone Trilogy too, the authors Kate Novak & Jeff Grubb were fans of PG Wodehouse and paid homage to Jeeves and Wooster in the story, especially the 2nd book, Wyvern's Spur. Too bad they had not written any new ones for a long while.
I'd say TSR fantasy novels jumped the shark around the time they were going 3rd Edition.
I never read the Drizzt novels but did read the Moonsea one. They aren't bad but the thing is by the time I started reading them I was mightily tired of the whole cliched medieval fantasy world. There is a reason why I don't read high fantasy anymore but I have been given to understand I missed some gems here and there.
ReplyDeleteA few months ago I finished reading George R. R. Martin's A Game of Thrones (Five books and counting) not bad as such fantasy series goes. At least there are no elves. There is a dwarf but not in the sense of a fantastic race.
I think I understand that ... been there too.
ReplyDeleteSometimes, it's just a matter of timing.