More reports on animal cases to AVA

More than 9,500 cases of animal-related issues such as stray pets and alleged cruelty were reported to the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) last year, a spike of about 20 per cent from 2011.

The increase in feedback comes even as the AVA introduced a 24-hour hotline in August last year to respond to urgent cases such as animal abuse incidents more quickly.

Previously, people who called the hotline after office hours were directed to voice mail, and their feedback attended to on the next working day.

Now, the line is manned around the clock, and AVA officers will be on the ground within three hours to investigate alleged cruelty to animals, or if there is an immediate threat to people's safety.

More than seven in 10 of the 9,566 calls and e-mail messages last year were reports on stray animals or requests for the loaning and picking up of traps.

The AVA loans out free cages for the catching of monkeys.

"We also observed that cases about noise and smell nuisances from animals other than dogs jumped more than tenfold, from 48 cases in 2011 to 520 cases in 2012," said an AVA spokesman.

Last November, for example, The Straits Times reported on residents who wanted the AVA to remove Asian koels in their neighbourhoods, as the birds' early-morning calls disrupted their sleep.

The AVA said one reason for the rise in the number of cases is that it was appointed the lead government agency for animal-related issues in March last year.

Residents' concerns over crows and pigeons, for example, used to come under the purview of different agencies.

Now, the AVA handles all animal-related feedback and coordinates the response of the relevant agencies.

But animal activist groups here said they have also received more calls from concerned citizens to their own hotlines.

Ms Anbarasi Boopal, 30, director of the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (Acres) Wildlife Rescue Centre, said that calls to the society's 24-hour hotline have risen from about 70 a month two years ago to about 300 calls a month now.

"More people are aware of animal issues now, especially because of social media. We put up rescue stories on our Facebook page, and that helps to raise awareness," she said.

We really should be more aware of pet abuse. The increase of pet abuse is horrible. i don't know why people just eant to abuse the pets. Why do they even buy the pets in the first place. They should not have bought the pet. The pet would probably be taken care by a loving owner. I hope those pet abusers get caught.

Credits: http://news.asiaone.com/News/Latest+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20130311-407783.html

Ban children under 16 from buying pets, says SPCA

Children aged under 16, who do not have the maturity or means to take care of pets, should be banned from buying them.

This was one of the recommendations made by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) in a draft proposal calling for the Government to make changes to the animal cruelty act by end of this year, reported The Straits Times (ST).

SPCA suggested that teenagers are more prone to impulse buying, which could lead to pets being abandoned once the novelty wears off.

According to the same report, the society also wants the Government to ban animal cruelty offenders from keeping pets, to publish a list of what constitutes as animal cruelty, and to double the maximum penalties of those who abuse animals.

Between July last year and June this year, SPCA received 987 reports of animal cruelty, which is a 15 per cent spike compared to the preceeding 12 months. Of which, dogs being confined in cages for extended periods made up a third of the most recent complaints.

It recommended that having tougher penalties could deter offenders from causing harm to animals. For example, by increasing fines for animal abuse offences to $20,000 or up to two years' jail or both. In addition, fines collected could be channelled toward a fund for the care of animals.

Banning the sale of pets to under-16s without parental consent could also be another way to deal with problem, said the society, citing a case study that teenagers in Europe are not allowed to buy animals unless a parent is present.

It also said that there have been cases of abusers avoiding prosecution due to uncertainty about what counts as mental suffering to animals, which it claimed was not sufficiently covered under the current law.

It questioned practices such as the use of electric collars and other painful aids to train pets, shortening their tails for cosmetic reasons and keeping animals prone to fighting, like Siamese fighting fish, in close quarters.

'It is necessary to recognise that brutal cruelty is not the only way to harm an animal,' it said in its draft.

The society also recommended a committee separate from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority (AVA) be set up to advise the Government on animal welfare matters.

I think that children under 16 should be banned from buying pets as they do not have the time to take care of them. They also do not know the needs of the pets and just let them be caged up. The pets should be given freedom to move around freely and play around. Some children will also lose interest in the pets after buying them, and they would just abandon them. They should think carefully before making a choice as the pet's life is in the choice.

Credits to:http://news.asiaone.com/News/AsiaOne+News/Singapore/Story/A1Story20111106-309026.html

Attitudes toward animal abuse

The recent case of a Pomeranian battered to death by a man who remains at large brought tears to the eyes of animal lovers who heard about the incident through news reports. Sympathetic people must have asked themselves: Could no one have stepped in to help? The poor dog must have been terrified and baffled, and throughout its ten minutes of horror before death finally took it, it must have wondered why none of the other humans standing around would intervene on its behalf.

When a dog’s life is worth less than a pack of beer
While some may suggest that Singaporeans are generally apathetic, or fear getting involved in matters beyond their personal affairs, others say that the people of this country do not empathise much with animals, which is why no one has come forward to identify the killer of the Pomeranian despite the offer of a large cash reward. Such lack of empathy may also be the reason why cases of pet abuse seem to be on the rise here.

If that is true, then laws against animal abuse should result in more severe punishment. Longer jail terms and bigger fines will help to send the message that abusing an animal is not a small matter with minor repercussions, but a serious offence that warrants serious action. When that message gets through, even people who do not empathise with non-humans will be more likely to refrain from animal abuse, or stop others from committing animal abuse, purely out of the awareness that a serious crime is being committed.

Yet, the heaviest sentences I have seen meted out include a mere six weeks’ jail for a man who killed a kitten in 2004, and a three-month jail term which a judge turned into a $1,500 fine for a man who kicked a Boxer to death in 1999.

Offenders who have stolen beer and sweets from supermarkets without physically injuring anyone or anything have been jailed for longer than that. Is the life of a dog or cat really worth less than a few packs of alcohol and chocolate? Is that the message our society wants to send out?

What constitutes animal abuse?
Psychologists and other experts who advise that animal abusers be prosecuted or counselled often say that it is wise to re-educate such offenders and keep an eye on them because those who kill or maim animals may go on to kill or maim humans.

While that is a sensible argument for getting through to people who don’t care for animals, it is interesting that we are obliged to resort to it at all. Shouldn’t abusing an animal be an appalling act in itself? Must it be prevented only because of the possibility that humans may later be harmed? Surely the animal’s life is of value in itself.

One difficulty in preventing animal abuse, though, is that people’s definitions of what constitutes abuse may differ. To one person, abuse involves inflicting serious and permanent physical harm on an animal; to another, it means depriving a pampered pet of luxuries.

Between those extremes is a range of acts that may include caning, smacking, confinement in small spaces, tying up the pet, failure to provide adequate food and water, failure to provide shelter from the elements, failure to provide companionship, failure to give the pet adequate exercise, depriving the pet of rest, pressuring the pet to perform tricks, failing to provide adequate medical attention, frightening or intimidating the animal, sending inconsistent disciplinary messages, causing unnecessary stress, and not providing love and affection.

To some pet owners, some of those acts are abusive; to other pet owners, some of those acts are part of the normal relationship between animals and humans. Those who campaign for animal rights consider slaughtering a chicken for food cruel and abusive; those who make a living selling meat regard slaughtering chickens as acceptable so long as the chickens aren’t pets, and are killed quickly, without unnecessary suffering.

People who take one position are not easily converted to another. However, definitions and societal tolerance may change over time, along with changes in society. Gradually, more people are seeing that causing emotional suffering and distress to a pet can be as abusive as harming it physically.

Even if a pet is not permanently or seriously hurt, but is a neurotic wreck because it never knows when it will or will not be punished, should that not be considered abuse? If a pet is regularly threatened, or tied up or confined to a cage all day, is that not abusive?

People attitudes towards pets are getting from bad to worst. They just abuse their pets like they are just an object. They even just abandoned the pets after abusing them without treating their wounds. They are so cruel! They should be caught and handed over to the police. Pets are also living creatures. They have feelings too. We should not just treat them like they are a object. Pets are the most loyal to you compared to people. The abusers even caused their pets to have psychological problems and the pets become mentally unstable. We should give our utmost care to the pets. Pet abusers should be disgusted of themself, for harming such a innocent little creature.