|
|
|
|
Last Updated: Feb 6, 2017 - 2:32:04 PM |
Fred Mitchell MP
Notes on Animal Protection and Control Act 2010
House of Assembly
Nassau
19th May 2010
This is an interesting one.
The public may well ask about his government’s priorities.
Why in the midst of a recession, the worst economic crisis in this country’s recent history are we discussing this bill… Has Parliament literally gone to the dogs this morning?
And we thought about it long and hard: we have a moral responsibility to take care of the animals because they cannot take care of themselves.
That is presumably the government’s rationale for this but the corollary to that is this: the government must treat people like people and not as if they were brutish beasts that have no reason. And so many of the policies of this administration do just that, they have dehumanized families, traumatized lives, destroyed homes.
I think of Sandra McDonald this morning who tells me that she has been fired by social services, having lost her daughter, charged for manslaughter, now she is on the dole. This is a system in my opinion gone terribly wrong. And just as we will speak for the animals this morning. The PLP must ask the question this morning: who will speak for the poor men and women and the unemployed who themselves see that they have no voice.
So as we begin this debate, I want to say that we support this legislation today but say this also: a government must take care of its people and properly take care of them if its people are to properly take care of the animals.
The intent of this bill is deadly serious. It is one of these bills that have to be done to bring the country into the modern world. But as I shall try to point out: the two issues that arise with regard to this bill have to do with its enforceability and the issue of public education.
The Treasury forgot to order dog licences one year.
Specifically draw your attention to Clauses 23 the creation of Roaming Animal Offence; Clause 24 the Procedure when a roaming animal is found or seized.
Also Clause 27 The Control of Dogs
A person who keeps a dog commits an offence if the dog: a. repeatedly makes noise to annoyance of one or more persons in the neighbourhood; b. deposits faeces on property other than property of the keeper and the person fails to collect the faeces, and dispose of it in a reasonable manner; or c. repeatedly soils, with urine or faces, property of or under the care of, another person without that person’s consent.
2. The fact that frequent barking or howling occurs at the premises to the annoyance of one or more persons in the neighbourhood is evidence of an offence against subsection 1(a). That is fifty dollar fine; aggravated offence 5000 dollars or six months in prison. Police can issue you a ticket.
Clause 23: the Roam offence (read it) Fine of 250 dollars.
Under 24 1, any member of the public can seize the animal and take it to the Department or a recognized society.
Clause 32: Requirement for a certificate of inspection. You have six months to get a certificate of inspection from the competent authority for an animal holding facility. One thousand dollar fine.
After four days if the owner is not found, the dog can be destroyed.
All of these provisions are new.
They raise questions about enforceability because they are new and the question is given the regime of the bill, the creation of a new corps of animal control wardens, who will presumably be specially trained to deal with the regime of this bill. I ask: can we afford it? Is the public ready for it?
A few weeks ago, there was a problem in Fox Hill. No garbage had been collected. I was told that there may have been industrial action connected with this. The result of it was garbage was piling up and dogs were beginning to attack the grange, roaming packs of gods in the constituency.
If you have a public function, you leave the garbage; you find dogs coming up on the site interfering with the garbage and the throwaways.
When people are walking in the morning, dogs are everywhere in packs scavenging and at times interfering with the people.
The feral dogs and cats. In Abaco cats destroying besting areas for parrots. In Nassau and in the islands, sheep are being destroyed by packs of dogs.
The Humane Society says that given the present regimes, the police simply cannot deal with the demands of the problem and a new regime is needed.
Also, there is a need for more effective means of dealing with people who are cruel to animals.
The people who have pet shops and who breed dogs will now have to get a licence to do so and will have to meet certain standards.
( Deal with the provisions listed above in extenso)
The public now needs to know that dogs have to be confined, that they cannot go about without a leash, that they can be seized if they are roaming, and so one asks has it been consider that dogs are community property and the notion of keeping a dog confined not readily accepted. This will now change.
As we grow as a community, my 2020 vision for developed country. 500,000 people. Need for rules to keep social life safe and comfortable. But the public has to buy into this otherwise its unenforceable
What does the Minister say on the issue of public education on this new regime?
This will fail just as the present law does if there is no public education, if you do not bring the pubic alone.
I am certain people out there are asking why are we debating about dogs when there are more important issues.
I like what the rep Tip Burrows of the Grand Bahama Humane Society had to say:
When we ignore deficiencies, helpless creatures amongst us, the longer we ignore it the greater the problem becomes.
They cannot in Grand Bahama keep up with the demands from east to west and they support this bill because it promises a partnership with the government to get the jobs done. They get calls from West End to MacLean’s Town.
Their budgetary shortfall is about 15,000-20,000 per month.
Their food bill alone is some 12,000, There are now 389 dogs in their care.
Given the recession, people are simply abandoning their dogs. There is s food program to feed to dogs
People are constantly complaining about strays in GBI and the Humane Society up there responds.
My discussions with the humane society about the export of dogs, the Bahamian potcake.
The argument then is the moral obligation which we have to protect the creatures lesser than us.
Humane society talks about reports from tourist and second home owners who we invite here and the strays, and injured dogs and our international reputation. The need to do something to get this in order.
The issue of selling sick and genetically inferior dogs, improper breeding.
The pit bull problem.
The spaying and neutering programme, which the Bahamas Humane Society will do.
Tribute to Kim Arahana, Frances Singer Hayward on the development of this bill.
Pledge our support
But we warn the government. Just as we are moving to protect the animals, your policies must be to help people and not make their situations worse.
You must make a pledge to transition this legislation so that the public is brought alone and not pushed into a construct which is worse than where we started.
There must be a commitment to public education on this.
But in the end we do this because people come first.
© Copyright 2010 by thebahamasweekly.com
Top of Page
|
|
|
|
