Jul 2, 2006, 11:53 PM
U r the one who dunno the meaning of dog lover!!
Re: [straychampion] A Real Shock
Are you breeding pedigrees? No, I never rear pedigree b4, all the dogs i have are mongrels but how it is related i'm not a dog lover?I rescue stray puppies and re-home them....so far i have successfully give 4 stray pups and will be added 5 soon a good home and I visit them now whenever I think of them. do u do that?
A true dog lover doesnt mean he/she need to keep all the dogs in the world under his/her care...if all the dogs lover acting like that owner, then what the use of SPCA and PAWS?? one must think for the dogs and his abilities, it's not enough by just thinking u love the dogs and want to keep them by ur side, one must be considerate towards his neighbours. U must be rockers to think that Mr Eng wants to keep 25 dogs by his side. The sane ones will believe that he has no other options. He rescued those dogs and I'm sure he wants the best for them. Not to have them Put To Sleep at some society for the prevention of cruelty to animals. he indeed wants the best for the dogs but he chooses the wrong way when the council warned him to remove the dogs and he still keeping them. if the council was unknown of it, then of cos the best for the dogs are under his care rather than send to SPCA but since the council has purposely come to deal with him the problem, and he still stand against them, then the best for the dogs is to remove them either put for adoption or send to SPCA. Sending them to SPCA would be last choice, although he knows they will PTS, but doesn't he knows the council will shoot his dogs if he ignore the warning? don't tell me, he'll think that the council will 'so kind' help him re-locate the dogs, I never heard such news that the council will do any other move than gunned down the dogs. here is Malaysia, not US, where u see animal police will seize the dogs from the owner and send to animal shelter. unless the dogs are really good behavior, very tame, they might think to help to remove the dogs, but how can u expect the dogs will react that way when they see the officers are coming to catch them? so the dogs sure gunned down even they bark only one time to the officer. I'm sure that owner know the officer will come to him to shoot the dogs at any time....the officer has give warning to him...why he still take it for granted?? he is taking the risk that the officer wont shoot his dogs??? Yeah, I'm sure the council would have given warning. 'Hello, I'm coming now to shoot your dogs. Please open the gate. Thank you'. U are missing the point. The point is that they could have removed the dogs, not murdered them this way. By all means, punish the owner, not the animals. They could have forcefully removed the animals, but I guess these are dogs, that's why they get shot so mercilessly. If it's cats, I wonder............. the owner sure will be punish, i know he has receive summons from the council. although his dogs are dead, he still need to pay for the summons, whether he will going to jail or not, I dunno. on that morning, when that group of officers come to shoot, Mr.Eng can negotiate with them, he can do anything to save the dogs life even begging in front of them, promising them the dogs will be remove by that day. if he willing to negotiate with them, the ending might not be same. The officers might not be take such cruel action if they see Mr.Eng has the sincere to comply the rules. I have negotiate with those dog cathers few times, I know they r not so merciless, if u willing to coorperate with them. imagine urself living next to him.....i'm so sure u wont stand the noise and bad smell from the dogs (if the dogs are noisy and smelly), if u tell me u can stand it....then u must cheating urself....it's really over to keep 25 dogs in a TERRACE house where the rules only permited 2 dogs.....if they r kept in a detached house or farm....then is acceptable. I don't have to cheat myself. I would not have done what the sneaky neighbours did, for I would have thought of the fate of the dogs and nothing else, should I have made a report to the council. I may not know your meaning of a dog lover, but to me a true dog lover is to help any dogs, be it pedigree or otherwise.
I din say tat u cheating urself is mean u'll report to the council. what i mean is u can't accept that kind of noise and stench from the dogs if the dogs are really smelly and noisy, if the dogs are not making so much noise and not smelly, i think everyone will tolerate that. if the dogs are really nuisance and u live next to him, ur emotion won't get disturb? won't u go and talk to Mr.Eng? if yes, means u can't stand with it la....the word noisy and smelly give diff meaning to everyone, so the tolerate level also diff. Maybe mr. eng's dogs are not that nuisance to u, but to his neighbours, they really feel being disturb every day and night, they r his neighbours, they will live there maybe for the rest of their life, so u expect them to endure for rest of their life with noise and smell pollution?? maybe the neighbours had talk to Mr.eng b4 reporting to council, and maybe mr. eng has try his best to solve that problem, but if the problem still exists, u can't blame the neighbours to take such action to report to council.
the owner can send the dogs to any of the community that willing to adopt the dogs like SPCA...i know sending them to SPCA sumtimes it's a death sentence for them, the probabilty to put to sleep is very high but better than stand against with the council How smart! Knowing it's sending something to die and yet doing it. Why not such true dog lover like yourself do something? if really no choice, no one to adopt the dogs, and u know the council will come to shoot ur dogs at anytime, u still dun wan to send them to SPCA??u still want to keep them in ur house and fight against with the council who equip with guns?? sending them to SPCA doesn't 100% the dogs will PTS. they might get adopted by someone else. if really PTS, they died in peaceful way, no suffer. many people think sending the dogs to SPCA like 100% sending them to death, so when they dun wan to rear the dogs anymore, they will release them in the wild with the hope they can survice as long as they can rather than sending them to SPCA. but this is absolutely wrong. other case like mr.eng, keeping more than limit of dogs, they think the dogs are keeping in their own premises, they have the rights to keep anything in their own place as long as the things is not illegal. dog is not illegal possesion so the people will think they r not commiting crime, y the council will come to disturb them?? But the reality dun permit them to do that even they r doing good things. U always can't win from them...they always have reasons to support their cruel act....like in newspaper reported, the neighbours said they like the dogs, no one complaint and the dogs are not making so much noise, but what the council said? it's totally different....i;m sure the people will believe the neighbour rather than the council....but the council won't lose anything although the public know they lies about the truth.....
That's right! Kowtow to them. 'Yessir, please shoot. We're at your mercy'. (Few minutes later) 'Thank you for following the rules and doing my neighbours a favour by shooting my dogs. Eternally grateful'. Such weaklings we are!!! we r not weaklings, it's just that we cannot do anything....u think no people stand up for the animals arguing with the council?? what is the result?? the council always has or maybe create evidence to make public belief they have no other choices other than shooting the dogs. like in this case, they even have warrant from court to enter the premise to shoot the dogs where the actual law they can't do that without the presence of the owner. u see the newspaper reports, the council has give many reasons for themself to make public know that they have done at their best like: the court order stated that they think to tranquilize the dogs, they r not coming to shoot the dogs. i believe the truth is they indeed coming to shoot the dogs. tranquilize is only used for the dogs which are very tame, no bark, wagging the tails. they have no choice to shoot the dogs bcause the dogs r attacking them. aren't they should know the dogs will attack them in that situation? or they expect the dogs will be very quiet, no bark, licking them when the officers approach them??if they dun wan them to attack, they should be friendly to dogs, treat them nicely before taking such cruel action. they didn't give the chance to dogs to familiar with them. this is called no choice?? they said they have receive numerous of complaint from neighbours if it's true, show evidence, they must have record the complainers details. i'm not saying show to public...at least they need to proove that many neighbours complaint about the dogs. I know although no one complain, they purposely want the dogs die....they won't let it go once they know u breaking the rules. I have the experience where the officers will drop by my house 3-4 times a year to check my house. last year 2005, they came about 4 times. this year 2006, they have come 2 times, and i am expecting they will come again no longer although now i have obey the rules. i'm not arguing the way the dogs died ..it's indeed a cruel and mercilessly killing..i know the council should have choosen a humane way to handle the dogs rather than shooting them but here is malaysia....it's the rules....we can't and dunno how to change this rules.....so as a true dog lover, one must obey this rules too for the sake of the dogs by not keeping more than the limit permited by the council.
Shooting animals in your own compound (does it include the owner?) A Malaysian rule? This is certainly something very new. Thanks for your enlightenment. Any other rules that u know and I don't, but I should. I wonder when the rule will be changed to shooting people who are noisy and dirty. Good for the council u are so law abiding. Indeed, lucky Malaysia, to have such a citizen like u. Just obey whatever the council chooses to dish out without a squeak. the owner wont get hurt....they will pull the owner out of the house b4 shoot the dogs so that the owner can't disturb them and not getting hurt. U think they will so stupid shooting the dogs when the owner is free to protect the dogs?? if u really want to protest the council and u think u can make a difference for the animals, why u dun take the trouble to make official complaint?? dun just sit here facing the computer and write so many things stated u really a pure dog lover. once u got bad record listed with them....they will always come to ur house to disturb u until u fully obey to the rules..the officers never and wont let it go....they wont tolerate or sympathy u and ur dogs.....i have once kept 4 dogs in my house for 2 years, I got summon 4 times (RM200 each time) and the officers always PAY VISIT to my house, one year sure come 3-4 times to check u and warn u to remove the dogs although no one complain my dogs, at that time I did like what that owner did....I also rent a house for my dogs (RM200/month) just to keep my dogs on day time, at night I took them back to my house....I'm LUCKY because the officers were not so straight maybe they see me I'm a girl and advised me to remove my dogs, if not the police will come to my house, if i'm not lucky, i'm sure they will shoot my dogs too,....so never take it for granted....dun take the risk to against the officer if u know u r wrong......i know from what i told u, i;m taking the risk too but I still want to advise people not to take such risk for the sake of ur dogs, if u keep more than the limit, plz do sumthing else like renting a another house or put for adoption....
I'm glad to see that u take such trouble for your dogs. Mr Eng may not be that lucky to have resources at hand. My point is still the council beasts can't just enter and shoot the dogs as they please. in this case is diff, the council has obtained the court order to enter the premise to shoot the dogs. because they tolerate with him at their maximum level, mr. eng still dun wan to comply after few negotiations and 6 months grace period to remove the dogs, i think they got rights to enter his premise in this case but shooting the dogs in the house is another subject. for normal case, of cos the officer can't enter the premise to shoot the dogs because they dun have warrant.
for acknowledgement....the officers will come at ANY TIME...no matter day or night, weekdays or weekends, holiday or not.... for the intention to KILL ur dogs. dun think it's holiday or midnight, they won't come....they r very cunning.... What an understatement. Cunning? They beat the fox hands down. So, where does all this leave us for the future? Keep on kowtowing............. Why don't we address the issues at hand? 1. why don't the municipal councils do their jobs - go after the owners who abandon animals, instead of doing target practice with their guns? No abandonment - no strays - no rescue - no overlimit - no shooting or SPCA's favourite PTS 2. why don't SPCA live up to its name? In case the committee members have forgotten the acronym - SPCA stands for SOCIETY FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRUELTY TO ANIMALS. How does SPCA classify the latest act by the Seremban council? Doing their job for them - prevention or PTS? 3. if SPCA or PAWS is effective, there won't be so many independent rescuers, a good example is Mr Eng, and a good many more that I know. 4. if SPCA or PAWS or other organisations dealing with animals make their presence felt strongly enough (9 on the Richter scale), the authorities would be more cautious and not simply do anything they fancy just because they are dogs. 5. the veterinary council - why doesn't it ask its members not to concentrate so much on the profit and loss, instead give more reasonable rates to pet owners. If charges are so exorbitant, like what vets are charging now, some owners with sick animals have no choice but to abandon or PTS, which they also have to pay, but it's cheaper than the treatment itself. To all of us: Let's get off our comfortable b**ts and do something before the council decides to be trigger happy. Few precedents have been set and it gets easier each time. We are dealing with some lunatic council people in Malaysia who should be locked up in an asylum. The exists of Indepedent Rescuers doesn't mean the SPCA and PAWS are not good in handling the animals....we need more organization like this to provide more shelter to help the homeless animals. we cannot fully depend on just SPCA and PAWS to help the animals as their space and funds are very limited to help every homeless animals.