snoopydog
Enthusiast
Feb 21, 2004, 2:16 AM
Post #24 of 35
(15660 views)
Shortcut
|
Re: [ALL] The MPSJ ruling of dog ownership -questions answered.
[In reply to]
|
Can't Post
|
|
Hi everyone, here are some contrasting views from The Star readers. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dogged by biased ruling THE recently introduced ruling by the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) compelling dog owners to seek permission from their immediate neighbours in order to obtain a dog licence has generated a lot of displeasure and resentment as it is humiliating. While we certainly should sympathise with some residents who are being terrorised by their neighbours’ dogs, it is questionable whether there is a need to have such a draconian one-sided ruling on dog licensing. The MPSJ should, instead, act diligently on complaints against errant dog-owners and also round up the strays. The lingering problem that some terrorised residents might have been facing is akin to the traffic congestion caused by errant motorists and restaurant operators. When there is lack of enforcement or none at all, it is easily understandable to see the blatant persistence of misconduct amongst errant dog owners, motorists and restaurant owners. Hence, it all boils down to enforcement. This new regulation is biased against responsible dog owners in a number of respects. It is an undue violation of their private property rights. Though not all of them have vicious neighbours, some who are unfortunate may find themselves being denied the right to keep dogs as pets within their very own premises by unreasonable neighbours. Some may have to constantly please their neighbours so as not to risk the prospect of not being able to renew their dog licences when the time comes. While aggrieved residents could at least complain to MPSJ of the nuisance posed by their neighbours’ dogs, what recourse would be available to those being unfairly denied the opportunity to keep dogs as pets? Can they complain to MPSJ as well? Furthermore, some may end up not being able to maintain dogs as an added security to their homes, against thefts and burglaries. The ruling is not only unjust to humans but to dogs as well. Just because there are rogue ones amongst them, should we dismiss all of them as such? Dogs have also contributed to humanity in many ways. One instance would be their role in emergency rescue operations. DR E.C. TAN, Subang Jaya. (via e-mail) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dog licence ruling can bring back quiet nights I REFER to the letter, “Dogged by biased ruling”, (The Star, Feb 19). Sure, everybody has the right to keep pets, such as dogs. I, too, like dogs. At the same time, people also have the right to quiet and uninterrupted nights of sleep. My neighbour, two doors away, owns a dog which barks most nights around 4am to be taken for a walk! His owner brings him out after the dog has woken up almost half the neighbourhood. Inconsiderate dog owners also think nothing of letting their dogs defecate right in front of other people’s houses. The Subang Jaya Municipal Council’s new ruling requiring owners to seek their immediate neighbours' consent for a dog licence may not be the perfect solution. But it’s a start. ANNOYED, Petaling Jaya. (via e-mail)
|