Please note that I will not be posting the responses from management (if any are forthcoming) in full due to privacy concerns (it isn’t ethical to post emails from other people unless they have expressly made them public). I will, however, post key pieces of information from any such communications.
* * * * *
Tessa Houghton
To: HO SENG TAT
Cc: Estate Office, SANDY LOKE LAI MOOI, CHRISTINE ENNEW
Re: Stray dogs Issue
Dear all,
I’d just like to add a few issues of note to this. I was planning to write this email re: the planned desexing programme anyway, but seeing as the group has already sent the previous email I am writing this now.
The spaying programme we are planning will be funded by donations, and will be applied to dogs both on campus and in TTS, because they are all the same ‘territory’. (We already have, as of this morning, donations to the value of 6 and a half fully funded RM300 operations, and this is purely from me personally approaching colleagues over the last 4 days to ask for ‘seed donations’). Most of our students live in TTS and are directly affected by the stray dog population there, not just on campus. Spayed dogs will be identified either by ear notching or collars. This method is proven, over, and over, to be the best method of dealing with stray dog populations in developing countries, both in terms of reducing dog numbers and reducing aggression related incidents. See the links below for more detail, but I have posted a few bits of information below as well:
“Why don’t euthanasia programmes work in the developing world?
Studies by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (Ministry of Environment & Forests) show that dog population control measures which work in developed countries are unsuccessful in third world developing countries, since urban conditions are very different. The urban environment here encourages breeding of stray dogs, so no matter how many dogs were killed, they were quickly replaced by more.
If stray dog population control is the issue, wouldn’t it make more sense to kill the dogs or take them away?
Removal or killing of stray dogs seems to be the most obvious method of controlling the population, but it has actually proved to be completely useless. This is because even when large numbers of dogs are killed, the conditions that sustain dog populations remain unchanged. Dogs are territorial and each one lives in its own specific area. When they are removed, the following things happen:
- The food source – garbage – is still available in abundance, so dogs from neighbouring areas enter the vacant territories.
- Pups born and growing up in the surrounding areas also move in to occupy these vacant niches.
- The few dogs who escape capture and remain behind attack these newcomers, leading to frequent and prolonged dog-fights.
- Since they are not sterilised, all the dogs who escape capture continue to mate, leading to more fighting.
- In the course of fights, dogs often accidentally redirect their aggression towards people passing by, so many humans get bitten.
- Females with pups become aggressive and often attack pedestrians who come too close to their litter.
- They breed at a very high rate (two litters of pups a year). It has been estimated that two dogs can multiply to over 300 in three years.
Since dogs who are removed are quickly replaced, the population does not decrease at all. The main factors leading to dog aggression – migration and mating – continue to exist, so the nuisance factor remains.
Since removal of dogs actually increases dog-related problems, the effective solution is to sterilise the dogs, and put them back in their own areas.
Can’t some of the dogs be released in another place?
Since they would be entering the territory of other dogs, there would be a lot of fighting in the area in which they are released, and in the process more humans would get bitten. Their original territories would also be left vacant, so new dogs would enter… and the stray dog problem would go on forever.”
Links to research:
https://unmcaw.wordpress.com/stray-dogs-in-the-developing-world/
If dogs are being removed indiscriminately, then this will directly undo any of the good achieved by the spaying programme, which is, in my opinion, unacceptable, if the larger wellbeing of the student body is what is in question. This is before we even start considering the corporate responsibility issues involved with ‘relocating’ strays from this area into a new area, which actually creates a dangerously volatile situation to do with territory disputes – and is, in effect, highly inhumane in terms of the stress it places on the ‘new dogs’ (the relocated ones). And I know efforts have been made to secure the campus, but it is my belief that there is no way to effectively close the campus off short of deer fences, and the gates being manned by people who are paid well enough to actually care about keeping the dogs out. The fences in place could have easily been scaled by the dog I had while growing up, and she wasn’t even of a ‘jumping’ breed.
I thoroughly agree that any aggressive dogs should be dealt with, and cannot remain on campus. As I have said, IMO they either need to be put down, or, at the very least, desexed before being relocated so as to mitigate against future aggression. I still don’t agree with the relocation for reasons previously outlined, but I appreciate the attempt to avoid euthanasia, even though I think it is misguided in this instance.
My request is this: Any dogs clearly identified as spayed (ear-notched or collared) should:
- Not be removed from campus.
- Failing this, they should be relocated to TTS so the students can at least have the benefits accruing from having a spayed dog population around their homes, rather than these dogs being removed and new, unfixed dogs moving in.
Tessa
* * * * *
HO SENG TAT
To: Estate Office
Cc: TESSA HOUGHTON, SANDY LOKE LAI MOOI
Subject: Stray dogs Issue
Hi Estate Office,
I have been informed that Estate office have ordered to get a dog catcher on campus, and catch and relocate stray dogs on campus. While we have a group of students on the Facebook and planning future spaying programs for stray dogs on campus. The reason is simple, catching dog and relocating dog is not a permanent and efficient solution. By that I understand there are a group of dogs acting aggressive on campus and that will be a potential threat to the campus. It is totally okay to handle dog issue with humane and proper way, but we would like to know what is the plan from the Estate Office to tackle the dog issue. Keep on catch them to somewhere else? We are not sure what estate office is doing. Therefore, we would want a proper answer to monitor and protect animals.
My concern is simple. Who are the dog catcher coming from? Are they professional in handling stray dogs? If not, are they handle dogs without damaging dogs? Where are the dogs will be relocated? Also, The cost of relocating the dogs may be better to de-sex dogs on campus and That will reduce dog aggressiveness and lower dog population. Any unclear regarding this email, feel free to visit the facebook group as we have been planning how to tackle the dog issue in an efficient and ethical way. https://www.facebook.com/groups/UNMCAnimalWelfare/
Please do response. Our group wants transparency regarding how campus management dealing with dog issues.
Sincerely,
Sengtat.
UNMC Animal Welfare Group 