Αρχική Δεσποζόμενα και αδέσποτα ζώα συντροφιάςΆρθρο 9 Περισυλλογή και διαχείριση αδέσποτων ζώων συντροφιάςΣχόλιο του χρήστη Valerie Peach | 7 Απριλίου 2011, 16:34
Υπουργείο Αγροτικής Ανάπτυξης και Τροφίμων Δικτυακός Τόπος Διαβουλεύσεων OpenGov.gr Ανοικτή Διακυβέρνηση |
Πολιτική Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα Πολιτική Ασφαλείας και Πολιτική Cookies Όροι Χρήσης Πλαίσιο Διαλόγου |
Creative Commons License Με Χρήση του ΕΛ/ΛΑΚ λογισμικού Wordpress. |
9) I seriously question the term “natural environment” a puppy born in a shelter does not have a natural environment to move back to. First and foremost sterilisation is an essential requirement. Further, a dogs natural environment is with, and alongside human beings. Taking animals into shelters and if not adopted taking them back to areas where they have been found and boasting the provision of animal welfare is totally insufficient and unacceptable. Many of these animals arrive emaciated, with ill health or injuries they are collected from hostile environments treated and then - returned ? More than this is required. Ongoing provision of care should be provided - feeding stations - health checks and maintenance and above all the acceptance via education and participation of local communities to treat stray animals with respect. At four months of age to place a puppy back on the streets is too young and it’s too dangerous. Above all else it should be sterilised before any release, it also needs ongoing maintenance and support from both the municipality and the community. 10) These specified areas have been chosen from misinformation. No such restrictions should apply other than places which present danger to the animals. With the acceptance and co operation of people in authority in these “outlawed” areas many animals may be welcome and be cared for. Small numbers of “sterilised” and healthy community owned dogs can find and be accepted as companions. Hospitals have in the past maintained small groups of animals well cared for and respected by employers and employees. Patients have benefited, especially children. Schools are IDEAL places for placing stray animals, working with schools and pupils to support and care for stray animals is a wonderful way to introduce the advantages of animal ownership, animals needs and human responsibilities to them. With planning and forethought this could be a wonderful educational experience where children learn about animals and dispel old myths and misinformation. Organised dog walks with children on nature trails, competitions between schools for the best cared for community owned dog – a trophy to win and compete for. Children themselves could help provide food for the animals and build shelters. Vets could arrange visits to the schools to answer questions provide information generate an interest to own a companion animal (and benefit from increased animal ownership and necessary animal care service). All of this could provide tremendous progress towards the respect of both dogs and cats and would be hugely beneficial to the animals themselves. There are many progressive ways forward on this theme and I really think this is worth exploring. Companies who have contained grounds and employee participation could easily give a community home to a few strays and be responsible community owners – Municipalities themselves could provide permanent homes for a couple of strays in their grounds and lead the way forward. Areas of high tourist traffic – why on earth has this been specified as a no go area ? Tourists accept animals, they like animals are not distressed or put off my healthy well cared for animals – sick and neglected YES......Stray animals seek the companionship of human beings and interaction with them and of course they are drawn to areas where there is access to food. The pre requisite throughout these proposals is the absolute necessity of sterilisation the tackling of animal management cannot succeed without this. The acceptance of local communities is so much easier to gain if it is explained that the animals which they agree to watch over are not going to double and triple in numbers 11) Following the rectification of an illegal act Greece has reinstated the right for overseas veterinarians to work here. It was, and is their legal right to practice in this country which needs to be understood and accepted. However, heavy restrictions are still in place much of this is unnecessary and bureaucratic. This needs improving. Again....the specification is that these vets must work with municipalities, when experience is, that many municipalities are disinterested and dismissive. Lengthy expensive Greek translations for official documents needs simplification. Continued harassment from local veterinarians needs to be attended. Veiled threats to animal organisations have been issued “if they work with these vets” I have read comments here which state that Greek veterinarians suffer from loss of work because of these visits by overseas vets their livelihoods are threatened. If this is the case, then the Greek government should be urged to employ Greek veterinarians on the same basis as overseas volunteers are employed and enable them to offer the same services - free sterilisation for all stray cats and dogs. There is ample work for this program for everyone who is concerned. I fail to see or understand the outrage expressed by Greek veterinarians concerning this. Isn’t it time that the Greek government recognised the need, accepted the responsibility and negotiated with Greek veterinary services to commence free mass sterilisation by government subsidy for all stray animals? It is unreasonable for some members of the Greek veterinary services to still create antagonism and be obstructive towards volunteer vets. They do after all provide valuable and essential free sterilisation services which greatly assists a tiny percentage of stray animals and animal workers in Greece. If the Greek veterinary services and its members are losing money because of this they should reflect that these animals are cared for by volunteers that the payment for their services depends upon charity, donations, appeals, bazaars, and events all conducted by volunteers and provided by concerned people, and that charges made by some veterinarians are crippling and extorionate. Further, the remedy is in their own hands, if they wish to help this country’s image and reputation and above all assist animals in a humane way to bring the overpopulation of strays under control and create further business for themselves by so doing, the way forward is clear. Spearhead a campaign to achieve this with Government acceptance of responsibility, promotion, backing and subsidies. There is after all a great many stray animals who need their services, far, far more than the infinitesimal numbers who receive compassionate, free medical care and treatment from the valuable services of volunteer vets. 12) Many municipalities present themselves on smartly designed websites the costs to them nominal as these are heavily sponsored by the EU – These represent FREE pages to promote the cause of stray animals. Advertise for free their animals services, their local animal associations, where to obtain help, animals for adoption, animal information advice and help. I have visited many hundreds of municipality webpage’s only one has any mention of stray animals. I have written and suggested this to many others, but never received a response. There are many ways to promote the cause for animal who need care - for free or at very low cost – none are utilised or used. 15) This needs extending to Animal organisations present licensed shelters and new proposed shelters. There seems little validation to issue grants to local authorities to start from scratch when shelters which already exist could be extended helped and maintained with less financial commitment. These organisations have the expertise and knowledge they achieve adoptions, produce accounts and are accountable what they seriously lack is essential government finance and support. Municipalities have the habit of erecting animal shelters in remote inaccessible areas. As a result they appear to create places to hide animals rather than promote public participation. To facilitate and encourage public access and interaction enhances the possibilities for greater understanding and animal adoption