See this posting
From: Hon Mun WONG <WONG_Hon_Mun@ava.gov.sg>
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 2009 18:05:20 +0800
To: ******
Dear *****
I refer to your email of 18 Nov 09 to the CEO of AVA.
We would like to inform you that as a public service, the AVA offers the loan of cat traps only to residents who are troubled by stray cats going into their premises. Nevertheless the borrower is advised to contact the Centre for Animal Welfare and Control (CAWC) of AVA for the prompt collection of any cats trapped and not to set the trap on Friday, Saturday and the eve of a public holiday.
Furthermore the borrower is informed that it is an offence to subject an animal to cruelty and to ensure any animal trapped is not subject to ill-treatment or injury. Should you have any evidence of any ill treatment or cruelty to stray cats trapped by a resident, please inform us. We will not hesitate to take action against the offender. The penalty is a fine of up to $10,000 and/or up to 12 months jail.
It will be very much appreciated if you could help convey this message to your fellow bloggers and friends. I would like to emphasise that AVA does not condone any animal cruelty acts.
Thank you.
Best regards
Dr Wong Hon Mun | Deputy Director | Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority
Tel +65 63257837 | Fax +65 62206068 | Website www.ava.gov.sg
To: Hon Mun WONG
Sent: Friday, November 20, 2009 6:32 PM
Subject: Re: Objection of Free Loan of Cat Trap & Free Euthanasia to Private Property Owners
Dear Dr Wong,
Thank you for your email. I appreciate the time you have taken to respond to my queries.
However, one of my main points was that regardless or whether the use of traps was cruel, I am concerned as a taxpayer that funds are being used in a manner that does not maximise cost efficiency.
I quote from my initial email:
"AVA's funds would be better utilised for proper control of stray populations via sterilisation efforts. AVA should reconsider reinstating the practice of offering free - if not subsidised - sterilisation of stray animals, a method which has time and time again proven to be effective at maintaining and reducing population of stray animals."
As a taxpayer, I do not agree with the use of my - and my fellow citizens' - funds being utilised, firstly, to provide free services for private estate home-owners, and secondly, to capture and cull stray animals.
Most of all, I am aware that there are more efficient manners of addressing the root cause rather than the symptoms of the problem at hand. Perhaps AVA could let me know if there are current review of policies to look into reinstating subsidies or full reimbursement of sterilisation efforts to prevent reproduction of the current stray population, hence allowing for a decline and control of the population.
Like many property owners and AVA, I too am hoping that there can be better means of control of stray populations. Nevertheless, I do not condone nor do I want my funds to be used for loan of traps and euthanasia for private property owners. First of all, should they wish to resort to the aforementioned methods, they should have the ability to contact private animal handlers or pest controllers at their own cost, rather than tap on the collective funds of taxpayers. Secondly, research has constantly shown the relative effectiveness of neutering methods for the current population, and I would much prefer for my funds to be redirected to initiatives that address the root cause (proliferation of strays) rather than merely scratch the surface of the problem and providing a stop-gap measure (via euthanasia).
It would be great if AVA could advise on the matter as to whether there are reviews currently underway to look at reinstating the previous policy of providing subsidies for sterilisation efforts please.
Thank you once again for your attention and I look forward to hearing from you soon.
Warm regards,
ML
