A looming pet holocaust was averted for the nonce when animal-rights groups including the Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) staged a protest at the Quezon City (QC) Hall last April 15 against an ordinance that limits pets in a household to four.
After an outcry from pet lovers online and IRL (in real life), the city government passed another ordinance without that provision, in effect nullifying parts of the previously passed law.
QC Ordinance No. 2386, approved on March 13, limits homeowners to only four pets. Any additional pets much have a special permit that costs P500 each.
On March 26, QC Mayor Herbert Bautista signed Ordinance No. 2389 that adopts the QC Veterinary Code and thus renders null and void parts of the previous ordinance.
But while the latter omits the limiting provision, the four-pet policy might still yet be incorporated into its implementing rules and regulations if the city veterinarian’s office or other official pushes for it.
News reports quote city veterinary services division head Ana Marie Cabel as explaining that the restriction came about as a way to reduce the incidence of animal bite cases in the city, which in 2014 numbered 13,231, with 90 percent of those inflicted by pets.
The limit in the number of pets was set at four, said to be in line with policies in the Animal Welfare Act.
Among the celebrities who reacted against the law was actress Heart Evangelista, who said on her Instagram account, “Abandonment of dogs/cats is punishable by law and this totally goes against it. It promotes [sic] dog/cat lovers to abandon their dogs no matter what age and how long they have had the dog/cat in their home….
Pet abandonment, she added, is a crime under the Animal Welfare Act. She also noted that PAWS was not consulted before the ordinance was passed.
Speaking of people with many pets, she said, “A lot of them aren’t breeders or businessmen but people with kind hearts who took in a homeless stray.”
None of the news I read explained what the city’s plan was for following: how would they monitor the number of animals in a household – was there going to be an inspector going door-to-door? Were they going to enter homes and look under beds or in basements for hidden animals? Are we talking about the Anne Frank-enization of kittens and puppies here by pet owners determined to hang on to their furbabies?
Let’s say the city vets round up the “excess” animals. What were they planning to do with them? Put them up for adoption by those with less than four pets? Euthanize them?
This is sounding more and more like it was going to be an animal Holocaust. Did the QC government and vet’s office think the first ordinance all the way through before getting it passed?
Fortunately, pet lovers and animal rights activists took up virtual arms against the stupid law which resulted in the passing of a counter-ordinance less than two weeks later that nullified the objectionable pet-limiting provision.
Among the groups that spread PAWS’s call against the ordinance on their Facebook page was Cat Care Philippines (CCP).
What some of CCP’s members are suggesting in the online forum is that rather than take pets away or force owners to abandon them in the streets, city governments require that pets be spayed or neutered, and that rather than buying from breeders, that the adoption of homeless animals be promoted.
Not only would these practices save owners the cost of purchase, this would also save the lives of animals on the streets and reduce the population of strays.
Cities should establish an animal welfare program or expand theirs if they already have one, to cover free vaccinations and spay-neuter surgeries, and shelter homeless animals for eventual adoption.
In the United States, some animal shelters actively promote adoption, posting cute photos of the pets on their Facebook page or other social media platform until they find “forever homes”.
What this pet protest incident showed, among other things, are that lawmakers should carefully think of the ramifications and possible effects and consequences of any proposed rules and regulations, and that laws should be made in consultation with those who will be affected. Otherwise, embarrassment could ensue.
What’s encouraging is that people with a common cause still have the power, through communication, to bring about results or change.
And this time around, it’s a victory for QC pet owners and animal rights activists everywhere.
*** Facebook: Jenny Ortuoste, Twitter: @jennyortuoste, Blog: http://jennyo.net