It’s a pity the people drafting this latest legislation did not read the following authoritative report on the control of Street animals., but then they may have done but I suspect balked at implementing it because it would cost them money.
I have posted below the link to the full report for those that want to get a better understanding of this issue.
Please read the following and I think very pertinent part of the report which if implemented along with the original neuter and return legislation would have gone along way to preventing the dumping of so many dogs in Kalkan over the last few years.
Registration and identificationThe most effective way of clearly connecting an owner with his
or her animal is to use registration and identification together.
This should encourage a sense of responsibility in the owner
as the animal becomes identifiable as his/her own.
Registration/identification is an important tool for reuniting lost
animals with owners and can be a strong foundation for
enforcement of legislation (including abandonment legislation
and mandatory regular rabies vaccinations).
Several issues need to be considered when using this
component.
a. There are several methods of animal identification
available, and these can be used either separately or in
combination. They differ in three important ways:
permanence; visibility; and whether an animal has to be
anaesthetised when they are applied. Microchips, tattoos
and collars/tags are the three most common methods; the
most suitable will depend partly on local conditions and
partly on the reasons identification is being used.
b. If permanent identification of a large population is required,
the microchip currently offers the best option since the
number of permutations of digits in the code is sufficient to
identify all dogs, while human errors (transposing numbers
and incorrect reading of the numbers) are less likely as a
digital scanner is used to read the chip. Microchipping also
has the advantage of being a global system, so animals
moving from one area (or country) to another can continue
to be identified (see Case study 4). Before instituting a
microchip system, it is advisable to check that the chips
and readers used conform to ISO standards.
c. It is important that registration and identification information
is stored on a central database (or that separate databases
are linked in some way), which is accessible to all relevant
people (e.g. the veterinary profession, police, dog wardens
and municipal pounds). It may require the support of central
government to ensure a single unified system is used.
d. Mandatory registration and identification can help the
practical problems faced by shelters. When a dog brought
to a shelter is identified, it can be returned to its owner
without delay (avoiding welfare compromise for the dog and
reducing stress to the owner). If not identified, it is by
definition ‘unowned’ so the shelter can implement its
policies (whether rehoming or euthanasia) without the delay
of waiting for an owner to come forward. Both scenarios will
free up valuable kennel space, which will potentially
increase capacity.
CASE STUDY 4
An example of a registration and identification
system in Estonia
Tallinn city government is the first to adopt a mandatory
registration and identification system for dogs in Estonia.
The system was set up in August 2006 as a pilot
scheme, when the city of Tallinn commissioned a
commercial company to develop a database to record
and identify animals and their owners.
Municipal regulations stipulate that all dogs are to be
permanently identified by a microchip that has been
implanted by a vet. The owners and their animals’ details
are recorded onto a database, which can be accessed by
authorised personnel. The register was designed to be
universal, allowing the same system to be adopted
across Estonia. As well as identifying animals, the
system has been designed to record animal health
information such as rabies vaccinations. It is anticipated
that the system will eventually be used to issue rabies
vaccination recalls to owners when their dogs are due for
annual inoculations, as rabies vaccination is a mandatory
requirement in Estonia.
H U M A N E D O G P O P U L A T I O N M A N A G E M E N T G U I D A N C E : I C A M14
e. Registration fees can be charged (a ‘one off ’ fee or
payment each year) in order to provide funds for other
areas of the management programme. Although care needs
to be taken to balance potential income against
enforcement, if fees are too high owners may try to avoid
registration. Differential fee scales can be used as an
incentive for sterilisation, encouraging owners to keep only
a small number of animals and discouraging breeding of
dogs.
f. Licensing may be used when certain criteria have to be
fulfilled prior to dog ownership, for example when people
wish to breed dogs or own regulated dog breeds
(‘dangerous’ dogs). It could also be used to encourage
responsible ownership by requesting that people complete
a ‘certificate in dog ownership’ before they are granted a
licence to own a dog.
http://www.wsava.org/PDF/2008/Misc/AWC_ICAM_Coalition.pdfRegards Buster