A need for a proportionate response
I was shocked and saddened to read about the local authorities in Negeri Sembilan taking the drastic action of killing a person’s dogs in his own house. The newspapers reported that the person’s neighbours had complained that the dogs were a nuisance because they were noisy. The man owned 25 dogs and kept them all at his house. It was of course a staggering number of dogs and one could imagine the noise that they had caused. The local authorities surely could not have allowed this to continue unabated.
Sure, I agree that the man could have applied some common sense and realise that keeping such a large number of dogs at his house was a nuisance. He could have restrained himself and be contended with 2 or 3 dogs to keep him company. After the killing of his pets, he said he was depressed because these dogs were his best friends. I can relate with what he feels right now as I just lost a dog myself. However, keeping a large number of dogs at one place is not only unreasonable as it is a nuisance to his neighbours but he should also consider the detriment to the dogs itself who probably do not have much space to roam about and the possible health issues to himself as he will face a tough time keeping his house clean. He was wrong and he should have been punished BUT not like this.
The man was overzealous by keeping such a large amount of dogs but is it really proportionate that the local authorities just end up forcing themselves into a person’s house and then shooting a man’s pet dogs at broad daylight? Even if the dogs were to be culled surely there was a more humane way then killing them by shooting them to death? I was a bit sad that the local authorities were so trigger happy. I thought the whole matter was blown out of proportion. The man could have been fined and the dogs confiscated away from him and sent to the SPCA or some other animal shelter home. I do not think killing the dogs at a person’s own home is proportionate to the man’s supposed ‘crime’.
IF the local authorities had shown more self restrain perhaps the whole issue could have been solved in a more amicable way. I maybe wrong but violence should never be the answer to a solution. The one who is punished is not the owner of the pets but the dogs who had died. They were described by the authorities as being fierce and thus the authorities had no choice but to shoot them. The dogs probably thought that the shooters were trespassing their owner’s land and they will do anything to protect their owner from harm. They probably died feeling contented that they had protected their beloved owner, little did they know that their death could have so easily been avoided!
Sure, I agree that the man could have applied some common sense and realise that keeping such a large number of dogs at his house was a nuisance. He could have restrained himself and be contended with 2 or 3 dogs to keep him company. After the killing of his pets, he said he was depressed because these dogs were his best friends. I can relate with what he feels right now as I just lost a dog myself. However, keeping a large number of dogs at one place is not only unreasonable as it is a nuisance to his neighbours but he should also consider the detriment to the dogs itself who probably do not have much space to roam about and the possible health issues to himself as he will face a tough time keeping his house clean. He was wrong and he should have been punished BUT not like this.
The man was overzealous by keeping such a large amount of dogs but is it really proportionate that the local authorities just end up forcing themselves into a person’s house and then shooting a man’s pet dogs at broad daylight? Even if the dogs were to be culled surely there was a more humane way then killing them by shooting them to death? I was a bit sad that the local authorities were so trigger happy. I thought the whole matter was blown out of proportion. The man could have been fined and the dogs confiscated away from him and sent to the SPCA or some other animal shelter home. I do not think killing the dogs at a person’s own home is proportionate to the man’s supposed ‘crime’.
IF the local authorities had shown more self restrain perhaps the whole issue could have been solved in a more amicable way. I maybe wrong but violence should never be the answer to a solution. The one who is punished is not the owner of the pets but the dogs who had died. They were described by the authorities as being fierce and thus the authorities had no choice but to shoot them. The dogs probably thought that the shooters were trespassing their owner’s land and they will do anything to protect their owner from harm. They probably died feeling contented that they had protected their beloved owner, little did they know that their death could have so easily been avoided!
posted by Innerflame7 at 11:51 PM
4 Comments:
came across ur blog n tot i had a good read. i agree dat it's pretty pathetic 2 get rid of d dogs dat way- tho i must admit, dat man does haf sum animal hoarding problem there. a woman in US has got 81 cats n 6 dogs; all open 4 adoption 2 rid her of em.
haf a nice day m'te.
regards
proportionality test is the way forward
let's say a woman has 10 kids, ranging from 12 years old to 6 months. Because they are kids, they make a lot of noise. Night and day. Neighbours complain to the authorities. Would the authorities order the woman to move out? Failing which, would they bring shooters to shoot them? It's a dog's life *sigh*.
perhaps a rather extreme example mr. fishtail? But, you are right in a sense, sometimes, if we could just stop and THINK then perhaps a better solution can be found!
Post a Comment
<< Home