MikeLigalig.com

Local government officials maintain that the ban, enforced under Ordinance No. 156, only makes sure that animals will not end up in areas, like relocation sites, where their needs may not be fully met. The city veterinarian, for example, said it was also intended to protect residents from diseases and the animals from maltreatment.

But animal welfare advocates have assailed the 1996 measure for being discriminatory against the poor who, they said, can be responsible pet owners.

Jenny said “men in white” from City Hall had been “aggressive” in rounding up pets in the barangay, prompting residents like her to hide their pets.

She had to do it for the sake of her dear Che-Che and Champ.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71967.0

Jenny said she had since visited Cha-cha in the shelter about 10 times. The once playful dog, she said, had become thinner, sad and passive in its cage.

She repeatedly tried to reclaim Cha-cha but the people manning the shelter always cited the ordinance.

“It’s so unfair. Do they know how we take care of Cha-cha? Just because we live in a depressed area doesn’t mean we are irresponsible,” she explained.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71967.0

“I hope they understand. Never mind if some of them get mad at me, just as long as the majority (believe it’s a good law),” he said.

He said the law could never be considered “antipoor” since its only intent was to protect the residents in resettlement areas from diseases and the pets from possible cruelty.

Local authorities had already given the residents ample time to have their pets transferred to other places, he said.

Carlos also denied that animals at the shelter were being neglected. “There are two caretakers there. Food is cooked for the animals. Anybody can check this.”

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=71967.0