Sir,
The despicable and indiscriminate poisoning of animals with Lanate, has yet again received widespread and justifiable publicity.
Heart rending accounts of owners watching their pets in the excruciatingly painful process of dying, have been moving and sickening. Just as sickening, are the reactions of people who condone the use of Lanate as a measure of control.
In a letter to the Editor (May 26), LL of Nicosia expressed total empathy with “normally law-abiding people who take such actions”. Obviously from the letter, the writer has a problem with yapping dogs in their neighbourhood, and a reluctance of the dog owners to deal with the situation.
Another letter (Sunday Mail, May 28) from Christothea Portokalous, Paralimni, highlighted the problem of stray dogs causing a nuisance. The writer then stated “it was no wonder they get poisoned”.
No one finds being continuously woken up by yapping dogs at all endearing.
Likewise, it is intimidating meeting stray dogs in the street, especially when they have formed packs.
However, poisoning them is far from the actions that should be taken by ‘normal law abiding people’. Whether an animal lover or not, no normal person with an ounce of decency in their bodies, would contemplate, or condone, such an act of suffering.
The fact both correspondents were articulate enough to write to your paper, should indicate that they could use whatever powers of communication they possess, in the correct way.
Poisoning as a means of addressing the problem of yapping or stray dogs, or any other animals, is most certainly not the way of dealing with the situation. Apart from the obvious suffering it causes, it also creates a danger to any children who may unknowingly play where the poison has been laid.
I would suggest both correspondents, who have legitimate complaints, use the correct (and legal) route to deal with such matters, via their local town hall.
All dog owners have a legal responsibility to ensure their dogs are licensed with the local municipality. Furthermore, before a licence is issued, a certificate confirming the dog is micro-chipped (another legal requirement) must be produced. In addition, a record book giving details of all inoculations issued by a veterinary surgeon must also be produced.
All local authorities have a dog-licensing officer. They are also obliged to provide a facility to collect any stray dogs. If dogs are found roaming, the first thing the local authority has the obligation to carry out is to scan the dog. This process will confirm if the dog has a microchip, and if so, the details are checked on the national database to confirm the registered owner.
So my advice to the two correspondents, is to put their articulate powers into practice, and write, phone or visit their local town hall. These are the actions that should be taken by ‘normal law abiding people’.
Michalis Alexandrou, Larnaca
