Animals ... in Parliament!

These last few days have been of particular interest for animals and for all those who truly have at heart the well-being of animals in Malta and Gozo.

Rarely has there been any discussion about animals and their welfare, in Parliament. Equally rarely has there been any SERIOUS discussion about animals in Malta, come to think of it.

Well, in fact, no DISCUSSION has really taken place last week – just a few MPs, typically at odds with each other, each one trying to gain political mileage with regard to animals, each trying to show himself an expert in animal wellbeing and actually none of them showing to have any inkling as to how to proceed to reduce animal cruelty in Malta and how to help animals in general, as well as those many people who look after them. All this is linked to the Budget of next year, in which, wonder of wonders, a total sum of LM 150,000 have been voted for animals.

While the Opposition spokesman went on record, criticising the Government’s intention to increase dogs’ and cats’ spaying, the Minister for the Environment, whose remit also includes the wellbeing of animals, pronounced himself to be an animal-lover, albeit, he said, that one has to consider the priorities in the country – and by priorities, he referred to the health of the human species living on these islands, and jobs.

Actually, how these two priorities are in conflict with animal wellbeing is beyond me. There is simply no excuse in the world for turning your head the other way in the face of animal cruelty.
Well, I have my own ideas as to what constitutes an animal-friendly Minister, especially one whose remit ALSO includes animal-welfare. Such as:

Visiting animal sanctuaries constantly, away from media cameras and reporters, and thus showing real interest in seeing for himself what is happening in this sphere;

Speaking and discussing with as many volunteers within animal NGOs as possible, welcoming them with open arms at his offices and opening a healthy dialogue in preparation for a sensible Animal Welfare Act for our country;

Pushing, within the Cabinet, for the above-mentioned Animal Welfare Act, but not before having reached a consensus about what should be enforced, with the animal NGOs;

Ensuring that the country has at least one good, efficiently-run animal hospital, with ambulances and all, which would serve as an educational centre – the throbbing heart of animal care – in our country. A centre which is open 24/7 and receives with open arms the stray cats and dogs that are found hurt in our streets.

In the meantime, the Honourable Member of the Opposition who speaks on behalf of animals should explain what credentials he has that makes him speak about animal-welfare in Parliament. He should also explain in detail why he and his Party did not support the Government, with regard to hunting and trapping in Malta and Gozo; instead, his Party took a stance which goes so much against the wellbeing of sentient animals such as birds.

Also, the said Opposition spokesman should explain to the electorate what his Party has in mind, with regard to animal wellbeing – and how much space was dedicated to this in their latest Paper about the Environment, as well as whether they wrote anything of value, in black and white, in said Paper.


Now, a word about the funds that have been voted for animals by the Government in next year’s budget. Even here, I believe that there are ways of understanding the term ‘voting money for animals’.

You see, there are two kinds of people and so, two schools of thought, insofar as animals go. The first kind includes those who consider the presence of animals as a nuisance: as far as these are concerned, the money should be used in order to have less and less animals around for the human being to be cruel with. The second kind, and this includes the undersigned, includes those who are real animal-lovers and who would rather be in the company of animals than in that of fellow human-beings: for these people, money should be used in order to improve the situation of animal wellbeing in our country, and so, eradicate animal cruelty.

Seriously, I do believe that a neutering programme IS important for our local scenario but that alone is not going to solve the problem of stray animals in Malta.

I am totally against the already-decided balance of how the funds are to be allocated. In other words, to have most of the monies channeled towards the neutering programme does not show a serious commitment on the part of the Government to curb animal abuse and cruelty.

In my view, at least half of the monies should be dedicated to the upgrading of sanctuary facilities in our country, as well as helping out, even if in a humble manner, all those people who have a very high number of cats or dogs, or both, in their residences and who help keep such animals away from the cruel Maltese streets.

A portion of the monies should also be channeled towards a sound, meaningful, educational campaign in favour of animals.

But most importantly, animal awareness and its monitoring should no longer be part of any governmental department but the Office of a Commissioner for Animals should be created, together with an enhanced and improved Animal Act.

Only in this way would the Government be showing that it really means business with regard to curbing animal abuse and cruelty in Malta.

One last thought: animal breeders, such as breeders of ‘pedigree’ dogs and cats, should be controlled. These so-called animal-lovers, who are no animal lovers at all but just people who own offspring machines in the form of bitches and female cats – and who make sure that their animals are kept pregnant for most of their lives - should be made to pay taxes for the ‘business’ that they carry out. Obviously, my views are well-known in these pages. I would go even further and ban pedigree breeding altogether – for some years, at least. That way, real animal-lovers would come forth and choose from among the dogs and cats that are homed in the number of sanctuaries that we have in our country.