NCD Pet Policy : Should NCDC Kip-it

 48 total views,  2 views today

NCDC City Manager Bernard Kipit in a recent media release announced the city authority’s latest policy of limiting the number of pets in the household to two.  The reason for the policy seems to be the increase in stray dogs around the city and of course the associated health and hygiene issues.

While we understand the policy and the reasons behind it, we actually don’t think it’s an issue of priority particularly under current circumstances residents face daily.

City taxpayers will have the added burden of registering their pets and for those in excess of the limit, go through that emotional phase of letting others go.  For the pet loving residents, this isn’t an easy task because pets are, after all, part of the family.

And of course, there’s the added procedural and administrative tasks and associated costs in undertaking this registration process.

One of the biggest concerns, aside from the emotional attachment, owners have of their pets is that in the case of dogs they provide added security.  In fact, in a city like Port Moresby where criminal activities happen willy-nilly, and the general populace often have to look over their shoulder quite frequently, the new policy potentially increases security risks for residents.

That risk is exacerbated by another absurd policy of the city authority – the much talked about fencing policy.  Kapa fence are gone and in comes electric fences.  Many residents just don’t have the money to make the transition to other approved fences.  Everything from food to hardware are at the highest level in terms of price hence the reality that many property owners just haven’t bothered to change their fences to comply.

One simple solution the NCDC should consider is to make it mandatory for all pet owners to have tags on their cats and dogs. If there’s one on the street without a tag – off she goes!

Most of those in excess of two pets actually love pets and do care for them.  It’s a pity that they have to be punished when what they’ve done is usually in the best interest of the pets.

If the NCDC is so concerned about health and hygiene, then one would expect all public places to be spotlessly clean.  That isn’t the case, as well know, so it makes one wonder how the authority which can’t manage to clean the public places can then directly intrude into private residents to manage animals that are in most cases well looked after by the owners.  It makes no sense at all.

The NCDC’s policy is understandable.  Sooner or later something like this will have to come in.  but current circumstances in the city just makes this and the fencing policy completely absurd.

If health is concern, just how successful has the authority been in managing the unhealthy food that’s sold in tucker shops?  How reliable are the rubbish collectors?  How quick is the NCDC in removing dogs that have had nasty accidents on the roads?

The thing is, until the city authority can effectively manage what it is obligated to do, adding another unreasonable burden on taxpayers and affecting them emotionally by taking away their pets just doesn’t seem to add up at all.

The fences are gone, the security provided by the dogs are lessened and it’s not safe out in public.  It just doesn’t make sense at all and at the end of the day it’s the taxpayers that have to put up with all this.

Just consider the loving pet owners and deal with those who do not care for pets.