Bulgarian Animal Programmes Foundation
Roumen Hristov MP, Agriculture and Food Committee Boyka Marinska MP, Interaction with Non-Governmental Organizations and Citizens’ Complaints Committee A group of MPs from all parties 25 September 2015 Proposal for amendments and supplements to the Animal Protection Act Dear Sir/Madam, The National Assembly has started discussing a Bill for Amendment and Supplement of the Animal Protection Act submitted by the Council of Ministers and related to the stray dog population control. Taking into account the good practices in the pet population management and the remarkable progress in solving the pet overpopulation issue in many areas of the world, we would like to bring your attention to our proposal for additional amendments and supplements to the Animal Protection Act and our respective arguments. We look forward to cooperating with you since our joint efforts could contribute to the introducing modern legislation in the field of animal control. Yours sincerely, Emil D. Kuzmanov, Executive Director Enclosures: 1. Proposal for amendments and supplements to the Animal Protection Act 2. Arguments supporting the Proposal for amendments and supplements to the Animal Protection Act Proposal for amendments and supplements to the Animal Protection Act 1. Par. 7 is to be added to Art. 35: "(7) When bringing a pet dog into public places, the dog shall wear a collar with a built-in plate or an address tag or medallion firmly attached to it specifying the dog owner’s names, address and telephone number." 2. The title of Chapter Five is to be amended as follows: "Chapter Five. Roaming and unowned dogs". 3. Art. 40c is to be inserted: "Art. 40c. (1) Each municipality, independently from or together with one or more neighbouring municipalities, shall appoint at least one dog control inspector. (2) The dog control inspector shall: 1. manage the roaming dogs in the area he/she is in charge of as specified in legislation; 2. appoint and manage a team in charge of the execution of the obligations he/she has been assigned; 3. receive alerts related to dogs roaming within the area; 4. immediately capture any newly appeared dog found at a public place not accompanied by a human; 5. make an individual record for each dog that has entered the system, assign a municipality supplied unique number thereto and enter into that file details such as date, time and place of capturing, reason or capturing, a detailed description of the animal and its owner’s registration number, if available; 6. in the cases when the captured dog’s owner is established by means of identification, neighbour’s testimony or in any other way, the inspector shall track the owner and tries to reunite the dog and the owner; 7. issue a warning to an owner who is in breach of Art. 35, Par. 1 and 7 for the first time and advises him/her with regard to his/her obligations and responsibilities; 8. issue a fine for each subsequent breach of Art. 35, Par. 1 and 7; 9. in the cases when establishing of the dog’s owner as specified in section 4 or reuniting the dog with the owner has failed, the inspector shall transfer the animal to the shelter serving the relevant municipality; 10. return each unowned dog involved in the local catch-neuter-return programme to the place it has been caught; 11. maintain the ID tags of each dog specified in section 10 by means of a collar and a tag riveted to it that contains the individual file unique number; 12. monitor the regular deworming and vaccination of dogs specified in section 10 and registers the application of those measures into individual records; 13. submit to the municipality council an annual report on the actual number of local roaming dog population, both unowned and owned, and changes in its number; 14. have a microchip scanner available, while on duty; 15. keep the records of captures for a five-year period." 4. Art. 41 is to be amended as follows: The words "Art. 40, Par. 2 and 4" are to be replaced with the words "Art. 40c". 5. Art. 42 is to be amended as follows: In Par. 4 the words "are managed and controlled by a veterinarian" are to be replaced with "shall include a veterinarian". 6. Art. 44 is to be amended and supplemented as follows: 1. Par. 1, section 1 is to be amended as follows: "1. ensure that roaming dogs are taken in under the agreement with the municipality as per Art. 43, Par. 1, section 1;" 2. Par.1 is to have a new section, i.e. section 5: "5. open an individual record for each animal taken in, where he/she shall enter detailed data of that animal and the circumstances regarding its entry and exit." 3. Par. 3 is to be amended as follows: "(3) All animal shelter operators shall, on an annual basis, make a report to the Agriculture Minister. This report shall include all of the following: 1. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, on hand as of January 1 of the reported year. 2. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, on hand as of 11:59 p.m. on December 31 of the reported year. 3. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, entering the shelter during the reported year (including animals redeemed and adopted but returned by their owners during the reported year). 4. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, redeemed by their owners and not returned during the reported year. 5. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, adopted and not returned during the reported year. 6. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, transferred to other organizations which shall be specified. 7. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, neutered and released. 8. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, killed during the reported year. 9. the number of pet animals, by species and breed, which have run away or died naturally or were subject to such other disposition which shall be specified. 10. the method of killing and the manner of disposition of the remains. 11. the amounts of public funds and the amounts of private funds and the sources thereof which are expended in support of the activities which are the subject of the report." 4. Par. 4 is to be inserted: "(4) In case of an animal brought in by a dog control inspector, the manager shall register the animal’s record with the number already assigned by the inspector and the original data from the file opened by the inspector shall be used as appropriate." 5. Par. 5 is to be inserted: "(5) In case of an animal taken in apart from the cases specified in Art. 2, the manager shall register the animal’s record with a unique number provided by the municipality." 6. Par. 6 is to be inserted: "(6) The shelter manager shall ensure access of the dog control inspectors serving the relevant area to the internal record-keeping system." 7. Par. 7 is to be inserted: "(7) The shelter manager shall keep the individual files for a period of at least 5 years." 7. Art. 44а is to be inserted: "Art. 44а. The mayors of the municipalities shall provide and distribute unique file numbers for the dogs specified in Art.40c, Par. 2, section 5 and Art. 44, Par. 5 to the dog control inspectors and shelter managers, avoiding any repeating number within the area served." 8. Art. 44b is to be inserted: “Art.44b. (1) The Minister of Agriculture and Food shall approve a standard form for the shelter managers’ annual reports specified in Art. 44, Par. 3 that includes a declaration by the person who has completed the report verifying its truthfulness and accuracy. (2) The Minister of Agriculture and Food shall annually publish on the Ministry website intake and disposition data recorded during the past year, both by single shelter and nationwide.” 9. Art. 47 is to be amended as follows: Paragraph 4 is to be rescinded. 10. Art. 49 is to be amended as follows: The word "municipalities" is to be replaced with the words "dog control inspectors". Emil D. Kuzmanov Executive Director Bulgarian Animal Programmes Foundation Arguments supporting the Proposal for amendments and supplements to the Animal Protection Act The proposal is based on good practices in the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, Canada and the United States, where the success in the field of companion animal management in recent decades is undisputable. It includes substantial measures for establishing an effective and transparent management of both owned and unowned dog populations. The current legislation related to animal protection and the Council of Ministers’ bill indicate the neglect of three key issues in the dog control. First of all, no single body is specified as in charge of the daily restriction of poorly kept owned dogs that are a major cause for stray population recovery. Secondly, no job position is specified as involved in the routine checking and controlling a local stray dog population outdoors. And thirdly, the very opportunities for arbitrary and intransparent disposition of animals entering the shelter system remain unaddressed. These striking omissions would continue to hinder dealing with the true problems in animal control. Sticking to such incomplete and inefficient legislation would continue to harm taxpayers, public health, national companion animal population’s welfare and last but not least, Bulgaria’s international image. 1. The amendment to Art. 35 (1th point in the proposal) aims at achieving easy identification among roaming owned dogs (as different from their registration), which is a precondition for the efficient control of movement and hence the spontaneous reproduction among this problematic subpopulation. As they do have abode and other resources, roaming owned dogs can breed most successfully in comparison to the rest of the roaming dogs and therefore they should be considered as the major source of unwanted population. 2. The amended title of Chapter Five (2nd point in the proposal) aims at addressing one of the most problematic categories of animals in Bulgaria, i.e. roaming owned dogs. 3. The introduction of the new Art. 40c and the amendments to Art. 42 and 49 (3th, 4th, 5th and 10th points in the proposal respectively) aim at providing measures for an efficient and transparent field work with roaming populations (both owned and unowned). The requirement for appointing dog control inspectors has been borrowed from countries where dealing with pet overpopulation performed in recent decades is generally recognized as successful and the role of this position has turned out to be a crucial one. Inspectors are known as “dog wardens/animal wardens” in the UK and the Republic of Ireland, “dog control officers/DCOs” in the USA, or “animal control officers” in Canada. This proposal expects new services to replace currently existing dog catcher teams that serve animal shelters as they have extended and specific responsibilities. Their functions should include promoting responsible pet ownership, saving lost pets and monitoring stray population dynamics and statuses of the individuals within roaming populations. Street dog control in Bulgarian municipalities now falls entirely within the range of animal shelter managers responsibilities and many bodies operating animal control facilities presumably would prefer to have a large number of strays to catch and collect. There are substantial figures that are hardly known to anyone outside the shelter system - how many stray dogs there are in a larger municipality, how many newcomers appear every year and what happens to all of them afterwards. For example, the only statistical data for Sofia is announced by the media and this shows extreme discrepancies between numbers. The Ecoravnovesie Municipal Company, which runs two shelters and simultaneously manages roaming dog population, has reported a total of approximately 40,000 unowned dogs having been neutered and released in public places since 2006. However, the last count of 2013 showed that there were only about 6,000 strays. Meanwhile, more than BGN 15 million of public finances has been spent so far on funding this corrupt system. This terrible mess makes situation analysis and assessing dog population dynamics impossible and prejudices public interest. The new services will not present an additional burden to taxpayers because shelters’ budgets are to be reduced due to closing down dog catchers positions. 4. The amendment to Art. 44 and the insertion of the new Art. 44b (6th and 8th points in the proposal respectively) aim at making the activities performed by the national shelter system transparent and comprehensible for institutions, taxpayers and animal welfare advocacy NGOs. The proposed amendments determine straight rules of animal shelter managers’ accountability, which is a common practice in leading countries worldwide. The presence of accurate record keeping on animals impounded and discharged will allow regular reassessment of the measures performed and implementation of efficient and fact-based policies in this field. The current act contains some provisions in Art. 40, Par. 2 that require few and rather unclear obligations in this regard. Gaps in legislation allow a shelter manager to arbitrarily distribute animals taken in and to be the ultimate person to establish one's own standards in reporting this major activity (please see point 3). 5. The new Art. 44а (7th point in the proposal) aims at establishing conditions for exercising an efficient control over roaming animals and their movement, which are currently unavailable. An enhanced traceability of individuals in the streets and shelters would significantly contribute to both transparency and adherence to humane practices in managing roaming population. 6. The amendment to Art. 47 (9th point in the proposal) aims at removing a provision that entirely harms public interest. The now existing Par. 4 stipulates establishing and operating a specific type of shelters located outside places. There are no legal provisions to ensure public access to these facilities. This could be an overwhelming obstacle for owners looking for their lost pets, for instance. Such vicious practice also makes way for intransparent, unaccountable and abusive practices in animal control. In addition, this provision actually prohibits the use of already existing facilities located in industrial areas, for example, which, in turn, results in excessive increase in the costs for construction and maintaining such shelters in remote locations. Emil D. Kuzmanov Executive Director Bulgarian Animal Programmes Foundation |
Petitioning the National Assembly: Stop public funding of cat & dog concentration camps across Bulgaria. Sign this petition and whip up more supporters for this cause >>
|