Can the discussion move beyond ‘Pet Rights’ to ‘Responsible Pet Ownership?’

-- by Varsha V.

Earlier this month, a terrible incident took place: A five-year-old child was mauled by two Rottweilers at a public park in Thousand Lights. The dogs were not leashed, which led to the attack; intervention did not come in time and the child sustained severe injuries to herhead. She was hospitalised along with her mother who was also hurt in the attempt to protect her daughter. It is reported that the victims are faring better at the time of this article, though trauma counselling has been recommended to help them cope. The civic body reacted quickly. A case was registered against the owners and the Corporation made announcements stressing that pet licenses were mandatory. The directive led to a sharp increase in the number of new registrations – pet license applications rose from 120 to 850, with 2,124 still in process; further, owners have been told to obtain an anti-rabies certificate. A door-to-door survey is reportedly in the wings to ensure that all pets in the city have licenses. State officials also announced instructions that pet owners are to follow – dogs are to be leashed and muzzled in public places and should wear collars or shoulder braces; and owners are to bring only one dog to the park at a time. Further, the State government announced what would turn out to be a short-lived ban on twenty-three breeds of foreign and mixed dogs identified to be ferocious and dangerous to humans. (The ban was withdrawn as there exists a similar notification from the Union government – it is reported that it has been stayed by the Madras High Court.) 

While there’s little to criticise in the direction of the corrective measures, the issue has once again drawn attention to the oft-gaping lacunae that yawn between law and enforcement. The public has long been demanding concrete steps against rising animal menace – the city has seen frequent news of attacks from stray dogs, pet dogs and roaming cattle as well. That it took a truly horrific incident to precipitate action is regrettable. It can also be argued that not much has been achieved in framing clear mandates for responsible pet ownership. Take pet licenses, for instance – while the number of applications is rising, the count falls miserably short of the actual number of pet dogs in the city, estimated to be closer to 27,000. The GCC itself is said to be expecting the issuance of 20,000 pet licenses in the short-term. Why is there such a large gap? The answer is simple – pet owners currently face no consequences for not having a license. As for the license itself, it is in fact toothless in forcing public safety responsibility onto the owner; all it does is provide the State with a census of the number of pet dogs and the status of their vaccination. There is legal relief for victims of serious dog bites or attacks – Section 289 (negligent conduct with respect to an animal) of the Indian Penal Code can attract a fine of one thousand rupees or imprisonment up to six months, or both. But there is little in the way of preventive measures.

Two things can be done at the outset to rectify the situation at hand. First, it may be prudent to identify whether the civic bodies charged with these duties are equipped with commensurate manpower and resources. Take the Rottweilers case, above – the Corporation was meant to take custody of the animal and monitor it for rabies; however, the family has been given permission to take the dogs to their farmhouse in Madurai. They have been directed to send the Corporation photos of the dogs every day to enable monitoring for rabies. It was explained that the leeway was given since the openness and seclusion of farmhouse are in line with protocol; in addition, it is said that the civic body does not have the resources to take such animals in, save the Animal Birth Control shelters. Such lack may well be the reason why pet owners seem to seldom bear the repercussion of untoward incidents. Second, it would do well to begin planning public spaces for the inclusion of pet animals. By now, it is patently clear that there is a sharp divide between pet owners and those who do not have pets. Instead of forcing compromises on either side, perhaps exploring an equitable bifurcation of public spaces as ‘pet-inclusive’ and ‘pet-exclusive’ would be worth the while. This will provide owners with areas to safely take their pets to, such as dog parks; it will also give others the choice of actively choosing pet-free spaces. 

A couple of measures are reportedly in the planning stages – the Corporation is contemplating levying a fine on unregistered pets, as well as the creation of designated pet spaces. While at it, the administration should also consider educating pet owners for a change instead of the public who have often been exhorted to be ‘pet friendly.’ The fact of the matter is that affected parties almost never bear ill-will to the animal itself – what grates is the lack of empathy and accountability in their owners. Last year, it was reported that the Department of Urban Development, Uttar Pradesh mandated pet owners to give an undertaking to the local authorities that their pets would not cause public nuisance. Chennai would do well to follow suit.

Please follow and like us: