Who's Guilty?
According to the Straits Times, dog attacks have been steadily increasing in the past five years, with an average of about one attack a week.
The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) have taken a stand against these dog attacks with their latest campaign to encourage considerate pet ownership. However, this has garnered some mixed reviews.
Looking at the postcard, (and to be perfectly honest), my first impressions were among the likes of
- that’s a nice, heartwarming picture of a boy and his dog
- they look happy!
- what a touching scene
Upon further inspection, I realised the header says “Who’s guilty?” and had to make some reassessments which resulted in the following conclusions
- the dog trampling on the sandcastles makes it a public nuisance
- on a graver note, the unleashed dog may be about to attack the little boy
And here are some inferences that can be drawn from the illustration
- all unleashed dogs are aggressive
- all unleashed dogs are public nuisances
- you are guilty of perpetuating this if you unleash your dog in public
Yes, we know the AVA aims to discourage unleashing dogs in public due to the increasing cases of dog attacks in Singapore. Yet, a fair number of these cases occur when some dogs are within the confines of their owner’s homes. Just early last year, in January, a Mr Jagjit Singh was fined $600 for not leashing his dogs. They ended up attacking his neighbour and her dog. Both dog and owner suffered superficial injuries and have since recovered.
While it is terribly unfortunate that innocent passersby are attacked by unleashed dogs, cases like this raises a few questions. For one, do people really expect dog owners to leash their dogs when they live in a house big enough to contain three dogs comfortably? (Though I know that Mr Singh did not leash his dogs even though his front gate was open. That, of course, was part of the reason why he got fined.) Wouldn’t animal activists consider that cruelty to animals? When is it appropriate for dogs to be leashed?
The AVA postcard above answers my very last question but sparks more questions in return. While the benefits of leashing dogs in public are abundant, what if dog owners like the little boy above simply want to play a casual game of fetch with their dog? Keeping to dog runs may be an answer for now, but will these privileges be extended to our beaches and other public fields in future? Lack of convenience may be a perpetuating factor in why dog owners tend to unleash their dogs in public places without designated dog runs.
While responsibile dog ownership is still key, Singapore may want to look into increasing our pet-friendly venues without infringing too much on our well-diversified cultural practices. A good balance between the two will result in happiness for both humans and pets.
On another note, the second postcard AVA released for their latest campaign leaves me quite befuddled.
The general idea the AVA is trying to convey is apparent enough with the tagline “Train your dog to prevent excessive barking”. However, common sense dictates that if your dog is barking incessantly and noisily, would you still be able to read your magazine quietly in a corner? Perhaps that IS the point – that pet owners have grown so immune to their dog’s boisterous behaviour that they simply let them be, at the expense of their neighbours’ ears.
But for all it’s good purposes and intents, the postcards simply show that the campaign was, perhaps, not lucidly thought out. Too many ironies exist in the illustrations that confuse and contradict the well-meaning message.
It’s a good thing that common sense is common after all, or we might be wondering who’s really guilty.
