Dog pounds versus animal rescue centers

THE DIFFERENCE between a dog pound and an animal rescue center is equal to the difference between a jail and a hospital.

While the reason for the difference might appear to be legal, in reality it is cultural. What I mean is that it is the culture that dictates the way we treat our animals and the way we make our laws.

We hardly know what really happens in a dog pound, but what I hear is that some of the animals are euthanized when they are not claimed by a legitimate owner. Perhaps the reason for killing the animal is the lack of budget, but is there no other way?

Based on the practice in other countries, it is more humane to put these animals for adoption, instead of killing them.

Prior to adoption by permanent owners, they have a system of these animals going to temporary foster homes. More often than not, the fostering and adoption system works, and the animals are saved.

Without any doubt, I believe that local government units (LGUs) should be putting up animal rescue centers instead of dog pounds. Probably, the LGU officials might think that animal welfare is a lower priority compared to the welfare of people, but they should realize that the lack of animal rescue centers also affects public health.

I am very sure that if only the street dogs are rescued and given veterinary interventions, they would be welcomed by permanent foster homes.

LET’S PROTECT ANCESTRAL DOMAINS!

A bill has been filed in the House of Representatives (HOR), proposing some major revisions to the Indigenous People’s Republic Act, otherwise known as the IPRA Law.

Many leaders in the Indigenous People’s ( IP) communities are opposed to most of the revisions, particularly the provisions that would transfer certain functions from the National Commission for Indigenous Peoples (NCIP) to the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR).

In my opinion, the IPRA Law in itself is already defective to begin with, and it seems that the proposed revisions in House Bill 9608 would tend to weaken the original law further.

Although it is still a gray area to begin with, I think that the defect in the law stems from the fact that it only allows the IPs reasonable use of the lands, instead of giving them full ownership to these.

In the United States, the native Americans are “allocated” certain lands that are classified as “Indian reservations”, but in reality, the Indian tribes only have the rights to “occupy” these lands, and not the rights to own them like real estate properties.

I think that we should revise the existing IPRA Law so that the ancestral lands will become the communal properties of the IPs, except that they should not be allowed to sell these. As a matter of fact, the other way around should happen, meaning that they should be allowed to buy other pieces of land that are adjacent or nearby./