Αρχική Δεσποζόμενα και αδέσποτα ζώα συντροφιάςΆρθρο 3 ΑρμοδιότητεςΣχόλιο του χρήστη R Dennill | 14 Απριλίου 2011, 18:08
  • Σχόλιο του χρήστη 'R Dennill' | 14 Απριλίου 2011, 18:08

    Άρθρο 3 Αρμοδιότητες 1. B. γ. την υποχρέωση τήρησης αντιγράφων ασφαλείας, ώστε τα στοιχεία που καταχωρίζονται στη βάση δεδομένων να είναι διαθέσιμα για έλεγχο για τρία (3) τουλάχιστον χρόνια. • This is too short a period for the data to be useful and practical. Cats and dogs can live for well over 20 years. What is the point of limiting it to 3 years? Does it mean that any one animal must be repeatedly micro-chipped every 3 years, to be able to prove its ownership? 3. β. τη μέριμνα για την ενημέρωση με οποιονδήποτε πρόσφορο τρόπο των ιδιοκτητών και κατόχων ζώων συντροφιάς για τις υποχρεώσεις τους, όσον αφορά στην εφαρμογή της ηλεκτρονικής σήμανσης των ζώων συντροφιάς και στις απαιτήσεις του παρόντος νόμου για την ηλεκτρονική σήμανση και την καταγραφή των ζώων συντροφιάς. • I presume “πρόσφορο τρόπο” (meaning “convenient way”) here applies to the convenience of the animals’ owners? If not, it should be replaced with the word “effective”. The information should be broadcast in more than one way, using for example television and radio (for the many who would or could not read circulars), and print. 3. γ) την έκδοση βιβλιαρίου υγείας (ή διαβατηρίου του ζώου συντροφιάς σε περίπτωση που το ζώο θα μεταφερθεί στο εξωτερικό) καθώς και τη καταγραφή σ΄ αυτό, ατελώς, της οποιασδήποτε αλλαγής ιδιοκτήτη κατά την ετήσια κτηνιατρική εξέταση του ζώου ή κατά τον εμβολιασμό του. • Change of ownership should surely be recorded FREE as soon as possible after such a change takes place, perhaps within one month. As this stands, if an animal is given to its new owner say 1 month after its annual veterinary check, its ownership information will be falsely recorded on the database for 11 months before it can be changed without cost to the owner. GENERAL: 1. At a time of great financial hardship for most people in Greece, the state could show its commitment to animal welfare by subsidizing the cost of microchipping owned animals, easing the financial burden on them AND inducing them to react positively to the programme. 2. The entire focus of this article is on provision for an electronic database of owned animals. What of the desperate need for sterilization of animals, owned or not? This seems an astonishing omission, given the catastrophic overpopulation which is at the root of so much cruelty and neglect witnessed here daily. It calls into question the state’s commitment to WELFARE, rather than simply control as an end in itself. The two should go together. Electronic tagging solves no problem on its own except to identify owners for action like prosecution once they have ALREADY abused or abandoned their animals, or to return genuinely lost animals to them if they haven’t. It cannot prevent deliberate abandonment of the thousands of puppies and kittens born to unsterilised owned or stray animals as these will escape the database completely. Without equal attention to sterilization, this becomes merely a reactive rather than a proactive measure. It might or might not help with a cure but it does nothing to prevent the problem.