Cav's Place

A new law has been put up for public debate by the Bucharest City Council. Don’t take the fact that it’s been put up for debate as a good thing in itself. It’s a requirement to put laws up for debate, but not to pay any attention to what people are saying, so they usually don’t. And in this particular case they’ll have quite a lot of ignoring to do, because quite a few people are angry and I for one am livid!
The law I’m talking about deals with stray animals and was written mainly as a means to control the number of stray dogs after another law was passed which no longer allows shelters to kill the animals which are captured and brought to them. That’s not the problem, since a means to do that is indeed required, but the law itself was written by barbarian control freaks!

But let me start from the beginning, with what I believe to be a key paragraph from the “specialist report” the law was supposedly based on. That paragraph says the following:

“For all dog and cat owners who are unable to control their pets’ breeding, sterilizing the animals is required, along with identifying and registering them in the institution’s master database. The abandonment of puppies and kittens in public places, around markets, hospitals, courtyards of educational institutions or other areas where, according to the citizens, there are “kind people” is thus avoided.”

That makes perfect sense, and it certainly should also apply to people who don’t properly control their own breeding, but something got lost on the way between the report and the actual law. The report talks about the owners who are unable to control their pets’ breeding, but the law makes it mandatory for all animals who are not registered breeders according to the Dog Owners’ Association to be sterilized! So even if your pet is never left unsupervised outside and therefore presents no risk of creating unwanted puppies or kittens, it still has to be sterilized unless it’s a “registered breeder”!

But the bigger problem is the way it must be done, according to the law:

“Art. 7
The sterilization of the animals must be carried out by means of ovariohysterectomy for females and orchiectomy for males.”

Yes, sure, that may be “how it’s done”, but it’s barbaric and utterly wrong! Those procedures don’t just remove the risk of unwanted puppies or kittens, but they also change behavior and instincts and likely cause changes in the hormonal balance of the animals in question. Yet instead of trying to find means to just eliminate the risk of unwanted pregnancies without any other side effects, they actually impose these methods!
If you think about it a little, you realize the full impact of that phrase. It means that a pet owner who does happen to desire to sterilize their pet but has found and is willing to pay for a vet who knows of a, shall we say, fairer way to do it, will be unable to do so. Actually, it means the vet will be unable to perform that procedure, because this law forbids them to sterilize a pet by any other means!
I still wish that all those who support such a measure would have it done to themselves. I wonder if they’d like it as much then as they do now…

But what am I going on about here when I haven’t mentioned the part where pet owners are actually required to do this, right? Here it is then:

“Art. 11
(1) Natural and juristic persons who own dogs and cats over 6 months old, within private precincts, without the right to breed and not registered with the Dog Owners’ Association have the obligation of sterilizing, indentifying and registering them in the Administration for the Supervision of Stray Animals’ master database, starting with the date this present decision comes into effect.”

And there you have it. A pet that’s not a registered breeder must be sterilized, and as far as I know only purebreds can have that status. Any pet must also be registered as a potential stray, as the following paragraph specifies that registered breeders are only exempt from the sterilization requirement, not anything else. (I didn’t feel there was a need to translate and include that paragraph exactly as it’s written as well.)

Moving further gets us to yet another issue:

“Art. 14
(1) Owning animals, dogs and cats, on private property is allowed under the following conditions:
a) Identification with a subcutaneous microchip.
b) Registration in the Administration for the Supervision of Stray Animals’ master database.
c) Existence of a health book, with up-to-date anti-rabic vaccines.
d) Sterilization, excepting animals less than 6 months old and those which are exempt from mandatory sterilization by the present decision.”

The new issue I mentioned is the first one listed, namely the microchip. Every animal will need to have one…
To put this into perspective, some two weeks ago we had the law requiring information about all e-mails, chats, SMS messages and telephone calls to be stored for six months and made available upon request, even without a warrant “if the prosecutor considers that waiting for a warrant to be released would harm the investigation”, come into effect. And very recently we got another thing, namely “biometric” passports, which include an RFID chip which stores all the information printed on the passport as well as the owner’s fingerprints.
So, within only a few weeks, we have had three “Big Brother” laws! Granted that this last one doesn’t apply to humans… Yet… But just give them time, they’re only waiting for enough people to be either frightened or disillusioned enough to accept it to be done to themselves as well.

Moving on to the last part:

“Art. 20
The following actions performed by natural or juristic persons constitute misdemeanors, unless they have been committed under such conditions as to be considered felonies according to criminal law:
a) Failure of the dog and cat owner to identify and register their pets in the Administration for the Supervision of Stray Animals’ master database and/or to sterilize individuals over 6 months old, starting 6 months after this present decision comes into effect.
b) Owning dogs or cats on private property, without documents to attest their sterilization, identification data, registration in the master database, health condition and annual anti-rabies vaccination.
c) Leaving animals owned within individual households or the grounds of businesses who declared themselves their owners unsupervised in public places.

Art.21
The actions listed under art. 20 are punished by fines as follows:
a) Actions listed under art. 20 points a), b) are punished by fines between 500 and 700 lei.
b) Actions listed under art. 20 point c) are punished by fines between 200 and 400 lei.”

What I want to point out here is that the penalty for having a pet without a microchip or one that is not sterilized without being a registered breeder is greater than the one for abandoning your pet. I’m saying that because leaving your pet unsupervised in public can be a way to say abandoning it. After all, abandoning something means you left it unsupervised for a long enough amount of time.
Technically, this law says that the actions which can directly increase the number of stray animals are less serious offenses than the failure to submit to the City Council’s desire for control!

I’m not sure how they deal with messages in English, but here are the e-mail addresses you might be able to write to, in case someone from abroad is reading this and wants to help:
– Mayor of Bucharest, Sorin Oprescu: primargeneral@bucuresti-primaria.ro
– Secretary General of Bucharest, Tudor Toma: tudor.toma@bucuresti-primaria.ro
The following two have signed the report this law was supposedly based on. Keep in mind that the report does not include any of the problems I mentioned above as being included in the law itself, so don’t be too hard on them if you decide to send something.
– Executive Manager of the Bucharest Environmental Protection and Eco-civics Education Department, Marius Capanu: marius.capanu@bucuresti-primaria.ro
– Manager of the Bucharest Administration for the Supervision of Stray Dogs, Dr. Simona Panaitescu: director@asa-bucuresti.ro