‘TRAP, NEUTER, RELEASE’ OR ‘WIRE ENCLOSRES OUTSIDE POPULATED AREAS’ The Agriculture and Forestry Committee at the National Assembly unanimously voted in favour of the text of the drafters of the Animal Protection Bill for the adoption of the internationally recognized method of neutering and release to the site of capture. These were the provisions of the Bill tabled to the Plenary Hall: “The Committee supports the purport of the drafters’ language and suggests the following amendment to Art. 55, which becomes Art. 47: Art. 47. (1) Dogs taken to shelters shall be neutered, dewormed and vaccinated against rabies. (2) Dogs under Art. 1. shall be gratuitously entrusted to persons who wish to keep them as pets and register them under Art. 174 of the Veterinary Act. (3) Dogs for whom no persons under Art. 2 appear shall be marked, released to the site of capture and are supervised, and cared for by the municipalities, animal protection NGO’s or other persons. (4) The marking under Art. 3 shall be either a tattooed ID number on one of the ear, or an electronic microchip, or a V-shaped clipping of an ear or another visible ear marking. (5) The manager of the shelter shall enter the dogs in a register and issue a health certificate. (6) The manager of the shelter shall provide the data under Art. 5 to the mayor of the respective municipality.”
NO LATER THAN TWO DAYS AFTERWARDS A MEMBER OF THE COMMITTEE WHO VOTED IN FAVOUR OF THE ‘TNR’ METHOD STOOD AGAINST IT AND IT WAS ON HIS INSISTENCE THAT THIS POVISION WAS TAKEN BACK FOR REVIEW TO THE COMMITTEE. There was no discussion in the Working Group on the draft which includes representatives from the animal protection NGO’s, and the Committee was surprised with a new strategy for controlling the stray dogs. Amended Art. 3 and Art. 4 read as follows: (3) Dogs for whom no persons under Art. 2 appear shall be marked and placed in places defined by the respective municipal council or shall be released to the site of capture and shall be supervised, and cared for by the municipalities, animal protection NGO’s or other persons. (4) The places defined by the respective municipal council under Art.3 shall be situated outside the boundaries of the respective populated areas, shall be enclosed and shall be kept in good sanitary condition.
Second reading is pending for a second time of this provision of the Bill, presenting a new, actually a disguised old strategy for inefficient removal of the dogs from the streets. For eight years this practice has been lingering only to prove its futility: - Dogs are removed from the streets only to vacate areas defined by the capacity of the populated area in terms of food refuse and free space for roaming; - Birth rate in street dogs is not discontinued and the vacated areas are quickly occupied by newly born or migrating dogs; - Thus, Conditions for the cyclicality of reduction and restoration of stray population are provided for. Apparently, what is aimed for is not the reduction of the stray dog population, but just the opposite: its maintenance, which provides free resources – street dogs for illegal industries. When applying the TNR method: - Removal starts after a grace period of releasing the dogs to the site of capture so that new animals are prevented from occupying the area. - The duration of the grace period depends on the size of the stray population and the ability of the municipality to involve the general public in the process. - When the carrying capacity of the populated area is filled by non-reproductive animals only, the grace period shall be over and the removal of the neutered animals begins.
BY APPLYING THE ‘TNR’ METHOD ‘THE STREET DOG PHENOMENON’ WILL GRADUALLY DISAPPEARE IN A WAY WHERE NO ONE WILL BE HURT: NEITHER PEOPLE AFRAID OF ANIMALS,
NOR ALL THE REST WHO LOVE AND CARE FOR THEM
| 
