NT Reporter | Panaji
The Supreme Court’s November 7 order on community dogs has been widely misunderstood in Goa, causing confusion, panic and incorrect circulars, said Goa Animal Federation (GAF) vice-president Prakash Kamat. The order, he said, applies only to four types of institutions: schools and colleges, hospitals and medical institutions, sports complexes, and railway and bus stations.
“Unlike the earlier August order, the November 7 ruling is not a blanket direction for the whole country or entire state,” he said, addressing a press conference.
District SPCA honorary executive secretary Dexter Braganza said several institutions have begun issuing circulars stopping feeding of dogs. Calling this “illegal and dangerous,” he said feeding cannot be stopped without proper designated areas. “It is not only wrong but illegal,” he said.
Stating that nowhere does the order say that dogs cannot be fed or given water, Kamat said, “Feeding has not been prohibited even in these four designated areas.”
Director of WVS Hicks ITC, Dr Stacy Sequeira, said that panic is unnecessary and that removing dogs without fencing and shelters is pointless because new dogs will immediately enter the area.
“No NGO has the capacity for long-term housing, making removal from these locations impossible,” said Sequeira.
Kamat said Goa currently has no long-term shelters and existing NGOs only handle vaccinations and sterilisations.
Panjim Animal Welfare Society honorary secretary Sweta Sardessai said long-term shelters must follow the five freedoms for animals requiring large enclosures, medical care, constant access to food and water, and trained staff. She said per dog costs could reach Rs 25-45 per day, becoming a continuous financial burden.
GAF secretary Vijendra Gairola said the Supreme Court has clearly set out a sequence: identify institutions, count the dogs, fence the institutions, build designated shelters, and only then move the dogs. He said many authorities are trying to implement step five without completing steps one to four, which is like “putting the cart
before the horse.”
Gairola said that financial implications are massive and that removing a small number of dogs at such a high cost makes no economic sense.
