Animal Welfare Foundations

Animal hospital prices 'far too high'

Pet owners who take sick or injured animals to Ċentru San Franġisk for treatment are being charged higher rates than those promised when the government’s animal hospital in Ta’ Qali was opened a year ago, the Labour Party charged yesterday.

In December 2008, when the centre was still under construction, the government said a nominal fee would be charged for care provided to pets, and the money would go towards covering part of the centre’s running costs.

However, PL spokesman on animal welfare Gino Cauchi said yesterday that pet owners were having to pay hundreds of euro for veterinary services.

Prices were so high that animal sanctuaries that benefited from a 20 per cent discount were opting to go elsewhere, Mr Cauchi said in a press conference held outside the Ta’ Qali centre.

He added that the Animal Welfare Department was being charged for medicines for strays although care was granted for free. Mr Cauchi explained he had spoken to several animal NGOs who voiced a range of concerns that included the high charges.

“They were under the impression that the opening of the €600,000 centre, last October, would mean a new era in animal care with non-commercial prices. But it is being administered by a private vet,” Mr Cauchi said, pointing out that the centre had been built from public funds.

He questioned whether the government had issued a public call for tenders for the centre’s administration. Mr Cauchi said the vet, whom he did not name, had turned the centre into his private clinic.

In a statement issued later, the Rural Affairs’ Ministry highlighted that a call for applications had been issued in 2009 and the best out of four bidders was selected. This was public information Labour was well aware of, a spokesman said.

When contacted, vet Trevor Zammit, who was awarded the tender, said he had taken over the centre when it opened last October.

Animal Welfare in the Wild | Raincoast Conservation Foundation

”  These questions played over and over in my mind this past week as I walked cobblestone streets listening to French and gawking at tourists sipping their lattes in outdoor cafes.  Confused yet?  I was.  Seemingly half the world away from my home, and several worlds away from my Rainforest of Home, I found myself in Montreal thinking about Animal Welfare in the Wild.  Let me explain.

Owing to Raincoast’s leadership in using exclusively non-invasive research, I was called upon to organize and chair a conference session on “Wildlife Science and the 3 Rs”.  At the 8 World Congress on Alternatives and Animal Use in the Life Sciences , ours was the oddball session.  About 750 of the 800 attendees were there to share how to “Refine, Reduce, and Replace” their use of animals in laboratory and farm settings.

Our rag tag bunch consisted of those interested in taking these principles into the wild, where they are largely absent but certainly belong. Our focus was exploring how wildlife scientists, often in noble pursuit of knowledge to help populations at risk from human activities, in fact can inflict tremendous suffering on the individuals they study.

Capturing wild animals using painful snares. Subjecting sensitive beings to anesthesia that can render them incapacitated for hours, at risk for many more, and off-their-mark for days to weeks.  Burdening already on-the-edge animals with radio collars for months to years.  Although the information generated can be valuable, it can come at a very big cost to those “subjected” to being research subjects.  We were there to find solutions with the 3 Rs.

We also heard from my session co-chair, wildlife veterinarian and researcher Dr. Marc Cattett that avoiding such invasive research techniques can actually lead to better science. He and his team has found stunning differences in body condition between grizzly bears that have been captured many times compared with those that have been captured only once .  Such an effect can lead to serious bias in research results.  More importantly, what the body condition difference signals is that these animals likely experienced prolonged distress. They suffered.

Animal Farm

Welfare, the political economy of welfare reform in the United States

Beyond the welfare state?, the new political economy of welfare

American Foundations, An Investigative History

Animal, Vegetable, Miracle, A Year of Food Life