Issue link: https://maltatoday.uberflip.com/i/1499169
maltatoday | SUNDAY • 14 MAY 2023 9 INTERVIEW animals', too... the same pen'... and just leave it up to the animals them- selves, to decide who among them is going to actually 'sur- vive'. Today, however, the process is a lot more 'humane'. There are now protocols in place, to ensure that, as far as possible, resources are used in the best interests of the animals; that they are given the right food; the right 'accommodation', if you want to call it that... ba- sically, that they are given a 'chance' (which, in the previ- ous system, they never really had, before.) Meanwhile, we are also see- ing a very promising team of volunteers, and recruits, building up within the animal welfare sector. People who are experienced; dedicated; and who are truly there, for all the right reasons. And it's mak- ing a big difference... even if the changes themselves might appear small – or even 'invisi- ble' - to people out there, who don't visit animal shelters on a day-to-basis... On the subject of 'recruits working in the animal welfare sector', though... how many of them are still there? Because what you just described as 'noise interference', a second ago – which I take to mean the recent public outcry, over the AWD's handling of a particu- lar case – has also led to the resignation of the former AWD Director, Patricia Camilleri (as well as an apparent 'reshuffle' of the department's person- nel). I'd rather not comment on the specifics of the case, if you don't mind... I'm not asking you to. What I meant is: are you concerned that – with what appears to be a constant 'musical chairs' go- ing on, within the AWD – some of those 'good people' you re- fer to, may be 'lost' thus stall- ing the progress that has been achieved so far? There is that concern, yes. Because as we all know: when it comes to animal welfare… hands-on experience is in- credibly important. And it on- ly comes with time. There is a certain amount of 'theory' that goes into it, yes; but 'theory', on its own, will not prepare you for the sort of practical sit- uations you will actually find yourself facing, when dealing with animals on a daily basis; or when trying to cope with the actual dynamics of animal welfare (which are, let's face it, not exactly 'easy', at the end of the day) For that, you need experi- ence, and training. It takes both time, and 'know-how', to be able to cope with those dy- namics, in practice; and if we have seen a certain amount of progress, in recent years... it is partly because we [shelters] have been able to collaborate with a number of key people in the AWD, to actually bring those changes about. And this is, in fact, our con- cern right now. We, too, have invested a lot of time, and en- ergy, in building up these re- lationships. We don't want to go back, to the situation as it stood before. We don't want to have to 'start all over from scratch', yet again... What we want, is to keep building on the progress we've already achieved, over the past two or so years. But it becomes a little difficult, when the peo- ple you're dealing with keep changing, all the time... Let's talk about some of the 'practical situations' that might arise, when actually dealing with animals. The case that led to Camilleri's resignation, for instance, was ultimately about 'dangerous dogs'. Now: the law empowers the AWD to 'in- tervene directly', in such cas- es... but what sort of resources did the institution possess, in practical terms, to actually do that? And what would be need- ed for that purpose, anyway? It's a difficult question for me to answer, because I don't know the precise details of what sort of equipment the AWD actually has, at its dis- posal... What I can definitely say, however, is that: the situation itself was highly complex; and in cases like that, what you re- ally need is a triangulation of different professions, and ex- pertise. We're looking at qualified an- imal behaviourists; we're look- ing at qualified vets, who can assess the medical condition of the animals themselves; or (for example) assess the prop- er dosage, for tranquilisation... and we're also looking at peo- ple who are capable of physi- cally handling the dynamics of that kind of situation, in the first place: who have the nec- essary know-how, and expe- rience, to actually remove the dogs in question.... At the same time, however: it's not just the animals them- selves, that need to be dealt with. In such cases, you also have to deal with the owners of those animals... which also means you often end up deal- ing with the purely 'criminal' elements, of the whole situa- tion. As such, it goes beyond just being about 'animal welfare', at this stage. A case like this is also a police matter, at the end of the day. There has to be collaboration between the two authorities; and this, perhaps, is why the AWD chose to 'wait for the police', before inter- vening... There were, after all, many different dynamics to this case. And we are dealing with people whose criminal ten- dencies go beyond just 'animal cruelty', for its own sake. An- imal cruelty is, in fact, often a symptom of a lot of other criminal issues which need to be addressed... and which CAN be addressed: with the right amount of commitment, and enforcement. I assume you're referring to 'criminal issues' such as ille- gal dog-fighting (as was clear- ly involved in the case we are currently talking about). This raises another peculiarity about that particular incident: with hindsight, the owner was permitted to keep (and even 'breed') dangerous dogs, even after his own grandmother was mauled to death, in 2020. What does this say about the state of enforcement, of Malta's animal welfare laws? Well: 'lack of enforcement' is, I would say, the crux of the entire matter. It is, in fact, the one thing that most people are – quite rightly, I would say – constantly complaining about, at the moment. Because for too long now, we have been witnessing case after case, in which people have openly 'broken Malta's animal welfare laws'... without ever facing any real 'consequences', to speak of, at all. To give you but one example, out of many: last April, there was a case where someone had dumped a litter of new-born puppies into a land-fill; and the mother was later found chained in a field. Now: when the MSPCA took those dogs in, from Animal Welfare... apart from 'rehom- ing' them all (which I'm hap- py to say that we managed to do), we also identified the per- son who had committed that crime; and duly reported him to the authorities. And yet, all these months later: no action, of any kind whatsoever, has so far been taken against him. Why was he not arrested? Charged in court? Why did he he face no consequences whatsoever, for his actions? And if the authorities fail to take action, even in a case like this: how can we expect them to ever clamp down on much more serious, criminal cases of animal cruelty? This, ultimately, is why any attempt to improve the animal welfare situation – in Malta, or anywhere else - has to start with proper law-enforcement. Because if people can continue breaking the law, without ever facing any real consequences... it will never stop, will it?