New regulations, fines in Animal Control Bill
By BRENT DEAN ~ Guardian Senior Reporter ~ brentldean@nasguard.com
The proposed Animal Protection and Control Bill mandates the insertion of identification microchips in dogs sold by breeders, a new board to oversee animal control matters and a series of fines for practices such as having dogs without identification collars in public places.
Agriculture Minister Larry Cartwright presented the bill for first reading to the House of Assembly last week. The bill is intended to modernize animal control regulations in the country.
The animal protection and control board would serve as the body empowered to regulate animal control issues. On the islands outside of New Providence, an authority would be established under local government, called the competent authority, to oversee animal control matters.
The animal protection and control board will serve as the competent authority in New Providence. The minister responsible for animal control matters would appoint animal control wardens to carry out the provisions of the proposed law.
The 12-member board would include two veterinarians, a member of the Royal Bahamas Police Force, a member from the Humane Society, along with other defined appointees.
The bill mandates annual dog licensing — a practice included in current legislation.
Some of the penalties in the bill include: a $250 fine for having an unlicensed dog, a $50 fine for having a dog without an identification collar in public, a $250 fine for allowing an animal to roam at large, a $50 fine for having an unleashed dog in public, a $500 fine for having an out-of-control dog in a public place and a $100 fine for failure to microchip a dog as prescribed in the bill.
The bill also proposes regulations on animals perceived as dangerous. Under the bill authorities are empowered to make orders that dangerous animals are, for example, spayed or neutered; microchiped for identification; kept in approved enclosures; and muzzled in public.
It would also be mandated that owners pick of the feces of dogs when they defecate in public places. Constant barking or howling, disturbing members of the community, would be considered an offense under the bill.
Penalties are also set out for dogfighting and other forms of animal fighting. Those found guilty would be subject to a minimum fine of $1,000 and a maximum fine of $20,000 and/or imprisonment for six months.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
25 thoughts on “The New Animal Protection And Control Act”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Before you microchip any of your animals you should read this article by Katherine Albrecht. “Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006” – http://www.antichips.com/cancer/albrecht-microchip-cancer-full-paper.pdf
Mandatory microchipping? Why?
There are lots of problems with the scanning devices. Just check out the scientific paper, “Sensitivity of commercial scanners to microchips of various frequencies implanted in dogs and cats” at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19046030?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum). Here’s what it says:
“RESULTS: None of the scanners examined had 100% sensitivity for any of the microchip brands. In addition, there were clear differences among scanners in regard to sensitivity. The 3 universal scanners capable of reading or detecting 128- and 134.2-kHz microchips all had sensitivities > or = 94.8% for microchips of these frequencies. Three of the 4 scanners had sensitivities > or = 88.2% for 125-kHz microchips, but sensitivity of one of the universal scanners for microchips of this frequency was lower (66.4% to 75.0%).”
Also check out this article in the JAVMA, “Pet’s Death Rekindles Electronic ID Debate” at http://www.avma.org/onlnews/javma/jul04/040701a.asp. It’s about a dog named Hadden who was euthanized at the shelter because the scanner couldn’t read his chip.
There are lots of problems with microchip-scanner technology. So, why would anyone pass legislation to mandate microchip implants? Oh, I get it … money, money, money … “Show Me The Money, Microchips and Political Power” – http://dogpolitics.typepad.com/my_weblog/2005/09/the_paws_bill_r.html
I do not agree with the microchips requirement.
I’ve been doing some reading about them, and there seems to be a lot of evidence showing chips causing adverse reactions.
Some sites with info:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=131533
http://www.antichips.com/cancer/index.html
http://www.invisio.nl/antichip/
http://www.noble-leon.com/introduction/
whilst I am all in favour of making sure lost animals are returned home safely – mandatory chipping where there is increasing evidence of cancer at the site of injection should be taken into consideration. Owners should have the right of choice in these matters especially as new evidence may suggest that the incidence of varying forms of cancer as a result of having a transmitter in the body are directly attributable to the chips.
Apart from taking away freedom of choice, the use of mandatory micro-chipping in this way does not allow ‘informed consent’ – a must for any ‘free’ and open country.
Informed consent means allowing anyone to have the choice, rather than being mandatory, and being given open access to information, rather than just being allowed to find it for themselves when the majority of people would not know it exists.
You can find this information at:
http://www.noble-leon.com/resourcesAdvanced/microchips.html
Also see: http://www.noble-leon.com/letters/microchip-implants-technological-solution-or-21st-century-nightmare.html
Thanks Liz, this micro chipping is for Breeders and Security guard dogs, dog licensing is for personal pets.
Microchipping has proven to have serious, detrimental side effects that are serious enough of an insult to our 4 legged friends. Please reconsider & go for a more humane identification system as in tattooing that has been around for decades with no side effects like the ones noted for microchips.
Thanks Barb, I will pass this information on the powers that be and also check with our local veterinarians for their input.
Mr. Turnquest: Please advise the local veterinarians and “the powers that be” that scientific data proves that animals (dogs, cats, mice, rats, Damaraland mole-rats, a bat, house musk shrew and an Egyptian fruit bat) have developed cancerous growths due to their microchip implant. In addition, scientific documents show that animals have experienced serious neurological damage and also died due to the microchip implant procedure.
Also, a vibrant young Chihuahua named Charlie Brown bled to death in 2009 after a veterinarian implanted a microchip in little Charlie. Adding insult to injury, Charlie’s owner did not want to chip him, but the law in her county mandated it.
And then there is Hadden; a beautiful dog who was euthanized because the shelter’s scanner was unable to read his microchip implant.
No one should be required to implant a foreign object in their pet’s body and everyone should understand the risks associated with microchip implants before using this technology.
Properly fitting collars with a legible identification tag is still the best and safest way to identify pets.
Thank you for writing about the health risks of micro-chip implants. I think this is the scientific data that Ms. Jones is referring to: http://noble-leon.com/resourcesAdvanced/microchips.html .
Blessings to the families of Charlie Brown, Hadden and the other animals who have experienced problems because of the micro-chips.
I’m sorry to hear about Charlie, Hadden and the other animals who have had such tragic experiences because of their microchip implant. Their owners must be devastated.
Serious health risks are not the only reason that people cannot be forced to microchip their animals. Many people believe that the chip is the Mark of the Beast. Revelation 13: 16-17 says:
“And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
Because of the serious health risks and religious beliefs associated with microchip implants, vets or the referenced “powers that be” cannot require people to inject a microchip in their animals. So, don’t bother passing such a ridiculous law. Bahamians will never comply.
My condolences to the families of little Charlie and the other animals.
For anyone who is interested in the scientific data regarding the microchip-cancer risk and other microchip-related problems, visit the website of noble-leon.com . There’s lots of data in the Advanced Literature – Microchip section. There’s also a really interesting document called “Microchip Implants: Technological Solution or 21st Century Nightmare?” on that site. It reviews the risks of microchip implants in great detail.
My little Yorkie has cancer…..he had a microchip that was found in the middle of a tumor removed from his back, at the site of the chip implant. He was diagnosed in December 2009 and given 10 to 12 months to live….if he lasts that long. He’s very sick now and we have a hard decision to make in the near future… we won’t let him suffer! It’s breaking our hearts to lose this little guy…..read our story here http://noble-leon.com/documents/Scotty-Hawkins-Story.html
I’m all for punishing people who are involved in dog fighting or being cruel to animals. But punishing people who refuse to have a foreign object (in this case a microchip implant) injected in their animal’s body is completely illogical and irrational.
As a responsible pet owner, I have read about the health and other problems posed by microchip implants. As such, my animals will NOT be chipped. Instead, they will wear a safe collar just as they always have.
Thanks For all the information, please send some of it to the Press so that it can be printed and the public can be aware and have their voices heard.
Want to see what problems chipping horse’s gave us in the Netherlands?
Take a look at http://www.antichip.nl
The site is partialy tranlated to Englisch.
Look at the photo’s and read the sad stories.
There are other ways to identify. Save ways. And chipping is anything but save.
Don’t believe the glorious stories of the manufacturers about how wonderful chipping is. We’ve got prove it’s not.
For 2 weeks I got a call from 2 horse owners who told me that even after a period of 2 years(!!!) in which there seemed to be no problem with their chipped horse’s, all of the sudden they develloped big lumps around the microchip. And guess who’s paying the extra costs to get the animal back on their feet – right, the owners.
Because, although, it’s mandatory to chip our horse’s, as soon as there’s a problem we’re on our own.
Don’t let it come this far in your country.
Microchipping everything that moves (or even doesn’t, in some cases) is too often seen as a cure-all, but can bring substantial health problems in its wake. If mandatory identification is seen as essential, please also consider tattooing, collars with tags, and the least invasive of all, DNA testing, which requires only a one-off saliva sample.
Please also consider tattooing, collars and tags, and – the least invasive of all – DNA testing. All perfectly acceptable methods of identification which do not carry the health risks associated with microchips
I hope a law is passed to punish people who mistreats animals. In other countries you even go to jail for that. I just saw in the Florida news yesterday a teen who is facing serious charges as he is being blame to cat killing. I love my dogs and I now feel safe in my home because of them. Lets give them the respect they deserve.
Can I say for the record AGAIN the new Animal Protection and Control Act ONLY requires Microchipping for Security Guard dogs, dogs that have been proven to dangerous in the neighbourhood and dogs registered for breeding, now the great thing about this Act is that it has provision for regulations and in the regulations it will included tattooing as a permanent form of identification for these animals. The Act DO NOT require owners of personal pets to MICROCHIP them, it requires you to license and have a collar and ID tag on them.
Mr. Turnquest: Health risks associated with microchip implants do not discriminate against dogs. In other words, even security guard dogs, “dangerous” dogs, or dogs bred by breeders can have an adverse reaction to a microchip implant.
Also, requiring people to license their dogs is an unnecessary financial burden on people. As we all know, there are many wonderful people who adopt stray Bahamian pot-cakes all of the time. Do you really expect anyone to spend money on dog licenses when they could be spending it on healthy food or medical treatment for the dog(s) that they have rescued?
By the way, how do you expect to enforce mandatory dog chipping and mandatory dog licensing?
Also, are people going to be thrown in jail if they don’t comply with these rules and cannot pay the fines? If so, what will happen to their animals? Will they be given away or perhaps destroyed?
hello, i would also like to know if there is any punishment to people who intentionally poison dogs. we lost just 2 of our pets out of the 4 we have. all potcakes and lovely dogs. fenced in our yard. i dont know who done it and also my neighbor lost her puppy to weedkiller. it was horrible suffering for the dogs. and no vet on the outer islands. also we brought one into nassau but the vet couldnt help anymore.
so i hope they consider this to at the law enforcement. to protect them from people.
thx
I agree with Sam:
The microchips do not discriminate when causing health problems in pets. More than 11 scientific, peer-reviewed studies have conclusively established causal link between microchips and cancer. In addition potential health problems identified by the FDA are: Adverse Tissue Reaction; Migration of Implanted Transponder(microchip); Electromagnetic Interference; Electrical Hazards; Imaging Incompatibility; Failure of Inserter.
In addition to health concerns implantable microchips fail to work or are incompatible with a reader in 30%-65% of cases.
Mandating a breeder or guard dog owner or anyone else to insert a foreign cancer-causing body into their pet is simply inhumane and cruel.
Please read some of the media coverage on the subject of implantable microchips and stories of the pets that suffered damage from microchips. Here are the links:
Washington Post Article: Chip Implants Linked to Animal Tumors
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/08/AR2007090800997_pf.html)
WorldNetDaily Article: Fear spreads! Dogs being killed by ‘helpful’ device (http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=131533)
Louisville-Pets.com – Implanted Microchips Cause Cancer
(http://www.louisville-pets.com/microchip_cancer_study.html)
Hello.
My wife and I are considering retirement to the Bahamas and would like to know if there currently any breed restrictions in the Bahamas.
Thank you.
I am from Canada, and to be honest, I am absolutely appaled while reading some of these posts. I think enforcement is fantastic! While most of you are writing about your boohoo over micro chips; why don’t you check the multiple times it has been said that it is not manditory, an ID tag is for your “pets”… and focus on the importance of what the bill -is- talking about. Animal abuse and neglect is discusting and seems to happen quite a bit there. As far as I’m concerned if you have to pay for the lisence of an animal it shows that you are responsible enough to have one; if you can’t pay for it than maybe you shouldn’t have one.