Over the past weeks, the draft Legal Notice on the Keeping of Wild Animals in Zoos made headlines after a clause stating that petting and handling of zoo animals by the public will be banned was changed 24 hours later stating the opposite. Animal Rights Minster Anton Refalo had told this newsroom that the first version was uploaded “erroneously”.

The original clause had angered zookeepers who felt that it was unfair on their business and their visitors. Their fury was fuelled further when the Commissioner for Animal Welfare Alison Bezzina expressed that she is completely against the caging of wild animals, resulting threats that would robe her of her job, all during the first week in her new role.

 

How was your first week as Commissioner?

It was more than I expected, both because I did not envision such a reaction from the public and the media when I was first appointed, and because it coincided with the public consultation of the drafted zoo regulations. I guess everybody knows what happened there.

Having said that I can see a silver lining as, even though it was a bit of a baptism of fire, I do not think we could have raised so much awareness on the topic, not even in a whole year!

 

What do you have to say to the Animal Right Minister Anton Refalo, who had said that the regulations will ban petting and handling of zoo animals, but the drafted regulation indicates the opposite?

I have spoken to him and whatever happened – whether it was an oversight or if it was related to external pressures – it looks very suspicious, so I obviously highly recommended that they go back to the first version of the clause.

 

Were you consulted about these regulations?

When they were being drafted and published, I was not Commissioner yet, but my predecessor had written a very extensive report on the matter in collaboration with FOUR PAWS International which is an expert in the field of wild cats.

It was very clear that the proposed legislation had taken that report into consideration, for sure.

 

But do you think that the regulations can still change? What power do you hold on the situation with your new role?

The public consultation closed last Monday. Now the authorities are weighing the public's input and it is up to them to decide.

I would like to believe that everything is still possible and that the regulations were not already decided before the public consultation.

Having said that, I hope that it will not be a majority vote but a weighing of pros and cons.

As Commissioner I do not have any enforcement or executive powers as my role is advisory and consultative. So, at this point, our work is done. If it does not go through the way we want it to, we will do what we have always done; keep trying.

 

The ‘correct’ version of the regulations says that the petting and handling of animals will be under the responsibility of the veterinarian caring for the zoo. How plausible is it that a vet oversees the petting and handling of zoo animals?

I cannot think of a practical way that can happen. Apart from the fact that we do not actually have local vets that are wildlife specialists, so vets would need to be brought from abroad, no vet can be constantly at a zoo monitoring the situation.

This is not to mention that vets are being put under a lot of undue pressure.

 

So, would you say that it is taking the responsibility off of the zookeeper and putting it on the vet? 

Yes, and I don't think that any vet in their right mind would take such responsibility as at the end of the day they are wild animals. Even with a domestic pet, you never really know how they will react in the hands of a stranger.

 

Will you be pushing for the total closure of zoos?

If zoos had to close during my time in this role, we would have a problem with the animals that are currently existing in those same zoos as they have a long lifecycle, and we would have a problem with where to put them.

What I will be pushing for is to gradually reduce the number of caged animals across the board by controlling the breeding of such animals.

 

What is your take on the clipping of dog’s ears and docking of their tails which was made illegal but is still taking place?

The main reason is for cosmetic purposes as at some point humans thought that certain dogs look more fashionable with clipped ears and docked tails. There was also the belief that certain working dogs needed to have docked tails, so they do not hurt themselves when they are working. However, now it is clear that it is for cosmetic purposes which is why it has been made illegal.

If you actually look at the actual surgical procedure, you will realise just how cruel it is. The tail is docked without anaesthetic when they are a puppy, which is obviously excruciating.

The ears are then done with anaesthetic, but most of the time they have to be taped and kept upright for weeks until they take that shape.

For me, anything that we do which is not for the benefit for the animals but for the pleasure of the human is absolutely unacceptable. 

It is a very complicated situation and the police have found it very difficult to get to the bottom of it but, like anything else, the Commission will definitely keep giving this a lot of priority especially with educating the public to convince them that this is just for pleasure.

 

What about irresponsible breeding? How do you think it should be regulated?

My wish is that we would never buy a dog again until all our shelters are empty. However, this is quite impractical, especially for small dogs since it is quite hard to find them up for adoption.

So, the solution to this is the regulations. We will be looking into them to see if there are any amendments that we can do to improve. However, the biggest difference we can make is in educating the public and raising awareness as it would not even cross some people's minds that they are potentially contributing to cruelty when buying a dog.

Of course, there are both responsible and irresponsible breeders, but it is very difficult for a buyer who is not involved in animal welfare to figure out the difference.

 

There is also the issue of dog fights which, despite not being in the limelight, is still present considering that people are still raising them as dangerous dogs. How will you be addressing this?

This is one thing I really need to look into.

As an activist, I had found it very hard to look into since it is a very secretive activity. It is an issue for the police since it is an illegal activity and hopefully, as Commissioner, I will have more access to information and come up with something that will help.

Once again, educating the public will do wonders since it will not only teach people on the cruelty and abuse involved but also encourage people who are privy of such information to speak up, even privately.

 

This year, a case wherein an elderly woman was mauled to death by aggressive dogs made headlines. Do you think that the animal is to blame in such situations or should the owner carry responsibility?

I never think the animal is to blame, a human is usually always to blame.

Whether it’s the owner or somebody who invaded their territory or the authorities who should have removed the dogs months before is not up for me to decide as I am not the judge in the case.

 

How will you address the issue of ongoing animal cruelty cases? Do you think that sentences should be stricter or harsher?

There are actually not that many cases in court regarding animal cruelty. 

We have a lot of cruelty and abuse cases which do not end up in court, however, as it is a long, complicated process and most often the authorities do not have the time or resources to take each one to court. At best they confiscate the animals and leave it at that.

I would like to get to a point where certain levels of abuse and neglect do not have to be taken to court but rather, the director of Animal Welfare will have the executive power to enforce a punishment. This could be fining the person and banning them from having more animals without having to go through the whole process of a criminal case in court. 

One other thing I would love to see implemented is this. At the moment when Animal Welfare confiscate someone's animal while waiting for a court case, there is nothing to stop the owner from getting another animal; and most of the time it has to go back and confiscate more animals.

 

There has also been the issue of people spreading poison to kill off stray cats and dogs, which has also cost the lives of several domesticated animals as well. Should legal action be taken in this regard?

Whoever uses these poisonous substances purposely is in breach of the Animal Welfare Act so yes, ideally, they are prosecuted to the full strength of the law.

But, in practice, it is almost impossible to catch the perpetrator of such a crime so I would rather make sure that the provision of these poisonous substances is heavily controlled. This means that there should be traceability on whoever has purchased it in the last weeks and months. 

It would be a deterrent to anyone who is thinking about using it illegally knowing that their name is somewhere associated with that poison, even if it would not eliminate the problem entirely.

 

Malta has been facing quite a lot of criticism both locally and internationally due to the illegalities that take place one year after another. Do you agree with hunting as a whole?

I do not think you will ever find a Commissioner who agrees with the killing of animals for whatever reason especially for pleasure or for sport, so my answer is obviously no.

I understand that there are hunters who abide by the law and those who do not, and I would love to see more monitoring and enforcement. But I do not believe that it can ever be controlled completely since it happens out in the countryside with huge areas to cover.

So, it is again boils down to making people aware and hopefully, with this education, we will discourage the practice of hunting.

What is your long-term vision for this role?

I have had a long-term vision which I started working on a long time ago, having been an activist in the field for quite some time, which is the general betterment of the lives animals in Malta. 

I am going to be aiming for that just doing it slightly differently in this position. Ever step I take, every word I say and everything I do will be done with this aim in mind.

I might not always succeed but the promise is that I will always try my best.