Faced with various acts prepared by the municipal staff for families that have more than three dogs and for those who requested to “remove the excess”, the Bio Animal Foundation -the local NGO, which is dedicated to the construction and defense. non-human animal rights (ANH), presented a proposal to the Deliberative Council demanding a serious and ethical decision on issues involving animals.
In the document, signed by the president of the NGO, Gretel Monserrat and the president Ariel Héctor Morandi, which was read in the Council of the last session of Thursday, they expressed “concern with no serious policy from the municipal government and ethics on the various problems that are involved in our city and therefore the lack of effective access to it” .
They pointed out that for a long time “we have noticed the total incompetence of the managers of the 103″ service, who in the presence of someone who complains about the problems of non-human animals tell people to flock to them to local NGOs, which, in addition to the fact that the most serious error indicates the lack of absolute commitment of the municipal entity in these matters that affect society , the voluntary work that is done by said institutions and non-human animals, as well as public health and safety”.
“This is especially the case when they pay the exit of the horses to the public roads, where, in addition to the fact that the citizen receives an imprudent and false answer from the 103 staff, by taking the case to NGOs, it confuses the people and by not taking the power of the magistrates, which corresponds to the municipality in compliance with the respective regulation (N°-7.118) , until one day of the tragedy we realized that there was also no adequate organization of inspection personnel and the respective area in the activities involved. ANH)”.
Regarding the recorded records, the community asserts that entering “the main request for reports in the attached records (Inspection Book no. 180), which we also support and request, taking into account that we were not the first case. The consultation on this matter of our juridical, absurd and clearly illegal not only to apply the previous regulation, which is against the regulation No. 5,808, which provides for the implementation of the public policy, where the treatment is the respectable animals and the ethical control of the northern urban fauna.
As far as the third article of the regulation, which speaks of the observance of the life of animals and of avoiding all cruelty, it is not difficult to imagine that the punishment for the possession of certain animals was an older ritual than that mentioned; Not only is it not contrary, but it is a completely regressive policy, both in terms of morals and in public actions, which are adopted by different municipalities throughout the country, which also host public animals, have real adoption policies, consciences; other policies that benefit humans and non-humans,” the document adds.
He emphasizes that these actions “do not seek to punish in a tasteless way a person who took three animals from the street, which would otherwise be free on the public roads, or who could not sterilize their animals, because they do not know the existence of the municipality’s service. As is the case with many people in this city, or because there were relatives who died and who were of his family, etc.
The proposal states that today “non-human animals and human animals form many species of families due to the ties that, regardless of the species, the institution that has been recognized in several trials (Rawson’s “Tita” matter) unite them, when ordering food in favor of the dog or a cat, as the right of communication of a member of the ex-spouse who does not have protection”.
“Imagine the penalization of observing or removing animals that make a family really retrogressive and violent behavior, giving a terrible message to people, since it discourages the adoption of animals in street situations, since that is one of the axial points of regulation No. 5.808.”
The document reminds that non-human animals “have been recognized by the courts of the country, in most cases even in this city, as sentient, holders of fundamental rights such as freedom, life, psychophysical integrity, not to suffer insults, among others; in accordance with the Cambridge Declaration of 2012, where animals, especially mammals, have been recognized for their ability to experience experiences consciously, to perceive themselves, to recognize others, to enjoy their environment, etc.
“Ghandi said: “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated,” the sentence ends, warning that these “involving customs make us think that the political affairs of the state will be carried out in a disastrous manner. in times of kennels or zoonoses, where the animals died through direct extermination or the negligence and desertion of employees or officials who wanted to care and be well. These animals arrived at the shelters, starting from captives or stolen from homes by municipal personnel.
Faced with various acts prepared by the municipal staff for families that have more than three dogs and for those who requested to “remove the excess”, the Bio Animal Foundation -the local NGO, which is dedicated to the construction and defense. non-human animal rights (ANH), presented a proposal to the Deliberative Council demanding a serious and ethical decision on issues involving animals.
In the document, signed by the president of the NGO, Gretel Monserrat and the president Ariel Héctor Morandi, which was read in the last Thursday session of the Council, expressed “concern with no serious policy from the municipal government and ethics on the various problems that are involved in our city and therefore the lack of effective access to it “.
They pointed out that for a long time “we have noticed the total incompetence of the managers of the 103″ service, who in the presence of someone who complains about the problems of non-human animals tell people to flock to them to local NGOs, which, in addition to the fact that the most serious error indicates the lack of absolute commitment of the municipal entity in these matters that affect society , the voluntary work that is done by said institutions and non-human animals, as well as public health and safety”.
“This is especially the case when they pay the exit of the horses to the public roads, where, in addition to the fact that the citizen receives an imprudent and false answer from the 103 staff, by taking the case to NGOs, it confuses the people and by not taking the power of the magistrates, which corresponds to the municipality in compliance with the respective regulation (N°-7.118) , until one day of the tragedy we realized that there was also no adequate organization of inspection personnel and the respective area in the activities involved. ANH)”.
With regard to the recorded records, the community asserts that entering “the main request for reports in the attached records (Inspection Book no. 180), which we also support and request, considering that we were not the first case. It is consulted in this matter in our juridical matter, absurd and clearly illegal only to apply the previous regulation, which is against the regulation No. 5,808, which provides for the implementation of the public policy, where there is an observable treatment of animals and the ethical control of the northern urban fauna.
As far as the third article of the regulation, which speaks of the observance of the life of animals and of avoiding all cruelty, it is not difficult to imagine that the punishment for the possession of certain animals was an older ritual than that mentioned; Not only is it not contrary, but it is a completely regressive policy, both in terms of morals and in public actions, which are adopted by different municipalities throughout the country, which also host public animals, have real adoption policies, consciences; other policies that benefit humans and non-humans,” the document adds.
He emphasizes that these actions “do not seek to punish in a tasteless way a person who took three animals from the street, which would otherwise be free on the public roads, or who could not sterilize their animals, because they do not know the existence of the municipality’s service. As is the case with many people in this city, or because there were relatives who died and who were of his family, etc.
The proposal states that today “non-human animals and human animals form many species of families due to the ties that, regardless of the species, the institution that has been recognized in several trials (Rawson’s “Tita” matter) unite them, when ordering food in favor of the dog or a cat, as the right of communication of a member of the ex-spouse who does not have protection”.
“Imagine the penalization of observing or removing animals that make a family really retrogressive and violent behavior, giving a terrible message to people, since it discourages the adoption of animals in street situations, since that is one of the axial points of regulation No. 5.808.”
The document reminds that non-human animals “have been recognized by the courts of the country, in most cases even in this city, as sentient, holders of fundamental rights such as freedom, life, psychophysical integrity, not to suffer insults, among others; in accordance with the Cambridge Declaration of 2012, where animals, especially mammals, have been recognized for their ability to experience experiences consciously, to perceive themselves, to recognize others, to enjoy their environment, etc.
“Ghandi said: “the greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way in which its animals are treated,” the sentence ends, warning that these “involving customs make us think that the political affairs of the state will be carried out in a disastrous manner. in times of kennels or zoonoses, where the animals died through direct extermination or the negligence and desertion of employees or officials who wanted to care and be well. These animals arrived at the shelters, starting from captives or stolen from homes by municipal personnel.
