Doggone country

It really is a dog’s life, it seems. While European tourist destinations bend over backwards to make themselves more attractive to pet owners – with growing demand for dog-friendly amenities in hotels, restaurants and public places – here in Malta we prefer to follow the United Arab Emirates’ model instead.

Just like these Middle Eastern principalities did last year, Malta has now banned dogs from most of the island’s already limited public parks and gardens. Shops, supermarkets, restaurants and bars are nearly all dog-free zones; and as of last week, taking your dog to the beach for a swim is in many cases an offence liable to fines of up to €4,658.75.

Indeed there are so many individual legal restrictions on the movements and activities of our supposed ‘best friend’ – varying from locality to locality, as individual local councils keep adding to the list – that some people are almost afraid to take their dogs out at all.

For instance: a few days after the national beach ban became public, one local council (Sliema) approved a number of additional restrictions which would keep dogs out of rock-pools such as the ‘banjijiet’ at Fond Ghadir, among others.

These secondary Sliema laws have yet to come into force; but coupled with the government’s ban on ‘bitches on beaches’ – as it has been dubbed in some quarters – the overwhelming impression is that Malta has now unofficially declared war on dogs.

‘Bitches on beaches’

Legal notice 125 of 2008, which came into force this week, places two specific restrictions on animals in general (but applicable to dogs in particular). One: “No animal may at any time be taken swimming in those areas designated by the Superintendent as swimming zones”; and two, “No animal may at any time be taken onto sandy beaches, although they can be taken onto rocky beaches and owners of such domestic animals are not to cause inconvenience to other bathers and must clean up all the dirt their  [sic] animals leave behind.”

On paper, this would appear to leave several options open to the local canine beach-bum: basically, dogs have the run of all Malta’s rocky beaches that have not been designated as official bathing areas.

In practice, however, such beaches are few and far between; and added to various by-laws passed at local council level, the result is that the leash for dogs in Malta is constantly being shortened.

As far as timing goes, the new laws couldn’t have been more inauspicious. Just a few weeks after a man was fined €10,000 for shooting a dog multiple times in the head, and then burying it alive – an ordeal which the animal survived, earning global fame in the process – we now discover that the penalties for repeated violation of the beach ban are actually higher: owners who take their dogs swimming in prohibited areas face a possible fine of €11,600 in case of repeated offences.

Within hours of the publication of these fines, social networks like Facebook were awash with sarcastic comments.

“So let me get it straight,” one indignant dog owner posted. “If I set my dog on fire, I’ll be fined less than if I take it swimming twice? Makes a lot of sense…”

Health hazards

Many other complaints were fuelled by what came across as the Health Division’s official justification for the new law: i.e., “to keep in check the possibility of diseases.”

Inevitably, this was met with the angry retort that other humans are arguably a greater health hazard than dogs.

“Why not ban English language students while were at it?” one angry commenter suggested. “At least from the beaches. They leave more rubbish behind, including urine and used condoms, which top what the whole population of dogs in Malta could create…”

Be that as it may, it remains unclear what specific diseases the Health Division had in mind. With the very debatable possible exception of rabies – a fatal disease transmitted through saliva, and which therefore may theoretically be carried also in seawater (though you are far likely to contract rabies through animal bites) – there are simply no known diseases passed from dogs to humans simply by sharing bathing space.

And as Malta is a rabies-free zone, it is highly unlikely that this was the real reason for the ban. Certainly the Health Division is reluctant to answer the question of what, exactly, it was trying to avoid with this particular law. Ministry spokesperson Claudette Buttigieg sidestepped the question twice this week; limiting herself to outlining the basic parameters of the law without any additional explanations.

Nor did the ministry spare much thought to the health, safety and wellbeing of animals when drawing up these regulations. It is widely known that dogs suffer more than humans on account of the summer heat; and in many cases a dip in the sea is more than just a pleasurable experience for our four-footed companions.

Swimming helps keep dogs from overheating in midsummer temperatures that can easily surpass 35 degrees Centigrade – an important consideration, bearing in mind a dog’s natural body temperature control mechanism is entirely different from (and considerably less efficient than) that of humans, or indeed most other mammals.

Sarah de Cesare, campaign manager for Dogs Trust Malta, expresses concern that a swimming ban may prove harmful to dogs’ health.

“If these by-laws are implemented, public areas for dogs to cool down in the heat will be very limited,” she told MaltaToday. “Dogs can suffer from the same problems that humans do including overexposure to the sun, overheating, dehydration and even sunburn....”

Separately, Malta’s Animal Welfare Director Dr Mario Spiteri this week confirmed that his department was never consulted in drawing up this law. “The aim of the law, we are told, is to protect humans from diseases they may pick up from dogs in the sea. But it doesn’t seem that any consideration was given to the dogs themselves…”

On her part Buttigieg points towards the other (limited) available options to dog owners: “These regulations do not pose any health risk to animals, as said animals can be taken to the sea for swimming in any part of Malta, Gozo or Comino where said areas are not officially designated as official bathing areas.”

Walk the dog

Apart from bans on most beaches, there have been a number of other restrictions which dog owners find increasingly objectionable.

Considering the country’s natural limitations in terms of physical space, the emphasis so far has been on closing off public areas to dogs and their owners… with no alternative recreational space ever offered to make up for the loss of gardens and parks.

Animal welfare organisations are less than impressed by the ‘dog-unfriendly’ direction the country appears to be heading.

In a press release this week, Dogs Trust objected to “unreasonable restrictions on dogs and their owners, leaving them with even fewer places to express their basic right to exhibit natural behaviour and exercise freely.”

Echoing the sentiments of other organisations – including the Animal Rights Coalition – De Cesare questioned the reasoning behind the regulations in the first place.

“To deny all dogs access to public gardens and prohibit them from swimming in the sea and natural pools is extremely short-sighted. We work hard to promote responsible dog ownership and the companionship that dogs offer us. These proposed measures could serve to ostracise dog owners and discourage others from getting a dog if the places that they can enjoy are severely limited.”
Instead of indiscriminately targeting all dog owners, De Cesare argues in favour of laws which zero in on the real culprits.
“We urge the government to rethink these proposals and instead look to placing emphasis on encouraging responsible dog ownership and penalising those who fail to clean up after their dog and keep them under control… An outright ban on dogs in public places that they have enjoyed for years could prove to be a backward step for animal welfare in Malta and tarnish our reputation as a nation that understands and respects the welfare needs of animals in line with the rest of Europe.”

Dangerous dogs

But while responsible dog owners are understandably incensed by the constant impositions and restrictions, it remains a fact that lack of law enforcement (and in some cases, of laws in general) can have very serious consequences insofar as dogs are concerned… not least from a safety point of view.

One case that immediately springs to mind is that of Sophi: a small dog that was mauled and killed by an unrestrained pit bull terrier in a very public place in May 2005.

Traumatised by the ordeal, Sophi’s owner Vanessa Bonnici had lobbied briefly for a law that would force people responsible for dangerous dogs to keep their pets leashed and muzzled. But while the authorities have since then taken all the above measures against dogs on beaches, they have stopped short of attempting to control the very real problem of dangerous dogs – often as not involved in (illegal) dog-fighting – sometimes left to roam the streets unchecked.

Six years after losing Sophi, Vanessa is sceptical about the latest dog-related regulations. “I think it is too extreme,” she says about the beach ban. “It is my honest opinion that the law should have been a leash law – basically all dogs everywhere in public should be on a leash. I still believe in muzzling, which any responsible dog owner would agree to – again, only using muzzles that are safe and allow the dogs to breathe and even drink through.”

Like De Cesare and others, Vanessa also places the blame for this state of affairs squarely on people, not dogs. 

“I think that this law has stemmed from irresponsible dog owners who allow their dogs to run around and don't bother cleaning up after them. Others (like unfortunately what happened to Sophi) don't care that their dogs are dangerous, especially to smaller more vulnerable dogs and cats. This has been proven over and over again both abroad and here in Malta. A leash law would promote responsible dog owners, and that's what we want people to be.”

Vanessa admits that the experience with Sophi has changed her outlook on dogs and safety. “Having said all that, I never take my dogs to the beach. After what happened with Sophi I rarely take my dogs out. I’m too terrified of what could happen if we came across a dangerous dog and an irresponsible owner. What happened to Sophi haunts me till this very day, six years later, and it is not something I think I'll ever get over.”

Sliema swimming ban

The incident itself had taken place in St Julian’s, not far from the Sliema seafront overlooking a very popular stretch of the coast… popular, that is, with people and dogs alike.

So it was perhaps understandable that the Sliema council’s recent decision to ban dogs from rockpools was angrily interpreted as an ‘extension’ of the national ban on dogs swimming in bathing areas.

Mayor Joanna Gonzi is keen to dispel the misinterpretation that her council was responsible for the latter ban also: “We have been made aware that there are many residents and people coming from outside the locality that are unable to use the natural rock pools because of fear or disgust of swimming with an animal. Apparently they are also frequently being made use of by parents with very young children and also by the disabled.

“We have tried to seek a balance by proposing that animals may swim in the open sea and not in pools. We as a council are by no means asking to ban animals from swimming in the open sea…”

Gonzi stressed that the exorbitant fines mentioned above were not proposed by the council – in fact they are the result of legislation by central government – but it remains a fact that national law now prohibits dogs from swimming along the entire Sliema coast, from Exiles to Tigné point.

But as councillor Cyrus Engerer separately points out, the additional ban on dogs in rockpools, as well as from all public gardens, is still at consultation phase and all such regulations have yet to be finalised.

Like Gonzi, Engerer resists the notion that Sliema is becoming ‘hostile’ to dogs. “The bye-laws that the Sliema Local Council has proposed are not ones that make Sliema a dog-unfriendly locality.  On the contrary, while we encourage our residents to adopt any stray pets, we need to also make sure that our roads, beaches and gardens remain clean; that our laws are enforceable; and that the few irresponsible pet owners are restricted from making a mess all along our roads and public areas.

“I therefore suggest that all those that feel that the proposed bye-laws are unfriendly to contact the Council staff with their proposals which would be put on board during our discussion at the Council meeting dis/approving the said bye-laws.  At the end of the day, we need to strike a balance in ensuring that dogs and their owners do get to enjoy our locality while making sure that no harm is done to the locality, people and other animals.”