animal law

10 petitions

Update posted 5 days ago

Petition to Animal Welfare Board of India, Peta India

Justice For Freyja

On 23rd March 2017, my beautiful four year old Freyja fell ill with what initially seemed like a simple case of hairball obstruction. On 6th May 2017, Freyja finally passed away after seven weeks of abuse, torture and maltreatment by a fraudulent vet, Dr. Sourav Roy. The central focus is of this petition is to highlight the fact that Freyja was exploited as a commodity for monetary gains and was denied the basic right to proper treatment and care by her perpetrator(s). Chronology of Events: 23rd March 2017: Freyja was severely constipated and refused to eat any food. I called Dr. Roy for advice He believed it to be a simple hairball obstruction which should clear out on its own in a few days. He advised me to give her Rantac MPS Suspension 3 ml, Ondem Suspension 3 ml and Hepa Merz Syrup 1 ml daily along with Duphalac 5 ml every alternate day. 28th March 2017: Freyja’s symptoms had not improved and I took her to Dr. Roy for consultation.  Freyja had already lost about 500 grams of her body weight. He told me that it is most likely a GI infection and suggested a course of antibiotics. He also suggested a diet of chicken, potato and pumpkin along with Dextrose 5% saline water.  After completing the course of antibiotics, Freyja’s symptoms improved and she started eating on her own. 7th April 2017: Freyja began to vomit again and her vomit had a very foul-smelling odour. She refused to eat on her own and had to be force-fed.  Dr. Roy suggested another 5 days course of antibiotics along with homeopathic dewormers. Dr. Roy suggested that we get blood and stool test done after the full course of antibiotics. He still advised against an X Ray or USG despite obvious symptoms of GI obstruction. He suspected that Freyja either had Pyometra or Haemoprotozoan infection. He recommended Paw Path for her tests and gave me a contact person’s details. Freyja was passing hard stool until this point.  11th April 2017: Freyja was scheduled for her blood test. Dr. Roy’s paravet Sapan arrived on time but Paw Path had not sent anyone for collection. The contact person messaged me to say that he will only send the person after the blood has been drawn. I informed Dr. Roy about the episode, he blamed me for creating a fuss and claimed that blood samples can be refrigerated for a long time. I did not let Sapan draw the blood without proper viles from Paw Path. Freyja’s blood work got stalled for one more week due to Poila Baisakh holidays in between. 14th April 2017: I called Dr. Roy to discuss the fact that Freyja had still not passed stool. He told me that he will perform a “colon cleanse” on Monday to remove the obstructed faecal matter. He further advised to reschedule her blood test after the cleanse. 15th April 2017: Freyja passed a few nugget-sized hard stool. Her appetite improved a little bit. 17th April 2017: Dr. Roy gave Freyja 30 ml of Dextrose 5% saline along with Pan IV 2 ml, Graniset 2 ml and Decolic 2 ml injections. He performed his “colon cleanse” by pushing 60 ml of warm water with 2 ml of glycerol and lemon juice up her rectum. Freyja passed some very hard pellet-sized poop immediately after the cleanse. Dr. Roy said that she requires another cleanse which Sapan will perform on Wednesday. Over the course of the night, she seemed a bit weak and lethargic but regained her energy a little the next day. 19th April 2017: Freyja’s blood work was rescheduled for this day. Dr. Roy organised another paravet, Tukai, who worked as a sample collector for Paw Path along with Sapan for the blood collection. Freyja’s blood could not be drawn even after two attempts and the paravets informed me that her blood pressure is too low. Dr. Roy who advised Sapan to take another attempt but not perform the cleanse. He communicated the same to me. I refused to allow another attempt as Freyja was already traumatized. When I expressed my concern for Freyja’s health, Dr. Roy told me that I should have not delayed her blood work and that she cannot go through any blood work or USG for at least 7 days for “medical” reasons. 22nd April 2017: I called Dr. Roy to inform him that I was taking Freyja for an X Ray at Paw Path. I asked him to message me the type of the X Ray she needs. I reached Paw Path at 4PM for her X Ray. I asked the staff to send me a photo of the X Ray plate and report as per Dr. Roy’s instruction. They told me that they would give me the plate within an hour but the report will take about 2 days as her test was done post 4 pm. Plus, for the report I needed to leave the plate with them for the radiologist to examine. I was sent a photo of the plate via whatsapp 2 hours later. I sent that photo to Dr. Roy. After a few hours, he called me to inform me that Freyja has a very large piece of stool lodged between her small and large intestine. Freyja passed a small nugget-sized piece of very hard stool that day. He recommended that I give her glycerol 2 ml every day to “naturally” soften the stool and he would perform a few cleanses to dislodge the faecal matter. He also told me that the alternative to this was a surgery which Freyja was considerably weak to sustain. On 25th April at 9:50 AM I received a message from Paw Path stating that my report was ready for collection. The report states “gaseous and faecal matters” in the large intestine.  27th April 2017: Dr. Roy came home to perform another “cleanse”. My mother discussed Freyja’s scope for surgery. Dr. Roy scheduled a surgery for Saturday after his discussion with my mother. However, he also stated that it will be “high-risk” surgery. He insisted that we do perform a “mild cleanse” with 1 ml glycerine and 9 ml of warm water with lemon juice anyway. He asked Sapan to perform the cleanse and left. Sapan gave Freyja 0.5 ml of Polybion, 2 ml of Pan IV and 2 ml of Graniset injection along with 15ml of dextrose 5% saline before the cleanse. Freyja passed a few more pellet-sized faeces and started eating from late in the night. Later in the night, I messaged Dr. Roy to update him about Freyja and he mentioned that he wanted to discuss her surgery with me. When I called him, he said that he is not very comfortable taking the risk of surgery with Freyja as she has 80% chances of collapsing on the OT table. He suggested that we continue the enemas and reschedule the surgery for Tuesday, and hope for the best. 28th April 2017: Freyja regained her appetite and started eating small amount of fish every hour. By afternoon, her appetite had increased quite a bit and she was playing once again. She passed another large nugget-sized piece of hard stool. By evening, Freyja seemed happy and energetic. Hence, I called Dr. Roy to ask if we could stall the enema for a day. He firmly said no. Sapan arrived at 9 PM to perform another cleanse. This time he first performed the cleanse and then gave Freyja the saline and injections. Also, instead of Polybion 0.5 ml, he gave her Pepcid AC 1 ml injection. At 9:45 pm, Freyja vomited and looked very sick. Sapan stayed till 10 pm to check her heart rate and to see if she had any breathing troubles and then left. Freyja passed liquid stool through the night. I informed Dr. Roy and he assured me that it was a good sign. 29th April 2017: Freyja completely refused to eat anything. She looked very uncomfortable and generally sick. Dr. Roy informed me that he will come and check on her in the afternoon. Despite repeated phone calls, he turned up at 8:30 PM eventually. When he examined her, he said that she has 20% chances of survival even without the surgery. When we pointed out that she got this sick after the enema, he firmly defended Sapan and said that there can be numerous reasons for her feeling sick. He further claimed that Freyja might have “some kind of malignant tumour” and suggested that we do another X Ray or a USG. Freyja continued to worsen through the night and her body temperature had fallen.  30th April 2017: Dr. Roy called at 7:30 AM to enquire about Freyja. When I mentioned that it was the enema that made her this sick, he verbally abused me. He also spoke to my mother to express his “disappointment” and stated that it was my negligence that had ultimately led to Freyja’s deterioration. I took Freyja to Dr. Subir Bhattacharya at Paws and Claws, Kasba upon a friend’s recommendation. Upon examining the X Ray plate, Dr. Bhattacharya informed me that Freyja did not have any faecal impaction in the first place. She was severely dehydrated and in a moribund state due to maltreatment and needed immediate IV fluids. He administered IV fluids and told me to put her on a renal diet. He informed me that Dr. Roy is not a qualified practitioner and does not have any veterinary degrees. He is a fraud who has been posing as a vet for many years. He further informed me that Dr. Roy has a police case lodged against him at a local Police Station and has been given orders to stop his practice. I asked my previous flatmate from the University of Bristol to re-examine the X Ray plate. She is a PhD researcher at the School of Veterinary Sciences. She reconfirmed Dr. Bhattacharya’s claim. 1st May 2017: My mother phoned Dr. Roy to make him aware that we had found out that he is a fraud. He repeatedly denied that he had ever claimed to be a vet, even though, I have copies of his previous prescriptions with degrees printed on them. Moreover, during his time as our family vet, he mentioned several times that he studied at the School of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Surrey. He also strongly questioned the legitimacy of our information on the X Ray plate, claiming repeatedly, that her “report also indicated faecal matters”. 6th May 2017: Freyja finally succumbed to maltreatment after seven long weeks. We phoned Paw Path to inform them about Freyja and Dr. Roy.  We spoke to a staff at Paw Path, Abhishek Chatterjee, who told us that he will share the contact details of one of the owners as soon as possible. He called us back 2 minutes later and shared the phone number of Mr. Sumit Punjabi. We informed Mr. Punjabi about Freyja’s case.  This petition seeks: 1. Justice for Freyja on the grounds of animal cruelty and maltreatment. 2. An acknowledgment that Freyja was exploited for monetary gains and denied right to life. 3. More stringent animal welfare measures to restrain malpractice of veterinary medicine. 4. A thorough investigation of Freyja’s case. 5. A revision of the existing animal cruelty act.

Sohni Chakrabarti
1,353 supporters
Update posted 2 weeks ago

Petition to Narendra Modi, Maneka Gandhi

Shelter for Dogs on streets

The dogs on street are part of society and our inherent civilization yet every day they suffer from the nuisance of crippling vehicles, stones throw by people, acid poured on them, beaten to death, shot at by guns in residential areas and being abandoned to fend for themselves. Its cruelty practiced every state, city, street and house. All they need is food and some secure boundaries so they can play within and can be protected from the busy roads and people.  I say this coz I hear read and see so may of these wonderful companions suffering for no reason at all but due to sheer negligence and lack of responsibility on our part as society. Merely 2 month pup crippled for her life with both hind legs not working coz someone ran over her. Merely 5 month old puppy shot at by pellet gun and crippled for life (both hind legs damaged) with deep wounds that are yet to close since last 8 months. Some Being tied on all fours and mouth tight shut with rope to be dumped at some other place carried away hanging on a danda coz they were blamed to have bitten someone in your society or coz they bark. I have personally been with so many dogs and never suffered at one's bite. Some cases do happen but only when they feel thretened just like you would react when you are scared.  Its just not normal with the no. Of accident cases and cruelty met to such innocent and voiceless souls. Please urge our state goverments to set up shelters for all street dogs in every district with best of veterinary facilities and awareness programmes for schools and societies (RWAs).   

Ananya Agrawal
1,953 supporters
Update posted 4 months ago

Petition to Hobbyists , Enthusiasts , Breeders, traders, Companion animal keepers, animal welfare organisations, NGOs, Rescuers , Animal lovers, Pet keepers

Plea to Reconsider the proposed 'Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2016'

KIND ATTENTION, PET AND ANIMAL LOVERS OF INDIA PS: LAST DATE OF SUBMISSION  is 14th JAN 2017 (soft copies are to be delivered by 14th) There has been a recent proposal to amend the pet laws in the country.  At the outset, these are meant to serve as guidelines for the wellbeing of the animals. As much as we welcome the move, there are several points in the guidelines, which are vague, contradictory and even impractical. Since these could affect all of us, keepers, lovers and traders alike, it is imperative that we voice our opinion, and point out these discrepancies to the authorities. Overall, the proposal needs to be revisited and drafted in a better fashion. Only a collective effort would help raise awareness and also show the authorities our concerns regarding the same. We have drafted a letter raising some of these concerns, and have also made an effort to provide suggestions which could be looked into, as effective alternatives. We kindly request you to go through the letter and voice your opinions. Please do share this widely, so that more people become aware of these proceedings. Apart from signing this petition, we kindly request you to try to send signed hard copies of the letter to the authorities. The recipient address is included in the letter below. We have included links to the printable PDF version of the letter, as well as the link to the complete original proposal, below. Links :   Objections and Suggestions - Letter - PDF Original Amendment Proposal - PDF   Date: 6th January 2017To,The Deputy Secretary (Animal Welfare),Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,Government of India (Animal Welfare Division)5th Floor, “Vayu” Wing,Indira Paryavaran Bhawan, Jor Baug Road,New Delhi 110003Email id: dsaw-mef@gov.inSubject: Objections & Suggestions to Draft Rule under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2016.   As we welcome the Draft Rules under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2016, certain points mentioned under the Drafts have added to several Ambiguities and Contradictions. Several provisions have been overlooked and omitted and a few stringent guidelines which do not take into consideration the ground realities of running a successful Pet outlet in our Country have been drafted, which severely affect livelihood and day to day business of Pet related Stake holders in our Country. There are several countries across the globe which have rules and regulations for Pet Shops/Traders, Pet Breeders, Pet Keepers, commercial and non-commercial Pet Hobbyist, Etc. which are part of one gamut yet totally different entities and are successful in running all aspects with logical and practical rule frame work. This Draft Act fails to identify such entities and has confused all stakeholders related to this trade/hobby rather than clarifying things. Globally there are norms and regulations, which are in place since several decades and are drafted with logical and practical approach; such logical and practical approach in operating this trade is lacking severely in this the Draft Rules under Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Pet Shop) Rules, 2016. Keeping wellness of our Pets as our primary concern, we are suggesting that the following issues and guidelines be altered or amended to ensure the best for our Pets and their keepers. These recommendations shall invariably improve the standards of our Pet Shops and take into account all the affected parties. I/We hope these recommendations are taken into consideration in formation of the Pet Shop Rules.   Objections & Suggestions POINT NO.1 Page 2: Definition: (f) “breeder” means an individual or group of persons who own dogs of specific breeds for breeding and sale of dogs and pups, and includes a boarding kennel operator, intermediate handler and trader; 1. Objection: The definition of “breeder” only talks about dogs and pup. The entire draft act talks about Pets which include Birds, Cats, Rabbits, Dogs, Rodents etc. BUT the “Breeder” definition mentioned on page no.2 point (f) ONLY talks about “Dogs” in particular and NO other Species. 1. Suggestion: Must include all pets/animal breeder and not just dogs & pups. The Act to Identify / Include/ mention / give due Recognition to “Breeders” of other Pet Species apart from just Dogs/Pups. However as per the current applicable rules & regulations there is NO Provision for “Breeders” of other Species like Pet Birds, Cats, Rodents, Fish, Amphibians, Reptile Etc. of exotic origin which is not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations;   POINT NO.2 Page 2: Definition: (k) “pet animal” includes dog, cat, rabbit, guinea pig, hamster, rodents of the rat or mice category, and captive birds, the ownership of, and trade in, which is not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations; 2.1 Objection: Definition (k) of “Pet Animal” does not mention other mammals, Fish, Reptiles, Amphibians, insects, invertebrates etc. (which are not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations); which are also kept as Pets by many enthusiasts. 2.1 Suggestion: To Identify/Include/Mention/Give due Recognition to other species of Pets which are not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations; 2.2 Objection: The draft act talks about Pets, which include Birds, Cats, Rabbits, Dogs, Rodents etc. However, all the Pets which are for Sale or event kept at home are “Captive” which is applicable to a Dog with Leash, Cat at home, Fish in an Aquarium or a bird in its Cage. Hence, to use the word “Captive” is not correct or explanatory.  2.2 Suggestion: To replace the word “Captive” Bird with “Pet Bird”   POINT NO.3 Page 2: Definition: (L) “pet shop” means a shop, place or premises, including any shop, place or premises in a weekly or other market, where pet animals are sold or housed, kept or exhibited for sale, or where any retail or whole-sale business involving the selling or trading of pet animals are carried out, and includes online platforms over which the sale and purchase of pet animals is carried out where-ever the context permits; 3. Objection: The definition mentioned in point (L) on Page no.2, does NOT clarify whether place and people like Breeding centres/Breeders (other than Dog Breeders (for which the provision is in place), Keepers of Pets at Home (regardless of the number of pets he/she keeps), Hobbyists Etc. are also included in the definition of “Pet Shop” as per point (L) on page no.2 There are several people across the country who keep pets in large number and they may not be commercially engaged in pet trade at all, are they also required to register themselves under this Act? Does the pet owner need to register if his pet / pets ownership is being transferred and there is an exchange of sorts.  3. Suggestion: Clear definition of Non-Commercial Pet keepers, Hobbyists to be defined herewith and to be provided exemption from the need to register themselves under “Pet Shop” in particular. Provision of Stock Declaration, License for Breeders (apart from Dog Breeders for which the provision is in place), Registration of Hobbyists to be done with local authorities.   POINT NO.4 Page no. 2 Definition (d) “local authority” means a municipal committee, district board or other authority for the time being invested by law with the control and administration of any matter within a specified local area; 4. Suggestion: Local Authority needs to form a sub-body comprising of pet lovers and hobbyists form that area associate with them in order to educate pet owners, pet shop owners on keeping and maintaining pets which are to be displayed at the pet shops.   POINT NO.5 Page no. 2 (h) “inspector” means a person appointed by the local authority or the State Animal Welfare Board and includes a representative of the State Board: Provided that any person who is or has been a pet shop owner or breeder, or is related to a pet shop owner or breeder, shall not be appointed or authorized as an inspector under these rules; 5. Objection: The definition of “Inspector” does not provide any clarity on his/her qualification/subject knowledge/certification/capability to understand and monitor the situation of the said Pet Shop 5. Suggestion: Inspector should be qualified enough to understand the requirement, species etc. of the pet since he/she would have good amount of authority under this act   POINT NO.6 Page 3: Point no. 3. Prohibition of operating pet shops without registration.—(1) No person shall— (a) carry on or continue the business of sale or trade in pet animals, whether retail or wholesale; or (b) establish or operate a pet shop, or any other establishment engaged in sale, purchase or exchange of pet animals by whatever name called; without obtaining a certificate of registration in accordance with these rules: Provided that any person operating a pet shop on the date of the commencement of these rules shall, within sixty days of such commencement, obtain a certificate of registration of pet shop under these rules: Provided further that if a person referred to in the first proviso fails to apply for the registration within such period of sixty days or is refused the registration for any reason specified in these rules, then, the State Board or Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals shall seal the shop, and confiscate the pet animals displayed or housed for sale and the pet animals so confiscated shall be handed over to as deemed fit by the magistrate under the provisions of section 29 of the Act. 6. Objection: Considering the amount changes to be made to existing Establishment / Area / Infrastructure of an existing pet Shop, the time frame of Sixty days is too less to make the necessary changes (if the Act comes into play). Not All shops are Owned, some are rented Hence, Sixty days is not enough for a tenant to make necessary changes.  6. Suggestion: Timeline of Sixty Days to be extended to 180 days minimum to make the necessary changes to an existing establishment of a Pet Shop.   POINT NO.7 Page 3: Point no. 3. Prohibition of operating pet shops without registration.—(1) No person shall— (b) establish or operate a pet shop, or any other establishment engaged in sale, purchase or exchange of pet animals by whatever name called; 7. Objection: Sub-Point no. (b) under Point no.3 Prohibition of operating pet shops without registration on page no.3 does not indicate the quantum or the nature of establishment.   POINT NO.8: Page no.5 Point no. (11) Notwithstanding anything in these rules, the following persons shall not require a license under these rules, namely: (a) an animal shelter operated by or on behalf of a local authority, or an Animal Welfare Organization; (b) a veterinary hospital or clinic; or (c) any other facility or establishment that operates for the welfare of animals, and is not engaged in commercial activity such as sale and purchase of animals. 8. Objection: There are several Pet Keepers/Collectors/Hobbyists/Pet Lovers/Breeders (Other than Dog Breeders, for which the provision is in place) who do not engage themselves under commercial activities, regardless of the number Or Species of Pet one keeps. There is NO Mention of such parties in point no. (11) on Page no.5 HENCE, Contradicting definition (L) of “Pet Shop” mentioned on page no.2 8. Suggestion: Hobbyists/Keepers/Collectors/Pet Lovers/ Breeders (Other than Dog Breeders, for which the provision is in place) who do not engage themselves under commercial activities, regardless of the number Or Species of Pet one keeps Should also be included in the list mentioned in Point no. (11) of page no.5 and such entities shall Not be required to Obtain License under these rules.   POINT NO.9 Page no.6, Point no. (4) under Accommodation, infrastructure and housing. (4) The floor of the enclosure or room for displaying or housing pet animals for sale shall not be of wire mesh, and shall be constructed such that no injury to the animals’ feet, or legs, or any other injury is caused to them. 9. Objection: Having a floor of the enclosure in solid form will encourage collection of organic matters like food waste, droppings/excreta & urine. Point no. (g) on page no. 7, under General care of animals, veterinary care, and other operational requirements, Contradicts the point under discussion. Most of the cages/enclosure bottom/floor have wire mesh / grill like design which is in fact complimenting and promoting Hygiene, since, organic matters like food waste, droppings/excreta & urine passes through it and lands on the floor or Tray below making it inaccessible for the pet animal/bird/rodent. 9. Suggestion: Since having a floor or wire mesh, grill like design which easily allows all organic matters like food waste, droppings/excreta & urine passes through it and lands on the floor or Tray below making it inaccessible for the pet animal/bird/rodent etc.  Such designs should be encouraged and incorporated within this act and point no. (4) under Accommodation, infrastructure and housing, on page no. 6 should be changed.   POINT NO.10 Page no. 8, Point no. (4) A pet shop shall not breed animals, Under General care of animals, veterinary care, and other operational requirements 10. Objection: This Point is the biggest “Contradiction” of this act if Breeders are to be registered under this act and obtain license of “pet shop” On one hand there is ambiguity on whether Breeders shall register under this Act to Obtain License, and on the other hand there’s point no.4 on page no.8 Under General care of animals, veterinary care, and other operational requirements, which says “A pet shop shall not breed animals”  There is NO Provision/Rules/Regulation/Guide Lines/License/Registration for any “Breeder” (apart from Dog Breeders, for which the provision is in place) currently in this country. 10. Suggestion: Separate Provision/Rules/Regulation/Guidelines/License/Registration to be drafted and made with help of All Stake holders viz. subject Experts, Registered Societies for the educational purpose of particular Species for Breeders (apart from Dog Breeders, for which the provision is in place)   POINT NO.11 Page no.10, Point no. (19) every pet shop owner shall make efforts to ensure the adoption or re-homing of any pet animal that has not found a buyer despite a month having elapsed since it was first displayed for sale at the pet shop: 11. Objection: Under what logic is the timeline of a month deiced for adoption? The pet kept in the pet shop is the property of the Pet Shop Owner and his responsibility, however due to lack of demand, competition and several other reasons a particular pet may not be sold off within a period of a month. 11. Suggestion: Point no. (19) on page no.10 to be removed since it may severely affect the pet shop owner’s business.   POINT NO.12 Page no.10, Point no. (21) Any and all items intended for sale, whether retail or whole-sale, including pet products and accessories, shall not be stored or displayed for sale in the animal areas within a pet shop. 12. Objection: Not all pet shops in India are of standard area and type, hence, it would be very impractical to make a separate section for the Pet Shop Owner for Pet products, pet food & accessories and make another section for pets. A pet shop is a complete place for all requirement of a particular species of a pet and its associated accessories, food items, supplements etc. which are a offered to customers for betterment of the pet is essential. 12. Suggestion: The rule for having separate areas of pets and separate area for other products and accessories to be abolished. Depending on the space available in a pet shop, the owner shall make arrangements for storage of all related accessories and food items in same or separate areas from where the animals are kept, in such a manner that the animal enclosure is not obstructed or causing harm to the pet kept in any way.   POINT NO.13 Page no.10, Point no. (26) No pet shop shall sell any pet animal acquired from an unlicensed breeder. 13. Objection: Currently there is NO provision in India for obtaining License for Breeding of any other Pet Species Animal such as Birds/ Rodents /Reptiles /Invertebrates/Fishes (which is not prohibited by any other law, rules or regulations) apart from “Dog Breeding License” for which provisions exists. This will make impossible for the Pet Shop Owner to sell anything apart from a Dog/Pup, which is from a licensed Dog Breeder. 13. Suggestion: Until Separate Provisions/Rules/Regulation/Guidelines/License/Registration are drafted and come into place, Pets from all sorts of Breeders should be allowed to be traded at the pet shop (apart from Dogs/Pups)   POINT NO.14 Page no.9, Point no. (13) The species and numbers of pet animals, and the prices for which they are offered for sale shall be prominently displayed at the pet shop, with the name of the breeder and his address on the enclosures of all pet animals. 14. Objection: Display of details would not be possible for pets like Fishes, small pet birds like: Finches/ Canaries/Small Pet Type Budgerigars etc. which are larger in count and hence details cannot be put up for larger count of pets of such kinds 14. Suggestion: any ADULT pet under 200 grams(or decided weight which helps covers smaller pets like fish, insects, small birds and animals etc) of weight should be displayed for sale without any need of details on the enclosure. This may help in the overall management of Pet shop Rules.   POINT NO.15 Page no.11 8. Maintenance of records.— (1) Every pet shop owner shall maintain in a record book, the particulars of breeders and suppliers of pet animals intended for sale, including name, address, contact details, and date of transaction, and the number of pet animals received, their breed or species, and bird band number if applicable. 15.Objection: Maintenance of Record for any pet live Fishes, small Birds like Finches/Canaries/Small Pet Type Budgerigars Etc. since they are too many in numbers and very difficult/not possible to tag them and give any sort of unique identity to the pet. 15.Suggestion: any Pet species below 200 grams of weight should Not be mandatory for record maintenance   POINT NO.16 Page no.15 THE SECOND SCHEDULE (See rule 6) MINIMUM SPACE REQUIREMENTS 1. FOR BIRDS: (b) The aviaries shall be large enough to allow each bird full body extension, and wide enough to accommodate the fully stretched wings of all, and allow easy hopping, jumping, climbing and flight within the aviary. 16.Objection: No mention of companion bird/birds for it to socialize and reduce stress. 16. Suggestion: Mention of companion bird/birds should be there in above point, however not as a compulsion since its species/sub-species dependent.   POINT NO.17 Page no.15 THE SECOND SCHEDULE (See rule 6) MINIMUM SPACE REQUIREMENTS (c) Well-placed perches shall be provided within each aviary where the birds can stand upright without having head contact with any ceiling, and tail contact with the floor or grate, and for species such as Finches and Canaries that prefer flying or jumping to climbing, perches shall be positioned in a manner that allows the same. 17. Objection: Since the food waste, excreta/urine and other organic waste falls on the enclosure’s floor, it is more logical and practical to have wire mesh flooring rather than solid flooring since having wire mesh will allow all organic waste to pass through either in a tray or floor below the enclosure, making it impossible for the bird/birds to reach to it and hence prevent all sorts of contamination and infections. 17. Suggestion: Floor of the enclosure/cage can be of mesh, which will promote hygiene, since it is a globally accepted and ethical mean of keeping a pet bird. However, it should not be made compulsory to have mesh flooring since some bird species like Australian grass parakeets would have need to access the ground and forage on the grass. Aviaries of the bird can be either, Suspended types, Cages with trays below the floor wire mesh and also aviaries with ground.   POINT NO.18 Page no.11 8. Maintenance of records (3) Every pet shop owner shall maintain a record of the pet animals that die at the pet shop, with the day, date and time of death, and cause of death certified by a veterinary practitioner, and details of the medical attention and care provided to the deceased pet animal prior to its death certified in writing by a veterinary practitioner, and manner of disposal of carcasses. 18. Objection: There is no procedure given for carcass disposal of pets which die at the Pet Shop 18. Suggestion: There should be procedure/guide line for appropriate disposal of dead pet carcasses   POINT NO.19 Page no.13 11. Appeal.— (2) Local Governing Bodies i.e. District Magistrate or District Collector, as the case may be, shall after giving notice to the pet shop and the State Board, and giving an opportunity of hearing to the parties, either reject or allow the appeal, for the reasons to be recorded in writing and communicated to the breeder and the State Board 19. Objection: Why is there a mention of “Breeder” in the above paragraph 19. Suggestion: Word “Breeder” to be replaced by “pet shop owner” in paragraph (2) of Appeal on page no.13   POINT NO.20 Page no.11 9. Non-compliance with these rules.— (2) If during the course of such inquiry or any inspection, a pet animal is suspected to be sick or experiencing any kind of distress, an inspector or any person authorized by the State Board, may require the pet shop owner to forthwith provide medical or other care to the pet animal and confiscate the pet animal, and remove it for treatment and care to a shelter house run by an Animal Welfare Organization, after recording in writing the reason why such action is necessitated, and giving a copy of the reasons so recorded to the pet shop owner and the Animal Welfare Organization. 20. Objection: Confiscation of the pet animal by the authority straight away is a very impractical way to go about the treatment of the pet. There have been instances in the past of animal under illness and distress even in the Animal Welfare Organization’s custody. Hence, Confiscation of sick or distressed animal will not guarantee proper treatment to the animal. 20. Suggestion: If during an inspection a pet animal is suspected to be sick or experiencing any kind of distress then the authorized state board person or inspector to give a certificate of ill health and ask the per shop owner to provide medical attention to the sick animal and ask the pet owner to submit health report within 15 days post the inspection date.   POINT NO.21 Page no. 11 & 12: (3) The expenses incurred for treating and attending to the pet animal under sub-rule (2) shall be borne by the pet shop owner, and the Animal Welfare Organization shall return the animal to the pet shop owner after the pet animal has recovered fully, and the expense for its treatment and the care provided has been reimbursed to the Animal Welfare Organization. (4) The pet shop owner shall not, in the event of removal of a sick or otherwise distressed pet animal under this rule, be entitled to claim any compensation whatsoever, from the local authority or the State Board or the Animal Welfare Organization. (5) If a pet shop owner is found to be operating a facility without a valid certificate of registration, the State Board may seal the shop, and confiscate the pet animals displayed or housed for sale and the pet animals so confiscated shall be handed over to— (a) an Animal Welfare Organization; or (b) a rescue centre recognized by the Board. 21. Objection: If due to any instance, a pet animal is confiscated by the state authority due to whatsoever reason, then the liability of the same should be on the state authority or whatsoever concerned body and not the pet shop owner. There have been several instances and legal cases in the past and present ongoing cases where pet shopkeepers and owners of the pets are harassed by the authorities/NGOs 21. Suggestion: The onus, expense, responsibility and record maintenance of the health progress/death of confiscated pet should be on the state authority or whatsoever concerned body which has confiscated the pet animal due to whatsoever reason from the Pet Shop. State Board or the Animal Welfare Organization which may have confiscated a sick or distressed pet should submit timely report on the update of the pet to the pet shop owner every 15 days and the confiscated pet should be kept the similar or better way as sighted in the guide lines of this same act.   POINT NO.22 Page no.8 Under General care of animals, veterinary care, and other operational requirements Point no. (5) No pet shop shall sell any animal intended to be used for food, skin or accessories. 22. Objection: Certain pets like Fish eat live worms, Birds like Finches and Canaries feed on Meal worms, some species of Birds feed on insects which is essential for their well being and physiological needs 22. Suggestion: Worms/Insects which are part of diet for some pets should be allowed to be sold for the purpose of food.   POINT NO.23 Page no. 8 (6) Every pet shop owner shall— (b) Deploy sufficient number of employees at the pet shop to take care of, and attend to pet animals properly, and ensure that a minimum of two employees per fifty animals are available at all times to take care of the animals intended for sale. 23. Objection: Minimum two number Employees per fifty animals would not be possible for pets above fifty like small birds, fishes, rodents etc. 23. Suggestion: Minimum two number Employees per fifty animals should only be applicable to animal species like Dogs/Pups & cats and no other species of pet animal or bird.     We sincerely hope the above points are taken into consideration and will help bringing positive change in the pet trade which is livelihood of many in our country. Regards,Name:Address:Phone:Sign: ______________________       We appreciate you taking the time and supporting the cause. Together, we can move mountains. Cheers!  Thanks! 

Sai Ram Akshayakumar
832 supporters