I refer to the malaysiakini report Council under fire for dog-catching competition. This report has brought to my attention that the Majlis Perbandaran Selayang is promoting killing of strays, in the form of a 'sports competition'.

• The competition comes with a prize money of RM15,000 for 1st, RM13,000 for 2nd prize and RM11,000 for 3rd prize. These prizes will be awarded based on evaluation every six months. The competition is a year-long affair, and the 'entry criteria' is a minimum of 150 heads over a six-month period.
  
  
• In addition, to promote the competition, every month, there is an additional incentive of RM20 per stray caught for every competitor out there.
  
  
• The council has openly stated that it will not be held responsible for any injury or damage caused by the individuals to the general public or themselves in their attempts to catch these stray dogs.

Are there no better approaches which are more sensible, longer-term and more humane for stray population control? Has the council considered the following alternatives:

• organisation of sustainable mass dog vaccination campaigns;
  
  
• dog population management through reduction of strays, control of trade and movement of dogs, and through spaying and neutering;
  
  
• public education/awareness strategies to encourage responsible pet ownership; and
  
  
• Setting up mobile clinics to render neutering services for the more remote areas.

In Kuala Lumpur , the average cost of spaying a dog or cat works out to RM50 at maximum. Think of how many dogs and cats can be spayed for the total amount of prize money the council is giving away.

If the noble objective of the council is to manage and control the population of strays in their municipality, perhaps the Selayang Municipal Council should consider more conventional and effective strategy of stray population control such as those practiced in other developing countries.

Studies by the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Animal Welfare Board of India (Ministry of Environment & Forests) show that dog population control measures which work in developed countries are unsuccessful in Third World developing countries since urban conditions are very different. The urban environment in these countries encourages the breeding of stray dogs, so no matter how many dogs were killed, they will be quickly replaced by more.

Recent recommendations advocate habitat control and control of the birth rate by surgical neutering. When dogs are sterilised and put back in their own area, the population and the problems caused by dogs both reduce. This because each dog guards its own territory and does not allow new dogs to enter. Since they are all neutered, they no longer mate or multiply. Over a period of time, as the sterilised dogs die natural deaths, the population is greatly reduced.

There is no likely overnight solution to the strays issue. It is simply not possible to wish all the strays away. With sterilisation, the population becomes stable, non-breeding and decreases over time.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) now recognises that the capture and removal of dogs are no longer considered effective direct control measures, as the impact is short term. Even maximal catching rates (up to 24 percent of the dog population per year) make no significant impact. Where dogs are removed, others migrate into the area to fill the ecological niche. In addition, killing is an expensive alternative.

As such, I strongly urge the Selayang Municipal Council to consider other more practical, longer term, sustainable and more humane alternatives before investing taxpayers' money in this 'competition'.