I was recently called to a meeting at the council offices by a colleague at the bus rank for the ostensible purpose of discussing Gaborone City Council(GCC) dog management bye laws. I arrived enthusiastic and armed with information for what I believed was a value adding discussion.
I was therefore deflated when I was told that the laws drafted with the help of expatriates at the BSPCA were not up for discussion. I was simply called to council offices by an arrogant Government technocrat to be told that the Local Government Minister had signed bye laws on dog management.
The subtle inference was that dog owners in the city centre were by and large irresponsible, did not need to be properly consulted and needed to be restrained by the strong arm of the law by a few enlightened City council officials and their surrogates.
It is a thought that irks me profusely because there is no empirical research conducted by the expatriates/technocrats propagating the laws supporting this argument.
The bye laws restrict homeowners in the Gaborone area from owning more than 2 dogs in a residential place. Very soon they will be developing bye laws to restrict the number of children we can have. I say this tongue in cheek because if you have 1 female and it has puppies(that is more than 2 even if you plan to sell/give them away after second vaccination at two months) the bye laws are silent on what happens. This practice is quite common amongst many dog owners within the precinct of Gaborone.
It also says nothing on whether those individuals who have more than 2 dogs in Gaborone will be given a grace period to either move out of Gaborone to conform with bye laws or sell/give away any extra dogs they have. Many executives have a big dog and two small alarm dogs residing in the house.
In terms of the bye laws one will have to go failing which BASOP. It is also a pity that the Gaborone City Council is basically disarming us when they are failing to curb crime in the city. Police are routinely policing robots at major intersections even when robots are working. Petty criminals in extension 27 periodically steal women’s handbags during lunch hour and City Council is offering no solutions.
We are currently under siege by petty criminals and our under resourced police officers are struggling to cope. We will nevertheless have a situation where any person who contravenes provision is liable to a fine not exceeding P500.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two months in our overcrowded jails. Ordinary people run the risk of being incarcerated for non issues.
An individual who wants to obtain an additional dog one is required to make a license within 14 days of acquiring another dog. But the laws are silent about what happens when that application is rejected or on what grounds the authorities can reject an application for an additional dog.
It is also very bizarre that the bye laws can stipulate that the application for an additional dog should be made after the dog has been acquired. It is a self defeating exercise – one would have thought that he authorities suggest that the application needs to be approved before you own an additional dog.
Under section 8(1) of the Dog Management Bye Law, 2018 the authorities say an owner of a licensed dog under the bye laws shall have the license number displayed on a metal tag affixed to the dogs neck by means of a dog collar. It however does not indicate who will put it there. I assume that because the license is paid for by owner the responsibility of the metal tag is that of the issuing authority.
It is also stipulates under 8(2) that the particulars of owner being full names, current contact numbers, plot number and the name of the dog shall be displayed on the dog collar. It is not clear to me what the logic is of having two identification instruments on every dog being a metal tag and dog collar.
When I asked the council officer assigned to implement the laws why the laws did not say either a dog collar or a metal tag he could not answer me. He told me it was the Law. Our dogs are being asked to walk around with two ID’s – manufacturers of dog collars/metal tags are going to make money.
The bye laws also stipulate under section 9(1) that dog owners must at their own cost be implemented with a microchip by an authorized veterinary surgeon so that it is detectable by a scanning device. This microchip is also required to contain full details of dog owner.
This statutory requirement is a complete absurdity because dog owners can insert microchips into dogs without the support of a veterinary surgeon. It is also very costly to do so. It is also not clear why the City Council wants dog owners to have three ID’s on every single dog.
Batswana will no longer be able to transport dogs in the back of their Bakkies without a leash, walk with dogs in children’s playing areas(the bye laws do not say which ones these are) and will have their licenses to own dogs revoked if their dogs are impounded twice.
The Council Bye Laws indicate it will develop Council kennels in keeping with the bye law promulgations but does not explain what it will do with impounded dogs. It will probably give them to their white expatriates friends because indigenous Batswana are irresponsible dog owners.
It is not clear why these draconian laws do not give guidance on the need for owners to vaccinate their dogs against rabies. Although there are not many cases of rabies infected dogs biting people in Botswana the need for dogs to take a rabbies vaccine cannot be overstated.
The laws also stipulate that a dog owner with a female dog which is on heat will have to keep it in a dog proof enclosure in an enclosed premise. This requirement is draconian and unnecessary because dog poses no threat to public and it is not clear who Council is protecting. Defaulters will be fined P1000.00 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both for a first offence
Sello Motseta, Director of Tswana Boerboels writes in his personal capacity
