In theory, I agree with regulation of rescuers. It's how and who should do the regulation that is the problem that needs to be addressed. A lot of money will be required by whoever administers any future programme.

Rescue groups are sometimes impoverished, incompetent or both. On the other hand some are fantastic and do miracles on almost non-existent budgets. Our local SPCA has really benefitted by cooperating with the local Feral Cat Rescue Society, who will accept cats and kittens with ringworm. Most SPCA shelters cannot keep them because of the question of infection.

Who will do the inspections? Would it be a question of municipal authorities or pounds doing checks, or would it be a role for the SPCA or the police? I note that the SPCA has the authority already to seize animals under certain conditions and to enter properties if cruel treatment or unacceptable conditions are suspected.

Should there be bylaws limiting the number of animals that can be kept by any one group or person? Should all people with over a specified number of animals be required to register their property with local authorities?

How will future bylaws be enforced? Will the process be complaint-driven?

What will happen to animals seized because of inhumane conditions? We have to make sure that all back-up systems are in place to make any enforcement processes humane. The SPCA did well to have the facilities to deal with the seized primates before action was taken. We would also have to watch for possible unintended consequences for any legislation proposed. It's too long to explain, but many of the privately- owned tigers in Texas (over 5000) had nowhere to go when some local govermnents banned residents from owning them.

I don't pretend to have any answers, but I think we should give the question serious consideration.

We should be quite sure of exactly what we want and how we want it done. I'm sure that posters will have lots of ideas.