The fight for animal rights continues - Abuses made by the Local Council of Onesti

Dear animal lovers,

Although today we should celebrate beauty, purity, we have to present you what abuses are still made by our representatives, paid with public money.

It’s been brought to our attention by Mrs. Lidia Zahiu, the president of Help Animals Association from Onesti, about an abuse committed by their local authorities, which is the reason why we were unable not to react and not to fight with all legal resources in order to stop such illegalities.

On 27.02.2019, the Local Council of Onesti Municipality adopted the HCL no. 35/2019 which adopted the Regulation regarding the Management Service of Stray Dogs from Onesti Municipality, without any public debate, without consulting the NGO’s, without announcing the press.

The first step undertaken by R.E.A.D.C.’s lawyer, Loredana Cozea, was to send a request to the Prefecture of Bacau, in which we asked them to take the legal measures to remedy the unlawfulness of the Regulation. If the Prefecture of Bacau will ignore our request, we will have to act in court.

The Regulation adopted by the Local Council of Onesti flagrantly violetes laws, the Constitution, and every bit of respect towards those who should be their partners, the Associations for Animal Welfare.

The visitors’ access is being restricted to an only 2 hours program, even though the law states a daily schedule from 10:00 o’clock to 18:00, is added to the law and a distinction is made between the visitor and the Associations’ representative, being mentioned that a visitor can not represent in the same day its personal interests and the ones of an NGO.

We get therefore to the absurd situation that if the representative of an association or NGO enters the shelter, he would no longer be able to personally claim/ adopt a dog in the shelter because he would thus represent both its personal and the association’s interests.

We ask ourselves: Does the Local Council of Onesti not have the interest to be adopted dogs from the shelter, or why is it inserting such articles?

Another abuse is the fact that it is prohibited the access with mobile phones inside the shelter, and the visitors’ access with photo and video cameras is allowed only if the devices are declared at the entrance, if you want to adopt a puppy you can’t come with a companion because it has to stay outside, visitors can no longer feed the dogs nor to give indications to the shelter staff, without mentioning what kind of indications is about.

The conditions stipulated in the partnership agreement with NGO’s, annex to the Regulation, are also abusive by the fact that only the representatives with medical studies can assist to medical surgeries, although the similar law article has been canceled by the Brasov Court of Appeal, if they disrupt the shelter’s activity – we don’t know in which way- they will be held accountable.

The associations are also the ones who must refrain from any action that damages the "prestige and interests of the service provider", otherwise they will have to respond.

If the shelter’s irregularities are reported from a visit during that short program of 2 hours, should the representatives of associations, or the visitors, not to report these problems to DSVSA, authorized institutions and press because it would prejudice the operator's prestige?

After repeated complaints, movies posted on the internet and sinister images, the Sanitary Veterinary Directorate closed the shelter in 2015. But if this HCL will be applied no one will have the right to post the reality behind the walls anymore.

If you want these irregularities to be hidden and not to be able to be fixed. What are the interests of the service provider? Because the animal welfare and the assurance of their conditions should prevail over the interest of those in charge of the shelter.

Is that why you restricted the access of some associations and carry on a lawsuit with them? Because they affected your own interests by revealing abuses and illegalities?

This way, we ask the counselors who voted for the adoption of this Regulation what they have to hide so they must limit the visitors and volunteers’ access in the shelter?