The Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority should take great care when consulting stakeholders in wildlife legislation, especially animal protection groups.

We all share the common ground that animals should not be subjected to unnecessary suffering.

But to misguide the general population into believing that animals suffer only in captivity and not in the wild is unacceptable.

Nature can be cruel and animals do suffer because of things like the weather, or when they are hunted for food.

Thus, we should have a balanced view, and have the interest of all animals at heartregardless of the environment they are in.

This is the mindset that the regulatory authorities should adopt.

Thus, if any wildlife is permitted to be traded legally, the authorities have an obligation to implement this responsibly and not be influenced by the thinking of radical animal rights groups.

Some animal protection groups push for vegetarianism, since they believe that all animals have a right to life and that humans have no right to kill them for food or to interfere with their lives.

Such animal protection groups would have more success persuading people to become vegetarians for health and environmental reasons.

While all this seems very noble, it is not logical, as humans are omnivores with canine teeth.

Animal rights should also never compromise human rights, such as when a dog trainer gets prosecuted for cruelty for using a choke chain to correct aggressive canine behaviour that might have endangered humans.

If that happens, pet training loses and the dog may end up being put down. Pet owners have a right to manageable animals.

Ong Junkai