Hunt for Bayshore's Kitty killer
http://www.straitstimes.com/Singapor...ry_390811.html
June 16, 2009 Tuesday
Hunt for Bayshore's Kitty killer
Residents conduct pre-dawn stake-outs around condo grounds
By Kimberly Spykerman
CAT lovers in Bayshore Park are now patrolling the estate to look for the person believed to be poisoning the strays in the condominium.
Some residents in the 1,093-unit estate in the East Coast even make their rounds between 3am and dawn, when they think the culprit is out leaving tainted cat food around.
Since last Thursday, 19 cats - including two yesterday - have been found unaccountably unconscious or disoriented. Five have died or have been put down, and the rest are with the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
A report is believed to have been made to the management committee about a dog also taken ill, although it is unknown if this is linked to the cat poisonings.
The police are on the case.
One resident who keeps watch from her 21st-floor apartment and patrols the estate said: 'It's not just about the cats. We're concerned about the safety of all pets. Also, what if young children put things in their mouth and fall sick?'
Another resident, a housewife in her 50s, who has fed the estate's 30 stray cats for more than 10 years, now begins her routine an hour earlier to do a stake-out.
The management committee has issued notices advising residents against letting their pets eat food found in the condo grounds. It has also told the estate's cleaners and gardeners not to get rid of any cat which appears dead, that they come across, but to alert the security guards. Areas where reddish clumps of suspect cat food were found have been hosed down.
Most of the unconscious cats were found in the vicinity of two blocks. One of the cats, which was found barely breathing yesterday, was no more than 1m from one of these clumps of food.
SPCA executive officer Deirdre Moss said it was obvious that someone was behind these 'cruel, malicious acts'.
She noted that the food had not been planted in obvious places, but in areas away from human traffic, where the stray cats hide. And the food had been found over a large area, which is why so many cats have been affected, she added.
Today, the SPCA and Cat Welfare Society are expected to offer a reward for information leading to the arrest and prosecution of the culprit.
The residents are baffled, but believe the culprit is among them, as this person knows where the cats usually gather for their morning meal. It was where the first clump of food was found.
Samples of the food have been sent to the Health Sciences Authority for analysis. The results are expected soon.
Bayshore Park was split by an acrimonious debate over its proposed collective sale last year, but the residents believe this is unrelated to the poisonings.
Some residents believe the culprit could be among the estate's car owners, angered by the scratches the stray cats leave on the warm hoods of the vehicles when they lie on them overnight.
A retiree in his 70s who wanted to be known only as Mr Tay had put a cover over his car only to have it ripped. He said he sympathised with the culprit 'because he must have done it out of frustration'. Other car owners said they worked around this by parking in areas less frequented by the cats.
The estate's dog owners are walking their pets but taking more care. A resident named Ms Jill said she has cut her dog's walks from 30 to only 10 minutes - just long enough for it to relieve itself. 'I'm also more vigilant about what it sniffs at during the walks,' she said.
[email protected]
Condo dogged by animal issues
BAYSHORE Park condominium is no stranger to disputes over animals.
In 2004, fur flew over a proposal by the estate's management to impose annual fees on those who keep big dogs or have more than two small dogs. The proposal meant that residents would have to pay $300 to keep a big dog and an additional $1,000 for a second one. Those with smaller breeds weighing 10kg or less and no more than 40cm in height need not pay, unless they owned more than two. Each additional dog would cost $100 a year.
The management said that if the rule was enforced, the money would go towards cleaning up after irresponsible dog owners.
Residents had complained of big dogs being a nuisance because they dirtied the common areas such as lift landings and footpaths with waste matter.
Dog owners were up in arms over the proposal and accused the management of being biased against these animals.
The suggestion fell through when the management failed to garner 75 per cent of the vote needed to implement the rule. Only 150 out of the estate's 1,093 households voted on the issue at the annual general meeting that year, though over half who attended voted for it. After the meeting, dog owners promised the management they would form a committee to police pet owners.
