SINGAPORE: The National Parks Board (NParks) will remove four stray dogs—Kalu, White Chest, Pointy, and Floppy—from Bidadari Park following over 60 reports of territorial behaviour.
Among these, about 20 incidents involved the dogs chasing parkgoers. While no direct attacks have been reported, a young child sustained injuries while running away from the dogs.
The decision has sparked opposition from longtime caretaker Jermaine Chua, who has been feeding and monitoring the dogs since 2017.
Chua argues that the removal is unjustified, claiming the dogs have never shown aggression and that their relocation could cause unnecessary suffering.
“These dogs have been here for years without causing harm,” Chua told TOC.
“They are extremely skittish and always hide from people. They only come out at night when no one is around to eat, then disappear back into their hideouts. They’ve never attacked anyone, even when this area was a construction site filled with workers.”
In protest, Chua launched an online petition on Change.org, which has gathered over 4,000 signatures as of Friday, urging NParks to reconsider.
She has also proposed installing a permanent fence as a more humane solution to protect both the dogs and parkgoers.
Speaking to the media on 13 February, Lin Anhui, director of community animal management operations at the Animal and Veterinary Service (AVS), said the dogs pose an “indirect safety risk” to visitors and their pets.
Reports indicate the strays have also barked at pet dogs.
Lin stressed that waiting for a direct injury before taking action would be irresponsible.
While acknowledging the dogs were present before the park’s development, she stated that public safety concerns had reached a level that could no longer be ignored.
As a precaution, NParks will use humane trapping methods to relocate the dogs.
Humane Trapping and Rehoming
NParks will employ internationally recognised humane trapping techniques, similar to those used in its Trap-Neuter-Release-Manage (TNRM) programme.
A corral resembling a playpen has been set up near the dogs’ feeding area, with kibble, water, and surveillance cameras to help them acclimate.
Once the dogs regularly enter the corral, NParks staff will remotely close the door to capture them.
Additionally, blue canvas hoarding arranged in a U-shape will serve as a visual barrier, reducing interactions between the dogs and parkgoers.
However, NParks clarified that the hoarding does not confine the dogs, as they can still move freely in and out.
Once captured, the dogs will be rehabilitated and rehomed through local animal welfare groups (AWGs).
Lin dismissed concerns that older dogs are harder to rehome, stating that behaviour modification is possible with the right techniques.
If suitable, the dogs will be trained to adapt to a domestic environment.
Euthanasia will only be considered as a last resort if the dogs suffer from severe health or welfare issues. Otherwise, they will be placed in shelters, foster homes, or adopted.
Despite NParks’ assurances that the dogs will be rehomed, the decision has sparked backlash, with many questioning the validity of the complaints and the transparency of the process.
Netizens Call for Transparency in NParks’ Decision
Under Mothership’s Facebook post, many netizens criticised NParks’ decision, calling for greater transparency regarding the reports and questioning the validity of the complaints.
One user expressed doubt about the 60 reports, wondering how many were backed by solid evidence and how many were repeated complaints from the same hardcore animal haters.
Another user questioned whether the 60 reports came from 60 different individuals or just a small group of two to five people.
They emphasised the importance of knowing exactly how many people had lodged complaints.
A third user criticised NParks’ response, describing it as a knee-jerk reaction to a mere 60 complaints without providing any context about the total number of park visitors or the nature of the complaints.
The user found it disheartening that a government agency would take such drastic measures without conducting a thorough investigation or engaging in open dialogue with the community.
They highlighted the lack of transparency in NParks’ decision-making process and argued that the public deserved to know the full extent of the complaints, the criteria used to assess the situation, and the alternative solutions considered before resorting to removal.
Concerns Over the Fate of the Dogs
Beyond questioning NParks’ transparency, many expressed concern over what would happen to the dogs once removed.
One user pointed out that the dogs had done nothing wrong, yet were now being sent to overcrowded shelters.
They argued that only a small group of people in Singapore were even allowed to adopt them, questioning how “humane” this decision really was.
Another user criticised the move, questioning whether it was simply to protect pet dogs from barking.
They expressed frustration that pet dogs were loved and protected, while homeless mongrels were denied the right to be loved—or even to live.
One user highlighted the impact of urbanisation, arguing that the destruction of natural habitats had forced wildlife and stray animals into human-populated areas, leading to inevitable conflicts.
While acknowledging that some fears and incidents involving these animals were real, they urged people to consider the animals’ struggles as well.
Another user directly addressed NParks, criticising their response and questioning the validity of the complaints.
They demanded proof that the captured dogs would not be euthanised, fearing that the issue would be quietly closed without public accountability.
As an alternative, they proposed fencing off an area where the dogs could live safely under caretaker supervision, calling it a win-win solution.
They also questioned why NParks tolerated wild animals like crocodiles in certain areas but deemed these stray dogs a threat, calling the decision inconsistent and unfair.
The post Public questions NParks’ transparency over Bidadari Park stray dog removal appeared first on The Online Citizen.
