THE sight of dogs roaming our streets is a familiar one to us. For Bahamians, we have long been used to seeing potcakes – and other breeds – travelling alone or in packs around our islands. Just because it is familiar does not make it right.

Kim Aranha has nothing but compassion for animals. The president of the Bahamas Humane Society has spent many years working for the good of the animals in our country, and she is right when she points out some of the challenges faced in our nation.

She says that she often hears from tourists who are concerned about the stray dog populations in our country.

She is far from alone. Many of us will have had visitors come to our shores and will doubtless have heard questions as to why there are so many stray animals on the streets.

Ms Aranha is right when she points out that many of the strays are not without owners – they are just left to roam by owners who don’t close their gates or fence their yards.

There are efforts to reduce the numbers – notably in Operation Potcake, a project that endeavours to spay or neuter animals so that they do not add more puppies to the numbers already on our streets. In the last campaign, more than 2,000 animals were spayed or neutered. It is an excellent project, but it is not enough, the rest of us need to play a part too.

There are other worries – The Tribune often hears from cyclists and joggers, for example, who have issues when encountering dogs on the street. Sometimes the dogs try to bite, or chase.

And what of cases where children might be out on the street, and vulnerable to an attack from a dog – again, there have been cases.

This is said not because of a dislike of dogs, but because of a love – a pet dog is patiently waiting for its supper as I write this column.

Dogs on the street can get hurt, can get hit by cars, can be killed. Many times you will see a dog that has an injury, or a limp. Many times you will see a heavily pregnant dog looking for a place to have her puppies. These are not ideal, this is not how a nation that cares for dogs should treat them.

As Ms Aranha says, “If we could just enforce some of the laws, if we could enforce the cruelty laws, if we could enforce breeding control, things would improve.”

Enforcing the law should be a start. What is the point of such laws if we do not actually back them up with action? Ignoring them leaves the law itself held up to ridicule.

She also urged the church to “join the crusade of being kind to God’s creatures”. We agree. It should not just be limited to the church, however, and The Tribune is more than happy to lend its voice to calls for better treatment of animals in our society.

A quote often attributed to Mahatma Gandhi (though possibly erroneously) says that “the greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated”.

If that is so, then the greatness to which we aspire is falling short. We can do more, we can do better, and we can start with further neutering of animals, and ensuring that animals we own do not roam more than they should.

If we are not prepared to do so, then frankly we do not deserve to be animal owners at all. Pets bring such love into our lives, we ought to return the love and care the best we can.

What is choice for?

The news that a film has been given a certificate that prevents its public viewing is a throwback to an earlier age.

The film, called Demon Slayer, has been given a D rating by the Film Control Board, which means “unsuitable for public viewing”.

Frankly, however, this is a different age. The film is part of a series that has, in book or movie form, been around since 2016, and itself is a compilation film of episodes that have largely already been available to watch on people’s TVs or computers for some time now.

It is unlikely anyone going to watch this film would be encountering it for the first time, so fans will know what to expect. In short, putting such a rating on this is trying to put the genie back in the bottle – and seems an overreaction.

The film is rated R elsewhere, fit for adult viewing, though we are sure the content of bloody violence will not be for many viewers. But that is what choice is for, and this rating smacks of days when there was more of a nanny state that sought to control what people can and cannot watch or do.

Worse, attempts to stifle it will probably give it more attention. There may be more than a few people who would never have heard of the movie who now want to watch it because it has been “banned”. If nothing else, it all seems very counterproductive.