Why SAFM Held the Press Conference
By 5 August 2026, Rocky’s death had become the subject of significant public discussion. Claims, counterclaims and commentary were circulating online, while important questions concerning the full chronology remained unresolved.
SAFM organised the Justice for Rocky Press Conference to allow Rocky’s owner to give her account directly, address significant allegations and rumours surrounding the case, explain SAFM’s involvement and identify the matters SAFM believed required proper investigation.
The press conference was not intended to conduct a trial through the media or declare any person guilty.
Rocky’s Owner Speaks
At the press conference, Rocky’s owner spoke publicly about Rocky, his relationship with the family and her account of the events of 29 July 2026.
She stated that Rocky was already restrained when she arrived and described her attempts to have him released. She also addressed what she said she had subsequently learned about events before her arrival and responded to allegations concerning her own conduct.
Her statements represent her account of disputed events. SAFM’s publication of that account does not convert it into an adjudicated finding of fact.
SAFM’s Central Position: Establish the Complete Chronology
SAFM emphasised that the publicly circulated video should not be treated as the complete evidential record.
The organisation called for all relevant material to be considered together, including available recordings, witness information, veterinary evidence, police evidence, operational records and the accounts of the parties involved.
Questions Placed on the Public Record
SAFM sought transparent clarification of matters including:
- the authorisation and supervision of the operation;
- the persons authorised to participate and the role of members of the public, if any;
- the capture or restraint equipment authorised and the equipment actually used;
- who applied and controlled the restraint on Rocky;
- the events before the publicly circulated video began;
- the allegations that Rocky had been struck, pulled or dragged;
- the duration and manner of restraint;
- the response when Rocky showed signs of distress;
- the operational records and procedures relevant to the incident; and
- the veterinary evidence concerning Rocky’s injuries and cause of death.
These questions were raised to encourage investigation and institutional accountability, not to prejudge the answers.
No Premature Finding on Cause of Death
SAFM has not treated public reaction to the video as a substitute for veterinary evidence.
Any conclusion concerning Rocky’s medical cause of death should be based on the appropriate examination and investigative material. SAFM therefore avoids stating an unproven cause of death as fact.
The Licensing Debate
Rocky’s licensing status became a prominent subject of public discussion after the incident.
SAFM’s position is that licensing compliance and animal-welfare standards are separate matters. Any alleged non-compliance with local licensing requirements can be dealt with under the applicable administrative or legal process.
The licensing question does not remove the need to examine whether appropriate animal-handling and welfare standards were observed during the operation.
Legal Guidance
Legal guidance was made available in connection with Rocky’s case. Any potential civil, criminal, administrative or other legal proceedings must be considered according to the evidence, applicable law and the development of the relevant investigations.
SAFM does not use this website record to determine liability or announce legal conclusions that properly belong to lawyers, investigators or courts.
Why Rocky’s Case Matters Beyond One Incident
Rocky’s case raises wider questions about the standards applied when animals are captured during local-authority operations.
Local authorities have legitimate responsibilities concerning public safety and animal management. Those responsibilities should be carried out through lawful, proportionate and humane practices.
Among the wider policy questions highlighted by the case are:
- Who should be permitted to participate in animal-catching operations?
- What training and supervision should be required?
- What equipment and restraint methods should be permitted?
- What action should be required when an animal shows signs of distress?
- What records should be maintained during operations?
- How should serious injury or death occurring during an operation be reviewed?
- What safeguards can reduce the risk of unnecessary animal suffering?
What SAFM Is Seeking
SAFM seeks an evidence-based and transparent outcome. SAFM calls for:
- a complete investigation into the circumstances surrounding Rocky’s capture, restraint, treatment and death;
- appropriate investigation of the allegations made by Rocky’s owner;
- veterinary findings based on the available evidence;
- institutional transparency concerning the operation and the procedures followed;
- accountability where wrongdoing is established through due process; and
- improvements to animal-catching standards and safeguards where shortcomings are identified.
Chronology at a Glance
| Date / Stage | Development |
| 29 July 2026 | The incident involving Rocky occurs during a dog-catching operation in Taman Teluk Gedung Indah, Pelabuhan Klang. Rocky dies during or following the incident. |
| 30 July 2026 | SAFM receives the case and begins assisting Rocky’s owner. |
| Following SAFM’s involvement | Available material is reviewed, evidence-preservation steps are taken, Rocky’s remains are preserved for veterinary examination, and relevant matters are brought through the appropriate DVS and police processes. |
| 5 August 2026 | SAFM organises the Justice for Rocky Press Conference in Petaling Jaya, where Rocky’s owner provides her account and SAFM places key investigative questions on the public record. |
| Continuing | Relevant investigative and legal processes are allowed to proceed. SAFM will update its official record when material developments can responsibly be made public. |
A Message to International Animal-Welfare Organisations
SAFM welcomes constructive engagement from animal-welfare organisations, professional bodies, researchers and institutions with relevant expertise.
Rocky’s case should not be viewed only as an isolated controversy. It presents an opportunity to examine how animal-catching operations can be made safer, more humane, professionally supervised and accountable, while recognising the legitimate public responsibilities of local authorities.
International experience, technical expertise and recognised humane animal-management practices may contribute meaningfully to that discussion.
Justice for Rocky
For SAFM, justice means establishing what happened through evidence. It means allowing competent authorities to investigate, ensuring accountability where wrongdoing is established through due process, and using the lessons from the case to improve the treatment of animals.
Rocky should not become merely another viral video that is eventually forgotten.
His case should lead to answers, accountability and, where shortcomings are established, meaningful change.
JUSTICE FOR ROCKY.
Important Note on Allegations and Ongoing Processes
This case record is based on information available to SAFM, material reviewed by SAFM, accounts provided in connection with the case, and publicly available information. Where material facts remain disputed, they are identified as allegations or attributed to their respective sources. SAFM does not determine criminal or civil liability through this publication. Questions of liability, offences and legal responsibility are matters for the competent authorities and courts to determine on the evidence.
