Animal Rights vs. Human Rights

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

According to a recent survey done by ACRES, an animal protection group, only a minority group of Singaporeans support culling. However, as Mr Benjaimin Ng, who was quoted in the same news piece, explained, the survey was not focused on areas where there are many of the animals, so the result could be biased.

And someone wrote in to TRemeritus, an online news site, complaining that ACRES was being irresponsible. The contents of his letter can be read here.

Then I remembered this article on TRS, another online news site, about dog feeders in Buangkok who prevented AVA officers from removing stray dogs from the residential area, which has already generated 120 complaints about the stray dogs in this year alone.

According to the writer, the feeders have been taking leave from work and staying up late just to fend off AVA officers, with whistles and horns to scare away the dogs.

And so, I would like to take this opportunity to open up a discussion on the issue of animal rights vs. human rights. To do that properly though, I need to ask animal lovers a very important question. The dog lovers in the TRS article were very passionate in their defence of their animal companions. I can't argue with that. And elsewhere in Singapore, on the streets or the internet, I heard many animal lovers, such as dog feeders who take care of stray dogs, condemn AVA for taking "inhumane" steps against animals, who, rightly so, have rights just like human beings.

BUT, if the dog feeders are true dog lovers, I do not understand why they did not think to adopt the dogs into their respective families, get them microchipped and raise them as house pets. That way, the dogs would be safe from the attentions of AVA and, since they would be primarily kept within homes, they wouldn't be chasing other residents and generating complaints, right? And apparently, in the news story about Buangkok strays, the human feeders have been feeding the dogs for a while now. And the dogs too, have been generating complaints for a while now.

So during all that time, not one of them dog "lovers" wish to adopt the strays into proper homes? That's the million dollar question, ain't it?

Could it be... That they are afraid the strays may hurt small children within their households? Damage the furniture? Poop in the house? Well, those are reasonable fears. I would have such concerns too, since stray dogs are not house trained. And yet, the dog feeders are apparently fine with imposing those concerns on their neighbours and members of the public. Small children do play in public places. And stray dogs tend to shit wherever is convenient for them.

If Singaporean dog lovers truly do love the dogs, and there are so many them here according to the lastest ACRES survey, then the first step for the dog lovers would be adopting strays into proper families instead of letting them wander around in public and exposing them all sorts of hazards in a densely populated city. Subsequent steps to take would be taking them to the vet, getting vaccination shots, treatments for existing medical problems and getting them groomed properly. But wait, there is a huge problem with those subsequent steps. They cost money. Lots. Well, definitely much more expensive than feeding the dogs with leftovers or mixed veg rice from the hawker center. Also, being a registered dog owner would open you up to heavy fines IF your dog attacked someone. But aha! If the dog is a communal one, that does not belong to any one person, then feeders could continue to feed without worries of fines and responsibilities! Smart!

"Oh the dog is not mine. I am just feeding it." And meanwhile, the victims languish on their hospital beds, worrying about bills and future job prospects.

Very smart of the dog feeders. They can continue to feed the strays and get the feel good vibes of being animal "lovers" BUT, at the same time, do not have to worry about being responsible for fines or hospital bills if the dogs, accidentally or not, injure someone.

And here, I wish to make one fact clear. DOGS, stray or domesticated, can and have been known to fatally wound human beings. Here is a list of serious and fatal dog attacks around the world.

Scott Miller, a vet of 17 years, said "We must not think: ‘My dog would never do this. He’s too gentle.’ Sadly, that’s what the families of fatally injured children always say. And then it’s too late." This article contains a list of small children killed by dogs that were being kept as house pets.

14-year-old Jade Anderson was visiting a friend's home when five dogs went into a frenzy and mauled her to death.

In an interview, Dr. Alan Beck, director of the Centre for the Human-Animal Bond at Purdue University, explains that it is possible for a dog to attack you even when you do NOTHING to provoke it. The interview came after a newborn child was killed by the family husky.

"His daughter, a toddler, was on the floor watching TV in the same room. The family dog of 10 years ran over and bit the child on the face. The child was rushed to the emergency room and it stiches were required to repair the damage. There was no reason for the attack, and no provocation."

This news story is about a pet owner who let her dogs run wild and kill a homeless woman.

House dogs that even the County Animal Control department did not recognize as dangerous got out and killed a jogger.

Pack of roaming dogs killed 8-year-old.

Baby killed by family dog that family members described as a "pleasant animal".

91-year-old woman killed by dog that she raised for 8 years.

And these news articles are just scratching the surface. There are many more stories out there about dogs, domesticated and strays, who killed humans. By the way, with regards to the last two news items, about the baby and old lady who got killed, could those dog lovers who have been proclaiming that dogs will NEVER attack unless provoked solve the mystery for us? How on earth did a baby and an old lady provoke their dogs? Can't answer? Then let the experts in the news items answer that question. Vets and animal experts have already spoken on this subject. That a dog's senses of hearing and smell are many many times more powerful that a human's. So noises and smells that we find bearable can become major issues for dogs. A baby's cry for example. Or the scent of a perfume that you find to be "just right" and subtle can seriously agitate them.

Also, consider that strays living rough out on the streets are exposed to a lot more irritants. Hot weather for example. Strays without an owner cannot simply wait for a human to turn on the air-con to cool down. And during the months when the weather is especially hot, dogs can get easily agitated. And bear in mind that it is easier for a stray dog to get bee stings or injuries from broken glasses and so on and so forth. The pain from these injuries can also cause a dog to become more aggressive and lash out. And who's going to take a stray to a vet if it starts feeling unwell? A sick dog can be an aggressive dog. So, what I am saying is, those dog lovers who go around claiming that dogs will NEVER attack if left alone are being irresponsible. You will notice that while many animal rights activists are saying that dogs will NEVER attack unless provoked or referring to them as "gentle strays" or claiming that they were never bothered by dogs, they aren't coming out in droves to put up security deposits so that victims attacked by strays could claim compensation. Some dog lovers do, but not enough of them are adopting strays into their homes and paying for vet bills and vaccination shots and so on.

So please, before making irresponsible remarks, put your money where your mouth is.

And those animal rights activists who have been declaring that public space, such as HDB void decks, are meant for ALL living beings, I have a question. Are you serious? Because I don't think you will be singing the same tune if, for example, a 3m long monitor lizard appeared at the void deck while you were chatting with a friend. Or a cobra for example. Cobras do appear from time to time in Bukit Timah, according to a friend who lives there. If you say HDB void decks are for ALL living beings, then you would have to tolerate huge monitor lizards, pythons and cobras. After all, a lot of experts also say these creatures will not attack humans unless provoked. You know, like what you guys have been saying about stray dogs.

So what I am saying here is: Get Real. Cities, houses and apartment buildings were never built with housing ALL living beings in mind. If those animal rights activists who have been saying "public space is meant for ALL living beings" really truly want to experience the wonders of nature and living in harmony with all, I highly recommend the island of Komodo. The space where the Komodo dragons roam freely about are also considered public. Try explaining your theory that public places are for ALL living beings to those wonderful dragons. :)


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.