“Center for Animal Welfare Legal Protection”
|
Protection of Animals: I worry over a big number of, let's say, short-sighted or groundless views and approaches. The absurdity of some of these can be seen with a naked eye and is obvious to anyone. I mean the uncouth decision of our officialdom to ban ketamin, for example. It is clear that cancellation of the ban in one form or another is predetermined. More problematic is a different sphere: the emerging or spread in society views of what animals protection proper is like, sources of the animals-related problems are, what sort of approaches should be used in handling them and what the ultimate goal should be. To me, there is a lot of mess here, not quite apparent to an unprepared person. My attention is above all pinned to Moscow. Our capital city is regarded more advanced than other cities, as far as zoo-protection is concerned. Other cities, including our Petrozavodsk, are about to emulate its experience. Unfortunately, it is some of the fundamental and actively translated stands of city authorities and Moscow zoo-protectionists that raise doubts. Do our views of "animals protection" correspond to actual advancement towards the welfare of animals, minimizing their sufferings and conflicts with human beings? Aren't we being overly hurried? Take, for example, the well-known and long overdue Moscow law of animals that is still not adopted. It has a special feature. Some Russian commentators refer to its as none other but the world's most humane law. Apparently because the law prohibits drugging animals to sleep. Whereas in controlling the numbers of stray dogs, they stake solely on sterilization of homeless female dogs. It is this "ahead of the rest of the planet" stance that makes one apprehensive. The thing is that you will not find an industrialized country with a high level of animals protection, where drugging animals to sleep would be banned (of course, there exist strict requirements and criteria for such a procedure). Obviously, there are good reasons for that. I'll come to this a bit later. I shall start with some conceptual provisions. At the very beginning of a document issued by Moscow government (if I remember correctly, a regulatory instruction on the catching, offering a temporary shelter and sterilization of dogs), I saw an item, stating, among other things, that homeless dogs and cats are an integral part of urban wildlife. Note "integral". Thus, homelessness of the once-domestic or home-grown animals is legalized as if it were some unconditionally positive reality, an ideal. Similar statements are encountered in other official and semi-official documents, too, with a pretense to express advanced views. At times, one will come across pseudo-scientific attempts to explain why homelessness is "integral". Thus, program documents of a well-known Moscow-based zoo-protectionist organization that was actively promoting numerous initiatives of the city authorities one can read that "the city needs mongrel animals for the sake of ecological balance". Apparently, the euphemism "street-wandering" was used instead of "homeless" that has a clearly negative connotation to people who were brought up in a traditional understanding that homeless dogs constitute an abnormal phenomenon. I must admit that I have no reason to doubt the sincerity of the authors of those texts: they are people working for the animals' good. I understand their emotional urge to find arguments with which to protect animals from those cruel "methods of regulation" we had adhered to so long. However, fir the good of our cause, the argumentation must be based on common sense, results of research and be aimed at the future. Let us begin step by step. The term "ecological balance" nowadays is popular in the context of the ideas of nature conservation and green movement. Still, it cannot be universal. When we talk about animals, the term is relevant , when it comes to description of natural ecosystems, e.g. the wood, where the most complicated interrelations among the flora and fauna species had been established for millennia and where each birth and each death are not in vain, serving to maintain the overall balance. Unlike a natural ecosystem, a city, megapolis is an artificial system made and maintained by man. It is like a huge house or flat, in which only its creator and master is capable of maintaining order, i.e. the "balance". Besides, the history of a present-day urban environment, the bituminous concrete space, is just a few decades long. Which is a bit too short, to put it mildly, for the emergence of an automatically-balanced ecosystem. Otherwise, we can regard roaches in your contemporary kitchen also contributing to some kind of "balance". When I inquire about the specific positive effect of "balance", I usually get two answers. Number one: stray dogs eat up refuse and wastes, thereby cleaning the city. Thus, the animals are given "with care" the role of garbage-processing plants "on all fours". I doubts such role is really effective. A dog digging in a refuse bin throws about packs, cans and left-over crumbs on the ground for the benefit of rats who are unable to jump high. Those food wastes that find their way to rat's stomach eventually remain in the city instead of being taken out to a landfill. In a somewhat processed and "refined" form - as faeces. Can we really regard this as city cleaning? Number two: Dogs control the numbers of rodents. But effectiveness of this role contradicts the dog biology for dogs descended from the wolf, specializing in large prey, and, what's more, is not confirmed by scientific observations (e.g. of A.D. Poyarkov). The observations indicate that to dogs rats constitute an incidental, "optional" prey which they hunt not so much for food, but for the sake of casual pleasure. This does not damage the rat population significantly. The rat kingdom's nucleus - all kinds of narrow underground caves and burrows - are inaccessible to the dogs. On some occasions, I saw rats scurrying about in cold blood in cracks and hollows of a basement near to the maternity den of a stray dog, virtually one meter away from the puppies). Rather, accessibility of some rats to dogs is an indicator meaning that rats in the city galore and they are confident of themselves, daring to make strolls "in the open air", the only place where they are vulnerable to dogs. Besides, in the cities, pack of dogs continually attack domestic cats, walking about in the yards, the cats being natural exterminators of rodents and are better suited for the task. The mortality rate among the domestic cats falling prey to dog attacks is unusually high. (By the way, who will protect domestic animals from this element of the notorious "law of the jungle"?) Thus, the dogs in the residential areas are rats' allies rather than adversaries. Generally speaking, to my knowledge, so exotic an approach to garbage and rats problems has never been used anywhere in the industrialized countries. There exist more straightforward and transparent methods: proper performance of street cleaners, utility units in charge of garbage removal and sanitary-and-epidemiologic services. Period. Another serious contradiction is the choice of an ideal: what kind of situation is optimum from the standpoint of animals' well-being, what exactly should be sought. Presumably, long life without suffering must be ensured for as many animals as possible. All I can say is that having no shelter and humaneness, having no shelter and well-being of animals are things incompatible. Nearly 80% of newly-born stray dogs do not live to a complete first year of life, and very few live to die their natural death. The present-day urban environment is a most dangerous place for animals that live without master's supervision. Such is the "humane" payment for the unsteady "balance". Besides, a fair proportion of per owners will never be persuaded that packs of dogs in the yards is an integral part of a city claiming to acquire the status of a civilized city. Just the opposite, the absence of a shelter is a source of permanent conflicts whose settlement by many will be sought trough legal and illegal attempts to get rid of the pets. And, naturally, it will be hard for zoo-protectionists to trace most such attempts, let alone penalize the defaulting parties. And although there exists a certain ecological threshold to the number of dog packs and the number of dogs in each pack< for there will not be enough food or space (true, such a threshold on a city scale has not been quantified, yet), it is already quite obvious that the numbers of dogs have long been past the threshold of conflict-free existence. Dogs without a home, by definition, is an abnormal state, homeless dogs suffer themselves and cause suffering to others - both to humans and animals. For this reason, the primary criterion of humaneness and degree of animals protectlon in the West are the numbers of homeless animals in the cities. If animals have masters, it means that the animals are protected and happy. And, if there are no homeless animals in a particular city, nobody is concerned there about a disturbed "ecological balance". On the contrary, the residents are justly proud that all or nearly all animals in their city are content with life. And, finally, there is no need, naturally, for drugging animals to sleep. Let us suppose now that we wish to reduce the numbers of homeless animals, i.e. to come closer to the ideal of true humaneness, not just showing off. In such a case, the causes of homelessness must be defined clearly. The main cause is associated with dog biology. The problem is that dogs are characterized by an incredible rate of reproduction (compared with man). Potentially, a female dog is capable of giving birth to puppies twice a year. In a year, the posterity itself is capable of reproducing itself. Suppose, each litter comprises six puppies, with half of them - females. It is easy to see that in eight years, the posterity of a single female dog will exceed the entire human population of a city as large as Moscow. Due to the high mortality rate, this scheme, naturally, is not translated into reality. Yet, it gives one some idea of the number of puppies that come to out apartment each year. The overwhelming majority of dogs fostered by Russian owners are not sterilized. Hence, the enormous number of animals that nobody wants, for whom it is even potentially impossible to find an owner. The supply is far greater than the demand. And the value of a mongrel (and often - of a thoroughbred) dog is reduced to zero, according to the laws of the market. We are faced with a situation of animals overpopulation. What happens to the surplus animals? They are thrown out into the street. This is the main source of homeless animals population replacement. This makes clear why there is no point in the current campaign of sterilizing only stray dogs as the panacea for all grievances. In the West, on the contrary, it is customary to sterilize and geld the pet dogs held by owners. Over 80% of adult domestic dogs in industrialized countries have been sterilized. Non-sterilized animals are only held by the dog breeders. This answers the question why there are so few extra animals there, including those homeless. Therefore, the only acceptable way is gradual and conscientious movement along the path that has been covered by the western countries. No need to invent a bicycle and appear more humane than we can actually afford being. What we need to do in the first place is elaborate a clear system of propaganda and encouragement of domestic animals sterilization by the owners. The owners should be penalized for throwing out their pets. (otherwise, in the light of latest theories, a owner, throwing out his pet, should not be treated as a criminal, but, rather, as a person who made his contribution to maintaining "ecological balance"!). To develop a working system of dog registration. As for the need to sterilize domestic animals, the pet owners should "shout at every corner", not hide behind the arguments about the alleged rights of interfering in private life of one's dog, so typical of us. People must be convince that the amount of suffering and the number of deaths of "unwanted" animals depend on every pet owner. Besides, we should realize one thing: as long as there exists dog overpopulation, something must be done about the "extra" animals. In the West, animal orphanages are set up for such a purpose. It is impossible to think of anything better than that. The orphanages function as centers of distributing animals to new owners. Therefore, the setting up of a network of animal orphanages for the netted animals and "abandoned" pets must be a second priority objective. And here we are faced with a painful issue of drugging animals to sleep. Because the demand is limited, it will be impossible to distributed all animals to new owners. For this reason< at least at the first stage, there must be some drugging to sleep - just like in the West. Once again, we must have a clear understanding that, quite impartially, we cannot prohibit the death of surplus animals. Urban environment just does not have the capacity to accommodate all. Yet, there may be a choice. First, drugging will be done legally by a vet doctor under a strict supervision and in compliance with specific criteria. Second, and this is how matters stand at present, under the auspices of the world's most humane but absolutely and naturally incapable law, surplus animal die either as a result of inevitable underground poisinings, shootings and nettings, or die under the fences "for natural reasons" - hunger, cold, diseases as well as vehicles, sadists, hungry beggars with no particular place of residence or as a result of competition with luckier dogs ("the law of the jungle"). The western countries choose the former option. There, in the cities, you can still find netting of animals, and drugging to sleep in animal orphanages (carried out by professionals, of course) - as long as there is need for this. And if we do want to put an end to drugging to sleep in the future, there is no point banning the practice; simply, alongside setting up a network of animal orphanages, efforts should be made to reduce, as far as possible, reproduction of "surplus" animals that are doomed one way or another. Such is the strategy of tackling the problem in the western countries. The road to real well-being of animals is much longer and more difficult than many of our impatient and sentimental protectors of animals imagine. It will take decades before we attain the best western achievements (minimum of surplus animals, with a minimum of drugging to sleep in animal orphanages). But there is no alternative. Humaneness does emerge from the adoption of a naive "humane" law filled with day-dreaming. It is destined to remain forever in virtual space of good intentions. Humaneness comes into being when real life changes in its direction, albeit slowly. I realize that our country has not enough experience in the area. O.K., let us take lessons from others, then. And let us plan from the outset which way to go so as to reach then desired goal. This is better than waiting until the logic of life sets you onto the right track. As for the Moscow version, i.e. sterilization of stray dogs and termination of large-scale netting operations, the program in its present form is useless. Scandals and abuse in this case are inevitable. Even without going into detail of campaign organizing, but touching upon the biology aspects only. As we already noted, the numbers of stray dogs in a situation of dog overpopulation are maintained all the time by domestic animals who are either thrown out into the street or are set loose "for a stroll". Besides, it is ridiculous to suggest that a "sterilized" female dog will not allow other non-sterilized dogs in her area. Social behavior of dogs is far more complicated than schemes simplified to the extent of being outright primitive. In a complex urban environment, the habitat areas tend to be superimposed by large margins and change permanently. There does not exist a clearly determined need to "drive away' strangers; frequently, on the contrary, the strangers are welcomed "heartily". This holds good of both single species and of packs. For example, look at the packs of dogs: they do not comprise animals of blood relation only. Which means that "strangers" may also be allowed in. Dogs are not monogamous, and a new female dog (all the more so, non-sterilized) stands a good chance of being liked by dominant males in the pack. In case of a normal, systems approach to the problem, alongside other methods, including non-return netting, sterilization of stray dogs remains, but is used selectively: where it is really appropriate. First, it makes sense to sterilize (instead of netting and taking animals to an animal orphanage) single dogs that have long lived in the yards and have really loving guardians and do not make conflicts with other residents or their pets - a guarantee that the dogs will not be poisoned. A, second, foreign practice (the Italian Taranto Town) indicates that sterilization of pack dogs may be effective on a fenced, isolated territory of large industrial enterprises, inaccessible to outsiders, from the town. Such strict isolation is a guarantee that overpopulation of domestic animals and migration will not be able to make up for the natural loss on the territory of the enterprise after sterilization of all local dogs. Sincerely, Vladimir Rybalko, Ecologist Letter-comment Today, quite by chance, while searching for information on Moscow orphanages, I stumbled upon your site. Extremely topical. Of special interest to me was the fact that you, being in the center of events - in Moscow, - have come to the same conclusions as me, living in a different city.About myself: Vladimir Rybalko, I live in the northern city of Petrozavodsk, by training, I am a professional biologist, work at the local university and, pluralistically, am an expert of the city society for the protection of animals. As a biologist, for the last few years I've studied the population (a more correct term is sub-population) of stray dogs in our city. I wrote a few papers on the subject. And, as an expert and member of the working group at our city administration, in association with some other organizations, little by little I've been promoting a civilized program of resolving the problems of animals in our city, above all those connected with neglected and stray dogs. (Until now, here, like elsewhere in Russia, an ineffective approach is practiced: "random catching/quick elimination"). Of course, when working at the program, we must consider both the local conditions (including research results), and experience of other countries and cities. Some three years back, I familiarized myself (by reading documents) with the Moscow concept of total sterilization of stray dogs, which appeared the panacea for all grievances and the ideology of "self-regulation" of the animals populations in an urban ecosystem that constituted the foundation of that approach. (There were ideas - mainly at the level of day-dreaming - to introduce something similar in our city. After I examined the concept closely, I was bewildered, and the bewilderment grew as I acquired more and more information. I was in serious doubt regarding the efficiency of the approach. In my view, it fails to take into account many factors that influence the situation in the city, ignores the solution of many problems and contradicts the views of a humane urban environment as it leaves the regulatory role to the "law of the jungle". The "law of the jungle" may be good for the jungle, but not for a modern civilized city. Of course, I drew such conclusions on the basis of surveys of the situation conducted in Petrozavodsk. Having no fresh scientific information from Moscow (I studied Poyarkov's works dating back to the 1980s, but there have long been no similar fundamental works published), I nevertheless suspected that in Moscow conditions the approach in question is unlikely to produced the results contemplated. Indeed, Moscow is unlikely to be populated by a species of dogs different from ours, and besides the urban environment of the capital is unlikely to be profoundly different from the conditions of an average-size city. And, it seems that my fears are being confirmed. During my last visit to Moscow, I appraised the situation in some district off the center with a quite practiced eye. Certainly, my appraisal is rather superficial, most probably an underestimation (I did not indulge in all the backyards), yet the population density that I found is 30 individuals per square meter, not less. A bit too high a figure, to put it mildly, for the conditions of "a successful program". It is appropriate that you touch upon the problem of horrible fate of cats in the conditions of high density of dog population. I, too, seek to raise this subject in the local papers as one of the reasons for embarking on an effective program of urban fauna management. There are also many stray dogs in our city (the poorly financed and morally obsolete system of dog catching is ineffective) - and the cats die on a mass scale. It is home-grown cats walking by themselves that suffer in the first place (By virtue of climatic condition, we never had many homeless cats). According to my observations, the death rate of adult cats as a result of dog attacks (depending on the type of housing) ranges from 70 to 90% of entire cats mortality of cats, walking in the streets by themselves. I'll never forget the desperation of a woman-owner of a "home cat orphanage', whose pets were killed by home-grown and stray dogs. She insisted on a pistol being given to her to do justice with the dogs. Maternity dens of some stray dogs are a sight not everyone is prepared to see: the mothers literally suckle and rear the puppies with cats they catch in the yards: the ground is covered with cat bones and pieces of hides... And all this happens near the blocks of flats, before very eyes of children. Such is humaneness of the "law of the jungle". It is crucial that you name the main reason for a large number of homeless animals: overproduction of domestic animals. In the materials of solid western zoo-protectionist organizations (e.g. American HSUS) this term (pet overpopulation) appears on the front pages. In our discussions on the subject of animals, experts will talk about anything, holding forth about humaneness, but hardly ever will they pinpoint the reasons of the grave situation on a consistent basis. There is still very little professionalism. What's more, your site offers provinces a unique opportunity to learn what in fact is going on in Moscow. It is extremely hard at the periphery to acquire true information, when there are lots of rumors and biased opinions. However, I must tell you that my view of the ways out of the existing situation is somewhat different from yours. Yes, I agree that a complicated long-neglected disease calls for a package of drugs and methods, there being no single panacea. Yet, it seems worthwhile to study the western experience of actual solution of the problems - certainly, with due account of our specific features. Above all, the management of city animal problem solution must be in the hands of specialized municipal bodies (albeit small) staffed by subject-matter experts. These experts will be applying a specific method to each particular situation. Of course, there must be a modernized system of catching the animals and a system of "open-admission" orphanages/shelters with, alas (!), a high degree of rotation at an early stage of functioning (i.e. drugging animals to sleep. On the other hand, it seems expedient to use partially a "sterilization/issue" method for packs with pronounced preference of a particular territory, e.g. in well-fenced compounds of enterprises. Naturally, as you suggest, it is necessary to cooperate closely with the owners of public and private "small shelters" and "no-kill" (limited-admission) shelters, and to support them in any manner possible: part of the load they will shoulder, anyway. And undoubtedly and above all, we should take action to keep down overpopulation of home-grown animals - both through normative acts and economic incentives and propaganda. Thew details of our concept are quite extensive and if you are interested, I think we could establish a working contact for an opinion exchange. Please, write to me. I apologize for the long letter, but I found it appropriate to attach my old letter to the "Izvestia" paper (for the text of the letter, read further). This paper is the only one of the federal papers that covers the situation with Moscow and other city animals, even though usually with an "official-sterilization" bend. Sincerely, V.A. Rybalko 20.10.2004 |
