|
"It is true that many animals in pounds who are not adopted
will be euthanized. But this is certainly not an argument in favor
of pound seizure. First, it is precisely those animals who are most
adoptable that experimenters tend to choose. They prefer docile, well-socialized,
medium-sized animals, precisely the animals likely to be adopted." Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine Washington,
D.C. Few elected officials would disagree that a responsible
politician’s first duty is to the voters who elected him or her. This, after
all, is a core ideal of democratically elected government. Politically,
this means that incumbents are held accountable during elections for their performance,
decisions, and public policy initiatives. In the case of pound seizure, if voters
consider the current policy ill-founded they will hold individual Winnipeg City
Councillors accountable not the University of Manitoba researchers who are the
only beneficiaries of the policy.
Too often companion
animal bylaws are based on the premise that dogs and cats are nuisances to be
controlled and are, therefore, disposable. Animal services is founded on a model
of “waste disposal.” The rationale behind pound seizure stems from
this outdated attitude towards companion animals. While some companion animals
can, indeed, cause problems, and reasonable controls are needed, the fact is
that most dogs and cats are important, vital members of people’s homes
and families. For many people, home and family are empty, incomplete —
without a companion animal. Recognizing this, most progressive municipalities
— Calgary, Vancouver, Toronto, Boston, New York, and Washington, to name
just a few — have implemented animal services policies that stress making
their communities “animal friendly,” and encourage responsible companion
animal guardianship through education and positive regulations. This enlightened
attitude not only helps people who share their lives with companion animals
and helps keep dogs and cats safe, but also significantly reduces conflicts
with, and the anxieties of, non-companion animal owners.
The
love that most people have for companion animals is often denigrated or dismissed
as frivolous, particularly by those who view them as a nuisance or would put
them to uses other than companionship. The quality and strength of the love
that most people have for companion animals should not be underestimated, particular
by elected officials. Many people make enormous sacrifices in time, emotional
commitment, and money to insure the comfort, safety, and health of their companion
animals.
This unstinting love that people have
for dogs and cats can extend beyond the home and family to an animal who is
a stranger, but treated cruelly. For example, recently Animal Alliance of Canada
helped rescue Maia, an Anatolian shepherd who was shot twice, hit by a car,
and left for dead on the road. Seeing what looked like a dead wolf, an off-duty
police officer stopped to pull the body off the road. When he approached the
animal, Maia wagged her tail. In a desperate attempt to save her life, the police
officer lifted the badly injured animal into his car, and took her to the nearest
veterinarian.
Following wide media coverage of the plight of Maia,
thousands of people spontaneously contributed tens of thousands of dollars to
AAC to help pay for the months of veterinary care and many operations that saved
Maia’s life, and returned her to health. She is now with a loving new
family, thanks to AAC’s adoption program and the support of thousands
of caring people.
Love for companion animals is well-founded. Most people
— even those who do not currently live with a companion animal —
have fond childhood memories of a loving family dog or cat, and recall how these
animals enriched their lives. When developing companion animal policies, the
prudent and responsible politician will respect the deep love that people have
for companion animals, and will help develop animal services programs that build
on that love. On a more pragmatic level, failing to do so can be a serious political
mistake. An American
Medical Association study (cited by
Dr. David H. Neil of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Alberta) showed
that while almost 75% of the public may accept, in principle, the use of animals
in research for certain purposes and within certain parameters, only 25% condoned
using animals from pounds and shelters.
"The Adverse Effects of Pound Seizure on Animal Services Management and employees of shelters and pounds are adversely affected [by pound seizure], as well. In consultation with numerous jurisdictions, we have never seen an effective animal control program in any city or country which permitted pound seizure."
Neal D. Barnard, M.D., President Physicians Committee for Responsible
Medicine Washington, D.C.
http://www.cruelscience.ca/DATA/Winnipeg.pdf
|
