Can you spot the stray?*
A few weeks ago, my local paper published an article entitled A Veterinarian’ Suicide and Taiwan’s Stray Animals previously published in the Washington Post. However, the Washington Post the article carried the more sensationalist headline, A veterinarian’s suicide by euthanasia drugs haunts debate over Taiwan’s stray animal problem. That article, in turn, presents a lot of the same information that appeared in an article on Daily Mail.com several days after the event occurred in May of last year. This report carried the headline Director of Taiwanese shelter commits suicide after “feeling distraught about having to euthanize too many dogs”. Other media outlets also featured the event when it occurred as well as in the months following it.
But for as much media attention as Dr. Chien’s death generated at the time and later, I suspect that shelter workers worldwide just nodded their heads sadly and went on with their work. The more experienced among them even could predict the public response. Animals rights groups would send out inflammatory press releases saying there was no reason in the universe for any animal to be euthanized. Rescue groups would trumpet their existing or planned programs to save the animals by transporting them somewhere else.Politicians would ban euthanasia or propose fabulous programs for no-kill shelters that would gain them—the politicians—support from dog-lovers. Sometimes these officials would even back up their promises with funding, but more often not. A genuine desire to solve the problem might motivate some of these responses.But those motivated by naivety, opportunism and even gross exploitation also would make an appearance and sadly often gain the most press coverage.
But regardless of their motivation, these responses share one thing in common: they all miss the point. Once again they focus on the admittedly disturbing results of the problem—and then only when it’s to their advantage to do so—instead of the cause. Consequently, the probability of lasting beneficial change occurring remains low. Shelter workers at all levels of the system will continue to burn out, some will succumb to stress-related ailments, others will die, including by suicide. Unlike in this case, most will go unnoticed except by those who knew them well.
Contrary to what many members of the public and those organizations or individuals who benefit from media stories such as these choose to think, this isn’t an animal problem. It’s a human one. And it begins with a breakdown in communication.
What do you think of when you hear or read the word “stray” when used to describe animals? It turns out that how people define it depends on where they live.The writers of the articles describing Dr. Chien’s suicide implied or stated that these dogs were previously owned animals abandoned by their owners. Some defined the term even more precisely to refer to purebred dogs treated so shamelessly. Furthermore, they reported that this is a relatively new phenomenon.
That’s what I think of as the upscale suburban definition of stray.
But like many parts of the world (including parts of the US), Thailand has a long-established free-roaming dog population referred to by many as strays. Some of these dogs indeed may be first-generation dumped purebreds. However, the bulk belong to long-established and adapted populations of free-roaming animals. Like their ancestors, they span the solitary-social spectrum based on the nature of the food supply and availability of shelter. Many of those who live in areas populated by humans don’t live there because they yearn for human companionship and care. They live there because our trash serves as a reliable source of food and shelter as it has for centuries, if not longer. Ironically, whenever animals of any species become a nuisance, we call them “trash animals” even though we’re the source of the trash. (For a more in-depth discussion of this human response, see “The Revealing World of Trash Animals”.)
The communication breakdown also extends to public awareness of basic ecology. Like their most ancient ancestors, free-roaming dogs occupy an ecological niche in their respective environments. If you remove them all but the trash remains, other animals will fill that niche. Politicians presumably hope the filth will attract a less politically problematic species, such as rats, that can be more easily exterminated without risking public outcry. More unrealistic members of the public may assume any successors will be more benign.
Rescuers’ perception of the ecological significance of the problem takes several forms based on their degree of knowledge and experience. Those with the least don’t give this part of the problem any thought at all. In their world, the free-roaming dog population they see as they walk or drive around the area or watch a news segment is the only one that exists. Capture and find adopters for those perceived abandoned pet dogs and the problem will disappear.
Those in another group of rescuers recognize that more dogs from one source or another eventually will fill the void. However, they feel confident that if all other sources of pet dogs—e.g. breeders, pet stores, etc.—are banned, there will be plenty of good homes for every dog they can capture and transport. What few dogs they can’t place directly will go to no-kill shelters from which people will adopt them or where the dogs will live happily ever after.
Those rescuers with the most knowledge and experience eventually come to some painful conclusions:
- The law of diminishing returns applies to established populations of free-roaming dogs. As time goes on, it will require more resources to capture dogs less capable of adapting to a pet-dog environment.
- The more marginal or unfit dogs adopted out and the more problems they have, the less people will want to adopt dogs from comparable backgrounds.
- Like the Garden of Eden and heaven, the no-kill shelter is a goal worth striving toward. However, in areas with local unadoptable populations or those with unadoptable transport dogs from other areas, the shelter’s cages and runs will soon be filled. Caring for these animals will divert often already scarce resources from other shelter obligations in the animal community. Adoptable animals will be turned away due to lack of space. Unless the shelter can find some way to transport those unadoptable dogs somewhere else, the shelter will cease to exist and become a sanctuary/long-term medical and behavioral holding facility for a relatively small population of dogs instead.
- At some point the dreaded e-word, euthanasia, becomes a viable option if the organization wants, or is authorized, to help the most animals in the community.
Knowledgeable people in all walks of life increasingly recognize that this is a One Health Problem. They recognize that problems related human poverty must be addressed by the human healthcare system and that the two groups must work together. They must actively educate their populations about the value of licensing and spay and neuter for animal and human health reasons and to keep pet-quality dogs in their owners’ home. They must clean up the environment to eliminate the human-trash niches and also the kind-hearted but misguided human-feeding of these dogs that will attract more dogs (and their diseases) when the current population is eliminated. Simultaneously, politicians must be willing to levy and citizens willing to pay taxes and fees to support these services, even for the most impoverished.
Until the people living in states, provinces, or countries with established free-roaming dog populations pay as much attention to finding truly meaningful ways to eliminate the human causes of the problem as they do to media reports about discouraged shelter workers euthanizing themselves, those people charged by society to do their dirty work for them will continue to suffer along with the animals.
*Did you spot the stray in the image? Supposedly this is a photo of a feral pack, but it could be a band of predatory pet dogs too. As always, we can’t say unless we know the whole story.
Can you spot the stray?*
A few weeks ago, my local paper published an article entitled A Veterinarian’ Suicide and Taiwan’s Stray Animals previously published in the Washington Post. However, the Washington Post the article carried the more sensationalist headline, A veterinarian’s suicide by euthanasia drugs haunts debate over Taiwan’s stray animal problem. That article, in turn, presents a lot of the same information that appeared in an article on Daily Mail.com several days after the event occurred in May of last year. This report carried the headline Director of Taiwanese shelter commits suicide after “feeling distraught about having to euthanize too many dogs”. Other media outlets also featured the event when it occurred as well as in the months following it.
But for as much media attention as Dr. Chien’s death generated at the time and later, I suspect that shelter workers worldwide just nodded their heads sadly and went on with their work. The more experienced among them even could predict the public response. Animals rights groups would send out inflammatory press releases saying there was no reason in the universe for any animal to be euthanized. Rescue groups would trumpet their existing or planned programs to save the animals by transporting them somewhere else.Politicians would ban euthanasia or propose fabulous programs for no-kill shelters that would gain them—the politicians—support from dog-lovers. Sometimes these officials would even back up their promises with funding, but more often not. A genuine desire to solve the problem might motivate some of these responses.But those motivated by naivety, opportunism and even gross exploitation also would make an appearance and sadly often gain the most press coverage.
But regardless of their motivation, these responses share one thing in common: they all miss the point. Once again they focus on the admittedly disturbing results of the problem—and then only when it’s to their advantage to do so—instead of the cause. Consequently, the probability of lasting beneficial change occurring remains low. Shelter workers at all levels of the system will continue to burn out, some will succumb to stress-related ailments, others will die, including by suicide. Unlike in this case, most will go unnoticed except by those who knew them well.
Contrary to what many members of the public and those organizations or individuals who benefit from media stories such as these choose to think, this isn’t an animal problem. It’s a human one. And it begins with a breakdown in communication.
What do you think of when you hear or read the word “stray” when used to describe animals? It turns out that how people define it depends on where they live.The writers of the articles describing Dr. Chien’s suicide implied or stated that these dogs were previously owned animals abandoned by their owners. Some defined the term even more precisely to refer to purebred dogs treated so shamelessly. Furthermore, they reported that this is a relatively new phenomenon.
That’s what I think of as the upscale suburban definition of stray.
But like many parts of the world (including parts of the US), Thailand has a long-established free-roaming dog population referred to by many as strays. Some of these dogs indeed may be first-generation dumped purebreds. However, the bulk belong to long-established and adapted populations of free-roaming animals. Like their ancestors, they span the solitary-social spectrum based on the nature of the food supply and availability of shelter. Many of those who live in areas populated by humans don’t live there because they yearn for human companionship and care. They live there because our trash serves as a reliable source of food and shelter as it has for centuries, if not longer. Ironically, whenever animals of any species become a nuisance, we call them “trash animals” even though we’re the source of the trash. (For a more in-depth discussion of this human response, see “The Revealing World of Trash Animals”.)
The communication breakdown also extends to public awareness of basic ecology. Like their most ancient ancestors, free-roaming dogs occupy an ecological niche in their respective environments. If you remove them all but the trash remains, other animals will fill that niche. Politicians presumably hope the filth will attract a less politically problematic species, such as rats, that can be more easily exterminated without risking public outcry. More unrealistic members of the public may assume any successors will be more benign.
Rescuers’ perception of the ecological significance of the problem takes several forms based on their degree of knowledge and experience. Those with the least don’t give this part of the problem any thought at all. In their world, the free-roaming dog population they see as they walk or drive around the area or watch a news segment is the only one that exists. Capture and find adopters for those perceived abandoned pet dogs and the problem will disappear.
Those in another group of rescuers recognize that more dogs from one source or another eventually will fill the void. However, they feel confident that if all other sources of pet dogs—e.g. breeders, pet stores, etc.—are banned, there will be plenty of good homes for every dog they can capture and transport. What few dogs they can’t place directly will go to no-kill shelters from which people will adopt them or where the dogs will live happily ever after.
Those rescuers with the most knowledge and experience eventually come to some painful conclusions:
Knowledgeable people in all walks of life increasingly recognize that this is a One Health Problem. They recognize that problems related human poverty must be addressed by the human healthcare system and that the two groups must work together. They must actively educate their populations about the value of licensing and spay and neuter for animal and human health reasons and to keep pet-quality dogs in their owners’ home. They must clean up the environment to eliminate the human-trash niches and also the kind-hearted but misguided human-feeding of these dogs that will attract more dogs (and their diseases) when the current population is eliminated. Simultaneously, politicians must be willing to levy and citizens willing to pay taxes and fees to support these services, even for the most impoverished.
Until the people living in states, provinces, or countries with established free-roaming dog populations pay as much attention to finding truly meaningful ways to eliminate the human causes of the problem as they do to media reports about discouraged shelter workers euthanizing themselves, those people charged by society to do their dirty work for them will continue to suffer along with the animals.
*Did you spot the stray in the image? Supposedly this is a photo of a feral pack, but it could be a band of predatory pet dogs too. As always, we can’t say unless we know the whole story.