ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide. Founded in 1992, ANIMAL PEOPLE has no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. |
This site built and maintained by: GREANVILLE ASSOCIATES and CRESCENT COMMUNICATIONS • Rev. 6.1.05 Copyright ANIMAL PEOPLE, INC. 1992--2005
 |
 |
ESSENTIAL DESTINATIONS
|
SEPTEMBER 2005 | All illustrations by Wolf Clifton
LETTERS
PETA in N.C.
I read and re-read your July/August 2005 article “PETA staffers face 62 felony cruelty counts in North Carolina.”
A central aspect of the case is the pervasive arrogance underlying so much PETA behavior —”We know best, the opinions of others don’t count, we are not interested in your ideas, we don’t listen to you but we do want your money.”
Profound and constant arrogance comes through again and again.
—Irene Muschel
New York, N.Y.
<benirv@hotmail.com>
Nevada horses
In your May 2005 article “BLM suspends wild horse sales after 41 are resold to slaughter,” you mentioned a proposed adoption/visitor center in Mound Horse, Nevada. I think you mean Mound House, on U.S. 50 in northern Lyon County, just east of Carson City.
––Henry Smith
Sorrento, Maine
CORRECTION
Because ANIMAL PEOPLE unknowingly received total shelter intake data for Asheville, North Carolina, from the Asheville Citizen-Times, rather than just the total numbers of animals killed, the line for Buncombe County, N.C. in the tables following our July/August 2005 feature “Shelter killing drops after upward spike” was incorrect. In the most recently ended fiscal year, Buncombe County agencies killed 5,444 dogs and cats, for an actual rate per 1,000 humans of 25.6.
“Madness in Karachi” update
Re “Madness in Karachi,” in your June 2005 edition, local government elections in Karachi have been keeping politicians busy these days, and so (through mid-August) the city has not yet begun their street dog poisoning campaign. We hope the new government will be more responsive to humane management methods.
––Mahera Omar
Pakistan Animal Welfare Society
<mahera.omar@gmail.com>
<www.pawspakistan.org>
Safari World orangutans
Forestry officers raided Safari World in Bangkok in Nov-ember 2003 to investigate alleged cruelty in connection with kick boxing matches held between orangutans to amuse visitors. They found that many of the 115 orangutans present were kept in cramped and unhealthy conditions, and were not registered with the authorities.
Safari World claimed that the many young orangutans were produced by a successful breeding program, but DNA testing paid for by the Bornean Orangutan Survival Foundation found in 2004 that at least 72 of the orangutans were illegally smuggled into Thailand. In the wild, mothers and other relatives are shot in order to catch the babies.
Two years later, these orangutans are still suffering at Safari World. At least 15 of them have reportedly died, in strange circumstances, without adequate medical documentation.
Some of the Safari World orangutans were smuggled to Cambodia last year and are now part of a similar show at a casino.
All of the surviving orangutans found at Safari World should be returned to the wild in Indonesia. This is part of the protocol for handling confiscated wildlife described in the detailed rules and regulations of the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, and Thailand as a signatory should adhere to this.
The Indonesian government is backing the return of the orangutans. Rehabilitation for release into the wild has been offered by the Bornean Orangutan Survival Foundation.
Our campaign represents many different organizations and wildlife activists who urge the Thai authorities to return the Safari World orangutans.
We also condemn all illegal wildlife smuggling, worldwide.
––Karmele Llano
Stichting ProAnimalia Intl.
Postbus 93029
2509 AA Den Haag
The Netherlands
<karmele@proanimalia.org>
<www.sendthembackhome.org>
The World Society & the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare
The July/August 2005 ANIMAL PEOPLE editorial feature on the Universal Declaration on Animal Welfare is a masterly historical review of the many attempts that have taken place over decades to achieve some sort of Declaration–– and we will keep it as a reference.
I would like to make some comments:
You took issue with including the word “legitimate” in the phrase “Where animals are used in legitimate sport and entertainment, all appropriate steps shall be taken to prevent them being exposed to cruelty.”
Without this word we would not have received support from a number of governments that accept activities such as horse riding, sheep dog trials, etc., and, even if we did have their support, it is unlikely that governments would have agreed to attack sports and entertainments which were legal and enjoying large public support in their countries.
That decision did not imply that, notwithstanding any adoption of the Declaration, WSPA and/or its member societies would not continue to campaign against any form of cruelty or unnatural behaviour imposed on animals in the name of sport etc. as we are continuing to do, e.g. bull fighting in Spain.
You also stated that “WSPA presented a redraft…” at the March 2003 Manila Conference on Animal Welfare.”
In fact it was the 22 nations who attended the Manila Conference who presented the redraft. WSPA could only act behind the scenes to reduce the several attempts to weaken the draft further and, most importantly, to keep the draft going forward.
You stated that “Replacing the idea that the Five Freedoms ‘should be afforded’ to captive animals with the notion that the Five Freedoms merely ‘provide valuable guidance’ amounted to replacing the concept of law with unenforceable suggestion.”
I would argue that the Manila Declaration kept the show on the road and if eventually it becomes a United Nations Declaration, all the enforceable legislation that you and I seek will then be required to be built on its premise that animals are sentient.
The conclusion is the only bit I didn’t warm to. I thought it was a little condescending.
WSPA does not “...purport to collectively represent the animal welfare community.” It does actually represent our 560 member societies in 126 countries with that number growing almost monthly.
WSPA and I personally have no intention of abandoning the “...oft expressed conviction of generations of animal advocates worldwide that the right of animals to not suffer should supersede human claims about culture and tradition.”
Rather we draw strength from those generations, build on their aspirations, and by bringing our collective and increasing member society strength to bear, have every hope of achieving permanent improvements for all.
––Peter Davies
89 Albert Embankment
London, SE1 7TP
U.K.
Phone: +44-20-7587-5000
Fax: +44-20-7793-0208
<wspa@wspa.org.uk>
<www.wspa.org.uk>
Calgary licensing system works
Thanks for the positive comment on our licensing program in your June 2005 edition.
I was interested to see that your survey of eight representative U.S. cities did not find a relationship between high license compliance and kill rates. That has not been our experience. Our dog license compliance is now over 90%. We have reduced euthanasia to 3% of the dogs we impounded in 2004. We only euthanize dogs who cannot be adopted because of aggression or non-correctable health issues.
We return 88% of the dogs we impound to their homes, and adopt out 9%. About half of the dogs we pick up go directly home. I can’t push that program enough. The savings achieved by not bringing dogs back to the shelter is significant, both in monetary terms and in making more productive use of animal control officers’ time.
Additionally, we have reduced aggressive dog incidents by two thirds over the past 20 years while our city has doubled in size.
Revenues are up and exceed our operating costs. In fact, we have enough to allow us to provide a quarter million dollar annual operating grant to the Calgary Humane Society.
We don’t license cats yet, so are not doing as well there. However, our numbers on cats are 50% returned to owner, 31% adopted to new homes, and 19% euthanized. Healthy adoptable cats are not euthanized. We are working closely with local humane groups and veterinarians on cat identification, seeking to reduce the euthanasia rate for cats.
––Bill Bruce, Director,
Animal & Bylaw Services
The City of Calgary
POB 2100, Station M,
Calgary, AB T2P 2M5
Phone: 403-268-5811
Fax: 403-268-4927
<bill.bruce.calgary.ab.ca>
<www.gov.calgary.ab.ca>
The Editor replies:
The Calgary licensing program works, unlike any other I have looked at, anywhere in the world, because it is managed in a very different manner.
The enabling legislation was initially identical to the Los Angeles ordinance of 1985, but enforcement differed from the start in two key respects.
One Calgary innovation was that licensed dogs found at large initially got a free ride home. Eventually a small service fee was added. People whose dogs escape tend to cheerfully pay it; most would spend far more to try to find a lost pet, worrying all the while.
The other Calgary twist was that instead of trying to make licensing pay for itself from the first license sold, Calgary priced licensing low and ubiquitously and positively promoted it as an inexpensive public service to people who have dogs, attracting enough voluntary compliance to make money on volume. Reminders to license are everywhere, always selling the advantages instead of threatening with penalties.
The Calgary success, now sustained for many years, redefines “high licensing compliance.” Few jurisdictions anywhere can claim even a third of the Calgary licensing compliance rate. Other communities claiming more than 30% licensing compliance usually get it through door-to-door enforcement that rarely pays for itself, is hated by the public, and cannot be sustained.
Of note is that contrary to the common belief that licensing increases the dog sterilization rate, the percentage of U.S. dogs who are sterilized––more than two-thirds––is more than twice the percentage who are licensed.
Calgary meanwhile returns dogs to their homes at an unheard-of rate. Many U.S. animal control agencies manage to achieve 50% returns to home, with return rates typically coming in around double the local licensing rate, but the dogs typically spend several days in the shelter before being found. A 60% return rate is considered high, and most animal control chiefs would consider 88% impossible.