|
|
IWMC
World Conservation Trust |
|
Animal Rights
Poses
Threats to Animal Welfare |
Extending
animals the same rights and social benefits as human beings may be an
unsupportable trap for animals and those that care most for them. An article by
Monique Beaudin in the Montreal Gazette describes an almost surrealistic
nightmare experienced by Eric Graf, head of the board of directors of the Miaouf
no-kill animal shelter, when he had no choice but to euthanize the animals
living there last month. Apparently many of the 152 dogs and cats in the shelter
had contracted leptospirosis, a bacterial infection, which poses a risk to
humans. One volunteer at the shelter had also acquired the disease. A Montreal SPCA inspector found the shelter overrun with rats and mice, with
layers of feces on the walls, and the animals housed in stinking sordid
conditions. When it was clear that the debt- laden shelter could not afford
treating the animals with antibiotics, getting rid of the vermin, installing
proper ventilation and  repairing the water system, Graf and a majority of the
board took the only decision they could and had the animals professionally
euthanized.
Because of the no- kill policy, Graf was criticized in public by the
dissenting board members, and several volunteers for having the animals
euthanized. Graf and his wife received threats and were called names ranging
from Hitler to murderers. Although he could have simply resigned and walked away
from the problems, he chose to act humanely and responsibly in the discharge of
his duties. Graf says he has been vilified in public after "giving his
heart and soul to the organization".
The incident raises all kinds of questions and concerns about the future of
animal welfare in a rising tide of animal rights extremism. When caring people
act responsibly to relieve animal suffering and are subsequently threatened and
vilified in public, one wonders what kind of human being (if any) will volunteer
to assume responsibility for animal welfare in the future? Where were the
perpetrators of these threats when there was a need for money to treat the
animals, to improve sanitation and enhance the conditions under which the
animals were housed?
No- kill is an insufficient policy for animal welfare when it is accompanied
by no- support. This case proves once again, that no- kill shelters and non- use
philosophies eventually cave in under the weight of their idealism, leaving
animals worse- off in the long- run, than conventional alternatives. It also
demonstrates the impracticalities, and the desperate consequences for animals,
which arise when human emotion, rather than reason governs actions. In the
meantime, unchecked threats from strident no- kill zealots will gradually weed
out the responsible animal caretakers, and conservationists, who use animal
resources sustainably, and provide for their habitat. The long- term
consequences of no- kill and non- use ideologies poses major risks to the future
of animal welfare and conservation. 
|
