Sawadee ka!
For those who follow my Twitter, you’ll know I’ve been away on honeymoon. My husband and I spent the last thirteen days exploring Thailand, mainly central and outer Bangkok, the former capital Ayuthaya and (of course) a few days by the pool in Phuket :)
Many domestic animals in Thailand, suburban and rural, are living on the streets. Sometimes right alongside their owners, sometimes without an owner at all.
I hope to put into words a few of the experiences I had whilst on holidays and the similarities and differences for pets in our respective countries.
So without further ado, my first post; ‘How to manage a cat ‘problem”…
……………………………………………………..
Street cat, Thailand (source)
Recently, free-roaming cats received mainstream media attention and government called for advice on the best way to control their numbers.
While the public largely cared for the welfare of the cats, offering them daily food, water and inviting them to remain near; animal welfare groups were rightly outraged at the numbers of cats killed by animal control each year. So cat welfare groups and government departments sat down together and created a plan.
First, the government passed laws which ordered that every single free-roaming cat should be caught and sent to local council agents for ‘disposal’. They cited that this would be in ‘the cat’s best interest’. However, with a free-roaming cat population of around half a million who, largely lived supported by people who gave them food and monitored their welfare, the idea that all of these animals should all be rounded up and killed could hardly be considered a humane approach.
Secondly, the government required that animal control agents be assigned to each region for the task of collecting free-roaming cats. Animal control in turn elevated their ability to impound cats, by offering the locals free cat traps, ignoring evidence that many of these trappers were ‘cat haters’ who simply drowned or suffocated trapped animals with car fumes, and often targeted owned cats in the neighbourhood.
Third, harboring a free-roaming cat was made an offence. Supporting a cat by providing food, water or shelter became illegal, with the threat of fines to those who persisted in caring for the animals. Despite the fact the culture of the community was that of compassion, the government mandated that people should take the cat they were caring for, and arrange its impoundment.
And finally, in an effort to change the public’s perception of free-roaming cats from that of respected animal to pest, a campaign was launched to paint them as dark, shadowy nuisances that should be removed. It also showed cat carers to be irresponsible and cruel. The campaign was given extensive radio, television and media exposure.
Cat family, Thailand (source)
The result was obvious. By changing the dynamic of society from one who cares for free-roaming cats, to one who targets them to be culled, the government forever altered the way the community acted towards these vulnerable animals.
Instances of animal abuse escalated and anti-cat sentiment increased. Cats were rounded up by the thousands by both government officials and trappers. Cat intake increases of up to 40% were reported, while animal welfare groups, already overloaded, were unable to handle the influx. Feral cats were almost universally culled, while overall, up to 80% of impounded cats were killed.
To appease anyone who objected to the idea of a bulk cull, discount cat desexings were offered (around 25% off full price); but even these were limited to the first 100 applicants, leaving the majority of cats and cat carers to fend for themselves.
Sleeping cat, Ayuthaya Thailand (source)
In short, this purported animal-loving community rapidly became one of the largest killer of companion animals per-capita in the world. And with such huge numbers of cats still reproducing unchecked, there is no end in sight for the killing.
At this point, anyone reading this who has ever been to Thailand is screaming foul. The truth is, I’m not talking about cat management in Thailand. Thai’s hugely revere their cats. To kill a cat, under Buddhist beliefs, is to kill a trainee monk. So vets hate doing it and any campaign to control numbers has to incorporate cultural esteem for these animals.
Each morning around Thailand people put out small offerings of milk and rice to care for their neighbourhood moggies. The cats return this goodwill by discouraging poisonous snakes and driving out rats and mice. The Thai’s understand that nature has a balance and use it to their advantage.
The cat is an attractive addition to street life, roaming confidently among the roadside stalls and sleeping on the stairs of Buddhist temples. It’s not unusual to see groups of tourists or ‘farang’ stopped to take a photo and discuss theories on how the cat got its short tail (don’t worry, its genetic).
Desexing programs are the preferred management technique, because it is understood that without removing the sources of colony support (ie. human rubbish for food and man-made buildings providing shelter), to cull cats is futile. They’ll simply be back again next year. Soi Dog Foundation have spent the last 7 years desexing 19,959 dogs and 6,184 cats and either returning them to their owners or to their natural habitat. They offer their services free to those owners who can’t afford to pay a donation to the foundation. In short, Thai programs are designed to save the lives of animals.
Unfortunately, we Aussies aren’t as compassionate towards animals as the Thai’s. The campaign I’m describing, the one that should be considered as shameful for any part of the world, is taking place right now in Victoria, Australia.
The ‘Who’s for Cats’ campaign, run by the Victorian government, is slowly but surely turning regular people against free-roaming cats, increasing impoundments and encouraging killing in the face of alternatives. The Victorian government has implemented policies that have removed protection for these animals, leaving them open to persecution and abuse.
Victorian animal welfare groups who support ‘Who’s for Cats’ should take a good hard look at the future they are pushing towards. While a western, sanitised, all-pets-in-homes ambition might be laudable, to kill thousands of cats in the drive to get there, is in no way ethical, nor admirable.
We wouldn’t support another country in an effort to kill thousands of animals. We wouldn’t support another country in an effort to round up and kill every free-roaming cat simply for being unowned. We wouldn’t support them, because when they do it, we can see it makes no sense. So why do we accept the same approach here, when we claim not only to be more compassionate, but when our animal welfare groups are some of the wealthiest in the world?
Cats, the same the world over. People… not so much.
Well put Shel, welcome back!
The Victorian ‘Who’s For Cats’ program is shameful indeed and I cannot tell you just how much it means to me that you have put these issues in so plain a light.
I am ashamed that this could happen in our country when there are so many progressive and humane actions taken in others.
What the Victorian program has done is to mess with people’s heads, influence those who might be swayed to believe this is a viable way to address the problem and to encourage others to think it is alright to be cruel because cats have been painted as vermin.
It is not alright to be cruel to any living creature.
How thankful am I that there are people who do not accept blindly what governments or animal welfare shelters tell them they should believe.
The immoral and unethical senseless indiscriminate murder of cats to solve a perceived problem (perceived by a vocal minority but foisted on to the less vociferous majority) is doomed to failure. Such programs have never worked in the past and only open up space for other animals to move into, removing competition and allowing less desirable (also introduced) species to proliferate.
If we destroyed their environment no doubt we could kill off cats – after all, we have managed to kill off much of Australia’s natural animal population already using this method. Why stop there? I suppose the fact that the cat’s environment is also ours might be a drawback – though there are those that think, with some justification, that we are as much of a verminous pest on these shores as the animals we brought with us and so would look on any depopulating force with favour.
I prefer the Thai/Buddhist approach – we have no more right to be here than the cats and sharing, loving and caring enrich our ‘souls’ whereas trapping and destroying clearly do not. As the article above demonstrates, the way societies treat the animals that share their space says much about them. Better by far to achieve a balance, encouraging more responsible community support for neutering control measures and approving the caring for strays rather than painting fellow travellers as evil competitors and adding to their torment.
I am a veterinarian and am ashamed that others in my profession, sworn to care for the welfare of animals, consider the death of thousands of otherwise healthy creatures is an appropriate response. I am a citizen and I am outraged that my elected representatives consider legalised slaughter is in their mandate to impose on the society they supposedly represent. Where is our humanity? Where are our consciences? Do people actually feel good about the forced killing of cats?