“I can’t believe you criticised xxx pound – the staff there simply have no choice but to euthanise pets. You need to get off your keyboard and HELP them. Better yet, why don’t YOU take all the animals?”
I get sent this email probably twice a week, so I’m going to take a moment to address it.
Firstly, no – I won’t take all of your community’s pets. This is a ridiculous argument used to derail conversation about pound performance. No matter how many pets are killed and no matter how frivolous the reasons, unless YOU are willing to take ALL THE PETS you aren’t entitled to review policies or procedures.
I call bullshit.
We know there are pounds who kill, kill often, and – despite what the claim – kill with great enthusiasm. Other pounds are realising that there are many, many alternatives to killing should they get off their asses and find them. The differences between the two are what I spend a large portion of my week comparing and contrasting.
We ALL get a say in the kind of pounds and shelters exist in our communities, because they’re OUR communities. They’re OUR pets, they’re OUR tax dollars and they’re OUR donations funding this system. It is a public system. We get to freely offer our support and as necessary, our condemnation.
Don’t be distracted by this insincere line of questioning, designed to intimidate. You have every right to ask.
Secondly, should we criticise pounds at all? Shouldn’t we be working to get staff onside? Shouldn’t we just be working with them?
There is a pervasive idea, that if we don’t praise pounds and shelters for every tiny baby step they take (even when they’re still doing enormous harm), then we will fail to make, or reinforce positive progress. Conversely, if we demand ‘too much’ of pounds, then staff will simply shut up shop and the pets will be worse off.
People working collaboratively with the system fear outsiders rocking the boat. While proponents of No Kill are seen to be at odds with ‘welfare’ advocates. The framing of this debate tends to polarise groups claiming to have the same goal, and we worry we’re doing our own personal advocacy ‘wrong’. But we shouldn’t worry – because this is absolutely not a new debate.
The reality is, ‘rights’ vs ‘welfare’, has been a part of the wider animal welfare movement for decades. Just this week, Steve Coleman, CEO of the RSPCA NSW, came out in the media claiming;
“What the RSPCA stands for has absolutely been muddied by the efforts of other organisations that have a different agenda. I don’t think there’s any doubt – the waters have been muddied between welfare and rights.”
According to Colemen, animal rights activists are harming the reputation of the RSPCA by clouding community perception, and furthering the idea they are ‘anti-farming’.
The RSPCA believes welfare can be improved by educating farmers one-by-one, to improve their operations, and providing positive encouragement every step of the way. They do this by sitting on animal industry boards and offering an accreditation programs under the ‘RSPCA Approved’ branding, as now seen on Coles chicken nationally, and on certain eggs and pork. Solving animal welfare issues, they believe, is best done by celebrating farmers who undertake more ‘humane’ operations.
However, animals will always be killed under this model, because the RSPCA position dictates that killing can be done in a way that is not bad for an animal’s welfare. ‘Humaneness’ includes – under their policies – death for human advantage.
Animal rights on the other hand, fundamentally disagree. They tend to believe that using animals – and especially killing animals – for human use is a basic injustice. Regardless of what supposed improvements farmers make in the care of their animals.
Using the RSPCA-thinking welfare model – that the act of taking an animal’s life can be deemed ‘humane’ if done in an approved fashion – killing is deemed to be compatible with good welfare. We then find ourselves debating the smallest details; whether the most appropriate method to kill a cat or dog, is gunshot, gas or poison.
However, in the case of shelter animals* simply building nicer pounds, and making pets more comfortable before execution, does not protect their welfare. We cannot claim we are being effective, if we’re simply making an inherently cruel system which unnecessarily kills animals, a little less cruel by treating animals a little bit better… before still accepting they be killed.
In fact, doing so, reinforces the notion that the life of a shelter pet is disposable.
If we desire to see an end to the killing of pets in shelters, we have to reject killing as an appropriate tool for companion animal management. Pound reform advocates must take a strong position – pounds must be under a moral pressure to save and protect the lives of pets – before will we see any meaningful reform. Our job is to reframe the debate on behalf of these pets; to affirm that their lives are valuable, that we value them and want to see them saved. Ending the killing of pets in shelters, is much more an ‘animals rights’ fight, than a welfare one – simply because of the outcome we’re looking to achieve.
Our goal is not to appease pound management by eulogising each time they make a small improvement. Our goal is to end shelter killing.
All the while farmers can kill with an RSPCA stamp of approval, pounds will also continue to be able to kill and receive support. If we accept a certain amount of killing is ok when it suits us
The focus on ‘welfare’ is an obstacle – not a help – to achieving our goals.
However, taking the strong position on No Kill reform is a hard thing to do.
No Kill demands we break free of entrenched beliefs and tradition. It calls for a revolutionary leap in our thinking. It requires a new standard for how things are done. Standing up for No Kill is controversial, and those who drive for genuine, meaningful and positive change, can expect to be ostracized and possibly, personally attacked. But this ‘extreme’ position is vital to driving for meaningful reform.
By polarising the debate, we force people to choose sides. We force our peers to take a stand. And this becomes the most powerful message our community could possibly hear – after all, if we as animal advocates can’t show the confidence to take a stand against pound killing… how can we ever expect our community to?
So ask yourself – what do you stand for? Do you stand with the RSPCA, who has created a one hundred million dollar a year corporation that supports animal-based food producers and defends killing pets as good for their welfare; or do you stand with No Kill, a grassroots movement which seeks to end the brutality of the current pound system, and protects and values the lives of pets?
The choice is yours. And its never been a more important one.
*or ALL animals if you prefer.
Great read!
Great article. I don’t eat anything that once had a face. As well as all the animal welfare issues, some of the creatures that people shove into their mouths disgusts me.
Wow a lot to read but need to read