Our society has never exactly been kind even to representatives of the species Homo Sapiens, nor has it displayed benevolence toward our four-legged friends (and Ukraine has not yet signed the European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, and the draft law On the Protection of Animals from Cruelty is yet to be discussed at the current session of Verkhovna Rada). The activities of those trying to stand up for our lesser brethren is often considered as something odd at best. However, it is common knowledge that a person capable of hitting or killing an animal is also capable of committing even more pernicious evil. This is why the activity of such organizations as Animal Protection Society (SOS) is so important. On September, 14 the ambassador of Great Britain in Ukraine presented a prestigious award from the British Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA) to SOS President Tamara Tarnavska . She became the second person to receive this award presented to non-British subjects for significant contribution to the cause of animal protection (the first award-winner was Elizabeth Scholtz who devoted herself to animal protection in Africa).
In 1997 SOS, jointly with other international organizations of Western Europe, achieved the closure of a flaying house in Pyrohove (near Kyiv) and the free-of-charge leasing of its territory to the society for 49 years in order to establish a refuge for stray animals, the first of its kind in Ukraine. In a year’s time, without any budgetary allocations, they built the refuge and a veterinary hospital, where strays are spayed in order to reduce their number. While our lesser brothers have not yet found new masters, most of them remain in the refuge. In addition, SOS conducts active educational work: it publishes school supplies and manuals for schoolchildren, holds seminars for veterinary doctors, etc. Ms. Tarnavska told The Day’s correspondent that recently SOS, in conjunction with the RSPCA, purchased computers to open a computer classroom for students of the Biology Department at Kyiv’s Taras Shevchenko National University. This would make it possible to reduce the number of experiments done on living beings in research (RSPCA is giving the university a software package making it possible to conduct virtual experiments, long a common practice in the West).
But the opponents of those who support a humane attitude toward strays have their arguments, too. In their opinion, such animals, especially stray dogs, are quite dangerous to city residents. For example, Viktor SVYTA, deputy chief physician, Ukrainian State Center for Public Hygiene and Epidemics Control of the Ministry of Public Health, points out that about 100,000 people bitten by an animal go annually to see a doctor in medical establishments. 10-15% of them were bitten by stray dogs and cats. Although there are only a few cases of human rabies, 1-3 persons a year, all of them face a lethal outcome.
According to Mr. SVYTA, another aspect of the problem is financial. Every year about 30,000 people undergo therapy to prevent rabies. It costs about $200 to cure one person and pay for sick leave, while vaccination and putting a dog to sleep costs $2 and $5 respectively. And Valery BUTKO, deputy chairman of the Animals in the City Center (a state-owned public utilities unit) , believes that keeping sterilized dogs in pounds means wasting money, and the standards accepted in Britain, France, Germany will not do for us because they solved the problem of stray animals long ago.
According to Dr. Butko, several thousand tons of dog excrement accumulate annually on the territory of Kyiv, including in all probability, a half-ton of worm eggs, which is an ecological bomb. In addition, Mr. Butko says stray dogs spread up to 300 diseases including leptospirosis, various skin diseases, intestinal worms that get to children’s sandboxes, tuberculosis, and other communicable diseases. For this reason the number of such animals is being reduced.
But there is also a moral aspect of the problem. In the words of Pavlo HORNOSTAY, psychologist and Candidate of Sciences in psychology, a person’s attitude toward stray animals is one indicator of that person’s true feelings. It is far easier to love the pedigreed and expensive pet that belongs to you and sometimes symbolizes your prosperity than a stray dog which can cause some discomfort. Moreover, everybody knows that a person is characterized by his/her attitude toward all living creatures, and if a person loves animals as a rule he/she loves people as well. And vice versa. If we start talking about the reasons for the attitudes toward stray animals widespread in our society, Mr. Hornostay adds, one of them is that when a person feels bad because of many reasons (lousy job, low pay, etc.) he is in a state of dissatisfaction. This state of mind can provoke aggression (usually unpremeditated) towards nearby people. And very often somebody who just gets in his way, for instance a stray animal, becomes the object of aggression instead of the guilty party. In an affluent society, where there are fewer causes for being irritated and excessively tense, there must also be fewer reasons for such outbursts of aggression.
However, most specialists agree the problem of stray animals should be solved in more humane ways. In the first place, the issue is to sterilize stray animals. Animal rights advocates think that this will bring much better results than killing our four-legged friends. After all, Ms. Tarnavska says, nobody was struck by the idea to kill homeless people even though they are also the carriers of many diseases, such as tuberculosis, syphilis, and so on.
COMMENTARY
Asia SERPYNSKA, chairperson of the board of the Kyiv City Society of Animal Protection:
“The attitude toward animals is one of the main criteria for characterizing any society, one which describes the level of its culture and civilization. But the ideas of humaneness toward animals find their way in our society quite hard. I have been told that our society is cruel to human beings, too, but first, that is another subject and secondly, it is no excuse. On the contrary, it is an aggravating circumstance. (People are unhappy not because dogs took something away from them, only an idiot would think that). Cruelty to animals is caused by the low level of people’s culture. It will take years, decades, and perhaps even centuries to overcome it. Unfortunately, the efforts of animal protection activists are nearly fruitless. And that is why it is very important to involve in this work the press, television, and other means influencing mass opinion. It is necessary to educate people, to awake their compassion for animals, to teach them to respect animals as creatures of equal standing with us. In addition, such traditional factors as our backwardness, conservatism, and bureaucracy prevent our state from developing in this way.
One can disagree that stray dogs represent any threat to society. Crap on the streets? In most cases is produced by pet dogs. Most animal bites are also made by pets. And the homeless and unprotected have to pay the price. Dogs do not threaten people, but people need to work out a particular culture of how we treat them.
Incidentally, killing is not effective. Stray animals were exterminated even in Middle Ages, but the problem was not solved that way. When nine dogs are killed the tenth one is left. It will have puppies 2-3 times a year and the number of dogs will be the same. While another method, the sterilization common in many civilized countries, could lead to solving the problem in 3-5 years. Even refuges will not be the solution, because it really takes a great deal of money to support such refuges.
Thus the solution of the problem consists in creating a network of sterilization centers, refuges for animals without masters, control over sterilized animals (they must be vaccinated in time), and the most important thing — educating people. If the population was polled, which has never been done, and asked: are you for killing animals or do you believe they should not be exterminated but something must be done so they do not bother people, most would probably agree to the second proposition. And now we pay taxes for animals to be killed. Do you agree with this?
I think charity cannot be of two kinds: one to humans, and the other to animals. Charity either exists or does not.
