As you know, in our CNRM, R stands for REHOME as well as RETURN (to colony).
We always say that REHOME is ideal, but being realistic, we know this is not always possible, so the next best option would be to return the animal to the colony it came from. The “advantages” (if it could be called that) of this would be:
1. Preserve the eco-system as all animals play a role in the ecology.
2. Prevent a “vacuum” when the animal is removed. A vacuum might cause another un-neutered animal to colonise the space and the problem starts all over again.
3. Some adult animals might not be comfortable being rehomed into an unnatural environment (our homes). They may be happier living on the streets. But yes, we totally acknowledge the fact that free-roaming street animals are subject to risks of accidents, abuse and diseases.
We call these animals “community animals” as they are returned to the community and their caregiver continues looking after them.
I’ve been communicating with a reader of this blog. She is not in favour of the term “community animals” and this is why:
I like to commend you for highlighting the plights of street animals. If more people are aware and expose to sufferings and how terrible life is as street animals they may want to make a different themselves individually.
The downside of which I did not quite agree with you re the term community animals is that some people will buy into the romantic notion that community animals are being cared and feed by a community. Pet owners will justify their actions of throwing out their unwanted pets i.e.excess (when not spayed or neutered), old or not cute to the streets’ as they convinced themselves and others that the ‘community animals are being taken care by the community’ so no worries. No guilt. Just an easy way out.
The truth of the matter is that it is actually one or two persons of the community that is doing all the caring and feeding these poor animals. Here it is a losing battle trying to protect and prevent these poor creatures from being caught by council, or end up in cooking pots or used as target practices by sadists and some affluent areas have street animals rounded up for labs for animal testings. It the stark reality of street animals in Malaysians streets now.
I’m totally open to and very appreciative of constructive differing views if they are presented with the intention of helping the street animals in better ways. If you have any thoughts on this, please leave a comment. Together, maybe we could source better ways to help them.
It’s all for the animals!
Comments
2 responses to “The disagreement on “community animals””
In a way, I do agree with what this reader says, especially about the ‘easy way out’ part. There have been dog-dumping at my grandma’s place in Butterworth. And there is this family just right opposite who pushed an old dog out after they got a puppy saying that the dog is ‘useless and waste food’. Well, I do believe in Karma especially at times like this. I believe people along that street have been feeding these dogs on and off.
But there is also a female dog in my community, supposedly belong to a Malay family who rescued her long ago. While the family didn’t intentionally dump her out, they allow her to wander around the neighbourhood. And this fella can jump out from the fence! The family feeds her from time to time (as I last understand), and the neighbours also feed her. I know at least 2 other neighbours who feed her, and although I’d like to give her kibbles also, she’s just too fat! And everyone – at least those who are out daily on walks – loves her and lets her follow them everywhere. So in this case, yes I do believe in community animals.
I think no matter how we do a certain thing, some people ought to understand and interpret in their own ways. Having successful community animals needs the whole community to understand and practice the core and value of the idea. I supposed it’s also part of the education – just like educating the importance of spaying and neutering.
I disagree that the term, community animals, should be changed for the reasons stated. In fact, romanticising the term may actually help because it could encourage more to do more for animals. Let’s not kid ourselves, even a soldier’s life is romanticised in the mass media to encourage more to join the army when war is hell. Poor analogy aside, if this romanticising can boost our ranks, I’m all for it.
Even though the bitter truth about our Malaysian society’s level of animal care is downright spirit-sapping, we should take comfort that neighbouring countries, such as Thailand and Singapore, are already on a high level and we can certainly aspire to it, rather than just lament about our current level. Malaysia was once third-world country and now, going to first-world (mentality aside). Everyone always wants to keep up with the Jones and Malaysians are no different. Animal care is now in vogue and will become the accepted norm in our society in time. How fast depends on each of us.
The role of those already enlightened is to keep on talking and publicising, keep on prodding and pricking the public conscience, keep on practising and preaching, then we will see the change during our lifetime. May sound impossible but then again, history don’t record easy achievements. : )