(HK) No Kill City - Editorial

[Guest guest]

South China Morning Post

Wednesday, January 2, 2002

http://focus.scmp.com/ZZZGLJ7TNVC.html

 

EDITORIAL Pet care

 

There are many ways to measure how civilised a society is. One of

the best methods is to examine how the weakest members of a community are

treated. The rights of animals have not been developed into a broad-based

political movement in most parts of Asia, as they have in much of the West.

In many parts of the world, the luxury of considering animal rights is

simply unaffordable. And yet the manner in which a sophisticated and

relatively wealthy place like Hong Kong treats its domestic animals should

be of concern to us all.

 

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has a long

and honourable tradition in Hong Kong. Those who carry out its work do so,

for the most part, because they have an altruistic concern for the welfare

of animals. It is therefore heartbreaking for SPCA workers to have to

witness and carry out the destruction of so many healthy cats and dogs each

year.

 

The SPCA's chief veterinary surgeon, Dr Margaret Bradley, describes

vividly the emotional pain she feels when having to kill unwanted but

perfectly healthy animals. It is understandable that Dr Bradley feels angry

over the way some people treat animals as, in effect, fashion accessories,

or the way some people want to own pets when the animals are young and cute,

but are able to abandon them, seemingly without compunction, when they no

longer fulfil some preconceived expectation. To most humane and civilised

people, it is hard to imagine such a mentality.

 

The SPCA's new approach - to adopt a ''no-kill'' policy similar to

those in other parts of the world - is a bold move designed to return some

of the conscience back to owners. By refusing to readily accept healthy

animals from people who have no valid reason to give them up, the society

will immediately make it far harder for many people to do so. Most people,

when forced to confront the reality of what they are doing, will probably be

inclined to think again.

 

No doubt there will be criticism of the SPCA's new policy, and some of

it will be justified. Certainly it is likely that the most heartless of

owners will still find a way of disposing of unwanted pets, either by

despatching them themselves, or, more likely, by simply abandoning them.

This may lead to an upsurge in cases for the Agriculture and Fisheries

Department to deal with. This will be unfortunate. But it is a necessary

evil in order to attack the complacency with which so many people give up

their pets. The numbers of pet owners acting in this way is nothing short of

shameful. And if a change in SPCA policy can go some way towards projecting

that shame upon those responsible, then the new ''no-kill'' measure will

have been a success.