Theoria

The Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ takeover of the Toronto Humane Society continues, despite the fact that their warrant expired at midnight yesterday. There have been widespread reports of employee intimidation by the OSPCA and the organization even demanded that an entire shift of regularly scheduled employees leave the THS, apparently to allow the OSPCA to smuggle animals offsite without any witnesses. There continue to be many accusations leveled at the THS, but as of yet, no evidence has been provided to substantiate those accusations. All that we have been told is that, as to date, six animals “had” to be euthanized. Given the liberal euthanasia policies adopted by the OSPCA and the fact that over one thousand animals are on-site at the THS, to only find six (or, in other terms, 0.006%) animals that “had” to be euthanized is rather surprising, especially given the volatile rhetoric emanating from Inspector Kevin Strooband’s mouth to the effect that the THS is “a house of horrors.” Further, that the most damning evidence–a mummified cat in live capture trap in a drop ceiling–was only discovered due to an anonymous tip (how did this tipster know it was there?) immediately prior to a media tour, the OSPCA’s rhetoric has not nearly been substantiated.

The Ottawa Humane Society, a model “humane society” in the Ontario system of OSPCA affiliates, has since weighed in with a press release aiming to distance themselves from the THS and bring themselves closer to the OSPCA. The OHS continues to refuse to publicize its own euthanasia statistics, no doubt because revealing the truth of its own record would jeopardize its widespread public support and, thus, its dream of building a $9.5 million shelter (conveniently located next to a brand new Lexus dealership!). Based upon data presented on the OHS’s website, we can indirectly determine that the OHS must euthanize 65% of the animals in its “care.”

As I argued in my previous post, what is at issue between the OSCPA and the THS is the meaning of an animal’s life. While we shouldn’t think that the THS is an animal rights organization, it certainly has a stronger view regarding the value of an animal’s life to that animal than is held by the OSCPA. Lest we forget, modern animal welfare subscribes to the view that animals must be “treated humanely.” The question, thus, must be asked as to the meaning of “humane.” In the most simple form, “humane” means that animals must not be subjected to “any unnecessary pain and suffering.” This means, of course, that there is a range of “necessary pain and suffering.” Put in other words, animal welfare fully recognizes that in day-to-day interactions with animals, there is a degree of acceptable abuse an animal can suffer before it becomes a moral (or legal) problem.

While contemporary animal welfare is more theoretically sophisticated than when it was first proposed in late eighteenth century England by Jeremy Bentham in his An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, at the core, contemporary animal welfare continues to agree with two principles proposed by Bentham:

1. The Humane Treatment Principle: “A full-grown horse or dog is beyond comparison a more rational, as well as more conversable animal, than an infant of a day, or a week, or even a month, old. But suppose the case were otherwise, what would it avail? The question is not, Can they reason? nor, Can they talk? but, Can they suffer?”
2. The Never the Worse for Being Dead Principle: “If the being eaten were all, there is very good reason why we should be suffered to eat such of them as we like to eat: we are the better for it, and they are never the worse. They have none of those long-protracted anticipations of future misery which we have.”

The sum of the animal welfare position is, ‘Do whatever you want to an animal, just make sure that you don’t cause the animal to suffer too much. And, don’t worry about killing animals because the life an animal has is of no value to it.’ In effect, animal welfare is the position whereby you can have your steak and eat it too.

As a result, if you do not subscribe to the view that an animal’s life is inherently valuable to that animal, then not only is killing that animal justified for any reason whatsoever, but in most cases, killing that animal is preferable to allowing that animal to live. (This is why it is not a crime to kill an animal under cruelty laws; the crime is in how the animal is killed.) After all, how could a shelter bragging that it “cares” for over 11,000 animals per year only have 8 dogs (the oldest of which is six) and 50 cats (the oldest of which is eight) up for adoption? 11,000 animals a year and no seniors? No special needs animals? Where did they go?

(Our first dog, Mickey, was eight when we adopted him from the OHS’s satellite adoption centre at the SuperPet on Merivale Road in 2000. We have no doubt in our mind that he would be deemed “unadoptable” had he sauntered through the doors of the OHS today. It is also certain that the two we adopted from THS, Minnie and Mica, would have been euthanized at the OHS. Minnie arrived after being hit by a car, had hip surgery and had part of her tail amputated, along with severe food allergies, rampant hot spots (due to the allergies), and terrible smelling ears; Mica arrived with a severe demodex infection and had moderate to severe fear aggression. All three of these “unadoptable” dogs have lived happy, fulfilling lives. Hugo, another one of our boys, was only saved because he falls into the “sad-sack” category: such a strange case that it will lead to increased donations. Gordon, our most recent dog, is eight, has concurrent prostate and urinary tract infections, roundworms, and the second known case of alaria at our vet clinic–none of this was treated (let alone noticed) at the Lanark Animal Welfare Society, where we was rescued from, nor from the Leeds-Grenville branch of the OSCPA, where he arrived as a stray. Had he been seen by a vet upon admission at the OSPCA, he no doubt would have been euthanized because fecal floats, urinalysis, drontal, zeniquin, metacam and giving a shit are too expensive. They also imputed him as neutered, which is quite a surprise given that he has a fully intact scrotum!)