Comments on: OSPCA York Region Mass “Euthanasia” Stopped http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2010/05/ospca-york-region-mass-euthanasia-stopped.html animals : social theory : violence Wed, 08 Feb 2012 23:41:42 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Craig http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2010/05/ospca-york-region-mass-euthanasia-stopped.html/comment-page-1#comment-43521 Craig Sat, 15 May 2010 17:33:15 +0000 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/?p=941#comment-43521 From what I can gather, there are a lot of people who are beginning to question the OSPCA. Part of the problem is that the OSPCA is exactly what it claims to be: an animal welfare organization. In the view of animal welfare, it is no harm to kill an animal, even a healthy animal. Death, so long as it is "humane," does not harm an animal in the least. If you disagree with this proposition, then it is not possible for you to support any animal welfare position or organization. The problem, of course, is that most people are reluctant to follow through on this line of thought: if death is a harm to an animal (and I think intuitively most people would agree with this--as a general rule, people don't like looking at roadkill, for instance, nor do they like looking at footage from slaughterhouses), then animals should not be put to death by humans except when it is absolutely necessary and when it is in the animal's interest (i.e., for severe, prolonged, and incurable medical conditions, say like late stage osteo-sarcoma). This means, of course, that humans should not be eating meat, wearing fur or leather, experimenting on them, and the like. The only position that consistently takes the interests of animals seriously is to be a vegan. While we might get an investigation into the OSPCA--and the entire animal shelter third sector, if we are lucky--the best we can hope for is a more bureaucratic, rationalistic (and less caring) form of animal welfare. Klees, perhaps Cheri DiNovo, and others might sign on for this, but they certainly won't sign on for a serious pro-animal position. Something worth considering, which has not been raised in the context of the THS takeover or the Newmarket mess, is that animal welfare is the only area of social control that is managed exclusively by non-profit organizations. The equivalent of this would be to bring back the Women's Christian Temperance Union and give them authority--not held by the police or the state--to bust down doors where they think alcohol might be consumed! While there is no guarantee that the state would better perform animal protection (and there are good reasons to think that it would not), at least the state is subject to some degree of popular control. The OSPCA is not. From what I can gather, there are a lot of people who are beginning to question the OSPCA. Part of the problem is that the OSPCA is exactly what it claims to be: an animal welfare organization. In the view of animal welfare, it is no harm to kill an animal, even a healthy animal. Death, so long as it is “humane,” does not harm an animal in the least. If you disagree with this proposition, then it is not possible for you to support any animal welfare position or organization. The problem, of course, is that most people are reluctant to follow through on this line of thought: if death is a harm to an animal (and I think intuitively most people would agree with this–as a general rule, people don’t like looking at roadkill, for instance, nor do they like looking at footage from slaughterhouses), then animals should not be put to death by humans except when it is absolutely necessary and when it is in the animal’s interest (i.e., for severe, prolonged, and incurable medical conditions, say like late stage osteo-sarcoma). This means, of course, that humans should not be eating meat, wearing fur or leather, experimenting on them, and the like. The only position that consistently takes the interests of animals seriously is to be a vegan.

While we might get an investigation into the OSPCA–and the entire animal shelter third sector, if we are lucky–the best we can hope for is a more bureaucratic, rationalistic (and less caring) form of animal welfare. Klees, perhaps Cheri DiNovo, and others might sign on for this, but they certainly won’t sign on for a serious pro-animal position.

Something worth considering, which has not been raised in the context of the THS takeover or the Newmarket mess, is that animal welfare is the only area of social control that is managed exclusively by non-profit organizations. The equivalent of this would be to bring back the Women’s Christian Temperance Union and give them authority–not held by the police or the state–to bust down doors where they think alcohol might be consumed! While there is no guarantee that the state would better perform animal protection (and there are good reasons to think that it would not), at least the state is subject to some degree of popular control. The OSPCA is not.

]]> By: Jan http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/archives/2010/05/ospca-york-region-mass-euthanasia-stopped.html/comment-page-1#comment-43506 Jan Thu, 13 May 2010 19:39:38 +0000 http://www.theoria.ca/theoria/?p=941#comment-43506 MPP Klees' statistics are probably far closer to the facts than anything that MacDonald or Godfrey have stated, although it was my understanding that the animals in foster care were already there and not likely to be affected so I'm not sure if these count as "saved". The remaining 23 dogs and 91 cats will be moved - when? As long as there are still animals in that shelter, they are at risk because of the kill policy. I agree with MPP Klees that a third party investigation is required as well as a new and transparent governance structure. MPP Klees’ statistics are probably far closer to the facts than anything that MacDonald or Godfrey have stated, although it was my understanding that the animals in foster care were already there and not likely to be affected so I’m not sure if these count as “saved”.

The remaining 23 dogs and 91 cats will be moved – when? As long as there are still animals in that shelter, they are at risk because of the kill policy.

I agree with MPP Klees that a third party investigation is required as well as a new and transparent governance structure.

]]>