Our observations
regarding IREC's 'Right of Reply' from 7th of March, 2014 concerning the article called 'Neglect of Stray Dogs - MEPs Deliver Damning Indictment of Romania's Mismanagement' published by Dr Rita Pal on Huffington Post
8th of March, 2014 - Having carefully reviewed IREC's reservations expressed in their paper Right of Reply from 7th of March, 2014 (which you can read above) regarding the article called 'Neglect of Stray Dogs-MEPs Deliver Damning Indictment of Romania's Mismanagement' published by Dr Rita Pal on Huffington Post, we state the following:
The issues here are simplistically presented, and with an emphasis on response to the simple and limited IREC 'Right to Reply'. We have endeavored to include a flavor of the broader picture and how mismanagement of any stray animal management program impacts on the psychological health of individuals, and therefore society. The issue therefore is not restricted, and can be re-dimensionalized into the socio-economic and socio-political domains. Please follow this link to explore the full ramifications and negating impact upon a broader societal spectrum.
First of, it is important to note that what is being expressed in the Huffington Post-article does not reflect the personal opinion of Dr Pal, but that she merely quotes excerpts of the EU-Press Conference from 12th of February, 2014, held by MEP Janusz WOJCIECHOWSKI (ECR), the Vice-Chairman of the AGRI Committee and Vice-Chairman of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, and MEP Andrea ZANONI (ALDE), one of the Vice-Chairmen of the Animal Welfare Intergroup, following their latest visit in Romania on 27/28th of January, 2014.
In fact, on December 4, 2013 a delegation of the European Parliament went to Romania and met with different Romanian officials, including ANSVSA - Sanitary-Veterinary and Food Safety National Authority - as well as the Mayor of Bucharest. The delegation members were assured that the law on dog management was a law on "adoption" and not on "euthanasia" and that the citizens had access to public shelters which were totally transparent and complying with the law.
On January 27/28th of January, 2014, the delegation returned to Romania in order to inform themselves on the situation, directly on site, by visiting different dog shelters of the city halls. The Delegation found that there was a major discrepancy between what the authorities had told them during their first visit and what they found on site during their second visit.
MEP Wojciechowski and his assistant on their way to the Slatina "dog shelter" where they found themselves in front of closed doors.... unable to get in.
What has been said during this press conference, such as:
"This visit proved that signals regarding violent treatment of dogs in these places are true"
"I did not question the necessity of reduction of stray dogs in Romania but I believe that Romanian authorities have decided to conduct this reduction in an inhumane and ineffective way"
"It has become a business for private companies that receive a lot of money to catch and put down these animals, or run these shelters - well... shelters is hardly the right word - given what is going on in them. This program costs a lot of money and it means a lot of profit for the companies involved. And so it's not in their interest to solve the problem. They want the problem, the issue to continue for as long as possible so that can earn as much money as possible out of it".
"The new legislation doesn't solve the problem, it's exacerbating it"
and which is what Dr Pal has quoted in her article, is now the official position of the European Union on the matter of the cruel treatment of dogs in Romania. You can listen to said conference in the next video.
"This visit proved that signals regarding violent treatment of dogs in these places are true"
"I did not question the necessity of reduction of stray dogs in Romania but I believe that Romanian authorities have decided to conduct this reduction in an inhumane and ineffective way"
"It has become a business for private companies that receive a lot of money to catch and put down these animals, or run these shelters - well... shelters is hardly the right word - given what is going on in them. This program costs a lot of money and it means a lot of profit for the companies involved. And so it's not in their interest to solve the problem. They want the problem, the issue to continue for as long as possible so that can earn as much money as possible out of it".
"The new legislation doesn't solve the problem, it's exacerbating it"
and which is what Dr Pal has quoted in her article, is now the official position of the European Union on the matter of the cruel treatment of dogs in Romania. You can listen to said conference in the next video.
IREC "apologized" to Dr Pal on their Facebook-page:
"Dear Rita Pal please do not take our letter personally - we know you are probably just another victim of extremist groups' untruthful propaganda. Please see this interview with Mr. Dominic Taylor - perhaps it will help you get a better grasp on the truth about strays in Romania. He is a British expat businessman who talks about the magnitude of the stray dog problem he's experienced first-hand in Romania."
Dr Pal responded:
"The small minded often make assumptions about the broad minded. Secondly, your assumptions, of course, are inaccurate. Thirdly, no one is disputing overpopulation. The evidence demonstrates culling is not the way forward. To deny this is to deny evidence.
I have read all you have written in the past and find your position unconvincing, misdirected and non-evidence based. You are welcome to write whatever you wish. It does amuse me because I consider your narrow spectrum viewpoint to be non-evidence based. That is all I have to say on the matter.
I take nothing personally. I merely observe with a great deal of amusement. I give your letter a 2/10. Next time write your evidence in reference or link form and argue your points better. I have no objection to your right to free speech. I do have mine as well. It is for the audience to judge which of us is right. For us to judge ourselves would be like turkeys voting for Christmas.
I bid you Good Night and may I suggest you take up knitting as it would be a more constructive use of your time. All the best!"
PIcture taken in the public shelter in Huneadora, Romania, March 2014
Below: pictures taken in Harsova, January 14, 2014 by Maoland Shelter.
In line with IREC having quoted a British expat businessman who talks about the magnitude of the stray dog problem he's experienced first-hand in Romania, we would like to quote another British expat. Not a businessman, but a journalist and film producer living in Bucharest. His name is Michael Bird and he has written already a number of interesting articles on the Romanian stray animals issue, of which we will only re-produce two here, in addition to showing you his documentary "Man's best friend" - the probably most important and most comprehensive documentary ever produced on the issue of Romanian homeless dogs, and the failure of the Romanian government to solve this issue humanely and effectively.
The Stray Dog In Romania
by Michael Bird
For the past two years I have been working as a journalist making a film about Romania’s problem with stray dogs. The east European nation has millions of the animals prowling the streets, hotels, car parks, blocks of flats and even the backyard of Parliament and along the corridors of a children’s hospital.
A UK national, for nearly a decade I have been a resident of the capital Bucharest, where the dogs are part of the fabric of the city. So together with a local production team, we felt it was necessary to record on film the phenomenon of a capital in the European Union still plagued by wild animals.
We talked to animal and social experts about this environmental disaster, chased dogs through the streets, talked to victims and were attacked by a pack of strays in an abandoned playground. Often I would hear extraordinary stories about animals and their relationship with Romanians, but few of these could be demonstrated for the camera. Some included the low-cost methods county councils used to kill them, such as injecting the dogs with vinegar or burying them alive in limestone. But there were incredible stories about the dogs, including how they could use the buses, trams and underground trains – one dog (now deceased) could slip under the barriers at the Metro station, negotiate the stairs and enter the train, moving between two different stations every day to a place where she could find food.
However these dogs were close to extinction at the beginning of the last decade. In Bucharest, the mayor decided to organize a mass-slaughter of the dogs. This move would have been simple in a time of Totalitarianism, where the people rarely took a public stance against the police. But in a time of a fresh democracy, where the public were exercised at attacking the forces of order, this would prove difficult to manage. Added to this was a huge problem that continues to undermine Romania’s development—the fact that a scary number of people in public service and business are on the take.
There was this one block in Bucharest where a dog lived. He was a fat and shabby mongrel who sat at the front entrance, eating leftovers thrown out of the windows by the residents. Fed many times a day by different families, he lived a content life, sunning himself outside in the summer and finding a home in the basement of the block during the freezing winter.
But, with the mayor’s decision, a city dog catcher visited the block with a mandate to catch and kill the animal. The fat creature put up little resistance as he was trapped inside a metal loop and taken to the city pound to receive a lethal injection. When one of the residents of the block—an elderly woman—realized he was gone, she visited the pound to plead with the dog catchers to let him go. They were intransigent until she reached in her pocket, pulled out her purse and produced a few notes—worth about ten dollars—to take him home. Within half an hour the dog was back in his usual position, waiting for his next meal.
Now the dog catcher figured he was on to a good deal. Once a month he would visit the block, threaten to take the animal away and the pensioner would have to muster a ten dollar bribe to keep the dog alive.
But one afternoon, the dog catcher found the woman was not at home. Instead another elderly pensioner who fed the dogs was sitting outside in her dressing gown, cuddling the filthy animal. He asked her for money and there was an argument, but soon she agreed to provide him ten bucks to leave empty-handed.
The dog catcher began to increase the regularity of his visits. He would come back every week at a different time and encounter a different person caring for the dog and solicit a payment. If they refused he would seize the animal, chuck him in the back of his van and lock him up in the pound. Someone from the block would have to come up with the cash to save the creature from the needle.
The dog catcher ended up pocketing around 100 dollars per month—close to the then average salary in Romania—for the job of threatening to kill one animal. If dog catchers were replicating this pattern across a city of two million people, with around a thousand blocks, each with their own resident dogs, there was scope for a 1.2 million-dollar-a-year black market. It’s possible that corruption saved thousands of vagabond canines.
This is a story I heard in many places across many cities in the country. Unfortunately on camera I could never catch someone taking or giving a bribe, but I thought this was a great example of how a society was failing in a surreal fashion—by doing nothing but sitting outside a block of flats, getting fat, wagging his tail and being friendly to anyone with a bag of bones, the stray dog in Romania had become a currency.
A UK national, for nearly a decade I have been a resident of the capital Bucharest, where the dogs are part of the fabric of the city. So together with a local production team, we felt it was necessary to record on film the phenomenon of a capital in the European Union still plagued by wild animals.
We talked to animal and social experts about this environmental disaster, chased dogs through the streets, talked to victims and were attacked by a pack of strays in an abandoned playground. Often I would hear extraordinary stories about animals and their relationship with Romanians, but few of these could be demonstrated for the camera. Some included the low-cost methods county councils used to kill them, such as injecting the dogs with vinegar or burying them alive in limestone. But there were incredible stories about the dogs, including how they could use the buses, trams and underground trains – one dog (now deceased) could slip under the barriers at the Metro station, negotiate the stairs and enter the train, moving between two different stations every day to a place where she could find food.
However these dogs were close to extinction at the beginning of the last decade. In Bucharest, the mayor decided to organize a mass-slaughter of the dogs. This move would have been simple in a time of Totalitarianism, where the people rarely took a public stance against the police. But in a time of a fresh democracy, where the public were exercised at attacking the forces of order, this would prove difficult to manage. Added to this was a huge problem that continues to undermine Romania’s development—the fact that a scary number of people in public service and business are on the take.
There was this one block in Bucharest where a dog lived. He was a fat and shabby mongrel who sat at the front entrance, eating leftovers thrown out of the windows by the residents. Fed many times a day by different families, he lived a content life, sunning himself outside in the summer and finding a home in the basement of the block during the freezing winter.
But, with the mayor’s decision, a city dog catcher visited the block with a mandate to catch and kill the animal. The fat creature put up little resistance as he was trapped inside a metal loop and taken to the city pound to receive a lethal injection. When one of the residents of the block—an elderly woman—realized he was gone, she visited the pound to plead with the dog catchers to let him go. They were intransigent until she reached in her pocket, pulled out her purse and produced a few notes—worth about ten dollars—to take him home. Within half an hour the dog was back in his usual position, waiting for his next meal.
Now the dog catcher figured he was on to a good deal. Once a month he would visit the block, threaten to take the animal away and the pensioner would have to muster a ten dollar bribe to keep the dog alive.
But one afternoon, the dog catcher found the woman was not at home. Instead another elderly pensioner who fed the dogs was sitting outside in her dressing gown, cuddling the filthy animal. He asked her for money and there was an argument, but soon she agreed to provide him ten bucks to leave empty-handed.
The dog catcher began to increase the regularity of his visits. He would come back every week at a different time and encounter a different person caring for the dog and solicit a payment. If they refused he would seize the animal, chuck him in the back of his van and lock him up in the pound. Someone from the block would have to come up with the cash to save the creature from the needle.
The dog catcher ended up pocketing around 100 dollars per month—close to the then average salary in Romania—for the job of threatening to kill one animal. If dog catchers were replicating this pattern across a city of two million people, with around a thousand blocks, each with their own resident dogs, there was scope for a 1.2 million-dollar-a-year black market. It’s possible that corruption saved thousands of vagabond canines.
This is a story I heard in many places across many cities in the country. Unfortunately on camera I could never catch someone taking or giving a bribe, but I thought this was a great example of how a society was failing in a surreal fashion—by doing nothing but sitting outside a block of flats, getting fat, wagging his tail and being friendly to anyone with a bag of bones, the stray dog in Romania had become a currency.
Man's best friend
a documentary by Michael Bird
Ten reasons why Romania’s proposed mass-kill of millions of stray dogs won’t work and two reasons why it might
by Michael Bird
1. In a massive city, with a mass of dogs, mass-killing is rarely effective. The more dogs you kill, the more space and food there is for new dogs. The World Health Organisation backs this up. As long as people dump dogs on the street and let dogs loose on the street to breed, there will be more dogs. When dogs disappear, other dogs appear.
2. To kill the animals, cities need vets. Vets must want to kill the animals. But many vets don’t want to murder. People did not study for six years to swap the surgery for the slaughterhouse. Last month in southwest city of Timisoara the vets voted not to collaborate with City Hall to kill the dogs. More could follow.
3. All dogs must die – except mine. When Romanians are surveyed, they say they want to kill strays. But if you ask the same Romanians, if they want to see the charming, big brown-eyed mutt which greets them every day with a cocked head and a wagging tail, killed by lethal injection, they will refuse. Because this dog is kind to children, friendly to strangers and he never bites – and, when he does bite, it’s because he’s scared. It is always other people’s dogs who are dangerous. The dogs in the other block. In the other yard. In the other city.
4. Bucharest tried mass-murder. As Mayor of Bucharest, Traian Basescu ordered the killing of around 100,000 dogs between 2001 and 2003. It failed.
5. The wrong dogs will die. The dog catchers will pick up the quiet, old, sad and castrated dogs – the ones that can’t breed. The problem is not just stray dogs. The problem is loose dogs. I’ve followed dog catching around the housing areas of the Bucharest suburbs. When the residents leave for work in the morning, they let their dogs out on the street. If they are caught by dog catchers, the owners pick them up from the shelter and pay a fine. These are virile dogs. They breed with strays. They create new puppies. The problem persists.
6. People will hide the dogs. There are a lot of old, single and idle people in Bucharest. Often they love dogs. They will be watching for the dog catchers and, if they come for their strays, they will conceal them in their flat, basement, garage or yard.
7. No-kill could become a black market. In the past, dog catchers in Bucharest took money from residents in blocks to leave their stray dogs alone. This could happen again.
8. It is hard to catch a dog. There are around 15 trained dog catchers for three million people of Bucharest and its suburbs. They catch dogs by shooting them with a tranquilizer gun loaded with sedatives such as ketamine. The city will need a batallion of trained marskmen who can be trusted with a gun and a litre of a party drug with a high street value.
9. Bucharest is a metropolis run by a village council. It can’t cope with grand projects and grand challenges. Or even small ones. I live on Piata Unirii – a square at the centre of the city. An international showpiece. In one year, they have not finished re-surfacing the pavement. It is a building site of dust, mud, rocks and holes. If Bucharest cannot lay a few paving stones in its city centre, it cannot manage the mass-murder of over 50,000 lives.
10. The capital never gave other solutions a chance. Councillors will argue back that the NGOs’ favoured idea of the sterilisation and the return of dogs to the streets does not work, because stray dog attacks on people keep rising. But the City never tried a mass-scale programme to see whether the dog numbers would fall. If, over a five year period, many NGOs could co-ordinate professional sterilisation in conjunction with all seven City Halls of Bucharest and the surrounding county of Ilfov, alongside comprehensive adoption and education about responsible ownership, while giving the authorities the right to euthanize sick, old and aggressive dogs, the problem could stop.
And two reasons why it might work…
1. Under the new law, in a small city in Romania, it will probably be possible to round and kill up to 1,000 stray dogs. But in Bucharest, this needs an unprecedented effort. The city needs to declare war on dogs. It needs a militia to go block by block, possibly forcing residents to leave their homes, while police carry out searches, removing every dog they suspect of being a stray. There must be no exceptions. They must enforce the 14-day rule before murdering the dogs. Killing 60,000 dogs means a massacre – and a massacre can only be effective if is ruthless and mechanical.
2. Politicians enlist citizens to be vigilantes. Using the media, politicians demonize all dogs as violent. The Government passes a new law allowing dogs to be killed. This sends a signal to citizens that they have the liberty to beat, poison, run over or lynch any loose dog. Anecdotally, friends are telling me of how bodies of dogs are appearing more often on the outskirts of Bucharest. If the nation’s leaders keep up the rhetoric, this may continue. The streets will be running with blood and poison and the blocks will be echoing with the sound of bats against brains until the last stray in Bucharest is dead – while the authorities bear no responsibility.
2. To kill the animals, cities need vets. Vets must want to kill the animals. But many vets don’t want to murder. People did not study for six years to swap the surgery for the slaughterhouse. Last month in southwest city of Timisoara the vets voted not to collaborate with City Hall to kill the dogs. More could follow.
3. All dogs must die – except mine. When Romanians are surveyed, they say they want to kill strays. But if you ask the same Romanians, if they want to see the charming, big brown-eyed mutt which greets them every day with a cocked head and a wagging tail, killed by lethal injection, they will refuse. Because this dog is kind to children, friendly to strangers and he never bites – and, when he does bite, it’s because he’s scared. It is always other people’s dogs who are dangerous. The dogs in the other block. In the other yard. In the other city.
4. Bucharest tried mass-murder. As Mayor of Bucharest, Traian Basescu ordered the killing of around 100,000 dogs between 2001 and 2003. It failed.
5. The wrong dogs will die. The dog catchers will pick up the quiet, old, sad and castrated dogs – the ones that can’t breed. The problem is not just stray dogs. The problem is loose dogs. I’ve followed dog catching around the housing areas of the Bucharest suburbs. When the residents leave for work in the morning, they let their dogs out on the street. If they are caught by dog catchers, the owners pick them up from the shelter and pay a fine. These are virile dogs. They breed with strays. They create new puppies. The problem persists.
6. People will hide the dogs. There are a lot of old, single and idle people in Bucharest. Often they love dogs. They will be watching for the dog catchers and, if they come for their strays, they will conceal them in their flat, basement, garage or yard.
7. No-kill could become a black market. In the past, dog catchers in Bucharest took money from residents in blocks to leave their stray dogs alone. This could happen again.
8. It is hard to catch a dog. There are around 15 trained dog catchers for three million people of Bucharest and its suburbs. They catch dogs by shooting them with a tranquilizer gun loaded with sedatives such as ketamine. The city will need a batallion of trained marskmen who can be trusted with a gun and a litre of a party drug with a high street value.
9. Bucharest is a metropolis run by a village council. It can’t cope with grand projects and grand challenges. Or even small ones. I live on Piata Unirii – a square at the centre of the city. An international showpiece. In one year, they have not finished re-surfacing the pavement. It is a building site of dust, mud, rocks and holes. If Bucharest cannot lay a few paving stones in its city centre, it cannot manage the mass-murder of over 50,000 lives.
10. The capital never gave other solutions a chance. Councillors will argue back that the NGOs’ favoured idea of the sterilisation and the return of dogs to the streets does not work, because stray dog attacks on people keep rising. But the City never tried a mass-scale programme to see whether the dog numbers would fall. If, over a five year period, many NGOs could co-ordinate professional sterilisation in conjunction with all seven City Halls of Bucharest and the surrounding county of Ilfov, alongside comprehensive adoption and education about responsible ownership, while giving the authorities the right to euthanize sick, old and aggressive dogs, the problem could stop.
And two reasons why it might work…
1. Under the new law, in a small city in Romania, it will probably be possible to round and kill up to 1,000 stray dogs. But in Bucharest, this needs an unprecedented effort. The city needs to declare war on dogs. It needs a militia to go block by block, possibly forcing residents to leave their homes, while police carry out searches, removing every dog they suspect of being a stray. There must be no exceptions. They must enforce the 14-day rule before murdering the dogs. Killing 60,000 dogs means a massacre – and a massacre can only be effective if is ruthless and mechanical.
2. Politicians enlist citizens to be vigilantes. Using the media, politicians demonize all dogs as violent. The Government passes a new law allowing dogs to be killed. This sends a signal to citizens that they have the liberty to beat, poison, run over or lynch any loose dog. Anecdotally, friends are telling me of how bodies of dogs are appearing more often on the outskirts of Bucharest. If the nation’s leaders keep up the rhetoric, this may continue. The streets will be running with blood and poison and the blocks will be echoing with the sound of bats against brains until the last stray in Bucharest is dead – while the authorities bear no responsibility.
Replying to IREC's 'Right to Reply'
It is with delight that we use the opportunity to respond to IREC's 'Right to Reply' and to be able to correct a number of errors and misrepresentations contained therein for the benefit of the Romanian people.
As said before, the article by Dr Rita Pal, referred to is in fact NOT a personal perspective but a representation of the conclusion and perceptions of the European Union authorities. Recent visits by representatives of this authority found that they had been deceived by the Romanian authorities and that both stray animal control strategy and it's implementation were inconsistent with European policies and directives.
Taking each point in turn, recognizing the naive mis-interpretations and mis-representations included in this 'Right to Reply', we seek to inform not only IREC but also the Romanian people of the true realities.
- That there are too many stray animals on the streets of Romania is agreed by all.
- That some of these dogs are aggressive is agreed.
- That the situation is undesirable to all.
- The only question that remains is how to achieve a successful conclusion.
The reasons why there are so many on the streets is generally agreed. No major national program has ever been conducted, so numbers have continued to increase. Endeavors to control the animal population by catching and killing have failed abysmally whereas major programs where the animals were neutered, although not producing an immediate result, after 6-7 years reduced numbers on the streets significantly and most important... permanently.
Almost all countries in Western Europe and the USA have used a national neutering program and where stray animals are generally conspicuous by their absence. In Romania this was also achieved in Oradea and Lugoj where stray animal numbers were reduced from 4,000 to 270 and 2,500 to 235 respectively. Not only have national neutering programs proven to be successful but they are also recommended by the WHO as the only successful strategy.
In response to the unique strategy of managing stray population numbers by killing, currently being deployed in Romania, significant numbers of people from western societies are adopting dogs both remotely and transporting them physically outside of Romania to new western homes where the animals will become members of the family. In one culture... harmonious inclusion.... in another... divisive exclusion promoting significant societal disharmony, violence and death.
It is also important for the Romanian people to know that not only is the Law 258/2013 promoting an animal control strategy which historically has been proven to be unsuccessful compared with the strategy of a national neutering program which has proven successful in many countries but the selection of this strategy comes with a literal serious cost. From Romanian government figures, we see that by enacting Law 258/2013 instead of a neutering program, the Romanian taxpayer will contribute almost twice as much to fund a program which has never been successful.
Instead of spending huge amounts of money on the promotion of violence and corruption, a socially credible government invests the money into the social infrastructure, of which the independent social movement is one of essential foundations.
So let us take each of the points made and offer a sensible and real response to each.
- 258/2013 is NOT compliant with EU legislation (see below)
- Animal control strategy by euthanasia is NOT compliant with WHO directives (see below)
- The number of dogs adopted by people and organisations IS taking place, but the quantification of numbers as 'very low' does not provide a numerical basis to challenge.
- However the statement that NO long distance adoptions have taken place is demonstrably incorrect with for example in Craiova: approximately 100 dogs. Braila: 44 dogs. Cernica and Batimanu: 750 dogs. In Bristrita, all dogs are sponsored through international sponsors, last year 400 dogs were adopted by groups in Europe, this year 30 have been adopted so far. The shelter hasn't yet adopted the distant adoption, but volunteers are caring for the dogs through sponsors.
- It is true that the problem of dog bites and the rabies alert may be serious but it is the inevitable consequence of the Romanian government's failed and abortive social policy.
- Regarding IREC's claim that "the legal conditions to adopt a dog from a "shelter" are minimal", we would simply like to quote what MEP Wojciechowski said about the adoption procedure after his second visit: "Shelters are every often located in places which are difficult to find and they are closed for people who wish to adopt a dog. Although financed from public money, they are treated as private ownership. Furthermore, adoption procedure is very complicated and it makes adoption practically impossible." The limited access to shelters, as evidenced by the delegation, actually renders all else an irrelevancy.
- To say that the Romanian Slaughter Law was comparable to the law in the U.K. is like comparing a Luxembourgian egg to a book by Jean-Paul Sartre. Surreally different... In the U.K. in 2013, 48% of dogs who entered a shelter were reunited with their owners. 25% of dogs have been been re-homed. 8% have been euthanized because of behavioral problems, ill health or because they were dangerous. A stray in the UK is one who is owned but simply went on a touring holiday for a few days...
And last but not least, the fact that the Romanian people are being bitten by stray dogs and that there are even fatalities reported, which need to be carefully analysed, is a clear sign of the ineffectiveness or even a criminal neglect on the part of the Romanian authorities which shamefully failed in the implementation of the plausible and working social policy to win the support and the co-operation of the social movements and the general Romanian public to resolve the structural and social problem of animal homelessness through socially-friendly policy of non-violence and honest public dialogue.
In fact, the degenerate quality of the Romanian social relations compromises the set of values and standards of the European Community thus exposing the weakness and inefficiency of the EU policy makers.
Previous picture: Helpless mongrel Ralph who is about two years old was left with just one eye, one ear and gaping holes in his flesh after being attacked on the streets of the Romanian capital with Sulphuric acid. Just as it seemed Ralph's time was up, he was discovered by UK charity K-9 Angels - who aim to re-home abused dogs from foreign countries with British families - and given basic treatment.
Next picture: Ursula Dalton from Moor View Equestrian Centre, Darwen, Lancashire, and Ralph, the badly burned dog that she rescued from the streets of Bucharest. Poor Ralf had to undergo seven hours of surgery on arrival in the UK.
Next picture: Ursula Dalton from Moor View Equestrian Centre, Darwen, Lancashire, and Ralph, the badly burned dog that she rescued from the streets of Bucharest. Poor Ralf had to undergo seven hours of surgery on arrival in the UK.
No mass extermination is humane,
civilized and acceptable
The Romanian authorities' decision to mass-exterminate the country's stray dogs population was taken arbitrarily without any serious social consultations and breaks a number of European Conventions.
The sheer scope and enormity of the extermination project excludes any possibility of carrying it out in a civilized, humane and socially acceptable way. No mass extermination is humane, civilized and acceptable.
No policy of mass extermination is credible because it implies the legalization, institutionalization commercialization and bureaucritization of killings and the active involvement of the state and state institutions in the process. In this way, the policy of violence is actively supported by the state and killings themselves are justified on legal grounds. The state assumes the leading and active role as the chief perpetrator and promoter of violence. This is utterly unacceptable and directly leads to the corruption of the legal system and those who operate behind it. Therefore, the Romanian extermination program raises grave legal and moral questions which should be debated publicly with the independent social representation. The policy of mass extermination simply contradicts the very substance and concept of the European Council's Convention for the Protection of Companion Animals which clearly stipulates that:
..no pain or suffering may be imposed on an abandoned animal in connection with its catching, and care at the shelter or its euthanasia.
Euthanasia involves a set of very strict medical and social procedures. The setting for euthanasia must be right, it must be performed by professional staff, the euthanized subject must be in terminal stages of an incurable disease and suffering, the subject should be appropriately anesthetized prior to euthanasia, an appropriate euthanasia-agent should be used, most preferably intravenously, the euthanasia of healthy subjects is illegal and corrodes the veterinary code of ethics. Therefore, using the term euthanasia in the context of the policy of mass extermination ultimately destroys your credibility.
The Romanian Law 258/2013, with euthanasia after 14 days spend in a Romanian so called 'shelter' as a main tool to manage the stray dog population also breaks the Written Declaration 0026/2011 on Dog Population Management, which clearly states that euthanasia is not an effective way of solving the issue.
Botosani made national in international headlines on 11th of May, 2011, when the vet Cristian Petru Pencu, assisted by his drunken helpers, "managed" to kill 220 healthy dogs in 2 hours time. The volunteers who until then had fed the dogs at the municipal shelter every day, discovered them in the morning, in plastic bags, with blood everywhere. The vet who was responsible for the killing of the 220 dogs was later accused of intentional murder and another 15 people had been surveyed. The police doubted that he managed to make lethal injections to 220 dogs in two hours. "For an injection is needed ten minutes. The doctor therefore needed 2200 minutes ..." cnews.ro later wrote that the massacre of Botosani was perhaps a 'pilot project' and that certain political forces had hoped to pass a law through parliament that allows the killing of shelter animals and that they wanted to see how society would react after application of the 'final solution'.
...and on top of all,
is ineffective and offers only a temporary 'solution'
The World Health Organization’s 'Guidelines for Dog Population Management' (Geneva 1990) and various other academic studies show that killing dogs is ineffective - it offers only a temporary "solution" because it addresses only the effect but not the cause. Despite mass extermination campaigns by misguided municipalities the street dog population grows, and the best examples of both good and bad stray animal population control policies come from their own country:
The only towns in Romania that used catch/neuter/release programs were Oradea and Lugoj, and the results are showing!
- ORADEA had a stray dog population of 4,000 animals in 2006 which had been reduced to 270 animals until 2011 at a cost of 14 euros to spay/neuter one dog. The program was run and funded by Robert Smith - FPCC/Dog - Project Oradea, UK, in collaboration with the city hall Oradea.
- LUGOJ had a stray dog population of 2,500 animals in 2008 which had been reduced to 235 animals until 2011 at a cost of 12 euros to spay/neuter one dog. The program was run and funded by the city hall Lugoj in collaboration with the local animal welfare organization, Free Amely.
Article 13 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union explicitly grants companion animals the status of sentient beings. This concept ceases to carry its legal meaning as soon as stray animals are subject to the institutionalized, legalized and commercialized process of mass extermination because the wholesale killings often imply that the 'euthanasia' procedures are violated, the animals are kept in appalling conditions because of overcrowding, they are often starved, beaten and maimed, they are treated instrumentally as a commodity to be disposed of in return for money, and they are subject to unspeakable suffering. In this way, their status as sentient beings is denied to them. In return, they acquire the status of waste or vermin to be utilized.
This is the logic of state-legalized and institutionalized violence which dramatically and profoundly changes the emotive and legal perception of sentient beings denying them their legal status of sentient beings and transforming them in the eyes of the public into disposable and unfeeling junk. The pace, the intensity and the extent of slaughter simply annuls the validity of the concept of a sentient being thus corroding the moral foundation of the law.
This is the logic of state-legalized and institutionalized violence which dramatically and profoundly changes the emotive and legal perception of sentient beings denying them their legal status of sentient beings and transforming them in the eyes of the public into disposable and unfeeling junk. The pace, the intensity and the extent of slaughter simply annuls the validity of the concept of a sentient being thus corroding the moral foundation of the law.
...it's also about European values
In a western society, as a father presents a young puppy to his children, a new 'member of the family', he is aware that only a few countries away, a similar puppy is being hurled into a furnace along with many, many others.
The atrocious treatment of homeless dogs in Romania has caused citizens across Europe (and the world) to question the entire justification of the existing EU legal framework, and, in particular, it goes beyond the limits of imagination of a growing number of EU citizens that Romania, a country receiving millions of euros of financial assistance from other EU countries every year is, at the same time, “entitled” to completely disregard a set of European values.
Ruud Tombrock, WSPA Europe director said about the Romanian Slaughter Law:
"This does not feel like an appropriate response to stray dogs for anywhere in the world let alone Europe. The massive culling of dogs lacks compassion and defies values and respect for life we would normally expect from EU-members. The European community has the task of protecting those values and WSPA will rally all parties to act according and call for accountability of those who do not."
What is more, humans and animals are legally and constitutionally acknowledged as sentient beings and they are protected by the law. We also firmly believe that:
Since a human being has an inalienable and a natural right to relate emotively to other living beings, be it humans or animals and as, universally, this relation constitutes the foundation of man's sense of security and well-being as well as the sense of his identity and as the character of this affective relation is the same regardless of whether this relation exists between humans or humans and animals, any one who perpetrates the violence-related trauma resulting from the suppression of this natural right should be held accountable as the violation of this right causes psychosomatic suffering and trauma equivalent to the violation of personal rights and freedoms.
Relating to others in terms of cultivating an emotive relation with other humans or animals is man's most basic psychological need. The frustration of this most natural and basic need results in grave personality disorders, psychosomatic illness, depression, behavioral problems, anxiety, suffering and psychological trauma, especially in children.
There are many instances of a very strong emotive bond existing between emotively perceptive and receptive animals and people. In a large number of cases, the emotive quality of this relationship is the same as the one existing between humans, including gay community whose rights has only recently been legally established. For many people, caring for animals and the emotive interaction with them implies a rewarding pleasure and a greater sense of security and purpose so decisive in their emotional stability and general health.
The question of the wholesale extermination of the Romanian stray animals has a direct and inherent reference to the broader question of the legalization of violence and its traumatizing impact on the society. As a result, animals rights are inseparably linked to human rights and any violation of animals rights implies the violation of the integrity of human rights and questions the coherence and credibility of the law.
The atrocious treatment of homeless dogs in Romania has caused citizens across Europe (and the world) to question the entire justification of the existing EU legal framework, and, in particular, it goes beyond the limits of imagination of a growing number of EU citizens that Romania, a country receiving millions of euros of financial assistance from other EU countries every year is, at the same time, “entitled” to completely disregard a set of European values.
Ruud Tombrock, WSPA Europe director said about the Romanian Slaughter Law:
"This does not feel like an appropriate response to stray dogs for anywhere in the world let alone Europe. The massive culling of dogs lacks compassion and defies values and respect for life we would normally expect from EU-members. The European community has the task of protecting those values and WSPA will rally all parties to act according and call for accountability of those who do not."
What is more, humans and animals are legally and constitutionally acknowledged as sentient beings and they are protected by the law. We also firmly believe that:
Since a human being has an inalienable and a natural right to relate emotively to other living beings, be it humans or animals and as, universally, this relation constitutes the foundation of man's sense of security and well-being as well as the sense of his identity and as the character of this affective relation is the same regardless of whether this relation exists between humans or humans and animals, any one who perpetrates the violence-related trauma resulting from the suppression of this natural right should be held accountable as the violation of this right causes psychosomatic suffering and trauma equivalent to the violation of personal rights and freedoms.
Relating to others in terms of cultivating an emotive relation with other humans or animals is man's most basic psychological need. The frustration of this most natural and basic need results in grave personality disorders, psychosomatic illness, depression, behavioral problems, anxiety, suffering and psychological trauma, especially in children.
There are many instances of a very strong emotive bond existing between emotively perceptive and receptive animals and people. In a large number of cases, the emotive quality of this relationship is the same as the one existing between humans, including gay community whose rights has only recently been legally established. For many people, caring for animals and the emotive interaction with them implies a rewarding pleasure and a greater sense of security and purpose so decisive in their emotional stability and general health.
The question of the wholesale extermination of the Romanian stray animals has a direct and inherent reference to the broader question of the legalization of violence and its traumatizing impact on the society. As a result, animals rights are inseparably linked to human rights and any violation of animals rights implies the violation of the integrity of human rights and questions the coherence and credibility of the law.
|
|
"You can't kill a dog
and be nice to somebody a few hours later"
On September 25th, 2013 the Romanian Government modified their laws to permit the 'eradication' of all homeless animals after a 14 day 'pre-slaughter' period after capture, which has unleashed an unprecedented license to kill animals on the streets and significant inter-human violence in a now polarized society of aggressors and protectors of the helpless animals. It follows that with such a sanctioned increase in violence, effects will be exacerbated, affecting not only the animal populations and the human adult population but with impact mainly on the children and their psychological health.
Such environments have never previously been created of this magnitude with most governments considering firstly that 'eradicating' the street animal population is proven to be an unsuccessful strategy.
Also the effects of polarizing a society about such an intensely emotive issue would be considered by any responsible government to be resisted because of its potential to produce civil unrest and violence.
And finally, no responsible government would introduce a holocaust on the streets in from of young innocent minds which, to protect themselves, withdraw from the emotional world and lose compassion and lose empathy. The subtle destruction of all the fundamental elements upon which a society is founded!
It is not a quantum leap of imagination to suggest that constant exposure to abuse must have an impact upon any individual who witnesses it. Exposure to violence has been found to be an indicator of the increased possibility of violent activity (Bandura, 1973). Many studies have been conducted to explore the relationship between children and teenagers who abuse animals and their later socio-behavioral practices. Links have been identified showing how abuse of animals at an early age can develop later into various forms of abuse including domestic violence and child abuse (Hackett, S & Uprichard, E. (2007); Ascione, F. R. (2001) and Arkow, P (1999); Schiff, Louw and Ascione, Flynn (1999); Baldry A.C. (2001).
Research has indicated that the natural development of humans is to mirror emotions of others. A ‘mirror neuron’ system (Rizzolatti et al, 2002) which produces a resonant effect in response to perceived emotions of others. Although a child needs to develop defensive mechanisms to control the burden of negative sensations and emotions laid upon him by his own mirror neuron system, emphasis is placed upon witnessing abuse to someone within the familial group. Attachment being a significant factor. But it is also quite rightly observed that people with no direct attachment to the subjects will exhibit the same negativity when viewing pictures depicting animal abuse (Beetz, A.M. 2011). It is therefore a realistic proposition to suggest that ongoing exposure to abuse in public places, produces progressive desensitization, accompanied by inhibition of the ability to become empathic. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget postulated that we begin life in an egocentric state where we are the sole significant factor in our psychological universe (Piaget and Inhelder, 1956).
If the natural psychological development requires a transition from egocentricity to empathic, then the postulation is that children exposed to regular abuse of animals, have their psychological development inhibited and distorted and in particular their ability to be empathic.
Research has indicated that the natural development of humans is to mirror emotions of others. A ‘mirror neuron’ system (Rizzolatti et al, 2002) which produces a resonant effect in response to perceived emotions of others. Although a child needs to develop defensive mechanisms to control the burden of negative sensations and emotions laid upon him by his own mirror neuron system, emphasis is placed upon witnessing abuse to someone within the familial group. Attachment being a significant factor. But it is also quite rightly observed that people with no direct attachment to the subjects will exhibit the same negativity when viewing pictures depicting animal abuse (Beetz, A.M. 2011). It is therefore a realistic proposition to suggest that ongoing exposure to abuse in public places, produces progressive desensitization, accompanied by inhibition of the ability to become empathic. Swiss psychologist Jean Piaget postulated that we begin life in an egocentric state where we are the sole significant factor in our psychological universe (Piaget and Inhelder, 1956).
If the natural psychological development requires a transition from egocentricity to empathic, then the postulation is that children exposed to regular abuse of animals, have their psychological development inhibited and distorted and in particular their ability to be empathic.
Companion animals are family.
Except in Romania...
The Institute for Human-Animal Connection at the University of Denver (USA) is a world-leading pioneering facility in the inter-relationship between humans and animals.
This presentation by Professor Philip Tedeschi, Clinical Director at the Institute for Human-Animal Connection, and MTL Project- Partner, exemplifies how in western societies, the relationship with companion animals has evolved to them being regarded as integral members of a western family with equal consideration being given to that of human members of the same family. Contrast if you will with the regard given in southern and eastern regions of Europe where such animals are cast as verminous outcasts.
In one culture... harmonious inclusion. In another... divisive exclusion introducing significant societal disharmony, violence and death.
This presentation by Professor Philip Tedeschi, Clinical Director at the Institute for Human-Animal Connection, and MTL Project- Partner, exemplifies how in western societies, the relationship with companion animals has evolved to them being regarded as integral members of a western family with equal consideration being given to that of human members of the same family. Contrast if you will with the regard given in southern and eastern regions of Europe where such animals are cast as verminous outcasts.
In one culture... harmonious inclusion. In another... divisive exclusion introducing significant societal disharmony, violence and death.
A survey of psychologists in the USA found that 87%
considered animal abuse to be a mental health issue.
Yet, in Romania 86,3% of the study group children
had witnessed this in public places 'many times'
The ‘Making the Link‘ Study, which was initiated by Teesside University (UK) to explore the connection between exposure to endemic abuse in social environments where no previous research had been conducted, showed that in Bistrita, of those who had seen animals being abused, 86,3 % had seen this ‘many times‘ (r= .329 p<.001).
What are significant are the correlations between those who have declared that they have abused animals and their psychological profiles. These indicate that abuse of animals is correlated with aggressive tendencies, violence and empathy diminishment factors.
Significant correlations with abuse of animals include:
- Contemplating suicide (r=.213 p<0.01)
- Aggression (eg N=168, fighting r= .202 p<.01, physically attacking people r= .277, p< .001, temper r= .224 p<0.01)
- Destruction of own and other's property (Own property r=.214 p<0.01, Other's property r= .350 p< 0.001)
- Mood swings (r= .162 P<0.01), theft (r= .169 P < 0.05) negative affective and cognitive empathy factors, etc...
From Levin, J and Arluke, A in 'The Link Between Animal Abuse and Human Violence' ed Andrew Linzey:
"Inflicting injury, suffering or death on an animal, absent of provocation or hostility, gives an individual tremendous psychological pleasure... the malicious youngster rehearses his sadistic attacks - perhaps on animals, perhaps on other people, perhaps on both - and continues into his adult years to perpetrate the same sorts of sadistic acts on human beings. His attacks on animals are serious and personal.
He chooses 'socially valued or culturally humanized animals - for example dogs and cats - against which to carry out his sadistic aims but he is likely to repeat his abusive behaviour on a variety of animals.
If he later finds a socially acceptable means of compensating for his sense of powerlessness, then he might very well escape the grip of violence perpetrated against humans. If not, his early experience with animal cruelty may become a training ground for later committing assaults, rape, and even murder"
What is evident is that around 10% of children in the study were identified as having abused animals. Their profiles show strong correlations with increased aggression, negative empathy towards fellow human beings, social violence, theft and arson. These 10% of the 170 children in the research program exhibited aggression syndrome and used the ready availability of potential animal victims in public places to displace this aggression. With 2,000 children in this age group in Bistrita, extrapolation suggests 200 children locally seeking animal victims to exercise displaced aggression.
This suggests that in a 60,000 population, taken over a 40 year societal time-frame of all ages, 4,000 individuals are at any one time, seeking to act out their aggression on the animals and potentially against other people.
What children see on the streets...
Saturday, March 8. This photo was taken at approx. 50 meters from a city dog "shelter" in Uricani, Hunedoara county... This is only one of the many mass graves where the sadistically murdered stray dogs bodies are abandoned.
This dog got attacked by a maniac in Galati, end of October, 2013. The poor dog had been brutally hit on the head and the back. The ax had literally sectionned the dog's head in two. He was still alive when the good people from 'Help Labus' found him. He was taken to the vet but had to be euthanized as the injuries were just too severe.
Dogs have been killed with spears made of sticks and foxes have been skinned alive, then exposed at the roadside in Suceava. In the afternoon of January 2, voluntary association of animal protection in Suceava Doiniţa Găneanu discovered the lifeless bodies. Please click on the picture to view the TV-report (video will open in a new tab)
Picture taken in Bragadiru, September 2013.
Craiova, September 2013.
Targoviste, 2012.
September 2013. Pictures by HELP LABUS.
These are NOT isolated cases. Occupy for Animals has received tens of such pictures only during the last months.
These are NOT isolated cases. Occupy for Animals has received tens of such pictures only during the last months.
... and the effect it has on them
And so it is that sometimes a phenomenon can be identified, of such magnitude that it defies human senses. The ground on which we walk, facilitates our existence... our movement, but that this apparently flat ground is in fact a sphere suspended in space is not discerned until we adopt alternative perspectives.
The connection between animal abuse and inter-human abuse and violence is called 'the Link' and there is now a large body of research identifying that animal abuse can be a predictor of abuse against person and property. Individuals abusing animals in their homes are likely to enact abuse against members of their own family or even to manifest such abuse within the community. Such research has previously been conducted in western societies where regard for companion animals has evolved to them being regarded as ‘'family members' and where few unwanted animals remain on the streets in the wider community. Isolated incidents permitting a contrast against the norms of a society allow such abuse identification possibility.
Imagine if you will, that such criteria identifying potentially aberrant individuals, exists as a society, as a nation. A country of 20,000,000 exhibiting all the ingredients to promote, learn and practice aggression. The 'Making the Link' Study & Project Group seeks to reason that such an environment exists and the conclusion of which challenges the very foundations of the security and homogeneity of the European Union. It will be further evidenced that the addressable entity is not the animal victim or even the individual who aggresses, but the society which promotes this on a hitherto un-imagined or identified scale. A national aggression training facility now being freely exported. Ramifications affect every country, every city, every street of the European Union. Should the rationale presented here be fully accepted then it is incumbent upon political powers to address.
The 'Making the Link' Study & Project Group will provide evidence from learned expert professors in this field. They will also present results from a study conducted for the first time in such an environment. The MTL will evidence the normality of abuse and aggression throughout this country. And finally the MTL will present an act of such despicable horror on the streets of a European City that the resonance of the word ‘enough’ is invited to be echoed through every home in Europe.
Two factors are essential to be considered in environments such as that which exists in Romania:
‘Situational factors‘: included among these is displaced aggression where the victim of the aggression was not the originating cause. Such aggression increases if the victim is categorized as representing a socially undesirable or reduced status group.
'Opportunity' is an important factor where situations present and heighten the opportunity for aggression and where in Bandura’s moral disengagement theory two factors, the cognitive construction of moral justification whereby the aggressor creates cognitive constructs to justify aggression and also the dehumanization of the victim. Romania’s government in categorizing the already outcast and devalued group of stray animals by formally categorizing as 'extermination worthy' increases the diminution of status and therefore enhances the possibility of the practice of aggression.
Assuredly, aggression practiced against animals carries a heightened likelihood of aggression against people and property and as mentioned before, fhe MTL Pilot Study found that children who aggressed against animals also aggressed against people, admitted theft, arson, exemplified reduced empathy and presented suicidal tendencies. A survey of psychologists in the USA found that 87% considered animal abuse to be a mental health issue, yet in Romania 86% of the study group children had witnessed this in public places.
Social Learning Theory suggests that the main features of the socialization process are the models to whom children are exposed, the reinforcements and punishments they receive, and the beliefs they are taught and learn. It is argued that those who abuse animals are frustrated individuals who transfer their anger onto animals who cannot retaliate.
A scenario emerges where aggression is encouraged by ill-considered government legislation where the stray animal is deemed eradication worthy. This presents legitimization and encouragement of the practice of aggression against a potential animal victim on every street corner. Such unrestrained and socially acceptable behaviour leads to an increase in the need to satisfy through aggression and which increases the likelihood that this will be enacted against persons and property.
Major organisations such as WHO and OIE caution against mass euthanasia as a strategy for animal management primarily because historically it has always proven unsuccessful in addition to being significantly more expensive to implement that the proven successful management strategy of neutering. The Romanian government has therefore taken a poverty endemic, patriarchal society with already significant aggression problems into a previously unexplored domain by encouraging enactment of violence. Time will reveal what lies in this darkness and whether an aggression training facility is being created at the edge of Europe. It is hoped that this proves not to be so...
The connection between animal abuse and inter-human abuse and violence is called 'the Link' and there is now a large body of research identifying that animal abuse can be a predictor of abuse against person and property. Individuals abusing animals in their homes are likely to enact abuse against members of their own family or even to manifest such abuse within the community. Such research has previously been conducted in western societies where regard for companion animals has evolved to them being regarded as ‘'family members' and where few unwanted animals remain on the streets in the wider community. Isolated incidents permitting a contrast against the norms of a society allow such abuse identification possibility.
Imagine if you will, that such criteria identifying potentially aberrant individuals, exists as a society, as a nation. A country of 20,000,000 exhibiting all the ingredients to promote, learn and practice aggression. The 'Making the Link' Study & Project Group seeks to reason that such an environment exists and the conclusion of which challenges the very foundations of the security and homogeneity of the European Union. It will be further evidenced that the addressable entity is not the animal victim or even the individual who aggresses, but the society which promotes this on a hitherto un-imagined or identified scale. A national aggression training facility now being freely exported. Ramifications affect every country, every city, every street of the European Union. Should the rationale presented here be fully accepted then it is incumbent upon political powers to address.
The 'Making the Link' Study & Project Group will provide evidence from learned expert professors in this field. They will also present results from a study conducted for the first time in such an environment. The MTL will evidence the normality of abuse and aggression throughout this country. And finally the MTL will present an act of such despicable horror on the streets of a European City that the resonance of the word ‘enough’ is invited to be echoed through every home in Europe.
Two factors are essential to be considered in environments such as that which exists in Romania:
‘Situational factors‘: included among these is displaced aggression where the victim of the aggression was not the originating cause. Such aggression increases if the victim is categorized as representing a socially undesirable or reduced status group.
'Opportunity' is an important factor where situations present and heighten the opportunity for aggression and where in Bandura’s moral disengagement theory two factors, the cognitive construction of moral justification whereby the aggressor creates cognitive constructs to justify aggression and also the dehumanization of the victim. Romania’s government in categorizing the already outcast and devalued group of stray animals by formally categorizing as 'extermination worthy' increases the diminution of status and therefore enhances the possibility of the practice of aggression.
Assuredly, aggression practiced against animals carries a heightened likelihood of aggression against people and property and as mentioned before, fhe MTL Pilot Study found that children who aggressed against animals also aggressed against people, admitted theft, arson, exemplified reduced empathy and presented suicidal tendencies. A survey of psychologists in the USA found that 87% considered animal abuse to be a mental health issue, yet in Romania 86% of the study group children had witnessed this in public places.
Social Learning Theory suggests that the main features of the socialization process are the models to whom children are exposed, the reinforcements and punishments they receive, and the beliefs they are taught and learn. It is argued that those who abuse animals are frustrated individuals who transfer their anger onto animals who cannot retaliate.
A scenario emerges where aggression is encouraged by ill-considered government legislation where the stray animal is deemed eradication worthy. This presents legitimization and encouragement of the practice of aggression against a potential animal victim on every street corner. Such unrestrained and socially acceptable behaviour leads to an increase in the need to satisfy through aggression and which increases the likelihood that this will be enacted against persons and property.
Major organisations such as WHO and OIE caution against mass euthanasia as a strategy for animal management primarily because historically it has always proven unsuccessful in addition to being significantly more expensive to implement that the proven successful management strategy of neutering. The Romanian government has therefore taken a poverty endemic, patriarchal society with already significant aggression problems into a previously unexplored domain by encouraging enactment of violence. Time will reveal what lies in this darkness and whether an aggression training facility is being created at the edge of Europe. It is hoped that this proves not to be so...
The next footage was recorded by the young abusers themselves on 3rd of October, 2013 in Bucharest, Gorjului and then proudly uploaded onto FB. Vier Pfoten later located the place and went to the rescue of the little dog.
In fact: a legal case is currently being explored to invite litigation against an individual who 'allegedly' entered private premises near Tantava and axed to death an old, docile family dog. The individual had a habit of walking his local streets pushing a wheelbarrow containing an ax, unaddressed and unchallenged.
As represented here, animal abusers carry a high probability of aggressing against people and property. Who here dares to imagine that it was only a fleeting aberration of thought that determined that it would be an animal which was grotesquely hacked to death that day, and not a child.
Just for information, the police have declined interest.
Conclusion
In conclusion - and arguably most important of all - we would agree with the statement that 'Romania is finally on the right track....' Not however by implementing a law which patently is historically unsuccessful, ill-consistent with international directives and morals but because the light of truth and reality is now beginning to shine in the darkness after the second visit of the EU-delegation.
In the Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, justification is given to reduce significant numbers of stray dogs: "it shall take the appropriate legislative and/or administrative measures necessary to reduce their numbers in a way which does not cause avoidable pain, suffering or distress." The word that shouts from the page is 'avoidable'. As we have highlighted in the IREC response text, there is another way: by introducing a neutering program, pain, suffering and distress are 'avoided'.
This exchange is a watershed where we have identified all the errors presented by IREC. We have responded with evidenced truths and facts. Romania has lived too long in the darkness of deceit and corruption.
And therefore having identified the multiple errors contained within the IREC Right to Reply, we freely invite IREC to contact us for assistance before publishing erroneous letter content. The people of Romania deserve no less than to have access to the truth and to make their decisions accordingly.
We would respectfully suggest that IREC retract all their statements which have been proven here to be erroneous and misleading and to allow Romania to really be 'on the right track'.
Only through truth is a democracy truly made.
- Occupy for Animals -
In the Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals, justification is given to reduce significant numbers of stray dogs: "it shall take the appropriate legislative and/or administrative measures necessary to reduce their numbers in a way which does not cause avoidable pain, suffering or distress." The word that shouts from the page is 'avoidable'. As we have highlighted in the IREC response text, there is another way: by introducing a neutering program, pain, suffering and distress are 'avoided'.
This exchange is a watershed where we have identified all the errors presented by IREC. We have responded with evidenced truths and facts. Romania has lived too long in the darkness of deceit and corruption.
And therefore having identified the multiple errors contained within the IREC Right to Reply, we freely invite IREC to contact us for assistance before publishing erroneous letter content. The people of Romania deserve no less than to have access to the truth and to make their decisions accordingly.
We would respectfully suggest that IREC retract all their statements which have been proven here to be erroneous and misleading and to allow Romania to really be 'on the right track'.
Only through truth is a democracy truly made.
- Occupy for Animals -
