"I Made It Up Entirely Myself!" Column in KomputerraOnline #74

←

Dmytro Shabanov

→

"I feel some inevitability..."

"I invented it myself out of thin air!"

Values and Risks

Column in KompyuTerrOnline #73

Column in KompyuTerrOnline #74

Column in KompyuterreOnline #75

Animal defenders are easily recognized by the insane hatred they feel towards people.

Social networks are, of course, evil. How much time it takes just to scroll through the Facebook feed! You start clicking on links, reading, getting into arguments – and time relentlessly flows away like fine sand between your fingers. Here, I fell into the foolishness of getting involved in a discussion of a topic that agitated animal rights activists. Since I got involved in online arguments, I'll write a column about it now. In fact, the problem has interested me for a long time, but I didn't dare to raise it – it evokes too many emotions. I'm talking about the problem of stray dogs and cats. I'll start from afar. I love and probably understand dogs quite well; for most of my life, my family has had dogs. I don't like cats much, partly out of fatigue from the enthusiasm of devoted cat lovers. The normal way of life, in my opinion, is life in a private house, where there are both dogs and even a cat – so be it. I have no doubt about the need to take good care of pets. There is no particular problem here. I don't understand people who spend a significant part of their attention on cooing over kittens and puppies. You know these sweet "pets" photos? Adoring animals, fluffy faces of kittens and puppies... They get the emotions that human children are the normal recipients of. This applies both to external features that are releasers of parental care (fluffy, shortened faces) and to the social conditions in which pets find themselves in childless families. For those suffering from unfulfilled parental feelings, dogs and cats can become a surrogate that allows for partial normalization of emotional life. Unfortunately, a substitute is always a substitute, and one must understand the painful nature of such a replacement... The problem arises with stray dogs and cats. It is clear that the blame for their appearance lies with those who abandoned them (or their ancestors) on the street, but this blame remains in the past, and in the present, a serious danger emanates from these animals. You know, I am a rather tall and large man, I am not afraid of dogs and know how not to show my fear, if necessary. Usually, I don't have problems with dogs. But last year, in my own neighborhood, I tried to cross the road and go through a vacant lot. As I later understood, I entered a territory that a pack of dogs was defending as their own. About ten dogs surrounded me, trying to jump and bite, only turning away from them. Pressing my back against the fence and retreating, I barely managed to get out of the danger zone. Questions remain. This is our human city, how can there be territories of stray dogs in it? And what will happen if a child enters such a territory? Stray dogs and cats also create serious problems. They destroy wildlife, spread infections, and sometimes even pose a danger to humans. Stray cats have destroyed many rare species of vertebrates. Packs of dogs, and especially wolf-dog hybrids, are much more dangerous than wolf packs. Hybrids lack the wolves' innate fear of humans and possess an innate "knowledge" of our behavior. There is no clear understanding of what to do with stray dogs and cats in cities. Animal rights activists advise capture, sterilization, and release in the places of capture. It seems to me that such a complex task can only be solved with sufficient funding, good planning, and continuous monitoring of the number and condition of feral domestic animal groups. In most cases, such activities, if carried out at all, are sporadic and without clear control of their effectiveness. And when it comes to dogs and cats outside the city, especially in protected areas, the solution is simple (no matter how unpleasant it may be): destruction by one means or another. Against this background, two opposing groups of people emerge, each of which does not hesitate to unleash overwhelming emotions on society. The first are dog hunters. When the task of managing feral dog and cat populations is not solved institutionally, individual citizens take it upon themselves. In most cases, these are sadists. If you can overcome your disgust, look at the materials that dog hunters post online. These include the corpses of animals killed with particular cruelty, the killing process itself, and violations of laws on the storage and use of weapons documented by them. Strange as it may seem: law enforcement agencies, including those created to combat extremism, are not interested in these materials. The emotions that dog hunters unleash feed another group, in turn fueling the fervor of dog hunters. These are animal rights activists. They are, of course, less pathological; they are not engaged in daily sadism (although they are not averse to it – read what they imagine for dog hunters in their dreams!). One area of activity for animal rights activists is animal shelters. A good thing, overall. It doesn't solve the problem of stray animals, but it alleviates it somewhat. It channels the efforts of those who want to care for someone towards homeless animals. But does their activity reduce or increase the number of stray dogs and cats? I assume – practically not. But for some reason, time and again, the activity of animal rights activists turns out to be directed in a strange direction. In their perception, caring for animals becomes the main task of society. In every large city, the number of dog bites on people and children frightened to death (with subsequent phobias for almost a lifetime) reaches hundreds and thousands; from time to time, stories appear about people killed by packs of stray dogs. But animal rights activists, for some reason, are interested precisely in the happiness and well-being of dogs and cats. Society can be healthy only if it is cemented by the ability to empathize. But for some reason, animal rights activists overlook that our children need empathy no less, and even more, than cats and dogs. I will illustrate the specifics of animal rights campaigns with an example concerning Ukraine; as far as I understand, the situation in Russia is quite similar. Recently, I saw a post on Facebook copied by an acquaintance "eco-activist." The author is from Kyiv. I am reading (original spelling and syntax preserved, missing spaces added).

Dear friends, animal welfare activists, volunteers, citizens who have cats and dogs at home)) I have joyful news for you!!! Our government has found a humane way to solve the problem of stray cats and dogs!!! (or those that have owners – but were simply released onto the street, lost, or ran away from their leash).

Our government has adopted a wonderful and, most importantly, almost free method of animal regulation – now they will be shot. Like wolves and crows!!! It has already been adopted in the first reading, and it is clear that it will be adopted in the second!! It will be easier for all of us – if your dog or cat runs away, if you were smart enough to spay/neuter a few dogs, if your dog simply slipped its leash – now anyone who has a weapon, for example, an air rifle, has the right to shoot it!! It's strange that owners of dogs and cats were not included in this list. These foolish people will get new pets – and they will have to be shot again))) And yes, for those who still don't want their runaway or lost dog or cat to be shot, who are against the onset of the Middle Ages, who are volunteers and whose animals will be shot first, who have neighbors who would gladly shoot a dog or cat simply running around – let's start small... copy the letter to Azarov (you can write your own) and post it on his FB page. <...> Perhaps there are journalists among us who are against it – make a report (a news story, an article). And animal welfare organizations can just go crazy, print out the letter, put it in an envelope – and send it by mail! The quoted post contains a link to a draft letter to Azarov, the Prime Minister. The letter quotes amendments to the law on the use of natural resources. Let's read. In the relevant article, "stray dogs and cats" are included in the list of animals for which a permit is required, issued by "the central executive body for environmental and natural resources issues." A terrible suspicion arose: could this amendment be the sole basis for the announcement of the upcoming shooting spree? I write to the author of the quoted post, I ask again. Is it true that the only basis for the post is that previously a permit was not required for hunting dogs and cats, but now it will be necessary? I receive an extremely emotional response that does not address the question asked. I ask again, a second, a third time... Apparently, my assumption is correct! I informed the nice girl that I wanted to quote her responses in my column. I received: a categorical prohibition on using quotes from personal correspondence; a series of threats (with words like "lies," "slander" about what I would write); accusations of cowardice because I discussed her post in private correspondence, not on the Prime Minister's page; a prohibition on calling her an "animal welfare activist" (she is a medical psychologist). Wow! Well, I will refrain from quoting (not because of the absurd threats, but so as not to violate the right to privacy of the person protesting against this). It's a shame, there were such gems there... So, the activist learns that the Prime Minister plans to introduce special permits for hunting stray dogs and cats. She informs the world that now anyone can shoot poor animals without restrictions. Was this a deliberate deception? The fact that she never answered my questions and did not discuss the difference between what she received "at the input" and "at the output" supports this assumption. However, the general chaos of interaction, the jumping from topic to topic, the ease of transition to aggression indirectly suggest that she might not have even realized that she was presenting only her fantasies. Perhaps she always acts this way? It remains to understand why exactly such people are in demand during civil campaigns. In demand! When the nice girl blocked me from accessing her page, the number of people who reposted her text exceeded sixty and continued to grow rapidly. The wave has started. Is this good or bad? Bad. And here's why. We live in poorly managed states. Both the government as a whole, and individual agencies and institutions everywhere and always pursue not the interests of citizens, but their own benefit. The task of citizens is to control government bodies, critically evaluating their actions. Critical evaluation is not wholesale denial and not obedient agreement; critical evaluation is thoughtful analysis! This is the only way to correct erroneous actions. False fears only hinder this. Any government, even the worst, does not do everything wrong. We live in settlements where power and water supply systems work, transport and post operate, civil status acts are registered, and much other absolutely necessary routine work is performed. Somehow, the government still ensures these processes. The same applies to adopted laws. They probably have many flaws; some things in them are probably quite appropriate. To correct flaws in government actions, one must adequately choose targets for effort. False targets for protests cause harm, marginalize criticism, and make the decision-making process even more autonomous and uncontrolled. Do I like the changes in the law proposed by the Prime Minister? No. For example, they provide that permits will now also be required for working with experimental animals. Who will issue them, how much will it cost, what criteria will be considered – it is unclear. The laws of our countries everywhere and always create situations where any active person turns out to be a criminal. As a result, it is easy to find a "key" to any citizen, to any organization. The unspecific norm of the law concerning experimental animals is an example of such a prohibition. With its adoption, all biological and medical research organizations, a multitude of specific researchers will become violators of yet another law. Perhaps write to the Prime Minister about this? And who will pay attention to this letter when a wave of citizens' appeals, outraged by the permission for free shooting of dogs and cats, which animal welfare activists invented themselves, crashes down on him! And, believe me, these letters were supported by many qualified biologists and quite reasonable people... The process continues, the discussion is boiling, and the solution to the problem of stray dogs and cats is moving further and further away...

←