Humanism on blood: what prevents people from being protected from dogs

… The St. Petersburg village of Metallostroy, Saratov, Biysk, Komi, Taganrog – this is the geography of dog attacks on people in recent times. The Orenburg tragedy in April, the death of a child, was the third since the beginning of the year, before that dogs killed a man and a woman in Astrakhan. The fourth victim was a man from the city of Usolye-Sibirskoe.

In Russia, up to half a million attacks by stray dogs are recorded per year. The number of victims is comparable to the population of an average regional center, and this indicates the scale of the problem. After each high-profile case, a public discussion flares up, law enforcement officers hold accountable officials formally responsible for the treatment of stray animals, but this does not change the situation. The discussion dies down until a new trouble.

From a legal point of view, the situation looks paradoxical: in cities, and not in the wilderness, innocent people suffer and die, but society and the state cannot protect them. But if we are talking about threats of a different kind, then the solution is found quite quickly. On a dangerous section of the road, the speed is reduced, the markings are changed, and additional traffic lights are installed. Fences are erected around the ramshackle buildings that are dropping bricks. If some technical or legal norms do not sufficiently guarantee safety, they are changed. This also applies to the circulation of weapons, and means of individual mobility, and the norms for arranging playgrounds. But only one problem from year to year, as if bewitched, remains insoluble – dogs continue to attack people.

Now in Russia, in accordance with the law, the OSVV approach is practiced in the treatment of stray dogs: trapping, sterilization, vaccination, release into the “natural environment”. It is believed that this is humane, safe, environmentally friendly, consistent with world practice and protects the rights of animals.

The authors and supporters of the current law “On Responsible Treatment of Animals” believe that the law is good, but the performers let us down. It turns out that each region and the whole country as a whole do not work well, do not cope, cannot implement wonderful legal ideas in reality. Well, we sadly state that the authors of the law were unlucky with the country – “the whole battalion is out of step, and only the commander is in step.”

Let’s put aside the emotions, let’s move on to the arguments. Only a liar who completely ignores the facts can say that the OSVV approach is safe. What kind of security is it if people are dying? Sterilized and “picked” dogs also stray into packs and attack people – a child in Orenburg was torn to pieces just like that.

Humanity, about which the “protectors of animals” speak, is humanity, philanthropy, protection of human interests. Human. Not dogs. How it happened that humanity in the public consciousness turned into, excuse me, “dogness” is a separate conversation. Western “humanists” had a hand in this, many of whose organizations are now banned. The result of this strange “humanity” is completely inhuman – people suffer and die.

However, even in the logic of “inhuman humanity”, the return of dogs to the streets of cities turns out to be inhumane. In European countries, which cite Russia as an example, leaving a pet on the street is punishable by fines of tens of thousands of euros. Throwing away an animal is cruel treatment. Not a return to the natural environment, but abuse.

Yes, bringing animals back to the streets is cruelty to them. The pet abandonment rate in Russia is 26%, and the share of homeless animals is 6%. That is, most of the neglected animals – and these are millions of heads – die in the “natural environment”. And the methods of natural selection are not distinguished by humanity – large individuals simply tear apart small ones, hunger, cold, and disease are added to this. The “natural environment” turns out to be unnatural, it’s just a bloody meat grinder. White robes of “humanity” can be thrown over her only because the whole horror of life and death of stray dogs is hidden for the most part from the townsfolk.

Environmental friendliness in this brutal massacre also does not smell. The Institute of Ecology and Evolution Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences, assessing the danger of invasive animal species for the environment, put the stray domestic dog in second place. Stray dogs not only threaten biodiversity, they destroy the ecological balance both in settlements and far beyond their outskirts.

A reference to world practice is a trump card in the hands of animal rights activists, but the cards are marked here. The fact is that the tactics of OSVV, as well as the life-long maintenance of dogs taken from the streets in shelters, are practically not used in developed countries. But this approach is being imposed on all sorts of colonies – through NGOs, Western-trained social activists and other “fighters for freedom and democracy.”

In a number of US states, stray dogs are allowed to be shot not only by special services, but also by citizens. At the same time, the Americans are proud that they managed to reduce the number of euthanasia of animals in shelters by four times – up to … five million a year!

In general, when “zooprotectors” talk about placing dogs in shelters, they are silent about their future fate. But in most countries, after the period of overexposure – up to two weeks, during which the animal is trying to find a host, euthanasia follows.

Germany remains the last argument of supporters of a complete rejection of the killing of stray animals – it is legally prohibited to euthanize healthy animals there. True, it is not forbidden to give them for “humane” tests of pharmaceuticals and cosmetics, but it is not customary to talk about this side of the German experience.

However, in Germany, indeed, for a long time it was possible to do without euthanasia. Many years of work on the control of pets and draconian measures against violators of the rules for the treatment of their dogs have made it possible to practically eliminate the number of stray animals and stabilize the situation in shelters. But the idyll turned out to be fragile. During the pandemic, many people got pets, and when they returned to work, it turned out that it was impossible to comply with all the requirements of the law. For example, a pet cannot be left alone for more than four hours, otherwise a fine. People carried yesterday’s pets to shelters, and at the end of 2021 they were overcrowded.

In October 2021, in Moers near Düsseldorf, a 56-year-old lady, who had traveled to several shelters and did not find free places there, tried to drop her pets into the shelter. Throw – in the literal sense: she threw one dog over a two-meter fence, the second did not have time – the woman was detained by the police.

The most lethal argument of the “animal defenders”, which plunges jurists into despondency, is the protection of animal rights. The fact is that law is an exclusively human phenomenon. From a philosophical point of view, it was not labor, but it was law that made a person a person. Primitive people in primitive freedom were, rather, a flock. When members of the pack decided to give up part of their freedom – for example, the freedom to run away or defend only themselves when attacked by enemies, freedom did not decrease, but increased. It turned out that by accepting the responsibility to protect another, you get the right to be protected by another. It turned out that two weak people can resist one strong one. This is how society was born.

It is society and the principle of “rights for duties” that underlie human superiority, this is our difference from all other forms of life, and this difference has allowed the creation of human civilization.

If we look at the idea of ​​”animal rights” more formally, down to earth, then no concept of law extends its effect beyond the boundaries of human society. Law and rights are entities peculiar only to the society of people, and to no one else. Therefore, talk about the rights of any animal – be it helminths, dogs or ticks – not only offends the consciousness of jurists, but also tears the fabric of law, makes law powerless, encroaches on the very foundation of civilization.

So, not a single rational argument of the “animal defenders” can withstand criticism. But apart from arguments, they play on emotions. Look, they staged a real persecution of the deputies, who proposed only to transfer the authority to deal with stray animals to the regional level. However, on May 16, 2023, this initiative was nevertheless adopted in the first reading.

If the draft law is finally adopted, and the regions are able to courageously resist the pressure of the “animal defenders”, perhaps somewhere it will be possible to abandon the vicious practice of SARS. But, probably, somewhere regional legislators, avoiding the pressure of a bunch of noisy and aggressive activists (often still sponsored from abroad), will not dare to introduce the irretrievable capture of dogs and their euthanasia after overexposure. And this means that innocent people will continue to die in peaceful cities.