I was at a function the other day and during the function someone stood up and made a plea for funds for Tony the Dogfather. At the functions I go to this is a rather regular occurrence and it has got me wondering. In Bahrain the primary organisation for the care of unwanted or abandoned pets is the BSPCA, they are loosely based on the British RSPCA and apply basically the same standards and processes. They will take in any animal 24 hours a day seven days a week and process it, if the animal is sick, injured or distressed and cannot be easily treated then it is put to sleep. If the animal is wild or too aggressive to be put up for adoption then it is put to sleep and that is as it should be because the BSPCA do not have the resources to care indefinitely for animals that cannot be re-housed. It is also a reflection on society in that we do not want to take on an animal that will need expensive veterinary care or may well attack our children. This policy leaves the BSPCA free to concentrate its resources on caring for and preparing animals to go to new owners.
I understand that Tony was once part of the BSPCA organisation but he left because he fundamentally disagreed with putting down any animal. While his stance is laudable in that all living things deserve to live their full natural lives it is really not terribly practical. While we would all like to live in a perfect society where there is always enough money to ensure that all humans or animals can live their life fully the reality is that’s not the society we live in. And even if Bahrain was so rich that there were no children living in poverty and that all elderly people had full care then would it be right to be spending our extra cash on animals when children are dying of malnutrition and disease in other parts of the world?
In saying that of course it is up to individuals to decide where they want to donate their charity funds to and if you have lived a life with a loved pet then you may want to give cash to the organisation that looks after the unwanted ones, you may even have acquired your loved pet from such an organisation.
Which brings me to the point of this, Tony, for all his well meaning is running a shelter that is fast becoming unsustainable. He seems to constantly lurch from one unpaid bill crisis to another with major appeals in the Press and to the community which somehow bail him out time after time. But it is not unreasonable to think there may come a point when there is no more rescue and his shelter gets shut down. That may mean a lot of animals that are ripe for adoption being put down. If Tony was to adopt a more realistic policy then perhaps he would be able to run his shelter within the funds raised and so no more crisis. It might be better if he were to rethink his operating policies even if it means putting to sleep a lot of his animals. At least those animals that were good for adoption would have a higher chance of being selected. However, in my personal opinion it would be better if there was only one agency dealing with these animals as it would be the focus of donations and anyone wanting to adopt a new pet would only need to go to one place.
Jackie@JBeedie.com