Friday, November 05, 2010

The Hypocrisy Of Pet Lovers And Animal Activists, Says One Reader

LATEST: DVS to hold special meeting next week with animal lovers: Click HERE.


THE INCIDENT last week of the Ipoh City Council (MBI) shooting to death a therapy dog in Taman Merdeka in Perak raised the hackles of scores of animal lovers throughout the nation.

PET+BLOGSPOT's was jammed with visitors in and outside the country who were quick to condemn the local council's action as barbaric and unforgiving. 

One reader, however, surprised us yesterday with his reaction to all the current publicity that has been raised over the issue.

He even went to the extent of calling us over the telephone to personally share with us his opinion on the subject.

The reader named "TS" spoke out against what he described as "the hypocrisy of nongovernmental animal groups and their activists."

"Some animal activists are incredibly selfish," he told PET+BLOGSPOT.

"They only think of the animal and don't care two hoots about human beings," he added, before going on to explain about the 8-month ordeal he endured with a stray dog in Section 17 in PJ, Selangor. 

"It stood outside of my house and was a danger to everyone in the neighbourhood for weeks and months.

"It would chase after us, and would terrify children and the elderly."

Animal lovers, he said, just kept feeding the dog instead of trying to diffuse a potentially dangerous situation. 

They made no attempts to try and re-home the animal, at best, so that it would no longer pose a danger in the neighbourhood.

TS tried to get a couple of animal shelters to help get rid of the dog. However, according to him, they flatly refused.

"One of the front-desk staff even had the nerve to tell me that they were only interested in animal's welfare and not in human beings," he claimed.

TS only solution therefore was to get help from the local council - in this case, the Petaling Jaya City Council or MBPJ.

Although he said he had to wait a while for action to be taken, the MBPJ dog-catching team finally caught the stray and handed it over to an animal shelter. 

TS who has never owned a dog in his life or had one as a pet in his family says he is not against dogs.

However, he strongly feels that pet owners should clearly start to change their doting attitudes on their dogs and act more responsibly.

Practices like walking their canines without a leash, or allowing them to defecate in the neighbourhood or at other peoples' homes without promptly picking up after them only make non pet owners get annoyed with them all the more.

"If pet lovers and animal activists wish to get more support for their causes, they should also start acting responsibly towards their fellow man," TS pointed out.

"I realise that it is often never the dog's fault but the owners when there is a problem with 'dogs'," he said.

"It must not be forgotten that local councils have an indispensable role to play in the management of stray dogs and cats in the environment," he concluded.

On our part, PETPOSITIVE made it clear to TS that the issue against the Ipoh City Council was their practice in shooting and killing dogs and not against the job of stray management in the city.

What do YOU think about TS' views? 

We would love to hear from you in our COMMENTS section below.

PET+BLOGSPOT is the ONLINE BLOG of the Malaysian Animal-Assisted Therapy for the Disabled and Elderly Association (Petpositive). Our reports and stories are CURRENT, ACCURATE and RELIABLE. We offer both local and foreign news on animals, disability and the elderly. PET+BLOGSPOT was first established in October 2007. Our hits since then is now 70,000 and going strong! PET+BLOGSPOT is updated daily. Sometimes even twice or three times a day. Kindly take note that views expressed in this blog are not necessarily those of PETPOSITIVE. You may also visit our Webpage by browsing: You can also find us in Facebook as PETPOSITIVE EMPOWERMENT. Please sign up as a FOLLOWER of this Blog if you haven't done so already in order to show us your kind support. Thank you!


Tan See Lian said...

TS if right on his views about irresponsible pet owners.

However, his raising up on the point of responsible pet ownership right now is rather misplaced.

The issue with the elderly woman and her therapy dog is very clear.

The Ipoh City Council has done a reprehensible act not only to an elderly citizen in the country but one who was receiving animal-assisted therapy.

Is there no place for people like this and animal-assisted therapy in the city of Ipoh?

Second, the issue is also about dog-shooting of innocent canines.

Dog-shooting is barbaric.

TS, please get your priorities right.

Spunky Jones said...

TS has a valid point.

The comment above is clearly a bias view, Tan See sounds like one of those irresponsible pet owners, quick to point the finger at others!

Yeah dog-shooting is barbaric, so is the death penalty! But the point is, it WORKS and sometimes, it is the RIGHT thing to do!

And if you people knew anything about dogs, apart for getting worked up emotionally without knowing anything, I'd suggest not making a fool of yourself on the internet.

The story is filled with holes, lets see how:

"She briefly disappeared into the house for the tissues and Spunk was gone in a flash.

He must have spotted the MBI dogcatchers and panicked. He ran out of the house only to be hunted and gunned down mercilessly."

NO DOG RUNS AWAY FROM HIS HOME, WHEN SCARED. WHEN IN FEAR THEY HEAD HOME AND HOLD THEIR GROUND, unless the danger is inside there is no reason to run out.

This suggests the dog wasn't the victim, it probably attempted to
attack the dog catchers. And if you attack a man holding a gun, be prepared to get shot down.

Who to blame? The person who left the undisciplined dog unattended! NO EXCUSES!

Stop pointing fingers. Take responsibility, if you can't DON'T HAVE DOGS! Get a pet fish, or a mosquito!

And just a reminder, being old and/or disabled isn't an excuse. Take FULL responsibility like everybody else!!

Anonymous said...

Dear Anthony ,
I am very sad for this woman and I know what she feels . I felt it few months ago for the same reasons...
Since the day they shot our dog , I think on the way to stop this ...
To just say "stop to shoot the dogs" is not enough. The solutions to solve the problem of strays must be found . I am defending the animals rights, I already owned 5 dogs in my life and I am the first to argue against those who shoot them but I am also angry to see these hundredth of strays in our streets .
Shelters must be built and handled by veterinary services .Female must be neutred . Licenced dogs that are catched must be released upon fine ( money waste teachs better than words...). It will help to pay the fees ...
For the case of Spunk, the responsability of the city council is an evidence and I hope that a lawyer on probono will sue their pants off .It will not reborn Spunk but it will show that they are wrong.
To employ stupid people who are not able to see if a dog is defending its house or not or moreover to see if the dog is licensed or not , is a management mistake .I think these employees would be more usefull to remove the dumps around Taman Ipoh or fill the potholes everywhere ...It requests the same level of education ...And please ,cancel their licence to kill, they are dangerous !!!

Anonymous said...

As a Muslim, I am deeply disturbed by the growing incidences of brutal treatment of dogs in this country. So I find it hypocritical of TS to use the savage murder of a loyal and devoted animal to highlight his own grouses. He claims that his "ordeal" with a stray dog began 8 months ago and that two animal shelters did not want to help out.

Since he feels so very strongly about irresponsible pet ownership and has spent time and energy to elaborate on the stray dog threat, why did he wait only until now to make an issue of it with Pet Positive?

He accuses animal rights groups and activists of being hypocritical and selfish. Not once has he expressed any sympathy for the grief and deprivation of the elderly owner of Spunk. He either cannot see the real issue here, or simply has no thoughts on the matter. This is not about aggressive stray dogs, which I admit can pose a problem, but which should be treated as a separate issue. This is about a much-loved therapy dog that was vital to improving the quality of life of an elderly person; a dog that was savagely murdered by brutes posing as human beings. How can he even make a connection here?

Please do not allow others to ride on the issue of animal abuse to highlight their own selfish grouses. It is not fair and it is hypocritical. It is unfair of TS to try and turn the murder of Spunk into a non-issue by turning the focus onto a problem that has nothing to do with the Spunks of the world. It is unfair of him to deviate from the cruelty and unlawful and unethical behaviour of the council.

Can you imagine how gleeful those council brutes must be, seeing the remarks made by TS and the downright nasty ones by that Spunky Jones.

Anonymous said...

I refer to the things said by Spunky Jones.

He acts like he is an authority on animal behaviour. But what does he know about dogs and the way they react to fear brought on by violent aggressors? I have had dogs for much of my life as family pets and I have seen them run away in fear from vicious people who think it is very entertaining to threaten them. So get real and get factual.

He takes on Spunky's name and then accuses Spunky's owner of telling lies and you, Pet Positive, of the same thing. Are you going to let that go unanswered?

He emphatically says, as if he could not say it loud enough that "NO DOG RUNS AWAY FROM HIS HOME, WHEN SCARED. WHEN IN FEAR THEY HEAD HOME AND HOLD THEIR GROUND, unless the danger is inside there is no reason to run out." If I were not so amused by his naive assumptions, I would be angry. Aside from the fact that his theory is so full of holes,it is laughable at best.

He also says the dog-catchers were probably attacked by the dog, hence they shot him. Really? Was he there at the time? And, of course, going by his "theory", the council workers are probably trained to kill any dog, even one with a license, especially when the dog is running away from them. There are enough incidents of abuse to know what can and does go on.

Clearly his sympathies lie with the murderers of Spunk.

And get a load of the ruthlessness in this statement "being old and/or disabled isn't an excuse. Take FULL responsibility like everybody else!!" The callousness is revolting to say the least. And, by the way, Spunk's owner had taken responsibility for her own existence. She depended on the affections and assistance of a friendly animal to help her out. Atleast she is capable of giving and receiving love and loyalty.

But if Spunky Jones thrives on being a dog-hater and a hater of the old and disabled, that's his choice. The world is filled with all kinds of characters and we have to accept this as a sorry fact of life. No one is asking him to love or even like dogs or feel sympathy for the less-abled. But that does not mean he cannot be mature and human.

But it is not difficult to see the problem here. It is sad and pathetic really. So much venom. It speaks of a possible scarred and traumatised past. Hopefully, Spunky Jones will one day be rid of the overwhelming bitterness so entrenched in his system, and he will finally take on responsibility for his own actions. Like everybody else.

Anonymous said...

Spunky Jones, in your comments, you mentioned that dog shooting works and sometimes, it is the right thing to do. Putting aside for now, the fact that the elderly woman’s dog was wearing a license in the first place, let’s take a look at some other facts based on the municipal method of shooting in solving the stray animal problem.

1)The shooting took place in a populated or residential area where pellets/bullets could stray resulting in injuring or killing innocents, property damage…etc. This happened quite recently in Jitra this year where a seafood restaurant worker was accidently shot in the legs.

2)Psychological effects on some people and especially children if the witnessed such a shooting. I heard this happened in Sabah where dog shooters shot a stray on a school field through a fence with school children as witnesses.

3)Other strays in the area would definitely run for safety upon hearing gun shots or some say smelling gunpowder making it more difficult to shoot other strays. Dogs identify danger easily and in this case, making it more difficult to shoot them in future.

So even though, it may be irresponsible for the lady to have left her animal unattended to, outside her house, does it really justify shooting the animal?

Wouldn’t it be better to shoot the animal with a camera instead, as proof to order to issue the owner a hefty compound fine instead? How much is the price of a bullet compared to the price of the compound fine?

Spunky Jones, you stated that the animal probably attacked or tried to attack the dog catchers but were the dog catchers on foot when the incident happened? If not mistaken, from the story, the MBI dog shooters were on a lorry while the dog “Spunk”, was running FROM the MBI vehicle.

Logically, if the animal tried to attack the MBI personnel, on or in the lorry, wouldn’t it be better to stop the vehicle to see whose animal it was? Do you really think that the dog could have jumped into the vehicle and attack the MBI staff?

On another note, believe it or not, dog shooting might still be a necessity even though some animal activists like to use the statement that Malaysia has been declared rabies free by the WHO since 1952 and so forth.

Dog or animal shooting is still being practiced at the immune belt when dealing with suspected rabies infected animals especially from cross border migrations; BUT it should not be practiced when dealing with dogs in any populated community because of the reasons stated above.

From Medical Journal Malaysia
“A three-year old girl died at the Sungai Petani Hospital, Kedah of rabies on the 8th of January 1998. She had been bitten by a stray dog outside her house in Padang Lembu on 29 Nov 1997. She was the fifth victim in three years.”

As mentioned before, in order to address the stray animal problems in Malaysia for a start is to first abolish municipal shooting, introduce stricter but more humane, animal control and enforcement methods plus introduce better methods to help increase responsible pet/animal ownership.


Anonymous said...

I see my comments have appeared twice (by "Anonymous"). Once in the unedited version, which I was advised by this column as being too long (Friday, November 05,2010 9:27:00PM) and then it immediately appears again in the edited version where I had shortened it (Friday, November 05, 2010 9:54:00 PM)

My apologies to the readers who might be wondering what happened.


Anthony SB Thanasayan said...

Dear Suraiya,

Thank you for alerting us on the blunder we made about putting in your comments twice.

We apologise. We have removed your edited version to allow for your full comments to get through.

You made some great points in your argument in the favour of what happened to the hapless woman.

We applaud you - as well as the many others who have written in.

Yours sincerely
Anthony SB Thanasayan

Spunky Jones said...

The fact remains, even if you make it a law, what makes you think the killing of dogs will stop?

If you've been to mainland China, they beat them on their heads with large sticks, then they boil them/or skin them to prepare them for lunch. Google, there are loads of videos. Are you going to fight for those dogs too? All I am saying is all of you are all talk.

Hundreds of dogs a day, if they don't eat them, that's also how they kill strays, with sticks. And mind you, not one blow, they hit it many times, breaking bones and putting in through pain first.

I'd love to you see make real changes.

Fact remains, nothing will happen.

Nobody in real power really cares that much about dogs.

Sure, call me inhumane or whatever term you activists use.

The scale of people killing and torturing dogs is well beyond your power.

sure, focus on one Spunk, but I assure you, someone is killing or torturing a dog somewhere in the world as you read this, maybe even more than 1.

Sleep on that.

Stop wasting your time with one dog and make real changes, if you can't then stop being self-righteous bigots.

Anthony SB Thanasayan said...

Thank you all for your brilliant views shared on the Blog.

I, for one, have learnt much from reading all your views.

The idea about shelters being built and run or supervised by a veterinarian is a very good one.

In fact, all local councils should have a vet employed in the Health Departments so that they can give proper advice and care when dealing with animals and livestock.

I think Suraiya as a devote Muslim brought out many common sense points about being kind and caring to human beings and animals in our planet.

I would also like to thank another reader who argued from point to point why the dog could not have attacked anyone from where it was.

Your comments about why dog-shooting is extremely dangerous to human beings was also extremely well put.

And Spunky Jones, may I commend you on your boldness in daring to be different to take on some of animal activists in this Blog.

Something must have happened to you to make you so angry with them - I don't deny it.

But also, please allow me to say that animal activists and rescuers may have their faults, but they are really incredible people.

Malaysia needs more people to become catalysts for change to help, as Ghandi pointed out, the lowest creatures of all - the dogs.

I end with a quick story of a boy who was trying to save hundreds of starfish on the beach by taking them and throwing them into the sea.

When pointed out by someone that his actions were futile, in that he couldn't possibly save them all, he replied with a twinkle in his eye: "I know I can't save them all; but to this one, it makes a difference." And he cast that one starfish into the sea.

I guess that's exactly what animal activists and rescuers and trying so desperately to do.

Happy Deepavali!

aNthoNy sb thaNasayaN

Sandy said...

This Spunky Jones fellow sure has lots of bottled up angst, talking about China and about the killings or torturing of dogs somewhere in the world. This version of Spunky Jones is a total turn around from the previous post. The latest Spunky Jones on the other hand, seems to be writing from an animal activist point of view. Very strange!

Putting all humanity issues aside, the real issue at hand now really is the action of shooting as a means to curb the stray problem and the repercussions that may come from it.

Do Malaysians have to wait until someone is accidently shot dead for dog shooting to finally stop?
There were many cases in the past where innocent bystanders were accidentally shot.

SASM has many valid points that makes a lot of sense. Stop shooting as a stray control method, adopt better techniques in order to catch these strays, employ better enforcement methods and educate the public. This will undoubtly take time but as they say Rome wasn't built in a day!


Anthony SB Thanasayan said...

Hi Sandy,

I think you really hit home the point when you said:

"Do Malaysians have to wait until someone is accidentally shot dead for dog-shooting to finally stop?"


Anonymous said...

My, my, my. Spunky Jones, you sure swing from one tangent to another. What exactly is your stand on this issue? Pick one and stick to it. Don’t yo-yo around because you won’t be taken seriously.

First you take on the issue of Spunk, and you accuse his owner and Pet Positive of lying about the circumstances under which the dog was killed. And you authoritatively expound your theories on what really happened as if you have a crystal ball into which you can look at the past, the present and the future. You want us to believe that you absolutely know everything about animal behaviour. Then you go on a no-holds-barred attack on the elderly and the disabled and warn those who speak up for animals, not to make fools of themselves on the internet. Fools? Indeed, you did a damn fine job of that yourself, so who are you to talk!

Now, in your second foray, you drag in the issue of the barbaric eating of dogs in China. Like we didn’t already know what happens there. And you delight in giving a graphic description of how it is done. Like we didn’t already know how it is done. If your intent was to shock and horrify us, perhaps into submissive silence, you don’t know who you are dealing with.

There are many animal activists in China, and around the world, who are already actively fighting for that putrid practice to stop. Maybe you should now train your guns on them for not living up to your standards.

You don’t need you to tell us what we already know; that we will not be able to put an absolute stop to animal cruelty. But we won’t stop trying. That's the difference between us - we believe. You just don't.

You challenge us to “…make real changes.” And you claim “Fact remains, nothing will happen”. Changes are being made, but you can't see that. You may like being a pessimist, but that’s your choice.

And you called us “self-righteous bigots” – take a chill pill Spunky boy, you really, really don’t know us. If you got out from under that heavy cloak of torment you wear with such ease, you might surprise yourself.

Suraiya – loves all animals and is not ashamed to say so.

Spunky Jones said...

I was merely creating a platform for intellectual discourse.

and I see the passion and I wish you all well.

I was curious, I never took animal activists seriously, because I never understood them, now I do and I thank you for taking your time and being very civilized despite my provocative comments.

I must, say I am impressed. You are all good people.

Anthony SB Thanasayan said...

Hi all, an anonymous writer has just written in to request that the matters that Spunky Jones raised be closed.


Thank you Spunky Jones for your comments - especially your gracious comments in the end to say animal lovers and activists are really good people.

We regard this topic closed.

Warm regards