＞ 翻訳はこちら

The situation in Taiwan, as in so many other cities governed by what they assume is the most “ethical” human position toward dogs, serves to show what happens when animal “rights” and animal “welfare” become hopelessly confused.

One of the most common arguments one hears in favour of human euthanasia policies is that medically speaking, we treat our fellow humans worse than we treat our pets. The euthanasiasts never fail to mention how humanely we regard our pets when they are old and sick, or in constant pain from incurable conditions. We let them go peacefully as a kindness. Why, they say, can we not do the same for human beings in misery? It is a human right to die at the time of our own choosing, they insist.

Obviously human beings can voice their wish to die, and dogs cannot, so it is assumed that this right to choose will never be abused (although as we know, it sometimes is). But the no-kill policy assumes that given their right to live, dogs would prefer to live even in conditions that are inhumane, miserable and cruel. Not in theory, of course, but numbers are implacable monsters. How could it be otherwise than abusive when a policy makes it inevitable that because *some* dogs cannot be euthanized, conditions will deteriorate to the point of inhumanity to *all*.

It is important to keep making the distinction between animal “welfare” and animal “rights.” Animals do not have any innate sense of what rights are. Rights are a human idea, and so animal rights are what human beings decide they are. The right of an animal to live out its natural lifespan under any and all circumstances has never until recently in human history been considered sacrosanct. As the stewards of the actual natural world and its inhabitants, we are obligated to regard animal suffering with compassion, and to optimize the living conditions of our animal companions. But compassion must be joined with reason and a sense of reality’s limitations.

It is reasonable to encourage and enforce insofar as possible animal sterilization. But when that method is insufficient, it is also reasonable to cull “herds” in which the healthy are suffering through overpopulation.

Feel free to share my thoughts. Best, Barbara