(CN) Real Situation for Dogs

[Guest guest]

Dear John,

 

thanks for this clarification.

 

Here in Lanka we have much experience with government officials trying to cover

up facts and creating an image of Sri Lanka heading towards scietific and humane

dog-management.

 

I was therefore sceptical when I read about the Beijing mayor's statement when

it appeared on aapn a while ago and more inclined to believe your friend's

description of the real situation.

 

Padma

-

Dr John Wedderburn

aapn

Tuesday, October 31, 2006 2:46 PM

Re: FWD: (CN) Real Situation for Dogs

 

 

Dear Merritt,

 

Thank you for your incisive comments which, as usual, are very

helpful in stimulating debate and establishing the truth of

situations.

 

> There are several aspects of this anonymous message that I

> find problematic, not the least of which is that it appears to be

> from someone who speaks and writes English as a first language,

> not as a second language learned in adulthood.

The writer is Chinese and has mostly resided in Beijing but has spent

some time in the West.

 

> Anonymity can be a way to hide from censors, but it can also

> be a way to disseminate misinformation without accountability.

I have known the writer for many years and I can assure you she has

no intention of disseminating misinformation. Her opinion, like

anyone else's, could of course be wrong but I am certain that she is

describing accurately her assessment of the situation. Also, I have

received a number of private e-mails agreeing with her assessment.

 

> In the Internet era, tracing e-mails back to source is

> relatively easy for a technologically sophisticated police state

> that happens to have a monopoly on electronic communications.

Since I copied and pasted her letter there would be no electronic

trail - I don't think sophisticated technology would work, but

thumbscrews could do the trick.

 

> Therefore, anonymity does not protect this poster so much

> from repression as from questions.

I am sure she will be happy to answer your questions either through

me or by private e-mail to yourself.

 

> Such as, how does this person realy know any more than

> anyone else what the truth is?

She is certainly close to the situation and well-informed - but, as I

said above, she may of course be wrong.

 

> Are we to believe that the government propaganda machine

> includes not only all the journalists with state media, but also

> all of those with foreign media who are reporting similar things?

As you must know, there are strong pressures on any journalist who

wishes to continue to work in China.

 

> Are we to believe that there is a conspiracy afoot in China

> to cover up brutality by dogcatchers, when many of the major

> Chinese news media have published detailed exposes of same,

> with photographs, and have even published photos and

> accounts of citizens fighting back against the authorities on

> behalf of their dogs, without a hint of condemnation?

As you pointed out in an earlier e-mail, the publicity given to the

recent dog culls was very encouraging. But it could be that the

authorities have decided that they had allowed too much freedom and

the country's reputation was being damaaged.

 

> The reports, photos, etc. that have come my way from inside

> the Beijing shelters show facilities and activity that would

> compare well with most animal control centers in the U.S.

I find that difficult to believe unless the U.S. dog pounds are much

worse than I thought (maybe they are, I have never visited one!)

 

John.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Merritt,

 

Thank you for your incisive comments which, as usual, are very

helpful in stimulating debate and establishing the truth of

situations.

 

> There are several aspects of this anonymous message that I

> find problematic, not the least of which is that it appears to be

> from someone who speaks and writes English as a first language,

> not as a second language learned in adulthood.

The writer is Chinese and has mostly resided in Beijing but has spent

some time in the West.

 

> Anonymity can be a way to hide from censors, but it can also

> be a way to disseminate misinformation without accountability.

I have known the writer for many years and I can assure you she has

no intention of disseminating misinformation. Her opinion, like

anyone else's, could of course be wrong but I am certain that she is

describing accurately her assessment of the situation. Also, I have

received a number of private e-mails agreeing with her assessment.

 

> In the Internet era, tracing e-mails back to source is

> relatively easy for a technologically sophisticated police state

> that happens to have a monopoly on electronic communications.

Since I copied and pasted her letter there would be no electronic

trail - I don't think sophisticated technology would work, but

thumbscrews could do the trick.

 

> Therefore, anonymity does not protect this poster so much

> from repression as from questions.

I am sure she will be happy to answer your questions either through

me or by private e-mail to yourself.

 

> Such as, how does this person realy know any more than

> anyone else what the truth is?

She is certainly close to the situation and well-informed - but, as I

said above, she may of course be wrong.

 

> Are we to believe that the government propaganda machine

> includes not only all the journalists with state media, but also

> all of those with foreign media who are reporting similar things?

As you must know, there are strong pressures on any journalist who

wishes to continue to work in China.

 

> Are we to believe that there is a conspiracy afoot in China

> to cover up brutality by dogcatchers, when many of the major

> Chinese news media have published detailed exposes of same,

> with photographs, and have even published photos and

> accounts of citizens fighting back against the authorities on

> behalf of their dogs, without a hint of condemnation?

As you pointed out in an earlier e-mail, the publicity given to the

recent dog culls was very encouraging. But it could be that the

authorities have decided that they had allowed too much freedom and

the country's reputation was being damaaged.

 

> The reports, photos, etc. that have come my way from inside

> the Beijing shelters show facilities and activity that would

> compare well with most animal control centers in the U.S.

I find that difficult to believe unless the U.S. dog pounds are much

worse than I thought (maybe they are, I have never visited one!)

 

John.

[Guest guest]

The media in China is ordered not to publish anything on the

positive aspect of pet dog. Some reporters exaggerated the rabies

situation in Beijing, mixing the idea of the number of people who

went to the hospital for the rabies vaccination with the number of

rabies patients.

Actually according to the announcement of the Ministry of Health,

there were only 301 deaths all over China from rabies from Jan. to

Aug. this year. There was only one death in Beijing, in which the

patient was biten by a dog when she was in Henan province.

 

During the past years, the government never took any strict control on

the raise of big dogs although they were forbidden in the pet dog

regulation. The big dogs were bred, sold and advertised everywhere,

which actually encouraged the common people to buy a big dog as a pet.

Every year there was a period when the police check the dog license but

never strictly implemented. That's why more and more unlicensed dogs

appear. Now with the rabies problem and more complaints about dog

emerging, the government choosed the simplest way, that is, to get rid

of the dogs who have lived for several years with the tacit consent of

the authority.