No need to apologize for helping animals

June 14, 2008

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, June 2008:

Once upon a time at the earliest edge of recorded memory,

the earth shook, the sky caught fire, the sea rose, a tidal wave

swept away anything standing, and for forty days and forty nights a

torrential rain and wet ash covered everything left.

The myths of at least 35 ancient cultures representing every

inhabited continent and many remote islands recall that event, in at

least 175 different versions of the story, which appears to be among

the oldest, most ubiquitous, and still among the most popular of

all stories. Many peoples date their history from whatever happened.

The number of human survivors is said to have been anywhere from just

one pregnant woman to 30 scattered individuals --and their animals.

What exactly inspired the Great Flood myths, when the

catastrophe occurred, and where it occurred are all keenly debated.

The myths all seem to describe the same event, but may recount the

travails of several different people in widely separated parts of the

world.

Among them, though, the best-remembered was a man named

Noah, according to western monotheistic religious tradition, or

either a man or woman called Nu Wa according to versions found in

China. The name of this person varies considerably in other

traditions. In an Australian aboriginal version he was not a person

at all, but rather a pelican. All versions agree, however, that

this individual had some premonition of the impending disaster,

usually that he was warned by divinity. He or she prepared the ark,

a great chest, a canoe, a raft, a sealed jar, or a high mountain

cave just before the disaster hit.

From the Middle East to the Native Americans of the

Mississipi Delta, it is recalled that this fortuitously forewarned

individual saved, along with his own family, pairs of every kind of

land animal, or at least every animal useful to humans. Everyone

else drowned.

The accounts vary as to whether humanity deserved the deluge.

Yet there is no disagreement whatever that Noah, by any name, did

right in saving the animals, even at cost of the deaths of fellow

humans, who might have had their places on the ark. In no version

of the story, even those that do not attribute the Great Flood to a

divine effort to cleanse the world of human sin, did any deity

command that saving humans should be a higher priority than saving

the pairs of animals.

Despite the enduring popularity of the Noah legend, which is

recalled in the names of hundreds of humane societies worldwide,

some animal advocacy groups today seem embarrassed to have saving

animals as their mandate following disasters.

Proclaimed the spring/summer 2008 edition of RSPCA

International News, published by the Royal SPCA of Great Britain:

" We are often asked: Why does the RSPCA provide aid for animals

following a disaster; surely people should come first? We would

certainly agree with the second statement, but there are many

reasons why animal welfare organizations should act to complement the

work of governments and humanitarian organizations during times of

disaster.

" The role animals play can be divided into two parts--during

and after the disaster, " the RSPCA continued and qualified. " During

the disaster, people often put the welfare of their animals first

because they depend on them to ensure the welfare of their own

families. This can even extend to pet animals, as seen in the

Hurricane Katrina disaster when many people were reluctant to leave

their homes unless their pets were evacuated as well.

" After the disaster, animals play a key practical role

helping people rebuild their lives. They aid physical, economical

and emotional recovery. In our experience, people affected by

disasters are very grateful for any help that can be provided for

their animals. "

While the latter is most certainly true. omitted from the

RSPCA statement was any mention of animal victims of disasters being

deserving of compassion and consideration in their own right.

The RSPCA acknowledged the feelings of Hurricane Katrina and

other disaster victims about the importance of saving their animals,

but reduced this to a purely personal, self-interested, and

pragmatic equation. This overlooks that dozens and perhaps hundreds

of people in New Orleans and other communities flooded by Katrina,

who had never rescued animals before, took in as many as they could

collect--and so did human victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami,

slightly more than nine months earlier.

Indeed, one would have a difficult time finding any major

disaster, from avalanches to wars, in which human victims have not

responded generously to the suffering of animals completely unknown

to them, who shared their plight.

Afterward some of the spontaneous animals rescuers have

articulated various reasons for helping the animals, but others have

simply shrugged. They helped because help was needed, and they were

able to give it. No further pretext seemed necessary.

ANIMAL PEOPLE wondered what other international charities

involved in animal disaster relief might say, so circulated the

RSPCA statement for comment.

Responded Humane Society of the U.S. president Wayne Pacelle,

" In our modern society, the lives of people and animals are

entangled, and we know from first-hand experience that many people

will not leave a disaster area unless they know their animals

will also be provided safe passage. Any disaster response

that excludes animals, or treats them as a low priority, is doomed

to fail. "

In other words, animals must be rescued as part of helping people.

The lesson taught by a fish

The lives of people and animals were at least as intertwined

in the time of Noah as today. Some of the Great Flood stories

indicate that Noah rescued animals to serve human interests--but

others do not. The Noah figure was named Satyavrata in one of the

several Hindu versions. He had once rescued a fish. The fish

returned to reciprocate the favor in the time of crisis, emphasizing

the lesson that compassion for animals is never wasted.

Wrote World Society for the Protection of Animals director of

disaster management Philip Russell, also taking a line centered on

human need, " WSPA agrees in principle with the RSPCA that following

a disaster people should come first. That said, given that animals

are of critical importance to people, it follows that WSPA and other

animal welfare organisations engaged in disaster relief and risk

reduction activities compliment the work of humanitarian agencies.

That being the case, it is essential that the importance of animals

in disaster situations is formally accepted by governments,

international bodies, and the humanitarian community, with whom the

animal welfare movement should work more closely in the future.

" Governments rightly see humans as the most important element

in disaster management, " Russell elaborated. " In developing

countries, given scarce resources, animals are generally considered

a low priority for risk reduction and emergency response. However,

as a major international and global animal welfare organisation,

sitting as it does at the core of a worldwide alliance of 900 member

societies in some 150 countries, it is incumbent upon WSPA that it

champions the cause of protecting animals from suffering from the

impact of disasters on ethical welfare grounds alone. This pure

animal welfare need underpins all WSPA disaster management activity

even if, in order to focus the minds of stakeholders on the most

persuasive and relevant arguments, that need is sometimes unspoken. "

Russell also sent a prepared statement that WSPA distributes

in response to similar inquiries received from other directions.

" The answer to the question 'Why should we care about animals

during times of crisis?' is almost self-evident, given the extent to

which people depend on animals for food, for livelihood, and for

cultural and psychological reasons, " the prepared statement opened,

" as well as the duty of humans to protect the animals in our care.

WSPA works to protect animals through risk reduction and emergency

relief activities because animals matter in disasters as well as in

day-to-day life. "

The early mention of " animals for food " recurs in ensuing

paragraphs in a manner suggestive of a briefing from the livestock

industry. WSPA, for example, reminds that " the food animal

industry is a key contributor to a country's economic output, " and

asserts that, " At all levels, livestock forms the basis for

livelihood protection, poverty reduction and food security, " as if

crop production did not happen to be the basis for raising livestock,

and a much less costly and ecologically damaging means of feeding

people too.

" If animals are allowed to die from the impact of disaster,

there can be a massive and negative impact on the well-being of whole

nations and/or regional communities, " says WSPA. " The human/animal

bond means that there is an inherent duty and responsibility for the

owners of animals to care for their animals properly. While pet

owners are an obvious example of how this human/animal bond

manifests, livestock farmers also exhibit this in different ways and

to varying degrees...People suffer from psychological pain when their

animals are affected by disaster and they are unable to help them. "

After discussing how animal suffering due to disaster may

harm human interests, the WSPA statement mentions that, " WSPA is

working with its global animal welfare partners to secure a United

Nations Declaration on Animal Welfare, " to " secure recognition that

animals are sentient and therefore suffer, that their welfare needs

should be respected, and that animals should be protected by law. "

Yet this, coming closest to what donors and the public might

expect of an animal advocacy charity, is appended almost as an

afterthought.

Best Friends Animal Society cofounder Michael Mountain came

closest to articulating the perspective of ANIMAL PEOPLE.

" I'd say that it's not a question of what's first or second, "

Mountain said, " since neither is being done at the expense of the

other. The human relief organizations focus mainly on the humans,

and the animal-relief organizations focus mainly on the other

animals. The two complement each other. For example, after the

earthquake in Peru last year, Best Friends worked with local animal

organizations to start spay/neuter programs for animals in and around

affected towns and cities. There were health scares, including

rabies scares, and having the animal side of things being managed by

competent organizations who could help local veterinarians do their

job was a major assist to the local authorities. The mayor of one

city actually drove around the streets with a bullhorn encouraging

people to bring in their pets for spay/neuter and health checks.

" It is not simply in relation to disaster relief that this

question arises, " Mountain added. " There will always be a few

people complaining that animal charities should be helping people

instead of animals. Our experience has been that such people are

invariably doing absolutely nothing themselves to help anything or

anyone. "

Noah, or whatever the person's name, had a mission to save

animals, and proceeded despite naysayers and scoffers. Noah's

critics not only drowned, but in many versions of the story,

deserved their fate.

--

Merritt Clifton

Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE

P.O. Box 960

Clinton, WA 98236

Telephone: 360-579-2505

Fax: 360-579-2575

E-mail: anmlpepl

Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org

[ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing

original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide,

founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the

decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations.

We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year;

for free sample, send address.]

June 15, 2008

I think Michael Mountain of Best Friends has put is most beautifully when he

said that there is no question of what comes first - people or animals - and

that each complements the other.

To almost every single person in the animal welfare movement, it is not a

question of " people or animals " and has always been " people and animals " .

We certainly do not apologise for helping animals.

S. Chinny Krishna

aapn [aapn ]On Behalf Of

Merritt Clifton

Saturday, June 14, 2008 3:06 PM

aapn