5 The Case of Taiwan’s Animal Protection Movement
5.2 On Cats and Dogs
國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
From the competing discourses surrounding animal population management rationales, to administrative and implementation obstacles, and pressing welfare concerns due to Taiwan’s recent implementation of a “no-kill” policy in shelters. These dynamics are examined in the following section.
5.2 On Cats and Dogs
The problem of stray animal populations in Taiwan has been in the public agenda for many years without major solution. The theatrical release of the movie “12 Nights” in 2013 renewed the debate on the treatment of domestic animals in Taiwan. The film documents the fate of dogs in shelters that do not get adopted, and ultimately having to be euthanized due to the lack of space and resources. The public pressure that followed gave momentum to stray animal advocacy efforts resulting into the adoption of a “no-kill” policy in the country (Clifton, 2015). Nevertheless, far from solving the issue of stray animals, this decision is highly problematic and raises further questions on the welfare and health of cats and dogs in already overcrowded shelters (White, 2016). Furthermore, it indicates the urgent need for system reforms at various levels: individual practices, pet industry regulations, and more effective public management and legislation. These are areas where the APM plays a leading role in advocating for improvement of standards, raising public awareness, and acting as representatives of animal interests.
5.2.1 Love/kindness versus welfare/rights.
The advent of pet keeping practices in Taiwan came about through the transformation of socio-natural relationships as a result of economic affluence under the country’s industrial miracle (Weller, 2006; Dotson and Hyatt, 2008: 458; Serpell, 2015: 19; Bradley and King, 2012; Peng et al., 2012: 355; Chang et al., 2013). However, the emergence of pet consumption patterns in the island led to a variety of issues. The relative newness of raising pets translated into the lack of
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
responsible ownership culture, leading to pet behavior problems, unmet expectations, and failure to neuter animals (Weng et al. 2006b; Hsu et al., 2003). These aspects in conjunction with the reasoning of giving their pets a second change to live, and a degree of cultural views against the neutering of male dogs, contributed to the endemic abandonment of cats and dogs on the streets, and the expansion of stray animal populations across the island (Hsu, Severinhaus and Serpell, 2003: 18; Weng et al. 2006b, 205).
From here, government efforts to address this problem have been in place since the 1980s, gradually incorporating animal welfare conditions, creating dedicated agencies, and designing mechanisms to manage this issue. At the national level, recent developments refer to the creation of the Animal Protection Division under the Council of Agriculture (COA) in 2010. As the central animal control and welfare agency, it maintains two national information platforms for shelters, adoptions, animal industries, and pet care information (Chung, 2014; COA, 2008a; COA, 2013;
COA, 2016a). At the local level, animal protection offices in major cities currently provide a wide variety of services. Among these, registration documents, pet care resources, sheltering and adoption, subsidies for de-sexing of animals, cremation services, and pet industry business information (TCAPO, 2015; KCAPO, 2015; TCAPHIO, 2015).
In regards to legislation, current provisions stipulate owner’s responsibilities, industry controls, and stray animal management (Weng et al., 2006a: 316; APA, 2015). The most recent 2015 amendment to the Animal Protection Law “included more detailed definitions on what the improper rearing of pet means and also put in a licensing requirement for exhibitions involving animals” (Appendix: B3). More relevantly, new regulations address pet’s bodily integrity. Owners cannot subject their pets to unnecessary surgery other than mandated neutering. Furthermore, it stops aesthetic oriented practices such as ear cropping, vocal cords modification, and tail cutting
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
(Ho, 2015). At the same, the law extends the mandate on pet registration, which has been in place since 1999, requiring microchip implantation (COA, 2016a). However, in spite of improvements across the government’s animal management apparatus, stray cats and dogs remain a key issue in the public agenda.
One aspect of the problem remains the lack of adequate knowledge of regulations and their poor enforcement. Although there is public awareness of the existence of the Animal Protection Act and of public shelters, there is still little proper understanding of pet ownership requirements, and low usage of shelter services (Weng et al. 2006a). For example, spite of registration requirements being in place for over a decade, only between 60 to 70 percent of pets are being registered (Chen, 2015, p. 3). Similarly, a significant amount of owners still neglect neutering their pets, which conversely add to the population problem (Appendix: B1).
5.2.2 The costs of being cute.
There are a number of reasons for the prevalence of these issues. To begin with, a closer look at the existing services and regulation mechanisms as listed by different Animal Protection Agencies suggests that public approaches are primarily market oriented, directed toward fostering pet consumption, and assumes a reasonable degree of responsible ownership which do not reflect reality (TCAPO, 2015; KCAPO, 2015; TCAPHIO, 2015). This is problematic on three accounts.
First, current pet consumption trends respond to marketable breeds. In spite of industry regulations, the profitability of pets and lacking enforcement of welfare standards usually lead to the existence of puppy mills where dogs are kept in confinement, in questionable conditions, and subject to constant breeding to meet market demand (TANews, 2014; TSPCA, 2015; Chen, 2015). Second, another less discussed but increasingly controversial aspect refers to the health and physical problems that arise from pedigree breeding practices. This is because although humans have bred
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
animals to meet various purposes across history, current breeding patters are centered on aesthetic value. Modern cute animal breeds come at the cost of genetic issues from inbreeding, leading to disease proneness and physical problems. In the worst cases, exaggerated features interfere with the animal’s normal functioning, suffering from breathing complications, poor sight, or limited movement throughout the length of the animal’s life (Madarelli, 2014). Last, according to Hsu, Severinhaus and Serpell (2003) a factor in the number of pets that remain unneutered can be related to the reluctance of veterinarians to offer or push for this service, in part because many “believe that the resulting reduction in the dog population will be bad for business” (Hsu, Severinhaus and Serpell (2003: 15). As a result, the failure to address pet consumption trends and the lack of proper government regulation not only leads to animal welfare and rights violations. On the one hand, unaware prospective owners purchase puppies that might bring them important financial and emotional burdens. On the other, stray animals remain roaming the streets or un-adopted in shelters.
The next reason refers to ineffective communication. As noted before, In spite of the existence of a considerably developed apparatus for domestic and stray animal management, the public remains significantly ignorant of the regulations and proper pet keeping practices. A major issue consists on the delivery of animal welfare and pet keeping information to the public. This was one of the points discussed during the Government Consultation Meeting held by the Taipei City Government with NGO representatives in December, 2016 (Appendix: D1). Among the issues brought up on this topic were the loopholes that exist in the communication channels between the public and government agencies. For example, calls through the 1999 service to report stray animal sightings or animal injury would not be forwarded to the right department, or operators were unsure of the procedures. In relation to this, the need to improve Public Service
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
Announcements (PSAs) and other approaches for the dissemination of information was also stressed (Appendix: D1). Particularly, the effective delivery of education material of regulations, pet keeping, the handling of rescued animals, and how to deal with animal corpses in order to find out the causes and ensure law enforcement. Another aspect of the need to improve the communication and information platforms under the current government refers to the public distrust around official policy. One NGO representative indicated that in some occasions, the organization had encountered individuals who after rescuing animals would refuse to contact the authorities due to fear of the animal being put down. Revealing that in spite of the implementation of “no-kill” in shelters and efforts to improve shelter standards, members of the public do not believe these changes have actually taken place, and the urgent need to address the image of government institutions (Appendix: D1). Overall, the tone of the meeting was positive, with officials showing willingness to address issues and further cooperate with NGOs. However, the major obstacle that emerged throughout the session and in particular on proposed projects by NGOs consisted on budget considerations. On this front, while government representatives expressed willingness to consider all proposals, they constantly stressed the need for obtaining exact budgets, as well as considering constrains that limited resources pose for the implementation of current policies (Appendix: D1). Finally, this later point brings attention to the role of NGOs in current animal protection governance.
5.2.3 Counter-institutions.
The institutions that arise from the APM take on a wide range of forms. Some organizations provide public services such as TNR, shelters, and adoptions. Others specialize in lobbying, pressuring for better welfare standards and rights for animals. More relevantly, those engaged in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
consultation aspects may also act as mediums between the public and the government, keeping checks on the ongoing developments, providing feedback, and representing animal interests.
Hence, NGOs have led legislative changes toward animal welfare, since as early as 1960, with the foundation of the Animal Protection Association (APA, 2013; Chung, 2014). Currently,
“there are over 100 registered animal organizations within Taiwan and there are also many private stray animal feeders and shelters around the country.” (Appendix: B3). Furthermore, bigger organizations such as APA and the TSPCA have an extensive platform, engaging in lobbying, social education, rescuing, and rehoming of domestic animals (APA, 2016, TSPCA, 2016).
Similarly, organizations such as the TAEA engage in local level consultation, and focus on social education aspects that are often ignored. For example, their campaign “Happy Dogs, Happy People” focuses on public and stray animal safety by educating people on how to approach and handle stray animals when encountered on the street (Appendix: B2, D1).
Most recently, in relation to the Zero Euthanasia policy coming into effect since February 2017, the TSPCA conducted a nationwide survey of public shelters during the course of five months in order to assess their readiness to carry out this new mandate. Their investigation revealed the disparity between shelter in regard to animal welfare standards with Pingtong County and Penghu Island not meeting the minimum shelter standard regulations set in place by the government (Appendix: B3). As a result, during the press conference unveiling their findings, the TSPCA along four legislators called for the Council of Agriculture to ensure the compliance of these shelters with required standards. Consequently, as TSPCA Director emphasizes:
“In regards to the no-kill policy, our main focus is to push for better welfare standards within shelters, requesting shelters to STOP taking in animals once a maximum capacity is reached, to implement fees for pet relinquishment at shelters, and to implement better strategies and educational programs to increase adoption rates” (Appendix: B3).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
From here, increased and more effective efforts to address the root causes of stray animal populations takes further precedence in the public agenda. In particular, the implementation of better source management, bringing about its share own of challenges.
5.2.4. From communicative action to policy imperatives.
In light of the ever pressing need to address the source of stray animal populations, present policy debates pertain to two issues the implementation of TNR programs, and the establishment of a linked household and pet registration system.
The first item brings attention to the outcomes of the 2014 ‘Stray Dog Management Policy Consensus Conference’ held by the COA. Here, a key development has been government implementation of pilot TNR programs on stray populations at the local level (Lin, 2014). As previously noted, NGOs have been promoting and carrying out this practice as a population management mechanism for some time now. From example, the National Taiwan University (NTU) based group, “The Eviction” (Táiwān huái shēng xiàng xìn dòngwù xiéhuì - 台灣懷生相 信動物協會) is a key advocacy actor of TNR in Taiwan (Yang, 2016; Appendix: D1). Active since 2007, it focuses on managing stray animal populations around greater Taipei, targeting populations in remote areas (Li, 2016). It also participates in government consultation activities, providing account of its experiences and further advice on good TNR practices (Appendix: D1).
Accordingly, the government’s incorporation of the TNR approach into its management efforts can be understood as an example of successful advocacy by civil society actors.
However, the institutionalization of TNR is also a matter of important debate. This is because this approach entails a resource and time consuming effort, requiring a considerable amount of manpower to be implemented successfully. This translates into budget considerations, and above all, brings attention to the questions of whose responsibility it should be to carry out
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
these programs. Some groups such as EAST do not agree with the implementation of TNR programs by the government, resulting in some contention between groups (Appendix: B1).
Furthermore, EAST Director argues:
“We suggest that for TNR, people can do it, that dogs or cats can be neutered or spayed, that is good to help. The government should spend its resources, its attention to the very origin, the root of the problems. The pet owners, the pet industry. To promote responsible pet ownership. However, if stray dogs become the burden of the government, then there is no real responsible ownership. So that’s why we don’t support that”
(Appendix: B1).
Consequently, the issue of making owners accountable for their pets directs attention to the second item in current policy debates. As previously noted, one of the requirements for domestic animals under the law consists on having pets registered and microchipped. Nevertheless, there is an important gap in the compliance to this law. A proposed solution here refers to the establishment of a system linking pet registration to the household registration database. This would facilitate better domestic and stray animal management by providing more exact pet population numbers, their location, mobility, and their vaccinations and neutering status. As the precursor of this concept, the Taipei City Government is currently conducting trials for its implementation. If successful, this system would greatly improve animal welfare and pet ownership accountability on various levels (Li, 2016; Appendix: B1). Nevertheless, although such certainly has the support of various animal advocacy groups, the prospects are challenging. On one hand, as demonstrated by the failure of a more recent pet survey effort in Nantou, owners do not understand the importance of accurate domestic animal statistics; they find cooperation with government efforts troublesome, resulting in underreporting. On the other hand, the public also worries about negative repercussions, such as increased fines, or taxes based on animal breeds if such a system takes off.
In addition, the implementation of such mechanisms will also require considerable resources, inter-departmental cooperation, and nationwide coverage to be effective (Li, 2016). Therefore, in
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a
tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
addition to the given budget constraints, the overall challenges to put this system in place are extensive. As a result, based on the brief discussion on this issue at Taipei City Government Consultation Meeting in December, 2016, there is still a long way before this plan can become a reality. In the meantime, public education, the formulation of better welfare guidelines, and their effective communication to all stakeholders becomes imperative as the best next step to coordinate the overall animal management apparatus (Appendix: D1).