Aiding accident animal victims – what if it attacks?

There’s a lot of talk from Animal Rights groups that in an event of an accident, the driver should stop and render aid even if the injured is an animal. In fact, the law also states that.

However, the law although explicit about helping animals, by definition within that law itself, does not include cats. So the SPCA would like to have the law to include cats too.

That sounds OK. But what struck me is that while Animal Rights and Welfare Groups give a whole load of advice on what is to be done when someone knocks down an animal, it pays zero attention to the fact that the injured animal may turn aggressive and attack the aider. No advice is given to handle that situation.

Yeah, talking about how these groups are more concerned about animals than humans!

In the meantime, here’s the article from ST reporting that SPCA would like to see that the law includes cats. The “simisai animal also must be included” recommendation….

Cats, other mammals neglected under Road Traffic Act

Cast a wider net of protection for animals under the Road Traffic Act, animal welfare groups are urging. The law states that any motorist involved in an accident where a person or an animal is injured must stop to help the victim.

However, as now defined, an animal is any horse, cattle, ass, mule, sheep, pig, goat or dog. This leaves out many others, such as cats.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has approached the Law Ministry about reworking the legislation, said its executive director Corinne Fong.

I don’t have a problem with that. After all, if we exclude other animals like cats, cat lovers will scream discrimination.

Where I have a problem is the advice given by these groups. They talk and give advice so much, but with all the minute details left out, it puts drivers who do knock animals down in a more confused and perplexed state as what really he/she should do. Continued below.

HELPING INJURED ANIMALS
WILD ANIMALS

Call the Acres Wildlife Rescue Hotline for advice on 9783-7782. It operates 24 hours.

Fine. Clear and concise. No problem doing that.

Do not pick animals up with your hands, even if you are wearing gloves.

If the animal is severely injured or immobile, place a container over it, slide the lid or a thin board underneath, gently turn the container so the animal ends up at the bottom, then cap it.

But, but… what if injured wild animal attacks? Can I sue Acres for giving ill-advice?

Furthermore that advice is practical for only small animals like say an anteater. Or a squirrel. What if it is a larger animal like a wild boar?

Make sure that there are breathing holes.

To treat for mild shock, keep the animal warm, quiet, and in a dark container.

How does one recognise shock in animals? How does one treat shock? What good is that advice for someone who is not medically trained?

OTHER ANIMALS

Call the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals on 6287-5355. It operates 24 hours.

Place a distress cone or triangle to cordon off the space.

Check if the animal is moving or breathing. If it is still conscious or breathing, prepare to move it to the side of the road.

So far, no problem with that advice.

Use a strip of cloth to wrap the muzzle tightly and tie it behind its neck, to prevent the animal from snapping defensively.

Now this really makes no sense at all. You want the driver to muzzle the animal so that it won’t attack? How is that driver going to do it, knowing that most people are not trained to handle animals?

In other words, what good is such advice when it is not practically sound?

Use a piece of cardboard and slide it under the animal.

Avoid carrying the animal as the spine or bones may be fractured, but use the cardboard to slide the animal safely to the side of the road.

All said and done, note that there’s a helluva lot of advice on how to lessen the pain of the animal while rendering aid to it.

No advice on what precautions the driver must take in order to be safe from attack from the injured animal while rendering aid.

Now, why do I feel that some Animal Rights groups are Human haters?

Shouldn’t it be humans first, animals second?

Before I start, let me make my stand clear. I do love animals and nature. But between humans and animals, humans come first.

I was brought up in an environment where I had the chance to be close to nature. Animals included. I learned to love animals, domesticated, stray or wild. It also led me to learn more about animals. It therefore makes me wonder if today’s “animal lovers” who have been brought up in urban environment, who don’t even know what animals’ needs are, know what they are talking about, when it comes to Animal Rights or Welfare.

One of points I contested in this blog is the call to release dolphins into the wild because “dolphins need space”. Little do these lobbyists know why dolphins need space in the first place. I discussed that here – Food, strongest bond between Man and Animal; Territory, the most contentious

In this post, I would like to look at three instances where it has come to a point that some sections of society put animals so high up the hierarchy, humans are left second to them. Here is the first incident.

Case 1 – One cat’s and many rats’ lives are more important than many people’s health

Ban on glue board urged after cat death

SINGAPORE: The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA) has called for an “immediate ban” on glue board traps used by pest control companies.

This comes after it found a cat stuck on such a trap.

SPCA posted on Facebook a photo of a dead cat which was extricated from the glue board.

The board had been placed by a pest control company hired by the Jurong Town Council to trap rats.

SPCA said the case was reported last Friday and by the time the cat was brought in, it was in “deep distress and panting heavily”.

The cat was eventually put down to prevent further suffering.

SPCA has written to the Agri-Food & Veterinary Authority (AVA) to request for an immediate ban on the traps.

It is also calling for action to be taken against the parties responsible.

SPCA executive director Corinne Fong said: “The animals, when they get trapped on these traps – as the case with this cat – they die a slow and very painful death, so we are urging the authorities to ban the use of these products.”

SPCA said it has contacted both the town council and pest control company.

Of course it was a cruel way for the cat (the unintended victim) to die that way. It was meant for the rats. But that too, SPCA says it is a cruel way to get rid of rats.

This is the first time a cat was killed. The glue trap has all along done its job perfectly – catching rats. And that’s what SPCA has been grumbling about long before this cat incident, because it feels that itself is cruel to the rats.

Let’s face this fact. Rats are not just pests. They spread diseases. Rats breed fast. In fact, in many HDB estates, they breed faster than the pest control companies can get rid of them. If not for the glue traps, which is one effective way, what other methods do we have to stem the rat population?

Has the SPCA come up with any other alternatives that is just as effective? Or is SPCA just saying that the kind treatment of animals is so important, human health is secondary?

Case 2 – Doggone it, if you hit a canine and run

This is about animals involved in road accidents.

Dog’s death: SPCA gets Remy Ong’s statement

Animal rights group says it will work with Traffic Police on case

Animal welfare group SPCA has obtained a statement from national bowler Remy Ong over an alleged hit-and-run incident he was involved in outside the Safra National Service Resort and Country Club on Sunday.

His black Porsche Boxster was said to have hit a stray dog shortly before 1pm along Changi Coast Road.

‘We have the authority to take statements… and obtained Mr Ong’s this morning,’ said the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals’ executive director Corinne Fong. As part of its role as an animal welfare group, SPCA also looks into animal cruelty complaints and would obtain statements in such cases to facilitate investigations.

‘I’m unable to share contents (of the statement) as it may jeopardise Traffic Police investigations,’ she added, noting that the SPCA would work with the Traffic Police in this matter.

Little known to many motorists is that you are to stop and render assistance to an accident victim, even if the victim is an animal. But there lies the problem. If the victim were human, call 995. What if the victim is an animal? Mouth to mouth resuscitation? Call the ambulance? You mean there’s an animal ambulance?

The SPCA again is ever so eager to get involved in this, helping the Police. Small wonder why. If you read the full article (you need to be an ST Online subscriber), you will note that SPCA recommends that the person who knocks the animal down takes the victim to a vet.

Well, if these Animal Rights groups love animals that much, how about putting their money where their mouth is? How about raising and/or spending money to have animal ambulances, trained animal first aiders and what not, so that when an animal does get knock down, there is a number to call for aid during that emergency?

Case 3 – A few shark species endangered and its licence to persecute anyone who kills any shark

No sense in shark’s fin ban: Marine life experts

It may be politically incorrect, but three marine life experts said at a forum on Thursday that it makes no sense to ban the sale of shark’s fin.

But a fourth expert stood his ground, insisting a temporary ban on shark’s fin and meat would reduce the killing.

Yes, that’s right. “Politically correct” here refers to the societal acceptance, but not supported with scientific fact, that the craving for shark’s fins is damaging both the ecosystem and the shark population.

Only a few species of sharks are endangered. If these campaigners against shark’s fin are so adamant, how about producing data to show which species are the ones endangered, instead of having a blanket statement such that those who want to eat shark’s fin have to give up their favourite dish?

I am no shark’s fin lover. Neither am I a shark lover. So I have no vested interest on either side. My point is that if lobbyists want to convince the public that shark’s fin should be banned, they have to come up with hard data and not just blanket statements and talk.

Shark’s fin is a delicacy. It is also a means of livelihood for many in the trade. Are these shark huggers not worrying about an unproven theory, that eating shark’s fins would cause extinction of sharks, more than the livelihood of many people?

Final Word

Being raised close to nature allowed me to love animals and nature. What makes me shake my head is that today’s so called animal lovers, who mostly have not had the chance to live in the rural areas to be close to nature, think they know animals so much, they have to love these beings more than they think of human needs.

To me, I take this stand. Love animals and nature all you want. But the line is crossed when that love for animals precedes love for humankind.

Shouldn’t it always has to be humans first, animals second? Let’s get our priorities right.

Food, strongest bond between Man and Animal; Territory, the most contentious

I have written how appalled I have been, upon observing how some Animal Rights Activists behave. That includes the boorish behaviour of ACRES and the violent acts of the Sea Shepherd. What many readers may not know is that I was born in the 60s, where contact with strays (cats and dogs), and with the “unwelcome guests” (usually snakes) during that period was inevitable.

At the same time, I had the chance to wander (usually alone) in the Nature Reserves to come up close with wild monkeys and birds. It was from here that I managed to observe, learn and appreciate the behaviour of animals, both wild and domesticated.

My Experience with Animals -

First, a clarification. I am not the typical “crazy” Animal Lover, ie I don’t go bonkers over animals and fight for their rights at the expense of humans. It is that I just appreciate them as they are. To me, I put human needs first, animals second. OK, now that’s cleared, let’s continue.

I have been in contact with stray cats and dogs for so long during my younger days that even till today, when a stray comes up to me, I know what that stray is thinking, just like I know that it knows what I am thinking. Have you noticed they (cats especially) are able to differentiate between people who love them and those who abhor them?

Notice that if you are a cat lover, the stray cat automatically comes up to you (without even you doing anything) and tries to slide its body against your leg? And if you are a cat hater, have you noticed that same stray cat will run miles away from you? That’s cat instinct.

The strongest bond between Man and Animal (it doesn’t matter if the animal is domesticated, wild, in captivity or not) is FOOD. This is something some Animal Rights groups like ACRES don’t seem to understand. The animal knows who feeds it and the more consistently you feed it, the more trust it has in you.

That said, animals are very territorial. This is true even with domesticated animals. If it senses competition, it will attack its competitor. There is a “first come first served” unwritten rule in the territorial Animal World. The only way to gain that territory from the “first owner” is through a fight – usually a bloody one. I meant that literally and not as a swear word.

Interest in Animal Welfare grows because of contact with aninals -

I find it ironical that ACRES purports to fight for Animal Rights, when they don’t even know the very basic needs of animals, or how they respond to humans. For that matter, how humans respond to animals.

The way to get people to appreciate animals is to get people (usually children because they have no baggage to carry against animals) to be in direct contact with them. It is for this reason I feel that Resort World, for all the claims ACRES makes, is making a step in the right direction.

Dolphins in RWS to play integral role in conservation awareness

SINGAPORE: The dolphins at the heart of the controversy surrounding Resorts World Sentosa’s Marine Life Park (MLP) will play an important role in educating the public on conservation, said the park’s vice-president Peter Doyle.

The MLP, which opens next year, will be home to 25 dolphins. Their captivity has been the subject of controversy in recent months.

Mr Doyle said conservation begins with education, and the dolphins are an integral part of the process.

He announced an initiative under which students in Singapore will get a hands-on experience with marine life at the MLP.

Many will take those words with a pinch of salt, knowing that RWS has vested interests. Let’s put that aside. Let’s talk about how contact with animals get people at a young age to appreciate animals.

In order to get the young (or anyone) interested in Animal Welfare, the most important thing is to get them “immersed” with “animal culture”. This means you need to understand the needs of animals and why they behave the way they behave. What better way than direct contact, like what RWS is doing?

Today, with highrise buildings, many domesticated animals are artificially trained to behave in tight, confined spaces. That to me is worse than the dolphins who are handled by trained professionals who know the needs of the dolphins. Hence, I find it ironic that ACRES is barking up the wrong tree, when they say that penning animals up is “torture”.

Food – the basic need of all living things -

No food, no life. Simple as that. That’s why food is the strongest bond between Man and Animal. You can say what you like about the dolphins being penned up. But you cannot deny that the bond established between trainer and animal via food is so strong, the animal knows who its feeder is. This is true for many animals and not just dolphins.

In the wild, Territory decides how much food you have -

Makes sense, doesn’t it? If you have a large territory, your food supply is more. It doesn’t matter if you are a herbivore or carnivore. If you have less territory, your food supply is less. Hence, the fight for territory among animals is so important, it sometimes is the factor that decides wether you (and your pack, herd, pride etc) live or not.

This territorial instinct is about universal for many animals – domesticated ones included. Hence, many ignorant pet owners are mistaken that an “older pet” being hostile to a newer pet is due to “envy”. Maybe so. But deep down inside, that behaviour is partly instinctive.

Ditching and dishing the “penning up” argument -

ACRES have got it all wrong when it uses the “penning up” of dolphins argument to have them released. Their argument is that dolphins swim for kilometres and kilometres in the wild, and hence, penning them up in water parks is “torture”.

What these uninformed animal lovers wannabe don’t understand is why wild animals need such huge space in the first place. They need it because of food. More space, more territory, more food. Simple as that. An animal that has food aplenty will hence see “space” as a “bonus”. Space wandering becomes a “leisure” rather than a need.

Looking at how territory is preserved -

To understand how animals see territory, let us look at how a pride of lions function as a unit. The title “King of the Jungle” bestowed upon the Male Lion is a misnomer for two very distinct reasons. Firstly, lions don’t live in jungles. They live in the open savanna. Secondly, the male lion doesn’t hunt. The females do. What king?

But don’t be mistaken. The male lion is not a lazy lion. It is just that its mane is so distinct, it makes hunting impossible. The prey will be able to spot a male lion a mile a away. So it is the females that hunt.

So what does the male lion do? It guards territory. Again remember, bigger territory, bigger hunting ground, more food. Smaller territory, smaller hunting ground, less food.

The male lion has not only to guard territory against other pride of lions trespassing, it also has to guard against other animals interfering with the females’ hunt. Hence, hyenas that also hunt for the same game on the same ground is seen by lions as a pest, if not a competitor. There are cases where lions have attacked and killed hyenas not for food, but for trespassing into their territory. That’s how territorial animals are.

Back to the “penning up” argument by ACRES -

It seems to me that the volunteers of ACRES are so amateurish in their arguments. All they can say is that the dolphins are suffering because of being penned up. But do they know why animals need large space in the first place?

Rather than mouthing and mimicking what other groups are saying that the dolphins are suffering, shouldn’t ACRES members take the trouble to find out what makes animals tick?

Food is the strongest bond between Man and Animal. At theme parks, food the bond, is ever present all the time. That cements the relationship between trainers and dolphins.

As for the point of “penned up”, it is all about territory. Animals see their territory threatened when they sense their food/water supply in that territory diminishes. A large water hole that is enough to quench the thirst of a herd of elephants and pride of lions at the same time will see no bloodshed. But as the waterhole dries up, so does their tolerance for each other.

This territorial instinct is so basic that sometimes, hikers who accidentally trespass on animal territory will also get attacked in the wild. Not that these animals want humans for food. We are not part of their food chain.

ACRES’ lack of understanding about space for animals certainly is baffling.

My Final Words -

It was from my direct contact with animals when I was young that made me interested in how animals behave. Long before the existence of internet, I had to depend on books, magazines and documentaries on animals on TV or cinemas. Most of what I have discovered about animals took place decades ago, hence there’s no internet links that I give you.

My final point to Animal Rights wannabe is that you should at least make an effort to have a direct contact with animals to appreciate them, learn more about them, before simply mouthing what others have been mouthing without substance.

And what better way to be in contact with such wild animals than in zoos, safaris and theme parks, the very institutions that “pen up” these animals?