From Street Dweller to Family Member: The Dynamic Relationship between People, and Cats and Dogs in Thailand Megan McCarthy BA (Hons), MPhil
A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at Monash University in 2017 School of Social Sciences
i
Copyright notice
© Megan McCarthy (2017) I certify that I have made all reasonable efforts to secure copyright permissions for third-party content included in this thesis and have not knowingly added copyright content to my work without the owner's permission.
ii
ABSTRACT People’s interactions and relationships with cats and dogs exist in virtually all societies, however, attitudes and behaviours towards animal use and ownership differ significantly within and between individuals and groups, illustrating the complex and often contradictory relationships humans have with animals. In many countries, people have regular contact with cats and dogs both in the home and on the streets. These interactions can have significant impacts on animal welfare, management and human health, especially in urban environments. This thesis is an ethnographic study exploring the relationships people have with cats and dogs in Thailand. With a focus on Bangkok, I aim to better understand the meaning of these relationships through an exploration of the cultural and social factors that influence human interactions with cats and dogs, including how people define responsibility and care towards these animals.
Drawing on data collected from participant observation and in-depth interviews supported by documentary research I capture the context of a rapidly developing global city with rising numbers of cats and dogs being considered part of the family, a significant free-roaming cat and dog population, and a growing awareness of international discourses on animal rights and welfare. I focus on the perspectives of people working closely with these animals, including veterinarians and animal advocacy workers. In Thailand, older cultural meanings of animals are now interwoven with global narratives of pet keeping, and animal welfare and rights. The meanings embedded within these animals together with notions of responsibility, freedom and suffering influence the management of cats and dogs in Thailand, impacting the palatability of strategies such as sterilisation, euthanasia, and sheltering. I examine how these factors influence ethical questions that arise from daily interactions with cats and dogs at home and in the community. I demonstrate that attitudes towards, and our interactions with, animals are context bound and culturally informed. This study contributes to the growing area of scholarship on human-animal interactions, and is the first indepth study investigating the cultural and social factors that influence relationships with cats and dogs in Thailand.
iii
DECLARATION
This thesis contains no material which has been accepted for the award of any other degree or diploma at any university or equivalent institution and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, this thesis contains no material previously published or written by another person, except where due reference is made in the text of the thesis.
Signature:
Print Name: Megan McCarthy
Date: 1 March 2017
iv
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply indebted to many people who have assisted me throughout my PhD journey. This process and the opportunities I’ve had along the way would not have been possible without the financial support of a Faculty Postgraduate Research Scholarship from the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, and two travel grants from Monash University. I was particularly fortunate to have been awarded a Thai Studies Field Research Grant in 2012 that enabled me to extend my fieldwork in Thailand. I am thankful to my initial supervisors Professor Graeme Coleman and Dr Samia Toukhsati who guided me through the early stages of this project. To the supervisors who saw me through the fieldwork and writing up of this thesis, Professors Lenore Manderson and Andrea Whittaker thank you for taking on me and this project. I am forever grateful for the time, guidance, enthusiasm and encouragement you have shown me. Your combined experience and knowledge have made an incredible contribution, and your continued support has enabled the completion of this thesis. There are many people in Thailand who assisted me at different times throughout the project. Thank you to Associate Professor Sumolya Kanchanapangka at Chulalongkorn University who provided me with assistance when I first arrived and helped me make important contacts. I am especially grateful to Dr Chutamas Benjanirut who took an interest in my project and provided me with invaluable advice and guidance. Thank you to Dr Kaywalee Chatdarong, Dr Jutamart Juttuchai, Dr. Pranee Panichabhongse, Jena Yongpradoem, Shunyanut Vithvarprakorn, and Pimvimol Chairuangwit for their assistance during my fieldwork and interest in the project. Ajchara Jinapant offered invaluable assistance with interviewing and translation for which I am enormously grateful. Thank you to Dr Natasha Lee and Amy Baron for offering encouragement and important insights about animal welfare. A special thank you goes to all the people in animal advocacy in Thailand who
v
welcomed me into their facilities and openly talked to me about their work. Without these people this thesis would not have been possible. I would like to acknowledge the animals I encountered during my research; their lives and stories are at the heart of this thesis. I have been fortunate to have friends support and encourage me along the way. I particularly want to thank Ella Dilkes-Frayne, Asam Naghavi, Mutsumi Karasaki, Briallen Lim-Klumpes, Jane DeGabriel and Nyssa Waraker. To Dr Bailey Bosch, thank you for keeping me motivated and organized. To Dr Mel Taylor your patience, interest and encouragement is greatly appreciated. My family have offered incredible support to enable me to finish this project. Thanks to Ling Ng for giving up her valuable holidays to assist me in Thailand whilst I struggled with morning sickness in the final months of my fieldwork. I am grateful to Siriluk and Weerayuth Sithsakonkul who welcomed me into their home in Bangkok and looked after me when I needed help. Thanks to the feline member of my own household, Eric, who continually challenges my notions of what it is to be a responsible pet owner. Thank you to my parents, Nerida and Stewart McCarthy, for their steadfast support and encouragement. Nerida, in particular, has provided invaluable practical support over the last four years. Special thanks to my grandmother who has always followed by progress with interest. My final thankyou is reserved for my partner, Ben Ng. During the time of writing this thesis our lives have changed immeasurably. You and Alexandra have lived with me though the highs and lows, and offered me the space and time I needed – often on evenings and weekends – to complete this thesis. Thank you for your precious encouragement and unwavering believe in my abilities.
vi
ACRONYMS AND KEY TERMS ACPA – Asia Canine Protection Alliance APEC – Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation ABC – Animal Birth Control AUD – Australian dollar Baht – currency of Thailand BE – Buddhist Era BMA – Bangkok Metropolitan Administration CNVR – Capture, Neuter, Vaccinate and Return ICAM – International Companion Animal Management Coalition NGO – Non-Government Organisation OIE – World Organisation for Animal Health PAWS – Pet Animal Welfare Society PEP – Post-exposure prophylaxis QSMI – Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute RSPCA – Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals SCAD – Soi Cats and Dogs (organisation) Soi – Thai word for street TSPCA – Thai Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals UK – United Kingdom USA – United States of America
vii
USD – United States dollar Vet – veterinarian VPAT – Veterinary Practitioners Association of Thailand WHO – World Health Organization WSAVA – World Small Animal Veterinary Association WSPA – World Society for the Protection of Animals (now known as World Animal Protection)
viii
NOTE ON THE TRANSCRIPTION SYSTEM Transcription of the Thai words used throughout this thesis follows the Royal Thai General System of Transcription (Appendix V). Under this system, tones and long vowels are not indicated. Exceptions include place names, personal names and authors’ names where the transcription follows what is customarily used. In the reference list, Thai authors are listed alphabetically per their last names.
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 Introduction......................................................................................... 1 Thesis aims and objectives .................................................................................. 2 Background: cats and dogs in Thailand .............................................................. 4 What is a pet? ...................................................................................................... 9 Animal welfare and rights ................................................................................. 14 Factors influencing our relationships with cats and dogs ................................. 22 Chapter outlines................................................................................................. 29 Chapter 2 Research Methods............................................................................. 32 The Location ..................................................................................................... 34 Fieldwork .......................................................................................................... 36 Data analysis ..................................................................................................... 46 Reflections on methodology.............................................................................. 47 Chapter 3 People, cats and dogs in Thailand ................................................... 49 Historical Context of Cat and Dog Ownership ................................................. 54 Symbolism, meaning and animals in Thailand ................................................. 56 Status and the market for pets ........................................................................... 60 Chapter 4 Notions of responsibility and pet ownership in Thailand ............. 71 Caring for cats and dogs in Bangkok ................................................................ 72 Animal management, welfare and rights........................................................... 76 Veterinarians and animal advocacy................................................................... 80 What does it mean to be a responsible pet owner? ........................................... 85 Responsible Pet Ownership: a dynamic concept............................................... 98 Chapter 5 Dealing with disease: rabies ........................................................... 100 Benefits and risks of interacting with cats and dogs ....................................... 100 Cat and dog health in Bangkok ....................................................................... 102 Managing rabies .............................................................................................. 106 Rabies in Thailand ........................................................................................... 110 Dog management............................................................................................. 112 Chapter 6 End of life: performing euthanasia ............................................... 124 x
Euthanasia and animal welfare ........................................................................ 126 The responsibility of enacting death ............................................................... 130 Life quality ...................................................................................................... 135 Chapter 7 Shelters, Temples and Homes: rehousing street dogs ................. 138 Pets ‘out of place’ ............................................................................................ 140 Alternative spaces to the street ........................................................................ 142 The adoption process ....................................................................................... 149 Dog biographies .............................................................................................. 150 Preparing for home life.................................................................................... 153 Adoption case studies ...................................................................................... 162 Thailand: the wrong kind of home .................................................................. 167 Chapter 8 Animal activism: the dog meat trade ............................................ 171 Consuming dogs in Thailand ........................................................................... 172 Eating dogs: animal rights and wrongs ........................................................... 176 Eating dogs in China and Vietnam: economics and social meaning ............... 178 Cross border trade ........................................................................................... 182 The work of animal advocacy ......................................................................... 187 Increasing trade ............................................................................................... 195 Chapter 9 Conclusions ...................................................................................... 197 Classifying cats and dogs ................................................................................ 197 Dynamic relationships ..................................................................................... 201 Further research and limitations ...................................................................... 204 References .......................................................................................................... 207 Appendices ......................................................................................................... 236 Appendix I: Information and consent forms – English ................................... 236 Appendix II: Information and consent forms – Thai ....................................... 239 Appendix III: Interview guide for veterinarians – English ............................. 243 Appendix IV: Interview guide for veterinarians – Thai .................................. 245 Appendix V: Transcription table ..................................................................... 248
xi
LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Soi dog lazing on a busy Bangkok street ................................................ 7 Figure 2: Map of Thailand. ................................................................................... 35 Figure 3: Cats ready for sterilisation at PAWS Bangkok. .................................... 38 Figure 4: Johnny the cat dressed in military uniform. .......................................... 49 Figure 5: His Majesty the King of Thailand's New Year card 2012. .................... 58 Figure 6: Designated dog toilet area at K-Village. ............................................... 61 Figure 7: Cesar dog food advertisement at a Bangkok sky train station. ............. 65 Figure 8: Kittens available for free at the Thailand Cat Show 2012. ................... 74 Figure 9: Veterinary students prepare an owned cat for a rabies vaccination during a house visit on a weekend field trip in Chonburi province. ................... 115 Figure 10: Thai and English language rabies education posters featuring Jood (Spot) in the final frame. ..................................................................................... 118 Figure 11: Sweetie Pie in her cage at PAWS Bangkok. ..................................... 128 Figure 12: Cat next to a spirit house at a Buddhist temple in Chiang Mai. ........ 142 Figure 13: One of the rooms in the cat facility at Soi Dog Foundation in Phuket. ............................................................................................................................. 150 Figure 14: Map of central and northeast Thailand. ............................................. 173 Figure 15: Dog protesters at the rally opposing the dog meat trade in Bangkok on September 4 2011. .............................................................................................. 189 Figure 16: Dog protesters at the rally opposing the dog meat trade in Bangkok on September 4 2011. .............................................................................................. 189 Figure 17: Meerkats available for sale at the Pet Expo Thailand 2015. ............. 203
LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Cost and time involved in undertaking an international dog adoption through Soi Dog Foundation.
160
xii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION My interest in people’s relationships with cats and dogs in Thailand began when I spent two years living in Bangkok in 2009-2010. During that time I became aware of the significant number of cats and dogs living on the street, often in poor condition, with signs of disease and injuries. Yet, what was also apparent was the number of free-roaming animals who were being cared for by community members. While some people may have seen these animals as a nuisance or they may have treated them with simple indifference, others went out of their way to provide some form of care. Within my own apartment building there was a young female cat living on the grounds. She arrived one day with one of the security guards, and continued to stay after he left for another job. Many occupants left food for her, and one person used to take the cat to her apartment once a month or so and give her a bath. She was essentially free to go where she wished although she seemed to keep within the apartment complex grounds. As security guards came and went, the next guards seemed to accept that she belonged there; they would buy her food from a nearby food stall and she would often be found keeping them company at the front gate. My husband and I would also leave her store bought tinned and dried food, which the guards generally viewed with puzzlement as they explained to us that she was a Thai cat and so preferred tuna, chicken and rice. Indeed, she was a fortunate street cat, but my own interactions with the cat and the people who cared for her challenged many of the notions I held regarding what it means to keep a pet ‘responsibly’, and how ‘ownership’ of animals is a fluid concept in different contexts.
In addition, I noticed that cats and dogs were increasingly being cared for as ‘pets’ as understood in countries such as Australia, the United States and United Kingdom. I regularly walked past a shoe store that was home to two Chihuahuas and a cat. These animals did not leave the protective air-conditioned confines of their owner’s shop and spent much of their time watching people (and presumably other cats and dogs) go by through the glass shop front window. I noticed too an increasing number of small animal veterinary practices in the city, pet stores offering expensive packaged food and supplies, and dog grooming 1
salons. Cats and dogs seemed to inhabit much of the city, but there were often clear disparities in the type of care afforded by humans and the level of freedom the animals received depending on their status as ‘pet’ or ‘stray’.
People own and interact with cats and dogs for many reasons. These relationships are complex, frequently contradictory, and may define animals as productive assets, a food source, entertainment, having cultural value, providing social standing, or providing assistance or acting as a companion. These categories are fluid and sometimes overlapping such that a single species may have a multitude of meanings to different members of a given community, within a household, or even to one person. For example, a cat owner may lavish attention on their cat and consider it a member of the family; another owner may maltreat and neglect theirs. As Arluke and Sanders (1996, p. 4) state when examining human attitudes towards animals, “one of the most glaring consistencies is inconsistency.”
Social and cultural factors influence human animal relationships. The ambivalent and ambiguous ways humans perceive and treat animals occur both within and between communities. The last century has seen considerable changes in humananimal interactions and relationships. For example, the divide between humans and animals used for food production has grown significantly as intensive farming practices have been developed to meet the growing demand for food in much of the world. At the same time, it seems that our relationship with the animals we keep as pets, particularly cats and dogs, has become closer as we “increasingly keep pets to satisfy our emotional, rather than material, needs and gain tactile comfort and trust from them which might not be found elsewhere in our modern lives” (Swabe, 1999, p. 156). These trends have generally been the subject of research in industrialised nations; however, there is growing research as similar trends have been noted in emergent nations (Hsu, Severinghaus, & Serpell, 2003; Knobel, Laurenson, Kazwala, & Cleaveland, 2008; Podberscek, 2009). Thesis aims and objectives
The research that I present in this thesis was undertaken from an anthropological 2
perspective and contributes to the growing interdisciplinary area of scholarship known as anthrozoology or human-animal studies. Anthrozoology considers human interactions with non-human animals in varied contexts. Researchers in this area come from a variety of disciplines across the humanities, social sciences and sciences, including anthropology, sociology, history, psychology, ethology, veterinary science and zoology (for example, Bradshaw, 2010; Herzog, 2010; Hurn, 2012). I draw from this diverse literature when considering the significant impacts of human interactions with cats and dogs on animal welfare, management and human health, particularly in the urban environment of Bangkok.
My aim in this thesis is to explore the dynamic and fluid relationships humans have with cats and dogs in urban Thailand, specifically Bangkok. I am interested in how discourses and practices, both local and global, relating to animal welfare and rights influence people’s notions of appropriate animal care. This includes the influence of Theravada Buddhism, and social, cultural and economic factors specific to the Thai context. In addition, I consider the impact of global discourses and practices, especially those from English speaking countries, surrounding human interactions with cats and dogs. I examine how people define responsibility and care towards these animals. This includes a focus on the perspectives of people working closely with these animals. I explore the role of veterinarians and animal advocacy workers1 in the promotion and practice of pet ownership behaviours.
In urban areas cats, dogs and people have close interactions, and concerns for animal and human welfare create a need to simultaneously manage and protect these animals. I explore this intersection of human and animal interests, utilising concepts and theories of animal welfare and rights to better understand the factors influencing human decision making about animals. Making decisions that impact the lives of cats and dogs can be a source of uncertainty and dilemma for animal professionals and community members alike. Ethical judgements about how we
I use the terms ‘animal advocacy’, ‘animal rescue’ and ‘animal welfare’ worker/organisation interchangeably throughout the thesis to capture the range of tasks these individuals and groups undertake. The participants in this research work across all three areas making them impossible to categorise. 1
3
treat animals are not just about the animal’s interests; they are influenced by the value we place on other factors, such as the consequences for other animals, human welfare and the environment (Sandøe, Corr, & Palmer, 2016, p. 74). In this thesis, I argue that context is important in ethical decision making regarding animals. Ethnographic analysis allows me to emphasise the historical and cultural specificity of human-animal relationships in Thailand. This contributes to our understanding of what values are important in interactions with animals in this context. At the same time, I explore how global flows of information are influencing people’s interactions with and perceptions of cats and dogs. Dominant discourses on pet ownership are premised on the belief that cats and dogs should be under direct human care in the home. I discuss how this conflicts with the acceptance, tolerance, and occasional affection that many Thais show towards free-roaming cats and dogs. Beyond the physical sharing of space on the streets and in the home, cats and dogs are cultural symbols. In Thailand, older cultural meanings of animals are now interwoven with global narratives of pet keeping, and animal welfare and rights. Meanings embedded within these animals influence people’s perceptions of and behaviour towards them. These meanings together with notions of responsibility, freedom and suffering influence the management of cats and dogs in Thailand, impacting the palatability of strategies such as sterilisation, euthanasia, and sheltering. I am particularly concerned with how these factors influence ethical questions that arise from daily interactions with cats and dogs at home and in the community. This study contributes to the growing area of scholarship on human-animal interactions, and is the first in-depth study investigating the cultural and social factors that influence relationships with cats and dogs in Thailand. Background: cats and dogs in Thailand
In his study in a village in northeast Thailand, Tambiah (1969) found animals were classified into sat ban (animals in the house or village) and sat pa (animals of the forest). Sat ban refers to animals that are reared or looked after by the villagers. The Thai word for pet is sat liang, a compound word that literally 4
means sat ‘animal’, liang ‘to feed, nourish…look after’ (Haas, 1964, p. 493). Tambiah (1969, p. 435) states that the “dog (maa) and the cat (maew) enjoy almost human privileges in the freedom allowed them to move in and out of the house. They sleep in the house or outside as they wish. Of all animals they are in a sense closest to human beings.” However, he noted that neither were a ‘pet’ “as understood by the English” as they are “treated casually, given great licence and little care” (Tambiah, 1969, p. 435). He also found differences in the attitudes of villagers towards the two animals. Dogs were regarded a “low creature” (pen khaung tam) and unclean because they eat faeces and are incestuous. Cats, on the other hand, were viewed as clean and useful, signifying coolness, permanence and fertility. Their usefulness is related to having been created by Buddha in order to eat the rat, which is considered to be harmful to people (Tambiah, 1969, p. 435).
Although a number of decades have passed, the attitudes that Tambiah (1969) discussed were still evident during my fieldwork. While I worked predominantly in Bangkok, I still observed people giving cats and dogs great licence as evidenced by the significant free-roaming population in Bangkok. These cats and dogs blur the lines between ‘owned’ and ‘stray’, but regardless of the relationship of individuals to them, they are valued and cared for by many community members. At the same time, more Thais are keeping cats and dogs in the home and providing them with the type of care and services associated with dominant understandings of pet ownership.
In this context, estimating the number of cats and dogs in Thailand is challenging. However, it has been reported that the number of Thai households owning a pet almost doubled between 1998 and 2002 (Bernstein, 2005), and these increases seem to have continued; the World Society for the Protection of Animals (WSPA) (now known as World Animal Protection) reported that dog ownership had increased 52 percent between 2000 and 2007 (Batson, 2008). Bangkok has a human population of approximately nine million people, and it has been estimated there are about 600,000 owned dogs (Pungkanon, 2011) including a significant number pure breeds. There are no numbers available regarding cats, although it is thought that these numbers too are growing. 5
In addition, there is a significant population of free-roaming cats and dogs living on the streets of Bangkok. Known as soi cats and dogs (soi being the Thai word for street)2 estimating their numbers has proven difficult, with figures ranging from 100,000 (Pungkanon, 2011) to 300,000 (SCAD, n.d.) to 700,000 (Hopefuls vow to help stray dogs, 2013), depending on the source. Furthermore, abandoned pets are a significant problem, with an estimated 68,000 puppies (and an unknown number of kittens) born on the streets annually (Diamond, 2011). It is not unusual to see community members leaving food out every day for dogs and cats in particular areas, but while people provide care for these animals, they may not consider themselves to be the ‘owner’. Further, although people provide food and care for cats, these animals are also very good at being self-sufficient through hunting. Dogs, on the other hand, depend on the food given to them and on scavenging.
The number of small animal veterinary clinics in Bangkok is also growing, as is an increasing number of services catering to pets and their owners, including grooming salons, pet boarding and pet-friendly public spaces, including those with member-only areas (see Chapter 3). Most of these services are aimed at humans from a high socioeconomic status, as they are prohibitively expensive for much of the population. For example, specialist veterinary care can reach costs equivalent to those in Australia, and a dog friendly area in Bangkok reportedly charges 20,000 baht (approximately AUD755) per year for membership, which is more than half of the average monthly household income in Bangkok of 35,007 baht3 (AUD1, 322) (Walker, 2012, p. 40). More affordable veterinary care can be accessed through clinics at two universities in Bangkok.
In all areas of Bangkok free-roaming cats and dogs are visible, although through my own observations in recent years there seem to be fewer dogs in more affluent areas of the city, particularly those areas frequented by tourists. Once outside of When referring to the Thai context I prefer to use the term ‘soi’ rather than ‘street’ or ‘stray’ cats and dogs to better capture the multiple meanings these animals have in people’s lives. 3 The average monthly household income for the whole of Thailand is 18,660 baht (AUD 705). 2
6
these areas, large groups of dogs can often be observed sleeping on footpaths and in car parks. There are also significant numbers of cats, but their behaviour and ability to hide often make them less visible. Many community members like the presence of cats, partly because they keep the significant rat population under control. Furthermore, the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA) has been attempting to decrease the numbers of free-roaming animals and has been running a campaign to promote responsible ownership behaviours. This has included a sterilisation service for cats and dogs, but it can only be accessed by taking the animal to its clinic in the north of the city. The clinic does not provide postoperative care, therefore the animal needs to be collected on the same day as the operation. The BMA also offers free micro-chipping and vaccinations. It has been reported, however, that compliance among pet owners is low (Pungkanon, 2011).
Figure 1: Soi dog lazing on a busy Bangkok street4
There are few government run shelters for cats and dogs in Thailand, and existing ones are reported to lack funding and expertise to offer basic care to residents. There is only one shelter servicing the Bangkok area, and it caters for dogs only (Wancharoen, 2015). Many Non-Government Organisations (NGOs) focussing on animal welfare and rescue offer shelter facilities, but the level of care they can
4
All photographs by the author unless otherwise stated. 7
offer depends on resources, both physical and monetary. This has led to many organisations utilising ‘capture, neuter, vaccinate and return’ (CNVR)5 – whereby animals are captured, sterilised, vaccinated and treated for any medical concerns before being returned to their territory – as their favoured approach to reducing cat and dog numbers and improving health and welfare. Although animals remain free-roaming, this is considered a humane approach in an urban context with many animals and low rates of animal adoption. I discuss this in greater detail later in this chapter.
In recent years, there has also been increased interest in animal protection among the Thai public, with increased media coverage, social media campaigns, and demonstrations on issues such as the dog meat trade and wildlife trafficking. Examples of activism include calls to move a female gorilla, named Bua Noi, from Pata Zoo, and the closure of popular tourist attraction, the Tiger Temple. Pata Zoo is located on the top level of an aging department store in Bangkok. Thai and foreign animal activists have made calls for Bua Noi to be moved to a more suitable location, however, the owner of the zoo insists he has complied with all relevant laws (Tipnumpa, 2014). In the province of Kanchanaburi, the Tiger Temple was shut down by authorities in 2016 after years of sustained reports from tourists, temple volunteers and animal activists that the tigers were being poorly treated and used in illegal wildlife trafficking (Guynup, 2016).
The dog meat trade, which involves dogs being illegally transported from Thailand over the border into Laos and eventually to Vietnam and southern China for human consumption, gained significant media attention during my time in Bangkok (see Chapter 8). Much of the campaigning to stop the practice came from local and international animal advocacy organisations, which have been calling for legislation to protect animal welfare and rights. In Thailand, as in most countries, cats and dogs are considered property under law. In 2014, after I completed my fieldwork, the country’s first animal welfare bill known as the Prevention of Animal Cruelty and Provision of Animal Welfare Act BE 2557
5
Also known as Animal Birth Control (ABC). 8
(2014)6 was passed convincingly in the National Legislative Assembly with a vote of 188 to one, with four abstentions. The Act came into effect on December 27, 2014 just one day after the National Legislative Assembly voted on its adoption (Klangboonkrong, 2015). The law prohibits the cruel treatment of animals and requires owners/carers to provide appropriate living conditions and a certain level of animal welfare. This includes providing sufficient food and water, and seeking veterinary treatment when required. The legislation covers any animal kept by humans for any purpose, including pets, livestock, working animals, animals kept for entertainment purposes, and wild animals in captivity.7 The law grants police the power to enter homes and businesses to investigate reports of animal cruelty and neglect. Killing livestock for food, and the use of euthanasia by veterinarians in the event of an endemic or to end suffering are permitted under the law. Killing animals in religious ceremonies and animal fighting linked to local customs, such as cockfighting, is also allowed. The maximum sentence under the law is two years jail and/or a 40000 baht (AUD 1, 500) fine (Klangboonkrong, 2015). Those working in animal advocacy welcomed the passing of the law, but some organisations, such as the Soi Dog Foundation, have concerns that it is too vague and lacks specific guidelines to determine what practices are legal or illegal. The strengths and weaknesses of the law will be tested in the courts in coming years.
What is a pet?
For many people, particularly in high-income countries, interactions with cats and dogs are through their role as companion. The terms ‘pet’ or ‘companion animal’ generally imply ownership and responsibility for the animal from an identified individual or household. Attempts to define ‘pet’ include the claim that three specific criteria differentiate the human-pet relationship from human relationships with other animals: pets are allowed in the home, they are given individual names, and they are never eaten (K. Thomas, 1983). Fudge (2002, p. 28) argues that pets differ from other animals because “they are both human and animal;
6 7
Hereafter referred to as the “Animal Welfare Act”. Wildlife are covered by the Wildlife Preservation and Protection Act. 9
they live with us, but are not us; they have names like us, but cannot call us by our names.” Adrian Franklin (1999) suggests that pets are like surrogate children that never develop independence, nor do they leave. Serpell (1989), however, argues that there has been some confusion regarding a definition as the reasons for keeping an animal with no direct economic benefit are vast. He states that in practice the term ‘pet’ tends to be applied to any animal that is kept for no apparent utilitarian purpose, as opposed to, for example, livestock or working animals (Serpell, 1989). This definition tends to obscure the fluid boundaries of human-animal relationships, for example, a farm dog may fulfil a practical function as a working animal and be considered the family pet. A duck or chicken may be treated as a pet but their eggs eaten. Reflecting this, Fox (2006, p. 526) argues that pets inhabit a liminal position on the boundaries between ‘human’ and ‘animal’, “valued for their ‘animalness’ and subject to practices, such as selective breeding, training and neutering, which attempt to ‘civilize’ them and make them more like ‘little humans’.” Strong emotional attachment to pets and their status as family members for many people adds complexities to these relationships. Rock and Degeling (2013, p. 487) maintain that “caring for pets foregrounds the reality of pets being recognised and valued as selves, yet without being defined or treated as persons in all the ways that adult humans are.” Resisting this, some animal rights theorists argue that keeping animals as companions is a form of human domination (for example, Francione, 2008; Tuan, 1984). In most countries, cats and dogs are legally considered property positioning the animal themselves as a commodity, as well as a commodity producer (Cudworth, 2011; Torres, 2007). Through their status of being owned pets often have some protections under law, even though they are still considered private property. Anti-cruelty legislation, for example, places limits on the authority of owners; however, in most contexts the ‘rights’ of owners are more likely to be protected than those of their pets (Williams & DeMello, 2007, p. 237). Legal ownership can place pets in a vulnerable position. Owners make decisions about the care and treatment of pet animals, and speak for them, interpreting their wants and emotions into human language. They also make decisions about their welfare sometimes leading to their death (euthanasia) or abandonment when they are no longer wanted or required (Shir-Vertesh, 2012; 10
Torres, 2007). The term ‘companion animal’ has been adopted as an alternative to ‘pet’ in order to acknowledge that social and emotional benefits are derived from the relationship itself, rather than the utility of the animal (Linzey & Cohn, 2011; Serpell & Paul, 1994). It has been argued, however, that the term ‘companion animal’ may not always be appropriate to describe the roles that these domesticated animals play in our lives (Swabe, 2000). In this thesis, in part, I attempt to deal with the inconsistencies in our relationships with cats and dogs, and in so doing, I avoid the use of ‘companion animal’ and retain the term ‘pet’. Furthermore, because people buy, sell, breed, kill and abandon the animals in their care, I use the term ‘owner’ (rather than ‘guardian’) as this term better reflects the relationships people have with their animals. In recent decades, significant changes in the role of pets in people’s lives appear to have contributed to the difficulties in defining the constructs of ‘pet’ and ‘stray’. In many countries, cats and dogs are increasingly being kept indoors for companionship, and are required by many local authorities to be registered and confined to property boundaries. This contrasts with past trends where cats and dogs were generally kept outdoors and may have also provided protection. This may indicate a closer relationship, but it also may relate to our desire to continue living with animals in a context of increased urbanisation and the accompanying high density living. They are also more likely to be considered a fully-fledged member of the family (for example, Arluke & Sanders, 1996; A. Franklin, 1999; Hansen, 2013; Power, 2008) with the benefits of being cheaper and less demanding to raise than children, yet with the potential of increased social interaction (P. B. Gray & Young, 2011).
In recent decades, the strong emotional attachments people have with their pets and notions of being a ‘responsible’ pet owner have supported a lucrative international pet care industry (P. B. Gray & Young, 2011; Ritvo, 1987). Emphasis on breed and pedigree has increased, and today, dogs and cats serve the function of accruing status for the owner through commodification and conspicuous consumption (Taylor, 2013). Owners need to make decisions about
11
their pet’s care, and their position as a family member is often used to promote products to pet owners. Many pet care products and services claim to facilitate multi-species living. In Haraway’s words, “the human-animal companionate family is a key indicator for today’s lively capital practices” (Haraway, 2008, p. 47). van’t Hooft and Millar (2005) note that in many ‘non-Western’ countries, too, privileged urban groups are undergoing a ‘Westernisation’ process with regards to pet ownership, especially dogs, cats and horses. They again emphasise the ways that “pets are treated as family members, entitled to special diets, (emergency) veterinary care, geriatrics, dentistry, physiotherapy and even chemotherapy as a treatment for cancer” (van't Hooft & Millar, 2005, p. 26). P. B. Gray and Young (2011) suggest that contemporary trends in pet ownership are often linked to declining fertility, growing consumerism, and increasing geographic mobility, suggesting the extent to which pet keeping is directly linked to material affluence. This view, however, may obscure other important social and cultural factors associated with pet keeping and interactions with cats and dogs (Serpell, 1987, 1996). Serpell (1987) is critical of the suggestion of a link between rising pet ownership and affluence, and the related assumption that pets are an unnecessary luxury of the rich with little social or cultural significance. This stance does little to explain the reasons why many non-affluent societies worldwide nurture and cherish companion animals, including cats and dogs, without any obvious practical reason.
Categorising cats and dogs In many high-income countries, including the United States, United Kingdom and Australia, dogs (and in some contexts cats) found wandering the streets are viewed as ‘out of place’ (Philo & Wilbert, 2000). Being found on the street may lead to them being collected by authorities and taken to a shelter. In such settings, ownership status, identified by formal registration, a collar and/or a microchip, allows for the relatively easy categorisation of animals as ‘pet’ or ‘stray’ (Anzuino, n.d.). The World Organisation for Animal Health (OIE) defines an owned dog as one for which a person takes responsibility (World Organisation for Animal Health [OIE], 2016, glossary). In many low to middle income countries 12
there is often not a clear distinction between ‘owned’ and ‘stray’ or ‘freeroaming’ dogs and cats. An ‘owned’ animal may be unrestricted in its movements, meaning it may live in close contact with stray animals but is still dependent upon human care (Kongkaew, Coleman, Pfeiffer, Antarasena, & Thiptara, 2004).
In many countries, including Thailand, large populations of free-roaming dogs and cats are common in urban areas. This means the application of the term ‘pet’ or ‘stray’ is problematic. Anzuino (n.d.) makes the point that street cats and dogs in low and middle income countries may play the role of companions in people’s lives, especially among the poorest members of society who may also live on the street. People who may be unable to keep pets may have street dogs that provide protection, warmth and companionship. The relationships that people have with ‘street’ cats and dogs can vary significantly and may range from hatred and fear, to indifference and tolerance, to love and compassion (Miele & Bock, 2007). These attitudes impact on the number of cats and dogs in any given area; levels of, and the capacity to, provide care, or indifference and neglect; acceptability of control measures, registration, and practices such as sterilisation and vaccination; and levels of exposure to diseases for both animals and humans. The individual responsibility and liability for cats and dogs that is evident, and possibly legislated, in many high-income countries is not apparent in many low and middle income countries.
For stray populations of cats and dogs to survive and reproduce in urban environments, there needs to be a reliable food source. As already noted, this is generally provided, intentionally or otherwise (for example, through waste) by humans (Daniels, 1983). The term ‘semi-ownership’ is used by some researchers to refer to people who engage in behaviours that include intentionally providing care, including feeding and basic medical care to cats and/or dogs (Hsu et al., 2003; Toukhsati, Phillips, Podberscek, & Coleman, 2012). Hsu and colleagues (2003) suggest that the practice of semi-ownership behaviours contributes to stray or free-roaming cat and dog populations worldwide. The intentional provision of care suggests that there is an absence of clear boundaries regarding cats and dogs that might be considered ‘pets’, those that perform functional tasks such as guard 13
dogs, and those that live on the street without a designated ‘owner’. It does indicate, however, that these relationships are significant, and many people gain enjoyment out of these relationships, even if these relationships may be detrimental to both human and animal welfare. In this thesis, I consider how the difficulties of categorising cats and dogs in Thailand is disruptive to animal welfare interventions that are generally devised for contexts without significant free-roaming animal populations.
Animal welfare and rights
Our interactions with animals are diverse, complex and inconsistent. The ethical responsibilities a person has towards members of non-human species remain debated. Predominantly emerging from English speaking countries, the two main approaches to protecting animals have been animal welfare and animal rights. In essence, animal welfare is about achieving a good life; however, what constitutes ‘good’ welfare is debatable, and distinct approaches to welfare have emerged from differing perspectives (Sztybel, 2009). Miele and Bock (2007, p. 6) state that there is “great malleability of the concept of animal welfare” and it might be used to address differing, even contradictory, perspectives that allow for the acceptability or practicality of certain actions. In the words of Sandøe and colleagues (2016, p. 60), if we agree that some action or resource helps to give an animal a good life, then – assuming that it is appropriate to assist the animal in question – we have a reason to act, or to help the animal to access the resource. But how can we know what actually does contribute to giving an animal a good life…? Animal welfare science utilises scientific methods to attempt to determine what a ‘good’ life is for an animal, or at least determine how animals are affected by the way we treat them (Fraser, 2008; Sandøe et al., 2016). Animal welfare studies generally accept that animals are utilised to improve human lives, and attempt to determine welfare standards within these contexts. Although these studies may make determinations about what is positive and negative from an animal’s point 14
of view, it includes an ethical judgement, which often privileges human wellbeing and with potentially conflicting values at play (Fraser, Weary, Pajor, & Milligan, 1997; Sandøe et al., 2016; Taylor, 2013). Theories of animal rights are crucial to our understanding and practice of animal welfare. However, animal welfare and rights are often considered to be in conflict with each other. Animal rights is made up of varied and complex views, and is often popularly associated with deontological approaches that propose that human use of animals is wrong and should be abolished; this includes all animal use in laboratories, agriculture and the wild. This animal rights view does not question whether there is a degree of acceptable suffering or death, reflected in ideas of relative rights and values, and holds that any benefit humans derive from animals is irrelevant and exploitative (for example, Francione, 2008; Regan, 2004). Animal welfare, on the other hand, has been particularly influenced by the ethical theory of utilitarianism that holds that human use of animals is acceptable if benefits outweigh harm for the animal. According to this approach, the use of animals is justifiable provided that their suffering is minimised and there is value in the benefits that humans derive from animal use. In keeping with this view, animals may be used in research, for sport or killed for food if they are treated humanely and not subjected to unnecessary suffering or cruelty (for example, Singer, 2002). However, if we consider animal welfare and animal rights in simplistic and oppositional terms, it can obscure the diversity and complexity of theories of animal ethics (Schmidt, 2011). In the words of Schmidt (2011, p. 157) “animal welfare and animal ethics are indissolubly linked.” Sztybel (2009) argues that animal welfare and animal rights can be considered using a common frame of reference, as both are concerned with animal suffering and that suffering is morally relevant. Regan (2004) argues that animals have interests that should be respected by humans; animals should not be exploited or objectified. The work of Robert Garner (2004), for example, contributes to theories of animal rights, but poses a challenge to abolitionist theories. Rather than banning the use of animals by humans, Garner (2004) argues for an animal rights focussed on regulation. Therefore, his theory does not challenge human use of animals or their status as
15
‘property’. Martha Nussbaum (2006), in her extension of the capabilities approach to nonhuman animals, argues that animals are entitled to a wide range of capabilities and humans have a responsibility to assist them to fulfil their core capabilities. Her approach aims to consider “animal flourishing” beyond the pain and pleasure binary she sees as utilitarianism’s single focus. She acknowledges the close relationships between humans and animals, arguing that in our treatment of animals “the touchstone should be a respectful consideration of the species norm of flourishing and a respectful attention to the capacities of the individual” (2006, p. 378). Nussbaum’s stance illustrates the linkages between animal ethics and animal welfare. If we are to take Nussbaum’s view, the core capabilities to ensure an animal has a good life need to be identified, based on what is considered normal for the species. Establishing species norms is a particular concern of animal welfare science, therefore creating a case where empirical scientific knowledge can inform the ethical stance (Sandøe et al., 2016; Schmidt, 2011). Nussbaum’s capabilities approach also considers human obligations to animals as variable depending on context. A criticism of utilitarian and deontological approaches is that they do not consider the varied relationships we have with different animals, including those “based on prior commitments to them or prior interactions with them” (Sandøe et al., 2016, p. 83). Indeed, as illustrated throughout this thesis, attitudes towards animals are context bound and culturally informed, meaning that factors beyond an animal’s ability to feel pain or fear need to be considered in ethical decision making. Furthermore, human-animal relationships are shaped in “different ways by actors with often conflicting perspectives and interests” (Mullin, 2002, p. 390). Palmer (2010) argues that the context of specific human animal interactions creates special relationships requiring special considerations. For instance, human obligations to pets relate to our emotional closeness, and the fact we have made them dependant on us. Pets are generally unable to flourish without human interaction. For Palmer (2010) this creates a particular social responsibility to care for cats and dogs. Although I think it is important to acknowledge their existence and influence, rights theories that argue pet ownership is ethically indefensible and should be 16
abolished are not directly relevant to my research. I do not aim to challenge the existence of pet ownership; rather I am interested in the attitudes, behaviours and ethical concerns that influence our interactions with cats and dogs, and what that means for human and animal welfare. Thus, I draw on diverse literature in the field, accepting the stance of Nussbaum and Palmer that humans have responsibilities to the cats and dogs with which we share space to provide them with appropriate care and attention. Furthermore, I utilise animal welfare concepts to examine the dominant global flows of information about what is a ‘good’ life for a cat or dog, owned or otherwise. International animal welfare standards: the ‘Five Welfare Needs’ The institutionalisation of the animal protection movement began in Great Britain with the formation of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals in 1824.8 Ritvo (1990) argues, however, that early nineteenth century Britons may not have been different to members of other nations in their indifference to animal pain or the enjoyment they derived from animal (ab)use in sports such as dog fighting (Ritvo, 1990). The desire to fight for the protection of animals was “inspired not by benevolent abstractions but by repeated observation of violent physical abuse” (Ritvo, 1987, p. 159). Since the second half of the twentieth century, an increase in awareness and knowledge regarding various animal practices saw a growing animal protection movement and concern among the general public over animal welfare (Taylor, 2013). At the same time there was a significant increase in the popularity of cats and dogs as pets (see Chapter 4).
In determining animal welfare standards, the most common framework utilised is that of the ‘Five Freedoms’. The ‘Five Freedoms’ were originally developed in the United Kingdom in the 1960s to be applied to farm animals, but are now applied more broadly and are extensively employed in educating veterinary medicine and animal welfare science students (McCulloch, 2013). The Animal Welfare Act (2006) for England and Wales adapted the five freedoms specifically for companion animals, referring to them as the ‘five welfare needs’. These include the need for: a suitable environment; a suitable diet; ability to exhibit 8
In 1840 it became known as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA). 17
normal behaviour patterns; housing with, or apart from, other animals; and protection from pain, suffering, injury and disease (International Companion Animal Management Coalition [ICAM], n.d.). Nussbaum (2006) explains that the human-animal relationship should be regulated by justice and dignity. Her prescription for a dignified existence echoes the five welfare needs, and includes,
adequate opportunities for nutrition and physical activity; freedom from pain, squalor, and cruelty; freedom to act in ways that are characteristic of the species…; freedom from fear and opportunities for rewarding interactions with other creatures of the same species; a chance to enjoy the light and air in tranquillity (Nussbaum, 2006, p. 326).
These freedoms or needs are now widely accepted as important in our obligations for domesticated animals, and many animal welfare laws are designed to protect animals and ensure these basic freedoms (or needs) are fulfilled.
Yet, although cats and dogs may enhance our lives by assisting us in practical ways and/or providing companionship, there still exist significant detriments to these relationships. The processes of urbanisation and rapid economic development have contributed to debate regarding appropriate management strategies for cats and dogs. Animal advocacy organisations and governments worldwide are regularly asked to deal with free-roaming animals, often as a direct result of people who abandon their pets on the street where they breed in significant numbers. These animals often have major health problems (for example, fleas, lice, worms, and disease) and are often represented as a public nuisance posing public health concerns to humans (for example, through the risk of dog bites and transmission of zoonotic diseases). Generally, governments and animal NGOs must contend with limited resources, so requiring careful consideration of animal management strategies to ensure the most effective impact on animal welfare and human health.
Munro (2012) identifies three strands of the animal protection movement: animal welfare, animal liberation and animal rights. Animal liberation groups employ strategies and tactics that are legal and non-violent, but may include civil 18
disobedience. Animal rights groups are interested in making fundamental changes to the way we use animals and some draw attention to the need for abolitionist policies through disruptive, but legal and non-violent tactics.9 By contrast, animal welfare groups, such as the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), have a strategy of working within institutional politics ensuring they maintain “a moderate, reformist agenda designed to achieve only incremental changes in legislation affecting animals” (Munro, 2012, p. 170). Of the organisations I discuss in the thesis, most align with the welfare movement as they attempt to work within existing structures to achieve changes to animal welfare standards in Thailand. Many of the strategies employed by these organisations to improve animal welfare and protection are informed by international practices.
Welfare concepts and ethical concerns for cats and dogs have influenced the development of strategies to manage their movement and behaviour both inside and outside the home. An influential concept is that of ‘responsible pet ownership’ that has developed in a number of communities as pet ownership has increased and there has been a need to manage cats and dogs in urban environments (see Chapter 4). The OIE, in its Terrestrial Animal Health Code, defines responsible dog ownership as the, situation whereby a person10 accepts and commits to perform various duties according to the legislation in place and focused on the satisfaction of the behavioural, environmental and physical needs of a dog and to the prevention of risks (aggression, disease transmission or injuries) that the dog may pose to the community, other animals or the environment” (OIE, 2016, glossary, emphasis in original).11
9
A small number of radical animal liberation groups use illegal direct action, and may be violent and extremist (Munro, 2012). For example, the marine wildlife conservation group Sea Shephard uses direct action tactics that are not always legal but often go uncontested. I did not encounter any groups or individuals during my fieldwork utilising these tactics, and I do not discuss groups of this nature in this thesis. 10 A person can include more than one individual, and could comprise family/household members or an organisation. 11 This definition was written specifically in relation to dogs; however, this could reasonably be applied to cats as well. 19
This broad definition is designed to be applicable in numerous settings worldwide with the aim to reduce numbers of stray dogs and the incidence of zoonotic diseases.
The need to promote responsible pet ownership behaviours can be examined from both animal and human welfare perspectives and both are seen to derive community wide benefits. The animal welfare argument for responsible pet ownership justifies the promotion of certain behaviours based on the assumption that disease and death in uncontrolled populations of dogs and/or cats causes suffering that outweighs any risk associated with control programmes. The benefits for human welfare revolve around the spread of zoonotic diseases and the dangers of being bitten by uncontrolled animals.
Consequently, responsible pet ownership initiatives are designed to have a positive impact on both owned and stray populations, as the absence of these policies (among other things) is a contributing factor to free-roaming animal populations (Jackman & Rowan, 2007). In many countries stray animals and those in shelters are relinquished companion animals. In communities with significant stray populations, CNVR programs are often the favoured form of cat and dog population control (see Chapter 4). CNVR is advocated as a humane method of reducing the size, and improving the health, of street cat and dog populations especially in urban areas (Anzuino, n.d.; Jackman & Rowan, 2007). Although there is strong evidence for the success of these programs in improving public health and animal welfare by improving the health and reducing the number of stray cats and dogs, these programs are often met with little interest and engagement from local community members. The reasons for this are not clear in the literature; however, it is acknowledged that CNVR programs must be prepared to consider current ethical and welfare issues if the programs are to continue being effective (Anzuino, n.d.). Ethical and welfare concerns may include, how the animals are captured and handled, the length of care provided after surgery, and what options are available for animals who cannot be returned to the community. Anzuino (n.d.) argues that it is important that a ‘Western model’ of pet ownership that views all dogs and cats as pets, living on completely 20
human terms, is not assumed in all countries. A viable alternate model might consider dogs and cats to be a general social responsibility.
Numerous factors may intersect to contribute to animal management problems, including low sterilisation rates, the easy availability of puppies and kittens, nonconfinement of owned animals, animal behavioural problems, and religious and cultural factors that discourage euthanasia and shelter relinquishment (Hsu et al., 2003). Although approaches may vary significantly, they generally share a focus on owner and community responsibility, and although the practice of responsible ownership behaviours may be regulated by governments, they rely to a large extent on voluntary compliance. As suggested by the OIE definition, legislation can be an effective tool in increasing compliance with certain responsible pet ownership behaviours (Rohlf, Bennett, Toukhsati, & Coleman, 2010). Regulatory and legislative frameworks and education programs that deal with pet ownership are designed to influence attitudes and behaviours to minimise community problems associated with human pet interactions. These privilege human wellbeing and health over that of the animal, for example, in many jurisdictions if an animal attacks a human for any reason they are euthanised.
In many high-income countries, a defined regulatory framework governs the treatment and ownership of animals. In Australia, for example, responsible ownership practices have been defined as including confinement, registration, micro-chipping, desexing, participation in formal obedience training, and regular socialisation and exercise practices (Rohlf et al., 2010; Toukhsati, Bennett, & Coleman, 2007). The regulation and enforcement of these requirements varies between states and local council areas. In many low and middle income countries, in contrast, there may be limited or no regulations or public education regarding cat and dog ownership. Even in countries with strong regulatory frameworks and community support, there may still be debate about the most appropriate animal management methods to employ due to diverse value positions that people hold towards animal lives, subjective animal welfare and species (Palmer, 2014).
Although many people worldwide report that they receive emotional support, unconditional love, and companionship from their pets (O'Haire, 2010; Risley21
Curtiss, Holley, & Wolf, 2006; Wan, Kubinyi, Miklósi, & Champagne, 2009) there are differences in the types of animals preferred as well as engagement in certain ownership behaviours that have important implications for animal welfare and management. Animal welfare and human-animal interactions have become a serious concern in international development only recently as the relationships that people have with animals in urban environments have impacted the core areas of human development interventions, especially with respect to public health and sanitation. This has meant that international development interventions have started to address questions surrounding animal welfare including: responding to rabies epidemics; managing animals in natural disasters; breeding dangerous animals; and preventing the transmission of zoonotic disease.
Factors influencing our relationships with cats and dogs
Most extant research into the roles that cats and dogs play in the lives of humans has taken place in high-income countries, and much of the focus has been on the correlates of increased cat and dog ownership, such as animal management requirements and community benefits (for example, Manning & Rowan, 1992; McKay, Farnworth, & Waran, 2009; O'Haire, 2010; Selby, Rhoades, Hewett, & Irvin, 1979). There is a dearth of research on the cultural and social factors that influence people’s interactions with cats and dogs, and pet ownership outside of the most industrialised settings, primarily the United States.
Pet ownership is an area in which a variety of human factors and animal attributes influence the type of animal owned, and the purpose and way in which they are kept and cared for. However, research aiming to assess attitudes towards animals has yielded mixed results. Individual human factors that exert significant influence on attitudes and behaviours towards animals are complex and include demographic factors, cultural and religious beliefs, values and practices (Hood, 1998). A number of studies have been undertaken that demonstrate that demographic factors such as gender (Cocia & Rusu, 2010; Manning & Rowan, 1992; McKay et al., 2009; Selby et al., 1979), age (McKay et al., 2009; Selby et al., 1979) and education levels (McKay et al., 2009) influence attitudes and
22
behaviours towards cats and dogs. For example, in a New Zealand study McKay and colleagues (2009), found that female owners, and those with a post-school education, were more likely to sterilise their cats than male and lower educated owners. In a study of Romanian pet owners, Cocia and Rusu (2010) found that the sex of the animals as well as gender of owners impacted attitudes, with men far less likely than women to sterilise a male cat or dog. Therefore, knowledge of attitudes towards cats and dogs, and the factors that influence them, can be important to enable greater understanding of human-pet interactions and elevating risks to both humans and animals.
One of the more consistent factors identified has been that childhood experiences with pets is associated with the development of positive attitudes and behaviours towards animals in adulthood. While most studies have been conducted in the United States (for example, Paul, 2000; Paul & Serpell, 1993; Serpell & Paul, 1994), similar findings have been reported in Taiwan (Hsu et al., 2003) and Japan (Miura, Bradshaw, & Tanida, 2002). A cross-cultural study by Miura and colleagues (2002) found that British young adults had more pets and animalrelated childhood experiences than Japanese young adults and demonstrated significantly more positive attitudes regarding pets. It is difficult, however, to isolate the experience of exposure to pets in early life from the possible confounding effects of socio-cultural factors, such as age and gender, and/or parental attitudes (Ascione, 1993; Paul & Serpell, 1993).
In this context, a number of studies have attempted to provide a framework for understanding human-animal relationships. During the 1970s, Kellert and Berry (1980) developed and conducted a survey of American attitudes to, knowledge of, and behaviour towards, animals. They identified nine attitude subscales that formed the basis of a large survey. The results led Kellert and Berry (1980, p. 89) to suggest that “these attitudes can be subsumed under two broad and conflicting dimensional perceptions of animals” that were related to affection for animals, and economic and practical considerations. More recent studies have provided support for a less complex model of animal attitude motivations. Hills (1993) proposed the Motivational Bases of Attitudes towards Animals model that designates three motivational bases: empathy/identification with the animal, 23
instrumental self-interest, and values and beliefs about the nature and status of animals that are influenced by cultural, religious and ideological norms.
In 2004, Serpell proposed a model of human attitudes to animals that includes affect and utility as the two primary motivational considerations. Affect refers to people’s affective and/or emotional response to animals, while utility refers to perceptions of an animal’s instrumental value. Although described as a relatively simple model the effects of these two dimensions on attitudes can be complex. Serpell (2004, p. S146) states that “positive affect (or sympathy or identification) carries with it certain moral obligations, while strong utility considerations – either positive or negative – may tend to override such concerns.” Serpell (2004) also identifies a number of important factors that modify attitudes, including animal characteristics, history, and cultural and religious beliefs and values.
Religion Religion is a significant factor that influences our relationships with animals, and an important consideration when examining our relationships with cats and dogs. Linzey (2009) argues that there are three principal ways in which religion influences human-animal relationships, namely the contribution that religion makes to our perceptions, values and behaviour. For instance, it has been argued that although Judaism, Christianity and Islam recognize animals as creatures of God, they are still prescribed a low status relative to humans and viewed as existing to merely serve the interests of humans (Linzey, 2009; Serpell, 2005; Singer, 2000). By contrast, Buddhism has envisaged strong bonds between animals and humans, expressing an interconnectedness with all living beings (Linzey, 2009).
While attitudes towards animals may be influenced by religious ideology, the extent to which they relate to behaviours, such as pet ownership, remains unclear. For instance, in a quantitative study of attitudes towards domestic dogs in Tanzania, Knobel, Laurenson, Kazwala, and Cleaveland (2008) hypothesized that Muslim respondents would hold less positive attitudes towards dogs than Christian respondents, based on traditional interpretations of Islam which describe dogs as ‘unclean’ animals. Many countries with a predominantly Muslim 24
population have very low numbers of dog ownership. However, the study revealed that in livestock owning households religion did not predict dog ownership. The authors suggested that the utilitarian needs of the dogs guarding livestock may override religious and cultural considerations. It was noted that more insight is needed from further research that measures the meaning and daily experience of religion in people’s lives rather than relying on religious category alone (Knobel, Laurenson, Kazwala, & Cleaveland, 2008).
The Buddhist belief that all lifeforms are interlinked strongly influences interactions Thais have with cats and dogs (see Chapter 3). Providing care and sustenance for these animals, whether owned or free-roaming, is not value neutral as it is often motivated by the Buddhist cultural belief in ‘merit making’ (tham bun). There are numerous ways that Thai Buddhists ‘make merit’, the practice of which is believed to ensure spiritual and physical wellbeing (Singh, 2010; Tambiah, 1970). It is believed that by performing selfless acts, one can reduce suffering in the next life. Animals often play a part in these actions designed to accumulate merit, as occurs, for example, by releasing caged birds or freeing caught fish (Keown, 1996; Kusalasaya, 2005). Feeding free-roaming cats and dogs is a common form of merit making, with dogs the major beneficiaries of these acts of kindness.
Bhanganada, Wilde, Sakolsataydorn, and Oonsombat (1993), in their study of dog bites at a major Bangkok teaching hospital, found that the large community of free-roaming dogs in the hospital compound was contributing to the problem. However, any measures to control the dog population were met with community resistance as people “often feel that feeding these dogs gives them spiritual merit which may benefit their hospitalised family members” (Bhanganada et al., 1993, p. 253). Therefore, euthanasia of animals for the purposes of population control is not widely accepted by the general community, and most Buddhists resist intentional ending of life through euthanasia (see Chapter 6). This is in contrast to many high-income countries, such as the United States and Australia, where euthanasia is one strategy which, although not without controversy, is employed to manage populations of unwanted animals (Toukhsati et al., 2012).
25
Recent research by Toukhsati and colleagues (2012; 2015) reported on the findings of a Thailand wide phone survey aiming to explore the human factors influencing attitudes towards cat and dog sterilisation in Thailand. The results provide statistics on the prevalence of semi-ownership behaviours and rates of sterilisation, and concluded that any animal management programs in Thailand will need to integrate religious, social and cultural factors if they are to have any success. However, the studies give little consideration to this context, and how these factors influence people’s interactions with cats and dogs. The authors accept a dominant understanding of animal control and protection that includes sterilisation to satisfy both animal and human interests, but they do not question why these interests are important. Consequently, aspects of sterilisation intentions and behaviours were unexplained by their modelling.
As stated above, attitudes about certain human practices towards cats and dogs show variance across different cultural groups (for example, Hsu et al., 2003; Knobel, Laurenson, Kazwala, & Cleaveland, 2008; Knobel, Laurenson, Kazwala, Boden, & Cleaveland, 2008; Podberscek, 2009). Although few in number, extant studies that attempt to quantify attitudes and behaviours in non-English speaking countries and among different ethnic groups have produced inconsistent results (Paul & Serpell, 1993) and raised questions regarding the difficulties of isolating differing factors, such as demographic variables, from complex cultural and religious influences. Furthermore, Knight, Nunkoosing, Vrij, and Cherryman (2003) suggest that attitudes towards animal use are rich and complex and may be modified according to specific contexts. Many studies, such as Toukhsati and colleagues (2012, 2015), argue it is important for management programs, and the sort of behaviours promoted, to correspond to diverse cultural views and values surrounding freedom, existence and notions of suffering, but they do not critically assess what dominant understandings of animal management and responsible pet ownership mean in varied settings. Rather, they stress the need for education about the availability and benefits of responsible pet ownership practices because knowledge among community members may be poor in non-English speaking contexts (for example, Anzuino, n.d.; Jackman & Rowan, 2007; Kongkaew et al., 2004; Weng, Kass, Hart, & Chomel, 2006). Wolch and Emel (1998) are critical of studies based on survey research and the development of attitudinal typologies. 26
They describe the values-attitudes-behaviour models as “ahistorical and placeless,” unable to capture the “role of social and political-economic context on urban values and attitudes toward animals” (Wolch & Emel, 1998, p. 129).
Animals and anthropology In this thesis, I use anthropological and ethnographic research methods to provide the crucial component of local context in understanding human-cat and dog relationships in Thailand. In anthropology, there is a history of a concern with nature and human interactions with animals. Classic studies (for example, EvansPritchard, 1950; Geertz, 1973; Lévi-Strauss, 1963) have been criticised for considering animals as objects; little more than food or symbols for humans through which to better understand a particular social formation or process (Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010; Mullin, 1999, 2002; Noske, 1997; Shanklin, 1985). In the late 1980s, Barbara Noske (1989) called for anthropologists to challenge the anthropocentrism and speciesism in the discipline. She criticised the symbolic approach in anthropological enquiry for not allowing the consideration of animals as individual agents, which prevented questions related to animal welfare. Although Noske’s challenge was not immediately taken up, anthropologists have continued to consider human-animal relationships. Studies tended to continue a focus on meaning and interpretation, but considered more wide-ranging issues related to differences among humans, such as gender, race, class, nation, caste, sexuality, and ability (Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010). For example, Douglass (1997) and Pink’s (1997) studies of bullfighting in Spain in relation to gender and the construction of identity. At the same time, the consideration of animals as important actors in people’s lives was ongoing in other disciplines, such as history (Ritvo, 1990) and sociology (Alger & Alger, 1999; Arluke & Sanders, 1996). Following post-humanist positions that discuss the fluid boundaries between people and animals (for example, Haraway, 2003) anthropologists began to consider animals as an active part of the research landscape, demonstrating that a greater focus on animals is not incompatible with exploring questions related to people’s relationships with each other (Hurn, 2012; Mullin, 2002). Hurn (2012, p. 203) states that the ‘animal turn’ in anthropology has “encouraged 27
a more balanced consideration of the multifarious and often unacknowledged roles that animals play in human societies.” In recent years, diverse studies have emerged aiming to capture the multitude of meanings and variation in humananimal interactions, challenging the nature/culture dualism. For example, Lowe (2006) described the role of the macaque in biodiversity conservation in the Togean Islands. Sarah Franklin (2007), used the example of the cloned sheep Dolly to explore the intersection of the social and biological, and the implications for genealogy and reproduction. In her paper Flying Fox: Kin, Keystone, Kontaminant, Bird Rose (2011) describes the intertwining of human and flying fox lives in an indigenous community in the Northern Territory, Australia. The flying fox is connected to people through traditional meanings, but Bird Rose also considers them “participants in most of the major catastrophic events, as well as contestations about rescue, of contemporary life on Earth: warfare, man-made mass death, famine, urbanisation, emerging diseases, climate change, biosecurity, conservation and local/international NGO aid” (Bird Rose, 2011, p. 119).12 The term ‘multispecies ethnography’ has emerged in anthropology to refer to studies that aim to understand the livelihoods of, and our interactions with, a multitude of organisms (Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010, p. 545). Although ethnography can tell us a great deal about interspecies relationships and exchanges, there are still many questions to contend with regarding our knowledge and understanding of animal cognition and lack of shared language (Madden, 2014). This makes it difficult for the ethnographer to ensure meaning and messages are adequately understood. Kohn’s (2007) study of the Runa, their dogs and jaguar in the Amazon, considers cross-species communication. Even though Kohn recognises the animals as persons, the experiences and understandings of the animals come from a human perspective, in this case the Runa. A canine or feline perspective cannot be captured, and such studies, while attempting to gain an animal perspective, are necessarily limited as they only allow us to appreciate what it is like for a human to be an animal rather than what it is like for an animal to be an animal (Fine, 2004).
12
See also, Bird Rose, 1992. 28
This thesis is a multispecies ethnography to the extent that I am concerned with how people’s interactions with cats and dogs are influenced by a multitude of political, economic and cultural factors (Kirksey & Helmreich, 2010). However, I acknowledge the difficulties and possible limits of ethnography when considering animals as active subjects. I do not intend to utilise ethnography to explore my own interpretations of what it is like for a dog to be a dog, or a cat to be a cat. I am particularly concerned with human experiences and perceptions of interactions with these animals. Although I am aware of debates regarding nonhuman personhood in anthrozoology (for example, Hurn, 2012; Locke, 2017) it is not within the scope of this thesis to consider these discussions in-depth. For these reasons, I utilise the terms ‘people’, ‘person’, and ‘human’ interchangeably. I explore the decisions people make for cats and dogs, and the ethical concerns related to these decisions. Utilising an anthropological perspective allows me to interrogate the historical and contextual specificity of the human-animal relationship.
Chapter outlines
In the following chapter, I describe the research design and methodology. I discuss my research approach of ethnography and its suitability to explore the questions I pose relating to people’s relationships with cats and dogs in Thailand. I provide a description of my field site(s) and the process I undertook to determine the focus on veterinarians and animal advocacy workers. I also discuss how I managed and analysed the information I collected that determined the themes discussed in subsequent chapters. Chapter Three: People, cats and dogs in Thailand
This chapter provides a brief history of pet ownership and the roles cats and dogs play in people’s lives in Thailand. I discuss prominent examples in Thailand of cats and dogs that have been utilised by humans to make social, cultural and political statements. I explore the symbolism embodied in cats and dogs and what this reveals about Thai society. I consider the consumerism that is part of contemporary pet ownership in Thailand, and raise questions about what global discourses about pet ownership mean for cats and dogs. 29
Chapter Four: Notions of responsibility and pet ownership in Thailand
In this chapter, I use evidence gathered from interviews completed during fieldwork and focus on questions relating to the perceptions of veterinarians and animal advocacy workers of what ‘responsible pet ownership’ might mean in Thailand. This is discussed within the context of a significant proportion of freeroaming cats and dogs, many of which have been abandoned. I will also examine animal welfare and public health concerns, the role of advocacy organisations, and veterinarian training.
Chapter Five: Dealing with Disease: rabies
In this chapter, I examine how religious, social and cultural factors influence decisions around disease control for cats and dogs. I focus on the zoonotic disease rabies because it is endemic in the dog population, all human cases of the disease in Thailand have been contracted from dogs, and it is potentially fatal and greatly feared. Successful eradication of the disease requires management of the dog population. I examine responses to rabies in Thailand from the government, the public and veterinarians to highlight the challenges to rabies control and eradication. Drawing on interviews with veterinarians, I explore how veterinarians respond to suspected rabies cases, and how they aim to educate clients about the role of vaccination and sterilisation of their pets in disease prevention for animals and humans.
Chapter Six: End of life: performing euthanasia
In this chapter, I discuss the acceptability and practice of animal euthanasia in Thailand. In animal welfare science, euthanasia is considered an important welfare tool allowing veterinarians to end pain and suffering. However, in drawing on the interviews I completed with veterinarians, I demonstrate that euthanasia is a contentious and culturally specific practice. I examine the reasons why Thai veterinarians generally do not like to use euthanasia, and how this impacts notions of suffering and local meanings of animal welfare.
Chapter Seven: Shelters, Temples and Homes: rehousing street dogs
In this chapter, I examine the practice used by some animal advocacy 30
organisations in Thailand of promoting the adoption of cats and dogs overseas. This includes an examination of the role, and limitations, of adoption in the work of these organisations and the process of adoption. I also examine questions such as why people adopt a cat or dog from Thailand especially in the context of large numbers of shelter animals being euthanised in popular destination countries, including the United Kingdom, United States and Canada. Strategies from these countries relating to animal management strongly influence this practice. However, this creates challenges in varied cultural contexts, such as Thailand, where people hold differing notions of animal freedom. This challenges dominant discourses in animal management that assume cats and dogs need to be under direct human care to protect human and animal welfare. In this chapter, I use information from interviews with animal advocacy workers, and an interview with someone who has adopted a dog from Thailand, in addition to information from newspapers and social media.
Chapter Eight: Animal Activism: the dog meat trade
In this chapter, I provide a case study of advocacy and action against the dog meat trade as an example of an increase in animal activism activities in Thailand. The chapter includes a history of the trade where dogs have been trafficked across the Thai border into Laos and from there exported to Vietnam and Southern China for human consumption; the recent arrests of those involved in the trade; the role of the Thai government in the seizure of dogs and their care; the role of animal advocacy NGOs (both local and international) in the care of the dogs; and the promotion of the issue. Campaigns against the dog meat trade are active on social media, making the issue visible internationally. I discuss how global narratives of animal rights and the appropriate use of dogs is influencing animal activism in Thailand.
Chapter Nine: Conclusions
In the final chapter I reflect on the major themes of the thesis concluding that while the lives of cats, dogs and people in Thailand are often entwined, they are varied and influenced by complex local and global knowledges. I also consider the limitations of the study and directions for future research.
31
CHAPTER 2 RESEARCH METHODS Whatever our cultural outlook, we may never fully be able to appreciate what a street dog gains from its life experiences (Nolan, n.d.) To appreciate the changing nature of human-animal relationships in Thailand requires an apprehension of the history of these relationships; the discourses surrounding pet ownership and animal welfare; and recent socio-economic changes in Thai society that are influenced by a multitude of factors including a flow of ideas, people, information, technology, and money. To better understand the meaning of human-animal relationships as they are lived, which is deeply rooted in the local, I have utilised qualitative research methods to link this experience with more global factors. This allows for a deeper understanding of the context in which, as researcher, I found myself during the course of my fieldwork.
Furthermore, methods that allow participants to think about and discuss the factors they feel are important in their relationships with animals can enable greater understanding of these complex relationships (Knight et al., 2003). Knight and colleagues (2003) found that people do not often demonstrate great insight into their attitudes and beliefs concerning animals, and with regard to certain animal uses, such as in medical experimentation, people may not want to know about unpleasant practices. The complexities of these relationships are suited to qualitative enquiry as the methods used in this paradigm allow the researcher to access the inner experience of participants so to develop an understanding of how meaning is formed (Corbin & Strauss, 2008).
The primary method of data collection for this research was through participant observation and in-depth interviews, which are fundamental to ethnography. I was based in Bangkok for eight months from mid-2012. The city was an ideal location because of the range of interactions people have with cats and dogs. However, doing participant observation in an urban context can bring with it certain challenges when we consider the movements of those who inhabit these 32
environments. People move in and out of spaces and social networks regularly, leading us to ask: Where do we observe? And how do we participate?
For some years now anthropologists have considered at length the place of ethnography in urban areas and other spaces outside of the traditional small-scale research sites. Questions have been asked regarding the practice of anthropological research and ethnography in metropolitan areas, and exploring what is needed to adapt to the transient, anonymous, mobile flows of a city (for example, Burawoy, 2000; Faubion & Marcus, 2009; Sanjek, 2000). Many anthropologists have recognised that cities can provide important sites for research and analysis in the contexts of increasing mobility (S. Coleman & Collins, 2006), and the importance for all studies to “take account of the articulation of the community under study with larger national and international forces” (Manderson, 1985, pp. 10-11). Sanjek (2000) states that being an ethnographer and drawing on documentary evidence and comparative theory allows insight on urban structures and processes at a more general and even global level. At the same time, however, while acknowledging the importance of gathering information about history, the political economy and comparative theory, Sanjek (2000) warned about becoming too reliant on these aspects at the expense of participant observation.
Bangkok is a sprawling metropolitan area characterised by significant socioeconomic inconsistencies, with constant movements of people, goods and ideas influencing people’s views towards animals. To provide myself with focus in such a diverse environment, I created artificial boundaries by limiting in-depth interviews to those working in animal advocacy and veterinarians, which I discuss further below. Observations, however, were not limited to these groups and occurred during my daily movements through the city, including in what Augé (2008) calls ‘non-places’, that is anonymous places which lack a clear sense of the social, such as shopping malls, public transport, and leisure parks. Augé (2008) viewed these ‘non-places’ as temporary transitional spaces; however, I found that they often provided a rich location for observing human-cat and dog interactions. Animals in these spaces created another dimension to the social, sometimes facilitating interaction between humans who may not have otherwise 33
interacted.
As this research is focussed on human-animal relationships, participant observation had the advantage of providing me with the opportunity of face-toface interaction in natural settings with people, enabling me to establish rapport, which is crucial in seeking to understand culture, meaning, norms and values. Additionally, utilising participant observation gave me the ability to interact with and observe cats and dogs. As interviewing cats and dogs was out of the question, consideration of their movements, behaviour and interactions are crucial to the questions at the centre of this study. Participant observation allowed me to consider the flow of animals in and out of shared space, especially in urban environments. This is particularly relevant in any consideration of the meanings of ‘pet ownership’ and what this might mean in relation to the socio-spatial boundaries we create for animals.
To support the many field notes I produced in the process of participant observation, I also undertook unstructured, in-depth and open-ended interviews with people working in animal advocacy and veterinarians in small animal practice in Bangkok. There has been little attention paid to these groups in research on human-animal relationships, especially outside of English speaking contexts. Additionally, participant observation and interviews were supported by documentary research of primary and secondary sources, including newspaper reports, information from animal advocacy organisations, and social media, in order to capture the context of a rapidly developing city with rising numbers of cats and dogs being considered part of the family, a significant free-roaming cat and dog population, and a growing awareness of discourses on animal rights and welfare.
The Location
Thailand The ethnography was undertaken in Thailand, a country of 514,000 square kilometres in mainland South East Asia with a population of approximately 64
34
million people. Thailand is bordered by Myanmar (Burma), Laos, Cambodia and Malaysia, and has 2420 kilometres of coast line on the Gulf of Thailand and the Andaman sea. Thai is the official language of the country, however, four distinct dialects of the language are spoken. In the northern region of the country more than half a million highland people speak distinct languages. Approximately, 1015 percent of the population are from Chinese origin, descended from immigrants from China who arrived in Thailand between about 1850 until World War II. An overwhelming majority of the population, over 90 percent, are Theravada Buddhist, and about five percent are Muslim mainly residing in the south of the country near the border with Malaysia.
Figure 2: Map of Thailand. (Map produced by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency. Retrieved from: http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/thailand.html) 35
Bangkok The majority of my fieldwork took place in Bangkok, the capital city of Thailand. According to the United Nations, Bangkok and its vicinities are home to over nine million people (United Nations Thailand, 2017). The last 20 years has seen significant economic and human development in Thailand, and between 1986 and 2014 poverty declined from 67 percent to 11 percent. In 2011, the World Bank upgraded Thailand’s income categorisation from a lower-middle income to an upper-middle income economy (The World Bank, 2016). Bangkok has the highest per capita income in the country, but despite this progress, the city is one of disparities. Not everyone has benefited equally from the country’s progress and those linked to the international economy have profited the most. Poverty is still a concern, with those who participate in the domestic economy receiving fewer economic benefits. The cities have grown faster than the countryside, and this has seen significant internal migration as people relocate to Bangkok seeking greater opportunity and better pay (Garip & Curran, 2010; Phongpaichit & Baker, 2016; Rindfuss, Piotrowski, Entwisle, Edmeades, & Faust, 2012; United Nations Thailand, 2017).
Fieldwork
My initial research plans when I arrived in Bangkok included volunteering at the cat and dog welfare organisation, SCAD (Soi Cats and Dogs), as a way of providing me with a sense of the issues faced by the organisation, its workers, the animals, and the community. SCAD had been established for 10 years and provided sterilisation, education and adoption services for the street cats and dogs of Bangkok. I had previously done some volunteer work for SCAD when I lived in Bangkok in 2009-2010; I had informed them of my research prior to my arrival and the staff were interested in assisting and participating. Just prior to my arrival in Bangkok, however, SCAD announced its closure. Fortunately, utilising ethnographic methodology allowed for a flexible approach depending on what I encountered in the field. As SCAD was in the process of closing down, I was able to meet with some of the key staff before they moved onto other positions both in
36
Thailand and overseas. These meetings were invaluable for two key reasons. Firstly, it enabled me to discuss with them their experiences and perceptions of working with cats and dogs and the community in Bangkok, and secondly, it allowed me to build networks with them and through introductions with others. This would be key to facilitating my fieldwork.
These meetings were important in gaining access to members of the animal advocacy community in Bangkok and other parts of Thailand, especially in Chiang Mai and Phuket; they became an important group of participants in my research. My first meeting with a senior staff member of SCAD led me to a longterm volunteer who had taken over the SCAD cattery premises and had recently started her own organisation called PAWS (Pet Animal Welfare Society) Bangkok. Although PAWS was in its infancy, the manager, an expatriate American named Laura, had taken over established premises with a relatively clear plan of operation. I was able to undertake volunteer work there, and Laura became a key informant. There was no formal volunteer program at PAWS so I visited as required, generally to assist with cleaning and spending time with the cats and kittens, and to assist and observe visiting veterinarians working during the regular sterilisation sessions. During the sterilisation sessions, that were held at least once a month, I typically assisted in limited ways by weighing cats, handling sedated cats by transferring them from their cages to the operating table, doing flea treatments, and checking their recovery.
37
Figure 3: Cats ready for sterilisation at PAWS Bangkok.
I also met other animal advocacy and rescue workers at public events such as pet shows and expos. I attended the annual events of the Thailand Cat Show and the Pet Variety Expo Thailand 2012. I also attended the Pet Expo Thailand in 2015 on a subsequent visit to Bangkok. These events included stalls and promotional activities from pet food and product companies, in addition to organisations that were there to promote their work in cat and dog rescue and to raise funds. Some of them had cats and dogs available for adoption on the day. Attending the cat show gave me an appreciation of the number of organisations working in the area of cat and dog rescue. I had arrived in Bangkok about six months after severe flooding had affected the city, causing significant damage to property and forcing large numbers of people to evacuate their homes. Many existing animal rescue organisations became involved in caring for and rescuing cats and dogs affected by the floods. Many people who had not previously been involved in animal rescue also volunteered to help rescue domestic animals that had been abandoned by evacuating owners and were trapped by the rising flood waters.
At the cat show, I met with Khun Gade, a Thai woman who had been running her own organisation that focussed on finding homes for cats and dogs for over 10 years. She was at the cat show selling products such as cat grass and promotional merchandise for her organisation to raise funds. As we talked, we walked among
38
the aisles of stalls and she would introduce me to the people she knew, but she was also surprised by the number of organisations that she didn’t know. She explained to me that many of these new organisations had been set up in the wake of the floods by people who volunteered to rescue animals and who have continued raising money for animals in need.
In many cases I found it hard to gain information about these new groups, as many appeared to have a loose organisational structure and they were often organised by a small number of people from their homes. I was unable to make contact with all the animal advocacy groups operating in Bangkok. But among the people I met, who had been involved prior to the floods, I discovered a network of co-operation; these people had often been acquainted for many years. Within this network of people working in animal advocacy were veterinarians, who supported and assisted by sterilising and providing affordable medical care for the animals they worked with, and promoting animal welfare.
I had the opportunity to observe veterinarians in a number of settings in Thailand. During the sterilisation sessions at PAWS I was able to watch the veterinarians preparing for and performing spay and neuter operations on cats. I would often take the opportunity to chat with the veterinarians about their practice and experience. I also maintained contact with the Faculty of Veterinary Science at Chulalongkorn University. Two academics in particular were important key informants with whom I often had lengthy discussions about animal welfare, veterinary training, small animal practice, and pet ownership in Thailand. I attended the Asia Pacific Veterinary Conference in Bangkok in October 2012; a rabies vaccination fieldtrip with students and staff from Chulalongkorn University to the province of Chonburi; and a WSPA (now known as World Animal Protection) veterinary capacity development workshop held over three days in October 2012 at Khon Kaen University in north-eastern Thailand. During the WSPA workshop I attended sessions designed for academics teaching veterinary medicine on the science and practice of animal welfare; participated in a fieldtrip and welfare assessment exercises for farm animals and race horses; and I presented a session introducing my research and discussing the importance of human-animal relationships to animal welfare. Although I spent the majority of 39
my time in Bangkok, in the final weeks of my stay in Thailand I travelled to both Chiang Mai in northern Thailand, and Phuket, an island in the south of the country, visiting animal advocacy organisations and conducting interviews.
After all of the observations I undertook I made field notes, which form an important part of the evidence used in this research. Field notes were made after visits to obvious locations of human-animal interaction such as shelters, animal organisations or veterinary clinics, but also included other more day-to-day locations such as shopping malls and cafes that were pet friendly, and then those that were not but still had established communities of free-roaming cats and dogs living nearby. Notes were taken describing settings and people, and any conversations I had with people about animals. I also took notes about the cats and dogs I encountered, and their behaviours with humans and each other. To facilitate my fieldwork, I completed two terms of intermediate Thai at the Thai Language School of Melbourne. This built on the Thai lessons I undertook whist living in Thailand in 2009-2010. I also continued Thai lessons during fieldwork. My spoken Thai ability allowed me to converse with people in day-to-day interactions. As discussed below, I engaged a research assistant to complete interviews in Thai with veterinarians due to the advanced language used. I have a basic level of Thai literacy.
Interviews Shortly after arriving in Bangkok I arranged two focus groups with community members to discuss their general thoughts about cats and dogs, acquiring and keeping pets, and the advantages and disadvantages of ownership. Recruitment and organisation of these focus groups proved challenging and time consuming. These groups gave me some insight into the language used to discuss cats and dogs in Thai; however, I found that people’s experiences and attitudes were diverse and few coherent themes emerged. At the same time, I was regularly volunteering at PAWS and meeting veterinarians and animal advocacy workers. It became clear that examining the groups of animal advocacy people and veterinarians helped me gain focus with my fieldwork, rather than taking the very broad and diverse group of pet owners whose practices were impacted by so many factors. Both groups were relatively small, with extensive experience 40
dealing with community members directly in their interactions with cats and dogs. Many also had extensive experience dealing directly with each other.
Among those working in animal advocacy and rescue, I decided to focus my research on people who had been working in Thailand for a number of years, and this included both Thai nationals and expatriate foreigners. My reason for exclusion was that people new to animal advocacy work would not be able to offer the same in-depth perspectives as those who had been involved over several years, especially if their experiences had been isolated to rescue efforts during the floods. I conducted both formal and informal interviews with those I recruited. My focus was on a small number of well-organised NGOs and their key staff. The organisations they worked for were varied in size and structure, and most had been established for approximately 5 to 10 years. They often had significant involvement and support from expatriates, and are generally very active on social media promoting their work, and animal rights and welfare issues generally in Thailand.
Participants were selected because of their knowledge and experience, therefore ethnography allowed for a smaller number of participants to be studied more intensely with the aim of uncovering themes from their narratives and my own observations. The people I interviewed were recruited through my networks and using snowball sampling, and where possible I visited them at the facility where they kept cats and/or dogs. Interviews were often conducted whilst walking around a shelter, which would facilitate discussion and help establish and maintain good rapport. At the same time, I was able to observe the work of the facility and the conditions. It also allowed me an opportunity to interact with the animals, and see their environment and their interactions with staff. I completed seven such interviews, with some involving multiple visits to the facility. Three of these visits led to formal recorded interviews, and all of them provided me with a rich source of field notes.
I completed a further three recorded interviews via Skype after I returned to Australia. The first of these interviews was with a Thai animal advocacy worker who I was unable to meet when I visited the dog shelter she helped found in the 41
north of Thailand. The second was with someone now living in Australia, who had worked for an advocacy organisation in Thailand for four years promoting international dog adoption. The final interview was with an Australian who had adopted a soi dog from Thailand.
Topics typically discussed at interview included: the background of the organisation, its people and their current priorities; shelter management practices, including animal numbers, care and disease control; animal adoptions; community engagement; veterinary care and relationships with veterinarians; and relationships with similar organisations. Before an interview commenced, I would explain my research to all interview participants, provide them with both an information and consent form (Appendix I and II) and also verbally inform them that their involvement was voluntary and they could withdraw at any time. When I recorded an interview I would ask their permission to record, and once they had signed the consent form the recorder would be turned on. All participants agreed to the recording of the interview.
The people I met working in animal advocacy NGOs came from diverse nationalities and backgrounds, including Thai, English, American, German and Australian. There are many expatriates involved in animal advocacy in Thailand, and many of the Thais I met had lived for an extended period of time in English speaking countries, and all of these participants were comfortable being interviewed in English. Only a few had previous experience or formal training in working with animals prior to their current role. All of them utilised information flows from other countries with their understanding of the local context to help them determine their shelter management practices, animal population management systems, and community education programmes. Fundraising, locally in Thailand and internationally, is an important activity for all of these organisations to continue their work and some had links with international animal advocacy organisations, such as World Animal Protection with its head office in London, and Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals International based in the United States.
Veterinarians 42
As professionals in small animal practice, veterinarians occupy a unique position in their attempts to work for both the interests of animal patients and human clients. My research included in-depth formal interviews with ten veterinarians working in small animal practice in Bangkok. Veterinarians are seen as playing a crucial role in regard to the promotion of pet ownership behaviours as compliance often entails a trip to a veterinary clinic, for example, for vaccination and sterilisation. In a study of Dutch veterinarians, Swabe (2005, p. 103) described them as mediators between the human and animal worlds, and found that they regarded themselves as “advocates of the animals, their role being in part to regulate the conduct of pet owners toward their animal charges and to protect animal welfare.”
The flow of information and knowledge from other countries, particularly North America, has influenced veterinary practice in Thailand. Furthermore, the numbers of people sharing their homes with cats and dogs has increased significantly in recent years in Bangkok. There are a growing number of veterinarians entering small animal practice upon graduation, and clinics are becoming more visible throughout the city. International discourse on contemporary clinical practice and animal welfare is available for veterinarians in Thailand and considered part of their professional development. The Asia Pacific Veterinary Conference I attended was organised by the North American Veterinary Community and Mahidol University in Thailand, and was dominated by speakers from North America. One of the conference streams was devoted to presentations on projects being conducted in South East Asia taking a One Health approach. The One Health concept has developed as “a worldwide strategy for expanding interdisciplinary collaborations and communications in all aspects of health care for humans, animals and the environment” (Kahn, Kaplan, Monath, Woodall, & Conti, n.d., para. 1). According to Rock, Adams, Degeling, Massolo, and McCormack (2014, pp. 976-977), it is an important recognition “that without due consideration for how humans relate to non-human animals and to shared environments, locally and globally, opportunities will be missed to reclaim and enhance well-being for sentient inhabitants of the planet.”
The role of a veterinarian, however, is generally more complex than being a 43
protector of animal health and welfare. It extends beyond simply dealing with disease and also includes the running of a small business. As Degeling, Kerridge, and Rock (2013, p. 92) suggest, this can create “tensions between patient- and client-focused models of veterinary care, between financial concerns and concerns for animal welfare”. Additionally, ethical and legal considerations influence veterinary responses to treatment choice and client requests. This can lead to questions around the responsibilities of veterinarians to the animals under their care, and their role in preserving client wishes and sensitivities.
The veterinarians interviewed were Thai nationals who had received their veterinary training in Thailand and were currently working predominantly with cats and dogs. Recruitment for these interviews took place through my networks and with the help of the Veterinary Practitioners Association of Thailand (VPAT), which informed its members of my research and encouraged participation. These interviews were done in Thai by a Thai research assistant with whom I worked closely throughout the process. Interviews were semistructured and I authored the question guide with the knowledge I had gained after having been in Thailand for some months. The questions were professionally translated, and then to ensure integrity, the translation was checked by Dr Chutamas Benjanirut at the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Chulalongkorn University. Dr Benjanirut and I spent some time then discussing the questions and the translation, checking for issues with the translation itself, but also ensuring the wording of the questions was suitable for the intended audience. The question guide was then given to my research assistant who also checked the questions for understanding. We worked together on the questions until we were both happy that she understood the intention of the questions and felt they were expressed in appropriate spoken Thai.
The interviews were held at a mutually agreeable location that was usually at the clinic where the veterinarian worked. Throughout the period of interviewing, I maintained regular contact with the research assistant to discuss any concerns or questions she had. This process enabled minor alterations to some of the questions for the purposes of clarity. Questions aimed to capture how veterinarians negotiated interactions with animals and clients, and how they dealt 44
with client requests and behaviours. Topics covered in the interviews included: the veterinarian’s motivation for choosing the profession and their education; how they typically conducted a consultation; the most common issues they deal with in relation to sickness, disease and behaviour; their perceptions and opinions regarding responsible pet ownership and animal welfare; opinions on stray animal management and the work of animal advocacy organisations; and end of life care for cats and dogs. The question guide in English is attached as Appendix III, and in Thai as Appendix IV.
The same research assistant transcribed the interviews verbatim and translated them from Thai to English, which was done as soon as possible after the interview. She provided me with the recording of the interview and the transcript. This enabled me to begin data analysis prior to the completion of all the interviews, which helped to ensure the integrity of the data collection.
Documentary research To support my observations and interviews I have also included documentary research from primary and secondary sources, including newspaper articles, policy documents, animal advocacy paraphernalia, and social media. Throughout the thesis, I have drawn on policy documents from veterinary associations, such as the American Veterinary Association, and international animal advocacy organisations that have an interest in cat and dog management in low income contexts. Analysing these documents allows for a deeper understanding of many of the animal welfare and management practices discussed and promoted in Thailand that originate from English speaking countries. In Chapter 8, in particular, I analyse predominantly English language Thai newspaper articles to map the trade in dog meat, and understand the social, cultural and economic factors influencing the trade. I also consider the role of animal advocacy organisations, both Thai and international, that are campaigning against the trade. These articles were identified through a Factiva database search of major English language newspapers in Thailand.
45
Data analysis
Data were organised and analysed for themes with the assistance of the qualitative research software NVivo 10. Analysis was informed by an ethnographic, inductive and abductive approach. This allows for data collection through a variety of methods enabling exploration of the intersection of cultural and social factors that influence people’s perceptions of, and behaviours toward, cats and dogs. The field notes, interviews and secondary sources, such as newspaper reports and social media I collected were subject to a close reading and coding to explore comparisons between events, actions and interactions. Coding requires asking questions of the data and deriving and developing concepts from it (Charmaz, 2007; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). During this phase, patterns and themes important to the participants were noted. A second phase of focussed coding was undertaken to build on the codes developed previously with the aim of synthesising and explaining the most significant and frequent codes, and the adequacy of those codes.
Although I was not testing predetermined themes, I was guided by the broad categories of welfare, rights, advocacy, responsible pet ownership, and disease. At the same time I was open to new themes emerging form the data. To support this process, I utilised memo-writing and constant comparative methods to compare statements and incidents for similarities and differences (Charmaz, 2007; Corbin & Strauss, 2008). Memo-writing allows for codes to be raised into conceptual categories and helps to develop the level of abstraction in ideas, discovering, exploring and questioning emergent social patterns (Lempert, 2007). Tavory and Timmermans (2014, p. 53) state that coding and memo writing also ensure that “we thoroughly familiarize ourselves with our observations, that we do not forget the interactions we have been privy to once we put them down on the page.” Finally, the relationships between categories developed were explored. This process allowed for themes to emerge from the data and with the consideration of pre-existing theories led to an analysis that is coherent and comprehensible (Charmaz, 2007).
46
Reflections on methodology
I was able to experience human-animal interactions as an outside observer when going about daily life in Bangkok, but also as an insider through my volunteer work at PAWS and also by being a PhD student in the area of human-animal relationships. I found that my status as a ‘foreign researcher’ was both a help and a hindrance. I felt accepted as part of a community of animal advocacy workers who generally considered me as someone interested in the welfare of cats and dogs in Thailand, who was undertaking much needed research in an area they had devoted much of their time to. At the same time, I am a foreigner attempting to understand more about the social and cultural context of human-animal relationships without the skills of someone formally trained in animal care.
When I arrived in Bangkok, I planned to observe the work of veterinarians with clients and cats and dogs, however, I was unable to do this to the extent I wanted. When requested, many veterinarians were reluctant to let me view consultations. The reasons were often unclear, but I felt there was a concern that my presence would be disruptive to the work of the veterinarian. This may also have been related to some participants seeing me as a foreign representative of animal welfare. This was one of the reasons I felt it was appropriate to engage a research assistant to undertake the interviews with veterinarians. Furthermore, a native Thai speaker without a background in animal welfare might be able to gain potentially more meaningful and honest answers from relaxed participants.
The research was approved by the Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee, and the National Research Council of Thailand. I attempted at all times to maintain the anonymity of participants; however, there were times when this proved difficult. The community of animal advocacy workers in Thailand is small and many came to know of my research through the participation of others. I have tried to safeguard the confidentiality of participant responses by ensuring that quotes are de-identified as much as possible. I have changed the names of people, however, all organisation names remain real. Interviews did not necessitate disclosure of personal or sensitive details of participants and overall I
47
found participants interested and enthusiastic to participate in my research and no one raised concerns about privacy or anonymity. It was not possible or appropriate for all the people I observed to sign consent forms, and any evidence I have used from field notes has been handled with respect for all those involved. When I attended PAWS for volunteer work, for example, I would ensure that all the people there on the day knew I was undertaking research that involved participant observation. In this thesis, I use pseudonyms for all humans who participated in this study; all cats and dogs mentioned have retained their names as given to them by their owners or carers.
Findings in this research are supported by the use of a number of methods that enable comparison to ensure the integrity of the data allowing me to aim for broad social and cultural context. A weakness, however, is that this can sacrifice depth in regards to individual themes. Each interview and observation had the potential to uncover interesting new insights, yet practical, time and academic constraints meant that decisions had to be made regarding focus and direction. Although the interviews conducted covered a lot of topics, I felt this was important to help me understand the complex relationships people have with animals in the context of limited research in Thailand. Many of the themes discussed in this thesis could be explored further, potentially using a range of methodologies, and may provide opportunities for additional research into the future.
48
CHAPTER 3 PEOPLE, CATS AND DOGS IN THAILAND We polish an animal mirror to look for ourselves (Haraway, 1978, p. 37) On 23 May 2014, a cat named Johnny appeared in a photo on a Facebook page dressed in military uniform, complete with fake weapons, clipboard in front of him, recreating the declaration of martial law that had occurred in Thailand only a day earlier. Johnny was already well known in Thailand, as he regularly appeared on Facebook and on TV, dressed in a yellow towel and sporting a Louis Vuitton handbag, depicting a monk who, in 2013, was found to be in possession of millions of baht and luxury goods. We understand that Johnny the cat is not dressing himself in costume, but by doing so his owner is able to create a distance from the political statements he uses Johnny to make. Still, the photo of Johnny declaring his own coup led to his home being searched by the military. Johnny’s owner, Kriangkrai Suetrong, told the media that soldiers searched his home for ‘illegal materials’, although none were found ("Soldiers Raid Home," 2014). Can a cat be considered a subversive figure? Although Johnny may be considered potentially subversive by some, he continues to make comments on Thai society, primarily through his Facebook page (http://tinyurl.com/jz2alrq). He has almost half a million ‘likes’. Since his coup declaration, his popularity has increased and he has appeared in a movie, and been allowed to open a bank account in a promotional stunt for the bank.
Figure 4: Johnny the cat dressed in military uniform. (Retrieved from: http://www.andrew-drummond.com/2014/05/round-up-all-usualsuspects-thai.html). 49
Although Johnny is intended to be humorous, he is still a very public example of how animals are “frequently objectified by humans and used to communicate messages about their owners, wearers or eaters, and the broader ‘culture’ within which these messages are generated and understood” (Hurn, 2011, p. 110). In Thailand, this is most clearly seen in the symbolism of the elephant. The elephant is Thailand’s “venerated royal emblem, a traditional national symbol and animal icon” with “a vital role in Thailand’s past and is still revered in contemporary popular culture” (Cohen, 2010, p. 163). The image of the elephant is routinely used to represent Thailand and is found on everyday consumer items and a multitude of tourist souvenirs such as postcards, magnets, wall hangings, silk ties, key rings and sarongs. The elephant appears in episodes of Buddha’s life, illustrations of which feature on temple walls throughout the country (Warren, Amranand, & Lair, 1998). Moreover, the elephant is associated with the Hindu god Ganesha, represented with an elephant’s head. Ganesha is worshipped in Thai temples and is believed to bring good fortune as a remover of obstacles (Brown, 1991). The elephant is also central to Thailand’s royal history, particularly the white elephant.13 Before the eighteenth century, when the use of guns became widespread in the region, the elephant was an important show of power on the battlefield; they were the first to charge often led by the king on his own special mount. In 1593, for example, King Naresuan killed the Burmese Crown Prince in a duel on elephant back, insuring Thai independence for the following generation (Warren et al., 1998, p. 60). The rare white elephant holds an important association with royalty, as traditionally when a white elephant is discovered it must be presented to the king. The more white elephants a monarch possessed the greater their power was thought to be. Even the flag of Thailand that was in use during the ninetieth and early twentieth centuries featured a white elephant in the centre of a red background (Warren et al., 1998).
These elephants are in fact albinos. The Thai term is chang phueak, literally ‘elephant albino’. Phueak is the same word used for human albinos in Thai. It is thought the English term of ‘white elephant’ came from the Thai flag that was in use during the ninetieth and early twentieth centuries that included the image of a white elephant (Warren et al., 1998). 13
50
The strength of the imagery of the elephant is discussed by Chang Noi (pseudonym) who contends that Thailand’s experiences of the Asian economic crisis of the late 1990s were communicated symbolically through the elephant (Chang Noi, 2009). The elephant acted as a metaphor for the Thai economy, as the country suffered the financial and social effects of a worsening economy, stories about elephants in trouble became increasingly prominent in the news. However, as the crisis began to fade so did the stories of elephant suffering, and the elephant was once again represented as strong and triumphant. In the words of Chang Noi (2009, p. 7) “in this crisis, nationalism has been rather half-hearted. But elephantism has been strong.” Elephants have been important economically through their use in transportation, logging, and tourism (Kontogeorgopoulos, 2009). They were crucial to the timber industry for their ability to move logs from the forest. With the modernisation of the armed forces and the transportation system the need for elephants in the army and rural economy diminished (Cohen, 2015). The formal role of elephants in the logging industry ended in 1989 when the government imposed a total ban on logging in national forests (Cohen, 2008; Warren et al., 1998). With diminishing work for elephants in rural areas, mahouts (elephant keepers) began bringing them into cities to sell souvenirs and food to tourists to feed the elephants. The streets of Bangkok proved very dangerous with elephants frequently injured in traffic accidents. The BMA successfully banned elephants from the streets of Bangkok in 2010. Although a rare site in Bangkok today, elephants can be found with their mahouts on the streets in other towns and cities in Thailand (Cohen, 2015). The major alternative source of employment for domestic elephants has been the tourism industry, which has transformed elephants from beast of burden to “tourist plaything” (Cohen, 2015, p. 164). Visits to elephant camps and theme parks have become common on the tourist trail, particularly in the north of Thailand. Visitors can ride an elephant or watch them perform tricks, such as playing football, throwing darts or sitting on a stool (Cohen, 2015). The symbolism embodied in the elephant makes them attractive for tourists, however, the anthropomorphic terms in which elephants are considered in Thailand can
51
obscure welfare concerns. The treatment of elephants in the tourism industry has received criticism due to evidence of brutal training techniques and poor treatment (Cohen, 2008, 2015). In recent years, World Animal Protection, for example, has campaigned against the use of elephants in the animal entertainment industry asking tour companies to commit to not sending tourists to venues that offer elephant rides and entertainment amid evidence of poor welfare, and a belief that elephants are “wildlife not entertainers” (World Animal Protection, 2015). The loss of their traditional functions, and campaigns against their use in tourism, has left many elephants in a vulnerable position. Their large size and long life expectancy means that significant resources are needed to keep them. Combined with their symbolic importance this has left the elephant open to exploitation by humans needing or wanting to make money. It is believed by animal advocacy groups that some elephants are being used in illegal logging in Thailand or been sold to do similar work in Myanmar or Laos. Similarly, the situation for wild elephants is precarious as they are victims of poaching, loss of natural habitat due to land clearing for farming, and poisoning by farmers whose crops they invade and damage (Cohen, 2015). The current situation for domestic elephants has led Chang Noi (2009, p. 5) to describe the elephant as a “sacred beast in a very popular way. Elephants are loved for their unique combination of power and vulnerability.” Anthropologists have long been interested in the use of animals as symbols, for example Lévi-Strauss’ famous comment that animals are “good to think” (LéviStrauss, 1963, p. 89), suggesting that animals have value as “goods to think with” rather than just “goods to eat” (Leach, 1970, pp. 31-32). Similarly, Douglas (1957, 1970) utilised a symbolic approach in her study of animals in Lele society analysing dietary codes, metaphor, and ritual (I discuss eating animals in more detail in Chapter 8). More recently, these symbolic interpretations of humananimal interactions have been criticised for viewing animals “merely as passive raw material for human acts and human thought” (Noske, 1997, p. 183) (see Chapter 1). The use of anthropomorphism, where humans attribute what are “perceived to be exclusively human characteristics to non-human things” (Hurn, 2011, p. 113), means that animals as agents in their own right is not considered.
52
In the words of Hurn (2011, p. 113), on the surface, anthropomorphism appears to suggest a respect for other animals, treating them as quasi-humans, but therein lies the ‘problem’ – other animals are not human, and to treat them as if they are can lead to all kinds of difficulties, especially for the animals concerned. However, it has been argued that anthropomorphism can be positive within the human-animal relationship and is a useful means for understanding animals (for example, A. Franklin, 2006; Midgley, 1983). Although we may never understand what an animal feels (Haraway, 2008), anthropomorphic terms provide the only way for us to describe and explain animal behaviour (Midgley, 1983). Pet ownership has been described as an intrinsically anthropomorphic relationship (Bulliet, 2005). Adrian Franklin (2006, p. 142) argues that when pet owners discuss their animals as family members, rather than anthropomorphism this is “a case of hybridization: hybridization of the family.” In this case pets can be individual agents, willingly sharing emotional ties, friendship and activities with their owners. Multi-species households have offered new opportunities to relate to pets and new ways of thinking about them that blurs the lines between human and non-human. Sharing a home may offer positives for both human and animal in the form of emotional inter-dependence, friendship, company and shared activities. For Franklin (2006, p. 142) the human-pet relationship “is not a oneway, human-orchestrated attribution, but one built on close feelings and emotions self-evidently expressed also by the animals themselves.” In this chapter, I am interested in the different ways that anthropomorphization (or humanization) of cats and dogs have been deployed to make social and political statements in Thailand. I argue that although anthropomorphic acts may be harmful for an animal, they also offer insight into understanding human aspirations and ideals. As Hurn (2011, p. 113) states, “throughout history and across geographical and cultural divides, humans have appropriated and adapted other animals, transforming their physical appearance, accentuating or modifying their behaviours in a bid to transmit messages about themselves through these animal symbols.” In the following section, I examine the popularity of the King of Thailand’s dog, Thongdaeng, and how her story was utilised to communicate 53
ideas about collective values and pet ownership. I then consider the growing popularity of purebreds and the pet care market in Thailand, and cats and dogs as both accessories and the accessorised.
Historical Context of Cat and Dog Ownership
Humans have had close relationships with cats and dogs that can be traced back to well before the existence of written records. This has included affectionate relationships that resemble pet keeping, but cats and dogs have also served other social and utilitarian functions as “protectors of property, partners in hunting, religious icons and agents of pest control, not to mention being the subjects of scientific experimentation and sporting amusement” (Swabe, 1999, pp. 160-161). It is thought that the dog was the first “pet” to be domesticated around 10,000 to 15,000 years ago (Taylor, 2013). Although across different areas their primary function would have varied, dogs most probably functioned as working animals (Serpell, 1989). Evidence from ancient Egypt reveals the dog was a part of people’s everyday life. Wall paintings and sculptures show different varieties of dogs playing different roles, from guard to working dog to companion. The fact that dogs were buried with their masters is believed to reveal human involvement and close relationships with dogs (Thurston, 1996). Taylor (2013) suggests the relationships people had with dogs in ancient Egypt represents the beginning of institutionalised dog keeping. This could also be said for domestic cats who originated in Egypt and were eventually considered sacred (Málek, 1993, p. 75). Cats fulfilled very practical functions by hunting snakes and rodents. Bites from cobras and vipers were deadly to humans, and rodents and mice could devastate grain supplies. At the time, there was little people could do to deter snakes and rodents. Cats were attracted to settlements, granaries and silos because of the hunting and people would encourage them to return by offering food. Málek (1993, p. 54) states, “eventually a kind of symbiosis was reached which suited both sides: in exchange for a steady supply of food, or access to it, cats kept the area free of vermin.” In ancient Egyptian society the cat went on to embody meaning beyond being a hunter. The respect cats gained from their protective qualities is believed to have led to the association of cats with 54
significant symbolic meaning. Cats took on religious qualities as they were seen as representatives of gods, and every cat took on the status of a sacred animal. It became a crime punishable by death to kill a cat, even accidently. Cats were buried or mummified when they died, and when a household cat died the human inhabitants would shave one eyebrow as a sign of their mourning (Clutton-Brock, 2012; Málek, 1993). In Europe, there is evidence that cats and dogs were part of many households from as early as Celtic (around 500 BCE – 100 BCE) and Saxon (410 AD – 1066 AD) times, and while many people may have had affectionate bonds with cats and dogs, it is thought that the vast majority kept by the masses would have been owned for purely utilitarian purposes (Ritvo, 1987; Swabe, 1999). However, things changed for cats and dogs when the bubonic plague first struck Europe in the 1300s. Although it is now known the plague is contracted from fleas living on rats, at the time cats and dogs were shrouded with suspicion. The apparent immunity of cats and dogs led to myths about their possession of unnatural powers (Serpell, 1996). Although some members of the elite classes continued to keep dogs, their popularity declined as many people associated them with death (Thurston, 1996). Furthermore, the Catholic Church took a dim view of pet keeping as it challenged the dichotomous view it held of the human-animal boundary. The breeding and keeping of dogs was popular among social elites at this time, especially dogs for hunting, however, the wealthy considered the animals kept by the poor as dirty and diseased (DeMello, 2012). The status of cats and dogs improved from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries as middle class European society began to openly keep pets. Swabe (1999, p. 163) suggests that “the increasing urban population was in fact to play a key role in both the future spread of pet-keeping and changing attitudes towards animals.” Ritvo (1987) associates an increase in pet ownership with changes in the human relationship with the natural world. She argues that in Europe by the end of the eighteenth century, advances in science and engineering had begun to make nature more manageable and human perceptions about nature shifted from the belief that it was largely out of human control. Members of middle classes who had benefited from these advances “indulged in sentimental attachment to
55
pets as it became clear they represented a nature that was no longer threatening” (Ritvo, 1987, p. 161). Theorists began discussing animal cruelty, and greater recognition of animal suffering and consideration of how animals should be treated began to emerge (see Chapter 1). This long history of pet keeping, especially among the elites of society, was not isolated to Europe. There are examples of great affection for pets among elites in countries as diverse as China, Uganda, and Japan. For at least 1000 years Emperors of China kept dogs, and less often cats, in their royal apartments, and in some cases gave them the rank of senior court official (Serpell, 1987). By the 1800s the breeding of cats and dogs was common in Europe (Ritvo, 1987; Swabe, 1999) and exotic breeds began to be imported from other countries, including Thailand. The Siamese cat was first imported to Europe in the nineteenth century and quickly became popular (Clutterbuck, 2004); and in 1901, the Siamese Legation (diplomatic mission) in London reported to the Siamese Cat Club in London that, “in Bangkok because there are more leisured people who can devote time to hobbies of the sort, these cats are bred a good deal” (Clutterbuck, 2004, p. 1). Symbolism, meaning and animals in Thailand
In Cluterbuck’s (2004) history of the Siamese cat he states that for hundreds of years cats have been valued as mousers in Thailand, but also considered objects of superstition. The significance of cats in Thai society is indicated by the existence of books titled Tamra Maew (Treatises on Cats) that are believed to have originated in the Ayutthaya period (1350AD – 1767AD).14 The books provided details about meaning, for example, the belief that black, white, and black-and-white cats were lucky or auspicious. The information in the books suggests strong affectionate bonds between people and cats, including practical advice about feeding and care, and the particular characteristics of Thai breeds. Cats have held an important place in Thai society for many years, whilst the dog
14
Although the manuscripts Clutterbuck had access to date from the Bangkok restoration (1789 onwards). 56
was traditionally considered a lowly dirty animal (see Chapter 1). This perception has altered in recent years. As many Thais now share their home with dogs in relationships that resemble pet keeping as understood in countries such as the United Kingdom, Australia and the United States. Arguably, the most famous pet dog in Thailand is Thongdaeng (1998-2015). In 2002, His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej published a book, The Story of Thongdaeng, about his relationship with a puppy born to a soi dog he adopted and named Thongdaeng (copper in Thai, alluding to her coat). The book was incredibly popular, sold out quickly, and has since been reprinted six times. At the time of publication, people lined up to buy copies of the book and associated Thongdaeng merchandise, such as T-shirts. In 2006 she was featured on a limited edition set of postage stamps, and she appeared with His Majesty on his New Year greeting cards from 2006 to 2014 (see Figure 5).15 In the book, the King suggests that soi dogs make excellent pets: “dogs from the street can have all the desirable qualities that one could want from pet dogs” (His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 2002, p. 11). He utilises the language of animal rescue organisations when he goes on to say that, many people would be more than willing to give a suitable home for these dogs. It would help to solve part of the problem of dangerous stray dogs as well as reduce the import of expensive ‘luxury pets’ which take a toll on the economy of the country (His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 2002, p. 11).
All of His Majesty’s New Year greeting cards, including those with Thongdaeng can be viewed here: http://www.nectec.or.th/users/htk/gr01/ 15
57
Figure 5: His Majesty the King of Thailand's New Year card 2012. (Retrieved from: http://www.nectec.or.th/users/htk/gr01/)
The King’s call to adopt soi dogs to improve human safety, the lives of other dogs, and the economy was not commonly embraced. Instead, The Story of Thongdaeng is more symbolic, as it can be read “as a series of parables about what it takes to be a good subject” (Reddy & Lowe, 2011, p. Part 1). In the book, Thongdaeng is described as embodying many virtues that are discussed in anthropomorphic terms. She is described as loyal, respectful, grateful and in possession of good manners towards humans and other dogs. She is considered “an intelligent dog and quick to understand,” (His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 2002, p. 34) as illustrated in the book through numerous anecdotes. For example, she is described as having an “interest in fisheries” because she enjoys watching catfish jump out of the water when being fed. The anecdotes often demonstrate her obedience, for example: Once Thongdaeng found a chicken bone, left by the crows, in a bush in Chitralada Villa and was chewing on it; the King saw this and said, “Thongdaeng, that’s not good.” Thongdaeng immediately spat out the bone and ran to join the King (His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej, 2002, p. 34). During her life, Thongdaeng regularly attended public events with the King. Her
58
status was elevated through the official use of Khun at the beginning of her name, an honorific signifying respect generally reserved for humans. Reddy and Lowe (2011, p. 9) state that Thongdaeng was “deployed as a symbol of the Monarch and his values.” Only a short time before her death on 26 December 2015, a man was arrested under the country’s strict lèse-majesté laws charged with making a sarcastic comment about Thongdaeng on social media ("Thai king's favourite dog dies," 2015). The laws make it a crime to defame or criticise the royal family. The case is the first time the laws have been applied to a non-human member of the royal family and speak of Thongdaeng’s perceived status (Holmes, 2015). However, Thongdaeng is not the only royal dog to gain a significant public profile in Thailand. The Crown Prince’s now deceased dog, Foo Foo (1997-2015) was in many ways the opposite of Thongdaeng. Foo Foo, a purebred poodle, was bought by the Prince’s second daughter from Bangkok’s Chatuchak market (see Chapter 4). Foo Foo became a favourite of the Prince and accompanied him to official engagements and, according to reports, displayed few of the ‘virtues’ attributed to Thongdaeng (C. Gray, 2015; MacGregor Marshall, 2015). In 2007, Foo Foo, who was officially known as Air Chief Marshal, attended a gala dinner with the Crown Prince hosted by then United States ambassador Ralph “Skip” Boyce. According to a cable made public by Wikileaks, Boyce wrote, Foo Foo was present at the event, dressed in formal evening attire complete with paw mitts, and at one point during the band’s second number, he jumped up onto the head table and began lapping from the guests’ water glasses, including my own. The Air Chief Marshal’s antics drew the full attention of the 600-plus audience members, and remains the talk of the town to this day (McDonald, 2011, para. 3). According to Gray, this was a “calculated royal insult” (C. Gray, 2015). The symbolism of Thongdaeng’s and Foo Foo’s contrasting stories has been noted by some commentators as reflecting broader political concerns in Thailand (C. Gray, 2015; MacGregor Marshall, 2015). These discussions, however, are not widespread due to legal and other taboos surrounding debate about the monarchy in Thailand, as evidenced by the case discussed above regarding alleged insulting comments about Thongdaeng. After Foo Foo’s death in early 2015 there were 59
four days of Buddhist funeral rights, of which according to MacGregor Marshall (2015, para. 1), promoted “a surge of coded social media comments in the troubled kingdom, where it is illegal to openly discuss the looming royal succession.” This thesis does not require an in-depth examination of these issues. However, I do wish to highlight how humans utilise animals to speak to, and around, issues of individual and collective values and identity. Furthermore, the treatment of Thongdaeng and Foo Foo expressed attitudes that were redefining the relationship between humans and dogs in Thailand.
The Story of Thongdaeng is full of photos of the King enjoying sharing his home with Thongdaeng and other dogs. This reflects a change in attitude from the dog being understood as dangerous and dirty into a potential family member. Between 2000 and 2007 dog ownership in Thailand is estimated to have increased by 52 percent (Batson, 2008), which is the “period that is roughly concurrent with Thongdaeng fever” (Reddy & Lowe, 2011). With more Thais desiring to keep dogs and cats in the home, the associated industry of pet food and goods has been growing rapidly since the early 2000s. With this has come an influx of imagery of purebreds, and information and advice associated with contemporary pet keeping. Status and the market for pets
Thongdaeng and Foo Foo are high profile examples of animals being used to communicate societal level concerns in Thailand. However, cats and dogs are also social markers for individuals, and these relationships are “are based on contrasting socioeconomic norms” (Tissot, 2011, p. 265). This is especially true for dogs as they are more likely to accompany us in public spaces than any other kind of pet (Pierce, 2016, p. 48). In Thailand, there are no official statistics available to create a profile of dog and cat owners, although evidence suggests a link between pet owning practices, preferred breeds and socioeconomic status. According to Kasempimolporn, Jitapunkul, and Sitprija (2008, p. 434) there is a strong class element to dog-keeping practices in Bangkok. They found that ‘upper class’ households generally kept purebred dogs that were confined to the house, but “native dogs belonging to their employees were usually allowed to roam 60
freely.” I also observed evidence of a spatial element to the practice of pet ownership, with interactions of people with cats and dogs differing in relatively wealthy versus very poor urban settings. When I first arrived in Bangkok, I stayed on Sukhumvit Road, a popular residential and business area for expatriates and wealthy Thais. I was within walking distance of a shopping centre with wellknown foreign brands of consumer goods and expensive restaurants, cafes and bars. I would often walk to a nearby open-air mall called K-Village, which proved to be a rich source of observations. The mall had only opened in 2010, and is considered ‘dog friendly’, and although many restaurants do not allow dogs inside, owners are free to walk them around the grounds or sit with their pets on outdoor seating. There are even designated areas for dogs to go to the toilet.
Figure 6: Designated dog toilet area at K-Village.
Bangkok does not have a significant amount of green space, and therefore lacks appropriate outdoor spaces for owners to take their dogs for exercise or socialisation. Many parks either do not allow dogs, or owners find them undesirable as they are often home to established communities of soi cats and dogs. As a result, spaces such as K-Village seem to be gaining popularity in recent years with dog owners. Regardless of the time of day at K-Village, it was common to see dogs of all shapes and sizes out with their owners. Invariably, these were pedigree dogs, with people displaying an apparent predilection towards small breeds such as Pomeranians and Chihuahuas. Tissot (2011, p. 266) argues that dogs can be used by wealthy owners to “create social boundaries, to 61
exclude others as well as define insiders.” At K-Village these boundaries apply to humans and dogs. The mall is a public space, not exclusively for use by dog owners, but the boutiques, expensive restaurants and English language signage may leave less wealthy visitors feeling unwelcome. Spatial boundaries also exist for dogs as owned dogs are allowed, but soi dogs are actively kept out by security guards. The soi dogs were nearby as I commonly saw them lazing on surrounding footpaths, or in the less exclusive Tesco Lotus shopping centre car park opposite K-Village. In the words of Instone and Sweeney (2014), “contestation over urban public space is revealed as not just a human concern, but one where the agency of pets and their waste…is significant”.
Within K-Village, there are numerous stores selling pet care supplies and accessories, and a grooming salon for dogs to have their fur clipped and nails trimmed. The market for pet care products in Thailand is lucrative and growing. According to market research company Euromonitor International (2015d) Thailand is appealing as a growing market and there has been a significant increase in the amount of money spent on pets in recent years. Products gaining popularity include those considered important for maintaining good animal health such as flea, tick and worming treatments. But they also include items such as pet clothing, pet photography studios, and funeral and cremation services (Euromonitor International, 2015c). In addition, there has been strong demand in food for cats and small dog breeds, indicating that they are becoming the preferred pet, especially for city dwellers (Euromonitor International, 2015a, 2015b). The popularity of these products can easily be seen around Bangkok. When walking around more affluent parts of the city it is not unusual to see pet dogs wearing clothing or little booties, or to see recently coiffed small dogs in the window of a grooming salon. In addition, most supermarkets now have a large pet food and supplies section, with some even with an adjacent standalone store. The humanisation of food and health care for cats and dogs After my Thai language classes in Bangkok, I would often accompany my teacher to a nearby food stall to purchase fish (pla thu) and rice to give to a small group of cats living near a construction site. The cats were timid and did not approach us, however, we would try to get a good look at them to check they were not 62
injured and in need of veterinary treatment. We would then place down the food, which they would quickly devour. My Thai teacher told me that she had previously taken kittens in need of care back to her family farm in northeast Thailand. She explained that the free-roaming life on a farm was far preferable to life on the streets or in her small apartment in the city.
In Bangkok, it is common to see small piles of food left by community members, near the street side, for cat or dog consumption. As I discussed in Chapter 1, this is often motivated by the Buddhist concept of tham bun (merit making). The food is predominantly rice, usually with a small amount of meat, although on occasion I saw dry pet food included in the mix. However, the changing nature of the human-cat-dog relationship, and the increasing flows of pet keeping knowledge, especially introduced to Thailand from the United States, is impacting the way cats and dogs are fed. During my time in Bangkok I observed a growing number of shops stocking international pet food brands, and information on pet care being translated from English into Thai, and appearing online, on TV and in books and magazines. I discuss examples of these in further detail below. Clutterbuck (2004) notes that humans are now opting to feed cats canned and bagged food, rather than the fish meal of the sort my Thai teacher would buy. There has been an increase in sales of packaged pet foods in recent years, with popular flavours mirroring the kinds of fresh (human) food traditionally given to cats and dogs. A report from Euromonitor International (2015c, para. 2) states that this represents an “increasing convergence between pet and human food” in Thailand. In fact, it represents a shift away from human food for animals with increased preference for processed food for pets emulating the flavours of human food. The bags of dry biscuits and tins of meat are marketed as a ‘complete’ food for the animal that, according to pet food companies, means the animal is receiving all the vitamins and nutrients they need on a daily basis but marketed with human taste preferences. Processed and packaged pet food is seldom marketed with the flavours cats and dogs may select based on their hunting preferences. Since a human has to purchase the food in the first instance, common flavours are those palatable to
63
people including chicken, beef and fish. Pet foods are seldom marketed as rat, rabbit, bird, lizard or frog flavoured. It also appears that human food trends are influencing pet food. Dog food brand Cesar16 sells a ‘bulgogi and vege’ (grilled marinated beef and vegetable) flavoured canned food, which reflects the increase in popularity of Korean food and restaurants among the human inhabitants of Bangkok. These humanising trends can also be seen in pet food advertising, which is now common in Bangkok in supermarkets, on billboards, and on TV and radio. Whilst I was completing my fieldwork I regularly saw a Thai language TV advertisement for a locally made cat food called Me-O. Humans did not appear in the advertisement, instead cats were portrayed as having human like wants and decision making capacity when it came to food. The commercial was set in a sushi bar, which was staffed and patronised by healthy looking cats of different breeds. The cat customers are perusing the menu and licking their lips, when one asks “what’s good to eat?” In response, a cat in a chef’s hat exclaims “Me-O is ready to eat!” The customers all turn to the chef cat and rush to tuck into bowls of dry pellets of Me-O. A voiceover then informs us that Me-O is delicious and contains high quality ingredients like fish, chicken and vegetables. The ad portrays Me-O as more appealing to cats than fresh (human) food, such as sushi. The Me-O slogan appearing at the end of the ad, “if you have a cat, you need MeO,” equates pet ownership with an obligation to nourish your cat with a particular type of food.
16
Cesar dog food is made in Thailand, however, the company is owned by the multinational Mars Corp. 64
Figure 7: Cesar dog food advertisement at a Bangkok sky train station.
Many premium pet foods are promoted as free from preservatives and additives, with these products again linked to human desires for “all natural” food (Euromonitor International, 2015c). The range of pet foods available in Thailand is similar to other countries, such as Australia and the United States. Additionally, these foods are often marketed as being suitable for a specific breed or condition. It is possible to get food designed to: help manage the weight of an obese pet; be gentle to pets with sensitive stomachs; minimize hair balls; cater to the older cat or dog; and alleviate symptoms for those with allergies or skin problems. The claimed health benefits of many pet foods go well beyond providing sustenance, and many pet food companies are tailoring their foods to local markets. Thai pet food company Betagro Agro Group introduced a premium dog food range in 2014, called Perfecta, with the claim it is prepared especially for dogs living in tropical climates, including protein sourced from chicken with the addition of jasmine rice for good digestion (Euromonitor International, 2015c). For many dogs in Thailand, actual cooked chicken and jasmine rice is a regular part of their diet. Rather than feeding dogs these human leftovers, Thai pet owners can now spend around 480 baht (AUD18.50) for a three kilo bag of dry pellets for their canine family members. Furthermore, ingredients used in traditional Thai
65
medicine such as turmeric, tinospora crispa17 and androqraphis paniculata18 are now appearing in pet food and dietary supplements (Euromonitor International, 2015c). Most of the pet food from international companies, claiming to be specialist or ‘functional’ foods, are expensive and their purchase can be seen as a marker of prestige and wealth. These foods also provide differentiation between the food eaten by owned and unowned cats and dogs. The Euromonitor report claims this trend is evidence that consumers desire convenience, have a greater awareness of the claimed benefits of the foods, and are willing to invest in pampering their pets, when compared to offering table scraps or home-prepared food. Sandøe and colleagues (2016, p. 262), in discussing the increase in popularity of these foods, argue that they “have the potential to reduce suffering in companion animals, but - as in the case of some human functional foods - there is also the opportunity for unethical marketing to gullible consumers.” Veterinarians occupy a key role in making recommendations to clients about pet food, and multinational pet food companies see them as a vehicle to promote their products (Zicker, 2008). At a professional development event I attended for veterinarians offered by VPAT there were stalls and representatives from major brands, such as Royal Canin, Hill’s Science Diet, and Pedigree, all with samples and literature aimed at veterinarians outlining the research and science behind their products hoping to get more veterinarians to recommend it. At the same time, there is evidence of an increase in and provision of specialist veterinary care. More people are willing to pay for medical treatments that were once only available to humans. Informants working in animal advocacy advised me that there is no government support for veterinary care, meaning owners have to bear the full cost and more are willing to do so. In Thailand, clinics offering specialised veterinary services are increasing in popularity. Thong Lor Pet Hospital, for example, offers a range of services beyond general practice through
17
Tinospora crispa is a medicinal plant belonging to the botanical family Menispermiaceae. The plant is widely distributed in South East Asia and the northeastern region of India. For more information see, (A. Thomas, Rajesh, & Kumar, 2016) 18 Also known by the common names of Green chirayta, creat, king of bitters, andrographis, India Echinacea. 66
their multiple branches around Bangkok, and also Pattaya and Chiang Mai. The network of branches offers access to specialist veterinarians and clinics such as an ultrasound centre, rehabilitation centre, orthopaedic clinic and cancer clinic. The original branch that I visited, located in the Sukhumvit area of Bangkok, is open 24 hours a day offering emergency services, intensive care and access to specialist veterinarians such as neurologists and ophthalmologists. This clinic, and others like it, promote the view of pets as family members. There are also rooms for owners to stay overnight if they wish to remain close to their pet, as you might for a human child in hospital. The veterinarians in these clinics are often given the opportunity to pursue extra training and qualifications in English speaking countries, at the expense of their employer. Shows and Expos Special events such as dog and cat shows and pet expos are gaining popularity in Bangkok. Both Thongdaeng and Foo Foo have been guests at the annual Thailand Grand Pet Show. In 2003, Thongdaeng performed at the third annual event, and in 2006 Foo Foo appeared and was said to have “exuded charm and executed clever stunts” (Surarat, 2006). During my fieldwork in 2012, I attended the Pet Variety expo, which was held at a convention centre in Nonthaburi, a province neighbouring Bangkok to the north. I paid 20 baht (AUD0.75) to enter the event, which was dominated by stalls, from small and large companies, promoting products and services related to keeping a pet in the home. Reflecting the market trends that Euromonitor International (2015c) has identified (see above), a wide array of pet care products were available, including toys, worming and flea treatments, scratching posts, clothes and shoes. The shoes are marketed as offering protection against harsh surfaces, and hot roads and footpaths. However, they also offer an opportunity for the owner to transmit messages about themselves. The shoes often reflect human shoe styles, including skater sneakers and sandals in a variety of colours. The Pet Variety expo also had a stall offering various sized pet coffins for when the time comes to say a final goodbye. There was also a small animal veterinary clinic promoting 24 hour care and high cost procedures. Staff at the stall were keen to hand me English language pamphlets about the clinic’s rehabilitation centre, dental care and weight loss management program for pets. The central area of the exhibition space was dominated by large 67
stalls from prominent international pet food companies and sponsors, such as the main sponsor dog food brand Smart Heart, which is owned by CP Group one of Thailand’s largest companies. Young promotional staff stood at these stalls with microphone in hand loudly spruiking the benefits of their employer’s products and planned activities and giveaways.
At the expo there were a small number of rescue and advocacy organisations promoting their work and asking for donations or offering soi and temple cats for adoption. These stalls were located to one side of the expo space away from the noise and activities of the main area. This also meant they were away from most of the visitors. Although these organisations were present, most of the attention was on the promotion and consumption of pet care products, and breeders who had purebred puppies and kittens on display. At the events I attended, community members were permitted to bring their own pets into the exhibition space. I saw both cats and dogs at these events, not on leads or harnesses, but held in people’s arms, in handbags or riding in pet strollers. The pets themselves were often accessorised with clothing, decorative collars and occasionally nappies to enable them to ‘fit’ into the predominantly human space. These are anthropomorphic acts through which owners have their pet look and behave as if little humans. These acts are attempts to sanitise cats and dogs bringing them further into the human realm, and “controlling their animality” (Hurn, 2011, p. 119). Although owners may see these acts as an expression of love, they can have negative consequences for animal welfare. Cats, for example, are generally stressed by changes in their environment. Therefore, the bright lights, sounds and other animals of a pet expo could be frightening. Responsible pet ownership programmes, especially in high-income countries, generally stress that pets need to be controlled and managed by humans when in public spaces, especially dogs. This is designed to protect human and animal health (see Chapter 5). Cats and dogs living directly under our guardianship is promoted by animal advocacy and welfare organisations as the ‘responsible’ ideal (see Chapter 4). However, being confined to a house and only venturing out into human dominated spaces can create welfare concerns for pets such as decreased
68
activity levels, dietary changes and an inability to express natural behaviours such as hunting and scavenging. For many cats and dogs this can lead to problems such as weight gain and challenging behaviours such as aggression, excessive vocalisation, toileting issues and anxiety. To help address these concerns, there is now a significant amount of information and products designed to improve multispecies living. During my fieldwork, I noticed an increasing amount of information and advice about pet keeping in the media. For example, Dr Parntep Ratanakorn, Dean of the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Mahidol University, runs a regular radio show and frequently appears on TV offering people advice about their pets and other animal interactions, such as wildlife education. There are magazines devoted to cats and dogs, for example, Shamu19 is a glossy quarterly bilingual (Thai and English) publication informing readers about different aspects of pet care with a focus on purebred cats and dogs. Every issue has a profile of a particular breed, discussing its personality, temperament and suitability for the home. The magazine also provides articles about pet behaviour, training and care. The magazine’s stated aim is to “promote responsible pet ownership and improve the quality of life of every pet. We make it our goal to provide the most up to date and honest information every pet owner should know for the sake of our furry friends” ("Shamu Quarterly," n.d., para. 1). Along with the pet information and education that is published in Shamu, about half the magazine is devoted to selling pet related products, including food and healthcare treatments. Many of the products are designed to manage natural animal behaviours and giving them acceptance in the human home. This includes cat litter trays, dog toilets and deodorizers “to keep pets smelling great.” In addition, there are products to help alleviate animal anxiety, stress and aggression (http://www.shamuquarterly.com/Index.html). The pet care industry, through its events and products, promotes acts of anthropomorphism. However, among the processed food and animal bling, there is increasing pet care information based on popular notions of animal psychology. These discourses emphasising ‘natural’ animal behaviour predominantly emerge
19
Shamu is the Japanese word for Siam, the traditional name for Thailand. 69
from the United States and influence pet ownership in Thailand. Reality TV shows from the United States such as My Cat from Hell and Dog Whisperer are very popular. The hosts of these shows, Jackson Gallaxy and Cesar Millan20, have made visits to Bangkok in recent years, hosting live shows and offering advice to pet owners to improve relationships with their pets. Fox (2006, p. 529) argues that these television shows are a means of “challenging anthropocentric understandings” by acknowledging cats and dogs as sentient beings with needs and behaviours different to our own. However, pet behaviour and our relationships with cats and dogs are complex, and these interpretations tend to “essentialize animal actions into supposed ‘biological’ behaviour, such as the ‘pack instinct’ in dogs, and ignore animal agency and individual interaction in the relationship” (Fox, 2006, p. 529). The complexities and contradictions in our relationships with cats and dogs means we cannot be sure what anthropomorphic acts are unproblematic cases of hybridization, as Franklin (2006) claims, or acts of human domination leading to poor pet welfare. By holding up Haraway’s ‘animal mirror’ (1978, p. 37) these acts reveal a great deal about human values and aspirations because it supplies a way of talking about our animals. In Thailand, choice of breed and the public space you inhabit with your pet is revealing of conceptions about identity and social status. Anthropomorphic acts also tell of deeper social and cultural values and opinions, with animals such as Johnny the cat and Thongdaeng being ripe with the unsayable. Still, pets do not always behave in ways that human owners expect, and cat and dog behaviours that challenge human expectations can create problems. In part, this has led to the growth of an industry in products to help ease the difficulties of multispecies living. These relationships, however, cannot always be ‘fixed’ by advice and products leading to breakdowns in the human-pet relationship. In the next chapter I discuss the concept of responsible pet ownership and how it is utilised to prevent these breakdowns, and improve human and animal welfare.
20
In recent years, Millan has become the subject of debate and controversy regarding his dog training techniques and use of dominance theory (see for example, Derr, 2016). 70
CHAPTER 4 NOTIONS OF RESPONSIBILITY AND PET OWNERSHIP IN THAILAND It’s like raising your child. It makes no difference whether we buy a pet or we give birth to a baby. We have another member in the family. (Dr Yuth, Thai veterinarian) The idea of responsibility is frequently utilised in contemporary discussions of human-pet relationships. The concept of ‘responsible pet ownership’21 has established itself in many high-income countries where interactions with cats and dogs predominantly occur in the home and an increase in pet ownership has seen a corresponding need to manage people’s relationships with these animals. Responsible pet ownership behaviours are designed to have benefits for both humans and animals, but the actual (human) behaviours promoted depend on numerous social, cultural and spatial factors. The dominant narrative of responsible pet ownership as understood in many high-income, predominantly English speaking, countries involves ‘pet owners’ being compliant with various cat and dog management behaviours designed to encourage positive animal and human welfare. It is promoted by governments, veterinarians and animal advocacy organisations with the aim of satisfying their own perceived welfare needs of the animal and preventing “risks (aggression, disease transmission or injuries) that the dog may pose to the community, other animals or the environment” (OIE, 2016, glossary).22
In countries such as Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada, a defined regulatory framework governs the treatment and ownership of animals. This may or may not include laws, legislation, regulations and/or codes of practice related to practices such as confinement, registration, micro-chipping, desexing, formal obedience training, and regular socialisation and exercise (Rohlf et al., 2010; Toukhsati et al., 2007). There are, however, differing notions of responsibilities towards cats and dogs within and between communities. Even in regulated 21
Responsible pet ownership can be applied to any owned animals; however, it is generally used in reference to cats and dogs, which is the focus of this chapter. 22 This definition was written specifically in relation to dogs; however, this could reasonably be applied to cats as well. 71
communities, there are owners who do not comply with all the recommended behaviours promoted as responsible pet ownership. As Rohlf and colleagues (2010, p. 144) state, “even owners who appear to be very responsible sometimes fail to engage.” In low and middle income countries, there may be limited or no regulations and no community education regarding cat and dog ownership. The successful promotion of these behaviours may be impeded by economic pressures (such as the cost of veterinary care), limited resources to enforce existing regulations, lack of qualified veterinary staff, and diverse cultural views and values applied to animals, surrounding freedom, existence and notions of suffering. Savvides (2013, p. 30) argues that people’s interactions with dogs in Bangkok challenge the “dominant narratives for human-animal relationships that appear in Western theories of pet-keeping practices.” In Bangkok, the human-cat and dog relationship is mutable, as the longstanding practice of caring for cats and dogs as community members, without a defined owner, continues alongside an increasing number of people keeping cats and dogs in the home. In this dynamic environment, where categories such as ‘owned’, ‘semi-owned’ or ‘stray’ are hard to determine, what does the concept of responsible pet ownership mean?
In this chapter, I draw on my fieldwork experiences, in order to examine meaning in human-cat and dog relationships, and the role that these animals play in people’s lives. Focussing on the social and cultural factors influencing these interactions, I explore how people define responsibility and care towards animals. I examine the notions of responsibility that emerged from first-hand observations, interviews with Thai veterinarians working in small animal practice, and interviews with both Thais and expatriates working in cat and dog welfare and advocacy.
Caring for cats and dogs in Bangkok
In Thailand, responsible pet ownership is a relatively new concept that is promoted through various channels, including VPAT, cat and dog advocacy
72
organisations, the BMA, and magazines such as Shamu (see Chapter 3) that are aimed at pet owners. The number of Thai households owning a pet is increasing and dogs and cats can be obtained from a multitude of sources including pet stores, directly from breeders, private sales advertised on online fora, at markets or occasionally from someone selling on a street side. Since 2014, animal welfare laws specify the minimum level of care owners should provide to their pets. However, there are no laws or regulations specifically governing the breeding or sale of cats and dogs.
At the Thailand Cat Show, one advocacy organisation had cats and kittens available for people to take home for free. Lots of people were crowded around the stall, and I quickly realised that many people were not just admiring the cute kittens; they were taking them home. Due to the popularity of the stall I was unable to talk to any of people running the stall and there were so many people crowded around it was hard to get close. However, I was able to observe the process of a cat or kitten being selected then placed in a cardboard box and a few air holes were pushed into the box, which was then tied up. The cat’s status had swiftly altered from ‘unwanted’ to ‘pet’ with no exchange of money, information or products to help ease the transition. Most of the people leaving with a cat appeared to be young couples. I talked to one of the other stall holders, Khun Gade, about what I was seeing. She had been involved in cat and dog rescue for a long time in Thailand, and she said this was a common sight at these events. She told me that the cats had most likely been collected from a local temple that morning, specifically to be offered for adoption at the show. She believed it was highly unlikely they had received any veterinary care, therefore they would most likely be unvaccinated and unsterilized. Many of the cats would already have disease and would die shortly after the event. The philosophy of the organisation offering these cats for adoption was that any home was better than the streets or living on temple grounds.
73
Figure 8: Kittens available for free at the Thailand Cat Show 2012.
Markets are a very popular place for people to acquire a pet, and unlike the soi cats offered at the cat show, market stall holders are generally offering pure breed cats and dogs for a price. Chatuchak market in the north of Bangkok is a popular place to purchase a pet. The market has a very large section devoted to the sale of animals, and puppies and kittens of numerous breeds are available, along with other species such as rabbits, mice and birds. While most animals for sale at the market are companion species, there is also an informal and illegal market trade in wildlife, and it has been reported that you can get “just about any animal you can think of” (Englesberg, 2007, para. 3). The space is crowded with cages, often stacked on top of each other. Cute puppies play on one level with rabbits or kittens asleep in the cages above them. The area is undercover and most stalls are out in the open, although some are enclosed shops complete with air conditioning. Along with the varied types of sellers there is also an evident disparity in the condition and health of the animals. Although they are always caged, some of the stalls have lively healthy looking animals, whilst others are in cages with no access to water or food, and look lethargic and unwell. Media reports state that the animals have been bred in ‘puppy farm’ conditions and kept in cages until sale. Most puppies and kittens are under one month old, meaning that they are available for sale far younger than the ideal age for weaning, and when they are too young for vaccination or sterilisation ("Pet shops in Chatuchak," 2010). This leads to compromises in human and animal health, and many people report on 74
internet fora and blogs that their cat or dog died shortly after arriving home. Diseases such as feline and canine parvovirus and distemper are common; both diseases are highly contagious and have high mortality rates. In 2010, a woman who owned a pet store at the market died of rabies after being bitten by one of her dogs ("Shopkeeper's death," 2010), leading to calls for pet shops at Chatuchak market to be registered ("Pet shops in Chatuchak," 2010). I discuss zoonotic disease, in particular rabies, in detail in Chapter 5. Pets are easily available, however, there is often little thought about the challenges that may occur in caring for the pet leading to a breakdown in the relationship and possible abandonment. The reality of disease and behavioural issues only become evident after purchase (Casey, Vandenbussche, Bradshaw, & Roberts, 2009; Diesel, Brodbelt, & Pfeiffer, 2010; DiGiacomo, Arluke, & Patronek, 1998; Neidhart & Boyd, 2002). Many advocacy organisations place significant emphasis on ensuring the right ‘fit’ between animal and human, to prevent the possibility of a breakdown in the relationship leading to compromises in welfare and possible abandonment. For example, Thailand based advocacy and rescue organisations Soi Dog Foundation and Care for Dogs both require potential adopters to attend an interview, and Care for Dogs also requires the completion of a contract (Care for Dogs Foundation, n.d.; Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-c). Soi (street) cats and dogs Cats and dogs that have lived on the streets are not favoured as pets and large numbers of soi cats and dogs continue to live in poor conditions, suffering from malnutrition and preventable diseases such as mange and cat flu. This is supported by Savvides (2014) in her ethnographic study of volunteering with soi dogs, where she states that although dog ownership is growing among the “socioeconomically advantaged”, only a small proportion of people choose to adopt a dog with a history of life on the streets. She argues that “the indeterminate breeding of these animals does not appeal to this socio-economically privileged group” (Savvides, 2014, p. 108).
Kasempimolporn and colleagues (2008, p. 434) describe the ownership status of
75
many dogs in Bangkok as “unstable”, especially as the confinement of dogs to the owner’s premises is not widely practiced nor, as they term it, “culturally feasible”. The authors note that, with the exception of purebred dogs belonging to upper class households, people of all levels of social status allow their dogs to roam and scavenge freely for at least part of the day. Due to public health concerns such as the transmission of zoonoses, and the public nuisance of freeroaming dogs barking, scavenging through garbage and defecating on the street, there have been attempts by the BMA to decrease numbers of free-roaming animals. During campaigning for the election of Governor of Bangkok in 2013, four candidates took part in a forum organised by a local animal advocacy organisation, the Foundation for Stray Dogs, to discuss what they would do, if elected, to address the population of stray dogs. All candidates agreed that more resources were needed to deal with the ‘problem’ of soi dogs, and one suggested that it was now a national issue ("Hopefuls vow ", 2013). There is recognition that soi dogs live with poor health and welfare, and this can lead to public health concerns; however, the social position of these dogs and their relationships with community members as recipients of care and food has meant that officials have been reticent to act to decrease their numbers.
Animal management, welfare and rights
Our close relationship with domestic animals can bring with it significant animal and human welfare concerns, and given this, in Nussbaum’s (2006, p. 376) words, there is a need to “treat them as companions in need of prudent guardianship, but endowed with entitlements that are theirs, even if exercised through guardianship”. For a number of decades there has been debate and discussion regarding the management of cats and dogs in urban environments, with early discussions about responsible pet ownership beginning in the United States in the early 1970s when free-roaming animals were being blamed for polluting the urban environment, damaging property and endangering public health (Rowan & Williams, 1987). With increasing urbanisation and more cats and dogs taking on the status of family members, natural ecological forces controlling their population numbers diminished and factors such as urban
76
environments and human attitudes began to have greater impacts on their lives. As Selby and colleagues (1979) stated in the late 1970s, these factors are strongly influenced and controlled by human attitudes and behaviours, including breed popularity, cost, housing restrictions, sterilisation, euthanasia, mortality due to accidents, and disease prevention and control.
Initial efforts to curb the cat and dog population in the United States focused on community education and sterilisation of animals. Irresponsible pet ownership was cited by officials and the community as one of the main causes for the problems associated with free-roaming animals and the high rates of euthanasia in shelters (Rowan & Williams, 1987; Selby et al., 1979). It was agreed by local authorities that educating the general public about the need to control dog and cat numbers was an important part of the solution. Representatives from animal control agencies, veterinarians and animal advocacy groups believed that their cooperation combined with preventative measures such as adoption and sterilisation, and owner education would lead to a “responsible, educated public that understands the issues related to dog and cat overpopulation and its potential as a community health problem” (Selby et al., 1979, p. 380). Being a responsible pet owner was viewed as everyone’s concern, not just a concern for animal owners. Often, the problems related to owned cats and dogs are only the concern of owners and their families; however, at other times “they affect visitors and neighbours and occasionally a wider swath of the community” (Voith, 2009, p. 327). The focus on community education, however, quickly shifted to methods of “enforcement of responsible pet ownership rather than relying on persuasion” (Rowan & Williams, 1987, p. 111, emphasis in original).
More than 40 years have passed since the early discussions of the importance of responsible pet ownership. During this time, the concept has developed in many countries in the context of rising numbers of cat and dog ownership and accompanying professional services. Sandøe, Corr and Palmer (2013, p. 36) argue that we have also increased our “understanding of what constitutes a good life for a companion animal, how to balance the different aspects of what constitutes a good life, and how to balance the concern for animal welfare against different human interests and concerns”. 77
In Chapter 1, I described the elements that Nussbaum (2006) suggests are required for a just and dignified life for an animal. In Thailand, these basic freedoms were included in the Animal Welfare Act that passed in 2014 prohibiting cruelty, and requiring owners/carers to provide a minimum level of care and resources to their animals (Chapter 1). Advocacy organisations like Soi Dog Foundation have been campaigning for many years in an attempt to improve legal protections for animals in Thailand. For many years too, international organisations such as World Animal Protection and the Humane Society International have been campaigning on various animal cruelty issues, such as trying to stop the presence of elephants in urban areas to entertain tourists, and to stop wildlife trafficking. Many of these campaigns have targeted English speakers to raise awareness that their activities as tourists can have a direct impact on animal welfare. During my fieldwork, I observed a growing animal activist movement among Thais who were joining together to voice their opposition to animal cruelty. There are many groups active on social media; for example, A Call for Animal Rights Thailand has over 100,000 likes on Facebook (www.facebook.com/ACALLforAnimalRightsThailand/). This group and other similar ones are run by well-educated and often wealthy Thais who are able to communicate in both Thai and English. A Call for Animal Rights Thailand, like many other animal advocacy groups in Bangkok, was a result of the work of volunteers who mobilised after seeing the plight of many cats and dogs during the devastating floods that impacted Bangkok in 2011.
Prior to the passing of animal welfare legislation in 2014, acts of animal cruelty, especially against dogs, were gaining media attention and people were protesting in greater numbers for animal rights and welfare violations to be punished more harshly. In 2012, a German national living in Thailand was accused of stabbing to death his neighbour’s Labrador after it attacked him and his own dog ("Thai animal protection group," 2012). The man claimed that he acted in self-defence, and he had previously made a complaint to the police about the unrestrained aggressive Labrador. As the offense took place prior to the passing of the new laws, he was charged with destroying another person’s property and fined 1,000 baht (AUD35), the maximum fine permitted under Thai law for an act of animal 78
cruelty at the time. It was reported that the man was instigating legal proceedings against the owner of the dog to claim 300,000 baht (AUD10, 800) in compensation for the injuries he sustained in multiple attacks by the Labrador. This case came to the attention of two local animal rights groups who protested against, what they argued, was inappropriate punishment for such an act of cruelty. In a protest outside the man’s home, about 50 people from the groups A Call for Animal Rights Thailand and Animal Lovers in Thailand angrily called for the man to leave Thailand. The protester’s placards questioned the selfdefence argument with statements, in a mixture of Thai, English and German, such as “Kill their family and now wanna get money? Get out!” and “Thai people hate you”. They believed that the dog was not merely personal property, but a cherished family member, and that Thais would not tolerate such behaviour. The protesters left the man’s home only after the Labrador’s owner addressed the crowd, thanking them all for their support and stating how much he missed his dog. The groups later protested at the German Embassy in Bangkok, with a spokesperson saying they wanted the man “to have a mental examination” ("Protest against German," 2012; "Thai animal protection group," 2012).
One of the major campaigns for advocacy groups is against the trafficking of dogs to Vietnam and Southern China for human consumption. In recent years there have been growing voices against the practice, both officially and from community members. The trafficking of dogs has a long history, and previously most dogs were taken from the population of free-roaming dogs in northeast Thailand. More recently, however, they include stolen pets. I discuss this trade in depth in Chapter 8; however, the above examples demonstrate a growing awareness of animal welfare and rights issues in Thailand and changing notions of human responsibility towards animals. There is willingness from members of the community to mobilise and voice their opposition to acts of cruelty towards animals and state that animals (dogs, at least) should be afforded certain rights and legal protections, and that community members have a responsibility to provide them with a ‘dignified’ life. It is important to note, however, that this mobilisation is concentrated in the educated, upper-middle class in Bangkok who can speak and read English. As I have discussed, many of the services and public spaces available to pet dogs and their owners are accessible only to those with 79
monetary means, these factors suggests that within different socio-economic groups and locations throughout Bangkok and Thailand there are tensions regarding appropriate welfare for cats and dogs.
Veterinarians and animal advocacy
Veterinarians can play an important role in the community through their responsibility for providing treatment and preventative medicine to animals, and the promotion of pet ownership behaviours. They can also influence our understanding of animal welfare in their unique position as a link between the community and policy makers (Hsu et al., 2003; Rollin, 2006). Veterinarians play a crucial role in the promotion of responsible pet ownership, as Prescott argues, the veterinary profession should regard itself “as the ultimate source of information on the care of animals. Hence the requirements for responsible pet ownership are pertinent to the profession” (Prescott, 1982, p. 37).
Veterinary education in Thailand has its origins in the early twentieth century, with the assistance of veterinarians from the United Kingdom and Europe. In 1912 it commenced as a four year diploma level course at the Thai Army Veterinary School; in the 1930s it became a five-year degree level course at Chulalongkorn University. The teaching of veterinary medicine continued to develop with exchanges of knowledge from overseas, with teachers coming to Thailand and Thai students studying abroad. In the 1950s, a second university, Kasetsart University, began offering veterinary education and the program changed to the current six year duration. Graduates are qualified to practice on completion of the degree. Currently, veterinary medicine is offered at six veterinary schools within universities around the country; this number is expected to rise to 10 in the near future (Ratanakorn, 2013).
The study of animal welfare and ethics is a relatively new addition to the curriculum for veterinary medicine schools in Thailand, and advocacy groups work closely with academic staff to increase teaching time and capacity on animal welfare issues for veterinarians. World Animal Protection, for example,
80
regularly runs capacity development workshops at universities around the country, teaching academic staff and research students topics related to animal welfare and veterinary medical ethics. Nevertheless, these classes do not take a high priority; for instance, at Chulalongkorn University, home to the country’s oldest School of Veterinary Medicine, classes on animal welfare and veterinary ethics occupy only one semester in the fifth year of the six year veterinary science degree (C. Benjanirut, personal communication, 7 October, 2016).
In Europe, prior to the mid-nineteenth century, the same medical procedures for humans were also applied to animals. Since then, veterinary science has been established as a separate profession, with the belief that different models of care should be available for humans and animals. Fudge and Palmer (2011, para 1-2) argue, however, that this separation has, rarely been more than skin deep…everywhere humans and animals are entangled: we choose to share our homes with animals; we eat them; they both sicken and cure us…veterinary science may be about animals, but it is also – in a multitude of ways – about humans: our health, our control, our sense of who we are in the world – and also, who we are not.
Similarly, the One Health initiative is an acknowledgment of the symbiotic relationship between human and veterinary medicine, and that there must be interdisciplinary collaboration to address both human and animal health concerns (Whittaker, 2015).
This can place veterinarians in an important and challenging position, as they seek to negotiate the triad of human vet, human “client” and animal “patient” where the relationship between the three is neither neutral nor equal. As Taylor (2013, p. 95) states, “humans have more power than animals in the veterinary surgery: they restrain animals if needed, and owners and the veterinarian discuss problems and potential solutions for the animal without any input from the animal themselves. As such there is a need for the human to “speak for” the animal.” A veterinarian must seek to satisfy “client” and “patient” while attempting to make a living running a profitable business. Therefore, the job of a veterinarian is more 81
complicated than just dealing with animal disease. Degeling and colleagues (2013, p. 92) argue that there are “tensions between patient- and client-focused models of veterinary care, between financial concerns and concerns for animal welfare…even as financial considerations and owner preferences undoubtedly direct veterinary actions, ethical and legal parameters also shape veterinary responses to their clients’ requests.”
Most studies of veterinarians have taken place in high-income countries, particularly the United States (for example, Atwood-Harvey, 2005; Morris, 2012; Sanders, 1994). In many countries in recent decades, veterinary practice has undergone change as small animal practices have flourished, especially in urban areas, and the number of women studying and practicing veterinary science has increased (Taylor, 2013). This is also the case in Thailand, where there is a proliferation of small animal clinics, especially in Bangkok, with most veterinarians now working in animal clinics and hospitals (Ratanakorn, 2013). Many veterinarians in Bangkok work closely with animal advocacy organisations. These organisations are numerous and their work generally involves a combination of fundraising for, and awareness raising of cases of cruelty, running CNVR programmes (noted previously and discussed further below), shelter facilities, adoption programmes and community education. There are an expanding number of these organisations working with veterinarians to promote responsible pet ownership behaviours that align with the social, cultural and spatial context of Bangkok.
The Thai Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (TSPCA) was established in 1994 and it was granted affiliate status with the United Kingdombased RSPCA in 1997. Since then the TSPCA has been joined by numerous other organisations, aiming to prevent cruelty and improve the welfare of animals in Thailand. Similar to other animal advocacy groups worldwide, most organisations are reliant on volunteers and struggle to gain community and financial support to continue their work. The expatriate founded organisation SCAD, for example, closed its operations in 2012 due to funding issues, after 10 years of providing CNVR, rescue and adoption services in Bangkok.
82
The people I met and interviewed who work in cat and dog advocacy included Thais and expatriates. Although there are many diverse groups, I focussed on those who had a long-term involvement in the area, generally 5-10 years or more. Many people involved in animal rescue and advocacy lack formal training in an animal related area, but became involved out of a strong desire to help improve the lives of cats and dogs in Thailand. This is no different to the motivations of those who work with animals in other countries, as love for animals and a desire to help are often identified as the main motivating factor for volunteers and workers in animal advocacy and rescue (Irvine, 2002).
Animal advocacy organisations are crucial in performing and promoting responsible pet ownership behaviours; for many soi cats and dogs without an easily identified owner it is often the workers for these organisations who arrange for CNVR programmes in the community and arrange for veterinary care when needed. This approach is favoured by most animal advocates in Thailand for reducing cat and dog numbers and improving health and welfare, especially in urban areas. Although there is debate, particularly in high-income countries, about the treatment and management of unowned cats and dogs, CNVR is favoured in the context of Bangkok where there are few shelter facilities, unfavourable community views on the use of euthanasia to control animal populations, a community preference towards free-roaming animals, and a low rate of adoption of animals that have lived on the street. It is acknowledged that CNVR alone may never be able to reach the crucial numbers to help bring down the overall population of street cats and dogs, however, its value is seen in improving the welfare of those animals it does reach. These individual animals are likely to have improved welfare due to controlled breeding and are less likely to have and spread disease (Palmer, 2014). This core activity of many advocacy groups requires a strong working relationship with veterinarians (who are needed to perform sterilisations, administer medical care and vaccinations) and the community who may feel a sense of ownership over the animals in their neighbourhood and therefore need to be supportive of their animals being captured, treated and returned.
Although CNVR is generally favoured, advocacy organisations go about their 83
work in different ways with differing priorities. Although it is agreed by advocacy organisations that cats and dogs need managing, a love for animals and a desire to help does not translate into consensus about the best way to manage free-roaming populations and improve welfare. The Soi Dog Foundation, for example, based in Phuket and with a smaller operation in Bangkok, aims to end animal cruelty and “create a society without homeless animals” (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-a, para. 1). In contrast, the Bangkok-based organisations PAWS and Dog Chance accept the existence of free-roaming cats and dogs, and acknowledge the roles that these animals play in the lives of community members. In the context of Bangkok, they do not view it as realistic to aim for all cats and dogs to be living in homes; rather they primarily work towards a healthier population of free-roaming animals. Furthermore, the south of Thailand, including Phuket, has a significant Muslim population whose interactions with and attitudes towards dogs may be influenced by religious values.
For a number of years, the BMA has also been attempting to improve the lives of soi cats and dogs through a campaign to promote responsible ownership behaviours, including a low-cost sterilisation service, micro-chipping, community education and vaccinations (Ussavasodhi, 2009). In late 2007, plans were enacted requiring Bangkok dog owners to microchip and register their dogs with the BMA. The intention was to decrease the number of abandonments, public health risks and nuisance behaviour, such as aggression and defecating in public places. Owners are required to get their dogs micro-chipped at a private veterinary clinic and register the dog at a BMA district office. As a promotion, 7.5 million baht (AUD280, 000) was allocated to cover the cost of the first 50,000 dogs being micro-chipped. The plan, however, was not without criticism, as it was felt by some that it would do little to impact the number of abandonments. Kasempimolporn and colleagues (2008) argue that the money would be better spent on education about keeping pets and responsibility. Furthermore, “poor dog owners cannot afford the cost of implanting microchips and there were not enough BMA officers to enforce the regulation” (Kasempimolporn et al., 2008, p. 435). In 2009, the BMA announced the ‘Bangkok Mass Sterilization and Vaccination’ 84
project to control the population of free-roaming dogs. This involved other organisations, such as the United States based Humane Society International, the TSPCA, and the Faculty of Veterinary Medicine at Mahidol University, working with the BMA to control the population of soi dogs. According to the government press release, all dogs, owned and stray, were to be micro-chipped, and stray dogs were to be sterilised (Ussavasodhi, 2009). It was hoped to see a significant reduction of the street population of dogs within five years. In my own observations, I have noticed the number of soi dogs has decreased in certain areas of the city, generally areas where wealthy Thais and expats resided, and I have been unable to confirm whether this is due to the actions of the BMA, any other organisation, or other factors. There are still significant numbers of soi dogs in other parts of the city, and these dogs have generally not been sterilised. Given the Bangkok Governor candidates for the 2013 election were part of a forum specifically to discuss their polices and plans for the management of soi dogs, there is little evidence that the efforts of the BMA has yielded the desired results.
What does it mean to be a responsible pet owner?
Responsibility for life Given their important role in the promotion and practice of responsible pet ownership behaviours and negotiating ethical concerns arising from the humancat and dog relationship, what does the concept mean to veterinarians and advocacy workers in Thailand? For the ten veterinarians I interviewed, responsibility is strongly associated with the ability and commitment from owners to care for a pet for life. Veterinarians believe that many of the problems they see daily with cats and dogs, such as skin disorders and worms, are easily preventable, and those interviewed stressed the need for consideration prior to getting a pet. Keeping a pet for life entails feeding, spending time with the animal, exercise, vaccinations and general health care.
As Dr Mali, a veterinarian practicing in Bangkok, describes below, acquiring a pet without considering such factors as lifestyle, living arrangements, and finances, is irresponsible and contributes to decisions to abandon cats and dogs.
85
In my opinion, if anyone would like to keep a pet, they should have responsibility for the pet’s life. They have to be able to take care of that life until it ends. Responsibility includes feeding, spending time with the pet, playing with it, providing it with vaccination and health care program…But if they can’t take care of it throughout its life, then they have to find someone else who could continue taking good care of their pet. There are some cases when people buy pets and they somehow get sick. That sickness then causes the dog to have some abnormalities. And its owner no longer wants to keep it. They then give the pet away to someone or some foundation that takes care of neglected dogs. I don’t agree with this. If you think about keeping it in the first place, then you realize you have to take care of its life. Not just giving it food, you have to give it time, play with it, and love it.
Many veterinarians suggest that relationships with pets should be thought of in the same way as our relationships with other humans. As one of the veterinarians, Dr Sunee, explains:
So think well before making a decision to keep a pet. Besides, you have to know whether you are capable of keeping a pet, if not, well...I talk to several clients that if you are not capable, don’t keep one. Not just financial, but you have to have time for your pet, too. I like to tell clients that it’s like you have a boyfriend/girlfriend. If you don’t have time for him/her, don’t find one because you guys wouldn’t be happy, and eventually would break up. Indeed, ‘break-ups’ between humans and pets are all too common. The high rate of abandonments highlights the interconnectedness of the owned and stray populations in Bangkok. For veterinarians, educating people prior to obtaining a cat or dog about the realities of keeping them in the home and accepting responsibility for the life of the animal would help to decrease abandonments, resulting in fewer soi cats and dogs. This is supported by Kasempimpolporn and colleagues (2008, p. 434) who argue “most stray dogs result from people raising 86
dogs and later abandoning them. If the public stopped abandoning animals, the problem with stray dogs would dramatically decrease.”
Animal advocacy groups are beginning to report that they are encountering abandoned pedigree cat and dogs among the soi population. They report that these animals often do not cope well on the streets, as they have begun life as a pet in a home and then have to fend for themselves and mix with unfamiliar dogs and cats in already established colonies. This means that as a result of disease and injury, they often come into the care of veterinarians and advocacy organisations. As they do not have a safe community to return to, the BMA and many organisations encourage the public to adopt the animals in their care. Although they may be a defined breed, abandoned pedigrees do not necessarily prove popular for adoption. Many advocacy groups have discovered that a history of life on the streets makes for an unattractive companion in the home (Pungkanon, 2011; Savvides, 2014). Savvides (2014, p. 111) found that ‘pedigree’ in Bangkok is “associated more with the place from which the dog was acquired than the breed itself.” Some advocacy organisations promote the cats and dogs in their care for adoption to people living outside of Thailand, generally in North America and Europe where quarantine laws allow the importation of cats and dogs from Thailand (see Chapter 7).
This situation supports the need for a concept like responsible pet ownership, and confirms the interdependence that has developed between humans and domestic pets. In Nussbaum’s (2006, pp. 377-378) words there is a need for “an intelligent, species-sensitive paternalism” in our relationship with domestic animals where the “capacities and personality of the individual animal” are considered. This, however, is not easily done. Nussbaum (2006, p. 376) herself states that ethical concerns in our relationships with domestic animals raise “special problems”. Sandøe and Christiansen (2008) outline four primary ways that ethical problems concerning the welfare of pets can arise. The first sees problems emerge because humans and pets share the same lifestyle, which can impact the quality of diet and amount of exercise the animal receives. The second way relates to “surgical removal of healthy tissue for cosmetic reasons, convenience or to prevent potential medical problems” (Sandøe & Christiansen, 2008, p. 120). This can 87
include routine procedures such as sterilisation, or cosmetic and controversial ones such as tail docking or declawing. The next group of problems relates to behavioural problems; this includes normal behaviours that may need to be supressed, for example, cat urine spraying. It also includes abnormal behaviours that occur because an animal is bored or frustrated. Behavioural problems are common and regularly lead to abandonment. The final group of problems relates to breeding animals with hereditary defects.
The promotion of responsible pet ownership is designed to alleviate problems in all these areas. However, people’s beliefs about suitable welfare and rights for cats and dogs are complicated and diverse, and although responsible pet ownership behaviours performed by humans may carry with them beneficial outcomes they can also challenge people’s notions of the right of an animal to such things as: freedom of movement, social interactions, and reproduction. Advocacy organisations, such as PAWS Bangkok, include education activities in their work aiming to educate community members on the principles of responsible pet ownership. However, they have limited resources as not-for-profit organisations and are required to prioritise, and direct assistance to the animals through CNVR usually takes precedence. The education activities of advocacy organisations are often not isolated to the local community, and are also aimed at expatriate residents and tourists. This is, in part, to raise money for their work as many of these organisations receive regular donations from people living outside of Thailand. Informants working in animal advocacy told me that many expats living in Thailand will happily take responsibility for the planning and expense of moving their pets with them when they leave. There are a significant number, however, who do not and expect advocacy organisations to assist them to rehome their cat or dog locally or take them into their care.
Many organisations also deal with requests from tourists to help them with a cat or dog they have found; often the animal is injured but sometimes they have just wanted to see the animal removed from living on the street. Organisations such as PAWS receive these requests for ‘rescue’ regularly, and although they are willing to help they do not have the resources to travel around the city and assess each situation. When PAWS staff is contacted in these situations they offer advice, 88
which for injured animals is to capture the cat or dog and take it to a veterinarian. In the case of kittens, for example, who generally seem healthy, the advice is to leave them where they are. Kittens are often mistakenly thought of as abandoned, when the mother cannot be immediately found. Staff explains that the mother is most likely nearby, probably hunting for food, and that removing the kittens could make the situation worse. Often this advice is not headed and tourists may become very frustrated at what they perceive of as a lack of help, when they think they have rescued an animal with little thought of its fate when they have to leave the country the following week. They struggle to understand that life on the street is often the best situation for many animals, especially as many are cared for by community members. In her discussion of dogs, Savvides (2013, p. 31) describes this as the “tensions between Western ideals for canine welfare and the ways in which soi dogs were viewed and cared for by Thai people.”
When I was volunteering for PAWS, I responded to a call from an expat who stated she had seen a sick cat on the street near her workplace in a busy business district of Bangkok. With cat cage in hand I went to meet her, only to find the cat was not where she last saw it. I walked up and down the street asking street side stall owners if they had seen a sick cat, but none of them had. Eventually we found the cat, who was totally furless and rather ugly, with a few scratches but otherwise in good health. I started talking to a taxi driver who said the cat was about two years old and had always lived with the colony of cats on that particular street. Then a woman who was working at a drinks stall called me over and said she was the cat’s owner. She explained to me that he had always been furless, like his sister, and because of this, he got lots of attention and concern from people; it was not uncommon for tourists to stop and photograph him. I said that if she agreed I could take him to the veterinarian for a check-up; however, she didn’t feel it was necessary and assured me he received water and food every day, as did numerous other cats living on the street. Laura, the founder and proprietor of PAWS, felt that in these situations it was best to leave the cat where he was, as he seemed in adequate health and received care from the community. Although the cat was free-roaming and looked rather sad without any fur, he certainly had people who cared for him, and his basic daily needs were met. Ideally, a veterinary check and sterilisation would benefit the cat and the 89
numerous others on the soi by dealing with common veterinary medical concerns such as worms and ticks, and improving animal and public health through vaccination and controlled breeding. This would, however, require resources and capacity that organisations like PAWS and the BMA do not possess. Nevertheless, this situation, and many others similar to it in Bangkok, challenge dominant notions of what ‘ownership’ and ‘responsibility’ towards cats and dogs means.
Sterilisation and confinement The furless cat, above, was not sterilised, which is considered a crucial component in the management of free-roaming animals and is therefore strongly associated with responsible pet ownership as a direct way to control unwanted breeding (A. H. Sparkes et al., 2013). It is commonly accepted as a form of animal population control in countries such as Australia, the United States and Britain (Rohlf et al., 2010). In Italy, for example, it has been legislated that feral cats have the right to live free, which means that euthanasia is not permitted in the management of feral cat populations, but cats must be sterilised in order to control population numbers (Natoli et al., 2006). By contrast, in Sweden sterilisation rates are very low among owned dogs, but there are few problems with free-roaming populations as the practice of other behaviours such as confinement are high (Bonnett & Egenvall, 2010). In many low and middle income countries, sterilisation is not widely practiced and animal management interventions that promote this practice have often met with a lack of community support and engagement (Jackman & Rowan, 2007). Indeed, the desirability of these behaviours is inextricably linked to our beliefs about the level of responsibility we have towards animals and the level of intervention that is seen as acceptable in their lives.
Sterilisation rates in Thailand are very low. A 2009 study of 375 dog owners at veterinary clinics in Bangkok found that slightly more female dogs (32.8 percent) were sterilised compared to male dogs (26.8 percent) (Santiwattanatarm, 1999). More recently, a phone survey of 496 adult Thais throughout the country who engaged in semi-ownership behaviours with cats and/or dogs revealed that only 17 percent of the dogs and 7 percent of the cats for whom they provided some 90
care were sterilised (Toukhsati et al., 2012). Those wanting to utilise the low-cost sterilisation service run by the BMA complain of issues regarding access and post-operative care. During my fieldwork, for example, the cat living in the grounds of my apartment (that I discuss in the opening of this thesis) gave birth to a litter of two kittens and as they got older, people complained about the extra cats. Most residents were willing to tolerate one cat with the added benefit that she was an excellent mouser, but they saw more cats as a nuisance. As a result, I discussed with the building manager arranging for the cat to be sterilised. The building manager preferred to arrange it through the BMA service to avoid the costs of a local veterinarian. After making enquiries, however, she encountered a significant waitlist. This is generally impractical in a warm climate like Bangkok, where females are able to produce litters all year round (Slater, 2007). There was also the logistics of getting the cat to another part of the city and having to collect her on the day of the surgery. Although she was well looked after by the apartment ‘community’, she was not an indoor cat and there was no guarantee that she would have a safe place to recover from surgery. Due to these difficulties, I agreed to cover the costs for her to go to a local veterinarian for five days for sterilisation and vaccination. The veterinarian offered a 50 percent discount as she was a soi cat, with the total cost of her sterilisation, vaccinations and five days care coming to 2350 baht (AUD82). Although the cost seemed a bargain when compared to veterinary care in Australia, it would still be out of reach of many Thais.
Sterilisation was not mentioned by the veterinarians I interviewed as a behaviour associated with responsible pet ownership. They did, however, discuss regularly performing sterilisation operations and most veterinarians routinely suggested it if the animal was not being kept for breeding purposes, and the owners did not intend to confine the animal to their house. The reasons for this were to avoid the obvious risk of unwanted puppies and kittens, but also for the medical and behavioural benefits that accompany sterilisation, such as reducing the risk of uterine infection and certain cancers in cats and dogs, and wandering and aggression in male cats.
However, the routine sterilisation of dogs not being kept for breeding purposes is 91
not universally supported within the veterinary profession. The view is widely held in the United States and Australia, and promoted by organisations such as the American Veterinary Medicine Association, but in many countries in Europe sterilisation rates are very low. In these countries confinement rates are high and free-roaming populations are of little concern, and veterinarians prefer to consider sterilisation on a case-by-case basis. There are risks involved with the surgical sterilisation of dogs, including urinary incontinence and bleeding in bitches. For male dogs there appears to be some significant long-term negative effects such as an increased risk of prostate and bladder cancers (Palmer, Corr, & Sandøe, 2012). Srinivasan (2013) argues although sterilisation involves risk for individual dogs, management programs are promoted as protective by animal advocates and authorities because they privilege the well-being of the whole population. Taking into consideration the risks and debates about animal reproductive rights, Palmer and colleagues (2012) conclude that the routine sterilisation of companion dogs cannot be morally justified, and any requests for sterilisation should be considered by veterinarians on an individual basis. This stance is reached, however, when considering dogs where reproduction is otherwise under control.
The veterinarians I interviewed reported that some clients expressed concern about the risks involved with surgical sterilisation, in addition to two veterinarians mentioning religious attitudes against the practice of surgical sterilisation that made it difficult to convince clients of the benefits. As mentioned previously, Buddhist values mean that euthanasia as a means of cat and dog population control is unacceptable to many Thais. Similarly, some Thais view sterilisation as the intentional ending of (a future) life and therefore a sinful act. Some of the animal rescue workers I talked to stated they occasionally encountered community members who felt uncomfortable with animal sterilisation because it involves making decisions for another creature that cannot communicate its desires. Furthermore, it interferes with lives that were destined to be born. This is similar to animal rights views that seek to protect an individual animal’s reproductive rights, and argue that the right’s holders interests should not be sacrificed for the greater good of others (for example, Donaldson & Kymlicka, 2011). Ethical concerns, however, are complicated in the context of a significant number of cats and dogs living on the street often in poor health, the 92
prevalence of zoonotic disease, low rates of animal confinement and a high number of abandonments meaning that paternalistic arguments are appealing for both the individual animal’s welfare and the general welfare of both animals and the community.
One Thai dog advocacy worker I interviewed specifically sought spiritual guidance from a monk regarding the practice of sterilisation after she encountered opposition to the work she was doing. She was advised that it was not sinful, but rather a positive act that reduced the potential suffering of the animal being sterilised and future generations. This is consonant with the Buddhist view that human contraception and sterilisation are morally acceptable (Keown, 1995). This belief is also echoed by Sol Hanna, President of the Buddhist Society of Western Australia. Discussing sterilisation for cats, he states,
there is nothing in Buddhism that indicates that sterilisation creates unwholesome karma. While the female cats may experience some suffering after the operation, this is relatively mild, and is inconsequential next to the wholesome karma of preventing the future suffering of cats that are without homes and being destroyed by the authorities. Plus there is good karma in helping all the tom cats restrain their lust! (Cat Welfare Society, 2016, para. 2).
Despite the important role that they play in these concerns, in the context of a consultation, veterinarians feel their ability to change community attitudes and behaviour is limited. Sandøe and colleagues (2013, p. 38) state that in relation to these ethical dilemmas veterinarians need to negotiate with clients and “engage in discussions about which values should take priority”. Most veterinarians found this challenging and stated that they only had time to discuss the specific issue the animal had been bought in for, which meant opportunities to discuss broader general care and behaviour was limited. As Dr Jay states: We can’t change some people’s attitude that sterilisation is sinful. We can only point out to them causes of the problems. If you can take care of the matter then it’s ok. I would suggest any other dogs to be sterilised, but if 93
the owners don’t do it then it depends on them.
Although confinement of cats and dogs can assist in controlling reproduction, there are consequences for the animal’s welfare. Confinement to the home or yard protects an animal from the risks of free roaming, including infectious disease, road traffic accidents, fighting with and attacks by other animals, human cruelty, poisoning and theft (Sandøe et al., 2016). However, it increases the effects of a less active lifestyle, including obesity, boredom and behavioural problems, such as inappropriate toileting in cats and excessive barking in dogs. The opportunities for cats and dogs to express natural behaviours are limited in the home, for example, cats do not have the opportunity to roam or hunt, and dogs have limited periods of socialisation with other dogs. Although it is suggested that cats and dogs can adapt to confinement (Jongman, 2007), there are still challenges for owners to ensure the animal’s welfare, veterinarians who are faced with the effects of animal confinement, and communities in negotiating human and cat and dog interactions in the home and in public spaces (Jongman, 2007; Sonntag & Overall, 2014)
The costs of a status symbol When you have a pet and your pet gets sick, can it go to the doctor by itself? Can it find the money by itself to pay for treatment? No. You are the one who has to be responsible for the expense. If you say it’s so expensive here, then go to another hospital that’s cheaper. There are tons. Your responsibility includes that when your pet gets sick, you take it to the vet…responsibility should come first, and then love (Dr Bea). Economic factors can be significant in people’s decisions to seek care and treatment for their own cats and dogs. The expense of veterinary care was noted by all veterinarians interviewed as a concern for clients, with one veterinarian stating that up to 80 percent of her clients expressed concern. Sanders’ (1994) ethnographic research in a veterinary clinic in the United States found that veterinarians judged clients as ‘bad’ if they were overly concerned with the cost of treatment. The veterinarians I interviewed in Thailand did not class owners as ‘bad’, but they believed it was not an excuse to refuse treatment. Veterinarians 94
would attempt to offer alternatives to expensive treatments or medicines, or recommend alternative clinics with cheaper fees, especially the major university animal hospitals that are open to the public and treat for very low cost. Dr Ratchakorn explained her focus on the animal when cost was a concern in order to avoid abandonment at the clinic or elsewhere:
I then suggest to them ways to save cost and save their pet. They can go to the animal hospital at Chulalongkorn University or Kasetsart University. I find the phone numbers of these hospitals for them. This is how I help them. Not like just telling them go to Chulalongkorn or Kasetsart. We have to help them find the phone number, making it more convenient for them.
The commodification of pets can lead to them being seen as disposable when they no longer suit an ideal image. One of the common reasons for abandonment is because an animal suffers from an illness or accident, leaving them disabled or disfigured. The animal may no longer look like an ideal breed example and may, or may not, require ongoing medical care. One clinic I visited took responsibility for the care of any cats abandoned at the clinic, at their own expense. These cats were housed in a room that had been established specifically for these long-term feline residents. The room was not large, but it was well equipped with one large enclosure plus a few smaller cages. There were approximately 10 cats in residence when I visited. They did not have a history of life on the streets; all of the cats had been brought to the clinic for treatment by an owner and then abandoned. All of them were disabled and some had on-going care needs; most were there because of an acquired injury. There was, however, significant variety in their care needs. Some were in individual cages because they required ongoing medical intervention. Others had mild disabilities, such as one cat with a deformed paw, named Som. The veterinarians had treated Som’s paw and he did not require any ongoing care or medication. The injury had minimal impact on his ability to get around and he happily approached me for a pat and a cuddle. I was told by the veterinarian who looked after these cats that the clinic had made numerous attempts to contact the owners, with some refusing to take their calls, and others simply saying they didn’t want the cat anymore and would not be 95
returning to collect it. These owners did not want to take on the added responsibility of caring for a cat with additional needs, or, as in the case of Som, did not want a cat that looked different.
Abandonment at clinics was common. All the veterinarians interviewed stated they had experienced this, often in the case of older animals, as Dr Bea explained:
A golden retriever puppy that once was so cute became an adult golden retriever that was still cute, but then grew to be an old golden retriever that is no longer cute and thus is left beside the trashcan. If people are more responsible, this thing wouldn’t happen.
Pedigree puppies and kittens are easy to obtain, and easy to dispose of when they are no longer wanted. Expensive veterinary clinics and pet supply stores are growing in number and popularity (see Chapter 3). Still, veterinarians and animal advocacy workers reported a high number of abandonments of purebred cats and dogs, and unwillingness by their owners to value and pay for veterinary treatment.
All the veterinarians interviewed believe that by owners taking responsibility to ensure their pets receive regular health checks and vaccinations, there would be less animal sickness, behavioural problems and an overall improvement of quality of life, for both animal and human. They see their profession as playing an important role in negotiating through the ethical concerns that Sandøe and Christianson (2008) outline, believing that regular veterinary visits would decrease the likelihood of the animal having problems that may alter their looks or their need for additional care. It may also reduce the likelihood of challenging behaviours from pets, such as inappropriate urination in cats due to underlying medical issues. As Dr Ratchakorn argued in an interview, “if people are responsible for their pet, if it gets sick people will take care of it. Some people leave their pet because it’s got a skin disease and it’s not pretty anymore.” Nevertheless, the status of animals “remains precarious and a backdrop to stories of happy multi-species living is the abandonment and abuse of animals as pets” 96
(Cudworth, 2011, p. 17). Abandonments in turn contribute to the population of soi dogs and cats who are cared for by community members who may not want to be responsible for any expenses related to animal care. Peter, an English expatriate and manager at Soi Dog Foundation, who has been working in the area of animal advocacy in Thailand for over 10 years, explained that the cost of care is a significant concern for many Thais in relation to soi dogs:
I call them community dogs, the dog is being looked after, it is being fed…I think people are happy for the dog to be there, because it warns them of intruders by barking, security whatever, the dog is territorial it is doing its job. If you ask them if it is their dog, they will say ‘no’, because they don't want responsibility if it runs out and causes an accident. The local authorities are trying in some areas of Bangkok to use microchipping for registration of dogs. It's never going to work because people will not register these sorts of dogs because if something goes wrong, right you’re responsible for this dog, you have to pay the hospital bills, and everything else, so they don't do it. Also, the dog gets sick, you got let’s say a working-class type, maybe earning under 10 or 12,000 baht (AUD370 – 445) a month and a 2,000 baht (AUD75) vet bill comes up, it's beyond their means so the dog will get sick, lose its hair, whatever, noone will provide treatment. Peter’s experiences are a reminder that the notion of responsible pet ownership functions in a complex space, where human and animal welfare and rights meet. Reaching ‘ideal’ standards, in an ethical sense, of health and welfare for animals in Bangkok is problematic in a context of substantial inequities between the living standards for humans. In the words of Sandøe and Christiansen (2008, p. 122) problems concerning the welfare of pets,
may often be ignorance, not neglect or deliberate behaviour. However, at the same time, the human-animal relation may not only encourage conditions that can jeopardise animal integrity and welfare; it may inherently stand in the way of preventing violations of integrity or the alleviation of animal welfare problems. 97
Responsible Pet Ownership: a dynamic concept
In Thailand, there has been a recent and rapid change in the conceptualisation of cats and dogs, from one based on community care to one of individualised ownership in the home. The shift, however, has not included all types of cats and dogs; pedigree cats and dogs have been invited into many homes as family members, but animals that have lived on the street have remained there. This shift has also occurred most often among wealthy Thais who have access to the growing number of services aimed at their pampered pets. For many people in Bangkok, however, their interactions with cats and dogs occur predominantly in the community, on the streets.
There has been a growing recognition of the need to improve the welfare of cats and dogs, and other animals, as illustrated in the recent passing of the Animal Welfare Act, criminalising animal cruelty. Many animal advocates, however, believe these laws could go further and have stated they will continue to campaign. Indeed, these issues have seen many more people mobilising to improve animal welfare. For veterinarians and advocacy workers, the concept of responsible pet ownership is seen as an important strategy for assisting all cats and dogs, both with and without owners. The uptake of responsible pet ownership behaviours can assist the welfare of the owned population through better health and welfare and therefore avoiding breakdowns in the human-pet relationship, leading to abandonment. Less abandonment will mean less cats and dogs joining the existing population living on the streets. The promotion of practices such as routine sterilisation and confinement can directly help to control cat and dog population numbers, however, these practices can create ethical concerns regarding animal rights.
Responsible pet ownership provides many important benefits, but it must remain a malleable and dynamic concept if it is going to bring benefits for human and animal alike. The context of Bangkok does not enable responsible pet ownership to be promoted as it is in many high-income countries, where cats and dogs are
98
considered the responsibility of one owner or household, and where greater resources and capacity exists in relation to animal management. One of the challenges for responsible pet ownership in Bangkok is a lack of resources, both financial and physical, and as human and animal lives are so intertwined, it can be challenging to provide a dignified and just existence and manage risk to both animal and human. In the next chapter, I explore the relationship between human and animal health through an examination of the religious, social and cultural factors that influence decisions around responses to zoonotic disease, specifically rabies.
99
CHAPTER 5 DEALING WITH DISEASE: RABIES Pet dogs infect people with rabies more often than stray dogs, contrary to public perception (Wancharoen, 2010) Although many people derive benefit and joy from sharing space with cats and dogs, these interactions can also bring risks to human and animal health. In the previous chapter, I discussed the dynamic environment of human-cat and dog relationships in Bangkok, where keeping cats and dogs in the home is gaining popularity alongside the longstanding practice of community members caring for cats and dogs without a defined owner. People’s close interactions with cats and dogs, both in the home and on the street, can pose risks to the community through disease transmission, aggression and injury. In particular, zoonotic diseases – those spread from animals to humans – can be significant public and veterinary health concerns. In this chapter, I turn my focus to disease with a specific focus on the history of and responses to the zoonotic disease, rabies.
There are numerous zoonoses in Thailand, including leptospirosis and foodborne salmonellosis and brucellosis. However, in this chapter, I focus specifically on rabies because it is endemic in the dog population in Thailand. Although rabies can be transmitted from other animals, including monkeys, cats and rabbits, in Thailand all human cases of rabies have come from dogs, and the successful eradication of the disease requires successful management of the dog population, both owned and unowned. Below, I explore how cultural and religious values influence decisions around the diagnosis, treatment and care of suspected rabies cases, both human and canine. Benefits and risks of interacting with cats and dogs
The popularity of keeping pets in many countries suggests that, for most, the benefits must outweigh the costs of interacting with creatures that often offer little practical or economic return. Indeed, many pet owners report that they receive benefits from their pets in the form of affection, loyalty and companionship (Beck 100
& Katcher, 1996). It is thought that the close relationships between humans and pets are “testament to the benefits that humans derive” from their interactions (Knobel, Laurenson, Kazwala, & Cleaveland, 2008, p. 286).
The reported benefits of having a cat or dog as a pet are physiological, psychological and social in nature; several studies have demonstrated that pets play a significant role in human wellbeing, connectedness and recovery from illness (O'Haire, 2010; Walsh, 2009). For instance, Friedmann, Katcher, Lynch & Thomas, (1980) found pet ownership in patients with coronary heart disease was a significant predictor of one-year survival following a heart attack. Humancompanion animal interactions have also been found to reduce psychological and behavioural indicators of stress and anxiety (O'Haire, 2010), promote relaxation and bonding, and improve human immune system functioning (Charnetsky, Riggers, & Brennan, 2004). Dogs have been found to be beneficial in therapy for those with Alzheimer’s disease and children with autism (O'Haire, 2010). It has also been found that cats and dogs facilitate social interaction, thus reducing isolation and loneliness and help to create a sense of community (Friedmann & Son, 2009; O'Haire, 2010; Wood, Giles-Corti, Bulsara, & Bosch, 2007). However, in a survey of 5,079 Australian adults on the risk factors associated with cardiovascular disease, Parslow & Jorm (2003) found no evidence that pet ownership by itself is associated with cardiovascular health benefits. Therefore, according to Bennett, “it appears likely that when it comes to determining the link between pet ownership and human health outcomes the most critical feature is the quality of the relationship (e.g., how the owner’s needs are being met by that pet) rather than the presence of the animal alone” (Bennett & Meynell, 2014, para. 10).
At the same time as providing benefits to human health, our close association with cats and dogs also presents numerous challenges for both animal owners and communities. These may be minor annoyances such as fouling and noise to more significant concerns such as threats to human health (Knobel, Laurenson, Kazwala, & Cleaveland, 2008). For example, in recent years in Australia, an increase in housing rentals prohibiting animals and restrictions on pets in community spaces has seen a decrease in pet ownership that has offset many of 101
the benefits to individuals and the community (O'Haire, 2010). For many low-tomiddle income nations, the potential detriments that companion animals pose such as bite wounds and the transmission of infectious disease can be significant. Rabies is a major concern in many countries worldwide, as it is easily transmitted and without treatment is fatal. In the context of attempts to alleviate risks to humans, it is important to recognise that perceptions and attitudes towards pet ownership and pet types contribute to our interactions with cats and dogs (Friedmann, 2006; Rock & Degeling, 2015).
Cat and dog health in Bangkok
For many foreigners the first encounter of Bangkok’s soi cats and dogs can be confronting. Many dogs suffer from mange and ringworm, making them hairless and scaly; fleas and ticks make them itchy and sore. Many of them move awkwardly, limping and sore from recent or past injuries. It is common to see dogs living on the road side or in car parks, injured from vehicles. If they survive an accident they are unlikely to receive veterinary treatment. Generally their injuries are left to heal naturally, resulting in permanent scars and disability. Cats are generally skinny, and many live on the street with skin conditions, open wounds and injuries. Some female cats and dogs suffer from various stages of venereal cancer, leading to womb prolapse. Even so, in Bangkok, the health of free-roaming cats and dogs can vary significantly. I also encountered many cats and dogs that were cared for, clean and well-fed. It is unlikely that these animals were permanent street dwellers, but they were allowed to wander from home for at least part of the day. Dogs lazing on the footpath during the day are a common sight. Many times I had to avoid stepping on a sleeping dog on the footpath or in the doorway of a convenience store, where it was trying to capture the cool of the air conditioning as the doors opened. Thais are generally very tolerant of these dogs sharing their urban spaces, as the managers of 7-Eleven convenience stores have acknowledged. Rather than attempt to remove the dogs living near the stores, the Thai company that operates 7-Eleven stores, CP All, is supporting a program offering rabies vaccinations and flea treatments for the dogs to improve their health and protect the health of customers ("7-Eleven to help," 2014). Rabies
102
is a viral disease that can infect all mammals, and without prompt post-bite treatment is invariably fatal. Close interactions with dogs and their ability to inflict significant bite wounds, mean that almost all (more than 99 percent) human rabies cases worldwide are transmitted by dogs (Lembo, 2012; Molento, 2014). Therefore, strategies to control and prevent the spread of rabies are directed primarily at dog populations. Along with obvious skin conditions and injuries, many other diseases are common among soi cats and dogs. Diseases such as distemper, parvovirus and rabies for dogs, and calicivirus and panleukopenia for cats, are highly contagious, and cause significant suffering and high mortality rates. There is little extant data on disease rates. Many veterinarians and people working in animal advocacy told me that a significant number of the animals they cared for suffered from these diseases. This is supported by a study undertaken in 2012 and 2013 by the World Small Animal Veterinary Association (WSAVA) that surveyed 267 Thai veterinarians, revealing that over 95 percent had seen canine distemper and parvovirus in their practice, and that 72 percent and 88 percent had treated feline calicivirus and panleukopenia respectively (Day, Karkare, Schultz, & Squires, 2014). These diseases are preventable through vaccination and are uncommon in highincome countries (Day et al., 2014). Veterinary associations in many countries, such as in the United States, Australia and United Kingdom, and WSAVA, consider the vaccinations for these diseases to be “core vaccines,” meaning that veterinarians should considered them for all dogs and cats. Responsible pet ownership programs in these countries promote regular vaccination and the continual confinement of cats and dogs to a home or yard, as the key ways to prevent disease. The Thai veterinarians I talked to would routinely recommend vaccinating against these diseases, in line with the WSAVA Vaccinations Guidelines 2010. These guidelines are an attempt to create a foundation for the standardisation of vaccination protocols worldwide. They were translated into Thai for the first time in 2015, and have been promoted by VPAT through their professional development events (http://www.wsava.org/guidelines/vaccinationguidelines).
103
Although Thai veterinarians promote regular vaccination to their human clients for their pets, a large number of soi cats and dogs are not vaccinated. These animals do not have one person or household that accepts responsibility for their care, and animal advocacy groups and the BMA do not have the resources to sufficiently monitor the regular vaccination of free-roaming cats and dogs. The core vaccinations recommended by WSAVA, including vaccination for rabies, require boosters every one to three years. The cost of these vaccinations at a private veterinarian is approximately 800 baht (AUD30), although some veterinarians offer discounts for the vaccination of soi dogs and cats. For humans living on low incomes, this may be unaffordable, especially if they own or provide care for multiple animals. The people I met during my fieldwork working with cats and dogs reported that knowledge about the spread of disease is poor among the community. Animal advocacy worker, Laura, stated that although cruelty cases existed, there were more cases of what she termed “unintentional cruelty,” which included a general lack of understanding and education about animal health and welfare. This was particularly evident at the pet expos and shows which I attended during my fieldwork. As I noted earlier, many breeders and rescue organisations have animals on display for promotion, sale or to give away. Visitors to the events are also allowed to bring their own pets into the venue. Although there were representatives from veterinary clinics and companies promoting animal health, there was nothing obvious done to minimise the spread of disease at these events. While cats and dogs pose disease risks to each other, they also compromise human health. Public health concerns are often cited as a primary reason for animal management strategies in urban environments (for example, Macpherson, Meslin, & Wandeler, 2013; Molento, 2014). This includes the transmission of disease, as well as public nuisance of free-roaming dogs barking, scavenging through garbage, and defecating on the street. Bites from dogs expose people to disease and infection. Dog bites are common in Bangkok, with children particularly vulnerable. Bhanganada and colleagues (1993) found that in a 12 month period, 5.3 percent of all patients seen in the trauma unit at Bangkok’s Siriraj Hospital had received dog bite injuries; those under the age of 20 made up
104
55 percent of all dog bite victims. The number of bites has remained high with estimates that there are 400,000 dog bites in Thailand per year (Gongal & Wright, 2011). Certain behaviours expose people to increased risk from bites, including feeding free-roaming cats and dogs. This places people at a high risk of bites due to close contact with dogs and the potential for aggression among dogs as they compete for food. Despite the general acceptance of soi dogs, Thais recognise their potential for aggression. When I was living in Bangkok I was often warned by people about the risk of walking at night down particular streets that were home to aggressive soi dogs. Dog bites in Thailand can mean potential exposure to rabies and people are fearful of catching rabies from dogs. In Thai, the word for ‘rabies’ can be expressed a number of ways. The disease is commonly known by the compound words rok klua nam (literally ‘disease fear water’ or hydrophobia23). It may also be referred to as rok phit sunak ba (mad dog poison disease), a term that gives the disease a direct association with dogs. As one veterinarian expressed it, “if you live in Bangkok, if you have never been vaccinated before, sometimes you just take a walk and out of the blue you might get bitten. Rabid dogs don’t care who you are. They just come straight to you when they see you. They are extraordinarily dangerous.” Before 1982 more than 300 rabies deaths were reported in Thailand each year, and the country was ranked third in Asia in terms of number of reported human deaths (Panichabhongse, 2001). In 1980, the year rabies became a notifiable disease in Thailand, there were 370 (0.78/100,000) reported human deaths from rabies (Tenzin & Ward, 2012, p. 455). Under the Government’s Rabies Control Program, discussed further below, effective and affordable pre-exposure vaccination and post-bite treatment, together with educational efforts, and attempts at mass vaccination of dogs meant that in 2008 there were only nine deaths (0.027/100,000) (Tenzin & Ward, 2012). The number of animal rabies cases has also decreased in this period from 4,263 cases in 1993 to 243 cases in 2011 (ASEAN Member States, 2015).
23
Hydrophobia is one of the symptoms of rabies in humans. The symptoms of rabies are discussed further below. 105
Managing rabies
Rabies is transmitted through the saliva or tissues from the nervous system from one infected mammal to another. The virus attacks the central nervous system, causing neurological symptoms which progress to encephalitis and death (Lechenne, Miranda, & Zinsstag, 2015). Immediately after transmission of the virus through a dog bite or scratch, the virus travels through the nervous system tissues until it reaches the brain. Before the virus reaches the brain there are no symptoms and depending on a number of factors, such as the location of the bite on the body, this asymptomatic period in humans may be from one to three months, but can be from one week to one year. Symptoms vary and can begin with non-specific symptoms such as fever, fatigue, headache and general discomfort. As infection in the brain spreads, symptoms will depend on which form of the disease is present. The most common form, affecting approximately 70 percent of human cases, is known as furious rabies. Symptoms include hyperactivity, excited behaviour and hydrophobia, and death occurs from cardiorespiratory arrest a few days after the onset of symptoms. The less common paralytic form of rabies is characterised by the gradual paralysis of muscles, starting at the site of the bite or scratch. This leads to a coma and then death. No tests are available to confirm rabies in humans before the onset of clinical signs. Even then, diagnosis may be difficult if rabies-specific signs, such as hydrophobia, are absent. To confirm diagnosis in humans, tests can be performed on samples of saliva, spinal fluid, skin biopsies of hair follicles at the nape of the neck, and post mortem (World Health Organization [WHO], 2016)
Rabies is preventable through vaccination and by treatment of bite victims immediately after exposure to the disease, ideally within 24 to 48 hours. Postexposure prophylaxis (PEP) can provide protection against rabies after exposure to the disease, but before symptoms are present. The type of post-bite treatment administered will depend on whether the victim has received pre-exposure vaccination. World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that those who have previously been vaccinated have two booster doses to ensure the immune
106
system can fight off the virus. For those without prior vaccination, the administration of rabies immunoglobulin is recommended (WHO, 2016). The cost of post exposure treatment is significant for many people in low and middle income countries where there are no government subsidies, and for many people in rural and remote areas access to facilities with PEP is poor (Lechenne et al., 2015). Rabies is thought to be severely underreported both in animals and humans in countries where the disease is endemic in the dog population. Hampson and colleagues (2015) argue that specific features of rabies contribute to underreporting. People in remote areas, for example, may not be able to access medical treatment and PEP immediately after a dog bite. Once clinical onset of rabies has occurred, they may never report to a health facility for treatment or diagnosis as death usually follows only days after the symptoms appear (Hampson et al., 2015). Other factors leading to underreporting of rabies cases include misdiagnosis of other neurological conditions, and shortages of rabies immunoglobulin at clinics and hospitals in areas where rabies is a concern (Hampson et al., 2015).
Dogs and rabies Rabies is often associated with dogs, even though it has long been known that other species can be affected by and transmit the disease (Swabe, 1999). Effective post bite treatment for rabies in humans was first used in 1885, however there was no equivalent rabies vaccine available for use in animals. During the nineteenth century dogs generally received very limited veterinary attention. The vast majority of dogs and cats held little economic value and could be readily replaced therefore they “did not warrant the therapeutic attentions of medical science” (Swabe, 1999, p. 168).
Before dog vaccination use became widespread in the twentieth century, authorities in many countries focussed interventions to control rabies on dog population control. It was believed that controlling the dog population would help decrease the risk of rabies, leading many countries to introduce programmes aimed at eliminating stray dog populations (Molento, 2014). In many European countries, for example, the culling of stray dogs and the strict enforcement of confinement, leashing and muzzling for owned dogs, did help to control the 107
spread of rabies, but did not eradicate the disease from the dog population (Lembo, Craig, Miles, Hampson, & Meslin, 2013).
Veterinary vaccines for rabies became available for use during the twentieth century, with Japan the first country to introduce mass vaccination for dogs in 1921 (Lembo et al., 2013). It was during this period in many high-income countries that veterinary interest in small animals began to grow, and as the role of cats and dogs in people’s lives changed, so did their economic status and their relationship to public health (Swabe, 1999). Ensuring consistent vaccination against rabies for both owned and free-roaming dogs has been found to be crucial in eradicating the disease, so improving animal and human health (Lechenne et al., 2015; Lembo et al., 2013; Molento, 2014). The widespread use of vaccination also avoids animal welfare problems caused by capturing and killing large numbers of dogs, such as aversive methods of capture and handling, overcrowded and poorly resourced shelters and inhumane killing methods (Molento, 2014).
Even though researchers have found it to have little long-term impact on dog numbers and the spread of disease (J. Sparkes et al., 2016), the culling of dog populations still continues in some countries. Experiences of dog management in many countries have revealed that capturing dogs increases the population turnover rate, rather than decreasing the population size, in areas where birth rates are high. There is no evidence that removal of dogs alone has significant impact on dog population densities or the spread of rabies (Lembo et al., 2013; Molento, 2014). In Bali, for example, rabies was first reported on the island during 2008. The initial response of emergency vaccinations and culling failed to contain an outbreak in 2008-2009, however, subsequent island-wide mass vaccination reaching 70 percent of more than 200,000 dogs saw significant declines in the disease. Still, repeat mass vaccination campaigns are needed to eliminate rabies (Putra et al., 2013).
As the Bali experience suggests, endemic canine rabies can be eliminated through vaccination; however, it needs to reach at least 70 percent of the dog population to be effective (Clifton, 2002; P. G. Coleman & Dye, 1996; Lembo et al., 2013). This means vaccination campaigns need to be widespread and sustained to 108
progressively reduce disease occurrence (Hampson et al., 2015). NGOs and international organisations, such as OIE and WHO, draw on the concept of One Health in their work to eliminate rabies. Lechenne and colleagues (2015, p. 176) describe rabies as an “exemplar of a One Health problem requiring an understanding of the linkages between human and animals and an integrated approach to disease control.” The approach of international NGOs, such as the Global Alliance for Rabies Control and World Animal Protection, reflect this as they promote an integrated approach to rabies control and eradication. These organisations have a focus on multiple areas and strategies including community education of how rabies is transmitted and can be prevented; promoting mass dog vaccination and population management; improving access to PEP; and building monitoring and surveillance capacity to better understand the scale of the problem in a community and best utilise resources.
Sustaining high vaccination coverage can be challenging and although approaches may vary depending on the context, it generally requires multiple stakeholders to enable education campaigns, community participation, availability of quality vaccines, and capacity to supervise and coordinate activities (Lembo et al., 2013). Moreover, sterilisation can help to reach and maintain the required 70 percent vaccination coverage. The rationale of reproduction control is to reduce population turnover, the number of young dogs in the population, and the number of free-roaming dogs that may be difficult to access for vaccination (Lembo et al., 2013). The benefits of using strategies to decreasing rabies in both the canine and human populations extend beyond health and welfare. There are also significant economic benefits to dog population management in relation to rabies. Hampson and colleagues (2015, p. 15) argue that “investment in dog vaccination could bring down costs to the medical sector.” They argue that this demonstrates the need for strong intersectoral coordination, and that rabies surveillance should be the responsibility of both the veterinary and medical sectors.
109
Rabies in Thailand
The first attempts to control rabies in Thailand occurred in 1913 (Thongcharoen, Charoenrath, Panpatana, & Wasi, 1972). The catalyst of this was the death of Princess Bunlusirisarn in 1912, following a bite from a rabid dog while she was playing with friends (Mitmoonpitak, Tepsumethanon, & Wilde, 1998; Panichabhongse, 2001; Tenzin & Ward, 2012). Her death was the first human death from rabies recorded in Thailand when her father, Prince Dumrongrachanuparp, wrote about it in his diary. The closest place with available post-exposure vaccine was the Pasteur Institute in Saigon, Vietnam. The intention was to send the princess to Saigon, but she missed the ship and was treated locally by a Western doctor. Once the bite healed the need for vaccination was forgotten and the trip to Saigon was never made. Typical of the course of rabies, she only showed symptoms of the disease three months later and died shortly after (Panichabhongse, 2001). Princess Bunlusirisarn’s death directly led to the establishment of the Pasteur Institute, called Paturasapha, in Bangkok on April 26, 1913, making post exposure treatment available in Thailand. The institute still exists today under the name Queen Saovabha Memorial Institute (QSMI), and it has become the key centre for vaccine production, rabies diagnosis and human rabies treatment for Thailand (Mitmoonpitak et al., 1998; Panichabhongse, 2001; Tenzin & Ward, 2012). The establishment of the institute increased access to rabies vaccine in Thailand, however, the number of human deaths from rabies continued to rise because the disease remained endemic in the dog population (Panichabhongse, 2001). In order to address this, the Rabies Act 1955 (B.E. 2498) was enacted under the responsibility of the Ministry of Public Health.
This was followed six years later by the production of animal rabies vaccine by the Department of Livestock Development, which is responsible for animal disease control. However, the Rabies Act did not make it compulsory for owned dogs to be vaccinated until it was revised in 1992. In 1995, a National Rabies Control Program was established with the goal of eliminating the disease in
110
Thailand by 2000 (Panichabhongse, 2001). In the late 1990s and into the 2000s human rabies cases significantly decreased (Chuxnum, Choomkasien, & Thongcharoen, 2011). However, without success in dog management, as discussed further below, the goal to eradicate rabies in Thailand has been postponed, and it now conveniently aligns with the WHO’s goal to eradicate the disease by 2020 (Tenzin & Ward, 2012).
At the same time, the number of people seeking post bite treatment at hospitals has increased dramatically. In 2005, over 400,000 people received PEP, which was almost quadruple the number in 1991 (Kasempimolporn et al., 2007). Officially, the Department of Communicable Diseases requires all possible human cases of rabies exposure to begin treatment. The procedure states that “prophylaxis for the patient will continue until the animal is caught and tested negative, or if the animal is not caught, the entire round of PEP will be given to the patient” (Dale, 2013, p. 29). As many dog bites are sustained from freeroaming dogs (owned or unowned), it is often impossible to capture the dog and observe or test it for the symptoms of rabies. This means that, under government protocol, many people receive PEP not knowing if they were actually exposed to the disease or not.
Although many bites are sustained from free-roaming dogs, deaths from rabies are often the result of bites from owned dogs. In 2010, the BMA’s Health Department reported that 60 to 70 percent of people who died of rabies in Bangkok were bitten by pet dogs, and about 30 percent of these deaths were from bites from puppies aged less than three months. There is scant research examining why this is the case, although certain aspects of the human-dog relationship may contribute to the situation. These include close interactions of people with pets in the home, and that many pets in Bangkok are allowed to free roam for at least part of the day (Kasempimolporn et al., 2008) making them vulnerable to attacks from infected dogs. It is also possible that people associate rabies with soi dogs, meaning that they may not believe their pet is susceptible to the disease.
The rabies vaccine and immunoglobulin are expensive. The cost of post-exposure treatment to the Thai public and private sectors is at least USD10, 000,000 per 111
year (Kasempimolporn et al., 2007, p. 326). The government has ensured the affordability of post exposure treatment by subsidising it under Thailand’s universal health care system, introduced in 2001. This means no one pays more than 30 baht (AUD1.15) per visit to the doctor, inclusive of pharmaceuticals. A full course of rabies PEP involves multiple injections and according to the Global Alliance for Rabies Control, the most common regime for immunoglobulin is to receive treatment on days 0, 3, 7, 14 and 28 after exposure to the disease. Each year more people attend hospitals for dog bite treatment, and the affordability of PEP is cited as the main reason for this increase (Damrongplasit & Melnick, 2009).
Dog management
Culling Culling of the soi dog population has been employed at various times, with authorities regarding it as a method of preventing the spread of rabies by decreasing dog numbers. In 1996, an eradication plan was launched by the Ministry of Public Health, the Agriculture Ministry and the BMA, which included culling up to 150,000 stray dogs over five years to help eradicate rabies. However, the plan to poison dogs was controversial and unpopular with the community. The president of the Society for the Promotion of Animal Welfare was quoted as saying "killing them is not the right and effective way of controlling the dog population and rabies…this is no merit-making at all - it is not proper” ("150,000 stray dogs to die," 1996, final para). This opposition was supported by the then Governor of Bangkok, Krisda Arunvongse, who stated that the culling would not occur in Bangkok as “it is a sin rather than an act of mercy” ("Scheme to poison stray dogs," 1996, para. 2). Other dog management and rabies control campaigns appear to have been motivated by a concern about international perceptions. For example, thousands of soi dogs were removed from the streets of Bangkok in the weeks before the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in 2003 (Baker, 2003).
As the quotes above indicate, animal management strategies that involve killing
112
are unpopular with the community in Bangkok as they challenge the dominant Buddhist belief that the volitional ending of animal life is a sin. In addition to being in conflict with dominant religious views, the culling of soi dogs has had little impact on the prevalence of rabies and dog numbers in Bangkok. As noted, the removal of dogs from one area opens up territory and creates space for other dogs. In Bangkok, the warm weather means high birth rates and the urban environment provides lots of scavenging opportunities. Additionally, many people regularly feed soi dogs, which assists in making the dog population healthy and strong enough to continue breeding. Vaccinating existing dog populations, rather than culling, creates a barrier against the disease and improves animal welfare (Molento, 2014).
Vaccination Vaccination is considered a key component in the control and eventual eradication of rabies in dog populations. However, the WHO (2016) recommends in low and middle income countries that “the vaccination status of the suspected animal alone should not be considered when deciding whether to initiate prophylaxis or not.” This suggests an unreliable vaccination status of dogs. In Thailand, there have been reports of fake or substandard rabies vaccines in circulation. It was believed that pet owners were unknowingly purchasing fake vaccines because they were less expensive ("Pet owners warned," 2010).
In Thailand, current legislation states that all owned dogs and cats are required to receive their first rabies vaccinations between two and four months of age, and that this should be followed by an annual booster. In Bangkok, there has been an official focus on soi dog vaccination and sterilization since the 1990s. However, surveillance capacity has been lacking, making it very difficult to determine dog numbers, and how many receive regular vaccination. Little data exist on vaccination numbers for owned or unowned dogs. In 2007, it was estimated that at least 30 to 46 percent of the known dog population in Bangkok was not vaccinated against rabies (Kasempimolporn et al., 2007). Furthermore, Kasempimolporn and colleagues (2008, p. 138) highlighted the “gravity of the rabies control problem” in their 2008 study of 3314 stray dogs in Bangkok, in which they calculated that less than 20 percent were sterilised and continuously 113
vaccinated.
Although there are strong animal welfare and public health arguments supporting vaccination, it can still be challenging for veterinarians to convince clients of the importance of completing a course of vaccinations. Vaccinations need to occur in a strict time frame, as a missed vaccination can mean the entire course needs to start again. As Dr Mali stated in an interview: Vaccination has to be done several times, not just one shot and that’s it, like some owners think. So, I tell them that it’s not like what they think. There is combination vaccine and vaccine for rabies. As for combination vaccine you have to re-boost it two or three times. After that you have to take your pet for another shot every year, and for rabies you have to get a shot twice. So, in conclusion, the complete initial vaccination course would be getting a shot five times. I will stress this point and say that if I arrange the date for you to take your pet for vaccination, you can’t be later than a certain number of days. If it’s later than one month from our appointment, then you have to start the vaccination course from the beginning.
Getting owners to take their pet multiple times to a veterinary clinic is challenging. Authorities in some areas of Thailand offer alternate methods to deliver dog vaccinations. For example, during my fieldwork, I attended one day of a weekend field trip for veterinary students from Chulalongkorn University to Chonburi, a province neighbouring Bangkok to the east. The field trip was an annual event for first, second, and third year students, during which the group offered free rabies vaccinations for any cats and dogs. Staff and students either went house-to-house in certain areas or worked at a central location for two days. The central location was a government office where community members could bring their animals to receive their vaccination. The field trip was seen to benefit students, providing them with experience administering vaccinations and communicating with the public. Many dogs and cats were vaccinated annually during these field trips. I joined a team on house-to-house visits and although almost all the cats and dogs we saw were free-roaming, they could be identified 114
by an owner and restrained long enough for the injection to be given. All the homes we visited had multiple cats and dogs, some with five or more of each species. Many of the cats objected to being restrained, but only one absolutely refused to be vaccinated. In this case, the veterinarian left a needle and vile of vaccine with the owner with instructions on how to administer it at a time when the animal was calmer.
Figure 9: Veterinary students prepare an owned cat for a rabies vaccination during a house visit on a weekend field trip in Chonburi province.
Although there is value for the dogs and cats and their owners in offering a free yearly vaccination service, one of the veterinarians told me the program would be more effective if sterilisation were included. Sterilisation would have the added benefit of controlling population numbers, allowing a greater proportion of the animal population to receive vaccination. Furthermore, the hundreds of cats and dogs which were vaccinated over the weekend had identified owners; the programme did not target stray animals. Lechenne and colleagues (2015, p. 184) state that dog owners are the “most
115
important actor in the fight against rabies.” However, the situation in Bangkok demonstrates that while owned dogs and the actions of their owners are important, finding humane and acceptable ways to managing the soi population is crucial as “stray or community dogs and, to a lesser extent, unvaccinated pet dogs are responsible for sustaining endemic rabies in Thailand” (Kasempimolporn et al., 2008, p. 138). Identifying and capturing soi dogs for yearly rabies vaccination has proved challenging. Kasempimolporn and colleagues (2008) found that many soi dogs were only able to be brought in once for vaccination, for example as part of a CNVR programme. In Bangkok catching soi dogs for vaccination and sterilisation has proven difficult for officials and in 2002 a plan to sterilise 30,000 dogs was abandoned when only 5,200 had been sterilised in four months (Clifton, 2002). In 2015, Prapas Pinyocheep, director of the Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services, was quoted as saying the current strategies for managing soi dogs were inadequate for disease control. Authorities were catching and sterilising soi dogs they received complaints about, before placing them in a shelter and making them available for adoption. Pinyocheep felt this was not dealing with the core of the problem as dogs needed to be properly registered and monitored in the community to track numbers and disease prevalence ("Stray dog population," 2015). The major constraints on rabies control that have been identified in Thailand relate to issues of dog vaccination, and population management and control (The South‐East Asia Rabies Strategy, 2013). The focus and success of the response to rabies has been in the prevention of the disease in humans rather than dealing with dogs as the source of the disease. In Melento’s (2014, p. 107) words the interventions have been “planned with an anthropocentric view: a single focus on humans… Perhaps the time has come to change this paradigm if we are to do the best for people and animals with the knowledge and the understanding available today.” Mitmoonpitak and colleagues (1998, p. 165) state that rabies has not been eliminated in Thailand “due to economic, cultural and religious constraints”. This is echoed by Panichabhongse (2001, p. 2), who has been involved in various roles associated with rabies control in Thailand since 1977, when she states that the
116
“factors hindering rabies control in Thailand include the inability to control stray dog populations due to general lack of knowledge of the people and peoples’ attitudes and beliefs”. In Thailand there have been numerous public health campaigns recognising the importance of both human and animal prevention of rabies. One character that features in these campaigns is an anthropomorphised puppy called Jood (Spot). Panichabhongse (2013) authored a rabies awareness booklet called Jood…the curious puppy. The booklet aims to educate about rabies with a focus on how the disease is spread among the dog population, both owned and soi dogs. It includes information on how to behave around aggressive dogs, what to do if you are bitten and the need for vaccination in all dogs and sterilisation to control population numbers. The booklet also aims to dispel some of the myths around rabies contraction that persist within the community, this includes the belief that rabies only occurs in dogs in the hot weather of summer, and rubbing tobacco or a dirty slipper into the wound will help prevent the disease (Panichabhongse, 2013). Condensed versions of Jood’s advice also appear in posters (see Figure 10) and a two minute YouTube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GkwJJhRP6co).
117
Figure 10: Thai and English language rabies education posters featuring Jood (Spot) in the final frame. (Source: Panichabhongse. P. (n.d.). Rabies Education Document. Retrieved from: http://dcontrol.dld.go.th/dcontrol/images/rabies/Rabies%20education%20document%202 558.pdf).
Diagnosing rabies in dogs In the context of poorly managed rabies in the dog population, veterinarians are in a position to educate the community about the disease, but they also have to negotiate risk when treating dogs. Although rabies is endemic in the dog population in Thailand, veterinarians do not commonly see confirmed cases of the disease. According to the WSAVA survey of 267 veterinarians in Thailand in 2014, 26.6 percent reported having seen a rabies case in their veterinary practice (Day et al., 2014). Half of the veterinarians I interviewed (five out of ten) had treated a confirmed rabies case. Those veterinarians had only ever seen one or 118
two cases in their practice. However, all of them were very aware of the possibility and the dangers of the disease. Predominantly, the veterinarians worked with dogs and cats whose owners valued regular veterinary care, thus most of the dogs they treated had a known vaccination history. Most dogs contracting and spreading the disease are soi dogs, which most likely die on the street without veterinary intervention.
Still, the veterinarians possessed a strong awareness of the risk of contracting a zoonotic disease at work. Similar to humans, rabies can be a difficult disease to diagnose in dogs as there is “no single symptom that would unfailingly identify a clinically ill animal as rabid. The clinical symptoms are highly variable…there is considerable variation in the clinical course within and between species” (Wandeler, Bingham, & Meslin, 2013, p. 48). All the veterinarians took measures to minimise risk and stressed the importance of being confident in their animal handling skills, their use of personal protective equipment, and hygiene practices. The veterinarians were more concerned about rabies if the animal they were treating was newly acquired, especially from places such as Chatuchak market that is known to have poor disease control protocols. Extra care was taken handling a dog if it was bitten by another dog with an unknown vaccination status. There was further concern if the dog that inflicted the bite could not be identified, confined and observed for symptoms of the disease.
Some dogs display the symptoms that are popularly associated with rabies, such as a sudden change in behaviour, aggression and biting without provocation. However, in most cases symptoms are vague and can be easily confused with other neurological conditions meaning that diagnosis of rabies in dogs is challenging and unreliable when the animal is still alive. This means that veterinarians are advised to consider rabies in “all instances of rapidly progressing neurologic disorder in the absence of binding alternate diagnosis” (Wandeler et al., 2013, p. 49). Dr Ratchakorn, who works in a clinic that regularly treats soi dogs, explained: Sometimes you can’t tell if a dog has rabies just by looking at it…this clinic takes a lot of stray dog cases. Recently, a client brought a dog here. 119
The client picked the dog up from the street and said it got fiercer. It used to be tame. So, the client asked us to confine the dog to observe its behaviour. The dog was confined for ten days and then it died. People working here were not trustful of the dog from the beginning. The assistants were told to feed it, but not to do more. We tried not to get bitten. After the dog died we cut off its head and sent it to QSMI and the result turned out to be positive. That dog didn’t try that much to bite people, or show a lot of other symptoms. Only it looked moody. It looked a lot like a normal dog.
As with humans, rabies is invariably fatal once symptoms are present in a dog. Rabies virus is excreted in the saliva of infected mammals during illness or for only a few days before illness or death. There are available saliva and blood tests for diagnosis. However, the use of these tests within the veterinary profession is contentious due to reported inaccuracies as a sole tool for diagnosis (Zhang et al., 2008). A definitive diagnosis can only occur after death as it requires impression smears from select parts of the brain.
The QSMI accepts live and dead animals, and animal and human tissue for rabies diagnosis. When a dog arrives at the Institute the owner is interviewed about the vaccination history of the animal and any others, human or animal, who may have been exposed to the disease. Any living dog suspected of having the disease is confined and monitored for symptoms. Through the practice of confinement over many years, QSMI researchers have found that a rabid dog will die within 10 days of the onset of neurological symptoms.
Confinement of suspected cases was also practiced by almost all the veterinarians I interviewed either at their clinic, at QSMI or with advice on how to confine and monitor the animal at home if that’s what the owner preferred. There was one exception, Dr Bea, who relied on saliva and blood tests to diagnose rabies despite the reported inaccuracies. She would then euthanise a dog that tested positive because she felt that the risk of transmission was too high, and she had a responsibility to protect community members. Moreover, it would prevent animal suffering: 120
The destiny of dogs with rabies is to be put to sleep. Rabid dogs tend to bite their owners so most owners won’t take them back…we don’t worry just about the animal. We do worry about the owners too. If we know the dog has rabies and we don’t tell them, letting them get bitten. That’s not fair to the owner. Dr Bea’s approach is more aligned with the practice in many high-income countries that have eradicated rabies from the dog population but other species, such as bats and racoons, remain carriers of the disease. The American Veterinary Medical Association, for example, recommends that regardless of rabies vaccination status, a dog or cat that has bitten a person should be observed for 10 days. If signs suggestive of rabies develop, the animal should be euthanised and tested. Any stray dog or cat that bites a person may be euthanised immediately and tested (American Veterinary Medical Association, n.d.). This may mean that non-rabies cases are euthanised. However, from a public health approach euthanasia of one animal protects from potential further infections in animals and humans. Furthermore, a human bite victim can either discontinue or undertake full PEP with a certain diagnosis for rabies in the animal.
Mitmoonpitak and colleagues (1998, p. 168) reported that staff at the QSMI seldom euthanise suspected rabies cases, stating that “this is based on Buddhist ethics, which are firmly rooted in Thai culture”. As discussed above, Buddhist beliefs towards the intentional ending of life mean that few Thai community members or veterinarians are comfortable killing healthy dogs for rabies prevention because it is believed to bring negative karmic consequences for the person who kills (Mitmoonpitak et al., 1998; Sriaroon, Sriaroon, Daviratanasilpa, Khawplod, & Wilde, 2006). In 1997, in the province of Chonburi, a seven year old boy named Attaphong died of rabies after being bitten by a dog near his home. He did not tell his parents he had been bitten, and consequently did not receive post bite treatment. His father told the Bangkok Post “when Attaphong told us, it was too late. Had I known earlier, I would have had him vaccinated with anti-rabies immediately.” Attaphong’s parents wanted the dog believed to have bitten him to be put down, but although no one admitted to being the dog’s 121
owner, community members intervened to stop the dog’s death (Kanwanich, 1999). The story of Attaphong illustrates the prevailing attitude in Thailand not to take the life of another, including that of an animal.
Yet, veterinarians reported there is fear and misunderstanding of the disease in dogs among the community. Fear and the primacy of human life often direct decisions about zoonosis, including the desire and, in some cases, legal requirement to euthanise the animal, even without proper evidence of illness (Pierce, 2016). The veterinarians I interviewed talked of experiences with clients who assumed dog aggression to be the signs of rabies and demanded the dog be put down after a family member or friend was bitten. Sadly, fear and misunderstanding of the disease can lead to cruelty. As Dr Bea explains: There was the case that the dog didn’t actually have rabies, but it bit someone in the family, the son. The dog didn’t mean to hurt him, but sometimes it could get a little too playful and bit harder than it should. So the owner got mad and came quickly to the conclusion that the dog must be mad. So they hit it in the head with something and took it to the hospital while it’s still unconscious. We asked if they wanted to check and see first whether the dog really had rabies. They rejected, insisting that the dog had rabies. They didn’t want to know if the dog had rabies. They only knew that the dog must die. We took it to QSMI to check on the dog. It’s free of charge. It turned out that the dog didn’t have rabies…There were several cases. Mostly the owners didn’t listen to us. It’s like they just wanted to get rid of the dog. There was this dog that bit the mother of the client, and they shot it. People want to raise the dog but they don’t see that each breed has different characteristics and behaviors. Thai Bangkaew dogs are known to be fierce. What do they expect? And the way an owner keeps and cares for dogs matters too. There’s a cause and there’s a consequence. That’s obvious.
As many Thai veterinarians prefer to confine and observe possible rabies cases, euthanasia is avoided and religious values held by the veterinarian and the owners 122
are not challenged. The approach also saves the lives of possibly uninfected animals. However, it raises ethical questions regarding the veterinarian’s role and responsibility towards an infected animal, in allowing it to suffer pain and discomfort, especially in the final stages of the disease. In most cases, a person bitten by any dog with an unknown vaccination status would have to begin PEP prior to knowing the animal’s disease status because treatment needs to begin as soon as possible, preferably on the day of the bite. The response to rabies in Thailand illustrates the tensions that exist between protecting public health and the lives of non-human animals (Rock & Degeling, 2015). In this context, euthanasia is infrequently requested by Thai cat and dog owners, and for veterinarians, the decision to kill an animal for any reason is considered very seriously. I discuss end of life care and euthanasia in the next chapter.
123
CHAPTER 6 END OF LIFE: PERFORMING EUTHANASIA There is always a way to heal. Recovery might be impossible but at least there are ways to release pain and keep animals alive without much suffering. I would explain this to those requesting euthanasia. So, there would be very few case[s] of putting the animal to sleep for me (Dr Ing, Thai veterinarian) Euthanasia of animals is utilised for a variety of reasons, and can be the source of community debate, ethical and moral concern. In many communities worldwide euthanasia may be utilised to control disease outbreaks, control animal population numbers, prevent or end suffering from illness, disease or accident, and for behavioural concerns such as aggression. The acceptability of its use within communities varies dramatically and attitudes may be influenced by personal values and ethics, religion, and our relationships with animals and the roles they play in our lives. The term euthanasia comes from the Greek words ‘eu’, for good, and ‘thanatos’, for death. In veterinary contexts, Fawcett (2013, p. 206) states that the term is “traditionally applied to killing aimed at preventing suffering in animals for which reasonable interventions are either exhausted or not available and where quality of life is poor.” In reality, the term is generally applied to “any death effected by a veterinarian” regardless of the reason (Fawcett, 2013, p. 206). The reasons for enacting humane death are not all equal and this may be a cause of ethical stress for veterinarians as they are faced with situations that involve killing “an animal to prevent present suffering, killing of an animal to prevent inevitable or at least likely future suffering, and the killing of a perfectly healthy animal because it is unwanted (by a particular owner or society at large)” (Fawcett, 2013, pp. 206-207). At the same time, research from high-income countries has found that for many veterinarians euthanasia is an important part of their practise and they pride themselves on being effective at it, providing a ‘good’ death, and ending animal suffering (Morris, 2012; Swabe, Rutgers, & Noordhuizen-Stassen, 2005). A study 124
by Swabe and colleagues (2005) in the Netherlands on peoples’ attitudes towards killing animals, found a significant number of respondents thought the killing of terminally ill and suffering pets to be acceptable. The Netherlands is one of the few countries worldwide to have legalised human euthanasia under certain circumstances. The authors state that people do not wish to witness the suffering of other humans and such sensitivities are extended to other animals. This is particularly true for pets due to the close relationships people have with them, therefore “it is acceptable to also put animals out of their suffering” (Swabe et al., 2005, p. 129). Philosopher Bernard Rollin argues that veterinarians “see their raison d’être as being improving the health, well-being, and happiness of animals in their societal roles” (Rollin, 2011, p. 652). They can offer the ‘gift of euthanasia’, unlike human doctors in most countries who are not empowered to help suffering patients end their pain through access to euthanasia. Rather, “veterinarians are fortunately blessed to be able to end suffering by providing a peaceful and painless death” (Rollin, 2011, p. 652). By contrast, Thai veterinarians reveal different perceptions towards suffering and euthanasia that challenge the use of euthanasia as an animal welfare tool. This chapter predominantly draws on the interviews I conducted with veterinarians during my fieldwork, exploring the multiple factors influencing decisions around death for cats and dogs in Thailand. I became interested in the attitudes of Thai veterinarians towards euthanasia early in my fieldwork. Discussions with non-Thai animal advocacy workers revealed tensions about a perceived reticence of Thai veterinarians to perform euthanasia to end animal suffering. These animal welfare workers felt that many veterinarians allowed animals to suffer in the period before death when an animal was no longer responding to treatment. In this chapter, I explore the attitudes of Thai veterinarians, including how Buddhist ethics influence decisions they make about end of life issues. I am concerned with how Thai veterinarians make decisions about euthanasia and how that relates to notions of suffering, quality of life and animal welfare.
125
Euthanasia and animal welfare
Using euthanasia, even only when death is imminent, brings with it ethical concerns about quality and quantity of life, and animal welfare. However, judging an animal’s quality of life - how an animal lives its life - can be problematic as it involves a subjective step to make inferences of how an animal feels. This can lead to people reaching very different conclusions (Kirkwood, 2007; Sandøe & Christiansen, 2007; Swabe et al., 2005). People will do this because they may “have different views about what is the correct description of the animal’s state, but also because they may subscribe to different and potentially conflicting definitions about what is a good animal life” (Sandøe & Christiansen, 2007, p. 109).
Animal welfare science, in practice and theory, has been devoted to consideration of an animal’s quality of life. For example, one technique to assess quality of life is Qualitative Behaviour Assessment which aims to consider the ‘whole animal’ particularly how an animal interacts with its environment (Wemelsfelder, 2007). More recently, there has also been acknowledgement of the importance of quantity of life as part of the moral equation, that is, the number of animals living and the longevity of individual animals (for example, Franco, MagalhãesSant’Ana, Olsso, & Sandøe, 2014; Sandøe & Christiansen, 2007). Sandøe and Christiansen (2007) identify three views that people may hold concerning the value of animal life. They recognise that people’s views are often complex and poorly defined, and believe that it is important to consider these views in general terms. Importantly, they state that “no view comes out as obviously more rational or well-founded than the others” (Sandøe & Christiansen, 2007, p. 110).
All three views agree that quality of life for an animal is important; where they differ is whether more than life-quality matters. The first view believes only quality of life matters, the second view asserts that the number of animals living good lives matters, and the third view claims that “the fact that an animal is a living being—is alive—itself gives a strong reason for letting that animal go on living” (Sandøe & Christiansen, 2007, p. 111). The final view is that which aligns
126
with the views I most encountered during my fieldwork in Thailand from veterinarians, animal advocacy workers and the community. In the words of Sandøe and Christiansen (2007, p. 112),
ending the life of an animal may be a bad thing, and this fact is not wholly explained by any loss of welfare (human or animal) involved. Animals are not (fully) replaceable. This means that the ending of the life of an animal may carry a moral cost, which is not accounted for in terms of loss of welfare. This cost may be explained in several ways — for example by saying that the animal has a right to life, or by saying…that pets are not disposable.
This means that it is important that the individual animal they are treating is able to go on living; however, in some cases this does mean an animal may continue to live with poor life quality. When volunteering for the cat welfare organisation PAWS, I met Sweetie Pie, a purebred Persian cat originally acquired by a Thai family as a pet. As a kitten she was in an accident at home and severely injured. She was taken to the veterinarian, who gave her owners the news that her back was broken and the blood supply to her legs had been severed. Her best chance was to have her back legs amputated and undertake rehabilitation, after which she could expect to live a relatively pain free life and learn to get around on her own. Her owners decided they did not want the responsibility of looking after a cat with special care needs, so they requested that she be euthanised. However, the veterinarian believed that her condition could be effectively treated and managed, and therefore it did not warrant euthanasia. The veterinarian then took over responsibility for Sweetie Pie and asked the manager of PAWS to provide her with ongoing care. Sweetie Pie had her back legs amputated, but she was left incontinent when she went to live at PAWS. Although seemingly pain free, Sweetie Pie spent most of her time in a large cage. She was provided with the essentials of life, such as food, water and a clean living space, but her ability to move around was severely restricted due to her incontinence and the amputation.
127
Figure 11: Sweetie Pie in her cage at PAWS Bangkok.
In many countries, veterinary professional bodies provide guidelines for the practise of euthanasia. The Australian Veterinary Association, for example, states in their policy on euthanasia that an attending veterinarian must recommend euthanasia for an animal when pain, distress or suffering exceeds manageable levels, or the health or welfare of an animal is irredeemably compromised (Australian Veterinary Association, 2007). Equivalent professional guidelines do not exist for veterinarians in Thailand, and the veterinarians I interviewed did not report that their clinics had policies in place about the use of euthanasia. In the words of Dr Jay, decisions by veterinarians about euthanasia mostly “depends on people’s conscience”. Some of the veterinarians interviewed mentioned English language text books on euthanasia that were available to them, but generally decisions about end of life care were guided by personal ethics and religious beliefs. When asked about the existence of guidelines for the practise of euthanasia, Dr Bea mentioned a book that offers guidance for veterinarians on euthanasia procedures; however, she notes that if she had followed the advice in the book she “would have ended the lives of many more”. She explains that Thai veterinarians, don’t perform euthanasia on a regular basis. In the book it says that if it is 128
found that an animal has chronic kidney disease then it’s time to put it to death, but here, we won’t be that definite about an animal life. Some dogs had the chronic kidney disease and we tried to support them and turned out they still stay alive for four years now. We don’t see why we have to end its life that soon. Animals do treasure their lives too. If there’s any pain seen in an animal, the guidelines say put the animal to sleep. But here, no. I think it’s because Thai ways of life revolve around Buddhism too, so we try to avoid doing things that appear to lead to sin. The International Companion Animal Management Coalition (ICAM)24 has produced a detailed guidance titled ‘The welfare basis for euthanasia of dogs and cats and policy development’ aimed at any organisations or individuals with responsibility for a programme involving cats and dogs, including shelters and veterinary clinics. The publication was completed with the assistance of input from organisations and individuals in numerous countries, including Thailand. The ICAM publication frames euthanasia as a welfare tool that should be utilised when a “reasonable quality of life” for an animal cannot be maintained (ICAM, n.d., p. 6). It suggests drawing on the ‘five welfare needs’ (see Chapter One) as a framework to consider the welfare of the animal. If these needs are compromised then euthanasia may be justified. The publication provides tools designed to remove some of the subjectivity surrounding notions such as suffering, pain and stress. However, there is still an acknowledgment that deciding if and when to euthanise can be very difficult. This is illustrated in a case study based on the experience of an animal welfare organisation in Thailand, that reported: Despite being aware that performing this task (euthanasia) was part of his job duties, our own staff veterinarian at times was prepared to just let an animal die a miserable, slow death rather than perform humane euthanasia. This was one of the factors that led us to source outside help to euthanise animals (ICAM, n.d., p. 18)
24
ICAM is made up of representatives from World Animal Protection, the Humane Society International, the International Fund for Animal Welfare, the international arm of the RSPCA UK, the World Small Animals Veterinary Association, and the Alliance for Rabies Control. 129
The responsibility of enacting death
In Thailand, Buddhist beliefs influence decisions around life, suffering and death of animals, as it is believed the volitional ending of animal life is a sin. These beliefs relate to one of the five precepts of Buddhism. The five precepts can be simply translated as refraining from: taking life, taking what is not given, sexual misconduct, lying or gossiping, and taking intoxicating substances. Terwiel (2012, p. 188), in his study of Buddhism in rural central Thailand, found that in daily life, there is an “easy-going attitude towards minor offences against the five precepts” with the exception of the first, the killing of any animal bigger than an insect. In this context, Terwiel (2012, p. 188) hypothesises that it is not fear of breaking a precept, but rather that the killing of animals involves feelings of guilt that “appears to lie in the belief of the karmic repercussions of the killing act” (emphasis in original). In Theravada Buddhism, the popular Jātaka25 stories “abound with examples of extreme suffering that is ascribed to the fact that the person who is afflicted had in a former life killed an animal. Other stories deal with the great happiness that results in saving an animal from death” (Terwiel, 2012, p. 188). Although Buddhist compassion advises caring for the animal, many veterinarians view killing an ill or injured animal as a breach of the first precept, even if the act is intended to alleviate present suffering. In the words of Harvey (2000, p. 173),
Buddhist veterinary care would not naturally include the killing of an ill or injured animal, for this would still be a breach of the first precept, and is seen as not unlike killing a sick human. Buddhist compassion would urge the caring for the animal, but not ‘putting it to sleep’.
Consequently, most of the veterinarians I interviewed had only performed euthanasia once or twice in their career. They would not consider putting down an animal that would still respond to pain relief and could be made comfortable. Overwhelmingly, the veterinarians would not consider killing an animal to 25
Stories from the lives of Buddha. 130
prevent future suffering or because it was unwanted. If ending an animal’s life was considered, it was to prevent present suffering, but this was acceptable only if there were no options to relieve pain and provide comfort. As Dr Ratchakorn states:
There are some owners who would ask for a shot to put their pet to sleep. I can only suggest to them that if their pet can’t bear it any longer, if they howl painfully, get restless, can’t do anything by itself, or there is no treatment capable of treating the sickness, then I will agree to their request. But if the animal’s condition hasn’t reached those stages, then I don’t do it. I will try to keep it alive. As Dr Ratchakorn’s comment suggests, palliative care is favoured by many veterinarians over euthanasia. Most veterinarians stated that their clinic would take in pets nearing the end of their life where they are given care with the specific aim to make them as comfortable and pain-free as possible. As Dr Jay explains, we have some clients who can’t take care of their old pet but have enough money to leave their old pet here. It’s like they ask the hospital to take care of it for life. Dogs are happy here. And their owners come to visit sometimes. It’s like a home for aged people.
Many veterinarians discussed the interests of the animals they treated in a similar way to humans. The veterinarians expressed that the life of a cat or dog in itself has value. In the words of Sandøe and Christiansen (2007, p. 111), the view taken is where “the dog’s life is of value per se even if it is a life associated with a certain amount of suffering” (emphasis in original). As Dr Eck states:
We campaign against putting an animal to sleep. I feel that if an animal gets really hurt and is going to die then it’s a matter for the animal. It’s not our business to think for it…So I just tell them (the owner) that animals love their life too. Even though they suffer because of the illness they are having. But isn’t it something they have to endure? 131
Dr Eck’s comment evokes Buddhist notions of suffering and how it relates to reincarnation. A person may have been an animal in previous existences, and without sufficient karma in their current life may be reincarnated as a lower form. Animals are unable to improve their karmic status because they are guided by instinct and do not have the intellectual ability to understand their situation. Their souls will continue to be reborn, and only when they are reborn as a human can they continue to strive for nirvana (Keown, 1996). These beliefs create fluid boundaries between humans and animals. To end the life of another, even if they are in pain, is considered to contribute to a continuation of suffering (Harris, 2001). In the words of Schlieter: For those Buddhists, who believe in the negative quality of the intention to kill, direct euthanasia or assisted suicide will be no plausible way to end pain, suffering, and despair because they will fear the negative karmic effect on future lives: instead of ending or reducing suffering, suffering is actually expanded (2014, pp. 323-324). Although the above quote is from a discussion of human suicide and euthanasia, it relates directly to the stance of the veterinarians I interviewed. This view of suffering prior to death and the use of euthanasia, differs from the attitudes and practice of veterinarians in non-Buddhist contexts. The ICAM publication, for example, states that although death is inevitable for all animals, suffering prior to death is not always inevitable and can be avoided by human intervention (ICAM, n.d.). Since protecting an animal from pain and suffering is at the core of animal welfare then when “the suffering of an animal cannot be effectively reduced or prevented, humanely ending the life of the suffering animal may be considered the best course of action for the animal” (ICAM, n.d., p. 6). From a Buddhist perspective the suffering prior to death should not be alleviated by enacting death. Three of the veterinarians interviewed discussed the taking of animal life as a sin, believing owners who wanted to end their pet’s life wished to shift the karmic burden to the veterinarian. If Dr Om encountered a client who insisted on euthanasia, and she didn’t agree that the condition warranted it, she asked the owner to take responsibility for enacting death: 132
I show them (the owner) the animal’s vein, and prepare the drug for them. But they have to inject the shot themselves. I let them get involved. Most owners are afraid of involvement in ending a life. They just like to bring animal here to let a vet end its life, so that they won’t feel sinful. So I show them the vein, prepare a drug, and let the client do it.
This may be an unusual method for a veterinarian to adopt, and she has yet to have a client take up her offer. However, this highlights the complex nature of human decision making about ending animal life as it may not be about suffering during death, as painless death can be enacted, but the moral concern involved in killing animals (Palmer, 2014; Sandøe & Christiansen, 2007). Sandøe and Christiansen (2007) argue that veterinarians have professional obligations to their clients in situations where euthanasia is discussed and they should be aware that their views may differ to their client’s. In this context “it is important, in the dialogue leading to any decision on the euthanasia of an animal, to acknowledge and give weight to alternative ethical considerations about the value of animal life” (Sandøe & Christiansen, 2007, p. 115).
However, for most veterinarians I interviewed, ending the life of an animal at the will of someone else was not an option as the moral and ethical burden was too much to accept.26 One veterinarian interviewed was willing to perform euthanasia but only in cases where treatment would be ineffective and pain was unbearable. When she encountered a client who requested euthanasia and she did not believe it was justified she would explain to the owner that the animal may get better, and that euthanasia is like “committing a sin”. In these situations, regardless of the owner’s own ethical stance or personal situation she would refuse the request. She states, “but I think I did my best and it’s my principle that I’m against it. So it’s not wrong that I refused them.” This resonates with philosopher Tom Regan’s view that animals are entitled to rights that include the freedom from harm (Regan, 2004). He argues that killing animals painlessly constitutes harm by deprivation, 26
The desire to transfer the job of killing, and any accompanying guilt, to another human resonates with other contexts such as the division of labour in slaughterhouses (Pachirat, 2011) and farmers sending their animals to slaughter (Hurn, 2013). 133
as it ends all possibility of future satisfaction. In Regan’s words, “to bring about the untimely death of animals will not hurt them if this is done painlessly; but they will be harmed” (2004, p. 103). Therefore, for Regan, euthanasia is only ethically acceptable if it is in the animal’s interests, that is when the animal is in significant pain with no chance of that pain being alleviated (Regan, 2004). Recent research by Hurn (2017, p. 220) in a multi-species, multi-faith ashram in Wales revealed similar views where the use of euthanasia was seen as a “lack of general recognition of animals as inherently spiritual beings”. Morris’s ethnographic study of the use of euthanasia in a veterinary clinic in the United States, found that veterinarians would prefer an animal have a shorter more comfortable life than one characterised by pain and suffering. Although for individual veterinarians the decision of when to euthanise would differ. Morris states, “if the veterinarian believes the patient to be suffering, life-preserving measures (except for pain management) are usually not in the best interests of the animal” (Morris, 2012, p. 29). However, some circumstances for euthanasia are not in the best interests of the animal. In cases of aggression in dogs, it is usually the interests of humans that take precedent. In many countries, including Australia and the United States, for example, if a dog bites a child local authorities may make the decision to have the dog destroyed to prevent more attacks. For many people this is uncontroversial, and it is considered in the best interests of all human stakeholders. Furthermore, the veterinarians in Morris’s study considered aggression as the most legitimate behavioural concern to use euthanasia. This was not the case among the Thai veterinarians who distinguished between behavioural concerns that might respond to training, and medical concerns. Dr Bea remarked on the differences in the use of euthanasia, stating: Our way differs from the practise abroad. Abroad, if a dog bites its owner then it is put to sleep because it shows signs of aggression. But here, if the same thing happens we won’t do the same. We only perform euthanasia if the animal has chronic kidney disease, cancer or have any sickness that causes it unbearable pain. Other than that we don’t want to do it. The owners don’t want us to do it either.
134
However, the contradictions and inconsistencies in people’s interactions with animals are highlighted when considering Dr Bea’s comments in light of the earlier discussion about rabies. Some Thais do request euthanasia for aggressive dogs, especially if rabies is suspected. Tensions can emerge in discussions about euthanasia based on a complex mix of factors, including individual understandings of Buddhism, perceptions of a veterinarian’s role, public health and socio-economic status.
Life quality
These cases, where euthanasia is not utilised by veterinarians and advocacy organisations for animals with severe disease and disability, are common in Thailand. Ethical questions emerge from these situations regarding quality of life. For example, is there quality of life if an animal is confined to an enclosed space due to paralysis? Does it serve the animal’s interests to keep it alive if it is unable to display normal species behaviours? If Nussbaum’s (2006) prescription for a ‘dignified’ life were applied to Sweetie Pie, it is unlikely she would have lived, as she is unable to express normal behaviour, and it could be argued she lives with significant discomfort. Although she would have time outside of her cage for interaction with humans and other cats, these times were limited as her mobility was poor and being incontinent meant the potential for mess was high. There was no doubt she was loved and cared for, but her condition meant a life predominantly confined to a cage. Nussbaum (2006, p. 385) argues that “killing seems morally appropriate when the alternative is a painful or undignified life (such as a life with incontinence, which animals feel as shameful or embarrassing).” Knowing when this point is, however, can be complicated and problematic for a veterinarian or animal advocacy worker who may also have to consider the wishes of the owner and be faced with practical concerns such as shelter or clinic overcrowding and disease transmission. Animal welfare workers often experienced conflict regarding different interpretations of quality, and quantity, of life concerns. In Bangkok, these workers generally deal with free-roaming animals, which as I have 135
discussed are generally not well tolerated in high-income countries. The dominant discourse from English speaking countries is that stray dogs and cats have poor well-being and would be better off under human care (Palmer, 2006). This belief has led to euthanasia being used in many countries for animals that cannot be rehomed to avoid over-crowding in shelters. Dominant animal welfare discourses are questioned in Bangkok where free-roaming cats and dogs are an accepted part of the community, and killing cats and dogs is not routine as “an act of caring and responsibility” (Srinivasan, 2013, p. 112).
One Thai animal welfare worker I interviewed had dealt directly with contrasting views towards the use of euthanasia. In her organisation, which focusses on sterilising and providing care for soi dogs, she does not allow euthanasia under any circumstances. Similar to the veterinarians interviewed, she felt that killing animals is a sin and that death is a natural process that should be allowed to take its course. She told me that she had encountered many non-Thais who did not agree with her approach. In one instance, she had a Danish veterinarian volunteering for her organisation who felt that some of the dogs she treated were suffering and should be euthanised. The veterinarian became very distressed when she was told she was not able to euthanise any of the dogs. The veterinarian’s identity as a professional, with the ability to enact a pain free death, was challenged in this situation.
Even though Thai veterinarians have significant ethical and religious concerns associated with the use of euthanasia, many of the dogs and cats that come under their care will be able to benefit from treatment and pain management. Even the dogs under the care of the animal welfare worker mentioned above, receive veterinary care and a comfortable place at the end of their life at her shelter. However, the situation is very different for soi cats and dogs, who seldom benefit from veterinary care, much less costly palliative care in the comfort of a clinic. These animals suffer the full impacts of disease and injury on the streets.
The feelings of ethical stress Thai veterinarians feel about the use of euthanasia challenges dominant views about the relief of animal suffering in veterinary medicine and its link to animal welfare. If we are to accept that animals suffer and 136
have an interest in maintaining a certain quality of life, then what responsibilities do humans have to intervene? As this chapter demonstrates, the nature of views surrounding the value of animal life are complex and complicated and impact decisions related to their care. In the next chapter, I consider the international adoption of cats and dogs, which is utilised as a method of managing shelter numbers and avoiding euthanasia in Thailand.
137
CHAPTER 7 SHELTERS, TEMPLES AND HOMES: REHOUSING STREET DOGS My name is Lenon and I am a calm boy who is 7 years of age. I have been at the Soi Dog shelter in Thailand for over two years now, waiting for a special family to choose me for adoption. Could that be you? (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-e)
Lenon is a three-legged dog available for adoption from the Soi Dog Foundation shelter in Phuket, and the above quote is an excerpt from his biography written by a Soi Dog Foundation staff member. Adoption is a strategy used by most cat and dog welfare organisations in Thailand as part of their efforts to decrease the number of cats and dogs in shelters. Most organisations also support CNVR activities focussed on decreasing street populations and making free-roaming animals healthier; however, there are cases when it is not considered appropriate to return an animal to the community. The reasons for this can vary and include ongoing medical concerns or disability, concerns about cruelty, or community members stating the animal is a nuisance and unwelcome. Many cats and dogs fall into these categories and the shelter facilities I visited were all over capacity.
Cases such as Lenon, who stay in the shelter indefinitely raise questions about what can be done to ease shelter space. These decisions relate to notions of appropriate spaces and places for cats and dogs, which are important in the consideration of human-animal relationships. For example, in many countries an animal in a home is protected as a pet, but a free-roaming dog or cat has a less certain status as they are subject to different governmental regulations and levels of protection. The concept of responsible pet ownership has its origins in a desire and need to control cats and dogs in urban areas (see Chapter 4). Many animal welfare advocates and public health officials promote that the safest place for cats and dogs is confined to the home. This conception of pets residing in a home as part of a more-than-human family has influenced thinking, especially in highincome countries, about the ‘correct’ spaces for these animals. Many urban areas worldwide now have some form of regulation regarding what spaces dogs and cats can enter. For example, in New South Wales the Companion Animals Act 138
1998 states that cats are allowed to roam in most public places, but dogs in public places “must be under the effective control of some competent person by means of an adequate chain, cord or leash” (NSW, s.13). This spatial regulation of humans and dogs in urban areas is designed to have a dual benefit of protecting public health and dog welfare. In this context, free-roaming dogs are considered ‘out of place’ when seen on the street (Philo & Wilbert, 2000). In this chapter, I examine the issue of re-housing street dogs in Thailand. As discussed in Chapter 4, in Bangkok regulations exist to manage cats and dogs but they are enforced with little regularity and consistency. Although there is a tolerance of animals free-roaming, dogs, in particular, can cause problems and community members do call the local authorities and animal welfare organisations requesting dogs be removed from the street. There are approximately 4,500 complaints from Bangkok residents every year made to local authorities about problem soi dogs. Most of these concerns relate to the condition and health of the dogs with about 5 percent relating to aggression (Wancharoen, 2015). However, there are only a small number of shelter facilities in Thailand, and one in the Bangkok area. For government authorities and animal advocacy workers, significant challenges exist when trying to find suitable spaces for dogs and cats that need to be removed from the street. In this chapter, I examine the hierarchy of space that I observed in Bangkok, where the home is valued as the most appropriate place for dogs. Within animal welfare discourses the street is considered the least desirable space, due to risks of accident and disease for the animal, and injury and a polluted environment for humans. I also consider alternative spaces for cats and dogs including Buddhist temples and shelters. I explore the influence of animal welfare discourses on the work of animal advocacy organisations that conceives of dogs’ interests as being best served under the care of an owner in the home. Finally, I examine the use of adoption of soi dogs as a tactic to relieve shelter space and provide dogs with an owner and a ‘forever home’. I focus on the work of the Soi Dog Foundation that has a program promoting dogs for adoption to other countries, especially those in
139
Europe and North America.27 Pets ‘out of place’
Studies conducted in Australia (A. Franklin, 2006), Canada (Ipsos-Reid, 2001) and the United States (American Veterinary Medical Association, 2012), have revealed that a majority of owners describe their pets as family members. Furthermore, many theorists interested in human-dog relationships have focussed on dogs as family members with interactions predominantly occurring in the home. This has included examinations from the perspective of the animals in human family roles such as ‘child’ or ‘sibling’ (for example, Arluke & Sanders, 1996; Hickrod & Schmitt, 1982; Hirschman, 1994). Other studies have focussed on the active role that dogs play in interactions with their owners, considering them as individual actors with agency who contribute to shaping these relationships (for example, Cudworth, 2011; Fox, 2006; A. Franklin, 2006; Power, 2008; Sanders, 2003). Sanders (1993), for example, argues dogs are social actors with the context of his study being the household with ‘shared family routines’. Occasionally, human-dog relationships have been considered outside the confines of the home in spaces such as dog parks (Jackson, 2012; Tissot, 2011). However, these studies are focussed on owned dogs in contexts with few free-roaming animals. The notion of dogs as family members has influenced animal control and protection strategies in many urban areas. In many countries, ‘out of place’ dogs are removed from public places by local authorities. Practices can vary according to location, and depend on local needs and priorities, but practices in many English speaking countries follow a similar process. Ownerless dogs found on the 27
My focus in this chapter is on dogs, this is because they are the subject of greater regulation in public spaces. Cats may be considered a nuisance to some people and their impact on wildlife through predation can be significant, but their impact to humans is less obvious than dogs. Uncontrolled dogs in public spaces are a concern as they are more likely to be aggressive and can cause significant injuries to people. They are more likely to spread disease through bites, for example, rabies (see Chapter 5). Dogs are also more visible on the street due to their size and they are more likely to rely on humans for food. Cats can live well with limited human contact and their hunting provides food - a trait free-roaming cat are often valued for.
140
street are picked up by local authorities and taken to a local shelter facility where they try to identify an owner. If an owner is located, they are contacted and hopefully reunited (although often with a fine for allowing their dog to roam). If an owner cannot be located, or is unwilling to collect the dog, the dog then stays at the shelter facility. They are medically checked and their behaviour is assessed. If they are healthy and their behaviour is considered appropriate for home life, they are offered for adoption to community members. If they are unwell or have inappropriate behaviour they are euthanised. Many shelters have a time limit on how long animals are available for adoption. This is dependent on the pressures of resources and space, and local priorities. Commonly, euthanasia is used to free space. Although many shelters are currently working to reduce their euthanasia rates as community members and animal advocacy workers voice concern about the loss of life and the psychological impact on those involved in enacting death (Fawcett, 2013; Morris, 2012; Swabe et al., 2005). Srinivasan (2013) argues that the dominant understanding of dogs as property is deeply engrained in the United Kingdom. She states if dogs “do not appear to belong to anyone, or if they are out of place, the law requires them to be ‘disposed of’” (Srinivasan, 2013, p. 109, emphasis in original). By contrast, in India regulations do not require dogs to be owned as they are officially classified as ‘pets’ or ‘street dogs’. Street dogs are still subject to regulations, but their existence is acknowledged and accepted in law. Still, Srinivasan (2015) found a strong belief among animal welfare organisations in India that dogs are best suited under human care. In her words, “once this view (of a ‘good’ dog life) takes hold, the presence of street dogs is challenged not only on the grounds of human health and safety, but on grounds of dog wellbeing” (Srinivasan, 2015, p. 216). Similar views can be found among animal advocacy workers in Thailand as many work to find homes for dogs they perceive to be unwanted by humans. In the next section, I examine the role that Buddhist temples and shelters play as alternate spaces for soi dogs. It is here that many of the tensions and challenges regarding notions of the ‘best’ care for dogs are played out.
141
Alternative spaces to the street
Temple animals In Thailand, Buddhist temples are considered a safe haven for free-roaming cats and dogs. As the First Precept of Buddhism forbids killing and Buddhist teachings preach tolerance of all living creatures, temples have become a common place to release unwanted cats and dogs. Temples often display signs around their grounds indicating a Khet Aphaiyathan (Zone of Forgiveness), which is intended to discourage the hunting or fishing of small animals (Clutterbuck, 2004). I visited approximately ten temples during my fieldwork all located in urban or semi-rural areas. All the temples had resident cats and dogs. During the day, dogs laze throughout the temple grounds finding what shade they can to escape the heat. It was common to see cats sleeping and lazing about in the cosy confines of a spirit house. In their more active moments, the cats continue to fulfil their historical role as mousers. As mentioned in Chapter 1, feline hunting is tolerated in temple grounds because it is believed cats were created by Buddha in order to eat the rat, which is considered to be harmful to people (Tambiah, 1969, p. 435).
Figure 12: Cat next to a spirit house at a Buddhist temple in Chiang Mai.
142
During my fieldwork, I accompanied students from the veterinary school at Chulalongkorn University to Chonburi province for a rabies vaccination field trip (see Chapter 5). The field trip is an annual event and the students and staff are accommodated at a local temple. We were served meals in a large sheltered area of the temple where dogs lay scattered throughout the space. I had to watch my step as dogs were flat out on the concrete or under tables. All the dogs seemed friendly and accustomed to human company; some approached looking for food or a pat. One of the veterinarians told me that the temple dogs were the first to be vaccinated every year. He felt that the dogs also needed to be sterilised to ensure the population stabilised, help kerb aggression and improve their overall health, especially in the context of more dogs arriving regularly as abandonments. However, the annual fieldtrip was only funded and resourced to offer rabies vaccination. In an article about the temple dogs he encountered during his short time as a monk in Chiang Mai, Ira Sukrungruang, described how the approximately thirty dogs who lived at the temple would come and go as they pleased, “rolling around in grassy areas, sleeping on the cool marble steps of the temples” (Sukrungruang, 2013, para. 7). Abandonments at the temple were common and the monks would do what they could for the dogs, but the reality was that many of them would die. As Sukrungruang states, “at the temple, the monks would take care of the puppies, would feed them, pet them, name them, knowing that one could be lost the next day. But here, they were loved. Here, their existence mattered” (Sukrungruang, 2013, para. 18). The care that animals generally receive at temples has created a perception among the community they are safer than roaming the streets. However, being in the confines of a temple does not necessarily mean good animal welfare (Cohen, 2013). Monks and other helpers often struggle to cope with the animals that arrive on their doorstep. In recent years, stories of temples struggling with the number of abandoned pets in their care have become common. In 2008, an outbreak of canine and feline distemper in central Thailand led to hundreds of pets being dumped at temples (Wong-Anan, 2008). In the province of Phichit, about 350km north of Bangkok, a sign was erected at a temple asking people to stop
143
“supplying” them with cats and dogs. Government agencies and even the Prime Minister urged people to take their pets back from the temples and have them vaccinated. Officially, the National Buddhism Office tried to discourage people from leaving animals at temples with a senior official stating, “those who abandon their pets at the temples are giving themselves sin, not merit” (WongAnan, 2008, para. 8). Monks are permitted few possessions and rely on donations of items, including food. The cats and dogs at the temples generally receive any leftover human food, sometimes supplemented with donated animal food. In the northern province of Lampang, monks are asking community members to make monthly donations of 150 baht (AUD6) to cover the cost of food for the estimated 800 cats and dogs living in the temple grounds (https://www.facebook.com/โครงการอาหารสุนัขและ แมว-วัดเวฬุวนราม-157457334410364/). In February 2016, an abbot at a temple in the southern province of Surat Thani asked the public to stop abandoning their pets at his temple and a neighbouring park as the numbers of animals had risen to over 100 making it difficult for the five resident monks to care for them. The abbot, Phra Kru Winaaithorn, stated that “the animals are fed on leftovers after the monks eat food obtained from the morning alms round each day, but it is not enough for all of them” (Chaolan, 2016, para. 3). Furthermore, Phra Kru Winaaithorn has asked “concerned agencies” to help provide care for the animals, including providing vaccinations, sterilisations and shelter (Chaolan, 2016). Many animal advocacy organisations are attempting to help in this area, as they realise the important role of the temples in the community. The Care for Dogs organisation based in Chiang Mai regularly accepts temple dogs for sterilisation and medical care. I interviewed one of the founders of Care for Dogs, Alice a long-term resident of Thailand from Germany, who told me that as the organisation became well-known more people contacted them for assistance with animals at temples. These requests would sometimes come directly from the monks and others from community members who had seen the animals. Alice told me: “we take in regularly temple dogs for sterilisation or medical care…quite a lot of temples in Chiang Mai know us and call us with a case of new dogs who were dumped needing sterilisation or if they have a medical rescue.” 144
Furthermore, “often temples feel overwhelmed with the many animals. I've heard monks complaining that people come at night when its dark, open the door of the car let out the dog and leave.” Although the temple is seen as a place of refuge for animals, abandoning owned animals under the cover of darkness suggests that people realise they are transferring their problems to someone else. It may also create, or compound existing, animal welfare concerns. Owners who dump unwanted cats and dogs at temples can be charged under the Animal Welfare Act with abandoning and endangering the animal (Klangboonkrong, 2015). Still, these situations highlight a need for support and options when an animal does not live up to human expectations. In many countries, it is hoped to achieve this through the promotion of responsible pet ownership behaviours (see Chapter 4), or it may be the services of government and non-government organisations such as Care for Dogs that offer sterilisation, medical care and shelter facilities. Shelters Animal shelters are designed to meet the basic needs of animals in situations where adequate care cannot be found elsewhere. Cats and dogs end up in shelters for multiple reasons, including stray or injured animals being brought to the facility by local authorities or community members, and people relinquishing their pets. How and why cats and dogs end up at shelters is closely linked to local regulations and the community’s tolerance towards cats and dogs in public spaces, especially unaccompanied on the street. Furthermore, reasons for pet relinquishment are varied and raise numerous ethical questions and concerns about people’s responsibilities towards the animals in their care. In many countries, government support for animal shelters exists “in support of their ideals of reducing the numbers of stray and unwanted animals in the community, eliminating zoonotic diseases that they might transmit and avoiding the unsightly nuisance that stray animals on the streets create, in their eyes” (Phillips, 2015, p. 128). However, government funding that exists for shelters is generally not enough, even in high-income countries. Running costs can be significant and funding generally needs to be supplemented, therefore shelters
145
need to employ various strategies to ensure they can meet the needs of the cats and dogs in their care. Common strategies include, requesting donations and sponsorship from the community, and making shelter residents available for adoption. In countries, such as Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom, euthanasia is commonly used to keep shelter numbers at manageable levels (Phillips, 2015; Toukhsati et al., 2012). In Thailand, there are a small number of government run dog shelters, but they receive limited government funding and resources. The BMA operates two shelters, one in the Bangkok area known as the Prawet Dog Shelter and another facility in the province of Uthai Thani over 200 kilometres to the north of Bangkok. The Uthai Thani shelter is much larger and designed to be a more permanent home for the dogs. The Prawet Dog Shelter takes its name from the region of Bangkok in which it is located. However, it also evokes, the Jātaka tale describing the life of Prince Vessantara (Wesandorn) (Cate, 2003; Harvey, 2000). The Jātaka is recited during Bun Prawet in northeast Thailand, a festival of merit making and charity (Khamung, 2015). Prince Vessantara is a figure associated with generous donation. In the Jātaka he “gives away that which is most valuable to him – the white elephant that assures rainfall for his people and symbolises his rule, his personal wealth, his children and finally his wife – as he strives to perfect the virtue of generosity in his search for enlightenment” (Cate, 2003, p. 87). Within the thosochat, which tells the story of the ten lives of Buddha, Prince Vessantara is the penultimate incarnation. Of the ethics articulated in the thosochat, generosity is considered the greatest moral good (Cate, 2003). The dogs that arrive at Prawet Dog Shelter, are offered a home for life. Staff at the shelter will only collect dogs from the community if there has been a complaint and they then assess that the dog should be removed from the streets for both dog and human welfare. Owners can also relinquish their dogs to the shelter if they are no longer able or willing to take care of them. Still, approximately 7,000 to 8,000 dogs arrive at the shelter annually. The dogs are held for a short period of time to allow people to claim ownership; however, as most of them are soi dogs reunification generally does not occur. The dogs are then sterilised and vaccinated, and most are eventually transported to the larger
146
shelter in Uthai Thani province where they will be available for adoption. Although almost all the dogs will live out their days at the shelter as adoption rates are only 20 percent ("It's a dog's life," 2015). The Prawet shelter does not accept cats and there is no government service to remove sick or nuisance cats from the streets of the city. There are numerous animal advocacy organisations that can provide services for cats, such as PAWS, but their resources are extremely stretched with the cases that are brought directly to them. Laura, the manager of PAWS, expressed to me during my volunteer work that there is a great need for a mobile service that can respond to requests to pick up cats in need, because of concerns about their health and welfare. However, resources currently do not exist for that kind of service. An article in the Bangkok Post ("It's a dog's life," 2015) reported that the shelter has been the subject of many complaints, both online and official, about the conditions the dogs are kept in. The dogs are housed together in a large enclosure, with the exception of new arrivals who are quarantined until cleared of contagious diseases, and those with ongoing medical needs. This is common in most of the dog rescue facilities I visited. The dogs are fed daily, but the level of human contact they receive varies and depends on the number of staff and volunteers. Soi Dog Foundation, for example, usually has enough staff to offer many dogs a daily walk on a lead. However, other facilities are unable to offer regular walks due to a lack of staff or a safe environment in which to walk. The head of dog control at the Prawet shelter, Siwa Maison, believe staff are in a difficult position with pressure from some community members to remove dogs from the street, “while pet lovers believe that we should provide better care for the dogs” ("It's a dog's life," 2015, para 19). Although staff at the Prawet shelter do not return dogs to the street, Maison believes that it is fine for dogs to free roam if they have been sterilised and vaccinated. However, he states that adoption is the ideal because “every dog needs an owner. Prawet should be the very last place for them to be” ("It's a dog's life," 2015, para. 22). Generally, shelters are not considered long-term places for cats and dogs to reside. Maison’s view is reflected in dominant discourses about cat and dog 147
welfare suggesting that being in a home and under the care of a human family is the ideal arrangement. Therefore, if an animal cannot be returned to its owner, or one cannot be located, it is common for shelters to make the animal available for adoption. In most cases, adoption of shelter animals is offered for a fee, covering the costs of sterilisation, vaccination and veterinary care, which are generally done before an animal is considered adoptable. These costs are generally small, and shelters do not tend to make a profit. In Australia for example, the RSPCA in Victoria ensures each animal available for adoption is sterilised, micro-chipped, vaccinated, health and behaviour checked. The charges for adoption for a dog range from $335 to $399 depending on the dog’s age and location (RSPCA Victoria, 2016). It is cheaper to adopt in a regional area compared to the city. Puppies are the most expensive and the most popular adoptees, with the least popular dogs and cats, seniors over the age of seven, available for adoption free of charge. In the United States, Europe and Australia, a significant number of animals are acquired from shelters and Sandøe et al. (2016) suggest numbers will continue to rise as many countries are placing restrictions on commercial breeding, and selling live animals in pet stores. Slogans such as ‘Adopt, don’t shop’ and claims that ‘If you adopt, you’ll save a life’ are helping to increase perceptions that adoption is an ethical thing to do (Sandøe et al., 2016). By contrast most organisations, including Soi Dog Foundation and Care for Dogs, in Thailand do not charge an adoption fee. In Thailand, the number of adoptions is low as shelter animals are perceived as street dwellers not suitable for home life. Soi Dog Foundation manager, Peter, states that adoption is not popular among Thais, because “they generally want cute little fluffy dogs, because the Thais are well into their Shih Tzus, and things like that.” In the context of very low adoption rates and scant regulation relating to acquiring animals these organisations focus on finding the best ‘fit’ between animal and human, and encouraging people to care for sterilised and healthy animals as pets. With the continual flow of animals into their care, adoption is core to the business of many shelters and is a preferred way animals are moved out of the shelter, so freeing up space to help additional animals. If adoption is not possible, or just
148
does not happen, other options need to be utilised to manage shelter space. In many countries, this includes euthanasia and refusing to take in more animals when capacity is reached. For reasons discussed in detail in Chapter 6, euthanasia is not favoured in Thailand, therefore shelters and advocacy organisations will not utilise euthanasia expect for the most severe medical cases. Depending on the practice of the specific organisation this means that cats and dogs may be returned to the community having been vaccinated, and sterilised (CNVR), or they may be offered a home for life at the shelter and made available for adoption. The adoption process
For the Soi Dog Foundation, adoption of the dogs in their care to a ‘forever home’ is an important part of their work they take very seriously. Staff try to work with potential adopters to ensure the animal is going to a good home with people who understand the basics of sharing a home with a cat or dog.28 Soi Dog Foundation operates its main shelter on the island of Phuket. The shelter is consistently at capacity, being home to about 400 dogs. The dogs are kept in enclosures that can accommodate about 20 dogs at a time. The enclosures have concrete floors with a short brick wall and wire separating one enclosure from another. Most of the dogs spend their day in this space, occasionally going for a walk with a volunteer. The cats at Soi Dog Foundation live in various rooms in a purpose built dwelling. They are provided with the basics to ensure their welfare; they have room to play, hide and there is a space to the side for multiple kitty litter trays. Volunteers and staff come and go throughout the day. All the animals have room to move, but it is acknowledged by Soi Dog Foundation staff that it is not an ideal situation; dogs and cats can be stressed by the close presence of other animals and they may not be able to exert themselves and demonstrate natural behaviours as they would in an open environment. The staff at Soi Dog Foundation believe, however, that the shelter environment is preferable to the risks and dangers of free-roaming on the streets.
28
My focus in this chapter is on dogs as they make up the vast majority of adoptions from the Soi Dog Foundation. However, the same adoption process applies to cats. 149
Figure 13: One of the rooms in the cat facility at Soi Dog Foundation in Phuket.
Soi Dog Foundation staff ask questions of potential adopters, and they ensure the animal is sterilised (or will be sterilised). They ask about the home the dog will be a part of, and the human and animal make-up of the home. They ask these questions in order to best match a dog with a suitable home. They consider the animal’s temperament and needs and try best to match the animal with the home and the wants/needs of the adopters. If it is a puppy that hasn’t been sterilised they will go and collect the puppy from its new house when the time has come for the operation. Soi Dog Foundation will perform the sterilisation for free and return the puppy to its new home. Peter said they would like to do house inspections prior to adoption, but they do not have the resources to allow that. Even so, there is a strong desire to ensure adoptions are successful, and avoiding abandonment is a priority. Soi Dog Foundation staff tells all adopters they should bring the dog back if things do not work out for any reason. Peter told me that they have found dogs on the street again after having been adopted from the shelter. Dog biographies
On the Soi Dog Foundation website the dogs available for adoption are featured complete with a photo and biography. The dogs are anthropomorphised as their stories are told from a first-person perspective, giving them human like characteristics and emotions. Arluke and Sanders (1996, p. 80) state that pet
150
owners “routinely make use of anthropomorphism as a dominant vehicle for making sense of animal behaviour.” Speaking for the dogs is designed to allow humans, in this case potential adopters, to see the dog as an individual, with particular needs and emotions. The biographies also tell emotive stories of hardship and pain and the need for a safe space to live out their remaining years. For example, the profile of a nine year old dog named See Nin who has been living at the Soi Dog Foundation shelter for over five years includes: At some point during my life I had been involved in a serious car accident which damaged by hind legs and spine. With no one to look after me, I spent months in pain while my body healed itself. By the time I came to Soi Dog there was nothing they could do for my old injuries. My left hind leg isn’t as strong as my right. It is likely that I’ll develop arthritis in my hip and will benefit from glucosamine, a healthy diet and probably antiinflammatories as I get older. In my younger days I had a reputation for being a strong, dominant character but I’m older now and I’ve mellowed. I am now a mature, older dog and I’ve stepped down the pecking order in my run. All I want now is love and cuddles in my own forever home for my senior years. Don’t be fooled by my age, I am a fairly energetic boy and I love my walks around the lake when the volunteers come to see me. I walk well on the lead. I am a friendly boy with people. I do well in my run with the other dogs, although a home with an older female dog would be perfect. I am OK here at Soi Dog, but it can never replicate a proper home with a family. I live in a run with 18 other dogs and while there are far less happy places to be, I don’t want to spend my final years here at the shelter. We all deserve a loving home (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-f). These first-animal/person narratives function as hagiographies as they describe the dogs in glowing and heroic terms. They provide a strong motivating factor for people interested in adopting them. The dogs salvaged from the dog meat trade, where dogs are illegally captured in Thailand bound for human consumption in northern Vietnam and southern China have particularly affecting stories (see Chapter 8). The dogs rescued from the dog meat trade are not located at the Soi Dog Foundation shelter in Phuket; rather most are at a purpose-built shelter in
151
Buriram province in north-east Thailand. It is a shelter operated by the Department of Livestock Development, and Soi Dog Foundation assisted with the building of the shelter and continues to assist with ongoing care for the dogs. The biographies of these dogs tell the story of being taken from the streets of northeast Thailand, being crammed into a small cage with numerous other dogs, without food or water during a long trip by road. Many dogs die along the way and those that do arrive in Vietnam or China alive will then be slaughtered for human consumption. One of the dogs rescued from the dog traffickers is Hermione and her profile promoting her for adoption states: I am still getting over my ordeal. I am a victim of the brutal, illegal dog meat trade. Destined to be boiled alive for my meat I have managed to escape a slow painful death. Can you imagine being crammed into a cage so small and already full of dogs to be transported on a truck with no shade and no water? The conditions were horrible but somehow some of us survived this brutal journey. There were so many of us in one cage, I couldn’t even breathe properly. I could hear the sad cries of many dogs around me. I now live at the Buriram shelter in northern Thailand, which is where all the dogs rescued from the dog meat trade live. There are over 1250 of us and we are the survivors of this terrible dark trade. I am a sweet girl about 8 years of age who is calm, sweet and friendly. I am not used to living in such an environment with so many other dogs. I have been here for a while and see many other dogs leaving for their new homes. I hope I am lucky enough one day to also find mine (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-d). In addition to promoting adoption, these stories also help to raise funds for Soi Dog. Social media exposes people worldwide with the biographies of dogs and cats available for adoption in Thailand. There are many responses of heartache at seeing the plight of these animals; Facebook post shares and Twitter retweets
152
share these animal’s details and plead for assistance.29 Non-Thai, generally native English speaking, volunteers at Soi Dog Foundation are responsible for writing the biographies. When I interviewed Peter he commented that they had multiple volunteers helping maintain the organisation’s Facebook page. One of these volunteers is an American living in Australia who works on the Facebook page and fundraising activities full time. For some people, reading the animal’s stories prompts them to adopt one of the dogs (or cats) themselves. Some of the successful adoptions have been documented in media reports and owners have used the story of their adoption to continue to raise the profile of Soi Dog Foundation, and the welfare of dogs in Thailand generally.30 As Peter says of many international adopters: …generally it's somebody who has seen the likes of the dog meat trade, it is quite emotive and you've got all these dogs that have been rescued from the dog meat trade, and have got to spend the rest of their lives in a livestock shelter, which could be very, very short and they want to help. They want to take that dog. Preparing for home life
One of the main aims of Soi Dog Foundation is to move the dogs out of the shelter and into a home with a defined owner. This is the focus of many animal rescue organisations in high-income countries, and the vast majority of the animals that come into their care are accustomed to life in a home. These organisations, such as the RSPCA in Australia and the United Kingdom, have processes of behavioural testing in place to predict the suitability for adoption of a dog or cat in their care. For most people in these countries their experiences with cats and dogs predominantly occurs in the home in their role as pets (Fox, 2006). For many Thais, however, encounters with cats and dogs occur outside of the home meaning that dogs arriving at shelters may never have experienced life
29
Recent work by Dalsgaard (2016) considers the role of social media in ethnographic work. 30 Chouliaraki (2012) discusses the role of the contemporary media environment in promoting solidarity towards distant vulnerable others. 153
as a household pet. As the Soi Dog Foundation website informs potential adopters, “our dogs are generally lead trained but will never have lived in a home” (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-b, para. 7). Volunteers at Soi Dog Foundation spend time with the dogs getting to know their personality, assessing their temperament and therefore their suitability for adoption. On the days I visited the Soi Dog Foundation shelter, volunteers and staff would be busy feeding the dogs, washing them, socialising them, taking them for walks, and treating them for any minor medical complaints. Those that were awaiting adoption overseas received more attention. However, Peter admits there are few certain ways of knowing if a dog will fit into ‘home’ life before they bound through the front door. Soi Dog Foundation staff has a significant amount of trust that the dogs will settle into domestic life and there are only a small number of reported problems with the dogs adopted to new homes overseas. As Peter explains: We had two cases last year out of 200 where there were issues with the dog and it had to be rehomed with somebody else. Didn't get on with, you know, if it's like a noisy family or whatever young children running around and the dogs never known or understood children, the dog has bitten one of them or something, can't have that, it's got to go. We managed to rehome then locally in America or the UK with a single person fortunately. Soi Dog Foundation staff stress the importance of allowing the animal to slowly adjust to its new surrounds. Peter states that potential adopters have to be made aware that the dogs do not come from a home environment, and there is a limit to the knowledge that they can get about a dog’s temperament in the shelter environment. As Peter suggests above, one unpredictable factor is how a dog will react to children. He explains, What can you do? Get a 5 year old kid from the local school and say we want you to bang this dog and pull its hair, and let’s see if it bites you? Can't do it. So there is a certain unknown. We always tell people you know, you should be very cautious slow in introducing them, don't leave 154
young children alone with them. This sort of thing, until the dog realises now its home and things are OK. But, the vast majority of these dogs make fantastic pets, 90 odd percent settle in straight away. We got photos you know, on beds with kids being with young children and everything else, but there are no guarantees. In reality, many of the adopters are highly motivated for the adoption to work, particularly with international adoptions where a significant amount of time and money is invested in the process of receiving a dog from Thailand. In addition, Soi Dog Foundation provide considerable support post-adoption to ensure success. The adoption FAQ section of the Soi Dog Foundation website includes the question, “How can I be sure a Thai dog or cat will adapt to a new environment?” The answer attempts to address any concerns potential adopters may have stating that, virtually all our animals who have been adopted overseas have adapted rapidly to their new homes. The few who have had problems adjusting have settled in time thanks to patient owners. In the event of a dog or cat not being suitable for their new home environment we will do all we can to assist. Our adoptions team can provide advice, and will coordinate with the adopter and our local representative to find solutions and to assist with contacts for reputable trainers/behaviour specialists. If this should still not resolve the issues, we would then find a suitable new home for the animal (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-b, para. 6). Although Soi Dog Foundation staff believe that dogs ideally belong under human care, there is an acknowledgement that this relationship may not always work. Therefore, hard work and patience may be required before the dog appreciates this arrangement. The international adoption process Like Soi Dog Foundation, several animal welfare groups in Thailand make the animals in their care available for adoption internationally. The practice of transporting pedigree dogs and cats to new homes internationally has been occurring for decades as many breeders will arrange transport to another country 155
for a fee. However, the transport of previously stray animals to a home overseas is a more recent phenomenon. There is scant academic literature on the topic with the exception of Haraway (2003) who discusses the adoption of sato, or street, dogs from Puerto Rico to the United States in her Companion Species Manifesto.
In 2012, I visited the Bangkok branch of Soi Dog, which is an important hub for its international adoptions process. The facility is in a residential area to the north of the city and appears like any other house on the street behind large walls and solid gates. From the outside the only indication of the operation is the sound of the dogs living there. The facility is not intended as a long-term home for dogs. There is very little room for the dogs to roam and when I visited most of the dogs spent the majority of the day in small cages. Staff and volunteers took them for walks, but the yard was limited in size and the street was home to free-roaming dogs who did not necessarily appreciate interlopers. Most of the dogs at the facility await transport either to the bigger Phuket facility, or for the trip to Bangkok’s Suvanabhumi airport to fly to a new home overseas. Although many organisations in Thailand will help arrange for an overseas adoption, the process can be long, complicated and costly as export, transport and quarantine regulations have to be negotiated. This means for many organisations it is not a regular activity as it is too time and resource consuming. Soi Dog, however, reported doing over 200 international adoptions in 2012, predominantly to Canada, the Unites States, the United Kingdom and Europe. They have numerous volunteers worldwide who help to facilitate the process. Through experience over many years, they have developed an understanding of the process and heavily promote canine adoptees on social media. In 2016, the Soi Dog Foundation website states that they send dogs overseas every week. In 2010, two Australian volunteers at Soi Dog Foundation decided to focus on building up the international adoption program. One of the volunteers, Stacy, told me in an interview that her motivation to concentrate on adoption came from seeing many of the dogs unhappy with shelter life. When selecting which dogs to make available for adoption she says, I usually went for the ones that I really knew weren’t enjoying life in the 156
shelter. You know how some dogs run around and look like they’re really happy and they love being with the dogs and everything but other dogs, the ones that sit under the sala (shelter) and are too frightened to come out but when you do get them out they’re really lovely dogs and you think oh, you hate being here, I really want to find you a home. Stacy and her husband began to work full time on the adoption program, taking photos of available dogs, writing dog biographies and making videos, promoting dogs on the website and social media, dealing with enquiries, and arranging transport. She spent about 70 hours a week volunteering her time and estimates she arranged about 500 adoptions in three years. Arranging an overseas adoption can be complicated and expensive depending on numerous factors, including the destination country, the airline, and even the size of the animal, which will determine cage size and weight. Soi Dog Foundation does not charge fees for an international adoption, but does require adopters to cover any third party costs. Soi Dog Foundation facilitate all the required procedures to enable a dog to travel overseas including taking care of all required documents, and flight bookings, so that all adopters have to do is make their way to the closest international airport to meet their “new best friend” (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-c). Potential adopters are told that there are two ways to receive their chosen dog by plane: either traveling classed as cargo, or with a human passenger on the same flight and being considered by the airline as their extra baggage. Both ways involve the animal physically being transported in the same way, the main difference is cost. Travelling as cargo is generally more expensive, but the animal is able to fly at any time. Flying with a human on the same flight is cheaper and Soi Dog Foundation are often looking for volunteers to accompany animals overseas. A Soi Dog Foundation Facebook post from 19 March 2015 asks: Would you like to help an adopted soi dog or cat get to its new home? Are you departing from THAILAND going to the USA, Canada or Europe? Please consider being a flight volunteer at NO COST to you. If you are travelling on BOOKED tickets with Thai Airways, Qatar, Korean Air, JAL, EVA, Lufthansa, KLM, Swiss Air, and Austrian Airlines our 157
adopted animals need you! Special conditions do apply for the UK and the EU and a minimum 4 MONTHS’ NOTICE on pre-booked flights are required for these destinations (Soi Dog Foundation, 2015a).
Peter estimates that about half of the people who adopt from overseas have not met the dog they would like to adopt. Other cases that may need a flight volunteer are for adopters who have been to Thailand and met a dog they would like to adopt, but have returned home before all the travel preparations can be made for the animal, or have made the final decision to adopt after returning home. The flight volunteers are promoted as an important part of the process of ensuring animals are able to reach their new home. Although it’s cheaper to use a flight volunteer, finding someone who is willing with a booked ticket to the required destination within the required notice period can be challenging. To keep down costs to adopters and avoid reliance on volunteers, Soi Dog Foundation asks adopters to “consider combining a holiday in Thailand with taking your adopted dog back to your home country. The savings involved can mean a very cheap holiday” (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-c, para. 7).
The costs of overseas adoption can be significant (see Table 1). The United States and Canada are the cheapest and quickest, and relatively straightforward with regard to procedure. The United Kingdom is a popular destination for adoptions from Soi Dog, however, animals are unable to enter the United Kingdom as accompanying baggage by plane, and must be sent as cargo. The costs associated with this are high, costing about £1,500 (approx. AUD2, 500). With the assistance of committed volunteers, Soi Dog Foundation has devised a way to minimise the costs of transporting dogs to the United Kingdom. The scheme involves a significant commitment from the flight volunteers, as they are required to fly specifically with KLM via Amsterdam with three dogs (the maximum number allowed by the airline). They spend one night in the Netherlands with the dogs, and then travel with them via ferry from the Hook of Holland (about 60 km from Amsterdam airport) to Harwich in England. The dogs are carried by the airline at a rate of USD200 per dog, which is to be paid by the adopter in addition to the overnight expenses in the Netherlands, the ferry charges and all the flight costs for the volunteers. The volunteers are required to spend at least 10 days at 158
the Phuket shelter prior to the trip to the United Kingdom to get to know the dogs. This is done so that the volunteers become familiar with the dogs being transported. They spend at least two hours a day with the dogs with the aim of decreasing their stress for the lengthy trip ahead of them. The main requirements for the volunteers are that they be physically fit and able to handle three dogs simultaneously on a leash.
159
Country
Cargo costs
USA
USD $800 to $1200
Canada
CAD $800 to $1200
UK
£1,500
Europe (other than Scandinavia)
EUR 800 to 1,200 + flight cage and EUR 90 for a blood test
Scandinavia - Travel
EUR 800 to 1,200 +
has to be via
flight cage and EUR
Copenhagen.
90 for a blood test
Cargo
Flight volunteer
timescale
costs
Around 1
USD $400 to $600 +
month
flight cage
Around 1
CAD $400 to $600 +
month
flight cage
4 to 6 months
4 to 6 months
4 to 6 months
£740
Flight volunteer timescale Around 1 month
Around 1 month
4 to 6 months
EUR 300 to 500 + flight cage and EUR
4 to 6 months
90 for a blood test
EUR 300 to 500 + flight cage and EUR
4 to 6 months
90 for a blood test
Table 1: Cost and time involved in undertaking an international dog adoption through Soi Dog Foundation. (Source: Soi Dog Foundation. Retrieved from: www.soidog.org/en/adoptions/dogadoption-costs/).
I spent three days visiting the Soi Dog Foundation shelter in Phuket in February 2013. Whilst there I met two volunteers, Zat and Izzy, who were getting to know six dogs before accompanying them back to the United Kingdom. Zat and Izzy live in Sunderland, England, but would spend time every year in Thailand getting to know dogs, and then accompanying them to the United Kingdom and delivering them to their new owners. In May 2013, Zat documented one of their trips back to England in an article for the Phuket News (Lewis, 2013). After spending a month at the shelter the day they head back to England with the dogs starts very early at Phuket airport. Zat explains in the article that seeing the dogs travel down the conveyor belt and heading for the plane is an emotional experience, but the thought that there is a loving home ahead of them in England “filled with new loving family and friends, with a nice cosy fire to curl up in front of at the end of a hard day’s play” makes the process easier. The path out of Thailand is rather straightforward, with all the paperwork having been prepared 160
by Soi Dog Foundation in advance. Zat, Izzy and the dogs transit through Bangkok and onto the next flight bound for Amsterdam. On arrival at Amsterdam they are helped by locals and friends who assist with transport and accommodation for the night. The following morning, they are given a lift to the ferry where the dog’s paperwork, including their European Union pet passport is checked by officials. The pet passport is required for all dogs, cats and ferrets that travel between European Union countries. It includes a declaration from a veterinarian that the animal is healthy and appropriately vaccinated. For example, as the dogs had been in Thailand their documentation would have to prove they were vaccinated for rabies at least three months prior to travel (European Commission, n.d.). After authorities approve both animal and human documentation, Zat and Izzy need to load six dogs on leads onto the ferry, along with their own luggage and the dog crates. The ferry trip takes about seven hours, and the dogs are accommodated in a purpose built animal carrying area, that even has a webcam so guardians can monitor them during the trip. On arrival at Harwich, there is more travel by train required to get all the dogs to their new homes. The travel is long and demanding for Zat and Izzy, but Zat notes that when the dogs met their new family everyone is happy and he knows they are going to a good home. The trip documented in the Phuket News was not the first that Zat and Izzy had made with six dogs. Zat notes in the article that they have become better at dealing with the paperwork and knew what to expect at every step. Furthermore, airport staff at Amsterdam recognized them and some know about the work of Soi Dog. As Haraway (2003, p. 93) argues, in international dog adoption the airplane is an “instrument in a series of subject-transforming technologies. The dogs who come out of the belly of the plane are subject to a different social contract than the one they were born into.” Zat and Izzy have continued to travel to Thailand every year and in 2015 it was reported they had accompanied 54 dogs from Phuket to various locations in the United Kingdom via Amsterdam ("Sunderland window cleaners," 2015).
161
Adoption case studies
Hope Hope is one dog adopted through Soi Dog Foundation now living in England. Her story is told through a Facebook page, called Loving Hope, which is maintained by her owner. The owner writes updates on the page as Hope; therefore the owner is ‘speaking for’ the dog, attributing to Hope human emotions and traits as she updates the reader on her life. Hope tells the story of being taken from the streets bound for the dog meat trade. In the ‘Description’ section on her Facebook page it reads: I was rescued from the illegal Dog Meat Trade in Thailand where I was taken over night [sic] from where I was living [on the streets] and crammed into a chicken crate with around 12 other dogs. I was so very scared. Luckily the truck was intercepted by the Police and I was taken to a Livestock Shelter in Khemmerat. That’s where my Mummy first saw me, bedraggled, extremely thin and scared. She couldn't leave me there she said and so asked Bitter Brownie to pull me out and have me taken to Soi Dog Foundation to look after me…I arrived home on UK soil on 12th September at Harwich Port - I came with my best friends Zat & Izzy! The rest they say is history as I've settled into my new home and new life and I'm so grateful to everyone that helped me but especially to my new family - I'm so happy! (www.facebook.com/groups/lovinghope/) The page has over 300 followers and shows Hope living a very different life to the one she had in Thailand as told in her biography. Many of the stories of successful overseas adoption focus on how different life is for the dog living with a family that includes a loving human ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’. In addition, this often includes both human and canine ‘siblings’. The use of familial labels is common when owners speak about their pets, Arluke and Sanders (1996, p. 68) argue that this is a “way to incorporate the animal into an everyday, intimate relational context.” Hope’s owner assigns emotions to the dog’s experiences when she expresses that she felt fear when captured from the streets, but is now ‘so happy’ in her new home. Hope’s owner understands the dog as having subjective experiences, and feeling emotions that can be explained in human 162
terms. Studies of cat and dog owners, predominantly in high-income countries, often find that they present their animals as thinking and emotional creatures playing an important role in a more-than-human family (for example, Arluke & Sanders, 1996; Power, 2008; Sanders, 1993). It is implied that this ‘family’ arrangement is ideal as Hope is describe as being extremely grateful. Similarly, the Soi Dog Foundation website highlights the gratitude and loyalty of adopted dogs, stating that “…we have found Thai dogs to be amongst the most loyal of all. It’s almost as if they can sense they have been saved and want to repay this debt over and over again” (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-b, para. 6).31 This echoes the Thai cultural practice of gratitude expression called bun khun. Bun khun can be understood as the “feelings and practices involved in certain relationships organized around generalized reciprocity, the slow acting accounting of an exchange calculated according to locally interpreted scales and measures” (A. Wilson, 2004, p. 93). Bun khun is more than performing a duty, as beneficiaries of a favour seek opportunities to return the favour to express their gratitude. These feelings of indebtedness are particularly strong towards parents, guardians and teachers. Indeed, there is a belief that the debt of parents’ bun khun is never entirely repaid (Liamputtong, 2005; Mulder, 1985). The language used by Soi Dog Foundation and adopters draws on the dominant animal welfare ideal of the dog as part of the family, and resonates with the Thai notion of bun khun as the dog is interpreted as expressing gratitude towards its new ‘parents’. As Stacy explained to me, she believed the dogs understood they had an opportunity for a better life, “Most of them just, I don’t know, they seemed to know this is my big chance, I’m not allowed to blow it, and they went for it.” Coming to Australia Hope’s adoption to the United Kingdom would have been expensive and time consuming compared to a local adoption, but some adoptions from Thailand are even more challenging. Australia and New Zealand, for example, have strict
31
Although these narratives are heavily anthropomorphised, they may also be considered to have an element of egomorphism. Unlike anthropomorphism, that attributes human characteristics to non-human things, egomorphism is more personal implying that, for example, “I understand my cat…on the basis of my perception that they are ‘like me’ rather than ‘human like’ (Milton, 2005, p. 261). 163
quarantine regulations for the import of any animals designed to protect the country’s existing fauna from diseases such as rabies of which there have been no reported cases. Australian regulations consider Thailand a ‘non-approved’ country, due to its rabies endemic status (see Chapter 5). Therefore, import of animals to Australia are required via government approved countries and territories that are considered rabies free, or where rabies is well-controlled. Cats and dogs must be in an approved country for at least one month and obtain an import permit to enter Australia during that time. Numerous tests and vaccinations need to be performed to satisfy permit requirements meaning an animal’s time in the approved country may be more than one month. This includes, testing for Leptospirosis, and Brucellosis and administering internal parasite treatments. Once these requirements are met the dog or cat can be flown to Australia where they will be met by government officials and taken for a minimum 10-day stay in quarantine. On the Soi Dog Foundation website it states that: Adopting a dog to Australia and New Zealand is a longer process and costs several thousand dollars. This is due to the countries' strict quarantine requirements. Animals need to spend time in a foster home in an approved country (which includes almost all Western countries and Singapore and Malaysia), and then travel from there to Australia or New Zealand, where they spend 10 days in a quarantine facility. We can generally arrange a foster home (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-c). Sea Lion The first soi dog to be adopted by someone in Australia was in 2013. His name is Sea Lion and he was born in a dog shelter in Kanchanaburi province west of Bangkok. Sea Lion’s mother was sent to the shelter after she was found in a truck intercepted by police in north-east Thailand on the way to being sent across the border bound for the dog meat trade. As Sea Lion began to grow, shelter staff realised that his mobility was impaired. He was named “Sea Lion” because of his unusual gait. Staff from Soi Dog Foundation began assisting the Department of Livestock Development staff who run the shelter and asked if they could take Sea Lion to their Bangkok clinic to have him assessed and treated. Initial x-rays
164
showed that Sea Lion had dislocated back legs that would require expensive treatment. Sea Lion was at the Bangkok clinic for only a short period of time before he met an Australian woman, Ellie, who would go on to adopt him. Ellie had an interest in advocating for street dogs in Thailand, and she felt the best way to do this was by adopting a dog and sharing its story with the aim of raising awareness. In a phone interview Ellie told me, I wanted to bring a dog back here to help bring awareness to the dog meat trade in general to the Australian community, because unfortunately the same with live export [of cattle from Australia to Indonesia] no one cares about a billion animals being abused on the planet or half a million street dogs in Thailand or the dog meat trade in the millions of dogs because that’s just a million stories. Everyone wants to hear one individual story because that’s how humans connect. So I knew that an individual dog would connect and although it was going to cost me a considerable amount of money it actually raised a lot of money for Soi Dog and for other charities over the years. In 2012, Ellie contacted Soi Dog Foundation and told them she wanted to adopt a dog. However, Soi Dog Foundation were unfamiliar with the process of sending a dog to Australia, but she was determined to do it. At the time, the process to import a dog into Australia differed from the one I described above and involved at least six months in a rabies free country and then at least 30 days in quarantine in Australia.32 Ellie did not want to select a dog from a photo on the website because she wanted to make an “emotional, physical, mental connection” with the dog, so she travelled to the Soi Dog Foundation shelter in Phuket to meet dogs they had available for adoption. Before leaving for Thailand she created a YouTube video to appeal for someone who could act as a foster carer for six months in an approved country. In the video she shows part of her home in 32
These requirements changed in February 2014 as improved testing and diagnostics for rabies has developed, and micro-chipping has improved animal identification. This means quarantine in Australia reduced from 30 to 10 days, as described above. However, the process remains relatively long and costly. More information about the requirements can be found here: http://www.agriculture.gov.au/cats-dogs 165
Melbourne and introduces other human and canine family members, in order to demonstrate she has a suitable and safe home for a soi dog (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hzy6TjtAW0&feature=related). After arriving in Phuket she met over 100 dogs at the Soi Dog Foundation shelter, but she did not make the connection she had hoped for. As she has a professional background in sales, she decided to travel to Bangkok to meet with pet food company representatives to discuss fundraising for Soi Dog. Whilst there she visited the Bangkok clinic of Soi Dog, which is where she met Sea Lion. She says, “I just knew when I met him he was the dog.” At that time, Soi Dog Foundation did not have the staff or resources to help with the adoption process to Australia, so Ellie began contacting animal welfare organisations that could provide a foster home for Sea Lion for six months, focussing on the United States. Eventually the founder of an advocacy organisation called American Dog Rescue responded with an offer to help her find a foster home in the United States. Sea Lion went to a small organisation in Dallas, Texas called Education and Animal Rescue Society where he stayed for six months before arriving in Melbourne for 30 days of quarantine in 2013. The human and financial resources utilised to get Sea Lion to his new home in Melbourne were significant. Ellie covered all the costs, including veterinary checks, vaccinations, flights and a donation to American Dog Rescue for their involvement in finding a foster home. Ellie has continued links with American Dog Rescue predominantly through her work with a small Australian based dog welfare organisation called K9 Aid33 that has the goal of helping dogs in distress through fundraising and re-homing. Sea Lion is reportedly happy with home life in Melbourne, as Ellie explains, “Yeah, he’s doing really well. He’s been out here for some time. He’s integrated.” She continues to share Sea Lion’s story to raise awareness of the dog meat trade and dog welfare in Thailand. Arguably, the money invested into one case, such as Sea Lion, could be better utilised to improve the lives and welfare of many dogs that remain in Thailand, both in shelters and on the street. For adoptees ‘rescuing’ one dog is favoured
33
More about K9 Aid can be found at their website: www.k9aid.org 166
over supporting the improvement of the welfare of dogs generally in Thailand. Although significant for the individual dog, international adoption is a time consuming and costly way to assist a small number of animals. Peter commented during our interview that people “quite rightly” question the resources used for international adoptions. In the context of the high cost, lengthy, and potentially stressful travel why are people willing to adopt a Thai street dog? Especially when high numbers of dogs and cats are living, and dying, in shelters in these countries. Despite Peter’s acknowledgment that it is justified to question the cost that goes into the adoption of one dog, the demand still exists and Soi Dog Foundation as an organisation see it as a viable option when the alternative is shelter life for the dogs (and occasional cats) selected. The Phuket shelter is always at capacity and since Soi Dog Foundation has become involved in the care of dogs rescued from the trade in dog meat from Thailand to Vietnam and Southern China the desire to have more dogs adopted has become more urgent. Thailand: the wrong kind of home
On the Soi Dog Foundation website the question of why would you adopt a cat or dog from Thailand is addressed by suggesting that Thailand and its people are failing to provide a safe and caring environment for cats and dogs. The ‘adoption’ section of the website in English states: Some people question why adopt a dog from Thailand when there are many unwanted dogs in most countries of the world. The fact is that in the West apart from some Eastern European countries stray dogs generally no longer exist. In Thailand stray dogs number in the millions, and apart from Soi Dog Foundation and a few other private shelters there is nowhere for them to go, and nobody is interested in their welfare. Local government pounds are little more than death camps. Many dogs and cats die each year from starvation, disease and injury and are generally ignored (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-b, para. 1). The Thai language page of the Soi Dog Foundation website is not a direct 167
translation of the English and the information throughout the website has a different focus, with less words devoted to the promotion of dog adoption. The webpage in Thai specifically about adoption is predominantly concerned with deterring Thais from purchasing puppies from disreputable sources. It states, Nowadays foreign breeds of dog are sold everywhere in pet shops and it has become fashion. Unfortunately, those puppies come from puppy farms. As a result, the puppies are not as healthy and strong as they should be. The foundation receives many calls from owners who bought them for a high price only to see the puppies fall sick and die after a few weeks. Some puppies are left in our care and they cannot survive on the streets. Generally, if the litters are not from a reputable breeder, they will not get vaccinated and may catch a deadly virus such as canine viral enteritis, feline immunodeficiency virus, or feline leukaemia. In addition, their breed might not be well suited to a tropical climate. It can be seen every Friday evening, at the airport, at the arrival container department, puppies being delivered from Bangkok to be sold in markets and pet shops in Phuket. Buying these dogs encourages the commercial trade and increases the number of stray dogs (http://www.soidog.org/th/adoptions/). The final sentences discuss adoption and provide a link to photos and biographies of adoptable dogs; however, the biographies are only available in English: Soi Dog Foundation has the perfect pet for you and there is no cost in adopting them. We vaccinate and sterilize them for free (for litters that are too young to be sterilized, we will do it for you later free of charge). If you find that the dog or cat that you adopted is not the right one for you, we will take them back. You cannot return the dog or cat to a pet shop. We also provide you with a kennel if you adopt a dog (http://www.soidog.org/th/adoptions/). There is a strong emphasis on sponsorship rather than adoption on the Thai language page. The information on the English language site is designed to promote dog adoption to those outside of Thailand in countries with few freeroaming cats and dogs. At the same time, it suggests that Thais do not have caring 168
relationships with cats and dogs, simply allowing them to live in poor conditions with no concern for their welfare. The reasons for not strongly promoting adoption may be related to the belief that a Thai home is not as secure and loving as one in another country. The English website answering frequently asked questions states that, very few local people are interested in giving Thai dogs homes. The pet industry here is geared to expensive imported breeds that are generally unsuited to the climate or conditions, which in turn is leading to more of these dogs being dumped as problems occur. Stray dogs and cats here live an existence incomprehensible to most people in the West, which is why many decide to give such a dog a home. By adopting a dog from Soi Dog Foundation you are giving a living creature the chance of a life that it would otherwise have no chance of experiencing (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-b, para. 2). The above quote implies that when Thais do welcome a dog into their home it is an inappropriate breed that will possibly be abandoned when behavioural or health problems arise. Indeed, animal advocacy organisations in Thailand, and worldwide, deal with the issues created by the abandonment of pets. However, Soi Dog Foundation appears “to believe there was something essentially wrong with how Thai people related to dogs” (Savvides, 2014, p. 105). Although Soi Dog Foundation sterilises and cares for cats and dogs living in the community, for example at temples, part of the organisation’s mission statement is to “ultimately create a society without homeless animals” (Soi Dog Foundation, n.d.-a). This aim is at odds with the current free-roaming life of many cats and dogs and the general acceptance by people of this life, at least for certain types of dogs. The Soi Dog Foundation view reflects “animal welfare concepts and ownership models of human-dog relationships that presume that the lives of the dogs that are not under human care are less privileged and are marked by serious deprivation” (Srinivasan, 2015, p. 215). Soi Dog’s work embodies the belief that a life confined to a shelter enclosure, with the occasional walk on a lead, is superior to the risks associated with free-roaming.
169
In her study of the now defunct animal advocacy organisation SCAD Bangkok, Savvides (2013) found similar beliefs at work. She explains that the concept of ‘rescue’ guided SCAD’s work, which focused on removing dogs from the street. SCAD volunteers held the attitude that they were ‘rescuing’ the dogs not just from the street, but also the Thai people. The work of Soi Dog is also strongly focussed on ‘rescuing’ the free-roaming dogs of Thailand. Indeed, Soi Dog’s and SCAD’s belief that dogs and cats are best off in the home, cared for by a human family guides their work. This discourse is dominant in animal welfare and management literature and is commonly applied to the Thai context by animal advocacy organisations. Following the information from Soi Dog, free-roaming dogs on the street and other public places are, in the words of Philo and Wilbert ‘out of place’ (Philo & Wilbert, 2000). The language used by Soi Dog Foundation obscures the reality in many of the receiving countries where dog and cats are euthanised in large numbers in shelters because of a lack of homes for them and the intolerance towards seeing them ‘out of place’ on the street. The choice of language may also be related to Soi Dog’s promotion of a product, since having dogs adopted frees up much needed space in their shelter for additional dogs. Yet, international adoptions do not improve the welfare of the dogs on the street or in temples that may take those shelter places. Although the life of one dog changes dramatically, the adoption process consumes significant resources to re-home a relatively small number of animals. Promoting a hierarchy of space that views a particular type of home as ideal for dogs may actually obstruct the organisation’s desire to improve welfare for all dogs in Thailand.
170
CHAPTER 8 ANIMAL ACTIVISM: THE DOG MEAT TRADE Ricky Gervais isn’t easily offended. But he was disgusted when he heard that dogs in Thailand are being skinned and boiled alive for their meat. Will you click here http://bit.ly/helpRickyhelpdogs and join Ricky and others who are helping to look after the victims of the barbaric dog meat trade? (Soi Dog Foundation, 2015b)
In 2014 a video was released on YouTube showing British celebrities, including Ricky Gervais and Judi Dench, reacting to images of dogs being caught and crammed into tiny cages on the back of trucks in Thailand. These dogs were destined to become meat in the markets of Vietnam and China (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gerA3kWXEz4). The video tells the story of the trade that is described as Thailand’s “dark and tragic secret”. The celebrities call for viewers to act to stop the trade and help support the dogs that are rescued by authorities and sent to shelter facilities in northeast Thailand. Viewers are asked to visit the website of Soi Dog Foundation to find out how to help. Soi Dog Foundation, which commissioned the video, has been campaigning against the dog meat trade and working to improve the shelter conditions for rescued dogs since 2011. Its campaign has received significant support both within Thailand and internationally. Although the trade in dogs for their meat has been occurring for many decades in Thailand,34 there has been a recent increase in the enforcement of regulations and laws relating to the trade in dogs, and animal advocacy highlighting the inhumane conditions related to the capture, transport and slaughter of dogs. In this chapter, I examine how Thailand became a significant actor in the trade in dogs for their meat, and how the dog meat trade transformed from a largely tolerated local enterprise to a contentious lucrative trans-border export.35 A relatively small number of people consume dog meat in Thailand, compared to, for example, China, Vietnam and South Korea. Additionally, there is scant 34
For example, Andrea Whittaker (personal communication) reported trucks advertising to swap buckets for dogs in her field site village of Roi Et in 1994. 35 Cats are also eaten in numerous regions worldwide, including Asia. I have not included cats as a focus of this chapter as it is thought the number killed for consumption is very small when compared to dogs. 171
academic research into the eating of dog meat and the trade in dogs in and from Thailand. In order to better understand the trade, in this chapter I utilise newspaper articles in English language Thai newspapers from the late 1990s to 2015. I map the trade in dog flesh, highlighting issues and concerns surrounding notions of Thai identity and how it is often at odds with the consumption of dog meat. I also investigate the complex social and cultural factors that have led to limited and unsuccessful attempts to regulate or stop the trade. I utilise the concept of animal welfare to explore the role of animal advocacy organisations, both Thai and international, in their attempts to stop the trade and care for the dogs that have been spared from transport and slaughter. Consuming dogs in Thailand
During my fieldwork when I asked Thai friends in Bangkok about dog meat eating they would express disgust at the notion of eating the flesh of an animal considered a pet. In his study of dietary rules relating to animals in a village in northeast Thailand, Tambiah states that, “the dog is not edible; this is not simply a neutral attitude but a definite taboo. Verbal attitudes represent the act of eating dog as revolting” (Tambiah, 1969, p. 435). Yet, dog meat is eaten by Thais, mostly in the north and northeast of the country. This includes, but is not isolated to, a number of hill tribes such as the Yao and Akha. However, my main interest in this chapter is the consumption and export of dogs by Thais to other countries. The village of Ban Tha Rae (see Figure 14) in the province of Sakon Nakhon in the northeast region of Isan, has been the focus for attention on dog meat eating in Thailand for decades. It is a poor part of the country that has not received the benefits of the international economy like other parts of Thailand. The area is less than 250km from the Vietnamese border, much closer than the almost 700km to Bangkok. Community members in the area claim that dog eating was introduced by the Vietnamese who began coming to the region during the French invasion of Vietnam in the 1860s ("Man bites dog," 2011; Winn, 2010). The proximity and contact with Vietnam and its people over many years has meant some social and cultural practices differ significantly from those in central Thailand (Winn, 2010).
172
Figure 14: Map of central and northeast Thailand. Ban Tha Rae is indicated by the blue drop pin (Source: Google Maps).
There is no extant data on the amount of dog meat eaten in Thailand, although it is believed to be very small, particularly in comparison to other meats such as pork and chicken. The eating of dog meat is seasonal, with demand increasing in the cooler months due to the belief that it warms the body as it is classified as a humorally ‘hot’ food. I discuss the cost of dog meat in greater depth below, however, it is relatively expensive and the price has increased in recent years. This means that consumption of the meat is generally reserved for special occasions, or for weekend meals with friends (Suksamran & Thepthong, 2012). Additionally, dogs are economically valuable for their skins. Dog skin is considered to make durable leather goods as it is thin and elastic, and so it is commonly used for golf gloves and musical instruments (Jaowattana, 1999). Where dog meat is eaten in Thailand, more men than women consume it and it is considered to boost energy and enhance virility. It is served in a variety of ways, including grilled over charcoal, sliced up and served with leafy greens, chilli sauce and raw chillies for nibbling (Winn, 2010). Dog meat also appears in dishes typically served with other meats such as chicken or pork like phat kaphrao (stirfried meat with basil leaves) and nuea khem (jerky). In the northern province of 173
Chiang Mai there is a dish called shadow curry, which includes black or dark brown dog, hence the name ‘shadow’. It is a clear broth cooked with spices and chilli paste to subdue the strong odour of the meat. In northern Thailand, the meat of black dogs is most sought after as it is believed to be superior as an aphrodisiac (Suksamran & Thepthong, 2012). Legalities of dog meat Up until 2014 with the passing of animal welfare legislation, the slaughter, sale and consumption of dog meat was not illegal in Thailand. Provincial level regulations were often put in place, but generally carried small penalties and were seldom enforced. As one livestock official stated, they have little power to stop the killing of dogs and “only hope people know what they should eat or should not eat” ("Dog-eaters' restaurant," 1999). Uncertainly existed around the regulation of the slaughter and consumption of dogs as traders would argue that the Animal Diseases Control Act does not explicitly refer to the trading of dogs for their meat. Indeed, dogs are not mentioned in the context of being traded for their meat within the Act. However, Government officials took a different view and considered dog trading as being covered under animal trading, as referenced and regulated by the Act. Since 2003, the Bureau of Disease Control and Veterinary Services banned the trade in dog skin and meat, and required people to obtain permission when exporting more than five dogs. However, compliance with these regulations and their enforcement has been weak ("Saving man's best friend," 2012). Laws broken by those trading and transporting dogs were generally related to noise disturbance and exporting/transporting unvaccinated animals, although these laws were generally not enforced (Winn, 2010). Drivers transporting dogs could be arrested and charged with illegal trading of animals and illegal transportation of animals. They could also be charged with cruelty to animals under the Criminal Code. Penalties for illegal trading are considered light with a maximum of two years jail and/or a fine of up to 40,000 baht (AUD1, 500), with most cases receiving a much lighter punishment ("The rise of the dog snatchers," 2011). Dealing with problem dogs 174
Up until the early 2000s, the dogs supplying the local trade for meat and leather were predominantly taken from the population of free-roaming dogs in the northeast of Thailand for local consumption. The suppliers of dog meat, known as ‘dog masters’, would drive around villages in pick-up trucks loaded with plastic buckets, which were exchanged for dogs (Jaowattana, 1999). According to newspaper reports these ‘dog masters’ are still calling their message over loud speakers in local villages: “trade dangerous, stubborn and vicious dogs for water buckets, which are more useful than wild dogs” (Thalang, 2015). For farmers it is an opportunity to get rid of dogs considered a nuisance because they bite children and eat their chickens. Winn (2010, para. 22) states that “a deal is struck and the mutts are tossed into cages by the scruff. Less cooperative dogs are yoked with a lasso fixed to a bamboo pole.” In the 2014 documentary Shadow Trade (discussed in greater detail later in this chapter) a dog butcher in Sakon Nakhon told a similar story, stating that he buys dogs from community members who find the dogs a nuisance. The newspaper reports I have drawn on in this chapter do not indicate exactly when the capture and eating of dogs began in the area. Community members interviewed suggest that it has been many decades. In the words of a 61 year old Ban Tha Rae villager, “this is a business from way back when. Country people need a way to get rid of dogs that chase their kids” (Jaowattana, 1999). In 1999, it was reported that dog meat was about 70 baht (AUD2.60) a kilo at Ban Tha Rae market where it was in high demand, while preserved dog meat was selling for about 170 baht (AUD6.40) per kilo and bones for 50 baht (AUD2) (Jaowattana, 1999). Only a few years later, a restaurant owner in Sakon Nakhon said it would be impossible to quit the business permanently as she states, “I cannot think of another occupation where I can earn Bt 2000 [AUD75] to Bt 3000 [AUD115] in profit a day.” She said that the people of Sakon Nakhon see no difference between dog meat and pork, chicken or beef, although she understood why others might feel disgusted by eating dogs if they keep them as pets (Wetgama & Somsin, 2002). However, some community members expressed concerns about the treatment of the dogs. In 1999, one of the ‘dog masters’ stated that he was frequently abused by community members for being mean and cruel because they did not like the practice of dogs being bought and then killed for food. However, 175
he viewed his job as a service assisting authorities to deal with troublesome stray dogs (Jaowattana, 1999). More recently, due to growing community opposition and illegalities, the voices of those involved in the trade in and consumption of dog meat seldom appear in media coverage. Eating dogs: animal rights and wrongs
Within animal ethics, eating animals is a complex issue. Some theorists argue eating animal flesh is ethically indefensible and oppose the human use of animals (Francione, 2008; Regan, 2004). These ethical positions have been criticised, however, for failing to engage with existing practices, and consideration of the social, economic and political factors that may inhibit its realisation (Garner, 2016). Garner (2016, p. 223) argues that ‘ideal theories’ of animal ethics that grant a right to life to animals and prohibit their use as a source of food “would represent a massive, and some would say inconceivable, departure from current practice.” There is significant variation within these debates and many theorists suggest that killing animals for food may be permissible under certain circumstances. In the words of Nussbaum “these are very slippery issues” (Nussbaum, 2006, p. 387).
Eating meat is an integral and normalised part of many human diets (Taylor, 2013). In the context of meat production, animal welfare concepts are generally utilised by animal advocates and governments to guide decisions about the lives, and deaths, of livestock. However, as I have discussed in Chapter 1, the concept of animal welfare itself and what constitutes a ‘good’ life for a particular species, or individual animal, is highly debatable. Furthermore, animal ethics and animal welfare research and programs, do not typically consider dogs as food. In dominant animal rights and welfare discourses, dogs are categorised as emotional and working companions. Animal welfare concepts have predominantly emerged from English speaking countries where dog meat eating is a definite taboo often met with disgust and accusations of it being a ‘backward’ or ‘archaic’ cultural practice (Oh & Jackson, 2011). What is eaten and how it is eaten is rich in symbolism, and food is often a marker 176
of cultural proficiency and belonging. Taboos relating to certain foods can express a person’s relationship to their environment, and identify family status, age, sex, ritual status, class position, ethnicity or religion (Manderson, 1986). Indeed, understanding why food preferences and habits exist has long been debated. It has been argued that animals are categorised to distinguish those that are edible and inedible, and human closeness to an animal excludes them from being eaten (for example, Douglas, 1966; Leach, 1989; Tambiah, 1969). Leach (1989, p. 154) argues that as the dog is a companion to humans, and since “man is not food, so dog cannot be food either.” Mary Douglas (1966) argued that certain animals are inedible due to religious prohibition ascribed to ‘purity’. Tambiah (1969), following Douglas, notes that in the Buddhist scriptures, dog meat is mentioned as one of ten forbidden meats, in part due to the dog’s closeness to humans. The vast majority of Thais identify as Buddhist and Tambiah’s findings of dog meat eating as a definite taboo reflect the dominant attitude towards dog meat eating in Thailand. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, authorities in the Ban Tha Rae area struggled to regulate the trade, slaughter and consumption of dog meat within the local area. Local officials attempted to encourage those involved in the dog trade into other professions due to its conflict with mainstream Thai Buddhist identity. A 2003 editorial in The Nation newspaper stated that, Thais, as members of a predominantly Buddhist society, often refer to compassion for all living things as one of the positive attributes that distinguishes us from other societies. But in reality, there are many who have no qualms about exchanging dogs for cheap plastic utensils offered by cruel dog catchers ("Man's best friend deserves better," 2003, para. 13). An 'ideal' of Buddhism is often evoked and debated regarding the meat trade, which ignores the consumption and farming of other animals. Prior to the early 2000s, most of the trade in and consumption of dogs was occurring within Thailand. However, the trade was expanding and had been established as a cross-border enterprise by 2003. Before I discuss the cross-border trade, I examine the practice of dog meat eating in China and Vietnam as the 177
desire for dog meat in these countries directly influences the illicit traffic in dogs from Thailand. Eating dogs in China and Vietnam: economics and social meaning
Since the early 2000s the economic value of dogs has increased significantly in South East Asia as dogs from Thailand have increasingly been trafficked across the border for dinner plates in Vietnam and Southern China. This demand coincided with significant economic growth in Vietnam and China, meaning that more people could afford luxury food items, including dog meat. Although preference regarding dog meat eating differs from country to country, there is a common belief in the medicinal properties of the meat. Like other meats it has appeal for its taste and as a source of protein, but its consumption can also hold particular social meaning. According to Podberscek (2007, p. 33) “there are no regulations concerning the humane rearing, transport, and slaughter of cats and dogs” in China or Vietnam. With no designated slaughter houses animals are killed on farms, in markets or restaurants, or at the back of buildings. Furthermore, there are no international laws “prohibiting the consumption of dog meat” (Ares & Burke, 2015, p. 5). China For thousands of years in China, dogs have served multiple roles in people’s lives as “working companions, emotional companions (i.e. pets) and a type of edible livestock” (Poon, 2014, p. 311). Historically in China, the Chow Chow was especially bred for human consumption, “although other breeds and cross-breeds were eaten and made available at markets, as well” (Podberscek, 2007: 26). In the 1990s, however, a desire to produce a better and more economical breed of meat dog saw a variety of breeds imported to see which would be the most suitable for crossing with native dogs. The St Bernard crossed with indigenous female dogs was considered a particular success due to its gentle nature, fast maturation and large litters of puppies. However, purebred St Bernard is not eaten as the meat is considered tasteless. Although there is a demand for the St Bernard cross as the meat dog, still small-scale farmers and individuals continue to supply dogs for meat by breeding mongrels (Podberscek, 2007). 178
In his study of dog meat eating Podberscek (2007) claims that there is an absence of accurate figures on the amount of dog eaten in China. However, press reports suggest that demand is strong. In 2000, it was estimated that demand exceeded 100,000 tons but that only 40,000 tons was in supply. Podberscek (2007, p. 26) claims:
If one takes as an average that each dog slaughtered has a carcass weight of approximately 20 kilograms, it would mean that about 2 million dogs were slaughtered for food in 2000 and that 5 million dogs would have been needed to meet demand. And with a population of 1.3 billion people, 100,000 tons of dog meat equates to only approximately 70 grams (140 ounces) per person per year. Compared with the amount of lamb (4.6kg), beef (7.6kg), chicken (22.2kg), fish (34.9kg) and pork (47.3kg) eaten per person per year, the amount of dog meat eaten is very low.
As in Thailand (above), dog meat is believed to warm the blood and treat liver ailments, malaria, and jaundice, enhance virility and protect against extreme weather conditions (Podberscek, 2007; Poon, 2014). It is particularly favoured in the winter and on the summer solstice in June. It is also considered a delicacy and valued for its taste (Poon, 2014). Reflecting its status as a delicacy, the price of dog can be compared to that of beef, the most expensive meat in the country.
Podberscek (2007) claims that dog-meat farming is four times more profitable than pig farming and twice as profitable as chicken farming. In China, the meat of puppies is preferred to adult dogs, with dogs for sale generally being six to eight months old. Puppy ham is a speciality. In China, commercial dog breeding farms produce dogs both for meat and fur. Many dogs are sourced from these farms, but also from small-scale family farms; some are purchased or stolen from people’s homes (Podberscek, 2007).
Dog eating exists everywhere in China, however, it is concentrated in Guangdong and Guangxi in the south (Huang, 2015). Since the early 2000s the annual Summer Solstice Lychee and Dog Meat Festival in Yulin in Guangxi province 179
has become a focus of activism against the trade in and consumption of dog meat. It is estimated that approximately 10,000 – 15,000 dogs are slaughtered during the 10 day festival. Each year the festival attracts increasing opposition from animal welfare activists locally and internationally. Traders claim that many people enjoy eating dog meat, and the animals are treated well. But a growing number of people have expressed their opposition to the festival with animal welfare and public health concerns. Evidence gathered by animal welfare groups suggests the dogs are transported and kept in poor conditions, meaning disease is common and there is the potential for rabies outbreak (Asia Canine Protection Alliance [ACPA], 2013).
Vietnam Little has been written about dog eating in Vietnam. It is known to have a long history in the north of the country, where it is believed that the practice of dog eating was introduced by the Chinese who ruled much of the north of Vietnam for 1000 years until 938AD. In Vietnam, dog meat is thought to improve health and longevity. Traditionally, the best time to consume dog meat is considered to be the last day of the lunar month, when it is believed to bring good luck. It is eaten during Tet, the lunar New Year festival, to wipe away any bad luck. As in China there is a seasonal demand for dog meat, with it being most popular in the winter, as it is considered warming (Podberscek, 2007). It is cooked in a number of ways, with a popular dish being dog sausage.
Like Thailand and China, dog meat is expensive and those who frequent dog meat restaurants are generally middle-class and wealthy, particularly men having drinking sessions. In 2010, a desirable dog was worth USD60 in a greater Hanoi meat market, and grilled dog sold for triple the price of pork (Winn, 2010). In Hanoi, in the late 1990s there was a surge in the number of restaurants that specialised in dog meat, in part due to the stronger economy meaning more people able to afford luxury foods. The number of dogs being eaten in Vietnam is unknown, although one estimate put it between 4 and 5 million dogs per year (Podberscek, 2007).
There is a preference for young dogs in Vietnam as in China, as it is believed the 180
flesh is tenderer. Podberscek (2007) states that the ideal age range is considered to be eight to ten months, and those weighting about 10kg are thought to be ideal for restaurants. Method of slaughter is thought to have an impact on the taste and texture of the meat, with live dogs being hit over the head by butchers because it is believed that a frightened dog with adrenaline rushing through its body at death offers particular health benefits, such as increased libido.
Although, as noted, eating dog meat has long been popular in the north of Vietnam, this is not the case in the centre or the south. In Avieli’s (2011) study of dog meat in the central Vietnamese town of Hoi An, he notes that in 1999 only a couple of places were serving dog meat. He describes the restaurants at that time as “semi-clandestine,” hidden away in the town’s ancient quarter, careful not to explicitly advertise what they were selling. However, by 2004 there were dozens of venues around the town announcing they were serving dog meat. He discovered,
eating dog meat is a contested praxis, interpreted differently by people. Some say that dog meat is desired as a male aphrodisiac, is a means of class distinction, or an expression of cosmopolitanism and modernity. The rejection of dog meat was usually explained in religious and cosmological terms. Most intriguing, both dog-meat eaters and disdainers attributed this culinary fashion with political meaning (Avieli, 2011, p. 59).
As the North of Vietnam is the political and ideological centre of the country, conspicuous dog meat consumption was associated with support for the present regime. Conversely, opposition to dog meat expressed a negative attitude toward the administration. Avieli noted that discussions around eating dog meat were often heated and emotional. Most initial reactions were negative and critical, with explanations stating that “most of the dog meat served in Hoi An was from stolen dogs, the belief that eating dog meat incurs bad luck, and the moral and religious transgression related to the close ties between humans and dogs” (Avieli, 2011, p. 65). Despite the negative reactions, the sharp rise in demand led to dog theft locally in Hoi An. Prior to the surge in demand around 2004, the capture of dogs for the trade in their meat occurred in a manner similar to Thailand; hawkers 181
travelled the countryside in search of unwanted dogs and puppies, and offered home utensils in exchange for the dogs. When demand increased, there was a subsequent increase in price and dog theft (Avieli, 2011). As in China (above) there has been an increase in opposition to dog meat eating and the trade in dogs in recent years.
Cross border trade
By 2003 it had become clear to authorities in Thailand that dogs were regularly being trafficked from Thailand across the Mekong River, through Laos and into Vietnam to satisfy the growing demand in dog meat. In 2003 an editorial in The Nation newspaper stated that lax law enforcement means the “practice of dog eating in the northeast province of Nakhon Phanom has reached industrial proportions” ("Man's best friend deserves better," 2003). On 2 November 2003, there was a raid on a farm in Ban Phaeng district, Nakhon Phanom province where dogs were being held prior to being smuggled to Vietnam. It was a wellplanned raid conducted by about 30 police officers and Department of Livestock Development officials. There were 802 dogs rescued and seven people were arrested. Dogs were found in large cages on the farm, and 40 cages were also found on four fishing boats anchored on the Mekong River just behind the farm. The owner of the farm was charged with attempted smuggling and violating the Rabies Act. The Nation reported that the owner of the farm claimed he had not broken the law, and he had permission from the Department of Livestock Development to sell live animals and carcasses. He said he had operated the farm for more than a year, buying dogs from traders and reselling them ("800 dogs rescued," 2003). An official from the Department of Livestock Development said that dogs are sold for 300 to 400 baht (AUD12 to 16) each with the prices going up significantly in Vietnam. However, the farm owner said he paid 100 baht (AUD4) per dog and intended to sell them for 300 baht (AUD12) in markets in Vietnam ("Rescued dogs," 2003).
The quarantine station shelter where the dogs were sent was not well resourced, with no budget to care for the dogs, and staff accustomed to dealing with
182
livestock such as buffalo and pigs. The challenges of a sudden influx of hundreds of dogs became obvious very quickly. Within a few days of the ‘rescue’, shelter supplies were running low. Authorities said they only had enough food to last five days, so they issued a public appeal for donations. They also urged people to consider adopting the dogs. The quarantine station chief claimed they intended to vaccinate and sterilise the dogs to make them more attractive for adoption ("Rescued dogs," 2003). The shelter veterinarian, Nirandorn Uangtrakulchai, stated that the quarantine station might have to put the dogs up for sale if they could not be rehomed. He said “it would be very unfortunate if these strays met a grim fate. They’ve gone from having no home, ending up in a farm destined for slaughterhouses…then being rescued from a farm but still having no home, and again being destined for a slaughterhouse” ("Rescued dogs," 2003, para. 13). He expressed concern that the dog meat traders would buy the animals back from the quarantine station.
As discussed earlier, the collection of dogs bound for the dog meat trade was, for many people, an effective dog management strategy. It was a way of getting rid of troublesome and unwanted dogs, and with the general acceptance of freeroaming dogs there was little need for dog shelters. In Winn’s (2010, ‘conscience’ para. 1) words, “there are no crowded dog pounds in this corner of northeast Thailand. No routine trips to the euthanasia chamber. No government run cell bays full of thrown away pets.” In this quote, Winn is making reference to the high number of dogs euthanised every day in shelters in many high-income countries. Many of these dogs are killed simply because there is no longer space to house them and stray populations are not accepted. Animal shelters in the area were never full as community, police and politicians seemingly preferred to let “the free market dispense with society’s unwanted mutts” (Winn, 2010, ‘conscience’ para. 4).
It is not clear from contemporary newspaper reports why such a large seizure of dogs was made. However, during 2002 and 2003 there was significant concern about the damage the issue could do to Thailand’s image internationally. In 2002, Sakon Nakhon province hosted a mobile Cabinet meeting including the Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, and the accompanying local and international 183
media interest. Prior to the meeting, local authorities including the Governor and Mayor, held meetings with those involved in the sale of dog meat to discuss a temporary suspension of dog meat sales during the visit. As the sale of the meat remained legal, it was difficult to enforce a ban (Wetgama & Somsin, 2002). There were also concerns and tensions about dogs just prior to the November 2003 raid, as authorities in Bangkok debated what to do about the presence of strays on the streets during the Economic Leaders’ Meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) in October. It was decided that the dogs should be removed and thousands of were relocated to an unknown location. However, in 2007 many of these dogs were thought to still be in the Department of Livestock Development’s animal quarantine stations, regularly joined by dogs seized from dog meat traders (Charoensuthipan, 2007). Cracking down on the trade On 4 September 2011, the Bangkok Post reported that investigators had been able to map the trade beginning in Ban Tha Rae. Up until 2011 it was believed that the trade began with Vietnamese nationals making contact with dog traders, who would then ask their dog collection teams to search for dogs. The collectors would attempt to find enough dogs to meet demand by using the decade’s old tactic of offering buckets and other household utensils in exchange for dogs. Alternatively, they would offer to buy dogs for between 50 to 100 baht (AUD2 to 4) each. The dogs were caged and taken to Ban Phaeng and Na Wa districts in Nakhon Phanom, where Vietnamese traders select the “top grade” dogs that would make the trip over the Mekong River in cages on long-tail boats and into Laos ("The rise of the dog snatchers," 2011). Winn (2010, ‘corruption’ para. 5-6) reported that there is no permanent, sanctioned border crossing in the village of Baan Phaeng in Laos, which is separated from Vietnam by about 160km. However, every night the riverbanks
come alive with cargo trucks, long-tail boats and smugglers working in sync to smuggle roughly 1,000 dogs across the border. No fees, no customs, no inspections. Just cage after cage of stray dogs, freshly caught from the Thai countryside, secretly transported to Laos and trucked to Hanoi-area abattoirs. 184
The dogs not considered high enough quality for the Vietnamese market were sent back to Ban Tha Rae for local consumption. Once they travel through Laos and into Vietnam the value of the dogs increases significantly, selling for as much as 800 to 1000 baht (AUD32 to 40) each. Information from police, traffickers and local politicians suggests that at least 30,000 dogs made the trip across the Mekong every month (Winn, 2010).
Dogs are not the only illegal product being shipped across the border. Drugs and illegal immigrants are seen by many authorities as more serious concerns. The dogs are not as highly valued and are regarded by many as pests. For some authorities, the trade deals with the problem of stray dogs that would otherwise become their concern. Therefore, they claim it is easy to overlook the illegalities of the trade. In the words of a province Police Chief, “yes, we could catch dogs. But then they’d become our burden” (Winn, 2010, ‘conscience’ para 5). There are many reports of corrupt officials helping to sustain the trade, which has made any sustained action difficult for those who want to regulate or stop the trade in dogs. In 2009 and 2010, a Member of Parliament representing Nakhon Phanom province, Phumpat Pachonsap, campaigned in parliament for a crackdown on the trade. He discussed in parliament the suffering the dogs endure during transport, including the risk of disease, and even the awful smell from the over packed trucks. However, his appeals were met with indifference and even threats from politicians linked to the trade (Winn, 2010). In investigations after a police raid on trucks carrying dogs believed to be bound for Vietnam in 2011, checks on the vehicle registration suggested that local politicians were involved. Their political position facilitates the crossing of the trucks at checkpoints, where officials are reportedly paid bribes ("The rise of the dog snatchers," 2011). August 2011 raid In April 2011, villagers in the Phang Khon district of Sakon Nakhon province contacted police to alert them to a group of men who were stealing dogs off the street. The men were arrested in Sakon Nakhon village for stealing dogs in several north and northeast provinces for a business based in Ban Tha Rae. The
185
dog snatchers claimed that tough economic times had led them to stealing. The traders claimed that offering household goods or money for dogs was no longer appealing to people, and the price for dogs had increased as demand continued to grow from Vietnam ("The rise of the dog snatchers," 2011). This was a sign that community sentiment about dogs and attitudes towards the trade were changing.
Action against the trade was also intensifying from an official perspective and among the community and animal advocacy organisations. However, being involved in the business of dog meat remained a lucrative occupation for many living in Ban Tha Rae, and they resisted any moves to ban or regulate the industry. In July 2011, the then Governor of Sakon Nakhon, Panchai Borvornatanapran, proposed a ban on the slaughter and consumption of dog leading to hundreds of locals taking to the streets in a rally to voice their opposition. Many livelihoods depend on the trade in Ban Tha Rae, with the area being home to 17 dog slaughter houses, involving over 300 people, exporting up to four tonnes of dog meat every day. The Governor also commissioned local university staff to conduct a survey of 500 villagers, which found that there was strong support for the trade with 79 percent of respondents wanting to continue eating and selling dog meat ("The rise of the dog snatchers," 2011). However, the strong support for the continuation of the dog trade seemed isolated to Ban Tha Rae as there were a number of voices against the trade emerging from other parts of Thailand, especially Bangkok. Although the slaughter and eating of dog had long been considered disagreeable by many Thais, most people were isolated from the trade. But, as dog collectors were travelling further, Thais were finding themselves directly impacted by the trade as dog collectors began to leave the north and northeast of the country to steal people’s pets from as far away as Bangkok. These people generally valued dogs as companions and family members, not as food. Suksamran and Thepthong (2012, para. 8) state that communities in the northeast of the country were becoming “sensitive to the growing resistance from many sectors of society opposed to the eating of dogs, which are considered a loyal pet.” A former district chief, from the Ban Tha Rae area, was quoted as saying that attitudes in the area were changing as young people educated in the city had been taught not to tolerate the consumption of 186
animals considered pets (Suksamran & Thepthong, 2012). On 12 August 2011, a significant police operation against dog traders in the Ban Tha Rae area lead to about 1800 dogs being seized by police and then being sent to a livestock facility for care ("Man bites dog," 2011; "The rise of the dog snatchers," 2011). The operation finally led province authorities to impose a ban on exports of dog meat to Vietnam. The resulting media interest and campaigns against dog meat eating meant that dog meat restaurants vanished from public sight in Ban Tha Rae. Few residents were willing to discuss the practice and there were reports that Ban Tha Rae residents were upset by the criticism they received from other parts of Thailand ("Man bites dog," 2011; "The rise of the dog snatchers," 2011; Suksamran & Thepthong, 2012). As with the publicity after the 2003 raid of over 800 dogs, officials in the province of Sakon Nakhon became fearful of the bad reputation the province was gaining and encouraged the dog meat butchers to give up their trade (Suksamran & Thepthong, 2012). Concern and publicity about the welfare of the dogs during their capture, transport and slaughter increased after the August 2011 raid. Many newspaper reports about the dogs that were seized by police from the dog traders refer to the dogs having been ‘rescued’, but the quarantine centre shelters where the dogs were sent had no funds or programmes in place to deal with a sudden large influx of dogs. Many unsterilized and unvaccinated dogs were placed together, creating significant problems with aggression, unwanted breeding and disease control. The public generously donated 20 million baht (AUD760, 000) to assist with the dogs’ care, but after only five days 1,100 of the dogs had died due to “disease, eating problems and the harsh climate” (Malone, 2012). However, smaller scale raids continued, ensuring a steady supply of dogs arriving at shelter facilities. The work of animal advocacy
A 2014 documentary titled Shadow Trade – the price of loyalty follows the fate of dogs ‘rescued’ from the trade in 2011 and 2012. The film is made by an English journalist and financially supported by Soi Dog Foundation, and produced by Environment Films that claims to be “managed under a vegan philosophy” (Environment Films, 2015, ‘Why dogs, not pigs?’ para. 3). In 2012, the film 187
received an Animal Content in Entertainment grant worth USD20,000 from the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS, 2013). Shadow Trade is an example of international animal advocacy. The film follows John Keeble as he examines the trade and discovers that in the seven months up to March 2012, 6,500 dogs had been ‘rescued’, but 4,700 had since died or gone missing. His investigations found that shelters lacked basic supplies, including food, and there were few or no veterinarians. Staff at the shelters were often trained specifically in caring for livestock such as buffalo and pigs, so they lacked the skills and resources to care for dogs in a shelter environment. Between August 2011 and March 2012, about 4,000 dogs arrived at the shelter in Nakhon Phanom. An outbreak of the fatal canine viral disease distemper caused the death of up to 30 dogs per night. Keeble questions the fate of the missing dogs and wonders if they ended up back in the hands of the dog traders, especially as the dogs have no economic value outside of the trade. Although there is increased vigilance against the trade, there has not been a requisite increase in resources to deal with the dogs that remain. Keeble’s investigation found that many of the dogs ending up at the shelters were not strays, but discernible breeds bearing the signs of human care, such as wearing a collar. Many of the shelters receive visits from community members hoping to find their missing pets. In an interview I completed during my fieldwork, an animal advocacy worker involved in the campaign to end the dog meat trade stated that many of the dogs from the trade “are all little fluffy dogs, they are pets, and most of them still had collars on and things, they are not snarling street dogs, you get some of those as well but most of them are pets now, because they are easier to pick up.” Less than one month after the seizure of 1800 dogs in August 2011 (discussed above) a rally was held calling for better legal protections for cats and dogs in Thailand. The event was organised by an informal group representing over 10 animal advocacy organisations based in Thailand, including Soi Dog Foundation, the now defunct SCAD Bangkok, and numerous small groups working in cat and dog rescue and CNVR activities. The groups were made up of both Thais and foreigners. The event was held in the centre of Bangkok near Lumpini Park and was reportedly attended by over one thousand people ("A call for Animal Rights"
188
Walk Rally, 2011). People and their dogs carried placards in Thai and English and with such statements as: “Thai people don’t eat dog”, “don’t let dog killers escape justice”, “dogs are friend not food”, and “stop animal cruelty”.
Figure 15: Dog protesters at the rally opposing the dog meat trade in Bangkok on September 4 2011. (Source: still image from video by P. Janthong. Retrieved from http://www.bangkokpost.com/vdo/thailand/254969/dog-lovers-unite).
Figure 16: Dog protesters at the rally opposing the dog meat trade in Bangkok on September 4 2011. (Source: "A call for Animal Rights" Walk Rally. Facebook photo album. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.187389721333834.44550.18225170184763 6&type=3).
189
The group A Call for Animal Rights Thailand (see Chapter 4) has maintained the Facebook page that uses the name of the 2011 rally, ‘A call for Animal Rights’ Walk Rally, with the aim of creating awareness of animal rights stories from around the world, but with a focus on rights and cruelty cases in Thailand (www.facebook.com/ACALLforAnimalRightsThailand/). Similarly, the Soi Dog Foundation regularly uses social media, predominantly Facebook in both Thai and English, to bring attention to the situation of these animals, and request donations to help their work. Since August 2011, the organisation has been involved in the management of Government shelters where the seized dogs are taken. Soi Dog Foundation has worked with staff from the Department of Livestock Development, who manages the shelters, to improve conditions. However, as Soi Dog Foundation manager Peter explained to me, this has been challenging, due to insufficient staff, funds and resources from Government. These are the same problems encountered after the 2003 raid discussed above. As Peter explains the dogs are being housed in what were livestock centres:
Not built as dog shelters, they are not suitable, totally unsuitable for it, and they [the Department of Livestock Development] haven't been given a budget to do it properly, so there is no budget for medicines, foods, doctors, vets. If you do nothing at all they just die of starvation, disease, they would all be dead now. We have volunteers going in, food we are providing to keep some alive.
In May 2013, John and Gill Dalley, the founders of the Soi Dog Foundation, authored an article that appeared in The Nation newspaper about the “gigantic” task of stopping the dog meat trade or what they call the “trade of shame”. They detail the work they are doing at the government shelters where the dogs are being taken. They do not criticise the Department of Livestock Development for the conditions the dogs are in and the high death rate at the shelter stating they are doing their best for the dogs, but have “no budget for them, and the fund set up by the Governor of Nakhon Phanom province in August 2011 has now run out of money” (Dalley & Dalley, 2013, para. 3). Soi Dog Foundation was providing food, vaccines and other drugs, and financing the construction of additional 190
shelters. However, the costs were significant at over one million baht (AUD37, 000) per month to support the dogs. As Peter explained to me, it is unsustainable to support the shelters whilst the trade in dogs continues. As more dogs are seized, shelter numbers continue to rise. The focus of Soi Dog Foundation’s action is ending the trade in dogs, so that the shelters are not constantly at capacity and needing more resources. Peter told me that the Department of Livestock Development, realise that what we are providing at the moment is unsustainable. We have set up a programme that people can donate to but we can't sustain half a million baht a month (AUD18, 500) on food, and then we are also providing vaccine, drugs, and everything else. In their work to stop the trade, Soi Dog Foundation became a founding member of a group called the Asian Canine Protection Alliance (ACPA). Formed in May 2013, ACPA also includes the international advocacy organisations Animals Asia, Change for Animals Foundation, and the Humane Society International. The stated aims of the Alliance are “eliminating rabies and ending the trade inand demand for- dogs for human consumption in Thailand, Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam” (ACPA, n.d., ‘who we are’ para. 1). As the aims suggest their campaign against the dog meat trade is focussed on the animal welfare and human health concerns arising from how dogs are slaughtered and transported. The public health risks associated with the movement in dogs is a major focus of work of the ACPA campaign. The alliance states, Whilst the dog meat trade continues to be defended by many as “culture” or “tradition”, the reality is that the trade in, sale of and consumption of dogs has a significant impact on animal welfare, public health and safety, and on region-wide attempts to control and eliminate rabies, and is driven by those making huge profits at a great risk to human health, public safety and animal welfare (ACPA, n.d., ‘who we are’ para. 3).
The ACPA does not believe that the regulation of dog meat production and consumption is a useful tool to improve the welfare of dogs or reduce public 191
health risks. It argues that all animals used in regulated/legal meat production systems are still vulnerable to cruel methods of slaughter and can still be susceptible to outbreaks of diseases, for example, ‘Mad Cow’, foot and mouth disease and avian influenza. The ACPA acknowledges that the trade is a “highly contentious and emotive issue,” with multiple factors contributing to opposition to the trade and consumption of dogs. In a statement the Alliance argues, “as a result of mounting national and international concerns for animal welfare, a rapidly increasing pet ownership in Asia, and a greater awareness of the human health risks associated with this industry, the opposition towards the production and consumption of dog meat has become increasingly vocal” (ACPA, 2014, p. 2). In 2013, ACPA released a report analysing the risk the dog meat trade poses to rabies control and elimination efforts in South East Asia. The report concluded that “there is increasing recognition, and evidence, of the risk all stages of the dog meat trade pose to rabies transmission to humans” (ACPA, 2013, p. 5). As discussed in Chapter 5, Thailand as well as other countries in South East Asia have committed to eliminating rabies in the dog population. However, the dog meat trade disrupts otherwise stable dog populations. This can jeopardise vaccination programs as the transportation of dogs occurs without regulations to mitigate the risk of disease transmission such as quarantine, proof of vaccination status, and international animal movement permits, as reflected in national laws and local regulations. In Vietnam, for example, a newspaper report in 2010 stated that the Ho Chi Minh City Animal Health Agency was waiting for government approval of draft regulations on the trade and processing of dog meat to ensure food safety ("HCMC official calls," 2010). By 2016, it was reported that the government rejected the proposal to regulate the trade stating that no other country regulates the trade and human consumption of dogs like other meats such as beef, poultry and pork ("3 dog theft suspects arrested," 2016). The approach of the ACPA, focussing on animal welfare and human health, is intended to avoid criticisms that arguments against dog meat eating are an attack on ‘culture’ or ‘tradition’. The call to ban dog meat eating primarily as an antirabies measure has historical precedent. In Hong Kong in 1950, British colonists
192
prohibited the eating of dog meat in the name of public health. However, Poon (2014) argues that by criminalising the act of eating dogs there was a long-term impact on reshaping Hong Kong Chinese people’s perceptions of dogs to those more in-line with the British categorisation of dogs as pets. It also altered perceptions of dog eating people in mainland China as culturally inferior. Podberscek (2007) argues that many campaigns against eating of cats and dogs are driven by people from high-income countries who take great offence at seeing the eating of an animal they consider a companion. However, in many affluent countries cats and dogs are regularly killed for reasons other than consumption, for example, euthanasia in shelters, and for medical research. Furthermore, as the ACPA notes, many other species are slaughtered for human consumption in intensive production systems. In this context, Podberscek (2007, p. 33) poses the questions, are these fates really any better or more morally acceptable than the cooking pot? Why are cats and dogs exempt from the food table when the majority of us happily barbecue a steak or literally fish for our supper? Why is it okay to kill and eat cattle and to catch and fry fish? Are these animals not worthy of our concern too? This lack of coherence in the West’s criticisms of Vietnam, China, and South Korea, understandably causes consternation amongst their peoples. Similarly, contradictions regarding acceptable use of animals across cultures can be seen in attitudes towards the issue of whaling in Japan and Scandinavia. Although the stance of people in many countries is that these practices are inhumane and unnecessary, spokespeople from the countries concerned often argue that these constitute traditional practice and are an important part of their cultural heritage ("Australia tells Japan," 2010; Knight & Herzog, 2009; Podberscek, 2009; Serpell, 1995; Winn, 2010). These issues, however, are complicated and may speak as much of international government relations and viewing international criticism as a form of cultural imperialism, as being an accurate reflection of a nation’s attitudes and behaviours towards animals or knowledge of the issues (T. Wilson, 2010).
193
With the increased advocacy for animal rights in Thailand and the increase in action against the dog meat trade, similar questions are being asked in the Thai language press. An opinion piece that appeared on the tabloid web based news site mthai.com shortly after the August 2011 raid, discussed the “sad news” of the raid and the dogs being confined to small cages. The article notes that many people donated money to help the dogs because, although they are animals, they have feelings like humans and are loyal pets. However, the article poses questions that are commonly asked by the dog meat traders in northeast Thailand: “Why is it that humans can eat pork, duck or chicken without being judged? Why is it wrong to eat dogs? Is it right to condemn people eating dog meat?” ("Siang khruan chak," 2011, para. 6). Dr Pranee Panichabhongse, Senior Veterinary Officer with the Department of Livestock Development, posted a statement on the department’s website addressing these questions. She captures the range of reactions to the trade, which reflects people’s responses to animal rights issues more generally, stating that, “some people take pity, some are angry, some cannot stand it, whereas some ignore, for some it’s normal and some think it’s good so that the number of stray dogs will decrease” (Panichabhongse, 2012, para. 1). Panichabhongse does not suggest that the act of eating dog meat is wrong or strange because dogs are no different to other animals consumed regularly by humans. However, she suggests that responsible pet ownership practices are important to help stop the trade in dogs. She argues that people should take responsibility for their dogs by ensuring they are vaccinated, sterilised and confined to a safe area. This responsibility also extends to soi dogs that should be vaccinated and sterilised in order to gradually decrease populations. She believes that these practices will assist in protecting dogs from being trafficked because neglect makes them an obvious and easy target for traders. Panichabhongse’s stance is similar to many current arguments against the dog meat trade that are careful to avoid attacking the act of eating dog meat. In the words of Peter from Soi Dog Foundation, “it is not a debate about the rights and wrongs of eating dog meat. The way the dogs are caught, transported and then tortured and killed is beyond inhumane.”
194
Increasing trade
Although there has been increased enforcement and advocacy against the trade, reports suggest that it continues to thrive and the cost of dog meat continues to rise. In 2015, the Bangkok Post reported that dog meat was as high as 500 baht (AUD20) per kilo, compared to around 50 baht (AUD2) for chicken (Thalang, 2015). Since 2014, animal advocates and police have had legal powers to support their work against the trade, but it has led smugglers and traders to find new ways to avoid capture. Some smugglers have changed tactics and started slaughtering dogs before leaving Thailand to reduce their chances of being detected, as live dogs are noisy and can attract attention at border crossings (Thalang, 2015). New routes are being used to transport the dogs and according to Peter these are the same routes and border crossings used by other smugglers of illegal items such as drugs and timber. This means the routes are less safe and there has been reported increased violence between traders, police and animal activists. Soi Dog Foundation has employed people to investigate the trade with support from the police. However, Peter states that the new routes are very difficult “for the police to monitor because it's almost a ‘no go’ area. There have been police killed there, it’s also a drug smuggling route, timber smuggling route, and although the dog meat trade is not linked with violence particularly there is a drug side.” I was unable to find any evidence suggesting dogs were being smuggled directly with illegal goods, such as drugs and timber. However, Panichabhongse (2012) states that people have been reporting on talk back radio that dogs are now traded for amphetamine in northeast Thailand, replacing the buckets and other household items offered in the past. Peter also reports from the organisation’s intelligence that the traders are turning their attention to collecting dogs in Laos, a country with no animal welfare regulations and laws. It is believed that dog traders are exchanging blankets, rather than buckets, for dogs in Laos. The trade in dogs and the consumption of their flesh highlights the complex cultural politics that exist around eating animals. The debate surrounding the dog meat trade raises issues about the morality of what people eat and how food is closely related to identity. Although dog meat is not widely eaten in Thailand, the 195
trade in dogs has persisted for many decades. As the status of dogs has shifted and animal welfare has been officially recognised and protected, a growing opposition to this trade has occurred. However, the trade in dogs is lucrative for those involved and they justify the trade as a ‘tradition’ that differs little from the slaughter and consumption of other animals. Furthermore, a lack of strategies to deal with ‘problem’ dogs means that traders are seen by some as providing a service to the community. Campaigns against the dog meat trade in Thailand are strongly supported and advanced by Thais with influence and support from expatriates and international organisations. Debate about the trade has included an engagement with ethical questions concerning people’s relationships with different animals. However, this has often highlighted division within the Thai community based on geographical and socio-economic lines. Thus, campaigns against the consumption of and trade in dog meat have focussed on the animal welfare and public health consequences. On both sides of the debate dogs are conceptualised in different ways, a loved pet and companion on the one hand, and a source of food, income and livelihood on the other.
196
CHAPTER 9 CONCLUSIONS The literature dealing with human animal relationships is rich with examples of inconsistency and contradiction. This thesis is no exception: I have uncovered a complex web of factors that influence human-animal relationships in Thailand. At the beginning of this thesis, I stated that I wanted to know more about the meaning of cats and dogs in people’s lives in Thailand. Utilising ethnography enabled me to observe and be a participant in multispecies interactions, giving me a unique insight into a specific social and cultural context. This approach enabled me to capture the dynamic economy of knowledge functioning in Thailand, reflecting both global and local understandings of cats and dogs. This thesis has particular value as a case study of a specific time and place; it is a unique study of Thailand. At the same time, it charts global trends in pet keeping, animal welfare, protection and rights. In this concluding chapter, I integrate the findings of the thesis, and discuss the study’s limitations and possibilities for further research. Classifying cats and dogs
There is a continuing shift in the conceptualisation of cats and dogs in Thailand, from free-roaming street dwellers to pets under the care of an individual household. There is a clear distinction between animals considered pets, and soi cats and dogs. Depending on whether a cat or dog is ‘owned’ by a human determines their level of freedom, access to veterinary care, and access to certain public spaces. Soi animals have freedom to wander and express natural behaviours, although this is restricted and risky in an urban environment. Owned animals have less freedom but may benefit from their status, including through the provision of pet products such as specialist food, and access to spaces where their street counterparts are excluded. The access to, and market for, these consumable products and spaces reflect the extent to which, in Bangkok, dogs in particular are used by owners to display wealth and status in public places. The increase in household dog ownership has led to the development of growing areas of public spaces dedicated to dogs and their owners, and often paid for by the latter (see Chapter 3). For example, in April 2015 it was announced that 197
Watcharaphirom public park in Bang Khen district in the north of Bangkok, would have a designated area set aside for owned dogs to exercise (Wancharoen, 2015). These spaces function for dogs and their owners to exercise and socialise, protected from the presumed disruption and potential infection from soi dogs.
Soi dogs and cats are valued, and cared for, by community members. Although they are not entirely under human control, there is general agreement among community members and officials that these animals should be both managed and protected for their own welfare and for human well-being. Animal management strategies that are taken for granted in many high-income countries are altered in different contexts, and although these strategies are largely developed in these centres and disseminated to other countries, veterinarians and animal advocacy workers cannot assume they will stay the same because of economic, social and cultural reasons. Animal welfare literature discusses the need for cultural understanding when implementing management programs. However, many studies assume that animal management practices promoted in high-income countries are ideal, and do not critically question the practices under consideration or there applicability to varied contexts. Yet as I have illustrated, sterilisation, confinement, vaccination and euthanasia all take on particular meaning in different settings. In the research I have reported in this thesis, I have emphasised a local perspective, exploring beyond dominant discourses in cat and dog welfare and ownership. This has been achieved primarily by exploring the perspectives of those working closely with cats and dogs in Thailand, and by considering the practices we inflict on animal bodies, and the restrictions we place on their lives in the name of animal welfare. There is a complex negotiation when people with different notions of animal welfare and protection meet in a particular context. Animal advocacy workers all intend to help animals but their approaches are as varied as their notions and ethical stances towards interventions to improve animal lives. These are influenced by an intermingling of social, cultural, economic and geographic factors. Determining good animal welfare in a particular context is an intricate meeting of science and ethics. An understanding of these factors is required to ensure success in animal protection interventions. I argue that a ‘gentle 198
paternalism’ as proposed by Nussbaum (2006) is needed in our relationships with cats and dogs. Humans have an obligation, especially to cats and dogs who live closely with us, to protect them from injury and disease, and to ensure they have the basics to allow them to flourish according to the species norm. Historically, symbolic anthropological investigations into human-animal relationships have focussed on human agency and meaning. This approach has neglected animals as individual actors. Animal welfare science has also been criticised for considering species norms without considering individual animal difference. Using qualitative research methods allowed me to consider the needs of animals, interrogate dominant understandings of animal welfare, and consider what this means in the specific context of Thailand. Responsibility, the local and the global One of the major themes running throughout this thesis is responsibility towards animals. Specifically relating to cats and dogs, the concept of ‘responsible pet ownership’ has been formalised in many countries and its promotion is often discussed in Thailand (see Chapter 4). However, responsibility is a slippery term, and meanings of responsibility are variable in different contexts and among individuals. The strategies promoted under responsible pet ownership, for example sterilisation and confinement, can create ethical and practical challenges in different contexts. This is illustrated in Thailand where notions of freedom mean many cats and dogs are free-roaming and sterilisation rates are low.
How dominant understandings of what it means to be a responsible pet owner are applied to the Thai context is vividly illustrated in soi dog adoptions from Thailand to other countries (see Chapter 7). Notions of responsible pet ownership as understood in high-income countries are uncritically applied to the Thai context, leading to perceptions that the care offered by Thais to cats and dogs is inferior and even cruel. These views may help to promote adoptions, but they do not acknowledge the varied role and meanings cats and dogs can play in people’s lives, and the care that people and animal advocacy workers provide. Soi dogs available for adoption are promoted as needing to be ‘rescued’, mirroring the systems and ideas of human international adoption. Models of community care,
199
such as CNVR, are supported by animal advocacy organisations but are viewed as inferior to ‘ownership’. Although being in the home protects an animal from various risks of freeroaming, such as disease and motor vehicle accidents, it can contribute to other issues of concern in veterinary medicine, such as obesity, and behavioural concerns such as inappropriate toileting, and chewing and scratching furniture. Many soi cats and dogs receive care from community members and do not suffer from the common health and welfare concerns related to confinement. However, poor management of soi animals mean they are at increased risk of disease and illness, and participate in the transmission of disease, and close interaction with people in urban settings poses risks to human health. The response to rabies in Thailand (see Chapter 5) illustrates how focussing on the prevention and treatment for human health is only part of the picture in dealing with zoonotic disease. As advocated by the One Health approach, which has brought together veterinary, public health, medical and social researchers, there is a need to control zoonotic disease through interventions targeting human and animal populations, including understanding local animal practices and meanings (Whittaker, 2015). Only dealing with rabies from a human health perspective is costly and ongoing; dogs suffer and continue to infect humans and other animals, and the disease is never under control. It is important in the promotion of health for both humans and animals that we acknowledge the “complex socio-cultural system” in which these relationships function (Rock et al., 2014, p. 978). This creates challenges for integrated approaches to human and animal health when there are significant variations in norms and values regarding animal life. My own ideas about responsible pet ownership were challenged during this research. I saw the care that people offered soi animals and talked to people about the strong bonds they have with soi cats and dogs. I realised that the street represented a certain freedom, in sharp contrast to the conditions under which cats and dogs, with little chance of adoption, are cared for in shelters. The main human actors in this thesis have been veterinarians and animal advocacy workers. The practice of veterinary medicine in Thailand is informed 200
clinically by teaching in English speaking countries especially the United States, meaning veterinarians are exposed to professional norms from high-income countries. Yet, Buddhist ethics challenge some of these precepts, and inform the development of professional identity and practice. The veterinarians I interviewed constructed what it means to be a veterinarian in ways that accommodated their religious beliefs. Personal ethical stances influencing clinical decisions are most evident in attitudes towards euthanasia, reflecting Buddhist notions of suffering and karma (see Chapter 6). The Thai veterinarians acknowledged that they do not follow international clinical guidelines for euthanasia. This creates a challenge in teaching animal welfare, which has at its centre a commitment to minimise animal suffering. It also raises questions about end of life care for cats and dogs, and about what constitutes ‘quality of life’. Tensions in local and global understandings about animal use are graphically illustrated in the dog meat trade (see Chapter 8). Many international organisations are involved in activism against the trade in and consumption of dogs, and these organisations are important in shaping debate on the issue. Most activist campaigns have been careful not to attack the practice of dog meat eating, especially as many high-income countries slaughter large numbers of livestock to satisfy demand for meat and because of cultural variations in what is and is not edible. Instead, they focus on the animal welfare and human health concerns that arise from the transport and slaughter of the dogs. Activists also work to strengthen legal protections for the dogs. The trade in and consumption of dogs is now illegal in Thailand, but not in Laos and Vietnam. Even so, the morality of what one eats is played out in these debates, and the eating of dogs is one example of how acceptable foodstuffs relates to a geopolitics of relationships and identities. Within Thailand, the dog meat debate draws attention to a social imbalance among Thais based on geography and socio-economic status. Dynamic relationships
In 2015 I returned to Bangkok for a short visit. I happened to be there for the Pet Expo Thailand. The annual event was in its third year and the number in attendance illustrated the burgeoning interest in pet keeping and the market of 201
products that accompanies it. The event has attracted more than 80,000 visitors over four days each year since 2012. In 2015, attendance was over 110,000 (Pet Expo Thailand, 2017). The event is held over two levels in the Queen Sirikit Convention Centre in Khlong Toey district in the centre of Bangkok’s business district. The centre is well served by public transport and so is very accessible to the public. In 2015, stall holders were selling similar products to those at the Pet Variety Expo I attended in 2012, but the number of stalls at this expo was significantly larger. On the ground floor, there was one soi cat and dog advocacy organisation in a very prominent position, but it was the only advocacy organisation present. Next to the rescue organisation, there was an enclosed area, with the name of an international pet food company emblazoned on its walls, reflecting the global spread of cat cafés and offering those visiting the expo interaction with cats and kittens at an additional cost to the 20 baht (AUD0.75) entry fee. The expo was a lively place filled with people who wanted to interact with animals, show off their own animals, and sample and purchase a range of products for them, including food, clothes, bedding and toys. Cats, dogs and their associated products were the clear focus of most stalls. However, I was surprised to see exotic animals being promoted as pets. Visitors could get close to and purchase an eagle or a prairie dog. These animals were expensive. Meerkats were being offered for 30,000 baht each (AUD1, 150). The Animal Welfare Act 2014 aims to provide protections for animals, but it does not restrict what types of species can be kept as pets.36
36
With the exception of endangered species. 202
Figure 17: Meerkats available for sale at the Pet Expo Thailand 2015.
The passing of the Animal Welfare Act indicates a growing concern for animal welfare and rights in Thailand. The laws were passed after many years of lobbying by local and international advocacy groups. It will be some time before the impact of these laws is known. Some activists have expressed concern that the laws are weak. For example, the conditions in which many of the animals are kept at Pata Zoo, which is on the top floor of a shopping centre, are in breach of the new laws. Thailand’s national parks and wildlife department has reportedly issued an order requesting the removal of the gorilla, Bua Noi (see Chapter 1), and other large animals at the zoo, but there is little evidence the department has enforced its own order. The zoo was still operating as normal in 2016 (Antonio, 2016; Hawley, 2015). I encountered many cats and dogs during my fieldwork. Some of them left an indelible impression on me. In some ways I learnt as much from the animals as I did from the humans who I observed and interviewed. Some of these cats and dogs have passed away during the writing of this thesis, especially as many in the care of rescue organisations had illnesses and injuries shortening their life expectancies. Sweetie Pie, the two-year-old Persian cat who had her rear legs amputated (see Chapter 6) died about six months after I completed my fieldwork. One day she experienced kidney failure, went into shock and died a short time later. Although the exact cause of death is unknown, her injuries and limited 203
mobility seem to have taken a toll on her body. The cat that lived in my apartment block, whose story begins this thesis, was still hanging out with, and being cared for by, the security guards when I visited her on a subsequent trip to Bangkok. Sea Lion, the dog adopted by an Australian woman, is now living as part of a family on the outskirts of Melbourne. Lenon, whose story begins Chapter 7, is still available for adoption, at time of writing (January 2017), at the Soi Dog Foundation shelter in Phuket. But I’ll never know what became of many cats and dogs that I encountered, because their free-roaming lifestyles meant they could come and go as they pleased. When I arrived in Bangkok, the cat rescue and advocacy group PAWS Bangkok had just begun operations and I am very happy to see the organisation continue to do well today. Many of the PAWS residents I worked with have sadly died, but some have been adopted either locally or internationally, and others have been released back into the community. Some are still living at PAWS because disease and illness mean that they need constant care. For PAWS, and organisations like it, there are an endless number of animals requiring veterinary treatment and ongoing care. The challenges for the humans of animal advocacy organisations remain significant. The themes in this thesis show that the study of animals speaks volumes about who we are, and our relationships with each other. I have held up Haraway’s (1978) animal mirror (see Chapter 3) and it has revealed significant changes in how Thais perceive themselves and non-human animals, including cats and dogs. There is growing discourse questioning what is ‘appropriate’ and humane treatment of animals that is revealing of human relationships and identity. Examples such as Johnny the cat and Thongdaeng comment specifically on the Thai context, demonstrating that cats and dogs are simultaneously embodied with traditional and contemporary meanings influenced by the local and the global. Further research and limitations
This thesis adds to the growing body of anthrozoology literature, and is one of the few extant studies focussed on a non-English speaking, non-high-income context. It is hoped this thesis provides an important basis for further research in these 204
varied contexts, especially Thailand. As I used an ethnographic approach, this research was never intended to be generalizable. Rather it provides an in-depth understanding of a specific context and the important actors within it. Still, the themes uncovered in this research could be applied to other low and middle income contexts, especially those with free-roaming cats and dogs.
To understand more about animal welfare in Thailand I focussed on exploring what it means to animal advocates and veterinarians, which was an important limitation to focus the research for this thesis. A rich area of further research would be to explore notions of responsibility in greater depth, and animal welfare and rights among pet owners and community members who care for soi cats and dogs. My focus is not on determining what may constitute a ‘good’ life for cats and dogs, rather it is on how people’s relationships with and attitudes towards these animals influence their lives. In other words, what do these animals mean to people? Unfortunately, it was not within the scope of this thesis to consider what type of interventions might be successful; however, I have identified the areas of challenge and difficulty. These often relate to practical concerns, such as money, resources and qualified staff. Some of the ethical questions are particularly challenging, and any interventions need to be aware and understanding of the context I have discussed. Interventions also need to be sensitive to both animal and human interests, and further research could address the question of what it means, in practice, to simultaneously control and protect cats and dogs in Thailand. This thesis represents a first attempt to gain a deeper understanding of the meaning of human-cat and dog relationships in Thailand, and I hope it can provide a platform for further explorations. Although I have utilised methods traditionally associated with anthropology, this research is at the intersection of multiple disciplines. Any research exploring these relationships, their risks and benefits will need to reflect on the limitations of considering animals as minded social actors. As more social scientists include animals in their research, the ethical responsibilities for researchers that emerge from working closely with animals will need greater attention.
205
I hope this thesis provides a foundation for further research into people’s relationships with cats and dogs and animal welfare in Thailand. I look forward to seeing how future research navigates this complex and vital area of scholarship.
206
REFERENCES
3 dog theft suspects arrested in Vietnam after firing stun gun at cops. (2016, January 6). Thanh Nien News. Retrieved from http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/3-dog-theft-suspects-arrested-invietnam-after-firing-stun-gun-at-cops-57821.html 7-Eleven to help store dogs. (2014, September 3). Coconuts Bangkok. Retrieved from https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/7-eleven-help-store-dogs/ 150,000 stray dogs to die in rabies eradication plan. (1996, January 31). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. 800 dogs rescued in farm raid. (2003, November 3). The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. "A call for Animal Rights" Walk Rally. (2011, September 5). The 1st CALL for ANIMAL RIGHTS WALK RALLY. Facebook photo album. Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.187389721333834.44550.18 2251701847636&type=3 Alger, J. M., & Alger, S. F. (1999). Cat Culture, Human Culture: An Ethnographic Study of a Cat Shelter. Society and Animals, 7(3), 199-218. doi:10.1163/156853099x00086 American Veterinary Medical Association. (2012). U.S. Pet Ownership and Demographics Sourcebook. Schaumburg, IL: American Veterinary Medical Association. American Veterinary Medical Association. (n.d.). Model Rabies Ordinance. Retrieved from www.avma.org/KB/Policies/Pages/Rabies-Policy.aspx Antonio, M. (2016, August 30). Animal Cruelty: Orangutan in China Dressed Up, Ridiculed for Selfies. Nature World News. Retrieved from http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/27800/20160830/animalcruelty-orangutan-in-china-dressed-up-ridiculed-for-selfies.htm Anzuino, K. (n.d.). 'Street Dog' Population Control. BVA guidance notes. Retrieved from www.bva.co.uk/uploadedFiles/Content/Membership_and_benefits/Studen ts/Guidance_notes_-_street_dog_population_control.pdf Ares, E., & Burke, M. (2015). Dog Meat Trade. (Briefing Paper No. 07360). House of Commons Library. Retrieved from 207
http://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP7360#fullreport. Arluke, A., & Sanders, C. R. (1996). Regarding Animals. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Ascione, F. R. (1993). Children who are cruel to animals: A review of research and implications for developmental psychopathology. Anthrozoos, 5(4), 226-247. ASEAN Member States. (2015). ASEAN Rabies Elimination Strategy. Retrieved from http://vncdc.gov.vn/files/article_attachment/2015/3/endorsed-aresfinal.pdf Asia Canine Protection Alliance [ACPA]. (2013). Risk Assessment - The Risk The Dog Meat Trade Poses to Rabies Transmission and the ASEAN Plus 3 Countries’ Pledge to Eliminate Rabies by 2020. Retrieved from http://www.acpagroup.org/images/resources/Risk%20Assessment_TheIlle galTradeinDogsandRabiesTransmission_ACPA.pdf Asia Canine Protection Alliance [ACPA]. (2014). Why we are not campaigning for regulation of the dog meat trade. Retrieved from http://www.acpagroup.org/images/resources/ACPA_whyweshouldnotcam paigntoreguatethedogmeattrade_LW_05%2010_2014.pdf Asia Canine Protection Alliance [ACPA]. (n.d.). The Asia Canine Protection Alliance: ending the dog meat trade in Asia. Retrieved from http://www.acpagroup.org/about-acpa.html Atwood-Harvey, D. (2005). Death or declaw: dealing with moral ambiguity in a veterinary hospital. Society & Animals, 13(4), 315-342. Augé, M. (2008). Non-places: an introduction to supermodernity (2nd ed.). London: Verso. Australia tells Japan: stop whaling. (2010, January 8). The Age. Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/environment/australia-tells-japan-stopwhaling-20100108-lyrv.html Australian Veterinary Association. (2007). Euthanasia. http://www.ava.com.au/policy/44-euthanasia
Retrieved from
Avieli, N. (2011). Dog Meat Politics in a Vietnamese Town. Ethnology, 50(1), 59-78. doi:10.2307/41756650 Baker, M. (2003, October 18). Bangkok tidies its skirts before APEC. The Age. 208
Retrieved from http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364486672.html Batson, A. (2008). Global Companion Animal Ownership and Trade: Project Summary. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.wspa.org.uk/ContentPages /48536804.pdf Beck, A., & Katcher, A. (1996). Between pets and people: the importance of animal companionship (Rev. ed.). West Lafayette, Ind.: Purdue University Press. Bennett, P., & Meynell, K. (2014). Anthrozoology: Can animals benefit our health? InPsych, 36(4). Retrieved from https://www.psychology.org.au/Content.aspx?ID=5954 Bernstein, P. L. (2005). The Human-Cat Relationship. In I. Rochlitz (Ed.), The Welfare Of Cats (pp. 47-89). Netherlands: Springer. Bhanganada, K., Wilde, H., Sakolsataydorn, P., & Oonsombat, P. (1993). Dogbite injuries at a Bangkok teaching hospital. Acta Tropica, 55(4), 249-255. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0001-706X(93)90082-M Bird Rose, D. (1992). Dingo Makes Us Human. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Bird Rose, D. (2011). Flying Fox: Kin, Keystone, Kontaminant. Australian Humanities Review(50). Bonnett, B. N., & Egenvall, A. (2010). Age Patterns of Disease and Death in Insured Swedish Dogs, Cats and Horses. Journal of Comparative Pathology, 142, Supplement 1(0), S33-S38. doi:10.1016/j.jcpa.2009.10.008 Bradshaw, J. W. S. (2010). Anthrozoology. In D. S. Mills (Ed.), The Encyclopedia of Applied Animal Behaviour and Welfare (pp. 28-30). Cambridge, Mass.: CABI. Brown, R. L. (1991). Ganesh: studies of an Asian god. Albany: State University of New York Press. Bulliet, R. W. (2005). Hunters, herders, and hamburgers: the past and future of human-animal relationships. New York: Columbia University Press. Burawoy, M. (2000). Reaching for the Global. In M. Burawoy (Ed.), Global ethnography: forces, connections, and imaginations in a postmodern 209
world. Berkeley: University of California Press. Care for Dogs Foundation. (n.d.). Adoptions. Retrieved from http://www.carefordogs.org/adoptions Casey, R. A., Vandenbussche, S., Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Roberts, M. A. (2009). Reasons for Relinquishment and Return of Domestic Cats (Felis Silvestris Catus) to Rescue Shelters in the UK. Anthrozoos, 22(4), 347-358. doi:10.2752/089279309x12538695316185 Cat Welfare Society. (2016). What some religions say about sterilisation. Retrieved from http://www.catwelfare.org/faq/8#t8n79 Cate, S. (2003). Making merit, making art: a Thai temple in Wimbledon. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press. Chang Noi. (2009). Jungle book: Thailand's politics, moral panic, and plunder, 1996-2008. Chiang Mai, Thailand: Silkworm Books. Chaolan, S. (2016, Feburary 17). Abbot seeks help over abandoned pets at temple. Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Charmaz, K. (2007). Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide Through Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Charnetsky, C. J., Riggers, S., & Brennan, F. (2004). Effect of petting a dog on immune system functioning. Psychological Reports, 3(2), 1087-1091. Charoensuthipan, P. (2007, October 1). Man's Best Friend? Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Chouliaraki, L. (2012). The Ironic Spectator: Solidarity in the Age of PostHumanitarianism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Chuxnum, T., Choomkasien, P., & Thongcharoen, P. (2011). Epidemiology of Human Rabies in Thailand, B.E.2546-2550 (2003-2007 AD). Siriraj Medical Journal, 63(3). Clifton, M. (2002). Sterilization and Vaccination: 70 percent or Flunk. Animal People, 12(8). Clutterbuck, M. R. (2004). Siamese cats: legends and reality. Bangkok: White Lotus. Clutton-Brock, J. (2012). Animals as domesticates: a world view through history. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press. 210
Cocia, R. I., & Rusu, A. S. (2010). Attitudes of Romanian Pet Caretakers towards Sterilization of Their Animals: Gender Conflict Over Male, but Not Female, Companion Animals. Anthrozoos, 23(2), 185-191. doi:10.2752/175303710x12682332910097 Cohen, E. (2008). Explorations in Thai Tourism: collected case studies. Bingley: Emerald Group. Cohen, E. (2010). Panda and elephant – contesting animal icons in Thai tourism. Journal of Tourism and Cultural Change, 8(3), 154-171. doi:10.1080/14766825.2010.510565 Cohen, E. (2013). "Buddhist Compassion" and "Animal Abuse" in Thailand's Tiger Temple. Society & Animals, 21(3), 266-283. doi:10.1163/1568530612341282 Cohen, E. (2015). Young Elephants in Thai Tourism: a fatal attraction. In K. Markwell (Ed.), Animals and Tourism: understanding diverse relationships. Bristol: Channel View. Coleman, P. G., & Dye, C. (1996). Immunization coverage required to prevent outbreaks of dog rabies. Vaccine, 14(3), 185-186. Coleman, S., & Collins, P. (2006). Introduction: 'Being ... Where?' Performing Fields on Shifting Grounds. In S. Coleman & P. Collins (Eds.), Locating the field: space, place and context in anthropology. Oxford: Berg. Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. L. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Sage. Cudworth, E. (2011). Social Lives with Other Animals. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. Dale, A. S. (2013). A Comparison of Canine Rabies Control Programs in Thailand and the Guangdong Province in China: A Case Study Approach. (Master of Science in Conservation Medicine), Tufts University. Retrieved from http://sites.tufts.edu/MaryDavis/files/2014/04/AdrienneDale-Case-Study-Final.pdf Dalley, J., & Dalley, G. (2013, May 18). Special to The Nation. The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. Dalsgaard, S. (2016). The Ethnographic Use of Facebook in Everyday Life. Anthropological Forum, 26(1), 96-114. doi:10.1080/00664677.2016.1148011
211
Damrongplasit, K., & Melnick, G. A. (2009). Early results from Thailand's 30 Baht Health Reform: something to smile about. Health affairs, 28(3), w457-466. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.3.w457 Daniels, T. J. (1983). The social organization of free-ranging urban dogs. Applied Animal Ethology, 10(4), 341-363. Day, M. J., Karkare, U., Schultz, R. D., & Squires, R. (2014). Recommendations on vaccination for Asian small animal practitioners: a report of the WSAVA Vaccination Guidelines Group. Journal of Small Animal Practice, 56(2), 77-95. doi:10.1111/jsap.12272 Degeling, C., Kerridge, I., & Rock, M. (2013). What to Think of Canine Obesity? Emerging Challenges to Our Understanding of Human–Animal Health Relationships. Social Epistemology, 27(1), 90-104. doi:10.1080/02691728.2012.760662 DeMello, M. (2012). Animals and Society: An Introduction to Human-Animal Studies. New York: Columbia University Press. Derr, M. (2016). Cesar Millan Crosses the Line Again. Retrieved from https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/dogs-best-friend/201603/cesarmillan-crosses-the-line-again Diamond, W. (2011, October 11). The Stray Dogs Of Thailand And How Travel Can Help Them. Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/wendy-diamond/thailands-dog-dayafterno_b_1004136.html Diesel, G., Brodbelt, D., & Pfeiffer, D. U. (2010). Characteristics of Relinquished Dogs and Their Owners at 14 Rehoming Centers in the United Kingdom. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 13(1), 15-30. doi:Pii 917886535 10.1080/10888700903369255 DiGiacomo, N., Arluke, A., & Patronek, G. (1998). Surrendering pets to shelters: The relinquisher's perspective. Anthrozoos, 11(1), 41-51. Dog-eaters' restaurant dogged by authorities. (1999, October 22). The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. Donaldson, S., & Kymlicka, W. (2011). Zoopolis: a political theory of animal rights. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Douglas, M. (1957). Animals in Lele Religious Symbolism. Africa: Journal of the International African Institute, 27(1), 46-58. 212
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and danger: an analysis of concepts of pollution and taboo. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Douglas, M. (1970). Natural symbols: explorations in cosmology (1st American ed.). New York: Pantheon Books. Douglass, C. (1997). Bulls, Bullfighting, and Spanish Identities. Tucson: Univ. Arizona Press. Englesberg, B. (2007, Jan/Feb). Stalling the wildlife trade: tackling the tragic illegal trade in wildlife at Bangkok’s famous weekend market. Action Asia. Environment Films. (2015). Shadow Trade: the price of loyalty. www.shadowtrade.org/Shadow_Trade/About
Retrieved from
Euromonitor International. (2015a). Cat Food in Thailand. Retrieved from www.portal.euromonitor.com Euromonitor International. (2015b). Dog Food in Thailand. Retrieved from www.portal.euromonitor.com Euromonitor International. (2015c). Pet Care in Thailand. Retrieved from www.portal.euromonitor.com Euromonitor International. (2015d). Pet Products in Thailand. Retrieved from www.portal.euromonitor.com European Commission. (n.d.). Non-commercial movement from non-EU countries. Retrieved from http://ec.europa.eu/food/animals/petmovement/eu-legislation/non-commercial-non-eu_en Evans-Pritchard, E. E. (1950). The Nuer: A description of the modes of livelihood and political institutions of a Nilotic people. Oxford: Clarendon Press. Faubion, J. D., & Marcus, G. E. (Eds.). (2009). Fieldwork is not what it used to be: learning anthropology's method in a time of transition. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Fawcett, A. (2013). Euthanasia and morally justifiable killing in a veterinary clinical context. In J. Johnston & F. Probyn-Rapsey (Eds.), Animal death. Sydney, N.S.W: Sydney University Press. Fine, G. (2004). Review essay: Rats and cats. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 33(5), 638–644.
213
Fox, R. (2006). Animal behaviours, post-human lives: everyday negotiations of the animal–human divide in pet-keeping. Social & Cultural Geography, 7(4), 525-537. doi:10.1080/14649360600825679 Francione, G. L. (2008). Animals as persons: essays on the abolition of animal exploitation. New York: Columbia University Press. Franco, N. H., Magalhães-Sant’Ana, M., Olsso, I. A. S., & Sandøe, P. (2014). Welfare and quantity of life. In M. Appleby & D. Weary (Eds.), Dilemmas in Animal Welfare (pp. 46-66). Oxfordshire: CABI. Franklin, A. (1999). Animals and Modern Cultures. London: Sage. Franklin, A. (2006). “Be[a]ware of the Dog”: A Post‐Humanist Approach to Housing. Housing, Theory and Society, 23(3), 137-156. doi:10.1080/14036090600813760 Franklin, S. (2007). Dolly mixtures: the remaking of genealogy. Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press. Fraser, D. (2008). Understanding Animal Welfare: the science in its cultural context. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Fraser, D., Weary, D. M., Pajor, E. A., & Milligan, B. N. (1997). A Scientific Conception of Animal Welfare that Reflects Ethical Concerns. Animal Welfare, 6(3), 187-205. Friedmann, E. (2006). The animal-human bond: Health and wellness. In A. H. Fine (Ed.), Handbook on Animal-Assisted Therapy: theoretical foundations and practice guidelines (2nd ed., pp. 41-58). Burlington: Academic Press. Friedmann, E., Katcher, A. H., Lynch, J. J., & Thomas, S. A. (1980). Animal companions and one-year survival of patients after discharge from a coronary care unit. Public Health Reports, 95(4), 307-312. Friedmann, E., & Son, H. (2009). The Human–Companion Animal Bond: How Humans Benefit. The Veterinary clinics of North America: Small animal practice, 39(2), 293-326. Fudge, E. (2002). Animal. London: Reaktion Books. Fudge, E., & Palmer , C. (2011). Introduction - veterinary science. In E. Fudge & C. Palmer (Eds.), Veterinary science: animals, humans and health: Living Books About Life. Retrieved from http://www.livingbooksaboutlife.org/books/Veterinary_science. 214
Garip, F., & Curran, S. (2010). Increasing Migration, Diverging Communities: Changing Character of Migrant Streams in Rural Thailand. Population Research and Policy Review, 29(5), 659-685. doi:10.1007/s11113-0099165-2 Garner, R. (2004). Animals, politics, and morality (2nd ed. ed.). Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press. Garner, R. (2016). Welfare, Rights and Non-ideal Theory. In T. Višak & R. Garner (Eds.), The ethics of killing animals. New York: Oxford University Press. Geertz, C. (1973). Deep Play: notes on the Balinese Cockfight The interpretation of cultures: selected essays. New York: Basic Books. Gongal, G., & Wright, A. E. (2011). Human Rabies in the WHO Southeast Asia Region: Forward Steps for Elimination. Advances in Preventive Medicine, 2011, 5. doi:10.4061/2011/383870 Gray, C. (2015). Dog v dog: Theatrics of the Thai interregnum. Retrieved from http://www.newmandala.org/dog-v-dog-theatrics-of-the-thai-interregnum/ Gray, P. B., & Young, S. M. (2011). Human Pet Dynamics in Cross-Cultural Perspective. Anthrozoos, 24(1), 17-30. doi:10.2752/175303711x12923300467285 Guynup, S. (2016, June 2). Chaos, Questions Surround Temple as Tigers Seized National Geographic. Retrieved from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/06/tiger-temple-thailandwildlife-trafficking-buddhism/ Haas, M. (1964). Thai-English Student's Dictionary. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hampson, K., Coudeville, L., Lembo, T., Sambo, M., Kieffer, A., Attlan, M., . . . Dushoff, J. (2015). Estimating the Global Burden of Endemic Canine Rabies. PLoS Negl Trop Dis, 9(4), e0003709. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0003709 Hansen, P. (2013). Urban Japan's “Fuzzy” New Families: Affect and Embodiment in Dog–Human Relationships. Asian Anthropology, 12(2), 83-103. doi:10.1080/1683478X.2013.852718 Haraway, D. (1978). Animal Sociology and a Natural Economy of the Body Politic, Part II: The Past Is the Contested Zone: Human Nature and Theories of Production and Reproduction in Primate Behavior Studies. Signs, 4(1), 37-60. 215
Haraway, D. (2003). The companion species manifesto: dogs, people, and significant otherness. Chicago, Ill.: Prickly Paradigm Press. Haraway, D. (2008). When species meet. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. Harris, I. (2001). Attitudes to Nature. In P. Harvey (Ed.), Buddhism. London: Continuum. Harvey, P. (2000). An Introduction to Buddhist Ethics: Foundations, Values and Issues. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hawley, S. (2015, March 14). Thai authorities order release of gorilla after 20 years caged in Bangkok mall zoo. ABC News. Retrieved from http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-14/gorilla-to-be-released-frombangkok-mall-zoo/6319084 HCMC official calls for regulation on dog meat trade. (2010, July 23). Thanh Nien News. Retrieved from http://www.thanhniennews.com/society/hcmcofficial-calls-for-regulation-on-dog-meat-trade-15565.html Herzog, H. (2010). Some we love, some we hate, some we eat. New York: Harper Perennial. Hickrod, L. J. H., & Schmitt, R. L. (1982). A naturalistic study of interaction and frame: the pet as ‘family member’. Urban Life, 11(1), 55–77. Hills, A. M. (1993). The Motivational Bases of Attitudes Toward Animals. Society and Animals, 1(2), 111-128. Hirschman, E. C. (1994). Consumers and their animal companions. Journal of Consumer Research, 20(4), 616–632. His Majesty King Bhumibol Adulyadej. (2002). The Story of Thongdaeng. Bangkok: Amarin. Holmes, O. (2015, December 15). Thai man faces jail for insulting king's dog with 'sarcastic' internet post. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/15/thai-man-faces-jailinsulting-kings-dog-sarcastic-internet-post Hood, J. (1998). Pet Ownership and Asian Multiculturalism. Paper presented at the Urban Animal Management Conference. http://www.aiam.com.au/pages/proceedings/perth1998.html. Hopefuls vow to help stray dogs. (2013, February 12). Bangkok Post. Retrieved 216
from Factiva database. Hsu, Y., Severinghaus, L. L., & Serpell, J. A. (2003). Dog Keeping in Taiwan: Its Contribution to the Problem of Free-Roaming Dogs. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 6(1), 1 - 23. HSUS. (2013). The Humane Society of the United States Announces ACE Documentary Grant Winners [Press release]. Retrieved from http://www.humanesociety.org/news/press_releases/2013/01/ace_awards_ 010313.html Huang, S. (2015). Q. and A.: Peter J. Li on the Clash Over Eating Dogs in China. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://sinosphere.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/q-and-a-peter-j-li-onthe-clash-over-eating-dogs-in-china/?_r=0 Hurn, S. (2011). Dressing Down. Civilisations [En ligne], 59(2). doi:10.4000/civilisations.2602 Hurn, S. (2012). Humans and Other Animals: Cross-Cultural Perspectives on Human-Animal Interactions. London: Pluto Press. Hurn, S. (2013). Confessions of a Vegan Anthropologist: Exploring the TransBiopolitics of Eating in the Field. In E. J. A. A. Lavis (Ed.), Why we eat, how we eat: Contemporary encounters between foods and bodies (pp. 219 - 236): Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. Hurn, S. (2017). Animals as Producers, Consumers and Consumed: The Complexities of Trans-Species Sustenance in a Multi-Faith Community. Ethnos, 1-19. doi:10.1080/00141844.2015.1107611 Instone, L., & Sweeney, J. (2014). Dog waste, wasted dogs: The contribution of human-dog relations to the political ecology of Australian urban space. Geographical Research, 52(4), 355-364. doi:10.1111/1745-5871.12059 International Companion Animal Management Coalition [ICAM]. (n.d.). The welfare basis for euthanasia of dogs and cats and policy development. Retrieved from http://www.icam-coalition.org/downloads/ICAMEuthanasia%20Guide-ebook.pdf Ipsos-Reid. (2001). Paws and Claws: A Syndicated Study on Canadian Pet Ownership. Retrieved from http://ocpm.qc.ca/sites/ocpm.qc.ca/files/pdf/P56/7a1a.pdf Irvine, L. (2002). Animal Problems/People Skills: Emotional and Interactional Strategies in Humane Education. Society and Animals, 10(1), 63-91.
217
It's a dog's life. (2015). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Jackman, J., & Rowan, A. (2007). Free-Roaming Dogs in Developing Countries: the benefits of capture, neuter and return programs. In D. J. Salem & A. N. Rowan (Eds.), The State of the Animals IV: 2007: Humane Society Press. Jackson, P. (2012). Situated Activities in a Dog Park: Identity and Conflict in Human-Animal Space. Society and Animals, 20(3), 254-272. doi:10.1163/15685306-12341237 Jaowattana, T. (1999, November 15). Stray dogs dread end of dog days. The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. Jongman, E. C. (2007). Adaptation of domestic cats to confinement. Journal of Veterinary Behavior: Clinical Applications and Research, 2(6), 193-196. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jveb.2007.09.003 Kahn, L. H., Kaplan, B., Monath, T. P., Woodall, J., & Conti, L. A. (n.d.). About the One Health Initiative. Retrieved from http://www.onehealthinitiative.com/about.php Kanwanich, S. (1999, April 4). Once bitten. Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Kasempimolporn, S., Jitapunkul, S., & Sitprija, V. (2008). Moving towards the elimination of rabies in Thailand. J Med Assoc Thai, 91(3), 433-437. Kasempimolporn, S., Sichanasai, B., Saengseesom, W., Puempumpanich, S., Chatraporn, S., & Sitprija, V. (2007). Prevalence of rabies virus infection and rabies antibody in stray dogs: a survey in Bangkok, Thailand. Prev Vet Med, 78(3-4), 325-332. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.11.003 Kellert, S. R., & Berry, J. K. (1980). Knowledge, affection and basic attitudes towards animals in American society. Washington, D.C: U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Keown, D. (1995). Buddhism and Bioethics. Hampshire: Macmillan. Keown, D. (1996). Buddhism: a very short introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Khamung, R. (2015). Cultural heritage and agricultural tradition for a sustainable agritourism and ecomuseum in rural Chiangkhan, Thailand. Paper presented at the Burapha University International Conference, Burapha University. 218
Kirksey, S. E., & Helmreich, S. (2010). The emergence of multispecies ethnography. Cultural Anthropology, 25(4), 545-576. doi:10.1111/j.15481360.2010.01069.x Kirkwood, J. K. (2007). Quality of life: the heart of the matter. Animal Welfare, 16(2), 3-7. Klangboonkrong, M. (2015, Feb 13). Thailand's new law against animals cruelty puts the burden squarely on humans. The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from www.nationmultimedia.com/news/life/aec/30253942 Knight, S., & Herzog, H. (2009). All Creatures Great and Small: New Perspectives on Psychology and Human–Animal Interactions. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 451-461. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01608.x Knight, S., Nunkoosing, K., Vrij, A., & Cherryman, J. (2003). Using Grounded Theory to Examine Peoples Attitudes Toward How Animals are Used. Society and Animals, 11(4), 307-327. doi:10.1163/156853003322796064 Knobel, D. L., Laurenson, K. M., Kazwala, R. R., & Cleaveland, S. (2008). Development of an Item Scale to Assess Attitudes towards Domestic Dogs in the United Republic of Tanzania. Anthrozoos, 21, 285-295. doi:10.2752/175303708x332080 Knobel, D. L., Laurenson, M. K., Kazwala, R. R., Boden, L. A., & Cleaveland, S. (2008). A cross-sectional study of factors associated with dog ownership in Tanzania. Bmc Veterinary Research, 4. doi:510.1186/1746-6148-4-5 Kohn, E. (2007). How dogs dream: Amazonian natures and the politics of transspecies engagement. American Ethnologist, 34(1), 3-24. Kongkaew, W., Coleman, P., Pfeiffer, D. U., Antarasena, C., & Thiptara, A. (2004). Vaccination coverage and epidemiological parameters of the owned-dog population in Thungsong District, Thailand. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 65(1-2), 105-115. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2004.05.009 Kontogeorgopoulos, N. (2009). Wildlife tourism in semi-captive settings: a case study of elephant camps in northern Thailand. Current Issues in Tourism, 12(5-6), 429-449. doi:10.1080/13683500903042873 Kusalasaya, K. (2005). Buddhism in Thailand: its past and its present (Revised ed.). Kandy, Sri Lanka: Buddhist Publication Society. Leach, E. (1970). Levi-Strauss. London: Fontana.
219
Leach, E. (1989). Anthropological Aspects of Language: Animal Categories and Verbal Abuse. Anthrozoos, 2(3), 151-165. doi:10.2752/089279389787058055 Lechenne, M., Miranda, M. E., & Zinsstag, J. (2015). Integrated Rabies Control. In J. Zinsstag, E. Schelling, D. Waltner-Toews, M. Whittaker, & M. Tanner (Eds.), One health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CAB International. Lembo, T. (2012). The Blueprint for Rabies Prevention and Control: A Novel Operational Toolkit for Rabies Elimination. PLoS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 6(2), e1388. doi:10.1371/journal.pntd.0001388 Lembo, T., Craig, P. S., Miles, M. A., Hampson, K. R., & Meslin, F. X. (2013). Zoonoses prevention, control, and elimination in dogs. In C. N. L. Macpherson, F. X. Meslin, & A. I. Wandeler (Eds.), Dogs, zoonoses, and public health (2nd ed.). Oxfordshire: CABI. Lempert, L. B. (2007). Asking Questions of the Data: Memo writing in the Grounded Theory Tradition. In A. Bryant & K. Charmaz (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of grounded theory (3rd ed.). London: Sage. Lévi-Strauss, C. (1963). Totemism (R. Needham, Trans.). Boston: Beacon Press. Lewis, Z. (2013, May 14). A Soi Dog Flight Volunteer tells of his amazing journey. Phuket News. Retrieved from http://www.thephuketnews.com/phuket-a-soi-dog-flight-volunteer-tellsof-his-amazing-journey-39334.php Liamputtong, P. (2005). Birth and social class: Northern Thai women's lived experiences of caesarean and vaginal birth. Sociology of Health & Illness, 27(2), 243-270. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9566.2005.00441.x Linzey, A. (2009). Religion and Animals. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of Animal Rights and Animal Welfare (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara: Greenwood Press. Linzey, A., & Cohn, P. (2011). Terms of Discourse. Journal of Animal Ethics, 1(1), vii-ix. doi:10.5406/janimalethics.1.1.vii Locke, P. (2017). Elephants as persons, affective apprenticeship, and fieldwork with nonhuman informants in Nepal. Journal of Ethnographic Theory, 7(1). doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.14318/hau7.1.024 Lowe, C. (2006). Wild Profusion: Biodiversity Conservation in an Indonesian Archipelago. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
220
MacGregor Marshall, A. (2015, February 6). Thai crown prince’s poodle, Air Chief Marshal Foo Foo, has been cremated. The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/05/thai-crown-princepet-poodle-air-chief-marshal-foo-foo-cremated Macpherson, C. N. L., Meslin, F. X., & Wandeler, A. I. (Eds.). (2013). Dogs, zoonoses, and public health (2nd ed. ed.). Oxfordshire: Oxfordshire : CABI. Madden, R. (2014). Animals and the Limits of Ethnography. Anthrozoos, 27(2), 279-293. doi:10.2752/175303714X13903827487683 Málek, J. (1993). The cat in ancient Egypt. London: British Museum Press for the Trustees of the British Museum. Malone, K. (2012, October 21). 'Rescued' from dog meat trade, delivered into agony. Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Man's best friend deserves better. (2003, November 18). The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. Man bites dog, but only on special occasions. (2011, September 4). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Manderson, L. (1985). Towrds an anthropology of industrialised society. In L. Manderson (Ed.), Australian ways: anthropological studies of an industrialised society. Sydney: Allen & Unwin. Manderson, L. (1986). Introduction: the anthropology of food in Oceania and Southeast Asia. In L. Manderson (Ed.), Shared wealth and symbol: food, culture, and society in Oceania and Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Manning, A. M., & Rowan, A. N. (1992). Companion Animal Demographics and Sterilization Status: Results from a Survey in Four Massachusetts Towns. Anthrozoos, 5(3), 192-201. McCulloch, S. (2013). A Critique of FAWC's Five Freedoms as a Framework for the Analysis of Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural & Environmental Ethics, 26(5), 959-975. doi:10.1007/s10806-012-9434-7 McDonald, H. (2011, February 12). Thai politics becomes a dog's dinner. Retrieved from http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/politicalopinion/thai-politics-becomes-a-dogs-dinner-20110211-1aqii.html McKay, S. A., Farnworth, M. J., & Waran, N. K. (2009). Current attitudes 221
toward, and incidence of, sterilization of cats and dogs by caregivers (owners) in Auckland, New Zealand. J Appl Anim Welf Sci, 12(4), 331344. doi:10.1080/10888700903163617 Midgley, M. (1983). Animals and why they matter. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press. Miele, M., & Bock, B. (2007). Competing Discourses of Farm Animal Welfare and Agri-food Restructuring. International Journal of Sociology of Agriculture and Food, 15(3), 1-7. Milton, K. (2005). Anthropomorphism or Egomorphism? In J. Knight (Ed.), Animals in Person: cultural perspectives on human-animal intimacies. Oxford: Berg. Mitmoonpitak, C., Tepsumethanon, V., & Wilde, H. (1998). Rabies in Thailand. Epidemiology & Infection, 120(02), 165-169. Miura, A., Bradshaw, J. W. S., & Tanida, H. (2002). Childhood experiences and attitudes towards animal issues: a comparison of young adults in Japan and the UK. Animal Welfare, 11(4), 437-448. Molento, C. (2014). Public Health and Animal Welfare. In M. C. Appleby, D. M. Weary, & P. Sandøe (Eds.), Dilemmas in animal welfare. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI. Morris, P. (2012). Blue Juice: Euthanasia in Veterinary Medicine. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Mulder, N. (1985). Everyday life in Thailand (2nd ed.). Bangkok: Duang Kamol. Mullin, M. H. (1999). Mirrors and Windows: Sociocultural Studies of HumanAnimal Relationships. Annual Review of Anthropology, 28(1), 201-224. doi:doi:10.1146/annurev.anthro.28.1.201 Mullin, M. H. (2002). Animals and Anthropology. Society & Animals, 10(4), 387393. Munro, L. (2012). The Animal Rights Movement in Theory and Practice: A Review of the Sociological Literature. Sociology Compass, 6(2), 166-181. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9020.2011.00440.x Natoli, E., Maragliano, L., Cariola, G., Faini, A., Bonanni, R., Cafazzo, S., & Fantini, C. (2006). Management of feral domestic cats in the urban environment of Rome (Italy). Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 77(3–4), 180-185. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2006.06.005 222
Neidhart, L., & Boyd, R. (2002). Companion Animal Adoption Study. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 5(3), 175-192. doi:10.1207/S15327604JAWS0503_02 Nolan, K. (n.d.). 'Street Dog' population control. (Certificate in Welfare), Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (UK). Retrieved from http://www.vetwork.org.uk/abc.htm Noske, B. (1989). Humans and other animals: beyond the boundaries of anthropology. London: Pluto Press. Noske, B. (1997). Speciesism, Anthropocentrism, and Non-Western Cultures. Anthrozoos, 10(4), 183-190. Companion Animals Act 1998 (NSW). Nussbaum, M. (2006). Frontiers of justice: disability, nationality, species membership. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. O'Haire, M. (2010). Companion animals and human health: Benefits, challenges, and the road ahead. Journal of Veterinary Behavior-Clinical Applications and Research, 5(5), 226-234. doi:10.1016/j.jveb.2010.02.002 Oh, M., & Jackson, J. (2011). Animal Rights vs. Cultural Rights: Exploring the Dog Meat Debate in South Korea from a World Polity Perspective. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 32(1), 31-56. doi:10.1080/07256868.2010.491272 Pachirat, T. (2011). Every Twelve Seconds: Industrialized Slaughter and the Politics of Sight. New Haven: Yale University Press. Palmer, C. (2006). Killing Animals in Animal Shelters. In The Animal Studies Group (Ed.), Killing animals. Urbana: University of Illinois Press. Palmer, C. (2010). Animal ethics in context. New York: Columbia University Press. Palmer, C. (2014). Moral Conflict in Feral Cat Management: Trap-Neuter-Return or Trap-Euthanize? In M. Appleby, Sandoe, P and Weary, D (Ed.), Dilemmas in Animal Welfare (pp. p.148-168). Wallingford: CABI International. Palmer, C., Corr, S., & Sandøe, P. (2012). Inconvenient Desires: Should We Routinely Neuter Companion Animals? Anthrozoos, 25(Supplement 1), 153-172. doi:10.2752/175303712x13353430377255
223
Panichabhongse, P. (2001). The Epidemiology of Rabies in Thailand. (Master of Veterinary Studies), Massey University. Retrieved from http://www.massey.ac.nz/massey/fms/Colleges/College%20of%20Science s/Epicenter/docs/PraneePanichabhongseMVS.pdf?D82675CCD4EE3A67 E6535B14E28520E1 Panichabhongse, P. (2012). Liaolang mong yuea kaeng kha sunak kham chat khun chuai dai: mai chai khae songsan [Dog trafficking preys: you can help them, not just pity them] [Press release]. Retrieved from http://dcontrol.dld.go.th/index.php/alert-disease01/1658-dogshelter2012.html Panichabhongse, P. (2013). Jood: the curious puppy and a rabies story. Retrieved from https://rabiesalliance.org/uploads/media/Resources_Asia/Asia_written_in _English/Jood_the_curious_puupy_and_a_rabies_story2.pdf Parslow, R. A., & Jorm, A. F. (2003). Pet ownership and risk factors for cardiovascular disease: another look. Medical Journal of Australia, 179(9), 466-468. Paul, E. (2000). Love of pets and love of people. In A. Podberscek, E. Paul, & J. Serpell (Eds.), Companion Animals and Us: Exploring the Relationships Between People and Pets (pp. 168–186). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Paul, E., & Serpell, J. (1993). Childhood Pet keeping and Humane Attitudes in Young Adulthood. Animal Welfare, 2(4), 321-337. Pet Expo Thailand. (2017). Fact Sheet [Press release]. Retrieved from http://petexpothailand.net/images/factsheet/petX17en.pdf Pet owners warned to beware fake rabies shots. (2010, February 22). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Pet shops in Chatuchak market to be registered. (2010, February 20). The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. Phillips, C. (2015). The animal trade. Wallingford, Oxfordshire: CABI. Philo, C., & Wilbert, C. (2000). Introduction. In C. Philo & C. Wilbert (Eds.), Animal spaces, beastly places: new geographies of human-animal relations. London: Routledge. Phongpaichit, P., & Baker, C. (Eds.). (2016). Unequal Thailand: aspects of income, wealth and power. Singapore: NUS Press.
224
Pierce, J. (2016). Run, Spot, Run: the ethics of keeping pets. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Pink, S. (1997). Women and Bullfighting: Gender, Sex and the Consumption of Tradition. Oxford, UK: Berg. Podberscek, A. (2007). Dogs and Cats as Food in Asia. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Human-Animal Relationships (pp. 25-34). Westport, Conn.: Greenwood Press. Podberscek, A. (2009). Good to Pet and Eat: The Keeping and Consuming of Dogs and Cats in South Korea. Journal of Social Issues, 65(3), 615-632. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2009.01616.x Poon, S.-W. (2014). Dogs and British Colonialism: The Contested Ban on Eating Dogs in Colonial Hong Kong. Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History, 42(2), 308-328. doi:10.1080/03086534.2013.851873 Power, E. (2008). Furry families: making a human–dog family through home. Social & Cultural Geography, 9(5), 535-555. Prescott, C. W. (1982). Responsible pet ownership and the veterinarian. Australian Veterinary Practitioner, 12(1-2), 37-38. Protest against German dog killer. (2012, December 2012). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Pungkanon, K. (2011, September 3). Paws for Thought. The Nation. Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/2011/09/03/life/Paws-forthought-30164422.html Putra, A. A., Hampson, K., Girardi, J., Hiby, E., Knobel, D., Mardiana, I. W., . . . Scott-Orr, H. (2013). Response to a rabies epidemic, Bali, Indonesia, 2008-2011. Emerging Infectious Diseases, 19(4), 648-651. doi:10.3201/eid1904.120380 Ratanakorn, P. (2013). The Relationship between the Veterinary Statutory Body, Veterinary Services and Veterinary Associations in Thailand. Paper presented at the Global Conference on Veterinary Education and the Role of the Veterinary Statutory Body, Foz do Iguaçu, Brazil. Reddy, M., & Lowe, T. (2011). The Story of The Story of Tongdaeng: A Tale of Unspeakability and Thai Politics. Sensate. Retrieved from http://sensatejournal.com/2011/12/malavika-reddy-and-taylor-lowe-storyof-story-of-tongdaeng/
225
Regan, T. (2004). The case for animal rights (2nd ed.). Berkeley: University of California Press. Rescued dogs running out of food supply. (2003, November 4). The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. Rindfuss, R. R., Piotrowski, M., Entwisle, B., Edmeades, J., & Faust, K. (2012). Migrant remittances and the web of family obligations: Ongoing support among spatially extended kin in North-east Thailand, 1984–94. Population Studies, 66(1), 87-104. doi:10.1080/00324728.2011.644429 The rise of the dog snatchers. (2011, September 4). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Risley-Curtiss, C., Holley, L. C., & Wolf, S. (2006). The Animal-Human Bond and Ethnic Diversity. Social Work, 51(3), 257. Ritvo, H. (1987). The Emergence of Modern Pet-Keeping. Anthrozoos, 1(3), 158165. Ritvo, H. (1990). The animal estate: the English and other creatures in the Victorian age. London: Penguin. Rock, M., Adams, C. L., Degeling, C., Massolo, A., & McCormack, G. R. (2014). Policies on pets for healthy cities: a conceptual framework. Health Promotion International. doi:10.1093/heapro/dau017 Rock, M., & Degeling, C. (2013). Public Health Ethics and a Status for Pets as Person-Things. Journal of Bioethical Inquiry, 10(4), 485-495. doi:10.1007/s11673-013-9478-z Rock, M., & Degeling, C. (2015). Public health ethics and more-than-human solidarity. Social Science & Medicine, 129, 61-67. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.05.050 Rohlf, V. I., Bennett, P. C., Toukhsati, S., & Coleman, G. (2010). Why Do Even Committed Dog Owners Fail to Comply with Some Responsible Ownership Practices? Anthrozoos, 23(2), 143-155. doi:10.2752/175303710x12682332909972 Rollin, B. (2006). An introduction to veterinary medical ethics theory and cases (2nd ed.). Ames, Iowa: Blackwell Pub. Rollin, B. (2011). Euthanasia, moral stress, and chronic illness in veterinary medicine. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 41(3), 651-659. doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2011.03.005 226
Rowan, A. N., & Williams, J. (1987). The Success of Companion Animal Management Programs: A Review. Anthrozoos, 1(2), 110-122. doi:10.2752/089279388787058623 RSPCA Victoria. (2016). Adoption fees. Retrieved from http://rspcavic.org/adoption/adoption-fees Sanders, C. (1993). Understanding dogs: caretakers' attributions of mindedness in canine-human relationships. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 22(2), 205. Sanders, C. (1994). Annoying owners: Routine interactions with problematic clients in a general veterinary practice. Qualitative Sociology, 17(2), 159170. doi:10.1007/bf02393499 Sanders, C. (2003). Actions speak louder than words: Close relationships between humans and nonhuman animals. Symbolic Interaction, 26(3), 405-426. doi:10.1525/si.2003.26.3.405 Sandøe, P., & Christiansen, S. B. (2007). The value of animal life: how should we balance quality against quantity? Animal Welfare, 16(2), 109-115. Sandøe, P., & Christiansen, S. B. (2008). Ethics of animal use. Oxford: Blackwell. Sandøe, P., Corr, S., & Palmer, C. (2013). Companion animal ethics. Luentokokoelma, 2013, 35-38. Sandøe, P., Corr, S., & Palmer, C. (2016). Companion animal ethics. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons. Sanjek, R. (2000). Keeping ethnography alive in an urbanizing world. Human Organization, 59(3), 280-288. Santiwattanatarm, T. (1999). Factors affecting the decision-making for neutering pets of dog owners in Bangkok. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 25th annual conference of the Thai veterinary medical association. Saving man's best friend from the butchers. (2012, December 4). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Savvides, N. (2013). Living with Dogs: Alternative Animal Practices in Bangkok, Thailand. Animal Studies Journal, 2(2), 28-50. Savvides, N. (2014). Towards ethical tourism: volunteering with animals in hybrid ecologies. (PhD), University of Sydney. 227
Scheme to poison stray dogs a sin, says Krisda. (1996, February 2). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Schlieter, J. (2014). Endure, Adapt, or Overcome? The Concept of “Suffering” in Buddhist Bioethics. In R. M. Green & N. J. Palpant (Eds.), Suffering and Bioethics. New York: Oxford University Press. Schmidt, K. (2011). Concepts of Animal Welfare in Relation to Positions in Animal Ethics. Acta Biotheoretica, 59(2), 153-171. doi:10.1007/s10441011-9128-y Selby, L. A., Rhoades, J. D., Hewett, J. E., & Irvin, J. A. (1979). Survey of attitudes toward responsible pet ownership. Public Health Reports, 94(4), 380-386. Serpell, J. (1987). Pet-Keeping in Non-Western Societies: Some Popular Misconceptions. Anthrozoos, 1(3), 166-174. Serpell, J. (1989). Pet-keeping and animal domestication: A reappraisal. In J. Clutton-Brock (Ed.), The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastorialism and Predation (pp. 10-21). London: Unwin Hyman. Serpell, J. (1995). From paragon to pariah: some reflections on human attitudes to dogs. In J. Serpell (Ed.), The domestic dog: Its evolution, behaviour and interactions with people (pp. 245-256). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Serpell, J. (1996). In the Company of Animals: a study of human-animal relationships (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Serpell, J. (2004). Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare. Animal Welfare, 13, 145-151. Serpell, J. (2005). Animals and religion: towards a unifying theory. In F. de Jonge & R. van den Bos (Eds.), The human-animal relationship: forever and a day. Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum. Serpell, J., & Paul, E. (1994). Pets and the Development of Positive Attitudes to Animals. In J. A. Serpell & A. Manning (Eds.), Animals and Human Society: Changing Perspectives (pp. 127-144). New York: Routledge. Shamu Quarterly - the magazine. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.shamuquarterly.com/Magazine.html Shanklin, E. (1985). Sustenance and symbol: Anthropological studies of domesticated animals. Annual Review of Anthropology, 14, 375-403. 228
Shir-Vertesh, D. (2012). “Flexible Personhood”: Loving Animals as Family Members in Israel. American Anthropologist, 114(3), 420-432. doi:10.1111/j.1548-1433.2012.01443.x Shopkeeper's death sparks puppy hunt. (2010, February 20). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Siang khruan chak phukha phit trong nai? [Dog meat proponents ask what's wrong with eating dog?]. (2011, August 19). MThai News. Retrieved from http://news.mthai.com/webmaster-talk/127515.html Singer, P. (2000). Writings on an Ethical Life. New York: Ecco Press. Singer, P. (2002). Animal Liberation (1st Ecco paperback ed.). New York: Ecco Press. Singh, S. (2010). Appetites and aspirations: Consuming wildlife in Laos. The Australian Journal of Anthropology, 21(3), 315-331. doi:10.1111/j.17576547.2010.00099.x Slater, M. (2007). The Welfare Of Feral Cats. In I. Rochlitz (Ed.), The Welfare of Cats (pp. 141-175). Netherlands: Springer Soi Dog Foundation. (2015a, March 23). Flight volunteer wanted! Facebook status update Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/SoiDogPageInEnglish/posts/87071241963716 1 Soi Dog Foundation. (2015b, January 17). Ricky Gervais isn’t easily offended. Facebook status update Retrieved from https://www.facebook.com/SoiDogPageInEnglish/posts/83672466303593 7 Soi Dog Foundation. (n.d.-a). About Soi Dog. Retrieved from http://www.soidog.org/en/about-soi-dog/ Soi Dog Foundation. (n.d.-b). Frequently Asked Questions about Adoptions... Retrieved from www.soidog.org/en/adoptions/frequently-asked-questions/ Soi Dog Foundation. (n.d.-c). How to Adopt a Soi Dog. Retrieved from www.soidog.org/en/adoptions/dog-adoption-costs/ Soi Dog Foundation. (n.d.-d). Meet Hermione: Rescued from the barbaric dog meat trade but where to now? Retrieved from www.soidog.org/en/hermione/
229
Soi Dog Foundation. (n.d.-e). Meet Lenon... www.soidog.org/en/adoptions/lenon/
Retrieved from
Soi Dog Foundation. (n.d.-f). Meet See Nin. Retrieved from www.soidog.org/en/adoptions/seenin/ Soldiers Raid Home of Celebrity Cat 'Johny'. (2014, May 23). Khao Sod. Retrieved from https://www.khaosod.co.th/view_newsonline.php?newsid=TVRRd01EZz FNekk1TWc9PQ==§ionid Sonntag, Q., & Overall, K. L. (2014). Key determinants of dog and cat welfare: Behaviour, breeding and household lifestyle. OIE Revue Scientifique et Technique, 33(1), 213-220. doi:10.1136/vr.d4967 Sparkes, A. H., Bessant, C., Cope, K., Ellis, S. L. H., Finka, L., Halls, V., . . . Yeates, J. (2013). ISFM Guidelines on Population Management and Welfare of Unowned Domestic Cats (Felis catus). Journal of Feline Medicine and Surgery, 15(9), 811-817. doi:10.1177/1098612x13500431 Sparkes, J., McLeod, S., Ballard, G., Fleming, P. J., Kortner, G., & Brown, W. Y. (2016). Rabies disease dynamics in naive dog populations in Australia. Preventive Veterinary Medicine, 131, 127-136. doi:10.1016/j.prevetmed.2016.07.015 Sriaroon, C., Sriaroon, P., Daviratanasilpa, S., Khawplod, P., & Wilde, H. (2006). Retrospective: Animal attacks and rabies exposures in Thai children. Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, 4(5), 270-274. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2005.06.001 Srinivasan, K. (2013). The biopolitics of animal being and welfare: dog control and care in the UK and India. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 38(1), 106-119. doi:10.1111/j.1475-5661.2012.00501.x Srinivasan, K. (2015). The welfare episteme: street dog biopolitics in the Anthropocene. In Human Animal Research Network Editorial Collective (Ed.), Animals in the Anthropocene: critical perspectives on non-human futures (pp. 201-220). Sydney: Sydney University Press. Stray dog population 'out of control'. (2015, August 10). Bangkok Post. Retrieved from http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/650648/ Sukrungruang, I. (2013). Temple Dogs. Pithead Chapel, 2(12). Retrieved from https://pitheadchapel.com/temple-dogs/ Suksamran, N., & Thepthong, A. (2012, January 21). Serving a dish of man's best friend. Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. 230
Sunderland window cleaners honoured for their work helping dogs in Thailand. (2015, July 6). Sunderland Echo. Retrieved from www.sunderlandecho.com/news/local/all-news/sunderland-windowcleaners-honoured-for-their-work-helping-dogs-in-thailand-1-7343473 Surarat, N. (2006, December 17). Tongdaeng progeny put through paces. The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. Swabe, J. (1999). Animals, Disease and Human Society: Human-animal Relations and the Rise of Veterinary Medicine: Routledge. Swabe, J. (2000). Veterinary Dilemmas: ambiguity ambivalence in human-animal interaction. In A. L. Podberscek, E. S. Paul, & J. A. Serpell (Eds.), Companion Aniamls and Us. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Swabe, J. (2005). Loved to Death? Veterinary Visions of Pet-keeping in Modern Dutch Society. In J. Knight (Ed.), Animals in person: cultural perspectives on human-animal intimacy. Oxford: Berg. Swabe, J., Rutgers, B., & Noordhuizen-Stassen. (2005). Cultural Attitudes Towards Killing Animals. In F. de Jonge & R. van den Bos (Eds.), The human-animal relationship: forever and a day. Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum. Sztybel, D. (2009). Animal Welfare and Animal Rights, A Comparison. In M. Bekoff (Ed.), Encyclopedia of animal rights and animal welfare (2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, Calif.: Greenwood Press. Tambiah, S. J. (1969). Animals Are Good to Think and Good to Prohibit. Ethnology, 8(4), 423-459. doi:10.2307/3772910 Tambiah, S. J. (1970). Buddhism and the Spirit Cults in North-East Thailand. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tavory, I., & Timmermans, S. (2014). Abductive analysis: theorizing qualitative research. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Taylor, N. (2013). Humans, Animals, and Society: An Introduction to HumanAnimal Studies. New York, USA: Lantern Books. Tenzin, T., & Ward, M. P. (2012). Review of Rabies Epidemiology and Control in South, South East and East Asia: Past, Present and Prospects for Elimination. Zoonoses and Public Health, 59(7), 451-467. doi:10.1111/j.1863-2378.2012.01489.x Terwiel, B. J. (2012). Monks and Magic: Revisiting a Classic Study of Religious 231
Ceremonies in Thailand. Copenhagen: NIAS Press. Thai animal protection group protests German's killing of dog. (2012, December 21). The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/aec/30196574 Thai king's favourite dog dies, days after man arrested for insulting her. (2015, December 29). The Telegraph. Retrieved from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/thailand/12072271/Thai -kings-favourite-dog-dies-days-after-man-arrested-for-insulting-her.html Thalang, J. N. (2015, July 4). Adding bite to the fight against a brutal trade. Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. The South‐East Asia Rabies Strategy. (2013). The South-East Asia dog rabies elimination strategy. Retrieved from http://www.rrasia.oie.int/fileadmin/SRR_Activities/SEA_Rabies_Strategy__OIE_Final_Draft.pdf The World Bank. (2016, September). Thailand: Overview. Retrieved from http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/thailand/overview Thomas, A., Rajesh, E. K., & Kumar, D. S. (2016). The Significance of Tinospora crispa in Treatment of Diabetes Mellitus. Phytotherapy Research, 30(3), 357-366. doi:10.1002/ptr.5559 Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England 1500-1800. London: Allen Lane. Thongcharoen, P., Charoenrath, M., Panpatana, P., & Wasi, C. (1972). Rabid dogs in Bangkok--Thonburi. A preliminary study. Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand, 55(9), 537-542. Thurston, M. (1996). The lost history of the canine race: our 15,000-year love affair with dogs. Kansas City, Mo: Andrews and McMeel. Tipnumpa, J. (2014, September 25). Pata Zoo fights efforts to move Bua Noi. The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from http://www.nationmultimedia.com/news/national/aec/30244055 Tissot, S. (2011). Of Dogs and Men: The Making of Spatial Boundaries in a Gentrifying Neighborhood. City & Community, 10(3), 265-284. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6040.2011.01377.x Torres, B. (2007). Making a killing: the political economy of animal rights. Oakland, CA: AK Press. 232
Toukhsati, S., Bennett, P., & Coleman, G. (2007). Behaviors and Attitudes towards Semi-Owned Cats. Anthrozoos, 20(2), 131-142. doi:10.2752/175303707x207927 Toukhsati, S., Phillips, C., Podberscek, A., & Coleman, G. (2012). SemiOwnership and Sterilisation of Cats and Dogs in Thailand. Animals, 2(4), 611. Toukhsati, S., Phillips, C., Podberscek, A., & Coleman, G. (2015). Companion Animals in Thailand: Human Factors that Predict Sterilization of Cats and Dogs. Society & Animals. doi:10.1163/15685306-12341381 Tuan, Y.-F. (1984). Dominance and Affection: The Making of Pets: Yale University Press. United Nations Thailand. (2017). Economy. Retrieved from http://www.un.or.th/services/socio-economic-situation/ Ussavasodhi, S. (2009, October 13). BMA convenes with related sectors to curb stray dogs. National News Bureau of Thailand. Retrieved from http://202.47.224.92/en/news.php?id=255210130038 van't Hooft, K., & Millar, D. (2005). Cross cultural aspects of human-livestock relationships. In F. de Jonge & R. van den Bos (Eds.), The human-animal relationship: forever and a day. Assen, Netherlands: Royal Van Gorcum. Voith, V. L. (2009). The Impact of Companion Animal Problems on Society and the Role of Veterinarians. Veterinary Clinics of North America: Small Animal Practice, 39(2), 327-345. doi:10.1016/j.cvsm.2008.10.014 Walker, A. (2012). Thailand's Political Peasants Power in the Modern Rural Economy. Madison USA: University of Wisconsin Press. Walsh, F. (2009). Human-Animal Bonds I: The Relational Significance of Companion Animals. Family Process, 48(4), 462-480. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.2009.01296.x Wan, M., Kubinyi, E., Miklósi, Á., & Champagne, F. (2009). A cross-cultural comparison of reports by German Shepherd owners in Hungary and the United States of America. Applied Animal Behaviour Science, 121(3-4), 206-213. doi:10.1016/j.applanim.2009.09.015 Wancharoen, S. (2010, March 6). Pet dogs pose bigger virus risk than strays. Bangkok Post. Retrieved from Factiva database. Wancharoen, S. (2015, May 9). A dog's lament: give me shelter. Bangkok Post. 233
Retrieved from http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/556007/ Wandeler, A. I., Bingham, J., & Meslin, F. X. (2013). Dogs and Rabies. In C. N. L. Macpherson, F. X. Meslin, & A. I. Wandeler (Eds.), Dogs, zoonoses, and public health (2nd ed.). Oxfordshire: CABI. Warren, W., Amranand, P., & Lair, R. (1998). The elephant in Thai life & legend (1st ed.). Bangkok: Monsoon Editions,. Wemelsfelder, F. (2007). How animals communicate quality of life: the qualitative assessment of behaviour. Animal Welfare, 16(2), 25-31. Weng, H.-Y., Kass, P. H., Hart, L. A., & Chomel, B. B. (2006). Animal Protection Measures in Taiwan: Taiwanese Attitudes Toward the Animal Protection Law and Animal Shelters. Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science, 9(4), 315 - 326. Wetgama, N., & Somsin, B. (2002, June 8). Dog meat off the menu for mobile Cabinet meeting. The Nation (Thailand). Retrieved from Factiva database. Whittaker, M. (2015). The role of social sciences in One Health: reciprocal benefits. In J. Zinsstag, E. Schelling, D. Waltner-Toews, M. Whittaker, & M. Tanner (Eds.), One Health: the theory and practice of integrated health approaches (pp. 60-72). Wallingford, UK: CABI International. Williams, E., & DeMello, M. (2007). Why animals matter: the case for animal protection. Amherst, N.Y.: Prometheus Books. Wilson, A. (2004). The intimate economies of Bangkok: tomboys, tycoons, and Avon ladies in the global city. Berkeley: University of California Press. Wilson, T. (2010). Whales Apart: Tensions in Japan-Australia relations. The Asialink Essays, 2(1). Winn, P. (2010, May 31). The Dog Meat Mafia. Global Post. Retrieved from http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/thailand/091123/eating-dogs-dogmeat-mafia-capture Wolch, J. R., & Emel, J. (1998). Animal geographies: place, politics, and identity in the nature-culture borderlands. London: Verso. Wong-Anan, N. (2008, March 26). Thai temples flooded with pets after viral outbreak. Reuters. Retrieved from www.reuters.com/article/us-thailandtemples-idUSBKK7127420080326 Wood, L. J., Giles-Corti, B., Bulsara, M. K., & Bosch, D. A. (2007). More than a 234
furry companion: The ripple effect of companion animals on neighborhood interactions and sense of community. Society & Animals, 15(1), 43-56. doi:10.1163/156853007x169333 World Animal Protection. (2015). Elephants are wildlife. Not entertainers. [Press release]. Retrieved from https://www.worldanimalprotection.org/news/elephants-are-wildlife-notentertainers World Health Organization [WHO]. (2016). Rabies (Fact sheet No. 99). Retrieved from http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs099/en/ World Organisation for Animal Health [OIE]. (2016). Terrestrial Animal Health Code (20th ed.). Paris: World Organisation for Animal Health. Zhang, Y. Z., Fu, Z. F., Wang, D. M., Zhou, J. Z., Wang, Z. X., Lv, T. F., . . . Rupprecht, C. E. (2008). Investigation of the role of healthy dogs as potential carriers of rabies virus. Vector-Borne and Zoonotic Diseases, 8(3), 313-319. doi:10.1089/vbz.2007.0209 Zicker, S. C. (2008). Evaluating pet foods: how confident are you when you recommend a commercial pet food? Top Companion Anim Med, 23(3), 121-126. doi:10.1053/j.tcam.2008.04.003
235
APPENDICES Appendix I: Information and consent forms – English
Explanatory Statement for open-ended interviews and observations The Meaning of Cat and Dog Ownership in Thailand My name is Megan McCarthy and I am conducting a research project with Professor Lenore Manderson and Dr Samia Toukhsati from the School of Psychology and Psychiatry towards a PhD at Monash University in Australia. This means that I will be writing a thesis which is the equivalent of a 300 page book. You are invited to take part in this study. Please read this Explanatory Statement in full before making a decision. I am interested in factors that influence attitudes and behaviours towards cat and dog ownership in Thailand. Our interview will provide information about your views and experiences with cats and dogs, to help me understand the importance of these animals in Thailand. The interview will involve a discussion of your thoughts, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours towards cat and dog ownership. You have been invited to attend an interview because your knowledge is important in expanding our understanding of pet ownership. We hope that the findings from this research will extend our understanding of pet ownership. We hope too that the findings will be used to inform interventions and education programs to assist in improving companion animal welfare and public health outcomes. The study involves an individual or group interview, both of which will be audiotaped. The interview may take anything from 30 minutes to 1.5 hours to complete, but it is up to you to determine how long you would like to talk. The interviews will take place at a time and location convenient for both you and the researcher. We do not want you to experience any inconvenience or discomfort of any kind during the interview. Refreshments will be provided in recognition of your valuable contribution.
236
In addition, I would like your permission to observe your work with cats and dogs, to learn more about the activities you engage in and your role. You can choose how often I observe and for how long. Of course, you can choose to take part only in the interviews, and to not be involved in the observation component of the study. Participation in this study is voluntary and you are under no obligation to consent to participate. You may discontinue participation at any time, however, once you begin participation, it will not be possible to extract your information should you choose to withdraw. We do not require personal contact details. Data will not identify any individual and no findings which could identify any individual participant will be published. Data will be stored for at least five years according to university regulations, and only the research team will have access to these records. Paper information will be disposed of in a security disposal bag, and electronic information will be deleted from hard disks. If you would like to be informed of the aggregate research finding, please contact Megan McCarthy at
[email protected]. The findings are accessible for 12 months. If you would like to contact the researchers about any aspect of this study, please contact the Chief Investigator, Professor Lenore Manderson on phone: +61 3 990 34047, fax: + 61 3 990 32501 or email:
[email protected] Should you have any complaint concerning the manner in which research is conducted, please do not hesitate to contact Associate Professor Sumolya Kanchanapangka by phone: 02 2189693, email:
[email protected], or by post at Faculty of Veterinary Science, Chulalongkorn University, Henri-Dunant Rd., Pathumwan , Bangkok 10330.
Thank you.
Megan McCarthy
237
Consent Form for open-ended interviews and observation Title: The Meaning of Cat and Dog Ownership in Thailand NOTE: This consent form will remain with the Monash University researcher for their records
I agree to take part in the Monash University research project specified above. I have had the project explained to me, and I have read the Explanatory Statement, which I keep for my records. I understand that agreeing to take part means that: I agree to participate in an interview
Yes
No
I agree to allow the interview to be audio-taped
Yes
No
I agree to make myself available for a further interview if required Yes
No
I agree for the researcher to observe my work with cats and dogs Yes
No
and I understand that my participation is voluntary, that I can choose not to participate in part or all of the interview, and that I can withdraw at any stage of the project without being penalised or disadvantaged in any way. and I understand that any data that the researcher extracts from the interview for use in reports or published findings will not, under any circumstances, contain names or identifying characteristics. and I understand that any information I provide is confidential, and that no information that could lead to the identification of any individual will be disclosed in any reports on the project, or to any other party. and I understand that data from the interview will be kept in a secure storage and accessible to the research team. I also understand that the data will be destroyed after a 5 year period unless I consent to it being used in future research. Participant’s name Signature Date 238
Appendix II: Information and consent forms – Thai ้ ่ ารวจ คาแถลงชีแจงส าหรบั การสัมภาษณ์แบบปลายเปิ ดและเพือส ความหมายของการเป็นเจ้าของแมวและสุนข ั ในประเทศไทย ่ ้ ฉันเป็ นผู ้ดาเนิ นโครงการวิจยั กับ ศาสตราจารย ์เลอนอร ์ ดิฉันชือเมแกน แม็คคาร ์ธีย ์ ขณะนี ดิ แมนเดอสัน ดร.ซาเมีย ทุกซาที จากคณะจิตวิทยาและจิตเวช แผนกปริญญาเอก ่ ฉันกาลังเขียนวิทยานิ พนธ ์ ความยาว 300 มหาวิทยาลัยโมนาช ในประเทศออสเตรเลีย ซึงดิ ้ หน้าหนังสือ และคุณเป็ นผูไ้ ด ้รับเชิญให้เป็ นผูม้ ส ี ว่ นร่วมในวิจยั นี ้ กรุณาอ่านคาชีแจงฉบั บนี ้ ให้ครบถ ้วนก่อนตัดสินใจ ่ ่ อท ่ ต่อแมว ดิฉันมีความสนใจในประเด็นเกียวกั บปัจจัยทีมี ิ ธิพลต่อทัศนคติและพฤติกรรมทีมี ้ ่ และสุนัขในประเทศไทย การสัมภาษณ์นีจะให ข ้ ้อมูลความคิดเห็นและประสบการณ์เกียวกั บ ่ จะช่ ่ วยให ้ดิฉันเข ้าใจถึงความสาคัญของสัตว ์ดังกล่าวในประเทศไทย แมวและสุนัข เพือที ่ ่ ตอ ในการสัมภาษณ์จะมีการสนทนาเกียวกั บความคิด ความเชือ่ ทัศนคติ และพฤติกรรมทีมี ่ ้ นัขและแมว เนื่ องจากคุณเป็ นผูม้ ค ่ ความสาคัญทีจะท ่ าใหพ การเลียงสุ ี วามรู ้ทีมี ้ วกเราเข ้าใจ ่ ้ ตว ์เลียงได ้ ่ิ น้ คุณจึงเป็ นผูไ้ ด ้ร ับเชิญเข ้าร่วมการสัมภาษณ์นี ้ เรืองการเลี ยงสั ้ดียงขึ ่ าสิงที ่ ได ่ ้รบั จากการวิจยั นี จะช่ ้ วยเพิมความเข ่ ่ ้ พวกเราหวังเป็ นอย่างยิงว่ ้าใจในเรืองการเลี ยง ้ และหวังอีกด ้วยว่าการค ้นพบต่างๆจะก่อใหเ้ กิดมาตรการต่างๆและระบบการศึกษาที่ สัตว ์เลียง ้ ช่วยปรบั ปรุงงานสังคมสงเคราะห ์แก่สต ั ว ์เลียงและผลลั พธ ์ทางด ้านสาธารณสุข ้ นการสัมภาษณ์เดียวหรื ่ ่ งสองกรณี ้ การวิจยั นี เป็ อกลุม ่ ซึงทั จะมีการบันทึกเสียง ใช ้เวลา ่ ่ ้ ่ าหนด ประมาณ 30 นาที – 1ชัวโมง 30 นาทีกระทังเสร็ จสิน้ แต่ย่อมขึนอยู ก ่ บั ตัวคุณทีจะก ความยาวในการสัมภาษณ์ ว่าต ้องการให้สม ั ภาษณ์มากน้อยเพียงใด การสัมภาษณ์จะจัดขึน้ ่ สะดวกทั ่ ้ าหรบั ตัวคุณและผูท้ าการสัมภาษณ์ ตามเวลาและสถานทีที งส ้ เรามิ ้ ทังนี ต ้องการใหค้ ณ ุ ได ้รบั ความไม่สะดวกใดๆในระหว่างการสัมภาษณ์ โดยจะมีการจัด ่ มไว ่ เครืองดื ้ใหแ้ ก่ผเู ้ ข ้ารบั การสัมภาษณ์ทให ี่ ้การสนับสนุ นเป็ นอย่างดี ้ ดิ ้ ฉันอยากจะขออนุ ญาตในการสังเกตการทางานของคุณกับแมวและสุนัขเพือเรี ่ ยนรู ้ ทังนี 239
่ มเกียวกั ่ ่ ณมีสว่ นร่วมและบทบาทของคุณ คุณสามารถกาหนดไดว้ า่ จะให้ เพิมเติ บกิจกรรมทีคุ ่ ดิฉันสังเกตการณ์บ่อยแค่ไหนและนานเท่าไหร่ และแน่ นอนว่า คุณสามารถเลือกทีจะเป็ น ่ เพียงส่วนหนึ่ งในการสัมภาษณ์และไม่เกียวข ้องกับการสังเกตการณ์ของการศึกษาวิจยั นี ้ ้ นการโดยอาสาสมัครและไม่มก การเข ้าร่วมในการวิจยั นี เป็ ี ารบังคับในการใหค้ วามยินยอม ่ เข ้าร่วม คุณสามารถถอนตัวจากการเข ้าร่วมได ้ตลอดเวลา อย่างไรก็ตามหากเลือกทีจะถอน ่ งข ้อมูลเกียวกั ่ ตัว ก็จะไม่สามารถทีจะดึ บตัวคุณออกมาได ้ เราไม่ต ้องการข ้อมูลการติดต่อส่วนบุคคล ข ้อมูลต่างๆจะไม่มก ี ารระบุถงึ ตัวบุคคลและจะไม่มี ่ ผลการวิจยั ใดๆทีสามารถระบุ ได ้ถึงตัวผูเ้ ข ้าร่วมถูกนาไปเผยแพร่ข ้อมูลจะถูกเก็บไว ้เป็ นอย่าง ่ น้อง 5 ปี ตามระเบียบของมหาวิทยาลัย และจะมีแต่กลุม ่ วิจยั เท่านั้นทีจะสามารถเข ้าถึงบันทึก ข ้อมูลดังกล่าว ข ้อมูลเอกสารจะถูกกาจัดในถุงทาลายเอกสาร และข ้อมูลทางอิเล็กทรอนิ กส ์ ้ จะถูกลบทิงจากฮาร ์ดดิสก ์ ่ หากคุณต ้องการทราบผลการวิจยั ทีรวบรวมไว ้ คุณสามารถติดต่อ เมแกน แม็คคาร ์ธีย ์ ทาง
[email protected] ภายในระยะเวลา 12 เดือน ่ าการศึกษา กรุณาติดต่อหัวหน้าฝ่ าย หากคุณต ้องการติดต่อผู ้ทาการวิจยั ในด ้านต่างๆทีท วิจยั ศาสตราจารย ์เลอนอร ์แมนเดอสันโทร: 61399034047+ แฟ็ กซ ์+61399032501 หรือ ่ ยวกั ่ email:
[email protected] หากคุณมีข ้อร ้องเรียนใดๆทีเกี บการ ดาเนิ นการวิจยั นี ้ กรุณาติดต่อ ศาสตราจารย ์สุมลยา กาญจนพังคะ โทร: 02 2189693, email:
[email protected], หรือส่งจดหมายไดท้ ี่ คณะสัตวแพทย ์ศาสตร ์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย ถนนอังรีดน ู ัง เขตปทุมวัน กรุงเทพมหานคร 10300. ขอบคุณ เมแกน แม็คคาร ์ธีย ์
240
แบบใหค้ วามยินยอมสาหรบั การให้สม ั ภาษณ์ปลายเปิ ด
หัวข ้อ: ความหมายของการเป็ นเจ ้าของแมวและสุนัขในประเทศไทย ้ หมายเหตุ: แบบให้ความยินยอมนี จะถู กเก็บไว้เป็นบันทึกโดยผู ท ้ าการวิจยั มหาวิทยาลัยโมนาช ่ สว่ นร่วมในโครงการวิจยั ของมหาวิทยาลัยโมนาช ตามทีระบุ ่ ไว ้ข ้างต ้น ข ้าพเจ ้ายินยอมทีจะมี ้ ข ้าพเจ ้าได ้ร ับการอธิบายถึงโครงการดังกล่าวและได ้อ่านแถลงคาชีแจงแล ้ว โดยได ้เก็บเป็ น ่ สว่ นร่วม หมายถึง: บันทึกไว ้ด ้วย ข ้าพเจ ้าเข ้าใจว่าการยินยอมทีจะมี ่ ข้าพเจ้ายินยอมทีจะเข้ าร่วมการสัมภาษณ์
ใช่
ไม่ใช่
ใช่
ไม่ใช่
ข้าพเจ้ายินยอมให้มก ี ารบันทึกเสียงการสัมภาษณ์นี้
่ ข้าพเจ้าพร ้อมจะให้ความร่วมมือหากมีความจาเป็นต้องมีการสัมภาษณ์เพิมเติ ม ใช่
ไม่ใช่
ข้าพเจ้ายินยอมให้นก ั วิจยั เข้ามาสังเกตการทางานของข้าพเจ้ากับแมวและสุนข ั ใช่
ไม่ใช่
และ ้ นการอาสาสมัครทีสามารถเลื ่ ่ ข ้าพเจ ้ารบั ทราบว่าการมีสว่ นร่วมของข ้าพเจ ้านี เป็ อกทีจะไม่ ่ เข ้าร่วมในส่วนใดส่วนหนึ่ งของการสัมภาษณ์และข ้าพเจ ้าสามารถถอนตัวได ้ทุกเมือของ โครงการโดยปราศจากโทษหรือข ้อเสียเปรียบไม่วา่ ในทางใดๆ และ ่ ท้ าการวิจยั ได ้คัดลอกจากการสัมภาษณ์เพือใช ่ ข ้าพเจ ้ารบั ทราบว่าข ้อมูลใดๆทีผู ้ในการ ่ ้ ้ รายงานหรือตีพม ิ พ ์ จะไม่มก ี ารระบุตวั หรือชือผูใ้ หส้ ม ั ภาษณ์ไม่วา่ ในกรณี ใดทังสิน และ ่ ้าพเจ ้าได ้ใหไ้ ปนั้นจะถูกเก็บเป็ นข ้อมูลปกปิ ด และข ้อมูล ข ้าพเจ ้ารบั ทราบว่าข ้อมูลต่างๆทีข ่ ใดทีสามารถระบุ ถงึ ตัวบุคคลจะไม่ถก ู เปิ ดเผยในรายงานใดๆของโครงการวิจยั หรือต่อฝ่ าย ่ ใดๆ และจะไม่มก ี ารเปิ ดเผยข ้อมูลทีสามารถระบุ ถงึ ตัวบุคคลในรายงานใดๆของ โครงการวิจยั หรือต่อบุคคลหรือหน่ วยงาน ใดๆ และ ข ้าพเจ ้ารับทราบว่าฐานข ้อมูลจากการสัมภาษณ์จะถูกเก็บรกั ษาอย่างปลอดภัยและเฉพาะ ่ ้ ้าพเจ ้าร ับทราบว่าฐานข ้อมูล ทีมงานผูท้ าวิจยั เท่านั้นทีจะเข ้าถึงข ้อมูลดังกล่าวได ้ อีกทังข 241
ดังกล่าวจะถูกทาลายหลังจากระยะเวลา 5 ปี หากข ้าพเจ ้ามิได ้ให้ความยินยอมในการใช ้ ข ้อมูลดังกล่าวอีกในการวิจยั ในอนาคต ่ ้เข ้าร่วม ชือผู ลงชือ่ วันที่
242
Appendix III: Interview guide for veterinarians – English
Background
• • • •
Why did you become a vet? (Probe: did you have much experience with animals growing up?) Where did you study and when did you qualify as a vet? Where was your first job as a vet? Have you always practiced in Thailand? Bangkok? Have you always worked with small animals? Have you done any post-graduate study? How do you keep your knowledge up-to-date? Do you do professional development courses? Do you have a special area of interest in vet medicine?
Interaction with clients • • • • • • • • •
Where do you work now? What animals do you predominantly work with? When someone brings their cat or dog to you for the first time what do you do? Explain the consult to me. (Probe: do you discuss: sterilisation; vaccination; feeding; confinement; worming?) Do you think this is a common format for initial consultations for other vets working in small animal practice in Thailand? Why/why not? Do you regularly perform and recommend sterilisation of cats and dogs? Why/why not? What do you do if a client does not want to take your advice? Do you discuss potential animal behaviour issues with clients? If someone brings a cat or dog to you for a specific reason (for example, an injury) do you take the opportunity to ask about other aspects of the animal’s care? (For example: vaccination; diet; worming; behaviour?) Do you give clients any written information regarding care for their animal to take home? Are clients concerned about the cost of treatment? What do you do when you think an owner may not be able to afford treatment?
Disease and injury • • •
What are the most common concerns you see with cats and dogs? How do you protect yourself from bites and scratches (injury)? Does disease transmission concern you? What zoonotic diseases concern you? Does it impact your handling of an animal? Does rabies concern you? Have you ever seen a rabies case? Tell me about it. What advice do you give to owners if you suspect rabies?
Responsible Pet Ownership and Animal Welfare
243
•
•
•
What does responsible pet ownership mean to you? What behaviours do you associate with being a responsible pet owner? Do you promote these behaviours to your clients? What benefits do you see if people engage more in these behaviours? What does good cat and dog welfare mean to you? Did you learn about animal welfare in your training? Have your perceptions and knowledge of animal welfare changed over time? Do you think that principles of animal welfare guide your practice with cats and dogs? Have attitudes changed over the course of your career with regard to certain practices? Can you give me some examples? How have attitudes changed over time with regard to the keeping of cats and dogs as pets?
Stray cats and dogs, and advocacy organisations • • • •
Do you treat stray cats and dogs? Why/why not? If so, who pays for their treatment? Where does the animal go after treatment? Do you offer your services to cat and dog welfare/rescue organisations? What assistance do you offer? Do you offer vet care at a reduced price? What do you think about organisations that offer rescue and spay/neuter services for cats and dogs? Do you think there is a need for their work with dogs? What about cats? Are animals ever abandoned at your clinic? If so, how do you deal with it?
End of Life Care •
•
• • • •
What type of care do you offer if an animal is near the end of its life? What advice do you give to owners about dealing with the end of a cat’s or dog’s life? What do you say when you believe that the animal may soon die? Do you perform euthanasia? If so, under what circumstances do you consider it? Are there some clients you would never recommend euthanasia to? (If you don’t perform euthanasia) have you ever witnessed it? Are there any circumstances in which you have considered it? What do you do if a client requests euthanasia? How do you deal with a client if you don’t agree with their decision regarding euthanasia? Have you ever had a client request euthanasia for their cat/dog for nonmedical reasons (i.e. for a healthy animal)? Are there official guidelines for vets on euthanasia? What about end of life care generally? If so, how did you learn about them? What are your duties and obligations at the end of an animal’s life?
I would like to summarise what we have talked about... Do you have anything you would like to add? Do you have any questions?
244
Appendix IV: Interview guide for veterinarians – Thai
บริ บททัว่ ไป • สนใจที่จะทราบประสบการณ์และมุมมองของคุณเกี่ยวกับการเป็ นเจ้าของและการเลี้ยงดู แมวและสุ นขั ในฐานะที่คุณเป็ นสัตวแพทย์ (ซึ่ งก็คือเป้าหมายของการศึกษาครั้งนี้) • การมีส่วนร่ วมของคุณจะเอื้อประโยชน์แก่โครงการนี้และจะช่วยให้เราสามารถเข้าใจ ความสัมพันธ์ระหว่างคนและสัตว์ในประเทศไทยได้ดียิ่งขึ้น • ข้อมูลที่คุณให้จะถูกเก็บไว้เป็ นความลับ และจะไม่มีการนาข้อมูลที่ทาให้ระบุตวั บุคคลได้ ไปเผยแพร่ คุณสามารถขอถอนตัวเมื่อใดก็ได้ การปฏิบตั ิตามจรรยาบรรณ • ข้อความอธิ บาย • แบบฟอร์มยินยอม • คาอนุญาตให้บนั ทึกเสี ยง/ภาพในช่วงเวลาการสัมภาษณ์ ความเป็ นมา • ทาไมคุณหมอเลือกที่จะมาเป็ นสัตวแพทย์ (คาถามเพื่อทราบข้อมูลเพิ่มเติม: คุณหมอเคยเลี้ยง สัตว์มาก่อนมั้ย) • คุณหมอเรี ยนจบจากที่ไหน และคุณหมอเรี ยนจบปี อะไร • คุณหมอเริ่ มทางานครั้งแรกที่ไหน ทางานในประเทศไทยมาตลอดใช่ม้ยั ทาในกรุ งเทพที่ เดียวหรื อเคยทาที่อื่นด้วย ปกติ คุณหมอรักษาสัตว์เล็กมาตลอดหรื อไม่ • หลังจบปริ ญญาตรี แล้วคุณหมอได้ศึกษาต่อเพิ่มเติมมั้ยคะ คุณหมอมีวิธีอพั เดทความรู ้ตวั เอง อย่างไร คุณหมอศึกษาหลักสู ตรพัฒนาอาชีพหรื อไม่ คุณหมอมีความสนใจงานเฉพาะทาง ของสัตว์แพทย์ดา้ นใดเป็ นพิเศษหรื อไม่ ปฏิสมั พันธ์กบั ลูกค้า • ตอนนี้คุณหมอทางานที่ไหน ส่ วนใหญ่แล้วคุณหมอรักษาสัตว์ชนิดใดมากที่สุด • เวลาที่มีลูกค้าพาแมวหรื อสุ นขั มาหาคุณหมอเป็ นครั้งแรก คุณหมอทาอะไรบ้าง รบกวนคุณ หมอช่วยอธิ บายวิธีการให้คาปรึ กษาของคุณหมอให้ทราบหน่อย (คาถามเพื่อทราบข้อมูล เพิ่มเติม: คุณหมอพูดคุยเกี่ยวกับการทาหมัน การฉี ดวัคซี น การให้อาหาร บริ เวณที่เลี้ยงดู สัตว์ เลี้ยงในบ้านหรื อนอกบ้าน การถ่ายพยาธิ ม้ยั คะ) • คุณหมอคิดว่านี่เป็ นรู ปแบบปกติทวั่ ไปในการให้คาปรึ กษาเบื้องต้นสาหรับสัตวแพทย์ท่าน อื่นๆที่รักษาสัตว์เล็กในประเทศไทยหรื อไม่ เพราะเหตุใดจึงใช่/เพราะเหตุใดจึงไม่ใช่ 245
• ปกติคุณหมอทาหมันหรื อแนะนาเจ้าของให้ทาหมันแมวและสุ นขั เป็ นประจามั้ย เพราะเหตุ ใด/เพราะเหตุใดจึงไม่ทาเช่นนั้น • เวลาที่ลูกค้าไม่ตอ้ งการทาตามคาแนะนาของคุณหมอ คุณหมอทายังไง • คุณหมอพูดคุยเกี่ยวกับเรื่ องพฤติกรรมที่สตั ว์อาจจะมีได้กบั ลูกค้าหรื อไม่ • ถ้ามีลูกค้านาแมวหรื อสุ นขั มาหาคุณหมอด้วยเหตุผลเฉพาะอะไรบางอย่าง (เช่น บาดเจ็บ) คุณหมอจะถามถึงการเลี้ยงดูสตั ว์น้ นั ๆในด้านอื่นๆด้วยหรื อไม่ (เช่น การฉี ดวัคซี น การให้ อาหาร การถ่ายพยาธิ พฤติกรรมของสัตว์) • คุณหมอได้เขียน หรื อให้เอกสารเกี่ยวกับข้อมูลการดูแลสัตว์เลี้ยงของตนเพื่อให้ลูกค้า นากลับบ้านหรื อไม่ • เคยมีลูกค้าที่กงั วลเรื่ องค่ารักษาพยาบาลหรื อไม่ คุณหมอทาอย่างไรเวลาที่คุณหมอคิดว่า เจ้าของสัตว์อาจไม่มีเงินพอจ่ายค่ารักษาพยาบาล โรคและการบาดเจ็บ • ปัญหาทัว่ ไปที่คุณหมอพบบ่อยที่สุดเกี่ยวกับแมวและสุ นขั คืออะไร • คุณหมอป้องกันตัวเองจากการถูกกัดหรื อถูกข่วนอย่างไร คุณหมอกังวลเรื่ องการติดโรค หรื อไม่ มีโรคติดต่อจากสัตว์โรคใดบ้างที่ทาให้คุณหมอกังวล แล้วมันมีผลต่อการดูแล รักษาสัตว์ของคุณหมอหรื อไม่ • คุณหมอกังวลเกี่ยวกับโรคพิษสุ นขั บ้าหรื อไม่ คุณหมอเคยเจอเคสที่สตั ว์เป็ นโรคพิษสุ นขั บ้า บ้างหรื อไม่ ช่วยเล่าให้ฟังหน่อย คุณหมอแนะนาเจ้าของสัตว์ว่าอย่างไรบ้าง หากคุณหมอ สงสัยว่าสัตว์เป็ นโรคพิษสุ นขั บ้า การเลี้ยงสัตว์อย่างมีความรับผิดชอบและสวัสดิภาพของสัตว์ • การเลี้ยงสัตว์อย่างมีความรับผิดชอบสาหรับคุณหมอหมายความว่าอย่างไร พฤติกรรม ใดบ้างที่สื่อถึงการเลี้ยงสัตว์อย่างมีความรับผิดชอบ คุณหมอส่ งเสริ มพฤติกรรมเหล่านี้กบั ลูกค้าหรื อไม่ คุณเห็นประโยชน์อะไรหากคนมีส่วนร่ วมในการสร้างพฤติกรรมเหล่านี้ เพิ่มขึ้น • สวัสดิภาพที่ดีของแมวและสุ นขั สาหรับคุณหมอหมายความว่าอย่างไร ตอนที่ยงั เรี ยนอยู่ หรื อตอนเทรนนิ่ งคุณหมอเคยเรี ยนเรื่ องสวัสดิภาพสัตว์หรื อไม่ มุมมองและความรู ้ดา้ น สวัสดิภาพสัตว์ของคุณหมอเปลี่ยนไปหรื อไม่เมื่อเวลาผ่านไป คุณหมอคิดว่าหลักปฏิบตั ิ ด้านสวัสดิภาพสัตว์ช่วยเป็ นแนวทางให้คุณหมอในการรักษาพยาบาลแมวและสุ นขั หรื อไม่ • ทัศนคติเกี่ยวกับการวิธีรักษาสัตว์บางอย่างของคุณหมอเปลี่ยนไปหรื อไม่เมื่อมาประกอบ วิชาชีพจริ ง • ทัศนคติที่คุณมีต่อการรักษาพยาบาลบางประการเปลี่ยนไปหรื อไม่เมื่อมาประกอบวิชาชีพ 246
จริ ง คุณพอจะยกตัวอย่างได้ไหม ทัศนคติของคุณหมอเรื่ องการเลี้ยงแมวและสุ นขั เป็ นสัตว์ เลี้ยงเปลี่ยนไปอย่างไรเมื่อเวลาผ่านไป แมวและสุ นขั จรจัดและองค์กรในการต่อสู เ้ พื่อสัตว์ • คุณหมอรักษาแมวและสุ นขั จรจัดหรื อไม่ ทาไมจึงรักษา/ทาไมจึงไม่รักษา หากรักษา ใคร เป็ นผูจ้ ่ายค่ารักษาพยาบาล สัตว์เหล่านี้ไปไหนต่อหลังการรักษาพยาบาล • คุณหมอช่วยเหลือองค์กรเพื่อสวัสดิภาพหรื อองค์กรที่ช่วยเหลือแมวและสุ นขั หรื อไม่ คุณ หมอช่วยเหลืออย่างไร คุณหมอให้บริ การรักษาสัตว์ในราคาลดพิเศษหรื อไม่ • คุณหมอคิดอย่างไรกับองค์กรที่ช่วยเหลือและทาหมัน/ตอนแมวและสุ นขั คุณหมอคิดว่างาน ของพวกเขาจาเป็ นสาหรับสุ นขั หรื อไม่ แล้วแมวล่ะ • เคยมีสตั ว์ถูกนามาทิ้งที่คลินิกของคุณหมอหรื อไม่ หากมี คุณจัดการอย่างไร การดูแลสัตว์เมื่อใกล้เสี ยชีวิต • เวลาที่สตั ว์ใกล้จะเสี ยชีวิต คุณหมอมีวิธีดูแลสัตว์ตวั นั้นอย่างไรบ้าง ได้มีการให้คาแนะนา อะไรเจ้าของสัตว์เกี่ยวกับการดูแลหรื อรับมือช่วงที่สตั ว์ใกล้เสี ยชีวิตมั้ย คุณหมอมีวิธีการพูด กับเจ้าของสัตว์อย่างไรถ้าคุณหมอเชื่อว่าสัตว์น้ นั ๆอาจเสี ยชีวิตในไม่ชา้ • คุณหมอเคยทาการุ ณยฆาตไหม หากเคย ในสถานการณ์ใดที่คุณหมอพิจารณาว่าจาเป็ นต้อง ทา มีลูกค้าบางคนที่คุณหมอจะไม่แนะนาให้ทาไหม (หากคุณไม่ใช่ผกู ้ ระทาการุ ณยฆาต เอง) คุณหมอเคยเห็นสัตวแพทย์ท่านอื่นทาไหม มีสถานการณ์ใดบ้างไหมที่คุณเคยพิจารณา ว่าจาเป็ นต้องทา • ถ้ามีลูกค้าขอให้ทาการุ ณยฆาต คุณหมอจะทาอย่างไร ถ้าคุณหมอไม่เห็นด้วยกับการ ตัดสิ นใจเรื่ องการทาการุ ณยฆาต คุณหมอมีวิธีพูดคุยหรื อจัดการกับลูกค้าอย่างไร • คุณหมอเคยมีลูกค้าที่ขอให้ทาการุ ณยฆาตแมว/สุ นขั ด้วยเหตุผลที่ไม่เกี่ยวกับทางการแพทย์ บ้างไหม (กล่าวคือ ทากับสัตว์ที่แข็งแรงดีอยู)่ • มีแนวทางที่เป็ นหลักแก่สัตวแพทย์ในการทาการุ ณยฆาตหรื อไม่ และมีแนวทางการดูแล สัตว์ในช่วงท้ายของชีวิตมั้ย ถ้ามี คุณหมอได้เรี ยนรู ้อะไรจากแนวทางเหล่านั้นบ้าง • ช่วงที่สตั ว์ใกล้จะเสี ยชีวิต คุณหมอต้องทาอะไรบ้าง ฉันอยากจะขอสรุ ปสิ่ งที่เราได้ คุยกันมาเกีย่ วกับ... คุณหมอมีอะไรอยากกล่ าวเพิม่ เติมอีกไหม คุณหมอมีคาถามอะไรจะถามไหม
247
Appendix V: Transcription table
Consonants
Vowels
Initial position
Final position
ก
k
k
ขฃคฅ ฆ
kh
k
Letter
ง จ ฉช ซ
ng ch ch s
ng t
t
ch
-
ญ
y
n
d t
t
ฐฑฒ
th
t
n
–ะ, –ัั, รร (with final), –า
a
รร (without final)
an
–ัา
am
–ัิ, –ัี
i
–ัึ, –ัื
ue
–ัุ, –ัู
u
เ–ะ, เ–ั็, เ–
e
แ–ะ, แ–
ae
โ–ะ, –, โ–, เ–าะ, –อ
o
เ–อะ, เ–ัิ, เ–อ
oe
เ–ัียะ, เ–ัีย
ia
เ–ัือะ, เ–ัือ
uea
–ััวะ, –ััว, –ว–
ua
t
ฏ
ณ
Romanisation
t
ฌ
ฎ
Letter
n
ด
d
t
ต
t
t
ใ–, ไ–, –ััย, ไ–ย, – าย
ai
ถทธ
th
t
เ–า, –าว
ao
น
n
n
–ัุย
ui
บ
b
p
โ–ย, –อย
oi
ป
p
p
เ–ย
oei
248
ผ
ph
-
เ–ัือย
ueai
ฝ
f
-
–วย
uai
พ
ph
p
–ัิว
io
ฟ
f
p
เ–ั็ว, เ–ว
eo
ภ
ph
p
แ–ั็ว, แ–ว
aeo
ม
m
m
เ–ัียว
iao
ย
y
-
ร
r
n
ฤ
rue, ri, roe
-
ฤๅ
rue
-
ล
l
n
ฦ
lue
-
ฦๅ
lue
-
ว
w
-
ศ
s
t
ษ
s
t
ส
s
t
ห
h
-
ฬ
l
n
ฮ
h
-
249
