Yesterday afternoon, they were chatting with Time FM Analía Muñoz and Miguel Osorio, “Draft Animal”. Both are protectionist volunteers, who were opining on the issue of overpopulation animal in our city.
“This is many years ago, 10 years ago that –in this town – we stop being eutanásicos, but many take it even as an option take the life of an animal and this has already been demonstrated that it is not viable. The only thing that achieved was that the dogs that were in the city to go to the periphery, creating herds of wild animals that is not already known to human and can attack it”.
Examples mentioned by the interviewee were recently in the Land of Fire – as in the case of the woman attacked by a pack of 15 dogs who received serious injuries – but also in other cities of patagonia, such as the Rio Gallegos, where you have also registered cases of bites.
And for the environmentalists, the animal sacrifice only added to the problem: “In places like Ushuaia, also practiced euthanasia for years, it was demonstrated that when something is considered a pest, not what you can eliminate by killing him, you have to approach it with a measure of ethics.”
Because in addition to “the killing of animals produces a disease in the society, because it creates an awareness of life ‘disposable’ explained Osorio. You have to remember –in addition – that the communes receive only items castrations, and other material if they are not eutanásicas.
“The principal responsible party is the State, national, provincial and municipal levels. You are all responsible because you are not giving it the importance it deserves to the theme and are not generating the tools and spaces for people -which by itself has a bad conscience formed – to stop being irresponsible”, added the interviewee.
“If you don’t generás a tool to do this, people will tend to neglect and much more if that person already feels abandoned by the State”, stressed the protectionist, who believed that “what we’re seeing now is not new, only now it has more impact because we pay all these years of neglect and political animals in the street.”
On the other hand, Analía Muñoz noted that “the problem has to do with who never took care of neutering. Since it was removed from the kennel, was never given the necessary importance, and we ended up with canine overpopulation”.
He added that it also presents a lack “of inputs, outputs, vets and the part of the officials holding positions and then voted on by the people, that today you throw the ball to the protective, when it is they who should have been neutered free of charge and sustained in time, which this would not have happened”.
“Today, people call the kennel for that ‘protective’ to take charge of the animals”, noted by both interviewees. “The Municipality always gives our phone numbers for us to make the charge of the dogs of the street and that’s a shame”.
With regard to the concept of “Responsible ownership”, the interviewee expressed that “it is very to take it with tweezers, because it will not hold the municipalities or political responsibility to neuter a large scale, and deposits it on the common citizen, who does not have the 1500 pesos to neuter the animal.”
“You have to reeducate the population, the protectors should not have shelters, because there were shelters and they all collapsed, because everything is voluntary, the veterinary help you, make you price, but you add a dog and you sent four. And then make it responsible to the protector”.
And in respect to that process of reeducating the population, the leaders of Project Animal were of the view that “this is a matter of public health and mental health, basically, people are not going to be responsible if the State does not give the example.”
The respondents defended the work done: “we are Going to demand protectionism, we are volunteers, what we do is from our media, and effort. What happened in el Calafate never should have happened. We do not want a field, or open a shelter. We are protective and for that we do not need the recognition of the State, we went out to the street and rescued animals, because we can not afford to see the animal suffer.”