Mankind has always adored and used dogs for various purposes, mainly due to its loyalty. I own a Golden retriever in my house for about 4 years now, and it is quite a challenge for me to let him away from me, but we certainly had to seek help of my friends and relatives to help take care when needed.
The major purposes of petting dogs in household are mostly for hunting, guarding and petting. At the same time, humans don’t mind the dog die for its master if needed. Breeding of hunter dogs need to be only in the places where hunting is needed. In some metropolitan cities like Bangalore, hunter dogs are let on the roads. Their basic instinct to hunt or drive away strangers, and growing in uncontrollably huge numbers, has definitely made the localities hostile.
Taking any action against the dogs is an offence in the eyes of the blue cross society. Considering the fact that the urban area has intruded into the space of the animals and we end up sharing the same space, blue cross society may seem right. But will the dogs also find the same sharing and caring when it comes to addressing the regulations in the modern development?
Let’s say, we have extended our area in the forest region to extend the city, and we have made the dogs homeless. Where would they go? Their basic skill set to hunt still remains, which is a trouble to humans who would start living in these areas and who have to address these issues? Over the past 20-30 years, Bangalore has been developing on various grounds of infrastructure. During the construction period, there are a lot of dogs around to safe guard the materials (as they claim), and hence the dogs are allowed to breed and turn ferocious when a new dog or human intrudes the place.
When they finish the construction, are these dogs relocated along with them to make the place a safe place to dwell? Will the Red Cross society, which is the society to take care of human social welfare not aware of this issue’s existence.
Not one or two, there are quite a lot of accidents on the roads because of the crossing dogs. Few have been fatal as well. Does human life have no value while considering the basic reason of use of the dogs?
Small kids while playing outside don’t seem to have a security due to the stray dogs. Few days ago, there have been cases when a small child about 2-3 yrs ran from his house to the park within his campus (the so called safe zone), was surrounded by 10 dogs and try to attack him. Is the blue cross society answerable to the fear that the child had been through? There had been a case in other cities as well where a child about 5-6 yrs old, buying some stuff from a neighborhood shop, was trapped by 10 stray dogs and in the process of snatching the bag from the kid’s hand, ended up tearing the child to pieces and died. There are many more cases to mention.
Can the blue cross return the life of this child? Does it really care for life or is it all a hype to create a society to show its so called status and existence. There is no need for a group who is a hindrance to the safety of human life.
Even at household pet dogs, many owners don’t seem to take care of dogs well, when it falls sick, or gets some serious health issues. These dogs are abandoned on the streets. Who is responsible for these dogs? Shouldn’t the owner let it in hands of the blue cross society to take care of these animals?
Unfortunately, these household dogs are not street smart. Getting bitten by local stray dogs and fighting for food are generally not part of its practice. Survival is difficult, and some of them are eaten as a treat by other stray dogs.
It is said in few books that if a dog doesn’t obey his master also on one fine day, the dog is meant to be shot. This is because, the only person it might have listened to is his master and a “masterless” dog is too dangerous for itself and others. So, earlier they used to shoot.
Now even if the government is ready to shoot down dogs with no master, the blue cross society won’t permit due to “value of life” reasons. Probably “Value of life” is applicable only for dogs.
The Red Cross society only interferes when everything is over and all are in need of help (like the police in few Indian movies, who arrive at the end of the scene). We expect Red Cross to be a leader to help when something is anticipated, and reduce efforts and resource that is wasted otherwise.
Why wouldn’t there be any society to address foreseen and current issues that are vulnerable to human life? Isn’t the government answerable to these issues?
Now, this is my suggestion to the problem:
Dogs need to be trained if used in residential area. Other stray dogs need to be relocated to the blue cross society homage and not returned to the streets again. If they are let on the streets and are found to be vulnerable, they should be shot by the society themselves, or at the least, should not hinder such killing by others.
When any pet dog falls sick, the owners of dogs, need to take care of it. Isn’t it the same as abandoning our dependents when they are in need? Is humanity becoming so brutal? In case the treatment is costing too much to be borne by the owner (in certain cases when the owner is not in a condition to take care), blue cross society has to be informed and they need to interfere to help on treatment. In case it is seen that the disease is incurable, and no one wants to care the dog anymore, in my opinion a mercy killing is better. At least, the dog wouldn’t die every day by being bit by other animals and infecting its neighbors with rabies or other diseases.
In case this doesn’t happen, may be these dogs could be let into the residential area near the people who is hindering mercy killing in such cases by simply posing to support value of life. May be the seriousness be seen when it affects their own family and little ones, and hence will lead to some action.