Local people -- critters in need!

[qatarperegrine]

The Qatar Animal Welfare Socity, where Justin and I used to volunteer as dog-walkers, burned down to the ground yesterday. Most of the cats and a couple dogs died, but around 50 dogs, 15 cats, and the farm animals survived.

The surviving dogs and cats are being housed at Qatar Veterinary Centre, the Veterinary Surgery, and Pampered Pets, but they need blankets and bedding, dog and cat food, cat litter, collars and leads, toys, crates and litter trays (cheap at Daiso). At least as importantly, they need dog-walkers and foster homes.

QAWS itself needs cat food, bales of hay and massive quantities of water for the farm animals.

Cash donations can't be accepted because QAWS, despite years of efforts, is not a registered charity. Good work, arcane Qatari charity laws.

Pictures, news and updated info can be found on Qatar Living.

Comments

Sorry

[(Anonymous)]

I wish I had money to donate. I love animals, but am out of work. I might take a job in the UAE and then can help. I hear good and bad about the UAE and might not bring my dog.

Not Region-Suitable

[(Anonymous)]

This is a region that has development hindrances and wealth distribution problems. I'm talking about the Arab world in general, not Qatar specifically. We have countless more important causes to donate effort/goods to. I'd rather see the canned food go to children in Somali so that they don't turn to piracy to feed their hunger. I'd rather see the effort go towards providing shelter for the millions of homeless human beings in Egypt. If you live in a region like this, the humane thing isn't to help out a pet during disaster. The humane thing is not to have a pet to begin with and direct these resources to humans. What you're promoting is not suitable for our region.

Thanks for the thought though!

Re: Not Region-Suitable

[qatar.livejournal.com]

If charity money were a fixed amount of money, I'd agree with you that improving human life outranks improving animal life.

But this isn't a zero-sum game. I don't have to spend less on humanitarian crises to buy a bag of kibble for a suffering dog. I just need to spend a little less this month on Starbucks and shiny new cell phones and the other things that a lot of us in Qatar spend more money on than we really should.

Having a pet, or caring for stray animals, is hardly the most frivolous, wasteful use of money going on in Qatar. Unless you want to argue (as Jesus did) that our obligation to the poor requires us to give up ALL our luxuries so that ALL our income can go to the poor, then I don't see why pets should be singled out as an immoral way of spending money.

Re: Not Region-Suitable

[(Anonymous)]

I'm neither making the argument that you're ascribing to Jesus, nor claiming that having a pet is the most frivolous/wasteful practice in this society; what I am claiming, however, is that this is a totally foreign and completely imported form of excessive lavishness.

It's natural that one tends to see most aspects of an issue through the lens of his/her own culture, and owning a pet is a common place in your culture. In Middle Eastern cultures, particularly those of the Gulf, owning a pet is generally frowned upon by societal, religious, and even economic standards. The whole idea of owning a pampered pit came with the English, then the French, and lately new comers on the scene: the Americans. Still, despite all this injection from other cultures, owning a pet is looked at quite negatively here. If you've seen otherwise, then it's mostly in the Qatar Foundation community (which is not at all representative of this society or its culture) or it's not a pet at all (has some other use besides petting).

This society has major difficulties disciplining itself to give up the forms of excess and waste that are indigenous to its cultural framework as is, so where is the humanity in introducing yet another form of excessive wasteful behavior to it?

Re: Not Region-Suitable

[qatar.livejournal.com]

"Owning a pampered pet"? I think somehow we lost the point here. My post wasn't encouraging people to breed prize Siamese cats with bows on their heads; it was to let people know they could contribute to feed feral and stray animals that are under threat of starvation. I hardly think Abu Huraira would disapprove. In fact, didn't the Prophet have a pet cat?

Re: Not Region-Suitable

[(Anonymous)]

First off, an animal shelter isn't just for feeding stray animals. It's one of the guise of the pet industry. So, reducing the argument to merely feeding needy animals isn't accurate since I'm opposing the whole idea of an animal shelter because it's an inlet for a much more lavish and wasteful activity.

Secondly, I mentioned that the practice of owning pets is foreign to this region because of "societal, religious, and even economic standards". Why you chose to ignore the first and third aspect of the standards and chose to address only the middle one is a bit interesting. For the sake of the argument, I'm going to assume that what you're advocating does not contradict the common religious belief here (and you'll find out in a bit that even that assumption isn't right). Say that religious standards do not mind the pet industry… what about the economic and societal standards that you ignored? They make up 2 thirds of the reason why pet ownership is foreign to this region. It's as if this society is too uni-dimensional: if Allah (or his supposed representatives) says it's ok to advocate the pet industry, then it must be ok to do so. No… there are many many layers to the society of this region, and religion constitutes only 1 of those layers. Reality is much more complex than this overly simplistic view of this society. So, even if your call is accepted religiously, it will still be rejected on other grounds that have nothing to do with religion, and the pet industry would still be very foreign to this culture.

(To be continued)

Re: Not Region-Suitable

[(Anonymous)]

(Continued)

Now we talk religion and refute the assumption we made earlier. Pet ownership is actually not acceptable in the predominant religious view of this region. The cat example you cite is an exception to the rule on pets, not a base for it. Cats aren't considered "pets" in Islam. They're considered "common dwellers"; that is, they live with, around, or within close proximity of people whether people actually want it or not. The "common dwellers" status does not apply to dogs or any other animal besides cats (Yes, Islam IS indeed biased in favor of cats). So, using cats as an example of approving of pet ownership (or just feeding) doesn't constitute a valid sample since the status cannot be extrapolated to other animals.

Still, even in the special case of cats, the rules for dealing with the animal are very different from what you're used to. In fact, they're different enough for the pet industry to fail here. For instance, the animal cannot be spayed, neutered, or "fixed". It can't be denatured in any way. It can't be made dependent on humans for food or shelter. It may be allowed to eat the dinner table scraps or rummage through the dumpster if it chooses to, but it cannot be fed Pedigree Petfoods, 9Lives, Friskies, Meow Mix, Sheba, or Whiskas. Why? Because that's wasteful to human resources and denaturing and endangering to the animal itself. Think of the countless breeds of pet dogs that were bred entirely by humans and in captivity. All living beings are supposed to be able to forage and fend for themselves, but such unnaturally bred pets don't have that basic ability. Think of the French Poodle and its inherent inability to survive on its own. That's the kind of danger per ownership poses to the life of a living being that's meant to be out in the wild.

To make a long story short, despite its special "common dweller" status, the rules for the dwelling/treatment must respect the wild nature of the cat, and the animal cannot stripped from its wild or semi-wild nature.

All these restrictions are put on an animal that is allowed to be owned. Can you imagine what restrictions there are for the rest of animals the ownership of which is not allowed?

Here is a brief list:

1- Did you know a Muslim is not allowed to buy/sell a dog and that such a financial transaction is forbidden in Islam?

2- Did you know that particularly black dogs are supposed to be killed on the spot?

3- Did you know that snakes are considered vessels for evil spirits and must be killed?

4- Did you know dogs are considered Satan magnets and are supposed to be kicked out of the house?

5- Did you know that owning and caring for Homing pigeons makes a man lose his credibility in an Islamic court?

6- Did you know there is a whole other category of animals that are considered "low-lives", whose lives are not always respected and whose purchase is illegal? (this applies to toads, hamsters, gerbils, and most rodents, insects, and reptiles).

I can go on and on with the list of restrictions that make dealing with animals in Islam far from anything you're used to with pet ownership, which makes the stories you cite an invalid argument for legitimizing the pet industry in Islam. It's because of these restrictions that Abu Hurraira had 11-14 kittens at any given point but never had a single puppy. Also, the Prophet himself didn't have a pet cat of his own, but there are stories of him interacting with cats that are not his.

Right or wrong, this is the predominant religious view in this region in regard to pet ownership, which brings me to my original point about this form of excess being very foreign to this region.

I'm glad the charitable organization status isn't granted to QAWS. Animals should either fend for themselves or nature should just take its course, and the weaker animals become fodder for the healthier ones.

I know it sounds harsh, but it's much less harsh than importing another industry of excess into a society that has many of its own, wasting money and resources on foreign forms of "benevolence" we could careless for, and feeling bogusly "humane" for feeding weak and needy animals while neighboring nations have armies of weak and needy human children begging for food.