Mahatma Gandhi writings on the stray dog issue

Gandhiji[1]’s writings on the stray dog issue. (PARA LEER VERSION COMPLETA) When Mahatma Gandhi was a journalist in the 1920s and early 1930s, he wrote in his newspaper Young India about euthanizing dogs. Mahatma Gandhi wrote extensively about our duties towards animals, specifically about dogs on the streets and their welfare. He wrote about responsible ownership long before the term had even been coined. He brought attention to the plight of homeless dogs and legislation to protect them decades before any research had been done on the issue. Ironically except in India, humane societies the world over, implement dog control based on the same principles propagated by him over 80 years ago.  A mill owner in Ahmedabad, Ambalal Sarabai, had 60 stray dogs killed outside his mill. Being a Hindu[2] he felt remorse over his actions and went to Gandhiji. When Gandhiji approved of his deed a huge controversy arose. The Ahmedabad Humanitarian Society and many other people asked him how he, the apostle of Ahimsa, could approve of the killing when religions like Hinduism[3] and Jainism[4] prohibited the taking of life. It is then that he used his paper Young India to explain what true Ahimsa[5] really meant.  “When I wrote the article on this subject I knew that I was adding one more to my already heavy burden of problems. But it could not be helped. Angry letters are now pouring in. At an hour when after a hard day’s work I was about to retire to bed, three friends invaded me, infringed the religion of ahimsa in the name of humanity, and engaged me in a discussion on it. They had come to me in the name of humanity. How could I refuse to see them?”  “So I met them. One of them I saw, betrayed anger, bitterness and arrogance. He did not seem to me to have come with a view to getting his doubts solved. He had come rather to correct me. Everyone has a right to do so, but whoever undertakes such a mission must know my position. But he was not to blame for it. This impatience which is but a symptom of violence is to be found everywhere. The violence in this case was painful to me as it was betrayed by an advocate of non-violence.”  “He claimed to be a Jain[6]. I have made a fair study of Jainism. But the Jains have no monopoly of ahimsa. It is not the exclusive peculiarity of any religion. Every religion is based on ahimsa, its application is different in different religions[7]. I do not think the Jains of today practice ahimsa in any better way than others. I can say this because of my acquaintance with the Jains, which is so old that many take me to be a Jain. Mahavir [8]was an incarnation of compassion and Ahimsa. How I wish his votaries were votaries also of his ahimsa. Protection of little creatures is indeed an essential part of ahimsa, but it does not exhaust itself with it. Ahimsa begins with it.”    “The Mahajan[9] may not allow the dogs to stray… It is a sin; it should be a sin to feed stray dogs and we should save numerous dogs if we had legislation making every stray dog liable to be shot. Even if those who feed stray dogs consented to pay a penalty for their misdirected compassion we should be free from the curse of stray dogs.”  “Humanity is a noble attribute of the soul. It is not exhausted with saving a few dogs or a few fish; such saving may even be sinful. If I have a swarm of ants in my house, the man who proceeds to feed them will be guilty of a sin…. The Mahajan may feel itself safe and believe that it has saved their lives by dumping dogs near my field but it will have committed the greater sin of putting my life in danger.”  “A roving dog without an owner is a danger to society and a swarm of them is a menace to its very existence…. If we want to keep dogs in towns or villages in a decent manner no dog should be suffered to wander. There should be no stray dogs even as we have no stray cattle…. But can we take individual charge of these roving dogs? Can we have a pinjrapole[10] for them? If both these things are impossible then there seems to me no alternative except to kill them.”  “Connivance or putting up with status quo is no ahimsa, there is no thought or discrimination in it. Dogs will be killed whenever they are a menace to society. I regard this as unavoidable in the life of a householder. To wait until they get rabid is not to be merciful to them. We can imagine what the dogs wish if a meeting would could be called of them, from what we would wish under the same circumstances. We will not choose to live anyhow. That many of us do is no credit to us. A meeting of wise men will never resolve that men may treat one another as they treat rabid or stray dogs… We offend against dogs as a class by suffering them to stray and live on crumbs or leavings from our plates that we throw at them and we injure our neighbors also by doing so.”  “I am therefore strongly of the opinion that if we practice the religion of humanity we should have a law making it obligatory on those who would have dogs to keep them under guard and not allow them to stray and making all stray dogs to be liable to be destroyed after a certain date.”  “What I have insisted upon is a municipal by law authorizing municipalities to destroy unowned dogs. Every unlicensed dog should be should be caught by the police and immediately handed over to the Mahajan if they have adequate provision for the maintenance of these dogs and would submit to municipal supervision as to the adequacy of such a provision. Failing such a provision all stray dogs should be shot. This simple legislation will also prevent dogs from cruel neglect.”  “I have never meant that everyone should own a dog. What I have said is that the dogs should in no case be ownerless. Not that owned dogs will be immune, but the owners will be responsible for them if they are diseased or get rabies.”   Letter to Gandhiji: “You ask us not to feed stray dogs, but we do not invite them. They simply come. How can they be turned back…we are all sinners, why should we not practice what little kindness we can?”  Gandhiji’s reply: “It is from this false feeling of compassion that we encourage himsa in the name of ahimsa. But as ignorance is no excuse before man-made law, even so is it no excuse before divine law… It is the duty of society to support the blind and the infirm, but everyone may not take the task upon himself… If it is thus a sin on the part of the individual to undertake feeding beggars, it is no less a sin for him to feed stray dogs. It is a false sense of compassion. It is an insult to the starving dog to throw a crumb at him. Roving dogs do not indicate compassion and civilization in society; they betray instead the ignorance and lethargy of its members… That means we should keep them and treat them with respect as we do our companions and not allow them to roam about. By aggravating the evil of stray dogs we shall not be acquitting ourselves of our duty to them… It is my firm conviction that this sorry plight is due to our misconception of ahimsa, is due to our want of ahimsa. Practice of ahimsa cannot have as its result impotence, impoverishment and famine. If this is a sacred land we should not see impoverishment stalking it.”  “Cows we cannot protect, dogs we kick about and belabour with sticks, their ribs are seen sticking out and yet we are not ashamed of ourselves and raise a hue and cry when a stray dog is killed. Which of the two is better – that 5000 dogs should wander about in semi-starvation living on dirt and excreta and drag on a miserable existence, or that 50 should die and keep the rest in a decent condition?... But it is possible that the man who kills the dogs that he cannot bare to see tortured thus, maybe doing a meritorious act. Merely taking life is not always himsa, one may even say there is sometimes more himsa in not taking life.”  “The destruction of bodies of tortured creatures being for their own peace cannot be regarded as himsa, or the unavoidable destruction caused for the purpose of protecting ones wards, cannot be regarded as himsa.”  “For instance an alternative has been suggested in the shape of confining even rabid dogs in a certain place and allowing them to die a slow death. Now my idea of compassion makes this thing impossible for me. I cannot for a moment bear to see a dog or for that matter any other living being, helplessly suffering the torture of a slow death.”  “If they really want to be humane they should finance a society to keep these dogs. But since neither the State nor the humanitarians care for these dogs driven mad by hunger and thirst, it is kinder to destroy them.  “Letters on this subject are still pouring in, but I fail to discover any new question or any fresh argument advanced. I would therefore ask those who have been thinking on this subject to read this series of articles over and over again. I do so without the slightest hesitation, inasmuch as they are a result not of ideas hastily formed, but of experience of many years. I have presented no new principles, I cannot say how far the presentation is correct, but as it represents my honest conviction, and as many friends expect me to solve intricate problems in ahimsa, I can only ask them to turn to the series I have been writing. Some of my correspondents wrench my own sentences from their contexts and quote them against me, some quote part of them and omit the most essential remainder.”  “A correspondent reminds me of the advice given to me by Shri Rajchandra[11] when I approached him with a doubt as to what I should do if a serpent threatened to bite me. Certainly his advice was that rather than kill the serpent I should allow myself to be killed by it. But the correspondent forgets that it is not myself that is the subject matter of the present discussion, but the welfare of society in general as also of the suffering of animals. If I had approached Rajchandrabhai with the question whether I should or should not kill a serpent writhing in agony, and whose pain I could not relieve otherwise, or whether I should or should not kill a serpent threatening to bite a child under my protection, if I could not otherwise turn the reptile away, I do not know what answer he would have given. For me the answer is as clear as daylight and I have given it.”  Letter to Gandhiji: “You advocate the destruction of stray dogs. Do you include in the category the very useful village dogs?”  Gandhiji’s reply: “Most certainly I do not. The village dogs are the cheapest and most efficient police we have for protecting villagers against thieves at night and intruding dogs and other animals during the day. But I have not advocated an indiscriminate destruction of even stray dogs. Many other remedies have to be adopted before that drastic measure is resorted to. What I have insisted upon is a municipal by-law authorizing municipalities to destroy unowned dogs. This simple legislation will prevent dogs from cruel neglect and put the Mahajan upon their mettle. It is the indiscriminate and thoughtless charity which has to be resisted. That charity that feeds dogs and indeed men who choose to become beggars harms the beggars and the society which encourages such false charity.”  Letter to Gandhiji: “You say that if we can neither take individual charge of roving dogs nor have a pinjrapol for them, the only alternative is to kill them. Does that mean that every roving dog should be killed, although it may not be rabid? Don’t you agree that we leave unmolested all harmful beasts, birds and reptiles, so long as they do not actually harm us? Why should the dogs be an exception? Where is the humanity of shooting innocent dogs wherever they are found roving? How can one wishing well to all living beings do this?”  Gandhiji’s reply: “The writer has misunderstood my meaning. I would not suggest even the destruction of rabid dogs for the sake of it, much less that of innocent roving dogs. Nor have I said that these latter should be killed wherever they are found. I have only suggested legislation to that effect, so that as soon as the law is made, humane people might wake up in the matter and devise better management of stray dogs. Some of these might be owned, some might be put in quarantine. The remedy, when it is taken, will be once for all. Stray dogs do not drop down from heaven. They are sign of idleness, indifference and ignorance of society. When they grow into a nuisance, it is due to our ignorance and want of compassion. A stray dog is bound to take to his heels if you do not feed him. The measure I have suggested is actuated no less by a consideration of the welfare of dogs than by that of society. It is the duty of the humanitarian to allow no living being aimlessly to roam about. In performance of that duty it may be his duty once in a way to kill some dogs.”  Letter to Gandhiji: “How did you hit upon the religion of destroying dogs at the old age of 57? If it had occurred to you earlier than this why were you silent so long?”  Gandhiji’s reply: “Man proclaims a truth only when he sees it and when it is necessary, no matter even if it be in his old age. I have long recognized the duty of killing such animals within limits laid down above, and have acted upon it on occasions. In India the villagers have long recognized the duty of destroying intruding dogs. They keep dogs who scare away intruders and kill them if they do not escape with their lives. These watch-dogs are purposely maintained with the view to protecting the village from other dogs etc., as also from thieves and robbers whom they attack fearlessly. The dogs have become a nuisance only in cities, and the best remedy is to have a law against stray dogs.”    Letter to Gandhiji: “You have been so much under the Western influence that you have learnt to think that it is proper to kill lower beings for the sake of man. It is better to confess your error and apologize to the world. You should have made up your mind in this mater after exhaustless sifting. Instead you have passionately taken sides and discredited yourself.”  Gandhiji’s reply: “This is the least offensive sentence I have picked up from letters of this type. I submit I have not formed my opinion without much deliberation. It is not an opinion I have recently formed, neither is it hasty. One should not let his so called greatness come in the way of the formation of opinion; otherwise he cannot arrive at truth.”  “I do not think that everything Western is to be rejected. I have condemned the Western civilization in no measured terms. I still do, but it does not mean that everything Western should be rejected. I have learnt a great deal from the West and I am grateful to it. I should think myself unfortunate if contact with and the literature of the West had no influence on me. But I do not think I owe my opinion about the dogs to my Western education or Western influence. The West (with the exception of a small school of thought) thinks that it is no sin to kill the lower animals for what it regards to be the benefit of man. It has therefore encouraged vivisection. The West does not think it wrong to commit violence of all kinds for the satisfaction of the palate. I do not subscribe to these views. According to the Western standard it is no sin, on the contrary it is a merit, to kill animals that are no longer useful. Whereas I recognize limits at every step. I regard even the destruction of vegetable life as himsa. It is not the teaching of the West.”  “Argumentum ad hominum [12]has no place in a discussion of principles and their practice. My opinions should be considered as they are, irrespective of whether they are derived from the West or the East. Whether they are based on truth or untruth, himsa or ahimsa is the only thing to be considered. I firmly believe they are based on truth and ahimsa.”  “If anyone thinks that the people in the West are innocent of humanity he is sadly mistaken. The ideal of humanity in the West is perhaps lower, but their practice of it is very much more thorough than ours. We rest content with a lofty ideal and are slow and lazy in practice. We are wrapped up in deep darkness as is evident from our cattle, paupers and other animals. They are eloquent of our irreligion rather than our religion.”

---

[1]Gandhiji means “gandhi the great”

[2] A person who adheres to a certain religion : Hinduism

[3] A diverse body of religion, philosophy, and cultural practice native to and predominant in India, characterized by a belief in reincarnation and a supreme being of many forms and natures, by the view that opposing theories are aspects of one eternal truth, and by a desire for liberation from earthly evils.

[4] An ascetic religion of India, founded in the sixth century B.C., that teaches the immortality and transmigration of the soul and denies the existence of a perfect or Supreme Being.

[5] A Buddhist and Hindu doctrine expressing belief in the sacredness of all living creatures and urging the avoidance of harm and violence.  

[6] A believer or follower of Jainism.

[7] [Sanskrit ahi·sā : a-, not + hi·sā, injury (from hi·sati, he injures).]

[8] Mahavir was born in 599 B.C. as a prince in Bihar, India. At the age of 30, he left his family and royal household, gave up his worldly possessions, including clothing and become a monk.

[9] Mahajan is an Indian surname or title, found among castes.

This surname is an amalgam of two Sanskrit words: Maha meaning great, and Jan meaning people or individuals.

[10] premises to care for aging cattle till their death.  http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/mp/2003/08/18/stories/2003081800150300.htm

[11] one of the most renowned Jain scholar, inspired Gandhi’s philosophy non violence.

[12] Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives.  

http://www.answers.com/topic/ad-hominem

Launch event of the Argentine Policy on Responsible Ownership and Health of Dogs and Cats; Words of the Chief of Staff

REMARKS BY THE CHIEF OF STAFF Anibal Fernandez IN THE ACT LAUNCH OF THE TENURE POLICY RESPONSIBLE AND HEALTH OF DOGS AND CATS, at the presidential residence in Olivos.

Thanks a lot to be here. I’ll try to plot more or less part of our position and what the vision we have of this and what are the two cornerstones of the position that we summarizing today, as decision of the President's Office. The position we taken on the meaning of responsible ownership of dogs and cats we have demonstrated many years ago. From this we talked for a long time and we both know what we thought about it, what is the objective we pursue with this, and from the first moment I exhibit the best we could with the government of President Kirchner and his “okey” speaking or writing rather that mayors or governors to those that we need to have the gesture: do not make the mistake of doing the things you are doing wrong because they say they are doing wrong.

It's a lie that society has a euthanasia vocation, is a lie that, as Mayor I appreciate for many years because they always appeared at meetings of neighbors who had been taking the lead and say, "Look, we can more there to put the truck to capture dogs –perrera- in the neighborhood. " And then we both hand grasped the issue that the first answer was yes,  capture with the “kennel truck” . Then let the system aside and kept on talking all you want, but when I finished the issue and as we were leaving we had to let them stand up and say, "Well, you take over, then I send to the pound." Then skip one of those was at the meeting and said, "Wait, wait, no kennel truck!." Then the other said "no," and the latter saying that it was he who had proposed the idea. Neither is this vocation of animal’s mass destruction, sacrifice and killing for killing the pet, the dog or cat. We cannot leave things as they are, then we have to think and analyze. I have no doubt that tomorrow this analysis we are doing today, and that has the two central axis that I’ll try to explain, some people will try to demean or trivialize, but we who understand that this is the issue and I know there are a lot of people around the country looking at what we are looking at we’re going to have a little more to defend an idea that belongs to everyone and that we were discussing for a long time, as best we could.

We feel that we should interfere in this issue, work, do something, say, write, put it in our blogs, comment, call the attention of those who could not tell why the error was, how to solve things, help is always something could be done, but something was always inadequate. We understood we had to set a standard that reflects the preservation of public health. Of course it is the central axis, we have to be arguing, but you have to have a deep respect for biodiversity.

We were taking all the rules: the UN decision, taken at 67 'and UNESCO, speaking on time of "bad or cruel treatment to animals." He also spoke of the right to live and grow in freedom and living conditions for the species, a respect for self, how to work, learning to work with, how to interact with him to protect our pets. In 1990, the World Health Organization developed a guide - we all know - that was used in the best way, but always ends up being insufficient when the state is not the promoter, to activate strongly about that position for us to get all the estates of government, the provinces and municipalities, will conceive the idea as unique, never to be born knowing.

I am a member of the Peron’s party from the first to last of the hairs of my head, and I remember in 73 'Juan Peron point out in a letter to world leaders that when need speak of natural resources. All of us for whom what he said that Peron’s words were holy went to read it to see what it said. And what was it that said this man? That natural resources were exhausted, he could not play with water, it was imperative that he paid attention to see what was happening. And many of us say, 'this man is crazy, what you caught with this thing. " But 20 years later, in 1993, is the first meeting in Rio, where is Bill Clinton - you remember - to talk about climate, global warming, greenhouse effect, the things that mattered to us all. Then in the same way, we ought to start putting a grain, of course I'm not comparing myself to anyone, not anyone pretend parallels with this, but as I saw at that time, I also see at other times of life, where conditions are so we can discuss the same subject all who think the same way, with certain behaviors that are not good and that the State has an obligation to participate.

In 1891, there was already a law, 2786, condemning the abuse, the September 27, 1954, the Act of Antonio Benítez, which is known as the Law Sarmiento, 14346, which incorporated even prison sentences for violations mistreatment of animals, appears in a process time of the decree law that declares of national interest the fight against rabies, including the sacrifice of animals that were infected with rabies. We in the modern things we encounter provinces such as Mendoza and Buenos Aires province have already legislated on the condition is not euthanasia; cities like Rosario or Almirante Brown, in the province of Buenos Aires, Puerto Madryn or Chubut have been regulated on responsible pet ownership, vaccination, sterilization, euthanasia practices, and encouraging responsible ownership as the focus of this discussion we want to give. We talk about animal health, food, protected space for inclement weather, space to eliminate waste, deworming, etc.

But talk about an axis, which is mentioned in the rule, as one of the core, we must do together, so the importance of all of you who are aware of this issue one hundred thousand times more than I participate and cooperate because it is imperative that all this should mean the control have to talk about surgical sterilization is essential to control the indiscriminate breeding.

Responsible ownership and care not only leads to good treatment of animals, but what we want to understand and realize that contributes to the welfare of the community as a whole. Is not petting the dog, the fact is in the background, a background discussion. But one of the most important issues we deal with this program, referred to public health, due to the overpopulation of dogs and cats, is the transmission of diseases such as rabies, hydatidosis, toxocariasis, leptospirosis, brucellosis and toxoplasmosis. All these diseases are liable to be transmitted from animal to person.

But we all know, deep down, that is what is worrying us much: the Minister of Health, the President's Office, primarily, and therefore motivated us more than anything to push this car to transform this legislation that comes to those who love our puppies.

Here is the sister of the President and the puppies of Presidential’ s home: Martita, Cleo, Vito and greetings from Ernesto, my dog. What we're thinking this is what we do with leishmaniasis, the importance of working hard in terms of leishmaniasis. They say a million things and often say millions of things that are not known. Chatting with the specialists, John, or with other friends with whom we have spoken, if swinging a number how many dogs can be in the NEA-NOA: a million, how many may have leishmaniasis, a ten per cent is a hundred thousand dogs . We're talking about a staggering amount that must be treated, and how well we're putting together the program is the possibility that visceral leishmaniasis should be examined by those who will represent the three points and from one point we will leave the answer to this discussion. So this is the core of what we are proposing today is not only responsible ownership of dogs and cats, which we welcome all who are present here today, because neither has reason to look down or turn red so to speak. We love our pets, we love our dogs and we love our cats, but the few that is very important that we put at the forefront of the struggle and discussion on a topic as deep as necessary as is the transformation of this leishmaniasis and that is a definite solution, permitting a few years, the massive uptake by the ordering of all we have to do, work that necessarily have to do together.

At present, slaughter and euthanasia as a method of population control of dogs and cats has also been of unethical, I do not need to explain too much, and ineffective and inefficient. No act on the root causes, have never worked, they will not resolve never, no never going to get. (Applause). So I talked with the Health Minister and the President's Office, we have proposed as a preventive method and suitable for controlling the overpopulation of dogs and cats is what I just said: surgical sterilization, an accepted method worldwide, we are not inventing anything.

The municipalities mentioned, the three towns just mentioned, the case of Rosario, the case of Admiral Brown, who has been doing a very good job with previous mayors and also I want to acknowledge it, and I told the current mayor , a friend of mine, and that previous mayors were my friends and I insisted that I not cut the rope, anyone who talks about everyone claims, do not miss this opportunity to continue to support the defense of such an important , like the one by your municipality, it is important for all speakers, and the mayor, I guess, it has been understood and supported. (Applause)

This sterilization campaign should be organized strategically is not an issue that we have to solve the rolled her to look good or anything like that. The principle of the strategy, how it addresses, how it gets to the heart and how it complies with this issue is critical because we are talking about sterilization, which is just what the announcer said, to be operative, early, massive, systematics, of both sexes, which will be extended in time, comprehensive and free. (Applause).

For these reasons and express instructions of the President's Office, we believe, as of today, the 6088 decree, which just signed the Minister Manzur, and the speaker, following the signature of the President's Office creates the National Program on Health and Responsible Ownership of Dogs and Cats so called our program. (Applause). It is an implementation unit that will work in the field of Health Ministry of the importance of what you just said.

We understand that it is essential that we resolve the problems that can bring our people, solving the problem of our dogs and our cats. And for that we should not kill them, you have to solve them. Resolve it in the best way, if bloated population, we must seek ways to lower those working in the area to join us, as we do with stray dogs to give us a hand because the state alone cannot solved it, if not give us a third hand, we do not pass over the vets. It is essential that here be all who know and know fully what is going to do a job in serious, respectful, caring way, with a minimum of care for the animal. Not everyone is able, at best, to be tapped and this kind of thing that execution unit will have to go strategic coordinator, guiding and closing with each of the areas with which we will be agreeing to this.

It is essential throughout this closure, but with a huge goal of health policy. An enormous goal of health policy, strongly pursue this solution, which ensures that lower the risk of zoonotic diseases preserving human health. Then no one can minimize the situation. We like dogs and cats with madness, why not. Why do I have to hide myself to say that I love my dog ​​deeply, like  part of my family and I could not be away with it. But that I can also do so to help nothing happens to these zoonotic diseases that can accompany our cats and our dogs, solving the problem by treating it properly and not letting you get to one end that hypertrophy the population, develop in an inappropriate manner, that no one has control and an end to thinking that the only solution is to go through their lives and we do not agree so, we believe we can solve it another way, cleverly creating this area. (Applause).

We understand and believe that just can not do this alone, and that's essential to have the provinces working with us. Since there are provinces that have experience and we will take through the Executing Unit, which will be composed of one representative from the Ministry of Health, Social Development representative and a representative of the Chief of Staff, through the Ministry of Environment. What we seek in this is the agreement with the provinces, with municipalities, with the faculties of Veterinary Science, with professional colleges, the institutes and with you, with NGOs who know the subject. To those who know you have to sit down and talk to make things right, not a problem illuminated from behind the desk, is a serious problem with the things we are doing.

Whereupon I have told them the focus of what we are trying to launch today, we did this time, in this day and this place because the President wanted to participate because it is so animal lover like us, but his trip to Rosario had to anticipate - due to weather conditions- and we could not do this. We'll do it another time, you will not miss the opportunity, and representatives of the house dogs are all thanks to the sister of the President, who has been with us too. (Applause).

We are in a task that has a very large scale, is not an easy issue, it is a big issue, it is imperative that this committee that we will quickly form and we will begin to make contact, to relieve, to build an inventory strategy, development of the area, knowledge of the area of ​​strategic definitions in terms of diseases of the places where they happen, the knowledge of veterinarians, it is essential to think of them. And this is an issue that could not miss: being fulfilled in the coming days, and I asked the President's Office to make special mention in the topic, 250 years of the life of the veterinary activity in the world congratulations to all who are vets and have chosen this noble profession. (Applause). Whereupon, from tomorrow, will see published in the Official Gazette, Decree 1088, which says nothing more or less what I'm telling you, is nothing to find solutions to what we always believed that had to be sought and we found not much around, we decided, is the state sponsor that has to be at the forefront of this, in coordination with the provinces and municipalities need of veterinarians because it has to ensure the care and protection of the lives of our animals while these events occur. We need you, the NGOs who have done their own, often raising his voice, often through social networks, often in one form or another up your complaint to be understood and managed to avoid stupid and unnecessary killing, of our animals and we can work together and the best way to do that than we like it look the same but also taking care of the lives of our fellow citizens who, ultimately, also deserve respect. And for that we need to know what happens to our animals, which we are fulfilling the two essential steps for it.

Thank you for coming and God bless you. (Applause)

The Argentine government launched the National Program on Health and Responsible Ownership of Dogs and Cats

President Cristina Fernandez signed a decree that includes animal protection measures, to prevent infectious diseases. The standard wasannounced by the chief of staff, Aníbal Fernández, during a ceremony at thepresidential residence in Olivos.

The chief of staff announced this afternoon the creation of the National Program on Health and Responsible Ownership of Dogs and Cats, by a decree signed by the President of Argentina, Cristina Fernandez.

The standard covers animal protection measures, to prevent infectious diseases especially in dogs that are abandoned. It also points to the responsibility of pet owners to comply with immunization schedules. Beside the chief of staff participated in the ceremony the Minister of Health, Juan Manzur, under whose orbit will be the Executing Unit of this Pet’s Health Programme.

During his speech, Anibal Fernandez, said on birth control for dogs and cats "nobody want the extermination, slaughter, killing for killing pets." "The responsible ownership is the linchpin of this policy we want to talk," he said.

The chief of staff remarked that "it is imperative that this entire policy means we need to talk about control by surgical sterilization." "The slaughter and euthanasia has been a method of birth control canine ineffective and inefficient. They will not resolve ever in this way”, he said.

He also said that surgical sterilization campaign "will be massive, extended in time and free." And he said that it will be done in this way and reduce "the risk of zoonotic diseases, the human transmission."

The national policy for animal protection focus to prevent spread zoonosis, diseases that are transmissible to humans, such as leptospirosis and lesmanihasis, among others. They also tend to avoid killing of stray dogs. Realize that there are disease outbreaks in different cities, including cities like Rio Gallegos, General Roca, Bariloche or Posadas, which can be solved with the implementation of vaccination and protection measures.