Nationwide NPO works to protect animal rights
TOKYO —
The once playful husky puppy has grown up, graduating from purse-sized pooch to full-grown dog. Instead of being happy with their larger bundle of joy, the owners are at a loss. The new apartment that the couple is after has a “no pets” policy, and they are growing weary of caring for their once precious pup. So, what to do? Unfortunately, they may choose to leave it behind and start their new life without him.
Each year, approximately 500,000 abandoned cats and dogs are sentenced to death at municipal extermination facilities across Japan.
“Big dogs like huskies are so cute when they are little, but as they grow up there are many cases where pet owners don’t know how to handle them and desert them,” says Meiko Ogawa, director of the Japan Anti-Vivisection Association (JAVA). “Other common reasons pets are left behind are: the owners get tired of them, they move home, the animal becomes ill or gets old.”
Although procedures for dealing with stray and abandoned animals vary by prefecture, dogs and cats are often held for just a few days before being gassed to death. “The very little ones are frequently killed on the same day,” says Ogawa. “Some local governments put the abandoned cats into thick sacks… as they tend to scratch. They are left for up to two days without food or water before meeting their fate.”
JAVA is fighting against these torturous conditions, but with just 12 staff — of whom only two are paid — it’s a strenuous battle, especially as the organization is trying to do more than just stop the killing. Other activities include preventing pet abuse, opposing the killing of wild animals, stopping fur production, and abolishing animal testing (vivisection).
The organization estimates that nearly 28 million animals are used for experiments each year in Japan. “At present there is no [Japanese] law that addresses animal testing,” explains staff member Satoko Wazaki. “Experiments of this nature fall under the ‘Law Concerning Protection and Control of Animals,’ which dates to 1972. The law is self-regulating, with no government inspections, no compulsory reporting of the number of animals used, and no penalties.”
JAVA has achieved small victories, but animals continue to be tested on and killed at alarming rates. “By April 2006, all local governments stopped providing universities and institutes with abandoned cats and dogs,” says Wazaki. “But there are still many ways to get animals: researchers may buy animals from specialized distributors, and/or breed them by themselves; cats are captured by black market dealers; some zoos provide ‘surplus’ monkeys; wild monkeys are caught; and the list goes on.”
In 2005 JAVA released a cosmetics guide (in Japanese) that lists domestic manufacturers who test on animals, those who don’t — and those who never bothered to respond to the group’s questionnaire, which was used to compile the book. Over 2,000 people have signed up to receive JAVA’s quarterly newsletter, some of whom volunteer their time by giving presentations about animal abuse, or by handing out flyers at train stations. The organization also makes an appearance at a number of events throughout the year, including the main Earth Day fair held at Yoyogi Park each April.
JAVA is currently seeking volunteers for letter-writing campaigns, as well as people willing to donate their time and/or money to help the cause. To learn more see www.java-animal.org, email java@blueocn.ne.jp, or call 03-5456-9311.
This story originally appeared in Metropolis magazine (www.metropolis.co.jp).
Order by Time Order by Popularity
12 Comments
Login to comment
0
serindipity
Overall I think most Japanese pet owners are responsible, but there are many twits out there. One couple I know of lives in a 2ldk aparto and they have ten dogs. Yes, 10! I would never go into their aparto. I know of another person living in an aparto that has two Boarder Collies. These are working dogs bred for chasing sheep. They must be going nuts living in an apartment. That's also interesting that Japan has no laws regarding animal testing.
0
cleo
Japan does have laws that say animals must not be subjected to killing or suffering 'without good reason'; the problem is that the vivisectionists and other pseudo-scientists can just say they have a 'good reason' for what they're doing and that puts them above the law. Also the animals covered by the law are restricted to cattle, horses, pigs, sheep, goats, dogs, cats, domestic rabbits, homing pigeons and ducks, which means the mice, rats, frogs and primates the vivisectionists like to do unspeakable things to have no protection at all. (Probably one reason why they get chosen for experiments).
I often get phone-calls from sales ladies wanting to give me samples of their new wonderful cosmetics that are guaranteed to make me (even more) beautiful. I ask if they test on animals (if they do I don't want it) and most sales ladies are shocked at the very idea. They have no idea what they are trying to sell. The ones who aren't shocked are surprised that it would be an issue, after all, I do want safe cosmetics, don't I? Never once has a sales lady been able to state right at the start that what she is selling is guaranteed cruelty-free.
People who abandon an animal because it has grown old or sick are the scum of the earth. Why can't they be responsible and nurse it through its illness/old age in repayment of all the pleasure it gave them when it was younger, or if they can't do that or the animal is suffering too much, take it to the vet to be put to sleep humanely, cuddled in its favourite human's arms?
0
noborito
What have they done about Whales?
0
pointofview
Interesting article. Just up the street from my apt. there are 2 pet shops that have all the animals stuffed in tiny cages barking and sqealing all day. Why isn
t this treatment sorted out? These shops are also packed to the cealing and they stink. Another thing, look at the zoos in Japan they are nothing but concrete. Hows that humane? Just another cover-up story to make it look like things are being done. Unless there is a designer sale on I don`t think anyone really cares.0
Pukey2
Absolutely. I've come to expect nothing from Japanese zoos. The cute prisoners get star treatment, while the monkeys are left brain-dead in their cages.
As for pet shops, NEVER buy anything from them. You want a pet, then go to the animal shelters and adopt one. There will ALWAYS be a surplus of these unwanted animals. Why give more money to these pet shops - they'll just grow and grow. My family has had several pets over the years, but none ever came from pet shops, and all were neutered.
0
timeon
so Cleo, how do you expect researchers in medicine, biochemistry, pharmacy and so on to go on with their research without mice? personally I never worked and never met around my lab anybody working with other animals than mice, and I think you need many approvals to work with monkeys or the sort. and all the researchers I know are moral persons who completely agree that we must treat animals with care and without unnecessary cruelty. but you can't just put a drug on the market without testing, and even with extensive testing sometimes you have problems
0
cleo
timeon -
I expect them to use cultures of human tissues. When I take a drug that's potentially going to have a drastic effect on my body, I want to know that it's been tested for its effect on humans, not for its effect on rodents.
As you say, 'even' with extensive testing sometimes you have problems. Why? Because animal models are not an adequate medium for predicting the effect of a substance on the human body. Animal testing puts lots of unsuitable drugs on the market that then have to be withdrawn after their effect on humans becomes known (the real test subjects are the first human users). It's also possible that apparently undesirable results in animals may prevent or delay the development of drugs that are beneficial to humans. Animal testing endangers human lives.
For example: penicillin kills cats and guinea pigs; aspirin is another cat-killer, but is a relatively safe and effective painkiller when taken by humans. Arsenic given to rats, mice or sheep does not have anywhere near the effect it has in humans; insulin, a life-saver for many humans, produces deformities in chickens, rabbits and mice.
Yet in spite of these differences, so-called researchers continue to conduct meaningless experiments. One such I came across was whether the long-term ingestion of arsenic can induce or exacerbate diabetes in male mice - a species whose reaction to arsenic is known to be different from the human reaction. Extensive cancer research is done using mice, even though the cancers mice develop are different from human cancers. Research on arthritis is done using mice, even though mice don't naturally get arthritis and the condition has to be artificially induced. What possible benefit can that kind of research be, apart from to the researchers' grant status?
No one would (I hope) think that testing a drug for (eg) premenstrual problems on small boys was a good idea, but it would make far more sense than testing it on male rodents. But we can't test on small boys because that would involve 'unnecessary' cruelty. As if there were any form of 'necessary' cruelty. Only in the minds of people who don't want to admit that the way they earn a living is indefensible, cruel to animals and detrimental to human health.
0
timeon
well there is a bottom-up approach. the start is with cell lines from different tissues, then it goes up to in vivo experiments, ending with the final tests on human volunteers, which are actually the most important. while you are perfectly right about the differences between the various phases of this trial process, the overall benefices of the system overshadow the inherent problems, that's why it's still in place. imagine how difficult it would be to ask the volunteers at phase 0 trial on humans to swallow that pill based only on in vitro studies. it would be great if we could have powerful enough biochemical models to rationally design drugs, then to verify it in vitro on a tissue line and then to send it the market; unfortunately, we are very far away from this idealistic picture. I don't say experimenting on animals is good, I'm well aware there are many abuses and unethical experimentalists, but it's the best we have to date. and people try to improve it, believe me nobody likes to kill mice in the lab
0
cleo
= research grants trump veracity.
But basically that is what happens. No amount of animal testing will tell you with any certainty what will happen when real people take the drug. You're saying we have to have animal experiments because we've brainwashed people into believing that they're necessary and it's easier to see what the drugs actually do once they're in the market. That's where the real testing takes place.
0
moderateguy2008
Cleo; What about medications prescribed to you and your family. I am sure everyone of those will ahve been tested on animals.
there is alternative medicine i guess, but can it work for everything?
0
cleo
moderateguy -
Well, when the law states everything has to be tested on animals, it's pretty difficult to find medication that hasn't. Doesn't make it any safer, though.
0
cwhite
The animal test is more a test for safety (will the rat die) then the actual desired affect. Take headache pills for example, how many dogs, cats and mice do you know that suffer from headaches. As if they can tell you that the pain has subsided even if you did hook them up to an EEG (Electroencephalography)
Cleo is right in that the final outcome is inevitably a human test. Great to know that a mouse didn't die from taking the pill, but so what...
Back to top