FRENCH POLYNESIA PRIVATE PRACTICIONERS VETERINARIANS TRUST
B.P. 2187 - PAPEETE
THE TRUST AND THE PROBLEM OF THE SUFFERING OF ANIMALS IN FRENCH POLYNESIA
Daily and everwhere in the world, practicionners veterinarians are facing animal suffering: Dogs and cats, abandonned, injuried or in a scrawny state that goodwilling people bring them to relieve their sufferings or to try to save, and each in the profession try to solve these case the best he can.
Since always, veterinarians make a duty for them to work for the relief of animal sufferings and to try to alleviate it. Preventively, by limiting the proliferation of animals in distress. it is more acute in French Polynesia where this problem, everone knows, is of a considerable importance. On this account, and since numerous years, the veterinarians give their contribution on their own or through the Pets protection associations. It is so that they make quite daily and for free the euthanasia of abandonned animals found hurted or sick along the roads, or the euthanasia of litters of puppies or kittens found abandonned in a ditch, deep in a garbage or left anonymously during the night in a cardboard box near by their clinics. More, in the majority of the cases, they have to take in charge the high cost of bodies incineration, in plus of euthanasia itself.
The private practitionners veterinarians trust deplore thus, above all, the lack of pound on the territory, the creation of which would be a big step for the settlement of animal suffering under a lot of its aspects (stray animals or without defined owners, abandonned animals ), comes mainly as a priority under the authorities action ( communes or territory ). However, the Vet trust affirm to be awfully ready to support any project of this kind and even to be directly involved for its organization and also its working.
About the other aspects of animal suffering, e.g. limitating the proliferation of animals in n distress, it is a matter of encouraging their sterilization and theiradoption when it is possible.
It is in this difficult context that, during their general assembly of the 1st of June 1999 veterinarians members of the trust have decided to go further in their action for animals in distress. Unanimously, they undertake:
Within the scope of these operations in partnership, associations or trustworthly persons bringing animals, will have to take at the disposal of the veterinarian trust a register for cures and adoptions specifying in particular the animal identification, the nature of care given and the name of the attending veterinarian.
At last, the veterinarian trust insist to remember the associations that it is not in their role to "channel" animals owners to any veterinarian and that the free choice of each must be respected, in accordance with the veterinary deontology code. The veterinarian trust hope so to allow the restoration of good relatioship between partners mutually and inevitably linked with a common aim: Animals welfare in French Polynesia.
This agreement has been taken among veterinarians, associations discovered this agreement taken so and concerning them, after. This agreement was officializing a fact which was established gradually before with each veterinarian individually, mainly under the impulse of Fenua Animalia.
The trust recognized that the situation in Polynesia is dramatic. Veterinarians see them requested to euthanize quite every day, partially at their own expenses. This work is real.
This being said, it was already clear that the only valid solution in their eyes was the systematic mass euthanasia while this solution was already recognized as awfully useless and barbare in the remainder of the world since decades, the free sterilisation remaining a marginal concession, just good to hoodwink and restricted in proportions warranting a full unefficiency (at most 2 by vet and by month ... ). But it was two months before the arrival of WSPA experts in Polynesia and of the concept of Free Sterilization Campaigns,which provided that they never had heared about, even in the scope of their profession.
Which was unknown at the moment, but became less dark because of our action, is that the number of dogs living on Tahiti Island only is in a region between 60 and 70.000. It is a considerable number which allows to understand that, even by euthanazing every day at full time, the around twenty local vets have no chance to reduce the problem: The daily number of births overcomes their work capacity.
In this context, to settle a pound, like for any other structure, is doomed to fail. It can only be translated in time and money wasted for nothing: As long as the "tape" is not closed, it is awfully vain to buy "floorclothes". In clear, as ong as the births rate is close to the working capacity of those in charge to fight against the overpopulation which is ensuing, their work is used to make them working to kill animals: The only effect, appart from the abjection, is then to get a business working for itself in the void and for long, at the expenses of people, communes and even a few the veterinarians.
Te Ao Animara association was born one year before, by the willing of the at the moment Fenua Animalia's Treasurer, because of a difference of opinion on the strategy to be followed. Indeed, at its beginings, Te Ao Animara extolled the resort to the systematic euthanasia, to the generalized massacre. Since, the position of this association turns softer and it have to its credits to have created the first and unique polynesian Pets identification file, which is a remarquable result.
Today, the management of this file has been taken by the trust (the registration is not for free ...) and the Territory considers to generalize its use officially.
Fenua Animalia's position did not change since: We fight for our statutes aims but we respect differences as long as they don't go against it. We think that the number of animals in distress is far too big to find any interest to bother any other charity structure created to find a solution of its own. Te Ao Animara is an association smaller and younger than us and which seems today specializing itself on pure breed dogs protection. They work against abandon and misery. Even if we have different opinions on the method, we agree on the substance. Why would we bother their action as it respects our aims in the main?
We have been sometimes blamed for its existence, more exactly the fact that there are several animal protection associations in Polynesia, and we have been asked to melt it all. To want to force this way the union of all the animals defenders, the melt of all the ideas in a same structure, won't it be rather to want to see them all together at a same place, to better manipulate them after? But, otherwise, why this same blame is not addressed to all political parties in all countries?
Fenua Animalia respects opinion differences and the particular identity of each association. We remember that the animal suffering level is so high in Polynesia that all animal defenders and good-willing peoples are welcome. More generally, Fenua Animalia supports unreservely the action of all volunteers, either federated in an association or not, and hopes to contribute to join all partners involved daily in the struggle against the animal misery, to be more efficient together.
On the other hand, to see the spring, in 2001, of an association with initials identical to ours, with a name and official aims very close to ours, association managed by a local vet having openly declared to be against our action for free sterilization campaigns, alerted us on its true targets toward us and animals:
To destroy Fenua Animalia by sowing confusion, by profiting in passing of the usurped fame to hijack people and funds, by sowing the doubt on our aims, by attracting the less aware decision-makers attention to sell an other message, more remunerative:
To make pseudo-campaigns, at a fee of 15.000 F cfp (= $US 150.00) by sterilisation restricted only to registered poor owners (RST card), thus not concerning the main of our population... and consequently without any chance of a real impact other than financial for the payers:
See "Men against" in Bora 2004 TNR Campaing.
Once again, the behaviour of a minority spatters the whole profession, put it in an awkward position, is nuisible to anyone but this minority.
The fact that this agreement between vets was unilaterally token as broken, without prior notice and in a secret manner (it is supposed to be still running, but all facts proove the opposite, since 2004), allows only to confirm this analysis and is eloquent on the trust internal democratic situation, and external consideration, and the way that information flows inside.