论文部分内容阅读
A rescue mission of a number of dogs two years ago has now become a court case over compensation.
The China Small Animal Protection Association （CSAPA）， the first association of its kind in the nation， was ordered to pay 10 veterinary clinics 480，000 yuan （$78，768） by the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court on October 28. Tencent， a leading Internet company in China， was also a defendant in the case.
This hefty bill comes after the rescue of hundreds of dogs. On April 15， 2011 a truck on the Beijing-Harbin expressway was spotted by another driver， who noticed that it was filled with dogs. The driver took pictures and shared them online via Tencent’s micro-blogging service as a call to action， suspicious that the truck may be heading for a slaughterhouse， and hoping people would see the images and intervene.
More than 200 volunteers immediately crowded the expressway and conducted a siege upon the truck. Even though the truck driver displayed his quarantine certificate and his permit for delivering the dogs， the volunteers refused to leave. Finally， the Shanghaibased Shangshan Animal Protection Fund and Leepet.com， a leading pet care website in China， coughed up 115，000 yuan （$18，872） to buy the 520 dogs in the truck.
Financial disputes
Sun Zhonghuai， Tencent’s Vice President， announced on April 16 that his company would pay for the medical treatment and care of the rescued dogs. Soon after， Tencent’s official website reiterated that the company would keep their promise and reconfirmed it on April 18.
“Many volunteers came and asked me to accept all the dogs，” said Lu Di， Director of the CSAPA. “I was afraid that we couldn’t cope due to financial difficulties， but the promises from Tencent eased our minds.”
On April 16， the dogs without diseases were sent to CSAPA， with these that had been successfully treated for any illnesses soon following.
“Many dogs were unhealthy and suffering from dehydration and malnutrition， quite a few died before we were able to send them to clinics，” said Xiao Xin， a volunteer who participated in the rescue.
More than 400 dogs were sent to 10 veterinary clinics and Tencent contributed 500，000 yuan （$82，050） in advance for their medical treatment.
However， things quickly spiraled out of control. Treatment fees were unexpectedly high and the 500，000 yuan was used up within days.
“Volunteers brought the dogs to us and asked us to use the best medicine as Tencent would pay，” said Zhu Ning， Director of Chongfuxin Pet Hospital， one of the 10 veterinary clinics at court. “Some dogs had serious diseases such as canine distemper and required expensive medicine，” said Li Shu， a volunteer with veterinary knowledge. “For the dogs with severe illnesses， their medical costs for one day would potentially exceed 1，000 yuan （$164）.”
After the 500，000 yuan they donated was used up， Tencent refused to offer more to the volunteers and CSAPA， as they were unable to provide receipts for the medical costs.
“Some of the receipts are handwritten with clear marks suggesting the numbers being modified，” said a representative of Tencent at court. “We even found some receipts for medical treatment on cats.”
Tencent said that the company could only provide money within the spending limit of 500，000 yuan， but some receipts couldn’t meet the requirements.
Finally， medical costs for the dogs exceeded 1 million yuan （$16，400） and after Tencent refused to pay up， the veterinary clinics refused to continue treating the dogs.
In April 2012， the CSAPA announced on its official website that as of November 9， 2011 donations received for the dogs rescued on April 15 totaled 705，444 yuan （$115，763）， including the 500，000 yuan from Tencent， though the total medical costs amounted to more than 1.28 million yuan （$210，050）.
Later， the 10 veterinary clinics filed a lawsuit demanding that the animal welfare group pay a further 500，000 yuan to cover outstanding expenses. In July， the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court ruled that the CSAPA should pay more than 400，000 yuan （$65，640） to the 10 hospitals concerned， but that Tencent was not liable to pay anything. The association later lodged an appeal against the court ruling， but it was overturned.
“We don’t have any money to pay the clinics，” said the CSAPA’s Lu， who sold her own apartment in Beijing to cover the association’s operating expenses. Compared to the total costs for feeding and caring for hundreds of cats and dogs， its fundraising programs haven’t made much of a dent. “We are struggling with money all the time，” Lu said.
“Every rescue mission ends up as a farce，” said Peng Tao， an animal protection volunteer from southwest China’s Chongqing.
In February 2007， cat lovers found more than 400 cats squeezed into a warehouse in a pet market， also discovering they might soon be put down.
They soon took action to save the cats， calling the police and media and pleading for local resident help. After these efforts proved to be ineffective， they broke down the warehouse door and delivered the cats to the CSAPA in Beijing. Many cats were sick and the medical costs were， as with the dogs， very high. The CSAPA was unable to raise enough money in such a short time and many cats died soon after the rescue. At the same time， the increased workload from dealing with the sudden influx of cats led to CSAPA workers demanding a pay rise， which caused a conflict between them and animal activists. On top of this， after they broke down the door of the warehouse to save the cats， the volunteers and the CSAPA received threats， according to Lu.
Right methods
“Saving cats and dogs can be expensive， which reflects the deeper issues of unregulated industry in China，” Peng said.
According to Sun Quanhui， chief scientist with the World Society for the Protection of Animals， a rational method for protecting animals needs two things—legislation and public participation.
“For example， dogs are not subject to slaughter or food quarantine regulations，” Sun said. “This loophole results in conflicts between the dog-meat industry and dog lovers.” But he warned that having volunteers forcibly stop a legal dog transportation vehicle on the highway should be defined as “violent philanthropy” or vigilantism， which is against the law.
Sun stressed that what China’s animal protection organizations need is a complete and transparent management system， including professional consultancy from experts in the field as well as a set of regulations on how to deal with emergencies.
Wang Zhenyao， Dean of the China Philanthropy Research Institute， said that he would be more rational next time when animals were found in need of help. “The purpose of rescuing them is not simply to free them， but to allow them to live healthily and happily，” Wang said.
Wang noted that if people rescued dogs or other animals； but didn’t care about them afterward， they would lead very miserable lives and would likely starve to death or die of illness.
“Saving animals simply out of enthusiasm is far from enough. From an outsider’s point of view， successfully saving cats or dogs from the hands of slaughterers is the end of the story， when it is really just the beginning，” Wang said.
The China Small Animal Protection Association （CSAPA）， the first association of its kind in the nation， was ordered to pay 10 veterinary clinics 480，000 yuan （$78，768） by the Beijing No.1 Intermediate People’s Court on October 28. Tencent， a leading Internet company in China， was also a defendant in the case.
This hefty bill comes after the rescue of hundreds of dogs. On April 15， 2011 a truck on the Beijing-Harbin expressway was spotted by another driver， who noticed that it was filled with dogs. The driver took pictures and shared them online via Tencent’s micro-blogging service as a call to action， suspicious that the truck may be heading for a slaughterhouse， and hoping people would see the images and intervene.
More than 200 volunteers immediately crowded the expressway and conducted a siege upon the truck. Even though the truck driver displayed his quarantine certificate and his permit for delivering the dogs， the volunteers refused to leave. Finally， the Shanghaibased Shangshan Animal Protection Fund and Leepet.com， a leading pet care website in China， coughed up 115，000 yuan （$18，872） to buy the 520 dogs in the truck.
Financial disputes
Sun Zhonghuai， Tencent’s Vice President， announced on April 16 that his company would pay for the medical treatment and care of the rescued dogs. Soon after， Tencent’s official website reiterated that the company would keep their promise and reconfirmed it on April 18.
“Many volunteers came and asked me to accept all the dogs，” said Lu Di， Director of the CSAPA. “I was afraid that we couldn’t cope due to financial difficulties， but the promises from Tencent eased our minds.”
On April 16， the dogs without diseases were sent to CSAPA， with these that had been successfully treated for any illnesses soon following.
“Many dogs were unhealthy and suffering from dehydration and malnutrition， quite a few died before we were able to send them to clinics，” said Xiao Xin， a volunteer who participated in the rescue.
More than 400 dogs were sent to 10 veterinary clinics and Tencent contributed 500，000 yuan （$82，050） in advance for their medical treatment.
However， things quickly spiraled out of control. Treatment fees were unexpectedly high and the 500，000 yuan was used up within days.
“Volunteers brought the dogs to us and asked us to use the best medicine as Tencent would pay，” said Zhu Ning， Director of Chongfuxin Pet Hospital， one of the 10 veterinary clinics at court. “Some dogs had serious diseases such as canine distemper and required expensive medicine，” said Li Shu， a volunteer with veterinary knowledge. “For the dogs with severe illnesses， their medical costs for one day would potentially exceed 1，000 yuan （$164）.”
After the 500，000 yuan they donated was used up， Tencent refused to offer more to the volunteers and CSAPA， as they were unable to provide receipts for the medical costs.
“Some of the receipts are handwritten with clear marks suggesting the numbers being modified，” said a representative of Tencent at court. “We even found some receipts for medical treatment on cats.”
Tencent said that the company could only provide money within the spending limit of 500，000 yuan， but some receipts couldn’t meet the requirements.
Finally， medical costs for the dogs exceeded 1 million yuan （$16，400） and after Tencent refused to pay up， the veterinary clinics refused to continue treating the dogs.
In April 2012， the CSAPA announced on its official website that as of November 9， 2011 donations received for the dogs rescued on April 15 totaled 705，444 yuan （$115，763）， including the 500，000 yuan from Tencent， though the total medical costs amounted to more than 1.28 million yuan （$210，050）.
Later， the 10 veterinary clinics filed a lawsuit demanding that the animal welfare group pay a further 500，000 yuan to cover outstanding expenses. In July， the Beijing Haidian District People’s Court ruled that the CSAPA should pay more than 400，000 yuan （$65，640） to the 10 hospitals concerned， but that Tencent was not liable to pay anything. The association later lodged an appeal against the court ruling， but it was overturned.
“We don’t have any money to pay the clinics，” said the CSAPA’s Lu， who sold her own apartment in Beijing to cover the association’s operating expenses. Compared to the total costs for feeding and caring for hundreds of cats and dogs， its fundraising programs haven’t made much of a dent. “We are struggling with money all the time，” Lu said.
“Every rescue mission ends up as a farce，” said Peng Tao， an animal protection volunteer from southwest China’s Chongqing.
In February 2007， cat lovers found more than 400 cats squeezed into a warehouse in a pet market， also discovering they might soon be put down.
They soon took action to save the cats， calling the police and media and pleading for local resident help. After these efforts proved to be ineffective， they broke down the warehouse door and delivered the cats to the CSAPA in Beijing. Many cats were sick and the medical costs were， as with the dogs， very high. The CSAPA was unable to raise enough money in such a short time and many cats died soon after the rescue. At the same time， the increased workload from dealing with the sudden influx of cats led to CSAPA workers demanding a pay rise， which caused a conflict between them and animal activists. On top of this， after they broke down the door of the warehouse to save the cats， the volunteers and the CSAPA received threats， according to Lu.
Right methods
“Saving cats and dogs can be expensive， which reflects the deeper issues of unregulated industry in China，” Peng said.
According to Sun Quanhui， chief scientist with the World Society for the Protection of Animals， a rational method for protecting animals needs two things—legislation and public participation.
“For example， dogs are not subject to slaughter or food quarantine regulations，” Sun said. “This loophole results in conflicts between the dog-meat industry and dog lovers.” But he warned that having volunteers forcibly stop a legal dog transportation vehicle on the highway should be defined as “violent philanthropy” or vigilantism， which is against the law.
Sun stressed that what China’s animal protection organizations need is a complete and transparent management system， including professional consultancy from experts in the field as well as a set of regulations on how to deal with emergencies.
Wang Zhenyao， Dean of the China Philanthropy Research Institute， said that he would be more rational next time when animals were found in need of help. “The purpose of rescuing them is not simply to free them， but to allow them to live healthily and happily，” Wang said.
Wang noted that if people rescued dogs or other animals； but didn’t care about them afterward， they would lead very miserable lives and would likely starve to death or die of illness.
“Saving animals simply out of enthusiasm is far from enough. From an outsider’s point of view， successfully saving cats or dogs from the hands of slaughterers is the end of the story， when it is really just the beginning，” Wang said.