We are living on the quiet, more localised side of the island, away from the long stretch of beaches populated by resorts, bars, bodies and restaurants which adorn the west coast of Koh Lanta. Today we take a day trip westwards, to see how the other half live.
It's much as we expected, idyllic but very much set up for a tourist vacation spot, as opposed to a residential spot or fishing village.
We are glad we opted for Lanta Old Town, but we have a nice day eating Papaya Salad on the beach and swimming, before watching the sunset and then repairing to what will be the highlight of our day - and the original reason for the trip - the Time for Lime restaurant.
Time for Lime does a fantastic six course tasting menu which can be fully vegetarianised. It also does the best mojitos for miles around.
But that (honestly) isn't the only reason we are choosing to eat here. Time for Lime is run by a Lady who wanted to use it as a sponsor for her real passion - the Lanta Animal Welfare organisation (LAW).
What we learn, talking to U, who owns both restaurant and was the original founder of LAW, and who stops to welcome us to her beautifully run restaurant, is that there is a huge problem with animals on Koh Lanta, both in terms of over population and thus starvation, and in terms of animals being victims of cruelty.
It seems that in Thailand, unlike Cambodia, the people are largely OK, it's the animals that are suffering.
"Thailand is more and more prosperous now", says S, "the military coup are improving issues with corruption and the standard of living is getting better and better. People are doing really well now."
Certainly in comparison with Cambodia, what we have seen does bear this out. For the animals it is a different story.
"There is a huge amount of dogs and cats" says U, "and we have more of them than we can afford in our care."
And there are more out there. Breeding in the wild, hundreds of animals are brought to the point of starvation because they simply cannot sustain their population. This presumably also has a knock on effect on people's harvest and livestock, leading animals to be resented and/or killed.
LAW runs a humane sterilisation program, to try to curb the over population problem and also provides inoculations for strays where possible.
Unfortunately LAW often finds and rescues animals who are in difficulty through reasons rather less natural than over population. Dogs especially, though cats are also victims of this, are brought to the shelter or rescued because they have been stabbed or assaulted.
Thailand has had an increasingly bad reputation, recently, in respect of its treatment of animals. Generally though, this has concentrated on the more wild creatures, focusing on the notorious 'tiger parks', 'elephant trekking' and 'animal shows'. The problem with all of these has, at its heart, the same issue - animals taken out of their natural habitat and being forced to do something which is against their nature. Tigers pose for photographs, allow noisy tourists to stroke and fondle them and give up their cubs to be picked up and cuddled by human children. Elephants carry humans in strange, knobbly seating contraptions for miles through jungle without stopping to eat, rest or wet their sun sensitive skin with mud and water. Monkeys, Tigers and Baby Elephants perform tightrope stunts on bicycles, stand on their heads and balance on platforms in order to leap through hoops of the fire they would normally run from.
In order to train a wild animal to do such a thing, you have first to convince it that you are its authority. As humans are not, minus their guns, a natural predator or leader of the pack, and would normally be prey, the only way to do this is to frighten the animal into submission. This, in the case of the tigers, involves dragging, hitting with sticks or squirting urine into the face. In the case of the elephants it involves scaring, starvation or hitting with hooks. For the monkeys, generally smaller animals, this is more a case of simple violence.
The methods used often mirror nature in so far as they mimic the actions of such an animal in the wild, establishing its position at the top of the hierarchy for the herd. Such actions, though cruel are not really the point. The issue is that none of these animals should be doing any of these tricks. Like the beleaguered python I so reluctantly held in the Mekong Delta, they are simply not made for it.
Parks and shows like these have received a lot of attention recently and tourists for whom the organisations are designed have been making loudly publicised complaints on the social websites which form the keystone of necessary marketing so there is some movement now, towards change. Having said that, we were handed a leaflet for a set of what called themselves 'eco tours', and which involved both elephant and monkey shows, so there may be some way to go yet.
What I hadn't previously heard about, was the cruelty to dogs and cats, which surprises me. I have seen plenty of much loved domestic pets of both kinds in Lanta Old Town, but it may be this problem occurs elsewhere on Lanta Island.
The question of 'why' is rather obvious in the case of the wild animals in tourist shows, but is not clear in relation to dogs and cats. U is oblique on the topic. She is reluctant to point fingers and more interested in getting on and helping the furry victims. She makes some reference to a 'misinterpretation' of the Muslim faith but deliberately doesn't elaborate. In fact, having done further research I find the Islam faith to be, as I previously understood, a peaceful teaching, urging gentleness to all animals. Apart from a passing note that dogs are considered unclean animals, countered on the same site by an account of the story in which a great teacher gives water to a thirsty dog, and is highly commended for his actions, I can find no obvious teaching which would encourage cruelty to animals. I, like U, have no interest in further besmirching the name of Islam, already much maligned by media presentation of it as synonymous with the actions of fanatics and splinter groups which are as denounced by the majority of Muslims as they are by western society.
Besides, the question of why remains unanswered. Not all of the broken creatures who turn up at LAW's door can be explained by religious misinterpretation.
The immediate western answer frequently uses the buzz word 'education'. Thai people, it is so easy to say, 'just need to be educated on how to treat animals. Really? Do we have no cases of animal cruelty in England? Are our RSPCA hospitals empty? Does tumbleweed blow through the echoing corridors of Rescue Centres?
It happens in England. It happens everywhere. At the very least, we are able to turn a blind eye to the methods and endorse animal shows by taking our children to see them. Do we just not consider that the shows are unnatural? Do we not imagine that any aggression was needed to teach the animals to perform for us? How very uneducated of us. Is it educational for our children?
It's not a Thai problem. It's a human problem.
What makes people cruel to animals is not clear to me. There is a doublethink certainly, in respect of which animals are considered worthy of ill treatment (cats rather than kittens, rats rather than rabbits) and a whole myriad of practices which are cruel in the pursuit of money.
But what about cruelty seemingly for fun? Why would you stab a cat or deliberately scald a dog?
There is a cruel streak in humankind. I am very much of the mindset that everyone has the same potential for good or for evil. We are all of us capable of indulging that cruel streak - the difference between us is how we respond to it. By reasoning with ourselves that to act on it is unacceptable, training our minds gradually not to accept it, by letting it out in some other, more controlled way (BDSM practices, perhaps, between consenting adults?) or by simply giving in and doing it.
Among those that indulge it I wonder perhaps if the reason it might be directed towards animals is the same as the reason some people love them - that animals are silent. They don't argue back.
Of course they do, in some way. If you ill treat an animal you run the risk of being bitten. That is the potential consequence. But I wonder if what we fear more are the words which would bring judgement? If we tell ourselves that animals are not sentient in respect of what is morally acceptable, that they act only on instinct then we can behave in any way we chose towards animals without fear of their judgement. A human might judge us, and then might tell others who would, in turn, proceed to judge us. I think humans are very afraid of that judgement.
Whether this is true because we don't believe animals are capable of judgement or because their inability to talk to other humans means we don't fear their judgement depends perhaps on your world view. If you believe this life is all there is then it only matters if other people find out in your lifetime. Keep it to yourself or have the good fortune to have exited the planet before your misdemeanors are discovered and you've got away with it. On the other hand, if you believe in an all seeing God or even, as one friend of ours once told us, in some sort if final ceremony in which everyone views your life on video, judging your actions, good or bad, then you've got an eye on some rather more long term consequences.
Whatever it is, not many people do it. It's an odd few, and 'odd', I suspect in both senses of the word.
I do not look at the wounds inflicted on cats and dogs, or the pained expression of a 'conquered' wild animal and despair of humanity.
Instead, I think U has the right approach. Just get on and help out. When an animal bleeds and cowers from you, don't speculate on who was the last person it cowered from, just concentrate on making it better.
We can visit the shelter at LAW, and plan to. There is also a run just after Christmas, in aid of LAW which we are considering joining.
For more information or if you want to donate, visit the website at http://www.lantaanimalwelfare.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment