Today
Voices
Fostering not the answer
I
REFER to the proposal to foster a pet as a prerequisite of pet ownership in the
letter "Make future pet-owners foster one first" (Nov 23).
I
am against it because it demeans the animals. If we recognise that animals have
feelings, then we should recognise that being fostered to potential owners
exposes them to great risks.
Just
think how a child would feel to be told he would be fostered to some people,
and if those people like him or show they can take care of him, he would be
adopted by them.
What
if the child or the animal has to go through several such fosterings before
being adopted?
Like
cohabiting or renting a flat, a person who fosters a pet may feel less
committed to the relationship and consider it experimental.
Unlike
cohabiting, a pet is unable to enter the relationship on equal terms with the
prospective owner.
Unlike
flat rental, some of the harm done to the pet cannot be reversed.
A
better solution would be to first require compulsory education and testing for
those who want to be pet owners.
A
similarly stringent check should apply to those seeking to bring their pets
into
Second,
there should be periodic verification of the owners' care for pets where
possible, such as compulsory veterinarian checks for cats and dogs.
I
consider the additional costs it would incur for owners to be a necessity to
prevent or detect animal abuse.