Sometimes I sense that the big animal charities such as ASPCA, The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) and PeTA have to perpetuate the animal welfare problems that they wish to eliminate because if they are completely successful in their goal they would have to close up shop and make everyone redundant. The chief executives of major animal charities make good money. They are business people. They are not going to let their “business” go to the wall.
We as spectators of animal welfare charities never conceive of the idea that one day they will cease to exist because there will be no animal welfare issues to deal with. They will never even shrink in size. Problems of animal welfare are not being reduced as far as I’m aware anywhere in the world. Perhaps somebody can correct me on that but certainly over the past 20 years I doubt whether there has been any substantial changes for the better with respect to animal welfare in Western countries.
So these big animal charities are not resolving the problem. All they doing is maintaining it at the same level. Are they simply maintaining it? You could almost argue that the very existence of the big animal charities helps to maintain the animal welfare problem. Their existence validifies the existance of animal abuse and irresponsibility towards animals.
There is a comfortable balance between the big animal charities on one side and a lack of adequate animal welfare amongst a sizeable percentage of animals on the other side. It’s a bit cosy.
But back to my original point, animal welfare charities are a bit like cancer research institutions. Cancer research is a massive business worth billions of dollars every year. There is no way they can cure cancer. Too many people would be out of work.
Am I being too cynical?