It seems that Big Mouth hasn't been looking where he walks: the village's animal populations are his current bug-bear; here he is to bend your ears about why he is a fan of castration!
Well, it's not nice is it? The charming Whitewashed alleyway, the brilliant geranium blooms, the twitter of canaries, and dog-filth all over your sandal. Eeurch! If people must keep the wretched flea-carrying free-loaders (pets, I mean) why do they have to let them foul the streets? Run about mating and fighting and biting and breeding ad-lib? And cluttering up the villages with the grotesquely pathetic site of half-starved offspring, sporting gangrenous wounds from accidents or scraps, and carrying god-only-knows what vermin in their fur? Why don't they keep them well? Why don't they get them snipped?
To snip or not to snip? If you are foolish enough to get lumbered with some wretched creature, the question's relevant pretty quickly. Cats have kittens when they are little more than … well, kittens. Bitches in heat stand no chance of staying innocent round here: the pack's favourite place for fighting, mating, territory marking and then fighting again is usually the table I'm taking a morning coffee at.
Whether to go for the cut is up to the owner. Saw an ad on the side of a bus once; a Great Dane, (they always look puzzled) holding in its mouth a packet of condoms and looking puzzled. Spot on: the dog can't get responsible: it's up to us.
There are various arguments against it. Of these, what might be crudely described as 'the most Spanish' was expressed by my friend José Angel, who cringed, put his hand dramatically to his crotch, laughed and said, “Hombre, no, ¡no puedo hacerlo!” i.e. Man, I couldn't do it! Well, um yes. The thought of castration naturally brings a shudder (for men, at any rate). One big difference though, as I said to José: I'm not suggesting YOU do it: IT'S FOR A DOG. And it's not going to know any different. It won't miss what it's (almost) never had. Animals are pragmatic; they get on with what they fancy now: a game, a walk, a bone or whatever, not
being clever (or stupid) enough to repine over an activity it no longer has the urge for.
Then there's the animal's welfare argument. Frankly, this is an insult to the vet. Castration is a risk only if some untrained imbecile is stupid, cruel and tight enough to attempt it themselves. But a vet will check the creatures okay for the op anyway. he or she'll check age and health is right going ahead anyway. For the males especially, it's tiny minor operation (sorry guys). Where's the risk? Compared to the risks to the animal from STDs (yes, animals get them), fights, stress and/or pregnancy?
There's the 'against nature' argument. This is my favourite argument because it is so fantastically stupid. It usually runs on the claim that it is cruel: cruel not to let every female have at least one lot of young. Can you imagine the famines, feral creatures, and horrible fights if every single viable female pet had a brood? Flood the country with unwanted creatures now, that's cruel. There is absolutely nothing to support this sentimental view; not if you exclude the 'argument' of how cute flossie would look with her litter of eleven or twelve puppies/kittens. There's no evidence it improves the mother's health, or well-being. On the other hand, there's plenty of evidence that dozens and dozens of unwanted kittens and pups end up getting drowned, starved and abused while they (through no fault of their own) cause a nuisance and spread filth in the streets. So much for avoiding cruelty! Of course, you wouldn't let that happen; you would never be so careless. But finding homes for an unnecessary litter is no remedy for having let it get made in the first place: you're pet's offspring then just take places other strays could have had.
If you do own a beast, I understand that less (in the bits department) is more (in the pet department). That is, if snipped, an animal sprays less, fights less, strays less, and is generally more trainable, more obedient, more what people want from a pet. It costs money, of course, but that's part of pet ownership and it's a one-off payment. Besides, there are some excellent charities, like CAS or Action for Animals (who have a shop in Cómpeta) who do their best to subsidise at least some scissor-work in an effort to reduce the number of poor unfortunate neglectees they have to help. And for people like me, who would be very grateful for anything that discouraged that wretched Tom from p*ssing all over my front door all the time, it's a god-send.
Yes, there are various arguments against getting pets castrated, spayed, snipped or otherwise discouraged from over-running the 'pueblos
blancos'. Unfortunately they are all irredeemably stupid: only a lazy, irresponsible and possibly sentimental fool would use them. So why, in hell's name are there so many breeding strays?
Obvious, really. Getting pets snipped costs money, time, and a tiny bit of organising. It seems like a lot of people just can't be bothered with the castrating, training, inoculating, de-flea-ing, grooming, managing pooper-scooping chores, chores that makes sharing a village with a bunch of beasts a reasonable idea for the rest of us.
I know what used to be farming communities tend to have a pretty unsentimental attitude to animals, but I can't believe that any locals (Spaniards born or otherwise) wouldn't cheer a general agreement to clean up the streets, meaning get the pet owners to look after there pets and phase out the strays by getting them all homed or snipped. It won't happen of course. It would take money, organisation and enforcement. The trouble is, in all communities, there are those that will clean up after their pets, and those that will always look the other way, and I for one hope that every last one of the latter ends up walking down my way dog-shit alley and stepping right in it themselves.
