In the year 2000, Milosevic's regime fell. The new government adopted radical reforms, which will prove to be more damaging for Serbia than the Milosevic regime ever was able to be. Among those devastating policies the policy towards animals stands as the most destructive one, but it is overshadowed by the “more serious” issues, such as dealing with the war crimes, Kosovo disputes and pushing towards Eu. Enter the Non Government Organisation or in short NGO's.
The way how the very definition of NGO is perceived here, is that the NGO's are actually government but without responsibility for their actions. Although this understanding is fundamentally nuts and absurd, it finds its justification in the fact that the very word regime or the government was associated with the Milosevic's regime or the government, so the government as the definition got the negative context. Try to picture it like this. In the hospital, one doctor sucks as a doctor and many people seeking treatment actually come out of the hospital sicker. The normal reaction would be to fire that doctor and take his licence away. But in the case of Serbia, not only that the doctor is fired, the entire hospital is shut down and the healthcare system is abandoned as the system, cause of that one doctor.
Story of the our NGO's is equally absurd as it is damaging. Firstly, those NGO's are made out of pet dog owners and dogcravers. The dogcravers were the ones whom got bounded with the stray dogs during the Milosevic's rule so they consider every stray dog to be their pet. They are so obsessed with doggy love, they are so identified with the victim status that they have absolutely no sense what so ever about wider picture. In a way, the advocates of the pitbullery share the same treats, so how the normal dog owners or pit bull victims feel about pitbullery is the exactly the same as how we here feel about dogcravers NGOs and about ALL dogs. While in the West, the pitbullery takes the victim stand and defends unconditionally the rights of the breed and the owners, in Serbia the dogcravers NGO do the same except they do that for ALL dogs, regardless if they are owned or stray. Here it is absolutely irrelevant if the child is mauled by a pit bull, by a Doberman, by a puddle or by a stray, if it is mauled by a dog, the dog is automatically innocent and the child is to blame for the mauling or it was an unfortunate accident that simply happens, due to the laws of nature.
The NGO terror started with the formation of our first NGO back in the mid 90's. The self proclaimed founder of that NGO is the failed veterinarian student and the mega dogcraver. What he did was equally absurd and idiotic. Since he cares only about the dogs, he took the Hungarian Dog protection Act, mixed it up with the Nordic animal protection act and offered that as the Animal Protection Act to Serbian parliament. While he was pushing for the act to be adopted, he almost exclusivity promoted dogs and DOGma. Since he was very well funded, his lush campaigns had the desired result. What they did in essence was paving the way for the dogcravers of Serbia to be accepted and perceived as ecologists and friends of the nature. Every single NGO that was formed after that was only dealing with the stray dogs exclusively and was mimicking his NGO.
The net end result of those efforts was the insanely abysmal super idiotic narrative that goes something like this: If you care for dogs you care for animals, if you care for animals you care for nature and if you care for nature you care for humans. In short if you care for dogs you care for humans. Sounds familiar? This narrative than continued to spawn other equally imbecile narratives out of which I will mention my favourite ones:
“Be a human toward animals”. Meaning animals are humans, which than translates to that humans are animals, cause link works both ways due to equalisation of the species. Religious carvers interpret this as :”We are all God's creations, thus we all have soul and place in heaven”.
“ Humans whom harm animals seek ways to harm humans too.” Meaning that hurting or killing the animal is equal to killing or hurting the human. But if animal hurts or kill human this rule is justified by the laws of nature and it is either provoked by human or it was an accident. With humans the initial presumption is that is international and premeditated. In other words it is the CRIME. Now picture this narrative in the country where hundreds of thousands dogs roam free, the crime rates are bounded to go trough the roof.
This narrative created the infamous link between urban green elevated ones that feel connected with the nature trough HD flat screens(I like to call them elevators) and the nature. Their pet animals are animals. Therefore the care for the pet animal is the care for animals. So all pets are animals and all animals are pets. This automatically means that the nature is home and the home is nature. In other words the elevators think that all animals are pets and that whole planet is one big Mc'Mansion where all animals live as pets. Speaking of delusions of grandeur. And since the dog became the synonym for pet or stray animal, all animals are treated as dogs. So since dogs are by default good and friendly and all animals are dogs, this lead to the understanding that all animals are good and friendly.
However, this insanity trend was one of the main causes of injuries when humans and animals came in contact. Especially young children whom were brain-washed by these narratives, they simply wanted to pet every animal regardless if it was a stray or wild.
The reward for being humane was the free ride to ER or surgery rooms.