This is me being a cat couch, apparently. One of the many reasons why volunteering at the PSPCA is the best thing in the world.
Thursday, March 31, 2011
Too Precious Not to Post
This is me being a cat couch, apparently. One of the many reasons why volunteering at the PSPCA is the best thing in the world.
Sunday, March 27, 2011
Patrick's Law
I thought you guess might be interested to see this. There is a campaign to change the current laws in place that protect animals for abuse. These people are looking to increase the severity of violating these crimes. This was one of the reasons i was frustrated with animal law, but they are trying to change it!
http://www.patrickslaw.com/index.html
http://www.patrickslaw.com/index.html
Saturday, March 26, 2011
MAJOR ECOLOGICAL DISRUPTION: OUTDOOR CATS & THE ENVIRONMENT
We've talked in class about the impact of domesticate/companion animals on our environment. One example that affects our local communities is the outdoor cat. Over the years, a number of studies have linked both feral and free-ranging domesticate cats to ecological disruption, including bird predation that in turn impacts the rest of the ecosystem. Here's a recent article that appeared in the "Science" section of The New York Times:
Tweety Was Right: Cats Are a Bird’s No. 1 Enemy
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
While public attention has focused on wind turbines as a menace to birds, a new study shows that a far greater threat may be posed by a more familiar antagonist: the pet house cat.
A new study in The Journal of Ornithology on the mortality of baby gray catbirds in the Washington suburbs found that cats were the No. 1 killer in the area, by a large margin.
Nearly 80 percent of the birds were killed by predators, and cats were responsible for 47 percent of those deaths, according to the researchers, from the Smithsonian Institution and Towson University in Maryland. Death rates were particularly high in neighborhoods with large cat populations.
Predation was so serious in some areas that the catbirds could not replace their numbers for the next generation, according to the researchers, who affixed tiny radio transmitters to the birds to follow them. It is the first scientific study to calculate what fraction of bird deaths during the vulnerable fledgling stage can be attributed to cats.
“Cats are way up there in terms of threats to birds — they are a formidable force in driving out native species,” said Peter Marra of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, one of the authors of the study.
The American Bird Conservancy estimates that up to 500 million birds are killed each year by cats — about half by pets and half by feral felines. “I hope we can now stop minimizing and trivializing the impacts that outdoor cats have on the environment and start addressing the serious problem of cat predation,” said Darin Schroeder, the group’s vice president for conservation advocacy.
By contrast, 440,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, although that number is expected to exceed one million by 2030 as the number of wind farms grows to meet increased demand.
The American Bird Conservancy generally supports the development of wind energy, but it argues that wind farms should be “bird smart” — for example, positioned so that they do not interfere with major migration paths or disturb breeding grounds, with their power lines buried to prevent collisions.
“I’m excited about wind; we just have to be careful where and how we put the turbines,” said Dr. Marra, who studies threats to birds, including from climate change and habitat loss. He said the leading cause of bird deaths over all, as opposed to the catbird fledglings in the study, remained collisions with buildings, windows and towers, followed by predators.
Yet wind turbines often provoke greater outrage than cats do, said Gavin Shire, vice president of the Bird Conservancy. “The idea of a man-made machine chopping a bird in half creates a visceral reaction,” he said, “while the idea of a predator with its prey in its mouth — well we’ve seen that on the Nature Channel. People’s reaction is that it is normal for cats to kill birds.”
Household cats were introduced in North America by European colonists; they are regarded as an invasive species and have few natural enemies to check their numbers. “They are like gypsy moths and kudzu — they cause major ecological disruption,” Dr. Marra said.
***
By ELISABETH ROSENTHAL
While public attention has focused on wind turbines as a menace to birds, a new study shows that a far greater threat may be posed by a more familiar antagonist: the pet house cat.
A new study in The Journal of Ornithology on the mortality of baby gray catbirds in the Washington suburbs found that cats were the No. 1 killer in the area, by a large margin.
Nearly 80 percent of the birds were killed by predators, and cats were responsible for 47 percent of those deaths, according to the researchers, from the Smithsonian Institution and Towson University in Maryland. Death rates were particularly high in neighborhoods with large cat populations.
Predation was so serious in some areas that the catbirds could not replace their numbers for the next generation, according to the researchers, who affixed tiny radio transmitters to the birds to follow them. It is the first scientific study to calculate what fraction of bird deaths during the vulnerable fledgling stage can be attributed to cats.
“Cats are way up there in terms of threats to birds — they are a formidable force in driving out native species,” said Peter Marra of the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute, one of the authors of the study.
The American Bird Conservancy estimates that up to 500 million birds are killed each year by cats — about half by pets and half by feral felines. “I hope we can now stop minimizing and trivializing the impacts that outdoor cats have on the environment and start addressing the serious problem of cat predation,” said Darin Schroeder, the group’s vice president for conservation advocacy.
By contrast, 440,000 birds are killed by wind turbines each year, according to the United States Fish and Wildlife Service, although that number is expected to exceed one million by 2030 as the number of wind farms grows to meet increased demand.
The American Bird Conservancy generally supports the development of wind energy, but it argues that wind farms should be “bird smart” — for example, positioned so that they do not interfere with major migration paths or disturb breeding grounds, with their power lines buried to prevent collisions.
“I’m excited about wind; we just have to be careful where and how we put the turbines,” said Dr. Marra, who studies threats to birds, including from climate change and habitat loss. He said the leading cause of bird deaths over all, as opposed to the catbird fledglings in the study, remained collisions with buildings, windows and towers, followed by predators.
Yet wind turbines often provoke greater outrage than cats do, said Gavin Shire, vice president of the Bird Conservancy. “The idea of a man-made machine chopping a bird in half creates a visceral reaction,” he said, “while the idea of a predator with its prey in its mouth — well we’ve seen that on the Nature Channel. People’s reaction is that it is normal for cats to kill birds.”
Household cats were introduced in North America by European colonists; they are regarded as an invasive species and have few natural enemies to check their numbers. “They are like gypsy moths and kudzu — they cause major ecological disruption,” Dr. Marra said.
***
***
The American Bird Conservancy is anti-TNR and pro-euthanasia of feral/free-roaming cats, which doesn't seem to be an ethical solution, especially when we consider that the root of the problem is not cats but humans. At the same time, feral and free-ranging cats continue to be a problem not only for the ecosystem, but also for the cats. The following is a good list of reasons for keeping companion-animal cats indoors:
Why Should You Keep Your Cat Indoors?
Why Should You Keep Your Cat Indoors?
Cats may love to go outside, but for their own good, keep them in. Although cats are smart, alert and adroit, they are no matches for the many perils that await them outside. That's why the average indoor-only cat lives up to three times longer than the cat that goes outside. Consider these threats:
Disease: Feline leukemia and feline immunodeficiency virus are only two of the diseases that are passed from cat to cat and, once contracted, result in the eventual death of the pet. And outside cats are even more likely than dogs to come into contact with rabid wild animals.
Parasites: Outdoor cats suffer from fleas, ticks, ear mites and worms that indoor cats are generally not exposed to.
Poisoning: Poisons can be found in lawn chemicals, bait left out to kill rodents, auto antifreeze and other sources.
Other Animals: Fights with other cats, dogs and wildlife often leave cats maimed or injured. And it's not just tomcats. Female cats also get into fights because the very nature of cats is territorial.
Cruel People: Cats are often the victims of burning, tarring and feathering, and other tortures. Animal dealers may collect outside cats for sale to research facilities. Outside pets are at the mercy of the people they encounter.
Traps: It is estimated that over 100,000 cats are caught in traps each year. Those who aren't killed may suffer for days before being released and often lose limbs fro the injuries.
Traffic: Most outdoor cats die prematurely from auto accidents. It is a myth that cats are "streetwise" about cars. No matter how alert a cat is, it is no match for a fast moving vehicle.
Pet Overpopulation: Unaltered cats allowed to roam and mate at will account for millions of the cats that must be euthanized each year because there aren't enough homes for them. Allowing unaltered animals outside is irresponsible and at the root of the terrible pet overpopulation problem.
Cats can be completely happy inside if you provide them with toys, good care and most importantly, lots of love and attention. If you have a kitten, start it out right by never letting him or her outside. Older cats that are used to the "great outdoors" can make the transition to being indoor cats with time and attention. Spaying and neutering cats will also help you keep them indoors.
LIVESTOCK AND CLIMATE CHANGE
LIVESTOCK AND CLIMATE CHANGE
Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang
The environmental impact of the lifecycle and supply chain of animals raised for food has been vastly underestimated, and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change."
A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs, and poultry.
But recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.
Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang
The environmental impact of the lifecycle and supply chain of animals raised for food has been vastly underestimated, and in fact accounts for at least half of all human-caused greenhouse gases (GHGs), according to Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang, co-authors of "Livestock and Climate Change."
A widely cited 2006 report by the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, Livestock's Long Shadow, estimates that 18 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions are attributable to cattle, buffalo, sheep, goats, camels, pigs, and poultry.
But recent analysis by Goodland and Anhang finds that livestock and their byproducts actually account for at least 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions.
ALL ANIMALS ARE EQUAL, BUT . . .
SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS
By MARK BITTMAN (New York Times, 3/15/2011)
It’s time to take a look at the line between “pet” and “animal.” When the ASPCA sends an agent to the home of a Brooklyn family to arrest one of its members for allegedly killing a hamster, something is wrong.
That “something” is this: we protect “companion animals” like hamsters while largely ignoring what amounts to the torture of chickens and cows and pigs. In short, if I keep a pig as a pet, I can’t kick it. If I keep a pig I intend to sell for food, I can pretty much torture it. State laws known as “Common Farming Exemptions” allow industry — rather than lawmakers — to make any practice legal as long as it’s common. “In other words,” as Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of “Eating Animals,” wrote me via e-mail, “the industry has the power to define cruelty. It’s every bit as crazy as giving burglars the power to define trespassing.”
Meanwhile, there are pet police. So when 19-year-old Monique Smith slammed her sibling’s hamster on the floor and killed it, as she may have done in a fit of rage last week, an ASPCA agent — there are 18 of them, busily responding to animal cruelty calls in the five boroughs and occasionally beyond — arrested her. (The charges were later dropped, though Ms. Smith spent a night in jail at Rikers Island.)
In light of the way most animals are treated in this country, I’m pretty sure that ASPCA agents don’t need to spend their time in Brooklyn defending rodents.
In fact, there’s no rationality to be found here. Just a few blocks from Ms. Smith’s home, along the M subway line, the city routinely is poisoning rodents as quickly and futilely as it possibly can, though rats can be pets also. But that’s hardly the point. This is: we “process” (that means kill) nearly 10 billion animals annually in this country, approximately one-sixth of the world’s total.
Many if not most of these animals are raised (or not, since probably a couple of hundred million are killed at birth) industrially, in conditions that the philosopher Peter Singer and others have compared to concentration camps. Might we more usefully police those who keep egg-laying hens in cages so small the birds can’t open their wings, for example, than anger-management-challenged young people accused of hamstercide?
Yet Ms. Smith was charged as a felon, because in New York (and there are similar laws in other states) if you kick a dog or cat or hamster or, I suppose, a guppy, enough to “cause extreme physical pain” or do so “in an especially depraved or sadistic manner” you may be guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals, as long as you do this “with no justifiable purpose.”
But thanks to Common Farming Exemptions, as long as I “raise” animals for food and it’s done by my fellow “farmers” (in this case, manufacturers might be a better word), I can put around 200 million male chicks a year through grinders (graphic video here), castrate — mostly without anesthetic — 65 million calves and piglets a year, breed sick animals (don’t forget: more than half a billion eggs were recalled last summer, from just two Iowa farms) who in turn breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, allow those sick animals to die without individual veterinary care, imprison animals in cages so small they cannot turn around, skin live animals, or kill animals en masse to stem disease outbreaks.
All of this is legal, because we will eat them.
We have “justifiable purposes”: pleasure (or, at this point, habit, because eating is hardly a pleasure if you do it in your car, or in 10 minutes), convenience — there are few things more filling per dollar than a cheeseburger — and of course corporate profits. We should be treating animals better and raising fewer of them; this would naturally reduce our consumption. All in all, a better situation for us, the animals, the world.
Arguing for the freedom to eat as much meat as you want is equivalent to arguing for treating farm animals as if they could not feel pain. Yet no one would defend Ms. Smith’s cruel action because it was a pet and therefore not born to be put through living hell.
Is it really that bad? After all, a new video from Smithfield, the world’s largest pork producer, makes industrial pig-raising seem like a little bit of heaven. But undercover videos from the Humane Society of the United States tell quite a different story, and a repulsive one. It also explains why we saw laws proposed by friends of agribusiness in both Iowa and Florida in recent weeks that would ban making such videos: the truth hurts, especially if you support the status quo.
Our fantasy is that until the industrial era domesticated animals were treated decently. Maybe that’s true, and maybe it isn’t; but certainly they weren’t turned out by the tens of thousands as if they were widgets.
We’re finally seeing some laws that take the first steps toward generally ameliorating cruelty to farm animals, and it’s safe to say that most of today’s small farmers and even some larger ones raise animals humanely. These few, at least, are treated with as much respect as the law believes we should treat a hamster.
For the majority of non-pets, though, it’s tough luck.
***
Thanks to Audrey for pointing out this piece in class.
By MARK BITTMAN (New York Times, 3/15/2011)
It’s time to take a look at the line between “pet” and “animal.” When the ASPCA sends an agent to the home of a Brooklyn family to arrest one of its members for allegedly killing a hamster, something is wrong.
That “something” is this: we protect “companion animals” like hamsters while largely ignoring what amounts to the torture of chickens and cows and pigs. In short, if I keep a pig as a pet, I can’t kick it. If I keep a pig I intend to sell for food, I can pretty much torture it. State laws known as “Common Farming Exemptions” allow industry — rather than lawmakers — to make any practice legal as long as it’s common. “In other words,” as Jonathan Safran Foer, the author of “Eating Animals,” wrote me via e-mail, “the industry has the power to define cruelty. It’s every bit as crazy as giving burglars the power to define trespassing.”
Meanwhile, there are pet police. So when 19-year-old Monique Smith slammed her sibling’s hamster on the floor and killed it, as she may have done in a fit of rage last week, an ASPCA agent — there are 18 of them, busily responding to animal cruelty calls in the five boroughs and occasionally beyond — arrested her. (The charges were later dropped, though Ms. Smith spent a night in jail at Rikers Island.)
In light of the way most animals are treated in this country, I’m pretty sure that ASPCA agents don’t need to spend their time in Brooklyn defending rodents.
In fact, there’s no rationality to be found here. Just a few blocks from Ms. Smith’s home, along the M subway line, the city routinely is poisoning rodents as quickly and futilely as it possibly can, though rats can be pets also. But that’s hardly the point. This is: we “process” (that means kill) nearly 10 billion animals annually in this country, approximately one-sixth of the world’s total.
Many if not most of these animals are raised (or not, since probably a couple of hundred million are killed at birth) industrially, in conditions that the philosopher Peter Singer and others have compared to concentration camps. Might we more usefully police those who keep egg-laying hens in cages so small the birds can’t open their wings, for example, than anger-management-challenged young people accused of hamstercide?
Yet Ms. Smith was charged as a felon, because in New York (and there are similar laws in other states) if you kick a dog or cat or hamster or, I suppose, a guppy, enough to “cause extreme physical pain” or do so “in an especially depraved or sadistic manner” you may be guilty of aggravated cruelty to animals, as long as you do this “with no justifiable purpose.”
But thanks to Common Farming Exemptions, as long as I “raise” animals for food and it’s done by my fellow “farmers” (in this case, manufacturers might be a better word), I can put around 200 million male chicks a year through grinders (graphic video here), castrate — mostly without anesthetic — 65 million calves and piglets a year, breed sick animals (don’t forget: more than half a billion eggs were recalled last summer, from just two Iowa farms) who in turn breed antibiotic-resistant bacteria, allow those sick animals to die without individual veterinary care, imprison animals in cages so small they cannot turn around, skin live animals, or kill animals en masse to stem disease outbreaks.
All of this is legal, because we will eat them.
We have “justifiable purposes”: pleasure (or, at this point, habit, because eating is hardly a pleasure if you do it in your car, or in 10 minutes), convenience — there are few things more filling per dollar than a cheeseburger — and of course corporate profits. We should be treating animals better and raising fewer of them; this would naturally reduce our consumption. All in all, a better situation for us, the animals, the world.
Arguing for the freedom to eat as much meat as you want is equivalent to arguing for treating farm animals as if they could not feel pain. Yet no one would defend Ms. Smith’s cruel action because it was a pet and therefore not born to be put through living hell.
Is it really that bad? After all, a new video from Smithfield, the world’s largest pork producer, makes industrial pig-raising seem like a little bit of heaven. But undercover videos from the Humane Society of the United States tell quite a different story, and a repulsive one. It also explains why we saw laws proposed by friends of agribusiness in both Iowa and Florida in recent weeks that would ban making such videos: the truth hurts, especially if you support the status quo.
Our fantasy is that until the industrial era domesticated animals were treated decently. Maybe that’s true, and maybe it isn’t; but certainly they weren’t turned out by the tens of thousands as if they were widgets.
We’re finally seeing some laws that take the first steps toward generally ameliorating cruelty to farm animals, and it’s safe to say that most of today’s small farmers and even some larger ones raise animals humanely. These few, at least, are treated with as much respect as the law believes we should treat a hamster.
For the majority of non-pets, though, it’s tough luck.
***
Thanks to Audrey for pointing out this piece in class.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Incremental Approach to Ending Animal Exploitation
Dara Lovitz’s talk confirmed for me that movement towards humane treatment of animals will only come in small increments. Our country is very entrenched in its current ideology that animals, especially farm animals, are meant for human use. The majority of Americans have ingrained views and customs concerning the consumption of meat. I do as well, although this class has led me to reconsider my actions and beliefs. Given the majority opinion radical change will not likely take place. Small changes which are more humane, but not completely humane and far from ideal, must take place first before humane treatment is reached for all animals. Dara’s discussion of Prop 2 which removed some inhumane conditions for calves and hens still left these animals in only minimally more humane conditions. Still, this is a small victory for advocates of animal rights law. However, it is a small increment in the right direction and next hopefully another small increment of success will build off of it. Eventually, I think these increments will build up until all animals are treated humanely in the United States.
The idea of incremental success reminded me of our readings on animal law. Tom Regan points out the difference between immediatists and gradualists. Gradualists believe in, “making the lives of some animals better today and in ending all animal exploitation in the future” (617). I agree with this stance. While it would be better to erase animal exploitation, it does not seem like a realistic goal in the short term. However, over the long term with small victories it does seem possible. Also, Peter Singer’s approach based off of Henry Spira’s ideas towards creating change in the treatment of animals makes sense to me as well. He advocates making changes that the public is ready for, which means choosing the goals which are the most likely to be met. By picking goals which few people would agree with are going to hit a brick wall. Goals which people outside the animal rights community could be persuaded to support will be met faster and gain momentum for the movement. For instance, I think persuading people to support changes in animal welfare laws to include pet stores may be a reasonable short term goal, however it does not solve the problem of persuading people to adopt shelter animals rather than buying an animal at pet store. Inhumane activities would continue, but the lives of some animals would be made better. This makes me think that small increments are worth fighting for.
Animal law's contradictions
Dara Lovitz raised some really important issues in her presentation on animal law on Wednesday. I have always been frustrated by the loopholes in animal law. It's great that some legislators have good intentions toward animals, but good intention is not enough. What animals need is action. Because it is so difficult for any type of wide-scale change to happen in today's society, governments figure they will make small changes bit by bit in order to accustom industries to new rules and regulations (not to mention the fact that these industries are trying to fight changes in regulations and such). And although there is no easy way to create a sudden and seamless rule change, politicians aren't acting quickly enough to end the mistreatment of animals that happens every day. Unfortunately, there isn't much of a solution to this problem. The most important thing to do is raise awareness of the problem. I would like to focus for a moment on the factory farming industry.
Factory farming, as one of the biggest polluters in the US and biggest industry/trade that employs animals, is a huge deal. And yet, the industry lobbies so hard in Congress that the issue has really only 'leaked' to the public through animal rescue organizations. I am a firm believer in the idea that the government doesn't always tell us what's up, and this is a great example of that issue. What the American public needs is education. If the US could be educated on a large scale about where exactly their food comes from, we'd be set--so many people would be outraged and the industry would fall into a deep slump, and, hopefully, completely fail. Of course, it's not as easy as that, but that is the general idea. The same goes for pet abuse and adoption: so many people choose not to adopt because they don't "trust" shelter pets. But people who say this are really being ignorant.
So the main idea I'm trying to get out is just one word: educate. It starts on an individual scale, so we should take advantage of every opportunity we have to educate, inform, and hopefully succeed.
Factory farming, as one of the biggest polluters in the US and biggest industry/trade that employs animals, is a huge deal. And yet, the industry lobbies so hard in Congress that the issue has really only 'leaked' to the public through animal rescue organizations. I am a firm believer in the idea that the government doesn't always tell us what's up, and this is a great example of that issue. What the American public needs is education. If the US could be educated on a large scale about where exactly their food comes from, we'd be set--so many people would be outraged and the industry would fall into a deep slump, and, hopefully, completely fail. Of course, it's not as easy as that, but that is the general idea. The same goes for pet abuse and adoption: so many people choose not to adopt because they don't "trust" shelter pets. But people who say this are really being ignorant.
So the main idea I'm trying to get out is just one word: educate. It starts on an individual scale, so we should take advantage of every opportunity we have to educate, inform, and hopefully succeed.
Dara Lovitz Presentation - Mary Penxa
I found Dara's presentation moving on several accounts. First and foremost I felt the way she set up her powerpoint was highly successful in getting across the message. Since I am studying to be in the education field, I always like to see how other people structure their presentations. I felt her positive vs negative approach to the same issues really helped to show how even though strides are being made in a positive direction, there is certainly a long long way to go.
Some of the pictures were hard to look at, but I feel that ignorance is what a lot of people try to hide behind when it comes to the "it's not my animal - it's not my problem" type of view. I believe if more people saw some of the horrible things that animals actually go through in these cruel situations, they would be far less likely to just pass off the issues as "no big deal".
Her presentation really made me think about how working for animal justice is such a hard thing to do. While you are working for such a wonderful thing, it sometimes always feels like no matter what you do, there are still obstacles. I can really relate to that in my experience in volunteering at the SPCA. I love volunteering there and it really gives me so much joy helping these dogs out. But I can't lie a lot of times it makes me feel extremely sad to. Like no matter how many dogs I walk, there are still some who haven't been able to get outside all day. And no matter how hard I try wonderful dogs are still being put down.
Her presentation really reiterated the fact that we sometimes can feel helpless in these matters. But it also showed that when people ban together that changes can be made. That's what keeps me coming back to the shelter every time. Knowing there is a dog who maybe had just a little better of a day because of me.
While it's easy to feel helpless and like the problem is outside of us, Dara's presentation really hit home that the only way it even begins to get better, is if we keep trying despite this.
-Mary Penxa
Animal law's ups and mostly downs
Having seen Dara Lovitz speak earlier this year at Grindcore House, and having read some of Muzzling a Movement, it was really special to have her come to our very own intimate classroom setting and speak directly to us about her opinions regarding animal law. When I saw her at Grindcore, I came a bit late and it was sort of hard to put where the discussion was in context or emerge myself into the conversation. I wish our class had more time at the end of her presentation to discuss what the food and pet industries do to animals and how animal activists are restricted and oppressed by the government. BUT, within our limited class time, I still felt she covered a lot of good bases.
For example, I was happy she mentioned "Prop 2" as it is quite an advancement for animal rights, yet very contradictory because despite how much "more humane" the slaughter system is made- until animals are no longer produced in factories for human purposes. Furthermore, "Prop 2" still denies animals the right to socialize or live out their lives naturally. Violence and suffering surrounds most domesticated animals at at least one point during their often short lives. So therefore, Animal Law is not successful in "protecting animals" which is it's inherent purpose.
I am also glad that Dara discussed how guardianship and vetrinary malpractice is different because animals are still considered objects, not individuals nor family members. I feel like issues in which monetary value is relayed to the owners of pets, (such as in cases of tainted pet food recalls, malpractice, etc), animals are only further objectivied, which sends me into a nihilistic bad mood- similar to how "GOOD" organizations such as the SPCA makes me feel.
For now, we will have to be patient as Animal law slowly advances and we hopefully head towards a less violent and more open-minded society.
For example, I was happy she mentioned "Prop 2" as it is quite an advancement for animal rights, yet very contradictory because despite how much "more humane" the slaughter system is made- until animals are no longer produced in factories for human purposes. Furthermore, "Prop 2" still denies animals the right to socialize or live out their lives naturally. Violence and suffering surrounds most domesticated animals at at least one point during their often short lives. So therefore, Animal Law is not successful in "protecting animals" which is it's inherent purpose.
I am also glad that Dara discussed how guardianship and vetrinary malpractice is different because animals are still considered objects, not individuals nor family members. I feel like issues in which monetary value is relayed to the owners of pets, (such as in cases of tainted pet food recalls, malpractice, etc), animals are only further objectivied, which sends me into a nihilistic bad mood- similar to how "GOOD" organizations such as the SPCA makes me feel.
For now, we will have to be patient as Animal law slowly advances and we hopefully head towards a less violent and more open-minded society.
The inevitability of utilitarianism
I was really interested in Dara Lovitz's discussion with us on Animal Law. I've always had an interest in politics and government, and I enjoyed hearing about animal issues from a legal point of view.
Wednesday's talk reminded me of the insanely slow and difficult process of government. It is always a uphill battle to voice your opinion and a struggle to make any kinds of serious reform. The fact that Prop 2 had finally passed is a great achievement in and of itself, though of course, the terms were not as stringent as most activists would have liked.
Reflecting on these issues of concern reminded me of the conflict between rights activists and utilitarian activists.
When I read the articles out of our Animal Ethics book, there are many times when it's easy for me to say, "we have to focus on the individual animals and not group them all together and assume the same details for each and every one." In an idealistic way, I completely understand rights activists and support them. But listening to Dara speak reminded me of how inevitable utilitarianism is. In government, there are rarely individuals. Each member of congress, every judge, every mayor... they all speak for more than themselves. They represent our country, and make our decisions for us. While we know our president by name, his actions do more than represent himself, they represent our country.
So it stands to reason that since it is impossible to have individual human animals represented in government, that is it impossible to have individual nonhuman animals represented in government as well. While this makes it harder for rights activists to get their points across, it is the only way our country can function without becoming a collective anarchy.
I am not saying this to dishearten or look down on rights activists. They believe strongly in what they do and hold to their values, which is highly commendable. But I do think that understanding the intricacies and inevitabilities our of government could strongly help them in finding a louder voice.
A Meditation on Three "Objects"
(It occurred to me AFTER I wrote this that Professor Featherston is an actual, publish poet. I should probably apologize for this, but I'm far too easily amused by setting concepts to rhyming verse to be ashamed. I actually don't like writing literary poetry; I just like writing fun rhymes. It's the teacher in me, I suppose.)
I present to you a chicken tender
Lightly battered, deeply fried
But once it was a noble chicken
Trapped in a cage until it died
I present to you a goofy pit bull
Loyal, steadfast, true, and right
With its tail forever wagging
It was forced to win a fight
I present to you a wooden table
Functional, but nothing more
A mere object in a household
Between the walls, above the floor
What do these things have in common?
Very little overall...
But yet they’re all grouped together
Underneath the country’s law
Now let’s step back with dog and chicken
Both disrespected in a way
Yet one is food, the other playmate
“Is this really fair?” we say
If dogs are pets and pets are special
Because of the bond we share
Then to go bonding with our poultry
Is too much for most to bear
But do pets connect us to the wild?
Dogs are owed, yet chickens not?
Both are dependent on our kindness
Neither one can choose their lot
Pets were molded by us humans
Farmed animals as well
Both are used to serve out needs now
If they’re willing, we can’t tell
Are dog and chicken really different?
Both are lives we trade as tools
And when we ignore this concept
We’re the ones who look like fools
So let’s step back and reconsider
The chicken, dog and chair
All are “objects” in our culture
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care
I present to you a chicken tender
Lightly battered, deeply fried
But once it was a noble chicken
Trapped in a cage until it died
I present to you a goofy pit bull
Loyal, steadfast, true, and right
With its tail forever wagging
It was forced to win a fight
I present to you a wooden table
Functional, but nothing more
A mere object in a household
Between the walls, above the floor
What do these things have in common?
Very little overall...
But yet they’re all grouped together
Underneath the country’s law
Now let’s step back with dog and chicken
Both disrespected in a way
Yet one is food, the other playmate
“Is this really fair?” we say
If dogs are pets and pets are special
Because of the bond we share
Then to go bonding with our poultry
Is too much for most to bear
But do pets connect us to the wild?
Dogs are owed, yet chickens not?
Both are dependent on our kindness
Neither one can choose their lot
Pets were molded by us humans
Farmed animals as well
Both are used to serve out needs now
If they’re willing, we can’t tell
Are dog and chicken really different?
Both are lives we trade as tools
And when we ignore this concept
We’re the ones who look like fools
So let’s step back and reconsider
The chicken, dog and chair
All are “objects” in our culture
That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t care
Thursday, March 24, 2011
Dara Lovitz
The presentation on Animal Law the other day really got me into thinking about how much more progress needs to be made before animal rights can be secured.
What the presentation made obvious was that animals are still viewed as property. People go to the pet store or an animal rescue and shop for a pet. It is a rare occasion when a person chooses to get a companion animal for the benefit of the being they are brining into their home.
As a society, I think our mindset needs to change about how we view animals. They are not objects and the conditions they are often subjected to are unacceptable.
All the problems Ms. Lovitz pointed out really make me see while its worthwhile to continue efforts for animals rights. Every step we take forward are only baby steps in the process of ensuring the welfare and rights of animals.
As Ms. Lovitz pointed out, even when laws are passed for such things as not keeping egg laying hens in cages, it still does not mean they are treated well. Her talk was very effective because it reminded me of how far we've come in terms of animal rights, but still how much more work needs to be done.
Today's Animal Law.... whats the point?
I really enjoyed and took a lot from Dara Lovitz presentation on Wednesday. At the same time though it really frustrated me. Though there are laws in place like Prop 2 that help to prevent animal cruelty, dog fighting, veterinary malpractice and so forth, there are so many loop holes and insignificant punishments that it just feels like well what is the point. For example, the animal welfare act that protects animals has a clause in it that exempts pet stores from it. This basically means that a pet store can deny an animal its rights through neglect and abuse and not have repercussions. In addition to this when animal law actually does work to in favor of an animal the punishment for the wrong doing is very insignificant. In the case against pet food companies, pet owners that lost their animals only received market value price for the pet that they lost. Though the animal won the case they were considered property and not worth much. This discourages people from bringing cases to court such as this one because they only receive the market value, in animal law there are no emotional damages, so it becomes more expensive to bring someone to trail than you would be able to win back.
It truly frustrates me, it feels as if the animal laws in place now are almost pointless. From my experience at the Pennsylvania SPCA there are so many dogs that come in as cruelty/neglect cases, i met a dog that had terrible tissue damage on his neck and was extremely emaciated, in my opinion whoever did that should be jailed. If they were to do the same to another moral patient, lets say a child they would be facing serious jail time. I do not know the specifics of this dog's case, but from what i know of the law the owner probably got off with a fine. That isn't enough.
It truly frustrates me, it feels as if the animal laws in place now are almost pointless. From my experience at the Pennsylvania SPCA there are so many dogs that come in as cruelty/neglect cases, i met a dog that had terrible tissue damage on his neck and was extremely emaciated, in my opinion whoever did that should be jailed. If they were to do the same to another moral patient, lets say a child they would be facing serious jail time. I do not know the specifics of this dog's case, but from what i know of the law the owner probably got off with a fine. That isn't enough.
Animal Law
Dara Lovitz's presentation of Animal Law was really eye opening. I did not really know anything about animal law, or to whom it applies. While it is great that there is Prop 2, animal cruelty, anti-dog fighting, and malpractice laws, there are so many loop holes that do not really help the animals that truly need the most help.
Some positives of the animal laws which Ms. Lovitz presented were that at least some animals are beginning to receive protection. Also, it shows that people are starting to show interest into animal rights. These animal welfare, rights, or lobbyists are doing something right, and are able to somehow receive more money to educate the public on animal issues.
However, none of these laws fully protect any animal. As Lovitz stated, the big industries can get the law "off their farm." At the base of it all, if people continue to eat animals and meat daily, there will ALWAYS be animal cruelty, which opens up a larger issue. Are animals our equals, or equal to infants at least, in which they should not be eaten at all? Or are they here for our use, and is it better for humans to eat meat then it is for animals to live freely? I know that I cannot even decide on this question, and I often go back and forth. In the rare case that a large majority of the world's popular agreed that animals are equals and should not be eaten, could America ever pass a law to protect their right to live? Or would that be infringing on rights of man?
I do have a few remaining questions. How do people who look at animals as equals, friends, helpers on farms, and as food, in places like third world country, feel about animals rights? Also, has Dara Lovitz defended animals in a trial setting? If so, what was the case?
Some positives of the animal laws which Ms. Lovitz presented were that at least some animals are beginning to receive protection. Also, it shows that people are starting to show interest into animal rights. These animal welfare, rights, or lobbyists are doing something right, and are able to somehow receive more money to educate the public on animal issues.
However, none of these laws fully protect any animal. As Lovitz stated, the big industries can get the law "off their farm." At the base of it all, if people continue to eat animals and meat daily, there will ALWAYS be animal cruelty, which opens up a larger issue. Are animals our equals, or equal to infants at least, in which they should not be eaten at all? Or are they here for our use, and is it better for humans to eat meat then it is for animals to live freely? I know that I cannot even decide on this question, and I often go back and forth. In the rare case that a large majority of the world's popular agreed that animals are equals and should not be eaten, could America ever pass a law to protect their right to live? Or would that be infringing on rights of man?
I do have a few remaining questions. How do people who look at animals as equals, friends, helpers on farms, and as food, in places like third world country, feel about animals rights? Also, has Dara Lovitz defended animals in a trial setting? If so, what was the case?
Wednesday, March 23, 2011
Response to Dara Lovitz's Class Visit
I really liked the presentation Dara Lovitz gave about animal law because I felt like she was really honest. For the first half of it I was a little frustrated hearing about the animal laws that have been passed because while it is obviously a great thing that enough people care about animals to have laws passed for them, those laws are quite apparently not enough. The truth is, regardless of whatever laws that are out there, there is still continues to be and will continue to be unjustifiable amounts of animal suffering. Fortunately, this is what the second half of Dara’s presentation was about. She wasn’t afraid to say that the animal cruelty laws only protect less than 3% of animals and that they don’t do much service at all in the big picture. It was also really frustrating to hear that there’s something called a Common Farming Exemption which exempts farm animals from any animal cruelty legislation. Dara told us that 95% of animals are farmed animals, so this means that 95% of animals are excluded from animal cruelty laws, and this is because the people who run animal farming are the ones who write the regulations.
Probably the most positive thing I got out of the lecture is the fact that Pennsylvania has a law that makes cruelty to animals illegal (except farm animals of course). This is nice to know just for the reason that if you find a case where someone is neglecting or abusing their pets, they will get in trouble for it. So, even if it is an exclusive law, at least some animals are being protected. That’s better than none, right? And there are certainly enough domesticated animals in Pennsylvania to make it significant.
Probably the most positive thing I got out of the lecture is the fact that Pennsylvania has a law that makes cruelty to animals illegal (except farm animals of course). This is nice to know just for the reason that if you find a case where someone is neglecting or abusing their pets, they will get in trouble for it. So, even if it is an exclusive law, at least some animals are being protected. That’s better than none, right? And there are certainly enough domesticated animals in Pennsylvania to make it significant.
Personal Ethics vs. Economic Realities
One thing that's become very evident to me in volunteering at the PSPCA, in the course readings, and especially in Dara Lovitz's talk today is that when theory and praxis don't match up, it's often due to economics. Lovitz kept saying over and over, when talking about Prop 2, when talking about breed specific legislation and farm animal legislation, that it often comes down to which industry has the most money, and often companies such as PetSmart and PetCo, pet stores, and the agricultural industry, are too strong so that small non-profits interested in protecting the rights of animals aren't able to do much. Organizations like the PSPCA are able to help animals, to do some good, to put a dent in the problem but they really aren't able to make much change when going up against consumers that are set on buying pets instead of adopting them and lobbyists for the pet industry that have a lot of money.
Maybe this is really cynical, but it seems like we can debate ethics as much as we want concerning animal capabilities, rights, and interests, but in the end everything comes down to who has the most money. I guess that's why it's even more impressive when animal rights organizations win victories. And while I have a great respect for people like Lovitz and the work they do because it yields real, tangible results, I can't help but think that working within the system is never going to be a good way of creating sustainable change. I think Lovitz was completely aware of this, of how making cages bigger or eliminating the cages completely does nothing to stop the suffering inherent in industries that kill and use animals as tools. I'm more of an abolitionist when it comes to things like this (I also feel that way about the human prison system)-- in the end, putting band aids on problems instead of addressing the root causes that lie in economics, social attitudes, and communities, does nothing really to make things better and in fact helps to hold the system in place. It's frustrating trying to find a perfect solution and maybe there isn't one, but I think it's important to keep searching for answers and never be content with anything that feels like an easy fix.
Maybe this is really cynical, but it seems like we can debate ethics as much as we want concerning animal capabilities, rights, and interests, but in the end everything comes down to who has the most money. I guess that's why it's even more impressive when animal rights organizations win victories. And while I have a great respect for people like Lovitz and the work they do because it yields real, tangible results, I can't help but think that working within the system is never going to be a good way of creating sustainable change. I think Lovitz was completely aware of this, of how making cages bigger or eliminating the cages completely does nothing to stop the suffering inherent in industries that kill and use animals as tools. I'm more of an abolitionist when it comes to things like this (I also feel that way about the human prison system)-- in the end, putting band aids on problems instead of addressing the root causes that lie in economics, social attitudes, and communities, does nothing really to make things better and in fact helps to hold the system in place. It's frustrating trying to find a perfect solution and maybe there isn't one, but I think it's important to keep searching for answers and never be content with anything that feels like an easy fix.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Earthlings
Although I was not really prepared for the brutally honest and graphic exposure of how violently one species exploits the countless other fauna on this small yet diverse planet we all share. I became very emotional during the screening, as did most of the room, and as I feel most people I know would. The film did not directly make moral judgments, although, as a documentary may not have been very objective- for example it pretty much showed the worst of the worst. I feel that this angle is necessary and effective, on one hand, because these are very urgent topics. However, I do feel that the average person would not be able to make it through even the first section if watching the movie alone- it is easier to push these images out of sight and out of mind, and hope (as the movie states) that the animals one employs are not the ones shown in that video. Also, as I mentioned in class one day, it does help rhetorically to at least mention the other side's arguments, followed by why they are weak which Earthlings did a bit of.
That being said, I feel that everyone deserves to be informed about what they are supporting by paying companies to do these things, what they are putting into their body, and what that does to fellow earthings, and the Earth itself. Therefore, I have decided that for my birthday (April 10th!) I am simply asking all of my friends and family members to watch the entire thing in lieu of giving me any thing (aside from possibly donating me bike parts because my wonderful custom-scrapped fixie was just stolen =( )
It may not be an easy watch, but it isn't really a matter of desire but more of a personal responsibility. Unfortunately, in this faux-democracy, the only real vote we have, if any, is with our ca$hmonies. To inform oneself about where they are placing these daily votes is to easily practice humanity on an small scale/individual level and on a daily basis.
That being said, I feel that everyone deserves to be informed about what they are supporting by paying companies to do these things, what they are putting into their body, and what that does to fellow earthings, and the Earth itself. Therefore, I have decided that for my birthday (April 10th!) I am simply asking all of my friends and family members to watch the entire thing in lieu of giving me any thing (aside from possibly donating me bike parts because my wonderful custom-scrapped fixie was just stolen =( )
It may not be an easy watch, but it isn't really a matter of desire but more of a personal responsibility. Unfortunately, in this faux-democracy, the only real vote we have, if any, is with our ca$hmonies. To inform oneself about where they are placing these daily votes is to easily practice humanity on an small scale/individual level and on a daily basis.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
DOMINIONISTS, HUMANISTS, PROTECTIONISTS
The following article appeared earlier this week in the New York Times. Notice the ways in which the classifications of companion animals and their people are far more nuanced than many of the essays in the "Animal Companions" section of our reader (monoliths of "pet" and "pet owner," simple binary of nonhuman animal as either "domestic" or "wild," and so on).
Among other things, this article demonstrates the trend over the past several years toward a more sophisticated approach to companion-animal studies and human-animal relations. You'll also find more of this sort of sophistication in the sciences than in the humanities, although this, too, is changing.
March 14, 2011
Emotional Power Broker of the Modern Family
By BENEDICT CAREY
First, he tore up his dog toys. Then shredded the furniture, clothes, schoolbooks — and, finally, any semblance of family unity. James, a chocolate-brown pointer mix, turned from adorable pet to problem child in a matter of weeks.
“The big bone of contention was that my mom and my sister thought that he was too smart to be treated like a dog; they thought he was a person and should be treated as such — well, spoiled,” said Danielle, a Florida woman who asked that her last name not be published to avoid more family pet strife. “The dog remains to this day, 10 years later, a source of contention and anger.”
Psychologists long ago confirmed what most pet owners feel in their bones: that for some people bonds with animals are every bit as strong as those with other humans. And less complicated, for sure; a dog’s devotion is without detectable irony, a lap cat’s purring without artifice (if not disapproval).
Yet the nature of individual human-pet relationships varies widely, and only now are scientists beginning to characterize those differences, and their impact on the family. Pets alter not only a family’s routines, after all, but also its hierarchy, its social rhythm, its web of relationships. Several new lines of research help explain why this overall effect can be so comforting in some families, and a source of tension in others. The answers have very little to do with the pet.
“The word ‘pet’ does not really capture what these animals mean in a family, first of all,” said Froma Walsh, a psychologist at the University of Chicago and co-director of the Chicago Center for Family Health. The prevalent term among researchers is now “companion animal,” she said, which is closer to the childlike role they so often play.
“And in the way that children get caught up in the family system as peacekeepers, as go-betweens, as sources of disagreement, the same happens with pets.”
People cast these roles in part based on the sensations and memories associated with their first Princess or Scooter, psychologists say — echoing Freud’s idea of transference, in which early relationships provide a template for later ones. In many families, this means that Scruffy is the universal peacemaker, the fulcrum of shared affection.
In a family interview reviewed by Dr. Walsh in a recent paper, one mother said that the best way to end an argument between siblings was to bark, “Stop fighting, you’re upsetting Barkley!” “This is always more effective than saying, ‘Stop hitting your brother,’ ” the mother said. (Barkley made no comment.)
Animals often sense these expectations and act on them. In a video recording of another family discussed in the paper, the cat jumps on a woman’s lap when it senses an impending argument with her husband. “And it works,” Dr. Walsh said. “It reduces tension in both; you can see it happening.”
“She’s my first child,” said Adrienne Woods, a cellist in Los Angeles, of Bella, the Husky puppy that she and her fiancé just got. “The biggest upside is this sense of inner peace. I feel like a grandma, like I have a companion I’ve been wanting for 30 years.”
Yet pets can also raise tension, as millions of couples learn the hard way. The Animal Planet show “It’s Me or the Dog” is built on such cases. And Cesar Millan, a dog behavior specialist, has become a celebrity by helping people gain control over unruly hounds, bringing order into households with uncertain lines of authority.
Perhaps more often, pets become a psychological wedge not from lack of boundaries but because family members have diverging views of what a pet should be. And those views are shaped by cultural inheritance, more so than people may realize.
In a study of dog ownership, Elizabeth Terrien, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, conducted 90 in-depth interviews with families in Los Angeles, including Ms. Woods. One clear trend that has emerged is that people from rural backgrounds tend to see their dogs as guardians to be kept outside, whereas middle-class couples typically treat their hounds as children, often having them sleep in the master bedroom, or a special bed.
When asked to describe their pets without using the word “dog,” people in more affluent neighborhoods “came up with things like child, companion, little friend, teenage son, brother, or partner in crime,” Dr. Terrien said. In neighborhoods with a larger Latino immigrant population, owners were more likely to say “protector,” or even “toy for the children,” she found. “In those neighborhoods you’ll sometimes see kids yanking around a dog on the leash, pushing and playing, the sort of behavior that some middle-class owners would think of as abuse,” she said.
Such differences often emerge only after a family has adopted a pet, and they can exacerbate the more mundane disagreements about pet care, like how much to spend on vet bills, how often to walk the dog, how the animal should interact with young children. The fallout from such conflicts isn’t hard to find: Most everyone knows of couples who have quarreled over pets, or even divorced, because her spaniel nipped at his Rottweiler.
And there are countless single people out there all but married to some hairy Frida or Diego — banishing any potential partner who doesn’t fall quickly, and equally, in love.
The reason these feelings run so deep is that they are ideologies, as well as cultural and psychological dispositions. In the summer of 2007, David Blouin, a sociologist at Indiana University, South Bend, conducted extensive interviews with 35 dog owners around the state, chosen to represent a diverse mix of city, country and suburban dwellers.
He found that, as a rule, people fall into one of three broad categories of beliefs concerning pets. Members of one group, which he labels “dominionists,” see pets as an appendage to the family, a useful helper ranking below humans that is beloved but, ultimately, replaceable. Many people from rural areas — like the immigrants Dr. Terrien interviewed — qualified.
Another group of owners, labeled by Dr. Blouin as “humanists,” are the type who cherish their dog as a favored child or primary companion, to be pampered, allowed into bed, and mourned like a dying child at the end. These include the people who cook special meals for a pet, take it to exercise classes, to therapy — or leave it stock options in their will.
The third, called “protectionists,” strive to be the animal’s advocate. These owners have strong views about animal welfare, but their views on how a pet should be treated — whether it sleeps inside or outside, when it should be put down — vary depending on what they think is “best” for the animal. Its members include people who will “save” a dog tied to tree outside a store, usually delivering it home with a lecture about how to care for an animal.
“These are ideologies, and so protectionists are very critical of humanists, who are very critical of dominionists, and so on,” Dr. Blouin said. “You can see where this can create problems if people in a family have different orientations. Every little decision about the pet is loaded.”
Up until, and including, the end: Couples may not only disagree over when to put an animal down but also have vastly different emotional reactions to the loss. “For someone who’s been treating the pet like a child, it can feel like the loss of a child — and of course children are not supposed to die before their parents,” Dr. Terrien said. It’s an end-of-life crisis, which often begins a lengthy period of grieving. Whereas for the partner who sees the pet differently, the death may bring relief.
None of which is to say that a resourceful pet — using the combined power of cuteness, doleful stares and episodes of getting stuck in boxes or eating crayons — cannot bridge such opposing religions. But family therapists say that, usually, four-legged diplomats need some help from the two-legged kind to succeed.
“Families either figure it out and manage these differences,” Dr. Terrien said, “or they give up the pet — which happens far more often than people think.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/health/15pets.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Among other things, this article demonstrates the trend over the past several years toward a more sophisticated approach to companion-animal studies and human-animal relations. You'll also find more of this sort of sophistication in the sciences than in the humanities, although this, too, is changing.
March 14, 2011
Emotional Power Broker of the Modern Family
By BENEDICT CAREY
First, he tore up his dog toys. Then shredded the furniture, clothes, schoolbooks — and, finally, any semblance of family unity. James, a chocolate-brown pointer mix, turned from adorable pet to problem child in a matter of weeks.
“The big bone of contention was that my mom and my sister thought that he was too smart to be treated like a dog; they thought he was a person and should be treated as such — well, spoiled,” said Danielle, a Florida woman who asked that her last name not be published to avoid more family pet strife. “The dog remains to this day, 10 years later, a source of contention and anger.”
Psychologists long ago confirmed what most pet owners feel in their bones: that for some people bonds with animals are every bit as strong as those with other humans. And less complicated, for sure; a dog’s devotion is without detectable irony, a lap cat’s purring without artifice (if not disapproval).
Yet the nature of individual human-pet relationships varies widely, and only now are scientists beginning to characterize those differences, and their impact on the family. Pets alter not only a family’s routines, after all, but also its hierarchy, its social rhythm, its web of relationships. Several new lines of research help explain why this overall effect can be so comforting in some families, and a source of tension in others. The answers have very little to do with the pet.
“The word ‘pet’ does not really capture what these animals mean in a family, first of all,” said Froma Walsh, a psychologist at the University of Chicago and co-director of the Chicago Center for Family Health. The prevalent term among researchers is now “companion animal,” she said, which is closer to the childlike role they so often play.
“And in the way that children get caught up in the family system as peacekeepers, as go-betweens, as sources of disagreement, the same happens with pets.”
People cast these roles in part based on the sensations and memories associated with their first Princess or Scooter, psychologists say — echoing Freud’s idea of transference, in which early relationships provide a template for later ones. In many families, this means that Scruffy is the universal peacemaker, the fulcrum of shared affection.
In a family interview reviewed by Dr. Walsh in a recent paper, one mother said that the best way to end an argument between siblings was to bark, “Stop fighting, you’re upsetting Barkley!” “This is always more effective than saying, ‘Stop hitting your brother,’ ” the mother said. (Barkley made no comment.)
Animals often sense these expectations and act on them. In a video recording of another family discussed in the paper, the cat jumps on a woman’s lap when it senses an impending argument with her husband. “And it works,” Dr. Walsh said. “It reduces tension in both; you can see it happening.”
“She’s my first child,” said Adrienne Woods, a cellist in Los Angeles, of Bella, the Husky puppy that she and her fiancé just got. “The biggest upside is this sense of inner peace. I feel like a grandma, like I have a companion I’ve been wanting for 30 years.”
Yet pets can also raise tension, as millions of couples learn the hard way. The Animal Planet show “It’s Me or the Dog” is built on such cases. And Cesar Millan, a dog behavior specialist, has become a celebrity by helping people gain control over unruly hounds, bringing order into households with uncertain lines of authority.
Perhaps more often, pets become a psychological wedge not from lack of boundaries but because family members have diverging views of what a pet should be. And those views are shaped by cultural inheritance, more so than people may realize.
In a study of dog ownership, Elizabeth Terrien, a sociologist at the University of Chicago, conducted 90 in-depth interviews with families in Los Angeles, including Ms. Woods. One clear trend that has emerged is that people from rural backgrounds tend to see their dogs as guardians to be kept outside, whereas middle-class couples typically treat their hounds as children, often having them sleep in the master bedroom, or a special bed.
When asked to describe their pets without using the word “dog,” people in more affluent neighborhoods “came up with things like child, companion, little friend, teenage son, brother, or partner in crime,” Dr. Terrien said. In neighborhoods with a larger Latino immigrant population, owners were more likely to say “protector,” or even “toy for the children,” she found. “In those neighborhoods you’ll sometimes see kids yanking around a dog on the leash, pushing and playing, the sort of behavior that some middle-class owners would think of as abuse,” she said.
Such differences often emerge only after a family has adopted a pet, and they can exacerbate the more mundane disagreements about pet care, like how much to spend on vet bills, how often to walk the dog, how the animal should interact with young children. The fallout from such conflicts isn’t hard to find: Most everyone knows of couples who have quarreled over pets, or even divorced, because her spaniel nipped at his Rottweiler.
And there are countless single people out there all but married to some hairy Frida or Diego — banishing any potential partner who doesn’t fall quickly, and equally, in love.
The reason these feelings run so deep is that they are ideologies, as well as cultural and psychological dispositions. In the summer of 2007, David Blouin, a sociologist at Indiana University, South Bend, conducted extensive interviews with 35 dog owners around the state, chosen to represent a diverse mix of city, country and suburban dwellers.
He found that, as a rule, people fall into one of three broad categories of beliefs concerning pets. Members of one group, which he labels “dominionists,” see pets as an appendage to the family, a useful helper ranking below humans that is beloved but, ultimately, replaceable. Many people from rural areas — like the immigrants Dr. Terrien interviewed — qualified.
Another group of owners, labeled by Dr. Blouin as “humanists,” are the type who cherish their dog as a favored child or primary companion, to be pampered, allowed into bed, and mourned like a dying child at the end. These include the people who cook special meals for a pet, take it to exercise classes, to therapy — or leave it stock options in their will.
The third, called “protectionists,” strive to be the animal’s advocate. These owners have strong views about animal welfare, but their views on how a pet should be treated — whether it sleeps inside or outside, when it should be put down — vary depending on what they think is “best” for the animal. Its members include people who will “save” a dog tied to tree outside a store, usually delivering it home with a lecture about how to care for an animal.
“These are ideologies, and so protectionists are very critical of humanists, who are very critical of dominionists, and so on,” Dr. Blouin said. “You can see where this can create problems if people in a family have different orientations. Every little decision about the pet is loaded.”
Up until, and including, the end: Couples may not only disagree over when to put an animal down but also have vastly different emotional reactions to the loss. “For someone who’s been treating the pet like a child, it can feel like the loss of a child — and of course children are not supposed to die before their parents,” Dr. Terrien said. It’s an end-of-life crisis, which often begins a lengthy period of grieving. Whereas for the partner who sees the pet differently, the death may bring relief.
None of which is to say that a resourceful pet — using the combined power of cuteness, doleful stares and episodes of getting stuck in boxes or eating crayons — cannot bridge such opposing religions. But family therapists say that, usually, four-legged diplomats need some help from the two-legged kind to succeed.
“Families either figure it out and manage these differences,” Dr. Terrien said, “or they give up the pet — which happens far more often than people think.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/15/health/15pets.html?_r=1&emc=eta1
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
!!!!Pictures of cuties from the SPCA!!!!
This past week at the SPCA, the kitties were acting sort of strange and instead of playing vigorously with toys, they were really into rubbing their faces and sides on me and arching their backs and making strange bird-like-ish noises. Needless to say, I got really hairy both days when they were acting like this. Also they were a little bit more on-edge with each other in the social cat nap room, and with me in the chillzone with the couches. I got pretty badly scratched a few times when taking Yeadon out of her cage, and when playing with Miss Piggy in the catnap room. I sort of felt like I was might have been doing something wrong, but when I looked up some cat body language online, some of the sources said that this bird-like chirping sound was actually a friendly and excited greeting. And I figured that the rubbing up against me may have just been friendly cuddling. Anyone have any similar experiences or perhaps know how to interpret this behavior?
Thanks!
Ash
P.S. I enjoyed discussing "caregiver talk"in class today because people usually find it odd when I talk to babies, young children, and animals the same as I would talk to any of my other friends. I guess it does seem a little bit weird to say "yo, what's up" in a (relatively) low voice to a cat or dog, but this just seems more natural and less fake to me. Lately, around other people, I have been sort of altering this behavior because I am afraid people will assume I'm being rude if I don't employ a caregiver voice.
Monday, March 14, 2011
REMINDER: THE PIT BULL PLACEBO
You are cordially invited to join Temple Student Animal Legal Defense Fund and the National Canine Research Council for a special presentation on "The Pit Bull Placebo: Media, Myth, Law and Companion Dogs."
What: In The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression, Karen Delise, Founder of the National Canine Research Council, identified the steps by which bloodhounds, German Shepherds, and Dobermans were vilified in the public imagination decades ago. The same process, in concert with government, has now descended on the group of dogs called pit bulls. These dogs have been stripped of all the traits that we value in dogs, legislating against them on the basis of monster myths and urban legend.
This presentation will explain that process, including developments in sociology and behavioral science that support Delise’s analysis. By understanding what has happened, both in recent years and in the past, the legal community can help to change public attitudes toward animal abuse, including toward criminals who fight dogs; put dog-related injuries in a proper perspective; and establish a standard of responsible pet ownership owners of all dogs.
When: Monday, March 14th at 6:00 pm
Where: Moot Court Room; Klein Hall, Temple Law School,
What: In The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression, Karen Delise, Founder of the National Canine Research Council, identified the steps by which bloodhounds, German Shepherds, and Dobermans were vilified in the public imagination decades ago. The same process, in concert with government, has now descended on the group of dogs called pit bulls. These dogs have been stripped of all the traits that we value in dogs, legislating against them on the basis of monster myths and urban legend.
This presentation will explain that process, including developments in sociology and behavioral science that support Delise’s analysis. By understanding what has happened, both in recent years and in the past, the legal community can help to change public attitudes toward animal abuse, including toward criminals who fight dogs; put dog-related injuries in a proper perspective; and establish a standard of responsible pet ownership owners of all dogs.
When: Monday, March 14th at 6:00 pm
Where: Moot Court Room; Klein Hall, Temple Law School,
1719 North Broad Street, Philadelphia
RSVP: Please email samantha (dot)
I have a lot of trouble remembering to blog for some reason. Grace Spring
I know this is absurdly late and I probably won't receive credit, but I really wanted to write about my experience at the Philadelphia zoo several weeks ago. It affected me more deeply that I thought it would and its been on my mind often. I had to go in order to complete an assignment for my biological anthropology class and it was my first time visiting a zoo in years. I have come a long way in learning about animal rights/welfare since then and have certainly adopted stronger, more defined principles in the last few years when it comes to the correct treatment of animals. I was really apprehensive about going because I had no idea how I would react, but part of me was also quite curious.
Thankfully it was a cold, windy day so there were few people there and entire zoo was pretty quiet. During the summer, I can imagine it becomes quite the spectacle - everything from popcorn to face painting to balloon rides, you name it. If it draws in the crowds, the zoo PR people have probably already thought of it.
I still found myself grabbing for my headphones not a minute after entering the DODGE endangered species building. The young children running up to the cages screaming with joy and making trivial comments about the animals like "he's so cute" and "wow look at him", made my stomach turn.
By far the most difficult part of the day was visiting the gorilla cage. It was more like an aquarium really, with glass walls and a linoleum bottom, supposedly modeled after an 'abandoned timber mill'. ugh. As it was too cold to be out in their slightly larger outdoor enclosure, they were being held inside for god knows how many days. The huge male was lying on the ground on his stomach, head in his hands, blank eyes staring no where. He was only a few feet from me, so I just sat there watching him for nearly an hour. He did not once make eye contact with me.
In the time I was observing him, I counted nearly a dozen people, children included, who made comments along the lines of , "he looks really sad", "what do you think is wrong with him", etc. Even children were able to connect with this creature and empathize with him and that really struck me. He did look sad. It was difficult for me to watch him lie there, no drives, no reason to do anything other than stare.
I will be the first to admit that I typically suffer from season affective disorder simply because its cold and ugly outside. But at least I can GO outside. If I were in a fishbowl like that, unable to leave, while being stared at constantly, I would probably tune out of my environment just like the male gorilla.
The natural behaviors of the animals I saw in the zoo (many of the larger ones at least) were not expressed or displayed in a normal way. In an unnatural environment, it only makes sense that the animals will be unable to act as they normally would in the wild. Their main drives in life, food, mating, and social heirarchy, are stripped away from them in many cases. There is no opportunity to hunt, no freedom to search for a mate, and typically not a large enough population of the species to foster natural social dynamics.
I will not be going back to the zoo. I can't take it.
Sunday, March 6, 2011
MEMORIALIZING ANIMALS
I think it was N.O. Brown who once noted that the values of a people may be understood by noting who or what is memorialized in their buildings and statues and other public artifacts. Jen's earlier post had me thinking about US memorials that honor nonhuman animals, and as she notes, there aren't many. Here's an exception, a memorial devoted to a pit bull named Sallie:
“Sallie” a brindle Staffordshire Bull Terrier, was regimental mascot for the 11th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry during the Civil War. Sallie, came to 1st Lt. William R. Terry when she was but four weeks old. Always by the side of Lt. Terry, Sallie grew up among the men of the regiment. She followed them on marches and into battle. At the battle of Gettysburg, July 1st – July 3rd 1863, Sallie was separated from her unit. Unable to find her way, she returned to the Union battle line at Oak Ridge, where Sallie stood guard over the dead and wounded. Sallie continued her faithful service until February of 1865 when during the battle of Hatcher’s Run, Virginia, Sallie was struck in the head by a bullet and killed instantly. Sallie was buried on the battlefield while surrounded by enemy fire. In appreciation of her loyal devotion, a monument of Sallie now stands in Gettysburg, directly in front of the monument that commemorates the 11th Pennsylvania Infantry.
whatapittie.org
“Sallie” a brindle Staffordshire Bull Terrier, was regimental mascot for the 11th Pennsylvania Volunteer Infantry during the Civil War. Sallie, came to 1st Lt. William R. Terry when she was but four weeks old. Always by the side of Lt. Terry, Sallie grew up among the men of the regiment. She followed them on marches and into battle. At the battle of Gettysburg, July 1st – July 3rd 1863, Sallie was separated from her unit. Unable to find her way, she returned to the Union battle line at Oak Ridge, where Sallie stood guard over the dead and wounded. Sallie continued her faithful service until February of 1865 when during the battle of Hatcher’s Run, Virginia, Sallie was struck in the head by a bullet and killed instantly. Sallie was buried on the battlefield while surrounded by enemy fire. In appreciation of her loyal devotion, a monument of Sallie now stands in Gettysburg, directly in front of the monument that commemorates the 11th Pennsylvania Infantry.
whatapittie.org
Saturday, March 5, 2011
ON VIVISECTION
For clarification: Although there is more regulation of vivisection than there was prior to the modern animal welfare movement, the practice still exists throughout the world. As IDA (In Defense of Animals) states on its website:
Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science.
Ironically, it may be argued that the regulation (versus abolition) of vivisection has simply ensured that the practice continues.
Here's an overview of vivisection from In Defense of Animals:
http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/
Every year, tens of millions of animals are dissected, infected, injected, gassed, burned and blinded in hidden laboratories on college campuses and research facilities throughout the U.S. Still more animals are used to test the safety of cosmetics, household cleansers and other consumer products. These innocent primates, dogs, cats, rabbits, rodents and other animals are used against their will as research subjects in experiments and procedures that would be considered sadistically cruel were they not conducted in the name of science.
Ironically, it may be argued that the regulation (versus abolition) of vivisection has simply ensured that the practice continues.
Here's an overview of vivisection from In Defense of Animals:
http://www.vivisectioninfo.org/
Friday, March 4, 2011
Rachel & Mazzy
I found Rachel and Mazzy’s presentation very interesting. What struck me the most was our discussion of the anti-vivisection movement. I could not believe that medical students and/or scientists used to dissect dogs or perform any kind of invasive surgery on them well they were still alive much less still awake. It surprised me that anyone could hear an animal’s cries and not perceive that as suffering. This also made me think about Dawkin’s argument on why animals must have emotions. She emphasized that since animals are capable of reinforcement learning, they must be capable of experiencing emotions. This she argued was because animals could figure out that there actions could cause either good or bad things to happen to them, and since they chose to make good things happen they must be able to experience wanting, an emotion. These animals must have been crying before these dissections were performed; therefore just as a human animal would cry or yell if he or she were tied down not solely because this process was so horrible, but also in anticipation of what could happen next, these animals must have been crying for the same reasons. It surprises me that so many people did not think these non-human animals were suffering just as human animals do.
Also as I was looking at the picture of Mazzy when she was first taken to the PSPCA and comparing it to how she looks now, I was shocked to see how drastically different she looks. During my orientation at the PSPCA, I saw a puppy that looked very similar to the way Mazzy looked when she was first taken there. It can be very hard to see the condition that some owners allow their animals to reach before they seek treatment for them or before they are removed from their homes. Seeing images like this make the mission of the animal welfare movement seem all the more important; if more people were educated on how to properly care for their animals or if more people who abuse their animals were caught and severely punished, the number of animals that face such horrible problems could be greatly decreased.
Rachel and Mazzy's visit
I certainly enjoyed Rachel and Mazzy's visit on Wednesday. Mazzy was adorable and her story was a prime example of the importance of compassion toward animals. It is always great to hear a success story like that, and even better to meet the subject of such a story.
What Rachel had to say was very interesting. She gave us a great overview of the animal welfare movement, from its humble beginnings as a result of medical school experiments in England to the current shelters found throughout the world. Before this, I hadn't known that Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals started in England as the Royal SPCA, which specifically targeted the welfare of carriage horses. This issue is still current, although luckily it is on a much smaller scale. It is still a problem, though, and welfare organizations such as the ASPCA still keep a focus on it.
I found it very interesting that women were a main force in starting off the animal welfare movement. This reminded me of Josephine Donovan's essay: Feminism and the Treatment of Animals: From Care to Dialogue, which we read in the Animal Ethics Reader. The "care theory" that Donovan talks about is more than likely why women were the pioneers in the animal welfare movement. (And this probably explains our class population!)
Overall, Rachel and Mazzy's visit on Wednesday was a treat, and I certainly learned a lot. I think the entire class would love to see them again soon.
What Rachel had to say was very interesting. She gave us a great overview of the animal welfare movement, from its humble beginnings as a result of medical school experiments in England to the current shelters found throughout the world. Before this, I hadn't known that Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals started in England as the Royal SPCA, which specifically targeted the welfare of carriage horses. This issue is still current, although luckily it is on a much smaller scale. It is still a problem, though, and welfare organizations such as the ASPCA still keep a focus on it.
I found it very interesting that women were a main force in starting off the animal welfare movement. This reminded me of Josephine Donovan's essay: Feminism and the Treatment of Animals: From Care to Dialogue, which we read in the Animal Ethics Reader. The "care theory" that Donovan talks about is more than likely why women were the pioneers in the animal welfare movement. (And this probably explains our class population!)
Overall, Rachel and Mazzy's visit on Wednesday was a treat, and I certainly learned a lot. I think the entire class would love to see them again soon.
Success and Future Success in the Animal Welfare Movement
I was surprised to learn that animal control in Philadelphia was relatively recently changed from being run by the municipality to the PSPCA. Rachel said that under city run animal control nearly 100% of the animals taken in were killed, but since ACCT began operations that number is down to approximately 40%. While this is still a large number, and 4-5 million animals killed a year in Philadelphia is astounding, there has been a lot of progress made by the PSPCA and other animal welfare organizations in the city. Rachel’s talk made me think about the difference nonprofits make in the animal welfare movement. Obviously there is still a long way to go before all animals in Philadelphia are able to live out their natural lives comfortably, but there have been successes too. I think it can be easy to feel overwhelmed or depressed by the amount of suffering animals endure, which is why I like to take joy in the day to day successes I see at the PSPCA such as when a particularly sweet ten-year-old pit bull mix get adopted or I meet a cat who is missing a leg but is still a friendly, lively adoptable animal. After listening to Rachel’s talk on the new organizations and shelters cropping up in Philadelphia, some of which are No-Kill, I have to be optimistic that the 4-5 million animals killed each year can and will be greatly reduced in the future. I find people like Rachel who dedicate themselves to animal welfare issues extremely admirable.
I also was surprised that there is a statue memorializing the brown dog from the “Brown Dog Affair” in London. To honor an animal in the same fashion we often use to pay tribute to the heroes of the human species seems very progressive to me. Rarely, if ever, are animals given the same level of respect as humans in the United States. I can’t think of anything like the Brown Dog statue in our country. This made me think of Cavalieri’s argument that animals should not be denied moral rights based on the fact they are not human. Her article prompted me to seriously consider speciesism for the first time. In connection with the Brown Dog statue, I wondered, is there more of a breakdown in speciesist views in Britain than in the US? How would people in the US react to a memorial for an animal? I think many would find it inappropriate or ridiculous. There is quite a way to go before Americans do not view animals as inferior based on their species.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)