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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

!!!!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.

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,

1719 North Broad Street, Philadelphia

RSVP: Please email samantha (dot) jones (at) temple (dot) edu