Animals As Companions
It's our duty to adopt homeless animals from shelters.
We have created this overpopulation nightmare where millions of animals end up in shelters on death row, and it's therefore our job to sort it out.
Primarily responsible for the huge numbers of animals are the following:
-
Backyard breeders: people with an undesexed animal who allow him or her to breed, and either sell or give away the babies.
-
Professional breeders: anyone professionally breeding animals for profit.
-
Puppy mills or puppy farms: essentially dog factories, where dogs live in terrible conditions and are forced to churn out litter after litter.
-
Petshops: somewhere animals are displayed in the window alongside the other products which are for sale.
Now, the solution to this problem is clear: an immediate and complete stop to all breeding. But this will never happen if people continue to support the people and institutions that breed animals. While people keep buying from those who breed animals, they will stay in business, continue to breed animals, the overpopulation problem will go on, and the shelters will remain full of animals on death row.
So stopping animal breeders by withdrawing our support is the way to do it. And that means adopting animals from shelters.
Remember, homeless animals are not dumped because they're defective. They're abandoned because of a defective mindset dominant in society that not only sees non-human animals as expendable 'things' - things to be cast aside at a whim - but also, by law, as mere property.
All animals - including the homeless ones - are special. Shelter animals all deserve a second chance. They all deserve a loving home. If you save a life by adopting from a shelter you will exponentially enrich your own life: there's nothing like a non-human animal to show you the meaning of true love!
As the slogan goes: adopt, don't shop. Or, if you prefer: don’t breed or buy while shelter animals die. Or, there's this one: don't buy or breed while shelters animals are in need. Whichever slogan you like, keep it in mind, and educate others so that they can adopt homeless animals too.
If you can't adopt an animal, then foster an animal. And if you can't do either, then donate money to shelters and rescue organisations who save homeless animals.
Locking a bird in a cage. Trapping a fish in bowl. Shutting a snake in a tank. Confining an insect or spider in a jar. Animals existing like this don't have a life - they're simply prisoners.
I wouldn't want to be confined in a cage, bowl, tank, or jar, so I don't see any logical reason why any animal would want to either.
While non-human animals don't belong in our world at all, there are some animals who live better with us than others: dogs and cats, for example, can have decent lives if they are with the right people. Also, in the right home, rodents such as mice, rats, guinea pigs and rabbits can too. However rodents can be tricky to keep as companions due to their desire to burrow and consequent ability escape easily, so great care is needed in making sure they're living with reasonable freedom and also being kept safe at the same time.
But some animals simply can't have a decent life with us due to their very nature.
Think about the following: a bird would fly away to freedom if not trapped in a cage. A fish being pulled from his or her aquatic home to exist in a glass prison on land is a ridiculous situation that should never be. A snake can hardly be allowed to run around independently like many cats are, or be taken for walks on lead like dogs. And insects and arachnids just want to be left alone, judging from their response when humans get too close or interfere with their world.
If that doesn't convince you, imagine if someone told you that their cat or dog lived in a cage all the time. No doubt, you'd be appalled. So how can it be less appalling for animals other than dogs and cats to exist as prisoners? The answer is that it's not. Any imprisoned animal of any species under any circumstance is appalling.
And this goes for all animals - not just the ones I gave as examples. Animals deserve better than languishing as prisoners simply for our amusement. So unless you can give an animal a decent life with as much freedom as possible while at the same time keeping them safe, don't keep that type of animal in your home.
Until all the shelter cages are empty, there's no reason to breed even one more animal.
It doesn't matter whether someone is a professional breeder or a backyard breeder and whether they do it for profit or not, breeding any animal while others sit on death row is selfish, short-sighted and irresponsible.
I once saw a bumper sticker that sums up my sentiments well. It said:
"Got a conscience?
Don't breed your
animal.
Need a reason not to?
Visit a shelter and see."
If that's not convincing, let me ask you this: have you been to a shelter recently? Have you seen all the innocent animals who will spend their last days behind bars unless someone comes to adopt them?
If you haven't, then get yourself to a shelter today and take a good, hard look at all the animals waiting on death row. Look into those cages and gaze into the unknowing eyes of those pure-hearted creatures who might soon face a lethal injection.
At that point, ask yourself whether you really want to add even more animals to the millions around the world who live their last moments unloved, alone, and frightened in shelter cages. Because if you breed your animal, you'll be contributing to that. Don't be part of this problem - instead, allow the image of those animals on death row to convince you that desexing your animal is the right thing to do.
Desexing really is an essential part of being a responsible animal guardian. As explained above, it’s best for the welfare of all companion animals by helping to curb the overpopulation, but it’s also best for the actual animal for social and medical reasons. There are lots of myths about desexing - don't be guided by them, be guided by the facts. Talk to your vet about it and you'll see that desexing your animal is nothing to worry about and is actually beneficial for them.
To recap: there's a massive overpopulation of companion animals and not enough loving forever homes for them all. Millions upon millions of animals all around the world are killed every single year because people continue to breed them. There's no need for you to add to the problem by breeding your animal - desexing is cheap and an integral part of being a responsible animal guardian.
So, be part of the solution: schedule an appointment with your vet now to desex your companion animal.
Wild animals belong in the wild.
While the above statement is logical, the exotic 'pet' trade - that is, the illegal selling of protected wildlife - is booming. Aside from the illegality of it, it's an extremely cruel trade.
The mothers are killed so that they don't hurt anyone by trying to protect their young. The babies are then snatched up (sometimes from their dead mother's arms) and stuffed into plastic bags with their mouths, hands and feet taped up. Between the terror of the capture and the extreme stress of the journey, animals often are injured or die.
The animals that do survive end up in the hands of people without the expertise to care for them. This lack of knowledge leads to neglect and abuse: some animals end up deformed from malnutrition, some self-mutilate due to boredom, and others die from the stress of being imprisoned.
In some cases, the people get fed up with the difficulty of looking after the animal and dump him or her. Abandoned in the wild without ever having had the chance to develop the skills to fend for themselves, they often starve to death.
The long and the short of it is what I said at the start: wild animals belong in the wild.
On top of that, there are literally millions of homeless animals in shelters in every country in the world desperate for a home. So if you want to have an animal in your life, adopt a homeless animal and leave wild animals alone.
The Problem With The Words ‘Pet’ And ‘Owner’
By law, companion animals are our property. So according to the law, they are ‘pets’, and we are ‘owners’. They are mere ‘things’ that we own and can pretty much do whatever we want with, as long as we are within the (very lenient and absurdly permissive) companion animal laws.
In fact, without at doubt, the law is more concerned if your DVD player is stolen than if something happens to your so-called ‘pet’. I can assure you, based on first-hand experience of both circumstances, that the police will come running if your DVD player is stolen, but shrug their shoulders if your beloved dog is killed in a hit and run.
While both the DVD player and the dog are regarded as property by law, the law truly considers an animal in your care less important than any inanimate object you possess. And the ‘pet/owner’ dichotomy supports this dynamic by sustaining the idea that animals are nothing more than property.
So, what can we do to change this? Well, specifically with regard to companion animals we can stop using the words "pet" and "owner" and use the words "companion" and "guardian" instead.
Also, with regard to all animals, we can refer to them as "he" or "she" rather than "it". The former is how you'd refer to someone, and the latter is how you'd refer to something, so talking about animals in this way helps the to instill the idea in others' minds that animals are sentient beings, not things.
But the most powerful thing we can do to change this animals-as-property situation is to be vegan and educate others about veganism.
Being vegan means you don't use any animal-based products at all, which means you're not engaging in the dynamic of animals as human property. Helping others to go vegan will, one by one, change people's relationship with animals and eventually lead to a world where animals are no longer our property by law. This will create a world where there is no animal use, and without animal use there will be no animal abuse. It will be a kind world for all animals.
The Problem With The Institution Of 'Pet Ownership'
It might seem that the animal rights position is in direct opposition to that of sharing one's home with non-human animals. And it does go against animal rights theory which maintains that we should not have ANY animals as property - no matter how well they're treated - including animals, like dogs and cats, who live in our homes. However, the terrible situation for all those millions of homeless animals is such that we must - as a matter of our moral duty - help them by sharing our homes with them.
So, yes, ownership of these animals (they are, by law, our property - whether we consider them to be as such or not) is against animal rights theory. But practically speaking, fostering or adopting is the best way we have to help the homeless animals who exist now. That and not bringing any more companion animals into the world through desexing.
However, the best person to explain the problem of the institution of 'pet ownership' in more detail is Professor Gary L. Francione. The following is from the FAQ page from his website The Abolitionist Approach:
"Question 3: Does the institution of pet ownership violate animals’ basic right not to be regarded as things?
Answer: Yes. Pets are our property. Dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits, and other animals are mass produced like bolts in a factory or, in the case of birds and exotic animals, are captured in the wild and transported long distances, during which journey many of them die. Pets are marketed in exactly the same way as other commodities. Although some of us may treat our companion animals well, more of us treat them poorly. In America, most dogs spend less than two years in a home before they are dumped at a pound or otherwise transferred to a new owner; more than 70 percent of people who adopt animals give them away, take them to shelters, or abandon them. We are all aware of horror stories about neighborhood dogs on short chains who spend most of their lives alone. Our cities are full of stray cats and dogs who live miserable lives and starve or freeze, succumb to disease, or are tormented by humans. Some people who claim to love their companion animals mutilate them senselessly by having their ears cropped, their tails docked, or their claws ripped out so that they will not scratch the furniture.
You may treat your animal companion as a member of your family and effectively accord her or him inherent value or the basic right not to be treated as your resource. But your treatment of your animal really means that you regard your animal property as having higher than market value; should you change your mind and administer daily and severe beatings to your dog for disciplinary purposes, or not feed your cat so that she will be more motivated to catch the mice in the basement of your store, or kill your animal because you no longer want the financial expense, your decision will be protected by the law. You are free to value your property as you see fit. You may decide to polish your car often or you may let the finish erode. The choice is yours. As long as you provide the minimal maintenance for your car so that it can pass inspection, any other decision you make with respect to the vehicle, including your decision to give it to a scrap dealer, is your business. As long as you provide minimal food, water, and shelter to your pet, any other decision you make, apart from torturing the animal for no purpose whatsoever, is your business, including your decision to dump your pet at the local shelter (where many animals are either killed or sold into research, or have your pet killed by a willing veterinarian.
Many years ago, I adopted a hamster from a law school classmate. The hamster became ill one night, and I called an emergency veterinary service. The veterinarian said that the minimum amount for an emergency visit was $50 and asked me why I would want to spend that amount when I could get a “new” hamster from any pet shop for about $3. I took the hamster to the veterinarian anyway, but that event was one of the first times my consciousness was raised about the status of animals as economic commodities.
As someone who lives with seven rescued canine companions whom I love dearly, I do not treat this matter lightly. Although I regard my companions as family members, they are still my property and I could decide tomorrow to have them all killed. As much as I enjoy living with dogs, were there only two dogs remaining in the world, I would not be in favor of breeding them so that we could have more “pets” and thus perpetuate their property status. Indeed, anyone who truly cares about dogs should visit a “puppy mill”–a place where dogs are bred in the hundreds or thousands and are treated as nothing more than commodities. Female dogs are bred repeatedly until they are “spent” and are either killed or sold into research. We should, of course, care for all those domestic animals that are presently alive, but we should not continue to bring more animals into existence so that we may own them as pets."