Thoughts from others

I've not had a lot of time for blogging the past couple of days, but there are some really good conversations going on in other places that I think are worth your time.

First up, Winograd starts the conversation about whether or not we should spay pregnant female dogs.   Winograd calls the practice ' not defensible".  There is a great paragraph in his post that I think bears repeating:

"Moreover, even while No Kill Advocates encourage spay/neuter, even while humane groups promote it, even while high-volume, low-cost spay/neuter is a central tenet of the No Kill Equation, this effort is a means to an end. It is not the goal itself. The goal is not “no more animals being born.” The goal is, and has always been, “no more animals being killed” (or, in the case of puppy mills, abused). Killing animals to prevent killing is not only a logical absurdity, it is patently unethical."

Much of the emphasis is mine, but I think these are some important distinctions that have somehow, sadly, gotten lost in the push to promote spay/neuter.  Winograd doesn't allow comments on his blog, but does on Facebook, so you can join the conversation there.

 Then, head over to Pet Docs on Call, where Tom discusses the difference a name makes, comparing "pet owners" to "pet guardians" to "pet parents".  According to Tom, the research (although a very small sample size) suggests there is little evidence that changing the name leads to better care for the animals (even though that was the intent of those who are leading the movement for the name change).

I think most agree that seeing dogs as "property" makes them seem more like a couch, than a living thing and for that reason, guardian "feels" better. But the flip side is that legally, the US Constitution provides a lot of protection for 'property' -- and there are many out there (myself included) that have seen far too many dogs and cats confiscated from homes (and destroyed) because they have a certain "look" that is banned or because people are over city pet limits. And protecting these pets and pet owners with due process laws (which applies to property) makes pets falling into that category an appealing idea.

Some good conversations -- and good thoughts out there. So join the conversations and share your thoughts. And as always, be civil.

Comments

[lori]

I was kicked out of a high volume low cost neuter clinic. I am a dog person. Our "shelter" was killing half the animals they took in. I was fighting with the "shelter" manager to try and make her stop killing dogs. I was arguing no kill and she was arguing irresponsible public. She was having the irresponsible public trap feral and stray cats and bring them to her to kill. She laughed at me and told me she killed over 400 cats the quarter before. She told me that no one wanted them so she needed to kill them and especially the ferals because they were not adoptable and it was cruel and unusual to allow them to live outdoors. So I started rescuing cats to keep her from getting her hands on them. I began learning how to TNR. One day I received an email from the low cost neuter clinic asking me if I would be willing to go trap a couple cats who were going to give birth in the next day or two and bring to them so they could spay them before they gave birth. I said I did not feel comfortable doing that. They wrote me back and told me that the clinic director would no longer provide services to me because I am the problem. I did not own a cat. I did not want a cat. I did not breed a cat. I was using my time and my money and my life savings and my family up saving cats from a crazed "shelter" manager and I was not the problem. I began calling other places and other no kill people and was told that they agreed with her policy. I have had pro-choice for humans people tell me that since they are pro choice for humans they are pro-choice for cats as well, to which I argue cats do not choose to abort their babies. They love their babies and they try to protect and nurse them. I do not think that you can be no kill and kill unborn innocent dogs and kitttens. I do not believe that abortion is euthanasia. I do not believe that aborting kittens and puppies is more humane than the alternative.

[CristyF]

I don't see anything wrong with doing an emergency spay if your in heat bitch or cat accidentally gets loose and get pregnant, and you find them and do it a few days after the fact or something like that. But when the animal is a certain amount of time along in the pregnancy, they should go ahead and just have the babies. Many, if not most, of the vets around here will not abort puppies or kittens after the fetuses are a certain age.

[MichelleD]

Lori, I support you!

[Lisa in OH]

I totally support spay abort before viability. I am also pro choice (before viability)

[Tomdock]

Thanks for the link, Brent!! There are some great comments being made and I think the topic is one that deserves some time and attention!

[Robert Garnett]

For me the question is not what to call animals but to whether animals should be granted "standing" in a court of law and not be just some body's property.Again the answer for me is yes and the interest of the animal needs to be considered when laws are made. With respect to vets and law suites they want a one way street. They want you to spend thousands to keep your pet healthy because they are so important to you but when it comes to reimbursing you if they make a mistake they claim a pet has no emotional value. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Tomdock]

Robert...to me, that's the kind of thinking that leads to a slippery slope and a lot of uninteneded consequences.

First, you speak as if all veterinarians are out only for money....this is clearly not the case as you will see many veterinarians volunteering services for non-profit organizations or even racking up thousands of dollars in accounts receivable because they want to try and help the pet and the pet owner who doesn't have the finances for care.

Medical care has a cost associated with it...veterinarians provide that service, but pet owners are the ones who make the choice for the level of care. Granting "standing" in a court of law could, in theory, take that choice away from the pet owner. It is not unimaginable to foresee a case where the owner couldn't afford care but because the pet has "standing" in a court, someone else could sue the owner on behalf of the pet. I don't think that is something we want to envision.

And veterinarians are often on the forefront of speaking out about how pets have emotional value and are how the loss of the pet is more devastating than the loss of other "property". But, as it stands right now, you can't sue for emotional damages if your best friend dies in an accident...why should you be able to sue for such if your pet dies?

Finally, you must look at the other side of the coin you put out there. Pet owners desire a high level of care for their pets but there are some who refuse to admit that the higher level of care (MRIs, specialized surgeries, etc) comes at a cost. Those are the folks speaking out of both sides of their mouths, in my opinion. Similarly, I have seen multiple cases of owners who failed to follow veterinary recommendations and then racked up additional costs because of that failure. Yet, they will still blame the veterinarian for the issue.

I think there should be a special standing for pets as companions, but not one that allows enormous judgements based on emotional value. That road will only lead to higher veterinary costs and a lower overall level of care for all pets.