What I Have Learned as a Vegan - Chapter Two
Companion Animals
_________________________________________________
Companion Animals and Breed Selection
Well, first I have learned it is not really nice to call them pets. They are companion animals, which I am cool with. But this whole veganism thing really makes me think about a lot of shit which was second nature before.
I have been thinking a lot about different dog breeds and how they relate to a selection of a dog. I do purebred rescue (Boxers) and I will always have a boxer. I recently said that I don’t have much of a problem with some one stating they would like a specific color or gender of a dog. (For example, if you already have a female boxer, it is with in your best interest to get a male). Would I prefer that people just meet the dogs and work from their personality? Yes. But a person that prefers a fawn boxer to a brindle on is just like some one who liked to date people with blue eyes. We all have a preference and a type.
Where the problem starts coming in is when you start to read the AKC Breed Standards. (http://www.akc.org/). If we used this type of language to describe people, I can’t imagine what would happen. For example here is the breed description of a Chow Chow:
Well, first I have learned it is not really nice to call them pets. They are companion animals, which I am cool with. But this whole veganism thing really makes me think about a lot of shit which was second nature before.
I have been thinking a lot about different dog breeds and how they relate to a selection of a dog. I do purebred rescue (Boxers) and I will always have a boxer. I recently said that I don’t have much of a problem with some one stating they would like a specific color or gender of a dog. (For example, if you already have a female boxer, it is with in your best interest to get a male). Would I prefer that people just meet the dogs and work from their personality? Yes. But a person that prefers a fawn boxer to a brindle on is just like some one who liked to date people with blue eyes. We all have a preference and a type.
Where the problem starts coming in is when you start to read the AKC Breed Standards. (http://www.akc.org/). If we used this type of language to describe people, I can’t imagine what would happen. For example here is the breed description of a Chow Chow:
Temperament: Keen intelligence, an independent spirit and innate dignity give the Chow an aura of aloofness. It is a Chow’s nature to be reserved and discerning with strangers. Displays of aggression or timidity are unacceptable. Because of its deep set eyes the Chow has limited peripheral vision and is best approached from the front.
Would we ever use this type of language to describe a human? It is the very basis for racism. Temperament: A general feeling of superiority gives white people a rather aloof nature. What The Fuck. (In case any one was wondering, I used white as an example because I am white.) I have read numerous times that there is a parallel between racism and speciesism, but for some odd reason this screams at me loud and clear.
The problem is, I don’t know that these descriptions of dogs are wrong. I do know from a lot of my dog education (har) that each dog has to be treated as an individual. For example, not all Boarder Collies are natural herders. Or not all American Pit Bull Terriers are dog aggressive. Forget that, bad example. There may be Golden Retrievers that are not good with kids. So each dog has to be viewed as an individual. But, because these dogs have been bred with specific traits in mind, you can generalize. Or can you? Is it fair for us as humans to generalize on dog breeds? This is obviously just a step away from us generalizing about people and races and religions.
Companion Animals and Euthanasia
Here is where things get really icky (which is a very technical term). Before I get into the war that goes on in my head, I should give you just a little back ground on where I stand on certain issues. First, I am anti-death penalty. Next, I am pro-choice. Many people don’t understand how I can believe in two things that seemingly look like they should match (In other words, I should either be pro-death penalty or pro-life). Let me be clear on something here, I am not pro-abortion. In fact, I doubt it is something that I could ever do. But, I have never stood in any one else’s shoes and I am not going to pretend to know every situation that every woman has gone through. I can’t pretend that all unplanned pregnancies can be solved with adoption. I will always be anti-death penalty, because it doesn’t make sense to me. We are saying that murder is wrong, but yet that is how we punish the murderer?
So, this is what got me thinking. I have had to euthanize dogs in the past. One for aggression and one for quality of life (she had horrible cancer). I am wondering how I can justify euthanizing an aggressive dog, but can be against the death penalty. Let me be very clear, the dog I euthanized for aggression was dangerous; he tried to bite me in the stomach (this is an extremely aggressive move). It was fucking scary. This is the only dog I have had in my house that I was actually scared of. Could I very well place that dog in the general public? I think most peoples answer to this would be no, I couldn’t. Something deep inside this dog was broken and would never be fixed.
The thing is, it wasn’t the dogs fault (or imo any aggressive dogs) that he was this way. He was either raised improperly or was the product of poor breeding. More than likely, it was a combination of these two issues. So humans made him this way. It is unfortunate that the only way we have to “solve” this is euthanasia. In a perfect world (one I am still not sure I can grasp) the dogs wouldn’t have been bred in the first place, so the aggression wouldn’t have existed.
A while back An Animal Friendly Life (http://www.ananimalfriendlylife.com/) posted a story about California’s new spay and neuter law. (You can read about it here http://ananimalfriendlylife.com/2007/04/committee-passes-mandatory-spayneuter.html). I had posted that I thought this could be drastic. Eric (the owner of this fabulous blog) let me know that what really is drastic is the fact that we have to put half a million (or more) to death every year. If mandatory spay an neuter laws were in place, I would hope that more owners would make responsible choices. I would hope that they would take better care of their animals. I would hope that a law like this would take the responsibility and burden off of rescues and shelters to have to make these decisions.
I am not sure where any of this leads, and I obviously don’t have any answers, just more questions.
The problem is, I don’t know that these descriptions of dogs are wrong. I do know from a lot of my dog education (har) that each dog has to be treated as an individual. For example, not all Boarder Collies are natural herders. Or not all American Pit Bull Terriers are dog aggressive. Forget that, bad example. There may be Golden Retrievers that are not good with kids. So each dog has to be viewed as an individual. But, because these dogs have been bred with specific traits in mind, you can generalize. Or can you? Is it fair for us as humans to generalize on dog breeds? This is obviously just a step away from us generalizing about people and races and religions.
Companion Animals and Euthanasia
Here is where things get really icky (which is a very technical term). Before I get into the war that goes on in my head, I should give you just a little back ground on where I stand on certain issues. First, I am anti-death penalty. Next, I am pro-choice. Many people don’t understand how I can believe in two things that seemingly look like they should match (In other words, I should either be pro-death penalty or pro-life). Let me be clear on something here, I am not pro-abortion. In fact, I doubt it is something that I could ever do. But, I have never stood in any one else’s shoes and I am not going to pretend to know every situation that every woman has gone through. I can’t pretend that all unplanned pregnancies can be solved with adoption. I will always be anti-death penalty, because it doesn’t make sense to me. We are saying that murder is wrong, but yet that is how we punish the murderer?
So, this is what got me thinking. I have had to euthanize dogs in the past. One for aggression and one for quality of life (she had horrible cancer). I am wondering how I can justify euthanizing an aggressive dog, but can be against the death penalty. Let me be very clear, the dog I euthanized for aggression was dangerous; he tried to bite me in the stomach (this is an extremely aggressive move). It was fucking scary. This is the only dog I have had in my house that I was actually scared of. Could I very well place that dog in the general public? I think most peoples answer to this would be no, I couldn’t. Something deep inside this dog was broken and would never be fixed.
The thing is, it wasn’t the dogs fault (or imo any aggressive dogs) that he was this way. He was either raised improperly or was the product of poor breeding. More than likely, it was a combination of these two issues. So humans made him this way. It is unfortunate that the only way we have to “solve” this is euthanasia. In a perfect world (one I am still not sure I can grasp) the dogs wouldn’t have been bred in the first place, so the aggression wouldn’t have existed.
A while back An Animal Friendly Life (http://www.ananimalfriendlylife.com/) posted a story about California’s new spay and neuter law. (You can read about it here http://ananimalfriendlylife.com/2007/04/committee-passes-mandatory-spayneuter.html). I had posted that I thought this could be drastic. Eric (the owner of this fabulous blog) let me know that what really is drastic is the fact that we have to put half a million (or more) to death every year. If mandatory spay an neuter laws were in place, I would hope that more owners would make responsible choices. I would hope that they would take better care of their animals. I would hope that a law like this would take the responsibility and burden off of rescues and shelters to have to make these decisions.
I am not sure where any of this leads, and I obviously don’t have any answers, just more questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment