For me? The term "animal lover" has a completely different connotation. I cringe when people say it. Especially when asking me if I am one. When I hear someone call themselves an "animal lover", I am instantly on edge. I am distrustful of that person and extremely weary of them. That phase is a warning to me that I am now dealing with a different sort of person. Through a variety of questions and probing, I must figure out if that person is a common sensical, i.e. sane, animal kingdom appreciator, or is that person a fundamentalist animal lover. Yes, that is right. You read that correctly. I wrote: Fundamentalist Animal Lover. And in my world, I interact with these people on a regular basis. They do exist. And in fact, a few people reading this right now, very well may fit in that category...and probably do not even know it.
I find this article/video by Amy Schumer quite accurate in its basic concepts of many "rescue" pet owners today: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2015/05/21/amy_schumer_doggy_daycare_sketch_spoofs_self_righteous_rescue_dogs_owners.html
We tend to live in a world where everyone is a unique snowflake. An individual. Independent of the collective as a whole. And part of that is having something to boast about. A source of pride to share with others. For many people, this can take the form of being the white knight and "rescuing" a shelter dog. And I applaud those of you who have taken the time and effort to go to an animal shelter and adopted a dog (or cat or whatever) from there. There needs to be more people like you out there to do that sort of thing. And, of course, if we could teach people to spay and neuter their pets, we would not have so many shelters full of temporarily unhoused animals. But that is a conversation for another day.
How many of you out there that have adopted a dog (for the sake of this blog post, let's refer to dogs as the primary animal type we are talking about) from a shelter know the dog's exact history before you got it? And when I say exact, I mean, how old was it when it was given up to the shelter? How did the shelter acquire it? Did it live with adults? Kids? Other animals? Etc. If you cannot honestly answer almost all of these questions, how do you know it was abused? How was it rescued? When you say rescue, do you mean you rescued it from the shelter where it was housed or from the previous life it lived? If you are referring to the shelter, why did the dog need rescuing? My understanding of shelters, is that they are there to adopt dogs out, right? Meaning they want their product (the dogs), to look and behave the best they can so that they are marketable, i.e. adoptable. Meaning that the animal is being cared for: fed, housed, watered, exercised, socialised, etc. So please explain to me why the dog needed to be rescued from this sort of facility?
Now, if you are referring to the dog's previous life it lived prior to the shelter, I think the shelter (or animal control or Joe Public) would be the ones that "rescued" the dog when they brought it to the shelter. I am not sure adopting the dog from a facility that provides from the dog is really called "rescuing" the dog. But you know what, it is merely semantics. Go ahead and use whatever term you like. Just do not consider yourself better than others and be a pompous self-righteous prick about it when you say you "rescued" your pet(s) of those are the circumstances of which you procured your pets.
With that being said, there actually are circumstances in which the animal is genuinely rescued from the circumstances in which it was living. Animals being starved/neglected in atrocious manners. Many times it is Animal Control (local law enforcement) or an animal rescue group that intervenes in these situations. In other cases, it is Joe Public that gets involved and removes the dog from its current situation. Those people/groups are rescuers. These people/groups most likely know the history of the animal, or at least have a better grasp of its living conditions and history and can advise whether the animal was "cruelly" treated or not. And let me clarify what I mean by "cruel", I do not mean a dog that lives outside. A dog that does not cuddle up with its humans at night. A dog that is not fed canned food or human food on a regular basis. A dog that gets to go for walks and/or play at the dog park. All of those actions are certainly beneficial to the dog, but the dog's quality of life will not be lacking in any significant way to cause it death without those things. When I say "cruelly" treated, I mean the dog's basic needs are not being met: not enough or no adequate housing, not enough or no nutritional intake, not enough or no access to water, no ability to exercise, no ability to protect and/or defend itself and no access to medical treatment (if needed). Those things (or lack thereof) are considered cruel.
And now, back to the Fundamentalist Animal Lover. They exist. They are everywhere. And it is VERY hard to talk common sense to these people. I feel that this article sums it up nicely: http://www.npr.org/sections/visibleman/2007/10/whyi_i_hate_animal_lovers.html
And let me quote my favourite line from it here. And please, when you read it, consider the words. Think about them. Do they apply to you? Then consider taking a step back and brainstorming how and why they apply to you and at what point is your breaking point to reach back to the land of common sense.
"I'm put out by the animal-loving crowd that loves animals so much some of them have made death threats against the woman who runs the shelter that gave Iggy a second shot at life in the first place. Death threats for having the audacity to follow her shelter's guidelines. I guess there's some sort of twisted logic in threatening violence against a human over a dog.
If you value animals over humans.
I like animals, as said. However, I don't value them over beings who walk upright, have opposable thumbs and can one-click their music over iTunes."
This quote is perfect. I could not agree more. Why? Do you consider me now to be heartless and cruel? That I wish death upon animals? Of course not. I wish for every living thing to have its chance at life and the pursuit of whatever makes it happy (in a healthy, not-injuring-others kind of way). But I have met far too many people that fit into that quote's description. I have seen the terrible things these people are capable of...all in the name of being an "animal lover".
Do not get me wrong. Dogs/pets are fucking amazing things. They make life better. They make the world a more enjoyable place to live in. Me? I cannot imagine not living with pets. I do enjoy dogs. And by dog, I mean something 30lbs+ that I can at least not worry about crushing if I accidentally step on it. This article from USNews sums it up quite nicely:
"Studies have shown, for instance, that simply petting “a familiar and friendly” dog can lower your heart rate, make your breathing more regular and relax your muscles, Coren says. In one unpublished study, people had significantly lower blood pressure just two months after adopting dogs when compared to pet-parents-to-be who were still waiting for their puppies, reports the American Heart Association. The organization concludes that owning a dog "may have some causal role" in reducing heart disease risk. "
Two other amazing stories of dogs and people:
Gobi: the endurance runner:
I can tell you with certainty, that the majority of the people I have cited for animal cruelty have described themselves as "animal lovers". "Oh I would NEVER do that to my pet" or "I loooooove my pet. It is a part of my family." Or my favourite, when you advise an owner of his or her pet's bad deeds while the owner was not around and did not witness the event(s): "My pet would NEVER do that. You are clearly wrong". Yeeeeah. Or this one, "You're just picking on me." Oh that's it exactly. I definitely look forward to being verbally abused, being confronted to in an (assumed) intimidating manner, threatened to be injured by the animal(s) and attempting to calm down all parties involved. Yes, that is definitely me picking on you. *facepalm*
Someone please tell me this, because I cannot wrap my head around it: why are there usually more people standing outside a courtroom, or joining a facebook page or writing to the newspaper or contacting the local news regarding the stories of animals, may it be a cruelty story or sob story, than those cases involving the same issues, but replacing pet/animal with child? And do not tell me this does not happen. I have seen it first hand. Many times. Why do people feel compelled to "fight" for the rights of animals more than they do for children? (Study by Psychology Today on the matter) You do realise that those children, if no intervention is involved, may grow up to be the very people you fight against who abuse animals? So why not fight for children, too? Why not care enough about them and their shitty life and situation to get involved and show them what healthy caring relationships are rather than let them wither in the system?
Here, read this. It may help enlighten all you Fundamentalist Animal Lovers:
I have seen, read and been exposed to more threats of harm (bodily or otherwise) to my person or those I know or organisations I know from self proclaimed "animal lovers" than any other group out there. To threaten to kill someone for signing over their pet to the shelter? Seriously? Or threatening to murder an animal cruelty suspect's family? WTF is wrong with you people? Actions like those make "animal lovers" no better than the criminals I deal with daily. You know what you need? A good dose of common sense? You want to see atrocious things committed by humanity, join your local law enforcement? Go join the military and make sure to get in field combat experience. Then tell me how precious some things are over others. Get a reality check. Animal Rights is a thing for those who are priviliged. Yes. By far and large, most of the "animal lovers" who are active and fundamentalist tend to be women, white and middle to upper class. People who have not truly seen the atrocities of the world around them. And no, I am not talking about Fido starving. I am talking about that five and ten year old down the street from you witnessing Mom's current Beau beating and raping her in front of them. Then starving since Mom has to get her next fix and all the money for food was spent to get it. The kids that are covered in ring worm. The house that is covered in fecal matter, moldy food, trash and flies. The kids that sleep in that filth and know no other life.
So the next time you threaten your local animal shelter for not living up to your "no-kill" standards, take a step back. Reality check yourself. Go do in kind donations to your animal shelter and human shelter. Help bring up the next generation to respect and "love" animals how you do. Give them a chance, too. Kids did not ask for the life they are being raised in.
And by the way, there is no such thing as "no-kill". So if you refuse to bring a dog to a shelter that is not advertised as no kill because it incenses you- do us all a favour, get some common sense. No-kill is legal hoarding. The shelters I have been to that advertise as no-kill, were nothing more than legal hoarding. The smell was atrocious. They are horribly over capacity, thus causing rampant spread of disease and therefore the quality of life of the animals there was beyond sub-par. I am not saying all no-kill shelters are like this. But by and far, many are. And do you realise that when they do reach their capacity (whatever it may be), they begin to turn animals away. Yes, that is right. If they cannot euthanise animals (for medical, safety and behavioral issues), then they fill up. And when that happens, all those cute fluffy wuffy animals running around loose in and out of traffic, laying by the side of the road injured- yep, you guessed it. They are turned away. Thus massively increasing their risk of injury or death. So, which is better? A no-kill shelter that leads to suffering on a massive scale or a shelter that euthanises for medical, public safety and behavioral issues?
You do not believe me. Even PETA agrees with what I have said. Read/watch it here: http://www.peta.org/features/deadly-consequences-no-kill-policies/
Also, keep in mind, the no-kill shelter title can also be a misnomer. Go educate yourself before you profess more bodily harm profanity to your local animal shelter that is not titled "no-kill".
Note to self, add these books to my reading list (as related to my ranting topic above):
Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat: Why It’s So Hard to Think Straight About Animals -- Hal Herzog
**Go read the synopsis for both of these books. I bet you'll learn a thing or two. Or at least have your interest piqued.**
/end rant
No comments:
Post a Comment