On strays, neutering, breeding and the property status of non-human animals
Submitted by ANIMAL RIGHTS MALTA’S BLOG
Christine Peters writes a well-intentioned letter entitled “Neutering/spaying should start with pets“ in today’s The Times. However, while the main gist of the letter is well-reasoned and well-intentioned, I feel I must voice my disagreement with some of her proposals, some of which I see as not workable in our speciesist society, while others are simply counter-productive or unfair.
“At long last something good is about to start happening to help the poor homeless animals and to reduce the immense over population of strays and abandoned animals. It is about time!
In reference to starting with the strays, however, in my country we have a saying: ‘The horse was saddled backwards’.
So I suggest that this neutering or spaying and chip campaign should begin with privately-owned pets first.
To prevent these pets’ offspring from being abandoned on the streets of Malta, should there not be free neutering and spaying and chip registration (or some financial help) for pet owners?
Much of the problem to do with overpopulation of dogs on the streets of Malta stems from owners irresponsibly allowing their pets to roam the streets un-neutered and un-spayed. The next stage could then be the neutering and spaying of the strays”.
Let’s ignore the fact, perhaps unknown to the general public, that a few years back, some foreign vets were actually prohibited by the government from offering the service of free neutering of stray animals, and the fact that this would have reduced significantly the amount needed to cover the expense of a national neutering campaign, (although, of course, this would have meant that local vets would have made less money from privately neutering animals themselves, at a charge which would be paid either directly by the public, or indirectly through a government scheme paid through our taxes). Let me limit myself to the main gist of this letter.
There are two types of pet-owners. There are those who own pets for altruistic reasons. These usually adopt dogs or cats from animal sanctuaries or shelters, animals who are many times already neutered or spayed, and thus saving their lives, or making it possible for sanctuaries to save more lives. The second type are those pet owners who own pets because they are either pet enthusiasts (petophiles), or else wish to make money out of their owned animals. Because this second type generally sees non-human animals as human property, they would usually see a neutered or spayed cat or dog as “damaged property”. And since many of this second type of pet owners would want to make profit out of their animal property, it is not to be expected that these would spay or neuter - and thus “damage” or “make useless” their means of making a profit.
Therefore, Ms Peters’ suggestion that there should be free neutering and spaying and financial help for all pet owners is both unfair and unworkable. This is because, first of all, many pet owners would not want to neuter or spay their animal property anyway, for the reasons mentioned above. Secondly, people who can afford to pay high prices to purchase a pure-breed and thus satisfy their petophile urges, instead of saving a life by adopting from an animal sanctuary, should be expected to pay for their own expenses connected to their hobby or slave-trade. After all, no one would expect the government to subsidise other hobbies.
Moreover, as Ms Peters herself writes,
“In the animal sanctuaries of Malta all animals are neutered and spayed. AAA is a very good example. Here every single dog and cat is neutered or spayed and chipped and provided with documentation to this effect as soon as they arrive at the AAA”.
Therefore, this makes it clear that what should perhaps be done is the following: The government should devote some of the funds to help the animal sanctuaries in their feeding, medical neutering and micro-chipping expenses, while people who would want to adopt an abandoned animal from a sanctuary would not need to spend anything on neutering or micro-chipping, as this would already have been seen to by the sanctuary in question.
As for those who insist on buying “pure-breeds” from animal exploiters, these should actually be discouraged from doing so, and not actually encouraged through government financial assistance or subsidies.
Ms Peters concludes her letter by writing:
“It is necessary to start with the breeding kennels and private owners to avoid overpopulation and even more animals ending up on the streets of this island. Breeders should have to declare their business and pay tax on their profits.
I urge the minister to rethink”.
Of course, it would truly be necessary to start with breeding kennels. Closing them down, although unrealistic in a speciesist world, would be a major solution. As for animal exploiters declaring their slavery business and paying taxes on their exploitation profits, this goes without saying, although it would still leave the non-human animals in the same situation of abuse, albeit perhaps making it a little more expensive for the slave traders.
Therefore, I too would urge the minister to rethink, although knowing full well that all politicians are speciesists, I know that my suggestions would not be put into practice.
This leaves the task of diminishing or ending animal exploitation in the hands of the public. After all, the government need not actively close down animal breeders for animal exploitation to end. All that is required is for breeders to have no customers, thus making their slave-trade unprofitable. And this applies to all forms of speciesist use of non-human animals, be the use for food, clothing, entertainment or experimentation.
For an institutionalized exploitation to persist, all it requires is a sufficient amount of customers. For an institutionalized exploitation to end, all that is required is for people like you to stop using products or services that rely or include any sort of animal exploitation.
Speaking of which, Philip Leventhal from the Columbia University Press (that has recently published Gary L. Francione’s new book “Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation“) has yesterday brought to my attention an article by Wendy Lochner, senior executive editor for Religion, Philosophy, and Animal Studies, where she writes:
“Why animal studies now? Like many people who are interested in the fate of animals and of the Earth, I came to this issue from an activist animal-rights perspective. My background is in philosophy, and I eagerly read and absorbed the arguments of Peter Singer and Tom Regan. As I read further I became hungry for approaches that moved even further toward commonality, and I embraced the absolutist views of scholars such as Gary Francione“.
Gary L. Francione being the currently most eloquent and uncompromising advocate for the abolition of the property status of non-human animals, I personally cannot wait to read his latest book.
I would strongly suggest to anyone who cares at all about non-human animals to get hold of a copy of any or all of his books for, among other things, a thorough explanation of how, as long as non-human animals are seen to be human property, there will be no end to their abuse and exploitation.
As Gary L. Francione says,
“The central position of my rights theory is that we have no justification for treating animals as our property just as we had no justification for treating other humans as slaves. We have abolished human chattel slavery in most parts of the world; similarly, we should abolish animal slavery.
But what does that mean in the context of nonhumans? Should we ‘liberate’ animals and let them wander freely in the streets? No, of course not. That would be as irresponsible as allowing small children to wander around. We should certainly care for those nonhumans whom we have already brought into existence but we should stop causing any more to come into existence. We have no justification for using nonhumans - however ‘humanely’ we treat them”.
Visit 1800blogger to see all of our industry leading blogs.
June 5th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Breeding of any kind should simply be banned and I think of no other solution. This is just another form of slave trade and anybody who buys a “pure breed’ dog is killing another.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
“we should stop causing any more to come into existence. We have no justification for using nonhumans - however ‘humanely’ we treat them”
“Breeding of any kind should simply be banned and I think of no other solution. This is just another form of slave trade and anybody who buys a “pure breed’ dog is killing another.”
I think you two are sensationalizing the topic, and are asking for the impossible. Stop causing any more to come into existence? I am not sure what kind of alternate reality you live in, but something like that on a global scale is impossible. And I think you are way out of line isabella to compare the horrors of human trafficking with the breeding of dogs. You two seem to be quite intelligent. How about you take a dose of reality and use your knowledge, energy, time, and apparent zeal for “goodness” for a cause that is more vital and imperative like feeding the world’s hungry.
July 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Thank you for your article. It’s time to put a stop to breeding, especially of pit bulls. I live in Arizona and had a horrifying experience at one our animal shelters. I took a kitten to the animal shelter on July 10, changed my mind on July 11, called early in the morning, but I was too late. They already put him down because he did not pass a “test.”
This kitten was abandoned on the patio of a 1st floor apartment’s patio. I never had a kitten as a pet and it was a challenge.
The way he was treated at the animal shelter was disgusting. The guy could not get Salem out of the carrier, so the guy put on a glove, got a net, picked up the carrier, and dumped him into the net like he was garbage. That visual and his scream will haunt me.
It was not Salem’s fault that his mother and father were not spayed and neutered. I did the best that I could but perhaps I could have done more. All I know is that the little kitten taught me valuable, hard lessons. I hope he is in a better place. Rebecca