My boyfriend has said this statement to me at least a thousand times, or every single time I want to go see the dogs and cats at our local humane society. With two shelter dogs at home, going to see the dogs and cats is always something that fills me with warmth and happiness. My family always have been adamant supporters of animal shelters rather than through a dog breeder, because they would rather give a dog who has had a rough life a better life with soft beds, a large yard, lots of toys at their disposal, and a loving family .
We certainly have had our fair share of pets, many with heart wrenching backstories - my two current dogs certainly attest to that. Punkin was a bait and breeder dog from a busted dog fighting ring in southeast DC, and Luna was left on a leash outside of the shelter on a cold January morning (she has significant separation anxiety to this day, six years after bringing her home).
 |
| Punkin and Luna, at home, inseparable, and clearly "unwanted" |
According to the ASPCA, approximately 6.5 million companion animals are brought to U.S. animal shelters per year; of those, approximately 3.2 million shelter animals are adopted per year and 1.5 million animals are euthanized per year. If we do the math, then that means almost 25% of all shelter animals are euthanized, a statistic that PETA is proud of because they believe "the most humane thing that a shelter worker can do is give an animal a peaceful release from a world in which dogs and cats are often considered “surplus”" (PETA 2019).
What I would like to think about is the thought of seeing animals, or any living creature for that matter, as "surplus." Considering human beings as a "surplus" population is a thought that would trigger outrage - we've seen it over and over again throughout history. We just can't seem to get in touch with our inner John Lennon and imagine all the people in the world living in the world as one, not just among humans but also animals as well. He was just as much of a cat lady as the rest of us.
But truly - you would be seen as a pretty terrible person if you said that we had to euthanize people for being "surplus" to our population (just imagine that conversation with your 96 year old aunt Betty, I can guarantee that she would not be especially enthused to not pass naturally). So why do we euthanize elderly animals merely for the sheer fact that they're old? Why do we assume that it is humanity's moral responsibility to take care of all stray animals and give them what we see as "good homes"?
The reason it is seen as okay and even ethical to euthanize animals that are unwanted is the belief that Sunaura Taylor succinctly claims in her 2017 book, Beasts of Burden: "humans are the species with language, with rationality, with complex emotions, with two legs, and opposable thumbs. Animals lack these traits and abilities and therefore exist outside of our moral responsibility, which means we can dominate and use them" (Taylor 2017, p. 58).
With all of this in mind, let's consider the ASPCA's Position Statement on the Responsibilities of Animal Shelters. The ASPCA is certainly correct in how "a very limited definition of what is adoptable could provide justification for decisions to euthanize that are not well grounded. Because the interpretation of what is “adoptable” is widely variable, use of the word doesn’t lend any meaningful value to the discussion of sheltering responsibilities" (ASPCA 2019). My family adopted two dogs over the age of five that are either pure or half-Pit Bull from harrowing backgrounds - countless families would not even consider considering either of them because one or more of their characteristics make them "unadoptable." Many would consider them unadoptable for being Pit Bulls alone, and even would likely petition for their euthanasia should they have been sent to a different shelter.
Should we wish to genuinely seek ways to problem solve how to make wide scale change in minimizing needless euthanasia towards animals under the guise of adoptability or being unwanted, we must turn toward how animals themselves are seen by our collective society. Rather than finding reasons of gain to euthanize or exploit or commodify animals for human gain, there should be definitive steps toward seeing animals and pets as more than something that is owned, but living things that are actually treated like "they are part of the family." It can't be that hard - if you wouldn't do something to or with your Great Aunt Betty, you shouldn't do it to or with your pet either.
What I would like to think about is the thought of seeing animals, or any living creature for that matter, as "surplus." Considering human beings as a "surplus" population is a thought that would trigger outrage - we've seen it over and over again throughout history. We just can't seem to get in touch with our inner John Lennon and imagine all the people in the world living in the world as one, not just among humans but also animals as well. He was just as much of a cat lady as the rest of us.
But truly - you would be seen as a pretty terrible person if you said that we had to euthanize people for being "surplus" to our population (just imagine that conversation with your 96 year old aunt Betty, I can guarantee that she would not be especially enthused to not pass naturally). So why do we euthanize elderly animals merely for the sheer fact that they're old? Why do we assume that it is humanity's moral responsibility to take care of all stray animals and give them what we see as "good homes"?
The reason it is seen as okay and even ethical to euthanize animals that are unwanted is the belief that Sunaura Taylor succinctly claims in her 2017 book, Beasts of Burden: "humans are the species with language, with rationality, with complex emotions, with two legs, and opposable thumbs. Animals lack these traits and abilities and therefore exist outside of our moral responsibility, which means we can dominate and use them" (Taylor 2017, p. 58).
With all of this in mind, let's consider the ASPCA's Position Statement on the Responsibilities of Animal Shelters. The ASPCA is certainly correct in how "a very limited definition of what is adoptable could provide justification for decisions to euthanize that are not well grounded. Because the interpretation of what is “adoptable” is widely variable, use of the word doesn’t lend any meaningful value to the discussion of sheltering responsibilities" (ASPCA 2019). My family adopted two dogs over the age of five that are either pure or half-Pit Bull from harrowing backgrounds - countless families would not even consider considering either of them because one or more of their characteristics make them "unadoptable." Many would consider them unadoptable for being Pit Bulls alone, and even would likely petition for their euthanasia should they have been sent to a different shelter.
Should we wish to genuinely seek ways to problem solve how to make wide scale change in minimizing needless euthanasia towards animals under the guise of adoptability or being unwanted, we must turn toward how animals themselves are seen by our collective society. Rather than finding reasons of gain to euthanize or exploit or commodify animals for human gain, there should be definitive steps toward seeing animals and pets as more than something that is owned, but living things that are actually treated like "they are part of the family." It can't be that hard - if you wouldn't do something to or with your Great Aunt Betty, you shouldn't do it to or with your pet either.
No comments:
Post a Comment