San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
James, I'm guessing you haven't spent much time in animal shelters. Every year in America, five million cats and dogs are gassed to death or lethally injected with sodium pentobarbital in these shelters. The word 'euthanasia' is a grotesque euphemism. There is no mercy in these deaths. Most of the animals are healthy, rambunctious, and young. They die terrified, and they die pointlessly: very few are vicious; most are capable of forming deep affectionate bonds with humans. This is what happens -- what really happens -- every day in these shelters. The links are graphic and upsetting. They're also reality.
Concern for the welfare and dignity of animals is not confined to nihilist Leftists such as Peter Singer or local totalitarians who seek to regulate pets out of existence. Have you read Matthew Scully's immensely moving, immensely disturbing book Dominion? A completely conservative case can be made, should be made, for treating animals with mercy and respect. Animals are not ordinary commodities, they are living creatures, and they feel pain and fear. No one need suggest that a kitten's life is morally equivalent to a human's to observe that something is terribly wrong when we casually dispose of one much as we would the butane in a Bic lighter: that is the mark of a callow society, a cruel society. It does not speak well for us that we kill millions of sentient, sensitive animals every year through grotesque, painful methods such as gassing and heart-sticking. Pet stores are one of the main reasons we do this.
Now many people may wonder and ask, just why are are there so many unwanted pets in the first place to create this tragic situation and where so many unwanted pets are killed in shelters, whether by gas chamber, heartstick or even by injection to begin with? First, there are the puppy and kitten mills that are still prevalent and where animals are bred and bred and bred, over and over again. Thankfully more and more of these mill type breeders are being shut down. These breeders crank out animals like an assembly line and usually wind up in pet stores for sale. And don't kid yourself, it's not just a little local pet shop that sells puppies or kittens from these mills, but also some of those fancy high-priced pet stores in Beverly Hills, California where the likes of celebrities will get their dogs from, and they aren't even aware that those animals are coming from mills.
Yes, snakes eat rodents. Yes, tigers eat gazelles, and yes, nature is savage and cruel. That doesn't mean we need to add to the misery. They have no choice but to be beasts: We do. If air conditioning is the mark of an advanced civilization that has elevated itself above the State of Nature, even more so is the mercy we display toward animals.
- Comment (63)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
Comments :
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Aww, I too hate to get into an argument with Claire, especially on this. We give to the Humane Society; daughter's having her birthday party there with an animal-welfare theme. (In web-design class today she whipped up a stop-animal-abuse page.) I too love animals, to trot out the trite easy line. I just didn't see the SF ban as accomplishing anything but driving business elsewhere, and a total ban would just drive it underground. It would also close down the independent stores, since I imagine SF isn't choked with big-box AniMal-Marts like Petco or Petsmart.
If I sounded dismissive of hamsters, I suppose I was, but the plight of abandoned dogs and cats is far more important. If you believe there's a hierarchy, that is. I do, and while all deserve respect, dogs aren't rodents. Doesn’t mean they should be abused, to state the obvious. As I said, my daughter has a hamster, and we were just playing with the little guy. She includes him in her nightly prayers.
BTW: Ban pet stores, and where do we get the food, the bedding, the toys, the wheel?
More . . .
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Fortunately, I'm here to settle the question of how properly to interpret my comment, although it's gratifying to see my words debated as if I were a Founding Father and our members Lincoln and Douglas. Bryan and Suzanne, you're both right, it's a call for government intervention, but not Federal intervention. I'd like to see, first, a widespread change in public sentiment--an awareness of and revulsion toward the reality of the daily slaughter in animal shelters. Then I'd like to see consensus-driven calls for rewriting local laws on the trade and sheltering of companion animals. Most people have no idea what happens in America's animal shelters. If they did, they would be appalled. It's completely appropriate for local governments--not the Federal government--to enact laws to counter cruelty toward animals. (If the situation in high-volume kill shelters isn't cruel, I don't know what could meet the definition.) Banning pet stores is only one part of a local legislative package I'd support: I support comprehensive No Kill legislation of the kind promoted by Nathan Winograd, and hope to see this enacted in every American city.
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Confession:
I bought my dog at a pet store. They didn’t buy from mills - the dogs were mutts, sold by neighborhood people who hadn’t gotten around to snipping the duplication-bits on their dogs. We’d been planning to get a dog, and had intended to go to the shelter - but I was walking past the store on April 15th on my way to put the taxes in the mail, stomping along in a foul mood of annually mandated impoverishment, and I saw a pup with the most enormous ears I’d ever seen. I went in. I held him. How much is that doggie in the window? Whatever you want, I'll pay. Brought my wife to the store; she too fell in love. She named him "Jasper" on the way home.
I probably would've loved another dog just the same - provided he had my dog’s temperament and near-human powers of speech - but if pet sales had been banned, I would have missed the serendipitous encounter, and the unique experience of life with this one-of-a-kind fellow. Fifteen years now. He's not a breed. There won't be another.
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
That may be true, but I can speak for the Minneapolis Human Society shelters. They're heartbreaking, as they all are - the sullen, defeated dogs are harder to bear than the cheerful energetic ones - but the shelters are clean and spacious and run by people who regard it as a calling, not a job. So there's that.
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
James, don't fear getting into an argument with me! Actually, the word I'd use is "discussion," or "debate," and is not a wholesome enthusiasm for debate the very point of Ricochet? Anyway, food, bedding, toys--of course the sale of those shouldn't be banned. Is anyone proposing to? And I'd agree that there is surely a hierarchy, based on such criteria as the biological similarity between the animal and a human, the complexity of the animal's nervous system, its capacity to form deep emotional bonds with human beings. It is partly that dogs love and trust us so that makes our betrayal of them so shameful. I agree that it's morally relevant that no one has ever said, "He's loyal as a hamster." As for the argument, "It will just drive the trade underground, or to another city," it's valid, but also valid for many other kinds of trade we confidently declare immoral and willingly make illegal: the trade in human organs, for example, or underage girls. We all agree that some kinds of trade should be banned or regulated. The trade in animals, I argue, falls under this penumbra.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
I'm afraid that legally banning the exchange of pets, like alcohol, drugs, guns, and abortions, will produce unintended mal-effects.
Of course, a legal ban is not necessarily an existential ban. The exchange of pets will continue regardless. A black market will surely arise to satisfy the demands of pet lovers. Evading the police will increase the cost of "producing" and exchanging pets, but the process will nevertheless continue, I promise you. Bribes paid by pet merchants to corrupt law enforcement officials in exchange for freedom to proceed with pet transactions will manifest as well. If the demand is high enough, suppliers will enter the market.
Now, in addition to pursing thieves and murderers, cops will have to nail pet owners and pet traffickers, increasing law enforcement costs and, hence, taxes. More criminals means more legal and imprisonment costs as well (further taxes). Living conditions for pets in transit would probably drop since evading the police would undoubtedly entail keeping pets in austere, inhospitable environments. And the price of pets would rise (due to rising costs of production), hence the quantity of pets supplied at the higher price would rise as well (law of supply).
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
I now resort to the rhetorical device of "Reductio ad Adorable."
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
The idiots! Are you serious? Are these shelters supported with taxpayer funds? If you think I'm easily-incited about pet stores, don't even get me started on morons like these. By the way, if you have time, do read Nathan Winograd on shelters with insane practices like this.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
I think the "reductio ad adorable" is in Aristotle's Organon somewhere, under the "Sophists' diversionary tactics" section.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Again with the double standard! reductio ad adorable should be open to all! The right hand picture people demand justice! I love Ice Cream!
Clarie, based on your response to Nick, you mentioned taxpayer funds. Does that imply (o founding mother of this thread), that you think the local government should dictate who the shelter adopts out?
I do think if the shelters or rescue organizations were run more like a business, with an idea towards a customer (i.e. pet owner) being happy they would get more pets out the door. I think these organizations tend to see their customer as a for legged furry one. Also, to be honest, I would pay a good fee to stay away from a zealot any day (like the ones in Nick's post above).
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Bryan G. Stephens: Again with the double standard! reductio ad adorable should be open to all! The right hand picture people demand justice! I love Ice Cream!
Clarie, based on your response to Nick, you mentioned taxpayer funds. Does that imply (o founding mother of this thread), that you think the local government should dictate who the shelter adopts out?
I'm saying that if the shelter is funded by taxpayers (some are, some are private), the taxpayers should be outraged that their tax money is being used to fund a shelter staffed by idiots--and should demand a change in this policy. I'm still slightly incredulous, though: surely it isn't really any shelter's policy not to allow families with children to adopt animals? I mean, is this a special shelter that rescues and rehabilitates pit bulls with a nasty record of mauling kids? That might make sense, but otherwise?
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Please don't marginalize your own ability to influence outcomes, even in jest. Too many people think they lack the chops to get stuff done, whether it's reversing a bad health care law or getting a new stoplight installed in their neighborhood. I applaud you for posting an animal welfare article on a conservative forum - you never know who will read it and think, hmmmm....
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
James Lileks:
Those look like Basenji ears!! What an awesome dog. Does he sing? :-)
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Diane Ellis, Ed.: And while I secretly judge people for getting pets from breeders and pet stores...
Why would you judge someone for getting a dog from a breeder? I waited 17 years to get my Soft Coated Wheaten Terrier Puppy and I did a lot of research to find the right breeder that cared about health and temperament. I have an 8 year old child who has allergic reactions to certain animals on the scale of a mad dash to the emergency room. There are several reasons why I chose a Wheaten. 1. They're non-allergenic. 2. My husband would only agree to non-shedding and non-drooling in our house. 3. They're a rare Terrier that are good with small children. 4. I'm madly in love with their personalities.
A mutt may have some breed in it that would be aggressive toward my three year old (show me a Westie that likes little kids), stubborn like a Blood Hound that would butt heads with me and wouldn't last two seconds in my house, and a shedder that might jeopardize my 8 year old's health.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
I grew up in Iowa raising hunting dogs, training them and competing with them in field trials. We bred national champion puppies from our international champion parents. I temporarily took in Great Pyrenees rescue dogs. I have rescued lab rats that escaped and ate my rescued injured Robin, my Newfoundland's best friend was my Lop-Eared Rabbit, I didn't care for my Iguana, but I love my Bearded Dragon. I have rescued or owned every animal under the sun and have had every level of the food chain interacting in harmony on my Great Room floor. Even though I have had countless animals in my life (that I have always kept in my home and heart to the end), I know exactly what I'm getting into with each one I adopt. When I adopt an animal into my family I want predictability. Responsible breeders give me predictability.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
So in short, you pay your money and get the dog you want. That is exactly what we did.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Yes, clearly I need an editor. :-)
Seriously, I think Diane must not have thought this through, because I find no logic in judging someone who buys a puppy from a breeder. The conclusion I come to with that is to hell with breeds. Because, if you don't buy from a breeder then breeds don't exist...every dog is a mutt. Many dogs are bred for a reason. For example, working dogs. Can you imagine a farmer ending up with a Yorkie mix to herd his cattle? Or, the Iditarod with a bunch of Poodle/Pitbull/Chihuahuas. I could stir the pot up a little and comment on Fox Hounds, but I'll leave that one alone.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
The only person I've judged for buying from a breeder is our president: He made a big production about how he was going to get a rescue dog to win favor with the liberal, bleeding-heart, Berlinski crowd (ha!), but then quietly secured that wimpdog-waterpoodle thingy from a breeder.
May '10
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
I think the prejudice against people buying from breeders stems from the intense desire to see not one more animal living in a shelter or euthanized. I can understand the prejudice a little since that's the way I feel about people adopting humans through a local foster system. I don't want to see one more child stranded in the foster system. I want to see all parent-less children firmly ensconced in a loving family.
However, while I have the prejudice about human adoptions, I really can't begrudge someone adding to their family through the adoption process no matter where that child came from. The family doing the adopting and the child being adopted are both blessed. In other words, "It's all good."
Re: San Francisco should ban the sale of pets. And so should everyone else.
Yes! I was going to bring this up.