Call for Contributions: Mourning Animals

Call for Contributions

Edited book by Margo DeMello

Working title: Mourning Animals: Rituals and Practices Surrounding Animal Death

 

Contributions sought for an edited collection on the topic of how humans deal with animal death. While there are a great many books and articles on how people can cope on an individual level with the death of their companion animal, and there is more recent work on how animals mourn the deaths of other animals, I am interested in the cultural practices that have emerged surrounding this issue. When did they begin? Are they limited to companion animals? What scope and form do they take? What role do cultural beliefs play in shaping them?

 

The proposed book proposes to address the issue from a variety of perspectives, and will be cross-cultural in scope. My hope is that it will include chapters on:

 

• Pet cemeteries
• Pet taxidermy
• Shrines for animals
• Animal memorials
• Animal funerals
• Virtual mourning
• The extinction of species and how that is mourned
• The concept of an afterlife for animals
• How non-pet animals are mourned, and under what circumstances

 

My own chapter will focus on people’s belief in whether animals have an afterlife, the Rainbow Bridge in particular, and which animals get to go there and why. Please email me at margo@animalsandsociety.org or margo@rabbit.org  if you are interested in contributing to this book. Once I have all of the proposed chapters lined up, I will put together a more formal proposal and shop it around. I am working with a tentative September 2014 deadline for receipt of all chapters.

 

Please crosspost.

Banning Books; Banning Emotions

Marc Bekoff recently wrote on his blog that his 2000 book The Smile of a Dolphin: Remarkable Accounts of Animal Emotions is now banned in a number of schools and libraries in Texas.

Bekoff speculates on his blog that it may have been banned because it contains sex and violence (although of the animal sort), two of the issues that Texas school board officials tend to find problematic in books that their students read, although clearly, as Bekoff points out, one issue is that it gives an evolutionary argument for animal emotions. (Other issues that they don't want students reading about include religion, race, and politics, which explains why To Kill a Mockingbird is among those restricted to many Texas students.)

For me, the book is problematic in a state like Texas because of its claim-apparently still controversial to many-that animals do in fact have emotions.   Until recently (or apparently, even today), if a scientist like Bekoff attempted to describe the behavior of an animal with terms like "sadness," "jealousy," "grief" or "joy," they would quickly be accused of that most dreaded (and unscientific) of terms: anthropomorphism.

It is true that no human can ever truly get inside the mind or heart of an animal-without dissecting it-and animals have a difficult time answering our questions if we ask them how they feel, which forces us to interpret their behaviors. But the belief that animals have no emotions, or that emotions are "human" capacities that we can only inscribe to animals, has certainly-and this is no coincidence-benefited those who exploit animals. As Jeffrey Masson wrote in his 1995 book When Elephants Weep: The Emotional Lives of Animals, granting animals the ability to think, to reason and-perhaps most importantly of all-to feel, opens up a Pandora's box of issues regarding how we, as a society, should treat animals:

The professional and financial interests in continuing animal experimentation help to explain at least some resistance to the notion that animals have a complex emotional life and are capable of experiencing not only pain but the higher emotions such as love, compassion, altruism, disappointment and nostalgia. To acknowledge such a possibility implies certain moral obligations. If chimpanzees can experience loneliness and mental anguish, it is obviously wrong to use them for experiments in which they are isolated and anticipate daily pain. At the very least, this poises a matter for serious debate-a debate that has scarcely begun (page xx).

In Susan Davis and my 2003 book, Stories Rabbits Tell: A Natural and Cultural History of a Misunderstood Creature, we outlined many of the ways in which the rabbits with whom we shared (and still share) our homes expressed their emotions:

Most house rabbit people have seen their rabbits "binky" or dance as an expression of joy, as well as execute a not-very-graceful "flop," in which they fall to their sides in a gesture of deep contentment. When Margo first introduced her rabbit Helga to Chester, he would leap, hop and skip when she was first placed (angrily) into the living room every day. Never mind that she was repelled by him; he was so thrilled to have a potential new playmate that he could not contain his joy. For weeks, Chester would lie as close to Helga as he could, staring amorously at her; once she finally agreed to let him touch her, he began to spend as much time as possible scrunched up against her.

Puddles and Muddles, Margo's angora rabbits, also binky, but for a different reason. Every morning, Margo opens their gate so they can come out to exercise, but one of the first things they do is go to the living room to eat Chester's food and mess up his things. Upon catching them in the act, Margo chases them back out of the living room and watches as they race, skipping and jumping across the house, back into their room. These rabbits seem overjoyed at the fact they once again got away with something funny. Their actions, in fact, look much like a full-body laugh.

Many rabbits will lick their paws or wash their faces when they are complimented, as if they are very pleased or slightly embarrassed. House Rabbit Society founder Marinell Harriman's first rabbit, Herman, also once saved a mouse. When Herman found a cat torturing the mouse, she thumped her foot in protest. When that failed to deter the cat, she attacked her, allowing the mouse to escape (Harriman 1991). Other rabbits show an amazing amount of compassion towards members of their own species, such as the examples we have cited of healthy rabbits acting as support (both physical and emotional) for their disabled friends.

Many rabbits, demonstrate an amazing spirit when confronting adversity. We have already written about rabbits like Hopper, Pippin and Mrs. Bean-all injured by people and left without the ability to walk. Both Pippin and Mrs. Bean learned to use a custom-built cart to get around, and their personalities blossomed. Mrs. Bean savored her new freedom, using the cart to create a new, independent life for herself, while Pippin used his to get attention and to interact with people.

Even before using the cart, Pippin seemed happy to join Margo's household after what he had been through, executing a flop on his first day without the use of his rear legs. Hopper never did learn to use the cart well, but like the others, he adapted to his altered condition with grace and dignity, and charmed everyone who met him with his peaceful, gentle, and loving personality.

Some rabbits who have suffered abuse, injury or illness have responded to human kindness and care with what can only be described as gratitude. Many of our own rabbits have lost their aggressive or terrified tendencies after being nursed through serious illnesses or injuries and given kind, consistent treatment. Mr. Bop, for instance, was so ill and so depressed when Susan first brought him home that he barely hopped-he would follow her around the house by taking a few steps and then lying down and staring up at her. After about a month of good food, plenty of water, medication, and many kind words and pats, his depression lifted, only to reveal an alarmingly spastic skittishness. Bop would dive under the bed or behind a chair whenever someone walked into the room; loud noises sent him nearly to the ceiling. It was only after six months that his fearfulness-no doubt a product of his having been attacked by some kind of predator while a stray on the streets of San Francisco-eased. Today, he can pop binkys and spin wheelies with the best of them. He can doze through through the roar of a vacuum cleaner, the shriek of a smoke detector and the wails of a baby. He once even sprawled out on his belly, with his hind legs stretched out behind him, smack dab in the middle of a party of shrieking four-year-old girls dressed like princesses. That's confidence (pp. 343-346).

Why does it matter that rabbits-or any of the hundreds or thousands of other species of animals-possess, and demonstrate, such emotions? Or maybe the more important question, in light of the banning of The Smile of a Dolphin is why is it deemed so dangerous that our students find out this information?

Simple.

If we knew about their ability to feel love, joy, sorrow and pain, we could not bear to treat them the way that we do now. So it's simply better to live in ignorance, and to force our school children to do so as well.

Animals, Art and Death

I recently got back from the three-day Living with Animals Conference at Eastern Kentucky University, co-hosted by Bob Mitchell and Julia Schlosser. It was a fabulous conference, featuring a variety of talks covering all facets of the human-horse relationship (Kentucky is, after all, the horse capital of the United States), teaching human-animal studies, and a variety of other topics of interested to a human-animal studies scholar such as myself.

There were a number of talks I was especially taken by. Besides horses, art was heavily featured at the conference, perhaps because Julia Schlosser is an artist and art historian. She gave her talk, for example, on the use of roadkill in the work of artists Steve Baker and Craig Stecyk. Dead animals showed up in another artist’s presentation, that of Mary Shannon Johnstone, a North Carolina photographer who photographs shelter animals. One of her projects, called Discarded Property,  photographs companion animals before, during, and after their euthanasia, and her current project, Landfill Dogs, involves taking dogs who have been at her local shelter for more than two weeks, and who will soon face euthanasia, to the landfill where their bodies will be buried, and photographing them where they play joyfully on what may be their last excursion outside in their lives. The great news is that thanks to her talent and courage, most of the dogs Johnstone has photographed have since found homes, and have not ended up back at the landfill.  Another artist, Keri Cronin, spoke about the course she created in the Visual Arts Department at Brock University which combines animal studies and art in an interesting way.

While some of the artists showed dead or dying animals in their work, other scholars also talked about or showed dead animals as well. Emory University graduate student Christina Colvin, for example, presented a paper on taxidermied pets and the pet preservation industry. While most of us would never consider freeze-drying our dead companion animals so that they will remain with us forever, for some people, this act apparently brings them some sense of satisfaction. University of Mississippi English professor Karen Raber, on the other hand, showed delicately rendered drawings of dissected horses from the Renaissance, while American Studies historian Brett Mizelle discussed the ways in which butchers and slaughterhouse owners used images and text to elevate their professions at the turn of the century. And Monica Mattfeld, from the English Department at the University of Kent, discussed the memorialization of a dead performing circus horse whereby his hide was turned into a thunder drum.

While the conference certainly had plenty of wonderful talks that didn’t have to do with animal death, it was this topic that affected me the most, and I’m now ruminating on my next book project. If you love animals, and live with animals, animal death is a topic from which you will never be able to escape. And more broadly speaking, if you advocate for animals in any way, death is ever present, perhaps not in your own household or life, but for billions of animals every year. It’s what drives many animal advocates to do what they do, after all. For example, anthropologist Tamar Victoria Scoggin-McKee spoke movingly about her documentation of the people who work to save ex-racing horses from slaughter, and how the threat of death shapes the human-horse relationship.

As a rabbit rescuer, I think about death often—both the death of my own rabbits, since their lives are inevitably, and unfairly, so short. But I, and my fellow rescuers, also think about death, because we often feel as if we are the only ones who stand between rabbits, both in our own communities and even more broadly speaking, around the world, and death. It’s a difficult—and unrealistic—burden to take on, and it’s no doubt one of the reasons so many of us suffer from compassion fatigue, and use food, alcohol and other substances to cope with our messy emotions.

Living with Animals was a fantastic opportunity to hear interesting talks, to network with people doing great work, and for me personally, a good way to put some of my own thoughts and emotions about living with animals into a wider context.

47,000 Dead: Does Anyone Care?

Just this week, 47,000 creatures lost their lives and almost no one noticed.

A&L Poultry, the owner of an egg farm in Turlock, California, decided to close down its egg operations and simply left to starve all of the chickens at their plant. 47,000 of the chickens, left with no food and no water for over 2 weeks, died of starvation and dehydration. This kind of a death is slow and agonizing; according to doctors who have witnessed starvation and dehydration among children in Africa, it results in dizziness, weakness, cramping, nausea, and dry heaves. It is a horrible way to die.

And yet 47,000 chickens died this way this week. A&L Poultry said: “An attempt to arrange for delivery of the chickens to a third party in order to avoid the usual business practice of euthanizing the chickens resulted in an unacceptable situation A&L Poultry did not intend, and profoundly regrets.”

The “usual business practice,” then, when an egg-laying farm is to shut down, is to kill all of the birds. In this case, the unacceptable situation was that the birds starved slowly to death, while not a single employee of A&L Poultry noticed, or cared. A video taken inside the abandoned facility showed tens of thousands of dead and dying birds; because egg-laying chickens are stuffed tightly into cages with other hens, the survivors were sharing quarters with their dead sisters. Watching this silent, eerie video is enough to make a grown man—or woman—weep. I know I did.

This horrifying story, which has received just the tiniest bit of press, has a happy ending for some of the birds, however. Harvest Home Animal Sanctuary and Animal Place, animal sanctuaries in Stockton and Vacaville, stepped in, negotiated with the owners (who initially told the rescuers to leave the property) and rescued about 4,600 of the survivors. Farm Sanctuary will be taking some of the birds as well.

Many of these survivors are unbelievably weak; some can barely stand, but all are getting stronger and healthier thanks to the love and care of the volunteers at Harvest Home and at Animal Place. The sickest of the birds, now at Harvest Home, were left to suffocate under the manure pits at A&L. These birds will get to live the rest of their lives walking around on the grass, pecking for grubs and roots, and enjoying the California sunshine.

Is that too much to ask for the rest of this country’s chickens? If eggs are going to be enjoyed by millions of Americans, is it too much to ask that the chickens who provide them get to live a life of contentment, of peace, and of happiness? Or are we so greedy and selfish that even animals who provide so much to so many should get denied even the simplest pleasures, and must live short hellish lives of misery? And then die in agony?

Rescued deer given a new chance at life

This week I read a story about four Sitka deer who ended up in the frigid waters of Stephens Passage in Alaska last October. They were swimming through the waters, trying to find land, and were quickly becoming incapacitated by the cold and the effort of swimming against the waves.

They approached a charter fishing boat captained by Tom Satre, and began circling the boat, obviously looking for help. Satre and his family helped pull each of the deer onto the boat, where they collapsed, shivering, in exhaustion. Satre piloted the boat towards the peer, and once docked, the first deer jumped out of the boat and ran into the forest. Two more came next, but the fourth was so weak he could not walk, so Satre began to haul him a wheelbarrow, but it had a flat and would not go very far. Satre and his family then waited for the deer to regain his energy, helping him to stand up until he could move on his own, and then he too walked into the forest.

The story is both heartbreaking and inspiring--without this human family, and their efforts, the deer family would not have survived. One of his family said that the rescue was "one of those "defining moments in life," and Satre said that "it made an emotional mark on each of us."

I read through the story to find out more, and was surprised to read that Satre went further and said, "I'm a hunter and have taken a lot of flack, but (taking them) just didn't seem very sportsman like."

After reading that line, I was taken aback. The story took, in my mind, a quick turn from heartwarming to horrifying, as I began to imagine a hunter taking the opportunity to shoot to death four struggling deer begging for human help. Unsportsmanlike would be, in my mind, an understatement. True, he not only did not take the opportunity to kill them, and in fact, spent the afternoon bringing them to safety. But the fact that other hunters gave him "flack" for not killing the deer ruined my otherwise good mood.

Now I wonder, a year later, how Satre has been effected by this life-changing (and life-giving) moment. I wonder, mostly, whether he still hunts, but a search online has not answered my question. My hope is that this experience has nudged him into leaving hunting behind; it's difficult to imagine that one can go from spending hours with wild animals who put their trust into a human, only to begin killing them again.

Violence or Art

Today, the Huffington Post reports on a controversy brewing at Paris Fashion Week, where two dresses made out of over three thousand cow and yak nipples are going to be shown by British fashion designer Rachel Freire. Animal rights activists are outraged that Freire is using body parts from slaughtered animals as art. Freire defends her use of the nipples by saying that they are “from European cows slaughtered for meat in veterinarian-approved and checked slaughter houses.” She also says that she would “happily donate my own body to be used as art by a responsible individual,” to which a commenter on Huffpo wrote, “So can I take you up on your offer then? Would you prefer to be killed with a captive bolt pistol or slaughtered kosher or halal style?"

Using the dead body parts of slaughtered animals for art is nothing new. British artist Damien Hirst’s first major piece was called A Thousand Years (1990) and consisted of a cow’s head rotting inside of a glass case, complete with flies and maggots. Other artists have used, and sometimes killed, animals in order to provoke reactions from the public. In 2003, Chilean artist Marco Evarisitti created a piece, for example, that involved live goldfish swimming in blenders full of water. Patrons were given the opportunity to press the buttons on any of the blenders, killing the goldfish within, which the artist said was an invitation for the public to “do battle with their conscience.” More controversial was Swedish photographer Nathalia Edenmont, whose work involved actually killing rabbits, mice, chickens and cats, and then photographing their chopped up bodies alongside flowers, fruit and other objects. Like Evarisitti, Edenmont has said that her work was intended to challenge the public, and claimed that those who opposed it were hypocrites for not opposing the killing of animals for makeup or for food.

Just a couple of weeks ago, the San Francisco Arts Commission gave New York City artist Tom Otterness a $750,000 grant to create public art for San Francisco’s subway system. After the city put out a press release about the grant, local animal activists recognized the artist’s name; in 1977, Otterness adopted a dog from a humane society, shot him, and filmed his death for a film he called “Shot Dog Film.” Activists led by In Defense of Animals were outraged; IDA employee Anita Carswell said “You do not let an animal shooter put up 59 sculptures in your subway system. It’s going to be offensive to everybody that rides the subway, a reminder: ‘People who shoot dogs for stupid reasons get rewarded.’”

He may not get his reward after all. San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee has asked that the project be put on hold; as of this writing, it is unclear whether the project will be completed, or whether Otterness will be the artist to complete it. At least in San Francisco, the city of St. Francis, most people do not see such cruelty as art.

Redemption?

You may have heard by now that Michael Vick, the quarterback for the Philadelphia Eagles, just won a one hundred million dollar, six year contract, just two years after being released from the Leavenworth penitentiary after being caught running a dog fighting business.

Sports analysts are already saying that Vick's deal is not really for a hundred million dollars; he's only truly guaranteed $35 million over the next three years, and can lose all the rest depending on his performance, lack of injury, and the like. Still. $35 million is an awful lot of money for a convicted dog killer.

For many in the sports world, Vick's story is a storyof redemption. Not only did Vick lose his football career, his lucrative product endorsements, and his freedom, but in 2008 he filed for bankruptcy, thanks to the loss of his income and poor financial management of his assets while he was free. Yet less than two years later, Vick not only got a chance to play professional football again, being named Comeback Player of the Year in 2010, but he is now the third highest paid player in the NFL, and the first to ever sign two one hundred million dollar deals in his career. He's also gotten back his endorsements; even Nike, notoriously shy of signing controversial athletes, has given Vick a new contract.

At a press conference announcing his new contract, Vick appeared humble, and talked about the "sacrifices" he had to make to reach this point in his life, and all that he gave up--he does still owe millions to his creditors as part of his bankruptcy settlement. Sports commentators seem united in their sense that Vick is now a changed man, and that he has moved forward from his "mistakes." That may well be, and in the press conference, he seemed sincere.

But I'm still not convinced. Running a dog fighting ring that involved multiple states, gambling and racketeering, lying to police and prosecutors, and hundreds of dogs being trained, fought, and, in many cases, brutally killed (some by Vick himself) is not a "mistake." It's a sign of extreme cruelty and, some would say, pathology.

America is the land of second chances. We famously forgive our fallen celebrities for their financial, sexual, and even criminal transgressions. And if we won't allow for those who have sinned to redeem themselves, what does it say about us?

But for me, I am going to wait and see. I suspect that Vick won't--or at least won't soon, because right now he can't afford it--restart his extravagent lifestyle, and will try to keep a clean image. I certainly doubt that he will ever engage in dog fighting again. He would be insane to do so. But I wonder how a person who once tortured animals for pleasure and profit can ever truly change, especially if he continues to refer to that behavior as "mistakes."

Disability, Animals and Camping

I’ve been thinking a bit about disability lately. I have a student in my class who’s in a wheelchair, and we’ve talked in class about issues surrounding disability, including how definitions of “normality” are often socially constructed. But what of disability in non-human animals? How do other animals see or understand disability, normality, or bodily integrity?

I currently live with three disabled animals. Molly came to me three years ago with one leg missing—from what, I don’t know. She’s never been very mobile, but as she’s gotten older, she’s gone completely immobile. She just lays down wherever I put her, and scoots a little bit towards the food, but that’s it. Then there’s Audrey, who arrived here in the Spring from California with a broken back. She was surrendered to an animal shelter as a baby; I am guessing that someone in her human family dropped her, severing her fragile spine. Luckily she was rescued by the volunteers at Zooh Corner Rabbit Rescue and lovingly cared for by a veterinarian there before she was transported to New Mexico to my house. And just this last week, one of my youngest rabbits, Junior, began experiencing a lack of muscle coordination. It has now gotten so bad that he can only stand for brief amounts of time before he falls over, like a fainting goat.

When other people see that I, or friends of mine, care for disabled animals, they often feel sorry for them. Oh what a sad bunny! But what they don’t see is, at least in rabbits like Audrey, is a fierce determination and a desire to do all the same things that she sees everyone around her doing. She has a cart that she rides around the house in, although she has now chewed through her harness twice. I have to find her a new one that she can’t destroy, and in the meantime, she scoots around whenever she can on the floor.

This weekend we took out our little trailer and went for an overnight camping trip. As usual, we took our four Chihuahuas and our parrot, who began joining us last year when she got sick, and we realized at that time how much she loved traveling; now we bring her with us whenever we go. This time we also brought Audrey, Molly and Junior. While both Molly and Junior were sort of confused by the whole experience, they were good sports, and ate and drank in their new environment like always. Audrey, on the other hand, loved the trip. She spent the first couple of hours in the extra large litterbox/bed which we brought for the three bunnies, but once she realized she could climb out of it (those front legs of hers are strong!), she spent the rest of the trip on the floor of the trailer, exploring.

Another camper came by and saw Audrey through the door to the trailer, and couldn’t believe we’d brought a rabbit camping with us. She didn’t realize that she was disabled, which is good, because it saved me from having to tell the whole story about her and from having to reassure this stranger that she was okay. But on the other hand, maybe having more people see “differently abled” bunnies like Audrey out camping with the family, enjoying the sunshine and fresh air, would help to dispel the idea that disabled animals don’t enjoy life, or worse, don’t even deserve to live.

Language is Real--to Humans and Animals

This week, there have been a flurry of media stories surrounding an editorial by theologian and scholar Andrew Linzey in the inaugural issue of the Journal of Animal Ethics. It is rare that the media covers journals in human-animal studies or animal ethics, so this week’s coverage was notable indeed.

What was the focus of the editorial? Linzey argued that the language that humans use when discussing non-human animals matters, and shapes how we treat them. The media's response? That crazy academics like Linzey are worried that animals will be “insulted” if we call them pets, critters, or beasts. Sadly, these stories entirely miss the point.

Language is more than just the means by which we communicate. Language both reflects, and also shapes, how we see the world. So it shouldn’t surprise us that words about animals shape our understanding of animals. Terms like “pet” and “livestock” reflect a particular understanding of animals, and then shape our treatment of them. Once an animal has been classified as a pet, it would, in our culture, be difficult to turn that animal into meat, and we are horrified to hear of dogs in China being raised for human consumption. Similarly, we don’t think twice about killing animals that have already been classified as livestock or pests. New Zealand, for example, just held their annual Easter Day Hunt in which over 23,000 rabbits were hunted and killed, for fun and for charity. Other than animal activists in New Zealand and rabbit lovers elsewhere, most people do not care. That’s because these rabbits were already classified as pests.

Language is never neutral—it shapes behavior. In her analysis of the history and mythology of the turkey, Karen Davis makes the claim that when we’re determined to do violence to an animal, we must first turn the victim into a despicable “thing” that deserves such treatment.
In addition, idioms like “skin a dead cat” contribute to a permissive social attitude towards the abuse of animals. Negative animal idioms normalize or trivialize violence towards animals. When sayings like “flog a dead horse” are used and become a normal part of our vocabulary, we can no longer “see” the implications of human violence against animals. These expressions mask the real violence within them and demonstrate human power over animals.

In Defense of Animals began a campaign in 1999 to encourage people to call themselves guardians of companion animals, rather than owners. IDA has long argued that “owner” is linked with the treatment of animals. In particular, using the term means that companion animals are considered to be simply commodities or property, not individual beings, and IDA argues that this classification underlies their exploitation. The organization and other advocates argue that it is not so long ago that women, children and others were seen, in legal terms, as merely property.

This is the point that Linzey and the editors of the Journal of Animal Ethics were arguing: Language is real, and language does something. The fact that so many of the media reports surrounding the issue not only didn’t get that issue, but trivialized it, indicates how far we have to go as a society to take animals seriously, and to take seriously their treatment.

Patrick the "Garbage Dog"

This week I’ve been following the story of Patrick, the one-year old pit bull who was tied to an apartment balcony railing in New Jersey, left for a week, and, when his owner returned, thrown 19 stories down a garbage chute, barely alive. Not only was Patrick (named by his rescuers because he was found just before St. Patrick’s Day) starved the week when he was left alone, but he had evidently been starved for weeks before that time, because when found he weighed only 20 pounds and was literally skin and bones. A maintenance worker discovered him days later in a plastic bag buried in the dumpster and called the authorities. The veterinarians who have been caring for him at Garden State Veterinary Specialists said that he was within hours of death when he was found, and animal control officers said that his was the one of the worst cases of animal cruelty they’d ever seen.

The case of Patrick, the dog thrown out as garbage, has captured the hearts of thousands of people around the country who have been following the story. Each day I search for the latest news on him, and search for new pictures and videos showing his slow recovery. Each day I cry anew over the haunting images of this emaciated dog, with his large expressive eyes peering out of his bony head.

Today I learned that Kisha Curtis, the 27-year old woman who owned him, pleaded not guilty to four counts of animal abuse, saying that someone else threw Patrick down the garbage chute (although apparently she is not contesting the fact that she starved him almost to death). I also learned that local animal advocates are trying to pass a law that they’re calling Patrick’s Law mandating stronger legislation for animal abuse.

While I continue to be cheered by news of Patrick’s recovery (He’s standing up! He’s pooping! He’s wagging his tail! He’s snuggling his blue stuffed dog!), I worry that soon the Patrick backlash will begin. I worry that people will start with the inevitable questions: why are people spending so much time and money worrying about this one dog when there are starving children in the world? Why aren’t people calling the district attorney to demand punishment when crimes against people are being committed? And, because Curtis is African American, I fear the racial comments. There will be, I am sure, racist comments by animal advocates about Curtis, and there will be, I expect, comments from African Americans asking why so many (white) people care more about animals than about people, and especially, black people.

I wonder if there’s a way in which Patrick can be cared for and his abuser prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, without this almost inevitable backlash? Can we ever consider a case of horrific animal cruelty without comparing it to human suffering, and demanding that all compassion that we feel for a suffering animal be redirected towards humans? And will we ever reach a time where people can recognize that all cruelty, and all suffering, whether experienced by a human or non-human, is categorically wrong, and should be condemned at all costs?

You can find out more about Patrick, and follow his recovery, at the website of the Associated Humane Societies and Popcorn Park Zoo.

Animals in the News

Animals are in the news every week, and indeed, not a day goes by when a Google News search for the term “animal” does not bring up multiple hits: dog fighting rings busted, another hoarder found with dozens or hundreds of animals, a handful of animal abuse or neglect cases making their slow way through the court system, and happier stories of animal heroes, events benefiting animals, and people who have dedicated their lives to saving animals.

But non-human animals can also be found hidden in the margins of the rest of the news. Even when they’re not included in the news stories, they often have a stake in the news, are impacted by the news, or play a hidden role in the news.

For example, many news items appear daily regarding the continuing problems in the US economy, and how states and cities are struggling to balance their budgets in the face of declining tax revenue and a loss of federal support. We hear about the tough choices that governors, mayors and legislators are having to make, and the potential impact of those choices on people. Wages and benefits are being cut, as are social services, making it hard for many citizens already struggling to keep their heads above the poverty level.

But animals are also impacted by these budgetary cuts. As animal control agencies find their budgets slashed, they must make difficult choices too. Some agencies are electing to cut important services, such as picking up stray animals, or providing low-cost spay/neuter services, which will cause more animal suffering. And at the same time that these agencies are facing a loss of needed income, they have a greater burden on their hands, as more people abandon their animals because they can no longer afford to care for them. Each new foreclosure and layoff potentially can mean another animal ends up at the shelter.

In other news, the world has been watching the events unfold in Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Iran with a mixture of wonder, concern and excitement. For many Westerners, the revolutions and unrest in these countries is a positive sign that the dictatorships that have long run many Middle Eastern countries may be coming to an end, hopefully to be replaced by democracies and human rights. Others are worried that with the end of these regimes, we may see more instability in this region, and possibly a rise in Islamic fundamentalism and anti-Western sentiment.

But these political changes have impacted non-human animals as well. In Egypt, for example, animals like camels, donkeys and horses are starving to death, as the tourist industry has dried up and the animals’ owners could no longer feed them. Many other Egyptians have abandoned their companion animals, leading to greater numbers of dogs and cats on the streets, fending for themselves in the chaos. Even Egypt’s famed cats, so much a symbol of both ancient and modern Egypt, are suffering.

In Christchurch New Zealand, which was recently hit by a 6.3 magnitude earthquake, hundreds of people have died and the city is reeling; a week later, rescue crews are still locating survivors and finding dead bodies amidst the rubble. But while it is not covered in the international news, we know that wherever humans suffer, animals tend to suffer as well. So what of the missing and dead animals? Or the animals who are separated from their human loved ones, who are not allowed to return to the devastation of their homes until authorities declare the areas safe? Luckily, New Zealand has a well-developed network of animal charities working to save animals and reunite animals and humans after the disaster.

In my state of New Mexico, we were recently slammed by a record-breaking cold front which devastated the state and resulted in the loss of gas—and heat—to thousands of New Mexicans during the coldest week in decades. Luckily, no people died during this crisis. The news has not reported on whether any animals suffered from the cold, but given how many animals in New Mexico live outdoors—from horses and goats and cows to dogs and cats and rabbits—it is most likely the case that at least some animals froze to death. That was certainly the case with 35 animals who died in the cold at a zoo in northern Mexico in early February.

But my point is that our lives are intertwined, human and non-human, and our fates, good and bad, are similarly interconnected. Sometimes you have to read between the lines in the daily news, but if the news impacts more than a few people, it probably impacts more than a few animals as well.

Getting animals out of War Zones

In my Animals & Society class this semester, one of my students is a dog.

Actually, one of my students is a veteran of the Iraq war with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) who brings his psychiatric service dog, Rock, with him to class. Service dogs who assist veterans are able to help these men and women cope with problems like depression, anger, social isolation, nightmares, and panic attacks. Dogs like this protect the veteran from crowds and situations that might make them anxious. They provide a loving, calming presence to these people, can act as a social lubricant in social situations, allowing them to re-enter society, and turn on lights and check rooms to help their person feel safe.

This particular student has shared with me that his wife, also a veteran, has been fighting to bring her service dog home with her from the war. Many Americans don’t realize that dogs have long served with the American military—as guard dogs, to retrieve injured soldiers from the battlefield, as messengers, as scouts, as trackers, and, in recent wars, to detect mines.

The life of a military dog is, as one might guess, very dangerous. There are no estimates for how many dogs have been killed or injured during war, but thousands have died in the Vietnam war alone. War is not only dangerous for dogs, but as for people, it is stressful. It is only in recent years that scientists recognize that dogs can be afflicted with post traumatic stress syndrome (PTSD).

Another very sad reality for military dogs is that since World War II, when surviving military dogs were able to return home after the end of the war, it has been American military policy to not allow war dogs to return to the United States. Instead, the dogs who served their countries, and saved the lives of American soldiers, have either been left on the battlefield or killed outright. At the end of the Vietnam War, most of the American military dogs were either killed or left for the South Vietnamese Army; many of those dogs were no doubt eaten. After years of public outrage, in 2000 legislation was passed to allow retired military dogs to return home, where they either live with the soldiers with whom they served, or can be adopted into new families.

Even with the new law, it is difficult for many soldiers to bring the dogs who they served with home with them. Many remain at war to serve with a new soldier after their previous handler has been discharged. For those that are allowed to retire, they are carefully evaluated for aggression or other temperament issues that would make the dogs dangerous at home, and are only placed with families (or law enforcement agencies) who understand the responsibilities of owning such unusual dogs. Adopters must also sign an agreement that absolves the US government of liability for damage or injury the dog may cause.

Many other soldiers in both Iraq and Afghanistan have befriended local dogs and cats, and on discharge from the military, have sought to bring those dogs home. Historically, this was impossible as the US military did not allow soldiers to bring home animals adopted from other countries, and in fact, often killed animals found wandering around US bases overseas. In recent years, though, animal protection organizations have rallied support and resources to allow soldiers to bring home animals that they’ve befriended.

The ASPCA International has a project called Operation Baghdad Pups which helps soldiers to bring animals home from Iraq, and a British-based organization, founded by a former soldier, Nowdaz, brings back dogs from Afghanistan and Iraq. (Nowzad also offers resources to help dogs, cats, horses and donkeys receive better treatment in Afghanistan.) These animals have provided comfort to soldiers during war, and most people agree that they should be allowed to come to the United States with their adopted soldiers. In addition, they often risk death or starvation if left behind, as neither Afghanistan nor Iraq currently has a culture that is very dog or cat friendly—especially when it comes to stray dogs or cats. Unfortunately, even with the US government permits the animals to come home, soldiers must fill out mountains of paperwork and must arrange for the dogs to be vaccinated and transported out of a war zone—which can cost thousands of dollars.

Projects like Operation Baghdad Pups and Nowzad recognize that the dogs and cats that the soldiers have found while at war not only helped them to cope with the traumas and anxieties of serving at war, but also can help the soldiers to reintegrate back into society when back home. And perhaps more importantly, they recognize that the soldier’s motto, “leave no one behind,” should extend to non-human animals as well.

To help get animals out of war zones, and into the families of the soldiers who love them, visit http://www.nowzad.com/ and www.spcai.org/baghdad-pups

New semester brings new promise

Yesterday was the first day of classes at my college, Central New Mexico Community College. For me, this was a more exciting day than usual because I am now teaching, only for the second time at this school, a sociology course I created called Animals & Society. From my syllabus:

“This course is designed to bring into the realm of sociological inquiry the relationships that exist between humans and other animals. A major focus will be on the social construction of animals in American culture and the way in which these social meanings are used to perpetuate hierarchical human/human relationships such as racism, sexism, and class privilege. Animal/human interaction in several major social institutions will be studied. We will also examine how different human groups construct a range of identities for themselves and for others through animals. Finally, we will examine several of the major philosophical positions about human social policy regarding the future of animal/human relations. What are the ethical, ecological and societal consequences of continuing our current patterns into the 21st century?”

As readers of this blog most likely know, courses like mine are relatively new in American colleges and universities, but thanks to the work of human-animal studies scholars, and the efforts of ASI, they are becoming more prevalent every year. The ASI website lists 245 HAS courses in North America alone (not counting law school courses), with an additional 38 in Australia and New Zealand, and 12 in Europe, plus a number of online courses and degree programs. Students today with an interest in human-animal studies have more places to go and more courses and programs to take than ever before.

In the case of my new students, I took a brief survey yesterday to find out why the students took the class. While many just took it because it fulfills an elective requirement and “sounds interesting,” a number of students registered because they have a strong interest in (or love of) animals and want to pursue that interest more deeply. One student is planning to become a veterinarian and another is working on her prerequisites for the CNM Veterinary Tech program (in which I also teach a section).

Realistically, I know that of the 25 students who showed up for class yesterday, about a third will drop out before the end of the semester. That seems to happen in all my classes. But of the students who remain, I feel confident that all will be challenged by the end of the semester to think about animals in a different way, and that, in turn, will most likely affect how they will treat animals.

Banning the Sale of Pets

Here are some headlines from this week’s news sites: “San Francisco’s War on Pets” (AOL News); “Put Down the Hamster and Slowly Walk Away” (NPR); “Squashing Children’s Dreams: San Francisco Considers a Ban on Pets” (Examiner.com).

It would appear from these stories that San Francisco, well-known for its controversial, “only-in-San Francisco” policies on everything from gay marriage to plastic grocery bags to cell phones, is planning on banning the keeping of pets within city limits.

As an animal lover, I would be indeed shocked by such a proposal. Why would San Francisco, named after St. Francis, patron saint of animals, suggest banning companion animals?
In fact, San Francisco’s Commission of Animal Control and Animal Welfare had proposed asking the Board of Supervisors to ban selling animals in the city, to cut down on the number of animals sold, abandoned, and then euthanized at the city’s shelter. Yet the commission’s meeting last Thursday night was so contentious, and the subsequent news reports so antagonistic, that the Commission ended up tabling the proposal.

Why was what seems to this writer to be such an eminently simple and straightforward proposal mocked and opposed so vehemently? Predictably, the pet store owners (and animal breeders who supply them) would be opposed to any proposed law which would cut into their profits. But why was the public—and the media—so overwhelmingly opposed to it?

I have to say, I am confused. Everyone knows the numbers—every year, between 3 and 4 million dogs, cats, rabbits and other animals are euthanized in this country’s public and private shelters. While San Francisco Animal Care and Control’s numbers are not publically available, Oakland, which is just across the bay, euthanizes close to 40% of all animals surrendered to the city’s shelter every year. That comes out to be 2631 animals in 2009. Oakland is just one of over two dozen such shelters in the bay area, all with their own euthanasia numbers. Nationwide, the numbers are even higher, with an average of 50% of all animals surrendered to animal shelters being euthanized due to behavioral or health problems, overcrowding, and lack of a good home.

The loss of life and the suffering that this entails is enormous. The cost to taxpayers is also substantial. It costs taxpayers about $105 for an animal control officer to pick up a stray dog or cat, transport the animal to the shelter, provide food and water for the animal, euthanize the animal if not adopted or reunited with his family, and send the body to the landfill. Animal control programs in this country alone cost $2 billion per year, and this does not count the millions that private animal rescue groups spend to rescue and re-home animals.

Sure, there are all kinds of complicated and simple reasons why people abandon or relinquish their companion animals: the owners were not educated as to the needs of the animal; the animal’s care was more than they expected; the family’s situation—finances, housing, marriage—has changed; the animal did not get along with other family pets or family members, etc. etc. But ultimately, the problem comes down to one thing: the breeding and sale of companion animals when there are not enough homes for them.

San Francisco’s Animal Welfare Commission simply decided that, on top of all of the other programs that the city is engaged in (promoting low cost spay/neuter; increasing foster homes; providing low cost behavior training; humane education, and the like), prohibiting the sale of animals within the city would discourage people from impulse purchases and encourage folks who would like a pet to visit one of the city’s shelters or rescue groups.

Sadly, this simple proposal was shelved, because not only do the pet stores need to safeguard their profits, but because much of the public apparently feels that it would infringe upon their rights—to buy a purebred animal, to buy a young animal, to buy an animal without any sort of adoption screening, to buy an animal at the neighborhood pet store rather than adopting from the local shelter, and to buy an animal without having to be educated on their care first.

But what about the right of animals to not be bred so that they can be sold into a family, abandoned when no longer convenient, and then put to death by the very same animal care staff whose jobs it is to care for them?

Profits before Lives

This week, the Chicago animal rights group Mercy for Animals released a chilling undercover video showing workers at Conklin Dairy Farms in Plain City, Ohio kicking, stomping, stabbing and beating dairy cows and their calves. This video, and the countless other videos, reports, and materials about the lives of dairy cattle (and their infant sons, who become veal calves), is vivid proof of the brutalities of the dairy industry.

Yet for industry apologists, that's not the case at all. If anything, Mercy for Animals' investigation only demonstrates that there are a few "bad apples" in every industry or workplace, and that the actions of these few workers do not reflect on the industry as a whole. In Conklin's case, the employee featured in the video was fired by the company, and remaining employees will be retrained, according to a company statement.

This response, which follows undercover investigations conducted at slaughterhouses, biomedical labs, circuses, zoos, pig, poultry, egg, and dairy farms, and even pet stores, is typical of industries trying to protect their image and maintain their profits.

But it's not just the animal exploitation industries which offer such automatic, predictable responses when they are caught engaged in such abuse. Whether it's British Petroleum after the recent (and ongoing) massive oil spill in the Gulf or Massey Energy after the April mine explosion, companies routinely take the position that "mistakes were made" which led to these deadly disasters, and that those mistakes should not reflect negatively on the companies.

Only in the left wing media is serious attention paid to the ways that companies like Massey, BP, or dairy, poultry or pig farms routinely engage in practices which put humans, animals, or the environment at risk. While mine explosions or oil rig explosions may be accidental, in the sense that no one intended for those tragedies to occur, and while the employee manuals at poultry or dairy farms may not require employees to beat animals, these occurrences are not aberrations; they are standard and expected occurrences for industries which put profits above worker or animal safety.

Just this week, documents surfaced that showed that British Petroleum used a cost benefit analysis in 2002 in order to help them decide what kind of housing to build for its workers at a Texas refinery-inexpensive trailer homes which would have no chance of surviving a refinery blast, or concrete and steel housing which would cost ten times as much, but could withstand such a blast. The document, which used the "three little pigs" fairy tale (and was even illustrated with drawings of three pigs) as an analogy, recommended the cheaper housing. Another BP document put a ten million dollar value on the workers' lives (based on estimated costs incurred in possible lawsuits) and even with that figure, the cost of cheaper housing combined with the potential lawsuits was still recommended over the more expensive housing. Three years later, the refinery caught fire and 15 workers (most of whom were in the trailers) were killed and 170 others injured.

This week, BP responded to these documents by assuring the public that BP takes worker safety seriously, and that "those documents are several years old." Just a few bad apples, and not at all indicative of the cost-control measures that BP takes on a daily basis. Yet it appears that BP is continuing to put cost-savings (and profits) above safety. The Deepwater Horizon rig explosion may well have been prevented had BP installed a $50,000 acoustic trigger which would have shut off the well when the explosion occurred. A $50,000 savings in exchange for 11 worker lives, and an oil spill that is still, five weeks out, gushing millions of gallons of oil per day into the Gulf, threatening the lives of marine plants and animals for decades-or centuries-to come.

Animal industries too, maximize profits by cutting costs, and usually those costs are borne by the animals themselves, who endure living conditions which are unceasingly brutal. Activities that could provide pleasure--like a soft bed, fresh air, grass, the ability to run and play, the ability to nurse and raise one's offspring--are disallowed because they don't add to the company's bottom line. Even beating and stabbing animals at farms and slaughterhouses makes economic sense--when workers are under pressure to meet unreasonable quotas, they often respond by beating the animals to make them move faster.

Ultimately, the worker at the center of the Conklin Dairy Farm abuse scandal will be arrested and will face prosecution for his actions. Whether he will pay a penalty of any kind is questionable, given the scanty legal protection for farm animals in this country. But regardless of the price paid by this one man, this one "bad apple," and regardless of his motivations, dairy farms like Conklin will continue to put profits above animal welfare. Because it just makes economic sense.

Coping with Fatigue

Another week, more bad news for animals.

After last week's stunning Supreme Court decision to throw out the 1999 law banning crush videos and other videos depicting animal cruelty (U.S. v. Stevens), animal activists and animal lovers were stunned. If the filming of blatant (and illegal) acts of animal cruelty is now a protected form of free speech, then we can expect not only the revival of the crush video industry, but all manner of videos showing unbelievable cruelty. Luckily, just one day after the Supreme Court's ruling, Representatives Jim Moran and Elton Gallegly have introduced a new bill which would more narrowly focus on crush videos and thus not antagonize the hunting industry who sided with the Supreme Court's ruling.

Last week also saw the collapse of an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico off the coast of Louisiana, which resulted in the deaths of eleven workers, and five thousand barrels of oil being leaked into the Gulf every day. While the Coast Guard has been attempting to burn off some of the oil to keep it from entering sensitive wetlands near Louisiana, officials have not yet been able to plug the leaks. Animals who live in the area and who will be impacted form the spill include sea turtles, whales, porpoises, dolphins, tuna, sharks, pelicans, oysters and crabs and a variety of migratory shore birds and song birds. Many of these animals are in the midst of their spawning and nesting seasons, which means that future generations of these animals could be lost as well.
Then of course, like every other week, new cases of animal cruelty keep appearing in local news, such as the two cats who were doused with gasoline this week in Quincy, Massachusetts, resulting in their deaths.

And those are just the news items for the week. Animal activists are burdened with information that is not reported in the news. We know, for example, that every year, 10 billion domesticated land animals are slaughtered for food in the United States, which breaks down to 27 million each and every day, approximately 20 million vertebrate animals are used (and most of them are ultimately killed) for medical research and testing in the US, which breaks down to about 55,000 animals per day, and that 30 million animals are slaughtered for their fur every year, or about 82,000 per day. In addition, the federal government kills about 2 million wild animals per year (about 5,500 per day) at the behest of hunters, property owners and cattle ranchers, and an unknown number of animals (also in the millions) are killed by hunters every year in this country alone. We're also aware of the fact that about 4 million former pets are killed at animal shelters every year, or about 11,000 per day.

Those are very big numbers, and that is a lot of killing. How can we deal with the enormity of these figures? How do we deal with it?

Obviously, many of us have made changes in our personal lives--we may no longer eat animals, wear them, or participate in activities that cause them harm. Countless others are involved in activism--in educating our friends and families, in writing letters and blogs and petitions, in pushing for meaningful social change. Many of us volunteer or work at the local level, in our animal shelters, for example, or have gotten involved in state or federal or international organizations that work to protect animals.

But it never seems like enough, honestly. And sometimes the fatigue of knowing how much suffering exists feels overwhelming. Known as "compassion fatigue," animal welfare workers, volunteers, and activists are all at risk for being overwhelmed and traumatized by the constant suffering, and the knowledge that what we do is never enough. Many of us are depressed, and deal with that depression in unhealthy ways. Many of us use food or alcohol or drugs to self-medicate.

But thankfully, many of us also take solace in the community of animal lovers and activists who share our values and our convictions. We find communion with others like us who put the lives of animals, and the protection of the planet, above our own needs. We form networks with like minded people, supporting each other, sharing stories, having fun together, and forming life-long bonds.

And we try to learn to take care of ourselves, through engaging in activities that bring us relief and happiness. Sometimes this is the hardest lesson to learn--when animals are suffering so much, why do I deserve some happiness? But it may be the most important thing we can do to ensure that we continue to help others. And sometimes this can be as simple as hopping over to your favorite cute animal website for a quick pickup. For me, that site is www.cuteoverload.com. Pick your own, and visit it often. You deserve it.

Animals in Captivity

The recent case of a SeaWorld trainer who was killed by Tilikum, a performing whale kept at SeaWorld in Orlando, has generated intense debate about whether marine mammals like Tilikum should be kept in captivity at all. As expected, the animal welfare community, and a surprising number of supporters from outside of this community, recommend ceasing the practice of keeping marine mammals as entertainment, while representatives of marine mammal parks and zoos advocate keeping captive wild animals, arguing that shows like the Shamu show at SeaWorld are less about entertainment and more about education and conservation. The Academy Award-nominated film The Cove, which highlighted the gruesome manner in which dolphins are caught (and killed) in Japan, added fuel to this debate.

It is shameful that it takes the tragic death of a woman, SeaWorld’s Dawn Brancheau, or the covert filming of thousands of dolphins being brutally slaughtered, to shed light on these issues. For much of the public, it is difficult to see the harm in keeping wild animals captive, when entertainment venues such as circuses, marine mammal parks, and even zoos hide their morally unpleasant dealings behind a façade of glitzy performances or even conservation rhetoric. What’s wrong with visiting the zoo, or the circus, or a marine mammal park?

In my adopted state of New Mexico, residents were recently horrified to hear that Kashka, a “beloved” sixteen-year old giraffe kept at the Rio Grande Zoo, was dumped in a zoo dumpster and carted off to the landfill after being euthanized last week. What was the outrage about? Were people horrified at the callous treatment of an animal who brought profits to the local zoo and pleasure to local residents?

It turns out that dumping dead zoo animals in the landfill is standard procedure after an animal has died, but that Kashka’s body should have been driven directly to the landfill, rather than placed into the dumpster for pickup with the rest of the zoo trash. A worker is currently under investigation for this breach in protocol.

But apparently no one cares about the fact that Kashka, a 2200 pound animal who, in Africa, would roam with her family over a range that extends up to 100 square miles, and could run as fast as 35 miles per hour, was kept in an enclosure at the zoo which was a tiny fraction of her natural habitat. Kashka should have been living in Africa with her kin, traveling and mating and socializing with her fellow giraffes, foraging for food, and even dying in the wild. No one had a right to take her away from that life and to force her to live in a tiny space, to give birth to babies who will eventually be sold to other zoos, all to entertain and “educate” the public. And while she certainly should not have been dumped in a dumpster after her death, the reality is that that sad ending was only the final sad coda to a very sad life.

A Registry for Animal Abusers

Not a week goes by without a story in the news of a case of animal abuse or neglect somewhere in the country. This week the big story was in Great Falls Montana, where John Carman appeared in court to face charges of aggravated animal cruelty, stemming from leaving over 200 animals in a barn without food or water. All of the animals starved to death. Unbelievably, Carman is only facing a $2,500 fine, and a maximum of two years in jail. While Montana is one of forty-six states with felony-level charges for animal cruelty, it was recently ranked 35th in the nation by the Humane Society of the United States for its animal protection laws, so the likelihood that Carman will truly pay for his egregious crime is slim.

California, on the other hand, was ranked number one in the rankings thanks to its laws protecting companion animals, horses, farmed animals and wild animals from a variety of abuses.

California’s animals may have even more protection soon, if a proposed state law creating a criminal registry for animal abusers passes the state legislature. Last week, state Senator Dean Florez (D-Shafter) proposed the bill, which would be the first of its kind in the nation, and would require anyone convicted of felony animal cruelty to register with the police, as sex offenders are required to do under the Jacob Wetterling Crimes Against Children and Sexually Violent Offender Act. In addition, the law would also mirror Megan’s Law, which requires states to notify the public of sex offenders in their communities. SB 1277 would require that California not only maintain a database of animal abusers, but that names, addresses, and photos would be posted online. (Currently, there are a handful of private websites that list such abusers’ names, but none are comprehensive.) The bill would be funded by a tax on pet food.

What would be the effects of such a law? According to a 2009 study, Megan’s Law has failed to deter sex crimes or reduce the victims of sex crimes. Still, the public still supports both the sex offender registry as well as the public notification requirement, and proponents claim that it allows parents to better protect their children, since parents can find out whether sex offenders live in their communities.

SB 1277 could be expected to function in a similar manner. While it would likely not discourage people from abusing their animals, it would give the public—in particular those who either sell or adopt out animals to the public—a way to find out whether potential adopters are convicted animal abusers. Currently, those of us who run animal rescue organizations have no way to find out the background of potential adopters, and this could be one more tool to help us to evaluate strangers.

Of course the proposed legislation will be heavily fought on the grounds that it curtails the civil liberties of those who have broken the law and who have “done their time.” But unlike sex offenders, animal abusers—even those convicted of felony abuse charges—rarely pay more than a small fine and even more rarely serve any time in prison. In one recent case, Liz Carlisle, a young Petland employee who drowned two rabbits and then posted a photo of herself--smiling gleefully--holding their soaking corpses on her Facebook page, plead guilty to two counts of animal cruelty and was sentenced to probation. At least with an animal abuser registry, not only could animal adoption agencies find out about Carlisle’s past, but future employers—like Petland—could as well. This is a woman who should never be around animals again, and unfortunately, there is currently no legal way to keep animals safe from her.

Finally, one reason why sex offenders—and not bank robbers, drunk drivers, or even murderers—are the target of legislation like Megan’s Law is that they are especially prone to recidivism. Animal abusers are too. Hoarders, for example, are especially likely to offend again, and a law like Florez’s would provide the public with enough information to make it at least more difficult for them to acquire animals again.

Ridiculously Cute Photo of the Day

From Cute Overload, where else?

Stray Animals and the Poor

This week, the lieutenant governor of South Carolina, Andre Bauer, compared children who get subsidized school lunches to animals when he told a story about his grandmother instructing him not to feed stray animals. "You know why?" he asked in a speech, "Because they breed! You're facilitating the problem if you give an animal or a human ample food supply. They will reproduce, especially ones that don't think too much further than that."

Like Missouri State Representative Cynthia Davis, who last year opposed government programs to feed hungry children and famously said “hunger can be a positive motivator,” Bauer, who pointed out the correlation between low test scores in school and children who receive subsidized lunches, concluded that it is free lunches that cause the low test scores, and not poverty.

Commentators have pointed out the insensitivity and ignorance of Bauer’s remarks and the inevitable conclusion: that starving poor children will reduce poverty because it will stop them from breeding.

Bauer, who plans on running for governor of South Carolina, has now apologized for his choice of metaphors, but stands by the sentiment—that providing food or assistance to the poor keeps them dependent, and thus contributes to the continuation of poverty.

But on top of apologizing for insulting the poor by comparing them to stray animals, and implying that too much free food is to blame for their poverty, perhaps Bauer should consider apologizing to animals for his faulty logic in the first place.

Why does Bauer (or his uneducated grandmother who originally taught him this lesson) think that the problem of stray animals lies in their being fed?

Dogs and cats are stray not because they are fed too much, or even because they reproduce too much. They are stray because they have been abandoned, and prior to their abandonment, they were most likely bred by someone who wanted to profit off of the birth of puppies or kittens, wanted to experience the “beauty of birth,” or simply did not take the responsible position and spay or neuter their companion animal.

That stray animals breed is a function of the fact that they were never neutered or spayed—this, like the fact that they were abandoned, is not the fault of the animal but the “owner” who was responsible for them.

Animals are stray not because they breed, or because they are fed too much, but because no one cared enough about them to start with. They were intentionally, carelessly, or casually bred, and were then left to fend for themselves when caring for them became too much work.

According to the Humane Society of the United States, 6-8 million former companion animals enter animal shelters every year, and of those, 3-4 million are euthanized. Many of those animals were surrendered by their families, and many were found as strays, wandering city streets. In either case, these animals were once bred or allowed to breed, by humans, and were ultimately abandoned to fend for themselves.

That Bauer, or anyone else who shares Bauer’s sentiments, could assume that feeding unwanted animals is what causes or even exacerbates the problem is not just ignorant and insensitive, but cruel. While feeding a stray animal will not solve the problem of homeless animals—spay/neuter programs, public education, increased shelter adoptions, and legislation mandating responsible care and treatment of companion animals are needed for that—it can certainly make one hungry animal’s life a little bit easier. That the potential future governor of South Carolina would deny hungry animals food, just as he would deny hungry children food, is a scary thought indeed.