There exist umpteen internet websites expounding on the responsibilites of pet ownership. And many of them loudly proclaim that "pet ownership is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT."
Standing at the helm of this "Pets are a Privilege" movement, we find the American Veterinary Medical Association. The AVMA Executive Board recently approved new guidelines for responsible pet ownership. The guidelines are prefaced with this statement:
"Owning a pet is a privilege and should result in a mutually beneficial relationship." (1)
The devil, you say. Really? A privilege?
A "privilege" is defined as a "right or benefit enjoyed only by a person beyond the advantages of most; the condition of enjoying special rights." A privilege is a special right granted by those in authority; something for which you must obtain permission. A right is something for which you do not need permission.
Pets are property, in both a technical and a legal sense. (More about that in a future post). Our right to own a pet is the same as the right to own any other property and must not be considered a privilege; something by definition "beyond the advantage of most."
The UN's "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" states:
"Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property."
Owning an animal is a right, as is ownership of any other property. It's not a privilege.
To further bolster the case for the pet ownership, consider the vital role pets play in out lives. Let's look to current research studies. Pet ownership provides health benefits such as reducing anxiety, lowering blood pressure, and reducing allergies. Pets provide companionship, promote exercise and improve our social skills by helping to reduce shyness and isolation. (3)
We have a right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", so said the founders of our nation in the Declaration of Independence. Pet ownership definitely falls under the category of pursuit of happiness. Not to mention, it's good for our health.
Considering the postive health benefits of pet ownership, that right should not be abridged. If pet ownership becomes a "privilege" there would then exist an unreasonable usurpation of our rights. We have a right to pursue our dreams, and a right to pet ownership.
We have the right to purchase and own property. But just because we own something does not mean that we can do with it as we please. Sometimes there are restrictions placed upon the use of certain types of property, like a car, a gun, or an animal. You need to obtain a driver's license to use your car. You can own a gun, but cannot use it for illegal purposes. You can own an animal, but you must comply with animal welfare regulations.
Property ownership is a right, which may not be abridged unless we abuse that right. If ownership of pets is to be considered a privilege, then we must meet special conditions and requirements and may even be denied permission to make our purchase. However, constitutionally and legally, we do not need permission to purchase property.
Some breeders and pet rescuers firmly believe that the best interest of the pet supercedes the considerations of the owner.
"After working in rescue for many years" a friend recently confided "I sincerely believe that not everyone should own a dog."
And after working in a shelter for battered women, I suppose one might form the opinion that not everyone should get married. Not much of a revelation there. After working for child protective services, one might form the opinion that not everyone should have children. No epiphany there, either. After working in a hospital for many years, one might conclude that life is filled with doom, gloom and misery. But of course, such biased viewpoints are never accurate or balanced.
We cannot deny basic human rights based on the actions of those who abuse such rights.
True, some people don't give the proper consideration to dog ownership prior to making their decision. But probably, the majority of owners DO. And should the basic rights to ownership of animals for everyone be denied due to a few bad apples?
Owning an pet involves a good deal of responsibility. When you own an animal, you have a moral obligation to provide food shelter, care and kindness. We even have laws in all 50 states requiring humane treatment of animals; laws that forbid neglect and abuse.
The AVMA further delineates their proposed markers for "Responsible Pet Ownership" which includes such recommendations as keeping your pet for its entire lifetime, limiting breeding to help ease "overpopulation", and other debatable concepts. Of course, the AVMA recommends:
"Providing preventive (e.g., vaccinations, parasite control) and therapeutic health care for the life of pet(s) in consultation with, and as recommended by, its veterinarian."
Humans have the right to refuse to seek medical care if they so choose. I suppose if we exercise that option for our animals, then we are not "responsible". In the eyes of the AVMA, in this case, we don't deserve to have a pet!
Never mind the blatant conflict of interest in the recommendations by so many veterinarians for yearly vaccinations and monthly parasite managment treatments.
Another factor to consider when positing "responsible pet ownership guidelines" is that we may be projecting our own values about pet ownership onto others. We may forget that not all dogs are destined to function as pampered companions. Is it unreasonable to expect dogs to work as service animals for the disabled? What about keeping packs of dogs for hunting, or using dogs for herding, or having an outdoor guard dog?
Then there is the admonition for "socialization and appropriate training for pets." But what if the dog's purpose is to protect the owner? Perhaps the owner doesn't WANT their pet to be social and friendly to any Tom, Dick or Harry. Many breed standards call for an "aloof" quality. Again, the purpose for which some "pets" are kept can vary. That does not make the owner "irresponsible."
But put aside the AVMA's responsible pet owner commandments for a moment. Let's examine how responsible we as a nation have been in regard to pet ownership.
There are over 78 million owned dogs in the US, and over 86 million owned cats. There is also an unknown number of feral cats, and a minute number of unowned, stray dogs. Of the 156 million pets in the US, and the many millions more feral cats that exist, a small fraction of animals, estimated at 6-8 million, transit through shelters each year. Less than 4%. considering a significant number are feral ownerless cats, WAY below 4% of the owned animals in this country.
That means that over 96% of animals in this country are owned in a responsible manner.
Each year in the US, there are 17 million people who will adopt a new pet and haven't decided exactly where to get this new pet from. And there exists an estimated 2-3 million adoptable pets in shelters who are killed. There are 17 million households available to absorb 2-3 million shelter pets. To prevent their deaths, all that would be needed is to effectively use some creative marketing skills. Yet even if every adoptable animal was adopted, we would still need 14 million more pets each year.
Yes, Virginia, we CAN adopt our way out this problem. It has happened in many communities already; communities where the shelters are empty and need to import dogs from other area and even other countries. I'd say as a nation, we have proven our responsibility. We've heeded the call to adoption and emptied many shelters in the process. We are responsible enough to deserve to count pet ownership among our basic rights.
Yet our cultural zeitgeist remains one of sanctimony toward pet owners. We are regularly subjected to lectures about our "obligation" toward our pets as though we were a nation of reckless kindergartners.
Those 14 million households deserve their pets. Pet ownership - it's a right, not a privilege!
 |
