Alright, since we are going to be free thinkers (that and Mia woke me up at 4 in the morning and I have nothing better to do at the moment), let me tackle this article. Not because I completely disagree with it, but rather because it deserves to be analyzed for better understanding of the issues discussed, like all texts (can you tell I am a literature person?).
In this article there are some blatant red flags. One of which is the author's tendency to stereotype and scapegoat "animal rights activists." First of all its too easy to homogenize a group of people under umbrella terms, and to describe this group with characteristics that cannot possibly be attributed to the entire group. Let me give an example. I believe I used to be (and maybe still am) an "animal rights activist." I was a PETA member before I found out that they "euthanized" animals at their shelters, I used to be a HSUS member, and I have been a vegetarian all my adult life (which is like 4-5 years, but its somethin'). I would advocate vegetarianism to anyone who is considering. I have taken in a pregant stray cat and nursed her through all her difficulties during/after pregnancy and unfortunate lymphoma (she died on Memorial day). I have found good homes for three of her babies, and I will do home visits to ensure that the babies get spayed/neutered. I have a beautiful cat from the local animal shelter (which gasses animals once or twice a week). Boy do I feel good for rescuing my cat from that hell-hole. And, I am the recent owner of a beautiful pure bred Yorkie. I would like to breed Yorkies some day (in my 40s when I have more stability in my life) to better the breed as a knowledgable and responsible person. To me breeding Yorkies seems like a better occupation of my time than raising kids. And I absolutely fell in love with the breed thanks to Mia. I also love taking care of animals to the best of my abilities and knowledge. But, I would also like to help stray animals, abused animals and animals that are in shelters for the rest of my life.
Now, let me tell you why I have, in the past, agreed to the philosophy of "animals are not for us to use, so on and so forth," which includes pet ownership. It may not be a good reason, but it was my reason. Because it is never ever ever going to happen. Not many people care enough about animals and how they are treated. How many of you would treat your pets as your baby and then have dinner at a steak house? Many. I am not trying to judge anyone. I am just pointing out the selective love most people give animals. I used to think that if you aim for such an extreme goal, on your way to that goal, you are bound to accomplish the alleviation of animal suffering. Right now I think such philosophy just polarizes the existing animal lover "community," and makes it easy for people that care to dismiss animal activism as this author does. And that is not helping anyone, including the pet owners. It is also hysterical (!) that the author writes "Pointing fingers at each other is cowardly and counterproductive," later on since that is what she is doing.
When it comes to the shelter statistics, this example does not support the author's argument because we don't know the statistics of pet ownership. The reason animals at the shelters are a problem is because there are no homes for them to go to. The main idea "animal activists" rely on when attributing animal overpopulation to the breeders is because "they" think that a person who bought a pure-bred could have adopted, and reduced the overpopulation at the shelters. Not because pure breds crowd animal shelters.
There are shortcomings of our understanding of DNA, and there is the basic fact that predictions are just predictions. Not that breeders should not know this stuff, I think they should be up to date on the scientific part of it, but this knowledge does not grant anyone a special untouchable status. Nor does this incomplete knowledge of the breeder grant her puppies a special quality or give her the right to demonize mutts. Some mutts make better pets than pure breds. It depends on the animal. The proposed solution to spay/neuter mutts and to "eliminate" them based on the fact that they are mutts is quite unreasonable. It is very very sad to see a person that is a self-proclaimed "Nazi" anything since it should be clear to everyone (by now) what is wrong with such mentality. This is not joking material.
And the reason HSUS would have (I am guessing) promoted mutts "as a 'designer' product. Sort of a haute couture, one of a kind canine fashion accessory" is because that is why some people buy pets. I have come across several people that wanted less than 5 lbs. Yorkies to carry around as fashion accessories. HSUS is just trying to save some animal lives by trying to improve mutts' image. Not that it seems to be working.
Okay, this is getting long and I am getting bored. These are some of my objections to the article. I agree that the activists' efforts are sometimes misdirected, and that the actions taken are not that productive. They are sometimes unnecessarily restrictive. I think she has some good points, and it is definitely a subject worth our attention. I just wanted to expand the discussion.
Thanks for reading.
