7 December 2009

 

Pampered Pets

 

-- by Mike Murray

 

I often hear it said that some people "treat animals better than they treat humans."  I suppose that's  true.  In some cases, anyway.  Certainly, there are people who treat some animals better than they treat some humans.  (I'll set aside for a moment considerations over which among the various species are kindest, and so most deserving of returned affection.)

 

What is definitely not true, however, is the suggestion that animals are generally better off than are humans in American society.  Yes, most people who live with animal companions treat them quite well.  Pamper them, even.  (Guilty.)  And there is no disputing the fact that there are legions of people who live lives, as Henry David Thoreau put it, "of quiet desperation."

 

You won't get an argument from me over the assertion that a great many people have it rough.  That they know misery.  That they lead especially difficult lives. 

 

Still, the shame isn’t that some animals are treated too well; it is instead that some people are treated not nearly well enough.  And, even at that, the mistreatment of humans is not due to any misbehavior on the part of animals.  It is we humans who abuse one another.  The same cannot be said of animals.  When they are beaten, neglected, abandoned – and worse – it usually is not one of "their own kind" who is at fault.

 

Consider Janna.  She was pregnant and suffering with heartworm when her human "owner" dumped her.  She ended up in a county animal-control facility, where she faced a ticking clock.  She was granted a reprieve until her pups were delivered and weaned, but thereafter had only the customary few days to land a new home.

 

She didn't.  Janna is a Rottweiler mix.  She is also rambunctious.  Both her breed type and her lively disposition, I imagine, worked against her.  She was passed over by adopters who preferred calmer, less imposing companions.  As a consequence, the clock ran out and she faced the worst.

 

But Janna was fortunate; she was granted a stay of execution.  Just in the nick of time, a private agency came to her rescue.  She ended up with "foster parents" Fran and Steve, who nursed her back to health.  They also offered her lifetime refuge.  (In the event that they had failed to secure a proper adoption arrangement for her, they would have permanently welcomed Janna into their home – and into their already crowed pack of canines.)

 

Not all abandoned animals are so lucky.  Far too many of them are "euthanized" – which, really, is too polite a word.  For it implies that it is in the animals' best interest that their lives be extinguished.  It's not.  It's in ours.  Countless humans fail to spay and neuter, and then either abandon altogether the unwanted newborns that result, or palm them off on community facilities.

 

Neither action is ideal for the animals involved.  The ones "set free" end up wandering the streets or the woods:  scared, lonely, and hungry.  Freezing cold, too, in the winter.  Those who reach a governmental institution have it a better – for a short while, at least.  But the laws of supply and demand are incredibly cruel to creatures unable to quickly charm potential adopters.

 

Facilities have only so much room.  And freshly abandoned animals arrive every day – in greater numbers, usually, than do potential adopters.  The result is predicable.  And gruesome.  As bad as some people have it, they have it better than that.

 

During extremely difficult economic periods (such as the one we now occupy), despair visits an increased number of animals.  At such times, even caring, responsible people are forced to consider the (otherwise) unthinkable.  In the face of home foreclosure – and no affordable place to rent that permits pets, and no friend or relative available to help – pleasant options evaporate.

 

The result is an increased flow of critters into already over-crowded shelters and rescue agencies.  For public facilities, that means an acceleration in exterminations.  For swamped no-kill and extended-stay organizations, it means slowed or curtailed intake.  In every case, it leads to enhanced hardship for homeless animals.

 

I think about that, every time I hear someone claim that "animals have it better than humans."  Some do, perhaps.  But a good many do not.

 

 

Copyright © 2009 Michael F. Murray       All rights reserved.

 

 

Note: Originally entitled Preferential Treatment?