What is owning a pet all about? What are the responsibilities of those who own pets?

What RosaL said and I'll offer this Le T:

Quote:

The family dog is more family than you think.

When Angel, a golden retriever, attacked a wild cougar who'd been stalking her young master in British Columbia, she wasn't just acting on primal animal instinct - in her mind, she likely thought she was protecting a sibling, experts say.

Quote:

"What you have to recognize is the number of times dogs tend to rescue people or help them to safety every year is very, very large and the vast majority are not reported."

Maybe I'll try to put it in better words later but dogs give me a lift from the lows of interacting with humans everyday. They're very good for your health.

Le T, I went back to the other thread and to read the genesis of the conversation.  I think it might be germaine to your question to look a little bit at the behavior of dogs in terms of your comments about freedom and domination.   You commented about how in your experience dogs like the company of other dogs.  They most definately do. Dogs are social animals.  They're pack animals and a dog will gravitate to finding a 'pack'.  Dogs left on their own will invariably try to find others to try to live with.  Within that context though there is a hierarchy and different dogs respond differently to that hierarchy. Interestingly pack behavior is full of issues regarding dominance. There is always a leader,  an alpha male or female and the rest of the pack sets their place from them. Some dogs just naturally are happy enough to take a lesser role in the hierarchy.   If another alpha happens on the scene they'll fight it out, sometimes even violently and the conflict will continue to happen until the issue is settled. Dominance and social 'place' is a big and quite natural part of dogs life whether humans are involved or not.  The alphas of the pack also set the tone for behavior and if another does something 'bad' the alpha will let them know.

It's these natural behaviors that have led dogs to fit into the human realm and I expect one of the reasons that they've been relatively easily bred and brought into human space for however long we've domesticated them.  Dogs in general just seem to take on humans and other animals into their social 'pack' world.  I bring up non humans because not just from my experience but from numerous other examples many dogs will even associate with other species in a similar fashion.   My dogs for instance will chase other cats from the property but the cats that live here are under their protection. They even sleep together.   One of my dogs loves to hang out with my chickens and will even let them climb all over him but will chase any bird with great gusto that dares to land in the yard.     

I guess the point of my rambling is that looking at issue of 'freedom' and 'dominance' in context of the questions being brought up about human and dog relationships to their freedom and we should be careful about subscribing a human centered viewpoint of what 'freedom' or being 'dominated' means to a dog.

Without you Skdadl, it would be really hard for them. It takes so long to find and interview and hire good staff, dont cha know

Dogs may have chosen this as much as we did. There is a way in which it's thought that dogs could have domesticated themselves.

Oh, I agree with you, Polly B. Pure breeding is a bad thing, and the longer it goes on within a very small selection of a breed, the worse things usually get. Cats haven't been bred to anything like the degree that dogs and cows and sheep have, but even among cats you see, eg, the breathing problems especially of the pug-nosed types.

I believe that we should stop doing the fetishizing things, and talking people out of pure breeding would be a big part of that. I also believe that we need to learn smart ways to control populations of urbanized feral animals, especially cats, and I work with people who do that. I hope everyone else here supports trap/spay-neuter/release programs.

But I don't expect an absolute and permanent sanitizing barrier to come down between people and animals. I don't believe that is either possible or desirable. We've always interacted with them in a variety of ways, and that's not all bad.

Michelle wrote:

But I think that it's important to ask those questions anyhow.  What IS having a pet all about?  Most people talk about how a pet is useful to them, whether as little love providers, little living teddy bears, interesting entertainment, little beings who amuse the children and teach them responsibility, etc.  But what do these have in common?  It's all about what people want.

Now, I'm not saying that people have no altruistic reasons whatsoever for owning a pet.  Some people's heart strings are tugged at the thought of pets in shelters, and others take on pets when friends or family can't take care of them any longer.  But ultimately, it's a master-servant relationship, as much as we joke about cats ruling the roost, or dogs being members of the family, or whatever.  It's about keeping animals to do our bidding, no matter how benevolent and kind we are towards them.

I think that this sort of discussion should be had and not brushed aside as an attempt to make pet owners feel guilty or bad, since lots of people who think critically about the concept of pet ownership also own pets.  Because the philosophy behind the idea that we have a "right" to have pets, and a "right" to decide for ourselves whether to have pets goes way back to the whole idea that humans are intrinsically superior to all other animals on earth, as well as nature and everything else, and that we have a right to dominate them all, and that the only argument is whether to be benevolent rulers or rapacious ones.  And that domination of nature outlook is by no means a universal philosophy, as Le T was saying.

Well, why do people have children?  (Personally, I've never wanted kids but I suspect my feelings for my dog are very much like a parent's feelings for her child.)

I don't think I have a "right to have a pet, though. I don't think I have a right to have kids either. (I don't believe in rights at all, which has a lot to do with my not being a liberal. But I digress.) Or the rest of it ....

I think the way most people treat their pets has a lot to do with "domination of nature" and "human superiority" theories. But I question whether there's a necessary relationship between such notions and the practice of living with an animal. (I refuse to call it ownership. Do you own your child?)

Michelle wrote:

Sure, children's rights are curtailed to a certain degree that society deems permissible for the sake of protection and suitable rearing until they are old enough to live autonomously.  But domesticated animals are never considered autonomous, or free, or beyond the reach of human domination.

That is, however, my sole reason for curtailing my dog's freedom: the viciousness of the world we live in and her vulnerability. In a different kind of world, I would not do so. 

Michelle wrote:

When you raise a child, you do so with the expectation that you are helping to bring an autonomous person into the world who will become their own person and eventually live their own lives without your supervision.  It's completely different than how we view animals that we acquire and then "own" for the rest of their lives.

You never met my mother then. She definitely thought kids were something she acquired and then owned for the rest of their lives. And this is by no means a unique outlook for a parent.

Michelle wrote:

Absolutely.  But I'm talking about the reasons behind having dogs to begin with, as opposed to having children to begin with.  Dogs will always be your property.  Children are never your property, and eventually, in a few years, they become completely autonomous.  Dogs never do.

Well, i suppose no one has a dog in order to continue the human race! (I'm not sure that's a good idea anyway .) Or for the sake of raising an 'autonomous being' - that's a very modern, western conception, it seems to me, anyway, and probably doesn't apply in much of the world. But there are other reasons people have kids - they have kids because they rejoice in their growth and their happiness and their company and their love. As I do with my dog. 

I'll just maybe repeat that "autonomy" is a modern, western value. I think its existence as a motive for reproduction and childcare is very recent and extremely limited. 

p.s. oddly enough, people do seem to think they have a "right" to have kids. 

p.p.s. In an ideal world, I'd be opposed to anyone having a "pet", although if an animal wanted to move in with someone, that would be another matter. But we are far from such a world. (I'm protecting my dog.) In the meantime,  I think if we could get people to show some respect and compassion for non-human animals it would be a major step forward. (The fact that "treated like an animal" is a common expression for an outrage done to a human being, says a good deal.) If we could build a world where non-human animals were treated with respect - and I think we should work on that - then I'd "vigorously oppose" anyone's having a pet. 

"p.p.s. In an ideal world, I'd be opposed to anyone having a "pet", although if an animal wanted to move in with someone, that would be another matter.
"
Oddly enough that happened twice to my friend BBB Steve

RosaL @ 13, I mostly agree, although maybe we should have a little talk some time about the difference between "rights" or civil liberties and the problems of fetishization under capitalism, which I think are distinct issues.

That does seem to me the problem: under capitalism, people can and do fetishize not only their children but the very having of children, just as they fetishize their lives and interactions with animals. People here feel that's wrong somehow (I certainly do), and yet it seems naive and essentializing to imagine that people could or should stop having children or stop interacting with animals. That's why I did my mini-deconstruction above: there is no garden to get back to, no essential and virtuous stable state of nature, but it should be possible for us to conceive of lives beyond the pollutions of capitalism that still include sex, children, and animals. (And really neat hand-crafted designer clothes that ordinary people can afford. *wink*)

skdadl, I meant to tell you that your first post in this thread was really great.  It really made me think a lot, and rethink a couple of conclusions I had reached on this issue. :)

Ghislaine wrote:

RosaL wrote:

 

p.s. oddly enough, people do seem to think they have a "right" to have kids. 

 

Why is this "odd"? People DO have the right to have kids and should. Have you read any of Canada's horrible history of forcibly steralizing persons with intellectual disabilities or the shameful (and which fits the UN's definition of genocide) history of residential schools and the Sixties' Scoop? 

Horrible things have been done and therefore we have rights? That doesn't seem to me to be an argument with much force. I am assuming your argument is that, granted these things are horrible (and I do grant that), there is no basis (other than an insistence on "rights") whereby such things can be condemned or opposed or prevented. I dispute the latter. (I know this is a perspective few will have encountered.)

RosaL wrote:

Horrible things have been done and therefore we have rights? That doesn't seem to me to be an argument with much force.

Well, my view would be we have always had those rights inherently - but they were not being legally recognized by the State. Now at least there is a legal right over one's own body, which includes the right to reproduce or not. It includes parental rights unless one violates children's rights.

RosaL wrote:

I am assuming your argument is that, granted these things are horrible (and I do grant that), there is no basis (other than an insistence on "rights") whereby such things can be condemned or opposed or prevented. I dispute the latter. (I know this is a perspective few will have encountered.)

 

 

Well, yes these things actually can be prevented from a legal human rights perspective. The Charter, Child Protection Acts, etc. are all there to protect human rights. They have been successful - just look at abortion rights, the fact that those with intellectual disabilities are not forcibly steralized, etc.

Michelle wrote:

I think that this sort of discussion should be had and not brushed aside as an attempt to make pet owners feel guilty or bad, since lots of people who think critically about the concept of pet ownership also own pets.  Because the philosophy behind the idea that we have a "right" to have pets, and a "right" to decide for ourselves whether to have pets goes way back to the whole idea that humans are intrinsically superior to all other animals on earth, as well as nature and everything else, and that we have a right to dominate them all, and that the only argument is whether to be benevolent rulers or rapacious ones.  And that domination of nature outlook is by no means a universal philosophy, as Le T was saying.

That is exactly what I would have said if I could have put it together half as well.

I am a vegan pet owner critical of the concept of pet ownership but totally in love with all my pets.  Conflicted?  Sure.

As I get older I find myself believing less and less in the innate "superiority" of human animals over all other animals, and I wonder how much damage we have done over hundreds of years of animal husbandry.   Sure, breeding for sport is different than breeding for looks.  But is it better.  We are still picking traits that we, as humans, prefer  -- and forcing them on a different species for our own selfish reasons.  It feels...arrogant.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I find them essential to being human.

I think I share that feeling, although I might fuss over two words there (essential and human).

I don't know whether I ever thought I had a "right" to "own" (???) an animal, but I sure haven't thought about them that way in my adult life (now regrettably long). Maybe in practical terms -- faced with officialdom or silly neighbours or such -- I would claim to "own" my cats, but that would only be a protective and self-protective reaction to people who don't think the way I do, a form of camouflage, really.

What I do believe in -- because I know it is an overpowering reality -- is the profound need for animal contact and warmth. All animals thrive on it, us included, and all animals are in danger of declining in health without it. Close relationships may be a great joy, but there's something deeper even than pleasure in genuine bonding among animals. If we don't have such bonds, we can become very strange.

Please note that in the previous paragraph, the word "animal" applies to humans as well, and I'm making no us-and-them distinctions.

All I'm talking about is the profound peace of curling up with another animal body, really.

And again, maybe all those "had they"s and "if"s are interesting to think about, except that I return to my conviction that the world was never that pristine, that one way or another we have always interacted and always will, intentionally or not.

Your musical selections for the morning: "Love the One You're With" and "I Wanna Hold Your Haaaaand." 

I wake to sleep and take my waking slow

I feel my fate in what I cannot fear

I learn by going where I have to go.

-- Theodore Roethke

My cats love to sleep with me because I'm the one they have to sleep with, iow.

True, skdadl, the question is mostly academic now, but it can inform the way we treat animals now, and what kind of rights they have.  For instance, I have always been told that it's best for cats if they stay indoors.  And our cat is an indoor cat because of this, and because the previous owners (not us) declawed him so that he wouldn't hurt the furniture or scratch people.

And it makes me think, who is this good for?  The cat?  I don't think so.  His body has been mutilated and his life experiences rather stunted (no going outside ever? sadness) all for the sake of the humans he was born to serve.

And yet, he cuddles with us, sleeps with us (or with my son when he's home), purrs and shows affection, and we return it.  But does that make it okay, what we (as humans) have done to him, and do to millions of creatures like him?

If people start seeing cats and dogs as autonomous creatures who, even if only in some alternate perfect world, SHOULD have the right to live without being dominated and manipulated by humans, then perhaps some of the things we (as a society) do to domesticated animals that seem so mainstream and sometimes even benevolent (e.g. keep then imprisoned in a house for their whole lives, ripping their claws out, etc.) might not seem so acceptable.

Timebandit wrote:

 I'm not sure that dogs particularly are entirely autonomous by nature.  There's a certain amount of anthropomorphization going on here.

I agree. That's maybe a better way of putting my point.

Declawing cats is definitely mutilation in my book, and doing it to save the furniture is to me a total bourgeois eye-roller. It also makes cats dangerously vulnerable should they ever be forced outside, which they could be at any time for any number of reasons. But as I've probably said too many times already, that's part of the fetishizing that we don't need to be driven to, or, in the case of keeping cats indoors, that we are driven to by the not entirely happy ways that we live together in cities right now. My protective artifices are directly driven by the threat artifices that I perceive that would be unnatural to the cats but from which they therefore cannot protect themselves (first among them, city council and Animal Control). Midtown Toronto ain't no unmediated state of nature, not for them and not for us either.

Like Timebandit, though, I believe that many animals have wanted to make contact with us in different ways, and there's nothing "essentially" unnatural about animal interaction (include humans in that noun animal) or interdependence. Dogs are pack animals; they like strong leaders; and most of them are built to work. They like to work. Real working dogs tend to be ultra-happy persons. Oh, look! It's a whole new day! Again! I get to go out and herd sheep! Ok: I'm getting carried away with the border-collie meme (they make me laugh). 

But srsly, I think that our lives together have always happened and will inevitably continue. As you say, it's up to us to make those connections more or less intelligent and humane, and for sure, people who can't relate to animals on their own terms shouldn't have power over them. You could say the same of human politicians, o' course.

This is where the thread format breaks down lol.  I sound like an interrogator and I don't mean to.  This is a fascinating subject and I will reiterate, I have dogs, and a cat, and usually an assortment of other animals.

I tend to think they are smarter than the humans mostly, but stuck in the unfortunate position of being subservient.

Ive seen dogs herd kids that are in the family.

I could not declaw my cats. I don't get them from the shelter to just multiate them to whatever image I want them to be. They get to be themselves (and pretty interesting selves they are)

I don't really understand the compulsion to live with members of another species, but I suppose some animals make better pets than others.

Michelle wrote:

Timebandit wrote:

Are they autonomous by nature?  Returning to the idea of coevolution, I'm not sure that dogs particularly are entirely autonomous by nature.  There's a certain amount of anthropomorphization going on here.

You mean like this?

Quote:

my setter's still going to be happy

Quote:

Dogs need people

(from the other thread)

It seems to me that if someone is supporting your point of view that the philosophy behind owning pets is fine, then anthropomorphization is a good argument.  Otherwise, not?

Anyhow, by "autonomous" I didn't mean loners.  I realize dogs are pack animals and socialize and have a pecking order in the wild.  I'm talking about freedom to be themselves, not to have to obey a human master (and they all do have to do that, if you don't want a completely unmanageable dog that is dangerous to humans).

That said, I also realize that you can't just take a breed of dog who has been bred and raised by humans into the woods and then say, "Okay, Fido!  Run!  Be free!"  I realize we've bred them to be completely helpless and dependent on us.  I just don't necessarily think that's okay, that we've done that to them.  I would argue that wild dogs probably DO have better lives, in dog terms (not human terms), than many (perhaps most?) pet dogs.

I don't think that anything I've said is anthropomorphization.  Dogs needing people doesn't necessarily make them like people.  The fact that canis familiaris and homo sapiens have evolved together and formed a symbiotic relationship doesn't make dogs human-like.  Assuming a need or desire for autonomy or self-actualization in dogs is, however, assuming that they are human-like.  This is the definition of anthorpomorphization. 

I didn't assume that you meant "loner" by autonomous, btw.  That's not what autonomy means.  I don't think you can compare canis familiaris with wild dog species or wolves, either.  They're different, they've evolved differently.  They really aren't the same creature.

Can I tell if my dog is happy?  Yes, and it's not just the wagging of the tail.  Unhappy dogs exhibit certain behaviours that contented and well-adjusted dogs don't.  I know there are plenty of pet dogs out there that aren't having their needs met and that aren't happy or well-adjusted.  I know there are a lot of people who aren't very good at giving a dog what he or she needs.  That doesn't make having dogs as pets wrong in and of itself.