Response to Hallie and Jenna on "Leashes."

Response #18

In Hallie's blog, she talks about how, before this class, she never really looked at leashes as disturbing or as a way for humans to yet again be superior and in control. She decided there is really no reason to use them since it restricts the animal's freedom and it is obvious the dog knows a leash is being used on him or her. It is hard to argue that dogs are persons when they are on leashes; when they are being pulled one way or another and being restricted to where they can go. This brings up the idea of children on leashes and how disturbing it is to see this taking place. Hallie then brought up the point that we are not as shocked or disturbed to see dogs on leashes as we are children even though dogs are placed somewhere between friend and child. People who leash dogs are trying to control them while people who leash children want to protect them. Jenna then responds to this by saying it is the law to have a dog on a leash but it isn't required for children to be. She points out that having leashes on dogs is hard to get around because it is required but no one deserves to be locked in or controlled in such a way.

Jenna then asked, "Why do we look at child leashes negatively? It is better than seeing a parent who lets their child run way ahead of them while talking to another adult, to me that is abuse. Children need boundaries to keep them safe, at all ages. What do you think?" I think we look at child leashes negatively because it's just so odd to see. It's rare so when we do see it, we are shocked and pin the mother or father as controlling, overprotective, and a bit cruel. Personally, I would never want to be put on a leash, even when I was a child. Seeing parents hold the hand of their children instead of keeping them on leashes is a much more caring gesture. It shows the parents are protecting the child but letting him or her walk on his or her own. When I picture a dog or child on a leash, I see the person holding the leash tugging on it and controlling where the dog or child goes. I understand it is a way to protect a child or animal but it is degrading, in my opinion, even for young children. It's a sign of superiority. Also, when a person calls another person a dog, this is an insult. So when we see children with leashes, we may see this as insulting as well. Even though many people see dogs as family or as persons, it seems as though calling someone a dog is not a nice name. So, we see putting leashes on children as negative.

I would be perfectly content holding the hand of my child or carrying him or her. I don't see the reason for having a leash on a child. To me, it's unnatural and kind of cruel. To the public, it is like treating a child as a dog and a lot of pet owners don't treat their dogs like persons. I understand the reason for leashes on dogs because they can be more dangerous than children. They are more unpredictable and quick. I would encourage not using a leash on a dog whenever a pet owner can but I do understand it is a law that should be followed or else poorly trained and aggressive dogs could really hurt someone or be hurt. I use a leash on my dog to protect him but I think there are other ways to protect children than to leash them.

My question to you is: Would you ever leash your child and do you leash your dog? Why is this? What are the differences between leashing a child and leashing a dog?

Declawing Cats = Mutilation.

Before I get started, I will simply lay it on the table for you. I am completely against the declawing of cats or any other animal for that matter. I do not see anything right about mutilating an animal for the sake of living room furniture. I have been wanting to mention this in class but I never found the right moment. So, here is my stance.

According to declawing.com, only Americans have adopted the idea of declawing a cat and it has only been for the convenience and benefit of the pet owner. In many European countries, such an act is deemed inhumane and is illegal. What many people do not seem to realize is that declawing a cat is a serious surgery. The claw is not like a nail; it is closely attached to the cat's bone. To remove the claw, the last bone of the cat's claw has to be removed. Declawing is actually an amputation of the last joint of the cat's 'toe' and it is a very painful procedure with a long recovery period. During that period, the animal still needs to use its swollen feet to walk, jump, and scratch its litter box. Cats don't get wheelchairs. Pet owners often do not see their cat is in pain because, unlike human beings, they are very independent and do not want to show weakness. It is in their nature to be prideful, and their instincts tell them to hide the situation because they do not want to lose their superiority from other animals. A cat's body is designed to give it agility and grace that is unique to felines. Its claws are an important part of this design. They need them to climb trees when predators are near, to protect and defend themselves, and to scratch cat littler. When they claw furniture, they are just trying to sharpen their claws. It also exercise their claw muscles, scrapes off the old outside covering, and releases their scent. Amputating the claw alters the conformation of their feet and is depriving the cat of its primary means of defense, leaving it prey to predators if it ever escapes to the outdoors.

When I worked at the veterinary clinic (I know I bring this up a lot but it has shaped a lot of my views), the vet would only declaw the front paws. Cats would have to come in a day in advance for surgery to make sure there is no food in its body. Once the surgery is done, the cats two front legs and paws are completely wrapped up in bandages making it hard for the animal to stand. It takes a long time for them to come-to and when they do, they are given paper for cat litter. If they have normal cat litter and the litter gets into their casts, this could cause major irritation and infection. When I saw cats wake up and see what has happened to their legs, they try to remove the cats, they meow, and they knock over all of their food and liter. Pet owners have also reported a change in the cat's personality after declawing happens. However, pet owners who keep their cats indoors at all times, still go through with the procedure. But think about this: What if the cat runs away? What if it happens to go outside and needs its claws to defend itself? What if the pet owner abandons the declawed cat? How will it survive? Cats can learn. If they are given an alternative to furniture, like a scratch post, they learn to use it. There are also 'soft paws' which are plastic caps a pet owner can put on his or her cat. Personally, I just stick with the scratch post but caps are better than amputation/mutilation methods.

My question to you is: Are there any ways in which the declawing of cats can be defended? Along these lines, what is your take on amputating the tails of dogs?

Response to Kim and "Home Visits."

Response #17

In Kim's blog, she talks about pet ownership and how people should be required to follow certain rules and regulations not just when they adopt an animal but also when they buy their pets. Although no one can tell a person how to raise his or her pet, it should be necessary, for the safety and well being of the animal, to set guidelines and rules for the owner to follow no matter how they obtained the animal. Kim suggests all dogs should be required to of through some form of socialization like a school for dogs, specified dog parks, or training classes. Dogs should know basic commands like sit, stay, drop it, and lie town in order to keep them save and others as well. Dogs are social beings and enjoy interaction with other animals. This way, they will not be as aggressive. Dogs and other pets also need to be registered in case of animal abuse situations. It's important to be aware of which households own pets so, if need be, professionals can step in if the dog or other pet is being abused. Also, Kim said dogs and cats should have identification microchips in case they get lost so they can be returned to their owners. Lastly, she brings up the idea of home visits where people go into a home where there are pets and make sure they have adequate food, shelter, care, and a place to get exercise. She then asked, "Do you feel that home visits should be allowed, encouraged, banned or discouraged and why?"

I also think it is peculiar that organizations where animals are adopted require home visits but when people attain pets from stores or through another means, home visits aren't even thought about. Some people see home visits as an invasion of privacy and unnecessary. However, according to PETA, there were 1,880 cruelty cases last year and the majority of those were against dogs. If going into a person's home once a year or every six months, just to make sure the dog is in good hands, could potentially save a life, then it is worth it. When I worked at the veterinary clinic in my hometown for two years, I saw abused animals but, as employees, we did not have the right to say anything since we did not know the actual situation. People abuse their pets without even knowing it by over or underfeeding, by keeping them in cages all day while they are at work, by not letting their dogs out enough times during their day, or by smacking their animals as a way to discipline them. I encourage home visits; I think they should be mandatory and I think every pet should be licensed. Animal cruelty is serious but often overlooked. Any effort to decrease the number of abused animals in the world is something I'll stand behind.

My question to you is: Do you think home visits and other regulations/guide lines should apply only to dog owners or should they be required for all sorts of other pets like cats, rabbits, hamsters, and even fish?