The Rise Of Dog Identity Politics

[shortstep]

Excellent Sunday read. Here is just an exert.

http://nymag.com/news/features/63232/

In the animal-rescue world, each individual animal is sacred, each dog deserves its sunny day, and euthanasia, while perhaps safe and legal, should be extremely rare. These people are believers in the Universal Rights of Dog, extrapolated from the near-human status of their own pets. In another way, the animal-rescue movement is an offshoot of the civil-rights struggles of the sixties, a final frontier for universalist ideals. Animal rescue is also one of the opportunities of ordinary Americans for real heroism—and more and more, they’ve taken it. The dog’s innocence amplifies empathy, because there’s no ethical static, no human otherness to contend with. It’s less complicated to love a pet than a person. The risk and conflict and cloak-and-dagger swagger that some of these missions entail can give lives a life-in-wartime meaning they otherwise wouldn’t have. There’s selflessness here, but just as in wartime, there’s also addiction, the oxytocin mixing with adrenaline.

Some of the most vivid images in the aftermath of Katrina were of dogs—on roofs, in the water—awaiting rescue or struggling to survive. After the catastrophe, Barack Obama spoke of an “empathy deficit,” but there was no deficit when it came to the animals. An army of animal rescuers descended on the city, and their work is legend in the animal-rescue community. But among some locals, their intervention was further proof, if more was needed, that not enough value had been placed on human residents.

The rescuers have done their work remarkably well. Twenty-five years ago, some 12 million dogs and cats were euthanized, according to the ASPCA. Now the figure is between 3 and 4 million, about half of them dogs. Partly thanks to public education about rescuing dogs, a much lower percentage of dogs taken into the shelter system are eventually euthanized. And both because of the effectiveness of spay-neuter programs and the fact that dogs seldom are permitted to run loose, there are many fewer adoptable dogs. In many places on the East Coast, the demand for rescue dogs exceeds the supply—which means that, one way or another, the red states are supplying more and more of our dogs. A flood of dog refugees like Stella are coming from points south and west and places like Puerto Rico, where there are more-traditional dog cultures.

What the blue states are exporting to the red states is, often, ideology. It’s the same town-country conflict Seamus Heaney wrote about, on a gigantic scale. Newkirk, along with Wayne Pacelle of the Humane Society of the United States, advocates strict, mandatory spay-neuter laws across the country, along with much stricter regulation of breeding. Pacelle is the silky pony of the animal-rights world, a Yale graduate who looks tremendous in a suit. The Humane Society of the United States is blessed with a great name, and partly because of its well-publicized raids on puppy mills, it has a massive fund-raising footprint and $125 million to spend, which can buy a good number of small-state lobbyists (the HSUS too has been trying to get its share of the Helmsley fortune). But Pacelle drives many dog people nuts because they see him as an enemy of traditional dog cultures, possibly an animal-rights ally of PETA masquerading as a friend of the dog: a wolf in sheep’s clothing. “The biggest problem with HSUS,” says Janeen McMurtrie, a Minnesota dog trainer who has a widely read blog called Smartdog’s Weblog, “is that they hide their goals so well. I have clients who are avid dove hunters and they’ve given them money.”

Here, too, there is a sense that the ground is shifting, that the World of Dog may be on the verge of irrevocable change. The spay-neuter laws that Pacelle and Newkirk advocate, while no doubt reducing the numbers of dogs that have to be put down every year, have the potential to change the dog itself. “The thing about mandatory spay-neuter,” says James Serpell****, “is that those who are most willing to have their dogs spayed or neutered tend to be responsible people. And often, their dogs also happen to be nice animals in temperament. So what you’re doing essentially is taking those dogs out of the breeding population.” McMurtrie echoes Serpell’s concern. “It’s hasnt gotten widespread enough yet,” she says. “But if it did, it could be catastrophic.”

who is...

****James A Serpell

http://www.vet.upenn.edu/FacultyandDepartm...ulty_id=6361798

Director, Center for the Interaction of Animals and Society. Uni of Penn

Marie A. Moore Professor of Humane Ethics & Animal Welfare

Chief, Section of Behavior and Human-Animal Interactions, Ryan Veterinary Hospital

Description of Research Expertise

Behavior and welfare of companion animals; development of human attitudes to animals; history of human-animal interactions; measurement of behavioral phenotypes in dogs and cats; ontogenesis of behavioral problems in companion and working dogs; animal-assisted therapeutic interventions.

Description of Other Expertise

Veterinary ethics

Selected Publications

Duffy, D.L., Hsu, Y. and Serpell, J.A.: Breed differences in canine aggression Applied Animal Behavior Science 114: 441-460, 2008.

Serpell, J.A. : Factors influencing veterinary students’ career choices, and attitudes to animals Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 32(4): 491-496, , 2005.

Serpell, J.A. : Effects of breed, sex, and neuter status on trainability in dogs Anthrozoös 18(3): 196-207, 2005.

Serpell, J.A. : Factors influencing human attitudes to animals and their welfare Animal Welfare 13: S145-S151, 2004.

Hsu, Y., Liu-Severinghaus, L. & Serpell, J.A. : Dog-keeping in Taiwan: Its contribution to the problem of free-roaming dogs Journal of Applied Animal Welfare Science 6: 1-23, 2003.

Serpell, J.A. : Anthropomorphism and anthropomorphic selection – beyond the “cute response” Society & Animals 11: 83-100, 2003.

Hsu, Y. & Serpell, J.A. : Development and validation of a questionnaire for measuring behavior and temperament traits in pet dogs Journal of the AmericanVeterinary Medical Association 223(9): 1293-1300, 2003.

Serpell, J.A. : Guardian spirits or demonic pets: the concept of the witch’s familiar in early modern England, 1530-1712 The Animal/Human Boundary Page: 157-190, Creager, A.N.H. & Jordan, W.C. (eds.). Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press, 2002.

Podberscek, A.L., Hsu, Y. & Serpell, J.A. : Evaluation of clomipramine as an adjunct to behavioural therapy in the treatment of separation-related problems in dogs Veterinary Record 145: 365-369, 1999.

Serpell, J.A. : In the Company of Animals, 2nd (Revised) Edition Cambridge, Cambridge University Press (Canto), 1996.

Edited October 31, 2010 by shortstep

[PossumCorner]

I think Serpell's last point there is pretty flawed. He certainly has written a lot (publish or perish) but you'd notice a lot of his work quotes Peter Singer's writing. Singer is Australian, he is still the Bioethics man at Princeton University, and still writes good stuff. Catholic Church doesn't like him.

[poodlefan]

“The thing about mandatory spay-neuter,” says James Serpell****, “is that those who are most willing to have their dogs spayed or neutered tend to be responsible people. And often, their dogs also happen to be nice animals in temperament. So what you’re doing essentially is taking those dogs out of the breeding population.” McMurtrie echoes Serpell’s concern. “It’s hasnt gotten widespread enough yet,” she says. “But if it did, it could be catastrophic.”

Sue Sternberg made a similar observation when she attended the Australian APBT seminar a few years back. Her shelter imported rescue dogs from southern states as she said many of the dogs surrendered locally were unsuitable for rehoming. She referred to them as "urban crime" dogs - bred, raised and used to intimidate - "weapons" if you like. She'd seen pups as young as three weeks displaying aggression towards people.

I recall her remarking that spay neuter campaigns had been highly successful amongst responsible dog owners. That didn't leave many "pets" available for adoption locally.

Edited October 31, 2010 by poodlefan

[Steve]

Believe it or not several of the speakers at the building better dogs seminar made a similar point.

[shortstep]

Believe it or not several of the speakers at the building better dogs seminar made a similar point.

Can't have your cake and eat it too, eh?

If the goal is healthier dogs with more vigor and better suited to their role as companions, McGreevy says this can only be done by increasing genetic diversity. Then you can not throw out almost all of the gene pool where the selection process is mass removal based only on the Nanny State Principle (that people are never able to make good decisions so the government must make the decisions for them).

Edited October 31, 2010 by shortstep