Are you insanely attached to them, or do they just kind of sit out in the yard doing their own thing? Do you agree with this guy in Salon, who is upset that people care more about dogs than people?

And do you have a good veterinarian? How did you choose him or her?

I initially chose this clinic because it was recommended by a lot of people and it was close to where I lived. I loved the old doctor there, but he retired. His partner was great, too, but we never see him anymore.

I have been unhappy with this clinic since the old doctor retired, and I think it's about time to find a new one. How did you choose yours?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Answers

Hi Beth. I have always just kind of had animals, most of whom have found me or I have rescued. Now I have 2 cat brothers that I got when their Mom died when they were 5 weeks old, and I am so in love with my boys. They are different in looks, personality, they even meow differently. I adore them, and for the first time I fear for all of us if something should happen. For a few years I had a "mobile vet", which was great, especially when I had a run of my old animals needing care and ultimately needing to be put to sleep (is there a better way to put that?). It was comforting for all of us to have that happen at home. I now go to Sunset Vet Hospital, which sees my animals immediately (even on Sundays, no extra charge). I love this place!

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

I recently had two dogs die in short order, but during the process found a terrific vet. What we did was talk to other dog owners and vets, described the problems that we had (both dogs had lymph node cancer) and asked them. People gave us all sorts of answers, but finally patterns began to emerge and we found a great one.

Unfortunately it involved a lot of time and trial and error.

I'd recommend our's but Beaverton, Oregon is probaly a bit of a drive for you.

Byrne

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Good god, you scared the crap out of me. All I could think was, oh no, oh no, Doc is dead, for the first chunk of your entry. Bail on that vet. Although it is all the way across town (El Camino and Walnut to be exact), Reagor Pet Hospital has done good by me and the cat for years and years. I can't recall a single episode of obnoxiousness by any staff. They have always fully endured my neurotic and unending questions and concerns, and actually listen to me when I tell them about my cat's quirks and respect them. It's a family business--there are pictures on the walls of great-granddaddy vet down through the currnet crop.

And for heaven's sake, let us know up front that he's okay. Surely you are not going to stop taking him for walks?

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Oops, sorry, I thought the inside out bra part was enough to show that I was still getting dressed in the dark, so the dog was okay. Didn't mean to scare anyone.

And no, I'm not going to stop taking him for walks. In fact, we took him for a walk last night, and I'm taking him for another one in a minute here. We will be more aggressive about treating his fleas, but since I still think he either ate something bad or was bitten by a spider, I'm not going to stop taking him for walks.

Thanks for the vet recommendation, by the way. Since I've been considering driving all the way to Davis to go to my old favorite doctor there, El Camino and Walnut is no sweat at all.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Flea allergy, my Aunt Hilda. Glad you're ditching that clueless twit of a vet, Beth. "Bark" indeed. Humph.

Sure sounds like Doc was bitten or stung by something and had an allergic reaction, as you said. When you find a new vet, ask if you should keep something like Benedryl around in case it happens again and how much you should give him. Allergies like that can be deadly and you should have something you can give him on the way to the vet if he is going into shock. Glad he's okay.

I get very attached to my pets, too, even though the short life span and tendency to die too easily thing has been a tragedy over and over. I am just willing to deal with it because of how much I enjoy having them around while they are with me.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Attached isn't the right word, 'zactly...obsessed probably fits better. Many people think I'm nuts. But that's me. I do believe that pets are like kids, though. You get one, you take good care of it, and you're responsible for it till it dies.

Yep, Beth, time to look for a new vet, I think. That lady didn't sound too knowledgeable....the part about "no more walks" clinched it for me.

In the tiny town I live in, there's only one vet, so it's not like I have a choice (luckily I like him). But if I did have a choice, I'd look for one who was readily accessible (ours has an emergency number), seemed to care about the critters and like what he/she did, and was understanding about the bill (our poodle broke her leg last year and the bill was enormous. Took us a couple of months to pay it off).

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

We used to have a wonderful vet. She was quiet, calm and capable. She was a tiny woman who projected an aura of competency that immediately calmed animals down. I lived in a small rural town, so she was the large animal (cattle, horses etc) and small animal vet rolled into one.

She moved her practice to the next small town over, so we started going to the vet that replaced her. Ross was not nearly as good as Nancy was. He seemed to be primarily a large animal specialist. I do know that he was afraid of cats.

We'd walk in with our two in tow, Frodo, an elderly black beast of a cat, very similar to Beth's Rudy...in fact they could have been brothers, and Rowan, a strapping calico and white farm cat lass. Frodo would scare the crap out of him...growling and snarling and biting and clawing. Rowan would stick her tongue out like a calf and bawl. Ross would get agitated and call for three assistants to hold down the cats until they could barely move, freaking them out even more. The other thing I didn't like about him, is first thing, he'd grab the cats' paws and clip their claws. Didn't even ask our preferences. Secondly, when we told him of our suspicions that Frodo was getting arthritis, he started hauling on Frodie's back legs, enough to make him scream. I could never forgive that.

When I moved out and got a cat of my own, we started going to one of the vets here in Peterborough. I really hate them. The are rude, they've lost my information more times than I can count, and they seem to delight in not informing me when shots are due so I end up having to go through the whole expensive booster process every time. On second thought, the vet is acceptable, it's just the staff I can't stand.

I've moved across town so I might switch vets to someone closer to me. Maybe I'll get lucky.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

YEs, yes and yes. I am way too insanely attached to the cats. Even the kitten that tears my legs to shreds (he's actually getting better aobut that! *gasp*!)

And the way we found the vet we take Sebastian to was purely by the stroke of luck that they were open. When he fell off the counter, oh so long ago, he started "reacting" at almost midnight, so we were looking at taking him to a 24 hour place - which always makes me nervous, because you don't really have a choice in how good or bad they are, you just worry about getting your pet there NOW.

Well, thankfully, thankfully, thankfully, they were very nice, kind and the doctor was young, but very sympathetic and explained everything well and, more importantly, realistically. He told us what they would do for Sebastian but there was only a 50/50 percent chance that he would live and be fine. Those odds aren't so great, but I'd rather be prepared than have someone tell me, oh yeah, we'll do this and he'll be RIGHT back to his ole' self again, only to have him die on us an hour later.

So, they did the treatment and then called us 8 hours later to let us know that Sebastian was fine (and still is) and that we could come and get him whenever we wanted.

And the best part, well, maybe not the best part, but certainly icing on the cake: He didn't even CHARGE us for the treatment. We ended up paying like a third of what we were expecting to pay.

That cinched the deal for me right there. They are compassionate, realisitic and NOT just in it for the money.

OH yeah, I guess I could tell you, it's the vet up on Greenback, just past Fair Oaks. Appropriately called "Greenback Vetinary Hospital". The address is 8311 Greenback Lane, and the phone number is: 916-725-1541.

Good luck, Beth!

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Very very attached. We have 5 cats now, including Pearl whom we rescued from the cold hard streets and they are my children.

I consider my pets to be a part of my family and as such, just as importabt as any human family member.

Anyone who tries to comfort me with "well, she was only a cat" when my cats start to die, is going to get sucker-punched.

As anyone who shares life with a pet can no doubt attest, each cat, dog, gerbil, whatever, has a personality all its own.

I'm going to miss my babies dreadfully when they get old and go into the great kitty beyond.

Thank goodness that won't be for another 15 years or so, since I keep my piddies inside.

As for Salon guy -- it sounds to me what he really hates is irresponsible people, not necessarily dogs or dog-lovers or pet people.

Personally, I'd think the dog and the people were of equal importance and intolerance toward animals is just as bad as any kind of racism.

On the vet issue -- when we brought Shara home, I asked the girl who gave her to me for some vet recommendations and she sent me a list gathered from various friends.

We went and checked the closest one out and found a clean, well-lit, well-staffed, well-put-together office.

They send regular reminders for shots and the vets are all, except for the founder, young, enthusiastic and knowledgable and treat humans and pets alike with equal respect.

We lucked out on our very first try, essentially.

What I would look for when trying to find a new vet would be the same things that impressed me here:

1) A clean, well-lit, well thought-out front room 2) Intelligent front-desk staff who remember you and your pets 3) Intelligent, friendly, but professional doctors, who remember you and your pets and talk to you directly and honestly about problems. 4) A practice with multiple docs -- while I loved our first vet, Dr. Browning, he left 6 months ago, but his replacement Dr. Hall and the emergency vet that we saw were all equally good: friendly, knowledgeble, respectful and good at getting the animals to sit still.

Practices lose people all the time, so I think finding an office that has a philosophy and atmosphere that make you comfy are more important than an individual veterinarian, since often they hire like-minded people.

So if the atmosphere at our animal hospital changes, then I'll start looking elsewhere -- which is what sounds like happened to you Beth.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Beth,

I used to work as a nurses' aide in an animal clinic, and I think the very fact that they made you wait for an appointment when you were worried that your dog was suffering from an allergic reaction is unforgivable.

The clinic I worked in was the second-best in Massachusetts (second only to Angel Memorial in Boston), and we had emergency services 24 hours a day. However, any vet worth his or her salt would drop non- emergency appointments if an emergency case was called in.

Allergic reactions can kill an animal or a human within minutes. As a fill-in receptionist on weekends, if I had heard the symptoms you described (especially the hiding -- dogs don't do that normally), I'd have told you to bring Doc in and gotten a vet ready. Fluffy and Tiger can wait ten minutes for their nail clipping appointments if someone's dog is in danger of dying.

Get a new vet. You're a very good pet owner, and deserve better attention for Doc than you've gotten.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

You could say I'm attached. Anybody who ever messes with my cats had better hope I never find them. That goes for the dogs, as well. (though it does get more difficult when the Pet cats or the dogs go after the Half-Wild cats).

As for picking vets... um... I went to the one you said you liked, Beth. and now I'm trying to figure out whether to find a new vet here or drive all the way to Davis to see her again. Of course, last time I was there for a shot clinic the tech I saw was a bit of a jerk. The cats didn't maul him, though, so I guess they were okay with him.

My (fairly limited) experience with vet students is that, oddly enough, a fairly large number of them _don't like animals_. Don't ask me why they are trying to become vets, I don't know. Okay, it's not that they dislike animals in general, but they don't like to touch them, don't have any aptitude for dealing with them, and don't seem to care.

I'm not sure what you think is important in a vet (besides basic competance, which this one seems to be lacking). My most major thing (besides being clean, well-lit, and willing to actually touch the animals), is them being willing to do things with me in the room, and explaining what they are doing if they take my pet into the back. If I take my cats in for shots, they can do them all in the room with me, and I'll be very suspicious if they won't. And if they do need to take him in back (for drawing blood or something), I want to know why, and have him brought back undisturbed (if not purring, then at least not dripping and screaming). Unfortunately, that's something that can be hard to figure out before you actually take your pet in. As is knowing whether they will actually listen to you about the kid's quirks.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

By name... I use to use a vet by the name of Stern he killed two of my animals.. I don't think he was very good...so I moved up the list to Dr. Stork when my cat had her kittens. It seemed like a good name, and sure enough he is a great vet.

Alice working her way through the alphabet backwards...

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Hi Beth!

we have two big dogs, both over 90 pounds. I grew up with dogs and have always taken the "vet choice" quite seriously. You did find your vet the way I found mine...word of mouth. But as soon as the situation changed and the vet you knew retired/left you were free to start looking elsewhere. I think your current vet is a bit unimpressive to say the least. Mine saved my dog Jake's life once so I pretty much love her. If you aren't happy then find someone else. ASK EVERYONE YOI KNOW! Heck, even ask other people out walking their dogs. Animal people are pretty cool that way...they're always willing to share info. I hope you find someone better...and I don't think that Doc was bitten by a flea either. That's bizarre. It could have been a wasp or horsefly though. Flea bite...no way!

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Okay, I have to admit that I get insanely attatched to animals. Any animals. The strays that populate the farm that I worked on. The birds with broken wings that I saved from the dog or cat. I'm a dork like that.

I've seen a dog have a similar reaction to what you described. And it was to a flea. (We only found this out after he had done it several times. It was unnerving, to say the least.) I don't know why, but there are some animals who have a rare reaction to something that the flea does. (Don't ask the technicalities, I'm a poor stupid college student, not a vet...) It is possible that it was a flea.

Just to let you know.

-Meghan

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Oh yes, I am insanely attached to my two purr-babies. As others have said, if anyone tried to mess with them they'd be very sorry. They add so much to my life, I don't know what I'd do without them. My whole family is like that though. In Oct of '98, the cat my parents got when I was in 8th grade died (I'm 27). That was traumatic; she was far and away the cuddliest, most lap-friendly cat I've ever known. For Christmas last year I gave my parents and my sister framed portraits of her made from a snapshot I had of her sitting under a Christmas tree with her chin on her front paws. We all cried.

As far as vets... I just asked around of people I knew who have pets and so far have been lucky. One night I was worried that my boy kitty (it-kitty really) might have a urinary blockage. He was stressed out, meowing at the box, squatting and not doing anything.. the whole deal. So I called and got him an emergency visit in the middle of the night. It turned out to be nothing (maybe a mild cold), but the person I dealt with was patient with my hypochondria and they kept him for observation. (I've since decided that he was completely stressed out by my ~-in-laws who were staying with us at the time (or picking up on my stress, or something), but that's a whole 'nother story.)

Anyway, pets are great. If my SO didn't restrain me (and I had room for more litterboxes) I'd have 2, 3, 4 more cats! I want a dog too someday, but don't quite have the energy/time for that yet.

LIM

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

I'm really frightened by Beth K.'s comment that "intolerance toward animals is just as bad as any kind of racism."

I admit that I'm not much of an animal lover, and I agree wholeheartedly with the Salon author. I also agree with Beth K.'s remark that his frustration is not directed at dogs, but rather at people.

Dogs always seem to get the benefit of the doubt: people will anthropomorphize their pets but simultaneously use the fact that it's just an animal to justify its shortcomings. Would you allow an unrelated person who did no work, occasionally bit and scratched others, made noise, was destructive toward your personal property and urinated and defecated in the house to live with you? Of course not! (Children don't count, because they will presumably grow out of these behaviors, while most dogs do these things at least occasionally throughout their lives).

Of course I don't expect dogs to act like humans. They're not capable of human self-discipline. They can't make complex ethical decisions. They're not capable of writing great works of literature. They can't even carry on a cocktail party conversation.

Because of this, I don't feel that they're entitled to the same rights as humans.

It's kind of like how George W. Bush was doing really well in the polls a few months ago because nobody really knew what he stood for or what he was about. People wanted someone to believe in, so they projected their hopes onto Bush. The same thing happens with the misanthropic dog-owners: they can't find what they need emotionally from people, so they project it onto their dogs.

If dogs could talk, I'm sure they'd be a hell of a lot less popular.

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

Three people live in this apartment: Harold, Sonya and Roxy. Roxy is the dog. Harold and Sonya may go hungry. Roxy will always eat. She is both family mascot and spoiled only child. I am firmly convinced the world would cease to turn without Roxy.

We love that damned dog.

And I use a two-doctor vet practice in West Memphis that I took my childhood pet to while I was growing up. Are there more and better vets over here in Memphis? Probably. But the good Doctors Irby and Stevens coo and fuss over animals the way pediatricians fuss over kids. That's the kind of treatment I want for my little dog. When you find a good professional practitioner of any sort it's always wise to stick with them.

After such a bad day I think Doc deserves a treat.

I think Roxy deserves one as well, just on general principles.

Woof,

Harold wonderland 2 http://home.midsouth.rr.com/wonderland2/

-- Anonymous, November 13, 1999

You've done something interesting here, Jennifer. You say that because dogs are incapable of certain intellectual and moral pursuits, they do not deserve the same rights as humans.

The definite implication is that without these same pursuits, a human would not have these rights. However, there are many people out there incapable of writing a great work of literature or even making a complex ethical decision, yet they still get that whole life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness package deal.

I suppose you could have meant that humans are collectively capable of these things; as a society we do have a handle on literature, etc. But I would have a hard time agreeing that we collectively had, say, the right to freedom. Unless all of us have that right, I don't believe it is accurate to say that we have it collectively.

That's just a little logical nitpicking, though.

My big question is about your phrase: "...I don't feel that they're entitled to the same rights as humans." My question is: Entitled by whom?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

Vic is correct in presuming that my intended implication was that humans collectively possess these qualities and dogs don't.

But, to a large extent, privileges in our society are contingent on our abilities to carry out higher cognitive functions. A person with the mental abilities of a dog WOULDN'T enjoy the freedoms and privileges most people enjoy. A person who ignores his or her ethical responsibilities risks going to prison. Those of us who shun education end up working at McDonald's for the rest of our lives.

As to the question of who is doing the entitling, I'm referring to humans, of course. We are clearly the species with the most power to shape our environment.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

I sometimes think that abuse etc. against animals is worse than the same against humans for a simple reason: they can't say anything. Actually, I would say that people tend to get more outraged at abuse of animals, children, the elderly, and the disabled than healthy adults for the same reason: we feel it is worse to hurt those who can't defend themselves. Not to mention the fact that abuses of the helpless tend to be more severe and horrific than abuse of those who can fight back (you don't read many stories about 30-year old men being buried alive in a back yard, or locked in crowded rooms in their own excrement. But with animals, it happens pretty often).

And there are many humans who are unable to write, cannot speak, and/or cannot reason in any complex fashion. I do not think that this means that they don't have the same rights as other people (their privileges and responsibilities will vary, though). This does lead to who is entitled to rights, by whom, and why. And I'm just going to leave that alone for now.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

I hate to do a double like this, but this is an interesting topic.

Alright. The most basic of our rights is the right we have to live. A person may have the most miniscule IQ, but as long as they retain straightforward brain function, they retain that right. A person may have no creative abilities. They retain this right. A person may entirely lack the ability to make an ethical judgement. As long as they do not ACT in a manner that is dangerous to society, they still retain that right to life. What do we do when someone deprives a dog who meets these same qualifications deprives the dog of its life?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

It is a simple fact of life that in order to survive, we must do so at the expense of the lives of members of other species. Essentially everything we eat was once alive. Almost all the medical technology we (and our pets) take advantage of was developed through testing on animals. Clothes, shoes, paper, furniture...almost everything around us is made from stuff that used to be alive until we killed it.

As a result, we ALL have to rationalize our behavior by determining which kinds of creatures are acceptable to sacrifice. Why is it OK to kill a mosquito, but not a cat? Why is it OK to eat a hamburger, but not dog meat?

I think most people subconsciously use the criteria which I stated above to determine what is acceptable to inflict upon living things. A potato is no less alive than a monkey, but because the monkey is capable of thinking and feeling, people value its life more.

What I'm saying is that just as you need to make a distinction between the rights of a cotton plant and a dog, you should also distinguish the rights of a dog from those of a human.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

We have conflicts with animals. We have more power than animals. As such we have the power to make these distinctions about which animals to exert power over. As a general rule, the more empathy we feel for a creature, the less willing we are to harm it.

I never disagreed with the idea that the rights of a dog may be different from the rights of a human. I disagree with the logic that says that because of our human qualities, we deserve the rights we afford ourselves. Because other creatures lack these qualities, they do not merit these rights. This is circular reasoning.

I have no problem with the statement that we have power over animals, and we must make decisions and distinctions when exercising this power.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

Vic, the logic is only circular if you only consider human qualities to be important because we have them.

But if it weren't for these human qualities, we wouldn't be the dominant species! It is our ability to develop and use technology, to feel empathy for others, and to have and communicate complicated ideas that enables us to be dominant over creatures that are faster, stronger and have superior sensory perception.

Valuing human qualities is not just a rationalization for our dominance, it is the explanation for it.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

I'd only had Fitch the First for six weeks when he died on the operating table and that completely demolished me for the weekend my daughter got married... and I still miss him, so yes I get attached.

Our vet was recommended by people when we moved here. Dr. Hogge has retired, and I didn't like one of the replacements, but that was six or more years ago, and now the office is all women and I like them all. They've seen me through Gummitch's illness and death, and take great care of the pets. Auburn Blvd. veterinary clinic, this one.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

Now, Jennifer, you are talking about the ability to be dominant, which we have unquestionably. Earlier, however, you were talking about rights. Are you arguing that our ability to dominate is synonymous with our rights?

We are dominant. We value our dominance. Can we then justify any act against a non-human creature simply because they are not dominant, or, in other words, not us?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

Oops, Vic and I have really hijacked this topic, huh? But personally, I'll take a good philosophical debate over another story about how much someone loves their precious little fluffy-wuffy any day. But I guess you all know my prejudices by now :)

Anyway, Vic, in answer to your question, what I am saying is that our dominance gives us the ability to determine who has what rights. Some people would say that any act against a non-human creature CAN be justified because of our dominance. I think most people have a hierarchy of animals based on their humanlike characteristics which determines what is acceptable conduct toward that animal.

The laws also reflect this. You can go to jail for torturing a dog, but not for pulling the wings off a fly (which is arguably just as cruel since flies have a very similar sensory nervous system to dogs and people, and presumably experience the same kind of pain that we do).

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

I love animals. Because of this I could never work in a vet's office, since I would get mad at too many clients.

I have a friend who is a vet. She's told me awful stories... like a family that got a puppy who needed surgury, so they decided to put it to sleep instead of fix it. Look, jerkos... (addressed to those people, not anyone here ;) YOU got the puppy. YOU are responsible for its health. It is totally DEPENDENT on you. Give it the operation.

I have a cat, and a rat. A year ago one of my rats died. She was the friendliest, most cuddly rat you've ever met. I was crushed when she died. I took the day off work because I kept crying. But no one said, "Hey, it was just a rat," because they KNEW how I felt about her. I didn't own her - she was a member of my family.

If my cat and some random person was trapped in a burning house, I would go in and rescue my cat, make sure she was OK, give her water and some treats, calm her down, kiss her between the ears and then go back in for the person. Jaws is more than a pet. Much more. I'll probably never have kids, so my mothering instincts are totally centered on my cat and my rat.

That reminds me, I need to get her a Christmas present.

she's actual size

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

Okay, so there are no inalienable rights that exist for any reason other than the dominant people have decided to allow them? So (random Hammurabi example) when a society decides that a person whose child is killed when their house collapses has the right to demand the death of the child of the housebuilder, that is just okeydokey? If the dominant force of society decides that those with a different skin color don't have the same rights, that is okay because it is what the dominant (therfore superior) people decided? I don't buy it. I think the right to not be tortured is universal, regardless of intelligence, dominance, or what-have-you. And I have never bought the idea that might makes right.

I also think the ability to be kind to those who cannot help themselves is the greatest aspect of humanity. I can't imagine a greater ability than that of loving someone/thing who can't really _do_ anything for you, except maybe love you back.

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

Dog's Bill of Rights

I have the right to give and receive unconditional love. I have the right to a life that is beyond mere survival. I have the right to be trained so I do not become the prisoner of my own misbehavior I have the right to adequate food and medical care I have the right to fresh air and green grass I have the right to socialize with people and dogs outside my family I have the right to have my needs and wants respected. I have the right to a special time with my people I have the right to be foolish and silly, and to make my person laugh. I have the right to earn my person's trust and be trusted in return. I have the right to be forgiven. I have the right to die with dignity. I have the right to be remembered well.

- -Author Unknown-

....realise how much better the world would be if all humans had these rights, nevermind dogs....

....I really liked the Salon article and forwarded it to both my veterinary lists and my doggie lists as 'food for thought'...

....as a veterinarian I would choose a specialist for my own pets and for my clients pets based upon their medical and surgical knowledge and skills and the care and concern for the patient shown by all the hospital staff, knowing full well that you often have to be prepared to accept a less then perfect doctor-*client* relationship in order to have a great doctor-*patient* relationship... Many vets who are highly attuned to animals are not really 'people oriented', nor are they business persons concerned with the market share, merchandising out of what is supposed to be a *hospital*, giving away personalised bandanas with the clinic logo, etc.... "Bullshit baffles brains" so don't worry about the decor in the waiting room, the colour of the staff's uniforms, what kind of free stuff you can get for referring your friends... We are *supposed to be* practicing medicine NOT merchandising... Find out how the hospital pays their associate vets...salary VS percentage of billings...***big hint*** right there...

(there! that was my rant for the day!! )

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

We should define our terms here, if this is a philosophical discussion. The word "right" is defined by Websters (in this use) as "That which a person has just claim to; power, privilege, etc. that belongs to a person by law, nature, or tradition." We will disregard, I think, the fact that the definition only examines people - nobody has yet suggested that animals do not have rights. Now, which kind of right are we talking about? A right by law, by nature, or by tradition? The rights afforded by law are, in this country, determined beaurocratically and democratically. I don't think we are arguing about the letter of the law in this case. The rights of tradition may in fact be what are being challenged in this discussion; traditionally the attitude to the rights of animals (In western european tradition, that is...) has been that they have none.

Which leaves us looking at rights afforded by nature. The question before us now is this: Is the dominant species authorized to determine what is or is not a natural right based on no more than its own dominance, or should more be considered?

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

OK, how 'bout this:

-Nature is what made us the dominant species.

-We are the dominant species because of our human characteristics.

-Ergo, when we evaluate other species based on their humanlike characteristics, we are merely perpetuating what nature has decided.

I'm an atheist, and believe that humans are the only true moral force in the universe. If it weren't for humans, the world would be a far more brutal place. I think we're morally obligated to be as nice to animals as possible, but not if it comes at our own expense.

And even that is far more than dogs would do for us if they ran the world...

-- Anonymous, November 14, 1999

More terms you need to define. Nature, you say, made us the dominant species. Decided, even. If you're going to assign it an active voice, I'd like to know what it includes. Us, for example. Are we part of nature? And if so, then didn't we contribute to this "decision"? And if we were the dominant force to begin with, weren't we the dominant force in this "decision"? By perpetuating it, are we doing anything more than sticking with that decision?

I hate to bring this up, because it is tantamount to the Hitler step in an online argument, but you are using the same evolutionary intent argument that was used by the Social Darwinists. The idea that the ability to attain power entitles people to that power is generally considered to be a dangerous one.

I'm curious what you could possibly mean by being "nice" to animals if it doesn't come at our own expense.

I'm curious whether it is possible, by your logic, for one being with power over another to violate that being's natural rights. Wouldn't the fact of that first being's greater power make him the defining factor in this concept of a natural right?

You won't find me arguing that we don't have power over animals, or that we shouldn't be judicious in its use. However, I can't agree with the notion that we are "entitled" to this power by anything more than our own egos.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

I've always loathed dogs. They're noisy, they're smelly, they're filthy and they shed their hair all over the place all the time. And that 'unconditional love' thing is pure fiction. They only 'love' you as long as you're the one supplying the food, so wake up and smell the doo-doo, people.

Now don't you start thinking I'm a dog molester or anything like that. Just this last weekend, I've been babysitting on my parents' 16-year-old, totally demented fox terrier. Why? Because my brother, the real animal lover of the family, considered it way too much trouble to take the beast in. So I landed the job. I fed him, I walked him, I cleaned up the deposits he made on the carpet and I petted him for the better part of three days, just like I've done over the past 16 years, whenever the need arose and I happened to be available. He's my parents' dog, after all, so I guess that makes him part of the family from their point of view.

Not mine, theirs.

I don't like dogs. There are way too many of them, and people are way too obsessed with them. In that respect, I fully agree with the Salon article. I keep my distance from these creatures as much as I can. But when the need arises and I happen to be available, I'll still babysit my parents' demented fox terrier. And take good care of him.

But I don't have to like it.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

Vic- By "nature," I'm referring to our evolution. I would say that all creatures play little or no role in their own evolution--it is the pressures of the environment around them that dictate which evolutionary paths will be successful.

This is not Social Darwinism, it is just Darwinism! Social Darwinism is when you try to apply this concept to people within a society, which is clearly not what I'm saying.

As to your question about animals' "natural rights," I think it's important to be cognizant of the fact that "natural rights" are a concept conceived of and upheld by humans, not by nature.

The very fact that we, unlike any other creature ever to exist on earth, are even able to conceive of such a thing as a natural right does, I think, justify our dominance. We are the only species able to temper our dominance with consideration for other species.

Finally, are you really unsure of what I mean by being "nice" to animals if it's not at our own expense? I think it should be clear to any of us--after all, balancing animals' rights with our own is something we all do every single day. We are all merciful up to a point--but where that point lies depends on your own view of animals' rights.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

Most of the children in my neighborhood are more noisy, smelly and filthy than my dog on his worst day. And, he doesn't shed.

As for the 'unconditional love' thing, at the end of the day my dog wants nothing more than to snuggle on the couch with me, and that is enough for me.

Yeah, I am obsessed with my dog, but why should anyone else care? I clean up his 'poo poo', I pay his bills, I keep him on a leash, and I would never let him jump on you. So why should anyone else care?

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

First, the human concept of natural rights. We are the ones with a concept of it, that's true. But the nature of the concept is that there are rights above and beyond our conception of them; that even without that concept, the rights would still exist. As Ashley pointed out, these are the inalienable rights of yore.

I did not call your idea Social Darwinism. I pointed out that the logic behind the two ideas is the same. My point about Darwinism was that the theories were never intended as a justification for anything. They are simply an explanation of how things came to be. Any action we take is in line with the forces of nature. We could open a million cans of dog food then commit suicide and it would be nature at work.

The fact that we like the way we dominate better than the way we think others would dominate in our stead. I repeat my point that any attempt to justify our dominance relies on outright anthrocentrism.

Not that I'm condemning anthrocentrism - it works well for me. Well, for me it's more of a Viccentrism, but we should be aware of these biases. If you're an atheist, I don't see how you can believe that any force other than ourselves has put us in this position.

And I questioned your definition of "nice" because you didn't seem to be speaking of "balancing" our rights with the animals. Your words were, "as nice to animals as possible, but not if it comes at our own expense." I see now that you mean that it should not come at an expense too great.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

Yes, very much attached and committed to my 8 kitty-kats. When my all time favorite was chased away by a dog, I had this huge, iron fist sitting in my chest that stayed there for about 6 weeks. I never did get over that loss. Now, only 2 of my 8 are allowed outside no matter how much the others beg to go out. They are my responsibility and if I were to actually "meet" a man who might be interested in me, he will be informed that I come with 8 cats! As for vets, I first had a man and wife team where the man was gentle, but she was too rough with the cats. The business was sold to my current vet, who is very good with them and knows how to handle them, although he is a bit wary of Mittens who doesn't co-operate at all with pill swallowing.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

I would like to point out that we really have no idea what any other creature is thinking. Sometimes we can make a guess, but we don't know what kinds of thoughts they are capable of. Dogs may think that they are performing valuable services for us, which they are then paid for with room and board. They may even think they have natural rights. We don't know. They are physically unable to speak like us, so we cannot understand them (even if they do have the mental abilities required for language). Maybe they think complex thoughts, maybe not: we just don't know. We assume that animals don't think because it makes us feel better about ourselves, and most of the time, it doesn't matter. However, if one is going to justify our dominance over other species based on this assumption, it deserves to be examined.

As Vic said, Darwinism simply explains how something happened. "This is why we are how we are." The dangerous logical leap made in Social Darwinism is "and this makes us better". No, Darwinian evolution _may_ say that we are more suited to survive in the world we live in than those we evolved from. It does not say that we are better than the other creatures on the planet. The fact that we live mostly harmoniously with a large number of cats, dogs, birds, and other animals leads me to believe that we are all well-suited to survive in our world (regardless of whether they would do as well without us), and that Darwinism and evolution is therefore irrelevant to the question of how we should interact with other animals.

I'm not going to argue that we aren't a dominant force on this planet. We have modified much of the world to suit humans, which any species will do to enable themselves to prosper. We have given ourselves the ability to wipe out just about every other form of life on the planet, so we have given ourselves the ability to rule them. But being a ruler now doesn't mean there is a good reason for it, nor does it mean that it will always be so. Especially since there is a very real possibility that humans will be decimated at some point by a bacterium or virus- which would not mean that the microbe is superior, just that we are unable to defend ourselves against its specialized attack.

We all come from an anthrocentric position: I just think we should recognize that as a fairly irrational prejudice. We come from a human perspective, we have to operate in the world as humans, but that doesn't mean that being a human is automatically better than anything else.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

I'm insanely atttached to my cats, and have been to all the cats me or my family has had. We spend thousands of dollars and much travel time on a sick cat we had a few years ago, and I wouldn't change a thing.

It makes me angrier when people mistreat animals than when they mistreat humans, because animals, especially domestic ones, depend on us and are helpless. I don't have any philosophical basis for this, it's just a gut feeling.

There are some low IQ people I'm thinking of who have less right to live than dogs do, as far as I'm concerned. But luckily for them, I'm not in charge.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

P. S. - I'm delighted to hear that Doc is better. I don't buy the flea allergy thing either. I usually choose vets by advice from friends.

-- Anonymous, November 15, 1999

"The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." - Mahatma Gandhi

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1999

To address the points Ashley made: Just because dogs can't speak doesn't mean that we have "no idea" what they are thinking. Actually, we have a pretty good idea of the cognitive abilities of dogs. Behavioral studies and physiologic and phylogenetic neuroanatomical comparisons are very valuable tools for learning about how dogs and other animals think. We don't know exactly what it's like to be a dog, but based on these extensive studies, I think it's safe to say that they lack the intellectual firepower to sit around thinking about philosophy. (I realize this argument is sort of vague, but I'll leave it here in the interest of brevity).

Additionally, I NEVER said that humans were "better" than other animals. But, I certainly would say that based on our cognitive abilities, we are better qualified than any other form of life that I am aware of to mete out rights, and our dominant position necessarily requires us to do exactly that.

In response to Vic's comments: As to the concept of rights, I don't really see how rights could exist outside of humans' conception of them unless you believe in God, which I don't.

Additionally, as I stated before, I DON'T believe that humans played any role in our dominance. It was the pressures of the earth's ecosystem which forced us into our evolutionary niche. However, I don't believe that nature conveys any "rights" on anyone. It certainly doesn't bestow upon anyone the right to live or to not be tortured...I think we all know that nature is quite brutal.

Finally, I would just like to reiterate that we all assign various rights to different lifeforms all the time. If you think that a dog and a person are equally valuable and should have the same rights, then why should you distinguish between the rights of a dog and a mosquito, or a dog and a dandelion, or a dog and a bacterium? If you don't make these distinctions, you either have to commit "murder" on a daily basis or starve to death.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1999

"But, I certainly would say that based on our cognitive abilities, we are better qualified than any other form of life that I am aware of to mete out rights..."

You say that our cognitive abilities make us better qualified to mete out rights. This is the major disagreement I keep coming back to. Because your concept of qualification is by nature an anthrocentric one. You are saying that we are better qualified to make these decisions because we are the ones who possess the qualities we value. The anthrocentrism comes in when you assume that the things we value are the most important qualifications.

"I don't really see how rights could exist outside of humans' conception of them unless you believe in God, which I don't."

Then it is the concept of a "natural right" which you disagree with. What do you mean by a right then?

"I think we all know that nature is quite brutal."

I might be being a little nitpicky, but I can't agree with this. "Brutal," again according to Webster's, is synonymous with the word "cruel". Cruel implies the intention to inflict pain. I have seen no evidence of anything resembling that in any species. The closest they seem to come is pure insensitivity.

"If you think that a dog and a person are equally valuable and should have the same rights..."

Nobody has stated that they think that. I certainly haven't. My point all along has been that we are the only ones making these justifications for our power. Outside of our own imaginations, there is no reason why we should hold this administrative position. Which, I suppose, makes us tyrants of a sort.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1999

Lizzie: "There are some low IQ people I'm thinking of who have less right to live than dogs do, as far as I'm concerned. But luckily for them, I'm not in charge."

Can you please clarify this statement, Lizzie? Are you speaking of specific persons to whom you are intellectually/ideologically opposed and consider unintelligent because they disagree with you? Or are you referring to people with clinically-diagnosed mental disabilities?

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1999

Vic, I'm not saying that we are qualified to give out rights because we have qualities we value, I'm saying that we're qualified because we're almost certainly the only species that can even conceive of the concept of a right.

And, as such, I believe that "rights" are things that people decide other people (and sometimes animals) are entitled to. I'd love to believe in the concept of natural rights, and would find it extremely comforting to believe that there was some other determinant of morality out there besides ourselves, but I just don't see it.

Finally, as to the definition of "brutal," I think you know what I meant. Webster's defines "cruel" as "2. causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain." That is my intended meaning.

And while I recognize that you have not stated that a dog and a person should have the same rights, others have implied in their posts here that they felt that way, particularly Lizzie ("There are some low IQ people I'm thinking of who have less right to live than dogs do, as far as I'm concerned. But luckily for them, I'm not in charge.") and Atara ("If my cat and some random person was trapped in a burning house, I would go in and rescue my cat, make sure she was OK, give her water and some treats, calm her down, kiss her between the ears and then go back in for the person.") My comments to that effect were addressed to them and others who feel the same way.

-- Anonymous, November 16, 1999

"I'm saying that we're qualified [to give rights] because we're almost certainly the only species that can even conceive of the concept of a right."

We are also the only creatures with a concept of abstract currency. Should our pets be adopting that? Okay, ludicrous example. But the idea is accurate. If we are the only ones who believe in the concept, then enforcing it is most definitely anthrocentrism.

"Finally, as to the definition of "brutal," I think you know what I meant. Webster's defines "cruel" as "2. causing or conducive to injury, grief, or pain." That is my intended meaning."

Ah. Then if what you're saying is that there would be less pain, grief, and injury if people weren't in charge, I can't agree with that. I can't entirely disagree either. It could easily go either way.

"And while I recognize that you have not stated that a dog and a person should have the same rights, others have implied..."

The implication I get from that isn't that they think their pets have more right to life than a person, simply that they would care a lot more if their pet died than a human stranger did. But I should let them speak for themselvs, I guess.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 1999

No one has addressed the idea that rights should be accompanied with duty or responsibility... I think the inevitable argument that 'we can so we do' might be more well received if we included the caveat that taking such rights implies a duty and responsiblity towards those whose are not given such rights.

-- Anonymous, November 17, 1999

Very, very good point.

-- Anonymous, November 18, 1999

duranki said: Lizzie: "There are some low IQ people I'm thinking of who have less right to live than dogs do, as far as I'm concerned. But luckily for them, I'm not in charge."

Can you please clarify this statement, Lizzie? Are you speaking of specific persons to whom you are intellectually/ideologically opposed and consider unintelligent because they disagree with you? Or are you referring to people with clinically-diagnosed mental disabilities?

I was thinking of two specific people I know with diagnosed mental disabilities.

But as I said, I'm not in charge. I'm not taking any action, only expressing an opinion. If their caretakers feel these people are worthy, so be it. I would not be willing to be such a caretaker.

-- Anonymous, November 19, 1999

I dearly love my animals. They are part of my family. I only wish I could get a dependent deduction for each of them at tax time. Maybe this is what it would take to give animals equal rights?

-- Anonymous, November 20, 1999