Your Dog Is Not Your Family ~ He’s Your Property

http://www.theonion.com/articles/dog-doesnt-consider-itself-part-of-family,35532/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=SocialMarketing&utm_campaign=LinkPreview%3ANA%3AInFocus

Dog Doesn’t Consider Itself Part Of Family

part of the family

While admitting that he relies on members of the family for food and shelter and is often included in household activities and family photographs, local 6-year-old golden retriever Pepper told reporters Friday that he in no way considers himself part of the O’Donnell family. “Hey, they’re not bad people, and I appreciate that they let me ride in the car sometimes, but do I think of them as my own family members? God, no,” the canine said while scratching behind his right ear with his hind leg, adding that he had no say in the matter when he was adopted and spends as much time as possible in the backyard to distance himself from the O’Donnells. “Have you seen these guys? They’re kind of loud and obnoxious, they sit on that couch all the time looking at their phones, and they’re not at all into throwing around the tennis ball. Just look at [father] Rob [O’Donnell]—guy’s a complete mess and can’t even walk to the park without getting winded. No way I’m one of them.” At press time, Pepper’s stance was reaffirmed when Denise O’Donnell made him sit and beg for several moments before letting him have a piece of cheese.

__________________________

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/steven-kurlander/a-pet-peeve-against-pet-parenting—-time-to-push-back-against-equating-animals-with-children_b_6919270.html?fb_action_ids=739878306132556&fb_action_types=og.comments&fb_source=other_multiline&action_object_map=%5B854217947969882%5D&action_type_map=%5B%22og.comments%22%5D&action_ref_map=%5B%5D

A Pet Peeve Against ‘Pet Parenting’ — Time to Push Back Against Equating Animals With Children

The other day I was winding down, lying half comatose on the couch watching cable network news when I was tossed out of my stupor by a PetSmart commercial.  a couple of “new parents” who adopt not one but two puppies from its store.

“What’s it like to be new parents?” the PetSmart employee asks the young couple. The commercial ended with the tagline “PetSmart has all you need to take care of your kids.”

Puppy, Parent, Kids? All of a sudden, owning a pet is equal to raising a child?

This was upsetting to me. It’s really stupid to equate parenting with pet ownership on the surface, and actually misguided in terms of how we in American society are led to think about animals and our relationship with them.

Pets, and animals too, are not humans, and should not be considered or treated as such.

But I should have known. Over the last decade, maybe as part of the “political correctness” phenomenon, our society is being pushed toward humanizing animals as equals in this country in many ways.

Calling and treating pets like children has gained traction as a growing pet industry exploits the very strong emotions associated with owning and caring for an animal.

And as a result, this overwrought love for pets, as evidenced by this pet parent commercial, has caused us as a society to lose perspective on the difference between children and pets. It also depreciates the significance of the human-child relationship.

Actually, the term “pet parent” is yet another very cleaver creation of the pet (or should I say furry kid) industry that, according to the American Pet Products Association, rakes in an estimated $58.51 billion in sales in the United States.

Americans have gone overboard both in their pet spending, in concert with loving their pets and wild animals.

Ask any veterinarian about how fanatical some, if not most, pet owners are about their pets — some probably treat their dogs and cats better than their kids. Ask any divorce lawyer about how bloody the custody of pets can get between two warring spouses, much more so than fights over kids or fortunes.

It’s not just pet marketing. PETA and other animal rights advocates have already succeeded in changing our thinking about our pets in terms of “fairness.” When we hear news about “animal terrorists” performing illegal, if not violent, acts of terror and destruction in the name of “animal rights,” we don’t react against but actually condone such behavior.

Americans are also sing the spending power to react against the way we traditionally treat animals, like forcing Banum and Bailey circus’ to “retire” their iconic elephant acts

“From the circus to the grocery store, Americans are increasingly using their wallets to protest what they view as unfair treatment of animals. The heightened consumer pressure comes amid a shift in understanding among scientists and the general public about animals’ level of consciousness.” — Christian Science Monitor

What’s next? In terms of political correctness, forget about the fight over the name of the Washington Redskins. It’s only a matter of time before the Denver Broncos, Seattle Seahawks, and other sports teams have to change their names and mascots, too.

I learned the hard way a few years back that we are already in the realm of irrational animal fanaticism when I wrote an article supporting a ban on pit bulls in overpopulated Miami. I got emailed death threats, abused on Twitter, and called a “breedist (racist)” (soon to be legal classification?) by pit bull owners.

So while I know I’m going to get crucified for writing these thoughts, I think it’s time, like any good parent would, to lay down the law.

Enough is enough already. We need to get our heads back on straight when it comes to loving our pets and defining our relationships with them. Considering ourselves “pet owners” and not “pet parents” is a good start.

This column appeared in Context Florida on March 23, 2015

Steven Kurlander is an attorney and communications strategist who blogs at Kurly’s Kommentary (stevenkurlander.com). He writes for Context Florida and The Huffington Post and can be found on Twitter @Kurlykomments. He lives and works in Monticello, N.Y. Column courtesy of Context Florida.

____________________

Until we take back the conversation we will continue to see more wrongful, un-constitutional animal seizures. NOTE: I do not support BSL as this author does but appreciate his overall view of the mind-set of the Animal Rights Extremists (Fanatics). When people relate animals with children and push that viewpoint into the legislature, we have a real and serious problem-Animals are property-They have no rights but the right to be cared for properly anyway their owner sees it. Laws intended for protection against intentional cruelty (after all, they are living and breathing-free of intentional abuse) Not whether Rover needs a bath or have his teeth brushed but is fed watered properly and offered shelter…What is often considered abuse or better put is said to be abuse isn’t but a scheme to take control over private citizens and their property, convert the property and use that property in a way that those who did the taking will benefit with the media supporting these wrongful unconstitutional RAIDS on personal property. The needs of a child and the needs of an animals are not and never will be the same. If you want to brush Rovers teeth, go ahead if that makes you feel better. My dog chews on bones and I guarantee you, Rover likes that a lot better than your jamming a toothbrush in your dogs mouth with meat flavored toothpaste an usually, accomplishes nothing.

Disclaimer connected to this blog…Things said are of my opinion and the opinions of others…Stay tuned  -B

Advertisements

~ by topcatsroar on March 30, 2015.

7 Responses to “Your Dog Is Not Your Family ~ He’s Your Property”

  1. Well,

    It did well to have some of the sampled commentary from the various “news” sites and such. However, actually loving and respecting your animal companions as valuable members of the family have never been a big problem, until the advent of establishment-religious doctrines and dogmas.

    As far as I can see it.

    If I am considered “going overboard” or getting “overly sentimental” for the love of my animal companions (NOT PETS!), then call me GUILTY AS CHARGED. At least you will never see me beating an animal senselessly for doing something out of the ordinary, that would never have hurt anyone anyway. At least you will know (and so will my animal companion) that he/she will be taken care of and guaranteed a safe, comfortable life and well-fed.

    I guess it would be considered a “dangerous” stretch if I were to even place my own life in jeopardy in the defence of my beloved animal companion(s) ???

    Then go ahead and judge me as crazy, dangerous, immature, and any other epithet of similar meaning or thought. I will ALWAYS treat “my animals” better than most people treat each other!

    – Rev. Dragon’s Eye

    • As you likely already know, I am in agreement with your view point but legally would you put your companions above your own life-Would you be so judgmental that an animal’s life is more important that that of a person-I think not even though I agree, I treat and care for my animals better than I would some people, maybe even can say most people. This was placed for thought and to provide some insight, nothing more. More on this issue in the works-Remember, I don’t write these articles and only provide my opinion of the topics. Good to hear from you. -B

      • My companions often ARE my life.

        Plus, understood the fact that you were simply copying-and-pasting the short-clips for illustrative purposes. That I understand. I was merely expressing my outrage at the mere fact of many of these one-sided views are heavily pushed by the mainstream. This is just another example of the left-and-right extremes that are part of the “controlled debate” on many issues. Neither side seeks a balanced solution, and neither side even wishes for any of us to see a balanced solution. THAT is up to us to decide.

        So, my verbal barbs were not personally intended towards you (I guess I was not clear on that??). They were in opposition to the general thinking by the “main-stream”.

      • I believe that the main stream is so brainwashed that they are putting animals before people…not the other way around…

      • And THAT is unbalanced thinking on their part. Respect is a mutually-inclusive necessity. If we all had more respect for ourselves as sentient beings, we would naturally have more respect towards all those around us. Then, this “us-vs-them” attitude (like: “for the animals” – or – “for ourselves only”) would become a bane to all of our existences. If say, my animal companion would be willing to risk its life, potientially lose it, in protecting me from harm; Then there is no reason why I should not also be as willing to defend it the same way. – THAT is, IMHO, a better example of a more-balanced thinking. “We” help each other. The “main-stream” knows NOTHING about “helping each other”, all due to all of the psychoactive-programming that has been going on for many years.

  2. So the cowboy still can’t marry his horse and the miner can’t marry his mule? When animals have equal rights and are completely humanized, will it then be permissible for us to lick our behinds in public? Or will dogs get jailed for indecent exposure and lewd conduct when they do this? It’s going to have to be one or the other.

  3. Great article! My animals do not consider themselves my kids, but rather I am part of “Their” pack and flock!!! LOL

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: