| The case against pet breeding The following text will focus on dogs, but may also apply to other pet animals. When ancestral wolves chose human companionship, wolves had the freedom to go in and out of the caves at will. They also hunted for food (with humans) and did not require humans to choose whether to feed them or not, and when to feed them. Each individual wolf had the choice of whether to involve himself with humans at all. The ancestral wolves freely chose human companionship, and were free to go whenever they wanted. They were not captive and could survive on their own. We do not allow that choice to dogs, and cannot. We buy, adopt or breed them whenever we like, and they must live according to our choices. Dogs have been domesticated for human dependency and do not choose human companionship. We make that choice for them. Furthermore, centuries of domestication and habitat change (roads etc) have put them in a situation where they cannot survive on their own. We therefore owe it to the dogs who are already here, to make their lives as good to them as possible. It is our responsibility. We put them in their situation. But should we breed more totally human-dependent dogs? No, for the following reasons. Pets have no choices whatsoever, not even in matters like at what time to eat or go out (or whether to eat or go out at all!). Their human owners totally control their fate. What's more, humans may even decide when they die. One may legally kill them anytime. One may also sell them and make profit out of them. They have no liberty to do anything they choose whatsoever, and we do not even accord them the right to life. Their being generally happy in human care does not mean that they are not frustrated when their actions and movements are restricted by human imposed rules. The pets who are already here should be given care and protection, but they cannot have the full rights that are due to all sentient animals, such as the right to freedom (especially from humans). And without freedom and the right to life (which pets do not have and never will – to be a pet is to be human property), all other rights become meaningless. All other rights, without the basic right to life, become privileges and not rights. Give pets rights? You cannot. What you can give them is privileges. Your pets are privileged if you choose not to kill them or care for them. To recognize that they have rights is to recognize their individuality, and to consider them as “pet animals” denies them that individuality. Property cannot have rights, and the status of a “pet animal” is by definition the status of human property. Give non-human animals the status of non-property, and this would prohibit you from holding them captive, breeding them, giving them out or selling their offspring. As long as non-humans are regarded as property, the law will not be changed to any sufficient degree. Property has no rights. All "animal welfare" laws do is protect the interests of property owners. If someone is not property, another cannot impose his will on that individual (unless his actions are harmful to himself or others). The anti-breeding argument, for those who hold it, is not about setting all animals free whatever happens to them. It's about not creating dependency in the first place by not breeding or buying. To domesticate animals is to deny their right to live freely as they choose, for the advantage of humans. This necessarily means to treat non-human animals as less than humans, and to treat them as utilities. If it is not acceptable with humans, it shouldn't be with non-humans. To claim otherwise is speciesist. Imagine this situation: Scientists manage to genetically create human children who will never grow up. They will only reach the age of 5 and stop growing. The only difference would be that they would have the capacity to breed. They would therefore be the perfect example of domesticated humans. People would be able to buy these children and even breed them to create more non-growing children. The law could prescribe that they be treated "well", that is they should be fed well and taken care of. But ask yourself this question: Would you approve of the creation of such children? Before replying, think about whether you believe that since we domesticated non-human animals, and if we take care to give them food and shelter, you find no problem in domesticating non-human animals. Now, since we would have created the non-growing children ourselves, and since they will be in a similar situation as pet animals, that is, totally dependent on us, would you say that this is unethical, provided that we care for them? If one says it is unethical in the case of children, but not in the case of non-human animals (who are exactly in the same situation), one is definitely speciesist, since one would not be treating relevantly like cases alike. To say something is acceptable only because it involves non-humans is speciesist, and therefore anti-animal rights. Furthermore, pets don't have their natural needs met. Consider this: 1. Breeding. If, a dog has the right to breed, it follows that the dog has the right to choose when and how much to breed. This poses you the following dilemma: If you let the dog breed as much as he/she likes, you will be overwhelmed with the amount of offspring which would result. The alternative is choosing yourself when your dog breeds, which breaches the right of the dog to choose whether to breed or not. There is no middle way. If the dog has the right to breed, you cannot dictate when he/she breeds or not. Furthermore, you cannot claim that the dilemma can be avoided by providing a sexual partner only when you can keep the offspring that would result, since this breaches the dog's right to choose his/her companions and the right to choose when to meet them (see point 3). However, if you believe like I do, that the duty to prevent harm to offspring (which includes permanent dependency) overrides the right to breed, then there is no such dilemma. 2. The offspring. Breeding results in offspring, which will in turn lead to the taking away of the offspring from their parents. This breaches the rights of both parents and offspring. Also, if one claims, that a dog has the right to breed, you cannot limit the number of the offspring to a "manageable" number which will make it possible to keep parents and offspring together. If a dog has a basic unbreachable right to breed, you cannot decide how much the dog breeds. The choice should rest with the dog. Of course, as I explained in point 1, the dog has no such right. 3. Company. Every animal has the right to choose his/her own relationships, company and friends, and when to meet them. Domesticating non-human animals (and keeping them as pets) denies them this right. To claim otherwise would demand that you leave your door permanently open for any companion your dog might wish to meet and interact. 4. House training. Various methods are applied to "house train" pets. I will only focus on the most "humane" methods (so as not to be accused of being unfair) and show that they still breach animal rights. A humane method is to reward a dog for actions you find acceptable and punish a dog for actions you find unacceptable. If one does not do this, the result will be a disastrous house full of dog excrement and damaged furniture. The only alternative is to lock the dog in a single room, or outside in all weather conditions. Both breach the dog's right to life according to his (and not our) nature. One cannot claim that a compromise between the dog and the human should be reached - you offer comfort and protection and he forgoes some of his rights. There is no such compromise since the dog did not choose to live with you, and in any case, dogs cannot make contracts. A refutation of the above would go like this: Human children, too, are rewarded for actions we approve of, and punished for actions we disapprove of. Human children, too, did not choose to be born, and so, did not choose to live with us, and also cannot make contracts. The fundamental difference is this: "house-training" human children is done both for our and their own good. Most pet house training is done for our own good, and not theirs. Furthermore, and more importantly, human childhood is temporary. Children will incrementally grow up to become adults, and in the meantime, will gain more and more independence, until they will reach a stage where they are allowed to behave even in ways we disapprove of. They are allowed to become independent and autonomous beings. With pets, it's totally different. Adult pets are perpetually treated as human children for life. We impose on them human values even though they, unlike human children, will never become human adults. Their nature is denied to them even in adulthood, and mainly for our benefit. Human children are denied total autonomy mainly for their own safety and good, until they reach adulthood when they will be allowed to follow their own human nature. Puppies never will. So, even if you keep your pets as kings or queens of the home, you still deny them fundamental rights such as the right to keep any offspring that result from their sexual relationships, the right to choose their own company and the right to live according to their nature. The only instance when pet ownership is acceptable is when it involves a rescued stray, since this would be choosing the lesser evil. Since the dog is already here, the choice is between limited rights and a painful death in the streets. Breeding always unnecessarily limits the rights of both offspring and parents and is therefore anti-animal rights. Some might say that humans need pets. The "need" for companion pets is debatable. The need is created out of habit, and is fuelled by people who would profit from such an artificial need. People who claim they need meat similarly do so out of habit. We do not really need pets as much as we do not really need meat. In any case, what we "need" is irrelevant. If there is really a need for pet ownership, this need would be very trivial compared to the more fundamental right to self-determination. Animal rights are about the rights of individual animals, rights which override any utilitarian considerations. Furthermore, we can always enjoy the company of non-human animals in their natural habitat, without imposing our will on them, or denying them their freedom. Others might say there could be a “middle ground” argument for breeding pets in manageable numbers. These pets would waive some of their rights (like the right to freedom) for human protection and care. The "middle ground" argument is fine with non-human animals who are already here. But the so called "middle ground" is invalid when we breed them ourselves. If there is a burning house and we have a choice of saving either a human or a dog, many would say we should save the human. But if there is only a human in the house, we should not put a dog inside and then choose to save the human! The same applies in the case of breeding. It is fine to choose the lesser evil in a case of true conflict, but it is never acceptable to create the conflict ourselves. Therefore, to adopt pets who are already here is to be encouraged, since this safeguards their interests, even if regrettably their rights will necessarily be restricted. But to breed, sell or buy pets infringes on animal rights because it treats non-human animals as property, and to treat them as property necessarily denies them all or some of their rights. What’s more, by breeding carnivorous pets, we condemn other equally sentient animals to otherwise unnecessary suffering and death, just to feed our pets. Add to this the millions more that are made to suffer and die in pet food industry vivisection, pets who die in sub-standard “pet shops” or who suffer confinement in any pet shop, the millions of unwanted animals who die in the streets worldwide, and breeding will be seen as highly illogical apart from being anti-animal rights. |
 |