JEFF CORBETT: It’s a dog’s life force

Newcastle Herald: Jeff Corbett; Oct 21 2012

The furore about the RSPCA’s live-or-die temperament test for dogs appears to be about the injustice of, among other things, awarding death points to a dog that chases a cat.

No one, by the way, has mentioned the injustice suffered by the cat used to test a dog’s response.

But behind the outrage over the temperament test that dooms 3000 dogs a year in NSW’s RSPCA shelters is a bigger issue, one that has been building since unwanted dogs were shot behind the ear and kittens were drowned in sugar bags.

Do we have the moral right to kill a dog?

Euthanising a dog is not covered in the question, because euthanising is seen as putting a dog to sleep to ease suffering, not as killing, and we say a dog’s owner has a moral obligation to spare its suffering.

And Max the pointer looking out warmly from the front page of this paper last Wednesday was clearly not suffering, and the RSPCA makes no bones about the reason it killed him at its Rutherford shelter. Max failed, it says, the temperament test, and the distraught protests of a former carer led to Max gazing into the eyes of every Herald reader last week.

And Herald readers responded in droves. Beneath their outrage was the question of whether we should kill dogs, and inevitably that leads to the question of whether the community, and the RSPCA, has a duty to allow dogs to live their life and, again inevitably, to support them living that life.

Everyone accepts that we have an obligation to provide for our dog, and the reason is that we accept that obligation when we take ownership of the dog. But that obligation applies only when they’re alive.

If the transition from life to death is painless, as I’m sure it was for Max, then we have not failed to meet our responsibility.

Unless, that is, we see dogs as having a right to life, as we see humans having a right to life. And increasingly we do, and we do because increasingly we see dogs as fully fledged members of our family, as having human-like qualities.

Killing a person is not acceptable even if it is a painless death, because we believe a person owns his life and thus has a right to that life, and many people seem to believe now that a dog owns its own life, even if a person owns the dog, and thus the dog has a right to that life.

We seem to ascribe human-like rights to pets in many ways, and we’ve just had an instance of that at my home. We have two cats – Tilly, who you may recall did a sterling job of mending her broken leg, and Molly, a ragdoll – and a month ago my wife acquired a third, Missy.

The only consultation with me was a photo sent to my phone so that I wouldn’t be so noisily shocked when I arrived home from work. Well, it became clear that Tilly and Missy couldn’t live together happily and so one had to go, and my wife was horrified when I suggested, mischievously, that since Missy was prettier we should move Tilly on.

Tilly, she pronounced, was here first and so she had the greater right to the house. Of course neither cat had rights, not even rights we so foolishly ascribe them, but Missy duly went. No, not to the RSPCA.

It is this relatively recent notion of a dog and a cat having a right to life that seems to fuel the increasing number of dog and cat rescuers, even if the rescuers don’t express their motivation as protecting the animals’ right to life. These people take doomed dogs or cats into their home while they search for a permanent home for them, and I know that often the cost to these people financially and in time is considerable.

Why don’t we see pigs and cows as having this right to life? Because, you may say, if we didn’t breed them they wouldn’t exist, but the same applies to dogs and cats. Because, you may say, we breed farm animals to eat, but the reason we breed an animal must be irrelevant to any rights – we see humans as having the right to life regardless of the circumstances of their conception.

Yes, it is inconsistent and silly, but it is an attitude becoming a new force.

One day we’ll require the former owner or government to provide for abandoned dogs until the end of their natural life.

Should former owners be forced to pay dog support for their abandoned dogs?

Original and readers comments here…

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under RSPCA NSW

2 responses to “JEFF CORBETT: It’s a dog’s life force

  1. My dogs would not pass this test, yet they are the most loving dogs and my grandchildren play with them and love them too. Humans are failing in their responsibility toward animals, I agree that people should be required to have a license to own a pet and know how to care for it before having one.
    Too many beautiful animals are needlessly killed because people don’t want them any more, puppy mills should be banned to lessen the amount of animals being dumped by people who no longer want them.

  2. Annelies Craig

    Temperament tests…..for one I totally disagree with this term. To me temperament is our genetics, our way of responding to our environment, its innate, Whereas our character is based on our environment and our lifetime’s experience. Both these make up our personality, and this applies to all these poor dogs/cats that find themselves homeless. How can one truly know these dogs/cats based on a test that is usually once off, and not within their own environment, They are more often than not undertaken within these RSPCA shelters which we all know are highly stressful to all, and this in turn affects the behaviour of most pets, even the most placid of animal. Its impossible for a shelter to assess ‘temperament’ by a one off test….this needs to be undertaken over a broad range of environment and experiences and within a longer time frame. Do these RSPCA shelters have the time or resources, (they often say that they don’t), have the time as well as experienced staff to do this. They I believe are assessing behaviour at a point in time, and not what I believe to be the true temperament of the stressed/homeless animal. What also needs to also be taken into consideration as well, when the general public want to dump their dogs, that they fill out a behavioural questionnaire giving details as to the dog’s behaviours and their temperament, which could prove to be a valuable tool. The issues that we see today in regards to ‘poor’ behaviour stems from – where they have come from, the lack of socialisation, the lack of appropriate care and treatment, as well as knowledge in regards to the care of these animals. I have said it once and I will say it again…animal care/rights need to be on every school curriculum. Our animals are not disposable and should not be faced with being homeless. We need to stamp out these puppy mills and this applies for cats as well that are often left to go feral. Being a vegan I see the value of all animals and have adopted a compassionate lifestyle of many years standing. All animals have rights.

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