In my experience, it is easier for large groups of people to come
to a consensus and agree on appropriate rules for keeping and raising
children than it is for just two people to agree on the standards for
keeping and raising animals. That's part of the reason why,
regardless of what decision the City Council makes this afternoon on
the immediate future of Glendale's animal-control services, I don't
expect an end to occasional charges that someone in the process is
mistreating animals, or ignoring mistreatment.
The reason for the difference is obvious. Children are human
beings, so many opinions on the levels of care, attention and concern
they warrant are close to universal. Sure, there are exceptions, like
the rude, loud and rambunctious monsters who were across the dining
room at a restaurant my family visited last week. I might not have
quibbled over a proposal to capture them using the cruel and
controversial "leg trap." But for the most part, treating people like
people isn't controversial.
On the other hand, the point at which animals are being treated as
if they were people is different for almost everyone. And, of course,
there are some who can't understand any reluctance to extend to a dog
or cat all the same comforts and considerations extended to people.
Sadly, in my book anyway, there are also those who have no trouble
treating a dog or cat as is they were inanimate objects, like a cheap
toy a child might outgrow or break.
After agreeing animals warrant sufficient food, water and shelter,
there are few clear-cut thresholds most of us can agree on. For some,
having a cat surgically declawed is the cruel maiming of an animal to
meet the selfish needs of a human. On the other hand, for those who
own furniture they can't afford to routinely repair and replace, and
whose cats are treated like royalty and kept indoors, where they
don't require protective weaponry, declawing is a routine surgical
procedure that helps the pet and owner live in harmony.
Consider the routine of docking, a euphemism for using a scalpel
or worse to snip off or trim a dog's tail or ears. It typically
serves no purpose beyond cosmetics, an attempt to surgically alter an
animal so that it meets a "breed standard." I consider it a barbaric
practice. The best proponents can usually argue is that the work is
done early, supposedly before the dog can experience pain when the
offending portions are snipped off, or that the procedure is
performed while the dog has been anaesthetized. These are widely
