PETA & Pit Bulls

The blog post “PETA Joins Forces with Group Working to Kill All ‘Pit Bulls’ Nationwide” by Nathan J Winograd really saddened me. Before this article, I was under the impression that the goal of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) was to save all animals from human use. This article by Winograd discusses the opposite. PETA’s goal is to kill pit bulls. Why? That’s a great question. The article doesn’t go on to say why PETA is choosing to kill all pit bulls that go through the shelter door. It shares examples of how PETA carries out this campaign. This is the opposite of the “No Kill” movement.

We discussed no-kill shelters in lecture on October 20^th. Nathan Winograd who wrote the blog post about PETA started the “no kill” movement.  Our October 20^th lecture discussed the “No Kill Equation” started by Winograd on the left. These examples demonstrate ways of saving pets in   We also discussed the problems associated with this movement in our lecture on October 20^th. The first issue was warehousing. It is a problem in many shelters to have room for all the animals that come in. With the “No Kill Movement”, they do not euthanize animals; therefore, they need room for all pets. It would take time and money as well to house them. This also goes along with the hoarding issue. Too many animals in one place can also lead to neglect and not be able to give each animal its needs. Another issue according to our lecture is limited admission within the shelter. On what condition do they accept animals? Who makes those decisions? A lot of these issues depend on the shelter and their approach to the matter. Another problem with the “No Kill Equation” by Winograd is the emotional and physical state of the animal itself. The length of time they are in the shelter is important as well as their exercise and nutrition. This issue also plays into warehousing. These are all issues with the “No Kill Equation” by Nathan Winograd. PETA’s goal to kill pit bulls obviously goes against this movement. 

animal shelters rather than killing them. I think these are practical methods; however, there are many factors such as cost that need to be taken into consideration. It also depends on each shelter and whether they are willing to participate in the “No-Kill Movement”.

I have a close connect with this blog post. My own dog is half Labrador and half Pit Bull. We adopted her from the county humane society. She was cheaper than the other dogs for two reasons. The first was she was a pit bull. The shelter had many terriers, more than any other breed. They had her at a lower price so she could get adopted. The second reason Sasha was cheaper because she was going to get euthanized if no one took her in. The animal shelter was not a “no-kill” and had limited room.  When we met Sasha, she was the sweetest dog. She was well behaved and not the stereotypical pit bull that everyone thinks they are. The blog post by Winograd talks about this stereotype. Winograd explains that there is no such thing  as a pit bull breed. It is just a stereotype for a group of dogs. I went on to research and found out from that the American Pit Bull Terrier, Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier are what make up the stereotypical “pit bull” (Dogtime.com). Winograd goes on to write that “not only do shelters misidentify breeds as much as 75 percent of the time, but as used by shelters, law enforcement agencies and even courts, ‘Pit Bull’ is not a breed of dog” (Winograd, 2015). It is an interesting point that Winograd makes. However, he does not provide a source to his statistic, which makes it difficult of whether or not it is factual.

 Winograd’s blog post degrades PETA’s anti pit bull campaign. He is for the “no kill” movement and until now I thought PETA was on the same page or they used to be. I found a blog post from 2009 from PETA’s website that talked about their stance that there were for saving pit bulls. They also advocated for spay and neuter of the dogs. A lot has changed since then. I am confused by PETA’s position, as it seems inconsistent. In this video from PETA’s YouTube Channel, it talks about how PETA supports legislation in favor of requiring pit bulls to be spayed or neutered. This video was posted on October 19, 2015.

The video is titled “100 Pit Bulls in 100 Seconds” that shows injured and starving dogs and why they need to stop the increasing population. They do not mention killing the pit bulls but just simply spaying and neutering them to avoid this problem.

After reading Winograd’s blog and seeing PETA’s blog post and video, it is difficult to say which side PETA is on. Are they anti-pit bull or for saving them? I have always known PETA to save animals, not kill them and their blog post and video support that. We watched a documentary in class about Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA. In that video, she was shown going to houses and rescuing dogs that were not cared for.  Most of them were terriers. In my opinion, I think it is important to do our best to save dogs no matter what their breed. I understand the “no kill” movement and the issues that are associated with it. It is a complex issue. I think the bottom line is that it is important to spay and neuter our pets if we don’t have room for them. I think of my own dog, Sasha, and how she was almost euthanatized. I’m very thankful that my family came along and saved her but shudder to think if we did not. This is an issue I take personally and think it is in our best interest to do anything we can to give pets a great life.

Albert, S. (Presenter). (2015, October 20). The Emotional Environment of Animal Sheltering. Lecture presented at University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL.

Dogtime.com. (n.d.). American Pit Bull Terrier. Retrieved from Dogtime.com website: http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/american-pit-bull-terrier

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. (2015, October 19). 100 Pit Bulls in 100 Seconds [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arPB4FHgwHg

Winograd, N. J. (2015, October 19). PETA Joins Forces with Group Working to Kill All “Pit Bulls” Nationwide. Retrieved from Nathan J Winograd website: http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=15754

Speciesism: Based on Emotion

Speciesism.

It’s a topic that has been debated about for years. I just never knew that there was a technical name for it. It’s a word that causes a lot of anger on either side of the debate. I think it is a word that is argued based on people’s emotions. So what does “speciesism” exactly mean?

According to our class lecture on Septmeber 17th, speciesism is “prejudice against those of another species and that species alone determines value”. The Merriam-Webster dictionary online states that speciesism is “prejudice or discrimination based on species especially discrimination against animals”.  In my own words, I think speciesism is when a species is bias to themselves over another species. I did a simple Google search where I just entered speciesism. Besides given me definitions, I found this image located on the left. According to Google, the mentions of the word speciesism did not increase until the 1970s through the 2000s, which I found very interesting. From our lecture on September 22^nd titled “The Modern Animal Rights Movement” the third wave of the movement hit at the same time. This time frame was also when the Internet was starting to be utilized. With resources like the Internet, people were able to read more about speciesism. 

 The most common example of speciesism is humans to non-human animals. Our lecture discussed that speciesism is very common especially with the human life vs. animal life debate. One organization that comes to mind is PETA or People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals. Their mission is to stop the exploitation of animals whether it is for food, entertainment, or any kind of human use. There are many people that would dispute this. This just proves that the debate is larger than the issue itself.

I come from an agriculture background. I have been involved in the livestock industry showing goats in 4-H and have consumed beef, chicken, turkey, and pork my whole life. I wasn’t introduced to the animal rights issue until I got to college. It was a new issue that I have never been confronted with about. Coming from a small village surrounded by corn and soybean fields to a large city was a huge culture change for me. I was exposed to new people who lived their lives different including not having meat as their daily diet. 

As an agricultural communications major, my main responsibility is to communicate with farmers as well as consumers. Animal rights is a topic that I will have to confront and is the main reason I wanted to take this class. I suggest anyone learns the facts about a topic before educating others about it.  Therefore, I want to get as many perspectives as I can before writing my thoughts about speciesism. It is certainly a topic that has many perspectives depending on who you are, how you interact with non-human animals, and where you come from.

The Ted Talks video featuring Leslie Bisgould was an interesting perspective. An animal rights activist, she illustrates how humans need to reevaluate their relationship with animals. She uses companion animals and livestock as examples. Bisgould also criticizes laws in effect for humane treatment and how they do not work. In the video she says, “these laws are useless. They do nothing. And in no way they protect animals from human caused suffering”. According to Bisgould, the only way to humanly treat animals is not to claim them as our property. We should not refer to non-human animals as “things”. So what do we refer them as if they are not things or property?

When Bisgould talked about livestock and how they don’t see sunlight until they are shipped off to the slaughterhouse was insulting to the agriculture industry. I wanted to ask her if she has ever stepped on a farm and talked with the farmer about their practices. If she would get the facts, she would realize that poultry have to be housed in cages due to numerous factors. If they were outside they would be exposed to predators, weather, and disease. Many people do not realize why farmers do what they do and they do care for their animals in the best way possible.  

Another thing Bisgould talked about was visuals and how they help persuade others of the animal rights movement. We’ve all seen those horrible photos and videos of a pig beating or a cow getting dragged. That is not how animals are supposed to be treated and farmers wouldn’t do that because it affects their business. If they don’t care for their animal, they are unable to sell it and will lose money. You can’t believe everything you see on the Internet and that it is the same for the entire industry. 

From our lectures and readings, I have learned that animal rights activists do not demonstrate speciesism. Their goal is to treat humans and animals of the same quality and treatment. Like Bisgould in the video, they give examples of why non-human animals should be treated equal to humans.

 In our reading of Peter Singer’s book, Animal Liberation during the  “All Animals Are equal” chapter, the author states that “there are obviously important differences between humans and other animals, and these differences must give rise to some differences in the rights that each have”.  Nobody can deny this statement. There are just differences between human and non-human animals. It is just a given fact. That is the main argument of those who are not supportive of animal rights. Humans and non-human animals are different and are not the same thing. It doesn’t get any simpler than that.

What I have concluded about the animal rights movement and speciesism in general is that it is a complex subject. We all have many differing opinions on the subject, which makes it hard to have a conversation about it. It is also an argument that is driven by our emotions. We all have different feelings towards non-human animals and it depends on the person you are talking to. I have a dissimilar view from Leslie Bisgould in the video that might be different from someone else. This is why speciesism is a complex subject that relies on many different factors.

Works Cited

Albert, Sarah. "Speciesism." University of Illinois. Urbana. 17 Sept. 2015. Lecture.

Albert, Sarah. "The Modern Animal Rights Movement." University of Illinois. Urbana. 22 Sept. 2015. Lecture.

Google. "Google books Ngram Viewer." Google. Google, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2015.

     <https://books.google.com/ngrams/ graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=speciesism&dire ct_url=t4%3B%2Cspeciesism%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bspeciesism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BSpeciesism%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BSPECIE

            SISM%3B%2Cc0>.

It's time to re-evaluate our relationship with animals: Lesli Bisgould at TEDxUofT. Prod. Tedx Talks. YouTube. YouTube, 6 May 2014. Web. 22 Sept. 2015. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fr26scqsIwk>.

Merriam-Webster. "Speciesism." Merriam-Webster. Merriam-Webster, Incorporated, n.d. Web. 22 Sept. 2015. <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/speciesism>.

Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation.

HAB & Mental Illness

We love our pets. We feed, groom, and take care of them so they live a happy life. Why wouldn’t we do anything in the world for them?

 I have a dog and cat that live with me back in my hometown (pictured). I am constantly thinking about them while I am at school and if they are okay. My dog has health issues and my cat has behavioral problems.

Lauren Braitman’s video, “Depressed dogs, cats with OCD – what animal madness means for us humans”, really opened up my eyes to animal emotions and how they can be similar to humans. She starts out by talking about her own dog and how it has its shares of separation anxiety, hallucinations, and canine compulsive disorder. My first thought of a dog having those problems was astonishing first to me; however, Braitman goes on to explain that mental illness in animals can be similar to humans and if we can identify it in animals then we have more sympathy towards them. I think this From the August 27^th class presentation, it was attributed from the American Veterinary Medical Association that HAB is defined as “a mutually beneficial and dynamic relationship between people and animals that is influenced by behaviors that are essential to the health and well-being of both. This includes but is not limited to emotional, psychological, and physical interactions of people, animals, and the environment.” The clause that stood out to me is how the relationship between animals and humans is partial to the health and well being of both. Therefore, when an animal has a mental illness it affects not only the animal but the human as well and vice versa. Braitman used the example of the war veteran and his service dog that helped him with his fear of heights and PTSD. She went on to say that after a couple months of the dog being with the veteran that the dog developed a fear of heights as well. This example goes to show that non-human animals and animals can share similarities when it comes to mental illness. However, there can be differences as well.

idea can attribute to the Human-Animal Bond definition.

Emotions play a big roll in mental illness. It is emotion itself that can lead to mental illness. Braitman explains in the video that every animal is unique and has different susceptibility.  This idea led me to one of the bigger conclusions I made from the video that mental illness cannot be treated as a whole. One of our class readings goes on to explain that non-human animals express their emotion to humans. In chapter one of The Emotional Lives of Animals by Marc Bekoff, the author goes to write that “many animals display their feelings openly, publicly, for anyone to see. And when we pay attention, what we see outside tells us lots about what’s happening inside an individual’s head and heart”. Braitman talks in the video of how humans can assume an animal’s emotion and what problem they have. Bekoff confirms this idea as long as we truly pay attention to the animal. If we pay attention to the animal, then we can get the help it needs whether that be through therapy or pharmaceutical.

 

Throughout “Depressed dogs, cats with OCD – what animal madness means for us humans”, Braitman explains mental illness and its similarities and differences from humans to non-human animals. One topic she hit on was anthropomorphism and how it attributes to non-human animals. From our discussion on September 8^th in class, the lecture defined anthropomorphism when non-human animals are attributed to humanly characteristics. When discussing mental illness and their similarities and differences between non-animal humans and humans, anthropomorphism can be hard to define. Is mental illness more of a human or non-animal characteristic? That’s the question. One of my favorite parts of the video is when Braitman discussed when anthropomorphism is good and when it is bad. In class lecture, we also discussed why it is important to anthropomorphize in the first place and it was explained that it helps humans understand others around us like non-human animals. It is to the degree of anthropomorphism that decides whether it is beneficial to the animal. Braitman uses the example of dressing up Corgi dogs like a groom and bride and how that is falsely attributing human characteristics to dogs. It makes sense because dogs do not dress up themselves for a marriage ceremony. Braitman goes on to explain that good anthropomorphism is when humans help our non-human animals when they have a mental illness and care for their needs with human resources. She uses therapy and pharmaceutical use as examples of ways that anthropomorphism can be a good thing. The biggest resource Braitman shares that can help non-human animals (and maybe the human population can take a lesson from) is that the animal can be social with other animals no matter the species. Braitman explains in the video “oxytocin levels were raised when animals were together” which means the animal is happier. Sometimes I think it is the simplest solutions that can help others.

Before starting this video, I was narrow minded about non-human animals and whether they can have a mental illness similar to humans. I learned that there are similarities and differences; however, it is up to the individual. The human-animal bond plays a big role and how it affects both sides. Emotions also need to be considered which plays into anthropomorphism and properly attributing it. In the end, we want to do what is best for animals and we can learn from each other. What may help a non-human animal with mental illness could help a human in the future.

Braitman truly opened my mind to mental illness and how non-human animals can teach us humans a thing or two.

Works Cited

Albert, S. (Presenter). (2015, September 8). Anthropomorphism and Anthropocentrism. Lecture presented at University of Ilinois, Urbana.

Albert, S. (Presenter). (2015, August 27). The Science and Biochemistry Behind the Human-Animal Bond. Lecture presented at University of Illinois, Urbana.

Bekoff, M. (2012, October 31). Chapter One The Case for Animal Emotions and Why They Matter.Retrieved from Nature website: http://www.pbs.org/wnet/nature/animal-odd-couples-excerpt-the-emotional-lives-of-animals/8005/

Ted Talks. (2014, August 21). Laurel Braitman: Depressed dogs, cats with OCD — what animal madness means for us humans [Video file]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vNIrPeRGlM