End petlessness? Yay, a pit bull for every gang banger!
September 20th, 2007
[See my original comment on End Petlessness.]
What is Oregon Humane Society’s problem?
Why on earth are they promoting generic ownership of pets when it is precisely because of irresponsible pet ownership that we have so many abandoned animals? Pets aren’t easy to care for:
Even our own Audubon Society of Portland Sanctuary is frequently visited by families toting no-longer-wanted family pets. […]
The reality for these unwanted pets is an ugly one. Many die miserable deaths in the wild. For some species there are rescue groups, but for many there are not. Many arrive at our doors too debilitated or injured to be restored to health. For others, especially trendy “flash in the pan” pets such as prairie dogs, there are no homes available and they are ultimately destroyed. This is not a reflection of lack of community concern, but rather a direct result of irresponsible pet ownership.
And that’s not to mention the fact that pets, even leashed ones, cause huge problems in terms of pollution and species loss. Particularly for birds:
There are more than 90 million pet cats in the U.S., the majority of which roam outside at least part of the time. In addition, millions of stray and feral cats roam our cities, suburbs, and rural areas. Scientists estimate that free-roaming cats kill hundreds of millions of birds, small mammals, reptiles and amphibians each year. Cat predation is an added stress to wildlife populations already struggling to survive habitat loss, pollution, pesticides, and other human impacts.
It’s not helpful to these causes when the Humane Society advertisement doesn’t even make passing reference to responsible pet ownership, or that cats should be kept indoors, and dogs on leashes. In fact, the parting shot in this little animation is a view of Mt. Hood with off-leash dogs and cats.
And, wait, is the Oregon Humane Society even in accord with the national Humane Society?!!? Check it out:
“Education is key to combating the pet overpopulation problem,” said Stephanie Shain, The HSUS’s Director of Companion Animals Outreach. “Unless people know the facts about pet overpopulation and sterilization, they are virtually helpless to do anything about the problem. […]”
Related posts: The end of ranching (and the need for land use safeguards), View from Harney County, A devastating year (so far) for Oregon and the environment...



10 Comments Add your own
1. gerry | September 21st, 2007 at 9:24 am
The posts on this topic make me feel like you need help picking your battles. The sheer loss of habitat due to growth is the significant land use issue for wildlife, not pets. To think of the Humane Society’s billboards as materially harmful is ludicrous.
The diminishing of public funding for shelters and municipal animal control programs is of more importance than the Humane Society ad. Did you know that there’s no more dog catchers here? What about the shelters? Are they full? How’s their funding? Do you really want to look at the issue, or is it all about this ad and you thinking you’ve found a land use Gotcha?
2. gerry | September 21st, 2007 at 9:25 am
and I meant to include - the racist headline isn’t helping either.
3. Peter Bray | September 21st, 2007 at 9:29 am
How is it racist? Or you incorrectly assuming that when I say “gang banger” I meant “black youth”? That’s not what I meant.
4. Peter Bray | September 21st, 2007 at 9:40 am
Or maybe you are accusing me of being “dog racist” by assuming that pit bulls are predominantly owned by gangsters?
5. gerry | September 21st, 2007 at 4:21 pm
It’s an ill-advised headline and you obviously know it. But whatever. I still say your posts about the ‘end petlessness’ ads make whoever all writes this site look like touchier crackpots than I’m sure they mean to be. Even if ‘they’ is just you.
6. Peter Bray | September 21st, 2007 at 6:38 pm
Sorry, I don’t see the headline as ill-advised.
That said, I do agree that in the grand scheme of environmental destruction that ads promoting general pet ownership probably shouldn’t be such a big deal. That said, pets can and do cause significant damage to local ecosystems: feral cats are single-handedly to blame for driving several bird species to the edge of extinction. And the tropical fish trade is responsible for the death of corals and other surrounding species. And dogs are the leading cause, in many urban watersheds, of pollution.
Besides, this site isn’t meant to only talk about the biggest things going on… sometimes it is the broken windows that need a little attention.
Mixing metaphors, Peter
7. Pete | September 22nd, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Yo, gerry:
What is racist about the headline? The headline takes a shot at the Humane Society for implying (by failing to speak to the responsibilities inherent in owning a pet) that anyone and everyone should have a pet, even a gangbangers. How that is even remotely racist is beyond me. Gangbangers are bad people. Bad people shouldn’t have pets. Duh.
You can’t accuse someone of racism and then offer a pathetic “whatever” when you are challenged to explain the charge.
8. Tensai | September 24th, 2007 at 2:14 am
It appears to be a cheap shot at Michael Vick, who is black. You may remember him as the ex-NFL player who is now going to jail for his involvement in running a pit bull fighting racket.
9. Peter Bray | September 24th, 2007 at 8:07 am
I wasn’t thinking of Vick when I wrote the headline. But even if I was, I still don’t see how that is racist.
Just to be clear, I wasn’t thinking of race at all when I wrote the headline. I don’t know where the original complainer was from, but here in Portland most of the gangbaners that I see are usually white kids from Gresham with pitbull, Rott, or German S in tow.
Leave a Comment
Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed