I think many of us concur that the President-Elect made a pretty excellent speech last week. Here’s the text, in case you want to read it over and roll it around in your brain a little, which I definitely did. (Here’s McCain’s, by the way, which I thought was pretty classy.) But there’s a section of the speech which stuck out, which was his confirmation that he would make good on the promise of getting a dog for his daughters. (Hopefully the first of many campaign promises he will fulfill.)

Now, I didn’t think this was that big a deal, but I underestimated the American obsession with fiddling in each other’s lives. Apparently, numerous polls have been carried out to determine what kind of pet the Obamas should get, and comment threads across the Internet erupted last week with discussions about the Presidential Dog.

I was pleased to see a lot of calls for the Obamas to adopt a shelter dog, which is what I personally hope that they do. I’m all about them adopting a shelter dog for a number of reasons.

First of all, I think it sets a powerful example for the rest of America. I think that dog breeding is despicable, and that anything which reduces demand from breeders is a good thing. By adopting a shelter dog, the Obamas will show Americans that, hey, if you want to be like the President, you go to the pound for a new pet. Furthermore, if the Obamas adopt a mixed-breed shelter dog, they will forestall the inevitable rush to the breeders for a “dog just like the Obamas have.”

My exception to the shelter dog rule would be, of course, if the leader of another country made the gift of a dog to the Obamas. (I know that Queen Elizabeth II, for example, breeds corgis.) You don’t refuse a gift from a foreign leader, and even though the gift of a purebred animal would probably increase demand for that animal in the States…you don’t refuse a gift from a foreign leader.

I would really love it if they would consider a special needs animal, such as an older dog, or a dog which requires special medical care, but I can understand, when you’re adopting a dog which will ostensibly belong to two young ladies, that you might want a younger, healthy dog. You can’t win ‘em all. And just choosing a shelter mutt is a huge positive step.

If we’re going to be subjecting every aspect of the Obamas’ lives to careful scrutiny, it means that The Dog is going to become a Big Deal. And I think that presents a great opportunity to remind Americans of the millions of homeless cats and dogs who are euthanized every year because no one wants them. I know that animal rights wasn’t really part of the Obama Platform, but no more homeless pets is an important goal, and I hope that he considers integrating animal welfare into his policies as President.

It’s been said that you can judge a lot about a person by the way that person treats animals, and the same holds true for nations. (Here in California, we value the welfare of certain farm animals more than equal rights for gays!) Improving conditions for pets would be awesome, as would improving conditions for animals raised for food. Making changes in the food production system in this country is critical anyway for national security, but reforming it to have a tougher stance on animal welfare would also improve our position internationally. In the European Union, conditions for farm animals are much better, for example.

We’ve made huge strides in the last 20 years when it comes to animal welfare, thanks in no small part to the dedicated efforts of people in the animal rights movement. People can actually be severely punished for animal cruelty, for example, which is terrific. But there’s a lot more work to be done. And now is always a good time to do something for animals.

In his speech, Mr. Obama said this: “I may not have won your vote, but I hear your voices, I need your help, and I will be your President too.” It would be nice if he could hear the cries for help from those who cannot speak, and be their President as well.

I’m not going to do this for every proposition on the ballot, but I am going to do it for a few key props that I think are important. Two is important for a variety of reasons, not least of which is that it will set a bar which other states can use as a standard. By voting yes on two and saying that we support more humane conditions for animals raised for food, we are sending a message to the industry, and to other consumers.

For those of you who aren’t familiar with Proposition 2, is “requires that calves raised for veal, egg-laying hens and pregnant pigs be confined only in ways that allow these animals to lie down, stand up, fully extend their limbs and move around freely.” There are some exceptions written into it, of course, but there’s also a fine for violators (which would offset enforcement costs).

Before I get into why two is important, I want to dispel two myths about this proposition.

It is not mandating free-range conditions. I wish it was, because that would be awesome. But apparently people are under the impression that two throws out the cages altogether, allowing animals to live in a happy, natural way. No. It sets out some mandates, which are still less strict than those used in the European Union.

It will not “increase the risk of bird flu.” There’s a lot of misinformation about this, coming primarily from the meat lobby. Scaremongers want voters to think that a yes on two is a yes to bird flu, and it’s not. In fact, it’s a no to bird flu, because the more cramped and confined the conditions are, the higher the incidence of disease. I still can’t understand why people believe the lies being put out by the opposition, but apparently they do.

So there are three primary reasons to vote yes on two: animal welfare, human health, and the environment.

From an animal welfare perspective, two greatly improves the atrocious conditions on factory farms. Animals raised for food should at least be able to move. A lot of people worked very hard to get two on the ballot, and while I would like to see more stringent welfare protections for animals, it is a very good start. By forcing the meat industry to create more humane conditions in California, we will pave the way for better conditions all over the United States. And remember, the European Union has even tougher laws, and their meat industry is clearly doing just fine. So don’t let people tell you that humane treatment is “too expensive.” Preventing cruelty to other living beings is never too expensive.

From a human health perspective, a two vote is obvious. The better the conditions animals are raised in, the less incidence of zoonotic disease. Less cramped conditions mean less use of antibiotics, which means that antibiotic-resistant bacteria aren’t going to be bred along with meat animals. I really don’t know how to map this out any more clearly, people: two will decrease the risk of zoonotic disease.

Two is also good for the environment, because confined animal feeding operations make a big, gross, stinky, harmful mess. The more confined, the more gross things get. It’s that simple.

So, if you care about animals, human health, or the environment, you should vote yes on two! Yes to more humane treatment of animals, yes to reduction of zoonotic disease, and yes to preservation of the environment!

The New York Times has a great fluff piece (forgive me) up about men who live with cats. The basic thrust of the piece is that single men are a growing demographic of cat guardians, and, you know, “isn’t that interesting?!” But I think the article speaks to some deeper issues in society, not the least of which is that people are starting to recognize that dogs suck.

Sorry. What people are starting to realize is that keeping a dog confined in an urban environment is inhumane. Dogs in the city may be trendy, but it’s rather unkind to keep a dog, especially when you are a single professional, because the dog is locked at home all day, and rarely gets enough exercise, and is generally frustrated. Dogs are high maintenance, working animals. They are not meant to live in hipster apartments. For single city dwellers, cats are definitely the way to go.

Also, they really do suck.

Anyway, I thought it was an interesting article, because in addition to exploring the obvious advantages of cat ownership over dog ownership (cat owners who go on trips fill the water bowl and head out, dog owners must find a pet sitter, cat owners don’t need to walk their animals to poo, cat owners don’t need to worry about barking, etc etc), the article was also an exploration of masculinity.

I think that the nature of being a man is really changing in American society, and making some pretty radical shifts. Not being a man, I don’t want to get too in-depth here, but I think that a lot of these changes are pretty obvious. Our expectations of men are changing, as is the definition of what a “good” man is. And cats, as this article points out, are part of that shift. Cat people are very different from dog people, and besotted cat people are even more different.

As the article points out, cats have been associated with some of the most rugged, manly men in history, like Hemingway and Twain. Yet, in the late 20th century, cats came to be regarded as effiminate pets, even though they really aren’t. So it’s neat to see cats worming their way back onto the laps of single men, especially since, being a cat person, I don’t really like to hang out with dog people. There’s a fundamental difference in mindset between people who like capricious, independent, free-thinking animals in their homes, and people who like needy, whiny, high-maintenance animals around.

Cat people like spontaneous trips, and they are perfectly fine doing their own thing. Dog people need rigid order, and lots of planning, and they must adhere to schedules to satisfy their pets. I’m glad to see cat men on the rise in the world: after all, they say that God created the cat so that man might caress the tiger.

Do we think it would be passive-aggressive of me to anonymously leave a citronella collar? Or a shotgun shell?

They don’t actually get less obnoxious the more they bark. In fact, they might be accused of moving me to a murderous rage. I’m just sayin’. I’m just hoping this is a visting dog, not a permanent acquisition, or I might be moved to Take Steps.

Dear Local Wildlife (Or Dogs),

Please take steps to ensure that the following exchange never needs to happen again:

(1:04:24 PM) meloukhia: There’s a head in my yard
(1:09:28 PM) Tristan: ?
(1:09:43 PM) meloukhia: I’m kind of hoping that if I don’t think about it, whatever dragged it in will take it away again.
(1:09:56 PM) meloukhia: However, I would kind of like to water the garden, so I am facing a bit of a dilemma.
(1:10:02 PM) meloukhia: Also, I don’t really have space to bury a head.
(1:10:12 PM) meloukhia: Maybe I should toss it over the fence!
(1:11:07 PM) Tristan: um, what kind of head?
(1:11:36 PM) meloukhia: It looks like a possum.
(1:11:53 PM) meloukhia: I didn’t really examine it very closely, it was one of those “hey I’m going to wander out onto the porch with a cup of tea and OH MY GOD A HEAD!” kind of moments.
(1:12:02 PM) meloukhia: And some vertebrae, and some fur.
(1:12:09 PM) meloukhia: As I say, I really didn’t investigate much.
(1:12:20 PM) Tristan: dude
(1:12:28 PM) Tristan: well I’m off to soak my nuts
(1:12:37 PM) meloukhia: Uhm, that sounds lovely.
(1:12:42 PM) meloukhia: I guess I really should deal with this head problem.
(1:12:44 PM) meloukhia: It’s just. Ugh.
(1:12:45 PM) Tristan: (for soy milk)
(1:13:32 PM) meloukhia: Why me
(1:14:06 PM) meloukhia: Ok, afk burying a head.

Seriously. Please. Let me never say the words “afk burying a head” EVER AGAIN. If you’re going to kill/eat things in my yard, clean up after yourselves.

Thank You.

Also, someone else was using the shovel, so, I still have a head in my yard. If any of my local readers happen to be coming into town and happen to have a shovel handy, please let me know. Because, ew.

The New York Times Magazine had a great story this weekend on the prescription of psychiatric medicine to animals. It’s kind of a long story, but it’s actually worth taking the time to read it, because it’s a fascinating tale of pharmaceuticals, shifting attitudes toward animals, marketing, and American culture. Seriously. Go read it. I’ll wait.

In recent years, we’ve been seeing a market shift in the way people deal with animals, and veterinary medicine has progressed by leaps and bounds. During my time in working in veterinary clinics, I definitely started to notice a change, as specialty procedures started to become more and more available, and clients were willing to pay for them. Today, many of the cutting edge treatments people can get are also available to animals.

And I think that’s pretty neat, personally. I know that some people disagree with me, and I respect their reasoning, but I regard animal life as very important (despite my logical inconsistency of eating meat, which I point out in the interests of full disclosure). I think that pets matter, and that it’s awesome that there are so many treatment options available to them.

Of course, the flip side of this is that veterinary medicine has become a major industry, and there are some big bucks behind it, especially in the world of small animal care. (In large animal, I would argue that racehorses eat up far more money than most small animals, but racing is such an industry that it’s kind of not a fair comparison.) And it seems that in addition to consuming ever-growing amounts of money, small animals are also starting to have the same problems their humans do.

Or are they?

The lead in the article is a story about a neurotic dog who is prescribed psychiatric medication. I have to admit that the story made me roll my eyes. I’ve known a lot of neurotic dogs, and what they needed was proper training and a firm hand, not drugs. Apparently we treat animals the same way we treat hyperactive children now; instead of getting to the root of a behaviour problem and dealing with it, we decide to attempt to medicate it out of existence. I was glad to see this issue highlighted later in the article, in the interview with Dr. Ian Dunbar.

Yes, animals do have emotions and feelings, but I wonder if medicating them is really the solution. I feel the same way about people; I’m a big fan of other modalities of treatment, with mood-altering medications being used as a last resort. Yes, these medications can be very valuable, but if the underlying cause is not addressed, the problem is not going to be resolved.

I think that the Times article really speaks to the convenience culture that we live in. You want a dog? Awesome! You can make the dog fit into your lifestyle, and if the dog becomes a problem, you can just medicate it. Or dump it, if things really don’t work out. You want a kid? Awesome! You can totally keep living just as you are, only with a bonus baby! And if the baby becomes a problem, just medicate it, or hire a nanny.

I can’t decide whether to be happy that pets are being treated as equals, or sad that both pets and children are treated like commodities which can be slotted into a lifestyle as needed.

It was a quiet night at the clinic when the dog came in, trembling with shock, with most its femur snapped clean in two and sticking out like a broken bone in a comic strip. The vet techs assessed the dog in the backseat first, noting numerous lacerations, the dog’s protruding eye, and a host of other injuries, the kind of things which tend to happen when a dog is hit by a car.

The dog was rushed through the waiting room and into surgery while the family milled around, wondering how much it would cost, and eventually the vet came out to give them an update, and to talk about decisions.

Hard decisions have to get made a lot in veterinary hospitals, and the family conferred for a moment, and then said “yes, do whatever it takes, just save the dog,” and the vet suggested that they go home, because the dog would be in surgery for hours, and they did.

The man who was waiting quietly for something in the corner stepped up to the check-in desk after the family left, and asked the receptionist if the dog would survive. “Probably,” was the answer, and the man wondered how much everything would cost, and “a lot” was the answer, and he pushed his credit card across the counter and said “I’ll pay their bill.”

The man was probably thinking about the little girl’s shoes, so worn that her socks poked through, and the boy’s oft-mended pants, the man’s stooped back and the women’s worried face. He was thinking about their beater car and the heavy laborer’s boots the man wore.

“Don’t tell them,” he said, “who I am. Just tell them it’s taken care of.”

And it was, and the man paid his credit card bill without comment when it came.

Paying other people’s vet bills doesn’t seem like an obvious way to help save the environment, but it’s all about the bigger picture here. Helping others, I believe, helps save the environment, because it’s a reminder that we’re all in here together. And you don’t need to run up a multi-thousand dollar credit card bill to do it. Helping others can be painless, and free, and sometimes very easy, and sometimes you can even help the environment while you help others.

One of the biggest problems with the modern “green” movement is the steadfast refusal to accept that people from a broad range of backgrounds and social classes live on this Earth. And an act of mercy, or charity, or simple goodness can go a long way. “Practice random acts of kindness,” the bumper sticker says, and it’s a motto to live by, because if we are kind to each other, it reminds us to be kind to the Earth.

In case you’re wondering, the above story is, in fact, true. It took place in the veterinary clinic I worked for in the summers during high school. The dog underwent multiple surgeries, including a surgery by a canine orthopedic specialist to save the leg, and survived to live a long and healthy life. The clinic respected the donor’s request to remain anonymous, although the family did send him a thank you card, care of the clinic; I don’t think they ever even saw the final bill.

Remember the downer cow scandal? It seemed like every major media outlet had horrific pictures of downer cows on their front pages, and the undercover video taken by the Humane Society of the United States was everywhere. A lot of people seemed to think that it would spark some major reforms in the American meat industry, including tighter agricultural inspections, and a more aggressive attitude about keeping downer cows out of the food supply.

Well, apparently not everyone got the “major reforms” memo, because the HSUS has come out with another damning investigation, complete with video, which shows that downer cows are still being abused, and they are still reaching the American food supply. If you can stomach it, watch the video which accompanies the article, because it’s pretty awful, and I think it cuts to the heart of the problem.

Why should we care about downer cows?

It might help to know what a downer cow is, if you somehow missed the media brouhaha over the issue. Downer cows, simply put, are cows which cannot get up. This can be due to injuries, disease, depression, or a host of other factors. In the United States, as in many other nations, downer cows are not supposed to enter the food supply, out of concern that they might carry diseases, especially mad cow disease. So, slaughterhouses will go to great lengths to ensure that cows “walk” to slaughter, so that their meat can be legally sold.

I would hope that the issue appeals to your basic humanity. Cows are living organisms with emotions and the capacity to feel pain. Dairy cows undergo years of abuse before finally being sold for slaughter when they can no longer produce, and the fact that they are shocked, kicked, beaten, and dragged to get them to move at livestock auctions and slaughterhouses is pretty disgusting. Happy cows, my friends, do not come from California.

It should also be ringing food safety alarms. Downer cows are kept out of the food supply for a reason; the fact that they are clearly in the food supply now should be a cause for concern. Eating meat at all is debateable for a lot of reasons; eating tainted meat is definitely not a good thing. Given the limited resources available to the USDA for testing and monitoring the food supply, you really have no idea what’s on your plate when you eat meat.

What can you do about it? Write the USDA to lobby for tougher routine inspections, and to ask for stronger laws against abuse of slaughter animals. Write your representatives in Congress and the Senate to ask them to support tighter regulations at the USDA, and make it clear that you want to see reforms in the American meat industry, and consider writing major slaughterhouses in your area to express your concerns about animal abuse and downer cows.

Talking with D the other day, she asked if I had noticed “the bunny article” in the New York Times, and it took me a minute to figure what she meant, but then I remembered. I had, in fact, seen the bunny article, or rather glanced at it but not really absorbed it, and I admitted as much.

Basically, the article is ostensibly about doing battle with garden pests, except that it focuses more specifically on the pests of the upper classes, New Yorkers with second homes and so forth, rather than the garden pests of people who, you know, actually garden for food. To eat. Now, we all know that I’m a class snob, so I have a rough time mustering up that much pity for poor little rich people, but class issues aside, when I started delving more deeply into the article, I found myself pretty disgusted.

Garden pests happen, and it is really annoying. My father is constantly doing battle with the birds, deer, bunnies, and gophers in his garden, and he uses a variety of techniques to keep them at bay, including wiring, gopher traps, and a little pellet gun which he uses to scare the deer off. It’s frustrating to have one’s garden invaded and ruthlessly destroyed, especially when the animals don’t even bother to eat it, so I do sympathize with the complaints in the article. And I’ve even done my fair murdering of garden/farm pests, like raccoons which attacked our chickens, and gophers which devastated our garden. There are few things in this world as depressing as walking into the garden to pick snow peas and seeing the plants yanked, one by one, into the ground by greedy gophers, who seem to wait until the peas are at their peak before they strike.

The thing is, I don’t agree with the way the people the article profiled chose to handle their pest problem. Drowning? Bashing their heads in with hammers? Have these people not heard of humane pest management? Worse, the article seemed almost to be celebrating the ruthless attitude of these people (some of whom asked not be named, which suggests that they are aware that their activities are, you know, not really acceptable). People even talk about the “spiritual journey” involved in cruelly killing their garden pests, as though drowning squirrels in lotus position makes it better, somehow. Indeed, it seemed almost as though the article was designed to soothe the aching consciences of those who kill perfectly harmless and sometimes beneficial animals because they’re bothered by them. The whole article is like an orgy of death, with a final one-off briefly discussing more humane pest management techniques.

Look. I have no problem with killing garden pests. But I think that it should be done quickly, humanely, and with minimal impact to the environment. And, as many of the 325 comments posted before they closed comments pointed out, when you colonize former rural areas with disgusting suburbs, you shouldn’t be too surprised when animals move in on your garden. And you shouldn’t be killing things like snakes, which are beneficial for the garden, or birds, which are also beneficial. Furthermore, tormenting animals to death is seriously sick; and I don’t mean this in the “oh, not the cute little animals” way, but in the “serial killers always start with torturing animals*” way.

The comments section associated with the article exploded, with everything from ghoulish stories to shrill condemnations, but some of the middle ground comments were really interesting. For example, a woman mentioned that she had a serious bunny problem, so she planted clover around her garden. The bunnies ate the clover, and left the garden alone, and everyone was happy. I thought that was an interesting and humane approach to the problem which showed a spark of innovation and a desire to live more harmoniously with nature. Another commenter said she just planted a few extra things each year to accommodate for pest-related losses, which I think is a reasonable approach for a kitchen garden.

As many of the comments pointed out, it’s kind of funny to hear people with second homes bitching about the problems they have, and it’s even funnier when those second homes are in nature, but the owners want a sanitized version of nature. The truth about nature is that it fills a vacuum, whether it’s a vanity garden planted in a second home, or an empty lot in the city. I suspect that some of these people secretly bear their pest battles as a badge of authenticity; they’re so in touch with nature, they’ve even killed it! And, in one instance, taken the brave “spiritual” step of eating it! They’re so in touch with nature, America’s family farmers should just turn in their union cards now.

One of the more idiotic problems with the article didn’t become apparent until D pointed it out to me; the rabbit used in the header photo is a domestic rabbit. As in, a pet. Several of the comments also brought this issue up, somewhat more stridently than they really needed to, since the article certainly didn’t promote cruelty to house rabbits, or anything, but the point is that the Times didn’t even take the time to use a more appropriate graphic, like, say, a deer. Or an actual wild rabbit. Or a squirrel, or…something. I also note that the original title of the article was “Peter Rabbit Must Die,” and it magically changed to “Garden Vigilantes,” setting a very different tone than the first version.

Fascinating, I tell you! Simply fascinating.

*”In fact, the American Psychiatric Association considers animal cruelty one of the diagnostic criteria of conduct disorder.” (HSUS First Strike)

(Henry Makepeace will be returning next week.)