Dogs & Cats: Out of Balance?

It is estimated that in the United States, more than 9.6 million animals (mostly dogs and cats) are euthanized annually (http://www.americanhumane.org/site/PageServer?pagename=nr_fact_sheets_animal_euthanasia). That equates to about 1,095 dogs and cats that we intentionally put to death every single hour of every single day of the year. Most of this euthanizing occurs in local animal shelters. The good news (if there is any in such statistics) is that this is only 75% of the dogs and only 76% of the cats that entered the shelters. The rest are adopted or reclaimed by their owners.

In most cases, local government (city and county) shelters bear the cost of this. There are non-government shelters. But they tend to not kill animals. If the animals need killing for medical reasons, those shelters generally take them to the local government run facilities, where the euthanizing is more efficient anyway. Studies have been done on the workers who have to do this grisly work. The toll it takes on them emotionally is staggering. Job turnover, as you might expect, is very high. Stress is very high. It's job nobody in their right mind would want. Yet it's a job someone must have.

Why is it that our local governments have to spend millions employing workers for this job of "animal control?" The cost of running the shelters is staggering compared to the revenue raised from adoption fees. So the expense is real. I can't find statistics, but would guess that it could be in the hundreds of millions spent on "animal control" in this country each year. (I'm including the cost of constructing the shelters, vehicles used in animal control, salaries, supplies, food, etc.) Even the term "animal control" seems a little silly. Estimates are that our dog and cat populations, for example, have never been higher. So it would seem that our vast expenditures are truly failing at "animal control."

The simple answer to the question of the need for this cost is that citizens are irresponsible with pets. We don't neuter them, we don't take care of them, we lose them, we dump them and some of us abuse them. Left unchecked, their populations became a threat to human health. They become a nuisance in society. No neighborhood would be pleasant if it were crawling with neglected cats and marauding dogs. So we expect the government to bail us out of this problem.

Now here's the dichotomy --- and it's a big one. Americans' obsession with pets is at an all-time high (http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20071022/sc_livescience/obsessionwithpetsatalltimehigh;_ylt=AuekYwLSP_mcR26FiurFrXKs0NUE). More than 71.1 million homes in the U.S.A. claim at least one household pet. Many claim more than one! That's up 56% just in the last 19 years. Moreover, we are spending more than US$41 billion per year to care for and pamper those pets. And we're not just talking about cat food here. We're talking about therapists for the pets, massages, doggie day-care, spas, make-up, clothes, entertainment, desserts and other treats, toys, etc. That's more than $112 million per day, more than $4 million per hour --- that we spend feeding, caring for, pampering and entertaining pets in this country.

So why is Larry blogging about this today? What is the point? Is he anti-pets? No, I have a chocolate lab myself. But the point is that it may be somewhat out of balance here. $41 billion per year, for example, would sponsor more than 97 million children through World Vision (http://www.worldvision.org/). It would provide housing for 85 million African families. Is it the highest and best use of our money to spend this on our pets --- when these other HUMAN needs are going unmet? That's my issue. I don't believe that this whole pet business is God's will. In fact, I'm pretty confident that we've stepped outside of God's will with our so-called "obsession with pets."

In the Biblical book of Genesis 1:26, history is recorded: Then God said, "Let ... man ... rule ... over all the creatures ..." In Genesis 1:28, after God had created man and woman, He said to them, "Rule over ... every living creature."

I was watching a TV documentary this week, about obese dogs and cats in England. The pet owners were being interviewed and invariable, they would report that the animal "gets whatever he wants." In one case, a dog weighed 200 pounds, the vet was telling the owner the dog would die if she didn't stop feeding it so much. Four hours later, the camera crew filmed the woman feeding the dog 7 pieces of birthday cake! She responded that she couldn't help it, because "it's what he wants and he is just too used to getting whatever he wants." He in this case --- is a dog! Does it sound like she is ruling over this creature? Or has she handed control ... rule ... over to the creature?

Folks, God intended us to be in relationship with PEOPLE --- not animals. Animals were created to serve us. They can serve as beasts of burden, watchdogs, producers of wool and other animal products, trained to serve handicapped people, companions to old people, food, and fulfill many other God-honoring purposes. But they are not to become our families. Anyone who says that their dogs and/or cats are their children, babies or family --- has completely lost sight of God's will for them and their pets.

I have no doubt that this sinful, broken world filled with lost, misguided people, will continue to spend obscene amounts of money on dogs and cats. Meanwhile, humans are dying. Humans are lonely. Human needs are not being met. Could anything make God more sad than to see such travesties unfolding every day? I think not. But I am sure that Satan is having a great laugh at God's expense. Why? Because even the Christians are buying into this nonsense. Even the Christians will neglect each other to favor their "babies."

Lord, deliver us from our pets. And call us to repentance --- to love one another as ourselves. We were never called to love our dogs or cats as ourselves. Wherever did we get this so wrong? How did we become so deceived? We have gotten this so far out of context. How will we ever get it back?