Counter-Point:
Respecting Our Companions by Not Killing Them

by P.J. McKosky

The Declaration of the Rights of Animals, a document signed by numerous national animal advocacy organizations at the first March for the Animals in 1990, states that one of the rights that animals should be granted is "the right to live free from human exploitation." An animal's right to live—and to do so free of human-inflicted exploitation—is a major underlying goal in our movement. Yet our noble words and intentions are overshadowed by the fact that more than six million healthy animals are slaughtered (albeit "humanely") in shelters across the country every year, often with either our movement's vocal support or passive indifference. The ongoing killing of healthy animals in shelters is rooted in the shelter system's own speciesist presumptions, and it is perpetuated by our unwillingness to look outside of the status quo to find creative, humane, and non-lethal solutions to the overpopulation crisis.

Imagine if homeless advocates recommended the euthanasia of homeless humans as an acceptable solution to their suffering. The vast majority of people of conscience would, in horror, reject that notion immediately. Likewise, most would be shocked to find that the defenders of a violated group would also be that group's executioners. The alleged defenders would soon lose credibility with the general public, as they became inconsistent within their own value system. This is precisely what many in the animal movement have done. How can we claim to be working towards justice for animals when we are physically responsible for, or at least supportive of, the killing of healthy beings who desire to live?

The idea that killing is the only option currently available is an invalid one, for even when alternatives exist they are often rejected. The ongoing debate over feral cats and trap-neuter-release programs is a perfect example. Instead of rounding up feral cats and killing them, we could just as easily trap, sterilize, and release them. The issue is that we do not fully understand the lives and desires of nonhuman animals. Who is to say that a colony of cats, free-ranging domestic rabbits, or any animal for that matter would rather be killed in the name of a "humane death" rather then be allowed to have a chance at a risk-filled life? As sentient beings, we all have the possibility of an uncertain future in common. Yet, we do not kill those of our own species who are at risk of great suffering. Instead, we attempt to get to the root causes of unnecessary suffering and exploitation.

Like victimized women who are blamed for their sexual assaults, healthy companion animals are "blamed" for their misfortune every time we decide to be their executioner. It is time we stop punishing the victim and, instead, focus on ending the overpopulation crisis. Through aggressive spaying and neutering campaigns, increasing foster home programs, expanding advocacy work instituting mandatory spay-neuter ordinances, as well as ending the selling and commodification of dogs, cats, and other companion animals, we can resolve the overpopulation crisis. When we provide an easy way for animal guardians to be irresponsible by taking in their animals and killing them for free, we become nothing more than overpopulation-enablers. We give the general public an easy way to be irresponsible and to remain inconsiderate to animal interests, allowing the cycle of suffering and death to continue.

The traditional shelter establishment has often spent more resources defending the ongoing killing of healthy beings than in finding ways to ending the tragedy. This must change. The goals of alleviating unnecessary animal suffering and preventing premature death are not mutually exclusive.

P.J. McKosky is an animal rights activist who resides in Takoma Park, Md. He has participated in grassroots activism, wildlife rehabilitation, and companion animal rescue for several years.

	Editor's Note
The opinion's represented in featured editorials are not necessarily the views of COK. We welcome any discussion or comments inspired by the Point/Counter-Point essays. Send letters and editorial submissions (with contact information) to: EDITORIAL, c/o COK, P.O. Box 9773, Washington, DC 20016 or info@cok.net.

Previous Page | Index