Killing Homeless Dogs v Killing Homeless People

No one suggests killing homeless people, however inconvenient they are.

But convenience is the reason homeless dogs and cats are murdered every day across the country and around the world.

Convenience and cost. People value money over the lives of homeless companion animals. They do not wish to be bothered with providing them food, shelter, veterinary care. It is too much of a burden to train caretakers and advocates, too expensive to advertise for new homes, a drain on resources to spay and neuter.

Much easier to just kill them. And cheaper.

Even some animal people swallow the propaganda of conservatives who cheerlead the extermination.

Newsflash!: dogs and cats are worth more than tax dollars or conservative ideology!

The distinction is based upon speciesism, the belief that some lives are more valuable than are others of a different species. And  the argument can easily be made that people have a greater responsibility to abandoned and homeless animals than they do to homeless and abandoned people,  if only based upon the fact that homeless animals are incapable of helping themselves.

Humans domesticated the dog. They bred dogs to serve them, to keep them company, to entertain them, to protect them, and to work for them. Humans took dogs out of the wild and made it impossible for dogs to survive without humans.

In so doing, human society should be responsible for the entire population of dogs. And for the entire populations of any animals they have enslaved, genetically altered, selectively bred, or in any way whatsoever made impossible for such animals to survive in nature.

Every single one of those animals and their offspring are entitled to be cared for by human society.

Whatever the cost in taxes, staffing, training, and medical care, every single unwanted animal has the right to live, and human society has the responsibility to keep them alive, safe, and healthy, just it has the same responsibility to unwanted people.

We have made animals our slaves and our companions, and their well being is human responsibility.

So long as society continues to possess animals, and so long as our law permits it, so should our law require that food, shelter, and medical care be made available to any animal that needs it.


8 thoughts on “Killing Homeless Dogs v Killing Homeless People

  1. Scott Jackson on Facebook did suggest killing homeless people. He wrote: “It should be 100% legal to kill these scum bags.” He said it in response to this story: (Story about a lawyer with two (2) offices pretending not to know that the homeless can attempt to build adverse possession rights on abandoned property. Pretending not to know that San Diego has a homeless and overpopulation problem; he popped out four (4) babies.)
    The Scott Jackson quoted is at this page:


  2. See, there is a trade-off involved with the ownership of preferred animals, and this standard trade-off is accepted by 99.9 percent of pet owners, specifically of felines and canines, and it is the unwritten or unspoken about or ignorant permissibility of killing one species for another species. This is why I don’t accept the argument we are obligated to find homes for abandoned pets–because it involves a trade-off of one life for another. We are obligated to end this prejudicial arrangement. We are obligated to end the domestication of all animals. We are obligated to return the drama of the wild to them–and, yes, some will not survive. We are obligated to providing them with contiguous habitats. We are obligated to assuming for ourselves a steady-state economy. We are obligated to ending wage disparity. We are obligated to providing a job for every able-bodied person. These are a few of the things we are truly obligated to do.


  3. Yes-kill for No-kill
    For many of us, our relationship with nature involves our consumption of factory-farmed animals and our domestication (captivity) of preferred pets. Our involvement with nature is of condemnation and cherishment. The animals we eat are condemned; the animals we own are cherished. The animals we eat are disposable; the animals we keep are our children. Many species are fated for our tables; other privileged species are welcomed in our beds. We build slaughterhouses for our condemned, disposable animals and shelters for our cherished, preferred animals. Slaughterhouses are yes-kill hell-holes; shelters are (would like to be) no-kill sanctuaries. Our yes-kill slaughterhouses serve our no-kill shelters. This is our standard relationship with nature.

    Yes, we kill one animal for another animal. Yes, we kill many disposable species for a few preferable species. We call the act of killing animals for our consumption natural and necessary, but what do we call the act of killing many species for the purpose of feeding a couple of preferred species? Many of us call this love. I call it the most egregious, prejudicial, heinous, on-going murdering on earth. What is the justification?
    The fallacy is the belief no-kill means no-kill when it really means yes-kill for no-kill.


  4. roland, I totally believe you are correct…I cannot rationalize away our responsibility to care for the living who need a helping hand and an uncluttered mind aimed at and focusing upon ending the hell on earth that all species endure….if we are alive and well, we must engage in THINKING about the disenfranchised and not ARGUING that they do not matter…thanks for your logical and much needed advocacy…that works for all of us…and we are wise to support humans like you and I do!

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Let us understand the continued domestication of animals—particularly of canines and felines—is a choice, not a mandate; therefore, the responsibility of caring for any abandoned canine or feline should fall on those who insist on owning them. Any company (or entity) involved in the production of goods or services for preferred pets ought to pay an excise tax to cover the operation cost of all animal shelters in this country—but this isn’t a solution. Instead of telling me why I am obligated to care for abandoned animals, tell me—or better yet, tell animal owners—why their (pet) ownership ought to be abandoned. We are now arriving to a place where people are electing to own not just one dog or two dogs, but three or four or five. What is complicit in this arrangement is the fact we kill what we might call disposable animals, such as pig, rabbit, pheasant, duck, lamb, beaver, salmon, deer, buffalo, tuna, chicken, elk, etc. to feed or preferred pets, specifically canines and felines. How does any pet owner justify this behavior? I assure you the duck would rather be on a pond than in a tin can as food for a preferred canine. It is rather unbecoming of our species to rank other species in this fashion. Furthermore, the point of my highlighting this prejudice isn’t the hope pet owners will convert their preferred animals to a vegan diet. I take the approach of impartiality and non-interference. I leave animals alone. I don’t eat them. I don’t own them. I try to do the least amount of harm to them by living a Spartan life. I honor the will-to-live that burgeons from the breast of all animals. I will never be complicit in the death of one to feed another—this isn’t my responsibility, and to do so would be an act of prejudice. Still, I realize humans will always manage nature and her animals in some way. I realize we are in conflict with some animals and they are a threat to our existence. In spite of this, I don’t stand separated from nature. I feel much embedded in it, except when on a walk and barked at by dogs who have been dumped (confined) in backyards. What a debacle.


  6. If our species went extinct today, what would happen to the domesticated canine and feline? I suspect some would perish, as animals do in the wild, but I suspect others would survive. I think your historical narrative of animal domestication is too simplistic, but this may be beside the point. I would rather live in a world with just wild dogs numbering in the tens of thousands than in the tens of millions that exist today in this country and continue to grow. We spend billions and billions of dollars for these animals to the harm and exclusion of those in the wild–and human life. Personally, I don’t think my taxes ought to pay for the continued propagation and profit of these animals, but I realize canines are now family members, so it is unlikely this practice of propagation and propaganda and profit will ever change. Sadly, our love affair with preferred pets has many humans committed to their welfare rather than human welfare. A homeless canine is a victim; a homeless man is a “bum.”

    I won’t take responsibility for any sheltered animal fated for death. I would prefer to use my resources with a human. Good luck with ending the pet industry; however, I don’t think that is what you want.


    • I oppose the entire concept of animal ownership, just as I oppose owning people.

      But if companion animals are to be part of society their status should be that of wards, and not property.

      In the interim, we have a moral responsibility to prevent more animals (and people) from being born into a society which cannot or will not extend to them the rights to life, health, and safety.

      And whether you accept responsibility or not is totally unimportant. The responsibility should be borne by government.

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s