Comment

Comment by John Wolff on September 17, 2009 at 7:29pm

I once heard someone say, "Animals are people, too", and that sparked a train of thought.

I think a lot has to do with how much we confer personhood status on animals -- what place we allow them in the social hierarchy (we being herd animals, too -- Jared Diamond points out that virtually all domesticatable animals are herd animals -- escept maybe cats -- so they can learn how to fit into a social hierarchy or pecking order). How much of our kinship do we recognize? How much "people" do we let them be?

The Western-Judeo-Christian tradition of Adam being given dominion over the beasts seems to discourage this -- to the point where it sounds jarring to speak of "the other animals" and quite natural to think of them as chattels, slaves, possessions, prey, or varmints. Nature as separate. Nature peoples seem more attuned to our kinship. Now that we've read both of our genomes and see that our code is pretty much the same, altered by time but descended from a common ancestor, it doesn't seem so strange to accord them the status of distant cousins and kindred fellow-travelers.

Look at all the ways people regard dogs: thing, pest, enemy, chattel, slave, tool, toy, pet, companion, family member, intimate friend, even superior. A lot is determined by how much personhood status is accorded the other animal, how much autonomy and dignity we allow it. It's a Copernican thing: how we think about something doesn't change anything, it's just our fantasy... but it changes everything.

I note that the words I chose to describe the above social spectrum are all words used to describe human relationships... because an awful lot depends upon how much personhood status we accord other human animals, too.

Comment by Beth on September 6, 2009 at 8:26pm

Just reading this now.... I really don't agree with those categories. Our dogs are very important to us, and we do a lot with them. We treat them well, but they are dogs and they know they are not little humans. Yes I do value animals, but also see them as part of the food chain and have no ethical qualms about eating meat (though I have issues with factory farms, but not enough of an issue to boycott their products).

I was raised with hunting dogs, and yes they needed to hunt, but the ones who were not-so-good were loved just as much as the best ones, and they lived in the house and got the best veterinary care, love and treats and toys and all the rest. People who work their dogs (hunting, herding, etc) often seem to have an even deeper bond than those who keep them as pets, because they see them as partners and near-equals.

I think there are as many relationships with animals as people have with other people.

Comment by Amanda on September 5, 2009 at 10:55am

I definitely don't fit into any of those categories exclusively. I love my dog like a child and I treat him like a member of the family but everyone, including him, is still very aware that he's a dog. I don't go all out buying clothes (frankly I think clothes on dogs is ridiculous, unless their practical -- like a sweater on a small shorthaired dog in the extreme cold, but for "fashion" I think it's unnecessary and probably uncomfortable to the dog), but I do usually buy him a little something, a little toy or treat, when I go out, just so when I get home he feels like "hey she left but she came back with a toy!" and I think that makes him feel a little better about me leaving even though I don't always bring something back for him.

He's my dog, he's my baby, people think I'm crazy because I feed such expensive food to "just a dog," and why don't I leave him outside? Because to me, dogs are working animals but they're also companions, and I don't think your companion should be left outside by itself. The first dog my family ever had stayed outside and I swore when I moved out and got a dog, he or she would not spend their life alone in the backyard.

I'm rambling now. I'll stop. I definitely believe that you can't stick every dog owner in one of these three categories exclusively, everyone is different and everyone loves and treats their pets in different ways. In fact it annoys me a little that anyone even came up with these...

Comment by Avyon on September 5, 2009 at 10:30am

I think categorizing anything will lead to be wrong. It seems lately that news has been trying to connect dogs to any story and this sounds like its just a filler. If you know dogs and have been around dog owners you already know the different types of owners.. and for anything.. they all differ. Also with the 'interviews' Im sure he interviewed more people but exclusively picked out the ones that worked for his story.

It just depends on the person :)