WITH regard to recent Letters about irresponsible dog-owners and dog fouling, I have a clear and concise answer to the question of what can be done.
I say we ban all pets.
I can hear the derisory sniggers now and people asking what Draconian law would ever see such a nonsensical suggestion come into fruition.
Well, let me put it another way. If you believe in religion or evolution, the general idea is to progress mankind. To nurture and develop, show empathy to others and be the best we can be.
Currently, we fail to get humanity right. Half the world is starving and yet Europe spends roughly £12 billion a year on pet food.
Another startling statistic is that 60,000 children are currently available for adoption in this country, and last year only about 5% received homes that took them away from the care system. Out of those 60,000, only about 1,000 of the 3,000 one-year-olds received homes, and only about 80 children of African origin received a placement. How many people purchased dogs last year — or other creatures that didn’t match with human DNA?
Admittedly, the care system is largely to blame for the hideously low numbers, but we have had long enough to vote for a system that can put things right.
The fact remains people will invite an animal into their home, feed it and pay extortionate and unaccountable veterinary bills, but most of these people would shun the idea of taking someone else’s child into their homes.
You could argue that there is more responsibility and dedication required for a child but despite this immediate and permissive emotional detachment, try telling someone whose dog has just died that it was an insignificant mutt that required very little love and responsibility and its existence on this planet paled into insignificance at the side of a child. They will immediately tell you that they became attached to the creature and they cared for it with impunity, and it quickly became ‘part of the family’. What? Like a child then?
People spend thousands of pounds a year on pet food and vets but fail to have health insurance for their own children or spend a few quid more to send their child to a better school.
I’m not suggesting that parents put their pets before their children, but the four hours a week walking the dog could be spent teaching a child to swim better or learn another language.
Most pet owners will admit they can handle an iguana, a guinea-pig and a horse but not someone else’s offspring. I believe that in order to provide equality and justice to this unfair world, we should denounce the productivity of pets and concentrate on securing a stable future for human beings, regardless of who their parents are.
I’m not saying we should have an immediate cull. But we certainly should stop breeding animals for pets until every human being has received the basic fundamentals of an upbringing and a good education.
Pets are clearly superfluous because they are executing unwanted animals at unprecedented levels. Even Battersea Dogs Home is now putting down at least one dog a week — something it is profoundly against.
Breeders are still making hefty profits from the ‘puppy dog’ sales and convincing weak-minded people that a pedigree breed is a more worthwhile choice of animal. This pedigree breed nonsense makes as much sense as wine snobbery. A pedigree boxer dog provides no more ‘owner satisfaction’ than a dog that is crossed with a number of various breeds. It’s still a four-legged animal with feelings and needs.
As far as this routine of handling dog faeces and putting it in a bag is concerned, I must say it’s rather uncouth and I don’t believe that the human mind is prepared to deal with such a task. It’s unnatural. We don’t even have a propensity to handle our own faeces — except under laboratory conditions and dirty protests — and so I don’t believe that humans should be juggling with dogs turds. It’s a ridiculous concept once you analyse and consider what human beings have become. We’ve become a portal for excrement.
I see these creatures foul the pavement and then a human being — something at the top of the evolution ladder — resorts to picking it up and putting it in a bag before walking to a bin with it. Why would we do this?
Why would we decide to domesticate an animal unless it was therapeutic to a lonely individual who was incapable of emotional attachment towards another human being? And even then, I have to question whether someone who prefers the company of animals is of sound mind.
It’s a crazy notion of procedures when you finally jump down from the coerced civilisation we live in and see this reality in the clarity of wisdom. We should not be treating animals in this way. They belong in an environment outside of our homes, unless we intend to eat them. When does an animal constitute a food?
I often see a sign that asks what Jesus would do. I’m pretty sure that if Christ returned to Earth, he would not have any part in this manifestation of dog faeces. He would be throwing up in a bucket at the idea of how low human beings have stooped.
Upon asking how we have been getting on over the last 2,000 years, someone would turn to the Messiah and utter: “Look my Lord, we’ve even invented a scoop that retrieves dog defecation.” Can you imagine his rage?
Here we are, 2,000 years after the crucifixion, page upon page of religious scriptures, Gothic cathedrals erected in his name, hundreds of years of holy wars and conflicts, and we are progressing the evolution of the pit bull terrier and managing its toilet, while Africa is riddled with Aids, malaria and starvation.
We should be helping to sustain nature — nothing more — and not providing it with more comfort and food than what the average child in the Third World receives in a lifetime.
There is even such a thing as dog and cat obesity. Can you consider this and say that it is justified and part of a world that makes perfect sense?
Polperro Way, Hucknall.