Unwanted pets

Dick Murray

Abstract

Western culture places unusually high value on the lives of companion 'types' of animals. Our society's horror of death is sometimes displaced to include death in pet animal species also. The great anxiety expressed by some people about the fate of discarded 'pet' type animals is not surprising. It is because of this kind of anxiety that humane societies have long argued that subsidised neutering must be a better way to deal with the unwanted pet problem than having to rely on various methods of mass killing. Optimism about subsidised neutering as a remedial measure for this animal welfare problem, however, has faded over the last decade. A number of reasons for this are suggested. Alternative remedial approaches are discussed.

About the author

Richard Murray
176 Thuringowa Drive
Kirwan QLD 4817
Telephone (077) 734 115
Facsimile (077) 231 043

Dick Murray is well known for his contribution to Urban Animal Management, particularly as a consultant and as the Editor of the proceedings of the first national conference on Urban Animal Management held in Brisbane in 1992. He is an antagonist of 'learned helplessness' about integrating pets into society, and has the following comments to make.

There is no doubt that pet ownership is a very important quality of life issue in Australian communities. Boon or blight - the impact of pets is significant. Boon or blight - it all depends on the competence and commitment of responsible pet owning citizens.

The day to day work of a veterinarian like myself, practice in the area of companion animal care is basically about providing services for responsible pet owning citizens who are considerate of their pets. Though demanding, I personally find this work rewarding. It seems an inherently good thing to be able to help people fulfil their part of the 'pet - owner' bond of companionship.

The day to day work of Animal Control Officers in Local Government is also about enhancing pet benefit. The difference is that with Urban Animal Management we are talking about pet benefit in a community rather than an individual sense. We are talking about providing services for responsible per owning citizens who are considerate of their neighbours.

The former service tries to guarantee pet care while the latter tries to guarantee per access. I am as interested in Urban Animal Management as I am in Companion Animal Practice. Both are important. I think it is true to say that if Urban Animal Management cannot improve and ensure community pet tolerance into the future, pet access will be the casualty.

I don't think any of us want that.

Back to Urban Animal Management Conference Index

Back to Petnet