Essay:Why Pet Ownership Should Be Abolished

Yes, I *am* indeed a supporter of animal rights, which yes PETA is too, and thus am opposed to animals being the property of humans. So by extension I am against the pet industry. The point of this essay is for me to make this argument and clear up the "animal rights and pet ownership" issue.

The Problem

The institution of pet ownership has caused far more suffering to animals than it has provided good lives for them. As PETA poignantly states, “For every lucky dog or cat who has a comfortable home, nutritious food, and loving guardians, countless other dogs and cats are suffering at the hands of incompetent or abusive people, struggling to survive on the streets, or waiting in animal shelters for a good home.” This reality underscores a critical dilemma faced by animal rights advocates.

While many supporters of animal rights love their animal companions, we argue that the existence of pet ownership is not in the best interests of animals. The widespread practice of domesticating animals has led to an overpopulation crisis, resulting in millions of unwanted animals being destroyed each year as “surplus.”

This desire to possess animals and receive love from them leads to immense suffering, primarily due to irresponsible breeding practices, casual sales or giveaways, and the deprivation of their natural behaviors. Domesticated animals, such as dogs, cats, and birds, are often confined to human homes where they must obey commands and can only eat, drink, or relieve themselves at human discretion. Though domesticated animals retain their basic instincts, they cannot survive in the wild; thus, their strongest desire for freedom is stifled as they are kept in houses, yards, or cages for their safety.

In the best-case scenario, many pets enjoy loving homes, but the reality is starkly different for countless others. Millions of dogs spend their lives outdoors, chained in all weather extremes, or confined to tiny pens where they can only watch the world pass by. Many more are kept in filthy wire cages in puppy mills, forced to breed continuously until they are either discarded or euthanized. Even in “good” homes, cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes and often have the tips of their toes amputated through declawing. People have no problem leaving their pets at home all day while they go to work instead of getting a pet-sitter. Dogs often have to drink water that has been sitting around for days, are hurried along on their walks, if they even get walked, and are yelled at to get off the furniture or be quiet.

The public is often shocked to learn about the cruelty animals endure. Compassionate individuals struggle to imagine someone throwing a litter of kittens from a moving car, yet organizations like PETA document horrific cases of abuse. Animals have been shot with arrows, burned, tortured in dogfighting rings, and subjected to various forms of brutality. These abuses occur daily, highlighting a pressing need for change.

In an ideal world, our focus would be on protecting the habitats of other species, allowing them to thrive in the wild without human interference. However, we must confront the consequences of domestication. Many animals bred to be pets lack homes, and while animal rights supporters often provide refuge for unwanted animals, the reality is that the pet industry perpetuates an overpopulation crisis.

Pets are ultimately considered property. Dogs, cats, hamsters, rabbits, and other animals are mass-produced like commodities, while birds and exotic animals are captured in the wild and transported under horrific conditions, leading to high mortality rates during transit. Although some individuals treat their pets with kindness, many others do not. In the United States, most dogs spend less than two years in a home before being abandoned or surrendered to shelters. Over 70 percent of people who adopt animals eventually give them away or abandon them.

Moreover, many who claim to love their pets subject them to unnecessary surgeries, such as ear cropping and tail docking, or neglect them entirely. While a pet owner may treat their animal as a family member, the underlying reality is that animals remain property. Owners are legally protected in their decisions regarding their pets, regardless of how those decisions affect the animals' well-being.

As someone who loves my dog dearly, I do not take this issue lightly. I regard him as a family member, yet I acknowledge that he is still my property; I could make the tragic decision to end his life at any time. Despite my affection for dogs, I do not support breeding them. If only two dogs remained in the world, I would advocate for their preservation rather than increasing their numbers, thereby perpetuating their status as property.

Breeders, pet shops, and puppy mills contribute significantly to the companion animal overpopulation crisis by bringing more animals into a world already overwhelmed with unwanted pets. Each new puppy or kitten born reduces the chances for a shelter animal to find a home. The pet trade treats animals as commodities to be mass-produced and sold for profit, often denying them the socialization, exercise, and basic veterinary care they deserve. This money-driven industry encourages the public to view animals as impulsive purchases—akin to fashion accessories—rather than as sentient beings deserving of love and respect

The Solution

The idea that animal rights activists want to kill or "liberate" people's pets is a fear mongering idea spewed by the right-wing to scare people away from animal activists or make them seem mentally deranged. Not a single animal rights group wants that – I challenge you to find one. (Including the prevailing myth that “PETA supporters think pets are slaves”) Taking pets off their owners would not be feasible or humane. Many would then die on the streets, or probably would just cry to get back to their owners.

So what do we want? We want all pets that are currently owned to be spayed and neutered. We want an end to breeding new pets into the world thus slowly phasing out the institution of pet ownership.

But spaying and neutering violates an animal’s rights, doesn’t it?

Absolutely. But consider the alternative: Unrelentless breeding of companion animals leads to millions being killed in shelters every year because nobody wants them. And that’s the lucky ones – many other animals are left to fend for themselves on the streets.

Sterilized animals live longer, happier lives. Spaying eliminates the stress and discomfort that females endure during heat periods, eliminates the risk of uterine cancer, and greatly reduces the risk of mammary cancer. Neutering makes males far less likely to roam or fight, prevents testicular cancer, and reduces the risk of prostate cancer. Altered animals are less likely to contract deadly, contagious diseases, such as feline AIDS and feline leukemia, that are spread through bodily fluids.

Yes, spaying and neutering companion animals does violate their rights, but the individual impact on the animal desexed is virtually nothing (and can even be great for their health), and prevents a dramatic amount of misery and suffering. The net harm is minimised.

To quote Gary Yourofsky:

Taking away an animal's right to procreate is the ONLY discrepancy in all animal rights philosophy. However, considering the alternative—murdering millions of LIVE dogs and cats in city slaughterhouses every year—I will GLADLY take away an animal's right to procreate..... For the record, since spaying or neutering an animal is a surgery performed with anesthetic, it cannot be labeled cruel even if it is a violation of their right to reproduce.

The Animal Rights and Pet Food Conundrum

It’s a catch-22 isn’t it? Feeding pets meat makes vegans hypocrites, but feeding them vegan diets makes them idiots.

Firstly, both sides of this argument are stupid. Pets like cats and dogs do not need meat to survive, they need the nutrients present in meat to survive. Well-formulated commercial vegan cat and dog food has all the nutrients they need included in them (including taurine for cats - which is already synthetically added to meat-based cat food). So feeding them this food will help them thrive, how could it not?

Yes, feeding a cat or dog a vegan diet consisting of solely vegetables is stupid and will eventually kill them, but if one feeds them commercial vegan food which is formulated with everything they need, then they will be fine.

A Note on “Kill” vs. “No-Kill” Shelters

"Groups Like PETA are hypocrites, they kill animals in their shelters!!!"

Not all animal shelters operate under the same principles. Many fortunate, homeless, and unwanted animals find refuge in open-admission shelters staffed by compassionate professionals. In these facilities, frightened animals are reassured, sick and injured animals receive necessary treatment or a peaceful end to their suffering, and their living quarters are kept clean and dry. Workers at these shelters never turn away needy animals, carefully considering each animal’s emotional and physical needs.

To accommodate every animal in need, open-admission shelters often must euthanize unadopted and unadoptable animals. The alternative—turning them away—is cruel and places the animals in grave danger.

Building enough shelters to keep pace with the endless influx of homeless animals is akin to putting a bandage on a gunshot wound. Turning unwanted animals loose to roam the streets is not a humane solution either; they face starvation, exposure, accidents, disease, or the threat of violence from cruel individuals.

Unfortunately, many lost or abandoned animals end up in pitiful shelters that offer little protection from the elements, often leading to death from exposure, disease, or fights with other animals.

So-called “no-kill” or “turn-away” shelters, such as those promoted by animal rights activist Nathan Winograd, do not euthanize animals because they refuse to accept those deemed unadoptable. While this approach may seem compassionate, it compromises the safety of animals by leaving them in situations where they are unwanted. Many are left in waiting lists or end up in the care of irresponsible individuals, where they face neglect or abuse. Some may not even survive the journey out of the shelter’s parking lot.

Animals accepted into no-kill shelters may spend months, years, or even their entire lives confined in cages, becoming increasingly withdrawn, depressed, or aggressive—further diminishing their chances of adoption. The conditions in some no-kill shelters can be deplorable. When these facilities reach capacity, they are forced to turn away animals in need, which can lead to tragic outcomes for those left behind. While it is true that no-kill shelters do not euthanize animals, this does not equate to saving them; the reality is that there simply aren’t enough good homes or cages for all of them.

A truly compassionate shelter should never turn its back on an animal in need, even if it means taking in those who are diseased, severely injured, aggressive, or elderly. While these animals may have little chance of adoption, a responsible shelter should at least provide them with a humane release from a world that does not want them.

It’s also important to note that the Centre for Consumer Freedom, the organization behind the PETAKillsAnimals website, is funded by the meat and dairy industries, which do not have animals' best interests at heart.

Nathan Winograd advocates for a “No-Kill Equation” aimed at significantly reducing euthanasia rates in shelters. While I agree that implementing these programs would reduce the number of animals euthanized and should be adopted universally, it is crucial to recognize that some healthy animals may still need to be euthanized. Demonizing shelters that must make these difficult decisions is counterproductive and unfair.

“Pets” vs. “Companion Animals”

Many animal rights activists would prefer people to use the terms

1. “Companion animals” instead of “pets”
2. “Guardians”/“Caretakers” instead of “Owners”

For what it's worth, I personally have no issue calling them pets. I would prefer "guardian" or "caretaker" over "owner" though.

Sources

1. PETA's View
2. The Animal Liberation Front's View
3. The Abolitionist Approach's View
4. Gary Yourofsky's View