Pet “Owners” Beware!

Last Friday’s Flashback explained how everyone gets upset when corporations and interest groups employ lobbyists to influence legislation, yet everyone is usually silent or supportive of protests and movements with the similar intentions, especially when they focus on the rights of the underprivileged or oppressed -- even if they are not human. 

 

Politicians cater to these movements, as businesses try to garner favor by caving to their demands. Both worry less about the small percentage with the issue than with their champions who latch on to the cause to show everyone else how compassionate and virtuous they are. Hence, tiny minorities exert disproportionate political and economic pressure. 

 

This dynamic comes up everywhere: in sports, fast food restaurants and grocery stores. They can’t say some things, and the things they sell must have favorable labels. Few have the guts to stand up to the pressure. A friend related that her church lists inclusiveness in their mission statement, but that was not good enough. They must also have a welcoming statement as a supplement to it – apparently you can never be inclusive enough! 

 

Some consider themselves “woke” by giving these movements credibility, while others wrongly shrug them off. They gradually creep into society almost unnoticed while we nap! 

 

In light of this, an article from the Guardian addresses a potential trend that should distress many. The headline runs: “Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes.” 

The suggestion that keeping pets is somehow immoral is backed by a mixture of both rational and emotional arguments. First they state, “recent research into animals’ emotional lives has cast doubt on the ethics of petkeeping.” The author of a 2015 book, Run, Spot, Run, argues against pet ownership in that it “denies animals the right of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they eat, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.” When people tire of their pets or can’t afford them, they simply drop them at a shelter or abandon them. Experts in the new field of anthrozoology argue that this is all a form of cruelty. 

 

When people think of their pet as part of their family – and it’s getting increasingly common to hear neighbors and advertisers use terms like “furry children” or “pet parents” – it further raises moral and ethical questions. “The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single aspect of their lives,” say the experts.

 

Meanwhile, animal advocacy groups are working to change the term owner to guardian in places like Boulder City, CO, San Francisco and Marin County, CA, Rhode Island and other places around the world. This simple change may have both ethical and legal ramifications.

 

Institutions accused of exploiting animals, such as the circus, have come under fire. Animal rights activists claimed victory when Ringling Bros Circus closed. Now the pressure shifts to calls to end, or at least rethink, zoos.

 

A related trend is the switch to vegetarian and vegan diets, not only for health reasons, but for ethical reasons as well. “Veganism is up over 300% in the past 15 years” to almost 10 million in the US. What pressure will come from these groups? Will they be the first to go pet-free for ethical reasons and then begin a campaign to get the rest to follow?

 

Finally, claims that keeping pets is healthy are also under attack. A Finnish study of over 21,000 found cholesterol issues, other cardiovascular health problems and BMI problems associated with pet ownership. “Depression, panic attacks, migraine, and rheumatoid arthritis were more often associated with pet ownership among women. The associations of somatic diseases with pet ownership were more common among aging people, whereas psychiatric symptoms and diseases were more apparent among young people.”

 

Although two-thirds of American households have pets, mostly dogs, cats or fish, be alert for pleas about domination and cruelty, that they are sentient beings with more rights to freedom than the average household can provide. These new norms don’t just happen; they evolve, little by little, creeping into society. And it only takes a small minority with powerful PR to start the ball rolling. (Who would have thought 20 years ago that there would be controversy about listing only M or F on a driver’s license?)

Why Aren’t We Insulted?

When companies and politicians treat us like compete idiots or pander to us by latching on to the latest trends, I think we should be insulted. We are being manipulated, but continue to respond predictably. The latest example that caught my attention was the CNN headline: “Colgate toothpaste goes vegan, organic and all-natural.” Using words like vegan, natural, organic and sustainable are sure to draw in customers, because they are supposedly synonymous with healthy and conscientious. The lemmings fall in line.

CNN continues that the new products “appear to be aimed at the same younger, more health- and eco-conscious crowd that buys from niche, smaller competitors like Tom's of Maine and Dr. Bronner's,” as part of a rebellion against artificial ingredients, a trend that Colgate-Palmolive believes “is making its way to non-food products as well.”

But not so fast! The Only Buy Vegan website objects to using toothpaste that may be vegan in name, but is not also “cruelty-free.” They provide a list of products that meet their criteria, including Tom’s as listed above. But Tom’s is owned by Colgate-Palmolive, which the Vegan Rabbit warns is not a cruelty-free company, because they do animal testing; and you shouldn't contribute to a company like that!

The vegan toothpastes are also “free from all the bad chemicals such as fluoride, SLS, parabens and gluten” and they warn us that regular toothpastes are poison. It’s true, warnings on the package tell us to keep it out of the reach of children and not to swallow more than the amount used for brushing. This is puzzling because fluoride is good for teeth, it’s in city drinking water, and reasonable people don’t swallow toothpaste. Of this list of scary ingredients, only fluoride was listed on my tube of Colgate; and since I don't eat toothpaste, I not worried about being poisoned.

This dental website is reassuring about those supposed dangers. “The benefits of a fluoride additive far outweigh the risks” and “just use 1/3 as much [as they show on the TV ads], the size of a pea.”

However, those vegan websites make it clear that it’s not totally about what people ingest (or brush with). It’s also about animal testing. I suppose that’s fine, but is testing necessarily cruel and is a blanket opposition to all animal testing an informed stance?

As a veterinary science professor once told me, “People who oppose animal research should consider how many of their friends and family could have suffered horrible deaths were it not for cures developed through animal testing.” The Foundation for Biomedical Research points out, “Nobel-winning animal research happens practically every year. In fact, of the 216 award recipients in the Physiology or Medicine category, 180 used animal models in their research.” 

This has led to many important breakthroughs. “Through the development of vaccines and other medical procedures, animal studies have accomplished amazing things, extending and improving the lives of both humans and animals.” The National Association for Biomedical Research details how it has led to significant progress in fighting the five leading causes of death in the world.

Anyone who wants an all-natural, organic, gluten-free solution, need look no farther than the kitchen cabinet. According to WebMD, “That box of baking soda…can do some major things” including holding off tooth decay by using it to brush your teeth and keeping your gums healthy. “A half-teaspoon of baking soda mixed in a glass of water can also freshen your breath.” It’s a traditional solution.

Problem solved, without undue expense. It may even be kind to animals, but be sure to pick the right brand. PETA says  Arm & Hammer is a no-no. 

As long as there are fads and trends, the advertisers and politicians will continue to use their magic words to get us to buy their product or their message before critical thinking has time to kick in. It’s so much easier to live that way, continue to be manipulated and follow the crowd.

Food Labels are Confusing

It began with a local health-news report that led me to the Consumer Reports website. The problem: Food labels are confusing. Not all claims and seals on food packaging can be trusted. 

Consumer Reports wants to help shoppers by making sense of some of the more common labels. But the labels they refer to are the ones designed to lure uninformed shoppers, enticing them to pay more for imaginary benefits like all-natural, non-GMO and organic.

I’ve written before about the science behind GMO foods and organic growing practices. Genetic modification acts as a short cut to the crossbreeding that has been practiced in farming for thousands of years. In some cases it will be the only way to save certain crops from going extinct due to diseases or pests. Organic produce has been tested and found to be marginally cleaner than traditionally grown crops, but if you wash your fruits and vegetables before preparing them, as everyone should, it makes no difference. (See the links for a fuller explanation or enter GMO or Organic in the search box in the upper left of this screen.)

Consumer Reports lists 6 seals of certification rated from fair to excellent: Grass Fed, Certified Humane, Animal Welfare, Non-GMO Project Verified, United Egg Producers, and USDA Organic. A deeper dive tells more about the certification process of each. For example, United Egg Producers Certified is rated fair overall for being very good in terms of verification but poor for animal welfare. Three labels are rated poor: Natural or All Natural, No Antibiotics, Non-GMO.

At a local grocery store I found seven different varieties of large eggs. Prices ranged from $1.09 for one dozen generic eggs in a gray container to $5.79 for a dozen labeled as organic and pasture raised. Priced between them were the cage free; cage free brown; free range; and the no-hormone, no antibiotic eggs. Apparently people will pay five times more for eggs to be reassured that the hens were leading a happy life, frolicking in a pasture. Of course, there is no label to tell how the hens are treated after they reach their 5- to 7-year period of peak production.

These decisions are mostly made by people who have never seen a chicken, pig or cow close up or visited a farm. They get their news from websites like this one that claims “rearing of farm animals today is dominated by industrialized facilities…that maximize profits by treating animals not as sentient creatures…” Each animal, according to them, is a “social, feeling individual capable of experiencing pleasure. The vast majority, however, are only familiar with deprivation, fear, and pain.” (Perhaps they called in an animal psychic or Dr. Doolittle to confirm this statement.)

Another site, with a more realistic and less of a concentration camp concept of farms, contradicts the factual part of the above statements. “About 98% of U.S. farms are operated by families – individuals, family partnerships or family corporations (America’s Diverse Family Farms, 2018 Edition).”

 Is this another form of virtue signaling, paying almost $6 per dozen for eggs because we care so much about chickens we will never meet? It’s no wonder that earlier this month the headline read: Consumer debt reaches record-high of $14 trillion.” As long as the cows, pigs and chickens are happy, what’s five dollars here and there?

Perhaps instead of trying to make sense of the seals and claims to help you understand the meaning behind them, Consumer Reports should have published the fact that most of those are simply marketing tactics playing on the egos, guilt and fears of consumers following the popular sentiment of the day.

What comes in the next issue, how to buy the right saddle for your unicorn?

Dogs Are Not Human

When I took driver-training classes years ago, the standard instruction was “Do Not Swerve for Animals.” If a dog dashes out in the road and you can’t safely slow down to avoid it, keep going do not swerve. The rationale was that your life and the lives of your passengers were more important than that of a dog. It made sense then, and it makes sense now; but attitudes have changed. Is that still the case?

This insurance website reassured me that it is. This report from Washington State last August reinforces its validity: “Multiple-vehicle crash triggered by a dog in the road.” A motorist stopped for the dog resulting in four vehicles colliding and one woman being sent to the hospital. (The Chicago Tribune gave the same advice about deer in November.)

The reason to question it comes from recent articles like this one on December 10: “Man dies after trying to rescue dog from icy pond, fire officials say.” He fell though the ice, but his stranded dog later walked away. What was he thinking? Whatever it was, he was not alone. Look up “Man, Dog, Ice” to find numerous YouTube videos of men saving dogs in icy ponds. This story is typical. “The dog’s owner went out in a kayak to rescue his dog after the pet became trapped.” The kayak flipped, the man fell in the water and was taken to the hospital.

What’s worse is that firefighters and police who risk their own lives to save pets are hailed as heroes, rather than as people who have lost perspective. It’s fine when everything works out, but what of the family of such a “hero” who dies trying to save a dog or cat?

Even worse are those who value the life of their pet over that of another human being. Back in 2014 I wrote about the problems facing officials when residents insist that they choose between their own pets and their neighbors in public tornado shelters. Why would that be a problem? Again, it’s a perspective issue. It’s about values. 

But that’s not all! In 2013 researchers asked 573 Americans to choose which they would save from certain death, a human or their dog. One percent chose the dog over a sibling, two percent over a grandparent, 16% over a distant cousin, and 26% over a foreigner. More than one-quarter valued the life of a dog over the life of a fellow human being.

Today many cities face a feral cat problem. The cats live in the wild, killing birds and small rodents. They can be aggressive. Their bites and scratches can transmit various diseases including rabies to humans or feline HIV, other infections, fleas and intestinal parasites to domestic cats. They also can create driving hazards. And they reproduce.

The proposed “compassionate solution to feline homelessness,” in many places is to trap them, vaccinate them, neuter them, and release them back into the streets. Homeless cats? Even advocates like petful.com and PETA recognize the need for euthanasia in these cases “out of compassion,…[rather than] causing them terror, pain, and a prolonged death by leaving them to struggle to survive on the streets.”

But at the thought of putting a pet to sleep many people, including these catch-and-release programs, get such a lump in their throats that they cannot condone it and will fight to prevent it. Some even argue that all life is sacred and it’s immoral to value one species above another. Tell that to someone battling bedbugs!

Finally, consider the Massachusetts mayor who took his terminally ill dog on a cross-country road trip, as if the dog had a bucket list. Wouldn’t the dog have been just as happy curled up at home? But CBS featured this as a feel-good story on the news. It didn’t make me feel good; it made me wonder whether the whole country had lost its collective mind!

The 1956 children’s novel Old Yeller told the story of a boy and his dog. In the end the dog was bitten by a rabid wolf, and the boy had to shoot it. (We all cried.) But the lesson was that to become an adult, the boy had to learn to make difficult decisions. Today, not enough Americans  have the perspective to consider some difficult decisions or the maturity to act on them.

It’s fine to pretend your dog (or cat) is part of the family, to miss it when it dies and to spend reasonable time and money on medical attention. But some “pet parents” need to get a grip and remember from time to time that dogs are not human.

The Bambi Factor - Part 2

A few years ago I wrote an entry called The Bambi Factor, and for some unknown reason it pops up frequently as a favorite.  The gist of the message was that some people have spent so much time isolated from nature in cities and have been exposed to so many Disney movies that they have lost perspective.  It matters not if animals are pests; their cute and cuddly appearance gives them a free pass.  When someone, who is automatically labeled as cruel and heartless, suggests they be controlled, protests erupt.

When a case goes to court or through some other review process, the smart money is always on the sea otters, the deer, the Canada geese and the cute little bunnies.  Advocates tell us we must love nature and live in harmony with its creatures whose big brown eyes melt our hearts.  The government puts some wild animals on the endangered species list, and protests also erupt when they attempt to take them off or restrict protection only to those areas where they still need it.  Getting onto the list is most often a one-way street.

In all these cases, no matter how reasonable the argument might be it’s a losing battle.  Emotion wins out over logic.  Critical thinking is sidelined.  It’s like dealing with five-year-olds.  Reason takes a back seat to the impulse to protect these poor creatures from harm or distress.

Well here we are about five years after that first post, and we encounter a PETA-sponsored ad during the Super Bowl, an almost laughable display of naiveté.  There is no such thing, they claim, as humane meat production, and current industry practices are unforgivable.

They represent people that apparently think that, except for the interference of humans, bunnies and other animals would spend their lives frolicking merrily in the fields and forest with minimal concern for eating or avoiding predators.  When they reached the end of life, they would peacefully lie down and die – surrounded by tearful friends and family.

They also seem to believe that farmers intentionally mistreat their livestock.  That makes less business sense than manufacturers not maintaining their machines.  Farmers’ livelihood depends on the health of their animals.  This wouldn’t have flown 100 years ago when the majority of the population lived in rural areas and were familiar with farm operations; but today farmers make up less than 2% of the population, and many farms are run by big business, so they are fair game – please forgive the hunting metaphor.

The biggest insult is that they try to use this cartoon-like concept of the world to guilt us into joining the campaign to give up eating meat – happy people, happy pigs and cows.  But take chickens as an example.  Given the choice, they would rather be inside in the cold winter months.  And according to a study a few years ago by The Coalition for a Sustainable Egg Supply, hen mortality in cage-free systems is higher because of the “pecking order” in flocks where the larger hens often peck to death smaller ones.  Actually, humans are more conscious of suffering and cause far less intentional and incidental suffering than the rest of nature.

Now I must apologize to the five-year-olds.  While watching an episode of the Nature series on PBS with my five-year-old granddaughter, she observed, “Nature is about survival.”  That’s a far healthier understanding than some fairytale version of how all God’s creatures live together in harmony, often heard from “mature” adults.

Consequences of Not Thinking Things Through

Sometimes we believe that we are backing a worthy cause or making a good decision, but it turns out (sometimes too late) not to be the case.  Two recent examples in the news are trophy hunting and tax deductibility.  Though they may seem totally unrelated, they share the common characteristic that we tend not to think them through.

They both tend to be political, which makes it all the more important that we fully understand what is going on so as not to be manipulated by the opposing forces.  In these cases I am taking a critical thinking approach rather than taking sides.

In the first case, many oppose trophy hunting as treating animals badly.  There was talk earlier this year of banning imports of trophy-hunted elephants and possibly other species for that reason.  A deeper look reveals a different story.

This article from CNN explains that the major threat facing elephants and other exotic wildlife is not the trophy hunters, but other factors such as loss of habitat, retaliatory killing by local farmers and poaching.  Poachers come at night to kill the elephants for their ivory.  Controlling poaching, reimbursing farmers for crop damage and preserving the savannah requires funding.  A major source of that funding is the license fees paid by the rich trophy hunters.  As long as the hunting is well regulated, the overall impact on wildlife can be positive.

It seems counterintuitive at first glance that shooting a few elephants or lions in a well-regulated way could benefit the larger group, but it’s true.  The writer of the CNN piece admits to being a conservationist and vegetarian who wishes for a different solution, but the revenue ensures positive outcomes for animals as a whole and jobs for local game wardens.  Other sources agree, including The University of Washington’s Conservation Magazine and the National Geographic.  Yet some want to brand these fat-cat hunters as evil men who hate animals and are destroying the planet.

The second example has to do with tax deductibility, which is the subject of a fuss in Washington over a new tax law.  Various proposals intend to double the standard deduction while eliminating different itemized deductions.  But are these deductions as valuable as their backers claim?  Here is a simplified explanation.

A deduction is the amount we subtract from our income before calculating taxes.  If we earn $50,000 and have $15,000 in deductions, we pay tax on only $35,000.  Using a 15% tax bracket, the actual savings is not $15,000, but 15% of that, or $2,250 – still nothing to sneeze at.

But don’t forget the standard deduction!  You must spend that $15,000 to get the benefit, but we can subtract $12,000 without doing anything, which would reduce our taxes by $1,800 (15% of 12,000).  In this example, the difference between having the deduction and not is only $450, or 3% of the total deduction.

Now I don’t know many people who would go rushing to the store for a 3%-Off sale, but that’s not the way it’s presented.  When the state or local government wants to raise your taxes they explain how it won’t hurt you because “it’s all tax-deductible.”  When a charity wants your money they emphasize the tax-deductibility.  When a tax preparer charges $50 for software or over $100 for the personal touch, they don’t tell you that this money saved you only an incremental $450.  No, they stress the much larger number at the bottom of your return, remind you that their fee is also tax-deductible and then urge you to get your money today at their high interest rate.  (Note:  The CPA Practice Advisor says that you should expect to pay an average of $273 in the 2017 filing season if you want to itemize your deductions.)

Elected officials at all levels, charities, environmentalists, tax preparers, animal rights advocates, realtors and many others depend on the majority of us not to think too deeply.  Perhaps some of them aren’t thinking clearly themselves.  But when we just nod in blind agreement, allowing ourselves to be misled, we get poor outcomes and may never realize it.

A Different Kind of Lobbying

Political lobbyists are the target of a lot of bad press, and deservedly so.  Big corporations, unions or other interest groups pay them to get the attention of lawmakers and to persuade them to pass laws or propose regulations that favor their particular industry or group.  Some say that these activities keep lawmakers informed on the subtleties of certain industries.  Better understanding of the dynamics can reduce the number of unintended consequences and those in Congress cannot be experts on everything.

On the other hand, most of the population has the impression that these meetings and lunches are little more than legalized bribes for the rich to disproportionately influence government, an attempt to bring “government in as a partner, looking to see what the country can do for them.”  The auto industry and banks get their bailouts.  The military is given weapons they haven’t requested and don’t want.  In short, to lobby is to try to get your way without regard to what others want or what is best overall for the country.

But there are other activities almost the same as lobbying that most people either ignore or consider healthy.  This came to mind when I came across a news story from England.  It is about behavior in a foreign country, but the type of behavior itself is certainly not foreign to Americans.  In fact it’s quite common.

The controversy arose over the new five-pound note.  When vegans and vegetarians discovered that the new tougher and more waterproof bill was made from a plastic polymer containing small amounts of tallow, derived from animal waste products, they took to social media demanding the contents be changed.  They called the use of even a small amount of animal products not cool and disgusting.  Their rights were being trampled.  Since they were not going to eat the pocket money and the contents were by-products of a food production process that would be thrown away otherwise, it’s hard to see how any harm was done.  It’s not like more animals were being slaughtered.  Yet some circulated a petition, gathering over 40,000 signatures, demanding that the contents be changed.

It’s so easy to click a box and sign an online petition.  And you get to feel good about yourself for caring about an issue that’s important to a minority.  You get to stick up for the underdogs, the victims, people whose beliefs were not even considered when the government tried to make their paper money more durable.  But 40,000 is less than one-tenth of one percent of the UK population and only about 3% report being vegetarian.  Does this even make a difference?

This behavior is repeated nearly daily in America.  People will protest slights against groups they aren’t even members of.  The protests are based on the theory that if they can get a large enough turnout and enough press coverage they can influence the national, state and local policy.  The lure is the same – be a savior, do the noble thing, defend the moral high ground. Feel good about yourself for defending the rights of the victims and the marginalized, even if those rights never existed before and even if the victims aren’t even human.  That’s how they get huge, vocal crowds or thousands of signatures when the issues affect a small minority.

We have seen this mindset recently protesting a pipeline in North Dakota, defending a mountain lion that was killing cattle in California, supporting workers who took on obligations before they could earn enough money to support those obligations, and something about solving a bathroom problem that few knew existed.  This is all about pressure on lawmakers.  They throw an organized tantrum until they either get there way or run out of energy.

It’s also so easy to vote, as the people in Massachusetts did to require that chickens and pigs live in larger cages.  Those in favor of happier chickens spent almost $5 million with small demonstrations and other means to publicize the animals' need for more comfortable accommodations.  Those arguing that such changes would raise the prices of eggs and bacon, hitting the poor especially hard, could only raise $300,000 to try to make their point.  The chickens won and the humans lost, primarily because the emotional appeal of reducing what was portrayed as suffering for the animals drowned out the appeal of helping the poor afford food.  So voters went home from the polls feeling like they had made a difference.

Some of these causes are worthy of attention; some are trivial.  But it all sounds like exactly the same dynamic as traditional lobbying to me.  Based on the theories that past behavior predicts future behavior and that behavior rewarded is behavior repeated, I predict that the future will yield more of this free lobbying compounding the problem.  Lawmakers will feel pressure from all sides, as every special interest exerts as much pressure as they can, either through monetary donations to campaigns, by button-holing at the capitol or by demonstrating in the streets and on social media, as those groups attract supporters with the promise that they will feel fulfilled, compassionate and morally superior.

Personally, I don’t think this second kind of lobbying is any healthier for the country than the first.  But we will see.

Cats Are Cuter Than People

Here is a story from the PBS News Hour about a group of people trying to help with the problem of stray cats.  They endorse neutering the cats instead of euthanizing them as being more humane, a better solution.  The program is called “trap, neuter and return” (TNR).  They are backed by animal rights activists and are working to spread the practice nationwide.  On the surface it seems like a nice cause to be involved with, however, as the story progresses, several flaws become apparent.

It starts with the story of Antioch, California where there are an estimated 17,000 strays, one cat for every 6 citizens.  This is a microcosm of the 80-million feral-cat problem across the US.  Most are wild animals, not appropriate for adoption, leaving euthanasia as the traditional solution.

Cat lovers rally to the rescue organizing “a network of a quarter million advocates who fight for feral cats.”  They boast of changing cat care forever.  The objective of TNR is to stop the breeding of wild cats so there are no more litters of kittens.  They trap the cats in bated cages, neuter them, mark them and return them to the wild (streets, alleys and woods in neighborhoods).  More than 400 cities and counties have adopted this practice raising “tens of millions of dollars” in donations.

But there are problems.  Wild cats are considered invasive predators by the American bird conservancy and others.  “[A] study from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute...estimates cats kill around 2.4 billion birds and 12.3 billion mammals every year – not only rats and mice, but frogs, reptiles, amphibians and other small mammals.  Studies show that even well fed cats in TNR programs continue to hunt, from instinct rather than hunger.  The food used to attract the cats to traps also draws in raccoons, skunks, and possums, all of which may carry disease. 

To address this, Antioch tried to ban the feeding of cats in public, but had to back down due to the public outcry in favor of the cats.

Yet another problem is that experts don’t believe it will work.  “Dr. Patrick Foley teaches at California State University in Sacramento. He says there’s no proof TNR reduces large populations of cats. They just reproduce too quickly.”  He estimates they must neuter 10 times more cats than they do today to be effective.  The advocates’ solution is to pour more money and resources into the program, which “continues to gain political clout.”  By disregarding the evidence, the conclusion is clear.  “When it comes to controlling cats, it’s not only about science. It’s about our emotions.”

Finally, what struck me as the scariest part, but was not emphasized at all, was the mention of groups "wanting to end homelessness – cat homelessness."  Cat homelessness?  Have we run out of homeless people?  I don’t think so.  Yet we have hundreds of thousands of people and tens of thousands of donated dollars dedicated to the problem of cat homelessness. 

These cat advocates are hard working and dedicated.  They have such devotion to the cause that they use their energy and precious spare time to raise money, to feed the cats, to trap them for neutering so as to avoid euthanasia, and to build a nationwide network with similar goals and growing political clout, all the while ignoring expert opinion about the inadequacy of their solution and the damage and potential disease caused by the feral cat population and the program itself.

At the same time, statistics remind us that on any given night we have “643,067 people experiencing homelessness in America” with about 17% of those (just over 100,000) considered as chronically homeless.  Maybe what we need are a few more people lovers instead of cat lovers.  Maybe what we need is a little more perspective in America.