CONTROLLING FOCUS

Below is an attempt to define the focus of what I intend to eventually be a book. There is a great stew of organizations and idea out there, often conflicting and even violent. Time to get some order out of it all -- and maybe some good insights.

Prairie Mary


ASSUMPTIONS AND FOCUS

1. Animal problems must be addressed ecologically -- that is, as part of a complex of geography, society, genomics, and economics.

2. Likewise, the entities that address animal problems must be addressed ecologically, assuming niches for those who are concerned with many different points of focus: kindness to animals, good health, interspecies relationships, safety, ownership, “fancy” or competition, and so on.

3. This particular book will address what is often called “animal control” but which is more properly called “animal government,” that is, animal relationships that are addressed at governmental levels, particularly in the town, city, county and state.

But it is only sensible to examine relationships with organizations in other niches, particularly humane societies which are sometimes contracted to perform governmental functions and sometimes become competitors to animal governmental departments -- sometimes even adversaries. More people do not realize that there are several -- indeed, many -- entirely separate humane societies, each with a slightly different focus that often arises from historical origins. For instance, the American Humane Association originally was founded by Henry Bergh to address the cruelties suffered by horses at a time when horses were considered machinery in the streets. Then the AHA was later expanded to include children, who were also defined as possessions in those days. Their instruments were social workers and the courts, because Henry Bergh was a conscientious middle class citizen.

Quite different is the Animal Liberation Front which the FBI labels a “domestic terrorism threat.” The group is anti-authoritarian, outside government, and resorts to violence in order to shut down any experiments on animals, no matter how justified they may be in terms of benefit to humans.

Different again is the Delta Society, which studies the healing and spiritual relationships between humans and companion animals. And another niche is occupied by what might be called “governmentally sanctioned terrorism,” or paramilitary SWAT teams whose tactics often include killing any dogs present, with particularly appalling results when the raid is made mistakenly on an innocent family.

In short, entities that address animals, whether the USDA or the PRCA, have their goals and must defend their means. Probably none are so vulnerable to public scrutiny and opinion as city or county animal “control.” It may be that “animal” and “control” are mutually exclusive, particularly when including humans as animals.

In any case, governmental animal management in this county must at the very least, proceed along democratic guidelines which demand that the people make their own self-government policies through knowledge, discussion and negotiation. Anything less than that is a trap and a distraction -- to say nothing of being immoral. But the necessary time and expense can make elected officials or civil service bureaucracies very impatient, especially when they think they already know all about it or have already been burnt by such efforts.

One of the defining differences between humane-based societies and animal regulation governmental bodies is that the first is ontological: the controlling criteria is the nature of animals, including humans: their essential nature and basic rights flowing from that nature, such as freedom from suffering or excessive restraint. Animal regulations are teolelogical: they look at societies’ goals: order, safety, minimal interference. Establishing of boundaries, thresholds and exceptions can be quite different if they are guided by these two ways of approaching problems -- sometimes even mutually exclusive.