Since I started writing these articles, I have addressed a number of items that I thought might generate some serious pushback. I’ve risked antagonizing people of faith by suggesting that we should have a secular society and that we should eliminate the tax advantages provided to religious communities of all types, Christianity included. Churches, I said, are not truly charities and shouldn’t be treated as such.
I harshly criticized the policies and performance of the Trudeau government, pretty much trashed Pierre Poilievre as a snake in the grass, and characterized the NDP as whiny impractical dreamers.
I’ve tried to burst the balloon of all those die-hard optimists who are waiting for Fusion power to solve our energy problems. I’ve taken a shot at the space cadets who foolishly believe that escaping Earth and living elsewhere is a practical solution to any of the problems that arise from living on this planet.
I thought surely the rabidly anti-vax community would be upset by my series of articles on the conspiracy theories that surround the practice of vaccination.
None of those articles has cost me any friendships yet. This one could be different.
In this one, I’m going to tell you that culture, practice and beliefs around pet ownership are trending past quirky to downright ridiculous. My son and his wife have a small menagerie that they are managing in parallel with raising their two daughters. I have to hope that he isn’t going to disown me. I have a good friend who is heavily absorbed in pet rescue. I may have to buy him a beer. Statistically, it’s very probable that more people reading this will have a pet than not. And to all of you, you’re not wrong – the choice is yours. But I think the way society as a whole is treating pet ownership is changing in unfortunate ways.
It’s not that I dislike animals. I can pet a cat and make it purr or scratch a dog behind its ears and all that. Some pets are quite engaging when they’re not chewing on your ankle. But I don’t want the pet’s schedule to be what determines my schedule in life. And I have never found it edifying to follow a dog around and pick up a steaming pile of crap in a plastic bag. I don’t like dog and cat hairs on my furniture and I’m sometimes reminded that the dog with which I’m sharing space on a sofa probably didn’t wipe his ass the last time he defecated. So, no I don’t want a pet of my own, thank you very much.
When I was growing up, we had a dog on the farm. It ate scraps and whatever it caught for itself. We never bought dog food. We also had a bunch of cats (mouse control central) which ate what they caught, supplemented by regular feedings of fresh milk in the barn at milking time. We didn’t buy cat food either. My mom spent much of her “spare time” knitting socks or mittens for her kids because she couldn’t afford to buy them off the shelf. There was absolutely no chance, in our household’s economy, that there would ever be money for veterinary care for the pets. If a pet needed to be euthanized for any reason, we did that. As humanely as we could, but we did it.
Coming from that background, I find myself often amazed to find that people are investing thousands of dollars in veterinary care for pets that have cancer or congestive heart failure or hip dysplasia. An article in VetMD discusses a whole range of treatments for the latter, ranging from diet supplements to steroid injections to hip replacements. Given the limits on a dog’s life expectancy, is it really reasonable to spend up to $7000 US (it was an American publication I found) to extend that dog’s life a few years? I know what I’d do. It might be a sad farewell to the dog, but it would be a very definite farewell to the dog.
We’re told that there are more than 28 million pets in Canada, spread across almost 80% of our households. An article published in 2022 estimated that there are over a billion pets worldwide, with an expanding pet population driven by “the expansion of the middle class in emerging markets.” More people can afford a pet, so the pet population is increasing steadily.
But can people really afford the pets they’re taking on? There’s a Canadian dog lover’s website called Rover.com, which estimates that the lifetime cost of having a dog will range from $17K to $54K. In broad strokes, that’s 1/3 medical care, 1/3 food, and 1/3 other (kennels, toys, training, electronic fences, poop bags etc.). And remember that since that dog might live about 11 years in a household on average, you’d have the opportunity to spend that money three to five times in your pet-owning years. Is that really good, rational decision-making? Is that $80K to $250K better spent on your dogs, or your kids’ education, or a new roof, or…?
Pets have always brought out weird behaviour in the affluent and powerful. The more affluent and powerful, the weirder the behaviours. The famously cruel Roman emperor Caligula had a horse that wore a bejewelled collar, drank out of a golden bucket, and wore a saddle cloth that gave the horse the same status as a Senator. (A horse’s ass becoming a Senator – who’d have guessed?!). Napoleon Bonaparte’s mistress Josephine had a pet orangutan which she dressed in girl’s clothing and which dined at the table with her and Napoleon. The composer Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had a cherished pet starling. Upon its death, he “staged a full-on funeral for it, complete with a reading of an original, heartfelt poem. The service was reportedly well attended.”
Well, you might say, those behaviours are excessive. Modern pet owners are not like that. And here’s the problem. I’d say we’re doing things that aren’t all that different. We’re trending that way, and it’s distasteful and maybe even dangerous in that it encourages people to do the wrong things.
I’ve read articles referring to the “the emergence of a new “pet culture” based around the increased humanization of pets.” Another said “the humanization of pets, as pets are now part of the family.” I’ve seen many references to “our fur babies” or “pet parents”. We “adopt” a pet, rather than buying it. We’re doing what Caligula did with his favourite horse – we’re elevating its status such that pets achieve a different importance in our decision-making matrix.
As a consequence of that social and cultural pressure, an owner of a dog that was suffering from congestive heart failure wrote “As Demi’s dad, of course I’ll do what I have to for her well-being.” I would suggest that “Demi’s dad” is a horse’s ass who needs to reassess his priorities.
A survey conducted by PetSmart charities identifies that 77% of Canadians surveyed said that they would forego meals rather than fail to feed the dog. Over fifty food banks in Ontario are used to distribute pet food to families in need, so pet ownership is supported by charitable donations.
I have news for all of you “fur parents” out there. These are not your children. Even if you’ve been engaging in deviant activities that need not be discussed here, these are not your children. And I believe that the idea that they are family members is a notion that is being hammered into your consciousness by the pet food industry.
The pet food industry in Canada is worth about $7B a year. In the United States, the total pet industry revenue was $152 Billion in 2024, with about $66B of that being pet food and “treats”. A veterinary medicine report identifies that in 2022/23, the total economic output for veterinary care in Canada alone was $15.7 Billion with about 60% for small/companion animal practice. Pets are big business, and I’m telling you now that we’re all being manipulated to make that business ever more profitable.
I’m sure you’ve all seen this “Fresh Pet” commercial, which makes my case brilliantly. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp0KBkum8Ug My sympathies are all with the girl in this case. No, I don’t want dog food in the fridge with my dinner. At the end of the commercial he’s sitting comfortably on the floor having dinner with his dog. He’d better get used to it, because he’s never going to get a woman. What a dork!
I’m going to throw in some quotes here. They come from a guy named John (The Dog Guy) Wade, who wrote an article telling us that words like “fur baby” and “pet parent” matter.
– “I do not refer to bringing a dog into a household as adoption, but instead as a purchase.”
– “terms like ‘pet-parent’ or ‘fur baby’…in recent years it has become to transform into animal rights language/doctrine where ideologists are trying to tell dog and non-dog owners how they should live with, love and train dogs.”
– childless couples that declare that their dog is ‘family,’ …. when they have a child of their own they receive a wake-up call and learn that up until that point they knew very little about what constitutes a parent’s love. It’s not that they stop loving their dog, it’s that through the birth of their child … they have (for the most part) revealed to them that they have a far higher capacity for love then they were aware.
– “not so long ago when a dog behaved aggressively towards a child the dog was almost always immediately removed from the home and more often than not, the gene pool. No one liked doing it, but it was done because it was the right thing to do…. People in yesteryear did not put dogs down because they didn’t love those dogs. They put them down because they loved their children more.”
– Another group is pet product marketers. They have begun to jump on the bandwagon using terms like fur-baby and pet-parents. It has emotional appeal, and they must believe that if they virtue signal they will influence the consumers for whose dollars they hunger.
– Words influence society which influences law and policy creation….I think it’s time to stomp on anthropomorphic language.
I couldn’t agree with him more! These animals are pets, not family members; dogs and cats and geckos and snakes, not humans. I don’t think society or culture should demand of you, or expect of you, that you pay for expensive treatment that you really can’t afford because you owe it to this “family member”. Bullshit. If that’s your child or your mother I expect you to do everything within your power to help them fight a cancer, for example. If it’s your dog and you would rather put the money into your kid’s RESP, then pay for a quick and merciful ending and be done, with my blessings.
The two most commonly expressed reasons for having a pet, especially a dog, are 1) that it’s good for your physical health and 2) that it’s good for your psychological/emotional health. To the first one I would say that if you really want to exercise, you don’t need a dog to walk. Just walk. Carry an empty leash if it feels better. A little self-discipline would get you out there, and you’d get a better walk because you could go at your own brisk pace. You wouldn’t be dragging a yapping Chihuahua at half the speed you’d like, nor would you be having your shoulders dislocated by the antics of your rampaging Rottweiler. In short, the dog is not the reason you exercise.But the exercise is your weak rationale for having a dog.
The second reason is pet-owner bible. People will insist that pets (dogs especially) are great for your mental health. A systematic review of scientific literature published in 2021 takes issue with that accepted truth. Having reviewed 54 scientific studies they concluded that “when focusing on the impact of pet ownership on mental health, the results were variable and not wholly supportive of the benefit of pets on mental health.” The mental health impact of pet ownership was judged “positive” in 17 studies, “mixed impact” in 19 studies, “no impact” in 13 studies and “negative” in 5 studies. Conclusion? Pet ownership isn’t a magic formula for stress relief and the elimination of depression, sadness or loneliness. It might work that way sometimes, but for many people it’s not all it’s cracked up to be.
So, the reasons to have that pet, (other than you thought it was an incredibly cute kitty), are pretty weak. On the other hand, there are several reasons not to. They are expensive, they can help spread diseases, they sometimes affect people with allergies, they are often unsanitary, and sometimes they cause you trouble and stress when you need it least.
In a big picture perspective on the issue, we are using the resources of Mother Earth to support a billion essentially non-productive animals. And each of those billion little animals contributes to the greenhouse gas problem in two ways. First, there is the CO2 produced by the agricultural processes by which pet food is created. And second, the animal ingests food, inhales oxygen, combines the oxygen with the organic molecules in the food, and breathes out CO2. One estimate says that the global CO2 production of the pet food industry would be about 60th on the list of greenhouse gas emitting countries.
I’d like to discourage you from having pets if only to buck the “pets are wonderful and essential” propaganda to which we are being subjected. But if you insist on having a pet, please don’t elevate it to the status of household god. Think of it as a mostly harmless parasite that you’ve decided to tolerate because it amuses you.
Ok – over to you. Take your best shot.
13 responses to “My Pet Peeve”
Well, I think you’ve finally qualified as a curmudgeon. Congratulations! I’m not sure whether it supports or contradicts your arguments that several surveys reportedly have found that many pet owners are fonder of their pets than of their relatives. (Well, it might say something about their relatives, too.) They also find their relationships with their pets more fulfilling and less troublesome than human relationships. (Surprise, surprise.) At least it might explain why some pet owners are so willing to spend so much money on their pets. Times have certainly changed since we were kids, when you might pay for a vet to care for your ailing horse or your cows — both of which had economic value — but never for a dog or cat. How do you feel about pet rocks?
Thanks as always, Ed, for your comment. “They also find their relationships with their pets more fulfilling and less troublesome than human relationships”. The systematic literature survey, which I referenced in my article indicated that there are in fact surveys that say things like this. But there are also surveys that say quite different things. The conclusion of that article was that if we really want to know more about the mental health impact of pets, we need to have some better designed studies.
How do I feel about pet rocks? I’m never calling a vet for my pet rock. A geologist perhaps…
Well I have been a prt owner of both a cat and a dog. They provided me with affection and a certain amount of amusement. When the cat got thyroid disease at 18 years of age I had her put down. When my dog who was a beautiful animal got glaucoma I read some stuff that suggested he was in a lot of pain and the only real option was to have his eyes removed. I felt the best alternative was to have him put down. Others may feel he would have been quite happy as a blind dog but I didn’t know if I could deal with it. I miss both my pets but at my age I am not looking to have anoyher pet that might outlive me and I do find it easier to not have to deal with the cat or dog hair and feces.
Well Kate, your animals achieved a fine old age, and I think your decisions to end their lives when you did were sensible and pragmatic. I’m sure you miss them, but I think you did the right thing in both cases. I can’t imagine why anyone would ever have their dog’s eyes removed as a best treatment option – awful for both the dog and the owner. Thanks for commenting.
Dogs provide unconditional ❤️. Where else do you find it?
Dogs listen to every word you say and think you are brilliant. Where else do you find it?
In Portugal market this morning at butcher. Guy in front of me was getting scraps fir his husband cat. Woman in front of me got huge bag of scrapes for dog. In old days these scraps would have ended up in landfill, any time you can divert waste to a good use is a good thing
Disappointed in your short sightedness
Unconditional love, my ass. Dogs love the human who feeds them and shelters them and takes care of them. The conditions are specified brilliantly in the cartoon that I provided. You look after me and sure, we can be friends.
I’m very happy to hear that scraps are getting used in the Portugal market. That’s pretty much exactly what we did on the farm, and how we fed our pets. That’s a far cry from the ”scientifically formulated” products that the pet food industry are marketing by making you feel guilty if you don’t provide the very best for your “fur baby”.
I don’t think it’s shortsighted. I think that we’re seeing a cultural change in the status we assign to pets, and I am happy to draw that to your attention.
Thanks for the comment Harland. Hope you’re enjoying your visit to Portugal!
Harland replied to my response. It was brief, and it was accurate. He said “ Same argument can be made for your kids. The only reason they love you is that you feed and shelter them. Maybe true but sad outlook on life.“
I don’t know that it’s really a sad outlook on life. It’s realistic, and pragmatic, and a good message for parents. If you are abusive, or neglectful, you should understand that have not earned, and have little reason to expect, the love of your offspring.
Living in a neighbourhood where the closest 7 homes to ours contains 11 dogs, we have had enough exposure to most of the symptoms of ‘amthropomorhism’ that anyone should be exposed to! I get accused of not being a dog lover when I smirk over the $5K expense for back surgery for a 12 year old miniature poodle. Likewise, I get a cold shoulder when I look quizzically at the next door neighbour who can’t go golfing because he is watching the “kids”. They have 2 dogs. Coming from a family that spent a short time breeding Labrador retrievers for competitive sport shows, I do appreciate your farm history. We, as kids, also had our favourites in a litter but never went to the extent of adoption of a new brother or sister!! They are pets. It is an egregious error in my opinion, to characterize the pet relationship as ‘unconditional love’. It is a trained response analogous to mice in a maze finding the cheese. They will do it repeatedly after a while. Thanks for suggesting very succinctly how short sited it is to imply this could be a template for human relations.
Hey Dan, thanks for the comment. I suspect people of our age are more likely to feel like you and I do, and younger people are more into humanization of their pets. I’ve done no research on that opinion split, but I’d rather suspect that’s how it falls out. And I also rather suspect that the difference in opinion as a generational thing is mostly about conditioning… brainwashing. The culture that says these critters are furry little humans just wasn’t present in our generation.
Well Dennis, I am pretty much aligned with what you’ve written about “fur babies” and the excessive expense related to care and feeding of pets. I think you were very restrained! For example, you did not bring up the horrific waste of bringing rescue animals from Mexico to Canada, as if we don’t have enough strays and mongrels of our own. And you did not castigate people for spending all of this money on pets when they could be helping to cure cleft palates in children around the world. And I don’t think you ripped into those people who keep dangerous dogs (and dog breeds) which are responsible for some horrific attacks, and even deaths. (Why don’t these people display their masculinity with a nice old-fashioned American muscle car instead of having a Rottweiler compensate for their own lack of balls?!)
So, if you are cast out of human and fur-baby society for your pragmatic views on pet ownership, rest assured that you will have one brother-in-arms willing to take you in off the streets and save you from the ravages of stray dogs and cats (and attacking Rottweilers!).
Well, Terry, that’s why it’s good to have Brothers. Someone to back you up if and when things get nasty.
I’d forgotten that story about rescue pets being flown in from other jurisdiction. I forget the details was that from Mexico into Canada or from Mexico into California?? But wherever it is… It’s a damn silly idea in my opinion.
I struggled about whether, and how, to respond to this comment (but kinda had fun doing so), so here goes.
I’ll start though by echoing your irritation about dog “moms” or “dads” or “parents”. That drives me nuts too.
Overall, though, in respect of pet ownership, you say “the choice is yours” but less than convincingly as you then go on to express amazement on the amount people (“idiots”) are willing to spend on their pets. I expect you have no problem if someone spends their money on a Mercedes rather than a Honda, that’s their choice. If someone spend thousands on international travel, if that’s what they like, good for them. That you spend thousands each year chasing a little white ball, that’s your call. But if you have a pet that ends up costing you thousands, you’re behaving irrationally. The choice is yours but you’re an idiot if you make that choice. A touch judgmental. The point being that it’s my money (and time) and I should be able to spend it on what gives me the most pleasure. I can’t really, as a non-Mercedes owner, judge the reasonableness of your enjoyment of your Mercedes. A similar rationale applies to non-dog owners assessing the enjoyment dog owners receive from their pets. The fact that you don’t think its reasonable to spend thousands to extend a pet’s life, (or buy a Mercedes), that’d be up to you. But that’s my call, and money. Yes, you say “the choice is yours” but disdain for that particular choice is evident, e.g., “a horse’s ass who needs to reassess his priorities”.
In the comments, you take the position that “Unconditional love, my ass. Dogs love the human who feeds them and shelters them and takes care of them” and another commenter (is that a word?) argues that a pet’s so-called “unconditional love” is only a trained response that can’t be analogized to human relations. ChatGPT would beg to differ as would literally millions of dog owners. Look at the different behaviour of dogs versus cats (and I realize I’m throwing cats under the bus here). Maybe not unconditional love but far more than just food motivation. And, lastly, in any event, even if you were to be right, is that so bad? People take great comfort in their pets similarly to those who take great comfort in their religion despite not being able to prove the existence of god.
Pontificating about pets when you don’t own one is like lecturing on the raising of children by the childless.
Some other comments.
You mention that almost 80% of households own a pet. The wisdom of crowds suggests that they might know something you don’t. Arguing that the behaviour of Caligula, etc. has morphed into pet owner behaviour being “dangerous” encouragement for people “to do the wrong things” is a little over the top.
You have a problem if a pet is “adopted” rather than “bought”? Really? Ignoring the major linguistical issue of what to call it if the pet is free from a shelter, your conclusion is that by using language like adoption means we’re “elevating its status such that pets achieve a different importance in our decision-making matrix” – what?
A donation of pet food to a food bank constitutes the conclusion that” pet ownership is supported by charitable donations”? “Pets can help spread diseases”. A “mostly harmless parasite that you’ve decided to tolerate because it amuses you”. C’mon, really? Admit it – now you’re just trying to yank our chains. (See how got that dog analogy in!)
You complain about the pet food industry trying to manipulate us to make that business more profitable. Like that’s unique to the pet food industry! Loved the FreshPet commercial by the way. Your conclusion is that he’s a dork, mine is that she’s high maintenance – what’s the big deal about dog food being in the fridge? What, you’re afraid its going to transmogrify and infect all the other food in the fridge? Also liked the FreshPet mobster ad https://musebyclios.com/advertising/the-mob-rules-in-mafia-themed-freshpet-ads/ .
You argue that we shouldn’t be using the resources of Mother Nature to support pets. For a human being to make this argument is beyond hypocritical.
There’s only been one President in the last 100+ years not to own a dog. Guess who? You are not in good company.
Please buy your pet rescue friend a case of beer or bottle of wine on me.
Lastly, in the interests of full disclosure, had dinner last night with a couple of friends, a doctor and a lawyer, who were telling us about the birthday party they had for their dog and its 7 littermates. Shoot me now.
Hi Peter. Thanks for taking the time to respond at such length and with such invigorating pushback. I almost don’t know where to start.
You’ve asserted that I am being judgemental. Guilty as charged! It’s what I do. I assemble a body of information on a subject that interests me and then I form an opinion and often I render judgements. It would be a damn boring piece if I weren’t a tad judgemental.
Interestingly, I think deep down you agree with my judgement here. You started with the admission that anthropomorphic language about pets like “dog moms” drives you nuts. And you finished with the story of your doctor and lawyer friends whose puppy birthday party left you cringing. So, I think you get where I’m coming from.
I think you know where I’m coming from because I doubt that anyone of our generation ever experienced this kind of pet “humanization” as part of their upbringing. It just didn’t happen. And therefore, it’s a new phenomenon. And where did it come from?
Well, some of it comes from the sharing of cultural ideology on Facebook and X and whatever other internet venues exist out there. And what those culture centres do is normalize ideas. You say “Puppy daddy” a few times and the term gets re-used just because it’s short and pithy and easier to say than “I look after a dog”. And then it begins to assume a different tone, so that instead of a metaphorical parent/child relationship, it begins to imply something more like an actual parent/child relationship, with all the responsibilities that apply to parenthood.
And the rest of it comes from the pet industry trying to normalize the expectation that “Of course you would do everything you could for your pet”.
I don’t think I actually said that people who spent too much money on their pets were idiots. I may have thought it, but I’ve reread my piece carefully and I don’t believe that’s in there. With respect to your plea that those idiots have a right to spend their money as they please, I don’t disagree. My suggestion to them, though, is that they should reach deep to understand their own motivation. Are they spending their life’s savings because they really cannot imagine life without this pooch? Or are they doing it because they don’t have the balls to admit that they chose to put their pet down rather than pay a fortune for a cancer treatment for it? Are they responding to social pressure from their Facebook friends and from the pet industry marketers?
I referred to Demi’s “daddy” as a horse’s ass not because he chose to do something stupid that I thought was far beyond what was necessary. I called him a horse’s ass because he thought it was an absolutely expected behaviour, and that he really had no choice in the matter. He’s a friggin’ sheep, just following the pet industry herd.
I remind you that the notion that anthropomorphic language change the decision matrix around pet care was echoed by my friend John (the dog guy) Wade. If you talk about pets as being part of your family, on much the same level as your children, then euthanasia becomes anathema, doesn’t it? And yes, that changes the decision matrix.
I do want to address the food bank thing a little. Some (most?) of the pet food available at food banks is provided by PetSmart Charities of Canada. I see two things wrong with that.
First is that the head of the family which is so poor that they have to rely on food banks to feed their children should think about getting rid of the menagerie that is helping to keep them in poverty. Yes, I’m being judgemental – but for goodness sake you owe your children more than you owe the cat.
And second, it burns my ass to know that Revenue Canada treats PetSmart Charities (and probably others of like ilk) at the same level as the Canadian Cancer Society or donations for the Women’s Shelter of Bruce County. You shouldn’t get a tax refund for buying pet food. You’re diverting money away from a thousand more worthy causes.
Two last thoughts. I really don’t give a crap whether US Presidents own dogs or not. You’ve alluded to the fact that Donald Trump doesn’t own a dog. I remind you that Richard Nixon rather famously did. One’s as bad as the other.
Finally, I respect your willingness to euthanize cats if necessary, but I advise you that there are better ways to do it than throwing them under the bus. You are a nasty man!
Dennis