An article caught my eye this morning about a man in New Mexico who was charged with a felony for extreme cruelty against a dog. The man allegedly stabbed his girlfriend’s dog in the heart, and then marinated the remains of the animal in preparation to cook it. While animal cruelty is a crime in New Mexico, eating dogs or cats is not, and if the defendant is successful in showing he did not act cruelly, there is no consequence for killing a companion animal for food.
These types of cases crop up every once in a while, often accompanied by outrage from some segments of the population over the wanton nature of the act. As always, since the law codifies our social voice, some states have put laws in place to discourage this kind of behavior. In New York, for example, one may not ” slaughter or butcher domesticated dog or domesticated cat to create food, meat or meat products for human or animal consumption.”
But what about other pets that are not cats or dogs. In California, while it is a misdemeanor to possess, buy, or sell “any carcass or part of any carcass of any animal traditionally or commonly kept as a pet or companion with the intent of using or having another person use any part of the carcass for food,” that same provision of the penal code “shall not be construed to interfere with the production, marketing, or disposal of any livestock, poultry, fish, shellfish, or any other agricultural commodity. . .” The exception is worded to protect industrial agriculture, but it raises interesting questions at the pet owner level. If I have a goldfish, can I eat her? The animal is commonly kept as a pet, but she’s also a fish. Granted I’m not in the “production” business, but one could argue I am “disposing” of an animal. Of course, is any one really going to care if I eat a goldfish? What if I stomp on one?
I raise this point again, as I have before, because for all of the progress we are slowly making on behalf of domestic animals, there are so few gains for industrial animals. Moreover, the line separating these categories is nebulous and artificial. Are dogs and cats better because they are more intelligent? Studies show that pigs are just as smart, if not more intelligent than both. Is it because they are more loyal? Some outliers aside, cats are not traditionally loyal. Is it because dogs are less likely to get us sick than those “dirty” farmed animals? Until industrial farming, humans were more at risk of contracting rabies from dogs than they were H1N1. Yet here we have laws that are clearly aimed not at protecting pets, but at protecting certain kinds of predetermined and acceptable pets. Why? Because that’s the norm, not because it is any more morally compromising to eat cats versus chickens.
FDA approval aside, is it really more wrong to eat the cat than the cow? In the New Mexico case, the law’s focus is more on the cruelty of stabbing the dog than the eating. Likewise, many advocates focus on the conditions of CAFOs, rather than the fact that animals are consumed. So why does New York not let me humanely raise cats for slaughter? It’s not news that we’re hypocrites when it comes to animal laws, but our process for determining which animals can be killed for food is always baffling.
Filed under: animal advocacy, animal cruelty, animal ethics, animal law, animal rights, animal welfare, diet, factory farms, Uncategorized | Tagged: animal cruelty, animal law, animal rights, animal suffering, animal welfare, animals, CAFOS, cats, dogs, factory farms, farmed animals, industrial farming |