Prajantr, Thoughts and Wanderings

I think I understand Chris’s point, but I don’t agree with it. I think how we treat animals says a lot about humans as a species, and, in fact, sympathy for other species may be one of many things that makes us different. At the same time, wasn’t there just a little news piece about a cat allowing a puppy to feed from her? If a CAT thinks it’s ok to take care of a “helpless” member of another species, why shouldn’t humans, who have so many more resources available to them? To my mind, charity to animals is a way to help those who can’t speak for themselves, and to account for changes humans have made to the animals’ environments and even physical makeup for many domestic animals.

For example, my parents love little foo-foo dogs – these were bred to love humans, but that’s about all they’re good for. They’re not going to do well on their own, and I think that means we have a certain responsibility towards them bc we (as a species) bred them for a purpose.

And, well, yes, I’m a sucker for big eyes.

Dear Prajantr,

Don’t worry; I won’t be back. Just leaving the last post on NYC GG. I’ve enjoyed reading your blog, and I wish you all the best.

[content removed]

Hi Prajantr, thanks for adding to the conversation.

I can’t say that I would go to such Herculean efforts for any and every dog (well, I know I wouldn’t because that would be impossible), but this dog was practically part of my canine family, so I did what needed to be done. That’s all

That particular entry ended up being my most commented on post ever… it was quite a surprise. I was very surprised that anyone could be so bitter about an act of kindness, but the conversation was (mostly) a educational one.

I agree with you that none of the kind acts we undertake are a waste and I intend to continue helping whichever living things (be they human or not) cross my path needing help that I can provide!

[content removed]

I swear, I don’t know why I can’t let this go; it’s just I think many people use their dogs as opiates, or a means of escaping interaction with humans, by developing a sort of counterfeit love for them, and it depresses me. It’s accepted in science (this is nothing I’ve personally come up with) that dogs behave “lovingly” towards humans because they evolved in the wild to have certain social structures and certain hunting strategies. Dogs live and hunt communally and their survival strategy is a tight-knit pack with a hierarchy where every individual knows who is boss to it and who it can boss around. Dogs are pack animals and are subservient to a pack leader; in the domestic environment, the human is the pack leader and the dog does what it is told. What appears to be faithfulness is the submissive behaviour of an animal evolved to be social.

Kaos isn’t exactly mourning her lost master Benedict. Not now that she’s taken up with a new “pack.” I mean, if dogs truly loved us, we wouldn’t have to walk them on leashes. But we do–we have to enclose them in fences or restrain them to make them stay with us and not band up with other packs.

This probably says it better than I can:

“For everyone—dog owners and non-dog owners alike—loving human beings is difficult, unpredictable, and often disappointing. Dog love is safer, perhaps more satisfying: Dogs can’t betray us, undermine us, tell us they’re angry or bored. Dogs can’t leave.

Our voiceless companions, dogs are a blank canvas on which we can paint anything we wish. When it comes to love, that’s a powerful temptation. Are dog and human love compatible? Dog love can lead human beings away from one another and from the painstaking work of coming to terms with our own species.”

I have a big soft spot for animals, but I think I’d have to agree at least partly with Chris…

I’ve met several people from bad backgrounds, scary home situations. The hurt, the pain that radiated from their wounded hearts is haunting. Compassion is an essential human trait, but with humanitarian efforts stretched so thin, I wonder if we should be focusing on human beings.

Part of what he said really hit home because I’m a shy person and it’s not easy to build relationships with people. It’s certainly easier to stay home and play with the dog, but withdrawing from other people just isn’t an option!

Getting off the soap box now…

I don’t know, Prajantr; nothing about this vanity project seems like a worthwhile effort to me. The time, the money, the harmful fuel emissions released into the atmosphere in dragging the poor animal across the eastern seaboard, the distress caused to the dog, the subsequent dismissal of her (after one day) by the fairy-tale-esque, ahem, “forever family” after she failed to conform to the white-washed, humanized, well-trained baby doll image she was supposed to have, and, now, a house full of unhappy people, their displaced and terrorized pets, and a confused dog as the pawn in the center of it all.

Wouldn’t it have been better to let the poor creature be humanely euthanized and rest in peace rather than dragging it across the country so people could congratulate themselves on a rescuing a dog?

Ok, this is where I take offense.

You don’t know me. Prajantr does, and can very well attest that I would never dismiss a dog for absolutely no reason whatsoever. Nor did we expect her to be the perfect dog, for there is no such thing.

You also do not know this dog. What would be crueler than “dismissing” her to a better situation would be to keep her with us, and it would by FAR be crueler yet to have her euthanized. Some people are introverts and are uncomfortable in large groups. The same goes for dogs. Kaos is simply better geared for an individual dog type household.

Believe me, if there were no risk involved in rehabilitating Kaos, we would not be looking for a BETTER home for her. But there IS risk – my children.

And if you want to attack me, you do it to me, and not through one of my best friend’s blogs that you supposedly “left behind” 3 weeks ago.