The Sad Story of Oreo the Dog

Perhaps you saw this story about Oreo. It’s a sad story and there are lots of things we could say about it. All I know about Oreo’s situation is what I could read on-line and based on that, it appears the ASPCA did the responsible thing.

These sorts of situations, where an animal has been abused, evoke strong emotions and rightly so. Animal abuse is a terrible thing and should not be tolerated. It does seem to me, based on the on-line comments, there are a few things we need to think about a little more carefully.

I was really quite amazed at the commentors who were willing to second guess the animal behavior experts. This is a widespread phenomena in our society and I wonder why we are unwilling to acknowledge the expertise of specialists. I will however, not speculate here about that, but leave the analysis of this to the experts in human behavior.

Many commentors thought Oreo should be sent to a “no kill” shelter. In an ideal world, that would be nice. In the real world “no kill” shelters run out of room and resources. They simply cannot take every animal. For example, read the Best Friends Animal Society’s admissions policy carefully. I’m not being critical of Best Friends, not at all. I do want to point out that the need is enormous and the resources are limited.  By the way, New York City appears to have made commendable progress in reducing the number of animals euthanized.

Other commentors thought the ASPCA didn’t try hard enough to rehabilitate Oreo. I wasn’t there, I cannot know. As the result of all my years as a veterinarian I can say that there are mean dogs, and there are aggressive dogs, and then there are truly dangerous dogs. While there are not many, truly dangerous dogs they do exist and we cannot underestimate or ignore the injury they are capable of causing.

Where ever Oreo went, someone would have to care for Oreo and that someone would be in physical danger- unless of course there was essentially no human contact. But dogs are social animals and the a life time of solitary confinement strikes me as inhumane.

 In an ideal world we would be able to heal every animal. In the real world there are limits to what we can do.  We cannot cure every medical condition and we cannot cure every mental condition. Treating animal behavioral and emotional problems is extremely difficult. We know more than we used to, but there is still much to learn.

Let me tell you about a real situation. When I was in practice, a family brought in their dog who was suffering from separation anxiety. This is a fairly common problem in dogs and it can be successfully treated. We tried the standard treatments without success. The family worked with a local animal behavior specialist without success. We tried various medications without success. They consulted with  nationally recognized veterinary behavior specialists. This family did everything that was recommended. They tried hard,very hard for years. Nothing worked. This poor dog was miserable. Actually worse than miserable. This dog was terrified to be alone for even short periods of time. Eventually the family reluctantly decided to euthanize the dog. Not because they didn’t love the dog but because no one could ease the suffering of this dog. Believe me, we all cried that day. Writing about it many years later still brings tears to my eyes.

Friends this is a broken,fallen world and there are some things no amount of human love can fix. For our animal companions there are some things worse than dying- a life of fear, or unmanageable pain, or isolation. The people who work and volunteer at shelters and humane societies do their best. It can be tough work, both physically and emotionally.

It was a sad day, a tragic day for Oreo and for the folks at the ASPCA. Euthanasia is never the first choice. Sometimes there are not good options and it is the least bad choice. But far too many animals are euthanized every day all across the country because of the lack of resources to treat and care for them.  All of us who care about animals, whether we work in the field, advocate for animal issues, or provide loving homes for our pets, all of us hope for the day when:

 The wolf shall live with the lamb,

the leopard shall lie down with the kid,

the calf and the lion and the fatling together,

and a little child shall lead them.

The cow and the bear shall graze,

their young shall lie down together;

and the lion shall eat straw like the ox.

The nursing child shall play over the hole of the asp,

and the weaned child shall put its hand on the adder’s den.

They will not hurt or destroy on all my holy mountain;

for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea.    (Isaiah 11:6-9)

Food, Farms, and Faith

Last week we talked about Industrial Farm Animal Production and the problems it has produced in the US. The week before that we talked about zoonotic diseases and that the need to feed families causes people to move more deeply into previously uninhabited (by humans) regions of the world. This week, I would like to put these two topics together and consider food production on a global scale.

National Geographic has an article this months print magazine and on line, “The End of Plenty: Special Report, The Global Food Crisis . Take a moment and read it. It does a nice job, as National Geographic often does, of presenting both sides of the issue. The “Green Revolution” in India has saved an untold number of people from starvation, but it has also come with substancial costs to the environment. There is a movement toward using more sustainable methods of farming, but we would be foolish to expect this to be cost free. As with the “Green Revolution” and intensive animal farming practices, it may take a while for the costs of sustainable agriculture to become apparent. The need for food is rising and globally, food production is decreasing. We have been “getting by” by using up grain reserves. And food prices have been rising for a variety of reasons, one of which is the use of grain for biofuels. The poorest billion people, according to National Geographic spend 50 to 70% of their income on food.

These are tough problems and there are no simple answers. Fortunately there are some smart and dedicated people workiing on these problems. One group is the Land Institute in Salina, Kansas. They have been thinking and actively working on developing sustainable agriculture. At their website you will find a variety of resources about the science and the philosophy that guides their work.

Once again as I have written repeatedly for the past few weeks, people of faith need to understand, at least at a basic level, the science involved. We must be able and willing to engage science. Important decisions have to be made about human health, farming, the care of animals, the environment, genetically modified foods, water and soil use and preservation, the use of chemicals, pesticides and fertilizers, and zoonotic diseases. 

In addition, we cannot ignore culture and the values of the various societies around the world. Merely importing our Western solutions won’t work. Recently, Sightings, a publication of the Divinity School at the University of Chicago published a short article  by Spencer Dew that captures some of the complexities of animals, disease, and culture.

The topics I have written about over the past few weeks are complex and cross disiplinary boundries. It’s not enough to be only a soil scientist or a virologist. We need to recognize the way each discipline interacts with other disciplies in the real world. There is a huge amount of information we need to consider.

Do we need to understand everything about all these topics? Well, while that would be ideal, it’s not possible. And frankly few of us will be directly responsible for making decisions on these issues. However, that doesn’t mean we can ignore what is going on. We need to be aware. We need to be informed about the programs our government and our churches are involved in. We need to be part of a serious, thoughtful debate. I believe Christians and other people of faith need to be the voice for social justice in these discussions. Without us, the participants are business interests who are primarily concerned with profit and politicians who are primarily concerned with power.

Conversation in Faith has been for the past few weeks more like Conversation in Science because people of faith- to be faithful- must engage science. Too many Christians in North America fear science and faith are incompatable. We end up anti science at worst and afraid of science at best.  But friends, science- what ever it discovers- doesn’t change who God is. Science may, just like serious Bible study, challenge our small flawed ideas of who God is and how God is at work in the world. But to avoid science is to evade our responsibility to care for creation. Stewardship isn’t merely some idilic pastoral ideal. Stewardship involves tough choices in a real world.