Animals are not more - important than humans

Before the People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals comes knocking on my door let me clarify that I am an animal lover as much as anybody. I love dogs, can accept cats and will happily adopt a hedgehog as a pet just as soon as they are made legal in California. But that doesn't mean I think their lives should supersede mine.

Recently, San Mateo County has been home to a spate of animal abuse cases. Some are neglect and some are intentional cruelty. Just this week, a San Bruno man began trial on charges he neglected his dog so badly she developed maggots in an open sore. Two years ago a former firefighter also neglected his dog so severely the pet had to be euthanized. A homeless poodle was rescued by the Peninsula Humane Society after somebody used his back as an ashtray. These are horrific tales and proof that not everybody is cut out to be a pet owner, or pet guardian if you prefer.

These are the kinds of cases that generate letters to the editor and angry phone calls. A prosecutor in the current dog abuse trial admitted it was difficult to pick a jury because so many people are strongly opinionated about animal abuse. I've never heard that said about a murder trial or other felony crime.

What is it about animal cases that pull at the heart strings? Is it because, like children, they are viewed as helpless and at the mercy of those who are given the duty to care for them? Is it because of big eyes and cute faces? Or, is it because we've become hardened to crimes against adults?

A Burlingame man is facing trial on charges he threw a 10-week-old puppy against a car window while arguing with his girlfriend. He is also accused of assaulting the woman when the couple returned home. While the case has grabbed headlines - and the attention of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals - it is because of the dog not because of the domestic violence charges. Why is one considered more disturbing than the other?

In 2002, the San Jose road rage case of Leo, a 10-year-old bichon frise, made international news. The reward for the man who fatally tossed him into traffic grew into the thousands of dollars. During those weeks, numbers of children and adults either went missing or suffered violence much as they do at any given time. Where were similar rewards for them?

On a similar note, the current mad cow scare has brought about the slaughter of 450 cows. The decision brought about the ire of PETA and others who find the killing unnecessary. We already promote the slaughter of cattle by eating beef and wearing leather. Health concerns are equally laudable.

Protesting the force-feeding of geese to create foie gras is one thing; disputing the death of cattle that were destined for the butcher's block anyway is misplaced. While the scare should be reason to evaluate the beef industry and its practices of feed and slaughter, PETA is trying to use it to its advantage.

The same can be said about the Chinese government's decision to kill certain animals thought to pass SARS. While any mass killing of animals is sad, I'm surprised the actions are drawing so much international outcry. The rest of the world generally seems to turn its back on China's population control policies that result in the killing of unwanted baby girls; maybe we'd care more if they carried the virus thought to infect the cat-like creatures.

Animal issues should not go unaddressed nor unpunished when appropriate. However, it is difficult to justify such emotional responses when so many of the world's atrocities against humans receive a blind eye and a deaf ear.

Michelle Durand's column runs every Monday and Thursday. She can be reached by e-mail: michelle@smdailyjournal.com or by phone: (650) 344-5200 ext. 104. What do you think of this column? Send a letter to the editor: letters@smdailyjournal.com.