AKA: What radicalized you, animal welfare edition?
I’m about to step in it, but… I understand we live under the rule of capitalism, but that doesn’t mean I have to like it.
This year, for the first time since 2019, I attended events again: Global Pet Expo and The Pet Summit in the spring and the Cat Writers’ Association conference last month. While I learned so much and met wonderful people, I noticed a concerning trend. That’s why I’m going to dig into today because I worry that we’re on the precipice of something incredibly dangerous. Stick with me because there are several threads to braid together here.
Also, let’s put this right at the top: This is a simplistic overview of a much larger systemic issue. There are many other problems impacting animal welfare right now, too, beyond the usual. I’m going to be taking a deeper look at the impact of some of those challenging issues (elimination of DEI programs, deportations, unpredictable access to social services,etc.) and how animals are suffering because of those challenges in future posts. For today, though…
The chasm between compassionate care for animals (including their humans) and judgmental, holier-than-though care is widening. And who is going to suffer?
I recently sat through a keynote speech that underscores the crisis we’re facing.
During the talk, the veterinarian emphasized a few key points we can all agree on: We want our pets to live long, happy, healthy lives. We want to do what’s best to care for our pets. And we need a veterinary team we can partner with to provide that for our animals.
I diverged with him on nearly everything else.
He recommends dogs and cats get a microbiome test ($135) followed by an allergy panel ($320 to $420) prior to any other intervention. I imagine there’s a visit or exam fee, too. He went on to say that all cats should be on an omega-3, probiotics, and joint support. How much does that add up to? He also said cat parents should install a reverse osmosis water filtration system (according to Angie’s list is $500-$1200 or more depending on whether it’s for your whole house).
Would it probably be helpful for most pet owners to take all those steps?
Sure.
Do most pet owners have a spare couple thousand dollars?
Doubtful.
Likewise, the keynote speaker at GPE spoke about his concerns about the pet industry losing money as manufacturers face fluctuating, unpredictable tariffs, and pet owners are being conservative with their spending in the face of a plummeting job market and unstable economy.
His suggestion?
We (the pet industry) get more pets in more people’s hands so that spending has to be up!
(Here’s where, in my mind, there should be a record scratch sound effect.)
Wait. What?
Costs are rising. People are struggling to make ends meet. So, they should get more pets?
Yes, both speakers agreed that there is a tremendous benefit to human life from having a pet in the home. It saves on healthcare costs, for one thing. (More on that in another post.)
But the GPE guy suggested vets could lower costs by cutting the amount of time they spend per pet per visit while the CWA guy was saying that pets need all this testing plus treatments like ozone, physical therapy, laser therapy, and more.
How on earth do we reconcile this?
How can the pet industry achieve ease and affordability of pet ownership without impacting the quality of life for the animals or their people?
Spoiler alert: It’s not through expensive treatments and testing. It’s not through increasing the number of “available” animals. It’s not by having vets spend less time per pet.
I posed the question to the doc at CWA: This standard of care he’s proposing is inaccessible and unaffordable to most. What is a pet parent to do if this is what their vet is suggesting and they can’t access these resources either geographically or economically?
He said, first, start with good food and clean water.
Okay, I can get behind that.
But then he continued on to say that supplements aren’t that expensive and get a $6 bottle of goat kefir that will go bad before your cat can finish it.
Setting aside the wastefulness of that idea, I did a quick search, and goat kefir near me is $9.99 per bottle and only available at a grocery store that doesn’t have a bus stop.
Not that accessible.
The key here, to me anyway, is that the folks preaching for these interventions or to encourage an increase in spending are so wildly out of touch from what the average pet owner is going through right now.
How are you going to spend $10 on goat kefir when you’re worried about affording healthcare for your children?
How could the average person–who spends $300 per year on cat vet med and preventative health and just over $400 on dogs, per the ASPCA–possibly increase that spending by double or triple? Especially as the cost of groceries is skyrocketing?
The people leading the pet industry are alienating the average pet owner.
By the way, if you can afford all those diagnostic tests and all those supplements, and if you can install a reverse osmosis filtration system in your home, I’m thrilled for you. That’s wonderful.
And, I hope, we can all acknowledge that isn’t it. That isn’t the standard of care or the solution to pet care.
Where do we go from here?
People deserve pets if they want to have pets in their home. People will acquire pets, whether it’s from a shelter, a breeder, the neighbor’s puppies, a stray picked up off the street, a Facebook post, etc.
Gatekeeping pet ownership will never work, nor should it.
Alienating pet owners from accessible, compassionate care is the wrong direction. If you want to read more about this topic:
Incidentally, on a totally personal note, the vet at the CWA conference started off on the wrong foot with me for two specific reasons right at the top of his talk that I’m not sure I’d ever have allowed him to recover from.
First, he asked if he “had” to use the mic because he said he has a loud voice and would prefer not to. In other words, he’s forcing someone in the audience with hearing or auditory issues to have to advocate for themselves and their hearing right off the bat in front of all the attendees instead of just using the dang mic.
Second, he was super critical of veterinary students taking free lunches from Hill’s and Purina and said that while it doesn’t necessarily mean anything untoward, it’s still worth noting. He went on to thank the brand sponsors who pay for his trips to give keynote speeches. So. Yeah.
