Two years ago Judy Stone said to me that the root of all animal cruelty lies in the ownership of animals.

Two years ago I accepted this statement as a half truth, because I processed it only within the narrow paramaters of my mind as a "pet owner", and the first thing that I thought to myself was, what about the animals that we humans have, through selective breeding, created to be our "pets"? I understood the scope of Judy's statement, but the scope included me. The rational and compassionate side of me knew exactly what she meant, but the selfish side of me objected. I am a pet owner. Nothing in my life means more to me than my dogs and cats. They are my sunshine. They make me laugh, and they are completely without judgement or guile. Aside from making me feel good, I've also read that they can lower my blood pressure. How could any human not desire them as lifestyle accessories in this troubled and stressful world?

It is easy to not attend circuses that include animal acts, to not go to aquariums, to not patronize pet supply stores that market live animals, to not eat meat, or buy eggs or dairy products that are derived from factory farmed animals, to avoid any products that have been tested on animals, - these are essentially simple shopping decisions that can be easily and painlessly made by anyone.

But to choose not to cohabitate with a "companion animal"? To turn our backs on our "pets"? Not so easy.

Yet anyone who has done real advocacy, anyone who has agonized over the exploitation of animals at human hands, anyone who has seen enough suffering to make them despair at the reality of this cruel existence we call life - could make this choice. All it takes is selflessness.

And no, changing the term "pet" to "companion animal", and the word "owner" to "guardian", does not let you off the hook. "Guardian" and "companion animal" are nothing more than feelgood terms, cleverly created to soften and justify the fact that we own and dominate sentient beings. "Guardian" has no meaning in the Criminal Code of Canada, and it certainly means nothing to me.

Yes, I consider myself a "good pet owner". But Thomas Jefferson was also a good slave owner. Do good pet owners justify pet ownership any more than good slave owners justified the ownership of slaves? Is there any justification for any sentient being to claim ownership over another?

Think about that for a while. Think for a long while, because it's tough to really absorb and accept when you share your life with beloved "pets", or "companion animals", or "fur-friends", whatever your term of choice.

I am not about to divest myself of any of my existing non human companions. And I am not about to close my door to any suffering and desperate soul that may need me in the future.

But they would not have suffered had they not been put here in the first place. The root of animal cruelty DOES lie in the ownership of animals.

And yes, animals and humans are all in this world together, and we must all live with each other. That is the reality of our existence. We live and die, but we should not have to suffer.

The only thing that I can be sure of in this world, the only harsh reality that pervades this existence, the only denominator common to all life, is the ability to suffer.

And so if a genie popped out of a bottle tomorow and promised to grant me an end to all animal suffering - that end being an end to the ownership of animals, thus including myself in the deal...well I'd take him up on his offer, and ask that he save the other two wishes for sometime in my future when I am looking to fill the hole in my life that was previously occupied by animals. I would wish for a comfortable pair of walking boots and a really good camera. A fair trade in my mind.

Jennifer Dickson
Vernon BC