Regarding pets, most developed countries, Canada included, are past the point of "having their cake, and eating it too"... and have been so from the moment they have established a system of incarceration, have neglected to deal with the unlimited supply, and encouraged a multibillion dollar industry to get out of control in one of the most consumerist environments in the world. In my view, the moment a society decides to exercise control over animals, as done in this country, then killing inevitably becomes the most crucial part of the equation.

A society which spends billions on the issue of owning pets, and then has to kill millions of them because of a supersaturated market, has only to look at the third world countries it is so quick to criticize; places where control is mostly left to nature, and human-animal relations are honest, manageable, and mostly ethical. Albeit far from perfect, it is those societies ours should be studying in terms of relations with pet animals, and look for logical and sensible adaptations.

I find it downright irrational if not unethical, to “tell the hare to run, and at the same time order the hound to fetch”… and herein lies the dilemma. One cannot prevent the killing without choking the supply; without reducing the demand by questioning the reasoning and validity behind owning pets in the first place; - and should one day everything come down to manageable levels - without establishing laws that make sense and are enforceable.

Shelters, pounds, sanctuaries, paradises... whatever you may call them are all one and the same. Distribution centers for a product with a short shelf life while under their control. The product either moves - quick - or has to be disposed of to make room for new ones, that are unquestionably making their way to them, from an unlimited, mostly unwanted supply.

The question should not centre on 'thou shalt not kill' or 'thou shalt not dump'. In an urban society such as ours - before passing the buck to lawmakers, enforcers or governments - every individual must start to question him/herself regarding the fundamental issue of 'thou shalt not own'. Otherwise, we will not only continue to kill at an increasing rate, but soon find ourselves in a position of not being able to kill fast enough.