I get it all the time. Vitriolic emails and anti-pet comments are inevitable every time I attempt a small splash in a big, not-so-pet-oriented pond.

“Take your sappy pet stories and animal welfare hand-wringing elsewhere,” they’ve said, along with, “Pets are dumb animals and you’re one too!” I’ve been called a “dumb blonde,” a “Valley Girl” (really) and a crappy writer (ouch!). Lots of other nasty comments attended my vegetarianism and Michael Vick columns. And I can only imagine what next week’s Cesar Millan column will bring.

You get used to the kooky vituperation. But you never get used to the anger or the anti-pet sentiments that underlie them. Nancy Kay, author of “Speaking for Spot: Be the Advocate Your Dog Needs to Live a Happy, Healthy, Longer Life.” has found this out the hard way, too.

After a reprised appearance on NPR’s Fresh Air with Terri Gross (great gig, right?), she had this to say in one of her fabulous email newsletters (reprinted with her permission, of course):

Differing Perspectives on the Same Observations

I’ve received many wonderful emails in response to my interviews on Fresh Air with Terry Gross. The stories I’ve heard about peoples’ pets run the gamut from delightful to heart wrenching. Many listeners described crying while driving––I certainly hope Terry and I were not responsible for creating any collisions!

I’ve also received emails from a handful of folks who were put off by the Fresh Air interviews. The content of Anne’s comments (printed below with her permission) is representative of what these disgruntled listeners had to say:

“I'm annoyed at how dogs have become soooo important over the past 10 years or so. They’re just pets! Just animals. Clearly all this elevation of dogs is a by-product of a society in trouble. Never would I have imagined that dogs would be referred to as ‘family members’ or ‘surrogate children.’ NEVER!! Back in the day, the dog was just the ‘family dog’, not ‘the dog family member.’ It was like, ‘Yeah, there’s the dog, so what?’ No thought was given to brushing its teeth, worrying about dog cancer, or feeling guilty if we went on vacation and left the dog at home with a neighbor to look after it. I recently read a book about an African village, and the hard life they have, and the poverty. I found it so shameful that they live like that, while America's dogs are often dressed in designer clothes, waited on hand and foot, given the best medical care, the best food, cooed over, etc. What the hell has happened to Americans? We've gone nutty! Dogs are just dogs, driven by selfish instinct to look after its own interests.”

As easy as it would be to ignore such “fan mail,” I truly believe that Anne’s comments are worthy of consideration. Given what I do for a living, I have certainly grappled with what I believe Anne is questioning. Is it reasonable to invest so much, emotionally and financially, in our pets when there is so much human suffering in the world? After all, the amount of money spent on one of our four-legged family members during the course of a year would represent a fortune to someone who is impoverished. Wouldn’t “shut in” senior citizens relish the affection and attention we lavish upon our pets?

While I agree with Anne’s observations- yes, many people consider their pets to be “family members” and yes, there is a great deal of human suffering in the world- I disagree with her notion that doting on our pets detracts from our willingness and ability to give of ourselves to others. I contend that the opposite is true. Many studies have documented that the human-animal bond positively impacts peoples’ psychological well-being. People whose “emotional bellies” are full rather than empty are more inspired and capable of giving their time, energy, and financial resources to others in need. One need not be a scientist to know that pets bestow a unique brand of sweetness and joy upon our lives; they keep us grounded even when insanity abounds. As I state in the introduction of Speaking for Spot, “Today the human-animal bond is stronger than ever. Perhaps, the more tumultuous the world around us, the tighter we cling to our beloved pets. They soothe us with their predictability and unconditional love, and they consistently give in excess of what they receive.”

Loving our pets does not make them more important than humans, nor does it “replace” our ability to tend to the needy. Rather, opening our homes and our hearts to animals makes our own humanity more accessible. Temple Grandin got it just right when she titled her newest book, “Animals Make Us Human.” Our love of animals doesn’t fill up our hearts––it makes our hearts grow bigger.

Best wishes,

Nancy Kay, DVM, Diplomate, American College of Veterinary Internal Medicine


Well said, Nancy. We feel your pain and we share your sentiments. It’s hard to battle a view that pits pet-oriented veterinarians against society by essentially pointing out that we’re a resource-wasting luxury for people who have nothing better to do with their money but spend it on poof-balls. Worse yet, they honestly believe, as Dr. Kay’s commenter seems to, that there’s something seriously amiss with a culture that considers pets family.

Some people will never get it. But I can’t help thinking that for all our animal expenses and sorrow over our losses it’s this contrarian contingent that most misses out.


Today on PetMD's DailyVet blog post: "Predators, Prey and Dead Maltipoos"