• International edition
  • Australia edition
  • Europe edition

Schnauzer dog

Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes

Ninety per cent of Britons think of their pet as part of the family – 16% even included them on the last census. But recent research into animals’ emotional lives has cast doubt on the ethics of petkeeping

I t was a Tupperware tub of live baby rats that made Dr Jessica Pierce start to question the idea of pet ownership. She was at her local branch of PetSmart, a pet store chain in the US, buying crickets for her daughter’s gecko. The baby rats, squeaking in their plastic container, were brought in by a man she believed was offering to sell them to the store as pets or as food for the resident snakes. She didn’t ask. But Pierce, a bioethicist , was troubled.

“Rats have a sense of empathy and there has been a lot of research on what happens when you take babies away from a mother rat – not surprisingly, they experience profound distress,” she says. “It was a slap in the face – how can we do this to animals?”

Pierce went on to write Run, Spot, Run , which outlines the case against pet ownership, in 2015. From the animals that become dog and cat food and the puppy farms churning out increasingly unhealthy purebred canines, to the goldfish sold by the bag and the crickets by the box, pet ownership is problematic because it denies animals the right of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they eat, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.

Treating animals as commodities isn’t new or shocking; humans have been meat-eaters and animal-skin-wearers for millennia. However, this is at odds with how we say we feel about our pets. The British pet industry is worth about £10.6bn ; Americans spent more than $66bn (£50bn) on their pets in 2016 . A survey earlier this year found that many British pet owners love their pet more than they love their partner (12%), their children (9%) or their best friend (24%). According to another study, 90% of pet-owning Britons think of their pet as a member of their family , with 16% listing their animals in the 2011 census.

Domestic cat

“It is morally problematic, because more people are thinking of pets as people … They consider them part of their family, they think of them as their best friend, they wouldn’t sell them for a million dollars,” says Dr Hal Herzog , a professor of psychology at Western Carolina University and one of the founders of the budding field of anthrozoology , which examines human-animal relations. At the same time, research is revealing that the emotional lives of animals, even relatively “simple” animals such as goldfish, are far more complex and rich than we once thought (“dogs are people, too”, according to a 2013 New York Times comment piece by the neuroscientist Gregory Berns ). “The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single aspect of their lives,” says Herzog.

Does this mean that, in 50 years or 100 years, we won’t have pets? Institutions that exploit animals, such as the circus, are shutting down – animal rights activists claimed a significant victory this year with the closure of Ringling Bros circus – and there are calls to end, or at least rethink, zoos. Meanwhile, the number of Britons who profess to be vegan is on the rise, skyrocketing 350% between 2006 and 2016.

Widespread petkeeping is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 19th century, most animals owned by households were working animals that lived alongside humans and were regarded unsentimentally. In 1698, for example, a Dorset farmer recorded in his diary: “My old dog Quon was killed and baked for his grease, which yielded 11lb.” However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, animals began to feature less in our increasingly urban environments and, as disposable income grew, pets became more desirable. Even as people began to dote on their pets, though, animal life was not attributed any intrinsic value. In Run, Spot, Run, Pierce reports that, in 1877, the city of New York rounded up 762 stray dogs and drowned them in the East River, shoving them into iron crates and lifting the crates by crane into the water. Veterinarian turned philosopher Bernard Rollin recalls pet owners in the 1960s putting their dog to sleep before going on holiday , reasoning that it was cheaper to get a new dog when they returned than to board the one they had.

Maine coon kitten

More recently, however, several countries have moved to change the legal status of animals. In 2015, the government of New Zealand recognised animals as sentient beings, in effect declaring them no longer property (how this squares with New Zealand’s recent “war on possums” is unclear), as did the Canadian province of Quebec. While pets remain property in the UK, the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 stipulates that pet owners must provide a basic level of care for their animals. Pets are also property in the US, but 32 states, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington DC, now include provisions for pets under domestic violence protection orders. In 2001, Rhode Island changed its legislation to describe pet owners as “guardians” , a move that some animal rights’ advocates lauded (and others criticised for being nothing more than a change in name).

Before we congratulate ourselves on how far we have come, consider that 1.5m shelter animals – including 670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats – are euthanised each year in the US . The number of stray dogs euthanised annually in the UK is far lower – 3,463 – but the RSCPA says investigations into animal cruelty cases increased 5% year on year in 2016 , to 400 calls a day.

“Can I stick my dog in a car and take him to the vet and say: ‘I don’t want him any more, kill him,’ or take him to a city shelter and say: ‘I can’t keep him any more, I hope you can find a home for him, good luck’?” says Gary Francione , a professor at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey and an animal rights advocate. “If you can still do that, if you still have the right to do that, then they are still property.”

Crucially, our animals can’t tell us whether they are happy being pets. “There is an illusion now that pets have more voice than in the past … but it is maybe more that we are putting words into their mouth,” Pierce says, pointing to the abundance of pets on social media plastered with witty projections written by their “parents”. “Maybe we are humanising them in a way that actually makes them invisible.”

If you accept the argument that pet ownership is morally questionable, how do you put the brakes on such a vast industry? While he was writing his 2010 book, Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat , Herzog was studying the motivations of animal rights activists and whether it was emotion or intellect that pushed them towards activism. One of the subjects, Herzog says, was “very, very logical”. After he had become a vegan, eschewed leather shoes and convinced his girlfriend to go vegan, he considered his pet cockatiel. “I remember; he looked up wistfully. He said he got the bird, took it outside, let it loose and it flew up,” Herzog recalls. “He said: ‘I knew she wouldn’t survive, that she probably starved. I guess I was doing it more for myself than for her.’”

Although Pierce and Francione agree that pet ownership is wrong, both of them have pets: Pierce has two dogs and a cat; Francione has six rescue dogs, whom he considers “refugees”. For now, the argument over whether we should own animals is largely theoretical: we do have pets and giving them up might cause more harm than good. Moreover, as Francione suggests, caring for pets seems to many people to be the one area where we can actually do right by animals; convincing people of the opposite is a hard sell.

Tim Wass, the chair of the Pet Charity , an animal welfare consultant and a former chief officer at the RSPCA, agrees. “It has already been decided by market forces and human nature … the reality is people have pets in the millions. The question is: how can we help them care for them correctly and appropriately?”

If the short history of pet ownership tells us anything, it is that our attitude towards animals is prone to change. “You see these rises and falls in our relationships with pets,” says Herzog. “In the long haul, I think petkeeping might fall out of fashion; I think it is possible that robots will take their place, or maybe pet owning will be for small numbers of people. Cultural trends come and go. The more we think of pets as people, the less ethical it is to keep them.”

  • Animal welfare
  • Animal behaviour

Comments (…)

Most viewed.

U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

  • Publications
  • Account settings
  • Advanced Search
  • Journal List

Logo of vetsciences

Pet Ownership and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of the Literature

Kristel j. scoresby.

1 College of Social Work, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA; ude.ktu.slov@bserocsk

Elizabeth B. Strand

2 Veterinary Social Work, Colleges of Veterinary Medicine and Social Work, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA; ude.ktu@dnartse

Zenithson Ng

3 College of Veterinary Medicine, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA; ude.ktu@gnz (Z.N.); ude.ktu.slov@zlitsc (C.R.S.); ude.ktu.slov@lebortsk (K.S.)

Kathleen C. Brown

4 Department of Public Health, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA; ude.ktu@nworbck (K.C.B.); ude.ktu@osorrabc (C.S.B.)

Charles Robert Stilz

Kristen strobel, cristina s. barroso, marcy souza, associated data.

Data was not generated in this study.

Pet ownership is the most common form of human–animal interaction, and anecdotally, pet ownership can lead to improved physical and mental health for owners. However, scant research is available validating these claims. This study aimed to review the recent peer reviewed literature to better describe the body of knowledge surrounding the relationship between pet ownership and mental health. A literature search was conducted in May 2020 using two databases to identify articles that met inclusion/exclusion criteria. After title review, abstract review, and then full article review, 54 articles were included in the final analysis. Of the 54 studies, 18 were conducted in the general population, 15 were conducted in an older adult population, eight were conducted in children and adolescents, nine focused on people with chronic disease, and four examined a specific unique population. Forty-one of the studies were cross-sectional, 11 were prospective longitudinal cohorts, and two were other study designs. For each of the articles, the impact of pet ownership on the mental health of owners was divided into four categories: positive impact ( n = 17), mixed impact ( n = 19), no impact ( n = 13), and negative impact ( n = 5). Among the reviewed articles, there was much variation in population studied and study design, and these differences make direct comparison challenging. However, when focusing on the impact of pet ownership on mental health, the results were variable and not wholly supportive of the benefit of pets on mental health. Future research should use more consistent methods across broader populations and the development of a pet-ownership survey module for use in broad, population surveys would afford a better description of the true relationship of pet ownership and mental health.

1. Introduction

Throughout history, animals have played a significant role in society including in agriculture and pet ownership. A recent survey conducted in the United States estimated that approximately 67% of homes had at least one pet, equaling about 63 million homes with at least one dog and 42 million homes with at least one cat [ 1 ]. Pets can constitute a connection to nature, function in recreational and work activities, and provide companionship in our homes [ 2 , 3 , 4 ]. The importance of animals in our lives is founded on the human–animal bond concept, which is the “mutually beneficial and dynamic relationship that exists between people and other animals that is influenced by behaviors that are essential to the health and well-being of both” [ 5 ]. This concept has championed animals as companions and family members, leading to their essential part of everyday life for many. The human–animal bond has additionally driven the common belief that pets are good for human health, both physical and mental [ 6 , 7 , 8 ].

While there are some qualitative [ 9 , 10 ] studies that claim that pet ownership benefits people, particularly in regard to improved mental health, there are few studies with substantial evidence from large, diverse population samples to support this theory. The studies that have been published are often not substantiated with regard to study populations or methods, making broad conclusions difficult. Furthermore, some studies that have investigated the correlation between pet ownership and mental health have revealed no effect, or even worse, negative effects of pet ownership [ 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 ]. The inconsistencies in the literature and limitations of these studies warrant a thorough exploration of the effect of pet ownership on mental health outcomes among large, diverse population samples.

Two previous systematic reviews of the literature did examine the relationship between pet ownership and mental health/well-being [ 16 , 17 ]. Islam and Towel [ 16 ] did not find a clear relationship between pet ownership and well-being in the 11 studies included in their review. Similarly, Brooks et al. [ 17 ] examined the role of pets in owners with diagnosed mental health problems and found mixed results across the 17 studies included in the review. The purpose of this study was to perform a systematic review of the peer-reviewed published literature containing original research that examined the relationship between pet ownership and mental health for people in any population. Previous reviews included a smaller sample of research articles, often limited to a specific population of pet owners. By describing the relationship between pet ownership and mental health across all examined populations, this study will better inform whether pets could be recommended to help with mental health and whether promotion of the human–animal bond is generally beneficial.

2. Materials and Methods

The systematic review process involved a literature search, screening, extraction, and an assessment of the remaining articles by four researchers and three graduate students. For the purpose of this study, pet ownership was limited to dogs and cats. Our research team sought to answer, “How does ownership of a dog or cat influence the mental health or quality of life of pet owners?”

In May of 2020, the following databases were searched for peer-reviewed articles on pet ownership and mental health: PubMed and Web of Science. Utilizing Boolean search terms, the literature search was conducted using the terms: anxiety OR depressi* OR bipolar OR (mental* AND (health OR disease* OR disorder* OR condition* OR ill*) for the problem, (dog OR dogs OR cat OR cats OR canine* OR feline*) AND ((pet OR pets)) AND (owner* OR companion* OR interact* OR bond* OR “human animal bond” OR “animal human bond” OR “animal assisted”) for the intervention and health* AND (impact* OR outcome* OR status OR effect* OR affect* OR consequen* OR result*) for the outcome.

Although there was not an approved PRISMA protocol, the research team used Covidence (Melbourne, Australia), a software program that tracks the systematic review screening process. Identified articles were imported into Covidence, duplicates were removed, and the remaining articles were screened by the research team. Through random assignment, each article was independently reviewed by one faculty member and one graduate student. Each reviewer indicated in Covidence if the article should be included or excluded according to established criteria ( Table 1 ). When there was a conflict between reviewers, a third reviewer (non-student) resolved the conflict. The full review process is shown in Figure 1 . At the final review stage, two researchers independently extracted specific information ( Table 2 ) from each article. The type of impact on mental health was determined based on the results reported in each article.

An external file that holds a picture, illustration, etc.
Object name is vetsci-08-00332-g001.jpg

Following a literature search, articles were reviewed for adherence to inclusion and exclusion criteria. A total of 54 articles were identified to meet all criteria.

Inclusion and exclusion criteria used for evaluation of research articles that examined the relationship between pet ownership and mental health.

At the extraction stage, the following information was used for evaluation of research articles that examined the relationship between pet ownership and mental health.

In addition to extracting the information outlined in Table 2 , an index ( Appendix A ) was created to assess article quality. The index was based on two previous systematic reviews of mental health in veterinary science [ 17 , 18 ]. Each dichotomous index question assigned a 0 if the article did not meet criteria and a 1 if the article did meet criteria. The higher the score an article received (0–9 points), the higher the quality of the article.

Interventionary studies involving animals or humans, and other studies that require ethical approval, must list the authority that provided approval and the corresponding ethical approval code.

The article review process and number of articles in each step are shown in Figure 1 . A total of 54 articles met the inclusion and exclusion criteria ( Table 1 ) and were systematically extracted ( Table 2 ). These articles were then divided into four categories based on the type of overall impact pets had on the mental health of owners: (1) positive impact (n = 17); (2) mixed impact ( n = 19); (3) no impact ( n = 13); and (4) negative impact ( n = 5). Factors that influenced mental health include (a) age (middle-aged female caregivers had more psychological stress than young female and male caregivers), (b) obedience and aggressiveness of the pet, (c) marital status (single women who owned a dog were less lonely and socially isolated than women without pets), and (d) attachment to the pet (high level of bonding has lower anxiety and depression scores than lower level of bonding) [ 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 ]. A few representative studies with mixed results include one examining the general population, which found that unmarried men who live with a pet had the most depressive symptoms and unmarried women who live with a pet had the fewest [ 19 ]. Another study examining the impact of companion animals on cancer patients found that mental health was associated with the status of cancer treatment, with those receiving intense treatment having poorer mental health [ 20 ]. In addition to overall impact, the study population, study type, population size, year of publication and article quality are reported ( Appendix B ).

Of the 54 articles, 19 (35%) were studies conducted in the general population, 15 (28%) were studies in older adult individuals, eight (15%) were in children and adolescents, six (11%) focused on people with some type of chronic physical illness/disease, three (6%) were studies in people with severe mental illness, and three (6%) studies examined unique populations. Of the 15 studies that had only older adult participants, none of them reported a positive impact. Seven of the articles reported mixed impact based on type of pet, gender, companionship, or another demographic. Six of the studies had no impact and two had a negative impact. Of the eight studies that involved children and adolescents, six of them indicated a clear positive impact, one indicated mixed impact, and one indicated no impact. Of the three studies that involved those with severe mental illness, two indicated clear positive impact and one indicated mixed impact.

Research studies either compared mental health outcomes in pet owners versus non-pet owners ( n = 41) or with regard to owner attachment to the pet ( n = 13). Similar to the overall distribution, the outcomes within these two different types of studies were distributed across all four categories ( Table 3 and Table 4 ). In 38% (five of 13) of the studies, attachment to a cat or dog was associated with a positive impact on mental health in 38% of the studies. Four of the 13 studies (31%) indicated mixed results, meaning that human–animal attachment sometimes was associated with better mental health and sometimes it was not. One example of higher attachment leading to worse mental health was for those amid cancer treatment [ 20 ]. There was no clear trend towards attachment and better mental health.

Outcomes of 41 studies that examined mental health outcomes in pet owners compared to non-pet owners.

Outcomes of nine studies that examined mental health outcomes in relationship to the pet owner’s attachment bond with their pet.

The study types included 41 (76%) cross-sectional studies, 11 (20%) prospective cohort longitudinal studies, and two (4%) other study designs. Of the cross-sectional studies, 27 (66%) found that companion animals had no or negative impact on mental health and 14 (34%) found mixed or positive impact on mental health. Of the 11 articles that reported on a longitudinal study design, five (45%) demonstrated no or negative impact and six (55%) demonstrated mixed or positive impact. Among the 54 studies, sample size ranged from 30 to 68,362.

To measure mental health constructs, 75 different validated scales were used ( Table 5 ). Eight scales were used to measure human attachment to pets. The most common scales used across studies were the CES-D (13 studies) to measure depression and the ULS (10 studies) to measure loneliness. Two scales were used by four studies each (DASS and any variation of GHQ). Three scales were used by three studies each (GDS, CABS, and any variation of PHQ). The remaining scales were used only once or twice across the studies assessed.

The scales used across studies to measure mental health.

Regarding the study quality scores ( Appendix A ), no articles received a quality score of 9, six (11%) received a score of 8, 11 (20%) received a score of 7, 20 (37%) received a score of 6, and 17 (31%) received a score of 5 or below. Of the articles with a quality scale score of 5 or lower, 18% (3) articles had no or negative impact and 82% ( n = 14) had mixed or positive impact on owner mental health. Articles with a quality scale score of 6 or higher, 43% ( n = 16) showed no or negative impact and 57% ( n = 21) showed mixed or positive impact.

4. Discussion

Understanding the nature of the relationship between mental health and pet ownership is important for both human and animal welfare and to better determine the impact of human–animal interactions. Over the years, the perspective that “pets are good for you” has become an assumption [ 25 ] and when negative implications are recognized it often relates to zoonotic diseases rather than human–animal interactions [ 26 ]. This belief in the positive aspects of the human–animal bond is strengthened by marketing tools used by the pet industry [ 27 ]. While there certainly is evidence that supports the benefits of the human–animal bond to people’s mental health [ 28 , 29 ], there is also clear and consistent evidence that the relationship is complex and sometimes negative [ 30 , 31 ]. The question of whether pets should be prescribed by health professionals is an especially important one. Recent qualitative research supports that attending to a pet can help a person manage mental health crises [ 32 ], however, doing so can also cause a person to rely on the pet instead of other evidenced based methods of seeking mental health support. The recommendation of obtaining a pet in the presence of mental illness ought to be coupled with other evidenced based strategies for mental health recovery such as increasing social support and engaging in third wave behaviorally based interventions such as Acceptance and Commitment Therapy or Dialectical Behavior Therapy.

The broad perspectives that pets are good for mental health may cause people to place false expectations on the role a dog or cat must play in their lives [ 33 ]. The anthropomorphism of pets (people placing human cognitive motivations on pets’ behavior and treating pets as people) can in fact have a negative impact on the animal’s welfare [ 34 ]. The untreated stress of people who turn to their pets instead of their human social supports and health professionals may in fact be causing pets to be more stressed [ 35 ]. Although initial data suggest relinquishment rates were not higher after COVID-19 lockdowns were lifted [ 36 ], some still have concerns that the recent increase in pet adoptions from shelters may result in pet relinquishment once the pandemic is more managed and people return to their daily work environments [ 37 ] (J. Schumacher personal communication, 5 May 2021). Developing clear guidelines about the benefits and liabilities of pet ownership and mental health is important to mitigate the public halo effect that suggests that simply acquiring a pet will improve your mental health.

Previous systematic reviews of the literature have found mixed results regarding the relationship between mental health and pet ownership [ 16 , 17 ]. Our search and review methodology was similar to Islam and Towel [ 16 ], which yielded 11 studies compared to the 54 studies compiled in this review. Although the Brooks et al. [ 17 ] review yielded 17 studies, they limited their search to studies only including people diagnosed with mental health conditions. While the current study did examine a larger body of research that covered broader populations and more recent publications than previous reviews, the findings were similar in that results varied across outcomes including positive, negative, mixed, and negligible. Unlike previous studies, this review also differentiated studies that compared pet owners to non-pet owners and studies that examined the level of attachment with a pet as a predictor of the mental health of the owner. Islam and Towel [ 16 ] argued that the definition of pet ownership needs to be defined across all studies, including aspects of length of ownership, time spent with the animal, and perceived quality of the interaction. Within these two categories of study types, the outcomes still varied and showed no consistent evidence that pet ownership is a positive contributor to mental health. The lack of consensus from these studies was not surprising. While popular literature and media consistently highlight the positive, it rarely highlights the negative aspects of pet ownership. In fact, studies with negative or non-significant findings are often subject to the “file drawer” effect, in which authors ultimately decide not to publish their studies [ 15 ]. In this review, we did find and include studies that reported negative or mixed findings.

The authors made the decision a priori to divide the results into categories based on the type of impact each study had on mental health. Among the 17 studies that were determined to have positive results, most of the studies were with children and adolescents ( n = 6) and the general adult population ( n = 6). There were some challenges to identifying these studies as clearly positive. Because a variety of different variables and a variety of different methodologies were used based on the specific purpose of each study, they could not be directly or easily compared to one another. Many of the positive impact studies investigated additional variables that could be better predictors of positive mental health than dog/cat ownership. For example, several studies indicated that children or adolescents with a dog had less depression and/or less anxiety than peers without a dog. However, family dynamics such as single parent or two parent households, time parents spend at work, presence of siblings, and family dysfunction [ 2 , 8 ] may be more significant contributors to child mental health than dog ownership.

The 19 mixed impact studies were easier to categorize because of conflicting outcomes, particularly for studies with an older adult or general adult population. In each of these studies, the direction of the outcome was influenced by demographic variables (such as gender) or the type of pet (cat or dog). For example, one general population study determined that women with pets had lower levels of depression whereas men with pets had higher levels of depression [ 19 ]. Another example is that pet-owning individuals with severe mental illness had less psychiatric hospitalizations than non-pet owning peers, however, they also had higher levels of substance use [ 38 ]. Another reason why a study would be categorized as mixed impact is if mental health was assessed using multiple instruments and yielded conflicting results. For instance, one study indicated that when compared to people without pets, those with pets had no difference in anxiety or stress scores yet had higher depression scores [ 22 ].

For the 13 studies that had no impact, most were with the older adult ( n = 6) and general adult ( n = 4) population. These studies concluded that when comparing pet ownership to non-pet ownership or when comparing attachment levels, the pet had no correlation with positive or negative mental health. Many of these studies controlled for demographic variables such as age, gender, and socioeconomic status in their statistical models. One challenge to categorizing the studies was that study participants subjectively believed their pets were helpful to their mental health despite what validated measures showed. The inclusion of these biased observations in an attempt to still put a positive spin on the study may reflect the conflict a researcher has in publishing negative results. An additional challenge is that studies that included non-mental health measures (such as physical health) showed that those with pets did better than those without. Expert reviews of pet ownership on cardiovascular health have demonstrated a significant challenge to reach a definitive conclusion of the impact of pet ownership on health based on the current evidence [ 39 ].

Five studies demonstrated a clear negative impact between pet ownership and mental health. The sample populations were general ( n = 2), older adults ( n = 2), and single adults living alone ( n = 1). In these studies, pet ownership was associated with higher levels of depression, loneliness, and other psychological symptoms across all demographic variables and type of pet (dog or cat). Again, the challenge to classifying these studies as negative impact suggests that pet ownership causes increased levels of mental health illnesses, when in reality, the studies are about correlation, not causation. There may be other factors that cause the samples in these studies to have worse mental health. As indicated by Mullersdorf et al. [ 40 ], the presence of a psychological condition could predispose individuals to become pet owners, making it difficult to truly know if pet ownership causes a negative impact on mental health. These studies, regardless of type of outcome, only indicate association of pet ownership and mental health.

Another challenge in comparing the 54 studies was the difference in methodology and quality of each study. Due to this, our methods did not evaluate the individual and overall power and effect sizes of study results. Quantitative methodologies are warranted in this field, particularly prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled intervention trials that are longitudinal in design to provide evidence of the impact of animal ownership over time while eliminating as many extraneous and confounding variables as possible [ 41 ]. Ideally, this truly experimental model of pet ownership would include random assignment of companion animals in a closed system to eliminate as many sources of error variance as possible [ 42 ]. However, due to the nature of pet ownership being integrated as a part of daily life on a voluntary basis, this experimental model would be difficult to achieve. Perhaps the most compelling of all studies that comes closest to this design was a prospective interventional study in which 71 previous non-pet owners were given a cat or dog; results demonstrated mild benefits in mental health and behavior after 10 months of pet ownership compared to the 26 non-pet owners [ 43 ]. While noteworthy, there was lack of randomization, so the pet ownership group consisted of a relatively small number of subjects who were searching for a pet to adopt rather than receiving it on random chance. Regardless, this study still reports an improvement in mental health in this specific population. Future studies should strive to achieve this prospective, controlled, experimental methodology to more compellingly connect pet ownership with mental health.

A quality index attempted to rate the rigor of each study, but the index was subjective and based on questions that could be asked without statistical analysis (e.g., does this study include a comparison population?). The higher the score on the quality index, the more likely the study was scientifically rigorous. The lower the score, the more likely the study was to demonstrate a positive or mixed impact on the pet owner’s mental health. While both previous literature reviews critiqued the rigor of the studies reviewed and remarked upon the consistent methodological flaws, Islam and Towel did not assign objective scores to the 11 studies reviewed. Brooks et al. [ 17 ] did assign quality scores to each of the 17 studies reviewed but did not evaluate the impact of the quality of the study on its results. The quality scores in the current review varied across all four outcome categories and did not give any indication of quality impacting the overall outcome. Still, it is important that researchers strive for higher quality research that carries more weight in the question of whether pet ownership truly impacts mental health. Additionally, we recommend that studies be replicated in an attempt to corroborate previous findings, which contribute to the overall understanding of the phenomenon.

Lastly, this study also examined how mental health was evaluated across the studies. For the 54 studies included in this review, 75 different scales ( Table 5 ) were used with many research studies implementing more than one scale ( Appendix B ). While most of the scales used have been previously validated, the inconsistent use of scales makes comparison of results across studies challenging. While it is common to utilize an instrument that is a validated self-report of depression, it is likely that researchers often utilize other scales because they are investigating other aspects of mental health such as loneliness, stress, and anxiety. Many scales also rely on self-reporting of mental health indicators, which can be affected by inherent bias, especially when completing a survey regarding mental health and pet ownership. To allow for better comparison of future studies, researchers should attempt to use consistent measures of mental health across studies, such as the CES-D [ 44 ], which was the most commonly used scale in 13 of the 54 examined studies.

In addition to consistent use of mental health scales across studies, the development of a module for use in wide-scale population surveys with a focus on pet-ownership would benefit future research examining the relationship between pet ownership and health. The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) [ 45 ] is an annual questionnaire administered by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. There are 14 core sections that are administered to all participants and 31 optional modules [ 45 ]. None of these modules focuses on pet ownership and the addition of such a module would allow for a more in-depth evaluation of the relationship between pet ownership and health, both mental and physical, across large populations. While pets can play a significant role in the owner’s health, it can be difficult to differentiate the effects of pet ownership from the many other factors that contribute to one’s mental and physical health. The addition of a pet ownership module to the BRFSS would allow researchers to examine the role of pet ownership in tandem with other factors that contribute to health. On a smaller scale (approximately 3000 participants), the General Social Survey (GSS) is a representative survey that monitors trends in opinions, behaviors, and demographics among Americans [ 46 ]. Though not a main focus, the GSS does include pet ownership and mental health variables. Including pet ownership allows researchers who study the relationship of ownership with humans to have a large, representative dataset to analyze correlations. For example, a recent study used the GSS 2018 to examine demographics of pet ownership [ 46 ]. In their conclusion, the authors of this study indicated that the strengths of using the GSS to study pet ownership characteristics are high quality data, multiple covariates, sound methodology, and easy access [ 47 ]. Including pet ownership questions in multi-wave, representative studies would further the work of human animal relationship research.

This systematic review was limited due to only searching two databases and only evaluating research published in English. The majority of studies focused on pet-owners in Western cultures. The human–animal bond may differ across cultures and future studies should include pet-owners in non-Western cultures. However, a large number of articles were identified, and the total number of articles included in final extraction was greater than similar previous systematic reviews. More consistent methods across research that evaluates the relationship between pet ownership and mental health might allow for more extensive comparison of studies.

5. Conclusions

Previous research examining the impact of pet ownership on mental health has shown mixed results and the results of this study were the same. While there were more absolute numbers of studies to demonstrate a positive impact ( n = 17) compared to negative impact ( n = 5) on mental health, the overall results indicate a much more complicated picture. While 17 of the 54 studies had a clear association of pet ownership and positive mental health, the remaining 37 articles show a mixed association, no association, or a negative association. Comparing these studies is quite challenging due to the number of measures used to assess mental health, the differences in study quality, and the variety of variables that were controlled for. While research studies can be improved by addressing limitations as described, a more comprehensive evaluation of behavior and its association with health outcomes is warranted. We also cannot ignore that mental health is multifactorial. Pet ownership and the resulting human–animal interaction is a single factor; other factors that also contribute to mental health should be examined in large populations of pet-owners and non-pet-owners. The addition of a pet-ownership specific module to the BRFSS, as previously described, would allow for prospective research that can be replicated, and eventually retrospective research, that will also allow for inclusion of other factors that contribute to health.

Following a literature review and data extraction of research articles that examined the relationship between pet ownership and mental health, the following articles were found to meet inclusion and exclusion criteria as outlined in Table 1 .

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.J.S., E.B.S. and M.S. methodology, E.B.S. and M.S.; validation, all; formal analysis, all; data; writing—original draft preparation, K.J.S., E.B.S., M.S., Z.N.; writing—review and editing, K.J.S., E.B.S., Z.N., K.S., K.C.B., C.R.S., C.S.B. and M.S.; supervision, E.B.S., Z.N., K.C.B., C.S.B. and M.S.; project administration, E.B.S. and M.S.; funding acquisition, E.B.S. and M.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

This research was funded by Maddie’s Fund.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Data availability statement, conflicts of interest.

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

NIH News in Health

A monthly newsletter from the National Institutes of Health, part of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

Search form

February 2018

Print this issue

The Power of Pets

Health Benefits of Human-Animal Interactions

Illustration of people with different types of pets

Nothing compares to the joy of coming home to a loyal companion. The unconditional love of a pet can do more than keep you company. Pets may also decrease stress, improve heart health, and even help children with their emotional and social skills.

An estimated 68% of U.S. households have a pet. But who benefits from an animal? And which type of pet brings health benefits?

Over the past 10 years, NIH has partnered with the Mars Corporation’s WALTHAM Centre for Pet Nutrition to answer questions like these by funding research studies.

Scientists are looking at what the potential physical and mental health benefits are for different animals—from fish to guinea pigs to dogs and cats.

Possible Health Effects

Research on human-animal interactions is still relatively new. Some studies have shown positive health effects, but the results have been mixed.

Interacting with animals has been shown to decrease levels of cortisol (a stress-related hormone) and lower blood pressure. Other studies have found that animals can reduce loneliness, increase feelings of social support, and boost your mood.

The NIH/Mars Partnership is funding a range of studies focused on the relationships we have with animals. For example, researchers are looking into how animals might influence child development. They’re studying animal interactions with kids who have autism , attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) , and other conditions.

“There’s not one answer about how a pet can help somebody with a specific condition,” explains Dr. Layla Esposito, who oversees NIH’s Human-Animal Interaction Research Program. “Is your goal to increase physical activity? Then you might benefit from owning a dog. You have to walk a dog several times a day and you’re going to increase physical activity. If your goal is reducing stress, sometimes watching fish swim can result in a feeling of calmness. So there’s no one type fits all.”

NIH is funding large-scale surveys to find out the range of pets people live with and how their relationships with their pets relate to health.

“We’re trying to tap into the subjective quality of the relationship with the animal—that part of the bond that people feel with animals—and how that translates into some of the health benefits,” explains Dr. James Griffin, a child development expert at NIH.

Animals Helping People

Animals can serve as a source of comfort and support. Therapy dogs are especially good at this. They’re sometimes brought into hospitals or nursing homes to help reduce patients’ stress and anxiety.

“Dogs are very present. If someone is struggling with something, they know how to sit there and be loving,” says Dr. Ann Berger, a physician and researcher at the NIH Clinical Center in Bethesda, Maryland. “Their attention is focused on the person all the time.”

Berger works with people who have cancer and terminal illnesses. She teaches them about mindfulness to help decrease stress and manage pain.

“The foundations of mindfulness include attention, intention, compassion, and awareness,” Berger says. “All of those things are things that animals bring to the table. People kind of have to learn it. Animals do this innately.”

Researchers are studying the safety of bringing animals into hospital settings because animals may expose people to more germs. A current study is looking at the safety of bringing dogs to visit children with cancer, Esposito says. Scientists will be testing the children’s hands to see if there are dangerous levels of germs transferred from the dog after the visit.

Dogs may also aid in the classroom. One study found that dogs can help children with ADHD focus their attention. Researchers enrolled two groups of children diagnosed with ADHD into 12-week group therapy sessions. The first group of kids read to a therapy dog once a week for 30 minutes. The second group read to puppets that looked like dogs.

Kids who read to the real animals showed better social skills and more sharing, cooperation, and volunteering. They also had fewer behavioral problems.

Another study found that children with autism spectrum disorder were calmer while playing with guinea pigs in the classroom. When the children spent 10 minutes in a supervised group playtime with guinea pigs, their anxiety levels dropped. The children also had better social interactions and were more engaged with their peers. The researchers suggest that the animals offered unconditional acceptance, making them a calm comfort to the children.

“Animals can become a way of building a bridge for those social interactions,” Griffin says. He adds that researchers are trying to better understand these effects and who they might help.

Animals may help you in other unexpected ways. A recent study showed that caring for fish helped teens with diabetes better manage their disease. Researchers had a group of teens with type 1 diabetes care for a pet fish twice a day by feeding and checking water levels. The caretaking routine also included changing the tank water each week. This was paired with the children reviewing their blood glucose (blood sugar) logs with parents.

Researchers tracked how consistently these teens checked their blood glucose. Compared with teens who weren’t given a fish to care for, fish-keeping teens were more disciplined about checking their own blood glucose levels, which is essential for maintaining their health.

While pets may bring a wide range of health benefits, an animal may not work for everyone. Recent studies suggest that early exposure to pets may help protect young children from developing allergies and asthma. But for people who are allergic to certain animals, having pets in the home can do more harm than good.

Helping Each Other

Pets also bring new responsibilities. Knowing how to care for and feed an animal is part of owning a pet. NIH/Mars funds studies looking into the effects of human-animal interactions for both the pet and the person.

Remember that animals can feel stressed and fatigued, too. It’s important for kids to be able to recognize signs of stress in their pet and know when not to approach. Animal bites can cause serious harm.

“Dog bite prevention is certainly an issue parents need to consider, especially for young children who don’t always know the boundaries of what’s appropriate to do with a dog,” Esposito explains.

Researchers will continue to explore the many health effects of having a pet. “We’re trying to find out what’s working, what’s not working, and what’s safe—for both the humans and the animals,” Esposito says.

Related Stories

Young black woman meditating among plants indoors.

Mindfulness Training Can Promote Healthy Choices

Cover of the Yoga for Health e-book.

Yoga for Health: A New e-Book

Illustration of a group of kids laughing and pointing at another kid in the school hallway.

Addressing Childhood Bullying

Woman with her arm around a middle aged man.

What Are Frontotemporal Disorders?

NIH Office of Communications and Public Liaison Building 31, Room 5B52 Bethesda, MD 20892-2094 [email protected] Tel: 301-451-8224

Editor: Harrison Wein, Ph.D. Managing Editor: Tianna Hicklin, Ph.D. Illustrator: Alan Defibaugh

Attention Editors: Reprint our articles and illustrations in your own publication. Our material is not copyrighted. Please acknowledge NIH News in Health as the source and send us a copy.

For more consumer health news and information, visit health.nih.gov .

For wellness toolkits, visit www.nih.gov/wellnesstoolkits .

  • Skip to main content
  • Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

13.7 Cosmos & Culture

Should we really be keeping cats and dogs — and geckos — as pets.

Barbara J. King

A red striped New Caledonian bumpy gecko, Rhacodactylus auriculatus.

Bioethicist Jessica Pierce includes pets — or "animal companions" — among her family members: a cat, two dogs and fish.

So, it's startling to read this passage near the beginning of her new book released this week, Run, Spot, Run : The Ethics of Keeping Pets :

"We love our pets, so why worry about them? Well, maybe love is not enough. Maybe the 470 million-odd animals we call pets also need some moral attention. Their plight may be just as serious — and perhaps in some ways even more troubled — than the billions of animals caught in the wheels of agribusiness or the biomedical research industry."

Disturbing cases of neglected pets are known to all of us, but how could it be, I wondered, that pets deserve Pierce's deep, widespread concern?

Run, Spot, Run

Run, Spot, Run

Buy featured book.

Your purchase helps support NPR programming. How?

  • Independent Bookstores

Now that I've read Run, Spot, Run, I know the answer to that question.

Let's start with a statistic we've probably all heard: 9 of 10 pet owners consider their animals to be part of the family.

This number, it turns out, is drawn from a Harris Interactive Poll of 2,634 people, only 1,585 of whom had pets. Those 1,585 folks were asked simple — "leading," Pierce says — questions about their animals. From that incredibly thin foundation, a cultural narrative was born, one used to support the $50 billion-a year industry that sells us pet food, toys, veterinary services, cages, tanks and much more for our animals.

Sure, some pets truly are woven into the lives of families, but Pierce is saying that when we hear the pets-as-family line over and over, we should recognize it for what it is: a hard corporate sell. As she puts it: "A gossamer pets-are-family thread has been woven over the ugliness."

What ugliness? According to Pierce: At least 30 percent of "family" dogs and cats never once visit a veterinarian; lonely animals are confined to tanks, cages or backyards; high rates of animal cancer occur owing to the poor quality of pet food; people have sex with animals, including at animal brothels, at shocking rates; the "euthanasia" deaths carried out at animal shelters often aren't good deaths at all.

Last month, I conducted a Q&A with Pierce by email about her book. Here's our conversation:

Could you summarize for us a couple of the major ways that keeping animals as pets gives you pause? The pet industry encourages people to buy pets, and the way animals are advertised and sold gives the impression that pet keeping is easy and fun. You can buy an animal for less than you can buy a new pair of shoes. And this makes it easy to underestimate the seriousness of the decision to bring an animal into our homes, and feeds into an attitude that animals are disposable. My aim in writing Run, Spot, Run is to reinforce the fact that pet keeping involves taking responsibility for the life and well-being of a sentient creature, and giving an animal what he or she really needs is challenging and shouldn't be taken lightly. I also, perhaps even more importantly, want to raise awareness about the broader implications of the pet industry, for animals. For example, now that I know the "backstory" on the reptiles and amphibians sold in many pet stores (the dismal conditions in which animals are "manufactured" — bred, transported and housed — before they arrive on the shelves, and the extremely high mortality rates), I would never buy a gecko from a big box pet store. The cost to the animals is just too high. As you've just noted, it's not just cats and dogs you're talking about in the book. No, in fact, I'm much less concerned about dogs and cats than I am other species of animal people keep as pets. I worry about exotics and wild animals, because their physical and psychological needs are extremely difficult to meet in a home environment. And I worry about animals who must live their entire lives in a cage or tank. When kept alone in a small cage, birds, small mammals like hamsters and gerbils, and even fish lack adequate physical, mental, and social stimulation. Solitary confinement of human prisoners is considered a violation of basic human rights, yet this is essentially what we do to some of our pet animals. It just seems unfair to impose this on them, for the sake of our curiosity or entertainment. I was surprised at your statement in the book that "Cats and captivity present, in my view, one of the most vexing pet-keeping conundrums." Why is this? Our six indoor cats seem to us very content: They enjoy sun patches, toys and bird-watching out the window, but, even more, the dual-species social dynamics of the eight of us in the house keep them thinking hard, and well-occupied. And they're not outdoors killing birds and small mammals. I think the indoor/outdoor cat issue is vexing because we can't just go by a single rule or principle — because all cats are different, and each cat's home environment is different. Furthermore, both indoor and outdoor options have important downsides. What I find problematic are the hard-and-fast declarations such as "all cats must be kept indoors" or "all cats need to be outdoors." It sounds like your cats have a wonderful life, and being indoors seems to be working really well for them and for you. I know a lot of other cats who have really good indoor lives and who seem quite content. But I also know cats who need more space to roam, who have a wandering spirit. Lots of cats are going crazy inside, if you go by reports of high numbers of behavioral issues and health problems such as obesity .

Pierce told me that when she starts worrying about all this too much, she takes her dogs to the local dog park, and relaxes with the well-cared-for dogs there who are part of a human family and also encouraged to be dogs.

Pierce doesn't at all demonize pet-keeping. She just asks us to remember how vulnerable our animal companions can be and that we should act to protect them. Her excellent book is for animals as much as about them.

Barbara J. King is an anthropology professor at the College of William and Mary. She often writes about human evolution, primate behavior and the cognition and emotion of animals. Barbara's most recent book on animals is titled How Animals Grieve . You can keep up with what she is thinking on Twitter: @bjkingape .

article writing on keeping pets

Pets: is it ethical to keep them?

article writing on keeping pets

Lecturer of Sociology, University of Kent

Disclosure statement

Corey Lee Wrenn does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

View all partners

According to the UK veterinary charity The People’s Dispensary for Sick Animals (PDSA), half of Britons own a pet . Many of these owners view the 11.1m cats, 8.9m dogs, and 1m rabbits sharing their homes as family members. But although we love them, care for them, celebrate their birthdays and mourn them when they pass, is it ethical to keep pets in the first place? Some animal rights activists and ethicists, myself included, would argue that it is not.

The institution of pet-keeping is fundamentally unjust as it involves the manipulation of animals’ bodies, behaviours and emotional lives. For centuries, companion animal’s bodies (particularly dogs, horses and rabbits) have been shaped to suit human fashions and fancies. And this often causes these animals considerable physical harm .

Particular breeds, for instance, are highly susceptible to painful and frequently fatal genetic defects. Highly prized physical features – such as small and large stature or pushed-in noses – can cause discomfort and difficulty in breathing, birthing and other normal functions.

Even those animals who are not purpose-bred often face bodily manipulations which impede their comfort and safety. This can include confining clothing, painful leashes that pull at the throat, docked tails and ears, and declawing , which involves the severing of the first digit of each toe in cats. Pets are also often constrained in their daily movements, sometimes crated or caged, and regularly kept indoors – always at the whim of their human owners.

article writing on keeping pets

Pets also symbolically reinforce the notion that vulnerable groups can be owned and fully controlled for the pleasure and convenience of more privileged and powerful groups. And this has implications for vulnerable human groups. For instance, sexism is partially maintained by treating women linguistically as pets – “kitten”, “bunny” – and physically by confining them to the home to please and serve the family patriarch.

Social workers further recognise the powerful link between pet abuse and the abuse of children and women in domestic settings. The idea that it is acceptable to manipulate the bodies and minds of a vulnerable group to suit the interests of more privileged groups is consistent with the cultural logic of oppression.

Cannot consent

Through this forced dependency and domestication, the lives of companion animals are almost completely controlled by humans. They can be terminated at any time for the most trivial of reasons – including behavioural “problems”, for belonging to a stereotyped breed, or the owner’s inability (or unwillingness) to pay for veterinary treatment.

In the mid 20th century, sociologist Erving Goffman introduced the concept of a “ total institution ”. This sees inhabitants cut off from wider society under a single authority in an enclosed social space. Natural barriers between social spheres are artificially eliminated and an intense socialisation process takes place to ensure that inmates conform.

Sociologists typically study prisons, asylums and other physical spaces as examples. But I believe pet-keeping constitutes a sort of dispersed “total institution”. This is because nonhuman animals are unnaturally forced under human authority, restrained, and re-socialised. True consent is not possible under such conditions. Animals are groomed to participate and those who are unable to follow the rules of human social life are likely to be punished – sometimes fatally.

This is not in any way to suggest that dogs, cats and other species cannot express love and happiness as “pets”. But it is important to recognise that their complacency within the institution of pet-keeping is entirely manufactured (sometimes quite cruelly) by humans through behaviour “corrections” and the manipulative process of domestication itself.

A world without pets?

Some companion animal advocates, such as Nathan Winograd, the director of the US based No Kill Advocacy Center , argue that to stop keeping pets altogether would be a violation of nonhuman animals’ right to exist . Winograd believes the widespread killing of healthy companion animals can be curbed through a restructuring of the sheltering industry . He rejects the need to end pet-keeping given the abundance of humanity’s capacity for compassion and adoption.

article writing on keeping pets

Winograd’s pro-pet position reflects the No Kill movement’s strong disapproval of some animal rights organisations, which frequently support “euthanasia” policies to curb pet populations. But if a no kill society were to be achieved, many of the ethical violations – bodily manipulation, non-consensual confinement, enforced dependency, and vulnerability to human abuse – would remain. Even if, as Winograd supposes, an increase in legal protections could be obtained to improve domestic animal’s standards of living.

Ultimately, companion animals, by their very position in the social order, are not and cannot be equals. The institution of pet-keeping maintains a social hierarchy which privileges humans and positions all others as objects of lower importance – whose right to existence depends wholly on their potential to benefit humans. That said, the population of dogs, cats, rabbits and other domesticated “pet” animals currently rivals that of humans such that they are likely to remain a consistent feature of human social life.

And while it may not be ethical to pursue the future breeding of nonhuman animals for comfort, humans do have a duty to serve, protect and care for them. Recognising the inherent inequality in human and nonhuman relations will be vital in making the best of an imperfect situation.

  • Animal rights
  • Animal training

article writing on keeping pets

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Business Law & Taxation

article writing on keeping pets

Newsletters and Social Media Manager

article writing on keeping pets

Industrial Officer (Senior)

article writing on keeping pets

Supply Chain Management – Open Rank (Tenure-Track)

article writing on keeping pets

RESEARCH SUPPORT OFFICER

article writing on keeping pets

Subscribe to Scientific American!

Anthropology in Practice

The Animal Connection: Why Do We Keep Pets?

  • By Krystal D'Costa  on  January 20, 2012

Ed. Note: Another favorite this Friday about those furry members of our family—no, not your Grandpa Ed, but your pet. This post was selected as an Editor's Selection on ResearchBlogging.org. It has been slightly modified from it's original posting .

I’ll never forget the day S brought home a live chicken. When we lived in Queens, there were a number of fresh poultry and livestock suppliers that catered to the growing West Indian community so live poultry was readily available, but there were also a few backyard farmers in the neighborhood. S was at a gas station when he heard a cheeping noise. He knelt down to investigate and when he straightened up, found a chick sitting on the mat in the car. “What was I supposed to do?” he asked showing me the chick later that day. “It jumped in the car.”

His affinity with animals is nothing new. He trained goldfish. He has refused to kill mice, insisting on releasing them into the wild. At fifteen, he nursed a pigeon back to health after setting its broken wing. During a trip to Trinidad, he befriended a bull—despite being warned away by my uncles—by sitting in the mud with it for hours. And today, we are the proud parents of two cats (we did not keep Chicken Little) who can’t seem to get enough of him. I am definitely second fiddle in their feline minds—though handy to have around when they need to be fed.

S is not alone. Pat Shipman (2010) notes the significance of pets —and animals—in our lives:

In both the United States and Australia, 63% of households include pets, compared to 43% of British and 20% of Japanese households. In the United States, the proportion of households with pets is larger than those with children (522).

This relationship, dubbed the animal connection by Shipman, may have played an important role in human evolution, linking the traits that distinguish Homo sapiens from other mammals. How is it that some animals transitioned from food to friends, and what is the significance of this relationship?

The animal connection is the process by which pets or livestock become companions and/or partners, and are treated as members of the family. It refers to the close relationship between animals and humans starting 2.6 million years ago (mya), beginning with the use and study of animals by humans, and leading to regular social interactions. Today this is manifested in the adoption of animals and the care provided to them in the course of that relationship. The roots of this relationship may be found in the development of three often recognized traits of humans: making and using tools, symbolic behavior (including language, adornment, and rituals), and domestication of other species. Shipman views the animal connection as a fourth trait, tying the other three together and having an immense effect on human evolution, genetics, and behavior (2010: 522).

Though tool use has been documented in other nonhuman mammals, the manufacture and use of tools by humans is an extremely complex behavior. Modern chimpanzees are often recognized for their tool usage , but this usage varies whereas humans consistently use tools. Early humans used tools to process carcasses, and we have evidence of this from the marks left on the bones after contact with implements. Stone tools gave humans an advantage: they no longer needed to compete with scavengers. They could hunt game on their own and/or drive off those scavengers if needed. The increased meat in the human diet meant that humans occupied a predatory niche, and as such necessarily needed to disperse so that their localities could support their needs. While Shipman makes clear that the fossil record supports that expansion of geographic range about 2 mya, the more interesting point, in my opinion, is that in seeking out live game, humans needed to learn about their prey, which opened the door for a more meaningful relationship with animals.

Wild animals are certainly able to communicate with each other, but language has thus far largely been relegated to humans, who have a clearly identifiable syntax and grammar (520). Animals have alarm calls, but there are limits to what they can communicate. For instance, a chimp alerting his troupe about a snake cannot provide details about the snake: The chimp cannot say it is a brown snake. (Or maybe it can, and we just don't know.) And while educated apes may have a vocabulary of about 400 words, they don’t apply syntax and grammar to those words (520). Language allows humans to share information, and we have developed delightfully complicated means of doing so:

Ritual, art, ochre, and personal adornment are used to transmit information about such concepts as beliefs, group membership, or style, leaving physical manifestations visible in the archaeological record. Nothing interpreted as art, ritual, the use of ochre, or personal adornment has been reported in nonhuman mammals in the wild (521).

As more sophisticated stone tools were developed, humans could pursue larger game. But this might often require collaboration, which encouraged language. Perhaps the strongest example of this is prehistoric art which depicts animals extensively, revealing morphology, coloring, behaviors, and sexual dimorphism (Shipman 2010: 524). It creates a record to be shared with others.

Domestication required humans to select for desirable behavioral traits and control the reproductive and genetic output over generations. They lived in close proximity to the animals, historically even bringing them into the home. Indeed, the physical closeness of humans to animals has allowed some infectious diseases to enter the human population from animal hosts, e.g., measles (dogs), mumps (poultry), tuberculosis (cattle), and the common cold (horses) (529). However, the benefits have outweighed the costs when it comes to keeping animals near—animals are much more than a food source:

The Goyet dog is at least 17,000 years older than the next oldest domesticate (also a dog) … animals were domesticated first because their treatment was an extension of tool making (Shipman 2010: 524).

Animals were domesticated as living tools. They expanded the reach of humans and made other resources more accessible. Animals could provide labor, milk, wool, and opportunities for the production of tools and clothing. And domestication was hedged on an understanding of biology, ecology, physiology, temperament and intelligence.

While much has been made of the monkey who appears to have adopted a cat , such cross-species alloparenting is rare. Humans are the exception. We routinely take in animals integrate them into our families, creating a beneficial relationship. Our connection to Fido may be deeply rooted in our evolutionary history.

Shipman, P. (2010). The Animal Connection and Human Evolution Current Anthropology, 51 (4), 519-538 DOI: 10.1086/653816

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR(S)

author-avatar

Krystal D'Costa is an anthropologist working in digital media in New York City. You can follow AiP on Facebook .  Follow Krystal D'Costa on Twitter

Recent Articles by Krystal D'Costa

  • The Rise of Pumpkin Spice
  • How Do Leaders Impact Our Definition of Responsibility?
  • It's True: We're Probably All a Little Irish--Especially in the Caribbean

Get smart. Sign up for our email newsletter.

Editor's selections: more on syphilis, education in india, and classifying things in archaeology.

  • By Krystal D'Costa on January 19, 2012

The End of the Time of Earth: Why Does the Leap Second Matter?

  • By Krystal D'Costa on January 23, 2012

Support science journalism.

Scientific American paper issue and on tablet

Thanks for reading Scientific American. Knowledge awaits.

Already a subscriber? Sign in.

Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue.

See Subscription Options

Continue reading with a Scientific American subscription.

You may cancel at any time.

Best Friends: You and Your Dog

The joys of owning a cat, coping with losing a pet, dog walking: the health benefits of walks with your dog, emotional support dogs: choosing the right breed, adopting a dog for the first time.

  • Choosing the Right Dog: Find Your Perfect Canine Friend
  • Choosing the Right Cat: Find Your Perfect Feline Friend
  • Online Therapy: Is it Right for You?
  • Mental Health
  • Health & Wellness
  • Children & Family
  • Relationships

Are you or someone you know in crisis?

  • Bipolar Disorder
  • Eating Disorders
  • Grief & Loss
  • Personality Disorders
  • PTSD & Trauma
  • Schizophrenia
  • Therapy & Medication
  • Exercise & Fitness
  • Healthy Eating
  • Well-being & Happiness
  • Weight Loss
  • Work & Career
  • Illness & Disability
  • Heart Health
  • Childhood Issues
  • Learning Disabilities
  • Family Caregiving
  • Teen Issues
  • Communication
  • Emotional Intelligence
  • Love & Friendship
  • Domestic Abuse
  • Healthy Aging
  • Aging Issues
  • Alzheimer’s Disease & Dementia
  • Senior Housing
  • End of Life
  • Healthy Living
  • Aging in Place
  • Online Therapy
  • Meet Our Team
  • Jeanne Segal, Ph.D.
  • Harvard Health Partnership
  • Audio Meditations

The benefits of pets

How pets can improve your lifestyle, the benefits of pets for older adults, the benefits of pets for children, owning a pet is a major commitment, how to find the perfect pet, choosing between a dog or a cat, alternatives to pet ownership, the health and mood-boosting benefits of pets.

Pets come with some powerful health benefits. Here’s how caring for a dog, cat, or other animal can help relieve depression and anxiety, lower stress, and improve your heart health.

article writing on keeping pets

Most pet owners are clear about the immediate joys that come with sharing their lives with companion animals. However, many of us remain unaware of the physical and mental health benefits that can also accompany the pleasure of snuggling up to a furry friend. It’s only recently that studies have begun to scientifically explore the benefits of the human-animal bond.

Pets have evolved to become acutely attuned to humans and our behavior and emotions. Dogs, for example, are able to understand many of the words we use, but they’re even better at interpreting our tone of voice, body language, and gestures. And like any good human friend, a loyal dog will look into your eyes to gauge your emotional state and try to understand what you’re thinking and feeling (and to work out when the next walk or treat might be coming, of course).

Pets, especially dogs and cats, can reduce stress, anxiety, and depression, ease loneliness, encourage exercise and playfulness, and even improve your cardiovascular health. Caring for an animal can help children grow up more secure and active. Pets also provide valuable companionship for older adults. Perhaps most importantly, though, a pet can add real joy and unconditional love to your life.

Any pet can improve your health

While it’s true that people with pets often experience greater health benefits than those without, a pet doesn’t necessarily have to be a dog or a cat. A rabbit could be ideal if you’re allergic to other animals or have limited space but still want a furry friend to snuggle with. Birds can encourage social interaction and help keep your mind sharp if you’re an older adult. Snakes, lizards, and other reptiles can make for exotic companions. Even watching fish in an aquarium can help reduce muscle tension and lower your pulse rate.

Studies have shown that:

  • Pet owners are less likely to suffer from depression than those without pets.
  • People with pets have lower blood pressure in stressful situations than those without pets. One study even found that when people with borderline hypertension adopted dogs from a shelter, their blood pressure declined significantly within five months.
  • Playing with a dog, cat, or other pet can elevate levels of serotonin and dopamine, which calm and relax.
  • Pet owners have lower triglyceride and cholesterol levels (indicators of heart disease) than those without pets.
  • Heart attack patients with pets survive longer than those without.
  • Pet owners over age 65 make 30 percent fewer visits to their doctors than those without pets.

One of the reasons for these therapeutic effects is that pets fulfill the basic human need for touch. Even hardened criminals in prison show long-term changes in their behavior after interacting with pets, many of them experiencing mutual affection for the first time. Stroking, hugging, or otherwise touching a loving animal can rapidly calm and soothe you when you’re stressed or anxious. The companionship of a pet can also ease loneliness , and most dogs are a great stimulus for healthy exercise, which can substantially boost your mood and ease depression.

Speak to a Licensed Therapist

BetterHelp is an online therapy service that matches you to licensed, accredited therapists who can help with depression, anxiety, relationships, and more. Take the assessment and get matched with a therapist in as little as 48 hours.

Adopting healthy lifestyle changes plays an important role in easing symptoms of depression , anxiety, stress, bipolar disorder, and PTSD. Caring for a pet can help you make healthy lifestyle changes by:

Increasing exercise. Taking a dog for a walk, hike, or run are fun and rewarding ways to fit healthy daily exercise into your schedule. Studies have shown that dog owners are far more likely to meet their daily exercise requirements—and exercising every day is great for the animal as well. It will deepen the connection between you, eradicate most behavior problems in dogs, and keep your pet fit and healthy.

Providing companionship. Companionship can help prevent illness and even add years to your life, while isolation and loneliness can trigger symptoms of depression. Caring for an animal can help make you feel needed and wanted, and take the focus away from your problems, especially if you live alone. Most dog and cat owners talk to their pets, some even use them to work through their troubles. And nothing beats loneliness like coming home to a wagging tail or purring cat.

Helping you meet new people. Pets can be a great social lubricant for their owners, helping you start and maintain new friendships . Dog owners frequently stop and talk to each other on walks, hikes, or in a dog park. Pet owners also meet new people in pet stores, clubs, and training classes.

Reducing anxiety. The companionship of an animal can offer comfort, help ease anxiety , and build self-confidence for people anxious about going out into the world. Because pets tend to live in the moment—they don’t worry about what happened yesterday or what might happen tomorrow—they can help you become more mindful and appreciate the joy of the present.

Adding structure and routine to your day. Many pets, especially dogs, require a regular feeding and exercise schedule. Having a consistent routine keeps an animal balanced and calm—and it can work for you, too. No matter your mood—depressed, anxious, or stressed—one plaintive look from your pet and you’ll have to get out of bed to feed, exercise, and care for them.

[Read: Coping with Depression]

Providing sensory stress relief. Touch and movement are two healthy ways to quickly manage stress . Stroking a dog, cat, or other animal can lower blood pressure and help you quickly feel calmer and less stressed.

Get a dog, lose weight

A number of studies have linked owning a dog to losing weight:

  • A year-long study at the Wellness Institute at Northwestern Memorial Hospital, Chicago found that walking an overweight dog helped both the animals and their owners shed unwanted pounds. Researchers found that the dogs provided support in similar ways to a human exercise buddy, but with greater consistency and without any negative influence.
  • Another study by the Research Center for Human-Animal Interaction found that public housing residents who walked therapy dogs for up to 20 minutes five days a week lost an average of 14.4 pounds in a year, without changing their diets.
  • A third study, conducted by dog food manufacturer Mars Petcare, found that people with a dog walked 30 minutes more per week than they did before owning a dog.

As well as providing vital companionship, owning a pet can play an important role in healthy aging by helping you to:

Find meaning and joy in life. As you age, you’ll lose things that previously occupied your time and gave your life purpose. You may retire from your career or your children may move far away. Caring for a pet can bring pleasure and help boost your morale, optimism, and sense of self-worth. Choosing to adopt a pet from a shelter, especially an older pet, can add to your sense of fulfillment, knowing that you’ve provided a home to a pet that may otherwise have been euthanized.

[Read: Cultivating Happiness]

Stay connected. Maintaining a social network isn’t always easy as you grow older. Retirement , illness, death, and relocation can take away close friends and family members. And making new friends can get harder. Pets, especially dogs, are a great way for older adults to spark up conversations and meet new people .

Boost your vitality. You can overcome many of the physical challenges associated with aging by taking good care of yourself. Dogs, cats, and other pets encourage playfulness , laughter, and exercise, which can help boost your immune system and increase your energy.

How pets help adults with Alzheimer’s disease or dementia

As part of the disease, Alzheimer’s patients may exhibit a variety of behavioral problems, many related to an inability to deal with stress.

  • Research at the University of California at Davis concluded that Alzheimer’s patients suffer less stress and have fewer anxious outbursts if there is a dog or cat in the home.
  • Pets can provide a source of positive, nonverbal communication. The playful interaction and gentle touch from a well-trained, docile animal can help soothe an Alzheimer’s patient and decrease aggressive behavior —as can simply being exposed to bright aquariums or fish tanks.
  • In many cases a patient’s problem behavior is a reaction to the stressed response of the primary caretaker. Pets can help ease the stress of caregivers. Cats or caged animals may be more suitable than dogs, which generally require more care and can add to the burden of someone who’s already looking after an Alzheimer’s patient.

Not only do children who grow up with pets have less risk of allergies and asthma, many also learn responsibility, compassion, and empathy from having a dog or cat.

[Read: Raising Emotionally Intelligent Children]

  • Unlike parents or teachers, pets are never critical and don’t give orders. They are always loving and their mere presence at home can help provide a sense of security in children. Having an ever-present pet can help ease separation anxiety in children when mom and dad aren’t around.
  • Having the love and companionship of a pet can make a child feel important and help them develop a positive self-image.
  • Kids who are emotionally attached to their pets are better able to build relationships with other people.
  • Studies have also shown that pets can help calm hyperactive or overly aggressive kids. Of course, both the animal and the child need to be trained to behave appropriately with each other.
  • A pet can help develop a young and expanding mind by teaching a child empathy and understanding. Kids can talk with their pet without a fear of rejection, which enables them to build their confidence, and even their vocabulary.
  • Getting even a small, caged pet, such as a guinea pig or hamster, is a great way to teach a child responsibility.

Like adults, children can benefit from playing with a pet. It can be a source of calmness and relaxation, as well as a source of stimulation for the brain and body. Playing with a pet can even be a doorway to learning for a child. It can stimulate a child’s imagination and curiosity. The rewards of training a dog to perform a new trick, for example, can teach kids the importance of perseverance. Caring for a furry friend can also offer another benefit to a child: immense joy.

Children with learning disorders and other challenges

Some children with autism or other learning difficulties are better able to interact with pets than people. Autistic children often rely on nonverbal cues to communicate, just as animals do. And learning to first connect with a pet may even help an autistic child in their interactions with people.

  • Pets can help children with learning disabilities learn how to regulate stress and calm themselves, making them better equipped to overcome the challenges of their disorder.
  • Playing and exercising with a dog or cat can help a child with learning disorders stay alert and attentive throughout the day. It can also be a great antidote to stress and frustration caused by the learning disability.
  • Learning to ride a horse at a local riding stable can help elevate the self-esteem of disabled children, putting them on a more equal level with kids without disabilities.

Despite all the benefits, it’s important to remember that a pet is not a miracle cure for mental health issues. Owning a pet is beneficial and comforting only for those who love and appreciate domestic animals and have the time and money to keep a pet happy and healthy. If you’re simply not an “animal person,” pet ownership is not going to provide you with any health benefits or improve your life.

Even if you love animals, it’s important to understand everything that caring for a pet entails. Owning a pet is a major commitment that will last through the animal’s lifetime, perhaps 10 or 15 years in the case of dogs. And at the end of that commitment, you’ll face the grief and mourning that comes with losing a beloved companion.

[Read: Coping with Losing a Pet]

Other drawbacks to owning a pet include:

Pets cost money . Food bills, veterinary care, licenses, grooming costs, toys, bedding, boarding fees, and other maintenance expenses can mount up. If you’re unemployed or elderly, on a limited fixed income, it may be a struggle to cope with the expense of pet ownership.

Pets require time and attention . As any dog owner will tell you, there’s nothing therapeutic about coming home to a dog that has been locked up in the house on his own all day. Dogs need daily exercise to stay calm and well-balanced; most other pets require at least daily care and attention.

Owning a pet can curb some of your social activity . A dog can only be left alone for a limited time. By training your dog, you’ll be able to take him with you to visit friends, run errands, or sit outside a coffee shop, for example, but you won’t be able to leave for a spur of the moment weekend away without arranging care for your pet first.

Pets can be destructive . Any pet can have an occasional accident at home. Some cats may be prone to shredding upholstery, some dogs to chewing shoes. While training can help eradicate negative, destructive behavior, they remain common in animals left alone without exercise or stimulation for long periods of time.

Pets require responsibility . Most dogs, regardless of size and breed, are capable of inflicting injury on people if not handled responsibly by their owners. Even cats can scratch or bite. Pet owners need to be alert to any danger, especially around children.

Pets carry health risks for some people . While there are some diseases that can be transmitted from cats and dogs to their human handlers, allergies are the most common health risk of pet ownership. If you or a family member has been diagnosed with a pet allergy, carefully consider whether you can live with the symptoms before committing to pet ownership. Also consider that some friends or relatives with allergies may no longer be able to visit your home if you have a pet.

If you’ve decided that owning a pet is right for you, congratulations: you’re about to open your life to a unique and rewarding relationship. While people who have pets tend to be happier, more independent, and feel more secure than those without pets, it’s important to select the type of pet that best suits your needs and lifestyle.

[Read: Choosing the Right Dog]

Talk to other members of your household and agree on the qualities you want in a pet and those that you’d prefer to avoid.

Lifestyle considerations that influence your choice in a pet

Little outdoor activity . If most of your time is spent at home, consider pets that would be happy to stay with you in that environment. You may enjoy playing with or cuddling a cat or a bunny; taking leisurely walks with an older dog; watching fish or reptiles; or talking or singing along with a bird.

High activity level . If you’re more active and enjoy daily activities outside of your home, especially walking or running, an energetic dog might be right for you. Canine companions thrive on outdoor exercise, keeping you on the move.

Small children and the elderly . Families with small children or elderly living in their homes should consider the size and energy level of a pet. Puppies and kittens are usually very active, but delicate creatures that must be handled with care. Large or rambunctious dogs could accidentally harm or knock over a small child or adult who is unsteady on his or her feet.

Other animals in household . Consider the ongoing happiness and ability to adjust of the pets you already have. While your cat or a dog might love to have an animal friend to play with, a pet that has had exclusive access to your attentions may resent sharing you.

Home environment . If a neat, tidy home, free of animal hair, occasional muddy footprints and “accidents” is important, then a free-roaming dog or long-haired cat may not be the best choice. You may want to choose pets that are confined to their quarters, such as fish, birds, hamsters, or reptiles.

Landscaping concerns . With certain pets, your landscaping will suffer. Many dogs will be tempted to dig holes in your lawn, and dog urine can leave yellow patches—some say unaltered females cause the most damage.

Time commitment . Finally, and perhaps most importantly, keep in mind that you’ll be making a commitment that will last the lifetime of the pet—perhaps 10, 15, or 20 years with a dog or cat; as many as 30 years or more with a bird. You can, of course, consider adopting an older dog or cat from a shelter or rescue group and provide a deserving animal with a loving home for its senior years.

Ultimately, when choosing a pet, be honest with yourself about the lifestyle you enjoy and the kind of pet you’d like to care for. If you’re in doubt about caring for a larger animal, start small, get a fish or a smaller, caged animal. See how it fits and go from there.

Shelter and rescue animals

Whether mixed breed or purebred, dogs and cats adopted from a shelter or rescue group make excellent pets. For the most part, pets end up in a shelter through no fault of their own. Their owner may have died or moved to a place that doesn’t allow pets, or the pet may have simply been abandoned by irresponsible owners who bought them on a whim and later discovered that they were unable or unwilling to care for them properly. If any shelter or rescue animal exhibits aggressive behavior, it is typically euthanized rather than offered for adoption.

Rescue groups try to find suitable homes for unwanted or abandoned dogs, cats, and other pets, many taken from shelters where they would otherwise have been euthanized. Volunteers usually take care of the animals until they can find a permanent home. This means that rescuers are often very familiar with a pet’s personality and can help advise you on whether the pet would make a good match for your needs.

By adopting an animal from a shelter or rescue organization, you’ll not only be giving a home to a deserving pet, but you’ll also likely be saving an animal’s life.

Avoid puppies sold in pet stores and online

Puppy mills are like dog-making factories that churn out puppies for profit, ignoring the needs of the pups and their mothers. The mother dogs spend their entire lives in cramped cages or kennels with little or no personal attention or quality of life. When the mother and father dogs can no longer breed, they are discarded or killed. Dogs from puppy mills are often sick and unsocialized.

There are also more than 10,000 puppy mills in the United States alone, and they commonly sell online or via classified ads, flea markets, and pet stores. In fact, the majority of puppies sold in pet stores and online are from puppy mills—even though the sellers promote themselves as “responsible” breeders or promise “home-raised” puppies.

To help stop this cycle of cruelty, choose to adopt your next pet from a shelter or rescue group, or by purchasing a dog only from a responsible breeder who will show you where the puppy—and its mother—were born and raised.

Source:  The Humane Society of the United States

Dogs and cats are the most common household pets. While on occasion, you’ll see someone walking a cat on a leash or a dog that uses a litter box, typically the needs and natural behaviors of dogs and cats are different:

Indoors or outdoors

Cats: House cats do enjoy being outdoors sometimes, but can wander off.

Dogs: Dogs need daily exercise and walks outdoors. Even if you have a large, fenced backyard where they can run and go to the bathroom, they will still need a daily walk.

Cats: Essential training of cats usually includes using the litter box and not clawing furniture. Cats resist training.

Dogs: Dogs need much more training than cats. Most dogs enjoy training, because it gives them something to do. They also have an innate desire to please their people.

Personality

Cats: If you love serenity and independence mixed with playfulness, a cat is more likely to satisfy you.

Dogs: If you want to be greeted exuberantly every time you come home, a dog is a better choice.

[Read: Choosing the Right Cat]

Sociability

Cats: Cats are often content to be left alone (except, of course, when you'd rather they leave you alone).

Dogs: Dogs tend to thrive on interaction with humans and other dogs.

If you don’t have the time, money, or ability to own a pet full-time, there are still ways you can experience the health benefits of being around animals. Even short periods spent with a dog or cat can benefit both you and the animal.

You can ask to walk a neighbor’s dog, for example, or volunteer at an animal shelter. Most animal shelters or rescue groups welcome volunteers to help care for homeless pets or assist at adoption events. You’ll not only be helping yourself, but also helping to socialize and exercise the animals, making them more adoptable.

Some animal shelters and rescue groups offer pet “rental” programs. Dogs and cats that are available for adoption can be taken out for walks or play dates. You can also foster an animal temporarily until a permanent home is found for him, or to decide if the animal is right for you.

A variety of different organizations offer specially trained therapy dogs and cats to visit children’s hospitals, assisted living facilities, nursing homes, hospice programs, shelters, and schools. During these visits, people are invited to pet and stroke the animals, which can improve mood and reduce stress and anxiety.

More Information

  • Christian, H., Wood, L., Nathan, A., Kawachi, I., Houghton, S., Martin, K., & McCune, S. (2016). The association between dog walking, physical activity and owner’s perceptions of safety: Cross-sectional evidence from the US and Australia. BMC Public Health , 16(1), 1010. Link
  • Clements, H., Valentin, S., Jenkins, N., Rankin, J., Baker, J. S., Gee, N., Snellgrove, D., & Sloman, K. (2019). The effects of interacting with fish in aquariums on human health and well-being: A systematic review. PLOS ONE , 14(7), e0220524. Link
  • Cracknell, D., White, M. P., Pahl, S., Nichols, W. J., & Depledge, M. H. (2016). Marine Biota and Psychological Well-Being: A Preliminary Examination of Dose–Response Effects in an Aquarium Setting. Environment and Behavior , 48(10), 1242–1269. Link
  • Fritz, C. L., Farver, T. B., Kass, P. H., & Hart, L. A. (1995). Association with Companion Animals and the Expression of Noncognitive Symptoms in Alzheimerʼs Patients: The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease , 183(7), 459–463. Link
  • Johnson, R. A., & Meadows, R. L. (2010). Dog-Walking: Motivation for Adherence to a Walking Program. Clinical Nursing Research , 19(4), 387–402. Link
  • Kushner, R. F., Blatner, D. J., Jewell, D. E., & Rudloff, K. (2006). The PPET Study: People and Pets Exercising Together*. Obesity , 14(10), 1762–1770. Link
  • Levine, G. N., Allen, K., Braun, L. T., Christian, H. E., Friedmann, E., Taubert, K. A., Thomas, S. A., Wells, D. L., & Lange, R. A. (2013). Pet Ownership and Cardiovascular Risk: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association. Circulation , 127(23), 2353–2363. Link
  • Martin, F., Bachert, K. E., Snow, L., Tu, H.-W., Belahbib, J., & Lyn, S. A. (2021). Depression, anxiety, and happiness in dog owners and potential dog owners during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. PLOS ONE , 16(12), e0260676. Link
  • Mubanga, M., Byberg, L., Egenvall, A., Ingelsson, E., & Fall, T. (2019). Dog Ownership and Survival After a Major Cardiovascular Event: A Register-Based Prospective Study. Circulation: Cardiovascular Quality and Outcomes , 12(10), e005342. Link
  • Saunders, J., Parast, L., Babey, S. H., & Miles, J. V. (2017). Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy. PLOS ONE , 12(6), e0179494. Link
  • The Power of Pets | NIH News in Health . (n.d.). Retrieved April 6, 2022, from Link
  • Villafaina-Domínguez, B., Collado-Mateo, D., Merellano-Navarro, E., & Villafaina, S. (2020). Effects of Dog-Based Animal-Assisted Interventions in Prison Population: A Systematic Review. Animals , 10(11), 2129. Link
  • Westgarth, C., Christley, R. M., Jewell, C., German, A. J., Boddy, L. M., & Christian, H. E. (2019). Dog owners are more likely to meet physical activity guidelines than people without a dog: An investigation of the association between dog ownership and physical activity levels in a UK community. Scientific Reports , 9(1), 5704. Link
  • The Humane Society of the United States. “Stopping Puppy Mills.” Accessed March 28, 2023. Link

More in Pets

Dogs offer companionship—along with mental and physical health benefits

article writing on keeping pets

How a cat can improve your health and happiness

article writing on keeping pets

Grieving the loss of a dog, cat, or other beloved pet

article writing on keeping pets

Here’s how walking with your pooch can benefit you as well

article writing on keeping pets

Finding the right emotional support animal

article writing on keeping pets

Bringing home your new furry friend

article writing on keeping pets

Choosing the Right Dog

Find your perfect canine friend

article writing on keeping pets

Choosing the Right Cat

Find your perfect feline friend

article writing on keeping pets

Professional therapy, done online

BetterHelp makes starting therapy easy. Take the assessment and get matched with a professional, licensed therapist.

Help us help others

Millions of readers rely on HelpGuide.org for free, evidence-based resources to understand and navigate mental health challenges. Please donate today to help us save, support, and change lives.

My pets have stolen my heart again and again. I know I’m not alone.

Our relationships with animals can be as strong as those we have with humans, and far less complicated.

The most searing memory of my childhood was the day my mother finally agreed to get us a puppy, only to change her mind several hours later. She decided it would be too much work. Growing up, all I ever wanted was a dog or a cat. All I ever got was a turtle, countless goldfish and two parakeets.

Not surprisingly, the first thing I did after leaving home was get a kitten, a half-Siamese who lived to nearly 20, then a Burmese who made it to 17. When my kids were old enough — 10 and 13 — we got a chocolate lab puppy, as much for me as for them. The kids grew up and left, but Hershey stayed. She was my first dog and — with no husband or partner — my best friend.

The years brought a half-dozen more cats and two more dogs, Watson, a black lab then age 6 months, and Raylan, a yellow shepherd mix, who, at 4 years old, arrived with a BB pellet in his leg and a clear case of post-traumatic stress. With patience and love, Ray morphed from a fearful defensive stray into a devoted and trusting companion.

Today I live with Watson, now 10, the king of fetch, a mama’s boy who follows me everywhere; Chloe, 15, a long-haired part-Maine Coon cat, who loves dogs more than other cats; and Zachy, 10, a gray and black tabby obsessed with food — and my socks. All are rescues.

It was predictable after my pet-deprived youth that I would have animals. What surprised me was the intensity of my feelings for them, and how much my relationship with them would come to define my life.

I was paralyzed with grief and guilt (did I do the right thing?) when Hershey, at 13, was diagnosed with an advanced untreatable cancer and I had to let her go. Similarly, I fell apart after Raylan, then 12, and two of the cats, Max, almost 18, and Leo, 15, also developed cancer, and — in a recent short time span — were gone. Today I feel intermittent anxiety about Watson, Chloe and Zachy, the scientific term being anticipatory grief .

Social media is rife with personal stories of the animal/human bond, especially how difficult it can be to say goodbye. Our relationships with our pets often are as strong as and sometimes stronger than, those we have with our humans, and far less complicated. This may explain our deep connection with them.

“Often, pets are our first or even only chosen family when we leave childhood homes, when we live alone, when our children leave, when we go through breakups,” says Marjie Alonso, former executive director of the International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants and the IAABC Foundation. “Our pets provide a steady, stable presence in a way humans do not.”

Researchers sometimes use attachment theory to describe this bonded relationship between humans and their pets, which holds that humans are born with an innate need to bond with a caregiver, usually their mother. “For many pet owners, the attachment relationships we develop are as emotionally close and similar in intensity as a human attachment,” says Michael Meehan, a senior lecturer in veterinary science at Massey University in New Zealand. “Our pets also display the same attachment behavior toward us.”

Sandra McCune, visiting professor in human-animal interaction in the schools of psychology and life sciences at the University of Lincoln in England, agrees. “It may be that companion animals have hijacked our innate desire to form attachments,” she says. “They depend on us like a child that never grows up.”

My companion animals make up the rhythm of my days — and nights. It’s not just the walk/runs with Watson, or his endless preoccupation with tennis balls, or ensuring Chloe gets her medicines on time, and that Zachy has the special food he needs to prevent urinary blockages.

It’s also those exquisitely sweet moments: Watson, warm against my back while I sleep, and Chloe, who starts on my stomach, then moves into the crook of my arm when I shift. Zachy, still dog-wary, stays downstairs overnight, but waits at the bottom of the steps and demands breakfast as soon as he hears us stir.

“Pets tend to be always the same, even on good and bad days, reliably who they are and reliably ours in our relationship with them,” Alonso says. “Their own needs and wants are fixed around food, enrichment and care, focusing on us, rather than ‘Is my promotion going to come through?’ ‘You forgot our anniversary,’ or, ‘What do you want for dinner?’”

Emily Bray, assistant professor of human-animal interaction in the University of Arizona College of Veterinary Medicine, agrees. “When they are tuned into us, you have their full attention. They are not texting on their phones,” she says.

My children have their own lives now — and their own cats — and make their own decisions. But pets need us to make choices for them, even when it isn’t easy. “Pet owners have to decide when the time comes for euthanasia, which often complicates grief and doesn’t often exist in relation to human death,” says Meehan, also a pet grief counselor. “Unlike human death, there are no traditional rituals or protocols in place to memorialize a pet.”

McCune calls anticipatory grief a normal response to the prospect of loss. “It’s part of the love you have for them,” she says. “Enjoy them while you have them, make and keep memories for when they go. There are just some very special dogs and cats, the ones that steal your heart, that you constantly involve in your life, and that you change your life for.”

That has been true for me and, as it turned out, for my parents, too. Years after my brothers and I moved out, my sister-in-law gifted my parents, then in their 70s, with their first dog, a cocker spaniel puppy.

Too much work? Maybe. But they were too smitten to care.

Sign up for the Well+Being newsletter, your source of expert advice and simple tips to help you live well every day

Read more from Well+Being

Well+Being shares news and advice for living well every day. Sign up for our newsletter to get tips directly in your inbox.

A magnesium supplement may help in some cases, but most of us can get the right amount from food.

It’s never too late to lift weights : Older bodies can still build muscle.

Dietary guidelines may warn against ultraprocessed foods .

Should an affair be disclosed ?

What golden retrievers are teaching us about cancer.

article writing on keeping pets

  • Search Menu
  • Browse content in Arts and Humanities
  • Browse content in Archaeology
  • Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
  • Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
  • Archaeology by Region
  • Archaeology of Religion
  • Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
  • Biblical Archaeology
  • Contemporary and Public Archaeology
  • Environmental Archaeology
  • Historical Archaeology
  • History and Theory of Archaeology
  • Industrial Archaeology
  • Landscape Archaeology
  • Mortuary Archaeology
  • Prehistoric Archaeology
  • Underwater Archaeology
  • Zooarchaeology
  • Browse content in Architecture
  • Architectural Structure and Design
  • History of Architecture
  • Residential and Domestic Buildings
  • Theory of Architecture
  • Browse content in Art
  • Art Subjects and Themes
  • History of Art
  • Industrial and Commercial Art
  • Theory of Art
  • Biographical Studies
  • Byzantine Studies
  • Browse content in Classical Studies
  • Classical History
  • Classical Philosophy
  • Classical Mythology
  • Classical Literature
  • Classical Reception
  • Classical Art and Architecture
  • Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
  • Greek and Roman Papyrology
  • Greek and Roman Epigraphy
  • Greek and Roman Law
  • Greek and Roman Archaeology
  • Late Antiquity
  • Religion in the Ancient World
  • Digital Humanities
  • Browse content in History
  • Colonialism and Imperialism
  • Diplomatic History
  • Environmental History
  • Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
  • Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
  • Historical Geography
  • History by Period
  • History of Agriculture
  • History of Education
  • History of Gender and Sexuality
  • Industrial History
  • Intellectual History
  • International History
  • Labour History
  • Legal and Constitutional History
  • Local and Family History
  • Maritime History
  • Military History
  • National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
  • Oral History
  • Political History
  • Public History
  • Regional and National History
  • Revolutions and Rebellions
  • Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
  • Social and Cultural History
  • Theory, Methods, and Historiography
  • Urban History
  • World History
  • Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
  • Language Learning (Specific Skills)
  • Language Teaching Theory and Methods
  • Browse content in Linguistics
  • Applied Linguistics
  • Cognitive Linguistics
  • Computational Linguistics
  • Forensic Linguistics
  • Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
  • Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
  • History of English
  • Language Evolution
  • Language Reference
  • Language Acquisition
  • Language Variation
  • Language Families
  • Lexicography
  • Linguistic Anthropology
  • Linguistic Theories
  • Linguistic Typology
  • Phonetics and Phonology
  • Psycholinguistics
  • Sociolinguistics
  • Translation and Interpretation
  • Writing Systems
  • Browse content in Literature
  • Bibliography
  • Children's Literature Studies
  • Literary Studies (Romanticism)
  • Literary Studies (American)
  • Literary Studies (Asian)
  • Literary Studies (European)
  • Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
  • Literary Studies (Modernism)
  • Literary Studies - World
  • Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
  • Literary Studies (19th Century)
  • Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
  • Literary Studies (African American Literature)
  • Literary Studies (British and Irish)
  • Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
  • Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
  • Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
  • Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
  • Literary Studies (History of the Book)
  • Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
  • Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
  • Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
  • Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
  • Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
  • Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
  • Literary Studies (War Literature)
  • Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
  • Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
  • Mythology and Folklore
  • Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
  • Browse content in Media Studies
  • Browse content in Music
  • Applied Music
  • Dance and Music
  • Ethics in Music
  • Ethnomusicology
  • Gender and Sexuality in Music
  • Medicine and Music
  • Music Cultures
  • Music and Media
  • Music and Religion
  • Music and Culture
  • Music Education and Pedagogy
  • Music Theory and Analysis
  • Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
  • Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
  • Musicology and Music History
  • Performance Practice and Studies
  • Race and Ethnicity in Music
  • Sound Studies
  • Browse content in Performing Arts
  • Browse content in Philosophy
  • Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
  • Epistemology
  • Feminist Philosophy
  • History of Western Philosophy
  • Metaphysics
  • Moral Philosophy
  • Non-Western Philosophy
  • Philosophy of Language
  • Philosophy of Mind
  • Philosophy of Perception
  • Philosophy of Science
  • Philosophy of Action
  • Philosophy of Law
  • Philosophy of Religion
  • Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
  • Practical Ethics
  • Social and Political Philosophy
  • Browse content in Religion
  • Biblical Studies
  • Christianity
  • East Asian Religions
  • History of Religion
  • Judaism and Jewish Studies
  • Qumran Studies
  • Religion and Education
  • Religion and Health
  • Religion and Politics
  • Religion and Science
  • Religion and Law
  • Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
  • Religious Studies
  • Browse content in Society and Culture
  • Cookery, Food, and Drink
  • Cultural Studies
  • Customs and Traditions
  • Ethical Issues and Debates
  • Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
  • Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
  • Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
  • Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
  • Sports and Outdoor Recreation
  • Technology and Society
  • Travel and Holiday
  • Visual Culture
  • Browse content in Law
  • Arbitration
  • Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
  • Commercial Law
  • Company Law
  • Browse content in Comparative Law
  • Systems of Law
  • Competition Law
  • Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
  • Government Powers
  • Judicial Review
  • Local Government Law
  • Military and Defence Law
  • Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
  • Construction Law
  • Contract Law
  • Browse content in Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure
  • Criminal Evidence Law
  • Sentencing and Punishment
  • Employment and Labour Law
  • Environment and Energy Law
  • Browse content in Financial Law
  • Banking Law
  • Insolvency Law
  • History of Law
  • Human Rights and Immigration
  • Intellectual Property Law
  • Browse content in International Law
  • Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
  • Public International Law
  • IT and Communications Law
  • Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
  • Law and Politics
  • Law and Society
  • Browse content in Legal System and Practice
  • Courts and Procedure
  • Legal Skills and Practice
  • Primary Sources of Law
  • Regulation of Legal Profession
  • Medical and Healthcare Law
  • Browse content in Policing
  • Criminal Investigation and Detection
  • Police and Security Services
  • Police Procedure and Law
  • Police Regional Planning
  • Browse content in Property Law
  • Personal Property Law
  • Study and Revision
  • Terrorism and National Security Law
  • Browse content in Trusts Law
  • Wills and Probate or Succession
  • Browse content in Medicine and Health
  • Browse content in Allied Health Professions
  • Arts Therapies
  • Clinical Science
  • Dietetics and Nutrition
  • Occupational Therapy
  • Operating Department Practice
  • Physiotherapy
  • Radiography
  • Speech and Language Therapy
  • Browse content in Anaesthetics
  • General Anaesthesia
  • Neuroanaesthesia
  • Clinical Neuroscience
  • Browse content in Clinical Medicine
  • Acute Medicine
  • Cardiovascular Medicine
  • Clinical Genetics
  • Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
  • Dermatology
  • Endocrinology and Diabetes
  • Gastroenterology
  • Genito-urinary Medicine
  • Geriatric Medicine
  • Infectious Diseases
  • Medical Toxicology
  • Medical Oncology
  • Pain Medicine
  • Palliative Medicine
  • Rehabilitation Medicine
  • Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
  • Rheumatology
  • Sleep Medicine
  • Sports and Exercise Medicine
  • Community Medical Services
  • Critical Care
  • Emergency Medicine
  • Forensic Medicine
  • Haematology
  • History of Medicine
  • Browse content in Medical Skills
  • Clinical Skills
  • Communication Skills
  • Nursing Skills
  • Surgical Skills
  • Browse content in Medical Dentistry
  • Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
  • Paediatric Dentistry
  • Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
  • Surgical Dentistry
  • Medical Ethics
  • Medical Statistics and Methodology
  • Browse content in Neurology
  • Clinical Neurophysiology
  • Neuropathology
  • Nursing Studies
  • Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
  • Gynaecology
  • Occupational Medicine
  • Ophthalmology
  • Otolaryngology (ENT)
  • Browse content in Paediatrics
  • Neonatology
  • Browse content in Pathology
  • Chemical Pathology
  • Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
  • Histopathology
  • Medical Microbiology and Virology
  • Patient Education and Information
  • Browse content in Pharmacology
  • Psychopharmacology
  • Browse content in Popular Health
  • Caring for Others
  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine
  • Self-help and Personal Development
  • Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
  • Cell Biology
  • Molecular Biology and Genetics
  • Reproduction, Growth and Development
  • Primary Care
  • Professional Development in Medicine
  • Browse content in Psychiatry
  • Addiction Medicine
  • Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
  • Forensic Psychiatry
  • Learning Disabilities
  • Old Age Psychiatry
  • Psychotherapy
  • Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
  • Epidemiology
  • Public Health
  • Browse content in Radiology
  • Clinical Radiology
  • Interventional Radiology
  • Nuclear Medicine
  • Radiation Oncology
  • Reproductive Medicine
  • Browse content in Surgery
  • Cardiothoracic Surgery
  • Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
  • General Surgery
  • Neurosurgery
  • Paediatric Surgery
  • Peri-operative Care
  • Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
  • Surgical Oncology
  • Transplant Surgery
  • Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
  • Vascular Surgery
  • Browse content in Science and Mathematics
  • Browse content in Biological Sciences
  • Aquatic Biology
  • Biochemistry
  • Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
  • Developmental Biology
  • Ecology and Conservation
  • Evolutionary Biology
  • Genetics and Genomics
  • Microbiology
  • Molecular and Cell Biology
  • Natural History
  • Plant Sciences and Forestry
  • Research Methods in Life Sciences
  • Structural Biology
  • Systems Biology
  • Zoology and Animal Sciences
  • Browse content in Chemistry
  • Analytical Chemistry
  • Computational Chemistry
  • Crystallography
  • Environmental Chemistry
  • Industrial Chemistry
  • Inorganic Chemistry
  • Materials Chemistry
  • Medicinal Chemistry
  • Mineralogy and Gems
  • Organic Chemistry
  • Physical Chemistry
  • Polymer Chemistry
  • Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
  • Theoretical Chemistry
  • Browse content in Computer Science
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Computer Architecture and Logic Design
  • Game Studies
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Mathematical Theory of Computation
  • Programming Languages
  • Software Engineering
  • Systems Analysis and Design
  • Virtual Reality
  • Browse content in Computing
  • Business Applications
  • Computer Security
  • Computer Games
  • Computer Networking and Communications
  • Digital Lifestyle
  • Graphical and Digital Media Applications
  • Operating Systems
  • Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
  • Atmospheric Sciences
  • Environmental Geography
  • Geology and the Lithosphere
  • Maps and Map-making
  • Meteorology and Climatology
  • Oceanography and Hydrology
  • Palaeontology
  • Physical Geography and Topography
  • Regional Geography
  • Soil Science
  • Urban Geography
  • Browse content in Engineering and Technology
  • Agriculture and Farming
  • Biological Engineering
  • Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
  • Electronics and Communications Engineering
  • Energy Technology
  • Engineering (General)
  • Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
  • History of Engineering and Technology
  • Mechanical Engineering and Materials
  • Technology of Industrial Chemistry
  • Transport Technology and Trades
  • Browse content in Environmental Science
  • Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
  • Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
  • Environmental Sustainability
  • Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
  • Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
  • Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
  • Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
  • Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
  • Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
  • History of Science and Technology
  • Browse content in Materials Science
  • Ceramics and Glasses
  • Composite Materials
  • Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
  • Nanotechnology
  • Browse content in Mathematics
  • Applied Mathematics
  • Biomathematics and Statistics
  • History of Mathematics
  • Mathematical Education
  • Mathematical Finance
  • Mathematical Analysis
  • Numerical and Computational Mathematics
  • Probability and Statistics
  • Pure Mathematics
  • Browse content in Neuroscience
  • Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
  • Development of the Nervous System
  • Disorders of the Nervous System
  • History of Neuroscience
  • Invertebrate Neurobiology
  • Molecular and Cellular Systems
  • Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
  • Neuroscientific Techniques
  • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • Browse content in Physics
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
  • Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
  • Biological and Medical Physics
  • Classical Mechanics
  • Computational Physics
  • Condensed Matter Physics
  • Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
  • History of Physics
  • Mathematical and Statistical Physics
  • Measurement Science
  • Nuclear Physics
  • Particles and Fields
  • Plasma Physics
  • Quantum Physics
  • Relativity and Gravitation
  • Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
  • Browse content in Psychology
  • Affective Sciences
  • Clinical Psychology
  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Cognitive Neuroscience
  • Criminal and Forensic Psychology
  • Developmental Psychology
  • Educational Psychology
  • Evolutionary Psychology
  • Health Psychology
  • History and Systems in Psychology
  • Music Psychology
  • Neuropsychology
  • Organizational Psychology
  • Psychological Assessment and Testing
  • Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
  • Psychology Professional Development and Training
  • Research Methods in Psychology
  • Social Psychology
  • Browse content in Social Sciences
  • Browse content in Anthropology
  • Anthropology of Religion
  • Human Evolution
  • Medical Anthropology
  • Physical Anthropology
  • Regional Anthropology
  • Social and Cultural Anthropology
  • Theory and Practice of Anthropology
  • Browse content in Business and Management
  • Business Ethics
  • Business Strategy
  • Business History
  • Business and Technology
  • Business and Government
  • Business and the Environment
  • Comparative Management
  • Corporate Governance
  • Corporate Social Responsibility
  • Entrepreneurship
  • Health Management
  • Human Resource Management
  • Industrial and Employment Relations
  • Industry Studies
  • Information and Communication Technologies
  • International Business
  • Knowledge Management
  • Management and Management Techniques
  • Operations Management
  • Organizational Theory and Behaviour
  • Pensions and Pension Management
  • Public and Nonprofit Management
  • Strategic Management
  • Supply Chain Management
  • Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
  • Criminal Justice
  • Criminology
  • Forms of Crime
  • International and Comparative Criminology
  • Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
  • Development Studies
  • Browse content in Economics
  • Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
  • Asian Economics
  • Behavioural Finance
  • Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
  • Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
  • Economic History
  • Economic Systems
  • Economic Methodology
  • Economic Development and Growth
  • Financial Markets
  • Financial Institutions and Services
  • General Economics and Teaching
  • Health, Education, and Welfare
  • History of Economic Thought
  • International Economics
  • Labour and Demographic Economics
  • Law and Economics
  • Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
  • Microeconomics
  • Public Economics
  • Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
  • Welfare Economics
  • Browse content in Education
  • Adult Education and Continuous Learning
  • Care and Counselling of Students
  • Early Childhood and Elementary Education
  • Educational Equipment and Technology
  • Educational Strategies and Policy
  • Higher and Further Education
  • Organization and Management of Education
  • Philosophy and Theory of Education
  • Schools Studies
  • Secondary Education
  • Teaching of a Specific Subject
  • Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
  • Teaching Skills and Techniques
  • Browse content in Environment
  • Applied Ecology (Social Science)
  • Climate Change
  • Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
  • Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
  • Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
  • Browse content in Human Geography
  • Cultural Geography
  • Economic Geography
  • Political Geography
  • Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
  • Communication Studies
  • Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
  • Browse content in Politics
  • African Politics
  • Asian Politics
  • Chinese Politics
  • Comparative Politics
  • Conflict Politics
  • Elections and Electoral Studies
  • Environmental Politics
  • European Union
  • Foreign Policy
  • Gender and Politics
  • Human Rights and Politics
  • Indian Politics
  • International Relations
  • International Organization (Politics)
  • International Political Economy
  • Irish Politics
  • Latin American Politics
  • Middle Eastern Politics
  • Political Behaviour
  • Political Economy
  • Political Institutions
  • Political Methodology
  • Political Communication
  • Political Philosophy
  • Political Sociology
  • Political Theory
  • Politics and Law
  • Public Policy
  • Public Administration
  • Quantitative Political Methodology
  • Regional Political Studies
  • Russian Politics
  • Security Studies
  • State and Local Government
  • UK Politics
  • US Politics
  • Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
  • African Studies
  • Asian Studies
  • East Asian Studies
  • Japanese Studies
  • Latin American Studies
  • Middle Eastern Studies
  • Native American Studies
  • Scottish Studies
  • Browse content in Research and Information
  • Research Methods
  • Browse content in Social Work
  • Addictions and Substance Misuse
  • Adoption and Fostering
  • Care of the Elderly
  • Child and Adolescent Social Work
  • Couple and Family Social Work
  • Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
  • Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
  • Emergency Services
  • Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
  • International and Global Issues in Social Work
  • Mental and Behavioural Health
  • Social Justice and Human Rights
  • Social Policy and Advocacy
  • Social Work and Crime and Justice
  • Social Work Macro Practice
  • Social Work Practice Settings
  • Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
  • Welfare and Benefit Systems
  • Browse content in Sociology
  • Childhood Studies
  • Community Development
  • Comparative and Historical Sociology
  • Economic Sociology
  • Gender and Sexuality
  • Gerontology and Ageing
  • Health, Illness, and Medicine
  • Marriage and the Family
  • Migration Studies
  • Occupations, Professions, and Work
  • Organizations
  • Population and Demography
  • Race and Ethnicity
  • Social Theory
  • Social Movements and Social Change
  • Social Research and Statistics
  • Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
  • Sociology of Religion
  • Sociology of Education
  • Sport and Leisure
  • Urban and Rural Studies
  • Browse content in Warfare and Defence
  • Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
  • Land Forces and Warfare
  • Military Administration
  • Military Life and Institutions
  • Naval Forces and Warfare
  • Other Warfare and Defence Issues
  • Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
  • Weapons and Equipment

The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics

  • < Previous chapter
  • Next chapter >

The Oxford Handbook of Animal Ethics

28 Keeping Pets

Hilary Bok, Department of Philosophy and Berman Institute of Bioethics, The Johns Hopkins University

  • Published: 01 May 2012
  • Cite Icon Cite
  • Permissions Icon Permissions

This article defines “pets” as nonhuman animals that people take into their homes and accept as members of the household. It assumes that cats and dogs are happy living in human households and have better lives than they would if they were in the wild. There is welcomed companionship and often a genuine friendship across species. There can of course be many failures and problems such as animal aggression and human cruelty and neglect. In some circumstances, the fact that humans can understand in ways their pets cannot creates a situation in which we should require more of ourselves in the way of care and patience than we would require in the case of a competent adult human. It suggests that it is a mistake to regard duties to nonhuman animals as situated in a hierarchy of moral status in which animals with high-level capacities occupy a higher rank.

A pet 1 is a nonhuman animal whom we take into our homes and accept as a member of our households. Owning pets can be wonderful when all goes well: domesticated animals such as cats and dogs are typically happy living in human households, and have much better lives with humans than they would in the wild. They welcome our companionship, and we welcome theirs. It is fascinating to try to figure out how the world appears to a wholly different mind with senses and instincts that are quite unlike our own, and wonderful when we forge a genuine friendship across species boundaries. For the most part, the interests of pets and their owners do not diverge in any serious way, but on occasion life with pets can go badly wrong. We can fail our pets in any number of ways, and when we mistreat or neglect them, they normally have no recourse. They can be intractably aggressive, and pose a danger to us and to others. They can be destructive or unsanitary. Our homes should be places of comfort and safety; it is hard to share them with beings who are aggressive or destructive.

I will not dwell on issues of obvious cruelty and neglect in this paper. It is plainly wrong to be gratuitously cruel to any animal, human or nonhuman, or to deprive any being of its basic needs when we have taken that animal into our care. I will focus instead on various issues that might confront pet owners whose intentions are basically good, since they raise the most difficult moral issues.

Thinking about the ethical issues involved in keeping pets is different, and in some ways simpler, than thinking about issues involved in our relations with other nonhuman animals. Questions involving the treatment of wild animals—for example, what kinds of incursions on their habitat are excessive, whether it is permissible to cull animals to protect ecosystems or indigenous species, and whether it is permissible to hunt them—concern the treatment of animals with whom we have an ambiguous relationship. One plausible answer to such questions is that, absent some compelling reason, we should try to minimize the harm we inflict on wild animals, and otherwise leave them to live out their lives in whatever way their instincts dictate. This thesis is not a plausible default position, however, when it comes to nonhuman animals whom we have chosen to take into our households, and who are dependent on us for their survival.

Most other questions about the ethical treatment of nonhuman animals involve using them for humans’ own purposes in, for instance, research, product testing, food production, or entertainment, in ways that impose significant and uncompensated sacrifices on them. The treatment of pets is a different matter. Pet ownership does not normally involve using nonhuman animals for some purpose that does not benefit them, though of course there are exceptions. So whereas considering many other ways of using nonhuman animals necessarily involves an attempt to determine how such sacrifices might be justified, this is not the problem when dealing with pets.

Moreover, in the case of pet ownership, there is no need to consider the question whether nonhuman animals have interests that are worth taking seriously, or how we should reconcile our use of them with the fact that they are individuals with lives and interests of their own. Pet owners normally agree that their pets do have interests and that these interests, in general, deserve consideration. I will follow them in this assumption. 2 Pet owners’ intentions are both generally benign and focused on nonhuman animals as individuals. For this reason, in considering the moral issues raised by pet ownership, we do not need to ask how a nonhuman animal, considered as an individual with interests, can be used for purposes that have nothing to do with those interests. Instead, we have to ask: granted that we are dealing with nonhuman animals as individuals with morally significant interests, how should we relate to those individuals, and under which conditions does our treatment of them go wrong?

Finally, when one considers issues like the use of nonhuman animals in medical research or factory farming, it is easy to proceed at a high level of abstraction. The nonhuman animals in question are generic animals, or at best generic mice or pigs, with whom we do not have any sort of social relationship. This makes it easy to imagine that the central questions concern the construction and justification of a sort of moral hierarchy, in which animals with different capacities occupy different places, and animals with greater capacities, like humans, deserve greater consideration.

Questions involving pets, with whom we have relationships, make it clear that things are often more complicated. Sometimes humans’ greater capacities give us greater rights: for instance, while I cannot force a competent adult human to get medical care against her wishes, even if she badly needs it, I can take a cat to the veterinarian over her vehement protests. But sometimes things work the other way: the fact that humans can understand more, and can act on that understanding, allows us to require more of ourselves than we can reasonably require of nonhuman animals, and leads us to accept behavior from them that we would not accept from a competent adult human.

Our Asymmetrical Relationship to Pets

The relationship between pets and their owners is asymmetrical in a number of ways. Adult humans are more physically powerful than all cats and many dogs. Moreover, we can use various tools to overcome differences in physical strength—leashes, cages, and so forth—and we can, if need be, deploy the resources of the state on our behalf. Nonhuman animals have no legal standing to sue for the enforcement of animal protection laws, or any other laws that concern them. When nonhuman animals find themselves at war with the world of human institutions, they generally lose.

We also know much more about certain crucial things than nonhuman animals do. Pets live in human households that we have arranged for our convenience in ways they often cannot grasp. Their food is in bags or tins behind a cupboard door. The door to the outside is one that we can open and they generally cannot. We understand why certain pieces of furniture should not be jumped on, while they must be taught that the kitchen counter is off limits.

Moreover, we understand the peculiar world of human institutions: for instance, we know, and our pets do not, that certain kinds of behavior can get them into trouble with the law. We also understand more about the future, and about such crucial causal connections as that between letting a stranger stick a needle into them and their not getting sick. If we did not understand such things, we might decide not to exercise our greater power over our pets. But we do. It is no kindness to a pet not to vaccinate her against diseases, or not to train her to act in ways that will prevent her being seized and put down.

Pets are dependent on their owners. We supply their food and water, which they are normally unable to obtain for themselves. We provide them with shelter and veterinary care. Their ability to meet their basic social needs depends on us: if we keep them locked up in an apartment all day, they cannot normally get themselves out, or make other arrangements. In addition, dogs depend on us for exercise. Pets also depend on us for various items that make their relationship with us much more pleasant than it might otherwise be. Cats cannot provide their own kitty litter boxes and keep them clean. Dogs do not normally housetrain themselves. Moreover, we need to provide dogs with basic training in the norms of human society if we do not want them to attack our guests, eat our food, and so forth.

That our relationships with pets are asymmetrical in these ways does not mean that our relationships with them cannot be mutual in important respects, still less that we will abuse our greater power over them. It simply means, first, that if we choose to abuse or neglect them, they generally have no recourse; and second, that we have the capacity to set the terms of our relationships with our pets. We normally choose to take pets into our home, and if we change our mind about living with them, we can choose to give them away, or, if need be, have them killed.

We set terms for our relationships with humans as well, though they are often implicit, since most humans understand, at least in broad terms, what kinds of behavior are unacceptable to others. Comparing our responses when our pets violate those limits to our responses when humans do can sound peculiar: we do not normally encounter other humans who do not know, for instance, that they ought not to urinate on our rugs, and thus we rarely have to inform others that this kind of behavior is unacceptable to us. However, those limits do exist. As Vicki Hearne writes: “Try putting your ice cream cone on my typewriter, and you’ll get the idea.” 3

Our relationships with pets differ from those with humans in two crucial respects. First, when one ends a human friendship or divorces a spouse, this normally does not result in that friend or spouse's death or imprisonment. Adult humans can generally fend for themselves, and in most circumstances, we can assume that they will survive the end of their relationships with us. This is not true of pets. Second, competent adult humans can explain to one another why they do what they do, and, in particular, the terms on which they are willing to enter into a relationship with others. For instance, if I believe that I cannot be friends with someone who routinely destroys my property without good reason, I can normally assume that other adults will understand this. In the unfortunate event that one does not, I can inform her that I am not willing to accept this conduct in a friend, and explain why. If my friend has some reason for acting as she does, she can let me know what it is. If her reason makes sense to me, I will accept it. If not, I can explain why it does not, and she can understand me, and can accept or reject those terms as she sees fit.

We cannot similarly explain ourselves to our pets. This matters immensely to our relationships with them. As noted, most people have limits on the kind of behavior they are willing to tolerate from others, whether human or nonhuman. Some human demands are unreasonable: it would be wrong, for instance, to expect a cat never to shed. But others are not, and we owe it to any nonhuman animals we take into our homes to do our best to ensure that they abide by these standards. For instance, we are responsible for ensuring that our pets do not pose a danger to other humans. This is a duty we owe not just to those humans but to our pets, since nonhuman animals who attack humans are normally killed.

Most people also place some limits on what they are prepared to tolerate in their homes. Humans should be flexible with nonhuman animals, and should not expect them to behave like small furry humans. Nonetheless, there are limits to what most people are prepared to live with. We require some basic level of sanitation in our homes, and few people would be willing to live with animals who routinely urinate or defecate wherever they see fit. Our home is where we keep our property, and while we can tolerate the occasional destruction of unimportant objects, few people are prepared to tolerate animals who routinely burrow into the furniture, rip out the drywall, or chew the carpet to shreds.

We are responsible for doing what we can to ensure that our relationship with our pets is not intolerable in these ways. This is a duty we owe not just to ourselves but to them, since pets who transgress these limits—who urinate on rugs and furniture, destroy their owners’ property, or make it impossible to invite guests over without calamity—will at best be constantly aware of their owners’ irritation and anger, and more likely be caged or killed. If an adult human whom I had invited into my home urinated on the carpet or attacked my other guests, I could ask her to stop, and if she refused, I could ask her to leave. Our capacity to understand each other, to explain ourselves, and to choose whether to modify our expectations or our conduct, gives us the ability to come to terms with one another and work out mutually acceptable accommodations between our interests. We do not have this kind of reciprocity with nonhuman animals.

In some cases, this does not cause serious problems. Cats, for instance, are easy to get along with, at least if one is not too particular about cat hair, clawed sofas, and the like. This is fortunate since they are difficult to train. It would be hard to get cats to use a litter box if they were not inclined to do so. Luckily, they are, and one normally needs simply to show a cat where the litter box is and maintain it in a reasonable state of cleanliness. It would be hard to train a cat not to attack us if we were the size of the animals they regard as prey. Luckily, we are much bigger than they are. There is no obvious reason why cats should be affectionate to humans. Luckily, most of them are. Because they are naturally inclined to behave in ways that many humans find acceptable, even adorable, the fact that it is difficult to train cats to act differently is not normally a problem.

Dogs are different. Unlike cats, many dogs are large enough to pose a real danger to humans. They do need to be housebroken and trained. Fortunately, they are also unlike cats in that they are, in general, not just tractable but willing to enter into the spirit of some of the things we do. We can often get across our desires, intentions, and feelings to dogs, and we can often understand theirs. While some areas of human endeavor, like accounting and the law, are forever closed to dogs, we are able to communicate with them about a surprising number of things, including some very complicated ones, such as what it means to do a perfect retrieve.

Moreover, dogs care about what we think of them, and they normally care enough to be willing to enter into genuinely reciprocal relationships with us that involve both parties’ constraining their conduct to accommodate the other. Most wild animals do not. They might regard us as objects of curiosity or even—with time—affection, but that does not mean that they are willing to alter their behavior on our behalf. As Vicki Hearne writes:

Even the most messed-up, dingbat, rotten nasty dog in the world, the one who goes for your throat as soon as you say good morning, is immediately, immer schon, toujours déjà , prepared for the possibility of friendship, and that is what it means to say you can work with a dog …. A wolf does not refuse friendship, because for the wolf it isn’t there to be refused in the first place …. Human love and praise are alien to her, so if you don’t build into your relationship with the wolf, step by step, a language of relation whose meanings she will accept, she just isn’t there. It is not like a scene from Rambo, training a wolf. It is more like training a cloud or a dream or a shadow. 4

Finally, dogs are able not just to adjust their conduct every now and then, but to do so consistently. This is often difficult for most wild animals. Chimpanzees, for instance, might want to get along with us, and understand that involves, for instance, not attacking people; but even if they often manage to restrain their urge to bite, they generally do not manage to do so all of the time , as they would have to do in order for us to trust them. Vicki Hearne contrasts her dog to Washoe, a chimpanzee who can use sign language:

Washoe, like my dog, has been told, and in no uncertain terms, that she ought not to bite even though she might want to. With my dog, the issue was settled long ago, almost without our noticing it, and we are in agreement. If my dog were to bite a visitor, I would be forced to consider the possibility either that the visitor had committed a crime or that my dog had gone crazy. And I would have to work out what had happened before I could again take my dog for a walk. If there was no reason for the bite, nothing that a reasonable person could recognize as a reason, the relationship with the dog would have broken down. But there is no such agreement with Washoe. 5

Because there is no such agreement with Washoe, she is in a cage when Hearne encounters her. Later, Hearne watches as Washoe is taken for a walk with “leashes, a tiger hook and a cattle prod.” 6 Because we can reach such an agreement with dogs, we allow them to play not just with us but with our children. That we can come to such an understanding with dogs—that we can have confidence that a given dog will not bite strangers except when there is something “that a reasonable person could recognize as a reason” to bite, for instance—is an astonishing feature of our relationship with nonhuman animals. Why should a dog care about the difference between, say, a burglar and a plumber, rather than regarding both as intruders on her territory? Why should she restrain her impulse to defend her territory when she sees that the humans with whom she lives accept the arrival of the plumber with equanimity? Wolves do not take their cues from us. Why should dogs? And yet they do. Because we can trust most dogs to draw these distinctions, and to act on them consistently, we can generally work out an accommodation with them that is satisfying to all concerned.

However, while our ability to work things out with dogs is impressive, it is not unlimited. If an individual dog cannot be trained to do something that her owner regards as essential, her owner cannot simply explain what is so important about that thing, nor can the dog explain why doing that thing is so objectionable. Even if we think we see why the dog refuses to do that thing, we cannot reason with the dog and try to explain why we think she is mistaken. In the absence of the kind of robust reciprocity provided by the ability to use and understand a common language, we cannot be confident that we will be able to work out an accommodation with dogs or other pets when we need to.

Our ability to explain ourselves to one another, and to adjust our conduct accordingly, provides limits on what kinds of behavior human adults need to accept from others. Because we can explain what we expect of one another, and give one another a choice between meeting those expectations, explaining any failure to do so, and ending our relationship, we can regard other adults as having forfeited the rights of friendship if they insist on violating those expectations for no good reason. They had a choice, and they are responsible for it and its consequences. These limits do not exist with nonhuman animals. If, for instance, I own an aggressive dog, I cannot tell her that if she continues to attack people, I will have to take her to the pound, where she will, in all likelihood, be killed. I can and should try to train her not to attack people, but I cannot explain to her why it matters so much that this training succeed. If I fail, I cannot say that she knew what the consequences of her aggression might be and chose to incur them. She did not. But though she is not responsible for her conduct, she will pay the price.

Is It Wrong to Own Pets?

Some writers and activists believe that because of the asymmetries I have identified, it is prima facie wrong to keep nonhuman animals as pets. Gary Francione argues that it is wrong to keep pets under present arrangements because they are, legally, property:

Property owners can, of course, choose to treat any of their property well or poorly. I may wash and wax my car regularly, or I may ignore the finish and let the paint fade and the body corrode away. Similarly, many of us who live with dogs and cats choose not to treat our animals solely as economic commodities and instead accord them a level of care that exceeds their market value. But … we may also choose to treat these animals as nothing more than property. 7

Francione concedes the need to care for existing animals who need homes. But because he thinks it wrong to own animals, he concludes that “were there only two dogs remaining in the world, I would not be in favor of breeding them so that we could have more ‘pets’ and thus perpetuate their property status.” 8 The legal status of nonhuman animals raises serious moral questions. Nonhuman animals do not have legal standing, at least in most nations, and thus they cannot sue humans for protection under existing animal cruelty laws. Moreover, those laws that do exist are, as Francione notes, not always enforced. However, it is not clear why Francione believes that this fact about the law and its enforcement implies that we should not own pets we have not rescued. Assume for the sake of argument that legal protection for nonhuman animals is wholly inadequate, that we should replace our existing laws with some other legal system that affords nonhuman animals the right to sue for protection, 9 and that these laws should be vigorously enforced. Assume further that you fully intend to treat any nonhuman animals you adopt well, rather than letting yourself be guided by the minimal standards of the law; that there are no nonhuman animals in need of rescue; and therefore that your reasons for adopting a nonhuman animal do not include the need to give that animal a home. Under these circumstances, would it be wrong to own a pet?

If our existing system of laws is inadequate, then we should try to change it. If owning nonhuman animals somehow interfered with our efforts to do so, that fact would constitute a reason not to own them. But it does not: nothing about owning a nonhuman animal precludes or hinders trying to change that animal's legal status. If owning nonhuman animals helped to perpetuate our present legal arrangements, then one might argue that we should withdraw our support for those institutions by giving up our pets, or at least not adopting new ones. But it does not: boycotting the institution of pet ownership would not in any way undermine it, since it does not rely on the existence of pet owners for support.

If our present laws require us to do things to our pets that are morally wrong, then we would have a reason not to own them. But the law is not so structured. It simply gives us the legal right to do various things that we morally ought not to do: abandoning them at will, mistreating them in ways that fall short of the legal definition of animal cruelty, and so forth. It cannot be wrong to participate in a legal relationship that does not prohibit every form of immoral treatment. For instance, there are many things that it would be wrong to do to a child, but that are not prohibited under child abuse statutes. We do not conclude that it is wrong to have children, only that we should give our children better treatment than the minimum required by law.

A legal system governing the status of nonhuman animals will presumably give humans some measure of control over them: for instance, the right and the responsibility to prevent them from being a danger to others, to ensure that they get proper medical care even if they do not consent, and so forth. In exercising this degree of control, we do not violate their rights. The problem with our present system is not that it requires that we do things that are wrong, but that it gives us rights over nonhuman animals that we arguably ought not to have. Fortunately, this system does not force us to exercise these rights. We can, and should, treat our pets in just the same way that we would if the laws governing nonhuman animals were exactly as they should be. If we do so, it is not clear how the fact that our laws are not ideal harms nonhuman animals. They are unaware of our legal arrangements, and as long as we live up to our responsibilities toward them, they need not be directly affected by their status as property.

It is, of course, possible to harm others in ways they are not aware of. For instance, it would be wrong for a surgeon to write “IDIOT!” on her patients’ foreheads while they are anaesthetized, even if, before her patients come round, she washed off her writing so carefully that her patients never knew what she had done. But in the case of the alleged harm done to nonhuman animals by being owned by caring owners, those animals are not simply unaware of their legal status. They could not possibly be aware of it without some drastic alteration to their mental capacities. Moreover, nonhuman animals do not care about their legal status. Arguably, I harm a dog if I expose her to ridicule, even if I do so in a way that she cannot understand, say by writing “IDIOT!” on her forehead. Dogs understand some dimensions of ridicule, and if their owners expose them to ridicule, they show contempt for something dogs care about: their standing in the world as they know it, and in their households. Loss of standing is something dogs recognize as bad, and to gratuitously expose a dog to ridicule harms that dog in ways she can understand, whether she is aware that she has been exposed to ridicule or not.

Those who draft laws according to which nonhuman animals have no legal standing and no recourse in the face of abuse or neglect also disregard things that nonhuman animals actually care about, such as their safety. If there are better workable alternatives, those legislators arguably harm those animals, as do any humans who take advantage of these laws to mistreat their pets. However, if someone who wants to take a dog into her home allows the law to describe her as “owning” that dog, but does not allow this fact either to affect her treatment of her dog or to perpetuate that legal system, and if the alternative is allowing domestic dogs to die out altogether, it is hard to see how her action harms her pet in any way.

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) objects to the institution of pet ownership on other grounds. PETA's website says, “In a perfect world, animals would be free to live their lives to the fullest, raising their young and following their natural instincts in their native environments. Domesticated dogs and cats, however, cannot live “free” in our concrete jungles, so we are responsible for their care.” 10

Our “concrete jungles” are indeed inhospitable to cats and dogs. Feral dogs and cats have short and difficult lives. According to the Humane Society of the United States, half of all feral kittens die without human intervention. 11 According to the ASPCA, the lifespan of feral cats who survive kittenhood, and who are not cared for by humans, is two years. 12 During that time “feral cats must endure weather extremes such as cold and snow, heat and rain. They also face starvation, infection and attacks by other animals.” 13 Feral dogs face the same problems as feral cats. In addition, they pose a serious danger to human beings and livestock. For that reason, in most developed countries feral dogs are captured and euthanized whenever possible.

The perils of our “concrete jungles” are not the only reason why fully domesticated animals like cats and dogs cannot “live their lives to the fullest” in the wild. These species have lived with humans for thousands of years, during which time they have adapted to life with us. We might debate whether our ancestors should have domesticated them in the first place, but that ship has long since sailed. By now, our homes are the “native environment” of cats and dogs, and if we treat them well, they can be much happier in our homes than in the wild. The idea that there is some other environment where they might better follow “their natural instincts” is as much a fantasy as the idea that we should move back to the Great Rift Valley to follow ours.

PETA argues that while it is permissible for us to own pets now, given the number of nonhuman animals who need homes, it is not permissible to allow our pets to breed, since this “perpetuates a class of animals who are forced to rely on humans to survive.” 14 One problem with domesticated animals’ reliance on us is obvious: there are some people who cannot be relied on, and a nonhuman animal who is owned by a human runs the risk of being owned by one of those unreliable people. It is plainly bad for any animal, human or nonhuman, to be dependent on someone who does not meet his or her basic needs: to depend for food on someone who regularly forgets to feed us, or for shelter on someone who leaves us out in the freezing rain.

If that risk is the only problem with pets’ dependence on us, however, then it does not imply that any specific person ought not to own pets. When a person considers adopting a pet, he should first ask himself whether he can care for the animal he adopts and provide her with a good and loving home, and, if so, whether he is willing to commit himself to providing her with the care and love that she deserves. If he is, then the fact that others do not is no more a reason for him not to own a pet than the fact that some husbands abuse their wives is a reason for him not to marry.

One might think that there is something wrong with dependence even if the person one depends on never lets one down. It is wrong to perpetuate someone's dependence on us if that being both wants to live independently and is capable of doing so. It is less clear, however, what is wrong with perpetuating a class of animals who are dependent on someone who loves them and treats them well, when those animals do not want to live independently and would not be capable of doing so. The unconvincing alternative envisaged on PETA's website is not that humans should stand in some other relationship to domestic cats and dogs, but that domestic cats and dogs should cease to exist.

On Thinking Before Adopting a Pet

To adopt an animal as a pet is to undertake to meet her needs, and to accept the responsibility of ensuring that one's relationship with her is good for all concerned. We should consider whether we are willing to accept that responsibility before acquiring a pet. The time to discover that you do not have the time to train a puppy or cannot tolerate cat hair on the furniture is before you adopt a pet, not after. Sometimes we cannot know in advance that we will be unable or unwilling to meet a nonhuman animal's needs. But often we can know this. In such cases, we owe it to the animal in question, to ourselves, and to others not to adopt it in the first place.

This fact implies that we should not adopt wild animals as pets. There might be some species of wild animals whose members are, by sheer luck, suitable to be kept in human households, but most wild animals are not. In many cases, we cannot provide wild animals with even their most basic needs—for instance, an adequate diet. In the case of large animals, especially predators, we cannot provide them with nearly enough space to roam around in, as anyone who has seen a tiger or cheetah pacing round and round a cage can attest. When we cannot meet such basic needs, we have no business taking these animals as pets.

Even if we can meet a wild animal's basic needs for food and shelter, adopting them is a serious mistake, both in terms of their interests and in terms of their owners’. Most wild animals are neither psychologically nor behaviorally suited to life with humans. While domesticated species like cats and dogs have spent thousands of years adjusting to life with humans, non-domesticated species have not. In particular, taking wild animals as pets often involves three sets of problems.

First, wild animals are likely to be unhappy in human households. They are adapted to life in environments quite different from a house or apartment. Even if they are allowed to roam freely in their owner's house or yard, most of them will not be able to perform most of their normal species behaviors, and will be bored and miserable. In addition, domesticated animals are less fearful in general, and much less fearful of humans in particular, than their wild counterparts. They find it easier to interact with us socially, rather than regarding us simply as objects of curiosity or alarm. These adaptations help them to live much happier lives in our homes than, say, a terrified antelope or squirrel.

Second, domesticated animals are generally much less aggressive than their wild counterparts. They are also more tractable: more willing to adjust their behavior to suit the requirements of living with humans. To take a wild animal as a pet is to adopt an animal with whom no such accommodation can be reached. In the case of small or docile animals, that might not be a problem. But if an aggressive animal is large enough to do damage, then it is irresponsible to adopt it, both because of the risks to humans and because of the very great likelihood that that animal will end up either caged or killed.

Third, when wild animals are forced to live in a human home, many act in ways that their human owners find it hard to live with. We accept without question a whole array of basic social requirements that we take to be important to our ability to live with one another: that fights for dominance not take the form of physical attacks on other members of our social group; that we urinate and defecate only in certain specific places, and in private; that some objects are our possessions and should not be destroyed; and so forth. These are our requirements, and they make sense to us. But there is no reason to suppose that they must make sense to members of other species.

People who take non-domesticated animals as pets often overlook how deeply unnatural living with human beings and conforming to human requirements might be for a member of a species that has neither a history of domestication nor any particular affinity for our peculiar way of life. Because they do so, they imagine that it will be possible to live with animals who cannot adapt to life with humans. This serves neither their own interests 15 nor those of the animals in question. As an example, consider nonhuman primates. There are no accurate statistics on the number of nonhuman primates owned as pets, but the most common estimate for the United States puts the number at 15,000. 16 Most are acquired as infants, when, like infants of most mammalian species, they are unusually submissive. However, when nonhuman primates reach sexual maturity, they often become aggressive and pose serious risks to their owners and others.

Moreover, nonhuman primates are agile, athletic, clever, and inquisitive. Since they have opposable thumbs, they can open doors, cabinets, and drawers, turn on faucets, unlock doors, and unscrew lids. They love to take things apart, shred them, and so forth, and they are not good at learning that there are some things—the contents of one's pantry, one's clothing, one's tax returns, one's curtains and furniture—that are off limits. They have been known to tear out drywall, disassemble screens, and unlock doors. Nonhuman primates are tractable only when they are young. As adults, while they might be quite capable of working out what we find acceptable, most have neither any particular interest in constraining their conduct accordingly nor the capacity to do so consistently. 17 If this meant only that they were not constantly attentive to our needs, it would not be a serious problem. But what it actually means is that no amount of training and no amount of love will prevent a nonhuman primate from attacking humans, possibly maiming or killing them, or from destroying their owners’ homes and possessions.

Some people might be happy living with pets who are both aggressive and destructive, but most are not. For this reason, nonhuman primates who are kept as pets often end up in cages. A cage is a terrible place for an intelligent, complicated, social being to live, especially if it is kept alone. Moreover, most nonhuman primates live for fifteen to thirty years, and chimpanzees in captivity can live to be sixty. That is a very long time to spend in a cage. For human primates, imprisonment is a punishment appropriate only for serious crimes. Nonhuman primates end up being imprisoned simply because of the combination of their natural instincts and the thoughtlessness of the humans who adopt them.

Keeping wild animals as pets is, in most cases, a serious mistake, and one that people most often make not because they consider the costs in advance and accept them, but because they do not stop to think about what they are getting into. A news story about the sale of tiger cubs in a WalMart parking lot quotes the facilities director of a local zoo:

“There are thousands of large cats including tigers, leopards, and lions owned privately—and legally—in Texas,” Stones said. He said he thinks some tiger owners may not realize the effort that goes into caring for the cats. “They buy them as babies,” Stones said. “They don’t realize it's going to get to be hundreds of pounds, eat an awful lot of food and become dangerous.” 18

It does not take a great deal of thought to realize that tiger cubs grow up to be large and dangerous, and it is astonishing that there are people who are willing to adopt wild animals without being willing to devote even that minimal amount of thought to their decision. The animals they adopt normally pay a much heavier price for their owners’ thoughtlessness than their owners do. With the exception of those disabled humans who have capuchin monkeys as helpers, 19 private individuals have no compelling need to adopt members of any non-domesticated species. Given the consequences for the animals they adopt, it is wrong to do so.

While wild animals are particularly unsuited to life in a human household, it is important to consider our willingness to meet the needs of any nonhuman animal before we take that animal into our homes. Consider Ernie, a golden retriever described in an essay by Jon Katz. 20 Ernie was given as a birthday present to a child, Danielle, who lost interest in him after a few weeks. Danielle's parents did not normally get home from work until after 7 p.m. They had a housekeeper who did not like dogs in general, or Ernie in particular:

Because nobody was home during the day, he wasn’t housebroken for nearly two months and even then, not completely. No single person was responsible for him; nobody had the time, will, or skill to train him. As he went through the normal stages of retriever development—teething, mouthing, racing frantically around the house, peeing when excited, offering items the family didn’t want retrieved, eating strange objects and then vomiting them up—the casualties mounted. Rugs got stained, shoes chewed, mail devoured, table legs gnawed. The family rejected the use of a crate or kennel—a valuable calming tool for young and energetic dogs—as cruel. Instead, they let the puppy get into all sorts of trouble, then scolded and resented him for it. He was “hyper,” they complained, “wild,” “rambunctious.” The notion of him as annoying and difficult became fixed in their minds; perhaps in his as well. A practiced trainer would have seen, instead, a golden retriever that was confused, under-exercised, and untrained—an ironic fate for a dog bred for centuries to be calm and responsive to humans. Ernie did not attach to anybody in particular—an essential element in training a dog. Because he never quite understood the rules, he became increasingly anxious. He was reprimanded constantly for jumping on residents and visitors, for pulling and jerking on the leash when walked. Increasingly, he was isolated when company came or the family was gathered. He was big enough to drag Danielle into the street by now, so her parents and the housekeeper reluctantly took over. His walks grew brief: outside, down the block until he did his business, then home. He never got to run much. Complaining that he was out of control, the family tried fencing the back yard and putting Ernie outside during meals to keep him from bothering them. The nanny stuck him there most of the day as well, because he messed up the house. Allowed inside at night, he was largely confined to the kitchen, sealed off by child gates.

Danielle's parents might have done any number of things that would have made this story turn out differently. They could have thought seriously about whether their daughter was likely to lose interest in her puppy. They could have made getting a puppy conditional on their daughter's taking him to obedience class, which would have helped not only with Ernie's socialization and training but with their daughter's understanding of the responsibilities of owning a dog. They could have, and should have, come up with a backup plan in case their daughter could not be persuaded to take a lasting interest in her dog. The family in question seems to have had enough money that they could have hired a trainer to work with Danielle and Ernie when things began to go wrong. If they were not willing to do any of these things, they could have simply gotten a kitten, or no pet at all. Because they were not willing to think through what owning a dog entails, and whether they and their daughter were willing to accept the responsibility of ensuring that Ernie had a decent life, Ernie ended up confused, neglected, alone, and unhappy; and the family ended up with a dog they do not seem to want, and are unwilling to care for. This story is tragic, all the more so since it could so easily have been avoided.

A decent person will avoid these problems. She will think before she adopts a pet. She will consider whether she is able and willing to meet that pet's needs, and will adopt a pet only when she is confident that she can do so. In the case of dogs, this will involve considering not only the normal needs of dogs in general, but those of the particular breed she is considering adopting. 21 She will also consider the source from which she plans to acquire it. One option is to adopt from shelters. Every year, 5–8 million pets are estimated to enter shelters in the United States, of whom 3–4 million are euthanized. 22 The ASPCA estimates that half of dogs euthanized in shelters, and seven out of ten cats, are killed “simply because there is no one to adopt them.” 23 With so many pets in need of homes, there is virtually never a good reason to support puppy mills 24 or others who breed animals in inhumane conditions.

Those who want to adopt a purebred dog and want to purchase one from a breeder, rather than acquiring one from a breed rescue group, should consider not just the conditions in which the breeder keeps dogs but the breed itself, since some breeds are prone to serious health conditions that not only require considerable veterinary care but compromise the dogs’ quality of life. Because they have been bred to have very short muzzles and flat faces, English bulldogs often suffer from serious respiratory problems, including sleep apnea. 25 Cavalier King Charles Spaniels’ skulls are too small for their brains, and as a result, a number of them develop syringomyelia, a neurological disorder one of whose symptoms is constant pain. 26 No one who cares about nonhuman animals should support the continued breeding of animals whose health is needlessly compromised, or the breed standards that too often encourage this.

Teaching Pets What They Need to Know

Once one has adopted a pet, one is responsible for providing for that pet's basic needs. These include not just food, shelter, and medical care, but attention, affection, and, in the case of dogs, exercise. Moreover, anyone who is not willing to commit to finding good homes 27 for all her pet's progeny should have her pet spayed or neutered. For most people, providing for these needs is not onerous. Those who suspect that they might be unable or unwilling to provide for them should not adopt pets.

In addition, dogs need to be trained. Some rules are important both for the dog's safety and for the safety of others. Dogs need to be taught not to attack or bite others, not to run headlong into traffic, and so forth. The need for this kind of training is obvious: it is irresponsible to own a pet who is a danger to others, and it is no kindness to a dog to allow her to behave in ways that risk her death or injury. Dogs also need to be taught how to function in human society. For instance, they should be taught not to eat off people's plates or jump up on people, and that there are some objects that belong to others and are not to be used as chew toys. Dogs, like humans, are social animals who can understand the emotions of those around them. They do not enjoy being disliked, especially when they do not know what they are doing wrong. We teach our children not to do some things that they might be inclined to do, like smearing food all over themselves or others. If we did not teach our children not to do so, other people would not want to be around them, and they would be either very lonely, very unhappy, or both. The same is true of dogs.

Teaching a dog, like teaching a child, need not involve the exercise of power, or even what would normally be called “training.” Barbara Smuts describes her relationship with her dog Safi:

Because I had so much respect for her intelligence, I did not consider it necessary to “train” her. Instead, I discuss all important matters with her, in English, repeating phrases and sentences over and over in particular circumstances to facilitate her ability to learn my language. She understands (in the sense of responding appropriately to) many English phrases, and she, in turn, has patiently taught me to understand her language of gestures and postures (she rarely uses vocal communication) ….  Early in our relationship, we came upon several deer about a hundred yards away grazing in an open field …. Safi leapt forward (she was not on a leash). I said, without raising my voice, “No, Safi, don’t chase.” To my amazement, she stopped in her tracks. Thus I learned that I could communicate prohibitions without yelling or punishing her. 28

The most basic function of training is to enable us to tell dogs not to do something when it is very important that they not do it, to teach them to avoid behavior that is dangerous to themselves or to others, and to teach them how to function in human society. If we can achieve these ends without explicit training, well and good. But this is not always possible, and when it is not, we owe it to our dogs to train them.

Training a dog involves exercising power over her. Power can always be abused, and we owe it to our dogs not to abuse it. We might respond to the possibility of abuse in two ways: either by declining to exercise control over dogs or by exercising it with as much wisdom and humanity as we can muster. It would be unfair to our dogs to choose the first option. We know about dangers that dogs do not understand, like cars. It would be irresponsible not to teach our dogs to avoid them, and, when necessary, to obey us when we tell them to do something like not chasing a rabbit across the street, even if they do not understand why. Likewise, it would be irresponsible not to train our dogs not to harm others.

The proper response to the possibility of abusing our power is not to refuse to exercise it, but to try to exercise it responsibly and humanely. We should never be cruel to our dogs or ask them to do things they cannot do, and we should always have respect for their nature and capacities. We should also allow them to teach us what they need, as Smuts did with Safi: “She has taught me that I must not clean the mud off her delicate tummy area with anything but the softest cloth and the tenderest touch. She has made it clear that stepping over her while she is asleep makes her extremely uncomfortable, and so I never do it.” 29 But no combination of respect, mutuality, and responsibility can eliminate the need to teach our dogs what they need to know to live a safe and decent life; and if this requires using our power over them, then while we should take care never to abuse that power, we should not decline to use it because we mistakenly think that we are being kind to our dog.

Discomfort with training might also reflect the idea that we should let dogs behave naturally. The idea that this precludes training them reflects confusion about what is natural, and about the relation of nature to culture in the lives of social animals like humans and dogs. We do not discover what is natural for a human child by dropping him into the wilderness to raise himself, free from the distorting influences of parenting and socialization. We do not believe that it would be “more natural” for children to exist without being able to speak, even though, left entirely to themselves, children would not learn to use language. Humans are social animals, and it is not natural for us to grow up without parental guidance and teaching.

Dogs are also social animals. Had we not domesticated them, they would have been socialized by their parents and by the members of their pack. But, for better or for worse, we have domesticated them and brought them into human society. Our homes are their natural environment, we are their pack, and we are responsible for their socialization. As pack animals, they need society, and function best when they understand what others expect of them. Our expectations should never be unreasonable, but they do exist, and we do not respect dogs by failing to communicate them.

On Some Serious Problems in the Human-Pet Relationship

In some cases, it can seem difficult or impossible to construct a mutually satisfying relationship with a particular pet. Our first response ought to be to try to ask whether our expectations are unreasonable in some way: if a dog owner does not like taking her dog for walks, that is her problem, and one she should have thought of before getting a dog. If our expectations are not unreasonable—if, say, the problem is that a dog is aggressive—then we should try to change her behavior. In so doing, we should also take seriously the possibility that we are at fault: that our pet's behavior reflects some confusion or incoherence in our expectations or training that we can and should fix. If necessary, we should consult others, and ask explicitly whether there is something wrong with the way we relate to our pet.

Sometimes, however, these efforts do not work. And while it might or might not be true that there are no bad pets, just bad owners, it is certainly true that there are some pets whom the particular person who owns them cannot train, even if she tries, and even if her pet is a member of a species that is normally trainable. Some pets are very difficult, some people are not very good with nonhuman animals, and sometimes the particular difficulties of a pet meet the particular imperfections of an owner in such a way that even if someone might be able to train that pet, her owner is not that person. And while it is sometimes possible to find that person—to hire a trainer who can help bridge the gap between an owner's capacities and a pet's temperament—sometimes it is not.

Ideally, one might find another home for one's pet, but this is not always possible, especially not if one is honest with any prospective future owners about one's pet's behavioral problems. When it is not, a pet owner must choose between learning to live with her pet's problematic behavior and giving that pet up to a shelter, where she will probably either live out her life in a cage or be put to death. If one's pet is a danger to others, then the issues are straightforward. 30 One might try to keep one's pet from harming others, but no human contrivance is infallible. Fences break. No one closes all the doors between their pets and the outside world every single time. If one's pet is a danger to others, one should not trust one's own efforts to keep that danger from being realized. If the owner of a dangerous pet has tried and failed to change her pet's behavior, she should put her pet down.

This conclusion does not depend on the claim that humans’ interests matter more than those of nonhuman animals. In the world as we know it, nonhuman animals who pose a danger to humans are put down with or without their owner's consent. If a pet owner has tried and failed to train her pet not to attack people, the question whether to euthanize her pet amounts to the question whether to do so before or after her pet attacks someone. Moreover, a vicious pet's owner cannot know how many people her pet might injure or kill over the course of her life. Vicious pets do not have a fixed quantity of attacks in them, which they can simply get out of their system and be done with. For this reason, the justification for killing them cannot be that we know that that the pet will kill exactly one human being, but that we value that human's life more than the pet's. It is the fact that vicious animals are a standing danger to others and will likely continue to be so.

Suppose, however, that a person's pet behaves in a way that she finds it difficult to live with, but that does not endanger others; that she is not unreasonable to find her pet's behavior difficult; that she has tried and failed to get her pet to stop behaving in this way; and that she cannot find another home for her pet. In such a case, matters are more complicated. On the one hand, a pet owner who finds herself in this unfortunate situation might try to weigh her own interest in living without that pet's problematic behavior against her pet's interest in staying alive. 31 When she does so, her own interests might well prevail. While I cannot defend an account of nonhuman animals’ interest in life within the limits of this paper, it plainly differs from competent humans’ interest in life. Humans are capable of autonomous action; those nonhuman animals that we know of are not. 32 We therefore have a right to self-government that they cannot share, a right that is violated when we are killed. Moreover, we have interests in the future of a kind that nonhuman animals lack. 33 For instance, a human might want to stay alive in order to finish some project that is important to her, or to witness some future event, like the birth of a grandchild. Nonhuman animals have no such projects, and cannot anticipate the future in this way. They therefore lack these sorts of interests in staying alive. When a nonhuman animal is killed painlessly, she is robbed of her future and of any happiness that future might contain. But since she has neither the capacity for autonomy nor specific future-oriented goals, her capacity for self-government cannot be violated in ways that presuppose these things. 34

For this reason, we think it appropriate to arrange a painless death for our pets when their lives promise more unhappiness than happiness: for example, when they are terminally ill in a way that will prevent them from enjoying what life remains to them. When the light has gone out of their eyes and the activities that once made them happy no longer attract them, when they seem to be enduring, rather than enjoying, their lives, and when we know that this condition will not pass and cannot be cured, we think it is an act of kindness to arrange a painless death for them. If nonhuman animals’ interests in staying alive are based on their interest in whatever future happiness they might enjoy, then it must be possible, in principle, that that interest might be outweighed when the only alternative is even greater unhappiness (or the sacrifice of some comparably important interest) for someone else. In particular, there must, in principle, be some amount of unhappiness that a pet might cause her owner such that it is greater than the happiness that that pet would enjoy were she to continue to live.

Some people are too quick to conclude that they have reached this point. They give up their pets, or have them killed, even when their pets’ behavior would not require much adjustment at all: when they no longer want to spend the time it takes to walk a dog, for instance. This is a terrible way to treat anyone, let alone a companion and a member of one's household. We should stick by our friends, of whatever species, and when their needs are reasonable, we should accommodate them. But the fact that some people are too quick to conclude that their interests outweigh their pets’ does not mean that that conclusion is never justified.

On the other hand, there are some reasons to question whether the fact, when it is one, that a pet owner would sacrifice more by keeping her pet alive than her pet would sacrifice by being painlessly put to death should determine what her owner ought to do. First, the fact that we can explain ourselves to one another makes it much easier to set limits on our relationships, as does the fact that we can end a friendship with a human, or ask her to leave our home, without thereby condemning her to death. When we need to, we can explain to one another what kinds of behavior we find intolerable, and let any friends who violate those expectations without a good reason decide whether to alter their behavior or give up our friendship. Obviously, we cannot similarly explain ourselves to nonhuman animals.

Likewise, pets are not morally responsible for what they do. Humans’ capacity to think about what they are doing, and to make autonomous choices, not only limits what we can do to them; it limits what we must accept from them. A competent adult human who destroys our possessions without some very good reason either knows or ought to know 35 that she is doing something that we will probably find unacceptable, and she is responsible for her conduct. A dog who routinely destroys our possessions is not. Worse still, it is hard to rule out the possibility that we contributed to our pets’ misconduct: that it reflects some failure in our training, that there was something we could have done to prevent it, had we had the wit to see it, or, as in the case of wild animals, that the problem is one that we should have foreseen. 36

Because we can explain ourselves to other people, we have a kind of safety valve in dealing with other competent adults. We need never impose limits on the kinds of behavior we are prepared to tolerate from them without letting them know what those limits are, and giving them a chance to convince us that we are being selfish or unreasonable. When we decide that we cannot tolerate their conduct, it need never be because they cannot understand what we expect of them. We can always give competent adult humans a choice about whether to abide by limitations on our relationship with them, and just as we are responsible for imposing those limitations, they are responsible for their decisions about whether to abide by them. This means that when we end a friendship, we never have to act unilaterally. We are never forced to decide whether to accept someone's behavior without allowing that person a say in the matter, or to cut off a friendship for reasons that person does not and cannot comprehend. This is true precisely because we can explain ourselves to one another, and because others can understand what we say and decide for themselves how to respond.

In our dealings with our pets, we can hope that our interests and theirs will generally coincide, and that any conflicts will be minor and easily resolved. But while things often work out this way, they do not always do so. When our interests and those of our pets are in serious and irresolvable conflict, it is up to us to decide what to do, since we can understand all the competing considerations and weigh them against one another, and our pets cannot. We must make this decision without being able to explain ourselves to them, and without the comfortable knowledge that they understand what we ask of them and why we ask it, and have chosen not to accede. To make a decision that will probably lead to their death under these conditions is, and ought to be, very difficult.

One might think that making this kind of unilateral decision should be not just difficult, but impossible: that because we must make unilateral decisions when dealing with our pets, and because we can never secure their consent to those decisions, we can never justifiably impose uncompensated sacrifices on them, whatever the cost to us. This cannot be right. As Elizabeth Anderson writes: “To bind oneself to respect the putative rights of creatures incapable of reciprocity threatens to subsume moral agents to intolerable conditions, slavery, or even self-immolation. As it cannot be reasonable to demand this of any autonomous agent, it cannot be reasonable to demand that they recognize such rights.” 37

If it is wrong to unilaterally harm someone who cannot understand why we impose that harm, or what she might have done to avoid it, then it is wrong to defend ourselves against nonhuman animals when they try to kill us, at least when defending ourselves involves inflicting even non-lethal harm on them. It would likewise be wrong to defend ourselves against such lesser harms as the loss of a limb or the destruction of our home. Should it turn out that termites are sentient, we might hope to lure them away from our homes by building even more enticing wooden structures for them to feast on, but it would be wrong to kill them. As Anderson writes, it cannot be reasonable to accept this kind of limitless vulnerability to nonhuman animals.

One might try to avoid these counterintuitive conclusions by holding that it is permissible to unilaterally impose harms on nonhuman animals only when doing so is the only way to avoid an even greater harm to ourselves or to another. This is much more plausible 38 than the view that we can never unilaterally impose sacrifices on nonhuman animals for any reason. However, it would imply that we can permissibly give a nonhuman animal to a shelter that will probably kill her when keeping that animal would impose a greater harm on us than a painless death would impose on her, at least in the absence of any other reason to think that it would be wrong to do so. 39

The claim that we cannot unilaterally impose significant sacrifices on beings who cannot understand why we impose them applies to all nonhuman animals. This universal scope is one reason why it is so implausible. But pets are not just any nonhuman animals; they are nonhuman animals whom we have voluntarily taken into our homes and made members of our households. Pet owners choose to adopt pets and to assume responsibility for their care. While most people do not knowingly adopt pets who will be hard to live with, they either know or should know that no pet's behavior is fully predictable. If their pets turn out to be difficult to live with, that fact is not a piece of random bad fortune; it is a risk one accepts when one adopts a pet.

The fact that pet owners choose to assume responsibility for their pets means that they should be willing to accept significant sacrifices in order to live up to those responsibilities. But unless one thinks that unforeseen circumstances can never excuse one from meeting an obligation one has voluntarily assumed, there must be some things a pet could do, other than posing a genuine danger to her owner or to others, that her owner would not be obligated to accept. Suppose, for instance, that a pet somehow prevents her owner from sleeping for more than an hour, whether by howling, jumping on her owner's face, or some other means, and that nothing her owner does—training, medical examinations, more attention and exercise—keeps her from doing this. Suppose that while this is not actually dangerous, it is extremely unpleasant: certainly not what one would call a mere inconvenience. Suppose further that while her owner knew that some pets are hard to live with, and was prepared to work hard to make her relationship with her pet a good one, when she adopted this pet, she had no reason to anticipate a problem of this magnitude. In that case, one might think, that pet's owner might be justified in concluding that her responsibility to her pet does not require that she simply accept the fact that she will not be able to sleep for more than an hour for the foreseeable future.

Finally, while pets are not always capable of understanding our expectations, let alone adapting to them, we can almost always adapt to our pets’ behavior. It is not pleasant to learn to live with a dog who makes dens in the sofa stuffing and digs through the floorboards, or a cat who urinates everywhere except the litter box, but it is not impossible. Doing so might require that we sacrifice our own interests, but our relationship to our own interests is different from our relationship to the interests of others, whether human or nonhuman. We can decide not to take the interests of others into account when they are not relevant to a particular decision, as when we do not consider how much a student wants to get a good grade in evaluating her work, but we cannot decide not to take the interests of others into account when they are relevant. Our own interests are different: precisely because our interests are ours , we can decide to waive our right to have them considered even in situations to which they are relevant. Since it is up to us to decide how to respond to our pet's behavior, and since we can always adjust, somehow or other, to a pet who is not actually dangerous, we can always decide not to consider our own interests at all: to find some way of living with a nonhuman animal who requires a level of sacrifice we would regard as intolerable if it were imposed on us by another adult human. 40

In our dealings with adult humans, we normally decide not to take our own interests into account 41 in two kinds of cases. First, we can set our own interests aside when the stakes are low, as when we decide not to bother to calculate each person's share of a restaurant bill even when we suspect that our share is the smallest. By definition, when we must decide whether to accept a major sacrifice in order to prevent a pet's death, the stakes are not low. Second, we can choose to set our own interests aside in exceptional situations, like emergencies. When our friends are in trouble, we should try to help, without considering the inconvenience to ourselves. Emergencies can last for a long time, and they can occur in succession. For this reason, a person can have reason to set aside her own interests in her dealings with others not just occasionally, but for years. Nonetheless, in such cases setting aside one's own interests should be a response to an exceptional situation, or to a series of them.

If someone asks us to set our own interests aside not occasionally, or because of an unforeseeable emergency, but consistently, she treats us as though we were her slaves, whose interests count for nothing. It would not be in her interest that we accede to her demands—no one has the right to expect that others should make themselves her slaves, and it is no favor to such people to encourage such expectations. Nor are we under any obligation to accede to them: relationships between competent adults ought to be reciprocal, and a relationship with someone who treats us in this way is not. Any competent adult who asks us to treat her in this way can be expected to know better; thus, the unreasonableness of her demands allows us to attribute an attitude to her that itself relieves us of any obligation to meet them. Because we cannot expect nonhuman animals to understand that they are asking us to set our own interests aside, or to see why that demand is unreasonable, we cannot attribute any such attitude to them.

Nor is our relationship to pets, in this respect, like our relationship to infants and young children, for whose sake we often set our own interests aside. The need to set our own interests aside when dealing with young children is comprehensible, temporary, and fully predictable. We know why we sometimes need to set our own interests aside in dealing with small children, and we expect that they will eventually outgrow the need for this kind of care. In this case, our relationships are not permanently defined by a unilateral sacrifice of interests, as they can be in a relationship with a pet.

To set one's interests aside when the stakes are high is an act of generosity, but it cannot be morally required of us. If it were, the fact that we are capable of understanding the trade-off between our interests and those of a nonhuman animal, and of setting our own interests aside, would itself mean that we could not assert our own interests at all in any case in which our interests conflict with theirs. It is one thing to say that we should not sacrifice a nonhuman animal's interests for our own lightly or quickly, or that we should be prepared to be generous above and beyond the call of duty. It is another to say that even when our interests outweigh theirs, the fact that we can abdicate our interests while they cannot abdicate theirs implies that we should always do so.

On those rare occasions when living with a particular pet involves significant sacrifice, but not a danger to others, when we cannot change that pet's behavior, and when we can find no other home for her, we have to decide whether to give that pet up to a shelter where she will probably be killed, or at best live out her life in a cage. Because we cannot explain ourselves to our pets and have voluntarily assumed responsibility for them, and because we owe loyalty to our friends and companions, we should be reluctant to give them up, and should not do so for the sake of mere convenience, or to avoid a sacrifice we could easily live with. But while we should think hard before giving a pet up, and should try as hard as we can to find other alternatives, there are situations in which we can legitimately decide that the sacrifice a pet imposes on us is too great.

If the observations and arguments I have made are correct, it is a mistake to think of our duties to nonhuman animals as derived from a sort of hierarchy of moral considerability in which animals with greater capacities occupy a higher rank. Sometimes higher capacities do translate into greater rights: for instance, those nonhuman animals with whom we are familiar do not have a right to autonomy, since they are not capable of autonomous action. Sometimes, however, the fact that an animal does not have some capacity simply means that we owe that animal more consideration or forbearance than we would otherwise. And the fact that we are capable of assessing our reasons for action, and of weighing others’ interests against our own, is not just a prerequisite for having moral obligations. It imposes on us obligations that go beyond strict fairness, and in which this capacity places us at a disadvantage compared to beings who lack it. Because we can sometimes see that a sacrifice on our part could allow us to work out a decent relationship with a pet, while pets normally cannot understand what sacrifices on their part might do the same, we require such sacrifices of ourselves, but not of them.

Fortunately, if we are willing to think before we acquire a pet and to meet our pets’ needs conscientiously, including their needs for attention, affection, and training, we will rarely encounter a need for serious sacrifice. For the most part, owning pets involves not serious moral dilemmas but minor inconveniences set against a background of wonder, delight, and the joy of opening our hearts to animals who are so willing to open theirs to us.

I will not consider whether our duties to animals are direct or indirect—that is, whether (for instance) we should not gratuitously harm animals because we owe it to them not to do so, or because those character traits that would allow us to gratuitously harm a being who is under our care are wrong in their own right, and might make us more likely to harm others to whom we do have direct duties, like other humans. While these two views have different implications in some situations (e.g., those in which I can be certain that any defects in my character will never affect another human being), under normal circumstances one's views on this question need not affect the question of how we ought to treat animals, especially given the further assumption that one of the best ways to develop some character trait is to act as one would if one had it.

3. Vicki Hearne , Adam's Task (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986), pp. 53–54.

4. Vicki Hearne , Animal Happiness (New York: HarperCollins, 1994), pp. 225–26.

Hearne, Adam's Task , p. 36.

Hearne, Adam's Task , p. 39. These precautions are not unreasonable: chimpanzees can kill humans.

7. Gary Francione , Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 2000), p. 77.

Francione, Introduction to Animal Rights , p. 170.

9. One alternative is described in David Favre , “A New Property Status for Animals: Equitable Self-Ownership,” in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions , ed. Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) .

People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, “Doing What's Best For Our Companion Animals,” http://www.helpinganimals.com/factsheet/files/FactsheetDisplay.asp?ID=133 (accessed January 1, 2010).

The happiness of the people who take non-domesticated animals as pets might be thought not to matter: they made their bed, one might think, and they should lie in it. Whatever one makes of this argument, it works only if the unhappiness of those people does not lead to unacceptable consequences for the animal they take in. But this is plainly false: an animal who attacks humans, for instance, is likely to end up being caged or euthanized, as is an animal who destroys her owners’ home.

New York Times , “Primates Aren’t Pets,” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/25/opinion/25wed4.html (accessed January 1, 2010).

Capuchin monkeys trained to work with the disabled are an interesting exception.

“Police Investigate Sale of Tigers in WalMart Parking Lot,” The Monitor (McAllen Tex.), June 16, 2008, http://www.themonitor.com/articles/ones-13216–cubs-selling.html (accessed January 1, 2010).

http://www.monkeyhelpers.org/

Considering the needs of particular breeds is especially important in the case of dogs, since the requirements of different breeds of dogs vary greatly. For instance, whenever another iteration of Disney's 101 Dalmatians is released, shelter workers brace themselves for a wave of Dalmatians abandoned by people who bought them on impulse, without bothering to find out what kind of home a Dalmatian needs. Had they inquired, these people would have learned that Dalmatians require a great deal of exercise, having been bred to run alongside coaches on long journeys. When they do not get the exercise they need, they can become destructive or neurotic. They make wonderful pets for people who are prepared to walk a mile or more every day with them. Others, however, would be much better off with a dog of a different breed.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals estimates that 5–7 million pets enter shelters every year (ASPCA, “Pet Statistics,” http://www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/pet-statistics.html [accessed January 1, 2010]). The Humane Society puts the number at 6–8 million (Humane Society of the United States, “HSUS Pet Overpopulation Statistics,” http://www.humanesociety.org/issues/pet_overpopulation/facts/overpopulation_estimates.html [accessed January 1, 2010]). Both estimate the number of pets euthanized at 3–4 million.

ASPCA, “Pet Statistics,” http://www.aspca.org/about-us/faq/pet-statistics.html (accessed January 1, 2010).

ASPCA, “What Is A Puppy Mill?” http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cruelty/puppy-mills/what-is-a-puppy-mill.html (accessed January 1, 2010).

25. See J. C. Hendricks , L. R. Kline , R. J. Kovalski , J. A. O’Brien , A. R. Morrison , and A. I. Pack , “The English Bulldog: A Natural Model of Sleep-disordered Breathing,” Journal of Applied Physiology 63 (October 1987): 1344–50.

The good home in question cannot always be one's own. Cats and dogs can have large numbers of kittens and puppies over the course of their lives, too many to be well taken care of within one home.

28. Barbara Smuts , “Reflections,” in J. M. Coetzee , The Lives of Animals (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999), pp. 115–16.

Smuts, “Reflections,” p. 117.

I do not mean to suggest that the decision to put down any dog is easy, just that the issues involved are not complex.

This kind of decision is one we rarely face in dealing with humans. Competent adult humans are capable of living independently, and in developed countries children and the incompetent can generally find some accommodation. If the only such shelter available to them is, say, a home in which the elderly or disabled are warehoused, their happiness might depend on our willingness to make significant sacrifices for their sake, but their lives normally do not. We are therefore almost never in the position of having to choose between their lives and our happiness, as we can be with pets.

In what follows, I will omit this qualification for reasons of simplicity. My arguments refer only to those nonhuman species we know of, none of whose members have the capacity for autonomous action. They are not meant to apply to intelligent aliens and the like, whom it would be wrong to keep as pets.

Those nonhuman animals who might be exceptions to this claim are either impossible to keep as pets (e.g., dolphins) or dangerous (e.g., chimpanzees).

Some humans also lack these capacities. Small children and the demented differ from nonhuman animals in that they either will have or have had a capacity for autonomy or self-governance. However, some seriously cognitively impaired humans never have that capacity. The arguments sketched above do not imply that it would be permissible to give them up to some shelter that would probably kill them, even if such shelters existed. Even if one thinks that the most fundamental reason why killing humans is wrong derives from our right to self-government, there are reasons why one might not think that it should be permissible to kill humans who lack this capacity. The most obvious are slippery-slope arguments about the effects of holding that there are some human beings that we can permissibly kill without their consent and in the absence of excusing conditions like self-defense. Assuming for the sake of argument that there are such humans, one might think, human history does not inspire confidence in our ability to draw the line that separates those humans from others. Given the stakes, we should try to find bright lines such that all beings whom it would be wrong to kill fall on one side of them, so that we do not have to rely on that ability. The line separating humans from nonhumans is such a line; the line between humans with at least a rudimentary capacity for self-government and humans without one is not.

In the rare cases in which this is false—for instance, someone from a very different culture in which it is, oddly enough, perfectly acceptable to destroy other people's possessions—we can generally explain things to the person in question, and once we have done so, we can expect her to respect our wishes or forfeit our friendship.

We should generally accommodate ourselves to foreseeable problems involving domesticated animals (e.g., a cat who sheds, a dog who needs companionship) unless we can find another home for them, since such problems are not normally serious enough to warrant giving up a pet to a shelter. One exception might be people who knowingly adopt pets to whom they are severely allergic.

37. Elizabeth Anderson , “Animal Rights and the Values of Nonhuman Life,” in Animal Rights: Current Debates and New Directions , ed. Cass Sunstein and Martha Nussbaum (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 287–88.

That this view is much more plausible than the one considered earlier does not mean that it is correct. Anderson argues that it is not: that we can justifiably impose harms on animals that are greater than the sacrifices we would have to accept if we did not act. She considers some species of mice and rats who cannot survive outside human dwellings, and argues that we can justifiably exterminate them or remove them from our homes. She then notes: “It could be argued that in such cases, the interests of humans simply outweigh the interests of vermin. But this thought is hard to credit. Except in plague conditions, most vermin do not threaten to kill us. What are rat feces in the bedroom to us, compared to a painful death for the rat?” (Anderson, “Animal Rights and the Values of Nonhuman Life,” p. 288.)

One might argue that the loss of her life is a greater harm to an animal than any amount of unhappiness is to a human, and thus that only threats to human life can justify giving a nonhuman animal to a shelter that will probably kill her. However, one would then have to show that an animal that lacks autonomy has an interest in her life that goes beyond her interest in the happiness her future life would contain.

40. The fact that humans can voluntarily decide to set their own interests aside affects many moral choices involving humans and animals in ways that are sometimes not taken into account in the literature on animal rights. For instance, Tom Regan considers four humans and a dog in a lifeboat that can only hold four: “One must be thrown overboard or else all will perish. Whom should it be? If all have an equal right to be treated respectfully, must we draw straws?” Tom Regan , The Case for Animal Rights (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1983), p. 285 . It is striking that Regan never considers the possibility that one of the humans should choose to jump overboard, thereby eliminating the need to throw anyone overboard against her will.

Sometimes we fail to consider our own interests not because we set them aside, but because we think they are obviously outweighed. Thus, when someone is drowning, the reason not to stop and weigh that person's life against the lovely silk dress that I will ruin if I try to save her is not that I set my own interests aside; it is that her life so obviously outweighs my dress that stopping to consider the matter when every second counts would be absurd. Those cases in which we set aside our own interests to help others are those in which our interests might actually outweigh theirs, were we to compare them, but we choose not to take them into account.

Suggested Reading

Anderson, Elizabeth . “ Animal Rights and the Value of Nonhuman Life.” In Animal Rights , edited by Cass R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004 .

Google Scholar

Google Preview

Beauchamp, Tom L. , F. Barbara Orlans , Rebecca Dresser , David B. Morton , and John P. Gluck , eds. The Human Use of Animals: Case Studies in Ethical Choice . 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 2008 .

Burgess-Jackson, Keith . “ Doing Right by Our Companion Animals. ” Journal of Ethics 2 ( 1998 ): 159–85. 10.1023/A:1009756409422

Clark, Stephen R. L.   Animals and Their Moral Standing . London: Routledge, 1997 .

DeGrazia, David . Animal Rights: A Very Short Introduction . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002 .

Diamond, Cora . “Eating Meat and Eating People.” In Animal Rights , edited by Cass R. Sunstein and Martha C. Nussbaum . Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004 .

Francione, Gary L.   Introduction to Animal Rights: Your Child or the Dog? Philadelphia, Pa.: Temple University Press, 2000 .

Hearne, Vicki . Adam's Task: Calling Animals by Name . New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986 .

—— . Animal Happiness . New York: HarperCollins, 1994 .

Midgley, Mary . Animals and Why They Matter . Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1983 .

Rollins, Bernard . Animal Rights and Human Morality . Buffalo, N.Y.: Prometheus Books, 1981 .

Smuts, Barbara . “Reflections.” In The Lives of Animals , by J. M. Coetzee . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1999 .

Varner, Gary . “Pets, Companion Animals, and Domesticated Partners.” in Ethics for Everyday , edited by David Benatar , pp. 450–75. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2002 .

Zamir, Tzachi . Ethics and the Beast . Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2007 .

  • About Oxford Academic
  • Publish journals with us
  • University press partners
  • What we publish
  • New features  
  • Open access
  • Institutional account management
  • Rights and permissions
  • Get help with access
  • Accessibility
  • Advertising
  • Media enquiries
  • Oxford University Press
  • Oxford Languages
  • University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

  • Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
  • Cookie settings
  • Cookie policy
  • Privacy policy
  • Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Writing About Pets: How to Create Purrfect Content for Pet Clients

  • Written By Angela Tague
  • Updated: November 9, 2023

There’s no denying the instant joy and bubbly feelings we get when viewing an adorable talking puppy or kitten video, photo or meme. Furry yawns. Tail chasing. Silly missteps. All of it triggers smiles and  feelings of relaxation   — the perfect mindset that a smart marketer somewhere hoped to achieve as they slowly lured you into their sales funnel.

As a creative, the (catnip) ball is now in your court. How can you make pet-loving web-scrollers stop on the animal content you craft?

First, you have to create the types of content pet caretakers need (helpful, educational) and want (cute and snackable). Then,  align it with the content strategy  and branding of the pet services or products company you’re marketing if you want it to ultimately boost audience engagement and get tails wagging in the sales department.

And, it’s totally achievable. I do it weekly for a handful of pet product vendors who create foods and supplies for everything from cats and dogs to pet geckos, rabbits and tortoises. Here’s the inside scoop, my friend.

When do writers write about pets?

When do writers write about pets?

Any  content type  can be pet-focused. But, some assets get created more often than others. I find that my pet-focused clients assign blog posts and text for infographics frequently to me as a writer.

With that said, I’ve also created scripts for chatty cats in YouTube Videos, cheeky one-liners for pet memes and detailed product descriptions for hamster cages. Don’t be surprised what challenging-yet-clever tasks come across your desk when writing for the pet industry.

In the meantime, here are the most common content types you’ll likely get your paws on:

  • Animated videos
  • Case studies
  • Customer stories
  • Explainer videos
  • Infographics
  • Landing pages
  • Newsletters
  • Press releases
  • Product descriptions
  • Social media posts

Example 1: Blog post for Kaytee

article writing on keeping pets

This  ‘What is…’ blog post  is classic. It informs small animal pet owners about a product they may see advertised for their furry friend, but aren’t sure what it is or why they need it.

Enter,  the TOFU  educational blog post.

When I penned this, I dug deep to explain that timothy hay isn’t actually hay (it’s grass), where it’s grown and what types of animals can benefit from the nutrients found in the product. Since this is a marketing piece, not editorial, I also list the flavors of timothy hay offered by the brand and some tips for identifying quality products.

The editor was thrilled with my work on this comprehensive piece that leaves readers informed and empowered to make healthy feeding decisions for their small animals.

Example 2: Product landing page for Milk-Bone

article writing on keeping pets

On this page for Milk-Bone® Brushing Chews® Dental Treats , we see a handful of short, quippy descriptions and facts to entice MOFU dog owners to try a new treat. Likely, the reader is already familiar with Purina products and has fed them to their canine companions before. In this context, the writer is sharing why these new dental treats are worth adding to cart.

Every word matters on a succinct landing page. The copywriter here is overlapping health benefits with the expected enjoyment your pet will have by engaging with these chews. Let’s take a moment to appreciate that opening line, “Tastes like a treat, cleans like a toothbrush.” Perfection!

How can writing about pets enhance your marketing?

The pet care industry is no small niche, and with more people adopting furry, feathery and scaly friends to enjoy during their extra time at home these days, the numbers are on the rise. The  American Pet Product Association reports that in 2019, pet lovers spent $95.7 billion spent on products and services for their critters. In 2020, the total jumped to an estimated $99 billion. The numbers for 2021 will likely be even higher, so marketers, it’s up to you to put your brand in front of those ambitious buyers of treats, foods, supplies, veterinary care, boarding and grooming services.

It’s no longer good enough to say a pet product or service is top-quality. Your writing needs to be the barking dog above the rest and stand out if you want to drive the ultimate engagement, bolster brand loyalty and secure those recurring subscriber-services sales each month.

Writers, it’s time to pitch content that speaks to the  emotions  of a pet owner.

They want what’s best for their pet family member, and if your writing is persuasive and endearing, you’re going to capture more leads for your client.

“Customers are emotional because humans are emotional. We buy the  why , not the  what .” ~  HubSpot, The Complete Guide to Pet Business Marketing in 2018

Here are a few highlights from the 33-page report to fuel your writing:

  • Know the pet brand’s promise to consumers (and positioning statement) and reiterate it in your content often. Use it as a guide for your focus and tone.
  • Share strengths of the company that rivals others in their category. Do they offer free two-day home delivery? Are the products organic?
  • Be conscious of audience demographics and psychographics, and speak to them as their friendly, helpful neighbor.
  • Integrate SEO research offered by the client. Use long-tail keywords as presented, since those are the high-ranking search terms they want to dominate.

4 do's when writing about pets

4 do’s when writing about pets

OK, let’s put fingers to keyboard and get this content written. When you’re staring down a blank page and blinking cursor, it can be hard to know where to begin. After working with multiple pet brands over the years including Purina, Hill’s Pet (Science Diet), Friskies, Kaytee, AvoDerm and Milk-Bone, here are my top tips.

1. Do follow tone and language guidelines.

This niche has a huge divide when it comes to referring to pets as fur babies and children or by their proper species, such as canines, felines and small mammals. Most clients will outline their preferred usage in the  editorial style guide . Some will go as far as explaining if a pet is a he/she or an it. (More on this, soon.) Pay attention closely and reread your copy twice before submitting so you can catch these common style mix-ups when writing about pets.

2. Do itemize information by breed, size, age.

What works for one pet, doesn’t work for another. For example, if you’re writing about sleep habits, a puppy’s routine will vary wildly from an adult dog. Writing about nutrition? An athletic, working hunting breed dog needs different food than a tea-cup poodle living in an NYC high-rise.  When you are writing an article that speaks to more than one specific breed, size of pet or age group, make it very clear to the reader by using subheadings or identifiers in each sentence.

3. Do reference quality medical sources.

Just like human medicine, pet care content deserves trustworthy advice from professionals, not other pet owners who happen to blog about their experiences. When tackling a health topic, go straight to the professionals, including veterinarians, veterinary schools, pet nutritionists, breed-specific organizations or well-established rescue groups. Some pet clients will include a list of approved sources  for writers to use that align with their company’s beliefs. Organizations, such as The Humane Society of the United States and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) can spark controversial conversations. Know where your pet client stands, and whether or not you can source these organizations.

4. Do know your client’s ethical beliefs.

Speaking of ethics, the pet industry is full of opinions. Your client will likely outline these in your writing guidelines, but if they don’t, you may need to ask about whether or not it’s OK to mention topics like dog ear cropping, cat nail declawing, breed-specific legislation, microchipping, vaccinations, tail docking, neuter/spay, buying from a breeder or if any specific breeds are not allowed to be mentioned due to their stereotyped demeanors. Some clients are extra cautious. I have one that won’t allow me to include any stock photos with my blog posts that show a pet without a collar because it represents poor pet owner responsibility. Be clear on what your client supports before you start writing.

4 don'ts when writing about pets

4 don’ts when writing about pets

Now that you have a solid foundation for what makes pet writing howl, let’s take a quick look at some of the common pitfalls of newbie content creators in this niche.

1. Don’t use human he/she pronouns.

Well, unless the client specifically asks for this in their style guide. By default, a pet is property, and therefore, an it. One quick question to your contact can clear up any confusion and a boatload of tedious updates to your draft. The takeaway: Never assume. Know how the client wants you to refer to animals. One of my pet clients only allows me to use the gender-neutral words ‘them/they,’ which requires creative plural wording consistently throughout each piece.

2. Don’t pretend to be a medical professional.

Clearly state your  secondary sources or who was interviewed  within the body of the article. Readers want to know the advice is sound and reputable, especially when the health of their best pet friend is at stake. Some clients may ask for you to list your sources at the end of the text or use footnotes. And as a best practice, always refer readers to their veterinarian for advice specific to  their pet  based on its medical history. More than one member of a client’s legal team has advised me to do this! It’s a safety net for possible liability issues.

3. Don’t accidentally promote other brands.

It’s easy to mention giving Heartguard monthly in a health post, but don’t. Instead, use the non-branded phrase ‘heartworm prevention.’ Watch your branding placement and remember who your client is and what they sell/support in their partnerships. Again, most pet clients will include this information in a style guide, but if they don’t, you know the routine. Ask! Some clients may purposely dictate necessary mentions to a partner brand, while others will give you a blacklist of names to avoid.

4. Don’t over-promise on results.

Look carefully at approved wording from the client. Don’t make assumptions or claims about products or services curing, treating or remedying anything. Instead, focus on benefits, processes, features and testimonials. Many pet clients will have a legal team review your text to ensure you’re not making wild claims about a product or service. A good way to soften your language is to use the word ‘may’ or ‘in some instances’ to let readers know the outcomes are not typical for all animals.

Takeaway tips for writing about pets

Composing helpful content for pet-doting folks is the dream project for animal lovers, but it comes with additional responsibilities to keep pets safe and clients from getting sued for misrepresentation.

Before you outline your next talking cat video script, dog care blog post or gerbil toy product description:

  • Know what the client’s promise is to customers, and lean into that messaging often to keep the branding consistent across content types.
  • Read the client’s branding, editorial and style guides closely. Pet content language and tone can be precise, and a bit tricky, like being tethered to a short leash.
  • Use quality sources and disclose them to your readers, or the editors, at the very least. Don’t relay information based solely on your experience as a pet owner.
  • Play with the content. Pet writing often allows for a chance to explore light-hearted alliteration, casual conversational tone, relatable pet parenting scenarios and comical anecdotes.

If you need help getting ahead on your pet writing projects, maybe it’s time to call in the  Top pets and animal writers  at ClearVoice to help make progress on that growing task list. From eBooks and blog posts, to infographics and landing pages, there’s a professional freelance writer waiting to pounce on your project. Talk to a content strategist today!

article writing on keeping pets

The Future of Content Outsourcing: Integrating AI and Automation

Content Operations vs. Content Strategy

Content Operations vs. Content Strategy: Everything You Need to Know

Analytics in Content Operations

The Critical Role of Analytics in Content Operations

  • Content Production
  • Build Your SEO
  • Amplify Your Content
  • For Agencies

Why ClearVoice

  • Talent Network
  • How It Works
  • Freelance For Us
  • Statement on AI
  • Talk to a Specialist

Get Insights In Your Inbox

  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Intellectual Property Claims
  • Data Collection Preferences

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here .

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Household preferences for pet keeping: Findings from a rural district of Sri Lanka

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliations Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka

ORCID logo

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Veterinary Pathobiology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine and Animal Science, University of Peradeniya, Peradeniya, Sri Lanka

Roles Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Parasitology, Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Saliyapura, Sri Lanka

  • Devarajan Rathish, 
  • Jayanthe Rajapakse, 
  • Kosala Weerakoon

PLOS

  • Published: November 22, 2022
  • https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108
  • Reader Comments

Fig 1

Pet ownership is an integral part of a modern-day family. It provides a wide range of benefits to humans. However, data on pet ownership are relatively limited from rural regions, Southern Asia and low-middle-income countries. We aim to report the prevalence and associated factors for pet ownership and veterinary visits in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. A community-based, cross-sectional study was conducted. An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used. Binary logistic regression was performed to determine significant associations between variables of interest and pet ownership (p < 0.05). Out of the 532 households, 57% currently owned a pet. The most common pet was the dog owned by 41% of the households and the cat was the second most owned by 17%. Security (69% - 152/220) was the most common role for dogs at home while it was companionship for cats (31% - 27/88) and hobby for both birds (64% - 18/28) and fish (54% - 14/26). Most dogs (54% - 118/220) had one veterinary visit within the last year. Households with >1 adult female [p = 0.02; OR = 1.61 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.36)], participants living alone [p = 0.03; OR = 0.24 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.86)] and Buddhists [p = 0.02; OR = 2.56 (95% CI 1.16 to 5.63)] were significantly associated with pet ownership. Pet ownership is common among people in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka, with a few demographic factors having a significant association with pet ownership. Dogs are the most common type of pet and highlight the opportunity for research related to canine companionship and human health. Future research on such topics should consider the above-mentioned socio-demographic predictors as potential confounders.

Citation: Rathish D, Rajapakse J, Weerakoon K (2022) Household preferences for pet keeping: Findings from a rural district of Sri Lanka. PLoS ONE 17(11): e0277108. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108

Editor: Seana Dowling-Guyer, Tufts University Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine: Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, UNITED STATES

Received: February 4, 2022; Accepted: October 19, 2022; Published: November 22, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Rathish et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this manuscript and its supporting information .

Funding: The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; COVID-19, coronavirus disease; OR, odds ratio; SD, standard deviation

Introduction

In modern days, companionship is a common reason for having pets, and pet owners consider their pets as valued family members [ 1 ]. Pet animals influence the family throughout life [ 2 ]. Pet ownership contributes to healthy relationships with neighbours [ 3 ] and improved physical and mental health via social support [ 3 ]. Well-controlled experimental studies have revealed human physical health benefits related to human-animal interactions [ 4 – 6 ]. Pet ownership contributes to improved mental health via enhancing companionship, reducing loneliness and increasing socialization among elders [ 7 ]. However, pet ownership also involves high costs, injuries, damage to property, zoonosis, grief following death and adverse social events [ 8 , 9 ].

A global study done in 22 countries showed that more than half of the people around the globe have a pet in their homes with the dog being the most common pet (33%). Cats and fish were the second and third most popular pet with ownership at 23% and 12% respectively [ 10 ]. Accordingly, Argentina had the highest incidence of pet ownership followed by Mexico and Brazil. Dog ownership in the above-mentioned countries was 66%, 64% and 58% respectively. However, pet ownership varies widely around the world. However, Turkey (12%), Hong Kong (14%) and Japan (17%) recorded the lowest percentage of dog ownership [ 10 ]. A similar study revealed that 59% of the people in Asia had a pet; the ownership ranged from 28% in Japan to 83% in the Philippines [ 11 ]. And, dogs (32%) were once again the most popular pets followed by cats (26%). In India, the neighbouring country of Sri Lanka, pet ownership and dog ownership was reported to be 59% and 34% respectively [ 11 ]. Households were more likely to own a dog if they had an adult female household member [ 12 ]. However, pet ownership was significantly lower among those who lived alone [ 13 ].

Globally, an integrative effort has been made across multiple scientific fields toward One Health that could bring together human and veterinary medicine [ 14 ]. Human-animal interaction has been explored to improve both human and animal health [ 15 ]. One Health focuses on the family’s health and well-being by identifying the role of companion animals [ 16 ]. Pet ownership, animal-assisted activity, animal-assisted therapy, and service animals are contexts in which human-companion animal interaction takes place. Therefore, it is essential to have background information on pet ownership to implement One Health via human-animal interaction [ 17 ]. Most of the studies on the above concepts are reported from the developed world [ 18 ]. Data on pet ownership are relatively limited from the rural regions, Southern Asia and low-middle-income countries. There are few studies on dog ownership from urban regions of India [ 19 ] and Sri Lanka [ 20 ]. Rural communities have shown a higher rate of pet and dog ownership than urban communities, suggesting the potential for beneficial impacts of human-companion animal interactions [ 21 ].

Anuradhapura is a rural, agrarian district of Sri Lanka, where 94% belongs to the rural sector and 51% of the employment belongs to agriculture [ 22 , 23 ]. Therefore, the population mostly dwell near its household in rural and agrarian districts and have tight-knit communities. Also, Anuradhapura is the largest district by surface area in Sri Lanka. However, the population density of the district is much lower compared to the country’s density [ 22 ]. Hence, there is more space per household in Anuradhapura when compared to urbanized districts. The above facts show that Anuradhapura is a good representation of a rural region that can provide insights into low-middle-income, Southern Asian countries. Further, information on pet ownership at the community level would help identify trends in pet services, frame public strategy, plan animal sheltering and organize animal welfare programmes [ 21 , 24 ]. Moreover, identifying socio-demographic predictors associated with pet ownership would help consider potential confounders in One Health initiative and human-animal interaction studies. We aim to report the prevalence and associated factors for pet ownership and veterinary visits in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka.

Materials and methods

Study design, setting and population.

A community-based, cross-sectional survey design was used. The study was conducted in the Anuradhapura district. Anuradhapura district is a rural [ 22 ] and agrarian [ 23 ] district which is the largest by surface area in Sri Lanka. The dwellers in the district during the study period were considered the study population.

Sampling size

The minimum sample size was calculated using the equation of n = [Z 2 xP(1-P)]/d 2 [ 25 ]. Where n is the sample size (384), Z is the Z statistic for a level of confidence (1.96), P is the expected prevalence or proportion (0.5), and d is the precision of the estimate (0.05). After calculating with a design effect of 1.25, 480 was achieved. With an addition of 10% for non-response, a minimum of 528 households must be recruited from the district.

Selection criteria and sampling method

Households with at least one adult aged ≥ 18 years and residing in Anuradhapura for ≥ 5 years were included. Households were selected to represent each of the 22 divisional secretariats of the Anuradhapura district using probability proportional to size. The grama niladhari division with the highest population for each divisional secretariat was selected for data collection. After rounding to the last decimal, a total of 532 households needed to be recruited. The Google map point of the selected grama niladhari division was considered as the starting point. The household nearest to the starting point was the first to be included. A road or a path was followed to identify the next households until the expected number of households was selected from each divisional secretariat division. Households were approached sequentially, one after the other. Hence, the sample can be considered representative of a larger population. No data was collected from households that refused to participate. Also, if no one was at home, the next household was approached.

Study instruments

An interviewer-administered questionnaire was used to collect data ( S1 File ). The questionnaire had two separate parts: socio-demographic factors and pet ownership. The following socio-demographic factors were considered: age, years residing in Anuradhapura, divisional secretariat division, whether the participant was the head of household, sex, education level, employment, employment type, marital status, sector, house structure, whether the participant was living alone, number of adults and children at home (males and females), religion, family income, and whether every adult household member was employed full time. And, the following details regarding pet ownership were considered: number of pets, years of pet ownership, the role of pet, source of pet, type of pet food, where commercial food was bought for pets, living area of pet, other special influence by pets on the family, Veterinary visits and rabies vaccination. The questionnaire was drafted by the first author by reviewing relevant previous literature on similar studies [ 13 , 26 – 30 ] and critically revised by the other authors. The questionnaire was translated into two local languages (Sinhala and Tamil). The translated questionnaire was pre-tested in a sample of residents in the Anuradhapura district. The interviewer-administered questionnaire was finalized following minor amendments including the order of the questions.

Data collection

Ethical clearance was obtained from the Ethics Review Committee of the Faculty of Medicine and Allied Sciences, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka (ERC/2020/76). Prior permission was obtained from the Regional Director of Health Services, Anuradhapura. Further, all Medical Officers of Health in the Anuradhapura district were informed by the Regional Director of Health Services to facilitate data collection in their areas. The selected households were briefed about the study and its benefit to the community. Informed verbal consent following an explanation of the study was considered suitable as the study does not collect any sensitive data nor does it involve any participants below the age of 18 years, anthropometric measurements or clinical sampling. None of the participants was requested to show the pet rabies vaccination cards to avoid any degree of coercion. Upon the informed verbal consent, the above-mentioned questionnaire was administered to the most senior adult occupant consenting for the interview. Each interview lasted for around 10 to 15 minutes. Explaining the study, obtaining verbal consent and data collection was done by the principal investigator and trained data collectors who have passed the General Certificate of Education (Advanced Level) Examination, Sri Lanka. Training of the data collectors was done by the principal investigator. All necessary precautions were taken concerning COVID-19 during the data collection. Data collections of 9 divisional secretariat divisions were completed in April 2021, before the travel restrictions for the 3 rd peak of COVID-19 cases in Sri Lanka. Data collections of the remaining divisional secretariat divisions were completed in July 2021, after the travel restrictions were lifted.

Data description and analysis

The prevalence of pet ownership was computed as a point estimate with a 95% confidence interval. Categorical variables were presented as frequencies with percentages while continuous variables were presented as means with standard deviation. The analysis was performed using Microsoft Excel and add-ins. Univariable analyses were performed using a chi-square test to identify possible associations for the variables of interest. Variables with a p < 0.2 were included in a multivariable model. A backward stepwise regression was used to identify variables with a p < 0.05. Also, a binary logistic regression was performed including all variables of interest against the pet ownership (odds ratios with 95% CI).

Definitions

  • Head of household— “Head of a household is the person who usually resides in the household and is acknowledged by the other members of the household as the head” [ 31 ].
  • Pet ownership—A household that “privately-owns companion animal(s) not intended for research or resale” [ 32 ] as declared by the participants.
  • Rural sector— “All areas other than urban and estate” [ 31 ].
  • Urban sector— “All areas administered by Municipal and Urban councils” [ 31 ].

Demographic data

A total of 547 households were approached and data from a total of 532 households were collected (97%). There was no one at home in 11 households on the day of data collection. And, members of 04 households refused participation as they were busy with their day-to-day activities. The mean age of the participants was 38.2 (SD 16.1) years. The mean duration of stay at Anuradhapura was 45.4 (SD 14.1) years. Most of the study participants were non-head of household (54% - 286/532), females (56% - 295/532), Buddhists (94% - 500/532), educated up to or above general certificate of education (ordinary level) (78% - 415/532), employed (52% - 275/532), full-time employed (96% - 264/275), married (84% - 449/532), rural residents (92% - 489/532) and not living alone at the household (96% - 513/532). Also, most had single storied-single house (93% - 492/532), ≥1 adult male in the household (96% - 513/532), ≥1 adult female in the household (98% - 519/532), no male children in the household (76% - 402/532), no female children in the household (64% - 342/532) and a monthly household income of less than 50,000 Sri Lankan rupees (66% - 353/532). Further, only 7% (39/532) had every member ≥18 years employed full-time.

Pet ownership

Out of the selected households, 57% (305/532; 95% CI 53–62) currently owned a pet ( Table 1 ). Fifteen per cent (77/532) did not currently own a pet but had one previously and 28% (150/532) never owned a pet. Out of those who did not currently own a pet, most (34% - 76/227) had mentioned a lack of interest as the reason for not owning a pet ( Fig 1 ). The dog was owned as a pet in 41% (220/532) of the households, cat in 17% (88/532), bird in 5% (28/532), fish in 5% (26/532) and rabbit in 1% (7/532). The squirrel was found only in two households. The dog was the only pet in 31% (166/532) of the households while both dogs and cats alone were seen in 6% ( Fig 2 ). Five per cent (25/532) owned non-pet animals. The duration of non-pet animal ownership ranged from 1 to 20 years. The cow was owned in 13 households (1.5 to 20 years) followed by hens in 8 (1 to 10 years), goats in 5 (3 to 10 years) and ducks in 2 (1 to 5 years).

thumbnail

  • PPT PowerPoint slide
  • PNG larger image
  • TIFF original image

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108.g001

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108.g002

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108.t001

Most dog (77% - 169/220) and cat owners (88% - 78/88) owned only one in number while most bird (86% - 24/28) and fish owners (96% - 25/26) owned three or more. Most dog (62% - 136/220) and cat owners (51% - 45/88) owned their pet for > 1 to ≤ 5 years while most bird (75% - 21/28) and fish owners (69% - 18/26) owned their pets for ≤ 1 year. Security (69% - 152/220) was the most common role for dogs at home while it was companionship for cats (31% - 27/88) and hobby for both birds (64% - 18/28) and fish (54% - 14/26). Most dogs were gifted or inherited (49% - 109/220) while cats were owned when strayed (59% - 52/88). The birds (93% - 26/28) and fish (92% - 24/26) were bought from a pet store. Home-cooked food was the most common for dogs (78% - 172/220) and cats (74% - 65/88) while it was commercial dry food for birds (93% - 26/28) and fish (92% - 24/26). Most commercial foods were bought from supermarkets for dogs (46% - 6/13) and cats (100% - 1/1) while it was from the variety store for birds (63% - 12/19) and fish (60% - 15/25). Most dogs (68% - 149/220) and cats (52% - 46/88) lived outdoor in a non-specific area while most birds (82% - 23/28) and fish (61% - 16/26) lived outdoor in a specific area. Moreover, dogs (13% - 29/220), cats (6% - 5/88) and birds (39% - 11/28) reduced travel of the family ( Table 2 ).

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108.t002

Veterinary visits and rabies vaccination

Most dogs (67% - 148/220) had at least one veterinary visit within the last year. However, most cats (60% - 53/88), birds (93% - 26/28) and fish (100% - 26/26) had no veterinary visit within the last year. Vaccination was the most common reason for a veterinary visit for dogs (97% - 144/148) and cats (91% - 32/35) while health issue was the reason for birds (100% - 2/2). Most of those who did not take their pet dog (79% - 57/72), cat (91% - 48/53), bird (100% - 26/26) and fish (100% - 26/26) for a veterinary visit said it was not necessary during the last year ( Table 3 ). Out of the houses which owned a dog, 90% (197/220) had vaccinated their pet within the last year while it was 50% for cats. Out of the houses which owned both dogs and cats, 61% (23/38) had vaccinated both their pets within the last year while 34% (13/38) had vaccinated only the dog and 5% (2/38) had not vaccinated both their pets.

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108.t003

Factors associated with pet ownership

The backward stepwise regression found households with >1 adult female, participants living alone and Buddhists to have a p < 0.05. The Cox-Snell R 2 of the three variable regression was 0.05 with the following predictive model:

Pet ownership = - 0.84 (intercept) + 0.54 (households with >1 adult females) - 1.38 (participants living alone) + 0.97 (Buddhists)

The binary logistic regression (Cox-Snell R 2 = 0.07) for variables of interest against pet ownership revealed the above same three variables to have a p < 0.05. Accordingly, households with >1 adult female [p = 0.02; OR = 1.61 (95% CI 1.09 to 2.36)], participants living alone [p = 0.03; OR = 0.24 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.86)] and Buddhists [p = 0.02; OR = 2.56 (95% CI 1.16 to 5.63)] were significantly associated with pet ownership. Out of the households with >1 adult female, 65% (173/266) owned a pet compared to 50% (132/266) in households with ≤1 adult female. Out of the participants living alone, 21% (4/19) owned a pet compared to 59% (301/513) among those who did not live alone. Among Buddhists, 59% (294/500) owned a pet compared to 34% (11/32) of non-Buddhists. There was no significant association between pet ownership and other variables of interest ( Table 4 ). Further, a binary logistic regression for variables of interest against dog ownership revealed that households with >1 adult female [p = 0.01; OR = 1.69 (95% CI 1.15 to 2.48)] and Buddhists [p = 0.01; OR = 4.16 (95% CI 1.54 to 11.29)] were significantly associated with dog ownership. Moreover, households with >1 adult male [p = <0.01; OR = 5.73 (95% CI 1.95 to 16.84)], households with ≥ 1 female child [p = 0.047; OR = 2.55 (95% CI 1.01 to 6.44)], living in urban sector [p = 0.03; OR = 4.07 (95% CI 1.15 to 14.48)] and Buddhists [p = 0.02; OR = 0.24 (95% CI 0.07 to 0.81)] were significantly associated with bird ownership. However, cat and fish ownership failed to have a significant association with any of the variables of interest.

thumbnail

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108.t004

The present study, to the best of our knowledge, is the first overview of the prevalence and associated factors for pet ownership, veterinary visits and rabies vaccination in rural Sri Lanka. The findings would be a vital guide in health care and future research related to one-health among people of low-middle income and rural regions. The study reported that more than half of the participants owned a pet in the Anuradhapura district. Dogs were the most common pet and were well vaccinated against rabies within the last year. Cats were placed second but only half of its population were vaccinated against rabies. Most dog and cat owners owned their pets for 1 to 5 years while most bird and fish owners owned their pets for ≤ 1 year. The above years of ownership may correlate with the general average lifespan of the relevant animals. Households having more than one adult female, participants living alone and Buddhists were significantly associated with pet ownership. However, a study in the United Kingdom found pet ownership in childhood and adolescence to be associated with sex, birth order, maternal age, maternal education, number of people in the household, house type, and concurrent ownership of other pets [ 33 ].

Similar to the present study, more than half of the people in the globe [ 10 ] and Asia [ 11 ] have a pet in their homes. Also, the dog has been the most common pet both in the globe (33%) [ 10 ] and in Asia (32%) [ 11 ]. Our study reported a higher percentage (41%) of households in Anuradhapura that own a dog. In India, the neighbouring country of Sri Lanka with similar culture and climate, pet ownership and dog ownership were seen at 59% and 34% respectively [ 11 ]. In contrast, cats were the most common pet in New Zealand which is quite different in culture and climate to Sri Lanka [ 27 ]. Thailand, a country where the vast majority of people follow Buddhism, reported a similar percentage of dog owners (47%). It is interesting to note that our study found Buddhists to be significantly associated with both pet and dog ownership. Sri Lanka is a country with cultural and climate diversity. Therefore, future similar studies in Sri Lanka are proposed to involve participants from different climates and cultures. In the present study, the most common reason for owning a dog was security, which was similar to the Philippines [ 34 ] and contrary to companionship in New Zealand [ 27 ]. Future studies are needed to find out if the economic status of a country or a community would influence the reason for owning a dog. As in prior literature [ 27 , 35 ], lack of interest was the most common reason for not owning a pet. Households from a community in the United Kingdom were more likely to own a dog if they had an adult female household member [ 12 ]. Our study also showed that households with more than one adult female were more likely to own a pet and a dog. The United States of America reports that pet ownership was significantly lower among those who lived alone which was in line with the findings of the present study [ 13 ]. Therefore, future One Health initiatives could consider the presence of adult females and the number of family members.

Raw food for diet is not without risk for both the pet [ 36 ] and the owner [ 37 ]. The majority of the participants fed their dogs and cats with home-cooked food. Only a very few fed their pet dogs and cats with raw food. It is encouraging to note that people from a rural region had taken precautions in minimizing risks related to raw food consumption. However, providing home-cooked food would have been affordable to the pet owner of a rural community. Also, a previous study in a relatively high-income area of Colombo city of Sri Lanka revealed that most dog owners fed their pets with home-cooked food. Further, dogs consuming commercial food for the majority of their diet were no less likely to receive dietary supplements than dogs fed home-cooked food for the majority of their diet [ 38 ]. Moreover, a Brazilian study concludes that commercial wet diets for maintenance dogs were the most expensive for 1000 kcal of metabolizable energy followed by home-cooked and commercial dry diets [ 39 ].

Most of the dogs in the present study had a veterinary visit and were vaccinated against rabies within the last year. The above findings highlight responsible dog ownership. Responsible pet ownership includes: “Protecting pets from pain , suffering , injury and disease and registering with a veterinary practice and implementing their advice regarding the preventive and therapeutic healthcare needs of your pet” [ 40 ]. Rabies is a vaccine-preventable but fatal zoonotic, viral disease and dogs are the main source of human rabies transmission and deaths [ 41 ]. Sri Lanka has depended mainly on post-exposure prophylaxis and dog vaccination to achieve its goal of rabies elimination [ 42 ]. Annual rabies vaccination of all dogs above six weeks is recommended by Sri Lankan rabies control authorities [ 43 ]. The findings of our study furnish evidence for excellent progress. Nevertheless, only half of the feline population was vaccinated against rabies within the last year. Information and education campaign materials could be used to enhance the knowledge, attitude and practice of rabies in rural Sri Lanka [ 44 ]. Although most of the dogs had a veterinary visit within the last year, most cats, birds and fish did not visit a veterinarian as participants did not consider it necessary. Similar to the present study, the most common reason for a veterinary visit was for vaccination or annual check-up in New Zealand [ 27 ]. And, the above same reason was given by the vast majority of pet owners for not taking their pets to a veterinarian [ 27 ].

The study was limited to a rural district of Sri Lanka which cannot be generalized to the entire country. Also, the findings of a cross-sectional study cannot establish a causal relationship between pet ownership and the associated factors. Further, pet ownership was determined by the declaration of participants and pet bonding was not assessed. Assessment of pet bonding using a pet bond scale could help assess the extent of attachment between the pet and the owner. Subsequently, the level of bonding could be used in analysing associated factors. Moreover, during the present study, if no one was at home, the next household was approached. Retaining a household for recontact if no one was at home is methodologically challenging considering the large surface of the district and pandemic-related travel restrictions. However, only 11 households had no one at home on the day of data collection. And, members of only 04 households refused participation as they were busy with their day-to-day activities. A higher participation rate was possible probably because the population in rural and agrarian districts dwell mostly near its household, the pandemic-related travel restrictions and the short time taken for the interview. Further, the grama niladhari division with the highest population for each divisional secretariat was selected for data collection. However, the prevalence of pet ownership may be different in grama niladhari divisions with lower populations. The inclusion of these areas is methodologically challenging in a study involving an entire district that is the largest by surface area in its country. Separate research on such areas is proposed. Moreover, the data on rabies vaccination within the last year was solely derived from the participant’s verbal information as none of the participants were requested to show the rabies vaccination cards to avoid any degree of coercion. Nevertheless, the findings of the present study are unique because it was conducted in a rural district of a South Asian country where similar studies were scarce.

The World Health Organization defines One Health as “an approach to designing and implementing programmes, policies, legislation and research in which multiple sectors communicate and work together to achieve better public health outcomes”. It identifies the health of humans, domestic animals, and the environment are symbiotic [ 45 ]. Also, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention mentions the human-animal bond as an example of One Health because the bond can help improve mental well-being [ 14 ]. The study provides vital data on pet ownership from a rural region of a lower-middle-income, South Asian country. Information on pet ownership at the community level would help identify trends in pet services, frame public strategy, plan animal sheltering and organize animal welfare programmes [ 21 , 24 ]. The findings will be useful in planning out research and intervention related to One Health involving both human and veterinary medicine. Also, the higher percentage of dog ownership highlights the opportunity for research related to canine companionship and human health. Future research on such topics in One Health initiative should consider the socio-demographic predictors as potential confounders. Further, future research should focus on the assessment of pet bonding and the identification of ways to improve veterinary care among households with a pet. Assessment of pet bonding using a pet bond scale could help assess the extent of attachment between the pet and the owner. Subsequently, the level of bonding could be used in analysing associated factors.

Conclusions

Pet ownership is common among households of Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. The number of adult females, participants living alone and Buddhists were significantly associated with pet ownership. Dogs are the most common type of pet and were well vaccinated against rabies within the last year. These findings highlight the opportunity for research related to canine companionship and human health. However, the above-mentioned socio-demographic predictors should be considered as potential confounders in the One Health initiatives. Although most of the dogs had a veterinary visit within the last year, most cats, birds and fish did not have a veterinary visit as the owners considered it unnecessary. While the study findings would contribute toward health care improvement in rural regions, in line with One Health concept, future studies are necessary to identify ways to improve the veterinary care of pets and assess pet bonding.

Supporting information

S1 file. the datasheet of the study..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0277108.s001

Acknowledgments

The authors extend their gratitude to the trained data collectors of the study.

  • View Article
  • PubMed/NCBI
  • Google Scholar
  • 25. Daniel WW, Cross CL. Determination of sample size for estimating proportions. 10th ed. Biostatistics: A foundation for analysis in the health sciences. 10th ed. United States of America: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2013. pp. 191–192.
  • 41. WHO. Rabies. In: World Health Organization [Internet]. 2021 [cited 2 Nov 2021]. Available: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/rabies
  • 45. WHO. One Health. In: World Health Organization [Internet]. 2022 [cited 15 Sep 2022]. Available: https://www.who.int/europe/initiatives/one-health#:~:text=‘OneHealth’isanapproach,animal%2Chumanandenvironmentinterface .

Keeping Pets and People Healthy

Pets have many benefits, but they can also spread germs that can make people sick. Learn ways to stay healthy while enjoying pets.

A healthy diet is important for everyone, even your pets. When picking out food for your pets, there are important things to consider. Learn how to feed pets safely.

Germs from pets and pet food can easily spread to pet items like bowls, toys, and crates. Learn when and how to clean and disinfect pet supplies to keep your family and your pets healthy.

Traveling can sometimes be stressful, for pets and people. Learn how to prepare to prevent stress and keep pets safe and healthy during travel.

In the event of an emergency, would you know what to do to protect your pet? Be prepared: learn how to make a plan and prepare a disaster kit for your pet.

Antibiotic resistance can affect the health of both people and animals. Learn how to use antibiotics responsibly in pets.

Badge for One Health

Most Popular

13 days ago

Largest Universities in the World

International students in canada experiencing crisis as never before calling for government action, fafsa delays put students’ college dreams on hold.

10 days ago

Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift, Billie Eilish – Who Else Snatched the Award at Grammy’s 2024 – Explore grammy’s Essay Topics

Department of education steps up to support colleges amid fafsa rollout issues, why people should not be allowed to keep exotic animals as pets essay sample, example.

Admin

Almost no one, except perhaps the richest people, can provide a wild animal with all its necessary conditions. Exotic animals have unique needs. For example, wild tigers need a large territory to roam around in. A venomous Monocled cobra, which can be legally bought in a number of states for a puny $100, will repeatedly strike when feeling in danger. A bobcat can hunt a prey eight times bigger than itself. Chimpanzees and other primates require a lot of space for climbing, and sea mammals need vast water basins to swim freely. The examples are numerous. These needs require specific living conditions—or at least housing structures. Can an average American citizen afford keeping an exotic pet? Not just for a year or two, but for 25 or 50 years? Just for an example, the annual cost of keeping a tiger (in a cage) approaches $6,000. Clearly, being a keeper of a wild animal is beyond the capabilities of an average citizen ( National Geographic ).

If the previous paragraph did not persuade you, consider the danger of biological contamination. According to different estimates, at least one in three reptiles (which are among the most popular exotic pets—iguanas, for example) is a host for salmonella and shigella bacteria; the overall percentage with salmonella is probably up to 90 percent. According to data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 90 percent of imported green iguanas carry unfamiliar strains of intestinal bacteria. Other species are not safer. About 25 percent of both imported and domestically-bred macaques are reported to have had the herpes B virus. Among other diseases carried and transported by wild animals, one should mention such infections as chlamydia, yaba virus, giardia, tuberculosis, measles, marburg virus, hepatitis A, campylobacteriosis, rabies, streptothricosis, and a lot of other malicious microorganisms, including worms ( ASPCA ).

In addition, wild animals can pose a direct physical threat to their owners. During the last 10 years, there have been dozens of attacks committed by captive big cats, such as lions and tigers; in one of the saddest incidents, a tiger killed a three-year-old boy, who was its guardian’s grandson. In another case, a Bengal tiger has bitten off an arm of a four-year-old boy. Since the beginning of the century, four people were hunted down (and killed) by wolf hybrids. This is not to mention the cases when wild animals attacked other domesticated pets—cats, dogs, and so on ( PETA ).

Along with well-known ecological problems—such as the extinction of species, or the destruction of rainforests, there is also another significant issue: people tend to keep exotic wild animals as pets. This is a bad practice, since wild animals require unique conditions that an average American cannot afford; exotic animals carry and transmit exotic diseases, which can pose a threat to owners; and there were numerous incidents when a captivated wild animal attacked its owner, or members of their families. All this is solid proof in favor of the claim that wild exotic animals should not be kept as pets.

There are many examples of persuasive essays like this on the Internet. However, according to the best website for assignment help , the best samples can be found on the specific platforms with academic works. So, don’t limit yourself from checking those out.

“Wild at Home: Exotic Animals as Pets.” Nat Geo WILD. N.p., 03 Oct. 2012. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/wild/animal-intervention/articles/wild-at-home-exotic-animals-as-pets/>

“Exotic Animals as Pets.” ASPCA. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <https://www.aspca.org/adopt/adoption-tips/exotic-animals-pets>

“Exotic Animals as ‘Pets'” PETA. N.p., n.d. Web. 11 Aug. 2015. <http://www.peta.org/issues/animals-in-entertainment/exotic-animals-pets/>

Follow us on Reddit for more insights and updates.

Comments (0)

Welcome to A*Help comments!

We’re all about debate and discussion at A*Help.

We value the diverse opinions of users, so you may find points of view that you don’t agree with. And that’s cool. However, there are certain things we’re not OK with: attempts to manipulate our data in any way, for example, or the posting of discriminative, offensive, hateful, or disparaging material.

Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

More from Best Persuasive Essay Examples

Outdoor activities

May 28 2023

How does outdoor exercises impact our health and well-being? Essay Sample, Example

Screen time limits

Should Screen Time Be Limited? Essay Sample, Example

Video games for the brain

Why Video Games are Good for the Brain. Essay Sample, Example

Related writing guides, writing a persuasive essay.

Remember Me

What is your profession ? Student Teacher Writer Other

Forgotten Password?

Username or Email

4 Tips to Stay Healthy Around Your Pet

Father Reading Book With Son And Daughter And Pet Dog At Home

Pets, whether covered in fur, feathers, or scales, are an important part of our lives—most American households own at least one pet. Many people see their pet as a member of the family that brings joy and amusement to their life. But did you know that having a pet can even help improve your health? Having a pet can decrease your blood pressure, cholesterol, triglyceride levels, and feelings of loneliness. Pets can also encourage you to be active and get outside, and provide opportunities to socialize.

The risk of getting a disease from a pet is low for most people, but some groups are more likely to get sick from the germs spread by pets, and their illness may be more severe. Young children, older adults, people with weakened immune systems, and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to certain zoonotic infections.

You might not realize that the everyday activities involved in caring for your pet can result in the spread of germs from pets to people. Handling pet food and toys, cleaning cages, and yes, even kissing your pet, can pass germs from the pet to you. Pets can spread germs even if they look clean and healthy.

All of this may sound scary, but knowing about zoonotic diseases and the simple things you can do to reduce the risk will help you enjoy your pets and stay healthy. Adopt these four simple habits to help you, your family, and your pets stay healthy and happy.

  • Choose the right pet Not all pets are right for all people. In addition to thinking about the pet’s needs, consider who will be around the pet at home. Are there young kids in the house, or maybe a relative over 65? Certain pets, including reptiles, amphibians, and rodents, are not recommended for children 5 years of age and younger, adults 65 years of age and older, and people with weakened immune systems because they’re more likely to get sick. Rodents and cats can carry diseases that cause birth defects, so think about waiting to adopt one of these pets if you or someone in your home is pregnant. Talk to your veterinarian about choosing the right pet.
  • Keep your pet healthy Keeping your pet healthy helps to keep you healthy. Make sure pets get a good diet, fresh water, shelter, and exercise. Regular veterinary care is also important for your pet. Many pets need routine vaccinations, de-worming, and flea and tick control to protect them, and their owners, from certain diseases. Every pet—whether it’s a dog, cat, hamster, ferret, or iguana—should receive life-long veterinary care. If you think your pet might be sick, talk to your veterinarian. Also, remember to include your pets in your emergency preparedness plans so you can keep them safe and healthy in an emergency.
  • Practice good hygiene Washing your hands is one of the best ways to stay healthy around pets and can also protect you against other diseases. Always wash your hands after playing with, feeding, or cleaning up after your pet. Pets can contaminate surfaces in your home with germs—you don’t have to touch your pets to get sick from the germs they might be carrying. Keep your pets away from people food and areas where food and drink are prepared, served, consumed, or stored. Always clean up dog feces (poop) from your yard and public areas to prevent the spread of parasites and other germs to people. If you’re pregnant and have a cat, avoid changing the litter box.
  • Supervise kids around pets Always supervise young children around pets, even trusted family pets. Children, especially those 5 years of age and younger, can be at higher risk for pet-related illnesses because they often touch surfaces that may be contaminated, put objects in their mouths, and are less likely to wash their hands. Children are often the victims of bites and scratches and are more likely to get seriously ill from certain diseases spread from pets. Don’t let kids kiss pets or put their hands or objects in their mouths after playing with pets. Help them to wash their hands after they interact with any animal.

We all love our pets, but it’s important to know the risks that come with any animal contact, especially for people who are more vulnerable to certain diseases. Practicing healthy pet habits can help you enjoy your pets while staying healthy.

You can learn more about pets on CDC’s Healthy Pets Healthy People website , and be sure to check out this feature for more tips on staying healthy around pets.

12 comments on “4 Tips to Stay Healthy Around Your Pet”

Comments listed below are posted by individuals not associated with CDC, unless otherwise stated. These comments do not represent the official views of CDC, and CDC does not guarantee that any information posted by individuals on this site is correct, and disclaims any liability for any loss or damage resulting from reliance on any such information. Read more about our comment policy » .

More information is needed to explain Toxoplasmosis and cats in particular.

I have a service dog, he goes out to do his business, but for the most part stays indoors with me, unless we go out somewhere, or I take him for a walk with me in a wheelchair. He’s my second service dog. Prior to getting ill, we had dogs…three of them over the years. At the agency that I got my dog helpers from, they teach us how to keep them clean, etc. Of course, if I drop say a book, or a pillow, the dog will pick it up for me. He sleeps in the bed with hubby and I, so he can pick up if I have a seizure since I have a seizure disorder as well as MS. He takes trifexis monthly here at home all year round. He is always up to date on shots, even takes Bordetella shot, since we go out in public. He doesn’t care much for other dogs, and ignores them. My first service dog was the same…into people, not dogs. I’ve been following the story about the man who lost his limbs and nose due to dog saliva. I have MS, and have a poor immune system. We always wash hands after touching the dog’s bowl, or before eating, but like now, I’ve done some gardening, and have some scratches on my hands….Is there anything else I should be doing? Do I need to keep my dog on a preventative antibiotic to prevent transfer of this organism? Or should I take something? My service dogs have given me my life back, and I know I will be asked this by the public, because the story is out there, and folks ask all sorts of questions when I am working with my dog in public. This is bound to come up. Oh, in my prior life, before I got MS, I was a nurse, so…..anything you can share with me would be so welcome. thank you.

Is it ok for a pet to sleep in the same bed with their owner?

Can pets, particularly dogs, harbor transmissable COVID19: saliva, feces ? What can you full body wash-bathe the dog or pet with to destroy the virus? What immediate virus killer-spray can be used? What is the virus’s transmissable infectious life on a dog’s-or pet’s coat at ambient Spring temperature? Any other precautions with my live-in, sleep with dog. Thanks!

If you have general questions regarding COVID-19, please see the CDC’s Coronavirus Disease 2019 FAQ page ( https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/faq.html ) for timely information.

I could not see answers about pets which are already in small rooms in Assisted Living and other Senior facilities. If general guidelines are intended to be followed, it will be impossible for staff to do what the owners were not doing and now CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO DO, for the safety of all. It will add an extra burden to what is now expected by staffs who themselves are either overworked, sick or missing.

Thanks for your informative and valuable article on pet. We all must follow some scientific guidelines while keeping a pet at our house. We keep them safe and healthy as we want ourselves remain healthy living with them.

I am looking for information regarding street animals–community dogs and cats. These are a huge issue in the Balkan country where I volunteer, and in many others as well. Recommendations?

Dogs need exercise to burn calories, what is the suitable time for exercise? also time duration for pup?

A friend always lets the dog lick the plates clean before loading the dishwasher. Is it safe to eat from plates that dogs have “precleaned”?

It is a great article, I am heartily impressed by your blog and learned more from your article. Thank you so much for sharing with us.

For Pets, particularly dogs, do we have any vaccines Available against Covid-19 ?

Post a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

To receive email updates about this page, enter your email address:

LESSON PLAN FOR ENGLISH TEACHERS

Keeping pets.

article writing on keeping pets

Level: Upper-intermediate (B2-C1)

Type of English: General English

Tags: animals Article based

Publication date: 07/01/2016

In this lesson, students read a newspaper article about the different considerations involved with keeping a pet. The worksheet focuses on vocabulary and speaking activities.

Christopher

The questions are little too easy (basic reading strategies) . Learners need more critical thinking activities for upper intermediate learners but the content is interesting and the vocabulary activity near the end is pitched at the right level.

This will be very useful as a jumping off place for my evening group of C1s. They are in maintenance mode and like to chat about everything under the sun. The pictures are childish and just take up room. Otherwise, a good, short lesson that could be expanded in discussion to make it more challenging.

Leave a Comment

Student worksheet

Teacher lesson plan

Save lesson to

COURSE PLANS

This comprehensive course plan covers the full range of language needs – listening, role play, vocabulary development.

Worksheets in English for Life course plan

article writing on keeping pets

Type of English: General English Level: Upper-intermediate (B2-C1)

article writing on keeping pets

Type of English: General English Level: Intermediate (B1-B2)

article writing on keeping pets

Make your lessons unforgettable

Did you know that your students can review the target language from our worksheets with our Expemo flashcard app? To let your student know, just enter their email address below (multiple emails can be separated with a comma).

Watch CBS News

Animal shelters are overwhelmed by abandoned dogs. Here's why.

By Kate Gibson

Edited By Alain Sherter

Updated on: January 9, 2024 / 12:21 PM EST / CBS News

Man's best friend is increasingly being abandoned on the street, often by people facing financial hardships who can no longer afford to feed or house them.

"Animal shelters generally reflect what is happening to people in a community and where there is food insecurity," Stephanie Filer, executive director of Shelter Animals Count, told CBS MoneyWatch. 

As 2023 came to close, there were 250,000 more animals in the shelter system than the year before, said Filer, whose group compiles data from nearly 7,000 shelters nationwide. 

"Through November, our numbers are showing a continued and persistent gap in the numbers entering our shelters and leaving," said Filer, who also noted an increase in puppies and purebred dogs being brought to shelters.

"In the past year, San Diego Humane Society, which takes in over 30,000 companion animals each year, observed a 20% increase in lost pets not retrieved by their owners," Dr. Gary Weitzman, president and CEO of San Diego Humane Society, said in an emailed statement. "Families relinquish their pets for various, often heartbreaking reasons, including escalating costs of care, insufficient housing options for pet owners and limited access to veterinary care. We also believe a pause in spay/neuter surgery accessibility during the pandemic has also increased the number of animals in our shelters."

Many people have pulled back on adopting dogs for the same reason they are relinquishing their pets: They are worried about their financial situation, according to Katy Hansen, director of communications for Animal Care Centers of NYC, New York City's largest animal shelter. The organization last year contended with 3,200 abandoned dogs, up 41% from 2022.

"Right now dogs are the bigger issue because we don't have room anymore. We do interviews in offices that also have crates in them and we have dogs in the hallways," Hansen said. "We prevented almost 3,000 surrenders last year just by offering free food, temporary boarding, or some people just need help with training." 

Still, there are situations the shelter can't redress, such as helping find rental properties that take big dogs. "Landlords in New York City pretty much have the upper hand," Hansen said. "We're getting pets that have been in the family for years and years." 

macc1-1.jpg

Difficulty covering the rent comes along with paying more for pretty much everything. Dog owners fork over hundreds of dollars a year for veterinary visits, and in 2022 paid an average of $354 for food and $315 for boarding, according to the American Pet Products Association. 

"The economy and inflation especially are bringing up the cost of everything, from dog food to medical care," Mike Keiley, vice president of the animal protection division at MSPCA-Angell, a nonprofit that runs four shelters across Massachusetts that have been running at capacity since spring of last year.

In times of economic hardship, dogs and horses are the species that get impacted the most, as larger animals are costlier to take care of, said Keiley, who noted that his organization saw a 40% increase in local dog owners surrendering their pets last year. 

"During the 2008-09 housing crisis in Massachusetts, we saw horses impacted first, as they are the most expensive animals to own, and dogs secondarily. Cats always trail behind on economic issues, and you don't see the same restrictions on housing with cats," he offered. 

More dogs put to death

People are making desperate choices in part because of the challenge of finding affordable housing, a situation heightened with the lifting of a federal moratorium on evictions in August of 2022. Especially in competitive housing markets, many landlords have imposed stricter rules limiting or banning pets, particularly certain breeds and larger dogs. 

"It's harder to find affordable housing that allows pets," said Keiley.

isabel1-185138-statenisland3-1.jpg

"We need to increase adoptions — saying 'my dog's a rescue,' now we see that is not as big of a motivator. We've lost that understanding that shelters have a ton of amazing animals that are at risk of not having live outcomes right now." 

Animal Care Centers of NYC euthanized 2% more dogs in 2023 than in 2022, in large part due to overpopulation.

At the Kansas City-Missouri animal shelter, KC Pet Project, "we're giving away dogs like crazy for free, as soon as a dog hits the 30-day mark," said Tori Fugate, its chief communications officer. "This last year was the absolute hardest we've experienced in our 12-year history," added Fugate, who noted that the shelter's took population increased to 8,420 dogs last year, up from 7,500 in 2022.

"We are having to euthanize more animals; 93% are leaving through positive outcomes," said Fugate, who added the shelter has two full-time employees devoted to reuniting lost pets with their owners. 

In addition to encouraging adoption, animal shelters are trying to help people with financial challenges not have to choose between feeding themselves or their pet. MSPCA-Angell previously had programs in place where people could pick up pet food at its shelters, but is now working with human food pantries to stock pet food so that those living in poverty don't have to travel to two places. 

"One stop and everyone is fed — that's the way animal welfare has to evolve right now. It's a battle for every available home that has a pet to keep their pet," Keiley said.

Beyond adoption, those looking to help can provide temporary foster care for animals, volunteer their time at their local shelter or donate pet food, supplies or money. 

As Keiley put it: "There's a way for everyone who cares about animals to help." 

Kate Gibson is a reporter for CBS MoneyWatch in New York.

More from CBS News

What the latest inflation numbers mean for mortgage rates

Credit report error complaints have doubled since 2021

How to pay off $20,000 in credit card debt in 3 years or less

Millions struggle with student loan repayments amid stubborn inflation

article writing on keeping pets

How to write an article? | B1 Preliminary (PET)

article writing on keeping pets

An article that you’ll have to write is for publication in a magazine or website .  So, like most articles in magazines it must be entertaining and informative,   therefore , you need to keep your reader engaged and interested from start to finish!

There will also be some kind of questions for you to answer.  Below you can see a sample exam task:

Check our Writing Guide below – to see how to write an article in detail.

B1 Preliminary (PET) Article: Structure

Any article in the B1 Preliminary (PET) exam can be broken up into four parts:

FCE, CAE, PET

Practice, write & improve, b1 preliminary (pet) article: writing guide.

We will use this example exam task :

You see this notice on an English-language website

Write your article .

Step 1: Analyse your task quickly

article writing on keeping pets

Task analysis is very simple. All you have to do is two things:

Firstly , find the questions you have to answer in your task.

Secondly , find the topic of the article (which in this example is ( Films & Cinema) So, now you need to brainstorm all the vocabulary that you can think of related to films. 

For example: animated, romantic films, a big fan, drama, adventure movies, popcorn, screen, Netflix 

If you prepare some words in advance, it will be much easier for you to write an article!

Step 2: Add a Title

Every excellent article starts with a good title ,   don’t worry though it doesn’t have to be super special or super interesting. It is okay if your title is simple and just gives a general idea of what the article is about.

Here you can see three examples of a title

Home cinema or the big screen?

How to best watch the films you love?

Home or cinema — How do you watch your favourite films? 

As you can see two titles started with  how …  – how – to articles are just very popular so it is good idea to use that form for your title.

Practice Tests Online

Step 3: introduction.

The role of the introduction is mainly to catch the reader’s attention , it can be done in the simplest way by asking a question. Why this way is good? Because at the same time, you will show the examiners that you can use the  p resent perfect tense.

Here you can see example  introduction

Have you ever screamed (present perfect) during a horror film? Or have you watched (present perfect) a comedy and laughed until you cry?

Step 4: Body (answering the questions)

Here you answer the main questions that we identified in Step 1.

  • What kind of films do you enjoy?
  • Do you prefer watching them at the cinema or at home? Why?

Remember these paragraphs should be the longest in your text and they should contain most of the information.

Also, we use the vocabulary that we prepared earlier in Step 1.

animated, romantic films, a big fan, drama, adventure movies, popcorn, screen, Netflix 

See the example answer below, with additional annotations you may find useful:

I know many people who love animated or romantic films , but for me, there is nothing better than an amazing drama or adventure movie (answer 1) like ‘Indiana Jones’ because I’m a big fan of stories with fascinating plot. 

In my opinion, watching a film at home isn’t the same a s going to the cinema (answer 2) to enjoy a great movie on a huge screen with popcorn and cola . (answer 2) If it wasn’t so expensive, I would go every week.

                  – vocabulary related to topic of films/cinema

                   – interesting grammar

Step 5: Final sentence

Finish your article with a nice final sentence. It doesn’t have to be anything special you can simply summarize your article or you can also try to be a little bit funny or end in a more surprising way.

Everybody loves films, I think you can enjoy them anywhere, even if not at the cinema, it’s still Netflix!

Remember: the more interesting your article is the higher your marks might get!

engxam logo english exams

Get Your (B1) Article Checked!

See full article…, full article.

Have you ever cried at the cinema? Or have you watched a comedy and laughed until you cry?

I know many people who love animated or romantic films, but for me, there is nothing better than an amazing drama or adventure movie like ‘Indiana Jones’ because I’m a big fan of stories with fascinating plot.

In my opinion, watching a film at home isn’t the same as going to the cinema to enjoy a great movie on a huge screen with popcorn and cola. If it wasn’t so expensive, I would go every week.

B1 Preliminary (PET) Article: Example Answers

Pet article sample 2 (grade: 4-5/5), student’s  answer:.

There are many types of films, most adults like to watch romance films and most children likes to watch cartoons but for me, I like to watch romance and musical films.

I prefer watching them at the cinema because of the sound effects and the screens are so much bigger than our house one, sometimes the film even look so real. When you are going to an outting with your friends, you can buy the food and the drinks there but I don’t like to eat the popcorn there.

However, when my parents don’t want to go to the cinema, I have no choice but to watch it at home.

Grade: 4-5/5

Content:  5 Communicative Achievement: 4 Organisation: 4 Language: 4

Get Your (PET B1) Article Checked!

Pet article sample 1 (grade: 3/5).

Hi, my name is Antem. I likes watch films, but there are little cinemas in our city.

I prefer watch fantastic films at the cinema in 3D, because they realise and interesting. My favourite filmes are ‘star wars’, ‘hobbit’ and, Harry Potter and the half-blood prince’

I prefer watch films at the cinema park in Alatir. If you ask: Why do you like watch film at the cinema park? I answer, that I like eat pop-corn and ice-cream. Else, I like go to the cinema with my family. It’s very funny! We go to the cinema one time a month, and two times a week on holiday

Content:  5 Communicative Achievement: 2 Organisation: 2 Language: 2

B1 Preliminary (PET) Article: Exam Questions

Example exam question 1.

You have seen this advertisement in the school magazine.

Write your article in about 100 words.

Example Exam Question 2

Example exam question 3, b1 preliminary (pet) article: things to focus on.

The examiners are looking at the following criteria:

B1 Preliminary (PET) Article: Writing Checklist

article writing on keeping pets

After writing your e-mail, you can check it yourself using the writing checklist below.

How to do that? Simply check your text/email by answering the questions one by one:

  • Is the article about the topic stated in the task?
  • Does it answer the question(s) in the task?
  • Does it include all relevant information in about 100 words?

Communicative Achievement

  • Does the text use the conventions of an article (addressing the reader directly, expressing an opinion, sharing personal information)?
  • Is it written in a style suitable for the magazine stated in the task (often for a school, club or website and therefore informal)?
  • Is the purpose of the writing clear?

Organisation

  • Does the text use paragraphs appropriately to organise the ideas?
  • Does the text use other organisational features of an article (for example, a title, introduction of the topic)?
  • Are the ideas presented in a logical order? Is the text easy to follow?
  • Does the text use a variety of linking words or cohesive devices (such as although, and, but, because, first of all, finally, as a result etc., and referencing language)?
  • Is punctuation used correctly?
  • Does the text use a range of vocabulary?
  • Does the text use a range of simple grammar accurately (such as basic tenses and simple clauses)?
  • Does it use some complex grammatical structures (such as relative clauses, passives, modal forms and tense contrasts)?
  • Is the spelling accurate enough for the meaning to be clear?

B1 Preliminary (PET) Article: Useful Phrases & Expressions 

article writing on keeping pets

Engaging the reader:

Have you ever thought about…? How would you feel if …? What would you think of…? Are you one of those people who …? If the answer is …, you should…. What do you reckon to …? What would live be like if… Just think for a moment… Just imagine…

Making the article lively and interesting (use adverbs):

importantly surprisingly worryingly the most amazing absolutely suddenly amazingly fantastically frighteningly

Developing your points:

Another advantage of … On top of all that… What is more, … Above all,,, The reason I think this is… The reason I feel this way is… On top of that, … Let’s start with …

Giving your own opinion:

In my opinion, … In my eyes, … To my mind, … As far as I am concerned, … Speaking personally, … From my point of view, … As for me / As to me, … My view / opinion / belief / impression / conviction is that … I hold the view that … I would say that … It seems to me that … I am of the opinion that … My impression is that … I am under the impression that … It is my impression that … I have the feeling that … My own feeling on the subject is that … I have no doubt that … I am sure / I am certain that … I think / consider / find / feel / believe / suppose / presume / assume / reckon that … I hold the opinion that … I dare say that … I guess that … I bet that …. I gather that … It goes without saying that ….

Justifying opinions

because… the reason is… the reason I believe that is… the facts suggest… the evidence shows… taking into account what I have seen…

Making recommendations and suggestions:

It would be a good idea to… Wouldn’t it be better to…? Why don’t we…? What about… ? How about… ? Shouldn’t we… ? Let’s consider… Why not… ?

Would you pass B1 Preliminary (PET)?

Pet Profiles: How to Write a Pet Adoption Bio

  • Pet Adoption and Fostering

Beautiful black-and-gray dog who was adopted in part because of his well-written pet profile on our website

Are you looking to rehome a pet or hoping to help your foster pet get adopted? One of the most effective ways to do that is to write a good pet profile and post it on sites like AdoptAPet.com and on social media. Here are some tips for writing a great adoption bio for dogs, cats, and other pets.

Get excited about finding the pet a home

Before you write anything, stop and remind yourself how much you want to help this animal find a good home. Readers of the profile will feel what you feel. So before you can make them want it to happen, you must want it to happen. 

Find the right opening line

When you’re ready, write a show-stopping first sentence that tugs at the heartstrings. Don’t put the animal’s age, rank, and serial number (so to speak) in the first sentence. You can give readers the details about the animal’s medical status and breed mix later. 

The opening sentence should be about who, not what, the pet is. For example, “You haven’t lived until you’ve had Sammy’s nose on your lap” is a better opening sentence than “Sammy is a 5-year-old shepherd/spaniel mix with hip dysplasia.”

Provide helpful details

Next, tell us more about who the pet is. For every challenge that you mention about the pet (for example, that a cat has diabetes and will need injections), make sure you’re saying something positive that will tempt someone to adopt. 

Keep in mind that you are advertising the pet; it’s their big chance. In advertisements, we tell the truth, but we also put our best paw forward. Try to ensure that readers remember what’s good about the pet even more than the challenges. Some examples include: 

  • "She wraps her paw around my ankle." 
  • "He snuggles with my cat." 
  • "She sounds like Scooby Doo when she barks."

In addition, say what you’ve observed rather than what you promise for the future. For example, “He has gotten along well with all the dogs he’s met” is better than “He is great with all dogs — guaranteed.” Because we can’t predict the future, it's better to make objective statements about the past and present.

Try not to use abbreviations when you write. Instead, spell out words so that people can hear you speaking inside their heads as they read. This creates a better bond between you and the reader. Also, say the animal is looking for a new family, friend, or person — not an owner.

Close with encouragement

The last sentence is important, so you’ll want to write a good one. It’s your last chance to urge readers to take the next step. Make sure your words convey that you really want them to adopt this pet. 

For example, “Please reach out because Eva is so eager to hear from you” is better than “Qualified adopters only.” You want to encourage readers to respond to the bio, not scold them.

Finally, read the whole profile carefully. Ask yourself, “Would this bio make me want to find out more?” If you’re not sure, then try again. Write with your heart!

More tips on promoting dogs for adoption

©2024 Best Friends Animal Society . All Rights Reserved...

Privacy | Terms & Conditions | bestfriends.org

Green Matters

Keeping Exotic Animals as Pets Is a Dangerous and Unethical Practice: Here's Why

I f your household is preparing to welcome a new furry friend, the first place you should look is an animal shelter . While Forbes confirms that dogs are the most popular pets in the U.S., with over 65 million households being dog parents , some people crave more exotic animal companions .

Should exotic animals be kept as pets? While not entirely illegal depending on the U.S. state, we unpack why the practice is not advisable and unethical.

Should exotic animals be kept as pets?

The short answer is no; exotic animals should not be kept as pets. No matter how cute a baby raccoon is or how soft tigers look, animals that haven't been domesticated do not belong in your home. Exotic animals should not be kept as pets for several important reasons, including dangers to animal welfare, human health, and expenses.

Having exotic animals poses a danger to the animals themselves.

When you see an exotic animal for sale, you probably don't question how they got there. The truth is, the poor creature was likely kidnapped from the wild.

The Not a Pet campaign is a collaboration between The Association of Zoos & Aquariums (AZA), the Wildlife Tracking Alliance, and the International Fund for Animal Welfare to draw attention to the exotic pet trade and emphasize how dangerous it is for the animals involved.

According to estimates provided by Not a Pet, for every baby chimpanzee that becomes an exotic pet, ten are killed in the process. Creatures "in demand" by exotic pet traders, such as marmosets, Capuchin monkeys, and Hyacinth macaws, are taken from their homes in the wild and transported, often kept in tiny cages to make it to exotic pet traders or stores.

Exotic animals as pets present dangers to human health.

If you have an exotic animal as a pet, you could run the risk of a zoonotic disease. Zoonotic diseases are caused by germs that can pass from animals to humans. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that animals can spread six out of every ten known infectious diseases .

There are many zoonotic diseases you've probably heard of before, including SARS, rabies, cat scratch fever, and COVID-19 .

It's extremely easy to pass germs between animals and humans. The CDC notes a few ways this can happen, including:

  • Eating contaminated food
  • Coming into contact with the saliva, feces, blood or mucus of an infected animal
  • Touching a contaminated item, like an aquarium or a food dish
  • Coming into contact with contaminated water

Exotic animals as pets is an expensive endeavor.

Even if you have good intentions, it's expensive to maintain exotic animals as pets. According to Country Vet Clinic, there are many factors you have to consider with exotic pets, including:

  • Specialized diets
  • Unique or custom-made caging
  • Specialized vet care

Associate clinical professor at Texas A&M College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences Shannon Hoppes echoed this sentiment, explaining that costs can also be dependent on species .

"A rabbit cage, enrichment, and diet are not that much more or less than a dog, but a large parrot will need a large cage which can be $500-$1000. Veterinary care for exotic pets is also high, a healthy bird exam can be several hundred dollars, and a sick bird exam can be a $1000. Most exotic pets have to be sedated or anesthetized for any handling, so even a physical exam with anesthesia and monitoring can be expensive."

What states have exotic animal bans?

According to Michigan State University, 20 states have "comprehensive bans" on keeping exotic animals as pets. The animals typically included in "comprehensive bans" are big cats, reptiles, non-domesticated carnivores, and non-human primates.

There are also 13 states with partial bans on exotic pets, meaning only specific exotic animals are allowed to be kept as pets.

Fourteen states allow private ownership of exotic animals with a license or permit, and three states have no regulations regarding exotic pets but may require a health certificate.

Overall, it's better to leave exotic animals where they belong — safely in the wild.

iStock

Vets call for more pet blood donations to provide life-saving emergency transfusions

A large dog on a treatment table next to a vet drawing blood.

Four-legged blood donors such as Rugar can be the difference between life and death for ailing pooches at Victoria's busy veterinary clinics.

Like their human companions, dogs require blood transfusions and plasma in a range of treatments, including for road trauma, cancer, blood disease, or after ingesting toxic substances.

Blood is usually collected in veterinary clinics from the pets of staff or clients but, with dogs only able to donate once every three months, new donors are always needed. 

Rugar's owner, vet Jack Atkin-Smith, said he had performed countless blood transfusions at Swan Hill Veterinary Clinic in Victoria's north west, regularly enlisting his great dane-greyhound cross for a donation.

"He is a big fella … and not too fussed about sitting on a table while a needle goes into him," Dr Atkin-Smith said.

He said Rugar had saved as many as 20 pets over the past six years, many of them critical care patients, much to the relief of their concerned owners and devoted veterinary staff.

"Sav the Staffie was a notable case for us because he was a rat-bait dog and was bleeding into his abdomen and had lost a lot of blood," Dr Atkin-Smith said.

"We were able to race home and grab Rugar and preform a fresh blood transfusion while we started therapy to correct the rat bait – and Sav is still with us a year later."

All paws on deck

At least 13 different canine blood groups have been identified, with dogs able to receive their first transfusion from any breed without risk of significant complications.

A bag of blood beind held near a dog.

But the dog's blood type must be determined and matched if multiple transfusions are required.

To donate, canines need to be aged between one and seven years, weigh more than 25kg, be fully vaccinated, and have a calm temperament.

Dr Atkin-Smith said Rugar's relaxed nature, and his love of treats and attention, made him an ideal donor but his age meant he would not be a suitable candidate for much longer.

With transfusions being performed sporadically at Swan Hill Veterinary Clinic, and some blood products having a limited shelf life, staff have appealed to pet owners to register their dogs for emergency donations.

"When you need it, you need it and that is why we want a few dogs always available," Dr Atkin-Smith said.

"For our immediate on-call list we wouldn't have more than 10 dogs and we'd like to get a lot more than what we have at the moment."

He said his surgery tried to keep blood in stock and it could be stored for a month or two in the work fridge.

"But fresh is best and, if you do have a dog around, a fresh sample is the way to go," he said.

Making difficult decisions

Meanwhile, transfusions are a daily procedure 400 kilometres away at Greencross Vet Hospital at University of Melbourne, where having on-site reserves of donated blood as well as a register of on-call donor dogs is critical.

However, veterinary clinical care specialist Liam Donaldson said there were constant shortages despite the practice's best efforts. 

"We can be in a position where we need blood straight away but because we don't have enough donors for our clinic we have to call on our partner hospitals to supply us blood or if they have a blood donor list, to contact owners on that list and see if they can come into the clinics," he said.

A vet examines a small dog using a stethoscope in a veterinary clinic.

Dr Donaldson said difficult decisions about patient care would be made when a donor couldn't be found. 

"If we have an elderly patient that has a poor prognosis, if it has a chronic disease or cancer, sometimes we have to preference younger, healthier animals with a good prognosis," he said.

"Sometimes we need to share a bag of blood between two animals and hope it is enough to support them through their illness.

"It is very difficult when you have owners who want the best for their pets and to have to inform them that due to a shortage, we have had to preference another pet over their own."

Charlie's transfusion 

Dr Donaldson said the issue was as much personal as it was professional for him.

His three-year-old Cavoodle Charlie unexpectedly required a transfusion in 2021.

"He developed immune mediated anaemia, so his body decided to break down his red blood cells for an unknown reason, and he carried a good prognosis as long as we could give him a blood transfusion." Dr Donaldson said.

Dr Donaldson said with blood supplies fully exhausted, an on-call donor dog was brought to the clinic for an emergency donation. 

"[Charlie] received his transfusion … and now he is a happy, naughty pup – but it was the difference between life and death for him."

  • X (formerly Twitter)

Related Stories

Having a dog doesn't have to cost a fortune.

A dog's head with an illustrated dollar sign.

What to look for when choosing the right food for your dog

A dog, dressed as a human looks down at an illustrated bone to depict the difficulty of choosing the right food for your pet dog

What you need to know before getting pet insurance

A black and white image of a man holding his dog next to an illustrated heart for a story about getting pet insurance.

  • Doctors and Medical Professionals
  • Human Interest

Advertisement

Supported by

White House Memo

Inside Biden’s Protective White House

The White House’s cloistered nature reflects the concern of aides who worry that even small mistakes will be amplified. Lately, the president has burst through that bubble, with mixed results.

  • Share full article

President Biden clasping his hands. He can be seen from a slight opening in curtains.

By Katie Rogers and Lisa Lerer

Katie Rogers reported from Washington and Lisa Lerer from New York.

Aides have President Biden take the shorter stairs to board Air Force One. When it comes to news conferences, they yell loudly — and quickly — to end the questions, sometimes stealing a classic awards show tactic and playing loud music to signal the conclusion of the event. And forget about regular interviews with major news publications, including a traditional presidential sit-down on Super Bowl Sunday .

Over the years, some of Mr. Biden’s key aides have gone from letting “Joe be Joe” to wrapping a presidential cocoon around him that is intended to shield him from verbal slips and physical stumbles.

All presidents are shielded by the strictures of the office, yet for Mr. Biden, who at 81 is the oldest person in history to hold the job, the decision is not only situational but strategic, according to several people who are familiar with the dynamic. The cloistered nature of his White House reflects a concern among some of his top aides that Mr. Biden, who has always been prone to gaffes, risks making a mistake.

Those risks were revealed in striking ways during the events that unfolded this week.

After a special counsel’s report on Mr. Biden’s handling of classified documents was published on Thursday, the president was furious with how he was portrayed, viewing the report as a partisan and personal attack that included one of the most gutting experiences of his life — his son Beau’s death.

His aides discussed options, including whether to wait a day to respond. But in the end, the president decided to answer questions from reporters who assembled in a haphazard scrum, rather than a formal news conference.

Aides tried to end the scrum multiple times. But Mr. Biden kept talking, offering a forceful defense of his memory.

He also made mistakes. As he headed toward the door, the president turned back to take a question on the war in Gaza. He criticized Israel’s campaign against Hamas as an “over the top” operation that had led to human suffering in the besieged strip.

He described his work to urge other leaders in the region to to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza. But then he mixed up Mexico and the Middle East while recalling the negotiations.

It was not the only flub.

At campaign events this week, he confused dead European leaders for their living counterparts, saying he had spoken to François Mitterrand, the former French president who died in 1996, and Helmut Kohl, the former German chancellor who died in 2017.

Amid the criticism and concern over his words, some of the people closest to Mr. Biden — including Jill Biden, the first lady — are concerned that the presidency wears on him. A small number of aides close to the first couple keep a scrupulous watch over Mr. Biden’s schedule and hash out the finest details, down to the specifics of a motorcade route.

Mr. Biden has granted fewer interviews and delivered fewer news conferences than any of his predecessors dating back to President Ronald Reagan, which has led to criticism that a president who promised “transparency and truth” at the outset of his term has not done enough to explain his decisions to Americans, particularly on foreign policy.

Even the way Mr. Biden walks to the presidential aircraft is subject to careful management. The president started taking a short flight of stairs directly into the belly of Air Force One, rather than a tall stairway wheeled up to a higher point on the plane, after he tripped and fell over a sandbag during a commencement ceremony this past summer. Now, there is a Secret Service agent positioned at the bottom of the stairs when he disembarks. (Mr. Biden’s immediate predecessor, Donald J. Trump, who is 77, often took the short stairs during bad weather.)

White House officials have not said when Mr. Biden will receive another physical exam. The last one was conducted nearly a year ago by Kevin C. O’Connor, the president’s longtime physician, who declared his patient, then 80, to be “healthy” and “vigorous.”

Outside the White House, Mr. Biden’s allies worry about the optics of his physical appearance, which have become fodder for conservative attacks and online memes. And the issue is not just partisan; a recent poll by NBC News shows that half of Democratic voters say they have concerns about Mr. Biden’s mental and physical health.

His gait is somewhat halting, a characteristic multiple people close to the White House say is partly because of his refusal to wear an orthopedic boot after suffering a hairline fracture in his foot before taking office.

Even so, aides say Mr. Biden will keep increasing the number of appearances that allow him to interact directly with the public, including unscheduled drop-ins at restaurants and shops.

The White House rejected concerns about the president’s mental acuity.

Andrew Bates, a White House spokesman, said in an email that Mr. Biden “is traveling the country at an aggressive rate.” He added that Mr. Biden is using “interviews, speeches and innovative digital events” to deliver his message.

Democrats who have spent time with Mr. Biden in smaller settings, including fund-raisers, private meetings and round tables after events, say he remains sharp — even pugilistic.

Jay Jacobs, the chairman of the New York State Democratic Party, said Mr. Biden spoke without notes at a recent fund-raiser, addressing a range of issues, including foreign policy and the stakes of the election. After the event, the president asked Mr. Jacobs detailed questions about the special election for a House seat in New York’s Third Congressional District.

“The characterization that I’m seeing currently is just unfair,” Mr. Jacobs said. “Yes, his voice can sound older. There’s no question of that. But I will tell you from my personal conversations with him, this guy was on his game.”

Mr. Biden’s allies say that there is no proof that he is unfit for office, and that the coverage of his mistakes — and his age — does not compare with the substance of the things he gets correct.

“I care about the action,” said Robert Wolf, a longtime Democratic donor who was at one of Mr. Biden’s fund-raisers in Manhattan on Wednesday. “I care about the legislation. I care about the people he has around him. I don’t care if he messes up between the Middle East and someone’s name.”

Mr. Wolf said that at the end of a long day of headlining campaign events around New York City, Mr. Biden grabbed a microphone and privately took about a half-dozen questions from a group of donors on Wednesday evening, focusing largely on foreign policy.

Others point to the president’s accomplishments, saying it is time for Democrats to stop attacking him — or harboring quiet hopes for someone to replace him on the ticket — and rally behind his candidacy.

“I am not going to tell voters to not take into account the president’s age. The age of an elected official, and of a candidate for office, is a germane consideration,” said Representative Jake Auchincloss, a Democrat who represents suburban Boston. “But I’m going to encourage them to take into account his full profile and track record, everything he brings to the table.”

Mr. Biden’s allies also say that the president’s legislative accomplishments, from a bipartisan infrastructure bill to a measure intended to increase semiconductor production in the United States, are proof not only of his mental acuity but of his ability to negotiate in pivotal — and unscripted — moments.

“Republicans would have loved to come out of these meetings and say, ‘We’d really like to get something done, but unfortunately, you know, the guy can’t remember anything,’” said Jesse Lee, who worked in communications at the White House’s National Economic Council until November. “It’s not like there’s some sacred cone of silence that, you know, never gets broken except for this.”

Doug Mills contributed reporting.

Katie Rogers is a White House correspondent covering a range of issues, including foreign policy, domestic policy, and the Biden family. Her book, “American Woman,” about first ladies in the White House, will be published in February 2024. She joined The Times in 2014. More about Katie Rogers

Lisa Lerer is a national political reporter for The Times, based in New York. She has covered American politics for nearly two decades. More about Lisa Lerer

Our Coverage of the 2024 Presidential Election

News and Analysis

Tom Suozzi’s victory in a special House election in New York  gave Democrats a dose of optimism  and a model for how to navigate one of the biggest political liabilities for President Biden and the party: the migrant influx overwhelming the southern border .

Nikki Haley’s bus tour through South Carolina , where she is trailing Trump in the polls , was intended to evoke a candidate on the upswing. But it has served more as a reminder of how much the state has changed since she was governor .

Our Revolution, the political organization that Senator Bernie Sanders launched in 2016, is joining the effort to vote Uncommitted in Michigan’s Democratic primary , seeking to pressure Biden into changing his approach to the war in Gaza.

Letting Insults Fly: Nikki Haley has, until recently, run a fairly positive campaign, even as she has endured relentless criticism from Trump. Her 22-year-old son, Nalin Haley, is not so inclined to pull his punches .

Can Democrats Win Back Latino Men?: A friendship forged in a Las Vegas barbershop offers clues to one of the biggest questions of the presidential election .

Disparate Economic Pictures: Democrats say Nevada’s economy is getting better, while Republicans argue it’s getting worse. Which message resonates more could help make a difference in the pivotal battleground state in November .

Behaving Like an Incumbent: As he rolls toward the Republican nomination, Trump is using the imagery of his presidency  to twist the race in his favor in ways big and small.

IMAGES

  1. How to take care of pets/ Essay on pets/ 10 Lines on pet care

    article writing on keeping pets

  2. Essay on My Pet Animal

    article writing on keeping pets

  3. Should we keep pets? Essay Writing Activity

    article writing on keeping pets

  4. Importance of Keeping Pets Essay Example

    article writing on keeping pets

  5. Essay on My Pet Dog

    article writing on keeping pets

  6. Benefits of Keeping Pets

    article writing on keeping pets

COMMENTS

  1. Should we stop keeping pets? Why more and more ethicists say yes

    The British pet industry is worth about £10.6bn; Americans spent more than $66bn (£50bn) on their pets in 2016. A survey earlier this year found that many British pet owners love their pet...

  2. Pet Ownership and Quality of Life: A Systematic Review of the

    1. Introduction Throughout history, animals have played a significant role in society including in agriculture and pet ownership. A recent survey conducted in the United States estimated that approximately 67% of homes had at least one pet, equaling about 63 million homes with at least one dog and 42 million homes with at least one cat [ 1 ].

  3. The Health Benefits of Owning a Pet

    Mental health: According to Frates, lifestyle medicine guidelines recommend that people spend 120 minutes in nature each week to lower blood pressure and stress levels—which can often be achieved while playing with, tending to, or walking a pet. Pet fish bring the benefits of nature indoors, too.

  4. The Power of Pets

    "We're trying to tap into the subjective quality of the relationship with the animal—that part of the bond that people feel with animals—and how that translates into some of the health benefits," explains Dr. James Griffin, a child development expert at NIH. Animals Helping People Animals can serve as a source of comfort and support.

  5. Should We Really Be Keeping Cats And Dogs

    My aim in writing Run, Spot, Run is to reinforce the fact that pet keeping involves taking responsibility for the life and well-being of a sentient creature, and giving an animal what he or...

  6. Pets: is it ethical to keep them?

    The institution of pet-keeping is fundamentally unjust as it involves the manipulation of animals' bodies, behaviours and emotional lives. For centuries, companion animal's bodies (particularly...

  7. How to Stay Healthy Around Pets and Other Animals

    Print Understand the Risks and Benefits of Pets There are many health benefits of owning a pet. They can increase opportunities to exercise, get outside, and socialize. Regular walking or playing with pets can decrease blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and triglyceride levels.

  8. How dogs contribute to your health and happiness

    'Dogs make people feel good' Perhaps the most intuitive benefit of sharing your life and home with a canine friend is that dogs give you "feel-good vibes" almost instantly. Dogs are often used as...

  9. The Animal Connection: Why Do We Keep Pets?

    The animal connection is the process by which pets or livestock become companions and/or partners, and are treated as members of the family. It refers to the close relationship between animals and ...

  10. The Health and Mood-Boosting Benefits of Pets

    Pets require responsibility. Most dogs, regardless of size and breed, are capable of inflicting injury on people if not handled responsibly by their owners. Even cats can scratch or bite. Pet owners need to be alert to any danger, especially around children. Pets carry health risks for some people. While there are some diseases that can be ...

  11. The bond with pet dogs and cats is strong, deep and uncomplicated

    The years brought a half-dozen more cats and two more dogs, Watson, a black lab then age 6 months, and Raylan, a yellow shepherd mix, who, at 4 years old, arrived with a BB pellet in his leg and a ...

  12. Keeping Pets

    Abstract. This article defines "pets" as nonhuman animals that people take into their homes and accept as members of the household. It assumes that cats and dogs are happy living in human households and have better lives than they would if they were in the wild. There is welcomed companionship and often a genuine friendship across species.

  13. Writing About Pets: Do's and Don'ts, Best Practices, and Examples

    4 don'ts when writing about pets. Now that you have a solid foundation for what makes pet writing howl, let's take a quick look at some of the common pitfalls of newbie content creators in this niche. 1. Don't use human he/she pronouns. Well, unless the client specifically asks for this in their style guide.

  14. Household preferences for pet keeping: Findings from a rural ...

    Pet ownership is an integral part of a modern-day family. It provides a wide range of benefits to humans. However, data on pet ownership are relatively limited from rural regions, Southern Asia and low-middle-income countries. We aim to report the prevalence and associated factors for pet ownership and veterinary visits in Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka. A community-based, cross-sectional study was ...

  15. Keeping Pets and People Healthy

    Pets & Antibiotics. Antibiotic resistance can affect the health of both people and animals. Learn how to use antibiotics responsibly in pets. Last Reviewed: October 21, 2022. Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Center for Emerging and Zoonotic Infectious Diseases (NCEZID)

  16. How to Write About Your Pets

    Gestures exercise: Write down five gestures your pet makes along with the emotion each gesture conveys. Example: Sitting next to you and grunting - contentment. 3. Try Out Prompts. Remember, your first goal is to write a rough draft, not a finished manuscript.

  17. Exotic Animals as Pets: Persuasive Essay

    According to different estimates, at least one in three reptiles (which are among the most popular exotic pets—iguanas, for example) is a host for salmonella and shigella bacteria; the overall percentage with salmonella is probably up to 90 percent. According to data provided by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 90 percent of imported green ...

  18. Should We Stop Keeping Pets?

    Why More and More's Ethicists Say Yes', right of animal's self-determination. Dr. Hal Herzog, cited by McRobbie, claimed we give our pets the characteristics of a family but restrain them with our choices. McRobbie argues that keeping pets is unethical and people are taking away their freedom. Even though she also suggests how dog and cats ...

  19. 4 Tips to Stay Healthy Around Your Pet

    Are there young kids in the house, or maybe a relative over 65? Certain pets, including reptiles, amphibians, and rodents, are not recommended for children 5 years of age and younger, adults 65 years of age and older, and people with weakened immune systems because they're more likely to get sick.

  20. [Essay] In my opinion keeping a pet is not as easy

    In a post give your opinion in about 120-140 words writing about pets as family-members; their influence on the owner; risks (e.g. allergy); the costs of keeping pets. The post: In my opinion keeping a pet is not as easy as some people think it is. It is really important to think about what kind of pet we want and how can we manage their needs.

  21. Keeping pets: ESL/EFL Lesson Plan and Worksheet

    Keeping pets. Share. Level: Upper-intermediate (B2-C1) Type of English: General English. Tags: animals Article based. Publication date: 07/01/2016. In this lesson, students read a newspaper article about the different considerations involved with keeping a pet. The worksheet focuses on vocabulary and speaking activities.

  22. Animal shelters are overwhelmed by abandoned dogs. Here's why

    Animal Care Centers of NYC euthanized 2% more dogs in 2023 than in 2022, in large part due to overpopulation. At the Kansas City-Missouri animal shelter, KC Pet Project, "we're giving away dogs ...

  23. How to write an article?

    1. Title 2. Introduction - start with an engaging question for the reader 3. Body - answer questions given in the task 4. Final sentence - give a final comment FCE, CAE, PET Practice, Write & Improve

  24. How to Write Pet Profiles

    Close with encouragement. The last sentence is important, so you'll want to write a good one. It's your last chance to urge readers to take the next step. Make sure your words convey that you really want them to adopt this pet. For example, "Please reach out because Eva is so eager to hear from you" is better than "Qualified adopters ...

  25. Essay on Pets

    Essay on Pets: Keeping pets is also a pleasant hobby. A dog has ever been a favorite pet with people. There is quite a reason for this choice. A dog is a very faithful and loving pet as well as a great watchful creature. Long Essay on Pets 400 Words in English Short Essay on Pets 150 Words in English 10 Lines on Pets What is the importance of pets?

  26. Free Essay: Keeping Pets

    278 Words 2 Pages Analyze This Draft Keeping Pets View Writing Issues File Filter Results Nowadays, more and more people would like to keep a dog or cat or some other kinds of pets. While this does involve some expense in terms of good and medical treatment, there are still many advantages to keeping a pet. First of all, pets are good companions.

  27. Keeping Exotic Animals as Pets Is a Dangerous and Unethical ...

    According to Michigan State University, 20 states have "comprehensive bans" on keeping exotic animals as pets. The animals typically included in "comprehensive bans" are big cats, reptiles, non ...

  28. Vets call for more pet blood donations to provide life-saving emergency

    Like dogs, felines also require blood transfusions. Donor eligibility is similar but cats must weigh over 4kg and be aged between one and five. Cats have three blood groups: type A, type B or type ...

  29. Inside Biden's Protective White House

    Katie Rogers reported from Washington and Lisa Lerer from New York. Feb. 10, 2024, 5:03 a.m. ET. Aides have President Biden take the shorter stairs to board Air Force One. When it comes to news ...