Jordan River Forum

Fixing animals a humane practice Kudos to Tess Peavy for bringing the "Neuter Scooter" to Bloomington and doing her part to reduce pet overpopulation ("Helping control the pet population," June 20). Shame on the student quoted in the article who said "neutering any type of animal is inhumane." Inhumane means lack of compassion, sympathy or consideration for humans or animals. Spaying and neutering, if done properly, is a relatively painless procedure that improves and extends a pet's life out of consideration for the life of the pet. Doesn't this meet the criterion for humane? This student also commented that "we are no one to take from something's nature." House cats are domesticated animals. According to Webster's, domestic animals are animals adapted to life in intimate association with and to the advantage of humans. This means that house cats are no longer "wild" or under the control of nature. Like it or not, we brought them under our control, and we are responsible for their safety, health and impact on other animals and humans. If Ziggy the cat lives in the house with the person who made this comment, gets fed processed food, gets regular veterinary check-ups and chases a fake mouse around, Ziggy is domesticated and no longer subject to the same rules of nature that apply to wild animals. Perpetuating the idea that spaying/neutering is inhumane and unnatural is just plain ignorant and is a large part of why so many adoptable animals are euthanized each year. I volunteered at the Bloomington Animal Care & Control Shelter for almost five years and saw very little that was "humane" or "natural" about the way some people treat their pets. If spaying and neutering helps reduce the number of starving and sick animals, animals hit by cars, animals that kill native songbirds and small mammals and animals wandering around spreading disease, then spaying and neutering certainly sound like humane and natural procedures to me. Jamie DeWitt
Graduate student Step over stereotypes In response to Cherry Blattert's column ("Acknowledging evil," June 24), the problem with using words like "evil" and "enemy" is that one must assign groups to be a part of them or to be outside them. It is assumed that there is no gray area -- one is either evil or one is good, one is a friend or one is an enemy. President Bush said it himself in his State of the Union Address: "The nation is locked in a fight between good and evil. There really isn't much middle ground -- like, none." It is precisely this binary view that has fostered blind patriotism among a great many Americans and has stifled discourse regarding the motives underlying so-called "terrorism." But blaming evil is the easy way out. It allows us to place ourselves in the "good" group, morally above those we have decided belong in the "evil" group, and relieves us of any responsibility for "evil" acts. The question is, who decides what is evil and what is good? Have you ever wondered if perhaps the "Arab Islamic extremists," as you refer to them, believe that we Americans are evil? After considering that possibility, the important question becomes, why might they think that? In granting yourself the right to assign labels of good and evil, you have asserted that evil lies outside the bounds of this great land of ours and that we must keep it out to preserve the purity within. The idea that "Arab or Muslim non-U.S. citizens" are inclined to lean towards evil is just as preposterous as assuming that all American citizens are incapable of committing heinous crimes. In dealing with crime from both foreign and domestic sources, we must understand that its causes are complex, that its perpetrators cannot necessarily be placed neatly into categories and that our response must be complex as well. Amy Rosen
Graduate student