Animal rights may appear in the last section of the Green Party's platform, but we can still think about "green pets" as part of an apolitical ecological worldview. I am not referring to keeping an iguana in the living room or a frog in the bathtub, but rather to choosing a pet after considering its future: Can we reasonably provide for the animal's needs? Will it be able to express its natural tendencies in captivity?

There are two basic approaches: alleviating animal suffering, which is guided by feelings of compassion, with a focus on meeting the animals' needs, and includes domestic and agricultural animals; and the animal rights approach, which formed during the 1970s and objects to the exploitation of animals and their treatment as property, and goes as far as advocating vegetarianism (these are the principles of the Anonymous Association). In other words, whereas the first approach advocates enlarging enclosures at zoos, animal rights activists would rather see zoos closed altogether.

No purebreds

	Advertisement

How does this relate to pets? Their very definition as such may protect them from the butcher's knife or from suffering in a research laboratory, but many animals (mainly cats) still die in Israel's streets or in quarantine facilities. Each year 20,000-40,000 dogs are destroyed. According to some approaches, dogs and cats should be neutered to prevent over-procreation, and perhaps even purebred breeding should be limited, as each purebred deprives a mongrel of a home. Another problem with purebreds is inbreeding and a shrinking genetic pool, designed to bring out certain characteristics humans want. The result is that dogs have become very far removed from their wolf ancestors, have short legs that do not enable them to run, snub noses that interfere with breathing, and, at times, hereditary diseases. Among cats, the strangest aberration is the hairless sphinx cat, which does not like being hugged (without hair, it feels vulnerable).

According to this philosophy, a "green" dog is not purebred, and does not come from a "puppy mill" in Eastern Europe; it also is not necessarily small, white or adorned with a fancy hairdo. It is a mixed breed animal that has been spayed or neutered, and does not meet a single requirement of the Israel Kennel Club. The same goes for cats.

What about birds, fish and rodents? Animal rights advocates oppose animals being raised for decorative purposes, such as colorful birds in cages or pretty fish in an aquarium. This approach appeals to those who simply cannot look at a bird, hamster or rabbit in a cage, or a fish in a bowl.

As an illustration of cage sizes, the following is an excerpt from the Agriculture Ministry's directives on animal ownership: "No animal shall be kept in a cage unless the cage is at least twice as long as the animal, excluding its tail, and the cage is at least as wide as the animal, excluding its tail." Snakes are an exception to this rule, and require a cage that is only 1.5 times their length, but four times their width.

Many birds live only a few years in captivity - only half or even a quarter of their natural life expectancy. Reasons include poor nutrition and isolation from other members of their species, especially among large parrots that have been impressed (removed from their mother's cage and hand-raised) and had their wings clipped.

Clipping their wings

Veterinarian Hagai Almagor, former animal protection supervisor at the Agriculture Ministry, views wing clipping as part of the domestication process. This restricts the birds' lifestyle, but brings it more in line with that of their owners'.

"We essentially 'clip the wings' of all pets," says Almagor, referring to cats kept inside and dogs that live outside a pack.

In his article "Animals in Human Society" published in Hebrew in the "Hayot Vehevra" (Animals and Society) quarterly of Tel Aviv University, Almagor wrote about the dilemma in owning a pet.

"Theoretically, responsibility for the needs of pets can be minimal," wrote Almagor, "in order to maintain them in the most economic fashion. Still, considering the principles of the prevention of animal cruelty and the fundamental recognition of the animal's natural right to realize the nature of his existence, this responsibility extends to include conditions that will enable the animal, as much as possible, to maintain a natural life style."

Even so, he writes, the animal's right to maintain a natural lifestyle always clashes with the purpose of his being owned - with man's right to realize his own wishes. This creates an "ethical front" that requires compromise.

Extensive information on animal rights (in Hebrew) is available at www.anonymous.org.il.