Les problèmes psychologiques chez les animaux

Un vétérinaire en colère 

Charles Danten © 2015 

CHAPITRE 5 

La libération de Willy 
Les conditions psychologiques de la captivité 

Vous connaissez sûrement l’histoire de Keiko, orque apprivoisé et charmant héros du film Mon ami Willy (ou Sauvez Willy en France), mais ce que vous ignorez probablement, c’est qu’il est mort le 14 décembre 2003 dans des circonstances tragiques. 

Né au large des côtes de l’Islande, Keiko, dont le nom signifie « celui qui a de la chance » en japonais, fut capturé en bas âge par l’industrie des parcs d’attractions marins. Remarqué pour sa nageoire dorsale singulièrement tombante et sa nature bienveillante – Keiko adorait la compagnie des humains –, il obtint le rôle principal du film Mon ami Willy. 

Ce film raconte l’histoire d’un petit garçon qui se lie d’amitié avec un orque maintenu en captivité qu’il encourage à reprendre sa liberté en l’incitant à sauter par-dessus le mur de sa prison. L’histoire émut tant le public que la production en réalisa deux suites. 

La célébrité ne protégea toutefois pas Keiko qui fut envoyé, à la fin de sa carrière, dans un parc d’attractions mexicain où il devait languir pour le restant de sa vie dans des conditions sordides. 

Un jour cependant, Jean-Michel Cousteau de la Ocean Futures Society et un groupe d’hommes d’affaires chevronnés en décidèrent autrement. Ils mirent sur pied la Fondation Free Willy et organisèrent une collecte de fonds. Grâce à la popularité du film, il fut facile de convaincre ses millions d’admirateurs de contribuer généreusement à la réhabilitation et à la libération de Keiko. Une vingtaine de millions de dollars furent ainsi amassés sans délai. 

Dans un premier temps, on mit Keiko dans un avion à destination des États-Unis où on l’aida à se refaire une santé dans un aquarium. Puis, deux ans plus tard, on l’amena en Islande où on l’incita à se réadapter à son nouveau milieu. On lui apprit à capturer lui-même son poisson et on l’encouragea petit à petit à se mêler aux orques sauvages. En 2002, les résultats furent jugés satisfaisants et on le lâcha dans la nature. 

À la surprise de ses gardiens, Keiko, quelque peu déboussolé par sa liberté nouvellement retrouvée, nagea environ 1 000 kilomètres d’une traite jusqu’à la côte ouest de la Norvège où il s’installa vers la fin de l’été près d’un petit village de pêcheurs appelé Halsa. Une fois sur place, il était tellement agité qu’il en devint boulimique. 

Les biologistes qui le suivaient à la trace à l’aide d’un émetteur implanté dans sa nageoire lui donnaient plus de 80 kilos de poissons par jour. Il dut ainsi, jusqu’à son dernier souffle, être nourri à la main. 

En un rien de temps, Keiko, l’orque de sept mètres et demi devint la vedette locale. Pas un jour ne passait sans qu’on vienne admirer ce gentil géant des mers qui se laissait littéralement marcher sur le dos par tout le monde, au point où les autorités durent interdire aux curieux de s’en approcher pour ne pas nuire à ses chances de s’acclimater à la vie sauvage. On pensait qu’en le coupant de l’attention des humains, il irait plus facilement vers les siens. Grosse erreur! 

Véritable « poisson domestiqué », rien ne plaisait davantage à Keiko que la compagnie des humains. Après 25 ans de captivité, il était irrémédiablement attaché et lié à ses maîtres. En décembre 2002, pour lui donner une dernière chance de retourner à la vie sauvage, ses gardiens le déplacèrent à Taknes, une baie isolée située sur une route migratoire d’orques sauvages où l’eau était assez profonde pour ne pas y geler l’hiver. 

Keiko sortait de sa cage régulièrement, mais ne voulait pas se mélanger à son espèce. D’après un participant à l’opération, il semblait comprendre le langage des autres orques, mais semblait désorienté. 

Un beau jour de février, Keiko s’écarta de la baie et se retrouva coincé sous la glace pour la première fois de sa vie. Pris de panique, ne sachant pas comment utiliser ses sonars, il se blessa en essayant de s’en sortir. On vint à sa rescousse avec des remorqueuses et des grues flottantes, mais il resta pris au piège. Quelques semaines plus tard, « celui qui avait de la chance » est mort d’une pneumonie. 

J’étais consterné. Toute personne moindrement renseignée sur les animaux aurait pu prévoir un tel dénouement. Extrêmement dépendant et irréparablement attaché aux humains, Keiko était incapable de survivre ailleurs que dans sa prison. Comme quoi les chemins de l’enfer sont pavés de bonnes intentions… 

*** 

Peu de gens sont conscients du phénomène biologique de l’empreinte, qui conduit un animal, dès sa naissance ou peu après, à s’identifier et à s’attacher à la première chose qui bouge dans son entourage immédiat, et ce, pendant une période d’exposition relativement courte. Ce que nous prenons alors pour de l’amour et de la fidélité au sens propre est en fait la simple manifestation d’un mécanisme biologique génétiquement programmé grâce auquel nous avons pu apprivoiser et domestiquer les animaux. 

 Chez certaines espèces comme le chevreuil, cette attirance pour les objets en mouvement est si forte que les faons, cachés dans l’herbe par leur mère qui n’est jamais bien loin, vont se lever spontanément pour se mettre à suivre le premier venu qui passe dans leur champ de vision. Mais au cas où ça vous arriverait, ne vous imaginez surtout pas que vous avez un don ou un pouvoir quelconque sur les animaux. Les animaux sauvages ne sont pas naturellement attirés par nous. Il s’agit en quelque sorte d’un cas d’erreur sur la personne. La meilleure chose à faire est de passer votre chemin, en laissant le faon aux bons soins de sa mère, le seul être en mesure de l’élever convenablement, selon les prérogatives de son espèce.

L’attachement 

Pour s’intégrer donc, et survivre dans son milieu, il est essentiel qu’un animal s’identifie et s’attache à sa mère dès son plus jeune âge. À son contact, inconsciemment, l’image de la mère, sa silhouette, son odeur et le son de sa voix s’imprègnent dans la mémoire du petit. La mère devient un repère et une présence rassurante qui lui permettront de partir à la découverte de son environnement et d’apprendre son mode d’emploi. 

 Pendant cette période de socialisation, l’animal apprend à reconnaître notamment les membres de son espèce, leur sexe et la nourriture dont il aura besoin pour survivre. En cas de danger, le petit se repliera toujours vers sa mère. La perte de contact ou toute tentative de séparation déclenche une détresse qui se traduit, chez le petit comme chez la mère, par des manifestations variées d’anxiété, comme la vocalisation excessive, l’hyperactivité et, si la séparation dure, une perte de sommeil et d’appétit, l’énurésie et l’encoprésie. 

 Cette période d’attachement, décrite pour la première fois par Konrad Lorenz (1), a lieu à des moments spécifiques et sa durée varie selon les espèces; chez le chien et le chat, elle s’étend sur plusieurs semaines, et chez l’oiseau, sur une période très brève qui débute dès l’éclosion de l’œuf. Un chien âgé de trois mois n’ayant jamais connu l’homme serait quasi impossible à apprivoiser. Chez l’homme, cette période d’imprégnation dure environ de 6 à 8 ans. Chez les cachalots et les ours, elle dure environ deux ans. 

 L’attachement, dans des conditions normales, est toujours suivi du détachement, ce qui permet au jeune de devenir un adulte et de prendre sa place dans l’environnement. La mère, à un moment donné, cesse de répondre aux attentes et aux sollicitations constantes du petit et commence à prendre ses distances. La relation se transforme alors en relation sociale et le mécanisme de l’empreinte s’atténue. 

Un transfert lourd de conséquences 

Lorsque les petits des chiens ou des baleines, par exemple, qui sont des animaux grégaires,sont adoptés par l’homme, ils transfèrent sur celui-ci non seulement l’attachement que tous les chiens et les baleines manifestent envers un chef de meute, mais l’attachement qu’ils ressentent naturellement pour leur mère. La dévotion que ces animaux ressentent pour leur maître a donc deux sources : l’une génétique et l’autre acquise au contact du maître. Ce dernier devient pour eux une mère de substitution, mais ce nouveau lien artificiel entre la bête et l’homme n’est jamais suivi comme il se devrait par le détachement. Au contraire, toute la dynamique des interactions entre les humains et les animaux, notamment de compagnie, s’appuie sur le maintien de cet attachement, ce qui entraîne une dépendance affective contre nature devenue une fin en soi. 

Or, l’entretien de ce lien d’attachement sous sa forme infantile devient l’élément déclencheur d’une anxiété permanente. Celle-ci peut se traduire cliniquement par des troubles psychologiques très variés et par une foule de maladies psychosomatiques, dont les déman-geaisons chroniques, la diarrhée, les vomissements chroniques, les colites (inflammation du gros intestin) et, chez le chat, par des inflammations de la vessie (cystite interstitielle). Il va sans dire que toutes ces maladies n’existent pas chez les animaux sauvages vivants dans leur milieu naturel. 

Tous les animaux sont sensibles, aussi bien les poissons que les reptiles. Les espèces grégaires, comme le chien et son ancêtre le loup, les cétacés (baleines, dauphins, cachalot) et les oiseaux de la famille des perroquets, lorsque totalement identifiés à l’homme, sont affectés. Mais le plus affecté est sans contredit le chat, un animal de compagnie dressé exclusivement par l’affection sous forme de caresses et de croquettes ultras succulentes, ce qui a pour effet de créer une dépendance affective en un temps record.   

La dépendance affective 

L’angoisse qu’éprouvent à la suite d’une séparation les animaux émotionnellement dépendants, peu importe leur âge, ressemble à celle qu’éprouve le jeune enfant soudainement séparé de sa mère et dont la survie est menacée. Leur bien-être dépend de cette attention et comme de véritables drogués affectifs, ils utilisent, comme le font aussi les enfants, toutes sortes de moyens pour l’obtenir. 

Ils se grattent ou se lèchent continuellement pour attirer l’attention du maître qui, en manifestant sa sympathie, perpétue par ignorance ce comportement, qui devient alors une habitude si bien ancrée et compulsive qu’il faut recourir aux médicaments pour l’arrêter. L’allergie saisonnière aux pollens, une condition fréquente chez les chiens en particulier, se poursuit parfois, pour cette raison, bien au-delà de sa saison de prédilection. Ils font semblant d’avoir mal à une patte, ils toussent pour éveiller la sympathie et établir une interaction, ils demandent la porte sans arrêt, ils miaulent, ils aboient ou font tomber des objets. Ils deviennent malpropres ou se révoltent pour obtenir une réaction verbale du maître ou même une bonne fessée qui, curieusement, procure du bien-être. Tout sauf être ignoré. 

Comme un toxicomane brutalement privé de sa drogue, l’intoxiqué affectif souffre d’un état de manque parfois intolérable en l’absence du maître, la source de son équilibre affectif, et qui donne lieu à des stratégies étranges de compensation. Les chiens, tel un chanteur rock endiablé, tentent en aboyant et en hurlant à la mort de signaler leur détresse et de faire revenir près d’eux la source de leur bien-être. Hypernerveux, atterrés par le vide causé par cette absence de gratification, ils vont et viennent dans la maison incapable de contrôler leurs fonctions vitales. Cherchant à fuir une situation intolérable, ils mordent et grattent désespérément les cadres de porte et les murs adjacents. Par frustration, ils mangent leurs ongles et détruisent les meubles. Les chats adultes ronronnent comme des chatons, urinent en dehors de leur litière, souvent sur les habits du maître ou sur son lit, là où se trouve son odeur. Les perroquets se mettent à « philosopher » où à crier, à s’arracher les plumes jusqu’au sang et parfois jusqu’à l’os. Les chats et les chiens se lèchent jusqu’à l’ulcération. Certains expriment cette souffrance d’une façon moins spectaculaire en mangeant excessivement (boulimie), par exemple, et en buvant continuellement ou en se masturbant. D’autres comme Keiko se mettent à nager jusqu’au bout du monde. 

Ces comportements de substitutions sont des manifestations exagérées de certains besoins fondamentaux comme communiquer, explorer le territoire, manger, boire, se laver et se reproduire. Ces réactions névrotiques procurent à l’animal un soulagement temporaire; à la longue, subrepticement, à force d’être trop utilisées, elles deviennent des habitudes (stéréotypie) qui se manifestent d’une manière compulsive et incontrôlable même dans des situations normales et non menaçantes. Bref, à force de solliciter ainsi l’attention et l’affection, l’animal voit son régulateur émotif se détraquer. Rien ne va plus (2). 

La domination 

Chez les espèces grégaires, le besoin de dominer est inné, et les règles de la domination sont apprises par le contact avec leurs semblables. Dans un groupe ou une meute, dans des conditions naturelles, ceux qui dominent sont en général ceux qui sont les mieux adaptés à l’environnement et les plus aptes à assurer la survie de l’espèce. 

Certaines espèces possèdent une organisation sociale hiérarchisée assez complexe. Chez le loup, par exemple, un mâle et une femelle alpha occupent le haut de la pyramide. Ce sont les seuls à se reproduire et ils transmettent ainsi leurs gènes aux générations futures. Les places dans la hiérarchie ne sont cependant pas données une fois pour toutes, et chaque membre du groupe essaye constamment d’obtenir une position de plus en plus élevée au sein de la meute. Le chef est défié et, de saison en saison, sa position dans la meute est remise en question. 

Cette facette du comportement animal dans un contexte non naturel est toutefois la cause de nombreux problèmes psychologiques. En effet, les animaux agissent de la même façon avec leur meute adoptive, mais ce comportement devient superflu, non nécessaire et très problématique comme bien d‘autres d‘ailleurs dans un tel contexte. Le chien (ou le perroquet) idéal est celui qui plaît au bas de l’échelle sociale de sa meute humaine. Il doit se plier à la volonté des enfants comme des adultes. Un animal qui a un caractère un peu trop dominateur et qui ne se soumet pas à cet ordre des choses s’expose à être puni ou abandonné (3). 

L’ambivalence 

Élevés à notre contact dès la naissance, les animaux deviennent « bilingues et aussi à l’aise avec nous qu’avec les membres de leur propre espèce », écrit Desmond Morris, ils sont en mesure d’apprécier les deux genres de relations. Il est tout à fait possible qu’un animal de compagnie vive une vie idéale qui lui permet de donner libre cours à sa nature tout en obtenant les soins que nécessitent ses problèmes de santé. Le meilleur des deux mondes et un bon contrat pour tous les intéressés, (4) » 

Or, contrairement aux assertions de Desmond Morris, la vie des bêtes n’est pas de tout repos. Tout animal a non seulement une nature propre, mais aussi des comportements qu’ils a acquis pendant les quelques semaines qu’il a vécu avec sa mère et ses semblables, entre sa naissance et son adoption. Ces quelques semaines sont suffisantes pour qu’il prenne des habitudes qui ne seront pas les bienvenues dans son milieu d’adoption. 

 Au fond de chaque animal, à l’exception de quelques individus complètement dénaturés et hyper domestiqués, il y a en effet une bête sauvage qui ne demande qu’à s’exprimer. Le but principal de l’éducation et de la socialisation par l’homme est de civiliser cette bête qui dérange dans un milieu qui n’est pas le sien. Chaque interaction avec l’animal apporte son contraire, et cette ambivalence le rend anxieux et psychologiquement déséquilibré. En voici quelques exemples :

 

– En laissant les animaux se coucher sur le divan ou le lit, en les laissant manger près de nous et en les regardant faire, en les couvrant de caresses et en les entourant d’attentions, nous leur démontrons inconsciemment tous les égards auxquels a droit un animal dominant, mais nous les punissons lorsqu’ils tentent d’en faire valoir les prérogatives.

 

 – Par nos sollicitudes affectueuses constantes, nous les amenons à s’attacher à nous très profondément, mais nous n’hésitons pas, quand cela nous arrange, à les laisser seuls des heures, voire des journées entières, enfermés dans une pièce ou une cage à attendre notre retour. Pendant les jours fériés et les vacances, les chenils sont pleins de laissés-pour-compte, traumatisés par cette séparation brutale et inattendue.

 

 – Ils doivent défendre le territoire de leur maître humain, mais ils ne doivent pas sauter sur les invités ni se comporter d’une façon qui pourrait les intimider. Ils ne doivent pas empêcher les étrangers, comme le facteur par exemple, de circuler librement à l’intérieur de la propriété et ils ne doivent pas non plus aboyer lorsque des gens passent à la périphérie.

 

 – On les incorpore contre leur gré à la société humaine, mais ils ne doivent pas avoir envers ses membres des comportements de nature sexuelle. 

– Ils doivent laisser les enfants les molester sans chercher à se venger. 

Pris dans un cul-de-sac, incapables de fuir, ils tentent, en vain, de s’adapter. Les plus atteints deviennent au début hypernerveux et hyper vigilants, à l’affût des moindres mouvements dans la maison. Les stimuli autrefois bien tolérés, comme le tonnerre et certains autres bruits, les font réagir d’une façon démesurée et parfois incontrôlable. Puis, ils en viennent à acquérir des comportements compensatoires comme l’automutilation et finissent par présenter des problèmes neuro-végétatifs qui se manifestent par de la diarrhée, des problèmes urinaires, etc. L’animal peut éventuellement souffrir de dépression grave. Il ne bouge plus, sauf pendant la nuit, il ne dort plus et il devient malpropre. Son système immunitaire s’effondre et il tombe malade. Ces signes traduisent une anxiété chronique et un état d’inhibition extrême (5). Les maladies psychosomatiques touchant les animaux de ferme et les humains sont bien connues, mais, par manque d’intérêt, elles ont été peu étudiées chez les animaux de compagnie (6). 

La peur 

L’agressivité en captivité est beaucoup plus fréquente qu’on ne l’imagine. Le nombre de morsures et d’attaques rapporté est un pâle reflet de la réalité. La peur et le besoin de dominer chez certaines espèces comme le chien sont les raisons principales de cette violence et le manque d’éducation, sa cause première. 

 Il est donc primordial d’habituer l’animal à un âge variant selon les espèces aux situations du quotidien les plus diverses, car une fois que cet âge est dépassé, la peur s’installe et elle pousse instinctivement l’animal à éviter toutes les nouvelles situations, même celles qui ne présentent aucun danger. 

De fait, la peur est un mécanisme de survie naturel qui permet d’éviter tout ce qui est potentiellement dangereux et menaçant. Ce mécanisme empêche les animaux de trop s’approcher de choses ou de lieux inconnus de façon à les préserver de blessures et à ne pas mettre leur sécurité et la survie de l’espèce en danger. 

 Or, la plupart des animaux de compagnie viennent des élevages industriels. Ces jeunes animaux, parqués dans des cages en attendant d’être vendus, isolés, négligés, laissés seuls, sans stimulations sensorielles, sans contact avec les humains et l’environnement, se développent mal et font de piètres sujets d’adoption. Les éleveurs, par souci de rentabilité, produisent à la chaîne des animaux très mal socialisés et incapables de s’adapter aux conditions de captivité. Les éleveurs amateurs et semi-professionnels qui gardent les jeunes animaux le plus longtemps possible afin de choisir pour eux-mêmes les meilleurs de la portée méritent aussi le blâme. Par ignorance et par cupidité, l’éducation des animaux est parfois négligée à un âge critique. Lorsqu’ils sont vendus, il est déjà trop tard. Ces animaux, excessivement craintifs et nerveux, se replient sur eux-mêmes à la moindre menace, cherchent à s’enfuir et tentent d’éviter toute atteinte à leur espace vital. Les animaux ont en effet une zone de confort spécifique, un périmètre à l’intérieur duquel ils se sentent en sécurité, et lorsque les limites de cette zone sont franchies, ils éprouvent de la crainte. Si la menace persiste ou si la distance diminue, un point de non-retour est atteint, et l’animal, dans l’impossibilité de fuir, deviendra alors agressif. Dans certains cas, incapable d’agir ni de fuir, il adopte des comportements compensatoires. Les maîtres, ignorant la psychologie des bêtes, ne font que renforcer cette peur et provoquer des perturbations pathologiques plus ou moins graves. La captivité rend certains sujets très anxieux, voire catatoniques, boulimiques ou anorexiques. 

Les serpents n’aiment pas être manipulés, c’est une atteinte très grave à leur bien-être qui engendre chaque fois une grande anxiété et donne lieu à des réactions parfois très violentes. 

Les oiseaux mal apprivoisés ou sauvages de la famille des perroquets, par exemple, réagissent par des cris et des menaces d’une violence inouïe dès que l’on viole leur espace vital. Les morsures sont fréquentes et très douloureuses; le bec d’un oiseau tel l’inséparable, malgré sa petite taille est d’une puissance surprenante, tout comme celui des perroquets amazones et aras qui peuvent vous sectionner un doigt sans difficulté. Près de 99 % des oiseaux de la famille des perroquets qui vivent en captivité restent sauvages et sont potentiellement très dangereux. 

Les chiens qui ont tendance à mordre, pour toutes sortes de raisons, mais surtout parce qu’ils ont peur, sont une source de problèmes d’ordre civil. 

Décoder cette peur est relativement facile dans le cas des espèces plus familières, mais pour les autres, peu de gens savent en déchiffrer les symptômes, et ces animaux, à bout de force, épuisés par une existence invivable, ne survivent pas longtemps (7). 

Le consommateur inconscient et ignorant achète ces animaux incapables de lui donner satisfaction. Dans un certain sens (du point vu du maître), ce n’est pas trop grave s’il s’agit d’un animal qui va passer sa vie dans une cage ou un vivarium, mais dans le cas d’un animal de compagnie plus intime, comme un cochon d’Inde, un perroquet, un chien, un hamster ou un chat, les répercussions sont souvent désastreuses. Un nombre incalculable de ces bêtes sont abandonnées ou mises à mort parce qu’elles ne coopèrent pas ou sont agressives. 

Les écoles de dressage 

Les écoles de dressage essaient, par diverses méthodes coercitives, dont certaines sont d’une grande violence, de corriger des comportements indésirables, mais elles ne font, par ignorance, qu’empirer la situation. L’apprentissage des commandements de rigueur – au pied, assis, couché –, de même que la punition ont un effet néfaste sur ces animaux déjà déséquilibrés au départ. Ils risquent de ne jamais être capables de s’adapter, de prendre une place heureuse en société. Sans remonter à la source de ses problèmes, il est impensable d’amener un changement significatif. Les vrais enjeux sont le besoin de dominer, l’ennui, la solitude, l’infantilisme dû à la dépendance, la peur dénaturée, le manque de socialisation, l’ignorance.   

Les soins psychiatriques aux animaux 

Est-il surprenant, dans ces conditions, que les résultats des thérapies comportementales soient si mauvais ? Le trouble de l’animal psychologiquement perturbé est dû à la domestication et à la dépendance affective subséquente. La thérapie de l’intervenant en compor-tement n’a pas pour but de le soigner, car en dehors de cette dynamique, la relation n’a plus de sens et devient inutile. Les gens possèdent un animal précisément pour recevoir et donner de l’affection. Par conséquent, l’objectif de ses thérapies se limite à aider le patient plus ou moins en crise à reprendre du service, autant se faire que peu. 

 En d’autres termes, le psychologue pour animaux s’adresse à la maladie psychologique découlant des contradictions inhérentes à la domestication non pour la guérir, mais pour en atténuer les symptômes le plus vite possible, suffisamment du moins pour rendre le patient capable de fonctionner à l’intérieur des limites imposées par son maître. Désabusé par un taux de succès pitoyable, il faut le dire, les psychiatres des bêtes, de plus en plus nombreux, s’emploient à soigner cette épidémie de névrosés à coup de médicaments psychotropes comme le Prozac (fluoxétine, la pilule du bonheur), le Valium et l'aminotryptaline, trois des antidépresseurs les plus employés en médecine vétérinaire. 

 Évidemment, la thérapie est vouée à l’échec, l’origine du malaise étant située dans une dynamique relationnelle faussée dès le départ, et que rien au monde ne pourra jamais redresser. La plupart des animaux les plus visiblement atteints, ceux qui répondent mal à la médication que les maîtres sont d’ailleurs souvent incapables d’administrer correctement, seront abandonnés puis détruits incognito dans une des nombreuses déchèteries mises à la disposition du public. Les autres languiront leur vie entière à attendre le bon vouloir de leur propriétaire. 

L’infantilisme 

Ce qui vient d'être décrit est d'une importance capitale pour comprendre la véritable nature du rapport à l’animal, ce que les Anglophones nomment fièrement, The Bond. En réalité, ce que nous méprenons pour de l'amour n'est qu'une dépendance et un asservissement infantile réciproques, car pour initier, entretenir et trouver du plaisir dans ce genre de relation, il faut être soi-même dépendant et infantilisé. L'étendue de cette dépendance est directement proportionnelle à la place qu'occupe cette relation dans la vie affective d'un individu. Une séparation réelle ou anticipée devient pour le maître, comme pour un petit enfant, un sujet d'angoisse parfois dramatique, car c'est littéralement une partie de lui-même qui est menacée. Dans certains cas extrêmes de dépendance, la mort ou la disparition de l'objet d'affection est ressentie comme une véritable amputation. Les vétérinaires sont témoins tous les jours de ces drames affectifs qui dépassent en envergure toute commune mesure. 

En conclusion, je n’ose pas affirmer qu’il n’y a pas d’animaux de compagnie heureux, mais s’ils existent, ils sont peu nombreux. Le bien-être dans une relation de dépendance n’est possible que si tous les besoins du dépendant sont parfaitement satisfaits. Or, dans le cadre de la captivité, cette condition ne peut être remplie que rarement ou partiellement. Selon le Dr Annon, un chercheur américain cité par la psychologue pour animaux, Karen L. Overall, 1 % seulement des gens connaissent les besoins biologiques et les comportements normaux et anormaux des animaux à qui ils imposent la captivité (8). Les seules exceptions sont peut-être le chat et le chien qui vivent à la campagne et qui ont un accès libre à l’extérieur; ceux-là peuvent mener une vie plus normale, et encore! 

Références 

1. Lorenz Konrad (1970), Il parlait aux mammifères, Flammarion. 

2. Richard Beaudet (2009), Cours de formation spécialisée sur les problèmes de comportement canin. Clinique de comportement canin; The Association of Pet Behavior Counselors (APBC - on y trouve une revue annuelle de cas et différents autres dossiers pertinents); P. Pageat (1995), « Confort et bien-être des carnivores domestiques », Point Vétérinaire; 26 (165); C. Beata (1997), « Les maladies anxieuses chez les carnivores domestiques », Point Vétérinaire; 28 (180): 67; V. Dramard et L. Hanier (1996), « La dépression réactionnelle chez le chat », Point Vétérinaire; 27 (173); A. C. Gagnon (1997), « Les cystites félines d’origine émotionelle », Point vétérinaire; 28 (181): 1097-1101; Karen L. Overall (1996), « Separation anxiety and anxiety related disorders », American Animal Hospital Association Proceedings (AAHA); (1997), Clinical Behavioral Medicine for Small Animals, Mosby; Joël Dehasse et Colette de Buyser (1983), Mon chien de 0 à 6 mois, Éditions de l’Homme. 

3. APBC, Ouvr. cité; Richard Beaudet, ouvr. cité; Benjamin Hart (1997), « Raising and caring for dogs to avoid problem aggression », Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association; 210 (8); Nicholas Dodman et al (1996), « Influence of owner personality type and treatment out-come of dominance aggression in dogs », Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association; 209 (6); Karen L. Overall, ouvr. cité; Debra F. Howitz (1996), « Aggressive behavior in dogs », American Animal Hospital Association Proceedings (AAHA). 

4. Morris, Desmond (1990), The Animal Contract: Sharing the Planet, Virgin: 60. 

5. P. Pageat, art. cité; C. Beata, art. cité; V. Dramard et L. Hanier, art. cité; A. C. Gagnon, art. cité. 

6. R. Dantzer (1995), « Stress et maladie », Pratique médicale et chirurgicale de l’animal de compagnie; 2. 

 7. M. Vanderheede, M (1996), « Réactions de peur chez les animaux d’élevage », Annales de Médecine Vétérinaire; 140; Karen L. Overall (1996), ouvr. cité. 

8. Karen L. Overall, ouvr. cité.

The Dark Side of James Herriot. Vaccination in Veterinary Medicine

Chapter 9

Slaves of Our Affection. The Myth of the Happy Pet

Charles Danten, DMV, M.A

Note: Thanks to RFK Jr., many who trusted authorities are stunned to learn how harmful vaccinations can be in human medicine. I wasn’t surprised. 

Why?

Because pharmaceutical companies, their corrupt allies in government, watchdog agencies like the CDC and FDA, and the medical industry mirror the pet industry’s behavior.

Consider this when reading the following chapter on pet vaccination from my book, *Slaves of Our Affection* (2015). Though dated, little has changed.

***

While I was still a student, I was fortunate to meet an experienced veterinarian who would take me under his wing one summer and let me put my studies to more practical use. Despite what I will say about “Jim,” I am grateful to him for showing me the ropes. In retrospect, he played a crucial role in introducing me to the harsh realities of the veterinary world. 

That summer, I was to become Jim’s veterinary assistant. Right after my exams, I packed my suitcase and drove off in my old Ford Custom. After an uneventful eight-hour drive, I finally reached my destination. It was an enormous, Victorian-style mansion with painted wood, located in a posh neighborhood on the outskirts of a small and friendly-looking city. I rang the doorbell. A massive individual opened the door, a welcoming, jovial smile on his face. It was Jim, the man with whom I would work and live for the next few months.

Jim was courteous by any standard, a real gentleman. His charming British accent reminded me of James Herriot, one of my heroes at the time, whose sensitively-told stories contributed immensely to the popularization of animals and of the veterinary profession. Herriot alone is undoubtedly at the origin of many veterinary careers.

Jim offered me a beer and we got to know each other while relaxing in his backyard in the shade of a majestic oak tree. The next day, I would accompany him for the first time on his rounds in the country. 

With thirty years of experience under his belt, he treated all domestic species: horses, cattle, sheep, dogs, cats, you name it. In the jargon of the trade, he had a mixed practice. As comfortable with farm work as with city work, he could go straight from castrating a pig in a barn stall without anesthesia to spaying a cat in his clinic, this time using anesthesia and following the strictest of guidelines for aseptic condi-tions.

This difference in protocol seemed a little absurd to me. After all, an animal’s capacity for pain has nothing to do with whether it lives on a farm or in the city. The sad truth did not escape my attention: farm animals have a lesser sentimental value than pets, and as a result, most of them are treated with much less regard. 

With time, Jim came to trust me more and more, allowing me to administer vaccines and even perform minor, routine operations. One day, I noticed that several vials containing a vaccine against feline leukemia were only half-full. Looking at them more closely, I spotted a pinhole in each of the rubber tops that sealed them. It was mysterious, even suspicious, and so I made a point to mention it to Jim the first chance I got. I was unprepared for his response.

A little uneasy and defensive, Jim admitted that to save money, he would transfer half the dose from the full vials to empty ones he picked out of the trash after office hours. He really believed that it didn’t matter much, that there was probably enough vaccine in a vial to vaccinate two, if not three animals. 

He then proceeded to lecture me on the harsh realities of the business and on how important it was to cut costs in order to survive and prosper. It had already come to my attention that Jim was a master at economizing. After a surgery, he saved all the leftover bits of suture material he could gather. He arranged them delicately in a drawer on a paper towel, and he always managed to find a use for them later. Gauze soiled with blood was rinsed with cold tap water and immersed in a sterilizing solution. He kept a drawer for drying paper towels that had been used to clean the examination table. For routine surgeries on cats, like declawing, spaying, and neutering, he administered only ketamine, a potent anesthetic that is cheap, safe, and easy to administer and manage, but which has few or no analgesic properties. The gap between school and the real world felt enormous.

I stood there listening in silence, untouched by his arguments. I was young still, and unable to compromise on principle. To me, what he was doing was a serious breach of ethics: you don’t mess around with the recommended dosage of a vaccine. I was not quite finished with vet school, but I had learned at least that golden rule. 

One thought lead to another, and it dawned on me that Jim treated pets just about the same way he treated farm animals. He was just more hypocritical about it. 

When I told him my thoughts on the matter, our discussion quickly turned sour. Jim, this otherwise good-natured, easygoing man, became terrifyingly furious. Banging on the table with his clenched fists, he fired me, telling me I would fail as a vet. Unrecognizably red with anger, he burst out of the room, his dignity considerably blemished. 

In the space of a few minutes, darkness had smothered the light. Because of a puny hole in a rubber cork, I had just sealed the fate of our friendship forever. My last days with him passed under a painfully heavy silence. We parted with barely a handshake. He turned his back to me and, as I watched him walk away, I knew I would never see him again.

***

For the past fifty years, vaccination in veterinary medicine has become a dangerous procedure, often needless and with little or no scientific and medical justification. 

This statement seems bold, even preposterous, considering that vaccination is a highly valued medical procedure. So much so that some pet owners, who pride themselves on being compassionate and kind to their four-legged children, will feel insulted and angered by the insinuation that the majority of pet vaccination is a sham and that their act of love, paid for annually with hard-earned money, is worthless from both the animal’s point of view and that of science. Others will just turn away or ignore this challenge to popular opinion without even bothering to find out how it might be true. 

Questioning the underlying assumptions or founding credo that governs gratifying actions, such as vaccination, is taboo in our society, as unfathomable as questioning the existence of God. 

Annual boosters

No one can explain why since the sixties, pharmaceutical companies have been recommending the annual immunization of carnivorous domestic animals (dog, cat and ferret). The principles of immunology guarantee that a statistically significant proportion of individuals will be protected for a long period, even for life, by a single properly inoculated vaccine. This is especially true in the case of acute viral diseases such as distemper, rabies, or parvo in dogs, and panleukopenia in cats. (1) People are certainly not vaccinated every year, from infancy until death, with several different vaccines each time. Nor do we have annual blood titers taken, as some veterinarians have been recommending for the past decade or so, in order to determine if re-administration of a vaccine is required. 

In 1985, Drs. Ronald D. Schultz and T. R. Phillips, two American vaccination specialists, wrote the following in the eleventh edition of Kirk’s Current Veterinary Therapy, a reference book considered the Bible of veterinary medicine:

Immunity to viruses persists for years or for the life of the animal. Successful vaccination to most bacterial pathogens produces an immunologic memory that re-mains for years, allowing an animal to develop a protective anamnestic (secondary) response when exposed to virulent organisms. Only the immune response to toxins (such as tetanus) requires boosters... and no toxin vaccines are currently used for dogs or cats. The practice of annual vaccination in our opinion should be considered of questionable efficacy unless it is used as a mechanism to provide an annual physical examination or is required by law (i.e. certain states require annual revaccination for rabies). (2)

Dr. Niels C. Pedersen, of the Department of Medicine and Epidemiology at the University of California-Davis School of Veterinary Medicine, said the following in a conference organized in 1997 by one of the most important veterinary associations in the world, the American Veterinary Hospital Association (AAHA):

Many veterinarians, and still a greater number of cli-ents, have come to question the medical basis for rou-tine yearly boosters for their pets, and rightfully so! The practice is not defendable. […] We are not vac-cinated with five or six different vaccines every year of our lives and why should our pets! Many human vaccines are given during childhood and provide lifelong protection to a significant number of vaccinates. Until 20 years ago, vaccines were given only to puppies and kittens. The only exception was rabies vaccination, which was given every 2-3 years for public health reasons more than animal health reasons. […] Why, then, do we insist on giving boosters when the practice is not medically sound? […] Booster immunizations are looked upon by many clients as simply another way for their veterinarian to make money. […] we must look at vaccination as a medical procedure and not a source of income. […] The term “practice builder” should be forever removed from our vocabulary and replaced with “client-builder. (3)

Vaccination protocols

Contrary to human medicine, there are no standard immunization protocols in veterinary medicine. A survey of twenty-seven schools of veterinary medicine in the U.S. and Canada showed twenty-seven different protocols for vaccination. (4) Manufacturers recommend a vaccination schedule and veterinarians typically follow it, even though they are not required to do so legally. (5) In some states, the only legally mandated annual vaccine is rabies. I emphasize “legally” because there is no scientific reason for routine vaccinations every year. The rabies vaccine has a scientifically proven efficacy of three years and more.

Pets that never go near areas in which a given disease is reported are routinely vaccinated against it anyway. A cat living alone on the twelfth floor in downtown Manhattan can receive up to ten vaccines at a time every year for life. A dog that never goes beyond the fire hydrant at the corner can be inoculated with up to twelve diseases each time. (6) 

For business reasons, it is common for pets to be vaccinated the day before a surgery or even on the same day, a time when the immune system, seriously depressed by the stress of the procedure, cannot respond adequately for at least the two following weeks. (7) 

In the United States, at least 20% of the market hinges on direct sale to the public via the Internet, catalogs, and stores. The equivalent in humans is unthinkable. Breeders and regular pet owners are able to buy whatever vaccines they want, along with syringes, needles, and even drugs like epinephrine. Depending on the age of the animal and the type of vaccine used, clients are sometimes advised to vaccinate young animals every week for six to seven weeks, when once or twice would be sufficient. (8) 

Vaccines in search of diseases

Encouraged by relaxed licensing requirements, pharmaceutical companies have flooded the market with unnecessary, poorly tested, and ineffective vaccines since the late 1970s. (9) The focus is on creating wealth and jobs rather than quality products backed by sound medical and scientific evidence. (10) In the United States alone, there are currently eighty trademarked canine vaccines, and as many for cats. (11) It is possible to vaccinate animals against thirty diseases and counting. In 1998, vaccination specialist Dr. Richard B. Ford warned, “Most of these vaccines are so useless as to be called ‘vaccines in search of diseases.’” (12)

Vaccine manufacturers promote their products by appeal-ing directly to the good hearts and fears of the public, and even of veterinarians. When the Lyme disease vaccine was first introduced some years ago, pharmaceutical companies lied about the seriousness and importance of the disease, even going as far as to suggest that children could catch it directly from dogs, a medical impossibility. (13) This vaccine is still being administered all over the United States and Canada even though the condition, which is mild in most cases, occurs almost exclusively in thirteen north-eastern and upper-midwestern states. (14)

Millions of dogs are also uselessly inoculated with vaccines to prevent coronavirus and rotavirus, two rare gastrointestinal conditions found only in overpopulated and unsanitary puppy mills. (15)

Several other vaccines on the market are useless for reasons that have been well documented (in cats: feline calicivirus and herpesvirus, chlamydia, infectious peritonitis, ringworm, feline leukemia, and feline immunodeficiency virus (FIV); in dogs: leptospirosis, parainfluenza, bordetella, periodontitis, western diamondback rattlesnake, and Giardia vaccines. Yet, in 2009, all these vaccines were still routinely recommended and used. (17)

In 2002, Dr. Robert L. Rogers, a Texas veterinarian, filed a complaint against all licensed veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice in the state of Texas for violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct, rule 573.26, which states: 

Licensed veterinarians shall conduct their practice with honesty, integrity, and fair dealing to clients in time and services rendered, and in the amount charged for services, facilities, appliances and drugs.

Dr. Rogers asserts in his complaint the following: 

The present practice of marketing of vaccinations for companion animals constitutes fraud by misrepresentation, fraud by silence, theft by deception, and undue influence by all veterinarians engaged in companion animal practice […]. (18)

Efficacy

Dr. Ronald D. Schultz, one of America’s most respected vaccination specialists, found that out of six vaccines for canine parvovirus, a serious and often fatal gastrointestinal dis-ease in puppies, only two were effective. (19) Another study from Holland found that only two out of six vaccines for rabies were effective. (20) According to other independent studies, some vaccines against feline leukemia produced no better results than distilled water; the best ones had at most 25 to 50% efficacy as opposed to 90 to 100% as claimed by the manufacturer. (21) 

Safety

The number of vaccines that stay on the market despite a bad safety record is unconscionable. One brand of vaccine against coronavirus, a rare gastrointestinal condition in dogs, killed hundreds of dogs before being removed from the market. (22) 

“Paradoxically,” says Dr. Pedersen, “there is no human counterpart to the canine Lyme vaccine, even though the disease in humans is far more important, because a Lyme vaccine modeled on the canine product does not meet safety and efficacy standards for human vaccine.” (23)

Rabies and feline leukemia vaccines, two of the vaccines involved in the skin cancer epidemic in cats, have killed millions of cats and continue to do so. (24)

Adverse reactions

Although an alarming number of adverse reactions to vaccination have been reported, the scale of the problem is a statistical black hole for several reasons. This gives a generous amount of leeway to marketing specialists.

– It is difficult to detect and study adverse reactions rou-tinely because they are not always clinically visible. 

– An undetermined number of adverse reactions occur days, weeks, months, even years after the matter, when a clear cause-to-effect link is almost impossible to make; most compensation claims in humans are rejected precisely for that reason. (25) 

– Although pharmaceutical companies are technically responsible for keeping track of side effects and reporting them to government agencies like the Federal Drug Administration in the United States and its equivalent in Canada, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, they simply don’t. And there is no law to oblige them. Furthermore, what little information they have – from safety studies conducted in their laboratories or from incidents reported by practitioners in the field – is not available to the public. (26) 

– Veterinarians, unlike human doctors, are not required to report adverse reactions to immunization. And generally, they don’t. (27)

– The high turnover rate of pets adds greatly to the difficulty of identifying with precision the scale of the problem. When something unusual goes wrong, a client always has the option of getting rid of his pet. And for many, this is the favored choice. 

Skin cancer in cats

Twenty years ago, it became customary to use inert vaccines containing several irritating chemicals, notably aluminum hydroxide, a product that triggers inflammation and eventually an immune response. It turns out that in the cat, for reasons unknown, the reaction triggered by this substance and others like it leads to an extremely aggressive and un-treatable tumor known as a vaccine-associated feline fibrosarcoma. The risk of developing this type of cancer depends on the number of vaccines given in the same inoculation (“cocktail” vaccines are explained below), the number of repetitions or boosters administered, and whether reinoculation occurs in the same area, often subcutaneously between the shoulder blades. Rabies and feline leukemia vaccines seem to be the most frequent culprits. (28)

The number of these cancerous tumors reported in 2005 is 1,300 per million. (29) I emphasize the word “reported” because it is impossible, for the reasons listed above, to accurately study the scale of the problem. Dr. Ford mentioned the number 2,000 per million at a 1998 conference in Montreal, but this is also an estimate. (30) In addition, one must keep in mind that other types of adverse reactions are not included in these numbers. Although they seem relatively low, put in perspective, they are phenomenal: in humans, only 100 total adverse reactions per million are tolerated. (31) Despite all this, veterinarians in the field continue to vaccinate cats with the same frequency and the same inoculations; what has changed, however, is that the vaccination site is now more commonly the lower part of the thigh or the end of the tail, instead of between the shoulder blades. Thus, should a tumor develop, an amputation is always an option for the client willing to pay for such a procedure. (32)

In 2006, the American Association of Feline Practitioners made the following laconic statement:

Regardless of the efforts of countless individuals, the problem of vaccine-associated sarcomas in cats has not been solved. Researchers in academia and industry continue to study this singularly complex problem, but it is reasonable to assume that the definitive solution will not be identified in the immediate future. (33)

Cocktail vaccines and the immune system

These vaccines, containing four, six, or even nine attenuated diseases each, came into style in the seventies. From a strictly business point of view, cocktail vaccines are practical because they require less storage place and can be administered successfully all at once, for a higher financial reward. From a medical point of view, however, these mixtures pose several problems. 

As with any other veterinary vaccines, no medical knowledge is required in order to procure these. Anyone can order them from a catalog and use them as they see fit. Since the particular case of each individual animal is not taken into consideration, most are routinely inoculated against diseases they have zero chance of catching. (34)

Cocktails cause an undetermined number of immunization failures and adverse reactions. In nature, an animal is unlikely to be threatened by more than one or two different diseases at once – never four, six, or nine of them at the same time. Bombarded by excessive and repeated doses of different foreign bodies, overwhelmed by too many antigenic attacks at once, the immune system can go berserk. This can result in autoimmune disease, wherein antibodies are created that attack parts of the animal’s own body. Antibodies may be formed, for instance, against the platelets, specialized cells involved in the coagulation of blood. According to American veterinarian Jean Dodds, this reaction occurs shortly after inoculation; serious, sometimes fatal, internal bleeding is the outcome. Although the exact frequency of this problem is unknown, certain purebred dogs, including Rottweilers, Dobermans and spaniels, are particularly predisposed. (35)

“Dirty” vaccines

There are several ways in which vaccination can do more harm than good. For one, diseases can result from the microbial contamination of a vaccine. Spoilage is also a serious problem because vaccines contain highly perishable animal products like egg yolk derivatives, bovine albumen, and casein. In addition to their perishable nature, animal products are full of toxic substances. “Dirty” vaccines are thought to be the cause of a recent increase in chronic diseases in both humans and animals. Use of cheaper multidose vials is especially dangerous. (36) 

Other adverse reactions:

– Hypersensitivity or allergic reactions.

– Suppression of the immune system and the activation of a latent disease like leukemia, peritonitis, and the immunodeficiency syndrome in cats (FIV).

– Interference with the results of blood tests used to diagnose certain conditions, resulting in false positives.

– Aggravation of existing conditions like cancer, epilepsy, and allergies (higher susceptibility to allergies to pollen, pet food, or one’s own body, the last of these resulting in auto-immune diseases of the thyroid, kidney, etc.). (37)

A Few perpetuating factors

For the past thirty years or more, legions of guidelines have been defined for the purpose of regulating the use of vaccines; veterinarians have been advised over and over again by vaccination specialists to stop vaccinating animals for medically unjustified reasons; dozens of articles have been written on the subject; lawsuits have been filed; but these measures are not succeeding at putting an end to the abuse of vaccination. While it is relatively easy to formulate rules and good intentions, for reasons open to speculation, getting veterinarians in the field to adopt them is another story. (38)

Vested interests

The specialists that make up the surveillance committees (such as the Feline Sarcoma Task force) all have vested interests in the industry, an obvious conflict of interest. How adverse reactions are surveyed in the field remains unclear, even more so now that these committees are no longer active. There are no concrete measures to stop vaccination abuse, and in the United States, none to stop the sale of vaccines directly to the public via pet shops and the Internet. Nor does there seem to be any desire to impose stricter regulations on veterinarians and pharmaceutical companies or to standardize vaccination protocols. The underlying assumption of these committees is that vaccines on the market are for the most part safe, effective, and necessary. (39)

Misinformation

Since there are no public funds for research in the field of pets, the pharmaceutical industry has almost full control. They subsidize continuing education seminars, scientific journals, scientific studies, and laboratories that rarely go against their financial interests. According to Texas veterinarian Dr. Robert Rogers, “the main objective is to influence veterinarians to continue deceptive trade practice in the marketing of vaccines.” The goal is the protection at all costs of the existing market, of the propagation of pet mania, and of the creation of new market outlets. (40) 

Divide and conquer

If a layman tries to make sense of the available infor-mation on vaccination, good luck. The Internet is full of conflicting opinions and so-called scientific studies; the deck of cards is so well shuffled that few people can pick a winner. Even PhDs and veterinarians get boggled up in the bottom-less pit of bad science that plagues the fields of small animal nutrition, genetics, and medicine, as well as animal-assisted therapy and pet psychology. To make matters worse, most people are convinced that everything in life is a series of gray zones, that nothing is black and white, and that everyone can be right at the same time. Which is absurd.

Lack of reliable historical and geographical records

Although diseases like distemper and parvo in dogs and panleukopenia in cats seem under control today, there are no historical records, apart from anecdotal evidence, that could be used to evaluate the extent of the benefit of vaccination campaigns. Nevertheless, everyone claims as an irrevocable truth, without the slightest piece of sound evidence, that these diseases were at one time widespread and that vaccination cured the problem. Even for rabies, there were no dependable records until after World War II and in some areas, until after the sixties. To this day, there is no data either on the geographic prevalence of infectious diseases of cats and dogs. Except for rabies, there is no system of declaration like there is in human medicine. These gaps results in the systematic vaccination of animals against diseases they are unlikely to catch in a home environment. (41) 

Consumerism

Most common infectious diseases that plague companion animals take root in pet shops and factory breeding farms like puppy mills, where overpopulation, intense breeding, genetic abnormalities, unhealthy sanitary conditions, a poor diet, and a lack of exercise are the rule. It is highly abnormal, even dangerous for any animal, to be raised in such an environment. These breeding grounds for disease were invented to cater to the demands of consumerism, a powerful force in our modern lifestyle which thrives on problems artificially created by its own doing, in a dog-eat-dog fashion tantamount to cannibalism. 

Indoctrination

Most people, right or wrong, including the public, media, veterinarians, humane societies, and the industry in general, are well-intentioned and want to do right by our companion animals. That was certainly true in my case. For most of my career as a veterinarian, I was convinced that annual boosters were necessary. I thought vaccination was one of the safest and most beneficial medical acts in history and I was convinced the vaccines I administered were safe, effective, and necessary. That is what I had been told by professors and salespeople, and that is what everyone is conditioned to be-lieve from an early age. To even suggest that these notions are false is a heresy that can lead to ostracism, if not persecution, a lawsuit, or jail time. 

Ideological immunity

In retrospect, a few years after graduation, when the realities of the profession started to weaken the strength of my inculcated notions and values, I know I played dumb to some extent so as not to jeopardize my status, self-esteem, and bread and butter. It was Upton Sinclair who said: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it.” We have a built-in ideological immune system that automatically protects us from ideas that can put our survival or self-confidence at risk. While our eyes capture the world as-is on our retinas, our brain per-forms an editing job in the shadows, a cut-and-paste operation, to adjust reality to fit our pre-existing ideas of it. Anything we see, read, or hear is unconsciously revised to accommodate notions we already have and take for granted. 

This phenomenon, called scotoma  is one of the major obstacles to change. I have experienced it numerous times myself. When I was a veterinarian, I used to go through medical journals highlighting statements that fit with my values of the time period, leaving in obscurity any part of reality that didn’t back up my convictions and interests. After leaving the profession, this fairly spectacular duality between good (that which comforted me in my certainty) and evil (that which threatened my certainty) jumped out at me as I flipped through these same journals. While before only the highlight-ed sections caught my attention, now I was able to see the whole of the text.

This is what happens when we read or hear something counter to popular wisdom: much of it is totally excluded from our consciousness. Unless we become familiar enough with the new information that it suddenly makes sense, we have a hard time even beginning to listen.

Public complacency

Ironically, although misrepresentation of vaccines is against the law, the State Board of Texas Veterinarians and the Attorney General ignored the complaint issued by Dr. Rogers, the veterinarian cited above. Eventually, after some pressure by the State Legislators, the Attorney General of the Consumer Protection Division decided to accept a case, preferably a suit against a large chain rather than one against veterinarians. Unfortunately, Dr. Rogers was unable to find one single client willing to participate in such a lawsuit. (42) 

Pet owners are complacent about the notorious abuse of vaccination because they need to have their compassion validated through this highly valued medical act performed by themselves or preferably, for those who can afford it, by a professional that personifies a love of animals. What pet owners are really after when they bring their companion to the vet for a needless vaccination, health exam, or expensive brand of pet food is a certificate, a receipt, any kind of concrete proof that states: “Although I exploit animals in every way imaginable, I really do love them, see, my vet says so.” The high financial value assigned to these goods and services is meant to further increase their perceived value and therefore their moral impact. Clients who have unlimited financial resources can have their animals treated to death if they desire to do so, paradoxically, for moral reasons. 

According to veterinarian and historian Susan D. Jones, author of Valuing Animals: Veterinarians and Their Patients in Modern America, veterinarians have built their profession on American’s uncertainty about the ‘proper’ way to behave with animals. They validate the use of animals as commodities by praising themselves and their clients for their passionate attitudes towards domesticated creatures. (43)

I argue that unscientific vaccination, along with other such needless and cruel medical procedures and services, is one of the ways they do so. This is why veterinarians are so reluctant to change their ways. Veterinarians have built their reputation on scientific grounds to the point of being perceived as first-class scientists. If they admitted to any wrongdoing, it would be a terrible blow to their image – after all, it took them over a century to shed the “quack doctor” stigma. Cli-ents would feel the heat also, since they pride themselves on the things they do to care for their pets. In the end, both veterinarians and their clients run the risk of shattering to pieces the house of mirrors they have painstakingly built at the expense of their loved ones. 

Mankind is clever at finding ways to rationalize and put a smile on this and all self-serving, unnecessary, wasteful, cruel, and aggressive exploitations of those we metaphorically call our children. In a world of consumers, everything has a price, including peace of mind. 

Superficiality

American historian Kathleen Kete, author of a magisterial analysis of pet keeping in nineteenth-century France, has an interesting insight on the subject of scientifically unjustified vaccination. In a chapter on the fear of rabies, called “Rabies and the Bourgeoisie,” Dr. Kete states why the issue of vaccination is probably much more complex than it appears at first glance: 

The fear of rabies lies at the intersection of the organizing themes of bourgeois life and can be read as an expression of uneasiness about modern civilization and its tolls, about the uncertain conquest of culture over nature. […] Fear of rabies [in pets] was focused on the pathology in humans and what matters to us as it did to nineteenth-century bourgeois, obviously, is that the most frightening aspects of that pathology were constructions. Fear was of their own making. It was the beastly appetites of humanity that were expressed in the symptomatology of rabies. […] The strengths of “instinctual passions,” of sexuality and aggression, and their potentiality for revolt against an antithetical domesticity are clearly implied in the debate on rabies, an abortive uprising of the beast in the bourgeois. (44)

The Democratization of Basic Instincts

Charles Danten

After the Renaissance, in the XVIth century, at the dawn of the industrial revolution, a “mutation of sensibilities” begins which will result in the XIXth century in a major change of the animal condition. Until then, confined to the wealthy classes, the passion for pets spread to the rising classes of the bourgeoisie, and even to the working classes. (1) 

A Terrible Plague 

Before that, men lived like animals, in tune with their animality, without any clear demarcation between one and the other; pigs, cows, chickens, dogs, and cats, everyone crammed together in the same house, in the same yard, and in the same street. Manifest violence, both towards humans and animals, was widespread, in all social strata. The men all carried knives in their belts, which they did not hesitate to draw at the slightest pretext. Fear was everywhere. One had to be constantly on one’s guard. (2)

 

Compulsory Schooling

The stick alone being ineffective, even counter-productive since it incited to revolt, the authorities of the time chose a gentler way to manage impulses and increase social cohesion: compulsory schooling. This major renovation in the way of training the animal inside is a Prussian invention that forced all citizens to submit to a long process of socialization that guaranteed good behavior while preventing dissension. Its institution was painful, as parents of that time were strongly opposed to it; children were often led to school by soldiers at gunpoint. (3) Today, ironically, only the gun, and even then, could prevent parents from bringing their children to school for indoctrination. 

The Weaponization of Writing 

According to French social anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, to instill good behavior, everyone had to learn to read and write, so the production of books suddenly intensified on a massive scale: 

Writing seems to favor the exploitation of men before their enlightenment. [...] The primary function of written communication is to facilitate enslavement. [...] The systemic action of European states in favor of compulsory education, which developed during the 19th century, went hand in hand with the extension of military service and proletarianization. The fight against illiteracy was thus confused with the reinforcement of the control of citizens by the Power. For it is necessary that all know how to read so that the latter can say: no one is supposed to ignore the law. (4)

The Civilizing Process 

 “The authority of the state and of the teacher must be transferred from the outside to the inside of the subject,” emphasizes the Prussian theologian Hermann Francke (1663-1727), one of the founders of the present-day educational system, “... that is why it is important to integrate the rules of power into the personality of the pupil as early as possible so that he will be self-disciplined.” (5) 

Thus, the principles of virtue and good behavior must penetrate deep into the student’s psychology, internalized, somatized to the point of making him think that he is free to do as he wishes. (6) 

If misbehavior was still punished by the stick (fear) or positive punishment, it was thought at that time, as it still is today, that passive domination, by the carrot (pleasure) was the ideal instrument of control. 

 

“Excessive severity hardens or embitters the pupil, strive to be a father not a disciplinarian; as an instrument of pedagogical control, affection is far more effective than corporal punishment; use gentle rather than open violence, that way, genuine obedience is not merely outward, but comes from deep within the soul. It is not rendered out of [hard] coercion but with a willing heart,” argues Hermann Francke. (7) 

In this training scheme, various handouts and treats quickly lead to dependence and submission to established rules. Replacing open violence with its anodyne, affection, what H. Francke calls “gentle violence,” (8) is much more efficient and revolt-proof. Anyone who doesn’t obey or act as is required receives no gratification or feel-good sensations. It’s as simple as that. In this form of training, the victim cannot revolt because there are no physical blows. All he feels is a void, or a vague, unpleasant sensation in the pit of his stomach. This makes this kind of invisible control much more perverse and crueler by its subtlety and sophistication than open violence. 

In older democracies, where this training scheme has been perfected, citizens in general no longer have to be forced to comply with established rules. Obedience is second nature. Instincts are regulated with state-of-the-art domination, with a minimum of open violence, thereby creating the illusion that everyone is free to come and go as he pleases, to the point of loving it and asking for seconds in the spirit of this quote falsely attributed to Aldous Huxley, but often repeated: 

The perfect dictatorship would be a dictatorship that would have the appearance of democracy, a prison without walls from which the prisoners would not think of escaping. A system of slavery where, thanks to consumption and entertainment, the slaves would have the love of their servitude. (9)

 

Civilization and Its Discontents 

This kind of educational scheme based on affection and gentle violence quickly causes a disruption of the emotional regulator, or “emotionstat,” and a progressive emotional dependence that leads to infantilization and feelings of emptiness and loneliness. In short, a chronic anxiety develops that pushes one to compulsive indulgence in a never-ending vicious circle, which can culminate in bizarre and unpredictable ways. 

 While some will cope with this chronic anxiety by channeling it into various forms of escapes like cell-phone addiction, zootherapy, hoarding, smoking, bulimia, binge drinking, compulsive shopping, hypersexuality, others will simply channel it into various psychosomatic diseases like chronic urinary problems (interstitial cystitis), colitis, heart, skin problems, and self-mutilation. (10) 

This portrait can be transposed on a larger scale to nations and civilizations. Extreme or neoliberal capitalism, an Orwellian type of “inclusive” capitalism — defined by the morally unrestricted exploitation of goods, people, animals, services, and capital under the mantle of democracy, humanism, philanthropy, goodness, and love — which could be considered as another form of flight from anxiety, has certainly led us into a planetary depression. Never-ending commercial expansion, war, social chaos, sexual dystopia, loss of biodiversity, pollution, and a growing gap between the rich and the poor are a few psychosomatic expressions of this deep depression. In the same line of thought, the 9/11 attacks, for example, can be seen as a bizarre outcome of this illness, a form of self-mutilation of the same nature as genocides. 

 

The Bestiary, the Shadow and the Light of the Human Saga 

Naturally, this radical change in the exercise of power and the management of our instincts transposes itself on the human-animal relationship. The master implanted within deals with the outside world, notably animals, in the only way he knows how, preferably using various forms of affection. Hence, the enhancement of our virtues by positive and negative conditioning and the repression of our defects by positive punishment translate on the outside by a greater fondness for those species which flatter us via their latent symbolism, and an increased brutality towards those which shame us via their latent symbolism. 

This translates starting in the early XIXth century into an inordinate affection for pets (the light) (11) and the birth and massive proliferation of factory farms in conditions of cruelty that are completely unjustified from a strictly production point of view (the shadow). (12) 

To put it differently, our disturbing impulses are symbolically repressed in depth in factory farms, and our accommodating impulses are exalted on the surface in the homes. 

The demarcation between the two is often fuzzy because training schemes between these two poles — pleasure and fear — can vary considerably between and within species. This makes the relationship to animals — and to people, since they are also trained in this way — sometimes difficult to interpret, since there are so many variations. 

Broadly speaking, pets are situated towards the carrot pole and livestock at the other extreme, towards the stick pole. But within either extreme, the dynamics can vary considerably. The dog, for example, can be at either pole. However, the dog is usually trained with a mixture of fear and pleasure, while the cat, like the citizens of a well-oiled democracy, is trained almost exclusively with the carrot. The phenomenon must be seen on a global perspective rather than a case-by-case one. 

And on a horizontal scale of cruelty and hypocrisy graded from the least cruel and hypocritical to the cruelest and most hypocritical, the glorified relationship with pets is skewed to the cruelest and least authentic end of the scale. Here, as we shall see in a future article, goodness is the instrument of power and its most evil manifestation. 

Thus, according to this version of things, by its manifest violence and cruelty, the condition of farm animals would be a living dramatization of an openly totalitarian model of society, and, by its latent violence and cruelty, the condition of companion animals would be a living dramatization of a democratic model of society. The fact that these two categories of animals are present in a democracy indicates that within this political structure, totalitarianism is indeed still alive, but in a “declawed” or passive form, invisible to the naked eye, but ready to pounce at the slightest opportunity. 

This Theory Raises a Number of Troubling Questions 

Is our democracy authentic? Are children educated according to their own needs or are they weaponized for the same purposes as animals? Are women really nicer than men? And what about the people on the left, the so-called liberals and humanists? Are they more human than those of the so-called extreme right? Has humanity evolved to a higher level of consciousness? Does moral and spiritual evolution even exist? Is our current social structure an illusion collectively maintained with lies and deceit? 

If we presuppose, that domestic animals are revelators of authenticity. Their absence by our side would mean nothing, but according to this theory, their presence by our side would be symptomatic of a confused mind that tries to manage its impulses by different means oscillating between affection and fear. 

In this perspective, the human-animal bond would be a way to detect, with surgical precision, the evil that can sometimes hide in its opposite, goodness. Thus, if you want to know the true nature of a person — or on a larger scale, a nation like the US — that looks down at you from the height of his moral and spiritual superiority, with a dog tethered to his feet or a cat on his lap, you will know where that person or nation is located on the scale of goodness. If the animal in question eats industrial kibble, even better, you will then smell for good the putrid odor of sulfur that emanates from its entrails... the devil’s favorite den, these days and ages. 

In short, we try to obey the precepts that are written in some guide of good conduct of our invention; short of solutions and out of desperation, we blindly follow the leaders who best embody the human ideal that we covet. 

In the meantime, the real problems are relegated to the back burner: how our brain works, how we fall victim to its traps, how our buried past leads us by the nose and how we refuse to question our founding creed. In the end, our moral and spiritual evolution is not the result of understanding, but of mimicry and escape. 

 

References and Notes 

1. K. Thomas, Man and the Natural World: Changing Attitudes in England (1500-1800), Penguin, 1983. 

 2. Norbert Elias, The Civilizing Process: Sociogenetic and Psychogenetic Investigations, Wiley-Blackwell, 2000. 

3. John Taylor Gatto, The Underground History of American Education, 2002; Dumbing us down, 2008; Weapons of Mass Instruction, 2011, New Society Publishers: www.johntaylorgatto.com. 

4. Claude Lévi-Strauss, Tristes tropiques, Plon, 1955, p. 344. 

5. James Melton, Absolutism and the eighteenth-century origins of compulsory schooling in Prussia and Austria, Cambridge University Press, 1988, p. 40. 

6. A more in-depth explanation of somatization of behavior is beyond the scope of this article. For those who are interested in this question see: Antonio R. Damasio, “The Somatic Marker Hypothesis,” Descartes' Error. Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain, Harper Collins, 1994, p. 174. 

7. James Melton, work cited, p. 42. 

8. Ibid. 

9. http://wiki.gentilsvirus.org/index.php?title=Thread:Discussion:FV:Huxley1958:LeMeilleurDesMondes/Citation_faussement_attribu%C3%A9e_%C3%A0_Huxley&lqt_method=edit&lqt_operand=783 

10. “Troubles du contrôle des impulsions,” Catalogue and Index of French Medical Sites. http://www.chu-rouen.fr/ssf/psy/troublesducontroledesimpulsions.html. 

 11. Kathleen Kete, The Beast in the Boudoir: Petkeeping in Nineteenth-Century France, University of California Press, 1994. 

12. Jean-Pierre Digard, “L’élevage industriel,” Les Français et leurs animaux : Ethnologie d’un phénomène de société, Fayard, Pluriel Ethnologie, p. 41.

Animal Hoarding and Other Similar Pathologies

Charles Danten

Collectors keep dozens, sometimes a hundred or a thousand animals in their homes, in filthy conditions. American scientist Gary Patronek has estimated that there are about two thousand animal collectors in the United States - a figure he says is far from the truth. (1)

The vast majority of hoarders are women, on average fifty-five years old, single, divorced, or widowed. The stereotype of the old cat lady is wrong as half of the collectors Patronek counted were employed, some in professions as mundane as teaching and real estate. Among them, Patronek even counted four veterinarians. 

Cats are the favorite victims of collectors, followed by dogs, birds, reptiles, small mammals (ferrets, rats, hamsters), horses, cows, goats, and sheep. Many of them have a real menagerie in their house and on their property.

In every home, there is an accumulation of miscellaneous items such as newspapers, laundry, books, and garbage cans. Some collectors meticulously preserve dead animals. Many others have sexual relations with their animals. (2)

Researchers liken this habit to obsessive-compulsive disorder. "There are far more similarities than differences between obsessive-compulsive disorder and animal collecting," notes researcher Gary Patronek, "the interaction between a living thing and a person gives it a level of intensity that does not exist with a pile of newspapers. (...) Collectors use these animals to fulfill their emotional needs, while denying those of their pets (...) Psychologists suspect a link between animal collecting and attachment disorders." (3) 

If the object of the passion varies, according to the inclinations and the means of each one, its origin is on the other hand the same: an unspecified psychological insufficiency. Thus, the collected object is more or less accessory, provided that the collector finds his fulfillment. 

According to scientists Maria Vaca-Guzman and Arnold Arluke, "collectors do not lack arguments and excuses to justify their mania and make it more socially acceptable. This is how they clear their name and protect their self-esteem:" (4)(5)(6)

The Good Samaritan Argument

Some will use the Good Samaritan argument, claiming that these animals would have died anyway, and that by adopting them they are saving them from certain death. In their logic, death is considered an unthinkable option, any other possibility, no matter how horrible, is considered preferable. In other words, the Good Samaritan absolves himself of blame by giving his obsession a noble purpose. The "rescuers" who collect wild or domestic animals in non-killing shelters fall into this category. 

The Love Argument

Many claim to love their animals, deeply, as much or more than their own children. Naming their animals after their children or being loved by their pets is the ultimate proof of their love, and that all is well in the best of worlds. Collectors consider their pets to be an integral part of the family. They say things like: 

We take good care of our pets, the proof is they are happy and they love us back (...) this is heaven for them (...) they play ball... they love it... they don't have mange and they love to be here... did you see how this dog flicks his tail? This dog wants to play ball. It's elephant man syndrome. Appearances are deceiving. It is not by things like this (conditions of captivity) that one should judge suffering. (7) 

Other Arguments of Denial

Some deny the facts or minimize their consequences. Others try to divert attention by pointing the finger at those who take them to task and by calling them names (ad hominem attacks); they look for scapegoats by saying for example: it is society's fault if animals are mistreated; it’s the breeders who produce too many animals; owners don’t have them neutered or are not sufficiently responsible for the animals under their thumb; some will plead ignorance, lack of know-how, good intentions, a physical or psychological handicap of some kind that prevents them from taking good care of the object of their devotion; the lack of intellectual freedom caused by a difficult life that pushes them to act in this way, against their will. Others confess to being under the influence of a mysterious force that the media calls "extreme love." (8) 

The most affected, and the most resistant, employ the full arsenal of excuses and justifications. Strategies of denial commonly evoked, to different degrees, by all animal owners, including animal activists who seem to be as unaware as everyone else that sometimes it can be cruel to be kind. (9)

***

This psychological profile carries over to those who are fixated on money, accolades, knowledge, and ideas; fraudsters, corporations, and investors who accumulate money for no other reason than to enrich themselves; nations who hoard information, nuclear warheads, and soldiers; institutions and intellectuals who accumulate books endlessly in private or public libraries; breeders who herd millions of animals into unsanitary, unspeakably cruel factory farms, and authorities who hoard children in factory schools to be indoctrinated into the logic of consumerism are also unaware collectors. 

« Hoarding," in the broadest sense, a generic term which can be applied to all neurotic forms of accumulation, is an escape, a means like any other to ease the tensions inherent to the human condition. Pollution and destruction of biodiversity, moral decay, gender dystopia, race-mixing, multiculturalism are the equivalent on a planetary scale of the filthy conditions typical of animal collectors' houses. 

According to this version of things, the current pet craze is a hidden form of collective hoarding.

References

1. Gary J. Patronek, "Hoarding of animals: An Under-estimated Public Health Problem in a Difficult to Study Population," Public Health Reports, 114 : 81-87, 1999.

2. Ibid. 

3. Randy Frost, "People who hoard animals," Psychiatric Times, 2006. 

4. Maria Vaca-Guzman and Arnold Arluke, "Normalizing passive cruelty: The excuses and justifications of animal hoarders,"  Anthro-zoös, 18(4), 2005.

5. Lynn Tryba, "Trash menagerie. The disturbing world of animal hoarding," Psychology today, 2002.

6. Maria Vaca-Guzman and Arnold Arluke, Article cited.

7. Ibid.

8. Ibid.

9. Patrick West, Conspicuous Compassion. Why Sometimes, it Really Is Cruel to be Kind, Civitas, 2004.