This past week or so I've felt like I've been witnessing a war on animals. In New Zealand, a bird-loving man wants to ban all cats from the country. In Florida, a python hunt has been going on for a few weeks. And bringing it closer to home, I received a letter from a resident of a Berkeley senior housing complex who says the new administrator has issued a ban on pets in common areas.

The amazing thing about all three of these stories is that humans are responsible for all of them.

I can understand the frustration of Gareth Morgan, the New Zealand businessman who wants to ban cats. He has watched the native song bird population dwindle at the paws of outdoor cats, both feral and free-roaming house cats. His reaction is over-the-top, but the problem is real.

A study released this week, conducted by scientists from the Smithsonian Conservation Biology Institute and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, concludes that bird and mammal deaths caused by outdoor cats is higher than anyone expected. Up to 3.7 billion birds and 20.7 billion mammals are killed each year by outdoor cats. That is an astonishing number. No other cause -- poisonings, human involvement, strikes into buildings and windmills -- comes close to matching those numbers.

Meanwhile, Florida officials are at a loss to deal with an estimated 10,000 Burmese pythons that now make their homes in the ecologically fragile Everglades. The snakes are not native to the swamps, to Florida, or even to North America. They were imported as pets, and when people tire of them or fail to keep them secure, the snakes end up in the swamp where they are changing the ecological balance of a natural preserve that already struggles to maintain its equilibrium.


Banning cats and killing snakes won't solve anything. Changing how we deal with our pets will.

Keeping our cats indoors is better for them and for the wildlife. The cats can eventually become the prey. As for the snakes, if that's the pet you want then you have no less an obligation to care for it for its entire life, not "return it to nature."

We don't let our children run free and neither should we allow our pets to do so. We have an obligation to our animals to keep them safe and happy.

Which brings me around to the senior housing administrator. If there have been problems with specific animals and their owners, those should be addressed individually, not with a blanket policy of banning all animals.

Obviously I don't know what spurred this ban, but surely something could be worked out to make everyone mostly happy. Being in the company of animals is a benefit.

Pets should bring people together, not divide them. Take the case of George G., who died last year at age 58. George and his two dogs walked every day in the Santa Clara Memorial Park cemetery. He was one of many who do that, and over the years the humans got to know one another as they made the rounds, walking together for a while and then going their separate ways, sharing pleasantries or perhaps just a nod of greeting.

A memorial to a dog-walking friend includes a watering bowl for pets and wildlife.
A memorial to a dog-walking friend includes a watering bowl for pets and wildlife. (Courtesy of Jack Azevedo)

When George died, this community of humans and animals felt the void. So these people who knew one another only through their pets joined together to erect a memorial to George.

They chose a monument that includes a watering bowl that now benefits the many pets and wild animals in the area. What a fitting tribute to their dog-walking friend and a gift to all animals. How can you hear that story and not know what a power animals have in our lives? Let's try harder to do right by them.
