Throughout December I gave a lot of thought to what I wanted to write about in the first commentary of 2013. Ultimately I decided to resurrect a commentary I wrote back in 2008. And, no, I didn’t do this because I succumbed to a holiday-cheer induced writer’s block. Or because I was too lazy to come up with something completely new. In reality I didn’t even remember this particular commentary until after I’d pondered the concept of resolutions—and specifically those related to issues involving animal health, behavior, and the bond—as I am wont to do this time of year.
When I did this, I realized that the same issues and the same obstacles to resolving them still existed and in some cases had become worse. Increasingly in our society the first step to resolving any kind of problem seems to be assigning blame. Often this is accompanied by a great deal of emotion, apparently in the belief that the more passionately one blames those whose views contradict one’s own, the more knowledgeable one must be. Perhaps because it takes so much energy to summon and sustain all those emotions, the process usually then follows one of two equally unproductive paths. Either it stalls there until people become bored and look for something more interesting to do. Or someone comes up with short-term and often short-sighted solution to justify all the process.
Meanwhile relative to the really tough issues facing our relationship with companion animals as these affect them as well as ourselves—pre-adult/pediatric spay and neuter, interstate and international shipment of homeless animals, euthanasia, the use of service animals, animal experimentation, breeding practices, training approaches, etc.—remain unchanged.
Obviously neither Leona Helmsley nor her dog chose to give me enough money to found an organization like FRATT. Even if she had, I probably wouldn’t have been allowed to keep it because the court ruled her mentally incompetent for giving more money to her dog and dogs in general instead of family members, a decision on which I won’t comment. But perhaps 2013 will be the year that sufficient people finally will become fed up with the infantile partisan bickering that increasingly has polluted so much of the public discourse on multiple animal-related issues. Our animals deserve better than that. And so does our society.
The Helmsley Multibillion Dollar Trust for Dogs: A Good Time for a Change
First published August, 2008
Last month a big news story contained two elements the media and public love to talk about: great gobs of money and animals. That Leona Helmsley earmarked her estimated $5-8 billion estate to be used to establish a charitable trust devoted to the care and welfare of dogs had many in a tizzy, some in joy and others in disgust at what they perceived as a gross waste of money.
No doubt those in organizations whose work could in any way be construed as benefiting dogs are already sharpening their grant-writing pencils and brushing up on their schmoozing skills. The problem is that I suspect that the bulk of those proposals will be for more of the same. More money to spay or neuter more dogs. More money to develop more genetic tests for problems in purebred dogs. More money to diagnose and treat more dogs with more chronic problems.
“What the heck,” I thought. “This might be a good time for me to seek some funding for something completely different.”
“Why you?” you might be thinking.
Because I have a proposition I believe would fulfill Ms. Helmsley’s wishes at the same time as it would do a lot more, including satisfy a lot of folks who are upset about all that money going to the dogs. Plus I have the credentials to see such a plan through.
Let’s begin with the credentials. I am a member of that rare, oft-berated and denigrated group known as independent scholars. As such, I’m not obligated to champion the dogma of a particular group out of loyalty and whether I believe it or not, a real plus when objectivity is desired. But even though I can’t claim full-time residence in any particular academic discipline, I do have the highest respect for certain individuals belonging to, and the work coming out of, many. I’m also self-employed so I don’t have to toe any corporate lines either. Because I value quality communication, I’m not impressed by in-house jargon or ritual. Additionally, at the same time as my work brings me in contact with those within the academic, professional, and corporate communities, I also interact with those outside those environments, and I consider their input equally valuable.
Finally, I’m basically a happy person who learned years ago that there are two ways to have all the material things in life I want. The first is to have gobs and gobs of money. The second is not to want so much. I opted for the latter and have no regrets about my choice. Consequently, no one has to worry about any funding to me going to pay for a private yacht or jet, or lots of administrators.
Now on to the proposed project. In the past I’ve thought of it as FRATT, which stands for the Filthy Rich Animal Think Tank. However I would be happy to rename it the Leona Helmsley Animal Think Tank for the Advancement of Companion Animals, Especially Dogs, or something similar. I began thinking about the need for such an organization years ago when I realized how often we did things to domestic animals—with that most domesticated animal of them all, the dog, often bearing the brunt of it—with minimal thought regarding any long-term effect these might have on the animal’s health, behavior, relationship with people, and the environment. Then at some point, maybe years later, someone dwelling or working outside the magic circle that came up with the original idea would point out that consequences B, C, D, E made Plan A’s rationale questionable.
When these revelations occurred, some proponents of the original plan might say, “Oops.” or “Gee, we need to rethink this.” However, by then others might have so much financially or emotionally invested in the process that the idea of hanging on to it took precedence over anything else. This then would precipitate a power struggle between the two camps that wasted a lot of time and money that could have been put to much better use.
The think tank would be composed of members from all professions and all walks of life, and their opinions would all be given equal and respectful consideration. Ideally this would be a preventive organization that would review proposals from those seeking, for example, to develop a new medical or behavioral treatment or animal welfare policy. The process would be simple, consisting of two parts. The first would be a written proposal from the applicant, copies of which would be sent to all members of the animal think tank for review. This report would:
- Discuss in detail the short- and long-term effects of the proposed procedure on animal (both individual and species) health, behavior, the bond, and the environment.
- 2. Present the material in language understandable to the average pet-owner as well as those with more lofty credentials.
After reading and pondering this material, each think tank member would write a report evaluating the project from his/her perspective and make recommendations based on these. All members of the group would receive copies of all reports and any requests for further information would be forwarded to the applicant.
The second part of the process would be a face-to-face meeting of think tank members to discuss the application in detail. This would be held in a serene, relaxing environment because frank and thoughtful discussion is the goal, and differences in opinion almost certainly will arise. Members would be strongly encouraged to take a break and go for a walk in the woods or visit the on-site fitness center or spa if they found themselves taking others’ comments personally.
The think tank also would need to re-evaluate existing programs, and that could open a lot of wormy cans that have been kept shut for years. Still, if we want to make meaningful changes, it needs to be done.
Even if you agree with the need for such an organization, you might be thinking that it’s hardly the dog-centered one Leona Helmsley had in mind when she made her will. But I disagree. A think tank whose work fosters a comprehensive, multi-dimensional personal, professional and public philosophy toward animal projects and issues most certainly will benefit every canine, directly or indirectly. That it also would benefit members of all other species including humans and even the planet itself would not diminish its effect on dogs one bit.
I can’t think of a better legacy than that.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.
Throughout December I gave a lot of thought to what I wanted to write about in the first commentary of 2013. Ultimately I decided to resurrect a commentary I wrote back in 2008. And, no, I didn’t do this because I succumbed to a holiday-cheer induced writer’s block. Or because I was too lazy to come up with something completely new. In reality I didn’t even remember this particular commentary until after I’d pondered the concept of resolutions—and specifically those related to issues involving animal health, behavior, and the bond—as I am wont to do this time of year.
When I did this, I realized that the same issues and the same obstacles to resolving them still existed and in some cases had become worse. Increasingly in our society the first step to resolving any kind of problem seems to be assigning blame. Often this is accompanied by a great deal of emotion, apparently in the belief that the more passionately one blames those whose views contradict one’s own, the more knowledgeable one must be. Perhaps because it takes so much energy to summon and sustain all those emotions, the process usually then follows one of two equally unproductive paths. Either it stalls there until people become bored and look for something more interesting to do. Or someone comes up with short-term and often short-sighted solution to justify all the process.
Meanwhile relative to the really tough issues facing our relationship with companion animals as these affect them as well as ourselves—pre-adult/pediatric spay and neuter, interstate and international shipment of homeless animals, euthanasia, the use of service animals, animal experimentation, breeding practices, training approaches, etc.—remain unchanged.
Obviously neither Leona Helmsley nor her dog chose to give me enough money to found an organization like FRATT. Even if she had, I probably wouldn’t have been allowed to keep it because the court ruled her mentally incompetent for giving more money to her dog and dogs in general instead of family members, a decision on which I won’t comment. But perhaps 2013 will be the year that sufficient people finally will become fed up with the infantile partisan bickering that increasingly has polluted so much of the public discourse on multiple animal-related issues. Our animals deserve better than that. And so does our society.
The Helmsley Multibillion Dollar Trust for Dogs: A Good Time for a Change
First published August, 2008
Last month a big news story contained two elements the media and public love to talk about: great gobs of money and animals. That Leona Helmsley earmarked her estimated $5-8 billion estate to be used to establish a charitable trust devoted to the care and welfare of dogs had many in a tizzy, some in joy and others in disgust at what they perceived as a gross waste of money.
No doubt those in organizations whose work could in any way be construed as benefiting dogs are already sharpening their grant-writing pencils and brushing up on their schmoozing skills. The problem is that I suspect that the bulk of those proposals will be for more of the same. More money to spay or neuter more dogs. More money to develop more genetic tests for problems in purebred dogs. More money to diagnose and treat more dogs with more chronic problems.
“What the heck,” I thought. “This might be a good time for me to seek some funding for something completely different.”
“Why you?” you might be thinking.
Because I have a proposition I believe would fulfill Ms. Helmsley’s wishes at the same time as it would do a lot more, including satisfy a lot of folks who are upset about all that money going to the dogs. Plus I have the credentials to see such a plan through.
Let’s begin with the credentials. I am a member of that rare, oft-berated and denigrated group known as independent scholars. As such, I’m not obligated to champion the dogma of a particular group out of loyalty and whether I believe it or not, a real plus when objectivity is desired. But even though I can’t claim full-time residence in any particular academic discipline, I do have the highest respect for certain individuals belonging to, and the work coming out of, many. I’m also self-employed so I don’t have to toe any corporate lines either. Because I value quality communication, I’m not impressed by in-house jargon or ritual. Additionally, at the same time as my work brings me in contact with those within the academic, professional, and corporate communities, I also interact with those outside those environments, and I consider their input equally valuable.
Finally, I’m basically a happy person who learned years ago that there are two ways to have all the material things in life I want. The first is to have gobs and gobs of money. The second is not to want so much. I opted for the latter and have no regrets about my choice. Consequently, no one has to worry about any funding to me going to pay for a private yacht or jet, or lots of administrators.
Now on to the proposed project. In the past I’ve thought of it as FRATT, which stands for the Filthy Rich Animal Think Tank. However I would be happy to rename it the Leona Helmsley Animal Think Tank for the Advancement of Companion Animals, Especially Dogs, or something similar. I began thinking about the need for such an organization years ago when I realized how often we did things to domestic animals—with that most domesticated animal of them all, the dog, often bearing the brunt of it—with minimal thought regarding any long-term effect these might have on the animal’s health, behavior, relationship with people, and the environment. Then at some point, maybe years later, someone dwelling or working outside the magic circle that came up with the original idea would point out that consequences B, C, D, E made Plan A’s rationale questionable.
When these revelations occurred, some proponents of the original plan might say, “Oops.” or “Gee, we need to rethink this.” However, by then others might have so much financially or emotionally invested in the process that the idea of hanging on to it took precedence over anything else. This then would precipitate a power struggle between the two camps that wasted a lot of time and money that could have been put to much better use.
The think tank would be composed of members from all professions and all walks of life, and their opinions would all be given equal and respectful consideration. Ideally this would be a preventive organization that would review proposals from those seeking, for example, to develop a new medical or behavioral treatment or animal welfare policy. The process would be simple, consisting of two parts. The first would be a written proposal from the applicant, copies of which would be sent to all members of the animal think tank for review. This report would:
After reading and pondering this material, each think tank member would write a report evaluating the project from his/her perspective and make recommendations based on these. All members of the group would receive copies of all reports and any requests for further information would be forwarded to the applicant.
The second part of the process would be a face-to-face meeting of think tank members to discuss the application in detail. This would be held in a serene, relaxing environment because frank and thoughtful discussion is the goal, and differences in opinion almost certainly will arise. Members would be strongly encouraged to take a break and go for a walk in the woods or visit the on-site fitness center or spa if they found themselves taking others’ comments personally.
The think tank also would need to re-evaluate existing programs, and that could open a lot of wormy cans that have been kept shut for years. Still, if we want to make meaningful changes, it needs to be done.
Even if you agree with the need for such an organization, you might be thinking that it’s hardly the dog-centered one Leona Helmsley had in mind when she made her will. But I disagree. A think tank whose work fosters a comprehensive, multi-dimensional personal, professional and public philosophy toward animal projects and issues most certainly will benefit every canine, directly or indirectly. That it also would benefit members of all other species including humans and even the planet itself would not diminish its effect on dogs one bit.
I can’t think of a better legacy than that.
If you have any comments regarding subject matter, favorite links, or anything you’d like to see discussed on or added to this site, please let me know at mm@mmilani.com.