Advocacy
Project

INTRODUCTION

The NAIA, National Animal Interest Alliance, reported that approximately 6.2 million innocent dogs die every

year due to human actions that are easily preventable. Historically, however, the numbers used to be much greater due to the many dogs that once roamed the streets, ineffective laws protecting animals, and poor excuses (APA). This could have been due to the fact that before bioethicist Peter Singer wrote Animal Liberation in 1975, near the start of the animal rights movement, there were people who believed they controlled all animals on the assumption that animals did not suffer or have much intelligence. This was because there was a lack of research about animal intelligence, thus causing humans to kill animals, such as dogs, without questioning whether these animals could feel pain. On the other hand, Jeffrey Kluger noted that after The Stuff of Thought was written in 2007 by psychologist Steven Pinker, along with advancements in animal behavior, the idea of animals having intelligence and the ability to suffer became more universal (Kluger 10). This progression of thought demonstrates just how rapidly animal intelligence research has evolved, thus creating many controversial arguments about animal suffering.

Specifically, Alexandra Horowitz’s 2017 research study “Smelling Themselves: Dogs Investigate Their Own 

Odours Longer When Modified in an ‘Olfactory Mirror’ Test” discusses the different behaviors demonstrated by dogs in reaction to various scents. This is often referred to as theory-of-mind, which is scientifically believed to be correlated with cognitive intelligence (Horowitz). Furthermore, the 2001 study “Comprehension of Human Communicative Signs in Pet Dogs (Canis Familiaris)” was written by Krisztina Soproni, et al. in order to highlight how a dog’s social intelligence is not only based on their ability to understand human communication through gestures, but also their immediate response depending on the cues given (Soproni et al.). Finally, the study “Auditory Contagious Yawning in Domestic Dogs (Canis Familiaris): First Evidence for Social Modulation” published by Karine Silva, et al. in 2012 reveals that dogs are able to recognize yawns and are empathically affected by them. This further contributes to the idea that  dogs are emotionally intelligent since they show reception as well as affection (Silva et al.). These three different methods all indicate that a dog’s natural ability to exhibit cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence is indeed connected and useful in a dog’s everyday life in terms of behavior and suffering.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

 

​

Dogs demonstrate their cognitive, social, and emotional intelligence as they train to become a service dog for disabled people (National Geographic).

​

​

​

​

​

Yet, the unethical, frequent killing of dogs is negatively impacting these intelligent animals as well as

causing them pain that humans would hate to experience and even disapprove of when it comes to inflicting it on another human being. Based on history, a positive correlation between the dog population and the number of dogs cruelly killed has been seen in hopes to create an evident solution and help reduce the amount of dogs that die as a result of human actions.

 

​

SELF-RECOGNITION

The first step in discovering dog intelligence is closely related to self-recognition, which is frequently

expressed as an aspect of behavior indicating awareness of oneself in comparison to the world. While the mirror self-recognition test is often used to prove self-awareness, the study is less suited to dogs since their primary sense is not the same as humans, which is vision. Instead, their strongest sense is smell due to the fact that their noses are highly sensitive and allow dogs to identify odors in the environment that humans are unable to notice (Espinosa 11:15). As a result of the huge “role of olfaction in dogs’ social lives, olfactory stimuli are more ecologically relevant to the species than visual stimuli” (Horowitz 8). Therefore, Author Alexandra Horowitz modified the experiment in 2017 in her article “Smelling Themselves: Dogs Investigate Their Own Odours Longer When Modified in an ‘Olfactory Mirror’ Test” by targeting a dog’s olfactory signals instead. Her goal was to study whether dogs have self-awareness by placing a variety of canisters with different urine smells and testing their olfactory response times. Before the study was conducted, urine samples were taken from each of the dogs as well as an unknown dog who did not participate in the study. The “mark” of the unknown dog’s scent was either added or excluded from the experimental dogs’ urine. Moreover, the dogs smelled four different types of urine: the dog’s own odor, tampered odor, familiar odor, and unfamiliar odor (Horowitz 9).

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Dogs perform better at the scent self-recognition test compared to the mirror self-recognition test because their strongest sense is smell and not sight (Twitter).

​

​

​

​

After conducting the experiment, results showed the dogs were able to distinguish an odor as “themselves” 

or “not themselves” as well as familiar or unfamiliar by using their strongest asset, olfactory signals. This is because they “spent significantly more time investigating canisters holding their own odors that had been modified than the one that held their own odor alone. Dogs also spent significantly more time at the canister with an unknown dog's odor than that with their own” (Horowitz 10). These actions agree with the thesis that dogs are able to notice a modified or unknown odor. This behaviour in dogs entails that they are able to recognize a scent as being or from themselves, thus demonstrating dogs are able to successfully pass the olfactory mirror test and exhibit self-recognition (Horowitz 11). Overall, this study is important because dogs are proven to naturally demonstrate abstraction and cognitive intelligence using their olfactory signals since they are able to distinguish themselves from the world.

 

​

COMMUNICATION

Since dogs are proven to be self aware, the next step in determining dog intelligence is observing whether 

they can use this ability to communicate with other dogs or even understand other forms of communication. Dogs started becoming domesticated about one hundred thousand years ago as they had the pressures of becoming strong guards and hunters for humans (Grandinand Johnson 64). This selection allowed them to not only become specialized for work, but also “to form an attachment relationship with their humancare giver, that shows dependent behavior in problem-solving situations, and that is able to develop a complex communication system with humans” (Soproni, et al. 122). Because living with families altered a dog’s natural environment, the species became more attentive to social gestures. As a result, in the 2001 article “Comprehension of Human Communicative Signs in Pet Dogs (Canis Familiaris)”, Soproni, et al. conducted an experiment to test whether dogs could interpret human cues such as pointing, gazing, and head nodding and then use these gestures to choose the correct cup that had food hidden underneath. Prior to the actual study, the experimented dogs went through pre-training with the goal that they would be able to comprehend that food could be hidden underneath a cup and in turn, give the dogs an incentive to choose the correct cup based on communicative signals (Soproni, et al. 123). The picture provided below illustrates how the experimented dogs underwent pre-training until they understood the intent behind human cues.

​

​

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

The dog in this picture realized the woman’s gaze was a form of communication in an attempt to share an important piece of information (Soproni, et al.).

 

​

​

​

These researchers found the dogs consistently chose the baited cup significantly more than chance. The

dogs were able to recognize human signs as forms of communication and as a result, learned to pick the cup humans hinted at in order to get rewarded with the food hidden beneath. This means dogs understand the meaning behind human gestures by realizing humans have information to share that they must see (Kluger 17). These actions are due to domestication, which allowed dogs to evolve and “become selectively sensitive to human communicative gestures as the basis of discriminative learning or as the basis of higher mentalistic processes” (Soproni et al. 125). They first understand how to differentiate themselves from others and that others can see them. Next, dogs adapt to make more meaningful connections and build stronger relationships through collaboration. This allows them to grasp the idea that a person is trying to communicate in some way that might be helpful. Therefore, dogs are able to socially comprehend the complexities of human communication and thus act based on the gestures given (Kluger 17). This study is important to acknowledge since it adds to animal science, specifically the field of dog intelligence, by indicating that dogs exhibit abstraction and are socially intelligent. 

 

 

EMOTION

Now that dogs have been proven to not only be self-aware, but also capable of understanding complex

communication strategies, the final step of identifying dog intelligence revolves around the idea of emotion. Recent studies have proved contagious yawning in humans is empathy-related. Since dogs live among humans, this has caused some scientists to wonder if the same aspect of empathy can be seen when dogs yawn contagiously (Silva et al. 722). As a result, Silva et al. decided to find out and recorded the information in their 2012 article “Auditory Contagious Yawning in Domestic Dogs ( Canis Familiaris): First Evidence for Social Modulation.” Their goal was to test whether dogs understand yawning and if they could produce a similar response since they are already known to have a theory-of-mind and self-recognition, two abilities that are found to contribute to empathy and contagious yawning in humans (Silva et al. 721). The dogs tested had to listen to four different, recorded yawns. Two familiar yawns were of their owner since there was a close connection, while the other two unfamiliar yawns were recorded by the same researcher (Silva et al. 722).

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

This dog was able to recognize his owner's yawn and emotionally responded by immediately yawning as well

(The Atlantic).

​

​

​

​

​

Overall, the results demonstrate that dogs recognize the act of yawning and even yawn more when they see 

a familiar face yawn compared to a stranger yawn. They sense that others see them and align themselves in a way to improve their understanding. As a result, they also know their own emotions can affect their future and how their emotional response can help or hurt what they are trying to accomplish. Based on this, dogs are able to recognize human yawns and even yawn more at familiar compared to unfamiliar yawns. This is “consistent with the observation that empathic tendencies are strongest or most likely to arise, as a function of familiarity” (Silva et al. 722). Domestic dogs live in close proximity with humans and therefore are capable of expressing empathy towards them. This has caused them to acknowledge human actions and adjust their own autonomic and behavioral responses, such as immediate yawning (Silva et al. 723). As a whole, this recent study has great importance since it proves dogs are emotionally intelligent due to their ability to show abstraction and affection by yawning. 

 

​

INTELLIGENT SPECIES

Overall, intelligence is an intricate concept that is related to a species’ ability to have a concept of self and a

theory-of-mind, understand and display complex communicative patterns, and connect emotionally with others. If these abilities prove intelligence in humans and if dogs can accomplish similar tasks, then they too should be considered intelligent. Additionally, the three previous experimental dog behaviors I summarized validate that humans and dogs use different skills to accomplish the same tasks in completely distinctive ways. Thus, humans and dogs need to be graded on different scales, depending on how they see the world through their various senses. Once this is done, dogs would undoubtedly be considered intelligent. Then, if dogs truly are intelligent animals, why do we still euthanize them for human benefit? If a human was put in this position, it would be considered extremely unethical. So, why do dogs, an intelligent species, have to suffer from these inhumane and cruel actions? They formerly came to humans as protectors and we repay them by abusing their freedom. Dogs were once undomesticated wolves, roaming in the wild, but now, Allison Jolly explains that dogs, as well as other animals, are confined in cages, awaiting the day they will be put down or tested on (Jolly 249). I say this in an attempt to end the torture of intelligent animals. This is a violation of animal ethics due to the fact that dogs are intelligent, just like humans, in their own, unique way. Dogs understand who they are, know how to communicate, and feel emotion. Their minds have evolved due to domestication, just like humans (Grandinand Johnson 64). Not all people will advocate for animal rights when it comes to euthanization. Despite this, if our knowledge grew, causing us to now agree dogs are intelligent, humanity is dishonoring their commitment to protect them and violating their ethics.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Dogs were once wolves until they became domesticated. This allowed them to bond with humans due to their ability to communicate, understand human needs, feel emotion, and provide protection ("The Sled Dog").

​

​

​

​

SUFFERING

The unequal treatments and prejudice against dogs in relation to human experience must end. Instead of

treating dogs like objects and victims, humans need to treat them with more respect (Ryder). One reason why is because dogs have been proven to demonstrate intelligence through every behavior, action, and emotion. Intelligence does not determine suffering, but some people believe that humans are more intelligent than dogs since they have different communicative strategies and knowledge. As a result, they also believe humans are morally superior and should be given more rights. This difference does not infer one species is more intelligent than the other though. Instead, it means dogs and humans see the world through different perspectives, demonstrating they are intelligent in their own, unique way. If people truly believe intelligence determines privileges, then dogs should be given an equal amount as humans. Despite this, moral rights should not be based on whether an animal can reason, talk, or have intelligence, but whether they can suffer and experience pain. For instance, scientific research has found that humans and animals actually “have similar nervous systems…[and] bar chemicals in the brain associated with the experience of pain” (Ryder 1:31). Since animals have similar structures that are responsible for producing painful sensations as humans, then they must experience pain on a similar level. Additionally, humans need to put themselves in the position of dogs when they are brutally killed in order to get a sense of the distress, fear, and pain these animals experience every day. Humans would not enjoy being abandoned, tortured, or murdered, so why do they treat dogs in that manner? Just like race and gender do not determine pain in humans, one’s species should not either. Dogs are living, breathing animals who undoubtedly experience pain on some level. Thus, they should not be put in awful, inhumane conditions where they are forced to deal with humans’ cruel actions.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Dogs demonstrate multiple emotions such as fear through body language ("The Spruce Pets").

​

​

​

​

PROBLEMS

Although there are many issues revolving around dogs, the ones that negatively influence them the most are:

euthanasia and overpopulation. Specifically, the dog euthanasia problem is a huge factor that frequently occurs in shelters and it cruelly strips away life from a healthy dog. This inhumane form of killing is actually seen to be positively correlated with dog overpopulation, indicating that as the number of dogs increases, the number of dogs murdered by humans also increases (Frank). This is ironic because humans were the original creators of dog overpopulation. They repeatedly and dangerously bred dogs in order to exchange them for money, not caring whether the puppies died due to a lack of nutrients from their mothers or were slaughtered for meat. It was as if dogs were treated more like property and tradable goods than living animals with feelings. Unfortunately, these historical actions drastically increased the dog population to an unhealthy level and have caused dogs to continue to mate and reproduce outside of human containment today. Furthermore, “it is estimated that 75% of the world’s dog population are strays” due to human’s lack of control (Ortega-Pacheco and Jimenez-Coello). Humans also have been recently observed abandoning their dogs if they see them as an inconvenience or are unable to take care of them. Since humans still breed dogs uncontrollably and are occasionally irresponsible owners, they continue to be the perpetrators of the dog overpopulation problem that has caused “8.3 million animals [to be] sheltered and 5.7 million euthanized” in the United States every year, half of which are dogs (Frank). Overall, dog overpopulation is a problem that greatly affects dogs as a whole and is connected to another greater issue, euthanization rates in shelters due to a lack of space and money (Frank).

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

When there are limited shelters and resources, but there are multiple stray dogs on the streets and in shelters, euthanization rates drastically increase ("Daily Toreador").

​

​

​

​

As stated, euthanasia sometimes is treated as a strategy in order to decrease the surplus of the dog species. 

Despite this, when healthy dogs are euthanized inhumanely or against international standards, ethical questions begin to emerge. This is because dogs and humans share the same environment and both play an important evolutionary role. Unfortunately, as the number of dogs increases, the number of stray and unwanted dogs also increases. This causes shelters and pounds with limited resources to become overcrowded. Shelters then begin to euthanize dogs since it is a “perfect” solution to decrease their numbers, while dog pounds usually only allow dogs to stay in their facility for three to ten days before they are euthanized (Ortega-Pacheco and Jimenez-Coello). In reality, euthanization is just a quick fix. These two industries believe the amount of time they are giving dogs is enough for them to either be returned to their home or adopted. A few days is not enough to fix a century of human mistakes in relation to dog overpopulation and instead is more like a life sentence. Dogs who are “rescued” and in poor conditions tend to be immediately euthanized as well since they are believed to be unadoptable and unfixable. Dog pounds and shelters should not be given the right to decide a dog’s future just like humans do not decide another human’s future based on their past. Despite this, “it is estimated that 2 out of 3 animals entering a shelter won’t have a chance to be adopted and have to be euthanized” (Ortega-Pacheco and Jimenez-Coello). This number contradicts what ethanasia was created for. Originally, euthanasia was meant to alleviate a human patient from a deadly disease or a miserable life. On the other hand, in veterinary medicine, healthy dogs are not euthanized in order to avoid further pain and suffering. Instead, dogs are mainly euthanized for human convenience and research purposes or in hopes to reduce the canine population, specifically in shelters. However, some countries twisted euthanasia’s true intent by making it leagal for all dogs, even healthy ones, to be euthanized since they are seen as personal property and not animals with feelings. Dogs should be considered “as sensitive beings... [who] have the capacity to perceive pain and pleasure and are worthy of being under the protection of a law” (Ortega-Pacheco and Jimenez-Coello). Moreover, euthanasia is identified to be an expensive and ineffective long term solution to control the dog overpopulation and that other humane methods must be taken. Although dog euthanization is assumed to combat dog overpopulation, it is actually a poor, unethical method that will not solve this issue. Shelter overcrowding, lack of money, and dogs being unwanted are therefore not valid excuses to kill a living, breathing dog, just like it is not ethical to murder a living, breathing human (Ortega-Pacheco and Jimenez-Coello).

In addition, most euthanasia methods are cruel and inhumane. Yet, some people believe that there is no

problem killing or euthanizing animals since they have no concept of their future, unlike humans. This belief’s main intent is to look down upon all animals while highlighting human superiority, not to protect dog welfare. It is also proven to be false when the behavior of a dog is specifically considered during gas euthanasia. This is because this form of euthanasia can be a slow and terrifying process where dogs use their strong sense of smell and notice the aroma of death coming from the urine and remnants left on the floor. As a result, they are seen to desperately attempt to call for help and claw their way out of the small death chamber in an effort to escape. They are extremely terrified and begin to gasp for air as well. They behave in this manner because they know they are going to die or in other words, they have a concept of the future. Although they are trying to escape and live one more day, most of the time they unfortunately fail (Seaman). Another form of euthanasia consists of using barbiturates, a drug that causes deep anesthesia and unconsciousness before leading to respiratory failure and a lack of oxygen (Ortega-Pacheco and Jimenez-Coello). Because euthanasia causes stress, pain, and fear in dogs as they are often aware they are going to die, some forms are considered illegal in a few countries. One example of an illegal method of killing is drowning. However, killing dogs by drowning unfortunately still occurs (Seaman). As a whole, ending dogs’ lives using gas euthanasia or barbiturates or by drowning them are all unethical and need to end. The reason for this is because when humans put themselves into a dog’s position during any form of euthanasia, such as the three previously mentioned, they begin to feel the pain, distress, and anxiety dogs feel as they experience a slow and unpeaceful death. Humans do not want to die from inhumane forms of euthanasia, so why must they force these deaths upon dogs who are also living creatures? In order to protect all dogs from reliving the awful and terrifying moments due to euthanasia, there is a need to ban all euthanasia methods and instead find an alternative and moral solution to combat dog overpopulation (Seaman).

 

​

SOLUTIONS

The problem of dog euthanasia is very complex and there are no easy solutions. This is due to the fact that

this human-made issue has been around for more than a century. Fortunately, there are both “global” and “grassroot” measures that can be taken to solve this problem, or at least, to make progress toward improving dog life.

 

​

GLOBAL

While dog euthanasia is an inhumane action that must end, there are many “global” solutions that can allow 

humans to begin taking the first steps in order to fix their historical and recent mistakes. These include, but are not limited to: implementing more affordable spay and neuter programs, taxing dog sellers who do not work for a pound or shelter, and enforcing laws to ban euthanasia. Moreover, out of all these possibilities, the best and most feasible solution is implementing more affordable spay and neuter programs (Frank). This effective procedure was previously not accessible before the 1930s. Additionally, the few shelters available often became overrun by stray dogs. This caused euthanasia rates to reach a peak of about one hundred dogs killed per one thousand people living (DogTime). Hence, the spaying and neutering of dogs is important because it prevents the overpopulation problem from worsening and inhibits extreme amounts of euthanasia (SVACA). Sterilization first handedly suppresses the number of “unfixed” dogs who uncontrollably give birth to many litters each year. Thus, it was discovered that “the presence of a sterilization program in a community is correlated with a significant decline in the number and percentage of the total pet population handled by” shelters (110). When shelters euthanize dogs, they often use it as an excuse to decrease the overwhelming number of dogs they need to take care of due to their limited amount of supplies, resources, and money. However, once they experience a decrease in the amount of dogs, they thankfully begin to realize that they no longer have to euthanize this species. As a whole, the spaying and neutering of dogs causes the dog population to decrease to a healthier size since less dogs are unable to reproduce. This also causes the number of dogs who are murdered in shelters to decrease each year for human benefit (Frank). The chart below demonstrates the importance of sterilizing dogs in order to prevent a drastic increase in the dog population.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

A single unspayed dog and her offspring are able to freely and continuously reproduce, having an excessive impact on the dog overpopulation problem. This would cause euthanasia rates to increase in shlethers in hope to combat this issue (“Pet Overpopulation & Shelter Statistics”). 

 

​

​

​

Some local agencies and animal welfare organizations have already begun to carry out economical spay and 

neuter policies, but the support and inclusion of more cities and organizations are needed to make a no-kill nation a reality. This is because there are still many people who do not sterilize their dogs or do not see it as a necessary measure to take. Despite this, “if about half of the people who do not spay/neuter their animal could be convinced to change this behavior, more regions could become ‘no-kill’ for the dog population” (Frank 114). As more and more individuals, homes, communities, cities, and states realize the importance of spaying and neutering dogs, they can finally begin to administer this action within a whole nation. Dogs will no longer have to cruelly be put to death or experience the terror and pain that accompanies euthanasia.

The most important aspect behind effective spay and neuter programs enforced by local officials and animal 

welfare organizations is its affordability. This is because although many people may understand the power and advantages resulting from the spaying and neutering of dogs, they may not be able to financially afford it if these methods are expensive or not economical for everyone. Specifically, “according to survey results, the spay/neuter rate increases approximately linearly as the price of the procedure is reduced” (Frank 115). Once all people are able to afford this policy, more indiviuals will be willing to spay or neuter their dogs and help combat the problem of dog overpopulation as well as euthanasia rates. This will be greatly beneficial for this species because when the spay and neuter rate increases by one percent, the death rate of dogs decreases by fourteen percent in the long run (Frank 114). In other words, the sterilization of dogs is negatively correlated with euthanasia rates. Dog overpopulation is a huge issue that unfortunately leads to the murdering and euthanization of many dogs each year. Humans are capable of ending this unethical behavior from occurring again by simply implementing affordable spay and neuter programs in every community.

​

​

OPPOSING VOICES

Although there are many scientists who agree that dog euthanasia must end due to its cruelty, some think 

that the spaying and neutering of dogs will not address this issue and that another measure must be taken. This is because “while some experts believe increasing spay/neuter rates is the key to long-term population control, others, particularly in the veterinary community, argue that low-cost spay/neuter programs are ineffective” (Frank 109). Individuals who do not agree with the benefits resulting from the sterilization of dogs perceive that spay and neuter programs do not even have a huge effect on the dog population. Despite their belief, studies have shown otherwise and proved that these programs actually grew in strength over time and worked well with adoption efforts (Frank 126). Furthermore supporters of spay and neuter policies often reference “the decrease in pet reproduction during the early 1970s as evidence that low-cost spay/neuter programs work…They also point out that sterilization can reduce behavioral problems which are a major cause of pet abandonment” (Frank 110). Specifically, as more dogs are sterilized, the less dogs are actually able to reproduce. This means that the dog population is allowed to decrease instead of increase, which limits the constant overcrowding of shelters. Not only this, but sterilization appears to limit behavioral issues associated with reproduction. Every year, owners abandon their dogs because these animals supposedly are disruptive and too much to handle. Yet, dogs who are sterilized are abandoned at a much lesser rate than dogs who have not been spayed or neutered (Frank 110). When there are fewer abandoned and stray dogs roaming the streets, the amount of dogs in shelters begins to decrease. On this note, since shelters have less dogs to take care of due to spay and neuter programs, euthanization rates nationally decline. 

 

​

GRASSROOT

In addition to the many global solutions listed, there are also multiple “grassroot” solutions that can be 

implemented to help save dogs from overpopulation and euthanasia procedures. The most compelling solution consists of raising awareness for abandoned and mistreated dogs on a variety of social media platforms. Recently, it seems as if the majority of people have some form of social media and use it to communicate or keep in touch with their friends as well as the most popular stories and news articles. It can also be used to educate others about dog welfare and encourage individuals to adopt a dog. For instance, NKLA, No-Kill Los Angeles, launched an initiative to help decrease the number of dogs who are euthanized each year and used social media to make their voices heard. They still take part in this form of advocacy today in order to serve as a model for how the entire nation should act in order to end the killing of “unwanted” dogs in shelters on the basis that these animals do not currently have a home. When NKLA’s initiative was launched “in 2012, only 56% of the dogs and cats in the city’s shelters were making it out alive.” However, due to their activism on social media, they were able to gain the support from local communities and devoted volunteers. This organization’s hard work on social media paid off when they “announced a sustained save rate of 90.49% for [dogs in] 2020” (NKLA). Their successful media campaign helped raise awareness of dog euthanasia and its cruel properties, thus decreasing the frequency of this unethical action.

Another animal rescue organization that uses social media to raise awareness through rescue and education

is Hope For Paws. They specifically make videos demonstrating the rescuing process they oversee when they notice or get a call about a dog in need. Then, they share this act of compassion on YouTube in order to educate individuals about the significance of animals in society and inspire their viewers to support the cause, take action, adopt, and help decrease euthanasia rates (Hope for Paws). Due to their advocacy efforts on social media, their YouTube channel has surpassed four million subscribers and is the biggest non-profit channel in the world (Hope for Paws). Hope for Paws’ videos have even been viewed by billions of people around the globe. Due to their many followers and views on social media, they have successfully raised awareness for dogs and their mistreatment as well as educated multiple communities about the importance of animals in society.

These two organizations help demonstrate the power social media has in terms of getting a message out or 

educating others about an urgent topic that needs to be addressed. The most amazing part about this, is that everyone can do it. A person does not have to be a celebrity, wealthy, or have a high ranking job in order to advocate for dog welfare. The only thing that is needed is one’s voice. I even have a personal example of this in hopes to resolve some doubts about whether everyone can raise awareness about dog intelligence and euthanasia or about any topic one deems important. In 2021, I was enrolled in Writing 39C, a research course at the University of California, Irvine that required me to advocate for animal rights on Twitter. I did not have any affiliation with this social media platform before this class nor did I have much knowledge about animal science. Despite being a lost college student, I was still able to understand Twitter and effectively advocated for animal welfare, specifically dog rights. Based on this, all people can successfully use a social media platform in order to raise awareness about any topic that they believe needs more recognition.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Advocating on Twitter or on any social media site is a great way to gain awareness for an issue and make a difference to help improve dogs' lives (Twitter).

​

​

​

​

Moreover, there are other individualized solutions to end dog euthanasia that everyone can take part in no 

matter their background or current position. The first is to sign a petition to end dog euthanasia (NKLA). These documents are important because they allow people who care about dogs and their rights to gather around and take action. A petition to stop the murdering of dogs can also help educate others about this issue and possibly change their minds. Once there are enough signatures, this petition can finally demonstrate to policy-makers that something needs to change in order to end such inhumane methods and save all dogs. People can also donate or volunteer to help dogs in need. As a whole, these actions can positively impact all communities and even inspire individuals to follow in others’ footsteps. It was previously mentioned that shelters decide to unfortunately euthanize dogs due to a limited number of resources and money available. By donating or volunteering, shelters can have more money to buy dog food, blankets, and medication as well as more helpers to do laundry, take care of dogs, and wash kennels. There is a solution everyone can take part in to end dog overpopulation and euthanasia. Together, humanity can save all dogs from inhumane and unethical treatments, methods, and actions. Specifically, the infographic below describes the dog overpopulation problem as well as potential solutions.

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Dog overpopulation is a huge issue surrounding dogs that is positively correlated to euthanasia rates. Thankfully, it can be addressed through a variety of different solutions.

​

​

​

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, dogs are a highly intelligent species since they have self-recognition, understand different

forms of communication, and recognize emotion. Because of this, controversial questions about their treatment have risen. However, due to the fact that dogs are capable of feeling pain, many scientists believe dogs should not be treated inhumanely, but instead respected. Therefore, there are many other unethical methods not listed that should end, such as: the dog meat trade, dog abuse, dog fights, and dog testing. All these poor and murderous actions ignore dog welfare and negatively affect their species. Steps must be made to protect dogs by advocating on social media, joining global campaigns, donating, volunteering, and educating others. These solutions can help spread awareness and call upon all governments to protect these intelligent animals by banning and replacing inhumane methods with more ethical, reliable, and relevant ones.

 

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

Dogs are proven to intelligent animals and should not be euthanized for human benefit (YouTube).

​

​

​

​

Works Cited

ASPCA. Pet Statistics, 2021, www.aspca.org/animal-homelessness/shelter-intake-and-surrender/pet-statistics.

DogTime. “Spay/Neuter Awareness Month: The History Of Spaying And Neutering Pets.”Dogtime.com, 29 Jan. 

2021, dogtime.com/dog-health/spay-neuter/34567-history-spaying- neutering-pets#:~:text=While%20 techniques%20to%20sterilize%20livestock,nor%20accessible%20until%20the%201930s. 

Espinosa, Julia, TEDxTalks. “The Secret Life of Dogs | Julia Espinosa | TEDxUofT.” YouTube, YouTube, 14 May 2019,

www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsjvIUrxsrc. 

Frank, Joshua. "An Interactive Model of Human and Companion Animal Dynamics: The Ecology and Economics of 

Dog Overpopulation and the Human Costs of Addressing the Problem." Human Ecology, vol. 32, no. 1, 2004, pp. 107-130. ProQuest, https://www.proquest.com/ scholarly-journals/interactive-model-human-companion-animal-dynamics/docview/206002738/se-2?accountid=14509, doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1023/B:HUEC.0000015213.66094.06.

Grandin, Temple, and Catherine Johnson. Animals Make Us Human Creating the Best Life for Animals. Mariner,

2010. 

Hope for Paws. Hope For Paws - Animal Rescue, 2019, www.hopeforpaws.org/. 

Horowitz, Alexandra. “Smelling Themselves: Dogs Investigate Their Own Odours Longer When Modified in an 

‘Olfactory Mirror’ Test.”Behavioural Processes, vol. 143, Oct. 2017, pp.17–24. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1016/j.be proc.2017.08.001.

Jolly, Allison. “Conscious chimpanzees? A review of recent literature.” C. A. Ristau (Ed.), Comparative cognition 

and neuroscience. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc, pp. 231–252, 1991.

Kluger, Jeffrey. “Communication: Inside the Minds of Animals.” Time, Time Inc., 5 Aug. 2010, content.time.com/ 

time/magazine/article/0,9171,2008867,00.html.

Kluger, Jeffrey. “Intelligence: Inside the Minds of Animals.” Time, Time Inc., 5 Aug. 2010, content.time.com/time/ 

magazine/article/0,9171,2008867,00.html. 

NAIA. “Are There Too Many Dogs and Cats?” Animal Welfare - National Animal Interest Alliance, www.naiaonline. 

org/naia-library/articles/are-there-too-many-dogs-and-cats/#sthash.NJz54Vm3.dpbs. 

NKLA. “No-Kill Los Angeles - Home.” No-Kill Los Angeles, 2015, nkla.org/home.

Ortega-Pacheco, Antonio, and Matilde Jimenez-Coello. “Debate For and Against Euthanasia in the Control of Dog

Populations.” Google Books, 15 Sept. 2011, Google, books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=xu2dDwAAQB AJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA233&dq=dog%2Beuthanasia%2Bmethods&ots=I_aQxTGZbT&sig=-TtC4nf8VZpoeEbbwGJ rSEZNKmQ#v=onepage&q=dog%20euthanasia%20methods&f=false. 

“Pet Overpopulation & Shelter Statistics.” Visual.ly, visual.ly/community/Infographics/animals/pet-overpopulation-

shelter-statistics. 

Ryder, Richard. “What Is Speciesism?” YouTube, YouTube, 6 Sept. 2014, www.youtube.com/watch?v=8g_qJ08QL

hw. 

Seaman, Andrew. “Six States Seek Ban on Gas Euthanasia of Shelter Animals.” Special to USA Today, 1 Apr. 2009. 

Silva, Karine, et al. “Auditory Contagious Yawning in Domestic Dogs ( Canis Familiaris): First Evidence for Social 

Modulation.” Animal Cognition, vol. 15, no. 4, July 2012, pp. 721–724. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1007/s10071-012-0473-2.

Soproni, Krisztina, et al. “Comprehension of Human Communicative Signs in Pet Dogs (Canis Familiaris).” Journal 

of  Comparative Psychology, vol. 115, no. 2, June 2001, p. 122. EBSCOhost, doi:10.1037/0735-7036.115.2.122.

SVACA. “Spay and Neuter.” Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority, 2021, www.svaca.com/services/spay-and-

neuter#:~:text=Spaying%20or%20neutering%20has%20many,cats%20and%20roaming%20in%20dogs.

​

​

Link to my Google Doc