3 Paragraph Min Full 2 Pages Abt Animal Abuse

User Generated




Plz write 3 paragraph minimum full 2 pages, and each paragraph will be like:

P1. Needs: This section of the paper will address the problem. For example, if you are choosing to better treatment of farm animals, the problems might be methods of keeping, killing animals, etc. You will need to provide sources for this section.

P2. Policy: The policy section will address the solution to the problem. Again, if you are addressing better treatment of farm animals, this might address how to get people to provide more space for animals, government incentives, etc. This section will need to provide sources.

P3. Benefits: The benefits section will address the rewards for choosing your policy. If you are choosing better treatment of animals, you will need to address how more space for animals or government incentives would benefit animals and farmers. This section should have sources as well.

I attached my brainstorm, so plz follow it as much as possible.

Also, each of the paragraph must be used at least 1 sources that I attached.

This writing must be used at least 2 kinds total of the sources.

I will do works cited, but if you will use other credible sources (.gov and .edu etc.), plz give it to me.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

REVIEW --- The Real Benefits Of Pet Ownership --- Animals may not make us healthier, but they help bring people together Bradshaw, John. Wall Street Journal, Eastern edition; New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]28 Oct 2017: C.3. It's referred to as "the pet effect." Some researchers have proposed that having a pet bestows a dazzling array of health benefits, such as lower cholesterol, reduced blood pressure and a reduced risk of cardiovascular disease. Others have claimed that pets can combat stress, relieve depression and enhance self-esteem, and that their company makes children more empathetic. "Pet therapy" is widely practiced in hospitals and facilities for the elderly. Until fairly recently, many animals were seen as harmful -- carriers of parasites and disease. But now they're considered part of a healthy lifestyle. While most people probably don't acquire a pet because they think it will make them live longer, they might believe it will be a kind of panacea for modern living. The problem is that these claims about the benefits of pet ownership don't always hold up to scientific scrutiny. Some early studies did show that dog owners were generally in better shape than those without dogs, but a recent analysis of the health records of more than 40,000 California residents by the Rand Corp., working in conjunction with the University of California, Los Angeles, shows that these differences can be attributed to other characteristics of pet owners. Owners are more likely to be white, married and homeowners -- attributes that are all linked to good health. Rather than pets making people healthy, it's more likely that healthy people choose to own pets. Anyone with a hint of declining health will think twice before going out to get a dog. (They may choose a cat instead. Several studies indicate that cat owners have poorer-than-average health. There is no reason to believe that cats make people sick; it's more likely that less healthy people choose cats for companions, given that they require far less work than dogs.) The Rand study also cast doubt on the fact that children raised alongside pets become more empathic, acquire better social skills or have higher self-esteem. Once the many other advantages enjoyed by petowning families were factored in, these differences disappeared. Children whose parents have spare cash to spend on education, have stable jobs and live in a house with a yard to play safely all outperform their less fortunate peers on measures of health and behavior. These same factors make it more likely that parents will add a pet to the family. Caring for a pet may teach children responsibility, but it doesn't necessarily make them better people. Even if pets don't make us healthier, or better, they do earn their keep in other ways. For one, they can have a strong calming effect. Studies have shown that interacting with a dog can improve a person's mood. Stroking a dog results in a surge of oxytocin and endorphins -- hormones that promote bonding and feelings of well-being. These hormonal effects are generally short-lived, but in the same way that people in long-term relationships tend to be healthier than those who live alone, the effects may accumulate over time. Still, as every pet owner knows, a relationship with an animal isn't just about snuggling. For every relaxing moment on the couch, there is a frustrating one: the dog that won't come back when called, the cat that scratches the drapes. This ongoing stress may explain why pet owners aren't ultimately healthier than those who live without them. Of course, pet ownership can change human behavior in ways that could improve our health. Logically, a dog that needs to be exercised daily ought to improve the owner's health. However, studies suggest that most owners don't walk their dogs with sufficient vigor to improve their cardiovascular fitness. (This is good news for dogs, for whom the daily walk is not so much a workout as a chance to catch up on sniffing for signs of other dogs in the neighborhood, which requires a leisurely pace.) Other aspects of the walk may provide more benefits. Recent studies have shown that regular exposure to green spaces lowers stress in itself. People who walk their dogs in public places may have noticed another manifestation of the "pet effect" -that having their dog nearby brings them into conversation with passersby. Research has confirmed that this is a real effect, applying to men and women alike. In a 2015 study published in the journal Anthrozoos, a young man walking around a shopping precinct with a friendly Labrador retriever by his side was able to persuade one woman in three to part with their phone numbers, compared with less than one in 10 when he was on his own. This aura of trustworthiness may be the true power behind the "pet effect." A 2015 study published in PLOS One surveyed almost 2,000 residents in Nashville, San Diego and Portland, Ore., and found that pet owners were more likely to get to know people in their neighborhood than those without pets. Dog owners met other owners on walks, of course, but cat owners also bonded with one another through mutual offers to watch each others' pets while they were on vacation. Pets help build communities, breaking down barriers between people and paving the way for us to build networks of friendships. The same effect may account for much of the effectiveness of animal-assisted therapies, with the animal drawing the patient into relaxed conversation with the human therapist. Pets make people happy, and bring people together. Does it really matter if they don't have the power to prolong our lifespans? --Dr. Bradshaw is director of the Anthrozoology Institute at the University of Bristol. His latest book is "The Animals Among Us: How Pets Make Us Human," to be published by Basic Books on Oct. 31. Credit: By John Bradshaw Things to consider before giving pets as gifts Chicago Tribune (Online), Chicago: Tribune Interactive, LLC. Dec 14, 2017. The blissful image of a young child or a significant other receiving a pet as a holiday gift compels many shoppers to give pets as gifts come Christmastime. But pets are unlike any other holiday gift, as pets are living things that require food, shelter and attention. Because pets are unlike video games, diamond pendants and other popular holiday gifts, shoppers must consider a host of factors before deciding whether or not to give pets as gifts this holiday season. Living situation Shoppers who plan to give a pet to someone they don’t live with, whether that person is a niece or nephew or a girlfriend or boyfriend, should first consider and/or confirm the recipients’ living situation. Landlords may forbid apartment dwellers from having pets, so it’s best to confirm with your loved one whether his or her lease allows pets before adopting or buying the animal. If you don’t want to spoil the surprise or you cannot confirm if a loved one’s living situation is pet-friendly, don’t adopt or buy the animal. Allergies Some people, including many who profess to love pets, cannot have pets of their own because of allergies. According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, as many as three in 10 people in the United States have pet allergies. Cat allergies are twice as common as dog allergies, but gift givers who intend to give their loved ones a dog should still confirm if the recipient has a dog allergy before adopting or purchasing the animal. The AAFA also warns against looking for pets that are described as “hypoallergenic.” While some people are more sensitive to certain breeds of cats and dogs than others, there is no guarantee that a particular breed of cat or dog will not cause an allergic reaction. Timing There are good times to give pets as gifts, while other times can be tough. Pets need time and routine to acclimate to their new environments, so avoid giving a new pet to a family about to embark on a lengthy holiday vacation. Families staying home for the holidays and taking time off from school or work may be most capable of welcoming a furry new addition into their homes. If you want to give a loved one a pet for the holidays, delay giving the gift until things have returned to post-holiday normalcy. Finances Pets can be expensive, especially in the first year. According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the first-year cost of owning a dog is nearly $1,300, while the first-year cost of cat ownership exceeds $1,000. These estimates include the cost of food, shelter and medical exams, among other things. Before giving a pet to a child, consult the child’s parents to determine if the family can afford adding a pet to the family. If parents need some financial help to afford the pet, include supplies like bowls, leashes and toys in your holiday gift. Pets can make for wonderful gifts. But such gifts should only be given after careful consideration of a host of factors. Word count: 514 Copyright Tribune Interactive, LLC Dec 14, 2017 Who's a Good Boy?: [Science Desk] Hoffman, Jan Author Information . New York Times, Late Edition (East Coast); New York, N.Y. [New York, N.Y]01 Aug 2017: D.1. Bacon, a cream-colored retriever mix, took a behavior test recently at an animal shelter here. He flunked. Bounding into the evaluation room, Bacon seemed like an affable goofball, ready for adoption. But as he gulped down food, Dr. Sara Bennett, a veterinary behaviorist, stuck a fake plastic hand attached to a pole into his bowl and tugged it away. Instantly, Bacon lunged at the hand, chomping down on it hard. Shelters have used this exercise and others for some 20 years to assess whether a dog is safe enough to be placed with a family. For dogs, the results can mean life or death. "If you failed aggression testing, you did not pass go," said Mary Martin, the new director of Maricopa County animal shelter in Phoenix, which takes in 34,000 dogs annually. Between January and June 2016, 536 dogs were euthanized for behavior, most because of test results. But now researchers, including some developers of the tests, are concluding that they are unreliable predictors of whether a dog will be aggressive in a home. Shelters are wrestling with whether to abandon behavior testing altogether in their work to match dogs with adopters and determine which may be too dangerous to be released. In January, Ms. Martin stopped the testing. By late June, only 31 dogs had been euthanized for aggression, based on owner reports and staff observations. "The tests are artificial and contrived," said Dr. Gary J. Patronek, an adjunct professor at the veterinary medicine school at Tufts, who roiled the shelter world last summer when he published an analysis concluding that the tests have no more positive predictive value for aggression than a coin toss. "During the most stressful time of a dog's life, you're exposing it to deliberate attempts to provoke a reaction," Dr. Patronek said. "And then the dog does something it wouldn't do in a family situation. So you euthanize it?" The debate over how dogs should be evaluated arrives as efforts to generally improve outcomes for shelter animals are on an upswing. According to the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, annual adoption rates have risen nearly 20 percent since 2011 -- a period during which owning a "rescue dog" acquired something of a righteous hipness. Euthanasia rates are down, although the A.S.P.C.A. said 670,000 dogs are put to death each year. Some veterinary schools even offer sheltermedicine specializations. Shelters are helped by a burgeoning network of rescue groups. They shuttle dogs from high-kill shelters, usually in the South and Southern California, often to foster homes and adopters in the Northeast and Northwest, where spaying and neutering campaigns have reduced puppy availability. It is impossible to know how many euthanized dogs scored false positives on behavior testing. Though rare, false negatives also can occur and have proved tragic. In December, workers at Animal Care Centers of New York City saw nothing remarkable on a standard behavior test of a dog named Blue, but noted that he had been surrendered for biting a child. A rescue group retrieved him. Blue eventually wound up in a retraining center in Virginia. On May 31, he was finally adopted; hours later, he attacked and killed a 90-year-old woman. Some high-volume shelters cannot afford time for evaluations, much less daily walks for dogs; others have begun de-emphasizing their significance. Even Emily Weiss, the A.S.P.C.A. researcher whose behavior assessment is one of the best-known, has stepped away from food-bowl tests, saying that 2016 research showed that programs that omit them "do not experience an increase in bites in the shelter or in adoptive homes." Still, Jennifer Abrams, head of the behavior and enrichment staff at Animal Care Centers of New York City, which sees 8,900 dogs a year, said that anxious adopters needed assurances. "People want to know what they're getting -- that a dog won't bite, yell and scream at other dogs on a leash," she said. But predicting an animal's behavior belies the nature of dogs, Ms. Abrams said: "A dog's behavior is based on stimuli in the moment." Ms. Abrams's team conducts assessments, considering them snapshots, while gathering information throughout the animal's stay. In the surge to modernize shelters, tests were an attempt to standardize measurements of a dog's behavior. But evaluations often became culling tools. With overcrowding a severe problem and euthanasia the starkest solution, shelter workers saw testing as an objective way to make heartbreaking decisions. Testing seemed to offer shelters both a shield from liability and a cloak of moral responsibility. "We thought we had the magic bullet," said Aimee Sadler, a shelter consultant. "'Let's let Lassie live and let Cujo go.' From a human perspective, what a relief." The 10- to 20-minute tests, developed by behaviorists and tweaked by practitioners, ask two basic questions: Will the dog attack humans? What about other dogs? Evaluators may observe the dog react to a large doll (a toddler surrogate); a hooded human, shaking a cane; an unfamiliar leashed dog or a plush toy dog. But these tests have never been rigorously validated. Dr. Bennett's 2012 study of 67 pet dogs, which compared results of two behavior tests with owners' own reporting, found that in the areas of aggression and fearfulness, the tests showed high percentages of false positives and false negatives. A 2015 study of dog-on-dog aggression testing showed that shelter dogs responded more aggressively to a fake dog than a real one. Janis Bradley of the National Canine Research Council, co-author with Dr. Patronek of the analysis published last fall, suggested that shelters should instead devote limited resources to "observing the many interactions that happen between dogs and people in the daily routine of the shelter." But Kelley Bollen, a behaviorist and shelter consultant in Northampton, Mass., maintained that a careful evaluation can identify potentially problematic behaviors. Much depends on the assessor's skill, she added. In fact, no qualifications exist for administering evaluations. Interpreting dogs, with their diverse dialects and complex body language -- wiggling butts, lip-licking, semaphoric ears and tails -- often becomes subjective. Indianapolis Animal Care Services, which admitted 8,380 dogs to its municipal shelter in 2016, is often overcrowded and understaffed, yet faces intense scrutiny to save dogs while protecting the public. Last year it euthanized 718 dogs for behavior, based on testing and employee interactions. The agency consulted Dr. Bennett, a shelter specialist, to better manage that difficult balance. Even as she demonstrated assessments for staff members, Dr. Bennett noted another factor that renders results suspect: the unquantifiable impact of shelter life on dogs. Dogs thrive on routine and social interaction. The transition to a shelter can be traumatizing, with its cacophony of howls and barking, smells and isolating steel cages. A dog afflicted with kennel stress can swiftly deteriorate: spinning; pacing; jumping like a pogo stick; drooling; and showing a loss of appetite. It may charge barriers, appearing aggressive. Conversely, some dogs shut down in self-protective, submissive mode, masking what may even be aggressive behavior that only emerges in a safe setting, like a home. Little dogs can become more snippy. But no matter what evaluations may show, they always seem to get a pass. "I'll warn, 'He nips and snarls,"' recounted Laura Waddell, a seasoned trainer who does volunteer evaluations for Liberty Humane Society in Jersey City, N.J. "And I get back: 'I don't care! I'm in love!"' One way to reduce kennel stress, Ms. Sadler, the shelter consultant, said, is through programs like hers, Dogs Playing for Life, which matches dogs for outside playgroups. Shelter directors say it is a more revealing and humane way to evaluate behavior. The approach is used at many large shelters, including in New York City, Phoenix and Los Angeles. The most disputed of the assessments is the food test. Research has shown that shelter dogs who guard their food bowls, as Bacon did, do not necessarily do so at home. The exercise purports to evaluate "resource guarding" -- how viciously a dog will protect a possession, such as food, toys, people. Common-sense owners wouldn't grab a dog's food while it is eating. But shelters worry about children. Dr. Bennett suggested that Bacon's bite of the fake hand didn't necessitate a draconian outcome. With counseling, she said, a household without youngsters would be fine. The shelter workers dearly wanted to save Bacon. But they were so overwhelmed that they did not have the capability to match him appropriately and counsel new owners. So Bacon remained at the shelter for several weeks, waiting. Finally, Linda's Camp K9, an Indiana petboarding business that also rescues dogs, took him on. He settled right down and recently was adopted. Linda Candler, the director, placed him in a home without young children, teaching the owners how to feed him so he wouldn't be set up to fail. "His potential made him stand out," Ms. Candler said. "Bacon is amazing." Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter. Dr. Sara Bennett Administering Behavior Tests to Elsey, Top, and Banco, Above, in May. (D1); Dr. Sara Bennett Inspecting Kennels at Indianapolis Animal Care Services in Indianapolis, Right. She Administered a Behavoir Test to Elsey, Below. Bacon, Bottom, Was Placed in a Home Without Young Children. (Photographs by a J Mast for the New York Times) (D5) Word count: 1520 Copyright New York Times Company Aug 1, 2017 Debating Whether Reptiles or Amphibians Should Be House Pets Klein, Joanna Author Information . New York Times (Online), New York: New York Times Company. Nov 10, 2017. Reclining with a laptop on my couch in Brooklyn, I searched “buy lizard online” and clicked the first link. I filled my cart with a flying dragon, a couple of caimans, a red-eared slider turtle, a poison dart frog and an albino garter snake. I agreed to the terms and conditions, certifying that I knew the laws governing reptile ownership (it is illegal for me to own some of these reptiles in New York), that I understood exceptions for baby turtles (I still don’t), and that I wouldn’t hold the company responsible. Now all I had to do was provide a credit-card number and my new pets would be delivered to my doorstep the next day. That I can impulsively buy a reptile — or hundreds at the same time — without fully understanding what I’m getting into is startling to some experts concerned with animal welfare. And that is only part of a growing debate over whether it’s appropriate to keep reptiles and amphibians as pets. At first, the justification seems simple: If you can keep an animal happy and healthy with proper food and housing, then it shouldn’t matter if it’s a dog, lizard or cat. But animals and their requirements widely vary. For reptiles, there are particular concerns about welfare, ecological sustainability and human health. These issues were examined in a collection of articles in a recent issue of the journal Veterinary Record. The authors hope pleas based on science will inform proposed restrictions for keeping exotic animals as pets. A century ago, you could buy a living lizard lapel pin , one of a wide variety of domestic cruelties once inflicted on reptiles. Today, people are more keenly conscious of animal welfare, and keepers and breeders know more about nutrition and husbandry of reptiles and amphibians. A multimillion-dollar industry has emerged around caring for them, with many veterinarians specializing in exotic pet care and herpetology. In addition to the internet, reptiles are sold at pet stores, flea markets, street vendors and herpetology fairs. Reptiles are popular pets because they are relatively quiet, odorless and “compatible with modern lifestyles,” said Gordon Burghardt , a herpetologist who specializes in behavior at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. (As a child in the 1950s, he got his start with dime-store turtles and lizards.) Caring for these animals is rewarding to their keepers, inspiring for scientists, important for research, and may foster conservation efforts by improving public perceptions of reptiles like snakes, which have been unjustly killed in the past, argued Dr. Burghardt and Frank Pasmans , a veterinarian at Ghent University in Belgium and lead author of a review in the veterinary journal. While there are worries about the impact of domestic reptiles on human health — especially in homes with children or people with compromised immune systems — the bigger concerns are animal welfare and ecological damage, said Dr. Pasmans. On their journey to your living room, reptiles and amphibians first survive unregulated and sometimes illegal methods of capture or breeding, housing and transportation. In 2014, researchers, vets and animal welfare workers investigated a major wholesale supplier of exotic animals. Eighty percent, including reptiles and amphibians, were sick, injured or dead as a result of overcrowding, stress, poor hygiene and nutrition, or cannibalism. “High mortality rates are the cost of doing business, whether captured in the wild or bred in captivity,” said Debbie Leahy, a wildlife manager at The Humane Society of the United States who was not involved in the study. Collector demand for rare animals means some suppliers seek threatened, new or unclassified species in the wild, a trend that has become so problematic that scientists withhold details about the locations of species they study in publications for fear of poaching. To bypass international trade regulations, collectors may pass off wild animals as captive-bred. Overexploitation also becomes a problem when demand is high and wild animals are cheaper to capture than breed. Captive breeding is favored over wild capture because of conservation concerns. But it isn’t perfect and may introduce problems, like increased susceptibility to disease in some species or contributing to demand for animals falsely claimed to be captive-bred. In your home, it’s hard to read the demands of stone-faced herps evolved for wild living. They need proper temperature, humidity, food, lighting and exercise, and have other species-specific psychological and social requirements. If you meet these needs, you must accept that your pet could grow quite big and live a couple decades. If you don’t, yours will probably die in its first year, like 75 percent of pet reptiles and amphibians brought home as pets. Reptiles and amphibians don’t make good pets “and should not be part of the pet trade,” said Lorelei Tibbetts, a vet technician and manager at The Center for Avian and Exotic Medicine in New York. Most of the time, animal patients come to her with metabolic or reproductive issues related to improper nutrition, husbandry and life in captivity. “It’s really not possible for us to care for these animals in order for them to thrive and live a decent life,” she said. People may neglect pet reptiles and amphibians no more than common pets. But even the best environments “will result in ‘controlled deprivation’,” as is also the case with caged birds and rabbits, or fish in tanks, wrote Dr. Pasmans in his review. Just as many pet owners provide a high standard of care for dogs, cats, birds or fish, it is possible, with a lot of effort, to properly look after some reptiles and amphibians in homes, he adds. For instance, bearded dragons adapt rather well to captivity. Clifford Warwick, a consulting biologist on exotic animal welfare and lead author of a viewpoint in the journal, said we can’t provide proper care because we don’t know what many species need. Even when we do, misinformation on the internet leads pet owners astray. It’s easy to buy a cute pet on impulse, but “when people find out how much trouble they are, they turn them loose,” said Ms. Leahy. Generally, the limited options for dealing with unwanted exotic pets means many owners just release them. Discarded pets can wreak havoc on nonnative ecosystems. That red-eared slider in my cart from Mississippi is a huge problem in Europe and Asia. And Florida is dealing with the biggest invasive species problem on the planet, mostly because of the pet trade. There, iguanas have destroyed concrete infrastructure and Burmese pythons have eaten protected and common species, setting off a disease-spreading chain reaction . Despite all these concerns, reptile and amphibian owners aren’t going to disappear any sooner than dog, cat or bird owners. In the past, people have summoned emotional arguments to single out slick-skinned exotic pets with bad reputations. But the animals aren’t as harmful as the harm inherent in trading them. The contributors to the review hope that by heeding scientific arguments, rules about reptile ownership will be conceived of fairly. Like the Science Times page on Facebook. | Sign up for the Science Times newsletter. Source URL: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/10/science/reptiles-amphibians-pets.html? partner=bloomberg Credit: JOANNA KLEIN Word count: 1182 Copyright 2017 The New York Times Company Benefits of solving the problem pets can be trained to interact with people and other pets well owners understand what pets are pets can have secure space the trained pets will be treated well by people medications are always available for pets less stress so they can live longer and healthier diseases can be cured can get vaccine shots for prevention of common diseases Solution of animal abuse owners should consider before have a pet and gather informations abt pets make sure if you can afford having a pet make sure you are not allergic to the pet that you are having make sure you have enough space for pets(depends on the kinds of pet) food, vaccine, madications some pets can be stressful from small space and get disease Problem of animal abuse anyone can have a pet owners do not know abt pets and troubles pet allegies attacking other pets or human pets can be sent to shelter and will be killed nutrition problems unable to notice pets's having a disease poor hygien condition can be contaminate to children or other pets
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer







Animal Abuse: Needs, Policy, and Benefits


Pet ownership has increased, with the most common pets being dogs, cats, fish, and in the
recent past, reptiles and amphibians. With increased adoption and purchase of pets, there is
worries among stakeholders like veterinarians regarding the lack of knowledge among pet
owners of pet needs. For instance, amphibians and reptiles have ecological and nutritional
requirements. Pet owners who are ill informed about the needs of pets are highly likely to
abandon them, return them to shelters where they are euthanized. Furthermore, pet owners are
unaware of their own pet allergies and hence are rendered unable to appropriately addre...

Great! Studypool always delivers quality work.


Similar Content

Related Tags