Today, the pet population of the state of Washington is growing fast. In actuality, Washington is one of the most densely populated states in terms of the pet population. In such a context, the question concerning the reasonableness of the growth of the pet population in Washington arises because, on the one hand, pets are traditional companions of people, who make their life more interesting and vivid, whereas, on the other hand, the growth of the pet population raises the problem of the growing number of homeless pets, who may be potentially dangerous for humans, as well as other problems. In such a situation, the plausible solution to the problem is essential because the ongoing growth of the pet population in Washington may aggravate the existing problems related to the growth of the pet population, whereas the limitation of the pet population growth may affect consistently the life as well as rights of pet owners. In this regard, the pet population is apparently an issue in Washington State, because people living in the state are affected by the pet population growth, whether they are for or against it, but they cannot ignore the growing number of pets and their impact on the life of people and environment.
In fact, the pet population in Washington State is an issue because the growth of the pet population affects the life of people in the state and raises the heat public debate between proponents and opponents of the pet population growth. In this regard, both parties have their own arguments but the fact is that the pet population keeps growing and today the local population attempts to introduce some regulations concerning pets and their maintenance because different pets need different conditions of life that may affect not only the life of families of owners of pets but also the life of other community members. In such a situation, the entire community gets involved in the pet population issue. For instance, some pets may be dangerous for people, including owners, if they do not know how to treat their pets properly. As a result, the pet population becomes an issue, which raises certain problems in Washington State and local authorities along with the public look for plausible solutions to these problems before they have gone too far and changes that are currently occurring in the state under the impact of the growing pet population have not gone out of control yet.
In this regard, proponents of the pet population growth stand on the ground that pets are good companions for people and, what is more, the growth of the pet population in the state has a positive impact on the local economy. To put it more precisely, pets have always been companions of people. In the past, as well as today, pets performed multiple functions assisting people in their regular activities. For instance, today, blind people need pet assistants to move safely to the target destination. In such a situation, these people naturally support the growth of the pet population because they are conscious of the importance of pets for many other people like they. Obviously, pets may perform many other important functions. At the same time, they are just good companions. Many people breed pets just to have good companions. Specialists (Wilson, 1987) point out that pets help to cope with stressors and to prevent numerous psychological problems as well as health problems, such as the development of cardio-vascular diseases. For instance, pets, such as dogs, stimulate people to lead an active lifestyle that naturally improves their health and prevents the development of numerous health problems. In addition, the pet population growth has a positive economic effect on the development of the state economy because the growth of the pet population stimulates the emergence of pet-related industry, including business related to the supply and production of food for pets and vet services delivered to pets. In such a way, new industries emerge due to the growth of the pet population.
On the other hand, opponents of the pet population in Washington State stand on the ground that the pet population threatens to the health of people and environment, misbalancing biodiversity in the state and spreading numerous infectious diseases. In this respect, it is worth mentioning the fact that pets can represent a threat to the health of people only on the condition of being homeless and if they have not been vaccinated from dangerous diseases, which can affect people. Opponents of the pet population in Washington State argue that many people cannot afford maintaining their pets and just abandon them that leads to the creation of asylums for homeless pets, whereas many pets still remain homeless. These pets may be dangerous for humans because they may spread infectious diseases and they may be just aggressive in relation to humans. The latter may be a problem for pets, who have owners. For instance, some dogs may be dangerous and aggressive to the extent that they may bite and cause severe injuries not only to strangers but also to family members of their owners or to owners themselves. In addition, some people have exotic pets and they just do not know how to treat them properly. As a result, pets become aggressive and again they may causes injuries and harm to people as well as they may suffer from mistreatment from the part of people. Economic effects of the emergence of the pet population may be also put under a question, taking into consideration costs spent on homeless pets, their sterilization, vaccination, and construction of asylums for them.
Nevertheless, the pet population is an important issue in Washington State and the pet population should not be eliminated or decreased because pets are companions of people, while they are vitally important for many of their owners. In such a situation, people should just pay more attention to their pets to make them safe and to make their life safe. In fact, people should be responsible, when they decide to buy a pet because they should provide the pet with normal conditions of life and to make the pet friendly and safe for people and environment. Pet owners should understand their responsibility, while their opponents should be more tolerant in relation to pets because they are not just a cause of troubles for them but also they are very useful for people.
Dembicki, D and Anderson, J. 1996. Journal of Nutrition in Gerontology and Geriatrics. Volume 15 Issue 3, pages 15-31
Fincham, F.D., & Beach, S.R.H. (2010). Of memes and marriage: Toward a positive relationship science. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 4–24.
Gable, S.L., & Reis, H.T. (2010). Good News! Capitalizing on Positive Events in an Interpersonal Context. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 42, 195–257.
Gable, S.L., Reis, H.T., Impett, E.A., Asher, E.R. (2004). What Do You Do When Things Go Right? The Intrapersonal and Interpersonal Benefits of Sharing Positive Events. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 228–245.
Harvey, J.H., & Pauwels, B.G. (2009). Relationship Connection: A Redux on the Role of Minding and the Quality of Feeling Special in the Enhancement of Closeness. [Eds.] Snyder, C.D., & Lopez, S.J. Oxford Handbook of Positive Psychology: Second Edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 385–392
Huculak, Chad (4 October 2006). “Super Furry Animals”. Edmonton: p. W7.. LexisNexis. Polk Library, UW Oshkosh. 5 Nov. 2006
Kingwell, Ba; Lomdahl, A; Anderson, W. (October 2001). “Presence of a pet dog and human cardiovascular responses to mild mental stress.”. Clinical autonomic research 11 (5): 313–7
Levinger, G. (1983). Development and change. In H.H. Kelley, et al. (Eds.), Close relationships. (pp. 315–359). New York: W.H. Freeman and Company.
Maniaci, M.R., & Reis, H.T. (2010). The Marriage of Positive Psychology and Relationship Science: A Reply to Fincham and Beach. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 2, 47–53
Snyder, C.R., & Lopez, Shane, J. (2007). “Positive psychology: the scientific and practical explorations of human strengths.”, Thousand Oaks, California
Vormbrock, Jk; Grossberg, Jm (October 1988). “Cardiovascular effects of human-pet dog interactions.”. Journal of behavioral medicine 11 (5): 509–17.
Wilson, Cc (October 1987). “Physiological responses of college students to a pet.”. The Journal of nervous and mental disease 175 (10): 606–12