JULIA ELLIOTT discusses the English love of pets and makes some suggestions.

A recent survey in the United States showed that the average family there spent more money on its pets than on its children. Although this is a rather shocking statistic, it should not surprise anyone who has seen the doggy beauty parlours or the quiet shady groves where loved pets of all varieties are laid to rest for ever. It is possible that the Americans are unique in treating their little friends in this way, but what information we do have would suggest that the English too, are slavish in their attentions to the whims of their pets.

animal furniture. It is difficult not to feel resentful about this when one considers what the same amount could do for victims of starvation and poverty, and so it is not unusual for me to get hot under the collar when I read about another old person who has left all his/her money to a dog or cat home.

they get one. It is only when the ‘sweet little thing' has been brought home that the parents realise how much time and money must be spent on 'Rover' or 'Bonzo'. At this point many of them abandon it. This brings me to my last point. Pets which are allowed to run free are often not sweet at all. English farmers lose hundreds of sheep a year, killed by someone's pet poodle or dachshund, and you must have read of children being mauled by pet Alsatians or even tigers.

You may think that I dislike all pets, but this is not true at all. I would only suggest that we have got our priorities wrong and that something should be done about it. For example, the authorities clearly have a responsibility to introduce stricter penalties for pet-owners whose animals savage livestock or harm little children. This might deter them front being so careless.

As far as I'm concerned, it's time we stopped being sentimental about pets. I can see no reason, for example, why we should get upset when animals are cut up for medical experiments. If this will lead us to discovering cures for serious human diseases, then I say, ‘keep cutting!'

We are a nation of pet-lovers. Wouldn't it be better to be lovers of human-beings?

JULIA ELLIOTT discusses the English love of pets and makes some suggestions.

A recent survey in the United States showed that the average family there spent more money on its pets than on its children. Although (a) this is a rather shocking statistic, it should not surprise anyone who has seen the doggy beauty parlours or the quiet shady groves where loved pets of all varieties are laid to rest for ever. It is possible that the Americans are unique in treating their little friends in this way, but what information we do have would suggest that the English too, are slavish in their attentions to the whims of their pets.

This can clearly be seen when we look at pet foods, which often contain more vitamins than human food or, at least are seldom less nutritious. (b) They certainty cost (c) as much. Last year the British public spent two hundred million pounds on pet food alone, to say nothing of veterinary bills and

animal furniture. It is difficult not to feel resentful about (d) this when one considers what the same amount could do for victims of starvation and poverty, and so it is not unusual for me to get hot under the collar when I read about another old person who has left all his/her money to a dog or cat home.

There are a variety of reasons why I, personally, find the popularity of British pets alarming. Among other things they cause physical problems. An example of this is New York where they have great difficulty getting rid of the mess that dogs leave on the streets. Many people find this funny, but in a number of large cities it is a major problem. Animals can cause disease too. It is the threat of rabies - a disease with no known cure - that has made the English government impose strict restrictions on animals coming into the United Kingdom. When the Spanish government recently destroyed a number of stray dogs as protection against the same threat, English tourists immediately wrote letters to the newspapers complaining about "mass murder".

Another problem is the carelessness of some pet owners. Most little children want a dog or a cat, and they continually pester their mothers and fathers until

they get one. It is only when the ‘sweet little thing' has been brought home that the parents realise how much time and money must be spent on 'Rover' or 'Bonzo'. At this point many of them abandon (e) it. This brings me to my last point. Pets which are allowed to run free are often not sweet at all. English farmers lose hundreds of sheep a year, killed by someone's pet poodle or dachshund, and you must have read of children being mauled by pet Alsatians or even tigers.

You may think that I dislike all pets, but this is not true at all. I would only suggest that we have got our priorities wrong and that (f) something should be done about it. For example, the authorities clearly have a responsibility to introduce stricter penalties for pet-owners whose animals savage livestock or harm little children. This might deter them front being so careless.

As far as I'm concerned, it's time we stopped being sentimental about pets. I can see no reason, for example, why we should get upset when animals are cut up for medical experiments. If this will lead us to discovering cures for serious human diseases, then I say, ‘keep cutting!'

We are a nation of pet-lovers. Wouldn't it be better to be lovers of human-beings?