Many elements conspire to thwart consistent responses to companion animal problems. Among them, lack of cooperation from all members of the household routinely heads the list. Ideally everyone perceives any animals living among them in an equally positive light. But sometimes the bulk, if not all, of the responsibility for the animal’s well-being may fall on one person.
Primary companion animal caregivers come in all shapes, sizes, and ages, just like human caregivers do. But most belong to one of two groups: self- or other-anointed. Self-anointed caregivers often assume their roles because they’re the ones who wanted the animal the most. Either that or they consider themselves the ones most capable of fulfilling the animal’s needs for some reason.
Unlike self-anointed companion animal caregivers and barring divine intervention by the likes of someone like St. Francis, other-anointed ones may acquire their responsibilities in a variety of ways:
- as the result of gender stereotyping
- by virtue of their closer attachment to the animal
- because they’re more animal-savvy
- as an other-imposed learning experience
- because they’re there
Just as some people perceive all women as more nurturing and thus capable of taking care of all children, some automatically put the responsibility for any household pets in any female resident’s job description too. Other times people believe that the person perceived as most emotionally attached to the animal should assume the caregiver roles regardless of that person’s actual knowledge of the animal’s needs. (“She loves Icky so much I’m sure she’ll always give him the best of care!”) Still other times, the opposite occurs: family members or housemates assume that the most animal-savvy person should function as primary caregiver regardless whether that person has any attachment to the animal. (Because Bob took a course in animal science, his housemates declare him the caregiver of all their animals.)
Next we have those who perceive animal care-giving as a viable learning experience for someone else. How well this works depends on how much support and supervision those who assign the role are willing to provide. While I’m the last person to dismiss the valuable lessons people of all ages can learn from animals, I can only think of one word for those who allow another to learn how to properly care for an animal by trial-and error without proper supervision: inhumane.
And finally, we have those who gain the title of primary animal caregiver simply because they spend more time in the residence than other members of the household. Often those who assign the title choose to forget that most people who work from home do indeed work there. And because they do work there, they may have the same work-related responsibilities and time-constraints as those who work in more traditional employment settings. Those who assume otherwise also may subject any animals in the household to substandard care.
As with the application of all labels, that of primary animal caregiver in a multi-person household may or may not work. For example, so many medications now come in flavored or long-acting forms that one person usually can medicate an animal alone—provided the animal cooperates. On the other hand, if the same person always takes the animal to the vet’s and the animal becomes ill in that person’s absence, problems may arise. The primary caregiver may not trust other members of the household to do this. Or others may have no desire to do this and minimize the animal’s condition lest the primary caregiver asks them to do so. Or the animal may refuse to cooperate with anyone else regardless how willing those others may be. In these situations, the one-caregiver-animal’s health could deteriorate needlessly.
Caregiver labeling also breaks down in the behavioral realm. No matter how much one member of the household may want to resolve an animal’s behavioral problem alone and no matter how many others in the household may want that person to do exactly that, I’ve yet to find a reliable way to make this work. That obnoxious fly in the ointment—consistency—inevitably rears its ugly head. Regardless how consistent the caregiver, an inconsistent response from others more often than not will make the animal’s behavior worse. If those who don’t want to help also become irritated or angry when the animal misbehaves, human-human relationships will suffer along with human-animal ones.
In some cases, however, primary caregivers may not want any help with the animal’s behavior problems either. Whether this succeeds depends on the animal’s basic temperament, the nature of the problem, and the caregiver’s availability. Many dogs preferentially will obey commands from their primary caregivers, but also will obey those same commands when given by others in the primary caregiver’s absence. However, some dogs only will obey commands given by their primary caregivers. While such singular control over her dog’s behavior makes Charlotte feel special in her multi-person household, that she can abort her dog’s aggressive behavior with a firm “No!” means nothing unless she can guarantee that she’s always home. Barring that, her approach forces her housemates to live with a problem animal in her absence. This ultimately weakens their relationship with Charlotte as well as her dog.
That brings us to the crux of animal caretaker problems. While the people involved often see these as “animal problems”, at heart they’re really human ones. When people living together can’t or won’t communicate in a meaningful way to ensure the well-being of any animals in the household, that’s the problem. Not the cat’s allergies or the dog’s aggression.
So how do you prevent this? Ideally people who live or intend to live together discuss any animal caregiver issues before any animal enters the household. For many people, the contemporary companion animal carries as much symbolism as our most revered icons. But unfortunately when it comes to the animals who share the living space with multiple people, the symbolism any human residents attach to them may differ wildly. One person’s dream species or breed may be another’s worst nightmare. One person’s beloved fur-baby may be another’s ugly rug-rat. Better to reconcile any differences before moving in, or seek more compatible housing for you and your pet if you can’t.
When animals already reside in the household, the best approach involves determining how to provide a consistent response should the currently healthy and well-behaved animal develop problems in the future. Unlike waiting until problems arise, this permits more objective analysis of the human resources available and how best to allocate them to provide a support system that will enhance the animal’s recovery. In the absolute worst and alas far too common approach, everyone goes into denial and hopes the animal never requires anything but the most basic care which the self- or other-designated caregiver can and will accomplish. Either that or they won’t be around when problems arise. Admittedly this does require the least amount of effort–as long as all goes well. But what if it doesn’t?
Suffice it to say that over the years, I’ve seen stable and even loving relationships involving couples, families, and housemates crumble 
because fundamental animal care-giving issues weren’t properly addressed. I console myself thinking that, because these were human communication problems, this would have happened anyhow. If animal-related disagreements hadn’t exposed weaknesses in these relationships, it would have been something else. But given the negative impact on the animals, these are situations where being able to have St. Francis (above), St. Roch (the patron saint of dogs – left), St. Gertrude (the patron saint of cats -right) or some some other sympathetic deity on speed-dial 
would be a plus.
Many elements conspire to thwart consistent responses to companion animal problems. Among them, lack of cooperation from all members of the household routinely heads the list. Ideally everyone perceives any animals living among them in an equally positive light. But sometimes the bulk, if not all, of the responsibility for the animal’s well-being may fall on one person.
Primary companion animal caregivers come in all shapes, sizes, and ages, just like human caregivers do. But most belong to one of two groups: self- or other-anointed. Self-anointed caregivers often assume their roles because they’re the ones who wanted the animal the most. Either that or they consider themselves the ones most capable of fulfilling the animal’s needs for some reason.
Unlike self-anointed companion animal caregivers and barring divine intervention by the likes of someone like St. Francis, other-anointed ones may acquire their responsibilities in a variety of ways:
Just as some people perceive all women as more nurturing and thus capable of taking care of all children, some automatically put the responsibility for any household pets in any female resident’s job description too. Other times people believe that the person perceived as most emotionally attached to the animal should assume the caregiver roles regardless of that person’s actual knowledge of the animal’s needs. (“She loves Icky so much I’m sure she’ll always give him the best of care!”) Still other times, the opposite occurs: family members or housemates assume that the most animal-savvy person should function as primary caregiver regardless whether that person has any attachment to the animal. (Because Bob took a course in animal science, his housemates declare him the caregiver of all their animals.)
Next we have those who perceive animal care-giving as a viable learning experience for someone else. How well this works depends on how much support and supervision those who assign the role are willing to provide. While I’m the last person to dismiss the valuable lessons people of all ages can learn from animals, I can only think of one word for those who allow another to learn how to properly care for an animal by trial-and error without proper supervision: inhumane.
And finally, we have those who gain the title of primary animal caregiver simply because they spend more time in the residence than other members of the household. Often those who assign the title choose to forget that most people who work from home do indeed work there. And because they do work there, they may have the same work-related responsibilities and time-constraints as those who work in more traditional employment settings. Those who assume otherwise also may subject any animals in the household to substandard care.
As with the application of all labels, that of primary animal caregiver in a multi-person household may or may not work. For example, so many medications now come in flavored or long-acting forms that one person usually can medicate an animal alone—provided the animal cooperates. On the other hand, if the same person always takes the animal to the vet’s and the animal becomes ill in that person’s absence, problems may arise. The primary caregiver may not trust other members of the household to do this. Or others may have no desire to do this and minimize the animal’s condition lest the primary caregiver asks them to do so. Or the animal may refuse to cooperate with anyone else regardless how willing those others may be. In these situations, the one-caregiver-animal’s health could deteriorate needlessly.
Caregiver labeling also breaks down in the behavioral realm. No matter how much one member of the household may want to resolve an animal’s behavioral problem alone and no matter how many others in the household may want that person to do exactly that, I’ve yet to find a reliable way to make this work. That obnoxious fly in the ointment—consistency—inevitably rears its ugly head. Regardless how consistent the caregiver, an inconsistent response from others more often than not will make the animal’s behavior worse. If those who don’t want to help also become irritated or angry when the animal misbehaves, human-human relationships will suffer along with human-animal ones.
In some cases, however, primary caregivers may not want any help with the animal’s behavior problems either. Whether this succeeds depends on the animal’s basic temperament, the nature of the problem, and the caregiver’s availability. Many dogs preferentially will obey commands from their primary caregivers, but also will obey those same commands when given by others in the primary caregiver’s absence. However, some dogs only will obey commands given by their primary caregivers. While such singular control over her dog’s behavior makes Charlotte feel special in her multi-person household, that she can abort her dog’s aggressive behavior with a firm “No!” means nothing unless she can guarantee that she’s always home. Barring that, her approach forces her housemates to live with a problem animal in her absence. This ultimately weakens their relationship with Charlotte as well as her dog.
That brings us to the crux of animal caretaker problems. While the people involved often see these as “animal problems”, at heart they’re really human ones. When people living together can’t or won’t communicate in a meaningful way to ensure the well-being of any animals in the household, that’s the problem. Not the cat’s allergies or the dog’s aggression.
So how do you prevent this? Ideally people who live or intend to live together discuss any animal caregiver issues before any animal enters the household. For many people, the contemporary companion animal carries as much symbolism as our most revered icons. But unfortunately when it comes to the animals who share the living space with multiple people, the symbolism any human residents attach to them may differ wildly. One person’s dream species or breed may be another’s worst nightmare. One person’s beloved fur-baby may be another’s ugly rug-rat. Better to reconcile any differences before moving in, or seek more compatible housing for you and your pet if you can’t.
When animals already reside in the household, the best approach involves determining how to provide a consistent response should the currently healthy and well-behaved animal develop problems in the future. Unlike waiting until problems arise, this permits more objective analysis of the human resources available and how best to allocate them to provide a support system that will enhance the animal’s recovery. In the absolute worst and alas far too common approach, everyone goes into denial and hopes the animal never requires anything but the most basic care which the self- or other-designated caregiver can and will accomplish. Either that or they won’t be around when problems arise. Admittedly this does require the least amount of effort–as long as all goes well. But what if it doesn’t?
Suffice it to say that over the years, I’ve seen stable and even loving relationships involving couples, families, and housemates crumble
because fundamental animal care-giving issues weren’t properly addressed. I console myself thinking that, because these were human communication problems, this would have happened anyhow. If animal-related disagreements hadn’t exposed weaknesses in these relationships, it would have been something else. But given the negative impact on the animals, these are situations where being able to have St. Francis (above), St. Roch (the patron saint of dogs – left), St. Gertrude (the patron saint of cats -right) or some some other sympathetic deity on speed-dial 
would be a plus.