Animal Expert Jon Katz on How to Find Peace When Pets Die

It might seem silly or insignificant to some, but for millions of animal lovers like Jon Katz, the death of a pet can be devastating. In his new book, Going Home: Finding Peace When Pets Die, Katz explores the complex feelings of grief that can arise upon an animal’s death. From his farm in upstate New York, Katz talked to TIME about dealing with guilt, the importance of mourning and the struggle to move on.

You’ve written numerous books about animals and their connection to humans over the years. Why write about them dying?

I was speaking at a veterinary conference, and a bunch of vets came up to me and said that they were seeing a dramatic rise in grieving, were overwhelmed by it, and didn’t know how to deal with it. I looked around, and there were many books about animals dying, but they almost all had to do with the afterlife—about seeing a dog or cat in heaven. There was almost nothing about dealing with grief right now.

Having the farm and a life with animals, I’ve experienced a great deal of loss. I realized that it’s a very powerful thing, but no one in the culture takes it seriously. There’s this idea that if you grieve for a pet, you’re indulgent or silly.

You’ve witnessed the deaths of all kinds of animals during your time at Bedlam Farm. But you write that your decision to put down your dog Orson affected you most profoundly.

Orson inspired me to come to the farm in the first place. This was the dog that began my writing about dogs, animals and rural life. I felt a great debt to him. He was also a great personality, and he really changed me. But I felt foolish in feeling grief for him. I kept thinking, “It’s just a dog.” But after writing more about animals, I realized that the loss of a pet can be devastating. In [Orson's case], I didn’t really deal with it or acknowledge it. I didn’t allow myself a good cry or talk about it much. I think I paid for that. Part of the book’s message is that it’s okay to grieve animals.

(LIST — Top 10 Dog Movies)

You make the point that not everyone is an animal lover. So, if you’re grieving, how do you address that with people who might not understand?

I don’t know that you can really. I think all you can say is, “It’s very painful for me. It’s a big loss for me.” I don’t honestly think that you can expect non-animal people to grasp it. When someone suffers a loss like this they need to get to those who understand—animal lovers. What I say to people [who are grieving]—and I think it’s the only thing that is helpful— is that I’m sorry and I know how you feel. It’s very simple.

Losing a pet is also very complicated because this is the only time in our lives when we’re sometimes called upon to kill something we love. That’s what happened with Orson. I had to euthanize him because he bit three people. We feel very guilty about these decisions. We’re not prepared for it, we haven’t thought through the emotional, moral or psychological elements of it. The truth is you’ll never know for sure if you made the right decision. I can’t tell you even today if I’m sure that it was the right decision [with Orson]. It was just the best decision I could make at the time. You can’t look to other people to tell you if you’re right or wrong.

I think it’s definitely comforting for people to know that they’re not alone in feeling grief over an animal. How does this sense of camaraderie help the healing process?

The biggest help it provides is it lets people know that it’s okay to feel bad. Animals have come to mean so much in our lives. We live in a fragmented and disconnected culture. Politics are ugly, religion is struggling, technology is stressful, and the economy is unfortunate. What’s one thing that we have in our lives that we can depend on? A dog or a cat loving us unconditionally, every day, very faithfully. Of course we’re going to grieve them when they go. The other side of that is, in my mind, I don’t want to make grieving a way of life. There are about 12 million dogs in need of homes. When I’m ready, I like to mark the loss and move on. And the most healing thing I know of is to adopt another animal.

But is it healthy to try to replace an animal that’s passed with a new one?

I think it’s healthy and helpful when you are ready. I don’t think it’s healthy to go out the next morning and get an animal, because it makes them feel disposable. But I do think the real healing begins when you get another. When an animal dies, it gives you the chance to love another animal. That’s an insightful and profound way to look at it. Unlike most situations with loss, you can move forward.

Something you said in the book really hit home with me. You write that, for many, the death of a pet is almost harder than that of a relative or friend because there are no complicated emotions, just pure love.

Look, we have families. Kids leave us and go off on their own lives. Family members tell us what they think of us. Animals can’t do that. They really are blank canvases, and we can project anything we want onto them. So the relationship is very pure and simple. This level of grieving [for animals] has probably come about because our society is not doing a great job of connecting with one another. People seem angrier and more frustrated, and animals seem more loving and important.

But you also caution not to project human emotions onto animals, because in the end, they are animals.

That was a very important part of the book for me, to encourage people to remember that animals are not feeling what we are feeling. They don’t feel guilt or regret. They don’t resent things. That’s what I love about them. I love the fact that they do not carry our baggage around with them.

Death is also a great part of an animal’s life. Some of the animal communicators I talked to said the number one question people ask after their animals have died is, “Are they mad at me?” Animals don’t think like that. They’re very accepting of life. I think of animals more as spirits that come and go. They enter our lives at a particular time and they leave at a particular time. The whole glorious history of animals with people is about joy and connection. It’s about loving this creature and letting this creature love you.

(LIST — All-TIME 100 Nonfiction Books)

(LIST — All-TIME 100 Fiction Books)

Gilad Shalit and the End of the Israeli-Palestinian Peace Process

As momentous as Tuesday's scheduled release of Sergeant Gilad Shalit and 477 Palestinian prisoners (with another 550 to freed within two months) may be, it is unlikely to be a game-changer -- or a milestone on the road to peace. Indeed, while the spectacle of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu breaking the ostensible taboo on negotiating with Hamas and heeding many of its demands in order to bring home the captive Israeli soldier may look like a sea-change, it's more likely to reinforce the stalemate in the wider conflict -- and possibly even raise the danger of a new hostilities.

Despite the fervent opposition of some Israelis -- from families of terror victims to prominent cabinet members -- to freeing men with Israeli blood on their hands, Netanyahu's decision remains a popular one. A poll conducted by the daily Yediot Ahronot published Monday showed that 79% of Israelis support the deal, reconciling themselves to paying a bitter price for bringing home the soldier captured, at age 19, more than five years ago. Still, it should come as no surprise in the months ahead if an Israeli government forced into what it will see as a humiliating agreement seeks to restore its self-image of resolute toughness by dealing harshly with future challenges. And the fact that Netanyahu's climb-down on Shalit has been accompanied by the announcement of new settlement construction on occupied land underscores the sense that Israel's hawkish government has no intention of making the compromises necessary to bring President Mahmoud Abbas back to the table. Abbas, after all, holds no Israeli captives, and may not have much else Netanyahu believes he needs right now.

Indeed, the Shalit agreement has been something of a setback for Abbas. Hamas' achievement in freeing some of the thousands of Palestinians held in Israeli prison is a more tangible gain, in Palestinian eyes, than the hypothetical statehood amid continued occupation being pursued by Abbas at United Nations. Palestinian society doesn't regard these men and women as criminals, but rather fighters in the national cause -- a peace agreement with the Palestinians would ultimately require the release of all Palestinians who remain in Israeli custody, even if convicted of acts of terrorism.

But no such painful moment of reckoning is in the offing, of course, because neither side harbors any hope of negotiating an end to the conflict any time soon. The recent speeches at the United Nations by President Mahmoud Abbas and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu underscored the vast gulf between the two sides, and only the most Pollyanna-ish of Western diplomats expect anything significant to come from the current effort by the U.S. and its "Quartet" allies to restart direct talks as an alternative to Abbas' U.N. effort. Abbas has made clear that even if he agrees to meet Israeli leaders,  he won't drop the U.N. bid -- which, after all, is what forced the Obama Administration to address the issue with greater urgency.

But the Shalit deal upstages Abbas, giving Hamas a victory that will be celebrated by all Palestinians (the prisoners being released come from all factions), and served up a reminder that the group cannot be ignored or sidelined in any successful peace effort.

Former Israeli peace negotiator Daniel Levy explains:

"Given the numbers that have past through Israeli jails over the years, the prisoner issue speaks to just about every Palestinian family. The contrast was rather stark: Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas was in South America being rebuffed by the Colombians in his appeal for support on the doomed-to-fail U.N. membership bid (Colombia is currently on the Security Council), while Hamas was securing concrete achievements back home. Again, the timing here was crucial -- Abbas had just received a boost to his popularity by defying Israel and the U.S. in making an emotional appeal to the U.N. That would anyway be difficult to sustain if the U.N. move could not be morphed into something meaningful, but now it will be further downsized as a gesture in comparison to the pictures of hundreds of prisoners embracing their freedom."

Hamas' ability to impose its terms for freeing Shalit also contrasts sharply with Abbas' years of ineffectual negotiation. But while the Israelis were willing to make a pragmatic accommodation with Hamas to secure their soldier's release, neither side will see it as a first step towards political engagement. If the Israeli government has been unable to come to terms with the more pliant Abbas, there's no question of being able to do so with Hamas. And Hamas would likely prefer to seek pragmatic agreements on specific issues, such as prisoners, ceasefires and the Gaza blockade, boosting their own standing without having to own any of the compromises that a comprehensive peace agreement would require.

Hamas, in fact, has shown little interest in pursuing a "grand bargain" peace agreement with the Israelis of the sort envisaged under the Oslo Agreements. And in that respect, at least, the Israelis may concur, having made no secret of their belief that a comprehensive political settlement to the conflict is not currently possible.

The Shalit deal could raise pressure on Abbas from his rank and file for progress in the stalled rapprochement with Hamas. The fact that the Israelis were forced to deal with the group in a pragmatic manner might give Abbas some cover against Israel's refusal to deal with him if he proceeds with the unity agreement -- after all, Abbas might argue, it makes no sense for Israel to acknowledge reality in its own dealings with Hamas but insist that Abbas refrain from doing so.

But regardless of whether or not he reconciles with Hamas, the Israelis are not showing any inclination to accepting Abbas' terms for talks. Indeed, the lesson Abbas might draw is that Hamas succeeded on the prisoner deal because of the leverage it brought to the table by holding Shalit. Not that Fatah would now try to match Hamas by undertaking kidnappings of its own, but the prisoner release could reinforce efforts from within Abbas' camp to raise Israel's discomfort level with the status quo through protest action and pressing for global economic sanctions.

It's quite possible, of course, that either Hamas or rival movements seek to repeat the Shalit experience at some point in order to free more prisoners. Should that happen, it's also likely that the lesson taken by Israeli leaders from the Shalit experience translate into an early, high-risk military operation to free any future captives.

Even with no more kidnappings, however, the prisoner exchange is a reminder that the situation in the West Bank and Gaza remains fraught with peril, with the peace process moribund and Israelis and Palestinians only just beginning a new diplomatic, political and economic battle over the terms of their coexistence. The Gilad Shalit deal may, in fact, prove to be a first milestone of the post-peace process.