University of British Columbia

Dogs: Food, Fighter, or Friend?

Filipinos and Changing Values Towards Dogs

Chelsea Kuran

4/17/2015

Professor E. OrmandyPOLI 449A

1

Introduction and Background

In Western societies, the dog is typically depicted as a loyal companion, a loved and

cherished member of the family, and a man’s best friend. There is a lot of compassion directed

towards dogs as they are not only extremely relatable in terms of friendliness or likeability, but

they have a soft spot in people’s hearts due to their history of domestication and breeding

towards being the best animal friend and companion for humans.

Statistically speaking, as of 2004, approximately 38 million households in the U.S. (which

accounts for approximately 36% of all households in the U.S.) have at least one pet dog. About

20 billion U.S. dollars is spent on health care towards dogs, which is easily second to the amount

of money and medical care given to humans. 1 In Canada, as of 2014, about 34% of households

have at least one pet dog, which correlates with the Canadian dog population being 6.4 million. 2

Dogs are the oldest domesticated species in the world and five centuries ago, the dog was the

only domesticated species. A study regarding how dogs and wolves differ in their ability to relate

to humans, conducted by Hare in 2002, was the first attempt to understand the mind of dogs in

relation to their ability to relate to humans. The conclusion of this study was that dogs have a

gained a social-cognitive ability to read humans. This ability is missing in wolves. 3

It is apparent that history, science and even the general opinion of human’s in Western

societies believe that dogs truly are man’s best friend; however, the folly in this notion is that it

utterly neglects other animals such as farm animals or exotic animals (exotic animals being those

that are not domesticated, from squirrels to tigers). Granted, exotic animals may not be

domesticated enough to become friends with humans, or farm animals are used primarily for

1 N. Sutter, E. Ostrander 2004: 900 2 Companion Animal Health 3 N. Sutter, E. Ostrander 2004: 900

2

food which possibly hinders the ability to become attached with them, dogs’ generally good

treatment in Western societies monstrously prevails over the treatment of other animals.

Justification for other animals’ lies in the fact that pet animals and animals of all species should

be treated the same: with dignity and respect. Unlike Western societies, there are certain

countries, like the Philippines, that do not single out certain animals. However, despite the

equality given to all animals, it is a sad kind as it does not benefit animals, including dogs. All

animals are viewed negatively and are therefore treated likewise.

In particular, many Filipinos do not see dogs the way people in Western societies do. Dogs

have a specific function. Whatever that function might be, it is profoundly different from how

people in Westernized countries view dogs; However, the moral value Filipinos place on dogs is

shifting. This notion of a shift will be explored by attempting to answer two questions:

1. When Filipinos are exposed to Western culture by means of moving physically or being

influenced by Western ideals in the Philippines, do they maintain their cultural

perspective on dogs as functional creatures or do their moral values shift with the

Western current?

2. If Filipinos’ perspectives on dogs does shift, what are the specific changes and what is the

extent of these changes?

In order to answer the questions previously mentioned, the discussion will be separated into three

segments that explore firstly, three prevalent perspective Filipinos currently have on dogs,

secondly, their shift in values placed on dogs within the Philippines, focussing particularly on

political matters, and lastly, the Interview video showed in class, regarding Filipinos’ shift in

values placed on dogs when Filipinos have gone abroad.

3

Filipinos’ Perspectives on Dogs

Before exploring the particular perspectives Filipinos have on dogs, it is necessary to

understand some foundational aspects regarding the average dog and his or her lifestyle in the

Philippines. Understanding how dogs typically live their lives in the Philippines will provide

some insight or proof towards the tendency for Filipinos within the Philippines to continually

perceive dogs as just animals that are supposedly simplistic creatures just like any other.

Much of the literature in academia regarding dogs in the Philippines revolves around rabies

and rabies control. Aside from dog eating cultures in Asia, there is very little information about

how Filipinos perceive dogs and a lot of information about how dogs create problems for people

in the Philippines. An article by Beran called, Ecology of Dogs in Developing Countries in

Relation to Rabies Control Programs, was conducted in the 1980’s on dog populations found

within six socio-economic districts within Dumaguete City in Central Philippines: upper, upper-

middle, middle, lower middle and lower class residential and commercial areas. Regarding

values on dogs, what was particularly intriguing about the article was the comparison of

community and private values placed on dogs that were and are still relevant today. 4

Among privately owned dogs, only 26% of them were considered as pets. And most of the

pet dogs were not typically handled or allowed to play with children. Privately owned dogs were

usually not confined to their owner’s home area, but most stayed within the premises anyways as

these dogs viewed it as their territory. Those not considered as pets were mostly valued as guard

dogs or scavengers. Most dogs that were not privately owned were typically viewed as

community dogs that would live their lives partly under private owners or the community in

general. A dog that was recognized by a community was no longer considered “stray,” however

4 G.W. Beran 1985: 694-696

4

many privately owned dogs or community dogs roamed the streets as they were typically never

confined by force. Whether dogs were privately owned or viewed as part of the community, the

study concluded that most dogs were not seen as pets and were rather used for other purposes. 5

The study reveals that the notion of a pet dog in the Philippines is definitely not the same

as the pet dog in Western societies. It is rare to find any dog in the Philippines without a

particular function that does not equate to being a cared companion. Most dogs have a function

that may not account for their good treatment and are used for multiple purposes. This does not

mean that all Filipinos in the Philippines treat dogs badly; it simply implies that the view of dogs

being primarily function-oriented animals in the Philippines does not stress the importance of

their good treatment or extension of justice. One of the traditional uses for dogs in the

Philippines is to cook them for their meat to feed people.

As there is a lot of literature on dog eating in general, there is also some information

particularly about the Dog Meat Trade in the Philippines. Killing dogs for meat became

nationally illegal in 1998 with the Animal Welfare Act. Despite the act, the dog meat trade

continues today. According to the Animal Kingdom Foundation, approximately 200 thousand

dogs are killed every year in the Philippines to supply restaurants and consumers. Baguio city

(located in central Philippines) is the heart of this trade as it is practically common place to see

dog meat being sold or served there. Due to this commonality, police within the area are

reluctant to stop the trade. 6

One reason for the lack of enforcement regarding the Illegal Dog Meat Trade is likely due

to cultural protection. In Northern Philippines, dog eating is sacred to an indigenous group

5 G.W. Beran 1985: 694-6966 M. Lacbawan 2014: 41-44

5

called, Igorots. This group performs a ritual where people command the soul of a dead dog to

seek revenge for whatever caused the problem of a member of the community. The act enforces

the bond or the subject-master relationship between the dog and the human. The ritual ends with

eating dog meat as a way to bring together members of the community as well as revive the

sense of community. Dog meat is also viewed as having warm blood. It is believed by some

Philippine communities that the warm blood is a kind of elixir of vital heat that can be used as an

aphrodisiac that boosts masculinity in males. 7 Therefore, eating dog embodies a kind of cultural

identity with many Filipinos. This cultural identity is something that many want to protect.

Another reason for the continued Dog Meat trade may have to do with the positive market

opportunities and economic benefit. The dog business in just Baguio City is 1 million pesos,

therefore making the city a great market for dog meat. 8 The utilitarian view towards dog eating

involves dog meat as a means to produce a large amount of money and job opportunities. The

prospects of creating more jobs and stimulating income growth for the Philippine population are

both aspects that may help eradicate the problematic issue that the Philippines suffers today:

poverty.

Another highly predominant perspective Filipinos have towards dogs is their use as guards

or security systems for the house. As was briefly mentioned regarding the Igorots and their

rituals emphasizing dogs as creatures meant to protect the master, dogs are used as guards,

because it is simply part of the Philippine culture. According Zabilka in her book called,

Customs and Culture of the Philippines, man has three animal friends: the rooster, the cat and the

7 M. Lacbawan 2014: 41-448 M. Lacbawan 2014: 44-45

6

dog who barks to alert his master of the presence of a dangerous stranger that could possibly

cause harm. 9

Personally growing up with dogs as guard dogs was quite confusing since growing up with

Western ideals as well as Philippine ideals created a kind of contradictory meaning for dogs.

Dogs were meant to function as guards for the house, a piece of property, yet they could also be

one’s friend and companion. Guard dogs in the Philippines are also perceived as completely

functionary with regards to protection and fending off burglars, or as a hybrid type of dog that

acts as a guard and a friend. The guard dog that only bites strangers, but not his master refers to

how guard dogs can sometimes become a kind of pet at the same time. Despite the friendship,

the end goal of the dog is to guard, with friendship as a bonus that essentially solidifies the

subject-master relationship.

According to a survey conducted in Central Philippines in 1993 on a dog vaccination

campaign, a single report on the characteristics of dogs including their function shows that from

a total of 256 dogs, 178 of them were used as guard dogs. Most were also free-ranging and were

received as gifts. The survey also showed several reports from multiple authors that have done

studies on dog populations in the Philippines. These various reports showed that the primary uses

for dogs were as guards. 10 The results from the survey imply that the main purpose for dogs is to

guard. In a sense, many Filipinos do not instinctively desire to own dogs in order to care for them

in return for their companionship. The relationship between dogs and many Filipinos is more

one-sided in that dogs are functional animals that can help serve and protect people. Guard dogs

are fed properly in order to guard a house well and instill fear in potential evil doers. In other

9 G. Zabilka 1963 10 S. Davlin, H. Vonville 2012

7

words, the protection of a guard dog’s well-being is for utilitarian purposes; a healthy guard dog

has a greater potential to protect its human masters better than that of an unhealthy one.

The final perspective that will be discussed can be related to the guard dog perspective.

Dogs are also viewed as pets in the Philippines, but as mentioned previously, a pet in the

Philippines is not viewed the same way as a pet in Western societies. Usually pet dogs are hybrid

guard and pet dogs; however, pet dogs still have functional aspects in Philippine society. Aside

from their companionship, they also serve as promoters of well-being and good mental health.

There was a study conducted by Guzman that discussed how dogs affect the Filipino elderly. The

study aimed to explore the elderlies’ self-perceived health and self-esteem based off of their

lived experiences with pet dog companions. The study was also done for the purpose of

discovering how pets could be used in the medical field (particularly with nurses) to help

improve the sense of well-being in Filipino elderly. 11

Pet therapy in the Philippines can be seen in two different lights: that dogs are kind to

humans and people should be kind in return or that pet therapy is somewhat utilitarian as pets are

treated well in the medical field for the purpose of improving the health of people…Yet pets that

are not used in the medical field are subject to being guards, meat, and so on. However, the

utilitarian perspective of pet dogs in the Philippines is somewhat comparable to experimentation

in the field of science in many parts of the world, including the West; however, due to the fact

that dogs are quite cherished in Western societies, other animals are typically used in labs.

Shift in Values within the Philippines

11 A. Guzman, D. Cucueco, I. Cuenco, N. Cunanan, R. Dabandan, E. Dacanay 2009: 963-964

8

Although most dogs, including pet dogs in the Philippines, are more functional and have

specific tasks meant to benefit people, there is no doubt a presence of a liberalist shift towards

enforcing animal welfare for the sake of protecting their individual rights and personal interests.

This is primarily seen in government action and particular non-governmental organisations such

as the Philippine Animal Welfare Society and the Animal Kingdom Foundation.

The Philippine Animal Welfare Society (PAWS) is a non-profit, volunteer based

organization that promotes the humane treatment of animals. They also have an animal

rehabilitation centre and shelter that houses 49 dogs and 227 cats that have been abandoned or

saved from cruel treatment. The NGO promotes animal welfare through education by providing

information at their education centre and reaching out to students with their education team. The

NGO also actively protests against dog fights and wild animals being used for entertainment.

Some of the organisation’s greatest accomplishments include successfully lobbying for the

passage of the Animal Welfare Act in 1998, the creation of the PAWS humane education team,

and conducting the Doctor Dog Program that utilizes animal assisted therapy. The NGO hopes to

prove to people that dogs help humans and therefore they deserve help and respect as well. The

NGO also helps enforce that pet therapy is more of a positive for animals than it is a negative as

dogs would never be harmed in the process. 12

The Animal Kingdom Foundation (AKF) is another non-governmental organization. It is

also the local affiliate in the Philippines of the United Kingdom based International Wildlife

Coalition Trust. Their mission is to support, protect, and promote animal welfare and rights.

More specifically, they hope to eradicate the illegal killing of dogs for food. AKF is also a non-

profit organization that rescues animals, enforces legislation that promotes animal welfare and

12 The Philippine Animal Welfare Society PAWS

9

campaigns to eradicate the killing of dogs for dog meat, but its main difference with PAWS is

that it is a direct action based organization. AKF members risk their personal safety by

intercepting illegal dog traders through raids with the Philippine National Police. The rescued

animals are then taken to the AKF rescue centre. 13

Both non-governmental organisations obtain political legitimacy through their extensive

associations with the government. They have both successfully campaigned for the passage of

several animal laws and have also worked with government organisations to help save dogs. The

success of these NGO’s in their efforts to pass animal laws (through the fact that more than one

animal law has been passed in the Philippines) is essentially living proof of the shift in values

Filipinos place on dogs. In order to understand the extent of this shift, it is necessary to discuss a

few details regarding the animal laws that have been passed in the Philippines.

The Animal Welfare Act of 1998 aims to promote animal welfare through regulating

establishments or operations that breed, maintain, keep, treat, or train animals either as objects or

as household pets. In the second section of the act, it enforced that no person, association or

organization can operate a business involving pets or animals unless otherwise approved by the

Bureau of Animal Industry. An amendment was made to the act in 2013 whereby increasing

penalties and fines was the main amendment. And lastly, the Anti-Rabies Act of 2007 was

created to protect the health of the people by creating a control system to help eradicate animal

related diseases as well as promote better treatment of household pets. 14

The recent legislation and amendments on animal welfare laws in the Philippines is not

only indicative of a positive and more liberalist shift in perspective towards dogs, but it may be a

13 Animal Kingdom Foundation Inc. 14 Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines

10

result of something greater: the notion of world polity. According to Oh and Jackson in their

article called, Animal Rights vs. Cultural Rights: Exploring the dog meat debate in South Korea

from a world polity perspective,

World polity research explains the similarity of institutions and values among nation-states

as a result of the diffusion of world cultural models – universal norms or models of how actors

ought to appear or behave – and not from styles of dress or taste. The resulting structural

isomorphism of models and behaviours across the nation-state system reflects an emerging

world society which constructs social institutions and actors. 15

World polity implies that there is a greater or global society that encourages other states to

morph to it standards. In order to better understand world polity in the context of shifting

perspective on dogs in the Philippines, two important concepts of world polity will be explored:

structural isomorphism and decoupling. Structural isomorphism refers to the prevalent

similarities of the structures of nation-states. In other words, the values and institutions that form

and characterize nation states are similar to one another. Such similarities can be seen in

education, environmental policy and women’s rights and even animal welfare legislation and

values placed on animals. 16

With regards to the Philippines and animal welfare, the world polity notion of structural

isomorphism is evident through the fact that non-governmental organisations, such as PAWS or

the AKF, that campaign for similar models of animal welfare legislation to those of other non-

governmental organisations from other countries, significantly contributes to the merging of

cultural models. Also, the AKF is the extension of an organisation based in the United Kingdom,

15 M. Oh, J. Jackson 2011: 3516 M. Oh, J. Jackson 2011: 35

11

the International Wildlife Coalition Trust. Certain States and their governments decide to

reinforce the implementation of a model (regardless of local preferences) in order to secure

international legitimacy. Unfortunately, this notion puts a sour note on animal legislation in the

Philippines as it insinuates that the Philippine government does not care for the individual

welfare of animals (unlike non-governmental organisations), but rather takes a human-centric

utilitarian perspective on the matter by securing the benefit of international legitimacy through

passing animal legislation. This notion can relate to decoupling, the other aspect of world polity.

Decoupling refers to the contradictory nature between some states’ structures or values as

well as the difference between global norms and local needs. Certain nation states, such as the

Philippines, adopt norms in a way that is similar to window-dressing. Laws may be enacted, such

as the Animal Welfare Act of 1998, possibly without the intent of enforcing them. This is done

in order to obtain international legitimacy as well as to avoid pressures from non-governmental

organisations that enforce global norms, such as PAWS or the AKF. A weak government with

weak international gravity would potentially prefer to nullify laws through lack of enforcement

than risk more international pressure from local non-governmental organisations or nation-states

abroad. The preferred explanation for decoupling with regards to animal welfare and shifting

values could also be that a nation-state may intentionally want to enforce new global norms, but

may simply not have the resources to do so. This is typically the case with developing countries

such as the Philippines.17 In this sense, the shift that is seen in the Philippines with regards to

Filipinos shifting perspectives on dogs is also coupled with contrasting perspectives on dogs due

to the fact that global norms or the world cultural model on animal welfare could not be enforced

due to a weak government and a lack of resources. The juxtaposition of perspectives on dogs

17 M. Oh, J. Jackson 2011: 36

12

throughout the country can be seen in that there is a striking difference between animal rights

advocates who label themselves as being modern, adaptive, legal, and unlike Dog-eaters who are

supposedly illegal, static and barbaric, versus traditional Filipinos who label themselves as

authentic and true Filipinos. 18 This contrast not only shows a divided public, but it proves that if

there is more enforcement towards animal legislation, there is a greater and perhaps inevitable

movement towards the overarching world model regarding animal welfare since animal laws and

a positive mindset towards dogs and animals alike are already in place.

Despite the intentions of the Philippine government and whether or not they truly care for

individual animals and their welfare, world polity indicates that there is an emerging world

cultural order regarding animal rights. This world model focuses on protecting animal welfare

and extending justice to animals, but it is not perfect, nor ideal for all countries. As world polity

does place Western values to the forefront, due to the fact that the West has a greater global

institutional influence, it does not mean the Western values are the best values for all countries to

adopt. 19 As was mentioned earlier, the Western opinion on animals tends to turn a blind eye to

others such as farm, or exotic animals. There is a greater emphasis on protecting the welfare of

pets (especially dogs and cats), but not much emphasis on protecting other kinds of animals due

to their traditional position in Western society (either as rodents, or as food). On another level,

animals that are not attractive tend to be neglected as well. Regarding exotic animals or wildlife

alone, the panda bear, a very cute animal, is at the forefront of extinction protection. It is even

the main logo of the World Wildlife Foundation.

In summary, the Western oriented world cultural model fails to clearly draw the line

regarding animals that are not relatable to people (this could mean their appearance, their

18 M. Lacbawan 2014: 4519 M. Oh, J. Jackson 2011: 37

13

behaviour or traditional use). This world model is therefore not ideal and its faults will inevitably

appear in countries that have adopted it. For instance, most Philippine animal welfare non-

governmental organisations focus on dogs and neglect endangered crocodiles. The global animal

rights discourse is fairly new and there are definitely issues regarding the duality of moral values

placed on animals as rodents or food and animals as loved companions. 20 Therefore, exploring

how dogs are valued in countries like the Philippines helps enlighten the rest of the world on

how world cultural models and world polity is becoming a phenomenon with benefits and

detriments as well as its importance.

Shift in Values amongst Filipinos Abroad

The Interview video shown in class was essentially created to be a casual extension of how

Filipinos abroad view dogs in general. The video was never intended to and is not an empirical

or scientific approach that concludes all Filipinos abroad view dogs the same way those

interviewed do. Although nothing is scientifically proven as a result of presenting the video,

there is an underlying sliver of truth regarding the slight growth in the degree of intimacy

Filipinos, who have gone abroad, have towards dogs versus their unrelenting and persistent

distance with dogs.

To briefly explain what occurred in the video, a total of four participants, all of which were

Filipinos that were born and grew up in the Philippines and then later moved to Canada or the

United States, partook in a short interview. The interviewer primarily asked questions regarding

the interviewees’ opinion on dogs as pets and whether their opinion changed after moving to

America. In particular, the questions were based on components of the Pet Attitude Scale by

Templer and Arikawa. Some of the questions included whether or not the interviewee wanted to

20 M. Anderson, J. Serpell: 19-20

14

keep the pet dog inside the house or outside, as well as whether the interviewee would love the

pet dog as a member of a family or as a functional animal with a purpose. 21

Once the interview was completed and viewed on video, several commonalities arose;

however, two particular commonalities were the most evident. First, all interviewees had similar

opinions on dogs as being functional or having a specific purpose for people. For instance, all

interviewees viewed dogs as being guard dogs and one specified that caring for dogs was

necessary as their well-being would affect their ability to protect her family as well as their

safety amongst her family (i.e. prevent the spread of rabies or disease). The particularity of the

dogs’ purpose in the interviewees’ lives even extended to the fact that a dog’s purpose and

lifestyle would rely on their size. For instance, all four interviewees mentioned that dogs should

stay outside the house, but three out of the four specified that smaller dogs have fewer

restrictions than larger dogs and can stay inside the house. Only one interviewee gave an

adamant reason for her opinion, in that large dogs would simply not fit inside her house. Other

interviewees did not specify their reasoning for the distinction of restrictions between large and

small dogs, but it was evident that they believed the distinction to be common sense. This could

be due to the fact that the interviewees may still be holding on to some cultural ties.

Another commonality that is worth mentioning is the fact that all four interviewees agreed

that there was a difference between how dogs are viewed in America versus the Philippines. For

instance, one interviewee mentioned how America has strict laws for animals in comparison to

the Philippines, and another mentioned how dogs receive better health care than those in the

Philippines. Although this realization indicates that all interviewees were aware of cultural

21 D. Templer, H. Arikawa 2011: 336

15

differences, none of them specifically mentioned why their opinions possibly changed. One

interview explicitly mentioned how her opinion did not change at all.

There may be many factors of the interview that may have impeded the genuineness of the

answers, but one particularly prevails: the interviewees may have been afraid or reluctant to

speak ill of dogs from the very beginning of the interview. If this was the case, it would further

solidify the notion that Filipinos who have gone abroad morph their values in accordance to the

values of the country, regarding values placed on dogs. The reluctance or fear implies that the

interviewees’ opinions did change somewhat or that they are more open to accepting Western

values on dogs.

Conclusion

Traditionally, Filipinos view dogs as functionary creatures that can benefit people through

being dog meat, guards, or even as hybrid guard dog companions. There is, however, an ongoing

shift in perspective when cultural models become merged as a result of world polity or

globalization. Therefore, when Filipinos are introduced to cultural world models regarding

animal welfare (which are highly promoted in Western countries), they tend to adapt with the

global current of thinking, usually taking on a hybrid perspective that consists of two sets of

values originating from the traditions of their culture and that of the world model regarding

animal welfare. In the greater context, the shift in perspective regarding dogs implies that other

countries similar to the Philippines are likely adapting their perspectives to the world animal

welfare model too.

For the sake of dogs in the Philippines and other countries that treat dogs poorly, the world

animal welfare model is great and should be reinforced more; however the world model is

16

imperfect, similar to how Western societies tend to not account for animals other than pets like

dogs or cute animals. Also, whether a country embraces the world model on animal welfare is

highly based on resource availability, the strength of the government and the strength of cultural

ties. In the end, reinforcing world models regarding animal welfare in certain countries may be

politically and ethically problematic. The public may be divided and the world animal welfare

model on its own does not account for all animals; however, due to the large amount of Western

influence in the country throughout time, many Filipinos moving abroad and recent changes to

animal welfare legislation, the world animal welfare model can succeed for dogs in the

Philippines, as long as the Philippine government can reinforce its animal welfare laws.

Bibliography

17

Sutter, N., & Ostrander, E. (2004). Dog star rising: The canine genetic system. Nature Reviews

Genetics, 900-910. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nrg/journal/v5/n12/full/nrg1492.html

Companion Animal Health. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.cahi-icsa.ca/companion-animal-health/

Beran, G. (1985). Ecology of dogs in developing countries in relation to rabies control

programs. Rabies in the Tropics, Session VII, 691-697. Retrieved from

http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-70060-6_92

Oh, M., & Jackson, J. (2011). Animal Rights vs. Cultural Rights: Exploring the Dog Meat Debate in

South Korea from a World Polity Perspective. Journal of Intercultural Studies, 31-56.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07256868.2010.491272

Lacbawan, M. (2014). Interpreting Food: Ambiguity and Competing Meanings on Dog-meat

Consumption in the Philippines. 1-77.

Zabilka, G. (1963). Customs and culture of the Philippines,. Tokyo: C.E. Tuttle.

Davlin, S., & Vonville, H. (2012). Canine rabies vaccination and domestic dog population

characteristics in the developing world: A systematic review. Vaccine, 30(24), 3492-3502.

Retrieved from http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X12004616

Guzman, A., Cucueco, D., Cuenco, I., Cunanan, N., Dabandan, R., & Dacanay, E. (2009).

Petmanship: Understanding Elderly Filipinos' Self-Perceived Health and Self-Esteem Captured

from their Lived Experiences with Pet Companions. Educational Gerontology,35(11), 963-989.

Retrieved from

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03601270802708418#.VSNVoGRjMWA

The Philippine Animal Welfare Society PAWS. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.paws.org.ph/

Animal Kingdom Foundation Inc. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://animalkingdomfoundation.wordpress.com/

18

Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines | National Government Portal – Edited at the Office

of the President of the Philippines Under Commonwealth Act No. 638. (n.d.). Retrieved from

http://www.gov.ph/

Templer, D., & Arikawa, H. (2011). The Pet Attitude Scale. In The Psychology of the Human-Animal

Bond (pp. 335-359). Springer New York.

Anderson, M., & Serpell, J. (n.d.). In the Company of Animals: A Study of Human-Animal

Relationships. Contemporary Sociology, 89-89.

Final Mark: 33.2/40 = 83%