Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Moontanman]

:) :) I have 3 young (about 2 years old) cats that I never allow outdoors. From a scientific and environmental perspective, I don’t think my decision is of much consequence. I decided thus because my human sensibilities recoil at the prospect of my cats being hurt or killed, or wreaking the bloody havoc experience tells me they would if I let them outside. As I see it, my decision has little to do with protecting nature, and much to do with satisfying my sensibilities, a rationale for which I’m unapologetic.

 

Cat's are extremely destructive to the ecosystem, they are unnatural predators and kill more for sport than for food. In so doing they kill far more animals that a predator of that size would if it was simply killing for food. Domestic and feral cats are a real problem to the environment. I can tell a big difference in the animal population around my house, in the back yard where my dogs live and by their actions cats are excluded there are far more lizards and other small animals and no dead birds laying around. Just on the other side of the house were the neighbors cats consistently prowl there are few lizards, frogs, and dead birds are constantly being left around. Sadly the cats to do not control the insects that are much more numerous due to the lack of predators that eat them. Free range cats are a real problem, they are not only an exotic predator they kill far more than they would need to eat. Cats should not be allowed to run free any more than dogs should be allowed to do so. Laws against dogs running free are often passed to keep humans from being harmed by stray dogs but since dogs are much easier to catch than cats laws against cats are seldom effective. Free Range cats also reproduce freely and often result in large populations to feral animals. Cats should be kept indoors or not at all.

 

http://www.stanford.edu/~cagan/InnocentPet.pdf%20.pdf

 

domestic cats environmental problems - Google Search

[C1ay]

I volunteer a bit of my time at a local pet store. It is not uncommon for people to bring in pets they are tired of or can no longer take care of and just leave them there. Here are a few that came in this week:

[C1ay]

And a few more...

[Moontanman]

Spiders are cool in tests they have been shown to be able to plan and execute complex plans close to the same level as more advanced mammalian predators.

[Turtle]

Just when you thought it was safe to keep a pet...POW! You trip over Fluffy & suffer an injury requiring medical treatment. :shrug: ;)

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, or, you can't trip over a pet you don't have. :ud:

 

Pets Cause Thousands of Injuries

March 26, 2009 -- Tens of thousands of people trip over their dogs and cats every year, causing broken bones or other nonfatal fall injuries, the CDC says.

 

Fall injuries serious enough for treatment in emergency rooms averaged nearly 87,000 per year in the U.S. from 2001 to 2006, almost 88% of them caused by dogs, the CDC estimates in its Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

 

The CDC says its estimates were extrapolated by using U.S. Census Bureau data on the total population and 7,456 actual pet incidents recorded by emergency departments from the National Electronic Injury Surveillance Systems All Injury Program.

 

It is likely that the estimated number of annual emergency room visits is vastly understated because many people don’t seek treatment after injuring themselves in accidents involving their pets, the CDC says. ...

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Odd.....I trip over Wifey's Goddam cats far more often than my lil puppers....which is also odd cuz the pupster blends in with our carpet better....but then again a full growed lab is kinda hard to miss.....I dunno...I think most people actually trip over kitties but don't wanna be ridiculed for getting injured by a kitty so they blame the dog;)

[stereologist]

I find keeping pets reprehensible in a world where people are starving to death every minute.

 

Do you actually think that a world with no pets would not have starvation? Do you think it would make any difference in the starvation rate if there were no pets?

 

In most cases food directed to pets is considered unfit for human consumption.

 

Not only the direct loss of human food to pets, but the energy used to produce, package, distribute, and sell it, as well as the same waste in resources for pet products other than food.

 

I doubt this is a substantial energy consume. Doyou have any evidence that this is even 0.1% of the energy usage?

 

Add to that the billions of tons of animal waste disposed in the environment, and I find no moral or economic justification for the keeping of pets.

 

Do you worry about all of the animal waste from wildlife? Do you worry about the animal waste from the human food supply?

 

Pets are companions. Pets offer safety. They alert owners to danger. They provide happiness and joy. They teach youngsters responsibility. Pets provide services such as guiding the blind.

 

Thanks for helping me appreciate my pets all the more.

[belovelife]

you know a dog will alert you of an intruder

a cat will keep the mouse population down

and keep the possibility of rodent borne disease down

 

in that case

 

i think they both earn their keep

 

but really, bio diversity

 

i wish i had a sloth, you know the one that has an eco-system on its back

the thing is like yoda

 

plus, i bet you could teach it to communicate

 

all in all, i'm not racist

 

but dang, mammals are an awsome and innovative species

 

then again squid seem to be smart

 

and if we could get those damn arachnids to work for us

and spin their web in a line

(of each different type of line of course)

then they would be earning their keep also

 

Humans, so self centered

[Turtle]

Do you actually think that a world with no pets would not have starvation? Do you think it would make any difference in the starvation rate if there were no pets?

 

I think I covered this thouroughly in earlier posts; in short, yes.

 

In most cases food directed to pets is considered unfit for human consumption.

Really? Have some stats for that? In the mean time, here's a counter: >>

Results 1 - 10 of about 702,000,000 for what is pet food made of?

All Natural, Human Grade, Holistic Pet Foods. Dog Food, Cat Food ...At CANIDAE® Pet Foods we are committed to providing you, ... All CANIDAE® and FELIDAE® products are proudly made in the United States of America using only ...

Dog Food: All Natural, Human Grade, Holistic Pet Foods. Dog Foods, Cat Foods, Kitten Food, Dog Biscuits - 30k - Cached - Similar pages

 

I doubt this is a substantial energy consume. Doyou have any evidence that this is even 0.1% of the energy usage?

Do you have any that it is not? Waste is waste.

 

 

Do you worry about all of the animal waste from wildlife? Do you worry about the animal waste from the human food supply?

Yes; I worry about adding unnecessarily to any waste.

 

Pets are companions. Pets offer safety. They alert owners to danger. They provide happiness and joy. They teach youngsters responsibility. Pets provide services such as guiding the blind.

 

Thanks for helping me appreciate my pets all the more.

 

We covered these types of arguments early in the thread, but here's a counter for hoots. ;) :shrug: :ud:

 

Keeping Pets (and People) Healthy

Pets occupy an esteemed place in many of our households, often being treated as members of the family. They offer a source of amusement, pleasure, and companionship. They provide opportunities for outdoor exercise and socialization. And, according to some studies, they can decrease our blood pressure, cholesterol levels, and triglyceride levels.

 

But along with the emotional rewards and health benefits of pet ownership also come health risks. Pets--and other animals--can give us diseases.

 

Animal diseases that can be transmitted to humans are known as zoonotic diseases, or zoonoses. Some people are more likely than others to get zoonoses: the elderly, pregnant women, infants and children less than 5 years old, people undergoing treatments for cancer, people who have received organ transplants, and people with suppressed immune systems, such as those with HIV/AIDS. ...

 

 

 

you know a dog will alert you of an intruder

a cat will keep the mouse population down

and keep the possibility of rodent borne disease down.

 

Got any real stats about those occurences? A dog may or may not alert on an intruder, or maybe you never get an intruder, but you still have all the disadvantages of keeping a dog, which as we pointed out earlier go beyond the owner. We covered the misrepresentation of any benefit of cats mousing for sanitation; pure unsubstantiated folklore to put it nicely.

 

So yeah, keeping pets is reprehensible. :ud:

[stereologist]

I see you ask me for stats and yet you offer none. I am not going to justify your claims. You are the person presenting the proposition. It is your obligation to substantiate the claim. My question was simple. Can you offer any evidence? You clearly said no.

 

Pet food comes primarily from food that is not in the human food path. Your Google search is what we call a biased sampling method. Basically you only see what marketing junk is plastered on the net. This is from companies that are smaller and want you to know that they deviate from the norm.

 

A good example of human vs pet food sources is in Pacific salmon fishing. The fish are caught for human consumption. Some of the fish that are caught begin to show necrosis. Any signs of necrosis and the fish cannot be used for human consumption. Are they dumped? No. The fish are redirected to animal feed.

 

Waste is waste? What's that mean? I propose that pet food production is so marginal an energy usage that it is not detectable in terms of the overall energy usage.

 

Your claims are in my opinion unsubstantiated silliness. But that's okay.

[stereologist]

I think it is silly to think that human starvation would be affected by pets. Makes no sense. That's just ridiculous.

[Turtle]

I see you ask me for stats and yet you offer none.

...

Your claims are in my opinion unsubstantiated silliness. But that's okay.

 

Mmmmmmmmmm... me thinks perchance thou readeth not the whole thread.

 

We find it hard to believe that other people's thoughts are as silly as our own, but they probably are. ~ James Harvey Robinson

[CraigD]

Do you actually think that a world with no pets would not have starvation? Do you think it would make any difference in the starvation rate if there were no pets?

I think I covered this thouroughly in earlier posts; in short, yes.

I think it is silly to think that human starvation would be affected by pets. Makes no sense. That's just ridiculous.

We’ve established in many previous threads, such as 5753, that human starvation is not due to inability to produce and distribute food, but to many socioeconomic factors that result in food no being produced and distributed to starving people. So I agree with stereologist that, if one were to somehow exterminate all of the pet animals in the world, it would not result in reduction of starvation among humans. Because the act of exterminating all pets would not change the conditions that result in food not being produced and distributed to starving people, these people would continue to starve.

 

Turtle’s position, it seems to me, is based on the assumption that if consumption of food of one kind, such as the feeding pets, is reduced or eliminated, then a surplus of producing and distributing capacity will occur, and people who were unable to get food before, will. I don’t believe this is true, because how much food is produced, and to whom it is distributed, is, I believe, driven by the interest of the people controlling the means of its production and distribution. This interest is, I believe, dominantly financial. Because most starving people can’t pay for food, those who produce it are little interested in producing and supplying it to them. People with the means to do so are interested in producing pet food, because pet owners pay for it.

 

Ending human starvation by eliminating pets would work only if many of the people who previously had pets used the money they once spent on pets to feed people unable to afford food. I don’t believe this would occur, and have seen no evidence or even reasonable argument that it would.

 

I've heard arguments that encouraging pet ownership actually reduces human starvation, because pet owners are more compassionate, and thus more likely to help starving people. I don’t believe this is true, and have seen no sound evidence supporting such arguments.

 

I’m personally aware of the availability of pet food in stores reducing some human starvation, having known some financially destitute people who increased the amount (number of calories food value) of food they could afford by buying and eating pet food. Although some of these people might be at greater risk of death from starvation if unable to get cheap pet food, I don’t think they represent a significant fraction of the under-nourished human population.

 

So, in short, I don’t think eliminating pets would significantly decrease or increase human starvation.

[Turtle]

We’ve established in many previous threads, such as 5753, that human starvation is not due to inability to produce and distribute food, but to many socioeconomic factors that result in food no being produced and distributed to starving people. So I agree with stereologist that, if one were to somehow exterminate all of the pet animals in the world, it would not result in reduction of starvation among humans. Because the act of exterminating all pets would not change the conditions that result in food not being produced and distributed to starving people, these people would continue to starve.

 

Stopping the practice of keeping pets is not the same as exterminating pets. I have not advocated exterminating pets.

 

Turtle’s position, it seems to me, is based on the assumption that if consumption of food of one kind, such as the feeding pets, is reduced or eliminated, then a surplus of producing and distributing capacity will occur, and people who were unable to get food before, will. I don’t believe this is true, because how much food is produced, and to whom it is distributed, is, I believe, driven by the interest of the people controlling the means of its production and distribution. This interest is, I believe, dominantly financial. Because most starving people can’t pay for food, those who produce it are little interested in producing and supplying it to them. People with the means to do so are interested in producing pet food, because pet owners pay for it.

 

So basically you're saying that because there's a buck to be made, everything is hunky dory? :doh:

 

 

So, in short, I don’t think eliminating pets would significantly decrease or increase human starvation.

 

People don't need pets, they want pets. The food issue is just one small part of the misuse of resources pet-keeping engenders.

 

Counties keep loose leash on bad dogs - OregonLive.com

Counties keep loose leash on bad dogs

...Tim Vanagas, a plaintiffs attorney in the Great Danes case and others, says it's time for county officials to put some teeth in their animal-control policies.

 

He noted that if a dog attacks a child in a public space in Clackamas County, a hearings process is required before the county can take action.

 

But if a dog attacks a chicken, it's a different story.

 

As Clackamas County's code puts it, if a dog sneaks off the owner's property and attacks farm animals, "such a dog is a public nuisance and may be killed immediately by any person."

 

Q:Is it silly to put livestock interests above human?

A:No; it's reprehensible. :evil:

[JMJones0424]

I truly want to believe that this thread is a joke. If it is, than please excuse me for not being in on the punch line. Let's ignore for a moment the very real evidence that pets help people in alleviating stress, providing companionship, and in some cases provide services that are quite obviously needed by the "owner" such as when someone is lucky enough to get a seeing eye dog or service dog or something of the sort. I will continue this disussion from the point that I am a selfish dog owner which in reality has no real need to own a dog.

 

The word "own" may be controversial, but I choose to stick by it. My dog is mine. Try to take him away, and you will find out just how much I concern him to be mine. He might have something to say about it as well. I have friends, though I do not have a wife. I have nephews and nieces, though I do not have children. In my eyes, it is far more responsible to have a dog than it is to have a child, but this is all beside the point.

 

Let's examine the economical impact on the world of me having a dog. He eats, for a large part, the same things that I do, only less, as he weighs less. When I buy him treats, I have no intention of eating those treats myself, and likely they are made of refuse that I would normally not consider eating. He receives monthly anti-worming treatments, but I can not fathom how this would decrease the available level of medicine available to humans, as this is not needed for humans. He provides me with companionship, which I would like to believe is equally appreciated by him. He guards my property, although he is more likely to lick an intruder to death than bite them, he is still big enough to be intimidating. He is fixed, so if some nice looking dame comes trotting along, I will not have been a contributor to the very real problem of domestic animal overpopulation. However, I did adopt him from the pound, so in a sense, I saved his life.

 

I honestly cannot fathom why this would be a point that one would wish to devote oneself to, as there are many other things in this world to be concerned about. Pets truly do add value to both their owners and themselves. Why is this a bad thing? Get rid of a TV in your house instead, this fight is ludicrous.

[Turtle]

I truly want to believe that this thread is a joke. ...

 

I honestly cannot fathom why this would be a point that one would wish to devote oneself to, as there are many other things in this world to be concerned about. Pets truly do add value to both their owners and themselves. Why is this a bad thing? Get rid of a TV in your house instead, this fight is ludicrous.

 

:doh: So let's look at the arguments of others besides myself so as to cast a wider net. Later we can get back to my right not to step in a pile of dog **** in my own yard, or turn up cat **** in my vegetable garden. :evil:

 

Gary L. Francione on pet ownership, animal rights, pet adoption: ?Pets:? The Inherent Problems with Domestication

“Pets:” The Inherent Problems with Domestication...But you might ask: “What if it were possible? If, as a hypothetical matter, we changed the legal status of dogs and cats so that they were no longer property and they had a legal status closer to that of human children, would our continued production of dogs and cats (or other nonhumans) and our keeping of ‘pets’ be morally justified?”

 

My answer to this purely hypothetical question is that we cannot justify the perpetuation of domestication for the purpose of keeping “pets.” Domesticated animals are dependent on us for everything that is important in their lives: when and whether they eat or drink, when and where they sleep or relieve themselves, whether they get any affection or exercise, etc. Although one could say the same thing about human children, the overwhelming number of human children mature to become autonomous, independent beings. Domestic animals are neither a real or full part of our world or of the nonhuman world. They exist forever in a netherworld of vulnerability, dependent on us for everything and at risk of harm from an environment that they do not really understand. We have bred them to be compliant and servile, or to have characteristics that are actually harmful to them but are pleasing to us. We may make them happy in one sense, but the relationship can never be “natural” or “normal.” They do not belong stuck in our world irrespective of how well we treat them. ...

[C1ay]

Food for thought...

 

The pet food industry as a whole is a multi-billion dollar industry. I tend to think that some of the money which drives that business sector just might be spent on feeding hungry people if that industry didn't exist. Maybe not though.

 

In most of the poorest communities you can visit you will find the grandest, most expensive, most developed property in the community will be the community church were hordes of money is spent on a grandiose temple even though there are plenty of starving people right in the same community, some of them the very donors that fund that church.

 

Paintball is a multi-billion dollar industry. If it ceased to exist tomorrow would there be billions of dollars available to feed the hungry and would it get spent that way? Is paintball as reprehensible as keeping pets?