Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Mortonc3]

I think I misunderstood the op a little, I guess in a sense I agree with Turtle. But where my view differs is that instead of viewing the long tradition of keeping pets as reprehensible, perhaps we should view purchasing non-sustainable products for our pets as reprehensible.

[Ken]

I feel absolutely no guilt.

 

 

None.

 

 

 

 

Newfoundlands save human lives....

 

 

 

I can post more pictures, but you get the idea.

[Turtle]

do you all really want to get me going on this again? :doh: i suggest reading the entire thread, whether that's again or for the first time. the title does not say it all.

 

Left Behind: The Problem of Abandoned Pets (PHOTOS)

Every year, irresponsible pet owners abandon animals that they no longer want. The reasons may be financial or practical, but either way, these innocent animals suffer. They may also cause harm. Abandoned animals overrun shelters and wreck havoc on non-native ecosystems. These nine fascinating stories of abandoned pets show why it is so important to always find unwanted pets a good home.

[Moontanman]

It seems to me that Turtle is confusing the pet industry for the animals. My cats didn't build any factories. They sure as hell aren't chemists. And I'm pretty certain their poop is biodegradable. So explain to me how the blame falls on my cats instead of me and you?

 

Pets are a part of human history and evolution.

 

 

If you allow your cats to run loose outside then yes it's reprehensible and the blame is on you...

[Moontanman]

do you all really want to get me going on this again? :doh: i suggest reading the entire thread, whether that's again or for the first time. the title does not say it all.

 

Left Behind: The Problem of Abandoned Pets (PHOTOS)

 

 

Are those sweet puppies still bothering you Turtle?

[modest]

My 5-year-old niece has classical autism. My sister spent last week in Kentucky with her at a place called Pawsibilities Unleashed which trains service dogs. My niece is now the proud owner and friend of a 1-year-old black lab named Tank. Tank is going to share the joy and struggle of a very special little girl's life.

 

There is an irreconcilable dispute between those who see the relationship of pet dogs and cats as being mutually beneficial and therefore want this relationship to continue on ever-improving terms (when the humans uphold their end of the "deal") and those who view it as "exploitative" or harmful to the animals and therefore want to end all ownership or custodianship or guardianship of all domesticated animals and either have them turned loose to attempt to survive in the wild or become extinct by forbidding all further reproduction.

 

 

Dogs have been in a mutually beneficial relationship with humans for at least 12,000 to 14,000 years as shown by archeological evidence. From the DNA evidence, it may be that the process began ten times that long ago. One theory has it that wolves began to "self select" for tameness (or at least for less fear and less "flight distance") towards humans when they discovered the opportunities offered by human food left-overs. Certainly the fact that dogs have flourished and become widespread while wolves have narrowly escaped extinction would tend to suggest that the relationship with humans has benefitted dogs while the lack of same has not benefited wolves.

 

http://www.cal.net/~pamgreen/domestic_pets_symbiosis.html

 

~modest

[Turtle]

 

http://www.cal.net/~pamgreen/domestic_pets_symbiosis.html

[quot name=pam green]There is an irreconcilable dispute between those who see the relationship of pet dogs and cats as being mutually beneficial and therefore want this relationship to continue on ever-improving terms (when the humans uphold their end of the "deal") and those who view it as "exploitative" or harmful to the animals and therefore want to end all ownership or custodianship or guardianship of all domesticated animals and either have them turned loose to attempt to survive in the wild or become extinct by forbidding all further reproduction. [/url]

 

~modest

 

i don't think any of those situations accurately describe my position & the setup strikes me as unecessarily restrictive.

 

Are those sweet puppies still bothering you Turtle?

 

no sir.

 

n'esveillez pas lou chien qui dort.

[modest]

i don't think any of those situations accurately describe my position & the setup strikes me as unecessarily restrictive.

I agree the setup is restrictive. By "those situations", do you mean that you wouldn't advocate "either have them turned loose to attempt to survive in the wild or become extinct by forbidding all further reproduction." I certainly haven't seen you advocate those things. I'm wondering what other option there is though.

 

If pet ownership is reprehensible then people should not own pets. If people don't own pets then it would seem, logically, either the species would survive in the wild or go extinct.

 

~modest

[Don Blazys]

Quoting Buffy:

...will humans be allowed as pets?

 

They already are.

 

I have one.

 

Don.

[Turtle]

I agree the setup is restrictive. By "those situations", do you mean that you wouldn't advocate "either have them turned loose to attempt to survive in the wild or become extinct by forbidding all further reproduction." I certainly haven't seen you advocate those things. I'm wondering what other option there is though.

 

If pet ownership is reprehensible then people should not own pets. If people don't own pets then it would seem, logically, either the species would survive in the wild or go extinct.

 

~modest

 

the issue is contentious & i really am content to leave off it. denying/ignoring that pet ownership is problematic for public health & welfare is not going to improve the situation. here's something on public opinion of the matter; while somewhat dated, it seems to reflect many of the divisions of opinion we have elicited here as well as practical solutions i advocate. :dog:

 

A survey of attitudes toward responsible pet ownership.

Contributing to an excess number of stray or feral animals are abandoned or lost pets and uncontrolled matings that result in unwanted young. Preventive

measures to keep cats and dogs in the pet population include adoption, neutering, chemical prophylaxis for pregnancy control, and owner education. Safe return of lost cats and dogs to their homes is important for humanitarian and population control reasons. Also, animal control agencies, in cooperation with community veterinarians and humane societies, need to make attempts to capture, provide treatment for, and place strays in homes. Other ways to decrease the stray animal population include elimination of availabie shelter and food and depopulation measures such as euthanasia. However, these measures require a responsible, educated public that understands the issues related to dog and cat overpopulation and its potential as a community health problem.

Responsible pet ownership has become an increasing concern of medical professionals and national, State, and community officials. This concern includes the

environmental impact of pets' solid and liquid wastes and the more specific problems associated with freeroaming or stray animals in a community. Some officials

argue that "irresponsible owners" are a major reason for pet overpopulation, free-roaming pets, and associated community health problems (3-6). Before a practical solution can be found, or the problems properly defined, one must determine attitudes regarding issues such as irresponsible pet ownership, overpopulation, and potential community health problems resulting from stray or free-roaming animals, as well as possible solutions to control of pet populations and stray animals. We present the results of a survey of pet owners and nonowners about these issues. ...

 

full PDF of study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1431776/pdf/pubhealthrep00135-0086.pdf

[samanthabee12]

I liked that one. Lots of easy to read graphs and it wasnt top heavy with big words. HOWEVER

 

 

 

Looking over the data, it seems sometimes they were able to conclude dog and other times it is unclear if its dog or other canine, so they are lumped together under canine. Which presents its own problems when trying to resolve whether or not dog contribution is significant or just detectable.

 

While a step in the right direction, it indicates you might be able to use water samples to determine if Dogs exist in a watershed area, it does not give enough data to conclude a negative impact is occuring. And further with the amount of native animal species (even excluding avian) it seems to be a given; you will detect feces in water anyplace you have life.

 

Interestingly enough, with all the controls we have over people, with all the methods we have of preventing sewage leakage into water, humans are detected in every condition and outrank dog in all but fig 20. And Fig 20 confuses me, but the paper states cultivation some of these things from the oysters is difficult. Maybe a skewed result.

 

Fig 22 (totals)

Human = 68 Canine = 50 Dog = 38

While a step in the right direction, it indicates you might be able to use water samples to determine if Dogs exist in a watershed area, it does not give enough data to conclude a negative impact is occuring