Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Cedars]

I just hadn't got to them yet. If'n they were a solution to pet poo, why aren't they in use?

 

They are in use. You just havent been paying attention. I mean, when was the last time you flipped over a turd and looked for activity? I have pictures of dung beetles from N. Dakota. I deleted my dung beetle pics I took this spring here on my hill or I would have posted them. They didnt have enough detail to post on bugguide for ID help and thats why I discarded them.

 

Subfamily Scarabaeinae - Dung Beetles - BugGuide.Net

I'm not saying there is not economic value, just saying that if one is asserted as an argument against not keeping pets, then it needs quantifiable substantiation. The difficultly providing such quantifiable substantiation is part of the strength of my general argument. :phones:

DD posted a response that fits well here when asking the financial worth of a wife, a kid. That value (for pets) varies by individual from a low of zero value, to willing to risk your life to protect it (katrina and people refusing to leave without their pets). It has enough value that the government has changed the rules on evacuations to allow vaccinated pets to accompany owners. And we've all seen pictures of firemen resuscitation dogs, cats, etc when fires occur. Of course this is after the people are safe, but then isnt their job done? So they choose to save anothers animal. A strangers dog/cat/etc has value. Why is the realm of psychologists.

 

The Doctor's involvement I meant as a counter to the assertions that there is a medical benefit to keeping pets. If this is the case, then I argue that logically a Doctor ought to say if someone has a medical/psychological theraputic need of a pet, and possibly even what kind of pet.

:phones:

Ah, I see. OK well I didnt claim a medical benefit. I claimed educational benefit that cant have a dollar value placed on it. Which I suppose it could. 4 years of schooling and 4 years of work experience value at a cost of about $30 a month or so? That cost has recently increased some as the old cat developed diabetes. But then we have to figure out the value of the educational experience which has negated some of that cost. But I value the educational experience. Others may find this to be unacceptable. A matter of opinion.

[Cedars]

Dogs can be major contributors to water pollution, especially dog parks.

 

The following article illustrates this point well:

 

Pollution Prevention: Animal Waste Collection

 

The above article does not provide evidence that dogs ARE major contributors to water pollution. The table produced was very vague in numbers and poll wording itself leaves too much unknown to draw any conclusions.

 

"Genetic studies by Alderiso et al. (1996) and Trial et al. (1993) both concluded that 95 percent of the fecal coliform found in urban stormwater was of non-human origin. Bacterial source tracking studies in a watershed in the Seattle, Washington area also found that nearly 20% of the bacteria isolates that could be matched with host animals were matched with dogs. "

 

95% comes from non-human. Where were these samples taken from. If Iowa, seems geese are the major contributor of non-human fecal coliform:

 

Des Moines River Water Quality Network: Annual Reports

 

As far as Seattle, 20% of how many attempted matches? 500? What percentage of these canine bacterias affect humans? If I remember correctly, if the pathogen can be identified as canine source, it doesnt affect humans.

[freeztar]

What percentage of these canine bacterias affect humans? If I remember correctly, if the pathogen can be identified as canine source, it doesnt affect humans.

 

I've never heard this and don't know why that would be the case. Fecal coliform is not species specific, afaik.

 

Anyhow, perhaps this link is better:

More than 126,000 dogs live in Snohomish County, producing waste equivalent to a city of 32,000 people. More than 20 tons of dog waste are dropped in Snohomish County backyards every day! (details)

 

Roundworms, E. coli, and Giardia are just a few of the many harmful microorganisms that can be transmitted from pet waste to humans. Some can last in your yard for as long as four years if not cleaned up. Children who play outside and adults who garden are at greatest risk of infection. (details)

 

Pet waste is one of the leading causes of bacterial contamination of streams in Snohomish County. Pet waste also causes the same nitrogen related problems as fertilizer and livestock manure.

Snohomish County : Water Pollution : Pet Waste

 

Another here:

Pets May Be Major Cause Of Water Pollution In Urban Areas

 

And another:

GreenWorks - Dog Poop, It's Not Just on the Lawn, It's in Your Drinking Water March 2004

 

The environmental impact of dog waste has gone unrecognized for decades. Scientists recently developed a new lab technique of fingerprinting DNA to match bacteria found in the water to the bacteria from specific animals, including humans and domestic animals. Using this type of forensic science, New Hampshire scientists have found that dogs are a significant contributor of bacteria in several New Hampshire surface waters.

[Moontanman]

I just hadn't got to them yet. :lol: If'n they were a solution to pet poo, why aren't they in use?

 

I'm not saying there is not economic value, just saying that if one is asserted as an argument against not keeping pets, then it needs quantifiable substantiation. The difficultly providing such quantifiable substantiation is part of the strength of my general argument. :lol:

 

The Doctor's involvement I meant as a counter to the assertions that there is a medical benefit to keeping pets. If this is the case, then I argue that logically a Doctor ought to say if someone has a medical/psychological theraputic need of a pet, and possibly even what kind of pet.

 

Gotta break for supper. I'll get to everyone at a turtle's pace, no worries. :)

 

Dung beetles are in use, some cities have seeded their parks with dung beetles to allow them to eat dog poo, In my yard dung beetles eat the dog poo and at times I have to be quick to clean it up before they bury it to lay their eggs on it. I burn my dog poo, I put it on my brush pile and when I get enough brush together I burn it all at once. You can also compost it in a barrel type composter. these composters require at a little animal waste to get the process going. I have considered getting a chipper and chipping up my brush and composting it along with grass clippings but right now that isn't possible.

[Michaelangelica]

Pet therapy for kids - Kids First for Health

 

Pets in therapy sessions may help schizophrenics

 

Welcome to Pets As Therapy

 

Press release: Pets as therapy - 14th March 2007

[Cedars]

I've never heard this and don't know why that would be the case. Fecal coliform is not species specific, afaik.

 

Anyhow, perhaps this link is better:

 

Snohomish County : Water Pollution : Pet Waste

 

Another here:

Pets May Be Major Cause Of Water Pollution In Urban Areas

 

And another:

GreenWorks - Dog Poop, It's Not Just on the Lawn, It's in Your Drinking Water March 2004

 

Dont mistake my responses as an indication I think leaving pet poo laying around is a good thing. People need to clean their yards and carry things around to pick up after their pets if they want to take them in public.

 

But the links provided do not allow anyone to conclude dogs, cats, or anything else is the source of fecal coliforms:

 

"Fecal coliforms include the genera that originate in feces; Escherichia as well as genera that are not of fecal origin; Enterobacter, Klebsiella, and Citrobacter. The assay is intended to be an indicator of fecal contamination, or more specifically E. coli which is an indicator microorganism for other pathogens that may be present in feces. As recently as April 2006, many official websites including that of the Environmental Protection Agency failed to address the fact that presence of fecal coliforms does not necessarily indicate the presence of feces."

 

Fecal coliforms - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The third link is especially fun:

Scientists recently developed a new lab technique of fingerprinting DNA to match bacteria found in the water to the bacteria from specific animals, including humans and domestic animals. Using this type of forensic science, New Hampshire scientists have found that dogs are a significant contributor of bacteria in several New Hampshire surface waters.

 

I like how they dont name the bacterias, percentages, or any of these 'several new hampshire surface waters' so one cannot determine if drinking water has been impacted by dogs at all.

 

Well Link one is fun too. OMG 20 tons of dog poo in the county!!

 

Map of county:

The Seattle Times: Local News: Snohomish County Map

 

What they dont mention is what percentage of people clean up these poos immedately, daily, etc.

 

One can also ponder how many dogs actually are carrying any of these pathogens such as round worm, giardia, etc. They should be able to figure out at least a rough idea via the same vet sources they used to calculate dog population. I cant even count how many stool samples from my pets I have taken in for testing over the years. Every new animal gets one within 48 hours of hitting the door. Once treated I have never had it again in the pets. Just had the old cat tested in January as a cheap diagnostic (she had other issues which weakened her condition). Shes 12 and never had worms even though she was a barn kitten from a neighbor.

 

So anyways there is a lot of hype tossed about as people try to solve problems (or justify more funding) that will only be 100% in a vacuum packed, sterile environment such as a bubble.

[Moontanman]

pet 1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.

 

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

 

Discuss. :lol: :cup:

 

I think your premise is flawed, I see no connection what so ever between keeping pets and the people who are starving to death, in many cases these very people keep pets. I see no connection between pets and a drain on our economy, in fact pets are an economic boon to the people who manufacture and sell pet products. I also think your premise that the tons of pet waste is somehow different from or more detrimental to the environment than any other animal waste. Domestic animals, wild animals, and humans contribute almost incalculable amounts of waste to the environment. To say that pet waste is somehow different from or worse than any other animal waste is an untenable argument based on exaggerated fears and not based on the facts surround the issue of animal waste of all types.

[freeztar]

I like how they dont name the bacterias, percentages, or any of these 'several new hampshire surface waters' so one cannot determine if drinking water has been impacted by dogs at all.

 

What, you want actual science? :)

 

Try this link out:

http://www.iehinc.com/PDF/hendersen%20inlet%20watershed%20-%20thurston%20county.pdf

 

Figure 23 illustrates the 650 clonal types for the entire project. Birds, humans, canines and dogs, along with unknowns, are the predominant clonal types.

[Turtle]

Much the same could be said for having children...:lol:

 

Agreed; however as I mentioned before, adding other examples of reprehensible behavior does not negate or discount the reprehensibility of the keeping pets category.

 

They [dung beetles]are in use. You just havent been paying attention. I mean, when was the last time you flipped over a turd and looked for activity?

 

I'm paying attention as fast as I can. :cup: It's been 2 weeks since I last flipped a turd; no dung beetles though. :(

 

I'm not saying there is not economic value, just saying that if one is asserted as an argument against not keeping pets, then it needs quantifiable substantiation. The difficultly providing such quantifiable substantiation is part of the strength of my general argument.

 

DD posted a response that fits well here when asking the financial worth of a wife, a kid. That value (for pets) varies by individual from a low of zero value, to willing to risk your life to protect it (katrina and people refusing to leave without their pets). It has enough value that the government has changed the rules on evacuations to allow vaccinated pets to accompany owners. And we've all seen pictures of firemen resuscitation dogs, cats, etc when fires occur. Of course this is after the people are safe, but then isnt their job done? So they choose to save anothers animal. A strangers dog/cat/etc has value. Why is the realm of psychologists.

 

All these values & activities are worthy of questioning & study, and by this thread I am pointing out just another specific example equally worthy. All indication are, so far so good. :)

 

The Doctor's involvement I meant as a counter to the assertions that there is a medical benefit to keeping pets. If this is the case, then I argue that logically a Doctor ought to say if someone has a medical/psychological theraputic need of a pet, and possibly even what kind of pet.

 

Ah, I see. OK well I didnt claim a medical benefit. I claimed educational benefit that cant have a dollar value placed on it. Which I suppose it could. 4 years of schooling and 4 years of work experience value at a cost of about $30 a month or so? That cost has recently increased some as the old cat developed diabetes. But then we have to figure out the value of the educational experience which has negated some of that cost. But I value the educational experience. Others may find this to be unacceptable. A matter of opinion.

 

Roger. I think Craig posited medical. I don't discount the educational and find your estimate exactly the kind of quantification, accurate or not, that I called for. Having quantitive values on both sides can go a long way toward helping decide the questions at hand.

 

I think your premise is flawed, I see no connection what so ever between keeping pets and the people who are starving to death, in many cases these very people keep pets. I see no connection between pets and a drain on our economy, in fact pets are an economic boon to the people who manufacture and sell pet products. I also think your premise that the tons of pet waste is somehow different from or more detrimental to the environment than any other animal waste. Domestic animals, wild animals, and humans contribute almost incalculable amounts of waste to the environment. To say that pet waste is somehow different from or worse than any other animal waste is an untenable argument based on exaggerated fears and not based on the facts surround the issue of animal waste of all types.

 

Freezy has posted some articles that show a cost to keeping pets (if nothing else, the study cost someone), and I have a few others for the debit sheet. For example, there is the cost of fuel consumed transporting the pets, and there is the cost of injuries, deaths, and property damage inflicted by pets. :)

 

Pet waste is different because it's an unecessary addition. Again, trying to lesten or negate the contribution of pets by citing other examples of waste etcetera, is a straw dog.

 

:cup: :lol:

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

REASON- I love my doggies and will have dogs in my life until the day I die. And while I truely respect what DD is sayin', I won't die for my dog. But I'll sure live with 'em.

Who said anything about dying?

There are a great many things out there to eat it's all a matter of how hungry are you and how far are you willing to lower your palets standards.

There are a wide assortment of wild mammals ,rodents, reptiles, invertibrates, and fowl around here...There are also many different types of eatable fungi and plants....all very eatable:hihi:

Short of being in some godforsaken dessert totaly devoid of life (in which case you'll probably die of dehydration long before you starve to death) or some other form of heck on earth there's no reason to be starving...Other than being picky about your next meal.

 

Over the years I've eaten a wide assortment of bugs, fungi, plants, and critters...Quite intentionally... and there are a good many more I long to try:hihi:

 

I laugh when I think about how people cringe at watching people on survival shows eat bugs and such. In some cultures eating these dietary delights is as commonplace as eating hamburgers is to us...If you're hungry eat.

[Moontanman]

I'm not trying to use anything as a straw dog, I am just saying to judge the harm caused by something you have to have something to compare it too. There is no doubt economic benefits outweigh any possible drain on the economy. There is no way to tell or even insinuate that the costs of pets takes away from someone else eating. no way to prove or even estimate if some or any amount of money now used on pets would be diverted toward anything else if pets were to disappear :confused: I think your entire argument is a straw dog, you are trying to prove something by using arguments with no relevance at all. BTW dung beetles are not one species the same in all areas. Even different speices for different dung. In some areas dung beetles are big and carry away the dung, in others the beetles are tiny and slowly disintegrate and bury the dung as it lies in on the ground. Different species sizes and habits every where you go so are you sure you're looking for the right thing?

[Moontanman]

Who said anything about dying?

There are a great many things out there to eat it's all a matter of how hungry are you and how far are you willing to lower your palets standards.

There are a wide assortment of wild mammals ,rodents, reptiles, invertibrates, and fowl around here...There are also many different types of eatable fungi and plants....all very eatable:hihi:

Short of being in some godforsaken dessert totaly devoid of life (in which case you'll probably die of dehydration long before you starve to death) or some other form of heck on earth there's no reason to be starving...Other than being picky about your next meal.

 

Over the years I've eaten a wide assortment of bugs, fungi, plants, and critters...Quite intentionally... and there are a good many more I long to try:hihi:

 

I laugh when I think about how people cringe at watching people on survival shows eat bugs and such. In some cultures eating these dietary delights is as commonplace as eating hamburgers is to us...If you're hungry eat.

 

I know where you are coming from DD, where I grew up we ate just about anything too slow to get away. I never ate any insects by them selves but flour or corn meal that had beetles in it was baked into bread with out any qualms at all. Crayfish, mussels, mudpuppies, fish, snakes, muskrats, mink, raccoons, owls skunks, possums, I really can't think of any vertebrates that wasn't at least potentially on the menu. If am hungry enough bugs had better not be slow either. Plants, wild plants, mushrooms, Nothing is rejected by humans when they are hungry. Think you would never eat bugs, Like cheese? Look at cheese under a microscope:hihi:

[Overdog]

I'm not trying to use anything as a straw dog...

 

Straw Dogs make nice pets.:confused:

[Turtle]

I'm not trying to use anything as a straw dog, I am just saying to judge the harm caused by something you have to have something to compare it too. There is no doubt economic benefits outweigh any possible drain on the economy.

 

If you cut an artery, do you have to judge the damage based on anything else? No. :confused:

 

There is a doubt about the economic balance as evidenced by the costs recently mentioned. What is the value of a child killed by a pet?

 

There is no way to tell or even insinuate that the costs of pets takes away from someone else eating. no way to prove or even estimate if some or any amount of money now used on pets would be diverted toward anything else if pets were to disappear :)

 

I think this thread is evidence to the contrary, as well as the general admonition to 'waste not, want not'. :)

 

I think your entire argument is a straw dog, you are trying to prove something by using arguments with no relevance at all.

 

Obviously for the sake of this discussion, I disagree. That's what makes it a discussion. I could have made the topic 'Keeping Pets Is Laudable' and argued that case, but I didn't think it would gain as much interest as dis course. :hihi:

[Moontanman]

Straw Dogs make nice pets.:confused:

 

Yeah, they don't eat or crap:naughty:

[Moontanman]

If you cut an artery, do you have to judge the damage based on anything else? No. :confused:

 

Yes you do, you have to judge based on how much damage is necessary before you go to the doctor, even cut arteries have degrees of seriousness.

 

There is a doubt about the economic balance as evidenced by the costs recently mentioned. What is the value of a child killed by a pet?

 

What is the vaue of a life saved by a pet?

 

 

 

I think this thread is evidence to the contrary, as well as the general admonition to 'waste not, want not'. :)

 

Using this argument then anything not directly needed for absolute survival is reprehensible. Fashion industry, sports, automobiles, motorcycles, anything decorative, anything not absolutely necessary for survival takes away from the starving people. then you have to decide what things take away more than others.

 

Obviously for the sake of this discussion, I disagree. That's what makes it a discussion. I could have made the topic 'Keeping Pets Is Laudable' and argued that case, but I didn't think it would gain as much interest as dis course. :hihi:

 

Now there you are indisputably correct:hyper:

[freeztar]

Yeah, they don't eat or crap:naughty:

 

That's a red herring dog. :confused: