Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Turtle]

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.

 

Wrong answer. Apply direct pressure to the wound. :hihi:

 

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

Exactly; now we have a legitimate balance sheet shaping up.

 

 

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.

 

Exactly!! By jove, I think you've got it! :confused: By all means pick your poison and start a new thread. Pardon me Sir; this seat is taken.

[Cedars]

What, you want actual science?

Try this link out:

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

 

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

 

The study was not designed to quantify the fecal loading of the sources. This is an important point to recognize. One animal source may occur more frequently, but it individually contributes less fecal matter.

 

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

[Cedars]

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

:confused:

 

North dakota Dung Beetles. It was pretty funny when they got on opposite sides and tried to roll the goodies away. They were so happy with their poo balls. Almost all of them were working their poo's in pairs.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I got it!

It's just a typo:hihi: What Turtle really meant was "keeping pests is reprehensible":hihi:

Yeah that's it;)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the value of all that free fertilizer?:hihi: How about the value all of the landfill space saved by the eager devouring of questionable leftovers that otherwise would not get eaten?

[freeztar]

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

 

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.

I agree. Unfortunately, I know nothing about the sampling techniques they use so I can't make a poignant comment to that effect.

 

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.

 

Does not the presence of dog poo automatically infer a negative impact (in regards to water quality)?

 

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.

Yes, but again, the fecal level would be less if dogs were not in the equation. Considerably less given the results of this study.

 

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.

 

There is no doubt that humans have a greater net effect on water quality. But this isn't about humans effect on the environment.

 

And Fig 20 confuses me, but the paper states cultivation some of these things from the oysters is difficult. Maybe a skewed result.

 

What do you find confusing?

 

Fig 22 (totals)

Human = 68 Canine = 50 Dog = 38

 

I don't think the sampling area is known to have high populations of canines, other than dogs. If we split the canine group into 50% canine, 50% dog, the dog number is quite close to the humans. To note, this is my opinion based on living in Thurston County, Washington State. I spent much time in the wilderness areas around this county and have been to Hendersen Inlet. While I haven't done formal coyote studies there, I'm confident in stating that the canine populations are dwarfed by the dog populations.

[Turtle]

I got it!

It's just a typo:hihi: What Turtle really meant was "keeping pests is reprehensible":hihi:

Yeah that's it;)

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the value of all that free fertilizer?:hihi: How about the value all of the landfill space saved by the eager devouring of questionable leftovers that otherwise would not get eaten?

 

:eek: :hyper: Pesty pets? Anyway, the waste from other sources going in landfills is a topic for another thread. Waste is as waste does.

 

Here's some numbers on the negative costs of just dogs as pets. I also Googled "how often do pets save people's lives?' but found no hard numbers. :hihi:

 

Number of dog bites reported in Contra Costa County, CA in 1996: 4007

 

From DogBiteLaw.com

35% of US homes have dogs

80% of all animal bites are from dogs

900 dog bite victims are treated in emergency rooms every day

 

Per the CDC, there are over 4.7 million dog bites a year (nearly 2% of the U.S. population); 800,000 of them serious enough to require hospitalization. ...

Untitled Document

 

...In 2003, the average total payment from all sources (e.g., private insurance, Medicaid, Medicare, out-of-pocket payments, and other miscellaneous sources) for an emergency room visit was $560 ...

http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st111/stat111.pdf

 

800,000/year * $560.00 = $448,000,000/year

Woof! :dog:

[REASON]

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.

 

Ahem. You are most correct, sir. You did not say anything about dying, did you. A little dramatic on my part, ay?

 

But I wll say, if it were down to just me and my dog in survival mode, as the Alpha between us, I would hunt for food, eat my share leaving plenty for the dog, and then allow him to eat.

 

As a dog, he's used to the old pecking order thing. Know what I mean? :hihi:

[Cedars]

:eek: :cheer:

 

Here's some numbers on the negative costs of just dogs as pets. I also Googled "how often do pets save people's lives?' but found no hard numbers. :eek2: :phones:

 

Untitled Document

 

http://www.meps.ahrq.gov/mepsweb/data_files/publications/st111/stat111.pdf

 

800,000/year * $560.00 = $448,000,000/year

Woof! :dog:

 

meh, the bite costs still dwarf the pet industry profits. Your numbers were from 2003 (on the er visit costs) which pet industry profits were not for that year, but even 1/2 the money dwarfs ER costs.

 

Taking 35 million dogs (less than 1/2 2007 dog numbers) and multiplying the food cost by 1/2 the 2007-2008 numbers (from your previous link) its still 3.78 Billion in spent on dog food. Besides. Doctors need to work too.

[Cedars]

Does not the presence of dog poo automatically infer a negative impact (in regards to water quality)?

Not without knowing the density of the dog presence. Is one ppm or 10 ppm a negative impact? Its measurable, but that doesnt equal negative.

 

 

Yes, but again, the fecal level would be less if dogs were not in the equation. Considerably less given the results of this study.

Well that would require extinction of dog. I would also point out that this testing could not differentiate between stray dog poo and owned dog poo.

 

Dogs are a natural part of our environment and the debate continues as to whether they diverged before or after humans captured and kept the first of the pups.

 

What do you find confusing?

I should have used surprized rather than confused. Thats ok. I looked around a bit later and found some info about Cruise ships off the west coast and the impact of sewage dumping from the ship on shellfish. Seems different human bacteria and viri are affected by temps and seasons related to their presence in the shellfish. It could be that the tests were done at an optimum time for dog gut bacterias. More testing needed.

 

I don't think the sampling area is known to have high populations of canines, other than dogs. If we split the canine group into 50% canine, 50% dog, the dog number is quite close to the humans. To note, this is my opinion based on living in Thurston County, Washington State. I spent much time in the wilderness areas around this county and have been to Hendersen Inlet. While I haven't done formal coyote studies there, I'm confident in stating that the canine populations are dwarfed by the dog populations.

I would rather we not try to recategorize the findings. It was just something to point out.

 

It could be that the coyote sample was so small they could not determine exactly where it came from or that the fox gut bacteria sample was under represented. I find it hard to believe, but it is possible that the dog bacterias were not cataloged broadly enough. Maybe they should have had a different category of Unknown Canine so we would have an idea of what they knew exactly.

[Turtle]

800,000/year * $560.00 = $448,000,000/year

Woof! :dog:

meh, the bite costs still dwarf the pet industry profits. Your numbers were from 2003 (on the er visit costs) which pet industry profits were not for that year, but even 1/2 the money dwarfs ER costs.

 

Taking 35 million dogs (less than 1/2 2007 dog numbers) and multiplying the food cost by 1/2 the 2007-2008 numbers (from your previous link) its still 3.78 Billion in spent on dog food. Besides. Doctors need to work too.

 

Correct; the $560 per hospital visit figure is for 2003. It was all I could find on short notice. Do you suppose it is higher or lower today?

 

Now add to that the fuel used by these folks going to the hospital, then add all the aftercare costs in doctor visits, trips to the druggist, bandages, psychological treatment, lost work time, lifelong fears of dogs in some victims, state costs to quarantine and/or euthanize the biter, so on, & so on, yada, yada, yada. Woof! :dog:

 

To each of my costs, someone says 'drop-in-the-proverbial-bucket.' I propose that I can nickel-&-dime the so-called benefits into a debit. ;)

 

I want to address the issue of people & industry losing out if the pet industry disappeared, as several have brought it up in defense of keeping pets. Those people losing jobs in my view, would just get new jobs in other industries. :hyper:

Now to clarify for everyone, I am not proposing, have not proposed, & do not plan to propose, any action to take peoples' pets by force of law or any other means. :) What I am proposing, is taking a closer look at our behaviors in an effort to see the real costs and whether or not these behaviors qualify as excesses. My mantra is waste-not-want-not. Oooooooommmmmmmmm ..... ;)

[Cedars]

Correct; the $560 per hospital visit figure is for 2003. It was all I could find on short notice. Do you suppose it is higher or lower today?

Oh, Higher for sure. But is that because the number of dog bites has risen or because things are more expensive in general?

 

 

Now add to that the fuel used by these folks going to the hospital, then add all the aftercare costs in doctor visits, trips to the druggist, bandages, psychological treatment, lost work time, lifelong fears of dogs in some victims, state costs to quarantine and/or euthanize the biter, so on, & so on, yada, yada, yada. Woof! :dog:

If aftercare is involved. And the majority of bites do not involve quarantine of the animal or euthanization at state cost.

 

 

What I am proposing, is taking a closer look at our behaviors in an effort to see the real costs and whether or not these behaviors qualify as excesses. My mantra is waste-not-want-not. Oooooooommmmmmmmm ..... :hihi:

But here we come up against the obstacle of opinion again. People who own and care about their pets do not consider it a waste or an excess.

 

To bring up the point of people losing jobs in the pet industry having to get another. So you shift one excess industry to another. If 1/2 of them end up working at mcdonalds (as an example), have you just shifted the excessive behavior (and its support) from one field to another? I mean really, how many industries (and their attached distribution) in the USA fall under producing to supply excessive behaviors?

 

Shall we end them all? Now wheres everyone going to work? And the reality is you will still have dogs needing support because Police use dogs, hunters use dogs, blind people use dogs, etc.

[Thunderbird]

What the hell is wrong with this guy ? :hihi:

[Turtle]

Correct; the $560 per hospital visit figure is for 2003. It was all I could find on short notice. Do you suppose it is higher or lower today?

Oh, Higher for sure. But is that because the number of dog bites has risen or because things are more expensive in general?

 

Because of higher expense I meant to imply. Since this is a factor in the debit column, i.e. costs that balance out benefits, then for my side of the debate, more is better.

 

 

] If aftercare is involved. And the majority of bites do not involve quarantine of the animal or euthanization at state cost.

 

Any wound requires aftercare, if only a bandaid. It all adds up. Here's the rules for quarantine in my state:

Report all animal bites to the Sheriff’s Dept. or Police Department even if the animal’s owner is unknown. They will issue quarantine on cats, dogs or ferrets and help locate missing owners and animals. Vaccinated cats, dogs and ferrets can be quarantined at the home of the owner. Unvaccinated cats, dogs and ferrets must be quarantined at an isolation facility such as the Humane Society or a Veterinary office. Farm animals can be quarantined on the farm. The owner does have the option of having the cat, dog, ferret or farm animal euthanized and tested rather than quarantined. ...

http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.us/county_depts/pubhlth/Guidelines_for_Response_to_an_Animal_Bite.doc

 

 

But here we come up against the obstacle of opinion again. People who own and care about their pets do not consider it a waste or an excess.

 

If their opinion is counter to the evidence, then they need to support their position with evidence as well. When we can point to specific costs that indicate waste, it is not sufficient to say something 'enumerable' cancels that cost. Just the facts Mam. :shrug:

 

To bring up the point of people losing jobs in the pet industry having to get another. So you shift one excess industry to another. If 1/2 of them end up working at mcdonalds (as an example), have you just shifted the excessive behavior (and its support) from one field to another? I mean really, how many industries (and their attached distribution) in the USA fall under producing to supply excessive behaviors?

 

Shall we end them all? Now wheres everyone going to work? And the reality is you will still have dogs needing support because Police use dogs, hunters use dogs, blind people use dogs, etc.

 

There is no need to assume the pet workers go to some other wastefull industry. They just as well can get jobs in green industries. :shrug: The working animals aren't pets under the definition, so they're exempt from the categorization of wasteful reprehension. :dog: :)

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Ya know...The thread title is "Keeping pets is reprehencible"...

As of yet I've only seen (correct me if I'm wrong, I won't mind a bit;) ) dogs and cats mentioned, defended, and(what's the word I want here it's the opposite of defended but not so brutal as attacked).

 

I've got two Turtles (one real, one virtual:hihi:), one dog, two cats

and seven Tiger Oscars (mamma, pappa and Five chilluns)

 

Too be honest the cats are truely a waste and a nuicense. Besides the expence, the hairballs, and the damage caused by their claws....They have a particularly dangerous habbit of knocking me Cello over (dangerous because it makes me want to harm them VERY much) which due to space constraints (and a desire not to have to reset the sound post or worse) must be stored upright in stand in it's own lil corner. If not for the Wifey's fondness for them they would be so gone!

 

One of the Turtles was given to me on permanent loan By a friend who couldn't keep him (his daughter's and as soon as they can take him back I look forward to reuniting them....He is a cute lil bugger though.)...But I freely acknowlege that his existence as a pet is unneccessary and a waste.

 

The other Turtle just seems to like me for some reason or another but does provide hours of amusement and frustration with his riddle riddled posts:hihi:

 

The fish again while educational and usually really good for stress relief also cause me some of the worst stress when they aren't well, or decide they don't like a tank mate for a stretch. So they also largely amount to a time, an emotional, and a financial drain with little return.

 

So to Mr. Turtle I tip my hat and admitt Guilty on 11 counts partial defeat in my efforts to defend pet keeping as more a useful coexistance than a hobbie of questionable morality. I still stand fast on my belief that my dog is family and therefore not a pet so I still plead not guilty on this count...just as soon as I can get my thoughts into useful order I shall be happy to justify my postion.

[Cedars]

Because of higher expense I meant to imply. Since this is a factor in the debit column, i.e. costs that balance out benefits, then for my side of the debate, more is better.

 

Keep in mind I halved the dog population and halved the food cost to try to come up with the comparison. Go ahead and double the costs, you still dont gain ground on costs vs benefit.

 

Any wound requires aftercare, if only a bandaid. It all adds up. Here's the rules for quarantine in my state:

http://www.co.sheboygan.wi.us/county_depts/pubhlth/Guidelines_for_Response_to_an_Animal_Bite.doc

 

When the hell did you move to wisconsin?

 

 

If their opinion is counter to the evidence, then they need to support their position with evidence as well. When we can point to specific costs that indicate waste, it is not sufficient to say something 'enumerable' cancels that cost. Just the facts Mam. :shrug:

 

I didnt use the term enumerable.

 

There is no need to assume the pet workers go to some other wastefull industry. They just as well can get jobs in green industries. :shrug: The working animals aren't pets under the definition, so they're exempt from the categorization of wasteful reprehension. :dog: :)

 

I didnt claim 100% would go onto flipping hamburgers at mcdonalds either. But you avoided how much industry (and their attached distribution) in the USA fall under producing to supply excessive behaviors.

 

So imagine all you want about workers going into greener industry, and I will imagine all I want about higher unemployment comp claims.

 

Employment Situation Summary

 

Working dogs do retire from their services and become companion animals.

[C1ay]

Ya know...The thread title is "Keeping pets is reprehencible"...

As of yet I've only seen (correct me if I'm wrong, I won't mind a bit;) ) dogs and cats mentioned, defended, and(what's the word I want here it's the opposite of defended but not so brutal as attacked).

 

You must have skipped my first post in the thread then....

[Moontanman]

What the hell is wrong with this guy ? :shrug:

 

Turtle picked it up at the nuclear waste site last week, it's why he wants to end keeping pets!:)

 

Hey Turtle, I know you aren't naive enough to think that when one industry ends the workers go on to other jobs. Most of the time workers, especially long term workers end up in jobs with less benefits and lower wages if they are lucky enough to get jobs at all. With the unemployment rates we have it would unlikely the end of the pet industry would mean simply moving to other jobs. Trust me, I've been in the middle of an industry ending and it's not pretty.