Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[modest]

As you say, we ought to assign a value to the pet-in other words each individual pet-and in your story we need more from the horses mouth, as it were.

 

As I say: it is impossible for anyone but the pet-owner to assign such a value.

 

Over that period of time, how much property damage did the horse do?

 

It burned down three barns and stole a farmer's tractor. :hihi:

 

The stable that the owner rents is not our concern. The trail for which horses are designated incur no grater damage than an ATV or dirt bike trail.

 

Notice your argument here (despite the title of the thread) is not that keeping pets is reprehensible. For instance, saying golf carts damage the grass on a golf course may well be true. But, that's not really an argument that the people who play golf or the game of golf itself are/is reprehensible.

 

How many times did it get out and run into the highway & cause wrecks? How many ferriers did it kick to death?

 

Ok, It didn't kill the farrier - it held him hostage is all. I know this sounds harsh, but it's really no different from taking a manicurist hostage which I'm sure people do all the time. Also the highway incident wasn't so much the horse's fault. The gate on the trailer came open and the horse fell out. There was a wreck and there were some fatalities, but honestly... If they wanted the horse to stay in the trailer they shouldn't have made it so easy for it to pick the lock.

 

Also, plane crashes kill people and I've yet to hear anyone call the aviation club reprehensible. :shrug:

 

Awwwwww! Here boy....:Whistle: You might not think so, but good dogs like me.

 

Opposed to the reprehensible ones? :eek:

 

I am am not telling anyone what to do, or think. I am saying this looks like some problems here, and let's have a closer look.

 

Yes, let's all take a closer look at the rampaging horses terrorizing our highways.

 

I don't mean to give you too hard of a time here, Turtle - I just strongly disagree with you on this topic.

 

No - I'm a responsible adult and able to support the things that give me enjoyment. In my opinion, my pets are as useful to me as an Amish person's horse. This is a free country and no one is capable of placing a value on that which I enjoy. A counter example to this would be a 17th century puritan society which all-to-often engaged in reprehensible acts of torture and murder.

Well...you just placed a value on it. :D :eek: :shrug:

 

Yes, I just placed a value on my pets. As I said, my pets are worth more to me than the cost of keeping them. No one can say what they are worth to me. If someone were to say it is not useful to have pets they would be placing a value on something that is rightfully mine to value.

 

I don't know what the opposite of a strawman is, but I'd say it applies to comparing a call to discussion/debate, with torture & murder.

 

The opposite of saying puritanical society has a history of torture is saying keeping pets is reprehensible.

 

As Buffy pointed out, we currently have many laws restricting pet ownership. Why do you think that is? :hyper:

 

Usually to protect the pets. But, there are other reasons. If you think some particular law implies that pet ownership is reprehensible then you should present it.

 

Mmmmm...maybe because many facets of keeping pets are so reprehensible as to move legislators to enact laws?

 

You'll have to be more specific. Cock-fighting is illegal in 49 states. Does this or any other law make reprehensible my ownership of one dog, two cats, and an assortment of fish? If so, how so?

 

PS Interesting to note from that one link I posted that horses kill more people than dogs by several factors. :eek:

 

People die falling off horses. Considering about 6,000 americans die each year from falls at home and only about 200 from horses, I'm not sure which is more reprehensible - horses or houses. Since we're not really making an argument but just making observations then that'll do :)

 

~modest

[Turtle]

As I say: it is impossible for anyone but the pet-owner to assign such a value.

...

Yes, I just placed a value on my pets. As I said, my pets are worth more to me than the cost of keeping them. No one can say what they are worth to me. If someone were to say it is not useful to have pets they would be placing a value on something that is rightfully mine to value.

...

The opposite of saying puritanical society has a history of torture is saying keeping pets is reprehensible.

...

Usually to protect the pets. But, there are other reasons. If you think some particular law implies that pet ownership is reprehensible then you should present it.

... Homeowners and renters policies provide liability protection to defend you in court if your dog bites someone and they decide to sue. However' date=' because dog bites cost the insurance industry $3.5 billion a year, most homeowners insurance policies exclude dogs that have a history of biting and aggressive behavior. ...[/quote']III - Press Releases

 

 

I don't mean to give you too hard of a time here, Turtle - I just strongly disagree with you on this topic.

...

People die falling off horses. Considering about 6,000 americans die each year from falls at home and only about 200 from horses, I'm not sure which is more reprehensible - horses or houses. Since we're not really making an argument but just making observations then that'll do :hihi:

 

~modest

 

I intentionally chose a topic that I felt held strong opinions, and worded the title so as to elicit them. Nothing like a hot thread eh? :Whistle: Since we can point to the actual costs of keeping pets to not only the pet owners, but society as well, it seems kinda' a cop-out to simply say there is no way to value the benefits and declare victory. :hyper:

[REASON]

Since we can point to the actual costs of keeping pets to not only the pet owners, but society as well, it seems kinda' a cop-out to simply say there is no way to value the benefits and declare victory. :hyper:

 

I love my dogs. Put a value on that. :hihi:

[modest]

III - Press Releases

 

From your link:

 

There are over a 150 million pets in the U.S., many of them considered a valued member of the family, and the cost of pet ownership is increasing—Americans spent $40 billion dollars on their pets in 2005 alone. But pet owners can now choose from a variety of insurance options in order to provide coverage for their beloved animals, according to the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.)

 

“Pet owners today want the very best for their animals, and that includes insurance coverage to protect the financial as well as emotional investment in their pets,” said Jeanne Salvatore, senior vice president and consumer spokesperson for the I.I.I.

 

Modern veterinary medicine can detect and treat diseases and conditions unheard of just a few years ago. Everything from kidney transplants to radiation therapy and MRIs are now performed at state-of-the art veterinary clinics. According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, Americans spend more than $20 billion dollars a year on veterinary care.

 

“Not that long ago, pet owners had little choice but to put their animals down when they became seriously ill,” said Salvatore, “but not any more; today’s dogs and cats can receive costly procedures and treatments formerly reserved for their human companions. And increasingly, pet owners are purchasing health insurance to help pay the veterinary bills,” says Salvatore.

 

Pet health policies are similar to human health insurance policies. They include annual premiums, deductibles, co-pays and caps. The cost of coverage is based on the animal’s age, health profile and the level of care the owner chooses to buy. Generally, the older the animal the higher the annual premium will be. There may also be exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and some will deny coverage to certain breeds such as German Shepherds and setters, which are prone to hereditary conditions such as hip dysplasia.

 

If you are trying to say insurance companies make money off pet ownership then I'd agree.

 

 

I intentionally chose a topic that I felt held strong opinions, and worded the title so as to elicit them. Nothing like a hot thread eh? :hihi:

 

Yeah, I got that. I also assume you support the topic.

 

Since we can point to the actual costs of keeping pets to not only the pet owners, but society as well, it seems kinda' a cop-out to simply say there is no way to value the benefits and declare victory. :hyper:

 

1 - I did not declare victory.

2 - I did not compare the cost of pets in America to the benefit of pets in America

3 - You have yet to point to the actual cost of keeping pets in america. It would be very difficult to do. How many industries make profit from pets? A lot. You would have to factor in the wage that someone makes at a plastics company that produces plastic bones for dogs. I doubt there are such figures. Saying pet owners spend x dollars is a far, far cry from objectively evaluating the costs / benefits of an entire industry.

4 - I don't have to demonstrate the value of pets. Why?

a. Such a thing is perfectly legal where I live

b. I didn't title a thread with such a claim.

 

~modest

[Turtle]

From your link:

 

If you are trying to say insurance companies make money off pet ownership then I'd agree.

No; I was trying to say here is another cost of pet ownership to society. Lawsuits raise the premiums of everyone.

 

Yeah, I got that. I also assume you support the topic.

I may occasionally overstate my opinions for the sake of debate; call it subjective license.

 

 

- I did not declare victory.

My bad. :Whistle:

- I did not compare the cost of pets in America to the benefit of pets in America

Yes; but I am trying to.

- You have yet to point to the actual cost of keeping pets in america. It would be very difficult to do. How many industries make profit from pets? A lot. You would have to factor in the wage that someone makes at a plastics company that produces plastic bones for dogs. I doubt there are such figures. Saying pet owners spend x dollars is a far, far cry from objectively evaluating the costs / benefits of an entire industry.

I agree it is difficult, but disagree I have pointed to no costs. That's why I am putting up links indicative of these other costs, such as fuel expended, hospital treatment, insurance, lawsuits, poop pollution (ooopppss....that one is Freezys!), etcetera. .

- I don't have to demonstrate the value of pets. Why?

No you don't have to, but I thought it would be handy to compare to the costs.

Such a thing is perfectly legal where I live

Sorry? I lost you on this one. :hyper:

I didn't title a thread with such a claim.

No, but you are free to do so, the same as you are free to keep a pet.

 

~modest

~Turtle :hihi:

 

I love my dogs. Put a value on that. :shrug:

 

Modest says I can't and that you have to do it yourself. :shrug:

 

PS I wasn't intending to propose legislation, but how about if pet owners were required to carry insurance the same as vehicle owners? Just a thought.

[Celeste]

Originally Posted by Turtle

That's what I'm curious about; what are the hidden costs of keeping pets.

 

Though I love my pets dearly, 2 dogs, 2 cats, and a aquatic turtle, I have to admit that the actual financial cost of care can be pretty dang high.

 

Here's a breakdown for each species:

Dog food: 65.00 per month

Dental products: 18.00 per month

Toys: 15.00 per month

Treats, etc: 10.00 per month

Monthy medications for my Shih Tzu's Keratoconjunctivitis sicca (produces no tears) 95.00

Vet care annually including shots, heartguard, grooming, and boarding: 1000.00

 

Total Annual cost for 2 Dogs: 3436.00 +

 

Cat Food: 65.00 per month

Dental: 10.00 per month

"Green" Flushable Cat Litter: 70.00 per month

Toys: 10.00 per month

Treats (canned food, tuna, chicken) 8.00 per month

Vet Care annually including shots, grooming (nail caps) 550.00

 

Total Annual cost for 2 Cats: 2506.00 +

 

Turtle Food: 8.00 per month

Fresh water for 45 gallon pool (pond) 2x per week x 6 months: 65.00

Annual heater: 37.00

Annual 30 gallon tank for 6 months: 35.00

Aqua filter system for 6 months and new pads monthly x 6 months: 110.00

 

Total Annual cost for 1 Turtle: 343.00

 

Grand total out of pocket annually: $6285.00 +

 

All my pets are male and all have been neutered, except the turtle of course..though I would neuter him too if I could and it would help change his aggressive nature towards other males in general. :D

He never snaps at me and comes to the side of the pool to greet me when I come out. He'll also allow me to "pet" him and follows me around the yard when I'm gardening...albeit, it's another story when it comes to men. He snaps and hisses when they come near him.

 

I know it seems like an awful lot to spend each year, but the love, comfort and devotion I receive daily from all of them is absolutely priceless...their my kids, and worth every single dime.

 

PS...to add to the strawdogs :hihi:, my daughter pays $15,600.00 annually in Childcare alone for my 2 grandkids. :eek: I think I'll stick to my "furry and shellyscally kids", thank you. :rolleyes: :cat:

[Zythryn]

I simply don't believe that the logic works outside of a subjective framework.

 

Turtles argument (please correct this if I am wrong).

 

A) Waste is reprehensible.

:rolleyes: Owning a pet is a waste.

therefore

C) Owning a pet is reprehensible.

 

There are assumptions that must be made for this argument to work (logically).

 

1. Anything that costs money which has benifits that can't be quantified as giving monetary benifits that are more than or equal to is 'waste'.

2. This is all black and white, no neutral. Once something is not monetarily worthwhile, it immediately becomes reprehesible.

 

I disagree with both assumptions and therefore B. as well.

[Turtle]

All my pets are male and all have been neutered, except the turtle of course..though I would neuter him too if I could and it would help change his aggressive nature towards other males in general. :D

He never snaps at me and comes to the side of the pool to greet me when I come out. He'll also allow me to "pet" him and follows me around the yard when I'm gardening...albeit, it's another story when it comes to men. He snaps and hisses when they come near him.

 

I know it seems like an awful lot to spend each year, but the love, comfort and devotion I receive daily from all of them is absolutely priceless...their my kids, and worth every single dime.

 

PS...to add to the strawdogs :hihi:, my daughter pays $15,600.00 annually in Childcare alone for my 2 grandkids. :eek: I think I'll stick to my "furry and shellyscally kids", thank you. :( :cat:

 

Love ya Celeste! :( There is nothing worse than a turtle without stones in his pond. :D We do have nerve endings in our scutes, and so can feel the petting. (PS:OT What's the story on your cloud pic? )

 

If you're comfortable with your pet balance that's good enough for me. :dog:

 

I simply don't believe that the logic works outside of a subjective framework.

 

No worries; the other posters say it's a subjective question, therefore....well, you know; whatever works. ;) Can we be objective about subjectivism? :hihi: Does a subjective view ever change in an individual? If so, under what circumstances?

[modest]

I don't have to demonstrate the value of pets.

No you don't have to, but I thought it would be handy to compare to the costs.

 

It is, as I've said, possible for a pet owner to compare the cost of keeping a pet with the benefit. I've summarized this by saying my pets are worth more to me than the cost of supporting them. As owning a pet is a personal decision with personal consequences and benefits - this is the only proper way to evaluate such a thing.

 

Some things society just can't do a cost benefit analysis for. Pointing out that dogs with a certain history can't get liability insurance isn't a counter point to this.

 

By the bye - when dogs kill, it's the owner that go to jail. The owner of a kitchen knife or hammer might find him/her self in a similar situation through no fault of the knife or hammer. Just a thought.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

By the bye - when dogs kill, it's the owner that go to jail. The owner of a kitchen knife or hammer might find him/her self in a similar situation through no fault of the knife or hammer. Just a thought.

Don't they usually kill the dog as well?

[Turtle]

It is, as I've said, possible for a pet owner to compare the cost of keeping a pet with the benefit. I've summarized this by saying my pets are worth more to me than the cost of supporting them. As owning a pet is a personal decision with personal consequences and benefits - this is the only proper way to evaluate such a thing.

 

Some things society just can't do a cost benefit analysis for. Pointing out that dogs with a certain history can't get liability insurance isn't a counter point to this.

 

I wasn't pointing to that exclusion with the link; again, I was pointing to a cost to society as opposed to the individual pet owner, i.e. the cost of lawsuits.

 

By the bye - when dogs kill, it's the owner that go to jail. The owner of a kitchen knife or hammer might find him/her self in a similar situation through no fault of the knife or hammer. Just a thought.

 

~modest

 

Hardly a balanced comparison as the hammer/knife can't act on its own. We don't get rid of a hammer that was an instrument of death; we do euthanize pets that perform the same service. Just a counter thought. :hihi:

 

Then there is the subjective perspective of the folks not enamored of pets. You can't live without your dog & it makes you healthy; the neighbors can't live with the barking & smell of poo & it makes them sick. :( (insert you favorite pet in place of dog.)

 

Now while I laud you all who have proclaimed good pet ownershiphood, I suggest it is the exception and not the rule for pet keeping in general. :(

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Now while I laud you all who have proclaimed good pet ownershiphood, I suggest it is the exception and not the rule for pet keeping in general.

My Chloe is an AKC Good Citizen:) (Such a good lil girl:))

But yes there are alot of people out there that suck as pet parents.

They let their animals run amuk (our state has a control law either your critter is on a leashe, fenced in, or in some other manor under your direct control at all times or you get fined. It's rather poorly enforced though...and the failure of owners to follow the law and exhibit a little common sence is how people and animals get hurt), don't clean up after them, let them bark all hours of night and day, etc. etc. It's not the pets fault that their owner is a dipwad.

[modest]

Don't they usually kill the dog as well?

 

Hardly a balanced comparison as the hammer/knife can't act on its own. We don't get rid of a hammer that was an instrument of death; we do euthanize pets that perform the same service.

 

Yes, I'm sure they sometimes do kill the dog.

 

I'm surprised nobody got my point that society assumes the dog doesn't act alone. The owner is assumed responsible. The benefits belong to the individual and the consequences belong to the individual. It's an individual choice with costs and benefits to be looked at on that basis.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

Yes, I'm sure they sometimes do kill the dog.

 

I'm surprised nobody got my point that society assumes the dog doesn't act alone. The owner is assumed responsible. The benefits belong to the individual and the consequences belong to the individual. It's an individual choice with costs and benefits to be looked at on that basis.

 

~modest

 

I got your point. Though, I think that Turtle is looking for a comparison of costs and benefits on a societal level, rather than a personal level.

 

I think we've already established that individual costs/benefits can not really be argued for reasons such as DD pointed out.

 

What is the cost to society? How much of my tax money goes towards pets (legal fees, animal collection, euthanization, etc.)? Where is the benefit for me if I am paying tax dollars for other people's pets?

[modest]

I got your point. Though, I think that Turtle is looking for a comparison of costs and benefits on a societal level, rather than a personal level.

 

I think we've already established that individual costs/benefits can not really be argued for reasons such as DD pointed out.

 

What is the cost to society? How much of my tax money goes towards pets (legal fees, animal collection, euthanization, etc.)? Where is the benefit for me if I am paying tax dollars for other people's pets?

 

I think I've made it clear why I disagree with Turtle's method of analyzing this at a sociological level and the impossibility of doing so on a personal level. I do not now intend to jump in and object at every turn - that would be rude. So, I'll step back rather than voicing the same objection over and over.

 

:)

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Yes, I'm sure they sometimes do kill the dog.

 

I'm surprised nobody got my point that society assumes the dog doesn't act alone. The owner is assumed responsible. The benefits belong to the individual and the consequences belong to the individual. It's an individual choice with costs and benefits to be looked at on that basis.

 

~modest

 

Sorry for getting your point but not getting around to disagreeing with it. :doh: In my area at least, most dogs that simply bite someone are euthanized under the law, however the owner isn't always prosecuted. I earlier posted an excerpt of the Washington code which says the owner can euthanize the dog themselves; presumably to allow the pet owner to avoid incurring a bill from the state the service. Anyway, it seems to me that the assumption, legally speaking, is the dog acted alone and the owner acted responsibly.

 

They let their animals run amuk (our state has a control law either your critter is on a leashe, fenced in, or in some other manor under your direct control at all times or you get fined. It's rather poorly enforced though...and the failure of owners to follow the law and exhibit a little common sence is how people and animals get hurt), don't clean up after them, let them bark all hours of night and day, etc. etc. It's not the pets fault that their owner is a dipwad. ...

 

My area has the same. This includes cats. The County encourages and facilitates the live-trapping of stray cats, as they kill wildlife. I have a stray cat visiting my yard & killing birds. (probably my fault for drawing the birds with a feeder. :) So reprehensible. :eek::hyper:) I haven't trapped the cat; I stopped feeding the birds. The right thing to do is trap it, but I'm not up to the consequent onslaught of being the animal hater in the hood. :) No worries: I'm scheduling new therapy. :eek_big:

I'm thinking of a set of poll questions: how's this?

 

Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

1)Strongly disagree

2)Somewhat disagree

3)Somewhat agree

4)Strongly agree

5)The statement is too subjective for an opinion

6)Other

[modest]

Sorry for getting your point but not getting around to disagreeing with it. :) In my area at least, most dogs that simply bite someone are euthanized under the law, however the owner isn't always prosecuted. I earlier posted an excerpt of the Washington code which says the owner can euthanize the dog themselves; presumably to allow the pet owner to avoid incurring a bill from the state the service. Anyway, it seems to me that the assumption, legally speaking, is the dog acted alone and the owner acted responsibly.

 

When good pets go bad :)

 

You've got a good point that one of the negative aspects of pet ownership is death. This sounds awfully bad, but I would submit owning a ladder is more dangerous than owning a pet. I mean, ladders kill more people than dogs (I assume, but actually didn’t look this up). Also, we’ve got pleasure trips in planes and, you know, a thousand other things people do that end up killing whole bunches of people that no one considers reprehensible. So… there’s that.

 

~modest