Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[freeztar]

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).

 

I found this:

eLCOSH : Deaths from Falls in Construction, 1997

 

and this:

It is estimated that two percent of the US population, 4.7 million people, are bitten each year.[2] In the 1980s and 1990s the US averaged 17 fatalities per year, while in the 2000s this has increased to 26.[3]

Dog attack - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

So it seems that your suspicion is correct in regards to the USofA, Modest.

 

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.

 

Do you mean accidents?

[modest]

Thank you feezy for looking that up. Damn this having to "spread it around" thing :

 

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.

Do you mean accidents?

 

Yes, accidental crashes. Usually the passengers are the victims, but people on the ground also can be injured or killed through no fault of their own:

 

Iranian plane hits apartment building | Deseret News (Salt Lake City) | Find Articles at BNET

 

I'm not sure if planes are the best example. Automobiles are also very dangerous to pedestrians. My point really is that saying people die as a result of X doesn't in and of itself make X a terrible thing. People like to say "Falling coconuts kill more people than shark attacks" which I don't believe is true or at least I couldn't find statistics backing it up - but the point of the saying is true. Sharks, like pets, aren't that dangerous and there are things widely held as benign that do much greater damage.

 

~modest

[freeztar]

My point really is that saying people die as a result of X doesn't in and of itself make X a terrible thing.

 

It's subjective. The person that is saved by a pet will most likely have a very different viewpoint from a family that has lost a child to a pet's violent reactions.

 

I'm still interested in estimating the "societal cost of pets", but that will require some time...

[Turtle]

I'm still interested in estimating the "societal cost of pets", but that will require some time...

 

Time is all we have. Shall we hasten slowly? ......:rolleyes:

 

On the matter of pets carrying & spreading disease to folks other than the owner(s):

...Ringworm is probably the most common zoonosis of cats. It was quite common when I was working in the veterinary hospital to see a kitten come in covered in ringworm lesions, and to find that the owner was also vigorously scratching at suspicious-looking red scaly patches of skin! The ringworm fungus was cultured from 4-35% of asymptomatic cats at four different cat shows and studies of catteries suggest that as many as 40% of all cats may be asymptomatic carriers of ringworm. If you have EVER had ringworm in your cattery, chances are it will pop up again. I advise all cattery owners to inspect their kitten sales contracts carefully and consider putting in a warning about the possibility of ringworm infection. Otherwise, you may see yourself in court someday trying to defend yourself against a demand for reimbursement for the costs of medical treatment for a six year old and all the children in his first grade class. I have not yet heard of a situation where a cattery owner was held liable for severe fungal infection in an AIDS patient, but that is probably only a matter of time. ...

Can You Catch A Disease From Your Cat? - CatStation

[C1ay]

Food for thought.....

 

I spend $10-$15 a month keeping a few spiders, a dragon and a snake. I spend $40 a month for internet access and countless hours on the web, many right here at Hypography. If the pittance I spend on the few critters I have is reprehensible does that mean my internet access and my participation here is even more reprehensible?

[Turtle]

Food for thought.....

 

I spend $10-$15 a month keeping a few spiders, a dragon and a snake. I spend $40 a month for internet access and countless hours on the web, many right here at Hypography. If the pittance I spend on the few critters I have is reprehensible does that mean my internet access and my participation here is even more reprehensible?

 

:) No C1ay. You are exempt from reprehension on account of you earlier justifying your keepage. I did have you in mind when I earlier lauded, and so exempted from reprehension, those of you who keep pets responsibly and have so testified. Don't tell anyone, but of the 2 dogs I have owned, one was a rescue and I photographed my cats when I had them to who-laid-the-chunk. :rolleyes: Now would be the time to share those, but I dematerialized 99.9% of my photographs & slides. :lol:

 

So are you going to start the "Posting At Hypography Is Reprehensible" thread, or shall I? :) :shrug: There's holes in that premise big enough to sling a cat through.

[freeztar]

Food for thought.....

 

I spend $10-$15 a month keeping a few spiders, a dragon and a snake. I spend $40 a month for internet access and countless hours on the web, many right here at Hypography. If the pittance I spend on the few critters I have is reprehensible does that mean my internet access and my participation here is even more reprehensible?

 

I agree with Turtle's response.

 

I'd also like to add a couple questions though:

Does posting on Hypography cause physical harm to anyone, Clay? Does it cost tax payers money?

[goku]

i wonder if the same people who scream animal rights keep pets locked inside their house? :)

[Moontanman]

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. :lol: My mantra is waste-not-want-not. Oooooooommmmmmmmm ..... :)

 

Oh boy turtle, I have been thinking of this post for a couple of days now, I was going to assume you are doing this pets thing tongue in cheek until I saw the waste not want not thing. so lets see how serious you are about waste not want not. Lets start at a totally waste less existence. naked in the wilderness, maybe an animal skin as a wrap (as long as you ate the animal) a rock over hang as a shelter, a few stone chips as tools and a fire starter. Yes that is about as basic as you can get for a human. Do you really need a house, clothes, transportation, entertainment, a computer, money, baths, medicine, hmmm. It sounds like you are not living up to your waste not want not mantra......... If all humans lived totally waste free there would be a lot less humans...... Can I assume your waste not want not existence is more than a little idealized? On mans waste is another mans existence, our entire civilization is based on producing far more than we need so we can get far more than we need. It's true, face it:hihi:

[TheBigDog]

I agree with Turtle's response.

 

I'd also like to add a couple questions though:

Does posting on Hypography cause physical harm to anyone, Clay? Does it cost tax payers money?

Up until the beginning of this year I think it is safe to say that Hypography was at least partially subsidized by the NSA.

 

Bill

[Moontanman]

Up until the beginning of this year I think it is safe to say that Hypography was at least partially subsidized by the NSA.

 

Bill

 

Well, that does explain the black helicopters that fly around my house very time I post:naughty:

[Turtle]

Oh boy turtle, I have been thinking of this post for a couple of days now, I was going to assume you are doing this pets thing tongue in cheek until I saw the waste not want not thing. so lets see how serious you are about waste not want not. Lets start at a totally waste less existence. naked in the wilderness, maybe an animal skin as a wrap (as long as you ate the animal) a rock over hang as a shelter, a few stone chips as tools and a fire starter. Yes that is about as basic as you can get for a human. Do you really need a house, clothes, transportation, entertainment, a computer, money, baths, medicine, hmmm. It sounds like you are not living up to your waste not want not mantra......... If all humans lived totally waste free there would be a lot less humans...... Can I assume your waste not want not existence is more than a little idealized? One man's waste is another man's existence, our entire civilization is based on producing far more than we need so we can get far more than we need. It's true, face it:hihi:

 

Use does not necessitate waste. Am I living below my ideals? Yeah sure; still chasing the dog. Woof! :) :lol:

[modest]

Use does not necessitate waste.

Unneeded and unnecessary use must necessarily necessitate waste... perhaps is what MTM was saying :naughty:

 

~modest

[Turtle]

Unneeded and unnecessary use must necessarily necessitate waste... perhaps is what MTM was saying

 

~modest

 

That's a subjective interpretation eh? ;) Let's see...

 

...so lets see how serious you are about waste not want not. Lets start at a totally waste less existence. naked in the wilderness, maybe an animal skin as a wrap (as long as you ate the animal) a rock over hang as a shelter, a few stone chips as tools and a fire starter. Yes that is about as basic as you can get for a human. ...

 

Assumes facts not in evidence and self contradictory. He goes from totally to maybe this or that. He also presumes humans can't use fire unless they made it. Really? :)

 

Anyway, I gave a link where I have examined the issue in some depth. I hope it wasn't a waste of CPUT. :shrug: :) :naughty:

[freeztar]

Here's another societal cost of irresponsibly owning pets.

 

Hydrilla was introduced to the United States when dumped into a Florida canal in the 1950's. At that time, the invasive was imported and marketed as an aquarium plant.

...

Hydrilla's presence in the United States is one of irritation as we consider it one of the "most unwanted" species in our bodies of water. The reason for our aggravation comes from the fact that hydrilla, like Godzilla terrorizing Tokyo, leaves lakes, rivers and other waterways up heaved and terrorized. The invasive specie forms a dense canopy that forces native species to compete for nutrients and blocks much needed sunlight to aquatic plants below, basically pushing out our native aquatic species out of their home.

 

Aquatic animals are also affected in heavily infested waters. Fish population imbalances are likely when over abundant amounts of hydrilla is present. The dense mats raise the water's pH, oxygen levels fluctuate and water temperature rises. The fish are left smaller in size and weight; sportfish populations greatly decline.

The Nature Conservancy in Indiana - JWN - Hydrilla - Invasive Specie

 

A fisherman looking to catch a catfish for dinner instead reeled in a fish that flashed its teeth and bit his knife...later identified as a piranha, a South American carnivorous fish that lives in freshwater.

..

The catch highlights the growing problem of people keeping exotic animals and fish as pets and later dumping them into local waters, said Paul Barrington, an ichthyologist with the Fort Fisher Aquarium. Earlier this year, another fisherman caught a snakehead fish—also a nonnative fish—in Lake Wylie near Charlotte.

 

"Releasing nonnative fish in our native waters is highly irresponsible because it could have a very adverse affect on the fish in that ecosystem,'' Barrington said. "Piranha and the snakehead fish have no predators in our waters.''

Piranha Caught in North Carolina River | LiveScience

 

I wonder what else has been spread here by irresponsible aquarium owners?

[modest]

That's a subjective interpretation eh? :)

 

Well, I don't know about subjective... not sure I can agree exactly on... :shrug:

 

Pets being “wasteful” is subjective and a matter of opinion.

 

Oh yes, subjective (with an S and a J). I though you said... uh... projec... uh... er.. intra.. uh.. introspective - yeah, I thought you said "introspective interpretation". I was going to disagree with that - but "subjective"... Yup absolutly

 

Whoo :naughty:

[Racoon]

I can dig what Turtle is saying about keeping pets... but somewhat disagree.

 

We've had this discussion before, but it basically boils down to RESPONSIBILITY!

 

Some people should not have pets, much like some people shouldn't reproduce. :naughty:

 

And like Freeztar mentioned, the results of certain "pets" gone to the wild can pose serious environmental threats.

 

That being said... How can you Not just love cuddly, adorable Oreo!?