Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[modest]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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]

Originally Posted by modest

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]

Originally Posted by modest

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.

Originally Posted by Modest

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.

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

Don't they usually kill the dog as well?

Originally Posted by Turtle

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]

Originally Posted by modest

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]

Originally Posted by freeztar

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]

Originally Posted by modest

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. 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.

Originally Posted by DobleD

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. ) 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.
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]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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

[freeztar]

Originally Posted by modest

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?