Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

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

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

[modest]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Use does not necessitate waste.

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

~modest

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by modest

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

~modest

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

Originally Posted by Loona Toona Manna

...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.

[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]

Originally Posted by Turtle

That's a subjective interpretation eh?

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

Originally Posted by modest

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

[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.

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!?

[modest]

Environmental and Economic Costs of Nonindigenous Species in the United States

Claims:

The Approximately 50,000 Nonindigenous Species In The United States Cause Major Environmental Damage And Losses Totaling Approximately $137 Billion Per Year

Some of those non-indigenous species it includes are cats, dogs, and fish costing 17 billion, 250 million, and one billion respectively in environmental damage. There is a chart with other pet-like animals.

This looks like a rather reputable study, but the first thing I'm looking at is for cats - page 4 (print page 56) and it's not exactly intuitive. The damage cats are attributed is via killing birds. I sympathize with this because my younger cat is quite the hunter. Despite my best preventative efforts, she bags herself some birds now and then. The paper evaluates this cost on the environment:

Although it is not easy to determine the value of each bird killed, a reasonable value might be $30.

30 dollars per bird? That puts her robins and turtle doves on par with my steak and lobster. The price is justified with this paragraph:

This cost is based on the facts that a bird watcher spends $0.40 per bird observed (USFWS 1988), a hunter spends $216 per bird shot (USFWS 1988), and ornithologists spend $800 per bird reared for release (Tinney 1981). Another way to look at the value of each bird is by considering that EPA fines polluters $10 per fish killed, including small, immature fish (Pimentel and Greiner 1997); a value of $30 per bird therefore seems roughly equivalent.

They figure cats kill 568 million birds per year each costing 30 dollars - so about 17 billion in damages to the environment by our half-domesticated feline friends. If that number represents something real then it is indeed a lot of damage. But, there seems to be some trickery in that figure. I've yet to look at dogs and fish nor any others.

~modest

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

Cats are extremely prolific (I think that's the word) breeders...I'll have to try and find a link but I recall reading that one female stray can lead to thousands of direct offspring in her lifetime and during this same time span hundreds of thousands of indirect offspring (grand and great grand-kittens).

They make their homes where-ever they can often resulting in property damage and nasty smells which property owners must either learn to deal with or blow some dough to get rid of.

I wonder if that is taken into account in the 17 billion.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

Cats are extremely prolific (I think that's the word) breeders...I'll have to try and find a link but I recall reading that one female stray can lead to thousands of direct offspring in her lifetime and during this same time span hundreds of thousands of indirect offspring (grand and great grand-kittens).

They make their homes where-ever they can often resulting in property damage and nasty smells which property owners must either learn to deal with or blow some dough to get rid of.

I wonder if that is taken into account in the 17 billion.

I went looking & still don't have good numbers on the outside breeding. I find we have two terms at play: 1)free-ranging cats; 2) feral cats. So pet cats let to roam free and/or breed if not fixed, and escaped cats roaming free & breeding like Fibonacci numbers.

Searching free ranging cat trends opens up an overload of data. Here's the top hit: The Effects of Free-ranging Cats on Birds in Wisconsin,

Originally Posted by wisconsin

Studies in Wisconsin and elsewhere indicate that free-ranging domestic cats (Felis catus) pose a threat to birds and other wildlife.

In Wisconsin, concern about free-ranging cats was first highlighted in the mid 1990’s, when a study by Coleman and Temple attempted to study predation by free-ranging cats on birds in rural locations across the state. Extrapolating the results from this study indicated that millions of birds were being killed annually in Wisconsin by cats. Because of the difficulty in studying any species living outdoors across the entire state, the exact number of birds killed annually by free-ranging cats will never be fully enumerated. However, over the past decade additional studies in the Midwest and elsewhere have suggested similar problems with cat predation on birds and should alert us to the fact that free-ranging cats are killing large numbers of birds in Wisconsin each year. Moreover, other studies have shown that cats in some habitats may be directly competing with native avian predators, such as American Kestrels (Falco sparverius), Northern Harriers (Circus cyaneus) and Red-tailed Hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) for prey. ...

I boldened a pertinent bit in relation to more unaccounted costs. For each fewer predator bird shall we add $30? Or how many bird-views it would get @ $.40/view? What else would have eaten those birds the cats killed that now can't? How many were hummingbirds and how many & which plants weren't pollinated by them? How many....er...oh. Never mind.

PS On second thought, we haven't looked into the larger negative societal effects & costs of pet keeping known as hoarding, so in closing, I.....oh...

December 24, 2007

Nearly 1500 animal hoarding cases are found annually with the same sad scene – urine and feces covering floors, malnourished dogs and cats that need to be put down and even dead bodies.
...
According to a document recently released by a team of people from the Hoarding of Animals Research Consortium (HARC), there are three types of hoarders: the overwhelmed caregiver, the rescuer and the exploiter. The overwhelmed caregiver initially cares for their pet and over time, realize that there is a problem. They may be socially isolated but accept getting help. The rescuer develops a compulsion to rescue animals with the belief that they are the only one who can. They find it hard to refuse new animals and steer clear of authorities. The exploiter wants animals to serve their own needs, deny the problem and reject help with the notion that they know best. They may make up excuses for their current circumstance but express no remorse. Some people will fit into a combination of these. ...

Pet Hoarding -- ZooToo Pet News

[REASON]

Of course, pet hoarding is reprehensible.
_______

I'm a bit surprised that the study you referenced above regarding the effect of an increased cat population on avian predators didn't seem to consider that the cats themselves might represent an increase in the supply of prey for those birds. Is that out of the realm of possibility? Will Red-tailed Hawks kill and eat kittens?