Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Thunderbird]

Originally Posted by DFINITLYDISTRUBD

You just don't get it.

Sane huh?
You just don't get it...I'm fed up with people and all of their bull...and the fact is I'm not starving neither are my family or my neighbors...and my family comes first...and yes my dog is very much family so she comes first too.
Here's the order of things My wife above all else, then the kids, then the pup then me, then close friends, followed by everyone else..not because any one else says it's so but because I say it is so this is the order of things as my concience demands.
Not funny.

I'll get it when you say it, I believe I ask a hypothetical question... would you feed you're dog and let a human stave. The math problem is 3, 2 humans, 1 dog minus 1. Is it = Dog, human, or human human. Pick one. I’m all ears.

[C1ay]

Originally Posted by Thunderbird

If it came down to it, and you had to chose between saving you're "pup" and you're fellow human, you would save you're neighbor, even if you hate them.

I have some Cesar on hand I keep for when I'm dog sitting for the lady across the street. Are you saying I should use it to feed my hungry neighbors?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Buffy

Well of course they were all rhetorical questions supporting the notion that the existing market-oriented mechanism with modest government controls governing cruelty is probably still optimal, and way better than any scheme of banning ownership!
I think we're all species, and its good to consider that other species have rights too. "Of course some animals are more equal than others."

I do like a nice steak now and then.

Oh, and while I may not be a Traveler, I'm certainly not a Buffer!

My boobies are getting credit for this one,
Buffquemada

I don't think I have yet suggested banning pets, or any action, excepting for thought, whatsoever. I acknowledge your moniker correction and deeply genuflect in your general direction.
A rose by any other name...

Originally Posted by Double D

What makes you think that the cessation of these activities would result in any change whatsoever with regard to the starving persons of the world?

The money spent on pet supplies would more likely end up in more disposable landfill choking crap like I-phones, big screens, and gaming consoles. ...

Sorry I was late in replying to this; looks like I allowed a tempest to brew in the teapot.

Because the mechanism of the cessation, in my scheme, is people taking a closer look at not only their ownership of pets, but all those other things you mention involving waste & disparity. I then see as a consequence of this thinking, or type of thinking if you will, people taking action to solve wider problems such as basic needs of people.

I am biased to people, because I be one.

[DFINITLYDISTRUBD]

I'll get it when you say it, I believe I ask a hypothetical question... would you feed you're dog and let a human stave.

If you have been reading my posts you would already know the answer....

Mr D-Here's the order of things My wife above all else, then the kids, then the pup then me, then close friends, followed by everyone else..not because any one else says it's so but because I say it is so this is the order of things as my concience demands.

But seeing as you'd rather be obnoxious and thick headed (two more qualities which push humans even further down on the scale) As the pup is part of my family she would be fed in the order listed above. I do not have the luxury of it being a me or the dog situation there are others that I must think of first.

That said hypotheticly if it were just me and the dog she would eat.

[REASON]

Originally Posted by Turtle

If Japan is any judge, the problem is not limited to the US. (scroll down for article) >> Pet Fashion Trends

But Turtle, for cryin' out loud, how can you resist those Pinkaholic puppies, and Baily, the grass eating Chocolate Lab who loves her duck.

These are adorable creatures, you have to admit. C'mon! They can't survive out in the cruel world all by themselves, even if they have a coat on.

I love my doggies and will have dogs in my life until the day I die. And while I truely respect what DD is sayin', I won't die for my dog. But I'll sure live with 'em.

For me, it's like George Carlin said - "Life...is a series of dogs."

[freeztar]

Dogs can be major contributors to water pollution, especially dog parks.

The following article illustrates this point well:

Pollution Prevention: Animal Waste Collection

Residents seem to be of two minds when it comes to dog waste. While a strong majority agree that dog waste can be a water quality problem (Hardwick, 1997; Swann, 1999), they generally rank it as the least important local water quality problem (Syferd, 1995 and MCSR, 1997). This finding strongly suggests the need to dramatically improve watershed education efforts to increase public recognition about the water quality and health consequences of dog waste...

...The pollutant removal abilities of pet waste collection programs has never been quantified although there is ample evidence that programs such as these are necessary in urban areas. For example, in the Four Mile Run watershed in Northern Virginia, a dog population of 11,400 is estimated to contribute about 5,000 pounds of solid waste every day and has been identified as a major contributor of bacteria to the stream. Approximately 500 fecal coliform samples have been taken from Four Mile Run and its tributaries since 1990, and about 50% of these samples have been over Virginia water quality standards for fecal coliform bacteria (NVPDC, 1998). A project is currently underway to pinpoint the source of bacterial contamination through DNA fingerprinting.

There is plenty of evidence that pets and urban wildlife can be significant bacterial sources. According to van der Wel (1995) a single gram of dog feces can contain 23 million fecal coliform bacteria. Dogs can also be significant hosts of both Giardia and Salmonella (Pitt, 1998). It was also noted in a 1982 study of Baltimore, Maryland catchments that dog feces were the single greatest contributor of fecal coliform and fecal strep bacteria (Lim and Olivieri, 1982). This evidence points to a need for enforcement and education to raise resident awareness regarding the water quality impacts of this urban pollutant source.

[TheBigDog]

I love this thread. May I present Charlie, my dog.



I love my dog, but he is expendable. He is lucky that he has led a healthy life because I don't spend money fixing a dog that is broken. Bullets are cheap; he won't suffer. I will probably get another dog when he is gone.

Charlie happens to side with Turtle on this topic. He has made it his business to rid the world of pets. In the ten years that I have owned Charlie he has killed two neighbor's pet cats, two neighbor's pet rabbits, a neighbor's pet chickens, and our own pet guinea pig. These are the ones that I know about. He was born on a farm and was sent to the pound as a pup for killing a goat. He was so mild mannered with the family that I didn't believe the story, but after the chickens and rabbits I could no longer deny that he is indeed a killer. He especially hates cats, a behavior that I cannot encourage, but I cannot entirely disagree with either. I grew up with cats and I am very allergic to them. They are cute and cuddly and pointless. And anything that makes me sneeze and makes my eyes water does not deserve to live in peaceful coexistence with me.

When Charlie does kick it I may replace him with a goat. I think goats make good pets because they are useful animals. They can be aggressive keeping unwanted children at bay. And they will keep the grass low not only saving me from having to mow, but recycling the clippings in a very efficient manner. I was golfing last week and the course actually had goats roaming the grounds nibbling the roughs. Very cool. You can also milk a goat adding to its utility. And finally you can not only eat a goat without causing an uproar about social faux pas (try eating your dog, cat or horse), but you can also use the hide to make a jacket and a belt. The pet that keeps on giving...

Bill

[Michaelangelica]

Originally Posted by Turtle

pet 1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.

I find keeping pets reprehensible in a world where people are starving to death every minute. Not only the direct loss of human food to pets, but the energy used to produce, package, distribute, and sell it, as well as the same waste in resources for pet products other than food. Add to that the billions of tons of animal waste disposed in the environment, and I find no moral or economic justification for the keeping of pets.

Discuss.

Yes that is one point of view, and fully justifiable.

But I could not give up my cat. She loves me. I love her. She keeps me sane

Kids
When kids are growing up i think it is important that they relate and have contact with animals otherwise they become alienated form the natural world.
We had cats dogs geese, horse, ducks chickens, tadpoles etc.
My daughter is still known as the 'Goose Girl'.
At 5 YO she gathered the newly born geese and brought them to the house.
IF anyone else had tried that the geese would have broken their arms

I always tried to impress on my girls that "creepy crawlies" where interesting and not frightening. This reached a level of Kafka like absurdity when my daughter adopted two leaches called "Care Bear" and "Princess"
The stunned vet at the local School Pet Show gave her first prize.
(I never did work out how to feed them so we had to let them go.)

We had kittens that the kids watched being born and played with from birth. The kittens developed a local reputation as being special, gentle and very human centred (also they did not chase wildlife) and at one stage we had a list of 35 people wanting one of our kittens. We gave them away but only to people we had vetted.(not an intentional pun)

Kids who grow up without pets are damaged or at least deprived.


In a country like Australia I think it is sad that native animals cannot be legally kept as pets. Especially those that are damaged and cannot survive in the wild. Feral animals (cats, dogs, pigs, camels, horses, buffalo are a major environmental problem.)

Humans have always kept pets. Aboriginal people in Australia have kept dogs for thousands of years. (They keep you warm in winter) Other cultures the same (In a worse case scenario you could always eat them). Ancient Egyptian societies venerated many animals especially cats; affording them the same funeral rites as humans.

Animals such as horses, camels, and Oxen have helped us survive and develop as a race.

It is fascinating to watch a goose or a sheep graze. You get a lot of clues about what are the best nutritious plants are, and which are the least nutritious plants.

[Turtle]

Good stuff peeps! Modest, I love little Cloe; two of my cats have been tabbys. Bill, don't forget that the goat can pull a survival wagon and will eat anything on the way so you don't have to carry food. Michael, your kitty-scrip is in the mail. Freezy, thanks for the solid science. Reason, I always heed George. C1ay, the reason the nutritional content is on that can is because old ladies eat it.

For everyone, I recommend the movie A Boy and His Dog

[mynah]

Originally Posted by Turtle

pet 1. An animal kept for amusement or companionship.

I find keeping pets reprehensible in a world where people are starving to death every minute. Not only the direct loss of human food to pets, but the energy used to produce, package, distribute, and sell it, as well as the same waste in resources for pet products other than food. Add to that the billions of tons of animal waste disposed in the environment, and I find no moral or economic justification for the keeping of pets.

Discuss.

Much the same could be said for having children...