Keeping Pets Is Reprehensible

[Moontanman]

Besides the fact my dog saved my life, my dogs have given me lots of things through out my life. besides companionship they offer protection. my house was never broken into over a 32 year span even though the houses all around me were. (part of that could have been it was known a gun lived in my house and it would kill anyone who broke in) but even when i was gone my house was always passed over in favor of a house with no barking dogs. Cats i have no use for but other people do, as long as they aren't allowed to run loose to each his own. My dogs have over the years saved my youngest son from attack by a pit bull, killed countless rats, stopped a car jacking. dogs are more than just things, we have altered both their form and mental precesses over the millena. they not only see us as family they read our body language to see what it takes to please us. If we didn't keep pets dogs would have to be killed. It would be a crime to allow creatures we created to serve us and that have done so in such a complete and selfless manner to be disposed of like the trash from our homes.

[CraigD]

In addition to direct benefits such as those Moontanman mentions above, it’s generally accepted that responsible pet keeping provides health benefits, too.

In short, the physical acts involved in having pets – feeding them, playing with them, and simply petting them – appears to be physically and mentally good for most people. Though I’ve not read a specific study supporting the claim, I think studies have shown that, even controlling for other causes (eg: perhaps healthy people are more likely to keep pets, so the correlation between pet keeping and heath does not indicate the first contributing the latter), pets significantly promote physical and mental health.

Delta Society - Health Benefits of Animals (via an archive.org link – the original Delta Society - Improving Human Health through Service and Therapy Animals page has gone missing) appears to have an extensive collection of references and links about the health benefits of pets.

It’s important to note that the benefits of pet keeping can be overmatched by negative effects of doing so improperly, such as keeping too many, abusing, or neglecting pets, and allowing them to breed unchecked. Like practically everything, pet keeping can be done well or poorly.

PS: I have 3 cats. They are kept always indoors, and have been sterilized. They serve no purpose but there own, and the amusement and aesthetic pleasure of humans (they’re really pretty kitties )

I must write no more of my cats, or risk crossing the dreadful threshold of people who post about their cats on the internet!

[jab2]

A hugh portion of the hunger in the world is because of overpopulation is some regions. Humans can choose to have children or not. My financial situation is such that I cannot provide a decent education for children to earn a living, so me and my wife choose not to have a child, as we do not want to breed another beggar.

Why must responsible people thus feel ashamed if they choose to own a pet that provide them pleasure, and gets treated like a child , when half the worlds population breed like rabbits, with no regard where their next meal will come from?

Or maybe they are full aware that the always concerned West will supply them with grants and food aid and thus provide the proverbial parachute.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by CraigD

In addition to direct benefits such as those Moontanman mentions above, it’s generally accepted that responsible pet keeping provides health benefits, too.

In short, the physical acts involved in having pets – feeding them, playing with them, and simply petting them – appears to be physically and mentally good for most people. Though I’ve not read a specific study supporting the claim, I think studies have shown that, even controlling for other causes (eg: perhaps healthy people are more likely to keep pets, so the correlation between pet keeping and heath does not indicate the first contributing the latter), pets significantly promote physical and mental health.

Delta Society - Health Benefits of Animals (via an archive.org link – the original Delta Society - Improving Human Health through Service and Therapy Animals page has gone missing) appears to have an extensive collection of references and links about the health benefits of pets.

It’s important to note that the benefits of pet keeping can be overmatched by negative effects of doing so improperly, such as keeping too many, abusing, or neglecting pets, and allowing them to breed unchecked. Like practically everything, pet keeping can be done well or poorly.

PS: I have 3 cats. They are kept always indoors, and have been sterilized. They serve no purpose but there own, and the amusement and aesthetic pleasure of humans (they’re really pretty kitties )

I must write no more of my cats, or risk crossing the dreadful threshold of people who post about their cats on the internet!

Check out my post in quality jokes and humor about dogs and cats! Post #589

[Cedars]

Originally Posted by Turtle

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.

hmmm... Two words. Dung beetles:

Dung beetle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I think there are too many irresponsible pet owners, some of which qualify as reprehensible. We've seen some terrible things on the news, such as abandoned pets, the ever famous cat houses where things get out of control, and the Michael Vicks of the world. The list can be broadened into the Yard ornament dogs, chained or kenneled with food tossed to them once or twice a day. Dogs who have no name, its just The dog. Unspayed cats roaming neighborhoods and people claiming, you cant keep cats confined.

Two of my cats are leash trained, the third wont go outside. Two of the three cats are rescue animals. All three are spayed or neutered. They do keep the mice population out doors rather than in my house. Trespassers to this rule will be violated, so not only do they provide me with entertainment and companionship, they serve a purpose. They have a job they do.

Clay brings up good points with his rescue animals. I also have 4 birds who are rescued. The two parakeets former owners lost their jobs. The two cockatiels owner died and the first home they went to lasted one year. I've had them 2 1/2 years now. Ones around 12 and the other around 15.

If I did not have pets, I still wouldnt donate the extra money to starving people. I would buy other things I enjoy. Like more wild bird food.

The educational value for my kid cannot have a dollar value placed upon it. Its real world experience with pet responsibility, training, and all the other factors that are involved including medical and end of life decisions, that can (and were) used as examples for other occurances in real life. She recently purchased some gerbils and hamsters. She spent much time online learning about what the various requirements are, disease issues, life expectancy, and how to keep them happy in their closed environment.

And I took up fish two years ago. I have learned so much about water chemistry, nutrients, light, balance, etc that just wouldnt be the same reading it out of a book.

And then there is the example I have set for others who have seen what a pet is capable of and took their dog(s) through obedience school, and/or who's cats are now leashed in the yard and opinion on declawing has been reversed.

[Turtle]

Morning all. Good stuff! I meant to get back last night to reply to the first few posts, but I got tired and then the modem went kaflewey. Carpe diem now boy. Onward in no particular order from first to last.

Originally Posted by Fezzter

'Reprehensible' is a bit strong in my book. People have lots of reasons for owning pets and I think that is fine. What really makes pet ownership a problem, imho, is irresponsible pet owners who do not properly take care of their pets by getting them spayed or neutered, etc.

Turtle, when you say "pets", do you mean *all types of pets*? (eg fish, scorpions, rhinos, etc.)


On the other hand, I also agree with Buffy. Domesticated animals can make great companions. Having grown up with a couple "family dogs" in my youth, I do understand the mutual joy that can exist (not implying you don't Turtle).

You bring a good point on choosing 'reprehensible', as I spent an hour choosing it from dozens of contenders. A possible response here then might go to a fill-in-the-blank-with-your-favorite-negative-connotation-word kind: "Keeping pets is _________________."

In the interest of staying with the definition of 'pet' in the observation post, pets of all kinds yes, as the definition does not quibble.

I do understand, and have personally enjoyed over the years, the companionship of several dogs and numerous cats, but I currently keep no pets.

I still have sleep in my eyes, so I gotta get some coffee in me before continuing. Feeeeed meeeee.

[REASON]

It isn't keeping pets that is reprehensible.

What's reprehensible is poorly keeping pets.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by REASON

It isn't keeping pets that is reprehensible.

What's reprehensible is poorly keeping pets.

Now that I can really agree with, I would liked to see some figures on the real cost of keeping pets compared to other less than necessary things humans do all the time. I think it is some what disingenuous to say that keeping pets some how prevents people in underdeveloped countries from eating. While I deplore the conditions these marginalized people live under we seem to be willing to help them do nothing but continue their marginal existence. If our pets produce billions of tins of waste very year then humans must produce quadrillions of tons of waste every year. Instead of making grandiose claims lets see some real figures of the cost of pets to society as a whole and the costs of other frivolous past times. I'm betting the pursuit of professional sports consumes far more of our resources than pets do.

Oh yeah, Buffy I agree if we can't keep animals as pets how about humans? Yeah I bet that one would really chap the ass of people who don't like pets. Yeah I can see the pet shops now, crowded with lonely middle aged men maybe the eugenics people can breed humans as pets, I can see it now special humans small in stature and less than intelligent, maybe blue skinned with white hair or milky white skin with red hair, the possibilities are endless. the human genome could be every bit as plastic as the canine genome. I think we're better off with animals as pets don't you?

[Turtle]

reprehensible Deserving rebuke or censure; blameworthy. See Synonyms at blameworthy.

Originally Posted by Buffy

Should all existing pets be euthanized?

I think euthanizing all existing pets would be reprehensible.

Originally Posted by Boofay

If not, what should we do about the black market that will inevitably ensue?

Indeed. Same as what we do now I suppose. What do you suggest?

Originally Posted by Buffequisitor

If non-human pets are to be prohibited due to the unfairness to starving humans, will humans be allowed as pets?

Sounds like a matter for legislators. Do you have a proposal for a bill?

Originally Posted by Buffenator

Can it be considered cruel to take pets away from those people who have no human family or partners?

Sounds like a matter for judges. Do you have a proposal for a tort?

Originally Posted by Buffer

Is the bias against pets in favor of humans an example of speciesism?

Good question. >> Speciesism - encyclopedia article about Speciesism. By the evidence in the link, a debate all on its own no doubt. What position do you take on the question?

OK Off for more coffee and then on for more debate.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Moontanman

Now that I can really agree with, I would liked to see some figures on the real cost of keeping pets compared to other less than necessary things humans do all the time. ...

Here's a starter page I was going to post presently: >> Industry Statistics & Trends