Do you remember your first dog or cat? Perhaps even your first boa constrictor? Whatever your preference, pets can play a huge role in our lives, even becoming full-fledged family members. But is domestication really in an animal’s best interest? Does pet ownership create a loving bond between human and animal, or does it only serve our own interests?
Please select the category that most closely reflects your concern about this content,
so that we can review it and determine whether it violates Civility 101 or isn't
appropriate for some other reason.
Abusing this feature is also a violation of Civility 101.
Explanation:
This line of reasoning is consequentialist: Pursuing questions of this sort will make an otherwise open public (?) closed to a discourse about ethics and nonhumans, which will further impede the just end of ending animal exploitation; therefore, as a means to stopping the "greater" injustice of meat consumption, for example, we ought to avoid raising them. This is an interesting argument. However, it by no means provides the foundation that you imply it does to your argument that as a question of ethics this discourse is an “idle abstraction.”
On our own premises regarding nonhumans and property, those who adhere to an animal rights-type philosophy should recognize that Francione's complaint follows. Avoiding the question by appeals to consequentalism (Doesn’t this problem arise with our entire project then?) isn’t valid as a matter of ethics.
- Alex M
August 26, 2008 11:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
A conseqentialist's perspective of ethics: Bad actions have negative (relative) consequences for the actor. If unethical actions are considered bad actions then there needs to be some form of negative consequence? What are the negative consequences *for the human* who treats animals as property by eating meat and owning a pet? Without the "consequence" the ethical concern is nothing more than abstraction meant to disparage those who oppose the "animals are property" view.
Because consequentialism logic results in your beliefs being incorrect you resort to attacking the method as opposed to the message; or at least acknowledging that in fact the fundamental difference between consequentialism and deontology is the heart of the disagreement.
- polobo August 27, 2008 4:04PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You imply that the debate's goal is to end animal exploitation, this is wrong. A debates purpose is to persuade, understand and discuss. If the goal is to end animal exploitation then you are better off speaking to or running for a seat in Congress since there is where actual laws are passed. Indeed, the very fact that we live in a society based upon the rule of law supports consequentalism as a valid and proper means to resolve debate and affect action and change.
- polobo August 27, 2008 4:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
It's a valid question, particularly because far too many people jump into "pet ownership" too quickly without thinking about what might happen later. What does happen later? The "pet owner" gets a job in another city or a new apartment that doesn't allow pets or a girlfriend who is allergic. And where does the "pet" go? To the pound. And then often to death.
It's an EXTREMELY valid question.
How dare the HSUS respond as if the decision about whether or not to care for another living being is simply "an idle abstraction."
"Should we have pets?" is simply an extension of those questions many people ask themselves, "Should I buy or adopt?" "Should I adopt this dog?" "Should I care for this cat?" "Should I accept this responsibility?"
It's a valid question and something we all should think about.
- ElaineVigneault August 30, 2008 12:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Whether talking about pets, hunting, animals as food, or other animal rights issues, I will never agree with the animal rights movement's viewpoint on these things. The Humane Society comment ends with "not a good direction for animals."
I agree. Let's suppose, that either by a consensus "moral" decision of humanity, or by legislation, that nobody owned pets any more. What do you suppose would happen to the ecosystem? Today, we already have a problem with animal control. What would happen if we stopped euthanizing strays? What would happen if we stopped pulling them off the streets at all? What would happen if all those pets in homes today went free?
I would predict that they would completely demolish the ecosystem.
I remember growing up in the midwest. One year, animal rights protestors were successful in drastically limiting the number of deer hunting licenses. That winter, there were thousands of deer starving to death. The Federal Government had to come out and mass euthanize them. This was a direct result of hunters not killing them during hunting season.
Humans have "unbalanced" many of Earth's ecosystems. We are the sole top predator in many food chains. We are the _primary_ top predator in even more food chains. Take us out as the top predator (in other words, stop controlling, killing and using animals) and the entire ecosystem goes out of whack.
What happens if the rabbits are eaten by the coyote, and the coyotes suddenly stop eating them? Answer: billions of rabbits.
Our place in the ecosystem is essential. Domestic dogs and cats, in particular, have no place in the ecosystem. They are not wild creatures, and have been selectively bred for so many millenia, that we cannot even really call them part of an ecosystem anymore. They are part of human society now, not part of the Earth's ecosystems. Unleashing them on the wild, along with many other domestic animals, would be extremely irresponsible, and could even result in the complete collapse of entire ecosystems.
This leaves us in a difficult place. We either remain as the self-appointed animal stewards...or we resign that position and hope/pray that it does not result in the total collapse or radical restructuring of world ecosystems. Which is more "moral," having no pets but destroying the ecosystem to do it, or having pets and keeping the ecosystem intact.
I suppose there is a third option. Take all the domestic animals, and sterilize them. Then, when people's pets died, it would be the end of that evolutionary offshoot, and we wouldn't have to worry about domestic cats, dogs, pigs, cows or other animals running amok in the ecosystem. Somehow, however, I doubt that the animal rights folks will be in favor of the planned genocide of domesticated animals.
I have a very serious question for the animal rights folks: How would you deal with the problem of species or specific groups of animals running amok, overbreeding, and damaging an ecosystem? Or the example I gave above...thousands of animals starving because of lack of predators? What to do in these situations and remain "moral"? Is it okay to kill them them? When is it okay? Who gets to decide when it is okay and when it is not? If "self defense" would be a reason, would "species defense" be another, and if so, does that include defending other species against each other, or just humans against other animals?
- ebsarver September 8, 2008 8:46PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
"Praising slaves and the idea of slaves is a joyful exercise". As u can see I've just changed the original quote (by HSUS) by replacing the word "pet" with "slave". In the end, it's very simple. Pets are our living property. They are our slaves. A happy slave is still a slave. No matter how nicely or humanely we claim to treat our pets, this doesn't stop the act from being unethical. Some human slave masters described their slaves as members of their own family and even having love for them. This does not justify their slavery however. Owning human life is immoral, just as owning non-human animal life is immoral.
What right do we have to forcefully breed them? To choose their mate for them? To alter their natural biology, their DNA? What right do we have to forcefully remove the young babies from their mother? To give them to humans as their property? What right do we have to dictate their entire lives, whether they live or die, whether they go outside to pee, whether they receive affection or not? To force these animals to live dependently on us forever as though they were children, to never grow up. What right do we have to dictate their social lives, to deny them contact with their mother and siblings? What right do we have to "own" these animals as our property, as our "companion" slaves, to be under permanent "house arrest" for the rest of their lives, to never leave your property alone? None of these things occur to the wolf who is free and independent. We should not breed domestic animals.
- Desert Girl
January 6, 2009 8:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
While I agree that most domestic animals have little or no choice to or who they breed with , My kids are pythons and boas. While many oppose to the keeping of them (captive bred like mine or otherwise) theirs is a different situation.There is no way to force or coerce them to doing something they do not want. If either party has a objection then nothing would happen. Further more if either has problems healthwise then they won't copulate. While they are not and should not be kept or cared for by the majority of people my Ursilla, Igor, Giselle, Nelly, Carl, Che' ,and Abidon are proof that we can co-exist and learn from Those so very alien to our own kind.
p.s. I do not breed ,but my kids are allowed interaction with their own kind and has not resulted in anymore animals. No grandkids.
- Mcdowelli76 May 29, 2009 11:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Hi there McDowelli, thanks for ur story about your beloved snake pets . It is clear u love them very much and they get the very best of care from u. I think that's great! I believe we are all obliged to care for domesticated animals and give them the best life possible as we are responsible for bringing them into existence. I am strictly against breeding pets and wish they didn't exist. While I am sure your snakes live relatively happy lives and enjoy your company, this is no substitute for the life they evolved to live -free, wild, and roaming in their natural habitat.
At a pet shop one day I asked questions about a snake and the keeper assured me that all snakes want to do is eat and be comfortable. If all their food requirements are provided by their master, there is no reason or need or desire by the snake to wander off or get exercise. They can stay happily in their enclosure forever. But I've heard of friend's snakes who wander off around the house and "disappear" somewhere for days in the house curled up somewhere. If snakes didn't want to move about, why do they choose to do it given the choice? Moving around an artificially lit enclosure or getting "let out" once in a while around the house is entirely different to enjoying the fresh air, sunshine and soil of outside. Snakes, like any wild animal or human animal, deserve the right to be free, find their food, practice self-determination, pursue their desires, make their own home in the ground or trees, wander the land, etc, etc.
You and I may be excellent animal carers as well as some of the human population, but the sad fact is the majority of animal owners are not good carers at all. A pet is meant to be for life, but most pets end up destroyed at so called "shelters" when owners give them up when they become inconvenient, boring or expensive. The man who bought that snake at the pet shop sold him on after he got bored. Remember a happy slave is still a slave! So the fact that they are well cared for and happy doesn't make it right. Thanks for listening. Desert Girl.
- Desert Girl May 30, 2009 2:59AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While I do not keep domestic animals as pets I keep constrictors and the like. While every animal rights people will see this as even worse I have some questions.
1) Provided my co-inhabitants(I call my kids but others would call pets) are healthy and live as fullfilling lives as any domestic cat or dog and were not snatched frome the wild, why is it wrong.
2) Is showing those who do not know that there is no reason to fear animals long viewed by the general public as dangerous and evil a bad thing. You can learn alot from reading and photos but you can't overcome a inherant fear without actual contact.
3)While facts are stated claiming around 60,000 cases of salmonila a year from reptiles I nor anyone I know who keeps them(and I'm in contact with people all over the country) has found proof of any. We don't doubt there are some but the plague like statistics seem un-verified.
4) While I believe in restrictions to protect wild populations abolishment will do more harm than it ever could good.I may not see animals wild or not as a comodity, if you give them no value and obolish controlled collection of various species then no one will be around to inforce collection quotas will the black market trade could wipe them out all together.
- Mcdowelli76 May 29, 2009 9:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Hi there McDowelli, thanx for ur thoughts. BTW I have always loved snakes -they r wonderful. And it is obvious u love them too and care very much about them which is why u chose to live ur life with them. Just wanted to let u know that I acknowledge this.
Your first note on "animal-rights-people" I think could do with a redistinction. I would call them "animal-welfare-people" because welfare and rights are very different things. Welfarists believe it is ok to use animals so long as it is done "humanely" so I guess what u r talking about is the opinion of some welfarists who may believe that keeping "wild" animals cannot be done humanely and therefore only domestic animals should be used as pets . The rights perspective is different. A pet, property to a human, cannot possibly possess rights, and there certainly aren't any in the legal system for animals. Pets, even if they are happy, cannot enjoy even the most basic rights that we humans enjoy like the right to life, the right to freedom and happiness. So if animals are to be granted these very basic rights, they cannot practically be property. The animal rights perspective argues not that animals should be treated better, but that they shouldn't be treated at all in the first place!
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 9:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Another clarification on the word " kids ". I understand that this is a term of endearment and affection for your animals so I understand your sentiment. But it must be made clear that there is a very real moral difference between having kids and keeping pets . While it is the natural course of our lives (at least for some) to have children , they are our own species and it is in the children's interest to be with us. It is not in the animal's interest however to be with us, and it is also not natural. They didn't ask to be born into imprisonment. They did not consent. Unlike human children who grow up and leave home, pets like cats and dogs and snakes are grown adults. They must remain with you and depend on you as though they were children. But of course they are not children, they are adults. If they were to live the natural life they were meant to, that they evolved to live, they would be living independently, finding their own food , their own shelter, choosing mates, making their own choices, taking risks and living life -in the wild where they belong. So they are not really kids, they are adults, forced to live as dependent kids, never getting the chance to grow up or to live independently.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 9:15AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Here is where I get a big conflicting opinion from animal welfare and animal rights . Most in animal rights oppose feeding live prey for the reason of the prey items welfare. I feed both pre killed and live depending on the animal which either way is a evil thing to all AR people and is no point to argue it. Do I let those in my care do what thousands of years of evolution have prepared them to do ? Or do I feed them food prekilled by a human (co2) for reasons other than their safety. I know it's a pointless arguement that could go on for ever so I won't debate it. Theirs no point if it is not going to change my opinion which is no matter what I do their will be some people who don't agree with it. I also use the term room mates as well as calling the animals in my care my kids . They are born independent from birth and to call them my kids does not mean they are treated like human children . I am one of the people who relate to animals more than my own species. A few hours on you tube is enough to make anyone feel guilty enough to kill themself or others for the wrongs we have committed against animals, but that won't do anything for those animals that we can help. The vast spectrum of beliefs on how to protect species other than our own are almost a un-uniteable number of groups so we each can only do what we feel is right for them.
- Mcdowelli76 June 14, 2009 1:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Hi there again. Another day, another argument! Let's get into it shall we? Now, u can have your own opinion about how and whom you feed your snake pets . And u can choose to sniff at mine, but here is just one other possibility:
If I were to raise a blind owl (as my Aunt does), I can choose to feed her in one way which involves violence and suffering on the part of the prey, or can feed her in another way which involves no suffering at all. Choice 1 suffering for the nourishment of owl, choice 2 no suffering for nourishment of owl. In the first instance if I choose to feed the owl either cut meat that I had bought for her or a live (or dead) mouse I am making a choice that the owl lives and the mouse dies (or the cow dies for the meat). What moral difference is there between a cow, a mouse and an owl? The owl might be prettier and be more desireable to our fettishes of beautiful wild animals , while our feelings about mice and cows are dull, but these feelings we have about which animals we like have little to do with morality, that is, who gets to live and who gets to die. What if I were to rescue a blind mouse as opposed to a blind owl? Then I would be favouring the mouse. You see? My decision to feed the owl a mouse means I am making a speciesist choice.
If I really did rescue a blind owl, if I had no other choice but to feed her meat and or mice, I would choose to let the owl die because this would be in alignment with my values for anti-speciesism and non-violence. She would have died anyway in the wild. Me feeding her mice is very different from the owl getting her own mice in the wild because she is making the choice rather than me. In my Aunt's case, the conservation people were going to put her down, but my Aunt took the owl into their home instead where she lives with them. She's 20 years old now! Anyway, I would rather the owl lived so I would hope I wouldn't have to make that awful choice to let her die. What I would do instead is a solution that could allow both the owl to live AND the cow to live and the mouse to live. SO there would be no violence and no suffering in order for one life to live. I would take a drive onto the desert highway early in the morning once a month and find a freshly killed kangaroo. I would collect the roo and take it to the local butcher. I would freeze the cut pieces of roo (with the fur) and feed the owl in rations. That way I am not creating any extra demand for killing animals. This is the only ethical choice available to me.
When you think about the dogs and cats who exist to serve humans in the millions who otherwise wouldn't exist -that is A LOT of meat they need to eat. So many animals are required to be killed for these pets when their existence is not natural in the first place. Compared to their original ancestors, there are only a few thousand wolves and wild cats in their natural habitat. Their takings would be tiny compared to the domestic pets of the world. Our dogs BTW, are all vegan. All healthy too. They get a diet with all the nutrients essential for dog health . We do not have to require that other animals are killed in order for our own to live.
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 5:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have always wanted to visit oz and plan to when I can afford it. Most of the animals in my care are of Australian species. I also love their policy on wildlife. I fully agree with their policy of outlawing live feeding. I have over the last year been converting all in my care to co2 euthanized prey items. While some have tahen to this change with no problem, others are a little more difficult. A few have forced my to do the "Here comes the airplane comin' in for a landing ,open up the hanger" routine for 10 minutes or so. My point about to feed live or prekilled was that alot of people see either as wrong for for it is wrong to keep animals in the first place. I can respect that veiw but I am not planning to up quit anytime soon. I agree that we tamper with nature too much and that life takes it's coarse when it does. You should read my post about animal testing to get the full extent of my opposition (in most forms) to that subject.
- Mcdowelli76 June 14, 2009 2:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
The only thing that should be required for animals to be a part of the moral community for consideration is sentience.
What did u think of the analogy I made of being faced with a decision to choose which animal gets to live: the snake, or the mouse? Why choose one sentient being over the other? Why is one more valuable or deserving than the other? In the answer lies the discrimination. The snake is more "beautiful", I "like" snakes more, the snakes are my " pets ", but the mice are not, snakes are "iconic", snakes are "cool" animals, snakes are "rare" and deserve protection/to live, mice are "common" and "overpopulated", mice are small and stupid, and in your words; mice are "items". All of these descriptions and labels are irrelevant to morality and what is important in choosing to grant life or death. The only thing that is important to making a moral decision about someone's life is sentience and the ability to suffer. Both the snake and the mouse possess these. Neither species has any more right to life than the other.
When a wild snake kills food to eat, he does it for the purpose of survival, he does it naturally and it is his choice. When a human keeps a snake for the pleasure of keeping a pet, and then kills small animals for the snake to eat, the killing is no longer natural and is no longer the decision of the snake. The killing is done by the human for the pleasure, (not the survival) of the purpose of keeping a pet. The killing changes from being something that was essential (as survival in the wild) to something that is unnecessary and trivial (as owning a pet).
- Desert Girl June 23, 2009 7:43AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It is argued that zoos help conserving species by breeding them, but really they are just keeping up their own "stock" to share around with other zoos. So long as wild animals are kept in captivity and not released into safe habitat, the zoo animals who are bred are not contributing to their own survival. The only members who matter are wild ones, otherwise they are merely exotic pets exploited for entertainment and pleasure for humans.
What all wild animals need around the world is HABITAT!!! This should be our primary focus if we are really serious about conservation. Habitat. Give them a place to live and they'll thrive!
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 5:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
The groups I was refering to are the turtle and tortise consortium and others life the Vietnamese Bear Rescue programs. Some work outside of the country their species are native to because we currently have not found a way to protect them in their native land.While we all could just point a finger at the ones responsible for a species extinction being people with compassion and a feeling of obligation to stop our own kind from doing this is the difference between humans and everything else on the planet. I am not saying it is right but most animals kill indescreminatly either for food and territory or mates, that nature as it was intended to be. I am not saying it is ok for us to do this to other species at all. I don't get where humans became so high and mighty to think it's ok to kill another species yet not our own. I know most will say it is because of our capacity for knowledge and all of that but the double standard we give animals is pretty lame to me. While it's not hard to tell I could use spell check when I make these posts it is straight off the top of my head and I am not trying to please or dis-please anyone with what I post. I understand that some of my actions may be contradictory to what I say I feel. No ones perfect ,
- Mcdowelli76 June 14, 2009 2:39PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Hello McDowelli. Ok, I agree with rescue groups and sanctuaries for animals who are injured, orphaned or their species are threatened, but strictly without paying visitors (then it becomes a zoo!).
We cannot justify our exploitation on non-human animals (for pets , food , etc) on the basis that they are less intelligent than we are or that they have little capacity for moral judgement, because in the case of humans, we still provide basic rights and respect. We do not exploit retarded humans and believe they still deserve basic human rights. We ought to grant non-human animals the same. The only thing that should be required for animals to be a part of the moral community of consideration is sentience.
- Desert Girl June 23, 2009 7:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
1). Because animals deserve rights to life and freedom as we do, it is wrong to "keep" and "own" pets -no matter who the species is -whether a dog or a snake. I wouldn't keep a rare African pygmy man as a pet, and I wouldn't keep a rare boa constrictor as a pet either. No matter what the species, and no matter how well I treat them, I have no moral right to own anybody.
2). The benefit of a human overcoming a snake phobia is no moral justification for the animals' imprisonment. Just because we benefit from keeping wild animals in the zoo for people to 1. enjoy and 2. learn from, doesn't make it right. We can take benefit from slavery, but it doesn't make it right. Zoos claim that they are a major source of education for the public which can lead to greater protection and conservation, but the proof is poor. The vast majority of people who visit zoos do not read the facts beside the animals. They gawk at the animals in their prisons and enjoy the convenient caged sight of them without having to venture into the wild. Switch the species. Would it be ok for us to keep wild human "savages" as pets and justify it for the purposes of educating people to help protect the rare tribes and overcome any fears they may have about the people? I think not -it's wrong to own people and confine them -no matter how nicely they are looked after -it's wrong. Fact: early last century the London Zoo had a display of an African pygmy man.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 9:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While I would never care for a animal with the only reason being to help people overcome their fear of it . It is a added bonus. If I had the choice of letting a animal become extinct from mans incroachment and Being able to take part in ensuring they are not lost forever I would chose the second. Since I cannot myself change the fact that it will happen to them in the wild since I do not have a hand to strike down those who would cause the extinction of a species I would like to help in a achievable goal such as assurance populations. Einstien once said that worse than the evil doers of the world are those who stand by and don't do anything. There is no getting around the fact that not all animal in captivity are cared for to the highest standards, but to say that all animals kept in captivity are imprisoned and better off in the wild is unreasonable and also untrue. If we could turn back time and give them back their homes that no longer exist then it might be,but until that day some are better off in protected habitats unless their extinction is no big deal. While this does not pertain to all species and we can't change the past we can right the wrong we have done to those it does.
- Mcdowelli76 June 14, 2009 12:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
We should be obliged to care for the animals whom are in our care and give them the best lives possible. For the animals who can be returned into the wild, they should. But for the others they should remain in captivity and given a good life. But we should never keep wild animal unnecessarily, what I mean by that is, for our own benefit and amusement - zoos , tourist parks and reptile centres with paying customers are a good example of exploitative situations. We should only be helping animals if they need it, with the primary focus of getting them back into wild, or creating a safe wild sanctuary, and then preventing them from needing our care in the first place by protecting wild places from human degradation and interference.
Einstein was a vegetarian .
Animals belong in the wild. We need to give enough habitat to thrive, and stay out of it!
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 7:33AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
3). Human safety is a different issue to the moral issue of whether or not we should keep pets . It just adds to it, but is not the primary question of importance. So whether it's safe for you or not, makes no difference to the animal who's freedom is on the discussion board.
Throughout history, humans have suffered terrible diseases and deaths because of our interference with other species. All of the major plagues and pandemics were caused by our exploitation of " food " animals . The most serious diseases that threaten human health revolve around our unnatural contact with other species -bird flu, swine flu , mad cow disease, 95% of food poisonings are from eating animal foods, the number 1 source of water pollution worldwide is from animal production, the biggest killer of men and women in western countries is heart disease -eating animal products ( meat , dairy, eggs) are heavy in saturated fat, free radicals, excess protein and cholesterol and is the main contributor to the disease. Exploiting animals is killing us!
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 9:23AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
4). By looking at the statistics of the wild animal trade, endangered animals are poached less when their trade is banned. Sure they are still poached, but far less than when it is open season on stealing these animals from their natural habitat. What would happen if the tiger trade was merely regulated rather than banned? Disaster! I have even been reading about the sex slave trade and prostitution recently. In countries where it has become legalised and regulated, the number of prostitutes working exploded ten times, many of them slaves from other countries. So it seems in the attempt to regulate an already exploitative industry where most of these women get abused, raped and beaten (not to mention traded!), this just made it worse -much, much worse!
Freedom. Worth a thought.
Have a great night.
Desert Girl
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 9:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I don't get the idea that domestic pets were enslaved into companion servitude by people thousands of years ago. It was a mutual decision. Just as the siamese alley cat I now care for figured out "hey, if I cozy up to this thing it will feed me". If we ware to blame then so are the animals (dogs and cats from that time that found out if they hang around these people are a souce of food . Originally it was a compromise by species just as other species do in the wild. To insist we should not have them in our lives is to ok their extermination seeing as after thousands of years in our society there is no ecosystem that can handle them. We can't turn back time and unless letting them wreak havoc on species that have never had to deal with them can be justified then they will forever stay a part of us. To fight for fair and dignified treatment of them is possible but to go farther than that is much more dangerous to everything else on the planet as well.
- Mcdowelli76 May 31, 2009 7:30PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You could domesticate just about any wild animal with effort and breeding over time. It is easy to desensitise an animal from their natural fear of us. It is doable to train and condition wild animals to live with us. Some animals have been radically physically changed through their DNA in order to be most exploitable for humans. Just because we CAN do these things to animals, doesn't mean we should do them. Just because we can domesticate a tiger or a cat, doesn't mean we should.
Many conservationists strongly advise and educate visiting people to NOT feed or touch wild animals or birds in national parks because it will alter their natural behaviour. This can potentially harm and kill the wild animals who become dependent on the seasonal visitor food source, or may attack humans as a result of losing their fear of them through contact and then be killed for it later. We know that we shouldn't interfere with the natural life of wild animals and for this same reason, we should not keep pets or domesticate animals. We ought to care for the domestic animals who already exist but cease breeding any more into existence for our own personal gratification. No, domestic animals should never be released into the wild, it would hurt them and it would hurt the wildlife.
How was it a mutual decision on the part of the wolves who were killed by the tribespeople when they displayed aggressive traits? This is how they were bred. The docile ones were kept and bred. The aggressive ones were killed. Puppies didn't ask to be taken from their mothers. This happens on a mass scale today. Whether the pup comes from a puppy mill or a happy home with a family of humans, children should never be taken from their mothers but that is exactly what is happening.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 11:10AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While wild animals should only be observed and it is possible to leave them be and not disturb them, our domestic animals would not survive. We have a choice. Do we continue to care for those that we created and have come to rely on us? We can't turn back time and change this situation we have created. While the mutual decision was not made by all members of both species a fair percentage did. We as humans are to blame for the situation we have made just as we will be responsible for the loss of these species if we are able to stop the breeding of them. I would prefer not to think of them having to pay for our mistake with their extinction but that is the cross we will carry should it happen. In a perfect world we would not have doomed them to this reality, but in a perfect world their wouldn't be so much war, starvation, disease, ect. Knowing that a perfect world is a nice dream but impossible to achieve we need to concentrait on acheivable goals.
- Mcdowelli76 June 14, 2009 12:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
is the happiness a pet can provide someone. They love unconditionally, they dont care how you look, smell, act, dress. They dont see your bank account and then decide if they love you or not. You are always popular to them, your attention is what they crave. Pets... one of lifes greatest and purest joys.
- angelmama August 14, 2009 6:24AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
HSUS make the point- Of course, pets are and should always be a big part of our lives. Ask my 86 year old (young) father. His key to happiness and youthfulness is his constant companion Duke, his dog. Shame on anyone who would consider taking the joy away from either one of them.
- Gus August 25, 2008 11:54AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
As the institution of "pets" relies on human intervention in some form for its continuation (i.e., breeding, human ignorance), doesn't this intervention raise an ethical dilemma if we take seriously the premise that nonhumans are not our property? From your line of reasoning it seems to follow that you disagree and would approve of human intervention to maintain the institution. This is at least implied.
We shouldn't misunderstand this argument though. It doesn't follow from Francione's complaint that our companion animals should be taken from us or released. We have an obligation to them. We can and ought to co-exist. Given the millions of "pets" that are already in existence, I won't ever be without a rescued dog, cat, etc.
However, intervening so as to create more for personal, selfish reasons raises an ethical question that should be considered.
- Alex M August 26, 2008 11:52AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Wouldn't ending the institution of pet ownership effectively result in dogs and cat becoming extinct?
There is no "right" answer to the question; only an answer that satisfies those (in much of the world) elected to represent the people (i.e., in power). Taking the assumptions of majority pet owners and meat eaters the public clearly wants to be able to raise animals as pets and for food. Since I do not really fear any pet rebellion nor is some higher authority punishing me for my love of steak and my pet Bandit any ethical concern is hollow and merely a mechanism for those who oppose treating pets as animals to voice their displeasure and indirectly bash their opposition.
Your set of morals and values does not make for a set of ethics our society needs to abide by.
- polobo August 27, 2008 3:27PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
The idea of ending animal exploitation is not a mere whim. It is backed by logical arguments of ethical consistency. You've failed to refute these points and have only shown your own blatant inconsistencies. You love one species as a companion and you support the mass enslavement, torture, and slaughter of another species. How do you explain this arbitrary behavior?
In a world that just contains you, you needn't justify anything to anyone. In a world where you impact other members of our planet through your actions, don't you feel you should justify your actions to those who have thoroughly explained why all sentient beings should be protected?
Stop bringing legislation into this argument. There are no intelligent animal rights supporters who feel the time is right for legislation to outlaw the use of non human animals.
- mike August 27, 2008 8:48PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
This "arbitrary" behavior is explained that I enjoy the benefits of keeping my pet alive in addition I do not have a problem with the fact that I enjoy meat and thus, through hunting or breeding, must find a source and kill it. In both cases I may be selfish but am hardly inconsistent.
I have (through various shorter comments) justified a position (basically I am fine with the status-quo and I am intentionally ignoring a description of a Utopian state) but one that you will never accept as being valid. I accept this and understand that I do not need your individual acceptance in the matter.
I cannot ignore legislation since that is the foundation of the "ethical" code that I must live with in my daily life. I agree that getting others to accept your position requires time and debates such as these but if your sole defense is "I think we are evil if we do this" then you are unlikely to ever change the status quo.
- polobo August 28, 2008 7:34AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
1) what is arbitrary is your treatment of species. You've decided to cherish the life of one species and abuse/end the life of another. If I did this to different races of humans, you can bet I'd have some serious justifications to deliver to a majority of people who felt this was wrong for reasons far beyond legal ramifications
2) you say that your "I thinks" and "I feels" are justification, yet you insist that these are the flaws in the opposition
3) you state a conditional "if your sole defense..." but that condition is not met, because while I have feelings on the matter, these are not the source of my defense. It is logic, reason, and a movement towards consistency in belief and action that serve as my defense
4) you believe that your ethical foundation comes from a legislative body, yet a change in legislation has NEVER proven to be the most effective way to alter the status quo (I refer back to African Americans' right to vote).
- mike August 28, 2008 7:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
2) My feelings and thoughts are "right" in-so-much as they match reality. If pet ownership were made illegal then my keeping a pet would be wrong and your beliefs would be right.
3) You forgot assumptions. You simply list tools to lead from assumption to conclusion with the implication that your assumptions are "the truth". I do not claim my assumptions as being truth but in applying logic and reason to my assumptions I come to a view that is compatible with the reality in which I live and thus find such a reality acceptable.
4) Without legislation the fact that a moral majority exists has no legal effect upon those who do not agree with the majority. For those who agree with the majority legislation is unnecessary. Given your beliefs the goal of relevant debates is exactly what you say.
- polobo August 30, 2008 11:27AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I have no problem with your enjoyment of meat. I also recognize your enjoyment of keeping pets.
The issue is that these pleasures of yours necessitate the infringement of the inherent interests of others.
It is the identification, clarification, recognition, and eventual protection (first through a moral majority, then legislatively) of these interests that should be the focus of every debate regarding members of other species.
- mike August 28, 2008 8:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
1a) Hitler was only punished once the people of our world joined forces and removed him and his military from power based upon a shared real belief.
1b) Humans are currently in a position to command the resources of this planet in a way that suits their needs and desires (food, shelter, energy, love). To exercise this power is neither right nor wrong but a fact of our existence. Owning pets and killing animals (or harvesting plants) for food is simply one manifestation of this power. Diseases kill human but that fact is no more metaphysically wrong than our killing animals.
- polobo August 30, 2008 11:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Raising animals for food is not enslavement or torture. Animals eat animals. Sit out side for a while and watch the cat eat the bird, or watch the bird eat the worm. As the gentleman above made the point..... we are the top of the food chain. I seen no reason to stop eating meat because it offends you. Period. It is a natural order. How much more simple can it get. It isn't something we made up and decided to do one day out of the blue. We were never grass eaters who suddenly decided to eat meat. We have canine teeth for a reason. It has been part of the evolutionary scheme of life since life's inception. It's pretty basic. Man has raised animals as well to work farms to survive. If you didn't have domestic animals to work with then you never would have had the chance to eat other things besides meat. We would still be nomadic and tribal moving from place to place. It is the way it is because that is the way it had to be. It is natural order. So why in the name of anything should millions of people change their lives because you believe something they do not?
- faithinlove September 22, 2008 6:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
All of those points you bring up have been refuted ad nauseum and are very undeveloped. Please make sure to read more of the discussion so that you don't repeat. The discussion with the previous poster has to do with moral versus legal rights, and has very little to do with your post.
But I can humor your arguments a little.
*Enslavement - defined as being compelled against one's will to perform labor or services
I'm sorry. What did I miss here?
*Animals eat animals
First, that statement would be better read: "Some animals eat animals". But I don't see this as a logical justification for us doing so. If your argument here is that "it's in nature" there are certainly other behaviors you can think of in nature that we humans choose not to do because it's unethical.
*Food chain
No. I'd argue that human cannibals are at the top of the food chain. They are making a conscious decision to use other humans as a food source, irrespective of their individual interests. It would follow, then, that in your world view, cannibalism is ok.
*Canine teeth
Our "fangs" are hardly equipped for catching and killing a living creature. Why couldn't I use that same argument in comparing our teeth to herbivores? Our teeth structures are far more molar-intensive than animals that subsist off of meat. And on the flip side, gorillas have enormous canines used for crushing and tearing plant matter. This is a very antiquated argument.
*If you're suggesting that "we've always done it" is an argument for continuing to do so, then why do we continually rethink the way we treat fellow humans? People of color? Women? Human rights have developed considerably in the past several thousand years, and tradition or status quo has only been the justifications of those who we now look at as "closed-minded" and "prejudiced".
*If your argument is that crop planting and harvesting would never have existed without the exploitation of animals, then you've got your work cut out for you in proving this.
*If your argument is behavior based on norms or numbers, I again refer you to the fact that ethical awakenings happen little by little. No one should change their behavior because of my beliefs. They will change their behavior because of their own. The problem is there is a lot of unlearning to do, because many people are steeped with the illogical, dated arguments much like those you've listed. Once we get past those, then we can get at what people actually believe.
Why in the name of anything should millions of people stop keeping black slaves just because you believe slavery is wrong? It's the way things have always been. We are more superior than they are. Much of the world's economic growth can be attributed to the efforts of slaves. People shouldn't think it's wrong because I do. Slowly, regardless of my personal beliefs, most people will be able to recognize that infringing on the interests of black people is unjustified.
- mike September 22, 2008 8:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Is there a "right" answer to "Is racism morally justifiable?"
Taking the assumptions of the majority of Americans during the 30's, 40's, and 50's the public clearly wanted to be able to relegate black American's to the status of 'not-quite' human. Since most didn't really fear any successful rebellion during the 1920's nor was it believed that some higher authority would punish them for their love of cheap labor and the front seats on the bus any ethical concern is hollow and merely a mechanism for those who opposed treating blacks as blacks to voice their displeasure and indirectly bash their opposition. The abolitionists of our past had a set of morals and values that didn't make for a set of ethics their society needed to abide by.
- Alex M August 28, 2008 8:18AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I suppose that in your world view completely void of any ethical code existing outside the confines of a legislative edict, you can remain consistent. It is legal to eat meat, therefore eating meat is right. By your terms, killing thousands of Jews was once ethically sound. The government sanctioned this behavior, and a large number of people felt it was ok. Therefore it was right...right?
Rights and morality are not entirely relative. There is a logical way to approach each of these. Once we explain and are all using the same language, semantics wars become obsolete and we can actually get down to logic and fact.
I say that morality should always stem from viewing an action's impact on the interests of sentient beings. This removes so much of the ambiguity that comes from people saying that they FEEL things are right. Feelings, while intimately bound to morality, are not necessary in deciding right from wrong.
- mike August 28, 2008 3:03PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
This was intended for polobo, and I misthreaded. Forgive.
- mike August 28, 2008 4:29PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Uncommitted
I know exactly what you are saying, and if fact once held those same beliefs. However, what I am saying that Ethics as you conceive them do not exist. This is an assumption that I make when presenting my position.
There are various ways to enforce moral righteousness upon others. Laws work pretty well for members of the same geographic and idealogical society. Such a society, however, is solely a mechanism for individuals to pool their collective power so that they may live in the way they so choose without fear or redress by others. That society needs some other means of "leverage" in order to enforce those beliefs upon others. Consider another entirely separate and self-sufficient society holding different beliefs. Neither society is more right or wrong in their beliefs vis-a-vis the other since there is no common super-authority that both societies are judged by (assumed by stating "entirely separate").
- polobo August 30, 2008 11:39AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You are assuming that the only way to enforce moral norms is through a formal legal sanction.
Putting aside that moral critiques of the law are needed for law to change, you really do not understand how moral norms shape behavior. A great deal of our day-to-day behavior is guided by moral norms that have nothing to do with the relatively few norms that are enforced by the legal system. I thought we all learned that in high school, where we encountered what is now called "peer pressure."
GLF
Gary L. Francione
Professor, Rutgers University
- Gary L Francione August 30, 2008 12:02PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
A "moral norm" is quite different from an "ethical absolute" which is where much of the commentary seems to have been deriving its justification. The closest we have to ethical absolutes are moral norms; agreements between members of a society whether they be formal (laws) or informal (peer pressure). If the informal means are effective then I agree that the formal ones are unnecessary. In my example the "moral norms" prevalent in one society are no less right or wrong than those enforced in the other since they lack a shared frame-of-reference/judge.
Other means of enforcing moral norms are wars, beatings, brain washing, indoctrination, enticements, leverage/exchange, and ostracizing. Indeed, "peer pressure" is simply a combination of many of these elements so that a group, not having the power to legislate, can direct the actions of individuals that wish to belong; so long as those actions do not go against the higher authorities that the group is bound to abide.
- polobo August 30, 2008 6:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
This sounds a bit Kantian, to think that there are 'norms' but could 'morality' be competely relative? If that were so, could we have a meaningful legal system? Perhaps morality is relative and the legal systme is an imposition of a morality? After there are cultures where morals may be quite different to Western cultures? Can concepts of right and wrong be trully objective?
- sor666 August 31, 2009 1:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Therefore - keeping in mind that we are having a discussion as a means to convince people of the illogic of their position (not force) - following this line of reasoning, in a patriarchical society, could a legitimate challenge be made against sexism? Or would you argue that the anti-sexist side is engaging in a hollow discourse because, due to subjectivity of ethics (and "right in numbers"), the sexists are right and ought not be criticized?
To label this an appeal to "absolutes" is erroneous. This project, better represented in the "Should We Eat Meat" debate, is the unfolding of our own premises regarding suffering, leaving, I think, objectivity/subjectivity aside.
- Alex M August 31, 2008 12:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I have no qualms and indeed resort to an appeal of like-mindedness regarding morals. However, I do not claim absolute superiority and indeed try and understand the foundations of the beliefs held by the opposing parties. Your assumption that my position is inherently illogical since it results in my treating animals and humans different is what I take issue with. You also consider the issue as being inherently good/bad whereas I simply see two (or more) possibilities either of which is possible.
Tell me why abolishing the status quo benefits our society without appealing to morals. I've quickly read into some of the meat comments and pointing out that - it costs more to grow food and feed it to animals that we then consume as opposed to just eating the plants ourselves - is the kind of argument that I am referring to.
If your goal is to build a consensus based upon shared personal beliefs and then use that consensus to force change you will have validated my underlying assumption that "might makes right" is our reality. Given this reality I will, and expect others to, act to make themselves as powerful (individually or by submitting to a group) as necessary to secure those things they value.
- polobo August 31, 2008 1:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Yes- and that would be so good! Cats eradicate wildlife and many dog breeds are completely unhealthy (for the dog).
- sor666 August 31, 2009 12:58PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
They are cousins, not conveniences. Yes, very much so! Pet ownership and the market behind it exploit these animals, not allowing them to develop into their natural state.
The fact that many of our pets are strays, or pets with otherwise gloomy futures, is irrelevant because they wouldn't BE there in the first place, if it weren't for the market demand! Stop the industry altogether, and focus energies on providing shelter for the pets that need it today.
- sonofwill September 5, 2008 6:21AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I found this entry to be a very poor argument on the HSUS' behalf. It only goes 'knee-deep' into the situation by regarding pet ownership as mutually beneficial. While I agree that the love we bring into an animals life is as genuine as the love that they bring into ours, we have to give this topic more thought and consideration with respects to other areas of the debate rather than focusing only on the "mutually beneficial" argument.
Gary Francione is correct in stating that anyone who does not reprehend the use of animals for food, clothing, etc. will very likely not be able to empathize with the negative aspects of pet ownership. So it would be wise to take a crash course in animal rights before making your argument for this topic.
The HSUS does indeed believe that animal exploitation is morally wrong, but then why can't they see the problems associated with pet ownership that go against their fundamental beliefs as an organization? - That is the fundamental belief that animals' interests have to be taken seriously.
The fact is that we CANNOT have domesticated companion animals without exploiting them! Hypothetically, lets say that there are no longer any homeless cats and dogs, animal shelters do not exist and all "pets" are treated like our human children. The practical matter is that in order for us to continue having domesticated companion animals we will rely on breeding. As a result of breeding, many mothers and their children are being separated at an abnormally early stage in their relationship. Also, a very large percentage of breeders will be breeding for profit thus reinforcing the commodity status and economic use of animals. This is animal exploitation at its roots!
Putting "business" and profits aside, animals are ultimately bread for human companionship. (Without the demand for companion animals breeders would not exist). Once an animal is born you are giving them an opportunity to familiarize themselves with their surroundings and eventually set into a very comfortable state. Animals are social creatures and can find extreme comfort in a setting where they see the same humans and non-humans on a daily basis. They have made friends and have created close bonds- just like we do! What moral justification do we have by stripping them away from all they've ever known and putting them in the hands of what is to them, a complete stranger and a foreign environment?
All of my three cats are rescued and I can admit that most companion animals will quickly adapt to their new surroundings... However, in reality many animals are sent from home to home several times in their life for a variety of reasons (behavioral problems, not getting along with the other dog, allergies to animal fur, etc). This is socially and psychologically unhealthy for any animal just as it is unhealthy for a human child to hop from foster home to foster home.
So unless we ALL suddenly start taking our relationships with companion animals more seriously (without the possibility to pass them off to someone else for our own selfish convenience) and we truly and genuinely take animal interests seriously then we will stop the breeding...because their is no way to have relationships with domesticated animals that is 100% favourable to both human and nonhuman sides. The favour will always lean towards us...and that just isn't fair to the animals.
I love sharing my home with cats...and I will NEVER give them up. I care for them like I would my own human child. It hurts me to think of a life without the loving companionship of animals. But the reality is that we cannot continue to have domesticated companion animals in a world that shows them equal consideration to our own human interests. Sad but true.
- Gronlandic Edit
February 2, 2009 9:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There is no way around it. Those who would ay we should not keep pets or eat other animals also will insist that amn is a animal just the same. So what aside from guilt makes some feel that while animals can man should not. Our ability for compassion and inttelligence gives us the ability to protect other species from unjust treatment and to live and die with dignity. The keeping of pets is not a admission to feeling power or ownership over animals. While all of my immediate family are constrictors and monitors ,should I adopt out ones I have rescued I do not charge a fee. I will not relinquish care of any living creature without knowing It is going to be treated with the care and respect it deserves. If man cannot co-exist with all other creatures our lack of understanding them will do far more damage. The human population will continue to rise while the earth's size does not.
- Mcdowelli76 May 29, 2009 9:10PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Hi McDowelli. SOME animals eat other animals, not all of them. Many animals eat plants. Our human bodies physically resemble other plant and fruit eating animals such as our very long stomachs, our blunt teeth, our blunt nails, our weak jaw, etc, etc. You are suggesting that we humans, like all other animals are a part of the food chain and not separate from it. Of course we are. We have been established as omnivores (although much proof exists to suggest we should eat a plant based diet ), and as omnivores we have a CHOICE. Lions as carnivores have no choice about what they eat, but we do.
Just because certain species of animals kill and eat other animals doesn't mean we should do it too. We should not model other animal's behaviour in order to form our own moral decisions about how we choose to behave ourselves. While some animals hunt and kill to survive, many animals also choose to rape in order to survive. Just because some animals do this, doesn't justify humans doing it. Some lions will kill baby lion cubs, doesn't mean we should do this either. Killing animals for food is a very violent act. For lions this is a necessary act and a natural part of the balance of the ecology . For us, violently killing other animals for food is completely unnecessary. Also, the ecology would not be disrupted if we stopped killing animals, in fact, the ecology could get a chance to be restored if we stopped killing animals because the environment is suffering a disaster from humans producing animals for food.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 11:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
We do not need to cage animals in order to appreciate them and learn from them. I used to be a "horse lover" and ride them. Now I am a "horse respector" and appreciate them from a distance when I see them in the wild. I do not ride horses anymore, I do not keep them anymore. Horses should be free, not riding and companion slaves. Yes McDowelli, we CAN coexist with animals on this planet, but we do not have to put them in a zoo or in a cage at home in order to achieve this! Animals suffer when they are in captivity, no matter how well they have their needs met, they cannot taste freedom.
You have no control over what happens to your animals you sell. You can never really know. I sold my horse once to the best family I could find. A year later I found him skinny, neglected, unridden, locked up and displaying aggressive jealous behaviour to others due to being starved while other neighbouring horses got fed. A friend bought him back for me. I had no way of knowing. Another time I sold a Siberian Husky to a lady who paid top dollar for her and seemed in every way the perfect dog owner. Only months later she resold her when it became inconvenient to keep her. We would never sell our own children if it became inconvenient or expensive. My point is, you cannot REALLY tell how responsible someone else will be for the animal YOU created into existence, therefore it is irresponsible to breed them in the first place. You are taking a risk on the animal's life that the new owner will be responsible. If you are wrong about your judgement of them, it is the animal who pays for it with her suffering, not you.
We should coexist with other species of animals on this planet, but as free individuals, not as prisoners.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 11:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
While working with reptile rescues in my area I believe this. I myself will not accept money for a animalin my care. When the few that I know I cannot properly care for are given to me or I rescue from bad situations I have rules that I understand not everyone can follow but I keep to insure the well being of the animals .
1) I will not adopt out any animal without seeing the proper habitat in person. This does mean I use my own gas to deliver said creature to it's prospected new home and will not allow exceptions.
2)The people I work with in finding homes with proper care are rescues who specialize in the particular type or species who are able to feed them thru donations and sponsorships that ensure they will never go hungry. These rescues are not the type that hold adoptions or adopt out animals. They are run by enthusiasts who oppose breeding as well. While I understand not all rescues can afford to be run like this those are the types that I work with. We may have little if any social life but because of our love for the animals we wouldn't have it any other way.
- Mcdowelli76 June 13, 2009 11:44PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As I am sure this is just a habit of speech, you didn't intend to mean it this way, but I would like to point out a speciesist term here. You titled your post "Anials are not something to re-sell" -something? Animals are not something full stop! They are someone! I hear in the media all the time animals refered to as "its" sometimes even when the sex of the animal is known!
Anyway, from your post it is easy to see you love your reptiles very much and care a lot about them. That's great! Reptiles are very lovable animals! You should see the dudes I live with here in the desert. Apparently Australia enjoys the richest biodiversity in reptiles anywhere on Earth. We have some amazing reptiles. My favourite is the little thorny devil. She lives exclusively off ants and they look a bit like a leaf. They walk like they are rap dancing or something. When I used to be a tour guide, I had saved a couple from being squished on the road, by stopping and carrying them to the other side before a big bus came along. They are very slow walkers you see! They also drink water just by putting their feet in the water and letting the water creep up into their mouth!
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 7:55AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Gary L. Francione stated:
"Although some people treat their animals well, many more do not."
On what is this statement based? I am not aware of any studies that have been done to determine this. Would such studies even be feasible?
Is there any way that such information could be garnered about what happens in "most" pet homes?
Sounds to me like something that would require omniscience on the part of the author.
Call me doubtful...
- magicmistic April 21, 2009 6:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Hello MagicMystic,
Watch the film Earthlings to find out the statistics and facts in the first section of the film about pets . Millions of pets are killed in animal "shelters" just in the US alone. This should give you some indication about how uncaring pet owners are. HALF of them are turned in by their own owners. A third of them are pedigree animals . Only 85% of the pets in shelters are rehomed, the majority are killed.
Most pets who are abused by their owners would go unreported and unoticed behind closed doors. Even the ones who are reported and get to trial, get let off with a small fine. There is very little protection for companion animals and they have no basic rights. The anti-cruelty laws are there to protect property rights as animal rights do not exist. Anti-cruelty laws only apply to companion animals and not food animals or science animals.
www.earthlings.com
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 11:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Okay, Desert Girl. I watched the film. Of course, it is a tearjerker. It's full of graphic images meant to elicit an emotional response. But there were no stats that I heard about pets in that film. In fact, I didn't hear any stats in the film --- just emotional narrative pleas.
As for the stat you mentioned, Desert Girl, about only 85% of pets in shelters being rehomed, while the "majority" are killed --- I must ask where you learned math. If 85% of the pets in shelters are adopted, that is a clear majority. Politicians would love to have such a majority on the ballot!
But let's get back to the actual question we were discussing, which was whether or not most humans treat their pets well. This film does not address that. Most of the images were showing the processing of animals as food , not pets in homes.
As far as euthanasia statistics in shelters, those numbers include all animals euthanized. That means not only animals impounded as strays who don't find adoptive homes, but also feral cats, animals who come into the shelter very ill or wounded and in need of immediate euthanasia (as the kind choice). Also in those stats are, as you suggest Desert Girl, pets whose owners bring them in for euthanasia.
I will give your argument the benefit of the doubt in that there are some folks out there who probably do have healthy animals put down, for whatever reason. Perhaps they don't know there could be a better choice. But there are also folks who have their elderly, infirm animals euthanized at shelters as the kind choice. They do it to allow them to end their lives before they have a poor quality of life...so they are not lingering on in a life full of pain.
When your pets become elderly, what do you do? If they have a medical problem which is an end of life issue, and can't be solved, do you make the difficult decision to let them go...even though you would prefer they are with you forever? Or do you let them linger on, suffering?
As for me and my pets, I would make the difficult but loving decision.
That is the opposite of cruelty. It is the opposite of uncaring.
You also stated: "Most pets who are abused by their owners would go unreported and unoticed (sic) behind closed doors."
Once again, you are making a very broad assumption. You pretend to know what goes on in "most homes," just as the original author who made that statement did.
You do not know what goes on in "most homes." Why do you assume it is evil? Why not assume most pet owners treat their pets well? It is no greater a leap to do so than to assume the opposite.
The fact is, though, that you cannot support either view with any evidence. You and the original author are just making it up, knowing that some folks won't think about your argument critically.
I'm going to get off this silly machine now and go play with my pups. They need a hug, and so do I after indulging in an argument with no basis in fact. *sigh*
- magicmistic June 13, 2009 4:45PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Most of the animals killed in shelters are perfectly healthy animals. Many of them are adoptable. Half of them are turned in by their owners healthy. Some of them are strays too, but I don't agree with killing any of them no matter what their back ground. There is a humane solution to this put forward by Alley Cat Allies called TNR (Trap Neuter Return) and is proved to be more effective at animal control than the traditional method of killing them, letting them repopulate, kill them, repopulate, kill, etc.
I am in full support of euthanasia for both non-human animals and human animals. But strictly for the very sick incurable and suffering. If euthanasia is carried out on healthy people or animals, it is no longer called euthanasia, it is called murder ! That's exactly what it is!
While we literally murder millions of HEALTHY cats and dogs every year, we keep producing them at the other end of the conveyor belt by breeders, puppy mills, back yard breeders, accidental pregnancies and strays, all the while blaming the mass deaths on "irresponsible pet owners". No. WE must take responsibility and stop breeding them. Stop purchasing them. Stop killing them.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 10:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
It is easy, Desert Girl, to make all these statements you make. You and Mr. Francione can reel off rhetoric until the proverbial cows come home. Yet you provide no proof of your statements. Show us where you get your numbers and "facts" if you wish to make your case.
Here's one for you: shelter statistics are hugely variable in their accuracy. There are no reporting standards that apply from one locale to another. Thus, where are you coming up with all these statements that you propose to be factual? You speak as if they are proven, but they are not.
Either you are repeating the same words some other person has spouted before you, or you are making them up yourself.
You still present no reliable evidence, either way.
For what it is worth, I am in favor of TNR as well as Nathan Winograd's "no kill" movement. I support Bill Bruce's shelter management model.
Unfortunately, the HSUS and PeTA and the like are not in favor of these. They are fighting these programs tooth and nail. They are pushing legislation all across the United States this year that will cause increases in the euthanization of many adoptable animals .
- magicmistic June 13, 2009 11:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Hi Magic! You rightly request references of which I do not have. I am renowned for remembering facts and statistics in my own head. I thought I got them from watching the pet section in Earthlings which I mentioned to you. I could have sworn it was in there. Earthlings is not something I want to watch again!!! I am sorry I don't have the references for you and you deserve them. Really I should arm myself with the reliable references and not just count on what I remember! Cannot help u there, but I'm sure there's a good source of it somewhere. Gary on the other hand, unlike me, would have an excellent source of references available for his facts.
Putting this aside, I believe it is irrelevant how many millions of animals are killed in shelters as just one death matters. I also believe it is irrelevant how many pets are loved and how many are abused. One case of abuse matters. The fact that many pets are abused is not my reasoning for the case against pet ownership . As I said before, I do not take issue with how well pets are treated, I don't think we should be keeping pets in the first place. Why? For the very same reasons we wouldn't keep pet humans.
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 2:38AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I can only go by what I HAVE seen -I have witnessed pet cruelty before. Luckily most of the people I know are decent people and treat their animals well. Many of the abused animals are from people in poor socio-economic standards. My uncle was the president of the RSPCA for a very long time so this is where I have got my information from in regards to animals being mistreated. Also I get my facts from the statistics of animals being turned in at shelters. Millions of them are given up for reaons of inconvenience or disinterest or expense by their owners to shelters where they will be destroyed. Millions of people is not a small number to me. These are the REPORTED statistics, so the unreported statistics would naturally be higher. Even in homes that are wealthy, because animals are lower class, they can get mistreated (like being kicked or locked up, chained up, not walked, etc).
Putting aside the abused pets , the very best treated animals are still getting the short straw because they are our property. We would never treat humans in the way our very best treated pets are treated. We never take away babies from their mothers do we? But we do this routinely to cats and dogs -take their babies. The very best treated pets cannot choose their social life, see relatives, go out whenever they choose as a wild animal can. The very best treated pets have been denied the most basic rights that we enjoy as humans -the right to life, to liberty and to happiness. Legally we can kill our healthy pet without needing a reason at all -and this DOES happen in the millions. Although mostly happy in our homes, our pets are under permanent "house arrest" and cannot make any meaningful decisions on their own that they could if they were wild. They are forced to live as if they were children even though they are fully grown adults. They are utterly dependent on us for food , water and affection. Many well treated pets must go without affection and attention when the owners are too busy or have children.
I am not taking issue to whether or not pets are mistreated. I am taking issue with the fact that they are treated at all. We should not own pets any more than we should own slaves. A happy slave is still a slave! (and has no rights).
So sweetheart, I'm not making it up. On the contrary, I feast on facts and statistics. It's what keeps me going. The author of this argument is probably the most educated professor on the subject of animal rights in the whole world. He knows his facts. He has worked on many animal cases and is aware of all the latest stats.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 10:55PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
So, do you, Desert Girl?
- magicmistic June 13, 2009 10:59PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Yes I live with 2 husky dogs. Technically speaking I own them. I got them before I got an education about animal rights . So I contributed to the pet trade and all the misery that ends up at the other end (unwanted pregnancies & death in a pound) by purchasing. Only until recently I was clueless about the issue holding all the usual common beliefs we have about animals . I used to believe it was natural for us to live with dogs and cats and that it was some divine and beautiful symbiotic relationship. I don't believe that anymore after looking at the facts and a few passionate arguments with an educated animal rights activist (I strongly resisted the idea that pets are slaves!). I read a short book called The Dreaded Comparison- Human and Animal Slavery.
I am obliged to care for the animals I have. I will never purchase a pet again, just as I would never purchase a slave! If I ever want a dog again I will be sure to rescue one from a shelter and desex.
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 2:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Would you write about your experience of watching the film Earthlings on the discussion board? Plus any objections you have about it like what you wrote above?
http://www.earthlings.com/discussion-board/so-you-saw-earthlings.php
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 11:00PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hi Desert Girl,
I went to the board and read a few of the comments. Based on a couple of those, as well as something you said in a previous post here, I suspect I saw only part of this Earthlings flick. I saw nothing at the beginning that went into any depth about pets . As I've mentioned before, the bulk of it was images of food animals being processed while a narrator speaks about King Lear and Gloucester, etc.
I would like to comment as you suggest, but I think it would be better for me to do so only after seeing the "full" version of the film, if I can find it.
- magicmistic June 13, 2009 11:31PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You can purchase the dvd from the site I gave you. You probably only watched the trailer. You can watch the full film online at this site for $2.50 or something. Otherwise you can watch it for free at a couple of other websites like Youtube and free film (or whatever it's called).
Warning- it is extremely difficulty to watch the whole film, but worth it to extract the truth! I have a very hard time convincing anybody to watch this movie!
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 2:42AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I am sure it is hard to watch. The trailer gives an idea of that. But I won't shy away from being open to other viewpoints, even though I can see the agenda. I will watch it as soon as I get back from a trip I am leaving on tomorrow. Thank you for explaining the trailer situation.
- magicmistic June 14, 2009 5:49AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Whoops! Correction! I was tired...
85% of the shelter animals are killed. Only about 15% find homes. Making the vast majority of shelter and pound animals the ones that get killed.
In my small town of 28,000 people, 30 cats and kittens are killed every week at the local RSPCA while only one or two are adopted. Similar figures exist for dogs.
- Desert Girl June 13, 2009 10:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hey, Desert Girl, that's cool. I get it that we all make errors, especially when we are tired.
Still, 85% is a statistic found --- where? Only in your town?
If so, I am sorry to hear about the way your shelter is apparently being managed. There are better ways.
You state the 85% number as though it applies to all shelters everywhere. That statement is unsupportable, as far as I can find.
For example, the "shelter" run by PeTA in Virginia actually has a kill rate of closer to 97%.
According to CCF Director of Research David Martosko:
"An official report filed by PETA itself shows that the animal rights group put to death nearly every dog, cat, and other pet it took in for adoption in 2006. During that year, the well-known animal rights group managed to find adoptive homes for just 12 animals . Not counting pets brought to PETA for spaying or neutering, the organization killed 2,981 of the 3,061 “companion animals” it took in. According to VDACS (Virginia's Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services), the average euthanasia rate for humane societies in Virginia was 34.7 percent in 2006. PETA's "kill rate" was 97.4 percent."
In stark contrast to PeTA's statistics, the city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada has nearly the opposite rates:
"Through outreach, licensing discounts for altered pets, and appropriate enforcement of licensing and nuisance provisions, Calgary has increased licensure compliance to 93%, increased its return-to-owner rate to 88%, and reduced dog bites and shelter intakes. Its canine euthanasia rate is now 6%, and confined to dogs with significant health or behavioral issues!"
So please let us know, DG, where does the 85% figure come from? To what program(s) does it apply? It is a specious argument to put that number out there, implying that it applies to all programs everywhere.
Once again, I am 100% with you on the desire to avoid killing healthy animals in shelter situations. To that end, I am involved with a rescue group. We pull dogs from shelters and get them into new, loving homes --- thus taking some of the burden away from shelter personnel and giving more dogs a chance at avoiding that needle.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree on the entire question of keeping pets. I am for it and I don't see that changing. But as far as answers for preventing cruelty and unnecessary killing is concerned, we can continue debating it.
I believe there are answers. Folks need to be willing to open up their eyes and ears and look at all sides, see real facts, not just stay open to the one viewpoint with which they have currently aligned themselves.
*****
***
*
- magicmistic June 14, 2009 12:20AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
Yes u r totally right, statistics vary where ever u go. I know they change all the time in my town. The 85% pets killed in shelters was an AVERAGE of the united states. Even that would go up and down year after year. I heard about the boom in unwanted pets since the housing crisis in US as one example. We would never give up our children in a time of crisis, so much for pets being like "members of our own family" -yeah when it's convenient!!!
I'm certain the source of it was in the narration of Earthlings. But maybe it wasn't. I have nothing on hand as to where it came from. You were pretty good at digging up some stats yourself. It was these stats that I used as my main reason for demonstrating that a large number of people are irresponsible in caring for their pets (and the litters of unplanned pregnancies) because they ended up on the streets and in shelters. This is proof enough. Millions is a big number.
Most people are welfarists. If you are interested in at least hearing the rights perspective for animals , feel free to read the blogs, FAQ and listen to the radio podcasts, and watch the short video presentations on my favourite website www.abolitionistapproach.com
Have a good trip away.
DG
- Desert Girl June 14, 2009 7:41AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Hi Desert Girl
I've read many of your posts and I think that you are coming from a good point of view mostly of which I agree with, as a vegan and abolitionsit. However some of your comments perhaps need a bit more thought, like the one above about the housing crisis.
The housing crisis means people are becoming homeless and having to live in their cars , on the street or in motels. Most people in that position have no choice but to relinquish the animals they previously shared a home with.
Perhaps you were thinking of the Financial Crisis? I do remember seeing a news piece about people leaving their ' pets ' at shelters because they felt that they were a luxury they could no longer afford, which really put my teeth on edge. Of course for others it might be a choice between eating or feeding the cat, who knows?
I think we have to be careful not appear to only have empathy for animals and not humans - this is something we in the animal rights movement are often accused of. I myself am a vegan human rights activist first and foremost, but I support and volunteer at animal rights organisations when I am able.
Btw are u in Australia? There is a little Australian flag or is it New Zealand that pops up every time you make a post, but I thought you said you were in the States.
I'm in Australia myself.
- Trish108 October 28, 2009 3:25AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I think this argument both states an important point, but fails to carry it to its logical conclusion. The relationship we have now with pets is not the same as the original relationship HSUS talks about. While there is a new form of mutualism, to use the original form as an argument for whether we should have pets now is a fallacy. At the time, those animals were essentially free. Now, while still receiving a benefit, they are not free. If they escape or are born outside of a home they become strays and are treated much differently.
I personally believe that the relationship as it exists now, assuming quality treatment of the animal, is one worth continuing even without the animal having complete autonomy. However I also believe there are many practices that need alteration, including certain breeding practices that perpetuate genetic diseases just to keep a dog a "pure-breed".
- ToddG August 27, 2008 7:37AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
How can we "assum(e) quality treatment of the animal" if we must necessarily intervene in the lives of two sentient beings (who therefore have lives of their own) to re-produce our "pets" for human ends, which, therefore, makes these animals our property? We cannot assume "quality treatment," if this is to be intelligible given the context of this discussion, if the object being treated as such is merely property: an object with extrinsic value only. We can easily, though invalidly, justify our actions by assuming some benefit to the animals being created. However, on this line of reasoning we could similarly argue that forcing two humans to procreate so that we can take their children from them is justified if the two children live "comfortable" lives. The question, however, remains: Should we be forcing procreation so that the products can be used for our ends?
- Alex M August 27, 2008 3:16PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Does the established relationship, however thus arrived, represent a symbiotic relationship whereas the ability for our pet species to live depends on their being cared for by a human? If you do not support extinction of pet species then into what environment do you propose to release them once you have given them the status of individual beings?
In a order-of-dominance world those with dominance can and do force lower dominance beings to act/exist for the betterment of the dominant species. This is a matter is empirical fact without asserting right or wrong. I assert that our world indeed exhibits such an order-of-dominance characteristic and our current state of being is a natural consequence of that fundamental fact. To argue that we should change the status-quo without presenting benefits relating to our rank in said order turns the argument into a metaphysical description of a "Utopia".
- polobo August 27, 2008 6:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You are assuming that we can benefit a non-existent being. You're implying the following: Our actions allow future generations of "pets" to be born; therefore, without our intervention, they wouldn't be born at all thus I need to justify depriving them of the benefit of existence. Why this assumption is problematic should be clear: A non-existent being cannot be benefited nor can it be harmed or experience anything; it doesn't exist. Your complaint doesn't follow as a matter of logic.
For the "pets" that currently exist, Francione has made it quite clear that we have an obligation to care for them. The question arises, "Should we intervene so as to force-produce more animals as a means to satisfy our desire to have "pets"?" (The benefit here is strictly for humans currently living.) Francione's negative answer to this hasn't been refuted yet.
- Alex M August 28, 2008 8:31AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Quote:
"In a order-of-dominance world those with dominance can and do force lower dominance beings to act/exist for the betterment of the dominant species. This is a matter is empirical fact without asserting right or wrong. I assert that our world indeed exhibits such an order-of-dominance characteristic and our current state of being is a natural consequence of that fundamental fact."
Isaac Bashevis Singer wrote,
"As often as Herman had witnessed the slaughter of animals and fish, he always had the same thought: in their behavior toward creatures, all men were Nazis. The smugness with which man could do with other species as he pleased exemplified the most extreme racist theories, the principle that might is right."
- Alex M August 28, 2008 9:19AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I would not disagree with this assessment but neither will I judge whether this is good or bad. Indeed, I would assert that this is nothing more than a fact of our existence and thus inherently is "ethically neutral" since we cannot not choose that with which we were born.
- polobo August 30, 2008 11:46AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Is "might makes right," then, a valid ethical principle? And further, ought we to allow our inherently ingrained impulses to govern our actions with impunity? An impetus may be "ethically neutral," but action is not; therefore, if that impulse is the application of force, can that be challenged as unethical or not? If not, are you justifying Nazism, for example? We are not challenging "thought" so I don't understand the point of your rebuttal. You seem to be using a lot of words to not say a lot here.
- Alex M August 31, 2008 12:01PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Please pardon the mistype.
- Alex M August 31, 2008 12:11PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
I feel that it is a satisfactory model of ethics as they exist in the real world. Your "further" point is impossible to setup since any actions or decisions we make have consequences. Might does not equal physical force; as a society we have recognized there are other ways to influence the actions of others without resorting to the costly use of force.
Assuming the absence of "ethics" as they are generally applied (i.e., acting toward a metaphysical truth or perfection) stating that anything is ethically neutral/good/bad is impossible. I use "ethically neutral" as a substitute for this concept since the different between neutral and non-existent is minimal.
Nazism bothered enough groups that they resorted to the costly use of force to put down the regime. I support this course of action on a personal level and personally feel that our global society is better off for doing so even at the great cost of life we sustained. The reality is that if we could not forcibly end the Nazi regime then we would have had to live with it, regardless of our beliefs, until it collapsed on its own (think U.S.S.R).
- polobo August 31, 2008 12:32PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I will approach this (as I have been doing) from the perspective of the intrinsic value of sentient beings. The first issue is that we are not intervening to cause reproduction, the animals tend to be happy enough to do it on their own. Granted, keeping them from reproducing might cause some level of hardship, as might removing their children. I would be open to considering ways to minimize or negate these issues. It is very difficult (if even possible) to truly weight the pain of such parts of their lives against the joy and happiness of the rest of their lives. And frankly, if they have a great deal of joy and some bit of pain I think it is worthwhile to give them that life.
(continued in next post...)
- ToddG August 28, 2008 3:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As to the difference between animals and humans, I would argue first the question of autonomy vs dependency (see my argument in one of the other threads). Assuming you accept that argument that in the case of many animals autonomy is not always better than dependency (which you may not), then it is up to us to decide how best to raise and care for the animals we take as pets. While you may imagine a scenario of stray dogs, cats, etc, roaming free, I doubt society as a whole would support that. In the absence of the ability to allow such a life to these animals, being a pet is a good life. Even with the free life, there are greater risks. Moreover many dogs have been bred over generations to enjoy living with people, which may even invalidate a completely free life being better.
- ToddG August 28, 2008 6:53PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
No, we necessarily *must* intervene or the situation falls outside the institution of “pets.” Assuming the benefits afforded them by our intervention, then, does not do anything to negate the initial act of creating future generations of “pets” to satisfy certain desires for current, existing humans. You imply a situation more analogous to wildlife, which, while raising additional questions, is not a “pet” situation.
Quote:
“While you may imagine a scenario of stray dogs, cats, etc, roaming free, I doubt society as a whole would support that.”
First, we have feral cat populations that society “accepts.” Second, Francione’s (and mine) argument makes clear our obligations to “pets” who currently exist. Therefore, the issue of “setting these animals free” is erroneous. ("Freedom" is a red haring here.) The question is “Should we continue to force-breed animals so as to create future generations of utterly dependent nonhumans to satisfy human ends?”
Quote:
“Moreover many dogs have been bred over generations to enjoy living with people.”
See Francione’s argument at the end of this thread. He sufficiently challenges this position.
- Alex M August 29, 2008 8:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Would you be happy as you seem to imagine pets to be, if as a child, you were carried off the Earth and the human society that you are part of, by Martians and taken to their planet as a "companion" human in their service? You are well treated, fed, watered and all, there are no disease in Martian-land. Only you cannot leave the Martian society to be with beings of your kind - humans. You are forever trapped in a society of "other" beings, where you are confined within the walls your ownerschose for you, you eat what your owner decides you must, you go for a walk when your owner decides you must, and you can seek out mates and other human friends only if your owner does not mind.
If you put to use your capacity to empathize, you'll clearly see why our keeping "pet" animals is neither "natural", not good for the pets, because irrespective of the treatment they receive, there is NO way we can satisfy all their preferences and natural innate desires in OUR society. Thats a fact of life, no point denying it. Therefore, to me, owning of pets is immoral.
- Sandy
August 30, 2008 9:12AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
If I were the result of generations of breeding such that I enjoyed being around the Martians and were well cared for, as well as if I were mentally incapable of more complex thoughts about what I want to do with my life and achieve, then perhaps I would be happy in such a circumstance. I can imagine choosing such an existence over none at all. The fact is, there are massive cognitive differences between ourselves and the current breeds of dogs that are in use as pets. I could be wrong, as it's a very hypothetical situation, but I can at least imagine circumstances under which being a pet would be good/preferable to non-existence.
One thing to add is that I would promote more modifications to our pets such that they are even happier to be with us and not have certain relationships or experiences that they currently may want but that even with the best owners they cannot have (freedom to leave the house any time, the urge to breed, etc). We can get into more details if you want.
- ToddG September 5, 2008 1:41PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"How can we find loving homes for all the dogs and cats who need one? How can we gain more ground against indiscriminate breeding that leads to so much homelessness and suffering? How can we instill – and impose, when necessary -- a sense of responsibility in people who have pets and do not treat them right? How can we soften up our society so that we can enjoy more time with our pets in more places?"
These are all good questions, but they ignore the issue of "pure breeds" and breeders. The real question here is:
Why does the HSUS support breeders?
- ElaineVigneault August 30, 2008 1:00AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Objection! Actually, specifically, only 3 wolves, three individual wolves became a part of life for humans many thousands of years ago. This was a human intervention onto the wolves. Their genetics was to be grossly altered or mutated to suit human purposes, not to benefit the animal. Every domestic dog today can be traced back to just three individual wolves. From there, dog keeping was introduced to the rest of the world.
- Desert Girl January 6, 2009 9:06AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Desert Girl:
This is a very interesting theory. Can you support this comment about all members of canis lupus familiaris being descended from 3 wolves?
If so, which three wolves? And who were their humans?
Your comment is very vague and makes no specific references. Where did you come up with this theory?
More to the point, what difference would it make to the discussion at hand if what you state were true?
- magicmistic April 21, 2009 8:47PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Hi Magic! Nice to hear from you.
As exciting as it would be to claim as my own research, no I am not the source of this recently discovered fact about the origin of modern domestic dogs. Of course the theory is supported, otherwise I wouldn't have mentioned it. The actual genetics of all dogs can be traced back to no more than three individuals. It's all about genetics. Any one of us could trace back our ancestry through genetics. One could trace back their ancestry to even a particular part of Ireland and discover they were once related long ago. An American could trace back their ancestry in Africa and even a very specific area of the continent like the Zulus. I am sorry I cannot remember where I left the science article about this, so I cannot offer u a reference right now. If I find it again I can come back and provide a link to the research.
Good question about what is point/relevance to the discussion. Well, for all my life I think, until this recent discovery, I believed that wolf domestication was natural and widespread. I believed that hundreds or even thousands of tribes across Europe individually and seperately from one another adopted wolves into their clans and so began the process of taming them and altering their dna by killing the animals who were agressive, and keeping, breeding the wolves who were docile and obedient. But in fact, there would have been only ONE tribe. One single tribe, who got the idea to domesticate wolves. Dogs were the very first animal to be domesticated so this is where it all began. This one tribe who started this most unique behaviour of using wolves in their daily life would have introduced it to neighbouring tribes and to other tribes in different areas where they may have travelled. Then those tribes would have introduced the practice of keeping wolves or giving away puppies to other tribes until the practice eventually covered Europe. This is similar to an invention from an individual person like the invention of the wheel, which then spreads out from there. It only needed to be invented once, and then the technology spread. So what am I saying? That wolf domestication (slavery) by humans was not natural, it was an invention.
Kind regards, Desert Girl
- Desert Girl May 30, 2009 5:29AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
This argument from HSUS is not surprising considering what they stand for - that is: using animals as a means to our end is okay as long as we treat them 'well'. The 'Sr. VP of Communications' for HSUS mentions many ways in which pets are good for *us*. However, she or he does nothing to address the serious ethical issue surrounding the breeding of beings into a dependant life - not to mention the commodification of all non-human animals in the pet industry.
As Gary L. Francione mentions, the pet issue is really subordinate to the overall issue of animal use by humans. If you think animals are ours to use as we please, then you won't see anything wrong with having pets. If your compassion has evolved to include all living creatures, then you'll see the inherent problem with the practise - no matter how warm and cuddly they may be (like my rescued rottweiler).
- Niilo John Van Steinburg August 25, 2008 5:05PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
many animals evolve to be dependent on other creatures in the wild. This alone is not unnatural or a definite sign of an unethical state.
"If you think animals are ours to use as we please, then you won't see anything wrong with having pets"
I don't think animals are ours to use any way we please AND I think it's ok to continue having pets. I guess I don't fit into your black and white world view.
- reckoner August 25, 2008 9:12PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(4)
Side: Yes
I agree with reckoner on this point. The HSUS does indeed fail to consider the point of view of the animal in most of their arguments. Even in the case in which the animal's perspective is considered, it is a very shallow perspective. Nonetheless, the dependency vs autonomy issue is not clear-cut. I can see the value in either case, depending upon circumstances. In an uncertain world, autonomy would appear to be more beneficial, while in a less dangerous world, autonomy would not be as important and therefore might ultimately be less stressful and more enjoyable. Even humans might enjoy dependency, though we tend to argue for autonomy because otherwise we are likely to be taken advantage of. If we have laws and sufficient enforcement to treat animals well and not let them be taken advantage of, should we stop the practice of giving animals very pleasurable lives? Perhaps this is not yet the world we live in, but we could work towards it.
- ToddG August 27, 2008 7:44AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
but you do believe that animals are ours to use, and you still fail to explain how this is morally justifiable.
And don't worry, I'm not stalking you. It's just this very topic seemed to stem directly from the debate you and I had on the previous topic.
I continue to stand by the fact that neither this nor the meat question works to answer the most fundamental one: by what right can we justify using other species? Successfully argue that point, and I'd logically have to concede on all issues: food, clothing, entertainment, and pets.
- mike August 27, 2008 3:13PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
To what authority would such a justification be submitted? It appears that the two fundamental authorities for US citizens, the congress and the UN, while publicly deploring cruelty to animals, have accepted that the persons under their authority have the right to own (use) animals.
Any higher authority is either imagined or, if real, does not publicly enforce any judgments upon the persons under its authority. Given the absence of physical proof of its existence I would conclude that said authority is either imagined or does not in fact judge the actions of the persons under its authority and instead lets them lead lives as they and others sharing their physical world see fit. If I am wrong and will be sentenced to "hell" for owning an animal then that is a consequence that affects only myself and which I am solely at fault in my ignorance and disbelief.
- polobo August 27, 2008 6:25PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
I don't believe that an authority figure is needed for moral consistency. The effort to identify a behavior as "just" does not need to then be presented to a judging body. Punitive measures are not the primary modifier of human behavior. It's important to believe that once the truth is exposed, people will choose to do what is right.
Morality must be one of these fundamental authorities you speak of, and it must transcend legislation. We've seen it before. A majority of people had to believe that black Americans should vote before legislation had any real authority over the matter. When the people disagree, loopholes will forever be utilized.
- mike August 27, 2008 8:35PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Uncommitted
I do understand your belief system, since it is one that many people whose parents follow Christian teachings learn. I also accept that you cannot understand mine because it requires that you discard many of the foundations your belief system is founded upon. I am fine with this and actually find many merits in having such a moral absolute. But in my observations of reality and history I find that your system of beliefs, while appealing, do not fit and thus I "reject" it; mainly the implied assertion that humans are imperfect and that there exists some perfection that we can and should aspire to.
As for truth, the main/only truths that can really be exposed are physical truths. Physical truths simply are and do not imply good or bad. Humans die, gravity exists a force of 9.8 m/s; these are physical truths. Metaphysical truths cannot be so measured even if they do exist.
- polobo August 28, 2008 8:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
Your nihilistic world view is just too difficult to support and I don't feel you have. While I admit I struggle with the potential metaphysical implications of recognizing seemingly absolute truths, being the atheist I am, I'm not worried. I recognize that there is one consistent trait in us all that works to explain why the Holocaust was wrong. It's called empathy. Perhaps a truth such as this does not exist outside of humanity, by must it in order for it to make sense to those of us with this innate ethical characteristic?
You can try and marginalize my arguments by suggesting that I am similar to those raised with dogmatic religious ideals, but I'd prefer if you simply point out the actual flaw in my reasoning: 1) all sentient beings have interests 2) we should be consistent in recognizing rights that stand to protect those interests
Don't rebut by simply saying that "I believe there is no morality and change can never happen." That sounds to me like a leap of faith. :-)
- mike August 28, 2008 3:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
"but you do believe that animals are ours to use"
I think this is a red herring. I don't not believe that animals are commodities that we have absolute control over and I won't fall into the trap of framing this as a false black and white dichotomy.
There is a fundamental difference between a farmer having a well cared for cat that they "use" to hunt mice, and a factory farm that "uses" animals in the most disgusting way. Conflating the two is not a convincing argument in my eyes and forcing people to pick "use" or "not use" is a false choice.
- reckoner August 28, 2008 11:22AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
One that is void of our tradition-entrenched predisposition. Give me an example with human beings.
You seem to suggest that these arguments are trickery, when in fact it is your views on the welfare of beings that are not allowed to make fundamental decisions for themselves for their entire lives that I call into question.
There can be an enormous (and perhaps an ever-growing) difference between how a small town farmer treats his heifer and how a factory farm milks them dead within a fifth of their life expectancy. THAT has never been my argument. What I came to realize, though, is that the mentality of using animals to any degree is what will keep us, as a species with incredible potential to control with seemingly unending might, from ever recognizing our speciesist attitudes. It is these very attitudes that makes arguments for the betterment of welfare for animals that we enslave moot.
- mike August 28, 2008 3:15PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Uncommitted
Do sharks have to justify their use of (tasty) seals and other animals to some committee?
What about hawks? Is it necessary for them to appeal to some moral "authority" in order to eat mice and other rodentia?
Do bullfrogs feel constrained to explain why they eat insects, fish, other frogs?
Would you have felines (of any stripe) petition to be allowed to follow their nature as obligate carnivores, lest it impinge on the rights of some other species not to be eaten?
I could go on and on...
- magicmistic April 21, 2009 8:52PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: Yes
I suppose I should allow for those who refuse to see that the breeding of animals into a dependant life is "using" them. The same as those people who eat meat and don't really think about the fact that it comes from an animal who was killed for their taste buds.
I contend that that if you feel it is okay to breed animals into master-pet relationships, then you *do* feel that they are our to use as we please. I can't see how you can deny this, unless, as mentioned above, you refuse to see the logic.
As for your comment on evolution, that has no basis on morality. It's the same flimsy logic that people use to defend the eating of animals - by saying that such an act is performed continually in the wild.
- Niilo John Van Steinburg August 28, 2008 8:09PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
There is a fundamental difference between a farmer having a well cared for cat that they "use" to hunt mice, and a factory farm that "uses" animals in the most disgusting way. Conflating the two is not a convincing argument in my eyes and forcing people to pick "use" or "not use" is a false choice.
- reckoner August 29, 2008 9:11AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
You say: "many animals evolve to be dependent on other creatures in the wild. This alone is not unnatural or a definite sign of an unethical state."
Firstly, don t know what you mean by 'depending' on other animals. I imagine you are talking about symbiosis : An ecological relationship between two animals of different species for mutual benefit AND by mutual consent. With our ownership of animals that were bred to serve us as companions in our society, and totally removed from theirs, there is neither mutual benefit, nor mutual consent.
Second, even if I were to concede that wild animals do depend on others, this point is not relevant to pet ownership. "Pets" wouldn't depend on us naturally if we din't bring them in our society and leave them helpless in the first place. So basically, we artificially create their dependence on us and then use the self-righteous pseudo-argument of dependence. Thats like robbing a person of all his money, and then saying : "Well, we've gotta help the poor guy, you know? He depends on us for his very survival." and then taking the credit for satisfying his artificially created dependence on you.
- Sandy August 30, 2008 8:47AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
"With our ownership of animals that were bred to serve us as companions in our society, and totally removed from theirs, there is neither mutual benefit, nor mutual consent."
I don't believe this is true in all cases. Many domesticated animals have much better lives as pets than they'd ever have in the wild. As I've said in other comments, I've personally known pets that choose to be pets and could have returned to the wild at any point.
Your second point is the naturalistic fallacy. X is natural therefore x is good and anything that is not x is wrong. What's funny is that you AR people claim that we are animals just like all other animals, but by making claims about "natural" you are putting us above other animals. If we are animals like all others then anything we do is by definition natural.
- reckoner August 30, 2008 9:48AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(2)
Side: Yes
You may have seen some domesticated animals whose behaviour might have led you to think that they prefer being domesticated. How does that give us the right to bring other creatures into our society as domesticated? Secondly, a domesticated animal cannot survive the way its feral fellows do because they have been physically and psychologically mutated to suit our needs. So how do you expect a domesticated cow to step out of its patch and walk off into the forests ?
Next, your "naturalistic fallacy" counter is a straw man attack. Anyway, i never claimed that natural = good. Perhaps I should not have used the word "natural" because its intended meaning can easily be misunderstood. Essentially, my point was this: You cannot engineer a situation where you unnecessarily put the other being at disadvantage and thereby,force his dependence on you; and then "support" him/her in that situation of disadvantage and claim a moral license for putting them there in the first place.
Your attempt at a response to this latter point was a straw man argument, and I must say, with all due respect, I suspect its the best counter you can come up with.
- Sandy August 30, 2008 10:03AM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Just as I disagree with the claim of moral license on the part of those who wish to support the abolishment the pet/mean industries you disagree with those who claim the same in their ownership of pets and meat. In either case who is granting the license? I do not claim, nor need, a moral license (other than a self-granted one) to eat meat or own a pet in my country. See my other recent comments for more details.
- polobo August 30, 2008 12:38PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
"You cannot engineer a situation where you unnecessarily put the other being at disadvantage and thereby,force his dependence on you; and then "support" him/her in that situation of disadvantage and claim a moral license for putting them there in the first place. "
This situation does not apply to all pets or all breeding. My primary point is that the absolute lines you try to draw do not map cleanly to the real world.
Now the secondary points. I fail to understand your implicit premise which is that the only "right" state for animals is one devoid of man. I think it's clear that many pets have an advantage due to their status, if by advantage we mean survival of the species. Isn't that natural and the purpose of evolution?
- reckoner August 30, 2008 2:56PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
As someone HAS already pointed out to you, neither I nor anyone else here claims to provide ABSOLUTE lines. Your repeated straw men attacks indicate to me an absence of valid recourse within your argument.
My response applies to the institution of pet ownership and not necessarily every individual case of pet ownership. I myself have a pet dog at home, whom I took in from the streets when he was 3 months old. Am I doing something immoral by owning him as my pet? I think not.
The institution of pet ownership on the other hand, involves breeding of pets solely for satisfying our need for companionship from non-human beings. So, in that regard, it is basically slavery because we never pause to consider the interests of the being at the receiving end.
I have also responded to your second argument (which you repeat btw) elsewhere. If you tell me that you see nothing troublesome about the idea of a human being brought up humanely by Martians as a slave companionship (or as a "pet"), then I'll stop right there.
I have also already responded to the 'natural' and 'evolution' pseudo-arguments.
P.S: I am responding to you further unless you put up a genuine counter-argument.
- Sandy August 30, 2008 9:37PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: No
Evolution means that subsequent generations are different compared to their ancestors; nothing more and nothing less. To imply that said evolution leads toward some ultimate manifestation (i.e., god) assumes facts not in evidence.
As for ownership/property; in many ways everyone and everything is the property of something else. Humans as a species are the property of the environment that we live in. We as citizens submit ourselves to the government whose land we reside upon. To remove that dependence may be worse than the supposed disease. Either way, my ownership of an animal does not affect your life and our society as a whole has judge that it is not obliged to protect animals and afford them broad rights as individuals. Thus in granting our individuality we have let each member decide for themselves (for the most part) how to treat animals.
- polobo August 27, 2008 3:50PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(0)
Side: Yes
How can you say you love your animal when you leave it in a kennel, back yard or garage for 10-12 hours. You leave the house for work and are gone for hours on end and tell me that's humane! Then you feel so guilty that you've left them, that you have to bring them EVERYWHERE with you. But do you walk them,no, you leave them in hot cars to suffer. Again that's really humane. You go to a festival and there are the dogs, trying to attack one another because they are such good babies they don't need a leash.God help the child that gets between them.Then anyone who comes to your house has to put up with some dog either trying to hump their leg or putting their head in your lap or jumping on you.That's really fun especially if their allergic! What do we hear "they are my baby". Ugh!And the dog hair. And the dog hair when you visit someone. Or the dog bite because maybe you moved funny or you scared them somehow the poor babies. Ridiculous
- slyv August 25, 2008 2:40PM
Reply to this
Recommend
(1)
Side: No
Should We Keep Pets?
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes and No
We should provide safe and loving homes for the animals currently in need of homes - for example, the ones at animal shelters.
We should not breed any more "pets" into existence. Puppy mills are cruel. And there's no such thing as a "responsible dog breeder."
We should stop calling our furry (or scaled) family members "pets." They deserve better. Call them "companion animals" or "animal companions." Better yet, call them by their names.
Animals who are in the care of humans ought to be treated similarly to children. Their needs and development should determine their care; not the needs or desires of the "owners."
- ElaineVigneault
August 30, 2008 12:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (4)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Reasonable
Apart from your "responsible breeder" attitude & not breeding idea, what you've said is fairly reasonable. Not breeding animal companions or companion animals , (because im sure my pet dog cares what title she receives), will mean none for future generations to enjoy. As even shelter animals will grow old & die eventually & then what? (Oh, i know, maybe we could start enjoying "companion rocks". You can't breed them & there's never a short supply.) Pet ownership which humans & animals alike have enjoyed for thousands of years will become extinct along with all of our animal friends. Which the majority of dog breeders don't want to happen to their particular choice of animal companions (WE choose our friends, why not our animal friends?) in any other species preventing their extinction would be viewed as commendable not just responsible. I don't agree with puppy farms, most breeders don't & having said that putting puppy farms in the same sentence as breeders is unfair. Puppy farmers ARE NOT breeders.
- OpenedEyes
May 31, 2009 8:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should keep mentally retarded "pets"?
Good evening Opened Eyes. I was just wondering if you had read the argument by Gary Francione against pet ownership ? I know you must already have an opinion about the subject which is why you clicked on the debate topic, but please take some time to read the argument -it's a good read (even if you choose to disagree).
May I play "switch the species" to see how this works? Let's try it on ourselves. I'll requote you switching "slave" for "pet" and "animal", and switch "human" for "master" or "slave trader".
"Slave ownership which masters & slaves alike have enjoyed for thousands of years will become extinct. Which the majority of slave breeders/traders don't want to happen to their particular choice of slave companions (WE choose our friends, why not our slave friends?)"
You may think human slaves and non-human animal " pets " are completely different and my analogy is irrelevant? But the underlying principle of being property to another and being stripped of basic rights (no matter how happy), still applies to animals .
Animals are not capable of consenting to being a pet, particularly ones who were born into it and conditioned to it. An animal born into a captive life is used to it. You couldn't take in a wild cat for example, they would choose the wild over you. Switch the species. What if we used mentally retarded people as companion "pets", would that be ok? And how about if we bred these retarded people especially to be companion pets? They don't know any better and accept the life they are given. Many of them are even happy with their life as a pet and property to others. No of course it's not ok to do this. It's not ok to do it to humans, it's not ok to do it to cats and dogs and all other animals exploited for this purpose.
- Desert Girl
June 12, 2009 8:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
friendship isnt slavery
Your analogy is true in some ways but flawed in others. The relationship between a slave master and a slave are possibly 99.9% of the time, are the degrading, violent, inhumane treatment of another. This is true only if animals were put through long hours of intensive labor, working hours before the sun had rising and still working many hours after the sun had set. That obviously isnt the case, though you can make that analogy if such an animal was being inhumanly treated under abuse where animals are put through degrading violent treatment, but if an animal was in a healthy and loving household were they were part of the family, why is that considered slavery? Also i dont understand how pets or animal companions are "stripped of basic rights"? As a dog owner, he has the right to eat, sleep, live, breathe...are you looking for the right of freedom?? well unfortunatly if i gave him that right he would run right out the door and into four lane traffic. You say that dogs and cats dont need us but there are millions of dogs and cats that are homeless or in shelters that need our help so they can live better lives instead of rotting in a cage. And also dogs and cats, for example, cant just suddenly roam free because then dogs and cats will be piling up the roadside along side with deer, raccoons, and many other animals killed by humans. The reality of the situation is that animal companion will always need us because we humans have made it that way. With all the conservation going on around the world, and human influence of animal i can imagine centuries from now wild and exotic animals such as tigers being a domesticated animal.
- jablonkas319
July 19, 2009 2:54AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh give me a break
I have 3 dogs, 4 cats and 4 horses. Every dam one of them if given the chance to choose wild freedom -v- forced domestication - would jump up and down for domestication. My horses love having a barn to come into, a blanket when they are cold, veterinary care when they are sick or injured. My dogs get to lay around, play, and just be generally lazy - they are elated that they don't have to hunt for their food or live with insects and disease. This throwing animals back to the wild just makes YOU feel good so stop ranting about what the animals want. I can guarantee you, they would be beating our doors down to come live with us.
- OhForTheLoveOfGod September 10, 2009 10:58AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pet/Human is a Symbiotic Relationship
When you domesticate an animal, you use natural selection to create a creature that is made to live with a human being. Domestication defines the characteristics of a dog or a cat; without it, they wouldn't be the animals they are. When a dog or a cat lives with a human, both sides benefit. Dogs and cats (and other domesticated species), left on their own to go feral, lead shorter lives than their wild ancestors would in the same situation.
When you domesticate an animal, you commit yourself to live in symbiosis with that animal. That is what they are made for; your home is their natural habitat.
- Callista
November 25, 2008 2:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Happy Slaves Are Still Slaves
Hey Callista.
I used to think exactly the same thing all my life until just a few years ago when I learnt about the true meaning of animal rights. I have been raised around lots of animals. I have had endearing and special relaionships with cats, birds, dogs and horses. One horse in particular I watched being born, raised him and trained him myself. We were very close and loved each other a lot. I believed that I was practicing a natural symbiotic relationship with that wonderful animal. But now I know this isn't true. Here's what I mean...
Definition of Symbiosis
Sybiosis is a scientific term to describe two species of animal and or plants whom are totally dependant on one another for their survival. If one of the species were to disappear from the area, then the dependant species could not survive and would become extinct in that area also. This is not the case for domesticated animals. To use the term correctly, humans and other animals do not share a natural symbiotic relationship. They share a very unnatural exploitative relationship. If humans did not farm, breed, raise and kill animals for their own benefit, then humans would continue to survive quite ok without them. Using animals for companionship, transport, clothing and food is a luxury, not a survival necessity. We do not depend on animals for our survival what-so-ever. On the scale of evolution , it is only very recently (last 10,000 years) that we have been using animals in this way, and that they have been bred this way.
One-Sided Benefit
While it is commonly believed that both species benefit from domestication, when you take a closer look, it only the humans whom are taking benefit, because they are the ones in complete control and they are the ones doing the exploiting.
Protection From Predators? Who is the Predator?
While we protect back yard chooks from predators at night, we aren't really protecting them from predators, because we are the predators. We predate on the roosters and we predate on the eggs. So in this case chickens do not benefit from us. In the wild, chooks can find their own food and shelter without human intervention.
Get Fed, Get Killed. Some Benefit!
While we feed and shelter pigs and cows in a farm, they do not need this benefit from us because they can do this on their own in their natural habitat. Pigs, cows, goats and sheep are not receiving an exclusive benefit from humans that they otherwise could not get on their own. On top of this, the plus side of getting fed is grossly out-weighed by the immense suffering that farm animals endure being imprisoned, mutilated and slaughtered. So it is humans who are taking exclusive benefit from the animals by taking their (very short) lives, their skin and their organs for clothing and food.
So Much for Riding into the Sunset!
We ride horses for pleasure, sport and transport. But horses do not need us, they can find their own food in the wild. Many horses are well cared for. Many more are neglected, cannot socialise, get abused and don't get exercised. Adding to this, horses are unwanted when they get older or if they don't run fast enough, and most of them end up on a long truck journey to the slaughterhouse.
Companions?
And finally we arrive at companion animals. We humans do not need them at all. Why, we have each other. Old ladies don't need dogs and cats to keep them company in an old nursing home, they need real human contact, nurses, volunteers, relatives, friends, grandchildren. Children can receive the love of their parents and siblings and friends. If we need to share the experience of nature we can take a drive and observe animals in their wild natural habitat. Dogs and cats do not need us. They don't. In their biologically unadulterated genetic state, dogs and cats (originally wolves and wild cats), live free and independant lives. They get their own food, find their own shelter, can choose their own mate, can choose to leave at anytime, can wander where ever they wish to, can pee and poop when ever they need to, can find their own water, can choose their own social groups, can stay with their mother as puppies and kittens, they can be free.
- Desert Girl
December 28, 2008 9:46PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Maybe Think Before You Write...
Where do i begin...? No it's not a symbiotic relationship, (so they got the terminology wrong, big deal.), but, way back to Neanderthal times humans have depended on animals for sustenance, clothing, & many other things. If we took away our current technological advances this would make animals necessary to human survival, therefore, its a symbiotic relationship. I don't know about you, but when my cat decides its nap time on my lap & i desperately need to go somewhere, i don't really feel in control as i don't feel the inclination to move her. Im her perch she decided to sleep on, why should i move her? Not to mention, in the households of responsible pet owners the humans would be viewed more as the slave. For example, they eat, they drink, they poop, they sleep & play. We however, feed them, water them, clean up their poop, provide body-heat, shelter & protection. Yes, VERY one sided. In the wild, domestic livestock as we know it, would not exist. It's only through our domestication of them that they have evolved to what they are today, they therefore have no natural habitat. Domestic dogs & cats ALSO do not have a natural habitat. Yes, while it is true that horses can find their own food without us, they were also once a common prey animal before they were a means of transport & later a companion. & the many more who are poorly treated, etc, that you refer to, the fault rests with the humans responsible for their care not the domestication in general. I use the term domestication very loosely, as ownership or pets seems to be taboo, (Yet another example of political correctness gone too far.), as horses have evolved very little, (Not quite unlike the shark.), comparatively. & Finally, it shows the sad state of the world that we'd rather banish our elderly to aged care facilities (That is the correct term after all, but better known as the "Grim Reapers Waiting Room."), than allow them to find comfort & companionship in humans as well as our animal friends, whom for the most part are well cared for & seem to have no real objections to this co-dependent arrangement, (I don't see many cats or dogs objecting to a good old-fashioned pat or ear rub, do you?). & we see further polluting the environment with vehicle emissions because the experience of nature is generally some distance from most people, as a better alternative for our children to experience nature than for them to also enjoy the comfort & companionship, (An animal friend after all can keep a good secret better than most humans, wouldn't you agree?). Not to mention, the values they can learn from their friend if their parents are responsible owners. Sad indeed.
- OpenedEyes
May 31, 2009 8:51AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
I think, therefore I am Vegan.
Hi there again Opened Eyes. "Think before I write?" I would have thought you'd already guess I do a lot of thinking! But more importantly, I also do a lot of reading and research and asking questions. There's always more than two sides to a story I tell myself. There's usually always at least a third viewpoint. I like to thoroughly research the "other side" of the story. I am a well educated vegan! In fact, I became that way only thru educating myself on the issues. It actually took a lot of convincing evidence over a long period of time before I made the lifetime commitment to not participate in violence against animals by going vegan. I had to read a lot about the health aspects of veganism to be convinced it was healthy for us. I discovered that not only is it healthy to be vegan, but that eating animal products is terrible for our health! It was the environmental reasons that first got my attention. I was astonished to learn that 95% of the Amazon rainforest destruction is for livestock production (including crops to feed livestock). Half the world's grain is fed to animals. 10 to 16kg grain cycled thru a cow makes only 1kg beef. Number 1 cause of water pollution is from livestock (birds, pigs, etc). Animal production for milk, meat & eggs creates more greenhouse gas emissions than the entire world's transport industry (including planes trucks ships and cars). But the main reason I am vegan is for common sense and basic ethical reasoning. Violence is required to make milk eggs and meat. Human health does not require we eat these things. That's means it is unnecessary to eat any animal products at all. I am vegan because I oppose violence.
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 9:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
good for you
Good for you that you have decided to be a vegan but stay out of other peoples business. Much more good in the world would happen if people like you channeled your energy into improving your own life - instead of preaching and ranting to the rest of us what we should be doing. Animals don't fear death - they don't know what death is. They fear pain. I am all for allowing animals that will be in the food chain to have a more natural life instead of cages - range chickens -v- caged chickens, but if their life ends quickly and humanely, there is nothing neanderthal about that. Instead of spending time here on the internet preaching - why not go adopt an animal, care for it, spend that time with it???????
- OhForTheLoveOfGod September 10, 2009 11:06AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Should We Continue To Live As Neanderthals?
Neanderthals may have depended on animal products in order to survive some of the time, but 1, we don't know if this is entirely true or partly true (they may have used animal products in times of desperate survival, or opportunistically such as scavenging), and 2, even if they used to depend on animal products to survive back then, it doesn't mean that we have to continue living like neanderthals now. Who knows, some of them may have even depended on eating others of their own species in order to survive, but it doesn't mean we have to be canibals today just because our ancestors may have done it. Morally speaking, there is no difference between eating a human or any other animal (most especially when it is a time when there is no urgent need for survival, and one is just looking for a casual lunch). Rape and violent conflicts have also been a part of our long human history, but that doesn't give it a moral standing to continue doing it today.
Most traditional diets of tribal peoples around the world is plant based, supplemented by animal products. The healthiest and longest living people eat only very tiny amounts of animal products.
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 9:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
No Mutual Benefit In Being Hunted Down
You said if we had to depend on killing animals to survive then it would be a symbiotic relationship. But lions kill prey and that is not a symbiotic relationship, that is just a predator-prey relationship. The gazelle gains no benefit from being hunted down. Just because humans trap their prey in cages so they cannot get away before we kill them, doesn't make it a symbiotic relationship -we are still predating on the animals. We only feed them and shelter them so long as we need to in order to fully exploit them -the animals gain no benefit from this. It is said we share a symbiotic relationship with dogs and cats because the animals gain benefit from being fed, but we could say the same thing about slaves. One could say that the slave gains a mutual benefit from the free work they do for the master because the take benefit from being fed, sheltered and cared for. Also with dogs and cats this is an artificially created relationship, not a naturally evolved one.
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 10:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are arguing against nature on one hand, for it on another
Hi Desert Girl,
I've read some of your other arguments here. (Well, of course you know that. We've been going back and forth here for a while.)
In at least one of your posts, you say are opposed to the domestication of dogs because you state it is not "natural."
Yet in this post, you state: "But lions kill prey and that is not a symbiotic relationship, that is just a predator-prey relationship. The gazelle gains no benefit from being hunted down."
So you acknowledge that there are animals who are predators and animals that are prey. You acknowledge the food chain, which exists in nature.
You don't acknowledge any benefit to prey animals (such as the gazelle) in this relationship, but there are benefits. It's tough for the individual gazelle, but culling of large herds does benefit the overall gazelle species. It increases their genetic strength (survival of the fittest and all that) as well as being proof against starvation due to overly large herds.
The whole scheme is natural and it works. Sharks eat fish, seals, sea birds, etc. Big fish eat smaller fish or plankton. Bears and big cats eat smaller animals. Raptors eat rodents. Snakes eat rodents. It all works.
Oh, and by the way, many humans choose to also eat other animals. And sometimes other animals eat humans. It's nature at work.
Humans who wish to be vegan have that choice. Those who don't should also have that choice just as ursine, canine, feline and other carnivorous or omnivorous animals do.
(Okay, actually, felines don't have a choice to be vegan. They are obligate carnivores. That is their nature. You can't change that without making them extinct in the long run.)
Now, I agree that the way humans slaughter food animals can be quite gruesome. It's so easy to get sucked into the emotional reaction these images (like in the film Earthlings) evoke.
But wait a minute...
Have you ever seen a predatory animal (other than human) taking down prey? I feel sure you have. It is not a pretty sight, to be sure. But it is the way of nature. Death is death and it isn't usually pretty. I'm not saying there might not be a "nicer" way for us to do it, but in the end, dead is dead. That may sound unfeeling, but it really isn't. I'm just realistic. Violent deaths exist in the natural scheme of things --- the circle of life --- the food chain.
I'd like to see us as humans do some things differently, but I don't support forcing veganism on anyone, human or otherwise, as the answer.
Bottom line (to get back to my point) is that you seem to argue both for and against "nature." Either you support the way of nature or you don't. And even if you don't like it, it's going to happen that way. Sharks will be sharks and hawks will be hawks. That's just the way things work.
I do find it specious for you to try to use nature both as a way to support your beliefs on one hand, while arguing against nature on the other.
******
***
*
- magicmistic
June 14, 2009 1:07AM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Food Chain
Hey Magic! The old food chain argument hey? Animals eat other animals , so why not us? We vegans get this one ALL the time! It is a topic that has been thoroughly discussed and has a very logical answer on the part of the vegans if you're willing to lend an ear!
1). Some animals eat other animals in order to survive, not all of them. Many of them are plant eaters. Many animals also display acts of compassion. Maybe we can model these animals instead. Why have we chosen the one act of killing for food to justify in in ourselves? We should not base our moral actions on what some other animals do. Some animals rape in order to survive. Some animals eat the babies of their own species in order to survive. Just because these actions occur in nature in other species, doesn't mean we should model their behaviour to justify the actions for our own species. We could argue that animals rape and that it is natural, so does that mean we should do it too?
2). Carnivores are an integral part of the ecology and are necessary for it's natural balance. If humans stopped eating meat , the ecology would not suffer for it. In fact, the ecology would dramatically improve because animal production is possibly the number one most environmentally devastating human activity on Earth! It creates more carbon emissions than the entire world's transport industry, it's the number one cause of deforestation (to make way for grazing and crops to feed factory animals), half the world's grain (and all the pesticides and water required to make it) feeds animals, not people, it's the number one cause of water pollution, the ocean is all but emptied of life, and the list goes on.
3). The biology of the human body favours plant foods. We have blunt teeth and blunt nails, a very long intestine (while carnivores have very short ones), weak stomach acid, a weak jaw, the ability to see colour to distinguish leaf types and fruits, the list goes on and on. While we may be omnivores, the human body thrives on a plant based diet and is diseased on a meat based diet.
4). As omnivores, humans have the choice to eat a fully plant based diet, while carnivores like lions have no choice. Killing animals for food is violent. Whether you argue that eating animals is natural or it's not is beside the point. The fact is that it is violent and we have a choice to eat without violence.
5). Humans can live healthfully on a totally plant based vegan diet. There is absolutely no reason why we have to eat any animal products in order to be healthy and to thrive. In fact, mainstream media has countless studies proving that animal products are terrible for human health as they are major sources of cholesterol , saturated fat, free radicals, harmful bacterias and excessive protein. On the other hand fruits vegetables, pulses and grains offer the body its best chance for fighting off cancer and heart disease to name a few. Because we do not need to eat animal products at all, this makes the violence we inflict on them for food totally unnecessary. It comes down to a very simple choice. We can eat a violent diet or we can eat a non-violent diet in which no-one had to die or suffer in order for you to eat.
- Desert Girl
June 14, 2009 7:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
choice
There is another reason too- humans have free- will-but animals have less of it, so animals are morally not responsible for killing other animals, but humans are.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 12:43PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Morality is Not a Matter of Choice
You wrote: Humans who wish to be vegan have that choice. Those who don't should also have that choice just as ursine, canine, feline and other carnivorous or omnivorous animals do.
Carnivores have no choice, but humans do have a choice (as omnis). When a cat hunts at night, she is not making a moral choice, she is acting out of instinct. She has no choice about what she eats. As humans with moral thinking capacity, we can choose to make choices to live our lives without hurting anybody else.
Some people say about many different issues, "Well that's your opinion and this is mine". Opinions are fine in most situations except for situations where morality is concerned. A man should not be entitled to act on his opinion to have sex with children for instance. A personal opinion does not make something right. It's either moral or it isn't.
Killing animals for food is no more morally acceptable than killing humans for food. It's the same act done on a different species. We all feel pain. It's not less painful just because they aren't human. They don't have less of a will to live because they aren't human. To think it's ok to kill a non-human animal just because "it's only an animal" is quite simply speciesist, which is just the same as any other form of discrimination like sexism and racism . The fact that the animal was killed for the purpose of food is no justification for the act of violence, just as it isn't for killing a man. As we discussed before, we do not need animal products to be healthy. That means that eating them and killing them is totally unnecessary.
If a violent act is unnecessary then it is immoral (no matter who the victim -whether black, white, woman, man, child, old person, gay person or animal). Therefore killing animals for the purpose of food and clothing is immoral because it is unnecessary.
- Desert Girl
June 14, 2009 7:24AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Respect, but disagree
A couple of points here. Your statement "either it's wrong or it isn't" is a pretty black and white statement. And who gets to make the decision what's right? You? Me? No. Since one person can't be relied upon to make moral decision as a whole, we leave it up to society .
That's why it's considered amoral for a man to have sex with a child. Because as a whole, society says it's wrong.
And not to get off topic, but to make a point, in most cases abortion is unnecessary, and it is a violent act, so it's amoral too, right? But many who would advocate animal rights would, in the very next breath, advocate abortion as well.
- LagerHead
June 23, 2009 1:53PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
O_O
"A man should not be entitled to act on his opinion to have sex with children for instance."
Are you seriously comparing rape to killing an animal for sustinence? Are you that extremist?
And you vegans can say what you want but the human body needs protein. We are designed for it. And as for morality are you going to call Jesus immoral? He ate meat .
- Songbird21
October 22, 2009 5:39AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Always wanted to ask this....
So, are you saying lions are cruel because they eat meat ?
And by the way, we're omnivores. Our bodies need protein, period. Vegetarian is a healthy lifestyle, vegan is not. Over the long term a vegan's health deteriorates due to malnutrition. Ask any doctor .
- Songbird21
October 22, 2009 5:32AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pets Have No Control Over Their Own Lives
Opened Eyes I can see that u care about and love your cats very much -that's wonderful! But you know, there are some great pet owners out there -people like you who really care and take full responsibility for their pets , and then there's the rest of them. The majority of people do NOT look after their pets properly at all. Most pets suffer their existence as companion slaves to humans as back yard prisoners, or cats under house arrest. Many owners are abusive or neglectant. Pets have no control over how little affection they get, no control about getting any social life with other dogs or cats, no control over visiting their relatives or children , no control about getting exercise and fresh air, no control about refilling their water bowl and when they eat, and when they get to pee. This is the same for human slaves. Even the very best cared for pets miss out these very basic choices -they must depend on their owners choosing these things for them. They have no autonomy on their own lives. They are forced to live as dependent children, even though they are actually fully grown adults. Remember happy companion slaves are still slaves!
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 10:20AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Ummm....
My cat chooses when to pee just fine.
- Songbird21
October 22, 2009 5:41AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Domestic Animals Physically Depend On Us & Cannot Survive Alone
You said that domestic animals as we know them could not exist in the wild - that is very true. We have changed their physiology to be completely dependent on us for survival, as well as changed their psychology to be conditioned to live their lives as domestic confined animals. They couldn't survive in the wild, nor should they. We created them so we should be morally obliged to care for them for the rest of their living lives, but we should stop breeding them into existence in the first place. Domestic animals were created by us for our exclusive benefit. If we are to respect the basic rights of animals, namely to not be property, then domestic animals should not exist. We should only allow the original wild species to live freely in their natural habitat.
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 10:28AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Horses -loved to death!
The orginal horse was the golden Mongolian (or Prezwalski's) horse. All modern domestic horses came from that animal through artificial breeding by humans over thousands of years.
Just as with dogs and cats, while some horse owners are caring and responsible, most of them are not. Even with the most cared for and loved horses, they are still forced to be ignored the most basic rights that we humans enjoy like freedom. Horses must do as they are told. They must eat, exercise, go left, stop, run, sleep, exactly when they are told to. They cannot socialise with whom they please or when. They cannot choose their mate. And like all domestic animals they must be forced to endure the heart-break of losing their child when she/he is taken away to be sold. This is the untold "stolen generation" like Australia's aborigines who were taken away as children to be raised with white families and in nunneries. Foals and puppies and kitten and rabbits and the like are taken from their mothers and given away or sold. No matter what the species, this is wrong! It hurts every mother to lose her children and we have no right!
I hear horse owners tell me their horse is like a member of their own family. But we do not kill our family members do we? No. So this cannot be true. Even the most loyal steed of 20 years can be given up to slaughter because he's "too old". He suffers the long and frightening journey on a truck and the anxiety of waiting his turn at the abattoir. Then the most violent and terrifying experience of his life is the final thanks he gets for being a loyal servant to his master. When horses get an injury from riding like a cracked hip or broken leg, they are killed. We wouldn't do this to humans. Many horses get killed when their owners can no longer afford to feed them and nobody else wants them.
Most racehorses never make the track and end up at the slaughterhouse. Even the horses who do actually race will end up killed. Racehorses are raced as babies and often physically break down just after they reach adulthood, becoming useless for human use.
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 10:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Oh For Cryin Out Loud
I've raised alot of horses and sometimes the mares will "Get this thing away from me now" when it comes time for weaning. Mares don't nurse and care for their foals for life. At some point (if humans don't intervene and do the weaning for the mare and foal) the mare will kick the foal away at feeding time. Once the foal is weaned - the mare treats it just as she would any other horse. She will eat the foals feed, kick at it, run it off etc. You really should be quiet about stuff you know nothing about. It makes you look like a fool. A naive living in a cave my way is the highway complete fool.
If we all thought like you do, there should be a law against having children because someone might abuse their child, there should be a law against driving because someone might cause an accident, there should be a law against eating becuase someone might choke and die.
Who are you to tell anyone what they need? You seem to forget the very basis of this country and that is freedom and the pursuit of happiness. If I am happy having a dog than I have the right to have one. Those of us who are sane really should form another country and move radical control freaks like you there. Reading your posts just makes me sick to my stomach. What happened to you in your life to cause you to be sooooooooooooooo off base?
- OhForTheLoveOfGod September 10, 2009 1:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
One day "pets" may be acknowledged as immoral just as "slaves" were
You say that the word pets has become taboo and politically incorrect, but that is only on this discussion board. 99.99% of people believe that pet ownership is normal, acceptable and desireable. The word slaves used to be accepted as the word pets is now. Maybe one day people will recognise that we should not own anybody whether they are human or not. I personally don't want to live in "the good old days before political correctness" where racism ans sexism was normal and ok, do you?
Old people do not need pets to keep them company in a lonely room -they need PEOPLE!
- Desert Girl
June 13, 2009 11:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Uh huh....
And what about the 90 year old woman who has no friends, no family and no mobility. She can't go out and meet people (Maybe she has someone who delivers her food ). Are you going to tell her to not have a companion to satisfy your opinion of the way things should be? And what about people who are being helped by therapy dogs. Are you going to tell them to suffer for your opinion?
- Songbird21
October 22, 2009 5:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thank God I'm Checking Out Soon
I used to think being old was a miserable state with all the pain from a failing body. Thank God my mind is still functioning. I accidentally found this site and now I am committed to educating my grandchildren against the kind of irrational thinking I have found here. All I can say is "Save Yourself from Yourself". People who quote "freedom" for domesticated animals are the biggest animal abusers of all. I've seen a lot of miserable free dogs and cats eating garbage, getting run over by automobiles, and simply starving. I've even seen them freeze to death. Most of my children wanted their freedom too early but I refused to listen to them because they could not care for themselves. If for that reason I am a slave master so be it. In the human world "freedom" is not always what it is cracked up to be and neither is it in the animal world.
- samcrunchie
August 28, 2009 3:55PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
yea - finally a sane person
Thank god , finally a sane person here. Desert Girl needs to get a life.
- OhForTheLoveOfGod September 10, 2009 11:15AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Who said to just set domesticated animals free?
I've been reading the comments, but I must have missed the one where someone said to let a domesticated animal out and basically abandon it.
Your point about homeless animals on the street illustrates somewhat the original issue that we are talking about.
Humanity has domesticated a range of animals that are now reliant on humans to survive. We can't provide loving homes for all these animals, and yet many people happily allow their dogs and cats to breed and worsen the problem.
I think some people have missed the point of the original no argument. It is not about setting free animals to roam the streets - it is about stopping breeding the domesticated animals now. If that were done (not that it appears a likely scenario) then within 20 years or so the domesticated dogs and cats would cease to exist.
It may seem like a radical argument but undeniably it would cut out a lot of unnecessary suffering by domesticated animals like dogs and cats.
- Trish108
October 28, 2009 1:46AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
LOL
Horses do not love. Get real. I've raised/trained and shown horses for over 40 years. They respect each other and bond together because they are herd animals - not because they love. How do I know you may ask. I've seen mares loose their foals either from injury or illness walk away and start grazing like nothing happened. I've seen horses groom each other, play with each other and then turn around and try and kill each other. Stop putting human emotions on animals. They think and feel differently than we do.
- OhForTheLoveOfGod September 10, 2009 11:01AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My experience of horses (and cows) is different
Well I worked for many years with horses myself at a riding school , and I have to say that I saw ample evidence of some very human-like emotions. Of course horses have their own way of doing things, but as a human it is natural for us to equate what we see with how we see and feel things, that is just an easier way of explaining or understanding what you see. I've known many horse people to speak of love and other feelings amongst the horses.
The mother of a foal is generally very protective of it in my experience, so I don't know what psychological problems your mares must have that make them so indifferent to their offspring?
Perhaps is was a shock reaction? Or are we talking about grown up offspring of the mare? I can imagine there could be more likely of indifference to an adult offspring.
I've seen that in time they are kind of 'over' having the foal around all the time - and that is just a natural way of things. Even human parents need to help their kids to be independent. I myself am quite happy to have my house 'child' free now, having just pushed my 22 year old from the nest.
I think what Desert Girl was thinking of was the premature taking of a foal from its mother.
When a calf is taken from its mother and weaned prematurely, which is all the time for a dairy cow, they can call to each other for days!! It is heartbreaking.
Maybe over time with this happenning constantly to a dairy cow or a horse - their emotions could become dulled and they complain less, with each calf or foal, I can't be sure - but the cow and calf I am talking about made it very clear that they were unhappy about being separated.
In the making of some Hormone Replacement Therapy like Premarin for example, the urine of pregnant mares is used. This doesn't sound so bad except that it is done on a commercial basis, so that like dairy cows - the mares are forced to give birth yearly and then the foals are taken from them straight away and often killed for 'pet' food .
I've also seen horses play with each other and then fight - and I've seen humans do that too. So I'm not sure what point was being made there?
I've seen that horses sometimes form cliques - would be one way of describing it, and they hang out together but don't mix with some others. I've seen pairs of horses that you cannot separate, because they get so upset to be away from each other. Some sort of attachment or affection is obvious in these cases, it looks like love to me, but what it is called is irrelevant.
One time Rocky - when someone forgot to do the bottom bolt up on his stable, got out and let all the other stabled horses out, except for an ex-racehorse called Troy. Rocky never like Troy.
I used to love horse riding, and would love to care for horses again - but due to an injury, I'm not able to. I also know that from time to time the horses would get sore backs, would be in bad moods, and some HATED being ridden by beginners day in day out - they expressed this in very obvious ways.
They all had different personalities and likes and dislikes. I basically grew up with these horses and got to know most of them pretty well.
One horse who had been ridden by the same person for many years, went into what can only be described as depression when that person had to stop working at the school.
Perhaps for business reasons you haven't had the time to spend with the horses in your care to see these things, and for that I feel sorry. All of my experience with horses has only helped to enrich my love and respect for all animals .
I'm getting better, and within a couple of years, could ride horses again, but I'm going to choose not to. Perhaps if I was in a position where I could make a home for a horse, and that was the only way I could exercise it, then I would ride - but otherwise not. Just because we can do something isn't necessary a reason for doing it. Nowadays I think about a lot of things I used to ignore, and I wonder at what it is like to be forced to have a bit in your mouth. If they were happy about it we wouldn't have to train them to accept a halter and the a bit etc. They just get used to it because we wish it.
No way will I ever pay money to ride a horse, because I remember the lives of those horses - some had it better than others, but bottom line was they had to do what they were told, be ridden by clueless people who would sometimes hurt them, and endure the wrath of us workers when they didn't do what they were told, or protested in the only way a horse can - with a nip, bite, kick or buck.
True love of an animal (human or non-human) in my opinion, means not exploiting it for financial or personal gain.
- Trish108
October 28, 2009 2:55AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Just a thought
How about this one: What is your response to an outdoor cat who repeatedly returns again and again to their owner's home? The cat could flee if they liked but no, they come back every time.
Equating pet ownership to slavery is ridiculous. It is a label that simply isn't true (Perhaps in the case of animals made to pull heavy loads there could be some parallels made.). A slave is someone forced into laborious tasks. The only possible parallel you could make here would be a gilded cage and/or a prisoner. But as I pointed out with the cat reference, a large portion of pets are not "suffering" because of their "imprisonment". You keep using human situational references for animals. If you kept humans in this way it would be wrong. Why is it different? Because animals are not sentient. They are not self aware (With a small amount of rare exceptions. Dolphins-for example)
I highly doubt "most" horses are abused. Good grief. And although I agree horses may be more likely to prefer being wild there are horses who have chosen to stay with their owners because they have developed a strong bond with them. While I don't think horses are quite sentient, I do believe they are self aware to a small degree. And my sister loved her horse like she was her child. She was no slave driver. :( (On a side note I wish horse racing was abolished.)
Let's not forget that a large portion of the dogs (And some breeds of cat) existing as pets today would die in the wild in a very short period of time. You put a teacup poodle in the woods I guarantee it wouldn't last long.
Lastly, farm animals. From the way you made your statements I'm going to assume you're a vegetarian so debating with you on this topic would be pointless.
- Songbird21
October 22, 2009 5:27AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Companion Slaves Part II
Companion Slaves Part II
Domesticated dogs and cats are totally and utterly dependent on us by force. They did not choose this life. They did not choose their genetics to be altered through breeding to become more docile, obedient and cute to humans. Their biology is completely unnatural as is their human environment. In the wild, many of them would perish. Other dogs and cats who are left to go wild wreak havok upon native wildlife. While many pets are lovingly cared for, the average time a dog or cat spends with an owner is 2 years. Then they are dumped at "shelters". In most shelters 85% of the animals are killed. Half of the pets in shelters are turned in by their owners. A third of them are pedigree breeds. While many pets are lovingly cared for, many, many more suffer with abusive owners, are neglected, do not receive medical treatment, exercise or adequate food, are bred and have their babies taken from them, are given little or denied affection, are denied social contact with other animals or their genetic family, or live the majority of their day in a back yard prison in inside a house.
While many people claim that their pets are family members, the law does back up this claim with any rights. Animals are not right holders. They have no rights. Anti-cruelty laws only serve to protect human property. They do not apply to farm animals. At anytime one chooses, a human may have her healthy cat or dog or horse or hamster destroyed. And this act is protected by law.
Given the natural choice, dogs and cats would not choose these situations for themselves. Here's a test. Would a wolf be your pet? The only way you can really know if a dog or cat would want to live with humans is to ask one who hasn't been conditioned since birth to live with humans. A wild animal.
Very similarly, human slaves were once thought to benefit from their ownership. They were afterall housed and fed. They were bred and conditioned to live as a slave and most could not survive a life outside of being a slave. But this was not their choice. It was put upon them, just as it is today for other animals. Many human slaves loved their masters and were considered a member of the family. This does not justify the act of making a human the property of another. Just because slaves can be potentially happy, doesn't mean that we should support slavery. Equally, just because some pets (animal slaves) can be happy, doesn't mean we should support their domestication and property status for human benefit.
We should stop breeding domestic animals all-together. We should stop killing them in so called shelters. We should care for the animals who are still alive and give them the best life possible in a domestic environment.
While some cats, dogs and horses may love their humans very much, the truth is that these animals do not have a divine symbiotic relationship with humans. They are merely our well bred, well conditioned slaves. They are our property. They serve us and it is not their choice.
Conclusion. We should not breed and keep pets. All animals should be genetically and physically wild and free.
- Desert Girl
December 28, 2008 9:47PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
It has been discovered - "GOD" is a woman - her name is Desert Girl
Good grief - you are so far removed from reality - it must have taken along time of either mimicking your friends so you can feel you fit in somewhere or hiding in a cave and memorizing jiberish to sound important here. You know what all animals think, want and need, what they would have thought were they always wild, and what they will think in the future. You know what every human being should be doing, why they do what they do and what they need or don't need. You must have a very sad life - to spend so much useful time spewing verbal diarea on sites like this. If you are so passionate about animals - get out, save some. How many horses are you caring for right now - how many pets have you rescued and are committing to caring for till their life is over? You are so typical of a radical idiot who rants and raves about what everyone else should be doing and not doing a darn thing yourself. But then again why should you - you are GOD after all.
- OhForTheLoveOfGod September 16, 2009 4:19PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, but at the same time, No
I think we should definitely provide love and care to other animals, but i don't think we should call them "our pets," simply because they're NOT OURS! Another problem with having pets is that many people BUY their new companion, which I am VERY opposed to because I don't think you can put a price on life. Yet another big problem that having pets can cause is the creation of speciesism. For example, someone who owns a dog would probably be very moved, angered, and/or outraged if they saw a video of a dog being experimented on or being killed for food or clothing, but might quite not feel exactly the same way (or possibly not even care at all) about seeing a different species of animal, such as a pig in the same situation, and that to me is very wrong.
- megadoomerchild6
January 1, 2009 4:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Keeping Pets is as Offensive as Smoking
I have been looking for an organization that is opposed to keeping domestic pets. Even the world famous blood throwing activists in PETA support the domestication of animals (neutered of course). I would like to get the other side in vogue. If people genuinely think about it, the keeping of pets will soon be recognized as offensive & unethical, leading I would hope to a drastic reduction in the number of pets in captivity and enslavement in our homes.
These animals serve no useful purpose, often contribute to allegies and disease, teach children the entirely wrong messages about establishing relationships and generally are a blight on our society.
If half the money that just the government spends on animal issues was diverted elsewhere, we could end homelessness.
It is a tragic miscarriage that we continue to promote this practice. I am not an advocate for an outright ban, but would like to see awareness raising that will put pet ownership in a category like smoking which has now become a much less acceptable societal norm.
Are there any such organizations ? anyone ?
- NOtopets
January 4, 2009 6:31PM
Reply to this Recommend (1)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Abolitionists
Hi Notopets. Have you visited Gary L Francione's website www.abolitionistapproach.com ? There are a few organisations who are opposed to all animal domestication (slavery as you put it), and they are abolitionist organisations. Vegan Freak, Boston Vegan, Peaceful Prairy Sanctuary, and a few others. They are hard to find but a popping up around the world. Generally these orgs support people rescuing and housing homeless pets, but strictly oppose breeding these animals into existence. Domestic animals should not exist, only their wild ancestors should live as free individuals.
- Desert Girl
January 4, 2009 9:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks for this information
Hi Desert Girl
Are you Vegan ?
I know that that there are many Vegan promoting sites.
While I don't object to this, they seem primarily focused
on food issues. I find the domestication of cats, dogs etc. to
be more offensive than the food industry.
I do eat some dairy products and while I am not happy with the
treatment animals receive at mega-farms nor with the energy costs related to animal protein food production, I see dairy as different from meat although they are hand in hand, but I think that there may be
opportunities to "do dairy differently".
In any event, my primary issue is the domestic pet issue and I don't want to lose that focus within an organization which has food production in its sights.
Brian
- NOtopets
January 5, 2009 1:11AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Comparing "Food" & "Companion" Animals
Hi Brian, I have not come across an organisation solely focussed on educating people about why we shouldn't breed and own "companion" animals. Seriously, perhaps you could start one yourself!? I mean, who else is doing it?
The only groups I can think of that might come close are ones that are directly involved with the animals themselves who are the victims of human's "need" for pets. "No Kill Shelters" -that is a real animal shelter that actually does shelter animals, not kill them. They house, rehabilitate, retrain and rehome homeless animals. They do not support breeding new animals. When their shelter is full up, they do not kill batches of animals just to make room for incoming animals. They simply refuse any more aniamls until a vacancy becomes available. Another interesting organisation is Alley Cat Allies, promoting the TNR technique on feral cats. They are Trapped, Neutered and Returned. Rather than killing these animals, they are allowed to live the rest of their life on the streets without breeding more. These cats are territorial preventing new cats from moving in and repeating the whole cycle, which is what would occur if the cats were simply exterminated.
Vegan (abolitionist) groups include opposition for all different animals used for many different human purposes including for sport (dogs, horses, birds, cows), entertainment (rodeos, circuses, fighting, tricks), vivisection (the majority of animal testing is for pharmacy and personal products, not for cures), pets, clothing (wool, leather, silk, fur), and food (dairy, eggs, meat, honey). The reason their main focus is on "food" animals is because that group is the largest affected in terms of numbers. For example, in the US, I think it's approximately 280,000 animals killed in shelters every year (while the breeding doesn't stop), whereas in comparison about 11 billion land animals are killed for food every year in the US alone (not including probably double that or more in aquatic life). PETA tends to focus mainly on these smaller groups of animals who suffer for human ends like their anti-fur campaigns, and anti-vivisection campaigns. While of course these are very important, in terms of sheer numbers, it is the "food" animals whom are suffering the most. PETA support "responsible" pet ownership. Abolitionist groups believe that all animals should not be property.
Could u tell in more detail what u find more so offensive about the domestication of cats and dogs as opposed to cows, pigs and chickens? Thanks. Many people believe pet ownership can be done humanely as you suggest can be done for dairy cows. How do you think it is different for pets?
Also, I am a big fan of a very powerful movie called Earthlings. It is the most difficult movie anyone could ever watch but I think it is essential viewing for everyone to know the real truth behind animal industries. It has five sections. The first one is about pets. If you ever wanted to get your message across to someone about pets, get them to watch Earthlings. I think the next section is about food animals. Then there's clothing, entertainment and science. It'll be the most important film you ever see. I highly recommend buying the dvd because you'll want to have it at hand to show others. Otherwise you can watch it online (if u don't mind the small screen) for a small fee like $2.50 or something. Both options are available at www.earthlings.com
Kindest regards,
Desert Girl
- Desert Girl
January 5, 2009 8:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Thanks again
I'm starting to get some of the information that I was looking for although maybe not what I had hoped for.
I have ordered the Earthlings DVD and will look forward to viewing it.
I see myself as somewhat of libertarian. I think we should be able to do what we want but that we need to see the consequences of our action and be held accountable for them.
Large numbers of sentient organisms are carnivores, many are ominvores.
I see Vegan as a choice, a noble choice, an honorable choice, a less invasive choice, but stil a choice.
I have seen dairy products from free ranging cows and goats and eggs from scavenging chickens being important dietary sources for many impoverished communities.(in India, Africa, Haiti) I know that fish
have been important protein sources for aboriginal communities around the world.
It is true that there are many more food animals killed every year that there are pets. but, if there was no "food industry" there would not be anywhere near the number of animals available to be killed.
This animal population is large because of the industries. There is no way that these massive populations would have evolved on their own.
Dairy cattle, domestic goats and poultry have largely been bred to produce more milk than they need and infertile eggs. etc. I think there might be some merit to these "food pets" especially in small numbers
in small commumities or families.
I don't have strong arguments in support of the food/clothing industry, but I have seen farmers who treat these animals with kindness and respect, albeit the inevitability of their fate.
Some dairy cattle, goats, chickens, sheep, are kept for years and provide food supplements,and materials without being killed.
With domestic pets, cats, dogs, etc.(in my opinion) they serve no useful purpose whatsoever. I constantly see people "adopt" "cute" puppies or kittens and neglect them when they become dogs or cats.
People tell me that it helps children learn responsibility. I disagree. I see pet ownership as a lesson in relationship through control or dominance.I don't think its a good way to learn to relate. Further,domestic animals frequently increase the spread of disease
and human allergic reactions.
There are many negatives about domestic pets and (in my opinion) very few real positives.
My hope had been that there would be an organization that encouraged people to give up this habit of enslaving animals.
I would like to see pet ownership become as socially enacceptable as smoking. It's not banned,but its not longer "in".
I'll have to think on the possibility of setting up an organization.
I'm at the stage in my life where I tend to be on the "support" side of things. 20 years ago, I'd be doing it.
These days, I tend to delight in the creativity and energies of younger people including some proteges who have now surpassed my skills.
I'll write you again after I study on these ideas a little.
Brian
- NOtopets
January 5, 2009 11:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Dairy Cows
Hi Brian.
I'm very happy to hear you'll be getting Earthlings. Make sure you get someone to watch it with you. One, you'll need support. Two, you may never want to watch it again, so here's your opportunity to get someone to watch it who otherwise would never do it alone. You can find me at the earthlings.com forum where much is discussed. Very stimulating, thought provoking conversations abound at the earthlings forum. It's a great place to go to write about what u thought of the film and how u felt. U may need the forum as therapy!
I looked up the word respect. It does not contain anything about violence, harm and killing. The very meaning of respect is its absence of violence. We cannot respect animals and exploit them as our property at the same time. Just as we cannot respect fellow humans and exploit them at the same time as our slave property. I do not believe it is possible to kill animals nicely.
Indigenous peoples around the world (at least many of them) today have access to fresh food supplies and supermarkets.
Every nutrient that the human requires for superb health is available in the plant kingdom. This fact is supported by the World Health Organisation and many others of high reputation. Our use for all domestic animals is completely unnecessary.
A goat and cow feels just as much emotion and interest in continuing to live as a dog.
Whether the dairy cow is in a mass feed lot with thousands of others, or at an organic free range farm with a few hundred, or at a hobby farm with a dozen, they all suffer terribly. They ALL end up at the same horror house when their milk supply drops. Dairy cows -freerange too, live very short lives and are killed after two or three continual pregnancies when they reach adulthood at about 5 or 6 years. They normally live to 26 or 30. Dairy cows suffer the agonising seperation of their calf who is then killed for veal. There is more cruelty in a glass of milk than in a steak. Dairy cows including freerange get painful mastitis in their udders. With full painful udders they are trucked on a long thirsty, frightening, dirty journey to the horrors of the slaughter house. They can smell the death. Some cows are still pregnant and their calves are cut out alive (this is their birth), while mother hung upside down and then dismembered while still conscious, legs cut off while still kicking. This is normal industry practice.
If we didn't breed animals to be used for food, then they wouldn't exist anymore. This is a good thing. Only the genetically unaltered original species should exist and live free.
Kindest regards,
Desert Girl
- Desert Girl
January 6, 2009 9:00AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
The Brian agenda.
Hi Desert Girl.
Your graphic outrage at the commercial food industry at it worst is understandable.
The "doing dairy differently" that I had in mind related more to the local family goat or cow. In india the birth of either a bull cafe or a heifer is viewed with joy for the poor cow owning family.
(I do acknowledge that all of the food industry has an issue around the birth of male animals.)
I also think of the little girl following her half dozen scavenging hens down the road gathering their eggs. I also at one time kept chickens, ate eggs and buried the chickens when they died.
Do or did these animals have great lives ?
I don't know.
But if as you say they normally live for 26 - 30 years - Then they can be pets that may also contribute to their owners in a different way.
I will, however, now point out my dilemma. It is consistent with what I have encountered each time I have enquired about like minded individuals. I am probably not going to find like - thinking people in the Vegan ranks.
While I acknowledge that we can feed the world with products from the plant kingdom, my advocacy is that we move in that direction and make better choices. There is a gap between where we are and where we might be ideally.
My dilemma is this. I put my issue forward and next thing I know I'm debating about food animals.
My priority is to raise awareness about enslavement of animals as domestic pets. The abolitionist ideal may be a great long term objective but within the transition period there are priorities.
mine is the pet issue.
I can support full abolition, but I see a human ominvore who won't support people keeping a dog or cat as a more ethical position than a Vegan who has these neutered pets.
So given that we need to start somewhere, this is my priority.
So far I think its a pretty solitary position.
- NOtopets
January 6, 2009 9:34PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pets are often a form of therapy for their owners
Although I am opposed to keeping pets - lets please not forget that pets also care for and make their owners happy. This does not mean we should perpetuate pet ownership , but I would be lying if I said I dont look forward to coming home to 3 purring cats.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 12:50PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
You are an idiot
Frankly, I find the fact that your parents mated offensive. What human in their right mind thinks animals serve no useful purpose. How self serving - self absorbed - self centered you are to think animals are not useful because of allergies???? You need to go back to your cave.
- OhForTheLoveOfGod September 10, 2009 11:33AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Wake up people - this is NOT a perfect world
....nor has it ever been nor will it ever be. First, the fact remains that we(humans) made the choice thousands of years ago to domesticate the dog and cat. When that choice was made, humans made the commitment to care for dogs and cats and now it really would be inhumane to release them (as I know some people would prefer to do) on society or in the wild. Our companion animals have come to rely on their owners to provide for them. We hope their instincts would kick in but would that happen before they were killed by man or beast? How much of a chance would they have against society's superhighways? Yes, this is all a part of "real life".
And after reading some of these comments - I have to ask - could someone PLEASE explain to me how domestic is like natural breeding? There is absolutely nothing natural about our companion animals except the way in which some of them look. What part of natural breeding brought us the Bulldog? The only true natural breeding occurs in the wild.
Ok - I am totally against puppy mills and over-breeding. I am totally in support of neutering and spaying companion animals. Again, it goes back to that commitment we humans made thousands of years ago when WE chose to domesticate the dog and cat - we humans are doing what we can to enhance their behavior and avoid health risks.
And yes, as the name implies, I am a proud Beaglemom. They are my only kids - they are my family. And again, in a perfect world, human companionship would be nice sometimes but what about those instances of abuse by a spouse or significant other and this is on the rise. What about a marriage or relationship gone wrong? Those people in nursing homes that benefit from human companionship - they benefit from not just human contact when I visit but they get the added benefit when I bring Shiloh, my oldest Beagle, to visit. You say what benefits from a dog? I say, have any of you TRULY researched the subject - I have and yes, there are physical as well as emotional benefits to people. It is proven - people who own a companion animal - live longer and people who have contact with a dog or a cat, their high blood pressure goes down. And Shiloh LOVES the added attention - the proof you say? The lively trot down the hallway as we move from room to room as well as his constant waving flag of a tail.
- ProudBeaglemom
January 28, 2009 7:51PM
Reply to this Recommend (2)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Would a Wild Wolf Be Your Pet?
Hi ProudBeagleMom. I'm a proud husky mum. I live with two wonderful & charismatic huskies. Our family loves them and they love to be with us. They always want to be in the same room with us. They are bomb proof around our little boys. They are also vegan like us. They eat a nutritionally complete dog food without requiring any other animals to die so that they can live.
Anyways, altho we share mutual love, I am very sadened at their situation of being "pets". They did not choose this life. They r completely dependent on us as though they were children. But they're not children, they are grown adults. And unlike human children, these animals have absolutely no legal rights. I could have them destroyed whenever I liked without reason. They also have very little choices. They are much more like slaves than they are like children. Their bred purpose for human benefit is to be "companion" slaves. But a happy slave is still a slave! These dogs cannot even pee without asking for permission to go outside. They cannot feed themselves. They cannot get affection if we're too busy. They have to suffer boredom inside and in the back yard. All of these things wouldn't occur to them in the wild in their original genetic state as wolves when they were free from companion slavery. As "domestic" animals (a nice word for slave), like human slaves, these dogs have their babies removed and sold. They will never see their children again. They will never interact with their relatives. Like human slaves, dogs' entire social lives are dictated by their owner (or loving slave master). If they were not born into domestication, and not conditioned to depend on and happily live with humans, they would rather choose the freedom and self determination of living in their natural habitat in their natural wolf form. I mean, would a wild wolf give up his life to be your "pet"?
What do u think about this? Kind regards, Desert Girl
- Desert Girl
February 1, 2009 7:03AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Yes, But in reason
Owning pets through your childhood really brings responsibility to the children , and also gives them a friend to love and care for. To learn how to love and care for something.
Pets are a yes, so long as we give them good lives and give them love.
I believe that keeping animals in your home is reasonable, and even in most zoos I think it's okay (if they are given space, others of their species, and a "natural" environment . What I think is awful is Circus'. Purely for entertainment, the animal is put through a hard life, caged up and forced to be surrounded by people constantly, no sanity in their lives.
- poodleskirt
March 27, 2009 7:10PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Care for "something"?
This is exactly Gary's point. You regard animals as "things." If you want children to learn how to care for "something," you should teach them how to garden. When children grow up and have children of their own, they won't need to know how to care for some "thing," but for some-"one." Having "things" doesn't require children to be responsible to anyone in any kind of power but the owner of those "things," i.e. you or the child. But if you have children, society requires you to be responsible.
- Ciuma
May 6, 2009 1:27PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Pets are not free not to be pets-how can that be right?
NO. Definately we should not have pets. It was our idea to domesticate these animals in the first place. We are now stuck with freaks who are not wild animals anymore and cannot be released into the wild, yet these animals were bred by us for our benefit. Animals do not benefit from being our pets- they have no choice because they cannot live without us - because we bred them to be so.
Pets have created the huge problem and curelty of unwanted, abused and neglected animals. As for those who live in 'nice' homes- we are not sure they are happy- they are certainly our captives and they have no choice in the matter. Pets encourage the attitude that animals are property.
- sor666
May 6, 2009 8:08AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cat ownership
I agree we should not breed any more pets or domestic animals . But I wonder how long will it take to eradicate pet ownership when there are so many cats and dogs out there? Many are not sterilised. There are feral cat colonies in every city.
I have 3 cats I rescued from a cat hoarder who have feline aids and leukemia. If I had not rescued them they would be dead by now. I am painfully reminded of the fact that cats especially should never have been domesticated. Because these cats carry the lethal viruses contagious to other cats, I must enclose them permanently. I can only walk them on a harness and nothing can be more unnatural to a cat than to be deprived of its territory. They are now used to it- but they are always bored. On the other hand I am warned that not enclosing a cat is bad for it- it can be run over, attacked by other cats etc. It seems we have arrived at a point where our pets are forced to live unnatural lives due to animal overpopulation and human overpopulation. I am not sure anymore my cats are still true cats. I have no idea what enclosement does to their mental well-being and know for sure they would never survive in the wild. This is definately wrong and injust to them.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 12:38PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Cats should never have been domesticated
Of the animals , I think cats should definately never have been domesticated. They are too dependent on us- even after they become feral they cannot live good lives without good vet care and so cannot really be allowed to become feral. On the other hand, as domestic cats they are always frustrated because they wish to be wild (there might be exceptions) and require huge territories to roam- something not possible in an urban setting. They are also profilic breeders and have to be sterlised. Their populations easily become uncontrollable and they have a devastating impact on wildlife, especially in environments foreign to them like Australia, yet their hunting skills are insufficient to allow them to prosper in the wild as true wild cats would.
- sor666
August 31, 2009 2:22PM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: No
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
backing that up
Do you have any support for your statement:
"They are too dependent on us- even after they become feral they cannot live good lives without good vet care and so cannot really be allowed to become feral."
Regardless... the domestication of the cat took place so long that there is no way to really say if it 'should' or 'should not' have happened... any more then if agriculture should have taken place along the Nile.
- MrBook
September 1, 2009 6:57AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Uncommitted
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
Jeez
I laughed so hard at your post that I wet my pants. My dog doesn't know the difference between "pet" or "companion" - he just knows if I care for him and love him. Stop trying to control everyone. If you truly want to better an animals life - try adopting an animal instead of shaking your finger at other "companion" owners LOL
- OhForTheLoveOfGod September 10, 2009 10:53AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.
My Cat
We had barn cats when I was growing up in Maine. They lived outside and fed on moles and birds . I watched almost every one of them being born and they were friendly to me. They reproduced. They were killed by cars . They were eaten by foxes. In many ways, they accepted me before my peers did.
Then I didn't have cats for awhile.
Living a transient life as a theatre artist, I found Bebe living under the stage at an outdoor theatre festival when she was only four weeks old. She was tiny and feral and had yellow eyes. I wasn't the most responsible person in the world, but I reluctantly took her in. I fed her with an eyedropper and I wiped diarrhea from her bottom. When she had a biting problem, I bit her back like her mom would have. She walked on my head and curled into me at night. I was 3000 miles from home and all my friends were leaving for the season. We were both, in our own way, orphans.
Bebe is 7 years old now and her eyes are a lovely green. She meets me at the door when I come home. She licks my nose, and I pick her up to let her look out the windows she can't reach. When I'm sad she comes to me, crawls up onto my chest, puts one leg on either side of my head, nuzzles me, and purrs. I love Bebe more than I love most people.
When Bebe goes outside I assume that, if she didn't return, it would mean she was either dead or happier somewhere else. I don't want Bebe to die but I want her to be happy. She likes to crawl inside things and see from different perspectives. She likes various water sources. Bebe gave ME a different perspective on my life and I owe a lot to her. She's my kitten. My Bebe Girl. And she seems very happy to be so. She comes to me, makes a squeaky sound, and shows real love.
Maybe my cat chose me. Maybe I chose her. Maybe we are pure coincidence. But Bebe's entry into my life is something I will always consider a miracle. We imprinted on one another. And even though Bebe doesn't speak English, she communicates and she understands. She is asleep at my feet. And she is my family.
- MCS
September 17, 2009 12:40AM
Reply to this Recommend (0)
Side: Yes
Thank You for your Comment
We review all comments before they're posted. For more on our comment policy, please see our FAQ.