"Pets" - Which of these statements do you agree with?

[Roxy]

I dont understand how people can buy a dog from a breeder or pet store.

Me neither. There are so many unwanted animals in shelters or on the streets, who need good homes and people to love them.

In my opinion, we should be taking care of the animals that are already in need of homes, rather than purposefully breeding more.

[Blue moon]

Well, I'm not defending buying puppies from breeders, but I know people who have done so after rescue centres would not let them have a dog, or made the procedure so difficult they just thought sod it and bought a puppy.

The three main ones around here have extremely strict criteria, even expecting to do home visits for hamsters! They won't let a dog go to anyone with kids under ten years old unless they can guarantee the dog is good with kids, so that's most of them ruled out for caution (protecting themselves against potential lawsuits I suppose) and they won't let you have a dog unless you are home all day.

Some will disagree with me, but I think there are plenty of dogs who are happy with owners who have to earn a living, just as there are plenty of lonely miserable dogs with people around all day, it shouldn't be a blanket "no" and leave the dogs in kennels forever or be put to sleep.

Because, when the people who want a rescue dog from a shelter can't have one, they go and buy one from somewhere. That's not helping dogs in the bigger picture, is it.

[Zan]

The three main ones around here have extremely strict criteria, even expecting to do home visits for hamsters!

Good for them!!! Surely a hamster deserves as much care in where it lands up as any other animal? !

I really get pissed off with people complaining about rescues being too strict in their homing policies. If they care about their animals of course they are.These animals have already had one bad start so they don't want to pass them on to anyone who is going to be less than perfect if they can possibly help it---out of the frying pan into the fire. Good rescues are more interested in the quality of homes they find rather than getting rid of the animals. There is a feeling in some of the public that they are doing you such a favour taking the animal off your hands that they shouldn't be questioned at all

Admittedly,where it does fall down a bit is when rescues are so over-stretched that they have to have written guidelines for inexperienced home checkers, who follow them slavishly rather than being able to use their discretion.Occassionally this may lead to unfair refusals, but a bit of tenacity and communication could probably get round this. Though unavoidable for some rescues due to the numbers they are dealing with, it is still better than letting dogs---or hamsters---go to the first person prepared to take them.

There really is no moral justification to buy an animal from a breeder while others are dying due to lack of homes.

[Blue moon]

There really is no moral justification to buy an animal from a breeder while others are dying due to lack of homes.

I'd turn this around - there's no justification for turning down a good home for a rescue animal when you know they want a pet so will go and buy one otherwise.

I never meant hamsters don't deserve the best, but come on, a home visit? So an average parent say, do they schedule a day to take time off work to have a home visit to see where the hamster's home will be, or do they go to a pet shop and pay whatever the price is, about a fiver?

So all the people who want dogs but don't live in middle class large houses with big gardens, can't love a dog and give it a full life? I know people who were turned down, and have beloved well-treated happy animals which they bought.

I'm all for looking after rescue dog's interests, but if the standards are set so high, people will go and buy a pet instead. That was what I was trying to say, that's why people buy pets instead of getting rescued ones.

[Zan]

I'd turn this around - there's no justification for turning down a good home for a rescue animal when you know they want a pet so will go and buy one otherwise.

It depends on your definition of "good home". You say you know good homes who have given up on rescues and bought animals---well obviously I don't know the circumstances but i still defend the rescue's right to refuse homes they don't like and try to get the best possible home for the animals in their care, and presumably the rescues didn't rate these as good homes. To me they appear to be vindicated in this decision by the readiness of the people concerned to then go and pay money to a breeder to perpetuate this system. I would rather have a dog wait for months for the right home than pass it on to the wrong home.

I rescue and rehome animals, but in a small way so I do all the vetting and rehoming myself. If a stranger came to me who was out at work all day they wouldn't get a dog from me, though they would get a cat if they were suitable. I really don't care whether a dog goes to live in a home with a garden or a fourth floor flat as long as the people are dedicated to the dog's wellbeing. On rare occasions where people known to me who work full time have come here, when I know that their previous dogs have been the centre of their universe and being at full time work has not had a negative impact on the dogs they have got a dog---but the right dog for the situation--e.g. a dog who won't mind sitting in an office during the day as long as there is a good walk at the end of it.

[Blue moon]

I suspect everyone has different ideas of what makes a good home. I just don't think that can be decided by cut & dry policies.

I know I wouldn't have got a rescue dog when I was working full time, even though my dog got more attention and exercise from me than many other dogs with their people around them all day. This is also the case for a friend of mine in a similar situation, not considered worthy by rescue centres, so he now has a happy dog bought from a breeder.

A friend of mine has children, desperately wanted a dog, and despite numberous visits, there was no suitable dog which she was allowed as her children were under ten. So do you think she should have never got a dog? Let her kids grow up not understanding the affection and attention animals need and give, because a rescue centre has to protect itself from child-biting lawsuits?

I'm not saying any animal should just be thrown at whoever wants it, but sometimes people can't have a rescue animal, and so they will find one from breeders of even worse free-ad papers. I don't think rescue centres are always right, and anyone considered not worthy should live life deprived of any companion animals. And yes I do think they are too strict, in my humble opinion it's better for a dog to be in a loving home than a kennel or put to sleep.

Anyway, I'm not expressing any of this very well, just trying to say, in a very long winded way, that sometimes people would very much like to give a rescue dog a home rather than buy from a breeder, but can't.

[Zan]

I really can't believe there are any rescues out there who would put a dog to sleep rather than place it in a "loving home". There are reasons for everything, usually good ones, but I did concede in my first reply to you that occassionally inexperienced home checkers stick too strictly to guidelines without using their discretion. This is still probably better than going too far the other way and letting dogs go to anyone.

You make it sound as if these friends you refer to had one local rescue and that was it. I know that within a 40 mile radius of here there are many rescues, varying from branches of national ones, small private ones and council run ones. All homing policies vary---the council run ones and some small ones don't have strict homing policies at all. Perhaps really caring people who have been rejected by one, maybe simply because they don't have a suitable dog to match to them at that moment in time, would be better employed travelling further afield to another rescue rather than sourcing a pup from a breeder which perpetuates the cycle of commercial exploitation of animals. There are also the free ad papers and other small ads where people who should never have had a dog in the first place offer the dogs they bought from breeders 6 months to a year or more down the line. To take on one of these dogs probably stops it landing up in an already over stretched rescue and is still not directly fuelling breeding.

[EcoTribalVegan]

I have animal companions. I had them before I was really aware of the cruel nature of the pet trade. I treat them as kindly as possible and love them to pieces. But I certainly will never PURCHASE another pet again. I might rescue an animal, as that would be a better life than in a shelter. So Yes and No.

[Blue moon]

You make it sound as if these friends you refer to had one local rescue and that was it. I know that within a 40 mile radius of here there are many rescues, varying from branches of national ones, small private ones and council run ones. All homing policies vary---the council run ones and some small ones don't have strict homing policies at all. Perhaps really caring people who have been rejected by one, maybe simply because they don't have a suitable dog to match to them at that moment in time, would be better employed travelling further afield to another rescue rather than sourcing a pup from a breeder which perpetuates the cycle of commercial exploitation of animals. There are also the free ad papers and other small ads where people who should never have had a dog in the first place offer the dogs they bought from breeders 6 months to a year or more down the line. To take on one of these dogs probably stops it landing up in an already over stretched rescue and is still not directly fuelling breeding.

No, I was simply trying to give very brief examples, in response to the rather harsh "there is no moral justification" line.

Freed ads papers around here are free, but the animals sordidly traded in it are not, they are mostly pit bulls, rotties & labs bred for money albeit less than 'pure' bred, so no better in my view than 'registered' breeders. But I don't get the difference between stopping a free-ads dog going eventually to a shelter, or a 'pure bred'' one, a dog is a dog.

I'm making a hash of explaining this I know, so I'll respectfully agree to disagree if that's ok.

[Zan]

No, I was simply trying to give very brief examples, in response to the rather harsh "there is no moral justification" line.

Freed ads papers around here are free, but the animals sordidly traded in it are not, they are mostly pit bulls, rotties & labs bred for money albeit less than 'pure' bred, so no better in my view than 'registered' breeders. But I don't get the difference between stopping a free-ads dog going eventually to a shelter, or a 'pure bred'' one, a dog is a dog.

I'm making a hash of explaining this I know, so I'll respectfully agree to disagree if that's ok.

I meant free ads dogs who have already been bought once and are now for sale again or of course ads in vets surgeries etc. from people who have got dogs and don't want them anymore, not who have been bred to be advertised. While not ideal, this is still better than going to a breeder, registered or otherwise, who has bred puppies as items to sell.

I'm obviously making a hash of explaining this too.

[RubyDuby]

I worked for a lady who has a dobie rescue. She was super-strict about who she adopted to. She would judge the person as they walked up the drive-way. Basically if you are a well-off older white man, you'd get a dog. Otherwise, forget it.

Those dogs live in crates 24 hours a day. they get to go to the bathroom and exercise in a big yard for about 15 minutes 3 or 4 times a day. The longer they stay there the less adoptable they are. They become even more dog aggressive bc the only interaction they have with the other dogs is barking ferociously at each other on the way out to the yard.

I don't know my point other than I know it can be difficult to rescue a dog if you want a specific breed sometimes. Even where I work now does interviews and house checks before adopting out a rescue.

It's much easier to rescue from a shelter, but u have less of a choice of pure-breeds. Personally I think being stubborn in a 'need' for a specific breed is completely superficial and self-centered. I really just don't get it.

[Marrers]

What RubyDuby said reminded me of a few people I have known who take animals in but do not actually want to part with them - so no-one is ever deemed good enough to adopt them.
These people would say they loved these animals and wanted what was best for them but through having so many in reality it was a dreadful environment for them and probably worse than where they were 'rescued' from in the first place.

[Roxy]

Personally I think being stubborn in a 'need' for a specific breed is completely superficial and self-centered. I really just don't get it.

In all honesty, I have to agree with this statement. It may not be a very nice statement for some people to hear but I think we really need to put the animals first, rather than our own desires for a specific breed.

[Zan]

Marrers---I know exactly what you mean. These people are hoarders of animals rather than rescuers. I have seen horrible places with cats crammed into old caravans and dogs in accomodation that must surely be worse than they were "rescued" from. I was defending the good people who really rescue and who want the best for their animals---their biggest fear is for them to land up in a situation as bad as they were in before---and who do appear to sometimes be very strict in their homing policy. The difficulty is that "the general public" will say what they think you want to hear, so judging who is genuine and who is not is a minefield. I have to say in my experience you can't home to a "good address" ---there are some miserable dogs living in middle class homes who never get beyond the utility room in the house and their only exercise is in the garden, and some extremely happy dogs living in fourth floor flats who get loads of stimulating walks and live as part of the family.
Breed rescues are a whole different ball game. How can anyone who cares about dogs only rescue one breed? Often they are less rescue, and more an apparently ethical way for breeders to get rid of "stock" who don't come up to show standard or who are past breeding usefulness.

[Zan]

In all honesty, I have to agree with this statement. It may not be a very nice statement for some people to hear but I think we really need to put the animals first, rather than our own desires for a specific breed.

I agree too. When I get an unusual pedigree in here as a rescue everyone goes---oh you won't have any trouble finding a home for him---and I groan inwardly. The kind of people who suddenly rush to my door are more interested in what he is rather than who he is. These are the kind of people I don't want to have one of my rescues.

[Marrers]

I don't disagree but I do think that certain breeds (of certain animals) are more suitable for certain environments and lifestyles than others. As I understand it there are certain traits you can expect which are common to the breed. Within that of course there will always be exceptions and it still depends on personality of the animal and whether you gel with the animal and they with you.
If you have a home to offer and there are various breeds available what is wrong with preferring some over others?

I have no experience of dogs but have heard for example that certain breeds need lots of exercise so they would not be right for me!
I would not consider breed very important when thinking about offering to home a cat (except things like long-haired vs short haired, plus I personally dislike the vocal nature of some breeds so would want to avoid those).
However when rehoming a rabbit (to be a house rabbit, which may not best suit all breeds or individuals) I would consider the breed for temperament and behaviour reasons as well as size (I have a lot of space so feel I should take on as large a rabbit as possible).

I would now opt to take animals who are difficult to rehome for whatever reason if possible (age, health issues, disability or appearance) and may be prepared to wait for the right animal to become available rather than take one who could be easily homed. But the paramount consideration is whether we get on and whether our temperament, personalities and lifestyles are compatible because when you are making a lifetime commitment it must be a good fit.

ETA If my home / lifestyle was considered unsuitable I would consider that very carefully and think about whether I really was a suitable person to adopt.

[RubyDuby]

I don't disagree but I do think that certain breeds (of certain animals) are more suitable for certain environments and lifestyles than others. As I understand it there are certain traits you can expect which are common to the breed. Within that of course there will always be exceptions and it still depends on personality of the animal and whether you gel with the animal and they with you.

that's one reason why a breed shouldn't matter. It should be about the 'gelling'. Also, most dogs in shelters are not pure breeds, therefore the exception is there more often than not. Mutts are the best IMO. You can't look at a picture of a mutt and make judgements on its personality, which we shouldn't do with pure breeds either.

If you have a home to offer and there are various breeds available what is wrong with preferring some over others?

because unfortunately this becomes more about looks, and status, and getting a good deal on a dog. It also encourages more breeding.

I have no experience of dogs but have heard for example that certain breeds need lots of exercise so they would not be right for me!

that's true, but you can get a mutt to fit your level of activity just as easy (or difficult) as trying to ft a specific breed with your level of activity. If you have kids/other dogs/cats etc, its just as easy to find a mutt to suit these initial needs.

But the paramount consideration is whether we get on and whether our temperament, personalities and lifestyles are compatible because when you are making a lifetime commitment it must be a good fit.

exactly.

ETA If my home / lifestyle was considered unsuitable I would consider that very carefully and think about whether I really was a suitable person to adopt.

If you have room in your place, somewhere to walk the dog, and havent given up pets in the past and are still denied, try again. The problem probably lies with the person you're trying to adopt from.

[Manzana]

I am at a big Yes and no On this one. It does break my hart to know so many people buy or aquire there pets on an idea and not looking at the facts of what it is they are about to get into. Dogs for family christmas presant, a horible thing to do to a puppy. They are so confused when the arive stripped from there mother. They really need a day of one on one in a quiet home. This one day can really make a differance in there training. Cats that never get the proper shots, Parrots living a life inside a cage.
I had an iguana some years ago and he was kat box trained, we didn`t have a cage just a habitat in the house for him to hang in , but when I get home he followed us around ( 4' long). A free lovin life lizard. It is crual to not obediance train a dog and dominate him/ her with a "choke chain". I have helped so many people obedeance train it makes people have more value in there dogs because of invested time and reward. For the dog and the owner this is the time the relationship is mended.

I`m so sorry if you think I should get my next dog at a shelter But.............. If that is ones motive than they should not own pets. Sorry. Lots of sheltered animals could have an abusive past and me being a pro in training know that you will be giving yourself more work that time you could have. These sweet abused animals can be extreemly unsafe to children and strangers. An abuse animal lives life in constant fear, shaking, urinating when being pet or talked to. The simtoms do go away slowly over time. And the breed is more important than you could beleve. They really are differant. You must know what kind of breed you want before anything is brought home , they ARE all so defferant in many ways. You wouln`t get a pitbull because you like to socialize at the local dog park. The chances are slim the dog will tolorate others. (but some do)
To own exotic , one really needs to be a pro in the particulare animal itself. When I grew up I had a macaw. She lived most her days in the trees in the back yard doing as she pleased, when the sun would go down she would be waiting at the back door to be let in and would walk to and up her stand for the night. Trixy was happy and loved us very much but I always new something was missing. She seemed lonely anyway. I will not get another parrot.

I think it is absolutely horrendous to "own" (as you so call it) exotic animals like you have done. You do not need to be a "pro" to realise that these animals are trafficed with. No one should make money by selling the freedom of other beings. I think that way of thinking is selfish and egotistical and I am surprised that not many people in the forum have noticed what a demeaning post towards animals you have posted. Noone should "own" a parrot or an iguana, these animals should be left alone.

The only animals that I think is acceptable to look after (not to own!) are those that are in rescue centres (oh yes, those ones that you would not look after because you are too bothered about the breed or the fact that yu will have to spend "too much time on them")

In my opinion if you pay private organisations/individuals for animals you support their trade and this is no different from slavery.

[Blue moon]

In an ideal world, every dog would cost the same amount of money regardless of breed or where it's bought, that would soon eliminate the status element with people paying several hundred pounds for a showy dog.

And it would stop people treating them as disposable, because I have heard people say things like "why would I pay for a dog when I can get one free from rescue", now there's something horrible about that I think, wanting a freebie with no spaying costs either, makes them seem less 'valuable' and permanent I think. Anyone taking on a pet should be able and prepared to pay for their keep/health etc, so if they can't afford to 'purchase' it in the first place they shouldn't have a pet should they. I know why rescus dogs are free, becuase they don't want to put people off, so if all pets cost a fixed amount regardless, problem solved eh?

Then, too, the heartless money making breeders and puppy farms would stop if the most they could charge was the same as any other dog and nowhere near the several hundred quid per puppy

[Blue moon]

I`m so sorry if you think I should get my next dog at a shelter But.............. If that is ones motive than they should not own pets. Sorry. Lots of sheltered animals could have an abusive past and me being a pro in training know that you will be giving yourself more work that time you could have. These sweet abused animals can be extreemly unsafe to children and strangers. An abuse animal lives life in constant fear, shaking, urinating when being pet or talked to.

I don't know what it's like the rest of the world, but actually around here the number of dogs in shelters that have been abused and seriously "rescued" in the original sense are pretty low - most are there because their loving old friend died, or relocated, or the stupid people decided too late that dogs are actually expensive/need walks or whatever.

It's a bit sweeping to assume any re-homed dog is going to have serious issues from abusive treatment and an unknown history.

[Zan]

Angiemom, your comments leave me almost speechless I am so angry.

It is the dog who matters---not how easy a pet he will make for you.

[diannerd]

I think saying that a rescued animal is more inclined to be aggressive/violent towards children or strangers is a VERY SAD EXCUSE for your selfishness.
Supporting breeders and the rest of the pet industry is only getting more innocent animals killed and abused. Yes, there are some aggressive dogs in shelters, but they're very easy to spot if spend a little time with them.

Besides, there are plenty of PUPPIES, SMALL DOGS, and other breeds at shelters that have not been abused and/or are not violent.

My 3 dogs all endured horrible abuse (one had a broken leg when we got him) and none of them are even the slightest bit violent. In fact, I think our bond only became stronger because they learned to trust me--and over time b/c of the love and understand my husband and I provided, have become very friendly and social with children and strangers.

Pets aren't supposed to be easy...that's exactly the kind of attitude that gets them on the street and left in shelters to die.

It breaks my heart to think people can still think that way...some of my animals endured YEARS of being placed in one home after another b/c of attitudes like this.

[Marrers]

Also, most dogs in shelters are not pure breeds, therefore the exception is there more often than not. Mutts are the best IMO.

All good points RubyDuby.

Like I said though I don't really know anything about dogs, I'm not a dog person at all. (I've never had one, no-one I know well has ever had one and I never intend to have one! Closest contact was being bitten on the face by an Alsatian when I was 15, true to their reputation.)

I know a bit more about cats and they are mostly the equivalent of mutts aren't they. My friend just took on a cat with a bit of Burmese in it. Doesn't look anything special at all, just black and white, maybe the face is a bit more pointy than normal. But this cat has the Burmese / Siamese meow and that drove me round the twist although I was only there for a few hours! It was constantly meowing too. I couldn't live with a cat like that.

[Manzana]

In an ideal world, every dog would cost the same amount of money regardless of breed or where it's bought, that would soon eliminate the status element with people paying several hundred pounds for a showy dog.

In an ideal world people would not profit from selling the freedom of other beings!!!!

One thing is paying for a dog in a rescue centre: I.E. GIVING THE MONEY TO A CHARITY TO LOOK AFTER MORE ANIMALS!

A completely different thing is to pay someone money because they want to profit by selling the babies of a non human animal or a non human animal him/herself. As a vegan, if you do this, you are supporting the slave trade of non human animals. If no one bought animals from breeders they would quite frankly not exist. The only reason breeders exist is because we allow them to make profit out of it.

[Blue moon]

Seems everything I say on this thread is totally misunderstood.

Breeders shouldn't make a profit, but the reality is that they do. I can't imagine that changing without something drastic. If they aren't allowed to charge a penny, rescue centres etc couldn't either.

I don't see anything wrong with expecting people to pay for taking on an animal - at least there is a tiny assurance that the people REALLY want the animal if they are prepared to pay for it, rather than just turn up, get a freebie, no financial commitment to the life taken on, nothing lost if they pass it on again.

Expecting the human population to all stop wanting any animals around is a fairly tall order, not gonna happen any time soon is it.

[Manzana]

Seems everything I say on this thread is totally misunderstood.

Breeders shouldn't make a profit, but the reality is that they do. I can't imagine that changing without something drastic. If they aren't allowed to charge a penny, rescue centres etc couldn't either.

Of course they could, rescue centers are non profit organisations (which means they do not make a profit out of taking people's money for the animals. THey are normally charities and people that take animals from rescue centers know that their money is not really to "buy" the animal they are taking but to subsidise the food and care of the other animals that remain there...

I don't see anything wrong with expecting people to pay for taking on an animal - at least there is a tiny assurance that the people REALLY want the animal if they are prepared to pay for it, rather than just turn up, get a freebie, no financial commitment to the life taken on, nothing lost if they pass it on again.

Would you then expect adoptive parents to pay for the children they take??

Paying gives absolutely no proof on wanting to look after the animal/child... other measures need to be put in place for these reasons. Here in the UK you cannot take an animal from a rescue centre until you have filled in a questionaire (with questions such as "what will you do with the animal when you go on holiday?" "Do you realise vet bills and food will cost you an average of x per month?" "Are you planning on moving house soon?" etc) As well as this, someone comes to visit your house to check that it is an adequate place for the animal to live (I.e. you cannot "own" a dog without a garden or if the house is empty for more than 4 or 5 hours a day and noone can look after the dog) Some places do other checks, such as ask you if you have owned any pets, then ask you for the previous vet details and then check with the vet if the pet was well looked after, vaccinated...

Expecting the human population to all stop wanting any animals around is a fairly tall order, not gonna happen any time soon is it.

on that basis, just keep eating flesh because people are not going to change just because it is wrong...

I do not expect human population to stop wanting meat (or animals) but I can point out that it is morally wrong to eat meat. It is equally morally wrong to sell a being and even more morally wrong to make profit from it... In the same argument if you buy a being you support this trade and I think this is also morally wrong.

[Zan]

Very well put Manzana

[Blue moon]

Sigh.

I think you're unfairly stretching what I've said.

I think it should be obvious what I was actually meaning, but really I don't have the energy to try and express it in terms that can't be misconstrued as me wanting the worst for animals.

Bye

[RubyDuby]

Closest contact was being bitten on the face by an Alsatian when I was 15

that's terrible!!! no wonder ur not a dog person!

[hazelbunny]

I don't know one vegan who deosn't have animals around them,dogs,cats,hamsters,rats,whatever and find the whole debate kinda odd,equating a loved pet to a circus animal?wtf?
There's some extremeism at it's most extreme here!

Agreed Gogs! Frankly it has upset me that there are vegans who would actively try to make domestic dogs extinct, a worse crime in my opinion than meat-eating!

[RubyDuby]

I get it. I mean, domesticated dogs are not a naturally occuring phenomenon. and we've exploited them to over-population and tortured lives/deaths out of greed.

I don't see how killing them off would right the problem though.

[Roxy]

Agreed. Be kinda like rounding up all the kids in orphanages and giving them leathal injections as well. I mean, afterall, they don't have homes to go to and the earth really is overpopulated isn't it.

[Marrers]

. . . there are vegans who would actively try to make domestic dogs extinct . . .

Actively try? Did I miss something? I don't recall reading that (unless it is buried pages back).

Suggesting that domestic animals are no longer bred and are allowed to die out naturally over time is not actively trying to make them extinct or killing them off.

[EcoTribalVegan]

I don't see how killing them off would right the problem though.

I don't think anyone is advocating KILLING them. Maybe spaying and neutering them so they don't repopulate (and in a sense I suppose "killing them off"). But you can't kill something before it exists so it's not killing at all.

[RubyDuby]

ummm... actually some people are advocating killing them. Shelters kill animals all the time because there is no space/money/time for all of them.

A couple people from peta were arrested for killing shelter animals awhile back.

and this quote:
If I saw a dog dying on the street I would have it be put to sleep. The problem (the pet owner) has already been done. The dog's presumably terrible life can't be undone. But we can change the future. Actually, just by owning pets you promote pet owning to non-pet owners. Getting fewer people to own pets in the first place is the right way to tackle the situation.
from: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16798
shows evidence of that as well.

Of course we need to spay and neuter. Unfortunately there arent laws for this or to regulate breeding.

[emzy1985]

I think I may have already stated that I don't support breeders etc. My four cats are rescued because I feel I can give them a better home. All are spayed and I wouldn't have it any other way as all four were originally unwanted kittens. I throughly support neutering "companion" animals as a way to reduce a population of animals without a good home. I'm not sure that if the only way to have a "pet" in your life would be to buy it that I would ever have a "pet" as I'm not really sure I believe in keeping them in the first place if the need isn't there. However it is not mine nor the animals faults that they have been over bred for years so until a time when there are not needy cats/dogs/rats etc etc then I will continue to look after them instead of letting them go on the streets, be abused or put down by a shelter.

Did that make sense?

[Manzana]

ummm... actually some people are advocating killing them. Shelters kill animals all the time because there is no space/money/time for all of them.

A couple people from peta were arrested for killing shelter animals awhile back.

and this quote:
If I saw a dog dying on the street I would have it be put to sleep. The problem (the pet owner) has already been done. The dog's presumably terrible life can't be undone. But we can change the future. Actually, just by owning pets you promote pet owning to non-pet owners. Getting fewer people to own pets in the first place is the right way to tackle the situation.
from: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16798
shows evidence of that as well.

Where is that quote from???
I don't think anyone in this forum has advocated killing animals. Not being in favour of keeping pets means by no means killing them...

I am with Marrers, did I miss any hidden pages on the forum???

[Marrers]

ummm... actually some people are advocating killing them. Shelters kill animals all the time because there is no space/money/time for all of them.

A couple people from peta were arrested for killing shelter animals awhile back.

I thought we were talking about the opinions expressed by VF forum users.
But the things you mention are killing of some animals - not actively making animals extinct or trying to totally 'kill them off' (which I understand to mean kill them all).

and this quote:
If I saw a dog dying on the street I would have it be put to sleep. . . .
from: http://www.veganforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16798 shows evidence of that as well.

I don't think this post shows evidence of wanting to kill any, let alone all animals. This person was talking about finding a dog on the street which is already dying. I realise many of us would make efforts to save the dog if it were possible but it doesn't mean the poster (who lives in Sweden) doesn't care - clearly from other posts they do.

[RubyDuby]

Where is that quote from???
I don't think anyone in this forum has advocated killing animals. Not being in favour of keeping pets means by no means killing them...

I am with Marrers, did I miss any hidden pages on the forum???

the quote is from the link underneath the quote.

[RubyDuby]

But the things you mention are killing of some animals - not actively making animals extinct or trying to totally 'kill them off' (which I understand to mean kill them all).

just so we're on the same page. The animals I'm referring to are 'pets'. We're in the "What is your opinion about keeping pets?" thread.

I thought we were talking about the opinions expressed by VF forum users.

But you mention are killing of some animals - not actively making animals extinct or trying to totally 'kill them off' (which I understand to mean means kill them all).

I don't think this post shows evidence of wanting to kill any, let alone all animals. This person was talking about finding a dog on the street which is already dying. I realise many of us would make efforts to save the dog if it were possible but it doesn't mean the poster (who lives in Sweden) doesn't care - clearly from other posts they do.

I was under the impression that an extreme (often vegan) view was that domestic animals were put here by humans and tortured by humans, therefore the humane thing to do would be to put to sleep the homeless and not own pets, bc that is advocating owning a species that should have never existed. To me, that clearly shows feeling as though the species should no longer exist. (ie killed off... in essence)

In thread where I got that quote, three ideas came from that 1 person.
#1 owning domestic animals shows a need to dominate another species.
#2 owning pets in itself encourages others to own pets, which is bad.
#3 an acceptable way to deal with pets without owners is to put them to sleep.

I'm going to send him a PM to see if he'll stop by here and set the record straight.

[EcoTribalVegan]

ummm... actually some people are advocating killing them. Shelters kill animals all the time because there is no space/money/time for all of them.

A couple people from peta were arrested for killing shelter animals awhile back.

I apologize. I thought you were speaking about people on this forum not welfarist organisations. My bad.

From the looks of it though, the last few posters made this mistake as well.

[EcoTribalVegan]

#1 owning domestic animals shows a need to dominate another species.

And this is why from now on I will never buy an animal like a commodity. I don't think I dominate my animals. In fact they let me know when they want to be fed. I sometimes feel more like their slave lol.

#2 owning pets in itself encourages others to own pets, which is bad.

I may agree with this one, but if it's explained to them you aren't contributing to INCREASING the pet population and just ensuring that animals aren't dying in shelters, then I think they can understand the difference.

#3 an acceptable way to deal with pets without owners is to put them to sleep.

Once again I don't recall anyone from this forum saying this.

And I would really like to know the individual you think did say this because I would like to have a word with them as well.

But all of these assumptions you've made are superceded by an animals desire to live. By claiming these are the guidelines of vegans who don't promote pets but have them you have ignored that animals are capable of the DESIRE to maintain their own life. Even if it's deplorable (but then they shouldn't be in that situation and these are the animals I would be taking in).

[Mahk]

I think a lot of people (and I know I was one of them) have a near-sighted and idyllic/fairy tale view of what goes on in the background in order to feed the world's pet demand. Obviously there are many "good" breeders out there, but as long as dogs and cats are bought and sold as commodities, there will always be some people out there who will treat animals as shown in this video. ( It's not gory, don't be afraid, but it will make you think. Also, the sound level is low, so turn up your volume.)

I'm not making any judgments here, just passing along some info.

[ivandurago]

I imagine when I am done with college and have a home/land with enough room I will adopt dogs from local shelters, and obviously feed them vegan.

I absolutely love cats, however I have heard that they cannot live on a vegan diet alone, and you would either have to purchase some form of animal products in order to fulfill their diet or allow them to hunt at night (which wouldn't bother me, but attempting to bring up a cat vegan, then hope it keeps the instincts to kill... confusing/difficult)

[boatsteem1]

I get it. I mean, domesticated dogs are not a naturally occuring phenomenon. and we've exploited them to over-population and tortured lives/deaths out of greed.

I don't see how killing them off would right the problem though.

Agreed. Be kinda like rounding up all the kids in orphanages and giving them leathal injections as well. I mean, afterall, they don't have homes to go to and the earth really is overpopulated isn't it.

Humans are a naturally occuring species. We may be killing tens of millions of animals each day, destroying the climate, killing each other, and whatnot, but we are naturally occuring. By that I mean that we were created by evolution.

Pets were made by humans. In fact, they are still being made. Every day, dog, cat, horse, rabbit, chinchilla breeders selectively breed their animals to be better suitable to what ever makes humans happy. We have even started experimenting with genetic breeding.

In my view, this is like rape on mother nature. A nasty - global - rape.

Domestic animals were horribly created by humans. Their lives today are only there to make humans fat and happy. Food animals make us fat and pets are for our delightful happiness.

Let the rape continue?

[boatsteem1]

I am going to re-post my quote in its entirety. The question i got was:

Well what about a dog that is laying in the middle of the street dying? would you rescue it then? I know that sounds mean and I am sorry I am not trying to be mean I am just curious. I guess I really mean what do you mean by "rescue"

I answered:

Indirect thinking leads me to ask: what about all the animals that are being slaughtered to provide food for the dog?

Even if the above mentioned only applies to meat eating pets, even vegetarian pets indirectly consume land, water, and resources in order to be fed. Most pet species can't live solely off of grass. This leads more to an environmental argument than a ethical one. Pets consume huge amounts of resources (try counting the number of pets in the world and you'll likely end up with 100+ millions). In most parts of the developed world we have almost no natural environments left, leaving thousands of species endangered due to habitat loss. Not just mammals! Insects, plants and many other invisible species are affected by this. It takes a lot of resources to feed 100+ million pets.

If I saw a dog dying on the street I would have it be put to sleep. The problem (the pet owner) has already been done. The dog's presumably terrible life can't be undone. But we can change the future. Actually, just by owning pets you promote pet owning to non-pet owners. Getting fewer people to own pets in the first place is the right way to tackle the situation.

[boatsteem1]

I don't think this post shows evidence of wanting to kill any, let alone all animals. This person was talking about finding a dog on the street which is already dying. I realise many of us would make efforts to save the dog if it were possible but it doesn't mean the poster (who lives in Sweden) doesn't care - clearly from other posts they do.

As I've shown in the full quote above, my argument for putting a dying dog to sleep was being put in contrast to how many animals will die in order to feed the living dog, should one decide to save it. Indirectly, saving one animal will kill hundreds of others (if it's going to live for a few years).

This indirect thinking is something most people are not capable of.

[RubyDuby]

I apologize. I thought you were speaking about people on this forum not welfarist organisations. My bad.

From the looks of it though, the last few posters made this mistake as well.

I find it amusing that u selectively chose to not quote the part where I did give an example of somebody on this forum. I don't see much point in responding to your other post, since you obviously missed what I was saying, or more likely were arguing for the sake of arguing.
moving on...

thank you for coming by mazatael. I may not agree completely with your views (as I believe in taking care of the the pets who are already alive- and my dogs are vegan), but I do understand what you are saying and appreciate u adding ur 2cents on here, on request.

[EcoTribalVegan]

I find it amusing that u selectively chose to not quote the part where I did give an example of somebody on this forum. I don't see much point in responding to your other post, since you obviously missed what I was saying, or more likely were arguing for the sake of arguing.
moving on...

thank you for coming by mazatael. I may not agree completely with your views (as I believe in taking care of the the pets who are already alive- and my dogs are vegan), but I do understand what you are saying and appreciate u adding ur 2cents on here, on request.

I find it amusing you took mazateal's quote out of context! The question was phrased that the dog was already dying (presumably painfully) in the streets...

I was addressing the fact that you were using PeTA to speak for people on this group...Which once again is putting words in many people's mouths...

[RubyDuby]

critical reading would've shown that peta was used as 1 of 3 examples.

as I said 'I am under the impression' and PMed a poster who I believe holds this view in order to get his side, therefore not putting words in his mouth.

I wish there were no reasons for domestic animals to be made extinct, however there are people who do believe that is the right thing to happen. I was stating my opinion on this idea based on this post.

Agreed Gogs! Frankly it has upset me that there are vegans who would actively try to make domestic dogs extinct, a worse crime in my opinion than meat-eating!

To clarify further, Mazatael- What do u believe should be done about dogs who are alive already and not dying? (I did make an assumption that u would have them put down bc of the land/resources/meat they would be consuming in the meantime).