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

[Mahk]

The tiger and the piglets is really weird and trust it to be an Asian zoo. China no doubt?

It's a zoo in Thailand.

Some very interesting theories. I think I identify with the abolitionist theory - however as many of you know...I rescue cats.

I applaud people like you who can step back and look at the big picture without being blinded by their own circumstances as being the norm or "the way it should be". Sure, it's easy for a person with pets to say "I have companion animals, they are in no way "slaves", that's nonsense. I love them, they love me; there's no problem with society continuing this forever. Let's just make animal welfare laws stronger to crack down on the jerks who aren't like me and abuse or discard their animals. The problem isn't that they see no problem with their mistreatment or neglect of animals, it's that the laws to prevent them from doing so are too weak or are unenforced." Just as it is easy for a non-companion animal person to say,"I don't have any animals in my house, I have no problem getting on with life. Why shouldn't all vegans be like me and let all the animals of the world be free."

I guess what I am trying to say is I only fully trust the arguments of people, in any debate that is, who defend or at least consider a position contrary to their current living circumstances as being truly unbiased, and open minded. Anyone else may (or may not) have ulterior motives or simply be defending their particular lifestyle, rather than supporting "the way things should be", perhaps at a subconscious level, at least.

P.S. Even taking a hard line abolitionist view [which I have been only for the sake of argument, my actual views are not nearly as solidified] I think its just great that people like you are helping out with the abandoned animal problem that our society currently faces.

[ALexiconofLove]

Mahk, do you take in rescue animals? Just out of curiosity... and you may have mentioned it already in the pages of debate without my noticing! I know you're in favor of ending domestication in the long run, but I wasn't sure if you considered it okay to rescue animals in the short run.

[Mahk]

Mahk, do you take in rescue animals?

No, not currently at least. I live in a very small city apartment and couldn't stomach the thought of having a housebound cat with no yard to explore and no company for hours on end when the house is empty, nor having a dog who's bathroom privileges are dictated by certain time periods, when being walked, that is. Humans know that drinking too much water will cause a painful sensation of needing to urinate, but dogs don't, so they don't know to only drink modestly if bathroom break is hours away (I'm also confident they can't read the clock, either ). Humans can relieve themselves by a trip to the restroom any time they want, a city dog alone in an apartment can't, or knows at least that if they do, master will be most displeased so they suffer for as long as they possibly can before they have "an accident", both kinds, of course. I know some people keep pets in similar conditions, but it just doesn't feel OK for me to do so in my current living conditions, especially remembering the much more idyllic environment, both traffic-less and free range friendly, that I had when growing up and that I described here.

I know you're in favor of ending domestication in the long run, but I wasn't sure if you considered it okay to rescue animals in the short run.

Read the P.S. I added to my last post I wrote, apparently concurrently to when you asked your question.

P.S. I think you are attempting to use the word "domestication" exactly the way I had earlier when I wrote "I am against the domestication of animals", unfortunately, I can't find any dictionary definitions that refer to it as "the on going use of animals in domestic situations" (which is what I had meant), instead, all the definitions I find only speak to the transitional time period of changing a wild animal into a domesticated one, more specifically the actual process itself. Perhaps our common use is understood by most readers but it can be ambiguous to others, especially when dictionaries don't support our use of the term in this way.

I just thought to point that out, I'm not correcting you or anything. Moving forward I'm using the phrase "the continued use of animals that have been domesticated" to avoid any confussion.

[snivelingchild]

No, not currently at least. I live in a very small city apartment and couldn't stomach the thought of having a housebound cat with no yard to explore and no company for hours on end when the house is empty, nor having a dog who's bathroom privileges are dictated by certain time periods, when being walked, that is. Humans know that drinking too much water will cause a painful sensation of needing to urinate, but dogs don't, so they don't know to only drink modestly if bathroom break is hours away (I'm also confident they can't read the clock, either ). Humans can relieve themselves by a trip to the restroom any time they want, a city dog alone in an apartment can't, or knows at least that if they do, master will be most displeased so they suffer for as long as they possibly can before they have "an accident", both kinds, of course.

Of course there are always inherent problems with one being depending on another, but many of these can be reduced with effort. As I've mentioned all over the forum, I am against outdoor or indoor/outdoor cats for people who live in an urban environment. However, my cats (who are interested) go yard exploring often on leash whilst we are out with the dogs in the yard. (And people uncomfortable with a leash can invest in a more expensive cat-proof fence.) Also, wonderful grass and greens can be grown indoors for eating. (Not to mention the fact that cats seem MARVELED by any environment they're in! My cats are constantly playing with something in the house as if they've never seen it before..."When did this cabinet door get here? I'd better bat at it for a while.")

My dogs currently have an area 4' by 8' of rewashable bathroom area mats to use when we are out. (Again, for people with a larger budget there are nice grass boxes that's like having an indoor lawn, and there are even dog litter boxes.) Cats and dogs in multiples do much better for having companionship, even when their people are home all the time. In one european country (Swedin??) it is not illegal to own a cat by itself.
My point is that hopefully as we go along, we can find better and better ways to take care of animals, and we are doing this constantly.

Someone mentioned earlier about dog/cat birth control. If this would be a hormone based medication, surely it would lead to side effects such as increasing chances for cancer in humans? Also, the medication would be tested on animals.

Hemlock, I had no idea that female cats could have their tubes tied rather than the way they are currently being spayed (removal of reproductive organs???). If they could do a similar vasectomy in males that would be as complication free as that in humans, that would be a HUGE advantage!

[ALexiconofLove]

Thanks for the clarification, Mahk!

[Korn]

And even if we go waaay into the future where there aren't many dogs and cats (I think this is what you're saying?), and we let them out to live in the streets and/or the wild (I'm not sure which you're promoting), it's possible they might all die off due to being unfit for these environments, or it's possible that they might thrive and kill off native species (and I think we as humans would be responsible for either result).

If more and more people decide that animals aren't meant to be locked into a house most of the day, less people will buy pets. I'm not saying that we should just let them 'out in the streets' - not now, and not in the future.

Also, if an animal that has been captivated in a zoo or circus or home should return to 'the wild', a transition phase is needed.


The fact that predators (who normally eat other species) start to eat other other species if he returns back to wildlife after having been captivated isn't something that I can do anything about, or something that worries me more than the fact that nature already is full of animals, many of which kill other animals. I'm not going to start kill or spay/neuter lions to save the lives of antelopes.

Originally Posted by Korn
There are also many people who have no problems with killing or manipulating animals

I think you're referring to euthanasia and not to spay/neutering?

I'm referring to euthanasia when I write 'killing' and s/n when I write 'manipulating'.

Originally Posted by Korn
and IMO vegan activists should stick to what's unique for them: promote a vegan, pro-animal lifestyle, and not 'waste' time on activities that others could do. Not only can Peta's and other AR activists' involvement in spaying/neutering/euthanasia be done by others, but it's clear that this involvement sends out signals about vegans or AR activists 'killing animals'. That does promote respect for animal life.

We all have ideas about what is a waste of time or not. I actually don't spend time promoting spay/neutering or euthanasia for dogs and cats. But I think people should spay/neuter their pets.

I wasn't thinking of you, ALOL, but "Peta's and other AR activists'" involvement in spaying/neutering/euthanasia'. If they would have spent their activist time on promoting veganism instead of actually killing animals, they would have saved more animals from suffering, because for each person that goes vegan hundreds of animals are saved. Plus, sites like petakillsanimals.com would have existed.

Originally Posted by Korn
I have the feeling that you may miss the context, and again: you may be asking the question to the wrong people, unless someone have defended tail docking and ear clipping without me noticing it.

Didn't you say above that you are not against spay/neutering in all contexts?

I wrote that I hadn't posted that I was against s/n in all contexts, which is a little different from how you understood it...

OTOH: Maybe I'm wrong. Some of the reply options have gotten far less voted than I thought they would.
I've been thinking that too. I'm actually surprised that more people haven't voted. So many people were involved in the discussion! Maybe they don't know the poll has opened yet?

We also have members who chose 'I'm living on a plant based diet', and not 'I'm a vegan (or very close) when thy registered, and if they live on vegan food (eg. for health reasons) but are not vegans, I'm really not surprised if they look at animals the way vegans do, because if they would, they would have been vegans.

[Korn]

Originally Posted by Korn
Would neutering/spaying humans slaves (against their will) be an acceptable way to end human slavery if they didn't have the capacity to be 're-wilded' or any any other way get an acceptable life? I'm in many ways just as 'domesticated' and incapable of surviving in the wild (compared with how humans lived/behaved before we live the way we do now) as a cat is.

We are capable of living in a domestic environment without someone making all our decisions for us. You can argue that you are a slave, but you can leave your house when you want to.

'Leave the house' is only part of it. Lots of people are stuck in jobs they don't like, living in a noisy area because they can't afford moving to a nicer area, they can't go to the doctor or dentist or fix their car when needed because they are broke.. the list is endless. It looks like some people think that unless animals can live in an ideal, free, natural environment and without any limitations, they should be neutered/spayed, but humans who have lots more frustrations, and know that their kids will get problems as well, shouldn't. If a coal miner lives in an area where we know that his kinds most likely will be coal miners as well, should we s/n them to help them away from the unhealthy, slave-like and caged lives at work? Since when did anyone get the right to eliminate a species/race/group from the planet if they're not living 'ideal' lives?

Let's say we human beings bred a special class of human beings (through selective breeding) who could not be "re-wilded" and who did not have the mental capacity to live in our homes as anything other than "pets." Say this happened thousands of years ago. Say that these humans were dying by the tens of thousands every year, wreaking havoc on the wildlife where they were set free...

Humans already die in millions - not tens of thousands - due to lifestyle issues, wars, hunger, diseases associated with diet/lifestyle, and have caused more havoc on nature/environment/wildlife than any other species on the planet.

Originally Posted by Korn
If we agree that many so called pets live in loving, warm homes, why do you assume that these animals rather want to their balls cut off rather than let their family (including coming generations) continue to live in that loving, warm home? What would you have chosen?.

So if we have pets, we are meant to let them breed (I guess pick out their mate and keep them in the home with us???) and then take care of all future generations? Given the way they reproduce, this doesn't seem economically feasible to me.

I'll answer that question after you answered my question.

How do you feel about doggie (and kitty, if it became available) birth control?

From what I've heard, birth control pills already exist for cats, and if it wasn't for the fact that long term use apparently causes uterus cancer, this would probably be a much less frustrating solution for the animals than s/n.

Non-vegans have started the domestication process. These people aren't around anymore, but IMO it's our (still non-vegan) society's duty to help all humans and animals that need help, not a task that should be done by vegans or animal rights activists. They should provide shelter for animals needing it, and take the responsibility for all the problems their non-vegan ideals have caused. Peta has been criticized for killing a lot of healthy animals; and they apparently have, but my main focus is that they indirectly are killing a lot more animals by not promoting vegansim than by actually physically killing the animals they do, because they IMO focus on a totally wrong kind of activism. The same goes for all activists who care for animals and spend time on promoting the idea of making all the poor animals that has unfortunately (like us) have been forced into a lifestyle that's very from from their origins extinct: they're triggering a lot of anti-vegan, anti-AR reactions.

I would be irritated if PETA started a big "pass a law making it mandatory to spay/neuter pets" campaign.

Here's a link from a Peta site:
Spay/Neuter Immediately

Help an Animal
Spay/Neuter Immediately.

If you click on the Help an animal-text, you get to a page with this text: "Spay/Neuter Companion Animals—Ask Legislators to Make This Mandatory in Your Town or County
The single most important thing that we can do to save animals from all the suffering and death caused by their overpopulation is to spay and neuter them. The single most important thing that we can do to save animals from all the suffering and death caused by their overpopulation is to spay and neuter them."

All the stuff on internet about Peta and Ingrid Newkirk's killing of animals haven't only harmed the vegan and animal rights movement a lot, it has also harmed animals a lot.

Human beings may choose not to reproduce. I hope we will increasingly make this choice until our population is much smaller than it is today.

I would have agreed if I thought that the cause of the overpopulation problem would have been overpopulation itself, and not caused by political/environmental/lifestyle/religious/economical reasons (and the fact hat people eat animal products instead of plants, with the result that we can produce much less food - for the population we have on this planet - than we otherwise could)... but this is definitely topic for another thread.

I don't think the fact that humans may choose not to reproduce answers the question about why one species have the right to make another species extinct. Speciesism is speciesism, whatever it's wrapped in. If the problem is lack of shelters, work towards changes that will have more shelters. Meanwhile, I don't think we should play gods and assume that we have the right to make species extinct any more that we have the right to spay/neuter all the coal miner families at Svalbard, or people with less capacity than ourselves. I agree that it's not vegan, and because I'm vegan (or rather, due the reasons I'm a vegan), I don't support it.

Originally Posted by Korn
I earlier asked the defenders of making certain animals extinct if they thought it would be OK to sterilize their neighbor's dog if they looked after it for him (if it was legal).

The problem here is that the dog is someone else's dependent. I wouldn't make that choice for someone else dependent.

Now you - again - seem to respect the 'owner' of the animal than the animal itself. With all due respect, it's like asking someone's husband if it's OK to give his wife a book about women's liberation. The animal may be dependent of it's keeper for food and shelter, but the 'keeper' is NOT dependent on the animal being reproduced, so IMO dependency isn't relevant in this situation. Why is the master more important than the slave? And - if birth control pills are a better solution than s/n and you think birth control pills is something you think the species 'pets' always should get, why not either

a) not consistently support/defend pills instead of s/n, and
b) why not spay 'everyone's pets' if you don't think humans 'own' animals anyway, and you think that you have the right to make a race/group/species extinct?

I think I've explained (in depth, several times) that every choice we make with dogs and cats would be causing some level of pain to them or to native population without their acceptance. Spay/neutering is not vegan. Letting domesticated animals live in the wild or on the streets is not vegan.

You keep not commenting all the other alternatives....

What would you do with turkeys who, as far as I know, cannot breed on their own?

I don't know anything about turkeys, but if the question is if I'm going to help them (or anyone else) breed/reproduce, the answer is no. Was that the question?

The problem is that we will then always have this compromise.... We will forever make decisions about animals lives, about their genitalia....

Not if we don't keep any animals. If I would keep an animal for one reason or another, and would be forced to make a decision on the animals' behalf, I would make the same decision for it that I'd like someone to make for me if I couldn't make my won decisions.

I think it's a bit scary and alarming that so many humans worry for species (white tigers etc) going extinct while (a few) vegans seem to not worry at all because 'there will be no loss' or 'there's nothing to mourn about - they're not there anymore so they won't notice that they're not there'. Maybe I need to invent a new word that covers veganism + anti-speciesism + respect for nature + respect for life? Any suggestion for a good word?

Sorry for the lengthy posts - not because they're lengthy - but because they probably contain more grammar/spelling errors than they normally do. I'll have a look at them later!

[ALexiconofLove]

Okay, I think we're both repeating ourselves a lot, so this'll probably be my last post (you can have the final say!). I tried to sum up where we do/don't agree, but don't let me put words in your mouth... let me know if I got something wrong.

I'll answer that question after you answered my question.

Okay, I am failing at the nested quotes thing. I don't know what the animal would rather have. Maybe if I explained to it that tens of thousands of members of its species were dying every year, the animal would not want to contribute to those deaths. Personally, as I have become aware of the destruction caused by humans and the lack of resources in the world available to take care of humans, I have decided that I will not have children or will only have one child. Below, you say that if you kept an animal, you would try to make the same decisions for it that you would make for yourself, and that's what I try to do with my cat. As I've said, I don't think spay/neutering is vegan, but none of the other options are vegan either. I think we will continue to disagree on this point because you feel there are things we can do with/for pets that would be vegan.

From what I've heard, birth control pills already exist for cats, and if it wasn't for the fact that long term use apparently causes uterus cancer, this would probably be a much less frustrating solution for the animals than s/n.

Ah, fair enough (I don't know anything about doggie or kitty birth control). Maybe this would be the best solution, then. Aside from the obvious problem with animal testing that snivelingchild mentioned (I think?).

Non-vegans have started the domestication process. These people aren't around anymore, but IMO it's our (still non-vegan) society's duty to help all humans and animals that need help, not a task that should be done by vegans or animal rights activists. They should provide shelter for animals needing it,

I am currently providing shelter for one animal, I hope to provide shelter for more animals in the future as we have a decent-sized house with a fenced-in backyard. I think many vegans (even those who do not see dogs and cats as part of a vegan future) do this.

and take the responsibility for all the problems their non-vegan ideals have caused.

I agree with this. I think I disagree about how we should take responsibility and how much responsibility we have. I feel we have a responsibility to look out for the welfare of all dogs and cats, even those that are feral. We are also responsible for their actions, including any harm they do to the ecosystems in which they live. If animals in the world go extinct due to natural causes, that is not our responsibility. If a lion eats an antelope, I will not worry about that. But when dogs and cats (which are here because of us) are driving song birds to extinction, I believe that is our fault (I accept that you don't believe this, and I doubt we're going to agree on this point).

Spay/Neuter Immediately

[quote=Korn;417978]I disagree with this program for the reasons you mentioned. But I don't think vegans should change their morals and ideas just to "Look good" to non-vegans (just keep quiet about it, I guess!).

I would have agreed if I thought that the cause of the overpopulation problem would have been overpopulation itself, and not caused by political/environmental/lifestyle/religious/economical reasons (and the fact hat people eat animal products instead of plants, with the result that we can produce much less food - for the population we have on this planet - than we otherwise could)... but this is definitely topic for another thread.

Even if we all took up a vegan diet today, I think there would still be too many of us... hard to say, I suppose. Definitely a topic for another thread!

I don't think the fact that humans may choose not to reproduce answers the question about why one species have the right to make another species extinct. Speciesism is speciesism, whatever it's wrapped in.

While all animals have rights, I don't think all animals have the same rights. Even though animals have an interest in who becomes president or prime minister (because the president or prime minister will make laws regarding animals), animals cannot vote in our elections, because they do not have the capacity. Humans can choose whether or not they reproduce. We can evaluate whether or not our numbers are hurting the environment (though not enough people think about these things...). I think this makes our rights with respect to reproduction different from the rights of animals with respect to reproduction. Though I don't think it's absolute that humans have a right to reproduce either.

Driving a species to extinction is not vegan, but I don't think any of the other options are vegan either. While I would rather not make any species extinct, I would prefer to make extinct a species that has no natural habitat and which is not an integral part of a working ecosystem... especially if that species would go extinct without a single animal ever being killed. Letting cats/dogs go free in the wild would very likely cause damage to the ecosystems into which they were released (feral dogs and cats are already doing this in certain places). As I said before, I think it essentially non-vegan to release an animal into a non-native habitat.

But I'm kind of lost on your argument... I think now you're saying we should all take care of pets in our human homes forever? Anyway, I think we are likely to continue to disagreeing on this as you would not blame humans if dogs and cats in the wild were responsible for extinction of other species.

If the problem is lack of shelters, work towards changes that will have more shelters. Meanwhile, I don't think we should play gods and assume that we have the right to make species extinct any more that we have the right to spay/neuter all the coal miner families at Svalbard, or people with less capacity than ourselves.

Coal miner families at Svalbard are not an equivalent scenario. More about that in a minute.

I agree that it's not vegan, and because I'm vegan (or rather, due the reasons I'm a vegan), I don't support it.

Well then, I guess I can't support doing anything with dogs/cats, because I don't think ANY of the options are vegan! We shouldn't have to make choices about other animals. But as you've said, domesticated animals are here, and they're our responsibility.

Now you - again - seem to respect the 'owner' of the animal than the animal itself. With all due respect, it's like asking someone's husband if it's OK to give his wife a book about women's liberation.

I don't think women are dependents. I think children are dependents, and I see pets as analagous to children. I don't dictate to other people what books they should or shouldn't give their children, though I might make suggestions or argue with them about it, and there are certain books that it might be illegal to give to children (I'm pretty sure if parents regularly gave their three-year-old porn or really violent stuff, someone would remove the child). Er, just to head off an argument (in case one is coming), the vast majority of children are not dependents for their entire lives, which separates them from pets.

Why is the master more important than the slave?

The master is not more important than the slave, but if the master is trying to be benevolent (act like a guardian), then s/he will have to make some important decisions for the slave/dependent.

And - if birth control pills are a better solution than s/n and you think birth control pills is something you think the species 'pets' always should get, why not either
a) not consistently support/defend pills instead of s/n, and
b) why not spay 'everyone's pets'

Maybe I should clarify my position.... I am in favor of people spay/neutering any dogs or cats they keep or giving birth control (if there is a safe method available), and if the result of more people doing these things was that dogs and cats became extinct, that outcome would not bother me on a moral level. If safe pills were available, I would probably favor that option over s/n (would need to learn more about the pills and any side effects). I would be fine with s/n or birth control becoming mandatory one day, but not now, as I agree that it makes the AR movement look bad to many people.

if you don't think humans 'own' animals anyway, and you think that you have the right to make a race/group/species extinct?

I don't think humans own animals (I apologize if I accidentally used that word somewhere) except under the law. I don't think we have a right to make any race/group/species extinct except for those species which exist because of our actions and decisions. We do not own these species, but we are their guardians.

You keep not commenting all the other alternatives....?

Hm, I'm thinking animals can live in homes, on the streets/in modern cities, or in the wild? What kinds of alternatives are you imagining? Sanctuaries? I could supoprt that. I'm still not totally clear on what your ideas are about how we should handle dogs and cats now. I think you're against keeping them personally? Are you against all vegans keeping pets because it essentially non-vegan? In the future, what do you think will happen to pets? You say people will breed them less... is your idea that dogs and cats would stop being born into human homes and only feral populations would remain?

I don't know anything about turkeys, but if the question is if I'm going to help them (or anyone else) breed/reproduce, the answer is no. Was that the question?....?

Yup! Sorry if that was unclear, I was just trying to figure out if you meant that animals had an absolute right to reproduce and not go extinct, or if you thought this right was limited to capacity. My understanding is that domesticated turkeys are literally so overweight that they cannot reproduce naturally. I think in a vegan future, they would almost certainly go extinct, though wild turkeys would still exist. To me, this is analogous to the idea that wolves and african desert cats would still exist even if dogs and cats became extinct. Obviously the two situations are different, as dogs and cats are capable of reproducing.

Not if we don't keep any animals. If I would keep an animal for one reason or another, and would be forced to make a decision on the animals' behalf, I would make the same decision for it that I'd like someone to make for me if I couldn't make my won decisions.

I'm getting lost in the thread (sorry!), but I think this is in reference to people keeping dogs and cats forever as dependents? I keep a cat and try to make the same decisions for her that I would make for myself if I were in her position.

Lemme go back a couple of posts to this scenario:

Let's say we human beings bred a special class of human beings (through selective breeding) who could not be "re-wilded" and who did not have the mental capacity to live in our homes as anything other than "pets." Say this happened thousands of years ago. Say that these humans were dying by the tens of thousands every year, wreaking havoc on the wildlife where they were set free... only a small portion every year found loving homes... but still, in those homes, they were nothing but pets. I would be in favor of either preventing them from breeding, spay/neutering, or giving them birth control.

If I were one of these specially-bred human beings and there was no place I really belonged, I hope someone would give me a loving home and spay/neuter me. I understand if you would feel differently in this scenario. I think we will continue to disagree about this.

I think it's a bit scary and alarming that so many humans worry for species (white tigers etc) going extinct while (a few) vegans seem to not worry at all because 'there will be no loss' or 'there's nothing to mourn about - they're not there anymore so they won't notice that they're not there'. Maybe I need to invent a new word that covers veganism + anti-speciesism + respect for nature + respect for life? Any suggestion for a good word?

I'd like to think I respect nature and life. I try hard not to kill animals with my actions, but I don't mourn for the unborn of any animal species (human or nonhuman). I do worry about natural species (like white tigers) going extinct, in particular because natural species (those we haven't created through special breeding) are often part of an intricate web of relationships that humans are too dumb to figure out... we never know how manipulations of a certain ecosystem will affect that ecosystem. This is part of my concern with feral dogs and cats.... Because I worry about nature, I worry about how these feral animals (who are not native to any ecosystem) currently impact nature and how they will continue to impact nature, even in a vegan future.

Your concern for nature and respect for life leads you to a different conclusion than I am led to by my concern for nature and my respect for life. I think it's okay for vegans to disagree about certain aspects of life... particularly when we are talking about what will happen in hundreds if not thousands of years. Because who knows what life and the world will be like then... many of these arguments may not even be valid. Maybe it will be feasible to make sanctuaries where dogs and cats could live, or maybe our human cities would have boundaries so that dogs and cats (and humans!) couldn't go into the wild and disturb native ecosystems. Who knows.

[Korn]

I'll post more later, when I have more time, but (again) I have learned that when I try to write a short comment about something, it's easily misudenrstood. I proabbly assume that people can read my thoughts. I apologize, and will try to post longer posts in the future!

One example:

Originally Posted by Korn
Now you - again - seem to respect the 'owner' of the animal than the animal itself. With all due respect, it's like asking someone's husband if it's OK to give his wife a book about women's liberation.

I don't think women are dependents. I think children are dependents, and I see pets as analagous to children. I don't dictate to other people what books they should or shouldn't give their children, though I might make suggestions or argue with them about it, and there are certain books that it might be illegal to give to children (I'm pretty sure if parents regularly gave their three-year-old porn or really violent stuff, someone would remove the child). Er, just to head off an argument (in case one is coming), the vast majority of children are not dependents for their entire lives, which separates them from pets.

I don't think women are dependents either, but in some countries, and especially a few decades ago many of them were, not as such, but in their environment. Still, women won't get any income or are even killed if they leave their husband in some areas. I planned to write "It would be like if someone during the women's lib movement in the 60s and 70s would ask a husband etc" - but didn't. Anyway, the point isn't 'dependents', it's speciesism.

Here are the parallels:

Feminists want to help liberate women.
AR people want to liberate animals

Some feminists hand out literature as a part of the women's lib process.
Some AR people defend spaying/neutering as a prt of the animal liberation process.

In countries/times where women are being suppressed by their husbands, a feminist (one who don't think husbands own their wives) wouldn't ask a husband about permission to give his wife a woman's lib pamphlet.
Why would an AR activist (one who thinks that humans don't own animals) ask a pet 'owner' if it's OK to spay/neuter his pet (if it's legal) if he doesn't think the 'pet owner' has any right to make decisions on that animal's behalf, since no pet owner is dependent on his pet's capability to reproduce in any valid way?

I think the reason an AR activist would ask for permission is the same kind of speciesism that makes him think that the 'pet' rather would have his testicles cut off than seeing that he (eg. the dog) and his puppies continued to live with his 'pet owner'. Again: the point is not dependency, because 'dependents' isn't relevant to what I wrote.

One reason an AR activists defending making all pets extinct by spaying neutering them all, could be the bad marketing effect it would have, but having seen how chemically free part of the AR movement is from any kind of marketing capabilities or qualities, I doubt that this would hold them back.


Anyway, what you or someone else would do with your neighbors dog is a sidetrack in this discussion, and probably a dead end as well.

Regarding "I don't dictate to other people what books they should or shouldn't give their children"... I don't do that either, and frankly, I fail to see how dictating has anything to do with this topic.


Looking at how many topics we discuss in parallel here, the best idea would probably be to close the thread and start several new ones. Looking at the many misunderstandings and misinterpretations in this thread, 'pets' and vegans obviously is a topic with many facets!

[ALexiconofLove]

I keep promising to quit talking but then don't.

I get the parallel between women's lib and animal rights. I think it's a good parallel for all animals except domesticated pets which exist because of our actions (whereas woman does not exist because of a man's action). I feel these animals will always be dependents and our responsibility. Other animals can be freed because they have homes (natural habitats) to return to and do not need us (any more than a woman needs a man or a fish needs a bicycle, I guess).

I like the idea of having multiple threads and multiple polls about pets, though I wonder how many people find the current poll inadequate in some way? I actually think it's very good (it seems like you put a lot of time and thought into it), and there haven't been many complaints.

We should have a poll to discern how many people find the poll inadequate and why!

PS: Quit being so humble--your English is much better than that of most Americans.

Edited to add: This is really what the issue boils down to for me. Dogs and cats are our dependents and our responsibility and will remain so no matter what we do with them, even if they are all feral (which I see as an attempt to rid ourselves of responsibility by looking the other way, by abandoning them). This is not the relationship I think humans should have with any animals. I think you would also say that animals should not be the dependents of humans, but I think you think (sheesh!) that they would cease to be our dependents or our responsibility if the only dogs and cats in the world lived outside of human homes. I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you again. I'm trying to make an effort to understand your point (rather than purposefully misunderstanding your point, which seems to be what most people do in debates!).

[Roxy]

From what I've heard, birth control pills already exist for cats, and if it wasn't for the fact that long term use apparently causes uterus cancer, this would probably be a much less frustrating solution for the animals than s/n.

Really? I've never heard of hormonal birth control for cats. It's a shame that it has such negative side effects.

[ALexiconofLove]

Really? I've never heard of hormonal birth control for cats. It's a shame that it has such negative side effects.

It seems like such a good idea. Then again, I quit hormonal birth control because I didn't think it was healthy for me, so I don't know that I would feel entirely comfortabel giving it to animals... although it is probably still better than s/n.

[Mahk]

I wasn't thinking of you, ALOL, but "Peta's and other AR activists'" involvement in spaying/neutering/euthanasia'. If they would have spent their activist time on promoting veganism instead of actually killing animals, they would have saved more animals from suffering, because for each person that goes vegan hundreds of animals are saved. Plus, sites like petakillsanimals.com would have existed.

Things I personally don't agree with Peta on could fill a book, however I'm betting many readers here might not be aware of the background behind the Petakillsanimals.com site so I thought to share some info. It is the creation of one Richard ("Rick") Berman and his organization the "Center for Consumer Freedom", a hired gun lobbyist group that admits to launching smear campaign public relations "info", websites, letters to the editors, etc against many different groups. More info here:

http://www.consumerdeception.com/

CBS News 60 Minutes
[I watched the video but then had trouble when I tried again later, just commercials and then a black screen. Anyone know how to do it? Read the text if the video doesn't work for you.]

PCRM

Also, like millions of other shelters across the world, Peta has never claimed to be a "no-kill shelter" and insists they have a very high kill ratio because they intentionally reject the more adoptable dogs from even entering their shelters, telling people to take them to other shelters, instead. They claim their focus is taking the more un-adoptable dogs and euthanizing them by lethal injections, a fairly expensive method, compared to the more common carbon monoxide gassing, electrocution, and gun shot methods used in other shelters working in the same area. Here is their view on the effectiveness of "no-kill" shelters. I'm not taking a position on this, just relaying info; don't shoot the messenger!

[Roxy]

It seems like such a good idea. Then again, I quit hormonal birth control because I didn't think it was healthy for me, so I don't know that I would feel entirely comfortabel giving it to animals... although it is probably still better than s/n.

Yes I see your point. I came off hormonal birth control for the very same reason.

My baby girl was spayed because if she had kittens, there would be no way that I could possibly take care of them all. Plus, the shelters around here are already filled with perfectly good kittens and cats who are available for adoption. There is no reason for me to add to the kitty population.

I didn't like having the operation done, and I still feel bad about it. However, it was making the best of a bad situation really. We found our girl on the streets and brought her home to live with us.

[Korn]

Maybe if I explained to it that tens of thousands of members of its species were dying every year, the animal would not want to contribute to those deaths.

Maybe, but this could be said about the human race as well.

I think we will continue to disagree on this point because you feel there are things we can do with/for pets that would be vegan.

Vegan isn't about being perfect, and if I use the example of the cat that insisted on living with us one summer, I can't see anything unvegan about what we did.

But when dogs and cats (which are here because of us) are driving song birds to extinction, I believe that is our fault (I accept that you don't believe this, and I doubt we're going to agree on this point).

The dogs may be right here, where we live right now, because of us, but they do not exist as such because of us. Animals breed - period. They cross-breed to. Unless you think cross breeding as such is bad (which I doubt, since this is a vegan forum and not a Nazi meeting), we shouldn't focus on cross breeding as the problem. If it wasn't for humans, there would have been a lot more wild animals including dogs and cats around. Most of them probably wouldn't have been fed by humans, and the natural state of the Earth according to a vegan, non-domesticated development would mean that loads of birds and mice would have been killed - naturally.

There are various theories of where dogs came from and when domestication started. An old theory was that all dogs - chowchows and afghan dogs all the others - originated from wolves. Some claim that all the breeds come from forteen ancient breeds. Some says that all dogs com from three original groups, while a few claim that all major dog races are derived from 'true' species. How wolves developed into poddles and dachshunds is a mystery for me.

But does this really matter? And - if it does - how did wolves develop? They only go back ca. 300,000 years. Just like humans, who cross breed all the time, the main thing about humans and dogs isn't that we have forced anyone to cross breed, it is that we are preventing them from cross breeding in order have 'pure races'. And since the main problem with humans and animals isn't that there are so many wild animals around, but the opposite, we shouldn't take the non-vegan viewpoint and try to keep animals away from the earth in order to protect them from themselves/each other.

The cross breed discussion is IMO mainly a dead end, just like I'd say that that there wouldn't be a reason to be worried about having a child with a red haired, celtic women because red-haireds only go 80,000 years back and wouldn't be in your neighborhood it wasn't for red-haired africans or orangoutangs or who knows how it all started. We are not racists, and 'they are here because of us' is IMO just as invalid argument pro spaying/neutering them as it would be to spay/neuter adopted children from Hong Kong... after all 'they are here' (geographically) because of us too.

While all animals have rights, I don't think all animals have the same rights. Even though animals have an interest in who becomes president or prime minister (because the president or prime minister will make laws regarding animals), animals cannot vote in our elections, because they do not have the capacity.

With all due respect, 'rights' has IMO nothing to do with voting in this context, for the same reason as we don't discuss if humans have the right to fly like a bird. I'm more concerned with 'no rights' than with 'rights', and I don't think I have the right to prevent a human or animal from cross breeding. I have been visiting other continents several times, and have been in the mood for cross breeding myself - more than once.

Humans can choose whether or not they reproduce. We can evaluate whether or not our numbers are hurting the environment (though not enough people think about these things...).

We can evaluate the situation, but obviously, we aren't capable adjusting the population to the environmental/eco-political situation that dominates our world, so how important is the evaluation as such?

I think this makes our rights with respect to reproduction different from the rights of animals with respect to reproduction.

Since humans are the main troublemakers on earth from an ecological point of view, that would count as if we should have less, not more rights than animals.

Though I don't think it's absolute that humans have a right to reproduce either.

My focus is that I may decide not to reproduce, but I have no right to force you to not reproduce. That doesn't mean that I think all 'pet owners' are obliged to allow their animals to breed and cross breed continuously, because they rely of some unspoken 'agreement' regarding their relationship with humans. More about this later.

Letting cats/dogs go free in the wild would very likely cause damage to the ecosystems into which they were released (feral dogs and cats are already doing this in certain places).

How? Are they doing more damage to the ecosystems than humans, and does 'damage to the eco-system' qualify for forced extinction of the care that causes damage?

Imagine that one of the 'wild' human tribes would have a look at how you and I live today. Just like dogs and cats, the domesticated variation of the human race is for various reasons not capable of returning to the wild just like that. Do 'wild', original humans have a right to spay/neuter us all if they could prove that the world would be better without us? Would an argument that 'if domesticated humans would go extinct, there would be no loss, since there wouldn't be any humans around anymore mourning about not being around anymore' be valid?

Some people claim that pets should go extinct because they wouldn't be able to survive without us, but I don't think that's a valid reason to strive for a planet without all the dog and cat breeds that exist at all. First of all, because 'needing help' doesn't qualify for making humans extinct, it shouldn't qualify for making animals extinct either, and secondly: there aren't so many dogs and cats around because of us; there are so few around because of us.



If you read the thread about The Dog Girl, you know that it doesn't take more than 5-10 years for a human to adjust to living with dogs. When this woman, who was raised with dogs, eating dog food etc. later in life was 'domesticated' and asked what her favorite activities was, she answered that it was being around the dogs and play with them. After less than 10 years! Should we force her to not live with dogs if she wants to?

Let's for simplicity say that a 'dog year' is 6 years (they have shorter lives than us). According to this article, "The origin of dogs, as judged by their mitochondrial DNA sequences, was first addressed five years ago by Dr. Robert K. Wayne and colleagues at the University of California at Los Angeles. Dr. Wayne showed that dogs were indeed derived from wolves, as long suspected, but he set their date of origin as a separate population at 135,000 years ago." Some says 100,000 year, others say 14,000-40,000 years. If we use 50,000 years as a reference, and a dog year is 6 years, that equals 300,000 dog years. 'Dog years' matter in this context, because it says something about how many generations ago dogs originated. If they originated 300,000 dog years ago, and a dog life is, say 12 years long in average, that's 25,000 generations ago. The Dog Woman adapted to dog life in maybe one tenth of a human generation.

According to the same article I just referred to, "When two species live together for a long time, each usually influences the genetically conferred qualities of the other." In other words, dogs may have adopted so much to humans that there's no way back to nature. (For various reasons, there's currently no way back to nature for most humans either.)

Based on all this, we can even assume that

a) no pets can return to the wild, or that
b) all pets can, or that
c) some pets can.

I think an animal that can return to nature (with or without our help) should be allowed this. If this means that the amount of dogs and cats will increase again back to 'natural' numbers, and they naturally kill mice or birds, so be it.

I also think that those animals who cannot possibly return to their original lifestyle should be allowed to live and reproduce (with certain limitaions, if they live with humans).

I'm trying hard to try to think like Peta in order to understand and agree in their viewpoints, but I can't. It's a lot easer to understand people who say that domesticated dogs are so domesticated that they can't really be considered true dogs anymore. They could almost be considered a hybrid between wild animals and 'species adjusted to living in human homes'. I think that it's better that animal lovers buy pets and treat them as good as they can than boycotting pets totally with the result that others who may not care so much for animals 'own' these animals instead. Some 'pets' are so 'humanized' that one could consider them 'humanimals'.

When I had a dog as a kid, I didn't think of it as a race, species or anything else, but as an individual. I don't believe in 'life-according-to-google'-ism, and I didn't (and don't) really care if the first dog appeared 10,000 or 100,000 or a million years ago. It's a lot easier to understand someone who keeps a 'pet' and treats it as well as he would treat his own child than to understand why we should be allowed to make all those dog and cat breed more extinct than they already are.


If a group of wolves in some weird way would have been able to raise a group of human children as 'humanimals' 50,000 years ago, and if they 'domesticated' the humans according to their own standards, and this group of wolves+humans would be discovered today, should we spay/neuter the humans in this group, and let the wolves live, because 'they wouldn't be able to survive without the help of the wolves'? I don't think so.

Some say that a dog belonging to a dog race about to go extinct isn't aware that this is happening. One could also say that a dog belonging to a breed that has been living with humans for 10,000 or 100,000 years isn't aware of it's origins either, or that there's an alternative to live with humans. That's not a valid reason not to treat dogs as good as we possibly can, and allow them as much freedom as we can, but if we consider the dogs and the group of humans domesticated by wolves (in the thought experiment above) 'humanimals', we should treat them like 'humanimals', and give them the same respect we think animals and humans deserve.

you would not blame humans if dogs and cats in the wild were responsible for extinction of other species.

If a cat makes another species extinct as a result of it's natural instincts, I 'blame it' on the cat, and I 'blame' it on nature.

Coal miner families at Svalbard are not an equivalent scenario. More about that in a minute.

Still counting minutes....

I agree that it's not vegan, and because I'm vegan (or rather, due the reasons I'm a vegan), I don't support it.

Well then, I guess I can't support doing anything with dogs/cats, because I don't think ANY of the options are vegan!

Then - don't do anything with dogs/cats, because this is the only logical consequence of what you say!

the vast majority of children are not dependents for their entire lives, which separates them from pets.

Not from 'pets' that are set free, but don't forget that someone mentioned earlier that he didn't know any vegans who didn't have pets. There are people who say that they wouldn't have been around anymore if it wasn't for 'their' animals.
Lots of humans WANT to help the 'humanimals' that are dependent on them. Not being able to get provide the help the 'dependents' need is not the main problem here, but one of the problems with 'owning pets' is be that due to speciesism, many humans may not be willing to or capable of offering 'their' animals the life and freedom they deserve. If we would design our society not only around human needs and pseudo-needs, but include the needs of animals and 'humaninals' as well, both humans and animals would become more happy.

Why is the master more important than the slave?

The master is not more important than the slave, but if the master is trying to be benevolent (act like a guardian), then s/he will have to make some important decisions for the slave/dependent.

I still don't think that it's fair to respect a dog keeper's opinion about what to do with the dog's future more than we respect the preferences of the dog itself, but we're not getting anywhere with this one, and it's still not an important part of this topic.

Maybe I should clarify my position.... I am in favor of people spay/neutering any dogs or cats they keep or giving birth control (if there is a safe method available), and if the result of more people doing these things was that dogs and cats became extinct, that outcome would not bother me on a moral level.

Would it bother you on a moral level if someone made you and your family extinct if someone decided that they made you extinct because you were either cross bred, too far from the lifestyle of the original, wild humans, needed help in order to survive or caused environmental damage?

If safe pills were available, I would probably favor that option over s/n (would need to learn more about the pills and any side effects). I would be fine with s/n or birth control becoming mandatory one day, but not now, as I agree that it makes the AR movement look bad to many people.

To mean something and hide it is IMO almost as unfair and 'bad tactics' as what Peta does when they write all this stuff about eg. Paris Hilton (the most over-exposed celebrity on the planet according to a recent poll) only to attract new, young members who like her, and then keep quiet about their support for ELF and defending ALF-activists financially/legally. It's both unfair, and from a logical or 'marketing' point of view, it's almost as not-understandble as writing that you support it but want to keep quiet about it to the public - on a public site.

The great thing about the term 'vegan' is that there's nothing to keep quiet about. We don't need to keep quiet about wanting to harm others as little as possible.

I don't think we have a right to make any race/group/species extinct except for those species which exist because of our actions and decisions.

Dogs and cats doesn't exist because of our actions and decisions. Lots of dogs and cats do NOT exist do our actions and decisions.

You keep not commenting all the other alternatives....?

Hm, I'm thinking animals can live in homes, on the streets/in modern cities, or in the wild? What kinds of alternatives are you imagining? Sanctuaries? I could supoprt that.

Sanctuaries, 're-wilding', de-commercializing 'pet production', a gradual move towards less pets, new laws that disallow humans to what they want with animals, a new model which could combine pet/human relations within 'controlled wilderness' and many other options.

If 0.7% of the population are vegans, and (right now, and according to our little poll) only circa 16% of these are willing to make these races go extinct, that's 0,112 percent of the world population, so realistically, we are more or less discussing a 'non-topic' here.

I'm still not totally clear on what your ideas are about how we should handle dogs and cats now. I think you're against keeping them personally? Are you against all vegans keeping pets because it essentially non-vegan?

It seems I need to write a book about this, it's such a complex topic.
More later.

I do worry about natural species (like white tigers) going extinct, in particular because natural species (those we haven't created through special breeding) are often part of an intricate web of relationships that humans are too dumb to figure out...

This brings us back to the question about what a 'natural' species is, because cross breeding happens naturally. It also (again) raises the question about how to look at species or races that are not 'pure', and you know my answer to that. We are all more or less crossbred anyway. If you look at a picture of Caucasian people from eg. Russia and Sweden, you can often immediately see where each group comes from. When I was trekking in the Himalayas, the Nepalese people there looked slightly different from one valley to another. If sex and breeding is natural, cross breeding is too, because there are many 'breeds' within a race. We can't google up every dog race and evaluate how close it is to whatever we calls 'original' anyway, so let's just treat them as... individuals.

People are still guessing and disagreeing a lot, both about the origins of red-haired humans, about how one can make a poodle out of two wolves, or how far humans and animals are from their origins. They also discuss when the first wolf existed and if Afghan Hounds come from Afghanistan or Egypt.

By the way, I'm really fascinated by Afghan Hounds. They have been around for thousands of years. I wonder what those who suggest the dog races that only exist as 'pets' should go extinct would feel and think if they some time in the distant future actually managed to make them and other dogs extinct and would watch the last Afghan Hound on earth breath it's last breath.

[Mahk]

I wonder what Peta's members would feel and think if they some time in the distant future actually managed to make them and other dogs extinct

I've know Peta advocates a grandfathered, no animals killed, phase out of a certain type(s) of dog originally bred for dog fighting, but I have never seen them call for the general extinction of the species of dog as a whole, as you imply here. Please provide some documentation, thanks.

[Korn]

Mahk, one of the reply options in the poll is "I would like to see the end of humans keeping all animals, even if this means human extinction of certain animals", and since Afghan Hounds and a lot other types of dogs only exist in the domesticated version (read: pets), they would go extinct if one would go for this solution. I edited my text from 'Peta' to 'those who suggest the dog races that only exist as 'pets' should go extinct' for now, and when/if I see something that relates this to Peta, I'll add something later. I try to focus this on pets, and not Peta, but due to all their focus on spaying/neutering, they pop up when these things are discussed. Like you, I could fill a whole book with things I don't agree with Peta in - and there's no need to exaggerate.

Re. the Afghan Hounds-example, let me rather ask the question to those who voted for this reply option (the one with "even if this means human extinction of certain animals") what they think about the topic. Many of the dogs considered 'pets' are ancient breeds, and would actually disappear forever if they all should be spayed/neutered, because they have been domesticated to such an extent that there are no feral 'versions' if their breed left in nature - anywhere.

[snivelingchild]

I've know Peta advocates a grandfathered, no animals killed, phase out of a certain type(s) of dog originally bred for dog fighting, but I have never seen them call for the general extinction of the species of dog as a whole, as you imply here. Please provide some documentation, thanks.

When has peta advocated grandfathering out particular breeds?

[Mahk]

Korn, perhaps the poll question should be re-written:

"I would like to see the end of humans keeping all animals, even if this means human extinction of certain breeds"

because as it stands now,

"I would like to see the end of humans keeping all animals, even if this means human extinction of certain animals",

I would take "animals" to mean species, apparently not what you meant. Even better, for clarity, I'd suggest:

"I would like to see the end of humans keeping all animals, even if this means our causing the extinction of certain breeds".

Seeing the words "human extinction" next to each other can conjure up the wrong image, although grammatically I think it is correct.

[Mahk]

When has peta advocated grandfathering out particular breeds?

Well I guess it is a bit of an interpretation on my part from their support of "banning" them with a grandfathering clause in place ensuring no existing animals are killed:

"We also support pit bull bans, as long as they include a grandfather clause allowing all living dogs who are already in good homes and well cared for to live the remainder of their lives safely and peacefully."

Source of data, an interesting read.

Can we assume "banning" = "call for their extinction"? She (Ingrid Newkirk, I assume the author of that document) doesn't mention any kind of "re-wilding" or "sanctuaries" like you and I have.

Of course this policy seems hypocritical of them considering their dislike of "breedism":

http://www.petatv.com/tvpopup/video....g_p2&Player=wm

[ImVeganOUT!!!]

CBS News 60 Minutes
[I watched the video but then had trouble when I tried again later, just commercials and then a black screen. Anyone know how to do it? Read the text if the video doesn't work for you.]

just wait after the commercials

[ALexiconofLove]

Vegan isn't about being perfect, and if I use the example of the cat that insisted on living with us one summer, I can't see anything unvegan about what we did.

To me (and I could be wrong, but I think other people here might agree...), letting dogs and cats run around unspayed and unneutered is not vegan when there are tens of thousands of animals being put to sleep every year in shelters as a result. But, as you say, being vegan isn't about being perfect.

The dogs may be right here, where we live right now, because of us, but they do not exist as such because of us. Animals breed - period. They cross-breed to. Unless you think cross breeding as such is bad (which I doubt, since this is a vegan forum and not a Nazi meeting)

I don't think cross breeding is bad. I think it's bad when one group of animals (human or non human) selectively cross breeds other animals (human or non human) to the point where said animals no longer have a natural habitat. Let's leave out the Nazi comparisons, mkay?

And since the main problem with humans and animals isn't that there are so many wild animals around, but the opposite, we shouldn't take the non-vegan viewpoint and try to keep animals away from the earth in order to protect them from themselves/each other.

I'm a bit confused by this, but... I think there are too many humans period (wild or not) and too many dogs and cats period (wild or not). I also think that dogs and cats have been bred away from the earth, so that it is no longer responsible to return them to the earth.

We are not racists, and 'they are here because of us' is IMO just as invalid argument pro spaying/neutering them as it would be to spay/neuter adopted children from Hong Kong... after all 'they are here' (geographically) because of us too.

Actually, I think when one animal (human or non human) moves an animal to another place (or creates an animal through breeding... you're equating the two) then the first animal has a responsibility toward the second animal. I'm not saying we should spay/neuter dogs because we created them. I'm saying that they exist because of us, and therefor we have a responsibility to them (and to their welfare and for their actions) that cannot be erased by "rewilding." If I adopt a child from Hong Kong and bring that child to my country, then I have a responsibility for that child's well-being and actions until the time when that child ceases to be a dependent. Dogs and cats cannot cease to be dependents, IMO.

We can evaluate the situation, but obviously, we aren't capable adjusting the population to the environmental/eco-political situation that dominates our world, so how important is the evaluation as such?

I think we are capable of adjusting the population... I've heard several individuals on the board say they are choosing not to have children or to adopt children because they feel the earth is overpopulated with humans.

Since humans are the main troublemakers on earth from an ecological point of view, that would count as if we should have less, not more rights than animals.

If we release dogs and cats into the wild that then do ecological "trouble" I give that fault to humans. I think we absolutely need to take responsibility for what we're doing to the earth.

My focus is that I may decide not to reproduce, but I have no right to force you to not reproduce.

If the human population were so great that all of the resources of the earth were running out, then I believe people would no longer have a right to unlimited reproduction. None of our rights are absolute--we only have them insofar as they do not violate the rights of others. For example, I have a right to life, but if I attacked someone with a gun and threatened to kill him/her, I would cede my right to life (he/she would be justified in defending him/herself even if it meant killing me). People have a right to smoke only insofar as their habits do not hurt the health of the people around them. So if it were the case that my having children would actually violate other people's rights, then I would lose that right.

That doesn't mean that I think all 'pet owners' are obliged to allow their animals to breed and cross breed continuously, because they rely of some unspoken 'agreement' regarding their relationship with humans. More about this later.

If you don't think 'pet owners' are obliged to allow their animals to breed and cross breed continuously, what methods do you approve for keeping animals from breeding and cross breeding continuously?

Imagine that one of the 'wild' human tribes would have a look at how you and I live today. Just like dogs and cats, the domesticated variation of the human race is for various reasons not capable of returning to the wild just like that.

We domesticated ourselves. No one did it to us. If some other species had domesticated us, they would have a responsibility for us and for our actions as a domesticated species.

Some people claim that pets should go extinct because they wouldn't be able to survive without us, but I don't think that's a valid reason to strive for a planet without all the dog and cat breeds that exist at all.

If there were dogs and cats living in the world in harmony with their environments (not driving other animals and plants to extinction), I would not be inclined to seek them out and spay/neuter them. I don't think this is a very likely scenario, though.

First of all, because 'needing help' doesn't qualify for making humans extinct, it shouldn't qualify for making animals extinct either, and secondly: there aren't so many dogs and cats around because of us; there are so few around because of us.

What? If humans hadn't existed, there wouldn't be *any* dogs and cats.

I'll respond to the dog girl thing if I read the thread.

According to the same article I just referred to, "When two species live together for a long time, each usually influences the genetically conferred qualities of the other." In other words, dogs may have adopted so much to humans that there's no way back to nature. (For various reasons, there's currently no way back to nature for most humans either.)

I dislike saying that dogs "adopted" to us. I think it minimizes the great harm we did to them by selectively breeding for certain traits (and probably killing the animals that had the least desirable traits... as we still do with pit bulls and others). We (a second species) made it impossible for them to return to nature. That's a problem for which we are responsible. I think it is irresponsible to attempt to return them to nature... I think we need to take care of them. But keeping pets forever and ever is, IMO, not a vegan solution either.

I think an animal that can return to nature (with or without our help) should be allowed this. If this means that the amount of dogs and cats will increase again back to 'natural' numbers, and they naturally kill mice or birds, so be it.

If they naturally kill mice and birds but can live in harmony with the ecosystem (not driving species to extinction), then that's fine. If we "rewild" dogs and cats that then start destroying other species, that's a problem (our problem).

I also think that those animals who cannot possibly return to their original lifestyle should be allowed to live and reproduce (with certain limitaions, if they live with humans).

Please explain. Where do the animals live, what limitations do they have, and under what circumstances do they reproduce?

I think that it's better that animal lovers buy pets and treat them as good as they can than boycotting pets totally with the result that others who may not care so much for animals 'own' these animals instead.

Ah, okay. I just wasn't sure what your idea was since you don't keep animals. The problem for me as a vegan keeping a pet (which I do) is that I feel I must make many decisions for her all the time that are not vegan. I must choose to feed her meat (killing other animals to keep one animal live... how does that make sense?) or feeding her food she is not evolved to eat... feeding her at certain times.... But the alternative to this (letting her, a dependent, "free") is not acceptable to me either.

It's a lot easier to understand someone who keeps a 'pet' and treats it as well as he would treat his own child than to understand why we should be allowed to make all those dog and cat breed more extinct than they already are.

Our children get to grow up and live their own lives. Our dogs and cats never do.

If a group of wolves in some weird way would have been able to raise a group of human children as 'humanimals' 50,000 years ago, and if they 'domesticated' the humans according to their own standards, and this group of wolves+humans would be discovered today, should we spay/neuter the humans in this group, and let the wolves live, because 'they wouldn't be able to survive without the help of the wolves'? I don't think so.

If the wolves had the choice between keeping the "humanimals" as pets and making their decisions (about food, sleep, sex) for them, or letting the humanimals loose into the wild where they couldn't survive? If I were one of the wolves, I would choose to spay/neuter my humanimals. I hope the wolves would spay/neuter me if I were one of the humanimals. Living your whole life as a dependent, having someone else make important decisions for you, is not a good thing. I hope the wolves would take good care of me (as good as the possibly could, given the sadness of the situation), but I wouldn't want them to find me a mate just so my children could continue in this sad state.

Some say that a dog belonging to a dog race about to go extinct isn't aware that this is happening.

I don't know how it could be.

That's not a valid reason not to treat dogs as good as we possibly can, and allow them as much freedom as we can,

I try to be as good to dogs and cats as I can and allow them as much freedom as I can.

If a cat makes another species extinct as a result of it's natural instincts, I 'blame it' on the cat, and I 'blame' it on nature.

Given this statement, there's probably little point in discussing the issue further. I strong feel that when humans release non-native species into new habitats, the resulting destruction is indeed the fault of humans (not the non-native species and not nature). If I didn't believe that, I would be very happy to rewild dogs and cats.

Still counting minutes....

? I think I've explained in detail twice now.... If humans specially bred a group of people who were total dependents and lived in other people's homes as "pets," could not be "rewilded" without harming themselves and others, and could not understand the idea of extinction, I would be in favor of spaying/neutering those people (and would want to be spayed/neutered if I were such a person).

Then - don't do anything with dogs/cats, because this is the only logical consequence of what you say!

Inaction is, in this case, also not vegan, IMO. So literally all options are non-vegan. Because of this, I can only pick the least awful option.

If we would design our society not only around human needs and pseudo-needs, but include the needs of animals and 'humaninals' as well, both humans and animals would become more happy.

I don't think it's right for animals to rely on humans to meet their needs and make them happy. It's better than letting them die (letting individuals die), and that's why I keep an animal (and will probably keep more in the future), but no matter how much I strive to meet the needs of my animals, it is still wrong that they depend on me to meet their needs and make them happy.

Would it bother you on a moral level if someone made you and your family extinct if someone decided that they made you extinct because you were either cross bred, too far from the lifestyle of the original, wild humans, needed help in order to survive or caused environmental damage?

From above: If humans specially bred a group of people who were total dependents and lived in other people's homes as "pets," could not be "rewilded" without harming themselves and others, and could not understand the idea of extinction, I would be in favor of spaying/neutering those people (and would want to be spayed/neutered if I were such a person). I would not be bothered on a moral level if someone made my family extinct in this case (by spay/neutering me).

To mean something and hide it is IMO almost as unfair and 'bad tactics' as what Peta does when they write all this stuff about eg. Paris Hilton (the most over-exposed celebrity on the planet according to a recent poll) only to attract new, young members who like her, and then keep quiet about their support for ELF and defending ALF-activists financially/legally. It's both unfair, and from a logical or 'marketing' point of view, it's almost as not-understandble as writing that you support it but want to keep quiet about it to the public - on a public site.

I think keeping domesticated animals around is wrong, because it hurts animals. On the other hand, if I go around telling people this, and they don't agree with me and as a result decide not to go vegan, then that also hurts animals and, IMO, hurts animals more. So I would not go around telling people about my belief because it would not help animals but would rather hurt them.

As for the end of your statement... I thought this poll was part of the members-only area, but I guess it's not. My mistake.

Sanctuaries, 're-wilding', de-commercializing 'pet production', a gradual move towards less pets, new laws that disallow humans to what they want with animals, a new model which could combine pet/human relations within 'controlled wilderness' and many other options.

Can you explain further what you see as the specific solution? What animals would be rewilded or put in sanctuaries, would anyone oversee these programs? Ultimately, would no one keep pets? If people were keeping pets, where would they be getting them (under what conditions would non-feral dogs and cats breed?). What's controlled wilderness?

If 0.7% of the population are vegans, and (right now, and according to our little poll) only circa 16% of these are willing to make these races go extinct, that's 0,112 percent of the world population, so realistically, we are more or less discussing a 'non-topic' here.

Yup!

[ALexiconofLove]

To change gears a bit (I'm sure everyone is sick of insanely huge posts mostly between two people).

Someone above mentioned seeing-eye dogs. How do people feel about seeing-eye dogs? Are your feelings about these "pets" in any way different from your feelings about other pets?

I was asked about this a few months ago (by a vegetarian who didn't get the no eggs no milk thing) and had trouble answering.

[Mahk]

I think keeping domesticated animals around is wrong, because it hurts animals.

Again, arguing from a position I'm not firmly grounded in but feel needs a voice in this debate, I think it's not so much that it necessarily "hurts" them as much as it is not our species' right to enslave them. Many dogs, for example, live long, happy, blissfully ignorant lives, not knowing that they have brothers and sisters which roam free in the wild. They probably don't even contemplate such matters, but in the end, we still don't have the right, IMO.

As for the seeing eye dogs, they will eventually be replaced by even better robotic versions, super field-sensing talking canes, and eventually synthetic eyeball replacement. When? I don't know, but I already own a similar device which even gets its very name from the original domesticated animal version it has replaced; it's called a "horseless carriage".

[Korn]

It seems like a good idea to close this thread, because so many topics are discussed, even within one post, so it looks like a better idea to continue the various topics that are being discussed in separate threads.

I've already commented some of what you wrote here.
And here:
When is cross breeding bad?
And here:
Domestication: If humans hadn't existed, would cats and dogs exist?

Actually, I think when one animal (human or non human) moves an animal to another place (or creates an animal through breeding... you're equating the two) then the first animal has a responsibility toward the second animal.

Sure, but that's IMO a different topic. I haven't brought any Afghan Hounds to Norway, someone else did. Lots of humans did a lot of things in the past that was bad for nature, for animals and for other humans. Each of us can't take the responsibility to solve each and every of the situations humans have created in the past.

We can evaluate the situation, but obviously, we aren't capable adjusting the population to the environmental/eco-political situation that dominates our world, so how important is the evaluation as such?

I think we are capable of adjusting the population... I've heard several individuals on the board say they are choosing not to have children or to adopt children because they feel the earth is overpopulated with humans.

I'm saying that the human race, as such, hasn't shown that it's capable of solving the environmental problems it has caused. That some human individuals choose not to have children does not only not solve the environmental problems our race has created: we as a race haven't solved the problems we have created, and as a race, we are currently not capable of doing it other than on a theoretical level. Each human is capable of deciding not to have children, but the solution to the environmental problems we already have created would disappear if humans stopped having kids. My point was that even if a group of living beings is shown to harm the environment, it doesn't give another group a right to make them extinct. This, by itself, is obviously a complex topic, and if it should be discussed further, the topic deserves it's own thread.

If we release dogs and cats into the wild that then do ecological "trouble" I give that fault to humans.

Again: Since nobody suggested that we should open all doors and let all zoo animals, circus animals and domesticated animals out in the streets, I fail to see how this is relevant in this context. We could always start a thread about 're-wildering' if needed.

First of all, because 'needing help' doesn't qualify for making humans extinct, it shouldn't qualify for making animals extinct either, and secondly: there aren't so many dogs and cats around because of us; there are so few around because of us.

I also think that those animals who cannot possibly return to their original lifestyle should be allowed to live and reproduce (with certain limitaions, if they live with humans).

Please explain. Where do the animals live, what limitations do they have, and under what circumstances do they reproduce?

As I've written earlier, I don't think all humans have the responsibility to solve all problems all other humans have created in the past. Since can't talk a language that animal understands and vice versa, my relationship with any animal that I would look after would be based on an unspoken, assumed agreement about the conditions we co-exist under.

In other words, I would have to assume that it would be OK for the animal to live on 'my' premises, in the sense that I wouldn't have had it there if this would imply that it would pee on my piano, destroy my clothes or fill the house with 12 new puppies/kittens every year. I don't think I have the right to make decisions on the animals behalf, but the animal doesn't have the right to take over my life either, or - if it thinks it has, so be it, but then I would remind it that I have the key to the house, just like would have done with anyone else peeing on my piano. In my imaginary talk with my non-human friend, I would try to make as much sense as possible. I don't think I'll go more in detail than this, but please start a new, separate thread about topic if you want.

I think that it's better that animal lovers buy pets and treat them as good as they can than boycotting pets totally with the result that others who may not care so much for animals 'own' these animals instead.

Ah, okay. I just wasn't sure what your idea was since you don't keep animals.

But in spite of what I said I personally wouldn't buy a pet, but I can understand that the reply option which actually was mentioned earlier (but which didn't make it to the poll) suggesting that 'keeping pets can be compatible with being vegan' should have been in the poll. In short, I don't think there are any simple, rigid answers to the pet/vegan discussion - on the contrary, the problem may be that we try to make some simple ethical rules that apply to all situations.

Then - don't do anything with dogs/cats, because this is the only logical consequence of what you say!

Inaction is, in this case, also not vegan, IMO. So literally all options are non-vegan. Because of this, I can only pick the least awful option.

I think inaction re. pets is 100% vegan, because there's no rule about us taking the responsibility for all the mistakes (re. animals and otherwise) that our ancestors have done in the past. If we would think we were obliged to solve all humanly generated problems on the earth, we'd probably exhaust ourselves before we even started.

This thread is growing into unusable proportions - I may post more about this topic in other/new threads, because discussing 10 topics in one thread doesn't make much sense. ALOL, I have tried to avoid to comment stuff you just wrote when I IMO I've already written something that answers your (new) questions.

[snivelingchild]

Someone above mentioned seeing-eye dogs. How do people feel about seeing-eye dogs? Are your feelings about these "pets" in any way different from your feelings about other pets?

I am very against MOST seeing eye dogs. People breed a certain type of dog for seeing eye dogs. They are very selectively bred, and trained is very harsh negative-feedback ways. Most rainers use metal prongs and electric shocks to train these dogs to move NO MATTER WHAT. The dogs that don't make the cut (OVER 50%) are put to sleep, or dropped at the pound. They are so heavily trained to not react to anything but a few key things. There was a seeing eye dog for a blind, mentally-disabled girl (about 10) who had several compulsions. One of her compulsions was to pick at her dog's skin on it's back untill it was bloody. The dog had to sit there and take it.

Now that I've said that, ANY breed of dog can sucessfully become a seeing-eye dog. They can be trained effectively with positive-reinforcement training. Plus, if one person owns multiple seeing eye dogs, it takes the strain off, as having one dog gets the dog VERY stressed and overworked from having to work 24 hours a day, everyday. I used to live next to someone who had two dogs matching the above description. They adopted both from the pound. They weren't treated as well as I'd like (sometimes were left home alone all day in the yard), but if someone treated their dog as well as they could, then I am only about 30% against that.

The reason I say that is because these dogs don't need the added stress of being over worked. HOWEVER, most dogs benefit from having a job, because they are missing out on instints to hunt/play all day, and having a task to do fulfills this need. I think it relies on whether the dog is getting most of the benefit from the work, or the person. The blind people I've known (a handful) find that other methods (cane, etc.) are more effective and take less work. Seeing eye dogs are really only needed when a blind person has compund disabilities, and might need the dog for more than that.

When it comes right down to it, I am against using a dog for your own purposes. That doesn't mean you can't train your dog to know certain things that make living together easier (potty training) or give them tasks (fetching slippers) because every dog in a pack has a role to fill and a job to do. If your dog doesn't know where they stand, they get lost from lack of leadership and decide to take over, which while may not be so bad on an ethical standpoint, can making living together difficult. I do think I have the right to lead my dog as much as I would a child, or anyone else I take care of (i.e. and elderly adult or parent).

[ALexiconofLove]

That's interesting sniv (and sad...). I just assumed most people treated their seeing eye dogs like pets....

[Linus]

I think companion animals are an important part of raising children who are animal lovers. I know many vegetarians and vegans who became concerned with animal rights in the first place because they had a beloved dog or cat as a child. I know my life would be much less rich and I would be much less compassionate if I had not known such great beings as my terrier Maevis, and my greater vasa, Imelda.

[Mahk]

I've never owned or seen a dolphin in real life (just on TV) yet I feel deeply for their protection.

[Mahk]

That's interesting sniv (and sad...). I just assumed most people treated their seeing eye dogs like pets....

I think 99.9% of us are blind to the abuse of service animals and the training used to get them up and running. Part of our AR early history was when Henry Bergh, who wore a a top-hat, decided to push for laws to prevent the common practice of beating and whipping horses to get them to pull carts and carriages. In 1866 he founded the ASPCA which still uses this event in some of their logos:


Is it just me? I get teary eyed just looking at these logos.

[kriz]

I live in a rather small city apartment with a dog and lack of space have never been a problem. I walk my dog friend for a couple of hours each day. We also hike, play ball (off-leash) and do lots of other activities. I made my work schedule pretty much after his needs and if I couldn't do that, I'd hire a dog walker. He also has a litter box in the patio so he can go to the bathroom whenever he wishes. Not a perfect life, but still good.

I've seen way too many people who live in houses leaving their dogs in the backyard without daily walks and exercise and too many dogs on the country side left to roam free and easily hurt by people, other animals, or hit by cars. Would I do that if I lived in a house? Nope, but my point is that dogs don't neccesarily have a bad quality life because they live in an apartment. Exercise and love, besides food, water and health care, are the most important things you can give a dog in your care wherever you live.

Sure, I wish we lived in a perfect world where no animals had to depend on us at all and never had to be leashed, caged, fed and neutered. But until then, rescue and care for domesticated animals is the right thing to do IMHO whatever that it's in a city apartment or in a house on a countryside. I will always have room for a rescue.

[dreama]

I am very against MOST seeing eye dogs. People breed a certain type of dog for seeing eye dogs. They are very selectively bred, and trained is very harsh negative-feedback ways. Most rainers use metal prongs and electric shocks to train these dogs to move NO MATTER WHAT. The dogs that don't make the cut (OVER 50%) are put to sleep, or dropped at the pound. They are so heavily trained to not react to anything but a few key things. There was a seeing eye dog for a blind, mentally-disabled girl (about 10) who had several compulsions. One of her compulsions was to pick at her dog's skin on it's back untill it was bloody. The dog had to sit there and take it.

That sounds terrible. Obviously someone like that should not be given a guide dog. Someone like that is far too young to care for a dog properly. A guide dog handler should be at least 16. Mentally and Cronalogically.

I think it is possible to take proper care of ones guide dog. I've had 2 so far and am considering wether or not to get a 3rd.
The trainer of my first dog was big on what they call 'physical correction'. However I'm not sure it did that much good as Bruce was always highly spirited. Unfortunately he could also be over protective and particularly agressive towards those 'under' him in the pecking order. Maybe he just considered that it was ok due to the nature that he was corrected by.

My 2nd dog is not aggressive at all and she has been a really great worker up to now. I don't 'physically correct' Jilli even when I'm frustrated by her behaviour which has started happening lately so she may have to retire soon. Of course she will be kept on as a 'pet' and I'll either get a replacement or go back to using a long cane. Long cane means less mobility. More getting lost although I get even more lost when Jilli decides we are going to the local park not where I want her to go. I feel cane use would be more veganly. As long as I can stick with it. I've created my own thread in the company animal section about this decision of mine.

[Haniska]

Re: the vegan/non vegans keeping pets aspect is one that really grates with me, as how can non vegans say they love animals, while sitting with their pets eating a bacon butty ? (them, not the pet)

I have a rabbit, and have often questioned myself over this, but my rabbit is well looked after with ample space to roam about, he is not locked in a small hutch with no space to excercise, he is taken to the vets regullarly for check ups and injections, and seems generally happy. (he does look lonely sometimes, which gets to me) but basically he doesnt suffer in any way, and surely at the end of the day, as vegans, that is what we are aiming for.

Vets, how can vets eat meat ?? It just doesnt equate.

Maybe you can get him a friend, maybe even a spayed lady friend

http://www.rspcaderby.org.uk/adoptio...p?g2_itemId=18
Adoption prices - we fully neuter all rabbits which come to our shelter.

Rabbit £30
Pair of rabbits £50

I am Malachi's(my guinea pig*) personal dating service.
The pets I do feel rather guilty about are the hermit crabs my fiance gave me for my birthday. When one died I bought another so it would have a companion, then it died, then I bought two more because one looked like it was dying and I felt sorry for it. Then I saw that the two larger ones were hanging out and not playing with the smaller one, so I bought a smaller one. And then the original smaller one died. I left it alone and my favorite one died and now I have two. I think I take fair care of them but... Anyway, it is an ugly thing. I prefer not to keep them because they are contained/away from their natural habitat, I don't feel like it is a mutually beneficial relationship, and most importantly they do not breed in captivity, which is a good sign that something is up.
*Is Malachi mine? To me, to some extent he is, just as my boyfriend and my friends and even my boss *belong to me* in some fashion. When he had a lady friend last year though I felt that they more belonged to each other than to me.

[Roxy]

OMG Haniska! They're soooo cute!!

[ivandurago]

I have no qualms keeping animals you don't have to cage if you don't have to purchase them meat products and if they were adopted from a shelter/rescued.

[Linus]

I've never owned or seen a dolphin in real life (just on TV) yet I feel deeply for their protection.

And you are an exception to the rule. It has been my experience that people who don't grow up with animals don't feel for them as adults. My findings are anecdotal, of course, but I think it is a sound theory. We are told by social scientists that people who don't grow up in ethnically diverse neighborhoods are less likely to be sensitive to race issue - why would animal issues be different?

[Mahk]

I have no qualms keeping animals you don't have to cage if you don't have to purchase them meat products and if they were adopted from a shelter/rescued.

Isn't one's house/apartment arguably a "cage" though?

[Mahk]

It has been my experience that people who don't grow up with animals don't feel for them as adults. My findings are anecdotal, of course, but I think it is a sound theory.

99% of people who do grow up with animals kill, eat, and exploit other animals (that is to say they aren't vegans). But just like your theory there's no reason to assume the relationship is causal, in my opinion. I do get your logic though and didn't know that bit about ethnically diverse backgrounds making people more aware of race issues. I'd be an exception to that rule too, by the way.

[ivandurago]

Isn't one's house/apartment arguably a "cage" though?

Yeah of course.

[kriz]

To be honest I'm not sure whatever growing up with animals made me more of an animal lover. I've seen my share of family pets given away because of something so silly as housebreaking issues or excessive chewing, or 'put to sleep' because of allergy.
I could have been as likely going into adulthood getting my own pets and care for them the way I learned. Loving and caring for a dog as an adult have influenced me much more positively and eventually turned me vegan.

It makes me cringe when parents say they want to get a dog for their children. All though I don't think it's wrong to have animal companions when you have children, it can be a great, I still think the reason should be because it is what the PARENTS want, and they should be 100% committed to the responsibility, care and love for the animal. Many dogs are turned into shelters due to dog bites caused by lack of child/pet supervision by the parents. The nicest dog can snap if he or she is abused by small children who are not old enough to understand right from wrong.

Sadly, also many 'pets' are put on a no desired list once a new baby arrives and too often given up or just treated like the plague of the family. I've been offered cats (VERY nice ones!) a few times after this happened. They became a "nuisance".

There are so many other ways a child can learn compassion than through a family pet.... I think farm sancturaries are great for teaching and experience animals.

[Moonharvester]

My dog has been very sick now for a long time. Her name is Sammy. I was watching I am legend a little while ago with friends. So when the part came on when he has to put the dog down I started crying. She only has a few days left if that. I just wanted to get that out to people that I know love animals as much as I do. Thanks for caring everyone.

[RubyDuby]

ah moonharvester. i'm sorry.
i'm sure she had a better life than most of her kind thanks to u.

[littlewinker]

I don't think people should keep animals as pets. IMO it's wrong to have dogs/cats as keeping them contributes to meat production, except rescue dogs etc cos someone need to look after them.

Also I think keeping any animal is unnatural. It interfers with their natural lives, eg neutering them causes them unnecessary pain and ruins the chance of them having babies and it's making decisions for them. And if you keep them solitary then they don't get a chance to mate or have friends.

Sometime I think keeping animals is a lesser evil, like we're having 3 or 4 liberated chickens in July. This means clipping their wings once a year which I think is wrong as it must be frustrating to not be able to fly, but if we didn't keep them they would die and if we didn't have them in the first place they would be slaughtered.

So to sum up I hope eventually one day we will stop breeding animals, and we shouldn't contribute to this, but I think it's ok to look after rescued or liberated or ill animals in the meantime.

A few zoos are okay if it stops extinction and theres a chance the species could eventually be put back in the wild again. Although it's not good to keep them in captivity cos I always think that animals are individual lives too I think it's SOMETIMES for the greater good as long as they aren't caused too much suffering.

[cobweb]

have to disagree about the zoo bit, li'lwinker - animals are (presumably) unaware of whether their own species is becoming extinct so it's only humans (who mostly cause the extinctions in the first place) who get 'upset'. Zoos are just prisons imo, and add to demand for meat also.

'Pets' can often be fed meatless diets, especially dogs as they are omnivores with pretty strong constitutions, but basically i'm with you about making choices for animals for human benefit. Obviously though i would also strongly agree that we all have a responsibility for caring for those animals who are already around and needing a home.

[emmy]

I don't think people should keep animals as pets. IMO it's wrong to have dogs/cats as keeping them contributes to meat production, except rescue dogs etc cos someone need to look after them.

How does a rescue dog contribue less to meat production than another pet dog? Not sure I follow your logic on that one....
Although I definitely agree with having rescued pets over 'bought' ones...
Still can't make my mind up about feeding pets vegan food though.

As for zoos, I don't like them. I used to love visiting them - I love animals and so enjoyed seeing the huge variety of species all in one place. I even fell for the "zoos are great for re-introduction into the wild and research etc" stuff they tell everyone...I'm glad I know better than to give them my money now.

[Mahk]

As for zoos, I don't like them. I used to love visiting them - I love animals and so enjoyed seeing the huge variety of species all in one place.

Me too. Also I thought to point out that there is an argument (not that I'm saying I agree with it) that our appreciation for animals comes partly from having visited zoos (and also keeping pets). This may be valid to a point for some people, I don't know.

I know that during the aftermath of 9/11 rescue dogs were routinely worked to death, literally, looking through the rubble of the fallen buildings. I guess they are thought of as expendable tools under such circumstance or perhaps always. A better example of a work animal that it may be hard to think of phasing out (in a vegan utopia) in my mind is the seeing eye dog. Several (expensive for now) "field sensing" seeing-eye canes are in production already, but I don't know how interchangeable they are to a real dog.

[Penny]

My dog has been very sick now for a long time. Her name is Sammy. I was watching I am legend a little while ago with friends. So when the part came on when he has to put the dog down I started crying. She only has a few days left if that. I just wanted to get that out to people that I know love animals as much as I do. Thanks for caring everyone.

I'm so sorry to hear about your dog. I know how awful it is when a beloved companion animal dies and really, the only comfort is knowing that she's had a happy, loved life with you, which she might not have had in other circumstances.

Penny

[New]

Sorry havn't read the whole post. I am a big fan of animals, I have 3 dogs, 3 snakes, 4 leopard geckos and a pacman frog. I give them everything they need and they are from people who no longer wanted them. Is it wrong to give the animal a second chance? There is no reason why there shouldn't be a pet industry but there should be more restricitions. There should be more places like battersea dogs home, who castrate/spay dogs and cats and then work to find people who have the correct enviroment for the pet.

If the question is do i think keeping animals in captivity is wrong, then my answer is no. Do i think its to easy to go to a shop and then be given a small life to take care of in 2 mins then the answer is yes. In my 100% honest opinion, i think petshops should be stopped from selling animals and just sell pet supplies as most of them dont give a crap about the animals themselves.

Obv on a vegan forum and in general everyone has personal views and they are just mine

[Moonharvester]

Thank you all for your kind words.

[littlewinker]

have to disagree about the zoo bit, li'lwinker - animals are (presumably) unaware of whether their own species is becoming extinct so it's only humans (who mostly cause the extinctions in the first place) who get 'upset'. Zoos are just prisons imo, and add to demand for meat also.

that's what i meant by the "individuals" bit, it's not bad for each individual animal if it's species becomes exticnt but some animals are vital for the food chain and it is a shame that we exterminate everything. So I think zoos are ok sometimes but now i thought of it deeper it must be so anoying to get looked at all day, like the noise and everything, it's not natural so my opinion is captivity's ok to preserve species if the animals are treated well.

'Pets' can often be fed meatless diets, especially dogs as they are omnivores with pretty strong constitutions, but basically i'm with you about making choices for animals for human benefit. Obviously though i would also strongly agree that we all have a responsibility for caring for those animals who are already around and needing a home.

I don't think that's good for dogs, they would have quite a bit of meat, but then eat anything lol. Cats need even more meat though