Does man really need to possess pets or can we just leave the animals alone?

[kikifromscotland]

I think you are just not getting this gor... Pretty much nobody on this forum would buy an animal from a breeder and yet you seem to be ranting on about people looking after animals in general. Many of us have rescued dogs, cats, rabbits, guinea pigs, rats etc from shelters. These are domesticated animals that cannot survive in the wild. What do you suggest happens to all the animals that exist just now? Should we euthanise them all? Toss them onto the street?

I also think you are wrong if you're saying pets can't love their owners. Perhaps you've never had a companion animal but they are just as capable of loving others and having emotional bonds as humans are. It's an injustice to animals in general to say that they don't have emotions, bonds, family networks or that they aren't capable of gestures of love which are separate from an instinctual desire for safety or food.

As for 'have or adopt a child' instead of adopting a pet... There are no words really...

[CoolCat]

...
Have or adopt another child rather then take care of an animal which I think to a degree is a cop out from human interaction. How does one rationalize getting a pet knowing that they will contribute to all those parasitic industries like pet foods, and small animal vet practices...

Are you seriously suggesting that we should reduce/eliminate pet breeding by breeding more humans to fill the void ? We are nearly 7 billion already, the last thing we need is to breed more humans.

And have you not seen the industry arround products for kids? And aggressive marketing aimed towards parents using their kids to make them buy ever more crap? And what about paediatricians and large industrial baby food companies.... how can you promote all those by stating that people should have more kids whilst using their non-human equivalent as very reasons not to have non-human companions?

...
Remember, the owners did not give birth to this pet.
...

Giving birth to something makes you responsible for it... but it doesn't entitle you to anything. You can't violate your kids their rights because they are "your" kids, nor does giving or not giving birth to your non-human companion changes your "entitlement" to them at all or reduces your responsibilities towards them.


It seems you put a lot of emphasis on species here. Also you acknowlegde that people don't have enough time to spent with their pets, what makes it that they would be suitable parents then? Or does daycare solves that, dumping kids in "shelters" during workhours and all.

Basic microeconomic theory tells me that as long as there are places to dump unwanted pets, there will be breeders and pet owners. Don't you think a vast majority of the prior owners go out and buy more pets after they dump their old pet in the shelter? Very few will be as bold as to have stated the observations that I made and most will judge, label and try to catorgorize my ideas but perhaps a few will appreciate my bluntness and clarity

I think you misjudge people here, if all shelters were closed breeders and pet owners will just continue. Even with shelters today people flush fish and turtles down the toilet. Even with shelters today they throw cats and dogs out of the car on their way to their holiday resorts. Even with shelters today a lot of horses are starving from people no longer being able to feed them due to the current economic downfall. That would just increase if there weren't shelters. Basic microeconomy theory does not seem to have told you the whole story. I can't be arsed to judge, label or catorgorize your ideas, I just disagree with some parts and question the specisism in parts of it as well.

[sandra]

Have or adopt another child rather then take care of an animal which I think to a degree is a cop out from human interaction.

While we're on the subject, shouldn't you be advocating closing down all the children's homes? By your way of thinking that would put an end to children needing to be adopted in the first place.

[CoolCat]

While we're on the subject, shouldn't you be advocating closing down all the children's homes? By your way of thinking that would put an end to children needing to be adopted in the first place.

But he want more babies, so people can hug them and interact with them and fulfill the true needs they have and no longer have to give in to wants. We should be building MORE children's home, so people breed more to populate those! So we can all hug more humans!

[Clueless Git]

I was pretty sure that I had replied to this topic but as all my posts are moderated what I said was presumably 'not allowed'?

Here goes another try ...

GoR's point is 100% valid. He is simply expressing the abolitionist approach; That being, basicaly, that 'humane' breeding/rearing/slaughtering/ownership of animals is never enough to stop abuse/suffering altogether. That abuse/suffering will only end when the whole cycle is closed down entirely.

The arguments against the abolitionist approach to the meat industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' eat meat) are exactly the same as the ones being feilded against GoR's abolitionist approach to the pet industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' own pets) here.

[goodoldrebel]

What if you saw an animal who would die if you did not intervene and give it a home? What would you do then, leave it to it's fate?

With all due respect, your words sound very harsh and you appear to be someone who doesn't really like dogs. You talk about their excrement all over the pavement, well I've seen a lot worse on the pavement left by humans. Plus, humans aren't 'dumbing down' just because they care for an animal. Animals may not be able to speak but they aren't 'dumb', they can show great empathy and affection..........something some humans could do with learning.

As Rubyduby said we have already discussed more appropriate ways of dealing with the problem of unwanted 'pets' already on this thread and the majority of us so far do not see the problem lying with the shelters but rather in other areas.

I think that you have the wrong impression of me. I had a Doberman (adopted) for 12 years and Boston Terrier (adopted) for 10 years. I am a dog lover. I see however, society's obsession with 'pets' and I think that pet ownership has become a somewhat immature adolescent activity.

[goodoldrebel]

While we're on the subject, shouldn't you be advocating closing down all the children's homes? By your way of thinking that would put an end to children needing to be adopted in the first place.

I'm the last person to advocate irresponsible parenting. Single teenage mothers are an albatross around society's neck.

[missbettie]

^ ... this thread is super funny.

[Korn]

I was pretty sure that I had replied to this topic but as all my posts are moderated what I said was presumably 'not allowed'?

No - you are on moderated posts not for 'opinions', but as discussed at length earlier, for the way you have communicated with others (again demonstrated in the removed post).

[cobweb]

I was pretty sure that I had replied to this topic but as all my posts are moderated what I said was presumably 'not allowed'?

Here goes another try ...

GoR's point is 100% valid. He is simply expressing the abolitionist approach; That being, basicaly, that 'humane' breeding/rearing/slaughtering/ownership of animals is never enough to stop abuse/suffering altogether. That abuse/suffering will only end when the whole cycle is closed down entirely.

The arguments against the abolitionist approach to the meat industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' eat meat) are exactly the same as the ones being feilded against GoR's abolitionist approach to the pet industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' own pets) here.

If that's what you think then I suggest you re-read ALL of the posts here .

[sandra]

I think that you have the wrong impression of me. I had a Doberman (adopted) for 12 years and Boston Terrier (adopted) for 10 years. I am a dog lover. I see however, society's obsession with 'pets' and I think that pet ownership has become a somewhat immature adolescent activity.

Well, as no one on this forum is in favour of 'pet' ownership I rather think you are preaching to the choir.

I'm the last person to advocate irresponsible parenting. Single teenage mothers are an albatross around society's neck.

Again, with due respect you didn't answer my question.

[CoolCat]

GoR's point is 100% valid. He is simply expressing the abolitionist approach; That being, basicaly, that 'humane' breeding/rearing/slaughtering/ownership of animals is never enough to stop abuse/suffering altogether. That abuse/suffering will only end when the whole cycle is closed down entirely.

The arguments against the abolitionist approach to the meat industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' eat meat) are exactly the same as the ones being feilded against GoR's abolitionist approach to the pet industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' own pets) here.

The abolitionist approach doesn't state that there should be no shelters, or that shelters are adding to the problem. Or that those need to be closed first before any other steps are taken. Those views are all his. To stop breeding new non-human animals has nothing to do with the non-human animals already here, for those we have responsibilities. And I don't think anyone is debating "the right to own pets" here, or at least not in the posts that I read, but the need to take in non-human animals abandoned by others. The solution GoR seems to propose is to leave non-human domesticated animals already here to their own devices so that breeders and buyers magically come to their sense and stop breeding them... and we start breeding more human animals instead... or something.

[felix_amborosa]

I completely see where you're coming from. For me personally, I find it hard to relate to people most of the time and do not have many friends, Neptune (the animal companion in question) is my best friend and keeps me out of psychiatric hospitals (I know this sounds selfish of me). I adopted her from a shelter 8 years ago when she was 8 weeks old, she was among many kittens who were abandoned by irresponsible pet owners who did not desex their cats, I wish I could have rescued them all, but I only had space (and permission from my mother) to take one home as we had already had 2 other rescued cats and 1 rescued dog. So I rehomed the kitten in the corner of the cage who refused to play with the others (to this day she still hates other cats). Together we are the socially awkward pair. Thought I would share share this little story

[cobweb]

The abolitionist approach doesn't state that there should be no shelters, or that shelters are adding to the problem. Or that those need to be closed first before any other steps are taken. Those views are all his. To stop breeding new non-human animals has nothing to do with the non-human animals already here, for those we have responsibilities. And I don't think anyone is debating "the right to own pets" here, or at least not in the posts that I read, but the need to take in non-human animals abandoned by others. The solution GoR seems to propose is to leave non-human domesticated animals already here to their own devices so that breeders and buyers magically come to their sense and stop breeding them... and we start breeding more human animals instead... or something.

Precisely. Some people seem to think that the rest of us are still wet behind the ears or too stupid to grasp basic concepts which usually go hand-in-hand with veganism. This is really not the case, and the abolitionist stance has never included the abolition of rescue shelters. As far as I know. Maybe the enlightened ones will correct me

[cobweb]

I completely see where you're coming from. For me personally, I find it hard to relate to people most of the time and do not have many friends, Neptune (the animal companion in question) is my best friend and keeps me out of psychiatric hospitals (I know this sounds selfish of me). I adopted her from a shelter 8 years ago when she was 8 weeks old, she was among many kittens who were abandoned by irresponsible pet owners who did not desex their cats, I wish I could have rescued them all, but I only had space (and permission from my mother) to take one home as we had already had 2 other rescued cats and 1 rescued dog. So I rehomed the kitten in the corner of the cage who refused to play with the others (to this day she still hates other cats). Together we are the socially awkward pair. Thought I would share share this little story

Thankyou for sharing. It's a mutual love, trust and respect thing isn't it?.

[sandra]

The arguments against the abolitionist approach to the meat industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' eat meat) are exactly the same as the ones being feilded against GoR's abolitionist approach to the pet industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' own pets) here.

I don't own any 'pets' CS.

Plus, the arguments of meat eaters are not the same as those here who care for abandoned animals. I find that attitude ludicrous. Again, I'll ask the question and maybe you will answer it CS as Goodoldrebel doesn't seemt to want to. What would you do if you came across a neglected stray dog or cat on a busy road who came over to you for help?

[goodoldrebel]

I was pretty sure that I had replied to this topic but as all my posts are moderated what I said was presumably 'not allowed'?

Here goes another try ...

GoR's point is 100% valid. He is simply expressing the abolitionist approach; That being, basicaly, that 'humane' breeding/rearing/slaughtering/ownership of animals is never enough to stop abuse/suffering altogether. That abuse/suffering will only end when the whole cycle is closed down entirely.

The arguments against the abolitionist approach to the meat industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' eat meat) are exactly the same as the ones being feilded against GoR's abolitionist approach to the pet industry (by those who want to 'responsibly' own pets) here.

Nice analogy and I appreciate the courage you have to express independent thoughts and not thirst for a typical provincial 'goodie two shoes' pat on the head. Alot of the responses seems to be fueled from an emotional standpoint instead of taking a step back to see the vicious cycle and see shelthers as servicing to a large degree the whims of former pet owners. Thanks for the positive feedback

[goodoldrebel]

I don't own any 'pets' CS.

Plus, the arguments of meat eaters are not the same as those here who care for abandoned animals. I find that attitude ludicrous. Again, I'll ask the question and maybe you will answer it CS as Goodoldrebel doesn't seemt to want to. What would you do if you came across a neglected stray dog or cat on a busy road who came over to you for help?

Sandra

Of course I would help any animal that is in pain. I believe I stated to that effect in one of my above posts. I see shelters as sort of a double edge sword in that they inadvertantly perpetuate unwanted animals by being available and relatively easy to be used as a dumping station when 'pets' become 'inconvienent'.

[RubyDuby]

Nice analogy and I appreciate the courage you have to express independent thoughts and not thirst for a typical provincial 'goodie two shoes' pat on the head. Alot of the responses seems to be fueled from an emotional standpoint instead of taking a step back to see the vicious cycle and see shelthers as servicing to a large degree the whims of former pet owners. Thanks for the positive feedback

could you please refrain from being insulting. If I have to so do you.

The cycle is absolutely being aknowledged. Your answer to ending the cycle is what is being questioned.

[cobweb]

I love it when we're patronised by the more intelligent vegans in society . I don't know how I ever became a vegan because I'm incapable of having a thought of my own . As for provincial, well dang me and my redneck friends, we'll just go and chew on some corn .

[RubyDuby]

Didn't you know calling other people names makes you seem more intelligent?
Your thoughts are only independent and intelligent if you agree with me.

[sandra]

Nice analogy and I appreciate the courage you have to express independent thoughts and not thirst for a typical provincial 'goodie two shoes' pat on the head. Alot of the responses seems to be fueled from an emotional standpoint instead of taking a step back to see the vicious cycle and see shelthers as servicing to a large degree the whims of former pet owners. Thanks for the positive feedback

You are amusing goodoldrebel.

So, you say you would help any animal that is in pain. Well then if the shelters are done away with you will have millions of animals in pain who you can help..........good luck with that one.

[cobweb]

Didn't you know calling other people names makes you seem more intelligent?
Your thoughts are only independent and intelligent if you agree with me.

ha-ha, well luckily I do agree with you most of the time

[cobweb]

You are amusing goodoldrebel.

So, you say you would help any animal that is in pain. Well then if the shelters are done away with you will have millions of animals in pain who you can help..........good luck with that one.

lol

[cobweb]

I'm off to dress my cat up in baby clothes and smother her with kisses. It's a good job she goes with my wallpaper or she'd be out faster than you can say 'goodie two shoes'.

[CoolCat]

I'm off to dress my cat up in baby clothes and smother her with kisses. It's a good job she goes with my wallpaper or she'd be out faster than you can say 'goodie two shoes'.

At least you supported the baby clothes industry and not the pet clothes industry... I think you should be applaud for that

[cobweb]

At least you supported the baby clothes industry and not the pet clothes industry... I think you should be applaud for that

are you really a Cat, CoolCat?.........because I'm not too good with human interaction ya know

[CoolCat]

are you really a Cat, CoolCat?.........because I'm not too good with human interaction ya know

you need to make more babies and stop giving into wants and address your actual needs.

[sandra]

lol lol

[dreamattempo119]

It's already been said throughout the topic, but I'm going to echo the sentiment that removal of shelters would cause so much more harm than good.

I have four fur-babies, and all of them were rescued off of the street. In addition, over the last 5 years I have rescued and found good homes for 12 other feline friends - and my standards are incredibly high in regards to 'good homes'

I take offense to the assumption that all 'pet owners' only have pets as some adolescent need. I treat my cats as well as I treat my own child. They are happy, healthy, and we have a mutual companionship. There's nothing wrong with that

[leedsveg]

It's already been said throughout the topic, but I'm going to echo the sentiment that removal of shelters would cause so much more harm than good.

Well said d119 and welcome to the forum.

Leedsveg

[sandra]

Good first post dreamattempo119!

[Clueless Git]

I don't own any 'pets' CS.

Plus, the arguments of meat eaters are not the same as those here who care for abandoned animals. I find that attitude ludicrous.

'Lo Sandra

No offence but your question is actualy the main 'meat-eater' argument that is being feilded here.

It is simply a version of the old "Ah!, but would happen to the all animals we already bred?" chestnut.

Again, I'll ask the question and maybe you will answer it CS as Goodoldrebel doesn't seemt to want to. What would you do if you came across a neglected stray dog or cat on a busy road who came over to you for help?

I took in one abandoned pet.

It's previous owner (a neighbour) went out and bought a new one very happy in the knowledge that people (like me) will give his abandoned pets a good home.

My SO likewise. Took in a dog its owner (a family member) didn't want anymore. Back to the breeder she wentand another one was bought.

Not actualy sure that I have the 'balls' not to take in another pet in the future.

It's a possible personality flaw but sometimes I do do things I know full well are wrong.

T'is a different thing altogether though to do something one knows to be wrong and then to say its right.

[Clueless Git]

Nice analogy and I appreciate the courage you have to express independent thoughts and not thirst for a typical provincial 'goodie two shoes' pat on the head. Alot of the responses seems to be fueled from an emotional standpoint instead of taking a step back to see the vicious cycle and see shelthers as servicing to a large degree the whims of former pet owners. Thanks for the positive feedback

Unfortunately, m'matey, we seem to be able to see the exact same thing.

I have no idea how to explain the link between us wanting pets and them wanting pets to people in an 'appropriate' manner though.

[RubyDuby]

Cupid Stunt- Have you taken the time to read the whole thread?

Very few of us are saying we "want" pets. That doesn't change the fact that they exist and are in need. The need is not imagined. Millions of animals are in line to be euthanized.

Do you and/or goodoldrebel HONESTLY BELIEVE that shutting down shelters equals abolishing the pet industry???
This is the topic being discussed.

I would love for there to not be a pet industry. <-- Please read this statement.

The vast majority of vegans would agree with that statement.

[sandra]

'Lo Sandra

No offence but your question is actualy the main 'meat-eater' argument that is being feilded here.

It is simply a version of the old "Ah!, but would happen to the all animals we already bred?" chestnut.

'Lo Cupid Stunt

I think you cannot compare the arguments...............meat eaters use that argument because they want to kill and eat animals and are perhaps uneducated in what really happens in the meat industry. Vegans on the other hand who look after abandoned 'pets' are doing so for the animals welfare.

If for example the world became vegan over night..............we, as vegans should care for the millions of cows, sheep, pigs etc already here, shouldn't we? Or do you have another suggestion............I'd love to hear it.

[cobweb]

I feel that Cupid Stunt compares most of here to 'unenlightened' meat-eaters and that is very offensive. Not worth getting wound up about though.

[cobweb]

Cupid Stunt- Have you taken the time to read the whole thread?

Very few of us are saying we "want" pets. That doesn't change the fact that they exist and are in need. The need is not imagined. Millions of animals are in line to be euthanized.

Do you and/or goodoldrebel HONESTLY BELIEVE that shutting down shelters equals abolishing the pet industry???
This is the topic being discussed.

I would love for there to not be a pet industry. <-- Please read this statement.

The vast majority of vegans would agree with that statement.

+1

[sandra]

I feel that Cupid Stunt compares most of here to 'unenlightened' meat-eaters and that is very offensive. Not worth getting wound up about though.

You're right Cobweb. I find it sad though that some vegans feel the need to behave like that with other vegans instead of concentrating on the non vegans out there. I find the attitudes of some vegans as less than caring with regard to their treatment of some animals i.e. leaving abandoned 'pets' to their fate etc.

[cobweb]

^ I agree. Personally it really annoys me when people think they're superior to others, particularly when they're not really listening/reading what other people have to say .

When I first went vegan I really believed that I would find in other vegans a group of open-minded, compassionate souls who would really enjoy listening and sharing with other vegans. That was a long time ago, unfortunately I now see that there are patronising type people with inflated egos everywhere, even within veganism, who prefer to think they're superior to others rather than have any kind of meaningful dialogue .

Very very tempting to argue sometimes, but ultimately a total waste of energy if someone's going to repeat the same mantra (in this case the line about being similar to 'meat-eaters') *just* for the one sole purpose of irritating others (imo).

[cobweb]

Just a little true story - I once worked at a vegan-run animal shelter which was also a meeting place for 'activists'. These people would frequently bring rescued animals to the sanctuary - and yet they dubbed me and others as 'the cat and dog brigade' because we chose to spend our days (voluntarily) caring for the rescued animals. They were abolitionists. They saw no irony in what they were doing and how they were labelling and patronising others. Being vegan is great, being abolitionist and anti-speciesist is great, but someone, somewhere has to take some responsibility in between, otherwise the only ones who suffer are the animals, which surely defies the entire concept of veganimsm.

[Firestorm]

I agree with a lot of the posts here (Sandra's, Cobweb, RubyDuby, XwitchymagicX, Snowflower, Coolcat, MissBettie, Kikifromscotland just to name a few).
I find it depressing that so many animals are dumped in shelters, but shelters are not the cause of the problem, just a symptom. Trying to cure the symptom wont work, we need to cure the cause (the pet industry) and the symptoms will disappear over the coming years.
I applaud anyone who will adopt an animal that needs a home, and I always try and remember that many of these animals are pack animals, the obvious preference being their own species but a human-dog/human-cat pack IMO being preferable to an animal being kept alone in a shelter.

[Clueless Git]

Cupid Stunt- Have you taken the time to read the whole thread?

More so than most, I think Ruby.

I can find ZERO posters here who have said they have no pets. (Did I miss one?)

I can also find ZERO posters here who referenced my posts AND picked up that ALL I have done is support GoR's point that animal shelters cause a problem.

Very few of us are saying we "want" pets.

I want a pet. I have a pet.

My concern is that for every further pet I 'rescue' that I am encouraging the dumping of many more.

One serial abandoner can dump more pets than I, you or anyone here can ever take in.

Many serial abandoners can (and provably do) abandon many more animals than any amount of shelters that the general population is willing to finance can ever take in.

It is a problem. The higher the awareness that there are shelters the more animals get abandonded. That is plain and simple fact. It is why no matter how shelters are created that they are rapidly overwhelmed.

[Clueless Git]

'Lo Cupid Stunt

I think you cannot compare the arguments...............

If one version of "Ah!, but would happen to the all animals we already bred?" cannot be compared to another version of "Ah!, but would happen to the all animals we already bred?" then what can?

The fact that one group using the "Ah!, but would happen to the all animals we already bred?" argument percieves its motivations to be entirely different to t'other groups motivation is entirely irrelevant to whether the argument is, or is not, logicaly sound.

I don't say things to cause offence Sandra. I, like everyone else does, simply say what I see.

[Clueless Git]

.. but shelters are not the cause of the problem, just a symptom..

'Lo Firestorm

If the awareness of shelters/rescuers/et-al reduces resistance to the abandonment of pets (and thus inceases the rate of pet abandonment) then shelters/rescuers/et-al are a part of the problem?

I'm beginning to wonder if Pet Euthanasia TV might be a good idea. Might dispel some of the myth, that thicker heads cling to, that every abandoned puppy or kitty goes to a new loving home.

[snowflower]

Remember the biggest word in your last post was "unwanted". Pets are a want and not a need, so why should society as a whole cater to this whim that some have. Why should we live with remnants of dog excrement littering the sidewalk as no matter how much you clean up its still there? I care about animals and know that they need to be free of long term human intervention. We take away the idea of freedom from them in exchange for this idea of having a 'pet'. If I saw an animal stuck somewhere I would try to free it as long as I was not in danger. Most hunters consider themselves animal lovers and rationalize the 'culling' of deer as needed to protect the herd. This is just absolute nonsense and a way to rationalize the slaughter of animals for pleasure.

I think that more money should be spent on domestic animal control enforcement. People have to know the responsibility they are accepting by getting a 'pet' in the first place. Most know when they get a pet that they are not umbilicly tied to the animal and that they can free themselves rather simply. Remember, a pet is not a neccesity in life, it is a leisurely want. People need human interaction, not pet interaction. People's wants are not needs.

It's this idea of pets to begin with that screwed up the natural ecosystem in places such as south florida. Man has to stop this fascination with possessing animals to fill some emotional perceived need. We need to get our emotional needs from other humans and not dumb down ourselves into deluding ourself that somehow we are understood and emotional fullfilled from a pet. This is my observation from seeing so many people talking etc. to their pet as if the pet is expected to understand all. When the pet licks you on the face most of the time it smells the food on your breath. That's the reality. The weak minded somehow think that the animal is kissing you as your family would.

"Oh gee, what kind of dog would go good with my european sports car" or "Yeah, that dog is tough, let that neighbor mess with me now". It like a fetish and I know its not everybody that's this shallow but come on there is certain shallowness that leads one to get a pet instead of putting those emotional energies into another human relationship.

Have or adopt another child rather then take care of an animal which I think to a degree is a cop out from human interaction. How does one rationalize getting a pet knowing that they will contribute to all those parasitic industries like pet foods, and small animal vet practices (yes, I believe that these practices are somewhat parasitically bootstrapping themselves to the emotion weakness and shallowness of being a pet owner). This energy spent trying to bond with the animal is a cop out in my opinion from interacting on a human level. -"The lonely trucker and his dog". Is this the level some have sequestered their lives to where a big part of there interaction is with an animal. Remember, most zoos think that they doing such a service to the animal. What they are really doing for the most part is entrapping the animal and limiting its life so humans can be entertained.

Most of us work all day so the pet is living a marginal life for a good part of the day by itself or you have to have someone home all day for the pet unless the pet is crated and then what kind of life is that except as a POW. I think if pets could speak our language they would probably tell most owners to 'get a life'. Remember, the owners did not give birth to this pet.

Basic microeconomic theory tells me that as long as there are places to dump unwanted pets, there will be breeders and pet owners. Don't you think a vast majority of the prior owners go out and buy more pets after they dump their old pet in the shelter? Very few will be as bold as to have stated the observations that I made and most will judge, label and try to catorgorize my ideas but perhaps a few will appreciate my bluntness and clarity

I have to say I disagree, I definitely get fullfillment from my animals. I am not trying to have a "cop out" from human interaction, I love being around other humans but I also love being around animals too. Sometimes after working with people all day long some us are glad to have a break from human interaction and stress of the day and it's great to have an animal that you can sit with and hang out with that you don't have to talk to!! You can show affection to an animal without talking and understanding the language and the animal can do the same for you. Just wondering, and I dont mean this disrespectfully at ALL but wondering if you have ever had a pet, I am just asking because if you have I don't see how you can not see the love between dogs and people or cats and people. There are a lot of cruel people in the world but its like saying just because some people end up abusing their children or abandoning their children than no on should have children at all. The bad of the world shouldn't ruin it for the good people. About your suggestion of having another child rather than having a pet, well they are two completely different things with two completely different sets of responsibilities. Rescuing a dog is nowhere near as expensive as having a child, it's not as long of a commitment and doesn't include giving birth and health issues etc. Just really two different things. If what you want is a dog who you can go run in the park with or who will sit quietly with you while you're reading a book, well a child doesn't do those things, at least not until years later.
Although I disagree with breeding and breeding and breeding dogs while there are shelters full of them, even people who do buy from breeders give their dogs very good lives and care for them very much.

[Firestorm]

'Lo Firestorm

If the awareness of shelters/rescuers/et-al reduces resistance to the abandonment of pets (and thus inceases the rate of pet abandonment) then
shelters/rescuers/et-al are a part of the problem?

Hello Cupid Stunt.
I have to disagree with this somewhat, there are obviously a percentage of people who know that if they abandon their pet it will go to a shelter, but I think that a lot of people who choose to abandon an animal would do this even if the shelters didn't exist. Either that or kill them.

I can find ZERO posters here who have said they have no pets. (Did I miss one?)

I have no pets or animal companions. I would adopt an animal in a second, but I dont own the house I live in so its not my choice.

[Korn]

domesticated cats and dogs don't have a natural state, outside of living with humans. We can't just set them all "free".

Sure, domesticated animals are a different 'phenomenon' than other animals, and have to be 'ethically treated' different from wild animals.

A $2000 fine to dump an animal would simply cause people to dump their animals elsewhere, or tie them in front of shelters, vets, kennels, etc.

Plus - taxes like that hit poor people really hard, while others hardly will notice having spent $2000.

I truly believe that the entire pet industry is based on the emotional adolescent level immaturity of the consumer. Some need a big vet bill to grow up. Can we not just leave the animals alone?

We are all for ideally 'leaving animals alone', but that doesn't help the millions (probably billions) of cats/dogs etc. who not only are not capable of being left alone, but which often don't want to be left alone. IMO there should be more, better shelters, and some laws saying that people can't just leave a dog at a shelter because they decided to get a different pet.

Remember the biggest word in your last post was "unwanted". Pets are a want and not a need

I had a dog when I was a kid. As a child, I felt that the natural way to deal with it was to allow it to have puppies, but my parents didn't want that (too much work). If I would have been allowed to follow that impulse, and the dog would have been allowed to follow it's natural impulse when seeing other dogs of the opposite sex, we would have been 'breeders'. I know people feel that even if humans, in the past, have invented the pet phenomenon, we now have the right to control those animals to the degree that we should eliminate all domesticated cats/dogs etc. from the planet; we are superior and they are inferior, so we can decide over these hundreds of millions of lives. IMHO that's just another flavor of speciesism. Humans are also domesticated, many are (unlike 'pets') doing slave labour, and live cut off from their natural habitat, but that doesn't give anyone the right to eliminate us.

Why should we live with remnants of dog excrement littering the sidewalk as no matter how much you clean up its still there?

Are you sure you think that's relevant in this context? If a human rescue or 'own' eg. a dog and this results in excrements littering the sidewalks, that's a problem with the human, not with the dog.

Remember, a pet is not a neccesity in life, it is a leisurely want. People need human interaction, not pet interaction. People's wants are not needs.

Well, puppies don't decide that they will be born, and when they are born, they need a place to live.

It's this idea of pets to begin with that screwed up the natural ecosystem in places such as south florida.

Dogs and cats living in houses certainly isn't a 'natural' thing, but then again: domestication of cats started with feral cats searching areas where humans lived. The only cat I have 'rescued' wasn't a cat I 'needed', but at some point in it's life, it decided to wait outside our balcony door until we woke up, every morning (we let it out in the evening) and insisted on living with us. There's no universal law saying that members of two different species can't interact in a way that's good for both parts.

Basic microeconomic theory tells me that as long as there are places to dump unwanted pets, there will be breeders and pet owners.

The important part is to not mix up cause and effect here....




I've heard real life stories about people throwing kittens in a sack with some heavy stones and dumping it in the local river more than once. IMHO the real problem here is that people see animals as inferior, a product they can buy if they want/need it. Until this will change, there will be many issues with unwanted cats/dogs, and if I'm not mistaken, you agree that shelters are needed. But whichever way we treat domesticated animals, compromise will be part of it.

What do you suggest happens to all the animals that exist just now? Should we euthanise them all? Toss them onto the street?

Thanks. Those are IMO the most interesting questions in this context.

[leedsveg]

I have no pets or animal companions.

Same as me Firestorm, see posting #2 on the thread.

(In fact I've never procured a pet/companion animal; the ones in my family well over 50 years ago were obtained by my parents.)

lv

[Clueless Git]

Hello Cupid Stunt.
I have to disagree with this somewhat, there are obviously a percentage of people who know that if they abandon their pet it will go to a shelter, but I think that a lot of people who choose to abandon an animal would do this even if the shelters didn't exist. Either that or kill them...

'Lo FS

Yes it must be so that people abandoned and/or 'home euthanised' animals before the first shelters existed or the need for shelters would never have come to exist.

(My own parents taught me that the correct way to deal with unwanted litters from pets was to drown them in a bucket. I guess that before you could get pets spaid(sp?) and neutured that was probably the normal way of dealing with such things.)

In terms of what came first this is definitely not a 'chicken and egg' situation. The 'horse' of animal abandonment clearly goes ahead of the rescuers 'cart', as it were.

That is the interesting thing though; It is both statisticaly and empiricaly borne out that building 'cart' exponentialy increases the supply of 'horse'.

Logicaly, that means that build less shelters and less animals will get abandonded.

With absolutely no shelters we should be back to the much smaller original 'hard core' problem that, very bluntly, no amount of rescuers or shelters or legislation or licensing or whatever is ever going to do anything to stop.

The 'tragedy' of all this is that well meaning attempts to solve an unsolvable problem (to-whit a residual percentage of hard core 'twonks' in the population at any given time) are backfiring on the well intentioned souls by actualy making the problem worse.

It is becoming inceasingly difficult to tell, on this topic, who does have a full grasp on that inconvenient truth and who does not.