Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Diana, what percentage of animals owned by humans, would you imagine live "great lives". I would personally say less than 1%. I'm including all reptiles, parrots, pit bulls, all other dogs, chickens, pet rodents, working horses and donkeys, and animals owned by humans for the purpose of shooting them by sport hunters, like elk, deer, and then food animals like cows and goats and sheep etc.
If you've ever volunteered for a humane organization (maybe you have) you realize that the percentage of pets who are cared for well is the minority..
Nope.
I work at a humane organization, and I previously worked in animal control. You're way off the mark. It may bet true among the people you choose to associate with, but not of the general population.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Parnassia
I have to say, possibly 95% of the pet homes we visited had well treated and healthy pets. However there's always 10% that end up creating 90% of the trouble and require 90% of the agency's attention. These folks are not going to treat their animals well no matter what mechanism is used to apply the pressure; moral judgment by others or legal enforcement.
.
Yes, this.
Very few of the animals that have ended up in my shelter have been actually abused. Some have been neglected, often through ignorance of their needs - especially medical. Which isn't a good outcome for the pet, but it's not because people are evil and vicious. The rest of these pets are just something that the owners don't want around anymore. Doesn't mean they were badly cared for while they were with the people. I make sure to point this out to new volunteers when I train them, for some reason certain people like to think that everyone abuses their pets. I don't understand that thought process, but it's in this thread, too.
for some reason certain people like to think that everyone abuses their pets. I don't understand that thought process, but it's in this thread, too.
I see this too. It is an odd human phenomenon. Every found animal was probably "dumped"... when the truth is, it probably just got out and ran off. And every shy or fearful dog was "abused" when the truth is, some dogs are just very passive by nature. I don't know why some want to think the worst of people.
My cats have always been indoor kitties and they do not have "psychological issues," whatever that means. They have very different personalities -- some are very affectionate, some more aloof; some very smart, some not so much -- but that doesn't translate to the need for a kitty shrink. Geez.
Some of the posts in this thread are just silly (and that's not really the word I want to use).
Looks like somebody got triggered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOV
I really don't think that fish are developed to the point of feeling "joy" or "happiness." They can be stressed, but if their needs are met (food, clean water), they are pretty content if bigger fish aren't trying to eat them.
If you're keeping them in a tank, even if it is a large one, you're keeping them in an area that is too small for them, so you're stressing them. Also, most tank setups are overcrowded too, which means more stress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Diana Holbrook
I see this too. It is an odd human phenomenon. Every found animal was probably "dumped"... when the truth is, it probably just got out and ran off. And every shy or fearful dog was "abused" when the truth is, some dogs are just very passive by nature. I don't know why some want to think the worst of people.
Yes, I've noticed this too. Isn't it possible for dogs to have different personalities, like people do?
I believe it is cruel. Animals were not meant to be our 'fur babies' or even pets. I find the cult of dog worship in western nations very troubling. People seem to care more for animals and their welfare than that of children, the elderly, or mentally ill and handicapped. Most don't care about their fellow humans at all. I've seen such cruel posts on social media against the homeless, LGBTQ community, and those of non European ancestry. It's quite sad and I'll admit to have fallen prey to misanthropic feelings & posts myself. I'm trying to tone it down.
My great aunt couldn't have children, so she kept dogs & cats instead. Most of my family are not animal lovers - there are a few who keep dogs, but not many. I grew up in the Black community, and being lovers of animals wasn't & still isn't a thing with us. Many of the men didn't care for pets at all, in fact.
My fiance, who is White, grew up with dogs in the house and allowing dogs on the furniture, in the bedroom, that sort of thing. I've seen his mom take plates with leftover food and put them on the floor so that their dogs could eat off of them! My grandparents would never have let us do that.
I have cats but soon as I get to CA, they are going to go outside into a cat house & my fiance's pitbulls will be outside too, whether he likes it or not. My fiance has promised to build the cats their own home. After these pets are gone, I will never keep another animal in my house. Humans should desire other humans as their companions.
No disrespect intended, but perhaps in time, your "fiancé" will reconsider both his and your respective positions, and he will pick the company of the pit bulls over yours. Don't for a second think it can't happen. If your fiancée feels as strongly as you do on the subject, it sounds like eventual "irreconcilable differences" to me. While it is probably preferable to you as well, you and I would never have gone on a second date, had we had the discussion on pets during the first. You would be doing both he and yourself a dis-service by not having this conversation before you make the move.
The joke goes:
"Lock your dog and your wife in the garage for eight hours. Which one do you think will be happy to see you when you open the door?
Maybe, but we do much worse things to animals, especially in the U.S. A pet typically has a much better life than a livestock animal, for instance.
That may be why the anti-pet arguments sort of bother me. Yes, pet ownership has the potential to be cruel to the pet, as the pet's treatment is really up to the pet owner, but pet ownership is also a way to get people to see the value of an animal, and I don't really understand what certain animal advocacy groups have against that.
Pets aren't livestock. They are animals that we've developed certain bonds with, invested time into, taught tricks, shared stories with, or shared our homes with. We see more "value" in a pet than other animals, and we care about their well-being.
If people owned pets instead of livestock, there would probably be less of a need for protests that people should give up a vegetarian diet for full veganism, for example, because the eggs and milk would be sourced and collected humanely. The animals we use would be elevated in our eyes.
Encouraging people to not have pets, on the other hand, may do the opposite. We tend to value those things that we are familiar with and have gotten a chance to bond with, but we can't bond with animals that are out in the wild or being abused on industrial-sized farms in places we don't know about and can't visit. Chances are we would just forget about them because they wouldn't be affecting us personally.
Use and abuse are not the same things, and I personally don't see an issue with owning a pet as long as it can be provided for better or at least as well as what it would receive in the wild, and, given our domesticated animals probably wouldn't last very long in the wild and would compete with the local wildlife for resources, they're probably getting a much better deal if they're living with us as pets.
Last edited by Wannabe Writer; 10-22-2019 at 10:11 PM..
I agree with the professor that to be logically coherent we would need to heavily reevaluate our relationship with animals.
One could argue that what Michael Vick did is no worse than eating a hamburger. Killing a cow for the taste of its meat is done for PLEASURE. Watching two dogs fight is often done for pleasure too. Is one inherently any worse than the other?
Dogs can’t take care of themselves and look at what short horrible lives feral cats have. It’s cruel to make pets live outside. Dogs are pack animals. I wouldn’t marry someone that insisted my dogs live outside. If you don’t want pets don’t have any.
THIS^^^^^.
They are domesticated - for better or for worse. They need us. As for myself, I need them.
Here is a great article written about the morality of keeping pets: https://aeon.co/essays/why-keeping-a...ents_open=true
I agree with the professor that to be logically coherent we would need to heavily reevaluate our relationship with animals.
One could argue that what Michael Vick did is no worse than eating a hamburger. Killing a cow for the taste of its meat is done for PLEASURE. Watching two dogs fight is often done for pleasure too. Is one inherently any worse than the other?
Have to disagree with you there, Eddie. Humans, like other carnivores (although we are truly omnivores), evolved to eat meat due to its concentration of fat, protein and calories, not just the taste. It takes a lot of work to be both a vegetarian and get a truly balanced diet, especially if one goes all the way and eats no dairy or egg products. Conversely, Michael Vick is a piece of cr*p who did what he did for sadistic pleasure and greed, my "justice" for him would have been to fight a pack of hungry Dobermans. Naked. On pay-per-view. But only enough to teach him empathy. Did you know that Best Friends Animal Rescue, located in Kanab, Utah, took in the Vick fighting dogs, and were able to rehabilitate most all of them? (I believe they kept one or two that had chronic health conditions until their natural deaths, that organization is a good one to support, BTW).
Yes, factory farming has a lot of cruelty involved with it, and I'd be all for changing that. I always thought that humans would eat a lot less meat if we weren't so sterilized in the process, maybe we need to be more involved with our steaks by shooting the cow in the head with the bolt gun, "No Country for Old Men" style. But you'll have to forgive my sympathy for canines, who are truly linked to humans over thousands of years of shared history. You cannot simply put blinders on and not see the connection that man has to dogs, it's been developed since we lived in caves.
My dogs aren't simply "pets", but if that's all they were, I would still gladly share my home with them. But they are not, they provide a service to compensate for the time and expense I provide. They provide home security, companionship, entertainment, and socialization. I'd be quoting myself to say:
I'll always choose the company of a good dog over a bad person;
In fact, I'll often choose the company of a good dog over a good person;
And, I'll most always choose the company of a bad dog over a bad person;
And occasionally, I'll choose the company of a bad dog over a good person. At least I know what I'm getting with the bad dog, and I may even have the ability to change them.
Mark Twain said: "If you pick up a starving dog and make him prosperous he will not bite you. This is the principal difference between a dog and man". That Twain guy has a real future both in writing and the human experience, let me tell you.
Finally, my dogs have done a fantastic job at their prime duties; to keep dinosaurs out of the back yard, and to kill the grass. How do I know? I just looked. No dinosaurs, and brown patches everywhere. Good Dogs!
You don't get the evolution aspect. You have to make the distinction between domestic and wild animals, and the role of dogs is unique even in terms of domesticated animal. Over a period of thousands of years, as much as 30,000 years, dogs adapted and evolved to bond with man. Even in cave man times a dog lived and hunted side by side with humans. After millions of generations, there is no other animal on earth that is so attuned and able to bond with man.
So I would say it's just the opposite, it would be cruel to release dogs into the wild. They have long ago lost the ability and features that adapted them to a wild existence and they feel more comfortable living side by side with humans. If one believe's in God, then indeed it is the dogs natural role. Otherwise, or in addition, we can still attribute it to natural evolution that dogs natural role is to live, work, and be a companion with human.
Don't overlook the wild-living dingoes of Australia. They came to that continent as human companions. The estimate of the time they have been there varies from about 3,500 years, to 18,000 years, depending on the method used to make that determination. During that time, there has never been an exposed land bridge to Asia or other islands that didn't have a gap of at least 60 miles, so it is considered unlikely that humans did not bring them. At some time, their ancestors broke away and began living independently and following a natural existence. So in some circumstances, dogs may be able to revert to the wild and survive. In some cases, domestic cats have survived as feral populations, usually on remote islands and often have depleted the species that lived there naturally.
Simple question: is it cruel to confine pets to our homes?
Is a dog really fulfilling his God given natural role on earth by being cooped up in a human’s home?
And what about the people that really “love” pets and have 20 of them? Is that really any kind of life? Can the animals even begin to reciprocate love in the way humans understand it?
Are we simply using them/projecting feelings to fill a void in our life?
All good questions....
I don't think there is a "god given role" for animals. I doubt they think about it, they just want to survive like anything else. If you have ever seen dogs in 3rd world countries they live miserable lives. Skinny, mangy, sometimes dragging broken legs from getting hit by cars, often intentionally. They are skittish and are more likely to bite you then wag their tails at you. But it is all they know so they live that life.
The notion that an animal loves us is absurd I think. Love is a human invention, and a modern one at that. It is doubtful we had a notion of love when were hunter-gatherers and barely surviving in the plains of Africa. A pet can sense which of their actions gets a favorable response from us, so they act lovey-dovey toward us.
I like dogs and the only problem I have with them as pets is the business of breeding them. In-breeding causes bad genes to concentrate and many breeds have painful conditions like hip dysplasia.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
