Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

topic posted Wed, June 14, 2006 - 2:51 PM by  Gwenny
Share/Save/Bookmark
Advertisement
Let's change direction a bit. Let's talk about one of my pet (haha) peeves. People who own animals. Oh, they talk a good game about caring about our Mother and Her children, but they possess other creatures to entertain them and keep them company. The creature in question is not given any choice. They are purchased into slavery and, while they may be well fed and even receive tolerable medical care, they are still slaves. If "their person" wants to pet them, they better lie still for it. If "their person" doesn't have time for them, oh well. They are confined in bathrooms or locked in garages to keep them from messing things up. . ie, being an animal. They are forced to alter their natural eating, sleeping and defecation patterns to accomodate "their person's" needs and wants. Even in household where pet seems to be in control, they are still not calling the real shots.

Think your pet REALLY wants to be with you. Leave the door open and let them choose.
posted by:
Gwenny
SF Bay Area
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Wed, June 14, 2006 - 5:56 PM
    Ahh quite a topic Gwenny
    my three dogs?
    First,they all came from the Tacoma SPCA. These are dogs that are scheduled to be Uthenised,and are first placed up for Adoption.
    Do they "run" from me when I take then unleashed on forested walks? No,and the reason is,they are comfortable with both myself,and their surroundings. An abused pet WILL escape,but not an animal that knows it is loved and cared for.
    This holds true of almost any "Pet" Dogs,Cats,Birds,and even a child's hampster.
    To say that an animal like a "pet" is born into slavery is a bit over the top,most pet owners that I know of(and I worked at the SPCA) so I know how a LOT of those animals "live" and most of their owners treat them as well as ANY "Parent" would toward their own child.
    YES there are too many Pet owners who should NOT own a dog or a cat,becuase they DO "restrict" their movement,and some abuse and even torture them,and not give the animal the proper love and care it deserves .working for the SPCA,I saw enough of that to last a lifetime.
    Over the years Pets care for properly,bring love,companionship,protection and even service into our lives(seeing eye dogs,and other "service" dogs).
    You must not know anyone with a properly cared for pet animal to be so harsh in the assumption that Animals shouldnt be kept as pets.
    If you look in my profile,you will see photo's of my three awesome Dogs,and they dont "look abandoned,abused,or mistreated" becuase...they aren't.
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Thu, June 15, 2006 - 6:44 AM
      >>You must not know anyone with a properly cared for pet animal to be so harsh in the assumption that Animals shouldnt be kept as pets.

      Nope, used to share my space with rescued critters of all sorts, in addition to spending summers on a farm, the old kind, that was full of critters who were well cared for. The dog types had about 1/4 acre to run on and the cats came and went through a door in the window of the basement. I love animals. But I had an epiphany. I realized that few people treat the four-leggeds in their lives as at LEAST autonomous. And there are too many animals . . pet type animals. . .in the world. They take away resources from other life forms. We breed them into useless little toys and spend huge amounts on them and we don't even know, for sure, if they want to be with us.

      >>Do they "run" from me when I take then unleashed on forested walks?

      My Loki was like that. Never need a leash with him. He would sit quietly in the car when I ran errands and not offer to jump out. But the other dogs, and some of them had been abused, where constantly trying to escape. I can't even begin to tell you the conditions some of them were living in when we went and got them. It would turn your stomach. And, I've know people with pets that had every reason to be content and yet they were constantly trying to escape. Especially a problem with cats.

      I just thought I would see what people thought. My PERSONAL opinion is that there should be no pets. The damage to the environment caused by the pet industry, the amount of money and resources that are poured into pampering just a few of the Mother's children while others starved and suffer . . .these are unacceptable TO ME. But then, so is war and almost all religion.
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Wed, June 14, 2006 - 6:35 PM
    Hmn, funny. I was just thinking a bit about this yesterday. This is kind of an odd question - and one that asks that we define what a "natural" life looks like. I think (and I'm still thinking about this one!) that if we were to deem it unethical to keep pets, the reasons for it being unethical relates to taking the animals out of their natural environment and "forcing" them into our environment, complete with our routines, moods and expectations. However, what is the natural environment for a housecat? Hmn. Also, along those lines, we don't consider it unethical for parents in our country to put their kids to bed at a certain time, potty train them, expect them to attend school, etc. The reason for this is that the children could not function in the society in which they are to live without these "rules." It wouldn't be unethical for a parent to keep their children up until all hours of the night if that was going to be society's expectation of the child later on. So provided that there is no "natural" environment for animals that have been raised completely in captivity (and in the case of dogs, bred for captivity) aside from that of the human home, we are simply socializing them to suit their expected environment.

    Another slant to this would be to consider the evolution of human living quarters. I dare say that most of us don't think it unethical, per se, to live in a temperature-controlled home with running water, access to sewage disposal systems, etc. Wasteful, sometimes, but unethical? And I dare say that we do not consider it unethical when animals "want" to be indoors....rats, bugs, your pet cat. So what is unethical about a house pet preferring to live indoors, snatch human food whenever we aren't looking, play with us, cuddle with us, etc? You and I certainly prefer the modern comforts afforded by our technologically-advanced age. Is it unethical to prefer that? I mean, is our natural habitat a cave or other primitive dwelling? If we wish to consider ourselves slaves to our modern society, so be it, but we aren't slaves in the sense implied by your message...and living in our modern society does require some "inconveniences" to allow us to live closely with our neighbors. We must shower, go to work, deal with our children's poor report cards, etc. So a cat required to stay indoors or a dog that must undergo a groomer's careful and meticulous hygiene rituals at the request of owners - aren't these just the animal equivalent of our own "inconveniences?"

    That said - what about exotic pets? I kind of agree with you there. I don't feel it's right to capture wild animals and keep them as pets - there, you are disrupting their lives greatly, taking them away from their social systems and possibly exposing them to disease or other potentially harmful situations. But is it wrong for zoos, for example, to house "wild" animals? They certainly provide great benefit to the general population by way of educating children early on about animal habitats and needs, and by giving even exotic animals a "face" - they are more real, somehow. Thoughts, anyone?

    Based on the description of why it is unethical to own a pet, I think that human children are far worse off! Parents have children to entertain and care for them in their old age, to socialize soley based on a parent's experiences and beliefs - if your mom "wants" to brush your tangled hair or pinch your cheeks or pick you up, you better let her! They are forced to go to school, forced to go to their rooms, forced to go to work as adults... LOL An interesting question, Gwenny. I think this can make for good discussion, as it truly requires a look at what our relationship is to living creatures living among us (not in the wild!).
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Wed, June 14, 2006 - 10:59 PM
      >> This is kind of an odd question - and one that asks that we define what a "natural" life looks like.

      To me, it's not a matter of "natural" or "unnatural". It's a question of CHOICE. You can choose to live in a climate controlled box, lie on the couch being bored all day and eat artifical food. I don't see a lot of pets being given any choice.
      • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

        Thu, June 15, 2006 - 9:48 AM
        >> This is kind of an odd question - and one that asks that we define what a "natural" life looks like.

        To me, it's not a matter of "natural" or "unnatural". It's a question of CHOICE. You can choose to live in a climate controlled box, lie on the couch being bored all day and eat artifical food. I don't see a lot of pets being given any choice. <<

        But animals DON'T "choose" to live in their own environment. They don't "choose" to live anywhere...?? They don't decide that they want to live in a jungle or forest or human home or anywhere else...that choice is something humans have much more ability to make (i.e. we can travel, we can create different types of dwellings depending on our cultural, ethical or whatever.
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Thu, June 15, 2006 - 7:03 AM
      >>Based on the description of why it is unethical to own a pet, I think that human children are far worse off!

      I so agree. Too bad we don't have a neuter and release program for about 95% of humanity. But that's a separate thread.
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Wed, June 14, 2006 - 10:25 PM
    All of the cats who have come thru my life over the years were born strays. I found them as kittens & raised them. In fact, my oldest, Spot, is going on 11 years old. His mama raised her babies in my front yard after I proved to her she could trust me. One of her babies had been run over & I think she was desperate for someplace safe for the rest. It was really sad. I was not able to have her spayed before she weaned them & left. I kept Spot & he & I have been thick as thieves his whole life.

    While we're on the topic, does anyone know of a way to return Betta fish to a natural habitat? I've been hemming & hawing over this for weeks. A betta came into my life awhile back & while I have provided him with a large tank & food, I wish sometimes he could be out living in his natural environment. A similar situation happened to me last summer when a neighbor found a totoise just chillin outside her apartment. I took it (him? her?) in & found an organization that returns turtles & tortoises to various preserves in their natural habitat. Is there such an organization for Siamese Fighting Fish?
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Wed, June 14, 2006 - 10:56 PM
      >> All of the cats who have come thru my life over the years were born strays.

      What sort of things do you feed them? And do you use litter? Have you talked to your doctor about Toxoplasmosis?
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

        Thu, June 15, 2006 - 12:41 AM
        Sadly, my Spot is living with my own mama. He's getting older & he has her 3 kitties to snuggle with, plus someone's always home to sleep next to, not like here. He's happy there & I love him so naturally I want the best for him. I was feeding him the good kitty food while he was with me, tho. No byproducts. I figured, if they wouldn't feed it to humans, I don't want him to have it. Unfortunately, I can't control what she feeds the cats, so it's probably some nasty name brand. My midwife already warned me about toxoplasmosis, which was also another good reason for him to go back with my mom. I remember when my mom was pg with my brother & sister, she would use that as her "reason" for making me change the litter! LOL She never liked doing it anyway, & I didn't mind. If I could have my way, I'd live on a nice piece of land & Spot could run around outside. I miss him.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

          Thu, June 15, 2006 - 4:44 AM
          • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

            Thu, June 15, 2006 - 9:05 AM
            what a sick piece of garbage that posting from Phil is Antoine!
            Do you Vegans REALLY want a "Utopian World" free of ALL pet animals? Oh Of Course! a World of "tiptoeing thru Tulips" is better than a World filled with the Love of Animals?..

            what Militant freak's Idea did THIS come from?
            and You Antoine? obviously from your photo you love Cats...yet you had NO response to Phil's outragious Posting?

            * A "Utopian World" of Total Veganism...Yah RIGHT!
            It's just a "Diet" and all diets have their own flaws.There is NO "perfect Anything" in the World we all live In.
        • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

          Thu, June 15, 2006 - 7:01 AM
          >>y midwife already warned me about toxoplasmosis, which was also another good reason for him to go back with my mom.

          Good, although you can take precautions against, I think most sensible women would prefer to remove the risk from the environment while you are nurturing the unborn. And cats, bless their furry little hearts, are disease factorie. <sigh>

          >> I was feeding him the good kitty food while he was with me, tho. No byproducts.

          But animal products? This is kind of a catch 22 situation. I've seen Vegans who feed their cats meat free diets--which is considered animal abuse by some btw. But cats are carnivores and MUST have some sort of meat. That meat food comes out of the same industry that produces human meat, so if you feed your cat meat and diss others for eating meat, it's hypocrisy in my book. As for litter, there are some environmentally safe brands, but many contain non-biodegradable materials, to say nothing of all the perfumes and other chemicals.

          >>If I could have my way, I'd live on a nice piece of land & Spot could run around outside.

          That is the only way I have ever had cats. To me, keep a predator in and forcing it to lie around and be bored is evil. And then pet owners complain that their pets are destructive. <sigh>

          Keep in mind, I do not advocate just killing animals. But I think we need to think more about population control and I support the neuter and release program for cats. Felines can be an important part of any city's vermin control. Not only that, but studies on neutered and released feral cats show that felines have a very complex social system and one or two cats living with a human are being deprived of the society they need.
          • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

            Thu, June 15, 2006 - 10:12 AM

            I´ve been wondering about htis for a while. I adopted a puppy i found under a car about 4 months ago, she turned out to be deaf (and hyperactive!). I had a big probelm with the whole pet thing. I do think it's unethical to BUY an animal, it's seems too much like enslavement. But in this case, if i hadn't picked up her she probably would have died hit by a car or something... And assuming the responsibility of caring for another being has been a HUGE change for me! Her deafness is a big challenge though, although we've adapted well, she still has to be leashed on the street until she's older and has better visual recognition. Sitll, my apartment is in a 3rd world farm-ish complex and she has tons of space to run around and although the doors are always open she doesn't escape. And she's so cool!!!! It's hard though, trying to assure them freedom despite the fact that they are domesticated animals and since birth were denied their right to be wild. I think it's a matter of balance, of trying to ensure the animals well being and not see him-her as a being that's there for one's own entertainment or to fill emotional voids.
            • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

              Thu, June 15, 2006 - 10:32 AM
              Sounds like you have a great environment for your hearing impaired Puppy Mish,sounds Great!
              I too dont believe in the concept of "purchasing a pet" yet the SPCA does charge a "fee" to Adopt a pet but that pays for the animals health certificate, it's current shots and immunizations,and it's spaying or neutering cost.
              Pet Shops,on the other hand should be closed down! over 60% of the Pets purchased from such mainstream pet shops come from "Puppy Mills" and "Cat Houses" breeders who breed these animals under the most ghastly living conditions as proven over time by organisations such as PITA and Freinds Of Animals. Thes shops make a 90% Profit on what they charge for a pet.
              Adopt-A-Pet YES,find an abandoned pet and care for it..YES,Pet Shops...NO!
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

              Thu, June 15, 2006 - 1:56 PM
              I read from another of your postings, Mish, that you live in Mexico. I also know from experience how hard it is to live vegan there. Totally understandable. I also remember the stray dogs roaming the streets of Mexico. Soooooooooo sad! After awhile, I found myself desensitized to the dozens of starving mamas with swollen nipples rummaging thru garbage. I'm glad one of those unfortunates found a human like you. Mexico definitely has a major spay/neuter problem! Is it a machismo thing?
              • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                Thu, June 15, 2006 - 3:48 PM

                Yeah, the stray dogs are a problem. The place where i live, the Puebla-Tlaxcala valley has the most dense dog population in the WORLD! Literrally! And the highest rabies indices. I´ve gotten used to it. There´s just an entirely different cultural conception of animals than in industrialized nations, most are seen as utilitarian and not as "pets" and alot are mistreated for the same reason, they´re seen as an alarm system more than anything and are treated like such. For me it´s sad... IT´s very much linked to social class though, rich people treat their animals much like gringos do and buy them accessories and what not. But poor people don't, and the conjunction of the vision of animals with the fact that ecnomically a lot of people struggle to feed themselves makes things very different. In Cholula most of the dogs that look like strays have owners that just don't care about them. It pisses me off. Cholula is a weird case though since it´s also a college town where ironically most students are better off than townies and a lot of students take dogs in or just semi-adopt them (feed them and stuff).

                As far as the spaye and newtering thing i think it mainly has to do with the fact that nobody bothers to newter or spay a stray so they just keep on reproducing. I do know a lot of people that think it's cruel no to let them reproduce though, not because of machismo i don't think because i've heard that mostly from women and in regards to female animals("not letting them be moms" or from guys "no pueden coger!") so i dunno... In a lot of places the city government poisons stary dogs. It's horrible! It was going on in Cholula for a while and it makes me paranoid about letting my puppy leave the garden on her own... It's definitely a different situation than in the states and you just have to realize that it's like that. I think a lot of how people concieve animals in industrialized nations has to do with the fact that there is such an excedent in production that a lot of money and attention can be invested in them, something that doesn't happen in the 3rd world. In fact, just the money consumed by the US pet industry is more than the GDP of the 5 poorest countries put together! I don't agree with either end of the spectrum.

                In indigenous communities (where people are worse off economically) ironically things can be much different. Among the nahua and pur'hepecha, dogs lead the soul into the other world after death and mistreatment of dogs is looked down upon for that reason, if you treat a dog badly, he won't take you across...
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                  Thu, June 15, 2006 - 5:28 PM
                  I seem to recall a similar story about cats in ancient Egypt. They were so revered that it's said a foreign army took down one of Egypt's most secure cities by throwing cats over the wall at the Egyptian soldiers inside. The Egyptian soldiers surrendered saying they would give up their city if only the foreign soldiers would stop harming the cats.

                  A similar view is also taken in India, where the cow is prized (I think) for her relationship to Krishna & also for her ability to nourish humans with her milk (& produce butter & cheese). I suppose any mammal would be able to "nourish" another mammal with her milk, but why drink the milk of another species? That's a whole different topic altogether!
  • Unsu...
     

    Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Fri, June 16, 2006 - 7:13 AM
    I think that one thing we need to keep in mind is that all pet animals have been domesticated through breeding. (well except for the morons that go catch wild animals and put them in cages) So the question seems to become one of do you follow the path that says not to keep a pet because it is a living entity that is due all the respect you would give to a human animal (which I tend to think is going WAY overboard) or due you accept the idea that since you cannot breed wildness back into an animal species that has been domesticated for hundreds or thousands of years do you take a pet into your care in order to give that entity the best most humane exsistance it can have. I think the later is the most ethical don't contribute to the breeding of new pet animals but accept into your live that of one that is here already...
    please forgive the shortness of this response as I am a bit rushed .
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Fri, June 16, 2006 - 12:06 PM
      >>since you cannot breed wildness back into an animal species that has been domesticated for hundreds or thousands of years do you take a pet into your care in order to give that entity the best most humane exsistance it can have.

      You don't know much about feral cats and dogs, do you. :D They do quite nicely. But if they don't . .OH WELL, welcome to real life. Lots of wild things never make it much past being born. Respecting the Earth, to me, means accepting the processes that She has refined over eons.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

        Fri, June 16, 2006 - 3:33 PM
        >>You don't know much about feral cats and dogs, do you.<<

        for the sake of this discussion I have made a distinction between domesticated and feral...a domesticated animal..a pet is one who has been raised to depend upon humans for the well being....a feral cat or dog is domestic breed that has know nothing but having to rely upon its own wits...its own instincts...take a tame cat or dog and drop it in the middle of the wilderness and it dies quickly, savagely....take a feral cat or dog and do the same...it is still likely to die...but perhaps not...

        >>But if they don't . .OH WELL, welcome to real life. Lots of wild things never make it much past being born. Respecting the Earth, to me, means accepting the processes <<

        I couldn't agree more. That is probably why I find the idea of vegatarianism or veganism for ethical reasons so odd...
      • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

        Sun, June 18, 2006 - 11:24 AM
        Pwh...what??? Maybe I'm reading this wrong. Are you saying that you think it's better to let domesticated animals die in the "wild" than taking responsibility for our race having domesticated them in the first place by taking care of them to the best of our ability? ??
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

          Sun, June 18, 2006 - 7:33 PM
          >>Are you saying that you think it's better to let domesticated animals die in the "wild" than taking responsibility for our race having domesticated them in the first place <<

          No that wasn't what I was saying. I in fact don't take upon myself responsibility for their domestication in any personal respect whatsoever. That they are the product of intentional bred domestication is undeniable, I just don't really feel the need to accept responsibility for it personally. I do believe we should curtail any continued domestication, and we need to spay and neuter exsisting animals but I don't now nor have I ever owned a pet as an adult. And to be perfectly clear their dying doesn't present any great spiritual problem for me now. I tend to place priorty on human suffering no animal. Yes I consider the future and don't wish to add to future suffering by taking part in a flawed system such as raising animals for pets but seeing as how I don't and likely won't there you go. I can see how that might seem a bit cold but there it is. I saw a show about the orphans in some country. Poland or Rumania or someplace and how most of the children are abused ...that hurts my conscious...not the plight of domesticated animals so much...
          • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

            Mon, June 19, 2006 - 2:16 PM
            Why? I mean, why do you place priority on human suffering? I'm not saying that we don't all do it to a certain extent, but in terms of putting the "earth first" humans have caused more harm to the earth than any other animals. Why would we ethically put human needs so far ahead from other animals' needs? If you don't take responsibility for domesticating animals, why would you take responsibility for orphans in another country? I'm not saying that you're pitting one against another (i.e. would you "rather" save an animal or a human) but we certainly have a wide-ranging responsibility to care for those that need our care, including domesticated animals. It certainly doesn't hurt you (or me, or anyone) who wants to care for a domestic animal to do it. These last set of comments were a drastic divergence from "I don't believe in enslaving animals" to "I would prefer to let domestic animals die 'free' to having humans care for them."
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

              Wed, June 21, 2006 - 8:19 AM
              Let me try to address your questions in this order.

              >> It certainly doesn't hurt you (or me, or anyone) who wants to care for a domestic animal to do it. <<

              No it doesn't and I think I said as much earlier. I think the more humane/ethical thing is to take responsibility for the well being of a domesticated animal that is already here rather than take it out and have it put down.

              >>"I don't believe in enslaving animals" to "I would prefer to let domestic animals die 'free' to having humans care for them." <<

              I never said or even suggested such so I don't know where these quotes are coming from.

              >>Why? I mean, why do you place priority on human suffering?<<

              simply because they are human...if you don't agree with that sobeit...I don't tend to get to emotionally upset at the plight of domesticated animals yes it's a problem, yes it is one we caused and one we have to address. I think to some extent we have to judge ourselves on how we treat the most helpless amongst us but I still and quite probably always will place priority on human needs and suffering. I think we just don't have the wisdom to look at enough aspects of a question to decide the best course to take in how to influence our ecology. If you do also or if you don't sobeit. We are individuals and you can choose as you will based on your own criteria. I think it has probably been shown sufficently enough that humans have not yet reached the capacity to look far enough into the future to determine the proper course to take on any given subject of any importance...look at the devastating consequences of the near extinction of wolfs from the Yellowstone bioregion that should say enough right there.

              >>but in terms of putting the "earth first" humans have caused more harm to the earth than any other animals. Why would we ethically put human needs so far ahead from other animals' needs?<<

              Depending on your perspective the "earth" has a pretty competent advocate already. Either nature will deal with man's bungling by eliminating us as a species, or man will alter the ecosphere to such an extent that we will in effect commit mass suicide or God or Gaia or somesuch cosmic entity will interceed either for or against mankind. All I can do is live as ethically as my beliefs lead me to and let matters proceed as they will. Honestly I think you must have misunderstood my post. I'm not very emotional about most subjects and I don't see any "drastic divergence" in my earlier post when I wrote about leaving animals to run feral in the wilderness it was to compare that to trying to undomesticate them...it was to compare those to ideas not to advocate one or the other...

              Either way I hope this helps to clarify not to confuse..
              • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                Thu, June 22, 2006 - 8:14 AM
                >> >>Why? I mean, why do you place priority on human suffering?<<

                >>simply because they are human

                I often wonder where the environmental movement got off track. I don't REMEMBER hating humans when I was younger. I feel I have always seen that we need to consciously choose our place in the circle of life and facilitate, for our own best interests, a balance. Every new generation of environmentalists seems to be more and more divorced from the realities of life on Earth and more and more self-haters.

                Wish there was some way to get these youngsters more invovled with the actual processes involved with being on this planet. I guess I should thank someone that I spent my summers on a farm when I was young so I could be a part of it and see, first hand, what happens.

                >>No it doesn't and I think I said as much earlier.

                Actually, it does, as I mentioned to her. The pet industry is a HUGE business that sucks up food and resources that other animals need. The natural animals. Of course, I admit that when I think about it, I think about a poodle living while a cute little lemur or its whole family is wiped out to feed it and I just feel sick.

                I am not a pet hater. I have shared my life with animals I rescued as an adult. Mostly cats. But they were free, in the sense that they could come and go as they chose. I provided a minimum of food and plenty of water. My babies kept the subdivision free of the pesky vermin that always follow in the wake of human development . . .like rats, gophers, etc. Although I can tell you that getting out of bed and stepping on half a dozen pocket gopher kidneys is not MY favorite way to wake up. :)
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                  Thu, June 22, 2006 - 2:06 PM
                  "I don't REMEMBER hating humans when I was younger. "
                  I've been trying to avoid responding to this thread because of the reason why it was started and how it has such little to do with the tribe. And also with being insulted and stalked in this tribe I am a bit wary. But I can no longer hold my typing fingers! ;-)

                  Who said ANYTHING about hating humans? Why is it that to care for non-human species is to hate humans? Do we have such a limited amount of love to give? I can love my wife and my friends and etc and etc. Love and compassion is not a cup that gets emptied.

                  I am a Vegan because I am an environmentalist. And I am an environmentlaist because I want the human speices to survive. It is very narrow-minded to believe that we NEED to abuse non-humans to benefit our species.

                  If we treat non-humans with respect it is because ultimately doing this will benefit OUR species.

                  If we protect ecosystems it isn't at the detriment of humans it is BECAUSE we are humans. This ridiculous jump in logic that if we care for non-humans it means that we don't care for humans infuriates me to no end. I really don't see the connection.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                    Thu, June 22, 2006 - 2:49 PM
                    Why do you think this thread has "Such little to do with this tribe" Antoine?
                    Is it perhaps because the animals here in question arent "Vegans"? dogs and cats are NATURAL Carnivors...or Ugh!.....Meat Eaters!
                    Posters in numbers have said it before within this Tribe:
                    EARTH FIRST isn't about Veganis'm. It's about MANY WAYS to save a dying Planet.
                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                      Fri, June 23, 2006 - 7:51 AM
                      "[Earthfirst!] is about MANY WAYS to save a dying Planet."
                      and I agree with you Jake, and that's exactly why I am not sure how discussing the ethics of living with compaion animals is a WAY to save the planet....

                      Although I am not so arogant to think that we must save THE PLANET...and the Planet is not at all dying; We are. The Planet will be fine without us, she has been around for many billion years and will be around for many billion more...My goal is not to save the Planet but rather to preserve and replenish (if possible) our necessary human ecosystems so that we can survive. And that means supporting all ecosystems and all Earthlings (whether or not they are humans)

                      (I'm not sure why you bring up the fact that cats are carnivorous) I didn't bring up Veganism as a way to save the planet, I simpy said that I am Vegan, because that is what I am. Why is it that merely mentioning who and what I am and the reasons for it, becomes an attack on YOU?

                      This reminds me a bit of the people who say that homosexuals "flaunt" their sexuality simply by mentioning their partners? When heterosexuals mention their partners all the time it isn't flaunting?

                      So I can't even BRING UP the fact that I am Vegan even when it is on topic and pertains to the discussion? I have to hide it and pretend that I am not Vegan for fear of offending the delicate senisbilities of Gwenny and yourself?

                      Iif you knew anything about the Vegan philosophy Jake, you would know that it has only a little to do with food and much more to do with how we view our fellow Earthlings and how we support the ecology and protect all life. Which is on topic with the recent posts about not valuing non-human animals simply because they are non-humans.

                      I brought up the issue of love and compassion and why by caring for one being it means that we care less for another? (which is right on the topic of this thread)

                      Love is not a pie with limited pieces, love is a striving ecosystem, always alive and infinite. because I love my cats it does not mean that I can not love ants and my mother, and cows and my best friend. And caring for the well-being of gorillas does not mean that I care less for the well being of my wife.

                      As for the thread not having to do with this tribe, although the ethics of companion animals is an interesting topic, I'm not sure what it has to do with Earthfirst! and the environment.

                      Unless this thread was started for another more dubious reason...? ;-)
                      • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                        Fri, June 23, 2006 - 11:58 AM
                        I know MUCH about Vegan Philosophy Antoine.
                        I'd perhaps have a "different view" of your way of thinking as a Vegan,If in your other 29 tribes,you weren't so "Militant" and arrogant about the way you speak of Veganis'm.
                        Not ALL Vegans are like yourself,but the vast majority ARE.
                        Non Vegans dont shove their Idea of what "Diet" is best for the human populace as much as Vegans do.
                        Like I have said,there are MANY other Ways of eating that arent Vegan or Carnivor, you just fail to see the "validity" in ANY other Diet other than Veganism,and this makes you a very unpleasant person to debate with.
                        Gwenny brought up her own personal dislike for the way humans "keep" pets, and how we treat animals does indeed have an impact on how healthy the planet is.She wasn't attacking Me or You,she was voicing her own opinion wich as everyone else,has a right to do.
                        This planet IS dying Antoine,and not you,or me,or Gwenny,or eating "Only Vegan" can save it. It will take effort on everyone's part in too many ways to do so,we all all "just doing what we can" to make Earth's Death a little slower for everyone.
                        Oh and BTW Cats have ALWAYS been Carnivorious by Nature..it begins in Africa With "Wild Cats" and has been that way for millennia.
                        • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                          Fri, June 23, 2006 - 2:32 PM
                          >>Like I have said,there are MANY other Ways of eating that arent Vegan or Carnivor, you just fail to see the "validity" in ANY other Diet other than Veganism,and this makes you a very unpleasant person to debate with.

                          Even better than just being Vegan would be to go primordial. LOL No cooking. (Cooking food is unnatural and uses valuable non-renewal resources.) One version is called "Neanderthin". That is the way I will go when I am able to find the proper combination of plants to supply all my protein needs. I've been impressed by what I've read about amaranth, specifically its high protein content and lysine, and am going to take a shot at growing it in the back yard. Although I cannot even begin to grow enough to supply my needs, whatever I can grow will help allevate my anxiety about using grain shipped from the midwest. Using that to supplement my current crops, I'm hoping to start getting avocados this year and I have an orange that should produce, although I think the lemon won't start until next year, I will be closer to finding a healthy, self-sustaining diet. (I'm also planning to put in a pecan and almond, as sources of fats and protein.)

                          AND, it will give me even more healthy things to put out on the altar for the critters. I love to come downstairs and sip my coffee in the pre-dawn and watch the parade. Sometimes I see the raccoon or the skunk. More often it's the opposum. Always the squirrles and all of the neighbors cats. I don't feed the birds anymore, as I was just providing a buffet for the cats. LOL
                          • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                            Fri, June 23, 2006 - 8:45 PM
                            Those alternate ways of eating are gaining in popularity Gwenny and so far,they are "healthy alternatives" to either being a Vegan, or a Carniviour. I'ts like you are pointing out,the different ways of eating food govern IF a person will get the proper nutrients,and if not, you look at the alternatives. We've all proven over time that "One Diet" of anything wether it be vegan,meat,or eating bugs,is not enough.
                            • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                              Fri, June 23, 2006 - 11:28 PM
                              >>We've all proven over time that "One Diet" of anything wether it be vegan,meat,or eating bugs,is not enough.

                              Very true. We can only guess and experiment until we find what we feel healthy and comfortable with eating.
                              • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                                Sat, June 24, 2006 - 9:12 AM
                                Your absoluttally right Gwenny!
                                Thats why EVERY "DIET" counts,and no singular means of eating is "the right way" for everyone.
                                When people like Antoine become SO Vocal arrogant,and SO Militant about "One single Idea" like he Is on the subject of "Veganism" he is just like President Bush, Bush has "ONE Vision" for ALL Americans and his vision is for every person to live their lives as a "Born Again Fundamentalist Christian"
                                HELLO! what about Judaism,Buddhist,Muslim,and the "Other" 200 Religions of the World?
                                Veganism isnt "The Answer" for every Persons Diet, just as "Fundamentalist Christian" Isn't "The Coming" for every Religious Person.
                                and Bush is every bit as Arrogant about "His Cause" as Antoin Is.
                        • Unsu...
                           

                          Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                          Sat, June 24, 2006 - 9:20 AM
                          You know nothing of Vegan philosophy Jake if you think I am shoving my "diet" down your throat.
                          As I said before Vegan philosophy is not about the food you eat. Yes it affects it. But it is a philosophy OF LIFE like confucianism, hinduism and any other.

                          You and Gwenny are the ones who keep bringing it back to diet.

                          In fact this entire thread was only started by Gwenny as a rather feeble attempt to "call out" the Vegans that she was having disagreements with in other threads. What does the ethics of keeping companion animals have to do with Earthfirst! ?

                          I could understand the environmental impact of companion animals. But the ethics?
                          Why is a proud meat-eater like Gwenny so concerned with ethics all of a sudden?
                          Its pretty transparent.

                          Basically Gwenny hates Vegans and is desperately trying to prove the Vegans wrong, so she all of a sudden thought up that perhaps Vegans are inconsistent in keeping pets so she starts this thread for that purpose alone. It is abusive.

                          No Vegan would keep a "pet" We may live with companion animals but never a "pet" and it is very much in keeping with the Vegan ethic that we are taking care of as many companion animals as we can.

                          This all started with I-dra's thread about meat-eating and environmentalism. Okay so you don't agree with Idra and many other Vegans in this tribe. That's fine. But it isn't a reason to start off a bunch of threads only for the purpose of attacking us.

                          "this tribe" "vegetables are bad" "ethics of companion animals" etc etc...give it a break. Please.

                          But If you want Gwenny, I will deliberately fall into your trap:

                          Yes my cats eat meat. Because cats are carnivores, I never argued that. And yes I don't like supporting the animals raised for food industry. But it is incidental (if animals were not raised for food, I doubt they would raise animals only for companion animal's food) and since I believe in animal rights I don't think it is respecting the rights of my cats to force them to eat a Vegan diet...because they would never choose to be Vegans.

                          My cats are from the humane society (and one a stray who chose to live with us).
                          My cats go outside whenever they wish (I open the door Gwenny and they choose to come back :-)

                          My cat litter is natural environmental and biodegradable and it goes into the green box with all my other biodegradables (here in Toronto we have a green box program to reduce waste: plastics, glass, aluminium, cardboard, paper, etc in the blue box, all food scraps, and even cat litter dog poo and diapers go in the green box and the city mulches it all up into manure) it drastically reduces garbage...Our household only produces one "garbage" bag every two or three months.

                          Now it is one thing to start a thread for the wrong reasons, but it is even less acceptable to start a thread for the wrong reasons and then go against the very subject of the thread.

                          The subject of this thread is "is having pets (companion animals) untehical" not "is Veganism wrong" you are both using bad faith. and using this tribe to attack and demean Vegans.

                          It is gratuitous and wrong.

                          You've made your point. You don't like me. It's okay I don't like you. But please stop using this tribe to attack Vegans.

                          And Jake I asked you jokingly, now I'm asking you seriously, Please stop stalking me. Let's make this tribe less about personal attacks and more about topics of discussion.
                          Please.
                          • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                            Sat, June 24, 2006 - 9:54 AM
                            >>What does the ethics of keeping companion animals have to do with Earthfirst!

                            If eating meat is unethical, then supporting animals that eat meat and have NO PURPOSE except to eat and shit, is unethical. To claim otherwise is nearly schizophrenic. To say "cats are carnivores so of course I feed them meat" and then say degrading things about my following the diet of my ancestors is ILLOGICAL. No one is attacking Vegans. Please quote ONE sentence, ONE phrase where either Jake or I have said Vegans are bad, that veganism is unacceptable . . .you can't. because what we have been doing is arguing to be accepted, me for what I MUST eat to survive and Jake, for whatever he does, he has not divulge that.

                            I am not "calling out" anyone. I am merely pointing out the inconsistency of the rabid Vegan stand. IF you are condeming others for eating meat produced by the admittedly flawed Western system of meat production and yet you support multiple beings that 1) in the real world would not exist and are a slap in the face of the processes our Lady Earth evolved, and 2) exploit the very system you claim to hate, you are lying to someone. You have two alternatives, free the animals you have enslaved for your pleasure (see the picture you use for an icon. See the cat's ears. That is NOT a happy cat. You are forcing your presence on it for YOUR pleasure--not that difference from child molesting in my book. Oh, and notice your canine teeth. . the teeth of a predator/carnivore. Just like the cat's teeth. )or stop condemning people because of their diet.

                            Let me ONCE MORE state. I think that people who are able to live a Vegan lifestyle are awesome. I wish I could do it. I have not yet found a combination of plant proteins that allow me to maintain a healthy, pain free lifestyle. When I do, I shall give up meat. In lieu of that, I am working toward being able to produce nearly all of my own food and constantly seeking out more natural, local sources for my food.

                            >>Why is a proud meat-eater like Gwenny so concerned with ethics all of a sudden?

                            I have told you repeatedly that I am not proud of having to eat meat. I've told you that in a variety of places over the last year, as you continue to be a dolt. I have considered the ethics of eating meat vs the ethics of being a burden to society by allowing myself to become too ill to be a contributing member. It was not an easy decision and I continue to look for alternatives.
                            • Unsu...
                               

                              Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                              Sat, June 24, 2006 - 11:03 AM
                              "If eating meat is unethical, then supporting animals that eat meat and have NO PURPOSE except to eat and shit, is unethical."

                              Okay. That is your opinion. But what does this have to do with Earthfirst! ?
                              And what does Veganism have to do with this topic?

                              "No one is attacking Vegans. Please quote ONE sentence, ONE phrase where either Jake or I have said Vegans are bad, that veganism is unacceptable"

                              Jake:
                              "Is this Tribe about "putting the Earth First" or simply as yet ANOTHER thread for the holier-than-thou Veggans to bash the fuck out of everybody else?"
                              "A One Hundred Percent VEGAN Diet has been proven to be as Unhealthy as a 100% "Mc Donalds" Diet."
                              "It IS in fact harmful to Pregnant Women to eat al ALL Veggan diet during her pregnancy"
                              "The "all Vegan Diet" is just another "Fad Diet" just like The "Atkins" Diet"
                              " ALL Vegans I know of except my stupid brother in law take plenty of oral supplements"
                              "You BOTH are so typical of the High'N Mighty were BETTER than you are becuase we are VEGGANS"
                              ""Typical " attitude of Millitant Vegans David"


                              Gwenny:
                              "All I'm saying is it's mighty hypocritical of vegans to boast about how they are doing everything they can to protect the planet, yet they spent billions a year pampering carnivores."

                              (and this is basically the only reason why you started this thread Gwenny, at least have the ovaries to admit it!

                              "I've seen Vegans who feed their cats meat free diets--which is considered animal abuse by some btw."

                              and let's not forget:
                              "Oh, thank you so much. I feel so much better being condescended to by some asshole Cannuck. Last thing I will ever say to you. FUCK OFF" not against Vegans but pretty personal.
                              • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                                Sat, June 24, 2006 - 11:13 AM
                                You said it yourself Antoine
                                "well I AM holier than thou".(your 5th posting)..YEP your a Militant Arrogant VEGGIE FREAK.
                                Shoving your Idea of "Earth's Pefect Diet for Humans" down our throats!
                                Your just like BUSH shoving HIS "religiously Perfect" agenda down America's Throat.

                                Your just Arrogant,unpleasant,and a JOKE and you make "Good Vegans" look BAD(like ANY "Militant")

                                *and ALL 29 "Other" Tribes you are in suffer from your SAME Arrogance!
                                • Unsu...
                                   

                                  Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                                  Sat, June 24, 2006 - 1:09 PM
                                  yep. I am a Vegan Freak.

                                  But again Jake. Last I checked this thread is not called "Are Vegans @**holes?" or "Does Antoine make Vegans look bad" (Now that I gave you that idea you're probably gonna start a thread on that topic ;-)

                                  This thread is called "Is having "pets"(companion animals) unethical"?
                                  What does my Veganism have to do with it?

                                  You guys are the only ones that KEEP BRINGING it up. Its prejudicial. All I ever said about Veganism in this thread is that I was Vegan. So I am not even allowed to mention that I am Vegan? Wow! That's pretty intolerant.

                                  I spoke about the Vegan philosophy as it pertains to this conversation. I never put anything in your throat (nor would I want to ;-)

                                  You however are attacking me personally. Which I have never done.
                                  Apart from when I pointed out how disrespectful you were about your brother in law.
                                  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                                    Sat, June 24, 2006 - 1:55 PM
                                    You didnt "mention you were a Vegan" you like ANY other MILITANT(Like Bush Is!)
                                    attempted to cram it down our throats.and YOU got jumped on for it and now yer "Cryin like a Schoolgirl"
                                    You Antoine haven't mentioned ONE TOPIC "Relevant" to saving a Planet. All you do is "Flame" people if they are not "Vegans".
                                    *One REAPS..what One Sows.
                              • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                                Sat, June 24, 2006 - 11:12 PM
                                Jake did not attack Vegans in general. He attacked a very specific group of fundamentalists who use veganism as their "cause". You have no more resemblance to a real vegan, of the sort I know personally, than Pat Robertson has with a real Christian.

                                >> >>"All I'm saying is it's mighty hypocritical of vegans to boast about how they are doing everything they can to protect the planet, yet they spent billions a year pampering carnivores."

                                >>(and this is basically the only reason why you started this thread Gwenny, at least have the ovaries to admit it!

                                I've never said otherwise. :) Are you bragging, complaining or apologizing that it took you so long to figure it out. LOL Honestly, I can't believe any of you were silly enough to even bother responding. Although, since I usually manage to keep HUGE inconsistencies out of MY belief system, I am seldom in the position of defending a lifestyle that is in direct contradiciton with my stated beliefs. <shrug>

                                Btw, I notice you failed to address my comment about your cat's attitude. Perhaps you are not familiar enough with other animals to recognize hostility. Nor did you comment on the fact that your teeth show you to be a carnivore.

                                >>"Oh, thank you so much. I feel so much better being condescended to by some asshole Cannuck. Last thing I will ever say to you. FUCK OFF" not against Vegans but pretty personal

                                That's a personal attack. It's the same attack you got the last time you attacked me as Cannucksometing or other. Hence the slam. . not against Canadians, but against YOU.
                      • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                        Fri, June 23, 2006 - 2:16 PM
                        >>because I love my cats it does not mean that I can not love ants and my mother, and cows and my best friend

                        Do you or do you not feed your cats meat based foods? Do you or do you not use litter and what kind?
            • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

              Thu, June 22, 2006 - 8:01 AM
              >>I mean, why do you place priority on human suffering?

              If you respect the processes of the Earth, you respect that one aspect of belonging to a species is to care more about your own than you do about others. As humans, with the ability to choose our behavior, we are able to see the bigger picture. But to promote the survival of one species over our own is UNNATURAL.

              Pets are manufactured to cater to the whims of humans. To let all the perversions of nature die out in whatever way necessary is a return to the ways of the Earth.

              >>but in terms of putting the "earth first" humans have caused more harm to the earth than any other animals.

              Really? From what pov? And what is "harm"? Did you know that at one point the Earth was poised to become a frozen lump for all eternity. The development of oxygen using microrganisms reversed that course and lead to a time when there were no polar caps and the entire world was a vast swamp, such as we might be headed to today. I doubt humans have had as profound an effect on the Earth as those creatures. Other creatures down through the eons have been responsible for extensive changes in the environment. Are you pointing the finger of blame at them for causing the die offs of other species as they maximized their survival?

              Do I think humans bear no responsibility for the changes we are seeing? No. I have been fighting for the rest of humanity to recognize their impact since the 60s. But to be constantly pointing the finger of blame and screaming about evil humans.

              >>Why would we ethically put human needs so far ahead from other animals' needs?

              Because we are human and that is what animals NATURALLY do, puts the needs of their own species ahead of other species. Don't let The Lion King fool you. The lion could care less if the gazelle died out. It would find something else to eat and hunt it to extinction, if necessary, to ensure the survival of itself and its pride.

              >> It certainly doesn't hurt you (or me, or anyone) who wants to care for a domestic animal to do it.

              Actually, it does. As I pointed out someplace, soy is the #1 cause of loss of rainforest habitat at this point. That soy is used to not only feed all the snooty vegans, but to feed the animals us omnivores consume--so we are all guilty, just to get that straight. Your pet is likely a carnivore and eats a meat based food. The meat for your pet's food comes from the same animals that are eating the soy that is destroying the rainforest. So you have to ask yourself, why are you putting the welfare of a result of perverse selective breeding ahead of the NATURAL children of the Mother who have AT LEAST as much right as you cat/dog/whatever to live?

        • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

          Wed, June 21, 2006 - 2:27 PM
          >>Are you saying that you think it's better to let domesticated animals die in the "wild" than taking responsibility for our race having domesticated them in the first place by taking care of them to the best of our ability? ??<<

          Everything is going to die. The rainforest is being decimated to feed domestic animals. Soy cultivation is one of the biggest causes of deforestation right now.

          All I'm saying is it's mighty hypocritical of vegans to boast about how they are doing everything they can to protect the planet, yet they spent billions a year pampering carnivores. You think that cat and dog food, even the cheap stuff, is made from corn? Hell know, it's made for the cows and chickens and pigs that humans eat. The ones vegans are always screaming are destroying the planet. Well, except for the cheap food. That's carcasses of road kill and the bodies from the fur industry. There was a guy when I was young who used to trap. He's toss the bodies in a pit--it was winter and freaking cold in N Ohio--until he had a truck load to take down to the pet food factory. Mmmmmm-mmm

          >> than taking responsibility for our race having domesticated them in the first place by taking care of them to the best of our ability? ??<<

          How about we take care of the humans the best we can and let others species do the same? I'll be a lot more convinced the the newest generation of "environmentalists" REALLY cares for the Earth when I see them respect the processes that have evolved over eons. One of those processes is "if you are fit to live, you will live. If you aren't, you won't."
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Sat, June 24, 2006 - 8:37 PM
      i love that phrase: the "human animal." thank you for that.

      i work in a nature center in the south bronx. i'm going to start referring to us as the human animal from now on... most people say "humans vs. animals" as if we're opposites. most kids (and adults too) don't think we're animals.
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Sat, June 24, 2006 - 11:24 PM
      With all respect, Jim, dogs and cats are quite capable of acclimating to nature. Only those most warped by selective breeding cannot survive. There are cities that practice neuter and release of cats. They do quite nicely. (Did you know that belling your cat actually INCREASES it's effectiveness as a hunter?) They are quite good at keeping the city free of vermin.

      My real problem is the insanely inbreed monstrosities like toy poodles and persians. They are an insult to Nature. They are bred to be slaves. Their upkeep is expensive, as they are prone to health problems. Vast amounts of resources are used to make their food and their toys.

      I just find it irksome that people will claim to "respect" the Earth and yet support these creatures. I suppose it is because so few people anymore know what they are "respecting". We interefere with the natural casting out of unfit pre-humans, we "support" the lives of vegetables (human) and others who would be just as happy allowed to return to the Wheel of Life, we warp Her creatures to our desires and we kill them as it suits us. And we CLAIM to respect Her ways. <shakes head>

      Old tagline: Life. The first sexually transmitted, fatal disease.
      • Unsu...
         

        Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

        Sun, June 25, 2006 - 10:01 AM
        >>With all respect, Jim, dogs and cats are quite capable of acclimating to nature. Only those most warped by selective breeding cannot survive. There are cities that practice neuter and release of cats.<<

        I agree Gwenny, but lets recognize the confines of that exsistance when you say they are quite capable of acclimating to nature aren't you saying to the nature of civilization and its environs...not say the nature of wilderness area? Take even a feralized domestic animal and place it within the environs of a wilderness setting and it will in all likely hood make a good meal for some other animal. IMO that is I don't actually have any imperical data to support this. It just seems to be common sense...an example where I work there is this cat it obviously doesn't belong to anyone as it lives under the slab of the strip mall where I work. Now there is a chinese reasteraunt here and it obviously enjoys the fact or the vermin an eatery attracts also I have noticed several people will feed it from a desire to help the "poor thing" (although I would wager that it eats better than any animal in the wild) somuch so that it now has a mate and a litter. Which in all likelyhood be adopted in the same way as it has....this shows your point about them being able to acclimate to nature I believe...BUT take those same animals and place them even in a feral condition in a wilderness situation and I doubt seriously if they live a week...my point being I quess that although it is ethical mayhap even commendable to raise an already abandoned animal say from a humane shelter etc in order to give it a better live (seeing as how I am neither vegitarian nor vegan I don't have an ethical problem with the fact that such animals are carnivores as I personally would feed a companion animal from table scrapes) It is quite a different matter entirely from an ethical perspective to go and get a pet from a breeder or a pet shop in both instances you are supporting a system that does not consider the ramifications of their chosen businesses. Now as for the release programs you mentioned it can be argued I think that such and idea is good for society in that such animals do serve to take care of the pest problems inheirant in any community. If as is likely the human species is to continue in forming communities wouldn't such a program be seen as a good even neccesary idea?
        • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

          Sun, June 25, 2006 - 10:21 PM
          >>agree Gwenny, but lets recognize the confines of that exsistance when you say they are quite capable of acclimating to nature aren't you saying to the nature of civilization and its environs...not say the nature of wilderness area?

          Feral Cats, from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_cat

          Australia

          Feral cats have been present in Australia since before European settlement, and may have arrived with Dutch shipwrecks in the 17th century. Intentional releases were made in the late 19th century in the hope that cats would control mice, rabbits and rats.

          The feral cat has been an ecological disaster in Australia, inhabiting most ecosystems except dense rainforest, and being implicated in the extinction of several marsupial and placental mammal species but there is no proof to support this view. (Cats are not believed to have been a factor in the extinction of the only mainland bird species to be lost since European settlement, the Paradise Parrot; their role in the loss of rare species on Australasian islands, however, has been significant.) “Convincing evidence that cats exert a significant effect on native wildlife throughout the mainland is lacking” - Environment Australia

          Another link www.fs.fed.us/psw/rsl/pro...ld/ogan1.PDF

          Large definition of feral. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral

          Feral dogs, cats, horses, goats, pigs and the like are all problems in various places around the world. The fact that they can survive and breed in wilderness places argues that they are able to acclimate quite well. Cats are the most versatile according to all I've read. So much so that they are threatening game birds in the Mid-West and, I think it was Wisconsin, tried to introduce a bill to allow the shooting of feral cats.

          >>(seeing as how I am neither vegitarian nor vegan I don't have an ethical problem with the fact that such animals are carnivores as I personally would feed a companion animal from table scrapes)

          And I have no problem with that. I will continue to be "pet" free. I don't expect others to adopt my pov. My question of ethics is for people who insist on judging others for what they eat while supporting the same agribusinesses by purchasing food for their slaves. :)
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Wed, July 5, 2006 - 1:06 PM
    it almost seems like the question "did the chicken or egg come first?" related to the fact that there are pets, tons and tons of them that are in existence. MAYBE if there were any chance that the existence of pets were being debated, your question would make sense. HOWEVER, pets have been around for centuries as far as I can tell, and since they are around, and especially since it is most people who are in this tribe belief that we are responsible for our earth and the animals and such in it, wouldn't it also follow that we should care for these animals that are in existence?
    is having pets unethical? well, maybe if we lived in a world of no cars and no diseases and there was plenty of food for everyone and every animal to roam around and catch or pick and eat at will....maybe then there wouldn't be a good reason to "own a pet". unfortunately, our world isn't like that anymore, meaning there is pavement, cars, and diseases, and animals can't hunt in the wild as they were created to do. as people, who ultimately made this world the way it is (and i'm not blaming anyone in particular for this, just us collectively as humans), isn't it our RESPONSIBILITY to protect the animals whose lives we have irreversibly changed? And this I believe extends to truly wild animals (i,e, not domesticated), but that's a whole other story.
    I don't think people "own animals" to keep them company or to keep them chained up and miserable. I myself am an animal lover, I live with my animals to give them a good life. Like other people have mentioned, my animals came from shelters and various bad situations. Should I have ignored that b/c it's unethical to "own animals"? How then could I say that I care about earth and the beings on it? I chose to give my animals the best life I can, including the fact that I chose to spay/neuter all of them to prevent the overpopulation that is already rampant around the world. For me, it is ALL about the animals.
    You are right in the fact that the creature was not given much of a choice. It did not get to pick me out, I picked each and every one of them. However, and I know this might sound egotistical (b/c I do think I am a good pet owner, good meaning responsible and intuitive to my pets needs), I don't think they would chose to leave and live in the wild (the wild now being a city). Of course they aren't people and don't think quite like we do, maybe they do want to leave and shoot me for taking their testicles and uteruses, now even if they are free they won't have much fun, eh?
    As for being "purchased into slavery", personally I don't make my animals do much. They really don't have any chores or responsibilties that I can think of. Their sole purpose is to be. Just to be. I want them to be happy and healthy and have the best life I can possibly provide. That's it.
    Think you really care about the earth and beings living herein? Then be a responsible part of this world and take care of a being that has few choices. For many pets, their life is either find a home or be euthanized. What would you chose? (yes I know sometimes being euthanized could be better than living with some pet owners....there are bad ones that don't deserve to ever have an animal companion.)
    And yes, if you live in the country and don't have to worry about your pet being run over, eaten by something else, attacked, stolen, etc... (it's a scary world out there) then leave the door open.
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Thu, July 6, 2006 - 2:39 PM
      >>HOWEVER, pets have been around for centuries as far as I can tell, and since they are around, and especially since it is most people who are in this tribe belief that we are responsible for our earth and the animals and such in it, wouldn't it also follow that we should care for these animals that are in existence?

      The owning of other humans, called slavery, was around for millennia. Since when is historical practice a reliable guide to what is ethical? :)
      • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

        Sun, July 9, 2006 - 5:56 PM
        if you had read my statement the way it was written, I was trying to make the point that pets are around, and I don't see them failing to exist any time in the future. I was not even broaching the subject of if the act of making an animal a pet is ethical or not, because it seems like a moot point to me since there are already thousands. I was focusing on why I think it's not only ethical but our responsibility to take care of these animals that are already pets and domesticated.
        • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

          Thu, July 13, 2006 - 1:51 PM
          >>I was focusing on why I think it's not only ethical but our responsibility to take care of these animals that are already pets and domesticated.

          I don't understand why perfectly sensible people buy into the dysfunctional myth that *I* or *you* or *anyone* is somehow responsible for every inbred genetic monstrosity some other human has made. Personally, I think if Mother Earth wanted chihuaha to use for taco filling, She would have evolved Her own. In the _natural_ world any lifeform that is incapable of taking care of itself is FOOD for something that can. Part of caring about the Earth, imo, is respecting Her processes. <shakes head> I blame Disney.
          • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

            Mon, July 17, 2006 - 8:45 AM
            but i don't believe that "her process" was to put animals in the position that they are in today. Which imo makes it our fault as human beings, and our responsibility to these animals to make it more right, since we can't just reverse it back to what it was.
            and I guess I look at it in a more personal way...What would I want if I were one of these animals? To be abandoned and left for food? To run around in the streets and be prone to disease, cars, other wild animals, cruel people, searching for food? And maybe that's me personifying animals when they will never be just like people, but if that's a bad trait then I wholeheartedly admit that I have it and don't plan to change.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

              Mon, July 17, 2006 - 9:47 AM
              Well said Jules...and if we extend the logic that we need to just let nature takes its course, then why have social programs? why try to help the poor and provide, water, housing and decent life for all? we speak up against big corporations and against warmongers? ...let's just let people die and let nature takes its course.

              Perhaps its nice and convenient, but at one point we have to take responsibility not just for our individual actions but for our entire civilization and try to make things better.

              The opposite leads to apathy.

              Also there is a section in the movie Earthlings, in which a man walks up to a garbage man with a very much alive stray dog, and they pick the dog up and puts him in the garbage truck...and the dog is looking at the camera as the trucks crusher closes down on him....this kind of thing proves that it is OUR responsibility to make sure that all living creatures be able to live NATURALLY, but if they can not it is OUR responsibility that they live free of pain and suffering, since we are responsible for them not being able to live naturally to begin with. We took away their natural environments, we bred them, we did that.

              We have made them PETS and that is why it is ourresponsibility to take care of them.

              and when I say we I mean we as humans, and it is entirely irresponsible to say well I personally didn't do it so I don't have to do anyhting.
            • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

              Mon, July 17, 2006 - 9:56 PM
              Anthropomorphizing animals is a mental illness in my book. Assuming you know what another creatures wants is chutzpah. I blame Disney. Even if Disneyland was 50 years old today. You are welcome to be that way if you want. I care about balance. Raping the Earth to feed a bunch of mutated lifeforms and provide toys for them is not balance in my book. How about you wonder about all the human children who are abandoned to run around in the street prostituting themselves for food. A cat, at least, has a chance to be naturalized, to find food without allowing itself to be violated and infected by sick men.
              • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                Tue, July 18, 2006 - 1:51 PM
                don't you have eight or so kids? talk about raping the earth!
                about the human children who "run around in the street prostituing themselves for food".... I don't plan to have kids and never really have. It seems like if that was a concern to you, maybe you would have taken a few of them in instead of overpopulating your little corner of the earth.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                  Tue, July 18, 2006 - 3:57 PM
                  Love is not a piece of pie with only a limited amount of pieces.
                  Love is an overflowing cup.
                  I can love the animals and the children and I will not run out of love.
                  Loving you, Gwenny is more challenging but I will work on that one too ;-)

                  We can take care of all the humans and all the animals and each other as long as we live respectfully. This kind of logic of not wanting to care about animals because one would rather care about the human children is ludicrous! One does not negate the other. No slaughterhouse operates only for cat and dog food, the cat and dog foods get leftover from the slaughterhouse industry. So your argument does not fly, Gwenny.

                  As well, it is classic deflection. I called you on your apathetic attitude of allowing nature to take its course and said that it would lead to us allowing nature to take its course with the starving children as well, and then you turn it around and say that my cats are causing those children to starve...PLEASE.

                  Last I checked it was humans destroying the world not fluffy and fido.
                • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                  Wed, July 19, 2006 - 7:54 AM
                  >> don't you have eight or so kids?

                  I have four children. Children who have been raised to be the leaders of their generation as far as caring for the Earth goes. Do you frequently need to exaggerate and denigrate to make your point? Oh, and since I have been married three times and two of those husbands have no children of their own, I have merely replaced the current population. This is a necessary thing. Remember it will be my kids and their generation wiping your ass when you are a drooling vegetable in some rest home because you have no family to support you. :) Oh, and assuming we don't have a major meltdown, paying your Social Security.

                  I wish you people would actually THINK through what you think. I realize most of you rely only on a public school education, but that is what I had and I have been able to read and learn to think logically. It doesn't hurt, I swear.

                  Of course, the REALLY good news is that you are out of the gene pool. A definite gift to the Earth. Thank you. (Hi, I'm Gwenny, I'm a recovering flame queen. I fell of the wagon, it's been 30 seconds since my last flame.)

                  >>about the human children who "run around in the street prostituing themselves for food"....

                  The children do not "run" around anywhere. They are dumped, just like stray cats. You are all for saving cats but you don't care about your own species? Just more proof that humanity has mutated in dangerous ways. Healthy children of the Mother consider the balance but recognize that they have a primary responsibility toward their own species. Rescuing cats and wasting resources feeding them when they could easily feed themselves rather than rescuing human children and teaching them to respect their Mother and live in a conscious way is FAR more vile than having more children than someone thinks you should.

                  >>maybe you would have taken a few of them in instead of overpopulating your little corner of the earth.

                  I probably will some day. Alas, my life was not stable enough for many years to allow me to consider adding full children to it. I have tried to influence children all my adult life, though. I had a home child care for five years and taught the children about the Earth I sponsored a youth group, GaiaNauts: Children of Space Earth, for a few years and had a teen coven, Moonsinger Circle, whose primary focus was the environment. Our Earth Day celebration included going to parks can cleaning them up. Right now I am gathering 20 somethings who are interested in intentional community, green housing and peace to create a seed group to effect positive change in how our society operates. I would say that my contribution to changing the future has been more effective than you feeding some stray cat.

                  >> I don't plan to have kids and never really have.

                  But you are planning on birthing a cat or dog? I didn't PLAN to have kids either. In fact, I was told that I could have children. LOL The best laid plans of Mice and Gwen . . .

                  >>instead of overpopulating your little corner of the earth.

                  LOL. My children were born in a place whose population has not increased, but in fact has decreased, in the two decades they have been alive. Not only that, but they spent most of their life in a place where, when my ex and I once had car trouble the Highway Patrol said it was a good thing I had thought to stand on the roof of the truck and get enough of a cell signal to call 919. He said it was unlikely anyone would have come through there for months. :) At least it was July and MOST of the snow was gone.
                  • This is the maximum depth. Additional responses will not be threaded.

                    Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                    Wed, July 19, 2006 - 12:36 PM
                    <Remember it will be my kids and their generation wiping your ass when you are a drooling vegetable in some rest home because you have no family to support you. :) >
                    as a side note, you assume I don't have a "get away from being a vegetable plan"....I actually will take an overdose of morphine before I become a vegetable. Or if I am already a vegetable, it's in my will. My husband must find a way to do it or I will come back to haunt him. ;)


                    <<I wish you people would actually THINK through what you think. I realize most of you rely only on a public school education, but that is what I had and I have been able to read and learn to think logically. It doesn't hurt, I swear. >>

                    I feel I have done a good job of this. I don't remember taking any class that taught me to be responsible for the earth and living creatures therein; luckily I was born with the inherent knowledge that it's my responsibility. Unfortunately most people in the world don't feel this way. As Antoine I believe said above (and I am not looking at the actual quote so this will be summarized, a skill I did learn in public school) too many people in this world feel that "if I didn't do it then I am not responsible for it". I don't throw trash out of my window, yet I feel responsible for picking it up. Not that anyone may ever make me, it's just a general responsibility to the world I live in. How can I possibly say anything should be better or could be better if I don't contribute to helping it be so? And where does that motivation come from? That's a whole other story. Could be that I've thought about what I think and I think about what I do.

                    <<Of course, the REALLY good news is that you are out of the gene pool. A definite gift to the Earth. Thank you>>

                    too bad I can't say the same for you. Just because I choose to live my life, not have children b/c I worry about who I will hang out with when I'm old or who will wipe my ass, does not mean I won't be contributing to future generations. What if I plan to be a teacher? I will reach thousands more kids than you could possibly create in a lifetime.


                    <<You are all for saving cats but you don't care about your own species? >>
                    never said that, just feel that I am a human that can stand up for animals that can't speak for themselves. that's my chosen mission.

                    <<Rescuing cats and wasting resources feeding them when they could easily feed themselves rather than rescuing human children and teaching them to respect their Mother and live in a conscious way is FAR more vile than having more children than someone thinks you should. >>
                    for me it's not a choice. i am responsible enough to know that 1) I don't have the resources to raise a single kid, not that I want to anyway 2) I want to further my career and work for animal rights, which I don't feel would leave much time in my life for raising a human being 3) i can have an affect on children around me and that I encounter in my life without having to raise them.

                    <<But you are planning on birthing a cat or dog? I didn't PLAN to have kids either. In fact, I was told that I could have children. LOL The best laid plans of Mice and Gwen . . . >>

                    nope, not planning on that either. there's already enough of those, just like there's more than enough children (and people as well) in the earth already.
                    Not planning to have children imo is one of the most irresponsible things a person can do. there are so many resources out there to help people not have children, and i would hope that anyone having them would at least have some kind of plan in mind concerning the entire upbringing of another human life.
                    told you could have children? who told you? your husband? god? public school? whoever it was must not have explained the consequences it has not only on your life, the child's life, the father's life, etc. but also on the world as a whole.

                    at least i am helping to solve a problem that already exists, not adding to it.

                    and i don't feed stray cats, i provide food, shelter, health care, happiness, comfort, and security to animals that otherwise would be wandering the street, euthanized, or who knows what else might have happened had they not been rescued. that's a lot more than just "feeding a stray cat".



                    • Unsu...
                       

                      Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                      Fri, July 21, 2006 - 7:48 AM
                      Well said Jules.
                      Gwenny, there is no connection between caring for other species and caring for our own. Putting the Earthfirst includes its inhabitants and your kind of speciesism is what got us here.

                      As for the logic of "in my corner of the world there is no overpopulation problem" to justify having more than two children...The planet is a whole and as a whole on this planet there is an overpopulation of humans...just because my little area is not overpopulated does not mean that my extra children don't put a strain on the planet. As for how responsible my children will be, it is entirely IRRELEVENT...and that kind logic leads to "superior" people having rights to reproduce over others, and people having to qualify for the right to have children, racial and genetic "purity" and other totalitarian concepts. Although it is true that most people are bad parents, it does not justify governments controlling or mother's wombs. or deciding who can or cannot have children.

                      Because instead of HAVING 4 children you could have adopted 4 children and helped alleviate the suffering of those children in overpopulated areas without adding to the population and presumably those adopted children would also have grown up just as responsible as your biological ones are...

                      anyway, what's done is done. and it is always easier to criticize than to actually act.

                      As for companion animals, as I said before since WE (collective we) created the problem it is our responsibility to fix it. And having companion animals (as many as each person possibly can) does not take food away from the humans of the world and does not prevent that person from helping the stray children running around prostituting themselves either.

                      and reread my earlier post about love. Caring about non-humans does not mean that I care less about humans. It is possible to help companion animals, children, the community and the environment, none of these beliefs are opposed to each other.

                      I simply don't get why the concept of consistent behaviour is so difficult for some to understand.
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Thu, July 6, 2006 - 8:57 PM
    ok, so have you ever had a "pet"?
    i no more "own" my dog than I would "own" my sisters or kids or freinds. Granted there are pet "owners" out there, but there are also horrible parents, partners, presidents, .....etc..... i have neve thought of me as "owning" my dogs. i am lucky enough to be able to take my dogs to work, where they sit in the shady grass and have a social life outside of my control.... i work at a vegetarian resturaunt / smoothie shop. all the customers know my dogs and lots of them spend time with them. alll animals have personalities and wants and wishes and desires. i consider my dogs in everything i do. i pick and choose the things i do because i have to consider them. a lot of teenagers, given the choice would gladly go thru an open door, choosing their "freedom"... does that mean that is how we as a society should raise children?
    what is your "natural" eating sleeping and defecation pattern? [what is anyones????] is there anything that alters it? are adopted children purchased into slavery??? i think you have a rather narrow experience with pet "owners"....... and should try to expand it a bit. why does it have to be about control??? lets be real here. my relationship with my dogs is a two way street. we are tuned into each other to a point where a lot of the times we know what the other wants through body language, facial expressions, and energy.
    did you know that the same pleasure producing chemical that is relaeased in a dog when he/she is pet.... is also being released in the human counterpart.
    what is unethical is the arrogance of men in thinking that they have the right to euthanize animals en masse...... due to lack of time or money or space. that is the work of little minds.....
    sharing your life with another life form and learning and growing with that creature...... that is the work of a good soul.

    anyway ..... thats what i say.
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Fri, July 7, 2006 - 1:12 PM
      >> ok, so have you ever had a "pet"?

      Yes. Not only that, but I spent my summers on a farm when I was young and got to learn how to milk cows, find eggs, slop pigs, and herd sheep. My mother breed dauschunds and German Shepherds when I was teen and I showed some of them. Ten years ago we rescued a number of dogs and kittens.

      >> i no more "own" my dog than I would "own" my sisters or kids or freinds.

      I'm glad. Of course, many parents believe they "own" their children as well. Of course, no parent owns their children. All children are the property of the United States govt who knows far better than we do how to raise children. : /

      I won't quote all you said. I can tell you that you are in the minority. Most Americans "own" the animals and people in their lives. They spend huge amounts on these animals . . .while people are starving. AND, that is JUST MY opinion. You are welcome to feel differently.
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Thu, July 6, 2006 - 9:20 PM
    i've always wondered who else out there agrees with the topic you so bravely broached. i've always been anti-pet but people seem to think i'm nuts because of it. i am about to steal my parents' poodle, rocky, rename him "chinabo" because i like that name better, and move him in with me. rocky's the sweetest little dog, and my parents see nothing wrong with locking him in the tiny little laundry room all day. they don't walk him, let him out once at 5am, and pay absolutely no attention to him whatsoever. my parents are great, not trying to talk bad about them, but they view rocky as a decoration rather than a living being. i can't wait till humans just write ourselves out of existence.
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Mon, July 31, 2006 - 7:35 PM
    'Is Having "Pets" Unethical?'

    Only insofar as they're not free to go when they choose.

    ~ Kole
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Wed, August 2, 2006 - 7:45 AM
      Jules
      An overdose of Morphine isn't neccessary to keep yourself from becoming another Terry Chiavo case if you have a "Living Will" like I do.
      A Living will is a legal document that clearly defines "who" is your excecutor,and in it, it says exactly what kind of end-of-life measures can or cannot be used to prolong your life.
      You can specify "No Means of life extension by life support" wich means when it is "your time to GO"...you GO! and NO family member can intervene and keep you alive against your will.
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Fri, October 20, 2006 - 10:54 AM
    {{{Adopt-A-Pet YES,find an abandoned pet and care for it..YES,Pet Shops...NO!}}}

    I second this!

    I also have a real problem with breeding...."purebred" animals..how cute will they look if their ears are longer, tails fuzzier---whatever! And the kennel associatians have.."standards" for each breed that do nothing to enhance the well being of the animal--every single breed has some genetic...hiccup. prone to breathing problems, hip displasia etc....

    Apart from that, to address the original question; Is having pets unethical? It's a great question. Animals live on this planet, so do people. We have always interacted. We keep finding new ways to interact and there are always opportunities to learn even better ways.

    People like Monty Roberts and Linda Tellington Jones have, with love, created some wonderful examples of this. Therapy animals are enhancing not only the lives of the people they connect with but they feel they too are rewarded. Dogs know about love.

    So, assuming both people and animals will continue to unhabit this planet it is worthwhile to explore all the ways in which we can get along harmoniously and enhance each other's life experience.

    We could look at it like we are sharing our home with animal/s, sharing our lives to some degree. Many animals would never survive on their own in a feral setting, even completely wild animals have a struggle.

    The problem is when we look at animals as something to own, something to show off, little stuffed animated toys to stick back on the shelf while we dont need them.

    I think the most ethical stand is to treat the animals we live with, with the care and respect they deserve and teach others through example. And to actually listen to what they have to say rather than firmly sticking to what we read in a book or learned as a kid. Be open to learning from them and appreciate them for the amazing and wonderful creratures they are.

    So, no I dont feel that living with pets is unethical....but the concept of ownership just doesnt work. IMHO

    Namaste..shera
    • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Mon, November 6, 2006 - 11:55 PM
      my fabulous partner and baby-girl maggie (chocolate lab/ vizsla resue) sends you all her love and kisses. she's pretty happy, and so am i. neither of us owns eachother. we just live and take care of eachother.

      wow guys... crazy thread.
      • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

        Wed, November 8, 2006 - 1:19 PM
        you can tell we have some pretty strong ideas about companion pets, huh?
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

          Wed, November 8, 2006 - 8:19 PM
          companion ANIMALS...not pets.
          Please a pet is a derogatory term. :(
          pretty please, stop calling them pets, eventhough this whole thread does call them that...(but to be fair this thread was not started in good faith...so...)

          Maggie is her partner and her baby-girl...she is a SHE not an "it". a thing or a "pet".
          and thank you very much robin for your wonderful and beautiful language, it is truly a testament to human-non-human relations...:-)

          My good friends Dougall and Enkidu are "he"s not "it"s.
          and Gilgamesh (may he rest in peace sweet spirit) in my avatar picture was also a "he"....
          not a "pet"....a non-human animal that I hope enjoys spending his life with us.

          In this society that treats animals as commodities and objects, those of us who are sensitive towards their plight MUST try as hard as we can to change our language.

          As for the topic...since it has been ressurected (and great ressurection by the way, it is much better than its first incarnation)

          Companion animals are our responsibility.

          Until the last breeder is closed down, and all "pet"-shops stop selling living creatures...and all humans start taking companion animal guardianship seriously (and are punished severely if they don't) Until then...we have no choice...to even ASK if it is ethical or not is irresponsible!

          Once domestic "pet" animal populations are back to a normal manageable level (manageable for them ...not for us), then we could begin to seriously consider what to do as in:
          set them free and allow them to become wild again,
          or
          keep them inmeshed within our human societies...

          at that point, if I am still alive, I may have an opinion. As for right now, all this is hot air...ethical or not, it is OUR RESPONSIBILITY to take care of them, and help to SOLVE the problem.
          • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

            Thu, November 9, 2006 - 1:39 PM
            sorry....i usually say companion animal, I had just read the word pet so many times that it's what I typed. But honestly I don't think pet is a derogatory word....maybe not the best word to use but since i view all of the animals in my family as my children, I didn't mean anything derogatory by it.
            I do agree 100% that it is our responsibility to protect and care for all of the companion animals. That's why I devoted my life to just that. I work at an animal hospital, pet sit, and volunteer for our local shelter. Not to mention care for my own 2 dogs and 3 cats. And I also agree about the breeder/"pet" shop issue....there are so many animals already in this world that need good homes, it is completely irresponsible to purposely be breeding more and more, not to mention just for the purpose of selling them to make $. I have talked to many of them. Most of them should not be breeding, period. Some aren't even qualified by my standards to own animals themselves.
            There are too many animals in shelters, being fostered, etc.....that are deserving of a home.
            • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

              Fri, November 10, 2006 - 4:03 AM
              I have been considering this question from the viewpoint of my canine companions and my feline companions, trying to walk in their tracks so to speak and well..we have a LOT to account for!

              Simba says "How dare you have my nuts cut out and still tell me you love me!" And no matter how I rationalize this from a human point of view...it's just...welll..WRONG!

              We thought we were doing the right thing and we dont know how to deal with the problem otherwise...and they forgive us over and over again....but until we respect the right of all others and all other species to make their own choices.....I guess were just not as mature and enlightened as we think.

              And what the hell is that thing about crate training? Ya dont do that to a human child and get away with it!

              Getting a puppy---stealing it from it's mother, untrained in the ways of dog...just so we can train it to be a better slave for us? Kittens, same story...over and over.

              Bad human! Bad human!

              I also see that interspecies relationships can be enormously enriching and healing for all parties and I dont think we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater so to speak. I just think we have a long ways to go before we start patting ourselves on the back about what good "pet parents" we are.
              • Unsu...
                 

                Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                Fri, November 10, 2006 - 6:18 AM
                My cats are adults. And even when they were kittens, they had parents who weren't human. I was not their "parents".
                Now there is something sick about taking a child away from his parents and dropping him among another species...but such is the way it is....now.

                As for now, what am I to my cats? I am just a member of the presently dominant species who is responsible for taking care of them...I am not their parents....perhaps their guardian.

                "pet" is derogatory it implies ownership and negates individuality.

                As for the rationalization of not altering an animal that lives with you because altering him or her is wrong. The alternative is even more wrong. Unfortunately the amount of people who don't alter their animals because they feel guilty about doing it should realize that it is not fair to apply "natural" laws to a domesticated animal...yes it is a violation of their basic rights to alter them, because they are not consulted, but it is because of the society that we live in, and it is a trade-off.

                It isn't about throwing the baby with the bathwater, but rather I compare it to couple's therapy. If I were an abusive male who had been beating his wife, then part of my therapy would be to be alone for a while and not start new relationships, then once I can deal with my emotional and anger issues, then much later I could try to initiate friendships, and then eventually deeper relationships.

                As a species humans have always abused, enslaved, taken advantage of, and slaughtered the other species of the planet, which is why we can not commuicate with them anymore...so we are not to be trusted with these relationships...and I think that once we do reestablish the proper order of nature (and I hope we do) we will need to leave other species alone for a few generations before we can be trusted to have an "enriching" relationship with them.
              • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                Fri, November 10, 2006 - 12:19 PM
                It seems like showing a lot more love to have "nuts cut" than to allow your companion animal to be vulnerable to diseases that could otherwise be prevented. Granted, this is from a person who also believes many human animals should also have their "nuts cut" (this also applies to uteruses) b/c not only are there too many people in this world, there are also too many irresponsible adults that shouldn't be allowed to breed. But that is another story.
                I do repect my companions rights, and along those same lines I feel it is my responsibility to make the best decisions for them. It would be different if there weren't cars and big cities and too many people who aren't looking out for their best interests, but that just isn't the world we live in.
                and crate training....it is actually natural for dogs to live in dens. They do so in the wild. That is why crate training can be such a useful tool, b/c they see the crate as their home and find comfort in it. It's not meant to pen them up and keep them imprisoned. If used correctly, it is a safe home that is all their own, most dogs raised this way actually sleep/hang out in their crates freely, without being closed in. And it's a great method for people to use who would otherwise send their dog back to the shelter(or wherever it came from ) b/c it's destroying their house and possessions.
                Of course everyone has different ideas of what being a good parent to their animal companions are. Otherwise this discussion wouldn't still be continuing. And of course many of us would not chose to go out, catch a wild animals, and try to domesticate it. Our world is long past that (except for people who try to tame monkeys, tigers, etc....that's yet another story), and it's time for people to realize that providing quality health care as well as a nuturing, loving home environment is the best we can do.
                • Unsu...
                   

                  Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                  Sat, November 11, 2006 - 1:46 PM
                  well said Jules...it's all about respect...as for this: "not only are there too many people in this world, there are also too many irresponsible adults that shouldn't be allowed to breed. But that is another story. "
                  that is another story indeed! but I do feel your frustration as well. ;-)
                  as for crate training again it is all in how it is done...if it is like a sanctuary for the dog, as in (snoopy's doghouse) then it is one thing, but if it is someone "crating" thier dog as in locking them up in a box whenever they are out of the house or while they are sleeping that is quite a different story...no one likes to be locked up...ever!
                  but you are right that if you use an open crate it's more like a cat-bed for cats or a nest for other mammals...and it CAN be natural.
              • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

                Fri, December 1, 2006 - 3:26 PM
                S: Bad human! Bad human!

                We do the best we can to right what generations of slavers have done before us. It's not always the right thing, but our intentions are good.
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Fri, December 1, 2006 - 5:59 PM
    i agree on some points here and understand.so my horses maybe sometimes can play like a slaves.im so sorry for them beeing used like a car but always i do it with alot of love to them.i prefer my horses travel with me and eat the good grass then stay with some runcheros that treat them like unliving thing.atleast we have some understanding beetween us wich is very hard with the horses..so i put my head down for using the horses but i still feel good that they are with me and not with someone that heats they had with stones.
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Fri, December 1, 2006 - 9:03 PM
      No need to put your head down. Just because humans have abused horses in the past does not mean that you are an abuser.... non-humans can forgive more than humans...in fact we could learn that from them...

      ...If you love your horses and treat them well and with respect, you may actually make up for all the abuse (you should read the book "The Horse: the most abused domestic animal" to put it in perspective for you www.petacatalog.org/prodinfo.asp

      As for feeling bad about riding them, then just don't ride them...you could stop putting saddles on them and just walk beside them, like you would walk with a friend, and let them run and watch them run...you may learn more from watching horses run with other horses then by riding them...

      ...and that way you'll stop seeing them as "vehicles" and start to respect them for the godly creatures that they are.

      I know everytime I see the cops riding on horses in the city it breaks my heart...and I always whisper to the horses (if only in my mind), don't worry brother, we will rescue you, and one day, your children or grandchildren at least will be free. :-)

      Once one of those cops tried talking to me from his horse while I was at a streetcar stop, and I was only looking at the horse and refused to speak to him or even look at him...I just looked at the horse, deep into his sad sad eyes... I told the horse (out loud that time) that one day he will be free of this monster who was abusing him...the cop left with "his" horse and let me alone to wait for my streetcar. ;-)
  • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

    Sat, December 2, 2006 - 11:27 PM
    so for the sake of arguments (and not to pick a fight or stir up anger)

    would it be more ethical for us to free all the house pets in the world? There would be so many that they would be run over in the streets, taking over habitats that are not naturally theirs etc. These animals are bread specially for domestic life, not forced into a habitat that is unnatural for them (though, yes, we did breed them for a certain environment... argument very much understood)

    my animals are not and never will be confined to a room other when the kitten or puppy is too young to be safe in the entire home. Even then they have food and water and toys and a large pillow and quilt to lay on. And they are in a large room that doesnt have anything small or dangerous. As soon as i know they are safe to be on their own they get full range of the house. Any time they tell me they need to go out they do (my one dog thinks he can talk, so when he makes chewbacca like noises and points his head to the door we know its potty time). When they come to us and want attention we give it. Even now my one dog is laying on my lap because she wants attention, and shes asleep and seeming content with this life. When they dont want to be bothered we leave them alone.

    I think that my formerly abused dogs, the guinea pig i got from someone who had an unexpected litter, the rats from the 4h fair taht were homeless, the ferrets that were up for adoption and would have had no home and the cat we rescued after it had been run over and left for dead are all much happier with the life we give/gave them. i know i took good care of my pets. Hell my guinea pig lived for over eight years. Way beyond their life expectancy. AND i even took her to a specialist vet that delt with small animals and rodents for regular checkups. so if you care you CAN get them GOOD health care.


    As far as it being unnatural just think: can they want a different life if they dont know it exists? when my pets remember how horrible life was im sure they are in heaven now.

    sorry to seem like im ranting, im just giving a little couterperspective. :) no harm or anger meant.

    love.n.light!
    • Unsu...
       

      Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

      Sun, December 3, 2006 - 12:07 PM
      There is a flaw in your argument sugaree13.

      the thing you are forgetting is that these "pet" animals are only around in such great numbers because humans are breeding them.

      If we stopped breeding them and took care of all of them that are left then eventually cats and dogs could be "set free" although it perhaps wouldn't be as instant as you suggest in your post.

      Because as you said just setting them free in the streets to fend for themsleves would be unessecarilly cruel to them and to the surrounding environment.
      It would probably take many generations to "set them free".

      The first step is with us (humans), not with them(companion animals)

      First we have to stop seeing them as property and things and commodities, then we have to stop breeding them for profit, or breeding them at all.

      Then we must reduce the population with spay and neuter programs.

      And then after a few generations we would wean ourselves off having "pets" altogether. And only natural wild species of cats and dogs would survive and live in harmony with their environment as they are meant to.

      It's like with an abusive husband (and I use a male example on purpose, please don't call my gender choice into question, I know there are abusive women too, and abusive non-heterosexual relationships) the solution lies with him, not with his victim. First he needs to break his cycle. then cure his perception of women. Then he needs to re-learn how to love, and then he can start to be cured.

      Humans have abused EVERY single non-human species on the planet. I am not saying that a real symbiosis between humans and non-humans can not exist, I am saying that it can not exist until we have cured ourselves of our disease.

      and learn how to respect non-humans, the planet and eventually ourselves (and make that connection)

      In the meantime it is OUR responsibility to take care of as many companion animals as we can since we are responsible for their overpopulation...we created the problem, it is our duty to fix it.
      • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

        Mon, December 4, 2006 - 10:13 PM
        i meantioned (or meant to) that i am aware of and understand fully the argument that WE DID THIS. i do know that. i know my pets would be wild dogs, not the form of dog that i have sleeping on my feet at the moment (and i cant feel my feet at this point but dont want to wake her up! haha)

        I fully agree with that.

        but the fact, for me, is that the pets i have ARE alive and WERE bred for 'captive' life. so i care for them as if they were a child and i love them as i would a child. if we hadnt bred such an unnessicary number of amimals for 'pets' i would not have a pet. i also would not go and actually domesticate a wild animal.

        and im not suggesting that we free all pets at once. but when i hear that its unethical to have pets im not sur what the alternative is at this point. if we didnt adopt pets then they would be left at the breeders or at the shelter. if the animals were left there they would either be euthenised or they would be set out on the streets. so unless there is an alternative i havent thought of (which there very well can be!) we either have pets or free them. until the day there are no more domesticated animals theres not much alternative to having pets. if we were to stop breeding and get to the point where there are no more domesticated creatures then by all means- pets would be unethical.

        currently i think that the way some people treat their pets is unethical, but if you treat your pet right i think its more ethical to give the animal a good home at this point.

        sorry for any missunderstanding! totally not what i was trying to convey last post. (and i hope this post makes more sense. im a bit tired now. :) )

        love and light!




        sorry for any misscomunication on my part! i do agree with what youre saying, antoine.
        • Unsu...
           

          Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

          Tue, December 5, 2006 - 11:44 AM
          I tend to agree with you Sugaree13.
          This thread was started for rather dubious reasons simply to antagonize some of the Vegan members of thsi tribe.
          And this thread asks the question is having pets ethical? I would say no...or rather pets yes, companion animals no...the way that you seem to respect and care for your companion animals I am sure that you do not see them merely as "pets"

          As for whether we SHOULD have companion animals in the idyllic world of the future...I would say NO. But for right now, to discuss whteher or not we should have companion animals is a bit useless because the reality is that we DO have companion animals and as you said WE DID THIS, so it is our responsibility to take care of them.

          As you illustrated very well in both your posts, and as I added to your argument: it is unrealistic to think that we can solve the companion animal situation instantly. It will take many generations...in the meantime it is obviously ethical to attempt to offer a good home to as many companion animals as we can.
          • Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

            Thu, December 7, 2006 - 2:28 PM
            A: This thread was started for rather dubious reasons simply to antagonize some of the Vegan members of thsi tribe.

            No, to force the Vegan nazis to face their hypocrisy.
            • Unsu...
               

              Re: Is Having "Pets" Unethical?

              Fri, December 8, 2006 - 5:53 AM
              Gwenny said:"A: This thread was started for rather dubious reasons simply to antagonize some of the Vegan members of thsi tribe.

              No, to force the Vegan nazis to face their hypocrisy. "

              Exactly my point. It was not started because the person who started the thread was genuinely asking the question or was genuinely searching for an answer...or actually even CARED about the issue...it was started only to "force" something out of someone else.

              and that is dishonest, insincere and rather dubious.

              In the meantime though some very intelligent and interesting people have seriously discussed the question and in the end the conversation became very interesting despite the reason why the thread was started.

              which in the end is all that really matters anyway ;-)