Instant Survey: Pets

Our dogs and even our some of our cats are clearly suited just to be pets. I have a cat who is as scared of mice as any human has ever been. He's never caught anything, not even a bug, and his favorite toy is a distinctly unnatural laser pointer. What's the point of saying he should be returned to the wild?

I love my pets, I have 6 rescued dogs, and 3 cats, all of which are well cared for and live inside. Some of the exotic animals are the one's I feel sorry for, wild cats like Oscolots, skunks, sugar gliders. Animals that really aren't domesticated. I can't see how large wild cats can be happy in a pen, not hunting their own food and so on. But as for domesticated dogs and cats, so many of them are in shelters and need homes. They can't live on their own any more. It's great to take in a rescued animal. Also, I would never actually buy a dog or cat. The purchase of pets just encourages breeders, many of who do not know a lot about breeding or run puppy mills. With so many in shelters it's silly to go buy a purebread animal.

If its inhumane to keep pets regardless of how the idea came to be, then, by the same logic, it is inhumane to keep plants in the house too, regardless of how the idea came to be.
Keeping a domesticated animal as a pet is the only humane thing to do. Its better than letting it starve to death alone on some city street, and much better than euthanasia. Just get them fixed so they can't reproduce.

Jared Diamond writes that society as we know it, based on the human race's achievements since the last ice age, simply would not exist without the domestication of animals - and countless other scientists agree.

So, those who find keeping pets to be unacceptable should offer justification as well as a plan as to what they would do with the domesticated species worldwide (since they obviously feel we are done evolving, and no longer need them). Do they propose euthanizing every dog, cat, ferret, and rabbit? Every farm animal as well? Speak up!

To counter, I couldn't even begin to list the benefits of being raised with pets. Children brought up with animals have more immunities and far fewer allergies than those who aren't, and that's beside the social lessons of responsibility, etc.

My only concern with pets is the size of some of them. When dogs get bigger, obviously their food intake increases. And since they are carnivores, that meat has to come from somewhere. Yes, a lot of it is a by product of meat processed for human consumption. There is also the processing of these by products to make the food. My vote would be to promote smaller breeds. Or to go with a vegetarian pet, like a rabbit. You can grow their food right in the backyard, and their waste is extremely good for composting, unlike dogs and cats.

I've had loads of pets, and I grew up on a farm where we raised animals for pets and food. Currently, my wife has two cats and a bird. If I chose, I would have none. With the exception of cats and dogs, most animals people choose as pets are not acclimated to being pets, especially predators - they are generally more intelligent and prefer to roam free. I definitely think that any pet that has to be kept in a cage/tank, is not a pet, but a slave, of sorts.

Farm-raised exotic pets only create demand that fuels the smuggling market.

I love animals, but they were born to live in a specific natural environment, and that's where they belong.

BTW: I believe the only other species to domesticate/enslave other creatures are ants. They keep aphids as 'cattle', which they 'milk' a fluid from, and they commonly enslave other ants.

"If its inhumane to keep pets regardless of how the idea came to be, then, by the same logic, it is inhumane to keep plants in the house too, regardless of how the idea came to be."

There is no logical connection because animals have brains and are mobile. You own the animal, set boundaries on where it can go and when, what it can eat and weather it can reproduce.

Some domesticated animals LOVE to work, like dog guides or hearing ear dogs (aka signal dogs). Or even just to have the priviledge of accompanying their masters outside of their living quarters. I don't really think it is wise for animals, even domesticated ones, to be cooped up in a house/apartment for long stretches of time without their masters day in and day out.

I adopted two cats (a total of four in my life) from shelters and such. How is that wrong? They can't hunt or survive in the wild, and in a desert aren't adapted anyway. What else is anyone supposed to do?
Objecting to humans keeping dogs and cats is just stupid.

Can I vote for "a totally acceptable practice, one that should be encouraged, provided the animals are well cared for"? Both human and animal lives can be enriched by cohabitation.

My only concern with pets is that they stay indoors. I love cats, but a cat that can go outside is a can who can hunt. The impact on local wildlife can be dramatic.

FAA. I think your points are great.
Anonymous. Yes of course you are correct as well.
I'm sure FAA doesn't ethically compare plants and animals. But there could be a good case against humans breeding and relocating/controlling anything that does not directly effect their survival. e.g. nutrition. (So non-native, un-edible plants are out).
Are emotional bonds with pets a good enough excuse to keep them?
There are a lot of things we seem to do that make us feel better/calm our fears/give us nostalgia etc which in the end are adding to our/the worlds problems. Are pets one of these? Do the emotional connections with pets aid our appreciation for their long distant wild cousins or are they just a human created distraction from the world as it should be. It could be interesting if we start to genetically engineer, not just breed pets. Especially if we find the need to ad some of ourselves in order to create the perfect pet.
Picture a cartoon of a person sitting next to "nature" on a park bench, having a chat. They are trying to work out who "owns" pets. "Nature" says to the human, "They're yours now". What obligations do we have to these creatures we have created?

There is a point I forgot to make earlier, people should not have a pet if they can't afford to take care of it. I work for a vet and am so discouraged and sick of people whining about the cost of pet care. If one doesn't have the finances they shouldn't get a pet. I like everyone elses points too and am glad that others agree about dogs and cats - at this point they're domesticated to do anything else. Mine also love their "jobs", the poodle allerts everyone, the doberman is the boss, the husky mix mothers everyone, the coon hound likes to find things, the rotweiler mix is the protector of all. As for having time to spend with them, I'm home most of the day 4 days a week, and even though they're inside dogs we go out and play a lot and they have free reign of the whole house. My husband and I let them sleep with us so it's more of a den like environment.

As a long time cat owner, I certainly draw a heavy line between the "ownership" of a DOMESTICATED animal for compainionship or work (cat/dog/horse), or food (chicken/cow/rabbit), versus keeping WILD animals.

Although the point brought up in the zoo survey the other day - that zoos are sometimes the only way to keep endangered wild animals safe from humans - is a very strong point.

"a totally unacceptable practice that should be discouraged no matter what"

Who are you people? Post some of your reasons already, right now there are 172 of you.

My knee-jerk reaction to someone who would subscribe to such an extremist and INHUMANE viewpoint is: your continued ability to reproduce is "a totally unacceptable practice that should be discouraged no matter what". Please show me I am wrong with some intelligent explanations as to why you feel this way.

Alright I’ll speak up. In response to:
FAA at October 21, 2005 11:24 AM
It is accurate that domesticated animals have contributed a great deal to the advancement of human kind. Although it is also true that human slaves contributed a great deal to the success of other human societies. Just because humans benefit from another creature this does not make this form of exploitation necessarily valid.
Just because these slaves (or animals) have contributed a great deal in the past does not mean that a society without slaves (or domesticated animals) is impossible. Living a vegan lifestyle is in many ways more sustainable then a lifestyle dependent on animals. You simply cut out the middle man and reduce consumption.
The plan the vegan community has is to find alternatives to living in a society that is dependent on animals. So far this approach has been wildly successful. Please read any number of books on veganism and you will find a rich knowledge on how to live properly without exploiting animals. We, the vegan community, are by no means done ‘evolving’ as you have put it. We are the people who are ‘evolving’ and embracing a lifestyle more in sync with the environment and our own bodies. People embracing a more traditional lifestyle are in fact the ones not evolving.
As an individual, not representing vegans or any cause, I do propose eliminating any invasive species of animal that has disrupted the native environment. Just as rabbits should not be in Australia, dogs and cats should not be in North America. I, as an individual, propose euthanizing all dogs, cats, and farm animals or placing them in a more suitable environment. My views are a bit radical but I’m allowed to have them.
Finally, I’m certain there are several benefits to being raised with animals, there are benefits to nearly everything. However, there also several disadvantages that outweigh those benefits. For example large amounts of dangerous diseases originated in domesticated animals and were transmitted to humans as Diamond also points out. Think Avian Influenza. Also those animals have a significant impact on the environment you already exist in. How many native birds has you cat killed? It would be much more of a learning experience if you were to educate your child on the already existing animals in you natural environment, instead of import more exotic animals.
This is really just my initial reaction to your statement. I’m sure a more through analysis is needed but I don’t have the time. I hope this helps you understand the vegan cause a bit more.
Sorry for the length.

"Please show me I am wrong with some intelligent explanations as to why you feel this way."

Don't hold your breath. I don't believe any such intelligent explanation exists.

Well, Adam, your views are right inline with one of history's more prominent figures: Adolph Hitler. He believed that no Jewish people belonged in his Greater Germany and were an invasive sub-species. He advocated and implemented his viewpoint with deportations to "more suitable environments" and followed up with what he called "euthanasia".

Adam, you and your views are in good company.

So anyone else want to give my request a shot?

Wow, I'm surprised how many people are against other people having a cat or dog.

I love my cat and I bought him! Yes, I bought him when he was just 2mos. at a pet store for $99(us) and if I could go back in time I'd have paid $5,000 for him! (I don't even have $5,000 but if I did I'd pay it!). And I love him and he loves me. He is not a slave and if anything he is spoiled and very happy. I don't think he would last a month outside all alone. He would probably get run over or freeze to death. He has always been an indoor cat and he has the entire place to himself (well with me and my boyfriend) and he sleeps with us everyday and wakes me up by jumping on my chest and laying on me like he's done for the past 3yrs. almost everyday! I doubt he would be as happy or even alive if I had gotten him from the pet store and threw him out into the woods 3yrs ago.
He is very happy and I don't abuse him or treat him like a slave. I don't see why anybody would be against pets as long as they aren't abused of course. I definitely think my life is much better with him than it would be without him and I plan on taking care of him as long as we both live. he is my friend(kid) more than a pet. We are both happy and everybody that meets him thinks he is the friendliest cat ever (he really is very friendly I know everybody must say that but he really is!). I think he is one of the best things to ever happen to me I don't understand how somebody could say it's wrong.

I find your response insulting. It is obvious you lack any fundamental understanding of the world we live in or how damaging invasive species of animals are to native species. Using a quick comparison to Hitler is also childish and side steps the issue at hand. I could just as easily say the factory farmers are similar to concentration camps, but I wish to elevate the dialogue a bit. I suggest you read up on the effects of invasive species before you make another comment like that. Ever heard of the dodo? Ever wondered why it disappeared? Read a book.

"Well, Adam, your views are right inline with one of history's more prominent figures: Adolph Hitler."

No no, I asked for an INTELLIGENT argument.

I think it is very difficult to make moral cases (apart from those related to the resources it takes to maintain animals) for or against keeping pets. This might sound silly, but it sounds like those who are certain that keeping pets is wrong assume that the animals would agree. In fact, we are not aware that they have any kind of moral system that favors freedom over captivity, domestication over wildness. Don't laugh--I'm actually serious here.

Also, not to get off the subject (and not to attack James), but I feel as though I'm constantly hearing people in this community pitting the notion of "human-created distraction" against the notion of "the world as it should be." How should the world be? Must we infer that "natural" (whatever that means) is absolutely equal to "good"? I consider myself a treehugger in every sense, but I don't think this is sound logic--in fact, that we are so guided by murky feelings that we have about things that "just aren't natural" (any discussion about peak oil is riddled with these kinds of vagaries) really concerns me. How is it helping us? Are we really being as objective and methodical as we could be?

My cat I rescued from an animal rescue shelter where she had been stawing unwanted for six months. Being an all white cat, and that her foolish previous 'care-takers' kept her out doors all the time, she had developed skin cancer and had had her ears amputated. (thus the lack of popularity at the shelter) Had I not picked her up, she would likely have been euhtnaized by now. Now she is indoors only, never having to fear for cars, predators, diseases, nor being shot at by 'ditch couger' hunters. The only things afraid of her are my hair-ties.

A non-Hitler comparing reason to keep an animal: Building a bond with a pet improves empathy for other living things in this world. It improves health, especially blood pressure.

That we regularly keep pets, and other domesticated animals (if well cared for) defines and elevates our humanity.

The pets aren't the slaves, we are.

"Just because humans benefit from another creature this does not make this form of exploitation necessarily valid."

Nor does it make it invalid. You haven't made an argument here.

"Just because these slaves (or animals) have contributed a great deal in the past does not mean that a society without slaves (or domesticated animals) is impossible."

Again, you make no argument, you simply try to conflate animal husbandry with slavery.

"The plan the vegan community has is to find alternatives to living in a society that is dependent on animals."

Uh huh. You gonna pollinate the flowers yourself?

"So far this approach has been wildly successful."

Oh? Then just let nature take its course, and you don't even need to argue your case.

"Please read any number of books on veganism and you will find a rich knowledge on how to live properly without exploiting animals."

Appeal to authority. This is an empty statement.

"We are the people who are ‘evolving’ and embracing a lifestyle more in sync with the environment and our own bodies."

This is a meaningless statement with respect to domesticated animals. Are you equally opposed to the numerous symbiotic relationships that are seen throughout nature?

"My views are a bit radical but I’m allowed to have them."

No doubt. We'll only have an issue when you wish to enforce your views.

"Think Avian Influenza."

Yeah. How many people die from diseases transmitted by dogs and cats? You need a better argument.

"How many native birds has you cat killed?"

Zero. They're indoor cats. What does the number of birds killed have to do with the discussion at hand?

Despite the other poster's revision to Hitler, I think your arguments don't hold a lot of water.

And if you'd like to come to my house to attempt to euthanize my cats, you'd better bring a lot of friends.

re: Lee G.
yeah, you can have my little Princess when you pry her form my cold dead hands. :D

I think it was American economist, Veblen who termed "Conspicuous Consumption" and at one point indicated that pets were such.

But he also had a dog.

I agree that it's Conspicuous Consumption to breed and keep pets, but of course I have a pet mouse.

And I love her and spoil her and she must have a mile of tubes to explore and plenty of food and water.

I can't see how having a spoiled pet mouse would be 'bad'.

I can certainly understand not wanting a pet, but this poll indicates, at least to me, that many people think owning a pet is morally wrong. I am shocked by this, pets are called domesticated animals for a reason.

I leave my cat to roam outside, yet curiously, he comes back home every day, happy to be in the warmth of the house with loving owners. If this is "unacceptable", what would you have me do? Release him into the wild to die? What would be the "acceptable" course of action now that I already have a pet?

Thank you, Lee Gibson, for practically submitting my response to Adam the vegan before I had a chance to do so. You missed a couple:

"People embracing a more traditional lifestyle are in fact the ones not evolving."

Let's make a couple lists of Nobel Laureate types who have made invaluable contributions to humanity through politics, science, etc.; one will be of "traditional" folk - and the other will be people such as yourself. Guess which one is longer?

Sorry, if that was ultimately as empty as your arguments. I only mean to demonstrate that people in a present tense can not measure their own evolution. Having read Diamond, you should know this.

"Just as rabbits should not be in Australia"

According to this argument, there should be no people in Australia either. Migration, whether at the hands of a domesticator or any other means, happens. There are countless examples of species other than humans affecting another species environment or living patterns, so don't try and blame humanity for any and all changes.

Now I have to wash my hands, dirty from responding to someone who actually attested to my modest proposal type question of "Do you propose euthanizing every domesticated animal?"

I still await a response as to what a responsible and sane person against domestication would propose to do with millions of animals. There are 174 of you here as of now. Speak up!

In response to Adam's post about the vegan cause I'd like to say that the 'vegan cause' isn't quite so defined. As a vegan, I understand, as I'm sure many of the non-vegans on this board do, the reasons you and I have chose to live this lifestyle. With your argument would I not be vegan or be less of a vegan because I have adopted a dog from a local shelter? Does the vegan cause really disagree with that? To my understanding veganism really just comes down to preventing as much suffering as you possibly can. Obviously a core of it is refraining from animal products but to say that living with an animal is not in line with the vegan cause is merely your interpretation of the vegan cause. it is not the vegan cause.

Fellow Treehuggers, why are you all so angry? Look at what's been written here: personal attacks on ones opinions, comparisons of persons to Hilter, cat calls to those who think differently, insults that my children would no better then to say, etc. For God's sake, this isn't even really an issue, it's more a matter of personal conviction.


How are we supposed to convince others that sustainability and environmentalism is a good thing, when we can't even agree among ourselves that's it's okay to have differing idea's of what sustainability and environmentalism are? How are we supposed to win elections with attitudes like these? Is this how you all talk to your friends when they question your Treehugger ideals? I sure hope not.


The reason none of those people are responding to your heckles is because they know you're here waiting to attack anything they say. You won't read it with an open mind, contemplate their words and think of a conscientious rebuttal; instead, you'll tear apart their ideas one by one and call them childish names while comparing them to the most detested person of the last century and using NRA slogans to goad them. Way to encourage open communication in a friendly community. Funny, Isn't that how Republicans do it?


C'mon, can't we all just get along? Or at the very least stop insulting each other?

The issue is not about existing domesticated animals (these obviously should be cared for and loved), but whether we should continue to breed them.

The ecological footprint of a house cat

Cats are domesticated animals, and together with food animals and humans, contribute to the earth becoming increasingly out of balance. Wilderness areas (and the wildlife it contained) have been displaced by agriculture to grow food for the increasing numbers of non-wild animals on the planet. Every non-wild being has an ecological footprint that is mostly made up of the farmland it takes to feed them. Carnivores need far more land than vegetarians because they eat other domesticated animals that have ecological footprints themselves.

Other ecological considerations are kitty litter, product packaging and transportation, and shelter. Heating and cooling may also be a factor by putting a constraint on how much you can adjust your thermostat while away or at work.

After living with other people's cats on two occasions, I wrote this article: Living with cats
People sensitive to vegetarian and environmental issues may find that owning a cat presents some tough ethical dilemmas.

Above is an excerpt

-RE:"If its inhumane to keep pets regardless of
-how the idea came to be, then, by the same logic,
-it is inhumane to keep plants in the house too,
-regardless of how the idea came to be.'

-There is no logical connection because animals
-have brains and are mobile. You own the animal,
-set boundaries on where it can go and when, what
-it can eat and weather it can reproduce."

You own the plant too, and also control where it can go and when, what it can eat and whether it can reproduce. In fact, plants even have a nervous system of sorts..just look at the venus fly trap.

I am so pleased to see that extremists like Adam are not the majority on Treehugger.

Lee Gibson and FAA did more than an incredible job of easily refuting such blanket assumptions and insults from him.

This arrogant view of complete sectioned isolationism across the entire globe is unrealistic and extremely self-destructive. As many before have stated, drawing a baseless correlation between any relationship between humans and animals as entirely slavery is plain and simple ignorance.

Hello
I selected "a totally unacceptable practice that should be discouraged no matter what", although I would have preferred the option "breeding is a totally unacceptable practice, but those domesticated animals currently living should be well cared for".

Basically, stop breeding animals, but care for those that are still alive.

I have helped care for animals from fin to feather to fur to scale. All were cataways, and I will continue to adopt animals from shelters, but never will I purchase from a breeder or store.

Am I so selfish that I believe that animals should exist for my entertainment? No.

So although, I have had many wonderful experiences interacting with these animals, I would prefer that the industry went away.

cheers!

I stand by my comparison of Adam to Adolph Hitler. His viewpoint is one of extreme inhumanity and excessive brutality. My comparison may be viewed as an extreme case, but it is spot on none the less. A position of "all _____ must be removed or exterminated" is not acceptable, whether in reference to human beings, domesticated animals, or any other living thing. Individuals (I do not use the word "people" in this case) who advocate this type of action at any level are flawed, deviant, and text book sociopaths.

Now, if the other 170+ respondents are of the same mindset as Adam, indeed they should stay silent, for I will certainly make the same comparison. If, however, any of them has a more compelling argument/solution, I'm all ears. My mind has been changed before, why not step up to the challenge?

Finally, I am glad some vegans took issue with this brute. I must say that it would be near impossible for me to find a vegan who advocated mass euthanasia for any living creature. Adam, you should be absolutely ashamed of yourself.

I think it's ideal that the pets be adopted from shelters or from accidental litters (no puppy mills, please!), but I see no reason to think it's terrible to keep a pet if it's well taken care of. My own cat has the run of the house, and she's more my friend than my pet. She's my baby, I love her to teeny little pieces, and I always always always try to do what's best for her.

I think the contemptous debate arises from wording of the poll itself.

To respond to the poster treehugger who said "For God's sake, this isn't even really an issue, it's more a matter of personal conviction."

I'd agree that it isn't an issue, as I am sure many who voted on the poll would as well. However, the poll is worded in such a way as to make it an issue, one that "should be discouraged no matter what"

As noted by the poster consumer_q, the real issue here that many might object to, is the continued breeding of domesticated animals, not the keeping of pets -- there is a distinction.

If all of those who voted "totally unacceptable" because they didn't think people should keep pets, even those adopted from a shelter, I would be surprised, and even annoyed.

However, I think this disagreement largely boils down to a poorly worded poll.

To Dave:

Please consider keeping your cat indoors. Yes, I know, that doesn't give them the neighborhood to play in, but they do a lot of damage to native bird populations. If you don't think you can do this but still need a companion, consider being a dog person. Dogs for the most part stay in the yard.

"How are we supposed to convince others that sustainability and environmentalism is a good thing, when we can't even agree among ourselves that's it's okay to have differing idea's of what sustainability and environmentalism are? How are we supposed to win elections with attitudes like these? Is this how you all talk to your friends when they question your Treehugger ideals?"

Huh. I must have missed the manifesto somewhere. I don't subscribe to groupthink. I came here to learn, and to discuss. If this site is simply about parroting some sort of party line, its usefulness to me is zero.

There are parts of the sustainability ethos that I find attractive. There are parts that I think are pretty silly. Isn't it up to each of us which is which? Aren't we all responsible to develop our own understanding of our place on Earth?

I wouldn't characterize myself as a Treehugger. That doesn't mean I can't learn anything from people who do. Are my views welcome here, or not? I'm proud to put my name on my thoughts. Are you?

I think that "winning elections" is the least relevant possible dimension of responsible living.

Eeep! I think I missed a clause in my unseemly haste.

"How are we supposed to convince others that sustainability and environmentalism is a good thing, when we can't even agree among ourselves that's it's okay to have differing idea's of what sustainability and environmentalism are?"

Treehugger, I couldn't agree with you more. You're absolutely right: When we adopt an "I'm Right and you're Evil!" attitude, bad decisions ensue.

I stand by the rest of my post. The way to make the world a better place is by personal action, not politics. I truly believe that the political system will never reliably achieve good ends while it is controlled by two entrenched parties.

Which is why I'd love to move to Mars and come up with a new Constitution, but that's another discussion.

Be bold in your thoughts. Be audacious in your arguments. Say what you mean, and stand up for what you believe. I hope we can all learn from each other here.

(for the record, I've got leather shoes on, and probably a bit of hamburger in my teeth. I like being an omnivore at the top of the food chain.)