Anti-pet ownership.

AND, all cats aren't that way.

My ex-boyfriend's family has always had indoor-outdoor cats... They spend lots of time outside killing mice, and hunting...and come inside when it gets frigid and intense outside. They eat food from their dish, but also aid their need to hunt when they are outside...

MOST cats, if put outside at a young age, will continue to enjoy the outdoors and hunt as they were intended to... as a whole, their instincts, have NOT died.

 

Hey maybe I'm wrong, maybe pets are healthy in some cases such as yours, but I think in MOST cases, people don't know enough about animals to have pets and keep it healthy and beneficial for both parties.

 

Indeed...but either way, is sharing your home with them wrong?

Well, no

My mums cat couldnt live without her love and wouldnt want to. He gets what he needs and wants

The hunter type cats get to live out a natural life killing their mice or whatever and get a warm bed at the end of it!

I really dont understand the no pet argument

 

Ah, now thats truth, and a different story. Whats needed is education and a wider interest in non-human animals generally, not a ban on loving them and sharing your home with them

Needless violence and slaughter being erradicated would help our perceptions greatly. Then people would learn to respect the non-human animal rightly and so learn about them

There are however so many people who are great with their "pets" that the banning argument is just wrong

 

I disagree.
Do you even realize how much soy is used, aside from specialty burgers and milks? Soy is used in almost everything, the way it is...I hardly think it would be that big of an issue, and there are other options aside from soy itself too.

Instead, though, I'd be more worried about liberating cows, that, too have been domesticated, and have lost touch with their survival instincts.

In this particular argument, you seem to care a little more for our sake, than theirs... I don't understand your way of thinking, at all. Period.

It wouldn't be a big deal if pets vanished, but it'd be a big deal if we had some economic issues omitting livestock from our world?

Whatever.

By the way, BECAUSE we're omnivores, supposedly anyway, we are versatile. And our diets do NOT require as much protein as America seems to think it does.

If you take a look at MOST omnivores in the wild, MUCH of their diet consists of plants, and only a small portion of protein. Example: monkeys will use tools to gather ants from a tree for protein, but most often they snack on plants.

If humans can live eating all sorts of added crap in McDonalds all the time, I'm pretty sure they can survive off a plant-based diet...thanks.

P.S. Studies show that people with pets tend to have lower stress levels and such... Pets CAN be important to us, the same way that you think meat can. They can provide us with some health benefits, aside from "just being cute"

My cat serves a great purpose in my life... he totally keeps me mentally stable when I'm stressed out. I need him, just as much as the next person might need their chicken for protein.

 

Right, I don't disagree with you at all. To me, if the love is there, that's all that counts...

 

What don't you understand, that I place human life above an animals? Every species does this, even yourself. If you are true to yourself, you will realize that you also believe that a human's life is more important than a cat's or dog's. I would gladly have any of my pets killed to save the life of another human, even a complete stranger, if that improbable hypothetical situation were to occur.

If you still disagree consdier that we are the only species that is at least capable of putting another species before ourselves. That alone shows you we have more compassion and than any other lifeform on this planet.

A hungry deer does not question whether the plants it's about to eat are endangered or not. A deer population grown out of control will eat all avaiable food in an area and then move on or starve. They do not have the ability to check themselves as we do and say "hey we shouldn't fuck up this whole ecosystem, let's only eat some of this and then move on and let it re-grow, for the sake of the other, smaller organisms living here".

They feel a need to do something and they do it. That is how most animals operate. Yeah some animals share certain cognitive abilities with humans but no other animal than homo sapien has proven itself to have our understanding and awareness of the universe, especially the universe beyond the scope of planet earth.

I am not about to go into a detailed argument about WHY I consider humans a higher lifeform than any other animal on this planet but I will say that I do.

However I do feel that animals should not be made to suffer any more than they have to in the design of nature, and I would like to see big changes in or even the complete destruction of the meat market and institutions such as pet ownership.

Care for the current domesticated animals that we've put here, but stop breeding them and let them die out and end domestication. It's a long way off I suppose, but when we settle our own problems with each other as a species, we will turn to the way we handle animals and plants.

To truly love something you need to understand it and if you understand animals you need to realize that they are relatively powerless compared to us, that we are a superior species and power on this planet, and that it is our responsibility to handle all species of plants and animals with great care.

I do believe the humanity possesses agreater potential than any other animal on the planet to shape this planet to our will, but I also believe we must consider all lives as valuable while we make our decisions. We are all unique and beautiful entities. Every human, dog, cow, tick, mosquito, and blade of grass.

However we must make decisions about which lives we consider more valuable than others. It's inevitable. Do you hold a bacteriums life as valuable as your own? Not if your brush your teeth. Is a blade of grass as important as a rabbit or horse? I would imagine you don't if you feed grass or any other plant matter to your pets.

How is regarding a blade of grass as being less important than a cow any worse than considering a cow beneath a human life in importance? Can you really prove that grass does not feel pain? That it cares less about losing it's life than an animal does?

You can't prove it but to continue to exist you need to eat and to do so you need to convince yourself that plants are lesser life forms than animals are, or else you would suffer from guilt every time you enjoy a salad.

Likewise, I care a great deal about animals but I would eat my pets before I would eat another human, because I value human life above all other species.

 

Actually, I try not to place one above the other... I'd rather look at everything as equal.

Having your own personal survival instinct, is natural, and essential to your life...
but that doesn't mean you have to place your entire species, above another species.

That makes me laugh a bit. We have power, not understanding and awareness. I wouldn't say we're a higher life form, considering we destroy ourselves and the things around us, more than most other animals/plant life (I say "most",with the exception of other life forms such as disease)

If we had such a great understanding and awareness, we wouldn't be ignorantly killing our planet, and ourselves through our lifestyle(s)... we wouldn't be the one species to constantly poison ourselves with pollutants, intoxicants, and additives in our food. We wouldn't be the only species dumb enough to DO things, just for vanity and materialism. I would HARDLY say we are more understanding or aware than other species. If anything, we as humans, ONLY understand how to destroy everything around us.

We may have the ability to reason, and understand each other, and process emotions unlike most animals (which, can't really be proven anyway)... but we abuse it constantly, so how does that make us above anything???

You place humans above other life forms because you ARE human... do not try to deny that there is any more to it than that. And I am not saying that, that is necessarily wrong.. but don't spout off reasons we're more important, when there isn't a reason, for anything to be more important than anything else. We have strengths and weaknesses just like every other life form on this planet. It balances everything out. Everything is equal, because of that balance between strengths and weaknesses. Some birds have the strengths to kill a squirrel, while some much bigger animals have the strengths to kill that very bird. Balance, equality. There is no way to argue, or prove that humans prove to be a higher existence, than anything. And all forms of life are essential to each other. Without other forms of life, we as humans could not survive. We are dependent on the survival of other plants and animals, and some of those plants and animals are dependent on us to survive and pro-create, or, be preserved.

That's a whole 'nother discussion, I know... but I can't even pretend to ignore that incredibly careless statement you just made.

And I agree with that... and MOST pet owners, would handle their beloved animal companions WITH great care.

I agree...
and that isn't impossible... but to accomplish any of that, humanity in general needs to change...and what I'm asking you is, how do you propose we'd get humanity together to do that???

I share a lot of the same ideas as you do, regardless of how my argument may come across... and I am idealistic too, except, in order to ever accomplish the goal you have in mind, there are so many factors to be considered...more than your own mind can even fathom, and that is where the problem lies. Our minds are NOT developed enough, at this point and time, to achieve these ideals...maybe they will be someday... or maybe we will destroy ourselves before that time can ever present itself.

In which case... it is much more reasonable, possible, and wise to work with a middle ground... like, for example, your idea of making better laws for pet handling. But, in order to see a positive change, with even something less drastic such as that... there are still many things to be considered, along with coming up with a solution that can and will work for everyone. If you want to see these kinds of things change, you have to carefully think out, exactly how what you want, could work...what could make it work, if it's reasonable..etc.

Like, with a law such as that... what would be the guidelines? And how would this affect the animals themselves? If the laws were so entirely strict, that very few people were accepted to care for pets, then how many pets would be without homes, and/or shoved back into the wild, which they might not be ready for yet? or, would there be enough funding to make laws like this work? Also consider, vet jobs and such... how many certified vetrinarians might be out of a job because of lack of pet owners, or how far might a pet owner have to travel to take their pet for care, because of the low demand for vet clinics?

And the law would not have to be that strict, however, what guidelines would you propose, to balance it out, so that it wouldn't come to that?

Consider that, presently, there are laws protecting animal abuse/neglect...and any person reported for neglect or abuse of a pet would be charged accordingly, and their animals would be taken away from them, and into safety.

What else would you want besides that?? To take classes before being accepted to get an animal?

I'd really like to hear your ideas. It's great to have an opinion on how things should be, but you still need something to back it up, so that others can see how it could work...

 

I think the argument is just plane silly. It is proven that pets even just owning mice is very beneficial to people and the animals. For most people that own animals there is a great bond they are more than just pets they are part of the family. Animals for the most part are loved and cared about greatly and show the same kind of love to their owners. I have had animals all my life. I have had horses, cows, chickens, goats, hamsters, dogs, cats, bunnies and birds. All the animals we ever had where part of the family. All of my families where happy to see is all the time. It was a relationship of love and mutual respect. I think that is why part of the reason people argue again owning pets is because they don't understand the relationship. It is more than just pet and owner.

 

By the way, like you, I have a great deal of opinions on how I'd like things to be, what I see as wrong and right, etc...

The problem is...everyone has an opinion...and opinions start out innocent enough, and change can be wonderful...but it can also be destructive, and rather than help, it can send things backwards, instead of forwards.

Before stating an opinion, IMHO, you should always evaluate what solution you'd have to that particular opinion/change... and also evaluate your solution itself.

I do not disagree with the basis of a lot of your argument, but I am having trouble seeing how your opinion could work in reality.

If pet-owning was banned completely, hypothetically, how would you propose to restore all those already domesticated animals back to their natural habitats without them possibly facing endangerment/extinction? What steps would you take?
And how would a ban on pet-owning affect farmers who have livestock? How would you argue to the general population, that, that would be okay, but having a cat isn't?
How would you be able to regulate, that a farmer himself, wouldn't decide to keep a cow, simply for a pet? (My uncle actually does this... he owns a farm, and generally keeps one of each type of animal he has, as a pet, to love and care for)
And how would that be fair, to the rest of the population?

And if it were to come down to laws and regulations, what would they consist of? And what types of animals would be O.K. to be kept as pets, and which wouldn't? Would everything from number of children, to residence be included in the guidelines to owning a pet? If you were expected to take a course, in learning about cats, for example, in order to own one, would there be a fee? How would you go about choosing who is educated enough to teach others about cats? How could you assure that, say, if the proper way decided to care for a cat, was to be indoor-outdoor so they could practice their hunting, that someone wouldn't just keep it indoors all the time? How would you argue, when people start complaining that there are too many cats running around, and are being hit by cars? And if that kind of thing wasn't required (having them be indoor-outdoor) what is the point anyway?

In order to change things, you have to make your argument agreeable with the general population, something that everyone can agree to, and handle accordingly. Something that won't fuck with the economy too much, etc.

(Not saying that economy is that important to me, but it is to most people)

The reason that things are as fucked as they are in today's world, and the reason there are many unnecessary, or many underdeveloped laws, is because people forget to consider alllll these factors, and heavily concentrate on how the change could possibly destroy things... people become too one-sided on things, when they get stubborn on their own opinions, thus jump into change/laws/whatever and end up in many bad situations, because of failure to see beyond their own points of views, and how it might affect the big picture of things.

And undoing something thats already been done, like domestication, is a very, very fragile and difficult thing to handle...

 

I am not proposing an actual change or series of changes to arrive at an end state of petlessness, just bringing up the topic because it's one argument where I can really understand where the minority viewpoint stems from.

I don't know how you would actually resolve this conflict, but that was never my intention. My intention was to defend those against pet ownership, against pets being considered property in general. Eventually, this more coherent mentality would change the way livestock are raised and slaughtered.

The issue is not just pets but of animals in general, and the way we've taken the reigns from nature, removed natural selection from the process entirely and bred miniature dogs with health problems, cats that don't know how to hunt, and other deviations from nature.

Also I disagree with you saying that humans only know how to destroy. It's because we're human that you and I actually care about all of these other species that have nothing to do with our own immediate survival, and why we're so concerned about environmental concerns and global changes. Hell why we can even begin to understand the various factors that create global change.

Humans are destructive because the powerful few have not learned the dangers of keeping the majority of humanity in the dark. Humankind has limitless potential because we can choose our nature. We can choose to stay selfish and greedy or learn the joys of sharing. A cheetah cannot decide to stop killing deer because it disagrees with the principles of killing another mammal for food, but a human can do just that.

We ARE much more aware of our actions and the world than animals, and we have cognitive abilities far beyond the scope of what any animal has chosen. Scientists become existed to learn when animals can use basic tools. Do you know of any other earth born species that has constructed vehicles that can leave the planet and study the universe around us?

Every other species of animal is forced to follow the laws of nature while humans can break them. Why? Because we can understand the laws of nature, and not as driving feelings we are powerless to stop as animals feel them, but as mathematical rules that we can choose to adhere to or not.

The problem with humanity is that most people are in the dark of what we really know and understand as a species, because a materialistic and greedy class of elitists are afraid of losing their wealth.

Humans are not evil, no more so than any other animal, we just have so much more power than any other life form we know of. And you're right, the majority of humankind are ignorant and not very aware of the truth, but a human, as an indivdual life form, is the most aware animal in the world. That is why we are able to study the world around us, master the sciences, and then create inventions based on what we know about how the world works. Gunpowder, airplanes, anti gravity devices. What other animal on earth has the ability to comprehend and create as we do? The proof of our intelligence is in our technology.

Now, all lifeforms want to preserve their own lives and the lives of their species and if other animals had the ability to comprehend the laws of the universe, if they could use them as we could, they would. They would not sit back and allow themselves to be eradicated by other life forms.

I don't think there is any intentional wisdom on the part of animals adhering themselves to what seems to be as perfect a system as we've seen (nature). They are forced to do so by their design. If they could understand the world in the way that we do and control the elements of nature to do our bidding as we do they would.

Because of free will, humans do not have a design. We create our own design.

And until there is proof of another species that can create it's own design, it's own destiny, that does not have to live under the restrictions of instinct (because none of us have to give in to our instinctual urges, it's a choice we make to do so when we do), we are forced to regard ourselves as a different class of lifeform from anything else on the planet.

Have you ever seen a cat torture a mouse and then just leave it to die when it's mortally wounded? I have, and I know that if any human treated another life like that I would consider him or her a cruel and sadistic person. Yet when a cat does it I say "it's in it's nature, I can't hate it for that".

Why do we hold humans to a higher standard of compassion and intelligence than cats? Because we KNOW better.

 

I don't agree on a total ban on pet ownership but I'd like to bring up points of consideration that are rarely brought up.

Environmentalists often bring up human population number in regards to the impact on the ecology. But pet populations grow in proportion to human pop., wildlife pop. does not. Simply the more humans, the more humans with pets. There are ecological consequences to that.
We know the ecological impact of the meat industry well some of the meat industry goes to service pets cos dogs and cats are carnivores. So if you feed your pet commercial pet food you are supporting the industry.

If you feed the pet meat you hunted...
and BTW now is the opportunity for me to comment on those who support the notion that humans should hunt their meat rather than grow it... in a world of 6/8/12+ billion ppl that would put tremendous stress on wildlife numbers cos unlike livestock, wildlife numbers don’t grow in proportion to human pop. growth. We run the risk of losing even more species due to over-hunting if not enough ppl adapt to a vegetarian lifestyle. Likewise if you feed your pet hunted meat.

If your cat is an outdoor hunter, mice are not all they catch. They hunt birds, some of which are endangered. So as the outdoor cat pop. rises this puts more stress on endangered bird species. This is often countered by putting bells on cats to alert birds. But this is not always done so we still have a situation with a rising outdoor cat pop. without bells.

Dogs need off-leash areas in the inner city. Right here in Toronto dog walkers are demanding more off-leash areas and this is bringing them in discord with ppl with small children. Dogs jump on the children, some attack, children roll in the grass that may have dog excrement for all we know exposing them to e coli. These problems will only grow with growing dog (and human) pop.

Other considerations…

For some ppl who are socially-challenged owning a dog may be a good starting point to learn to develop relationships with other beings.

Pets are often the first animals that children meet and so help them value animals and thus value nature.

I’m not supporting a total ban cos pets are beneficial, just that we shouldn’t let the numbers run heedlessly. Just some food for thought.

 

i buy pets that were brought up in a house, raised by a family. i love my cats, and cant imagine life without them

i think its horrible that my brother and is gf decided to "fix" them- when im older, i WILL NOT do THAT.

i think its alright if thats how they were raised. i mean, i wouldnt take an animal from the forest and train it to jump thru hoops for me.

 

Man, some of these animal rights activists are nothing short of retarded.

 

I think keeping pets is fun, as a hobby. They give unconditional love if treated right. They should not be treated as humans though. They have their place, and that is as part of the natural world. Man is a part of the natural world too, but Man is able to reason and do far greater things than any beast. People spend inordinate amounts of money feeding and caring for their pets. It might be advisable to rethink getting that dog or cat. Plus, if you are renting an apartment, or are looking, you may not have the option of keeping a pet. That could be bad if you have become attached to your pet. As Bob Barker said," Have your cat or dog spayed or neutered." There are far too many unwanted animals.

 

Yeah, we should address the unwanted animals issue before considering this ban. That's a real problem, I was reading that the other week and had that on my mind on that when I replied to this post but didn't bring it up.

Getting a pet is not a trivial decision and should never be given away as pets.

Ppl often pressure me to get a pet.
They ask me if I have one, I say no, then they say why don't you get one. It's almost as if if you don't want a pet it's cos you don't like pets. That's not it at all, I like other ppl's pets and they like me cos I give them the attention they so starve for... maybe that's why ppl ask.

Anyways I can list a million reasons why I don't want one and ppl will counter each one with this or that. Geez ppl, let it go, this is not a trivial decision, so many pets end up abandoned.

 

i'd rather see someone who didnt want a pet not get a pet than be pressured into 'rescuing' one from a shelter. pets can only be 'rescued' by people who are willing to give them the love and attention they deserve.
I couldnt imagine life without my dog, we have a brother/sister bond, not a master/slave relationship

 

I have to say . . .

bere with me in drunk BUT

the way the world is today with people breeding and not wanting animals we HAVE to have pets, is it better that a cat dies or gets rehomed with someone it loves and someone who loves it?
With nature reserves the things people have done with animals we need to keep the species alive or they will to the same way as the Dodo

 

Where do you draw the line between livestock and millers? Pet millers think they are just filling a financial market.

Pet's aren't the problem or responsible owners. The problem are irresponsible people that seek to make a profit by breeding irresponsibly and overflooding the existing market. People that breed for dog fighting. Livestock breeders that don't follow the market or care for their animals. Casual breeders that think they'll breed Fifi for fun.

The whole problem is with human's feeling superior. Most responsible pet owners don't, what they wish is to share their lives with creatures that are more understanding and capable of uncritical coexistance than most human's.

Are you going to demand that farmers can't have working dogs, but are you saying if an animal like a horse, dog, elephant will do your work for you it's alright.

That's bullshit.