nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Pets.

kneemos

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

kowloon

Every cat I've had has gone for rodents, the dogs were pretty good at ratting and the poultry/waterfowl eat insects and everything else all the while laying better eggs than the ones you can buy. But that's not why I keep pets. They calm me down and stop me from burning everything in a vengeful fire.

Rubeter

Couldn't imagine life without dogs in the house, and don't know how I would have recently handled what was emotionally the hardest time of my life without them.
Security, companionship, loyalty and just plain good fun. Definitely our oldest and best friends in the (non human) animal kingdom. Dogs, I salute you.

[Deleted User]

Wibbs wrote: »

And have been for a very very long time. At least 20,000 years and likely more like 40,000 since we said "you know Paddy, I reckon those big hairy dangerous things might be handy to keep around". The wolves said similar. Some have suggested it's why of all the other humans we won the we're taking over this planet race.

Dog(cats too) owners live longer and are healthier, mentally and physically than non pet owners. They're also more sociable so there goes that ballsology for the high jump. Just the action of stroking your pet lowers blood pressure and calms us. It goes both ways too as tests on dogs and cats show it chills them out too.

Then again maybe I'm just petting a troll? Not nearly as relaxing. Well god I hope he/she is a troll, the alternative is a tad concerning.

It's ok wibbs I'm not a troll :pac:

the_syco

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

How do you justify giving free money to anyone who has been on social welfare longer than 10 years, who are younger than 65 and are fit and healthy?

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

if dogs won't form packs I would think they'd be at a disadvantage.

Maybe not. Loose associations may be more adaptable. They're not nearly so rigid and can grow to large sizes. The wolf xenophobia would keep their individual pack numbers lower by comparison

I could even see wolves targeting dogs if the dogs become competition.

Oh they do already in such areas. Dogs are targeted. However wolves tend to start moving out of the areas where dogs are. In the case of the Ethiopian wolf dogs, their diseases, interbreeding and competition has threatened their population numbers in a big way.

I'm also guessing without humans around wolves numbers would shoot up and they'd be better at tackling large prey like cattle. Wild dogs seem to be more like scavengers than hunters.

Wolves are scavengers too and most of their hunts for big prey actually end in failure. Rodents and such make up a large part of wolves diet. Dogs also can reproduce twice a year(and can vary all over the place coming into season), whereas wolves only once a year. Right there is an advantage. Plus in a wolf family group only one pair reproduce whereas with dogs it's more like a free for all. And on top of that wolves are rare enough, even extinct in some areas, whereas your mutt is one of the most populous mammals on the planet.

charlietheminxx

I don't agree with breeding animals outside of working dogs.

I love both my cat and dog, and my dog is the most mixed of mixed breeds and the smartest little thing ever.

I wouldn't get rid of my pets for anything. Yet despite loving animals I have a job, loads of friends, a great relationship and a wonderful family. Go figure :P

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

They got such a cushy number you'd wonder which of us is really smarter.

Oh I personally believe that while we clearly selected for features and bred those that suited us, the first contact as such between us and the wolves who were to become our dogs came from them.

The idea that we sought out these apex predators as companions/hunting weapons/warning animals falls flat for me on a few points.

First of we don't like apex predators muscling in on our food supply. At all. When we modern humans leave Africa we start wiping out shedloads of apex predators(either by competition or directly) in every area we move into(something previous humans don't seem to do). We don't like wolves either. Even before Christianity that really sealed their fate(lamb of god and what eats lambs?) we weren't keen on them at all being around us.*

We're damn fine hunters on our own without help. Take our older cousins the Neandertals, they had no dogs yet you wouldn't want to be a large animal carrying around juicy steaks in their territory.

Wolves/dogs would be an extra mouth to feed and they need plenty of grub.

Wolves, at least adult wolves don't bark so not much cop as a warning. Plus their usual response to danger is GTF outa Dodge. Very sensible. If you had a wolf as a guard dog and a burglar came in the front door, the back door would be open with your wolf looking back at some distance thinking "why isn't monkey boy running?".

We are about the most efficient renderer down of a carcass there is. We'll eat the lot and what we don't eat we use as thread, or clothing or tools, even personal adornment(pretty much nothing outside of mars bars eats teeth, but we'll fashion them into a natty necklace given half a chance). Scavengers would get fierce anorexic following us around. However they might follow us around cos we're gangbusters at following and predicting prey movements, so they could take down the animals we didn't.

Years ago I read an old book of a guy who hung around with great plains American Indians back in the 19th century and his observations on their interactions with their dogs and wolves was interesting. They had dogs, but didn't use them for hunting. They used them for three things, warning barks, pack animals and in times of need, food. The dogs were generally ownerless. They belonged to the tribe, milling around the camp and got scraps where they could, but supplemented this with small scale hunting of rats and such. Beyond the camp there were wolves who seemed to follow the tribe as they migrated through the year following the bison. Matings between wolves and dogs were common enough and he remarked that some of the dogs were more wild than tame.

This arrangement would answer a few questions. EG black wolves get that colouring from domestic dog blood. Wolves when tame can read humans nearly as well as domestic dogs can and we're pretty good at reading them too. In fact they can understand pointing, just like dogs, but unlike other great apes who haven't a clue what a pointing finger is for. Interestingly wolves can do something in reading us that dogs can't do. If you've got a tame wolf in front of you relaxed and that and you turn your head to look at something they mirror that consistently, "what's monkey boy looking at?" kinda thing. Some dogs can do this, but rarely and not consistently. I strongly suspect we have been interacting with wolves and us with them for many thousands of years and over that time and in a few places, at different times the dog as we know it came out of all that.

I'd add in one other route, the lone wolf, excluded from the family pack. Even today lone wolves like this will approach humans and dogs. There was one in Canada recently that would play with dogs on walks with their owners and another in Sweden a few years back. Currently there's one in Finland who has decided to adopt a bear. Like you do.

*Us Irish being a schizo buncha nutters had an odd relationship with them. On the one hand the legends are full of wolves killing and eating people. We seemed to have had a real hardarse strain here. Well just look at the size of an Irish Wolfhound. On the other hand the Brehon laws have a section on pets. Pets were a big thing even back then. All sorts too. Not your common budgie, oh no. Herons of all things were very popular. One sainted monk or other used to have his follow him everywhere. We had pet badgers and pet foxes and yep pet wolves. If your pet wolf ate the neighbours sheep or whatever, it was down to you the owner. Unlike today, the wolf wouldn't get put to sleep/killed. Nope you'd get a big fine and have to buy your neighbour a new sheep. Or whatever. The very sensible attitude was along the lines of "jaysus Brian, he's a wolf FFS. It's not his fault, that's what he does. It's his thang *who's a lovely boy, yes you is, oh yes you is*. You let him ramble on his own, what did you expect? He'd come back with a cabbage in his mouth? It's your fault so cough up 5 silver pieces and buy Padraig a sheep. Or whatever. And cop on would ya FFS! Mind you he's very friendly isn't he? I've got all my fingers back".

[Deleted User]

Must say Wibbs, that was a damn fine post

Wibbs

Jake1 wrote: »

Must say Wibbs, that was a damn fine fcuking longwinded post

FYP

cathalomurchu

What? I cannot comprehend the idiocy... No, that just wont work....

annascott

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

Is this the biggest troll ever to grace boards?

DamagedTrax

ScumLord wrote: »

Working dogs are a bit different in that they're breed for physical condition which is more in line with natural selection. But even so, if your breeding within a breed you're working with a limited amount of genetic material. It's inbreeding plain and simple. You don't need to be fixated on a breed's characteristics because they're not guaranteed, what happens to the pubs that don't show the desired traits?

i can only speak of the breeds that i know of and so because of what these breeds are capable of, breeders have historically culled pups that showed bad temperment towards humans.

i know culling sounds harsh and its not something i'd personally like to be involved with (i dont breed so it wouldnt be anyway) but i'd rather a smaller gene pool of even temperament than a larger gene pool full of man biters. breeding blood back in across 4 or 5 generations in dogs isnt quite the same thing as humans.

wild dogs will breed 1st to 2nd generation, as will unscrupulous breeders but thats one reason we have pedigrees, so we can choose not to accept bloodlines that are too tight.

ScumLord

kowloon wrote: »

Every cat I've had has gone for rodents,

We're actually thinking about getting a cat at work. The factory is in the middle of a field and at this time of year we get overrun with mice. I'm not sure if it would work though, Im guessing just having the smell of a cat around the place would discourage many mice from entering.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe not. Loose associations may be more adaptable. They're not nearly so rigid and can grow to large sizes.

I could see that dogs would be willing to form very large groups as needed but the fact they're not always a large group could be their disadvantage. As a large pack dogs would be unstoppable. I was watching a documentary about war dogs in ancient armies and the thought of 400 70lbs dogs running at you is scary. But as a disjointed unit they could only instill fear and confusion (and of course the odd injury) but I'm guessing the tried and tested wolf pack would have the edge on a neither here nor there animal that's lost it's niche. I'm sure dogs would find their place but I think they'd end up like your dingos, one step below the wolf pack at the dinner table.

Dogs are targeted. However wolves tend to start moving out of the areas where dogs are.

Would that have more to do with us though? Where there's dogs there's more than likely humans.

Wolves are scavengers too and most of their hunts for big prey actually end in failure.

True but they have a proven track record. It would be interesting to see how a sheep dog would find it's niche. It could potentially keep a herd of sheep under it's control to be feed on any time it likes. Imagine a pack of sheep dogs herding sheep after humans.

Rodents and such make up a large part of wolves diet.

I could see the terrier finding its niche there. Nothing compares to a terrier style dog when it comes to killing large rodents.

And on top of that wolves are rare enough, even extinct in some areas, whereas your mutt is one of the most populous mammals on the planet.

Without humans around though, they thrive. Chernobyl has a healthy population of wolves for the first time in decades now that humans have been forced out of the area.

Wibbs wrote: »

First of we don't like apex predators muscling in on our food supply...

...Wolves/dogs would be an extra mouth to feed and they need plenty of grub.

PBS did a great series on the history of dogs (yes I get all my information from documentaries:o) and they reckoned that early humans had loads of food waste or at the very least the smell of dead animals would have peaked the interest of every meat eater within miles of a human habitat. I see it every day with crows, they are borderline ready for domestication. It's crazy how in tune with humans they are, I've noticed a lot of them on the road of late and their awareness of cars is incredible. They know the difference between road and footpath and can predict where a car is going. The crows in my town seem to have a routine that knows when humans will be dumping food and where. Crows are my new obsession.

Wolves, at least adult wolves don't bark so not much cop as a warning. Plus their usual response to danger is GTF outa Dodge.

That same documentary promoted barking as one of the major benefits of having dogs in your village, no living creature could sneak up on your village when you have dogs.

Years ago I read an old book of a guy who hung around with great plains American Indians back in the 19th century and his observations on their interactions with their dogs and wolves was interesting. They had dogs, but didn't use them for hunting. They used them for three things, warning barks, pack animals and in times of need, food. The dogs were generally ownerless. They belonged to the tribe, milling around the camp and got scraps where they could, but supplemented this with small scale hunting of rats and such. Beyond the camp there were wolves who seemed to follow the tribe as they migrated through the year following the bison. Matings between wolves and dogs were common enough and he remarked that some of the dogs were more wild than tame.

I'm guessing the PBS documentary got a lot of their information form that guy so. It just became a thing that both parties saw the benefit and at first reluctantly allowed their presence but then fell head over heals in love with each other.

I strongly suspect we have been interacting with wolves and us with them for many thousands of years and over that time and in a few places, at different times the dog as we know it came out of all that.

Seems most likely and given the time frame we're talking about there's plenty of time for it to happen. Experiments with domesticating foxes shows it happens pretty quickly under controlled circumstance. It's odd that mechanism is there in nature.

Jake1 wrote: »

Must say Wibbs, that was a damn fine post

Wibbs doesn't know how to make any other kind of post.

Wibbs

ScumLord wrote: »

I could see that dogs would be willing to form very large groups as needed but the fact they're not always a large group could be their disadvantage. As a large pack dogs would be unstoppable. I was watching a documentary about war dogs in ancient armies and the thought of 400 70lbs dogs running at you is scary. But as a disjointed unit they could only instill fear and confusion (and of course the odd injury) but I'm guessing the tried and tested wolf pack would have the edge on a neither here nor there animal that's lost it's niche. I'm sure dogs would find their place but I think they'd end up like your dingos, one step below the wolf pack at the dinner table.

Maybe, though if you went back 100,000 years and looked at us modern humans and then looked at Neandertals/Denisovans, which would you place a bet on? The weaker, but more gregarious African lads and lasses, or the small mobile pack built like tanks lads and lasses?

Would that have more to do with us though? Where there's dogs there's more than likely humans.

Oh sure we play a part, no doubt about that, but dogs reproduce faster too, with or without us.

True but they have a proven track record. It would be interesting to see how a sheep dog would find it's niche. It could potentially keep a herd of sheep under it's control to be feed on any time it likes. Imagine a pack of sheep dogs herding sheep after humans.

The only bit missing from a sheepdogs herding is the kill at the end and they're better than wolves at the herding bit(though I do recall reading about some mad American lad who tried training wolves to herd. One man and his wolf, now that's a show I'd watch, though I suspect PETA would have a shítfit

I could see the terrier finding its niche there. Nothing compares to a terrier style dog when it comes to killing large rodents.

+1 Ever see a terrier go through a barn after rats. Bloody hell. The best ratters on the planet. They make the most murderous moggie look lazy.

Without humans around though, they thrive. Chernobyl has a healthy population of wolves for the first time in decades now that humans have been forced out of the area.

True. Chernobyl is now one of the most biodiverse area on the planet. European bison are another winner there.

PBS did a great series on the history of dogs (yes I get all my information from documentaries:o) and they reckoned that early humans had loads of food waste or at the very least the smell of dead animals would have peaked the interest of every meat eater within miles of a human habitat.

Well we do bring animals back to camp to render them down and then dump the little that's left into middens, so that concentration of smell would likely attract animals alright.

I see it every day with crows, they are borderline ready for domestication. It's crazy how in tune with humans they are, I've noticed a lot of them on the road of late and their awareness of cars is incredible. They know the difference between road and footpath and can predict where a car is going. The crows in my town seem to have a routine that knows when humans will be dumping food and where. Crows are my new obsession.

Incredibly clever animals the corvids. Some of the most intelligent animals on the planet. They surpass most primates in reasoning ability. There was a brilliant example of this in Austria IIRC. Where the locals would go ice fishing in winter(well unless your name is Jesus summer would be difficult). They would cut holes in the snow, drop a baited hook on a line attached to a twig stuck across the hole. Come back next day and bobs your mothers brother. The crows had other ideas. During the night they'd check each line to see if there was a fish on and haul it out, leaving the humans with nada. They were even observed throwing the hook back into the water.

I'm guessing the PBS documentary got a lot of their information form that guy so. It just became a thing that both parties saw the benefit and at first reluctantly allowed their presence but then fell head over heals in love with each other.

Pretty much. With cats it seems we selected them directly and they've been a bit so so about the arrangement since then.

It's odd that mechanism is there in nature.

It is. My take would be that it's a survival mechanism in infant and juvenile animals. An instinct to try to bond with anything, even another species just to survive. A more subtle cuckoo in the nest mechanism. Infant animals are seen as cute and not just by us it seems. Look at the examples of dogs raising kittens, lion cubs etc. This instinct is lost in maturity. About the biggest change that happens in domestication is neoteny*. The animal remains in a juvenile state for life. Broadly speaking a dog is "just" a juvenile wolf. They never grow up. You could keep a baby wolf up to puberty as a pet handy enough. Yes they'd be more resource guarding and you couldn't leave them alone or you'd come back to a disassembled house, but otherwise fairly OK. The problems would start when they hit puberty and then you'd be dealing with an adult wolf, which might look vaguely Husky crossed with German Shepherd, but it would be no dog.

*I'd further believe that modern humans are domesticated/neotenous versions of earlier humans, but that's for another day.

BeerWolf

ScumLord wrote: »

I would put at least 50% of the blame with the people who buy the dogs. If you want a dog to look a particular way then you're contributing to the problem. Buying a pedigree dog means you're encouraging people to breed genetic abnormalities into dogs. I have no problem with people owning dogs (well I do have a problem with city folk getting dogs as an accessory) but buying predigree dogs is wrong IMO.

While I agree with you about pedigrees, I personally have never bought a dog... always from the pound, don't fool yourself into thinking there's any 'natural' dog breed - there is NO natural dog breed... every single dog breed are due to human intervention that dates all the way back to their wolf ancestry.

Optimalprimerib

kneemos wrote: »

Is it time to ban pets as they use up dwindling resources?and how do pet owners justify spending money on a pet when it could go to the needy?

You should start by giving up your internet connection and selling your pc to give that money to the needy.

kneemos

Optimalprimerib wrote: »

You should start by giving up your internet connection and selling your pc to give that money to the needy.

The PC doesn't eat meat.

OldNotWIse

Artful_Badger wrote: »

And you wont hear me condoning it, I've spoken extensively about that before on here and ultimately ended up with he same view I'm getting here. Which was "I want this, I want that" was enough justification for a human being to do whatever they wanted.

Just to nip this in the bud now I'm not of the opinion of that last posted who got the boot. I am not judging pet owners nor do I think any less of them. I know plenty of people who have pets, I like those pets, I think animals are great and who wouldnt want a happy little well cared for creature brightening up their lives.

BUT... Just as with a lot of other things I think there is a certain responsibility which all consumers much share when it comes to the negative fall out of the demand being met. And I cannot personally justify animal ownership so as a consumer I address it the only I can. I dont contribute to demand and I explain why if I get the opportunity. I didnt start this thread, I'm not on a one man campaign, I just happened along and gave my opinion.

Fair enough

I justify (if I must lol) owning my own pets as they are all rescues who probably would have ended up dead if I had not taken them. They are all someone else's rubbish

I dont contribute to the supply and demand, I simply clean up after it!

ZiabR

Knex. wrote: »

Right on, OP.

And with the Earth dwindling, we should stop wasting resources on humans too. How can we justify keeping our parasitic species alive to the detriment of the planet, and all other species on it?

Just leave my woofins alone.

Completely agree! We are a cancer of this planet. Move to an area, consume EVERY resource and then spread to another. We need to take a long hard look at ourselves. India for example need to introduce and population cap like China. One child per family. The population of the Earth is already too high...

Advances in Medicine, people are living longer and so taking more resources, something has to give...

Oh but hang on, lets remove all pets and animals... its not like they have a right to be here to.

OP, comments like that make me SICK.

OldNotWIse

ScumLord wrote: »

It's not a one way street you know, dogs get a great deal especially now since their one of the first species in history to practically go into retirement. They get all the benefits of humanity, housing, medical and protection. Having a larger animal with a massive brain looking out for you is a huge benefit to any animal. They got such a cushy number you'd wonder which of us is really smarter.

lol

I dont agree with this quite 100% (because I think sadly, its somewhat negatived by those among us who do unspeakable things to animals that trust them) but...one of the best posts I have ever seen

kneemos

logik wrote: »

Completely agree! We are a cancer of this planet. Move to an area, consume EVERY resource and then spread to another. We need to take a long hard look at ourselves. India for example need to introduce and population cap like China. One child per family. The population of the Earth is already too high...

Advances in Medicine, people are living longer and so taking more resources, something has to give...

Oh but hang on, lets remove all pets and animals... its not like they have a right to be here to.

OP, comments like that make me SICK.

You'd rather see humans than animals suffer?

OldNotWIse

kneemos wrote: »

You'd rather see humans than animals suffer?

Do you need a dictionary?

kneemos

OldNotWIse wrote: »

Do you need a dictionary?

A Thesaurus maybe.

ZiabR

kneemos wrote: »

You'd rather see humans than animals suffer?

That is not what this is about, it is our blatant lack of respect for the planet we live on. We are destroying it and we have no care for anything but ourselves. Its disgraceful.

Everything on this planet has the same right to live as we do, what makes us so special? Nothing...

We are the only species that destroys our habitat for our gain. We are so short sighted.

eisenberg1

ScumLord wrote: »

?

Pretty much all inbreed.

No, cant agree

Nobody thinks twice about purebred dogs, nobody realises it's probably two closely related dogs that mated,

I check the lineage to ensure they are not closely related

Genetic abnormalities are an accepted part of breeding purebred dogs at this stage.

Not by me.

There are, without doubt, people overbreeding dogs, and dogs being bred/sold for the wrong reasons, but you cannot tar all owners of pedigree dogs with the same brush

twinytwo

kneemos wrote: »

With billions of people going hungry I'd be more concerned food supply than fossil fuels.

Actually without fossil fuels, a hell of a lot more people would be hungry.

6th

Rather than get rid of pets how about we focus on making better use of pets or getting more useful pets? A goldfish can't unload the dishwasher ..... useless!

u_c_thesecond

kneemos wrote: »

The PC doesn't eat meat.

eats electricity though

ScumLord

BeerWolf wrote: »

While I agree with you about pedigrees, I personally have never bought a dog... always from the pound, don't fool yourself into thinking there's any 'natural' dog breed - there is NO natural dog breed... every single dog breed are due to human intervention that dates all the way back to their wolf ancestry.

A natural dog breed would be one that is breeding under survival of the fittest. All you have to do is look at some very large and very small dogs to see that's being abused. The likes of pugs couldn't survive on their own, they can barely live without human intervention.

At the end of the day everythings natural, but we are essentially in control of this species, I think we have a responsibility to ensure we at least keep them healthy. Any breed that has a high number of birth defects should be banned and that list is a long one. Most of the breeds we have today didn't exist 300 years ago.

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe, though if you went back 100,000 years and looked at us modern humans and then looked at Neandertals/Denisovans, which would you place a bet on? The weaker, but more gregarious African lads and lasses, or the small mobile pack built like tanks lads and lasses?

It's a good point, on paper it would seem unlikely that we'd survive and go on to dominate the planet.

The problems would start when they hit puberty and then you'd be dealing with an adult wolf, which might look vaguely Husky crossed with German Shepherd, but it would be no dog.

That PBS documentary I keep going on about showed an American women trying to raise wolves as dogs to see if it's nurture that domesticates them. She found the same, a bit of a handful as pubs but once they turn into adults they want to be the Alpha even if that means going through the person that raised them.

*I'd further believe that modern humans are domesticated/neotenous versions of earlier humans, but that's for another day.

I've wondered that, am I a wild human animal living as a wild human should or am I domesticated by society even though society is a natural part of human existence. Is the process of learning manners as a child a form of domestication?

eisenberg1 wrote: »

There are, without doubt, people overbreeding dogs, and dogs being bred/sold for the wrong reasons, but you cannot tar all owners of pedigree dogs with the same brush

eisenberg1

I'm not tarring those dog owners but they are ultimately responsible, even with the best intentions, whether they realise it or not, their demand is the cause of overbreeding. Just like whether I like it or not the phone I bought may well have contributed to the death of a child in Africa.

The fact remains though that the dogs gene pool is under attack from pedigree breeding, it causes untold suffering in many dogs and I think it's wrong. But I accept most people haven't really considered the problems of pedigree dogs, it was a shocking realisation to me and I only came to that realisation in the last few years, so I spent most of my life in ignorance.[/QUOTE]

Debate is good, and we all learn something from it. this one could go on for a while, bottom line is, most people on this thread do care for their pets...education is the key. I am not an authority on dogs, but I don't go round buying iffy dogs from the back of a van, and the there are certain breeds you must be very careful about, King Charles, GSD's, Bulldogs to name a few, and by the same token, certain "flaws" would not stop me buying a dog (eg a Ridgeback without the "ridge", a Dalmatian with enough spots or whatever.

That's it, I am bow(wow)ing out