Is it ethical to have pets?

[mahoutragicqueen]

People have changed the environment so much that many animals face starvation and overpopulation if it wasn't for artificial population control. Deer overpopulate because humans shunk the rage of wolves and moutain lions. If it wasn't for euthinasia and spay/neuter, the streets would be overrun with cats and dogs.

 

[Macx]

Brought 'em home from the local no-kill shelter. These two are cousins, their mothers are sisters on a goat farm. Woulda been a shame to separate them, glad we took them both.

Previously, I have been involved in Great Dane rescue working through breed specific rescue orgs both as a foster and an adopter. When I have space again, I expect that I'll rescue another Dane, will keep the cats and add a Dane.

From an ethics standpoint, yeah, I think it is ethical to keep pets . .. if you keep them. If you want pets and find you can't handle them, find a no-kill or a rescue society. If you want pets and can keep them, go for it . . . no kills and rescue org are a great way to get great pets. If more folks adopt from those sources demand goes down at the puppy mills & the unethical folks have a harder time making a buck at it. So, I strongly encourage anyone who is considering a pet to check for breed specific rescue orgs first (if you are looking for something in particular) and then take a look around your local no-kill. I was hoping for a black domestic shorthair cat, look how great it worked out for me!

My fostered Dane was a great story . . . I'll revisit the thread to share that in a lil bit.

 

[Penumbra]

Mankind has bred dogs for various kind of tasks, and, when it comes to researching the various breeds, inevitably you come across some breeds that had no apparent purpose except for companionship. Take the Bichon Frise for example. This is a breed of dog that if owning pets somehow became illegal, the breed would not survive because it is a) small enough to become coyote food, and b) willing to please humans.

I have heard of bichons who were young and healthy when their owners passed away and they would do nothing and eventually died of a broken heart/starvation.

I think that if we did not have pets, we would have a lot MORE animals die on a daily basis than we have now. And, if you spay or neuter early enough, the animal doesn't know what they're missing.

For better or for worse, humans have domesticated animals for several uses, one of them being companionship. It's not like we can reverse thousands of years of history by no longer having pets. If we did that we'd see more animal cruelty, suffering, and death than we would ever imagine.

This seems only true if we do it abruptly. If humans made a gradual change towards not having pets, I don't think much or any of these negative things would occur. Breeds would indeed die out but only because people slowly discontinue breeding them, not because all of them are put out and left to die.

People have changed the environment so much that many animals face starvation and overpopulation if it wasn't for artificial population control. Deer overpopulate because humans shunk the rage of wolves and moutain lions. If it wasn't for euthinasia and spay/neuter, the streets would be overrun with cats and dogs.

If it wasn't for euthanasia and spay/neuter, we likely would face a large increase in stray cats and dogs, but only if we do so abruptly while continuing to breed them.

If spaying and neutering continue as they do now, but breeding is slowly decreased due to people not wanting pets, then we shouldn't have any sort of increase like that.

I'm not saying this is what will happen or that it necessarily should occur. I'm just saying that if we choose to discontinue the practice in a responsible and gradual way (and let's face it, this sort of thing would never be abrupt), then we could do so. We're not locked in by past choices, only by present choices.

-Lyn

 

[Rebekka]

Awwwwww. They're so fond of each other. I had two sisters who were like that (in affection, not in appearance). One of them died. The surviving sister was depressed for many weeks if not months. Animals are more intelligent than a lot of people think.

We have rescue cats too.

 

[No Swansong]

I'm still kind of waiting for a clear argument against having pets. Why exactly would it be considered unethical assuming the pet owner is a responsible and humane owner?

 

[Penumbra]

I'm still kind of waiting for a clear argument against having pets. Why exactly would it be considered unethical assuming the pet owner is a responsible and humane owner?

Waiting for an argument from who? Me?

The purpose of my thread wasn't to present an argument against pets. It was to question whether owning pets is ethical. I just view it as a sort of questionable and weird.

-Lyn

 

[Girlee]

Is the modern practice of having pets ethical?

Let's take a cat as an example. Is it ethical for someone to pay others who breed domesticated cats, and then take it home and surgically disable it from reproducing, and then put it in an environment where all of its instincts are null and void, as it is given food and love and attention and just sits on the couch?

-Or a bird with clipped wings, often kept in a cage, but well-cared-for otherwise?
-Or a snake, well-fed, but kept in a tank all the time?

-Lyn

I must say that our cats and dogs instincts are far from null and void.
Maybe they are somewhat different than they would be in the wild, but they still act on their instincts.

For a well cared for animal, it is a trade off. They don't have to hunt for food, and we offer them protection. They offer us love and companionship. And in the case of dogs, (and my siamese cat), protection. Other skills that help man as well.

Animals just kept in a cage all the time with no natural stimulation or things like that, no, I don't agree with. But the normal dog/cat (or other) relationship, yes, I believe is ethical.