Is keeping pets Cruel ?

Originally Posted by Samnooshka

For me its not the fact we keep animals as pets, as all of you know i have a dog myself (a completely spoilt one maybe!!), for me its the money making side of it that really gets my back up. The breeder we have chosen for our next pup doesn't breed to make tonnes of cash, she breeds to better the breed and bring something new to the show ring and breeds fantastic working dogs... due to the popularity of Alaskan Malamutes and Siberian Huskies, and this popularity is growing by the day...

I was walking past the pet store in town the other day and there was a Husky pup in the window. Now, while looking quite cute, I wondered how ethical it was to breed/import a dog breed to a climate that is far removed from their native climate! The UK is different and has quite a changeable climate, but Sydney!?? Warm and sunny? Just doesn't seem right.

Originally Posted by Blue_SV650S

e-SHOUTING IS DONE IN CAPITALS if you don't like my writing style or thoughts, then move along ... nothing to see here!!

Gaaaaar! He's right Bugger Bugger BUGGER

*moves along*

Here's a way of thinking about it:

I don't "own" our cats. I'm responsible for them. We make considered decisions about their lives on their behalf. That responsibility extends not just to the individual critter but the entire species. We had our cats neutered, and that's definitely not for their own benefit but to better manage the species as a whole.

In the same way, I'm also responsible for the cow that provided yesterday's yummy steak.

And I'm responsibe for the other cow that provided my bike leathers. And the kangaroo that supplied the hide for my gloves.

And I'm responsible for the rabbit which died in the process of testing the drugs I use, whether those be life sustaining drugs, or simply the ibuprofen needed to clear my hangover.

All these furry critters fulfil human needs, the need for food, the need for warmth and protection, the need for medicine, and the need for recreation. Recreation is arguably just as important a human need as the others, perhaps not as immediately fatal as the others if withdrawn but nevertheless critical to human survival.

If the uses we put these creatures to are considered, the urgency of the need weighed and the creatures cared for "humanely" as best as possible, then yes, I'd consider their use ethical.

who owns your cats then?

Originally Posted by blueto

who owns your cats then?

Legally? UK law treats cats as objects, things, no different to a stereo or telly in terms of legal ownership; as such speaking purely legally, our cats are "owned" by my other half.

But that's purely a legal definition. By pure legal definitions it could possibly be argued that you and I are not free but ourselves owned subjects of the Queen.

But stepping out of pure legal definition I'd say our cats are ownerless, myself and my other half are merely responsible for their well being. They began life as ferals and thanks to free access to a cat flap they're able to leave and revert to a feral life should they wish. The rare occasions we deny them of their liberty are to act upon other areas of our responsibility, ie to take them to vets occasionally, or when the "rights" of our cats conflict with our responsibility to some other furry critter - ie. when our cat drags a half dead critter through the cat flap we're now also responsible for this other critter too and will seperate them.

I dont see anything wrong with keeping pets; most owners provide a safe environment for them to live, and food is always in supply, as well as a warm place to sleep.

Maria has a few pets; A cat (tigger), two guinea pigs which are allowed to roam around the garden at their pleasure (they are locked away at night though so the foxes dont get them), and two tortoises, also permitted to roam the garden at their pleasure (also have a suitable cage to put them in at night, so they dont get taken).

They are all healthy, happy and free

The cat dosnt do much anyway, it can go out if it wants but chooses to sleep, mostly on my work.

Matt

Our cat Frankenstein (yes black, but no not a she poor confused creature) can come and go as he pleases but is normally in the house when we are home and isn't co-erced into staying. Ok the rabbit doesn't, but when we put her in the garden she just hops to her run and waits by the door until we open it.

When they are ill they go to the vets, the eat the healthiest food we can get them, just spent 30 euros on a drinking dome for the cat because he doesn't like drinking from a normal bowl.

So no I don't think it's cruel. I think having pets and not looking after them is cruel - but that'sa totally different question

Stu

Originally Posted by Blue_SV650S

What gives us the right to breed animals (worse still in some cases capture) to be kept as pets?

These are living beings, not toys!

It has become accepted, but is keeping pets purely for our pleasure not immoral on the highest order??

Interesting questions Blue. I have considered them before but not come to a satisfacory conclusion.

Capturing wild animals to have as pets is a bit different to having domesic animals as pets and definitely not something I could consider moral.

Breeding domestic animals to have as pets is a difficult one and I really can't decide. Although I err on the side of thinking that it probably isn't moral.

But I'm a hypocrite and have 2 cats.

SO unless we think humans are more valuable than other animals.

We are..

The End...

Jas...

Originally Posted by Ablazze

We are..

Why?

What makes us so darn important?!!?