Pets.ca - Pet forum for dogs cats and humans 

-->

Pet lovers aren't animal lovers?

Prin
November 30th, 2006, 03:50 PM
I've heard before from animal rights people that having a pet isn't right. Like they're our slaves or something, made to dance for us like circus animals...

And then I saw this quote recently from Jane Goodall:

"The more we learn of the true nature of non-human animals, especially those with complex brains and corresponding complex social behavior, the more ethical concerns are raised regarding their use in the service of man -- whether this be in entertainment, as "pets," for food, in research laboratories, or any of the other uses to which we subject them."

And I wondered what you all thought...

To me, fighting for animal rights is to fight for the rights of pets too. :shrug: And IMO, the service they give to us is sentimental, not in a work kind of way. Well, maybe in a farm sense, but wolves hunt, fish swim, and border collies herd. :shrug:

chico2
November 30th, 2006, 04:01 PM
Prin,I believe your first quote comes from Peta.:mad:

As for Jane Goodall,I saw a show she had,called something like"Talk to your animals"I don't think she means people should not have pets to love and be loved back.
She pointed out,that we should communicate with our animals,learn their body-language etc..
However there are,as we all know,pets who suffer greatly by their owners hands.
Where would all the millions of cats and dogs go,if we did not love them and took care of them? I think we know the answer to that question,since shelters are overflowing:sad:
Also I love all animals,wish we did not have to slaughter them for food,or use others in Circuses,Zoos,Bullrings etc....

joeysmama
November 30th, 2006, 04:07 PM
My cousin's daughter has a freind who is a strict vegetarian for religious reasons and also may not own a pet. I think they are Zaoists but I'm not certain and I don't want to offend anyone if I'm wrong about that. I'm not familiar with the doctrine of Zaoists and so I can't say any of that for certainty. But I know that this girls family does not believe in owning animals.

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 04:08 PM
That is crazy,where would all the animals go then???And pretty much my pet owns me...My pet has a great life sure beats living in a kennel or living outside where chances of something bad happening are almost guaranteed...I dont make her preform,or dress her up in costumes,yeah she has it made,,,,,,,

Prin
November 30th, 2006, 04:22 PM
Prin,I believe your first quote comes from Peta.
I wish you were right, chico...

http://www.janegoodall.org/chimp_central/conservation/issues/in_research.asp

chico2
November 30th, 2006, 04:29 PM
I sort of skimmed through that,but I agree with her completely on all her points about lab-animals,or animals brought to slaughter.
Peta did at one time say,all animals should be set free,including dogs and cats:frustrated:

CyberKitten
November 30th, 2006, 04:37 PM
I think PETA goes a little - OK, more than a little - too far for my liking. Don't forget that branch of PETA in the southern US (Va maybe?) where they killed all the cats they "saved". Better for them to die than to live as slaves to humans. Ughhhh!!

I do not think we should feel guilty about having companion animals and by the same token, I also believe animal rights includes companion animals as well - like the people who leave their cats outside and the poor beagle on Chico's street!

TeriM
November 30th, 2006, 04:41 PM
Setting all our pets would amount to cruelty IMO. That would be like setting free your child and expecting them to be able to operate without the life skills necessary in our big bad world.

re: animal testing (please don't shoot me for this) I do believe this is a necessary evil although I am completely against it for such things that are not life threatening (ie cosmetics etc) and believe that those animals who give their lives in service should be treated with the utmost care and compassion.

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 04:56 PM
That is just stupid,and where would we set all these millions of pets free?????Yeah that is a great idea,i know we can give them their own island and let them fend for themselves and probably killeach other

joeysmama
November 30th, 2006, 05:06 PM
I know. :frustrated: Cooper can barely fend for himself in our family room. How would he manage if we set him free?

I don't think we should start taking in the bears and the deer but come on !!! Dogs and cats?? What in the world would they do in the wild? Turning them out is cruelty plain and simple.

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 05:29 PM
It really is just a moronic idea or thought..And truthfully i 100% believe that dogs loveeeeeee being with humans ,cats ehh!! they could probably take us or leave us i dont know,,,,did i say that!!!:eek:

TeriM
November 30th, 2006, 05:37 PM
I sometimes get that feeling from my cats then I go away for a while and when I come back they follow me around like the dogs and demand cuddles. That usually lasts for about a week and then the novelty wears off for them again. :D But I do feel loved for a while.:thumbs up

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 05:46 PM
To funny,i feel the same i can hold her and give her kisses for about a minute then she is squirming her way right at of my arms and off to go do her own thing..BUt she really is good about being held ...ahhhh!!! i just love her ok sorry no thread jacking

happycats
November 30th, 2006, 05:46 PM
Maybe she meant the "pet trade" :shrug: and breeding, pet stores, byb?
Maybe just where they come from. ?

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 05:47 PM
That would make more sense...:frustrated:

cpietra16
November 30th, 2006, 05:52 PM
I, for one probably gets more from my cats and dog than they get from me...they give unconditional love. When I lived on vancouver island I saw many many feral cats who were just perfectly happy and healthy; sure they don't live for 20 years but they did have alot of food supply and they in turn were the cougars food supply...which is normal in my book.
Now when you add humans to the equation, well what can I say...it does not add up . We are selfserving, selfish, and have a sense of superiority that only humans feel they have a right to. :sad: Throughout centuries humans have been known to take from people, animals, land, and whatever our greedy hands can reach, so until we remove ourselves from the equation (NEVER WILL HAPPEN) this poor world will suffer...I think I need a glass of wine

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 06:49 PM
Without a doubt i agree i get much more from her then her to me ,she brings me a happiness that puts a smile on my face when i think of her,couldnt imagine life before her and could not imgine it without her EVER..I woudl die for her and i would die without her...They give a love like nothing else or any person in this messed up world could..She makes coming home so great..........:cat: :cat: :cat:

TeriM
November 30th, 2006, 06:55 PM
Heidiho, just think how much more love you can have with more animals :evil: . Everyone needs at least two or three or four or ..... in Hazel's case six. :D

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 07:04 PM
I know i already thought it would be great to have a friend for her,but she is all we can handle money wise right now,living here is beyond spendy,but someday after a few raises,she will probably get a buddy

technodoll
November 30th, 2006, 07:16 PM
i abhor what we are doing to the majority of animals on this planet, i really do. We strip them of their natural habitat and dessimate them through disease and hunger, we exterminate through hunt, we put them in cages, dress them up and whip them to ride bikes, we stick tubes and needles into their bodies for profit, we stuff them full of chemicals then brutally murder them for food, we bash their heads in and skin them alive for fashion, we torture and mutilate and force breedings and abandon and starve and - :yell:

to call man an "animal" is an insult to all these poor creatures who never asked for any of this. and providing food, shelter, love and care to a minimal percentage of these animals (most of them whose existence is because of man) does not negate our responsibility in this global mess.

So yes I do agree with Jane's statement :sad:

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 07:20 PM
Then I Take It You Dont Have A Pet???

TeriM
November 30th, 2006, 07:21 PM
Wow TD ... how do you really feel? (just kiddin)

Frenchy
November 30th, 2006, 07:23 PM
I think PETA goes a little - OK, more than a little - too far for my liking.

Same here :frustrated:

technodoll
November 30th, 2006, 07:28 PM
Then I Take It You Dont Have A Pet???

ha ha. aren't you always the funny one. :rolleyes: it's called an opinion, you know. i didn't ask you to agree. moving along...

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 07:31 PM
I Agree About Most Of It,circus Animals,dressing Them Up For Our Entertainment Etc Etc But Having Them For A Pet I Do Not Agree That That Is Wrong...judging By The Stray Cats That Hang By Our Place And Always Try To Come In And Seem To Love Getting Petted And Fed I Think Them Having A Home Is Alot Better Then Them Living In Bushes And Streets ...........

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 07:32 PM
I Am Not Trying To Be Funny I Am Simply Not Understanding That If You Agree With Jane Then Why Do You Have A Pet?>???

technodoll
November 30th, 2006, 07:35 PM
heidi you missed my point. thank GOODNESS some of us provide loving homes for pets. i'm all for that! but... how did sooo many stray cats happen anyways? you know? Nature always balanced itself before man wrecked it. BYBs, puppymills, petshops, irresponsible owners, etc... all this adds up to a big mess that a few people devote their lives to trying to clean up, but it's just not enough to revert to a healthy balance.

as for the situation with the rest of the animals on this planet (how many species of birds, insects, mammals, fish, etc) are on the brink of extinction, hunted by man? it's not normal, and it's not right :sad:

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 07:44 PM
I 100% Agree That Is An Issue I Have Right Now,just Was Telling My Boyfriend This Morning,the Mom Of Our Kitten Is Just Gonna Keeep Getting Pregnant Over And Over And I Would Like To Get Her Fixed But I Just Cant Afford To Do It,and I Am Trying To Figure Out What To Do..it Is Because People Are Irresponsible And Suck...i Do Not Have Many Sympathys To The Humans Who Like You Said Are The Cause Of All This Crap...and Then It Goes On The Shoulders Of People Who Do Care To Try And Fix The Damage That Has Been Done And It Sucks And That Is Why I Just Am Really Not So Much A People Person I Must Say That Is One Quality Pamela Anderson Has That I Do Admire Is Her Views On It.just Like The Movie They Are In Canada Doing No Live Turtles Allowed Or She Would Not Be Part Of The Movie. I Know She Is Not The Best Example But She Does Alot For Animal Causes And I Like Her And Respect Her For That

TeriM
November 30th, 2006, 07:47 PM
:offtopic:
Heidiho,
not to criticize but ... why do you put caps on the first letter of every word? I find it difficult to read like that. Again, sorry if I am offending.

heidiho
November 30th, 2006, 07:52 PM
Honestly i dont recall doing that,wow that is trippy

technodoll
November 30th, 2006, 08:02 PM
If you write your text in ALL CAPS, the message board will automatically convert the text to small letters but keep the first letter of each word in Caps. So just make sure to disable the CAPS LOCK on your keyboard next time :)

we3beagles
November 30th, 2006, 08:04 PM
Sorry to bring religion into this, but I believe it says we are to be stewards over the animals. This means to take care of them and use them as they were meant to be used. Some were there to be eaten, some to help us progress like years ago when people rode in horse drawn carriages, and I firmly believe some were meant to be companions. I truely see heaven when I look in my puppies eyes. I feel they are closer to the true representation that God meant us to be. They love unconditionally, humans could never do that.

A good steward never abuses the power they were given and respect the lives they hold in their hands. There are very few good stewards now days. Most of em are on this forum.:D

Golden Girls
November 30th, 2006, 08:16 PM
i abhor what we are doing to the majority of animals on this planet, i really do. We strip them of their natural habitat and dessimate them through disease and hunger, we exterminate through hunt, we put them in cages, dress them up and whip them to ride bikes, we stick tubes and needles into their bodies for profit, we stuff them full of chemicals then brutally murder them for food, we bash their heads in and skin them alive for fashion, we torture and mutilate and force breedings and abandon and starve and - :yell:Very well said

jiorji
November 30th, 2006, 09:01 PM
i'll have to agree. Many pets that we own today, many breeds were brought into the home as a LUXURY. Not because the explorers went around to South America and found a guinea pig who lived in the wild and thought "hmm i'll bring it home to Europe because he's got a terrible life here in his own habitat". Guinea pigs, for example, are domestic pets only because some guy thought they would sell to high class families in Europe. Same thing as laradoodles and Dobermans and all other breeds. Dobermans weren't a pure breed back in the day, neighter were GSD's or Great Danes or Dalmatians.

I don't doubt the love man has for nature and for animals, but man loves a bit too much. Why are there tigers in zoos and elephants doing acrobatics in circuses? Don't give me any of that "for the children" crap. An elephant shouldn't be anywhere near a beach ball. And a tiger shouldn't jump through hoops. What kinda of life is that? And then they wonder why animals attack. :rolleyes:

Yes we have pets and we love them but we need to draw the line. I guess to be a true animal lover, you'd have to be a vegan, and let your pets the way they were intended to: OUTSIDE! That is cats in the yard and dogs eating raw and also outside, unspayed, unneutered, HUNTING for their food. Of course I don't abide to any of this because I'm selfish and I believe my cats are better inside where it's warm and dry and they don't get raped by random tomcats, and they don't have to starve until some dumb bird falls prey to their claws. :o

LM1313
November 30th, 2006, 09:41 PM
Although I support responsible pet ownership, the fact is many people buy pets as accessories. The vapid girl with a "purse dog." The druggie who gets a pit bull because "they look scary." The woman who buys an akita to go with her Japanese decor. The people who can live with a dog for ten years and then abandon it at the pound without a twinge of conscience because "he's old." A lot of pets are abused or, at the very least, not living lives as rich and full as they should be entitled to. Even among well-meaning pet owners, you get the backyard breeder who wants puppies from Fluffy because "she's so cute" or the elderly woman who allows her chihuahua to become a tiny tyrant.

Under the right circumstances, pets enjoy our company and enjoy living with us. We selectively bred them to be so. I don't agree that having a pet is automatically a bad thing. But in many individual cases, due to ignorance, neglect, and cruelty, it is.

I think, and maybe this is what Jane Goodall had in mind, that society should take the needs and feelings of animals more seriously and realize that, hey, these critters have feelings. If you dump them in the pound, they feel fear just like we do. If you hit them, they feel pain just like we do. They're not sapient, but that doesn't mean they should be thrown away like yesterday's trash when they inconvience us or when we're tired of them.

Edit:

i'll have to agree. Many pets that we own today, many breeds were brought into the home as a LUXURY. Not because the explorers went around to South America and found a guinea pig who lived in the wild and thought "hmm i'll bring it home to Europe because he's got a terrible life here in his own habitat".

Oh yeah . . . "Exotic pets", as in undomesticated, should be left alone IMO. Dogs and cats, fine, they're already domesticated. Rabbits and ferrets, great. Mice and rats, yes. But do you know how they harvest chameleons for the pet trade? Locals catch wild chameleons, toss them in a sack, and ship them over to the US/Canada, where many immediately die of stress. Plus the chameleons grip twigs and branches so tightly that the "harvesters" often BREAK THEIR LEGS pulling them off trees! For God's sake, leave the poor things in the wild!

I don't doubt the love man has for nature and for animals, but man loves a bit too much. Why are there tigers in zoos and elephants doing acrobatics in circuses? Don't give me any of that "for the children" crap. An elephant shouldn't be anywhere near a beach ball. And a tiger shouldn't jump through hoops. What kinda of life is that? And then they wonder why animals attack.

There is nothing worse than seeing a dignified animal like an elephant or tiger being forced to perform inane tricks. Elephants in particular are completely unsuited to circus life and to the set up of most zoos. But the circuses upset me more than the zoos because at least the zoos generally aren't making the poor things perform idiotic, unnatural stunts.

jiorji
November 30th, 2006, 10:00 PM
even ferrets and rabbits were once wild. And hamsters. When I grew up we used to go buy "hamsters" from the market as pets and they were taken from the field and given as domestic hamsters. Because in Europe there's wild hamsters growing in the fields, so you can just go trap them and fool people into thinking their domesticated. They weren't bad, but I had this one that bit at almost any chance he got.

Prin
November 30th, 2006, 11:14 PM
I leave here for 10 minutes and look what happens!

Dobermans weren't a pure breed back in the day, neighter were GSD's or Great Danes or Dalmatians. Yes, but that's breeding. We do that with everything. Have you ever seen a natural cob of corn? It's pretty gross compared to what we're used to. We've been farming and altering things since we started- even before real agriculture, IMO.. We can't survive on our own and we, sometimes unfortunately, seek the best help available, whether that's GMO foods or dog breeds to help with farming, or messenger pidgeons for messenging (:o), or dogs for sniffing, etc etc.

IMO, there's nothing wrong with wanting help, as long as we respect those who help us.

I believe in my heart that I respect my dogs. I give them the best life and best care possible, beyond the usual "best care that I can" mantra that even abusers use. I've been unemployed for months now and the care of my doggies has not suffered as a result (just nobody ask my car how its doing these days, ok? :o). Honestly, I have even lost about 12 pounds since being unemployed, mostly because of cutting back on groceries, while my doggies have both maintained theirs. It kills me to hear people say "I'd go to the vet but I don't have money to." I don't have money to either. But I still have high speed internet and satellite tv and a car that I can get rid of if need be. Those alone would save me about $300 a month minimum. So as long as I'm typing here, I HAVE enough money to go to the vet.

Anyway, sorry bout that.. mini rant.:o

I do believe that if we appreciate and acknowledge that we are not superiors to animals but equals of different strengths and abilities, then maybe we can create a better situation. Unfortunately a lot of faiths put us above the animals, and to me that's just sad. "But we're obviously smarter than the animals" some say. Really? How so? Because we have proven that we can abuse everything "below" us to its demise? Because we have the ability to pass on more than genetics to the next generation? Look what we do with that ability! People who would never in a million years be able to make a gun themselves are killing people with them. Lot of good that does us. :rolleyes:


Anyway, I read Boo biology textbooks as I was studying because I was convinced he was learning something. I firmly believe we underestimate their abilities. Yes, we can train them to do things, but are we really harnessing their minds by doing so? If you read to a dog and he understands 10% of what you're saying, isn't that still a lot?

They say that dogs have the intelligence of 2 year olds (or up to 4 year olds sometimes), so why don't we read to them? I know most people here probably talk to them, but how? In sentences or just short words? While with a 2 year old child, you try to improve knowledge with every interaction, with dogs, we train and then stop when we get what we want. Then the dog performs the same tricks over and over for the rest of its life, occasionally learning a new one here and there.

It would be funny to see a child educator try the same processes on a dog as on a human, just to see if anything improves.:shrug:

I dunno, it's late, maybe I'm tired and rambling.

chico2
December 1st, 2006, 06:58 AM
technodoll,my sentiment exactly.
I am not even going to think about the rest of the world and their many evil deeds done to our animals.
Here in Canada,it would not take much to make sure animals used for our benefit,could still live in relative comfort,even lab-animals and animals brought to slaughter.Unfortunately our governments do not see Animal Protection as a priority:sad:
As for cats beeing aloof and independant,you have not met my guys:cat:
They are sooo afraid of being left outside in this big bad world,if I go inside for a minute,they all come running in,so much for wanting to be free:D

LM1313
December 1st, 2006, 11:49 AM
even ferrets and rabbits were once wild. And hamsters. When I grew up we used to go buy "hamsters" from the market as pets and they were taken from the field and given as domestic hamsters. Because in Europe there's wild hamsters growing in the fields, so you can just go trap them and fool people into thinking their domesticated. They weren't bad, but I had this one that bit at almost any chance he got.


Yes, they were once wild, but there are domestic lines--selectively bred to be comfortable and compatible with humans compared to the wild lines, just like dogs compared to wolves. Ferrets have actually been domesticated longer than cats have, I find it bizarre that places like California consider them to be "exotic."

heidiho
December 1st, 2006, 01:34 PM
Thank you that is what i was doing having caps on..nowadays you cant let your pets wander ,people steal dogs people are crule to cats so we really cant let them be 100% animals like they are because this world has to many sick people that do those things.

heidiho
December 1st, 2006, 01:35 PM
and the whole pet accesory thing is enough to make me sick to.i cant stand it.....

muckypup
December 1st, 2006, 09:12 PM
Pet lovers aren't animal lovers?

Agreed, although some can be. However I think if you love ALL pets their is a good chance you love most animals.

I think most people aren't really "pet lovers" there are "dog lovers," "cat lovers," "bird lovers" and having said that I believe there are many more "dog/cat/bird/reptile/rodent/etc" OWNERS than LOVERS.

chico2
December 2nd, 2006, 07:31 AM
I guess then I am not"most"people:thumbs up
Our choice of"companions"at this stage of our lives is our 3 cats,that does not mean I am strictly a cat-lover.
I actually do love and respect ALL animals,animals are not evil,unlike so many humans and if I could do more to stop the creatures on this earth from suffering at the hands of humans I would.
I have pets,because they give me comfort and make me happy and I would like to think I do the same for them.
A home without either furry,feathery or scaly companions is just not a home,or my backyard without birds at my feeders or squirrels,coons or any other wild animal would be like the end of the world:sad:
This morning I watched a beautiful Hawk looking for breakfast in one of my trees,yes,he will kill one of"my" birds but it's the way of nature and I don't admire his beauty any less.
So,in conclusion of my rant,do pet-lovers love animals?
This one certainly does:love:

LL1
December 2nd, 2006, 10:06 AM
I think the next and last line in that paragraph helps clarify her thoughts:

"This concern is sharpened when the usage in question leads to intense physical or mental suffering - as is so often true with regard to vivisection."

I agree with her.

OntarioGreys
December 3rd, 2006, 05:39 AM
I've heard before from animal rights people that having a pet isn't right. Like they're our slaves or something, made to dance for us like circus animals...

And then I saw this quote recently from Jane Goodall:

"The more we learn of the true nature of non-human animals, especially those with complex brains and corresponding complex social behavior, the more ethical concerns are raised regarding their use in the service of man -- whether this be in entertainment, as "pets," for food, in research laboratories, or any of the other uses to which we subject them."

And I wondered what you all thought...

To me, fighting for animal rights is to fight for the rights of pets too. :shrug: And IMO, the service they give to us is sentimental, not in a work kind of way. Well, maybe in a farm sense, but wolves hunt, fish swim, and border collies herd. :shrug:

The problem is the term, you are an animal "welfare" advocate which is totally different than animal rights. The term animal rights is often very misunderstood and misused by the general pet loving population, and it is a term that does not go hand in hand with pet ownership.



Animal rights means to give animal equal rights as humans have, there would be no such thing as ownership which is in their view is the same as slavery.

If you start digging around on the net about animal rights groups and pets, they do not view them the same as wild animals, pets are created by man, they would like to see all pets be neutered so when the current generation dies out there would be no more companion animals left alive.

"The cat, like the dog, must
disappear..... We should cut the
domestic cat free from our dominance
by neutering, neutering, and more
neutering, until our pathetic version
of the cat ceases to exist." (John
Bryant, _Fettered Kingdoms: An
Examination of a Changing Ethic_
(Washington, D.C.: People
for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals, 1982), p.15)



That would leave as canines wolves,hyenas etc the wild species. Some member even will go as far as saying and insect, snake or rats life is equal to you childs and if they were a threat to your child you should have no right to intervene, as it is natures way or letting only the strongest to survive.

This is also why donations to animal rights groups does not go directly to helping homeless animals at least very little does even though they have many of their heads running the Humane Society of the United States(a kill shelter) , it instead goes to politicing against animal use and abuse.

Less than $5,000, or .03%, of PETA's
$13.4 million budget was allocated to
shelter or spay and neuter program
in the U.S.

90% of the $1,485,076 PETA donated,
or $1.3 million, went to itself-that is, PETA's
satellite offices in Germany, The
Netherlands, and England.


The animal rights movement's main goal
is not, and never has been, to save or help
individual animals. Its mission is to market
its philosophy and lifestyle to the American
public-a lifestyle which is predicated on the
belief that the life of a rodent deserves the
same moral consideration as
the life of a child.



This site explains the difference , which are animal right groups and animal welfare groups and description of the work they do and how they go about

http://www.sover.net/~lsudlow/ARvsAW.htm

If you want to find more just do a google search on "animal rights vs welfare"


There is a problem with the whole issue of assigning rights to animals, one is that they can not understand what it means to have rights, they have no concept of morality, and they are unable to lay claims of their rights, nor do they grant rights amongst themselves
animals grant no rights at all to each other. Among animals, might makes right -- there are no such things as privacy, equality, due process, equal protection under the law, property boundaries, or anything resembling the complex structures we reasoning humans have put into place to safeguard our rights. This fact alone proves that animals are incapable of honoring the basic contract necessary for the existence of rights.

Skryker
December 3rd, 2006, 08:22 AM
Like chico, I love all animals and feel that a house needs an animal to be a full home. But I also don't feel so much that I OWN pets as that I have furry family members that I am responsible for. As for farm animals and wild animals-well, I'm an omnivore, am not opposed to responsible hunting and believe that humans interfere far too much with natural habitats. I know that my views could be seen as conflicting and hypocritical by many, but it's a personal philosophy based on respect for other living creatures and acknowledging nature's way (not that I wouldn't kill at rat or something that was threatening my child-what mother would not intervene? You can bet that animals WOULD fight to protect their young! Even a rabbit will attack those that threaten her babies, after all). I also don't expect everyone to share my views. :shrug:

I've seen this notion before, that pet ownership is somehow equivalent to slavery or exploitation of animals. :confused: I honestly don't get it. I know that there are people that are awful to pets out there, but I don't think that pet person automatically=animal abuser. I look at my spoiled fur-kids and really can't see how anyone would think I am demeaning them. Yes, they do tricks. Not for my entertainment (although I get great delight from watching them) but to keep their minds active and to strengthen the bond and obedience that exists so that if I have to call them back to me or out of danger, they will come to me rather than get hurt or (gods forbid!) get lost and potentially seriously injured or killed.

I can honestly say that Dancer would be dead if I hadn't taken her in off the streets. The vet said that she had about 2 weeks or so before the infected wound in her shoulder got so bad that she died. 10 years later, she is safe, well-fed, warm and comfortable and has repaid me a 1000 times over with love and affection. I think that if you could ask her, she'd tell you that being a companion animal and "exploited" is a fair trade for saving her from a nasty lingering death.

Prin
December 5th, 2006, 12:09 AM
The problem is the term, you are an animal "welfare" advocate which is totally different than animal rights. The term animal rights is often very misunderstood and misused by the general pet loving population, and it is a term that does not go hand in hand with pet ownership.Wow, great point. I prefer the WWF to PETA for sure. To me it's about protecting the animals where they are and helping the wild ones stay wild... You know?

Like chico, I love all animals and feel that a house needs an animal to be a full home. But I also don't feel so much that I OWN pets as that I have furry family members that I am responsible for.I agree with that too. I can't live without a dog. I can live without a home, without much food, without a man, but I can't live without a dog. I'd just freak out. I was raised almost by dogs. They took care of me, so not having a dog would be like not having any support system for me.:o