What's new

Should We Stop Keeping Pets?

s28

ODI Debutant
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Runs
9,388
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en-gb"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">Interesting article Agree we are guardians not owners Should we stop keeping pets? Why more & more ethicists say yes <a href="https://t.co/wRDjQp5u6W">https://t.co/wRDjQp5u6W</a></p>— Peter Egan (@PeterEgan6) <a href="https://twitter.com/PeterEgan6/status/892724670260236292">2 August 2017</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
 
It was a Tupperware tub of live baby rats that made Dr Jessica Pierce start to question the idea of pet ownership. She was at her local branch of PetSmart, a pet store chain in the US, buying crickets for her daughter’s gecko. The baby rats, squeaking in their plastic container, were brought in by a man she believed was offering to sell them to the store as pets or as food for the resident snakes. She didn’t ask. But Pierce, a bioethicist, was troubled.

“Rats have a sense of empathy and there has been a lot of research on what happens when you take babies away from a mother rat – not surprisingly, they experience profound distress,” she says. “It was a slap in the face – how can we do this to animals?”


Pierce went on to write Run, Spot, Run, which outlines the case against pet ownership, in 2015. From the animals that become dog and cat food and the puppy farms churning out increasingly unhealthy purebred canines, to the goldfish sold by the bag and the crickets by the box, pet ownership is problematic because it denies animals the right of self-determination. Ultimately, we bring them into our lives because we want them, then we dictate what they eat, where they live, how they behave, how they look, even whether they get to keep their sex organs.

Treating animals as commodities isn’t new or shocking; humans have been meat-eaters and animal-skin-wearers for millennia. However, this is at odds with how we say we feel about our pets. The British pet industry is worth about £10.6bn; Americans spent more than $66bn (£50bn) on their pets in 2016. A survey earlier this year found that many British pet owners love their pet more than they love their partner (12%), their children (9%) or their best friend (24%). According to another study, 90% of pet-owning Britons think of their pet as a member of their family, with 16% listing their animals in the 2011 census.

In the US, 1.5m shelter animals are euthanised each year. Photograph: Getty Images/iStockphoto
“It is morally problematic, because more people are thinking of pets as people … They consider them part of their family, they think of them as their best friend, they wouldn’t sell them for a million dollars,” says Dr Hal Herzog, a professor of psychology at Western Carolina University and one of the founders of the budding field of anthrozoology, which examines human-animal relations. At the same time, research is revealing that the emotional lives of animals, even relatively “simple” animals such as goldfish, are far more complex and rich than we once thought (“dogs are people, too”, according to a 2013 New York Times comment piece by the neuroscientist Gregory Berns). “The logical consequence is that the more we attribute them with these characteristics, the less right we have to control every single aspect of their lives,” says Herzog.

Does this mean that, in 50 years or 100 years, we won’t have pets? Institutions that exploit animals, such as the circus, are shutting down – animal rights activists claimed a significant victory this year with the closure of Ringling Bros circus – and there are calls to end, or at least rethink, zoos. Meanwhile, the number of Britons who profess to be vegan is on the rise, skyrocketing 350% between 2006 and 2016.

In 1877, the city of New York rounded up 762 stray dogs and drowned them in the East River
Widespread petkeeping is a relatively recent phenomenon. Until the 19th century, most animals owned by households were working animals that lived alongside humans and were regarded unsentimentally. In 1698, for example, a Dorset farmer recorded in his diary: “My old dog Quon was killed and baked for his grease, which yielded 11lb.” However, in the 19th and 20th centuries, animals began to feature less in our increasingly urban environments and, as disposable income grew, pets became more desirable. Even as people began to dote on their pets, though, animal life was not attributed any intrinsic value. In Run, Spot, Run, Pierce reports that, in 1877, the city of New York rounded up 762 stray dogs and drowned them in the East River, shoving them into iron crates and lifting the crates by crane into the water. Veterinarian turned philosopher Bernard Rollin recalls pet owners in the 1960s putting their dog to sleep before going on holiday, reasoning that it was cheaper to get a new dog when they returned than to board the one they had.

Nine per cent of British pet owners love their animal more than their children. Photograph: Getty Images/iStockphoto
More recently, however, several countries have moved to change the legal status of animals. In 2015, the governments of Canada and New Zealand recognised animals as sentient beings, effectively declaring them no longer property (how this squares with New Zealand’s recent “war on possums” is unclear). While pets remain property in the UK, the Animal Welfare Act of 2006 stipulates that pet owners must provide a basic level of care for their animals. Pets are also property in the US, but 32 states, as well as Puerto Rico and Washington DC, now include provisions for pets under domestic violence protection orders. In 2001, Rhode Island changed its legislation to describe pet owners as “guardians”, a move that some animal rights’ advocates lauded (and others criticised for being nothing more than a change in name).

Before we congratulate ourselves on how far we have come, consider that 1.5m shelter animals – including 670,000 dogs and 860,000 cats – are euthanised each year in the US. The number of stray dogs euthanised annually in the UK is far lower – 3,463 – but the RSCPA says investigations into animal cruelty cases increased 5% year on year in 2016, to 400 calls a day.

“Can I stick my dog in a car and take him to the vet and say: ‘I don’t want him any more, kill him,’ or take him to a city shelter and say: ‘I can’t keep him any more, I hope you can find a home for him, good luck’?” says Gary Francione, a professor at Rutgers Law School in New Jersey and an animal rights advocate. “If you can still do that, if you still have the right to do that, then they are still property.”

Crucially, our animals can’t tell us whether they are happy being pets. “There is an illusion now that pets have more voice than in the past … but it is maybe more that we are putting words into their mouth,” Pierce says, pointing to the abundance of pets on social media plastered with witty projections written by their “parents”. “Maybe we are humanising them in a way that actually makes them invisible.”

If you accept the argument that pet ownership is morally questionable, how do you put the brakes on such a vast industry? While he was writing his 2010 book, Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat, Herzog was studying the motivations of animal rights activists and whether it was emotion or intellect that pushed them towards activism. One of the subjects, Herzog says, was “very, very logical”. After he had become a vegan, eschewed leather shoes and convinced his girlfriend to go vegan, he considered his pet cockatiel. “I remember; he looked up wistfully. He said he got the bird, took it outside, let it loose and it flew up,” Herzog recalls. “He said: ‘I knew she wouldn’t survive, that she probably starved. I guess I was doing it more for myself than for her.’”

If dogs could talk, they’d tell us some home truths
John Bradshaw

Although Pierce and Francione agree that pet ownership is wrong, both of them have pets: Pierce has two dogs and a cat; Francione has six rescue dogs, whom he considers “refugees”. For now, the argument over whether we should own animals is largely theoretical: we do have pets and giving them up might cause more harm than good. Moreover, as Francione suggests, caring for pets seems to many people to be the one area where we can actually do right by animals; convincing people of the opposite is a hard sell.

Tim Wass, the chair of the Pet Charity, an animal welfare consultant and a former chief officer at the RSPCA, agrees. “It has already been decided by market forces and human nature … the reality is people have pets in the millions. The question is: how can we help them care for them correctly and appropriately?”

If the short history of pet ownership tells us anything, it is that our attitude towards animals is prone to change. “You see these rises and falls in our relationships with pets,” says Herzog. “In the long haul, I think petkeeping might fall out of fashion; I think it is possible that robots will take their place, or maybe pet owning will be for small numbers of people. Cultural trends come and go. The more we think of pets as people, the less ethical it is to keep them.”
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't mind parrot's and rabbit's etc. Cat's and dog's, never. Cat's are to dirty were as dog's can become wolves anytime. They are very unpredictable animal's who have the capability to kill.
 
Guardians and NY times really need to put in more analysis on their articles,they are completely losing it.

Cynical article for sure,instead of arguing against pet industry takes a dig at humans and how maybe its better to not treat them as living things.
 
Last edited:
Pets are always here to stay.

What I don't agree with is wild animals like Tigers or monkeys being kept as pets. Utterly ridiculous and zoos or circuses that keep animals in cages should be shut down.
 
Never a fan of any kind of pets. Animals should never live among humans IMO.

Dogs/Cats are all domesticated. Deep down, they are killers like Wolves.
 
Plenty of ignorant remarks in this thread, predictably.

The endgame of relations between humans and non-human animals should of course be all species sharing the Earth in harmony.

However given the place we are in at the moment - mass agricultural murder, disgraceful barn conditions, fur overcoats, bullfighting, puppy farming, chemical testing for cleaning products, big game hunting, bird shooting, badger baiting, travelling circuses etc - QUALITY pet ownership (and I abhor neglectful pet ownership as much as the next person) is one of the few good things that we can do for animals.
 
Last edited:
Pets provide good company and make the owner feel special, so I support owning pets. When they grow old they can always be euthanized, and another set of cute little things brought at home to keep us company.
 
My son insisting for birds for his b'day and I offered him the condition to stay in a locked room for three days first.

Am I cruel?
 
My son insisting for birds for his b'day and I offered him the condition to stay in a locked room for three days first.

Am I cruel?


The thing is these birds are domesticated. They wouldn't survive a single day in the wild/open. The cage/house is what they know.
 
The thing is these birds are domesticated. They wouldn't survive a single day in the wild/open. The cage/house is what they know.

If we put humans in cages for generations and keep killing the "bad rebel ones", we will get "domesticated" humans eventually.
 
Stockholm syndrome.

It is NOT Stockholm syndrome. It is actually cruel to let a domesticated Animal out in the wild as it will die. Plan and simple. These animals were not meant to live out there

If we put humans in cages for generations and keep killing the "bad rebel ones", we will get "domesticated" humans eventually.


Yes the process of domestication was terrible but now that it's done it is what it is.
 

Karnataka moves to criminalise unsafe pigeon feeding in urban areas​





The department noted that unregulated pigeon feeding has led to excessive bird populations in densely populated areas, resulting in sanitation issues and increased health hazards, particularly for people vulnerable to lung-related illnesses.



The Karnataka government has initiated steps to regulate and, where necessary, prohibit the feeding of pigeons in public spaces across the state, citing growing public health risks. The move follows concerns raised by health authorities about respiratory illnesses associated with prolonged exposure to pigeon droppings and feathers.

In a letter dated December 16, the Health and Family Welfare Department asked the Urban Development Department to issue directions to the Greater Bengaluru Authority (GBA) and all municipal corporations to immediately implement regulatory measures. The department noted that unregulated pigeon feeding has led to excessive bird populations in densely populated areas, resulting in sanitation issues and increased health hazards, particularly for people vulnerable to lung-related illnesses.

Health officials warned that medical evidence links exposure to pigeon droppings and feathers to conditions such as hypersensitivity pneumonitis and other chronic respiratory diseases, which can cause serious and, in some cases, irreversible lung damage. The department said municipal authorities must act to mitigate the risk of disease spread arising from such practices.

Under the proposed framework, feeding pigeons will be prohibited in locations where it causes a public nuisance or poses a health risk. Feeding may be permitted only in designated zones, which must operate under controlled conditions and limited hours. These areas are to be identified in consultation with stakeholders, with responsibility for their upkeep and compliance placed on recognised charitable organisations or non-governmental organisations.

The government has authorised local body officials to strictly enforce the guidelines. Officers may issue on-the-spot warnings, impose fines, or initiate prosecution against violators. Legal action can be taken under provisions of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, including Sections 271 and 272, which deal with negligent and malicious acts likely to spread infectious diseases dangerous to life, carrying penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment.

The department also directed municipal corporations to undertake public awareness campaigns to inform citizens about the health risks associated with pigeon feeding, the regulatory framework being introduced, and the penalties for non-compliance. Authorities have been asked to use signboards, banners, and digital messaging, while also promoting alternative and humane methods of bird conservation that do not compromise public health.

In its note, the government referred to similar action taken in Mumbai, where the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation sealed pigeon-feeding enclosures following directions from the Bombay High Court to address public nuisance and health concerns. Officials said civic bodies in Karnataka already possess sufficient statutory powers under existing laws to take preventive action.

These powers include provisions under the Greater Bengaluru Authority Act, 2025, and the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976, which enable local authorities to enforce public sanitation standards and prevent the spread of diseases. The Health Department emphasised that the objective of the move is not to target animal welfare practices but to strike a balance between humane treatment of birds and the protection of public health in increasingly crowded urban environments.




@Rajdeep @cricketjoshila @Champ_Pal @JaDed @Devadwal @uppercut @Theanonymousone @straighttalk @Vikram1989 @Varun @Romali_rotti @Bhaijaan @Cover Drive Six @rickroll @RexRex @rpant_gabba, @Romali_rotti @kron @globetrotter @Hitman @jnaveen1980 @Local.Dada @CrIc_Mystique @Van_Sri @nish_mate @SportsWarrior @kaayal
 
Oh man you seem overly preoccupied with India... These kind of fixation won't do any good for your health..
 
Oh man you seem overly preoccupied with India... These kind of fixation won't do any good for your health..
ahhhhh, you've got it wrong, its not fixation.

You can even ask any of the indians on here, especially the ones i tag, they know my story:

so basically i dont watch much tv, i share a laptop with wife - let her use it to watch her stuff, so i browse alot on my android phone, my work doesnt have anymore car park spaces for us employees - i dont want to pay to park in surrounding area,

so i bus it in to work, in the morning i like to read news, via the news feed, its been popping up news articles - many from india, since ive been reading them and fav it - to share on here (i generally post on here on my lunch break, while im walking, or when ive finished work), on bus back as its just over 1 hr bus ride.

Ive notcied that since ive been reading many indian articles, my phone now just sends me indian only news - based on the algorithms,,,, so its not me, you now its more to do with the dodgy so called indian software graduate (most likely paid $50 to get the certificate) a job in america, doing software = i believe this is the issue, and even if i search on other related topics - phone refreshes and shows me indian news


like i said you can ask the other indians on here, they know my above situation is not my fault, but to do with the dodgy fake indian degree holders who bribe to get jobs in american software companies.

I remember the days when android was great, i wish these american companies start to sack these indians with fake degree holders - ruin everything.

(y)
 
Back
Top