Pet/Dog Ownership

[ThunderXray]

What is your opinion on Pet Ownership? Specifically Dogs
If against, what is your opinion on Rescue Dogs as pets? They would surely have a better life with Humans instead of in a kennel.

[brimstoneSalad]

Rescues: Yes.

Breeders: No.


Until the day that the shelters are empty, and dogs are no longer euthanized just because they can't find a home, dog breeding (and buying from breeders) is unethical.
It's also much cheaper to save a dog from death in a shelter than to buy from a breeder. So, win-win.

[TheVeganAtheist]

Rescues: Yes.

Breeders: No.


Until the day that the shelters are empty, and dogs are no longer euthanized just because they can't find a home, dog breeding (and buying from breeders) is unethical.
It's also much cheaper to save a dog from death in a shelter than to buy from a breeder. So, win-win.

I fully agree.
(edited) i too think that even if shelters are empty, I would not support breeding of animals for pet ownership.

[Volenta]

Even if the shelters are empty I would still think it's wrong. They would still continue breeding dogs while almost every race have physical problems because of this breeding (breathing and back problems in boxers and dachshunds for example). It's because they are selected to look nice and be obedient, instead of being good at surviving and care for their own interests.

There's also too much suffering involved in practice with ownership. While there are really good owners out there, a lot of them don't care that much about the wellbeing of their dog—the only reason they have a dog is in their own interest (it makes them happy). I find it sad to see dogs doing exactly what the boss insists them to do, and otherwise be punished for it.

I'm all in favor for rescued dogs by the way.

[brimstoneSalad]

Even if the shelters are empty I would still think it's wrong. They would still continue breeding dogs while almost every race have physical problems because of this breeding (breathing and back problems in boxers and dachshunds for example). It's because they are selected to look nice and be obedient, instead of being good at surviving and care for their own interests.

Oh, yes, inbreeding is definitely still wrong. Sorry, I didn't mean to imply I'd support that.

Although inbreeding excepted (like just letting some healthy dogs reproduce) wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Dogs can bring a lot of happiness to a family, and can be good companions for the elderly in particular- and I think dogs can lead happy lives if looked after with their adopted families.

There's also too much suffering involved in practice with ownership. While there are really good owners out there, a lot of them don't care that much about the wellbeing of their dog—the only reason they have a dog is in their own interest (it makes them happy). I find it sad to see dogs doing exactly what the boss insists them to do, and otherwise be punished for it.

There are bad owners out there. There are also bad parents, and bad foster parents who do the same to human children. Hopefully by the day the shelters are finally empty, it will mean higher standards of care, and stricter laws preventing abuse and neglect.

[Neptual]

When I was still living with my parents I had the time to save animals. So I guess at one point you could've considered me a rescuer. And on top of that I'll be going to veterinary school pretty soon. (Not related but I don't consider human doctors real doctors. Veterinarians go through a much harder learning process and environment )

The dog that I currently take care of is and adopted dog from a shelter.

[Volenta]

There are bad owners out there. There are also bad parents, and bad foster parents who do the same to human children. Hopefully by the day the shelters are finally empty, it will mean higher standards of care, and stricter laws preventing abuse and neglect.

Good point your making. Although it can be made much more pleasing with laws and regulations, I kind of wonder how happy dogs really are. There certainly is an essential difference between children and pets. Human children are grown up in a society of their own species, which is arranged for their own species. Pets have far less room to act naturally and do what they like to do. Children can play outside almost all day, dogs have a very narrow time outside in freedom and using a belt is required in most places. Children communicate their wishes and can do far more things in freedom then pets can (choosing when to eat, pee, have contact with other animals, ...). I wonder whether it can be made really pleasing for the animal. Maybe it's not as bad as I picture it—it's hard to know how they really feel.

And now I'm especially talking about dogs, of which circumstances are far better than that of birds, guinea pigs, turtles, reptiles and other animals put into cages with far too less space.

[brimstoneSalad]

Good point your making. Although it can be made much more pleasing with laws and regulations, I kind of wonder how happy dogs really are.

I think, of all species, dogs are probably the best at socializing with humans. I wouldn't say cats can't be happy with a family, but they seem to be happiest spending much time away hunting- they are generally regarded as somewhat aloof. Dogs, being pack animals, are inclined to want to stay with their group- whether human or other dogs. I think they can be happy with a family.

However, being left alone is torture for a dog. They get incredibly bored and depressed when deprived of socialization- which is the other side of that coin.

Laws would have to classify leaving dogs at home alone all day as a form of animal cruelty to justify breeding them and maintaining their presence within human civilization.
Doggy daycare services would see a boom in business.

There certainly is an essential difference between children and pets. Human children are grown up in a society of their own species, which is arranged for their own species. Pets have far less room to act naturally and do what they like to do.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Young children have some pretty serious limitations put upon them. Dogs also joined our ancestors from the wild a very long time ago. Being around us is a large part of what they like to do, and they have seemingly evolved hardware to read human emotions and socialize, stronger inhibitions, guilt, etc.
If you dropped a wolf into the same situation, that might be true to a larger extent. Aside from the fact that children grow up to benefit from their upbringing and dogs stay in that position, I don't know if there's a clear favorable position between the two.

Children can play outside almost all day, dogs have a very narrow time outside in freedom and using a belt is required in most places.

In the context of American suburbs, young children and dogs both play in the same environment (and usually together); typically in the back yard, and around the house. Children are usually not let out on their own until much later.

We also have child leashes, although not laws enforcing their use:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/justinj13/35-ri ... ashes-7khw

Which, I think, demonstrates at least that we aren't being inconsistent by leashing dogs.
The bottom line is that dogs are not always responsible enough to not run into traffic chasing a plastic bag. Dogs also pose a little bit more danger to pedestrians, but most leash laws are to prevent runaways (which is an animal welfare problem), and traffic accidents.

Children communicate their wishes and can do far more things in freedom then pets can (choosing when to eat, pee, have contact with other animals, ...).

Dogs communicate their wishes about as well as young children do.
They beg for treats like kids beg for candy, they ask to go out, or go on walks, they ask to play and express boredom.
Young children can't choose when to eat, pee, or play with friends. They can learn to throw tantrums in the same way some dogs do, and get what they want... but there's no difference there.

If you've raised children and dogs, there's a remarkable similarity until the kids are around five or so and start becoming more reasonable and responsible- at which point they start to diverge.

If being a child or a dog is a terrible thing, I guess the question remains whether growing up is worth childhood. And while most people remember their early childhood fondly, if this is some kind of memory bias, blocking out the torturous experience of the whole thing.

And now I'm especially talking about dogs, of which circumstances are far better than that of birds, guinea pigs, turtles, reptiles and other animals put into cages with far too less space.

Of course.

Short of having a large atrium where they have plenty of room, it's probably a rather stressful experience. Less so, I imagine, for cold blooded animals (since they don't have a habit of roaming around as much), but probably very much so for birds.

The only way we might be able to know is to release an African Grey into the wild, and recover him/her after a time living with other parrots, and ask him/her which he/she would prefer.
Most birds would be hard pressed to understand and answer the question, but a Grey might,

It's hard to imagine he or she wouldn't choose to be free and among his or her own kind though, unless captivity had made him or her socially inept.

[Humane Hominid]

I think a strong case of exception to the rule can be made for dogs. The species has been co-evolving with humans since long before anything like institutional animal enslavement existed, and has developed adaptations specifically geared to living among humans.

There is even some evidence that humans become more socially canid-like as part of our evolution, so the exchange went both ways.

A slightly weaker case can be made, I think, for domestic cats, who have adapted to human communities as their niche. Again, this is a commensal relationship that goes back (arguably) to a time before institutionalized animal slavery.

Of course, none of this mitigates the need for strong protection laws, just treatment by humans, etc. But the case against pets is weaker for dogs and cats, IMO, than for species for whom the relationship doesn't have it roots in prehistory. Dogs and cats, as species, have specifically adapted to humans as their environment through natural selection. This is not true of any species of bird, reptile, or other mammal I am aware of, right off hand.

[Volenta]

Okay, I changed my mind here, you've convinced me. If reality would comply with all the conditions being discussed here (empty shelters and good laws and regulation on breeding and ownership), I think you can make a morally justifiable case.