Are pets really good for us?
theguardian.com
theguardian.com
Dogs evolved alongside humans and were bred to help us with specific tasks like hunting, herding, etc. When you take an animal with a genetic drive to perform certain activities and turn it into a fashion accessory or have it sit alone in a house most of the day, I think the dog tends to go a little crazy. I don't think it's a good life for them. If you can't realistically be with your dog most of the time, or if you don't have a purpose for the dog (like herding sheep) you probably shouldn't have a dog.
I think they are surely better of with us, and I don't think we increase demand in any way.
I do agree with you that breeding dogs for a life in captivity might not be a morally good thing. Hard to say.
Both my pets are rescues, I have no difficulty with falling in love with rescued animals.
https://www.amazon.com/Run-Spot-Ethics-Keeping-Pets-ebook/dp...
From a review "no matter how well loved they are, our pets are essentially being held captives…. She reminds us that the animals we love and treat as companions ‘are denied nearly all of their natural behaviors, not to mention their freedom"
You want to encourage this outcome even more?
IMO, it’s better that the animal lives a good happy life with their human(s) and doesn’t contribute to pet overpopulation.
And if the human(s) in question need more companion pets, then they can go back to the shelter again and rescue the next one(s).
Is it possible for pets to be good for us, and us for them? It would certainly seem so; most of us have seen fairly clear cut examples of this. But sometimes it's a one-way street, and other times (i.e. a maladapted creature being abandoned) it's even a no-way street.
Far too many 'pet' animals are arguably worse off than if they had never been born. Not spaying or neutering is inexcusable. [Unless you professionally breed, in which case statistically you are more likely than not to be causing a lot of suffering in that process.] Trap, neuter and release programs are essential. Continuous evaluation (and improvement) of quality of life should be part of every animal's existence we choose to force a human habitat upon.
Remember that these are thinking, feeling beings, not as different from us as we like to think. They didn't ask to be born, and most of them don't have a lot of choice in how they live their lives. The more aware of these issues you become, the more questionable a whole lot of pet ownership becomes. If you're gonna do it, please, be one of the good ones.
I've had ill relatives with impaired mobility that really enjoyed the company of pets; it makes a huge difference on people who can feel lonely at times.
One my dogs could answer that for you, as that's what he did for a while before he got picked up. He was also skin and bones. Sores in his mouth from licking out of cans. Much like humans, domestic dogs might like to think they want to get back to their natural roots, but they're also like humans in that most of them won't last very long. The primary cause of death for feral dogs is starvation. It was going to be Brody's fate had someone not picked him up and taken him in. Go ask Brody which he'd prefer. If he could talk, I'm pretty sure his answer would be, "what the fuck do you think as we stand in the warm house with a 40lb. bag of dog food mere feet away? Dude, I weighed twenty pounds less than I do now." Do not feel bad about giving your dog regular meals, a roof, and protecting them from themselves.
With that rant out of the way, sorry, I didn't mean to piledrive your point. Because I do consider such things, even knowing the likely outcome were it fully implemented. So I let them chase rabbits and squirrels in the yard. If they haven't caught one by now, they never will. And if you're a rabbit dumb enough to come into a yard with two pit bull terriers (or any terrier), well, you need to be kept on your toes. And we go camping, run around in the woods, pretend we really could catch those elk if we wanted to. All of us, humans included, are about as wild as domesticated suburban beings should be allowed to be.
But looking back, I must confess that most of my grief was for myself, not the animal that passed away. In the death of any sentient being, I think the grief is mostly for those left behind, not the ones who are gone.
So, I’m not too much worried about my own death, just trying to do the best I can to make sure that the ones I love will be well-cared for after I’m gone.
Here, the author is questioning conventional wisdom on pets. Her question could also have been phrased as "Are we wrong about the health benefits of pets?"
Betterridge's law would produce opposite conclusions on both headlines. If you can formulate it that way, it's not a good application of the law.
Absolutely correct. Don't feed any pet commercial pet food! Feed raw. I recommend Darwin's Raw Food, but there are many others out there.
I accidentally gave diabetes to my beloved cat Penguino. He was eating standard dry (and occasionally wet) cat food for the first 6-ish years of his life. Suddenly he dropped from 13 lbs to 9 lbs in about a year. Fast forward four years and thousands of insulin and vet dollars, he is much healthier and on a raw diet, but will need insulin 2x a day for the rest of his life. Mishandling his food and health is one of my deepest regrets. And it was almost entirely avoidable, had I had the right information.
My vet recommended against raw diets because they’re easy to contaminate and difficult to manage properly.
Why would you just assume that diabetes couldn’t possibly be genetic?
My cat's raw food is delivered once every few months, it's kept in sealed packages in the freezer, and I've never had a problem with contamination or managing the food. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would encourage you to do your own raw food research.
Two of them have been on raw since kitten, one of which was pretty young and in pretty bad shape while being fed commercial crap after she got abandoned by her mother. She was no more than a couple of week at the time, bloated belly, etc. Everything she was eating was pretty much passing through undigested.
As for the third one, we transitioned her from kibble to raw and she got noticeably less bloated and got much nicer pelt.
Nearly every dog in the country is fed commercial dog food (few people have the time and money to prepare food for their dog), and with few exceptions, those dogs seem to live a healthy life. My last dog lived to be 14 (pretty good for a 70 lb shepherd mix) and lived entirely on commercial dry dog food. (but it wasn't cheap grocery store food)
If not- I'd be interested to hear some scientific support that dry food isn't good for dogs. Last I talked to my vet he was happy with the commercial dry food my dog was eating- but if that isn't the consenus I'd like to know some more.
It isn’t veterinarians spreading this advice. My vet recommended against it.
I would guess that for every person doing raw diets right, there are five screwing it up.
It’s really nonsense un-actionable advice and it doesn’t actually align with what veterinary professionals tell you to do.
You didn’t even recommend which food I should be buying or making. You just told me to put my tinfoil hat on.
I’m doing what my vet told me to do. Why should I listen to people without veterinary degrees?
But with any dry pet food, you have to be careful to make sure the animal drinks enough water to stay properly hydrated. I think most pets in the US are probably at least partially dehydrated their entire lives, and they don’t know it nor do their humans.
IMO, if you’re not doing your due diligence to confirm what feeding regimes are good for your pet, then you are committing a crime.
Now, it doesn’t have to be 100% protein. If they were eating mice and birds in the wild, then the bodies of those prey animals would not be composed of 100% protein. But they would be primarily protein.
So, when we feed our animals, we need to make sure that we keep their natural dietary requirements in mind.
With enough effort, a pet could have virtually no impact on a family's carbon footprint. For example, in the U.S., we typically throw away 30-40% of our food. If a family feeds their pet(s) with food that would otherwise wind up in a landfill, they'd actually come out ahead.