Breeding animals to sell. - Page 3 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 Old 12-14-2009, 05:43 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
No. Dingos are dogs. I'd love a dingo!



After owning an Australian Cattle Dog, I can honestly say I would not love to own a dingo. Lol.
Kellye is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#62 Old 12-14-2009, 06:03 AM
Kiz
Veggie Regular
 
Kiz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,132
I like Blue Cattle Dogs. Not keen on those weird eyed things called Australian Shepherds that are not Australian, though. It's more the name that bothers me, that the dog. That's not what Aussie sheep dogs, look like. Aussie sheep dogs look like Kelpies.







Blue Cattle Dogs (sometimes Red Cattle Dogs or Australian Cattle Dogs) are quite smart, feisty and attractive, for the non-Kellye uninitiated.





If I couldn't have a Dingo I'd be happy with a Kelpie or a Cattle Dog. I like working dogs.

Love the post? Why not buy the T-shirt!
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=categorie&cat=8
http://www.kiz-shop.de/index.php?page=product&info=94
Kiz is offline  
#63 Old 12-14-2009, 08:47 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Don't get me wrong, ACDs are cool. They just have the capacity to be a handful if you don't have much experience with dogs. Very headstrong.



My ACD was a red heeler. He looked a lot like the one in the bottom picture too.
Kellye is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#64 Old 12-14-2009, 12:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Zoe74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post




A) every individual sentient being has a right to life, liberty, and property. You can violate rights to liberty or property only when preserving life.



Ok, but what about the other millions of animals who are put to death because of the existence of a pet industry that having a pet perpetuates, whether rescue or not? Or the animals killed to feed your pet? Don't they have a right to life?



Quote:



B) humans have an obligation to cause as little harm and suffering as possible and prevent as much harm and suffering as possible.



Wouldn't the least amount of harm and suffering would be achieved by euthanizing all of the homeless animals, instead of killing most of them and keeping selected ones as pets which encourages more people to breed more animals?



I guess I just don't understand the "we have to take care of the ones who are here argument", by abolitionists, especially those who think keeping pets is akin to slavery. Besides, most people who adopt rescue animals do so because they want a pet. Rarely is the primary reason because they want to save a life.

They want to satisfy their selfish human desires in the least harmful way. They are also the ones preaching to others about how wrong it is to keep and breed pets.

it just seems very inconsistent to me.

www.sharksavers.org
Zoe74 is offline  
#65 Old 12-14-2009, 12:06 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
I guess I just don't understand the "we have to take care of the ones who are here argument", by abolitionists, especially those who think keeping pets is akin to slavery. Besides, most people who adopt rescue animals do so because they want a pet. Rarely is the primary reason because they want to save a life.

They want to satisfy their selfish human desires in the least harmful way. They are also the ones preaching to others about how wrong it is to keep and breed pets.

it just seems very inconsistent to me.



^ I completely agree with you.
Kellye is offline  
#66 Old 12-14-2009, 12:21 PM
Veggie Regular
 
SomebodyElse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In a California Ghost Town
Posts: 7,245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe74 View Post

Wouldn't the least amount of harm and suffering would be achieved by euthanizing all of the homeless animals

No, to achieve the LEAST amount of harm and suffering would be to euthanize all humans. Euthanizing non-human animals is wrong for the same reason euthanizing human ones would be.

www.thesaucyvegan.com
SomebodyElse is offline  
#67 Old 12-14-2009, 12:22 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe74 View Post

Ok, but what about the other millions of animals who are put to death because of the existence of a pet industry that having a pet perpetuates, whether rescue or not? Or the animals killed to feed your pet? Don't they have a right to life?







Wouldn't the least amount of harm and suffering would be achieved by euthanizing all of the homeless animals, instead of killing most of them and keeping selected ones as pets which encourages more people to breed more animals?



I guess I just don't understand the "we have to take care of the ones who are here argument", by abolitionists, especially those who think keeping pets is akin to slavery. Besides, most people who adopt rescue animals do so because they want a pet. Rarely is the primary reason because they want to save a life.

They want to satisfy their selfish human desires in the least harmful way. They are also the ones preaching to others about how wrong it is to keep and breed pets.

it just seems very inconsistent to me.

My dogs (Lucky and Chance) are on a vegan diet. Lucky is thriving for the first time in her life since going on the diet. She was allergic to every meat diet I tried. Chance has done great on any diet. Putting down all homeless animals does the least harm if and only if you argue that animals have no right to life. (Essentially murder does no harm.) I do not believe a human who is unwilling to forfeit his or her own right to life and can morally justify intentionally killing other sentient animals other than out of self-defense. I have no doubt you could make a speciesist attempt to do so, but I reject speciesism.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#68 Old 12-14-2009, 12:51 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe74 View Post

Ok, but what about the other millions of animals who are put to death because of the existence of a pet industry that having a pet perpetuates, whether rescue or not?



If you get your clothes from picking through other people's trash bins and/or buy used clothing at Goodwill, does that perpetuate the clothing manufacturing industry? How, exactly?



Quote:
Or the animals killed to feed your pet? Don't they have a right to life?



So do the deer, rabbits, mice, etc. whoare killed by predators everywhere. That's the logical next step - eradicate the predators.







Quote:
Wouldn't the least amount of harm and suffering would be achieved by euthanizing all of the homeless animals, instead of killing most of them and keeping selected ones as pets which encourages more people to breed more animals?



It amazes me how eager abolishonists are to kill animals. If you not only want to make certain species extinct but also actually care about the individuals are currently living, one would think you would propose neutering and spaying all of the currently living members of the species, rather than just slaughtering them.



[QUOTEI guess I just don't understand the "we have to take care of the ones who are here argument", by abolitionists, especially those who think keeping pets is akin to slavery. [/QUOTE]



And I don't understand the "let's kill all of them" attitude of anyone who professes to be for AR. But then, I'm only an abolishonist if the human species can't be brought to a point of interacting with the other species who live on this planet in a respectful way. I don't quite see why it would be possible to get humans, as a species, to the point of saying, "OMGZ, we've been treating animals horribly. Let's make them extinct so that we stop treating them badly", and yet not get them to the point of saying, "OGZ, we've been treating animals horribly. Let's not inflict suffering on them any more."



Quote:
Besides, most people who adopt rescue animals do so because they want a pet. Rarely is the primary reason because they want to save a life.They want to satisfy their selfish human desires in the least harmful way. They are also the ones preaching to others about how wrong it is to keep and breed pets.it just seems very inconsistent to me.



Yeah, right. I just took in all of the abandoned animals who've come to my door because I wanted a pet. And for those that do, what's wrong with that? The human wants a companion, the dog/cat wants a companion, and a homeless animal gets food, shelter, medical care, companionship. What, exactly, is wrong with that?



If you really think that humans and other animals can't live in harmony, and that the only viable solution is species extinction, then why pick the nonhuman species for extinction when the problem could just as readily be solved by the extinction of just one species - the human one? Must be selfish human desires. It's the ultimate in human hubris.
mlp is offline  
#69 Old 12-14-2009, 12:52 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomebodyElse View Post

No, to achieve the LEAST amount of harm and suffering would be to euthanize all humans. Euthanizing non-human animals is wrong for the same reason euthanizing human ones would be.



Heh. You put it much more succinctly, while I was typing out my long post.
mlp is offline  
#70 Old 12-14-2009, 01:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomebodyElse View Post

No, to achieve the LEAST amount of harm and suffering would be to euthanize all humans. Euthanizing non-human animals is wrong for the same reason euthanizing human ones would be.

Actually, that is the best possible response to this argument. Like MLP, I took far more words than necessary to convey your message.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#71 Old 12-14-2009, 01:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Zoe74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

If you get your clothes from picking through other people's trash bins and/or buy used clothing at Goodwill, does that perpetuate the clothing manufacturing industry? How, exactly?



No one is trying to stop the clothing manufacturing industry. If you did want to stop it, then yes, wearing clothes, even if they were second hand, would perpetuate the practice of clothes manufacturing.



Quote:
So do the deer, rabbits, mice, etc. whoare killed by predators everywhere. That's the logical next step - eradicate the predators.



But you are not directly involved in killing animals for wildlife to eat. Here you have a choice to kill the cat or dog or kill countless animals over the course of 15 years. Additionally, wild carnivores do not support the farming industry or the use of animals as resources for humans.





Quote:
And I don't understand the "let's kill all of them" attitude of anyone who professes to be for AR. But then, I'm only an abolishonist if the human species can't be brought to a point of interacting with the other species who live on this planet in a respectful way. I don't quite see why it would be possible to get humans, as a species, to the point of saying, "OMGZ, we've been treating animals horribly. Let's make them extinct so that we stop treating them badly", and yet not get them to the point of saying, "OGZ, we've been treating animals horribly. Let's not inflict suffering on them any more."







Yeah, right. I just took in all of the abandoned animals who've come to my door because I wanted a pet. And for those that do, what's wrong with that? The human wants a companion, the dog/cat wants a companion, and a homeless animal gets food, shelter, medical care, companionship. What, exactly, is wrong with that?



If you really think that humans and other animals can't live in harmony, and that the only viable solution is species extinction, then why pick the nonhuman species for extinction when the problem could just as readily be solved by the extinction of just one species - the human one? Must be selfish human desires. It's the ultimate in human hubris.



My post was was more of a critique of abolotionists who keep pets rather than my own opinion on the subject of companion animals.

www.sharksavers.org
Zoe74 is offline  
#72 Old 12-14-2009, 02:00 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Zoe74's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,072
Quote:
Originally Posted by SomebodyElse View Post

No, to achieve the LEAST amount of harm and suffering would be to euthanize all humans. Euthanizing non-human animals is wrong for the same reason euthanizing human ones would be.



That is true, so then I suppose that we should not use the "least amount of harm and suffering" reasoning in determining what we should do with companion animals.

www.sharksavers.org
Zoe74 is offline  
#73 Old 12-14-2009, 02:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
SomebodyElse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: In a California Ghost Town
Posts: 7,245
There is no easy answer. It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" situation.

www.thesaucyvegan.com
SomebodyElse is offline  
#74 Old 12-14-2009, 02:11 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe74 View Post

Ok, but what about the other millions of animals who are put to death because of the existence of a pet industry that having a pet perpetuates, whether rescue or not? Or the animals killed to feed your pet? Don't they have a right to life?

Wouldn't the least amount of harm and suffering would be achieved by euthanizing all of the homeless animals, instead of killing most of them and keeping selected ones as pets which encourages more people to breed more animals?

I guess I just don't understand the "we have to take care of the ones who are here argument", by abolitionists, especially those who think keeping pets is akin to slavery. Besides, most people who adopt rescue animals do so because they want a pet. Rarely is the primary reason because they want to save a life. They want to satisfy their selfish human desires in the least harmful way. They are also the ones preaching to others about how wrong it is to keep and breed pets.

it just seems very inconsistent to me.



I do agree with this opinion. When I think of how many animals die for my cats to live it doesn't sit right with me. Taking in a rescue carnivorous companion animal means lots of animal deaths if you feed them regular pet food. Although like others have said I have taken in two stray cats that were not neutered and wandering the streets and were starving. I think it is a very grey area. I'm not an entirely consistent vegan.
GhostUser is offline  
#75 Old 12-14-2009, 02:18 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe74 View Post


But you are not directly involved in killing animals for wildlife to eat. Here you have a choice to kill the cat or dog or kill countless animals over the course of 15 years.

But the other option is to kill none of the above. It's not nearly as radical a concept as it might sound at first to some. There's about 50,000 vegetarian dogs in England alone, for example (http://globalphilosophy.blogspot.com...rian-dogs.html). A few relevant research findings might be that the average vegetarian dog lives to be 12.6 years of age and that soy protein is either as digestible as or more digestible than any animal meat typically fed to dogs (depending on the particular type of meat). Those are a few findings off the top of my head. Jed Gillen goes into the research in lots of detail in his book Obligate Carnivore. Many dogs do suffer if given a poorly planned vegan diet, though. Anyone living with a dog should be reading a lot about dog nutrition and making sure what they're reading is not solely work funded by the major dog food companies selling meat-based products.



Quote:
My post was was more of a critique of abolotionists who keep pets rather than my own opinion on the subject of companion animals.

If I remember your post correctly, you merely critiqued the current dietary decisions of most individuals living with pets. I don't want to minimize your points. They're good ones. But they don't apply to humans living with dogs. I do not know what percentage of animal abolitionists they do apply to.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#76 Old 12-14-2009, 02:25 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toast View Post

I do agree with this opinion. When I think of how many animals die for my cats to live it doesn't sit right with me. Taking in a rescue carnivorous companion animal means lots of animal deaths if you feed them regular pet food. Although like others have said I have taken in two stray cats that were not neutered and wandering the streets and were starving. I think it is a very grey area. I'm not an entirely consistent vegan.

Dogs are omnivores no matter what any major dog food company tells you. They may be closer to carnivores than humans are but they're a lot farther from being carnivorous than cats are. There's a huge number of dogs living and thriving on vegan diets (as indicated in my previous posts). Technically, the first and likely second ingredients in any meat-based commercial dog food are likely not even meat products, which is implying that dogs are not strict carnivores.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#77 Old 12-14-2009, 02:28 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Dogs are omnivores no matter what any major dog food company tells you. They may be closer to carnivores than humans are but they're a lot farther from being carnivorous than cats are. There's a huge number of dogs living and thriving on vegan diets (as indicated in my previous posts). Technically, the first and likely second ingredients in any meat-based commercial dog food are likely not even meat products, which is implying that dogs are not strict carnivores.



Umm I know, I know vegans that have vegan/ veggie fed dogs and are healthy but I have cats and I'm not comfortable with feeding them a vegan diet.
GhostUser is offline  
#78 Old 12-14-2009, 02:30 PM
Ankle Biter
 
Poppy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Central Virginia, USA
Posts: 9,333
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe74 View Post

Ok, but what about the other millions of animals who are put to death because of the existence of a pet industry that having a pet perpetuates, whether rescue or not? Or the animals killed to feed your pet? Don't they have a right to life? Wouldn't the least amount of harm and suffering would be achieved by euthanizing all of the homeless animals, instead of killing most of them and keeping selected ones as pets which encourages more people to breed more animals?

I guess I just don't understand the "we have to take care of the ones who are here argument", by abolitionists, especially those who think keeping pets is akin to slavery. Besides, most people who adopt rescue animals do so because they want a pet. Rarely is the primary reason because they want to save a life.

They want to satisfy their selfish human desires in the le

st harmful way. They are also the ones preaching to others about how wrong it is to keep and breed pets.

it just seems very inconsistent to me.



It actually seems inconsistent to me too, although I don't honestly think that having pets is akin to slavery. I think having pets is a selfish abuse of animals in general, but not necessarily in any one specific case.



A 100% neutering plan would eventually solve all the issues: the homeless animals, the abusive pet mills, the feral cat colonies and the demand for pet food. It would take at least a full generation, but it would work. Is is feasible - over time? Gosh I hope so.

It is our choices that show what we truly are far more than our abilities. ~A. Dumbledore
Poppy is offline  
#79 Old 12-14-2009, 02:30 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
It's only a sample of one but I can't leave out the finding that the oldest living dog (based on human records at least) was a 27 year old English Border Collie. Scroll down to point #8 in this link: http://www.vegepets.info/pages/veget...nine_diets.htm That's 189 in human years based on the typically used 7:1 ratio.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#80 Old 12-14-2009, 02:32 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoe74 View Post

No one is trying to stop the clothing manufacturing industry. If you did want to stop it, then yes, wearing clothes, even if they were second hand, would perpetuate the practice of clothes manufacturing.



Really? People just wear clothes because they see other people wearing them? If only people who didn't believe in wearing clothes wouldn't wear them, soon nobody would wear clothes? Then why are people still wearing clothes, despite the existece of nudist colonies?



You think that if the relatively insignificant percentage of the population which is AR adopts rescued animals, that is going to perpetuate the pet industry? Boy, these AR types have magical powers - simply by not adopting rescues, they're going to send some signal that's going to end the keeping of companion animals. After all, everyone has companion animals - no one would even think about not having one, unless these AR people send the message.



Quote:
But you are not directly involved in killing animals for wildlife to eat. Here you have a choice to kill the cat or dog or kill countless animals over the course of 15 years. Additionally, wild carnivores do not support the farming industry or the use of animals as resources for humans.



By allowing any predator to live on the acreage I control, I enable that predator to kill hundreds of lives a year. I can save a lot of lives if I just don't allpow predators, from spiders to coyotes, to be on my property.



BTW, any person who's serious about not supporting the farming industry had better become completely self sustaining, and even then, he will cost thousands of other animals their lives, even if just using hand tools to grow food for his own consumption, build basic shelter, etc. We're such an egocentric species - let's kill this animal or that one, because it eats other animals, but we're O.K., as long as we're vegans - it doesn't matter how many animals die so that we may live, as long as we don't actually eat their flesh or their milk or eggs.
mlp is offline  
#81 Old 12-14-2009, 02:35 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Toast View Post

Umm I know, I know vegans that have vegan/ veggie fed dogs and are healthy but I have cats and I'm not comfortable with feeding them a vegan diet.

OK. Jed Gillen does talk in detail about vegan cats, including which ones research indicates can live on a solely vegan diet and which need some meat. I think he argued male cats need some meat but I could be wrong. I honestly didn't pay much attention to the cat discussions. I'm not going to tell someone what to feed their cat but I do feel obligated to point out the research on vegan dogs--you never know, I might actually reach one person who like me at one point was unaware of the research.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#82 Old 12-14-2009, 02:37 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

Technically, the first and likely second ingredients in any meat-based commercial dog food are likely not even meat products, which is implying that dogs are not strict carnivores.



The first and second ingredients in most commercial cat foods aren't meat products either. The ingredients in commercial animal food is not an indicator of what food is healthy for the species; it's just an indicator of what ingredients provide the highest profit margins without immediately killing the animals. Most commercial dog and cat food is utter crap.
mlp is offline  
#83 Old 12-14-2009, 02:38 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Just because the first and second ingredients in most commercial pet foods aren't meat, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be.
Kellye is offline  
#84 Old 12-14-2009, 02:40 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poppy View Post

A 100% neutering plan would eventually solve all the issues: the homeless animals, the abusive pet mills, the feral cat colonies and the demand for pet food. It would take at least a full generation, but it would work. Is is feasible - over time? Gosh I hope so.



It would take one cat/dog generation. If implemented, cats and dogs could be extinct in about 20 years.



I strongly disagree with your assertion about the selfishness of havig companion animals, for the reasons I explained in this post that I made in another thread:



One of the things that puzzles me is the belief that some AR people appear to have that the companionship aspect of the relationship between humans and domesticated species is one-sided, only for the benefit of humans. It's so clearly not - every dog I have ever met (other than those who have been abused into a state of irreparable terror/aggression) and almost every cat, has craved human attention/companionship. Cross-species companionship isn't limited to humans either. A number of my cats have preferred the companionship of dogs to that of other cats, and vice versa; one of the chickens we had when I was growing up decided to go live with the horse; she slept in the manger, and spent her days under the horse; the horse grazed in the pasture, and the hen foraged for bugs under her. It happens in the wild too; every once in a while, we read about it, when a human happens to observe it. It probably happens less frequently in the wild, where sheer survival is the number one priority, and companionship by necessity is secondary, but it's still a very limited view of animals to think that the human animal is the only one which finds emotional value in cross species companionship.
mlp is offline  
#85 Old 12-14-2009, 02:41 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kellye View Post

Just because the first and second ingredients in most commercial pet foods aren't meat, doesn't mean that they shouldn't be.

That's true but there's also no evidence that they need to be the first or second ingredients or even one of the ingredients--not compared to a well-planned vegan diet. It's an idea I was quite resistant to initially like most people are but then I started reading more and more. If the lives of all animals are worth saving to you, don't take my word for anything I've said here. Just look at the sources I've cited and the sources they cite and reach your own conclusions.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#86 Old 12-14-2009, 02:43 PM
Newbie
 
GhostUser's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 0
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

OK. Jed Gillen does talk in detail about vegan cats, including which ones research indicates can live on a solely vegan diet and which need some meat. I think he argued male cats need some meat but I could be wrong. I honestly didn't pay much attention to the cat discussions. I'm not going to tell someone what to feed their cat but I do feel obligated to point out the research on vegan dogs--you never know, I might actually reach one person who like me at one point was unaware of the research.



I know! Haha. I have tried my cats on vegan and veggie cat food myself and they don't eat it after a few days and I know people who have fed their cats vegan cat food and then the cats start throwing up vomit or blood. I'm not willing to take that chance with my cats personally.



Just to reiterate I am just putting forward a certain AR vegan viewpoint and I don't live that way myself. If I saw another injured or ill cat or dog I would feed it and take it to a vet to be spayed/ neutered if needed and maybe keep it. I completely support the total spay/neuter for pets though.
GhostUser is offline  
#87 Old 12-14-2009, 02:45 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

That's true but there's also no evidence that they need to be the first or second ingredients or even one of the ingredients--not compared to a well-planned vegan diet. It's an idea I was quite resistant to initially like most people are but then I started reading more and more. If the lives of all animals are worth saving to you, don't take my word for anything I've said here. Just look at the sources I've cited and the sources they cite and reach your own conclusions.



I will look into it further, but as I stated in the Companion Food UberThread(tm), I do feel that cats are obligate carnivores (to the point that their health can be severely compromised otherwise) and dogs are primarily carnivorous in nature (though they can eat other things if they have to) so I will continue to feed them a meat-based diet.



Can they be maintained on a vegan or vegetarian diet healthily? Probably. But I wouldn't make a dog eat vegan any more than I'd make a jackal do it. The natural world will never be vegan. Humanity at least has the consciousness to make that decision, and they have a primarily vegetarian physiological evolution on their side to back it up. I think we're designed to eat mostly vegetable matter and at this point in our development, we have the capacity (mentally and physically) to give up the rest.
Kellye is offline  
#88 Old 12-14-2009, 02:48 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Bonn1997's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 906
Quote:
Originally Posted by mlp View Post

The first and second ingredients in most commercial cat foods aren't meat products either. The ingredients in commercial animal food is not an indicator of what food is healthy for the species; it's just an indicator of what ingredients provide the highest profit margins without immediately killing the animals. Most commercial dog and cat food is utter crap.

I probably should have said it's implying that the person feeding them the food doesn't fully believe they're strict carnivores (or hasn't even looked at the ingredient list). The only other conclusion I can think of is that the person believes the dog food companies are wasting money throwing in unnecessary ingredients--which I think is a conclusion we can dismiss without even needing to examine it further. I do agree that most commercial dog and cat food is crap though.



It's also debatable whether a strict carnivore could not get every ingredient they needed through a *supplemented* vegan diet--Jed Gillen discusses this in detail, including cases of healthy tamed lions eating vegetarian diets.
Bonn1997 is offline  
#89 Old 12-14-2009, 02:50 PM
mlp
Banned
 
mlp's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 8,995
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonn1997 View Post

That's true but there's also no evidence that they need to be the first or second ingredients or even one of the ingredients--not compared to a well-planned vegan diet. It's an idea I was quite resistant to initially like most people are but then I started reading more and more. If the lives of all animals are worth saving to you, don't take my word for anything I've said here. Just look at the sources I've cited and the sources they cite and reach your own conclusions.



I've done my own research, and have had experience with cats for more decades than you've probably been alive. Apart from any other aspect of felines as obligate carnivores, carbohydrates in the feline diet are the major cause of feline diabetes and UTIs. A UTI can kill a male cat before you even realize there's a problem. My sister lost seven or eight cats to UTIs before she listened to me and switched her cats to a substantially grain free diet.
mlp is offline  
#90 Old 12-14-2009, 02:51 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Kellye's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,814
Quote:
I probably should have said it's implying that the person feeding them the food doesn't fully believe they're strict carnivores (or hasn't even looked at the ingredient list).



I honestly had no idea how ****ty the dog food I was feeding my dog was until I looked at it. I am definitely in the market for something better, preferably high-protein and meat-based. I've seen Blue Buffalo at the pet store so I'm considering a test run on that despite how ridiculously high-priced it is.



I think I might start experimenting in raw feeding soon and see how he does. His coat is looking a little dry lately, though that's probably a combination of things.
Kellye is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off