Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Maybe we should spay or neuter people for their own benefit. :-)
There is that little procedure done on many baby boys for some type of convenience.
You are right that we do have to do some sometimes drastic things to mold the animals to fit into our human lives. If the animals are left natural most would not be good pets, even if they are domesticated.
Here's the thing though, if a breeder (puppy mill or breeder) is in for profit, why would he torture the animals he breeds? The animals are his own moneymaking machines. Would a factory own sabotage his own machines? of course, not. The owner would take care of his machines so that they can run as long as possible and make as much product as possible.
There is a problem with this argument. Animals are not machines.
While it is true that bad breeders want to drag as many litters out of their dogs as possible, this goal is in direct conflict with actually taking good care of them. Would you argue that a human woman should get pregnant every time she possibly could, to produce as many children as possible, or do you think that might eventually take a toll on her health? Making as much "product" as possible is part of the problem here (actually, probably the entirety of the problem) - the more puppies, the more money, so bad breeders pay no attention to the health of their dogs, as long as they are making "product." As for proper vet care, it can be expensive, often more expensive than just getting a new dog to breed from. What do you suppose happens to the old dog then?
Animal abuse is illegal, being a large-scale breeder of dogs is not.
Do you define any large for-profit breeder as a puppy mill or only those who keep 5 toy-breed dogs sitting in their own feces in a rabbit hutch?
What's your definition of a puppy mill?
Illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. Nothing wrong with abusing animals - without exception, all of us either do it ourselves, benefit directly from animal abuse or adamantly support animal abuse.
The whole animal abuse law is nothing but some people trying to cramp their own morality down our throat.
My animal is my property - I do what I see fit to my own property. As long as I am not harming anybody else, it is my business.
Frankly, I am not versed on this subject at all, but watching "Humane" Society on this subject is like watching Mother Jones on gun control or Chuck Norris on 2nd Amendment.
I'd say someone independent, not connected to Humane Society, pet stores, breeders or even pet owners.
From the argument I heard so far, this is nothing but an effort from some "responsible" breeders to snuff competitions.
Well, you're pretty much eliminating almost everyone then! If my sister posted on here, she'd be a great source. She was an AKC registered breeder for over 30 years, and she absolutely despises puppy mills. She knows and has seen the difference between them in their level of care for the animals and the quality of life the animals lead. She also belonged to a breed rescue that got dogs out of puppy mills and other abusive situations, some of which she adopted herself. Interestingly, her last own purebred dog just died a couple of weeks ago, so she decided to adopt a cute scruffy mutt from the local shelter. He's a doll!
Do vegans not take medicines? All medicines are from animal testing.**
I do concede there may be some extreme rarity where some people don't live off animals in any way. That's going to be very hard to find that example though because virtually all things we use come from animal testing or use animal products.
I guess my humor was too subtle. I was pointing out that the breeding techniques you decry for pet stock is minor compared the the number of animals we eat. So vegans are doing what they can to improve life in the animal kingdom.
** I'm not sure of the truth of that. Computer simulation is becoming more common.
The wiki article is, I think, balanced: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_testing
Says 100,000,000 are used world wide.
Eating has much more of an impact on animals. https://www.quora.com/How-many-chick...sume-in-a-year
"Billions and billions"
Of course, if we didn't raise them to eat, then there would be much smaller populations of them. Some lab stock is also raised specifically for testing.
Illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. Nothing wrong with abusing animals - without exception, all of us either do it ourselves, benefit directly from animal abuse or adamantly support animal abuse.
I think we need to agree on this.
nah. I think we need to agree to disagree
I think wrong doesn't mean illegal; legal doesn't mean right.
If you say nothing wrong with abusing animals, there is nothing much to discuss.
Illegal doesn't mean it's wrong. Nothing wrong with abusing animals - without exception, all of us either do it ourselves, benefit directly from animal abuse or adamantly support animal abuse.
The whole animal abuse law is nothing but some people trying to cramp their own morality down our throat.
My animal is my property - I do what I see fit to my own property. As long as I am not harming anybody else, it is my business.
I think we need to agree on this.
If that means that you are harming or abusing the animal, then NO, we do NOT need to ever agree on this.
There is a problem with this argument. Animals are not machines.
While it is true that bad breeders want to drag as many litters out of their dogs as possible, this goal is in direct conflict with actually taking good care of them. Would you argue that a human woman should get pregnant every time she possibly could, to produce as many children as possible, or do you think that might eventually take a toll on her health? Making as much "product" as possible is part of the problem here (actually, probably the entirety of the problem) - the more puppies, the more money, so bad breeders pay no attention to the health of their dogs, as long as they are making "product." As for proper vet care, it can be expensive, often more expensive than just getting a new dog to breed from. What do you suppose happens to the old dog then?
I fully understand the non-bold part - no argument there.
Animals are money making machines, which is why cattle ranches take care of their cows, horses, chickens, particularly their priced studs. Letting them sit in feces would spread disease and kill more animals; letting them breed too often, the animals die too.
The motivation to look after their animals is huge.
I don't understand how it is different in breeding dogs.
If that means that you are harming or abusing the animal, then NO, we do NOT need to ever agree on this.
But when you harm and abuse your animals, it's OK?
You don't need to agree what I do to my property because it's none of your business. It goes the other way too.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
