From: tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,rec.pets.cats,rec.pets.dogs
Subject: Re: pets
Date: 10 Apr 92 18:50:32 GMT
Article-I.D.: bb1t.1992Apr10.125032.3946
Organization: Monsanto Company, St. Louis, MO

In article <1992Apr10.071532.20886@rtf.bt.co.uk>, traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
> In article <1966@ra.nrl.navy.mil> rovel@donatello.nrl.navy.mil (Amy Rovelstad) writes:
>>In article <1992Apr9.083521.16470@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes regarding a previous poster:
>>>
>>>Keeping pets at all is inconsistent with your stated objectives.
>>>
>>>The  problem  is  that  you may have taken the animals in for compassionate
>>>reasons,  and  this  cannot  be  faulted,  however I think that pet keeping
>>>should  as  a rule not be part of a Vegan lifestyle. It only encourages the
>>>breeding of more animals, and they are normally fed on other animals.
>>>
>>>If  one  likens  meat  eating to cannibalism then one can liken pet keeping
>>>to  slavery.  You may treat your slaves with love and respect, but they are
>>>still slaves.
>>>
>>>Please  note  that  I  am  not  recommending that you get rid of your pets,
>>>just   that   I  don't  think  you  should  replace  them  when  they  die.
>>
>>I am just curious.  Do you make any differentiation between pets obtained
>>via pet stores/breeders/puppy mills and those rescued through the SPCA
>>(for example)?  It seems to me that once the animal has been born that 
>>adopting them is morally acceptable, since the other alternative is for them
>>to be killed (as a direct consequence of human irresponsibility).  Of course, 
>>this must be coupled with spaying/neutering etc, and in an ideal world where 
>>the vegan/animal rights lifestyle has been universally adopted there will 
>>be no more of these discarded animals and the practice will come to a stop. 
>>However, until those utopian times descend upon us, there will still be a 
>>need for adoption.
>>
> I think I basically said that. One cannot fault someones motives for
> saving the life of an animal, but that still doesn't make pet keeping
> alright. Just as we need to reduce the population of pigs, cows and sheep
> to sensible levels so too do we need to stop breeding animals for pets.

[He's locking phasers Captain!!!!  Raise shields Mr.....]

Well Michael, I think that you are *WAY* off base.  I agree with some of
your postings but not this one.  

The relationship between domestic companion animals and humans appears
to go back to the times when we had just left the trees.  It surely
goes back to the earliest recorded history.  I think it is pretty
warped to compare pet keeping to slavery.  But I've seen the way you
sometimes get your point across by using such techniques.  

A short lesson:  In our world there are complex interactions between 
various organisms.  Two or more different organisms living in a close 
relationship is call Symbiosis.  There are 3 types: 1) Mutualism  2)
Commensalism  3) Parasitism.  The first benefits both, the second
benefits one and doesn't affect the other in any way (Remoras on 
sharks), and the third where one benefits and the other loses.
The natural world *CANNOT* function without these interactions.
The worst case scenario in a human/pet relationship is Commensal.

Considering the level of evolution that we and the types of 
companion animals we choose have reached,  this complex relationship
fits in very well with the scheme of things (cats and humans have
far more in common than say slugs and humans).  It *MAY* be more 
*NATURAL* than *UNNATURAL* for humans to live with other animals.
                                                                 
In some of your posts it seems that you advocate that humans step
completely out of the loop; that no interaction take place between
humans and animals.  This is absurd.  The relationship between 
companion animals and humans is one of the more *successful* of the
relationships between animals (yes, we are animals too).  Humans
and animals benefit emotionally from the relationship.  Both are
healthier, live longer and are better adjusted emotionally
when living together than living apart.  The animal because
of nutrition, shelter and health care (my three cats came to me
as sick starving strays, not long for this world) and the human 
because of the  emotional support given by the animal.  This is proven 
by considerable prospective and retrospective epidemiological research
and controlled studies. 

I support neutering of companion animals (at least as long as the
world is overpopulated with them) but considering that they 
*CANNOT* survive without us, your attitude dooms them to extinction.    

Don't you *DARE* refer to pet owners as slavers.  Save your cheap
rhetoric for politics.  Get yourself a rabbit,  you'll love it and
it will love you in return.  I think that you could use it.

[Power down the phasers, Mr. Worf]

  TED FEUERBACH   Scientific Systems Consultant  Trilogy Consulting, Inc. 
  Lake St. Louis, MO        (314) 537-6603       tjfeue@bb1t.monsanto.com
  Disclaimer:  The opinions expressed herein are MY OWN and obviously not
  the opinions of Trilogy, Monsanto or either of my two ex-wives.           
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg