Ethical question: Buying pets

[Ophidia]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

The average lifespan of an indoor-only cat is about 12-15 years, while a feral cat's average lifespan is 5. Dogs are roughly the same.

Well, almost all animals in the wild live short, brutal lives. Which is why our housepets often have horrible end-lives. They aren't really meant to live as long as we allow them to. A coyote's average lifespan is about 6 - 8 years. Same with wolves. A wolf in an established pack in protected space may life 15 years, but those lives have been artificially lengthened by human intervention. A short life is not necessarily a bad life, but a long life riddled with infirmity certainly can be.

[KarrinMurphy]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

Agreed, but if we're talking about quality of life here, it's important to note that feral cats are host to terrible ailments that the average house at doesn't experience, like rampant worm and flea infestation, infections, and (particularly in urban areas), sad, unnecessary death by cars and poisons and starvation and such.

There's no "natural" cat or dog habitat.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

Wow...we have NEVER seen a no-kill shelter that bad. We always check the animal health and happiness whenever we go to a new shelter...I imagine those places are horror shows

You may find that this is because your your careful checking, rather then the shelter itself. The thing with blanket no-kill policies is that NOTHING is euthanised, no matter what. So if they get an older pet with horrid dental disease and untreated Cushing's... they're going to pass that pet on. If if they are a little non-profit 'shelter' who rehomes their pets via the internet and doesn't have the funds to treat their medical conditions... some little old lady who's daughter thought she needed a dog is going to end up with an older pet who will cost her hundreds of dollars to get back to health, not to mention the ongoing medication costs to control the Cushing's. And pets with severe behaviour problems? They are the ones who get labelled at the shelter with 'she needs a special home with her own space' or 'she doesn't get on well with children' or 'with a lot of love Fluffy will overcome her fears and learn that life isn't so scary'. Yeah, no.

The average lifespan of an indoor-only cat is about 12-15 years, while a feral cat's average lifespan is 5. Dogs are roughly the same.

The average lifespan of a lion in the wild is 10-14. Many will die younger than that from parasites, fights, infections from fight wounds or starvation. In captivity the average lifespan of a lion is 20-30. In captivity they are likely to die from renal disease or some other 'age related' illness that is rarely seen in the wild.

Would you say that lions are a domesticated species that can't live on it's own in the wild?

EVERYTHING has a higher average lifespan in (responsible) captivity. Because we can treat their illnesses and ensure that they get a balanced diet. It's as simple as that.

- - - Updated - - -

Agreed, but if we're talking about quality of life here, it's important to note that feral cats are host to terrible ailments that the average house at doesn't experience, like rampant worm and flea infestation, infections, and (particularly in urban areas), sad, unnecessary death by cars and poisons and starvation and such.

Exactly what do you think that wild animals die of?

[Medusa]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

Didja know Disneyland has their own feral cat population to keep the mice down? True story!

[anubisa]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

I don't necessarily think it's wrong to buy. Three of my dogs I have had were bought...well one was given. The other three we bought and still have but bought from a small breed rescue group in kentucky that rescues small breeds who are being hurt. The lady also has puppies who we bought two from (two of the three). https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/SBRKY/info



Was an abused yorkshire terrior that we got.



The two puppies we got.

Generally, I think both options are good. Just be careful where you buy them from.

[KarrinMurphy]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

You may find that this is because your your careful checking, rather then the shelter itself. The thing with blanket no-kill policies is that NOTHING is euthanised, no matter what. So if they get an older pet with horrid dental disease and untreated Cushing's... they're going to pass that pet on. If if they are a little non-profit 'shelter' who rehomes their pets via the internet and doesn't have the funds to treat their medical conditions... some little old lady who's daughter thought she needed a dog is going to end up with an older pet who will cost her hundreds of dollars to get back to health, not to mention the ongoing medication costs to control the Cushing's. And pets with severe behaviour problems? They are the ones who get labelled at the shelter with 'she needs a special home with her own space' or 'she doesn't get on well with children' or 'with a lot of love Fluffy will overcome her fears and learn that life isn't so scary'. Yeah, no.



The average lifespan of a lion in the wild is 10-14. Many will die younger than that from parasites, fights, infections from fight wounds or starvation. In captivity the average lifespan of a lion is 20-30. In captivity they are likely to die from renal disease or some other 'age related' illness that is rarely seen in the wild.

Would you say that lions are a domesticated species that can't live on it's own in the wild?

EVERYTHING has a higher average lifespan in (responsible) captivity. Because we can treat their illnesses and ensure that they get a balanced diet. It's as simple as that.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly what do you think that wild animals die of?

I'm not actually sure which point you're arguing here. Is it that cats and dogs are safe and comfortable living on the street, because lions?

[Rhaethe]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

There are plenty of shelters (both high kill and no kill) and plenty of rescue groups and plenty of breeders that run the gamut of responsible and caring to downright shady and horrid. I have worked with rescue groups and shelters that absolutely will not adopt out an animal with behaviour problems until and unless said animal has been appropriately trained and worked with to overcome said problems, the same with correction of illnesses. I have also witnessed rescue groups that pull animals from shelters in mass in some cases and aggressively turn them over (often with behaviour problems and illnesses undisclosed) often at a profit. Yes, "retail rescue" is a thing now. http://animallaw.foxrothschild.com/2...retail-rescue/

Really, what it comes down to, in my opinion, is this:

It is ethical to do your homework, research the breed, research the type of animal you want, research the rescue groups or shelters or breeders or people you are acquiring the future pet from. Find out what it will take to ensure the animal you choose will have a healthful, secure home.

It is not ethical to do none of those things and blithely get a pet "just because" with no regard to their origin, current state, and future.

The pet in question is a living creature with emotion that will be a close part of your family for many years. In my opinion it is unethical to not consider that and just treat them as objects / accessories.

[Hawkfeathers]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

When I got Buddy, they were just eliminating the sale of wild-caught parrots and requiring them to be hand raised. I wanted a captive-bred anyway, for many reasons. I have no intention of ever having any other pets, even if he should pre-decease me. I did homework for 5 years before getting him, while my cat was aging, so I had a plan in place when she departed. This was pre-internet, so I used to visit parrot stores and talk to owners, and read a lot of books. Planned Parrothood at its finest!

[Rae'ya]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

I'm not actually sure which point you're arguing here. Is it that cats and dogs are safe and comfortable living on the street, because lions?

No, Karrin. I'm arguing the very flawed logic that dogs and cats can't survive in the wild on their own, and the belief that their average lifespan and the fact they are riddled with parasites supports this.

Feral dogs and cats get along just as well as other feral and wild creatures (which is not to say they are 'safe and comfortable', but that they are no worse off than anything else). Everything that you've used as support for your hypotheses can equally be applied to creatures such as lions, wolves and a million others. As several people have pointed out thus far.

[Bjorn]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

Is it wrong to ever purchase pets? Should we only adopt pets?

I don't think so. Purchasing or bartering animals has been around for centuries. I mean, if I have a goat and I don't need the male then I'm going to fatten it and sell it and I don't see anything wrong with this.

As for pets (since I understand there's a difference between cattle and pets), I don't think there's anything wrong with them so long as they're domesticated. I have a problem with wild animals as pets.

[Rae'ya]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

There are plenty of shelters (both high kill and no kill) and plenty of rescue groups and plenty of breeders that run the gamut of responsible and caring to downright shady and horrid. I have worked with rescue groups and shelters that absolutely will not adopt out an animal with behaviour problems until and unless said animal has been appropriately trained and worked with to overcome said problems, the same with correction of illnesses.

What did they do with animals who required ongoing medications, who come in with parvo or distemper (we don't get distemper often in Aus anymore but I understand it's still common in the US), who have renal or liver failure, who have debilitating congenital conditions or who have severe anxiety that present as human directed aggression (which can't be 'overcome' even with medication). I'm not challenging this, I'm genuinely interested in how blanket no-kill shelters address these impossible situations. As veterinarians and nurses/techs we don't LIKE euthanising animals, especially when there is a possibility that they can be treated and managed. But we also encounter situations on a regular basis where to remove suffering requires thousands of dollars or the ending of their life... and sometimes only the latter is an option. This is the difficulty that I have with blanket no-kill policies. What do you do with those animals? Do you just let them die 'naturally' (which, by the way, is never peacefully in their sleep... everything that dies 'naturally' suffers, they just may not tell you about it because they can't speak English). Do you pass officially Dangerous Dogs on to people? Where do the funds for thousands of dollars of specialist work come from? I just can't think of a truly ethical no-kill solution to certain scenarios and I don't understand how 'ethical' blanket no-kill shelters address these issues without euthanasia being on the table.

In general though, I absolutely agree that doing your homework and research is the most ethical thing for a prospective owner to do. And as I mentioned before I think there needs to be far stricter legislation around breeding and spay/neutering pets. I also support the idea of some form of compulsory training or education program for people before they can buy a pet (of any species)... I've seen far too many people who just aren't cut out for it. I'm not against buying a bred pet... I personally know some amazingly ethical and responsible breeders who are working hard to increase the physical and behavioural soundness of their breeds and I would buy a dog from any of them in a heartbeat. I also support adoption, and when hubby and I finally get a cat it will be from the RSPCA during kitten season.

But I believe that there also needs to be stricter legislation around shelters and rescue organisations. Places like the RSPCA and the AWL here in South Australia are under strict guidelines and policies, because of their status and funding. It's the smaller ones that can slip under the radar and practice non-ethical standards. Perhaps if we tightened up on those, scenarios like I've described will become less common anyway. The below is a quote from the website of a 'respectable' shelter from which I've had a number of not-completely-healthy pets presented to me:

Although, many pets come into our care with major health problems, and we will always rally to raise funds to make sure they receive this medical attention. After adoption, ongoing vaccination, flea treatment and vet care costs will be responsibility of the adopter.

Our animals are vet checked and we make every effort to ensure they are in good health at the time of adoption, but can offer no guarantees as to their condition long term.

Bolded bits are mine. Because those are code for 'we'll get them looked at so that we can put 'vet checked' on the paperwork, but we can't afford to treat all the animals that come through us and you may adopt a non-healthy pet and we don't have to help with the costs'.

Rescue isn't for everyone. And rescue brings with it a higher chance of getting a special needs pet that you may or may not be able to afford. At the end of the day, adult pets were seized or surrendered for a reason. Sometimes it's just that people moved or their owners passed away or whatever, but often it's because they have a medical or behavioral issue that the people couldn't cope with. As others have said... research really is the key. Make sure they are healthy. Make sure you know what you need to do to get them healthy. And make sure that you will have the funds to care for possible problems without having to rely on pet insurance (because you can't be sure the company will cover their probably-pre-existing conditions). And just because you rescued your pet does not mean that you are not responsible for their care... I have had a number of new clients who, frustrated by the fact that their new pet is going to cost them hundreds of dollars they weren't aware it would need, say to us 'but I rescued it, I can't afford that, it's a rescue dog'. (Existing clients don't seem to do that, so I wonder if it's a new-pet-owner thing?)

Of course a bred pet has the possibility of problems also (which breeders rarely tell you about when you purchase) but that's where it's important to VISIT the breeder and meet as many of the relatives as you can. If the breeder wont let you visit, see their facilities or meet the parents, don't buy from them. Be aware that many pet shops and internet sites that have lots of puppies for sale often get their stock from puppy mills and are therefore supporting the puppy mill industry. Unfortunately, many of the 'designer breed' dogs are also puppy milled. And the fact that you paid over $1K for it doesn't mean that it's magically going to be perfectly healthy and perfectly well behaved.

- - - Updated - - -

I have a problem with wild animals as pets.

Hell. Yes.

And no, I'm not talking about captive bred birds or rabbits or lizards or snakes or whatever. I am 100% against caught animals as pets (except in the case of hand reared babies who were rescued and can't be released... I'm ambivalent about adult rescues and think that depends on the individual animal). And I am 100% against things like lynx and pumas and wolves and other large exotics as HOUSE PETS. We don't do this in Australia... it's illegal. How can you provide a lynx with everything it needs? It's hard enough to do that in a proper, ethical conservation-focused zoo, let alone in your house. (And on that point, but off topic, I also have issues with some zoos and wildlife centres).

[Quetzal]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

Okay, single post from me as I'm in a severe minority (as in, likely the only one here with this opinion) and I can't be bothered discussing it for the billionth time.

I don't agree with keeping pets, or domestic animals in general, at all. Yes, I currently have pets that I got before I came to this conclusion and now feel it is selfish of me to keep pets. I still have them because I have a responsibility, having bought/adopted them when I was younger, to look after them as best I can until they die. After that, I will not be getting any more pets.
Animals aren't objects or consumer products, they're living things that I see as no different from any human.

Since there's no way in a million years that any majority will agree with me on this, I'd prefer pets to be adopted as needed, not bred for profit.

[Rhaethe]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

What did they do with animals who required ongoing medications, who come in with parvo or distemper (we don't get distemper often in Aus anymore but I understand it's still common in the US), who have renal or liver failure, who have debilitating congenital conditions or who have severe anxiety that present as human directed aggression (which can't be 'overcome' even with medication). I'm not challenging this, I'm genuinely interested in how blanket no-kill shelters address these impossible situations. As veterinarians and nurses/techs we don't LIKE euthanising animals, especially when there is a possibility that they can be treated and managed. But we also encounter situations on a regular basis where to remove suffering requires thousands of dollars or the ending of their life... and sometimes only the latter is an option. This is the difficulty that I have with blanket no-kill policies. What do you do with those animals? Do you just let them die 'naturally' (which, by the way, is never peacefully in their sleep... everything that dies 'naturally' suffers, they just may not tell you about it because they can't speak English). Do you pass officially Dangerous Dogs on to people? Where do the funds for thousands of dollars of specialist work come from? I just can't think of a truly ethical no-kill solution to certain scenarios and I don't understand how 'ethical' blanket no-kill shelters address these issues without euthanasia being on the table.

That, I couldn't tell you. The shelter and rescue groups I am referring to were private, and did not accept public intakes, rather, they pulled animals out of kill-shelters. So I imagine they cherry-picked, but I couldn't say. One rescue group I support from time to time recently funded the repair of a knee injury one of their dogs had that got worse whilst being fostered. They did this with donated funds.

But I believe that there also needs to be stricter legislation around shelters and rescue organisations. Places like the RSPCA and the AWL here in South Australia are under strict guidelines and policies, because of their status and funding. It's the smaller ones that can slip under the radar and practice non-ethical standards. Perhaps if we tightened up on those, scenarios like I've described will become less common anyway.

I agree with this wholeheartedly. Unfortunately, in the States, I suspect that municipal shelters are less regulated than say the Australian municipal shelters are. Rescue groups, the GOOD ones, are really the only chance many in need animals have, and those are only softly regulated.

Rescue isn't for everyone. And rescue brings with it a higher chance of getting a special needs pet that you may or may not be able to afford. At the end of the day, adult pets were seized or surrendered for a reason. Sometimes it's just that people moved or their owners passed away or whatever, but often it's because they have a medical or behavioral issue that the people couldn't cope with.

I couldn't speak or argue with what occurs in Australia. But within my experience and observation, here in the States yes, there could be a medical or behavioral issue the people couldn't cope with and often there is, but it is equally as often that the adult animal is perfectly fine but simply no longer convenient, or no longer fits within the owners' perception of what is cute and cuddly. I shit you not. Perhaps my perception is somewhat skewed by the volunteer work I have done ... of which, I am somewhat ashamed to say, I could only last 7 months before my heart broke and I couldn't muddle through anymore

[Ophidia]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

Except in the case of hand reared babies who were rescued and can't be released...

The sad thing about this is that quite a few of these types of 'rescues' happen because of human ignorance. People don't realize that animal babies often get left alone for long periods of time. It doesn't mean the parents or mother is dead or has abandoned them. The parental animals do this to find food for themselves & their offspring, and also as a means of protection. Adult animals have a larger profile and stronger scent than babies, so if the parents move away they can spot predators & dangers without drawing immediate attention to the nest or hiding place of the young. People also think that once an animal baby (especially birds) smell like 'human', the mother will abandon or kill it - which is in most cases absolutely not true. We successfully re-nested many, many fallen chicks and squirrels & bunnies (and mother rabbits/hares are extremely sensitive to disturbed nests) & gods know what else when I was a kid.

And on that point, but off topic, I also have issues with some zoos and wildlife centres

Zoos & conservation parks are a two-edged sword for me. I abhor them (especially aquariums that keep enormous sea-dwellers like whale sharks), but people care more about animals when they can see or touch them up close. Watching a nature documentary doesn't come close to seeing lions or giraffes or dolphins an arm's length away. When people have close-up encounters with animals, they are more likely to make donations to conservation efforts, and be more aware that they share the planet with those creatures as well as their fellow humans. More and more zoos are also becoming involved in breed-&-release programs for threatened species - they aren't just places to show off exotic collections any more.

[Medusa]

Re: Ethical question: Buying pets

Cats and dogs are bred to be domesticated. If we just all decide f em..you think we'd have happy cats and dogs roaming the streets all happy as a clam? Nope. In a good home, both animal and human get wonderful compensation for their love. They both benefit.

But I get what you are sayng Perz. In fact it's how I feel about babies. I wish them all dead.
Yup. True story. :devil: