Split Thread: Why humans should not keep pet animals

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'd just outlaw keeping animals as pets. The enormous majority of cruelty to animals goes unreported and unknown. I've seen things which would make you puke just hearing about them. I just can't see it being worth the price to appease a few good owners who have an odd desire to own a live toy. If you want to stop cruelty, stop letting humans own animals.

That is probably a whole new thread, and probably in the Philosophy section.

You're very big on counsel of despair. I've heard about things done to children that would turn your stomach forever. Maybe we should stop all humans from breeding altogether. Or expose the newborn to be raised by wolves. Or bring up all children in strictly-regulated state nurseries. Gotta be better than these parental homes where they can end up like Baby Peter. I just can't see it being worth the price to appease a few good parents who have this primitive urge to breed. If you want to stop cruelty, stop letting people keep their kids.

OK, it's ridiculous. But it's not that far from your position.

Most pets are well cared for. Quite a few are pampered something rotten. There are entire industries supported by pet-owning - not least the majority of my own profession. The social good done by assistance dogs and even the companionship afforded to the lonely are hard to quantify. I've no doubt you can find numerous examples of horrendous cruelty incidents. So can I. I've done the actual post mortems on some of them. I see the bad side.

But I also see the good side. If you personally have never known the joy and companionship afforded by a relationship with a member of a non-human species, you've missed something pretty special. Fair enough, it may not be your thing. But don't knock it. Don't deny the lonely old lady her beloved cat, or the blind person his guide dog. Don't condemn most of the members of two species who have become symbiotically entwined with human society to euthanasia, or starving in the wilderness as abandoned ferals.

Maybe 5% of pet animals are abused. Maybe it's 1%. I don't know. It may be quite a lot of animals, but it pales into insignificance beside the benefits and the joys. How did you get so cynical that you can see no solution to the problem of abusive animal owners than to ban all pets? How did you get so bitter that you feel you can't condemn the sadist in the OP, because you feel overwhelmed by all the rest of animal suffering?

As I pointed out in my earlier post, the global trend is to better and better standards of animal welfare. To abandon all that progress, and instead to kill or abandon all our dearly-loved pets, is completely senseless. And my cat just agreed with me. I think. He may just want his supper.

I appreciate you have specific problems with cats in NZ, and I feel for you - or rather, for your bird life. I wouldn't know what to advise, though I'd support the compulsory neutering of everything feline on the islands if you could get the legislation passed. However, few countries have your specific problems, and the lives of countless people - and their pets - are enormously enriched by the relationship.

I think you might have mislaid your sense of proportion, maybe.

Rolfe.

Split from: Feeding your dog. On live kittens.

Posted By:Gaspode

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

But I also see the good side. If you personally have never known the joy and companionship afforded by a relationship with a member of a non-human species, you've missed something pretty special. Fair enough, it may not be your thing. But don't knock it. Don't deny the lonely old lady her beloved cat, or the blind person his guide dog. Don't condemn most of the members of two species who have become symbiotically entwined with human society to euthanasia, or starving in the wilderness as abandoned ferals.

As you say, it's probably a new thread, but I just don't "get" owning animals as pets. Sure, some oldies get companionship from them, so maybe we could have an age limit of 60 or so to own a pet - as a minimum.

And it's not just the cruelty angle - either human on animal or animal on animal. I also take into account the attacks on people, the piles of dog-turd in parks, the cat-turd all over the garden, the number of animals euthanased because nobody wants them, the cost on ratepayers of animal control, dogs that worry sheep and the overwhelming problem of feral cats; there are many detrimental things about pets.

Seriously, adding up all the crap that people's pets cause others, I don't honestly see the need to have them.

If people would look after them properly, I'd have a lot less problem, and while it might only be 5% of owners that are actually cruel deliberately, I don't believe the majority of pet owners are "good" owners.

But I'm a cynic.

Guide dogs, etc, I count as working dogs and would be exempt.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I appreciate you have specific problems with cats in NZ, and I feel for you - or rather, for your bird life. I wouldn't know what to advise, though I'd support the compulsory neutering of everything feline on the islands if you could get the legislation passed. However, few countries have your specific problems, and the lives of countless people - and their pets - are enormously enriched by the relationship.

I think you might have mislaid your sense of proportion, maybe.

Rolfe.

Maybe, and maybe it's just because I equate keeping animals with childish anthropomorphisism.

I must figure out how to do a cost/benefit analysis on the whole subject.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Myself? I'd just outlaw keeping animals as pets. The enormous majority of cruelty to animals goes unreported and unknown. I've seen things which would make you puke just hearing about them. I just can't see it being worth the price to appease a few good owners who have an odd desire to own a live toy. If you want to stop cruelty, stop letting humans own animals.

And for this I am eternally grateful that people like you do not run the world. This is precisely the type of mentality that groups like HSUS and PETA want, and it's based on a twisted view of reality.

As Rolfe pointed out, the vast majority of owners are decent and good to their pets. The reason this isn't typically a big talking point is because people rarely get upset when nothing is wrong. Should driving be banned because there is a small minority of drivers who get into auto accidents? Should people be banned from raising kids because of the ones who abuse theirs? Additionally, you should realize that banning domesticated animals basically sentences many of them to extinction-- yeah, that sounds much better for their welfare.

I can sympathize with the problem of cats in NZ-- they're a species that has a weird mix of characteristics of vermin and top-of-the-food-chain predators. They decimate populations of prey with amazing efficiency and ferocity. I'm personally not a cat person myself, though I've been attached to a few by association with other people. Like Rolfe suggested, a policy of catch-neuter-release may be helpful, and it's helped stray cat populations from remaining a problem in many cities. However, also like Rolfe said, I believe your perspective of the problem is off.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Myself? I'd just outlaw keeping animals as pets. The enormous majority of cruelty to animals goes unreported and unknown. I've seen things which would make you puke just hearing about them. I just can't see it being worth the price to appease a few good owners who have an odd desire to own a live toy. If you want to stop cruelty, stop letting humans own animals.

But I agree we should treat them a little better than the said POS.

Would you outlaw girlfriends, boyfriends, spouses, and having children too?

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

As I pointed out in my earlier post, the global trend is to better and better standards of animal welfare. To abandon all that progress, and instead to kill or abandon all our dearly-loved pets, is completely senseless. And my cat just agreed with me. I think. He may just want his supper.

You may be a vet but I live with 198 cats... He wants his supper.

As far as Catch Spay/Neuter Release, a strong program is good but I would also recommend a low cost spay/neuter clinic and if you can find an official with the guts, have him/her go on the local news show once a week, explain the problem of stray cats and dogs, explain that if the animal is not adopted in x days it will be put down. Then put one down... On the air. I know a Sheriff who did this and adoptions and spay neuter sky rocketed.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Redtail

Then put one down... On the air. I know a Sheriff who did this and adoptions and spay neuter sky rocketed.

I wonder if that would work for the murder rate in th US?

[quadraginta]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

<snip>

I must figure out how to do a cost/benefit analysis on the whole subject.

This one sentence alone demonstrates an inability to comprehend the issues.

Not everything can be entered into a spreadsheet.

You mentioned maybe allowing pets for "oldies". Children can learn a great deal about socializing, responsibility, and compassion by being taught the proper way to interact with pets. They can derive a great deal of enjoyment, comfort, and even solace from them, and discover many things about interacting with intelligences and attitudes that are "different" from their own. I'm not sure how one weighs the value of that.

The pitiful cretin this thread is about might well have profited from such an upbringing, and we might not be having this discussion. I think what Rolfe may have been suggesting is that just because something can be done badly, or misused doesn't mean that it has to be, or even normally is.

[commandlinegamer]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

As you say, it's probably a new thread, but I just don't "get" owning animals as pets.

I used to think the domestication of animals was an abomination (it's easy to be idealistic when you're young). I can't say definitively if my cats would be better in the wild than at home with 3 square meals a day and a warm stomach to lie on. I benefit from their presence and I think they get something out of it.

But banning pets is hardly likely to stop cruelty to animals; there's plenty sadism to go round when it comes to wild creatures.

The trouble with despair is that taken to its logical conclusion, you'd have to annihilate the planet to prevent all cruelty.

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

But banning pets is hardly likely to stop cruelty to animals; there's plenty sadism to go round when it comes to wild creatures.

Yep

Budding sociopaths a lot of the time.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

As you say, it's probably a new thread, but I just don't "get" owning animals as pets. Sure, some oldies get companionship from them, so maybe we could have an age limit of 60 or so to own a pet - as a minimum.

Big of you! You really think people who've never interacted with a pet of their own will suddenly take to it at 60? Get real. And where are they going to get this socialised animal from? Other oldies breeding cats and dogs? What's going to happen to the puppy the 60-year-old acquires when he dies or has to go into a nursing home 10 years later?

This is unrealistic, impractical and frankly ridiculous.

And another thing. I don't have particularly libertarian leanings, but what happened to individual freedom? You're talking about taking away the right of anyone under 60 to own a pet. No matter how lonely, or how well that pet would be looked after. And for what benefit? To address a level of animal abuse you have frankly blown out of all proportion.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

And it's not just the cruelty angle - either human on animal or animal on animal. I also take into account the attacks on people, the piles of dog-turd in parks, the cat-turd all over the garden, the number of animals euthanased because nobody wants them, the cost on ratepayers of animal control, dogs that worry sheep and the overwhelming problem of feral cats; there are many detrimental things about pets.

Seriously, adding up all the crap that people's pets cause others, I don't honestly see the need to have them.

There are a lot of things I don't honestly see the need for either. Pubs, for a start. Noisy, antisocial, and responsible for people falling over, vomiting on the pavement and costing the NHS a large fortune in alcohol-related disease. Fortunately, though, I accept that for many people the pub is a valued venue for social interaction and relaxation, and while I'd quite like someone to think of a solution to the vomiting on the pavement and the costs to the NHS, I'm not advocating banning pubs.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

If people would look after them properly, I'd have a lot less problem, and while it might only be 5% of owners that are actually cruel deliberately, I don't believe the majority of pet owners are "good" owners.

But I'm a cynic.

I don't think that adequately describes the situation. You're in cloud cuckoo land. You're focussing on the downside and blowing it out of all proportion. The way to stop people throwing up on the pavement is not to ban pubs. The way to prevent road accidents is not to ban cars. The way to prevent child cruelty is not to bring up all children in central institutions.

Of course the majority of pet owners are good owners. Shadow any smalll animal vet for a week or two. The non-stop stream of concerned owners seeking medical attention for sick pets might surprise you. The ratio of these people to the scumbags you'll also encounter (often by way of the local SPCA bringing an animal to you) is enormously in favour of the good owners. Just look round any neighbourhood, at the children out with the family dogs, the cats sunning themselves on window sills and so on - even in a poor area, these will outnumber the wretched and the illtreated many times.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Guide dogs, etc, I count as working dogs and would be exempt.

No, you don't get to do that. Guide dogs and sniffer dogs and so on come out of the pet animal population and gene pool. If you have no pets, you have no assistance dogs. You might even find sheepdogs become pretty rare, if you sever the human/companion animal bond as you'd like to.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Maybe, and maybe it's just because I equate keeping animals with childish anthropomorphisism.

And that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, you have to accept that you're in a small minority. Why should you be permitted to impose your ideology on the rest of us?

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I must figure out how to do a cost/benefit analysis on the whole subject.

Pointless. You have no conception of the worth of the huge benefits conferred on both sides of the human/companion animal bond. You can see nothing but cruelty, slain wildlife and dog turds. Your conclusions are foregone. However, as they say, other people's mileage may vary.

I have trouble understanding you. On one hand, your concern for animal welfare (evidenced by your revulsion for halal slaughter and animal cruelty in general) seems to show you as an animal lover. And yet you have no real concept of the bonds people forge with their pets. You dismiss entirely the millennia of shared history between man, the dog and the cat, that (especially in the case of the dog) has shaped human civilisation. You'd prefer that these animals didn't exist at all, rather than accept that this is an imperfect world while striving to make it better.

I've met people like you, occassionally. They've been the utter lunatic fringe of the animal liberation movement. They seem to live in a fantasy world where animals exist in some sort of prelapsarian paradise were it not for their every interaction with evil man. I think it's pathological. You seem to take it even further, in that you also deplore the inevitable cruelties of the natural world of the predator, and would like to eliminate predators as well.

I don't imagine anything I can type is going to dent this sort of fanaticism. However, as someone else remarked, at least you're not in charge, and I (and my pets) are pretty pleased about that bit.

Rolfe.

[Rolfe]

And this is just for TA, especially.



Rolfe.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by quadraginta

This one sentence alone demonstrates an inability to comprehend the issues.

Not everything can be entered into a spreadsheet.

Costs & benefits aren't necessarily financial.

How do you balance the cost of cats and dogs on our environment? How do I assess the value of dogs for companionship against children who are blinded by parasites in dog ******

Maybe you should take a critical look at your view.

Originally Posted by quadraginta

You mentioned maybe allowing pets for "oldies". Children can learn a great deal about socializing, responsibility, and compassion by being taught the proper way to interact with pets.

Nice assertion. I prefer to work on facts rather than anecdotes.

How many children act with animals in a "proper way" and what is the "proper way" to interact with them? In what way do children learn human social skills by interacting with cats & dogs?

Originally Posted by quadraginta

They can derive a great deal of enjoyment, comfort, and even solace from them, and discover many things about interacting with intelligences and attitudes that are "different" from their own. I'm not sure how one weighs the value of that.

Well, when you figure it out, you can try balancing it against the blind kids.

I'd need to see some extreme benefits to balance that out.

Originally Posted by commandlinegamer

The trouble with despair is that taken to its logical conclusion, you'd have to annihilate the planet to prevent all cruelty.

My fault for not explaining sooner, but I did list the reasons to not keep animals and cruelty was only a small part of it. The main reason I'd get rid of animal ownership is the harm the animals do rather than the harm done to them.

Originally Posted by Bill Thompson

Let's feed babies to sharks and film it.

Only Irish ones.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Big of you! You really think people who've never interacted with a pet of their own will suddenly take to it at 60? Get real. And where are they going to get this socialised animal from? Other oldies breeding cats and dogs? What's going to happen to the puppy the 60-year-old acquires when he dies or has to go into a nursing home 10 years later?

What happens to it now?

I know of a large number of cases where animals are just killed by the vet when the owner goes into a rest home.

I don't think the logistics provide much of an argument, to be honest. It would be a piece of cake to let people breed commercially to satisfy the demand, and I don't believe someone of 60 would have much trouble learning how to interact with a dog or cat - they're dogs and cats, not people.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And another thing. I don't have particularly libertarian leanings, but what happened to individual freedom? You're talking about taking away the right of anyone under 60 to own a pet. No matter how lonely, or how well that pet would be looked after. And for what benefit? To address a level of animal abuse you have frankly blown out of all proportion.

No, I specifically noted why I would get rid of animal ownership, and I know you read it because it's the one where I mentioned oldies being allowed pets.

Here they are again:

Originally Posted by Me

I also take into account the attacks on people, the piles of dog-turd in parks, the cat-turd all over the garden, the number of animals euthanased because nobody wants them, the cost on ratepayers of animal control, dogs that worry sheep and the overwhelming problem of feral cats; there are many detrimental things about pets.

Seriously, adding up all the crap that people's pets cause others, I don't honestly see the need to have them.

Note my main point - which I've bolded this time, is the trouble that pets cause others.

As to taking away rights, there are enough laws already regarding animal ownership. Nobody is allowed to keep endangered animals as pets for starters.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Of course the majority of pet owners are good owners.

I just flatly do not believe that.

I guess it all depends on what you call "good owners", and if allowing dogs to **** in the park is part of "good ownership" then lots of people might be "good owners".

Alas, the number of dogs I see defecating in parks, on streets and gardens adds up to at least a majority. In the case of cats, it's even easier - 100% of them **** all over everyone's place. I've never yet seen a cat owner going around with a shovel and plastic bag.

The vast majority of dogs in Auckland City are left unattended during the day. Is part of "good ownership" leaving an animal tied to a tree for 9-10 hours daily? I don't know, because I see animals as a complete waste of time, but if that's the sort of thing which makes one a "good owner", then I could well be wrong, but by my standards, I don't believe the majority of owners of cats or dogs look after them in a fashion which stops them being a pest to other people, or is fair to the animal.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Shadow any smalll animal vet for a week or two. The non-stop stream of concerned owners seeking medical attention for sick pets might surprise you. The ratio of these people to the scumbags you'll also encounter (often by way of the local SPCA bringing an animal to you) is enormously in favour of the good owners. Just look round any neighbourhood, at the children out with the family dogs, the cats sunning themselves on window sills and so on - even in a poor area, these will outnumber the wretched and the illtreated many times.

I already said that cruelty was a small percentage, so your point is quite meaningless, although I a good comparison would be how many animals are treated by vets against how many animals are euthanased through being unwanted every day. That might be a useful guide.

I don't doubt that people are concerned aboutt heir animal and take it to a vet when it's sick, but I also fail to see how that makes someone a "good owner".

Originally Posted by Rolfe

No, you don't get to do that. Guide dogs and sniffer dogs and so on come out of the pet animal population and gene pool. If you have no pets, you have no assistance dogs. You might even find sheepdogs become pretty rare, if you sever the human/companion animal bond as you'd like to.

Sorry, but the logistic argument is just a fail. We are sufficiently advanced at supply chains that a small number of dogs wouldn't be a hardship.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, you have to accept that you're in a small minority. Why should you be permitted to impose your ideology on the rest of us?

I'm in a small minority in many matters.

If it bothered me, I'd have gone to church this morning.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Pointless. You have no conception of the worth of the huge benefits conferred on both sides of the human/companion animal bond. You can see nothing but cruelty, slain wildlife and dog turds. Your conclusions are foregone. However, as they say, other people's mileage may vary.

No, you're right - I have no conception of the benefits.

That's probably because, outside of working dogs, I don't see any. (refer the childish anthropomorphisism)

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I have trouble understanding you. On one hand, your concern for animal welfare (evidenced by your revulsion for halal slaughter and animal cruelty in general) seems to show you as an animal lover.

That would be wrong, but I don't believe we should be cruel to them.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And yet you have no real concept of the bonds people forge with their pets. You dismiss entirely the millennia of shared history between man, the dog and the cat, that (especially in the case of the dog) has shaped human civilisation. You'd prefer that these animals didn't exist at all, rather than accept that this is an imperfect world while striving to make it better.

Yep, and if I could make it a whole lot better in one fell swoop, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

I'd think of the kids not blinded, the kids without ringworm - or other worms - the kids whose faces haven't had to be sewn back on after dog attacks, the lack of dog and cat faeces in the world and I'd find it hard to cry for a few people who miss their moggy.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I've met people like you, occassionally. They've been the utter lunatic fringe of the animal liberation movement. They seem to live in a fantasy world where animals exist in some sort of prelapsarian paradise were it not for their every interaction with evil man. I think it's pathological. You seem to take it even further, in that you also deplore the inevitable cruelties of the natural world of the predator, and would like to eliminate predators as well.

No, I wouldn't really. I hunt, I fish - killed a few today, actually - I eat all kinds of meat and would never save an animal from a predator. I made a moral equivalency analogy, that's all.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I don't imagine anything I can type is going to dent this sort of fanaticism. However, as someone else remarked, at least you're not in charge, and I (and my pets) are pretty pleased about that bit.

Rolfe.

Interesting that I'm a fanatic all of a sudden.

I'd like to see some evidence of the value to humans of cats & dogs beyond some perceived social effects.

In the case of cats, you'd need to show that the perceived benefits weren't just toxoplasmosis evincing itself in actions.

Toxoplasmosis alone ought to be sufficient reason to not have cats in any house anyway. I'm not anti-abortion, but I prefer it to be choice rather than the result of interaction with another species.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

And this is just for TA, especially.

Actually, I'm glad you posted that.

It's a beautiful, graphic illustration of my point on childish anthropomorphisism. "Love" and animals.

I have no doubt that by the standard human construct, pet owners "love" their animals, but do the animals love their owners? Or is it simply a warping of ancient herding/social instinct within the animal itself?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, I wouldn't really. I hunt, I fish - killed a few today, actually - I eat all kinds of meat and would never save an animal from a predator. I made a moral equivalency analogy, that's all.

What did you get?

[kerikiwi]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Nice assertion. I prefer to work on facts rather than anecdotes.

And yet you proceed with an extensive list of assertions and anecdotes...

[Rolfe]

Could you provide some statistics on the number of children blinded by Toxocara canis?

This is of course an entirely treatable parasite. Interesting you think that banning pets is an appropriate way to address the problems it causes, rather than compulsory anthelmintic treatment of puppies and kittens, which would have exactly the same effect, if enforced.

We've had long threads on the woo claims about Toxoplasma gondii already. It causes damage to human foetuses in utero. The steps to take to avoid that are simple and widely published. The rest is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Actually, the main medical problem caused by Toxoplasma is abortion in sheep. There's a good vaccine available for that though. If human toxoplasmosis was a real problem (as opposed to a sporadic, easily-avoided one on top of some imaginary hype), a human toxoplasma vaccine is hardly beyond the wit of science.

Indeed, dog poop is unpleasant. But you know what? Fifty years ago you wouldn't see any dog owner caring. Now, most dog owners go round with their poop scoops and do what's necessary. The others are gradually being shamed into compliance. I never saw a dog tied to a tree, ever. We have squillions of sheep round here. I do post mortems on the dead ones, and while I know there is a rogue dog occasionally attacking on one farm that I'd shoot if I know which dog it was, dog attacks are very rare.

Sounds as if you are either massively over-sensitive to low-grade problems, or your neighbours and compatriots need a whack with the clue bat to show them how to behave responsibly. It's perfectly possible for dog owners to behave well, and I have to say round here they pretty much do.

My solution to the ones who don't would be to get going with the public education programmes, backed up by a bit of legislation where necessary. You want to break the human/companion animal bond. I don't think you're a fanatic "all of a sudden", it seems to be quite an entrenched attitude.

Rolfe.

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

How many children act with animals in a "proper way" and what is the "proper way" to interact with them? In what way do children learn human social skills by interacting with cats & dogs?

I think you're deliberately missing the point here. Regarding farm animals like chickens, what a child could gain by learning to properly care for and deal with chickens deal primarily in learning the social economics of reciprocation-- you don't get something without investing time, energy, and care-- as well as learning basic responsibilities for something dependent on you. Children can also learn social responsibility by keeping pets, including patience versus instant gratification and the economics of dependence. I'd point to my own experience growing up, but instead of that simple anecdote I'll just refer to the many pet training and ownership clubs all over the place where human social interaction is just as much a part as the animal interaction. Or, if you don't want something that complex, I could point out the benefit of having an animal that gets a child outside to play instead of sitting in front of a TV screen all day.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Well, when you figure it out, you can try balancing it against the blind kids.

Easy balance there: the tragedies are so vastly lower in proportion to the benefits that they're not even close to comparable in number.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I don't doubt that people are concerned aboutt heir animal and take it to a vet when it's sick, but I also fail to see how that makes someone a "good owner".

That's because you're creating a false dichotomy.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I'd think of the kids not blinded, the kids without ringworm - or other worms - the kids whose faces haven't had to be sewn back on after dog attacks, the lack of dog and cat faeces in the world and I'd find it hard to cry for a few people who miss their moggy.

And the people for whom their dogs have protected them from danger (it happens)? The millions of people whose quality of life is improved by the companionship of their pet? The incidents where a person's life is actually saved by their animal companion-- yes, it happens, and quite often, actually-- are just "childish anthropomorphism" to you? You're selectively choosing instances where animals weren't a positive impact in order to make your argument here, and that's why your opinion is being criticized.

Again, we can sympathize with your complaints, but its for those very complaints that there are groups and individuals who are constantly going to lengths to try to change things for the better, to minimize the negatives and amplify the positives. And that's been the general trend in much of the industrialized world. Your simplistic "solution" ignores the positives and addresses the negatives in a throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater application.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by kerikiwi

And yet you proceed with an extensive list of assertions and anecdotes...

I didn't see the need to present details on dog attacks, toxoplasmosis or children being blinded by dog ****, but since you obviously aren't aware, I'll be generous:

Dog attacks on humans.

30 deaths in USA in 2009.

And for a Kiwi flavour since you don't read newspapers, watch tv news or listen to radio news, some local dog attack highlights.

There were even a couple yesterday.

If you need more, let me know.

Children are blinded by contact with dog faeces.

12 kids a year in Australia. Yarra City Council.
2 BBC.
3 East Devon District Council, UK.
4 New Scientist.

again, if you need more, let me know.

Toxoplasmosis.

1 Kids' Health.org, USA
2 The Center for Disease Control, USA
3 Medicine.net, USA

There are hundreds more here.

Dog attacks on sheep and other farm animals.

1 Most dog owners don't believe their dog would do such a thing.
2 One from close to you - at least six in Whangarei during the first half of 2007.
3 The Beeb, ten days ago.
4 Nice story with pics.

You can find details of thousands more cases here.

Cats & dogs threat to native birds, NZ.

Otorohanga Kiwi House.

Forest & Bird. Read 'em and weep. (If you care at all for kiwi, anyway.)

Was there anything else?

Oh yeah, the number of animals killed by SPCA. In 2008, a mere 20,000 cats and 500 dogs. I've been lucky to find this fact sheet from SPCA, which indicates that around 141,000 domestic cats live in Auckland. I am working on the presumption that SPCA Auckland is a fair resource. I know Bob Kerridge blows a lot of hot air, but I don't doubt their figures to any great degree.

The average cat lives 13 years? I find it interesting that SPCA deletes the entire cat population of Auckland every seven years.

Get back to me if you need any more facts.

Cheers

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Could you provide some statistics on the number of children blinded by Toxocara canis?

See above. An official Aussie local government website gives a number of "twelve a year" for Australia. That may well be incorrect, but I note the British Medical Journal states "It accounts for considerable preventable childhood illness and blindness".

I'm no expert, but the BMJ is usually pretty reliable, so, in actual numbers, no, I don't know. For me, one would be enough, but if the BMJ is prepared to call it "considerable" numbers, then rest assured, it's enough to be a serious concern.

To people who prefer kids to dogs, anyway.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This is of course an entirely treatable parasite. Interesting you think that banning pets is an appropriate way to address the problems it causes, rather than compulsory anthelmintic treatment of puppies and kittens, which would have exactly the same effect, if enforced.

Oh my word. I thought you were serious there for a minute!

We already have laws which don't work regarding dogs, let's add some more.

Orwell shoulda used dogs, I tell ya!

In a more serious vein, please feel free to try to explain how you're going to enforce the laws. If the vast majority of pet owners were responsible, "good" owners, I don't believe a problem would exist.

But it does, and demonstrably so.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

We've had long threads on the woo claims about Toxoplasma gondii already.

Not sure why you'd mention that, because I would like to look at facts regarding the disease. As to pseudoscience on the subject, I can't say that I've ever seen or heard any.

I see you mention a couple of points:

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It causes damage to human foetuses in utero. The steps to take to avoid that are simple and widely published. The rest is unsubstantiated nonsense.

Pah, foetuses, who needs 'em?

Are you serious?

A disease that causes damage to human foetuses in utero and your next sentence starts....

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Actually, the main medical problem caused by Toxoplasma is abortion in sheep.

!

I find that incomprehensible, but each to their own, I guess.

Anyway, we were on toxoplasmosis in humans.

The US Department of Agriculture [non-"woo"] says:

The socio-economic impact of toxoplasmosis in human suffering and the cost of care of sick children, especially those with mental retardation and blindness, are enormous.

Or, maybe the Victoria, Australia, Department of Health, which notes that the effects of toxoplasmosis on unborn babies can include:

Skin rashes
Nervous system damage
Mental retardation
Cerebral calcification (hardening of brain tissue)
Liver damage
Eye problems
Foetal death (in rare cases).

But hell, they're only foetuses, right. Not like they were unborn lambs and worth money.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

If human toxoplasmosis was a real problem (as opposed to a sporadic, easily-avoided one on top of some imaginary hype), a human toxoplasma vaccine is hardly beyond the wit of science.

bolding mine

I am truly *********** gobsmacked.

Two official government departments list toxoplasmosis as a serious health threat and you're garbling about "imaginary hype"!

I do like the idea though, that the victims ought to just be able to have a vaccine which will enable them to avoid a problem caused by some other prick's cat.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Indeed, dog poop is unpleasant. But you know what? Fifty years ago you wouldn't see any dog owner caring.

Fifty years ago, I was one and didn't care.

That dog faeces is unpleasant is only mildly relevant. I have displayed ad nauseum that it is also a source of diseases in humans, some of which are truly atrocious.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Now, most dog owners go round with their poop scoops and do what's necessary.

Well, there's been all sorts of calls for evidence in this thread - I love that - so I'll make one here.

I don't believe you.

Maybe, given the different demographics and geography of England, it's different there, so I'll worry about the rest of the [allegedly] civilised world and look at places where there is not just footpaths and roads and no grass. Unless you can display some kind of evidence that most dog owners collect their own crap, I will continue to believe that it's a fantasy shared by dog owners who do do it.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

The others are gradually being shamed into compliance.

Huh. I never knew that.

That probably explains why every single dog owner I've told to remove his pet's faeces has argued about it. Every single one.

In all of the hundreds and hundreds of times I've ever asked a dog owner to remove crap from a park, not once has one said "Oh, I'm sorry, I'll remove that immediately!" Instead, I get a combination of the following frequent flyers:

"Who made you the police?"
"What business [!] is it of yours?" (I love that one)
"Do it yourself."
"It's a free country, get **********."

There are others, and I know it's only anecdotal evidence, and I very much doubt there are many statistics on people who dislike dog **** enough to ask the owners to remove it. I love the fact that the answers are exactly the same as the ones when I tell people to move their cars from handicapped car parks.

Funny that.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I never saw a dog tied to a tree, ever.

I keep forgetting you're in England and people don't generally have trees in their gardens.

Lots of other places do. Substitute lamp post, power pole, railing, or other fixture for "tree" and you'll be fine.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

We have squillions of sheep round here. I do post mortems on the dead ones, and while I know there is a rogue dog occasionally attacking on one farm that I'd shoot if I know which dog it was, dog attacks are very rare.

Of course they are, becasue people know it will be shot out of hand if it does so.

They tie them to trees [lamposts, railings, etc] so they don't get among sheep.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

Sounds as if you are either massively over-sensitive to low-grade problems, or your neighbours and compatriots need a whack with the clue bat to show them how to behave responsibly. It's perfectly possible for dog owners to behave well, and I have to say round here they pretty much do.

My anecdotes versus yours, or my unbiased view of reality versus your rose-tinted spectacles as an animal lover?

I dispute the "low grade problems" as above, which I think provides a clue as to which one of us has the reality out of focus.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

My solution to the ones who don't would be to get going with the public education programmes, backed up by a bit of legislation where necessary. You want to break the human/companion animal bond. I don't think you're a fanatic "all of a sudden", it seems to be quite an entrenched attitude.

Rolfe.

Legislation and education.

Excellent.

Don't bother explaining where the funds, the human and physical resources and all the rest will come from, or how you're going to "educate" a sector of the community which has difficulty educating itself on human life, let alone animals, but do concentrate on my fanaticism.

I find it all rather amusing, actually.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by GreNME

I think you're deliberately missing the point here.

I assure you I'm not.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Regarding farm animals like chickens, what a child could gain by learning to properly care for and deal with chickens deal primarily in learning the social economics of reciprocation-- you don't get something without investing time, energy, and care-- as well as learning basic responsibilities for something dependent on you.

Those lessons are also available in plant format.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Children can also learn social responsibility by keeping pets, including patience versus instant gratification and the economics of dependence.

Ditto.

I keep waiting for the point I might have missed to turn up, but no dice so far.

You're welcome to explain the "social" reference, because I'll admit that plants aren't that cuddly, but I have yet to find a valid "social" reason for kids having pets. Maybe you have it?

Originally Posted by GreNME

I'd point to my own experience growing up, but instead of that simple anecdote I'll just refer to the many pet training and ownership clubs all over the place where human social interaction is just as much a part as the animal interaction.

Ah, so because dog club owners form social bonds, we should ignore the harm done?

Ok. A new approach, but valid.

Are there rose and dahlia breeding/growing clubs? In fact, given the social lessons, maybe we should all keep a troop of monkeys?

Originally Posted by GreNME

Or, if you don't want something that complex, I could point out the benefit of having an animal that gets a child outside to play instead of sitting in front of a TV screen all day.

So does digging and tending a garden.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Easy balance there: the tragedies are so vastly lower in proportion to the benefits that they're not even close to comparable in number.

Ok, that's a fair way of looking at it, but you need to quantify it.

How many blind kids, spontaneous abortions and brain-damaged babies a year is worth the price of dog ownership?

You are clearly able to assess the value of the dogs in human interaction, so what is the other side of the coin worth? Gimme some numbers? 100 blind and 500 dead? What is acceptable?

Originally Posted by GreNME

That's because you're creating a false dichotomy.

No, you're cherrypicking. I am asking what constitutes a good owner, and part of Rolfe's reasoning seemed to be that they take their pets to vets.

Maybe, instead of trying to be facetious, you could get onto that while you're there.

What makes a "good" owner, and what percentage are they of all owners?

Originally Posted by GreNME

You're selectively choosing instances where animals weren't a positive impact in order to make your argument here, and that's why your opinion is being criticized.

No, that's why I asked for a comparison between benefits and costs, and I'm still waiting for someone to quantify those benefits - quantify that is, beyond some airy-fairy psychobabble that people's "quality of life" is improved by owning an animal. (please do include control studies between animal ownership and other relaxing, fulfilling and healthy pursuits like gardening or golf)

You have raised two allegations of dogs saving lives.

I have already shown that dog attacks are responsible for 30 deaths a year in USA. There is no doubt whatsoever that on top of those 30, there are thousands of other injurious dog attacks.

In fact, let's just visit CDC again:

How big is the problem?

About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year.
Almost one in five of those who are bitten :a total of 885,000: require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries.
In 2006, more than 31,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

Maybe you could take your two cases of dogs saving someone's life, add in a few million cases of "people whose lives are improved by dogs" and subtract those 4.5 million.

Or, maybe you could say a prayer for the 31,000 who underwent reconstructive surgery for dog attack damage and hope that still look human afterwards. Some people don't look too flash even after surgery when they've had their face ripped off.

Originally Posted by GreNME

Again, we can sympathize with your complaints, but its for those very complaints that there are groups and individuals who are constantly going to lengths to try to change things for the better, to minimize the negatives and amplify the positives. And that's been the general trend in much of the industrialized world. Your simplistic "solution" ignores the positives and addresses the negatives in a throwing-out-the-baby-with-the-bathwater application.

No, I haven't ignored the positives, I'm waiting for them

I think I've done a fair job of presenting the negatives, so you or Rolfe - or even keri - can now present the evidence of why we should retain this ancient notion that our lives are improved by harbouring disease-bearing animals in our homes.

Far from being simplistic, I think my case is real while the alternative is fairy dust. You talk about amplifying the positive and you've come up with two, yes, 1,,,,2, cases of dogs saving lives.

Let's see that balance now.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

That is probably a whole new thread, and probably in the Philosophy section.

Just a note - I've asked for the discussion from this post on to be moved to a thread entitled "why humans shouldn't keep pet animals".

[Hallo Alfie]

Somehow this seemed kinda relevant.

http://video.tiscali.it/canali/truve...234581161.html

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I assure you I'm not.

Yes, I'm sure you are.

No I'm not.

Please, let's keep the post-padding to a minimum, and stick to addressing each other's points.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by GreNME

Regarding farm animals like chickens, what a child could gain by learning to properly care for and deal with chickens deal primarily in learning the social economics of reciprocation-- you don't get something without investing time, energy, and care-- as well as learning basic responsibilities for something dependent on you.

Those lessons are also available in plant format.

Except that any similar lessons would be passive by nature. The only feedback a plant gives is growing or not growing. A dog or a cat or even a goldfish provides more actual interactive feedback than plants are capable. Just because you make an equivocation does not make that equivocation valid.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by GreNME

Children can also learn social responsibility by keeping pets, including patience versus instant gratification and the economics of dependence.

Ditto.

I keep waiting for the point I might have missed to turn up, but no dice so far.

You're welcome to explain the "social" reference, because I'll admit that plants aren't that cuddly, but I have yet to find a valid "social" reason for kids having pets. Maybe you have it?

Sure, but you're just as likely to ignore it with more apple-oranges equivocations. Like I said, animals provide active feedback, and despite the possibility of your invoking Skinner in some fundamentalist manner most animals that are kept as pets are capable of both loyalty and affection as expressions of feedback. Your attempts to brand any labeling of human interpretation of animal responses to humans as anthropomorphizing implies that animals are incapable of expressing happiness, loyalty, protectiveness, and a whole range of emotions that plants simply are not capable of and would be uninterpretable by children and most adults even if some scientific evidence were found that they somehow do.

Further, you're completely dismissing the benefit of play to childhood development as a benefit. A child can't "play" with a garden.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Ah, so because dog club owners form social bonds, we should ignore the harm done?

Ok. A new approach, but valid.

Are there rose and dahlia breeding/growing clubs? In fact, given the social lessons, maybe we should all keep a troop of monkeys?

Hello again, false dichotomy.

I mentioned clubs, yes, but it doesn't need to be only official or formal clubs as a practice. This also involves things like dog parks or even the average city park where people are allowed to bring their pets. People are drawn to animals who are willing to play with them, and this is a big part of human social culture. You seem to be assuming a person growing up in a vacuum or not ever being able to have a pet out in public, and this is simply not the case. Remove pet ownership and you remove a huge portion of social interaction on a variety of levels, ranging from the formal club level to simply going to a park and playing fetch or simply walking around-- people tend to not do many activities without an impetus to do so, and removing pets also removes many types of impetus for a large number of activities that just growing a garden or some potted plants isn't going to supplement. I can understand if you don't sympathize with this having not experienced it, but this is demonstrable in practically everyone you will find who owns a pet, and there are also many recommendations for doing so with many pets as part of a healthy lifestyle (for the pet).

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by GreNME

Or, if you don't want something that complex, I could point out the benefit of having an animal that gets a child outside to play instead of sitting in front of a TV screen all day.

So does digging and tending a garden.

Sure, as long as you continue to compartmentalize what I'm saying and ignore everything above this line in my post.

How about I link to you some articles that go more in-depth with descriptions of how pets can help kids learn empathy and compassion, reading skills, and some generic medical advantages, each article written by vets and mentioning studies in connection to each of the claims? Your dismissals of these factors says more about your lack of actual basis in your argument in favor of banning animals than it does any (mistaken) assumed lack of evidence.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by GreNME

Easy balance there: the tragedies are so vastly lower in proportion to the benefits that they're not even close to comparable in number.

How many blind kids, spontaneous abortions and brain-damaged babies a year is worth the price of dog ownership?

You are clearly able to assess the value of the dogs in human interaction, so what is the other side of the coin worth? Gimme some numbers? 100 blind and 500 dead? What is acceptable?

Um, no: you're the one proposing a numbers game, so you start with the numbers that you can quantify as directly relating to pet ownership and then explain why pointing out everyone else who owns pets without incident somehow doesn't tip the scale in the other direction.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by GreNME

That's because you're creating a false dichotomy.

No, you're cherrypicking. I am asking what constitutes a good owner, and part of Rolfe's reasoning seemed to be that they take their pets to vets.

Maybe, instead of trying to be facetious, you could get onto that while you're there.

What makes a "good" owner, and what percentage are they of all owners?

I'm not cherrypicking, you're being intentionally pedantic. What constitutes a "good" owner could range from having a healthy animal for an average life span (like goldfish or a hamster) to having a healthy, well-managed, relatively happy animal for the duration of its life span (like dogs or cats), to somewhere in-between depending on your interpretation of what qualifies as "good" or "not good" in some spectrum. This is something that is regularly and constantly debated within pet ownership communities, and you're demanding some finalized, set-in-stone criteria from which to arbitrate. Again, you're presenting a false dichotomy based on a lack of understanding or a lacking perspective of the thing you propose to ban.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Originally Posted by GreNME

You're selectively choosing instances where animals weren't a positive impact in order to make your argument here, and that's why your opinion is being criticized.

No, that's why I asked for a comparison between benefits and costs, and I'm still waiting for someone to quantify those benefits - quantify that is, beyond some airy-fairy psychobabble that people's "quality of life" is improved by owning an animal. (please do include control studies between animal ownership and other relaxing, fulfilling and healthy pursuits like gardening or golf)

More false dichotomy nonsense. What you're demanding is no different in tone than global warming deniers demanding that a single, complete list of evidence be placed before them to refute even though "complete" is rarely the case when it comes to ongoing study and there are obviously variations in schools of thought on specifics and particulars within the study. Hell, you can't even produce accurate bite statistics for dogs, which I will explain later is highly skewed and even blatantly overblown depending on the source from which you're drawing the numbers and the interpretations from which you base your claims. You're asking for data which you couldn't possibly be capable of providing yourself to the contrary, and that's the hallmark of a weak and irrational argument.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

You have raised two allegations of dogs saving lives.

Three, actually. But again, you're going to play the pedant's game no matter how many cases I cite, and as I already have pointed out people rarely pay attention to things when nothing is wrong, which would be the overwhelming majority of cases that get zero media coverage or regular study in the first place. More on the health benefits in a bit, though.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I have already shown that dog attacks are responsible for 30 deaths a year in USA. There is no doubt whatsoever that on top of those 30, there are thousands of other injurious dog attacks.

In fact, let's just visit CDC again:

How big is the problem?

About 4.5 million people are bitten by dogs each year.
Almost one in five of those who are bitten :a total of 885,000: require medical attention for dog bite-related injuries.
In 2006, more than 31,000 people underwent reconstructive surgery as a result of being bitten by dogs.

Maybe you could take your two cases of dogs saving someone's life, add in a few million cases of "people whose lives are improved by dogs" and subtract those 4.5 million.

Or, maybe you could say a prayer for the 31,000 who underwent reconstructive surgery for dog attack damage and hope that still look human afterwards. Some people don't look too flash even after surgery when they've had their face ripped off.

You made a pretty novice mistake in trying to use the CDC statistics to drive home this point, and it's the same stupid mistake that HSUS, PETA, and a multitude of "Animal Rights" lobbyists, despite the CDC making clear on their very own site regarding dog bites that their statistics shouldn't be considered definitive or complete, and their actual data is based on reporting and not empirical accuracy that can be tested against or directly sourced. I will warn against using news sources in conjunction with the CDC numbers, though, because media bias is demonstrable when it comes to reporting on animal attacks.

So, first, let's look at some numbers:

• According to the American Pet Products Association (link), there are roughly 45.6 million homes with dogs (and roughly 38.2 million with cats).
• The CDC lists around 4.5 million dog bites reported each year-- roughly 9% of representative dog ownership.
• Also according to the CDC (link), somewhere around 800,000 people go to the emergency room from dog bites-- about 1.8% of representative dog ownership.
• I've looked around the CDC website for their source on claiming 31,000 reconstructive surgeries (in 2006), but can find no data sheets or breakdowns of this claim from which to look at actual numbers.

So, even accepting the CDC numbers without question (which I don't, but will cover), you're proposing that 9% is statistically more significant than the other 91%. Could you explain this (preferably without hyperbole)? While you're at it, you could also explain how less than 20% of those reported incidents, which is about 1.8% of total ownership, constitutes a statistic sufficient to ban pet ownership. Heck, if you can find a data sheet for the 31 thousand number, then you could also go on to explain how a 0.06% of incidents-- whether it's cumulative over years or for a single year would change the percentage (but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt)-- is statistically significant enough to support your argument in favor of banning pet ownership altogether. Chances are, your arguments are going to be applicable to suggesting bans of automobile ownership, gun ownership, skateboard ownership, and even residing in an apartment in a large metropolitan area (among other things). If, after all, your argument rests on managing liability and risk through citing statistics, and little other data regarding dog behavior, bite risks, or other dangers, then you're going to find your argument is just as lacking in perspective and context as using the same statistical arguments to ban the other things I've mentioned.

On top of all that, though, I mentioned having a problem with citing the CDC statistics, and I'm happy to explain why. The first reason I have a problem with the statistics is that they aren't hard numbers in the first place-- the actual statistics are based on a 1994 study (here is a copy of the abstract) where the numbers were reached by using weighted means based on 5,238 phone interviews, and little else. No state or municipal animal control numbers, no reporting from hospitals or other agencies regarding treatment, and little indication that the sample of people interviewed were representative of the rest of the population in terms of pet ownership or any other factor that would have determined an accurate representative sample. The reason my pointing this out is so significant in my criticism of the study-- which is still held as the basis for CDC numbers, and is constantly quoted as unquestionably accurate by animal rights extremists-- is the inaccuracy of the weighted numbers compared to numbers more than 30 years ago when actual reporting was significantly higher. A comparison of animal control and/or public health reports of dog bites for several cities was gathered and compared between 1971 and 2005-- this chart displays the incredibly huge drop in bite reporting for each city. That chart is part of this article which goes in-depth about the statistics, and points out that even with the 1971 numbers, public health officials still only estimated the number of dog bites annually at 1-2 million. What this means is that even though actual official reporting was significantly lower for dog bites in 2005-- and by "significantly" I mean "by a tenth or possibly less"-- somehow the CDC's weighted numbers still manage to be nearly double the estimated numbers based on 1971 reporting of incidents. "Margin of error" or "misleading statistics" don't even begin to scratch the surface of the level of dishonesty from using the CDC numbers as if they were somehow unquestionably accurate. More damning on top of using the dishonest numbers is that even when using them, the number of cases is still a small fraction of the larger population of homes with dogs. That, by the way, shouldn't be confused with the number of dogs in the US, since the link I referenced earlier about the number of homes has the number of dogs at 77.5 million-- which would actually make the percentages go even lower using the questionable CDC numbers (but, again, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt). For more information on the questionable use of dog bite statistics, see this, this, this, and this for more information.

The long and short of it, The Atheist, is that your numbers are questionable, and all you're doing here is hiding behind questionable statistics to make an emotional appeal that you can't quantify with hard facts (because no such accurate numbers exist).

Originally Posted by The Atheist

No, I haven't ignored the positives, I'm waiting for them

Bullcrap. First, you're making an arbitrary exception for working dogs, and the reason I'm calling that arbitrary on its face is that more and more studies are trying to find whether dogs can do things like detect cancer (results are positive) or detecting seizures (the jury is still out), and these aren't dogs who have gone through a rigorous training regimen like police dogs or seeing-eye dogs. There are also examples where dogs are being trained to do basic tasks and being designated service dogs for people like veterans coming back from war and diagnosed with PTSD (basic rundown)-- do they qualify for your "get out of ban free" classification? How about if there are studies (like the one referenced here) that show that having a pet significantly lowers the likelihood for depression? And if there were studies that linked pet ownership to having lower levels of stress (like what is referenced here)? What about the benefits of pet ownership and loneliness in senior citizen homes (like what is referenced here)? You are ignoring these things, and you write them off as "childish anthropomorphism" or "airy fairy" when they go against your constant assertions that pets are a problem.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I think I've done a fair job of presenting the negatives, so you or Rolfe - or even keri - can now present the evidence of why we should retain this ancient notion that our lives are improved by harbouring disease-bearing animals in our homes.

As opposed to disease-bearing humans? You can't provide a shred of statistically significant reliable data to back up your assertions, but you're demanding that an itemized list be provided to dispute your claims. The onus is on you to actually make something beyond the "animals are dirty" and "people get hurt" bases for your arguments, because you have yet to provide anything beyond hyperbole and commonly-used misleading statistics.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

Far from being simplistic, I think my case is real while the alternative is fairy dust. You talk about amplifying the positive and you've come up with two, yes, 1,,,,2, cases of dogs saving lives.

Let's see that balance now.

So, how many cases do you have to be shown of dogs-- not just service dogs, but pets-- actively having positive effects for it to sink in that these reports are not simply isolated cases?

Stray dog saves life of abandoned baby
Dog Saves Woman From 'Gator
Dog Saves Epileptic Owner's Life
Rescued Dog Saves Life of Owner (this is not woo)
MI: Dog saves owner's life (again, not woo)
'Thrown Away' Dog Saves Little Girl's Life (oh, look, a dog helping a child with social dysfunction)
Lost and Found Dog Saves Life of Boy with Down Syndrome (another dog helping a child)
Crash victim says dog saved her life
Dog saves life after owner suffers stroke

I could go on and on with this kind of list. However, all you would do is continue dismissing them with your arguments that break down to "animals are dirty" and using questionable statistics to hide appeals to emotion. You ask (in typical emotional appeal) how many dogs a child's life is worth, and I respond by asking how many dogs' lives are worth the life of a given person that a dog has saved. Meanwhile, you continue to ignore that the trend for dog bites is continuing downward (despite dog populations rising in the past 30-40 years), and instances of diseases or sickness transmitted from dogs or cats dropping to practically statistically insignificant numbers (so low you can't cite actual numbers). You're proposing a "solution" to problems that have been worked on for decades with increasing effectiveness and progressively better results, and your entire approach is that of throwing the baby out with the bathwater based on what even your questionable statistics show is a vast minority of incidence that would equally damn any number of other things.

And that is why I continue to say your perspective is way off here, and you're missing the point of the criticisms levied against your "solution" without considering the costs.

[Wowbagger]

I, for one, am willing to bet that the costs and benefits for allowing humans to keep pet can be worked out. Today's estimates might be flimsy with assuptions, but they can improve over time.

I am also willing to bet that benefits will always tend to outweigh the costs, by a wide margin. Mutually beneficial symbiotic relationships with other animals has been an important part of human evolution, for a very long time.

[Redtail]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

What makes a "good" owner, and what percentage are they of all owners?

What makes a "bad" owner and what percentage are they of all owners?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I, for one, am willing to bet that the costs and benefits for allowing humans to keep pet can be worked out. Today's estimates might be flimsy with assuptions, but they can improve over time.

I am also willing to bet that benefits will always tend to outweigh the costs, by a wide margin. Mutually beneficial symbiotic relationships with other animals has been an important part of human evolution, for a very long time.

Yep, since before we 'discovered' fire, I reckon there were 'dogs' following us around scavenging our scraps and slowly (maybe even quickly) getting domesticated.
They afforded a level of protection, companionship and other practical benefits (eg. hunting) and the symbiotic relationship blossomed and continues today.
And humans being humans we began to domesticate everything, cats, pigs, sheep, goats, women etc.

Pets have been part of us since prehistoric times and (in most cases) seems perfectly natural to me.

[Mojo]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I also take into account ... the number of animals euthanased because nobody wants them, the cost on ratepayers of animal control, dogs that worry sheep and the overwhelming problem of feral cats; there are many detrimental things about pets.

How many animals would be euthanised if people weren't allowed to keep them as pets?

Or do you propose simply allowing them to become feral and wander around the countryside worrying sheep?

[Hallo Alfie]

Originally Posted by Mojo

How many animals would be euthanised if people weren't allowed to keep them as pets?

Or do you propose simply allowing them to become feral and wander around the countryside worrying sheep?

I think the sheep in New Zealand are already nervous enough.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

This is Bob Barker reminding you to help control the pet population. Have your pet spayed or neutered.

[Professor Yaffle]

Health benefits of pets:

http://consensus.nih.gov/1987/1987He...sta003html.htm

It makes me quite sad that we can't have any furry pets (because of my allergies), as my younger son absolutely loves cats and dogs. I do have some concerns about pedigree animal breeding, and prefer crosses/mongrels for that reason.

[Ferguson]

Good luck.
Humans have been keeping pets and attempting to keep animals as pets for much longer than recorded history. Humankinds propensity for pets was one of its largest adaptive advantages. Humans of every generation are constantly trying to domesticate and tame every species of animal, from tarantulas, to bears, to cheetahs, to snakes, even the animals we know can disembowel us, we attempt to keep as pets. Eventually this worked to cause species that could be domesticated to become domesticated. This gave us the power to farm, specialize, and invent. Animals were the human arms race of the last 20,000 years. Europe having the most domesticatable animals led to European society vastly outpacing others in specialization and innovation. Close contact with animals also allowed a combined pool for diseases and disease resistances to evolve, outpacing the bacteria of other societies. (Ask the indigenous Americans about smallpox, diphtheria, measles, mumps, and typhus. Now ask what diseases did the Spanish catch from them?)
Human history is the result of pets. Europeans won through a lucky hand of species, but now those species are available around the globe, to benefit all of humanity.
A humankind without pets is not any humankind that we are familiar with.

[The Atheist]

Originally Posted by GreNME

Yes, I'm sure you are.

No I'm not.

Please, let's keep the post-padding to a minimum, and stick to addressing each other's points.

I note that you wrote that huge post and started it with that gem.*

I am going to cover your post in more detail, but the first thing that impresses me is that in all of it, you've focused on one single concern, dog bites.

This was aimed at Rolfe, so I'll repeat it for you:

Originally Posted by Me

And it's not just the cruelty angle - either human on animal or animal on animal. I also take into account the attacks on people, the piles of dog-turd in parks, the cat-turd all over the garden, the number of animals euthanased because nobody wants them, the cost on ratepayers of animal control, dogs that worry sheep and the overwhelming problem of feral cats; there are many detrimental things about pets.

Dog bites is but one of a large number of concerns regarding pet ownership.

Those are the major ones - I'm not even going to bother adding stuff in like feral turtles in Auckland, I reckon there's enough there already.

*There's a wealth of irony in that paragraph alone, given it answered this:

I think you're deliberately missing the point here.

I am most emphatically not missing a damn thing. The irony is doubled when your one-topic post is taken into account.

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I, for one, am willing to bet that the costs and benefits for allowing humans to keep pet can be worked out. Today's estimates might be flimsy with assuptions, but they can improve over time.

Ok, let's do it!

I see no reason why the same kind of logic and facts can't be applied to this subject as say, homeopathy - which I select for a particular reason.

The main argument against homeopathy is the harm that it does.

I don't hear of 30 people a year dying or dozens of kids in Aussie being blinded annually by homeopaths; I certainly don't see many sheep being killed by homeopathy, so I see pet ownership as something considerably more dangerous than homeopathy.

I know you're a good rational bloke, so let's play.

I've listed the costs - death, severe injury & illness, blindness and lots of others.

How are we going to quantify the harm done? Funnily enough, I think the benefits might be quite easy to assess.

Originally Posted by Wowbagger

I am also willing to bet that benefits will always tend to outweigh the costs, by a wide margin. Mutually beneficial symbiotic relationships with other animals has been an important part of human evolution, for a very long time.

First off, you'll need to prove that the relationship is symbiotic, so good luck with cats, but since you're a betting man, I'll have a sly $10 on the outcome!

Originally Posted by Redtail

What makes a "bad" owner and what percentage are they of all owners?

Nice try, but the statement was made by Rolfe that the majority of owners are "good owners". Slap me, didn't I put enough " " around it to signify that I really want to find out what constitutes a "good" owner, and what percentage there are against all owners?

Go find out and let me know.

My argument is that pets are a waste of space - and a negative cost on society as a whole - in 2010 and that the preservation of animals as pets is as bad a social construct as religion.

And in case you didn't notice, I am an atheist.

Originally Posted by Mojo

How many animals would be euthanised if people weren't allowed to keep them as pets?

All of them, barring those kept for breeding from then on, plus current working animals.

Originally Posted by Mojo

Or do you propose simply allowing them to become feral and wander around the countryside worrying sheep?

Honestly, if it were just the sheep, I wouldn't give a rat's arse, because sheep are the stupidest, most boring, ugliest, dumbest, insanely-deluded, pointless - did I mention, unbelievably thick? - animals on the planet. Once I've ridden the world of dogs, cats and turtles, I will be getting rid of every single one of the ugly suckers.

Except, with sheep, I might take on the job of executioner personally.

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Good luck.
Humans have been keeping pets and attempting to keep animals as pets for much longer than recorded history.

(Thanks! I don't like my chances, though - me vs 10,000 years of history. Maybe if I can finally knock those damned sky-daddists over, I'll have more time to devote to it!)

Watch this:

Humans have been worshipping gods for much longer than recorded history

Humankinds propensity for religion was one of its largest adaptive advantages.

Humans of every generation are constantly worshipping various gods.

I don't like your argument so far.

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Eventually this worked to cause species that could be domesticated to become domesticated. This gave us the power to farm, specialize, and invent.

Do you have evidence anywhere to support this notion? That pets led us to agriculture, rather than agriculture - for many years horticulture first - leading us to society that a variety of rodents and vermin invaded, some of which were domesticatable?

Why don't we keep cockroaches as pets? They thrive on human waste. If you wanted to find a symbiotic relationship, you could do worse than thinking about a huge swarm of cockroaches to eat your waste.

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Animals were the human arms race of the last 20,000 years. Europe having the most domesticatable animals led to European society vastly outpacing others in specialization and innovation. Close contact with animals also allowed a combined pool for diseases and disease resistances to evolve, outpacing the bacteria of other societies. (Ask the indigenous Americans about smallpox, diphtheria, measles, mumps, and typhus. Now ask what diseases did the Spanish catch from them?)

Rather than worrying about Spaniards, I'll do a Drake and turn a blind eye.*

H5N1.

Pity we seem to be so far away from developing resistance to toxoplasmosis, swine 'flu, various types of bird 'flu, psittacosis, leptospirosis, brucellosis, TB and many other animal-borne diseases.

You know, I really think your evolution argument is falling to bits.

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Human history is the result of pets. Europeans won through a lucky hand of species, but now those species are available around the globe, to benefit all of humanity.

You're kidding me, right?

Originally Posted by Ferguson

A humankind without pets religion is not any humankind that we are familiar with.

Oops, I did it again!

* I know.

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

How many blind kids, spontaneous abortions and brain-damaged babies a year is worth the price of dog ownership?


You are clearly able to assess the value of the dogs in human interaction, so what is the other side of the coin worth? Gimme some numbers? 100 blind and 500 dead? What is acceptable?

LOL. Did Claus move to New Zealand or something?

"How many 9/11 is worth the price of a man with a gun on a plane? I don't know about you, but I'm not taking that chance. How many dead is ok with you? 100? 3000?"

Same insipid argument, same appeal-to-emotion tone too. Funny.

Quote:

I have already shown that dog attacks are responsible for 30 deaths a year in USA.

How many deaths are caused by cars? Thousands and thousands. I guess we should ban cars. Same with alcohol.

Originally Posted by Ferguson

Good luck.
Humans have been keeping pets and attempting to keep animals as pets for much longer than recorded history. Humankinds propensity for pets was one of its largest adaptive advantages. Humans of every generation are constantly trying to domesticate and tame every species of animal, from tarantulas, to bears, to cheetahs, to snakes, even the animals we know can disembowel us, we attempt to keep as pets. Eventually this worked to cause species that could be domesticated to become domesticated. This gave us the power to farm, specialize, and invent. Animals were the human arms race of the last 20,000 years. Europe having the most domesticatable animals led to European society vastly outpacing others in specialization and innovation. Close contact with animals also allowed a combined pool for diseases and disease resistances to evolve, outpacing the bacteria of other societies. (Ask the indigenous Americans about smallpox, diphtheria, measles, mumps, and typhus. Now ask what diseases did the Spanish catch from them?)
Human history is the result of pets. Europeans won through a lucky hand of species, but now those species are available around the globe, to benefit all of humanity.
A humankind without pets is not any humankind that we are familiar with.

Ah, thank you. Someone has read Guns, Germs and Steel, eh? To be fair, animal domestication is not quite the same as pet-keeping. But they do go closely together. And if The Atheist thinks banning pets is remotely a solution to the problems he describes, he's at least as delusional as Claus thinking he can prevent terrorism by attacking air marshals.

[Morrigan]

Quote:

Honestly, if it were just the sheep, I wouldn't give a rat's arse, because sheep are the stupidest, most boring, ugliest, dumbest, insanely-deluded, pointless - did I mention, unbelievably thick? - animals on the planet. Once I've ridden the world of dogs, cats and turtles, I will be getting rid of every single one of the ugly suckers.

So, your true colours showing? You want to ban pets because you hate animals, after all.

Did you just call sheep "pointless"? Nevermind the meat and wool they provide and the fact that the domestication of sheep has been central to the development of civilization...

[Professor Yaffle]

Quote:

Abstract—— In the present study, we evaluated the effect of a nonevaluative social support intervention (pet ownership) on blood pressure response to mental stress before and during ACE inhibitor therapy. Forty-eight hypertensive individuals participated in an experiment at home and in the physician’s office. Participants were randomized to an experimental group with assignment of pet ownership in addition to lisinopril (20 mg/d) or to a control group with only lisinopril (20 mg/d). On each study day, blood pressure, heart rate, and plasma renin activity were recorded at baseline and after each mental stressor (serial subtraction and speech). Before drug therapy, mean responses to mental stress did not differ significantly between experimental and control groups in heart rate (94 [SD 6.8] versus 93 [6.8] bpm), systolic blood pressure (182 [8.0] versus 181 [8.3] mm Hg), diastolic blood pressure (120 [6.6] versus 119 [7.9] mm Hg), or plasma renin activity (9.4 [0.59] versus 9.3 [0.57] ng · mL-1 · h-1). Lisinopril therapy lowered resting blood pressure by 35/20 mm Hg in both groups, but responses to mental stress were significantly lower among pet owners relative to those who only received lisinopril (P<0.0001; heart rate 81 [6.3] versus 91 [6.5] bpm, systolic blood pressure 131 [6.8] versus 141 [7.8] mm Hg, diastolic blood pressure 92 [6.3] versus 100 [6.8] mm Hg, and plasma renin activity 13.9 [0.92] versus 16.1 [0.58] ng · mL-1 · h-1). We conclude that ACE inhibitor therapy alone lowers resting blood pressure, whereas increased social support through pet ownership lowers blood pressure response to mental stress.

http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/38/4/815

[GavinM]

Originally Posted by Morrigan

So, your true colours showing? You want to ban pets because you hate animals, after all.

Did you just call sheep "pointless"? Nevermind the meat and wool they provide and the fact that the domestication of sheep has been central to the development of civilization...

Is he a specist or an animalist?

[Cuddles]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I didn't see the need to present details on dog attacks, toxoplasmosis or children being blinded by dog ****, but since you obviously aren't aware, I'll be generous:

Cool, you want to play the numbers game? Let's start here shall we?

37 hospitalised by tea cosies.
933 by false teeth.
287 by toilet roll holders.
43,173 by sofas.
And the list goes on. That's just for one year, and came from the first link I found with numbers in it. The statistics are publicly available, for the UK at least, should you care to look at them in more detail and for more recent years.

Sure, 30 deaths in a year from dog attacks should not be completely ignored. But the statistics show just how amazingly insignificant this really is compared to many other causes of injury and death. If you were really arguing against pets just on danger grounds, why are you not also attacking the numerous things that are far more dangerous? Dogs barely rate above tea cosies for the damage they inflict, let alone clothes and furniture.

Of course, this is just for accidents in the home. If you include outdoors, where presumably many dog attacks take place, you have to include all the other factors such as cars (which others have already mentioned), lightning strikes, bridge collapses, meteorites, and so on. And don't forget humans. How many people are killed by other people each year, compared to how many are killed by dogs? Banning people, and tea cosies, seems to be the only possible solution based on your logic.

[Moss]

A lot of the problems seem to involve legislation that isn't rigidly enforced and less than rigorous training of potential owners.
Maybe we should focus on those solutions instead of doing away with pets?
You may also want to fit in the economic results of doing away with all pets (and domestic animals) if you want to do this rigorously economic. Like adding in the whole legal wrangling necessary, the whole extermination and removal of the dead pets and all that... I don't think it will look too good in the end.
(Besides ruining whole branches of industry and the resulting unemployment...)

[Sir Robin Goodfellow]

If I see a man on a plane with a tea cosy...

[Morrigan]

Originally Posted by Moss

Like adding in the whole legal wrangling necessary, the whole extermination and removal of the dead pets and all that... I don't think it will look too good in the end.
(Besides ruining whole branches of industry and the resulting unemployment...)

Ruining the economy and putting thousands of people on unemployment? Destroying the happiness of millions? That's all perfectly okay, as long as it prevents 30 (THIRTY!!! that's like, 0.0000001% of the USA population ) deaths from dog attacks, doncha know!

[I Ratant]

Originally Posted by A.A.Alfie

I wonder if that would work for the murder rate in th US?

.
We have prisons full of caught murderers, but I doubt a mere castration would have any effect on the rate of murder outside prison.
And release after castration, not only no! but HELL NO!

[GreNME]

Originally Posted by The Atheist

I note that you wrote that huge post and started it with that gem.*

I am going to cover your post in more detail, but the first thing that impresses me is that in all of it, you've focused on one single concern, dog bites.

Wow, you completely ignored half of my post of you only focused on my debunking your dubious dog bite numbers. That, if anything, shows how little actual addressing of what I've been saying you're doing.

Originally Posted by The Atheist

This was aimed at Rolfe, so I'll repeat it for you:

Quote:

And it's not just the cruelty angle - either human on animal or animal on animal. I also take into account the attacks on people, the piles of dog-turd in parks, the cat-turd all over the garden, the number of animals euthanased because nobody wants them, the cost on ratepayers of animal control, dogs that worry sheep and the overwhelming problem of feral cats; there are many detrimental things about pets.

Dog bites is but one of a large number of concerns regarding pet ownership.

Those are the major ones - I'm not even going to bother adding stuff in like feral turtles in Auckland, I reckon there's enough there already.

*There's a wealth of irony in that paragraph alone, given it answered this:

I think you're deliberately missing the point here.

I am most emphatically not missing a damn thing. The irony is doubled when your one-topic post is taken into account.

Your completely ignoring of the parts of my post that deal with those other things is noted.

As for the euthanasia, again you're playing the dubious numbers game. If you need I can do some digging for citing the numbers, but compared to 1980 not only are the numbers of animals in homes far greater, but the number of euthanasia cases for sheltered animals has dropped more than 90% (some places claim up to 96%). The misplaced outrage that any numbers you could dredge up about euthanasia-- and trust me when I tell you that any number you could dig up I'm already well aware of, and have addressed with AR-kooks many times-- is that it completely ignores the massively overwhelming progress that has been made in just 30 years, and keeps coming at the issue like it's an epidemic instead of actually being something where immense amounts of improvement have been and are being made. Again, all that your pointing this out amounts to is using clipped and manipulated statistics in order to press an emotional argument that you're failing to admit.

Also, none of that addresses my pointing out articles that discuss studies done quantifying the benefits of pet ownership, for children and adults (and seniors). You still continue to dismiss my challenging your "how many lives" emotional appeal by asking how many lives need to be saved for pets to be considered a net benefit. You demand citations and numbers, and all you can provide for your own arguments are doctored numbers and emotional appeals. And on top of that, despite all that I cover in my post (which isn't even close to comprehensive), you have the audacity to accuse me of focusing on only one thing.

The only irony here, The Atheist, is that you're very blatantly ignoring where it's being pointed out to you that you're demonstrably incorrect and under-informed, and no amount of googling is going to dig you out of this hole. Just admit that you aren't as informed on your opinion as you initially claimed and retain some intellectual honesty. All you're doing from this point is digging yourself into a hole of negative credibility.