Hypocrites and "Animal lovers"

wonderfulname

GarIT wrote: »

wonderfulname wrote: »

Hmm... Agreeing with the concept of raising animals for food when meat is not necessary in the human diet and uses considerably more resources than the alternative yet disagreeing with keeping a domesticated, dependant animal as a companion, what shining logic.

I doubt that we would have enough food in Ireland if we had no meat, no milk and nothing that is made from milk.

Hint: you put the land to alternate uses, meat and dairy require more land and water than tillage, we'd have more food, not less, if everybody went veggie, although given that we already export the vast majority of what we produce that's not an issue.

Stop digging, your position is completely nonsensical.

Scioch

Dean09 wrote: »

Dogs have not evolved to hunt. Quite the opposite.
If you look at the history of the domestic dog, about 80% of the breeds that are around today didn't exist 100 years ago. Dogs have been basically engineered by humans, for humans. Dogs are reliant on us and most wouldn't survive in the wild without us.
Just wanted to clear that up.

They have been bred for different purposes but they havent evolved to do that. They evolved as pack animals which survived by hunting. You can still see that if a several domesticated dogs get together, its a regular problem in rural areas. They hook up and go hunt, sometimes remaining feral and sometimes going back to their homes in the morning.

Millions of years of evolution isnt outdone with a few generations of breeding.

Jen Pigs Fly

Shenshen wrote: »

Any offers on cat food?

Yes believe it or not, ill be in early tomorrow I can let you know what our cat offers are through PM - think it's only Hills however, Royal Canin offer finished this month We could be shifting a few royal canin though!

Jen Pigs Fly

grey_so_what wrote: »

Get a hugh amount of help and respect from the lovely people who work in pet shops, fair play to them....:)

At our place, employees are picked because of our love of animals and our knowledge of them, we want to make sure that we provide a good service to the community and their pets, we're not just out to make a quick buck which some people seem to think.
I have often discouraged people from buying something expensive because I know it would not suit their animal, even though it would have effected the store's average/etc we prefer that people do right by their animals.

Scioch

wonderfulname wrote: »

Hint: you put the land to alternate uses, meat and dairy require more land and water than tillage, we'd have more food, not less, if everybody went veggie, although given that we already export the vast majority of what we produce that's not an issue.

Stop digging, your position is completely nonsensical.

Easy as that is it ? Stop farming animals and start growing something ? I'd like to hear a more informed view of it as I'm not clued in enough to know the full scale of what it would take or if it would be possible. Clearly neither are you. The role that livestock plays in farming isnt limited to meat going into the market. And it wouldnt be possible to simply replace it by growing something else.

Gummy Panda

wonderfulname wrote: »

Hint: you put the land to alternate uses, meat and dairy require more land and water than tillage, we'd have more food, not less, if everybody went veggie, although given that we already export the vast majority of what we produce that's not an issue.

Stop digging, your position is completely nonsensical.

But I want protein with a decent amino acid profile

Shenshen

LordSmeg wrote: »

Easy as that is it ? Stop farming animals and start growing something ? I'd like to hear a more informed view of it as I'm not clued in enough to know the full scale of what it would take or if it would be possible. Clearly neither are you. The role that livestock plays in farming isnt limited to meat going into the market. And it wouldnt be possible to simply replace it by growing something else.

Well, you couln't switch over overnight... You need different kind of machinery, different storage facilities, and a lot of crops take more that a year before bearing any fruit. And you would of course you would need to train farmers.
That said, the climate in Ireland woul be well suited for most crops, as would the soil I think.

Darkginger

Many areas of Ireland wouldn't be suitable for arable farming - try growing wheat halfway up a mountain where sheep happily roam....

shopaholic01

This is probably true:

It is a sobering thought that animals could do without man,
yet man would find it almost impossible to do without animals.
[SIZE=-1]Animals, Men and Morals[/SIZE]

Shenshen

Darkginger wrote: »

Many areas of Ireland wouldn't be suitable for arable farming - try growing wheat halfway up a mountain where sheep happily roam....

Wheat isn't the only crop, though.
Many areas in Ireland that are now used for grazing sheep would in the past have been used for growing crops, sheep weren't always this prevalent.

Scioch

Shenshen wrote: »

Well, you couln't switch over overnight... You need different kind of machinery, different storage facilities, and a lot of crops take more that a year before bearing any fruit. And you would of course you would need to train farmers.
That said, the climate in Ireland woul be well suited for most crops, as would the soil I think.

From my limited experience I know that only certain crops can be grown at certain times to preserve the soil. Would it even be possible to grow enough to make farming profitable given that the prices of crops will nose dive once all dairy and livestock farmers switch to crops ?

Given the cost involved in re training, new machinery, storing and processing facilities (I hear tell its too costly to reintroduce beet farming) and the loss of incomes and jobs on a huge scale while all this happens is it possible at all ?

Shenshen

LordSmeg wrote: »

From my limited experience I know that only certain crops can be grown at certain times to preserve the soil. Would it even be possible to grow enough to make farming profitable given that the prices of crops will nose dive once all dairy and livestock farmers switch to crops ?

Given the cost involved in re training, new machinery, storing and processing facilities (I hear tell its too costly to reintroduce beet farming) and the loss of incomes and jobs on a huge scale while all this happens is it possible at all ?

Not sure the prices would nosedive... Our hypothetical scenario has the entire population switching to essentially a vegan lifestyle, after all, so the demand for cereals, pulses and vegetable should skyrocket.
Crop rotation is usually done yearly, on a 3 or 4 year cycle. You grow different crops each year, with one year being fallow, thereby retaining the natural fertility of the soil.

The cost of the transition would be significant, though. I don't see a loss of income or jobs, though. On the contrary, there may well be an increase in the jobs on offer, as a lot of consultancy would be needed initially.

Discodog

Dogs evolved to have an incredibly close, personal relationship with humans. This hasn't happened that quickly - we have evidence of domestic dogs from thousands of years ago. The dog evolved to such an extent that it developed two languages, one for communicating with other dogs & another when communicating with us.

I agree regarding the exercising. My three get two good, off lead walks per day & they are happy to be be left for 8/9 hours in between. They behave exactly the same when I am at home all day so I know that they are not stressed if left - I have a webcam to check

Tomorrow is Sunday, also known as Dog day. If the weather is fine then various dogs will be walked down my lane that never get a walk during the week. It's an Irish thing that people leave the dog in the garden & assume that it doesn't need a walk. You don't see this as much in the UK.
But things may change with the new Animal Welfare Bill. If this follows the example of the UK & Scottish Acts then it could be an offence to not give a dog adequate exercise.

The idea that a dog is trapped or confined is laughable. If I opened the dog & sent the dogs out they would be back in a flash. Comfy beds, food, security & companionship are all better in the house.

I agree regarding caged birds but it's the rabbits that get the worse deal. They are usually confined for life in a tiny hutch.

Irish Guitarist

What do you think would happen to the dog if this person didn't have him as a pet? If the dog was set free he would either die of starvation, be hit by a car or picked up by a dog warden and put down.

Towns and cities aren't a good place for animals to be wandering around. There's an abandoned garage near where I live and there was once a load of stray cats living there. Almost every couple of weeks I would see one of them lying dead in the road having been struck by a car.

I don't agree with keeping a dog if you can't take him or her out for lots of walks but in general dogs being kept as pets isn't necessarily a bad thing. They're happier than they would be if they were wandering the streets starving.

wonderfulname

LordSmeg wrote: »

Easy as that is it ? Stop farming animals and start growing something ? I'd like to hear a more informed view of it as I'm not clued in enough to know the full scale of what it would take or if it would be possible. Clearly neither are you. The role that livestock plays in farming isnt limited to meat going into the market. And it wouldnt be possible to simply replace it by growing something else.

You've just added your own parameters there in implying we herd off all the animals and start up the plow, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but given time and considerable investment I'd be willing to bet it would be easier done than banning pet ownership and preventing breeding as the structures are in place to oversee it. I have a fair idea of the scale and it would be bloody huge, but if you disagree with animals being in captivity for human interests then you don't care about bloody huge. GarIT is of the impression that people should not own pets but that meat should be produced, I am merely pointing out that that is completely illogical as the two points conflict, not because I think a vegetarian society is feesable, it's not in the real world, it is in the world where a responsible pet owner is a cruel captor.

Anyone else who wants to argue this with me as though I care, I grew up on a dairy/beef farm, I love meat, I even eat it raw, I think it's an important part of a truly balanced diet*, I'm not stating my opinions, I just don't understand how anyone can be simultaniously pro piggeries and anti pets, it's obsurd.

*note truely, you'd still be okay without it, and given the average western diet it's removal wouldn't be the biggest dietry issue facing people.

Dave!

Bit silly equating keeping a pet (in good conditions) with animal cruelty tbh. The ideal might be to have them in a natural habitat, but there's no such option for that these days. Stick a dog out in some field and tell them to survive, and they'll not last long. I'm curious to know where the OP suggests we put all the domesticated pets? The industry and culture already exists, it can't be dismantled overnight.

If the vegetarian friend is interested in animal welfare, then they should adopt a dog from the pound rather than buying a puppy. Other than that, leave them alone and stop being petty...

flutterflye

We should all eat our pets.
That'd solve the problem.

Scioch

Irish Guitarist wrote: »

What do you think would happen to the dog if this person didn't have him as a pet? If the dog was set free he would either die of starvation, be hit by a car or picked up by a dog warden and put down.

Towns and cities aren't a good place for animals to be wandering around. There's an abandoned garage near where I live and there was once a load of stray cats living there. Almost every couple of weeks I would see one of them lying dead in the road having been struck by a car.

I don't agree with keeping a dog if you can't take him or her out for lots of walks but in general dogs being kept as pets isn't necessarily a bad thing. They're happier than they would be if they were wandering the streets starving.

Nobody is saying turf them out on the streets. I'm just questioning whether or not keeping them as pets in less than adequate conditions is ideal. And lets face it the majority of animals kept as pets are not ones inside at the end of the bed going for daily walks and living life like a king. They are outside chained to a tree, locked in a cage and given far less attention than they should be.

To move away from this you wouldnt just let them all loose. You'd start by neutering them to stop the numbers rising. Possibly also increasing the cost of dog licences and cracking down hard on those without a licence. IF you were to go in that direction.

Scioch

wonderfulname wrote: »

You've just added your own parameters there in implying we herd off all the animals and start up the plow, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but given time and considerable investment I'd be willing to bet it would be easier done than banning pet ownership and preventing breeding as the structures are in place to oversee it.

To curb dog numbers and remove pet owner ship your talking years yes, but required neutering and heavier dog licencing (both of which can be achieved though systems already in place). That would be infinitely easier than reforming the food and farm industry to suit products that would have to be grown and sent to market with no actual demand for them.

I have a fair idea of the scale and it would be bloody huge, but if you disagree with animals being in captivity for human interests then you don't care about bloody huge. GarIT is of the impression that people should not own pets but that meat should be produced, I am merely pointing out that that is completely illogical as the two points conflict, not because I think a vegetarian society is feesable, it's not in the real world, it is in the world where a responsible pet owner is a cruel captor.

Its not illogical at all if you hold the view that meat as a food source is necessary. Given the scale to change it, the demand currently for it and the lack of other high protein foods that could replace it on the scale and cost that it currently is in the meat industry that is not and entirely absurd opinion to have.

Anyone else who wants to argue this with me as though I care, I grew up on a dairy/beef farm, I love meat, I even eat it raw, I think it's an important part of a truly balanced diet*, I'm not stating my opinions, I just don't understand how anyone can be simultaniously pro piggeries and anti pets, it's obsurd.

My original point was about a certain hypocritical view so I understand your point. And I personally do think we should be moving away from eating meat and hopefully it may happen naturally with lab created meats that will become available and when it becomes cost effective enough livestock farming may die out of its own accord. I just dont think it can be changed by force.

I also dont see it as an excuse to ignore something else that I dont agree with. I dont see any need to own a pet other than selfish reasons. I'm also against horse racing and anything else that demeans and mistreats other creatures for human entertainment. People have pets because they want them, they want to own something and have it do what they want so they can pretend it has a personality and characteristics and it loves them too. Its a natural want to feel that way but I find it a slight bit delusional to think an animal will hold those feelings for people. If they are fed and watered then they are happy enough. But they shouldnt exist and be bred to be locked in a cage or back garden.

wonderfulname

Have you ever had a pet?

Scioch

wonderfulname wrote: »

Have you ever had a pet?

Yes, had lots over the years. Dont have any now though.

Pushtrak

LordSmeg wrote: »

How is it not holding them against their will ? Part of owning a dog is keeping it locked up. Of course its against their will, dogs have evolved to hunt and run not sit in back gardens.

That was wolves... I'd suggest following up on the topic if interested. There is a lot of info out there on it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nzwYJzAY1go

Scioch

Pushtrak wrote: »

That was wolves... I'd suggest following up on the topic if interested. There is a lot of info out there on it.

Mentioned in that clip that dogs were bred with tameness in their genes. You can still get dogs that are not tame. Although a dog isnt a wolf its not far off it really. It hasnt evolved out of being a pack animal and will regress back into that given the chance, even domesticated adult dogs who have never been part of a pack in their lives will do that.

Sure its more likely to be tame and controllable than a wolf but that just it, its more controllable than its wild cousin because its less likely to be threatened by a human.They are pets because we make them pets but in reality they are still just the good tempered wolves.

None of that changes my point though hat they shouldnt exist to be kept as pets.

Bajingo

LordSmeg wrote: »

Same could be said for slavery couldnt it ? Better to own an African child and give them a good life doing your bidding than let them live a life of misery in Africa.

The reason there are so many dogs around is because everyone has to have a dog. There is a lot of them put down every year and impounded yes but taking them in (although helping that one dog) does nothing for the problem which is caused by everyone wanting a dog.

Everyone wanting a dog and buying them from a breeder would make this problem worse. However if everyone went to the pound and took one in the pound wouldn't start importing them because of the increased demand. Adopting from a pound would actually solve the problem.

Scioch

Bajingo wrote: »

Everyone wanting a dog and buying them from a breeder would make this problem worse. However if everyone went to the pound and took one in the pound wouldn't start importing them because of the increased demand. Adopting from a pound would actually solve the problem.

The problem I'm talking about is the attitude that everyone should have a dog. So adopting a dog although great for the dog does nothing for the problem.

If your talking about reducing the amount of dogs then possibly, I think the pound neuters them so at least they wont be having pups in someones garage and then handed to anyone who will take them. To stamp that out entirely though all dogs should be neutered with only those with a breeding licence allowed to keep non neutered ones.

Personally I'd neuter every single one of em but I'd compromise on trying to control the breeding.

Dubhlinner

Dogs have been bred to enjoy life as a human plaything. Its not the same as normal natural selection because with selective breeding can speed it up very quickly.

A good example is male dogs and puppys. Dogs usually have no interest in their pups whereas bitches cry for days when their puppys are taken.

This contrasts with male wolves who are very protective and attentive fathers. The uninterestd male father was bred as it meant less tension on the puppy farm when the pups were taken.

So in that sense its not really a contradiction for a vegetarian to have a pet

Bajingo

LordSmeg wrote: »

The problem I'm talking about is the attitude that everyone should have a dog. So adopting a dog although great for the dog does nothing for the problem.

If your talking about reducing the amount of dogs then possibly, I think the pound neuters them so at least they wont be having pups in someones garage and then handed to anyone who will take them. To stamp that out entirely though all dogs should be neutered with only those with a breeding licence allowed to keep non neutered ones.

Personally I'd neuter every single one of em but I'd compromise on trying to control the breeding.

I think we're on the same page here though I don't think it would work to neuter every dog, because then there would be none and personally i'm not against people owning dogs. For one thing most breeds are so inbred and domesticated that a lot of them wouldn't survive in the wild.

I do think the OP's friend is a hypocrite and a bit cruel.

There needs to be better licensing at the level of the breeder and especially the owner, there are people out there who should be, by law, unable to obtain a dog.

CodyJarrett

LordSmeg wrote: »

So can anyone who claims to love animals really care about animals when they own pets ? Or are they just hypocrites who put their own wants ahead of the welfare of an animal ?

Unless he eventually spit roasts said pets, it's hardly comparable.

Scioch

Bajingo wrote: »

I think we're on the same page here though I don't think it would work to neuter every dog, because then there would be none and personally i'm not against people owning dogs. For one thing most breeds are so inbred and domesticated that a lot of them wouldn't survive in the wild.

I do think the OP's friend is a hypocrite and a bit cruel.

There needs to be better licensing at the level of the breeder and especially the owner, there are people out there who should be, by law, unable to obtain a dog.

The last bit I'd agree with absolutely, some people have no business owning a pet regardless of anything else.

As for certain breeds not surviving in the wild I dont think they would ever get the chance to. I dont see any scenario introducing domesticated dogs into the wild. Just neutering them and letting the breed die out. I wouldnt see any need for preserving the breed.

JupiterKid

I don't see the contradiction between being a vegetarian and a pet owner as long as you love and care for your pet(s) properly.

Dogs are very demanding animals and need land and regular exercise. There are far too many people out there who own dogs but don't deserve to. That is beyond argument. The dog pound tells its own sad story on that point.

But then, there are far too many people out there who have children and don't deserve to either. It's sadly human nature.

I would personally like to see many breeds of dog bred out of existence - starting with the viscious pit bull terriers, most toy dogs and bulldogs.

Bajingo

LordSmeg wrote: »

The last bit I'd agree with absolutely, some people have no business owning a pet regardless of anything else.

As for certain breeds not surviving in the wild I dont think they would ever get the chance to. I dont see any scenario introducing domesticated dogs into the wild. Just neutering them and letting the breed die out. I wouldnt see any need for preserving the breed.

Are there any particular breeds of dog your talking about, like Jupiterkid mentioned? Or are you for the ultimate extinction of the domesticated dog altogether?

I do see the benefit of neutering potentially dangerous breeds.

Scioch

Bajingo wrote: »

Are there any particular breeds of dog your talking about, like Jupiterkid mentioned? Or are you for the ultimate extinction of the domesticated dog altogether?

I do see the benefit of neutering potentially dangerous breeds.

There are certain ones I think would be of benefit, certain working dogs like seeing eye dogs or sniffers. Any potentially dangerous breed or aggressive dog should be neutered anyway regardless of any plan in regards over all population of dogs.

Eventually I'd like to see pets removed from society. I wouldnt like to see domesticated dogs eradicated entirely because as I said certain dogs can play a role in society. But as a pet and a play thing I'd like to see it done away with.

Discodog

LordSmeg wrote: »

There are certain ones I think would be of benefit, certain working dogs like seeing eye dogs or sniffers. Any potentially dangerous breed or aggressive dog should be neutered anyway regardless of any plan in regards over all population of dogs.

Eventually I'd like to see pets removed from society. I wouldnt like to see domesticated dogs eradicated entirely because as I said certain dogs can play a role in society. But as a pet and a play thing I'd like to see it done away with.

As someone who has always been involved in animal welfare I find your view to be way too extreme. It is as bad as the animal rights extremists. The key to better animal welfare is education. If schoolkids were given a few lessons on pet care then they would grow up knowing how to look after animals.

Organisations like the Dog's Trust have a team of educators who take dogs to schools & teach the kids how to approach a dog, care for it etc. If you teach children that tying a dog up is wrong you will eventually stop it.

But it is a particularly Irish problem. The vast majority of dogs in the UK & Europe live indoors. One of the first thing that I noticed moving back here was the sound of barking dogs - you don't here them anywhere near as much in the UK. If the dog is kept indoors then it is more likely to get daily walks.

Shenshen

Discodog wrote: »

As someone who has always been involved in animal welfare I find your view to be way too extreme. It is as bad as the animal rights extremists. The key to better animal welfare is education. If schoolkids were given a few lessons on pet care then they would grow up knowing how to look after animals.

Organisations like the Dog's Trust have a team of educators who take dogs to schools & teach the kids how to approach a dog, care for it etc. If you teach children that tying a dog up is wrong you will eventually stop it.

But it is a particularly Irish problem. The vast majority of dogs in the UK & Europe live indoors. One of the first thing that I noticed moving back here was the sound of barking dogs - you don't here them anywhere near as much in the UK. If the dog is kept indoors then it is more likely to get daily walks.

That was indeed something that shocked me, too, when I first came over here.
In Germany, animal welfare laws stipulate that the dog can (and will!) be taken away from you if it is kept outdoors.

CodyJarrett

Gummy Panda wrote: »

But I want protein with a decent amino acid profile

There are no amino acids in animal protein that can't be also found abundantly in plant foods. Sure, you won't find all the amino acids that are found in meat in the same plant food, but it is a myth that we have to.

Just as you can have a food contain Vitamin C and also Vitamin E - you can however still absorb one of these vitamins from plant foods that are devoid of the other, amino acids are no different.

Shryke

whiplashed wrote: »

Gummy Panda wrote: »

But I want protein with a decent amino acid profile

There are no amino acids in animal protein that can't be also found abundantly in plant foods. Sure, you won't find all the amino acids that are found in meat in the same plant food, but it is a myth that we have to.

Just as you can have a food contain Vitamin C and also Vitamin E - you can however still absorb one of these vitamins from plant foods that are devoid of the other, amino acids are no different.

Their is no methyl b12 found in plant foods which is why a lot of vegetarians need to take it as a supplement after a while. A strictly vegetarian diet is a poor one and there is no two ways about it. We evolved eating meat and it's a part of a healthy diet. You might not die without it but you'll be better off with it.

Shenshen

Shryke wrote: »

Their is no methyl b12 found in plant foods which is why a lot of vegetarians need to take it as a supplement after a while. A strictly vegetarian diet is a poor one and there is no two ways about it. We evolved eating meat and it's a part of a healthy diet. You might not die without it but you'll be better off with it.

You might be confusing vegetarian with vegan, I suspect.
I do love the argument from evolution... We evolved as herbivors for millions of years. But as we acquired the ability to digest meat a few thousand years back, people now assume that not eating meat is "unnatural".

Scioch

Shenshen wrote: »

You might be confusing vegetarian with vegan, I suspect.
I do love the argument from evolution... We evolved as herbivors for millions of years. But as we acquired the ability to digest meat a few thousand years back, people now assume that not eating meat is "unnatural".

I'm no expert so perhaps someone can give a little more info on this but from Wiki I gather meat was a substantial part of early human diet. Thats millions of years ago not thousands.

I also find it funny that people would dismiss it as something that we have only done for a few thousand years (possibly wrong) in the same thread arguing that dogs have been domesticated for a few thousands and stating it as proof their natural habitat is living with humans.

Shryke

Shenshen wrote: »

Shryke wrote: »

Their is no methyl b12 found in plant foods which is why a lot of vegetarians need to take it as a supplement after a while. A strictly vegetarian diet is a poor one and there is no two ways about it. We evolved eating meat and it's a part of a healthy diet. You might not die without it but you'll be better off with it.

You might be confusing vegetarian with vegan, I suspect.
I do love the argument from evolution... We evolved as herbivors for millions of years. But as we acquired the ability to digest meat a few thousand years back, people now assume that not eating meat is "unnatural".

Don't get me started on vegetarian and vegan. I'm not going to begin to criticise there.

Acquiring the ability to eat meat? That sounds like an evolutionary adaptation. You make it sound like we just did it for the craic one time after having a few.
Were omnivores and meat in our diet is natural.
A few thousand years? Ha. More like 2 million or so.

CodyJarrett

Shryke wrote: »

Their is no methyl b12 found in plant foods which is why a lot of vegetarians need to take it as a supplement after a while.

I wasn't speaking of B12, I was speaking about Amino acids.

A strictly vegetarian diet is a poor one and there is no two ways about it. We evolved eating meat and it's a part of a healthy diet. You might not die without it but you'll be better off with it.

I would safely say that meat eating (and all that goes with that) causes more deaths each and every year than a diet without it, as not everyone is eating Grass fed beef and Wild Salmon.

They're chugging down pork meat laced with drug residues and full of nitrates - hardly "healthy". Not to say that a vegan is always healthy, as many will just eat lots of chips, beans, soya junk and wash it all down with a Diet Coke.

Shryke

whiplashed wrote: »

I wasn't speaking of B12, I was speaking about Amino acids.



I would safely say that meat eating (and all that goes with that) causes more deaths each and every year than a diet without it, as not everyone is eating Grass fed beef and Wild Salmon.

They're chugging down pork meat laced with drug residues and full of nitrates - hardly "healthy". Not to say that a vegan is always healthy, as many will just eat lots of chips, beans, soya junk and wash it all down with a Diet Coke.

I was speaking of B12. I know what you said.

What you are saying now is that processed foods are bad. I agree, there are a lot of chemicals and additives to all our foods that are not healthy. That includes stuff that's being sprayed on fruit and veg along with just about any other food product not freshly made.
Meat is still an important part of our diet.

Discodog

LordSmeg wrote: »

I also find it funny that people would dismiss it as something that we have only done for a few thousand years (possibly wrong) in the same thread arguing that dogs have been domesticated for a few thousands and stating it as proof their natural habitat is living with humans.

The domestic dog is virtually a different species to wild dogs. It's natural habitat is living with humans & they would struggle to survive without us. None of my three are capable of hunting for food.

Bajingo

Shryke wrote: »

Don't get me started on vegetarian and vegan. I'm not going to begin to criticise there.

Acquiring the ability to eat meat? That sounds like an evolutionary adaptation. You make it sound like we just did it for the craic one time after having a few.
Were omnivores and meat in our diet is natural.
A few thousand years? Ha. More like 2 million or so.

I agree completely and for people toting their ideals that vegetarianism is more natural, you still need to farm your vegetables which isn't natural. If you're going to go down that road why not become a hunter gatherer...without the hunter ideals of course.

Scioch

Discodog wrote: »

The domestic dog is virtually a different species to wild dogs. It's natural habitat is living with humans & they would struggle to survive without us. None of my three are capable of hunting for food.

They are not capable (or you think they are not) because they have been raised outside that environment. If they were raised by wild dogs they would be wild dogs. Same way as a wolf when raised in captivity can be tame. Still a wolf capable of everything a wolf is capable of but adapted to a different environment.

Its only relatively recently where dogs have been bred as purely pets large scale. Before that they were mostly working dogs and bred to keep their hunting instincts. In the last few hundreds years yes breeds have come about to make fashion accessories but thats nothing in the evolution of the dog.

I have seen a motley group of pets band together to form a pack out here and go killing sheep. And those were extremely docile pets, yet together in a pack they were vicious killers who seemed to be able to know how to hunt as a pack despite apparently being a different species to what they were bred from. Their instincts are still there and if raised in the wild, wild dogs they would be.

Bajingo

Discodog wrote: »

The domestic dog is virtually a different species to wild dogs. It's natural habitat is living with humans & they would struggle to survive without us. None of my three are capable of hunting for food.

I agree with you to an extent. Certain dogs such as those breeds of toy dogs that can hardly walk, let alone run or hunt wouldn't last long. But larger breeds such as wolfhounds or setters and even some of the long haired terriers I think could survive in the Irish wild. Their main competitor would only be foxes. Plus interbreeding between the different breeds would increase their diversity and dilute out the cancerous genotypes accumulated through years of inbreeding.

blatantrereg

An egg or a glass of milk provides your full RDA for vitamin B12, so supplementation is only needed for vegans.

For non-vegan vegetarians, particular omega 3 fatty acids found in fish are more likely to be a concern (DHA). Normal vegetarian diets dont contain much/any of these. Foods such as hemp and linseed do contain high levels of ALA. This is another omega 3 that humans can convert to some extent into DHA (which is the one with the most benefits). However vegetarians dont need to forego direct consumption of DHA, since it is available through supplementing with algae oil.

That is the sum total of nutrients you mightn't get from a sensible vegetarian diet. That said, a small amount of knowledge is necessary to make sure you get enough of certain nutrients that might generally be sourced from meat, such as iron and a full profile of amino acids. However supplementation is unnecessary.

Human physiology is more similar to herbivores than omnivores in the animal kingdom - which is something that disputes the idea that eating meat is natural for us. The unavailability of vitamin B12 from animal sources doesn't prove we are "supposed to" eat meat either, since eating dirty vegetables would provide plenty of it apparently. [Not suggesting that anyone should eat dirty vegetables today - I'm saying that human ancestors could have had plenty of vitamin B12 from a vegan diet]... The question whether it is natural or not is a bit of a non-sequitor anyway, unless you exclusively eat hunted wild animals, killed with arrows or something.

The increasing level of meat consumption is a serious environmental concern. Vegetarian diets are much more environmentally friendly than omnivorous ones [vegan diets, or non-dairy vegetarian diets are better again]. There is a level of cruelty involved in non-vegetarian diets. The level of cruelty varies massively depending on the conditions in which the animals are kept, but even when livestock are kept in good conditions, the killing of them is cruel. A well balanced vegetarian diet is healthier than one involving meat - vegetarians die early less often, and have reduced susceptibility to various health concerns including heart disease and gout. All in all, there are lots of reasons to follow a vegetarian diet, and no reason to consume meat apart from indulgence. Being vegetarian is just the rational and ethical choice tbh.

paddyandy

OP He may not be thinking properly but hypocrisy it need not be .

Discodog

Whenever domestic dogs try to live wild, as in strays, they are still totally dependant on humans for food. Very few dogs will revert to hunting & if they did what would they catch ? I have two rescue sighthounds that were previously used for coursing. Now they wouldn't dream of chasing anything & I doubt if starvation would make them start.

But in any event the whole argument is totally hypothetical. We are never going to stop keeping dogs as pets.

Mickeroo

LordSmeg wrote: »

They are not capable (or you think they are not) because they have been raised outside that environment. If they were raised by wild dogs they would be wild dogs. Same way as a wolf when raised in captivity can be tame. Still a wolf capable of everything a wolf is capable of but adapted to a different environment.

Its only relatively recently where dogs have been bred as purely pets large scale. Before that they were mostly working dogs and bred to keep their hunting instincts. In the last few hundreds years yes breeds have come about to make fashion accessories but thats nothing in the evolution of the dog.

I have seen a motley group of pets band together to form a pack out here and go killing sheep. And those were extremely docile pets, yet together in a pack they were vicious killers who seemed to be able to know how to hunt as a pack despite apparently being a different species to what they were bred from. Their instincts are still there and if raised in the wild, wild dogs they would be.

Domestic dogs all originate from gray wolves afaik, some breeds are closer in terms of instinct than others I'm sure. Without human intervention none of them would exist, no more than cats, cows, pigs or any other domesticated animal. They even found evidence this year that suggests dog domestication as early as 33,000 years ago.

I don't see the case in the OP as remotely cruel at all, the dog sounds well looked after. I don't see the hypocrisy in an animal lover owning a pet either tbh, though someone raised a good point about sourcing the dog food.

Shenshen

Shryke wrote: »

Don't get me started on vegetarian and vegan. I'm not going to begin to criticise there.

Acquiring the ability to eat meat? That sounds like an evolutionary adaptation. You make it sound like we just did it for the craic one time after having a few.
Were omnivores and meat in our diet is natural.
A few thousand years? Ha. More like 2 million or so.

Of course it's an adaption. We evolved from monkeys to primates, not from a carnivorous animal.
And most archaeological evidence points to our ancestors starting to include meat in their diets some 800 000 years ago. Research shows we still ate mostly plants and nuts, with meat being a very occasional addition, very much like chimps today.
Yes, we are omnivores now. That doesn't mean we always were, we've become omnivores only quite recently.
And the fact that we can eat meat says nothing about how natural or healthy it is in our diet. After all, we can and do eat a lot of highly unhealthy things in copious amounts on daily basis.