*Yabby, I thought Matthew Scully's writings would be beyond your comprehension. I rest my case.*

Nicky, if you form your opinions based on a speechwriter for
Quayle, Chaney and Bush, who turns to religion for his
understanding of the world, you are free to do so, as are
Gibo, runner, and the rest.

Sorry, but religion is more a part of the problem and has
little to do with our understanding of nature and the
natural order of things.

You are free to ignore the writings of Charles Darwin
at your peril and ignorance, that is your choice.

I remind you that 150 years later, as our understanding
of the world has increased through the understanding of
genes, dna etc, every major university on the planet takes
his work very seriously.

If you don't understand the fundamentals of nature, the
world will remain a confusing place for you and you can
keep protesting until its your day to fall of the proverbial
perch and be recycled.

Remain ignorant about the natural order of things, or even
turn to Scully and his religion for understanding. That
is your problem dear, not my problem.

"I remind you that 150 years later, as our understanding
of the world has increased through the understanding of
genes, dna etc, every major university on the planet takes
his work very seriously."

But of course Yabby. Darwin did write that:- "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment."

Therefore which author recommended that humans should allow their dogs to breed out of control so they can chop up their puppies with an axe, as you do?

The Marquis de Sade?

*But of course Yabby. Darwin did write that:- "In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment." *

Exactly Dickie and my dogs are an example of evolution in action.

About 10 years ago, along came a 6 week old pup from a drover,
which had no pedigreed papers, was the runt of the litter, which
was not only highly intelligent, but full of personality.

She had the genes required to thrive in her environment, her
way to make a living was assured. Evey creature needs to make
a living, one way or another.

Not only was her living assured, but when her offspring came along,
so far twelve of those 14 were all snapped up and their living
is assured too. Some have already produced offspring once again,
all with a way to make a living, mostly as working sheep dogs.

Yup, two pups were destroyed by me, to protect the interests of
the mother and remaining 6 pups. Had you had 8 children in one
go, perhaps you might have some empathy, clearly you do not.

Now if we take Nicky's dogs, in evolutionary terms they are
genetic duds, for that is the end of the line for that particular
family tree.

As Darwin points out, far more individuals of any species will
be created, then can ever survive. That is reality.

Pericles I appreciate the thought in your response to my question.

I wasn't sure about your opinion regarding working dogs at all - I agree a sense of purpose is vital to any sentient creature. Therefore, I believe that would-be pet owners should have permits along the lines of wildlife rescue people do.

I do not believe my cats are at all exploited - in fact in moments of fancy I consider to be reincarnated as a loved and cared for cat would be simply wonderful. I do understand where you are coming from however, but the reality is we have bred (domesticated) certain species to the point where they rely on us for survival - whether or not that is ethical can be debated. Particularly where breeding deliberately causes physical mal-adaptions such as the pushed in faces of Pugs or Persians. Progress is being made - at least we no longer dock puppies tails.

I am sure you agree with Nicky that the export of pets to questionable futures should be stopped forthwith. I received some literature in the mail this morning about this very topic and was disturbed to learn that apparently skinning animals alive produces a "better quality" coat. Hope no-one was enjoying lunch while reading this.

In conclusion, I support greater powers for the RSPCA to control the practice of exporting live animals of all species.

Perhaps it's time for the RSPCA to consider exporting dogmeat instead of letting the 10's of thousands of killed(whoops euthanaised) dogs go to waste. Such a policy may even make people think twice about dumping their pet!
The RSPCA are already part the way to being a feedlot, by having confined animals being supplied food and water in a non-natural environment. It won't be any drama to fed those poor animals a better ration while imprisoned, awaiting death.It's possible they could even have a vertically integrated business with all those abandoned and mistreated horses to deal with.
In doing so hungry mouths would be fed, and fewer dogs would be specifically raised for dogmeat, and more jobs created for our out unemployed meatworkers. A win all round. Certainly the dead dogs won't care. Stop the waste.

Well, you can all relax now, I've stopped holding my breath for an answer to my questions.

Never mind. Next time the subject comes up, I'll try them again.

But in the meantime, pet-lovers, do try and bend your minds to the ethics involved.

Try the old "visitor from Mars" test, and write down your report back to base, describing your observations on the interaction between humans and animals.

What the exercise should illustrate, if you are honest, is the relative moralities of keeping domestic animals in captivity for the span of their natural lives, and the exporting of puppies.

So far, I haven't seen a great deal of self-analysis on this thread, but it doesn't hurt to hope.

Have a nice life, all.

Nicer than all those pets of yours are having, at least.