Pericles

I know you don't agree with the keeping of pets, andal though I disagree that they are slaves, I can understand your reasons. However apart from being rather insulting to everyone who has contributed here, you have not addressed the issue that domesticated animals such as dogs and cats have no place left in the wild (particularly in the Australian ecosystem) yet have no suggestions for what a responsible pet owner should or could do. Should all dogs and cats be exterminated? No-one is forcing you to own a pet - however, you appear to be in denial of the reality of pet ownership.

I have suggested that people be required to obtain a licence, currently we pay councils registration - money from that could go towards educating people in humane treatment and feeding of animals. You have contributed nothing except a self-righteous position (remind you of anyone?) and stated that you are right everyone else is wrong and apparently taken your metaphorical little bat and ball and stomped off. Mind you don't fall over - holding one's nose so high in the air means you miss seeing what is actually going on around you. (No mixed metaphors from yours truly).

Disappointed, expected better.

*However apart from being rather insulting to everyone who has contributed here*

Dearey me Fractelle, you do seem to be a sensitive little petal,
seemingly feeling insulted by anyone who happens to disagree with
you.

What on earth are you doing debating on a forum, if you are so
easily insulted?

A little more rational thinking and focussing on the substance
of the issues, rather then how sensitively they are put to you,
would be a welcome change indeed.

At the end of the day, what is said matters, not how delicately
we treat the sensitive petals on this forum.

Mind you, most of those sensitive petals seem to have no problem
in dishing it out, they just dislike a factual reply to their own
abusive posts. Sorry darling, it won't work.

I am sorry if you feel insulted, Fractelle. I had been particularly careful to address only real, live ethical issues.

>>you have not addressed the issue that domesticated animals such as dogs and cats have no place left in the wild... Should all dogs and cats be exterminated? <<

I have on a previous thread described how pet ownership can be eliminated, but I'm happy to revisit it here.

Clearly, it would not work to suddenly decide that "on January 1st, it will be illegal to keep a pet".

However, it would be realistic to ban the acquisition of domestic animals from January 1st, except where specific need could be shown.

This would be for medical (e.g. guide dog) or commercial (e.g. sheepdog) purposes only, and only when there is no feasible alternative.

New owners would require a licence for one of these categories, renewable every year upon re-justification.

Existing owners can of course keep the pets already in their possession, but would need to register them, and also obtain an appropriate licence. If they don't fall into either commercial or medical categories, they would be issued a "Residual Domestic" licence, which would lapse on the death of the pet.

The process would be managed by the local council. The commercial licence would carry a fee, the "residual pet" licence would carry a smaller, administration-only fee. There would be no fee for "medical" pets.

And in fifteen years or so we would have weaned ourselves off the habit.

All trade in domestic animals would be banned, which would quickly shut off the nastiness that this thread has described. If there is no supply, there can be no international trade, and no cruelty.

But this statement of yours puzzles me a little.

>>however, you appear to be in denial of the reality of pet ownership<<

In what way do I appear in denial? What is the "reality" that I am missing?

My own view is of course that it is pet-owners who are in denial, that keeping animals in captivity is somehow benign.

But I am as always ready to listen.

Pericles

Thank you for your reply.

1. The reality of pet-ownership, is that many people who keep pets do so because of the companionship and the health benefits, such as walking the dog. Medical studies have shown that the company of a pet lowers blood pressure and has positive psychological effects; having worked in a nursing home I have observed first hand the joy that pets brings to patients.

2. Apart from people who abuse animals, which is why I support proper licensing, there is no evidence that pets suffer. We know that animals do suffer when bred in intensive situations like chicken-farms, over-packed into transport for short and long term travel.

3. You are arguing from a position of ideology. I'm not; I have worked as a volunteer at an animal shelter, there is no doubt that these animals suffer; because they have been abandoned by irresponsible owners. Animals that go to good homes go on to live happy healthy lives.

4. The longevity of pets indicates that they are healthy and happy. My last cat lived for eighteen years; we show greater care for pets when they are in pain at the end of their lives than we do to elderly humans.

5. The program of 'weaning' people off pet ownership is a dream, Pericles. People love their pets and I am sure that the reverse is true. We often hear stories of animals saving humans; my old cat alerted me to an intruder one night and we all know of stories where dogs have rescued people from drowning.

I am perplexed by your vehemence on this topic and would appreciate your succinct writing on animal welfare topics like export, inhumane farming practices, inhumane slaughter etc.

I am happy to agree to disagree, I do respect your reasons and the courtesy you have shown to me. I understand how some animal welfare activists try one's patience, however, like atheists, we are not a single homogenised group.

PS Yabby - yet another emotive, patronising ad hominem attack from you to a female poster, same old, same old broken record.

Ok I`m Back. Exciting guys isn`t it!

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2332&page=0


*"AQIS is only enforcing importing rules, not our rules,"

Hugh, what are 'our' rules? Do you mean that an authority that operates under Australian laws and is controlled by us cant be held to account?

The x Ministers advisor fyi Nicky looked two lawyers in the eye and 'assured them; NO dogs were being imported from Australia for such use as food.

This person was an AQIS officer who was sent to be Peters personal assistant when he took over the job of AG Minister to err, show him the ropes.
Hugh can just contact Anne at AQIS and ask her to 'prove nothings going for eating.

She certainly seemed to know him.

Draft a bill Hugh and ask for it to be passed in Senate "urgently."

I`m guessing this has been raised by another Animals Welfare organisation- Yes?



rojo,
Your suggestion to turn Australia into third world by breeding DOGS to feed people is beyond the pale.
Your probably closely related to old Yabbs IMO. Always said it was genetic.

Nicky raised a very important issue.
I hate to see it going to waste instead of us putting some solutions on the table.
Fractelle

We agree with the licence bit but extend it to people also.




Pericles,
The fact is working dogs are often not treated very well especially working farm dogs- some are. In general a working dog does it tougher than a dog sharing a household.
There is nothing wrong with a partnership of friendship and trust between a person and an animals - be it a horse cow dog cat....

We are all on the earth together BUT we need some laws!

I understand some animal lovers become a bit anti people.


I am not sure if you fall under that or your an attention seeking poodle- but if you cant see the difference between Nicky`s dogs and sending dogs overseas to be eaten then you need help imop.

She`s raised an important issue here and imo we should be supporting her not dragging her off field

pale, what makes dogmeat a third world status symbol? Dogmeat is very expensive relative to pork and fowl, and as such is relegated to the consumption of the rich. You may not know that their are millions of people within Asia on what we would consider middle class income.

Do you need me to point out that these dogs are already being killed in our first world economy. I'm merely suggesting that instead of dumping the carcasses they could be utilised to feed those that choose to eat dogmeat. The running costs of the RSPCA could be partially offset by the income, and fewer dogs need be raised for the sole purpose of slaughter.