Ours is a quiet cul de sac apart from the only two dogs in the street, one on either side.
One of these midnight yappers also killed two blue-tongued lizards in as many days, its owner ruefully admitted.
In the evening the cats can be seen heading off to the park to stalk native birds to satisfy their hunting impulses,
their stomachs already sated by their indulgent owners.
Australia’s estimated 3.6 million dogs and 2.3 million cats consume approximately $2.8 billion pa of pet food,
owners paying up to $100 per kilo for such delicacies as dried pigs ears for their pampered pets.
While plastic shopping bags have been banned in some jurisdictions the ubiquitous black plastic doggy-do bags can still be found in every corner of every park alongside unwrapped dog-waste lying in wait of the unwary.
Problems of overgrazing and overfishing would surely be ameliorated by the reduction in pet numbers,
as would the problem of canine faecal contamination in our waterways.
Which pet owner can seriously talk about the unequal distribution of wealth when the cost of feeding their pet,
not to mention veterinary fees, could sustain the occupants of an African village?
If overpopulation is a pressing problem that needs addressing then surely the overpopulation of pets is equally,
if not more, pressing and more easily solved.

I agree, but it will never happen, we can't even get people to register or de-sex their pets, or keep or treat them appropriately, let alone give them up!
An immediate neutering of all pets would solve most of the problems, let them die out slowly so no-one has to give up theirs, that might work, but get it through a Parliament like ours?
Will you have Fries with that,Sir?

There are certainly a lot of careless and thoughtless pet owners about but I am not sure that eliminating pets is the answer.

I know some suburbs and communities where domestic pets like cats and dogs are not allowed. I think there should be more of these communities and would no doubt lead to less neighbourhood disputes and there is nothing worse than a constantly yapping dog or stepping in dog doo in your own front yard.

We have a few dogs in our neighbourhood and we just put up with them and they are not too bad. I remember when my oldest was a baby our neighbour across the road had a non-stop barking dog which drove us mad and the baby would often get woken up by it's incessant noise.

I don't know what the answer would be KMB because I think stricter legislation such as banning cats from being outdoors at night, dogs being trained not to bark, and forcing owners to pick up dog doo probably would be ignored except by those already responsible pet owners. The nongs would continue in the same way.

I don't understand why so many people have a dog and then are never around to attend to it. My family made friends with a lovely golden retriever up the road who used to get out of the fence and visit us. She was not a barker, in fact I think she could not bark and didn't appear to have a larynx. The owners were never home and I used to think we should adopt her to ensure she received better care. Eventually they moved away and we never knew what happened to her. She was not mistreated just ignored for the most part.

Dear KMB,

We've already got laws in place concerning
pets - but as Pelican pointed out - not everyone
obeys them. We live in a quiet court - and have
a neighbour who refused to have her cat neutered.
The poor kitten had babies - and the neighbour
sold them. The end result was the kitten turned
feral and they had to have her put down.

I see people walking their dogs in the nearby park.
Not everyone picks up the dog poo.

Apart from irresponsible pet owners - we've got
another problem in our area. Since the building
of freeways, and the cutting back of native trees,
native birds have moved into suburbia. Our home
is surrounded by trees. The one that the birds
seem to prefer is right outside out bedroom
window. They start their 'singing,' at the crack
of dawn each morning. And don't get me started
about the crows...

I agree. Pets are an indulgence which is no longer sustainable. They are also a nuisance to petless neighbours who, if they wanted to put up with barking and cat poo from the pets of others, they would have their own pets.

Even with smaller homes and garden areas, people insist on having the damn thingsm, which is downright cruel to the animals.

I agree KMB, I don't want to and I love my two little dogs and they are usually the first thing a foster child is attracted to and will trust.

But you are right.

I also have two chickens, do they go too? They are more producers of food rather than pets.

So just dogs and cats eliminated?

it comes to mind...that phycotrysts say these homicidal muderors all began their carrers by murdering family pets[ammoung other preconditioning cruelties...beginning with pets ending up with murder of people...step by step becomming homicidal maniacs

just like a rapist will enjoy talking about rape[or a bomber talking about bombinf long before they actually do it...words are the means by which they test our moral fibre

i recall a saying..first they came for the sick[but i was not sick thus didnt help the sick[then they came for the feeble, the old the insane the homo and the jew[in time they came for me[but there was none left to help me]

so the eugenisists begin with cane toads, swat a fly,, kill termites, in time kill the pets[the food souces],then the febble.sick and insane

if you support murder of life see that for what it is..[thou shalt not muder[GET IT?]..

only athiests see a cure in someone dying..it begins by euthinising our pets...where does it end

phycoppaths allways excuse their murders first in words..even quoting there is a justice of sorts..in these..they plan to murder ..via the rationalisation of being them selves murderors of bluetounge lizards

two muderes does not a life make[god is the giver of life[[[would you enjoy explaining to god why you did murder[for any reason...why you stand by lett others develop their murder[its the first step on the aladder to eugenics]...being deliberated first in forums..then the news..then by govt policy

Although it comes off as a hypothetical representation of the possible future of Earth in the next hundred years, the story behind the story is simply “depopulation”.
http://www.infowars.com/earth-2100-new-world-order-agenda-on-primetime-television/
http://www.infowars.com/who-will-declare-pandemic-level-6-within-days/
http://www.infowars.com/911-trauma-defense-it%e2%80%99s-a-lie%e2%80%a6/
http://www.infowars.com/obama-may-allow-tortured-gitmo-detainees-to-plead-guilty-face-execution/
http://www.infowars.com/background-tv-can-harm-childrens-speech/
http://www.infowars.com/obamas-elite-agenda-black-abortion-for-profit/
http://www.infowars.com/obama-demands-right-to-recruit-minors-for-military/

OUG
This makes no sense - "only athiests see a cure in someone dying..it begins by euthinising our pets...where does it end".

I know many many Christians who have euthanised their pets to end their pain and suffering.

Your reference to eugenics and cane toads is a bit alarming - they are a real pest and causing real problems in Australia. Do you eat meat? Does that make you a person who is into eugenics?

Atheism and eugenics are two entirely non-related philosophies.

I am sorry but I don't understand the logic or rationale in most of your post.

Jewely
I love chooks. Chooks generally stay in their own housed area and free range in the yard. As long as the fences are high enough they are usually contained and don't cause annoyance to anyone. Roosters are usually not allowed under most Council regulations because of early crowing.

God/1,
I was not necessarily advocating "murdering" dogs and cats but perhaps letting their numbers decline by attrition, similar to what Maximillion suggested.

Foxy,
"I love the merry minstrels that come to my garden,
each morning at sunrise their chorus to sing.
A band of serenaders, sweet melody makers,
such gay entertainers would honour a king.
If they should desert me it surely would hurt me,
I cannot believe they would leave me for long.
T'is wonderful to hear them and now I am near them,
I love the merry minstrels and their lovely song."

Jewely,
Working dogs and egg producers would be permitted.

Dear KMB,

You deserve a hug!

Thank You for the "Merry Minstrel," ditty.
Just my cup of tea!

I've got a question about pets however...

If people were to not have pets - and these
creatures were released into 'the wild,' so
to speak - wouldn't their numbers increase
greatly? They'd breed like crazy wouldn't
they? (Think of rabbits)...

We'd then be over-run with all sorts of feral
animals - wouldn't we?

Just a thought.

Pets are often substitute children.These days with mega cites and people consumed with image and making money,pets are the only creatures that many people will trust.Your dog will always love you no matter how poor or insignificant you are.

I don't believe in Govt or evironmental edicts that say how people should live.It is better that we educate people about the need for contraception.Most of our pop comes from immigration.Real birth rates have been falling for decades.

That said,I don't own one.

*Problems of overgrazing and overfishing would surely be ameliorated by the reduction in pet numbers,*

Not so KMB, but as a consumer you are probably not aware as to what
goes into those tins of pet food, before they put pretty labels on
them. Most meatworks have a rendering plant, where the heads,
unsalable offal, blood and other waste go into a cooker. Basically
any crap that a pet might eat, which is unfit for human consumption
or has no market. Eyes, ears, its all turned into "meatloaf" or
whatever other marketing name you want to use.

Now if you plan to eat this stuff for dinner, rather then the pets,
well good luck to you lol.

jewely,
Keep your chickens. Sorry the Aus word is chooks. they are the greatest garbage disposal units ever. Almost anything that is animal or vegetable they will recycle and then give you lovely eggs in return. Don't have to have a rooster.

On top of that they are the only females around here I can talk to without being told what to do.

Cats simply tolerate people, barely and little dogs are glad to see you and good if they do not bark too much.

I have noticed that the smaller the backyard, the bigger the dog and have always wondered about that.

Hey Pelican, chooks are cool. I had three but one woke me up crowing a little while ago so got taken back to the pet shop where they insisted they never claimed that any were female. Yes the sign saying “Hens” was still attached to the cage we bought them from.
Dumb aye, we got our $8.00 back and probably spent $10.00 in petrol and whatever polluting the countryside all on the principal of it.

Hey Banjo, I do like my two poodles, but I can see that maybe having pet dogs and cats isn’t so cool in society. Having said that I agreed with KMB I would also head for the hills with Sammy and Dodgy if the pet police came knocking. I would agree maybe to not buying any replacements but I suspect I am lying to myself.

Miniature poodles; hypo allergenic for foster kids, and big enough to not be hurt by small children while small enough to not eat many in return. No cats. I kinda like water creatures but after a fish tank heater boiled all my tropical eels one day I gave up but I have been in a foul mood for years over that one. Pet shop coughed up big time for that disaster.

Yabby – Pigs would eat that stuff, zoo animals... wouldn’t be wasted. Nah I don’t know what I am talking about, just started thinking about pet numbers in Aussie halfway through writing that.

One thing in Oz is listening to the dawn arrive. NZ just didn’t have so many birds that you could hear dawn coming. Love it.

Humans and pets go back a long way. I consider the keeping of pets a part of humanity, and it is a part of humanity that I wish to maintain. I find my pets enriching. I'm happy for them to chase away bush turkeys that would destroy my garden.

Some people have a different opinion. So what is new? I like the story of the wise councillors of London having the dogs and cats killed, believing that it would protect them from the black death. The misanthrope in me would like to see all the anti-pet set move into a pet-free gated community, then all succumb to an illness spread by a blue tongued lizard or a kookaburra (aren't they noisy?) or something. But maybe I should feel fortunate to find an enjoyment from my pets that is beyond the comprehension of some.

*But maybe I should feel fortunate to find an enjoyment from my pets that is beyond the comprehension of some.*

I completely agree with you on that one Fester, but as you know,
some humans are determined as ever, to create little but a human
zoo.

I agree with Yabby, Fester and OUG;

Being close to and caring for creatures other than ourselves is very emotionally rewarding; I hope the pets get as much out of it.

Research shows that people who have pets live longer:

“Most researchers are now converging on the idea that it's the sense of emotional closeness and support that pets provide that is behind their stress-busting power,” he said. “It now appears that animal companions benefit our lives in much the same way as do human companions.”

http://www.chinapost.com.tw/health/other/2009/03/17/200502/People-with.htm

I don't want to live in a sterile world devoid of creatures - wild; domestic or any other. I love the sounds of roosters; wild birds; dogs barking doesn't worry me a bit. I once lived in a neighbourhood where every household on three sides, and the people across the road, owned big, noisy dogs. There was a spate of crimes all around - B & E; a few bashings; a rape - but not in our end of the street. Who the hell cares about a bit of dog dropping occasionlly. They have to go somewhere sometime and when it rains all is restored. Their wonderful devotion and protection more than outweighs any other factor.

Pynchme
No-one could disagree with you regarding the benefits of pet ownership - we have pets too but endeavour to always be responsible pet owners.

I think the call is for more responsible pet owners who don't just get a pet to take it out to play when they feel like it, but really include the pet as part of the family with proper care and attention. Too many people are working long hours, with smaller back yards leaving dogs (in particular) to live very solitary and lonely lives. Dogs are pack animals and need company.

Pets do wonders for the elderly and the disabled in terms of companionship. Kids also learn about responsibility through having to care for their pets.

When I was growing up pets never seemed a problem even though many roamed the streets and certainly the issue was not as emotional as it appears to be nowadays. Maybe there are just too many people packed into a smaller space. Our backyard used to be 1/4 acre block which would be considered huge these days.

Even though I can see the sense in removing pets, I must agree, they are a part of us all, and I'm a repeat offender, in spades!
When I had the kids and lived on a rural acre block,it became a flamin' zoo. Pet goats, birds, rats, mice, fish, dog, cat, snake, and on top of all that, I agisted several stock animals from my kids rural high every school holidays and Christmas. It all cost a small fortune in feed etc, but was worth every penny for my kids sake.
I live solo now and only have one pet. Fast little bugger, can do Warp nine, and read minds too. It lives under the couch, and generally goes by the name of.."There it is, kill the (*#&*%#*) thing"!
&-)

Eliminate Irresponsible Pet Owners

1. Increase powers of RSPCA
2. Increase fines and gaol sentences for cruelty, negligence.
3. Increase education to people about animals - too much of this 'human separate from natural world' B/S.

And watch Bazooka:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/video.cfm?id=25690064001

We have domesticated these animals, they love us and we love them - they are our responsibility, not liabilities.

Yesss Fractelle - and love that doggie!

Pelican I am right there with you on that; and with Fractelle's suggestions. Sometimes the sentences handed out for terrible cruelty just floor me.

I am all for responsible pet ownership.

(Btw I just realized that I'm screwing up a lot of syntax; tenses and such - apologies; I'm tired and rushing to get a few other tasks done.)

Personally, at this stage, I think that eliminating pets is an overkill and they do provide genuine benefits for comforting and protecting their owners. Even a small dog makes an excellent burglar alarm.

Like a previous poster I have also noticed that the smaller the yard the bigger the dog and I have concerns about that. Someone told me that Great Danes or St Bernards (?) don't need to be exercised and that they tend to die young from heart problems. Coincidence? I also have concerns about nocturnal creatures ie. cats being confined at night time for motives not far from paranoia.

I agree with Fractelle that RSPCA should have wider powers and cruelty should be taken more seriously.

I note that, I have observed a series of cats share a yard with blue tongue lizards, bearded dragons and possums without incident. The cats involved did nevertheless seem to locate every imaginable rat in the neighbourhood in spite of being well fed. However I am aware that some cats are less well behaved. From anecdotal accounts and observation larger cats eg. Norwegian Forest Cats seem to emulate dogs more in terms of destruction.

I don't share the catastrophic view of domestic pets with regard to native wildlife that some propogate. Cats are believed to have come here with the Dutch explorers (based on indigenous witness to their preceding white colonisation) and Dingoes are essentially dogs who are believed to have been here even longer. In both cases the wild examples eg. feral cats and dingoes would presumably be much more likely to have an effect and they have both been a part of the ecosystem for an awful long time.

If native animals are increasingly herded into tiny habitats and left vulnerable to dogs that is a wider issue than dog ownership.

I can't remember ever not having a dog.

When I was 11, I rather surprised my parents by comming home on a horse, I had bought with my paper boy earnings. We only had half an acre, but I kept the horse.

When I had an formula 2 Brabham, the insurance company wanted a kings ransom to cover it, & its gear in the garage. A couple of great danes, were much cheeper, & better insurance. No one ever came into the yard without asking. Even now, with some what smaller dogs, I still sometimes get a phone call from the front gate, asking if it's OK to come in.

My kids all had horses, dogs, cats, mice, fish, chooks & even lizards. I believe a kid training a pet, is about the best system for training a kid in self discipline that you will ever find.

If there is any culling to be done, I can think of much better places to start than with pet dogs.

Foxy,
Yes, releasing them into the wild would likely have a devastating effect but I think desexing and attrition would be the way to go, not release.

Arjay,
<<Pets are often substitute children>>
I think you're dead right on that one.
You see it in the names people give their dogs these days.
It used to be Rover and Fido.
I've heard Jeremy and Lily lately, not to mention darling and sweetie.
I have a theory that young couples who delay having children while they save for their house have pets as substitute children but of course I can't substantiate this.
My brother-in-law was beside himself with grief when he backed his 4wd over the poodle.
He couldn't bring himself to go to work for a week.

Pynchme,
<<Research shows that people who have pets live longer>>
This is equivalent to an overpopulation effect, another argument for getting rid of pets.

Fester,
<<succumb to an illness spread by a blue tongued lizard or a kookaburra (aren't they noisy?)>>
Hmmm, haven't heard of blue tongued lizards spreading disease and I adore the sound of kookaburras.
What I have trouble with is seeing owners kissing their dogs with open mouths.
There was a picture in the paper once and you could actually see the strand of saliva going from the dog's mouth to the owner's mouth.
I saw my sister doing it to her dog once (not french kissing).
Yuk!

Gee KMB, miserable much?.

KMB.Pets being substitute children is a sign of a society with serious problems in my view.I have witnessed it in very affluent relatives of mine who want for nothing,yet this mother who wanted a daughter said to her two sons recently,care for your sister and the bitch was a Droodle.My wife and I were gob smacked.

KMB and Arjay - I'm pretty sure neither of you will lose any sleep over it, but I won't be inviting you to visit. I don't think my youngest son, Arnold James, would be happy in your company. You might make fun of his height (about 10 inches) or convey to him the notion that you think he has no right to be alive - 14 year olds can be so sensitive.

KMB - I bet you're the life of every party.

Pynchme,We have to get real.Many yrs ago I visited my cousin on a remote sheep station of 80,000 acres and we travelled around his property with his three dogs for a day.One of those dogs had three legs which did not get in the jeep in time for the return journey of 12 kms.Hours later it came home panting and was given food and water.I leant down to pat his dog,Tony,"Don't pat the dog you'll spoil him,he's a working dog!" We city folk just don't get it.For some it really is about survival and for many,pets are just an indulgence.

It's ok Arjay; I was just stirring a bit:) I'm a bushie myself and I do understand the working dog ethos. Never owned one though so I don't know how necessary it is to act so distant from them.

I am fair dink about my little old foxie though. He's a great comfort and companion. My (actual) son grew up side by side with Arnold's mother; she passed away at age 17; when my son was 17. Many happy memories there; they were so cute and funny together.

I just can't grasp the idea that we can or should just disregard the wonderful quality of life that creatures bring to us.

As fellow creatures on the planet too, I also think they have a right to be here and since we have dominion, that it's our obligation to ensure their right to exist is protected. If we'd consider working towards eliminating animals with which we have a symbiotic relationship then there is no justification for protecting any other living thing on the planet. What's a spotted owl, tiger, panda or elephant do for me? They just foul up the environment with more crap... noise... might as well do away with them as well.

*Never owned one though so I don't know how necessary it is to act so distant from them.*

I've got three working dogs here and its not necessary. They've each
got their own bean bag by the fire and get lots of pats, but still
make great working dogs

There's been a lot of twee talk here about how pets "enrich our lives".

I'll leave aside the thought of how barren must be a life that needs the companionship of a dumb animal to justify it, and simply point out that all this self-indulgent warm-and-fuzziness is at the expense of the animal in question, which is in effect kept in slavery for its entire life.

To me it is one of the more puzzling aspects of human nature, that as a society we are quite happy to breed millions of animals each year, merely to buy and sell for our own amusement.

I for one consider it barbaric, and hope that one day we will simply grow out of it.

You know Pericles it's so interesting to me that you say that. I have often thought the same thing about keeping animals being something akin to slavery and all.

From another perspective, we could say that Arnold James lives the life of a little prince with me as his slave - except that I fully recognize the power differential between us. Of course I could choose to rid myself of the little prince and the burden of supporting his lazy ass at any time I wished. Similarly, I suppose that he could choose to wander off and make his own life elsewhere.

Anyway it seems to me that it depends on how we co-exist - whether the relationship is mutually beneficial. When Arnold James starts bringing me my coffee, I'll let you know that he has been dethroned and reduced to slave status afterall :)

Yabby I loved hearing about your doggies - that's great news. It always seemed to me that the working dogs kept in tough conditions seemed to long for some interaction with and warmth from their owners; I've never understood how they could withhold it.

My wife's family used to own a fox terrier called Fawkes,named after Guy Fawkes.He must of had an excellent pedigree since he strutted like a trotter over his domain and was very territorial.Too much courage and not enough diplomacy was his problem.He had this on going war with a German Sheppard called Brutus and Fawkes spent many an hour at the vet getting stitched up for his efforts.

One day he found a cream puff with legs that was his size.The poor woman who was walking this dog held cream puff above her head screaming,murder,murder!

They had a white budgy called Harold named after Harold Holt who escaped form his cage whilst being cleaned and Fawkes in a flash gulped Harold with only the tip of his tail feathers hanging out.I rushed in and prised Fawkes' jaws apart and Harold flew away and was captured a day later.

One day a film crew fancied him but he ended up on the cutting room floor in disgrace.On another occasion a drunk form the local RSL club swore that he'd give up the grog because he'd just seen a dog without a head.Fawkes had a black head and a black and white body and at night it did really appear thus.They were fun times.

<"Too much courage and not enough diplomacy was his problem"> <- Har har!! I recognize this! - and poor Harold! lmao - I once had a budgie named Charles. His partner was Bridget.

In Arnold's case I have also guessed that he doesn't perceive the relative difference in size between himself and other dogs, humans or whatever - he will just shape up to anything/one that he thinks poses a threat. One day while my son and I were walking him; a HUGE scary hound bounded out of nowhere to take us apart. Arnold, though on his lead, zoomed to take up the space between the terminator and us. It was only for a second that I saw the back of his little legs trembling with - fear, I guess; but he still bravely fronted. The hound backed down -amazingly.

Arjay and Yabby - wonderful memories. It's really fun to share them too. Thank you :)

there is a dog locked in/adjoining my window,..it was..part of a large/family..[but their kids have grown up,..and now it spends its days[and nights]..making mournfull cries/moans..crying for attenttion]

animals give people pleasure..[most people]..this beast is suffereing more than i,..for selfish reasons..i could claim it better off dead..[but the beast is suffereing..more than i..[i see that there is the selfish/ness..in those who would murder beasts...

the title puts up..LETS START..by..eliminating pets..[meaning killing pets..is only the beginning of the elimination's]..thus clearly is a eugenists adgenda..revealed

[on the jaws..that would muder..aspect]..i submit i have the unique problem of a resqued rainbow/pariquete..[we found squawking behind the house..nakid and covered in ants..but succesfully raised into a tame bird..[loney..of course..but alive]

one night i heard it utter a strange squawrk..and went in to see a carpet/snake had it..in its jaws/was proceeding to crush the life out of it..[as the smake had its body half in the gage...but importantly still hanging half out..i grabbed a hold of its tail and yanked it cage and all and tried to shake it out of the cage

it had little choice but to let fo the bird,..and with a few more shakes came out of the cage...anyhow..to cut a long story short i then faced the choice of murder..or release

i bagged the beast and released the beast in the bush..[about 2 k from home]..but a snake-[moult]skin indicates its back..i sighted the snake moulted skin..a few days ago..yet there is still not murder in my heart..[i trust the new/cage is snake-proof]

i think we are missing..that this realm belongs to the snake's..[it can only do..as a snake does..but we humans are not beasts..we make a concious choice..to do good..[or follow the naTURE OF THE BEAST,

we are one step from the eternal/heaven..[if we get over our beastly nature's,..till then we recycle back..into this realm/..of the beasts[some hope to realise it/this into hell]..killing dont fix the problem...[just moves it on the a future problem

[first begin with the beasts..next the old and sick..what..[next the bloggers,;..talkers/thinkers dreamers..why not begin with eugenisists/..those who talk of murder

OUG, I didn’t notice anyone advocating wholesale slaughter, nor a eugenics program.
I say, cease breeding, sterilize them all, and let natural attrition do the job.
That way, no-one has to lose “Little Fluffy” or give up “Butch”.
Why look at the extremes of the case?
Yes, pets do a wonderful job for our psyche, and provide companionship for the lonely or infirm, not to mention the children, yet there are alternatives to the predators we keep, Australian ones, that will need less and work just as well.
Don’t get me started on horses, I’d like to see them removed from Oz totally, along with camels, donkeys, goats etc. I for one don’t give a rat’s posterior about the racing industry, it would be no loss, nor the dog-racing, end the whole trap! They are hardly “working animals” anymore, are they?
Oh, and "eliminate" only means Kill in the movies, it really means "to put an end to completely", and that can be interpreted many ways.

OUG: <"[first begin with the beasts..next the old and sick..what..[next the bloggers,;..talkers/thinkers dreamers..why not begin with eugenisists/..those who talk of murder">

Clever comment OUG. I get the connection; I made a similar one a couple of posts ago. I also understand where you're coming from in that all life is precious. Once we start saying this life (whole species!?) has no value or that one doesn't DESERVE to live, there is no reason to stop those judgements being made elsewhere.

Max: I think it's a tragedy if, having the authority over other species as we do; that we decide that only animals who are "working animals" should be allowed to exist. That's awful; quite apart from the emotional and psychological worth of our relationships with them.
Also, the wonderful horses (bugger the racing industry) - lovely and faithful and an instrinsic part of our history - geez can't their mob have earned enough historical credits to guarantee them a place?

Mind you - I don't agree with breeding - not the way it is set up now anyay.

As I asked a few posts ago; if we decide that creatures that are of no *working use to us should be *assisted to die out - then is there any rationale for keeping endangered species alive?

The whole proposal to elimiate them is just so Animal Farm/Boxer in character that I am entirely repelled and puzzled that anyone could think this would lead to a better world

max quote[sorry almost said med max,but regretfully know your not mad,anyhow max quote<<Don’t get me started on horses,..I’d like to see them removed from Oz totally,..along with camels, donkeys, goats etc.>>i had the inkling it was only a beginning..lol

<<I for one don’t give a rat’s posterior about the racing industry, it would be no loss, nor the dog-racing, end the whole trap! They are hardly “working animals” anymore, are they?>>imk not a great one for racing dogs[but have raced pigions,far as i can tell, what people decide to spend their life on is their busines

i cant see how you so opbviously intelligent even make such claim's, its hardly the case that blogging is going to change anything, people will love what they will[you could ban cammels but someone will defend their right to love them regardless

<<Oh, and "" only means Kill in the movies, it really means "to put an end to completely",>>oh i allways thought and that can be interpreted many ways but extinct more nearly meets your definition...so i do a search
http://www.hydroponicsearch.com/spelling/simplesearch/query_term-eliminate/database-!/strategy-exact

<<Eliminate \E*lim"i*nate\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Eliminated}; p. pr. & vb. n. {Eliminating}.] [L. eliminatus, p. p. of eliminare; e out + limen threshold; prob. akin to limes boundary. See {Limit}.] 1. To put out of doors; to expel; to discharge; to release; to set at liberty.

It isn't an argument that particularly impresses me, Pynchme.

>>Once we start saying this life (whole species!?) has no value or that one doesn't DESERVE to live, there is no reason to stop those judgements being made elsewhere... if we decide that creatures that are of no *working use to us should be *assisted to die out - then is there any rationale for keeping endangered species alive?<<

Point one: the issue is keeping animals for personal amusement, not whether a species "deserves to live".

Point two: the issue is not "assisting them to die out", it is "breeding them in captivity for sale."

Point three: no, there is no cogent or credible rationale for keeping endangered species alive.

The only reason we do this is because we are hopelessly selfish and over-indulgent.

We also enjoy a little self-flagellation occasionally, so long as it doesn't hurt too much.

That is why we are quite happy to limit our hot showers to four minutes, but still rush out and buy cans of MyDog or (I kid you not) "Nutrience - Dog Supreme Duck & Rabbit" by the cartload, at heaven-knows-what cost to the planet and our environment.

http://tinyurl.com/lmkbrd

It's not about the doggies and pussies and bunnies, it's about the shortsightedness and willful self-delusion of pet owners.