Contd.....

In Pericles new world order (an oxymoron), there are about 1.3 billion head of cattle, 1 billion pigs (sometimes 40,000 on one property) over 2 billion small ruminants and more than 50 billion poultry reared annually for food production and increasing.

These animals are often kept under scavenging conditions (also in Australia) with little attention to disease control, housing or feed supplementation, suffer a high burden of endemic disease and have intensive sectors of the poultry industry where the rapid growth rates of birds reared in stocking densities of up to 50,000 birds in a single shed gives the most “efficient” feed.

Greater risks to human health from wildlife pathogens have become inevitable as a consequence of increasing human contact with wildlife by man’s disturbance of habitats, deforestation, the taking of land for livestock farming and the consumption of infected bush meat, all of which has led to the the spread of pathogens to livestock and humans.

As in the past, omnicidal man’s state-of-the art technology promises many solutions to the problems he in fact has created. The new technologists have nothing but contempt for the "eco-fascist" luddites who are supposedly advocating a return to the days of primitive savagery.

The assumption for the new-technology utopias has always been that the feral human has the right to adapt the biosphere to the ever-changing demands of their individual egos. Once this has been established, the debate is merely over how best to alter existing technology so that the exploitation of the biosphere (including non-human species) can continue in a long-term, “sustainable” manner.

The “fine” examples here are man’s genetic manipulations and brutal treatment of drug induced livestock for human consumption and the breeding of genetically altered pedigree companion animals for profit and conceit.

Pericle’s utopian world proposal, for a planetary domain, exclusively for omnicidal man and his enslaved commercial animals, (dead, diseased or alive), bereft of Fido and Oscar, exacerbates my dim view of the lemming like, tool-wielding primates one generally calls “human.”

Protagoras (love the name change BTW)

I don't see how one can have a topic about breeding animals without mentioning the breeding practices of food animals. In all cases it is human arrogance and avarice that dictate the methods used and the results we see.

The points you have made about habitat destruction, the mutation of viruses as humans and other animals interact where they haven't in the past, farming northern hemisphere animals in a southern hemisphere continent - everything you have put forward, are all valid concerns and require adjustment towards sustainable practices. We are as dependent on this planet as any other creature. What does set us apart is our ability for technology which places the onus, the responsibility fairly on us.

My goodness, Protagoras.

You're not setting a very good example of civility here. It is a good job that I know you are not a representative sample of pet-owning folk.

>>Pericles - Having to endure your hypocrisy is tiresome enough, however, I take exception to your innuendo - particularly when posters like yourself present false information with the intention of deceiving. I am not a vegetarian as you well know!<<

Well of course you are not. I wouldn't dream of suggesting anything so... so... horrible. It would be almost as bad as calling you a hypocrite.

I was simply making the point that the fact that I am not a vegetarian myself, does not disqualify me from making observations on the oddities around me.

One of which is that I personally find it most strange that bipedal human beings with apparently above average intelligence, see nothing wrong in keeping animals in captivity, purely to indulge some personal need for... whatever it might be.

And, as some folk here are aware, because we have had this conversation before (albeit in a more civilized tone of voice), I am not advocating mass slaughter, merely an acceptance that it is a weird practice, that should be allowed to die out.

>>So why not sod off and take your sick, bigoted dogma with you?<<

Charming.

But just out of interest, what exactly is it about my "dogma" (was that an intentional play on words, by the way?) that is sick, and/or bigoted?

I'd be very interested to hear.

>>In Pericles new world order (an oxymoron)<<

[patiently] this is not about anything quite so dramatic, Protagoras. Merely another aspect of a personal choice that we make, that in some small way defines us.

Don't be such a drama queen. And ask yourself why you find my views so offensive. Then perhaps tell me in a more measured tone.

And rstuart - Douglas Adams was among other things, a satirist.

"In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has been widely regarded as a bad move"

Dear Fractelle,

Unfortunately no I'm not getting a new computer -
just yet. Other things have come up that require
money - including possible funeral expenses of a
close relative - but
I won't go into details here - suffice to say -
I've got other priorities at the moment.

I've just reread all the comments and a few points need to be emphasised.

The show on TV and this post was focused on the beyond stupidity of a minority of breeders and their beneath contempt, idiotic practices emphasis on *COSMETIC* ONLY REASONS.
What it wasn't about pure breeds V muts nor a moratorium on man's inhumanity to animals in general. Topics on the latter invariably finish up badly and counter productive in conversation mode.

Clearly there are definite advantages to having certain breeds of Dogs in that they complement man's endeavours while offering mutual benefits which aren't available by other reasonable means.

Oscar aside, cat's role along those lines in modern society is less defined.

To me the take away message here was a stark and definite warning that something needs to be done NOW while there is still time.

Any good do encyclopaedia of dog breeds lists the benefits and down sides to various breeds. And there in lies my personal message.
Puppies, dogs SHOULD BE CHOSEN to match THEIR FUNCTION in the specific family ENVIRONMENT rather than cosmetics.

The functional choice of PP's poodles are aft. However their genetic patellae joint problems are because of breeding smaller. They were originally Standards. There are at least 6 other non allergenic breeds .
In the shops We found customers simply didn't know, hadn't done their research or were choosing on cosmetics (cute). We tended to educate clients on the breeds matching lifestyle before buying this often changed their selection. We sold retreads and muts all with health guarantees.

Our vet had blanket authority to inspect, remove, treat of any livestock in the shops any time and did.
When we left they noted .

The range of animals, choice ( dogs incl) was more than they had seen in 20yrs of vetting.
Our practices had “significantly” decreased in the number of Christmas dogs presented for destruction at Easter (inconvenient, surprises) .

NB we didn't get rich (drat) but the point is as stated consider function and environment, cosmetics last.
A pox on Paris Hilton setting back dog breeding 100 years.

Dear Examinator,

I hear what you're saying and understand.
However, choosing a pet is often an emotional
response done on the spur of the moment.
I've got quite a few friends who've bought pets
because they thought they looked "adorable,"
or the kids made a fuss and wanted them, or they
felt sorry for those big brown eyes looking at them...

Not everyone as responsible as you
suggest they should be - most often people fly
by the seat of their pants (or rather emotions).

We don't have any pets (hubbie won't let me, because
we're hardly ever home) - much as I'd love a dog -
(one that actually looks like a real dog - not a toy).
And, I'm not really into "breeds," as such - having
grown up with an array of loveable mutts as a child.
I've got to confess that I recently wandered into
a pet shop at my shopping centre and saw all those
"doodle -oodles," and "shitzus," et cetera - and
thought - "Thanks, but no Thanks!"
Some of them were rubbing their little bums on pieces
of matting - and I thought ,"Do they have worms?"
Why the itchy backsides?

Anyway, I respect your arguments -
However - I'll probably get my future pet from the
RSPCA - it'll be a mutt that looks at me with those
big eyes - and I'll end up buying him.