Following On From ....

[cycas]

As you say there is a trade. Life of freedom followed by less humane death or life of captivity followed by (allegedly) more humane end. I personally don't think either to be acceptable. The relatively pleasant life of the wild animal prior to death does not justify the sort of death brought about by a shotgun. Nor does the ability to deal with the slaughter in a relatively efficient manner justify the sort of existence most farmed animals have.

 

I don't see it quite like that, though I agree that factory farming is appalling. To my mind we are not separate from the rest of the ecosystem. Our civilisation offers a number of niches for animals, and many animals have evolved into the specialised niche of being a domesticated animal. Handy for us (and obviously, we like to think we planned it all...) , but also an opportunity for them. Wild cattle, for example - the aurochs, the native, dangerous, uncontrollable wild animal is extinct. As long as people drink milk and eat cheese (and during that process, surplus calves are produced) the future of the related Jersey and Friesian cow is assured. It's not always good for the individual, but it's great for the survival of the species.

 

Although I can see the argument that under a high technological civilisation many people (I'm not convinced about all of them, given food intolerances) don't need to eat meat, but the stability of that sort of civilisation is questionable, and in most places without really very high civilisation, you need to use domestic animals.

 

I would like to see people eating less meat and dairy, paying more to assure good welfare, and asking questions about the industries that produce it. I would not like to see the extinction of domesticated species: to be honest, that would strike me as a bit of a betrayal of the animals that have evolved alongside us. Like 'OK, we exploited you for several thousand years, now we don't need you, you can go extinct'.'

 

The environmental impact of moving all the farmland traditionally used for livestock farming to vegetarian food production would be considerable too. Lots of species depend on land being grazed.

 

Ah but nature rarely allows an animal to die by starvation or disease. Apart from those at the very top end of the food chain with no natural predators, any sick or injured animal would be quickly dispatched by a predator.

 

There are quite a lot of animals in Britain that have no extant natural predators though. Deer, for a start. And although the buzzards and the foxes do their best, there are too often enough rabbits to provoke a very nasty Malthusian population crash.

 

I'm really not convinced, from my own observation of wild animals that I have seen, and from information I have read about disease, parasites and illness in wild animals, that natural deaths aren't painful or slow, or that wild animals are innately healthier or happier than well cared for domestic ones.

[sproggie14]

I don't see it quite like that, though I agree that factory farming is appalling. To my mind we are not separate from the rest of the ecosystem. Our civilisation offers a number of niches for animals, and many animals have evolved into the specialised niche of being a domesticated animal. Handy for us (and obviously, we like to think we planned it all...) , but also an opportunity for them. Wild cattle, for example - the aurochs, the native, dangerous, uncontrollable wild animal is extinct. As long as people drink milk and eat cheese (and during that process, surplus calves are produced) the future of the related Jersey and Friesian cow is assured. It's not always good for the individual, but it's great for the survival of the species.

 

I guess it comes down to whether you think the species or the individual is more important. I can see the other side of it but I favour the individual. It infuriates me for example that we cull grey squirrels to favour the red, or cull ruddy ducks to protect the (whatever duck it is they breed with). To me, an animal is an animal and it's species is simply the physical form it takes in life. Although I adore sheep with a passion I would rather they became extinct that a single other sheep suffered. It's not as though they are a natural animal anyway.

 

Although I can see the argument that under a high technological civilisation many people (I'm not convinced about all of them, given food intolerances) don't need to eat meat, but the stability of that sort of civilisation is questionable, and in most places without really very high civilisation, you need to use domestic animals.

 

I see your point and I realise that the sudden or total cessation of the use of all animals is unrealistic. I just think it should cease where it isn't necessary.

 

I would like to see people eating less meat and dairy, paying more to assure good welfare, and asking questions about the industries that produce it. I would not like to see the extinction of domesticated species: to be honest, that would strike me as a bit of a betrayal of the animals that have evolved alongside us. Like 'OK, we exploited you for several thousand years, now we don't need you, you can go extinct'.'

 

The environmental impact of moving all the farmland traditionally used for livestock farming to vegetarian food production would be considerable too. Lots of species depend on land being grazed.

 

I see your point but I just find it so sad that animals should only be "allowed" to exist if they are of use to us. Or that certain types of habitat only exist if it suits us to have them there for our own selfish reasons. I suppose I'd like to see wild herds and wild habitats but I realise that's unrealistic.

 

 

There are quite a lot of animals in Britain that have no extant natural predators though. Deer, for a start. And although the buzzards and the foxes do their best, there are too often enough rabbits to provoke a very nasty Malthusian population crash.

 

Agreed, and I acknowledge that there is a need to cull deer for this reason. If there were a humane enough way of doing this I'd prefer that we make full use of the results of this necessary action rather than farming other animals.

 

I'm really not convinced, from my own observation of wild animals that I have seen, and from information I have read about disease, parasites and illness in wild animals, that natural deaths aren't painful or slow, or that wild animals are innately healthier or happier than well cared for domestic ones.

Agreed to an extent. Animals do suffer in the wild, it's part of life I guess. But a lot of animals suffer in captivity too and I tend to think the well cared for domestic ones are sadly very much in the minority. But I'm far more comfortable with an animal taking its chances in the wild, contributing to evolution etc than it having a false, exploited life in captivity even if that life were a little more comfortable. Subject to species obviously - I wouldn't advocate releasing a domesticated animal in the wild. But having worked with wildlife I know most animals would choose freedom and all its risks over captivity and its comforts.

[Alison]

Please, please don't anyone take this as me playing devil's advocate or an attempt to make anyone justify their view - the question, as always, is genuine. There's absolutely no need to feel defensive as I am honestly interested to hear what vegans and meat eaters alike might think This is something I've wanted to ask for ages but I've never felt that there has been an appropriate time or place. I'm not vegan but often reflect upon all issues related to animal welfare - including that of even the most "ordinary" of insects - thus this thread re. the vegan approach is very interesting to me.

 

Following on from the issue of animals in zoos, the posts regarding quality and length of life for farm animals and ditto that of wild creatures: Do we have the right to keep pets?

 

Billy's choice of words in terms of "having" cats (as opposed to "owning" them) made me smile and is partly what made me feel that this is the appropriate time and place to ask. Those [cats] who are allowed to roam freely have the choice of whether or not to continue gracing us with their company, but most pets/domestic animals are, essentially, captive. Are they being exploited? I'm thinking of dogs in particular and maybe cats confined to indoors.

 

Even those we have rescued from desperately bad circumstances might very well choose to live a feral life given half the chance and that would seem quite natural. Dogs would probably leg it from our sofas quite cheerfully in favour of a life of "procreating" (i.e. sh*gging every hound in sight - those not neutered, obviously), sleeping rough, scrapping with other dogs over food and territory and preying on other species. Completely leaving aside what bits of their behaviours are habituated and learned from their lives with humans, I imagine that this would be their natural, instinctive default? I must add that despite living amongst a huge variety of dogs for the past 43 years, I still consider myself to be inexperienced so please feel free to *shoot me down in flames; I won't be remotely offended.

 

Of course we prolong their lives and, as we perceive it, the quality of those lives. I'm not quoting anyone in particular as this isn't aimed at anyone particular and I certainly don't want to be seen as baiting because I'm definitely not. I have found all the posts relating to the above (the rights of animals to freedom and quality of life) extremely valid, interesting and thought provoking. It's something I'd like further opinion on. Obviously not while Sol is still in the land of the living, but I am seriously contemplating the rights and wrongs of pet companionship in the future from the perspective of their right to liberty and happiness as they might perceive it.

 

I appreciate that every animal is an individual just as we are but this is a general question and not one about any specific pet that anyone here might own/be owned by. My question is one of general ethics, not about any given pet and what they might choose.

 

Is it morally right to keep a pet, even a rescue?

 

*Happy to be shot down in flames but please read the whole of my post before doing so. I freely confess to being a miserable old bat and get stroppy if I have to repeat myself

[melissa]

Yes I think it is morally right to keep a dog, the majority of dogs have evolved as have we and no longer seem to want to 'live rough' neither do we want to live in caves anymore, the majority of us anyway. I believe most of our pets want to be with us else why do they follow us around, show us affection, come to us when we call them? If we threw them out I think they would want to come back.Although I am a life long vegetarian I have always said to people I am not on a crusade it is a personal choice for me. Whilst I believe that dogs, cats and some other animals can happily live as pets I cannot be comfortable with wild animals in cages (zoos), visitor farms on the other hand yes I like to think they are the lucky ones who will get petted & not be killed for food long before their life should be over. I think this thread proves that although we might all have different opinions of what is comfortable to us we all at least think about animal welfare and in some way contribute towards it, many people don't even give it a second thought!

I do sometimes tire of people saying 'ah but what about' as if trying to 'catch' you out about being a vegetarian/vegan and am in no way implying anyone on this thread has done that but from my own view point I do the best I can and what is comfortable for me

[sproggie14]

This sounds odd from someone with quite so many pets as me but no, I don't think we have the right to keep pets. Essentially pet keeping is just another form of exploitation, using animals for our own pleasure and enjoyment. I probably have a jaded view as a rescue but it appears to me that the majority of animals suffer from their relationship with humans rather than benefit from it. Animals who are missexed and made to have litter after litter often with their own relatives, animals who are kept in tiny cages, rabbits stuck at the end of the garden in a tiny hutch and ignored, dogs who are shut in one room and shouted at, animals taken to the vets to be pts when the owners decide to emigrate, animals set loose when no longer wanted, neglect, abuse, abandonment....to say nothing of the puppy farms, rodent farms, and pet shops where these animals are bred in horrible conditions and the excess are fed to snakes and no thought is given to the health of the animal when breeding leading to deformed animals and those suffering health problems because they have been bred to look a certain way.

 

Then there is the effect that our pets have on the natural world and other animals. Cats kill millions of wild animals a year and I shudder to think how many sheep, cows, pigs, chickens etc die to feed our dogs and cats, as well as a massive trade in mice and rats raised in shocking circumstances to feed pet snakes.

 

That said, there is obviously a huge number of animals in existence who rely on us for their care and wellbeing. As we have created them I believe we have a responsibility to look after them so I have no problem with rescue animals in good, vetted homes. I do not think any more animals should be created for our pleasure though, especially when so many die for lack of homes, and for that reason I am totally against any animal breeding. I feel so strongly about this I am currently not talking to my brother cos he allowed his cat to get pregnant

[cycas]

I am unconvinced that all animals would want to make a permanent dash for it. Possibly in an environment with unlimited food, no predators, and naturally good weather, in a situation where the animal had no reason to identify the humans as part of their family group, herd, pack whatever - but few environments offer that.

 

Dogs are dogs, not wolves because they have evolved into animals that are designed to smarm up to people and eat their leftovers, not survive independently.

Like Melissa, my animals get regular opportunities to bugger off across the horizon if they wanted to. Admittedly nowadays all my animals are neutered, but back in the days when they weren't, I was still tripping over them, all going 'Where's the grub?'

 

I don't believe animals are capable of taking human-level planning decisions for their lives, I don't think they have much of a concept of liberty (as opposed to comfort) and actually, I don't think even human beings get complete freedom to decide how and where they live, most of the time. So I don't see any moral problem with the basic idea of domesticated animals or pets at all.

 

Actually, I'm not sure that the abstract concept of freedom means much to the majority of the human population. I have to obey lots of irritating rules and laws that restrict what I can do, where, when and how, and do lots of work that I would often rather not do. I could take off for some wilderness and live in a mud hut, but I'd much rather have my liberty restricted and live with the systems that I am familiar and comfortable with. If I were being personally abused that might be enough motivation, but as long as I am fed, well accommodated and feel that on the whole, I get to spend a reasonable percentage of my time doing stuff I enjoy, that's sufficient. I'm not anyone's personal pet, but I'm hardly roaming free either.

Edited April 22, 2008 by cycas

[Terrier]

I see your point but I'm personally not convinced that a concept of longevity or awareness of their own mortality etc is relevant in assessing an animals right to life. The way I see it is every animal, whether that is human, cow, rat, snail or shrimp has one chance at life. That life might not be the same as ours but it is the only life that animal will have. If we accept that animals can feel emotion on some level then it's reasonable to think that they learn, they have moods, they enjoy things etc. If an animal is killed, whether it is aware of death or not, it's capacity to enjoy life and all the experiences that brings is cut short. That animal won't get another chance, that's it.

I see what you're saying. However, my cutting short that animal's capacity to enjoy life and all its experiences etc.. you are extending the lives (and increasing the quality of the lives) of the other creatures who then have more chance of benefitting from the resources that that particular animal would have used.

 

Losses by one creature are gains by others. Net effect = 0. Therefore the level of suffering wrt the kill is the only area where I see a difference.

 

A similar argument can then be applied to farm animals. The animals that are farmed are GIVEN a life that they would not otherwise have had. It has a capacity to enjoy life and all the experiences that brings *because* it is farmed for meat.

 

On the contrary, animals are programmed to pick up on bad things happening to others of their species - it's a basic tool for survival. That's why rats stop eating poison and why pigs waiting to be slaughtered scream.

I see your point wrt the tool for survival. I hadn't thought of that. Thanks, you've given me food for thought.

 

WRT your examples, having never been into an abatoir I can't say either way*. I'd guess that neither have you though, so I'm wondering if you have any further reading that I could look at?

 

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

*Although I would have to say that's just one example of the distance between consumer and living animal. That distance is imo a major factor in the abuse many animals suffer to make the food on our tables.

[Terrier]

In theory I agree with you. Nature dictates that there is a food chain and that animals of a prey species must die to feed those of a predator species. Prey species animals are set up in nature to survive this by having large litters/broods and a fast breeding cycle. But my personal feeling is that we have evolved to the point where we do not need to eat meat. With our "advancements" we do an enormous amount of harm to the planet and nature. It would be nice to be able to use our resources and knowledge for something positive for once. We do not need to kill other living creatures to survive so why do it?

Question answered in previous post. I agree that our advancements often cause great harm. I would also go along with the assertion that *most* meat production comes into that category.

 

WRT doing something positive, everything we do has both positive and negative aspects. A benefit in one area will always (or certainly almost always) have negative consequences somewhere along the line. What we must satisfy ourselves is that the "good" outweighs the "bad".

 

Given how far human civilisation has come, the "for once" comment is a little puzzling.

 

As you say there is a trade. Life of freedom followed by less humane death or life of captivity followed by (allegedly) more humane end. I personally don't think either to be acceptable. The relatively pleasant life of the wild animal prior to death does not justify the sort of death brought about by a shotgun. Nor does the ability to deal with the slaughter in a relatively efficient manner justify the sort of existence most farmed animals have.

The key word here is "most". On that I agree with you 100%

 

Ah but nature rarely allows an animal to die by starvation or disease. Apart from those at the very top end of the food chain with no natural predators, any sick or injured animal would be quickly dispatched by a predator. Yes it could be argued that humans are a predator and us killing a wild animal is comparable but we don't do this in the manner nature intended. Nature is careful to ensure a quick death for prey animals and shotguns were not part of the plan. I do believe that for example the death of a pheasant by a fox biting its head off is quicker than it being shot.

I'm not sure what you mean by "not done in the manner that nature intended". I'm going to work with the assumption that you mean that we are not picking off the weakest members of a population, and accept you have a point.

 

I can't agree with your assertion that nature is careful to ensure a quick death. Nature is what it is, neither careful nor careless. The only creature that has the mental capacity to be careful to ensure anything at all (including speed of death) is surely the human being.

 

You mention a pheasant getting its head bitten off by a fox being quicker than the death by shotgun. I have never seen how a fox predates its quarry, but one thiong strikes me. Perhaps the death itself may be quicker, but that would only apply if the pheasant in your example were taken by surprise (I don't know how realistic that is). What about the chase prior to final kill? That would surely involve a great deal of stress for the prey animal involved. When we also consider that the fox has no concept of the moral implications of what it is doing, then I am not convinced that they will necessarily ensure the death is quick and painless.

[Terrier]

I think this thread proves that although we might all have different opinions of what is comfortable to us we all at least think about animal welfare and in some way contribute towards it, many people don't even give it a second thought!

I do sometimes tire of people saying 'ah but what about' as if trying to 'catch' you out about being a vegetarian/vegan and am in no way implying anyone on this thread has done that but from my own view point I do the best I can and what is comfortable for me

It's not my intention to try to catch anybody out (I realise I'm not being accused - just wanted to reiterate the point!!).

 

I'm finding this thread interesting - to compare views with vegans/vegetarians, I would certainly never attack those beliefs. For all that I'm a confirmed meat-eater, I share A LOT of common ground with the vegan mindset (give me tofu over intensively farmed meat any day!!).

 

You make an excellent point imo. We all have opinions and although we have perhaps come to different conclusions (I can't really call mine a conclusion yet tbh - there's loads of aspects of this that I've not given enough/any thought to).

 

Moving back to your point about being caught out - I suspect it would be very easy to ask "ah, but what about" wrt the choices I make and catch me out!!

 

I suppose we would all welcome a move away from intensive farming. For some that might be veganism, others a move to hunting &/or extensive farming. If one form does not work for somebody (for whatever reason), I would be delighted if they went for the other.

[Terrier]

Is it morally right to keep a pet, even a rescue?

I take a similar view with pets as I do wrt those animals reared for food.

 

Same question as before. "Do the benefits of human interaction outweigh the costs?".

 

I would say that in the majority of cases, that it is morally right to keep a pet, whether rescue or responsible breeder (from time spent on a certain other forum, I realise that is potentially a whole other thread/can of worms).

 

If the animal is properly cared for - ie given food, shelter, protection, medical attention and the freedom to fulfil its instincts within safe boundaries, to a sufficient level that its life is enjoyable, then yes - it is morally right to keep pets.

[sproggie14]

I am unconvinced that all animals would want to make a permanent dash for it. Possibly in an environment with unlimited food, no predators, and naturally good weather, in a situation where the animal had no reason to identify the humans as part of their family group, herd, pack whatever - but few environments offer that.

Perhaps not all, I guess it depends on the species and how domesticated. As an example, I have experience of four foxes who went to great lengths to escape captivity. Three of them had been in captivity since the ge of about 6-8 weeks so were, as foxes go, pretty tame. They all took the opportunity to escape even though they were safe, fed and had no reason to fear people. On the other hand I had an aviary of birds and the door got left open. The pigeons all stayed put and I've known a wild pigeon choose to return to captivity. I guess that shows that it is possible to breed that desire out of animals, pigeons being largely feral domesticated birds and their descendents, but in their natural state animals clearly do have a concept of freedom IMO.

 

I see what you're saying. However, my cutting short that animal's capacity to enjoy life and all its experiences etc.. you are extending the lives (and increasing the quality of the lives) of the other creatures who then have more chance of benefitting from the resources that that particular animal would have used.

 

Losses by one creature are gains by others. Net effect = 0. Therefore the level of suffering wrt the kill is the only area where I see a difference.

 

I guess you have to balance it. Does the loss of the life of a chicken bring enough benefit to the life of a human to make it justified? I would say no as the human does not need to eat the chicken to survive, the pleasure eating the chicken brings is transitory and the same amount of pleasure could be gained in other ways without suffering or loss of life.

 

The net effect would only be zero if one death equalled one life. But how many animals die for one meat eating human. *googles* 4-5,000. That to me doesn't balance out. I don't think humans are worth 4-5000 animals. I certainly don't think the pleasure achieved through eating meat is worth the death of 4-5000 animals.

 

A similar argument can then be applied to farm animals. The animals that are farmed are GIVEN a life that they would not otherwise have had. It has a capacity to enjoy life and all the experiences that brings *because* it is farmed for meat.

 

Getting very philosophical now but i guess that depends whether you think that animal (as in the being or soul) would only exist in that form, or if it hadn't been a cow could it have been a rabbit or a hedgehog instead. And then whether its better to live a short, cruel life or to live no life at all. Given the choice I would prefer not to be born that to live the life of most farm animals.

 

WRT your examples, having never been into an abatoir I can't say either way*. I'd guess that neither have you though, so I'm wondering if you have any further reading that I could look at?

 

I have been to an abbatoir I'm afraid yes and it will always haunt me. The smell and the sound of the pigs screaming. And the JCB's shovelling bucket loads of guts and hooves into big containers. There have been several exposes by organisations such as PETA which include video footage from abbatoirs. I know not everyone considers them the most credible source but I don't think you can really argue with what they captured on film.

Edited April 23, 2008 by sproggie14

[sproggie14]

Question answered in previous post. I agree that our advancements often cause great harm. I would also go along with the assertion that *most* meat production comes into that category.

 

WRT doing something positive, everything we do has both positive and negative aspects. A benefit in one area will always (or certainly almost always) have negative consequences somewhere along the line. What we must satisfy ourselves is that the "good" outweighs the "bad".

 

Given how far human civilisation has come, the "for once" comment is a little puzzling.

 

I guess I don't see that very much positive has come from the advancement of human civilisation. Pollution, exploitation of other humans, exploitation of animals. As you say benefit in one area almost always has negative consequences somewhere else. I struggle to think of one good thing humans have done that hasn't caused something bad elsewhere. Now that we have the knowledge to create a diet without meat I just think it could be something positive which could come out of our advances.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by "not done in the manner that nature intended". I'm going to work with the assumption that you mean that we are not picking off the weakest members of a population, and accept you have a point.

 

Yes that too but I meant more that a shotgun is not how nature intended us to kill our prey.

 

I can't agree with your assertion that nature is careful to ensure a quick death. Nature is what it is, neither careful nor careless. The only creature that has the mental capacity to be careful to ensure anything at all (including speed of death) is surely the human being.

 

You mention a pheasant getting its head bitten off by a fox being quicker than the death by shotgun. I have never seen how a fox predates its quarry, but one thiong strikes me. Perhaps the death itself may be quicker, but that would only apply if the pheasant in your example were taken by surprise (I don't know how realistic that is). What about the chase prior to final kill? That would surely involve a great deal of stress for the prey animal involved. When we also consider that the fox has no concept of the moral implications of what it is doing, then I am not convinced that they will necessarily ensure the death is quick and painless.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting a fox sits and thinks carefully about being kind to its dinner. More that by instinct a fox goes for the neck, lions smother the mouth of their larger prey etc. I don't think its coincidence that animals have set killing methods and they don't involve them eating animals leg first, they usually involve them severing the spinal cord for example.

 

I take a similar view with pets as I do wrt those animals reared for food.

 

Same question as before. "Do the benefits of human interaction outweigh the costs?".

 

I would say that in the majority of cases, that it is morally right to keep a pet, whether rescue or responsible breeder (from time spent on a certain other forum, I realise that is potentially a whole other thread/can of worms).

 

If the animal is properly cared for - ie given food, shelter, protection, medical attention and the freedom to fulfil its instincts within safe boundaries, to a sufficient level that its life is enjoyable, then yes - it is morally right to keep pets.

But, even assuming the animal has a good life with the owner, what about how the animal is kept prior to that (eg puppy farm, rodent farm, pet shop) and what about the animals which die to feed them? Even the majority of those who are veggie/vegan/careful to only buy free range meat then feed their dog and cat on food containing meat from intensively reared animals. Can it be right to create one animal for our pleasure and to then have numerous other (less cute and cuddly) animals die to feed it?

[melissa]

I suppose we would all welcome a move away from intensive farming. For some that might be veganism, others a move to hunting &/or extensive farming. If one form does not work for somebody (for whatever reason), I would be delighted if they went for the other.

 

Exactly! whatever we can do & is right for us to improve all animal welfare is a good thing in my opinion

 

couldn't work out how to do the quote bit

Edited April 23, 2008 by melissa

[cycas]

Perhaps not all, I guess it depends on the species and how domesticated. As an example, I have experience of four foxes who went to great lengths to escape captivity. Three of them had been in captivity since the ge of about 6-8 weeks so were, as foxes go, pretty tame. They all took the opportunity to escape even though they were safe, fed and had no reason to fear people. On the other hand I had an aviary of birds and the door got left open. The pigeons all stayed put and I've known a wild pigeon choose to return to captivity. I guess that shows that it is possible to breed that desire out of animals, pigeons being largely feral domesticated birds and their descendents, but in their natural state animals clearly do have a concept of freedom IMO.

 

I've known a wild-born, wild descended rabbit with free access to the outdoors not want to leave permanently. I don't think we can ignore the role of species here: foxes are animals that although they live very close to people, have never become domesticated:they clearly have a very strong independence factor in their makeup (yes, I am aware of the caged fox breeding experiments, but I think that's different because the animals were caged and deliberately selected.

 

Other species in similar situations, for example the remote ancestors of our domestic cats, have become domesticated and don't chose to leave, and appear to be more self-selected for domestication.

 

Oh yes, and a red deer that my sister inherited when she bought a smallholding : it had been kept in a barn, and my sister and her partner, both with somewhat romantic views about wild animals, assumed it would choose to rejoin the local wild red deer herds if it was simply allowed to do so. Not a bit of it, the beast hung around refusing to leave and became really quite dangerous: they are big animals and this one had no fear and was quite pushy with people. To be honest, I think it thought it was human.

 

If not pleased, it would express itself with its hooves. In the end they were unable to find any rescue that would take it, could not bear to cage it, so they had it shot - not a decision they took lightly, given that she and her partner are both vegan, but they felt unable to do anything else. If it had been me I'd just have continued to keep it in its enclosure, which it was used to and content with.

[cycas]

Even the majority of those who are veggie/vegan/careful to only buy free range meat then feed their dog and cat on food containing meat from intensively reared animals. Can it be right to create one animal for our pleasure and to then have numerous other (less cute and cuddly) animals die to feed it?

 

The answer to that is more foods that are not produced by intensive farming, fewer animals being kept on a shoestring, and better education. I actually think that a big part of the first 2 problems is a huge and growing population: we have limited resources and more and more people: this needs to be dealt with in order to give a proper level of care to both people and animals.

 

Something that really bothers me about one often-used argument for veganism is the idea that we shouldn't be 'wasting' food on expensive animals when we could be feeding yet more people. The answer to that one, to my mind, is not less food going to animals, but fewer people (which will also mean fewer domesticated animals, as the number of the latter is largely dependent on the number of the former.

 

As with all animals, when our human population explodes, the welfare of individuals is affected in all sorts of ways, environmental, dietary, and healthwise. For some reason people who will happily agree that animal populations should be restricted for the benefit of all don't see that we are subject to exactly the same rules.

 

I don't see that because some animals are abused by some people, no animals should be kept by any people. The same argument would apply to children: many of them are abused by their families, but we can hardly free human children from their families. Or adults for that matter, terrible things are done to people by other people. This needs fixing, but we can't do it by becoming hermits.