I think in terms of longevity and comfortable living, humans are a clear win for pets. But in terms of life satisfaction, it's not clear. Maybe my dog would prefer living in the wild, hunting and scavenging his own food, never to be scolded for chasing a squirrel or digging in the trash - that's a tougher life (and almost certainly a shorter life), but maybe more satisfying for a dog than living in a house with seemingly arbitrary rules of what he can and can't do. Though he never would have survived in the wild with the broken leg he suffered as a puppy (before I adopted him).
Maybe my dog would prefer living in the wild, hunting and scavenging his own food, never to be scolded for chasing a squirrel or digging in the trash
One my dogs could answer that for you, as that's what he did for a while before he got picked up. He was also skin and bones. Sores in his mouth from licking out of cans. Much like humans, domestic dogs might like to think they want to get back to their natural roots, but they're also like humans in that most of them won't last very long. The primary cause of death for feral dogs is starvation. It was going to be Brody's fate had someone not picked him up and taken him in. Go ask Brody which he'd prefer. If he could talk, I'm pretty sure his answer would be, "what the fuck do you think as we stand in the warm house with a 40lb. bag of dog food mere feet away? Dude, I weighed twenty pounds less than I do now." Do not feel bad about giving your dog regular meals, a roof, and protecting them from themselves.
With that rant out of the way, sorry, I didn't mean to piledrive your point. Because I do consider such things, even knowing the likely outcome were it fully implemented. So I let them chase rabbits and squirrels in the yard. If they haven't caught one by now, they never will. And if you're a rabbit dumb enough to come into a yard with two pit bull terriers (or any terrier), well, you need to be kept on your toes. And we go camping, run around in the woods, pretend we really could catch those elk if we wanted to. All of us, humans included, are about as wild as domesticated suburban beings should be allowed to be.
> I think I have talked my way out of having a dog. If so, that’s OK.
Yes, this person should definitely not get one. What good is scrounging up reasons not to get a dog? If part of your argument is "you might trip over the dog", just don't get one.
(Though I must admit I'd enjoy seeing this person's cost/benefit analysis for driving a car.)
This is a misapplication. Usually the law is for headlines like "Will this city be the next silicon valley?", claims against conventional wisdom.
Here, the author is questioning conventional wisdom on pets. Her question could also have been phrased as "Are we wrong about the health benefits of pets?"
Betterridge's law would produce opposite conclusions on both headlines. If you can formulate it that way, it's not a good application of the law.
I've had ill relatives with impaired mobility that really enjoyed the company of pets; it makes a huge difference on people who can feel lonely at times.
Cats are a lot cleaner, if you want a clean indoor pet. Dogs are better for spending time outdoors. Don’t feed them commercial pet food (especially dry).
>Don’t feed them commercial pet food (especially dry).
Absolutely correct. Don't feed any pet commercial pet food! Feed raw. I recommend Darwin's Raw Food, but there are many others out there.
I accidentally gave diabetes to my beloved cat Penguino. He was eating standard dry (and occasionally wet) cat food for the first 6-ish years of his life. Suddenly he dropped from 13 lbs to 9 lbs in about a year. Fast forward four years and thousands of insulin and vet dollars, he is much healthier and on a raw diet, but will need insulin 2x a day for the rest of his life. Mishandling his food and health is one of my deepest regrets. And it was almost entirely avoidable, had I had the right information.
Some cats may be predisposed to the condition, sure, but it's not deterministic. There is a correlation between carbohydrate and fiber intake and a number of feline health conditions. You can read more here: https://catinfo.org/feline-diabetes/
My cat's raw food is delivered once every few months, it's kept in sealed packages in the freezer, and I've never had a problem with contamination or managing the food. I can only speak for myself, of course, but I would encourage you to do your own raw food research.
Remark from our vet, from feeding raw to our 3 cats: "we've never seen cats in such a good shape".
Two of them have been on raw since kitten, one of which was pretty young and in pretty bad shape while being fed commercial crap after she got abandoned by her mother. She was no more than a couple of week at the time, bloated belly, etc. Everything she was eating was pretty much passing through undigested.
As for the third one, we transitioned her from kibble to raw and she got noticeably less bloated and got much nicer pelt.
But just raw muscle isn't necessarily great -- I think there are lots of nutrients they would get from specific organs in the wild. One vet's recommendation was to alternate with high-tech dry food, which is likely to have these things. And some vegetables.
Right. Although IIRC there is also a danger of them over-dosing on some of this, if given a whole meal of liver or something. They're wired to like it, but nature didn't bother with a mechanism to know when to stop.
Absolutely true, they need organ meat too, which I was classifying as "meat". Though, point taken, unless you slaughter livestock by yourself (which we do), it's pretty much impossible to find. Even our chicken ABSOLUTELY LOVE meat and other random carcass scrap.
While what you are saying is true in terms of the pet’s needs, your claim about pet food is false. Pet food is garbage grade, waste, fillers and some vitamin powder sprinkled on top. Dry food is even worse, devoid of any moisture. Pet food is not something any living thing should be eating.
Nearly every dog in the country is fed commercial dog food (few people have the time and money to prepare food for their dog), and with few exceptions, those dogs seem to live a healthy life. My last dog lived to be 14 (pretty good for a 70 lb shepherd mix) and lived entirely on commercial dry dog food. (but it wasn't cheap grocery store food)
I think they were referring to cats with that line.
If not- I'd be interested to hear some scientific support that dry food isn't good for dogs. Last I talked to my vet he was happy with the commercial dry food my dog was eating- but if that isn't the consenus I'd like to know some more.
Cooking for cats is actually quite hard, and very easy to screw up. The kinds of meat humans usually eat don't contain everything your cat needs. Unless what you're cooking for them is actual mice, be very sure you know what you're doing. You have to add taurin and calcium, among others.
I think it depends on which commercial pet food you feed. Some are much better than others.
But with any dry pet food, you have to be careful to make sure the animal drinks enough water to stay properly hydrated. I think most pets in the US are probably at least partially dehydrated their entire lives, and they don’t know it nor do their humans.
IMO, if you’re not doing your due diligence to confirm what feeding regimes are good for your pet, then you are committing a crime.
There’s an interesting theory that we don’t actually like cats, but are tricked by a parasite (toxoplasmosis, which cats are the primary carriers of) into thinking that we do, and caring for them even though they don’t really serve any purpose.
That is absolutely ridiculous! We love our cats, they are extremely intelligent, loving, funny and make great pets. Oh and companionship is a great purpose on its own. Try having a siamese cat, see if you don’t really like them lol.
I wonder what percentage of factory farmed meat is devoted to the pet food industry. I love dogs and cats dearly, but I really hate what's happening to animals in factory farms. Unfortunately cats and dogs can't be vegetarian as far as I know. I also suspect that pet owners rationalize daily meat eating for themselves since their pets have to have it.
Felines are actually Obligate Carnivores. That means their digestive system REQUIRES them to eat primarily animal protein, or their health will gravely suffer and they will die.
Now, it doesn’t have to be 100% protein. If they were eating mice and birds in the wild, then the bodies of those prey animals would not be composed of 100% protein. But they would be primarily protein.
So, when we feed our animals, we need to make sure that we keep their natural dietary requirements in mind.
I just took my husky for the rounds around a hospital. She's incredibly aloof and will sometimes pay attention to the people around her, yet the love they felt for her brightened their day. I think pets in the right circumstances have profound mental health impacts
It's fairly common. Typically you need to have your dog certified as a therapy dog by somebody like Therapy Dogs International. It's also common for larger hospitals to have a dog or two on staff with a full time handler.
As with anything, it's largely affected by how much you pay attention to it. Pets belonging to people who already have large carbon footprints probably have large carbon footprints. People who are conscientious of their carbon footprints probably have "greener" pets.
With enough effort, a pet could have virtually no impact on a family's carbon footprint. For example, in the U.S., we typically throw away 30-40% of our food. If a family feeds their pet(s) with food that would otherwise wind up in a landfill, they'd actually come out ahead.
There is no correct answer to this question-- a whole lot of harm and suffering still all too often goes overlooked. Each individual situation is different.
Is it possible for pets to be good for us, and us for them? It would certainly seem so; most of us have seen fairly clear cut examples of this. But sometimes it's a one-way street, and other times (i.e. a maladapted creature being abandoned) it's even a no-way street.
Far too many 'pet' animals are arguably worse off than if they had never been born. Not spaying or neutering is inexcusable. [Unless you professionally breed, in which case statistically you are more likely than not to be causing a lot of suffering in that process.] Trap, neuter and release programs are essential. Continuous evaluation (and improvement) of quality of life should be part of every animal's existence we choose to force a human habitat upon.
Remember that these are thinking, feeling beings, not as different from us as we like to think. They didn't ask to be born, and most of them don't have a lot of choice in how they live their lives. The more aware of these issues you become, the more questionable a whole lot of pet ownership becomes. If you're gonna do it, please, be one of the good ones.
I could just the same argue that neutering is in fact the inexcusable and utmost selfish behavior. None of my pets are neutered, and I very much want them to breed in their life.
As long as you can account for and adapt to optimize the well-being for each of their descendants, no problem. If, however, you are foisting an unknown number of new sentient beings into this world with no idea of who will take ownership of them or otherwise be accountable for their happiness, this behavior is seriously unethical and potentially negligent in a legal sense.
This is going to sound a bit morbid, but it's helpful for me when I'm thinking about mortality to realize that my dog is going to die way before me and I'm not worried about that, so why am I worried about my own death, which is vastly further away?
For me the thought of my dog dying is so much more upsetting than thinking of a person's death. I am not sure why, but I think it's because of how innocent and guileless animals are.
I do worry about it. I have gone through that process multiple times, and each one was absolutely heartbreaking. I was completely and totally bereft, for an extended period of time.
But looking back, I must confess that most of my grief was for myself, not the animal that passed away. In the death of any sentient being, I think the grief is mostly for those left behind, not the ones who are gone.
So, I’m not too much worried about my own death, just trying to do the best I can to make sure that the ones I love will be well-cared for after I’m gone.
I have what I'm sure is a very unpopular opinion that most people probably shouldn't own dogs.
Dogs evolved alongside humans and were bred to help us with specific tasks like hunting, herding, etc. When you take an animal with a genetic drive to perform certain activities and turn it into a fashion accessory or have it sit alone in a house most of the day, I think the dog tends to go a little crazy. I don't think it's a good life for them. If you can't realistically be with your dog most of the time, or if you don't have a purpose for the dog (like herding sheep) you probably shouldn't have a dog.
I mean, I wouldn't go full PETA and say we should start killing dogs that are already alive. It's probably better to give them as good of a life as we can.
There is an easy solution to this, rescuing abandoned dogs. We have had two dogs (down to one now after a cancer battle), and both would have had not home, or been parked in a volunteer run shelter left alone most of the time.
I think they are surely better of with us, and I don't think we increase demand in any way.
I do agree with you that breeding dogs for a life in captivity might not be a morally good thing. Hard to say.
Seconded. My wife has a dog who ends up being alone most of the time. My wife and I go out for dinner, we go on vacation, and of course we both go to work, and the poor dog has absolutely nothing to do. I can tell she’s sad, miserable and lonely, but my wife wanted a dog. I do my best to at least be nice to her (the dog, that is) when I’m around.
Can you afford a walker? Of course spending more time with the dog would be good but just a suggestion. I have a friends who use a walker. They actually do spend time with their dogs quite often but they didn't want the dog to be totally alone while they are at work.
From a review "no matter how well loved they are, our pets are essentially being held captives…. She reminds us that the animals we love and treat as companions ‘are denied nearly all of their natural behaviors, not to mention their freedom"
How is this true in the case of indoor + outdoor cats? Particularly if you have a cat-door, or if you keep the garage door open a crack, so that the cat is free to come and go as they please: is this not freedom?
Agreed. Just to add to your point, snipping off the reproductive organs of said pets also feels cruel to me. Almost to the point of owning a living toy for your amusement.
I think it's probably still not great if they're alone all the time. I think dogs and people both need something to strive for / work at / however you want to put it.
It's pathetic how some end up taking all these decisions based on research and statistics... If you don't want a dog just don't take one instead of trying to find scientific reasons on why not to own one and then writing an article about it.
reply