[greazy]

Unfortunately, no me neither. I think this issue extends beyond cats, it's the uncontrolled breeding of animals, which imo leads to all sorts of abuse.

I find it amazing that anyone can decide I'm going to buy a breeding pair of cats with the end goal of making money.

We need to phase out cats and dogs completely. This saddens me deeply because I love my dog but the damage these animals do to the environment is so large I don't think I can truly fathom.

We can do this slowly, first pets needs to be desexed. For cats there's no exception. For dogs the exception would be breeding working dogs, or therapy/guide dogs. With cats they must be kept in doors at all times. These laws should extend to larger animals like horses.

In Australia we have a huge problem with horses and camels. But the public do not support culls of horses, even if it's for their own benefit (eg to stop them from starving in winter). But the horse racing industry is huge here, they've got clout and political pressure.

Uncontrolled breeding of animals for human enjoyment is amoral. Animal companionship is of course the exception but this comes with issues.

[zinodaur]

Where I live, the environment has been paved with concrete for hundreds of kilometers in every direction. Yes, cats kill whatever scavengers manage to eke out a living in the ashes of their old environment. Why does it matter?

[kelnos]

> We need to phase out cats and dogs completely. This saddens me deeply because I love my dog but the damage these animals do to the environment is so large I don't think I can truly fathom.

What? That's a ridiculous "solution".

I'm absolutely in favor of mandatory spay/neuter, and much stricter regulation of breeders. (I would say, outlaw breeders entirely, but I don't think laws like that will fly with voters when it comes to dogs, at least.)

But I don't think "eliminate two species of animal" is a good solution to anything, outside of some narrow cases (disease-carrying mosquitos). And regardless, the idea that it would be politically possible to ban having cats or dogs as pets... that's naive, at best.

I agree that uncontrolled breeding is a problem, but "phasing out" cats and dogs entirely is not a solution; that too is barbaric.

[User23]

Ah yes, the classic the only way to save it is to kill it plan.

[ClumsyPilot]

> the damage these animals do to the environment is so large I don't think I can truly fathom

Industrial farming just entered the chat.

> Animal companionship is of course the exception but this comes with issues

This is, I think, a significant point, especially for people who are lonely, depressed, disabled, antisocial, etc. Its far more improtant than enjoyment of eating a burger.

[deeviant]

Uncontrolled breeding of humans is a problem orders-of-magnitude worse for the natural environment. Shall we start a cull of those too?

(This is obviously satire)

[thousand_nights]

is this satire?

[mattmaroon]

Pretty sure it’s just bad logic informed by propaganda.

[greazy]

Excuse me what propaganda? This is informed opinion.

[pcf]

You think it's an "informed opinion" to eradicate two species from nature?

You said that "we need to phase out cats and dogs completely". This is the most extreme solution I've heard in any debate about household pets.

[mattmaroon]

Yes, people whose opinions are formed by propaganda still think their opinions are informed. And they are. By propaganda. Something does not have to be untrue to be propaganda.

There’s quite a bit of anti-pet propaganda put out ironically by two groups that have diametrically opposed viewpoints: ones that love animals and ones that hate them. But that’s not what I was referring to mostly.

There’s also a lot of environmental propaganda that makes people feel as if every little thing that brings them joy must be curtailed because it contributes to global warming or they’re evil. That is propaganda from the people who make trillions off of fossil fuel or the energy derived from it, they want you to worry about your dog’s environmental impact despite the fact that climate change is 98% a matter of public policy. As long as you’re focusing on whether or not you should take that plane trip or have a dog you’re not worried about why there isn’t a carbon tax, and why the emitters get by year after year without being forced to pay for their negative externalities. And if that all sounds a little too tinfoil hat for you I totally understand, but read all the recently released documents from the plastic industry about how they promoted recycling, knowing full well that it neither worked nor helped the environment when it was done, so that you’d feel better about using their products.

They want you to think climate change is your fault and can be fixed if you just drive a more efficient car, or install a heat pump, or don’t have a dog. It can’t. We can all spend all our time doing all the little things we’re told matter, but at the end of the day our personal choices are a drop in the bucket compared to industrial/agricultural choices we have no say over. You can only make a difference in climate change at the voting booth. They know it but they don’t want you to.

Responsible pet ownership has relatively low (and certainly not unfathomable) environmental impact. One does not have to eradicate entire species just because some assholes let their cats roam free. Just don’t let your pets roam free.

Keep loving your dog and letting others love theirs. Pick up after it, don’t let it off leash, certainly don’t let it murder local fauna all day, and don’t worry about the CO2 emissions involved in its food. It’s negligible.

[mattmaroon]

Side note: I do agree that breeding dogs should be regulated due to animal neglect/abuse so much so that I’ve actually started the process of creating a not for profit to do a ballot initiative in my state to create a regulatory agency. I have worked with animal adoption agencies and no-kill shelters and my state has a horrible puppy mill problem. I am unfortunately very aware of the state of the breeder dogs that come from those.

I will put that stuff out of business or die trying.

[nuxi]

If one was to replace "cats/dogs/animals/horses" in your statements with "humans", one could get another informed opinion. A bit cynical perhaps, but informed nonetheless.

[User23]

While sometimes eradication is in fact moral (hey smallpox), it’s not one of those solutions you want to look to without a truly thorough understanding that probably isn’t possible for non-pathogens.

[fishtacos]

It certainly reads like it.