• Robert Neve

    Typical peta nonsense. There’s never been any evidence to suggest that pets, when well cared for, have a bad life. This article wants to try and claim they are domesticated and yet wild. You can’t have both. They are either wild and therefore unhappy in homes or domesticated and therefore perfectly suited for life with humans.

    Further to that can you imagine a world where humans had no positive interaction with animals? They were just some thing of nature that wrecked cars, took human lives, carried illnesses etc. Do you remember what happened to species of animals that became just pests? We eradicated them. I don’t believe that it’s shocking that as more and more of each generation grow up with animals then more humans become aware of and more friendly towards animals in general.

    • Sam Woolfe

      I don’t support PETA. They’re an animal welfare group, not an animal rights group, with some very questionable practices.

      I never said that pets, when cared for, will necessarily have a bad life. Given the extent of overpopulation, people should adopt pets and give them the best life possible.

      My point is that the institution of pet ownership is without justification. Not only that, it has resulted in all the problems I point out in the article: overpopulation, miserable lives spent in cages, abandonment, physical difficulties for the animals because we want them to look ‘cute’ and high rates of euthanasia.

      • Robert Neve

        But that’s the same argument you could make against anything. Without alcohol you’d not have drunks, liver issues, alcohol related crime etc. Or if we didn’t have knives there would be no knife crime. Heck almost all those issues you stated also apply to humans. We are overpopulated. Millions live in slavery and prisons. Many are abandoned or have to run. Plenty are physically disabled. So I guess the only answer is the complete halt of any more children being born.

        It is not pet ownership that is at fault but the abuse of pet ownership and that’s a whole different thing.

        • Sam Woolfe

          It comes down to different outlooks. If you view animals as things to be used for human convenience or pleasure then you won’t have an issue with pet ownership.

          I’m not saying that pet ownership should be outlawed, but that people need to take more responsibility for their demand for pets. It’s the same with human overpopulation. It’s a moral issue, not a legal one.

          • Robert Neve

            The end of the article seemed to give that impression. I see pet ownership as something that should be symbiotic. I accept that for some it is parasitic or even abusive but that’s something that should be worked on. I don’t think the whole idea of pet ownership is inherently bad because some abuse it. A dog belongs with owners who have gardens rather than a tiny apartment for example. It’s also the reason I don’t own a cat as much as I would like to have another. Since now I have a 3rd floor flat it would have no ability to access outside on it’s own terms. I think it just comes down to considering the animals needs as much as your own needs. If you do that pet ownership can be a good thing for all.

          • Matthew

            “People need to take more responsibility” is the root of most of society’s ills, whether it be pets, children or anything else.