A cat has the same carbon footprint as a VW golf...

[anna09]

Sorry, but I disagree with the "luxury" responses.

Yes, we don't absolutely need to have cats and dogs in order to survive but they do need us to survive.

[Bella Fortuna]

Are there benefits to keeping pets? Absolutely! Is there anything wrong with loving animals? Of course not. But do humans need pets as we do food, shelter and clothing? No. They are a lovely luxury in that sense.

I dunno. My animals are pets, not working animals. The cats keep the mice and voles down though, as well as keeping birds from stealing garden seeds. The dogs help to keep deer and rabbits out of the garden and trees. Now, if nobody around here had pets, it would be pretty damned difficult to grow a garden, fruit trees, or even regular trees. Cats and dogs are very much part of the urban, suburban, and ex-urban ecosystem.

I agree that the pets we keep often have that interaction with the wilder environment, but if none of us had dogs and cats would the ecosystem continue? Yes. Could man-made solutions mitigate the examples you give? Yes again. (not something I'd prefer, let me add!)

Sorry, but I disagree with the "luxury" responses.

Yes, we don't absolutely need to have cats and dogs in order to survive but they do need us to survive.

This is true - but I meant (and I think TA does too) that it's a luxury for us. Whether it is for them is another matter entirely.

Don't get me wrong, I've been a cat owner my entire life and I wouldn't give that up for anything. Just trying to look at things more dispassionately here...

[anna09]

This is true - but I meant (and I think TA does too) that it's a luxury for us. Whether it is for them is another matter entirely.

Whether it's considered a luxury or not, the fact is, these animals are still going to be around and they need to be taken care of. That's fine if you honestly consider it a luxury but that doesn't change the circumstances.

[maiforpeace]

I'm leery of this study.

In the US anyway, cat and dog food is produced primarily from the leftover animal products that have been initially processed for humans. This argument might be valid if humans were vegetarians, but we aren't.

[Clinton Huxley]

This is true - but I meant (and I think TA does too) that it's a luxury for us. Whether it is for them is another matter entirely.

Whether it's considered a luxury or not, the fact is, these animals are still going to be around and they need to be taken care of. That's fine if you honestly consider it a luxury but that doesn't change the circumstances.

By and large, the animals kept as pets are bred to be kept as pets. If the demand wasn't there, there'd be no need to breed 'em.

[anna09]

This is true - but I meant (and I think TA does too) that it's a luxury for us. Whether it is for them is another matter entirely.

Whether it's considered a luxury or not, the fact is, these animals are still going to be around and they need to be taken care of. That's fine if you honestly consider it a luxury but that doesn't change the circumstances.

By and large, the animals kept as pets are bred to be kept as pets. If the demand wasn't there, there'd be no need to breed 'em.

Most people aren't breeding their pets, they get them from animal shelters and they get them as strays. Whether you intentionally breed them or not, they're still going to reproduce if they're not spayed or neutered. Even if every single breeder decided to stop breeding cats and dogs, that would only mean there would be less pure-breds.

[Bella Fortuna]

This is true - but I meant (and I think TA does too) that it's a luxury for us. Whether it is for them is another matter entirely.

Whether it's considered a luxury or not, the fact is, these animals are still going to be around and they need to be taken care of. That's fine if you honestly consider it a luxury but that doesn't change the circumstances.

Of course. I was speaking purely hypothetically. I do advocate taking measures to prevent uncontrolled animal (dog & cat) population growth, and finding good homes for the ones already here.

[Reverend Blair]

Are there benefits to keeping pets? Absolutely! Is there anything wrong with loving animals? Of course not. But do humans need pets as we do food, shelter and clothing? No. They are a lovely luxury in that sense.

I dunno. My animals are pets, not working animals. The cats keep the mice and voles down though, as well as keeping birds from stealing garden seeds. The dogs help to keep deer and rabbits out of the garden and trees. Now, if nobody around here had pets, it would be pretty damned difficult to grow a garden, fruit trees, or even regular trees. Cats and dogs are very much part of the urban, suburban, and ex-urban ecosystem.

I agree that the pets we keep often have that interaction with the wilder environment, but if none of us had dogs and cats would the ecosystem continue? Yes. Could man-made solutions mitigate the examples you give? Yes again. (not something I'd prefer, let me add!)

What would the ecological footprint of those solutions be though, Bella?

Our pets have been performing these roles since well before modern cities developed. They are well-suited to it. We can replace them with something else, but that something would have to be mass-produced in a central location and shipped to us. Would it necessarily have a smaller footprint?