Hey fellow Ozbargainers! I have just received an email for this years Million Paws Walk hosted by the RSPCA. In support for sheltered animals, there will be walks happening all across Australia to raise awareness and provide funding for lovely animals in need. The code will get you 30% off the entry price which will work on top of the already reduced 20% early bird tickets! You can now support a good cause, exercise but most of all, save money!
Prices vary.
lol JV.
Lol…
$80 to walk around Albert park lake, it's normally FREE…
How is this a bargain ?
Because you are supporting a charity and you normally don't get to do it in the middle of a pack of incredibly happy animals. I don't have dogs but I did this a few years ago and it was incredibly uplifting. Dogs live in the moment and these guys loved the interaction with each other and I thought they were all so adorable.
Because you are supporting a charity
So why is this a bargain then? Why aren't you giving that money to the charity ?
Personally I make a donation to the RSPCA, each year, of around $500. The walk with the doggies was just a feel good bonus for me.
@jv: I didn't put the original post up - I'm just saying that people should do it for the experience, even if they do intend to do it at the discount price, rather than not do it at all.
So you're supporting sheltered animals by paying 30% less than you would have otherwise to take the dog for a walk?
Like … can't you just donate?
Like … can't you just donate?
Pretty sure you can just do the walk without paying and donate money to whatever charity you want.
It's public land, they can't stop you…
It's public land, they can't stop you…
Lol what?
In Sydney, I couldn't enter Taste of Sydney at Centennial Park (public land). I'm sure I can't walk in to the Easter Show either without being stopped to pay (public land).
How will they stop you at Albert Park?
@jv:
Police are often present at public gatherings.
Crown land and council land can be leased/licensed for events and event organisers can charge a fee.
In NSW…
http://www.crownland.nsw.gov.au/
https://ablis.business.gov.au/NSW/pages/a5c13e1e-e83e-456b-b…
e.g. of council…
http://www.orange.nsw.gov.au/site/index.cfm?display=557675
Crown land and council land can be leased/licensed for events and event organisers can charge a fee.
No way they'd do that for Albert Park. It would cost them more than they'd make in donations.
@jv:
It's on the event calendar. So perhaps they managed to negotiate something, due to charity status or government affiliation.
https://parkweb.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/66494…
. So perhaps they managed to negotiate something,
So they're going to put around 10km of fencing around the park?
@jv:
They're going to observe you sneaking in then ask you to leave, and if they don't they'll call in the police.
They're going to observe you sneaking in then ask you to leave
How? There are no boundaries…
https://goo.gl/maps/eD84QwrmcvL2
they'll call in the police.
And what will the police do since you haven't broken any laws…
@jv:
If the land is leased/allocated for a private function requiring entry and you enter without paying I'm sure you're breaking some laws. Could be trespass. Could be fraud or theft. Could be failure to obey police order to move on. I'm not a legal expert. I do know that when laws are drawn up so that money needs to change hands these things are thought of and protections put in place. How well it would be policed I don't know but regardless it would be a stupid thing to do even if you don't agree with the function (and I don't).
If the land is leased/allocated for a private function
It isn't, it would require State Government to do this, as per the Grand Prix.
@jv:
Laws vary by state and in NSW have been "reformed" recently.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/clma201619…
I'm not interested enough to read through it. But see Division 3.4 - Crown land managed by councils.
I'd like to know who much of these 'donations' are spent actually running and promoting this event, and how much actually goes to helping the animals…
You can find these things out online. Don't let it stop you from donating. Some charities about 20% is consumed in overheads/admin. Or give nothing! It depends on your 'bent'!
Specifically for this event
also check out the percentage of animals rehomed vs the number euthanized.. then donate to a no-kill shelter.
I don't have a problem with "kill" shelters if the animal can't be found a loving home, particularly if they spend the rest of their life, predominantly, in a cage. My view of animals is you owe them a good life and a good death - if you can't provide the former then give them the latter.
Somehow I doubt the dogs and cats would agree with you there. I'm sure they'd much rather wait 2, 3, or even 10 years for a home than to be put down.
@dogcatman: Provided you can find a loving home for them. The rest of their life in a cage in a shelter is no home for a pet. Pets have no concept of their own mortality so provided the it is put to sleep humanely the animal will not suffer. When I think of people consigning their pets to cramped back yards, insufficient food and not taking them to the vet when they need to it makes me weep. The animal is much better off dead than suffering. At least we have this option for our pets, we basically had to starve my grandmother to death once she had a stroke. They tied her hands to the bed because she kept trying to remove the feeding tube. My pets have a great life and I take the responsiblity to stop their suffering when it gets too much.
Thank you. I refuse to donate to the RSPCA because of the number of animals destroyed. I don't want to fund that. Every time I mention this someone calls me all kinds of names.
Every time you buy animal products - 99.9% of which are unnecessary - you fund animals being destroyed.
@syousef: I don't assume the animals care how they're labelled when they're being killed. What would you care to be labelled with in order to be happy that you're being killed for no good reason?
The fact is something has to die for you to live. It's really that simple. That may not always be the case, but for now it is. There is absolutely a good reason for killing an animal for food. And there is a difference between killing an animal bred for food and a pet. I don't expect an animal to understand these things. I do understand a human being to. I can also tell the difference between killing a food animal, a pet, and a human being. If you don't see the difference I'm not sure I can help you.
@syousef: No animal has to die for any human to live. The consensus of credible science declares we are well capable of fulfilling our nutritional requirements through plants.
@syousef: Food animals and pets are arbitrary distinctions created by humans. One person's pet is another's food.
That's bunk. There are definitely people who would die without animals being used for food and medicine. Not every human being can live on a vegetarian diet. There are a lot of people who'd be dead without animal research (and I'm not talking about cosmetics). And what science says about it is that we are omnivores. Our physiology and metabolism are built to eat both plants and meat. Your teeth are those of an omnivore, not a herbivore.
By the way plants are alive too. So you may feel superior but you still need to kill something to live.
@syousef: Please specify a single nutrient that cannot be obtained without consuming animals, or a single medical condition that requires one to consume animals. We may be omnivores but we are not obligate omnivores, just like we may be prone to violence but we are not obligated to be violent.
I won't argue about animal research - not because I think it's ok, but because in the face of hundreds of billions of animals being used for pure frivolity every year - it's hardly an issue.
The intent of food vs pet is important as it dictates the emotional investment.
So that's your moral compass there - emotion. If that's the case then this conversation is probably done.
This conversation is done because you are putting words in my mouth. How you could possibly come to the conclusion that because I consider intent and emotion important in the conversation that makes it my entire "moral compass"? That's both a non-sequitur and a straw man.
I have put forward a very good argument for the relationship being symbiotic rather than exploitative but you ignored it and came up with that!
People with allergies to plants may require animal based products for a balanced diet that doesn't leave them sick.
As for medicines, here's a start:
- Heparin is an anticoagulant medication is derived from cows (lungs) and pigs (intestines).
- Synthetic insulin does not work as well as animal based insulin for diabetics.
- Premarin made from horse urine is used in hormone therapy (but obviously doesn't require the death of the animal).
- Vaccines do contain animal products and require the use of animals to produce.
People with allergies to plants may require animal based products
As I asked previously, please provide one condition that necessitates consumption of any animal product for nutrition. What specific nutrient are you claiming cannot be delivered without being worked through an animal?
(I told you I don't care to discuss animal research / medicine - what for? As if there's any chance of animal use for something serious with possible benefits being questioned when the majority of animals are already used for fully unnecessary reasons.)
I have put forward a very good argument for the relationship being symbiotic
You did? Where?
"Please specify a single nutrient that cannot be obtained without consuming animals, or a single medical condition that requires one to consume animals."
but
"I told you I don't care to discuss animal research / medicine"
I have put forward a very good argument for the relationship being symbiotic
"You did? Where?"
It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. You aren't abusing a dog by "owning" it. You can and many pet owners do give it a very worthwhile life. One of my dogs clings to me when it goes to the vet and is scared. Both come to me for food and affection and to play. I provide them with shelter, medical care, and many other things. To turn around and refer to that as exploitation is both factually incorrect and quite frankly offensive.
How about some consistency with the basics before demanding that I go into specific cases of people with medical conditions? Don't expect me to waste my time on you. It is clear you're going to dismiss or manipulate anything I say to you.
Do you realise that slaves put their hand out to their masters? Do you realise that victims of domestic abuse often remain because they feel dependant on their abusers? Stop feeding your pets and see how much they really love you. They are perpetually dependant, by design - that's the problem.
C'mon, go into just one case. I'll even talk research/medicine if you want. Just one case and you'll shut me up forever.
Yeah sure it will, and pigs will fly…except then you'll complain that the flying pigs are slaves.
Your comparison of pets to slaves and domestic abuse victims is over the top irrational. I have no desire to waste my time with you.
@syousef: that's cool, I'm just glad all your Google searches confirmed to you that there is no nutritional need for animal products. It's a slow process dismantling fallacies propped up by cultural norms, but one at a time. Cheers.
Are you 12 years old? The immaturity you're displaying, which is intended to infuriate me, just makes me sad for you. Your education has failed you. What I said is that I am not wasting my time on you after you've repeatedly proven that you're willing to ignore what evidence I provide and deny what you've said prior. That doesn't mean you've won the debate. That means I believe you to be incapable of debating.
Cheers, bought.
Last time I went to this was around 2008. My dog (adopted from RSPCA) passed away late last year and she was uncomfortable around other dogs. A complete people's dog but just couldn't stand the sight of other dogs. Will go in her memory and who knows, may even adopt another one.
"couldn't stand the sight of other dogs", I think that this happens when they have been punched in the nose by other dogs when younger and so they are actually scared. And so act all tough and aggressive to scare dogs away. They are like us - a product of their experiences. I hope that you adopt again.
Not quite sure of that, we got her very young at 8 weeks. I think she couldn't stand the thought of us patting another dog. Quite a possessive nature. (German Shep/Mastiff X)
We took her to a couple of dog parks and even the million paws walk, but she'd always get in to a fight with another one, so we stopped the whole social aspect of it. Didn't think she cared haha.
Every year theres always a few downers complaining about these deals. Jeez lighten up guys obviously you can go for free any other day but that's not the point.
The point is its for a good cause, and its a social event particularly for dogs! If your dog is social they will have a blast, and if you have kids they will love seeing dogs in costumes running around doing dog things.
If its too expensive maybe you will be better off at home showing the family your mouse and eneloop collection.
Using your brain is not being a "downer". It is right to complain when things don't add up.
Have a good look at how many animals are put down each year but the Royal Society for the PROTECTION AND CARE of Animals.
https://www.rspca.org.au/facts/annual-statistics-2015-16/pub…
Then in the next few weeks they'll have a lovely animal giveaway at their shelters to try to get their stats down.
Some of the crazy things that pass for charity these days are beyond ridiculous. No you're not going to save the animals by going for an overpriced walk in the park. You aren't going to help the environment or your school by spending $30 on a $2 reusable drink bottle. You aren't going to stop abusive assholes from beating their partner by buying a white ribbon. You aren't going to cure cancer by going to a trivia night, buying pink ribbons, daffodils, and clown noses at an inflated price either. And a lot of the money gets pocketed by the charity "industry" and it's CEOs and other paid workers. A tiny portion may go to the charity and on the rare occasion the money actually contributes to a worthwhile breakthrough it's huge news, due to how scarce the examples are! These are idiotic lies we tell ourselves to make ourselves feel better. If you want a charity bargain, take the time to find out how much of your money goes to the people you want to help. Charities that feed and clothe the homeless for example do exist that actually run on volunteer labour and aren't funding overpriced executives and koalas that mug you for your bank details and a signature. (Recurring dontations only please).
One last thing: Putting down Ozbargainers over buying mice and eneloops is childish and very much on the nose.
I understand your frustration with some not-for-profit businesses. There will always be challenges to create incentives for people to actually dedicate and work genuinely for these firms. You can't expect a qualified CEO to work for RSPCA for two million dollars less just out of goodwill. However you must understand the difference between a normal business and a NFP is that the goal is to fullfill its mission, not to drive profits. This is the fundemental idea that RSPCA and countless other NFPs operate by.
Regardless of how much their internal costs are, as long as you are participating to increase awareness and promoting the education aspect on certain issues then you are doing something good. Yes, we may not have cured cancer nor stopped domestic violence, but we sure have prevented countless cases that probably equal the value we have all kindly donated.
That is what's wrong with the whole "charity industry". Yes you can expect a person to volunteer. They expect people to volunteer in the shelters and look after the animals. The business administration side should be no different! Even where CEOs are paid they shouldn't be paid on a basis competitive with for-profit business.
Protection and Care of Animals in the name. But animal control and euthanasia a large part of the game. That is not "doing good" If they want my money they'd need to split their business. I'm not donating money to pay for lethal injection.
…and watch the downvotes pile up because OzB voting system is the very definition of a popularity contest and anonymous voting always brings out the worst in people on every board I've frequented.
Edit: Keep on downvoting…you're just proving my point. Thanks.
@syousef: There are no easy solutions to strays, euthanasia, animal control etc. But, I for one would be happy to listen to your suggestions.
It is all very sad indeed.
Dog and cat registration is compulsory other than exempt cats and dogs. Desexing should also be compulsory. With follow up of prosecution and stiff penalties of those whose pets are not. Maybe one day a cat or dog will kill the last of an endangered species and the public will then be up in arms. And then the government will do something.
I wouldn't mind pet owners having to pay a bond too. If they 'lose' their pet, or hand it in for euthanizing, then they lose their bond. Too many irresponsible owners get them when they are cute and cuddly, and later dump them or similar.
It's really quite simple. I don't want to pay for the lethal injections through my donations - certainly not for animals that are only being put down because they can't be rehomed. Animal control should be handled by a different organisation. Even if that just means the RSPCA surrender the animal to that organisation when they have no other choice.
While I like your suggestion of a bond for a pet in principle, it would put pet ownership out of the reach of some, and there is the potential for abuse such that it just becomes another fee. As you point out there is already a registration fee for your animal, and people still hand them in.
I don't think desexing should be compulsory. I've only ever desexed my females for practical reasons and have had no problem making sure my dogs don't "accidentally" breed. If your pet is doing that without you intending it, there is a control issue.
@syousef: I am not an expert, but I know that in many areas animal control is handled by Local Councils. If people can't afford the bond, then they can't afford to have a pet. A dog will cost about $200 per year just in 'regular' vet check ups. (Excludes mishaps, old age, diseases, etc) Dog food maybe $250 per year. Can't afford a bond = can't afford to properly care for a pet.
Why do people need to have a pet that is not desexed?
I was getting pretty cranky with JV so out of spite decided to register, however when presented with the price (on about the 5th screen after keying in all of my details) $42 (after 30% discount - $60 regular) for a family ticket (SA) is over the top ;-(
EDIT: Note you can only use 1 code, so you cannot use the earlybird code AND the code in this post together, does not stack
'Maintain the Rage'. As another option, make a tax-deductible contribution.
$42 (after 30% discount - $60 regular)
$80 for a family is extortion
no free dogs?
There are free possums in the trees there…
Don't buy animals - alive or killed.
100% off every day. No code required.
Seriously? My (profanity) cats are so well looked after my sister-in-law wants to come back as one of my pets. They have run of the house, have an outdoor area to explore, they are fed, cuddled, petted and neutered. Don't get an animal if you can't look after it, or are unwilling to make the committment that it is for the rest of their lives, but don't make a blanket statement on companion animals.
+1 for not being an irresponsible cat owner who lets their cat run freely outdoors like so many (and usually unfixed).
We have a completely secure internal courtyard garden - they can't get out onto the street unless they get the little crampons on and scale a two storey brick wall. Our view is that any bird stupid enough to get down into the courtyard is fair game - they haven't got any yet but they do like to talk to the ones perched around the edge. We also have an alcove out the front that they can see the passing parade - but they are only allowed out there when we are home and can rescue them if someone tries to hurt them. I take my pet ownership seriously including making sure, when the hard decision has to be made, I make it in the best interests of the animal's suffering rather than the fact I can't let go.
cats are horrible pets
They're not my cup of tea either, but to each their own. Cat lovers can be as devoted as dog lovers. I'll always choose a pup.
@syousef: As you said, each to their own. Doggies are more high maintenance - they need to be walked, they generally eat more, you have to clean up their crap when you are out walking them and then dispose of it, they cost more with Pet insurance, you need to bathe them regularly, they get stressed if you leave them overnight and you really should have a pair to ensure stop them stressing out when you aren't home. I grew up with dogs so I have no objection to them as pets but they aren't what I'm currently looking for. Cats are not "horrible". However, as someone so succinctly put it, "they weren't so much domesticated as moved in". You need to live with the rhythms of the cat rather than expecting to bend it to your will.
You may believe your individual cats are looked after, as I too believe my own feline rescues are looked after, but purchasing live animals perpetuates the institution of pets. They, like all domesticates, are dependent upon and therefore vulnerable to humans. If we took the interest of any animal seriously we would never want them to be entirely vulnerable to ourselves; indeed we (and all animals) raise our own progeny to have as much autonomy as possible, as we generally understand this is the favoured end.
To satisfy human whims we have bred companion animals with all sorts of chronic sufferings (long backs, too much or too little hair, etc.), subject them to mutilations they should never have to endure (having their genitals removed, tails cut off, etc.), fully remove them from their own species' community and natural environment, force their sexual partners and activity according to the outcomes we desire, and breed way more than we can even handle - killing all the ones that provide no economic benefit or other utility. They are treated as units of property rather than as individuals.
Put yourself in their shoes, as an individual and as a member of a species, to get a different perspective. Even as much as some human slaves had nice(r) masters, that particular institution could never be morally justified. The institution of pets is structurally similar.
A cat in the wild has a short and brutal life, the average life span for a male cat is the wild is 2 years. They are subject to disease, accident, predation, thirst, and hunger. Nature is a very severe mistress. The food chain tends to work against the "cuddly" animals.
For pet animals we do not remove their genitals, we remove their reproductive organs, they can still urinate in the manner nature intended them to. If we did not remove the reproductive organs there would be many kittens/puppies born that need to be euthanized as loving homes can't be found for all of them. In the wild many of the kittens/puppies born each year die painful deaths due to exposure, hunger, thirst and predation. I do agree that the "defective" genetics needs to be cross bred out of a number of breeds as the goal should be a happy, healthy animal.
I think you are anthropomorphizing animals a tad - I don't think a cat yearns for the wild, it yearns to be fed, a warm place to sleep and tummy rubs on a regular basis. In fact most people want a variation of that - we don't want to live in makeshift huts, forage for our food and water and try to deal with whatever illnesses/accidents we have without medical intervention - we want houses, supermarkets and hospitals - we pay for that by working for money.
Sorry, I have to go one of my girls is nudging me to get patted.
@try2bhelpful: No. Cats in "the wild" have excellent lives. Example: tigers live over 20 years. OTOH domesticated cats without human care are different - specifically because they have been bred to be domesticates (including being small, having smaller claws, less fierce bites, etc.) and have been removed from natural settings and inserted into human created settings. They get diseases specific to these settings that can only be cured by human intercessors. Their condition is of a human cause, not natural cause.
I am not anthropomorphising - you are. You are placing them amongst humans in human homes in human cities and likening their expectations and desires to human expectations and desires. You do however simultaneously relegate them to play things; you are valuing, on their behalf, tummy rubs above individual self determinism.
The institution of pets is essentially playing god with other species, creating and destroying them according to wills outside their own. That's base.
The animals you're trying to protect wouldn't exist if not for domestication. And your solution is to make sure they don't exist. Sure that prevents suffering, in much the same way as ending any life would. But that doesn't make it right, good, or desirable.
@syousef: Correct, these domesticates would almost certainly not exist without human intervention.
But I am not arguing that they should not exist - if it was up to me they would do what they do - rather, others are right now arguing and making sure that they do exist. And most specifically by defending it and paying for it.
See the difference?
@thevofa: Sorry, still disagree with you. If the household is looking after their pet it will always have a better life because they do not have to hunt for food, find water or suffer in pain from prolonged injuries or illnesses. Animals in the wild get diseases as well, they get insect infestations, they get septic sores from bites, and the injuries caused in the fight for dominance. Have a good look at the behaviour of Meerkats in the wild, they are vicious to each other. Bigger claws do not always kill outright and animals can suffer for days after they have been attacked and before they die.
The concept of the food chain is there are winners and losers, I think the losers would prefer domestication to predation.
Sorry but you are the one anthropomorphising, animals don't have an abstract concept of "self determinism" they have a concept of safety, food supply and territory. It is very important that areas for wild animals are protected and nutured, but there is also space for humans to interact day to day with companion animals as well - for the mutual benefit of both. If you think pets are playthings then that is your problem, not mine. My pets are not my playthings - they intiate the contact with me because it is pleasurable to them; they seek the tummy rubs, the cuddles, the patting and purr their heads off whilst I provide them. I look after them because I have taken on the responsibility of making my cats lives as happy as I can make them. What I think is base is to allow an animal to suffer in pain for any longer than they have to, I have the same view of people. If this means that the only humane thing I can do is to put the animal to sleep then that is the burden I take on, and have taken on in the past. I wish I had the same option for myself.
Don't get caught up in the "noble savage" concept; it as not valid for people and it is not valid for animals.
@try2bhelpful: Fine, you disagree.
But you are complicit in an institution that unnecessarily breeds and kills hundreds of thousands of cats in Australia every year. Any idea of caring for cats, as a collective, while complicit with that, is very warped.
@syousef: Pets are an institution. Or "pet-hood" or "pet ownership" if that makes it easier. There is nothing about pets that is not simply an established practice.
It doesn't sound to me like you know very much about how we came to have pets. You also don't seem to understand that the relationship can be mutually beneficial rather than exploitative.
@syousef: How we came to have, and how/what we have today, are two very different things. Not unlike most of our interactions with other species in ages past and in modern times.
Yes they're different. Dogs and cats in a way domesticated themselves. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement. You aren't abusing a dog by "owning" it. You can and many pet owners do give it a very worthwhile life. One of my dogs clings to me when it goes to the vet and is scared. Both come to me for food and affection and to play. I provide them with shelter, medical care, and many other things. To turn around and refer to that as exploitation is both factually incorrect and quite frankly offensive.
@thevofa: Apart from tigers the average lifespan of a "wild" cat is around the average lifespan of a well looked after pet cat. I would also hazard a guess that the last days of my moggies lives was a lot less painful and distressing than the death of most of the wild cats as well.
I do not buy into an "institution" of breeding cats, anymore than I buy into an "institution" of breeding people. Cats and people live in close cohabition as it suits both groups. I am a big believer in neutering companion animals, which you have also derided, to try to ensure that all companion animals are treated humanely by people who really want them. I would be delighted if the number of companion animals bred exactly matched the number of households that wanted to take them in. In the same way I would prefer that no wild animals lead a life of thirst, pain and hunger. There are worse things in life that an early death and one filled with suffering is one of them. My views aren't warped, but I do find your phraseology somewhat tortured.
I do not buy into an "institution" of breeding cats
Yes you do - with real money and with many words on ozbargain.
the average lifespan of a "wild" cat is around the average lifespan of a well looked after pet cat.
What do you know! A cat in the wild does as good as the best looked after cats in domestication.
@thevofa: What do you know, most mammals live longer in zoos than they do in the wild.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/11/161107112635.h…
I don't think that is, necessarily, an argument for keeping wild animals in zoos.
In relation to the word "institution" we can banter semantics all day. Breeding companion animals is not an organised "institution", in fact breeding companion animals is anything but an "institution". Personally, I would prefer it was a lot more organised to ensure all companion animals had loving homes to go to, this is why I believe in neutering programs. I would also like better management of the areas where wild animals are to reduce their suffering.
My cats are well looked after, they are not suffering, they are not playthings and they have plenty of "freetime" to do exactly what they want to do. They set their own agendas, they seek our companionship when they want to and they have multilevel exploration levels. I am an adult and I don't take on the responsiblity of these two lives frivolously.
Companion animals are a fact of life and I intend to spend my money, and words, trying to give them the best life I can. Your alternative would be wholesale slaughter and a "utopia" that is not in the best interests of individual animals.
I don't think that is, necessarily, an argument for keeping wild animals in zoos.
Yet you use that same argument to keep cats in people's houses.
Companion animals are a fact of life
So is war and rape and all manner of things. What's your point?
Your alternative would be wholesale slaughter
Really? I'm the one here advocating for zero breeding/killing, for pets or any animals whatsoever, while billions of animals per year are right now being bred and killed intentionally for pets and food and all manner of things. Might you have a skewed understanding of what wholesale slaughter, the very situation right now, is?
@thevofa: You were the one that said wild animals have the same life span as well kept cats - I'm not sure what your point was now then?
If you are equating keeping companion animals with rape and war then you are sadly delusional. Keeping a companion animal is no where near on that scale; overreacting much are we?
People eat meat as well, are you proposing that we stop all humans from breeding or just kill them outright - because you won't stop them eating meat either. The only way that we stop having companion animals is the neuter them all, which you advocate against, or you kill them. How do you think the zero killing/breeding would work then? I think you are the one that doesn't understand the concept of wholesale slaughter. If animals are no longer bred for the provision of food, they will also have to be slaughtered as they can't survive in the wild anymore either. Humane and sustainable farming conditions are the best way forward.
I do love your passion but it is misplaced; you will not win this argument as society will not accept your premise. People have kept companion animals for centuries - the best you can do is ensure that they are treated well and harmful traits are bred out and that is what I am advocating.
How arrogant are you to advocate that many species should become extinct just for your philosophy.
@try2bhelpful: I'd love to know where he got the stats from that 'wild' cats live as long as domesticated. Because the average life span of a house cat is slowly on the rise, thanks to the vet industry becoming more aware of how to tackle common medical problems cats face as they age, and owners becoming more educated on appropriate diets for their cats. I used to work in a vet clinic (and now a pet store) and it wasn't uncommon to see people come in with cats who were well past the age of 17. One man even had a 26 year old cat and a 24 year old cat, and last I heard, they were still going strong. I highly doubt the average cat in the wild is going to live past the age of 15, let alone a decade more.
@dogcatman: By "wild cats" he/she is including the large wild cats - the life of a feral domesticated cat is usually quite short. My first boy got to 18 before we had to put him down when he got cancer, the shortest was around 5 due to heart trouble, it was 11 days from us knowing to putting him down and it was just awful - we should've made the decision earlier as he just wouldn't eat and we had to force feed him to get the medication in and he had a heart attack. The last girl was 12 and she had heart trouble, kidney trouble and an ulcer we had operated on to give her a chance. We ended up feeding her through a tube in her neck for 6 weeks, before she removed it herself. We had a lot of trouble getting her to eat, and more importantly, drink what was needed and she only lasted 5 more months. The life of any creature should not be measured in years it should be measured in how well the years were lived.
PRICE in title