Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Why not? Because it is untrue or because it's true, but unpopular? Is it true, but the timing is wrong? Is it true, but not expressed kindly? Why not 'go there'?
Why not? Because it is untrue or because it's true, but unpopular? Is it true, but the timing is wrong? Is it true, but not expressed kindly? Why not 'go there'?
This topic has already been done quite a few times and it never ends well.
Vegetarians and Vegans are just as responsible for the death of sentient beings as meat eaters. The typical meat eater goes through the drive through at McDonald's and orders a BigMac. They didn't kill the cow and they had no intent to kill. They may have very warm feelings toward cows and would never kill one themselves.
This is true, and it is why I hold no ill will toward people who choose to eat meat.
As a matter of personal conscience though, I choose not to draw a distinction between killing a cow myself and eating it and paying someone else to kill a cow so that I may eat it. I choose to be vegetarian not because I believe eating meat is wrong (I eat meat that is served to me by a kind host) but because I believe eating the flesh of a killed animal lacks compassion.
The vegan/vegetarian eats the produce grown by a farmer. The farmer plowed the field before sowing seeds and in doing so slaughtered millions of living organisms living on and in the soil. After the crop starts to grow he sprays it with deadly poisons and all the insects which would like a bite to eat die in the attempt. The vegetarian and vegan did not have the intent to kill these beings. It's just a fact of our existence that suffering and death exist. If we do not have the intent to cause this suffering and death then we are not 'killing'.
Again, this is very true. The difference I feel exists between the two examples (killing a cow and killing soil organisms) is that one source of food can only be acquired by the deliberate slaughter of livestock, while the other killing is an entirely unintended but simply, as you say, unfortunate fact of life.
I grow my own vegetables, I operate a no dig system, but when I do need to dig I don't use a roto-tiller, I use a fork. In theory using this system shouldn't kill anything. I couldn't say the same if I were to raise livestock though, simply due to the nature of the two types of foodstuff.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
This is my practise, and has been for a long time, long before I decided to study Buddhism.
Someone told me this parable-type story which I've never forgotten;
There was a man who went to market and while exploring the stalls he came to a butcher, the butcher was standing behind the stall where there was also a wooden shed and a cow standing around chewing cud. The butcher's stall had been busy that day and was almost empty. The man asked the butcher for a piece of rump stake, to which the butcher replied that he had none left. The man was disappointed and about to leave when the butcher said to come back that afternoon when he'd have fresh stock. So the man returned later that afternoon to find the butcher's stall still there, and the shed, and the stall was filled with delicious cuts of meat of all sizes. The cow chewing the cud was nowhere to be seen.
It's a fairly silly and obvious story, but the act of imagining helped me to link directly the meat I see packaged in supermarkets with the animal that was killed to produce it. That my demand is a direct cause of the need to supply, and thus the death of living beings. However, I will always eat meat that, for example, is served to me when I go to someone's house for dinner as I believe that it is 1000 times worse to waste meat that has been purchased than it is to purchase it in the first place.
it's not silly, it's a very good story and i appreciate you sharing it. this has always been my policy as well. supply and demand, i don't want to be part of the demand. i still don't frequently eat meat that is given to me though because this doesn't happen often enough and it is my experience that if i go without eating meat and then try to eat some randomly... horrible biological effects ensue and i wish i hadn't, haha.
Vegetarians and Vegans are just as responsible for the death of sentient beings as meat eaters. The typical meat eater goes through the drive through at McDonald's and orders a BigMac. They didn't kill the cow and they had no intent to kill. They may have very warm feelings toward cows and would never kill one themselves.
The vegan/vegetarian eats the produce grown by a farmer. The farmer plowed the field before sowing seeds and in doing so slaughtered millions of living organisms living on and in the soil. After the crop starts to grow he sprays it with deadly poisons and all the insects which would like a bite to eat die in the attempt. The vegetarian and vegan did not have the intent to kill these beings. It's just a fact of our existence that suffering and death exist. If we do not have the intent to cause this suffering and death then we are not 'killing'.
well duh, haha. i would never say that vegetarians/vegans are perfect. i myself still eat some amounts of dairy. dairy products contribute to a lot of suffering. i think what is important is that we determine what is appropriate for ourselves in a realistic way. what we can and can't do. for me, it is incredibly easy to give up meat. i don't know why, it just doesn't bother me. i feel better physically, i feel better mentally. i probably SHOULD avoid all dairy. i probably SHOULD only buy organic vegetables so no pesticides have been used. but i don't find these things feasible at this given time, maybe some day. i am far from perfect, but i am trying to do the best job that i can.
there was a time where i didn't see eating meat as a direct contribution to killing. but then i watched a documentary called Food Inc. and they talked about how each time we purchase an item, it is like a vote. we are casting our approval of said item and causing the store to replace said item thus supporting the means by which said item is grown/harvested/treated/whatever. combine this with the horrible videos i've seen of the treatment of animals in facilities, and purchasing meat becomes disgusting and painful in my mind. so i guess, my only crime is too much information. it has changed the way i view the meat packaged at the store. for me, buying that steak really is having intent to kill. i'm not a vegetarian because anyone says i should or whatever, i am because it feels right for me.
on a side note, i don't have a problem with people who eat meat... i just wish more of them would choose organic/free range. maybe if tyson took a big enough hit in their profit margin, they might do something about their ethical standards.
on a side note, i don't have a problem with people who eat meat... i just wish more of them would choose organic/free range.
That's something I wish also, sometimes I think it would be better to eat meat but only buy free range and organic, figuring that reducing demand for factory farmed meat and increasing demand for better cared for animals would be a more practical way of reducing suffering.
I have to admit that while I don't judge people for eating meat, I do find myself judging people for buying cheap meat and eggs, especially since the price difference between cheap eggs from caged chickens and ones from free range is only a matter of pence.
i probably SHOULD only buy organic vegetables so no pesticides have been used.
Just a quick nitpick, but organic does not mean pesticide free. It means the pesticides used were approved by a standards committee. One pesticide widely employed is called bt. It's a biological organism, a parasite that is very host specific. When the insect eats the plant it unwittingly ingests the bacteria and the bacteria multiply and eat the insect from the inside out.
On balance the insect probably suffers more than if a 'chemical' pesticide were used that killed the insect in a short period of time.
It's organic because it is regarded as completely safe for humans/pets and is 'natural', not because it doesn't kill the insect
It's never black and white, is it?
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Just a quick nitpick, but organic does not mean pesticide free. It means the pesticides used were approved by a standards committee. One pesticide widely employed is called bt. It's a biological organism, a parasite that is very host specific. When the insect eats the plant it unwittingly ingests the bacteria and the bacteria multiply and eat the insect from the inside out.
On balance the insect probably suffers more than if a 'chemical' pesticide were used that killed the insect in a short period of time.
It's organic because it is regarded as completely safe for humans/pets and is 'natural', not because it doesn't kill the insect
It's never black and white, is it?
:eek:
well crap. now i'm trying to decide which is worse...
on another side note, for those of you who have gardens... marigolds are excellent pest repellent.
Interesting thread. @ the tropical fish person, neon tetras are very weak and inbred too :-/ I read you should ask too see if they're wild caught or domestic. Wild caught could be stressed and endangered, domestic could be inbred and sickly. It's just a matter of what you do. I myself have a (dieing) guppy, two bronze corydoras and five glowlight tetras. My other pets include a budgie and my two rabbits. My rabbits are naturally vegetarian, my budgie is pescitarian and my fish and dog are omnivorous. But that's how they are and so I feed them as is healthy for them. I think when I'm older I'd just have a few pets like a dog and a couple of rabbits/guinea pigs and a hamster and then just really pamper them and give them proper food like fresh vegetables and fine cuts of free range meat I'd simply grow the vegetables and fruit I like (potatoes, carrots, broccoli, lettuce, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, grapes, peas, apples, plums, peaches, bananas (providing I had space and money for a special greenhouse), onions, spring onions, mushrooms) and keep chickens for free range eggs ect. I think it's important to grow as much of your own food as you can, because then you know where your food's coming from and that it's cared for proper. And, of course, marigolds
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Interesting thread. @ the tropical fish person, neon tetras are very weak and inbred too :-/ I read you should ask too see if they're wild caught or domestic. Wild caught could be stressed and endangered, domestic could be inbred and sickly. It's just a matter of what you do. I myself have a (dieing) guppy, two bronze corydoras and five glowlight tetras. My other pets include a budgie and my two rabbits. My rabbits are naturally vegetarian, my budgie is pescitarian and my fish and dog are omnivorous. But that's how they are and so I feed them as is healthy for them. I think when I'm older I'd just have a few pets like a dog and a couple of rabbits/guinea pigs and a hamster and then just really pamper them and give them proper food like fresh vegetables and fine cuts of free range meat I'd simply grow the vegetables and fruit I like (potatoes, carrots, broccoli, lettuce, strawberries, raspberries, blackberries, blueberries, grapes, peas, apples, plums, peaches, bananas (providing I had space and money for a special greenhouse), onions, spring onions, mushrooms) and keep chickens for free range eggs ect. I think it's important to grow as much of your own food as you can, because then you know where your food's coming from and that it's cared for proper. And, of course, marigolds
interesting tidbit about the fish. i knew that dogs frequently had that sort of inbred problem, had no idea about fish though. makes sense though.
also, i didn't know that budgies eat fish...
i also like your plan for the future. i grew up in the country, so i'm very partial to growing your own food and livestock and that sorta stuff...but i also love the city, where i have been living for the past 5 years... my future is difficult for me to imagine because i just like it all! haha. these city folk think i'm crazy because i'm always eating all sorts of random berries and stuff i happen upon. i mean, come on... free food...
Hahaha! Free food... I don't know if I'd like the city... I live in a small town on the edge of Yorkshire Pudding Land, but it's getting quite built up :-/ so when we sell the house with moving to one of three nice small villages we like in Lincolnshire. There was a really nice one with apple trees, plumb trees and a grape vine The garden's big enough for a veggie patch and some chickens too I've getting my rabbit that doesn't have a run a run this weekend so he can wear his claws back down and lose those extra grammes
interesting tidbit about the fish. i knew that dogs frequently had that sort of inbred problem, had no idea about fish though. makes sense though
The other boys in my class know about guns, football and cars, I know the scientific names of tropical fish. Guppies are poecillia reticulato, neon tetras hyphasebracon innesi and bronze corydoras corydoras aenus
Quite frankly, i cant keep an pet if it stays in a cage, that's my personal choice, but I feel as though its suffering, or stuck. When I think of lizards, and snakes, I think of them belonging in nature, doing the things they do to survive on their own. I do however, think they are fascinating creatures, and always want to see and touch when I come across a friend who has them...but I just cant keep them myself.
Quite frankly, i cant keep an pet if it stays in a cage, that's my personal choice, but I feel as though its suffering, or stuck. When I think of lizards, and snakes, I think of them belonging in nature, doing the things they do to survive on their own. I do however, think they are fascinating creatures, and always want to see and touch when I come across a friend who has them...but I just cant keep them myself.
Me too. This summer my 4 year old daughter became fascinated with toads. We have plenty hopping all over in the evening and we would have fun catching them and examining them. She wanted to keep some in an aquarium so she could play with them during the daytime. I had mixed feelings about it, but gave in.
The first issue was that once in the aquarium they seemed to go right to the edge of the glass and appeared to want to get out. So I set a rule that we would keep them overnight for one night and then let them go the next evening. She was really good about sticking to that as she seemed to understand that living in the tank wasn't what made them happy. It caused her some sadness to release them each night, but I was very proud of her putting their needs ahead of her wants with no fuss about it.
The really unfortunate thing was when she found a baby toad no longer than a dime's diameter. It was immediately perceived as adorable by the entire family. We kept it overnight like the others, but it died. Poor thing. May have lived had it remained in nature. It was unfortunate for the toad, but also a valuable learning experience for my daughter. to try and make amends to the baby toad she insisted that we bury it 'properly'. When she again found baby toads she would pick them up, tell it how cute and precious it was, give it a kiss and then release it right away.
If there is such a thing as reincarnation I hope that baby toad gets a really good rebirth.
One factor that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet are the benefits of giving an animal a life in captivity. There is often not a right or wrong, but more of a balance to things. Some dogs that were crossbred, into new breeds like the Bulldog or the Bichone frese for example could not survive in the wild. These dogs are meant to be cared for by humans. And they really enjoy human company, they eventually do look at someone as their "master" and depend on them for many things.
There are also reptiles like the bearded dragon or leopard gecko that rarely would live 3 years in the wild, perhaps less because they would be eaten soon by something bigger. In captivity they live up to 10+ years and never have to deal with predators trying to eat them or never have to worry about not eating for many days straight.
So there is a balance to things. I would say if animals could speak the majority of the ones that were bred in captivity would prefer to stay that way. It is mostly the ones that were from the wild to begin with that would rather be in the wild.
I have been reading up on buddhism and I have two pet rats. They are my little companions and I feel compassion for them. Thats why I feed them and pet them and give them water, I am looking after them making efforts to make them happy. I think to have a pet one can feel love and comapssion for them and these emotions are essential in buddhism.
I have told myself that they will die and that they are also a consequence of cause and conditions just like me. Impermanent.
So there is a balance to things. I would say if animals could speak the majority of the ones that were bred in captivity would prefer to stay that way. It is mostly the ones that were from the wild to begin with that would rather be in the wild.
I think it depends on the animal. For small animals like mice, rats, leopard geckos (mine is 12 and shows no sign of dying) etc life is a struggle, searching for food, avoiding predators and being trodden on means they're under pretty much constant stress. On the other hand larger animals get stressed if they are confined, as many have natural roaming instincts. Cats and dogs are exceptional as they have been bred over thousands of years to live with humans. I even heard recently that puppies actually prefer the company of humans to other dogs.
I think it depends on the animal. For small animals like mice, rats, leopard geckos (mine is 12 and shows no sign of dying) etc life is a struggle, searching for food, avoiding predators and being trodden on means they're under pretty much constant stress. On the other hand larger animals get stressed if they are confined, as many have natural roaming instincts. Cats and dogs are exceptional as they have been bred over thousands of years to live with humans. I even heard recently that puppies actually prefer the company of humans to other dogs.
I think that's because they think they're humans; my dog does.
My reasoning came down to biology also. I keep lizards and snakes, I find them fasinating creatures, that's one attachment that will be difficult for me.
Anyway the reasoning came down to the same as yours, they cannot change their food the same as a human can change theirs. But the question was still there, 'Would it be right of a Buddhist person to keep them?' Something im unsure of, half of me says no, half of me wants to ignore the other half.
I didn't even think of fleas, I use flea treatments on my Pug.
Well personally I think that lizards and snakes as well as birds should not be kept as pets, as they are wild animals which require a large area to live.
For instance in the wild a snake or bird can roam a huge area. I feel so sorry for the reptiles and birds I see in small tanks and cages in pet shops, so I think its a bit cruel keeping them contained in a small area.
As far as feeding live food to pets well again I think as a buddhist it is a complete no no, as you are intentionally killing a living being. My advice is to get a pet which does not require you to intentionally kill another being for it to survive like a dog or cat etc etc.
Well, dogs can quite healthily be vegetarian but who are you to make that decision? I have a budgie called Fudge (I call her a Fudgerigar ) and she's in a smallish cage and I feel a bit sorry for her. When ever I have time (although not often) I open her cage door so she can come out, but she really does :-/ she doesn't seem to be too bored though, she plays with her little ball and pecks her mirror and scrambled over her cuttlefish bone and dances over her perches and does acrobatics around the bars, but it would still be nice to see my little Fudgerigar flying in the wild
Well, dogs can quite healthily be vegetarian but who are you to make that decision? I have a budgie called Fudge (I call her a Fudgerigar ) and she's in a smallish cage and I feel a bit sorry for her. When ever I have time (although not often) I open her cage door so she can come out, but she really does :-/ she doesn't seem to be too bored though, she plays with her little ball and pecks her mirror and scrambled over her cuttlefish bone and dances over her perches and does acrobatics around the bars, but it would still be nice to see my little Fudgerigar flying in the wild
I know dogs can be vegetarian, and your right who am I to make that decision for my dog, on the same point who am I to make my dog a meat eater ?
As I see it, my pet dog relies on me for food and water. So It is my responsability to ensure my dog get the required diet, and a vegetarian diet can fulfil all my dogs needs.
As for your pet budgie, well I don't think there is much that can be done for birds which have been kept as pets for a long time, if you released then they would die pretty quickly I think as they do not know how to survive by themself. I think it is better to look after them and make sure they live a happy a life as possible in your care.
What I am talking about is that people should stop buying birds and reptiles from pet shops as it just fuels the demand for these animals to be taken from the wild where they belong.
One factor that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet are the benefits of giving an animal a life in captivity. There is often not a right or wrong, but more of a balance to things. Some dogs that were crossbred, into new breeds like the Bulldog or the Bichone frese for example could not survive in the wild. These dogs are meant to be cared for by humans. And they really enjoy human company, they eventually do look at someone as their "master" and depend on them for many things.
There are also reptiles like the bearded dragon or leopard gecko that rarely would live 3 years in the wild, perhaps less because they would be eaten soon by something bigger. In captivity they live up to 10+ years and never have to deal with predators trying to eat them or never have to worry about not eating for many days straight.
So there is a balance to things. I would say if animals could speak the majority of the ones that were bred in captivity would prefer to stay that way. It is mostly the ones that were from the wild to begin with that would rather be in the wild.
I would say it depends on the animal. Domesticated animals for sure. But with wild animals that have an instinctual drive to hunt, travel, etc. I think it would be a different situation. However, one must keep in mind that if it were not for the pet trade, many of these animals would not even have been born to begin with.
One factor that I don't think has been mentioned in this thread yet are the benefits of giving an animal a life in captivity. There is often not a right or wrong, but more of a balance to things. Some dogs that were crossbred, into new breeds like the Bulldog or the Bichone frese for example could not survive in the wild. These dogs are meant to be cared for by humans. And they really enjoy human company, they eventually do look at someone as their "master" and depend on them for many things.
There are also reptiles like the bearded dragon or leopard gecko that rarely would live 3 years in the wild, perhaps less because they would be eaten soon by something bigger. In captivity they live up to 10+ years and never have to deal with predators trying to eat them or never have to worry about not eating for many days straight.
So there is a balance to things. I would say if animals could speak the majority of the ones that were bred in captivity would prefer to stay that way. It is mostly the ones that were from the wild to begin with that would rather be in the wild.
In the case of reptiles I think they should be in the wild, as they are wild animals. However if they have been bred in captivity and have no experience of the wild then it would be in their best interest to keep them in captivity. As for the wild reptiles which are caught and then sold as pets well I don't think, in my opinion anyway, that any reptile prefers to live in a small tank when compared to the vast area they would have roamed in the wild. The same goes for parrots and other birds which are taken from the wild, its just not natural for them to be stuck in a cage.
In the case of reptiles I think they should be in the wild, as they are wild animals. However if they have been bred in captivity and have no experience of the wild then it would be in their best interest to keep them in captivity. As for the wild reptiles which are caught and then sold as pets well I don't think, in my opinion anyway, that any reptile prefers to live in a small tank when compared to the vast area they would have roamed in the wild. The same goes for parrots and other birds which are taken from the wild, its just not natural for them to be stuck in a cage.
I have wondered these same things also. My thoughts on it is with animals that eat live animals and so on we shouldn't keep them because obviously you are harming both animals by for example feeding a mouse to a snake while snakes are not affectionate animals anyway they want attention or companionship. While cat and dogs on the other hand want companionship and you don't have to feed them live animals and you can just get a flea collar for them that repels fleas and ticks to protect their well being without killing the bugs. But that's just my thought and opinions on the matter
What are the views of the Buddhist community on pets which require live food or mice etc...? It seems that something like this would be wrong for a Buddhist person to go along with.
I attended a monastery that had cats and dogs. They fed them dry dog food that had meat in it although they themselves were strick vegetarians.
My dog gets a raw diet of one chicken hindquarter (bones and all)a day, and once a week liver of other organ food. She is healthier as a result. Grains can actually cause dogs to have really bad skin conditions.
I'll have to disagree with that statement. Dogs are omnivores by nature. They require certain nutrients that are simply not contained in plant material. A dog can *live* as a vegetarian, but it's not natural for him, nor will he be extremely healthy nor will he live a long life. That's scientific fact. Their GI tract isn't like yours and mine. It's designed for meat as well as other things. But given a choice a dog will always choose meat over anything else.
Mtns
PS: We actually had a radical vegetarian client who thought she could make her cat a vegan. We had to get out a feline anatomy text to show her that a cat's gut simply isn't long enough to process plant material, and that trying to turn Fluffy into a vegan would be a death sentence. Amazing how we anthropomorphize our pets!
We actually had a radical vegetarian client who thought she could make her cat a vegan. We had to get out a feline anatomy text to show her that a cat's gut simply isn't long enough to process plant material, and that trying to turn Fluffy into a vegan would be a death sentence.
I was aware of this as well (although I thought that dogs were able to process more plant matter than cats). While it's a noble intention to try to help a cat eat less meat and therefore not buy into the meat industry, the fact is that their biology prevents them from being eating a vegetarian diet. They are predators, and barring further evolution they cannot change what they hunt and eat naturally.
I'll have to disagree with that statement. Dogs are omnivores by<layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-21" style="background-color: Dodgerblue; color: black;"></layer> nature. They require certain nutrients that are simply not contained in plant material. A dog can *live* as a vegetarian, but it's not natural for him, nor will he be extremely healthy nor will he live a long life. That's scientific fact. Their GI tract isn't like yours and mine. It's designed for meat as well as other things. But given a choice a dog will always choose meat over anything else.
Mtns
A dog can easily be made vegetarian without any loss of vital nutrients.
it is entirely possible to
formulate a diet or feed for a dog of
primarily or exclusively vegetable origin
feedstuffs that could satisfy all
the known essential nutrient requirements
for the dog as defined by<layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-22" style="background-color: Dodgerblue; color: black;"></layer> the
National Research Council (NRC) (2,
3). ~Canadian Veterinary Journal 1987 August; 28(8): 535, 537-539.
Commercially prepared vegetarian foods exist for dogs, and can be well-balanced using egg and milk products
~Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, Michael S. Hand, et. al. 4th Ed. Mark Morris Associates, 2000.
A dog can easily be made vegetarian without any loss of vital nutrients.
it is entirely possible to
formulate a diet or feed for a dog of
primarily or exclusively vegetable origin
feedstuffs that could satisfy all
the known essential nutrient requirements
for the dog as defined by<layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-22" style="background-color: Dodgerblue; color: black;"></layer> the
National Research Council (NRC) (2,
3). ~Canadian Veterinary Journal 1987 August; 28(8): 535, 537-539.
Commercially prepared vegetarian foods exist for dogs, and can be well-balanced using egg and milk products
~Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, Michael S. Hand, et. al. 4th Ed. Mark Morris Associates, 2000.
But why would you want to make a dog vegetarian? I have a dog and she loves meat. In fact her favorite food is cat food (full of meat and fish). We try to not let her eat a big amount of the cat food, but often when we're feeding the cats she will go and eat everything that the cats don't finish because she loves the taste. She slurps the cats bowl clean like a vacuum.
Often she won't even eat her dog food unless we sprinkle cat food on it to trick her into eating her own food. If you ever give her table scraps too she will eat all meat that you give her and she will love it (she likes pastrami a lot). But if you give her something like vegetables or fruits her usual response is to turn her head away.
You can turn a dog into Madonna, but what's the point? Dogs, Canis lupus familiaris, are meat eaters. If you don't believe that, take a look at their teeth. Evolution has made them that way for a reason. Dogs, despite our best efforts to make them so, are not humans. There is no valid reason to turn any dog into a vegetarian other than to make a human ego feel better somehow. It's just silly, and not good for the dog, I don't care what your article says. I've been a licensed veterinary professional, and it's just not healthy for a dog.
Generally people do that because of the same ethical reasons about why people become vegetarians.
You can turn a dog into Madonna, but what's the point? Dogs, Canis lupus familiaris, are meat eaters.
Dogs are not obligate carnivores like cats.
Unlike obligate carnivores, such as the cat family with its shorter small intestine, dogs can adapt to a wide-ranging diet, and are not dependent on meat-specific protein nor a very high level of protein in order to fulfill their basic dietary requirements. Dogs will healthily digest a variety of foods, including vegetables and grains, and can consume a large proportion of these in their diet.
~Dewey, T. and S. Bhagat. 2002. "Canis lupus familiaris", Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology.
If you don't believe that, take a look at their teeth. Evolution has made them that way for a reason.
Grizzly bears also have pointed teeth and are classified under Order: Carnivora, yet plants make up approximately 80%–90% of a grizzly bears natural diet. Pointy teeth does not equal carnivore.
Dogs, despite our best efforts to make them so, are not humans. There is no valid reason to turn any dog into a vegetarian other than to make a human ego feel better somehow.
Your opinion. I can find 20 other D.V.M. veterinarians that disagree.
It's just silly, and not good for the dog, I don't care what your article says. I've been a licensed veterinary professional, and it's just not healthy for a dog.
You've been a licensed veterinary professional but you don't care what peer reviewed veterinary journals publish? And you don't care what veterinary textbooks, that are recommended reading by all major veterinary organizations, have to say? OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Although this is anecdotal evidence, I don't believe it is a coincidence a dog once deemed to be one of the oldest living dogs in the world was a vegetarian dog, a vegan in fact. A border collie named Bramble reached her 27th birthday in 2002. How can a dog live such a long life on such an unhealthy diet?
I'll have to disagree with that statement. Dogs are omnivores by nature. They require certain nutrients that are simply not contained in plant material. A dog can *live* as a vegetarian, but it's not natural for him, nor will he be extremely healthy nor will he live a long life. That's scientific fact. Their GI tract isn't like yours and mine. It's designed for meat as well as other things. But given a choice a dog will always choose meat over anything else.
Mtns
PS: We actually had a radical vegetarian client who thought she could make her cat a vegan. We had to get out a feline anatomy text to show her that a cat's gut simply isn't long enough to process plant material, and that trying to turn Fluffy into a vegan would be a death sentence. Amazing how we anthropomorphize our pets!
Well humans are naturally omnivorous...although apparantly pescitarians are the healthiest of us. With the vegetables, the oil protein-filled fish but the absence of fat, greasy meat.
And I know cats can't be vegetarians, never mind vegans.
0
zombiegirlbeating the drum of the lifelessin a dry wastelandVeteran
Me too. This summer my 4 year old daughter became fascinated with toads. We have plenty hopping all over in the evening and we would have fun catching them and examining them. She wanted to keep some in an aquarium so she could play with them during the daytime. I had mixed feelings about it, but gave in.
The first issue was that once in the aquarium they seemed to go right to the edge of the glass and appeared to want to get out. So I set a rule that we would keep them overnight for one night and then let them go the next evening. She was really good about sticking to that as she seemed to understand that living in the tank wasn't what made them happy. It caused her some sadness to release them each night, but I was very proud of her putting their needs ahead of her wants with no fuss about it.
The really unfortunate thing was when she found a baby toad no longer than a dime's diameter. It was immediately perceived as adorable by the entire family. We kept it overnight like the others, but it died. Poor thing. May have lived had it remained in nature. It was unfortunate for the toad, but also a valuable learning experience for my daughter. to try and make amends to the baby toad she insisted that we bury it 'properly'. When she again found baby toads she would pick them up, tell it how cute and precious it was, give it a kiss and then release it right away.
If there is such a thing as reincarnation I hope that baby toad gets a really good rebirth.
waaaaahh this is such a cute story! my sister just moved home from texas along with her two year old daughter and i suddenly have this weird affinity for kids happening within me, haha. i mean, i've never disliked kids... i've just never had much a role in the upbringing of one.
i guess what i'm trying to say here is that i'm just so impressed with your insight into such a situation. i hope that i can have this sort of affect upon my niece and someday upon my own kids
I was aware of this as well (although I thought that dogs were able to process more plant matter than cats). While it's a noble intention to try to help a cat eat less meat and therefore not buy into the meat industry, the fact is that their biology prevents them from being eating a vegetarian diet. They are predators, and barring further evolution they cannot change what they hunt and eat naturally.
yes, the only time wolves in the wild eat grains or vegetables are when they are starving.
Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.
Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."
Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.
Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."
(Encompasses all but is something in its own right
Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.
The act of the snake eating the mouse is the law of Utuniyama not Kammaniyama. It’s only when intention gets messed up in the story that Kammaniyama comes into play. So you need to investigate your intention of keeping a pet and feeding it living things. Make sure you intentions are pure and not hidden behind greed, aversion or delusion. That is the tricky part of it all, because keeping a pet can easily become a desire thing (the will to keep something to yourself). Just make sure that your approach to all this is fine. The fact is that if the snake were in the wild, it would eat mice, and nobody would ethically take the snake out of the wild to save the mice. These are just the natural way of things. Keeping a snake to yourself is not nature, and you getting in the middle of the “snake needs to eat” and “mice becomes food” brings in a different dynamic to the whole story, because then it does fall under Kamma and not Utuniyama.
This is the way I see it, but it is a tricky one, and if you hope to become enlightened, you would probably have to think about this until you have clarity on the whole story.
Its interesting all the views I have read on this post.
One thing I have being reminded of is death is as much apart of life as life is. It seems no matter what path you choose death is involved. I think accepting that fact is ok, and allowing yourself to play a part that minimizes death is a good thing.
I do agree that the angle you approach feeding your pet bears positive or negative karmatic affect. I would be more inclined to agree that if your doing it out of compassion for your pets life the karmatic affects would be positive. I would even go to the point of searching out the kindest ways the pets food was subdued.
I think some of the difficulty comes into this algorithm is Buddhism was founded over 2000 years ago roughly, and I don't think it was common to have pets that eat live or once live food. I think this leaves us in a state of inference on how to apply buddhism in todays world that to some extent has more fine details then life did 2000 years ago did. If you feel like its wrong it is for you like someone posted above.
Having pets that require a live food at some point takes a certain amount of responsibility, that may cause you to sacrifice your own person comfort to maintain the life you chose to preserve (The Pet) if this sacrifice becomes to great the answer becomes clear, and acceptance to let go of the pet seems warranted.
While pets I have hold an emotional connection to me, does my desire to hold them close to me produce a lower state of life for them.
For example: I own a turtle, we feed him meat as a part of his diet. We keep him in a small pool, so he has plenty of room to move. I am noticing that even though he has a pool with a lot of room to move doesn't mean his is enjoying his life to the fullest.
If he lived in his natural environment I could see a fuller life for him. It could be said that my need for him in my life could be causing him to suffer in some ways not to mention his dependency on me to feed him on a regular basis.
Dogs are omnivores (or more correctly, scavengers) - ie they eat meat and vegetables. In the wild, their vegies come from eating the guts of herbivores which contain a great deal of processed but un-digested plant material. Wild dogs tend to favour the offal (guts) of herbivores. there is a very sound reason for this. Put vegies through a juicer and mix the pulp with a little red meat. This approximates the vegies in a herbivores gut and presents the dog with vegetables in a semi-processed form which their shorter intestines are more able to process
A diet of red meat only contains high amounts of uric acid which promotes arthritus. Please don't re-design dogs (or any other animal) in accordance with human ego-centric perspectives as opposed to how they have evolved in accordance with Nature (which I suspect has a greater perspective than our own poorly formed notions.)
Owning any animal and being responsible for its welfare requires us to step outside our own moral sensibilities and to supply the animal with ITS needs as opposed to OUR perceived sense of what we want them to require.
We love them because of what they are.
Please don't fix that which isn't broken.:)
Comments
This topic has already been done quite a few times and it never ends well.
As a matter of personal conscience though, I choose not to draw a distinction between killing a cow myself and eating it and paying someone else to kill a cow so that I may eat it. I choose to be vegetarian not because I believe eating meat is wrong (I eat meat that is served to me by a kind host) but because I believe eating the flesh of a killed animal lacks compassion.
Again, this is very true. The difference I feel exists between the two examples (killing a cow and killing soil organisms) is that one source of food can only be acquired by the deliberate slaughter of livestock, while the other killing is an entirely unintended but simply, as you say, unfortunate fact of life.
I grow my own vegetables, I operate a no dig system, but when I do need to dig I don't use a roto-tiller, I use a fork. In theory using this system shouldn't kill anything. I couldn't say the same if I were to raise livestock though, simply due to the nature of the two types of foodstuff.
it's not silly, it's a very good story and i appreciate you sharing it.
well duh, haha. i would never say that vegetarians/vegans are perfect. i myself still eat some amounts of dairy. dairy products contribute to a lot of suffering. i think what is important is that we determine what is appropriate for ourselves in a realistic way. what we can and can't do. for me, it is incredibly easy to give up meat. i don't know why, it just doesn't bother me. i feel better physically, i feel better mentally. i probably SHOULD avoid all dairy. i probably SHOULD only buy organic vegetables so no pesticides have been used. but i don't find these things feasible at this given time, maybe some day. i am far from perfect, but i am trying to do the best job that i can.
there was a time where i didn't see eating meat as a direct contribution to killing. but then i watched a documentary called Food Inc. and they talked about how each time we purchase an item, it is like a vote. we are casting our approval of said item and causing the store to replace said item thus supporting the means by which said item is grown/harvested/treated/whatever. combine this with the horrible videos i've seen of the treatment of animals in facilities, and purchasing meat becomes disgusting and painful in my mind. so i guess, my only crime is too much information. it has changed the way i view the meat packaged at the store. for me, buying that steak really is having intent to kill. i'm not a vegetarian because anyone says i should or whatever, i am because it feels right for me.
on a side note, i don't have a problem with people who eat meat... i just wish more of them would choose organic/free range.
I have to admit that while I don't judge people for eating meat, I do find myself judging people for buying cheap meat and eggs, especially since the price difference between cheap eggs from caged chickens and ones from free range is only a matter of pence.
Just a quick nitpick, but organic does not mean pesticide free. It means the pesticides used were approved by a standards committee. One pesticide widely employed is called bt. It's a biological organism, a parasite that is very host specific. When the insect eats the plant it unwittingly ingests the bacteria and the bacteria multiply and eat the insect from the inside out.
On balance the insect probably suffers more than if a 'chemical' pesticide were used that killed the insect in a short period of time.
It's organic because it is regarded as completely safe for humans/pets and is 'natural', not because it doesn't kill the insect
It's never black and white, is it?
:eek:
well crap. now i'm trying to decide which is worse...
on another side note, for those of you who have gardens... marigolds are excellent pest repellent.
interesting tidbit about the fish. i knew that dogs frequently had that sort of inbred problem, had no idea about fish though. makes sense though.
also, i didn't know that budgies eat fish...
i also like your plan for the future. i grew up in the country, so i'm very partial to growing your own food and livestock and that sorta stuff...but i also love the city, where i have been living for the past 5 years... my future is difficult for me to imagine because i just like it all! haha. these city folk think i'm crazy because i'm always eating all sorts of random berries and stuff i happen upon. i mean, come on... free food...
The other boys in my class know about guns, football and cars, I know the scientific names of tropical fish. Guppies are poecillia reticulato, neon tetras hyphasebracon innesi and bronze corydoras corydoras aenus
Cuttle fish bone
Quite frankly, i cant keep an pet if it stays in a cage, that's my personal choice, but I feel as though its suffering, or stuck. When I think of lizards, and snakes, I think of them belonging in nature, doing the things they do to survive on their own. I do however, think they are fascinating creatures, and always want to see and touch when I come across a friend who has them...but I just cant keep them myself.
Me too. This summer my 4 year old daughter became fascinated with toads. We have plenty hopping all over in the evening and we would have fun catching them and examining them. She wanted to keep some in an aquarium so she could play with them during the daytime. I had mixed feelings about it, but gave in.
The first issue was that once in the aquarium they seemed to go right to the edge of the glass and appeared to want to get out. So I set a rule that we would keep them overnight for one night and then let them go the next evening. She was really good about sticking to that as she seemed to understand that living in the tank wasn't what made them happy. It caused her some sadness to release them each night, but I was very proud of her putting their needs ahead of her wants with no fuss about it.
The really unfortunate thing was when she found a baby toad no longer than a dime's diameter. It was immediately perceived as adorable by the entire family. We kept it overnight like the others, but it died. Poor thing. May have lived had it remained in nature. It was unfortunate for the toad, but also a valuable learning experience for my daughter. to try and make amends to the baby toad she insisted that we bury it 'properly'. When she again found baby toads she would pick them up, tell it how cute and precious it was, give it a kiss and then release it right away.
If there is such a thing as reincarnation I hope that baby toad gets a really good rebirth.
Wow, this post was great, my eyes were a little watery towards the end. Its amazing what a good parent can teach their children.
You're right about the baby toad, maybe next time he'll be a turtle a live 100 years
There are also reptiles like the bearded dragon or leopard gecko that rarely would live 3 years in the wild, perhaps less because they would be eaten soon by something bigger. In captivity they live up to 10+ years and never have to deal with predators trying to eat them or never have to worry about not eating for many days straight.
So there is a balance to things. I would say if animals could speak the majority of the ones that were bred in captivity would prefer to stay that way. It is mostly the ones that were from the wild to begin with that would rather be in the wild.
I have told myself that they will die and that they are also a consequence of cause and conditions just like me. Impermanent.
For instance in the wild a snake or bird can roam a huge area. I feel so sorry for the reptiles and birds I see in small tanks and cages in pet shops, so I think its a bit cruel keeping them contained in a small area.
As far as feeding live food to pets well again I think as a buddhist it is a complete no no, as you are intentionally killing a living being. My advice is to get a pet which does not require you to intentionally kill another being for it to survive like a dog or cat etc etc.
Metta to all sentient beings
As I see it, my pet dog relies on me for food and water. So It is my responsability to ensure my dog get the required diet, and a vegetarian diet can fulfil all my dogs needs.
As for your pet budgie, well I don't think there is much that can be done for birds which have been kept as pets for a long time, if you released then they would die pretty quickly I think as they do not know how to survive by themself. I think it is better to look after them and make sure they live a happy a life as possible in your care.
What I am talking about is that people should stop buying birds and reptiles from pet shops as it just fuels the demand for these animals to be taken from the wild where they belong.
Metta to all sentient beings.
I would say it depends on the animal. Domesticated animals for sure. But with wild animals that have an instinctual drive to hunt, travel, etc. I think it would be a different situation. However, one must keep in mind that if it were not for the pet trade, many of these animals would not even have been born to begin with.
Metta to sentient beings
I attended a monastery that had cats and dogs. They fed them dry dog food that had meat in it although they themselves were strick vegetarians.
My dog gets a raw diet of one chicken hindquarter (bones and all)a day, and once a week liver of other organ food. She is healthier as a result. Grains can actually cause dogs to have really bad skin conditions.
Yay kitten! Maybe you could share some pictures with us
I'll have to disagree with that statement. Dogs are omnivores by nature. They require certain nutrients that are simply not contained in plant material. A dog can *live* as a vegetarian, but it's not natural for him, nor will he be extremely healthy nor will he live a long life. That's scientific fact. Their GI tract isn't like yours and mine. It's designed for meat as well as other things. But given a choice a dog will always choose meat over anything else.
Mtns
PS: We actually had a radical vegetarian client who thought she could make her cat a vegan. We had to get out a feline anatomy text to show her that a cat's gut simply isn't long enough to process plant material, and that trying to turn Fluffy into a vegan would be a death sentence. Amazing how we anthropomorphize our pets!
I was aware of this as well (although I thought that dogs were able to process more plant matter than cats). While it's a noble intention to try to help a cat eat less meat and therefore not buy into the meat industry, the fact is that their biology prevents them from being eating a vegetarian diet. They are predators, and barring further evolution they cannot change what they hunt and eat naturally.
A dog can easily be made vegetarian without any loss of vital nutrients.
it is entirely possible to
formulate a diet or feed for a dog of
primarily or exclusively vegetable origin
feedstuffs that could satisfy all
the known essential nutrient requirements
for the dog as defined by<layer id="google-toolbar-hilite-22" style="background-color: Dodgerblue; color: black;"></layer> the
National Research Council (NRC) (2,
3).
~Canadian Veterinary Journal 1987 August; 28(8): 535, 537-539.
Commercially prepared vegetarian foods exist for dogs, and can be well-balanced using egg and milk products
~Small Animal Clinical Nutrition, Michael S. Hand, et. al. 4th Ed. Mark Morris Associates, 2000.
But why would you want to make a dog vegetarian? I have a dog and she loves meat. In fact her favorite food is cat food (full of meat and fish). We try to not let her eat a big amount of the cat food, but often when we're feeding the cats she will go and eat everything that the cats don't finish because she loves the taste. She slurps the cats bowl clean like a vacuum.
Often she won't even eat her dog food unless we sprinkle cat food on it to trick her into eating her own food. If you ever give her table scraps too she will eat all meat that you give her and she will love it (she likes pastrami a lot). But if you give her something like vegetables or fruits her usual response is to turn her head away.
Mtns
Generally people do that because of the same ethical reasons about why people become vegetarians.
Dogs are not obligate carnivores like cats.
Unlike obligate carnivores, such as the cat family with its shorter small intestine, dogs can adapt to a wide-ranging diet, and are not dependent on meat-specific protein nor a very high level of protein in order to fulfill their basic dietary requirements. Dogs will healthily digest a variety of foods, including vegetables and grains, and can consume a large proportion of these in their diet.
~Dewey, T. and S. Bhagat. 2002. "Canis lupus familiaris", Animal Diversity Web, University of Michigan Museum of Zoology.
Grizzly bears also have pointed teeth and are classified under Order: Carnivora, yet plants make up approximately 80%–90% of a grizzly bears natural diet. Pointy teeth does not equal carnivore.
Your opinion. I can find 20 other D.V.M. veterinarians that disagree.
You've been a licensed veterinary professional but you don't care what peer reviewed veterinary journals publish? And you don't care what veterinary textbooks, that are recommended reading by all major veterinary organizations, have to say? OK. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Although this is anecdotal evidence, I don't believe it is a coincidence a dog once deemed to be one of the oldest living dogs in the world was a vegetarian dog, a vegan in fact. A border collie named Bramble reached her 27th birthday in 2002. How can a dog live such a long life on such an unhealthy diet?
Well humans are naturally omnivorous...although apparantly pescitarians are the healthiest of us. With the vegetables, the oil protein-filled fish but the absence of fat, greasy meat.
And I know cats can't be vegetarians, never mind vegans.
waaaaahh this is such a cute story! my sister just moved home from texas along with her two year old daughter and i suddenly have this weird affinity for kids happening within me, haha. i mean, i've never disliked kids... i've just never had much a role in the upbringing of one.
i guess what i'm trying to say here is that i'm just so impressed with your insight into such a situation. i hope that i can have this sort of affect upon my niece and someday upon my own kids
yes,
Utuniyama: the natural law pertaining to physical objects and changes in the natural environment, such as the weather; the way flowers bloom in the day and fold up at night; the way soil, water and nutrients help a tree to grow; and the way things disintegrate and decompose. This perspective emphasizes the changes brought about by heat or temperature.
Bijaniyama: the natural law pertaining to heredity, which is best described in the adage, "as the seed, so the fruit."
Cittaniyama: the natural law pertaining to the workings of the mind, the process of cognition of sense objects and the mental reactions to them.
Kammaniyama: the natural law pertaining to human behavior, the process of the generation of action and its results. In essence, this is summarized in the words, "good deeds bring good results, bad deeds bring bad results."
(Encompasses all but is something in its own right
Dhammaniyama: the natural law governing the relationship and interdependence of all things: the way all things arise, exist and then cease. All conditions are subject to change, are in a state of affliction and are not self: this is the Norm.
The act of the snake eating the mouse is the law of Utuniyama not Kammaniyama. It’s only when intention gets messed up in the story that Kammaniyama comes into play. So you need to investigate your intention of keeping a pet and feeding it living things. Make sure you intentions are pure and not hidden behind greed, aversion or delusion. That is the tricky part of it all, because keeping a pet can easily become a desire thing (the will to keep something to yourself). Just make sure that your approach to all this is fine. The fact is that if the snake were in the wild, it would eat mice, and nobody would ethically take the snake out of the wild to save the mice. These are just the natural way of things. Keeping a snake to yourself is not nature, and you getting in the middle of the “snake needs to eat” and “mice becomes food” brings in a different dynamic to the whole story, because then it does fall under Kamma and not Utuniyama.
This is the way I see it, but it is a tricky one, and if you hope to become enlightened, you would probably have to think about this until you have clarity on the whole story.
One thing I have being reminded of is death is as much apart of life as life is. It seems no matter what path you choose death is involved. I think accepting that fact is ok, and allowing yourself to play a part that minimizes death is a good thing.
I do agree that the angle you approach feeding your pet bears positive or negative karmatic affect. I would be more inclined to agree that if your doing it out of compassion for your pets life the karmatic affects would be positive. I would even go to the point of searching out the kindest ways the pets food was subdued.
I think some of the difficulty comes into this algorithm is Buddhism was founded over 2000 years ago roughly, and I don't think it was common to have pets that eat live or once live food. I think this leaves us in a state of inference on how to apply buddhism in todays world that to some extent has more fine details then life did 2000 years ago did. If you feel like its wrong it is for you like someone posted above.
Having pets that require a live food at some point takes a certain amount of responsibility, that may cause you to sacrifice your own person comfort to maintain the life you chose to preserve (The Pet) if this sacrifice becomes to great the answer becomes clear, and acceptance to let go of the pet seems warranted.
While pets I have hold an emotional connection to me, does my desire to hold them close to me produce a lower state of life for them.
For example: I own a turtle, we feed him meat as a part of his diet. We keep him in a small pool, so he has plenty of room to move. I am noticing that even though he has a pool with a lot of room to move doesn't mean his is enjoying his life to the fullest.
If he lived in his natural environment I could see a fuller life for him. It could be said that my need for him in my life could be causing him to suffer in some ways not to mention his dependency on me to feed him on a regular basis.
Thawee
A diet of red meat only contains high amounts of uric acid which promotes arthritus. Please don't re-design dogs (or any other animal) in accordance with human ego-centric perspectives as opposed to how they have evolved in accordance with Nature (which I suspect has a greater perspective than our own poorly formed notions.)
Owning any animal and being responsible for its welfare requires us to step outside our own moral sensibilities and to supply the animal with ITS needs as opposed to OUR perceived sense of what we want them to require.
We love them because of what they are.
Please don't fix that which isn't broken.:)
Good quality dog food usually has those vegetables, grains and the extras besides meat that dogs can eat in it.