House cats - killers?

[graceanne]

Let's say it is true - and I've seen this document quoted before - then, yes, not good.

But whenever an animal welfare discussion comes up, inevitably someone on the other side brings up PETA in a negative way. Is PETA the only organization out there?

What about the WSPCA? When I was working with a turtle conservation organization in Costa Rica, the WSPCA was the only group we could count on to consistently deliver much needed supplies and funds. What about Streamkeepers? What about the WWF? What about Greenpeace? What about the thousands of grass roots organizations out there?

Why must everyone latch onto PETA in an attempt to prove that animal lovers are all a bunch of hypocritical extremists? Personally, I think it's a cheap tactic and you, SW, and others here, are better than that.

Did you watch the link I posted here? Can you tell me that those animals do not deserve to have people out there fighting for their rights?

Why do people feel the need to undermine worthy causes?

PETA is brought up because they're out there, they're visible, and they're the most hypocritical.

It's like any other news. YOu don't hear about the good stepdads, only the bad ones. You don't hear about the good mom, just the ones who drown their kids. And you won't hear about the good organizations, just the bad ones.

Besides, I've noticed the good ones kinda keep a low profile.

 

[Keroin]

When it comes to friends and family, I have a lot of success with clear, succinct messages, like: Don't eat bluefin tuna; it's endangered. I don't have much success with: Come see this really depressing movie about how we'll all starve to death in 30 years.

I certainly don't mean to minimize the message of the film. I'm just saying that all this perfectly valid red flag waving can be overwhelming, and that's a real problem.

After a while, people start going.... the rain forest, the polar ice cap, the pollinators, the entire world of edible seafood.... floods, erosion, drought, mass starvation - FUCK. What's the point? Sounds like I can either shoot myself now and get things over with quickly, or enjoy myself for a few more years until the inevitable end.

In short - the enormity of all these environmental/sustainability issues can overwhelm one's capacity to process the information and respond in a rational way.

I get what you're saying. Fair enough. Personally, I don't hold out much hope for the ocean...sigh...but I'm glad people are trying to get the word out. I don't think people have any real idea how much trouble we're in. This isn't one of those "maybe, possibly, perhaps" scenarios; global fish stocks are collapsing. Now. It's happening. I'm watching it happen.

I'm still going to spread the word about this movie.

Added: I've been doing the slow and steady and straightforward approach with friends and family for years. It's helped in a very small way but things are just not changing fast enough.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

But whenever an animal welfare discussion comes up, inevitably someone on the other side brings up PETA in a negative way. Is PETA the only organization out there?

....

Why must everyone latch onto PETA in an attempt to prove that animal lovers are all a bunch of hypocritical extremists? Personally, I think it's a cheap tactic and you, SW, and others here, are better than that.

....

Why do people feel the need to undermine worthy causes?

No, PETA isn't the only org out there - it's just one of the most visible and vocal and self-righteous. I had held my "tongue" through a wide variety of posts that mentioned PETA, but knowing what I've learned about them over the past few years, I just had to jump in yet again.

I don't feel any need to undermine *worthy* causes - I'm just completely convinced that PETA, regardless of its beginnings and the dreams and aims of its founders, is NOT a worthy cause. Not any more.

ETA: When I attack PETA, I'm attacking PETA only. I'm not trying to tar the whole batch with one brush. If I wanted to do that, I'd get data, statistics, funds reports, etc., for all that I wished to lambaste.

Let's say it is true - and I've seen this document quoted before - then, yes, not good.

....

What about the WSPCA? When I was working with a turtle conservation organization in Costa Rica, the WSPCA was the only group we could count on to consistently deliver much needed supplies and funds. What about Streamkeepers? What about the WWF? What about Greenpeace? What about the thousands of grass roots organizations out there?

....

Did you watch the link I posted here? Can you tell me that those animals do not deserve to have people out there fighting for their rights?

I'm not familiar with WSPCA, but am with the ASPCA, a sister (daughter?) org, and approve. Streamkeepers, haven't heard of. WWF, strongly approve. Greenpeace... meh. I think a lot of their people are more interested in getting headlines for their cause than actually doing the cause some good. Not all, but a lot. Grassroots orgs that get out and *do* something - pick up litter along streambeds, beaches, etc., raise money to build/improve facilities at wildlife rescue operations like the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary (with which I've had some personal experience)... wonderful, and I support them with $$ when I can.

Yes, I watched the link. Yes, they deserve to have people fighting for their rights. I just don't think PETA is the example we should use for "people fighting for their (animals') rights."

 

[BiBunny]

The ASPCA is a bunch of dickweeds, too. They do NOT operate the animal shelters in this country, but they appropriated the name in hopes that people will THINK they do. They're not a whole lot better than PETA in my book.

If I'm going to donate my time/money, it's going to be to a (fairly) local cause that's going to actually do something, rather than waste my donation printing up more slick brochures to toot its own horn and solicit more money.

I want to run my own horse rescue/retirement facility one day, so that's not just me blowing smoke.

 

[Keroin]

No, PETA isn't the only org out there - it's just one of the most visible and vocal and self-righteous. I had held my "tongue" through a wide variety of posts that mentioned PETA, but knowing what I've learned about them over the past few years, I just had to jump in yet again.

I don't feel any need to undermine *worthy* causes - I'm just completely convinced that PETA, regardless of its beginnings and the dreams and aims of its founders, is NOT a worthy cause. Not any more.

ETA: When I attack PETA, I'm attacking PETA only. I'm not trying to tar the whole batch with one brush. If I wanted to do that, I'd get data, statistics, funds reports, etc., for all that I wished to lambaste.

I'm not familiar with WSPCA, but am with the ASPCA, a sister (daughter?) org, and approve. Streamkeepers, haven't heard of. WWF, strongly approve. Greenpeace... meh. I think a lot of their people are more interested in getting headlines for their cause than actually doing the cause some good. Not all, but a lot. Grassroots orgs that get out and *do* something - pick up litter along streambeds, beaches, etc., raise money to build/improve facilities at wildlife rescue operations like the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary (with which I've had some personal experience)... wonderful, and I support them with $$ when I can.

Yes, I watched the link. Yes, they deserve to have people fighting for their rights. I just don't think PETA is the example we should use for "people fighting for their (animals') rights."

Did someone on here use PETA as an example of a worthwhile organization fighting for animal rights? I shall have to go back and check. Nevertheless, we'll never make progress if all people want to do is point to the mistakes made by one organization. I think you're smart enough to see that.

Greenpeace is certainly one of the most aggressive groups out there but they're also one of the few willing to really butt heads and risk everything in places, and with people, that most others are afraid to touch with a thousand foot pole. I credit them with keeping many whales from extinction, no small feat considering what they are up against. (Too bad they were too late to save the Atlantic Grey whale ). I don't know many people who'd place their body in front of a harpoon gun to save a whale's life but I know Paul Watson and his crew would. My hat is off.

Did you know that Japan has proposed adding humpbacks to its "scientific" whaling program? I wonder who will be out there defending the humpies from slaughter?

Added: The following is an excerpt from a letter by John Burton, an ex-whaler...

"Why have I written this testimony after all these years? My regret and remorse surfaced in the 1980s, soon after Greenpeace had startled the world with their audacious direct action against the whaling fleets.

Seeing them in their tiny, vulnerable red inflatables, attaching themselves to the sterns of huge factory ships, it dawned on me that here were human beings willing to put their lives at risk to save an animal that I had been quite prepared to see die for a few pound notes."

 

[JMohegan]

CCF *is* basically a front for the food, alcohol and tobacco industries. No argument there. However, the document linked in the fifth paragraph of the second quoted article ("documents PETA filed with the state of Virginia") sure looks like the real thing, no matter *what* the source. And those documents back up the numbers shown in the first article quoted.

Truth is truth, no matter whose mouth it comes from...

Except..... what they wrote is not truth. It is misleading at best - which is hardly a surprise when the source is a devious, unethical organization funded by big business and proven to be a giant honking liar.

Animal lovers worldwide now have access to more than a decade’s worth of proof that People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) kills thousands of defenseless pets at its Norfolk, Virginia headquarters. Since 1998, PETA has opted to “put down” 21,339 adoptable dogs, cats, puppies, and kittens instead of finding homes for them.

PETA’s “Animal Record” report for 2008, filed with the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, shows that the animal rights group killed 95 percent of the dogs and cats in its care last year. During all of 2008, PETA found adoptive homes for just seven pets.

According to the supplied documentation, PETA cared for 10,016 animals in 2008, including:

18 on hand as of Jan. 1;
27 strays;
2,469 surrendered by owner; and
7,502 taken in for veterinary care and/or sterilization, to be held until reclaimed by owners.

Those animals were accounted for as follows:

7,525 reclaimed by owner
59 adopted
34 transferred to another Virginia Releasing Agency
2,369 euthanized
12 transferred to other animal shelters & Humane Society
17 on hand Dec. 31


Supporting documentation shows that PETA euthanized 23.6% percent of animals in its care last year. PETA found adoptive homes for 59 animals.

It does appear that most of the animals surrendered by their owners were euthanized, but where is the support for the claim that these animals were "adoptable"?

 

[JMohegan]

Did someone on here use PETA as an example of a worthwhile organization fighting for animal rights? I shall have to go back and check. Nevertheless, we'll never make progress if all people want to do is point to the mistakes made by one organization. I think you're smart enough to see that.

Greenpeace is certainly one of the most aggressive groups out there but they're also one of the few willing to really butt heads and risk everything in places, and with people, that most others are afraid to touch with a thousand foot pole. I credit them with keeping many whales from extinction, no small feat considering what they are up against. (Too bad they were too late to save the Atlantic Grey whale ). I don't know many people who'd place their body in front of a harpoon gun to save a whale's life but I know Paul Watson and his crew would. My hat is off.

Did you know that Japan has proposed adding humpbacks to its "scientific" whaling program? I wonder who will be out there defending the humpies from slaughter?

Added: The following is an excerpt from a letter by John Burton, an ex-whaler...

"Why have I written this testimony after all these years? My regret and remorse surfaced in the 1980s, soon after Greenpeace had startled the world with their audacious direct action against the whaling fleets.

Seeing them in their tiny, vulnerable red inflatables, attaching themselves to the sterns of huge factory ships, it dawned on me that here were human beings willing to put their lives at risk to save an animal that I had been quite prepared to see die for a few pound notes."

Watching that video of dolphins being captured, just so some asshole can make big $ soaking naive tourists, makes me want to kill somebody. Specifically, the guys with the nets.

I don't understand how anyone can watch that video without feeling murderous rage.

And yes, I know, human life is supposed to trump animal life, blah blah. But there are humans so bereft of ethical standards that they give up that higher ranking, in my eyes.

Not saying I'd ever kill the dolphin dicks, obviously. Just saying I can understand why Greenpeace activists get worked up.

 

[Keroin]

Did someone on here use PETA as an example of a worthwhile organization fighting for animal rights? I shall have to go back and check.

I just searched the entire thread and the only references to PETA, aside from JM's defense of them, were negative, starting with WD's overused and tired joke. (Yes, we've all heard it a million times).

 

[JMohegan]

I just searched the entire thread and the only references to PETA, aside from JM's defense of them, were negative, starting with WD's overused and tired joke. (Yes, we've all heard it a million times).

And I just want to be clear that my "defense" of PETA is more a critique of the Center for Consumer Freedom than anything else.

 

[Keroin]

Watching that video of dolphins being captured, just so some asshole can make big $ soaking naive tourists, makes me want to kill somebody. Specifically, the guys with the nets.

I don't understand how anyone can watch that video without feeling murderous rage.

And yes, I know, human life is supposed to trump animal life, blah blah. But there are humans so bereft of ethical standards that they give up that higher ranking, in my eyes.

Not saying I'd ever kill the dolphin dicks, obviously. Just saying I can understand why Greenpeace activists get worked up.

I work hard to keep the murderous rage under control. It's a struggle.

The original video, the one from Baja, went on for ages. I couldn't track down the original, probably for the best, it would make some people physically ill.

 

[JMohegan]

Awwww, good dog! I am still getting to know dogs and am totally amazed by them. I'm also still amazed by the tales here of crazed hunter cats. Mine - and he did used to go outdoors - would just not bother himself with hunting something. Hunt? He could be sleeping!

Dogs are superb companions, if well trained. They range from pain in the ass to dangerous, if not.

Do you think your cat differs from hunters because of an age thing? A breed thing? An individual cat personality thing?

Nothing written on this thread about killer cats surprises me. But then, I spent every free moment of my childhood outdoors - and that's really where my impression of cats was formed.

I was amazed by Winston's video, on the Betticus thread. I don't understand the human/cat interaction, or the cat behavior itself. I don't even understand why people find the video funny. Mostly it just seemed to be shots of cats trying to do something, and then getting whapped on the head, falling down, or falling over.

I was amazed and sort of touched by the cat stories on Cattypuss' cat/dog thread. The idea of cats interacting warmly with humans is something new for me. I've always had the impression Syd mentioned - that cats just want to be given their food and left alone.

 

[WriterDom]

I was amazed and sort of touched by the cat stories on Cattypuss' cat/dog thread. The idea of cats interacting warmly with humans is something new for me. I've always had the impression Syd mentioned - that cats just want to be given their food and left alone.

Cats want love and want attention everyday. It might just be for 5 or 10 minutes. When they get their fill they are done. One taps with his paw when he wants to be petted. The other lays her paw on me. Probably more than once a day. Most dogs I know want and demand constant attention. I don't like that from an animal.

If I owned a dog I would love him. But dogs have to go out and you can just pick up and leave for three nights without boarding him. And they bark and lick and stick their snouts halfway up my ass. And you can't leave food out. Dogs eat anything including human shit.

 

[intothewoods]

Dogs are superb companions, if well trained. They range from pain in the ass to dangerous, if not.

Do you think your cat differs from hunters because of an age thing? A breed thing? An individual cat personality thing?

Nothing written on this thread about killer cats surprises me. But then, I spent every free moment of my childhood outdoors - and that's really where my impression of cats was formed.

I was amazed by Winston's video, on the Betticus thread. I don't understand the human/cat interaction, or the cat behavior itself. I don't even understand why people find the video funny. Mostly it just seemed to be shots of cats trying to do something, and then getting whapped on the head, falling down, or falling over.

I was amazed and sort of touched by the cat stories on Cattypuss' cat/dog thread. The idea of cats interacting warmly with humans is something new for me. I've always had the impression Syd mentioned - that cats just want to be given their food and left alone.

Mister Man's were adopted by him as adult dogs, and neither were trained. One was abused. So they are sort of eh on the training though he's worked with them. They have some annoying habits, but are generally pretty obedient and sweet.

My cat was never much of a hunter, so probably it's personality. Most of my cats were very snuggly, but not all are. They really can be very sweet, but they aren't obedient like dogs. Mine does NOT want to be left alone and he's quite attentive and listens to some commands. I think of them as more child-like and petulant, whereas dogs just seem so eager to please.

No, PETA isn't the only org out there - it's just one of the most visible and vocal and self-righteous. I had held my "tongue" through a wide variety of posts that mentioned PETA, but knowing what I've learned about them over the past few years, I just had to jump in yet again.

I don't feel any need to undermine *worthy* causes - I'm just completely convinced that PETA, regardless of its beginnings and the dreams and aims of its founders, is NOT a worthy cause. Not any more.

ETA: When I attack PETA, I'm attacking PETA only. I'm not trying to tar the whole batch with one brush. If I wanted to do that, I'd get data, statistics, funds reports, etc., for all that I wished to lambaste.

I'm not familiar with WSPCA, but am with the ASPCA, a sister (daughter?) org, and approve. Streamkeepers, haven't heard of. WWF, strongly approve. Greenpeace... meh. I think a lot of their people are more interested in getting headlines for their cause than actually doing the cause some good. Not all, but a lot. Grassroots orgs that get out and *do* something - pick up litter along streambeds, beaches, etc., raise money to build/improve facilities at wildlife rescue operations like the Suncoast Seabird Sanctuary (with which I've had some personal experience)... wonderful, and I support them with $$ when I can.

Yes, I watched the link. Yes, they deserve to have people fighting for their rights. I just don't think PETA is the example we should use for "people fighting for their (animals') rights."

I agree that PETA presents its points of view in a fanatical way. It's not perfect. It's far from perfect. But their general position is sound, and I think posting false information about them is a low blow. I'd rather allign with PETA than, say, Sea World.

 

[intothewoods]

Cats want love and want attention everyday. It might just be for 5 or 10 minutes. When they get their fill they are done. One taps with his paw when he wants to be petted. The other lays her paw on me. Probably more than once a day. Most dogs I know want and demand constant attention. I don't like that from an animal.

If I owned a dog I would love him. But dogs have to go out and you can just pick up and leave for three nights without boarding him. And they bark and lick and stick their snouts halfway up my ass. And you can't leave food out. Dogs eat anything including human shit.

My cat is also pretty demanding about attention, but I generally find it sweet. Mister Man's dogs don't want attention constantly. They just want it when you first come in. They do need to be walked and get lots of exercise, but they are also more attentive than cats. I don't know. I like both, honestly.

My cat has always been a bit dog-like though. He also needs attention. And it's also hard to leave him - two days is max.

 

[graceanne]

Cats want love and want attention everyday. It might just be for 5 or 10 minutes. When they get their fill they are done. One taps with his paw when he wants to be petted. The other lays her paw on me. Probably more than once a day. Most dogs I know want and demand constant attention. I don't like that from an animal.

If I owned a dog I would love him. But dogs have to go out and you can just pick up and leave for three nights without boarding him. And they bark and lick and stick their snouts halfway up my ass. And you can't leave food out. Dogs eat anything including human shit.

That's why I'll take cats over dogs - but cats, like dogs, have their own personalities. You can get very emotionally dependent cats. Not any of mine, but then that would drive me crazy.

I had a dog. She was my mom's. We moved into an apartment, and I thought she'd be happier returning to my mom, who had a huge yard.

I will never do that again. Never. My mom is not a dog person, and she spent most of her time on a chain. And my little sister (4 years old at the time) bonded with her (my dog), so I couldn't take her back. I've never felt more guilty in my life.

 

[JMohegan]

Cats want love and want attention everyday. It might just be for 5 or 10 minutes. When they get their fill they are done. One taps with his paw when he wants to be petted. The other lays her paw on me. Probably more than once a day. Most dogs I know want and demand constant attention. I don't like that from an animal.

If I owned a dog I would love him. But dogs have to go out and you can just pick up and leave for three nights without boarding him. And they bark and lick and stick their snouts halfway up my ass. And you can't leave food out. Dogs eat anything including human shit.

Thank you for the info about cats, WD, and I mean that sincerely. I hope you don't mind if I return the favor.

Well-adjusted dogs do not, in fact, demand constant attention. And well-trained dogs do not bark and lick and stick their snouts up your ass (or anywhere else) when you don't want them to do so.

It is true that dogs need exercise. For this reason, I believe that most dogs are best suited for active owners. People who like to wander through neighborhoods, woods, the countryside. Run, throw a ball, play in the snow.

Most sedentary people don't make good dog owners. Unfortunately, there are a lot of sedentary people who want to own dogs. And the result is an epidemic of dogs who seem needy as hell, but are really just begging for the stimulation and exercise that they never get.

It is also true that you can't just walk away and leave your dog alone in the house for a few days. I pay the 20-something daughter of a close friend to stay in my home when I go out of town.

I have never seen a dog, any dog, eat human shit. My dogs have only ever eaten what I let them eat, and shit's not on the menu.

 

[JMohegan]

Mister Man's were adopted by him as adult dogs, and neither were trained. One was abused. So they are sort of eh on the training though he's worked with them. They have some annoying habits, but are generally pretty obedient and sweet.

My cat was never much of a hunter, so probably it's personality. Most of my cats were very snuggly, but not all are. They really can be very sweet, but they aren't obedient like dogs. Mine does NOT want to be left alone and he's quite attentive and listens to some commands. I think of them as more child-like and petulant, whereas dogs just seem so eager to please.

Oh my.

Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

[/Venkman]

Have Mister Man's dogs met the future Mrs. Man's cats? If so, how did that go?


Adopting an adult dog is tough, especially one that's been abused. Hats off to MM for the effort. It's a very, very good sign that they seem eager to please.

 

[Netzach]

Thank you for the info about cats, WD, and I mean that sincerely. I hope you don't mind if I return the favor.

Well-adjusted dogs do not, in fact, demand constant attention. And well-trained dogs do not bark and lick and stick their snouts up your ass (or anywhere else) when you don't want them to do so.

It is true that dogs need exercise. For this reason, I believe that most dogs are best suited for active owners. People who like to wander through neighborhoods, woods, the countryside. Run, throw a ball, play in the snow.

Most sedentary people don't make good dog owners. Unfortunately, there are a lot of sedentary people who want to own dogs. And the result is an epidemic of dogs who seem needy as hell, but are really just begging for the stimulation and exercise that they never get.

It is also true that you can't just walk away and leave your dog alone in the house for a few days. I pay the 20-something daughter of a close friend to stay in my home when I go out of town.

I have never seen a dog, any dog, eat human shit. My dogs have only ever eaten what I let them eat, and shit's not on the menu.

Being active is good.

Being home and active is better.

Most people are lucky to work 8 hours a day away from the house.

I'd be the ideal dog momma. I'm there. However I'm not going to do that to my dog traumatized cat.

I'm trying to talk M into a pug or other cat-compatible puppy when she goes to the great cat hereafter. He's biased against the ugly bit, but I've never met one I didn't like.

I have to concur on the human shit part, but I have definitely been around dogs who think the cat box contains dandy stuff.

 

[graceanne]

Thank you for the info about cats, WD, and I mean that sincerely. I hope you don't mind if I return the favor.

Well-adjusted dogs do not, in fact, demand constant attention. And well-trained dogs do not bark and lick and stick their snouts up your ass (or anywhere else) when you don't want them to do so.

It is true that dogs need exercise. For this reason, I believe that most dogs are best suited for active owners. People who like to wander through neighborhoods, woods, the countryside. Run, throw a ball, play in the snow.

Amen. My biggest pet peeve, animal wise, is when I see a dog that is never allowed off it's chain, or is constantly penned up in a small yard.

Most sedentary people don't make good dog owners. Unfortunately, there are a lot of sedentary people who want to own dogs. And the result is an epidemic of dogs who seem needy as hell, but are really just begging for the stimulation and exercise that they never get.

It is also true that you can't just walk away and leave your dog alone in the house for a few days. I pay the 20-something daughter of a close friend to stay in my home when I go out of town.

I have never seen a dog, any dog, eat human shit. My dogs have only ever eaten what I let them eat, and shit's not on the menu.

Dogs who eat shit, or anything else like that, are showing signs of a nutritional deficiency.

The dog I mentioned before, Noel, was horrible about things like that until I got her. I started giving her garlic pills every day, and healthy dog biscuits every morning. Suddenly she'd stay out of the trash.

What a shock.

 

[intothewoods]

Oh my.

Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats living together! Mass hysteria!

[/Venkman]

Have Mister Man's dogs met the future Mrs. Man's cats? If so, how did that go?


Adopting an adult dog is tough, especially one that's been abused. Hats off to MM for the effort. It's a very, very good sign that they seem eager to please.

The one who was abused is actually very gentle and easy-going. Let's hope that's just his personality. The effects of the abuse seem to be that loud noises scare the shit out of him. Thunder is terrifying. The other one was just raised by some jerks who abandoned him. His instinct is still to jump at first or run away sometimes when we're walking but he does listen to Mister Man. (ETA - they were young though, just past puppy stage)

Ohh, is that an issue? Lol. WELCOME TO MY WORLD. I've been googling introducing cats and dogs for six months or something. We talked to the vet as well. So far we brought the dogs to my place, on leash, and let my cat come and check them out. My cat was basically like, hey, is that a dog? In my house? Bitch please I am going under the bed. (sauntering, not running) Hmm, is that a dog? In my house? Um, all right. Cool. Hey, dogs. Yeah, I'm going to go back to bed. Yawn.



My cat has always been aware that when adults are there he is safe. Anyway, I have a plan, but I'm feeling cautiously optimistic after this meeting. Basically, for the immediate future, cat has its own space in the house.

 

[Shankara20]

So far we brought the dogs to my place, on leash, and let my cat come and check them out. My cat was basically like, hey, is that a dog? In my house? Bitch please I am going under the bed. (sauntering, not running) Hmm, is that a dog? In my house? Um, all right. Cool. Hey, dogs. Yeah, I'm going to go back to bed. Yawn.

I have two cats, GF has a dog. We are working up to that same thing, bringing her dog to my place to meet the cats.

One problem, her dog is a beagle so earplugs might be required....

 

[WriterDom]

I agree that a well trained dog is a thing of beauty. But how many people bother with the training? Kids are cool too if trained but how many of them are running wild with no supervision?

I guess if you are emotionally needy a dog is the perfect pet. I just don't need that deep of a connection with an animal all of the time.

My brother in law has this really expensive German hunting dog. He's beautiful but it is just like having a 3 year old. You can't leave him and go upstairs not knowing what he is getting into. I know my cats are sleeping and I know the male will sleep until dusk. He might get up once or twice but his day is pretty much done.

 

[JMohegan]

Being active is good.

Being home and active is better.

Most people are lucky to work 8 hours a day away from the house.

I'd be the ideal dog momma. I'm there. However I'm not going to do that to my dog traumatized cat.

I'm trying to talk M into a pug or other cat-compatible puppy when she goes to the great cat hereafter. He's biased against the ugly bit, but I've never met one I didn't like.

I have to concur on the human shit part, but I have definitely been around dogs who think the cat box contains dandy stuff.

Some people pay dog walkers to come once or twice during the day. Some have more than one dog, so they play with each other when the owner's not home.

There are ways to accommodate when you work away from the house, but home and active is definitely better, yes.

 

[JMohegan]

Dogs who eat shit, or anything else like that, are showing signs of a nutritional deficiency.

The dog I mentioned before, Noel, was horrible about things like that until I got her. I started giving her garlic pills every day, and healthy dog biscuits every morning. Suddenly she'd stay out of the trash.

What a shock.

I've seen dogs search through trash for food, and they were clearly hungry. Never seen one eat actual shit, though.

Smell shit? Absolutely. There's a lot of information there!

Netzach - what were the circumstances of the dogs eating from litter boxes? Did they seem poorly fed, as Graceanne mentions? I wonder what attracted them to it.

 

[Recidiva]

I've seen dogs search through trash for food, and they were clearly hungry. Never seen one eat actual shit, though.

Smell shit? Absolutely. There's a lot of information there!

Netzach - what were the circumstances of the dogs eating from litter boxes? Did they seem poorly fed, as Graceanne mentions? I wonder what attracted them to it.

Our dog eats his own shit. I've been over and over this with vets and online whatevers, and it's not nutrition, it's not even preventable, it's just...it's just something dogs do.

He's also about 17 years old, has entirely forgotten house training rules, is on anti-seizure medication and thyroid medication, so it's not like it's the only thing that's wrong with him.