Guest guest Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 Mr. wrote: Dr Chinny Krishna : You say you have kept several hundred dogs and have fed them a vegetarian diet and they have thrived. Point well taken and appreciated. But have you ever given your dogs the CHOICE between vegetarian and non vegetarian food? Have you ever seen if they would choose the vegetarian diet over the non vegetarian diet? And I ask: Did you give your pug the CHOICE to be your companion? I have to be truthful and say I gave them no choice. And I quoted no authority re the Gen Thimayya lecture. I simply said it was the most inspiring talk I have ever heard. " My " dogs - and here I refer to the dozen plus in my factory - are free to leave and are not restrained. None have left except a blind one about three years ago. Most were brought in as adults and might have grown up as omnivores, but many have been in my factory for over five years and none of my workers bring in non-vegetarian food at my request. I can, safely, assume that the factory dogs are vegetarian though it is possible (before you ask) that they may hunt a rat occasionally. Regards S. Chinny Krishna aapn [aapn ] On Behalf Of 28 December 2008 23:13 AAPN List Carnivorous dogs and other animals *Dear AAPN members,* * After a long time we are having a debate on AAPN that has very strong immediate theoretical and practical components and this is one of the reasons I think AAPN is such a valuable platform. My heartfelt thanks go to all of you who have responded and every one of you have made valid points and assertions. I will try and place my thoughts by taking your views one by one. I am taking your positions randomly so please forgive me if there is no continuity in the manner in which I tackle the issues raised. Feel free to tell me if I have missed any important points. So here goes:* *1) Colonel Dennis Brewin : Thank you for your response. You seem to be in agreement with the notion that dogs are carnivores. Thank you also for your personal kind words, I am flattered and embarrassed. We do agree on some issues and disagree on others, which is as it should be. But we respect each other's points of view and that is the important thing.* *2) John Wedderburn : You say that Jeannette Thomason's article is typical of junk science. I disagree. Is any scientist spouting junk only because it refutes your pet 'veganism will save the world' agenda? The general theory is that The dog (Canis lupus familiaris)is a domesticated subspecies of the gray wolf, a mammal of the Canidae family of the order Carnivora. This biological classification clearly indicates that meat is an integral part of the diet of dogs, even though it may not be exclusively so. Nature has designed animals like dogs to hunt and kill and eat meat, and even though you may substitute all dietary requirements with vegetarian or vegan items, it would still be unnatural for its mode of living. It is true that dogs and wild canids do eat vegetarian food, for example, the dogs in Puerto Rico that Merritt Clifton mentioned as eating avocados or the Maned Wolves that eat fruit, but that is not to say that they eat vegetarian food at the total exclusion of meat or other non vegetarian items. Jackals and foxes, closely related to dogs will eat anything and everything. So your point on the vegetable component in a dog's diet is well taken, but I part company with you when you advocate a strict vegetarian diet for animals that are essentially carnivores.* * You say, " I believe that we have a moral duty to do as little harm and as much good as we can while on this earth. Therefore we should consider the suffering that goes into producing our companions' food. " Agreed, but please don't try and preach the ethics of non violence and veganism to a dog or a cat, for they will not understand it and care even less. Let them be as nature intended them to be, and nature intended them to be as hunters and killers and eaters of flesh. You are a doctor, you should know better.* * You add, " There are many issues to be taken into consideration when deciding what to feed our companions - but their evolutionary history is not relevant in this modern world. What animals in zoos are given to eat is also not relevant to this discussion. " Totally disagree. The evolutionary history is the most relevant thing to consider in this modern world. Considering how animals have evolved helps us to understand them and ourselves better. Facts of evolution are not always compatible with moral notions, we should have the openness of mind to accept this. What animals in zoos are given to eat is also not relevant to this discussion? Why, may I ask? Are not the same moral issues involved in feeding carnivorous animals in any situation considering your own argument regarding our moral duty to do as little harm as possible? And what about carnivorous and omnivorous animals in rescue centres? I wonder if your veganism stance has ever led you to suggest vegan diets for the bears in Jill Robinson's sanctuary? By avoiding the issue of what we should feed carnivorous animals in captivity, are you suggesting that we should not tend to an injured carnivore and just leave it to die because we are uncomfortable feeding it meat?* * * *3) Dr Sandeep Jain : I do agree with you that it might be possible to rear a dog on a vegetarian diet but it is necessary to give it the requisite amount of meat for healthy living. However you seem to be agreeing on the notion that cats cannot be made vegetarian. You raise a realted subsidiary issue of great relevance, ie., it is cruel to breed dogs for the pet trade and making them captive in the first place. I do agree and this raises the question, should animal rights/welfare activists approve of keeping any pets at all, including dogs and cats? And if we accept that dogs and cats are in our care, we should also accept that lions and tigers are in our care and the same moral principles apply to their care as they do for cats and dogs.* * * *4) Mr Merritt Clifton : I am in general agreement with everything you have written on this issue. It is true that the pet food industry does not really slaughter animals exclusively for its products, the non vegetarian items in pet food are essentially by products of the meat industry.* * * *5) Ms Nandita Shah : You write, " **The question remains, is a dog¹s life more worthy than a chicken's or a cow's? Do we have the right to kill a chicken to save a dog? I have no problems with carnivores that kill their own prey, but are WE right in saving dogs by killing other animals? In nature, when a lion kills a zebra, its actually supporting the survival of the species because it eliminates the weakest. But humans weaken and sicken animals that are raised for food. These are all issues that need to be considered. " You also say that animal rights activists do not approve of keeping lions in zoos.* * * *Firstly, the issue of the moral worth of one animal over another. Albert Schweitzer considered this question in his autobiography, 'My Life and Thought.' He recognized that one life survives at the expense of another and called this 'the contradiction of the will to live.' I am attaching the relevant portion from his book that you may find of interest. Here : " When we were making our way through a herd of hippopotamuses, there flashed upon my mind, unforeseen and unsought, the phrase, " Reverence For Life'. The iron door had yielded: the path in the thicket had become visible. Now I had found my way to the idea in which world –and –life –affirmation and ethics are contained side by side. * * To the man who is truly ethical all life is sacred, including that which from the human point of view seems lower in scale. He makes distinctions only as each case comes before him, and under the pressure of necessity; as, for example, when it falls to him to decide which of two lives he must sacrifice in order to preserve the other. * * I rejoice over the new remedies for sleeping sickness, which enable me to preserve life, whereas I had previously to watch a painful disease. But every time I have under the microscope the germs which cause disease, I cannot but reflect that I have to sacrifice this life in order to save other life. * * I buy from natives a young fish-eagle, which they have caught on a sand bank, in order to rescue it from their cruel hands. But now I have to decide whether I will let it starve, or kill every day a number of small fishes, in order to keep it alive. I decide on the latter course, but every day I feel it hard that this life must be sacrificed for the other on my responsibility. * * One existence survives at the expense of another of which it yet knows nothing. But evolution has enabled man to know of the existence of other wills-to-live. So the conflict can have a sort of resolution, reaching down to the smallest life. If I rescue an insect from a pool of water, then life has given itself for life, and the self-contradiction of the will-to-live has been removed. * * * * FROM 'MY LIFE AND THOUGHT' by Albert Schweitzer quoted by William Paton in MAN AND MOUSE: Animals In Medical Research(New Edition),1993, Oxford University Press * *Regarding feeding of animals in zoos. I have researched zoos and animals in captivity. I do not like the idea of incarcerating animals in zoos just like you but much as I abhor the concept, I cannot wish zoos away and till the time we have carnivorous animals in captivity, I feel they should be fed meat in the correct proportion to keep them healthy. I also feel that rescued carnivorous animals should be fed meat and in those cases we do make an arbitrary choice regarding which animal to save and which to kill. There are no cut and dried answers on which individual to save at the cost of whom and this is a wide open debate. Do share your thoughts on this.* * * *6) Jigme: I think you agree with me on what I have written.* * * * * *7) Sean McCormack : You talk about predators and prey and nature being cruel. I concur. However, here I quote my great guru Richard Dawkins who says that, " The universe would manifest no intentions of any kind. In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. As that unhappy poet A E Housman put it:* *For Nature, heartless, witless Nature* *Will neither know nor care.* *DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. " * *(Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, Phoenix Press, page 155.* * * * * *8) Dr Chinny Krishna : You say you have kept several hundred dogs and have fed them a vegetarian diet and they have thrived. Point well taken and appreciated. But have you ever given your dogs the CHOICE between vegetarian and non vegetarian food? Have you ever seen if they would choose the vegetarian diet over the non vegetarian diet? Or have you fed them a vegetarian diet because you did not want to kill other animals and have a clean conscience? I should be interested to know.* * You write, " For all those who have dogs as companions, I can honestly say that you can safely keep them vegetarian. A chicken is a cow is a goat is a child, isn't it? " * * I am not convinced. A dog can live on a vegetarian diet but that is a deprived diet and an abnormal diet. In contradiction to what you are saying, I would suggest to everyone to keep their dogs and cats non vegetarian to have them healthy and happy. And how is a chicken equivalent to a goat and a cow and a child? A chicken is a bird that is omnivorous, a cow is a herbivore and a mammal(although cows in factory farms eat non vegetarian food too), a goat is a herbivore and a mammal but quite different in physical appearance and size compared to a cow and a child is a primate whose digestive system is geared for an omnivorous diet. Or did you mean that a chicken's suffering is equal to the suffering of a goat and a cow and a child? * * Regarding the healthy stature of your dogs, you emphasise, " What Jeanette Thomason or Desmond Morris says is not relevant to this and no matter how many " authorities " Mr. can quote, the facts above will not change. " Why are Jeanette Thomason and Desmond Morris irrelevant in this debate, may I ask? You quote many studies and material in support of vegetarianism, don't you? The most recent one being the General Thimayya lecture. So why should people consider vegetarian proponents like religious leaders and philanthropists and members of PCRM to be relevant as 'authorities' on the issue of diet and ignore those who speak in favour of non vegetarianism?* * I want to write about my dog. He is a three year old Pug. He has been eating non vegetarian food since the day I obtained him. He eats a wide variety of food, including rice, milk, vegetables, fish(of several different species), chicken, goat meat(chevon), prawns, crabs and beef. He is happy, healthy and active. He has had no major medical problems, touchwood. He enjoys meat. Why should I change his diet and experiment on him?* * A lot of the campaigns regarding vegan diets for dogs and cats by animal welfare/rights organizations have more to do with public relations, business policy and marketing than genuine animal welfare. The truth is that many animal welfare/rights organizations are speaking out for vegan food for cats and dogs because many wealthy donors of some communities in India do not like the idea of non vegetarian food being served with their financial support for any purpose. So rather than come clean regarding the drying up of the trail of the begging bowl, these animal welfare/rights organizations present themselves as champions of veganism for dogs and cats. Sad, but quite true. I would love to be proved wrong but I guess not.* * Regarding predator and prey, many members, including you have raised the issue.There is a good book I can recommend on this topic, 'The Raptor and the Lamb'. This book addresses most of the issues regarding predators killing prey and is well worth reading. I don't have it here in NOIDA right now, but if any one of you is interested in reading it, please remind me the next time I am in Kolkata, and I will photocopy it and send it to you.* * Last point, the cardinal issue of suffering and our efforts to minimize it. John Wedderburn says we should minimize suffering. Dr Chinny Krishna says, " May all that has life be free from suffering. " Laudable thoughts both and I share them. But this issue of vegan cats and dogs has made me think if it is a realistic and achievable goal. Can nature be free of suffering? Richard Dawkins has addressed the issue and it is well worth sharing his writing in the context of what we are discussing. " Nature is neither kind nor cruel. She is neither against suffering nor for it. Nature is not interested one way or the other in suffering, unless it affects the survival of DNA. It is easy to imagine a gene that, say, tranquillizes gazelles when they are about to suffer a killing bite. Would such a gene be favoured by natural selection? Not unless the act of tranquillizing the gazelle improved the gene's chances of being propagated into future generations. It is hard to see why this should be so, and we may therefore guess that gazelles suffer horrible pain and fear when they are pursued to the death – as most of them eventually are. The total amount of suffering per year in the natural world is beyond all decent contemplation. During the minute it takes me to compose this sentence, thousands of animals are being eaten alive; others are running for their lives, whimpering with fear; others are being slowly devoured from within by rasping parasites; thousands of all kinds are dying of starvation, thirst and disease. It must be so. If there is ever a time of plenty, this very fact will automatically lead to an increase in population until the natural state of starvation and misery is restored. " * * (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, Chapter, 'God's Utility Function', pages 153 to 154.* * Lessening of suffering? I most certainly agree. Achievable? For the sake of our own species and that of other animals, I hope so, but I'm not holding my breath.* * Many thanks to all of you again for sharing your thoughts, I have been enriched and enlightened by this cross pollination of ideas.* * Best wishes and kind regards,* * * * * Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 >I've been a vegetarian for more than six years and have no side effects >from my meatless diet. So while not all mammals are the same, with some >effort, it's possible to have healthy cats and dogs on a meatless diet. Unless this poster is a dog or a cat, this is specious reasoning. That I have been a vegetarian all my life is irrelevant to the health, well-being, and preferences of the dogs and cats in my care. A reasonable respect for the rights of animals must begin with respecting the nature of animals, as created by the long process of evolution. It is our nature to be capable of being vegetarians, even vegans, and is also part of our nature to be capable of making the choice to be vegetarian or vegan. I have believed vegetarianism or veganism to be the best choice for humans, for a variety of reasons, throughout my life, & have encouraged it to the best of my ability since 50 years ago in grade school, where the cost of being vegetarian included coping with gangs of carnivorous bullies every day in the lunch room. Nonetheless, encouraging human vegetarianism for reasons unique to human needs & nature is a very different matter from attempting to alter the natural diets of animals as an essentially aesthetic preference. Obliging a dog or cat to become vegetarian or vegan could be likened to tail-docking or ear-cropping, in that it is attempting to change the nature of the animal to suit a human preference. Probably it is more like sterilizing the animal, since the intent is kindness, and if properly managed, no harm will come to the dogs -- albeit that they will continue to hunt rats and eat poop full of incompletely digested animal protein at every opportunity. Regardless of the motive, a person who really wants a vegetarian pet should adopt a rabbit, not a dog or cat. wrote: >* You say, " I believe that we have a moral duty to do as little >harm and as much good as we can while on this earth. Therefore we should >consider the suffering that goes into producing our companions' food. " >Agreed, but please don't try and preach the ethics of non violence and >veganism to a dog or a cat, for they will not understand it and care even >less. Let them be as nature intended them to be, >and nature intended them to be as hunters and >killers and eaters of flesh. It is essential here to point out, again, that the " suffering that goes into producing our companions' food " is actually the suffering that goes into producing the meat and eggs consumed by humans. As I have previously pointed out, the pet food industry merely scavenges the leavings -- exactly as dogs do in feral situations. Whether the dog scavenges refuse and hunts rats, or eats offal after it has been tinned or bagged, makes no difference whatever to the life experience and suffering of the animals who are killed for human consumption, whose remnants the dog eventually ingests. Only the rats are killed for the dog, and the dog personally kills the rats. That slaughter is not a human industry. also wrote: >* A lot of the campaigns regarding vegan diets >for dogs and cats by animal welfare/rights >organizations have more to do with public >relations, business policy and marketing than >genuine animal welfare. The truth is that many >animal welfare/rights organizations are speaking >out for vegan food for cats and dogs because >many wealthy donors of some communities in India >do not like the idea of non vegetarian food >being served with their financial support for >any purpose. So rather than come clean regarding >the drying up of the trail of the begging bowl, >these animal welfare/rights organizations >present themselves as champions of veganism for >dogs and cats. Ghosh, as a journalist, probably never produced a more succinct, accurate, and insightful exposé. I have several times visited a major shelter in India which has separate entrances on opposite sides of the property for people wishing to visit the dogs, and people wishing to visit the cattle without tainting themselves by seeing and possibly touching dogs. On my first visit to India, in 1997, I could hardly believe my ears when I listened for an hour to a Jain diamond merchant, walls covered with humanitarian awards attesting to his alleged love of animals, who insisted that the humane movement should not be concerned with dogs and cats because dogs and cats are carnivores. My late Jain friend Rati Shah later explained that he had been frustrated by this attitude all his life. Rati respected all animals for who they are. The problem in cases such as that of the diamond merchant is not that people are trying to be true to the tenets of their faith, but rather that they are taking ritual observance to extremes, while ignoring the teachings behind the observance, and are further ignoring the extensive corpus of teaching in all major faiths against mistaking zeal for commitment. Among the many challenges ahead of the Indian humane movement is educating the zealous to understand that according to the very teachings that most espouse, the way to avoid being reincarnated as a dog or cat (or any other creature) is to be kind to dogs, cats, or whatever other animal one does not wish to become. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 Dear all, This is possibly one of the most riveting discussions I have ever come across on AAPN; I am loving it. So one by one again : 1) Merritt Clifton : Excellent point made about the lions. And the fantastic and fabulous comment, " Doing what is best for real animals in the real world is seldom the same thing as doing what might be ideal in an ideal world. " I applaud and appreciate this. Whether we like it or not, we have carnivorous animals in our care, regardless of how they have come into such a state. The cardinal question is, how do you treat them? It is a very important thought. Nature(call it God if you like) has designed(call it intelligent design if that suits you) some animals to hunt and kill other animals. YES, KILL SPELT AS K I L L, that means one organism puts an end to the life of another organism for a selfish purpose, the selfish purpose being to live itself at the cost of others. Very unfortunate from the point of view of animal rights extremists, but that is how it is. A rough estimate(this is my personal estimate, I may be wrong) would suggest that there are at least 20,000 big cats in captivity in US alone. Add the big cats in other countries and the number is likely to be close to 50,000. So here we are, faced with a situation where we are holding 50,000 carnivorous creatures hostage for no fault of theirs. And they will ONLY live if some other animals are killed. So what do you do? There is a moral dilemma, isn't there? Of course there is. And this is where humans have to(and should) play God. If we want to save these 50,000 carnivores, we must of necessity kill hundreds and thousands of innocent herbivorous animals. Should we do it and let these herbivores perish and the carnivores live? In my view, we should let these captive carnivores live out their lives, no matter how many herbivorous animals are killed. And here I think there is a place for the concept of 'humane' slaughter if we are not willing to let these carnivores do their own hunting in captivity(That is another important issue, separate but not irrelevant). Being a vegetarian myself, I do believe we should phase out the slaughter of other animals for our own taste buds, but we should continue to have slaughterhouses to feed the carnivorous animals in our care. There have been some arguments favouring vegetarian lions and tigers in zoos if their needs can be properly met. I think Jigme has answered this question. If pills and injections could suffice all our nutritional needs, why not exist only on pills or injections? Will we do it for ourselves? I don't reckon we would and I don't suggest we do it for the captive carnivores in our custody. I however have a question for Merritt Clifton. He says, " A vegetarian & even vegan diet is quite appropriate to humans, because we are basically glorified leaf-eating monkeys. " I want to read and know more on this aspect of human evolution. What evidence is there to show that humans are descended from leaf eating monkeys exclusively? Why not omnivorous monkeys and apes? Leaf eating monkeys are generally the Colobus Monkeys of Africa and the Langurs of Asia. But this is the first time I am reading this aspect of human evolution in reference to leaf eating monkeys. From whatever I have read, the evidence is that Homo sapiens is evolved from omnivorous monkeys and ape and ape like creatures. Years ago, when I was in school, Maneka Gandhi used to write for the Telegraph. In one article she wrote that all Great Apes are vegetarian, in an effort to promote vegetarianism emphasising on our closeness to these primates. I refuted her in public by writing a letter to the editor. The letter was published and it highlighted the fact that chimpanzees are killers that eat meat, Gorillas eat meat in captivity and consume termites in the wild and Orang Utans eat bird's eggs and chicks in the wild and eat meat preparations in captivity. Gibbons are omnivores too. In my opinion, which is shared with many biologists, the evolutionary evidence for humans would point towards an omnivorous ancestor rather than a purely vegetarian or carnivorous one. This makes me feel that humans, as primates are essentially omnivores and our digestive system bears testimony to this. But I also feel that it is perfectly possible for us to live on a vegetable based diet, because we can substitute meat with other sources of vegetable protein and it is easier to convert an omnivore to a vegetarian diet than an obligate carnivore. Besides, humans have evolved morally to a greater extent than any other creature in the history of the planet. So yes I do believe that it is possible on both scientific and moral grounds for humans to be vegetarians, but these same factors do not transpose well for other species, especially carnivores, because their digestive systems are built differently and they do not have the same sense of morality as we do. 2) There is a post on vegetarian Pedigree food. I know about it and have seen it in the market, 'Rice and Vegetables' I think it is. I consciously avoid it and have never bought it. I propose all genuine dog lovers ignore it as well for the health, safety and well being of their pets. 3)Now Dr Chinny Krishna's question and points. " And I ask : " Did you give your pug the CHOICE to be your companion? " Excellent question and I thank him profusely for asking me. I have to be honest in my reply. No, I did not give him the choice to be my companion, ie., he did not have a choice to be my companion or the companion of some other human or even if he wanted human company at all. I wanted a dog as a companion, there was this puppy available and was offered to me by an acquaintance, I like the breed and opted for him. And yes, I do admit that I am probably guilty of keeping a pedigree dog for all the concomitant issues that are associated with their breeding and trade and incarceration. But I do try to give him the best life possible. He is never chained in the house and only wears a belt when he is out on walks, only for his own safety because stray dogs go after him. To provide him with greater flexibility of movement, I take him to our farmhouse on the outskirts of the city. There he has unhindered access to three acres of greenery and chases birds and butterflies and plays with me. He smells flowers and the soil and gets dirty and wallows in muck, all in the scheme of things of a happy existence. And as I wrote earlier, he has been a confirmed carnivore since I took him under my care. I see him run and I admire his rippling muscles, all well developed and functioning, principally I guess because he eats meat. I look at his coat, clean and glistening, again because he has a balanced diet that consists of meat. I observe his teeth when he is panting and I admire his canines, well suited and designed to tear and eat flesh. I am amazed by his stamina when he runs, he tires me, the qualities of a good hunter, a trait he shares with his brethren, the African Cape Hunting Dogs who tirelessly chase their prey before pulling them down and killing them. Or closer home, with the Dholes of India, who round up a deer and tear chunks of flesh whilst it is still alive. THERE IS NOT A SHRED OF DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT HE IS A MEMBER OF A HUNTING AND A KILLING CLAN AND HE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO FOLLOW HIS NATURAL TENDENCIES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. But I am not trivialising the importance of Dr Chinny Krishna's question, since similar queries have been raised by others who have questioned the ethics of keeping pet animals at all. Maybe we should start a separate thread on this and I would be keen on participating in it. I am interested to know some more things about dog and cat diets. Do dogs and cats prefer one kind of meat more than others? What is the principal trend in the US regarding this issue, ie., vegan cats and dogs? Are animal welfare/rights organisations also campaigning for vegan cats and dogs in the US and to what extent are they succeeding? How efficient are the different breeds of dogs and cats in hunting their own prey, ie., would a Poodle be as good a hunter as a BloodHound? Would a Persian cat be as keen a stalker as an alley cat? Dr Chinny Krishna says he quoted no authority regarding the General Thimayya lecture on vegetarianism. He simply said it was the most inspiring talk he had ever heard. Fair enough, I also think it is one of the most inspiring lectures I have ever come across which is why I have distributed it and asked him for a video recording. But what I wanted to say was different. Dr Krishna said that the quoting of proponents of non vegetarianism like Jeanette Thomason and Desmond Morris is not relevant to the vegan cat and dog issue and he used inverted commas whilst describing them as authorities, ie., he implied he was not convinced of their authoritative status to speak out on this issue. Very well, he is entitled to his opinion, no issues. But in a previous message, Dr Krishna said that after the General Thimayya lecture, he expected people to give up meat and was disappointed that many boys did not change their dietary habits as compared to girls. Now my take is this: Let us say a religious leader or a philanthropist is speaking for vegetarianism, all right? We, as animal rights/welfare advocates expect people to pay attention and regard them as reliable examples and beacons to follow. What then, prevents us from giving the same attention to proponents of non vegetarianism? One might answer because they are on the other side of the fence. But are they really? And are they unethical too simply because they are advocating meat eating? Here I differ in perspective with both John Wedderburn and Dr Chinny Krishna. I don't know much about the credentials of Jeanette Thomasson but I do know about the works of Desmond Morris. He has worked with animals all his life. He has written pioneering books on animals and humans. He has addressed ethical issues concerning animals and has formulated a bill of rights for animals. But where he differs with many animal rights/welfare activists is on the issue of eating meat, for both humans and other animals. Does this mean, animal welfare/rights activists should disregard him and ignore him? I don't think so. Disagree with him, by all means, but do listen to him, that man knows about animals and cares for them. I come to Merritt Clifton's point regarding the preferential treatment of some animals over others due to the religious predilections of some communities in India. I am glad he agrees with my view that the championing of vegan diets for cats and dogs in India has more to do with business policy, public relations and marketing than genuine animal welfare/rights. I have personally come across two organisations that have undertaken such campaigns at the behest of these specific donors. I want to add one more example, that of the Jain bird hospital in Delhi. For a long time they did not treat carnivorous birds like eagles and kites. I have now been informed that they do but have a separate facility for them, maybe similar to what Merritt Clifton has written about vegetarian and non vegetarian animals in Indian shelters. This debate, on a lighter vein, reminds me of a scene in that lovely film, Stuart Little. Stuart, the mouse goes out with his Persian cat friend for a walk outside in an alley having stray cats. One of the stray cats notices a house cat being friendly with a mouse and rolls over with laughter. " Ha ha ha ha, a mouse with a pet cat! " they all exclaim, guffawing and chuckling. I think in a real life situation, the alley cats would similarly burst into laughter if they got to know of a vegetarian or a vegan cat. " Ha ha ha ha, a cat that does not eat mice and meat! " they are likely to scoff. No offence intended to any vegan cat proponent, just my point of view. I conclude by restating and emphasising my principal premise; do cut down or give up meat or even animal products as human individuals, it is a noble and worthwhile endeavour. I am trying to be a vegan myself, with varying degrees of success. But if you have a dog or a cat or an eagle or a lion or a tiger dependent on your care and keeping, by all means give him meat. Thanks again to everyone who has responded. I really appreciated all the letters on this topic. Best wishes and kind regards, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 29, 2008 Report Share Posted December 29, 2008 Responding to a few points & questions raised by : >A rough estimate(this is my personal estimate, I may be wrong) would >suggest that there are at least 20,000 big cats in captivity in US >alone. One could easily get that impression, from the numbers in zoos and sanctuaries and the numbers who keep turning up in advertisements, roadside zoos & traveling shows, etc. However, the most credible estimate of the numbers that I have seen was produced about five years ago by the late Linda Howard, who found that many of the big cats mentioned in ads or seen in roadside zoos & traveling shows are actually the same animals, who move from person to person sometimes thrice in a year. After Linda accounted for all the multiple reports pertaining to the same animals in different situations, she concluded that the actual population of lions, tigers, & other big cats in the U.S. is actually only 2,000 to 3,000. >If we want to save these 50,000 carnivores, we must of necessity >kill hundreds and thousands of innocent herbivorous animals. Should >we do it and let these herbivores perish and the carnivores live? In >my view, we should let these captive carnivores live out their >lives, no matter how many herbivorous animals are killed. And here I >think there is a place for the concept of 'humane' slaughter if we >are not willing to let these carnivores do their own hunting in >captivity This is all a theoretical & hypothetical argument, since the primary menu of big cats & other carnivores in captivity is a combination of roadkills and slaughterhouse waste. Some zoos used to slaughter surplus herbivores to feed their carnivores, and used to deliberately breed surplus herbivores in order to do it, but this practice has largely been abandoned for two reasons: the public doesn't like it, and most zoos don't have enough space to breed many surplus herbivores anyway. > I however have a question for Merritt Clifton. He says, " A >vegetarian & even vegan diet is quite appropriate to humans, because >we are basically glorified leaf-eating monkeys. " I want to read and >know more on this aspect of human evolution. What evidence is there >to show that humans are descended from leaf eating monkeys >exclusively? Why not omnivorous monkeys and apes? This is taking what I said somewhat too literally, since obviously the paleontological evidence is that our earliest human-like ancestors were forager/scavengers, who ate some meat when they could get it, apparently mostly seafood found along the shores of the inland sea that once filled much of Kenya and Ethiopia. However, one need only look in a mirror to see that we have the dentition of an herbivorous monkey, rather than the prominent incisors of a primate whose diet prominently includes meat. We barely have visible incisors at all, which leads to either of two suppositions: Either we & the other apes shared a common ancestor who was primarily a leaf-eater, or for some reason we lost our once-prominent incisors during our long differentiation from other apes. If the latter occurred, it must have been because prominent incisors did not confer any advantage to our species, meaning that we were not eating much meat that needed to be torn from the bone. In addition, we may have carried as recessive genes the ability to develop the dentition of a leaf-eater, retained from a distance ancestor. -- Merritt Clifton Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE P.O. Box 960 Clinton, WA 98236 Telephone: 360-579-2505 Fax: 360-579-2575 E-mail: anmlpepl Web: www.animalpeoplenews.org [ANIMAL PEOPLE is the leading independent newspaper providing original investigative coverage of animal protection worldwide, founded in 1992. Our readership of 30,000-plus includes the decision-makers at more than 10,000 animal protection organizations. We have no alignment or affiliation with any other entity. $24/year; for free sample, send address.] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 9, 2009 Report Share Posted January 9, 2009 sorry - few things I forgot to mention: 1. feeding ox shin bones *can* result in slab fractures of the carnassial tooth (the biggest molar on upper jaw) - I see them rarely, but would be negligent not to mention they are a risk. Tooth brushing daily is by far the best method of keeping a dog's (or cat's) teeth clean. 2. the only reason manufactured pet foods are so popular is because of marketing and convenience - and remember that the people they market at hardest, is us vets - starting from our early days of study. We are left with no room but to believe what they tell us, as they sponsor so much of our continuing education. They are, simply, another huge industry, and with the recent scandals of melamine etc, people would be wise to doubt that factory produced foods will be the highest quality available. 3. I looked at the vegancats.com website - they said they added 'manufactured' taurine ... presume this means industrially produced? I have no experience/knowledge to know if this is bad or good, but have a romantic preference for naturally-occuring foods. 4. I analyzed the vegan recipe provided by the Chinese nun (not too sure why her being a Chinese nun adds credibility, but anyway ...) - I found it to be too high in fat and too low in protein as well as: - deficient in Calcium and excessive in Phosphorus which results in a weakening of the bones - lacking Vitamins C, D and B12 (though high in the other B vits) - there are also some issues with the Lysine levels, or Lysine to tryptophan ratio - I couldn't quite figure it out with my analysis tool (www.nutritiondata.com) I would not recommend feeding this diet unless Vitamin supplements are given and the Calcium/Phosphorus ratio corrected - this aspect is dangerous for long term use time to close my physiology books! - shevaun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.