Breeding: Conflicting Beleifs

[AnimalHouse36]

I have recently stumbled upon a thought.

I beleive all breeding should be stopped as do many others on this site. I beleive that animals should be bred no longer so they eventually become extinct.

But I have seen the same members who beleive this turn around and say they are okay with responsible breeding...I used to think this too until I thought about how it was an oxymoron.


Responsible breeder= fancy name for a breeder.
Breeder=more cavies
More cavies=overpopulation problem is increased.
Which is exactly what we're trying to stop.

[blackarrow]

There's a lot of turf between "overpopulation" and "extinction," and that's the middle ground I'd like to achieve.

[organicsab]

I think breeding is okay to help the animal from becoming extinct, but if its to make money thats stupid, there's so many wonderful animals in pounds that need a loving home.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by AnimalHouse36

I beleive all breeding should be stopped as do many others on this site. I beleive that animals should be bred no longer so they eventually become extinct.

That is genocide. Animals have life, you really want to take it away from them?

[Paula]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

That is genocide. Animals have life, you really want to take it away from them?

There's a distinct difference between NOT continuing to breed and a systematic killing off of something.

AH36 didn't say she thought animals should be killed, simply that she felt they shouldn't continue to be created. There is a vast and clear difference.

As blackarrow so aptly pointed out, there IS tremendous middle ground between the insane overpopulation problem that exists right now among companion animals and utter extinction. What's wrong with aiming for that middle ground?

[organicsab]

I think people just dont agree with breeding pets like guinea pigs cuz most of them end up being neglected and then given to a shelter or whatever, and then there end up being too many, so by teaching people to not breed gp's but to adopt instead we're avoiding an overpopulation of unwanted gp's, but if one day everyone stopped breeding, eventually they wouldn't exsist anymore.

[sophistacavy]

I'm going to say it like PETA says or would say it: Animals are not ours to breed. Exception: If the species is about to fall off the face of the planet.
Go PETA!

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

Animals are not ours to breed. Exception: If the species is about to fall off the face of the planet.

Why the exception, if that's your rule?

[organicsab]

Thats so true sophistacavy! They can breed for themselves. A lot of the time tho we are the one's causing them not to breed and become extinct. We should just leave wild animals alone.

[sophistacavy]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Why the exception, if that's your rule?

It's sort of more like a corollary than an exception. Same difference.

I meant that animals become extinct becuase of us. Humans. We cause global warming, and then we cause (however inadvertently) species to become extinct. When that happens, we owe it to the animals to help them continue on, and never become extinct.

Example: Polar bears become on the brink of extinction. All the blame is on humans. We owe it to the defenseless polar bear to help recover their population.

[Amsley246]

I see it as animals did fine on their own before humans came into th world and started dominating the animal kingdom. We've become so selfish with our own wants and needs that we don't stop to think of the harm we're doing. Our wants have over powered our needs to the point where too much damage is being done in the animal kingdom and the planet.

[organicsab]

You know before the flood of Noah no one ate meat. God allowed them to eat meat after the flood as there was nothing else. I doubt animals became extinct back then as people lived simple lives, now we want everything, the more we have the more our life has meaning. But because everything is materialistic the satisfaction doesn't last long and we want more and more. Which in the end is destroying the earth causing animals to become extinct and plants to be poisoned, in the end, we'll end up bringing ourselves into extintion

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by paula.m.moore

There's a distinct difference between NOT continuing to breed and a systematic killing off of something.

There is no difference.

Originally Posted by paula.m.moore

AH36 didn't say she thought animals should be killed, simply that she felt they shouldn't continue to be created. There is a vast and clear difference.

Letting animals die out from extinction IS killing them. It's exactly the same as premeditated murder.

Originally Posted by paula.m.moore

What's wrong with aiming for that middle ground?

Nothing, middle ground should be the goal, not extinction.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

I meant that animals become extinct becuase of us. Humans. We cause global warming, and then we cause (however inadvertently) species to become extinct. When that happens, we owe it to the animals to help them continue on, and never become extinct.

I gather guinea pigs do not exist in the wild and thus would become extinct without humans breeding them, is that correct? If so, it sounds like your goal also is to end overpopulation, not to end breeding per se, but that's in tension with your saying they aren't ours to breed and I don't know how to resolve that.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Letting animals die out from extinction IS killing them. It's exactly the same as premeditated murder.

Following that logic, everyone who doesn't deliberately breed, oh, insert your favorite endangered animal here, is a murderer of that species of animal. I hope that's not really what you mean.

[VoodooJoint]

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

Example: Polar bears become on the brink of extinction. All the blame is on humans. We owe it to the defenseless polar bear to help recover their population.

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

Letting animals die out from extinction IS killing them. It's exactly the same as premeditated murder.

But what good is it to populate an animal without restoring and protecting it's natural habitat? Like many others I do not want to see Polar Bears become extinct however, we must also protect their natural environment. I think I would rather see the species die off then confine the last ones to zoos, private collections and circuses. I would NOT support the continuation of the species if that was the only life they (as a species) would be allowed to live. It would be selfish and cruel.

If the only way to stop animal abuse and neglect was to allow all domesticated species of animals to die off then I would support it. I would be sad and I would miss having animal companions in my life after the last of my pets died off BUT I would be happy that no more animals would be cruelly or apathetically harmed by humans. I cannot tolerate suffering. This last scenario, of course, will never happen and I cannot understand why people get so bent out of shape over the idea that pets would EVER become extinct (while humans dominate the earth). It will not happen. The best we can likely hope for is MUCH stricter spay/neuter and breeding laws that will help get the population under control and that is what we are fighting for.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Following that logic, everyone who doesn't deliberately breed, oh, insert your favorite endangered animal here, is a murderer of that species of animal. I hope that's not really what you mean.

No, that is taking a snippet of what I said out of context from my entire post.

I was making a point that if you could somehow manage to stop breeding on purpose it is the same as genocide. Because we would be intentionally stopping them from surviving.

When nature does this on its own it is a different matter.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by VoodooJoint

If the only way to stop animal abuse and neglect was to allow all domesticated species of animals to die off then I would support it. I would be sad and I would miss having animal companions in my life after the last of my pets died off BUT I would be happy that no more animals would be cruelly or apathetically harmed by humans. I cannot tolerate suffering.

And what does that say about us if that is the only way to stop it. It would mean we have truely given up on the hopes of bettering ourselves and decided to take the easy way out. The animals are for the most part defenseless against us abusing and neglecting them, so the answer would be to take the innocent lives? That is the same thing as saying we should kill off abused and neglected children so they can't be abused or neglected.

We did not start life on this planet, who are we to decide to take it away.

[blackarrow]

Originally Posted by tehdoc809

That is the same thing as saying we should kill off abused and neglected children so they can't be abused or neglected.

Um, no. It's parallel to saying if you can't take care of children, you shouldn't have them. No one is suggesting killing anything.

[tehdoc809]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Um, no. It's parallel to saying if you can't take care of children, you shouldn't have them. No one is suggesting killing anything.

Many people on this thread have stated that it would be good to stop breeding and/or something else to let animals and/or pets die off. THIS IS KILLING WHEN DONE THIS WAY.
Also when you talk about doing it to an entire species its GENOCIDE and IT IS WRONG!! And should not be an acceptable answer to the problem of animal overpopulation or animal abuse.

Also, not all children are abused by their parents and not all pets are abused by their owners. The vast majority of animals that are abused are strays. A good percentage of children that are abused comes from someone close to the parents they thought they could trust.