I will never be a vegetarian in my entire life, but I'm just curious about the pets..

[Paula]

Pssh, as for the original post that started this debate - no, I'm not a vegetarian either, but after reading and re-reading it, only real reason I can think of for a person to post such a thing, in such a way, would be to offend a vegetarian, particularly a vegetarian that keeps animals that are not, eh, vegetarians.

[RainKindle]

Since I first saw this post, I've been giving her the benefit of the doubt.
I agree that what she said came across as offensive, but not everyone is eloquent with words.
It is possible that she is simply passionate about ferrets and was under the impression that veg*ns feed their animals non-meat based food.

Originally Posted by sophistacavy

Thats all! Please don't take offense, as I certainly do not mean any, and I fully respect your opinions, and keep up the good work!

However, when I see the above quote, it just makes me think that she knew it might evoke this type of response before she posted it.
Kind of like a disclaimer to what she had just said.

Anyways, I was hoping that maybe she has realized that the way in which she approached the subject was not the best, and that maybe she will be more careful in her future posts.
As far as us, maybe it would be best to stop responding to this thread and let the negative emotions surrounding it fade...

[CritterCraze]

My good friend is vegan and her dog is on the raw meat diet. It's supposed to be the healthiest for carnivorous animals or at least dogs in this case. Carnivorous animals need meat obviously so any argument against feeding meat to them is just silly. I've heard of people who put there dogs/carnivorous pets on vegan or vegetarian diets. And they might be living and surviving but are they thriving. Answer is no because they would be lacking vital nutrients and proteins and such that they can't get from fruits and vegetables. Maybe they do get some but definitely not as much as they need.

That being said I'm not a vegetarian I used to be for 4 years. Long story short after I moved away from home when I was 19 vegetarian food was a lot more expensive back then. Without parents buying me the healthy alternatives I went omnivore again. Me and my partner though don't really eat that much meat. We always have a big box of gardenburgers in the freezer. I have no idea when the last time we had regular hamburgers as it's been a very very long time. Also 3-4 days a week we have a big salad for dinner and that is it. We're very very minimal on red meat. It's rare we do have it usually it would just be for special occasions such as a holiday roast. I'm more opposed to how animals are kept and mass slaughterd in today's industrial world. I think all animals should be free range and have plenty of room and quality of life while living. I know that is idealistic, but I'm not opposed to hunting at least the animal has a fighting chance at escaping. At anyrate the point is nature is a perfect design everything balances out the other. If we didn't have wolves and tigers in the world there'd just be a huge overpopulation in other animals. They're is a reason for everything. That is my opinion /end rant *takes a bow*

[Res Judicata]

Differences between humans and predators -- a) Animals like tigers do not raise their prey in feedlots, or factory farms where animals in less than ideal conditions; b) Predators prefer to kill their prey quickly (although they don't always succeed) while meat packers are more concerned with the bottom line and how many animals they can slaughter and box up as meat, not how humanely the animal dies. Mistakes happen and they happen way too often. c) Predators do not have the ability to subsist on vegetables and fruits, we do. d) A water buffalo does have a fighting chance against a lion's claws and teeth, but the deer does not have much of a chance against a bullet.

But I must say that free range is a step in the right direction. Others may disagree with me, but it shows that there are those out there concerned about animal welfare. People who eat free range, grass fed animals are those who have the potential to be vegetarians. They have started to have feelings for animals and believe they need to be treated right. Breathe on these embers and maybe they will see that it's not just a good life these animals need, but a good, full life where they don't end up on a plate.

[caviecrazie]

crazywiggy::

Uh, you do realise we have the body of a herbivore? NOT a omnivore at all...

Natural Predators: (a.k.a Meat eaters)
1)Have Claws.
2.Have No Skin pores.
3.have no molars, and have sharp front teeth
4.have intestines only 3x their body lenghth so meats (rapidly decaying) can pass through quickly.
5. Have strong stomach acid to digest the meat.
6. saliva glands not needed to pre-digest fruit and grains.

Herbivores:
1. Have no claws.
2. have skin pores.
3. have molars, and no sharp front teeth.
4. have intestines 10-12 times their body length.
5. have stomach acid 20 times weaker than meat eaters.
6. well-developed saliva glands needed to pre-digest fruit and grains

Humans:
1. Have no claws.
2. have skin pores.
3. have molars, and no sharp front teeth.
4. have intestines 10-12 times their body length.
5. have stomach acid 20 times weaker than meat eaters.
6. well-developed saliva glands needed to pre-digest fruit and grains

[RainKindle]

Originally Posted by caviecrazie

Uh, you do realise we have the body of a herbivore? NOT a omnivore at all...

Hey, so what is the body of an omnivore?
You listed herbivore and meat eaters only...the thing is is that omnivores often have the same characteristics listed for herbivores.
Check this site out.
http://www-rcf.usc.edu/~stanford/chimphunt.html

I found this quote from it.
"Since neither humans or chimpanzees are truly carnivorous - most traditional human societies eat a diet made up mostly of plant foods - we are considered omnivores"

It makes me think that early humans were mainly veg/fruit eaters, but they did indeed eat meat.
We have a choice not to in today's society. A choice that I encourage, but humans are indeed omnivores in my opinion. I just choose not to eat meat for several reasons.

[katiewilson]

Originally Posted by RainKindle

Hey, so what is the body of an omnivore?
You listed herbivore and meat eaters only...the thing is is that omnivores often have the same characteristics listed for herbivores.

I was looking for that very page and had trouble finding it...thank you so much for providing it! In doing so, you have also made the glorious point that I was aiming to make myself.

The point has been made earlier in this thread, but I think so long as humans are able to consciencely make decisions for themselves, it will simply have to be left up for the individual to decide on their personal diet. I'm not so convinced that I feel the same for those who are not left to decide for themselves as nature would've intended, such as pets.

[Res Judicata]

And then there's animals who don't fit the mold. The giant panda has the teeth and digestive system of a carnivore, which is why they have to eat large amounts of bamboo to get the nutrition they need. Their gut isn't long enough to properly digest plants. And they still will eat meat on occasion. It's amazing how animals adapt to their environment, even to the point of switching diets so the species will survive.

[CritterCraze]

Originally Posted by Res Judicata

And then there's animals who don't fit the mold. The giant panda has the teeth and digestive system of a carnivore, which is why they have to eat large amounts of bamboo to get the nutrition they need. Their gut isn't long enough to properly digest plants. And they still will eat meat on occasion. It's amazing how animals adapt to their environment, even to the point of switching diets so the species will survive.

Wow that's very interesting. That is quite a drastic change from meat to not just vegetation but tons and tons of bamboo And such a large animal too, you'd think it would need a lot more then just bamboo!

[yo FOO xD]

I adopted one of my dogs from a rescue about 8 years ago. Before coming to the rescue, his previous owner had given him a strictly vegan diet. I was absolutely amazed when the rescue told me this and they said he would have to continue being a vegan for his whole life because he had never had anything else. What's even more amazing is that after keeping him on this vegan diet for so long he is currently 18 years old and still very active! Maybe it's in vegan diet because he's a large dog and large dogs live about 10-12 years. My other dogs eat an organic food that includes manipulated, minor quantities of animal products.

[Myspoiltpiggies]

Sorry to laugh but I find it funny what you think an egg is It is basically a hen's period. Is there a live baby in a human's period? No. When female humans have periods, we release an egg honey, and that is what we eat from a hen. It isn't a baby, it never was. Sorry to laugh at your naivity but I think you sorta deserved it. I am not a vegetarian but I respect people who are. Just because people are vegetarians does not mean they don't still feed their animals what they need to eat. I know if I was to become a vegetarian I would still feed my Chameleon his crickets. Humans don't need meat to survive but some species of pet do.

[Tserisa]

I'm a vegan, and my carnivorous pets are on high-meat carnivore diets.

I think that being an advocate for animal rights and an advocate of the best possible care for animals means giving our pets the most healthy and complete diets possible, along with other exceptional care. There's been a great deal of discussion about this on the board already, and I have no idea why the OP chose to phrase it this way or bring it up. It seems to me to be extremely passive-aggressive, and makes the assumption that any and all vegetarians are feeding their carnivorous pets plant-based diets.

I believe if a person does not feel morally comfortable feeding a carnivorous pet an appropriate meat-based diet, there are plenty of obligate herbivore pets like guinea pigs, rabbits, iguanas and sheep out there needing homes.

Carnivorous animals deserve to be given a species-appropriate diet, just like people on here wouldn't dream of suggesting we feed guinea pigs dairy and processed grains or meat.

However, people are rather misinformed about eggs. They are not like a chicken's natural period at all, though they are not meat or fertilized without a rooster around. I'm not sure this is the thread to go into it, but birds do not naturally lay egg after egg, having cycles like humans. Laying a bunch of unfertilized eggs is something humans have <B>made</b> chickens do, and it is quite bad for the bird. Irrelevant to Western vegetarianism (more on Eastern later), but I do think people should be informed, and the "chicken period" thing is biologically inaccurate.

However, it is certainly NOT an animal. It is no more an animal than a human egg is. Humans do shed eggs every month, but even the most adamant pro-lifer would not claim that an egg is a life, or a human, or that letting that egg get disposed of is a crime or murder. No one says "That egg could grow into a beautiful human, how dare you flush it down the toilet!" The suggestion is frankly ridiculous.

You can get fertilized eggs to eat. Some people prefer the taste. That would be a different matter. However, they are not common and certainly wouldn't be used in pet food.

(In Eastern culture, vegetarian is closely associated with religions like Buddhism and Hinduism, and it typically means "lacto-vegetarian" -- dairy but no eggs. This is because the egg is considered to have the *potential* of life, rather than the nourishing of life, such as dairy. Now, if the original poster had posted respectfully and from a spiritual point of view such as this it would be a different matter, but as the OP does not have views that limit life-taking on such a basis anyway, the comment is rather hypocritical and hostile.)

[blackarrow]

Could you explain what you mean by "Laying a bunch of unfertilized eggs is something humans have made chickens do"?

[Myspoiltpiggies]

Yes, I am curious to know what you mean by that too, especially since I have two chickens.

[Paula]

Originally Posted by blackarrow

Could you explain what you mean by "Laying a bunch of unfertilized eggs is something humans have made chickens do"?

Under natural conditions, a female chicken will lay her eggs and then sit on them to keep them warm so they can hatch into little chickens, I think it's called "going broody" or something like that. But many chickens used for egg production have had that instinct kind of bred out of them, to cause them to keep laying eggs instead of following the natural instinct to incubate and keep them warm so they can hatch.

[Tserisa]

The animal that chickens are domesticated from did not lay a bunch of fertilized eggs. If they did not mate, they did not lay eggs.

Very few wild birds will lay an unfertilized egg. It is a terrible strain on their physical resources, attractant to predators, and can even be deadly (constantly forming eggs causes calcium deficiencies and conditions like egg-binding). So, for evolutionary and biological reasons, birds do not just lay eggs willy-nilly.

Sometimes captive wild birds will do so in strange situations (i.e. if they are stimulated to do so by a combination of diet, lighting, housing, etc.) but with wild type birds (large parrots, etc.) it is uncommon. However, in domesticated bird species -- such as fowl, cockatiels and the like -- humans have complicated matters for them so that some will start laying eggs more easily when stimulated.

Chickens, however, have been purposefully bred to lay eggs constantly. They started keeping chickens, and breeding the ones that were more likely to lay eggs when stimulated, etc. etc. until eventually the chickens were laying eggs constantly.

It is not a natural process, it is manufactured.

[blackarrow]

Not sure what you're meaning by "stimulated" in this context. We had chickens when I grew up and it sure seems to me that they were "stimulated" to lay eggs by the sheer fact of them hitting maturity.

All of this makes me wonder when we're going to get to the question of which came first, the manufactured chicken or the manufactured egg? ;-)

[Tserisa]

Chickens do not need to be stimulated anymore to lay.

If you'll read my post it's clear that they've gone beyond that to lay constantly. "They started keeping chickens, and breeding the ones that were more likely to lay eggs when stimulated, etc. etc. until eventually the chickens were laying eggs constantly."

That is how it was selectively bred. They chose animals to breed that could be easily induced (stimulated) to lay, and then bred the ones that laid more, and then the ones that laid more.

My point is, it is a trait that has been bred into them, not a natural trait. It is not equivalent to a human period.

I have kept many many chickens, and yes, they laid plenty of eggs with no help from me! And all over the yard, since broodiness has been bred out of many breeds (and bred into others, like silkies).

It is true however, that in order to increase production in commercial laying hens all those stimulation factors I mentioned are used. It is a process called "induced molting". They change the lighting, fast the flock, and give them more calcium. This stimulates the chickens' reproductive tract to increase the egg-laying lifespan of the chickens.

[blackarrow]

I wonder why the farmers keep up artificially stimulating the hens to lay when there's no need to keep stimulating the hens to lay because it's now an inherited trait?

[Tserisa]

Greed. They stop laying as much after a certain age and at certain times of the year. They starve them in order to get them to keep laying past their prime.