I just fell in love in p@h Coventry

[Lady Logamorph]

Just read this whole thread and it has gone off a bit from the OP buy anyhow...

Animals eat other animals...thats a fact and how the world works....the circle of life. Animals don't have the intelligence to make choices like we do they work on instinct and kill animals for food they cannot be penalised for this its LIFE its how the world works in harmony. You take an animal out the food chain and other animals suffer.

With regards to Pets at Home I do browse in there and look at the animals but never buy from there and no matter how much I fall in love with an animal there would never buy one. I have years ago when I was none the wiser and I have also bought from a breeder before but never again. I hope in the future it will be illegal to sell pets from pet shops altogether and I think it will one day. Of course these animals deserve a good home but if you buy from there there will be more to fill the stock...its never ending and by ending one rabbits suffering you are contributing to another rabbtis suffering, the one that takes its place.

 

[Lady Logamorph]

I've been dying to ask this for ages, and whilst the original thread was not at all related to this, it is coming round to it.

I'm wondering, with regards to killing many animals for one animal, does that also include things like worming and defleaing and demiting? To me, some of the things that are said about being vegan and suchlike, it sounds like people wouldn't kill worms, mites or fleas if their animal had them, because they are as worthy as any other living thing? Is that the case?

Parasites are horrible the only types of creatures that I kill! Also those greenbottles as they are the ones that cause flystrike!

 

[Geoff's people]

The food chain is there for a reason. If you remove one link the whole system fails.
Carnivores need herbivores to eat to survive,
Herbivores need vegetation to eat to survive,
Vegetation needs fertiliser (herbivore dung) to survive AND needs the herbivore population to be kept under control to survive. Cue the carnivore, who needs the herbivore to eat to survive.
Rinse and repeat.

If you eat ANY bought food, you are reliant on the meat trade. All of your veggies are grown using some kind of fertiliser. Fertiliser is made from the manure of herbivores bred for the meat trade, OR it is made using artificial chemicals which are tested on animals.

The idea is a noble one, but the reality is impossible.
Unless you live self sufficiently and fertilise your land with your own composts and waste produce you cannot avoid the issue:?

 

[Cloud]

I grow food for me and the buns. If I had the time, I would get an allotment- the Council has plenty going spare. Home grown food tastes much nicer and isn't sprayed with nasties.
With regards to de-miting and stuff- it's about where an individual choses to draw the line. For me, I would say mites don't have consciousness but the animal they live on does.
As for the food chain- yes, but where does keeping pets that eat dead animals come into the food chain? It's just not necessary. When lions hunt, they go for the weakest animal but humans use intensive farms.

Back to the OP- I saw Watchdog. This P @ H charity- do people take the pets they bought from P @ H back to the store if they no longer want them? If they are allowed to do that, then P @ H aren't contributing to filling up rabbit rescues. I wish there had been something on the program about the alternative of going to a rescue rather than P @ H where they won't have been health checked. Otherwise people might just choose a different pet shop to get them from.

 

[Mirth]

Only on Ru does talking about a rabbit in a petshop turns into a debate about the food chain :lol:

Back to the OP- I saw Watchdog. This P @ H charity- do people take the pets they bought from P @ H back to the store if they no longer want them? If they are allowed to do that, then P @ H aren't contributing to filling up rabbit rescues. I wish there had been something on the program about the alternative of going to a rescue rather than P @ H where they won't have been health checked. Otherwise people might just choose a different pet shop to get them from.

I'm sure it says in the form they sign that if they don't want it anymore they have to give it back to P@H, or maybe something along those lines.

Oh wait I thought you meant when people adopt from them. There's no requirement to take them back if the person bought them, but p@h will take them on adoption.

 

[yamazumi]

As for the food chain- yes, but where does keeping pets that eat dead animals come into the food chain? It's just not necessary. When lions hunt, they go for the weakest animal but humans use intensive farms.

It might not be necessary to keep pets, but all those dogs, cat, ferrets and other meat eaters in rescues are already alive, they need food, they have a conscience. How can you justify letting them starve or destroying them because of something they cannot help? Would it be better for them to be feral, because then they may hunt for themselves and kill weaker rodents and such?

Having a dog, a cat, or any other meat eater doesn't mean you need to support intensive farming, you could purchase meat from a small holding, you could even learn to hunt!

And wildlife rescues, many of those animals are there due to human interference, the thousands of chicks the foxes and badgers (in one rescue alone) require every week are excess, it sounds awful but they have no purpose, they would be dead whether the foxes and badgers ate them or not.

There are far too many people in this world, would you justify letting them starve so that we could reduce the numbers, and therefore reduce the amount of farmland needed to support the human race? Less farmland equals more natural habitats. The more humans there are the more habitats will need to be destroyed to support them.

 

[Cloud]

I do support limiting the number of children people can have.

 

[yamazumi]

I'm sure it says in the form they sign that if they don't want it anymore they have to give it back to P@H, or maybe something along those lines.

Does it? I remember speaking to them once and they said they wouldn't take an animal back from the adoption centre.

 

[yamazumi]

I do support limiting the number of children people can have.

That's great, me too, I think what china did was a good idea, even if they went the wrong way about it.

But basically, you don't think a meat eating pet should be allowed to live, because there life isn't worth the sacrifice of the hundred of animals they'll need in their life time, surely the same goes for humans? Many people cannot chose their diet, they are too poor to be that picky, this is exactly the same for the many meat eating animals pets.

 

[Mirth]

Does it? I remember speaking to them once and they said they wouldn't take an animal back from the adoption centre.

I think they won't take it if the person suddenly changes their mind and wants a refund, but as far as I know, if a customer wants to rehome their animal it doesn't matter if they were sold it, adopted it from p@H or got it from somewhere else, if they have space they'll take it.

I personally don't agree with putting old stock onto adoption, but most would rather put out the 10 babies that will sell then keep them out back for weeks because of the 1 hormonal one that won't mix or sell