Vegetarian diets produce fewer greenhouse gases and increase longevity, say new studies

by Guest Thu Jun 26, 2014 4:02 pm

First topic message reminder :

Consuming a plant-based diet results in a more sustainable environment and reduces greenhouse gas emissions, while improving longevity, according to new research from Loma Linda University Health.

A study and an article, produced by researchers at Loma Linda University School of Public Health, will be published in full in the July issue of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, and were first presented at the 6th International Congress on Vegetarian Nutrition in 2013.
Based on findings that identified food systems as a significant contributor to global warming, the study focuses on the dietary patterns of vegetarians, semi-vegetarians and non-vegetarians to quantify and compare greenhouse gas emissions, as well as assess total mortality.

The mortality rate for non-vegetarians was almost 20 percent higher than that for vegetarians and semi-vegetarians. On top of lower mortality rates, switching from non-vegetarian diets to vegetarian diets or even semi-vegetarian diets also helps reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The vegetarian diets resulted in almost a third less emissions compared to the non-vegetarian diets. Modifying the consumption of animal-based foods can therefore be a feasible and effective tool for climate change mitigation and public health improvements, the study concluded.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/06/140625145536.htm

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 5:57 pm

nicko wrote:please go away your a dummy.I pity you didge you have no one to love, [only your computer]When you come home have you ever felt the love when a dog comes to greet you.There is no love in you didge, only for youself I am sorry for you.

Oh dear, more proof you contradict yourself and clearly have only one intent to spoil debates.

Grow the fuck up

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:04 pm

I am not denying animals love humans back, but given the chance from the start, would many seek such companionship Nicko if they were truly free?
They have been thrust into a situation where they are reliant on their owners of which I have no doubt you do love animals and are a good owner, just like Tess is with the work she does, but having an animal is in itself still selfish to your needs.
That is not knocking you or having a go, but showing that people who do have pets do so for their own needs in the vast majority of cases.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:08 pm

By the way I did grow up with cats as family pets.
I also went to my Uncles farm in Ireland every summer in my youth, so spent lots of time around animals Nicko!

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:51 pm

Didge wrote:
nicko wrote:Why are you swearing all the while? it shows you have lost the argument and are frightened of being found out.

No, I am just going off what you started you fucked up dick, so what is the point in being pleasant, it seems this is your only way to communicate, so am using the Nicko method of stupid communication, got it fuckwit?

An unnatural existence

Stolen from your mother as a youngster, confined, controlled, surgically altered, and bored for hours on end. Imagine yourself as a "pet" dog.

You retain many of the instincts of your wild ancestors such as the desire to run free at your own will, eat fresh food as nature intended, and to have the constant company of your own family members as you explore your territory and take in the sounds and smells of the natural world.

Now place yourself in a small Manhattan apartment, enduring the intermittent company of your beloved master with your ability to see the world and even use the bathroom remaining on their terms only. You only occasionally get to meet members of your own species, many of which have been so strangely altered due to selective breeding that the natural order ceases to exist. Your range consists of wherever your owner takes you, on a leash of course. It is a confusing, distressing and unnatural existence.

Sad Animals in Zoos
Exploring the phenomenon of people thinking animals are "sad" in zoos because of the expression on their faces. Can you read an animal's mind by looking at it?
Facts about the dog trade

There are Approximately 83.3 million owned dogs in the United States.
70% of dog owners own one dog
6-8 million dogs enter shelters each year, and an estimated 3-4 million healthy cats and dogs are euthanized yearly.
Across the country, privately-held dogs held have escaped from their fenced in yards and have attacked humans and other animals — with sometimes fatal results.
Many dogs can transmit deadly diseases — including MRSA, lyme disease and salmonellosis — to humans.
The CDC states that "Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year, half of these are children.1 One in five dog bites results in injuries serious enough to require medical attention."
Puppy mills are breeding factory farms that hold dogs in cramped cages and force female dogs to breed every time they are in heat (a 5 year old dog gives birth to 10 litters).

Domestication is cruel

Many owners of dogs think that they love their “pets” and that they are members of their families, but the reality is that these animals are being denied their freedom that people mistakenly think they no longer desire because they have been “domesticated”.

All too often, people think that because a practice has been around for ages, it can't be unethical. It is true that dogs have evolved with mankind for centuries, but the relationship started as a symbiotic one where wolves would accompany humans free-ranging in a wild and natural existence. Eventually, the reciprocal relationship of humans and dogs devolved to exploitation and abuse.

Many dogs are forcibly “selectively bred” (and their puppies abducted) to have unnatural traits and suffer from health problems, shortened life spans, and impaired mental development. These once wild and magnificent animals have been altered to be entirely dependent on humans, with only a few dog breeds capable of providing for themselves in the wild.

People think that they have successfully altered nature to such an extent that this once wild wolf is now as good as a human child with stunted cognition, perfectly suited for confinement. Most dogs have no choice but to endure an existence with humans for their social, physical, and psychological needs, but these needs are on a large scale, often not met.

Dog Breeding and the Dog Trade

If a domesticated dog is lucky enough to not to be bred with numerous intentional deformities (and some breeds are even forced to go through surgery to alter their appearance), it is still yanked away from its parents at a young age to be sold to humans as a “pet” through ‘pet’ stores or breeders. Dog ownership has grown to such popularity that many ‘surplus’ dogs languish in shelters, waiting to get adopted by the species that created them, and often unsuccessfully.

The Truth About Purebred Dogs Will Absolutely Disgust You
Over the years, purebred dogs have undergone some unhealthy changes, just in the name of improving the breed. What actually happened is disgusting.
Dogs that suffer from ‘behavioral problems’ (these are often dogs that express their natural, repressed instincts) are put to death because they make less than optimal “pets”. Other dogs can even suffer the same fate simply because they are large, black, and unappealing to new families.

To combat the ‘pet overpopulation problem’, it is recommended for most dog owners to ‘spay or neuter’ their animals. These words are a nice way of saying castration, or mutilating the dog’s reproductive organs. Would you want your genitals severed in the name of human population control? Many studies show that such a procedure causes hormone imbalances and increased risk of some ailments.

After dogs go through this procedure, most are fed boring and inadequate dried kibble that is not anywhere near what their natural diet should consist of or taste like. These inferior diets lead to illness, bad breath, and life threatening dental diseases.

Psychological Welfare

What happens if you work regular 9-5 hour jobs like most Americans? Dogs must spend unnatural amounts of time waiting for their owners to return. No matter how much we selectively breed dogs to suit our lifestyles, no dogs prefer loneliness. Sometimes dogs less resilient to this mistreatment acquire mental problems that are referred to as “separation anxiety”, but owners brush it off as acceptable and may confine their dogs to a crate (barely enough room for the dog to turn around in) as a result.

Stereotypic behavior in shelter dogs

Dogs have been known to suffer from depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and other mental and emotional problems in captivity. Often under-exercised and under-stimulated, some dogs may become unnaturally lethargic, leading to weight gain.

Many dogs are so far removed from their natural behavior that they do not know how to get along with other dogs. These dogs when available for adoption are simply titled 'must be adopted to a one dog household', but often are suffering from profound anxiety disorders and neurosis

Dogs Carry and Transmit Disease

Dog ownership helps spread disease among the public. Dogs can carry and transmit to humans: brucellosis, campylobacteriosis, cryptosporidosis, giardia, MRSA, lyme disease, rabies, ringworm, salmonellosis, toxocariasis, and others.

Diseases spread by dogs are often under-reported as well, making owners of dogs more susceptible to ignoring the risk. Dogs also spread many diseases through their waste in the environment, so it is not only the owners who are at risk.

While many owners pick up after dogs, there are more than enough remnants of their fecal matter to transmit illness to children who play in the areas where they have eliminated. Not all dogs are vaccinated for rabies (and dogs love to chase and fight with animals that carry rabies) and can acquire the deadly disease and spread it unbeknownst to the owner through a bite or scratch. Recently people have even acquired diseases from commercial pet food. Raw diets for dogs are closer to their natural diet but also can transmit germs

Dogs are a dangerous public safety hazard!

Every year, Americas are reminded that their domesticated pets still retain defensive and predatory instincts. Dog attacks on people are extremely common in comparison to all other pets. In fact, around 50 percent of all homeowner insurance liability claims that are paid out are due to dog attacks. In 2011, the total cost amounted to $479 million.

Also under-reported are less severe bites that the owners and their acquaintances sustain because they do not want to report their beloved pets. Approximately 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Even bites and scratches from dogs can become infected with bacteria such as Capnocytophaga ochracea or Pasteurella multocida and become life threatening if the infection reaches the bone. Dog attacks result in approximately 20-30 fatalities each year, with most of the victims consisting of young children.

End This Cruel Practice

Simply put, breeding dogs to be "pets" is a wrong and cruel act that is detrimental for our society. Wild wolves were never meant to be the pet project of humans solely for their amusement and company. Dogs should be with members of their own species, free to make their own decisions. Humans have each other to provide companionship, and small children can have very realistic stuffed toys if they want a mammal to play with. Live animals are no substitute for good parenting.

What Can You Do?

Unfortunately, the problem of “pet” dogs is extremely prominent. We need to support laws that ban the breeding of these animals. If you must have a dog, please only adopt one, and try to give it as much freedom as possible in its confined and unnatural existence. Together, we can phase out the practice of breeding and owning dogs as “pets”.

more "PETA" crap no doubt.....

why dont you include a reference at least to your source...

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:56 pm

You claim it is crap, but these are very valid points, again I am not against people having pets, but many people are irresponsible with pets, this you seem to ignore or the fact having pets is indeed a selfish need in many cases.

Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend?

Well nice to see you are being civil again, guess it works to act as you do!

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 6:59 pm

Okay lets go through points:

Do you deny many animals are destroyed each year because of over breeding where many said animals are not even wanted?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:01 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:jesus not more didge "animal rights idiocy"

nicko..didge is an animal rights nut job i'm afraid....
childish mawkish sentimantality....
Oh fuck me more fucking stupidity from the fuckwit Nazi, so please tell me how having a pet is not a selfish act fuckwit?

no to pets he says....
Fuckwit again, never stated people should not have pets, you clearlly cannot read as swell as being a fucking Nazi fuckwit and a tud

what about assistance dogs...do we keep them?
Yes we do keep assistant dogs fuckwit, they are not pets though are they" you sure about that?...normally they are both assistrance dog AND pet fuckwit, or do you not know the difference fuckwit?

in which case concerning "rights ", clearly then they are kept ONLY to serve a purpose...making them slaves
using Didges argument...would you have human slaves?
Yes they are still are slaves, did you ask the dog if they wanted to be free or look after the owner Mr Fuckwit?

as I said...childish mawkish sentimentality...assuming that animals "think" like humans...THATS called anthropomorphism...you have watched too many Disney cartoons...

what about guard dogs and police dogs
Not needed

really??? so no sniffer dogs, no "bomb" dogs , no security dogs....get real....

again nothing but slaves..and often HIGH risk slaves too...
Yes still slaves

NO didge doesnt want anyone to have anything or any pastime except...erm....stamp collecting...perhaps...
but then thats racist isnt it...because you want stamps that re differnt from other countries...and we all know in didges world that everyone and everything must be the same....
Again if you read back fuckwit I said I do not have a problem with people keeping pets

He also doesnt realise that ALL domestic animals would be extinct within a couple of generations....
Bullshit

not bullshit..if people didnt have pets...didnt have farm animals.......... those breeds would be extinct very quickly....who would want to keep em?

still it would leave the idiot plenty of open green land to build over...he could achieve his dream and concrete britain over from top to bottom.....
Achieve what dream, the reality is there would be such a problem if we had not altered the situation for them

NO didge...the REALITY IS that we HAVE altered the situation...and there's NO going back...

what else does he think would happen...

you only have to see what IS happening now...a farm gets sold at auction...within a month ist a housing estate.

Sorry didge , but when it comes to this subject you are a moron....

No you are the moran as seen

You advocate animals being bred just so that millions are slaughtered because nobody wants them.

where? prove it

You advocate people having opets and locking them up all day

where? prove it

You advocate people keeping birds in cages all day

where? prove it

You advocate cats must relieve themselves in dirty litterboxes

where? prove it

Yes please tell me how manipulating the animals via breeding and how many people who need the animals for selfish needs are in anyway helping the animals?

what has "helping" got to do with it...this is NOT a discussion about helping animals...at all

Please explain how the animals are free?

why should they be free...YOU PROVE that domesticated animals have any wish to be "free"

MOST domesticated animals could not survive "free"

take your time fuckwit

as you say...take your time ...tit head

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:04 pm

Didge wrote:Okay lets go through points:

Do you deny many animals are destroyed each year because of over breeding where many said animals are not even wanted?

yes it happens...but THAT is not the fault (in general) of those who want pets. It is the fault of those who over breed for a quick buck...irelands "puppy farms" are imfamous as you will agree. It is also I agree the fault to some extent of "bad" owners ...who dont have there pets neutered or whatever...

THAT is NOT an argument against keeping pets....

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:07 pm

Are you having a bubble bath?

So first point:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2254729/RSPCA-destroys-HALF-animals-rescues--thousands-completely-healthy.html

http://www.careaware.info/euthanasia.html

Are you denying many animals are destroyed because they are unwanted?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:09 pm

You know,sometimes it's a bit hard to believe anything nowadays, there seems to be changing evidence from scientist so often....

Now there are some doctors claiming smoking can be very beneficial for health ..this is just like going back to old days before the consequences of smoking were understood...

Then we had the Edwina Currie thing about salmonella in eggs, I just don't know what to believe, but I'm not so sure there is solid evidence that would support veggie deist increasing longevity.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:09 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:Okay lets go through points:

Do you deny many animals are destroyed each year because of over breeding where many said animals are not even wanted?

yes it happens...but THAT is not the fault (in general) of those who want pets. It is the fault of those who over breed for a quick buck...irelands "puppy farms" are imfamous as you will agree. It is also I agree the fault to some extent of "bad" owners ...who dont have there pets neutered or whatever...

THAT is NOT an argument against keeping pets....

yes it is, the demand of pet owners increases breeding, seriously that is poor Victor.

Again my point is wanting pets is selfish in nature, something you have been unable to refute

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:12 pm

By the way I shall repeat for those who cannot read, I am not against people having pets, lets just clarify this once again for those who need to go to specsavers, though advocate it should be with responsible owners who can show undue care and attention to animals and not leave them couped up all day

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:13 pm

you could say the same about wanting anything...

wanting a house is selfish...look at the wild life that is destroyed/displaced by housing,,,,

and YES saying its being selfish IS the same as saying you shouldnt, since by implication you are criticising so doing...

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:16 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:you could say the same about wanting anything...

wanting a house is selfish...look at the wild life that is destroyed/displaced by housing,,,,

and YES saying its being selfish IS the same as saying you shouldnt, since by implication you are criticising so doing...

Absurd logic, a house is something you need, where as a pet is not something that is essential to life. A person is going to struggle without a roof over their head to keep them warm in times of cold!

Try something intelligent please, we are talking about animals, not toys

It is not the same as saying you should not, it is showing that it is a selfish need to have a pet for affection when that animal has no choice.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:31 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:you could say the same about wanting anything...

wanting a house is selfish...look at the wild life that is destroyed/displaced by housing,,,,

and YES saying its being selfish IS the same as saying you shouldnt, since by implication you are criticising so doing...

Absurd logic, a house is something you need, where as a pet is not something that is essential to life. A person is going to struggle without a roof over their head to keep them warm in times of cold!

SO by your logic then selfish is OK if its necessary? our selfish reqirements for food and shelter then outweigh the animals??...hmmmm
sounds like an "argument of convenience to me...one "cooked up to no purpose than to crerate argument.....

Try something intelligent please, we are talking about animals, not toys

It is not the same as saying you should not, it is showing that it is a selfish need to have a pet for affection when that animal has no choice.

do you UNDERSTAND english?

calling something selfish is criticism

criticism denotes disapproval

therefor by implication you disapprove of people having pets....

there is no other interpretation possible...
you cannot have it both ways.....

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 7:43 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Absurd logic, a house is something you need, where as a pet is not something that is essential to life. A person is going to struggle without a roof over their head to keep them warm in times of cold!

SO by your logic then selfish is OK if its necessary? our selfish reqirements for food and shelter then outweigh the animals??...hmmmm
sounds like an "argument of convenience to me...one "cooked up to no purpose than to crerate argument.....

Try something intelligent please, we are talking about animals, not toys

It is not the same as saying you should not, it is showing that it is a selfish need to have a pet for affection when that animal has no choice.

do you UNDERSTAND english?

calling something selfish is criticism

criticism denotes disapproval

therefor by implication you disapprove of people having pets....

there is no other interpretation possible...
you cannot have it both ways.....

No I do not disprove of people having pets, that again is absurd and the only logical explanation is that you are retarded. Guess you have never heard of constructive criticism?
A person does not need to have something, unless they feel they need affection from said object, this works on anything, in many cases many things are material, many people want love from people and will be selfish in that love they seek from one person, but in this case the love is replicated, where as in an animal it does not have a choice, it is placed within not having a choice.,
Thus that is selfish.
It does not mean I do not think people should not have pets and you are clutching at straws over this view because you know you have no valid argument.
So are you claiming people do not seek pets to have their affection?

take your time

by nicko Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:20 pm

I asked earlier if any one on this forum had any pets, so no one has any! I find it hard to believe.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:23 pm

nicko wrote:I asked earlier if any one on this forum had any pets, so no one has any! I find it hard to believe.

maybe people do but are not interested in the debate!

Again I do not have issue with people having pets as long as they can provide them the full love and undue care they deserve.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:24 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

do you UNDERSTAND english?

calling something selfish is criticism

criticism denotes disapproval

therefor by implication you disapprove of people having pets....

there is no other interpretation possible...
you cannot have it both ways.....

No I do not disprove of people having pets, that again is absurd and the only logical explanation is that you are retarded. Guess you have never heard of constructive criticism?
A person does not need to have something, unless they feel they need affection from said object, this works on anything, in many cases many things are material, many people want love from people and will be selfish in that love they seek from one person, but in this case the love is replicated, where as in an animal it does not have a choice, it is placed within not having a choice.,
Thus that is selfish.
It does not mean I do not think people should not have pets and you are clutching at straws over this view because you know you have no valid argument.
So are you claiming people do not seek pets to have their affection?

take your time

I shall have to take my time...since I'm having a problem working out how you construe " people do not seek pets to have their affection" out of what i have said...
A straw man perhaps. I certainly said no such thing....

how can what you have said be constructive criticism...
since all you have done is made criticism..."its selfish"...
constructive criticism ALWAYS and inevitably carries with it suggestions as to how the target of criticism can be improved
criticism WITHOUT suggestions of improvement is ALWAYS destructive criticism, since it implies unreserved dissapproval

per example...

i dont like the colour scheme of that room/item....is destructive criticism because it contains NO reasoning or alternative ideas

I dont like the colour scheme of that room because (whatever) why dont you try (whatever) is constructive because it has reason and alternative...

anyhow..aside from improving your understanding of the subtlties of the english language.....

was there anything else......

oh yes...before anyone has a pet (other than perhaps fish ::dunno:: ) My view is that they should have to do a basic animal care course....
IF they want to then keep exotics, they should have to do further, more specialised courses...

finally...do you know the difference between a "domesticated animal" and an "imprinted animal" and the differences that makes to their keeping?????

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:25 pm

Didge wrote:
nicko wrote:I asked earlier if any one on this forum had any pets, so no one has any! I find it hard to believe.

maybe people do but are not interested in the debate!

Again I do not have issue with people having pets as long as they can provide them the full love and ~~undue~~ unreserved ? care they deserve.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:26 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

maybe people do but are not interested in the debate!

Again I do not have issue with people having pets as long as they can provide them the full love and ~~undue~~ unreserved ? care they deserve.

Thanks a much better word.

Night Victor, hope tomorrow you can answer my points!

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:31 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

No I do not disprove of people having pets, that again is absurd and the only logical explanation is that you are retarded. Guess you have never heard of constructive criticism?
A person does not need to have something, unless they feel they need affection from said object, this works on anything, in many cases many things are material, many people want love from people and will be selfish in that love they seek from one person, but in this case the love is replicated, where as in an animal it does not have a choice, it is placed within not having a choice.,
Thus that is selfish.
It does not mean I do not think people should not have pets and you are clutching at straws over this view because you know you have no valid argument.
So are you claiming people do not seek pets to have their affection?

take your time

I shall have to take my time...since I'm having a problem working out how you construe " people do not seek pets to have their affection" out of what i have said...
A straw man perhaps. I certainly said no such thing....
Waffle

how can what you have said be constructive criticism...
since all you have done is made criticism..."its selfish"...
constructive criticism ALWAYS and inevitably carries with it suggestions as to how the target of criticism can be improved
criticism WITHOUT suggestions of improvement is ALWAYS destructive criticism, since it implies unreserved dissapproval
You do not understand Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one
As seen I do not oppose people having pets

per example...

i dont like the colour scheme of that room/item....is destructive criticism because it contains NO reasoning or alternative ideas
Poor argument, I never stated I dislike people having pets, so absurd reply

I dont like the colour scheme of that room because (whatever) why dont you try (whatever) is constructive because it has reason and alternative...

anyhow..aside from improving your understanding of the subtlties of the english language.....

was there anything else......
As seen your illogical view point fell flat

oh yes...before anyone has a pet (other than perhaps fish ::dunno:: ) My view is that they should have to do a basic animal care course....
Agree on that
IF they want to then keep exotics, they should have to do further, more specialised courses...
Agreed though fail to see why they need something exotic

finally...do you know the difference between a "domesticated animal" and an "imprinted animal" and the differences that makes to their keeping?????

Yes I do the later being very much psychological!

So thanks for your answers tomorrow I expect to see why it is not selfish to have people having pets per say, not exceptions to the rule.

Night

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:36 pm

nicko wrote:I asked earlier if any one on this forum had any pets, so no one has any! I find it hard to believe.

yep...6 dogs 6 cats, chickens ferrets fish turtles tortoises

I have had meerkats tenrecs, rats hamsters gerbils rabbits chipmunks a tame magpie and crow (a long while ago)

I have hand reared a number of baby songbirds found abandoned or taken off cats....and subsequently released successfully

I have worked with most farm animals, ridden horses (why I dont know...I mean who takes to a form of transport that has a mind of its own????)

My vet loves me...... Shocked

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:40 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

I shall have to take my time...since I'm having a problem working out how you construe " people do not seek pets to have their affection" out of what i have said...
A straw man perhaps. I certainly said no such thing....
Waffle

you mean you cant substantiate your last line in the above post ???

how can what you have said be constructive criticism...
since all you have done is made criticism..."its selfish"...
constructive criticism ALWAYS and inevitably carries with it suggestions as to how the target of criticism can be improved
criticism WITHOUT suggestions of improvement is ALWAYS destructive criticism, since it implies unreserved dissapproval
You do not understand Constructive criticism is the process of offering valid and well-reasoned opinions about the work of others, usually involving both positive and negative comments, in a friendly manner rather than an oppositional one which is NOT what you have done....you merely criticised...
As seen I do not oppose people having pets

not as seen...YOU may know what you meant...but no one else would see it that way.....

per example...

i dont like the colour scheme of that room/item....is destructive criticism because it contains NO reasoning or alternative ideas
Poor argument, I never stated I dislike people having pets, so absurd reply

I dont like the colour scheme of that room because (whatever) why dont you try (whatever) is constructive because it has reason and alternative...

anyhow..aside from improving your understanding of the subtlties of the english language.....

was there anything else......
As seen your illogical view point fell flat

hardly...you simply have no answer

oh yes...before anyone has a pet (other than perhaps fish ::dunno:: ) My view is that they should have to do a basic animal care course....
Agree on that
IF they want to then keep exotics, they should have to do further, more specialised courses...
Agreed though fail to see why they need something exotic

finally...do you know the difference between a "domesticated animal" and an "imprinted animal" and the differences that makes to their keeping?????

Yes I do the later being very much psychological!

not close enough........try again

So thanks for your answers tomorrow I expect to see why it is not selfish to have people having pets per say, not exceptions to the rule.
whop do you think you are ...the feckin headmaster???

Night

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:42 pm

can you hear the laughter Didge?

they are not laughing WITH you...

they are laughing AT you.....

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:47 pm

I am laughing at you with tyat reply and your previous which is now based on your view thinking what I have said is different.

The most absurd point was stating on constructive criticism, that was not only daft but very stupid.

I state I am not against people having animals as pets, I am concerned at how people treat animals as pets.

Notice the difference.

So funny second, none of what you have stated refutes my point on the selfish need of humans needing pets.

Third yes imprinted animals is psychological try to deny it is not, where people or the animals learn characteristics through stages independent of each others behaviuor.

Fourth, you really need to try harder

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:50 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:can you hear the laughter Didge?

they are not laughing WITH you...

they are laughing AT you.....

lol I suggest you see a shrink mate

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:53 pm

nicko wrote:please go away your a dummy.I pity you didge you have no one to love, [only your computer]When you come home have you ever felt the love when a dog comes to greet you.There is no love in you didge, only for youself I am sorry for you.

All I can say is Nicko, I have always had dogs, they always get the exercise they need, even when I'm not feeling up to it we make sure one of us lets him run for miles, he goes swimming in the weir because he loves it, he is insured and gets the best health treatment, his diet is tiptop, he has a comfy bed to sleep in, all the love he can handle and doggy mates to play with when he is out. In return, he gives us so much love and fun and is a member of our family and he never gets left by himself. Even when I went to Spain, he had my grandaughter and OH there and they made sure someone was always with him.

My last dog who was a lurcher, was the kindest, gentlest animal who loved everyone and everything, and when I was ill, would curl up with me on the bed and had to be persuaded to go out for a walk and would rush straight back to be with me. His best mate was a cat, who would come in and play, and he loved rabbits and would sit and cry if he found one with myxi on the field.

We need dogs, and dogs need us, both of our lives would be less without them.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 9:57 pm

Sassy wrote:
nicko wrote:please go away your a dummy.I pity you didge you have no one to love, [only your computer]When you come home have you ever felt the love when a dog comes to greet you.There is no love in you didge, only for youself I am sorry for you.

All I can say is Nicko, I have always had dogs, they always get the exercise they need, even when I'm not feeling up to it we make sure one of us lets him run for miles, he goes swimming in the weir because he loves it, he is insured and gets the best health treatment, his diet is tiptop, he has a comfy bed to sleep in, all the love he can handle and doggy mates to play with when he is out. In return, he gives us so much love and fun and is a member of our family and he never gets left by himself. Even when I went to Spain, he had my grandaughter and OH there and they made sure someone was always with him.

My last dog who was a lurcher, was the kindest, gentlest animal who loved everyone and everything, and when I was ill, would curl up with me on the bed and had to be persuaded to go out for a walk and would rush straight back to be with me. His best mate was a cat, who would come in and play, and he loved rabbits and would sit and cry if he found one with myxi on the field.

We need dogs, and dogs need us, both of our lives would be less without them.

Interesting, you think dogs need you, if they were born free and independent would they need you?

I am sure you need them, which is my point sassy!

Many people have very fulfilling lives without pets, so is the need of yours for that companionship, one that you will in the main control?

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:03 pm

Didge wrote:I am laughing at you with tyat reply and your previous which is now based on your view thinking what I have said is different.

The most absurd point was stating on constructive criticism, that was not only daft but very stupid.

I state I am not against people having animals as pets, I am concerned at how people treat animals as pets.

BUT...that is NOT what you said at the beginning....you made the bald statement that its selfish...thus implying disapproval....that cannot be argued...Its there in black and white...
you have now changed your argument....

Notice the difference.

So funny second, none of what you have stated refutes my point on the selfish need of humans needing pets.

Third yes imprinted animals is psychological try to deny it is not, where people or the animals learn characteristics through stages independent of each other.

WHAT????
you are nuts......and think you know more than you do....
I didnt ask for the mechanism of imprinting, not that the waffle you just posted even comes close to it....I asked for the differnces between a domesticated and an imprinted animal DOH....dummy.....

Fourth, you really need to try harder

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:07 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:BUT...that is NOT what you said at the beginning....you made the bald statement that its selfish...thus implying disapproval....that cannot be argued...Its there in black and white...
you have now changed your argument....
Oh my epic fail, it is selfish that is a statement, but again I do not deny people having pets, the point being animals have been taken from their natural environment to satisfy a human need and clearly you only see thus things in black and white, hence why you fail to understand constructive criticism

WHAT????
you are nuts......and think you know more than you do....[/color]
[color=#ff0000]I didnt ask for the mechanism of imprinting, not that the waffle you just posted even comes close to it....I asked for the differnces between a domesticated and an imprinted animal DOH....dummy.....
In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

So try again

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:14 pm

Come on victor, you are seriously labouring badly on what you think I am saying when I have clearly stated what I am saying, you are thus avoiding providing a reason it is not selfish to need pets.

Get a grip mate

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:19 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:BUT...that is NOT what you said at the beginning....you made the bald statement that its selfish...thus implying disapproval....that cannot be argued...Its there in black and white...
you have now changed your argument....
Oh my epic fail, it is selfish that is a statement, but again I do not deny people having pets, the point being animals have been taken from their natural environment to satisfy a human need and clearly you only see thus things in black and white, hence why you fail to understand constructive criticism

WHAT????
you are nuts......and think you know more than you do....[/color]
[color=#ff0000]I didnt ask for the mechanism of imprinting, not that the waffle you just posted even comes close to it....I asked for the differnces between a domesticated and an imprinted animal DOH....dummy.....
In psychology and ethology, imprinting is any kind of phase-sensitive learning (learning occurring at a particular age or a particular life stage) that is rapid and apparently independent of the consequences of behavior. It was first used to describe situations in which an animal or person learns the characteristics of some stimulus, which is therefore said to be "imprinted" onto the subject. Imprinting is hypothesized to have a critical period.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imprinting_(psychology)

So try again

Now you see here is the problem with self proclaimed experts

(expert....(expurt)
ex is a has been
sput is a drip under pressure)

I didnt ask for the mechanism.....

so again what is the difference between a domesticated and an imprinted animal.....

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:19 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

All I can say is Nicko, I have always had dogs, they always get the exercise they need, even when I'm not feeling up to it we make sure one of us lets him run for miles, he goes swimming in the weir because he loves it, he is insured and gets the best health treatment, his diet is tiptop, he has a comfy bed to sleep in, all the love he can handle and doggy mates to play with when he is out. In return, he gives us so much love and fun and is a member of our family and he never gets left by himself. Even when I went to Spain, he had my grandaughter and OH there and they made sure someone was always with him.

My last dog who was a lurcher, was the kindest, gentlest animal who loved everyone and everything, and when I was ill, would curl up with me on the bed and had to be persuaded to go out for a walk and would rush straight back to be with me. His best mate was a cat, who would come in and play, and he loved rabbits and would sit and cry if he found one with myxi on the field.

We need dogs, and dogs need us, both of our lives would be less without them.

Interesting, you think dogs need you, if they were born free and independent would they need you?

I am sure you need them, which is my point sassy!

Many people have very fulfilling lives without pets, so is the need of yours for that companionship, one that you will in the main control?

You really think that the human is the one in control? You have obviously never had dogs. Those of us that love them give up so much for them. Am I in control when I feel like shit but he wants to go for a run and a swim? Nope, that's him doing the controlling. Am I in control when he's full of energy and wants me to play ball for hours in the garden, nope, that's him in control. Am I in control when I having an afternoon nap and he gives me a nudge to let me know it's his tea time? Nope, that him in control. I have plenty of companionship and love without him, but he enriches my life and from the sheer joy he shows when one of us walks through the door, I know we enrich his. I've seen dogs left to be 'free', starving, with their bones sticking out, nowhere that they feel safe and loved. I know which is better and you can try till the cows come home to say it's not so and you will still be wrong.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:26 pm

Sassy wrote:
Didge wrote:

Interesting, you think dogs need you, if they were born free and independent would they need you?

I am sure you need them, which is my point sassy!

Many people have very fulfilling lives without pets, so is the need of yours for that companionship, one that you will in the main control?

You really think that the human is the one in control? You have obviously never had dogs.
Well tell me how does the dog feed itself without your control by providing its food? How does the dog get exercise unless you allow it to have exercise? So you are talking bullshit again, you are the one that controls

Those of us that love them give up so much for them.
Glad that you do

Am I in control when I feel like shit but he wants to go for a run and a swim? Nope, that's him doing the controlling. Am I in control when he's full of energy and wants me to play ball for hours in the garden, nope, that's him in control. Am I in control when I having an afternoon nap and he gives me a nudge to let me know it's his tea time? Nope, that him in control.
No still you in control as his life is very much dependent on you looking after him, thus overall control lies with the owner

I have plenty of companionship and love without him, but he enriches my life and from the sheer joy he shows when one of us walks through the door, I know we enrich his.
Again how would he be enriched if independent without being kept as a pet? Would he not also be happier free, with the chose to choose who to mate, the choice to keep his balls, to not have to be forced to be washed, to pee and shit where he likes? Tell me how is he not nothing more than trained to follow your commands?

I've seen dogs left to be 'free', starving, with their bones sticking out, nowhere that they feel safe and loved. I know which is better and you can try till the cows come home to say it's not so and you will still be wrong.

But you use examples of where a dog might not survive, the need is still yours, more so than his, the animal itself has no knowledge of freedom, it sees and relies solely on your good graces to live, thus is neither independent or free.
Thus again is the need yours, because the animal knows no better, it has not experienced freedom to even choose whether it would decide to be free or be with you, thus the need is selfish from the owner

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:30 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

So try again

Now you see here is the problem with self proclaimed experts

(expert....(expurt)
ex is a has been
sput is a drip under pressure)

I didnt ask for the mechanism.....

so again what is the difference between a domesticated and an imprinted animal.....

Simple domesticated means trained and tamed, where as imprinted can be learnt independent of training.
Seriously you clutch at straws and failed to see imprinted is psychological so you know sweet fuck all on that

Seriously how many more times are you going to avoid the main point on selfishness, at times you detract worse than smelly when you clearly have no answer

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:39 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

Now you see here is the problem with self proclaimed experts

(expert....(expurt)
ex is a has been
sput is a drip under pressure)

I didnt ask for the mechanism.....

so again what is the difference between a domesticated and an imprinted animal.....

Simple domesticated means trained and tamed, wrong...utterly wrong..... where as imprinted can be learnt independent of training.because they are two different things
Seriously you clutch at straws and failed to see imprinted is psychological (where did i deny that...you are now making things up to bolster your failure) so you know sweet fuck all on that

Seriously how many more times are you going to avoid the main point on selfishness, at times you detract worse than smelly when you clearly have no answer

by eddie Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:41 pm

Didge wrote:
nicko wrote:Selfish,stupid, a good description of you.Do you have any pets?

No because i believe it is wrong to keep pets unless you can devote total undue love and care for them. Too many people keep animals and coupe them up all day in doors whilst they go to work, again very selfish, and unless you are able to spend most of your time with animals, then again it would be wrong.

So you do not have the decency to admit you fucked up.

No suprise there then

Didge is absolutely right actually.
Having and keeping pets is solely for the pleasure of humans - it isn't a natural order of things, we had to tame them to keep them, so being very basic, pet's are favoured, not needed by us (even the word pet means "favourite" which implies we "own")

Anyway, as a dog lover and also a lover of fish tanks, I can obviously see the benefit of people having pets but as didge rightly says, some people keep dogs and cats, cooped up all day and hardly give them the best or most fulfilling life.

And yes, we know most domesticated animals wouldn't survive the wild now, it's isn't to say that we did them the favour, rather they did us the favour.....or we'd be their "pets".

pet1
pɛt/
noun
1.
a domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure.
"the pony was a family pet"

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:42 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Simple domesticated means trained and tamed, wrong...utterly wrong..... where as imprinted can be learnt independent of training.because they are two different things
Seriously you clutch at straws and failed to see imprinted is psychological (where did i deny that...you are now making things up to bolster your failure) so you know sweet fuck all on that

Seriously how many more times are you going to avoid the main point on selfishness, at times you detract worse than smelly when you clearly have no answer

Wow another rebuke without actually rebuking, sorry, you are boring me to death with you pathetic responses now, I showed they are different, grow up victor.

As seen you detract from the main point on selfishness to own pets to go on about something I just easily showed you on the difference

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:44 pm

Didge wrote:
Sassy wrote:

You really think that the human is the one in control? You have obviously never had dogs.
Well tell me how does the dog feed itself without your control by providing its food? How does the dog get exercise unless you allow it to have exercise? So you are talking bullshit again, you are the one that controls

Those of us that love them give up so much for them.
Glad that you do

Am I in control when I feel like shit but he wants to go for a run and a swim? Nope, that's him doing the controlling. Am I in control when he's full of energy and wants me to play ball for hours in the garden, nope, that's him in control. Am I in control when I having an afternoon nap and he gives me a nudge to let me know it's his tea time? Nope, that him in control.
No still you in control as his life is very much dependent on you looking after him, thus overall control lies with the owner

I have plenty of companionship and love without him, but he enriches my life and from the sheer joy he shows when one of us walks through the door, I know we enrich his.
Again how would he be enriched if independent without being kept as a pet? Would he not also be happier free, with the chose to choose who to mate, the choice to keep his balls, to not have to be forced to be washed, to pee and shit where he likes? Tell me how is he not nothing more than trained to follow your commands?

I've seen dogs left to be 'free', starving, with their bones sticking out, nowhere that they feel safe and loved. I know which is better and you can try till the cows come home to say it's not so and you will still be wrong.

But you use examples of where a dog might not survive, the need is still yours, more so than his, the animal itself has no knowledge of freedom, it sees and relies solely on your good graces to live, thus is neither independent or free.
Thus again is the need yours, because the animal knows no better, it has not experienced freedom to even choose whether it would decide to be free or be with you, thus the need is selfish from the owner

Poor Didge

by eddie Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:45 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

No because i believe it is wrong to keep pets unless you can devote total undue love and care for them. Too many people keep animals and coupe them up all day in doors whilst they go to work, again very selfish, and unless you are able to spend most of your time with animals, then again it would be wrong.

So you do not have the decency to admit you fucked up.

No suprise there then

Didge is absolutely right actually.
Having and keeping pets is solely for the pleasure of humans - it isn't a natural order of things, we had to tame them to keep them, so being very basic, pet's are favoured, not needed by us (even the word pet means "favourite" which implies we "own")

Anyway, as a dog lover and also a lover of fish tanks, I can obviously see the benefit of people having pets but as didge rightly says, some people keep dogs and cats, cooped up all day and hardly give them the best or most fulfilling life.

And yes, we know most domesticated animals wouldn't survive the wild now, it's isn't to say that we did them the favour, rather they did us the favour.....or we'd be their "pets".

pet1
pɛt/
noun
1.
a domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure.
"the pony was a family pet"

.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:46 pm

eddie wrote:
Didge wrote:

No because i believe it is wrong to keep pets unless you can devote total undue love and care for them. Too many people keep animals and coupe them up all day in doors whilst they go to work, again very selfish, and unless you are able to spend most of your time with animals, then again it would be wrong.

So you do not have the decency to admit you fucked up.

No suprise there then

Didge is absolutely right actually.
Having and keeping pets is solely for the pleasure of humans - it isn't a natural order of things, we had to tame them to keep them, so being very basic, pet's are favoured, not needed by us (even the word pet means "favourite" which implies we "own")

Anyway, as a dog lover and also a lover of fish tanks, I can obviously see the benefit of people having pets but as didge rightly says, some people keep dogs and cats, cooped up all day and hardly give them the best or most fulfilling life.

And yes, we know most domesticated animals wouldn't survive the wild now, it's isn't to say that we did them the favour, rather they did us the favour.....or we'd be their "pets".

pet1
pɛt/
noun
1.
a domestic or tamed animal or bird kept for companionship or pleasure.
"the pony was a family pet"

Bravo and at least you care for your pets which is more my point and to that I thankful some people do as already stated I think Nicko does, as sassy does as I am sure Victor does and even more Tess for the great work she does with rescued animals

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:47 pm

Thanks eddie.

x

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:50 pm

Right really have to go and hope you all have a good evening.

xx

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:52 pm

Didge wrote:
victorisnotamused wrote:

Now you see here is the problem with self proclaimed experts

(expert....(expurt)
ex is a has been
sput is a drip under pressure)

I didnt ask for the mechanism.....

so again what is the difference between a domesticated and an imprinted animal.....

Simple domesticated means trained and tamed, where as imprinted can be learnt independent of training.
Seriously you clutch at straws and failed to see imprinted is psychological so you know sweet fuck all on that

Seriously how many more times are you going to avoid the main point on selfishness, at times you detract worse than smelly when you clearly have no answer

clearly you have no concept or understanding of a pet/ owner relation ship

selfish implies a one sided and exploititative relationship

lets see....

we get
a delightful and most enjoyable companion
a loyal friend (more loyal than most humans it must be said)
a good "work mate" in some case
something to warm your feet of an evening.

the dog gets

food
security
and its needs provided for
medical treatment
they enjoy OUR company

considering that a dogs intelligence cannot formulate the concept of "free" (except in disney cartoons)
considering that 90% of arguments by the animal rights loons on this are pure and unsubstantiable emotive anthropomorphism....

I dont see what selfish about it at all....

my gun dog......

If its wet...he gets dried and put into his warmer jacket on site ...BEFORE i get changed (I have a ~~big~~ fooking enormous, white van..so I have mobile changing facilities when out shooting Laughing

)
If its also cold he gets put into the cabin and the engine started to make it warm...before I go get changed...

while we are out ...he gets fed and watered ....before i eat...

when we get home...
he gets fed ...before I have my food..as do all the other dogs...if mrs V hasnt fed em first

If we are out and water runs low.....HE gets the drink...not me....

selfish??

nah I dont see it....

symbiotic....where both partners to a deal benefit........

by eddie Fri Jun 27, 2014 10:52 pm

Didge wrote:Thanks eddie.

x

No need for thanks, I've always thought the same thing.
Pets are lovely and absolutely make a positive difference to most people's lives, but ultimately, we keep them for purely selfish reasons (unless we rescue them, but we wouldn't be rescuing them if somebody hadn't selfishly wanted them and then not wanted them, in the first place)

Enjoy your evening x

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:07 pm

victorisnotamused wrote:
Didge wrote:

Simple domesticated means trained and tamed, where as imprinted can be learnt independent of training.
Seriously you clutch at straws and failed to see imprinted is psychological so you know sweet fuck all on that

Seriously how many more times are you going to avoid the main point on selfishness, at times you detract worse than smelly when you clearly have no answer

clearly you have no concept or understanding of a pet/ owner relation ship
selfish implies a one sided and exploititative relationship
lets see....
we get
a delightful and most enjoyable companion
a loyal friend (more loyal than most humans it must be said)
a good "work mate" in some case
something to warm your feet of an evening.
the dog gets
food
security
and its needs provided for
medical treatment
they enjoy OUR company
considering that a dogs intelligence cannot formulate the concept of "free" (except in disney cartoons)
considering that 90% of arguments by the animal rights loons on this are pure and unsubstantiable emotive anthropomorphism....
I dont see what selfish about it at all....

my gun dog......

If its wet...he gets dried and put into his warmer jacket on site ...BEFORE i get changed (I have a ~~big~~ fooking enormous, white van..so I have mobile changing facilities when out shooting )
If its also cold he gets put into the cabin and the engine started to make it warm...before I go get changed...

while we are out ...he gets fed and watered ....before i eat...

when we get home...
he gets fed ...before I have my food..as do all the other dogs...if mrs V hasnt fed em first

If we are out and water runs low.....HE gets the drink...not me....

selfish??

nah I dont see it....

symbiotic....where both partners to a deal benefit........

Again the dog has been denied the choice from birth, what you are equating to is he has or she has no right to decide what it wants, that proves you are very selfish.

Basically you are advocating your need based off you providing for him, as if he really needs you, when as seen would he need you if wild and free?
Thus it is one sided from the start when that animal has no knowledge and been denied what it could have had. The animal enjoys your company because it knows nothing else but to seek your affection, it seeks you to feed him, it seeks you to many be able to do many things, how is that beneficial, without knowing any other ways
I used to have pets, so clearly I understand better than you do, you seem to have the worst disrespect for animals and their intelligence by your views above, because you view this as you the animal should be thankful for your help, when this animal has no understanding what chance to a different life it could have had. Have you ever seen what happens to wild animals caged in captivity and how it breaks them, when they have known and lived free?
Clearly you are utterly clueless on this.
I actually think you do not have any compassion now for animals, it is all about your needs, thinking that the animal is lucky to be your pet and not a trophy on your wall!

For your education I suggest a very good film, Instinct, with Anthony Hopkins, though I doubt it will register with you on any level.

Night

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:20 pm

Has he really gone this time? The man's insane.

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:25 pm

Sassy wrote:Has he really gone this time? The man's insane.

Wow, as usual you can only go on about me, get a grip woman and grow up and get past your silly grudges.

That is sound advice that someone at your age should have learnt by now.

On that I wish you good luck

by Guest Fri Jun 27, 2014 11:30 pm

well didge....since you insist on being a twat
I suggets YOU get educated and stop conflating WILD with DOMESTIC animals for a start

do you know the difference....

here>>>>>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox

Initial experimentation

The experiment was initiated by scientists who were interested in the topic of domestication and the process by which wolves became tame domesticated dogs. They saw some retention of juvenile traits by adult dogs, both morphological ones, such as skulls that were unusually broad for their length, and behavioral ones, such as whining, barking, and submission.

In a time when centralized political control exercised over genetics and agriculture was an official state doctrine, known as Lysenkoism, Belyaev's commitment to classical genetics had cost him his job as head of the Department of Fur Animal Breeding at the Central Research Laboratory of Fur Breeding in Moscow in 1948.[2] During the 1950s, he continued to conduct genetic research under the guise of studying animal physiology.

Belyaev believed that the key factor selected for in the domestication of dogs was not size or reproduction, but behavior; specifically, tameability. Since behavior is rooted in biology, selecting for tameness and against aggression, means selecting for physiological changes in the systems that govern the body's hormones and neurochemicals. Belyaev decided to test his theory by domesticating foxes; in particular, the silver fox, a dark color form of the red fox. He placed a population of them under strong selection pressure for inherent tameness.[3]

As Lyudmila Trut says in her 1999 American Scientist article [1], The least domesticated foxes, those that flee from experimenters or bite when stroked or handled, are assigned to Class III. Foxes in Class II let themselves be petted and handled but show no emotionally friendly response to experimenters. Foxes in Class I are friendly toward experimenters, wagging their tails and whining. In the sixth generation bred for tameness we had to add an even higher-scoring category. Members of Class IE, the "domesticated elite," are eager to establish human contact, whimpering to attract attention and sniffing and licking experimenters like dogs. They start displaying this kind of behavior before they are one month old. By the tenth generation, 18 percent of fox pups were elite; by the 20th, the figure had reached 35 percent. Today elite foxes make up 70 to 80 percent of our experimentally selected population.

Belyaev and Trut believe that selecting for tameness mimics the natural selection that must have occurred in the ancestral past of dogs, and more than any other quality, must have determined how well an animal would adapt to life among humans.

The result is that Russian scientists now have a number of domesticated foxes that are fundamentally different in temperament and behavior from their wild forebearers. Some important changes in physiology and morphology are now visible, such as mottled or spotted colored fur. Many scientists believe that these changes related to selection for tameness are caused by lower adrenaline production in the new breed, causing physiological changes in very few generations and thus yielding genetic combinations not present in the original species. This indicates that selection for tameness (i.e. low flight distance) produces changes that are also influential on the emergence of other "dog-like" traits, such as raised tail and coming into heat every six months rather than annually.

The project also investigated breeding vicious foxes to study aggressive behavior. These foxes snap at humans and otherwise show no fear.

Similar research was carried out in Denmark with American mink.[4]

It is virtually impossible to fully tame and train a "wild" creature without breaking its spirit....

BUT

if you can obtain a young one it is in some cases possible to IMPRINT them, by handling them regularly
by hand feeding themso they view you as all things good...

for instance ...Meerkats

if you get a yong one....and do as I have said you will end up with a nice friendly tractable meerkat...but heres a puzzle

does the meerkat consider itself a "you (i.e human)

or does it consider you to be an (albeit right wierd looking) meerkat??

my experience with both meerkats AND parrots would seem to suggest that the latter is the case
and if you understand how they "tick" it is possible to forge a very strong bond with them

but .....

you have to know the rules, because if you transgress "meerkat" rules...you WILL get nipped (and they have damn sharp teeth let me tell you) just as if you break the "parrot rules" your macaw is gonna bite you...

AND therein is the difference between domsticated and imprinted....

a domesticated animal learns to live by OUR rules.....

an imprinted animal learns to regard you as "super meerkat" but expects you to live by their rules

hence why unexperienced people should not keep "exotics"

and before you whine didge...I could get you veterinary cojnfirmation of this view point....but I dont see why I should ...if you dont believe me...go find your local "exotic" vet and ask them.....

by Sponsored content