devilcake wrote:
(this is a about cats and dogs, and primarily dogs)
I think its a question you cant say a blanket yes or no to. I think rescuing and taking pets over is overall the more ethical choice but its not always the best choice for a person getting a pet, at which point getting a pet from a reputable breeder is the better option as (at least here) it involves a lot of regulation to ensure the animal is healthy, or as healthy as that breed can be since some breeds cannot be healthy by todays standards of it.
some breeds are inherently unethical and buying one of those from a breeder is never ok in my book, nor is breeding them in the first place. That being said not allowing the breed is also going to lead to less regulated selling of the same dogs as mixed breeds because humans are evil and cares only about themselves.
Personally i do not care about preserving breeds, unless the breed has a specific function/job like herding dogs, or specific dog breeds being preferred as seeing eye dogs for ex. I'd very happily see pugs and frenchies no longer exist atp, no dogs deserve to have the issues they have just because big naked ape found it ugly-cute. n i guess if there are some breeds with specific cultural significance ig be more concern about perserving that as well, But even the ones that have a purpose its obviously just to serve human interest n not to benefit the dog.
n i think ultimately it comes down to wether or not owning animals at all is ethical, I obviously do not think its unethical, but i do think its smth that puts it into perspective, since most people dont need an animal, and more specifically most people dont need an animal of a specific breed, its a want and i dont think animals should have to suffer for our wants.
0
0
0
0
0
Private
Private
Private
To join the forums you need to be logged in.
20
