kitty cat fewds
Posted by lime green on Sep 25, 2007 · Member since Apr 2007 · 634 posts
i am about to get a cat. she is currently on a steady diet of purina dry food, but i was wondering ifanyone knew anything about cruelty free pet foods? i don't want to put her on a vegan diet, as i've heard this is not good for the kittehs. but i would like to know what the options are as far as free range or free farmed meat in pet foods..? she is four years old, indoor/outdoor, healthy (no worms or fleas). what do y'all feed your fuzzies?
I think the center of this debate is really if a cat can be both healthy and vegan. If they can, then it's not an issue of "well, in the wild..." or pitying the cat.
I read Obligate Carnivore a few moons ago, but one thing I recall is that some cats are just prone to UTIs. It's often prompted by a high magnesium diet, and because those veggies are just so nutritious, a vegan diet usually gives them one. Now vegan cat foods are made low-magnesium, but those cats still seem sensitive to it, and UTIs can get pretty bad. I'm not sure if there was any study on it, but the other cats (not prone) seem to do fine; they get taurine and all their other good stuff, it's the UTI that one should worry about.
Something like 15% of cats getting UTIs seems like a sign that this is just unnatural. It is. Of course it is. And for those cats, they shouldn't be vegan. There was a recommendation to do a half vegan/half not diet for them, which apparently works for some people.
The thing is, monitoring your cat's health and diet isn't too easy. Diagnosing a UTI isn't as day/night as seeing if the cat's peeing in the box; you have to check the pH of the urine. Because this just doesn't work for most people, i believe the author of Obligate Carnivore is advising a 50/50 diet (vegan and regular). This at least reduces the amount of animals used for their food.
Cephi, I am not bashing you. But your argument is disingenuous and loaded, and I am not having this conversation with you any more. Needless to say the adjective "factory" in "factory farming" is not only loaded but presumptuous... there are other ways to obtain meat. Nor am I an advocate of feeding offal to cats or (dear God) abandoning them. Please see my past posts for insight into my position.
I have nothing to add to this conversation, but every time I see this thread, I interpret it as "kitty cat feuds", and immediately picture a feline "Romeo and Juliet".
Needless to say the adjective "factory" in "factory farming" is not only loaded but presumptuous... there are other ways to obtain meat.
I am not denying that. I am arguing specifically against meat obtained through factory farming, which is true even of most premium, high-quality cat foods. I haven't taken a position on hunted meat or meat taken from animals slaughtered after a less terrible life than factory farmed animals lived.
The point you raise about who should and who should not keep a cat is incompatible with your claim that you would not reduce the number of homes. I don't see what insight could alleviate that incompatibility.
I did not say I would not reduce the number of homes.
I would. Many people who have pets are incapable of caring for them. And yes, that impact has a farther range... those animals breed, because many negligent pet-parents are very often the same people who refuse to spay/neuter.
I think you keep pushing my comments where they are not meant to go. I do not know whether or not it is deliberate, but if not, we may have some fundamental flaw in our communication. If so, I am wasting my time quite utterly.
As for "duffer," there is nothing wrong with being a duffer. If you haven't got an in-depth education in something and/or do it professionally, you are a duffer. If you mistake anecdotal evidence for statistical significance or chemistry, you are really, really a duffer.
As for my comment about vegan cats not existing... Yes, you know cats being fed vegan diets by vegan owners; you have never met a cat with the ethical convictions to be vegan itself. (If those cats are lucky, they have not yet manifested dental decay, diabetes, and IBD, etc. etc. They don't drop dead on day 2 of a vegan diet! That would be impressively awful!)
There are three kinds of troll. 1) the kind who bait, attack, and snarl at others for the sake of it. 2) the kind who allow themselves to be drawn into conversations they should know better than to enter. 3) the kind who accidentally wander into a misunderstanding. Only the first kind is horrible. I tend to live in territory 2... I wonder if you haven't strayed into territory 3?
Sorry I've helped pull this excellent thread so far from its roots. I'll hush or take it elsewhere now. :)
Now I really am confused, Duckalucky, because you say both that you would reduce the number of homes and that you are not advocating a position that puts more cats on the street.
Also, you say:
As for my comment about vegan cats not existing... Yes, you know cats being fed vegan diets by vegan owners; you have never met a cat with the ethical convictions to be vegan itself.
I'm glad you recognize this, because the latter bit has been part of my point from the beginning. Cats do not have ethical convictions one way or the other on this matter. They are neither ethical omnivores nor ethical vegans. They are usually dietary omnivores. When I said that there are vegan cats, I mean only that there are dietarily vegan cats; ie, herbivores. I noted moreover that some of these cats are long past day two of dietary veganism; they have been herbivorous for years in apparent full health and activity. You are absolutely right that there are no ethically vegan cats, just as there are no ethically omnivorous cats. (This is why it is misguided to hold, as some here do, that feeding a cat herbivorously involves an illicit "forcing" of one's beliefs on the cat.) If reporting what I see with my own eyes makes me a duffer, then I suppose I am (really, really) a duffer. And if a failure to understand how to combine contradictory claims makes me a troll, then I suppose I am a troll. But I can't help believing my eyes any more than I can help disbelieving a contradiction. And I really don't think I deserve either label. I wish you'd stop taking this discussion in that direction. I'm no good with giving or receiving personal insults; I'm out of my depth in those kinds of arguments.
As I see it, there are two positions here. Each of the two positions has one attractive part and one unattractive part. I have been forthcoming about the unattractive part of my position; others have seemed to ignore the unattractive part of the other position. The two positions, with their unattractive parts bolded, are:
(1) It is better to refuse to support the imprisonment, torture, rape and slaughter of many innocent creatures, even when that refusal is suboptimal for one's cat's health.
(2) It is better to feed one's cat an optimally healthful diet, even when doing so involves supporting the imprisonment, torture, rape and slaughter of many innocent creatures.
Everyone seems here to fall into one of those two camps. If that's a misrepresentation of anyone's view, please let me know; this is an attempt at clarification of the moral terrain that may still need work. And when the two positions are considered side by side -- and when their unattractive parts are not omitted or obfuscated -- I cannot find (2) plausible.
But we are not talking about one cat. You are playing sleight of hand again.
A cat is a moral carnivore, a murderous little beastie. Given any opportunity, it will torture and kill. For fun. For food. They are not capable of doing otherwise, and they are still good, lovable, and sweet. They can only be prevented insofar as you control them. And that's not their decision, it's yours. That's just how they are.
I suppose there are other dimensions that intersect this dialogue so that it cannot be reduced to cute binaries... is it better to euthanize than to euphemize? Is it worse? Is it responsible to adopt someone you are not committed to care for to the best of your abilities? Can it ever be seen as responsible to help support those kitten mills and irresponsible pet-parents who breed them, even down the road at the shelter point (and how is that different from consuming the by-products of the factory farming industry?) After all, you are thereby disguising an emergency by bleeding off its urgency.
If 1) we insist on seeing animals as people, and 2) we elect to raise animals in accordance with moral convictions that are counter to their health and physical well being, then 3) how are we morally different from those people who, because of the pop/moral cults they follow, feed their kids the Atkins diet to "strengthen" and slim them, or who refuse medical treatment for their relatives... or, at the far extreme, who "marry" their pre-pubescent daughters? I guess I am asking for an end to the relativism that says "anything I find moral is a-ok and anything I do not is by definition evil." Nature doesn't cooperate, and biology is still linked to nature (though population displacement musses that at an ecological level, of course.)
Bah, I keep saying I'm quitting. I'm really quitting. Sorry, sorry!
I'm not really interested in spending too much time here. But this thread has provoked some of my own thoughts. Cephi, I am curious about your views on other things that, at least in my eyes, are fairly related.
Do you support the work of animal sanctuaries? (I mean in theory, not necessarily in donations, volunteering, etc.) If you were in charge of one, would you feed the carnivorous animals a vegan diet? For example, would you feed an eagle a plant-based diet in lieu of fish and rodents?
Do you support the work of wildlife rehabilitation centers? If you were in charge of one, would you feed the injured or sick carnivorous animals a vegan diet? Would you feed an ill bobcat a plant-based diet?
It seems that all animals that come into our care deserve the best treatment we can give them (especially when we as humans are often the ones responsible for their troubles--whether through domestication, habitat encroachment, hunting, injury due to vehicles, and on and on). A cat is no less carnivorous than an eagle or a bobcat. It's a crazy thought to kill one animal for another. That's true. But why save, rehabilitate, take care of ANY creature if you are not going to provide it with the care it needs to survive and stay (optimally) healthy. I think maybe Duckalucky had it right---
I think cats are inappropriate pets for people unwilling to care for an obligate carnivore.
Again, I don't have all the answers and am not an expert on this topic. I'm not equipped with the facts to argue for or against (does that make me a troll? :-\ Geez I hope so! ;D); these are just a few thoughts I had on the subject. ::) I'll leave it at that.
But we are not talking about one cat. You are playing sleight of hand again.
A cat is a moral carnivore, a murderous little beastie. Given any opportunity, it will torture and kill. For fun. For food. They are not capable of doing otherwise, and they are still good, lovable, and sweet. They can only be prevented insofar as you control them. And that's not their decision, it's yours. That's just how they are.
I suppose there are other dimensions that intersect this dialogue so that it cannot be reduced to cute binaries... is it better to euthanize than to euphemize? Is it worse? Is it responsible to adopt someone you are not committed to care for to the best of your abilities? Can it ever be seen as responsible to help support those kitten mills and irresponsible pet-parents who breed them, even down the road at the shelter point (and how is that different from consuming the by-products of the factory farming industry?) After all, you are thereby disguising an emergency by bleeding off its urgency.
If 1) we insist on seeing animals as people, and 2) we elect to raise animals in accordance with moral convictions that are counter to their health and physical well being, then 3) how are we morally different from those people who, because of the pop/moral cults they follow, feed their kids the Atkins diet to "strengthen" and slim them, or who refuse medical treatment for their relatives... or, at the far extreme, who "marry" their pre-pubescent daughters? I guess I am asking for an end to the relativism that says "anything I find moral is a-ok and anything I do not is by definition evil." Nature doesn't cooperate, and biology is still linked to nature (though population displacement musses that at an ecological level, of course.)
Bah, I keep saying I'm quitting. I'm really quitting. Sorry, sorry!
Cats are not morally responsible for their actions. I hope you would agree that even if a cat kills a human, it does not deserve to be held accountable for its actions the way a murderous human would. Just because a cat does something does not mean it is morally acceptable for a human to do that thing, because humans are morally accountable for themselves.
I am again confused about your position. You seemed to object to my characterization of your position, but then, rather than providing an alternative to my (2), you seemed to present reasoning that supported the claim that (2) is the correct moral choice. What is the better characterization of your position? How did I mischaracterize it?
I'm not sure why I deserved that comparison to a child rapist. Please believe me that I've tried really hard to figure out what point that was supposed to make, I'm not just being snarky. I don't think I succeeded, but here's my best shot: the claim is something like the following: Forcing one's moral values on another being is wrong. To show this, you gave examples of people forcing their moral values on others in ways that are obviously wrong. I don't think that argument works, namely because it is not always wrong to force one's moral values on another being. For example, a parent who allows his or her child to eat whatever she pleases and do whatever she pleases is a bad parent. It is wholly appropriate -- in fact it's a very good idea and a duty of good parenting -- for a parent to force some values on his or her child. Similarly, if I have a dog that is prone to killing cats, I will discourage this behavior -- I will force those moral values on my dog, although he cares nothing for the rights of cats. Do you think such a parent or dogowner is wrong? Is such a parent or dogowner also like the child rapist you compared me to?
Forcing one's values on another being is wrong in at least two cases: (a) when one has no rights toward that particular creature (as when, for example, a parent tries to force healthful eating on a stranger's child) and (b) when one is forcing bad values on a creature (as when, for example, a parent forces his or her child to steal). All three of your examples are wrong because they fall under either (a) or (b). But neither (a) or (b) applies to the relationship between human and pet cat with respect to diet. The human does indeed have the right (in fact the duty) to administer the cat's diet, so (a) does not apply; and the value in question, veganism, is, I claim, indeed a good value (that is what this whole debate has been about), so (b) does not apply.
So (and again, please tell me if I'm getting this wrong) it sounds like you were claiming that it's always wrong to force values on another creature. Do you really believe that? I think it's pretty implausible. And anyway it is, in the end, irrelevant, since buying meat for a cat also forces values on the cat. We cannot escape forcing values on the cats in our care.
(If you respond could you please please not compare me to a child rapist again?)
Hi Shaolin, if cats could not live on vegan food with the level of health I believe possible (which again, I'm provisionally granting, is suboptimal), then this would be a different question. Currently, with housecats, the trade-off is the following: we can choose suboptimal health for the cat, or we can choose the imprisonment, torture, rape and death of many other creatures. When I put those on my moral scale, the righthand side seems heavier to me; there seems to be more suffering there, more injustice. So I choose the lefthand side.
Now, if we're considering animals that cannot survive with a level of health commensurate to that enjoyed by vegan cats, then it's a different matter; it's a different trade, with a heavier lefthand side. That is, suppose I'm caring for an eagle. And let's suppose eagles really do need meat to live, in a way that cats don't. Then I'm not sure what I would do in that situation. It would be a very different situation.
I am in my own care as much as my cat is in my care. And I would not imprison, torture, rape and kill animals for my own benefit either.
You ask, why take such a creature in, if I would not provide it with optimal care? Namely, because I think it's better off in a vegan household than being gassed in the pound, or left out on the street in the Chicago winter. I ask you the same thing I ask Duckalucky: would you really prefer that someone with a vegan cat put that cat out on the street?
Where others keep asking, why take the animal in if you won't give it the best care? I keep wondering, how can you privilege one creature so highly over others that you will cause so much certain pain and death to so many creatures to forestall the possibility of suffering in one?
Cephi, I appreciate your response. I didn't plan on replying, but since you addressed me personally, I feel I owe you the courtesy. :)
While reading this thread, I did keep an open mind about your view. I do see where you are coming from. I can even see things from your angle. Because your heart is in the right place and you have good intentions for animals and the planet. YET, in the end, I still can't bring myself to feel that it is okay to feed a cat anything less than what it might normally need and provide for itself in the wild. One reason has to do with quantity. The number of animals I indirectly kill to feed my cat is the same number of animals the cat would kill for food in the wild (I'm not causing any more/less deaths than what nature intends). In terms of quality, I feed my cat natural pet food (Nature's Variety, Timberwolf, and Innova mostly). If two foods were of equal quality, of course I would buy the pet food from the more humane farm. In an ideal future, breeding would be banned, pets would become depopulated, perhaps some reintroduced into the wild, and finally these animals would no longer need to be in our care...hence no need for humans killing non-human animals period.
In my heart, I have a deep desire for all the cruelty to stop and for every instance of animal killing by humans to be totally abolished. But there are a few situations that seem to justifiably warrant less than idealistic actions (at least I currently feel this way...some of my views do change over time). Administering a carnivorous diet for cats and dogs is one. Acts of euthanasia in kill shelters is another (I'm on the fence over that one...I'm waiting for someone to offer an acceptable solution). Yet another is feeding meat to carnivorous animals in sanctuaries, wildlife rehabs, etc. More situations may exist, but I can't think of them offhand.
Guess, like the others on this thread, for the moment at least, we'll just have to settle on agreeing to disagree. ::) :)
Pages