Dan, I think people have thought that about their animals (the companion type like a good dog) as "family", since the stone age? We treat our dogs as a members of the family within reason, that loyalty comes with some responsibility and a cost IMO.

Bigger argument to me, would be people that abuse animals under the guise of ownership. (The ones that drop a dog off on the curb, since they don't "jive" anymore)

Nothing wrong with folks that never had kids. But you have to watch the ones that never had kids and have dogs.

Helping my son bury his wife's cat a couple of weeks ago, my daughter-in-law (my very liberal daughter-in-law) commented, while holding my granddaughter, that it really puts losing a pet in perspective when you have a child. Thank you God, there might be a little light at the end of that tunnel.

Lots of folks now feel that it's evil to think of man as dominant over any other creature. Of course, the Bible states otherwise. And, our modern society believes that you can't dominate something without abusing it. They watch National Geographic and similar shows in their comfy cities and naturally assume that animals are sentient beings. I love my dogs dearly, but humans are the only sentient beings. Apes, elephants, dolphins, etc. do some amazing things, but their not sentient.

If you want to end the discussion for good, tell your co-workers you're saving up for an elephant hunt, and, if you win the lottery, you might add-on a lion.

However, since when has the majority been the driving force in final decisions?

Madalyn Murray O'Hair was clearly in the minority. She got rid of prayer in public schools...nationwide.

Nothing wrong with folks that never had kids. But you have to watch the ones that never had kids and have dogs.

Madalyn Murray O'Hair was clearly in the minority. She got rid of prayer in public schools...nationwide.

the worst folks are the ones that constantly
let their animals roam willy nilly, then they
get run over in the roads, or shot for running
stock, or nabbed by predators, etc.
i know of a couple that let their pets roam, and
have lost quite a few to bobcats, coyotes, etc.
and they just replace them and continue to allow
them to roam and get nabbed.
that's true animal abuse.

we've lost 2 cats to coyotes in last 8 years in Southlake. we honestly did everything we could, didn't declaw cats and didn't let them outside. some times of the year the cats just do what they can to get outside. sometimes they return OK and sometimes a coyote gets them. after the 2nd cat we did stop getting cats.

what I don't understand is people that think the wild animals are a problem. the wild animals are natural here, the humans aren't. we're the problem, not them.

Had a somewhat heated conversation with a couple of co-workers today about people who view their pets as people and equal to other members of the family. In some cases, such people may even see their pets as their kids. And thankfully, the discussion never turned to animals and hunting.

With so much discussion these days on human rights, is hunting set to become threatened by a growing movement to give animals the same rights as humans? I say this because during today's discussion, I was made to be incorrect in viewing pets and people as being unequal.

I'll say one thing. I left today's discussion thinking that animal rights by pet owners falls into that category of topics, along with religion and politics, that you should avoid with co-workers.

There is difference between animal rights and animal welfare.

yes there is, but that's a WHOLE nother argument... that I had to go into in detail in my vet school interview...

anyway, having worked in the vet field for 5 years i'll say this. Sweeping generalizations are this, you can split pet owners into two groups.

Group A.Good people who love their pets, they may love on them and spoil them and their wives buy them little jackets. But they are pets, they either have a purpose or their purpose is to love on their owners and be companions. these people are the vast majority and I would generally it isn't what you would say would grow into anti gun/hunting nuts.

Group B. These people LIVE TO SERVE THERE PETS. They put the pet first, they send money to peta thinking it will help there local shelter. Often well meaning... but often in my opinion they are zelots with very little education and understanding of the causes they support. they are the ones who blindy accept peta's "scientific" evidence when they get on the news, even though there sources are sometimes 80 years old and have multiple papers saying the findings are incorrect... the problem is these people are the squeaky wheels. and we all know the theory on that.

they are often good people but you realize quickly that your reality and theirs are very very different... It amazes me that in some ways how naïve these people are but then how completely jaded in other ways...