Do They Really Use Dead Dogs and Cats to Make Pet Food?

Share

The pet food industry has denied the rumors for years. Yet the reports just keep coming. They claim a number of companies continue to use euthanized pets to make dog food.

Sound impossible? Watch this short video and decide for yourself.

Portrait of a Shameless Industry

Unfortunately, there’s no date attached to this video. However, our research found Hersch Pendell was president of the Association of American Feed Control Officials (AAFCO) in 1998.

So, we must assume that year to be the approximate time of this interview.

In any case, the actual words spoken by the president of the pet food regulatory association are especially chilling.

And we’re still unable to locate any current regulation forbidding the use of euthanized pets in commercial dog food.

How to Avoid Products with the Highest Risk
of Containing Euthanized Pets

To avoid choosing a dog food that might contain dead cats and dogs, there’s only one way to minimize the risk…

Never buy any product made with an anonymous animal ingredient

By anonymous, we’re referring to meat-based ingredients that do not specify the source animal. They use vague terms like “meat meal” rather than more specific words like “chicken meal” to describe their components.

According to the pet food industry, meat can come from virtually any mammal1.

So, generic meat meal can be legally made from road kill, dead, diseased or dying farm animals — even euthanized cats and dogs.

Footnotes

  1. Official Publication, American Association of Feed Control Officials, 2008 Edition, Section 9.3, p. 259
  • Vegan Chick :3

    And any animals lives, as well. The meat industry is just sick.

  • orangehorizons

    Oh my god are serious? That’s disgusting! They should have been charged with animal abuse.

  • Al

    “What should shelters do with the bodies of euthanized animals?”

    They could always do what my local shelter does and have them cremated.

  • Al

    PETA’s own shelter at their HQ euthanizes thousands of perfectly healthy, adoptable animals every year to “save” them. Ingrid Newkirk was a euthanasia specialist at a shelter before starting PETA and admits that she felt good putting animals to death because she felt it was a better option for them than life with humans. PETA activists’ antics kill more animals than they aim to save. The whole organization is loaded with hypocrites and terrible people, not to mention they sponsor known domestic terrorists.

  • Betsy Greer

    Well said, Kimberly!

  • Kimberly

    People who are spending thousands of dollars selecting and welcoming a specific, well-bred dog into their homes are NOT the individuals who are relinquishing said-$1000 dogs to shelters!

    These are the people who live and care for their specially-sought companion for life!

    Show/hobby breeders are not the issue at stake. These are breeders who shell-out major $$ for genetic testing and xrays to ensure optimum standards for breeding.

    The real issue is the everyday riff-raff who pick their dogs out of a cardboard box in a walmart parking lot with no intent to vaccinate, train, socialize or spay!

    And NO – for every animal purchased, it does not constitute “death” for some other hypothetical animal. Typical PETA guilt tactic to perpetuate the cycle. My dog was carefully selected for his breed, genetics and temperament as a puppy. I would not have sought a canine companion under any other circumstances.

    Discriminating, picky pet parents are not the problem.

    It is the ignorant, abusive and lazy who perpetuate the influx of relinquished dogs. Said individuals also gravitate towards specific breeds.

  • Blue Bird Vision

    As long as an industry is pumping billions of dollars, ethics mean nothing. Our lives, our pet’s lives, and our children’s lives hold no significance over the “almighty” dollar. It’s a sad fact, really.

  • http://batman-news.com gin2772

    There is an online fundraiser going on right now that is raising money so that massive pet food testing can be done & this is one of the things that they want to test for. The Truth About Pet Food is overseeing this. Here’s the link to the fundraiser: https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-pet-food-test

  • Fred Neal
  • theBCnut

    No. I’m not missing that point at all. You may be able to fool yourself, but we do have the right to own animals and if you have a pet, you own it, no matter what you like to call it. You have the right to decide how it will be raised, what it will eat, when it will die, and just about every aspect of its life. It will never grow up and become independent of you.
    If we stop meddling in the sex lives of our pets, they would have litters every time they came in heat and there would be even more puppies and kittens that die. Legislating the end of breeding isn’t the answer, there are already far too many people who don’t care about the law, including the people of PETA.

  • inthecathouse

    The point you are missing is that we do not have the right to own a living creature. We most definitely do not have the right to “breed” anyone but our own selves.

    PETA believes in rescuing and adoption because selling and buying an animal is disgusting. I do not own my cats I am their guardian, I provide a safe and loving home for them just as I would a human if would adopt. For every dog or cat purchased from a breaded a shelter animal dies. In shelters 3-4 million cats and dogs are killed annually. Don’t worry we are in no danger of running out of “domestic animals”. We need to start caring for the ones already here and stop meddling in the sex lives of our so called “pets”.

  • grintch

    yue spel gud

  • Pattyvaughn

    PETA nuts came to a dog show I was at and turned loose dogs near two interstates. One dog died in traffic and another was never found so probably starved to death. That doesn’t sound to me like they care about responsible dog ownership. Or anything else that I could support.

  • Betsy Greer

    Too bad they don’t believe their goal can be achieved through responsible pet ownership.

    Sterilization is not always necessary and certainly isn’t always in the best interest of the animal’s physical well-being.

  • Fred Barnard

    As to the statement by PETA “What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering ” Good for them.

  • shannoncookie

    Sounds like mad cow for dogs / cats in the making… a lot of weird diseases can come up when you play with nature and feed an animal something it wouldnt eat naturally…

  • Betsy Greer

    Please tell us what companies buy your product!

  • Mindy

    I work at a company that manufactures pet food ingredients and we sell it to the top pet food companies. I assure you, dogs and cats are NOT going into the product!!

  • http://www.facebook.com/julie.weingand Julie Weingand

    That is why you don’t buy any food with “meat by products”. I have known about this for over 20 years and warn all of my friends and family. It is just awful and so wrong. My animals only get all natural foods. So sad that the animal food industry isn’t really regulated well. That is why there are so many recalls and animals getting sick and dying. Just horrible!

  • Stephanie L Walker

    This made me so disgusted and furious to read..

  • johnandchristo

    straight from peta website

    Contrary to myth, PETA does not want to confiscate animals who are well cared for and “set them free.” What we want is for the population of dogs and cats to be reduced through spaying and neutering and for people to adopt animals (preferably two so that they can keep each other company when their human companions aren’t home) from pounds or animal shelters—never from pet shops or breeders—thereby reducing suffering in the world.

  • Pattyvaughn

    In Europe, there are social consequences to irresponsible breeding. Here there are no consequences at all. Something has to change.

  • Pattyvaughn

    No, they want to take away our right to own them and the right to breed them. Not the same thing, but the results would be the same, no domestic animals.

  • helen

    de-sexing is NOT the answer I know that most in Europe do not de-sex and dont have the dumping rate. People have to take responsibility the AKC are useless all they are after is your money and they keep the puppy mills in business. Look at some of the pathetic health issues pure bred dogs have and breeders and judges (thats how you spell breed btw) have a lot to answer for. I breed

    a purposely bred X breed that has been around for centuries (BANDOGS) I am a responsible breeder giving new families all the info & support they need/want …….trying to educate as much as I can…

  • helen

    PETA wants to kill all domestic animals nothing more nothing less !!!!!

  • Paw Paws

    yeah that’s the goal :) I grew up with parents who bread Pembrook Welsh Corgies and Throughbread horses ( for jumpers not racing) so I know what to look for in a good breeder, the ones that really need to be watched are the people running the “AKC” , that title means nothing any more, if you have 2 dogs of the same breed registered, 1 male, 1 female, you can right to them stating that you have bread these to dogs which produced lets say 9 puppies, AKC will send you 9 sets of papers no questions asked. therefor you can have a bunch of inbred muts registered as purebreds and then charge a large sum for them because they are “papered”
    That’s not how it was back in the day, you used to have to produce blood samples of the the parents and each puppy proving they’re existence and pedigree, same was true for horses with the APHA, AQHA and the Jockey Club.

  • Shawna

    Getting puppy mills shut down (without destroying the rights of reputable breeders) would be a huge part of the solution!!!

  • Paw Paws

    I am not part of the problem I am part of the solution I do all 1 person can, I have had a hand in closing down 3 puppy mills, I volunteer at the ASPCA I support several rescue, no kill facilities, I have fostered many unwanted animals and all of my own pets have been rescues and are spade and neutered. and what may I ask have you done to be part of the solution?

  • Paw Paws

    well said patty

  • CliveGains80s .

    Rspca has their pet food, welfare approvel stickers, insurance, donations, etc. I think that video is an old 90′s report etc. I suspect all the land clearing that wild animals are included. It seems pet owners are even targeted to supply the pet food industry and death culture. I’ve seen a Uk show were inspectors tried to seize someones pets cause their house was vaguely messy! Yet they fed and left water out all the time. Not even a hygiene test was done to prove this claim yet insisted the pets welfare was at sake.

    These Pet Insurance schemes seem to want more vaccines and updates. It’s like they want to give it cancer to come in with the euthanasia. I’m completely lost how you can’t have a dog with cancer at any level now. Even a vet said it was not necessary except you should cause rspca will try seize and destroy it and that would be cruel. That is no reason to euthanasia your dog at all.

  • Pattyvaughn

    I believe all breeders should be like that, willing to take back a dog they bred for the life of the dog, looking for only the best homes, insisting on responsible dog ownership. I live in an area where people think just because they have a dog that is registered it is automatically of breeding quality and should be bred. The breeder that they got their dog from should have spent a lot more time educating them, but all they cared about was getting the money. Fortunately, there is starting to be a lot more attention on this type of thing and there is no longer any excuse for ignorance, but the problems are still not solved. I hope that educating people makes enough of a difference soon, so they don’t do what PETA wants and outlaw all breeding of dogs.

  • Paul Maria

    hi patty as a breader of grate danes for over 20 years and poms and other breads i found out buyers no how much i looked in to there back grounds still want to become breaders and dont care who they sell to i am not saying you did or do that at all. please dont take it thee rong way .
    when i sold a dog it had to go to the best home i could find and if they could not keep the dog for any reasion i be happy to take it back. and thin i find it a great loveing home but befor that if they did not fix the dog i would .
    patty thier people out there that dont clean up after there dogs. i do and if i see some one who i tell them how would u like poop on your shous or your kids shous and wolking in to your home on your rugs. think about others a ya there is a 100.00 buck fin in our develament if you are truned in.
    i for one love it . as you said people are not smart about doing the right thing.
    as for 1 to 5 it is not in stone i justed want to make others to come up with any ides. this is a smart group and a lot of people with good ideas all i asked for them to do is start thinking about how to fix this problem.
    ok patty it is nice talking to you if you like to see some of my dogs i have have now and in the past go to pnmaria.com and u can see thim there i love all dogs and have for over 60 years my frist dog was a black and wight colloie
    my next dog was a boxer i loved veary much so i do understand how much you love your dog
    paul

  • http://DogFoodAdvisor.com/ Mike Sagman

    Your views have never been censored here. Not once.

    Only those comments you posted that violated our rules and were disrespectful to others have been removed.

    For proof, I offer the many posts still remaining on this thread representing BOTH sides of this controversial discussion.

    Being American does not give you (or anyone else) the right to insult other guests.

    In fact, this privilege of citizenship also comes with a responsibility: to represent your country with dignity and to treat everyone else with kindness, courtesy and respect at all times.

    The Bill of Rights may guarantee you the right to be as rude and insulting as you’d like on your own website — but certainly not on mine.

    Please do not post any further comments in this community.

  • Melissaandcrew

    I disagree and honestly see your line of thinking as someone trying to throw a hot iron into a group of animal lovers to see what can be stirred up. However, your argument would create MORE expense, not less.
    Companion animals are given a myriad of vaccinations and preventatives. Do these stay with residual effects in the system? For how long and in what strength? Write the check for millions to study this please-
    Next up, what about the processing cost to determine if each animal used has rabies or anything else communicable to humans? Write another check. Afterall, we c an not have people “processing meat” that they may die from.
    Now, what are the effects on the animals eating your ‘proposed product?” More checks to be written.
    Nope, cheaper, to buy a few bags of dog food without the added cost and worry if its safe or not, let alone attempting to dealing with the moral and ethical ramifications.

  • Pattyvaughn

    Hi Paulie
    I really like some of your thoughts but I want to point out to you that the AKC is a beauty contest and is a very poor way to decide if a working dog should be bred. It would be absolutely ruinous of my favorite breed, the Border Collie, if the only ones that were bred were the ones that did well at AKC shows since the AKC Border Collies don’t herd sheep any better than the AKC Airedales. And AKC German Shepherds should all be neutered to preserve the breed. I think it would be better to abolish AKC and go back to breed clubs and standards that have something to do with what the breed was meant to do.
    I also want to point out that many countries in Europe do not neuter their dogs routinely and they don’t have all the unwanted litters that we do. It all comes down to owners being responsible for their own animals. I don’t want anyone telling me that I have to have major surgery on my dog because other people aren’t responsible for theirs. There has to be a better answer.

  • Pattyvaughn

    Dr Mike supported your right to offend everyone on here with your desire to feed dogs to dogs, he only asked that you don’t name call and that you treat others with the same respect you hope to receive. Your behavior in your response to him shows you to be a flamer and a troll, but guess what Dr Mike doesn’t delete posts just because you say something against him, his site, or other posters here. But you are expected to be mature and polite about it. Is that really too much to ask of you? This is part of that personal responsiblity we were talking about.

  • Crazy4cats

    I wish I could give you 100 up votes. Well said!

  • Paul Maria

    IF I MAY.
    1. STOP THE PUPPY FAMRS.
    2. ALL BREADERS MUST PUT ON THE SALE PAPPERS ALL PUPPYS MUST BE FIXED AS 6 MONTHS OR BEFORE 6 MONTHS.
    3. OR ALL BREADERS PUT IN THE PRICE OF THE SALE OF THE PUPPY TO HAVE THE PUPPY FIXED.
    4. IF A DOG IS BREADER IS BREADEING FOR SHOW THEN AFTER IT MAKES IT IN THE SHOW RING AND IT HAS 2 LITTERS IT SHOW BE FIXED AS WELL.
    5. HELP POPPLE WITH PETS THAT JUST CANT AFORED THEM FIND A HOME FOR THAT PET OR HELP WITH GOOD FOOD TILL THEY CAN.
    THIS WILL ONLY WORK IF WE THE PET LOVERS NO MATER WHAT TYPE OF PET IT IS PAPERS WHERE WE LIVE AND TELL THEM OF THIS PROBLEM AND TELL THEM WE WILL STOP BUYING THERE PAPER TILL THE PUT THIS PROBLEM IN THE PAPER. IF ALL OF USE START TELLING THEM WHAT WE THINK ABOUT THIS PROBLEM AND STOP BUYING THERE PAPER THEY WILL LISTEN TO USE. BUT IF YOU WANT IT TO STOP WE HAVE TO WORK AT IT. PAULIE

  • HowIt’sMade

    By wanting to keep things civilized you suddenly deem this person to support and enforce “views like North Korea?” This is what is wrong with America – people think that they are entitled to whatever they like, and anyone who limits what they want to do is automatically “unAmerican”. As someone who values our country AND interacting in a civil, respectful manner that allows things to actually be accomplished.

    People also tend to forget that this is the internet. There are people from all over the world here, and many of them don’t care at all about the customs, framing, or laws of any country other than their own. And Americans seem to do a great job at pulling out what we think we’re entitled to at the slightest inconvenience, annoyance, or thing that disagrees with what we “deserve”. Living with these freedoms is a privilege, and one that we should display more proudly, and less crudely. We need to act as we want to be treated – there are reasons that Americans are viewed as we are, and oftentimes it isn’t because someone fabricated the view. It’s because (by and large), we deserve it. We live in an entitled world where people think they can go around acting like a jerk all the time, and still get everything that they want.

    I personally hope that your ignorant, self-righteous comment is deleted, and that you’re removed so that people who are interested in learning about what is offered here and give their reactions in peace – without your rude holier-than-thou attitude.

    Everyone is entitled to sharing their opinion and debating/discussing/etc. it with other people who may agree or disagree, but I think you lose that privilege when you’re so high up on your horse that you can’t see the people you’re supposedly having talking with like a civilized human, not to mention blatantly breaking rules of a place that you chose to come to, with an article that you chose to read, and people you chose to belittle, bully, and be outright rude to.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Yeah, censorship and abolishing free speech are two of my favorite things about North Korea too. Congratulations on being two steps closer to making America just like North Korea. Am I being too offensive? Well if the truth about you and your site is offensive, you and your site are the same offense you are censoring. Let me guess, you’re going to prove me right by deleting this post. What a conundrum huh? Prove me absolutely right and delete the post, or let it slide and let everyone know I think that you enforce censorship and are trying to destroy free speech, exactly like North Korea. Your move. Please prove me wrong.

  • http://DogFoodAdvisor.com/ Mike Sagman

    Posting in this community is a privilege. Anyone who ignores my previous request for civil behavior and continues to post rude or disrespectful comments is at risk for being permanently blocked from further participation. Please consider yourself duly warned.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    I don’t agree with that argument, but the loss of the public support argument got me. I no longer support making euthanized animals food for that reason. The problem of wasting their sacrifice still looms large on my mind though. I’m going now. Take care Betsy.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Most shelters don’t only cremate animals they put to sleep. I just read about this a minute ago. They are either sold for very cheap to rendering plants (Which are purported to use them in the meatmeal that’s in most commercially sold pet food,) sent to a landfill or sold (cheaply again) to scientists to perform experiments on. I actually don’t fully disagree with the last one. Some of that research is very important and is used to create better vaccines and other beneficial products. Another terrible and seemingly necessary fact is that shelters opt to put animals to sleep rather than just give them away. I hate this but I can see the need. They need to make money and if they adopted a policy to give animals that are about to be euthanized away for free rather than sell them, people would just wait for that day and the shelter would have no reliable source of income. That really depresses me and I can’t see a way around it without steady government funding. Congress cares FAR too much about making sure Exxon has the lowest tax bracket in history and the Pentagon has billions to throw away on war. I think I’m done here. I’ve made my peace and I’m not sure there’s much more to say. Patty got it right and this thread has proven it to me. Using the animals shelters put to sleep and feeding the ones who are still alive would be too alarming for the public. They wouldn’t think past their initial reaction and that shelter would lose tons of it’s donations. It wouldn’t go well. But I’m still convinced there is a better way to use them rather than throwing them away, selling them cheap or using the sheer number of them to guilt the public to adopt. If they aren’t used it just feels like they died for nothing. Alright, I’m done. Take care everyone and thanks for everything Patty. It’s been very nice talking to you.

  • Betsy Greer

    If a shelter exists to foster humane, ethical treatment of animals, to feed a dog a euthanized dog instills nothing more than hypocrisy.

  • LabsRawesome

    No, her husband received a heart transplant, enabling him to live so he could become a Father. I have pretty good reading comprehension skills, for a stupid person.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Wow. I’m sorry. I didn’t know I’d hit that close to the mark with my little moral hypothetical. So did the same heart get transplanted twice? I didn’t know that was possible.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    I actually agree now. I’m wrong and you’re right. It would hurt the shelters because too many people wouldn’t see the whole picture. I think this thread is proof enough of that. I don’t think making them food is the answer anymore but I do still feel like it’s an enormous waste when a dump truck dumps a full load of animals, previously as amazing and wonderful as mine, for nothing. There’s got to be a better way, I just don’t know what it is.

  • http://DogFoodAdvisor.com/ Mike Sagman

    Hey Guys,

    Everyone has a right to his own opinion about a particular dog food — even if that opinion doesn’t happen to agree with your own.

    Unfortunately, recent remarks here compel me to remind all involved to adhere to Our Commenting Policy which states:

    “… we delete comments that exceed the boundaries of courteous behavior. This includes remarks that are rude, profane, mean-spirited, disrespectful, lack good manners or otherwise unrelated to the topic at hand.”

    Please be more respectful of one another when posting.

  • Pattyvaughn

    I think that if the shelter system tramples human sensibilities, they will lose all the support that they ever had, so using euthanized animals would actually harm them rather than help them. They make more money fund raising from the public than the tax dollars they are given, much more money. And they would lose all, or a great deal, of that.
    In a sense, they do use the euthanized animals, because they use the shocking numbers to bring light to the whole issue. Because of the shocking numbers and the desire of the public to do better, our shelter system is moving toward being a no kill system. If that concept has made it to my backwater, then there is hope for shelters everywhere. The pit breeders may not be taking responsibility, but others are willing to shoulder more than their share to make up for it.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Agreed, as always. But I, obviously, don’t think it’s the only problem worth addressing. It is the root but there are lots of branches on that tree. Do you really think there is nothing that can be done with the animals the have to put down than enrich the soil? It just feels like a waste.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Well good. That’s wonderful. Without the need to euthanize healthy animals because of overcrowding and lack of funding I have no argument, which has always been the goal. I’ve been to a few like that too. It’s still sad but the best case in a worst case scenario. The thing is that there are many shelters that are not as fortunate as yours or the few I’ve been to. I’m not exaggerating when I say 3-4 million a year. That’s a current estimate. It’s still a problem. My only argument is that if it could work when nothing else is, it’s worth thinking about.

  • Pattyvaughn

    Well, since ours are cremated, ashes are good for the soil around here…

  • Pattyvaughn

    We have a low cost/free spay/neuter clinic in town. It is fully funded, but under used. All the people who are breeding the pitbulls that end up in our shelters don’t think they are the ones that need the service. And don’t tell me they need to be educated. You can’t educate people who will not learn. The solution has to start with personal responsibility or it won’t work. And until our society makes people, who make decisions the way they do, pariah, they have no reason to think there is something wrong with their level of assumed responsibility.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    That’s awesome though. I’m really glad that one is working.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Then my idea falls flat. I’m fine with that. What I’m really after now is a better idea. How can they use the animals they throw away? Is it possible to make their sacrifice mean something?

  • LimitOfInfinity

    What if harvesting euthanized animals can save other animals lives? Seriously, where’s your argument. I’m going to try to be serious with you ok, please just listen. If there was a way, hypothetically, that we could use the euthanized animals shelters currently throw away by the millions a year, to produce food with absolutely zero side effects, mental or physical, and thereby save enough money to help promote shelters, increase adoptions by 30%, lower the need to euthanize by 30% and give them the ability to offer free spays and neuters, would that be a good thing? I really want an answer please. I’m being nice. Please be nice in return and if you disagree please give your reasons.

  • Betsy Greer

    My daughter wouldn’t be alive today if if weren’t for the organ donor whose heart her now deceased father received years earlier.

    I just thought of the parallels in the arguments because both are very personal moral arguments. Clearly, one is a matter of life and death and the other a matter of choice.

    I don’t believe that shelters are euthanizing due to lack of food. In fact, where I live, shelters are no-kill. The county I work for operates on a pretty nice budget. They also hold fundraisers and receive donations. I take food to them fairly often. Awareness of adopting shelter pets has increased due to the good-will the shelter has fostered within the community. Animals there that are euthanized, are euthanized out of necessity to end suffering. Most leave the shelter having been adopted or taking into the care of rescues. Shelters and rescues alike frequently receive donated or deeply discounted pet foods from suppliers or manufacturers.

  • Pattyvaughn

    Sorry, but reading is what I do. You can’t save me from myself.

  • Pattyvaughn

    I’ve only worked at one shelter, but my experience there was that people will always donate food to shelter animals, but they won’t necessarily donate that same amount in cash, go figure. The amount the shelters spend on food would in no way compare to the amount they would have to spend to expand.
    Our local shelters just expanded, all of them, because the public got involved and decided to do something. They also got new bed platforms, new toys, new dishes, etc. People did donate money when they could pick what their money was going to go towards. That project was actually one of the most successful that I’ve seen.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    I agree utterly and will save you any more reading.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Maybe we shouldn’t. Would euthanized shelter animals be considered 4D? Would better processing techniques be a way to change that or is a basic, unalterable nutritional value of dogs, cats, rabbits and ferrets issue?

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Food costs money and they’re being put down for a lack of money for lots of other things like space and advertising. I wish you’d just calm down and actually contribute something. Are you always like this? Nothing but negativity all the time with no suggestions at all?

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Thank you. I wanna know what you think though. I think this one is a little easier but a moral decision none the less. Let’s make it, your daughter is dying and the only organs available were from a serial killer. She is in a coma and the decision is yours alone. I think that changes the difficulty a little. I’d do it in a heartbeat but I’m a cold hearted realist when it comes to decisions like that. I’d try to prevent her from finding out, it would just be an unnecessary fact for her to think about, but no matter if she knows or not, everyone is better off for the decision. The lesser of two evils by far.

  • Betsy Greer

    If we oppose the use of 4D animals in any pet food products, why should we advocate the feeding of same to shelter pets?

  • LimitOfInfinity

    And your solution? What should shelters do with the bodies of euthanized animals? Can you think of a way to use them to prevent more from being euthanized? I hope so, but I’ll maintain my skepticism.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Again. Brilliance. 2nd grade brilliance but I won’t look a gift horse in the mouth.

  • LabsRawesome

    I do not really care.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Thanks. They disagree but I don’t think they care much about what you think. Coincidentally, neither do I.
    And just as an aside, your statement contradicted itself. If my animals don’t know I’m an “ahole,” wouldn’t they just know I’m the kind and caring owner they love? What’s there to feel sorry about? Two of them are sleeping on my bed with me right now and Hailey is on one of her 4 beds I have around the house. Doesn’t seem like they care very much that some person who contributes nothing to a conversation about how to save animals from being euthanized thinks I’m an “ahole.” They know better.

  • Pattyvaughn

    I would think that if it’s a matter of life or death for another person, they would know that the serial killers kidney didn’t make him what he was, nor did his liver, or whatever else would be harvested.

  • LabsRawesome

    Harvesting organs that can possibly save human lives is a lot different than forcing shelter dogs to become cannibals. For what reason? We’ve got plenty of dog food. No shelter dogs are starving to death. Or being put down for lack of food. This is the stupidest, most insane conversation that I’ve ever had.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Then use the revenue saved in food costs to build bigger shelters. Or better yet use it for more promotion of getting your pet from a pound rather than buying them. It’s a big problem, I don’t claim to have all the answers but I’m thinking about it and trying to get others to think about it. The wastage of a possible resource is part of that problem. How do we turn that wastage into a solution to the problem that created it?

    And again Patty, I’m not a shelter. I love my animals like they’re my children. But I don’t need to regularly euthanize them because I can’t afford to take care of them. I don’t need to take the way I feel about my animals into consideration when I think about how to solve this problem. They’re two very different issues. I think its one of the greatest tragedies of our time that we have allowed so many pets to be born because we love them as a society that we need to kill the millions that no one wants. They’re in those pounds because people don’t know how to prevent their beloved pets from having too many babies. That’s the seed that sprouts the tree. Maybe just using the revenue that’s possible from using the animals shelters need to euthanize, however that may be, to offer free spays and neuters and lots of advertisement for it may work. However we can make it work, let’s make it work. If you let your emotions get in the way of that solution, aren’t you no better than anyone that just doesn’t care?

  • Pattyvaughn

    If food for these animals is not the problem then feeding them these animals won’t help solve the problem. The problem is the number of animals coming into the shelter in the first place. Start there to look for solutions. Starting at the beginning of the problem to prevent the problem from happening in the first place makes a lot more sense than solving a nonexistent backend problem.

  • Betsy Greer

    This conversation reminds me of a case I worked on. Convicted serial killer attempts suicide in lock-up while awaiting transfer to the DOC. Estranged family of the offender refuses to sign paperwork to allow offender’s organs to be donated. Offender is removed from life support, organs are NOT harvested and offender’s body is cremated.

    The next conversation is, who wants the donated organ of a serial killer anyway?

    It’s a stretch, but both are issues of morality.

  • LabsRawesome

    BOO HOO. You’re so self absorbed. You don’t care about other peoples feelings. Why would anyone care about yours?

  • LimitOfInfinity

    I’m trying to think of a way to solve the problem of euthanized animals being thrown away rather than being used to prevent more animals from being euthanized. Yes, I’m rude when people don’t think and offer nothing but unproductive criticism. How else should anyone treat such a person? Say you have a cause and you would like to brainstorm an idea with other people. You’re not entirely sure how your idea will pan out but you’re willing to let it evolve in the best way possible even if your idea is buried in the process. How would you like it if someone just kept screaming about how dumb your idea is with nothing constructive to add to it? Welcome to what it’s like being me right now.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Damnit. I wish people could read more than a few sentences at a time. I never said it was the only solution. It is a proposal and still very up for discussion. If a study showed that it affected them negatively in any way, like making them cannibalistic for instance, we would need to think of another way to use euthanized animals. I’m sure I’m not the only person who’s ever thought of this. It might be impossible to use them for anything that might help shelters with current technology or the financial cost of maintaining a facility that could process them could be more than their net gain to shelters. This is a discussion. Instead of just throwing out unthinking criticism, why don’t you join us?

  • Pattyvaughn

    But all the shelters that I know of or have heard people speak or write about, aren’t putting dogs down because of lack of food. They are doing it because of overcrowding. And every one of those dogs in shelters was someones pet. Why are you going to waste the death of your own pets, if you feel this way? Even old meat should make you a fine soup.
    Indians didn’t cannibalize each other to not waste anything, at least not the ones we admire…

  • LimitOfInfinity

    I agree up to the point that emotions start to hinder progress. These animals are dead and wasted, used for nothing. Finding a way to prevent more from dying by using them is a good thing, however that might work. The individual emotions of unaffected people shouldn’t get in the way of that. The world is cruel. Trying to find ways to use tragedies we must endure to prevent future tragedies should be part of the solution. Wasting things that could be part of the solution to the problem isn’t how we fix things. I’m imagining an ever shrinking circle, what you’re talking about is a straight line in the same direction. Sorry, I still really like you Patty and I totally understand where you’re coming from. But the fact that these animals need to die is not going to go away until we think of ways to stop it. We need to use everything we have to do that, even if it means setting instinctual reactions aside. I don’t like the need to use dead animals to help prolong the lives of the living, but I like the idea of the problem never going away even less.

  • LabsRawesome

    Congratulations. You have been so rude and ignorant to everyone here, I’m sure no one cares. I feel bad for your animals, they don’t know that they have a complete ahole for an owner.

  • LabsRawesome

    You think that you are so intelligent, too bad your solution to the problem is so dumb. How in the world is making cannibals out of shelter dogs helping them? The most insane, idiotic thing I have ever heard, Genius.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Yeah, but people don’t need to euthanize millions of their pets every year because they can’t afford to keep them alive. There’s a difference. Also, they’re dead. If their death can, somehow, prevent the deaths of others it would be showing them much more consideration than just wasting them. The Indians made a point to use every part of the animals they kill. It was a laudable idea and still should be.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Good one. But still no solutions. I’m shocked.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    And just so you know, I got my dog from the pound, two of my cats are kittens born from a homeless cat I found at my ex’s house (she was pregnant when we found her and I gave her to a retirement home and two of the other kittens to friends) and I took Deogee home when he approached me in a Home Depot parking lot a couple weeks ago.

  • LabsRawesome

    No one has a problem here but YOU.

  • LabsRawesome

    You are a very rude and ignorant person. I did not suggest that we have the live shelter dogs bury the dead ones. What I did say is that, that stray dog has more compassion than YOU. IS THAT REALLY SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND?

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Ok, so you’re suggesting that the solution to the problem of 3-4 million animals being euthanized every year and thrown away with no possible benefit to the animals waiting to be euthanized is to…let the animals that are still alive bury the dead ones? Seriously, the utter ignorance of the general public is terrifying. Maybe if I yell it, it will get through to you. All caps seems to be the way stupid people write so I’ll say it in your language.

    MILLIONS OF EUTHANIZED SHELTER ANIMALS ARE BEING THROWN OR GIVEN AWAY. IF THERE WAS A WAY TO USE THEM TO PREVENT MORE FROM BEING EUTHANIZED IT WOULD BE A GOOD THING.

    Is that really so hard to understand?

  • Pattyvaughn

    Some people believe that every pet deserves that same consideration when they die, not just the ones that are fortunate enough to be owned at the time of their passing.

  • Pattyvaughn

    Here every shelter animal that is euthanized is cremated. That does not solve any of the issues, except that of rendering plants making peoples pets into dog food and filling the landfill with rotting corpses.
    And I guess I tend to think that some things are bad ideas just because people think they are bad ideas, no explaination needed. I don’t think the emotions that keep us human need to be erased, though sometimes they do need to be controlled.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Again, no solutions. If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Wow. I thought the last thing you said was the dumbest thing I’ve ever read, thank you for proving me wrong. And I have a dog (Hailey Sky) and three cats (Cloe, Banksy and Deogee.) I’ll pay to cremate them when they die.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Ok, then my idea wouldn’t do any good. That doesn’t negate the fact that the 3-4 million animals they need to euthanize every year are either thrown in dumps or given to rendering plants. I’m not saying my idea is the only one, there are very likely better ways to use them. I’m only saying that it would be good to find a way to use them in a way that would help shelters euthanize less of them. My main argument though, that was missed by more than just you, was that people need to stop having knee jerk reactions to ideas that could possibly work because they just don’t like part the idea for some reason they can’t explain. Pandering to stupid emotions that have no basis in reality to hinder progress of a potentially good idea does not solve any problems. Thinking about every aspect of problems and using every resource available to solve them in ways that mitigate as much harm as possible and turn losses into gains is the how to solve problems. Millions of euthanized animals rotting in dumps or boiling away in rendering plants with no gains to the shelters forced to kill them is a problem. Do you have any solutions or are you just going to contribute your unconstructive criticism? And just in case you missed the hundred times I’ve said it before, whatever the solution is it should have provisions that stop anyone from using it for their own personal gain built in the foundation. I’m probably more informed about and more vehemently against corruption and greed than anyone else here. I hate it passionately and I think plans to utterly prevent it should be built into any system or any solution.

  • Pattyvaughn

    My shelter feeds garbage mixed with the better foods that are donated. They are constantly short on money, but word always gets out and then the donations pour in.

  • LabsRawesome

    Your views are really messed up. Dogs in shelters are not starving to
    death, so I don’t get your supposed need to recycle dogs into food and
    feed it exclusively to shelter dogs. My local shelter has a list of
    approved foods to donate.They only accept higher end brands. They will
    not even take grocery store foods like Dog Chow, Pedigree, or Ol’Roy.
    The shelter dogs in my area are eating better than most peoples pets.

  • LabsRawesome

    Your views are really asinine. Dogs in shelters are not starving to death, so I don’t get your supposed need to recycle dogs into food and feed it exclusively to shelter dogs. My local shelter has a list of approved foods to donate.They only accept higher end brands. They will not even take grocery store foods like Dog Chow, Pedigree, or Ol’Roy. The shelter dogs in my area are eating better than most peoples pets.Instead of polluting your mind with all those anti religion books, you should read some books on morality. I have a suggestion, try starting with the Bible.

  • Paw Paws

    oh so your plan is to humiliate homeless animals by making them eat they’re own kind to survive until it is they’re turn to be dinner? you shouldn’t even be on these forums you know nothing about animals, dogs do not eat other dogs, wolves do not eat other wolves, in fact they have been known to cover they’re dead to hide them from other predators. Have you ever witnessed a mother dog mourn for a dead pup? I have, even a starved dog on the street wouldn’t not eat the carcass of another dog if they came across one.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    You’re so dumb. I hope you feel dumb, because you’re dumb.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    That’s why you would build failsafes against that exact problem into the program. And any food would be fed exclusively to animals in shelters.

  • LabsRawesome

    This dog has more compassion and sense than you do. She finds a dead puppy, guess what, she doesn’t eat it, she buries it. http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Global-News/2013/0625/Dog-buries-puppy-in-Iraq-Why-is-this-video-so-popular-video

  • Paw Paws

    you really are just a sicko, no compassion for living things at all, why dont you go cut off your fingers and fry them up for lunch, then you wont be able to type anymore and we wont have to read your trash

  • Paw Paws

    Very well put Patty !!

  • Paw Paws

    I hope you don’t have any pets, I really can’t stand the thought of them being a meal for you when they die.

  • Paw Paws

    sounds more like an excuse to euthanize more animals, more dead pets = more cheap dog food = more $ for the rich companies with no concept of the word morality who would make dog food this way.

  • Paw Paws

    yeah and maybe we should humans in our hamburgers and hot dogs too right? I mean hell, why just bury them too, or “throw them away” as you so plainly put it.

  • Paw Paws

    ok this just makes me want to puke…

  • Paul Maria

    SUSANMEANSLILY
    HERE IS SOME THING YOU MAY WANT TO READ
    and i hope others read it as well
    http://www.jainworld.com/jainbooks/images/20/Recycling_of_Slaughterhouse.htm

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Sorry, you’re too dumb to deserve a better response than this.

  • LabsRawesome

    That is disgusting. I do not want my dog to eat another dog. Have you ever heard of Mad cow disease? That was started by grinding up cows and feeding them to other cows. With your theory why stop with animals? Think how many starving kids could be fed recycled human beings? You are a very sick person. You need Jesus.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Well, sorry to disappoint you but I actually agree on all counts. I never said and would viciously fight against “killing dogs to feed other dogs.” The point of euthanasia isn’t just to kill dogs. It’s done because the shelters don’t have the room or resources to keep them and can’t do anything else with them. That’s why I said that there need to be safeguards in place to stop people from abusing it to earn money for themselves. Hows this? Any revenue that feeding cats to dogs or dogs to cats or whatever must be put back into the shelter and cannot be used to pay salaries? It could be expanded but that should be the basic idea to safeguard it from being abused.

    I also agree with you on the fact that these pet owners need to be more responsible. I wish there was no need for shelters at all. I don’t even keep my dog in a kennel if I can help it and I haven’t had to yet (I’m in the military and need to leave the state or country sometimes.) I think that’s just a separate issue though, it’s not even close to the problem I’m arguing to fix. And you’re right, there is no way to put them down humanely without chemicals that would make the inedible. That’s another problem though. I don’t mind problems. There might be a chemical discovered that can be put in their food at night that has no taste, puts them to sleep and very slowly restricts the flow of blood to their hearts. A vascular restrictor that resides only in a specific part of the heart and can be cut away or otherwise removed. But that’s really not the issue for me. My main argument with you specifically is that you said you would rather kill all the animals in all the shelters rather than know they were eating other euthanized animals. Your sensitivity to the subject in general, regardless of it’s possible merits if it could be done successfully with no side effects is what I’m really arguing now. I know there are hurdles but there have always been obstacles in the way of progress. The fact that it might not be easy or it might be complicated isn’t a problem. People opposing it because of their presupposed and uninformed notions of what’s right is what I’m really arguing. If shelter animals can safely and unknowingly eat the unfortunate ones that must be euthanized, means the shelter might be able to use that loss as a gain. The method and specifics aren’t really part of my argument. Your immediate response that you’d rather all of them die, no matter the gains, than know they were eating other shelter animals is my real beef.

    I do see your point on a lot of this though. It’s clear both of us really just have the best interest of the animals in mind and I like that. I also wish people were more responsible with their pets and would stop just bringing in litters of cats and dogs for the shelter to take care of or euthanise. It’s a hard problem. Charge them and the shelter may accrue some revenue but it will just encourage most people to just abandon them or kill them themselves. I wish I could catch someone throwing a bag of kittens in the river. I’d put them in the bag and throw them in the river. Maybe a half solution would be to not take in any litters unless the mother of the litter is also brought in to be fixed for free? I don’t know, people hate spending money. It seems like we just need to raise awareness of the suffering these people cause. I’d love to charge or punish these people but that would just keep them away from the shelter and fixing animals costs money, so what do you do? I honestly don’t know. I wish I did though. Ok, going to sleep. I’m sure you’ve got something to say. Lookin forward to it. Nite.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Well good. I loved that book too. I really hope you like The Moral Landscape. And again, I can’t recommend the Audiobook enough. You can listen to it anywhere and doing just about anything and because of that I can’t remember how many times I’ve listened to it and I get something new from it every time.

    Just as a random shot in the dark I also highly recommend a book called The Name Of The Wind. It’s, in my opinion, the best fantasy book ever written and vastly better than most of the books on any subject I’ve ever read. If you like fantasy, and new fantasy, not necessarily Lord Of The Rings elves and trolls stuff but just novels written that take place in worlds different from our own, I’m sure it will top at one of your favorite books of all time. It’s extremely well written and I think I’ve listened to the audiobook 100 times. Not even exaggerating. If you do get the audiobook, download the torrent. You can’t buy it unfortunately. The version commissioned by the library of congress isn’t for sale anywhere and you need to download the torrent. It’s the version by Fred Major. Make sure the narrator is Fred Major and not Nick Podel or whatever. The one you can buy is horrible but the download is read by my favorite narrator ever. Hope you like them!

  • susanmeanslily

    As I said…as long as it is safe for them to eat…

  • susanmeanslily

    I fed freshly-killed deer that had been hit by cars. I live in a very rural area. My dogs had regular check-ups by my vet and were very healthy and happy. Thank you fro you concern.

  • Pattyvaughn

    Nah, I’m not done with this discussion quite yet. My problem with the whole scenario is that killing some dogs to feed other dogs doesn’t solve the problem of the dogs being there in the first place. I guess you could say I’m big on personal responsibility. I think the people that allowed these dogs to be born should be responsible for them. The people that adopted/bought them should be responsible for them. I’d love it if we could find a way to waste some of their financial resources.
    BTW, if you insist on going there, there are plenty enough cats put down to feed dogs and dogs put down to feed cats, and ferrets can eat both. But they still have no way of putting down that doesn’t involve something grizzly(think vacuum chamber), a bullet to the brain, or bad chemicals. So for your scenario, the bullet is the best option, as long as you never miss.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Touche. Funding is just another problem to solve though. I’m really just more opposed to the money these shelters do make going to anything but reasonable salaries and the shelter itself. Honestly, I don’t know how the hierarchy of shelters works or if there is any financial corruption at all. But I still see a possible resource going to waste because of the sensitivities of people who don’t like the idea. My argument isn’t “will it work” my argument is that it could work and people just not liking the idea of dogs eating dogs shouldn’t be a barrier to it’s progress. I’m tired of knee jerk reactions to possibly good ideas hindering those ideas. You can find irrational people everywhere denigrating homosexuals, screaming about abortion and contraception, banning stem cell research and an army of good ideas dying because they just don’t fit with their feelings about them without ever considering them from the standpoint of their positive possibilities. Weighing harm and benefit should be the only rubric people who make important decisions should use. What does it harm and what is the benefit? Animals are euthanized every day. Thousands of them. It’s a tragedy and unfortunately a necessary tragedy. If we could think of a way to use it in a positive way without causing harm and possibly eliminate the need to do it at all, that would be a good thing. And saying stupid stuff like “It would be better to put down all the shelter dogs than to feed them other dogs” isn’t any type of solution, it’s limiting a possible solution for no reason other than you don’t like the idea. Whether you like it or not isn’t the issue, thousands of animals dying every day is the issue. My argument isn’t the only solution but it does address an issue worth exploring. Dismissing it because it doesn’t make you all fuzzy inside is part of the problem. Ok, I’m done with this if you are. Take care.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    My first post was informative. I was still telling him about something he wasn’t using even if he was aware of it. I could have said it with more sensitivity though. I agree. Take care Patty.

  • neezerfan

    I’ll have to try that. I read his “The End of Faith”.

  • Pattyvaughn

    Your second post might have been, but your first post definitely wasn’t, it was just rude.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Yeah, the worst thing you can do for someone with a problem that is in their grasp to change, is to ignore it. Compassion is letting people know where they can change to be more productive and happy. Just ignoring problems and not offering solutions or just trying to insult people who do, solves nothing. Criticism is a powerful motivator and many times the only way to show people where they’re going wrong. Paul mentions his dyslexia as a preface to his post, don’t you think he would like it if he didn’t need to do that? I was suggesting that solution Patty.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    frist, dislexea, cominlearning, dislexia, doughter, dislexea, inter, papper gusse, cleening, houwer, thow, houre, veary, veary, instrockens, dixlexea, companys.

    Sorry, I didn’t mean to insult you and I genuinely meant it as just a quick reminder of something that could help you with your problem. These are all words that were caught by my spell check and only have one option for correction. There are also grammar checks that will underline something when it’s grammatically incorrect. I was admittedly too short with my response to you and that’s why I’ll explain a little better here. The worst thing you can do for someone is ignore their deficiencies when it is within their power to change them. If dyslexia is a problem for you and you genuinely don’t like it, spell check and grammar check are great tools to help you overcome it. I don’t have dyslexia but I did use spell check to spell it right. I’m a HORRIBLE speller and my grammar is only marginally better. You’re not stupid and I’m sorry if I implied that. The only reason I wrote anything at all was to remind you that there are tools out there that can make you a better speller even if you are not. Get Google Chrome, click the little 3 line icon in the top right, choose settings, then scroll to show advanced settings at the bottom, then in privacy make sure that “use a web service to help resolve spelling errors” is checked. Then whenever you misspell a word or get something grammatically wrong just right click the underlined word and pick the word at the top. If there are more than one, pick the top one. It’s not perfect but it’s a partial solution to your problem. You don’t have to worry about it hindering you getting a 20 dollar an hour job. Just do your best, use grammar and spell check and if it’s important have someone look it over. If it’s important, I’ll look it over for you if no one else is around. My email is [email protected]. Also, on a only slightly related topic, download AdBlocker. I found out about it because I was complaining about a BP ad on YouTube and someone said “AdBlocker, it’s a thing.” After that I downloaded it, loved it and thanked that person. That’s along the lines of what I was trying to do with you. Take care and let me know if there’s anything you’d like me to look over for you.

  • Pattyvaughn

    They do not have a way of euthanizing animals that doesn’t comtaminate the meat or torture the animal that is being euthanized, at this time. Personally, I would object to my tax dollars being spent this way, as I’m sure most would. So who do you think would fund your study? You?
    How can my view that those two are not the only options be causing vastly more harm?

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Then why not just do a controlled study and process the meat in a way that seems the most promising to mitigate any potential problems? I’m not sure you read my argument. If we COULD do it in a way that: does not harm the animals eating the meat, physically or mentally, is economic and safe for the environment, brings about a net positive revenue that is applied only to the shelter and can be proven to increase the number of adoptions as well as decrease the number of euthanizations, what’s your issue with doing it? I suspect you just don’t like the sound of dog’s eating other dogs, but if every factor of my proposal is satisfied in small test conditions and very gradually expanded over years with a finger on the stop button if there are any issues, what’s your argument other than “I don’t like dogs eating dogs?” And it also sounds like you would rather ALL of the shelter dogs die than have to suffer the indignity of having to change your view on a subject. Seems like you’re the cruel one and views like yours cause vastly more harm than anything uncouth you might snub your nose at.

  • Paul Maria

    hello limitoflinfnity
    frist i do know i have spell check but with i have to chose form the words i dont know witch one to use.
    if you know any one with dislexea ask them how it is to wright some thing and how people like you respond i got to 3 grade at 16 the put me in cominlearning as they did not understand dislexia at that time now they do my doughter is a school teacher with a master degree and she has it to but not the same as me
    there is 22 hundred type of dislexea check it out on the inter net
    you should thank god you never had to deal with it as i did
    just trying to fill out papper work for the doctors or for a job gusse what you get the job but it is just cleening and sweeping at 6.20 houwer even thow you can do the job that pays 20.dollars a houre i am veary good with my hands veary good i can fix any thing but i can not read instrockens most people with dixlexea can fix things better then most that can read. well i hope you done put people that have ada it is not nice
    all i was doing to do is make people that love there pets understand what companys are doing .thank you for understanding people with ada

  • Paul Maria

    susanmeansliy
    so sad i could never feed my dogs roadkill never.
    every cat or doge that is put down where killed with
    some type of cemacal witch stays with them till your pet eats that dog food you buy at the store.
    as for roadkill do you know way it is dead? could it have died from cancer? do you know and you would feed your dogs it , not me but to each there own.
    i only hope your dogs dont get sick from roadkill
    one thing i have learned in 70 years vet bill can make you poor or give up your pets. at $50.00 a office visit and then the meds you get for them and you have to go back in 2 weeks at another $50.00 and then exray and blood tests and so on dont you think it be better for your loved pets to cook there food so you know what they are realy eating.?

  • Pattyvaughn

    Compassion, it’s a thing.

  • Pattyvaughn

    It took a while and people losing their lives for them to realize what caused Mad Cow. I don’t think we need the dog equivalent, whatever that would be. It would be better to put down all the shelter dogs than to feed them other dogs. Fortunately, those aren’t our only alternatives.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Deal, that would be a problem that would make me throw my argument in the garbage. But if there was a way to eliminate any risks that would occur, I stand by my argument, such as a humane, painless, stressless and non chemical form of euthanasia. I would prefer a kind that would painlessly allow the animals to pass in their sleep without ever knowing that it might happen, in a way that would not contaminate their bodies for consumption. I may be a hopeless utopian but people like me are the only way humanity ever makes progress. Giving up or settling for anything less than perfectly optimal isn’t a path forward. There are many issues involved and greed could easily destroy any progress that this might make but building protection from that eventuality into the system should be a necessary and one of the first phases of planning and leaving the plan flexible enough to account for any ingenious schemes by the corrupt rich to undermine the original goal of: killing as few animals, prolonging the life and getting as many animals adopted into good families as possible.
    I mainly object to people letting their emotions hinder progress towards a better world. It’s an ENORMOUS problem that the world is still a long way away from solving. If you’re interested, there’s a book called The Moral Landscape by Sam Harris that doesn’t tackle this specific problem but the problem of us treating morality like it is best implemented through instinct and emotion alone. He argues that morality can be a science and we can use that science to overcome humanities preference for knee jerk emotional responses and move as many people as possible to the highest peaks of wellbeing. It’s an amazing book and I highly suggest the Audiobook. Sam is an excellent narrator and it should make you think differently about morality, our collective the human experience, how and why we implement laws, the fault with how we do it now and why understanding morality on a scientific level is not only very desirable but necessary in the centuries to come. Hope you like it!

  • neezerfan

    My main objection is that the euthanasia drug is still present in the meat. I see your point, though. Most people tend to have an objection to what we see as companion animals being used as food.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Spellcheck, it’s a thing.

  • LimitOfInfinity

    Honestly, I’m not entirely against the idea of using euthanized dogs and cats to make food for other dogs and cats in pounds. What is the alternative? Throw them away and let them rot? If we could use the animals that pounds are forced to euthanize to prolong the existence of animals waiting to be either adopted or euthanized, where is the problem? Do the cannibalized dogs and cats make the (now) cannibal dogs and cats sick or harm them in any other way, possibility psychological. If not, where is the harm? If something just seems abhorrent, yet actually yields a net benefit to yet to be euthanized animals and has no down side beside the irrational feelings of humans who may know about it, what is the argument against it? If the practice began to encourage pounds to euthanize more and more animals to save money and therefore make more money for the owners, I can see a problem. But if it is done with only the most solemn regret and yields a net positive result for only the animals in these pounds and statistically proves to allow for more adoptions, I don’t see any problem. Am I wrong? Is cannibalism wrong on some objectively absolutist morality? If I was stranded and starving to death, I would not hesitate to eat someone else who had already died to prolong my life and increase my chance of escaping that horrible situation. It’s not preferable, but neither is the need for pounds. It’s vastly better to use those unfortunately euthanized animals to some purpose rather than just throwing them away. On the other hand, if it did cause problems such as making the newly cannibal animals feral and unadoptable then it would not be a good idea. But the possibility for using an otherwise untapped resource for the benefit of the cause is greater than the subjective sensitivities of the people who are aware of it and have not thought it through completely. It is a theory worth testing on a small group of animals to see if the practice might help many more. This is the cruel calculous of life. Sometimes we must set aside knee jerk emotional responses to really see the whole picture.