Readers reply: Are there too many pets?
Send new questions to nq@theguardian.com.
This needs to be qualified: 'There are too many pets … for people who dislike dogs so much they can't enjoy green spaces, cafes and other public areas.' rewilder
As I get older, I find myself questioning pet ownership. A pet exists for the sole purpose of pleasing its owner, giving it comfort, pleasure and companionship but also putting it at risk of abuse, pain, displeasure and abandonment. They are bred (often conforming to a human-designed ideal) or captured in order to perform human-pleasing duties. So, yes, there are too many pets for their human masters. 02Dscythe
This is probably true unless you live with a cat, in which case the roles are reversed. kiramango
I think there are too many abandoned pets, too many pets in rescue, too many designer pets with health problems because of their breed standards and too many dogs tied up outside leading lonely, deprived lives. We have one rescued dog, who is adored. He is walked on a lead three times daily, enjoys off-lead time playing in the fully fenced back yard, is fed the best possible food and is treated like a member of the family in all ways. I love cats, but I also love birds; I wish people would keep their cats indoors to protect the birds. The worst problem in our world is too many irresponsible humans, not too many animals. MythKenner
From an ecological point of view there are too many of everything associated with humans, so yes, there are definitely too many pets. I doubt there's an easy way to solve that, though. unclestinky
There are certainly far too many people involved in the selling of mindless rubbish surrounding the keeping of animals at home. Cat and dog fashion, cosmetics, toys: too many containers of senseless junk being shipped around the world. There are way too many nonsense pet food brands as well: 'Delicious morsels lovingly selected and served with rosemary and green beans.' What? It's a pooch, or a moggy; it can't read, it doesn't understand infantile advertising slop and it's not Jay Rayner.
Pets are for companionship, a haven from loneliness for many, also to assist in teaching children about caring, responsibility, kindness, life, death and how not to develop into cruel, selfish brutes who think only of themselves and the next fix of cheap entertainment. bricklayersoption
How many is too many? Well, I did a house-sit with 17 cats and I can tell you, categorically: that's too many. (Now, I ask people to define 'a few cats'.) Leoned
There are far too many dogs now. Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them. It's time to reintroduce the dog licence at a realistic (high) level and set some rules and expectations around dog ownership, as there are currently none. So, one dog a household. On leads in all public spaces except enclosed dog fields, which would be funded by the licence fee. Breeding banned. Tougher rules on dangerous dogs. Some basic hygiene requirements on cafe and pub owners who allow dogs. Ownership banned if you fail to pick up dog mess – no excuses. This'll do for starters. Dennis1970
'Every public space, outdoor and indoor, is overrun with them'? They really aren't. And cafes and pubs already have to meet hygiene standards. And there are rules and expectations around dog ownership. You can argue they need strengthening, but saying there are none is just untrue. Oldhairynose
Too many inconsiderate dog owners use those extending leads in public spaces and expect others to get out of the way or else trip over them, or let their dogs foul the public spaces they insist on using for their dog's toilet needs. Add to that letting poorly trained dogs off their leads and then saying: 'He won't hurt you, he just wants to play!' Sundaygal
NYC has too many. The streets reek of dog urine and too many owners don't clean up faeces – especially in Brooklyn – so walking is a dangerous hopscotch around smears of festering mess. It can't be very friendly for the dogs, either, which are kept locked up most of the day, against their nature. 80xd35
Dogs are an environmental disaster, from the contamination of waterways from improperly disposed waste – and how long will it take for those plastic poo bags to degrade even if they're used properly? – to the harmful effects on wildlife. Dylan
Dog ownership is shown to improve people's physical health, pet ownership improves mental health and many people socially benefit from pets. The frustration is those few who mistreat their pets, have too many pets, don't pick up after their pets, let their cats out to kill birds – and those who spend all their time moaning about other people's pets. But the majority, who own pets with kindness and with social benefit, shouldn't have to be judged by the minority. specklefreckle
We need dogs. They take us out, even in the rain. They help us to relax. They are true friends. It would be a sad world without them. Anne Meile
I'd welcome a ban on the 'exotic pet' trade. Murdomania
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Telegraph
24 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Dear Richard Madeley: My otherwise lovely neighbour is playing fast and loose with my lawnmower
Dear Richard, For the second time this year, I've lent my lawnmower to my next-door neighbour, only to have to remind him to give it back, and to find on receiving it that he hasn't topped up the petrol. Perhaps he thinks it runs on magic beans. To make matters worse, this time, one of the blades was chipped. I don't want to be 'that guy' but I am feeling miffed. I didn't perform a close inspection of the mower when he brought it back so didn't notice or mention these issues then – is it too late to do so now? And should I just withhold it in future, or stipulate conditions? I'm mortified by awkward exchanges at the best of times; plus this guy is in other respects an exemplary neighbour – friendly, minds his own business, takes in deliveries, waters the garden when we're away, and so on. What's the best way to deal with this? – G, Surrey Dear G, If you're proposing risking falling out with a good, reliable, helpful neighbour over a few tablespoons of petrol and a chipped lawnmower blade (which you may have been the one to damage), then frankly you need your head examining. The value of good neighbourly relations is beyond rubies. Have you ever lived next door to someone with whom you've had a falling out, G? Talk to someone who has. It can poison daily life beyond recovery. As I wrote here only last week, it's worth performing back-handsprings through hoops to stay on good terms with the folks next door. Right, let's sweep up this hill of beans. First, the chipped blade. As you yourself say, you didn't inspect the machine when it was returned, so how do you know you haven't damaged it since? Or, assuming you didn't cast your eagle eye over the thing prior to lending it to this guy, that it wasn't already chipped? Answer: you don't. So drop it. Now, the fuel. I don't use a petrol mower but I just checked and the ones you push around burn about half a litre per hour. The bigger things you ride use about a litre. That's roughly 67 pence worth for the first, under £1.50 for the second. G, G, G. Come on. Are you really going to present this bloke with a bill for 67p? How would you feel if he made a storage charge for the parcels he takes in for you when you're away? And yes, it must be irritating if you can't use it until you've filled it up, but unless you're riding it to the petrol station and back surely you have some petrol in the shed or garage, and it's just a matter of topping it up? I have one word for you, G: perspective. I strongly recommend you get some.
BBC News
24 minutes ago
- BBC News
Thames Water investigates 'illegal spill' into sewage facility
A water firm has said it is investigating an "illegal discharge" into one of its sewage Water said a third party had caused the incident at Wheatley Sewage Treatment Works at the River Thame, Oxfordshire, which caused the treatment process to be "knocked out".It said 15 tankers were being used to remove sewage from the site and take it to another facility for firm said there was an indication that wildlife had been impacted. Jake Morley, the firm's government engagement lead for North Thames Valley, said the works were "not designed to take this type of waste and treat it". "We need to allow sites biological process time to recover," he said."Once the site has recovered, we can slowly remove the tankers and treat as normal at the site."He said Thames Water was working the with the Environment Agency (EA) at affected watercourses "both at the ditch and the River Thame". "We are working very hard to reduce the impact to the watercourse," Mr Morley EA has been contacted for a Dem Henley and Thame MP Freddie van Mierlo said he was "extremely concerned" by the incident reports."We don't yet know the full extent, but it's clear that something has gone badly wrong," he said."I've asked for urgent updates from Thames Water, and I'm grateful for the swift response from local councillors and community members."Once the facts are established, we must ensure that those responsible are held to account and that everything possible is done to restore the health of the river." You can follow BBC Oxfordshire on Facebook, X (Twitter), or Instagram.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
What Edinburgh University's campaign of self-destruction says about modern Britain
Edinburgh University, that most genteel of institutions, is not all it seems: the ancient facades provided cover for white supremacism in the past and continue to harbour racism today. At least, that is, according to a new review of the institution's 'historic racial and colonial injustices'. Apparently, the prestigious university played an 'outsized' role in developing 'racist scientific theories' at the same time as profiting from the transatlantic slave trade. This devastating critique was not commissioned by Edinburgh's rivals but by the university itself. Led by academics, the investigation into the university's historic links to slavery and racism is being lauded as one of 'the most ambitious, wide-ranging and sustained consultations of its kind'. The result is 130 pages of self-flagellation. A light is shone on horrors such as buildings funded by donors who had links to the slave trade and the British empire; a room containing 300 skulls reportedly used in the study of phrenology; and student notebooks from the 1790s that suggest philosopher Dugald Stewart taught that white Europeans were superior to other races. At Edinburgh University, widely recognised the birthplace of the Scottish Enlightenment, the past itself is now on trial. Fingers are pointed at great scholars such as the aforementioned Stewart, Adam Ferguson, David Hume and Adam Smith. The legacy of these intellectual giants has been assessed by today's pygmies and found to be that most heinous of all things: 'damaging'. What's seemingly missed by the review's authors is that scholars of the past, just like today, reflect the attitudes and values of the era they inhabit. Phrenology, for example, has been so thoroughly debunked that few current students are likely to have ever encountered the word. Taking potshots at long dead scholars for going along with the prejudices of their time overlooks nuance and progress. The Edinburgh review, in its determination to uncover white supremacism, is forced to rapidly brush past the inconvenient fact that Stewart was also an abolitionist. The desperate search for racism ends up discrediting the entire Enlightenment project. Yet, in reality, the intellectual gains of this important period in time benefitted everyone, not just white men. And as a nation we should be proud of this legacy. For example, the work of philosophers such as John Locke was truly revolutionary in promoting the idea that all men (and later women) are created equal. The Enlightenment's scientific advances sowed the seeds of the industrial revolution which lifted people around the world out of poverty. And, ironically, the academic methods developed at this time made modern universities possible. Compared to the astonishing advances in thought made by the Enlightenment philosophers, the academics who compiled the Edinburgh race review are engaged in an anti-intellectual act of self-harm. Their report inevitably leads to calls for reparations in the present. The authors want formal apologies to be issued, buildings to be renamed and scholarships set aside specifically for black students. Scholarships are an important means of making higher education more accessible. Indeed, the money wasted on what's been heralded as 'the most extensive investigation of its kind carried out by any university in the UK' could have been better spent funding current students. But scholarships should be awarded on the basis of economic need or academic merit. Doling out money based on skin colour reintroduces racial categories into the university, turning back the progress the Enlightenment made possible. The Edinburgh review reveals that researching the legacy of slavery now has nothing to do with the past and everything to do with the concerns of today's cultural elite; especially in universities, but across other areas of culture and learning, from museums to galleries. Edinburgh University should celebrate its great philosophers and scientists. Academics cannot stand on the shoulders of giants they have kicked to the ground. This attitude is not only bad for universities, but for Britain as a whole.
