Dogs and dog feeding

[Adloud]

If you can't afford something you can't afford something; nothing to be done about it. However, there are pretty affordable pre-made supplement mixes available to help you make a good dog food. Dogs aren't so difficult like cats; no risk of serious urinary blockages, for instance. The only significant risk would be in puppies of very large breeds (their hearts grow too fast).
So the stakes really aren't that high. Your dog isn't going to fall over dead from a sub-optimal diet even if that were the case.

You're wrong about how dog's nutritional needs are easy to meet. Many, if not most, diseases resulting in premature deaths in dogs could be prevented by proper nutrition. You can give your dog too much calcium, for example, which is common in dogs fed unnecessary supplements, resulting in hypercalcemia. Please don't spread this misinformation - it's extremely important to pay close attention to how a dog reacts to certain foods and consult everything with your vet. Not many animals "fall over dead" when not having a proper diet. Their health might suffer severely, however, so it's something never to overlook.

They would only go unnoticed if you are habitually neglecting your dog. If you're playing with and walking/running your dog, picking up his or her poop, etc. you'd notice any significant difference in energy levels pretty quickly, or diarrhea etc.

If you're working with your vet, you can also order basic blood work a couple times just to make sure. It doesn't need to be a long term thing, just as you transition the diet. So that's not a long-term ongoing expense.

Look at this article:
https://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_dg_m ... in_in_dogs
Many of these symptoms are obvious but some might be hard to spot. Dogs often pant, lick, sometimes are calmer and sometimes more active than usual, and these are sometimes normal behaviours and there is nothing to worry about. It isn't always easy to spot - I myself went to vet a couple of times just to hear that what my dog did was normal and not to worry.

Dogs evolved with humans upon domestication and adapted to digesting starch rich diets.
If you have a wolf or wolf-dog, however, there may be some meaningful differences there. It's said that wolves do not do well on high carbohydrate diets to which they are not well adapted. Wolf-dogs are apparently mostly fine, but it is a genetic lottery so you might have missed out on the genes that let them deal well with carbs.

My dog is a working-class and he doesn't react well to starches. Mind that many stray dogs leave short lives full of diseases, so in this case, an appeal to nature (ironically) doesn't work too well. This does not mean I will not try - but very carefully and paying close attention to how my dog reacts.

I think you are incorrect about the risk, but if you're not convinced then why not feed 95% vegan and throw in some mix of lower animals like worms, bugs, oysters, etc.? Or, frankly, even freegan meat table scraps scooped up at the mall. Just make the portion of the dog's diet that can be tolerably composed of people food freegan meat.

That is pretty extreme. I am not of an opinion that my dog HAS TO have meat in his diet. I want him to be healthy, and he is now on a diet of high-quality kibble. I won't feed him a home-made diet. This is an informed opinion - balancing all your dogs' nutritional needs is extremely important and requires a lot of time and care - and is unnecessarily costly and time-consuming in comparison with high-quality kibble fortified with certain vitamins. It's similar to a raw vegan diet. The benefits are scarce and implementing it is possible but extremely hard and not recommended over the alternative.

[Lay Vegan]

@Adloud I don't understand the course of this conversation.

Paying someone to create a carnivorous pet for you, where there was none before, no matter how much you love a particular breed, is not ethical because it creates a market that incentives animal neglect and abuse.

I agree completely - that is the main reason of my struggle right now.

I actually did notice some small things my breeder does that didn't prioritize welfare over looks (minor things, like praising the dog with good looks but weak character over a less pretty but more intelligent dog).

l think it might be inevitable, considering how expensive it is to run this business ethically (which she still does, by the way.)

It’s not only highly probable. Ethically it’s not a good wager

In my case, it's simply not true. I saw my breeder's receipts for veterinary care.

And yet also you:

I think it might be inevitable, considering how expensive it is to run this business ethically

You seem to be well aware of the risks of purchasing from breeders, acknowledging that such an outcome where profit is valued over the animal's wellbeing is likely inevitable, yet somehow struggle to see that dogs can live happy and healthy on a vegan diet (where resulting in malnourished dog isn't inevitable or even highly probable if done correctly.)

First of all, I don't live in the US (AAFCO doesn't apply) and most of the pet food from the US isn't available in my country.

Who cares? Again, the AAFCO doesn't "certify" anything, so it makes no difference where you live. You can still look gauge the nutrient profiles of your kibble/brand to see if they are aligned with AAFCO's guidelines. Check out their website.

Also, you didn’t quite answer my previous question. Breeding can certainly have benefits, but you’re not considering the much greater costs of such a pernicious industry practice. Please explain why it’s a good idea to take that risk of harming animals via supporting such an industry when you can yield the same (or better) results via adoption?

Again, that's unnecessarily rude. I don't care that there are cases of healthy vegan dogs, as long as I'm not sure MY dog will be healthy on a vegan diet. I am convinced otherwise, just not by these kinds of arguments.

The point is, veterinarians know the nutritional needs of companion animals and potential health issues of feeding them improper diets. And the case studies I shared with you indicate that dogs who follow carefully designed vegan diets that meets all of their nutritional needs live healthy lives.

[brimstoneSalad]

Many, if not most, diseases resulting in premature deaths in dogs could be prevented by proper nutrition.

Sounds like similar pseudoscience to e.g Dr. Greger who often overstates the role of nutrition in human disease and promotes anti-supplement fear mongering.

In humans:

Hypercalcemia is most often caused by overactivity in the four tiny glands in the neck (parathyroid glands) or from cancer. Extra calcium in the blood affects many body systems.

How about in dogs? Unsurprisingly, same things:

https://www.merckvetmanual.com/endocrin ... s-and-cats

There are many potential causes of hypercalcemia (see Causes of Hypercalcemia in Dogs and Cats). In hypercalcemic dogs, neoplasia (lymphosarcoma) is the most common cause, followed by hypoadrenocorticism, primary hyperparathyroidism, and chronic renal failure. Other causes of hypercalcemia in dogs, in an approximate incidence order as seen in practice, include vitamin D toxicosis, apocrine gland carcinoma of the anal sac, multiple myeloma, carcinomas (lung, mammary, nasal, pancreas, thymus, thyroid, vaginal, and testicular), and finally, certain granulomatous diseases (blastomycosis, histoplasmosis, schistosomiasis). Approximately 70% of hypercalcemic dogs are also azotemic. However, azotemia is uncommon in dogs with hyperparathyroidism.

You can give your dog too much calcium, for example, which is common in dogs fed unnecessary supplements, resulting in hypercalcemia.

If you tried very hard I'm sure you could manage to cause disease by overdosing your dog on something (difficult by oral route for calcium), but balanced supplement mixes when measured properly into the food will not do that. As long as you can measure e.g. a teaspoon and not mix it up with a cup, you're fine. The difference between a level teaspoon with voids and a heaping one without isn't enough to cause problems.

Anti-supplement fear mongering can really be dangerous; much more dangerous than supplements are.

The closest thing to what you're describing in that entry in the Merck manual is this:

Hypervitaminosis D: iatrogenic, plants (eg, day-blooming jessamine), rodenticides, antipsoriatic cream
Iatrogenic disorders: excess calcium or oral phosphate binders

Eg. in dietary terms only Hypervitaminosis D is a problem from things the dog shouldn't be eating (flowers, creams, poisons). The rest has to do principally with medical interventions of which I doubt "dog food" counts. Only phosphate binders are specifically mentioned as caused from *oral* interventions. The sheer amount of calcium that would have to be administered to a healthy dog in a short span of time makes it an unlikely cause and I'm not seeing mention of dog foods as a risk here.
To put it into perspective search "my dog ate a whole bottle of tums" and see how not worried veterinarians are in response.
Also keep in mind that dogs commonly practice pica too, and many soils are largely composed of calcium compounds. It's just not realistic to think common minerals like this are so dangerous. Our bodies, and those of dogs, have means of up-regulating and down-regulating absorption of these things as needed.

Contrary to your claims (and the claims of companies that want to sell you very expensive dog food and slander established brands to do it), there's no reason to believe "most" or even just many of these conditions are caused by supplementation or have anything to do with diet.
Most are really caused by genetics *cough* dog breeders *cough* but that's another topic...

Please don't spread this misinformation

I could ask to please not spread this misinformation. I don't know what quacky naturopathic pet site you're getting your info from, but you can't just say that stuff... I haven't found any evidence of the claims you're making regarding dog food.

It's an inherently anti-science conspiratorial world-view to think that the writers of the Merck manual are paid of by petfood companies that are knowingly poisoning dogs with bad food, which is what you seem to be suggesting with the anti-supplement stuff.
Even that such a large company could manage such a wide-spread conspiracy seems impossible: these companies may not be perfect, but they are staffed by vets and pet lovers.

I don't want to be too harsh here, but it's weird the lengths you'll go to to defend breeders while implicitly condemning millions of people who work in the pet food industry. We seem to be witnessing a double standard is all.

it's extremely important to pay close attention to how a dog reacts to certain foods and consult everything with your vet.

If you have expensive carpeting, yeah. Or if they're having an allergic reaction. The only likely reason dogs would be suffering under a remotely adequate diet would be bad genetics thanks to inbreeding which gives them cancer and other actually common causes of these diseases.

Not many animals "fall over dead" when not having a proper diet. Their health might suffer severely, however, so it's something never to overlook.

If their health suffers severely, any good pet owner will be able to identify that.
For example, hypercalcemia if you're actually worried about that:

https://www.merckvetmanual.com/endocrin ... s#v4633300

Polydipsia and polyuria are the most common signs of hypercalcemia and result from an impaired ability to concentrate urine and a direct stimulation of the thirst center. Anorexia, vomiting, and constipation can also develop as a result of decreased excitability of GI smooth muscle. Decreased neuromuscular excitability may lead to signs of generalized weakness, depression, muscle twitching, and seizures.

You're going to notice that.

Look at this article:
https://www.petmd.com/dog/care/evr_dg_m ... in_in_dogs

Wonderful, and article by Dr. Aja Senestraro, a holistic veterinarian who among other things recommends chiropractors, acupuncture, and herbal medicines for dogs.

I wasn't wrong when I guessed that you were getting all of your info from quacks.

Look, unless you're not paying any attention you're not going to miss serious clinical signs like a dog drinking HUGE amounts of water or not pooping.

I myself went to vet a couple of times just to hear that what my dog did was normal and not to worry.

That's good that you checked. The one good piece of advice in that article was to not be afraid to ask your vet questions.

My dog is a working-class and he doesn't react well to starches.

How do you mean he "doesn't react well" to them?
Unless your dog is a wolf dog, it's much more likely your dog has an allergy to corn or something like that.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2013/01 ... estication

More surprising were genes for digesting starch. Dogs had four to 30 copies of the gene for amylase, a protein that starts the breakdown of starch in the intestine. Wolves have only two copies, one on each chromosome. As a result, that gene was 28-fold more active in dogs, the researchers found. More copies means more protein, and test-tube studies indicate that dogs should be fivefold better than wolves at digesting starch, the chief nutrient in agricultural grains such as wheat and rice. The number of copies of this gene also varies in people: Those eating high carbohydrate diets—such as the Japanese and European Americans—have more copies than people with starch-poor diets, such as the Mbuti in Africa. "We have adapted in a very similar way to the dramatic changes that happened when agriculture was developed," Axelsson says.

Dogs and wolves have the same number of copies of another gene, MGAM, which codes for maltase, another enzyme important in starch digestion. But there are four key differences between the sequence in dogs and wolves. One difference causes dogs to produce longer versions of maltase. That longer protein is also seen in herbivores, such as cows and rabbits, and omnivores, such as mouse lemurs and rats, but not in other mammals, suggesting length is important to plant-eaters. These differences make the dog maltase more efficient, the researchers report.

That dogs evolved to be able to digest starches better and use them efficiently for energy isn't speculative.
You dog might have an allergy or intolerance of some kind of corn, but he doesn't need to be on a "keto" diet to be healthy.
That said, if you want to make a food with a higher portion of protein and fat and fewer carbs (not no carbs) that's pretty easy to do too. It's actually easier, because proteins and fats in plant foods correlate better with nutrient content.
A diet based around legume, nut, and seed products will naturally contain more whole food nutrients than one rich in grains like corn and rice.

Mind that many stray dogs leave short lives full of diseases, so in this case, an appeal to nature (ironically) doesn't work too well.

I'm not talking about stray dogs, I'm talking about the genetic differences dogs have objectively evolved. You're the one who originally made negative claims about the natural suitability of plant based diets for dogs; I'm just showing how that doesn't apply. Dogs are not wolves.

This does not mean I will not try - but very carefully and paying close attention to how my dog reacts.

I hope you will try, although I don't mean to shame you if you are for some reason unable. I'm more just critical of some of the claims that come from the alternative-medicine crowd. I can only hope you'll be more skeptical of the anti-mainstream veterinary nutrition info in the future.

It's similar to a raw vegan diet. The benefits are scarce and implementing it is possible but extremely hard and not recommended over the alternative.

I would agree if not for prepared nutrient mixes you can buy and add to simple recipes. I think those make it much more practical and affordable.
Of course that doesn't necessarily solve the problem for cats who have much different issues.

[Adloud]

Also, you didn’t quite answer my previous question. Breeding can certainly have benefits, but you’re not considering the much greater costs of such a pernicious industry practice. Please explain why it’s a good idea to take that risk of harming animals via supporting such an industry when you can yield the same (or better) results via adoption?

The point is, veterinarians know the nutritional needs of companion animals and potential health issues of feeding them improper diets. And the case studies I shared with you indicate that dogs who follow carefully designed vegan diets that meets all of their nutritional needs live healthy lives.

You've given me a lot of good arguments. I think I'm pretty much convinced as for the superiority of adopting over buing. I will still not be on my way to demonizing one and every breeder, though, as I believe breeding can be done ethically, and from the love of animals, not money. I will talk to my veterinarian regarding my dog's diet at some point.

I hope I didn't annoy you with my inquires, I really didn't mean to if that's the case. I'm very glad to have found this forum and hope I will be welcome to stay here.

[Adloud]

Anti-supplement fear mongering can really be dangerous; much more dangerous than supplements are.

Contrary to your claims (and the claims of companies that want to sell you very expensive dog food and slander established brands to do it), there's no reason to believe "most" or even just many of these conditions are caused by supplementation or have anything to do with diet.
Most are really caused by genetics *cough* dog breeders *cough* but that's another topic...

To clear things up a bit, I'm not ani-supplements. I supplement my dog's food. I also don't buy the most expensive dog food, just one with proper ingredients and good nutritional value (Acana). Many people, when cooking home-made food for their dog, give them a lot of eggshells and additional calcium supplements.

I could ask to please not spread this misinformation. I don't know what quacky naturopathic pet site you're getting your info from, but you can't just say that stuff... I haven't found any evidence of the claims you're making regarding dog food.

It's an inherently anti-science conspiratorial world-view to think that the writers of the Merck manual are paid of by petfood companies that are knowingly poisoning dogs with bad food, which is what you seem to be suggesting with the anti-supplement stuff.
Even that such a large company could manage such a wide-spread conspiracy seems impossible: these companies may not be perfect, but they are staffed by vets and pet lovers.

I don't want to be too harsh here, but it's weird the lengths you'll go to to defend breeders while implicitly condemning millions of people who work in the pet food industry. We seem to be witnessing a double standard is all.

I am strongly anti-pseudo-science and try to get my information from as credible sources as possible. You couldn't be farther from the truth regarding my views. Pet food can do a lot of good or a lot of bad, depending on which one you choose. This seems to be veterinary consensus, at least amongst all the practitioners I talked to. I think that there are good breeders and bad breeders (to oversimplify). There is also good pet food and bad pet food. I'm trying to retain a way of seeing things in shades of grey, even if I'm starting to be convinced by you guys, that, as a practice, breeding is not a very good thing.

If you have expensive carpeting, yeah. Or if they're having an allergic reaction. The only likely reason dogs would be suffering under a remotely adequate diet would be bad genetics thanks to inbreeding which gives them cancer and other actually common causes of these diseases.

I've talked with at least five rescued dog owners that changed their dogs' pet foods and saw their health get a lot better. Dogs have lots of allergies - both adopted and pure breed ones. Dog's health should always be the priority when choosing what to feed them with.

If their health suffers severely, any good pet owner will be able to identify that.

Dogs can experience fatigue, headaches, stomach aches, etc. Pet owners should always look out for that.

Wonderful, and article by Dr. Aja Senestraro, a holistic veterinarian who among other things recommends chiropractors, acupuncture, and herbal medicines for dogs.

I wasn't wrong when I guessed that you were getting all of your info from quacks.

Look, unless you're not paying any attention you're not going to miss serious clinical signs like a dog drinking HUGE amounts of water or not pooping.

I'm very sorry if the source I provided is not credible. For the record, I do not use this site to get my information. I am getting most of my information from proper vets.

How do you mean he "doesn't react well" to them?
Unless your dog is a wolf dog, it's much more likely your dog has an allergy to corn or something like that.

I think he might have an allergy to some type of wheat.

I hope you will try, although I don't mean to shame you if you are for some reason unable. I'm more just critical of some of the claims that come from the alternative-medicine crowd. I can only hope you'll be more skeptical of the anti-mainstream veterinary nutrition info in the future.

I would agree if not for prepared nutrient mixes you can buy and add to simple recipes. I think those make it much more practical and affordable.
Of course that doesn't necessarily solve the problem for cats who have much different issues.

I'll try to get my own diet sorted out first. I again am sorry for providing a not credible source - thanks for calling me out on that. Vets in my clinic are against home-cooked diets for dogs, as they have many clients that fed it their dogs and had them experience negative symptoms.

As I said above, I am very thankful for the conversation and hope I will be welcome to your community here.

[brimstoneSalad]

Many people, when cooking home-made food for their dog, give them a lot of eggshells and additional calcium supplements.

People should not be formulating these supplement mixes on their own. That probably stems from distrust of "chemikills".
If you use a professionally formulated supplement powder in recommended amounts you should not be at risk of those kinds of mistakes.

I'm skeptical that egg shells are causing a big problem in themselves, but far too much calcium can be a nutritional risk for other reasons (like preventing iron absorption).

Most food switches are highly anecdotal. I think there's some credibility to allergies and intolerances, but it goes both ways: a switch from meat to grain is often beneficial too, since those are common allergies as well -- that's actually why these prescription vegetarian dog foods exist.

Anyway, you are absolutely 100% welcome here. We have a lot of heated discussions, don't worry about it!

[brimstoneSalad]

The analogy is far from perfect but I think my point still stands. Where I live dogs in shelters are euthanized only when they are dying and in great pain. When I learned that in the US dogs are euthanized I was surprised, to say the least. Maybe it's the case with funding, or with donations.

You might want to look into it more, since it's very rare that there's not a system in place to kill unwanted pets (even if it's not done in your own country; e.g. by exporting them to another organization).

That said, if dogs are draining government funds for their care that's another issue in itself; they do not give back like humans when they mature through tax dollars.

I would argue that the potential of indirect harm caused by having a biological child/buying from a breeder, when having the resources, is similar to the children in orphanages and dogs in shelters.

I noted several other factors I think you've missed, and they are significant.

If you're talking about the most good: In many areas, adopting is so expensive that you could do much more good by having a child and donating the difference in cost to an effective charity. There's also a general shortage of young children, so adopting when you are *able* to have your own children could even be considered unethical because it's depriving another infertile parent the opportunity (or increasing waiting time, etc.).

A lot of this just comes down to supply/demand balance. It may be that in some areas there's a real shortage of dogs for adoption, but keep in mind that in the majority of English speaking territories the ethics of breeding/adopting pets vs. having/adopting children are nearly or completely reversed, making it more ethical to adopt pets and more ethical to have human children at the same time.

I disagree entirely. Dog's intelligence is extremely important. Having a dog that is too intelligent might not be optimal for some people - for example, dogs that are independent thinkers and "strong" in terms of character (react less to stimuli) might not be ideal as family dogs when not properly trained.

Character traits in dogs are the difference -- except working dogs -- between more and less optimal. A dog could be slightly annoying or troublesome until having a trait trained away or satisfied with a replacement activity, which isn't usually going to be that complicated.

The difference for human beings is several decimal places in salary, massive difference in mortality and quality of life, probability of landing in prison or dead by certain ages, and the difference potentially in doing something amazing for the world like curing a terrible disease.
The most dramatic aspirations of dog breeding, and I don't want to dismiss them, are helping a disabled person -- a single person -- lead a slightly more convenient life, or in the most impractical scenario save a few human lives by sniffing out a bomb that was missed in other (superior) screenings.

The difference is many orders of magnitude in terms of potential, probability, etc. and the risks.

It's an argument for breeding itself, not breeding over shelters, I should've made that clear.

OK, although you understand that we could completely stop breeding for 50 or 100 years and then start it back up again for the right reasons down the line when or if there's a call for it? There's no reason to continue breeding to make sure those skills/knowledge sets remain available. I thought that might have been what you were saying.

The "behind closed doors" argument is valid in the case of unknown facilities dealing with animals. In my case, I would say the chance of there being any improper treatment of those animals is extremely low - believe me, I'm as certain as I could be in these circumstances. I know we can't be certain of anything - but we have to be able to judge values of things based on probability.

I think it's very much the case here too -- you can't really trust people when it comes to this. Analyzing probability in cases of bias like this is pretty much impossible.
It's like the parents who know the kids are safe with uncle Gacy because they've known him for years and etc.

We should absolutely judge based on probability: but objectively. We can't stack the deck with sentiment, since it doesn't play a role in the chances of somebody doing wrong.

You do raise your puppy. You can influence his/her future temperament and personality, despite what inherent traits he/she might have. It's not a strong argument (again) in the breeder/shelter debacle but is true for the breeder's case.

Not really. Even in humans almost all of that stuff is genetic. Beyond malnutrition or outright abuse resulting in some kind of PTSD, there's very little that early childhood does. What you can do is *train* certain behaviors, and that can be done with adult dogs too. It's a myth that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".

You make strange assumptions here. I don't think of puppies only as "cute and fun". It's a time in their life when they learn the most, socialize and learn about the world. Being a part of that process is amazing, despite all the inherent difficulties (similarly to having a child).

You're still talking about an experiential benefit. aka. "fun" entertainment.

Puppies are great and all, but I really don't feel the need to play with them - you misinterpreted my argument completely.

I'm not just talking about play. Watching them learn and grow is "fun".

I'm against calling the purchase wrong. It was an action that didn't cause suffering - it also didn't save any dogs from it. Buying a dog can be a neutral action - that's what I'm advocating for.

It added a dog to the world who wasn't there before (a purchased dog is replaced by breeding more), which is another mouth to feed and another end to poop, and all of the connected environmental harm. Dogs don't really have the potential to compensate for that and pay it back in the way humans do, and they're not essential to keeping a national economy alive and preventing a crash and its associated harms.

Anti-natalist styled arguments are very easy to make against dogs in ways they fail terribly against human children.

There are of course answers to these problems, but none are easy in practice.

Beyond that there was the opportunity cost. A dog who already existed and didn't have a home could have been given one. A failure to do good, particularly when that good is so easy to do (as a very small change to what you're doing), is a bad thing in practice.
It's like failing to throw the life preserver into the pool to save the drowning child. It's easy to do. It's not asking you to swim out into a hurricane to save somebody. Technically you didn't kill them or save them, but in terms of what's the right thing to do, it's not as simple as it being a neutral action to let somebody drown when you just needed to lift a finger to save a life.

It's a gripe I have with veganism that bothers me a lot - do you assume that most of the modern world is evil/bad?

People are mixed bags of good and bad. Veganism only speaks to one action -- consuming non-human animal products/harming non-human animals -- and the bad choice that typically is.
Somebody could be vegan but also have done something bad like driving drunk and even killed somebody -- mixed bag.
It's much easier to judge specific actions in isolation, much harder to judge whole people.

I'm definitely not asking you to judge whole people like that. I don't, it's not that simple. But it can be important to recognize our mistakes for what they are.
I know you've experienced a lot of good from your dog too, but these are substantially similar to the goods you'd have experienced with a shelter dog. I don't want to rake you over the coals for one mistake, but it would be good to come to an understanding about it technically being a negative action and in practice being not good to pay that opportunity cost. It's over and done and you shouldn't be guilty about it since you didn't know, but I'm still sensing a lot of hesitancy to label the single action for what it was.

[Jebus]

I know you've experienced a lot of good from your dog too, but these are substantially similar to the goods you'd have experienced with a shelter dog.

I would argue the "rescued" dog experience is far superior. I had a golden retriever early in my life and now I live with eight dogs who all had horrible lives until I brought them home. I thoroughly enjoy the process of seeing their condition improve on a daily basis. The dogs are by far the most important thing in my life and there is nothing I'd rather do then spend time with them. Other people I know who have taken home disadvantaged dogs share my experience. I guess the exception would be the type of person who gets satisfaction when he/she thinks s/he has impressed friends and neighbors with "his"/"her" expensive dog.

[teo123]

Sounds like similar pseudoscience to e.g Dr. Greger who often overstates the role of nutrition in human disease and promotes anti-supplement fear mongering.

I thought Greger was one of the most reliable sources about nutrition there are. Where does he promote anti-supplement fear-mongering? Why do you think he overstates the role of nutrition?
My perception is that carcinogens are basically in every energy-dense food and really can't be avoided except by GMOs, and that the anti-GMO movement is to be blamed for most cancers these days, because it protects people from an imaginary danger by putting them into a very real danger. Michael Greger is, fortunately, not anti-GMO.

[Adloud]

You might want to look into it more, since it's very rare that there's not a system in place to kill unwanted pets (even if it's not done in your own country; e.g. by exporting them to another organization).

That said, if dogs are draining government funds for their care that's another issue in itself; they do not give back like humans when they mature through tax dollars.

I know people that work in my local shelter and have talked with them about it. As I said previously, they don't kill unwanted animals. Much of the shelter's funding is acquired by donations. Quite a lot of old dogs find new homes as adopting is rising in popularity.
I am all for spending tax dollars on shelters rather than on vivisection and excess military practice. But as you said, this is quite another topic.

If you're talking about the most good: In many areas, adopting is so expensive that you could do much more good by having a child and donating the difference in cost to an effective charity. There's also a general shortage of young children, so adopting when you are *able* to have your own children could even be considered unethical because it's depriving another infertile parent the opportunity (or increasing waiting time, etc.).

Sorry, but no one does that. And just as with shelters - money does provide welfare for orphans but it's a loving family that they need the most. Depends on how young you want the child to be. I don't find the argument that you are depriving someone of a child convincing. Adopting in itself is a good deed, just as adopting from a shelter - would you argue that choosing a good-looking dog from a shelter is unethical?

A lot of this just comes down to supply/demand balance. It may be that in some areas there's a real shortage of dogs for adoption, but keep in mind that in the majority of English speaking territories the ethics of breeding/adopting pets vs. having/adopting children are nearly or completely reversed, making it more ethical to adopt pets and more ethical to have human children at the same time.

How is it that adopting a child is unethical (let's assume we are talking about the US for convenience' sake)?

Character traits in dogs are the difference -- except working dogs -- between more and less optimal. A dog could be slightly annoying or troublesome until having a trait trained away or satisfied with a replacement activity, which isn't usually going to be that complicated.

Please don't spread this information, it's incorrect and could potentially be dangerous. It's very important to research what dog you can and should have, regardless of whether you're adopting or buying. I'm talking from personal experience and from many conversations with credible experts in dog behaviour and training. Some dogs need a certain amount of space; some need the companionship of other animals; some can't be left home alone. It's important to get to know the dog's temperament before adopting, talking with volunteers and dog behaviour expert if the shelter employs one. A huge problem where I live is people returning adopted dogs because they caused problems. The same goes for breeds - these are usually more reliable in terms of character as they have been bred to have certain traits. Adopting the wrong breed however, can result in the dog being unhappy and exhibiting signs of distress that the owners usually interpret as misbehaving.

The difference for human beings is several decimal places in salary, massive difference in mortality and quality of life, probability of landing in prison or dead by certain ages, and the difference potentially in doing something amazing for the world like curing a terrible disease.

That's why when you're adopting a child with a tough past you become both their parent and their therapist. It's very hard but can be very rewarding (just like adopting a dog that was mistreated by a previous owner).

The most dramatic aspirations of dog breeding, and I don't want to dismiss them, are helping a disabled person -- a single person -- lead a slightly more convenient life, or in the most impractical scenario save a few human lives by sniffing out a bomb that was missed in other (superior) screenings.

The difference is many orders of magnitude in terms of potential, probability, etc. and the risks.

I was comparing the act of adopting people to adopting dogs but I'm not saying dogs are more important than people - we're not talking about "whether to get a dog or a human" but whether to adopt or buy/conceive.

OK, although you understand that we could completely stop breeding for 50 or 100 years and then start it back up again for the right reasons down the line when or if there's a call for it? There's no reason to continue breeding to make sure those skills/knowledge sets remain available. I thought that might have been what you were saying.

We might want to stop breeding non-working dogs. At the same time breeding working dogs is essential in many places in the world, so I don't think the practice should be abolished altogether. Breed understood as a function (not looks) of a dog is very useful as it can help shape dogs to better fit our surrounding and ultimately make their lives better. I think we should close down puppy mills, limit the practice of breeding to a minimum and promote adopting. Do you agree with that?

I think it's very much the case here too -- you can't really trust people when it comes to this. Analyzing probability in cases of bias like this is pretty much impossible.
It's like the parents who know the kids are safe with uncle Gacy because they've known him for years and etc.

We should absolutely judge based on probability: but objectively. We can't stack the deck with sentiment, since it doesn't play a role in the chances of somebody doing wrong.

I haven't known my breeder before. I trust her because of all the information I acquired about her which I deemed were enough for me to trust she provides all the best for her dogs. It's more like the parents that trust a nanny because her credentials are flawless, she has a good cv and has had many happy customers.

Not really. Even in humans almost all of that stuff is genetic. Beyond malnutrition or outright abuse resulting in some kind of PTSD, there's very little that early childhood does. What you can do is *train* certain behaviors, and that can be done with adult dogs too. It's a myth that "you can't teach an old dog new tricks".

You're probably right on that one. Would you be so kind as to provide some sources for your claim? The topic is quite interesting.

I'm not just talking about play. Watching them learn and grow is "fun".

You're really downplaying it. It's a very enriching experience and something that brings out very positive emotions of love and empathy, etc. Would you call raising a baby "fun"?

It added a dog to the world who wasn't there before (a purchased dog is replaced by breeding more), which is another mouth to feed and another end to poop, and all of the connected environmental harm. Dogs don't really have the potential to compensate for that and pay it back in the way humans do, and they're not essential to keeping a national economy alive and preventing a crash and its associated harms.

Beyond that there was the opportunity cost. A dog who already existed and didn't have a home could have been given one. A failure to do good, particularly when that good is so easy to do (as a very small change to what you're doing), is a bad thing in practice.
It's like failing to throw the life preserver into the pool to save the drowning child. It's easy to do. It's not asking you to swim out into a hurricane to save somebody. Technically you didn't kill them or save them, but in terms of what's the right thing to do, it's not as simple as it being a neutral action to let somebody drown when you just needed to lift a finger to save a life.

My dog provides me with health and happiness - and I provide him with the same, hopefully. He's also not causing any harm. Humans, however, cause a lot of suffering directly and indirectly - consuming animal products, for example. The action itself is amoral, not immoral. I would argue that it's good, as the amount of happiness a dog provides during his/her lifetime is priceless.

No dog died directly because of me. I support the local shelter and donate for the dogs there.
Mind that getting a dog isn't a one-time action - it's a commitment. I didn't have an accurate perception of adopting from a shelter then, as do lots of people (that's why education about it is so important). I don't really like defending myself like that - I hope you understand what I mean. Do you really think buying from a breeder is comparable to letting a child die? And, for example, do you think eating meat is comparable with choosing to kill someone rather than not? I think there are other factors to consider.

I know you've experienced a lot of good from your dog too, but these are substantially similar to the goods you'd have experienced with a shelter dog. I don't want to rake you over the coals for one mistake, but it would be good to come to an understanding about it technically being a negative action and in practice being not good to pay that opportunity cost. It's over and done and you shouldn't be guilty about it since you didn't know, but I'm still sensing a lot of hesitancy to label the single action for what it was.

I agree it isn't good to buy a dog from a breeder. I disagree it's bad. It isn't ethical. I don't think, however, that the action is unethical.

We can disagree on this point, I think, as this has to do more with moral values than with rationality. Unless you have some facts to convince me otherwise - I'm always open for logic