Philosophical Vegan Forum

DylanTK wrote: Uneducated people getting animals they can't care for is a big problem. Pet stores contribute to that problem greatly. During my research, I've heard a lot of horror stories about people getting leos from a pet store and are told they need a heat lamp (even though leos need under tank heaters as nocturnal/non-basking reptiles), told to put them on sand because they are a "desert species" (Arid climate does not equal sandy desert!) which carries a significant risk of impaction, and not educated properly on the nutrient powders they need (metabolic bone disease anyone?). It's so sad.

Nice to see you're doing your research! Just make sure the under tank heater is adjustable, and I recommend keeping it on the side of the habitat near the glass, with a separate thermometer placed as close to it as possible. Heaters can fail in one of two ways, not enough or too much heat, and both are extremely problematic, so close monitoring is crucial. Reptiles do not often notice subtle heat changes, so they can become burned if proper precautions are not taken. As someone who is willing to save turtles from the road, I think you will take the fact that you are responsible for this creature's well-being seriously.

And just to put it out there, I understand where BrimstoneSalad is coming from, and I won't say he is wrong on his points, because I don't think he is. But I personally think in the grand scheme of things, you are much more concerned about animal welfare than 90% of people, and the gecko you obtain would likely have a much better life than if someone bought it just as a moving "decoration".

PsYcHo wrote:

DylanTK wrote: Uneducated people getting animals they can't care for is a big problem. Pet stores contribute to that problem greatly. During my research, I've heard a lot of horror stories about people getting leos from a pet store and are told they need a heat lamp (even though leos need under tank heaters as nocturnal/non-basking reptiles), told to put them on sand because they are a "desert species" (Arid climate does not equal sandy desert!) which carries a significant risk of impaction, and not educated properly on the nutrient powders they need (metabolic bone disease anyone?). It's so sad.

Nice to see you're doing your research! Just make sure the under tank heater is adjustable, and I recommend keeping it on the side of the habitat near the glass, with a separate thermometer placed as close to it as possible. Heaters can fail in one of two ways, not enough or too much heat, and both are extremely problematic, so close monitoring is crucial. Reptiles do not often notice subtle heat changes, so they can become burned if proper precautions are not taken. As someone who is willing to save turtles from the road, I think you will take the fact that you are responsible for this creature's well-being seriously.

And just to put it out there, I understand where BrimstoneSalad is coming from, and I won't say he is wrong on his points, because I don't think he is. But I personally think in the grand scheme of things, you are much more concerned about animal welfare than 90% of people, and the gecko you obtain would likely have a much better life than if someone bought it just as a moving "decoration".

I already have a thermostat saved to my amazon wishlist for the under tank heater (it has a temp probe you put as close to the UTH as possible then regulates the power flow to the UTH as needed), and a temperature gun. I've heard those little ambient temperature gauges have a tendency to be crap, and shouldn't be solely relied upon, so what's the point exactly? Using the thermostat and scanning twice daily with the temp gun should give me a very accurate sense of the heat gradient in the tank.

Brimstone made some decent points, and I would agree it's not strictly vegan to get a leopard gecko (I don't need to get one, after all). Really, if you want to be super strict about it, it's probably not vegan to have pets at all (and some vegans certainly do feel strongly about that). This is a compromise I'm willing to make because I genuinely do not believe I am causing any suffering by doing so. If choosing to provide for an obligate insectivore makes me 99.8% vegan instead of 99.9% vegan, I can live with that. That's all I'm going to say about that, as I've already voiced my frustrations and disagreements about certain things that were said.

DylanTK wrote:What makes an appropriately sized tank with opportunities to come out and explore any different from keeping a dog in an apartment with opportunities to go out for a walk?

That's a good question.
It's not necessarily much different for the animal, it depends on the size of the tank and apartment. Keeping a dog in a small apartment, particularly if alone all day, can be cruel.

The difference is in where the burden of proof seems to lie.

If you want to kill an animal, to put it out of its misery, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that animal's life is not worth living, it doesn't want to live, and that such an act is going to relieve the world of a negative and make it a better place.

If you want to bring a new animal into existence through breeding, the burden of proof lies on you to demonstrate that animal's life is very likely going to be worth living, and that it will make a net positive contribution to the world and make the world a better place.

The act of adopting a rescued animal of a kind frequently left to die or killed due to overpopulation/not enough people adopting them, obtained for free or from a non-profit for a reasonable donation, does not suffer from the same heavy burden of proof. The animal already exists, and we're left to figure out what to do with it that involves the least harm. The answer is not always clear or simple, but whatever you do, you can rest easy knowing the complexity of the situation at least somewhat justified it.

This is entirely aside from any dietary considerations.

DylanTK wrote:Is it better to provide excellent quality of care to a leopard gecko, or to struggle to meet the needs of a much larger herbivorous/mostly herbivorous reptile

Assuming we ignore dietary considerations, and that they are both rescues and would have otherwise been put down (the adults not being in high demand), then probably the former.

However, the fact that iguanas are more difficult to care for would suggest that rescues are more common and less desirable in the pet trade... so you very well may be saving an animal from death. And that's not even touching on the dietary aspects.

DylanTK wrote:Really, if you want to be super strict about it, it's probably not vegan to have pets at all (and some vegans certainly do feel strongly about that).

I don't agree with that, and particularly when it comes to rescues (even perhaps sometimes for animals that eat some meat although that's more controversial) I don't think a credible argument can be made against it being vegan. Whenever we criticize others, we adopt a pretty heavy burden of proof too.

Only in the case of acquiring an animal for whom all of these apply would I make that argument:

1. Has been bred or sold as commercially desirable rather than rescued from death
2. Has a non-vegan diet (to a non-negligible extent)
3. Is kept in captivity for private reasons (e.g. not bred in a wildlife sanctuary or zoo for conservation/public education purposes)
4. There is no reason to believe this is necessary (e.g. as a service animal where better options are not viable, or as natural pest control)

Short any one of those requirements, I would probably not dare to suggest it was non-vegan.

A dog is perhaps not the best comparison, as they are so social. Well, perhaps we could say it's two dogs, and they have toys. That implies that they have species-necessary enrichment available to them, but they do stay in the apartment unless the owner can talk them out for a walk or to a local dog park to play. Pets, regardless of their size, tend to require some manner of enclosure for their own safety. If an animal in an adequately sized tank/cage provided enrichment and opportunities to leave that enclosure is unethical, than virtually every pet on the face of this planet is being kept in an unethical manner. Be it the dog in a home, or a lizard in a "glass box".

I would be particularly unable to provide adequately for an rescued iguana, because let's face it... Most of the unwanted iguanas are those who have reached sexual maturity, their owners didn't know how to handle them/didn't handle them consistently, and they became too wild or aggressive as a result. Adult iguanas belong with either experienced adoptive owners, or in sanctuaries. A well meaning, but inexperienced, person is not what an iguana in need actually needs. I once took on a rat who had been bought for a college psychology experiment. After he had gotten what he needed from her, he put her in a small kennel carrier with no enrichment and no companionship, and only dealt with her long enough to clean her kennel carrier and put in hamster food. She was nameless, and spent most of her life completely isolated. At that point I had enough experience with rats to care for her. I named her Kokuma (which means little bear). She would take food from my hand, but otherwise she might as well have been wild and would bite you down the the bone if touched. She couldn't be kept with my other rats, unfortunately, but we established a routine where I would let her out of her cage each day, and after a while she would see herself back to her cage and I would feed her and close it. What do you suppose would have happened if someone with no experience with rats had tried to rescue her? Rescues are not always a viable option for people depending on the species and their experience level. Adopting a cat or dog from a shelter generally goes well because shelters put down the equivalents to Kokuma.

I don't think it's non-vegan to have a pet, personally, but there are certainly plenty of vegans who do make that arguement. I think it's silly radicalism, but let's face it. If your pet ownership is not perfectly selfless, then one could potentially argue that you're "using" the animal for your own benefit. That would technically be true, but it misses the much larger picture. People do indeed benefit from having pets, and many pets benefit from their humans. I would say that the psychological benefits of pets, while not strictly necessary (depending on the person), does make it reasonable. In an ideal world, all those people who would benefit greatly from having a pet would also do their best to acquire a pet that is a good fit for them, and with as much consideration to the animal's welfare as is reasonable.

DylanTK wrote:If an animal in an adequately sized tank/cage provided enrichment and opportunities to leave that enclosure is unethical, than virtually every pet on the face of this planet is being kept in an unethical manner. Be it the dog in a home, or a lizard in a "glass box".

What's an adequate size? What's adequate enrichment? How much supervised excursion is adequate? Is adequate even good?

These are open questions. Did you take my point about burden of proof? If we're dealing with rescued pets instead of pets who were bred to fill this niche, the issue changes dramatically.

DylanTK wrote:I would be particularly unable to provide adequately for an rescued iguana,

Based on your experience with your rescue rat, I think you'd be very good at it.

But is the alternative a sanctuary? Or is it being put down? Do sanctuaries have limits on capacity?
If the alternative is a sanctuary rather than death, the same relief of evidential burden doesn't apply.

DylanTK wrote:If your pet ownership is not perfectly selfless, then one could potentially argue that you're "using" the animal for your own benefit.

Only consequence is ultimately relevant. Use in itself is not relevant; only the bias that creates due to cognitive dissonance, which affects consequence.
If a person really wants to keep a pet, he or she may not be as objective about the situation and its consequences as is called for. It's important to be wary of this. It's no less true of a vegan than of a carnist who really wants to eat meat and employs that bias to the belief that the animals he or she eats are happy, lead good lives, and that he or she is behaving ethically in providing them with those lives, and that the whole endeavor is good for the environment and his or her personal health.

DylanTK wrote:People do indeed benefit from having pets,

I argued against this point earlier, and I think in many cases that is contentious in itself.

DylanTK wrote:and many pets benefit from their humans.

Instead of being killed? Probably. But otherwise, how can you prove this? I don't think you can.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

Cinereous wrote:Thank you! I have watched it, but I am still tentative, especially with one male cat.

You can feed your male cat more meat than any females you have. Even males seem not to usually have problems on a partially vegan diet, though. Do you know how to monitor urine pH?

It's really hard to have one cat eat from one bowl in comparison to the other! I have them partially trained, but sometimes the female can't help herself!

After years of supplying food with a higher meat percentage, I did decide to switch to a food made mostly of by-products (and corn gluten/meal and soybean). You made a really good point, honestly. Corn allergies are rare, too, so as of right now I am not worried about corn as an ingredient. This food is probably around 25-30% by-product meal, so at least it doesn't compete with human consumptions and is likely 10-15% less animal product than my previous food. Many people are worried that the 'waste' of the animal is used in cat/dog food, but if you've ever seen a cat eat a mouse they will sometimes swallow the entire animal. Cats eat organs, so many of these misconceptions stem from lack of education.

Thank you, again!

Cinereous wrote: It's really hard to have one cat eat from one bowl in comparison to the other! I have them partially trained, but sometimes the female can't help herself!

There are special bowls for that.

Glad you switched the food, though! That could make a big difference in itself.

brimstoneSalad wrote:Glad you switched the food, though! That could make a big difference in itself.

Thank you, it's a start at least. Like I said, you are right in that it is complete waste otherwise.

Obligate carnivores should not be our pets (cats are not obligate carnivores, there is plant-based cat food with the nutrients they need).

FredVegrox wrote: ↑Thu Jun 22, 2023 9:49 am Obligate carnivores should not be our pets (cats are not obligate carnivores, there is plant-based cat food with the nutrients they need).

As far as I understand it, cats are obligate carnivores because their liver cannot produce the amino-acid called taurine. Taurine is found only in animal products and a little in wheat. It's not at all trivial to make cat food that's entirely plant-based and contains enough taurine.

I also think that cats should not be kept as pets because they don't actually love their owners and would probably kill and eat their owners if given a chance to.