Philosophical Vegan Forum

So, up until relatively recently, I have always had pets. For nearly half my life I kept rats, which are lovely little animals. My rats were mostly vegan, but I didn't have any issue with a tiny part of their diet being non-vegan. (Rats appear to do just fine on vegan diets too). However, it came to the point where I had developed an allergy to them, I found their short lifespans emotionally taxing, and I wanted the options on where I lived to be less restricted by the type of pet I kept.

I've been giving a lot of thought to what kind of small, longer lived, hypo-allergenic, tank/small cage pet I could easily keep, but as it turns out, a great deal of my options are turning out to be obligate carnivores/omnivores: certain insects, reptiles, and amphibians (I don't want fish). I've been debating whether I should be severely restricting myself by only considering herbivorous (or mostly herbivorous) pets. I would never even consider keeping a pet that required pinky mice and so forth. I would find that absolutely horrifying. However, I have been thinking about my stance on crickets and mealworms.

This distinction isn't a matter of cuteness, but of consciousness/ability to process pain/the quality of life of the prey. I think crickets are pretty darn cute, actually. I find feeder rodent breeding to be extremely problematic on an ethical level, but feeder insect breeding, not so much. An obligate carnivore doesn't have a choice in their diet, and there is nothing "immoral" about their natural diet. If I were to choose to own an obligate carnivore, I am technically contributing to a demand for animal products, but am I really contributing to animal suffering in any significant way? Hypothetically, if I had my heart set on a leopard gecko, I would be supplying them with meal worms and crickets, true... But a gecko is a gecko, and would need to eat insects regardless of who owned it.

So, I'm quite curious to hear the stances of people on here about vegans keeping non-vegan pets in a way that aligns with their beliefs.

DylanTK wrote:a gecko is a gecko, and would need to eat insects regardless of who owned it.

If people buy more geckos, more geckos are bred. This probably isn't a rescue scenario we're talking about, right?
The process of buying is linked to breeding. So, less demand means fewer geckos exist, not that the geckos are starving or dying in shelters.
I don't see such a big problem with insects, but the reptile trade itself may be questionable. And again, it's not an issue of you having it vs. somebody else; the animals are bred to meet demand.

I would recommend adopting a small dog from a shelter instead of getting an animal from a breeder. Some breeds are relatively hypoallergenic. And you're saving the animal from death in the process.
You will also probably be happier with a mammal.

brimstoneSalad wrote:

DylanTK wrote:a gecko is a gecko, and would need to eat insects regardless of who owned it.

If people buy more geckos, more geckos are bred. This probably isn't a rescue scenario we're talking about, right?
The process of buying is linked to breeding. So, less demand means fewer geckos exist, not that the geckos are starving or dying in shelters.
I don't see such a big problem with insects, but the reptile trade itself may be questionable. And again, it's not an issue of you having it vs. somebody else; the animals are bred to meet demand.

I would recommend adopting a small dog from a shelter instead of getting an animal from a breeder. Some breeds are relatively hypoallergenic. And you're saving the animal from death in the process.
You will also probably be happier with a mammal.

While there are hypo-allergenic dogs, they don't fit my lifestyle/other crucial criteria. They are too large, and would definitely restrict my choices of housing (pet policies are much more lenient towards cage/tank animals). Also, because I have been researching leopard geckos as a potential canidate, I have looked into the breeder issue. Unfortunately, because this species is considered a "starter reptile" which can commonly be found at large pet store chains, it is not unheard of to find second-hand leopard geckos from people who aren't willing or able to keep them their whole lives (they live 15-20 years). I've also already tracked down a reputable breeder who raises leopard geckos exclusively and does not feed them with/sell pinky mice. So, in the event that I couldn't find a leopard gecko who needs a home, I could at least buy one from a respectable enthusiast of the species.

I'm not sure I understand well the point of having reptiles sitting in small cages just to have. They look cool, but they don't do very much, and it's a serious responsibility. They require care, cost a lot of money, they get sick, you feel bad when they die. They don't provide the kind of love and companionship as a mammal.

If you want to experience interaction with animals without such ethical implications, maybe you should consider putting out a bird feeder, which will attract birds and squirrels (and even rats) to your window where you can watch them.

Maybe you can help me understand better your goals with having a pet, and I can offer better suggestions.

brimstoneSalad wrote:I'm not sure I understand well the point of having reptiles sitting in small cages just to have. They look cool, but they don't do very much, and it's a serious responsibility. They require care, cost a lot of money, they get sick, you feel bad when they die. They don't provide the kind of love and companionship as a mammal.

If you want to experience interaction with animals without such ethical implications, maybe you should consider putting out a bird feeder, which will attract birds and squirrels (and even rats) to your window where you can watch them.

Maybe you can help me understand better your goals with having a pet, and I can offer better suggestions.

No offense meant, but you seem a bit biased against reptiles. Yes, there are people who treat them as collectibles/showpieces/status symbols, but that's not the only reason people own them. True, they can't "love" you. If we're talking about animals loving their owners, we're really just talking about animals capable of forming social bonds with humans and seeking them out for affectionate/playful social interaction. In that case, hamsters don't have the capacity for love. They are asocial rodents. They certainly may not mind being handled and petted, but they are quite lacking in social behavior. Does that make them inferior as a pet? No. It depends on what the person wants out of a pet, and there are many happy hamster owners.

Two of the most popular species of pet lizard are the bearded dragon and the leopard gecko. Why? Because they are very docile species who, once familiar with a person, are content to be held/sit on a lap/sit on a shoulder. I've known someone who owned a turtle. She loved that little turtle and was very happy with the level of interactivity that turtle provided her.

Rats, if you keep them in optimal conditions, are actually kind of high maintenance. They require a lot of enrichment, free range time, a much larger cage than pet stores would have you believe (which requires regular cleaning), and exotic vet care that can really add up. The difficulty level of keeping a non-mammal varies, just as it does with mammals. I'm no stranger to longterm commitments to animals in more than one capacity.

The fact of the matter is, I develop allergies (that are not completely controlled by medication) to every mammal (and bird) that I am exposed to for a length of time. It seems to take anywhere between 5-15 years to develop. I didn't start out allergic to ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, cats, dogs, birds, but I became allergic to them all with extended exposure. Hypo-allergenic does not mean non-allergenic. Dog saliva gives me hives, so although their coat type might have less dander and would help with sneezing/wheezing, dog spit, is ultimately dog spit. Nor do I want a dog, anyway. So, I'm looking at alternatives. I would prefer something that I can actually take out and hold and chill with in the evenings, but unfortunately the best canidates I've found for that so far are insectivores.

If you are willing to use crickets as a food source, I would suggest a tarantula. They make excellent pets as far as a.) no allergens b.) they are very prevalent in certain areas so breeding is not an issue c.) they only need to feed once or twice a week, and can go for months without feeding if necessary (in the wild, I do not advocate starving them) d.) they are very quiet e.) If you can get over most peoples aversion to arachnids, they are easily handled (depending on the species, for beginners I recommend the mexican brown for maximum docility, or the mexican red leg as it is also quite docile and easily handled, plus it has the "horror movie" look, but it is a little more easily excited than the brown, and more likely to "throw hairs") I've owned many reptiles, but arachnids are far easier to care for, just as fun to observe, and less likely to pass on salmonella, and far cheaper .

DylanTK wrote: No offense meant, but you seem a bit biased against reptiles.

Not at all. It's fair to say that non-social mammals probably won't love you either.

Cold blooded animals do have an advantage in having a slower metabolism, so for the same size of animal you have to feed them significantly less.

DylanTK wrote: She loved that little turtle and was very happy with the level of interactivity that turtle provided her.

A tortoise may be a good option for a primarily herbivorous pet.

I struggle a bit to imagine the interactivity she got from the tortoise. Don't get me wrong, I think they're cute and I like to watch them, but I think you get something very similar by watching animals outside in their natural habitats.

Wild animals can even become habituated to eating out of your hand if you work at it over time.

DylanTK wrote: The fact of the matter is, I develop allergies (that are not completely controlled by medication) to every mammal (and bird) that I am exposed to for a length of time. It seems to take anywhere between 5-15 years to develop. I didn't start out allergic to ferrets, rats, guinea pigs, cats, dogs, birds, but I became allergic to them all with extended exposure.

How do you know you won't develop allergies to shedding reptile skin?

Also, if there's a window between you and the animals and they are outside where air circulation is good (as in the case of a feeder), would that pose a problem?

DylanTK wrote: I would prefer something that I can actually take out and hold and chill with in the evenings, but unfortunately the best canidates I've found for that so far are insectivores.

Would you consider a pet insect? There are some larger species which are relatively longer lived. Rhinoceros beetles may be a good option, and are very cool looking.
While it may be harder to get an exotic species, more local ones may be viable.

There's also this:

http://arachnoboards.com/threads/large- ... cts.41082/

The large darkling beetles of the genus Eleodes (native to the American southwest) are VERY long lived. These beetles are not colorful, jet black, and 1, maybe 1.5, inches long. I find them to be very interesting captives, however. They are active on the surface day and night, and can be kept in groups. I've had wild collected individuals live more 3 years, and there have been reports of individuals living for 17 years!

PsYcHo wrote:If you are willing to use crickets as a food source, I would suggest a tarantula. They make excellent pets as far as a.) no allergens b.) they are very prevalent in certain areas so breeding is not an issue c.) they only need to feed once or twice a week, and can go for months without feeding if necessary (in the wild, I do not advocate starving them) d.) they are very quiet e.) If you can get over most peoples aversion to arachnids, they are easily handled (depending on the species, for beginners I recommend the mexican brown for maximum docility, or the mexican red leg as it is also quite docile and easily handled, plus it has the "horror movie" look, but it is a little more easily excited than the brown, and more likely to "throw hairs") I've owned many reptiles, but arachnids are far easier to care for, just as fun to observe, and less likely to pass on salmonella, and far cheaper .

Thanks for the recommendation. That is the crux of the issue though: figuring out where I stand on providing insects to insectivores. I have no problem with spiders (I've always thought they were cool) and I have held a tarantula before. I will put them on my list of options to consider.

@brimstoneSalad Yes, I have been taking insects into consideration. I have been looking into giant millipedes, stick insects, and fruit beetles To see how well they may fit my criteria. Turtles were under consideration as well, but from what I've read, they're actually more of an intermediate level pet reptile when it comes to maintenance. Also, you do make a fair point: it is possible to develop an allergy to reptiles. It's possible to develop an allergy to insects too, and actually much more commonly than to reptiles. As a kid, I used to catch and release insects/lizards/toads all the time. I have been stung and bitten by a variety of insects with no hint of an abnormal response. That doesn't rule out the possibility of developing an allergy eventually, but chances seem quite low so far. I do seem very prone to developing allergies to some groups of things, but not at all to other groups of things. Such as having mammal allergies but no insect allergies, or pollen allergies, but no food allergies. Best evidence suggests insects and reptiles are safe groups so far. If I develop an allergy, I will see what I can do to manage it. I managed my rat allergies for a few years, but it was less than ideal. Re-homing would be a last resort. I've never re-homed an animal, but I would if it was absolutely necessary.

DylanTK wrote: Thanks for the recommendation. That is the crux of the issue though: figuring out where I stand on providing insects to insectivores. I have no problem with spiders (I've always thought they were cool) and I have held a tarantula before. I will put them on my list of options to consider.

To give you a possible way around this, it is possible to feed a tarantula with a ball of "meat" on a string, if no live food is available. Brimstone is more knowledgeable than I on most topics, so he may have more information that I am not aware of, but I wonder if it would be possible to provide an arachnid with adequate subsistence using the "meat on a string" method with a meat substitute. Of course if this did not work, I would advocate taking the creature back to the pet store. ( I myself am not a Vegan, but I understand and respect the arguments against using any sentient creature as food, but insects are in my personal opinion very low on the sentient scale, and as such I would consume them myself to avoid eating "higher" sentient beings.)

PsYcHo wrote:

DylanTK wrote: Thanks for the recommendation. That is the crux of the issue though: figuring out where I stand on providing insects to insectivores. I have no problem with spiders (I've always thought they were cool) and I have held a tarantula before. I will put them on my list of options to consider.

To give you a possible way around this, it is possible to feed a tarantula with a ball of "meat" on a string, if no live food is available. Brimstone is more knowledgeable than I on most topics, so he may have more information that I am not aware of, but I wonder if it would be possible to provide an arachnid with adequate subsistence using the "meat on a string" method with a meat substitute. Of course if this did not work, I would advocate taking the creature back to the pet store. ( I myself am not a Vegan, but I understand and respect the arguments against using any sentient creature as food, but insects are in my personal opinion very low on the sentient scale, and as such I would consume them myself to avoid eating "higher" sentient beings.)

As far as insects go, I don't know that pre-killed insects are any more or less humane than feeding live. While they react to noxious stimuli, they don't actually seem to have conscious awareness of pain. As a comparison, you would yank your hand away from a hot stove before you actually feel pain. The reflex to avoid the noxious stimuli comes first, and your conscious awareness of pain comes later. Insects definitely have the reflexive action, but there isn't really any evidence of conscious pain. Insects do have simplistic emotional states that basically just fall on a sliding scale of arousal (calm to agitated). Eusocial insects (like bees and ants) might be another matter. There has been evidence that they are relatively more aware and complex. As far as feeding a tarantula or any other exotic obligate insectivore a meat substitute goes, I would say we really don't understand the exact nature of their nutritional needs well enough to tamper with it. Doing so would mean risking maltreatment of the animal in question. Malnutrition is frequently not immediately obvious, and by the time one realizes, the animal's health and development may be irreparably damaged.

Edited to add: referring to them as "simplistic emotional states" may be going to far. It's easy to anthropomorphize them. "Varied behavioral states/activity levels" might be more accurate? Emotion = feeling, and they probably can't. Bees might be able to, based on some studies, but eusocial insects seem to be the exception to a lot of insect rules.