It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fido And Fluffy Are Ruining The Environment, UCLA Study Says

page: 6
36
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: TEOTWAWKIAIFF
They can have my pet when they pry it from my dead hands!

What if your pet is a vegan? I seriously knew someone whose dog ate raisins!

If boffins say so (cats and dogs are ruining the environment) there is only one solution...



One of the cats we recently lost loved popcorn.




posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 07:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Christosterone

Look there is a compromise here to be found, as a dog person I say let's get rid of cats. That's a win win situation for all involved.


I know of a few Chinese restaurants that got caught serving up cat.

I am fairly convinced that the thing wrapped in foil on a pu-pu platter is cat.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 07:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Christosterone

Look there is a compromise here to be found, as a dog person I say let's get rid of cats. That's a win win situation for all involved.


I know of a few Chinese restaurants that got caught serving up cat.

I am fairly convinced that the thing wrapped in foil on a pu-pu platter is cat.


The cat thing is a really popular, and funny, joke, but the one we know for sure gets eaten in Asia is the dog.

Cats tend to be good luck symbols or something more often than not.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 07:22 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I've seen them gather like that on the Kenai Peninsula between Ninilchik and Anchor Point. I can't imagine how many there must be up here.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone
Fido and Fluffy give love, companionship and comfort to all people but especially to the elderly and the handicapped. Some studies have shown dramatic reductions in physical and mental problems with the acquisition of a dog or cat.

Why did UCLA feel the need to attempt to lay a load of guilt on Fido and Fluffy fans? Who sponsored this study? Sounds like one of those NWO Agenda 21 or 31 or whatever we're up to now, sort of plans. They point out the terrible environmental effects of pets and somebody grabs a copy of the study and runs to some law-making body and demands a law or ordinance or regulation of the pollution-making pets.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Pets are causing climate change? We'd better kill them all, and all of those other "animals" roaming the planet, too!



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: diggindirt
Why did UCLA feel the need to attempt to lay a load of guilt on Fido and Fluffy fans?


Because people are dumb enough to buy into the AGW fairy tale, have wasted billions of dollars on fighting that boogeyman under their bed, and UCLA has watched Al Gore, numerous *ahem* "non-profits" like Greenpeace and the Sierra Club, Elon Musk, and Tom Steyer make massive fortunes off of manipulating a perverse combination of people's fears and manufactured self loathing guilt while governments have latched onto the whole sham as an additional tool of control.

In short, it's because humans are really, really, freaking dumb when you remove them from having to fight for their daily survival and leave them in a life of comfort. It's like mankind has some sick obsession with always having to white knight their way out of everything, including imaginary threats. This Global Warming fight is like a modern day Don Quixote... only instead of windmills that he crazily believes are giants, we have normal cycles that people crazily believe is a sign the environment is gonna collapse.
edit on 4-8-2017 by burdman30ott6 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:27 PM
link   
a reply to: TEOTWAWKIAIFF

I'll never reach that point...
.

Working in fishing villages like I did during my decade plus in the Great Land, I saw lots of eagles. They'd be perched all over fishing boats while they'd be tied up off-loading their catch...then one would raid the totes of iced fish waiting to be processed, then they'd all have a go.

We used seal-bombs to chase 'em away, then Fish and Game said we couldn't do that because they're "endangered"... Hundreds of the things on just that one little island off the Alaskan Peninsula. Cost the company 35,000 dollars in fines, and God alone knows how much in lost product during the summer salmon seasons...

They're feathered bandits. They're PITA's. But, damn, they're sure pretty.



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Christosterone

More proof of the stupidity of "environmental extremists"... There i wrote it, these types of environmentalists are nothing more than extremists who want to control your life, and what you can have or can't have... To these people the AGW hoax is nothing but a red herring to force on everyone else the views of these "extremists", and to force everyone else to live how these "environmental extremists" want you to live...



posted on Aug, 4 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: seagull

They do have a redeeming feature. I've got a buddy who watched a woman's little yappy dog get grabbed by one down on the KP. Little bastard was running around "yip! yip!" looking like a rat and the eagle plucked it off the wing. Pffft-zing, no more yappy dog. He said the woman freaked right the hell out, though.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 05:25 AM
link   
It might be more productive to psychologically evaluate why people keep pets in the first place. Then once they have been given some therapy we can neuter those pets that they already have.



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

I just skimmed through PLOS ONE, the journal that this study was accepted into, and when I entered 'climate change' into the search area, my oh my, doesn't it come up with study after study predicting negative outcomes - no matter the cause - we must prioritize restoration, conservation and we all can do our parts. And I think you underestimate the layperson's ability to know what's what.

Here's an interesting study:



Do forest owners’ levels of education or value profiles explain their responses to climate change? The cultural cognition thesis (CCT) has cast serious doubt on the familiar and often criticized "knowledge deficit" model, which says that laypeople are less concerned about climate change because they lack scientific knowledge. Advocates of CCT maintain that citizens with the highest degrees of scientific literacy and numeracy are not the most concerned about climate change. Rather, this is the group in which cultural polarization is greatest, and thus individuals with more limited scientific literacy and numeracy are more concerned about climate change under certain circumstances than those with higher scientific literacy and numeracy. The CCT predicts that cultural and other values will trump the positive effects of education on some forest owners' attitudes to climate change. Here, using survey data collected in 2010 from 766 private forest owners in Sweden and Germany, we provide the first evidence that perceptions of climate change risk are uncorrelated with, or sometimes positively correlated with, education level and can be explained without reference to cultural or other values. We conclude that the recent claim that advanced scientific literacy and numeracy polarizes perceptions of climate change risk is unsupported by the forest owner data. In neither of the two countries was university education found to reduce the perception of risk from climate change. Indeed in most cases university education increased the perception of risk. Even more importantly, the effect of university education was not dependent on the individuals' value profile.


journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0155137

Also, among many other future predictions for animal species' studies in PLOS ONE, the percentages do not look good for the North American birds.




Our models suggest that North American birds will fare far worse during the breeding season than the non-breeding season (Fig 2; Table 1). In the breeding season, species cluster into three distinct groups (Fig 2b): (i) current geographic range decreases with little to no expansion potential; (ii) current geographic range shifts to other parts of North America; and, (iii) current geographic range remains stable and, in some cases, expands. Based on loss of current climatic range and potential gain of new climate range (see Methods), we classified 126 species (21.4%) as climate endangered, an additional 188 species (32%) as climate threatened, and 274 (46.6%) as climate stable (n = 228) or other (introduced and marginal spp.) (n = 46) (Fig 3a; Table 1).


journals.plos.org.../journal.pone.0135350

journals.plos.org...

Of course, there is no real way of proving beyond a doubt how evolution (natural selection; genetic variance) will play out; but it looks like some scientists' future predictions/models are highly probable.



As climate change threatens to hasten the extinction of many of the world's vulnerable species, this study provides a clear indication that it also has the potential to affect the pace of evolution in wildlife populations. Whether this mechanism can ultimately help the great tits or other populations weather a rapidly warming world remains unclear.


journals.plos.org.../journal.pbio.1001015[


And, so, we return to...managing the CO2 emissions, like ditching fossil fuel-based cars as a few countries are planning to do.



Climate change is likely to be the dominant driver of ecological change in the 21st century and removing local stressors may not be enough to maintain biological diversity. We believe that there is hope for the survival of natural ecosystems in a changing climate. However, the emphasis of the global conservation agenda needs to shift substantially from dealing with tractable, local stressors to tackling the more fundamental problem of curbing atmospheric CO2 emissions.


journals.plos.org.../journal.pbio.1000438

Ditch the gas cars! Reduce the cost of electric cars and electrified cars (as a transition measure). Norway is doing it now!

money.cnn.com...



Norway: The government's transportation plan outlines a clear target: All new passenger cars and vans sold in 2025 should be zero-emission vehicles. The country is considered a leader in this area. About 40% of all cars sold in the country last year were electric or hybrid vehicles.



edit on 18CDT07America/Chicago03970731 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 5 2017 @ 03:22 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Well OK


That first quote seems to me to be saying our sanctimonious, self-righteous bull**** of thinking that not agreeing with what we believe fully is the product of ignorance, may not be right. I agree. The real story here is people believing that unproven theories are fact and that drawing written in stone conclusions, without enough data, is proof of anything.

Climate change is a reality and has been since the Earth was formed. It's entirely rational to question if climate change would not be exactly the same if we did not exist. In fact it's not rational to do the opposite.

We will adapt and as has always been the case, some species will make it, some will not. We will evolve to deal with the issues as they come up. Sometimes it will be painful, but survival has never been an easy path for any species.

Taking this back to the topic. I think that any impact our habit of keeping pets for companions has on the environment, is a single grain of sand on the beach and almost meaningless compared to the natural forces beyond our control, that cause our climate to be in a state of constant change.

Perhaps if we get past the hysterics and make the science about more than how can we scare people to get more funding, science can get back to the job of using their funding for good purpose, instead of wasting time and money on garbage.

People are not going to get rid of their pets, so this study served no purpose. Why not instead work on solutions and stop wasting brainpower and money. This ranks right up there with prawns on treadmills.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 07:34 AM
link   
a reply to: Blaine91555

As I posted before, don't shoot the messenger. These studies are valuable only in so far as to educate us as to how much and where the CO2 pollution is coming from and once we know the facts, then we may be motivated to find solutions (and funding as you pointed out) - but the factual data must be there to begin with. So, what can we feel our pets? Can our pets become more omnivorous; leaning more towards the vegetarian side? Just how much protein does a cat need per day? These are questions that I ask myself.

And this motivates me to find answers to affect change.



In reality, our pets do not need the protein but they need the building blocks that make up the protein, amino acids. There are 22 amino acids that animals need. Animals can synthesize 12 of them. The remaining ones must be consumed. The ones that the animals cannot synthesize are called essential amino acids. They are arginine, histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine, and in cats, taurine. Dogs can synthesize taurine, and therefore, it is not supplemented in their food. This is why there is the old adage that dogs can eat cat food but cats cannot eat dog food. A deficiency in any of the amino acids can cause health-related problems.




Every protein source contains different levels of amino acids and each protein is different in its ability to be broken down into amino acids. So not all proteins are created equal. Some are better for pets than others. The ability of a protein to be used by the body and its amount of usable amino acids is summarized as protein quality (biological value). Egg has the highest biological value and sets the standard for which other proteins are judged. Egg has a biological value of 100. Fish meal and milk are close behind with a value of 92. Beef is around 78 and soybean meal is 67. "Meat and bone meal" and wheat are around 50 and corn is 45. Things like hair and feathers would be very high in protein but would be down at the bottom of the list for biological value. The actual composition of individual proteins as well as the utilization of amino acids is very detailed and beyond the scope of this article, but in summary, we see that all proteins are not created equal.


www.peteducation.com...

If egg sets the standard as having the highest biological value, why is this not offered as a main ingredient (percentage depending on growth/health of pet, or a more vegan leaning percentage because supposedly the protein percentages are higher than they need to be) pet food?
edit on 18CDT07America/Chicago05370731 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:04 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: butcherguy

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: Christosterone

Look there is a compromise here to be found, as a dog person I say let's get rid of cats. That's a win win situation for all involved.


I know of a few Chinese restaurants that got caught serving up cat.

I am fairly convinced that the thing wrapped in foil on a pu-pu platter is cat.


The cat thing is a really popular, and funny, joke, but the one we know for sure gets eaten in Asia is the dog.

Cats tend to be good luck symbols or something more often than not.


Yeah there is only one province in China that eats cats and a part of north vietnam on the border with that chinese province. And even then its frowned upon and becoming less and less popular. And it only started in that region anyway because of food shortages.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:10 AM
link   
a reply to: seagull

People don't get how big they are!!

If you're six foot tall they are almost waist high! Nearly as big a wing span. Not quite a thunderbird but huge.

They were not considered majestic enough to be the US animal because they scavenge. But history speaks otherwise.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

Do some research.

Any serious cat site will tell you that cats cannot become more omnivorous. In fact, it is strongly recommended you avoid foods for your cat that have any grain in them at all. Cats being fed a grain heavy dry food can develop an condition where the food does not satisfy and they keep eating becoming obese. It happened to the cat we have now.

We used to free feed, but she got this problem and become morbidly obese.

She is now on a diet composed of half high quality wet food and half all meat high quality dry in very limited portions until she slims down, and she is well on her way. It was that or deal with the chronic bladder infections, permanent urine burns because she could not keep herself sanitary (literally too fat to groom), and likely health conditions that come later in life from being so fat.

I am not sure what they say about dogs, but I do know they have less issue with plant matter in their diets. Still, animals do not evolve as quickly as all that.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 08:35 AM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: InTheLight

Do some research.

Any serious cat site will tell you that cats cannot become more omnivorous. In fact, it is strongly recommended you avoid foods for your cat that have any grain in them at all. Cats being fed a grain heavy dry food can develop an condition where the food does not satisfy and they keep eating becoming obese. It happened to the cat we have now.

We used to free feed, but she got this problem and become morbidly obese.

She is now on a diet composed of half high quality wet food and half all meat high quality dry in very limited portions until she slims down, and she is well on her way. It was that or deal with the chronic bladder infections, permanent urine burns because she could not keep herself sanitary (literally too fat to groom), and likely health conditions that come later in life from being so fat.

I am not sure what they say about dogs, but I do know they have less issue with plant matter in their diets. Still, animals do not evolve as quickly as all that.


I just did a little more digging and an omnivorous or even a vegan diet is possible for cats but with supplements. The same for vegan humans who would need to supplement with Vitamin B12.



Strict vegetarian diets are not appropriate for cats unless supplemented with nutrients essential for cats that are not found in plants.


dels.nas.edu...



Some would vehemently disagree. Evolution Diet, makers of completely vegetarian foods for cats, dogs and ferrets, says that its meatless offerings, on the market for 15 years, are healthy and nutritious, and, if anything, have extended the lives of many a feline and canine, even reversed chronic health problems. Claiming that most mainstream pet foods contain artery-clogging animal fat, diseased tissue, steroid growth hormones and antibiotics no less harmful to pets than to humans, its website posts testimonials from loyal customers who claim happy and long-lasting pets who look forward to their meals.


www.scientificamerican.com...

compassioncircle.com...



If it wasn’t for scientific research it wouldn’t be possible to even consider vegetarian cats. Thankfully, we now know what nutrients are necessary for cats to thrive on and can obtain those nutrients without killing animals. Taurine is a good example. This is a vital amino acid that almost all mammals synthesize from other amino acids, but cats lost that ability thousands of years ago (lacking the necessary enzyme). Taurine is available in synthesized form from non animal sources and works as well as that from animal flesh (even better since it is directly utilized without needing digestion). One particular nutrient is a fatty acid that is extremely rare in the vegetable kingdom but necessary for cats. That fatty acid, arachidonic acid, is also supplied in a vegan form in the Vegepet cat supplements. We’ve been manufacturing Vegecat since 1986 and many of our clients from the early years have stayed with us as their cats age and new generations of cats come into the world. Not all cats immediately take to the new diet, and often it is necessary to make a lengthy transition from the old food to the new by mixing a little of the new gradually into the old food. Sometimes, enticements such as pureed nori and corn are necessary, but the transition can be done!

The argument that a vegan diet for companion animals is “not natural” is highly suspect when many are feeding beef to Chihuahuas or ocean fish to cats and confining them to indoor living. We’ve domesticated our animal companions, and very little of their formerly “natural” lives remain. Long ago, dogs began producing a digestive enzyme for digesting carbohydrates at a much higher rate than their wolf ancestors. Further, synthetic amino acids and arachadonic acid provide cats the nutrients they require from a plant-based diet. The toxic load in the body from eating at the top of the food chain is extremely alarming. Pesticides and carcinogens are stored in fat. This toxicity is exponentially magnified as animals are fed to animals. Fish that have no mechanism to detoxify their own bodies are routinely fed, as fish meal, to other fish, poultry, and livestock…and cats. Some cats on a meat-based diet have been tested to have over 30 times the Reference Dosage Limit of mercury for humans. The best way to minimize the mercury, arsenic, cadmium, uranium, and more, in your companion animal’s diet (or your own) is to eat a plant-based diet.

edit on 18CDT08America/Chicago05880831 by InTheLight because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 04:43 PM
link   
a reply to: InTheLight

I find it interesting that anyone would want to change an animals natural diet. That cats are carnivores is as obviously true as humans and dogs are omnivores.

I've always found those arguments a bit odd even about humans. Clearly the fact that no person can survive as a pure Vegan should scream that these things are unnatural. Generally those espousing these things are all about being natural except when it comes to eating a natural diet, the diet a species evolved to eat.

Even herbivores must have the insects they get while feeding to survive. It's their only source of B12.

It's been a while, but you used to see cases now and then where parents had caused the death of their own child by trying to make it Vegan, not realizing the infant would slowly die.

It's best to feed pets their proper diet. It's bad enough that the pet food industry peddles food that does not meet pets needs and mostly passes through them without providing needed nutrition. That's why when you feed a dog or cat the right food, they can survive and thrive on far less of it. It's not just becoming a pile of feces on the lawn instead of digesting.



posted on Aug, 6 2017 @ 04:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blaine91555
I find it interesting that anyone would want to change an animals natural diet.


It's all ego, 'I can make this work'.




top topics



 
36
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join