Cute, fluffy and horribly greedy

[loripo]

This is an article in the NewScientist (see ditto dot com) - click on current issue, and find this title.
It quotes from a book called 'Time to Eat the Dog: the real guide to sustainable living' which works out the ecological pawprints of our 'furry friends' - or scaly ones, as a goldfish has a finprint equivalent to to cell-phones. A medium sized dog uses more resources than a Toyota Land Cruiser.
They recommend dual purpose pets like chickens as they lay eggs to make up for what they use - Not very cuddly though And you cant use chickens to go walkies either...
What do you think?

[The Woodman]

Back in 1975 I obtained a young neutered male goat kid as apparently males have no value to breeders.

My intention was to fatten him up and put him on the Christmas table. I was dissapointed on two counts.

Firstly he was such a character, he would walk out with me and the dog and was just as biddable. He used to annoy the dog by jumping up onto the kennel roof and bounce up and down with all four feet together. It was difficult at the end as a bond had been formed.

Secondly, I do not recommend the exercise as a couple of pounds of good sausages would have presented a better meal. There wasn't much meat on the beast.

That's got me thinking about those kennels in the land full of healthy dogs that can't be rehomed.....mmmmm

[Andestine]

Lori, interesting idea.

Woodman, did you name your goat?

I was thinking about the naming of things. I'm assuming that most farmers don't name their meat animals, but some name their dairy cows. Kidnappers are said to find it harder to kill a hostage if their name is known. In certain countries where the child mortality rates are high, parents don't name their children until they reach an age past the high-risk years. All of these things seem to relate to the topic of bonding which you mention.

So would we find it harder to kill and eat an animal with a name? And if so, why? What's in a name?

And the question must be asked (apart from culinary considerations) would you be able to kill and eat your dog if you were starving and she was the only animal left to hunt?

Andestine

[rangersarah2]

I think that the theory about the naming of things is because it humanises them. I have some friends with goats who do name them and do their own slaughtering and sit and cry after dispatching one. Doesn't stop them enjoying the meat though. We are getting goats on the park, and I know that I will be a mess when any have to go.

Wouldn't have been able to eat my dog. It would be the same as someone eating their child. And even though the rabbit is called Stew-art......................

[david156]

Couldn't eat our dog!
A twelve week old Jack Russell X Chihuahua would make one chipalata sausage. Don't think we would survive on that for long

[The Woodman]

No, I didn't name the goat but my dad called him Lewis after the goat who lived on the roof of the Met Office in a radio programme from way back.

I can't remember what the programme was called now but I willing to wager a pot of yoghurt there's someone out there in WAB land who can.

I would only eat the dog if she were unable to hunt for me, deploy a net rope or recover any carrion or cadavers.

Here she is this evening on watch for me in the Kent estuary.




Peeling carrots concetrates the mind.....I think the programme was called, "The Men From The Ministry" and Lewis was named after The Butt of Lewis - geddit?

[loripo]

I think the title was tongue in cheek - if thats the right expression. The book & article show just how expensive ecologically our pets are. More so than expensive cars, because of the land used to grow crops to feed the animals used for pet food. They suggest feeding pets more scraps, but knowing my grand-dogs they would be very happy to eat pizza and lasagne, followed by custard tarts for preference and a cup of tea, but that wouldnt make them healthy would it? It did suggest keeoing rabbits if you were prepared to eat them but I couldnt eat something I got to know.

[The Woodman]

The article was also in The Telegraph yesterday.

Opening para....

"Dog owners should consider doing without their pet, exchanging it for a goldfishor even eating it to help save the planet, according to a new book."

Not so tongue in cheek, methinks. I'll have the tongue and cheek.

[2dogs2000]

Originally Posted by loripo

I think the title It did suggest keeoing rabbits if you were prepared to eat them but I couldnt eat something I got to know.

My mum told me of a family who killed their pet rabbit and made a stew. Unfortunately everyone was so upset that no-one could eat it and the stew was fed to the dog. (This was at the end of World War II)

[Andestine]

When my dad died I couldn’t mourn for him. Many years later I was listening to a radio play ‘A Pig for Victory’ by Christopher Denys.

It was about a man in WWII Britain who became fond of a pig he was raising for slaughter, and was the most touching play I’d ever heard. He tried to save the pig, and was mocked and told he had to be a man about it.

The man was so like my dad that it released floods of tears and I was able to mourn him at last.

I later wrote to the author, who sent me a lovely letter and the script. He said that his own wife was suffering in the same way as I had been, and that he hoped that one day something would act as a catalyst for her too.

Sorry to veer off-topic for a while, but the man in the play was such a touching character, and the story so sad that I was never able to read the script. I still have it, unread.

I often wonder how many people went through similar emotional conflicts during the war, and what we’d go through now if faced with having to slaughter our pets or starve? The past shows that when faced with extreme circumstances we can all behave quite differently.