Cats, dogs re vegans, vegetarians and environment

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 oldie 23 Apr 2019

Following recent environmental threads just wondering where people stand on pets regarding climate, sustainability, and ethics. Obviously carnivorous pets are likely to require animal farming for their diet.
No criticisms intended, but curious.

1
 mullermn 23 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

I’m not sure you can lay a huge amount of blame for climate change at domestic cats’ door. Ours has never had actual meat in his life (aside from scraps). He has chicken flavour biscuits, but I imagine they’re created using the waste from some other process since there’s no real meat in them. 

16
 subtle 23 Apr 2019
In reply to mullermn:

> I’m not sure you can lay a huge amount of blame for climate change at domestic cats’ door. Ours has never had actual meat in his life (aside from scraps).

Is that not cruel? Cats being carnivorous afterall.

3
Bellie 23 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

My dog likes to eat her own poo given the chance. Big into recycling she is.

 wintertree 23 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

I reckon there’s a couple of million acres of fertile land given up to pet horses in the UK.  Then there’s the horse boxes being dragged round by dirty old TDi 4x4s.

All that carbon positive land could be replaced by carbon negative forests.

I suspect - but haven’t done even a crude estimate - that this dwarfs the carbon cost of small pets.

88Dan 23 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

My dog and my cat are a right nightmare. they always leave the telly and the lights on. not to mention sitting in a parked car with the engine running for god knows how long. every time they go abroad they insist on a private plane too. god knows how big their carbon paw print is after all that.

2
OP oldie 23 Apr 2019
In reply to wintertree:

> All that carbon positive land ( for horses) could be replaced by carbon negative forests. I suspect - but haven’t done even a crude estimate - that this dwarfs the carbon cost of small pets. <

Good points. Perhaps when horses die or are put down the carcasses are used in some way, eg dog food; obviously in other countries they may be eaten and at least save on raising a few cattle (though they have been contributing to climate change over a much longer life).

However I should imagine that any sizeable dog (or 2 or 3 flesh eating cats) might eat more meat than an individual human, and some responses previous threads say that individual as well as group action on carbon footprint is important.

OP oldie 23 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

That's awful. However together they may eat more meat per week than their owner and earlier threads have mentioned the importance of individual action.

 MeMeMe 23 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

We feed our cats some kind of cat biscuits and you're right we should probably look into what they are exactly. We keep them to suppress the rat population so, particularly at this time of year, the biscuits only supplement what they catch themselves.

It's a shame they eat the birds too but I'm not sure what we can do about that, we don't want rats and it seems the best way to control them.

1
 mullermn 23 Apr 2019
In reply to subtle:

No, not as far as I’m aware. Vets recommend a biscuit diet as the meat covered in gravy is bad for their teeth. As the vet said, it’s like eating pate every meal and not brushing your teeth. 

I think you have to be careful not to anthropomorphise here. Cats don’t have the same requirement for novelty that humans do. 

In the wild a cat eats meat, but a) domestic cats aren’t wild cats anymore, b) it’s not like wild cats have a choice about it and c) life in the wild isn’t as romantic as we like to think. Wild cats probably don’t live long enough for tooth decay to be a problem. 

Related tangent - when wild elephants die of old age it’s generally because they have run out of the fixed number of sets of teeth they’re born with, so they can’t eat any more and die of starvation. Nature is a dick. 

7
 girlymonkey 23 Apr 2019
In reply to mullermn:

The vets education on nutrition is provided by the pet food companies who are possibly a little biased! 

I looked into diet extensively for my dog (mainly to help with behavioural issues) and stuff came up about cats too in my research. It actually seemed that it is even more important to give cats proper food than dogs, but both benefit hugely from real food which is minimally processed. 

http://www.catbehaviourist.com/blog/6-reasons-dry-food-clean-cats-teeth/

2
 girlymonkey 23 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

I have wondered about the environmental impact of my mutt. He eats more meat than I do, but in every other way is not much of a consumer! We use very posh food which is made with local ingredients etc (not primarily for environmental reasons, but for behavioural and general health purposes) which is maybe better than some of the big brands. 

The dog also eats stuff that we would throw away, which has to be good. We regularly give him things like lambs hearts, tripe, kidney and liver. I think as much of an animal should be used as possible, so this seems positive to me.

At the end of the day, the dog is here and we aren't getting rid of him, so we can only make the best choices we can from what is available. 

 DerwentDiluted 23 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

I suppose the ethical thing to do would be to eat your pets.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

> I suppose the ethical thing to do would be to eat your pets.

Or let your pets eat you...

 dsh 23 Apr 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

> The vets education on nutrition is provided by the pet food companies who are possibly a little biased! 

It's not a little biased it's downright incorrect. Cats absolutely need a meat based diet, and they get most of their moisture from their food not drinking, so dry food especially exclusively is not good for them at all. I actually can't believe their vet said this (unless it was many years ago).

 mullermn 23 Apr 2019
In reply to dsh:

Well, I think on balance I’m going to err on the side of the veterinary professional (even if he is in the pocket of ‘big cat food’) and the experience of our 5 year old, happy healthy, not overweight and fully toothed (excluding battle scars) cat rather than random Internet comments. 

Also, literally every pet food company sells complete cat food, as do the RSPCA. Given that people love their cats more than they love breathing I find it hard to believe it can be that bad for them.  

8
 girlymonkey 23 Apr 2019
In reply to mullermn:

I would encourage you to do some proper research. 

3
 jkarran 23 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

My mutt gets through a lot of cheap tinned meat and budget complete food, he's happy and healthy and wrecking the environment like the rest of us but without the diesel habit and more weekend floor kebab recycling.

My vegan neighbors feed their four rescue racers on fish based biscuit. A practical compromise between their ethics and the dogs' needs that seems to work fine.

Jk

 mullermn 23 Apr 2019
In reply to girlymonkey:

Which sources would you recommend?

 girlymonkey 24 Apr 2019
In reply to mullermn:

Well I looked into dogs rather than cats, just that they sometimes mentioned cars too. 

I found it hard to find the actual scientific research directly, but googled around the subject and looked for articles which referred to actual studies and then searched for the study that they mentioned. 

3
 Pete Pozman 24 Apr 2019
In reply to mullermn:

> I’m not sure you can lay a huge amount of blame for climate change at domestic cats’ door. Ours has never had actual meat in his life (aside from scraps). He has chicken flavour biscuits, but I imagine they’re created using the waste from some other process since there’s no real meat in them. 

If there was no real meat in them your cat would be dead. 

2
 Mark Collins 24 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

Pets are bad but I still have one, a cat I've been looking after for a mate for the last ten years, don't think he's coming back for her. 

 mullermn 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Yeah, but nobody’s going to be raising chickens for the sole purpose of grinding them up to make biscuits, are they? The chicken in the biscuits is highly likely the waste from some other chicken manufacturer process. 

It’ll be made the cheapest way it possibly can, same as everything else. 

 tlouth7 24 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

My dog contributes to reducing my environmental impact in two key ways:

- By taking him on domestic holidays my international travel is reduced,

- I am less likely to feel the need to have a child because he fulfills any slight nurturing instinct I may have.

OTOH I almost certainly drive more because taking him on public transport is a pain, and obviously he consumes a certain amount of resources.

 Pete Pozman 24 Apr 2019
In reply to mullermn:

OK. What you meant was: there is nothing in the biscuits that is recognisable as meat. Fair enough. It's important that people don't get the wrong idea about feeding animals, I think you'll agree. Too many pet owners are stubbornly anthropomorphic about their animals and want to believe that they can be fed with innocent meatless stuff. Cats are relentlessly carnivorous and must be red in tooth and claw. Also they will kill at will, because they must.

1
In reply to Pete Pozman:

Since the semi feral cats moved in next door, in addition to our moggie, I don’t have to deal with the mouse/rat population any more. Often see them carrying 3 or 4 mice home for tea. When the neighbours go away on hols, we feed the cats but the food is often untouched in the warmer months!

 Pete Pozman 24 Apr 2019
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

You need a couple of terriers man.

 fred99 24 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

On an old edition of QI, Mr. Fry showed Jeremy Clarkson (who else ?) a picture of a family; 2 parents, 2 children, a dog and a "Chelsea Tractor" and asked the question; "which one would you need to remove to reduce your carbon footprint the most ?" (I'm paraphrasing here, can't remember the precise wording.

After some joking around regarding the unlikeliness of "killing off" one of the children, it emerged that the dog actually required a greater carbon footprint for its' food than the 4x4 required for its' fuel.

So to reduce our carbon footprint we would be much better off (as a world) if we banned pet dogs than hulking great 4x4's.

Strange world isn't it ?

OP oldie 24 Apr 2019
In reply to fred99:

That is surprising (to me anyway). I wonder if it would be different if the 4x4 had a very high mileage.

 Route Adjuster 24 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

> That is surprising (to me anyway). I wonder if it would be different if the 4x4 had a very high mileage.

....or if the dog was very small.

Bit of a QI generalisation I would say, at best. 

1
 fred99 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Route Adjuster:

> ....or if the dog was very small.

> Bit of a QI generalisation I would say, at best. 


It was an average size dog, not a Chihuahua.

One thing about food, whether it be for humans or animals, most of it nowadays is shipped quite a distance from source to the table (or doggy-bowl) via processing plants. Something that even vegans need to remember.

1
88Dan 24 Apr 2019
In reply to fred99:

I remember that episode well. it actually said that humans are worse, but you can't get rid of a human like you can get rid of a dog. but who would rather get rid of their dog? I can think of many more humans I would get rid of before the dog, even then the dog would still stay.

1
88Dan 24 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

Vegans feeding their dogs fish based food is a bit hypocritical don't you think? we refuse to use any animal product because we care about the environment and the animals, but the dogs can eat what they like. sounds a bit half arsed to me. a friend of mine is vegetarian and won't eat meat apart from chicken and fish, that's like saying I'm a none smoker apart from cigarettes.

5
 jkarran 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> Vegans feeding their dogs fish based food is a bit hypocritical don't you think?

No, not really. If they were sanctimonious and judgemental of others who live differently (me for example) then perhaps I'd be more inclined to be so myself but they're not, they're kind generous spirited people living their lives in a manner they're comfortable with.

jk

3
88Dan 24 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

They are vegan and the dogs eat animals for food. this is a big no no for vegans.

3
 jkarran 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> this is a big no no for vegans.

And prescriptive dogmatic thought is a big no no for me I'm afraid.

jk

2
88Dan 24 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

If these people weren't your friends would you still defend them as you are doing now? a vegan who uses any animal for food or other products is either not a vegan or a lying vegan at best. or better yet they are vegetarian.

2
 jkarran 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

Yes. I have no interest in the kind of prescriptive judgemental pigeon-holing you're engaged in, it's ugly.

Jk

2
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> You need a couple of terriers man.

Can’t, those cats will have a jack russell for lunch 🥙 

OP oldie 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> I remember that episode well. it actually said that humans are worse, but you can't get rid of a human like you can get rid of a dog. but who would rather get rid of their dog? I can think of many more humans I would get rid of before the dog, even then the dog would still stay. <

Understandably people shouldn't feel the need to get rid of their dog. However perhaps people may decide not to get a new dog in the future.

1
Removed User 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

>  A vegan who uses any animal for food or other products is either not a vegan or a lying vegan at best.

It might be argued that, since they are not consuming the dog/cat food themselves, it does not compromise their veganism. Ultimately it's all a matter of degrees, since there's probably no way one can live in the world and not cause the death of some other organism at some point and at some level, but at least vegans are making an effort.
And it's a considerate vegan who doesn't force their choice onto others, especially when those others are animals that are carnivores.
 

1
 LeeWood 24 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

A particilar concern which has rescently surfaced re petfood - is the presence of palm-oil derivatives. The given info is that pet food mfrs are not obliged to disclose this ingredient. If anyone has inside info on this I would be interested. Nestle is behind some major brands - so I knock them off the list for starters ... 

Post edited at 18:51
 Luke_92 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

I think the key point is probably that the humans can live happily and healthily on a plant based diet. The pet can't, and it would be cruel to try and force it to do so. 

88Dan 24 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I'm just bringing up a valid point.

4
88Dan 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Either way their animal is consuming animals. you would think vegans would be against that regardless of who was eating an animal.

7
88Dan 24 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

As I have already said, I won't be getting rid of my dog.

 jkarran 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> I'm just bringing up a valid point.

That's one perspective.

Jk

 nufkin 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

>  Either way their animal is consuming animals. you would think vegans would be against that regardless of who was eating an animal.

Now you mention it, there was an article celebrating the decline of lions, sharks, raptors and indeed a good majority of global apex predators in my Ardent Vegan Monthly

2
 Dr.S at work 24 Apr 2019
In reply to nufkin:

> Now you mention it, there was an article celebrating the decline of lions, sharks, raptors and indeed a good majority of global apex predators in my Ardent Vegan Monthly

Joking aside, it’s an interesting moral question - if ‘meat Is murder’ should we tolerate obligate carnivores?

2
 bpmclimb 24 Apr 2019
In reply to Luke_92:

> I think the key point is probably that the humans can live happily and healthily on a plant based diet. The pet can't, and it would be cruel to try and force it to do so. 

... assuming that it's always true that the pet can't. I suspect sometimes they can. A lot of animals are omnivorous to some extent, and show some adaptability in diet depending on what food sources are regularly available, even species which we define as carnivorous  - such labels are often generalisations, approximations, and their use is motivated by the convenience of tidy classification, rather than defining exactly what that animal can or can't eat.

 bpmclimb 24 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> They are vegan and the dogs eat animals for food. this is a big no no for vegans.

Is it? Are you a vegan? Even if you are, and speaking from personal experience, do all other vegans think the same? I'm a 100% vegan of thirty years or so - are you speaking for me?

2
 fred99 24 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

> Understandably people shouldn't feel the need to get rid of their dog. However perhaps people may decide not to get a new dog in the future.

Better still, if people decided less often to get a new child then we wouldn't have quite so many of us over-running the planet.

1
 fred99 24 Apr 2019
In reply to nufkin:

> Now you mention it, there was an article celebrating the decline of lions, sharks, raptors and indeed a good majority of global apex predators in my Ardent Vegan Monthly

Rather short-sighted.

There have been a couple of programmes on TV recently where a reduction in the number of sharks (through aggressive fishing) has led to a different apex predator - squid or cuttlefish. This new predator is far more dangerous to  anything in the water - particularly as they go for humans by choice, whils sharks seem to normally do it by accident.

Indeed when any apex predator is in decline it leads to an imbalance in the eco-system.

 Wiley Coyote2 25 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

This thread is like the whole climate debate in microcosm. "My cat's OK because it's not bad as a horse" (cf my 4x4 is OK because it's not as bad as a Chinese power station) and "I'm not getting rid of the dog because I like him" (cf I'm not stopping flying to Yosemite because I enjoy it.

Hey ho

1
OP oldie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Luke_92:

> I think the key point is probably that the humans can live happily and healthily on a plant based diet. The pet can't, and it would be cruel to try and force it to do so. <

It is humans who decide to purchase a pet. There would be no requirement for their pet to eat meat if they didn't have one.  Presumably a compromise would be for smaller pets which ate less meat overall.

1
 jkarran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

> It is humans who decide to purchase a pet. There would be no requirement for their pet to eat meat if they didn't have one.  Presumably a compromise would be for smaller pets which ate less meat overall.

Rescues. Nobody is breeding dogs for the RSPCA.

jk

OP oldie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> Either way their animal is consuming animals. you would think vegans would be against that regardless of who was eating an animal. <

My curiosity about points like this was why I posed the original question. I'm neither vegan nor vegetarian though am planning on reducing meat and dairy somewhat.  

I can think of at least two ways a vegan could rationalize feeding meat to a pet:

If they a vegan for animal welfare  then they could use animals died that not been deliberately bred and killed eg road kill or naturally dead horses etc; the former would be OK  for environmental vegans the latter perhaps not.

If they are vegan purely for their own health then there would be no problem.

Post edited at 09:24
OP oldie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Rescues. Nobody is breeding dogs for the RSPCA. <

Sorry, not quite sure I'm responding to your point here. The rescues probably started off as somebody's pet or its offspring. My point about people making a conscious decision to have a pet is still presumably valid for all the dogs who don't end up as rescue animals.

 jkarran 25 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

> Sorry, not quite sure I'm responding to your point here. The rescues probably started off as somebody's pet or its offspring. My point about people making a conscious decision to have a pet is still presumably valid for all the dogs who don't end up as rescue animals.

My point is only that if you get your pets from a rescue you're not directly* causing more to be bred.

*I appreciate there is a grey area here, only the 'best' get sold/kept and without an acceptable disposal method for the wastage the pet breeding market wouldn't work the same.

jk

OP oldie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to Wiley Coyote2:

> This thread is like the whole climate debate in microcosm. <

Very true.

>"My cat's OK because it's not bad as a horse" (cf my 4x4 is OK because it's not as bad as a Chinese power station) and "I'm not getting rid of the dog because I like him" (cf I'm not stopping flying to Yosemite because I enjoy it. <

I suppose the value of all these threads and indeed the environmental protests is that everyone is talking and thinking about the problem. The chosen comparisons could easily be altered so that individuals might do something of value (especially if they get a financial or health gain). My 4x4 is worse than a smaller car so I will eventually change to that, I like my dog but I may not replace it after it dies or get a smaller or different pet, I'm decreasing the frequency of my trips to Yosemite and going to a nearer destination instead.

OP oldie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to fred99:

> Better still, if people decided less often to get a new child then we wouldn't have quite so many of us over-running the planet. <

Agree. Every new child means potentially more cars, food, pets etc in the future.

However I  (and probably many others) often don't discuss this for fear of upsetting friends with large families. On a bigger scale politicians would offend voters, strict followers of some religions too.

 Bobling 25 Apr 2019
In reply to fred99:

> Rather short-sighted.

> There have been a couple of programmes on TV recently where a reduction in the number of sharks (through aggressive fishing) has led to a different apex predator - squid or cuttlefish. This new predator is far more dangerous to  anything in the water - particularly as they go for humans by choice, whils sharks seem to normally do it by accident.

Hang about! The oceans are now full of killer cuttlefish all queuing up to chomp down on me with their sharp, sharp beaks?  I knew it wasn't safe to go into the water...

88Dan 25 Apr 2019
In reply to bpmclimb:

If you are 100% vegan and disagree with anyone or anything eating animals or using anything made from an animal, why would you allow your pets to eat animals or things made from animals such as flavoured biscuits or food? Surely this goes against everything vegans stand for.

4
88Dan 25 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

You should be a politician. You don't discuss kids in front of friends with large families as you don't want to upset them. That is a lot like politicians refusing to discuss immigration because they fear being called a racist if they say what they really think or feel.

3
OP oldie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> If you are 100% vegan and disagree with anyone or anything eating animals or using anything made from an animal, why would you allow your pets to eat animals or things made from animals such as flavoured biscuits or food? Surely this goes against everything vegans stand for. <

I'm not a vegan but surely it can just describe someone who follows a particular diet with no animals or their products. Possibly some do so simply for their own health reasons. 

OP oldie 25 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

> You should be a politician. You don't discuss kids in front of friends with large families as you don't want to upset them. That is a lot like politicians refusing to discuss immigration because they fear being called a racist if they say what they really think or feel. <

I would discuss kids with friends but probably not their right to have a large family if I knew that would offend them. I think many people would be similarly tactful and often avoid angry arguments face to face. One aspect of forums is that one can make points anonymously, as both of us are doing here!

 felt 26 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0181301

In the US, dogs and cats consume about 19% ± 2% of the amount of dietary energy that humans do (203 ± 15 PJ yr-1 vs. 1051 ± 9 PJ yr-1) and 33% ± 9% of the animal-derived energy (67 ± 17 PJ yr-1 vs. 206 ± 2 PJ yr-1). They produce about 30% ± 13%, by mass, as much feces as Americans (5.1 ± Tg yr-1 vs. 17.2 Tg yr-1), and through their diet, constitute about 25–30% of the environmental impacts from animal production in terms of the use of land, water, fossil fuel, phosphate, and biocides.

Cited in https://www.theguardian.com/global/2018/jun/26/pet-food-is-an-environmental...

 nufkin 26 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

>  You don't discuss kids in front of friends with large families as you don't want to upset them.

The problem in here is that there's not much to be done about family size if the children have already been had. If I tell my friends and family they're awful people for breeding they'll likely not invite me to any more christenings

 nathan79 27 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

I don't understand how anyone claiming to be vegan can choose to exploit an animal of any sort by keeping it as a pet in the first place. Surely it's against vegan values? I'd genuinely like to hear a vegan viewpoint on this.

2
 Pefa 27 Apr 2019
In reply to nathan79:

Sentient beings exist and in this modern world we have formed they need cared/catered for just like we would hope for if we were some wee animal. For anyone to rise above selfishness etc and show unconditional love must rub off on any wee creature/manifestation of consciousness.

Post edited at 00:52
Removed User 27 Apr 2019
In reply to 88Dan:

>  If you are 100% vegan and disagree with anyone or anything eating animals or using anything made from an animal, why would you allow your pets to eat animals or things made from animals

I think you might be confusing 'vegan' with 'lunatic' somewhat; vegans of my acquaintance base their position on the principle that it is wrong - for them - to exploit or cause unnecessary suffering to another being. It is not necessary for humans to eat other animals, so they chose not to. It is not necessary for humans to wear fur, down, leather, wool etc. so they avoid this too.
Something like, say, a swallow, does not have the same choice in what it eats, and would not be condemned for having evolved as a carnivore. The same would apply to tigers, hedgehogs, pike, woodpeckers, stoats, centipedes, rattlesnakes and probably some other animals that escape me right now.

 Dr.S at work 27 Apr 2019
In reply to Removed UserBwox:

Fair points - but why woulda vegan select a pet that’s an obligate carnivore?

1
OP oldie 27 Apr 2019
In reply to nathan79:

> I don't understand how anyone claiming to be vegan can choose to exploit an animal of any sort by keeping it as a pet in the first place. Surely it's against vegan values? I'd genuinely like to hear a vegan viewpoint on this. <

I'm curious about this too. I'd forgotten that many (most?) vegans eschew all animal products  as well as food. That means they must wear plant fibresbased clothes or "plastic" materials.

One must also remember that wild animals have a very tough life, infant mortality is tremendous with many dying of starvation, disease, and predation. Adults too rarely die of old age and may suffer privations throughout their life. Injury often means death: no anaesthetics or care available. So it could be argued that pets are not always exploited and sometimes quite the reverse. Must be careful not to  anthropomorphise however. 

Again, any vegans able to comment, please?

Post edited at 11:07
 bpmclimb 27 Apr 2019
In reply to oldie:

> Again, any vegans able to comment, please?

I'm long-term vegan and would have much to say on all this, but I think it would have to be over the course of a long conversation - maybe over a few drinks one evening! I did try putting some posts together in reply to you, Dan, and others, but ended up deleting them. It's just too complex, too many points to answer for a quick online post. I do have several vegan friends who keep cats and dogs as part of their family, but I happen to have decided not to do that myself - for various reasons, just one of which is that I'd find buying and preparing food for them challenging. At the end of the day, I'm just one vegan ... we're all different


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...