Just read this post.
Most of the argument points are based on taxonomy classifications.
Meaning people are stating "carnivore" and "omnivore" taxonomy classifications of wild animals which are NOT diet instructions at all but simply reflections on what animals eat in the wild...there is no nutritional analysis of what different levels of even carnivores eat.
i did a recent post explaining taxonomy...and in the post showed that even the classification "hyper carnivores" were eating digesting plant ingredients so nutrients and no "hyper carnivore" in the wild was eating more than 70% animal flesh meat ingredients so certainly not 100%.
Since the taxonomy classification has nothing to do with nutritional analysis...it was down to modern nutritional science to analyse exactly what proteins minerals nutrients were being digested well or not from plants and or flesh.
it turns out...that cats in fact...digest plant proteins even better than dogs do. we are not talking a "little bit" of digestion but the "majority" of plant proteins are digested well...
an average plant protein digestibility of 88% in dogs and 96.1% in cats.
it turns out...there are only 4 nutrients that wild cats or domestic captive cats need that are not directly available in plants...one of those is ? taurine...see my post elsewhere for the other 3...but taurine in ALL commercial cat foods is actually SYNTHETIC not from animal flesh meat...so that discounts immediately the idea that cats "need" animal flesh meat to get essential life essential nutrients.
"Cats are obligate carnivores, which means that a diet that isn't exclusively animal based can have a deleterious effect on them " as someone wrote...is therefore scientifically a very incorrect statement.
It is incorrect on 2 counts...the statement bit about "if not exclusively" is completely wrong...not even the "hyper carnivore" species eat more than 70 percent animal based ingredients in the wild.
the 2nd count error is ? that cats are "obligate carnivores" because that classification only applies in the WILD I remind ...captive wild species lions for example do NOT get fed even 30 percent animal based flesh meat...they get fed SOY and many other plant source ingredients and nutrients. Fact. Just as i explained the domestic captive pet cats get taurine in their cat foods from synthetic human produced sources.
The basic mistake made is to take a simple taxonomy classification of what wild animals eat normally in the WILD to be a DIETARY DIRECTIVE...it is now scientifically proven...that the natural in the wild diets of wild lions is not actually healthy for them...74 percent of them die of renal kidney diseases caused by the high toxins in the animal flesh meats they eat...captive domestic pet cats are not even at HALF that level of kidney disease of course as their pet food is human prepared so safer and full of other less toxic ingredients not harmful to their kidneys.
Back however to the main point and topic of this post...which was...
should SHELTER dogs and cats be fed vegan.
Dr Armaiti May is the USA expert in cat and dog nutrition vet the most involved in this matter there fyi as i saw no one mention her name...worth looking up I suggest to learn more.
Let me now address the main question...
Let me put the question another way....
What are the factors that influence whether any rescue shelter animals lives are saved or not ?
well ?
Why ? do we even bother thinking we need to "save" any animals lives ?
are there "wild animal shelters" ? are there "farm animal shelters" ?
and what proportion of the different classifications of animals into
PET or FARM or WILD animal shelters are there ?
or could be ?
or SHOULD be ?
There are a few shelters that do feed cats and dogs vegan. The majority however do not. That is the "as is" situation currently.
All of the shelters COULD legally and nutritionally feed cats and dogs vegan. It would mean less animals lives killed. It would simply mean if keeping to the same costs of the "as is" pet food costs 20% more rescue dogs and cats to euthanise in addition to the 4 million per year already euthanised in the USA but millions of farm animal lives saved.
What SHOULD we choose ? it is after all simply a "choice" of ..
1. Do we continue to spend money on saving ANY unwanted or cannot live independently captives of humans animals lives ?
2. Do we decide on who lives and who dies and on what basis ? racist/speciesist preferences for PETS or basis of numbers of lives affected ?
surely...if we wanted to save the MOST LIVES we would build and fund shelters for FARM ANIMALS the most...and they would be the most numerous of all animals in shelters charities fund ...well ? logical is that not ?
What we do know is...99 percent of all the moneys to rescues of any animals go to ? the PET ones...which have the LEAST numbers of animals in them.
I mean ONLY 4 million pet dog and cats per year get euthanised in rescues in the USA but...9 billion farm animals.
Leaving aside the FACT that the FDA and AAFCO in the USA who control pet food rules haver never recalled any BY LAW exceeding the aafco standards set for dog and cat food vegan pet foods...
so no issue about NUTRITION adequacy involved...it now comes down to other factors...
which could be ?
1. cost
2. supporting the animal agriculture business profits
3. whether morally 1 life of a cat or dog is worth more ethically than 3000 rabbits bred for pet foods.
so I address the COST first before any ETHICS
1. Rule of thumb...if 1 USD per day is the VEGAN dog food cost...and the NON VEGAN bred and killed bunny rabbits dog food is 0.7 USD per day...vegan dog food is more expensive by about ? 20 percent ? you work it out...0.3 USD per day
however...COST is actually why 4 million pet dogs and cats are euthanised per year in the USA alone...10 percent of ones owned. It is impossible to keep them all alive on COST grounds
so we have no problem ethically on cost grounds killing milions of unwanted dogs and cat pets.
2. Support pet food industry profits...
Well of course 49% of all animals slaughtered do not end up in human food...so there would be a huge LOSS without putting up the price of human meat etc if pet food sales stopped using 30% of meat produced.
However...the pet food industry itself would not suffer...as the vegan pet food suppliers would benefit...and the COST of vegan pet food would reduce of course.
Simple supply and demand maths.
3. Ethics...do these matter ?
if people prefer PET dogs and cats to chickens...and it makes them "feel better" by donating to those rescues rather than rescues struggling to keep rescue chickens and pigs alive.....kill the pigs and chickens is the choice
IF ethics matter...and "minimal harm" vegan principle matters...how many lives are involved ?
1 dog or cat eats 3000 rabbit or chicken size farm produced and killed animals per 1 lifetime
So how many lives to kill ? is the ethical issue.