Domestic cats kill more wildlife than anything. They are killing machines, whether they are hungry or not. We bred them to be that way.

I don't think people bred domestic cats to be killing machines - unless perhaps to exterminate rats etc.? But I wonder if the cats needed encouragement from people to do that.

killing for no reason is a wasteful behaviour, and therefore in evolution would not favour an animal, unless humans wanted that behaviour to control rats and provided advantages (food, shelter) to the cats that displayed this behaviour. People had cats to kill mice and rats thousands of years before the stupid notion that they are cute & cuddly took hold.

@Haali: not sure that killing rats/mice, either by domestic or wild cats, is an evolutionary disadvantage for cats, but I think you're right that their propensity to do so was appreciated before they were considered cute & cuddly. Dogs were not domesticated & bred because people decided to love them either - pigs must regret not being as good at guarding tents etc. as dogs are, or they'd be loved too. Probably still be eaten though.

i love dogs,too but i understand that some people eat them. as mentioned before it's no different than eating other domesticated animals.

the problem is the way they are killed. to my knowledge the dogs are burned alive, it's said that the pain and fear releases hormones, making the meat taste better. sounds ridiculous to me, especially thinking about the meat later being drowned in gallons of oil, spices and chily, until there is no natural flavour left. let alone the idea,that those hormones make meat better is completely moronic.

stop this cruelty! if you want to eat dog, or any other animal,look deep into it's eyes (if it has eyes) appreciate its death to feed you, before you slaughter it.
that kind of respect is needed in times, when kids think, meat comes and originates in the supermarket.

Not sure they're necessarily burned alive, or that the hormones don't affect the taste of the meat - for other animals I've heard it said, somewhere, that pain&fear at the time of slaughtering an animal makes the meat taste worse, but I dunno.
As for looking the animal in the eyes before you slaughter it, most meat eaters let somebody else slaughter it, don't feel immoral about eating the meat, but simply avoid the moral question entirely by making a point not to see the animal being slaughtered, & not thinking about it, avoiding bad FEELINGS, not responsibility for what they're involved in. Then they look down on butchers, especially if they are Hindu or Buddhist. Hypocritical? If I hire a hitman & he does his job & I pay him, how's my karma?
As for cruelty to animals, consider the orthodox Jewish manner of slaughter animals (kosher) and the Muslim manner of doing so (halal).
I'm open to argument on all of this.
PS: I'm a meat eater & a dog lover.

nother post without thought. quote "but simply avoid the moral question entirely by making a point not to see the animal being slaughtered" what utter hogwash. its division of labor. specialisation. what you want me to do, if i kill a cow it wont fit in the freezer, so i give most of the meat away or sell it. ta! da! i'll open a butchers shop, problem solved

I've noticed no serious dog&cat problem in Kunming - I mean, no serious dangers to people from dogs&cats.

@Dazzer: I understand division of labor - how does that obviate the moral question concerning the killing of animals? Now if you don't think there's a moral issue at all, okay - but if there is one, arising from the consequences of one's actions (and from what other source can a moral question arise?), then I don't see how the division of labor takes it away.

I am wondering why human beings are interested in eating meat of dogs,maybe because it is scarce and nice taste,compared to pork,steak,chicken meat and so on?
If so,this is one reason why human beings are of sin!
Anyway,no demand!no supply!don`t support the lady`s way though this is a kind and warm-hearted action!