Learn the reasons to improve to a vegetarian diet, and start consuming less meat today-or nothing at all! Underlying a few of these principled arguments is the intuition that harmful acts, like eliminating livestock, are worse than unsafe omissions, like failing to avert wild pet anguish. Consequentialists should reject these intuitions. It isn't my goal here to influence non-consequentialists to reject the act-omission differentiation. However, I offer them a thought test to claim that harmful omissions subject at least relatively. Imagine you see a fire growing in a forest and, while walking away from the fire, you see an hurt fawn: a shattered leg stops her from fleeing. You carry a rifle and may instantly eliminate the fawn free to yourself, protecting against her from the extreme fighting of being burned up alive. In this situation, for vegetarians who value harm to pets, it is clear that it would be immoral to omit to do something and allow crazy animal suffering to occur. So the standard principle that allowing wild animals to undergo is morally neutral cannot hold.
For this reason, many vegans also avoid purchasing clothing items containing silk, wool, leather or suede. You will help pets or animals even more by helping other people understand the problems. Use whatever abilities you have to peacefully promote to others the thought of another world where pets or animals are no more exploited. For much more, see Help family pets by informing others about veganism below.