Animal Rights

[Silvermoon77]

Was reading a French newspaper yesterday and there was this advertisement in it about the 30th anniversary of the Declaration of Animal Rights. Apart from the obvious, I read in there something that gave me a bad conscience, along the lines of "no one should keep in captivity breeds that are supposed to live in the wild".

The old debate of pros and cons regarding zoos, etc.

What do you guys think?

Personally I think that dogs and cats must have once been wild and were progressively domesticated, going from serving a utilitarian purpose to a social one. The same applies to species that served no purpose other than social in captivity (such as birds and rodents, hence the "trend" for snakes). I also think that keeping exotic pets, provided they are well looked after, can contribute to other people understanding better the animals, especially when it comes to an animal that has such bad press and is as misunderstood as snakes are.

Other comments?

[DaveyB]

I'm pretty sure all dogs are decendants of wolves. A wolf is a wild animal is it not?? Now, I don't have a problem with anyone keeping an animal as long as it's looked after well. But when someone says to me my snake is a wild animal and should not be in a cage when they own a dog, I think, you're dog sits indoors all day while your at work. It's a lovely sunny day and Rover is stuck inside and can really only stretch his legs when you feel like taking him for a walk. Now, all dog owners have to admit they sometimes don't feel like taking their dog for a walk - that's not a bad owner that's just being human after a day at work. But at the end of the day you took the dog on so that's part and parcel of owning a dog. If my snake was in the wild it would pretty much live how it lives in my viv. It would still only live in a small area so I'm told and would only come out of it's burrow to hunt.

So really my snake is still living how it would in the wild and peoples dogs aren't.....

I don't have a problem with people owning animals as I say, but I think it's hypocritical to say certain animals should be in the wild and others not. They all come from the wild in the first place. No animal was born in to a family.

I forgot to add, I'm not keen on a circus with animals. They may be looked after well as in fed and that but normally they are very big animals in really small cages. That's just not on really and making them perform tricks day in day out I'm not for either.

[akuma 天]

I agree there are pros and cons to zoo's.

On the one hand they provide access for people to see animals they may not noramlly ever see, and for some it inspires them to become vets etc...
But again, you are denying an animal freedom by effectively caging it, even if its a big cage.

Also some zoo's keep some animals from going extinct. Nature makes animals extinct all the time, and some times its mans activities. But with zoo's its possible to keep certain animal alive past there natural or unatural expiry date.

[thalie_knights]

im not too keen on zoos either, however with so many pet 'laws' now the zoo animals are (debatable) kept probably healthier than some cases of joe bloggs who keeps their animals in squalid conditions.im not really for making animals perform in that way...to be honest, youve got to think about the mental capacity of the animal as well..keepin a goldfish and animals such as snakes which tbh dont exactly have a huge brian capacity, is something i regard as completely different to that of keeping a dog/cat/etc etc which need constant stimulation.

[bladeblaster]

zoos do a lot of valuble conservation work, general speakign though, all animals should be wild, and it is only for mankinds own selfish reasons that they are not. The conservation work that the zoos do wouldn't be neccesary if we weren't busy destroying the habitat of the animals they are busy trying to save.

And yes I do keep animals, does that make me a hypocrit, no because I realise I am being selfish, I just choose to carry on that way.

[akuma 天]

Originally Posted by bladeblaster

zoos do a lot of valuble conservation work, general speakign though, all animals should be wild, and it is only for mankinds own selfish reasons that they are not. The conservation work that the zoos do wouldn't be neccesary if we weren't busy destroying the habitat of the animals they are busy trying to save.

And yes I do keep animals, does that make me a hypocrit, no because I realise I am being selfish, I just choose to carry on that way.

As man naturally evovled on this planet, anything they/we do is technically natural.

And just like any animal we look after ourselves at the expense of all others, it just so happens we do it on a larger scale. Any animal would do it if they could, we just got there first.

[Ssthisto]

Originally Posted by thalie_knights

im not really for making animals perform in that way...to be honest, youve got to think about the mental capacity of the animal as well...

Some time ago I read a study which appears to show that "circus" big cats/bears are less stressed than "zoo" big cats and bears - simply because the former are acclimated to human contact and have a "job" to occupy their time.

Training and performing are beneficial to captive animals, since we take away all their other normal activities (seeking food/shelter/mates) ... ESPECIALLY the intelligent ones.

[DaveyB]

Originally Posted by Ssthisto

Some time ago I read a study which appears to show that "circus" big cats/bears are less stressed than "zoo" big cats and bears - simply because the former are acclimated to human contact and have a "job" to occupy their time.

Training and performing are beneficial to captive animals, since we take away all their other normal activities (seeking food/shelter/mates) ... ESPECIALLY the intelligent ones.

Apart from the bear in Semi-Pro who killed it's owner/trainer and the white tiger who attacked (not sure if it killed) one of it's two trainers in Vegas (I bleiev it was Vegas, they may not have been there at the time....)

I think training can be beneficial to a dog and parrot as an owner would do. I think that is just bonding with the animal but at a circus it is a little like, "Dance monkey, dance!" and then throw them a peanut for their trouble and the crowd goes wild. It's not much different from a domestic animal but I am still against it more so

[bladeblaster]

Originally Posted by akuma 天

As man naturally evovled on this planet, anything they/we do is technically natural.

And just like any animal we look after ourselves at the expense of all others, it just so happens we do it on a larger scale. Any animal would do it if they could, we just got there first.

Agreed, its natural for us, not neccesarily for the animals were are domesticating though, and yes who ever is at the top of the evolutionary tree at the time will exploit everything else to their own ends. Doesn't detract that originaly all animals were supposed to be wild, which was the question.

[DaveyB]

Originally Posted by bladeblaster

Agreed, its natural for us, not neccesarily for the animals were are domesticating though, and yes who ever is at the top of the evolutionary tree at the time will exploit everything else to their own ends. Doesn't detract that originaly all animals were supposed to be wild, which was the question.

I wonder if no animals were domesticated, would the human race have such a large population. As in a wild animal could easily tear us to shreds and we are only at the top of the food chain due to weapons which are man made. These animals have 'weapons' which they have evolved.......

I fear we would be getting a little too in depth to something which is way off topic if we go down this route though