Animals have been domesticated. Dogs, cats, fish, snakes, birds, humans. All evolved into forms that can live in a closed, protected environment.
My friend is against owning fish, because they are kept in small bowls and taken out of the large environment they're used to. I made the claim that it's the same for dogs, and we couldn't agree. She says it's different because dogs are already evolved from the big things they used to, while animals such as fish and reptiles haven't been pets for as long. Do you agree?
Is it really less 'humane' to own a reptile than a dog, because dogs have been human pets for a longer period of time?
I believe that pets are pets, and regardless of the pros/cons of domestication, owning a fish is the same as owning a dog. The animal is not in it's natural environment. Even if puppies have gotten used to living in closed quarters, and have lost more of their instinct than snakes. Another argument she made was regarding the fact that while dogs are not as wild as they were, a pet snake can still function in the wild. I think such a statement refers more to human perception of the animal, and the fact that we still see snakes as 'wild' animals.
If it's not nice to put fish in a bowl, or reptiles in a cage, how is it different for dogs?
I think it is the same for every animal. I recently heard of a new breed of house cat called a toyger cat mixed wiht tiger somehow it was in the paper. anyways you should check that out it was pretty cool.
- Jennee
" You cant always get what you want, but if you try sometimes you just might get what you need"
Just so you know. Snakes havent really been domesticated. And the domestication you speak of is in varying degrees. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. I dont really think its right for any animal to be domesticated because then they must rely on humans for their survival and if they are forced to live outside of captivity they will most likely die. I dont really think its right, but I think its in human nature to attempt to control the environment around us and that includes animals too. Since animals are wild this doesnt always work out too well, but I dont think we'll stop because humans as a species are so captivated by the "Cute" factor.
On the other hand, animals and humans often have a symbiotic relationship, at least in the case of dogs and cats. Dogs provide protection and companionship, and we provide food and shelter; cats provide pest control (and often entertainment and companionship) and we give them food and shelter. It's a two-way street.
As for reptiles and stuff, not so much...they're less domesticated, and every time I see a guy with a pet snake I can't help but think the snake secretly wants to eat the guy.
(if you can't see the fnords they won't eat you)
I think the fact that humans think makes things complicated... Because the symbiotic relationship was made by us, but then that could be considered 'natural.'
The important question is-does it harm either party? Animal rights activists might argue that the pets are being hurt, but I don't understand why.
Check out my blog!
even the fish who are out in the "wild" are encountering pollution, dams, global warming and other problems they didn't encounter in the past, so one could argue they might actually have a better life in a fish tank, where the environment is controlled in a good way, to life in the so-called wild...
I still feel more right about companionship with a dog or cat however (notice I did not use the word "owning" because it seems to me that we don't really own these animals..) because they have been domesticated to the point where they seem happy to be in a mutual life with us; sure dogs enjoy the company of other dogs, but they also really consider their human counterparts their "pack" because there really isn't much wolf left in them; same for cats.
When you change an animal that much, the relationship does become symbiotic; we all benefit, stray dogs don't seem happier then "housed" dogs, so why not have a dog friend? I'm not saying I'm for puppy mills or breeding at all, I think we have plenty of dogs already; but I don't think there is anything wrong with housing and building a relationship with a dog or cat.
Some animals, obviously are best left in their habitat...I'm thinking of wolves, lions, tigers, large snakes, monkeys, etc. These animals are not domesticated and should not be; however, this does not stop people from trying. I have friends who work with animals such as the ones mentioned above that people have tried to make "pets" out of...sorry folks, the Swiss Family Robinson was just a Disney movie...you can't keep monkeys and snakes and zebras and elephants comfortably in your home...(by the way, what island did the Swiss Family supposedly land on that had all of these animals living harmoniously on it? Does such an island exist?)
Love ya,
Carrot
I agree that nothing is natural anymore. Whether we're influencing animals by taking them as pets or by poisoning their natural habitats, we're having an impact on the lives of every living creature.
My boa constrictor would've died had we released him. His immune system is not nearly as strong as a wild snake's. Humans breed for defects, such as trusting dogs (bad for prehistory survival), docile snakes, stupid rats, etc. I agree with your friend, sort of, about owning fish in a teeny bowl.
The thing about dogs, though, is they shouldn't be kept in small areas. Dogs of every size (except for genetically defective dogs life bulldogs and pugs) should walk at least an hour every day and be encouraged to rough-house with other dogs and chase prey animals like rabbits.
We need to cator to animal's natural needs.
But, domestic animals are very, very different thant their wild ancesters.
~"Happiness only real when shared".~