Owning Pets Is Cruel Debate

[TheFifthElement]

But truth is this. I have not owned a Hamster. But I did have a heron.

I raised it from a little baby when it fell from a tree and broke one of it's leg (I grew up on a farm). I nursed it to health and raised it myself. And it became attached to me. It roam around the farm side but it still returned to me. When he saw me he came towards me. When I was not around it went looking for me. It is so strange.

Well let me understand, you didn't own the heron. Presumably as soon as it was well enough you set it free? This is different from keeping it as a 'pet'. If you kept it as a pet I'd be quite disturbed.

[metal134]

If it's wrong for humans why isn't it wrong for other creatures. There's my dilemma - what's the difference?

You really don't see the difference? It's pretty obvious. And here are some clear illustrations as to how. If I were to take a person and hold them prisoner, they'd be miserable. When I pulled up to the house, they wouldn't be peekig out the window with an exicted look in their eyes and they wouldn't run up to greet me at the door. It would be like, "oh no, this sob is back". If I let them out of the house (as I used to do with my cat before they started picking them up in my city) they would run; they'd be gone. They wouldn't come back like the cat. The difference is that if you held a person prisoner, they would hate your guts and be miserbale, unlike a dog or cat who is happy and absolutley extatic your very presence. You keep saying , "I understand that, but..." There is no but. That is the difference; that is the ENTIRE difference and it's enough of a difference. There is no more to it on either side of the argument.

[TheFifthElement]

You really don't see the difference? It's pretty obvious. And here are some clear illustrations as to how. If I were to take a person and hold them prisoner, they'd be miserable.

Not necessarily, Stockholm Syndrome shows that people held captive can feel affection towards, and even defend their captors.

The difference is that if you held a person prisoner, they would hate your guts and be miserbale, unlike a dog or cat who is happy and absolutley extatic your very presence. You keep saying , "I understand that, but..." There is no but. That is the difference; that is the ENTIRE difference and it's enough of a difference. There is no more to it on either side of the argument.

This relies on the assumption that you know that the dog or cat is happy. How do you know what the dog or cat is thinking or feeling or experiencing? I bet you don't know what the next person you meet is thinking or feeling or experiencing, and yet you are the same species, and probably share the same language.

I don't know what animals think, or feel. In the absence of that knowledge I think that cats, and dogs, and birds, and rabbits, and so on and so forth, should be allowed to live as they would live without interference from humans. Are you saying that its wrong to let animals live according to their nature?

[Lote-Tree]

Well let me understand, you didn't own the heron.

By nursing to health and raising it I became it's guardian. I became responsible for it's welfare.

Presumably as soon as it was well enough you set it free?

How can you set a baby free. Even it's eyes were not fully open. It would meant it's death if I set it free. Set it free to die? I aint that cruel.

This is different from keeping it as a 'pet'. If you kept it as a pet I'd be quite disturbed.

You don't get it do you?

The effect of nursing it and raising it became attached to me. It always came back to me.

This how Symbiotic Relationship gets established.

What is there to be disturbed about?

I find your use of this phrase rather bizzare considering in our evolutionary past we have such symbiotic relationships with various animals.

[Sweets America]

Not necessarily, Stockholm Syndrome shows that people held captive can feel affection towards, and even defend their captors.



This relies on the assumption that you know that the dog or cat is happy. How do you know what the dog or cat is thinking or feeling or experiencing? I bet you don't know what the next person you meet is thinking or feeling or experiencing, and yet you are the same species, and probably share the same language.

I don't know what animals think, or feel. In the absence of that knowledge I think that cats, and dogs, and birds, and rabbits, and so on and so forth, should be allowed to live as they would live without interference from humans. Are you saying that its wrong to let animals live according to their nature?

I totally agree with what metal says. We would see it in the dog's behavior if it were not happy to see its 'master'. Haven't you heard of dogs who let themselves die after their 'master' has died himself? Sometimes even if someone else takes care of the dog and feeds it, the dogs still lets himself die. I think it might be because of the attachement it had to its master.
Well, it's the same with happiness. It is visible in the eyes of my dog that he is happy to see me. When you have lived with a dog for a long time, you learn to know him, you learn to communicate in a very special way. You would have to be closed to communication to miss that.

And, I find it strange that you use the Stockholm Syndrome, which is a human thing, to apply it to animals whereas you also say that animals do not have the same psychology as humans.

[Virgil]

I totally agree with what metal says. We would see it in the dog's behavior if it were not happy to see its 'master'. Haven't you heard of dogs who let themselves die after their 'master' has died himself? Sometimes even if someone else takes care of the dog and feeds it, the dogs still lets himself die. I think it might be because of the attachement it had to its master.
Well, it's the same with happiness. It is visible in the eyes of my dog that he is happy to see me. When you have lived with a dog for a long time, you learn to know him, you learn to communicate in a very special way. You would have to be closed to communication to miss that.

Oh when I come home from work I get such a celebration from my dog. She goes on and on wagging and rubbing herself against me. She is so happy. My wife doesn't give me such a reception.

And, I find it strange that you use the Stockholm Syndrome, which is a human thing, to apply it to animals whereas you also say that animals do not have the same psychology as humans.

Fifth, this analogy doesn't hold. It's border line silly, if you'll excuse me for saying so.

[Petrarch's Love]

I wonder, if it was acceptable or normal to act towards other humans in this way, would we continue to do so in relation to animals? Is it just another expression of our desire to have dominion over something else, albeit largely well intentioned? If dogs could speak would they say 'let me be a dog'?

I'm in the rather unique position of having a pet that does speak. What my bird said this morning was "feed, feed" (or maybe it's "seed, seed," his pronunciation isn't the best). In any case he woke me out of a really great dream to go over and give him his food: not only seed but fruity flavored pellets and some chopped up fresh veggies. Then he had a lovely breakfast, refused my offer to come sit on my shoulder, ran around his bird playground playing with his many toys, and finally started saying his name over and over, which means that its time to pay attention to Spenser, so I picked him up. He's then snuggled up on my shoulder several hours while I work on the computer, periodically giving me a gentle nip to remind me to preen the pin feathers on his head where he can't reach for himself. I absolutely refuse to believe that this bird is not living a perfectly happy life. It's also a safer life than he could possibly have in the wild where birds are not always too lovey dovey to each other.

If you let a bird out, it's gone!

Not so! My bird has gotten loose a couple times, both outside and in O'Hare airport of all places , and he got far enough away that I could see him, but he was disoriented and didn't know where I was. Both times he let out a homing chirp the way birds do in the wild to find their flockmates, and when I returned it and got close enough to where he could see me he flew straight to me.

My first experience with a bird as a companion was a wild dove that roosted across the street from my house when I was a child. Actually, he may have been a previously tamed bird that escaped since he was a particularly beautiful pure white, but in any case he was flying free when he came into my life. I was about 10 or so, and I'd go out every morning to feed the birds in our front yard. After much patience this particular bird began to eat from my hand and then to come to me to sit on my hand and have his wings stroked. It was a perfectly voluntary, as Lote would say, symbiotic relationship between animal and human.

Incidently, I am against forcibly removing animals from the wild to be pets. I figure a wild bird is happiest with the flock it has known all its life. It probably has a mate, perhaps chicks, maybe even bird friends (I don't know) and it wouldn't be fair to take it from the fellow creatures it has bonded to. On the other hand, my pet bird was brought up by humans and has clearly bonded to his human companions and led a pretty cushy life to boot. It would seem cruel to me to just set him loose in the wilds where he most likely wouldn't thrive. That's not to say it isn't possible, but that animals in the wild fight; they attack and/or exclude strangers from their flock or pack; even if they are part of a group they face many dangers and privations that well cared for pets do not.

I think comparing a woman being kept as a slave to animals being pets is ridiculous, but if you're into making human comparisons, how about this one: Let us say you have a man who has lived in a major city all his life where he works a desk job and gets his food from the supermarket. Now all of a sudden someone gets the idea that humans should go back to nature, and he's taken to an extremely isolated rural area in a foreign country where the people all live as subsistence farmers. Then he's set loose to try to live off the land as best he can. Now, it's certainly possible that he'll survive, maybe even do well. Some local people might take pity on this poor city guy and feed him while patiently helping him learn rudimentary farming skills. The people might also figure he's no use to them as a farm worker and leave him to fend for himself on some rough patch of land no one wants where he's likely to fail at sustaining himself. They might also take offense at this stranger coming in and trying to beg something off them and beat him to a pulp. Similarly a domesticated animal being set loose to fend for itself might indeed find a pack of dogs or a flock of birds and integrate itself and do fine, but the odds are that it won't survive, or will have a very tough time surviving.

[Virgil]

Let us say you have a man who has lived in a major city all his life where he works a desk job and gets his food from the supermarket. Now all of a sudden someone gets the idea that humans should go back to nature, and he's taken to an extremely isolated rural area in a foreign country where the people all live as subsistence farmers. Then he's set loose to try to live off the land as best he can.

I say let that slacker starve to death. If he can't farm or hunt then he's not a real human being. Office work is mutating us from being real humans.

[metal134]

Not necessarily, Stockholm Syndrome shows that people held captive can feel affection towards, and even defend their captors.



This relies on the assumption that you know that the dog or cat is happy. How do you know what the dog or cat is thinking or feeling or experiencing? I bet you don't know what the next person you meet is thinking or feeling or experiencing, and yet you are the same species, and probably share the same language.

I don't know what animals think, or feel. In the absence of that knowledge I think that cats, and dogs, and birds, and rabbits, and so on and so forth, should be allowed to live as they would live without interference from humans. Are you saying that its wrong to let animals live according to their nature?

Sorry, I'm just still not seeing what the problem is.

[TheFifthElement]

Perhaps then I am on my own in thinking that creatures, all creatures whether human or otherwise, should be self-determining.

Well, me and Greenpeace.

And, I find it strange that you use the Stockholm Syndrome, which is a human thing, to apply it to animals whereas you also say that animals do not have the same psychology as humans.

I didn't. If you read the post it was in response to the statement that :

If I were to take a person and hold them prisoner, they'd be miserable.

Fifth, this analogy doesn't hold. It's border line silly, if you'll excuse me for saying so.

Virgil, see above.

The reference to Stockholm Syndrome is an analogy, for illustrative purposes only - I don't know what animals think, or feel. I don't assume that because they appear happy that this means they are happy.

Taken from Wikipedia:

Starting in 1950, for example, African Americans petitioned well-known race liberals Henry Steele Commager and Samuel Eliot Morison to revise their popular textbook, Growth of the American Republic, which declared that the American slave—or "Sambo," as the text called him—was "adequately fed, well cared for, and apparently happy."

If we can make this mistake with humans, can no one here even entertain the possibility that we have made a similar mistake with pets (Lote - pets being different from a symbiotic relationship, just so we're clear).

It would seem cruel to me to just set him loose in the wilds where he most likely wouldn't thrive. That's not to say it isn't possible, but that animals in the wild fight; they attack and/or exclude strangers from their flock or pack; even if they are part of a group they face many dangers and privations that well cared for pets do not.

Petrarch, I agree. Domestication of animals creates a problem not least of which is that there isn't a viable alternative solution for these creatures. To undo it would need to be a gradual thing but I think at the least we could agree to :

1 - not place any barriers to the animal coming and going as it chooses, i.e it does not require a human to let it in or out of the home or the grounds

2- don't interfere with its reproductive system

3- don't apply 'discipline' to it for doing things like pooping on the carpet.

4- don't separate the young from their mother until such time as the young would normally leave anyway

if then creature chooses to remain in the company of humans, then this I would accept as a relationship of choice. Lote, I see this as the symbiotic relationship to which you refer. Different entirely from pet ownership.

[manolia]

Hey petrarch, nice story Thanks for sharing. I agree with what you say.

I had similar experience with my cats. Every time they were left outside the house they were trying to force their way back in at all costs ...not to mention that a cat alone in the streets runs the danger of being runned over by a car And perhaps if they were let loose in the wild they would be easy food for larger carnivorous animals..and i am not sure if they would be capable of proccuring their food either.

Perhaps then I am on my own in thinking that creatures, all creatures whether human or otherwise, should be self-determining.

No you aren't. The first time i heard a similar idea was from my cousin who told me that in her opinion having pets is a human act of selfishness..because we feel alone and isolated and we need to feel that somebody needs us and loves us unconditionally.

[Lote-Tree]

(Lote - pets being different from a symbiotic relationship, just so we're clear).

I want you to know how Symbiotic Relationship got Established in our evolutionary past. And how this can be still established and is being established. There is nothing disturbing about it at all. This relationship has further evolved into keeping pets.

I think to equate pet keeping with Human Slavery may be false because of this: Slaves were kept for the material benefit of the owner. Pets are not in that category I think because most pets rarely provide any material benefit to the owner.

[Sweets America]

Oh when I come home from work I get such a celebration from my dog. She goes on and on wagging and rubbing herself against me. She is so happy. My wife doesn't give me such a reception.

In the meantime it would be strange to have your wife rubbing herself against you and licking your face.
I remember when I first met my Calif (the spaniel). He was not a puppy, he was a little older. My parents had made the surprise to me. I opended the door to the house and there he was. He immediately jumped on me and started to lick my face frantically. I thought right away that we were going to love each other very much. I was right. He's an old dog now, and such a sweet person.

Fifth, this analogy doesn't hold. It's border line silly, if you'll excuse me for saying so.

[/QUOTE]

I think the problem is that whatever we might say, Fifth will always find a solution against it. It's just like psychologists who tell you that you have this or that problem, and when you tell them no, they tell you that it's because you have repressed it.

[Shea]

I've not read this whole discussion, but has anyone mentioned the Greyfriar's Bobby yet? That was pure doggy loyalty!! I saw the little statue they put up for the dog when I went to Edinborough.

Here's the story:

Bobby belonged to John Gray, who worked for the Edinburgh City Police as a night watchman, and the two were inseparable for approximately two years.[1] Then, on 15 February 1858, Gray died of tuberculosis. He was buried in Greyfriars Kirkyard, the graveyard surrounding Greyfriars Kirk in the Old Town of Edinburgh. Bobby, who survived John Gray by 14 years, is said to have spent the rest of his life sitting on his master's grave. A more realistic account has it that he spent a great deal of time at Gray's grave, but that he left regularly for meals at a restaurant beside the graveyard, and may have spent colder winters in nearby houses.

In 1867, when it was pointed out that an unowned dog should be destroyed, the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, Sir William Chambers (who was also a director of the Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals), paid for a renewal of Bobby's licence, making him the responsibility of the city council.

Bobby died in 1872 and could not be buried within the cemetery itself, since it was consecrated ground; instead he was buried just inside the gate of Greyfriars Kirkyard, not far from John Gray's grave.

[Sweets America]

I've not read this whole discussion, but has anyone mentioned the Greyfriar's Bobby yet? That was pure doggy loyalty!! I saw the little statue they put up for the dog when I went to Edinborough.

Here's the story:

Ah, what a sweet story.