Susan Kennedy wrote:

> "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> ...

<snip>

>>>Where, exactly, do you propose these domestic animals live, if not with
> us?

>>Where they please.

>>Anytime AR people start talking about ending domestication of animals,
>>both as "pets" and as livestock, the kind of glib question you pose
>>here is the anti-AR retort. However anti-ARAs seldom wait for an

> Hey, give me a break. I'm totally new to this particular argument.

I'm sorry. I apologize.

> All I
> know about PeTA is what I read in the papers, and I live in a rural area.
> Believe me, around here, it does not get good press. In fact, most of the
> time, they sound like fools, and it's hard to tell how much of that is them,
> and how much is the press.

It's a little of both. PETA is a high-profile sort of guerrilla
-theater group given to the snappy slogan and flamboyant gesture,
not the calm, reasoned argument. I don't get my philosophical ideas
from PETA, but from other, more philosophical writers. But PETA
lives by the theory that any publicity is good publicity, and at least
gets people talking about their ideas. Then, if people are
intrigued by ladies dressed up in lettuce-leaves or tofu-cream pies
tossed at fur models, they may be introduced to the background behind
such stunts and go further with the ideas. PETA does do some real
good actions, such as organizing rescue of pound dogs in Puerto Rico,
or helping the SPCA rescue animals after a big flood, or helping place
chickens rescued after a company went out of business and left a
barn-full of chickens to starve. I give to other organizations, too,
like Farm Sanctuary and my local humane society, and have worked in
animal rescue.

<snip>

> Ok, now you're contradicting yourself. First you tell me that we've made
> them totally dependent on us, then you start talking about feral animals and
> how they prove most domesticated species could easily be reintroduced to the
> wild.

Pets are pretty much totally dependent on us, as are highly-bred
livestock like dairy cattle and domestic turkeys. But the
species they come from can become feral.

> Or do you really think feral cats and dogs are actually wild animals?

Genuine feral animals are wild -- they are the offspring of formerly-
domesticated animals born and raised in the wild. Animals who have
been dumped and abandoned are strays, not ferals. You can find genuine
ferals like mustang horses, feral cats and rabbits in Australia, feral
goats and wild pigs (as in California in some areas) and so on.

> They're not. They are dogs and cats that have been mistreated and dumped in
> the wild. They survive because they are still equipped to do so. In fact,
> dogs dumped in the same area have been known to pack and even interbreed
> with coyotes, and become a real problem for farmers because they aren't
> afraid of humans.

Yes.

> At any rate, you can't have it both ways. Either they are totally dependent
> on us, or they aren't.

Some individuals are, some are not.

>>to the wild would involve reintroducing populations to suitable
>>habitat, helping to extend such suitable habitat, encouraging a
>>balance of vegetable, prey, and predator species so you don't get
>>the rabbits-in-Australia situation, and encouraging a strong
>>ecological awareness in humans so that they curb their run-away
>>population explosion and give the rest of the species some room to
>>survive. As I say, it would not happen overnight. But it could
>>certainly happen, if AR became accepted. Then all that would be
>>required would be not to breed the domestic stock, but to let those
>>animals live out their lives with humans in peace, and let their
>>line end with them.

> Personally, I don't see that AR will ever become that accepted. First of
> all, if you're going to give them rights - you have to include the right to
> breed.

Yes, eventually.

And that means the last part never happens. Second, if animals can
> choose, many of them will choose to continue to live with humans, because
> pets are not just something that belongs to you. They are friends in ways
> people who have never had one cannot understand.

I understand -- but while people love pets and sometimes treat them
like 3 year old children, children are not ( I hope ) "friends" --
they are children. Friends are equals; pets are never equals.

>>>And BTW, my cat is no more controlled than my children were. In fact,
> she even comes and wants attention when I'm on the phone, rather like my 3
> year old grandson.

>> And will your grandson be neutered and kept indoors?

> You miss the point.

No -- that IS the point.

> If I were to let my cat do whatever she wanted, she
> would have been dead years ago, much as my three year old grandson would be
> dead if his mother let him do whatever he wanted. The world is a
> complicated and dangerous place.

Yes, I agree. I have neutered my own companion animals, and encourage
others to neuter theirs. But I wouldn't neuter my friends, even if
I had the power to do so.

> And if she weren't neutered, I'd be up to my ears in kittens I didn't want
> and would have to find homes for. Of course, I could let them go wild, but
> the county would likely frown on that. :P And that's if they lived.

Yes. In the wild, cubs, kittens, pups and so on usually die in
proportion to keep the population _relatively_ in balance with the
food supply over the long term. Either the species has some form of
social population control like wolves, or many of the young die (as
with lions ).

<snip>

Rat