View Single Post
  #74 (permalink)   Report Post  
Rubystars
 
Posts: n/a
Default PETA,


"Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Rubystars wrote:
> > "Rat & Swan" > wrote in message
> > <snip>

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

>
> > Rat I wasn't going to say anything up until you said this. Are you

opposed
> > to neutering cats and keeping them indoors?

>
> While they are companion animals? No. I strongly recommend it.
>
> > Those are two things which are
> > strongly in the interest of cats!

>
> I agree -- the interest of cats kept as pets. They are not in the
> interest of cats who are free.


Here's something to ponder though. There's likely to be pet cats (and other
pets) long after all of us are dead. So would you do more good by saying
that people shouldn't breed and keep cats, or would you do more good by
promoting spay/neuter programs and education as well as promoting indoor
cats?

> The poster claimed her cats were no more controlled than her
> children. I doubt this very much, if for no other reason than, in
> most cases, human children grow up, leave home, and develop lives
> of their own. The basic wrong, in the AR concept, in keeping
> (and breeding or neutering ) cats and other pets is that we have
> made them permanent dependents -- whether as slaves or food or
> pseudo-"children".


Cats are more independent, but there are other animals, such as dogs and
parrots, which live life in the wild as part of a group. Why is it wrong to
make them part of our family (or pack or flock, as the case may be)?

>Obviously, the well-cared-for (not pampered )
> pet, or even better, companion animal, will have a much better life
> and welfare than a battery-cage hen, a calf in a veal crate, or
> a fighting dog. That is good for that pet. But he/she has a better
> life _at the whim of his/her owner_. The owner could as easily have
> abused or neglected him/her -- any episode of _Animal Precinct_ or
> _Animal Cops_ ( or a stint in rescue ) will show how bad it can get.


I believe that there are many people who don't deserve or need to have pets
just as there are many people who don't deserve or need to have children,
but I'm not promoting a banishment of sex to prevent the latter. Neither do
I promote abolishing the pet trade entirely. There are good and bad sides to
both.

I really think that things could be improved if there was greater public
awareness about the nature of animals. For example one episode of that show
had a dog rescued by the agents that had suffered from being burned
(apparently by accident) with cooking oil. The lady who had owned the dog
said something about "I don't know nothing about no dog burns." The agents
had to explain that the dog felt the same kind of pain she would feel if she
were burned like that. It seems so basic, but so many people are just plain
ignorant, and treat animals as if they have no feelings.

Maybe these kind of situations would happen less often if people were better
educated. This is where zoos come in, and other institutions that teach
people about animals and allow some interaction. Shows like the ones you
mentioned also help.

> What ARAs believe is that the basic master/pet relationship is
> morally wrong. The life of the animal should not belong to the
> master -- even the kind master.


The thing that I don't understand about this is that many animals live
longer and healthier lives in captivity. I doubt that wild wolves generally
live to be 13-15 years old, but domestic dogs do. They receive a consistent
supply of food, water, shelter, and hopefully love. They get taken to the
vet when they get sick or injured instead of suffering without help for days
on end or slowly dying as would a wild animal. Even if an owner can't afford
to cure a disease suffered by the animal, being put down by the vet is a
much kinder way to go than what would happen if the problem (like a twisted
stomach) was simply left to progress on its own.

> The animal should own his own life.
> That does not mean the human cannot have a relationship with the
> animal -- something like Jane Goodall's friendship with her
> chimpanzees or the relationships in _Never Cry Wolf_. Those people
> didn't just observe at a distance; they touched and interacted with
> the animals -- but they did not control them.


Though you have to admit, any contact with animals poses some risk to both
the animals and to the humans. One may accidentally hurt them. For example,
many of the diseases that affect humans also affect chimpanzees, and vice
versa. What if an infected human was playing with a wild chimp and sneezed
on them by accident? The chimp might die of the flu. Almost any reptile
carries the risk of salmonella, etc.

Parasites (like fleas) might pass from animal to animal by hitching a ride
on a human, etc.

So you see if you really want to eliminate humanity's impact upon animals,
you have to cut off all contact.

> Humans who go to places
> (like the Galapagos Islands when they were first discovered) where
> the animals have not had contact with humans before, are often amazed
> that the animals do not fear them and run from them. Fear of humans
> is a learned behavior in wild animals.


Animal populations that were around hominids may have developed a fear of
the upright walking creatures before "humans" even existed, and the fear may
be instinctual now in some of those species.

However I think you're right that most animals have learned fear of humans.
This isn't necessarily a bad thing. If an animal doesn't run away from
someone like you or I, they might not run away from someone who does wish
them harm. I've heard on tv that one of the things that's so hard about
raising orphaned animals for re-release is not to let them get to trust
humans too well, because if a deer for example doesn't run when it
sees/smells humans, they'll be in big trouble.

>Not that we will live in a
> Disney world or a Dr. Doolittle world. But we can have a much more
> friend-like relationship with animals who are neither our prey nor
> our possessions.


That would be a Disney or Dr. Doolittle world, because even if the AR
movement had great success and a vast majority of governments and societies
were following the policies laid out by it, then there would still be
individuals and groups who both used and abused animals.

-Rubystars