text:
- HubPages»
- Pets and Animals»
- Animal Rights & Welfare
Why It's Cruel to Keep Dogs as "Pets"
An unnatural existence
Stolen from your mother as a youngster, confined, controlled, surgically altered, and bored for hours on end. Imagine yourself as a "pet" dog.
You retain many of the instincts of your wild ancestors such as the desire to run free at your own will, eat fresh food as nature intended, and to have the constant company of your own family members as you explore your territory and take in the sounds and smells of the natural world.
Now place yourself in a small Manhattan apartment, enduring the intermittent company of your beloved master with your ability to see the world and even use the bathroom remaining on their terms only. You only occasionally get to meet members of your own species, many of which have been so strangely altered due to selective breeding that the natural order ceases to exist. Your range consists of wherever your owner takes you, on a leash of course. It is a confusing, distressing and unnatural existence.
- Sad Animals in Zoos
Exploring the phenomenon of people thinking animals are "sad" in zoos because of the expression on their faces. Can you read an animal's mind by looking at it?
Facts about the dog trade
- There are Approximately 83.3 million owned dogs in the United States.
- 70% of dog owners own one dog
- 6-8 million dogs enter shelters each year, and an estimated 3-4 million healthy cats and dogs are euthanized yearly.
- Across the country, privately-held dogs held have escaped from their fenced in yards and have attacked humans and other animals — with sometimes fatal results.
- Many dogs can transmit deadly diseases — including MRSA, lyme disease and salmonellosis — to humans.
- The CDC states that "Nearly 4.5 million Americans are bitten by dogs each year, half of these are children.1 One in five dog bites results in injuries serious enough to require medical attention."
- Puppy mills are breeding factory farms that hold dogs in cramped cages and force female dogs to breed every time they are in heat (a 5 year old dog gives birth to 10 litters).
Dogs are often kept in crates
Domestication is cruel
Many owners of dogs think that they love their "pets" and that they are members of their families, but the reality is that these animals are being denied their freedom that people mistakenly think they no longer desire because they have been "domesticated".
All too often, people think that because a practice has been around for ages, it can't be unethical. It is true that dogs have evolved with mankind for centuries, but the relationship started as a symbiotic one where wolves would accompany humans free-ranging in a wild and natural existence. Eventually, the reciprocal relationship of humans and dogs devolved to exploitation and abuse.
The Suffering of Pure Breds
Many dogs are forcibly "selectively bred" (and their puppies abducted) to have unnatural traits and suffer from health problems, shortened life spans, and impaired mental development. These once wild and magnificent animals have been altered to be entirely dependent on humans, with only a few dog breeds capable of providing for themselves in the wild.
People think that they have successfully altered nature to such an extent that this once wild wolf is now as good as a human child with stunted cognition, perfectly suited for confinement. Most dogs have no choice but to endure an existence with humans for their social, physical, and psychological needs, but these needs are on a large scale, often not met.
Puppy mills flourish
Dog Breeding and the Dog Trade
If a domesticated dog is lucky enough to not to be bred with numerous intentional deformities (and some breeds are even forced to go through surgery to alter their appearance), it is still yanked away from its parents at a young age to be sold to humans as a "pet" through 'pet' stores or breeders. Dog ownership has grown to such popularity that many 'surplus' dogs languish in shelters, waiting to get adopted by the species that created them, and often unsuccessfully.
Dogs that suffer from 'behavioral problems' (these are often dogs that express their natural, repressed instincts) are put to death because they make less than optimal "pets". Other dogs can even suffer the same fate simply because they are large, black, and unappealing to new families.
To combat the 'pet overpopulation problem', it is recommended for most dog owners to 'spay or neuter' their animals. These words are a nice way of saying castration, or mutilating the dog's reproductive organs. Would you want your genitals severed in the name of human population control? Many studies show that such a procedure causes hormone imbalances and increased risk of some ailments.
After dogs go through this procedure, most are fed boring and inadequate dried kibble that is not anywhere near what their natural diet should consist of or taste like. These inferior diets lead to illness, bad breath, and life threatening dental diseases.
Psychological Welfare
What happens if you work regular 9-5 hour jobs like most Americans? Dogs must spend unnatural amounts of time waiting for their owners to return. No matter how much we selectively breed dogs to suit our lifestyles, no dogs prefer loneliness. Sometimes dogs less resilient to this mistreatment acquire mental problems that are referred to as "separation anxiety", but owners brush it off as acceptable and may confine their dogs to a crate (barely enough room for the dog to turn around in) as a result.
Stereotypic behavior in shelter dogs
Dogs have been known to suffer from depression, obsessive compulsive disorder and other mental and emotional problems in captivity. Often under-exercised and under-stimulated, some dogs may become unnaturally lethargic, leading to weight gain.
Many dogs are so far removed from their natural behavior that they do not know how to get along with other dogs. These dogs when available for adoption are simply titled 'must be adopted to a one dog household', but often are suffering from profound anxiety disorders and neurosis.
Dogs Carry and Transmit Disease
Dog ownership helps spread disease among the public. Dogs can carry and transmit to humans: brucellosis, campylobacteriosis, cryptosporidosis, giardia, MRSA, lyme disease, rabies, ringworm, salmonellosis, toxocariasis, and others.
Diseases spread by dogs are often under-reported as well, making owners of dogs more susceptible to ignoring the risk. Dogs also spread many diseases through their waste in the environment, so it is not only the owners who are at risk.
While many owners pick up after dogs, there are more than enough remnants of their fecal matter to transmit illness to children who play in the areas where they have eliminated. Not all dogs are vaccinated for rabies (and dogs love to chase and fight with animals that carry rabies) and can acquire the deadly disease and spread it unbeknownst to the owner through a bite or scratch. Recently people have even acquired diseases from commercial pet food. Raw diets for dogs are closer to their natural diet but also can transmit germs.
Dogs are a dangerous public safety hazard!
Every year, Americas are reminded that their domesticated pets still retain defensive and predatory instincts. Dog attacks on people are extremely common in comparison to all other pets. In fact, around 50 percent of all homeowner insurance liability claims that are paid out are due to dog attacks. In 2011, the total cost amounted to $479 million.
Also under-reported are less severe bites that the owners and their acquaintances sustain because they do not want to report their beloved pets. Approximately 4.7 million people are bitten by dogs each year. Even bites and scratches from dogs can become infected with bacteria such as Capnocytophaga ochracea or Pasteurella multocida and become life threatening if the infection reaches the bone. Dog attacks result in approximately 20-30 fatalities each year, with most of the victims consisting of young children.
End This Cruel Practice
Simply put, breeding dogs to be "pets" is a wrong and cruel act that is detrimental for our society. Wild wolves were never meant to be the pet project of humans solely for their amusement and company. Dogs should be with members of their own species, free to make their own decisions. Humans have each other to provide companionship, and small children can have very realistic stuffed toys if they want a mammal to play with. Live animals are no substitute for good parenting.
What Can You Do?
Unfortunately, the problem of "pet" dogs is extremely prominent. We need to support laws that ban the breeding of these animals. If you must have a dog, please only adopt one, and try to give it as much freedom as possible in its confined and unnatural existence. Together, we can phase out the practice of breeding and owning dogs as "pets".
"The bottom line is that people don't have the right to manipulate or to breed dogs and cats... If people want toys, they should buy inanimate objects. If they want companionship, they should seek it with their own kind."
— Ingrid Newkirk, Animals, May 1993 (PETA)
Disclaimer: Does everything written above sound like a load of irritating nonsense? Perhaps your first reaction was, "that's not true about my dog", or, "that may be true...but". Maybe you are certain that you or your friend's conduct of dog ownership does not support the dark side of captive canines, and surely the benefits and fulfillment that dog ownership entails for people exceeds the negative impacts that occur. Well, be advised that most, if not all of what is presented in this hub is true, in its own misleading way.
This is the emotionally manipulative and toxic rhetoric that I face everyday and is used to urge legislative officials to ban non-domesticated pets in captivity for private owners and even zoological facilities. My bullet point list toward the beginning of this article is partially ripped and modified from the webpage "10 fast facts about exotic pets"
Don't understand this article? This may help
- Understanding Domestication: The Ethics of Wild Animals as Pets and in Zoos
Why do people put down wild animals in captivity while being perfectly fine with domesticated animals in human control? Are domesticated animals really that different from exotic animals?
- What to Say to People Who Are Against Exotic Pet Ownership
How should you respond to people who think your pets are ethically unacceptable because they aren't domesticated?
- Game Commissioner raid
Harmless animals abducted from a private owner and killed.
- Exotic Pet Bans are Senseless
Stemming from the ideology of animal rights, essentially, any argument against 'exotic pet' ownership is calling into question pet ownership in general.
People with uncommon pets are easier targets and are subjected to public scrutiny because their choice of species is unlike that of the majority. There is also a dominant assumption that all of these animals are dangerous or unsuitable for captivity with little or no evidence, just ideological viewpoints. It should be understood that "exotic pet" does NOT pertain only to large dangerous carnivores.
Animal rights groups attempt to remove the complexities of the issue and propose that an enormous group of animals simply can't properly co-exist with their caretakers in captivity by exploiting the ignorance of the unknowing public.
Responsible pet owners pay taxes and are also contributing members of society who do not deserve to suffer not being able to do what they want with their lives. It's time that pet owners of every kind are afforded the same consideration for their lifestyle choices that are given to owners of dogs and cats.
Ownership of animals is a property right that is and should remain protected by the Constitution.
A person's choice, livelihood, and pursuit of happiness should not be determined by another individual's arbitrary emotional sentiment.
Everyone is entitled to their very own opinion. I won't argue with you, but I don't agree either.
I am with Maria on this one.
oh Melissa sorry for that maybe because we are both dog people that I cannot agree with you on some. well I can speak for myself only, I just assumed Writer's dog is a dog lover because of his username. Don't wanna mention by details because like I said I don't want to argue about these things. I am reading some of your hubs to try to know you, and I think you have a peculiar outlook as far as animals are concern. well as long as you care for them I am ok with that....
Well cared for, well trained and socialised dogs are no more dangerous than your average human.
There has been one reported dog attack in my home state in Australia in the time that there have been four reported mass shootings in the United States.
Therefore, it could be said that Americans are more dangerous than dogs, and should not be allowed to breed. That would just be stupid.
Enough said.
Well written article and I can understand where it is coming from. My tegu is nothing like my dog and, although we have never had a discussion on the subject, I do not think he minds being locked up. I do not believe in incarceration without criminal offense (crating) for an animal as intelligent as a dog, however, and I wonder if some of the people who write articles on wild animals are not looking at it from that point of view. I am definitely not a PETA supporter, but I would hate the idea of locking up my dog. Difficult subject, how do we know what is right and wrong?
Let's disabuse author of a few failings in knowledge, here.
1. Domesticated animals (dogs, cats, some types of birds) are bred for domestication, NOT for the wild. Many current breeds cannot survive without human assistance at all. This is a process of breeding that took, literally hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of years.
2. Those that are wild, should not be held as domestic animals. There are ratings for an animal from feral to domesticated (f - 0 being a wild animal, f-1 raised from a feral animal as a domesticated, etc.). This is how dogs and cats originally became domesticated and purpose-bred.
3. People are exactly the same as dogs in one very important respect: BOTH are social animals and we need each other.
3a. Did you know that dogs do not see us as people, but as "funny-looking dogs"? Cats see us the same way.
4. Animal "rights" is a sham created by charlatans who use it to get the gullible to donate millions of dollars every year to their cause, so that THEY THEMSELVES don't have to do real work like you and me. The queen of them, Ingrid Newkirk, has even been on the record as stating that she really doesn't care about animals.....a pretty damning admission to the failure of her belief.
5. Animals do need room to play, so if you have a dog or cat, you need a home that is not too small for the type and energy level of the animal. Any half-decent trainer could tell you that if any of the AR nuts out there would just do a little homework on the subject.
6. ALL animals "kept as pets", should be well cared for no differently than a responsible parent would care for their own children. For most people, their dog or cat IS as much their own child as a human child.
7. There are verifiable health benefits to both the pet and the owner for keeping a dog (or cat). This is supported through the AMA and the APA. Just look up the benefits of emotional support. therapy and service animals for proof of that.
7a. As I type this, my emotional support dog (Pekingese mix) is curled up on my lap, feeling safe and secure that his "daddy" will keep him safe and secure, my wife's GSD is curled up in the living room, relaxing and our foster is relaxing, knowing that he is safe while we seek a forever home for him.
7b. My support dog is also a certified therapy dog and we make weekly visits to hospitals and retirement homes and the benefits of those visits to both the dog, who enjoys the visits and the attention, as well as the patients/residents is very visible.
So please, don't give us this garbage of how these animals would be better off left out in the wild. With the exceptions of the ones that are born to the wild (Wolves, coyotes, dingos etc.), domesticated dogs and cats are as ill-suited for it as AR nuts are to living off the land.
And if that sounds a bit harsh, well, realize that animals are more important to me than they are to people who talk about separating us from them without understanding them in the least, and like many who care about animal WELFARE, we are tired of the disinformation professed by supposed animal "rights" people.
Ms. Smith. Its sad to see that you have never had a best friend in a dog. I feel sorry for you. First, as a retired insurance adjuster I have investigated claims where the homeowners dog has bitten someone and guess what, the person bit was either a burgular or taunting the dog causing it to bite. I myself have let loose one of my dogs to bring down a burglar and hold him until the police arrived. My dog saved my life! Good Dog.
A small percentage of people who own dogs are irresponsible dog owners to include the idiots who take a beautiful breed like the Pitbul and turn it into a killing machine.
Comparing spaying and neutering a dog to cutting of a 'humans genetals' is shall I say an ignorant statement. The best thing you can do for your dog is to spay and neuter. This not only keeps them healthy like preventing cancers, it also prevents unwanted puppies which is the current problem in the United States. It would be in your better interest to write a hub about the cumcision of young women in African tribes....now that's wrong.
All dogs in pet stores come from puppy mills. These poor dogs are kept in small wire cages for their entire life without ever touching grass. They are bred, rebred and inbred cusing mental issues, sickness and deformaties. You need to get your facts straight.
I have 5 dogs that all have been rescued. They are either blind, old have one eye or abandonded. I do work outside of the house and they are left for 8-10 hours. They sleep the entire time I am gone and they have the ability to go outside if needed. I know a lot of dog owners don't have theability to allow their dogs to go outside while they are gone, however if they are living in an apartment tey are usually well exercised and well socalized.
I am currently writing a manuscript on dogs for therapy for children. Dogs are wonderful creatures. They are loyal, they listen, they love you unconditionally and are literally mans best friend.
I just read your profile and you might want to change it as it states yourself you 'keep' wild animals. Seems to me your thoughts and beliefs are a little mixed up.
I'm surprised at the amount of people who aren't reading your Hub all the way through. Perhaps a more definitive statement at the end or a small instruction at the beginning would clarify?
@Melissa A Smith The thing about dogs seeing us as "funny looking dogs" is something that I got from a number of different trainers and other related sites where dog behavior and psychology are part and parcel of the conversation and instruction.
Some dogs do behave differently because of individual personality traits and/or levels of socialization.
Part of understanding that is what makes it clear that they see us as the same, only in an Alpha or Omega position in their "pack". It is also the reason that dogs feel "special" when they are allowed to sit in your lap or sleep on your bed with you or curl up next to you on the couch.
In a pack, the Alpha and Omega have their own place to rest, normally just separated enough from the main body of the pack to let the rest know that they are the leaders. Only their pups and special members of the pack get to share that space with them.
So, with that in mind, dogs see us as their Alpha/Omega Pack leaders and, by proxy, as funny-looking dogs.
I'll retract my 'angered' comment. I guess I didn't appreciate the satirical way you wrote it. There are many unresponsible dog owners out there and that just ticks me off, that's why there is such a problem in shelters being over crowded and dogs being put down on a daily basis. If I could, I would take them all home, but that is impossible. I rescue the older ones that no one wants anymore and currently have 5 dogs which are my best friends. So, please accept my apologies. You certainly did a good job in getting a reaction amongst animal lovers.
@Melissa, that "disrespect", as you call it, is the dog's way of challenging your position as pack leader. According to many of the trainers that I have talked to, including my late Uncle, who trained my first dog (I was 5 when I got him), his two hunting dogs and his family dog (the family dog attacked him a couple of times when she thought that he was hurting us kids during play - he taught her to protect women and children), a dog will try to challenge the "Alpha's" authority from time to time, as they get older. That is why maintaining your own Alpha position, through training and discipline is critical.
The Coercive force method is an outdated method, these days, and doesn't really work nearly as well as the newer methods do. No responsible trainer or breeder uses that method any longer. The newer methods of positive reinforcement work better, even though they require more effort on the part of the trainer/owner, but they are more effective in the long run. Even a stubborn dog, and few are as stubborn as Pekingese (my dog, Max and our foster dog, Dancer), yet they can still be taught obedience and good behavior without the use of harmful force/coercive training methods. Based on your description, it sounds like your dog just needs to have his/her discipline worked on. With proper obedience training and work on your part, the dog will change that behavior and start treating you as the pack leader again, without question. There are also a number of tricks that dogs use on their pups when teaching them to behave, such as "ground and growl" (which works good for misbehaving puppies, but is harder to do with adult dogs), redirection, to prevent dogs from chewing up your good shoes (also great with puppies as they spend a great deal of time teething) and using the "growl method" or gutteral sounding"UHUH" instead of "NO" to train them away from a bad behavior.
You can learn a lot about dog behavior and training by watching a well trained bitch with her pups, too; if you get the opportunity to do so. Not a lot of people do get that chance, which is why trainers are so helpful.
Dogs ARE IN FACT (I wish we could use italics) pack animals, not too different in behavior patterns from humans, which is why we get along so well and have done so for so many millenia.
Some dogs feel extra special just being with humans because they have never been given the discipline training to realize that they are not the pack leaders, but simply a part of the pack. Not to say that they are not special to us, quite the contrary, they are very special to us and they need discipline and proper behavior training just as our own children do to become good citizens. My Pekingese, Max is a rescue, yet within 6 months of getting him, he not only became certified as a therapy dog (for hospital visits and such) and my emotional support dog (for my PTSD), but also earned his Canine Good Citizenship certification. In his case, he had a good start in training before I got him, but it still required some work on my part to train him up, the rest of the way, for the testing.
Yes, Melissa, they can be very different. Our GSD mix is also shy with people, at least until she gets to know them, but she is VERY friendly with other dogs and oftentimes with kids as well. Trust me that it is a behavior that can be trained out if you want it to change.
Here's a small sampling of some of the links that I have for you and others to check out. The first one is from the American Temperament Testing Society and the second is from the AKC. The rest cover a bit of a range to be helpful:
Fewsh. I thought you were actually serious! I Know: Lets set all pet dogs free, into the wild! (I wonder how long they would last; a week?)
This is probably my favorite Hub on the entirety of this website. I just love the way you've portrayed dogs as pets... It's the same way every idiot out there portrays exotics. Biased text never leads to anything good, and I thank you for doing this. Hopefully it will wake some people up.
Melissa, is that statement, "phase out the 'cruel practice', ending their misery in human captivity.", really your sentiment?
Because if it is, then people need to know that dogs are not "in captivity" (that is a position that the sanctioned eco-terrorists at Peta believe) as much as domesticated and purpose bred; a history of symbiotic interaction that goes back to the very beginnings of tribal existence for humans.
Dog breeds for the past few thousand years have as little in common with their ancestors (or the current breeds of wild dog/wolf/coyote) as we do with the first proto-humans that initially bred them.
The problem is not breeding, but over-breeding. With shelters oftentimes running to capacity because of unwanted dogs, there is a problem, but unwanted is not always the case, either. Many shelters get animals because of the housing crisis, where a family loses their home and is forced to give up their pet because where they are going either won't allow animals or is too small to give the dog a proper home.
The breeding issue cannot solve that particular problem; so, as we can all see, our fates and the fates of these animals are too intertwined for the foolish idea of "ending canine captivity" by humans, as they are not captive any more than our own children are. Our relationship to each other is interconnected in ways that go well beyond the simple-minded "slave/master" mentality.
Dogs are much more; they are companion, confidant, protector, "child", and so much more. How many of us can say that much about even our human family members/friends?
And let's all look at some of the news stories that come out about all of the dogs that have gone well beyond to save lives without even being trained for it; one case in particular comes to mind, recently, where the dog wasn't even the owned by the child that he saved, but belonged to a neighbor. The child got lost and it was the neighbor's dog who went searching for the child and found her.
Until we change our mindset, as a society, back to recognizing the insurmountable contribution that dogs provide in human society, as we used to have before idiots like Peta came along with their propaganda, we will have this discussion over and over again. Calling dogs "captive", is both a lie and delusional; not in keeping with the deeper connection that our two species have between us.
Well I hold HSUS with the same contempt as I do Peta, since they are in bed together as of a couple of years ago. Those other groups, I don't know much about except for the ADL which is listed as a domestic terrorist group by the FBI.
No. Dogs and farm animals are not captive at all. They are, for the purposes of this discussion, effectively domesticated. You will not find cows, as we know them, existing in the wild, as we will never find dogs, as we know them existing in the wild, as a species.
They are all the products of specialized breeding over thousands of years. Most people have no clue about all of the modified farm products that we get. I am certain that if a banana, as it grows in the wild, were served to you, you wouldn't know what it was, as they are also the product of selective modification for food production, just as cows and goats and chickens have been.
It is a dishonest argument to compare these animals to others that are indistinguishable from their wild counterparts; a pet wolf, or fox or coyote or tiger/lion/bobcat/etc. are a very different situation these days from how it was thousands or millions of years ago when they were first domesticated.
Like religious doctrine, we need to see these things in context. Back then, it was a different world with different priorities and now, with our changed priorities and purpose bred domestic/farm animals, we need to deal with that in context of what THESE animals, today need and no some perceived ideology of what we think is the humane thing to do. If it comes to releasing these animals into the wild to survive on their own, it would be more humane to just kill them all, which is almost as bad as just releasing them to have to survive on their own. They no longer have it in them to survive more than a generation or two without the influence of mankind. And in the case of farm animals, animal experts give them less than a single generation.
So if you wanted to keep a Fennec fox, or lion, or tiger as a pet, it would be wrong because those are all wild animals, not bred as domesticated animals. Again, the difference is context. dogs are bred as domesticated animals, wolves are not. Your question shows the same kind of disingenuous argument that A/R nuts use to justify their position.
It is an apples/oranges comparison.
Using your logic, children are captive too. Do you think of your children as being "held captive"? How about older folks in nursing homes who need inordinate levels of personal attention?
Think about what you are implying with the usage of that word. Taken to the levels that they often are applied to animals, they could be just as easily applied to ALL living things in human society; including the captors.
As with children or adults to old to care for themselves, the word captive is abused when applied to keeping animals as pets, because, in all of those cases, they are in our care, not held as prisoners. We are responsible for their welfare.
That is what makes the word "captive" and any of it's variations, both insulting and dishonest usage of the word.
Nice try, but that does not hold water for children with mental retardation or the extreme elderly. And when we consider that most dogs hold the equal intelligence of a 5 to 7 yo child, it really becomes more like having a child with those special needs.
The logic behind using the word captive is a clear case of reductio absurdum; taking an idea to it's extreme and using that as the basis for one's argument.
We care for our animals, we do not keep them captive any more than parents keep their children captive or, in the case of fostering of animals, until they are found proper, loving homes. And in those cases, we are much like an adoption agency.
I never said that dogs a mentally disabled children. What I said is that the average dog has intelligence equal to a human child of 5-7 years old.
And once again, you are taking the reducto ad absurdum argument, which is a dishonest debate tactic normally used by far right wing republicans, creationists and militant vegans.
Their natural survival instincts have been bred out of them much the same way that society has bred them out of most of our human population.
I don't believe in having exotic pets. THAT is what is not natural for the animals as exotics are not domesticated, they are, quite correctly, feral.
Reducto ad absurdum - king a point to it's extreme and using that as the rule, rather than the exception.
Using the word "captive" as what we do with domesticated animals is one example that you use. Then twisting my words in the claim that I compared dogs to mentally retarded children is another. Do I really need to go on?
Feral often does refer to re-wilded animals, but in those cases, it is 1st or second gen wild-born. It is more accurately used in reference to animals that are, naturally wild, thus the "F" ratings for animals at various stages of domesticity. F-0 is a wild animal, F-1 is 1st gen born domesticated, etc., to full domestication (usually about 4th or 5th gen and after some selective breeding).
The definition of "pet" is: a household animal kept for companionship. So I'm not understanding why it is wrong to have a domesticated animal as a companion.
Being against animal cruelty, abuse, neglect, and maltreatment is one thing, but to go as far as to say that it is wrong to keep a dog as a pet - per your title... is taking it a bit far.
We currently have 2 dogs. We live "in town" with a fairly large fenced in back yard. During the warmer months the back door is always left open for them to come in and out as they please or need.
The first was acquired because my hubbies ex-wife was moving to a new home that didn't allow pets - as it was supposedly purchased as his daughter's pet, I told him to accept the dog into our home since I think it would have been cruel to take him away from everyone he knew and bonded with. At least here, he will still get to see 2 of the people he has known since he was a puppy.
The second dog we have was acquired by us rescuing him from an animal hoarder's home. He was not treated well there.
We love our animal family members very much. We take our dogs for walks, feed them well, make sure they get exercise and affection. We study up on "the pecking order" so we know how they relate to certain actions & so that we don't end up confusing them.
For example, when walking through a doorway, the pack leader is to go first. We make sure that either myself or my hubby walks through the doorway first when leaving and returning from walks - this way the dog knows who is the alpha in the family "pack" order. (as 1 example)
I'm against animal cruelty. I just can't support the banning of having "pets" all together. Again, a pet is a companion. A companion is someone you treat with love, respect, and kindness...
I used to live on a farm, with a massive wide open space and we kept dogs that would help with getting the cows to the milking shed and the rest of the time they would run free around the grounds and play with me and my bro (yes they lived outside and had many buildings and haystacks to sleep in) and in that environment I don't think there is a problem.
I now live in a town and I must agree that it is VERY cruel to keep dogs in an urban environment and after having seen how my dogs lived I couldn't keep a dog where I am now and maintain a clear conscience!
They are a prisoner in your home with no freedom (how selfish we are as a race astounds me) and I totally agree that keeping dogs as pets is as cruel as it gets, they are trapped inside and only allowed air when they are tied to a rope and you can be bothered to walk them (just take a second to think about that)!
It is also incredibly unhygienic and creates a real risk to your health (especially if you let your dog in the bed)!
What I find more astonishing is the way that it is still accepted as the norm today and such a small population of us see how cruel it is... just look at this post and the comments it has had!
Morals change over time and things that were once accepted as the norm become outrageous cruelty (take the beating of children as an example) and it is about time that we re-evaluated the cruelty of keeping dogs particularly in urban environments.
If people must keep pets then why not keep an animal that is adapted to the environment like pigeons or cats, with a cat flap your cat need not be a prisoner like your dog!.... (don't tell me your dog has a flap as we all know it only leads to a penned in garden.. in prison this is known as 'The Yard')
Last off, there is an advert on this page that says 'Help your dog cope with stress? Adaptil - makes dogs well behaved'........ WTF!, WTFF!
Here is a better way for it to 'cope with stress'... stop keeping them as prisoners!
Allowing your cat a "door flap" which would grant them freedom to run higgaldy piggaldy all over the neighborhood unattended should be illegal.
What is the bigger crime? A) Keeping your cat safe and happy inside the comfort of your own home, or B) Allowing your cat the "freedom" of its "natural instinct" to be what it "truly desires" which would freely allow it to get FIV from the toms in the alley, naturally contract botflies from the vole it ate that morning, and then meet its painful end under the tires of a truck on the road out front?
lol, that's a easy question; I would say A is much worse... how would you rather live, locked up in a room 'safe' or to have the freedom we are all born with?
BTW; a house cat is not happy, it's crazy, if you imprison anything animal or human then they eventually loose there mind (its the old black room theory)!
So they crap in your flower bed, get a cat scarer or just don't care, they do bury it.
Unfortunately a fact of life is that things die, I know I would much rather have the freedom I was born with though and run the risk of being run over, die in another accident or contract an illness rather than be kept as a prisoner and go stir crazy (it's kind of a no-brainer).
All we can do in life is offer others the same respect we expect to be awarded to ourselves.
I think with any of the questions posed the response is 'how would you feel if it was you?'
I'm sorry, but only a masochist would prefer living in a world full of lethal dangers, disease, and squalor over a comfortable home, affection from loved ones, and reliable food sources.
I suppose you are right, Melissa. People become enamored by that which they find to be novel, I only wish they would stop projecting their romantic ideals on animals.
First I was responding to both of you.
Second, don't resort to abuse because you can't get your point across, I didn't attack you personally so a trollish comment like 'your emotionally driven and intellectually bankrupt claims' is simply uncalled for!
My beliefs are just as valid as yours!
Also the things I have said are facts! Look up black room syndrome.
I also don't know where from my comment you got 'people who inadequetly care for cats release them outside', first we are not talking about poor cat care so this is a totally irrelevant point to make and secondly I do not agree with anyone who does this.
I understand that my comment my have challenged your belief systems but this doesn't give you the right to attack me personally. Respond to the issue and don't go off on a tangent trying to twist my words......peace
Shaddie: again you are twisting my words! I didn't say I would want to live without a home or love, I said I want the option of freedom. Manipulating my text to suit your argument is silly and calling me a masochist is incorrect, unfair and again trollish. The point is that imprisonment of any living thing is wrong! Again, I don't need to attack you personally to make a point!
This is an excellent satire and a perfect illustration of how illogical some radical animal rights activists' positions are. The core of their argument is that animals value the same thing that humans value and what makes humans happy is what makes animals happy.
Unfortunately this is based on the viewpoint of a human living in a developed first-world country. Humans living in first-world countries place a high value on freedom, love, companionship, and intellectual stimulation since their basic needs such as food, shelter, and protection from predators are already taken care of with little effort. And many people naively assume that things like "freedom" and such are the key to an animal's happiness as well.
But an animal's primary needs are food, shelter, and protection from predators. And what better place to get those needs met than by being a human's pet! Dogs living with humans may not be "free" and they may not have the companionship of a large pack, but they don't have any uncertainty as to when their next meal is coming or whether they'll be safe sleeping somewhere in the night. Being free of those stresses is a form of 'happiness' , whatever that even means in the context of an animal's psyche. 'Happiness' is a human construct.
It's human nature to project our humanity onto non-human objects and animals -- we even give our pets human names -- but it's simply wishful thinking. Dogs do not have the emotional and intellectual complexity of humans. It's not a cruel thing to say, it's simply a fact. To argue that animals in general are 'unhappy' being pets is ludicrous.
Melissa, let me start by saying this is a great article, its thought provoking and has raised a great debate, I did notice (forgive me for pointing this out to you) however that it is rather funny reading your posts how you agree with everyone's first post then go on to attack them later on (I think this is really just your wording... it comes over as rather aggressive), I think Karl had a point (although he could have been more eloquent and perhaps a little more diplomatic in his approach). I think it's funny that it was responded to as an absolute (i.e. if it's not this way then it has to be absolutely the other), there is a great quote that says 'only fools deal in absolutes' and it is rather apt in this circumstance (especially seeing as your article is basically the same as his views).
Shaddie; I thought I should define what a Masochist is so I copied this from the dictionary: mas·och·ist [mas-uh-kist]:
1. Psychiatry. a person who has masochism, the condition in which sexual or other gratification depends on one's suffering physical pain or humiliation.
2. a person who is gratified by pain, degradation, etc., that is self-imposed or imposed by others.
3. a person who finds pleasure in self-denial, submissiveness, etc.
Therefore I will agree with Karl that your comment is a little crazy (I really hate the trollish mentality of calling people names like that and anyone who understands the word would see you as a little stupid for using it out of context like that.... it's on a par with people who say 'Hitler would have done that').
Karl; I agree with a lot of what you have said, I think it is cruel to keep animals in a urban environment and often wonder why people would want to keep one in that setting.
I think you should have expanded on your claim about House cats however and perhaps checked your wording, I know what you mean in that a cat that has no access to the outside can go a little 'Stir Crazy' (black room syndrome is 'Dark room syndrome' and is related to radiology... you must have confused these) as my Husband gets this at his practice from time to time and has said to me that keeping a cat indoors all the time makes them a little weird.
Stir crazy or Cabin Fever is a psychological condition and the phrase that dates to 1908 according to the Oxford English Dictionary and the online Etymology Dictionary. Used among inmates in prison, it referred to a prisoner who became mentally unbalanced because of prolonged incarceration. (Wikipedia definition)
Again, this is a great article and I have really enjoyed reading peoples views and beliefs (I particularly liked Karls line 'Morals change over time and things that were once accepted as the norm become outrageous cruelty....' this really made me think).
Dear Kez,
I'm sorry, but you must be confused (as most people who don't read many books are when they hear the word 'masochist' or any variation thereof). In actuality, the word 'masochist' can, and often is, used to describe a person who willingly places themselves in a position of less-than-agreeable treatment; ie, Karl's idea a "feline freedom" which is rampant with danger. It does not necessarily imply anything sexual. Words often have multiple meanings. I wouldn't expect you to understand though, words can be complicated sometimes and it's okay if you don't catch on at first.
You may have copied some definitions from Ye Olde Dictionary.com, but I can copy things from the internet too. For example, an alternative meaning for the word 'masochism' (which for some reason you are bizarrely fixated on) that does not command sexual involvement:
"A willingness or tendency to subject oneself to unpleasant or trying experiences." - http://www.thefreedictionary.com/masochistic
Anyone who went to college should know this. I really am not trying to degrade anyone, but let's be honest here. You couldn't find anything else in my statements to pick at and so you grasped at the only hold you thought you had - which in this case was a word you did not realize had a meaning outside of the bedroom. I don't know what you're trying to prove with this.
haha more personal attacks!
Shaddie: whilst I am sure your copy and paste is much better than mine I am fairly sure I covered the variations of the meaning in points 2 and 3 (point 2 states: 'a person who is gratified by pain, degradation, etc., that is self-imposed or imposed by others.') so trying to make out that I am stupid and 'don't read many books' is extraordinarily argumentative, trollish and incorrect and I would argue that it is you who can not read as you couldn't even read my post in full let alone understand it!
My favourite troll post of yours is this: Anyone who went to college should know this. I really am not trying to degrade anyone, but...' are people who didn't go to collage below you some how... (I was waiting for you to say 'im not racist, but...)!?
Further to this you have added nothing to this debate, you have simply attacked people personally why would you choose to gang up on people and throw abuse at them personally?!
Aristotle said 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it' perhaps you could take this to heart and consider peoples views before you attack them on a personal level?
Melissa A Smith: Did you notice that most of my post was positive and supported your article, as the author you should expect some criticism!?
There is even a line that says 'forgive me for pointing this out to you', I wasn't trying to offend you, just add some constructive criticism.
Just read through the comments (all of them, not just the ones concerning Karl), you often start by saying how you agree with a post then a couple of posts later you totally change your tune, usually when someone has an apposing view to the post you agreed with. Considering you are the author of the article I would have thought you had some very strong views of your own.
I simply agreed that IN AN URBAN ENVIRONMENT it is cruel to keep animals that require air and freedom!
I didn't make the crazy cat claim, I just corrected Karl's terminology, my husband is a vet and he has often said how cats that are trapped inside there whole life go a little nut's.. to be honest I don't really care and I am certainly not going to look for evidence to back up someone else's post, perhaps this is something you could have a look at yourself?
To say 'Right Shaddie, that poster didn't like what you were saying and how I treated 'Karl' so he or she decided to pick on you with something that had nothing at all to do with what this hub is about, and pretended that the matter was so pressing that the poster had to forfeit his or her conversational 'standards' to imply that you are 'stupid' over it. What a joke.'... Tell me what exactly has your beloved Shaddie added to this other than abuse?
I didn't 'imply' that Shaddie was stupid, I tried to point out to her that people will think she is stupid for attacking someone on a personal level instead of offering a different opinion and adding to the debate. All she did was call a poster (and contributor to your article) a name and now she has gone on to imply that I am stupid for not understanding the word Masochist despite my post stating exactly what she has pointed out in here last post!
I also think you will find that my post does address some of the issues raised in this article, this would be why I said that I agree with what Karl said about animals in a urban environment and I ended my post with 'Again, this is a great article and I have really enjoyed reading peoples views and beliefs (I particularly liked Karls line 'Morals change over time and things that were once accepted as the norm become outrageous cruelty....' this really made me think).'
Also; Yes, I really do hate the trollish mentality of calling people names like that, shaddie should have added to this and what she did was detract from your article (you didn't do yourself any favours by agreeing with her either)!
OK, so when I said 'let me start by saying this is a great article, its thought provoking and has raised a great debate', 'I think Karl had a point (although he could have been more eloquent and perhaps a little more diplomatic in his approach)' and 'Karl; I agree with a lot of what you have said, I think it is cruel to keep animals in a urban environment and often wonder why people would want to keep one in that setting.'...... this didn't add to the article or share opinions at all??
As I said, I didn't make that point about cats, Karl did, I just corrected his phrasing and add that my husband mentioned it, I didn't argue the case or say that I had any opinion on it, I in fact said (as you did manage to read) 'I don't really care about that' and suggested that if you want to find out more about it you look for yourself... why would I look into something I have no opinion or interest in?
What on earth is wrong with you, can you not make it through to the end of a post or do your eyes just see what they want to???
I have given you ample explanations but if you are to close minded to even acknowledge them then that is your short fall.
I wasn't being 'inflammatory' I just tried to give you some constructive criticism about your skitsofrenic posts that one minute say one thing then the next the total opposite (don't try to lie your way out of it by saying it was a 'sarcastic' comment, that's obvious that is bull)
I'm sorry that you are unable to take a tiny amount of criticism especially when it was phrased so nicely. I hate to think what you are like in person!
Yes, I attacked your beloved shaddie (who I will add has made no comment about the subject and has only attacked others on a personal level) but only because she attacked others.
I suppose this is because I agreed with Karl of a couple of his thoughts who had an opinion other than your own (I quoted Aristotle in my last post and you would do well to take it to heart; 'It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.')!
You have said 'if you DON'T CARE and yet continue to reply here to argue about the definition of "masochism", my comments' . Again, did you read my post at all? You can't take two completely unrelated comments from a post and mash them together to suit your twisted fantasy of what you think I said, the only reason I brought up masochism again was to point out that I had said exactly what shaddie was arguing back at me for (another 'lovely' person who can't read a whole post)!
Others have commented more than once about how you like to twist words and this is no different! You are incapable of reading a post in full and taking the time to understand it, you cherry pick lines and phrases that suit your clouded judgement and often mash them together to give you what you need and worst of all you deal in absolutes, everything has to be absolutely one way or absolutely the other and this allows you to make false assumptions about others views.
I also notice that you choose what questions to answer and only answer ones you can throw your own brand of abuse at!
It is you dear who need to look in a mirror, I have (as I have said) taken in all of this article, it had effected my current views and I enjoyed entertaining the views of others (I did enjoy it to start with before you chose to cherry pick some lines and twist my words). I didn't enjoy the personal attacks and thought that by addressing them you as the author would see them for what they were but I was clearly mistaken and rather than addressing these issues you decided to attack me for pointing them out (probably because of my one criticism of you).
I won't post again on any of your articles .... mostly because you seam to enjoy twisting peoples words to suit your twisted sense of morality!
Enjoy your crazy life, I wish you the best for the future (you will need it)!
Hi Melissa, you've commented on one of my animal articles before, so as a fellow animal lover, I thought I'd come over to check out one of yours. And of course, I landed on this much debated one. First off, thank you for taking the time to bring up a few valid points. I agree with most of what you say, but not with everything.
1) I agree that animals caged up or kept in confinement is cruel. I think zoos and circuses are the cruelest of them all. I'm not talking about nature reserves or animal sanctuaries that are large and built to promote awareness of animals, and help maintain a species. I'm talking about those small, cold cages in zoos where animals are forced to sit in day in and day out for the sole purpose of having people gawking at them all day long. I've been to zoos, and my heart crushed. I used to love the circus when I was younger, until I found out how these poor animals are treated, whipped, prodded with hooks, and goodness knows what else so that they can again - "entertain" humans.
2) People should stop breeding dogs. I'm helping out at a nearby animal shelter, and anyone who feels differently, only needs to spend time in one to fully understand what I'm saying. Those dogs are strays, or abused, or just dropped off because their owners couldn't be bothered to walk them, or they "dug in the garden". They sit there waiting for someone to adopt them - hardly getting out to walk, and most of the time, they're put down. Don't even get me started on the way they're put down either. They're lined up and injected right in front of each other. So to all who think buying a pet from a breeder is a good thing, just do yourself (and all those cats and dogs) a favour, and visit a shelter. See how many MILLIONS of animals are waiting to die because of greedy pet shop owners and breeders.
Good points, and I'm glad you brought them up.
1) On your point that dogs shouldn't be kept as pets. I tried to read through all the comments, and I apologize if this has been brought up already. If you have a big enough garden and are committed to walking your dog every single day - then no, I don't think it's cruel. They have the use of the entire garden, and most often, inside the house as well. If I had space, we'd have two dogs to keep each other company. Luckily, I work at home during the day - one of the reasons I decided to do this, so that one day when we have children and dogs, I can be at home to look after them. What I don't agree with is how people can think that it's okay to keep any type of bird, hamster, mouse, snake, spider, etc in a cage or glass tank to gawk at all day. This is beyond cruel. Birds are meant to fly. Snakes aren't meant to be put in glass coffee tables. It infuriates me, and I can't understand how people don't understand this.
2) The second point I disagree with is how you say a majority of dogs attack. Have you ever watched or read dog trainers shows/books? Do you watch Ceaser Millan at all? I've grown up with so many dogs during my life. It's about the way they are TREATED. Do you know how many little kids pull tails of dogs or cats? Or how owners shout or smack their animals for stupid things because they've had a bad day? Or how many animals are abused in the care of their owners? Are you telling me you're really shocked by how many eventually get so fed up, they lash out, and then they're the ones to blame? I'm sorry - I completely disagree. The way your animal behaves is a statement on how you care for it, or how the previous owners care. Again, take a visit to the shelter. Some dogs are so traumatized there is no hope, unfortunately. Some are so scared they cower in their cages. I spent half an hour to forty minutes with one. It took that long to bond and gain trust. And she was like a different dog. Smiling and running as we walked. I can't understand how people don't want to spend quality time CARING for their pets.
It's a good article, and very though provoking. I think you needed to get across things, and people need to be more aware. But, I don't think it's cruel to keep dogs as pets given what I've mentioned or that most of them simply just attack people. They are only dangerous as a result of the way in which they are treated.
Hi Melissa, I'm afraid we will need to agree to disagree on one or two of your points. The first being zoos. This is my personal opinion, I don't think ANY animal should be forced into a confined space that has bars. Sometimes this is necessary at an animal shelter if the dog/cat is sick and need to be treated, and then they can mingle with the rest - and that's fine. It is NOT okay to keep monkeys in cages, tigers in cages, seals in small confined spaces, etc. I certainly hope your zoos look like nature reserves, because I've been to animal reserves and sanctuaries here (I'm in South Africa) and they are HUGE. The zoos are poorly run, with small confined spaces. They are a disgrace. Having said that, I think we disagree on this topic and that's fine. I don't see any reason why an animal should be locked up for people to gawk at all day long. It's pathetic.
As far as breeding is concerned, I think it's our voice as animal lovers to try and help spread the message as much as we can that breeders should be shut down. I read earlier this week that they are doing this somewhere in the States (can't remember the name of the town), and that they are hoping it spreads throughout. That is a huge accomplishment, because people spoke about it.
I don't have evidence to support my dislike for caging of snakes, birds, etc. That's my personal opinion. I don't think it's right at all. We will have to agree to disagree on this one I'm afraid.
I think you misunderstood my last point. I didn't say that I disagree with animal welfares, because I don't. I am grateful that they are there. What I meant was, people need to stop always blaming the animals if an attack happens. Some animals are too traumatized and lash out because they've been severely abused or neglected. That's understandable. Most of the time, these poor animals are put down because there is nothing that can be done to help them. Other animals who lash out, are usually those that have been hit, teased, shouted at continously, abused, etc. And then, I'm sorry - but you really can't blame the animal for that. How would you feel? Wouldn't you also want to lash out given the opportunity?
Melissa, I have seen and heard far too much about the way in which animals are treated. Yes, Man was put on this earth to look after them, to hunt them for FOOD (not for sport I might add - but this is another topic altogether). But this isn't happening everywhere. Animals are abused, dumped on the side of the road or at a shelter if they're lucky, used for experiments (also another topic for another day), hunted for the fun of it - as a "sport", forced into tiny cages or confined spaces for the pure pleasure of humans. Give me a break. If the people who love animals don't speak out for them, who will???
MelChi, I would like to offer some of my experiences/thoughts on the topic of zoos. You mentioned that you live in South Africa, and as I read that, a light bulb went on in my head. I suddenly am aware of the conditions that you've become accustomed to associating with the "zoos" in your area, and I can completely understand how you would be against such organizations. With the exception of Australia and some European countries, zoos outside of North America are often old, and, as you described them above, "cold." Most countries have nowhere near the standards of care that we in the United States do, and it is clearly evident in the manner that they keep their creatures.
I have lived in and visited Japan on several occasions, and have frequented many zoos, parks, and "sanctuaries" across the island. Japan is far from being considered an impoverished or uneducated country, yet at all the zoos I visited (between the years of 1988 and 2006, anyway), there was a severe lack of what we in America would consider basic husbandry requirements. Many of these "zoos" seem to be in a perpetual state of what zoos were in the 1930s, with very little attempts to modernize or evolve into today's standards at all. At these zoos I have seen animals agitated to dangerous levels (showing aggression towards onlookers or one another, with no zookeeper around to intervene), animals thin beyond belief or riddled with scars and parasites, and even animals dead in their enclosures. These zoos are atrocious, and MelChi, I understand how difficult it is to remain rational when you witness those kinds of things.
But you must understand that those zoos are NOT all zoos. Thankfully, things here in the United States, and many places across the world, are beyond a thousand times better. Better for the animals, better for the community, better for wildlife, and definitely better for zoo-goers such as myself. The local zoo here in Washington has beautiful enclosures for their animals, and it is constantly updating their habitats to improve and rejuvenate. Enrichment is a requirement for pretty much anything that is not a reptile or amphibian, and the health and comfort of the animals are clearly seen in the way they act with one another, and their keepers. As someone who works very closely with exotic animals and considers herself to be rather astute in assessing the conditions of different animals, I approve of zoos like this wholeheartedly, and will always support them.
As Melissa stated above, "bars do not harm animals, poor husbandry does." I could not agree more. Zoos are not the inherent problem - improper care is what we should all be working hard to educate for and fight against.
I am curious whether or not you consider the National Zoological Gardens a "sanctuary" or a zoo? The Zoological Garden is located in South Africa and it is considered to be one of the world's greatest zoos. Though I have never visited it, from what I've heard it is not anything like the dank, concrete environment you talk about in your posts.
I love my dogs so much that I stopped eating meat; they didn't follow suit. I also made sure I earned enough money that my wife could give up work to spend all day with them and we let them sleep in our bedroom so they are never alone.
Wow I have never seen an article with so many long and emotional comments. This subject surely touches a lot of people. I think you mentioned some very good points. I think you know a lot about animals and animal welfare. However, I need to say that everyone has a dog inside a small Manhattan apartment. By the way, I am completely opposed to having dogs in the city. Dogs don't belong in cities. I live in a suburb right next to forests, rivers and grasslands. I walk my dogs three times a day. They run free and discover the nature, play with other dogs. Sometimes I ride my bike next to them so that they run more. My dogs often get fresh meat and I feed them organic dog food regularly. They also sleep in our bedroom. And last but not least, I work at home. Which means I am with them 24/7. Rarely I go out without them. And whenever I am not at home they keep each other company. I often see play together.my dogs love company. Whenever the doorbell rings they are all excited about who it might be this time. It often is my mom who takes them on long walks through the forest. I do believe that my dogs are happier than all the city dogs in the world. You actually gave me the idea to write a hub about it.
Hi Melissa,
I've worked in a boarding kennels for about 15 years and I have to say, what you write in this hub is so so true. The amount of dogs that I have seen ruined, mistreated, psychologically disturbed or otherwise ill over the years is tragic to say the least. I personally have a great affinity for animals, but I feel ashamed of myself and of the human race as a whole that we continue to treat animals like this. In one way it reminds me of a saying that if you could do it to an animal you could do it to a human, and we most certainly have over the years. Cruelty to each other, mass extinction, genocide, ethnic cleansing, genetic grooming, we are guilty of all of these, not just to ourselves, but mostly to the animals we encounter, they, in a way, become our practice in the art of cruelty to one another.
I have seen many animals come and go throughout the years; horses, rabbits, snakes, dogs cats, you name it, and one thing that I can say for all species is this; that they deserve to be respected as sentient and aware beings. These animals are not stupid, they are not devoid of emotion. They have minds and are conscious. They are clever in ways we can't see or choose not to because we just label them constantly as inferior beings. We need to step back and realize and start thinking differently about our animals.
We spend billions researching life on other planets, hoping to find out that we are not alone, when if we even invested half that amount in to better understanding and communicating with, and I mean really communicating with what we already have, we could all live so harmoniously.
Please, keep up the good work, you're doing a brilliant job!
Great. Now I can't even get a damned pet. I was thinking about getting one, or 'rescuing' one from an animal shelter, but it seems you've rendered my want for companionship, useless. I can't really socialize well with people, and hence I do it better with animals, not saying the two of those are co-related.
Excellent article - well above the usual HP standard! Interesting and thought-provoking comment. From a dog-lover...
Not at all. By 'comment' I meant the article as a whole - the whole piece well-written, thought-provoking and interesting.
After reading a few of your articles my thoughts are you are very well spoken, and very good at composing articulate arguments.
You also really seem to go extremely one way or the other.
This article especially. Yes dogs can have many awful things happen in the breeding industry. Its not going to change until people stop making money sadly. Just like orca/dolphins shows and zoos.
The best a dog lover can do is love and give the animal everything they can. I'd much rather my beloved little shoggoth be snuggled and playing with me then who knows where else.
To Ms. Smith: Your article is a very emotional one, however, while I believe that you have given common sense arguments but these are not grounded in reality.
Firstly, you cannot exactly compare humans with dogs when it comes to "feelings". We are not having the same brain and hence it is doubtful that putting ourselves in the "dog's shoe" is a good reason to support the argument that dogs do not feel great while being domesticated.
Secondly, the research in dog psychology shows that they prefer human company compared to even their own siblings. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/... . I believe that our treatment of dogs should be more "dogane" than "humane". If you love dogs treat them in a fashion which is most desired by them. In this case I believe that they desire the human company the most.
Furthermore, in wild, various natural forces such as rain, flood, draught AND other plants & animals shape the evolution of any animal such as wolfs. We, the humans, also happen to be one such "animal" and had our mark on other plants and animals, in this case, wolfs/dogs. I believe, it is wrong to make a dichotomy of nature and humans. We the humans are very much a part of natural world and NOT a separate entity. There is nothing "supernatural" any human can do. The selective breeding which we did and are still doing was a part of natural evolution of dogs. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/01/23... covers more of scientific facts behinds this process.
Lastly, I agree that the process of dog breeding should be regulated and there should be social and may be legal norms around "dog ownership". I do not know about America but I guess in any civilized country there are norms around cruelty against animals. I believe these should be grounded in scientific research and not to the whims of individuals.
i'm sorry Melissa but I am very confused with you entirely! I am not sure if you are trying to make a point or trying to put your opinions out there, but to me they are very unclear. Right now I don't like you, because you say one thing to another and that is confusing to me. can you tell me Clearly what you are trying to achieve with this article
"Secondly, the research in dog psychology shows that they prefer human company compared to even their own siblings. http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/canine-corner/...
I'm pretty sure almost any animal would prefer to hang out with humans instead of their own kind, especially if raised from birth by humans.
All of my cats have hated other cats. When I'm in the room, my betta fish all come to the front of their tanks and watch me go about my business. When I put my hands in the tank, the come up to investigate. They would attack their own kind. I can pick up my bearded dragon with no resistance at all from him, yet he is hostile to his own kind. If I allow him to free roam in my room, he runs to me when spooked by something.
I have read that dogs do not form special attachments with their family members like humans do, and that feral dogs live mostly solitary lives. IMO, a human simply has "more to offer" to a dog than its sibling does, thus they prefer them.
Having read some of your other things on here, I was kind of surprised by this one.... but then I realized what the real point was: to show people how ridiculous they are when they do this with other animals. You made the topic more personal for many, and I hope all those zoo and aquarium hating folks realize how ridiculous they are when they spout this stuff about the animals that I work with... the ones I know are happy and healthy, but have no way of changing their set minds.
Sadly, as on owner of three dogs I was in complete agreement with all your points up until the disclaimer.
I love all animals but there's nothing that cheers me up quite as much as seeing a wagging tail. Dogs do so much for us human-folk (providing comfort, security, assistance and joy) but for every spoilt pooch with a loving home, there's many more living on the streets, awaiting euthanasia at a local pound or facing neglect and abuse.
We bred them to be completely dependant and trusting, only to abuse that trust. My dogs have brought some much happiness to my life, but if I had the option of putting an end to breeding of domestic dogs I would.
Melissa, i don't know you but i really surprise with this post, because you criticized the Blackfish and in this post you write against pets. Very contradictory.
Of course that you woul remove my other comments. I already knew, because I cursed you. No problem. So, anyway, your arguments is so weak.
If you get to sleep, knowing that a orca, which should be in the ocean, is stuck in a tank, you're just another HYPOCRITE.
I actually read the title of this article and told myself there was no point that could be made to change my mind. I stand corrected; however, because I thought this article was a great read, and definitely made me reconsider some of my previous ideas.
Reading through the comments, I feel like it is really difficult for people to accept the fact that while we may love our pets, we are not necessarily giving them an ideal life, and it's important to own up to our faults as humans.
I don't know that I agree with each and every point in this article, but I love to be challenged and will absolutely put more thought into these ideas.
It appears you are no aware that there's more evidence to support dogs subjecting themselves to humans (i.e. becoming pets) than humans taking dogs out of the wild for domestication. In addition, dogs have a pack mentality. They don't see themselves as pet's but as a member of your pack. That being said, you do point out some flaws with the process of training a dog. When it comes down to it, be the pack leader not the dog owner. A dog considers itself family not property, you should do the same.
Dogs aren't tame wolves, their domestication process started naturally when wolves with a low flight or fright threshold started scavenging in wastelands. As generations tame wolves bred amongst each other, creating tamer wolves, human selection entered the domestication process, humans realised that the now tame wolves are great hunting partners, and a symbiotic relationship was established. These tame wolves started to evolve in order to adapt to their environment and scavenging habits better, and therefore started to look more like the dogs we know today. It is only much later, that humans started to breed different dog breeds for different purposes. Our dogs today can not be compared to the wolf in any means.
@ CurryGuyFromIndia - Recent Scientific studies have proven that dogs do have same feelings that humans have. I think you find this article interesting. (sorry if my english is bad) - they could finally do successful MRI on dogs. https://pethelpful.com/dogs/A-New-Study-May-Foreve...
This. Was. Awesome. I'd read several of your articles before, so I noted the satirical tone and figured out why you'd done it; you absolutely hit the nail on the head.
I think I'm confused reading this. But then again, I'm more a "how do dogs work?" type person than getting into any battle about "should" and "should not", both of which are just one group's opinion trying to be forced on the other "side". How dogs work is more objective so I'm more comfortable there.
I'll always believe in pet ownership, though I agree with what others said that dogs don't see themselves as "pets" but as pack/members of a cooperative social unit. They want to know what their role is, what's expected, as much consistency as possible (since our human world and rules probably make zero sense to them so some consistency helps them manage and understand, which makes them less anxious/uncertain) and how to work together to achieve a common goal for the survival of all.
I loved this...very thought provoking when the reader applies what you wrote about dog ownership toward exotic pets. Not having owned any exotic animals, I've never considered how one might have to fight to justify their choice. I guess I'm surprised how many people read this and argued about 'dogs as pets' points, as I don't think that was your actual message.
This is a specious argument; unlike exotic pets, modern dog breeds are a result of co-evolution to such a degree that following a human's gaze and reacting to gestures is instinctual, much like a human infant. Their ecological niche is human companionship because that's what they evolved to take advantage of.
Could not agree with this article more. Every morning from my train I see dozens of dogs in the back garden of homes on their own, usually cold, always bored.
Their "owners" will proclaim themselves as animal lovers, but no animal lover would entrap an animal like this for their own self-gratifying needs.
Whether or not dogs evolved to eat kibble is beside the point -- they are a product of co-evolution and the greater majority of breeds aren't suited for life in the wild due to being wholly removed from natural selective pressure for innumerable generations, but the same cannot be said of exotic pets. Dogs evolved to live alongside humans, hence why they differ dramatically from wild canids, and have been an extremely successful species because of it.
You had my feathers ruffled there for a minute. I was become so upset about the position you took. I am so glad that I read all the way to th end. I am of the opinion that a pet owner should be able to own whatever pet he or she will. I believe that owner must be responsible for the proper care and attention to the pet. I do believe in restrictions, but not so much.
Good article. I was taken in for a bit, but I managed to read all the way through & was pleasantly surprised.
I live in Pennsylvania, which has even more restrictive "exotic pet" bans than most of the US. For instance, ferrets (de-scented & fixed) are considered "exotic pets" & are therefore illegal.
Sadly, there are entire websites full of people who would actually agree with the satirical part of your article. (Though those people usually make the "dogs are unnatural" claims, usually while simultaneously promoting cat ownership - with no sense of irony.)
I'm glad to see someone turn the exotic-ban argument around on those who use it; maybe the pet-killing hypocrites at PETA's main office will see it & stop using their tired rhetoric.
I am not sure where you are getting your info, but great topic. I needs to spend some time learning much more or understanding more. Thanks for fantastic information I was looking for this info for my mission. dgdeedk
Hi, I'm dad-against animal cruelty, but please accept many of us consider the environment before we buy a dog, I live next to a park and woodland, work at home, allow him to range around the whole house and gardens, and we have a lot of dogs in our neighbourhood my dog meets daily. He also runs off-leash in wild places for at least 90 minutes every day. We feed him v well and he is a very healthy happy dog. Are you saying this is cruel?
I agree that all animals can be free. But domesticed dogs or pets can barely survive in the wild at this point. SO in the end the best thing we can do is stop breeding and continue to support adoption and give these animals the best we can.
It's dude right, I'm kinda just guessing by flipping a coin here. (Insert proper pro-noun), I'm very confused by this message right here. Just bear with me for a second.
"Hello, my name is Meliss A Smith and I think zoos are fine, here is evidence why."
"Oh...This makes sense."
"Also here is a long list of reasons why dolphins are not perfect."
"I had a feeling they were up to no good."
"Did I mention that I collect exotic animals."
"I think dogs shouldn't be pets, it's wrong."
"Wait....Why do you own exotics then? You just told me zoos were fine and they are filled with wild animals not used to humans. After all this you tell me that dogs, who have lived with humans for years and are so dependent on us they can't last very long in the wild....Y-You say they shouldn't be pets?"
"Yes, they shouldn't be pets, I have lots of information on this and even you know a lot of it makes sense."
"Well then what would they eat in the wild? How would they avoid predators? Are they strong enough and fit enough to make it out there? Do you know how many coyotes and wolves love to eat dogs?"
I don't like to put words into peoples mouths or appear to be when I am not, but this is kinda what I'm seeing by reading what I read so far today. I'm very confused and as your statements don't stick to the same bias....It's making me ask why.
Could you explain yourself? Am I crazy for thinking this? Would some explanations explain why zoos are okay and pet dogs are bad...I mean you've already proven your debate skills before and we all know you can find information to prove your point.
I'm used to boys and girls with names that don't match their gender.
As for the rest of it, I didn't notice the very bottom of the content and I sorta just spaced out as I read it. Why exactly is this content here and posed so...IDK misleading in that it seems to be what you think till that little bit at the bottom?
Well, then I guess my reaction was not quite what was expected.
I never really understood why people keep deadly snakes however. I'm aware snakes aren't very smart and don't have much of a reaction to their holding pens, but what do you get out of owning that kind of snake exactly?
I mean, if you had a pet wolf trained not to maul people then you could watch it run around or whatever it would do, but do snakes do anything exciting? I mean my rabbit is in a cage part of the day, is held for a bit, and twice a week gets to run around for hours. My rabbit however reacts to me, makes noises when I give it certain foods, and reacts to who picks it up.
I don't think snakes are quite like that.
Sorry, but I strongly disagree with this article. Dogs are no longer anything like the wild wolves. They were bred over time for the sole purpose of being companions. They've had thousands of years of selective breeding. Most of their wild instincts are either gone or suppressed.
Go ahead, go to someones home and let their dog out. Hell, I've kept a lot of my dogs outside so they would be free to roam and I've never had a dog run away. They stay because they feel that they are part of my family just as I feel they are. There's no "captivity" involved. A domesticated dogs instinct is to crave human attention.
It is true that at one point wild animals had to be captured and held against their will in order for modern dogs to exist, but that was thousands of years ago.
One thing I will agree with you on is the breeding of "pure" breeds. It causes birth defects and health problems and is generally a bad practice.
I'm just curious, if this is what you think of the ethics of keeps a dog as a pet, what is your view on cats?
Overall the title seems like it doesn't quite suit the article. I get the sense from the title that all dog ownership is bad, and yet from this article you only elaborate on abuses that some dogs experience under some owners.
Excuse me... but as a long time dog lover and trainer... WHAT ON EARTH IS SHE TALKING ABOUT WHEN SHE STATES "some breeds are even forced to go through surgery to alter their appearance"???
There's a major difference between domestic dogs and most exotic animals. Most exotic animals still have a strong instinct to kill, and have no special breeding for human companionship. Not only that, but many exotic animals are directly taken from their natural habitats whereas domestic dogs have no natural habitat.
What do you think about dog owners who take great care of their dogs and give them a great life though? From your article title it seems like you are against all dog ownership whatsoever.
Melissa Smith - There is a huge market for animals for the exotic pet market. Even those that are "protected" are dwindling in the wild because of illegal trapping. Cats may have an instinct to kill, but in the case of domesticated cats they don't have the capability to kill people unless perhaps they are small infants. And a very large number of animals kept in zoos are in fact from the wild, though many of them are also captive-bred. Those from the wild are usually cases where they are saved from almost certain death, though.
In the case of exotic pets, I'm not necessarily against all exotic pets. For instance, smaller rodents of an exotic nature are perfectly fine, in my opinion. And while it may be true that some dogs do kill, in proportion to the number of dogs that exist I think you'd find that they kill in a far lesser amount than deaths from most exotic animals such as apes, tigers, lions, and other larger predators.
Those are largely the exotic animals I'm against captivity of, though I am against others to an extent.
@ Deathmonkey7. I'm pretty sure that domestic dogs kill WAY more people then exotics. I'm pretty sure that there is even a hub about this.
@Breck123 - I guess you missed the part where I said "in proportion to the number of dogs that exist"
Meaning there are millions of dogs, but not many exotic animals, therefore it's only natural that you'll have more deaths by dog even if they're very rare.
It appears I did miss that one part. And, if we are speaking in proportion, a large number of dog attacks happen on the public rather then the owner, while with exotics, the majority of attacks happen on the owner (who should know that there is a risk with certain animals), than the public.
Found it. People who scan your article might not though. Can I suggest a boldface title? There are a lot of people who still might not get the satire even after reading it all the way through...
Species in decline from pet trade:
Rare parrot species seem to suffer the worst, but reptiles, turtles, big cats and more are mentioned.
Animals taken from natural habitats for zoos:
An answer from a zoo keeper who interestingly specifically mentions some animals also being saved from illegal exotic pet trade. as I said, though, the ones from their habitats are largely in cases of their protection.
You may be right that there haven't been any deaths from apes.. yet. But it's not for a lack of trying. I know several people have been permanently disfigured from pet chimpanzees. As for other people killed by exotic pets:
I'm also curious why it has to be American exotic pet trade. It has the same detrimental effect no matter where it takes place.
" The vast majority of creatures seen in zoos, were born in the zoo." That was taken from the link you supplied, Deathmonkey7.
How does that contradict anything I said?
You stated that a large number of animals in zoos are taken from the wild, although you did say many are captive bred. The way you put it makes it look like the number of wild caught animals are almost equal to the number of captive bred ones. In reality, most of the animals in North American zoos are captive bred. Even if some confiscated illegal wild caught animals were sent to zoos, it would only be equal to a fraction of the number of captive bred animals in zoos.
While I would understand your premise, if dogs never evolved from wolves. However, because we have domesticated the dog, they do not have the necessary instinct and predatory behavior they had as wolves. Making them unable to survive with humans. We have made dogs dependent on us.
I mean I guess it isn't very ethical in my book, so in a large sense, I do agree with you. But with history down on the books, and evolution doing what it did (because we forced evolutions hand, breeding the least aggressive ones, and creating the domesticated dog we see now) to disown them completely, would also most likely kill them, so in laymen terms, I guess I would say that we made our bed, and now we have to sleep in it. While I do see your point completely, we as a species muddled the waters to much to fix it. BTW, I loved the article, I never thought of dogs (if not most pets) in that light
I beg to differ too. Where are they all going to live if not domesticated? What is their source of food going to be? How are they going to be protected from things like ticks and other animals that will eat them. What are you going to do when their breeding takes over the cities and world eventually? Many do not and refuse to see that the "natural" way is also inhumane. Have you ever watch a coyote kill a cats or another dog? Is that humane to watch cats and dogs get killed and eaten for food as well. I just do not agree with your points.
Dogs and cats should not exist???? That is nonsense. They have existed a very long time before we even domesticated them.
So what are you proposing, that we let them all go free and no more intervention with their care???? BTW I did read your whole article...all the way down to the end. I simply disagree with you.
Ahhh so you are one of those who thinks that no none should own a pet or an animal? I do not agree with that for the simple fact that you have never seen a pet that is truly happy being with humans. I am sorry about that. Have a good night.
I don't know how you do it Melissa. The patience you exhibit when confronted by blatant and incessant stupidity is worthy of sainthood. That or this site has strict rules and active mods. Most of these people who couldn't comprehend your article can vote - to me that's scarier than any exotic pet. They can reproduce as well...holy shit...
You, my dear, are Batshit crazy. The end.
Going back to your response, your wild bird won't survive in your city because it's a wild bird. Whatever climate you live in probably isn't the one it evolved to live in, so it will either starve to death or be killed by crows. This isn't the same for dogs, where they can't really survive in the wild anywhere because that's not what they've evolved to do.
A refreshing read. An honestly written article about about nonhuman beings in captivity. Thank you!
It's amazing how the comments demonstrate that almost NO ONE read the entire article!! Hah!!
PETA is batshit nuts.
Also, please apply the "no one's emotional reactions should dictate what I do with my life/pets/etc" to your extremely emotional letter on prekilled vs. live prey.
I think this is somewhat peculiar honestly. I mean, even if we banned having dogs as pets there would be a much greater problem with dogs spreading diseases and biting humans because they wouldn't have owners to vaccinate them or train them. If dogs weren't pets and were allowed to remain unfixed they would overpopulate, causing many to die from hunger, dogs establishing packs and threatening humans and livestock, and there would be too many dogs and eventually people would have to euthanize as many of these feral dogs as possible. I know that my dogs don't suffer to much xD I live on a 1000+ acre ranch and they run free, i have four dogs and they are close companions. They aren't caged of fenced up, so if they wanted to leave they could. But they do love me and their family so that is why they stay. I do respect and understand your opinion though, thank you for your time :)
I can't tell if this is serious or not, dogs are domesticated, they have genes specifically created to live with humans. So we should basically throw our dogs into the wild and make them find their own companionship and food, along with being hunted by larger animals, sure
Right on, but author-lady get real. Humans are the most selfish creatures on the planet earth, and most first-worlders love their little companion-slaves. Arguing with them that they're keeping them in bondage, separating them from their families, and so forth, is INCREDIBLE TRUE but ineffective. No one is going to listen to you, they'll write you off as some animal-rights-extremist, and go back to blocking out the stuff they don't want to hear. They'll block out the crippling condition of pedigree dogs, they'll block out how long their dogs spend in their houses all day, they'll block out how puppies whine and cry when they're separated from their mothers and their litter mates, they'll block out how they leash their animals so they won't get away, they'll block out how millions of animals are killed in shelters because humans find them "useless", and they'll block out whatever they want to block out. Remember, these are the same fuckers who financially support farmers to kill baby cows so we can drink from their lactating mothers. Humans don't care, and they probably never will.
Abolist-vegan - Did you read the disclaimer? This article is "satire", attempting to use the same arguments against dog ownership as people do against exotic pet ownership. The author has both exotics and at least one dog, as far as I'm aware.
To Melissa - I borrowed a couple of quotes and the idea when I made this picture today: http://s14.postimg.org/z5rqm9pxb/Dog_captivity.png
I've seen so much exotic pet-hate lately that I had to do it.
Sorry, can't agree.
It is believed that dogs are descended from wolves who followed ancient humans and scavenged on their waste. Even if they were "freed," I suspect they would most likely stay close to human civilization and pick through our garbage. And if they turn to predation, I think it could do tremendous damage to local ecosystems. The domesticated dog does not fit into any natural food chain.
Thank you for posting this article. While I'm not surprised about the amount of negative feedback you've gotten from it (since the majority of westerners consider themselves 'animal people' by keeping pets imprisoned in their homes on their own terms), it's really surprising to me that no one here is taking a step back and thinking about all the points you mentioned (the overall picture) without getting emotional or biased. I personally love animals, and in all honesty, I never gave this much thought but it only recently hit me. The "concept" of animal domestication is pretty much animal cruelty. Breeding animals for our own benefit & entertainment, and twisting them into these pathetic creatures that are 100% dependent on us is just so disturbing when I think of it now. Sure, domesticated dogs can't survive on their own, but we are the ones to blame for that.
Wow is this article even for real! I understand that they need to be free and not be in a house or confined all the time. I love my cats, and I tried letting them go outside but they wanted right back in. I have strays that I have taken in, they come to my house starving and needing my help. So I help them. I wont let a animals starve just because oh its their nature and they can fend for themselves. I let my cats out, they were outside cats and they hate it outside. My cats are spoiled and healthy. If you seen what I see everyday, the strays on the street here starving, no shelter, freezing to death, and just lonely then it would change your mind. This article disturbed me. I will never read another thing from this person. I love my animals and if they want outside to live, they can but they don't.
Just saying, domestic dogs actually AREN'T bred to be in the wild. In my opinion, they are perfectly happy where they are. My two dogs often socialize with one another, with us, and with other dogs and humans. Neither of them come from puppy mills; I have a beagle/dachshund mix from a shelter and an australian shepherd from a breeder in Florida. They both love running around on our 3 acre property. All I'm saying is that you don't need to be against keeping dogs as pets, just be against the things that are actually harming them. For example, puppy mills, dog fighting rings, backyard breeders, and irresponsible owners.
Thanks, -a proud dog owner.
Thank you for this article.... and I apoligize for everybody who read the title and inmediately flew down to the comments. People, if you are going to comment about the article, please read it first.
Your logic is flawed on so many levels, but particularly this one: dogs, or or their predecessors, selected humans, not the other way around. Humans provided food; wolves provided security. A centuries old, symbiotic relationship was born.
While certain breeding practices (like making "teacup" size dogs) are deplorable, the dog/human bond is healthy and necessary for the longevity of both species.
The rest of your argument is just silly.
Well I don't agree with nearly anything you say, but I'll say that I'm impressed by how much effort you put in for how few people actually regularly read your articles.
I'll admit, when I first started reading your article I was like, "is this person for real?!" But then I got to the end and felt so much better. I get where you're coming from. I personally wouldn't call my dog a captive, but that is just the visceral reaction to the word. They pretty much are one in the same. If you are caring for your pets, whether exotic or not, then who am I to judge you? Like with pitbulls, it's the irresponsible owners that make the news. Final thought, it's amazing how many people didn't really read the article.
Thanks for writing this. I feel exactly the way you do. Humans have bred dogs to perfectly fit their lifestyle. The most common explanation people have is that 'No matter what my day is like, my dog is always eagerly waiting to see me'. Yes, this dog is inevitably made so dependent on it''s owner that it has no choice. It has to rely on it's owner for affection and food. The whole idea is just wrong. Dogs and other pets are meant to be among their own kind!
Some may feel that I never had the affection of a dog and hence I don't understand. I grew up with a pet dog till i was about 10.
1. My first dog passed away.. I don't know how. I remember finding it adorable.
2. I remember my 2nd dog when it came home as a puppy. I adored it and played with it. It had to move to a village (where it had a lot more space and freedom) because my family moved to a big city and wasn't very suitable for dogs. But my dog ran away and died under a bus :(
3. My neighbor's dog attacked my friend right in front of me when I was 11. The dog was ferocious and seemed frustrated being on a leash all the time and living in between people.
Just because a majority of the population is already having dogs as pets it doesn't make it okay!
The real problem though is that it's more difficult to have a relationship with human than with a dog cause it's mutual with a human being and with a dog, it's there for you no matter what. So people find that having a god is a better arrangement to get some guaranteed affection?
This article is completely correct. a few more points ... people who own dogs usually suffer from ego issues and if you speak with them they go on about what the dog does for them as opposed to their love for the animal. Something is clearly amiss when someone feels the need to go outside their own species for companionship or protection. Humans have taken one of nature's most magnificent predators and turned them into a more pathetic version of themselves. ever hear of a wolf freezing or starving to death? thought not. Domestication of dogs is an act of extreme selfishness and abomination.
This article is satire... and yes, wolves definitely starve and freeze (happens easily when you don't get enough food) to death. They're not superheroes or gods, they're animals.
if dogs and cats run around the area you will get more disease and sick my country had this kind of problem.I stay in Asia,in Asia plenty dogs and cats run around, do you know what happen you can hear them fighting every time,the blood drip everywhere and dirty digging out rubbish,flea and thick in every area even on people skin now day tick has increase,i still remember more and more road kill animal is know as cats & dogs.However,many tourist from other country feel unhappy and uncomfortable because of unclean animals that running around into the restaurant to find food. So do you want to eat with cats & dogs all with bad skin and torn skin with blood and tick some of it even scratch until the fur turn into blood ? Imagine that how I feel about that.
I feel proud that some country have dogs and cats shelter it was so good the vet can treat them away from sick and
You really don't know about it how we feel many people in Asia or what ever country really pet their cats & dogs in wrong way "it is similar idea what just you say do not keep them as pet" it was totally chaos you know animal still food in restaurant early in the morning when we start cooking the cat tick fall all over the kitchen floor and table.
I feel good too that some country has animal shelter and save them from bothering people while working and than who wants pets can go to shelter to adopt one or more
You are all morons
OK, dog lovers, cat lovers, pet lovers whatever you want to call yourself. Holly Bahgoalies. What the main overall sense of purpose here...you know the kind of underlying messages that creep up and get you thinking about things, is this......there is a major and I mean a major over population pet problem because PEOPLE do not want to bring their pets up in the responsible way. There's no reason that( I work as a canvasser) that in any given neighborhood around the populated city I live in has houses with single dogs in them..barking uncontrollably like they have some kind of rabies disease. Seriously, this is proof that dogs are not only sensitive about territory but think about it. If they are sensitive about territory what give any argument that they should be pets validity. None! We never should've f'ed with them in the first place but now of course we have and neighborhoods are popping up everywhere with crazy ass owners leaving their crazy ass single dogs alone everyday. Get some sense, get some smarts and look at the big picture. Not just about how you feel personally about your pet..because I'm sure they are the "best"
I value all life form as equal. Yes a carrot has just as much the right to live without stress just as much as bugs just as much as animals just as much as humans. No one is superior in term of life. Yes I will defend and protect my own species over other living forms but it doesn't mean that we are better than anything else.
Owning animals as pet is slavery. Not all human slaves where mistreated but they were "owned" and dictated how to act. Pets are not free. therefor pets are slaves. Slavery is cruelty.
I do not agree that a cat kept in house is happier than a cat who lives in a house and has access to go outside with the risk of being hit with a car.
If you let a cat go outside and then stop allowing it to her, she will sit in front of your door and won't stop meowing until you let her out, that is a fact, she is stating a opinion: I want to go out!
She doesn't know of dangers of being outside? Well animals that live in wild are at danger everyday of being eaten, get sick or injured to the point they will die of that injury, it certainly cant be true that an animal would chose a safe life within 4 walls in front of a free life to go wherever it wants even if it is risky as well a human wouldn't choose it.
How can you say a cat is happier indoors than on a risk of getting hurt outside your home while at the same time asking for all animals to live free at the wild???
You can make a cat chase laser everyday and it still isn't the same as chasing a mouse outside. As cats grew adult also they lose interest for their cat toys and they will eventually stop chasing them while they will still chase other smaller living being outside of the house and Im saying this from experience from having cats that were only house cats and cats that were go-out cats and I even had a cat who was half of her life in house and the other half house+outdoors and she chose outdoors herself I didn't force her to go out but as she did she kept close to the house, only my garden and neighbor's garden, going in and out when she wanted.
Saying a cat is happier withing 4 walls than going outside is like saying a tiger is happier in a cage than in a jungle.
I also read several books about cat behavior and domestication along with watching shows about wild life and vets talking about animals and so I do think I know a thing or two about cats.
I do not claim the life cats have with humans are perfect lives mostly depending on how their owners treat them and where they live but a cat is a animal that kept most of the characteristics of her wild ancestor, and if a cat lives in a village with a lot of nature with its owner and is free to go outside when she wants it can almost not get more natural then that since she can do everything a wild cat would do + get extra food and a warm bed from a human. such animal is also obviously choosing to come back for that extra food and petting. the cat domestication began when human started to put small houses for cats around their barns so cats would hunt mice for them and in return cats got a warm place to sleep and extra food and they chose to stay for a easier life!
I do believe the similar thing happened with a dog, when you offer food to any animal that animal is probably going to keep coming back as well as the birds come back to the place you leave bread for them.
The another thing is that humans started to lock animals in cages limiting their freedom of movement and exploiting them to the points of torture. Every human in my opinion that wants to have a pet should provide as natural conditions for them as possible.
Most of the objections to the theme of the article are by dog owners. Of course they want to defend their stance as they are emotionally attached to the animal and only see what they want to see. Any captivity of an animal is wrong. If people stop keeping pets then the supply of specially bred animals will decline with the decline of demand. Think long and hard about what you are doing before deciding to get a pet. Getting a pet is a totally selfish act as there is much more in it for you than the pet, no matter how you decide to rationalise it in your head.
Love this article, and it's amazing how many people didn't actually understand the point of it. It only took my own bit of skimming to actually figure out its nature. I also love your other articles! I've just discovered them, and love them to bits, to be honest. I don't have a goldfish to my name, but I am a big dog lover, and on top of that I am very okay with exotic pet ownership under the right hands. Thanks for your work!
totally agree with the author on this one!...
I agree 100% with the author.
I think people that don't agree are just in too deep into this cycle that they will try to justify their behavior, with a complete disregard of the facts.
How would YOU like to be taken from your mother and siblings, and forced to be somebody´s emotional comfort toy.
Tell me now how your dog can go outside whenever he wants, he can eat whenever he wants, be with his siblings whenever he wants, see his parents? He can't right??? He is captured! He is your emotional slave.
AS much as you take good care of your "pet" he would be better off with his siblings and mother - and the fact that he has been domesticated throughout ages doesn't make it correct. Think now, is everything that mankind done throughout ages correct?
We need to re-think a lot of things in modern society, this is one of those things.
BTW I am not a tree-hugger, PETA supporter, I am just a person with a brain and 2 dogs that I really love, and I am not a hypocrite - if I could turn back time I would leave these dogs with their parents, but the truth is - somebody would have bought them anyways - so I will try my best to care for them and give them the company of their own breed to socialize with.
But there shouldn't be a market for pets - just like we outlawed slavery, pets have become our emotional slaves - and this is wrong... I try this line of reasoning with my brother, but I can see his EMOTIONS and PRIDE cloud his thinking, nobody likes to be wrong, especially when they themselves bought their "pet".
"Disclaimer: Does everything written above sound like a load of irritating nonsense?" - The Author
Well truthfully, none of it sounds like nonsense. The fact that the author would write all of that to later justify owning exotic animals makes this article a bit twisted, like sure, let us list all of these facts and then ignore them completely so that we can now also own "exotic" animals...
I care for a dog (inherited!) that I constantly feel sorry for because he is stuck in a yard all day...no dog companionship, nothing to hunt or forage or interesting to do, anxiously awaiting my return from work to get a quick walk (cause I'm tired!), eat, and lay around doing nothing the whole evening...the most boring existence I can imagine! I can only guess that I'm not alone in this scenario. No animal was meant to live this way. I can see having a pet if you're saving it from abuse, or if you're home a lot to give it fairly constant companionship, but mostly I see pet ownership as enslavement for personal gain. Most of your article rang very true! Obviously we can't set them "all free", so I'm not saying I have a solution to this circular frenzy we humans have taken to extremes.
BTW, high five, Reinaldo! Agree totally. Melissa, you had me up until the disclaimer...were sharing most of my long held views. Except for some rescue situations, I believe that the vast majority of "pet ownership" is for self-gratification, even if the pet is "treated" as a member of the royal family. Just add up all the "happy/interesting times" your pet has over the course of a typical day and see how little it comes to. Then compare that to what a free/natural existence would be like for them (not that they can have that...we've made that bed already). By far, my dog's "happiest" times are when I find a wooded area to let him off the leash and run/sniff/pee/poop/chase/bark (i.e. be a dog!). And what a dejected look when it's time to go back on the leash. Just my 2.5 cents worth...don't expect to change anyone's thinking!
Sounds like something PETA would write. Set the dogs free, and then when we have roving packs of canines ruining the ecosystem, more than they already are, then what do we do? Oh, I dunno. Kill them? But then what did we save them from the oh so terrible slavery for?
Melissa, I am a dog behaviorist/whisperer and could not agree with you more. Every day I see dogs with inane owners who fail to honor their needs as animals and canines, and due to their lives simply cannot do so. I believe that the issue you present should be viewed at a high moral and ethical level. Even so-called "stable" dogs suffer from boredom and a way of life that mother nature never intended. Americans have domesticated dogs to suit our convenience with no regard to fulfilling their needs. Your article is not popular obviously, but completely spot on.I congratulate you for what you have written.