Is it cruel to keep pets?

[J-E-N-O-V-A]

Most dogs would be running across continents and looking after their own litters, not running around gardens and fields looking after their plastic toys. Don't you think it's cruel to confine animals to such small living environments?

We're essentially kidnapping them (and often castrating/spaying them) and abusing their natural instinct to seek security in the creature that feeds them, which should (in nature) be their mother or the pack.

How would we feel if an alien race came down, killed all of the humans they deemed threatening, took the weak ones and bred them for their own needs, then much later using their existences as emotional crutches and denying them the freedom to choose outside of an environment they can't comprehend?

[malspa]

Maybe so. But it seems like my freeloading cat is living better than she would be living out in the wild...

[J-E-N-O-V-A]

Maybe so. But it seems like my freeloading cat is living better than she would be living out in the wild...
So do you think your cat would enjoy freeloading off you eating processed food more than taking care of its own healthy litter in the wild whilst eating tastey raw flesh? I don't. There's risk involved, but the rewards are much better imo. We should release them all into a wild environment in which we are not allowed to enter imo, but instead we maintain it, build heavy and humane security for our farms and ensure it's a purely wild environment that spans continents.

[Grenage]

Ultimately yes, of course it is; how cruel is another matter. Cruel is probably the wrong word to use, and I'd opt for selfish

P.S: I have a pet.

[ibjsb4]

Jenova, have you considered therapy?

[TheSqueak]

Most dogs would be running across continents and looking after their own litters

Wolves maybe, but we've domesticated dogs and they like living with humans.

[forrestcupp]

What makes you think they would rather fend for themselves in the wild?


So do you think your cat would enjoy freeloading off you eating processed food more than taking care of its own healthy litter in the wild whilst eating tastey raw flesh? I don't. There's risk involved, but the rewards are much better imo. We should release them all into a wild environment in which we are not allowed to enter imo, but instead we maintain it, build heavy and humane security for our farms and ensure it's a purely wild environment that spans continents.I can tell you from a lot of experience that a cat would rather be taken care of. We have a ton of stray cats in our neighborhood that are free to live wild. Guess what they do. They hang around the people that feed them and adopt them as their family. They have the choice of living in the wild, yet they choose to freeload off of people who feed them and love them.

Also, there is the whole fact that cats and dogs will follow you if you move. My parents have had plenty of dogs and cats in the country that lived outside and were free to roam. They always came back to the house.

I'm no dog or cat lover, but this argument is ridiculous. I do have issues with forcing wild animals to become pets. But to take a domesticated animal and force it to live in the wild is way crueler than lovingly taking care of the animals that have never learned to live in the wild.


Jenova, have you considered therapy?Lol.

[Paqman]

Not necessarily, life in the wild is hardly party funtimes for animals. Having a roof over your head and guaranteed meals is nothing to be sniffed at. Humans living in pre-civilisation days would have had huge ranges as well, but we gave up that freedom in exchange for the security and safety that civlisation brings. We're just giving animals the same thing we gave ourselves. In the wild animals may have room, but they also have disease, hunger, and predation.

Having said that, there is a minimum amount of room that an animal should have, which will depend on the species. I don't mind people in apartment buildings having cats or reptiles, but I don't agree with them having dogs. Even if you get them out for a walk twice a day it's not right to keep them cooped up the rest of the time. If you want a dog you should have a garden for it to run around in, minimum.

[malspa]

Having said that, there is a minimum amount of room that an animal should have, which will depend on the species. I don't mind people in apartment buildings having cats or reptiles, but I don't agree with them having dogs. Even if you get them out for a walk twice a day it's not right to keep them cooped up the rest of the time. If you want a dog you should have a garden for it to run around in, minimum.

I live in an apartment, and I feel the same way. I wouldn't have a dog here. Not enough room for the dog, too much work for me to keep a dog exercised. I even have mixed feelings about having a cat in an apartment, even though I have one.

[wojox]

an alien race came down, killed all of the humans they deemed threatening, took the weak ones and bred them for their own needs

How weak? Sounds interesting. :)

[J-E-N-O-V-A]

How weak? Sounds interesting. :)
Submissive is the only important thing really. Weakness isn't that relevant now that I think about it.

[coldraven]

We have a symbiotic relationship with our pets. We provide food, medicine and shelter, they provide amusement, exercise and protection.
We derive pleasure from stroking a cat and it's purring will send me to sleep any time I lie on the sofa.
A dog will amuse you with it's antics, going for a walk will heal your body and soul.
My dog is not vicious but she will bark to alert me if someone is outside my house.
I believe that pet owners live longer because they are less stressed than others.


There is no such thing as the natural world that you talk of, humans have modified almost all of it.

[Paqman]

There is no such thing as the natural world that you talk of, humans have modified almost all of it.

I don't think there ever was a natural world quite the way the OP seems to imagine it.

[wojox]

We have five cats we adopted from the streets. Had we not those five felines would have been put to sleep by the animal control people three days after they were captured. That's cruel.

[AllRadioisDead]

It depends on the animal.

I would be hard pressed to label my snake as unhappy. Snakes sleep like 95% of their lives, most of the time they only bother moving to find food or a safe place to sleep.

[mips]

Take a domestic dog and see how well it lives in the wild and then decide again.

[QIII]

C. lupus familiaris, a subspecies of wolf, has co-evolved with H. sapiens in a cooperative relationship that benefits each in survival. C. lupus was a willing partner as soon as some individuals began associating closely with H. sapiens.

[kurt18947]

So do you think your cat would enjoy freeloading off you eating processed food more than taking care of its own healthy litter in the wild whilst eating tastey raw flesh? I don't. There's risk involved, but the rewards are much better imo. We should release them all into a wild environment in which we are not allowed to enter imo, but instead we maintain it, build heavy and humane security for our farms and ensure it's a purely wild environment that spans continents.

Around here, THEY would be the tasty raw flesh. Coyotes have no moral compunction about a fresh cat meal. People who spend time in the wooded peripherals of developed area periodically find tufts of fur, bones and a flea collar. The real world ain't a Disney movie.

[aysiu]

Most house pet breeds of dogs and cats have already been bred to be domesticated. They are not wild animals. Keeping a lion or wildebeast as a pet is cruel. Keeping a housecat or chihuahua as a pet is not cruel.

[Linuxratty]

Most house pet breeds of dogs and cats have already been bred to be domesticated. They are not wild animals. Keeping a lion or wildebeast as a pet is cruel. Keeping a housecat or chihuahua as a pet is not cruel.

Agreed. You might want to read this:The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication.

http://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Wild-Animals-Chose-Domestication/dp/0300079931

I also suspect squirrels and raccoons are also gradually domesticating themselves. You can already see color mutations in squirrels. The squirrels who are the most willing to approach humans are the winners, just as wolves used to be way back when.

[snowpine]

some owners are cruel, some owners are loving
can't make sweeping generalizations
our cat was rescued from a hurricane, she (appears to be) happy and grateful for the life we've given her

[aysiu]

Agreed. You might want to read this:The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication.

http://www.amazon.com/Covenant-Wild-Animals-Chose-Domestication/dp/0300079931 Thanks for the recommendation.

[iamkuriouspurpleoranj]

In a trial against "anarchists" in England a couple of decades ago, McDonalds lawyers suggested that chickens in battery arrangements were spared the stress of being hunted by foxes.

Hmm.

Don't really have a problem with pets but I do feel that zoos are animal prisons.

[eriktheblu]

How would we feel if an alien race came down, killed all of the humans they deemed threatening, took the weak ones and bred them for their own needs, then much later using their existences as emotional crutches and denying them the freedom to choose outside of an environment they can't comprehend?
I would probably be dead.

An intelligent species that values freedom would form an organized resistance. Common pets do not demonstrate that sort of behavior.

[oldsoundguy]

Look at it this way. Dogs and cats moved in with humans in pre-historic times .. it was a two way relationship.
Dogs will protect their adopted owner from perceived harm. (defend the pack) No other animal will do so.
Yes, it is not really fair to an animal to confine them in a small apartment with no contact with the outside world. That is why we take them out and to dog parks where they can run free and play with other dogs.
Cats. on the other hand, remain aloof and limit their affection .. like at 4 am when they want to be fed so they pounce on your chest .. independent .. BUT .. IF you leave the door open and they go out and then come back, they have MADE A CHOICE.

[deadflowr]

You could just eat 'em.

Which is what would happen if we didn't keep 'em as pets.

[MadmanRB]

No unless it really is a wild animal of some kind or if the owner is a idiot.
I love my cat Stink and he loves me, he is the best cat that acts like a dog ever

[georgelappies]

Hmmm, many humans would kill to have the kind of live my mother-in-law's Dachshund have. If I could be reincarnated I want to be a dog in their house :)

[QIII]

This is a subject about which I have been very interested for a great many years, so forgive a bit of a ramble.

There is a great deal of debate about when C. lupus was actually domesticated and became C. lupus familiaris. What is widely accepted is that genetic research has moved C. familiaris from its position as a distinct species to C. lupus familiaris, a sub-species of C. lupus, in terms of its taxonomy. Full speciation has not yet occurred.

(Interestingly, dogs were once classified as C. domesticus, domestic dogs, and were then reclassified as C. familiaris, familiar dogs -- dogs we are familiar with in the sense that two unrelated persons may be familiar with each other.)

Did they become "dogs" when they started associating closely with humans 100,000 years ago when both wolves and humans gained opportunistic benefit from each other, or when there is evidence of a closer genetic relationship to modern dogs about 40,000 years ago, or when they began to be purposely bred for desireable characteristic some time within the last 5,000 years or when the distinctive breeds we know now started to appear several hundreds of years ago? Would humans, as we see ourselves now, have existed without the advantages our ancestors enjoyed as a result of the relationship? Is it entirely coincidental that anatomically modern humans began to appear at about the same time as our forebears associated with the forebears of our family pooch? That Neanderthal's began to decline about 40,000 years ago when we find evidence of genetic similarities between proto-dogs and modern dogs? Were they out-competed by humans or the human/dog team?

My take is that if the relationship had not been mutual, neither of us might have survived. Dogs may have been the reason for our own survival "in the wild".

There is still a great deal of debate about F. catus (sometimes referred to as F. domesticus), which many taxonomists now classify as F. silvestris catus -- a subspecies of wildcat rather than a distict species. Cats have a mutualistic relationship with humans, but having undergone very little morphologic change they are quite capable of surviving in the wild -- and can still interbreed with some wild cats. There is a joke that we have not domesticated the cat, rather it us.

(Generally, both C. lupus familiaris and C. silvestris catus are referred to by the convention of Linnaeus' binomial classification as C. familiaris and F. catus.)

But the fact is that for both cats and dogs, they simply would not exist and the extant individuals would not have been born except for human intervention. The only condition under which the OP's sentiment is consistent is the non-existence of domestic dogs and cats. This would require complete eradication and extinction rather than release into the wild.

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

my 2 cats spend the most of the day in the same room as me, they follow me around and sleep near/with me every night and wait in the windows/doors when i go out
usually cats own humans, they let you think you own them but in reality you are there servant and caretaker

here is a little something you may enjoy reading
http://pastebin.com/wUD5Bd0z

[lisati]

There are two kinds of cats in my street. One kind is well adapted to hanging around while I'm helping Mrs Lisati with domestic chores, getting under my feet while I'm hanging out the washing, and having a prowl looking for food it can bludge off me. The other kind is better adapted to running away as soon as it notices me.

[deadflowr]

Unfortunately, even though this about pets in general, since it's the internet it has slowly gone in favor of cats.:lolflag:

[eddier]

Anything in a cage or removed from its natural environment IS WRONG! My local pet supply store has all kinds of birds in cages,indoors. As well as various Reptiles. ITS WRONG.
If you like lizards,snakes,Birds etc then watch Discovery or go for a walk outdoors.

In this 'Modern' world there is no need for Zoo's or 'Wildlife parks',especially in Northern climates where there are wildlife parks with Big cats,and other exotic animals that shouldnt be here.A visit to a wildlife park a few years ago left me feeling angry and upset-several dozen (Wallabies?) huddled together to keep warm (?)-Rhino's confined to a few square yards,likewise Lions and Tigers,Giraffe etc.

I have no problem with Domesticated animals such as Dogs,cats and Horses etc. Other than some stupid owners who do not have a clue how to look after 'their' pets.

eddie(sorry about the rant)

[evilsoup]

Pets in general, I would say no it's not cruel for reasons that have already been expressed in the thread.

Cats in particular have a separate ethical issue, in that pet cats are a walking ecological disaster for the surrounding wildlife.

[zer010]

While I think the OP's premise is absurd reguarding domesticated animals, I do think that it has spawned some very interesting and sometimes funny responses.

[jockyburns]

I have a Border Collie, who is loved by both me and my missus, fed whenever he wants, taken long walks/runs, get's a lot more exercise than either of us, and I'm sure, loves us in return. Does the OP think he'd be better living in the gutter, or roaming free in a pack ?

[Linuxratty]

Thanks for the recommendation.
My pleasure. This is by far the most insightful book I have ever read on this subject. It's a real page turner.



Cats in particular have a separate ethical issue, in that pet cats are a walking ecological disaster for the surrounding wildlife.

As a former wildlife rehabber,I agree 100% and then some.

[oldsoundguy]

Adding to this, Doctors and Psychologists recommend pets for the elderly as companions .. and there are service and companion dogs. .. then there are pets for the handicapped that help bring the individuals out of their shells. So an emphatic .. NO, it is not cruel when it comes to having DOMESTICATED animals as pets .. jury out on keeping "pets" that are confined to cages if they came from the wild. (fish are exempt)
Now, there are pet OWNERS that should be put in jail for the treatment that they give to an animal that relies on them! THAT IS CRUEL!

[Paqman]

There is a great deal of debate about when C. lupus was actually domesticated and became C. lupus familiaris. What is widely accepted is that genetic research has moved C. familiaris from its position as a distinct species to C. lupus familiaris, a sub-species of C. lupus, in terms of its taxonomy. Full speciation has not yet occurred.


I find the flexibility of the dog genome fascinating. The idea that lurking inside the genome of a wolf there is a chihuahua really does my head in. Being completely ignorant of the practicalities of genetics it does make me wonder: if one can selectively breed a wolf into a chihuahua is it at least theoretically possible to reverse the process? To selectively breed a wolf analogue from any species of dog?

[Elfy]

...

here is a little something you may enjoy reading
http://pastebin.com/wUD5Bd0z

Thanks for that :)

[J-E-N-O-V-A]

The people who think their dogs would not survive in the wild need to consider whether they would survive in a pack of about 60, that's how I imagine the numbers would naturally start off if they were released into a wild (not "the", we don't have much of a wild in the UK in which they'd survive without being splattered by cars).

[evilsoup]

It depends on the dog. I'm pretty sure my Jack Russell could survive in the wild just fine, but my Springer spaniel... not so much.


Anyway, maybe they could survive - but it'd be a relatively nasty, brutish and short existence. Nature is red in tooth and claw, remember, and unforgiving.

[kurt18947]

my 2 cats spend the most of the day in the same room as me, they follow me around and sleep near/with me every night and wait in the windows/doors when i go out
usually cats own humans, they let you think you own them but in reality you are there servant and caretaker

here is a little something you may enjoy reading
http://pastebin.com/wUD5Bd0z

Or stated another way, dogs have masters, cats have staff :smile:.

[forrestcupp]

There are two kinds of cats in my street. One kind is well adapted to hanging around while I'm helping Mrs Lisati with domestic chores, getting under my feet while I'm hanging out the washing, and having a prowl looking for food it can bludge off me. The other kind is better adapted to running away as soon as it notices me.All of the cats around my home have grown accustomed to running away from me. :)

There was one time that my wife and kids really took to a neighborhood cat. Until I found out it was living and defecating in my garage. I closed off the hole it got in through, and it wasn't happy. When it got mad and scratched my son, I made sure we never saw it again. (I didn't kill it).


The people who think their dogs would not survive in the wild need to consider whether they would survive in a pack of about 60, that's how I imagine the numbers would naturally start off if they were released into a wild (not "the", we don't have much of a wild in the UK in which they'd survive without being splattered by cars).Yeah, and when you start getting packs of 60 wild dogs, part of their survival might include mauling little kids. Great idea.

[pinballwizard]

So do you think your cat would enjoy freeloading off you eating processed food more than taking care of its own healthy litter in the wild whilst eating tastey raw flesh? I don't. There's risk involved, but the rewards are much better imo. We should release them all into a wild environment in which we are not allowed to enter imo, but instead we maintain it, build heavy and humane security for our farms and ensure it's a purely wild environment that spans continents.

I think you're a real riot.

Modern day domestic pets are species that have had the wild bred out of them over centuries. If we left them at birth (or worse, turned them out after we'd raised them) in the wild, they'd die a very swift and unpleasant death.

But thanks for the larf.

[evilsoup]

Man, domestic pigs revert to wild boars in two generations when they're released into the wild.

There are probably some dogs that wouldn't survive at all - toy dogs - but they'd have as much of a chance as wild-born animals, in general (except that they wouldn't know to fear humans). They certainly wouldn't live as long or as comfortably as pet dogs, but they could certainly survive.

This applies doubly triply to cats, who are pretty much apex predators with almost no natural predators.

[deadflowr]

60 dogs in a pack will soon be 10 dogs in a pack as there wouldn't be enough resources to sustain that big a cluster of dogs before they started killing each other.
That and that big a pack would threaten the people whose very lives are dependent upon the resources the dogs would be scavenging. And people when threatened, fight.

[hainen]

I suppose a dog could survive as street dog in a city. Outside of cities, if the area is usable for predators, its likely it already exist predators in the area. Usually dogs don't do well in competition with other middle sized predators. Here around free dogs is sooner or later usually killed by the local wolfs as wolfs defend their feeding territory. If they survive the wolfs they are probably killed by a train, car or starve to deaths in the winter. If they try to take livestock the local farmer probably shoot them.

[J-E-N-O-V-A]

I think you're a real riot.

Modern day domestic pets are species that have had the wild bred out of them over centuries. If we left them at birth (or worse, turned them out after we'd raised them) in the wild, they'd die a very swift and unpleasant death.

But thanks for the larf.
Ah yes because evolution is on a scale of centuries (/sarc)

[mJayk]

The answer is no.

^-- That didn't take 5 pages :).

[llanitedave]

In my country, Pets keep YOU!

[forrestcupp]

My wife caught a mouse once by luring it into a container with cereal. She made me drive her out to a field so she could release it. She didn't like it when I told her it would probably be eaten by an owl that night. :)

[llanitedave]

I find the flexibility of the dog genome fascinating. The idea that lurking inside the genome of a wolf there is a chihuahua really does my head in. Being completely ignorant of the practicalities of genetics it does make me wonder: if one can selectively breed a wolf into a chihuahua is it at least theoretically possible to reverse the process? To selectively breed a wolf analogue from any species of dog?

It's not quite correct to say that either the chihuahua lurks in the wolf or vice versa. Although they are basically the same genome, there are some differences due to mutation and selection over time. If you were to start from scratch again, without introducing genes from any contemporary dog, you wouldn't quite be able to re-breed the exact equivalent of today's chihuahua, because some of the mutations that got selected the first time would be unlikely to occur a second time. The same problem would happen in reverse. You'd probably not be able to re-breed the wolf again starting from nothing but chihuahuas, although you could probably get something pretty close.

OTOH, there is a fascinating genetic diversity there, and some of that morphological diversity takes very few genes to express itself.

[Horbo]

Dogs don't understand the concept of "pet" so I don't see a problem there.

I do think keeping birds in cages is absolutely horrible though. Imagine being locked in a hotel room for the rest of your life - no matter how luxurious it was, it would be a nightmare.

[evilsoup]

Depends if the hotel room has internet access :V

THough seriously, I pretty much agree with you there; also, exotic pets, like lizards... it isn't always cruel, there are plenty of owners who take good care of them, but there is also a massive number of people who are simply unable to. I'm not talking about deliberate cruelty (I'm sure that's there, but cruelty is a constant where humans are involved), but just so many people don't have the4 ability to look after lizards and snakes; at least dogs and cats and other mammals have broadly recognisable body language - lizards are so different that you really need special training to look after them.

[wojox]

I would probably be dead.

An intelligent species that values freedom would form an organized resistance. Common pets do not demonstrate that sort of behavior.

You like Perry Farrell Porno for Pyros - Pets (http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=H833o5lnB2E) ?

[Linuxratty]

You might find this interesting on Moscow's street dogs:

For every 300 Muscovites, there's a stray dog wandering the streets of Russia's capital. And according to Andrei Poyarkov, a researcher at the A.N. Severtsov Institute of Ecology and Evolution, the fierce pressure of urban living has driven the dogs to evolve wolf-like traits, increased intelligence, and even the ability to navigate the subway.

Poyarkov has studied the dogs, which number about 35,000, for the last 30 years. Over that time, he observed the stray dog population lose the spotted coats, wagging tails, and friendliness that separate dogs from wolves, while at the same time evolving social structures and behaviors optimized to four ecological niches occupied by what Poyarkov calls guard dogs, scavengers, wild dogs, and beggars.

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/moscows-stray-dogs-evolving-greater-intelligence-wolf-characteristics-and-mastery-subway

[georgelappies]

You might find this interesting on Moscow's street dogs:


http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2010-01/moscows-stray-dogs-evolving-greater-intelligence-wolf-characteristics-and-mastery-subway

Interesting article, seems like a dog eat dog world when left to fend for themselves.

[Paqman]

The same problem would happen in reverse. You'd probably not be able to re-breed the wolf again starting from nothing but chihuahuas, although you could probably get something pretty close.


I suspected as much, hence wondering if you could create a wolf analogue ie: something wolf-like. It does make me wonder which other genomes are as plastic, and which are more fixed, and what is it about the evolution of wolves that led to them having such extraordinary potential?

[Linuxratty]

So true...There have been too many changes to ever go back,at least for the dog. I read somewhere the closest the dog will get to a wild state is a dingo like beastie. I've read cats revert to the wild in five generations.


Carolina Dog
(American Dingo)

The Carolina Dog is a pariah dog. ("Pariah dog" is a general name in India for the half-reclaimed dogs that swarm in every village, owned by no one in particular, but ready to accompany any individual on a hunting expedition.) The Carolina Dog is one of the very few breeds existing today that is truly a primitive dog, a result of natural selection for survival in nature, and not of selective breeding. Wild specimens are still known, so this is not a completely domesticated canine. This dog that has survived as a free living animal in the swamps, savannahs, and forests of South Carolina and Georgia for thousands of years has also proven to be highly adaptable and amenable to domestication, and an excellent pet

http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/caralinadog.htm
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4886995102663898&pid=15.1&H=160&W=117

[Linuxratty]

Interesting article, seems like a dog eat dog world when left to fend for themselves.

Well not totally...Read this. Fascinating! There's also a short video.




Experts studying the dogs say they even work together to make sure they get off at the right stop — after learning to judge the length of time they need to spend on the train.

The mutts choose the quietest carriages at the front and back of the train.




http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2372125/Wild-dogs-that-commute-from-suburbs-to-scavenge-in-city.html

[llanitedave]

I suspected as much, hence wondering if you could create a wolf analogue ie: something wolf-like. It does make me wonder which other genomes are as plastic, and which are more fixed, and what is it about the evolution of wolves that led to them having such extraordinary potential?

If I had to guess, it would be because canids in general are highly mobile, highly social, and ecological generalists. Because they wander so widely, they interbreed freely and live successfully in lots of different environments, so they've been able to accumulate (and redistribute) a lot of genetic diversity over time.

For a non-mammalian analogue, you might look at pigeons. As pesky as they are, they're highly adaptable, mobile, gregarious, and capable of taking on a lot of weird colors, patterns, and forms. That's why breeders like them.

[Paqman]

If I had to guess, it would be because canids in general are highly mobile, highly social, and ecological generalists. Because they wander so widely, they interbreed freely and live successfully in lots of different environments, so they've been able to accumulate (and redistribute) a lot of genetic diversity over time.


Those are attributes you'd use to describe humans, too. Although by all accounts our gene pool has had some pretty tight bottlenecks in it in our recent history. Nontheless we do show at least a limited amount of adaptation to different environments (contrast a Kenyan to an Eskimo), which we're now busily plowing back into the wider gene pool.

[Frogs Hair]

Farrel Dogs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSGJr4W4YE0

[siddharth007]

No its not....unless you are cruel to them ;-)

[hainen]

Those are attributes you'd use to describe humans, too. Although by all accounts our gene pool has had some pretty tight bottlenecks in it in our recent history. Nontheless we do show at least a limited amount of adaptation to different environments (contrast a Kenyan to an Eskimo), which we're now busily plowing back into the wider gene pool.

In contrast to the rest of the primates who is pretty non adaptable.
Maybe humans is unique in that we adapt our environment more than we adapt ourselves. We do not survive in cold environment without shelter on clothes. Wolfs has adapted their bodies to survive booth in tropical and arctic environments, we have not.

[pinballwizard]

Ah yes because evolution is on a scale of centuries (/sarc)

Shame. I said "breeding" not evolution.

But nevermind. Stupid thread is stupid.

[Paqman]

Wolfs has adapted their bodies to survive booth in tropical and arctic environments, we have not.

We have actually. Populations in cold climates are shorter and stockier, those in warm places tend to be taller and skinnier. This optimises the volume to surface area ratio for either retaining or losing heat. Also, the loss of pigmentation in humans as they moved out of sunny Africa was an adaption to the climate. You've also got things like the sickle cell mutation that's a reaction to malaria.

Not big adaptations, granted, but then we've only moved into new environments quite recently.

[stevesy]

Most dogs would be running across continents and looking after their own litters, not running around gardens and fields looking after their plastic toys. Don't you think it's cruel to confine animals to such small living environments?

We're essentially kidnapping them (and often castrating/spaying them) and abusing their natural instinct to seek security in the creature that feeds them, which should (in nature) be their mother or the pack.

How would we feel if an alien race came down, killed all of the humans they deemed threatening, took the weak ones and bred them for their own needs, then much later using their existences as emotional crutches and denying them the freedom to choose outside of an environment they can't comprehend?

I know you're talking about pets here but i'll throw in that I hate zoos. Most look after wild animals well and help protect endangered species but ultimately they're keeping them from their natural environment which in itself is cruel. Plus they're putting them on show for human entertainment, which i find disgusting. Same deal with getting dogs or any other pet to do tricks, or dressing them up in human-style clothing and accessories. I find that disgusting also. Nevermind the physical abuse.. Just because animals aren't human or as intelligent doesn't make them less entitled to enjoy their right to live life in a natural way.

Once you look after a pet by giving it everything it needs/is enititled to, and treat it with dignity and respect i.e. give it the best quality of life possible, then that's cool. Dogs in particular have been tame for a long time now so its natural for them to live around humans. They chose to interact with early human settlements albeit to source food, and the dog-human relationship grew from there. Nothing wrong with that, but humans have really taken advantage of them from that point up until today. Given that thats the case lets make the most of the way things are now.

This is just my personal opinion which some of you may find mad, but I have a dog myself and see him as a life-form who's just as important as me, a human. We're both making our way through life together and its my job to care for/look out for him along the way. I'm certainly not going to make him roll around on the ground or do back-flips to amuse myself or others. How would that benefit him?

[Linuxratty]

Sad to say,for some of them there is very little of their natural environment left as humans have gutted the world for resources.

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

I had a cat that was free to roam the farm land around my house when I didn't live in the city. The cat would find and kill a rat, mouse, or other rodent; then, bring it home. The cat would wait; sometimes hours, until it could show it to me before eating it. The cat seemed to want me to recognize it had accomplished one of the things cats were domesticated to do over thousands of years. If the cat wasn't a domesticated animal it would have just killed and eaten the rodent.

Plants need bees to pollinate and bees need plants for nectar. Is one being cruel to the other?

[evilsoup]

I read somewhere that cats doing that was actually them trying to train you to hunt - mother cats do the same thing with their kittens.

[linuxyogi]

I don't have cats or dogs but I have two aquariums. I am very vigilant about water changes & feeding. I dedicate a lot time in taking care of them.

This is the big one

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQdJ81hb1RI

I have removed all of the small fishes you see in this video. Now the tank holds 3 Oscars & 2 Blood Parrots.

[Irihapeti]

I read somewhere that cats doing that was actually them trying to train you to hunt - mother cats do the same thing with their kittens.

Some friends of mine, who lived on a farm, had a black Labrador and a cat. When the old dog died, they got a golden Labrador pup. The cat decided that the puppy had to be brought up properly, and trained it to bark at birds in trees and kill mice. Details of the latter are a bit gross, and I'd rather not elaborate here.

[ugm6hr]

Modern day domestic pets are species that have had the wild bred out of them over centuries.

This represents cruelty.

The human interest in keeping "purebred" pets has ensured pets have been bred with siblings, parents and children over repeated generations (incest in humans).

This has resulted in many species having incredibly high incidences of genetic cancers etc. Some dogs have been bred to have malformed faces and noses that result in the brachycephalic breeds struggling to breath properly.

Summary: keeping pets is not immediately cruel, though it does support the cruelty of breeding "pedigrees"

[oldsoundguy]

on the tube .. therapy dogs visiting the hospitals in Boston and previously Newtown. Pretty well sums it up!

[Linuxratty]

This has resulted in many species having incredibly high incidences of genetic cancers etc. Some dogs have been bred to have malformed faces and noses that result in the brachycephalic breeds struggling to breath properly.

I agree that breeding to an unrealistic standard is cruel.
You might want to watch this BBC program if you have not seen it:

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/pedigree-dogs-exposed/

[rocketfish201]

I always thought it was strange how humans keep other animals in their homes for their amusemnt.

[upptown]

I don't think there ever was a natural world quite the way the OP seems to imagine it.

Agree!!!!!!!!!! The OP probably believes in the "noble savage" and thinks we'd all be better off if we just went back to the ways of our gentle hunter/gatherer nomadic ancestors. No amount of education to the true nature of our predecessors will change the OP's mindset. Better to just write such irrational people off....or....dump them in the wild (where all our domesticated animals would be so much better off) with a bunch of good old "noble savages" and see how long they cling to their delusions.

[upptown]

Ah yes because evolution is on a scale of centuries (/sarc)

Are you seriously this ignorant? We're not talking natural selection here! "Evolution" of traits and predispositions for behaviors can happen quite fast with selective breeding. Please do us all a favor and go live in that wild environment you're romanticizing. Maybe a few weeks of being a direct participant in "survival of the fittest" will knock you out of the fantasy world you live in.

[deadflowr]

I always thought it was strange how humans keep other animals in their homes for their amusemnt.

I know, roommates and/or siblings can be quite amusing.:lolflag:

[lisati]

I always thought it was strange how humans keep other animals in their homes for their amusemnt.

If my neighbour's cats could speak, they might have a different take on this. :D

[VeeDubb]

So do you think your cat would enjoy freeloading off you eating processed food more than taking care of its own healthy litter in the wild whilst eating tastey raw flesh?

I don't think my cat would be happier at all. Cats are not wild animals. Almost all cats and dogs that are kept as pets are removed from their wild ancestors by hundreds or even thousands of generations. In general, they lack the ability to even subsist on their own. Cats are more likely to be able to survive happy and healthy on their own than dogs, but neither one has particularly good odds in the wild. Many breeds of dogs are so inbred that without constant human intervention they would die from something as simple as being crippled by matted fur.

So, no. Keeping domesticated breeds as pets is not more cruel than letting them all go free. Despite what the evil monsters who run PETA (who euthanize tens of thousands of animals for every animal they save) would tell you, setting all the puppies and kitties free is the cruelest of all possible options.

Keeping fish isn't cruel, because they are so lacking in intelligence that they are incapable of understanding that they're in an aquarium.

Many breeds of small pets can be given as much or more room as what they would have on their own, given the opportunity or breed, play, etc, while being free from the constant threat of predators.

[deadflowr]

In all seriousness though, keeping pets is only cruel for the keeper.
I have to waste all my money,energy and resources feeding and taking care of them.
They live the high life.
I don't think any animal, with any amount of wits to them, would want to live out in the cold desolate wild over living the in the lap of luxury.
Every cat I've ever owned had eventually become an outdoorsy cat, but still came home for the comfort the indoor world provided them.
Every dog I've ever owned got mad when I left them outside, and would proceed to bark like crazy till I let 'em in.
If any animal felt that the life I provided to them was evil in anyway, they have the ability to jump ship at any time.

So I don't think it's cruel to keep pets, more like saintly.

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

Every cat I've ever owned had eventually become an outdoorsy cat, but still came home for the comfort the indoor world provided them.
this is a the grass is always greener in the other side situation
my moms cat was supposed to be an outdoor cat but it kept wanting in and after a couple days she gave in, if you take that cat outside it struggles free and run back inside
my cats constantly beg to get outside

[deadflowr]

this is a the grass is always greener in the other side situation
my moms cat was supposed to be an outdoor cat but it kept wanting in and after a couple days she gave in, if you take that cat outside it struggles free and run back inside
my cats constantly beg to get outside


Probably so, and thinking it over, I'd venture to guess a few of the half-dozen cats I've had never really lived the street life.
I have a sneaking suspicion they would mozy on over to the nice neighbors around me, and just chill their houses.:)

Still though at the end of the day, it was my home they came to.
They always had a chance to flee, but they never did, so...

[pqwoerituytrueiwoq]

cats spend most of there time where they get fed the most

[SifGrey]

I think it depends what kind of animal you are keeping as it has been mentioned before that living with humans or at least where cats are fed is sort of in their nature.
For other (mostly exotic)animals I think it's not as good.

[MasterNetra]

I'd say keeping them as a pet in of itself no. I don't see it as cruel and they tend to live a lot better and longer then in the wild. Obviously this depends on the family they're with, as some people can be really cruel while others very loving. At least this is the case for animals such as Cats & many breeds of dogs. Caged Birds, not so much like finches. Keeping Avians in general as pets is probably not the best for them, unless they have a very large green house or something to fly around in. Even then its probably not the same as being able to fly in the wild.

[CharlesA]

my cats constantly beg to get outside

Sounds like one of my cats. He will howl at the door to be let out. It's gotten to the point where the door is always open when someone is home.

[ciscostudent561]

Jenova, have you considered therapy?

lol. I sometimes wonder about people and really our whole societies deeper relationships with pets. It's pretty sad. Yes a dog is "more loyal" but I think jenova hit it on the head with the whole emotional crutch thing...

[llanitedave]

Caged Birds, not so much like finches. Keeping Avians in general as pets is probably not the best for them, unless they have a very large green house or something to fly around in. Even then its probably not the same as being able to fly in the wild.

Hawks.

[snowpine]

my cats breath smells like cat food

[SifGrey]

That is an astonishing observation!

[GrubThemeArtist]

I haven't read this whole thread, but I read the OP's premise. For me this is all anecdotal evidence, so it doesn't apply universally. Anyways, I don't think it's cruel to keep pets if you give them the freedom you would a dog or cat. Now for me I'm a dog person, and recently I got an 8 week old puppy (who just turned 5 months old today). We've only house trained her, and trained her not to jump on the furniture (but she sleeps in my bed most nights). We don't make her wear a collar unless company is expected or we take her on walks. Also, my brother in law and his father are both veterinarians, so she has 24/7 pet medical access. Which was great when we first got her and she had a case of kennel cough. We were given all the medicine she would need (which would have cost around $300) for free, and she was given daily house calls for the 2 weeks she was sick. At her worst she wouldn't eat or drink water so we bottle fed her water as a baby which she was rather comfortable doing as well as puppy formula so that she didn't suffer from malnutrition during her bout of illness. Because of the proper care we gave her, we minimized the chance of her cough escalating to pneumonia which would be a death sentence to a wild dog. Now that she's older she eats pretty well considering how my father used to be professional chef (but does it as a hobby now). She eats things such as lamb shanks, baby back ribs, and filet mignon, and several other meats from the table (we trim the fat off though, and don't serve her anything with seasonings that would be rough on her). As a puppy she also has a lot of energy, so we also play with her until she feels like stopping, and when we take her out for walks, we don't push her beyond what she wants to do. She gets adequate play in the house as well, and lots of attention. We also will bring her to family houses so she can play with other family dogs (and cats). Family will also bring their pets over to our house.

So no, my dog isn't treated with cruelty.

[ermac76]

Though some animals, such as dogs evolutionarily adapted to live in symbiosis with humans. Besides, we have the right to keep animals as pets. They belong to us.




Vietnam travel (http://www.waytovietnam.com)-Halong bay cruise (http://www.halongluxuryjunk.com)-Halong Valentine cruise (http://www.valentinecruisehalong.com)

[SuperFreak]

Another matter related is it cruel to feed pets animals that have been killed and treated while alive inhumanely as most are that end up as supermarket produce and no doubt dog food.

[Paqman]

Another matter related is it cruel to feed pets animals that have been killed and treated while alive inhumanely as most are that end up as supermarket produce and no doubt dog food.

Carnivores in the wild don't exactly treat their prey "humanely". If you could ask your cat or dog if they cared that their food had been treated well they'd probably laugh at you. Cats in particular are well known for being very cruel to prey species.

Cruelty, violence and suffering abound in the natural world, I don't think it's a safe assumption that a domesticated existence leads to more than there would otherwise be. That's not to say we shouldn't avoid cruelty to the animals under our power, I just don't agree that with the automatic assumption that human = bad, non-human = good.

[SuperFreak]

Nature has no equivilent to massive feedlots, overcrowded living conditions, pens that do not see the light of day etc

[deadflowr]

Nature has no equivilent to massive feedlots, overcrowded living conditions, pens that do not see the light of day etc

You just described ants, termites ,and 5000 other bugs living conditions.

[SuperFreak]

Are ants termites etc sentient beings? Perhaps they are but it is hard for me at any rate to compare the distress that cows, sheep, pigs and other animals (not so very different from man) go through to the life of a termite.

[SuperFreak]

You just described ants, termites ,and 5000 other bugs living conditions.

That does not justify treating large mammals and birds like termites or ants(ie in over crowded, dark, unclean living conditions) . I grant you that there are animals that live in those realms but it is by their evolutionary choice not by force or enslavement(now you will probably point out that insects enslave other insects I'm sure)

[aysiu]

If you give 10,000 ants in an ant colony a 100 acres of land, they are not going to spread themselves out. They're going to stay in their little colony. If you give 10,000 chickens a 100 acres of land, they aren't going to stay packed in a tiny house together so that they can't move, unless someone's forcing them to.

[deadflowr]

I'm not trying to justify mass mistreatment of animals, just pointing out that there are natural equivalents of mass overcrowdings and such.

[SuperFreak]

So I am assuming in this scenario the chickens built the house to their specs and they determined the flock size not the farmer who is breeding them

edit: I guess one would need to ask this- If man did not domesticate and in effect enslave animals to his/her ends then would those animals evolve to a higher state that domestication has impeded

[ikt]

edit: I guess one would need to ask this- If man did not domesticate and in effect enslave animals to his/her ends then would those animals evolve to a higher state that domestication has impeded

As far as I'm aware there's no such thing as a higher state in terms of evolution, there's no end goal of evolution, it's all about adapting to your local environment, "Survival of the fit enough", even though we've reached dominance as a species we're still evolving, for example is a deadly spider which can kill in a second that's untamed and currently has a population of 100 in a better position than 24 billion+ tamed chickens? Survival wise the chickens are in a better position because a local flood could wipe out the spiders but it'd take a major catastrophic global event to wipe out all the chickens, but if you put the chicken and a spider in a cage the spider would win.

[SuperFreak]

As far as I'm aware there's no such thing as a higher state in terms of evolution, there's no end goal of evolution, it's all about adapting to your local environment, "Survival of the fit enough", even though we've reached dominance as a species we're still evolving, for example is a deadly spider which can kill in a second that's untamed and currently has a population of 100 in a better position than 24 billion+ tamed chickens? Survival wise the chickens are in a better position because a local flood could wipe out the spiders but it'd take a major catastrophic global event to wipe out all the chickens, but if you put the chicken and a spider in a cage the spider would win.

I think domesticated life including dogs and cats the OPs original topic have devolved with their association with man and have adapted solely to man's wants not to nature. On the other hand within nature evolution has led to increasing complexity of organism and species. In my view that is a higher state although not necessarily one that will survive new change as well as simpler organisms will.

[Linuxratty]

but if you put the chicken and a spider in a cage the spider would win.
How so? The chicken would eat the spider.

[ankspo71]

Most domesticated animals are not immediately capable of living in the wild so I think giving a domesticated animal a good home is not cruel. Nobody should release a domesticated pet into any wild environment because it would immediately endanger their lives in one way or another. For starters, they would immediately become part of the food chain without a fighting chance to survive. It could also harm the environment believe it or not.

Living conditions at pet shops and shelters are far less than sufficient than the average human home, so I think someone providing a good home to a pet or two is a very positive thing. Some shelters will kill pets if they don't become adopted.

I don't believe in spaying, nuetering, declawing, clipping wings, because I've had surgeries of my own and I wouldn't wish that on any pet, especially if it wasn't required, but that's just my opinion. I don't believe in indoor pets being forced to live outdoors, overcrowding, caging cats or dogs, etc either.

[llanitedave]

Feedlot cattle and chickens can hardly be classified as "pets".

[zach.detton]

I don't think it's cruel at all. I used to live in Oregon and there's a cycle with deer and mountain lions. The deer get over populated and the lions eat well. This eventually causes the mountain lions to become over populated and there aren't enough deer to sustain their population so eventually a lot of them start dying of starvation. After the mountain lion population goes down, the deer population goes back up and the cycle repeats. To to control this the local wildlife services track and tag the deer and mountain lions and figure out how many deer hunting permits should be issued each hunting season. This keeps the deer population steady and that keeps the mountain lion population stead as well. If cats and dogs were in the wild again, they would have to compete with other wid animals and go through the same cycles.

[ikt]

How so? The chicken would eat the spider.

The example was the spider that would instantly kill the chicken, to explain a species may be evolutionarily stronger compared to another species that has more of it, evolution has neither sway here, it is simply a tool for adapting to the surrounding environment.


I think domesticated life including dogs and cats the OPs original topic have devolved

You can't devolve, only evolve, you adapt to your environment, if house cats are evolving to suit their primary environment (houses) then so be it.

[Paqman]

You can't devolve, only evolve, you adapt to your environment

This. If a domesticated animal evolves an adaptation that makes it better suited to it's domesticated environment then that's still progress as far as evolution is concerned. Evolution doesn't go in a particular direction, it's not always adding features. An example might be whales. When their ancestors left the sea they lost their flippers and evolved legs to walk on land, but when they went back to the sea they lost the legs and went back to tails and flippers. Evolution is quite happy to go backwards if the situation or opportunity demands.

[evilsoup]

I don't think that animals being 'cruel' in the wild is any kind of excuse for humans being unnecessarily cruel, which is what factory farming of livestock amounts to. Most people regard humans as having a unique moral ability, something that animals simply don't - probably a result of us forming much more complicated societies than anything else.

[Paqman]

I don't think that animals being 'cruel' in the wild is any kind of excuse for humans being unnecessarily cruel, which is what factory farming of livestock amounts to.

I wasn't intending to suggest it was an excuse. I just wanted to show that the situation wasn't as simple as a binary cruel/not cruel choice.

[Zukaro]

It's not cruel to keep domestic pets. Dogs, cats, etc; they've evolved to NEED humans. Cats are more independent and would likely be okay without humans (and often people with pet cats let them roam around freely anyways), but dogs need people.
If they were still wild then it would be cruel, but they've been bred to need us.

We need them too however; people with pets are generally happier and live longer (from what I've heard), and if that pet is domesticated (bred to live with humans) it'll want to be with us. If it's wild and just trained however, that's a completely different story.

[ermac76]

We should keep animals as pets because some animals like birds, cats and dogs cant survive the wild some house pets havent been traned to hunt and live by them selves and living in the wild can be scary for house pets and could get hurt or mabie die,
So thats why we should keep pets.




Vietnam travel (http://www.waytovietnam.com)-Halong bay cruise (http://www.halongluxuryjunk.com)-Halong Valentine cruise (http://www.valentinecruisehalong.com)

[IWantFroyo]

My little Yorkshire terrier wouldn't make it a day outside.