Happy Atheist Forum

I think animals deserve better treatment from us, but then I think we deserve better treatment from each other.
Do Theists excuse themselves from paying animals respect?  I think a lot of them do.
There is a reluctance from many humans to recognise animal intelligence, birds it turns out aren't so bird brained as we believed.
Personally I don't mind animals being given person-hood status.

QuoteJoin Natasha Mitchell with leading cetacean scientists and an ethicist for a tour of a waterborne 'alien intelligence

QuoteThomas White: Personhood should be distinguished from simply what it is to be a human being. Among philosophers personhood is a concept that we use as a way of trying to keep species bias out of the mix. To be a person is to be a being of a certain sort with a very sophisticated inner life. Among philosophers the standard criteria are not simply awareness of the world but self-awareness, the ability to control one's behaviour and have a sense of uniqueness and individuality, personality, emotions, recognising other personsâ€"and what is most favoured among humans, a very wide range of higher intellectual abilities. To be a person is to be a who, not a what, to be a being of uniqueness, not a commodity, not property. And to be a person is then to be, no matter what your species, to have the kind of consciousness that is normal among humans.

And that the becomes important to me in this whole enquiry because what I've then done is to look at the scientific literature in the last 20/30 years and see that studies of everything from captive dolphins to wild dolphins...we then see virtually all of these abilities reflected in the scientific literature. And not just a kind of superficial literature but a very deep literature that suggests that dolphins have those cognitive abilities and hence should be regarded as non-human persons.

MP3 download  http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/ ... 101225.mp3 (http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2010/12/aim_20101225.mp3)
Streaming audio  http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/pl ... 202010&p=1 (http://www.abc.net.au/cgi-bin/common/player_launch.pl?s=rn/allinthemind&d=rn/allinthemind/audio&r=aim-2010-12-25.ram&w=aim-2010-12-25.asx&t=25%20December%202010&p=1)
Transcript  http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/s ... transcript (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/allinthemind/stories/2010/3081310.htm#transcript)

I think a lot of us already do this with animals that we keep as pets so it shouldn't be too foreign of a concept for most people to think of non-humans as persons (once some thought is given to the matter).

It's probably important to note that human babies don't fit the criteria for personhood till later on in their development yet we still incorporate them into our moral framework.

I actually don't like how we treat dogs, horses and birds, even as pets.
Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.
Horses have a saddle put on them, a dirty cold hard bit shoved between the teeth which gets yanked on according to the direction the rider wants to go and then they are frequently kicked in the ribs.

I can't stand the sight of birds in cages, so sad. Birds should be free to soar the skies.

Cats on the other hand are free animals apart from the castration part. Other than that, they come and go as they choose and are treated rather well.

I don't think it's wrong to put animals on leashes if it's for their own safety...young human children aren't smart enough to not run into the street so they are restrained by hand holding (sometimes leashes too) most dogs aren't smart enough to run into the street so they are restrained as well.

My cats want to go outside, they aren't allowed for their own safety...they will get attacked by loose dogs, stray cats, caught by the pound (outdoor cats are illegal in most areas), or run over by a car; since they aren't able to understand these dangers I decide for them.

I don't think anyone could make an argument for extending personhood to cats or dogs on the basis of their brain function; as cute as they may be and as much as we want to think they understand us when we talk to them...they simply don't have a high degree of self awareness.  They are no more self aware than a small human toddler and the only reason young humans get personhood is because we emotionally extend that status to them.

Quote from: "Stevil"Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.

In exchange for this, they get food, safety, love, comfort, etc.

QuoteHorses have a saddle put on them, a dirty cold hard bit shoved between the teeth which gets yanked on according to the direction the rider wants to go and then they are frequently kicked in the ribs.

Eh, can't really argue here, although they do get food and safety (and possibly love).

QuoteI can't stand the sight of birds in cages, so sad. Birds should be free to soar the skies.

Again, I can't say much here, although I think it's false to assume that freedom means happiness when it comes to happiness.

QuoteCats on the other hand are free animals apart from the castration part. Other than that, they come and go as they choose and are treated rather well.

They are castrated for their (and others') own good.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.

In exchange for this, they get food, safety, love, comfort, etc.

Same can be said for slaves.
Anyway, this is my opinion on how I treat animals. I won' expect others to think the same as me here.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.

In exchange for this, they get food, safety, love, comfort, etc.

Same can be said for slaves.
Anyway, this is my opinion on how I treat animals. I won' expect others to think the same as me here.

I don't think it's fair to make a blanket comparison between pets and slaves.  Not only does it unnecessarily bring an emotional wording into the discussion but it's not even an accurate comparison...humane pet owners, unlike slave owners, don't beat their pets, they don't force their pets to work under harsh conditions until they are about to die etc.

Since this is in the philosophy section, please don't post opinions unless you want to discuss and support them. Thanks.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Stevil"Dogs are locked up all day and when they are allowed out they are held tightly on a leash.

In exchange for this, they get food, safety, love, comfort, etc.

Same can be said for slaves.
Anyway, this is my opinion on how I treat animals. I won' expect others to think the same as me here.

To compare keeping dogs as pets to keeping slaves is deeply ridiculous, and, in my opinion, rather insulting (not to myself, but to others...at least, I would presume).

Dogs in the wild are much different creatures. In captivity they are used for working on the farm or for human entertainment. If they were given the freedoms of cats I wouldn't have an issue. They are very social creatures, I feel it is cruel to lock them up all day in anticipation of the owner coming home from work.
I just looked up teh word "slave" on dictionary.com seems it applies only to people, so I appologise, I thought the term could also apply to animals. Shame we don't have a term that defines animals that have lost their freedoms (maybe simply captivity). I personally don't think taking away an animal's freedom is a display of love.

... but this is how we treat the animals we love, it gets much, much worse for the other animals. People are disgusting with regards to how we treat animals. I don't think it really matters how intelligent they are.  BTW I don't have a problem with people eating animals, just how they are treated.

Most of us who have pets treat them kindly and with affection, and in many cases we treat them better than other people.  As long as you give your pets a good life, there's nothing to be ashamed of.  With regard to animals raised for food and such, they should also be treated kindly, and their deaths should be as quick and painless as possible.  That's about it, as far as I'm concerned.  We should treat people kindly, and animals kindly.  But if you believe, as I do, that morality is not absolute, we need to be aware that not everybody is going to agree on this subject.  For instance, I see dogs and cats as little people in there, and I have empathy for most animals - but many other people don't.

Quote from: "Stevil"But they are slaves, dogs in the wild are much different creatures. In captivity they are slaves for working on the farm or for human entertainment. If they were given the freedoms of cats I wouldn't have an issue. They are very social creatures, I feel it is cruel to lock them up all day in anticipation of the owner coming home from work.

... but this is how we treat the animals we love, it gets much, much worse for the other animals. People are disgusting with regards to how we treat animals. I don't think it really matters how intelligent they are.  BTW I don't have a problem with people eating animals, just how they are treated.

While dogs and other animals are technically "property", so they could be defined as slaves, we don't make them work for us. In many cases, they are treated as members of the family, and given love and attention.

I agree with how we treat non-pet animals, though. Although I do think intelligence matters. I think how self-aware and sentient they are, their capacity for pain and suffering, etc. determine what we can do to them. You wouldn't have any objection to somebody squashing a fly, wouldn't you? Why not?

QuoteMost of us who have pets treat them kindly and with affection, and in many cases we treat them better than other people. As long as you give your pets a good life, there's nothing to be ashamed of. With regard to animals raised for food and such, they should also be treated kindly, and their deaths should be as quick and painless as possible. That's about it, as far as I'm concerned. We should treat people kindly, and animals kindly. But if you believe, as I do, that morality is not absolute, we need to be aware that not everybody is going to agree on this subject. For instance, I see dogs and cats as little people in there, and I have empathy for most animals - but many other people don't.

^This

EDIT:

QuoteI just looked up teh word "slave" on dictionary.com seems it applies only to people, so I appologise, I thought the term could also apply to animals. Shame we don't have a term that defines animals that have lost their freedoms (maybe simply captivity). I personally don't think taking away an animal's freedom is a display of love.

I have no problem with modifying the term "slave" so that it also can apply to animals, though I don't think it works in regards to most pets.

Concerning freedom of animals: what does freedom have to do with anything? Animals don't care if they're free.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You wouldn't have any objection to somebody squashing a fly, wouldn't you? Why not?

Actually, this probably shows that I am too sensitive but, I do cringe when I spay insects with flyspray and notice a day later that it is still squirming on the ground.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"You wouldn't have any objection to somebody squashing a fly, wouldn't you? Why not?

Actually, this probably shows that I am too sensitive but, I do cringe when I spay insects with flyspray and notice a day later that it is still squirming on the ground.

I don't. There's no good reason to. They're bugs. They have literally no value or significance. I realize that I sound really...cynical (is that the right word?) right now, but it's true.

I don´t kill anything unless it´s going to hurt someone or I want to eat it.

Insects included.  
The way you're talking about it rather unsettles me, actually. No animal, including humans, has any real ultimate significance, so should I just go on a murderous rampage? ...and what's this about animals not caring about freedom?

"cynical" is not the right word, by the way.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"I don´t kill anything unless it´s going to hurt someone or I want to eat it.

Good policy.

QuoteInsects included.

I kill insects that annoy me.

QuoteThe way you're talking about it rather unsettles me, actually. No animal, including humans, has any real ultimate significance, so should I just go on a murderous rampage?

You're right. Nothing has significance unless we give it significance. And to me, insects have little to none significance or value.

Quote...and what's this about animals not caring about freedom?

Why would they?

Quote"cynical" is not the right word, by the way.

What would be the right word?

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"There is a reluctance from many humans to recognise animal intelligence, birds it turns out aren't so bird brained as we believed.
Personally I don't mind animals being given person-hood status.

In Australia are there laws against cruelty to non-human animals?  In the USA (or at least in New Jersey) there are.  Break the law and you're looking at a possible fine of up to $1000 and/or a prison term of up to six months, plus you're looking at up to 30 days community service.  Plus there are other miscellaneous fines that could be tacked on.  Here is a link regarding New Jersey cruelty to animals statutes: http://asci.uvm.edu/equine/law/cruelty/nj_cruel.htm

So in New Jersey, non-human animals don't have the same legal status as Homo sapiens but they do have some legal status.  I can't just do anything I want to them, without consequence to myself if caught.  Some would argue that this is a reasonable compromise.  I think it's better than nothing but not as good as it could be.

Bear in mind that I think it's perfectly appropriate to shoot and kill a human being who enters my dwelling uninvited.  I deem it appropriate to do the same to non-human animals, and so I have no problem with exterminating vermin.  That said, my normal habit upon noticing something like a spider in my bedroom is to leave it alone.  Spiders in New Jersey don't attack humans.  They run from humans.  So I'm in no danger from the spider and in fact the spider will eat other insects that wander into my bedroom.  Plus I just like spiders.  But if you told me you kill them on sight in your own dwelling, I would have no problem with that.  Invaders risk death at the hand of the invaded.  So it has always been for millions of years.  So be it now.

As for hunting deer and such, I'm OK with it, because deer populations need to be thinned in some manner, which means something has to kill them, and in many places we've gotten rid of the wolves that used to do so.  It's unnatural for herbivores to exist free of predation.  The result will always be a skyrocketing herbivore population, unbalancing the local ecology, and leading to starvation of even the herbivores themselves.  But that said, I see no reason why hunters can't eat what they kill, or sell the meat to someone who will, and I wish they would do one or the other, as that is the justice I see all around me, in jungle and forest, fresh water and salt.  That is how the game is played.  The hungry get to kill and eat what they can, if they can.  There are all manner of creatures that would eat me if they could, and I don't begrudge them the right to try, though I will fight them tooth and nail if they do.

As for the moron who goes around killing small animals for fun, or capturing and torturing them for fun, my inclination would be to let said moron experience the other end of that transaction.  Unfortunately the law doesn't support me here.  I would welcome the law changing in this regard.  If you aren't going to eat the animal and it hasn't invaded your property or assaulted your body, leave it the hell alone.  Killing for fun, and capturing and torturing for fun, are almost unheard of in the animal kingdom.  Let it be unheard of amongst humans.  If nothing out there has plans to kill me for fun, or capture and torture me for fun, then let me have no plans to do such to it.  In all things, let reciprocity be the rule.  This is common sense justice.      

In none of the foregoing did I base my position on the relative sapience of the animal in question.  This was intentional.  Relative sapience doesn't drive my logic.  Reciprocity does.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"In Australia are there laws against cruelty to non-human animals?

Yes, so far as domestic animals I expect laws are similar.  Animals raised for food particularly pigs and chickens don't get treated well.
Native animals are protected, including snakes and crocodiles.

QuoteIt is illegal to catch and keep, buy, sell, possess or harm great white sharks (or any other
threatened species in NSW) without a specific permit, licence or other appropriate approval,
and significant penalties apply. For vulnerable species these penalties can include fines of up to
$55,000 and up to 1 year in prison.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"As for hunting deer and such, I'm OK with it, because deer populations need to be thinned in some manner, which means something has to kill them, and in many places we've gotten rid of the wolves that used to do so.  It's unnatural for herbivores to exist free of predation.

A lot of effort goes into culling feral animals including dogs, cats, pigs, goats, camels, cane toads, carp, horses, foxes and rabbits.  It is regrettable these animals have to be killed, but they don't belong and do a lot of harm.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"In none of the foregoing did I base my position on the relative sapience of the animal in question.  This was intentional.  Relative sapience doesn't drive my logic.  Reciprocity does.

I don't have a problem with reciprocity as you've described it, but I wouldn't leave things at that.
I believe a good person should cause as little suffering to other beings as reasonably possible.
A high degree of sapience implies an ability to suffer greatly.
Pigs are regarded as quite intelligent, so I think they deserve to be treated better.  

But the intelligence of other animals isn't always obvious, their intelligence being different, it is often overlooked.
This was part of the theme of the linked program in the OP.

I'll add my 2 cents worth here as, so far anyway, I think I 'own' the most critters on the board at the moment.
When it comes to theists vs non theists on the treatment of animals, I've seen extremes to both sides.  Overall I'm leaning toward there being no difference, this is based on my experiences so far as a rescue person, though when it comes to abuse, the critters belonging to theists tend to have to endure it longer before someone like me finds out and steps in.
When it comes to how we as humans treat animals... personally I think we can do better.  I have no problem with killing and eating an animal regularly consumed.  Case in point, Junior probably won't see tomorrow evening.  Even though I hatched him, fed him, kept him safe from predators by locking him in a coop/run, etc.  I know I did right by a chicken.  And I know I'll have a terrific stewed rooster.  Chickens are a domesticated meat source, one I eat almost every day.  That being said I have a hen in my kitchen (she's the reason for Junior's stew pot sentencing) that I'm nursing back to health.  She has one hell of a personality, has figured out how to get me to open her crate so she can chase the cats and is generally pampered even though she only lays 1 egg a week.  All of my chickens are well kept though I do use them for eggs and dinner.
When it comes to dogs, mine have free run of the house and yard when I'm home.  But they have to remain in one room when I'm not here, why?  I have a 90 pounder that has frequent violent seizures that cause her to get stuck in fencing, run through barbed wire and the like.  I keep her safe.  I keep my other 3 safe from assholes who drive by and shoot dogs in the yard, I keep them safe from escaping and running into traffic.  Why is that horrible?  They aren't slaves, they earn their keep though.  I have a guard dog who has on more than one occasion kept me safe from strange people.  I have a tracker and a therapy dog.
I also live in beef cattle country, I've seen ranchers bring a lame heifer to the vet and spend hundreds of dollars to get her walking again instead of auctioning her off straight away to the meat market.  

But I've seen the worst of the spectrum as well.  All my dogs came from bad situations, I have a cat who's face had been burned by some idiot before he came to me.  I have a blind rooster that had been kicked around by it's owners before it came here.  I've seen starved cattle auctioned to the meat packers...........

Though I don't think all animals need legal personage, I do think there needs to be more protection for them and worse punishment for the abusers.

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Pigs are regarded as quite intelligent, so I think they deserve to be treated better.  

This would imply that animals that are less intelligent than pigs deserve worse treatment.

I am assuming you are not meaning that we can go out in the middle of the night and start tipping cows as they sleep for some laughs.
Can you please define what this better treatment might be that the other less intelligent animals won't get.

QuoteCan you please define what this better treatment might be that the other less intelligent animals won't get.

Should the treatment of an ant be given the same concern as the treatment of a pig?

One issue not addressed here is that we have deliberately made many of the animals we interact with what they are. We made them, and thus we are responsible for them. To set them all free would be to kick them out of the environment we designed them for, and cause them untold suffering and death in the wild that they're no longer prepared to deal with.  That would just be wrong.

We're stuck with them for now. So let's take this opportunity to be better caretakers of our creations than any supposed gods are of theirs.

Quote from: "dloubet"Should the treatment of an ant be given the same concern as the treatment of a pig?

There are legitimate parallels.  Driving on the road, if a pig is in my path, I'll try not to hit it.  Walking on a sidewalk, if an ant is in my path, I'll try not to step on it.  If I have pigs in my barn, I'll feed them.  If I have ants in a terrarium, I'll feed them.

As always, common sense governs.  Give me a scenario where common sense invalidates the parallel, and I'll immediately agree that the pig needs special treatment, or maybe the ant needs special treatment.

If I had a pet anteater, I would feed it ants.  If I had a pet lion, I would feed it pork.

Quote from: "dloubet"One issue not addressed here is that we have deliberately made many of the animals we interact with what they are. We made them, and thus we are responsible for them. To set them all free would be to kick them out of the environment we designed them for, and cause them untold suffering and death in the wild that they're no longer prepared to deal with.  That would just be wrong.

We're stuck with them for now.

So rather than simply set them free it could be deemed as our resposibility to prepare them for survival in the free world. To train them and equip them with the life skill to enable them to have a realistic shot of survival. To provide them with an envrionment large enough for them to enjoy life uncontrolled by us.

Quote from: "Inevitable Droid"

Quote from: "dloubet"Should the treatment of an ant be given the same concern as the treatment of a pig?

There are legitimate parallels...  
... If I had a pet lion, I would feed it pork.

Very funny, love it!

Quote from: "Stevil"So rather than simply set them free it could be deemed as our resposibility to prepare them for survival in the free world. To train them and equip them with the life skill to enable them to have a realistic shot of survival. To provide them with an envrionment large enough for them to enjoy life uncontrolled by us.

Realistically if we all decided domestic animals shouldn't be kept we'd have to systematically cause them to become extinct...they will never be fit for the wild because almost all of their defense systems have been bred out of them.  Not to mention that releasing a ton of animals into the wild would throw off existing eco-systems which would cause far more harm than keeping a pet cat in a house.

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Stevil"So rather than simply set them free it could be deemed as our resposibility to prepare them for survival in the free world. To train them and equip them with the life skill to enable them to have a realistic shot of survival. To provide them with an envrionment large enough for them to enjoy life uncontrolled by us.

Realistically if we all decided domestic animals shouldn't be kept we'd have to systematically cause them to become extinct...they will never be fit for the wild because almost all of their defense systems have been bred out of them.  Not to mention that releasing a ton of animals into the wild would throw off existing eco-systems which would cause far more harm than keeping a pet cat in a house.

So humans have done irreversible damage to nature and to species of animals.

Quote from: "Stevil"So humans have done irreversible damage to nature and to species of animals.

Wouldn't be the first time...

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "Whitney"

Quote from: "Stevil"So rather than simply set them free it could be deemed as our resposibility to prepare them for survival in the free world. To train them and equip them with the life skill to enable them to have a realistic shot of survival. To provide them with an envrionment large enough for them to enjoy life uncontrolled by us.

Realistically if we all decided domestic animals shouldn't be kept we'd have to systematically cause them to become extinct...they will never be fit for the wild because almost all of their defense systems have been bred out of them.  Not to mention that releasing a ton of animals into the wild would throw off existing eco-systems which would cause far more harm than keeping a pet cat in a house.

So humans have done irreversible damage to nature and to species of animals.

We are part of nature, and we are a species of animals. Nature and animals have changed nature and animals.

In the process of changing, or "harming", as some would put it, the natural world, maybe we are in the process of creating something more magnificent and beautiful. Just a thought.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "The Magic Pudding"Pigs are regarded as quite intelligent, so I think they deserve to be treated better.  

This would imply that animals that are less intelligent than pigs deserve worse treatment.

I am assuming you are not meaning that we can go out in the middle of the night and start tipping cows as they sleep for some laughs.
Can you please define what this better treatment might be that the other less intelligent animals won't get.

I sometimes paddle past oysters being cultivated in trays, I don't give their welfare much thought because I don't think they are capable of much thought.
Beef cattle grazing seem to have a reasonable life, feed lots may be a different matter.
Dairy cattle have been bred into mutant milk producers, still they make a nice picture grazing on green pasture, the picture of factory farming presented here isn't so pleasing. http://www.peta.org/issues/pages/animal ... oduct.aspx (http://www.peta.org/issues/pages/animals-used-for-food/Cow-s-Milk-A-Cruel-and-Unhealthy-Product/Cow-s-Milk--A-Cruel-and-Unhealthy-Product.aspx)

The golden rule seems to be accepted by most people, but I don't see why it shouldn't be extended to animals.
If a bear eats me I hope it's quick, I don't expect he'll put me in a cage and drain my gall bladder for years.

QuoteThe caretaker told me every morning at eight o'clock liquid is drawn from their gallbladders. Around seven-forty-five, the bears become agitated and have no appetite to eat and they start screaming and crying desperately for help.  http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=90&db=5&C0=1 (http://curezone.com/art/read.asp?ID=90&db=5&C0=1)

I could be wrong, but I don't think ants suffer as much as bears, I regard them as automatons with limited feeling.
It's fairly simple for me, suffering is the currency with which we acquire sustenance and it's expenditure should be minimised.

QuoteLori Marino: Then eventually two things happen; most of them are slaughtered in the most unimaginably cruel manner you can imagine, they're basically hacked to death.

Diana Reiss: So these animals can experience pain and suffering. If you cut them we put a nail on our arm and scraped our arm we would flinch, dolphins will do the same thing. We were watching animals being eviscerated alive and flailing and for many, many minutes, this is a long, lingering death.

I would call this an atrocity, so dolphins can think, I wonder what they think of us?
If we ever do meet ET we may have some explaining to do.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote...and what's this about animals not caring about freedom?

Why would they?

Many animals do not, but humans are not unique in the desire for freedom. Put a tiger in a cage and it will try to get out.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.pictures-of-cats.org%2Fimages%2Ftiger-farms-2.jpg&hash=aaa50169041625b599488ac8c691aaac4d85a252)

Birds gotta fly, fish gotta swim.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote...and what's this about animals not caring about freedom?

Why would they?

Many animals do not. Others have the desire to run about in open spaces, hunt their own food, and own territory.

They can have all of this and more with in a zoo, provided it's high enough quality.

Absolutely.

I wasn't arguing against zoos.

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Absolutely.

I wasn't arguing against zoos.

I wasn't saying that to you, I was saying that to Stevil, who I presume is against zoos.

Quote from: "LegendarySandwich"

Quote from: "Heretical Rants"Absolutely.

I wasn't arguing against zoos.

I wasn't saying that to you, I was saying that to Stevil, who I presume is against zoos.

I feel that animals to a large extent would have been better off if humans hadn't taken control of the world. We have divided up the world and claimed ownership of it and left only small pockets for animals to maintain freedom.

With regards to Zoos, these are better places than someone's living room but are not as good as a nature reserve and are not as good as nature (e.g. forests and oceans etc). When an elephant is taken from its herd in Africa and shipped off to live its life in a zoo this is not as good as remaining with the herd. But of course there maybe special circumstances as to why that animal in particular could not remain with the herd.
Anyway, I am not about to start up a rally against zoos or people who keep dogs in their living room.

Stevil....
Dogs aren't wild animals, they have been domesticated.  Many of your toy/dust mop types couldn't function as a dog outside of the home and would be self eliminating if man weren't involved.  Man bred them to this point and therefore should take responsibility for his actions and care for the mutant creatures he's created.  We can't go back and undo several thousands of years of this either so why be upset against it and try to toss dogs back out into a Non-native habitat? (Native habitats being what we as humans bred them for, evolution had nothing to do with it).
The same thinking goes for all domesticated animals, with the exception of cats, chickens, and a large number of 'domesticated' fowl who can revert inside of a generation, we need to take care of what we created.
Truly wild animals are a different set of issues altogether.  I don't want a tiger or monkey in my house or anyone elses, that to me is cruel, yet here in TX they do it a lot.  Zoos aren't the best for them either but unfortunately these are the only breeding populations of some animals left and since we as humans destroyed whatever habitat they had, we have the responsibility to help bring them back and preserve them.  They aren't locked in little cages for a side show like they used to be, at least here in the states anyway, they get enrichment, have a small territory, are free from poachers and predators, get medical care when needed and are generally in decent health.  Granted it's not their habitat but in many cases there isn't a habitat left for them.  

Seriously, watch a few episodes of Life after People sometime.  It gives a good theory on what happens to our domesticated critters if we were not there to take care of them.

Quote from: "KDbeads"It gives a good theory on what happens to our domesticated critters if we were not there to take care of them.

I haven't seen the show, but understand what you are saying, I'm not suggesting we simply take off the leashes and let our pets run free. All I am saying is that I feel we (the human race) don't treat our loved animals very well. This is the starting point on how we treat animals, the other animals are treated far worse and I don't really want to think about the awefull things we do to them, so it was easier for me to describe the treatment of pets. It is a shame what we have done to the dog species, pretty much destroyed it as an independant species, other than dingos and maybe some others around.

Personally I wouldn't consider "owning" a dog unless I had a huge amount of land for it to roam "freely" around and was able to give it lots of attention. Sitting at home in my lounge or back yard waiting for me to come home from work is not much of a life for a dog. But that is me, my personal choice. If others choose otherwise then that is their business. I am not the dog rights crusader.

Quote from: "Stevil"

Quote from: "KDbeads"It gives a good theory on what happens to our domesticated critters if we were not there to take care of them.

I haven't seen the show, but understand what you are saying, I'm not suggesting we simply take off the leashes and let our pets run free. All I am saying is that I feel we (the human race) don't treat our loved animals very well. This is the starting point on how we treat animals, the other animals are treated far worse and I don't really want to think about the awefull things we do to them, so it was easier for me to describe the treatment of pets. It is a shame what we have done to the dog species, pretty much destroyed it as an independant species, other than dingos and maybe some others around.

Most of the human race has no clue how to treat an animal properly, I most definitely agree.  And there are differing ideas as to how companion animals and domestic feed stock should be treated, which is ok as long as the welfare of the animal is paramount.  We as a species can do better, far better.  Hence why I do rescue, it's my way of helping in what way I can To help those critters who need it and can't do it for themselves.  It's also the reason I'm trying my hardest to become self sufficient when it comes to my food.  One less mindless person buying meat off the shelves that came out of a battery house, feed lot, water farm, etc.  We really should actually teach our children where their food comes from, make them see these places, same for their parents.  I think that would help get more people involved with changing the treatment our food sources.  It's a start, it will in no way fix the problem, but it's a start.