Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most dogs are visibly happy around people. Does an unleashed Golden Retriever, with its tongue dangling 3" out of its mouth, happily run towards a beachcomber without food to offer, merely to get a head scratch and perhaps a ball toss, if that's not what it wants? We are its pack!
Granted, cats are a bit harder to understand, and the keeping of exotics like chimps is downright heartless.
Feral cats have short brutal lives. I definitely say NO! I love my 2 dogs dearly. They bring me so much joy and have great lives. At one point we bought a used motor home so we could take our 4 dogs on vacation with us. Being retired we would go for a month at a time. Now being older and alone having lost 7 friends from cancer they are more important than ever.
Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing to periodically question our motivations for some of the things we do during our lives, including keeping an animal as a dependent. Challenging ourselves to think outside some comfortable little box can do one of two things: catalyze a change that may need to be made, or strengthen our resolve or sense of ethics, morals, right, or wrong. Know thyself. Know thyself better is even better. IMHO, people who really are secure in themselves are not insulted or threatened by some odd or opposing view. They consider and incorporate those views and learn valuable lessons from them.
FWIW, I've kept quite a few "exotic" creatures over my lifetime. Most of them fell into my lap from other unfortunate circumstances (rescued from the clueless, taken over from another person who could no longer keep it), others were carefully planned acquisitions. There are non-traditional pets that have pretty simple needs and can be easily provided a decent quality of life and others that never can. Some are more obvious than others. A primate is a blatantly obvious one. A nocturnal burrow-hunting python is not. By the time any of my animals ended up within my purview it was impossible to return it to the wild, so someone would have to care for it. Do I or did I ever question myself about the ethics of taking on those responsibilities? You BET I do! My views on keeping this or that creature as a pet evolves over time. As an animal keeper I am a work in progress just like everyone else and am not afraid to admit it.
Personally, I don't think it's a bad thing to periodically question our motivations for some of the things we do during our lives, including keeping an animal as a dependent. Challenging ourselves to think outside some comfortable little box can do one of two things: catalyze a change that may need to be made, or strengthen our resolve or sense of ethics, morals, right, or wrong. Know thyself. Know thyself better is even better. IMHO, people who really are secure in themselves are not insulted or threatened by some odd or opposing view. They consider and incorporate those views and learn valuable lessons from them.
FWIW, I've kept quite a few "exotic" creatures over my lifetime. Most of them fell into my lap from other unfortunate circumstances (rescued from the clueless, taken over from another person who could no longer keep it), others were carefully planned acquisitions. There are non-traditional pets that have pretty simple needs and can be easily provided a decent quality of life and others that never can. Some are more obvious than others. A primate is a blatantly obvious one. A nocturnal burrow-hunting python is not. By the time any of my animals ended up within my purview it was impossible to return it to the wild, so someone would have to care for it. Do I or did I ever question myself about the ethics of taking on those responsibilities? You BET I do! My views on keeping this or that creature as a pet evolves over time. As an animal keeper I am a work in progress just like everyone else and am not afraid to admit it.
Re the bolded, that you can or cannot keep safely and provide a good quality of life?
Re the bolded, that you can or cannot keep safely and provide a good quality of life?
Cannot. Unless you maintain a troop that accommodates the primate's social requirements and all the mental and emotional stimulation such a complex, intelligent creature demands, a primate makes a horrible, miserable pet. They are not substitutes for human children or something to provide entertainment when their owners are bored.
Cannot. Unless you maintain a troop that accommodates the primate's social requirements and all the mental and emotional stimulation such a complex, intelligent creature demands, a primate makes a horrible, miserable pet. They are not substitutes for human children or something to provide entertainment when their owners are bored.
I was hoping that was your thought. When you contrasted it to obviously unsuitable pythons I wasn't sure.
I totally agree that many animals aren’t suitable pets and need to be in the wild unless unable because of injury, etc. Then a zoo or sanctuary is needed. Dogs and cats are no longer able to adequately care for themselves.
Dogs and cats are no longer able to adequately care for themselves.
The free ranging feral cats and dogs existing around the world would prove you wrong. Sure, they succumb to injuries and diseases sooner and more often than "kept" dogs and cats, but that is also true of wildlife.
I was hoping that was your thought. When you contrasted it to obviously unsuitable pythons I wasn't sure.
Phew.
There are suitable and unsuitable pythons too. Most of them are not child-eating behemoths. Many snakes are quite easy to cater to in captivity. They are not very active, don't demand much space, are solitary for the vast majority of their lives, don't think much beyond the present moment and are pretty contented with proper temperatures, light (or lack of light), clean water, a snug place to hide, food at the right intervals (they don't even need to kill it. Humane keepers teach them to accept prey that is already dead), and to not be bothered by household humans.
Last edited by Parnassia; 08-21-2022 at 04:13 PM..
The free ranging feral cats and dogs existing around the world would prove you wrong. Sure, they succumb to injuries and diseases sooner and more often than "kept" dogs and cats, but that is also true of wildlife.
I agree that cats and dogs can and do survive on their own out on the streets. In NYC, there used to be a huge problem with packs of feral dogs roaming around. Per 1972, there were an estimated 100,000 of them on the streets of Brooklyn alone: https://www.nytimes.com/1972/11/12/a...t%20a%20threat.
I remember having to deal with these feral dogs when walking through parts of East New York and Brownsville in the 1990s. Most left you alone, but some could be pretty aggressive. I definitely don't want a return to that!
I also saw many feral dogs on the streets of India when I visited in 2010. But, unlike the feral dog packs I encountered in Brooklyn growing up, the Indian dogs were more solitary and not as big as the breeds in Brooklyn generally.
More recently, I've encountered some on Guam and they always made me uncomfortable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
