The Wild is No Animal's Paradise
The boundaries of the “wild” are becoming smaller each day. I have traveled all over the world, and the only places I consider truly wild are Antarctica, parts of the Amazon, and some places in Africa. But even in Africa, the “wild” places tend to be in national parks. Our world’s national parks have boundaries, but we need to ask ourselves what happens when animals stray from those boundaries. When animals wander beyond these areas into human territory, their chances of survival greatly diminish. For instance, right now in the western United States the wolf population is growing and wolves are approaching local livestock for their next meal. Since these animals are threatening the ranchers’ livestock, ranchers are faced with a major problem – shoot the wolves to protect the livestock or let the wolves attack their livestock.
Outside of the boundaries of protected wildlife areas, animals face many challenges – traffic/development, hunting, habitat loss, poaching, and so forth. The “wild” is not necessarily such a wonderful place. And anyone who says otherwise is being naïve.
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
After study a number of of the weblog posts on your website now, and I truly like your manner of blogging. I bookmarked it to my bookmark web site checklist and will be checking back soon. Pls try my website online as well and let me know what you think. Nfl Betting precession
Why do we assume that animals want a "paradise" to live in? For thousands of years before the mass demestocation and production of animals, they lived and thrived in their natural habitats. If the wild is a dangerous place for animals to live it is most likely due to human interferance. Predators are a natural occurance and the parrots of the below poster are equipped with their own set of survival instincts. (or were at some point. most likely those parrots were factory breed as pets and have no instincts left.) Foraging all day for food may seem like hell to a human but an animal in the wild does this to care for his or her family much like we humans work all day to support ours. I am not asking for paradise animals; I am simply asking that they be allowed to live their lives as they wish and as they were intended.
What do you know about how they're supposed to live their lives?
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
I know they are not supposed to live in cages and in pens with concrete floors for purposes of entertainment . I think we can assume nature didn't intend for the animals to live this way. I'm also not sure what reading minds has to do with any of this.
Yes and you know nature? You speak to this entity often? You're assuming and you just need to admit and then it'll all be ok. You can't KNOW what animals want unless you can read their minds.
I'm pretty sure (cause this isn't reading minds according to you) cats and dogs wouldn't want to live in the wild and would love to have a family feed and care for them and show them affection. But then again according to you (not mind reading just reading the situation---maybe reading into it too much...but still not mind reading) a house would be a prison and that would just mean us humans are in prisons as well as the animals we keep for our entertainment .
Hope you don't watch movies or TV shows. Can't have you enjoy people for your entertainment.
As for the concrete floors that's an over exaggeration and this isn't about circuses. As for cages that's also a word you're trying to use to induce fear of some sort. That's what kids with crappy parents tell kids that have parents who have rules. You live in a cage. Yeah well their parents love them enough to care what happens to them. Cage isn't anything but a fear word and proves that PeTA and those that agree with them would rather use fear than facts.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
People who think all animals should be "wild and free" obviously have not travelled extensively and seen the wild, as you have. I have three parrots. I have read up a lot on what their life would be like in the wild. Under the best circumstances, they would live in an area (Solomon Islands, New Guinea, or a small part of northern Australia) where there are not enough nest holes for all females. The female would spend a large part of her life in a small hole in a tree caring for babies (so the people who think cages for birds are cruel need to understand that sometimes in the wild they stay in much smaller environments much of their lives) and hiding from predators. The males would spend the whole day out foraging for food to come back to feed the females and babies, if they aren't captured by a predator. But the biggest enemy facing these birds in the wild is man. They are trapped and killed or shot for their beautiful feathers or shot by farmers because they are eating their crops.
I wish all of the people who put so much energy into trying to keep animals out of zoos and people's homes as pets would invest their time and money into helping to keep parks and wildlife refuges available to the few animals in the wild that are in these areas.
How do you feel if u r kept in one room for your whole life.
don't worry for food and other necessary things... that will be given to you...but can you spend whole of your life in one room with a window?
Most people stay in the same city most of their lives. That's the human captive for ya. You can travel. You can go anywhere in the WHOLE world and yet do you? What keeps you from going anywhere any place at any time? Job? Money? Transportation? Family? You're confined just like an animal, except you have to pay for your food and your life, they do not. They should feel sorry for us.
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
...if I were an animal, I would love it. It doesn't make a lot of difference to animals . As long as they get their food , water, shelter, and space, they're happy as clams.
I appreciate the educational value of zoos, but at the same time, I cannot ever agree that instead of a beautiful tapestry stretching across a wall, we should be happy with individually sorted threads in a drawer.
By all means, keep some animals in zoos--but there's no way to introduce a carnivore from captivity to the wild without extensive reeducation that can take years, and our last hope for a species should not live in captivity. It's far better to devote energy to conservation in the first place than to look in an enclosure and say "he's happier in there."
I agree with your point about animals not being able to survive when they 'intrude human territory'. However, it's their nature to hunt for food, it is also the basic needs of living things, so our presence should not deprive them of it.
Livestock is not what other animals have. To the wolves, our livestock is just food. No other animal in the animal kingdom have 'livestock', feeding their prey before killing them. No animal breeds it's prey and claims their prey only for their species, and sell their prey to another animal of the same species. This means that mankind having livestock is already unatural. 'Livestock', if we must have it, should be shared with other animals, because this earth does not belong to humans alone. It belongs to all living creatures on the earth, and humans have no right to deprive the other occupants of the earth from their needs.
I strongly believe that if your point is for animals' good, we should change ourselves first.
Humans are superior to animals in every logical way. They have done so much that no animal could ever accomplish in a million years ( evolution included). There is always a dominate person/animal. ALWAYS and they decide what gets to be done. If you think the animal kingdom is so fair and balanced why are you living in the world humans have created?
People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought which they avoid. - Soren Aabye Kierkegaard (1813-1855)
This argument is irrelevant as it A) assumes that humans ought to act paternalistically therefore zoos are justified (would this argument also extend to humans suffering in Africa, for example? Why not?) and B) that if we adopted a principle of respect for the autonomy of sentient beings those ranchers mentioned would not be prevented from acting with such extreme methods to protect their "animal property" (which should also be justified). Both assumptions are unsound and as yet unjustified.