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.
You seem to focus on the characteristics of the animal. Of course a horse is less likely to be aggressive and attack humans. They never were a predatory animal and are not carnivorous for crying out loud. Lions and tigers are naturally aggressive and are carnivorous and therefore are prone to attacking humans. You obviously are completely missing the point I am trying to make. I know that lions and tigers are aggressive and need to be separated from humans. What I am trying to point out is that people, including yourself obviously, make a distinction between what you consider a "domesticated" animal and any other animal. Since it is considered "domesticated" in Western society it is acceptable to confine the animal even if it is in an environment entirely inadequate such as a full size dog living in your house. Do your realize that large dogs living inside a house have a much shorter life span than those who are kept outside with adequate space for their natural living habitat? They can't get enough exercise in the confinement and usually have a life span of about 2/3 of those who have adequate habitat.
This all started over the elephants. Elephants have been "domesticated" for hundreds if not thousands of years. They have been used in their native regions as a means of transportation just as horses are here, they have been used for work just as horses are here etc. Guess what, people even train horses to do stupid tricks. Ever heard of a Tennessee walking horse for instance? Why is it not acceptable to train one animal to do tricks but it is acceptable to train one YOU consider has been bred to be domesticated? You just can't get your head wrapped around it because they are not native here.
I'm not confused in any fashion. I fully realize the difference between a domesticated animal and a wild animal. What you seem to be confused about is why the particular animals have been "domesticated." Its simply because they naturally exhibit traits that are compatible with coexistence with humans. For instance, would you consider dolphins to be "domesticated?" Obvious answer is no because you can't keep one in your home or in a barn in your back yard. However they exhibit natural traits that allow them to coexist with humans. You can jump in the ocean and swim with them and they will not harm you. You could build a habitat for them in your backyard, get a dolphin from the ocean and swim with it all you want and enjoy it. Now would you do the same with a shark, even if it had been bred for generations with exposure and training from humans? No not unless you are an absolute idiot because they are aggressive carnivorous animals that do not exhibit the traits necessary. Sort of like a lion or tiger don't you think? lol
I honestly couldn't care less if they keep elephants in a shipping container. I'm not an animal lover or nut. It just always amazes me how people who are self proclaimed "animal lovers" and want to make a big deal over a circus having some elephants and tigers that they confine but yet they have animals confined in habitats that are not acceptable for their size and natural habitation. I usually find that the ones that make the biggest noise over this are the very ones with Labs and German Shepherd living inside their home or they have 4 horses living in 3 acres behind their house that have ran a rut around the fence line trying to find a place to get out so they can actually run and get a little exercise as they love to do. Have you ever wondered why the dog in the house chews great big chunks out of the back door or the dog in the small back yard tried to dig holes under the fence? Its because they are trying to break free from their confinement. There is a certain percentage of people that just aren't going to accept it because in their mind it is acceptable since they consider it a domesticated animal but there are quite a few that are going to read this thread and say "hey, you know I never really thought about that."
If you honestly can't understand the difference between animals that exhibit natural traits that allow them to be domesticated and those which don't, I'm not sure what else to tell you either.
I fully realize the difference between a domesticated animal and a wild animal. What you seem to be confused about is why the particular animals have been "domesticated." Its simply because they naturally exhibit traits that are compatible with coexistence with humans. ...Now would you do the same with a shark, even if it had been bred for generations with exposure and training from humans? No not unless you are an absolute idiot because they are aggressive carnivorous animals that do not exhibit the traits necessary. Sort of like a lion or tiger don't you think?
Actually, I think Mr. Dickens may not understand the difference, which, as ZennJenn suggests, is due to changes in genome sequence brought about by generations of selective breeding. Sharks are probably not such a great example to compare with dolphins since they diverged from a common ancestor more than a hundred million years ago. But how about "naturally tame dogs" and aggressive foxes? Have a look at Fox Domestication to see how domesticated characteristics can evolve over 10 - 20 generations of artificial selection. Could one selectively breed lions or tigers to be domesticated? Probably, given that lions and tigers are about the same evolutionary distance from domestic cats as are dogs from foxes. Now there's a project for Mr. Ringlimg, oops, Ringling.
Getting back to the hijacked topic, what does this mean in terms of enjoying the circus? Perhaps we should encourage enterprises that emphasize an appreciation of animals in their natural environments, and when we want to see "tricks", look to the complexity exhibited by human performers. Has anyone seen Cirque du Soleil? Now there's a nice example of the power of nuture over nature.
Okay, since the foxes in that example have been domesticated through genetic selection, is it now acceptable to confine them in an environment which is too small? I guess so since it is acceptable for other "domesticated" animals. That is the point I was trying to make from the beginning but somehow it turned into this debate over which animals are domesticated and which are not. I couldn't care less if they are domesticated or not, I just find it amusing how people find it acceptable to confine "domesticated" animals but go on such a rant about those that are not considered domesticated. So by your reasoning, if we domesticate the lions and tigers, it would then be acceptable to confine them in the small cages and haul them around for the circus.
I guess the Ringling Brothers need to get busy with a geneticist and start modifying the aggressive genomes so American society will get off their back about the confinement of animals. lol I just always find it interesting to hear people's rationality for why it is acceptable for one but not the other and this discussion has went as it always does when you point out the absurdity of the argument. As I said earlier, there is a certain percentage that just aren't going to get the picture.
I have seen Cirque du Soleil and some of the performances are absolutely astounding. Throw a tiger in there and it would be absolutely unbelievable. lol, just kidding
Well, I probably wouldn't patron a circus that kept dogs in kennels 24/7 except for showtimes either, if I were aware of it. But, it is not NECESSARY to keep dogs or horses so confined on the road - if the circus chooses to run its operation humanely, dog and horses - because they are domesticated, have ample opportunity to receive the exercise and such that they need no matter where they travel, should the handlers choose to provide it. And the because certain traits have been bred into these domesticated animals, the time they do spent confined is likely to be better-tolerated.
But because we are talking about large, wild animals, the logistics make it impossible for the handlers to provide similar opportunities for exercise and well-being of these animals, even if they wanted to.
Many cities have local laws that prohibit these shows within city limits for all the reasons I've discussed. I'd be supportive if Huntsville did likewise.
Cirque du Soleil is fabulous, and a better quality show anyways, IMO!
I completely agree that it is not acceptable to confine animals in habitations which do not fit their needs. In this I include anything from the elephants being confined in small areas, all the way down to those who keep full size bull dogs and lab's inside their home. I'm not an animal lover or nut by any stretch of the imagination, I just find it interesting how some people think it is acceptable to imprison certain animals because they consider them "domesticated."
I *WISH* my lab thought being in the house was prison! She whines whenever she's outside to come in. Keeping a dog inside is far from imprisonment IMO, b/c she'd rather be around me than other dogs.
the zoo though was the most depressing place ive ever gone to. will never go to one again.
What zoo did you go to? Some zoos are horrible, others do a fair good job of recreating natural habitats suitable to the animals' needs. The AZA does a fairly good job with its accreditation.
I personally feel comfortable with a zoo when I see what appear to be empty exhibits! The habitats not only are created to reproduce what they would have access to in the wild, but also provide hideaways and "off-stage" places for the animals to retreat if they tire of exposure to humans or are fatigued by the elements.
The best zoos do excellent with with education and conservation. Some of these zoos are the only places left to preserve specimens of extinct-in-the-wild species, and some run breeding programs to breed endangered specimens and return them to the wild - for example, recovery programs at AZA zoos in California has worked California Condor breeding programs with the goal of restoring them to the wild.
I think the truth is, some animals do well in captivity, and others less so. Even though I only go to AZA accredited zoos, some gorilla habitats leave me with mixed feelings. At the Birmingham Zoo, for example, by my measure a decent zoo, but I am not convinced their gorilla habitat is suitable for that particular animal. I've also seen it done *right* at other zoos, such as the San Diego zoo. I think I recall reading about a species of lemur that lives on one tree branch its entire life - I'm sure THAT animal does just fine in captivity.
There are lots of gray areas on this topic, IMO, but for me the circus is no gray area.
Seems like some of you guys think they go out into the wilds & catch wild lions, tigers & elephants for these shows. The truth is that they are born in captivity & likely have been born n captivity for generations, thats the reason many have given to say its ok for horses, dogs & cats right? If you put a horse in a tiny trailer to go riding for YOUR enjoyment its exactly the same as doing it to an elephant that has always lived that way, if you put your cat or dog in a tiny cage to transport them around its exacty the same as doing it to a lion or tiger. The only difference is in the mind of humans. The hypocracy involved in saying its ok for me to have a horse, dog or cat in a box or cage because thats the way its been for generations but its not ok for someone else to do it with other animals is downright amusing.
I *WISH* my lab thought being in the house was prison! She whines whenever she's outside to come in. Keeping a dog inside is far from imprisonment IMO, b/c she'd rather be around me than other dogs.
Yep, there is a difference in dogs. Our two labs are house dogs.
This fall hubby wanted a hunting dog.
We bought a Treeing Walker Coonhound. This dog is very different.
I would love for him to come in the house. The last time I tried he almost jumped though the picture window.
He loves to run and eat. That is his life and we will never change it.
All animals are naturally wild animals. At one time, they lived in their natural habitat; wherever that might have been. They are only "domesticated" because people chose to capture and domesticate them.
As for saying they are "domesticated" not "tamed" as I had stated, here is the definition of domestication:
Domestication (from Latin domesticus) or taming is the process whereby a population of animals or plants, through a process of selection, becomes accustomed to human provision and control
As you can clearly see, domestication and taming mean the same thing.
Please help me understand how it is okay for horses but not for elephants.
You don't know a whole lot about horses, do you?
I have horses. They do not have to be confined. I can let them out to pasture and they unfailingly return to the barn (actually, horses are famous for that - If you're ever riding in a blizzard and get lost, all the old cowboys swear by just letting go of the reins. The horse will go home, with no help from you)
Oddly enough, my dog is the same. She will wander, but never fails to show up on the doorstep again. It's as if she likes being at home.
And, by the way - don't quote verbatim from a wikipedia article if you're not going to read it all. It contradicts your point about halfway down, where it gives these classifications:
Wild: These populations experience their full life cycles without deliberate human intervention.
Raised in Captivity/Captured from Wild: These populations are nurtured by humans but (except in zoos) not normally bred under human control. They remain as a group essentially indistinguishable in appearance or behaviour from their wild counterparts.
Raised commercially (captive or semidomesticated): These populations are ranched or farmed in large numbers for food, commodities, or the pet trade, commonly breed in captivity, but as a group are not substantially altered in appearance or behavior from their wild cousins.
Domesticated: These populations are bred and raised under human control for many generations and are substantially altered as a group in appearance or behaviour.
So, you'll never find a wild daschhund. They don't exist. They are the very definition of domesticated. And you've never seen wild mutts, either. You've seen feral mutts, since we're splitting hairs.
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.
