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.
Do they recognize you? Display affection? Or are they only a curiosity piece?
I have a friend who owned snakes for many years. I think they were called corn snakes? They loved her and her children who are adults now, they were OK with her husband, but they did not like strangers. And they could tell the difference. It was a rare stranger who got to handle the snakes.
If my friend handed a snake over, the snake would do its level best to get away. So yes, they do show affection. And these snakes were handled on a daily basis, multiple times a day, like a cat would sit in your lap.
I have a friend who owned snakes for many years. I think they were called corn snakes? They loved her and her children who are adults now, they were OK with her husband, but they did not like strangers. And they could tell the difference. It was a rare stranger who got to handle the snakes.
If my friend handed a snake over, the snake would do its level best to get away. So yes, they do show affection. And these snakes were handled on a daily basis, multiple times a day, like a cat would sit in your lap.
IMHO it is a disservice to the snakes to attribute this behavior to "love". It wasn't. What it was, was recognition and acceptance of family members. While most snakes have poor eyesight, very limited if any hearing, they do a very sophisticated sense of smell. These pet cornsnakes recognized the distinct scent of "their" people (despite the myriad confusing overlay of scented products that person could have on them on any particular day) and knew from experience they would be safe being handled by them. They rejected the strangers as potential threats.
Sure, but I think there's a happy medium between ALL and NONE. People have to travel with pets sometimes, whether it's for pleasure or something like relocating long-distance. And as someone who's frequently traveled with my dog, and was a renter with dogs/cats for 25+ years, I assure you the pet-friendly places are still outnumbered by those that are not. So if it's really an issue for someone, it should be easy to find a place that doesn't allow them. Are you okay with that?
Asking because I got into this debate on Facebook recently, and some folks didn't seem to care about compromising... they were offended by the thought of ANY hotels or complexes allowing dogs/pets, which is incredibly short-sighted and selfish. Would they rather we give up our pets then?
Of course people need to be able to travel with their pets. It's just that there seems to be more emphasis than there used to be on pet-friendliness in the hotel industry, to the point where it seems more difficult to find pet-free places.
By accident I stayed in a motel recently that had a sign on the front door: "NO PETS." I didn't even know when I made the reservation that such places still existed, so I was pleasantly surprised. At the previous place I mentioned, I wasn't sure if I was staying in a motel or a kennel. I think they shouldn't allow pets to stay in carpeted rooms. They should remain crated while in the rooms and not allowed on beds or furniture, but there's no way to enforce that. So there should be pet-free rooms available where pets are not allowed, like non-smoking rooms. Hotels change sheets and pillowcases between guests, blankets less often, and may only wash bedspreads four times a year.
Were you talking to me? I know all this having lived with several so-called "companion" hookbilled birds. None of them developed the behavioral issues you listed. So much depends on how well you evaluate the bird's (or any other animal really) requirements, how honest you are with yourself about your lifestyle at that particular time, and what you are willing to provide for any animal you decide to bring into your home.
I was agreeing with you and some of the other posters that mentioned how cockatoos make terrible pets. Several years ago I watched a documentary on PBS that showed these pet birds that were loved by their owners but the owners could not give them the required care and time that they needed.
Of course people need to be able to travel with their pets. It's just that there seems to be more emphasis than there used to be on pet-friendliness in the hotel industry, to the point where it seems more difficult to find pet-free places.
By accident I stayed in a motel recently that had a sign on the front door: "NO PETS." I didn't even know when I made the reservation that such places still existed, so I was pleasantly surprised. At the previous place I mentioned, I wasn't sure if I was staying in a motel or a kennel. I think they shouldn't allow pets to stay in carpeted rooms. They should remain crated while in the rooms and not allowed on beds or furniture, but there's no way to enforce that. So there should be pet-free rooms available where pets are not allowed, like non-smoking rooms. Hotels change sheets and pillowcases between guests, blankets less often, and may only wash bedspreads four times a year.
My dogs have never been in crates - and the older one is almost 17, so I'm not about to start that with him now! Nor would I allow a hotel/motel to dictate how I train or care for my pets, aside from expecting (as they should) no excessive barking or pottying in the room. Crating is almost strictly an American thing, and a newer obsession at that. To each their own, but I despise the practice myself.
Otherwise I agree, and basically this is already what hotels do. They have designated "pet-friendly rooms," so you can request NOT to have one of those if they bother you. Can't do much about noise, aside from reporting anything excessive. But in my experiences the human guests make more noise than the dogs. lol
While the topics are essentially equivalent, the categories are not, and only overlap because of the nature of the question. Your post, here in "Pets" has devolved into a TLDR state, so I would not be in favor of a merge. BTW, jgbusa, your original article links were pretty good. I especially like the Guardian article, although both do suffer from a general press sort of light overview of the topic - along with some inaccuracies that are inherent to such overview coverage. There is depth and meaning in details that are missing or slighted.
OTOH, I will link my post there, as the same text is applicable here, but before I do, some thoughts specific to THIS thread:
Birds. Any of the parrot family or relations, including cockatiels, which are the basis of my experience, are WAY more intelligent and social than most people realize. Because of this, they are often in homes where they don't live particularly good lives, in spite of having adequate food, water, etc. They also live a very long time - especially the larger parrots. The larger parrots can live as long as a human life span. That makes the ethics of keeping them as pets difficult, in my mind.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hiero2
No dog in existence is undomesticated. "Domesticated" is something that happens to species, not individuals. An individual can "go wild" - which would be called feral. They can live, even in groups and large numbers. independently choosing whom to breed with - and they are called village dogs or aboriginal dogs. But a dog is never truly wild. Wild is what wolves and coyotes are. Even when they have been tamed , meaning they have been accustomed to living with people, this is something that happens only to an individual. It is not passed down to the next generation. Dogs, on the other hand, even when feral or seemingly wild, will pass on to their children the basic propensity to live with humans. Since a dog can't be "undomesticated" your last question is a different topic, and I won't cover it at this moment.
So, why do some people consider owning pets unethical? Because the animal is in captivity, even if the jail is pleasant. Some people feel this is immoral (or unethical) simply because of the fact of one species holding another captive. AFIAC, this is like the Jainist view that it is immoral to kill any living creature, even an ant. In other words, more than a bit extreme.
There is, however, another, more recent school of thought, as to why keeping pets, and dogs in particular, is immoral or unethical. For dogs, especially those who have working backgrounds, have been selectively bred by humans for generation upon generation - literally thousands of years - to behave in certain ways. These working traits are hard-coded in a dog's behavior. It's why people say some breeds of dogs "need a job". Any herding breed (almost, but the exceptions are few) is in this category. Livestock guardian breeds are in lthis category. We, mankind, have coded the behavior of these dogs so that they can not CHOOSE to act differently. They are as driven to perform their jobs as they are to eat. It is a basic part of who they are as individuals. Many, including myself, believe it is immoral and unethical to keep such dogs as simple pets. And that is because, when they are JUST a pet, their whole life is one long frustration, and WE, as mankind, are responsible for that. We created what these dogs are. To give them a life without giving them some outlet for their most basic drives is inhumane.
But most dogs in the world do NOT fall in that category. While I believe that dogs self-domesticated some eons ago, it doesn't really matter whether they self-domesticated or not. Dogs have evolved to live in the margins of mankind's societies. If mankind disappeared, dogs as we know them would shortly follow. Dogs have actually evolved to live WITH people. Because of this, most dogs make fine companion animals. The practice of raising and breeding dogs who were especially adapted to being companion animals is also thousands of years old. The specialization of dogs began in pre-historical times. Some were kept as hunters, some were shepherds' dogs, and some were companion animals. That is history.
So, therefore, as far as I'm concerned, what is immoral, or inhumane, is keeping working dog breeds as ordinary pets. I could spread that umbrella farther, to include any animal kept as a pet. Whatever we keep as a companion animal should have consideration given to that animal's basic drives and desires.
My $0.02.
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.
Solly says — Be nice!
