Which mammal species are suitable to be kept as pet?

[Fraggle Rocker]

I don't walk family members on a leash. I don't make family members stay off the couch.

Of course you do, if you have children! Leashes for children are a bit out of vogue in the current era, but in my seven decades I've seen them come back into vogue a couple of times. And I guarantee that there are quite a few places in your home that are off-limits to your kids, to the point of being locked if necessary. Do you let them walk out the front gate and explore the streets, sidewalks and neighbors' houses? I'll bet that your thermostat and the telephones are too high for them to reach, and you hide the TV remote control!

And wait until your parents start to go downhill, and have to come live with you because you can't afford the fees at a facility. You may have to put deadbolts on your doors and windows, lock them out of the kitchen and laundry, and put child-proof gizmos on the thermostat, and every other electronic appliance.

How do dogs get "lost" if not because they take a chance at freedom?

As I explained in another discussion, one of the many traits that dogs evolved in the long transition that resulted in becoming a new subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus familiaris, is a greatly subdued alpha instinct. (Others include a smaller brain that does not need the protein of an all-meat diet, and several kinds of neoteny that endear them to us as they grow older but still behave like puppies.)

In other words, dogs have a much subdued instinct for roaming. There are many places in the world where fences are uncommon, and every dog goes back to his own home every night. If you come across a homeless dog, give him some food, take him to your house and treat him like family, odds are that he'll stick with you.

By your logic, you could leave the front door open and the dog would never go outside without your permission; you could leave the gate open. You could walk your dog without a leash and it would walk obediently beside you, ignoring all other stimuli because it "loves" you.

Like many social species, dogs exhibit behavior that can easily be described as "love." And in places that don't have the draconian animal laws of urban America, people really do take their dogs walking without leashes, and they don't run away.

We observe the fact that dogs behave the same way in captivity as humans do.

When we use the word "captivity" for humans, it means something like prison or a mental hospital. I doubt that this is what you meant.

Perhaps you are just referring to the rules of civilization. However, long before the first cities were built at the end of the Neolithic Era, people lived in groups ranging from a few dozen to more than a hundred, depending on the local food supply. They were free to leave, and of course there have always been wanderers who get restless staying in one place. But the vast majority of them were quite happy to live in what was, essentially, a gigantic extended family.

The same is, essentially, true today. There are plenty of people who get restless and have to find an exciting new place to live every few years. But most of us much prefer putting down roots. We have an instinct to establish a home. And our dogs are delighted to share it with us.

 

[johnmusic]

I feel like an animal and my home is my cage. I can walk out of my cage whenever i feel like it but I have to return if i want shelter. Wealthy people get to change the cage and have bigger cages with swimming pools but that is not important to me. Maybe it would be if i had the option i do not know. And have a nice day science forum people.

 

[sideshowbob]

And I guarantee that there are quite a few places in your home that are off-limits to your kids, to the point of being locked if necessary.

It goes both ways. Their bikes are locked and I have no access.

Do you let them walk out the front gate and explore the streets, sidewalks and neighbors' houses?

Of course. And the neighbours control my access the same way they control the children's.

There are many places in the world where fences are uncommon, and every dog goes back to his own home every night.

And if that was the practice here, in our society, I wouldn't have said anything.

When we use the word "captivity" for humans, it means something like prison or a mental hospital. I doubt that this is what you meant.

That's exactly what I meant.

Perhaps you are just referring to the rules of civilization.

No. I meant rules that are applied differently to different "members".

 

[DaveC426913]

[QOUTE]When we use the word "captivity" for humans, it means something like prison or a mental hospital. [/QOUTE]
That's exactly what I meant.

Yes. And you're using it inappropriately.

Pets are willing, subordinate members of their pack/family. You cannot alter the word captivity to suit your moral position.

 

[sideshowbob]

Pets are willing, subordinate members of their pack/family. You cannot alter the word captivity to suit your moral position.

You're talking about an idealized situation with wonderful, responsible pet owners. I'm talking about the rest of them. The word "captivity" is entirely appropriate for many pets. You should stop denying that.

 

[DaveC426913]

You have flip-flopped. (actually, it's the No True Scotsman fallacy)

Your initial assertion was your concern over how your pets would feel (presumably you include any pets):

What I do to them matters.

So, so we've gone from
"I don't want a pet because I know pets generally feel like they're in captivity."
to
"No, I'm really talking about the owners that abuse their pets."

(Did you just intimate that you are at-risk for pet abuse?)

You're talking about an idealized situation with wonderful, responsible pet owners.

I'm talking about the general case. There are millions of happy pets living with law-abiding owners.

I'm talking about the rest of them [that aren't idealized wonderful, responsible pet owners]. The word "captivity" is entirely appropriate for many pets.

Well, that's new.

Perhaps that could have been the case you made, and we could have discussed that.

You should stop denying that.

How is it possible for me to "deny" an assertion you have not made yet?

Alas, we can't reverse time. All we can do is move the goalposts and start over.

Did you want to discuss abusive owners specifically?

 

[sideshowbob]

So, so we've gone from
"I don't want a pet because I know pets generally feel like they're in captivity."
to
"No, I'm really talking about the owners that abuse their pets."

No. I'm still at, "Generally, pets are treated like they're in captivity."

There are some perfect lah-dee-dah families, like the only ones you recognize. And there are some abusive families. And there are a lot of families in between where pets are treated like second-class members of the family.

How is it possible for me to "deny" an assertion you have not made yet?

Have you not denied that there are any dogs who are treated like captives? If you agree that some dogs are treated like I have been saying all along, then you can stop disagreeing with me.

 

[DaveC426913]

No. I'm still at, "Generally, pets are treated like they're in captivity."

Would you treat pets like they're in captivity?

 

[billvon]

No. I'm still at, "Generally, pets are treated like they're in captivity."

There are some perfect lah-dee-dah families, like the only ones you recognize. And there are some abusive families. And there are a lot of families in between where pets are treated like second-class members of the family.

Agreed. And there are some parents who treat certain children as second-class members of the family. In neither case are they treated "like they're in captivity."

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

It goes both ways. Their bikes are locked and I have no access.

So you regard your inability to ride your kid's bike to work, when your car won't start and every taxi company you call has a 45-minute backlog (an event that surely will not occur more than once or twice in your lifetime), as equivalent to locking the children out of your computer, a large number of TV channels that your service provides, your power tools and the medicine cabinet?

Of course. And the neighbours control my access the same way they control the children's.

How fortunate that you can afford to live in a neighborhood that resembles "The Waltons." Most people are forced by economics to live in less perfect locations.

You're talking about an idealized situation with wonderful, responsible pet owners. I'm talking about the rest of them. The word "captivity" is entirely appropriate for many pets. You should stop denying that.

If you want to grumble about the way Americans treat their human and non-human family members, you'll find that it's quite a spectrum.

Just in the last 20 years, I've lived in a crowded city neighborhood, a private home in which the rooms had been turned into rental units, a townhouse, and a large house on a large lot with just the two of us living here with our dog and cat. (Your writing has a few British telltales, so I'll note that what we call "townhouses" seem to be called "row houses" in the U.K.) In the city, pets were rare, and most people seemed to have cats because they can be kept safe indoors. But in the other places, fences were nearly ubiquitous, and I never saw a dog running loose.

My dog is people-oriented. I can take him out into the yard without a leash, and he's never more than about five feet (roughly one meter) from me.

We keep our cat in the house so he won't meet the family of foxes who live nearby. And in the USA, there's a tremendous movement to not allow cats to roam free, because they kill something like one billion birds every year. The "bell on the collar" strategy simply doesn't work, no matter how cleverly you design it.

 

[sideshowbob]

Would you treat pets like they're in captivity?

Are you being evasive? The point is that some people do.

 

[sideshowbob]

And there are some parents who treat certain children as second-class members of the family. In neither case are they treated "like they're in captivity."

If parents are locking their children in the house - or in a kennel - while they go to work, they damn well are keeping them in captivity.

 

[sideshowbob]

If you want to grumble about the way Americans treat their human and non-human family members, you'll find that it's quite a spectrum.

I'm the one who's saying it's a spectrum. I'm pointing out that it isn't all The Waltons for pets.

 

[billvon]

If parents are locking their children in the house - or in a kennel - while they go to work, they damn well are keeping them in captivity.

In that case a lot of parents are keeping their kids in captivity. Our kids were regularly kept in captivity at preschool; they were not allowed to leave, and indeed the gates in the back of the school were kept locked.

O the humanity.

 

[sideshowbob]

In that case a lot of parents are keeping their kids in captivity.

It's interesting how you guys respond to one part of a sentence and ignore the rest. Are you saying that a lot of parents are keeping their kids in kennels? And are you saying that that's okay?

 

[billvon]

Are you saying that a lot of parents are keeping their kids in kennels? And are you saying that that's okay?

Nope. Try a different intentional misunderstanding.

 

[DaveC426913]

Are you being evasive? The point is that some people do.

I'm not being evasive. You've tried to moved your goalposts. I'm holding up the initial assertion for view.

You said you wouldn't want pets because of what you do them. (post #5)
Then you argued for a dozen posts or so that they feel like they're in captivity.
Then you said I didn't mean all pets, just the ones that people treat badly.

So, I'm asking how your new stance "some people treat pets badly" reflects upon your initial assertion: what you do to pets.

Do you treat pets like they're in captivity?

If not, the question still stands: why would you object to having a pet?

 

[DaveC426913]

It's interesting how you guys respond to one part of a sentence and ignore the rest.

You see the irony in that, yes? You did the exact same thing.

Are you saying that a lot of parents are keeping their kids in kennels? And are you saying that that's okay?

He is saying that your assertion is so broad as to lose its meaning.

You said:

If parents are locking their children in the house - or in a kennel - while they go to work, they damn well are keeping them in captivity.

You equated locking their children somewhere wihle they go to work with captivity.
Billvon pointed out that we do lock our children away, in daycare. A perfectly acceptable form of sequestration for children.

Which means your definition of captivity is so broad that it includes perfectly acceptable societal practices - leaving your definition bereft of any "badness".

 

[sideshowbob]

Nope. Try a different intentional misunderstanding.

Or you could try to help me understand what the hell you are suggesting.

I know of at least two families that keep their dogs locked in kennels all day long while they're at work. They do not do the same thing with their children. My understanding is that they are not treating their dogs like members of the family.

 

[sideshowbob]

You said you wouldn't want pets because of what you do them. (post #5)

No, that is not what I said. I was responding to the claim that "animals don't have pride in freedom". I said that what I do to them matters - i.e. if I keep an animal in captivity, that is a reflection on my idea of freedom, whether they have any idea of freedom or not.

Then you argued for a dozen posts or so that they feel like they're in captivity.

That I feel like they're in captivity.

Then you said I didn't mean all pets, just the ones that people treat badly.

Again, no. I haven't said anything about abuse of pets. I have only spoken about routine treatment.

Do you treat pets like they're in captivity?

What I'm saying is that I have never seen anybody who doesn't.