Animal Wrongs Group/Headscratchers

Everything About Fiction You Never Wanted to Know.
Jump to navigation Jump to search


  • The issue I have is that domesticated animals are dependent on humans, and some groups don't realize that. We've shaped the genetics of dogs to the point that they behave like wolf pups all their lives. Most can't communicate with other dogs the way that wild canines communicate with each other, and several have genetic disorders due to inbreeding. The only way they can have a happy life is with humans. I'm not saying un-domesticating is bad, I'm just pointing out that for now several organizations don't understand that the problem is not easily fixable. Killing helpless animals just because they're owned by humans won't solve anything.
    • Are there organizations that think it's preferable to kill animals rather than have them live as pets? If so, that's pretty crazy; if the animal is at the very least content, and is not being made to suffer through abuse or neglect or whatever, it seems to me that killing it would be cruel rather than humane.
    • Actually, humans did NOT shape the genetics of dogs. They came on their own, without any interference from humans. Any canine living close to humans for a few generations will grow dependent on them. Case in point.
      • If you mean 'dogs in general', then you're correct, humans did not directly shape their genetics to make them dependent on humanity. We did, however, selectively breed the majority of domesticated canine breeds to such an extent that they are unsuited to live in the wild.
      • This troper knows dogs are unsuited to live in the wild, but even if she hadn't studied animal comportement, she'd live in a farm with 7 to 9 dogs and she can assure you they don't act like puppies, have a complex social structure with an alpha-male, and usually have zero problems communicating as they act like a pack. Also I don't think most of them have enough pedigree to have genetics problems, as most dogs in the majority of countries are mixed. What you're saying only applies to dogs that are very "spoiled", not to the entire species.
        • It is not just dogs that are "spoiled" that act like wolf pups. Dogs that don't live in a pack situation that you have described, do, in fact, act like wolf pups. I'm talking about homes that have only one dog, and there are many. These may, in fact, be very well-behaved dogs, that are not "spoiled" in any way, and yet they act like wolf pups, and have a hard time communicating with other dogs. There are thousands of pure-breed dogs out there, and most, if not all, breed lines have genetic problems, due to excessive inbreeding.
    • I honestly don't understand this complaint amongst animal rights people. Why is dogs being dependent on humans a problem when they're going to be around humans anyway? That's like complaining that an animal that lives in an environment with, say, a large, readily available supply of bananas becomes dependent on bananas for its food source. The only way I see this complaint making sense is from the perspective of those people who think pets need to be "liberated," i.e. forcibly ejected from their homes and made to live in the wild because that's their "natural habitat" is or some crap like that.
      • I believe, they want dependent animals killed and for no more dependent animals to be breed.
  • Would releasing pets into the wild even be possible for most people? Many would just end up sitting outside their former owners' house until they starve to death.
    • Either that, or they'll end up trashing the ecosystem for other species that never were domesticated. Take a look at what feral cats, goats, and dogs have done to the wildlife of islands like the Galapagos, or how many bird populations the former have decimated worldwide, and then we can talk about whether abandoning pets in the wild causes more harm if they starve or if they don't.
    • Just as an FYI: the majority of ancestral species from which domesticated livestock are descended are now threatened with extinction in the wild or are actually extinct. There's barely enough wilderness left to sustain existing populations of wild goats, horses, donkeys, and sheep, never mind releasing the ones in captivity. The chief exceptions are wild boar, which themselves pose a serious threat to the survival of native species in regions where they've been introduced, and the aurochs, wild ancestor of cattle, which is flat-out extinct. Yes, putting an end to the meat and dairy industries would only complete a species' total extermination.
    • Not that the test is going to be done anytime soon. What's all this talk of releasing pets into the wild, anyway? Where has anyone said that they would?
      • PETA and other groups have "rescued" domesticated animals and released them into the wild, occasionally in entirely the wrong habitat where, at best (ecologically speaking, anyway), they're quickly killed and eaten, and at worst become an invasive species that wrecks the local ecosystem.
  • Why do PETA and others throw paint at fur coats? Isn't that actually a very bad way of dealing with it? I mean now that the coat is ruined, all that it caused is the person to now need to go and buy ANOTHER fur coat. Imagine if 40 chinchillas are needed for a coat, and they throw paint on one thousand people, now those people (who probably have money to spare) are now gonna buy another coat. That means that their actions actually affected 40,000 chinchillas more.