Lifestyle Dogs: A Response to Becky

Becky asks the question: Because animals give us so many health benifits does that give us a reason to breed dogs so that there is at a right dog for everyone's lifestlye? That is to say, different dogs are specifically designed for a certain lifestyle.

We've discussed in class how purebred dogs have health problems because of inbreeding. Bad genes are passed along as well as the desired genes, causing many problems like hip dysplasia in larger dogs and breathing and upper respiratory problems in the brachycephalic dogs like pugs. In the beginning, dogs were bred to fit certain lifestyles. One small dog breed were kept in the sleeves of Chinese nobles to warm hands. Dogs like border collies and shelties were bred for hunting. Dachsunds were bred to go into burrows made by animals to hunt them out while bulldogs were bred to fight bears. Nowadays, there are dogs suited for certain lifestyles. Small, low-maintenence dogs are best suited for people living in apartments while an energetic dog like a border collie or a greyhound does best in places where they can run around and get a lot of exercise.

Long story short, dogs have already been bred to suit our needs and now it is a matter of choosing a dog that bests fit our lifestyles. If someone wants to get a dog for their health, a calm and friendly dog such as a labrador or a golden retreiver might be best.

My question now is: Why are animals such as cats and dogs the ones highlighted when it comes to having animals for health reasons when there are so many other wonderful and calm animals that can be kept as well? In this regard, I mean keeping a ferret, a rabbit, or a bird, to name a few examples.

Cats and Dogs

I have had three cats and one dog in my lifetime, and I am a fan of both. Curious, I looked up how long cats and dogs have been domesticated and I found that dogs have been domesticated for about 15,000 years and cats have been domesticated for about 9,500 years. With all of the talks about pets in class, I thought this would be a good topic to discuss. As has been noted in our various discussions, dogs are more dependent than cats. If a dog were to try and survive in the wild, it would have a harder time on its own than a cat. Cats have more of an independent streak and would be able to fend for themselves better in the wild than a dog. It is possible that a part of cats' independence is because they have not been domesticated for as long as dogs, but it is hard to say for sure.

My question now is this: What makes dogs so different from cats that they need to depend on us, while cats do not?

The Practice of Petkeeping: A Response to Hallie

In response to my post, Hallie asks the question: If petkeeping does need to be eradicated, what is the best way to begin that process? Should we do it all at once, or take steps toward the goal?

I have answered a similar question before about slaughterhouses, and my answer is the same. In the practice of petkeeping, small steps should be taken to eradication. Imagine if petkeeping were to be ended tomorrow: suddenly there would be millions, if not billions, of pets without a home. Pet owners would be distraught at having to give up the beloved members of their family. (The ones that care, anyway.) Shelters would suddenly be swarmed or ended, because there is nowhere else for the pets to go. What would happen to them? A lot of them can't survive on their own, and there is no one to care for them because petkeeping has ended. (Granted, this picture may be a bit extreme, but it does drive my point home.)

Another alternative would be to outlaw dogs and cats and any other pets from having any more young. This would allow people to enjoy the pets they have now, allow more pets to be adopted or bought, yet after this generation of pets there would be no more. Hopefully it would also cut back on the number of stray animals. Again, it would be an extreme shift for humans. Humans who enjoy the company of their animals would suddenly have no more and have no means by which to bring another pet into their family. Because humans and animals have lived together for so long, what happens to one will definitely affect the other, which is why I am inserting humans into this argument.

Tackling the different facets of the pet industry one at a time seems like the most rational solution to me. Someone made the point in class about outlawing puppy mills. Getting rid of the illegal ones is a good start. The illegal ones are where the most problems occur; everything is overcrowded and filthy, there is no room and the animals are all infested with parasites, and there is little to no food or water. It's disgusting. That is a practice that defintely needs to be stopped. There are so many directions to go in from there.

I now have two questions for you:
1) What would your next step be in eradicating the practice of petkeeping?
2) If we were to eliminate zoos and aquariums, how should we go about it?

Endangered Species

Yesterday in class, the topic of endangered species came up. The question was whether or not we should work to preserve the habitat in which endangered species lived in and then let nature take its course. However, I wondered if we should work to save any endangered species that were endangered because of humans in the first place. There is nothing that can be done about the Galapagos Tortoise. If I remember correctly, there is only one left alive in the world, and as far as I know humans had little to no part in the decline of that species. (If I am wrong, please let me know. I will edit this post accordingly.) In that regard, there is no need to intervene.

There are other species that have been hunted to extinction because of humans, such as the Tasmanian Tiger. Many other species are now endangered because of the loss of habitat, also due to humans. It is at this point that we run into the sticky situation that has been brought up many times in class: Do we step back and let nature take its course, or do we try to intervene to fix the problem that humans created? Personally, I feel that we should fight to save these species. Yes, perhaps they would have died out eventually without us, but we are greatly accelerating the rate in which they do so. As such, I feel we need to fight to keep these species alive for as long as we can.

My question is, what do you think?

Tracking Devices: A Response to Nick

Nick asks two questions. His first question is: Is the attatchment of these (neighly wieghtless to the animal) transmitters morally justifiable if the researchers claim to do it for the end result of "knowing the habits and migratory patterns of these animals"? Many claim that such data would provide information on how to best 'protect' these animals and their ancient system of life of which migration plays a large role.

To answer this question, I do feel that these transmitters are morally justifiable when used for gathering scientific research. The transmitters do no harm to the animals, and most of them fall off after a certain amount of time. The information gathered can be helpful to scientists and researchers, as Nick points out, in mapping migratory routes. This way, these routes can be patrolled more strictly (if necessary) during migratory seasons and the animals can be protected more from humans.

Nick then asks: What is the difference between a (supossed) securly attatched transmitter on an animal and a human's cell-phone?

The difference is that humans know about the transmitters in their phones while animals have no idea what transmitters are. It is possible an animal may not even know that a transmitter has been attached to them. Another difference, as I metioned earlier, is that the transmitters on the animals generally fall off after a certain amount of time. With humans, the transmitter is working as long as the phone is active.

My question is this: Can you think of any other differences between animal transmitters and transmitters in a phone?

Babs

All the talk of having pets being morally wrong made me think. All of the pets my family has had during my lifetime have all, in a sense, been rescued. None of them came from shelters, yet none of them came from breeders either. For this post, I would like to talk about our one remaining pet, Babs, because it is the story I can tell the best.

We took Babs in as a kitten. She appeared in our neighborhood out of nowhere when I was five years old. The first time I saw her, my parents and I had just left the house to go somewhere. A little black kitten darted from the yard under one of the cars parked in our driveway. After a few moments of coaxing, she came out. My mom opened her car door to see if the kitten wanted to come with us, but she just sniffed the outside and did not get in. My next memory of seeing her was at my next-door neighbor's house. She tried to come into the house when the door was open to let me in, but my neighbor shooed her out, saying something about how she was a pest. I felt sorry for the little kitten.

Finally, there was a night when my parents took her into our house. I can't remember why, but I do know they were going to let her back outside the next day. When they did, it was pouring hard outside, and the kitten just sat on our front porch at our door, meowing and meowing to be let back in. My parents finally decided to bring her back into the house. My guess is that, since we already had two cats and a dog, they weren't thinking about having another cat and that is why they tried to put her back outside. This idea is also fueled by the fact that after they brought her back inside, for the next few days, my parents brought her around the neighborhood, asking if she belonged to anyone. They also put an ad in our town's newspaper. No one came forward and claimed the kitten. When no one else stepped forward, my parents made the final decision to make her a part of our family. We took her to the vet, got her checked out, named her Babs after the vet told us she was a girl, and she has been ours ever since.

Babs has led a happy life since we took her in. She loves attention and will seek it out when she wants it. She knows when she's supposed to be fed and will remind us of it until she gets her food. She knows who to go to so she can sit in a lap and be petted, and she knows who to go to when she wants to play. Or if she's lying down and one of us starts to play with her, she'll join in if she feels like it. When she's not playing or wanting attention, she can be found in numerous spots around the house where she likes to go and lie down and be comfortable.

With all that said and the arguments against keeping pets, is it wrong to take in a stray animal and give it a happy life that it would not have were it left alone?

Seal Watches

Talking about preserves, safaris, and whale watches and how they can be unsuccessful in that it is possible no animals will be seen got me thinking. In Chatham on Cape Cod, I have departed for many seal watches. They caught my attention because I had heard of many whale watches before, but never a seal watch. They take place in the summer, and there are always seals. I can't remember how expensive they are, but they are local, which means we don't have to go too far out on the water, and they are entertaining, and we learn a bit about the seals during our trip. The best part is that the seals are not contained in any sort of area and are free to come and go as they please. I have not heard of seals being injured by the boats, and it gives credit to the people doing the tours that they actually slow the boats down. That said, it is not impossible for seals and other marine life to be injured by boats. Manatees are a good example. Still, the seal watches seem to have the best of all worlds. The seals are not confined, so they can come and go as they please, and they are in their natural ocean habitat. There is a guarantee that they will be seen (or at least, I have never not seen them when I've gone on these), and we learn a bit about the seals.

With all that said, I have one question: If endeavors such as this were guaranteed to be successful, would they be more popular?