Feelings on "Pets"

ColorsWolf

New member
These are just my thoughts on "Pets", feel free to share your own thoughts to ^_^ :

I do not like it when people try to force their will on other people.~ All creatures are people and individually are persons.~ All is equal and has neither more nor less value or meaning.~ This is why I dislike how many people think of and treat "pets".~ Would I mind the idea of a creature coming to me and us developing a bond of friendship? No, I would not mind that.~ All "pet" means to me is simply another word for "companion" or "friend", but referring specifically to a friend who is not Human.~

Precious children dancing in the fields of pixies through nurturing and love they may bloom like flowers, through neglect and forget they may turn sour, who can say who can be? The duality of everything in existence it not be. So simple as 'either' 'or', no, a tidal wave of life crescendos into a symphony of possibility.~ Possibilities beating into the veins of the heart of nature.~

Children can be protected and nurtured, but eventually all children, regardless of what kind of creature they are, grow up. All creatures, especially when they reach adulthood, may come and go as they please and make their own decisions, regardless of what kind of creature they are.~

As much as I love creatures like dogs and cats, I can not bring myself to "keep them" as adults as every part of me is screaming not to.~ I will raise creatures to adults, but I will raise them to be more independent of me as they get older until they are completely able to take care of themselves as adults as I believe this is what being a parent who truly cares about their child's happiness will do.~

I will never tell them where they can or can't go and I will never treat them like property without any rights of their own .~ For just because they are different than me, does not make me better than them.~ I think we could all learn a lesson from that.~
 
So you'd get a puppy or kitten, raise it to an adult, and then send it out hunting/scavenging for its own food so you can declare it "independent"? You'd let your cat or dog do as they like which may include trespassing, damaging other people or their property and generally causing havoc in the community. I really think you need to read over what you say because a lot of it isn't based in reality.
 
Last edited:
Housecats cannot feed themselves. They learn hunting from their moms as kittens, and if their moms are kibble fed housecats then they themselves won't have the skills to pass on. Are you saying you go out and bring them home half-dead mice which you then kill and eat in front of them so they get the idea, and then bring them progressively less and less dead mice until eventually you bring them one fully alive and let them kill it? Even as a graduate of my cat's "teach a monkey to hunt in only 30 days" training program (¥), I can't imagine how any civilized ape could possibly know enough about feline hunting skills to pass those skills on to a kitten.

Raising a kitten and then releasing it as an adult is akin to putting out a bird feeder all summer and then quitting filling it upon the first snow fall.

Dogs have been bred over many millenia to not only accept their human masters, but to truly love their role. Dogs are pack animals and even in the wild, they choose a leader to follow. It's the role they're most comfortable in. The cruelest thing you can do to a pack animal is turn it out on its own. That's what wolves do to individuals they see as inferior and unworthy of the pack, and it's the ultimate rejection. Lone dogs not only tend to starve to death, but they do it with the misery of having been rejected from the only family they've ever known. And you would have me believe me you do this as a kindness?

Whether or not you approve of the past 30,000 years of dog breeding is irrelevant. It's done, and now domestic dogs not only want, but need humans for their livelihood. It brings them genuine happiness to be with us, to have our love and approval. The free food, padded bed, and flea powder ain't so bad either. Look at packs of wild dogs with their protruding ribs and miserable sad eyes if you want see what happens when we abandon them.

Besides, any cat caregiver will tell you who's really the boss. I let my cats out whenever they want. Do you think I force them to come in when they get chilly, fill their bellies with food they didn't have to chase down before curling up in their luxurious Special Spot, somehow managing with their 10 lbs of body to occupy my entire queen size bed?? They beg for my attention and demand access to my lap, especially if I'm trying to do homework. I have had lost cats run into my house when the door was open and make themselves at home. You presumably find your home quite comforting when it's pouring rain out. Is it such a stretch that your cats prefer this, as well? I assure you, my cats are anything but captive prisoners.

(¥) Yep. My cat took me through the whole routine that her mom took her through. First she brought me dead mice and left them for me to eat. I politely disposed of them when she wasn't looking, but she thought I ate them. Next they started coming back less and less dead. She'd show me how to kill them. Eventually she brought me one that was maimed and bleeding all over, but still very much alive. She watched me euthanize it by dropping a log on it, quick and painless. I was traumatized, to put it mildly. That was my final exam. I passed, was certified capable of looking after myself by my doting pet, and she never brought me another mouse again. True story.
 
I can't imagine how any civilized ape could possibly know enough about feline hunting skills to pass those skills on to a kitten

That would be funny to watch, though. I seriously think people who say things like this have too much time to think. It reminds me of Heather McCartney (ex wife of Paul) who said we should be drinking rats milk.
 
That would be funny to watch, though. I seriously think people who say things like this have too much time to think. It reminds me of Heather McCartney (ex wife of Paul) who said we should be drinking rats milk.

I'm totally picturing walking in with a mouse hanging out of my mouth, then trying to rip its throat out with my useless human incisors.

I can understand feeling upset over the process of animal domestication, but once it's done, we can never go back. If you disagree with keeping pets, the humane solution is euthanasia, not turning them out to fend for their selves. Alley cats and wild dogs simply do not have good lives, and throwing out your pets as soon as they stop being cute cuddly puppies and kittens is worse than irresponsible, it's downright cruel.
 
(¥) Yep. My cat took me through the whole routine that her mom took her through. First she brought me dead mice and left them for me to eat. I politely disposed of them when she wasn't looking, but she thought I ate them. Next they started coming back less and less dead. She'd show me how to kill them. Eventually she brought me one that was maimed and bleeding all over, but still very much alive. She watched me euthanize it by dropping a log on it, quick and painless. I was traumatized, to put it mildly. That was my final exam. I passed, was certified capable of looking after myself by my doting pet, and she never brought me another mouse again. True story.

As a cat-mom of a little huntress who's brought two dead mice out of the cellar so far, this is what I've been told to expect. However, I'm hoping they stay dead longer, since maybe she's trying to teach my kids too. ;-)

Count this another vote for not turning domesticated animals out into the wild. One of my cats could probably survive (she seems to have been an outdoor cat before I adopted her), but the other is a big doof, and likely would just run to another house and beg. I would find it cruel to turn them out like that, and they're well past the age of maturity (8 & 11, approximately). They're happy here, they're not trying to leave, and I'm not telling them what to do unless it's "get your face out of my cereal bowl!"
 
As much as I love creatures like dogs and cats, I can not bring myself to "keep them" as adults as every part of me is screaming not to.~ I will raise creatures to adults, but I will raise them to be more independent of me as they get older until they are completely able to take care of themselves as adults as I believe this is what being a parent who truly cares about their child's happiness will do.~

I'm a crazy pet lady. I totally embrace the label. I have called my dog and my cat my furry children. I think about their wants and needs a lot and try to give them the best possible life I can. I work on being a responsible pet owner.

But I do not actually treat my pets like human children. They are not. They are adult animals with their own distinct needs, emotions, wants, genetics, behavior and on and on. They are indeed people, not human, but people regardless. Anthropomorphizing pets as human children actually does animals a profound disservice. Anthropomorphizing pets puts a filter on our perceptions of pets where we most easily see the parts of pets that most easily match our own human-ness. It clouds our ability to see animals as animals, as people who are not humans, who are very different from us but with whom we have much in common anyway. It is actually anthropomorphizing to raise a pet to adulthood and treat it as a human child who has grown up and is now self-sufficient. As others have pointed out, this is not the reality of most domesticated cats and dogs. And treating them as if they were human children clouds one ability to see animals as they actually are.

It's human to anthropomorphize. We can't help it. And it can be useful in that it drives research to find the places where we and animals share behavior, emotions and so on. Empathy is partly based (I think) on seeing how the other is like us. Anthropomorphizing is important to empathizing with non humans. But I think it is important to realize that anthropomorphizing is a filter that allows us to see some things clearly and obscures others. It's good to be aware of it.

Humans have profoundly changed many animal species. We have animals that we raise to eat or consume their milk in some form. We have others we bred to be transportation or pull plows. It's tens of thousands of years too late to change this. (There is evidence that domesticating animals in various ways changed us too but that is a side note.)

What is new is the extent of domesticated animals serving as emotional support for humans. This is a new 'job' for dogs and cats. Dogs used to have jobs - they herded, helped us hunt, protected us and our other animals. Some kept us company. Cats ate rodents that ate the grain that fed us. Some dogs and cats still do these jobs. But most humans (in the West anyway, this is less true worldwide) do not have jobs or livings that require the jobs dogs used to do. But we do want someone around to love and pay attention to us. Jon Katz has written extensively about this change. I highly recommend any of his books. They are often available in libraries.

The reality is that pets are slaves. They have no choice. They generally cannot chose where they live, who they live with, how they live. And there is another level. They were bred to a point where choice was taken away from them - broadly, domesticated animals cannot survive at all or well away from us. (Feral cats perhaps being an exception.) In an extreme example, bulldogs would die out without humans. They cannot give birth except through C-section because breeders have bred for such a big head that vaginal birth is impossible. I think breeding this extreme is an abomination and utterly irresponsible. But it highlights the utter dependence and lack of choice and options of domesticated dogs and cats.

I am a slave owner. I try to be a responsible one. My slaves will never be able to be anything other than a slave. Yet, they are very individual and bring me much joy.

I think not wanting or having pets for ethical reasons is sound. Choosing not to be a pet owner is a choice humans can make. I've made the choice to be a responsible owner instead. And I do my best to see them as they are, not as human children or in other anthropomorphized ways.
 
I reject all of your points, "euthanasia", "slaves", "they like it"?~

If you bring any of your colonial attitudes with intent to practice these ideals of your's towards my "family", it won't be pretty for ANY of you.~

No Human can ever speak for a non-Human for Humans truly do not know the point of view of a non-Human due to inadequate communication.~

All of your points on the "thinking" of non-Human is based upon guesses at best.~

The thing is we don't really know any thing at all about how the lives of other species outside of our own work in accordance with that species' own perspective on it.~

We don't know if other species actually practice or even comprehend 'morality' as those in the Human species seem to do, or if they do but they decided to 'discard it' since it's subjectivity is far too unreliable to use as a way of thinking.~

We have no idea about the way that other species 'think' or how their lives 'work' in 'their' point of view and so we only guess at the best what is really going on with them.~

This does not make us 'higher' than them in any sort of 'non-subjective' way, this does not 'make their behavior justifiable in a non-subjective' way, this does not 'make our Human behavior justifiable in any non-subjective way', and this does not 'make us any kind of 'experts' or 'professionals' on them in a way that is not subjective or relative to our own species'.~

The point is we truly don't know and any claim made otherwise of one by our own species is simply pure arrogance, narcissism, ignorance, and foolishness.~

The problem is most Humans are willing to raise many non-Humans, but it seems most Humans also seem to "forget" the most basic of all biological functions: every thing grows up.~

Many Humans are selfish and will try to keep their 'pets' 'children' forever.~

The sad thing is they often succeed and they retard the mental growth of the non-Human.~

There's no excuse for it, every creature will naturally become an adult and to intentionally treat them as "children", never teaching them how to live on their own, you are purposely setting them up to fail, and there is nothing more cruel or sicking than that: a selfish horrible parent who twists love and uses it as a weapon until it is no longer love, just possessiveness.~

So we either do the best that we can learn how to do, we don't try to raise children at all, or we accept the reality of what we are doing to other living creatures whether or not you can find some reason to justify it to yourself is irrelevant.~
 
Last edited:
If you bring any of your colonial attitudes with intent to practice these ideals of your's towards my "family", it won't be pretty for ANY of you.~

Wow. Really?
I don't plan on "retarding the growth" of your "family" - this is an exchange of ideas, not a smackdown.

We have no idea about the way that other species 'think' or how their lives 'work' in 'their' point of view and so we only guess at the best what is really going on with them.~

This does not make us 'higher' than them in any sort of 'non-subjective' way, this does not 'make their behavior justifiable in a non-subjective' way, this does not 'make our Human behavior justifiable in any non-subjective way', and this does not 'make us any kind of 'experts' or 'professionals' on them in a way that is not subjective or relative to our own species'.~

The point is we truly don't know and any claim made otherwise of one by our own species is simply pure arrogance, narcissism, ignorance, and foolishness.~

We know what we observe, however. No, I can't ascribe motive to it, but it sure seems that my cats enjoy the companionship.

Many Humans are selfish and will try to keep their 'pets' 'children' forever.~

The sad thing is they often succeed and they retard the mental growth of the non-Human.~

There's no excuse for it, every creature will naturally become an adult and to intentionally treat them as "children", never teaching them how to live on their own, you are purposely setting them up to fail, and there is nothing more cruel or sicking than that

And, pray tell, how do I teach a domesticated cat to live in the wild on its own? Especially when I adopted mine at (their) ages 10 and 8? Perhaps the system "failed" these animals a while ago, but I don't believe I'm doing my cats a disservice by adopting them as "seniors" and letting them live in a loving home.
 
No Human can ever speak for a non-Human for Humans truly do not know the point of view of a non-Human due to inadequate communication.

And yet you opened this thread presuming to do exactly that.

I would never take your pets away from you, but if I find out you're raising them to adulthood and then turning them loose, unequipped to fend for their selves, you bet your ass I'll contact your local SPCA and make sure you never have the chance to abandon another animal again.

The truth is, my cats absolutely choose to live with me. I open the door and let them go free whenever they indicate their desire to go outside. The choose to return. Sometimes they choose to stay out all night, but they always come home.

If anyone is a slave, it's me. "Feed me. NOW. My box is icky. Clean it, monkey. Your lap is too full of papers. Move them. I'm bored. Make the red dot so I can chase it. It's morning. I'm going to poke my toes into your boob until you get up and make me breakfast. I lost my toy under the dishwasher. Get it back for me. Whoops! Did it again! Let's pay fetch. Throw my elastic, I'll run after it, then you follow me and throw it the other way. Run monkey, run!"
 
As someone who works in veterinary medicine I find your theories extremely disturbing CE.

Please do not bring animals into your life.
 
Oh btw....the life expectancy of a feral cat is less than 6 years. I have met several cats who are in their late teens early20s.. Heck we had one in today who was 24.

Outside dogs live to 8 to 10 if you are lucky. Most senior dogs who are indoor family pets live past 15 easily.
 
Oh btw....the life expectancy of a feral cat is less than 6 years. I have met several cats who are in their late teens early20s.. Heck we had one in today who was 24.

Outside dogs live to 8 to 10 if you are lucky. Most senior dogs who are indoor family pets live past 15 easily.

What is the average life expectancy for house cats, anyway? How about if they go outside? My parents had a cat who lived to 17, but I get the impression that's longer than average. My dad just lost a cat who was 14, and I think the last cat I lost was about 16.

I'm not one of those people who needs a waiting period to mourn between pets. I've always had a healthy understanding that their lifespans are limited and eventually they will die. I'm always sad of course, but a house without a cat just never feels like a home to me. Mine are about 7 now, and I'm starting to realize they're about halfway there. I hate to see them suffer and do not plan any heroic extensions of life, especially if they're in pain. That's just selfish.

I also always like to get them in pairs. I can't be home all the time, and they keep each other company. It always amuses me how they can be trying to rip each other's faces off one minute, and snuggled up together the next. They're not litter mates, but the first was still very young when I got the other as a kitten. Whenever one has to go to the vet for a couple days, they always need time to adjust afterwards, but they always come back to being friends...mostly...
 
Please do not bring animals into your life.

Very much agree with this.

I have said this to you before, Colorwolf. Your communication on this board indicates a person who is still working through their tendency towards anger and aggression. You also - as I have noted - seem to have a habit of lumping all non-humans and children together in a mass and then speaking for them. The assumptions that you make also seem to me to be not rooted in the reality of the life you live.

I see all of these traits in this thread too.

I'd say that until you are able to deal with those issues you will remain wholly unsuited to relationships with non-humans.

I hope that you are able to work through your issues and also to develop strong, positive relationships with some other adult humans.

IP
 
Part 1 of 2

Re (from ColorsWolf):
"If you bring any of your colonial attitudes with intent to practice these ideals of yours towards my 'family,' it won't be pretty for *any* of you."

Ummm, it's not like we have a secret plan to sneak up on your place of abode and ... practice our ideals "toward" your family. (Not sure what "toward" means in this context?)

Won't be pretty for *any* us? Surely you don't mean that if *some* of us come and violate your family with our sick colonial attitudes, you'll come after *all* of us? At least confine your Rambo-like vendetta to those who actually "harm" you (and/or your family).

And sneaking around the thread topic briefly: Your whole quote that I quoted up there? has, to my mind, a strongly physical-threat-type air to it. Polyamory.com has pretty forgiving guidelines, but I'm uncertain about whether the mods would take kindly to the use of physical threats on these boards. I guess if you want to argue, "Hey, if you kill my family, why, then, I'll turn around and kill yours," you could and while it would be a conceptually fair statement, it would still constitute a member using physical intimidation (and implying that some other member started it).

In my experience, one of the (at least unofficial) objectives of just about any internet forum is that *all* of the members will refrain from threats of physical violence. So if anyone's physically threatening you (or your family), then they're way out of line and in my opinion should be severely censured by the mods. If you retaliate with similarly threatening language, then you're only making the situation worse by breaking down the tacit physically peaceful agreements that make civil discussions possible. You might get talked to by the mods and asked not to verbally retaliate to physical threats, even if you aren't censured.

But if you're threatening physical violence as punishment for some sort of hypothetical actions on our part that wouldn't even physically touch you or your family, that kind of makes you the primary aggressor. Such a state of affairs might not be covered by Polyamory.com's guidelines, but I still think there's a chance the mods would take profound issue with your verbal behavior, send you a reprimand, and possibly delete your threat, delete the whole post it's in, lock the thread, ban you, and/or otherwise try to undo the damage you've done to the civility of the forum by making it about real bloodletting.

I presume your defense in this case is that you didn't *technically* threaten anyone -- let alone physically. But I'm telling you, your tone and wording suggest otherwise and I for one would caution you about how that affects the whole site. If you come in peace, mind your writing style so that people can plainly tell you're serious about keeping the peace. Otherwise we're all getting pulled into a cheap barroom brawl.

It's all so sad and unnecessary. We're only connected via satellite, none of us knows (beyond which city) where anyone else lives, there's simply no way any of us can physically approach each other without agreeing with each other to do so and giving each other road directions. Unless some really good hacker or private eye is at work on tracking down someone's physical address for some Polyamory.com member (and I'm sorry but I seeeriously doubt that's happening -- to *any* of us here).

In short: Your warning here really tested the definition of inappropriate. With regret for any offense or contempt I may inspire, I suggest you express more peaceful pursuasion and less aggressive intimidation in the future. I believe it will get you better results.
 
Part 2 of 2

Other than than that, I'll just add that we can all agree that we can't read non-human people's minds, nor communicate with them sufficient to know what they're "thinking," so *none* of us are qualified to speak for them. You should apply that principle to yourself (or risk hypocrisy). That being the case, you might want to retract much of your original post. The edit window is expired, but you could still issue a new post acknowledging your own lack of expertise when it comes to knowing non-human people's thoughts, feelings, experiences, wants, and needs from their point of view.

Be cautious, also, that you don't inadvertently give off the impression that you consider yourself superior to other humans. (Unless you do consider yourself superior, in which case why not come right out and say it. It would be honest.)

Justification of behavior is virtually always subjective and uncertain, whether it be human people's behavior, or non-human people's behavior. And note: It's kind of easy to argue that humans are about the *least* moral/ethical animals on the planet. Any "bad" thing that any non-human person does, you can just about bet your last nickel that human people do that bad thing even more. So -- who's really thinking about the ethical significance of things -- human people or non-human people?

My point of view (and I'm gonna get flak for this -- from darn near everyone on this thread/site) is that wild animals don't have too hot of a life either, let alone domestic animals that have been set "free" into the wilds. Look, the wilderness is like space (with all its glorious planets, stars, and galaxies): very beautiful, and very deadly.

Yes, wild animals have evolved to survive in the wilderness. And I suppose they're pleased or at least contented with their unfettered life (though wilderness survival surely imposes "rules" of its own). But how do we know that they don't see their life as a good life only because wilderness life is the only life they've ever known? Well, we don't know.

Yes, zookeeping is a dubious practice, since it imposes captivity on naturally wild animals. But if it's a truly decent/humane zoo, then those would-be wild animals are enjoying considerable benefits for the loss of their freedom. Reliable supplies of food and water. Medical attention. Shelter. Comfy/handy places to play, relax, and sleep. Even affectionate attention from humans, in case that's worth anything. And how do we know what that's worth to the animals? We don't. How do we know whether freedom is what they *really* wish they had? We don't.

Thus we're doomed to argue all day about whether would-be wild animals hate, love, or feel indifferent about living in a zoo. Some of us will say, "Look at the sadness in that elephant's eyes. It doesn't want to be here." Others will say, "Check out those monkeys, it looks like they're having a regular frat party." Still others will say, "Look at that tiger lightly dozing, as tigers and other cats are wont to do having evolved to conserve their strength while keeping one eye peeped open to watch for the arrival of their prey." These various human perceptions paint pictures of everything from joy to longing to contented lounging. Since we can't prove which human perceptions line up the best with reality, we'll never be able to come to an agreement about it. We have to live with that irksome state of affairs. Might as well do so with some kind of grudging respect for each other as long as we have in common a sincere concern for the non-human people's well-being.

It's not that animals are so very different from us, nor that their wants and needs are so very different from ours. It's that *every* animal is different from *every* other animal, and the needs of every species are unique (and largely unknowable by humans). Heck, even within a single species, each individual is unique and different and has its own peculiar wants and needs. It's true of human people; it's true of non-human people.

Do note that human children (Western human children at least) generally grow up with training to live (and make a living) in the infrastructure of artificial habitations. They're *not* usually raised to live out in the wild (beyond the occasional camping trip). It's generally assumed that Western humans will be raised to get their high school diplomas, attend college, drive to work every day, make a goodly amount of money, and support/raise families of their own within the bounds, rules, technology, and luxuries of Western society. So to say "I want to raise this kitten to go out on its own and be independent," almost sounds like saying, "Soon this kitten will be old enough to attend college." Obviously that's not what would really happen, but my point is, training a kitten to live in the wild is a fair sight different from training a human to live in a human environment.

And as the others have said, a domestic animal's natural habitat no longer exists in nature. It now exists within the infrastructure of human society. You could argue that it's a sick, tragic thing humans have done, intentionally breeding once-wild animals to become reliant on human surroundings. But what's done is done, and what's more, I (in case you hadn't guessed) don't even think it's all that tragic. In fact, the whole sordid tale springs from the collective workings of evolution. That is, humans evolved to be like they are; in a word, to be "fashioners" of domestic animals (as well as builders of cities and users, changers, and/or preservers of the look and make-up of Earth and its atmosphere). It's neither good nor bad, it's simply the way that evolution has played out.

Are we "justified" in keeping domestic animals? It seems to me that we're neither justified nor unjustified. It just is what it is. Each human person will have to decide for themselves what to do about the problem, and God knows we won't all agree on what should be done, but again, why not cope with the irksome state of affairs with grudging respect for each other as long as we have in common a sincere concern for the non-human people's well-being? We can't do much better as a collective species right now.

Now animal abuse such as beating, maiming, neglecting, or torturously killing an animal: that's heinous, inexcusable, and unconscionable. Surely no one has any problem agreeing with me about that ...
 
Last edited:
Zoos do masses in the conservation of animals though. International breeding programmes, releasing animals bred in captivity to the wild. You have places like Monkey World here who go around the world rescued primates who have been illegally sold into the tourist and pet industries. It's very naive to believe all zoos in this day and age are bad.
 
Today I learned there is a place called "Monkey World."
I must go visit this majestic land.
:D

I do wish to watch the movie Blackfish at some point. I'm taking the girls to Florida next April vacation, and am reconsidering going to Seaworld. I've been told that the Miami Sea Aquarium treats their animals much better, and actually DOES rehabilitate them into the wild.
 
Last edited:
From the "Body Parts" thread... I cross-pollinated when I shouldn't have.

Plopped in here from the "Body Parts" thread, since I managed to toss this thread into my reply to that one:

YouAreHere said:
How capable of adapting to the wilderness would a modern-day, first-world human be without considerable training? Many homeless people depend on the kindness of others, as do many stray animals (my ex feeds three stray cats and apparently, a couple foxes and a possum ).

I doubt that a domesticated animal is any less adaptable. Rather, I think in this society, we've domesticated ourselves out of our own survival instincts as well.

There comes a point though where Human or not, many creatures let go of their 'civilized' mindset holding them back and tap into their 'instincts', sure it may not be a 'pretty' way to live and there may be no coming back from it, but it is by no means impossible.~

That's the definition of the word 'feral'

Sure - animals do it. And many don't do so well. I'm not stating animals *can't* tap into their instincts and survive without human involvement, but it's also no secret that their life expectancies decrease dramatically, especially with motor vehicles and diseases like FeLV and FIV added to the mix.

The point was that stating that it's cruel to turn an animal out into the wild doesn't presume that humans are *better* at surviving in the wild. Indeed, we're probably not. Centuries of domestication, however, has made companion animals *worse* at it (regardless of whether or not they *can*), with no comparison to humans needed.

Not sure how my daughter's two tarantulas and P's two scorpions fit into the mix here, but I don't plan on turning them out, either. ;)

(Nothing funnier than seeing your mom and grandparents ogling the tarantula and getting all inquisitive about it - after the requisite "EW!" of course)
 
Back
Top