According to me domasticating any animal and keeping it in our home bringing from wild is an biggest crime against animals forcing them to live a life which they are not from. Not only a crime against them also a crime against envirnment, creating a inbalance in ecosystem or food chain aviable on the earth.
Why not we built a huge home for them,which naturally gifted to them, Secure all the forest with huge hurdles keeping away from they prime enemy (HUMAN) allowing the animal lover only to watch this wonderfull creation of the earth.
By this, those who love animals will realy show they love towards them. Securing them in their own habitite.
2006-07-18 07:10:57 · 11 answers · asked by mysker v 2 in Pets ➔ Fish
It's not necesarry, but animals aren't senscient and don't really care where they live as long as they have food, water, others to socialize with, and a place they can call their own. This can be done in a home too. I know from expereince that if dogs are treated well as pets, they are very happy.
2006-07-18 07:14:43 · answer #1 · answered by spockofvullcan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I assume you're talking about currently wild animals, not dogs, cats, cows, etc. That's a different argument.
But why "fence" off the forests and habitat? Why not just leave it the way it's supposed to be? Natural. Just by putting up your "hurdles" you're altering the animals' natural habitat. Just leave them alone, completely.
And most animals' primary enemy is not man. Most animals are either killed by natural predators or die of the elements/starvation. This is even true of animals that Humans traditionally hunt, such as deer. For example, how many field mice are killed by Man versus hawks?
2006-07-18 07:18:02 · answer #2 · answered by Farly the Seer 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In many places, it's already illegal to keep a wild animal by a citizen, unless they are licensed by their state to keep them, as on a game farm or animal hospital. Though I agree that people shouldn't capture wild animals and keep them as pets, I don't agree with your idea of building a home for them. There are already many wildlife preserves throughout America, as well as other places. There are also zoos available, if you're into watching wild animals. There's already more than enough national parks and game preserves throughout the world without setting aside even more land for your project. The cost for such a project would be more than the already overburdened taxpayer can afford. Besides, I think our priorities need to be in finding homes for those who are living in substandard or no housing, not to mention all those who are still without homes in New Orleans. Maybe this is a project you can get support for, raising money for it through fundraisers and such. It's not something that taxpayers need to be funding. We've got enough to support already. <*)))><
2006-07-18 07:24:15 · answer #3 · answered by Sandylynn 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the animals we have domesticated don't tend to do well in the wild. cats decimated populations of native birds in hawaii.
i don't think it is a crime to feel some responsibility to something that human beings have been designing for centuries. the dogs we own are bred for subservience so that they will be our pets. it would be wrong to release such a construct into the world for it to weaken wild populations by breeding with them. it would also be wrong to leave them out in the wilderness with little hope for survival.
i love animals because i am lucky enough to have some that i am responsible for. i do not think my cats mind being those diplomats, even the one i adopted feral seems happy to lay on the window sill and accept sunshine and ear scratches. she is happier in the place we made her for, than trying to eke out a living with animals better equipped by nature. she does not seem to miss that freedom, and the tiny birds appreciate the window i placed between them.
2006-07-18 07:22:38 · answer #4 · answered by uncle osbert 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree in regard to wild animals. Actually in my country it is illegal to have wild animals at home, unless born in a breeding place (not captured in the wild). Cats and dogs though can no longer live without humans. The habitats have changed, the races have changed with centuries of breeding, etc.
2006-07-18 07:14:02 · answer #5 · answered by cpinatsi 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes it is nessasary to "domaticate" many species of animals because humans such as yourself and I have practically devastated many of their existing environments on Earth. In fact the very survival of some species of fish depends on the Aquarium Trade itself. Many species of African Rift Valley cichlids from lake Victoria would have been annhilated when man introduced the Nile perch but the cichlid hobby has kept many of these species only existing in captivity. The same goes for many species of Burmese barbs. Because of the boom in strip mining within the country fish like cherry barbs, red-tailed sharks and etc. only exist because of captive breeding.
Hope this enlightens you.
2006-07-18 16:12:59 · answer #6 · answered by rian 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A) Learn how to spell
B) we do it to further facilitate our lives
C) better to have domesticated animals among us then wild rabbid ones
D) CANNOT secure the forest, ever.
E) ecosystems do not degrade simply bcuz an animal is removed or domesticated. they can survive and replace if need be to make up for any deficiencies
2006-07-18 07:15:59 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, if they want nto sell animals, they cannot keep on taking them from the wilderness, it would make the animal extinct. In order to sell animals, and keep the species alive, they must breed them.
2006-07-18 07:20:42 · answer #8 · answered by Jonas A 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
the only larger crime, is the fact that I had to phonetically guess what you are trying to say. animals belong in nature, not nature that we constructed for them.
2006-07-18 07:13:58 · answer #9 · answered by Lady Sardonyx 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is necessary to learn how to spell before asking such stupid questions.
2006-07-18 07:15:58 · answer #10 · answered by moonriverrat 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋