I have been concerned for some time about animals living in the wild.
These creatures spend all their lives without any shelter provided, often in extreme conditions. They frequently suffer from parasites and their illness and injuries are untreated, causing many to suffer a lingering and painful death. Others are literally torn apart and eaten, sometimes when they are still living. For many young animals, this often happens when they are only helpless babies.
Could we gather up these poor creatures and put them in a zoo?
Originally posted by steerpikegood idea. Why don't we just taxiderm them and put them in a museum. that way we don't have to worry about feeding and all.
I have been concerned for some time about animals living in the wild.
These creatures spend all their lives without any shelter provided, often in extreme conditions. They frequently suffer from parasites and their illness and injuries are untreated, causing many to suffer a lingering and painful death. Others are literally torn apart and eaten, someti ...[text shortened]... ey are only helpless babies.
Could we gather up these poor creatures and put them in a zoo?
Originally posted by steerpike1. If animals need shelter they will build one or stay under someones deck.
I have been concerned for some time about animals living in the wild.
These creatures spend all their lives without any shelter provided, often in extreme conditions. They frequently suffer from parasites and their illness and injuries are untreated, causing many to suffer a lingering and painful death. Others are literally torn apart and eaten, someti ...[text shortened]... ey are only helpless babies.
Could we gather up these poor creatures and put them in a zoo?
2. I suffer from ticks and fleas but I do not complain.
3. If the animal was not tearing another animal apart it would die too.
4. Many animals in zoos are cruely confined compared to what they would have in the wild.
5. You can clean up their poo since it was your idea.
6. Why are you bothered by what has been happening for billions of years?
7. There are plenty of animals that need homes but plenty of humans that live in the conditions you described.
Originally posted by knapperjaThat is simply not true. House cats and dogs probably live longer in homes, but that's because a) they are provided with pretty good lifestyles, b) domesticated dogs and cats are not accustomed to the wild, and c) feral dogs and cats don't live in the forests, but in city streets, where they are likely to be run over or contract disease from eating trash.
Animals live longer in captivity, but so do house cats and married men.
Sea mammals live much longer in the wild than in captivity, as one example. I do not have specifics on all animals, though. Any exposure to the elements of wild animals in their natural habitats is definitely less displeasurable than confinement.
I'd rather brave the wild than be stuck in a cage all day.
Originally posted by Dissident DanI have heard on nature shows that animals live longer in captivity. They were referring to land animals. I agree that quality and excitement with life suffers, just like in marriage.
That is simply not true. House cats and dogs probably live longer in homes, but that's because a) they are provided with pretty good lifestyles, b) domesticated dogs and cats are not accustomed to the wild, and c) feral dogs and cats don't live in the forests, but in city streets, where they are likely to be run over or contract disease from eating ...[text shortened]... displeasurable than confinement.
I'd rather brave the wild than be stuck in a cage all day.
Neutered dogs also live longer than their intact comrades. Another marriage analogy.
1 edit
Originally posted by AcolyteAgree. I don't condone cruelty, but I do use animal products because I believe farmed or captive animals have a quality of life equal to that of wild animals.
No - that would be cruel! 😉
Seriously though, there is a difference between bad things that happen to animals in the wild, and people being pointlessly cruel.
When you read posts from people whose knowledge of farming is such they believe that cattle are incapable of surviving without people feeding them or that they are skinned alive to make leather, you can despair at their ignorance. This ignorance does not seem to stop them from having strong opinions on what the rest of us should eat or wear.
If there is cruelty in farming, let us deal with it.
6 edits
Originally posted by steerpikewhose ignorance are you despairing about?
Agree. I don't condone cruelty, but I do use animal products because I believe farmed or captive animals have a quality of life equal to that of wild animals.
you can despair at their ignorance. This ignorance does not seem to stop t ...[text shortened]... wear.
If there is cruelty in farming, let us deal with it.
if quality of life of farmed animals you are thinking about has any relation to the pleasant existence wilbur had on zukermann's farm, you may have overlooked the 'efficient progress' made in modern agriculture which not only devastates the lives of billiions of animals, but also those of the small farmers. (a popular clip dealing with this is the meatrix which some people are surprised to learn is not an AR production, but is sponsored by the small farmers association.)
what seems to be your problem with people having strong opinions?
people are always telling other people what they should or shouldn't do. you've demonstrated your strong opinionatedness by america bashing for instance. only when your opinions have some connection to reality and are properly substantiated (which they are sometimes), may they be of some value.
if you want to deal with cruelty in farming, that's fine. however, some have chosen to deal with that cruelty not by merely making statements like 'If there is cruelty in farming, let us deal with it', but by the personal choices they make, by the legislations they support, by drawing attention to inhumane practises, by direct action and by becoming informed on these issues. they are not acting out of ignorance.
just because you use animal products does not mean you condone cruelty.
nor are you demonstrating your kindness by using these products from industries that exploit them in barbaric ways.
for instance, back on dec 3, 2003 you tried to refute my post regarding the treatment of sheep, with the comments (http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?id=7792&page=2):
"Ever seen a sheep? Live anywhere near a farm?" and went on to add that maggoty wool is worthless. using that as the basis of your argument, you proceeded to conclude that sheep are not ill-treated presumably because the farmers would lose money. the fact that sheep farmers use the mulesing 'operation' to deal with this 'losing money', the fact there were videos on the website (www.woolisbaad.com) showing this, the fact that the mortality of the sheep is really not a result of 'natural causes' seemed to elude you completely. your rationale was that it makes no sense to 'damage the animal', because then you couldn't presumably exploit them over again.
knowing these realities, if you give up wearing wool or at least acquire it from sources where you know the animals are treated kindly, and you speak up against the inhumane practises that exist to increase the profit margin, surely you provide a stronger opposition to animal cruelty than rationalizing that 'farmed or captive animals have a quality of life equal to that of wild animals'.
in friendship,
prad
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpike<Grin> Great post.
I have been concerned for some time about animals living in the wild.
These creatures spend all their lives without any shelter provided, often in extreme conditions. They frequently suffer from parasites and their illness and injurie ...[text shortened]...
Could we gather up these poor creatures and put them in a zoo?
The beauty of it all is that every Homo Sap on the face of the earth "Is an animal, getting by the best they can" out in the wilds. Those who separate us from animals are not very observant. Not to mention that they are not the sharpest quills in the porcupines butt!
Originally posted by pradtfI showed my ignorance earlier about mulesing. If you hear of it happening in my county. tell me about it and I will personally raise it with farmer goups and politicians. I don't condone cruelty in farming.
whose ignorance are you despairing about?
if quality of life of farmed animals you are thinking about has any relation to the pleasant existence wilbur had on zukermann's farm, you may have overlooked the 'efficient progress' made in modern agriculture which not only devastates the lives of billiions of animals, but also those of the small farmers. (a pop ...[text shortened]... ptive animals have a quality of life equal to that of wild animals'.
in friendship,
prad
For some more examples of ignorance, look at the fur thread.
3 edits
Originally posted by steerpikeI am glad to know that if mulesing was happening in your backyard, you would take it up with the farmer. Unfortunately, the wool in most of our closets come from sheep raised in Australia where museling is common practice.
I showed my ignorance earlier about mulesing. If you hear of it happening in my county. tell me about it and I will personally raise it with farmer goups and politicians. I don't condone cruelty in farming.
For some more examples of ignorance, look at the fur thread.
It's extremely hard to tell where a wool product originated. Most wool products, clothing especially, are routed through China (where labor is cheap and health and environmental standards are low) or Italy before it is again exported as a final product. This means that a product labeled "made in China" or "made in Italy" has very likely come from sheep raised in Australia or New Zealand, which produce roughly 30 percent of the world's wool.
In addition, all wool, whether from Australia, New Zealand, the United States or elsewhere, comes from sheep who have endured unimaginable horrors. Sheep in the U.S. not only undergo the horrible shearing process**, but most of them end up slaughtered for food, where they have their throats slit, often while fully conscious. In the United Kingdom, most sheep raised for wool end up being exported to the Middle East or North Africa, where they struggle through tortuous journeys on over-crowded ships and are eventually killed by crude and painful slaughter methods.
**Shearing Sheep:
Many people believe that shearing sheep helps animals who might otherwise be burdened with too much wool. But without human interference, sheep grow just enough wool to protect themselves from temperature extremes. The fleece provides effective insulation against both cold and heat.
Sheep are sheared each spring, just before they would naturally shed their winter coats. Timing is considered critical: Shearing too late means loss of wool. In the rush, many sheep die from exposure after premature shearing.
Shearers are usually paid by volume, not by the hour, which encourages fast work without regard for the welfare of the sheep. One eyewitness who saw the shearing of sheep said: "[T]he shearing shed must be one of the worst places in the world for cruelty to animals … I have seen shearers punch sheep with their shears or their fists until the sheep's nose bled. I have seen sheep with half their faces shorn off …"
So, the best response to such cruelty is to not wear wool and support such a horrific industry...and to write letters to the Australian government to ban mulesing and other horrific practices...gone are days that the majority of sheep were grazing the land and were sheared for family use...now due to consumer demand, the need for so many sheep leads to tremendous abuse.
I am also curious to know what examples of ignorance in the fur thread you are referring to?
In friendship,
Sangeeta Kumar
Originally posted by Sangeeta
Sheep are sheared each spring, just before they would naturally shed their winter coats.
Shearers are usually paid by volume, not by the hour, which encourages fast work without regard for the welfare of the sheep. One eyewitness who saw the shearing of sheep said: "[T]he shearing shed must be one of the worst places in the world for cruelty to an ...[text shortened]... amples of ignorance in the fur thread you are referring to?
In friendship,
Sangeeta Kumar
Sheep are sheared each spring, just before they would naturally shed their winter coats.
Perhaps one of the animal experts could have told Shrek the local merino about this? It might have saved him from some trouble as he forget to shed his 27 kilogram fleece for six years, while roaming wild and free. It even made CNN - a global celebrity.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/04/28/nz.shrek.ap/
Don't forget to watch the video to see the full 'horror' of the hair-cut.
When it was time to give up his 38 cm long fleece, the shearer managed to do this without punching him or cutting half his face off. Which is not really surprising, as a damaged sheep is worth less to a farmer and even on common sense and economic grounds, you don't employ anyone who damages your assets.
The real cruelty for sheep? Domestic dogs will chase and attack them. Uncontrolled and untamed dogs will bite, and partially disembowel a sheep before chasing the next one and doing the same - a dog can atack and fatally wound 20 sheep in a night. Natural behaviour though, for any animal in the wild.
1 edit
Originally posted by steerpikeDo you really think that they're going to be violent about it in a publicity situation? Shrek obviously has been treated to different conditions than the average sheep.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/04/28/nz.shrek.ap/
Don't forget to watch the video to see the full 'horror' of the hair-cut.[/b]
Shrek must be something of an oddity, because pre-domestication sheep must not have grown that much wool. That would severely hamper their survival.
How come now one mentioned tail docking or castration (without anesthetic)?
For the treatment of animals in agriculture, in general, you should find all you need to see and read to be convinced of the suffering of the animals at http://www.factoryfarm.org/