Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyingNimbus  Sounds like you gave that dog a piece of heaven though.  I am glad she lived with someone who cared for her as much as you did.
As for enclosures, I agree somethings shouldn't be enclosed, unless you can cover their typical use of space. For example a totally random animal but let's take I don't know-- a pacman frog as long as it's space needs are met they are fine. For there are animals that don't like to stray or wander far... Pac man frogs are ambush predators and as such they tend to pick one spot and they do not move from that spot much.
You could give it a large enclosure and I will tell you right now it will sit in one corner all of the time, only moving to switch locations, sit in water or eat.
As they burrow into the dirt and wait for signs of movement before attacking.
Animals like that are very much fine in confinement if not it's probably godsend for them. To my belief at least, because of the lack of predators.
Animals that enjoy a lot of movement wouldn't be that happy in close quarters.
Snakes are fine in their enclosures as they generally like to be in tight spaces to begin with and are happy anywhere that is warm, and has enough food.
Things like bears, badgers, and other nomadic animals would do well in larger enclosures than the average zoo gives them.
Animals like lions while they enjoy having their space they all like to stay in their own territory. Usually about 100 square miles or more.
While some animals I feel sad to see in captivity, there are some that do well in captivity like certain endangered species. For the betterment of the species.
But yes, that is typically the case from what I've seen... people tend to only put their wants first even if it hurts something else. But I am rather a cynic so that's just taken with a grain of salt. |
I just can't buy that an undomesticated, wild animal, fish or bird with instincts to roam freely is every truly fulfilled or truly happy as it would have been living its whole life in any type of containment, especially if it is indoors, that would restrict said being beyond its naturally wild limits, often subjected to changing caregivers and lifestyles far removed from its wild kin . As far as endangered species, I can't help but bleed in my heart for the wild specimens we keep contained for their natural habitat, prod, poke, breed, study and watch for perpetuation of the species, so others can be free if the species survives. Do the ends justify the means? I think I think so right now but still wonder about how damaged an animal's actual long-term genetic and psychological health might be from all of the changing caregivers, wildly foreign objects and living/travel/relocation situations we subject them to while striving to 'save' the species. Imagine what a lovely, graceful giraffe must think about being loaded by handlers into a steel cage to travel in a van on a noisy freeway to get to an airport, loaded into a jet aircraft to fly across country to a new zoo for a 10 year lease program, after which he'll be loaded back up and returned, if he's still alive. He's genetically programmed to roam a quiet, free savanna as he lives his wild life, not deal with any of that.
Sorry to OP for highjacking your thread to wander off into another subjects but I suppose it all has to do with how we so easily seen to mistreat or mismanage our animals for whatever seems to serve human wants of the moment and whether or not it's the best or right thing for that one particular animal's health, welfare/safety, genetic/natural-instinct fulfillment and right to live as naturally as possible for its species.