... and lazy is one of them.
Waldon here, I spent all day today in my slippers and pjs. Not a bad way to spend the day I suppose. Although I didn't get to see Bre at all today because she (Sadly :( ) didn't feel like going out, which seriously made me sad and lonely for a good portion of the evening and afternoon, but I suppose I can't get everything I want. It feels weird not seeing Bre on any given day. It's... depressing. I suppose is the best way to describe it.
I didn't really do much today, except for listen to music and write my speech, so that's what I'm going to post here.
"Recently, there has been widespread debate and controversy among, and in, environmental circles as well as public safety offices and the opinions of the common person, about whether it is right to keep designated “wild” animals as pets. A recent profiling and interview was done of a Canadian man who took home an orphaned squirrel that had lost its mother. The man brought the squirrel to his house and made the area habitable for the squirrel by providing appropriate bedding and food for him. The squirrel grew so attached to the man that it would physically defend him if other animals or people came close that he didn't trust. The man would walk with the squirrel in public, and the squirrel would stay on his shoulder, or in his hood and stay with him. The man would take the squirrel for walks in the park where he would let it roam through the trees, but the squirrel would always come back. Obviously, the squirrel was not an unhappy animal, nor was it unhealthy.
Yet, many groups cite this as abuse because the man did not release the animal back into the habitat it was meant for. One common complaint is raised, all animals should be left to it's wild state and cared enough for so it may continue to survive adequately should it be alone, and not deal with interference by humans. Nature is as nature does, we should not put ourselves in a position to change that. We should not take as pets any animal that is regarded as "Wild" for both safety and morality's sake. By the very reasoning that many environmental groups cite, shouldn't we put most of our domestic dogs and cats back into the wild? As well as all of the birds, the lizards, the fish, even turtles and snakes?
Now, as an answer to this, people will say that those dogs and cats would be unable to provide for themselves once taken out of a domicile environment. In many cases this is not true, I personally know and have seen dogs regularly that have formed or joined packs of their own in the wild and are just as, or more successful than the packs of just wolves in the area. And people all over the globe know of cats that don't have homes that make their living in the streets, alleys or brush.
But to contradict this, think, would you leave any child that is old enough to think rationally and function physically on his or her own to provide his or her own support? No, you would not. In fact, there are dire punishment’s found all across the world for that very crime. Why would you leave a willingly benevolent animal to a much harsher life, if you yourself were willing to provide and care for it? It is morally acceptable to take in any kind of animal that can be or has been previously taken in and raised by humans in a humane manner that does not jeopardize the safety or comfort of the population beyond your own being, that is perfectly reasonable, provided that you can care for the animal adequately, including space requirements and health care.
Obviously trying to tame a fully-grown wild animal will only lead to grief for all involved in almost all cases. But an orphaned young animal should not be left alone, if morality has any say in the matter.
Throughout history, there have been many recorded instances of people keeping supposedly wild animals as pets. Or even as companions, as such as the term may apply. During WWII the Polish Infantry bought and adopted a bear cub that came to be known as Voytek (Wojtek) the Soldier Bear. He would drink beer, wrestle, smoke and work with the men of the unit by carrying ammunition and supplies. Aren’t bears regarded as some of the most dangerous and temperamental animals? Voytek (Wojtek) lived for almost 22 years in a healthy environment. Like wolves, who even people in our own community have adopted and lived with as companions for as long as everybody I know can remember. These are the supposedly wild animals that are being hurt by our interference. There is a lot of debate being sallied back and forth between all the parties involved, but what it boils down to is care. If we care for our companions, then we are not hurting them. These “wild” animals, have been, still are, and possibly always will be our pets."
My printer wouldn't cooperate to print this beast, so I had to rely on Sandra to print it for me. :P Thanks all, and I suppose I'm done for the night.
Waldon here, I spent all day today in my slippers and pjs. Not a bad way to spend the day I suppose. Although I didn't get to see Bre at all today because she (Sadly :( ) didn't feel like going out, which seriously made me sad and lonely for a good portion of the evening and afternoon, but I suppose I can't get everything I want. It feels weird not seeing Bre on any given day. It's... depressing. I suppose is the best way to describe it.
I didn't really do much today, except for listen to music and write my speech, so that's what I'm going to post here.
"Recently, there has been widespread debate and controversy among, and in, environmental circles as well as public safety offices and the opinions of the common person, about whether it is right to keep designated “wild” animals as pets. A recent profiling and interview was done of a Canadian man who took home an orphaned squirrel that had lost its mother. The man brought the squirrel to his house and made the area habitable for the squirrel by providing appropriate bedding and food for him. The squirrel grew so attached to the man that it would physically defend him if other animals or people came close that he didn't trust. The man would walk with the squirrel in public, and the squirrel would stay on his shoulder, or in his hood and stay with him. The man would take the squirrel for walks in the park where he would let it roam through the trees, but the squirrel would always come back. Obviously, the squirrel was not an unhappy animal, nor was it unhealthy.
Yet, many groups cite this as abuse because the man did not release the animal back into the habitat it was meant for. One common complaint is raised, all animals should be left to it's wild state and cared enough for so it may continue to survive adequately should it be alone, and not deal with interference by humans. Nature is as nature does, we should not put ourselves in a position to change that. We should not take as pets any animal that is regarded as "Wild" for both safety and morality's sake. By the very reasoning that many environmental groups cite, shouldn't we put most of our domestic dogs and cats back into the wild? As well as all of the birds, the lizards, the fish, even turtles and snakes?
Now, as an answer to this, people will say that those dogs and cats would be unable to provide for themselves once taken out of a domicile environment. In many cases this is not true, I personally know and have seen dogs regularly that have formed or joined packs of their own in the wild and are just as, or more successful than the packs of just wolves in the area. And people all over the globe know of cats that don't have homes that make their living in the streets, alleys or brush.
But to contradict this, think, would you leave any child that is old enough to think rationally and function physically on his or her own to provide his or her own support? No, you would not. In fact, there are dire punishment’s found all across the world for that very crime. Why would you leave a willingly benevolent animal to a much harsher life, if you yourself were willing to provide and care for it? It is morally acceptable to take in any kind of animal that can be or has been previously taken in and raised by humans in a humane manner that does not jeopardize the safety or comfort of the population beyond your own being, that is perfectly reasonable, provided that you can care for the animal adequately, including space requirements and health care.
Obviously trying to tame a fully-grown wild animal will only lead to grief for all involved in almost all cases. But an orphaned young animal should not be left alone, if morality has any say in the matter.
Throughout history, there have been many recorded instances of people keeping supposedly wild animals as pets. Or even as companions, as such as the term may apply. During WWII the Polish Infantry bought and adopted a bear cub that came to be known as Voytek (Wojtek) the Soldier Bear. He would drink beer, wrestle, smoke and work with the men of the unit by carrying ammunition and supplies. Aren’t bears regarded as some of the most dangerous and temperamental animals? Voytek (Wojtek) lived for almost 22 years in a healthy environment. Like wolves, who even people in our own community have adopted and lived with as companions for as long as everybody I know can remember. These are the supposedly wild animals that are being hurt by our interference. There is a lot of debate being sallied back and forth between all the parties involved, but what it boils down to is care. If we care for our companions, then we are not hurting them. These “wild” animals, have been, still are, and possibly always will be our pets."
My printer wouldn't cooperate to print this beast, so I had to rely on Sandra to print it for me. :P Thanks all, and I suppose I'm done for the night.
RSS Feed