I was going to put this in the companion animals thread, but since I think the issue applies to more than just companion animals, I'll put it here.

So I am having a little debate about animal rights at another board I post on. Right now we are discussing breeding domesticated animals. I say that humans should stop breeding them, spay and neuter the ones who are left, and eventually there will be no more domesticated animals. I feel that since these aren't naturally evolved species, and since we are dealing with a lot of suffering caused by overpopulation, that this is the best solution. Not a perfect solution.

So anyway, the non-ARA's are saying that I am being a hyprocrite because I feel this way. They say that I can't claim to love animals if I want them to "not exist".

What do you guys think? What should we do about domesticated animals?

Are you talking about pure breeds? Or all domestic animals?

Domestic animals in general, like dogs, cats, farm animals. Any animal that humans have genetically manipulated. I think that the other people are focusing mostly on dogs and cats, though.

Well, i consider myself pro-AR, and i tend to think that anyone who follows the proposal that you have proposed to be hypocritical. If you are pro-AR, you would have to feel that all animals have rights, that means even animals inwhich humans have genetically manipulated would have rights. These rights should preclude humans from further manipulation of their lives. You, and others, may think that humans need to "fix" this manipulation, but is "fixing" it with more manipulation the proper course of actions to follow? Do humans infact have the right to determine which species should be able to coexist with us on the planet, regardless of how the animals evolved into its current state? My feeling on the issue is a cease and desist of human manipulation of non-human animals, including preservation, in zoos or man made habitats, of species going extinct.

But don't we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made? Shouldn't we do what we can to stop suffering? Domesticated animals can't survive on their own (as viable species) because we have bred them in certain ways that would put them at a great disadvantage in the wild, so it wouldn't really be humane to release them and let nature take its course, would it? As someone who is pro-AR, I want to stop suffering in animals that is the direct or indirect result of human interference. And I think that a little more interference is necessary to accomplish this.

So I guess what I am asking is, is it moral to interfere in an animal's life if it will stop suffering for the species as a whole? Does an individual's rights outweigh a population's rights?

Another question that is kind of along the same lines as this; what do we do about non-native species that humans have introduced to an area that are having an adverse effect on the native species? Do we just leave them, and let nature sort it out? Do we step in and remove the non-native species or stop them from reproducing in some way?

But don't we have a responsibility to clean up the mess we made?

Not when it involves killing of millions of animals that have as much right to life as humans do.

Shouldn't we do what we can to stop suffering?

Yep, unless that means humans somehow have a right that enables us to determine which species should be able to exist or not exist based on what we feel is appropriate.

Domesticated animals can't survive on their own (as viable species) because we have bred them in certain ways that would put them at a great disadvantage in the wild, so it wouldn't really be humane to release them and let nature take its course, would it?

Who is to say which species will survive and which wont, some may evolve on their own and survive some may die off, humans should not take away from the course of nature and decide for themselves who shall exist and who shall not. that is what created the problem in the first place.

As someone who is pro-AR, I want to stop suffering in animals that is the direct or indirect result of human interference. And I think that a little more interference is necessary to accomplish this.

how far will you take this? should we tear down our cities and homes and give it back to those whom we stole it from? pro-AR isnt about pro-non-suffering, it is about choice, an individuals choice to decide for themselves what is best for themself and not have their existance and life determined by another, excluding natural predatory/prey scenerios.

So I guess what I am asking is, is it moral to interfere in an animal's life if it will stop suffering for the species as a whole?

no

Does an individual's rights outweigh a population's rights?

no

Another question that is kind of along the same lines as this; what do we do about non-native species that humans have introduced to an area that are having an adverse effect on the native species? Do we just leave them, and let nature sort it out? Do we step in and remove the non-native species or stop them from reproducing in some way?

we leave them and let nature sort it out as only nature can. though if you are in favour of this how do we determine what is an adverse effect? how far to we go back in time to determine the species that humans have introduced?

Dogs and cats will reproduce at whim with no genetic manipulation from humans. Some of these animals will become domesticated even though they could survive in the wild if they needed to. Are you talking about those animals too?

I think she is referring to the genetic manipulations that people have done to cats and dogs along with any other animals humans have taken custody of to gain the desired results. Such as, Bob has a black lab, Sue has a black lab, Bonnie has a bull dog. Bob thinks a bulldog lab mix would be cool, so Bob introduces his lab to the bull dog. Bob likes the outcome, but he feels his new dog is missing something. He notices Sue now has a poodle. Bob thinks the poodle will add something good to the mix, so.... and so on and so forth. Eventually after much manipulation Bob has weiner dog.

I would be concerned about some of these farm animals that have been bred to completely different from what they were originally, like the featherless chicken, or the turkeys that are so top heavy, their legs can barely hold them up if they grow to full size.

It would seem to make more sense that if this were to happen, it would happen so gradually, that no sterilizing or human interference would need to occur. Some farmer would just kill all the ones he had left and/or stop breeding them and they would no longer exist. I doubt there would ever be an "emancipation" where all the animals were just let loose.

And I think there can be a spectrum of AR with different degrees of human interference. Total non interference would mean not caring for or directly helping an animal in anyway. No veterniary care, no helping a chicken with a broken wing that just escaped a farm.

I understand the point that some ARAs have about wanting to stop the breeding of farm animals. I also understand wanting to stop the indiscriminate breeding of companion animals.

Hypothetical situation:

What if all the companion animals were bred by a person who took amazing care of all of their animals. And all of the young of these animals were adopted out to people who had to go through reference checks and have house visits and all the animals that were adopted out were spayed and neutered. Would you still have a problem with that? What if there was a guarantee that all of the companion animals were taken care of in the best way possible and have wonderful homes and there were no strays and no abuse. Would it be ok to breed companion animals then?

I'm not looking for a debate- I'm just curious. Of course my personal stance is that I'd rather die than to live in a world without cows and horses and rabbits and piggies- but I tend to be a tad overdramtic at times- ;)

I guess I'm selfish, but I like sharing my home with animals.

a well treated slave is still a slave

With domestic cats and dogs, the overpopulation crisis must be weighed against the legitimate desire of "fanciers" to maintain the integrity of particular breeds.

The solution to this is for top-of-the-line purebred cats and dogs to be bred under very controlled circumstances. This would basically mean one or two litters over the course of a female's entire lifetime, ending with her being spayed.

Peace,
Maggie

So I am having a little debate about animal rights at another board I post on. Right now we are discussing breeding domesticated animals.

Stop posting on other boards. Problem solved. :D

You're right, Michael! Now why didn't I think of that? :p

VealPrincess, I like having animals around me too! :) About your hypothetical situation, I really don't know. On one hand, if everyone took really good care of them, and everyone of them had a home, then it is kind of easy to think that it wouldn't hurt to keep having them. But then I think what majake said, that a happy slave is still a slave. In the end, an animal can't really tell us if they like living with us.

majake, I never said anything about killing the animals. Just stop purposely breeding them, and sterilizing the ones we have so that the population will go down. But certainly not killing them.

About your idea about "cease and desist", what would we do with the animals that are living in captivity now? (including companion, resource and entertainment animals)

Im sorry SilverC, i dont know where i got that killing idea.

ok for the domesticated animals(non cat/dogs) we have now i think we should reintroduce them to the wild, for cats/dogs a policy of mutual companionship may be acceptable, such as how "outside" cats live. They may come and go as they please and they can get food and shelter from whom ever wishes to provide it.

I didn't read all the posts but I just wanted to say that we as a whole are not responsible enough to care for and own these animals therefore we should not have them. 17 million cats and dogs are killed yearly if I remember correctly, we are too irresponsible for this much responsiblity, simple as that.

I agree with SilverC.

A few days ago I saw a pheasant run across my yard. This seemed odd considering that even though it's mostly country where I live, no wild pheasants habitate for miles around. I asked my rents cuz I was curious, and they said that the neighbor who owns the cornfield and stand of trees across the street had given some hunters permission to release and then hunt farm-raised pheasants. I guess that's like stocking the pond before going fishing.

It made me somewhat upset to realize that they raised pheasants not for their meat, not for their companionship, but because these hunters wanted 'the thrill of the chase' or whatever you want to call it. It sounds rather barbaric to me.

And these pheasants weren't your average wild pheasants, either. My dad says that a bird raised by a light bulb is rather dim, so I guess these hunters didn't want to have to chase too long or too hard to catch up with these frightened birds. The bred pheasants stood no chance in the wild; they had no idea how to search for food. I've heard twisted reasoning that because the pheasants couldn't fend for themselves, then it was ok to chase them around and kill them to get a little thrill from the hunt.

(Ruthie sniffs and wipes the tears)

Hunters like this are low life scum who should be hung by their toes naked from the nearest tree!

Ruthie, I was thinking hanging by eyelids, but whatever works. :-P

For purely show breeds, I agree. For the most part they are twisted abominations that should be allowed to die out. However, believe it or not there are still some good working lines out there that can serve many useful purposes. Yes, I'm being human-centric by calling them "useful," but frankly we need to have dogs that can sniff bombs and guard things. And they need us for food. It's part of an ancient pact that has worked well for both parties for countless centuries. By breeding dogs to be little replacement children, we are violating this pact.

It would be far better to restore wild habitat with bulldozers than to send farm-raised "game" into the fields.

But I have a feeling the people who's houses I would gleefully destroy would not agree with my position.

I see subdivisions and housing developments going up all around my town, while the inner city is becoming more and more abandoned and decrepit. Honestly, I'd just as soon the developers become remodelers, but how on earth would I convince anyone to change fields like that? It seems to me that if the developers didn't have a market in which to sell their products, then they would find other careers. People want to get out of the cities. How about some of us go back in and make it nicer for people in the cities? Then we might not have as many problems with animals not knowing where to go.

I agree completely. Of course, in practice it's pretty tough.

As far as hanging by the nails, the real evil comes from the people who live in suburbia, not the hunters who try to make do with no natural habitat for their game. All the hunters in this country don't do anything like the damage done by overdevelopment. Yet hunters are viewed as the ultimate evil. Go figure!