Jump to content
Dogomania

Private Ownerships of Wolves


Ash
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote]Breeding mustangs isn't going to make you any money...you can adopt one for as little as $125 (but can go up), do you know how much it costs to maintain a horse? You done lost your "profit" with the first round of shots of the mare alone. Heck, the vet call alone will take a chunk out of that, forget the actual shots cost.[/quote]

So if you make money breeding animals, that is a crime, even if you never intended to make money? I can't speak for other wild animal breeders, but I DO know that of the responsible wolf hybrid breeders I have spoke with, none of them actually makes more money then they spend to maintain the animals.

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

[quote name='Michele'][quote name='Seijun'][quote name='Michele'][quote name='Seijun'][quote]They are the same thing... But owning and breeding wild animals for your own enjoyment is something totally different altogether...[/quote]

But you guys do the SAME THING with domestics!! Unless every single one of you here has NEVER [i]bought[/i] a dog or other pet, then you have no argument! If you think about it, domestic dogs as a whole have no essential purpose, even those who were used for hunting and protection. Those tribes could have survived without dogs for hunting and protection. Other tribes have lives without dogs, and they did just fine. There is not a single pet in the world that is essential for our survival!

~Seij[/quote]

someone just shoot me now....please[/quote]

K-9 bomb dogs, K-9 drug dogs, therapy dogs

Well, um.. It's true though, unless you can give me a reason that domestic animals are essential to our survival.

[quote]I mean, if you bred a wild mustang, and took the baby and raised it like you would any other baby horse, would it grow up the same? Would it still have wild instincts that might cause it to kill someone?[/quote]

A horse doesn't have to be wild to kill someone. The stat I read was something like 100+ people killed every year by domestic horses.

[quote]How do you prove happiness if you have implied I can't prove unhappiness? Besides, whatever they are feeling is the result of their only experience...it's not like they had a choice and picked captivity.[/quote]

I never said it was impossible to prove unhappiness. I only said you couldn't, because so far, that has been proven true. People here are implying that ALL wild animals suffer in captivity. I am still looking for evidence from you guys to support this. So far, you have only been able to prove that wild animals in IRresponsible hands suffer.

~Seij[/quote][/quote]
I only did it because you did Michele.. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Michele'][quote name='xavierandrea'][quote name='Michele'][quote name='Seijun'][quote name='Michele'][quote name='Seijun'][quote]They are the same thing... But owning and breeding wild animals for your own enjoyment is something totally different altogether...[/quote]

But you guys do the SAME THING with domestics!! Unless every single one of you here has NEVER [i]bought[/i] a dog or other pet, then you have no argument! If you think about it, domestic dogs as a whole have no essential purpose, even those who were used for hunting and protection. Those tribes could have survived without dogs for hunting and protection. Other tribes have lives without dogs, and they did just fine. There is not a single pet in the world that is essential for our survival!

~Seij[/quote]

someone just shoot me now....please[/quote]

K-9 bomb dogs, K-9 drug dogs, therapy dogs

Well, um.. It's true though, unless you can give me a reason that domestic animals are essential to our survival.

[quote]I mean, if you bred a wild mustang, and took the baby and raised it like you would any other baby horse, would it grow up the same? Would it still have wild instincts that might cause it to kill someone?[/quote]

A horse doesn't have to be wild to kill someone. The stat I read was something like 100+ people killed every year by domestic horses.

[quote]How do you prove happiness if you have implied I can't prove unhappiness? Besides, whatever they are feeling is the result of their only experience...it's not like they had a choice and picked captivity.[/quote]

I never said it was impossible to prove unhappiness. I only said you couldn't, because so far, that has been proven true. People here are implying that ALL wild animals suffer in captivity. I am still looking for evidence from you guys to support this. So far, you have only been able to prove that wild animals in IRresponsible hands suffer.

~Seij[/quote][/quote]
I only did it because you did Michele.. :D[/quote]

:D[/quote]
8)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Seijun: K-9 bomb dogs, K-9 drug dogs, therapy dogs......[/quote]

These aren't essential though. You could still live without a therapy dog. We would live if we still actually looked for bombs and drugs ourselves. We haven't always had dogs to do these things for us.

[quote]Is there any such thing as a true domestic tiger? A tiger that can be fully trusted in all situations, including their much loved owner suffering a stroke in front of them? [/quote]

Can a dog be fully trusted in all situations? Some very well-trained ones can, but most can't. No animal is ever completely predictable.

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='xavierandrea'][quote name='Michele'][quote name='xavierandrea'][quote name='Michele'][quote name='Seijun'][quote name='Michele'][quote name='Seijun'][quote]They are the same thing... But owning and breeding wild animals for your own enjoyment is something totally different altogether...[/quote]

But you guys do the SAME THING with domestics!! Unless every single one of you here has NEVER [i]bought[/i] a dog or other pet, then you have no argument! If you think about it, domestic dogs as a whole have no essential purpose, even those who were used for hunting and protection. Those tribes could have survived without dogs for hunting and protection. Other tribes have lives without dogs, and they did just fine. There is not a single pet in the world that is essential for our survival!

~Seij[/quote]

someone just shoot me now....please[/quote]

K-9 bomb dogs, K-9 drug dogs, therapy dogs

Well, um.. It's true though, unless you can give me a reason that domestic animals are essential to our survival.

[quote]I mean, if you bred a wild mustang, and took the baby and raised it like you would any other baby horse, would it grow up the same? Would it still have wild instincts that might cause it to kill someone?[/quote]

A horse doesn't have to be wild to kill someone. The stat I read was something like 100+ people killed every year by domestic horses.

[quote]How do you prove happiness if you have implied I can't prove unhappiness? Besides, whatever they are feeling is the result of their only experience...it's not like they had a choice and picked captivity.[/quote]

I never said it was impossible to prove unhappiness. I only said you couldn't, because so far, that has been proven true. People here are implying that ALL wild animals suffer in captivity. I am still looking for evidence from you guys to support this. So far, you have only been able to prove that wild animals in IRresponsible hands suffer.

~Seij[/quote][/quote]
I only did it because you did Michele.. :D[/quote]

:D[/quote]
8)[/quote]
Hey I can "quote" myself.. :banan:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok, new idea:
What if we did ban wild pet animals? Which should be banned?? Who decides what I can and can't have? Should we ban only dangerous ones? How do we decide which ones are dangerous or not? Do we just ban the ones that have killed the most people? How is this unlike banning the dog breeds that kill the most people?

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's no getting through the thick skulls of the "wild animals can be pets" people. Why do we even bother trying? We might as well be debating with PETA on ... well anything! :wallbash: They keep coming up with the same lame lines over and over and over and over and over and over again.

and over again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't tell by looking at pictures if an animal is happy or not. I think in order for it have it's true hapiness, it should be in it's true home.

And no a responsible wolf owner would not own just one. But somepeople see it as that.

Easy why they don't all run back to the wild? because they don't know how to survive. They've beome dependant on humans for food so naturally they think of humans as a pack provider/food source. I bet if somebody captured a wild wolf the poor thing would be tormetended by being a pet.

I understand the difference between bad ownership and good ownership. I just don't see the need to privately own a wolf. I think having wild animals for your enjoyment is purely selfish. That is not a good reason, at all. I can see rescueing if you have a lot of room for the animal to thrive, sorta. But for enjoyment reasons, I just find that really wrong.

Michele, why would you accept someone having a wolf before a tiger? Just wondeirng.

Domestic animals aren't essential to survival, that's easy. Dogs have been tamed for thousands of years. I don't want my children to grow up where a neighbor is walking their tiger on a leash down the street, the same as a wolf. It's more acceptable to own domestic animals because they are just that--- domestic. They probably didn't want to be domesicated either but we took it upon ourselves to 'create' pets.
While I look at my beautiful dog, and how much he enjoys indoor life I can't help but think in the wild he'd thrive. He'd most defiently be an alpha male and have a mate, and some pups to carry on his traits.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]If you were blind, would you need a guide dog? They make our lives easier, so in my book, they are essential....[/quote]

You could use a walking cane though. You don't [i]need[/i] a dog. You are right though, they make our lives easier. But easier does not equal needed. Food and water is needed. Dogs are a want. Getting something to make your life easier is no different than saying you got it because it is more novel. But wait, haven't you guys already said that pets for novelty is evil?

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Seijun'][quote]If you were blind, would you need a guide dog? They make our lives easier, so in my book, they are essential....[/quote]

You could use a walking cane though. You don't [i]need[/i] a dog. You are right though, they make our lives easier. But easier does not equal needed. Food and water is needed. Dogs are a want. Getting something to make your life easier is no different than saying you got it because it is more novel. But wait, haven't you guys already said that pets for novelty is evil?

~Seij[/quote]


I agree with you that they aren't essential. They make our lives easier at times, yes. They said WILD or EXOTIC pets aren't acceptable in their opinions, not domestic or tame animals. There is a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='JackieMaya']There's no getting through the thick skulls of the "wild animals can be pets" people. Why do we even bother trying? We might as well be debating with PETA on ... well anything! :wallbash: They keep coming up with the same lame lines over and over and over and over and over and over again.

and over again.[/quote]

Funny, the same is true of you guys.

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Easy why they don't all run back to the wild? because they don't know how to survive. They've beome dependant on humans for food so naturally they think of humans as a pack provider/food source. I bet if somebody captured a wild wolf the poor thing would be tormetended by being a pet.[/quote]

Yup, it would be cruel to force a wolf captured from the wild to live as a pet. But that's only because it is used to something else. That's why we don't take them from the wild. Once raised in captivity, it would be torturous for them to be in the wild! What point are you trying to make?

[quote]Again, I don't think this is comparable. Can you honestly tell me that if the same number of tigers were owned in homes as that of dogs, that there wouldn't be a HUGE difference in the amount of attacks on humans? Accidental or otherwise?[/quote]

Actually, I do think with as many pet tigers as dogs, there would be more deaths by tigers than dogs. There is no arguing that a toger is more dangerous is a dog. But should we ban something because it is more dangerous than something else? Isn't that what BSL does? It bans the dogs people think are more dangerous?

[quote] And I dont think anyone said "pets" for novelty is evil[/quote]

Thus, having a wild pet for novelty is not evil either.

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Seijun']You could use a walking cane though. You don't need a dog. You are right though, they make our lives easier. But easier does not equal needed. Food and water is needed. Dogs are a want. Getting something to make your life easier is no different than saying you got it because it is more novel. But wait, haven't you guys already said that pets for novelty is evil?
[/quote]

Ok, now we are picking the last straws, don't we? Again, the difference is a dog is domesticated and a wild wolf is not. The dog is bred to enjoy, to need the companionship of human whereas a wolf is born to fear human.

Wheter or not we essentially need dogs, they have been our companions for thousands of years and when we talk of insticts - their instinct is not primarily to fear human.

To argue wheter or not a guide dog or a explosive searching dog is essential or not - I find this weak.

[quote name='Seijun']Ok, new idea:
What if we did ban wild pet animals? Which should be banned?? Who decides what I can and can't have? Should we ban only dangerous ones? How do we decide which ones are dangerous or not? Do we just ban the ones that have killed the most people? How is this unlike banning the dog breeds that kill the most people?
~Seij[/quote]

There is an idea and discussion point. To be honest - I don't know.

In some European countries, dogs that apparently 'kill most people' are banned. I put this in paranthesis because of course, the list of banned dogs represent so-called fighting dogs and a lot of issues go together to make them top of the list.

Anyway - how about this definition of allowed 'domesticated' animals:

Includes all breeds of animals which have been in their breeding modified to be in human environment, close to human and human handling.

:oops: I wish my English would be better...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Ravyn']Actually, to leap on the tangent (don't beat me! :) ). There are essentially two groups of sight impared individuals. Ones who use guide dogs and love them...and ones who don't and think guide dogs are 'crutches' that prevent an individual from total independance. My BF's guide dog retired, and he is off getting his new one. About four months passed between the two, where he was limited to his cane. It's true, a cane cannot tell you when to cross the street...so he listens to the sounds of the traffic. He says its pretty easy to tell when to cross and when not to...he can tell by the sounds of the engines how far they are, and what direction they are going and how fast.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled programming...[/quote]

Good point. Like I said, no pet is essential. You could live without a guide dog if you were blind. You could live too without a dog to help your mental state. Maybe not you personally, but the human race in general. What did mentally ill people do before animals were domesticated? If they were, humans would have died out a long time ago.

BTW, if it IS true that dogs are "essential" for the health of some mentally ill persons, could it not also be said that a wild animal could do the same job? I do consider my wolf hybrid to be very helpful to me when I am depressed.

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Seijun']
BTW, if it IS true that dogs are "essential" for the health of some mentally ill persons, could it not also be said that a wild animal could do the same job? I do consider my wolf hybrid to be very helpful to me when I am depressed.
~Seij[/quote]

Why - I believe they could. And I believe that owners like you truly care for their animal.

It does not change the matter that the wolf is _not_ made for that whereas the dog is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Again, the difference is a dog is domesticated and a wild wolf is not. The dog is bred to enjoy, to need the companionship of human whereas a wolf is born to fear human.[/quote]

But dogs can also be born to fear humans. Some poorly bred dogs actually grow up fearful of humans. On the other hand, I have seen properly socialized wolves that would greet even complete strangers.

[quote]Yes... It bans the dogs people THINK are more dangerous. Even though there is NO PROOF that they are more dangerous. In fact there is actually a lot of proof otherwise.[/quote]

Ok, I will use a more comparable comparison. What about horses again? Does anyone dissagree with the statement that they are more dangerous than dogs? I see less horses than dogs, but more deaths attributed to horses than to dogs.

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StarGaze']Deaths resulting from horses are most often falls...not them attacking. So there's still no comparison.[/quote]

Falls from what though? The horse bucking? There are no stats to tell us if it was the horses fault (for bucking), or whether it was just an accident and the person fell off.

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Seijun']
But dogs can also be born to fear humans. Some poorly bred dogs actually grow up fearful of humans. On the other hand, I have seen properly socialized wolves that would greet even complete strangers.
~Seij[/quote]

Seriously - do you not see the difference between a dog being born to trust human to wolves who are born to fear human?

If a dog fears human, something went wrong. If a wolf likes human something went wrong as well, technically speaking - as it is the exception and, I hope you agree, should still be the exception.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='StarGaze']Bucking is still human error most of the time.[/quote]

The same could be true of tiger attacks. Most tiger attacks I have seen resulted from the handler doing something "wrong" (even if no one could have known that at the time).

Tigers are not prone to randomly attacking. Like most animals, there is usually a reason for their actions.

~Seij

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...