The animals had rights -- the right of man's protection, the right to live, the right to multiply, the right to freedom, and the right to man's indebtedness -- and in recognition of these rights the Lakota never enslaved an animal and spared all life that was not needed for food and clothing. For the animal and bird world there existed a brotherly feeling that kept the Lakota safe among them.
The Lakota were one of early-adopters of the horse culture. They 'enslaved' their horses, and I don't expect the horses felt particularly 'brotherly' about thatearthfriendly wrote: Beau...........................tiful and life-giving.
Parrots are expensive and messy, caged parrots also can't and don't 'do much'. A lack of brotherliness perhapsearthfriendly wrote:We had two pet parakeets, Mystery and Harmony. After Mystery died, decided not to get Harmony another mate. Putting living things in cage, for the amusement of my kids, was a decision I came to regret.
I wouldn't keep caged birds either, as any benefit only seems to flow one way (to the owner). If you made it less 1-way and say let the bird out of it's cage for a while odds on a) it would fly around your home pooing on the furniture and/or b) find an open window and exit perhaps never to return.
[/quote]earthfriendly wrote:This summer when I ask my daughter if she would like to visit the zoo, she said "why would I want to pay money to see animals in cages?"
Perhaps she was afraid of how you'd react if she confessed to having an interest in going?
I think responsible zoo-keeping serves a valuable purpose. It gives people, especially the young, and especially urban-dwellers a chance to encounter animals they otherwise never would, and learn about their respective roles in the ecosystem and the importance of their conservation. I expect a young person is better able to comprehend why tigers and sharks (etcetc) matter if they have ever had the opportunity to encounter these creatures close-up.
Also many responsible zoos maintain important research and breeding programmes. Where for example would the Giant Panda be without them?
Of course others zoos/aquaria can put profit before any thought of welfare, education, or fruitful research. Like Resort World Sentosa putting a whale-shark (endangered species) in a tank; money-spinning due to the ignorant who would pay to go, but am imminent death-sentence on the fish.
@Nak. Yes, I know some people especially current or former dive-guides who have developed what to a non-diver might seem like an inexplicable emotional affinity or bond with fish, and other sea life. They'll politely excuse themselves from a dining table if others choose to eat it, perhaps in a similar way that I would if I were in circumstances where others wished to eat dog.
Believe it or not fish species have distinct personalities, and within each species 'they are individuals'. They have families, and homes and gardens which they tend. An experienced guide knows precisely where to go and (likely) find a fish that lives on a dive-site. You could say that each fish is a 'useful member of marine society'.
That said I'm fine with eating sea-food if it's sustainable and responsibly sourced. But walking past the windows of live fish outside Chinese restaurants does get to me, in the same way as seeing a dog mistreated.
[Plus if you have had the pleasure of observing the likes of say grouper, snapper etc in the wild, you can immediately see how diseased and toxic-looking the ones in restaurant tanks are. Putting personal values aside for a moment, you wouldn't wish to eat one on the grounds of risk to personal health].