Caging animals

[Sarahkka]

This is an odd concept to me I'm afraid. A slippery slope too. So birds can't be kept in adequately sized cages and let out for long stretches everyday? Rabbits and guinea pigs shouldn't be kept in adequately sized hutches with plenty of room to run and play, lots of fresh hay and water, and preferably let out for a while every day?

So by that logic, dogs should not be kept in yards, cats should not be inside. I have horses. If they were "wild" horses they would roam over hundreds of kilometres. Is it cruel that they are kept in paddocks then? Paddocks large enough for them to buck and run and roll, but certainly not hundreds of kilometres. Should I just set them free to be picked off by predators, hit by cars, etc?

These are not wild animals we are talking about. I can tell by the enthused greetings I get from each of them that my dogs, cat, horses, rabbits, guinea pigs and canaries are certainly not unhappy in there various versions of "cages." And as domesticated animals they are certainly far safer there.

THIS!!! i know rabbits, horses, dogs etc, are originally wild animals, but my dogs were bred from a pet dog, which was also bred from a pet dog so on so on. they are pets not wind animals, my dogs dont look unhappy nor do they act in anyway that they shouldnt. theres obviously an exeption when people leave dogs in cages for endless amount of hours, same with rabbits etc. but pet dogs, pet rabbits etc. are not wild animals, they are PETS! seems people get mixed up with the two

From my point of view I just don't understand breeding pets in general.
I'm sure people have their reasons but to me (particularly caged animals), it appears people are paying for a living piece of furniture. I was brought up with pets and I thought the same as a child, it's never really made sense to me.

I'm sure it's different with dogs etc, I know people claim to gain a lot of comfort from pets. I just don't get it personally.

Really? Even with pets as a child, you didn't bond with them? I have had cats all my life and they're my little loves. Not property or some object I own in the least. Most people I know feel very much the same way. We joke about having "fur children" - that's how much love and consideration our household pets get. 'Living furniture' is kind of a disturbing way to describe an animal, for me anyway.

 

[Bex84]

This is an odd concept to me I'm afraid. A slippery slope too. So birds can't be kept in adequately sized cages and let out for long stretches everyday? Rabbits and guinea pigs shouldn't be kept in adequately sized hutches with plenty of room to run and play, lots of fresh hay and water, and preferably let out for a while every day?

So by that logic, dogs should not be kept in yards, cats should not be inside. I have horses. If they were "wild" horses they would roam over hundreds of kilometres. Is it cruel that they are kept in paddocks then? Paddocks large enough for them to buck and run and roll, but certainly not hundreds of kilometres. Should I just set them free to be picked off by predators, hit by cars, etc?

These are not wild animals we are talking about. I can tell by the enthused greetings I get from each of them that my dogs, cat, horses, rabbits, guinea pigs and canaries are certainly not unhappy in there various versions of "cages." And as domesticated animals they are certainly far safer there.

THIS!!! i know rabbits, horses, dogs etc, are originally wild animals, but my dogs were bred from a pet dog, which was also bred from a pet dog so on so on. they are pets not wind animals, my dogs dont look unhappy nor do they act in anyway that they shouldnt. theres obviously an exeption when people leave dogs in cages for endless amount of hours, same with rabbits etc. but pet dogs, pet rabbits etc. are not wild animals, they are PETS! seems people get mixed up with the two

From my point of view I just don't understand breeding pets in general.
I'm sure people have their reasons but to me (particularly caged animals), it appears people are paying for a living piece of furniture. I was brought up with pets and I thought the same as a child, it's never really made sense to me.

I'm sure it's different with dogs etc, I know people claim to gain a lot of comfort from pets. I just don't get it personally.

Really? Even with pets as a child, you didn't bond with them? I have had cats all my life and they're my little loves. Not property or some object I own in the least. Most people I know feel very much the same way. We joke about having "fur children" - that's how much love and consideration our household pets get. 'Living furniture' is kind of a disturbing way to describe an animal, for me anyway.

I agree. I would never say my pets are living furniture, they are my fur babies and I love them, they are part of our family, I have a bond with them. i dont know anyone with pets who sees them as living furniture, in fact my mum probably puts their dogs at that same level as myself and my sisters lol

 

[Kate&Lucas]

Nope. I thought they were cute at the time but I couldn't help think it was an odd thing, to purchase an animal and make it live in your home. My parents bought me a hamster when I was about 9 and I cried myself to sleep thinking of it's poor Mum missing it

I realise my view on pets is unusual and people tend to think I'm an awful cold bitch but I love animals, I just wouldn't keep one in my house.

 

[Tiff]

I don't think species-appropriate uses of enclosures is cruel. Not in the least. In the wild, an animal goes exactly as far as it must to meet its basic needs of food/water/shelter. If those things are being provided and if the other behavioural needs are being met, then using crates/kennels/terrariums is fine.
Parrots are a trickier one, but not because keeping them in an aviary is cruel. Parrots need huge amounts of social stimulation or they start to get very stressed. Unfortunately, many people who love the idea of having a parrot do not understand how much work they are and this can lead to bad situations for the birds. They are one of the top most abandoned pets and the black market pet trade has been particularly devastating. That being said, I know many amazing bird owners who provide plenty of stimulus and meet their birds' needs with use of an aviary. I don't think the issue with parots is confinement.
It bears thinking about that "freedom" is a human construct and imposing our concept of this on an animal is not necessarily accurate or helpful to improving that animal's quality of life. It reminds me a bit of overhearing visitors at zoos saying things like "Oh, that lion must be miserable. It just lies there and it doesn't move. It must be so bored."
I've seen lions in the wild. Contrary to what wildlife documentaries suggest, they sleep about twenty hours a day on average. It is an energy conservation strategy and has nothing to do with happiness/boredom/etc. I think we often make the mistake of imposing our human concepts of free will and emotions onto animals and it doesn't necessairly improve things for the animals when we do that.
Interesting discussion, though!

Fair point, Sarah! I was curious, have you seen the documentary Blackfish? Reading your post made me think of it, I was horrified while watching it (and to be honest, always a bit uneasy whenever I went to Marine Land as a kid).

I went back there as an adult and the smell of chemicals was overpowering and the animals all looked dirty and sad. The bears were swimming in this "pond" of neon green slime.

I agree with the concept of free will and emotion being human, but when I see those huge whales in those super small enclosures it makes me really sad.

Do you think the same applies to marine animals like orcas?

 

[Noodlebear]

I don't think species-appropriate uses of enclosures is cruel. Not in the least. In the wild, an animal goes exactly as far as it must to meet its basic needs of food/water/shelter. If those things are being provided and if the other behavioural needs are being met, then using crates/kennels/terrariums is fine.
Parrots are a trickier one, but not because keeping them in an aviary is cruel. Parrots need huge amounts of social stimulation or they start to get very stressed. Unfortunately, many people who love the idea of having a parrot do not understand how much work they are and this can lead to bad situations for the birds. They are one of the top most abandoned pets and the black market pet trade has been particularly devastating. That being said, I know many amazing bird owners who provide plenty of stimulus and meet their birds' needs with use of an aviary. I don't think the issue with parots is confinement.
It bears thinking about that "freedom" is a human construct and imposing our concept of this on an animal is not necessarily accurate or helpful to improving that animal's quality of life. It reminds me a bit of overhearing visitors at zoos saying things like "Oh, that lion must be miserable. It just lies there and it doesn't move. It must be so bored."
I've seen lions in the wild. Contrary to what wildlife documentaries suggest, they sleep about twenty hours a day on average. It is an energy conservation strategy and has nothing to do with happiness/boredom/etc. I think we often make the mistake of imposing our human concepts of free will and emotions onto animals and it doesn't necessairly improve things for the animals when we do that.
Interesting discussion, though!

I absolutely agree. If I'd written it, it wouldn't have been nearly as eloquent as this though

 

[modified]

Most household pet animals (save dogs and cats) don't know their butts from a hole in the wall, let alone have the higher thinking to realize it's depressing to be in a cage.

Of course I believe that these pets probably need some time outside of the cage to explore (the amount of time depends on the animal), and enough room for plenty of movement inside the cage, but it's much less 'cruel' than the reality of natural predators and starvation if they were wild.

A parrot can and should spend lots of time out of their cage, and plenty of climbing space inside the cage, but they actually like going back into their cage and sleeping in there, it's like their bedroom.

That's exactly how I see it with my hedgehog. He's always warm, has constant access to food and water, and is completely safe.

I'd love to let him just roam around the house and yard freely but he's tiny, nocturnal, and rather blind, so that's not very realistic.

I'm guessing you mean an African Pygmy Hedgehog? I have one too - they're not animals that have ever been in the wild, they were bred specifically from 2 separate wild hedgehogs in captivity so I think it's different. I don't think they can really be compared to the likes of rabbits etc who are wild animals.

 

[Sarahkka]

I don't think species-appropriate uses of enclosures is cruel. Not in the least. In the wild, an animal goes exactly as far as it must to meet its basic needs of food/water/shelter. If those things are being provided and if the other behavioural needs are being met, then using crates/kennels/terrariums is fine.
Parrots are a trickier one, but not because keeping them in an aviary is cruel. Parrots need huge amounts of social stimulation or they start to get very stressed. Unfortunately, many people who love the idea of having a parrot do not understand how much work they are and this can lead to bad situations for the birds. They are one of the top most abandoned pets and the black market pet trade has been particularly devastating. That being said, I know many amazing bird owners who provide plenty of stimulus and meet their birds' needs with use of an aviary. I don't think the issue with parots is confinement.
It bears thinking about that "freedom" is a human construct and imposing our concept of this on an animal is not necessarily accurate or helpful to improving that animal's quality of life. It reminds me a bit of overhearing visitors at zoos saying things like "Oh, that lion must be miserable. It just lies there and it doesn't move. It must be so bored."
I've seen lions in the wild. Contrary to what wildlife documentaries suggest, they sleep about twenty hours a day on average. It is an energy conservation strategy and has nothing to do with happiness/boredom/etc. I think we often make the mistake of imposing our human concepts of free will and emotions onto animals and it doesn't necessairly improve things for the animals when we do that.
Interesting discussion, though!

Fair point, Sarah! I was curious, have you seen the documentary Blackfish? Reading your post made me think of it, I was horrified while watching it (and to be honest, always a bit uneasy whenever I went to Marine Land as a kid).

I went back there as an adult and the smell of chemicals was overpowering and the animals all looked dirty and sad. The bears were swimming in this "pond" of neon green slime.

I agree with the concept of free will and emotion being human, but when I see those huge whales in those super small enclosures it makes me really sad.

Do you think the same applies to marine animals like orcas?

I have not seen Blackfish, so I can't really comment on that specifically. My experience has been in zoos rather than aquariums, but from what I know of accredited institutions (of which Seaworld is one), I doubt that Seaworld was represented fairly in the film. Marineland (this is the privately owned place in Ontario, right?) was not accredited as far as I know. There is a huge difference in standards of care between accredited places and non, and it is often the misconception that all "zoos/aquariums" are the same that gives so much weight to the "captivity is cruel" argument. In the case of Marineland, I would say that when the criticism is spawned by multiple animal care people from the institution over several years, that there is probably weight to the story.
There are incredible aquariums out there (including Seaworld) doing really exceptional conservation work. However, there are some species that don't do well in captivity. Cetaceans have been a hot debate topic in the zoo/aquarium world for awhile. I have heard some very intelligent defenses from the Vancouver Aquarium. I will see if I can find and link them.

 

[Tiff]

Its always made me wonder, because before I met you I was very firmly in the zoos are cruel camp. But in speaking over the years about things I've learned about a lot of the conservation efforts that zoos do, which has made me change my mind about them.

Oh, Seaworld definitely wasn't painted in an unbiased light that's for sure. The entire film was horrific to watch, complete with how smart orcas are and how they'd try to evade their babies being captured and how orcas stay with their families for generations and the depression that the mamas go into and crying out and searching for their babies. Hit me right in the feels.

I think the biggest point was that Seaworld tried to tout that in the wild, Orcas only live up to 60 years or so - so not much longer than their lifespan in captivity. Whereas now they're finding those "granny pods" of whales that are over 100 years old.

Its tough, because I don't like to just base judgement and its something I know very little about. I don't think the odd newspaper article or documentary makes what I'm seeing true.

Just asking you as you're the only person I know who's been around so many different animals and have a really good knowledge of what goes on in the zoos. I know aquariums are different though. Figured it didn't hurt to ask!

 

[JASMAK]

I am firmly in the zoos are cruel camp unless they are rescued and not breeding. .. Which is rare. We went to one zoo in Mexico and most animals were free to come and go but they were breeding animals and that was disturbing. Don't even get me started on sea world. And just because animals don't know any different doesn't make it okay. If a baby was brought up in a cement room with food and seemed content because she didn't know any better... it still doesn't make it okay to keep a human in a cement room. Or a bear, Or a giraffe, Or any animal. The only thing I am sort of okay with is animals taken as a rescue where they cannot be put back into the wild.

 

[Sarahkka]

I am firmly in the zoos are cruel camp unless they are rescued and not breeding. .. Which is rare. We went to one zoo in Mexico and most animals were free to come and go but they were breeding animals and that was disturbing. Don't even get me started on sea world. And just because animals don't know any different doesn't make it okay. If a baby was brought up in a cement room with food and seemed content because she didn't know any better... it still doesn't make it okay to keep a human in a cement room. Or a bear, Or a giraffe, Or any animal. The only thing I am sort of okay with is animals taken as a rescue where they cannot be put back into the wild.

In accredited zoos, the only wild caught animals are rescues, or in very rare cases, animals brought in for endangered species breeding programs because their numbers in the wild are so low, we will lose them otherwise (many amphibian species are currently in this boat). Our Zoo alone is responsible for the captive breeding and reintroduction of many critically endangered species in North America. There is a long list of animals that wouldn't be here at all if it weren't for the conservation work that accredited zoos and aquariums do.
It is important to know that there is a difference between an accredited institution that is held to a standard of care, ethics, conservation, and education and a roadside menagerie. Unfortunately, both can be called a zoo/aquarium, but the difference is enormous.
Also, with the exception of holding areas where routine care is performed, enclosures in accredited insititutions are not a cement room and haven't been for a good thirty years. Enclosures are designed to meet behavioural needs of every species and a lot of thought and planning goes into ensuring that both the space and the husbandry techniques do just that. There are strong indicators when we aren't meeting an animal's needs and if any of those stress behaviours are observed, protocols to ameliorate the situation get implemented immediately.
Captivity may not be ideal, but to say it is cruel is simplistic. Not only do we not have the healthy habitat to support many of our species of concern today, we are also seeing them fall prey to poaching or the illegal pet trade. I could just as easily argue that for many of our critically endangered species (including a few of the aforementioned parrots), they probably have a better chance of survival as a species in zoos than they do in the wild. That's how grim things are out there.
I can also personally attest to the fact that the education and awareness-raising done by zoos is significant and has lent a lot of attention and fundraising support to conservation projects in the wild. Again, I can list multiple examples of this just from our zoo alone.
It might be interesting to know that an offical line of our accreditation organization is "Wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where zoos were not necessary?" Anyone with the barest understanding of the kind of pressures that exist for animals in the wild would know that zoos have been working very hard on species conservation on many fronts, from breeding programs designed to preserve genetic diversity and boost numbers through to supporting habitat conservation.
Saying that zoos are inherently cruel also belies the contribution of the incredibly passionate and talented animal care staff that work crazy long hours for very little pay and have a level of devotion to their animals that is easily akin to what most of us feel for our children. So "cruelty" as a descriptor is inaccurate on many fronts, I would say

 

[Tiff]

I can also personally attest to the fact that the education and awareness-raising done by zoos is significant and has lent a lot of attention and fundraising support to conservation projects in the wild. Again, I can list multiple examples of this just from our zoo alone.

I can attest to this, not from the zoo that Sarah is involved in but the Toronto Zoo. We've been a part of their Frog Watch for 2 years now, and they do a Turtle Tally as well. You get a kit, send your info back into their website and they are able to determine lots of things the most being climate change impact (which doesn't solely affect the frogs - but they are a good indicator of where they are living if things aren't right eco-wise).

Wonderful program! And that's just one of many!

 

[Tiff]

And I do believe there is a huge difference between an accredited zoo vs just a regular zoo. There's a "regular" zoo that's just outside of where I live, I hate going there. Went once, will probably never return. Its hard to explain, and maybe I'm just a bleeding heart but the animals at this regular zoo are sad. Like heartbreakingly sad.

I never got that feel from being at the Toronto Zoo.

I feel that its dicey, because I'm fine with zoos yet for some reason having killer whales in captivity seriously bothers me. I kind of feel that its a double standard - but IMHO different animals have different needs? I don't know how to write exactly what I'm feeling.

 

[Sarahkka]

And I do believe there is a huge difference between an accredited zoo vs just a regular zoo. There's a "regular" zoo that's just outside of where I live, I hate going there. Went once, will probably never return. Its hard to explain, and maybe I'm just a bleeding heart but the animals at this regular zoo are sad. Like heartbreakingly sad.

I never got that feel from being at the Toronto Zoo.

I feel that its dicey, because I'm fine with zoos yet for some reason having killer whales in captivity seriously bothers me. I kind of feel that its a double standard - but IMHO different animals have different needs? I don't know how to write exactly what I'm feeling.

No, you are right, Tiff. There are most definitely some species that don't thrive in captivity. Cetaceans in general are one group of animals that the most passionate zoo and aquarium supporters are hotly debating. It is entirely possible that orcas and other whales may be phased out of captive situations if there is enough good scientific research to support such a decision. As of yet, there isn't, but science is dynamic and change is always just around the corner in biology!
What I like about the accreditation system is that it is based on science. Here is a good example from our zoo. When I first started working in Education at our zoo over ten years ago, full, unprotected contact was the norm for keepers working with elephants. Fifteen years before that, the elephants would go on walks with the keepers through the grounds and anyone could come up and pat them, feed them a treat, etc. In those twenty-five years, the accreditation recommendations have gone from very unrestricted contact all the way through to very little contact at all and that is protected (a barrier is up between keeper and elephant). All of this was based on scientific study measuring everything from disease exposure risk to elevated stress hormones in the eles. And everytime, our zoo followed recommendations that were not necessarily popular with the public, but which we accepted were better for our elephants.
This last year saw our elephants being moved frm our zoo altogether as the latest recommendations set a herd size at a minimum of eight animals and want larger enclosure sizes yet again. Lots of people were heartbroken to see our lovely eles go elsewhere, but I am really proud that our zoo stood by the science and what we understand to be best for our elephants with the information we have.
We may discover that orcas in captivity don't work so well by research that uncovers similar results. I would just caution taking anything in Blackfish too much to heart. Documentaries by animal rights activists are designed to punch us right in the feels and tend to be far less concerned with a fair and balanced argument of the issue or a presentation of facts.

 

[JASMAK]

https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/zoos/

I am a member of PETA and here is my answer:

 

[Aidan's Mummy]

https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/zoos/

I am a member of PETA and here is my answer:

What about the conservation programmes? Take tigers for example, they are on the verge of total extinction. Breeding them in captivity is ensuring they do not become extinct. The Australian zoo are working hard to ensure these beautiful creatures are still around in 20 years. The tigers are well cared for and in the wild they are in extreme danger from poachers. If zoos like this didn't step in many of the species on the verge of extinction will become extinction

Proponents of zoos like to claim that zoos protect species from extinction—seemingly a noble goal. However, wild-animal parks and zoos almost always favor large and charismatic animals who draw large crowds of visitors, but they neglect less popular species that also need to be protected. Most animals in zoos are not endangered, and while confining animals to zoos keeps them alive, it does nothing to protect wild populations and their habitats.

Read more: https://www.peta.org/about-peta/why-peta/zoos/#ixzz37zbz7M7O

https://www.chesterzoo.org/conserva...d-programmes/amphibian-conservation-programme

I wouldn't say frogs are exactly a crowd pleaser yet they are still working to stop them from becoming extinct

 

[TwilightAgain]

I think it depends on how big the cage, the animal and how long for. I wouldn't automatically call it cruel. It's a bit like people who don't like zoos but if the environment is to a good standard to meet all their needs then at least it's safer than being out in the while. It breaks my heart when I see rabbits and such that have been hit by cars

About the discussion of cats and dogs, I think it's wrong to have them if the house/flat is tiny. Arguably it is a cage. Cats I don't think is too bad depending on the cat, the ones i've known seem to enjoy being outside for extended periods so that would be ok. But for dogs it's a no no for me. I'd love to have a labrador and have wanted one for a long time but living in a 2 bed flat that is quite small, I wouldn't even entertain the idea for a second (being able to make that decision in advance, bit different if you had the dog first and then had to downsize). Whoever posted about that being the same as a hamster, this is quite an interesting perspective.

 

[TwilightAgain]

Totally random but while driving across town the other day I saw a couple waiting at a bus stop and they had a parrot with them. On a leash mind you, but it was just hanging out with them outside while they waited for transit.

I think when you get down to the nitty gritty of it all, keeping any animal out of its natural habitat is mean and cruel. But that being said, I have a cat, dog and a bunny. I crate-trained my dog when he was a puppy, but he was never put in there when he was bad. It became his "safe" spot and if I had friends over who had kids, he'd actually go in there and that was an "off limits" space to the kids. When he was in there, no one is allowed to bother him. Maybe its cruel, but I really do support crate training. He's much older now so we don't crate him anymore. His bed has become his "crate" of sorts and its the same rule, if he's on his bed then he's to be left alone.

Our bunny was a rescue from the OSPCA. Its super sad, his previous owners just moved out of an apartment and left him there for the landlord to find. Bunnies actually bond with either people or other bunnies, or stuffed animals (apparently) and Jj was bonded to his previous owners. He's now in shock or something to that extent and doesn't trust people. He refuses to come out of his cage on his own (even with his door left open). We used to force him to come out but he'd get so stressed out and frantic to get back into his cage that we stopped. His door is open, but in the 5 years we've had him, not ONCE has he ever ventured out on his own.

He's attached to a ball and a stuffed rabbit that the OSPCA gave to us when we rescued him, and he'll play with that and do all the happy bunny noises (aside from Binkies) but yeah... so sad. Maybe we're cruel for keeping him in a cage, but hand on heart he does NOT want to be out of it.

And I dunno, maybe we're the lesser of two evils with rescuing him knowing he had special needs? But he's got food, water, fresh greens and timothy hay (he didn't get fresh greens or timothy hay at the shelter) and he's warm and safe. To me it'd seem more cruel to leave him at the shelter with no one to talk to him or give him what he needs.

This is so sad 5 years is such a long time to hold on to such negative emotions. Bless him! What's his name?

 

[lhancock90]

I have to be honest, i don't put much in stock with PETA. They are not as wonderful as they make out.

I think this is an interesting read: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/1x9kqq/people_who_work_in_zoos_and_or_places_like_sea/

 

[Tiff]

Totally random but while driving across town the other day I saw a couple waiting at a bus stop and they had a parrot with them. On a leash mind you, but it was just hanging out with them outside while they waited for transit.

I think when you get down to the nitty gritty of it all, keeping any animal out of its natural habitat is mean and cruel. But that being said, I have a cat, dog and a bunny. I crate-trained my dog when he was a puppy, but he was never put in there when he was bad. It became his "safe" spot and if I had friends over who had kids, he'd actually go in there and that was an "off limits" space to the kids. When he was in there, no one is allowed to bother him. Maybe its cruel, but I really do support crate training. He's much older now so we don't crate him anymore. His bed has become his "crate" of sorts and its the same rule, if he's on his bed then he's to be left alone.

Our bunny was a rescue from the OSPCA. Its super sad, his previous owners just moved out of an apartment and left him there for the landlord to find. Bunnies actually bond with either people or other bunnies, or stuffed animals (apparently) and Jj was bonded to his previous owners. He's now in shock or something to that extent and doesn't trust people. He refuses to come out of his cage on his own (even with his door left open). We used to force him to come out but he'd get so stressed out and frantic to get back into his cage that we stopped. His door is open, but in the 5 years we've had him, not ONCE has he ever ventured out on his own.

He's attached to a ball and a stuffed rabbit that the OSPCA gave to us when we rescued him, and he'll play with that and do all the happy bunny noises (aside from Binkies) but yeah... so sad. Maybe we're cruel for keeping him in a cage, but hand on heart he does NOT want to be out of it.

And I dunno, maybe we're the lesser of two evils with rescuing him knowing he had special needs? But he's got food, water, fresh greens and timothy hay (he didn't get fresh greens or timothy hay at the shelter) and he's warm and safe. To me it'd seem more cruel to leave him at the shelter with no one to talk to him or give him what he needs.

This is so sad 5 years is such a long time to hold on to such negative emotions. Bless him! What's his name?

Yeah, I don't think people realize just how much of an impact bonding has on bunnies. His name is Jj. We didn't name him, it was the one that came with him to the shelter. Decided he had been through enough so didn't bother to change it.

To be honest, I don't hold much stock in PETA either. I see too many things that they're willing to take money from (like celebrities) who in turn do things that conflict with PETA's standpoints.

Like Pamela Anderson, who auctioned off her 2000 Dodge Viper with proceeeds going to PETA, yet the car had leather seats. In any other case I'd say whatever and whatever... but PETA has a very strong viewpoint of people using animal products for "enjoyment". It seems hypocritical to me.

They can't slam other organizations for taking money when animals are being exploited, then turn around and do the same thing.

 

[Sarahkka]

Quite frankly, I don't think PETA stands for animal rights whatsoever.
They have a shocking history of animal abuses (seriously, go look up the multiple scandals in which they have falsely obtained shelter animals and euthanized them). Because death is better than captivity? Really?
They are one of the most prominent examples of hypocrisy and extremist tactics in the animal rights activist movement, and I think, if anything, they've probably set effective animal protection and conservation efforts back a few decades. I've been an environmentalist and animal lover for decades and I can think of few organizations that have spewed more ignorance and hypocrisy than PETA. Sorry, but they've done a lot of damage to movements I care about and I definitely have strong feelings on this organization.