Arch said:
A little at odds with your views on pet ownership and spending money on an animal's welfare, surely?
Not really. How can I put it.. I think that if you're going to keep animals of any kind they should be kept in a way that allows them to live a full life. However, sickness and death is a natural part of life for animals so I don't agree with avoiding it at all cost. Does that make sense?
For example. We have three pet rabbits. Probably more that 90% of the pet rabbits in the country are kept in little wooden boxes their whole lives where they cannot run, jump or do anything other than sit still. They are often also kept on their own. This is great for the owner as the rabbit is always happy to see them, as it gets no other company, and is nice and clean. But it's not very good for the rabbit.
I would never keep an animal like that. Our rabbits live outside in a 20x10-foot run which has a wooden hutch, two wooden shelters and a grass hill covering two thirds of the run for them to burrow in. It's interesting that given the choice the choose to live in burrows. This arrangement is not as good for us, as rabbits aren't naturally keen on being handled, get dirty and are hard to catch, but it's a decent life for the rabbits. We get to see how rabbits behave when they get to do what they want and enjoy the satisfaction of knowing they're not miserable. But if one of them got some disease that would cost hundreds to fix, night night rabbit!
For many people a pet it there to serve them. They'll keep a pet alive, put it through painful operations etc, because 'they' don't want to loose their pet. It's got sod all to to with the animal's happiness. After all, once it's dead it's dead. It's not unhappy any more is it?
In my opinion if you want to keep an animal you should only do so if you can let it live a life. "I spend two grand on an operation for my budgie, which I keep in a tiny cage!" F*** off!
un-restrained by human ideas of 'right' and 'wrong'.
