#mod egyn

[animalwelfarists]

Friendly reminder that feeder animals do not magically stop being living, breathing organisms just because you are raising them to feed another animal. If you fail to minimise the suffering of your feeder animals as much as possible during their lives with you, then you are a bad pet owner.

No, the fact that they’re “just food” doesn’t change that. The five freedoms of animal welfare were originally created with the welfare of livestock in particular in mind. 

No, you don’t get points for treating your “important” animals well while you willfully neglect or torment feeder animals in your care.

No, the fact that it’s how things are done in the wild doesn’t justify your actions. Trapping a prey animal in a small artificial enclosure with a predator is about as far from the wild as you can get.

I’m aware that sometimes live feeding can be necessary, and that some suffering on the part of feeder animals is unavoidable. That said, you are still obligated as the owner of those animals to minimise their pain as much as possible. 

[animalwelfarists]

I’m so glad that people are finally starting to understand that parrot-type birds really don’t make good pets for the average person, and that most of the captive population live unstimulating lives in enclosures that are far too small to meet their basic needs.

What I don’t get though is why so many of the posts these people make end with some kind of “and that’s a way bigger issue than cetaceans in captivity” line. Like, okay? I guess if we’re suddenly triaging ethical issues based entirely on the numbers involved, I suppose that makes sense. But considering that both issues revolve around exactly the same problem: namely, that intelligent animals being kept in captivity shouldn’t be kept in subpar conditions, I honestly don’t understand what point is being made here.

If you want to make a post educating people on the unsuitability of pet birds as pets, then, by all means, go for it. But if you choose to end said post with a complete non-sequitur that only serves to take attention away from your initial argument, then you can’t really blame people for questioning your motivations for making the post.

Animal welfare is not, and should never be, about pitting one cause against another. If you think the cetaceans currently in captivity are perfectly fine and well-adjusted, and that parrots, by virtue of people kept privately as well as commercially, deserve more exposure, then more power to you. But signing off your educational post on the subject of private parrot keeping with “and that’s a way bigger issue than the thing you all care about” is immature and, ultimately, solves nothing.

[animalwelfarists]

I recently got a cat from my parents who seems fine, but I have no idea if he's been vaccinated. He's coming up to a year old, so when I book him in to the vets would I have to ask for kitten vaccinations since he's more than likely never had them knowing my parents

I doubt you’ll need to give him the kitten series of vaccinations. In my experience, adults cats, regardless of their history, get a yearly shot that covers everything that can be covered. At most, he might need a follow up shot in about a month’s time, but every vet is different.

The kitten series of boosters is specifically designed to keep the young animal resistant to disease even when the antibodies it inherited from its mother are active. While these antibodies are mostly a good thing (in that they also play a role in protecting the kitten), they have an annoying tendency towards inactivating vaccines. In order to keep the vaccines active while the kitten still has his/her mom’s antibodies in his/her system, multiple boosters become necessary.

Since your cat is nearly a year old, his maternal antibodies are definitely long gone, so he shouldn’t need such a rigorous vaccination series.  

[animalwelfarists]

ovoviviparity replied to your post “damn bitch chill! people can think sharks are cute if they want to!”

Jeez, I think when you reach namecalling while on anon, ya need to point the chill at yourself.

Pfff, yep! Like wow, calling me a bitch on anon. That’s a sensible and mature way to open up a discussion about the pitfalls of anthropomorphism and the delicate balance between showing appreciation for a species and spreading misinformation about it. 

Honestly, I’m surprised that they even managed to muster up the effort to send an anon considering that they apparently couldn’t scrape together the energy to actually read the post.

[animalwelfarists]

I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something. My mother is profoundly deaf and has talked about wanting to teach my dog basic sign language (putting a paw to it's mouth to say it's hungry etc.) and I wanted to know if this is safe for him

(sign language situation) I am really conflicted on the situation cos it seems like a good idea but I'd hate to do anything that would put him through stress or would harm him cos I love him so much. I'd love your opinion on this idea. Thanks!

Honestly, I think this would be a great idea, provided that your dog doesn’t mind quite a lot of training... but I’m not sure how it could be done. It really depends on what you want the dog to sign for. If it’s just for the novelty of it, like if you’re about to give a treat and you ask the dog to say he’s hungry, then that could be done easily enough. But generally, “begging” behaviour is something trainers try to discourage if anything. So if you want the dog to perform this behaviour whenever he actually wants food, then you’re in for a tough few training sessions.

I don’t think it would harm your dog. In fact, I think it could be a great bonding experience as long as you keep his stress levels in mind, but unless you intend to actually give in to the dogs demands every time he wants food, then I don’t think it’ll work in the long term. If he does figure out that putting a paw to his mouth means food, he’ll literally do it all day. And when it stops working 95% of the time (because obviously you can’t feed the dog every time), he’ll eventually just stop. 

I think he’ll be able to learn signs just fine! Heck, I have a lot more success teaching dogs with physical cues alone than I do with verbal commands alone, so he should be able to recognise basic signs with a little training. But I don’t think it’ll be an easy job to get him to sign of his own accord. Even specially trained hearing dogs only really learn how to respond to certain noises and alert their owner accordingly. I’ve never heard of a dog being taught to consistently sign, even at the most basic level.

If anyone following has ever heard of something like this working, then feel free to chip in! I’m only an amateur animal trainer at best, so I could very easily be mistaken.

- Mod Egyn

[animalwelfarists]

I live out in a rural area and we have a gopher problem. my step dad caught one of them and is keeping him in our garage in a pet carrier with some food (fresh vegetables) and water. this seems cruel to me and I'd prefer if it were inside as where I live it gets up to 105°F daily. but I have no clue if gophers should even be kept as pets or if I should just let him go. idk if you have any knowledge about gophers but I'm not really sure what I should be doing

I’d recommend that you call Animal Control and have them remove the gopher from your property. I’m not sure where you live, so I can’t check your state’s laws regarding keeping gophers as pets, but given what I know about US wildlife law, I don’t think you’re allowed to keep it. Nor do I think you should, especially in the conditions you described.

Gopher’s can carry a lot of pretty nasty parasites, and though they (like many other rodents) aren’t known to be common rabies vectors, a bite from any wild animal is gonna end with a tetanus shot at least. I’d definitely call the authorities or just let him go free. I’d also recommend calling animal control for advice about the other gophers on your land.  

[animalwelfarists]

It’s worth pointing out that, in addition to all the dead tiger cubs and allegations of illegal wildlife trafficking, the Tiger Temple has chosen to respond to the inevitable confiscation of their tigers by letting them off their chains to make capture more difficult. Four tigers escaped the temple overnight and killed nearby livestock as a result of this, and the monks are now refusing to feed the remaining tigers unless the authorities abandon their mission.

You know, just in case anyone was still convinced that these guys are running a sanctuary.

- Egyn

[animalwelfarists]

camelotoking answered your question “Off topic, but I have access to netflix for a little while, so I’m...”

I like blackfish well enough, a bit of a shock factor thing though. I haven't seen the champions but I've mostly only really heard bad things (overgeneralization, sensationalism etc).

I actually wound up watching “The Champions”, and I’m about halfway through Blackfish now (sleep is for the weak). 

“The Champions” was very... contained. It didn’t really talk about dog fighting as an actual pseudo-industry (with the exception of one of Micheal Vick’s dogs being acknowledged as having “street value”), and focused far too much on the rehab of five specific dogs to actually educate anyone about anything.

I understand that they were trying to make a case for a second chance for ex-fighting dogs, which I can kinda respect, but overall the documentary was just an hour and a half of emotional manipulation. The only facts and figures were those of Michael Vicks dog fighting activities, and nothing was said about pit bulls themselves except that they are just the same as any other dog (which is a gross simplification). 

I also find it extremely suspicious that roughly 95% of the run time was dedicated to five near perfect rehabilitations, while the problem dogs were barely considered worth a mention.

I can appreciate what the film-makers were trying to do, but ultimately it kinda fell flat. It really wasn’t a documentary about dogfighting so much as it was a documentary about Michael Vick. There was an opportunity for education here, and I really think “The Champions” fails to capitalise on it in favour of cheap emotional bilge. 

I did appreciate the low-key dragging of PETA’s “All pit bulls should be destroyed” BS though.

Blackfish is pretty brutal though. One-sided, as I expected, but still pretty good in terms of information dispensed.