Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Indian High Court rules birds have a 'right' to fly!
Earthninja
WandererWest Australia Veteran
I feel that this is a huge step forward for humankind. That we shouldn't treat animals like tools. But have a level of respect for all creatures. 
We are all from this earth. How do you guys feel? Should animals have legislative rights?
Like preventing a bird from flying is violation of it's 'rights?'
http://m.huffpost.com/in/entry/7299614
We are all from this earth. How do you guys feel? Should animals have legislative rights?
Like preventing a bird from flying is violation of it's 'rights?'
http://m.huffpost.com/in/entry/7299614
0
Comments
Quite right too, I've always hated the idea of birds in cages, it seems cruel.
Budgies unite!!
A fat lot of good it will do the poor Kiwi who might visit India:D
I think they have the same right as anyone else to simply be left to live their lives. But as we continue to overpopulate the planet, their world collides with ours and as the only reasoning being with that capacity it's up to us to figure out how to manage that. Unfortunately, we often do a poor job.
I feel the same way.
I can only assume, @bookworm, that you don't believe in pets in any aspect.
It's kind of odd that we keep pets at all, though some are more "tortured" than others. But do they know they are tortured, do they know they aren't free if they have always been in a cage? Not saying that it's right or wrong either way. I have pets, but am increasingly uncomfortable with the notion of it. However, there are also a lot of really great benefits (hopefully mutually) to having them as well.
I think we tend to romanticize the wild. At first look, it seems that yes, all animals should just be wild and have their equal chance at a free and wild life. But looking closer, life in the wild is hell. There is a lot of suffering that goes on and their entire daily life is based solely on finding enough food at all costs. Perhaps being a pet is a way to move up the karmic ladder, so to speak. Who knows. Our dog seems to truly get some joy out of her treats, her comfortable place on the couch, her vet care, being with a family without having to worry about the every day struggle of the wild dogs that live near us. She seems happy, the best I can tell. Is she better off wild? From what I see, it doesn't seem so. On a karmic level, here, she has a chance to do good things (whether she knows they are good or not, heck if I know, I'm just rambling, or noodling as genkaku says, lol). She recognizes when our son's blood sugar is too low, and alerts us. She takes care of our house. She looks out for the kids. Wild animals mostly can only look out for themselves. They have fewer opportunity to help, it seems.
A good example is the other day as I walked out of a store, there was a young (not baby) bird on the sidewalk seemingly dead. I gently touched it with my foot and no, it was barely alive. I went to the car, got a box, and brought it home. I doubted it would live the night out, but was still hopeful. Within hours it died, but at least for those last few hours it was warm and had water and baby food (it did drink, but could not eat).
On the other hand, I've had parrots who have lived over 15 years in a warm, cozy house.
They would most likely die within hours or days if set free.
But my question is, why do people pick on domesticated birds, and not domesticated dogs and cats? The principle is no different.
I agree @vinlyn, though in some cases more exotic pets are still stolen from the wild and put into the pet trade. Dogs and cats have been domesticated a very long time, so long they are pretty much indistinguishable from their wild relatives. But I also think a lot of people demonize pets without knowing where the pets come from, so that is important. Not everything is wild-caught. My personal problem with the pets we have is that except our dog, having them is a mostly selfish endeavor. Our ferrets, lizard, and tortoise get little out of being our pets. Though their lives are relatively comfortable and they are all spoiled rotten. When I investigate our reasons for having them though, it is not a mutual benefit situation and I don't think we will get more pets like that in the future. My desire to have pets has often been a desire to have something that looks neat or entertains me, which for me is no longer reason enough.
Yes, I am very much against capturing wild animals to make them pets.
It's about time that India is stepping up their animal rights/laws. I'm still a bit ashamed to call myself Indian as they're not the best with taking care of their native animals, but this is one step better I guess.
I'm currently a zoology student, and I have kept pets in the past (only tarantulas and reptiles) and currently only keep one tarantulas right now. As for keeping them, I'm studying their ecology and actually have researched them in the wild and just trying to take note on their behavior. I do give it the best life it can have/that I can provide for it.
Not sure these birds get a chance to go for a fly everyday.
If my dogs were set 'free'. They would come back home.
Would these birds?
I don't know, maybe the dogs have been bred to survive the way they do. Birds maybe not yet.
I have always felt that humans creating pets was largely an act of selfishness.
That a dire animal rescue was the only justification for intervening at all.
I wonder what the arguments would be like if a more powerful alien force decided that their views of life justify having human's as pets.
I am not making a case for releasing pets. Just would like to see some thoughtful reflection on whether or not it makes sense to support the production of more pets.
I'm not sure birds know their way home quite the same way. I know of people who have lost large exotic birds when they flew out a window and they did not know how to find food nor did they know how to get home to where food was. Our dog wouldn't survive long if she did, as a short haired dog she would die quickly in the winter no matter what hunting or trash digging skills she managed to develop.
Dogs are not made to survive in the wild and should not survive in the wild, imo. They're bound, along with cats/cattle/pig/domesticated animals, to live a life in captivity. As harsh as that sounds, they destroy the environment, similar to how people do. They bring disease to other animals and aid in their endangerment/extinction.
@Guanyin remember that here, we are all from different countries. Here, domestic pets are more likely to get sick from contact with wild animals, not the other way around. Generally speaking, in the US we don't have a lot of problems with wild dogs and such running around. In my area, we have so many wild animals that they congregate and spread disease amongst themselves.
@karasti Good point! I'm from the Midwest as well, however, household animals are likely to also transmit viruses to wild animals. For example, one of the grad students I worked with is currently studying a disease (or virus, not too sure, I apologize) that affects turtles and the number two spread of that is dog interaction as the mouth serves as a 'incubator' for the virus itself. I myself studied the BD fungus which is spread mainly by humans, but also their pets, as they also serve as a vector for transmissions to amphibians. Many diseases that are spread to our pets are often brought upon because of human interactions in the first place, so it's safe to say that we are the root cause of many wildlife diseases.