Creatures in Cages

By GrahamLewis · Jun 9, 2019 · ·
  1. Our neighbors across the street have a couple house dogs and a rescue rabbit. Due to the nature of dogs and rabbits, they keep the rabbit in cage on their back porch. They told me the rabbit was a rescue from a breeder who would otherwise have destroyed it for being less than perfect. So she instead lives alone in that cage.

    I know this because from time to time they leave town and ask me to care for "the bunny." I always say yes if possible, because we have them care for our lovebird during our family vacations. Anyway, whenever I see the bunny I feel very sorry for it, because it obviously gets no more attention than its feeding and occasional cage-cleaning. When I open the top of the cage it cowers in a corner and if I try to pet it, it hurries away or, if I catch it, trembles 'neath my hand. Rabbits are social and sociable animals that do not do well in isolation, but they are also passive so that sometimes people confuse silence with acquiescence. [Point of clarification here: I was guilty of the same misunderstanding as a kid, when we had a rabbit; it wasn't until years later when I had a "house rabbit" that I understood their nature.]

    Anyway, it makes me sad. I'd like to intervene somehow but I don't have standing or anyplace to put the rabbit, and it's probably too late anyway. Patterns can become set and futures fixed.

    I saw the same thing happen with fancy rats, who are lively, inquisitive, and friendly little creatures. If raised right. We had two pair of them, the second pair hand-raised by us, so that they were perfectly acculturated to human touch, and for the three years they lived with us (rats always die after 3 years no matter what) they were perfect, engaging, and entertaining pets.

    A friend of my daughter's got a pair of rats about the same time, though we rarely went to their house and never the rats, which were always tucked away upstairs (ours were kept in our "family room," where we spent most evenings). The friend's family went on vacation and asked us to look after the rats. The moment we saw the rats was a very disappointing one. The rats had been kept in a small wire cage, devoid of toys, and never taken out. They were fed dog food instead of rat chow because it was cheaper. They were fat and devoid of interest in the world around them. We tried to entertain them and interact with them, but it was of no use. They had grown wooden, almost brain-dead, obviously incapable of interaction beyond eating and pooping. So incredibly sad. Sparks of life all but extinguished through benevolent neglect. I think those people, and the rabbit owners, would say that at least the animals are alive and safe from predators. Which begs the question of which is the better option, a life of endless monotonous existence versus the excitement of living surrounded by the risk of sudden death.

    That came to mind when I looked out my back window and saw a cottontail rabbit lying on the ground beneath our bird feeder, munching seeds from the grass. His life is likely to be short, but at least it will have its sweet moments. Like then, when he simply looked happy. Beautiful weather, tasty food, nice breeze; the night might bring its evils and dangers, but he got to taste the good stuff. Unlike the rabbit in the cage -- she feels constant lonely fear and, while she might not think in such terms, her death will likely be a deliverance; whereas for my backyard bunny, death will be a disappointment, denial of delights that might lie ahead.

    As for our rats, they died within days of each other, slowing down imperceptibly at first, then more and more. But they never quit trying, never seemed to lose interest in the world around them, only losing the ability to interact. One of them spent her last month or so mostly sleeping in a Dr. Seuss hat on my daughter's desk, keeping mutual company as daughter did her homework. Then one morning she didn't wake up, and we all had tears.

    I may be projecting here, but the whole thing reminds me of how fragile our social networks can be and how easy it would be to slip in to a safe, secure, and soulless existence. I hope I never do. "I hope I die before I get old." The Who, My Generation.

    Whoops. I'm already old and I'm not dead. Hope I die before my soul does and that I stay aware enough to know the difference.

Comments

  1. Maverick_nc
    Which begs the question of which is the better option, a life of endless monotonous existence versus the excitement of living surrounded by the risk of sudden death.

    I loosely associate a similar existence to many humans. Working the 9-5 every day, mostly in monotonous jobs for the pleasure of one two-week vacation per year.

    Of course, it's deeper than that, but life is for living.
  2. GrahamLewis
    I agree with you about the parallel. I wish I'd been a lot more daring when I had opportunities. But then I think I'm doing it now. At the same time, we don't live in a vacuum, and if other people are involved, things are more complex. Still, at some point you gotta do what you gotta do, or life will do it to or for you.
      Maverick_nc likes this.
  3. Matt E
    I have a somewhat controversial opinion that it is wrong to keep any animal in captivity, except for a practical purpose like eating to stay alive. We keep animals locked up, and perhaps it brings us some pleasure but that animal was not meant to be kept in a cage or a house. Instead it was meant to roam free and have a life. Would any of us prefer a golden cage and daily kibbles to actually being able to live free and do what we want? I suppose we are more intelligent than animals but we still need many of the same things.

    This applies to all pets, really, including ones we keep indoors. We keep ours doors shut and expect visitors to our homes to be complicit in keeping the dogs and cats from leaving to explore the world. If the animal wants to be free maybe it should be free. If it’s too pampered to survive then whose fault is that. These shelters aren’t “shelters” if they “destroy” animals, instead they are disposal services... sure wild animals in a city are a problem but surely they can come up with a system where they release the animal into an appropriate habitat with others of its kind.
  4. GrahamLewis
    I can see your point but don't quite agree with you. I will go so far as to say that if a person takes in an animal as a pet, that person takes on the obligation to see that the animal is well-cared for, and as a corollary, no person should take on a pet without a clear ability to care for it. I guess I don't agree with a vague philosophical directive that animals are "born free" and should stay that way for purposes of meeting that directive. If for no other reason than years of breeding and human interaction have made a lot of species co-dependent with us.

    It's a fine line when it comes to taking in an animal, but I think, no I know, that my life has been enriched by some of the animals with whom I have shared it. When you form a real relationship with an animal, one based on trust and acceptance, you find another perspective on the world. Our lovebird is a perfect example. He is bonded with us, regards us as his family/flock, and is happiest when we are all here and he is out among us. I don't think he sees it as "a golden cage and kibbles" but as his life. He sits in the window sometimes and watches the birds outside, but doesn't seem to envy them so much as resent them for possibly trying to horn in. He knows when it is bedtime, and knows when it is time to go back in his cage -- but is hardly averse to yelling at us if he feels it's his time to be out for a bit. Nor do I think he's "pinin' for the wilds of Madagascar" any more than I am pining to be in Europe. We both grew up in the American Midwest, and this is home. I learn from him, he learns from me, we share a patch of life.

    I wish people were always kind to animals, and I wish animals did not get abused or lost or run over by cars. I'm not a vegetarian but I do prefer humane butchering of animals. I wear leather and sometimes down. My daughter who loved her pet rats works in a lab that sometimes uses them for testing, and in the balance I think the good the lab does for people outweighs the individual rats' interests, though since we have raised rats I cannot blasely disregard their feelings.

    As I said, it's complex, but so is life, and the most we can do is sincerely promise to try and do our best with it.
  5. Matt E
    I guess none of us can read animals’ minds, so it’s hard to know. I guess my main question is: if the animal wan’t in a cage, would it leave? If the answer is no, then the animal is there of its own consent, and there is a relationship of mutual trust and respect there. I’ve seen it before. My parents had several dogs which they fed, didn’t keep locked up, and who choose of their own will to stay with them. And I’m 100% okay with that. It’s a relationship built on consent.

    But if the animal would leave if given an option, that isn’t really consent. It would leave if given the option, so does it want to stay? Probably not, whether there is any pining for the tropics of not. At that point the animal is being kept in captivity against its will, so if we want to justify that we should do it in the terms of benefit to us not mutual benefit. And enriching our lives is a good argument to that effect. In this case we are arguing that it is worth keeping an animal in captivity to enrich our own life. And this is the fine line that I think we both agree exists — if the animal is not enriching anyone’s life, and no good justification can be built from that, we’re in a tricky moral situation and I personally think it’s wrong.

    You make a good point about animals that have been bread to do a particular thing. That is definitely the case for dogs, going back thousands of years. Cats maybe too, I’m not sure. To be clear, I’m pretty sure birds and rabbits have not been bread like that just speaking historically, so this argument doesn’t really apply to those. For dogs, they were bread to work and first I’m 100% okay with dogs working. There is really clear benefit from that, especially with service animals. We shouldn’t necessarily assume though that just because a dog was bread, that it can only find satisfaction doing what it was bread for. I have known quite a few dogs who were wild at one point. They seemed to have survived pretty well on their own. If the dog wants human company I think it will find human company and won’t run away. Consent. It can work!

    Of course, our society is what it is and if we let dogs roam free the. They will get picked up and put down by the authorities... that’s a real shame I think. The authorities do that for a reason but I’m not sure it’s worth the suffering. I would have to know the statistics better to be sure. I guess rabid dogs are a problem, but is it worth killing thousands of dogs systematically to solve that problem? I’m not sure.

    Promising to do our best is a good way to go. I’m not trying to impose my belief on anyone, just sharing my perspective.
  6. GrahamLewis
    "But if the animal would leave if given an option, that isn’t really consent." Well then, my lovebird is all consent. If he works a cage door open -- which they are notorious for doing -- he doesn't try to escape, he flies to the nearest family member and settles on their shoulder. And eventually he will go back to his cage on his own.
      Matt E likes this.
To make a comment simply sign up and become a member!
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice