PDA

View Full Version : Ethics of keeping rabbits



lupine lacuna
13-07-2012, 11:33 AM
Hi all

How many of you allow your buns to run around the garden? I do, everyday, between 6am and 8.30am and then from 6pm until 10pm.

Now that I do this, I honestly can't help but think that for those rabbits that cannot be afford this sort of freedom, then its cruel to keep them - especially if you are not saving rescue rabbits and brining new ones into the world. They are so happy - as humans are - when given freedom. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Thanks

Lucy1666
13-07-2012, 11:37 AM
not every garden can be fox proofed sadly but as long as the bunny has enought space
like in a shed or playhouse and has a good size run too its not cruel :?

Kermit
13-07-2012, 11:47 AM
My bunnies very rarely even go outside. They have in a room with approx. 140sqft of space.

That is great for mine because it is what I can give them, but I don't think that someone who can offer less necessarily shouldn't have rabbits. As long as bun is provided with a decent sized space then I personally think it is fine.

Sky-O
13-07-2012, 11:54 AM
Always good to know when someone thinks you're cruel :thumb: My bunnies may not have that freedom, but in my opinion, in my garden, it would be cruel to allow it to them due to the risk of cats or escaping. So they have lots of space, can binky, bunny 500. They are happy and as healthy as possible. I also have had some who have needed restricted access to space, and it would have been cruel to give them free range, or even taken them outside. I also have two agoraphobic bunnies who can't cope outside. I believe it would be cruel to subject them to going outside.

In the last four years I have taken on a wide variety of bunnies who would not be alive had they stayed wherever they were. I have given them life, happiness, friends, a future.

No, they may not have all the space you wish I could give them, and what I wish I could give them, but would I call it cruel? No. I would say that, like the majority of other bunny owners, I have areas that I need to improve on with regards to their care, but because I can't ever simulate what wild bunnies have, I'll always be working to improve.

My question to you would be, when they aren't free ranging, what are they shut in?

molly35
13-07-2012, 12:01 PM
Now I have freeranging buns I wouldnt want to go back to runs, to watch some of the binkies is amazing...but saying that I dont have the problem of foxes etc, and the garden is very secure now.

William
13-07-2012, 12:07 PM
Everyone can't do this, and to be honest it's a good thing most people dont because then a lot of rabbits would get killed by predators.

I have a nice big yard but it would be practically impossible to rabbit proof (loads of possibly poisonous plants), it's super hot most of the time here so the buns are probably happier indoors and there's loads of predators around here. Coyotes, foxes, raccoons, birds of prey galore, bears, bobcats, domestic cats and snakes (no venomous ones as far as I know, although there are plenty of venomous snakes in FL, but non-venomous also pose a problem. My cat apparently got bit by a snake and got a huge abscess on his face and was pretty bad off for awhile) and probably more I'm not thinking of.

Kerryyyy
13-07-2012, 12:26 PM
Mine have never been outside mostly due to the amount of cats going around and also the little kids around here would be in like a shot trying to play with them. And I am scared that them going out and coming back in when they haven't been out before will be too much for them.

If they are getting the space, love and attention they deserve inside then I don't see how it's cruel.

BattleKat
13-07-2012, 12:40 PM
I think it would be cruel to keep rabbits and not give them the opportunity to run around and binky, but rabbits can do that in a relatively small space so as long as the rabbits have a decent sized enclosure or plenty of time in a large run they should be fine :thumb:

I'm sure if you gave yours a field to run around in and explore all day with endless grass and plants to nom on and saw how much they enjoy that you'd consider it cruel to only let them free range for a few hours in a garden.

emileemason
13-07-2012, 12:43 PM
I can't let my rabbits free range, it would be impossible. But i don't see myself as cruel.

I think people do the best that they can and upgrade when possible..
If your housing meets minimum requirements and your bunny is healthy and happy and you love them and give them the attention they need and deserve, and you try your best to give them what is best for them, then your doing great :)

None of the peoples bunny homes i've seen on here are in the slightest bit cruel, imagine all of the buns out there that have squat. They have tiny homes, no love and poor conditions.. They would binky their little hearts out in a minimum requirement hutch/run combo.

Mackers
13-07-2012, 12:54 PM
One could argue that it's cruel to allow a domesticated pet to free range where they could be at risk from predators ;). That said, I do allow mine to free-range - even when I'm not home. I know the risks but I personally prefer them to have as free a life as possible, even if it puts them at an increased risk. However, I also strongly believe that a house-rabbit or outdoor enclosure rabbit has just as much quality of life if their owner provides them with space, company, mental stimulation and a healthy diet.

As long as each individual owner can satisfy themselves that they are doing the best possible for their own bunnies then no-one should be made to feel that their level of care is any less 'worthy' than someone else.

DemiS
13-07-2012, 01:11 PM
I have a very large front and back garden but I live with my parents so I can't 'bunnyproof it', although when I just had one or two rabbits they used to free range and they knew they weren't allowed past a certain point (where the gate should be) but they never spent their time racing round the garden, they had a quick nibble of the grass if they were hungry and then went and layed under their hutches in the back garden, I keep them in runs now because there's so many and there's now two huge gaps into both neighbours' gardens, and I see them binky much more, better safe than given a huge area they wont even use. Mine don't have an attached run yet unfortunately but they do have a 6x2x2 hutch, they rarely run around it but they're certainly not overweight and I have seen them binky in it quite a few times, infact when they know they're going to be taken out to their runs they'll sit in the awkwardest corner of the hutch where I can't reach them :roll:

I think you need to look into what you've said, if you really believe these poor rabbits who don't get hours of free range time daily are being kept cruelly, maybe they should be rehomed because the owners can't possibly give them that or afford to move house, then the problem is no rescue has enough space to give each rabbit a full garden to themselves, maybe they should just set them free into the wild for them to be hit by cars and ripped apart by foxes within the first few days :roll:

happybun
13-07-2012, 01:12 PM
Hi all

How many of you allow your buns to run around the garden? I do, everyday, between 6am and 8.30am and then from 6pm until 10pm.

Now that I do this, I honestly can't help but think that for those rabbits that cannot be afford this sort of freedom, then its cruel to keep them - especially if you are not saving rescue rabbits and brining new ones into the world. They are so happy - as humans are - when given freedom. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Thanks

excellent. you can come and let my four run around my back garden, and you can be the one to fight off next door's staffordshire bull terrier as he tears them apart.

Angie65
13-07-2012, 01:25 PM
Mine unfortunately only get free range time when I'm about. Which is basically weekends.
The rest of the time they are in an aviary or hutch/run combos - all bigger than animal welfare standards so I'm not about to lose any sleep over it.:D They used to be indoors & had 3 rooms to themselves, so again, I'm not bothered they weren't out in the garden risking life & limb with cats/foxes & neighbours dogs.

Incidentally I think it's ace that you've managed to completely undermesh & roof your entire garden to keep them safe when unsupervised;):lol:

RedFraggle
13-07-2012, 01:33 PM
I think much of the reaction to this thread centres around the use of the word cruel and the implication that those of us who do not allow our buns to range are being cruel.

For clarity, the dictionary definition of cruel is:
disposed to inflict suffering; indifferent to or taking pleasure in another's pain or distress; destitute of kindness or compassion; merciless; pitiless; hardhearted.

Whilst as large a housing area is everyones ideal, I would not consider our rabbits 5 x 2 x 4 hutch with attached 5 x 4 run to be causing pain or distress to them so no I do not think it is cruel.
Would they love to binky round a massive space? Quite probably but we can't provide that in an environment that is safe for them to do it in. To allow them to do it in an unsafe environment would be cruel given that they are likely to be attacked by a cat or fox or dig through to next door and "meet" their 2 staffies.

Sorry OP but I really think you need to get some perspective and be careful of your choice of words. What you do is great, and your rabbits are lucky to be able to have that level of freedom but to do less isn't cruel.

FudgeTort
13-07-2012, 01:38 PM
Keeping rabbits in unsuitable accommodation is cruel. Not allowing them to have enough exercise is cruel. Some people can provide accommodation that is big enough to meet their needs without free range time.
Free ranging in unsuitable areas is equally as cruel, leaving the rabbits open to predators and other dangers.

Maybe the OP doesn't realise how many people keep their rabbits in a large shed/aviary type enclosure rather than a hutch? As I would consider confining to a hutch 24/7 with no free ranging cruel.

Oh, and my rabbits do free range when I am there to supervise them. We spent a day making the garden as rabbit proof as possible, but I would never take my eye off them as its just too risky. They have a 8x6 shed and attached 8x6 aviary which is shared between two rabbits.

CrazyGal330
13-07-2012, 01:42 PM
I have a "friend" who's rabbit has a 4ft hutch. oh she gets a few hours in the garden most days of the week. but then a good 18hours of her day are spent locked up in her hutch. alone. Now that is far more cruel to me than having a permanently attached run, without free garden access.
I know which I would rather provide.

Jack's-Jane
13-07-2012, 01:49 PM
I personally dont think Rabbits should ever have been domesticated in the first place. I would be more than happy to only ever see Rabbits in the wild

But that is another thread I guess

My Rabbits have supervised Free Range time and none are ever confined to a hutch/cage. They all live in enclosures in my house. Ideally the enclosures would be bigger and as nature takes it's course :cry: and my Rabbit numbers decline :cry: those remaining will have larger enclosures.

I wont be obtaining any more Rabbits in my lifetime but if I my situation were different and I could have more then I would rather they lived in as natural environment as possible. Angie65's mention of the undermeshed and roofed 100% predator proof garden sounds perfect :)

R.P.B.G.G
13-07-2012, 01:56 PM
I currently have 31 rabbits,
We have been taking in 'rescues' or 'unwanted' rabbits, Unfortunately I live in an area that has a high number of foxes, and only 2 days ago we sat watching one sitting in a neighbours garden (who has chickens and rabbits) braison as anything, we have also had kestrels sitting on our roof watching.

Luckily there is someone in the house pretty much at all times throughout the day.

Mum opens and feeds at 5am, I am up at 7 and all rabbits get to go out, some free range when they can be watched the whole time, others in runs, but they all get out for a good few hours, even if the weather is bad, we have a shed that they all get to stretch their legs in each a day,
They are cleaned out daily (be it just litter trays and messy bits or a full clean out) all have ad-lib hay and fresh greens and water daily,
We do have long term plans that cant be put into action at the moment as we have so many rabbits that are yet to be desexed and paired (if they all can be)

I certainly wouldn't say I was being cruel to my rabbits, even though as things are I am not entirely happy with the arrangement and cannot wait to start the building of new enclosures and fencings etc but until that happens I know all my buns are happy and healthy get everything they need.

Its a full time job, and I spend about 90% of my day with the rabbits and they get closed up and fed at around 9-10pm (as well as constantly checked and hay topped up if need be during the day)

Best start finding new homes for these 31 deprived rabbits :lol::lol::lol:

Oompa-Loompa
13-07-2012, 02:00 PM
Mine hardly ever go outside. Boris spent about 1-2 hours in the garden every day the first summer we lived here, because things were different then. Bella has been outside once in her entire life and it actually really freaked her out. I could've done more to make her feel more confident, no doubt about that, but as our garden isn't safe anymore I doubt I'll be letting them play outside for as long as I live here. It's small and potentially proof-able, but it's the amount of moss and toxic plants that concerns me. I obviously don't want to risk them getting poisoned. There are also cats and foxes passing by in the evening. It's just not a safe place for them to be.

They don't have anywhere near as much freedom as I'd like indoors either. The room they live in is fairly big, big enough for them to run around and binky etc., but they're in there more or less 24/7 and although I feel horrible about that, I can't change it. It's my mum's house and if she won't allow them to free range, I have to respect that. It's not ideal, but we don't live in an ideal world. I'm doing my best to keep them entertained and give them plenty of love and stimulation. Yes there is room for improvement in several departments, but does that mean I'm a bad rabbit owner? I don't think so. I found myself in a situation recently where I had to rescue a bunny from almost being run over by a car because the owner let her run around the neighbourhood as she pleased. One could argue that this rabbit had an excellent quality of life because of all the freedom she had, but it was also putting her life dangerously at risk. I know this case was a little extreme but I guess what I want to say is that while freedom is important, it isn't everything. There are so many other factors to consider before judging someone and calling them a bad rabbit owner.

Aly&Poppy<3
13-07-2012, 02:49 PM
I can't trust mine. I could let Poppy in the garden all day but Donny and Lola can't have the whole garden because we have a big hole at the back, live by a main road and next doors garden is massive and we would never get them back after the have scaled the wall which Donny has done when he was in the garden as a single bunny. I had to grab him before he jumped through the bush.

They have a 6 x 4 run with 24/7 access and a 5ft metal run space which attaches to a 7 x 3 run which they go in everyday for at least 3 hours. Longer when someone is in to watch them like on weekends. I can't let them in the garden because unless we built the walls up to at least 6ft and blocked the back of the garden then they won't be anytime soon :? I might not be able to give them that and now I feel completely rubbish about it but I know my 2 and they would be trying their best to get into a space I couldn't reach them or they would get out. Too risky. And the fact that the pub next door has 2 cats that lurk on the back wall isn't a great thing either.

But I look after them as well as I can. They have everything they need even though they don't have run of the garden :? They are spayed and neutered, vaccinated and have regular vet checks. I clean them out everyday without fail and make sure they aren't bored. They have a 6 x 2 x 2 hutch and permanent access to a 6 x 4 run. They love running around their 3 runs when people are home. I don't think that's cruel at all. It would be cruel to have a rabbit 4 hours free range time a day and then be plonked back into a small hutch.

sparklefairy
13-07-2012, 02:58 PM
My 2 have been house bunnies all thier lives. They have their own small room, yes, it could be bigger but they have air conditioning in the summer and are safe and warm in the winter. They have toys, tubes, fresh food, unlimited hay, and never go hungry. they have rugs and carpets to sleep on, each other for company enjoy nose rubs and fuss and the occassional run in a large pen in the garden ( supervised ) they are taken to the vet when poorly and now they are older I am making sure that Gypsy's arthritis does not hurt her by giving her daily meds.
SORRY FOR BEING SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO CRUEL!!!

BB Mommy
13-07-2012, 03:10 PM
Personally I like all mine to have as much free range time as possible, Having 5 pairs that means on an average day they will have 2 hours each free ranging, the rest of the time they are in their accommodation.

It's not really feasible for the majority of rabbits to have full time free range because of the risks involved, so its important that the accommodation is spacious, and IMO this is the best investment you can make for your rabbits.

Laura10101
13-07-2012, 03:12 PM
My rabbit doesn't even have a garden to play in! She doesn't know any differently though and loves running about our small flat, climbing on the beds, watching the tv, digging in her dig box and sleeps safely anywhere in the house because she doesn't have a cage but trusts us enough to flop anywhere in the house. She doesn't have a "traditional" rabbit lifestyle but if you saw how many times a day she flops you would know that she is happy!

Fifibutton
13-07-2012, 03:24 PM
Variety is good for stimulation and happiness. So allowing rabbits to play in different areas is a good thing whether that is indoors or outdoors.

I have done both.
Bilbo and Maisie lived in our kitchen free range but the garden was really unsecure and being rented there was nothing we could do to change it. So at nights they got to run about the hall and living room and they exhibited happiness by binkying a lot. Our kitchen was big but the hall provided a long running stretch which they need.

I am a great believer in the good of playing outdoors for any species but only if it can be safe. I'd rather a rabbit confined to indoor play than being torn strip by strip by a predator. The pain and fear that would bring outweighs the benefits of outdoor play. Also some bunnies are too ill for outdoor play or too susceptible to temperature changes and need a more stable environment.

But on a personal basis I will always try to get a property with a garden for supervised free range play. My original 5 buns live in my parents garden in an outdoor run and play supervised all day (my dad has his desk by the window and there are cat sensors in the garden). Only on bad weather days are they confined to the run where they have ample space to jump, strength, dig and binky if they want. Mostly the sniff and graze the lawn as they are all in their twilight years and going at a slower pace. They also have children's toys and tunnels to play in/with.

My other 6 buns live with me, the garage divided into thirds so they have large pens with plenty of toys and space. But they also get a daily play on the patio supervised by me on days off or the OH and our son who likes to play with them. On good weather days we aim for 3 hours each. Again with bad weather they are stuck indoors but they are happy. Our patio is just concrete but to make it more interesting there is a playhouse, plastic tunnels, digging channel and graze box full of dry grass.

I've noticed they tend to binky outside more and sniff everything but they can be just as happy indoors. Bilbo and Maisie for example don't stay out for more than an hour before wanting back inside. Emrys is the same, he prefers short bursts too so often it depends on the individual rabbits.

So while a garden is often brilliant for rabbits I think variety is the key and rotating toys and different play areas with new things to sniff and explore makes a bigger difference.

Cari
13-07-2012, 04:15 PM
I'm dreadfully cruel as Stephen never goes outside. I give him the option when it's nice but he doesn't like it outside, not to mention the fact that my garden is not even half the size of my living room.

Angie B
13-07-2012, 04:33 PM
My rabbits have about half an hour free range time twice a day, so in the morning and then just before they go in for their tea, but the last one can be up to an hour. They HAVE to be fully supervised while in the garden though as I have too many toxic plants so they're only out there for as long as whoever's watching doesn't get fed up! (usually me)

They don't particularly like going out in the rain though, especially when it's really heavy rain, so in those instances I've kinda made the shed a bit safer so they can roam around that, go under the hutch (they'll get stuck one day I'm sure!) and of course can go in and out the hutch at will. On more pleasant days they're in their outdoor run, which is on concrete else they dig holes in my grass which I quite frankly don't like. They do have a diggy box for in their run though.

NexivRed
13-07-2012, 04:57 PM
Hi all

How many of you allow your buns to run around the garden? I do, everyday, between 6am and 8.30am and then from 6pm until 10pm.


Personally I think this is a pitifully short amount of time to be able to run around if the rest of the time your rabbits are shut away in a hutch. The people on here who have house rabbits will generally be offering their rabbits twice as much time to run around than you do. So who's crueler?

Rach210
13-07-2012, 05:26 PM
My rabbit lives in a 4ft hutch and gets time in the house or her run for about 6-8 hours when I'm off work (4-5 times a week).

In her old home she lived in a 5 foot hutch but had no space to stand on her hind legs in her hutch and no access to a run, personally I think her current situation is an improvement and she will have a 6x2x2 hutch with attached run as soon as I can afford one.

I don't think this is cruel although hopefully when we move next summer we'll have a more rabbit proof garden for her.

Elena
13-07-2012, 06:41 PM
Do you watch them all that time? If not how do you protect them from predators?

Mine are indoors most of the time, when they are outside they are in a run and constantly supervised.

Outside there are foxes and humans, our garden is not fully enclosed and there are poisonous plants and other dangers in it. I think it would be cruel to expose them to that without protection.

lupine lacuna
13-07-2012, 06:59 PM
Its all well and good saying 'not everyone can do this' but we should consider, in that case, 'do I have adequate provisons to look after rabbits properly'? It is not a right to own pets. Someone living in a small London flat should not my a massive dog that needs load of exercising.

I dont mean to offend anyone. This is largely a hypothetical question, since so many negleted bunnies needs saving in any event - but knowing what I do know, seeing them sort of wild inm y garden and how much they love it, and despite my love for and joy I get from my rabbits, if they had to be breed, even the life I can give them I maintain if still not ideal, and I would not support breeding bunnies for our benefit. They are not here for us.

I also believe it is simply not a natural symbiotic relationship like mans relationship with a dog and, if you believe the evolutionary psychologists, rabbits have not chosen to be 'with us' in the same way dogs (and even cattle, it is argued) arguably did.

I love rabbits and always will, and for as long as I live will probably always share my life with them, but only because there are so many that need rescuing.

lupine lacuna
13-07-2012, 07:02 PM
My garden is completel protected from cats - high walls followed by nets - and where I love foxes do not exist.

Sepearetly, since rabbits cannot consent - and importantly never consented to even coming into existence in our unnatural breeding factories - we inevitably make choices as to their lifestyle.

Accordingly, assume for a minute by having free range buns in your garden, there was a fixed 10 percent chance every year they'd be eaten, we can never say for sure - only assume - whether they'd rather live a shorter life and take that risk, or live in a cage.

Zoo animals live longer than wild ones. At what cost? That is my thought, to which there is no definate answer.

lupine lacuna
13-07-2012, 07:03 PM
Personally I think this is a pitifully short amount of time to be able to run around if the rest of the time your rabbits are shut away in a hutch. The people on here who have house rabbits will generally be offering their rabbits twice as much time to run around than you do. So who's crueler?

They cannot be running around all day! When do they sleep! I have a 6 x 4 ft run with a 6 x 8 foot run. Not massive, but they don't tend to use it in the day, as they get so tired running around the garden exploring! They used to be house rabbits, but indoors rabbits are much less active than outdoors in my experience - consider yourself living in a military aircraft hanger or the same sized forest - whats going to inspire you to move and enjoy life more?

FudgeTort
13-07-2012, 07:16 PM
Where do you live out of curiosity? I'm sure a lot of people on here would love to live somewhere where foxes don't exist!

Cari
13-07-2012, 07:17 PM
They cannot be running around all day! When do they sleep! I have a 6 x 4 ft run with a 6 x 8 foot run. Not massive, but they don't tend to use it in the day, as they get so tired running around the garden exploring! They used to be house rabbits, but indoors rabbits are much less active than outdoors in my experience - consider yourself living in a military aircraft hanger or the same sized forest - whats going to inspire you to move and enjoy life more?

No, but they could be running around a lot longer than 6 hours too. I think Stephen would disagree with you there, he's constantly hopping on and off the sofa and running up and down the house, not to mention the fact that he has all day to be as active as he wants and isn't limited to a few hours a day. And I don't think it's particularly fair to say that indoor rabbits live in aircraft hangars, I take offence to that considering I do a lot to enrich Stephen's life indoors and feel he is safer, and happier indoors.

Aly&Poppy<3
13-07-2012, 07:30 PM
I agree with Cari. Ever since we bought Poppy indoors she has lost weight, become a lot happier in herself and is like a baby again. From going from deaths door to a fuller and healthier rabbit, indoors has made her very happy, she is binkying and doing bunny 500s all over the place whereas when she was outside she got lazy. She had 3 hutches over the years and a big run as well as going in the garden but she wasn't happy out there. Never binkied, never ran properly but indoors she is a new rabbit.

Leo only has access to his own room but he spent 5years in a rotting tiny hutch, I think what he has now he is very happy in. He will hopefully be in a shed/aviary set up soon and a wife but he will never come out of that apart from time in the metal run on nice days on grass because my bfs back garden is a field and there are foxes lurking everywhere around here.

My outdoor rabbits will one day have a shed/aviary set up but for now they have plenty of space and they are always happy, I don't think by not being able to provide our unsafe garden for them I shouldn't have had them in the first place :?

Georgeypudding
13-07-2012, 07:45 PM
My rabbits have what they have and they are happy with it! I personally am not happy and will be updating their accomidation... is a 13 or 15ft run cruel?! More cruel than letting them eat poisenous plants, or get hurt by a cat/dog/fox/bird? No, I protect my animals, they get free range when I can but I dont feel it necessary

Lea-Anne
13-07-2012, 08:10 PM
They cannot be running around all day! When do they sleep! I have a 6 x 4 ft run with a 6 x 8 foot run. Not massive, but they don't tend to use it in the day, as they get so tired running around the garden exploring! They used to be house rabbits, but indoors rabbits are much less active than outdoors in my experience - consider yourself living in a military aircraft hanger or the same sized forest - whats going to inspire you to move and enjoy life more?

Disagree with this strongly. My two house rabbits are so much more active than my outdoor buns. The outdoor rabbits love their free range time but they always ( naturally) seem to be on guard and they'll run around for about an hour or so and then retreat to their shed/run. They don't like being far from their ' burrow.' They often go back of their own accord, despite me and hubby leaving them out for hours.
The two indoors are into EVERYTHING, I can't leave them for a second they are sooo animated and like Cari said on the sofas, climbing, jumping and never stop moving. I feel they are less fearful inside.

This is all just MY Rabbits though, can't speak for them all :thumb:

Lea-Anne
13-07-2012, 08:11 PM
What the heck is a bunny500 btw?? :oops:

madcatwoman
13-07-2012, 08:15 PM
My 2 are shut in their shed overnight so they have 6x4 space overnight. they are let out to free range when we get up then about half an hour later they go into their aviary thats attached to the shed. They have toys, a tunnel a wishing well and a log in the aviary.

I let them out when we get back from work/school at about 3.30 so they are confined for about 7 hours. the aviary is a recent thing they used to just be free range all day but we now have a fox lurking. When they come out of the aviary they are soo happy and run and binky round and come in the house etc.

I do feel mean putting them in the aviary but its for their safety.

An aquaintance of mine has 3, 4x2 hutches with a single rabbit in each, she does let them out individually but not for long. They are well looked after but not to my standards due to the lack of freedom and the fact that they could all be friends together but she wont listen.

Liz47
13-07-2012, 08:17 PM
Hi all

How many of you allow your buns to run around the garden? I do, everyday, between 6am and 8.30am and then from 6pm until 10pm.

Now that I do this, I honestly can't help but think that for those rabbits that cannot be afford this sort of freedom, then its cruel to keep them - especially if you are not saving rescue rabbits and brining new ones into the world. They are so happy - as humans are - when given freedom. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Thanks

Whilst I think it is great your rabbits get free range, because as we all know rabbits need plenty of space. And those who can provide supervised free range in a safe and enclosed garden, well that's fab. But in keeping rabbits space is not the only thing that needs to be considered to keep them healthy and happy, the main priorities in pet ownership? Keeping them safe and protected also need to be carefully considered. Rabbits need minimum space requirements, and we all try/do provide these. Weather it is in a large shed with attached avairy, large hutch with large attached run, house rabbit with the run of a room/s the rabbit still has freedom, that we have provided to give them freedom whilst doing it practically with what we can and safely, keeping the rabbits protected.

It would be cruel to keep a rabbit in a small hutch with little or no run or in any cramped conditions, it is not cruel to keep rabbits yet not provide free range in a garden as you do because there is a chance the rabbit could suffer as they can never be totally safe without supervision etc yet provide plenty of space and freedom in other means. If everyone considered it cruel to keep rabbits in any way other than the way you keep yours there would be an incredibly huge amount in rescues, more than there is now, the way most people keep there rabbits on this forum is not in any way cruel.

I keep a bonded pair (one of whom is a rescue) in a 8ft X 6ft shed with a 7ft X 4ft run, they are happy, they regularly binky, and are active and healthy. I also have a currently single rabbit (I took in after he was found as a stray) who has free run of a room, don't know measurements but it is my bedroom and is large. When I am in he gets run of the landing and another large room. He is also very happy and healthy. I have provided my rabbits with as much space as I possibly can safely for them, of course I would love them to have more but I cannot safely do so. I would always now support rescues and adopt rabbits from them, I give them all I can, so no I do not think I am cruel in any way.

Liz47
13-07-2012, 08:20 PM
What the heck is a bunny500 btw?? :oops:

When bunnies run round at top speed! :love: Which my buns, especially Boris the housebunny, do regularly, he is master of bunny500's and binky's, he just never stops! :lol: So no I don't think I am keeping him cruelly in any way, he wouldn't do that if so. :)

Cari
13-07-2012, 08:21 PM
What the heck is a bunny500 btw?? :oops:

When they run around like mad things :D

Saj
13-07-2012, 08:23 PM
i think this is quite an interesting thread thanks to the OP, even if not everyone agrees or judgements are being made.

I like the point Jacks jane made - something about how rabbits shouldnt really be domesticated.

IMO, keeping rabbits is against their inherent nature and we are encouraging them to be kept, to some extent. Yes, most of us go to rescues, but if there werent rabbit keepers in the world, the need wouldnt arise in the first place, so we are indirectly encouraging breeding. It is a cycle i think where breeding is fuelling purchases which ultimately keep the rescues going.

that said, im sure most of us on here are doing the best for our buns who wont know any better

Lea-Anne
13-07-2012, 08:35 PM
When they run around like mad things :D

Funny, my house rabbits do that Allllll the time :mrgreen:

Santa
13-07-2012, 08:53 PM
To those who say "luckily we don't have a problem with foxes round here" I used to say that too. I used to say that I would rather that my rabbits had a free life in the garden even if it came with risks. I said this for 7 years until one day we had a fox come and killed my babies. Sadly the first time you know you have a fox, it's too late.

About a month ago in broad daylight I heard a noise in my shed, I walked over to investigate and found a fox cub in there. I dont have a complex, busy garden but i didn't see him come in, and I didn't see him leave. I don't let mine free range even supervised - If a fox can jump in without me noticing, then what hope have I got of protecting them? Even if a fox jumps in and I do see it, if I have more than one rabbit out, who do I catch first? I can't keep them both safe. And we have also gained a buzzard, I would be hard pushed to protect them from above while also looking at my fences.

10 years ago I would have taken the same view as you, that it is kinder to let them free range. Now my preference is to provide them with large accommodation 24/7. I think that gives them a safe place to relax and play all the time, rather than just for the hours I can watch (and which I don't think is safe anyway, even if watching).

FudgeTort
13-07-2012, 08:57 PM
That's what I was thinking Santa, but OP said they 'don't exist' :?
So thought perhaps she's in another part of the world, otherwise why would someone say they don't exist!
I know we have foxes here, though I rarely see them.

mini lop1
13-07-2012, 09:08 PM
That's what I was thinking Santa, but OP said they 'don't exist' :?
So thought perhaps she's in another part of the world, otherwise why would someone say they don't exist!
I know we have foxes here, though I rarely see them.

readng through past posts, op say they are from guernsey http://forums.rabbitrehome.org.uk/showthread.php?338875-Free-Range-Buns

BattleKat
13-07-2012, 09:09 PM
That's what I was thinking Santa, but OP said they 'don't exist' :?
So thought perhaps she's in another part of the world, otherwise why would someone say they don't exist!
I know we have foxes here, though I rarely see them.

I know there are no foxes on guernsey, maybe OP is there. :?

eta: too late!

lupine lacuna
13-07-2012, 09:18 PM
Interesting comments, guys, thanks for the feedback. Particularly interesting that some buns got livier indoors; I suppose thats natural, like any sentient being, different preferences exist.

Sylvester must be really hardcore - in the wind and the rain he will literally sit in the middle of the garden! :)

To those who are asking, I live in Guernsey; one of the few places fortunate not to have foxes! We still have mxi though, unfortunately.

FudgeTort
13-07-2012, 09:28 PM
Interesting comments, guys, thanks for the feedback. Particularly interesting that some buns got livier indoors; I suppose thats natural, like any sentient being, different preferences exist.

Sylvester must be really hardcore - in the wind and the rain he will literally sit in the middle of the garden! :)

To those who are asking, I live in Guernsey; one of the few places fortunate not to have foxes! We still have mxi though, unfortunately.

Ahh that makes sense! Lucky you!

Pebblesetc
13-07-2012, 10:01 PM
To those who say "luckily we don't have a problem with foxes round here" I used to say that too. I used to say that I would rather that my rabbits had a free life in the garden even if it came with risks. I said this for 7 years until one day we had a fox come and killed my babies. Sadly the first time you know you have a fox, it's too late.

This. Some people take an "out of sight, out of mind" approach to predators, it's a very dangerous approach to take and it doesn't just apply to foxes. Where my parents live there are a lot of red kites and people have been complaining that the birds have been attacking their dogs. A rabbit wouldn't stand a chance against a red kite.

Bluesmum
13-07-2012, 11:04 PM
Marnie is a totally free range house bunny. I have a 3 bedroom house. she charges round like a complete loon...and then colapses on the sofa fora snooze. She os confined to my kitchen when we go to bed/leave the house.

We have a garden...but there is NO way I would let her freerange. Next door have a couple of dogs....and I know that there are foxes in the area. I won't risk my babys life. When we go outside she comes too...but in a run. I NEVER leave her unsupervised.

She spends 90% of her time flopped somewhere...and in the evening we snuggle on the sofa. No it isn't 'natural' but neither is the fact that she has loppy ears.

When she does go outside she is always on alert....and eating.

I don't think I'm cruel...she has a huge amount of space to be herself....and anyone who has met her will tell you taht she is one of THE most chilled out bunnies they have ever met. She's also VERY naughty :love:

You're very lucky not to have foxes.

William
14-07-2012, 01:51 AM
i think this is quite an interesting thread thanks to the OP, even if not everyone agrees or judgements are being made.

I like the point Jacks jane made - something about how rabbits shouldnt really be domesticated.

IMO, keeping rabbits is against their inherent nature and we are encouraging them to be kept, to some extent. Yes, most of us go to rescues, but if there werent rabbit keepers in the world, the need wouldnt arise in the first place, so we are indirectly encouraging breeding. It is a cycle i think where breeding is fuelling purchases which ultimately keep the rescues going.

that said, im sure most of us on here are doing the best for our buns who wont know any better

I completely disagree with this, especially the bold part. And not just with rabbits, with all animals. I can't stand it when people think that animals shouldn't be pets. What a horrible thought :(

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 06:41 AM
I completely disagree with this, especially the bold part. And not just with rabbits, with all animals. I can't stand it when people think that animals shouldn't be pets. What a horrible thought :(

Not for the animal. It is selfish humans who want to keep pets for their own benefit. I am not saying that all Pets suffer, but I believe all animals are served best by living as nature intended. For Rabbits that is in the wild.

CharlieBabbit
14-07-2012, 07:42 AM
A wild rabbit has a considerably reduced lifespan with constant threat of death from predators, the stress of fighting over territory or to protect their young. They have risk of injury or death from poisons, hunters, cars, disease.

Whilst I appreciate what your principle is, I believe it is a misguided sentiment. If you put yourself in the same situation, would you prefer to 'run free' in a dangerous and fearful environment or have the security of a captive life? As humans, we compare captivity to prison versus freedom but it is no comparison as even when free, we have no fear of death being inflicted from every angle! A truer comparison would be, would you prefer to live wild in, say Africa, where large predators are on the prowl and you are the main menu? Except even then, it is not the case....humans are not natural prey for any creature whereas a rabbit is dinner for a whole multitude of creatures.

If anyone has seen the film or read the books 'The Hunger Games'....this would be a far better comparison....sat at home with friends, family and loved ones, or a daily struggle to stay alive, never knowing when your time is going to be up and you will be killed horribly or left to die slowly in pain.

I truly understand the reason behind anyone thinking that living in the way nature intended has got to be better but I think it is based on anthropomorphisation...attributing human feelings to, amongst other things, animals.

A wild rabbit will not think of its freedom as a chance to binky at will, run around and play, enjoy the world and all its experiences, to frolick and explore. It will view its environment as a source of food, water, air, shelter.....the necessary requirements for living. That goes for any wild creature....most will remain in as smaller environment as will provide the necessary elements of life and the least risk.

Captivity gives that environment.

That said, this does not mean it is in any way acceptable to provide badly and many, many rabbits and other domestic animals suffer miserable existances in inadequate provision. I do not advocate that, it is absolutely cruel but a well looked after animal, loved and cared for, given a safe environment to live in, even though hugely restricted by comparison to 'the wild' probably lives a much happier life.

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 07:45 AM
A wild rabbit has a considerably reduced lifespan with constant threat of death from predators, the stress of fighting over territory or to protect their young. They have risk of injury or death from poisons, hunters, cars, disease.

Whilst I appreciate what your principle is, I believe it is a misguided sentiment. If you put yourself in the same situation, would you prefer to 'run free' in a dangerous and fearful environment or have the security of a captive life? As humans, we compare captivity to prison versus freedom but it is no comparison as even when free, we have no fear of death being inflicted from every angle! A truer comparison would be, would you prefer to live wild in, say Africa, where large predators are on the prowl and you are the main menu? Except even then, it is not the case....humans are not natural prey for any creature whereas a rabbit is dinner for a whole multitude of creatures.

If anyone has seen the film or read the books 'The Hunger Games'....this would be a far better comparison....sat at home with friends, family and loved ones, or a daily struggle to stay alive, never knowing when your time is going to be up and you will be killed horribly or left to die slowly in pain.

I truly understand the reason behind anyone thinking that living in the way nature intended has got to be better but I think it is based on anthropomorphisation...attributing human feelings to, amongst other things, animals.

A wild rabbit will not think of its freedom as a chance to binky at will, run around and play, enjoy the world and all its experiences, to frolick and explore. It will view its environment as a source of food, water, air, shelter.....the necessary requirements for living. That goes for any wild creature....most will remain in as smaller environment as will provide the necessary elements of life and the least risk.

Captivity gives that environment.

That said, this does not mean it is in any way acceptable to provide badly and many, many rabbits and other domestic animals suffer miserable existances in inadequate provision. I do not advocate that, it is absolutely cruel but a well looked after animal, loved and cared for, given a safe environment to live in, even though hugely restricted by comparison to 'the wild' probably lives a much happier life.

The bit in bold

CharlieBabbit
14-07-2012, 07:50 AM
What about it? :D

Saj
14-07-2012, 07:55 AM
Not for the animal. It is selfish humans who want to keep pets for their own benefit. I am not saying that all Pets suffer, but I believe all animals are served best by living as nature intended. For Rabbits that is in the wild.



:thumb:

WE obv cant really tell what a rabbit really wants, but IMO they are a creature of the wild and nature, 'secure' captivity doesnt really cut it - i dont think they realise they are safe from animals because we're making them. However I obviously have a pair of buns and like everyone give them as much space as i can, so there's no cruelty. i just think it is against their inherent nature if im being honest to myself.

CharlieBabbit
14-07-2012, 08:02 AM
I absolutely agree it is against their nature, they are a prey animal and we are would be viewed as a threat. Nor I am I implying they would choose captivity....that is a contradiction in terms, they will choose to stay as far away from us as possible.

I just mean that the actual well-being and longevity of the animal is better served in a safe, healthy, well provisioned environment.

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 08:12 AM
What about it? :D

I was answering your 'what would you prefer' question.

But that question itself is anthropomorphic really, you are asking me (us) what I would prefer, but I am a human (the last time I looked :D) so by that very fact I can only answer as a human.

Yes, Rabbits in the wild have a short life span. But IMO it is quality not quantity that matters. So it would be fine by me if no domestic Rabbits means no Rabbits EVER shut in 3ft cages, bred to produce ever more deformed versions of a breed to attain supposed aesthetic 'perfection' to enable humans to exhibit them for self gratification. No Rabbits ever bought on a whim and then left to a life in solitary confinement............ I could go on

Humans have the arogant notion that they know 'what is best'. It is almost always what is best for THEM.

lupine lacuna
14-07-2012, 08:34 AM
Agreed Jacks Jane!

Lea-Anne
14-07-2012, 08:38 AM
A wild rabbit has a considerably reduced lifespan with constant threat of death from predators, the stress of fighting over territory or to protect their young. They have risk of injury or death from poisons, hunters, cars, disease.

Whilst I appreciate what your principle is, I believe it is a misguided sentiment. If you put yourself in the same situation, would you prefer to 'run free' in a dangerous and fearful environment or have the security of a captive life? As humans, we compare captivity to prison versus freedom but it is no comparison as even when free, we have no fear of death being inflicted from every angle! A truer comparison would be, would you prefer to live wild in, say Africa, where large predators are on the prowl and you are the main menu? Except even then, it is not the case....humans are not natural prey for any creature whereas a rabbit is dinner for a whole multitude of creatures.

If anyone has seen the film or read the books 'The Hunger Games'....this would be a far better comparison....sat at home with friends, family and loved ones, or a daily struggle to stay alive, never knowing when your time is going to be up and you will be killed horribly or left to die slowly in pain.

I truly understand the reason behind anyone thinking that living in the way nature intended has got to be better but I think it is based on anthropomorphisation...attributing human feelings to, amongst other things, animals.

A wild rabbit will not think of its freedom as a chance to binky at will, run around and play, enjoy the world and all its experiences, to frolick and explore. It will view its environment as a source of food, water, air, shelter.....the necessary requirements for living. That goes for any wild creature....most will remain in as smaller environment as will provide the necessary elements of life and the least risk.

Captivity gives that environment.

That said, this does not mean it is in any way acceptable to provide badly and many, many rabbits and other domestic animals suffer miserable existances in inadequate provision. I do not advocate that, it is absolutely cruel but a well looked after animal, loved and cared for, given a safe environment to live in, even though hugely restricted by comparison to 'the wild' probably lives a much happier life.

What an excellent post. Totally agree, it's not all binkying around in fields it is a daily struggle for survival. Also we are discussing ' which is happier' domesticated or wild but I don't think you can compare. All Animals live for the moment. Aslong as they have a warm bed, food in their belly and are healthy I don't think they'd care if they lived in a warren/a dog crate/a shed (Obviously hutches are far too small and can not be justified) aslong as they are safe from predators. Being a prey animal ( if rabbits could talk!) I think this would be top of their list.

William
14-07-2012, 09:12 AM
A wild rabbit has a considerably reduced lifespan with constant threat of death from predators, the stress of fighting over territory or to protect their young. They have risk of injury or death from poisons, hunters, cars, disease.

Whilst I appreciate what your principle is, I believe it is a misguided sentiment. If you put yourself in the same situation, would you prefer to 'run free' in a dangerous and fearful environment or have the security of a captive life? As humans, we compare captivity to prison versus freedom but it is no comparison as even when free, we have no fear of death being inflicted from every angle! A truer comparison would be, would you prefer to live wild in, say Africa, where large predators are on the prowl and you are the main menu? Except even then, it is not the case....humans are not natural prey for any creature whereas a rabbit is dinner for a whole multitude of creatures.

If anyone has seen the film or read the books 'The Hunger Games'....this would be a far better comparison....sat at home with friends, family and loved ones, or a daily struggle to stay alive, never knowing when your time is going to be up and you will be killed horribly or left to die slowly in pain.

I truly understand the reason behind anyone thinking that living in the way nature intended has got to be better but I think it is based on anthropomorphisation...attributing human feelings to, amongst other things, animals.

A wild rabbit will not think of its freedom as a chance to binky at will, run around and play, enjoy the world and all its experiences, to frolick and explore. It will view its environment as a source of food, water, air, shelter.....the necessary requirements for living. That goes for any wild creature....most will remain in as smaller environment as will provide the necessary elements of life and the least risk.

Captivity gives that environment.

That said, this does not mean it is in any way acceptable to provide badly and many, many rabbits and other domestic animals suffer miserable existances in inadequate provision. I do not advocate that, it is absolutely cruel but a well looked after animal, loved and cared for, given a safe environment to live in, even though hugely restricted by comparison to 'the wild' probably lives a much happier life.

Completely agree! Life in the wild isn't all binkeys and frolicking in meadows.

R.P.B.G.G
14-07-2012, 09:26 AM
I will say that there are a number of wild rabbits in my horses fields, I never see them binkying, only time I see them running around is when they are chasing each other/mating.

The babies are more lively, but the adults tend to just eat, and only stick to one part of the field, right next to the bushes and there are no rabbits in my other horses field about 300yards away that I have seen (no evidence, poop or holes either)

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 09:30 AM
Completely agree! Life in the wild isn't all binkeys and frolicking in meadows.

And life in captivity is not all large shed/aviary set-ups, excellent diet and husbandry etc....etc. They are the exception rather that the rule for Pet Rabbits and until that changes, if it ever does, I stand by my 'run wild and free' beliefs.

William
14-07-2012, 09:54 AM
And life in captivity is not all large shed/aviary set-ups, excellent diet and husbandry etc....etc. They are the exception rather that the rule for Pet Rabbits and until that changes, if it ever does, I stand by me 'run wild and free' beliefs.

Yeah, but proper rabbit care is coming around...from what I've heard it's much better than 20 years ago. Or even 10. I'm fine with it being a personal opinion that rabbits/animals don't belong in captivity...Each to their own. But it is a dangerous idea if too many people believe it so I really cringe whenever I hear the whole 'animals belong in the wild' thing. We've already got strict enough regulations on animals and stupid and ignorant people in the government that want to make pretty much all animals illegal.

I don't think I agree with ANY regulations/bans unless it's with endangered species... and even then I don't really agree. I mean, look at ringed tailed lemurs, cotton topped tamarins and tigers - very endangered in the wild but pleniful in captivity thanks to exotic keepers and zoos. Instead of banning them the way they're regulated is by not allowing them to cross state lines (meaning I can buy and sell ring tailed lemurs here in Florida but nowhere else).

BattleKat
14-07-2012, 10:03 AM
And life in captivity is not all large shed/aviary set-ups, excellent diet and husbandry etc....etc. They are the exception rather that the rule for Pet Rabbits and until that changes, if it ever does, I stand by my 'run wild and free' beliefs.
ditto. Since getting rabbits I've realised just how unfair it was to the species to domesticate them.

There are very few species that are well suited to being domesticated, and humans can be so cruel that even the species who are suited to being with us often suffer at our hands.:(

BattleKat
14-07-2012, 10:13 AM
Yeah, but proper rabbit care is coming around...from what I've heard it's much better than 20 years ago. Or even 10. I'm fine with it being a personal opinion that rabbits/animals don't belong in captivity...Each to their own. But it is a dangerous idea if too many people believe it so I really cringe whenever I hear the whole 'animals belong in the wild' thing. We've already got strict enough regulations on animals and stupid and ignorant people in the government that want to make pretty much all animals illegal.
but how many rabbits have suffered in the last 5000 years to get to this point? How many more will have to suffer before it's only acceptable to give them an idyllic life with an entirely protected garden with only rabbit safe plants?
How on earth is a dangerous idea to believe that animals should be allowed to live a natural life?
I don't see strict enough regulations in place, personally, and certainly not strict enough enforcing of the laws that we do have.


I don't think I agree with ANY regulations/bans unless it's with endangered species... and even then I don't really agree. I mean, look at ringed tailed lemurs, cotton topped tamarins and tigers - very endangered in the wild but pleniful in captivity thanks to exotic keepers and zoos. Instead of banning them the way they're regulated is by not allowing them to cross state lines (meaning I can buy and sell ring tailed lemurs here in Florida but nowhere else).
so people should be able to keep pretty much whatever animal they like, in whatever conditions they like and treat it however they like? And you think it's dangerous to believe animals should be in the wild?! :shock:

RedFraggle
14-07-2012, 10:59 AM
ditto. Since getting rabbits I've realised just how unfair it was to the species to domesticate them.

There are very few species that are well suited to being domesticated, and humans can be so cruel that even the species who are suited to being with us often suffer at our hands.:(

and yet everyone of us on here is perpetuating it by keeping pet rabbits

Alibunmum
14-07-2012, 11:00 AM
And life in captivity is not all large shed/aviary set-ups, excellent diet and husbandry etc....etc. They are the exception rather that the rule for Pet Rabbits and until that changes, if it ever does, I stand by my 'run wild and free' beliefs.

:thumb:

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 11:08 AM
and yet everyone of us on here is perpetuating it by keeping pet rabbits

We cant do anything about the ones already here other than care for them

But as for bringing more into the world, nope IMO that is wrong.

William
14-07-2012, 11:11 AM
but how many rabbits have suffered in the last 5000 years to get to this point? How many more will have to suffer before it's only acceptable to give them an idyllic life with an entirely protected garden with only rabbit safe plants?
How on earth is a dangerous idea to believe that animals should be allowed to live a natural life?
I don't see strict enough regulations in place, personally, and certainly not strict enough enforcing of the laws that we do have.


so people should be able to keep pretty much whatever animal they like, in whatever conditions they like and treat it however they like? And you think it's dangerous to believe animals should be in the wild?! :shock:

No, I believe in properly caring for animals. Just because Joe Bloggs can't care for a serval shouldn't mean that other people that can care for servals can't get them. It's like with pit bulls, just because SOME people are horrible owners or they train them to fight shouldn't mean that other people can't keep pit bulls.

Not strict enough? You've got to be kidding. In the UK most animals are on the DWA. Though you can get permits for most of them as far as I know, so as a whole the UK has much better regulations than the US. Few states in the US allow even common 'exotic' pets, like skunks and african pygmy hedgehogs, with or without permits. And then within those states that do allow exotics, most of the cities and counties don't so people are even more restricted. Thankfully, Florida has a law that cities and counties can't 'trump' the state law. Only the federal law can, unfortunately. I think it's the only state that has that law though.

Even ferrets are banned in many states and they're domestic! California doesn't allow practically anything, even chinese hamsters, because they might become invasive :roll: The states that had half way reasonable restrictions are cracking down after the Zanesville incident. Especially Ohio, which was like a safe haven for exotic keepers before. It's completely ridiculous, why should 1 man ruin the entire hobby for everyone else! And now the chimps on the loose happened the other day and it'll add more fuel to the fire. I'm sick of idiot animal rights people thinking they know what's best. If you don't want to own any animals then don't but don't ruin it for the rest of us! :roll: :evil:

BattleKat
14-07-2012, 11:13 AM
and yet everyone of us on here is perpetuating it by keeping pet rabbits
If I'd realised how unsuited to being domestic rabbits are, or how many there are in rescue, then I never would have bought mine.

I probably will rescue more in the future but as far as I'm concerned that's not encouraging breeding as without rescue they would be put down. It's not like by boycotting rescues you'd reduce the number of rabbits being bred in the first place.:?

tonibun
14-07-2012, 11:35 AM
But if you are born into a certain situation, do you know any different? In particular with regard to an animal.

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 11:38 AM
But if you are born into a certain situation, do you know any different? In particular with regard to an animal.

But that does not make it right. A child born into a domestic violence situation may know no different, but the situation will still be damaging and most definitely wrong.

BattleKat
14-07-2012, 11:40 AM
No, I believe in properly caring for animals. Just because Joe Bloggs can't care for a serval shouldn't mean that other people that can care for servals can't get them. It's like with pit bulls, just because SOME people are horrible owners or they train them to fight shouldn't mean that other people can't keep pit bulls.
I was responding to your comment that you don't think there should be any regulations.


Not strict enough? You've got to be kidding. In the UK most animals are on the DWA. Though you can get permits for most of them as far as I know, so as a whole the UK has much better regulations than the US. Few states in the US allow even common 'exotic' pets, like skunks and african pygmy hedgehogs, with or without permits. And then within those states that do allow exotics, most of the cities and counties don't so people are even more restricted. Thankfully, Florida has a law that cities and counties can't 'trump' the state law. Only the federal law can, unfortunately. I think it's the only state that has that law though.

Even ferrets are banned in many states and they're domestic! California doesn't allow practically anything, even chinese hamsters, because they might become invasive :roll: The states that had half way reasonable restrictions are cracking down after the Zanesville incident. Especially Ohio, which was like a safe haven for exotic keepers before. It's completely ridiculous, why should 1 man ruin the entire hobby for everyone else! And now the chimps on the loose happened the other day and it'll add more fuel to the fire. I'm sick of idiot animal rights people thinking they know what's best. If you don't want to own any animals then don't but don't ruin it for the rest of us! :roll: :evil:
No, I don't think they're strict enough. There are thousands of rabbits living in substandard hutches across the country, being neglected and fed an inappropriate diet. Does that sound like strict regulations being strictly enforced to you?
I'm not saying it should be illegal to keep any animal, I'm saying there should be strict regulations stating you must provide appropriate housing, diet, etc and it should be enforced (possibly funded by a license fee which I know is another thing you strongly disagree with).

R.P.B.G.G
14-07-2012, 11:59 AM
Regardless of whether we like it or not.

Animals have been domesticated, dogs, rabbits, cats, horses, mice.... That is not going to change any time soon if not ever, so we have to give them the best we possibly can as DOMESTIC PETS!

Domestic animals do not and will not live the way nature intended them too, and nobody can say they keep there animals as close to nature as possible, Its a subject that frustrates me massively, Its a phrase horse people use all the time too, but the simple answer is, they cant live as close to how nature intended them to, and frankly it isn't safe for a domestic animals to live that way!!

William
14-07-2012, 12:01 PM
I was responding to your comment that you don't think there should be any regulations.


No, I don't think they're strict enough. There are thousands of rabbits living in substandard hutches across the country, being neglected and fed an inappropriate diet. Does that sound like strict regulations being strictly enforced to you?
I'm not saying it should be illegal to keep any animal, I'm saying there should be strict regulations stating you must provide appropriate housing, diet, etc and it should be enforced (possibly funded by a license fee which I know is another thing you strongly disagree with).

Problem with that is that inspectors can be a nightmare. I know that someone's inspector for the various exotic animals they have got mad because she mistakenly thought a cow was a goat or something stupid like that and always had it out for the person after that. People in power can be crazy and can get away with things, as we saw with the dog warden and Lennox...

Anyways, I think a lot more can be solved through education than by the laws. There's already laws for that sort of thing, the 5 freedoms thing. Yet a lot of people still are just ignorant about rabbit care.

And the problem with regulations is if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. The regulations just keep getting stricter and stricter and I don't feel I should have to jump through hoops to get the animals I want and I certainly shouldn't have to pay a license fee, though for the Class II animals I want I will have to. And why should slightly 'dangerous' animals have regulations when dangerous domestic animals don't? More people are killed in the US every year by horses than by big cats.

Snowberry
14-07-2012, 12:07 PM
Both of my outside buns get to free range everyday, no matter what the weather they come in rain, hail snow or shine!

Mine both have large runs but they only really stretch theorems properly when they have the whole garden to run on.

B3rnie69
14-07-2012, 12:12 PM
They cannot be running around all day! When do they sleep! I have a 6 x 4 ft run with a 6 x 8 foot run. Not massive, but they don't tend to use it in the day, as they get so tired running around the garden exploring! They used to be house rabbits, but indoors rabbits are much less active than outdoors in my experience - consider yourself living in a military aircraft hanger or the same sized forest - whats going to inspire you to move and enjoy life more?

My lot will disagree with that greatly, in fact my lot couldn't give two hoots about the outside world. There are many occasions where I leave my patio doors open so the rabbits can come and go as they please. They might go out for 30 mins or so for a nibble of grass, but they will come inside to pass out somewhere around the house lol

All my rabbits are free range indoors, not a closed cage in sight ;)

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 12:28 PM
Regardless of whether we like it or not.

Animals have been domesticated, dogs, rabbits, cats, horses, mice.... That is not going to change any time soon if not ever, so we have to give them the best we possibly can as DOMESTIC PETS!

Domestic animals do not and will not live the way nature intended them too, and nobody can say they keep there animals as close to nature as possible, Its a subject that frustrates me massively, Its a phrase horse people use all the time too, but the simple answer is, they cant live as close to how nature intended them to, and frankly it isn't safe for a domestic animals to live that way!!

No of course they cant and no-one is suggesting we all do a mass release into the wild !!

But if humans didnt meddle with nature then animals would all still be where they belong and IMO that is not in captivity.

Elena
14-07-2012, 01:38 PM
To those who think that wild rabbits don't binky, they do, I've seen them.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsfOxC6bbyU

and there as a LOT more of that going on that I didn't video. Admittedly it was mainly the babies binkying, didn't see many adults doing it.

Lobo
14-07-2012, 02:06 PM
Problem with that is that inspectors can be a nightmare. I know that someone's inspector for the various exotic animals they have got mad because she mistakenly thought a cow was a goat or something stupid like that and always had it out for the person after that. People in power can be crazy and can get away with things, as we saw with the dog warden and Lennox...

Anyways, I think a lot more can be solved through education than by the laws. There's already laws for that sort of thing, the 5 freedoms thing. Yet a lot of people still are just ignorant about rabbit care.

And the problem with regulations is if you give them an inch they'll take a mile. The regulations just keep getting stricter and stricter and I don't feel I should have to jump through hoops to get the animals I want and I certainly shouldn't have to pay a license fee, though for the Class II animals I want I will have to. And why should slightly 'dangerous' animals have regulations when dangerous domestic animals don't? More people are killed in the US every year by horses than by big cats.

Burmese pythons in Florida would be a good example of hitherto lack of regulation.

Yes, and I would hazard a guess that more people get killed by automobiles than Cobb & Co. coaches.

Saj
14-07-2012, 02:24 PM
I do believe that there are more suffering/badly kept rabbits, certainly in the UK, than well kept spoilt ones like on this forum - we guys are in the minority.


Maybe rescue people can back me up as you will have come across more suffering rabbits?

tonibun
14-07-2012, 02:48 PM
Yes unfortunately I can back you up. This is why I have so many buns. For example when I went to collect Rose Marie there was nothing in the hutch but muck and 6 white crusts of bread! A deep green water bottle which I ditched on arriving home. When I went to get Stevie he was in a 3 x 2 hutch into which they had also put 3 full grown chickens! She said "He doesn't like the chickens so we thought we'd get rid of him". Mr McDuffy was in a 2'6 cage, not much bigger than him. Preston was in a very small cage in a dark room covered by a thick blanket with a dog growling nearby! Maria was in an alleyway all alone with just a wall to look at. Pippa was in a stinking hutch. Dillan had been at the garden centre for 6 months in a very small cage and he is a wonderful rabbit. And so on. All these rabbits have been neutered, paired off and have a muchn better life than before. If you could call it a life. Stewart was in a dreary yard with a load of dog muck everywhere and they thought they had been giving him hay but it clearly said straw on the bag. He was very depressed but he is much brighter now.

Fifibutton
14-07-2012, 02:54 PM
Regarding the theory that indoor rabbits are less active, I would say that while it obviously depends on space, the temperature is the biggest problem. A house that is too hot means languishing lethargic bunnies.


I also agree animals should not have been domesticated. Its as though some eejit spilled a giant bottle of milk and those who rescue are the ones mopping up the spill centuries later. I think if asked most animals would opt for the danger filled short life of freedom. I would too.
I have had pet rabbits that only live for a short time (one month, 1 year, 17 months etc) so there is no guarantee either way. Jane is also right about quality over quantity. Again it is what I and most humans would probably choose. There is no point in longevity if you are going to be miserable.


I'm lucky enough to live near a secluded rabbit warren, its been established for years and its nice to sit at the edge of the clearing and watch. In fact I must make a day of it up there with my camera one day. Anyway I have observed that they certainly exhibit signs of happiness. They zoom and binky, run at each other and dodge at the last minute, they do some sort of leapfrog game and dig scrapes for flopping in. They eat and and roam and sniff with content. If those are signs of happiness then these are happy rabbits and they play more inventive fun looking games than my domestic buns. Also These buns are much more capable of outrunning predators and play near their burrows. Usually they are too fast and alert to be caught by the foxes and badgers that also live nearby. Of course the young and ill ones don't stand much of a chance but that is nature I'm afraid.

In an evolutionary sense if an animal is on course to die out than maybe that should let to happens. After all in the UK wild cows have died out. We should not really have any cows by rights but of course domesticated cows are farmed here and their grazing land and carbon emissions have an impact on our precious wildlife. Take away the cows and maybe we would have cleaner air and more forests with healthy red squirrel and wildcat populations.

Humanity and civilisation should mean responsibility but all too often in this world it doesn't :(

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 03:17 PM
Regarding the theory that indoor rabbits are less active, I would say that while it obviously depends on space, the temperature is the biggest problem. A house that is too hot means languishing lethargic bunnies.


I also agree animals should not have been domesticated. Its as though some eejit spilled a giant bottle of milk and those who rescue are the ones mopping up the spill centuries later. I think if asked most animals would opt for the danger filled short life of freedom. I would too.
I have had pet rabbits that only live for a short time (one month, 1 year, 17 months etc) so there is no guarantee either way. Jane is also right about quality over quantity. Again it is what I and most humans would probably choose. There is no point in longevity if you are going to be miserable.


I'm lucky enough to live near a secluded rabbit warren, its been established for years and its nice to sit at the edge of the clearing and watch. In fact I must make a day of it up there with my camera one day. Anyway I have observed that they certainly exhibit signs of happiness. They zoom and binky, run at each other and dodge at the last minute, they do some sort of leapfrog game and dig scrapes for flopping in. They eat and and roam and sniff with content. If those are signs of happiness then these are happy rabbits and they play more inventive fun looking games than my domestic buns. Also These buns are much more capable of outrunning predators and play near their burrows. Usually they are too fast and alert to be caught by the foxes and badgers that also live nearby. Of course the young and ill ones don't stand much of a chance but that is nature I'm afraid.

In an evolutionary sense if an animal is on course to die out than maybe that should let to happens. After all in the UK wild cows have died out. We should not really have any cows by rights but of course domesticated cows are farmed here and their grazing land and carbon emissions have an impact on our precious wildlife. Take away the cows and maybe we would have cleaner air and more forests with healthy red squirrel and wildcat populations.

Humanity and civilisation should mean responsibility but all too often in this world it doesn't :(

:thumb:

Saj
14-07-2012, 03:26 PM
:thumb:
Regarding the theory that indoor rabbits are less active, I would say that while it obviously depends on space, the temperature is the biggest problem. A house that is too hot means languishing lethargic bunnies.


I also agree animals should not have been domesticated. Its as though some eejit spilled a giant bottle of milk and those who rescue are the ones mopping up the spill centuries later. I think if asked most animals would opt for the danger filled short life of freedom. I would too.
I have had pet rabbits that only live for a short time (one month, 1 year, 17 months etc) so there is no guarantee either way. Jane is also right about quality over quantity. Again it is what I and most humans would probably choose. There is no point in longevity if you are going to be miserable.


I'm lucky enough to live near a secluded rabbit warren, its been established for years and its nice to sit at the edge of the clearing and watch. In fact I must make a day of it up there with my camera one day. Anyway I have observed that they certainly exhibit signs of happiness. They zoom and binky, run at each other and dodge at the last minute, they do some sort of leapfrog game and dig scrapes for flopping in. They eat and and roam and sniff with content. If those are signs of happiness then these are happy rabbits and they play more inventive fun looking games than my domestic buns. Also These buns are much more capable of outrunning predators and play near their burrows. Usually they are too fast and alert to be caught by the foxes and badgers that also live nearby. Of course the young and ill ones don't stand much of a chance but that is nature I'm afraid.

In an evolutionary sense if an animal is on course to die out than maybe that should let to happens. After all in the UK wild cows have died out. We should not really have any cows by rights but of course domesticated cows are farmed here and their grazing land and carbon emissions have an impact on our precious wildlife. Take away the cows and maybe we would have cleaner air and more forests with healthy red squirrel and wildcat populations.

Humanity and civilisation should mean responsibility but all too often in this world it doesn't :(

Very valid and well articulated points. With cows and game there is always some comfort I guess for milk drinkers and meat eaters that there is a benefit deriving from cows - an entire industry. But with rabbits there is not such a benefit (apart from a fraction of pet shop sales). It is for our pleasure.

In an ideal world, pet shops and centres would be banned from selling bunnies, regulations would require every owner to have a home check, no bunny buying for little tommy's 4th birthday and rescues would help the existing buns and the cruel side of domestication would be limited

Mischief and Tinker's Mum
14-07-2012, 03:36 PM
I don't think it's cruel but I think it's better for them to be able to free range often. Regardless how big a shed and run is, the buns will most likely get bored of the same usually space and it's great to let them out and be able to run as fast as they can and not be confined. :thumb:

lupine lacuna
14-07-2012, 04:26 PM
LOVED THAT VIDEO :)

One other thought I had today about 'activity' inside vs outside. One of my buns was quite active indoors, but I wouldn't say it was 'positive' activity, if you catch my drift. He seemed unsettled and restless compared to outside.

Additionally, why is 'activity' such a good thing in any event? The most important and natural activity is the act of grazing, which is not possible indoors.

To the comment about, 'well, rabbits are domesticated now' - thats not true. I love my buns now and they're great animals (like all), but if our generation was the last to keep them as pets I see this as progression. I am just saving those in existence now. I think breeding should be made illegal and I do not think any animal of any kind should be sold in a shop.

Its a little analogous to the arguments that say, 'well, Africa is doomed', etc, etc. but if you donate money at the right time, say, in respect of a war of clash of some kind (as I have done repeatedly in the Congo) then that money at the moment, literally saves lives, even if it does not solve the underlying problems.

Saj
14-07-2012, 04:49 PM
so are you saying those of us who dont let our bunnies graze on grass, are cruel?

Cari
14-07-2012, 05:00 PM
The most important and natural activity is the act of grazing, which is not possible indoors.

You can make it possible though, Stephen grazes throughout the day, he has his cage open and stuffed full of hay and he also has a forage box which is full of hay and foraged food such as dandelions, cow parsley, clover, fresh grass, vetch, hawthorn etc. We also have now started attaching hawthorn and bramble leaves to things like table legs and hidden in little hidey holes like under the stairs or in his carry case to encourage him to explore and graze. Not to mention the fact that outdoor rabbits who spend a large amount of time in hutches also cannot graze naturally as they would in the wild. At least with Stephen inside I am able to allow him to graze all day.

R.P.B.G.G
14-07-2012, 05:01 PM
animals became pets after many centurys of raising for food,
which is why we are where we are now.

i wasnt suggesting we all mass release, no way, never!

B3rnie69
14-07-2012, 05:04 PM
LOVED THAT VIDEO :)

One other thought I had today about 'activity' inside vs outside. One of my buns was quite active indoors, but I wouldn't say it was 'positive' activity, if you catch my drift. He seemed unsettled and restless compared to outside.

Additionally, why is 'activity' such a good thing in any event? The most important and natural activity is the act of grazing, which is not possible indoors.

To the comment about, 'well, rabbits are domesticated now' - thats not true. I love my buns now and they're great animals (like all), but if our generation was the last to keep them as pets I see this as progression. I am just saving those in existence now. I think breeding should be made illegal and I do not think any animal of any kind should be sold in a shop.

Its a little analogous to the arguments that say, 'well, Africa is doomed', etc, etc. but if you donate money at the right time, say, in respect of a war of clash of some kind (as I have done repeatedly in the Congo) then that money at the moment, literally saves lives, even if it does not solve the underlying problems.

You can replicate grazing indoors, you can also offer forage boxes for the to be able to dig though to search out the best bits.
What about all the rabbits that are stuck in hutches 24/7? Even those that keep their hutches and runs on concrete aren't doing right by their buns according to that statement :?

It almost feels like you are slating anyone that has a house rabbit, I invite anyone to come and visit my lot to tell me they look unhappy :roll:

Sky-O
14-07-2012, 05:27 PM
Thing is, you're lumping all bunnies together, as being the same, and they aren't. I have three who get fed less pellets outside, yet get fatter than when inside. As previously mentioned, I have agoraphobic bunnies who can't cope outside. You have an ideal, but that ideal does not suit all bunnies. Yes, some would love an undiggable (i.e. meshed under the grass) and roofed garden to play in, but not all. Bunnies, like people, have likes, dislikes and preferences. We can't know them all for each bunny, but we can guage and guess most when you know them.

BattleKat
14-07-2012, 05:29 PM
The regulations just keep getting stricter and stricter and I don't feel I should have to jump through hoops to get the animals I want and I certainly shouldn't have to pay a license fee, though for the Class II animals I want I will have to. And why should slightly 'dangerous' animals have regulations when dangerous domestic animals don't? More people are killed in the US every year by horses than by big cats.
I don't think you're listening to me, I'm saying there should be regulations for every animal, and on a side note I'm sure if as many people had big cats as horses then there would be a lot more big cat related deaths :roll:
The problem is you're looking at everything from a very egocentric point of view, it's all about what you want, when if you claim to really care about animals you should be looking to do the best thing by them. Do you really believe that just because you want an animal it's your god given right to have one and do what you like with it?
Also, I know you keep saying that you would do a good job so you should be allowed these animals, but there are plenty of people who wouldn't do a good job, even those who would abuse them. In saying there shouldn't be any laws or regulations you're pretty much saying those people also have a right to go and get any animal they like and keep it however they like. :?

missFloppyears
14-07-2012, 05:31 PM
surely your saying the rescues who rehome to those with just hutch and runs or just indoor houses are 'cruel'


Hand me the shovel you seem to be digging a rather large hole;)

Malorey
14-07-2012, 06:47 PM
Not for the animal. It is selfish humans who want to keep pets for their own benefit. I am not saying that all Pets suffer, but I believe all animals are served best by living as nature intended. For Rabbits that is in the wild.

Don't you own Rabbits? Or even if you don't, go to give cuddles to Rabbits? Isn't a little hypocritical to be thinking that they should be wild animals, and then own or hold them? If someone thinks all animals should be living as nature intended, in the wild, why would they own them or support the owning of them by being social with or viewing owned Rabbits (for this case being a Rabbit forum)? Sure, we can't do much about it now that they are domesticated, but as I just said: why would one own them or support the owning of them if you think they should be wild? You'd think you'd steer clear. I know if I didn't support them being un-wild, I wouldn't want to own them in my own home or see others owning them.

Pebblesetc
14-07-2012, 07:03 PM
Don't you own Rabbits? Or even if you don't, go to give cuddles to Rabbits? Isn't a little hypocritical to be thinking that they should be wild animals, and then own or hold them? If someone thinks all animals should be living as nature intended, in the wild, why would they own them or support the owning of them by being social with or viewing owned Rabbits (for this case being a Rabbit forum)? Sure, we can't do much about it now that they are domesticated, but as I just said: why would one own them or support the owning of them if you think they should be wild? You'd think you'd steer clear. I know if I didn't support them being un-wild, I wouldn't want to own them in my own home or see others owning them.

People have the right to form a new opinion on the topic after they have already obtained pet rabbits :) Many people on here got their first rabbits from breeders or pet shops but later came to the conclusion that pet shops and breeders are the wrong places to get rabbits from. It's not hypocrisy, it's development.

megansmummy
14-07-2012, 07:28 PM
No my rabbits dont get free range time at all unfortunatly...we have three younf children and a greyhound puppy...its simply not safe. Am I cruel? No i dont think so.

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 07:31 PM
People have the right to form a new opinion on the topic after they have already obtained pet rabbits :) Many people on here got their first rabbits from breeders or pet shops but later came to the conclusion that pet shops and breeders are the wrong places to get rabbits from. It's not hypocrisy, it's development.

Couldn't have put it better myself :D

sparklefairy
14-07-2012, 08:31 PM
right or wrong i couldn't imagine life without my buns, selfish? maybe. we don't always choose our friends. both of my buns would be dead if i didn't take them home. should i have cast them out to the wind to be wild and free? no, they are not wild they don't know how to be wild. should i have left them to die rather than take them into my heart and into my home? are their lives really that bad as house bunnies? should i turn my back on all future rescue buns because they should not be? no, those buns are here through no fault of their own and i'm selfish enough to care

Saj
14-07-2012, 08:38 PM
Couldn't have put it better myself :D
:thumb:

We are talking ethics here, underlying principles which we may not all be able to adhere to. It's idealistic, not realistic.

Also having knowledge of rabbits from keeping them means people like Jacks-Jane are making informed opinions on the subject

And back to the freerange topic, we are not all lucky enough to live in grassy leafy areas or islands with no foxes, a lot of us are urbanites so we are required to keep our rabbits safe from attack.

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 08:39 PM
right or wrong i couldn't imagine life without my buns, selfish? maybe. we don't always choose our friends. both of my buns would be dead if i didn't take them home. should i have cast them out to the wind to be wild and free? no, they are not wild they don't know how to be wild. should i have left them to die rather than take them into my heart and into my home? are their lives really that bad as house bunnies? should i turn my back on all future rescue buns because they should not be? no, those buns are here through no fault of their own and i'm selfish enough to care

I think that is what many of us are saying. We would not turn our back on the domestic Rabbits already here. But rewind to BEFORE they were domesticated, when every Rabbit was a wildie, then I think that is how it should have stayed.

But it didn't, so of course we are not cruel to care for the domestic Rabbits here now. But bringing more into the world, well no IMO that is wrong.

I just wish that Mankind had not interfered at all.

R.P.B.G.G
14-07-2012, 08:48 PM
could you imagine how many sick/injured/dead animals there would be everywhere without human intervention.

after all, if that were the way it was, then nobody could help any wild animal incase it became to tame to release, blurgh, see too much of that here as it is

Jack's-Jane
14-07-2012, 09:09 PM
could you imagine how many sick/injured/dead animals there would be everywhere without human intervention.

after all, if that were the way it was, then nobody could help any wild animal incase it became to tame to release, blurgh, see too much of that here as it is


There is a vast difference between 'helping' an injured wild animal and domesticating an entire species !! Also, in some cases, the most humane way to help a wild animal would be to put him/her out of his/her misery in the most expeditious way.

Elena
14-07-2012, 09:45 PM
On the subject of grazing, it is possible for rabbits to graze on hay ;) it doesn't have to be grass. Grazing simply means eating little and often and trust me, my house rabbits definitely eat little and often!! Plus you can grow grass in trays and bring it outside. I can also pick a variety of grown and foraged things, something that they can't get themselves free ranging because there are things like bindweed and spurges popping up in the borders, not to mention our home grown potatoes.

I think what SkyO said about not lumping all rabbits as the same is very true. They have individual personalities as we all know. Nutmeg doesn't enjoy it outside, the only reason she goes out is because Smudge does. She is constantly on the alert, never settles and clearly doesn't enjoy it. Smudge binkies outside and indoors, Nutmeg doesn't binky outdoors but she does binky indoors. The lops don't binky very often, either indoors or outdoors, it simply isn't in their nature but they are definitely happy, I can tell from other things.

Frankly it's too dangerous for them to be outside unless in a predator proof enclosure (birds of prey and cats as well as foxes, there are more predators than just foxes). It just is NOT an option here. I can provide more stimulation, interaction and room indoors so for me and MY situation it's a no-brainer.

Geoff's people
14-07-2012, 09:50 PM
could you imagine how many sick/injured/dead animals there would be everywhere without human intervention.

after all, if that were the way it was, then nobody could help any wild animal incase it became to tame to release, blurgh, see too much of that here as it is

These animals would simply have been considered as food in the days before domestication. I agree with Jack's Jane that domestication never should have happened, it only came about for our convenience to provide food for OURSELVES.
However now they are here I thoroughly enjoy the company of my prey animals oops sorry I mean pets;)

Ever notice how we didn't go all out on the domestication of badgers and the like? Too tricksy to kill easily and not that good to eat, therefor not worth the bother of domestication.

sun_city_girl
14-07-2012, 10:35 PM
Bun is free range in the house (at night he lives in the kitchen) the only room hes not allowed in is the bedroom; when he wants to go outside he goes to the backdoor (luckily boyf doesnt work so can go out with him supervised) so we let him out; he hops around, binkies and eats grass then gets fed up and comes back to the door to be let in where he flops out. His activity indoors is just as 'positive' as it is outside he jumps around, binkies, flops out and loves hopping up and down the stairs. He gets to graze outside but indoors grazes on unlimited hay and greens....he seems happy in both situations; I find his priority is company; he likes being wherever you go; he will follow me about the house even into the bathroom. I would like to get him a girlfriend but at the moment am unable to.

we have a small garden and there are cats about; luckily to get into our garden they have to jump onto the fence so I always hear them (its only actually happened twice in 5 months) and I scoop bun up. Our neighbours have a staffie but our fence is really secure between our gardens and our neighbours are aware of our rabbit and supervise their dog when its in the garden. Where I used to live we had to keep our rabbits in runs because of birds of prey.

Dave81
14-07-2012, 10:57 PM
Mine don't go out as I don't have the space for them plus its not far from a main road so the noise would scare them.

They have free range of the living room every day, hopefully to be expanded to spare bedroom once I can attempt some bonding.

All 4 look happy and content been indoor bunnies

William
15-07-2012, 12:17 AM
Yuck, you guys are all animal rights nuts. A true animal lover loves all species and is open minded which you all clearly aren't. It sounds as if you think you're holier than thou just because you think animals shouldn't be domesticated :roll: And I bet a lot of you like to eat those tasty domesticated animals.


Burmese pythons in Florida would be a good example of hitherto lack of regulation.

Yes, and I would hazard a guess that more people get killed by automobiles than Cobb & Co. coaches.

:roll: No, the python thing is scaremongering (to aid the mental HR669 bill from back in 2009) and completely retarded. Another good example of why regulation is bad. They're still trying to ban several species of pythons in the entire country. How on earth do they think pythons could survive the freezes that occur throughout most of the state of Florida every winter, much less the whole COUNTRY?!

Even the everglades gets too cold for pythons, the winter of 2009 wiped the rest out. They weren't made to live in a subtropical environment like most of Florida is. This is an interesting read that proves it WASN'T irresponsible pet owners who released them: http://www.raskbb.com/sybilsden/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6521&hilit=python+florida In short, the pythons were in a research facility near the everglades and Hurricane Andrew destroyed that facility, allowing them to escape. It was Andrew's fault, no one else's.

Everyone is just stupid enough to believe what the media tells them even though it doesn't make any sense. And I hate the government too, it's full of idiot extremists. Everything would be banned by now if it wasn't for the exotic community that stops them from banning animals.

thumps_
15-07-2012, 01:53 AM
I haven't much to contribute to this long thread except to say that IMO rabbits just need plenty of space to have a good run round & it doesn't matter whether it's indoors or outdoors.

NO one can keep rabbits to absolute perfection. Perhaps Simon (?Simon P) in Leics who concrete lined his back garden, bunny & predator proofed above ground, bonded a colony of 5, & allowed them to make their own warren in it, approached this.

Rabbits are a highly adaptable species, & with a little understanding of their needs to escape from predators, & their inquisative nature + high intelligence, & needs for companionship, I think we can provide them with a safe & stimulating environment, & happy long lives in many different ways. By sharing our different ideas about keeping we can sometimes add small improvements to the way we keep our own buns.
Both my buns have been free ranging house buns because of the high population of foxes here.

Yes, I free ranged both BUT was out with them the whole time AND only when the birds were singing.
(Birds have a better overall view of the area than I do, & their alarm calls tell all whether there is a predator in the air or on the ground.)

My garden has some low shrubs & tall plants at the sides to provide them with the emotional security of some "cover". Thumper adored his free range time when he was well, & often asked to go out. When he became progressively iller he just nipped out for a few mins. ( not up to a fast run to escape from a predator.)

Benjie is terrified of the big outdoors but was found abandonned trying to cross a busy road in rush hour!
Found with generalised pasteurellosis he didn't have much longer to live even in captivity, without a little medical intervention. I sit outside on a low wall for ages as he plucks up courage to venture out through french doors. he'll stay out near the house for about 10 mins. then bring himself indoors. In fact many of his "binkies" are part of predator escape practice.

Neither do I think that the life of a wild rabbit is particularly idyllic. They haven't been many studies. The main work was done in about 1954 "The private life of the rabbit". A 3 year old wildie is an old wildie.
In the wild, they aren't only at risk from predation but also at risk from fitter rabbits in the colony. Much time & energy is spent by bucks patrolling their individual territories to deal with "tresspassers".

Two rabbits, offered the same facilities & 2 totally different temperaments. I have not achieved perfect care. I do my best at all levels. If anyone would criticise me, 1st. read about Thumper & our relationship during his last phases of illness. (It's a sticky in Health rare illness section). Neither do I criticise the care provided by those I know on here.

ETA here's a video of USA wildies "Cottontails" - 1 is assessing the strength of the other rather than a serious "lock on" fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pk28__1LnZs&feature=relmfu

MimzMum
15-07-2012, 04:34 AM
Humans have the arrogant notion that they know 'what is best'. It is almost always what is best for THEM.
Jane that's profound. May I use that as my new siggy quote?

Haven't finished all the thread yet but just had to ask. ;)

Judy I like your response. :)
Thumper was also a very special rabbit. I would say he reached out to you in a way not all rabbits do, as much as you reached out to him. It was a symbiotic relationship...not a domestcation, per se.
I have to admit, my three will have been my first and last rabbits. Many factors figure into this...not the least of which are my own limitations in caring for them properly.

But I will continue to advocate for many animal species as long as I am alive. I can see both sides of the argument have their valid points.

Lobo
15-07-2012, 05:54 AM
Yuck, you guys are all animal rights nuts. A true animal lover loves all species and is open minded which you all clearly aren't. It sounds as if you think you're holier than thou just because you think animals shouldn't be domesticated :roll: And I bet a lot of you like to eat those tasty domesticated animals.



:roll: No, the python thing is scaremongering (to aid the mental HR669 bill from back in 2009) and completely retarded. Another good example of why regulation is bad. They're still trying to ban several species of pythons in the entire country. How on earth do they think pythons could survive the freezes that occur throughout most of the state of Florida every winter, much less the whole COUNTRY?!

Even the everglades gets too cold for pythons, the winter of 2009 wiped the rest out. They weren't made to live in a subtropical environment like most of Florida is. This is an interesting read that proves it WASN'T irresponsible pet owners who released them: http://www.raskbb.com/sybilsden/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6521&hilit=python+florida In short, the pythons were in a research facility near the everglades and Hurricane Andrew destroyed that facility, allowing them to escape. It was Andrew's fault, no one else's.

Everyone is just stupid enough to believe what the media tells them even though it doesn't make any sense. And I hate the government too, it's full of idiot extremists. Everything would be banned by now if it wasn't for the exotic community that stops them from banning animals.

If you want to believe that hurricane was totally responsible for the introduction of Burmese pythons into Florida feel free to do so, but it does fly in the face of the fact the first Burmese was found in Florida in 1979, when Andrew was no more than a zephyr.

You clearly don't understand a great deal about the pythons or reptiles in general if you believe a cold winter will wipe them out. Many, many species of reptiles brumate throughout the middle of winter and the Burmese are no real exception, in fact infertility is a by-product of not brumating. Their natural range extends to the far north of India and if you believe Florida is colder than there a bit of open-minded research will soon put you right. You accuse others of not being open-minded but rarely practice such yourself. To wit, "you guys are all animal rights nuts" and "I hate the government too, it's full of idiot extremists". I think I am capable of distinguishing the extremist.

Jack's-Jane
15-07-2012, 06:12 AM
Yuck, you guys are all animal rights nuts. A true animal lover loves all species and is open minded which you all clearly aren't. It sounds as if you think you're holier than thou just because you think animals shouldn't be domesticated :roll: And I bet a lot of you like to eat those tasty domesticated animals.



:roll: No, the python thing is scaremongering (to aid the mental HR669 bill from back in 2009) and completely retarded. Another good example of why regulation is bad. They're still trying to ban several species of pythons in the entire country. How on earth do they think pythons could survive the freezes that occur throughout most of the state of Florida every winter, much less the whole COUNTRY?!

Even the everglades gets too cold for pythons, the winter of 2009 wiped the rest out. They weren't made to live in a subtropical environment like most of Florida is. This is an interesting read that proves it WASN'T irresponsible pet owners who released them: http://www.raskbb.com/sybilsden/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=6521&hilit=python+florida In short, the pythons were in a research facility near the everglades and Hurricane Andrew destroyed that facility, allowing them to escape. It was Andrew's fault, no one else's.

Everyone is just stupid enough to believe what the media tells them even though it doesn't make any sense. And I hate the government too, it's full of idiot extremists. Everything would be banned by now if it wasn't for the exotic community that stops them from banning animals.

A very helpful and constructive aid to your argument :roll:

William
15-07-2012, 07:07 AM
If you want to believe that hurricane was totally responsible for the introduction of Burmese pythons into Florida feel free to do so, but it does fly in the face of the fact the first Burmese was found in Florida in 1979, when Andrew was no more than a zephyr.

You clearly don't understand a great deal about the pythons or reptiles in general if you believe a cold winter will wipe them out. Many, many species of reptiles brumate throughout the middle of winter and the Burmese are no real exception, in fact infertility is a by-product of not brumating. Their natural range extends to the far north of India and if you believe Florida is colder than there a bit of open-minded research will soon put you right. You accuse others of not being open-minded but rarely practice such yourself. To wit, "you guys are all animal rights nuts" and "I hate the government too, it's full of idiot extremists". I think I am capable of distinguishing the extremist.

Lol, good point about the open mindedness...Well, I'm open minded about keeping animals in captivity. I don't like anti-exotic/anti-animal people. I could probably care less if it weren't for the fact that they're always trying to ban animals, which I have a passion for. They need to just leave well enough alone.

So maybe in 1979 something else caused a Burmese to escape. I actually saw what was probably a ball python (it was dark and I was in a car and several feet away) on the side of the road right outside my neighborhood once, and I haven't heard of wild populations of ball pythons in my area:roll: It's not like the Burmese had to be from a released pet, it could have been due to another natural disaster or maybe they came in a similar way as Cuban Treefrogs which probably were stowaways on boats. 1979 was a long time ago, if they were such a problem you'd think there would have been more wild populations of them found. But there's no denying that the ones found a few years ago died from the cold and there's no denying that they were traced back to that facility. Anyways, no matter where they came from, a blanket ban of pythons is stupid and unfair.

Lots of animals can become invasive, you don't just ban them all because of that. I would love to have meerkats, raccoon dogs and certain species of mongooses, but no, they had to ban them on a federal level for fear of them becoming invasive. Yeah, I'm sure exotic keepers are going to release or somehow lose expensive meerkats rather than sell them for like $2,000 each:roll: You guys in the UK are so lucky you can have them.


A very helpful and constructive aid to your argument :roll:

Maybe not but it felt good to say :lol: There really aren't words strong enough for how I feel about this.

Jack's-Jane
15-07-2012, 07:30 AM
Lol, good point about the open mindedness...Well, I'm open minded about keeping animals in captivity. I don't like anti-exotic/anti-animal people. I could probably care less if it weren't for the fact that they're always trying to ban animals, which I have a passion for. They need to just leave well enough alone.

So maybe in 1979 something else caused a Burmese to escape. I actually saw what was probably a ball python (it was dark and I was in a car and several feet away) on the side of the road right outside my neighborhood once, and I haven't heard of wild populations of ball pythons in my area:roll: It's not like the Burmese had to be from a released pet, it could have been due to another natural disaster or maybe they came in a similar way as Cuban Treefrogs which probably were stowaways on boats. 1979 was a long time ago, if they were such a problem you'd think there would have been more wild populations of them found. But there's no denying that the ones found a few years ago died from the cold and there's no denying that they were traced back to that facility. Anyways, no matter where they came from, a blanket ban of pythons is stupid and unfair.

Lots of animals can become invasive, you don't just ban them all because of that. I would love to have meerkats, raccoon dogs and certain species of mongooses, but no, they had to ban them on a federal level for fear of them becoming invasive. Yeah, I'm sure exotic keepers are going to release or somehow lose expensive meerkats rather than sell them for like $2,000 each:roll: You guys in the UK are so lucky you can have them.



Maybe not but it felt good to say :lol: There really aren't words strong enough for how I feel about this.

Perhaps it would be a good idea to be mindful of how posts are worded. Otherwise what *might* have potential for a well thought out argument will just read as the rantings of a spoilt brat throwing their toys out of the pram :D

William
15-07-2012, 08:05 AM
Perhaps it would be a good idea to be mindful of how posts are worded. Otherwise what *might* have potential for a well thought out argument will just read as the rantings of a spoilt brat throwing their toys out of the pram :D

:lol: I'll keep that in mind.

Georgeypudding
15-07-2012, 08:14 AM
Yuck, you guys are all animal rights nuts. A true animal lover loves all species and is open minded which you all clearly aren't. It sounds as if you think you're holier than thou just because you think animals shouldn't be domesticated :roll: And I bet a lot of you like to eat those tasty domesticated animals.





What was that about being holier than thou? :lol:

Licenses are to put off idiots who think owning an exotic animal is a good idea! and if people release their animals they're prats and didnt deserve them in the first place. If you truly loved animals, and wanted to do what was best for them then you would agree with something like this. Saying its an inconvenience makes you sound like one of those owners that just wants exotics for the thrills ;)


No we shouldnt have domestcated animals, but we have and we have a duty to care for them in the best possible way. In an ideal world we'd all have free range rabbits who dont have human interaction except for medical treatments, in reality thats almost never possible.

prettylupin
15-07-2012, 08:34 AM
Not for the animal. It is selfish humans who want to keep pets for their own benefit. I am not saying that all Pets suffer, but I believe all animals are served best by living as nature intended. For Rabbits that is in the wild.

This is how I feel too. :thumb:

I think this is an interesting thread and topic, it is something I have a variety of opinions on myself and I believe that there is NO right or wrong, who are we to judge what is 'in their best interests' or 'what benefits outweigh the risks' of either scenario. The situation is that as long as we do our best and try to meet as many of our pets needs as possible, then we are doing the best job we can with what we have, for everyone this is different. I believe very much that there should be welfare minimums, below which it could be considered 'cruel', but until a wild animal is living as nature intended whatever we do will never be good enough. That said, few of us have true wild rabbits domesticated, instead a domesticated bred species that although very similar to it's wild European cousin, as somebody else said, doesn't know any different and does not necessarily possess the same level of instinctive needs and responses - this varies from rabbit to rabbit.

Even if one were to hypothetically capture a wild rabbit and keep it as a domesticated pet would it actually 'know' any different? That assumes that rabbits have memory and a cognitive understanding of their place in the world and 'how life could be different', this is a human trait and rabbits, although intelligent, sentient, and complex beings, do not possess the requisite part of higher brain function that allows them to 'think' as we do. Would they be unhappy? Again that is kind of a complex emotion.... hard to say if they can experience unhappiness as we do :?, but would they be frustrated, distressed, scared and stressed to a degree that inhibits normal behaviour - yes probably very much so. These are basic emotions that are powered by the primitive brain, something that all mammals share, and very similar to an infant human. As their caregivers it is our responsibility to encourage a pet to exhibit normal behaviour - I guess in that way we can truly assess their version of 'happiness'. We should be careful not to anthropormorphise our pets, I believe that is dangerous as they are not humans, they are rabbits, and we should consider what 'rabbits' need, not us. :D

How each and everyone of us evaluates risk vs benefits will differ as much as we do, there is not necessarily any right answer - just a spectrum. Just because one person believes that the risk of predators and a short existence is not outweighed by freedom to roam in a more natural way, doesn't mean they are wrong, nor vice versa. We all make our own decisions for our pets as we all have a different perspective on quality of life, it is a totally subjective perspective.

William
15-07-2012, 09:46 AM
What was that about being holier than thou? :lol:

Licenses are to put off idiots who think owning an exotic animal is a good idea! and if people release their animals they're prats and didnt deserve them in the first place. If you truly loved animals, and wanted to do what was best for them then you would agree with something like this. Saying its an inconvenience makes you sound like one of those owners that just wants exotics for the thrills ;)


No we shouldnt have domestcated animals, but we have and we have a duty to care for them in the best possible way. In an ideal world we'd all have free range rabbits who dont have human interaction except for medical treatments, in reality thats almost never possible.

I'm not saying eating animals is wrong but anyone who eats meat and says they don't agree with the domestication of animals is a hypocrite.

I don't think licenses are necessary. People are much more likely to get a dog and neglect it than get an exotic animal and neglect it. It's not easy to find a lot of exotics, they're expensive and most breeders are good and wouldn't sell to just anyone and they also give you detailed info packs when you buy an animal from them. So I think all that weeds out the idiots and requires that people research first.

No, I don't want exotics just for the thrill. When I get a pet it's for life and it's very well thought out and researched. Irresponsible owners shouldn't affect me or any other responsible owner. That's why I don't like the idea of licenses, they just restrict and inconvenience the responsible owners when it's not their fault.

And not all licenses are the same anyway. It's naive to act like they shouldn't be an inconvenience to a responsible owner. A Class III permit in Florida is free, simple to get, hardly any wait time and they usually don't inspect for Class III. So it's pretty much just to keep tabs on exotic keepers. Class II is much more difficult. You have to have references, I don't think it's a free permit, you're inspected I think twice a year at least (plus when you get a new species) and some inspectors are awful so that's a lot of worry and trouble. And you have to follow housing rules, but those aren't too bad. The minimum enclosure size is very reasonable, I would definitely have bigger enclosures.

Then there's permits like ornamental waterfowl permits. They require all this paperwork throughout the whole year, basically records on every single bird you have (birds that require the permit) whether you sold any babies, whether any died, etc and you have to turn it in before Jan 1st every year and renew your permit every year. And native North American raptor permits require you to work with native raptors for 2 years before you can get one. I'd like to work at a wildlife center with raptors anyway but still, it's an unnecessary inconvenience, and two years is a crazy long time. Over in the UK you don't need a permit for raptors and you can buy a barn owl for 50 pounds, sometimes you can even get them for free, they're like a dime a dozen. Over here they're extremely expensive and hard to find, I suppose because of the permit not many people breed them. If lax regulations work over there how come they can't over here?

BattleKat
15-07-2012, 09:52 AM
I don't like anti-exotic/anti-animal people. I could probably care less if it weren't for the fact that they're always trying to ban animals, which I have a passion for. They need to just leave well enough alone.
I don't think you always pay enough attention to what people say. You mainly got defensive in response to my posts, when at no point did I call for any animals to be banned, just that there should be appropriate measures taken to make sure the animals are being looked after properly and having their basic needs met. That's all that licensing and regulations are, you know.

BattleKat
15-07-2012, 09:53 AM
I'm not saying eating animals is wrong but anyone who eats meat and says they don't agree with the domestication of animals is a hypocrite.
Why? We were eating meat long before any animals were domesticated.

Aly&Poppy<3
15-07-2012, 09:55 AM
Well this has gone off the first post a tad hasn't it :lol:

Saj
15-07-2012, 09:55 AM
this debate is getting really juicy! I dont think it's healthy though to put all forum users into one category, we all have individual opinions/lifestyles.

it's a shame this debate is about 60 years too late (my guess at when we started domesticating rabbits, but i havent looked it up so could be wrong!)

William
15-07-2012, 10:02 AM
I don't think you always pay enough attention to what people say. You mainly got defensive in response to my posts, when at no point did I call for any animals to be banned, just that there should be appropriate measures taken to make sure the animals are being looked after properly and having their basic needs met. That's all that licensing and regulations are, you know.

I don't agree with regulations at all. But anyways, it doesn't end with realistic regulations, they just end up restricting more. I know a lot of states used to have okay regulations and now most exotics are banned. In Florida private individuals used to be allowed to own Class I animals but now you can't, you have to be a zoo. Cougars and cheetahs have been added to Class I (before 2009 they were Class II). What was even the point in that, cheetahs are near impossible to get and cougars are more docile and less moody than many other cat species. And there's several python species that require permits now. So that's why I 'got defensive' even though you didn't call for any animals to be banned. Regulations eventually lead to bans.

Georgeypudding
15-07-2012, 10:17 AM
I'm not saying eating animals is wrong but anyone who eats meat and says they don't agree with the domestication of animals is a hypocrite.

I don't think licenses are necessary. People are much more likely to get a dog and neglect it than get an exotic animal and neglect it. It's not easy to find a lot of exotics, they're expensive and most breeders are good and wouldn't sell to just anyone and they also give you detailed info packs when you buy an animal from them. So I think all that weeds out the idiots and requires that people research first.

No, I don't want exotics just for the thrill. When I get a pet it's for life and it's very well thought out and researched. Irresponsible owners shouldn't affect me or any other responsible owner. That's why I don't like the idea of licenses, they just restrict and inconvenience the responsible owners when it's not their fault.

And not all licenses are the same anyway. It's naive to act like they shouldn't be an inconvenience to a responsible owner. A Class III permit in Florida is free, simple to get, hardly any wait time and they usually don't inspect for Class III. So it's pretty much just to keep tabs on exotic keepers. Class II is much more difficult. You have to have references, I don't think it's a free permit, you're inspected I think twice a year at least (plus when you get a new species) and some inspectors are awful so that's a lot of worry and trouble. And you have to follow housing rules, but those aren't too bad. The minimum enclosure size is very reasonable, I would definitely have bigger enclosures.

Then there's permits like ornamental waterfowl permits. They require all this paperwork throughout the whole year, basically records on every single bird you have (birds that require the permit) whether you sold any babies, whether any died, etc and you have to turn it in before Jan 1st every year and renew your permit every year. And native North American raptor permits require you to work with native raptors for 2 years before you can get one. I'd like to work at a wildlife center with raptors anyway but still, it's an unnecessary inconvenience, and two years is a crazy long time. Over in the UK you don't need a permit for raptors and you can buy a barn owl for 50 pounds, sometimes you can even get them for free, they're like a dime a dozen. Over here they're extremely expensive and hard to find, I suppose because of the permit not many people breed them. If lax regulations work over there how come they can't over here?


People are more likely to neglect an exotic animal, because they have no idea how to care for it rather than abuse etc. Lots of people think "Oh I'll get a snake, or a bird or exotic animal because its soooo cool" and then realise that actually they're expensive and hard to care for. Lots of pet shops here sell exotics so they are very easy to come by.

Surely you want to get rid of irresponsible owners so the more things to put them off the better? Even if it is an inconvenience to you.
I honestly cannot see anything wrong with what you have just said (except nasty inspectors) it all makes sense to me! Why let people get away with cruelty when we could keep tabs on them and catch problems early? Having experience with raptors sounds like a brilliant idea! Certainly put people off buying birds on a will!

I think you have a very rose tinted idea of the UK, the lax regulations dont always work and Im sure the responsible raptor owners (and other pets) would agree that getting rid of idiots would be a good idea, even if it means bringing in strict rules like the ones in the US. We have alot of issues with neglect, and the RSPCA arent always the best at sorting it out, the idea of biyearly house checks sounds fantastic and I reckon it'd reduce cruelty a heck of a lot

thumps_
15-07-2012, 10:24 AM
this debate is getting really juicy! I dont think it's healthy though to put all forum users into one category, we all have individual opinions/lifestyles.

it's a shame this debate is about 60 years too late (my guess at when we started domesticating rabbits, but i havent looked it up so could be wrong!)

I agree with your 1st statement completely Saj.

To return to our favourite topic - rabbits. They originated in wild state in Spain (& Portugal) hence the Roman name for Spain - Hispania =land of rabbits. It is thought that the Romans took them to various parts of Europe as a food & fur source. There is dispute whether they were introduced to the UK by the Romans or Normans.
Originally they were tender & unable to survive a winter. Artificial warrens were built for them in the middle ages -Pillow mounds. I would love to know when they started to dig burrows, which enabled them to escape.

A pet rabbit is certainly recorded in the 18century. I don't know whether there are earlier records.
There were many different breeds by the turn of the 19th Century, but they were very expensive.
Even 60 years ago, the domestic pets of ordinary folk like us, were bought from the fur & meat farms. A chinchilla bunny was very common.

The only indigenous species of lagomorph in the UK is the hare.
Of course the history of rabbit introduction to Australia (Lobo's country) from the UK is very recent historically.

halfpenny
15-07-2012, 10:25 AM
You do need a license to own a raptor in Britain,
In referrance to the comments about exotic owners taking more care of their pets than 'normal' pets, i disagree.
My friend works in reptile rescue and see some horrendous cases caused by ignorance and neglect.
People see an animal , buy it because it's cute, different, unusual or just because they can- they do not research it or even have the facilities for it before they get it in many cases.
I myself have parrots who were fed a seed only diet, chinchillas who were fed peanuts as a treat and kept in tiny cages and a APH who was in a small cage, too cold and on shavings.

Personally, I think we have enough domesticated animals and have no need to domesticate any more, the lucky ones go to owners like the ones on here but how many end up dying or suffering through ignorance, boredom and neglect. No matter the animal, ones will be abused. Even the basics like finding a competent vet is nigh impossible for exotic keepers, so what about the welfare issues there, and before any body says vets should just find out about them- how and why, even the top specialists are learning and is it worthwhile for a vet to find out about exotics when they may only see one or two a year!
I do not agree the we should not have pets, I can't imagine my life without them but there needs to be a crack down on breeding and education on how to look after them.

Jack's-Jane
15-07-2012, 10:33 AM
No, I don't want exotics just for the thrill. When I get a pet it's for life and it's very well thought out and researched. Irresponsible owners shouldn't affect me or any other responsible owner. That's why I don't like the idea of licenses, they just restrict and inconvenience the responsible owners when it's not their fault.
?

But surely if it protects the animals from being neglected by irresponsible owners a bit of 'inconvenience' to you is not such a big deal ?

To be honest in all of your arguments on this thread all I 'hear' is 'I want and so I will have'

In life we cant always have what we want when we want it.

thumps_
15-07-2012, 10:35 AM
You do need a license to own a raptor in Britain,
In referrance to the comments about exotic owners taking more care of their pets than 'normal' pets, i disagree.
My friend works in reptile rescue and see some horrendous cases caused by ignorance and neglect.
People see an animal , buy it because it's cute, different, unusual or just because they can- they do not research it or even have the facilities for it before they get it in many cases.
I myself have parrots who were fed a seed only diet, chinchillas who were fed peanuts as a treat and kept in tiny cages and a APH who was in a small cage, too cold and on shavings.

Personally, I think we have enough domesticated animals and have no need to domesticate any more, the lucky ones go to owners like the ones on here but how many end up dying or suffering through ignorance, boredom and neglect. No matter the animal, ones will be abused. Even the basics like finding a competent vet is nigh impossible for exotic keepers, so what about the welfare issues there, and before any body says vets should just find out about them- how and why, even the top specialists are learning and is it worthwhile for a vet to find out about exotics when they may only see one or two a year!
I do not agree the we should not have pets, I can't imagine my life without them but there needs to be a crack down on breeding and education on how to look after them.

Thank you halfpenny I think that summarises the situation nicely.
My great sadness is for our native species which have become almost extinct because of introduced species, red squirrel being the most "attractive" but there are plenty more eg our white crayfish is almost completely displaced by the imported signal crayfish etc.

xlaurax
15-07-2012, 10:45 AM
I wish my rabbits could free range all day in safety and have a huge shed to live in etc.

Sadly I cannot provide this.

But I can provide free range time when I'm home and a safe, secure, warm, dry environment when I'm not. You might say it's not spacious enough but I love them dearly and am always thinking of ways I can make their lives better.

I think "cruel" is the wrong word to use in the first post.

Kerryyyy
15-07-2012, 10:49 AM
You do need a license to own a raptor in Britain,
In referrance to the comments about exotic owners taking more care of their pets than 'normal' pets, i disagree.
My friend works in reptile rescue and see some horrendous cases caused by ignorance and neglect.
People see an animal , buy it because it's cute, different, unusual or just because they can- they do not research it or even have the facilities for it before they get it in many cases.
I myself have parrots who were fed a seed only diet, chinchillas who were fed peanuts as a treat and kept in tiny cages and a APH who was in a small cage, too cold and on shavings.

Personally, I think we have enough domesticated animals and have no need to domesticate any more, the lucky ones go to owners like the ones on here but how many end up dying or suffering through ignorance, boredom and neglect. No matter the animal, ones will be abused. Even the basics like finding a competent vet is nigh impossible for exotic keepers, so what about the welfare issues there, and before any body says vets should just find out about them- how and why, even the top specialists are learning and is it worthwhile for a vet to find out about exotics when they may only see one or two a year!
I do not agree the we should not have pets, I can't imagine my life without them but there needs to be a crack down on breeding and education on how to look after them.

Not meaning to jump in but I agree with this statement completely. :).

William
15-07-2012, 11:24 AM
People are more likely to neglect an exotic animal, because they have no idea how to care for it rather than abuse etc. Lots of people think "Oh I'll get a snake, or a bird or exotic animal because its soooo cool" and then realise that actually they're expensive and hard to care for. Lots of pet shops here sell exotics so they are very easy to come by.

Surely you want to get rid of irresponsible owners so the more things to put them off the better? Even if it is an inconvenience to you.
I honestly cannot see anything wrong with what you have just said (except nasty inspectors) it all makes sense to me! Why let people get away with cruelty when we could keep tabs on them and catch problems early? Having experience with raptors sounds like a brilliant idea! Certainly put people off buying birds on a will!

I think you have a very rose tinted idea of the UK, the lax regulations dont always work and Im sure the responsible raptor owners (and other pets) would agree that getting rid of idiots would be a good idea, even if it means bringing in strict rules like the ones in the US. We have alot of issues with neglect, and the RSPCA arent always the best at sorting it out, the idea of biyearly house checks sounds fantastic and I reckon it'd reduce cruelty a heck of a lot


Well, yeah, Florida's aren't too bad, but it's just about the only sane state here. I'm so thankful to live in Florida but I do worry it'll become corrupt like nearly every other state has :( Or that the government will create more bans on a federal level. No doubt HR669 bill will try to make a come back one day.

I think having experience with raptors is a good idea, I would want some anyways as they are a big commitment and if I'm going to free fly I imagine I need someone experienced to guide me, but 2 years worth?! At least raptors raptors that aren't native to North America don't require any permits.

The lax regulations in UK seem to work for really exotic animals. Of course, there's the occasional idiot that releases a pet. I've heard of raccoons and skunks in forests before (it was either New Forest or Forest of Dean, I forget which). But that is very rare.


You do need a license to own a raptor in Britain,
In referrance to the comments about exotic owners taking more care of their pets than 'normal' pets, i disagree.
My friend works in reptile rescue and see some horrendous cases caused by ignorance and neglect.
People see an animal , buy it because it's cute, different, unusual or just because they can- they do not research it or even have the facilities for it before they get it in many cases.
I myself have parrots who were fed a seed only diet, chinchillas who were fed peanuts as a treat and kept in tiny cages and a APH who was in a small cage, too cold and on shavings.

Personally, I think we have enough domesticated animals and have no need to domesticate any more, the lucky ones go to owners like the ones on here but how many end up dying or suffering through ignorance, boredom and neglect. No matter the animal, ones will be abused. Even the basics like finding a competent vet is nigh impossible for exotic keepers, so what about the welfare issues there, and before any body says vets should just find out about them- how and why, even the top specialists are learning and is it worthwhile for a vet to find out about exotics when they may only see one or two a year!
I do not agree the we should not have pets, I can't imagine my life without them but there needs to be a crack down on breeding and education on how to look after them.

Exotic is a broad term with many different meanings but when I say exotic I usually mean very unusual pets like kinkajous, civets, coatis, etc. These animals are neglected much less often than parrots and reptiles and such. Partly because not as many people have them but also because breeders do inform buyers of their care and of course most people that have very unusual animals have to be interested in exotics first or they probably wouldn't have even heard of them. Yeah, a lot of parrots and reptiles are neglected...but then, there are dedicated communities of parrot owners and reptiles owners who promote proper care. I have parrots and reptiles myself :)

I've already searched for good exotic vets in my state for the various exotics I plan on getting and there's quite a lot. Just depends on where you live.


But surely if it protects the animals from being neglected by irresponsible owners a bit of 'inconvenience' to you is not such a big deal ?

To be honest in all of your arguments on this thread all I 'hear' is 'I want and so I will have'

In life we cant always have what we want when we want it.


If it actually did protect animals from being neglected...yeah, I guess it'd be worth it. Regulations are more to protect the public than the animal but I suppose both benefit. But come on, who's going to get, say, a serval and have no idea how to care for it? They cost thousands of dollars and chances are you'll be put on a waiting list since they're in high demand, so you probably can't impulse buy one. Plus, as i said, the breeder will educate people, both for the owner and animal's benefit and as well as for the hobby as a whole since all it takes is one person to neglect their exotic pet or let it escape and then the stupid government uses that as an excuse to start banning animals :roll:

BattleKat
15-07-2012, 11:41 AM
this debate is getting really juicy! I dont think it's healthy though to put all forum users into one category, we all have individual opinions/lifestyles.

it's a shame this debate is about 60 years too late (my guess at when we started domesticating rabbits, but i havent looked it up so could be wrong!)

I think rabbits were domesticated in the 1600s. :lol:
to be fair, I don't think they took off as pets until the 19th century.



[/B]
To be honest in all of your arguments on this thread all I 'hear' is 'I want and so I will have'

In life we cant always have what we want when we want it.
ditto.
There should be enforced laws to protect the welfare of ANY animal species (dangerous or not), I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with that unless they really didn't give a toss about what happens to the animals.

halfpenny
15-07-2012, 11:47 AM
Sorry William I disagree.

If people have money is does not make them any more careful about what they buy.

Here we have macaws being sold for over £1000 pounds, but there are plenty of rescues taking in parrots neglected and damaged.
Supply=demand, the animals you do not consider as exotic once were and would have cost a lot more than they do now. As people want an animal the breeders full the gap- look at dogs, not exotic but when I was young you never saw a Staffies, they became popular for various reasons, everybody started breeding them and now thousands are being PTS a year.
I know it will not be the same extreme but it will happen with any animal at any level.
Those who have large cats, how can they possibly give them the stimulation and space they need, same with monkeys.
I say thank god for restrictions on exotic animals- knowing of a marmoset, kept on his own, fed only baby rice and slowly going made- I wish they would be more strict with which animals can be kept.

May I ask why you want all these animals, is it for you or for them, is it to be different?

Crunchie
15-07-2012, 11:49 AM
ditto.
There should be enforced laws to protect the welfare of ANY animal species (dangerous or not), I can't imagine why anyone would disagree with that unless they really didn't give a toss about what happens to the animals.

Totally agree with this, I wish it were harder to get hold of and sell any animal in this country especially some of the exotics which can currently be bought by anyone.

thumps_
15-07-2012, 11:54 AM
I wish my rabbits could free range all day in safety and have a huge shed to live in etc.

Sadly I cannot provide this.

But I can provide free range time when I'm home and a safe, secure, warm, dry environment when I'm not. You might say it's not spacious enough but I love them dearly and am always thinking of ways I can make their lives better.

I think "cruel" is the wrong word to use in the first post.

I've looked at the pictures & your rabbits look just fine, happy buns, having a whale of a time with that washing up bowl.:D:D:D It's lovely you've got a pair.
In fact most rabbits are crepuscular - most active in the morning & evening & spend most of the day lying up (in burrows if they're wildies) When some owners have a chance to spend day time at home with them eg. hols, they're often disappointed that "nothing much happens" in the day. :lol:
My boy has a great time between 6.00am & 10.00pm but he's sleeping under the dressing table now, & won't wake up until about 5.00pm. It's normal rabbit rythmn.

William
15-07-2012, 12:12 PM
Sorry William I disagree.

If people have money is does not make them any more careful about what they buy.

Here we have macaws being sold for over £1000 pounds, but there are plenty of rescues taking in parrots neglected and damaged.
Supply=demand, the animals you do not consider as exotic once were and would have cost a lot more than they do now. As people want an animal the breeders full the gap- look at dogs, not exotic but when I was young you never saw a Staffies, they became popular for various reasons, everybody started breeding them and now thousands are being PTS a year.
I know it will not be the same extreme but it will happen with any animal at any level.
Those who have large cats, how can they possibly give them the stimulation and space they need, same with monkeys.
I say thank god for restrictions on exotic animals- knowing of a marmoset, kept on his own, fed only baby rice and slowly going made- I wish they would be more strict with which animals can be kept.

May I ask why you want all these animals, is it for you or for them, is it to be different?

But like I said before, not all restrictions are the same and they're not all fair. Very few are fair. And we don't need the government telling us what we're allowed anyway.

Like with Ohio, all because of that guy that committed suicide in Zanesville and let all his animals loose (reportedly- there are conspiracy theories that animal rights nuts killed him and let all his animals go. Wouldn't be the first time animal rights nuts have gotten violent over private keepers) there are now ridiculous bans and regulations being put in place in Ohio. I mean, look at the quote below. It's crazy :evil::evil::evil:


ODA Director must go through the General Assembly (new bill) to add more animals to the ‘dangerous wild animal’ or ‘restricted snake’ list.
Marmosets, capuchins, squirrel monkeys and lemurs were removed from the ‘dangerous’ list; they still have to be registered & meet the standards of care, but are otherwise exempt (no insurance or permit fees required, and they can buy/sell/trade)
Permit fees were changed to:
1-3 dangerous wild animals: $250/yr
4-10 dangerous wild animals : $500/yr
11-15 dangerous wild animals: $1000/yr
16+ dangerous wild animals: $1000/yr plus $125 for each additional animal over 15
Insurance on 1-5 dangerous wild animals dropped from $250,000 to $200,000
Rescue facilities can acquire but not purchase animals
AZA and ZAA must register their animals like everyone else but are otherwise exempt
If owner is unable to pay the costs of quarantine/transfer, lien will be put on their property
Establishment of an Emergency Response Commission


http://www.raskbb.com/sybilsden/viewtopic.php?f=63&t=9242&hilit=big+cat+rescue

Thankfully we (the exotic community) fight them or else you all would have your wish and all animals would be banned or regulated. It reminds me of this:

"First, they came for the Pit Bulls,
but you didn't speak out because you don't have a Pit Bull.
Then they came for the German Shepherds,
but you didn't speak out because you don't have a German Shepherd.

Then they came for the Akitas,
but you didn't speak out because you don't have an Akita.

Then they came for the Boxers,
but you didn't speak out because you don't have a Boxer.

When they come for your dog,
will anyone speak out for you?"

The government wants to ban everything and I highly doubt they've got the animals best interests at heart. In the UK (as well as some places over here) you've got a ban on pit bulls. And no one really spoke out until dogs like Lennox got killed, did they? That wasn't such a great ban was it :roll: As I understand it, pit bulls are still everywhere (as they should be) and people's beloved pets can be seized and killed for no reason. That was such a great law :roll: I'm so glad the government ensures we're safe from vicious animals.

As to your last question - because I love them. Why else does anybody get pets?

*lily*
15-07-2012, 12:17 PM
I've looked at the pictures & your rabbits look just fine, happy buns, having a whale of a time with that washing up bowl.:D:D:D It's lovely you've got a pair.
In fact most rabbits are crepuscular - most active in the morning & evening & spend most of the day lying up (in burrows if they're wildies) When some owners have a chance to spend day time at home with them eg. hols, they're often disappointed that "nothing much happens" in the day. :lol:
My boy has a great time between 6.00am & 10.00pm but he's sleeping under the dressing table now, & won't wake up until about 5.00pm. It's normal rabbit rythmn.

Louie's the same, he goes out for a run at around 6am when I get up. By 7am he is back inside and will sleep mostly until late afternoon. He likes another run at around 8pm.

hellsdarkrose
15-07-2012, 12:24 PM
My two are entirely house rabbits mainly due to the number of cats,foxes and the main road behind my house. If they managed to get out and I lost them I'd never forgive myself.

Radish lives downstairs has the entire downstairs at her disposal as well as upstairs but she had never chosen to attempt to climb the stairs. Waffle has her own room upstairs it's 13ft by 8ft and again she can leave her room if she wishes but chooses not to.

Waffle was an outdoor rabbit previously but as a well known member on here can testify she is now petrified of the outdoors for some reason so I would not subject her to that.

Maybe it is cruel to provide both rabbits with all the space,comfort and security they need.

xlaurax
15-07-2012, 02:02 PM
I've looked at the pictures & your rabbits look just fine, happy buns, having a whale of a time with that washing up bowl.:D:D:D It's lovely you've got a pair.
In fact most rabbits are crepuscular - most active in the morning & evening & spend most of the day lying up (in burrows if they're wildies) When some owners have a chance to spend day time at home with them eg. hols, they're often disappointed that "nothing much happens" in the day. :lol:
My boy has a great time between 6.00am & 10.00pm but he's sleeping under the dressing table now, & won't wake up until about 5.00pm. It's normal rabbit rythmn.



Thank you :) I have to say when we were off work and they had all day to play they actually spent most of it in their hutch! :lol:

R.P.B.G.G
15-07-2012, 02:37 PM
Perfect example of why I maybe shouldnt free range.

Standing in the garden Marshmallow is out free ranging many other buns out in the runs, Im cleaning out the hutches, My son is watching Marsh ( like he always does) I hear a noise, and BAM Mr Foxy jumps over the fence, in broad daylight, us all out in the garden, not exactly being quiet, Dogs out in the garden, and he still quite happily jumped into the garden, just stood there for a few seconds and wandered down the garden.

My heart was in my mouth, Im looking at fox, then at the buns thinking do I chase fox or run to buns, Called my mum to stand and watch whilst I finished cleaning out marshes hutch so she could go away, MAJOR PANIC MOMENT!!

B3rnie69
15-07-2012, 02:40 PM
The lax regulations in UK seem to work for really exotic animals. Of course, there's the occasional idiot that releases a pet. I've heard of raccoons and skunks in forests before (it was either New Forest or Forest of Dean, I forget which). But that is very rare.





I think you are greatly mistaken with that statement. The regulations do not work, within a year of APH's coming over there was a need for specific APH rescues, some of the conditions that they turn up in at rescue is heartbreaking and all because someone "wanted" :cry:

Preloved and Gumtree are now full of "breeders" :(

I have even seen some people keeping Black Squirrels in a tiny cage just cos the can :(

halfpenny
15-07-2012, 06:20 PM
I do not want all animals banned, but I see no need for undomesticated animals to be kept as pets, I cannot see how anybody can give them the environment they need. If someone is rich enough to purchase a pet why shouldn't they pay for the pleasure of it. It may not be designed to protect the animal as much as the public but if it stops more people keeping who don't have the finances- to me it's a good thing.

Lops
15-07-2012, 07:02 PM
Hi all

How many of you allow your buns to run around the garden? I do, everyday, between 6am and 8.30am and then from 6pm until 10pm.

Now that I do this,
I honestly can't help but think that for those rabbits that cannot be afford this sort of freedom, then its cruel to keep them - especially if you are not saving rescue rabbits and brining new ones into the world. They are so happy - as humans are - when given freedom. I am interested in hearing your thoughts on this.

Thanks

So you were cruel before 'now' then? And still are in-between your stated times??


Quite frankly *I* find this post offensive!
There is a LOT more to rabbit care/welfare than free ranging in a garden for 6.5 hours
Hundreds of bunnies on this forum get top quality care

weeble
15-07-2012, 07:12 PM
Please can we keep this discussion friendly and not get personal or nasty

Milo+Fizz
15-07-2012, 07:18 PM
People can only provide the best they can for their rabbits and if that means they have less space it certainly does not make someone cruel.

I personally feel that for me and my rabbits that free range time is as important as walks are for dogs. I also wouldn't be comfortable using a hutch for either my rabbits or guinea pigs and I see my aviary as added space for my rabbits not a "run" as 9ft doesn't allow the speed and binkys that my garden does. Do I think people who can't provide this are cruel and shouldn't own rabbits? Hell no if they provide the best they can then they deserve said pet. :D

*lily*
15-07-2012, 07:20 PM
I was "advised" to rehome my 2 Goldfish as I was being cruel to them by not having a big enough pond.

Same obviously doesn't apply to rabbits, as long as people are "doing their best".

xlaurax
15-07-2012, 07:23 PM
People can only provide the best they can for their rabbits and if that means they have less space it certainly does not make someone cruel.

I personally feel that for me and my rabbits that free range time is as important as walks are for dogs. I also wouldn't be comfortable using a hutch for either my rabbits or guinea pigs and I see my aviary as added space for my rabbits not a "run" as 9ft doesn't allow the speed and binkys that my garden does. Do I think people who can't provide this are cruel and shouldn't own rabbits? Hell no if they provide the best they can then they deserve said pet. :D



:thumb::thumb::thumb:

I dont have as much space as you have but I am NOT cruel. They still have a good lifestyle :) Like I said earlier I think cruel is the wrong word to use in the OP

Milo+Fizz
15-07-2012, 07:30 PM
I was "advised" to rehome my 2 Goldfish as I was being cruel to them by not having a big enough pond.

Same obviously doesn't apply to rabbits, as long as people are "doing their best".

This thread isn't about the size of the accommodation being to small it's about not being able to provide extra space via free range time. :)
Not saying I agree with the op just that its not quite the same as having accommodation that is not fit for the species.

ETA: I am not aware of your goldfish thread so can't comment on that. :wave:

Fifibutton
15-07-2012, 09:55 PM
I have a reason to add as to why free ranging on grass is not always the best idea. Some rabbits are born with or develop bacterial imbalances in their stomachs and if they eat too much grass they can suffer from profuse diarrhoea. Two of my older bunnies have developed this in the last couple of years. They need limited grazing and pro biotic powder as a result. These dicky tums would not happen if they free ranged indoors. Also the risk of developing parasites and contracting eye infections or VHD (spread by most small wildlife) is greater for rabbits living/playing outdoors. I know vaccination will prevent this and spot on treatments exist for parasitic infections but it is still a lot of stress for a rabbit to go through. So those with indoor free rangers need not feel guilty. You are in fact preventing many more bad incidents. But there is no right or wrong in this case so long as the rabbit's needs have been met and exceeded and the rabbit is happy.

xlaurax
15-07-2012, 11:09 PM
Not sure if anyone agrees but I'm thinking this thread has become pointless. IMO nobody on RU has anything but their buns' best interests at heart. It saddens me that I feel I need to prove that I love them and am not cruel :(

Angie65
16-07-2012, 10:01 AM
In the wild, a bunny runs over approximately 4 tennis courts worth of space.

So, technically anyone not doing this is "cruel"? Our rabbits have traded freedom & space for security. They didn't choose to - we made the choice for them.

I do think there are unacceptable ways of keeping rabbits - 3 foot hutches/no permanent run access or daily free range time etc etc. But as long as we are reaching the basic requirements - food/water/space/mental stimulation/company, we are doing the best we can for an animal we domesticated years ago & forced to rely on us. Whether that space in indoor or outdoor, the grazing is grass or hay, the company is bunny or human. We are still meeting their basic needs.

LittleEskimo
16-07-2012, 10:12 AM
My buns are only allowed free range all day on good days as we don't yet have a run attached. I keep trying to get one but the size of the garden makes it difficult etc etc

Whenever the weather is bad like the past few months have been they are stuck in their hutch :'(

I want to get a run to waterproof so they have extra space no matter what weather. And then on good days they can run about the whole garden...Just got to try and convince mum that I need more of her garden space for a run :/

Saj
16-07-2012, 10:34 AM
Not sure if anyone agrees but I'm thinking this thread has become pointless. IMO nobody on RU has anything but their buns' best interests at heart. It saddens me that I feel I need to prove that I love them and am not cruel :(

nah, i think this has turned into a good post about the ethics of domesticating rabbits and exoctic creatures. some good points have been made, there are a few people who could have used less aggressive wording but then again such posts make a thread more popular

William
17-07-2012, 08:26 AM
I think you are greatly mistaken with that statement. The regulations do not work, within a year of APH's coming over there was a need for specific APH rescues, some of the conditions that they turn up in at rescue is heartbreaking and all because someone "wanted" :cry:

Preloved and Gumtree are now full of "breeders" :(

I have even seen some people keeping Black Squirrels in a tiny cage just cos the can :(

APH's aren't regulated all over the US. I'm not sure about all states, but I know that in Florida you don't need any permit for them, but in some states like Texas, Hawaii and California they're full out banned. They're quite popular pets here, but as far as I know it's not to the point that they're overpopulated. I do see breeders selling them on craigslist fairly often, some breeders even sell a baby with a full set up of everything you need, including an appropriate sized bin cage. So I see nothing wrong with that.

They'll always be some bad apples in the bunch, there's nothing that can be done about that. The vast majority of people that keep exotics are good owners though, I hate that the bad owners reflect badly on the good ones. The best you can do is educate people whenever you find that they don't know how to care for an animal.


Those who have large cats, how can they possibly give them the stimulation and space they need, same with monkeys.
I say thank god for restrictions on exotic animals- knowing of a marmoset, kept on his own, fed only baby rice and slowly going made- I wish they would be more strict with which animals can be kept

For large cats you build a large enclosure. I don't plan on getting any large cats (by large I assume you mean tiger or lion sized?) but will be getting many small ones and the small ones at least really aren't difficult to keep. Hardly anymore difficult than a domestic cat. Of course exotic cats will eat more, being bigger than the average domestic cat (though some are very small such as Geoffrey's and Asian leopard cats) and I plan on raw feeding them and they'll need large enclosures. But all in all not what I'd call difficult.

Monkeys aren't as hard to keep as people think either. Large natural enclosure outdoors with plenty of enrichment, proper diet, others of their own species, etc it's pretty easy. Maybe not easy for the average person who can't even take care of a dog...though come to think of it, monkeys are probably easier than dogs, except when the monkeys are breeding and may regular a lot of time i.e keeping an eye on them, hand feeding babies if necessary etc. Dogs need to be trained, walked, played with and require a lot of attention. Monkeys on the other hand entertain themselves as long as you provide them with the toys and large enclosure with branches and such. And if kept with their own kind, as they should be, won't need a lot of attention. Pet monkeys can/should be kept just like in a zoo.


I do not want all animals banned, but I see no need for undomesticated animals to be kept as pets, I cannot see how anybody can give them the environment they need. If someone is rich enough to purchase a pet why shouldn't they pay for the pleasure of it. It may not be designed to protect the animal as much as the public but if it stops more people keeping who don't have the finances- to me it's a good thing.

There's a lot of undomesticated animals kept as pets...You can't lump all undomesticated pets into the same group, many reptiles and amphibians are easy to keep, short tailed Brazilian possums are easy to keep, APH's are easy...there's so many examples. And to the experienced pet owner even 'difficult' species can be easy to them, or else they're prepared for the challenge. I quite like the challenge.

You don't need to be rich to purchase an expensive exotic pet. Most people who do aren't rich, they save up and go without other things. They don't want to waste hundreds or thousands of dollars on nothing. They could be using that money for many other things, like their animals. And why would you want your hard earned money to go who knows where, even if it is for a supposed good cause? That's why people don't like donating to a charity where it's unclear where the money goes.

Not to mention, I don't believe paying a lot of money to keep exotics like Ohio is doing would protect animals since there's not a lot of exotics (by exotics I mean really unusual pets) that are being neglected (not that Ohio is trying to protect animals, they just don't want anyone owning any exotics). And anyways, in my state most of the really exotic animals require permits, so they're already protected. Most are in Class III so it's a free and easy to get permit, as permits should be. If permits have to exist Florida certainly has it the right way (and the UK appears to have a similar permit system), though I would def. switch some of the animals around a bit, like most small cats are in Class II when they should be in III.

halfpenny
17-07-2012, 06:21 PM
Personally, I think it's a shame that all these people who 'love' these exotic wild animal, rather than forcing them to live in an artificial environment, don't spend their money on protecting their natural habitat and enjoying them in their beauty in the wild, where they should be!

Jack's-Jane
17-07-2012, 06:46 PM
Personally, I think it's a shame that all these people who 'love' these exotic wild animal, rather than forcing them to live in an artificial environment, don't spend their money on protecting their natural habitat and enjoying them in their beauty in the wild, where they should be!

Completely agree with you xx

Hc1
17-07-2012, 07:59 PM
My bunnies do get to free range but only when I am not at work. yes, its entirely ethical for me to keep rescue rabbits, even though what I can offer them is not as good as what they would have in the wild.

Crunchie
17-07-2012, 08:30 PM
Personally, I think it's a shame that all these people who 'love' these exotic wild animal, rather than forcing them to live in an artificial environment, don't spend their money on protecting their natural habitat and enjoying them in their beauty in the wild, where they should be!

Ta

William
17-07-2012, 08:34 PM
But why should they be in the wild? And why can't you do both? I don't have any truly exotic creatures yet but I currently do stuff to help animals in the wild, like manatees, and will continue to when I have exotics. It's not either/or and it's like apples and oranges, you can't compare it really. I love exotic pets, nature and zoos. All 3 are enjoyable in different ways.

Most exotics are perfectly happy in captivity and they were captive bred, often many, many generations from the wild and they wouldn't want to be in the wild.

Crunchie
17-07-2012, 08:44 PM
Most exotics are perfectly happy in captivity and they were captive bred, often many, many generations from the wild and they wouldn't want to be in the wild.

Mine certainly appear much happier than my rabbits and hamsters, less steryotypical behaviour and less health problems as well. The common small snake and lizard species along with many inverts are far easier to cater for than every single traditional pet out there in my opinion. I've never had to take my corn snakes, geckos or inverts to a vet yet and none of them sit and chew things in their enclosures or spend their time trying to escape.

William
17-07-2012, 08:58 PM
Mine certainly appear much happier than my rabbits and hamsters, less steryotypical behaviour and less health problems as well. The common small snake and lizard species are far easier to cater for than every single traditional pet out there in my opinion. I've never had to take my corn snakes and geckos to a vet yet and none of them sit and chew things in their enclosures nor spend their time trying to escape.

:thumb:I completely agree with that, I always hate when people say reptiles shouldn't be kept as pets when the truth is that they are much more content in captivity than mammals and birds.

halfpenny
17-07-2012, 09:10 PM
Mine certainly appear much happier than my rabbits and hamsters, less steryotypical behaviour and less health problems as well. The common small snake and lizard species along with many inverts are far easier to cater for than every single traditional pet out there in my opinion. I've never had to take my corn snakes, geckos or inverts to a vet yet and none of them sit and chew things in their enclosures or spend their time trying to escape.

I'm talking about the large, exotic mammals and monkeys that William was classing as exotics.

halfpenny
17-07-2012, 09:12 PM
:thumb:I completely agree with that, I always hate when people say reptiles shouldn't be kept as pets when the truth is that they are much more content in captivity than mammals and birds.

Being devils advocate it has been shown that battery hens have lower stress levels than free range- but does that mean they are happy.

Crunchie
17-07-2012, 09:16 PM
I'm talking about the large, exotic mammals and monkeys that William was classing as exotics.

Well yes I can't imagine many people could properly cater for one of them, the term "exotics" covers a huge range of animals. Some of them make interesting and easy to care for pets but some are really hard to care for and shouldn't be available for anyone to buy. :(