Extinction or Domestication?

Abstract

l am fairly confident from listening to the rhetoric of animal rights extremist groups that if they were given the choice of a wild animal going extinct or becoming domesticated, they would choose the former. "Better dead than bred (in captivity)" could serve as their motto, since after all, they believe animals need to be free. According, to these self-proclaimed animal advocates, animals in captivity are not fulfilling their natural destiny, and must for all intents and purposes be considered "environmentally" dead!

It is equally certain that as aviculrurists, we would always opt for domestication over extinction of the birds we love. We are pragmatic. We would argue that extinction is unacceptable especially when it may be in our power to preserve certain birds in perpetuity - even if only in our aviaries.

Why do people who purport to love animals find such revulsion in domestication? Does domestication conjure up thoughts of barnyard animals being fattened for food? Do they think only about the dogs and cats which are neglected, and ignore the wonderful bonds that exist between house pets and their owners'

Is domestication of wildlife a question of ethics' Aesthetics' Perhaps we should ask the question differently. Is domestication a natural occurrence that is simply a strategy for survival forcertain animals with specific pre-adaptive traits that make them viable candidates for "man-made evolution'', i.e., domestication?

Animal rights groups label domestication "unnatural" and, therefore, bad. However, if domestication is merely a strategy for an animal to meet its biological imperative of survival and reproduction, it would have to be, by definition, a natural phenomenon, neither bad nor good.

So can we define domestication as natural? Webster defines domestication as the "adaptation to life in intimate association with, and to the advantage of man ... by modifying growth and traits through provision of food, protection from enemies, and selective breeding during generations of living in association ... "

It is the first part of this definition that may confuse us and those individuals who consider themselves animal advocates. If domestication serves man then we assume that man has subjugated animals to the animals' detriment. However, all animals, including man, are programmed to try to adapt to their environment so they may survive and reproduce. In order to do this animals may alter their behavior, their traits, their size, and choice of food.

Animals may even be consciously willing to come into closer association with man, if they could gain special advantage by the food or protection they receive. This new association may allow them to survive, reach reproductive age and pass that new adaptive trait of tameness on to their offspring. Evolution lacks a theology: it's simply the accumulation of temporary solutions to problems posed by circumstances.

Confusion also reigns when it comes to the concept of freedom. Animal rights groups equate freedom for animals with living in the wild. "Wild is good; captivity is bad": fails to do justice to the benefits domestication can provide for animals. Why should animals believe that freedom - that is life in the wild - is the ultimate good' We certainly don't. Civilization is the history of our attempts to lose ourselves from the brutish conditions of life in the wild, with the continued pressures to find...