Saving The Tamarins By Making Them Into Pets

1. Skipweasel
   August 23rd, 2009 at 3:56 am

   Way too creepy - far too close to Mrs Couter's daemon.

2. HK
   August 23rd, 2009 at 8:12 am

   This is so wrong in so many ways. How did this get posted??

3. SenorMysterioso
   August 23rd, 2009 at 8:40 am

   Can you purchase human primates?

   Do not buy these as pets.

   I dont know how this made it through the queue. Im guessing a little gaming of the system because, knowing Neatorama readers, this is not the kind of thing that would get up voted. Maybe people think this is neat and Im just out of touch.

4. Juice
   August 23rd, 2009 at 9:06 am

   Anarcho-capitalists and other anarchist groups say that the way to save endangered species is to own them and domesticate them, making a sort of market for them, thereby giving incentive to people to protect them.

   While this may protect the species as a whole, it does not achieve the aim that anyone would recognize as protection of the species, and that is to protect wild animals in their habitats.

   Owning them as pets or livestock might be able to save a species from total extinction, but it may even accelerate the demise of the wild population.

5. felixthecat
   August 23rd, 2009 at 9:17 am

   Human population growth continues to soar, with no end in sight. The only animals other than "vermin" that will not be extinct in the next 150 years are those that are domesticated or valued as pets. Already, some parrot species are more common in captivity than in the wild. The wild populations cannot be saved because of habitat loss and habitat fragmentation.

   Laws used to protect exotic and rare animals frequently contribute to a species decline. A legal robust pet trade provides incentives for collectors to keep a wild population healthy and protected. Strict laws, otoh, encourage smuggling and habitat destruction.

   It may be that in the future, if human population growth can be controlled, it is these pets that are used to try and restore a verisimilitude of what once was.

6. felixthecat
   August 23rd, 2009 at 9:18 am

   And why shouldn't this story have made it through the queue? It is a neat story, and more interesting than many others that the elite consider "acceptable".

7. Tim Giachetti
   August 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 am

   This is sooooo fucking wrong.
   No animal owns another, not even us rotten ass humans.

   I'm going to pay closer attention to que'd articles from now on.

8. Tim Giachetti
   August 23rd, 2009 at 10:04 am

   Ok, let me elaborate. (I know, another asshole, another opinion.)

   I hate zoos. Every time I have gone I get so much attention from the animals.
   I have worked with Bengal Tigers. An attempt of a prior loved one to get me out of my shell after a disabling accident.

   My point is every time I get around captive animals it's as if they can sense my apathy. I leave in tears every time.

   Again, no son of a bitch or bastard should ever consider themselves "owners" of any animal.

   I have cats, (see the "I have" shit, so I'm guilty as well) and I try so hard to be just there for them. Never have I expected anything from them and only scold when they try to destroy something of value to me.

9. dutchboy
   August 23rd, 2009 at 10:22 am

   Maybe well just leave it up to Government to save them,

10. HK
    August 23rd, 2009 at 10:32 am

    "A legal robust pet trade provides incentives for collectors to keep a wild population healthy and protected. Strict laws, otoh, encourage smuggling and habitat destruction."
    Where do you think the animals in these pet trades originate? Trapping and smuggling. A higher demand for wild animals as pets causes more people to smuggle them to make a profit.

    The kind of people that domesticate these animals are usually doing more harm than good. These are wild animals and need to cared for in very specific ways. It is selfish to just think "Oh cool, I can own a monkey!" and purchase one. If we want to do anything to save them, they need to be in the right hands. Wild animals should NOT be pets.

    Not to mention that the blurb written about this article sounds more like an advertisement for a pet than anything. This is not the kind of content that should make it to the front page.

11. Johnny Cat
    August 23rd, 2009 at 12:11 pm

    What if I want a Human Primate as a pet? There's pros and cons to that endeavor, too.

12. SenorMysterioso
    August 23rd, 2009 at 12:24 pm

    I was thinking it wouldnt make it through because of how many people disapprove of any post that has to do with animals not because of its neatness or lack thereof

13. LisaL
    August 23rd, 2009 at 1:43 pm

    It's like some show I watched that proposed making it legal to own tigers (to farm). That way the ones in the wild will be protected, while the farm raised ones will be used for whatever.
    I don't like it, but if it's a way to protect wild animals that will hopefully increase in population again, then I say go for it.

14. SenorMysterioso
    August 23rd, 2009 at 2:30 pm

    "mmm I cant wait to get home and eat this monkey"

15. Republibot 3.0
    August 23rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    ...If you think about it, though, cows will never go extinct. Nor will the domesticated dog. Cats. Sheep. Goats. Chickens. All of these will continue to exist as long as humans do - and we ain't goin' nowhere - simply because they're amusing and/or tasty. If the Dodo had been able to do some kind of cute trick, or had tasted really good, then their survival would have been assured alongside our own. The Tasmanian Tiger was, by all accounts, a nasty bitey, vile-tempered beast that couldn't be domesticated, and tasted bad. If it hadn't, they'd still be all over the place.

16. James Tracy
    August 24th, 2009 at 3:36 am

    Monkeys are not good for pets. Nor are apes, or any other primate. Diseases travel very easily between different species of primates and while some "diseases" that monkeys carry do not affect them at all, they would quickly kill a human.

    While the ownership argument is a valid point, it won't matter much to own a creature for the sake of preserving it if there are none left in the wild. That species' place in its ecosystem will still be void and the repercussions will still be there.

    From a conservationist's perspective it's like saying the best way to end world hunger is to kill all the hungry people (or better, kill half the hungry people, and feed them to the other half). It works, but the logic is inherently flawed.

17. ted
    August 24th, 2009 at 6:12 am

    Dammit, "There ARE pros and cons".
    Dammit!

    What was this about, again?

18. GQ
    August 24th, 2009 at 8:54 am

    ...
    Do we really need a three letter acronym for primates?

19. Gauldar
    August 24th, 2009 at 9:30 am

    This is an interesting concept, and while I am not ignoring the problems that can occur, I am glad this has come to my attention for the sake of being aware of the world around me. I am totally against censorship and those who feel they need to dictate what information should and shouldn't be viewed by the public. If you don't like what you’re reading, stop reading it! Not once has anyone here said "This is a great idea and I'm going out to get one today!", so stop worrying.

20. Craig
    August 24th, 2009 at 2:27 pm

    That's a terrible idea and a terrible solution; very irresponsible. But this is what happens when your posts come from a "Queuebot". This site was better before the "Queue".

21. Crash_171
    August 24th, 2009 at 7:11 pm

    Thats a great idea and a great solution. Its kind of like taking responsibility for what we did to them. Sharing our home's because we took theirs away from them.
    I can honestly say I support the domestication of all animals... I think of it as a different way to live in harmony with them. Other wise we WILL end up killing all of them off.

22. taliesyn30
    August 25th, 2009 at 3:13 am

    If the content of the article - which for the first half concentrates on the CONS of owning/buying a Tamarin isn't enough to put off everyone but those most committed to the upkeep and preservation of the animal with all the attendant responsibilities - then I don't know what is!

    Sadly only the future of the captive Tamarin is 100% assured. The poverty of those people living in its habitat has meant that the illegal pet trade has profited, but just as much harm has been done to the local populations of the species by deforestation as anything else. Plus, the good old plastic bag, strewn with abandon by settlers in those areas, has killed many - imagine, it only weighs a pound. A lot of projects have been started (including one which collects the plastic bags from the forest and makes them in to long lasting and durable shopping bags by combining hundreds in to a single bag structure then to be sold on)but many beliee it to be too little too late.

    We have to be pragmatic. Captive Tamarins may one day be used to revitalize and reinvigorate a stock in the wild with declining genetic viability. However if they do not have a 'wild' in which to live (another issue but inextricably bound to the fate of this species) then where do they go?

    Sorry folks, this has raised as many questions as it does answers...

23. fel
    August 25th, 2009 at 4:40 pm

    This is so wrong in so many ways. How did this get posted?? (2)

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT