# bit of a controversial topic?



## xXFooFooLaFluffXx (Aug 4, 2007)

right, this is just a conversation myself and spiderduck have been having, mainly surrounding monkeys. Sam has seen a lot of monkeys for sale on preloved, mainly single monkeys which she thinks is wrong, which, from experienced keepers n knowledgable people it is.... i said i didnt particularly like anything bein kept on its own but as pointed out by sam, some species are solitary and some are social and live in groups, and are said to suffer as a consequence of bein kept alone...... now i then said well what about dogs...... dogs roam the earth in packs dont they?? in the wild that is.....but yet it is totally acceptable to keep a single dog in a household..... as soon as someone mentions keepin a monkey on its own the whole exotic section is up in arms, but a dog kept on its own no one bothers about and its acceptable? why is this?

discuss........


----------



## Meko (Apr 29, 2007)

i'd say that its probably because dogs have been domesticated and have the rest of the family as its pack. plus you rarely see 2 stray dogs together, usually on their own.


----------



## xXFooFooLaFluffXx (Aug 4, 2007)

Meko said:


> i'd say that its probably because dogs have been domesticated and have the rest of the family as its pack. plus you rarely see 2 stray dogs together, usually on their own.


 
but arent monkeys that are being kept as pets domesticated to some degree? couldnt a monkey have the rest of the family as its group like a dog has the rest of the family as its pack?

edit: can i just say im not condonin keepin monkeys on their own im just interested in the topic


----------



## farmercoope (Aug 19, 2008)

99 percent of the adverts on preloved are scams/fake whatever you want to call them...

Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years, the monkey hasnt, nor has it adjusted to the life.


----------



## xXFooFooLaFluffXx (Aug 4, 2007)

farmercoope said:


> 99 percent of the adverts on preloved are scams/fake whatever you want to call them...
> 
> Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years, the monkey hasnt, nor has it adjusted to the life.


 
so does that mean that once monkeys have been kept as domestic animals for thousands of years they will be domesticated and capable of living on their own quite happily like a dog can in a household?.....


----------



## quilson_mc_spike (Dec 27, 2008)

yeah im interested in this one to hun esp the dog part.... X x X


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

farmercoope said:


> Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years, the monkey hasnt, nor has it adjusted to the life.


Sheep were amongst the first animals to be domesticated (along with the dog) yet farmers still insist that they should be kept in groups of 2 or more as they are "naturally flock animals". Just like dogs are "naturally pack animals".


----------



## spider_duck (Feb 25, 2008)

LoveForLizards said:


> Sheep were amongst the first animals to be domesticated (along with the dog) yet farmers still insist that they should be kept in groups of 2 or more as they are "naturally flock animals". Just like dogs are "naturally pack animals".


i completely agree :notworthy:


----------



## xXFooFooLaFluffXx (Aug 4, 2007)

so do we think i have a good point or not? :lol2:


----------



## spider_duck (Feb 25, 2008)

i think you have a good point, but at the end of the day instinct isnt something we can change or irradicate, so if a species needs company to be happy I think its only fair that they're supplied with it  

I do however understand that sometimes an animal wont accept company-in this situation I think it's acceptable


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

xXFooFooLaFluffXx said:


> so do we think i have a good point or not? :lol2:


I think it depends on the animal, to be honest.
Say with dogs - dogs are in packs for a reason - to keep pack status, to breed, to protect and to hunt with more power. This is why people say it is "acceptable" to have a lone dog - because its humans become the pack.
Now ferrets are very social animals but they dont usually hunt in a buisness (group), nor do they really have a status in the buisness apart from the alpha, they dont really protect each other (with the acception of mothers and kits) so they are really only there for the fun company and breeding, yet people (including me!) say they should be kept in groups of 2 or more. 
Guinea pigs, like the ferrets dont "need" a pack status, they dont need to hunt in groups as they are herbivores, they cant protect each other so why is there groups of 20+ guinea pigs in the wild? for breeding/company.

Dogs think differently to other animals - they seem to *need* human companion ship and they seem to *need* a pack status. But if family members become the pack, then the dog no longer needs other dogs for the things listed above (breeding, hunting, status, protection and so on), because look at it like this - whether you have 1 or 100 dogs ALL those dogs should be below you in status so what does it matter to the dog? 

But then I also feel that whenever possible a dog should have a dog companion.


*hops down from soapbox* :lol2:


----------



## MrsP (Apr 13, 2008)

People generally live in groups, but I have recurring dreams about living alone!

I've had one dog for years, then 3 dogs for a few more years, now we have no dogs, they've all seemed happy and fine regardless of the company available.

If an animal used to being in a group is tamed and feels part of the human family group on their own - are their social needs being met? Possibly. It could open up the whole "what gives us the right to keep ANY animal" as a pet debate.


----------



## Ssthisto (Aug 31, 2006)

xXFooFooLaFluffXx said:


> Sam has seen a lot of monkeys for sale on preloved, mainly single monkeys which she thinks is wrong, which, from experienced keepers n knowledgable people it is....


One of the reasons I'd say that it's particularly important with primates is that biologically they do have MUCH more developed brains than most other mammals. They have more frontal lobe development, and this does to some extent control social behaviour and the requirement for social interaction. 

And because their brains are more developed, they are more likely to develop what appear to be psychological disorders if they aren't kept correctly and with the right companions.



> well what about dogs...... dogs roam the earth in packs dont they?? in the wild that is.....but yet it is totally acceptable to keep a single dog in a household...


Having tried to keep a single dog in a household, I would say that no, it isn't OK. Dogs DO need the company of other dogs - and I would never have a single dog on its own again. For one, I can't be the dog's "pack" if I'm away at work - a pack of wild wolves might leave one adult wolf behind as a "babysitter" while they hunt - but if there's no babies to sit (other animals for the dog to watch over) then you've got one lonely dog who would rather be out "hunting" like its human packmates. 

And yeah, you get behavioural problems in solitary dogs; they howl and cry because nobody answers them when they try to contact the rest of the pack; they bark like puppies because they're trying to communicate needs; they toilet inappropriately to reaffirm that "this is still my territory even if the pack seems to have moved away"...

Domestication hasn't removed the dog's need to be part of a pack - it's just made them think we're funny-looking dogs.



xXFooFooLaFluffXx said:


> but arent monkeys that are being kept as pets domesticated to some degree? couldnt a monkey have the rest of the family as its group like a dog has the rest of the family as its pack?


At this point, no, they aren't domesticated at all. We haven't been selectively breeding for animals more amenable to living in human contact - we've just been breeding stock we can obtain.

And they could live with the rest of the family if and only if, like a real troupe of monkeys, you were there with it 24-7 and could perform all the functions that a troupe of monkeys did. Most people can't or won't do that.



xXFooFooLaFluffXx said:


> so does that mean that once monkeys have been kept as domestic animals for thousands of years they will be domesticated and capable of living on their own quite happily like a dog can in a household?.....


No, because domestication still won't take away their need for companionship, it'll just redirect it to humans. They'll still need their troupe there all the time for them... but they'll expect humans to be their social companions.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

Hi, 

Have been following this discussion with interest, but if l can just add that in fact when ever the new code of practice for dogs is released into the UK public domain, there is a very specific section that deals with this very subject - 'no not dogs versus primates per se' but companionship for dogs.

The code does in fact work on the premises that all dogs should in fact have companions of their own kind unless there are extenuating circumstances for there not to be.

Not wishing [with due respects to the OP] to become involved in this debate directly, however, primates are not domesticated under any circumstance, where as dogs have been living with and alongside man for thousands of years.

Primates need the social stimulation of their own kind, and it is now written [and as said awaiting release] that dogs also require canine companionship also.

Cheers

Rory


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> Have been following this discussion with interest, but if l can just add that in fact when ever the new code of practice for dogs is released into the UK public domain, there is a very specific section that deals with this very subject - 'no not dogs versus primates per se' but companionship for dogs.
> 
> The code does in fact work on the premises that all dogs should in fact have companions of their own kind unless there are extenuating circumstances for there not to be.


I wonder what those "Extenuating Circumstances" are, dog agression, maybe?

Now if we were to get a dog it would only be a lone dog as "it would cost too much to have 2" HOWEVER I then wouldn't get a dog. Just because it costs too much for 2? its selfishness on the humans behalf. But this could also prove faulty in the case of dogs that dont usually get along with other dogs.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

To be honest, it is that sort of 'circumstance' exactly.

That some dogs will not intergrate into the pack system and are considered 'loners'. Fine with people, not good with other dogs in basic terms.

With a code that measured some 35 pages at last count, heavy sections were dedicated to companionship.

R


----------



## xXFooFooLaFluffXx (Aug 4, 2007)

TSKA Rory Matier said:


> Hi,
> 
> Have been following this discussion with interest, but if l can just add that in fact when ever the new code of practice for dogs is released into the UK public domain, there is a very specific section that deals with this very subject - 'no not dogs versus primates per se' but companionship for dogs.
> 
> ...


 
thanks for your input rory, just to clarify the point of my thread isnt to prove that monkeys can be kept on their own its to sort of prove a point that its possible that other animals that are kept on their own shouldnt, and to highlight that if someone mentions keepin a monkey on its own the forum goes mad, and perhaps rightly so, but if i dog is mentioned as being the only dog in the household no one bats an eyelid. I know that monkeys arent domesticated right now but if they become such a common "pet" in the future they might be and so would it make it acceptable then to keep one singly, thats my point to the people who say " but dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years"


----------



## fuzzielady (May 19, 2008)

Very interesting topic. I think where dogs are concerned they are ok as long as all their needs are being met. Food, shelter, exercise, security, companionship etc and they know and accept their place in the pack. If a dog is left alone for long periods of time and their needs aren't being met then that is when behavioral issues arise. Chewing, toileting, howling etc. Then, they would benefit from canine company. Dogs chose humans as worthy pack members, we supplied free food, shelter etc. We can provide everything they need as long as they have remained long enough with their mother and siblings to learn the initial things like bite inhibition and pack manners.

Monkeys are different in that they didn't chose to live alongside us. Why would they, they don't have any needs that would benefit them being around humans. To be honest I don't know much about monkeys but from my limited knowledge would say they would probably be better in groups.

Ferrets on the other hand are better kept with other ferret company:lol2: If for no other reason than, they like to play rough so need another tough skinned ferret to play with rather than us thin skinned humans:whistling2: That way they have ferrets for rough play and humans for cuddles.


----------



## TSKA Rory Matier (May 27, 2007)

'thanks for your input rory, just to clarify the point of my thread isnt to prove that monkeys can be kept on their own its to sort of prove a point that its possible that other animals that are kept on their own shouldnt, and to highlight that if someone mentions keepin a monkey on its own the forum goes mad, and perhaps rightly so, but if i dog is mentioned as being the only dog in the household no one bats an eyelid. I know that monkeys arent domesticated right now but if they become such a common "pet" in the future they might be and so would it make it acceptable then to keep one singly, thats my point to the people who say " but dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years"

Hi, 

TBH l do not think in our futures that primates are going to ever be as popular as dogs/cats. From figures from 2008 cats were being displayed as being the number one pet overtaking that of the previous years percentages of dogs with reptiles and amphibians not that far behind, primates were 18 th in popularity.

Despite the unconfirmed number of primates held in private hands today, l can not see a future where upon primates would as said ever be 'that popular' and as such will never achieve that kind of domestication.

The way the political structure is on primates at present there is a higher likelyhood that this species will be banned from private hands in many years to come if not just their code but any code is ever produced and released by the government.

Primates are such a high intelligence, that if we were to go off on a wild tangent and step into Hollywoods' shoes for a wee moment, who is to say that if primates were to evolve, that it would be to continue as pets for humans?

Wild tangents and l never seem to mix with out me being flamed so l will let it rest there with 'fantasy', but l am sure readers will know where l am going with that thought, lol.

Seriously though, it just will not happen that primates will ever be as commercially kept as indeed dogs and cats are, so with that thought in mind, they will always be considered a wild exotic, and not a domestic cuddle.

Fuzzielady has made fair play in her comment:

'Monkeys are different in that they didn't chose to live alongside us. Why would they, they don't have any needs that would benefit them being around humans. To be honest I don't know much about monkeys but from my limited knowledge would say they would probably be better in groups'.

This is basically true but pretty damn accurate -good call.


R


----------



## Myo (Feb 14, 2008)

This thread has made me think. Me and a mate have been joking for a while about tigers, saying someone should selectivly breed them to be smaller, say about the size of a medium sized dog, like a boxer. Little pet tigers everywhere haha. But, seriously, why can't someone do it? And more importantly why isn't someone doing it? Surely there's millions to be made breeding tiny tigers and house monkeys???


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

But no animal has chosen to live alongside us. We humans made that decision.
Monkeys have been kept as pets for hundreds of years. Like all animals kept as pets there are good keepers and bad.
If an animal is well cared for, is not a danger to the public and is bred in captivity and not taken from the wild I don't see a problem.
The biggest problem today is that there are too many people out there deciding who and what we may keep as pets, most of them animal rights.
Don't forget that AR says much the same about our reptiles and why we shouldn't be allowed to keep them.
cheers arthur.


----------



## Athravan (Dec 28, 2006)

The only thing I care about is whether an animal is happy or not.

Some animals, if kept on their own cannot adjust and this will show - stress, stopping eating/drinking, losing weight, mental problems (animals pacing for example), aggression and behavioural issues. These would all suggest an animal that wasn't well adjusted and comfortable with it's situation. A keeper in this situation would presumabley assess all aspects of the life of the animal in order to attempt to improve it - many things might be assessed like enclosure, diet, stimulation - and also companionship.

You take a dog that's kept with other dogs, and a dog that lives on its own with a family environment and plenty of attention. Are both well adjusted?

If so, then where's the problem?

Likewise - I assume that there is some reason that monkeys and other animals like meerkats etc. are said to be only suitabley kept in groups - I would assume that if it is bad for them to be kept alone they exhibit behaviour that demonstrates this?

I know nothing about exotic mammals like monkeys or how they should be kept but I have watched documentaries that show the inability of a chimpanzee to correctly interpret human body language and how more fully they integrate into a group, the importance of body language, rituals like grooming and other pack behaviour.


----------



## fuzzielady (May 19, 2008)

arthur cooke said:


> But *no animal has chosen to live alongside us. We humans made that decision*.
> Monkeys have been kept as pets for hundreds of years. Like all animals kept as pets there are good keepers and bad.
> If an animal is well cared for, is not a danger to the public and is bred in captivity and not taken from the wild I don't see a problem.
> The biggest problem today is that there are too many people out there deciding who and what we may keep as pets, most of them animal rights.
> ...


 
Dogs did. They are opportunists and took advantage of free meals


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

Hmme, apes are another matter, most of them are large and it would be difficult for an ordinary person to keep them.
Generally, the primates that are kept as pets are the smaller ones.
My food for thought would be the more intelligent an animal, surely this would mean that it would find it easier to adapt to a human family.
After all animals do learn.
How do gauge happiness, yes, there are signs that an animal is unhappy, i.e. pacing etc. but how can you tell an animal is happy, Is my dog happy when she rushes up to greet me, barking and wagging her tail, you might think so, but you don't know.
It's well known for example, that many animals get along with and interact with animals that aren't their own kind. Even to the point of adoption.
When the animal mind is talked about it is on a very basic level, we don't know very much about the human mind so the animal mind is even more of a mystery.
cheers arthur.


----------



## arthur cooke (Jan 22, 2008)

There are quite a few theories about how we came to domesticate dogs, so you can't really say they did this, it may be how dogs were domesticated.
If you were to take a wolf cub and rear it from a very early age it would become tame and trainable, any biters would have been killed.
cheers arthur.


----------



## LoveForLizards (Apr 20, 2008)

Myo said:


> This thread has made me think. Me and a mate have been joking for a while about tigers, saying someone should selectivly breed them to be smaller, say about the size of a medium sized dog, like a boxer. Little pet tigers everywhere haha. But, seriously, why can't someone do it? And more importantly why isn't someone doing it? Surely there's millions to be made breeding tiny tigers and house monkeys???


All you would need to do is take the dwarfing gene/chrosmosome and breed that into two animals = now you have 2 breeding animals keep breeding until there is a good population then do the same with more tigers and therefore giving you a wider gene pool OR hybridise it with another (small) species. As for house monkey - hand reared monkey?!


----------

