Originally posted by DJFyrewolf36
I don't agree with catching things in the wild, since most reptiles can are bread in captivity especially if they are endangered. However, if wild catching wasn't done, we wouldn't even have dogs! So where is the line drawn between trying to get a breeding stock to domesticate or just pillaging wildlife
I also do NOT agree with capturing wild animals as pets. For one thing, we have more than enough animals already in captivity, we don't need more. Every day at shelters all across the country animals die, for nothing more than lack of homes. And not just dogs and cats, but also birds, reptiles, rodents, etc. Even our small rural shelter gets numerous exotic animals dumped, when people either get tired of them, or become overwhelmed when they didn't research them. Also, the number of wild-caught animals that die before reaching the pet-buying market is FAR greater than the number that live. The cost of those lives is too high to justify, IMO.

No one "caught" wild dogs to makes pets of them. Wild canids were domesticated long, long, long ago. The process really can't even be referred to as catching and domesticating, as the most likely scenario is that wild canids simply started hanging around primitive hominids' caves and fires, for warmth and food. In return, primitive man received the benefit of sharper noses and ears, to alert him to danger and prey. It was a mutal evolutionary process between two cooperative species. Sure, some wolf dens were undoubtedly raided for puppies, but the species as a whole evolved together toward a mutually beneficial goal: survival. This is a FAR different scenario than netting wild birds or dynamiting coral reefs to stun fish.