The "they're better off in the wild" argument...

This is sometimes expressed as "Keep wild animals wild," or some similar catchy cliche intended to be accepted as a truism without any proof of its validity. The problem is that it reflects an extraordinarily simple-minded viewpoint, and results from ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation of the facts: it conveniently ignores the truth. It can only result from someone romanticizing Nature and ignoring what "Nature" is really all about -- survival of the fittest.

To parrot the the statement "keep wild cats wild" is exactly the same as saying that many of the cat species must die out and become extinct, and that everyone should just be OK with that.

This tendency of some people to romanticize Nature and think of it as a benign and blissful place was discussed by Aldous Huxley in one of his essays[1]; and appears to be the basis of this particular argument against keeping exotic cats as pets. Huxley called it the "Wordsworthian adoration of Nature."

One of Huxley's points is that this benign view of Nature is only possible in places where Man thinks he has beaten Nature into submission (countries in the temperate zones). In these areas--

We've converted seemingly endless prairies and much desert into farms and developed food production systems that allow us to focus our energies on fulfilling needs other than just finding food
We've dammed and levied rivers to the point where some of them rarely flood
We've killed enough of the large predators off, that we can now walk in comparative safety in large regions where (once upon a time) we'd have been afraid to walk
Shelter from the elements is a "given"

And it's from people in these areas where we now hear this argument that "wild" animals are better-off in the wild than than they are in any kind of captivity. This relates to exotic cats, because people who oppose private ownership of these animals have this same misconception-- that a cat's natural environment is somehow a benign and blissful place for it, and it's "happier" in its natural environment than it can ever be in captivity. But let's look at the facts. A serval (for example) would have to deal with all the following if it lived in the wild--

Parasites and disease
Finding food every day
Adverse weather
Avoiding hunters' and poachers' guns, traps, and snares
Finding, establishing, and keeping a territory
Avoiding predators and injury to itself
Finding a mate and raising/protecting its offspring

Parasites and disease are a fact of life for any wild animal. They don't go to the doctor if they're sick or full of worms and fleas. Their lives are constantly plagued with parasites--it's just a matter of whether their body systems are strong enough to withstand them, or not. When their bodies start losing ground to parasites, or if they get sick, it affects their ability to find food, defend their territory, and avoid predators--everything else they need to do to continue to survive.

Territorial issues, predators, and mating all typically involve fighting with other animals as strong (or stronger) than themselves. A cat in the wild often has to decide whether to fight or flee. Every time it chooses to fight, there's a risk that it'll get injured or killed, and injuries can mean the cat will starve to death or weaken until predators finally kill it. An injury to a cat in the wild quickly becomes a life and death problem.

Does that sound like a good deal to you??

Now let's look at the life of a serval as a pet. There's nothing to get into life-and-death fights over. Food is always available at regular times, without having to hunt for it while dodging predators. When parasites, disease, or injuries do occur, the cat is taken to the veterinarian, where it gets up-to-date medical care. So if you were a serval, would you rather live in the wild, or be someone's pet??

It is important to provide an enriched environment for captive cats, and they do need enough room to be able to get some exercise. But this is not an insurmountable problem for any of the small cats. A combination of a covered outside enclosure and easy access to the inside of the house can provide the combination that's needed for both enrichment and enough exercise room. Small cats kept for breeding can be more difficult to have indoors, so their outdoor environment often has to provide both the enrichment and space.

Is it "natural" for a domestic cat to limit its roaming range to just a few hundred (or even a few thousand) square feet? Probably not. But they thrive when kept indoors their entire lives. To claim that a small cat like a serval or bobcat has to be out wild so it can run miles and miles completely ignores the scientific facts that typically drive the size of territories that individual wild felines occupy [2]:

availability of prey animals is the driving factor for the size of female felines' territorial areas, and
availability of females is the driving factor for the size of male felines' territorial areas

So the reason they roam throughout and maintain large territories in the wild, is so they can find enough food and mates--not because it pleases them to do it.

People who argue that wild animals "belong" in and can only be happy in their "natural" environment need to consider it from another point of view:

is it "natural" for Man to live in climate-controlled homes?
is it "natural" for Man to use modern bathrooms with flush toilets?
is it "natural" for Man to do any of the jobs that commonly exist?
is it "natural" for Man to have access to any kind of modern healthcare?
is it "natural" for Man to eat at fine restaurants? (or any restaurants at all?)
is it "natural" for Man to drive around in automobiles?

Would you be happier if all the above things (and everything else that our technological civilization provides us) were suddenly removed from your life?? Obviously, "unnatural" does not necessarily mean unhealthy or unpleasant--in fact, "unnatural" (in this context) generally means longer, more healthy, and happier lives.

Likewise, an animal's "natural" environment is not only not essential to its well-being; but the proper UNnatural environment is actually better for it. Why do you think that cats live so much longer in captivity than they do in the wild? It's because we've learned so much about their needs (physiological, emotional, and veterinary) that we can give them better lives than they could ever have in the wild.

So.. are wild cats better off extinct??
This whole "better-off in the wild" argument against private ownership of exotic cats also completely ignores another important fact--that the natural habitat of nearly every species of cat in the world is under constantly-increasing pressure from Man. And the rate of population declines in some of the species may easily result in their extinctions during our lifetimes. A number of the small cats already appear to be extremely rare. Some of them are so hard to find that there are just a handful of photographs of the living animals. It's easier to find pictures of the cat's hides than it is the cat itself... To parrot the statement "keep wild cats wild" is exactly the same as saying that many of the cat species must die out and become extinct, and that everyone should just be OK with that.

So this whole "keep wild cats wild" argument is completely without any logical or factual basis-- it's a political marketing cliche that's only used to avoid having to know or discuss the real facts.

[1] Huxley, Aldous. "Wordsworth in the Tropics" in Collected Essays Harper & Brothers Publishers, New York 1959, pp. 1-10
[2] Mel Sunquist and Fiona Sunquist. Wild Cats of the World University of Chicago Press, Chicago 2002, pp. 11

--Greg Lyons