It possibly began in the bygone when man began to understand the beauty of animals. Coupling with his capacity over them, he perhaps sure that he required to have the striking animals that he had encountered on his hunting trips to be near him. Through the centuries, man has domesticated somewhat a few animals to complete his wants, and sometimes to provide no want at all. It is one thing to keep an animal near attend one's needs but it is cruel to want to keep them 'just for fun'. Hence, keeping animals and birds in cages is pretty ridiculous if not cruel.



It is most definitely cruel to keep any animal or bird in captivity; worse still confined in cages. An animal or bird are so relaxed in its own environment. It knows of no restrictions. It goes about its own business of ingestion and drinking and creating babies. Even domestic animals would like to gait about, and act according to their instincts and needs. Caging them would deprive them of this. How often have we seen confined animals pacing their cages in futile attempts to leakage? Can we picture the frustration that they feel? What do we get in making a person furious, frustrated and depressed? Yet humans do it all the time. Since we would think it cruel if someone were to crate us, it stands to cause that we should not do it to others, even animals and birds. The intellect of fairness we grasp so dearest when it comes to humans should be extended to all living creatures.

Besides being cruel, it serves little rationale to want to birdcage animals and birds. Wild animals and birds being enslaved up serve our selfish pleasure of license over others and that's about all that we do. Cultivating such natures does not do us any good; actually developing such natures will make us cruel and egoistic. Left in the riotous a bird does all sorts of effects; when kept in the cage, it just sits there. Granted the birds are scenic to look at, we cannot declare the bird at its best when it is caged. To inspect the bird at its best we should go to its home. Caging domestic animals just serves the tenacity of controlling them. If we cannot look after them, why acquire them in the first place?

Finally, we have no right to do this; we do it because the creatures are feeble to foil us from confronting them. If we are robbed of such rights, we would pretty die than yield. Only in the cruelest of regimes are men and women confined only because the government - good or, otherwise - thinks that they are threats to their dominance or to the country. By what right then do we imprison animals and birds lacking any qualms?

Wild animals should be left liberated in their habitats and domestic animals should be given as much openness as workable. The only rationale for sentence birds and animals is when they are a hazard to themselves or to others. Nevertheless, rough animals and birds should never be captured in the first place.