[AnimalMuppet]

I think that's too simplistic.

Here's an animal. The options are: - Owned/managed by a human - Living in nature - Not existing

The animal has consented to exactly none of those. But living in nature is not a bed of roses. Is it moral to subject an animal to that?

In that analysis, human ownership (if humane) seems like the most moral option. And "nature did it first" has nothing to do with the analysis.

[Falling3]

I disagree it's too simplistic. It's a logical fallacy that we wouldn't be advocating for in any other context than our treatment of non-human animals.

It's also just a disingenuous argument. If our actual concern were the welfare and lives of animals in the wild, we would be capturing and caring for those individuals - not breeding new ones into existence.

[giantg2]

Even humane ownership generally implies reproductive restrictions. I don't see how that could be considered the most moral option.