"No more routine confinement. According to Reuters, the proposal would commit the government to ending involuntary use of apes in circuses, TV ads, and dangerous experiments."

Ummm, define involuntary? Since they more often than not seem to want to be there, as do just about any pet with memory recognition capabilities, who is supposed to define voluntary versus involuntary. More than likely, this won't actually change the roles apes play in our society, since it's easy to define them as willing participants without the ability to speak for themselves. Of course, for certain locations and certain people the opposite is true. There are activists who have spent decades claiming they can speak for the animals, and that none of them are happy being with humans. It's generally just their word, an assumption based off of their opinions and nothing more, but when they're loud enough and there's enough of them...this law may be way too generalized, as there isn't even a method to define voluntary work by animals. Start with that basic definition, then work on the laws so that they can be actually enforced.

The next question would be what to do with animals that have been released from "involuntary captivity." They're no longer capable of survival in the wild, so it would seem a greater cruelty to kick them to the curb and let them fend for themselves, wouldn't it?

Good point, the only way to determine if an ape wants to voluntarily live in captivity is to hold them in captivity and teach them to communicate with symbols or signs. Kind of a catch-22, isn’t it? Of course, since they have the emotional and mental capacity of a young child, what do you think they will say? You think they won’t want to stay with the people who raised them, and who has fed them, and who taught them to communicate with humans? Unless a parent is abusive, how many children would say they want to be taken away from their family to live somewhere else?

Have you ever heard of the Stockholm syndrome? I can guarantee you that those apes do not want to be in entertainment or circus's where they are beaten routinely or in biomed labs where they are kept in horrendous conditions and unspeakable things are done to them. Knowing apes myself, you can tell when they are happy or live in fear just as easy a you can tell when humans are happy or fearful. To say they want to be there is a very ignorant statement indeed.

Grumpy_Bastich:

The next question would be what to do with animals that have been released from "involuntary captivity." They're no longer capable of survival in the wild, so it would seem a greater cruelty to kick them to the curb and let them fend for themselves, wouldn't it?

Those animals will likely be euthanized or placed in a tightly controlled environment under human supervision. Hopefully our human rights our not "equal" to these animals rights

Hey georgie what if you can easily tell that they are living in fear but I can easily tell that they are happy as a clam?

Do you work with apes? Do you know their behaviors like the back of your hand?

Exactly my point. You like this law because it will make you and others who work with apes and claim to know them the arbitors or Apes lives. You want to be The God of Apes. All the while you have no empirical ability to demonstrate that your knowing apes like the back of your hand isn't some facile transference.

How is wanting apes to have basic rights and not to suffer being God? I also want that for people too, does that make me the god of humans? Of course I am going to fight harder for them, I KNOW them and what makes them apes. Do you not know your friends and relatives well enough to know when they are suffering, when they are happy, or in pain? Just because they are a different species does not make them unknowable. Do I know every thought that goes through there heads? Of course not, but I can tell you when they are scared, happy, or fearful.

Aonar:

Grumpy_Bastich:

The next question would be what to do with animals that have been released from "involuntary captivity." They're no longer capable of survival in the wild, so it would seem a greater cruelty to kick them to the curb and let them fend for themselves, wouldn't it?

Those animals will likely be euthanized or placed in a tightly controlled environment under human supervision. Hopefully our human rights our not "equal" to these animals rights

I'd hope so, too, but I missed whether or not the Spanish laws covered animals already in human custody. I think the deal is that currently captive apes would be remanded to the appropriate facilities and further acquisitions would be illegal (but I may be wrong.) But that gives rise to another animal rights argument: their incarceration continues, but only in a different cell. And won't caring for a potentially abused gorilla be lots of fun for the new custodians?

This has opened quite the can of worms, hasn't it? Maybe I better rethink the purchase of a hamster...

I can tell if my cat is scared, happy or fearful, but I still wouldn't toss her out into "the wild".

Has anyone addressed the notion that apes of all species are headed for extinction in "the wild"? That being the case, what is the priority? Do you prefer to let humans continue to kill apes in their own habitats, or preserve the species via captive populations?

The plight of apes in captivity and in the wild or connected. Recent studies have shown that our use and abuse of apes for our entertainment and medical has undermined efforts to save them in the wild. Because they are seen in commercials and because they are subjects of abuse, people do not realize they are endangered. If we can't give them respect in captivity, how can we expect to give them respect in the wild? All species are critically endangered and very close to extinction, yet we don't think twice about exploiting them here in the US.

Both issues are need to be addressed to save the species as a whole.