Journal of Agricultural Ethics 2 (3):235-240 (1989)
|Abstract||Knowledge of the backgrounds of students of behaviour working in the field of applied animal behavior science may help us to recognize their influence on conclusions reached in a particular study and on more general points of view. This recognition may result in a speed up of the progress in this science, to the benefit of science and animals. Some types are: (1) Eco-ethologists (ethologists of the hunters-type). They like to stalk healthy wild animals in their natural environment. They are less interested in the abnormal behavior of domestic animals under husbandry circumstances. (2) Behaviorists. These are psychologists that still think in a man-animal dichotomy. They are not interested in animals for their own sake but as models for human behavior. (3) Behavior physiologists. These biologists are not primarily interested in behavior. Because of the type of experiments they perform they have an aversity against animal protectionists. (4) Ethologists of the farmers type. These ethologists want to posses animals, collect animal species, take care of them and breed them. They are able to speak on approximately the same wavelength as farmers as well as animal protectionists. (5) Zootechnicians of the farmers type. These scientists want to make a living out of animals and like to take care for them. They are also able to speak at approximately the same wavelength as farmers and animal protectionists|
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||No categories specified (fix it)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Jeroen van Rooijen (1989). Backgrounds of Students of Behavior in Relation to Their Attitude Toward Animal Well-Being. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (3).
Vonne Lund, Sven Hemlin & James White (2004). Natural Behavior, Animal Rights, or Making Money – a Study of Swedish Organic Farmers' View of Animal Issues. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 17 (2):157-179.
Colin Allen (1997). Animal Cognition and Animal Minds. In Martin Carrier & Peter K. Machamer (eds.), Mindscapes: Philosophy, Science, and the Mind. Pittsburgh University Press.
D. G. M. Wood-Gush & K. Vestergaard (1989). Exploratory Behavior and the Welfare of Intensively Kept Animals. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 2 (2):161-169.
Donald Gustafson (1990). Naturalism and Representation. Grazer Philosophische Studien 37:123-149.
Kathy Rudy (2011). Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy. Univ of Minnesota Press.
Kelly Oliver (2010). Animal Ethics: Toward an Ethics of Responsiveness. Research in Phenomenology 40 (2):267-280.
David J. Mellor (2009). The Sciences of Animal Welfare. Wiley-Blackwell.
Maurice Hamington (2008). Learning Ethics From Our Relationships with Animals. International Journal of Applied Philosophy 22 (2):177-188.
Kay Peggs (2012). Animals and Sociology. Palgrave Macmillan.
M. B. M. Bracke & H. Hopster (2006). Assessing the Importance of Natural Behavior for Animal Welfare. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1).
Pär Segerdahl (2007). Can Natural Behavior Be Cultivated? The Farm as Local Human/Animal Culture. Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 20 (2).
Claire Molloy (2011). Popular Media and Animals. Palgrave Macmillan.
Colin Allen & Marc D. Hauser (1991). Concept Attribution in Nonhuman Animals: Theoretical and Methodological Problems in Ascribing Complex Mental Processes. Philosophy of Science 58 (2):221-240.
Vonne Lund & I. Anna S. Olsson (2006). Animal Agriculture: Symbiosis, Culture, or Ethical Conflict? Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 19 (1).
Sorry, there are not enough data points to plot this chart.
Added to index2010-09-11
Recent downloads (6 months)0
How can I increase my downloads?