Customer Reviews

The Covenant of the Wild: Why Animals Chose Domestication

5 star:		(6)
4 star:		(1)
3 star:		(1)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(5)

 

 

Despite the other reviewers that dislike this book and the ideas presented in it, I found it fascinating. I have a suspicion that negative reviewers were people with an extreme animal rights philosophy (very different than animal welfare and often confused by the lay person). This book does not concentrate on modern animal agriculture or a defense of it (many aspects of which I do not like), but instead explores the process of domestication and the relationship between domestic animals and humans. Other reviewers comments that suggest Budiansky says things such as, battery hens _like_ to live in small cages, indicates to me that they did not get the point of this book. Budiansky doesn't suggest that animals like to be mistreated, he suggests that a strategy for a species to survive may have been to pair its fate with humans. If you want to learn more about the evolution of and scientific principles behind the strategy of domestication, you will find this book to be illuminating!

Budiansky makes some very interesting points about domestication, how evolutionary adaptation led pets to choose to be domesticated rather than us choosing them, etc. But too much of this book is taken up with diatribes against animal rights groups. Sure, he has some good points, but he uses up more than half the book making them and I felt cheated - I wanted to read about biology and evolution and not stupid political movements.

This is a magnificent book that takes into consideration virtually all of the latest scientific research into animal behaviour and the history of domestication, and then presents it in a way that is easy to assimilate. It should be compulsory reading for all those that profess to care about any species of animal, but most especially for those species that decided that their lifestyle would be easier if they joined up with human beings ; that is the domestic animals. I cannot help but use a cliche -it is like a breath of fresh air through the mass of anthropomorphic woolly thoughts which predominate when animals come up in conversation. Some of my best friends are vegetarian, but I would have even more respect for them if they read this book, thought about the arguments it raised, and then decided about their eating habits. The 'ahh' factor for fluffy bunnies and other cute animals is unscientific, and in the long run a destuctive way of thinking about other species. Read this book for the closest approximation to the truth in print.

I found this a fascinating book with a wealth of information and arguments that are stated cogently. It is well-written and very readable. I have recommended it to many friends and given it as a present. I have read most of Mr. Budiansky's books (other than the code-breaking one) and, although I was not as happy with the second book and with the book about horses, I still found them good reading. Wth regard to the book about cats, a subject on which I have tried to do research, I found that his statement of facts and theories did, for the most part, jibe with those of serious researchers on the subject of animal behavior in general and cats in particular.

I reviewed this book long ago after I first read it. That review has disappeared but, given the partisan reviewing still here, I thought I should weigh in again with my opinion.

The reviews (and their star ratings) show that you will either love or hate this book. This accurately reflects the unpublicized cultural war that is being waged in the legislative arena between "animal rights" extremists and those of us who raise, love and care for our animals.

As Budiansky so aptly points out, unless you have been shivering at midnight in a field in zero degree weather with your arm inside a sheep trying to save her life and the life of her lamb, you have no right to claim that those of us who do that do not have the best interests of our animals at heart.

Some of the negative reviewers here admit that this is an important book. Read it and decide for yourself.

I've previously read a number of Stephen Budiansky's books (The Nature of Horses and If a Lion Could Talk) and The Covenant of the Wild certainly lived up to expectations. I found it a good-humoured (as all of Budiansky's books seem to be!) and thought-provoking book, and in this particular edition Budiansky addresses some earlier criticisms made of some of his arguments. Budiansky challenges many commonly held beliefs in a good-natured manner and with evidence to support his claims. It certainly got me thinking and I couldn't put the book down...I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in evolution and the process of domestication, or even animal-lovers with inquiring and scientific minds!

Okay, let's get one thing straight: Domestic animals did not *choose* domestication; they had no choice, one way or the other. So the author's subtitle is inaccurate and anthropomorphic. Point conceded. But on reading the book you will understand the point he is trying to get across, despite his clumsy diction: Animal rights extremists, however well-meaning, have no idea what they are talking about, and are doing animals a huge disservice, even as they claim to be attempting to protect them.

Example: Without domestication, it is virtually a certainty that cows would by now be extinct. Big, slow, stupid and tasty, had they not been amenable to domestication and entered into a covenant with their domesticators, cattle would have been hunted to extinction long, long ago. But they did make the covenant and so exist by the tens of millions today. It was a phenomenal deal for cattle as a species, but not a particularly good one for the individual cow when the time comes to pay up at slaughter.

By contrast the American bison was not amenable to such a covenant; at the time they roamed the Great Plains in countless millions, and it didn't seem necessary. (I know I'm anthropomorphizing this for simplicity, as does the author, but you get the idea.) Without the current compromise - a few wild herds in Yellowstone and other national parks, the rest in cow-like captivity - they would be gone by now too.

The animal rights cults argue that domesticity is too high a price to pay for survival. Really? Wolves (the ancestors of all domesticated dogs) survive in the wild by the skins of their teeth, and would already be extinct if Sarah Palin and her ilk had their way. Do dogs have such a horrible life as house pets that extinction would be a better alternative? I think not; and neither do the PETA hypocrites, who all have pets -- but insist on calling them "animal companions", as if that somehow releases them from their domestic "bonds".

Domestication of animals is not exploitation; it is a brilliantly-successful evolutionary strategy that has benefitted humans and animals alike; and that's the point this book makes. PETA cultists will disagree (without bothering to read it), but intelligent people with open minds will find Budiansky's arguments quite interesting, I think.

A must for all biologists and anybody else interested in learning more about the domestication process, why some species have become adapted to a life with humans and some not.

Budiansky attempts to prove against all evidence to thecontrary that man and domesticated animals (farm animals, horses,dogs, cats) are willing partners in a mutually beneficial pact, and that agribusiness/factory farming is just part of the evolutionary process. He cites the fact that the (free) wild counterparts of cows, horses, etc., are languishing while their (enslaved) domesticated cousins are flourishing as a justification for domestication! (Reminds me of cattle chute designer Temple Grandin's response when asked if cows should even exist- that at least they have a life, even if it's a miserable one). He presents anecdotal "evidence" that chickens and sheep enjoy confinement. He believes there are so many surplus pets that shipping them to labs isn't a bad idea, and adopting a shelter cat may not be wise because it kills birds. He also attributes the current human-engendered, accelerated rate of species extinction to (what else?) evolution. (Darwin must be turning over in his grave.)

The author, a small-time farmer, waxes romantic about hunters, farmers, and ranchers- that they're closer to nature than pampered, ignorant townfolk, and connect spiritually with those whom they kill. He includes many cheap shots at animal rights activists (simplistic, sentimental, squeamish, seeking a return to a nonexistent Eden). He ridicules progressive towns such as Berkeley, CA, which "encapsulates America's loss of knowledge about the real world"; and Takoma Park, MD, a nuclear-free zone with a socialist mayor and a vocal animal rights community- apparently three strikes against it.

Mr. Budiansky apparently believes it's extremist to liberate lobsters from a supermarket, but not to boil them alive for a taste treat; it's extremist to rescue hens for a farm sanctuary, but not to debeak them, force moult them, and then kill them at 1-2 years of age, despite their 15-year life expectancy; it's extremist to free minks from a commercial farm to fend for themselves, but not to electrocute, gas, poison, or strangle them so their fur isn't damaged for fashion mavens; it's extremist to remove toxo-infected cats from a "research" lab, but not to continue to exploit them with machiavellian experiments and then kill them as a reward for their service. And he apparently doesn't think it's extremist to create more and more drugs and vaccines to help humans live longer (at last count we number SIX BILLION), while destroying millions of "lower" animals in the process.

Agribusiness pollutes the environment terribly, and it pollutes human beings who feed off meat products. In evolutionary terms, I say Budiansky is wrong; homo sapiens are moving away from the exploitation of domesticated animals and toward compassionate veganism. I see mandatory spay/neuter laws and the elimination of breeding programs in our future. If we're part of the evolutionary problem, we should be part of the solution. Richard Dawkins states in The Blind Watchmaker, "Our legal and moral systems are deeply species-bound", and a book such as this only contributes to that speciesism and anthropocentrism. But it's worth reading just to know what we're up against.

I obtained this book as a new paperback for the princely sum of £..., evidently as it was in a reject shop.

I went for this book as a scientific read and it does contain some useful and valuable insights on domestication. However the book fell far short of describing chicken, dog and cat domestication which is the sort of stuff on which I wanted to find out. The one point I liked was a bit for my study on squirrels, that squirrels invented farming first or words to that effect - at least in mammals. The book then descends to a ramble about why you have to be cruel to be kind.

Though I could see some valid points against animal rightists he then took it to extremes. "Every boy has not lived who has not pulled a trigger" I paraphrase. What nonsense. I delight at the time I pointed a gun at an eagle and then paused and did not shoot. I delight I never shot any birds though I wanted to. ... We can't afford to lose and abuse wild animals, let alone how we treat domestics at times.