Figure 1.1 Highland cow, or perhaps bull
Photograph: Neil Carr
Domestic animals are an integral component of many human leisure experiences and in this position can enhance the physical, social and mental wellbeing of humans (Brooks et. al. 2016, Rijken and van Beek 2011; Wood et. al. 2007). At the same time it is increasingly recognised that as sentient beings these animals have their own rights, welfare and wellbeing needs (Kymlicka and Donaldson 2014; Garner and O’Sullivan 2016). The interplay of human and animal experiences of justice, wellbeing, rights and roles within leisure is the central hub of this book. Here authors explore the position of domesticated animals in human leisure experiences, and the position of leisure in the lives of these animals. Within this context the book, and the individual chapters within it, explore whether domestic animals may have a desire for leisure that is distinct from human leisure, whether animals have and wish to fulfil needs for meaningful leisure or non-leisure, and whether human leisure needs and desires may coincide or conversely contradict domesticated animal leisure and wellbeing interests.
Our aim in compiling this book has been to provide a venue for the dissemination and exploration of cutting edge research on domesticated animals and leisure. Such an opportunity enables forwarding of knowledge in this area while championing the welfare and rights of domesticated animals in relation to their own leisure needs. Within this context, this book is not an ‘end’. Rather, it is intended to build on the work in the field that has gone before it1 and help to push for further research on domesticated animals and leisure.
Domestic animals have received far less attention in the leisure field than their binary other – ‘wild animals’. Carr (2015a) documents the relative wealth of books that have encompassed wild animals in explorations of predominately touristic leisure spaces. Why might this imbalance be the case though? Four core arguments are noted in this chapter, and these carry through to the conclusion of the book. Firstly, it may be suggested that domesticated animals are largely overlooked as part of the unequal power relationship that exists between humans and animals. By and large humans make decisions and control domestic animals’ leisure experiences and opportunities. It is humans who decide the what, where and with who of domesticated animals lives. When these animals’ leisure is considered, it is usually as an adjunct to human leisure experiences; animals’ own needs, wishes or desires are rarely considered a legitimate factor. This imbalance of power weaves through the book and is explored in more detail in the conclusion. Secondly, domestic animals may be overlooked because in general we tend to give little or no conscious thought to, and even at times despise, the domestic. It is every day and mundane. This fits with the notion forwarded by Edward Said (2003) that the foreign and largely unknown is seen as far more attractive and inspiring than one’s own culture and environment. In this way, domestic animals may be seen to lack the appeal of the exotic. Thirdly, the relative lack of attention paid to some domestic animals by leisure researchers may be due to an inherent tension across the spectrum of domesticated animals. This tension exists between the domesticated animals we see ourselves as sharing our human lives with (the dominant focus of the chapters in this book), and those animals (also domesticated) overtly utilised for human purposes; be this animal to animal fighting (see the chapter by Cohen) or simply feeding one domesticated animal (the factory farmed) to another (the pet cat or dog). In this way, it may not be surprising that the domestic animals most studied are the ones we love the most. Finally, related to the mundane and the notion of domestication is the argument that domestic animals, particularly pets, are not ‘real’ animals but instead have been bred into existence by humans. Indeed, Miklósi (2007, 1) notes that dogs, probably the ultimate domesticated animal, have often been identified as “artificial animals”. As such, they may be identified as human constructs less worthy of investigation than the ‘real’ wild animals (Bradshaw 2011).
These issues are intertwined, and glimpses of them can be discerned across the chapters as the complexities and at times contradictions inherent within and across understandings of human and animal ‘leisure’ are explored. We return to them in the conclusion. For now though, neither editors of the book nor the other contributors would agree that domestic animals are less worthy of attention than wild animals nor that they are somehow less real than their wild counterparts. As such, domestic animals are as deserving of study in general, and with specific reference to leisure, as wild animals.
So what exactly are ‘domestic’ or ‘domesticated’ animals? What do the terms ‘domestic’ and ‘domesticated’ mean of themselves?
Online searching readily reveals several definitions of ‘domestic’ including (www.dictionary.com): “of or relating to the home, the household, household affairs, or the family” and “no longer wild”. Hence ‘domestic’ or ‘domesticated’ can be seen as a contrasting or negative binary to the notion of ‘wild’. Certainly there is a position in the animal studies field that domestic animals are somehow corruptions of the ‘natural order’, that humans have interfered with nature creating un-natural, domesticated animals (Francione 2009; Hall 2006). The definition provided by Clutton-Brock (1989 in Eddy 2003) encompasses this notion of human control or interference in domesticated animal lives in general and with specific reference to reproduction. Domesticated animals are: “[a] species of animal which has been artificially selected by humans over a number of generations to possess specific traits and over which humans have reproductive control” (100). In other words, domestic animals experience a level of control by humans that is in contrast to that experienced by wild animals. These animals are kept from making the most basic of choices (who they will reproduce with) by humans.
Carr (2015a) suggests that animals can be seen as fitting into a continuum from domestic through to wild with dogs and cats often seen as the exemplars of domesticated animals. A common terminology for these exemplar animals is “pets”. It is estimated that more than half of households globally have pets (GfK 2016). There are many definitions of pets but generally they tend to hinge on the notions that pets are animals with which we share our domestic spaces, they are named, they are not readily eaten and humans have them predominately for reasons of companionship. Pets have faced a paradoxical treatment in the academic literature. On one hand they have been construed as privileged for the close relationships they may have with humans and the benefits that this may offer individual animals and even species (Carr 2014). On the other hand they have been critiqued as ‘not real’ animals (Francione 2009; Hall 2006), and seen as frivolous and extraneous to serious human experiences (Young and O’Dwyer 2015).
Aside from pets, there are other species that have also been domesticated in the manner defined by Clutton-Brock (1989) but these animals do not generally share our homes and lives in the same way. Species such as sheep, cattle, horses and camels are animals that are generally de-personalised, seen as utilitarian means to fulfil human interests and agendas such as transport, and human consumption of food and other ‘products’. In other words, not all domesticated species are equally domestic. To complicate things further, individual animals may be treated in quite different ways. For example, there is the house lamb who becomes the family pet sheep, the dog who is released to guard at night and locked in an outdoor pen during the day, and as revealed in the chapters in this book that focus on horses (Danby, and Henderson), whilst fulfilling a utilitarian role of recreational transport, some humans and horses may feel a unique sense of bonding. But their relative size means that in general horses do not share human domestic spaces.
The domestication of species and individual animals, and human and animal experiences of leisure occur within and are shaped by the diversity of human cultures. Most of the species discussed as domestic in this book are killed and devoured by humans somewhere on the globe. Eating dogs is still seen as an integral part of some cultures, including those where dogs are also seen as pets (Podberscek 2016, 2009). Guinea pigs are on the menu in some South American and African countries (Yiva et al. 2014, Graham, Vascon and Trueba 2016), and horses are eaten by humans in some European countries (Belaunzaran et al. 2015).
Hence concepts of ‘domesticated’ and ‘domestic’ animals can be seen as broad and flexible. However, these animals have a common connector in their relationship to humans either individually (kept contained or reliant upon humans) and/or generationally (products of human reproductive management). This is distinct from the relationship that exists between animals considered wild and humans, who may be impacted by human behaviours but have a less direct connection to human society.
A key argument for seeking to explore the leisure needs and positions of domestic animals in human leisure is the sheer scale of this population. A current indication of domesticated animal numbers is that there are now around three chickens and one bovine per person worldwide (Huffpost 2011). In addition, 57 percent of households globally are estimated to have pets, with dogs (33 percent) and cats (23 percent) being the dominant species of choice, although significant numbers of households have fish (12 percent) and pet birds (6 percent) as well (GfK 2016).
Domesticated animals play a diverse variety of roles in human leisure experiences. There are people who breed animals as a leisure pursuit, and there are those who engage in sport with their domesticated animals. For example, Hultsman (2015) provides a detailed look at a range of sports that utilise pet dogs, while domesticated dogs have also been widely used in human leisure pursuits such as hunting and racing (see Carr (2015b) for a discussion of greyhound racing and Carr (2014) for an examination of dog sledding as both a sport and holiday attraction). While dog agility is well known, attempts have also been made to create a cat agility sport (www.catagility.com/). It is, of course, not just dogs that are utilised in human-constructed sport. Horses, camels (Khalaf 2000), cows (www.compasscup.com.au/) and hamsters (Holmes 2017) amongst others, have all been raced for human entertainment. Horses are also widely ridden as a leisure experience (see chapters by Danby, and Henderson), while riding the donkey at the beach was a Victorian innovation for tourists in the UK that can still be found in various parts of the world today (Blakeway and Cousquer, forthcoming). Other animals, including mules, lamas and alpacas, are utilised as beasts of burden for tourists while dogs, proving once again their adaptability within human society, are now utilised to meet and greet holiday visitors and calm nervous or stressed individuals at airports (Carr 2014).
Domesticated animals may also form an integral component of the leisure and holiday landscape. For example, Herdwick sheep, whose fleece is virtually worthless for farmers are, today, a prominent feature of the rural landscape of the Lake District National Park in the UK. They are not there for agricultural purposes as much as they are there because visitors to the Park expect them to be there. Similarly, when visiting Scotland we expect to be able to see the hairy Highland cow depicted in Figure 1.1 (is it a bull or a cow – arguably, to the average tourist it does not matter as long as it is appropriately shaggy and horny), not just some ‘ordinary’ cow. Likewise, when visiting Jersey we expect to see a Jersey cow (Figure 1.2) (not unlike the issue of the sex of the Highland cow, how many people can tell the difference between the Jersey and Guernsey cow?). Domesticated animals are not just part of the expected leisure landscape; they are also increasingly visitor attractions in their own right. More and more farms are diversifying their activities away from traditional agricultural activities to offer visitors the opportunity to pet, touch, feed and even milk, domesticated animals such as cows, sheep and goats (Adam 2001; Ollenburg 2008; Wilson 2007). This industry both helps to provide for the leisure needs of people and generates significant revenue and employment in servicing these needs (Veeck, Che and Veeck 2006). This is yet another reason why domesticated animals should not be overlooked in leisure research.
Chapters in this book focus on a range of human-designed leisure spaces that ostensibly bring together human and animal leisure – dog shows (Dabrowska), dog training (Hurley and O’Dwyer), pet-friendly holiday locales (Blichfeldt and Sakacova) and horse riding establishments (Henderson, and Danby). A further reason for suggesting more research needs to be conducted on domestic animals and leisure relates to the changing position of at least some of these animals in society in general and individual families in particular. While this shift is most clearly seen in relation to dogs, it has, and still is, arguably occurring in relation to other animals as well. With specific reference to dogs, Carr (2014) has discussed how they are becoming an increasingly central component of many human families. They are shifting from having been an animal, to being a pet, to being a companion or member of the human family. This shift is leading to changing demands from humans no longer willing to leave their pets at home while they go on a leisure experience. It has also led to the rise of leisure services ostensibly aimed at the leisure desires of pets.
The definition of leisure employed within this book is broad, incorporating notions of activity and time spent by humans in non-labour, with some sense of “enjoyment, pleasure, self-fulfilment, and identify construction” (Carr 2015a, 6). Leisure has been defined as a human right (Veal 2015) and this book starts to take us into the space of considering animal rights to leisure. As a right for humans, the benefits of leisure have been well documented. It is seen as offering the opportunity to increase physical and emotional wellbeing (Symons, O’Sullivan and Polman 2016; Denovan and Macaskill 2016), and facilitating individuals in search of themselves (Kelly 1981; Clarke and Critcher 1985; Bammel and Bussus-Bammel 1996). In addition domestic animal-related tourism (including the examples mentioned previously in this chapter) creates significant income and employment for humans.
If it is widely agreed that humans have basic rights, including a right to leisure as enshrined in various legal and UN documents (e.g. Article 24 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights), the rights of animals are far more contested. The core issue regarding animal rights, even their right to welfare, is whether animals are sentient beings. Are they cognizant, able to feel pain and experience pleasure? Until relatively recently the widely held view amongst scientists, and even more broadly by those who ever gave the issue conscious thought, was ‘no’ (Carr 2014). Instead, animals were best portrayed as automated objects incapable of the sentience displayed by humans (Griffin 2001). More recently, academics and society in general have shifted away from this view as the evidence of sentience in a diverse array of animals has been identified, ironically beginning to prove what many who engage with animals regularly had long known, that animals have feelings and are very capable of independent conscious thought.
If we see animals as sentient beings rather than objects, then the question of animal rights becomes important and their welfare needs to be refocussed away from the notion of taking care of objects, akin to how we care for our houses and cars, and towards the idea of emotional and physical wellbeing for a thinking, feeling individual, irrespective of species. This does not mean that there are no differences between species, but rather that the historic desire of humans to completely differentiate themselves from nonhuman animals is erroneous. Detailed discussions of animal rights and welfare have been undertaken elsewhere (see Bekoff 2007; Horowitz 2009; Rudy 2011) and rather than repeat them here it is sufficient to recognise that welfare concerns for animals are increasing and legal positions are increasingly being adopted to ensure the wellbeing of animals, though none have yet gone so far as to give any animals the same rights as humans. It is important to note here the point made by Broom (2010) that rather than focussing on ‘rights’ or ‘welfare’, we should instead think about our obligations to animals. In doing so, it is incumbent on humans that animals own ‘definitions’ of notions such as leisure, work, enjoyment, be explored before simply assigning them rights and human-centric definitions of animal welfare. Consequently, rather than creating legislation and arguments that assuage human guilt (and other agendas) we actually need to ensure animals have what they might identify as needed. This is akin to understandings of including and responding to self-defined and identified needs and rights for a diverse spectrum of human beings who may be unable to participate on an ‘equal’ basis in human society (Kymlicka and Donaldson 2011).
It is within this emerging context of seeking to understand animals’ own interests in leisure (their own and that of humans) that this book explores issues of the wellbeing of animals within human leisure, and begins to address the question of the leisure needs of animals. It is the latter that seeks to break new ground as we seek to explore whether domesticated animals need access to leisure opportunities, and what such opportunities might look like.
The chapters presented in this book examine the intersection of human and animal leisure in a variety of settings. This includes holiday villages, public recreation parks, dog shows, as ex-labourers and in human competitive environments. This diversity is complemented by the range of countries in which authors are situated, including Canada, the USA, Poland, Scotland, Australia and Israel.
The major species focussed on in the book are dogs and horses. Having the opportunity to include a chapter (Drummond) that focusses on a range of other animals who are generally kept caged in domestic spaces (birds, small mammals, reptiles, fish) was exciting and offers new and challenging insights. The focus on dogs in leisure studies (and more broadly) can be seen to somewhat reflect previously noted global patterns of pet ownership. The role of the horse in human history, including the recent past, is well documented (e.g. Clutton-Brock 1992; Mitchell 2015) and as expressed in the chapters on horses (Danby, and Henderson) they are an animal that emotes strong responses from many humans, in a way that is more akin to the emotions felt for dogs and cats compared to perhaps reptiles and birds.
We would encourage readers to look beyond species to the broader issues and analyses that each chapter offers. All of the chapters focus, in differing ways, on issues of domestic animals’ sentience, rights and wellbeing and how this relates to human rights and wellbeing within leisure.
In Chapter 2, Drummond explores the experiences, issues and complexities of keeping commonly smaller, usually caged, animals. She entitles these animals (including hamsters, guinea pigs, rabbits, parrots and reptiles), “marginalised companion animals”. This terminology reflects the relative status that these species hold in comparison to other companion animals in terms of human interaction, concern, understanding and interests in their wellbeing.
Two chapters use dog showing as vehicles for exploring understandings of animal leisure and rights. Dabrowska explores the world of dog shows and showing in Europe. She provides rich descriptions that enable high level analysis and exploration of whether dog shows really are such great fun and leisure for the animals involved in comparison to the humans. Following on from Dabrowska, Hurley provides a theoretical exploration of several well regarded models of dog training, and the notions of “breed standards”. He exposes the speciest power relations overtly embedded and proactively endorsed within these.
In Chapter 5, Wilson, Yoshino and Latkova track the intensity of public debate and interactions between conservationists, National Park authorities and dog walkers in the San Francisco Bay area. Their analysis puts a spotlight on the topic of domestic, ‘private place’ animals, within public spaces. They argue that despite the levels of passion and length of these debates, there has been little intellectual discussion that could progress both human and animal rights to leisure in natural environments.
O’Dwyer’s research in Chapter 6 presents findings from an online survey exploring the common human and animal domestic leisure activity of ‘dog walking’. Within the post-modern framework of seeing pets, in particular dogs, as ‘family’, dog walking is seen as being caring and responsible, addressing animal needs. Walking the dog is presumed leisure for both humans and animals. But is it? For whom, how and when, and with what implications for both humans and animals is the focus of O’Dwyer’s analysis. Brown and Lackova (Chapter 7) also explore understandings of dog walking. Their approach is complementary to O’Dwyer’s, exploring understandings of animal agency and engagement in leisure seeking to deepen our understandings of the relational natures of dog walking for both species (human and canine). Blichfeldt and Sakáčová continue the exploration of dogs as family in Chapter 8. Their chapter presents research with Danish campers who holiday with dogs. Blichfeldt and Sakáčová’s interviewees describe the intersections of human and close domestic animal lives, and the lengths to which considering and seeking to encompass animal family members needs can shape, and even constrain, the planning and undertaking of family holidays. Incorporating cross-species needs for leisure and holiday making leads to compromise and adaptation in much the same way as responding to the diversity of human family members.
The next chapter, by Young and Baker (Chapter 9), shifts attention to horses (with some small notes regarding other species). The authors explore the notion that domestication aimed at supporting human labour created animals that have an inherent need for ‘non-leisure’ or labour. Has removal of opportunities to labour with humans over the last 100 years actually lead to a loss of meaningful engagement in non-leisure for some of these animals? Has this engendered harm akin to overlooking needs for meaningful occupation that are recognised as crucial in human wellness and wellbeing?
Chapters 10 and 11 complement each other. Danby (Chapter 10) presents an emotive picture of how one group of humans (older female horse riders and owners) see and feel themselves to be involved in the creation of a cross-species interface. An interface and environment that Danby coins ‘equiscapes’. Equiscapes exist only when both species are present and engaging with the other in leisure. In the following chapter (11) Henderson explores the manner in which lack of recognition and/or knowledge of the needs of another species (horses) can lead to significant and demonstrable harm and trauma to animals that are ostensibly well cared for, even ‘pampered’. Mirroring Young and Baker’s questions with regard to domesticated animals needs for non-leisure, Henderson explores how equine evolutionary adaptations may be out of sync with the current constrained experiences of some of these domesticated animals. But as Henderson demonstrates, awareness of these evolutionary mis-matches can mean that humans adjust and adapt horse environments to better meet the needs of these animals that, at least partly due to their domestication, are no longer able to live ‘wild’ lives.
The penultimate chapter, by Cohen (Chapter 12), presents the dark side of human’s animal-related leisure. Cohen explores the worlds of human-initiated animal:animal fighting. Domesticated but not domestic – these animals are exploited in the interests of human leisure and profiteering, revealing a savage face of cross-species power relations. Dogs, cocks, camels and buffalo are entrapped in fighting their own in the interests of human profit and ego.
Our concluding chapter seeks to draw together the mega-themes and learnings that emerge from all the chapters, seeking to chart some ways forward for understandings of domesticated animals – their welfare, rights and wellbeing, especially with regard to leisure – and the intersection of these issues for the humans with which they share ‘domestic’ environments.
Adam, K. 2001. “Entertainment Farming and Agri-Tourism.” Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. USA: The National Center for Appropriate Technology. Accessed June 14, 2017. www.agmrc.org/media/cms/EntertainmentFarmingAgriTourismATTR_8681C2E7FDC64.pdf.
Bammel, G., and L. Bussus-Bammel. 1996. Leisure & Human Behavior. 3rd ed. Madison: Brown & Benchmark Publishers.
Bekoff, M. 2007. Animals Matter. Boston: Shambhala.
Belaunzaran, X., R. Bessa, P. Lavín, A. Mantecón, J. Kramer, and N. Aldai. 2015. “Horse-Meat for Human Consumption – Current Research and Future Opportunities.” Meat Science 108(October): 74–81.
Blakeway, S., and G. Cousquer. 2018. “Donkeys and Mules and Tourism.” In Animal Welfare and Tourism, edited by N. Carr and D. Broom. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Bradshaw, J. 2011. In Defense of Dogs. London: Allen Lane.
Brooks, H., K. Rushton, S. Walker, K. Lovell, and A. Rogers. 2016. “Ontological Security and Connectivity Provided by Pets: A Study in the Self-Management of the Everyday Lives of People Diagnosed with a Long-Term Mental Health Condition.” BMC Psychiatry 16(1): 409–22. doi:10.1186/s12888-016-1111-3.
Broom, D. 2010. “Cognitive Ability and Awareness in Domestic Animals and Decisions About Obligations to Animals.” Applied Animal Behavior Science 126(1): 1–11. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.applanim.2010.05.001.
Carr, N. 2014. Dogs in the Leisure Experience. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Carr, N. 2015a. “Introduction: Defining Domesticated Animals and Exploring Their Uses by and Relationships with Humans.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by N. Carr, 1–13. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carr, N. 2015b. “The Greyhound: A Story of Fashion, Finances, and Animal Rights.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure edited by N. Carr, 109–126. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Clarke, J. and C. Critcher. 1985. The Devil Makes Work: Leisure in Capitalist Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan.
Clutton-Brock, J. 1989. The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.
Clutton-Brock, J. 1992. Horse Power: A History of the Horse and the Donkey in Human Societies. London: Natural History Museum Publications.
Denovan, A., and A. Macaskill. 2016. “Building Resilience to Stress Through Leisure Activities: A Qualitative Analysis.” Annals of Leisure Research (online) doi:10.1080/11745398.2016.1211943.
Eddy, T. 2003. “What Is a Pet?” Anthrozoös 16(2): 98–105. doi:10.2752/089279303786992224.
Francione, G. 2009. Animals as Persons: Essays on the Abolition of Animal Exploitation. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
Garner, R., and S. O’Sullivan. 2016. The Political Turn in Animal Ethics. London: Rowman and Littlefield International.
GfK. 2016. “Pet Ownership: Global GfK Survey.” Accessed June 14, 2017. www.gfk.com/fileadmin/user_upload/country_one_pager/NL/documents/Global-GfK-survey_Pet-Ownership_2016.pdf.
Graham, J.P., K. Vasco, G. and Trueba. 2016. “Hyperendemic Campylobacter jejuni in guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus) Raised for Food in a Semi-Rural Community of Quito, Ecuador.” Environmental Microbiology Reports 8(3): 382–387.
Griffin, D. 2001. Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hall, L. 2006. Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror. Darien, CT: Nectar Bat Press.
Holmes, T. 2017. “Have You Heard About Hamster Racing?” Wide Open Pets. Accessed June 14, 2017. www.wideopenpets.com/heard-hamster-racing/.
Horowitz, A. 2009. Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know. New York, NY: Scribner.
Huffpost. 2011. “Domesticated Animal Populations Skyrocket: Chickens Outnumber People Three To One.” Huffpost, September 29, Accessed June 6, 2017. www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/29/domesticated-animal-populations_n_913464.html.
Hultsman, W. 2015. “Dogs and Companion/Performance Sport: Unique Social Worlds, Serious Leisure Enthusiasts, and Solid Human-Canine Partnerships.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by N. Carr, 35–66. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kelly, G. 1981. Leisure in Your Life: An Exploration. Philadelphia: Saunders College Publishing.
Khalaf, S. 2000. “Poetics and Politics of Newly Invented Traditions in the Gulf: Camel Racing in the United Arab Emirates.” Ethnology 39(3): 243–261.
Kymlicka, W., and S. Donaldson. 2011. Zoopolis: A Political Theory of Animal Rights. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Kymlicka, W., and S. Donaldson. 2014. “Animals and the Frontiers of Citizenship.” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies 34(2): 201–219. doi:10.1093/ojls/gqu001.
Miklósi, Á. 2007. Dog Behaviour, Evolution, and Cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Mitchell, P. 2015. Horse Nations: The Worldwide Impact of the Horse on Indigenous Societies Post-1492. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Ollenburg, C. 2008. “Regional Signatures and Trends in the Farm Tourism Sector.” Tourism Recreation Research 33(10): 13–23.
Podberscek, A. 2009. “Good to Pet and Eat: The Keeping and Consuming of Dogs and Cats in South Korea.” Journal of Social Issues 65(3): 615–632.
Podberscek, A. 2016. “An Appetite for Dogs: Consuming and Loving Them in Vietnam.” In Companion Animals in Everyday Life, edited by Michał Pręgowski, 111–127. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rijken, M., and S. van Beek. 2011. “About Cats and Dogs … Reconsidering the Relationship between Pet Ownership and Health Related Outcomes in Community-Dwelling Elderly.” Social Indicators Research 102(3): 373–388.
Rudy, K. 2011. Loving Animals: Toward a New Animal Advocacy. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Said, E. 2003. Orientalism. New pref. ed. London: Penguin.
Symons, C., G.O’Sullivan, and R. Polman. 2016. “The Impacts of Discriminatory Experiences on lesbian, Gay and Bisexual People in Sport.” Annals of Leisure Research (online). doi:10.1080/11745398.2016.1251327.
Veal, A. 2015. “Human Rights, Leisure and Leisure Studies.” World Leisure Journal 57(4): 249–272. doi:10.1080/16078055.2015.1081271.
Veeck, G., D. Che, and A. Veeck. 2006. “America’s Changing Farmscape: A Study of Agricultural Tourism in Michigan.” The Professional Geographer 58(3): 235–248.
Wilson, L. 2007. “The Family Farm Business? Insights into Family, Business and Ownership Dimensions of Open-Farms.” Leisure Studies 26(3): 357–374.
Wood, L., B. Giles-Corti, M. Bulsara, and D. Bosch. 2007. “More Than a Furry Companion: The Ripple Effect of Companion Animals on Neighborhood Interactions and Sense of Community.” Society and Animals 15(1): 43–56. doi:10.1163/156853007x169333.
Yiva, C., E. Fon Dorothy, F. Meutchieye, A. Niba, Y. Manjeli, and A. Djikeng. 2014. “Cavies for Income Generation, Manure for the Farm and Meat for the Table.” Scholarly Journal of Agricultural Science 4(5): 260–264.
Young, J., and L. O’Dwyer. 2015. “Pets and Our Health: Why We Should Take Them More Seriously.” The Conversation, December 2. Accessed June 14, 2017. https://theconversation.com/pets-and-our-health-why-we-should-take-them-more-seriously-47774.
