This book emerged out of a call for papers for the 2015 ANZALS (Australian and New Zealand Association for Leisure Studies) conference. The theme of the conference was leisure as a human right, and our interest was piqued at the opportunity to further explore the intersection of humans and animals, rights and leisure. It was an interest that can be seen to mesh with what has been entitled ‘the animal turn’ across a range of disciplines, including cultural studies (Andersson Cederholm et al. 2014), human geography (Buller 2014), politics and justice (Garner and O’Sullivan), religious studies (Peterson 2016) and leisure studies (Carr 2014, 2015). Within all of these fields there has been an increasingly sophisticated exploration of the human:animal interface, accompanied by a broad recognition that humans share the Earth with many other nonhuman beings and that human lives are intertwined in myriad ways with nonhuman animal others.
The distance between animals’ lives and humans varies dramatically across the spectrum that we humans define as wild to domestic animals. Across this spectrum we see from one extreme to the other sea creatures being ‘discovered’ by humans (The Telegraph 2017) at astronomical depths below the surface of the ocean with no known direct human contact to date; the animals we think of as ‘wild’ living independently in environments relatively untouched by humans; those animals living independently in human-engineered environments such as villages, towns and cities (rats, mice, sparrows and foxes, for example); the animals we use for ‘products’ (food, clothing, garden fertiliser); and finally those we cuddle up with at night and may even think of as ‘family’. Animals are part of the global environment that humans occupy. Yet some animal’s lives and everyday living are integrally enmeshed with those of humans. It has been these animals, whose everyday lives are intertwined with those of humans’ domestic everyday lives and leisure that this book has sought to focus on.
Domestic animals exist predominately within modern Western humans’ leisure lives though increasingly they are becoming a feature of the rest of the world (Pregowski 2016). Few of us (our authors, ourselves as editors and we assume you, our readers) get the opportunity to take our companion dog, cat or bird to work with us; or to work with animals in some way. Hence our closest encounters with animals are with domestic animals, in our homes, in our leisure lives, and this of itself makes it important to consider the lives and leisure needs of these animals and our leisured interactions with them.
While some work has begun to examine the benefits of human-domestic animal interaction the focus has been predominately on benefits to humans in these relationships (see for example Martin et al. 2015; Schreiner 2016; Brooks et al. 2016; Wood et al 2007). In Chapter 1 we identified that far more work was needed to conceptually unpack and identify the complexities that might exist in our (human-wellbeing promoting) leisure intersections with domestic animals. Such a need is based on the recognition of animals as sentient beings rather than simply objects of and for human leisure. While the position of wild animals as sentient beings in leisure have been debated for some time (Cohen 2009; Markwell 2015, Carr and Young 2018) there has arguably been a gap in exploring animal rights, welfare and leisure in the everyday worlds of humans and domestic animals, with a few notable exceptions (Carr 2014; Carr 2015).
The chapters presented in this book have progressed understandings of human-domestic animal interactions in the leisure space; how humans understand the leisure needs of these animals; and how they interact with them in the leisure experience. The chapters also provide insights into how in future we can continue to develop our understandings of animal leisure by listening to them. This fits within Broom’s (2010) conceptualisation of animal obligations rather than animal welfare and the need for humans to meet these obligations. The notion of obligations is particularly relevant when considering the power difference that exists between humans and domestic animals as these animals ‘live’ with us in human-engineered environments and may have been ‘constructed’ by us (through generational breeding), to be highly dependent upon humans. Having created these beings and their environments, it behoves humans to actively consider and respond to their needs, including their needs for leisure.
All of the authors in this book are in agreement that domestic or domesticated animals have rights to experience leisure and to welfare in the human leisure experience. But as with any grand and sweeping ideal, as soon as this topic is approached inherent complexities and contradictions begin to emerge. The discussion presented in this final chapter hinges on understandings that emerge from the chapters in the book. In particular the need to recognise the diversity of domestic animals and to recognise the power imbalance that exists between humans and animals, and also between animals and animals.
As readers’ may have picked up in the introductory chapter and elsewhere in the book the terms “domestic” and “domesticated” are frequently used interchangeably. As Hart (2003) and Carr (2015a) have discussed, categorisation of animals into blunt boxes is a human endeavour and it may be more useful to think of animals as existing across a spectrum that relates to their positioning in human lives and societies. Focussing on the term ‘pet’ as an example, the discussion presented in Anthrozoos in 2003 (republished online in 2015; see Eddy 2003; Hart 2003; Sanders 2003 as a start) can offer readers a sense of the reality that trying to pin down categorisations of animals can lead to more confusion than clarity.
This said, it is important to maintain a sense of differentiation across a spectrum from ‘wild’ to ‘domestic’ conceptions of the animal kingdom, including considering nuances across concepts of domestic and domesticated. This is because the impacts of human choices on the lives of animals identified as domestic or domesticated is more direct than that usually experienced by wild animals. The non-wild animals focussed on in this book are in a paradoxical position of having opportunities to experience both high quality human-enabled leisure (exercise in natural places with human protection for many dogs and horses; parading at dog shows for animals who have an individual passion for this activity; free-range domesticity for treasured rabbits) and savage destruction by humans or their own kind in human-contrived leisure environments (the deaths of animals generationally bred to fight). The vulnerability of these animals living in close proximity to humans to experience category change (from loved pet to abandoned and homeless overnight) is amplified in comparison to that experienced by their wild, more-distant-from-humans compatriots who are not as reliant upon human care and benevolence.
The chapters in this book suggest a teasing out and fluidity of understandings of ‘domestic’ and ‘domesticated’ animals. These distinctions have implications when considering the leisure needs, interests and opportunities of various species. These are not concrete unchangeable categories; rather, individuals and groups of animals can be seen to slip from one definition or category to another, with implications for their wellbeing and right to leisure. All of the definitions explored here hinge on the relationship of these groups of animals to humans. Humans create and contest categories of animals (Hart 2003; Sanders 2003) and humans (think ethnic and religious identities) and may then proceed to act and engage in discussions as though these categories were ‘real’. Our position is akin to Sanders (2003) who notes the sociological maxim – that “what people define as real is real in its consequence” (114). How we define or recognise animals as falling into categories will make a difference to how their leisure needs will be defined by the humans who have the power to enable these animals to access animal-defined ‘leisure’. Hence the categorisation we suggest aims not to create inflexible boxes, but to prompt considerations as to the differing needs and desires of a spectrum of domestic animals to leisure.
The lives and experiences of ‘domesticated’ animals are intensely diverse. Most readers will be familiar with the vast difference in life and leisure opportunities experienced by, for example, domesticated pet dogs compared to pigs or chickens raised in factory farms. Both are ‘domesticated’ as per Clutton-Brock’s (1989) definition. But their leisure lives are extremely different. Pet dogs may be integral to the leisure lives of the humans they live with, walking, sitting on the couch watching TV together, or attending dog agility or other human-constructed animal leisure activities. Animals living in intensive farming scenarios are commonly physically contained in small spaces where they may be highly restricted in their movements or live in highly crowded sheds with vast numbers of their peers (Imhoff 2010). These animals are however also ‘domesticated’. This book is not about domesticated, factory-farmed animals; but it does include description of domesticated animal lives that are distinctly different from either beloved pets, or factory-farmed animals.
The lives of factory-farmed and pet animals are both in contrast to the dogs bred to fight presented by Cohen in his chapter on animal to animal fighting by cocks, dogs, camels and buffalo. All these animals are domesticated. We suggest that the term domestic/ated may be useful to distinguish animals who are generally presumed to live in close contact with humans. Domestic/ated animals share some of the features that are commonly used to define ‘pets’ as they are domesticated (generationally bred by humans), and are known individually – otherwise how could you distinguish your best fighting camel/buffalo/cock? Cohen’s chapter explores how these animals are chosen to be enmeshed in human leisure and entertainment. These domestic/ated animals are at high risk of suffering the same fate as their factory-farmed compatriots: death. Unless decidedly successful, these animals, bred for human leisure, rarely get to experience leisurely post-competition retirements. Cocks, camels, buffalos and dogs who do not cut it in the fighting arena are highly likely to be culled, akin to unplaced racing horses (Winter and Young 2015) who could also be seen to fit our definition of domestic/ated because of the same teetering between loved human companions and death at the hands of humans.
Drummond is a powerful advocate for the rights of small caged “marginalised” animals. She identifies that many of these animals are in fact not domesticated. Domestic but not domesticated. It is not uncommon that they are captured wild animals, removed from their natural, nonhuman environments, to be trapped in human spaces. Alternately they may be the relatively recent generational offspring of captive wild animals, and have not been subject to the genetic and biological processes of domestication that have made other species ‘naturally’ adjusted to living with humans. Hamsters being an example she provides of a recently captured species (wild), now kept in homes (domestic) but not really domesticated, that is shaped by human breeding interests for many generations.
Recognising these animals as domestic/wild could be one means of raising awareness of their captive positions, and perhaps prompt greater explorations of their needs, particularly for leisure as semi-wild rather than domesticated domestic animals. These animals could benefit from the models of ‘enrichment’ (Young 2008) that are part of wild animal husbandry in zoos and other captive environments. Enrichment aims to replicate the natural experiences of captive wild animals such as foraging and food sourcing and patterns of social engagement with species peers in order to enhance their lives and wellbeing. As such, the leisure options for these domestic/wild animals may hinge on seeking to replicate wild conditions (e.g. large pens or aviaries as compared to smaller cages) and limiting contact with humans, recognising their innate fear of humans may not have been expunged by generational human breeding control.
Hence there are sub-categories of domestic or domesticated animals that indicate very different responses and awareness’s amongst humans with regard to their rights to leisure. Domestic/ated animals – sometimes pets, sometimes simply human leisure competition machines, vulnerable to annihilation at human behests. Domestic/wild – wild animals (often unrecognised as such) brought into human spaces to entertain, soothe and meet human leisure interests without the ‘buffering’ of domestication breeding control. All of these domestic animals are subject to the inherent power imbalances across the human:animal divide.
Underpinning any discussions of human:animal relationships sits the thorny matter of power. Humans have power over domestic animals, including the power to define and provide access to even animal-defined leisure. However, power asymmetries do not stop with just humans: animals; there are also differences across groupings of animals. These multiple asymmetries of power are considered below.
Underlying the rationale for the construction of this book and embedded within all the chapters in it is the play of human power over domestic animals. Post-modern understandings of ‘dogs as family’ (Blichfledt and Sakacova) and the shared human-animal building of ‘equiscapes’ (Danby) define them as psychological spaces where positive regard for specific animals is displayed. But this is still at the behest of humans. The horses taken for weekend rides do not have a right or opportunity to resist such human:animal engagement (at least not without negative repercussions), and neither do the dogs who go on family holidays even though in both cases humans may actively seek to identify nonhuman others perspectives. There is a cross-species power imbalance. That said, many teenagers coerced into the same cross-species family holidays might feel that they were in a very similar position of powerlessness within the family (Carr 2006). However teenagers generally progress to a life stage where they can actively choose whether to undertake, or excuse themselves from family holidays. For animals, their participation in these events will continue to be a matter of choice by their human guardians.
However, respectful consideration of power differences can be negotiated. Parents may respond to teenage children’s entreaties, animal guardians may perceive and respond to indicators of individual animal leisure interests and wellbeing. The chapters by O’Dwyer, and Brown and Lackova illustrate, from differing stances, that while anthropomorphisation may be seen at times as counter to respect for animals (Francione 2009; Hall 2006) where human and animal leisure lives intersect, human awareness and insights into animal needs may be highly enhanced. In other words, while it can have negative connotations, anthropomorphisation has the potential to be positive for developing understandings of animals, from the perspective of animals, for the benefits of animals (refer to Mitchell (1997), Guthrie (1997) Horowitz (2009) and Carr (2014) for a more detailed discussion of the potential position of anthropomorphisation in animal studies). For example, Brown and Lackova’s dog walkers show an alertness to their canine companions likes, dislikes and leisure choices. They do this by observing their dogs’ patterns of behaviours both across time (what does the dog usually like?) and in the moment (s/he does not seem so interested today).
Henderson’s work builds on ideas of human alertness to animal communication. She critically identifies that there is a need to increase human understandings of animal needs based in evolutionary species specific knowledge in order to improve the lives and leisure experiences of animals, even those to which we may feel incredibly attached. Hurley’s explorations mirror Henderson’s, identifying that many models of animal behaviour management and control are inherently speciest, presuming and embedding human power and superiority over animals. Some animal training models actively seek to depower animals and remove their opportunities to exercise agency. They may deny domestic animals rights to independent fun and enjoyment; the kind of frivolous enjoyment that the human dog show participants (interviewed by Dabrowsaka) report as inherent to human choices to engage in this form of leisure activity.
Discussions regarding human power over animals and animal leisure hinge on ideas of reconsidering or simply rejecting specicism – that is the presumption that humans are all superior beings to all non-humans/animals, including those to which they feel intensely close. Reconsidering or rejecting speciesism and seeing animals as equal to humans with needs and rights of equal worth implies that individual animals should be recognised as potentially having unique leisure interests. So, for example, such a reconsideration may not simply lead to the banning of dog shows, as some animals, especially those selectively bred for a temperament that adapts most readily to the show environment and demands, may need and indeed thrive in such settings (see Dabrowska). This said, recognition of individualised and genetically construed animal needs for leisure does not mean that there should not be reconsideration of some of the parameters that shape dog showing, dog obedience and the like. But it would mean that a measured approach rather than a blanket one-size fits all approach is taken. Hurley offers insights that could be used to begin to instigate such measured approaches in the field of dog training and beyond. He presents the notion of ‘symphysis’ where human and animal interests and desires are both recognised, and regardless of species participants are free to engage or disengage in activity as they wish. Hence, rather than seeing animal disengagement or resistance to training (for example) as something to be overcome, such behaviour is seen as indicative of individual animals interests and consideration is given to animals rights to choose to participate or not. This is the same way that ultimately human participants are able to enact rights to disengage, particularly from leisure activities which do not mesh with their individual interests.
Henderson offers a range of ideas that relate to horses that could perhaps be elaborated slightly by inclusion of individualised options as well. For example, walls that can be lowered between individual horses who display ‘friendship’ towards each other. This idea is expressed with caution as firstly neither editor is an expert in horse understandings, and secondly, friendship does not necessarily mean wanting to be together all the time. The point however is to be incorporating awareness and a willingness to seek to respond to animal interests in leisure, rather than denying them this right.
Arguments for a more equitable understanding of domestic animals’ rights to leisure, and engagement in such, sit in opposition to a human-centric animal rights position. Instead an animal obligations position recognises animal agency and human obligations associated with enabling this agency. Domestic animals do not have the privilege of wild or human-independent animals to choose their leisure activities. Domestic animals are dependent upon humans who control their environments to recognise and respond to their needs and wants. This includes recognising needs for rest, recreation and enjoyment as well as taking into account the concern explored by Young and Barker that some domesticated animals selectively bred for labouring over many hundreds of years may suffer a lack of occupation and a burden of leisure in modern societies where their labour is no longer demanded of them. Having bred animals for specific purposes and characteristics, there is a moral obligation on humans as a species to provide opportunities for these animals to experience the activities for which they have been ‘designed’. This may include both leisure and work in a way that is akin to the enrichment programmes that have become part of quality captive wild animal plans (Young 2008).
A further complexity to be considered in reflecting on the asymmetry of human power over animal leisure in combination with using an obligations framework arises when thinking about the scenarios explored by Cohen. He alerts us to what can be seen as the very dark side of some domestic/ated animals lives. In this human leisure space of animal:animal fighting the natural capacities and capabilities for defence and fighting of some animals are contained but then strategically ‘released’ in the interests of human profit and leisure making. In the context of recognising and accommodating the human-designed, now innate desires of some domestic/ated animals, this raises the thorny question of whether having been bred to fight (over generations) some of these animals may have an inbuilt need to undertake combat. Providing fighting opportunities could be a rights recognising approach to fulfilling these animals’ leisure needs. This leads to questions of animal:animal power differences.
The authors in this book reveal, challenge and advocate against the multiple asymmetries of power that can be seen to exist between humans and animals. But any sophisticated approach to understanding the leisure needs of domestic animals needs to seek to ensure that multiple layers of complexity and interests are drawn into the analytical framework. The chapters here not only reveal asymmetries in power across human:animal relationships, they also reveal animal:animal power differences. Three key animal:animal power asymmetries, each with implications for animal leisure, can be discerned. Each raise the same core questions of “leisure for who?” and “at whose expense?” The three asymmetries are wild: domestic animals; domestic: domestic animals and “those we love: the rest” (Carr 2015a).
Firstly, wild:domestic animal asymmetries. Wilson, Yoshino and Latkova in particular seek to unpack these animal to animal power differences. When do the rights of domestic animals to experience leisure in natural environments, be these urban, non-urban or wild, clash with the rights of other animals, in particular those animals for whom these natural locations are home? The presence of dog walkers and their pets in these environments may impact on other animal’s experiences of leisure and life. They may in fact be detrimental to wild animal’s wellbeing. In particular, dogs experiencing high quality off-leash leisure experiences in these places may chase rabbits, birds and any other creatures which live in these environments. Some of these animals may even be killed, as some of Brown and Lackova’s dog-conscious, but perhaps less broadly animal-conscious dog walkers note in passing. For wild animals that live in these places, disruption and even destruction of food sources, animal homes and perhaps the importation of disease to fragile wild environments (Banks and Bryant 2007, Smith et al. 2014, Stigner et al. 2016) is an impediment to their rights to wellbeing and indeed leisure. Progressing leisure rights for (some) domestic/ated animals, who it could be argued have more privilege (continued and guaranteed access to food, comfortable safe accommodation) could embed the disadvantage and relative lack of power that other less privileged, more vulnerable wild animals face.
Secondly, there is not just a power imbalance that can be discerned between some domestic/ated and some wild animals. There are also contested rights to leisure and wellbeing that can exist between domestic animals. This can be both within and across species. For example, while some dogs’ leisure may be enhanced by off-leash opportunities, this may infringe on the leisure experiences of other dogs (perhaps smaller and less boisterous, or simply on-leash). The freedom to enjoy off-leash leisure in public spaces such as parks and nature reserves, on beaches and the like by large, not even necessarily boisterous dogs, may lead some dog owners to make choices that actually reduce and restrict the leisure options of the canines for which they have responsibility to care. The leisurely freedom of other domestic species to roam in these same spaces may also be impeded by the exercise of freedom experienced by off-leash dogs. The grouping of off-leash dogs may be particularly deadly to other species. For example, the death of a pet cat, cornered and mauled by several off leash dogs appeared in the local paper of one of the editors (Young) while this book was being compiled (Pisani 2017). The complexity of this situation is added to in the case of the homes of both editors as the pet cat is also widely defined as an invasive animal in both Australia and New Zealand. This conflicted position (of pet and pest) feeds into discussions of the appropriateness of cats in public spaces and views of attacks like the one noted above.
The overarching question that arises is when should one group of animals’ right to experience leisure be curtailed in the interests of preserving the rights of another group of animals? Often these decisions (human decisions) are made on a species basis. For example, the increasing confinement of cats to human homes, restricting their freedom to roam (leisurely) in order to protect wildlife (Denny and Dickman 2010; RSPCA 2017) is a growing phenomenon in Australia. This restriction on one group of animals’ rights to what could be seen as leisure is being portrayed as less important than the preserving of life of other species, especially native birds and marsupials. This is a reversing by humans of the first animal:animal asymmetry noted previously (domestic:wild). Humans have the power to make decisions that restrict or enable domestic animal leisure and this power of choice can in turn impact on the interests of other animals – wild and domestic.
All of the above discussion leads to a final asymmetry that we are very aware of in the book. In the domination of discourses and analyses focussed on dogs and to a lesser extent horses lies the potential to embed a form of animal:animal speciesism. A hierarchy of domesticated animals already exists when comparing the lives of factory-farmed domesticated animals to that of loved pets, and some relatively safe domestic animals in cages. It is clear from the contents of this book that research on domestic and domesticated animals in relation to leisure continues to be, as Carr (2015a) found, focussed on a very limited range of species, particularly dogs and horses. While the importance of these species is undeniable, there remains a clear need to begin to explore issues of leisure in relation to other domestic/ated animals. One of the most intriguing of omissions is that of leisure explorations linked to cats. Research on pet ownership (GfK 2016) across 22 countries found that dogs were the most popular pet in 14 countries. But cat ownership surpassed dogs in eight; and cats were the second most popular pet in all bar one (China where they were trumped by fish) of the 14 where dogs are most popular. Yet there is almost no contemporary academic literature on the role of cats in human lives, and specifically in leisure. Failure to look beyond dogs and horses will only reinforce the privileging of one species over another by humans and damn us to criticisms of failing to truly listen to and pay attention to our obligations to all animals rather than those we happen to like.
One of our aims in compiling this book was to develop a potential roadmap for future research in the field of domestic/ated animals and leisure, with specific reference to issues of animal and human rights, welfare and wellbeing. Some specific directions arise from the books’ content while others come from what is lacking in the content.
Firstly, ‘leisure’ is a human construction. Indeed ‘leisure’ can be seen to be a construct that relates to a historically, economically and culturally situated human experience. That said, if we employ Carr’s (2015b) very broad defining of leisure as the opportunity to freely engage in activities that facilitate pleasure, enjoyment and a sense of self in individuals, there is scope to explore further and become better at identifying what creates leisure in the lives of domestic animals. After all, we know animals are capable of experiencing pleasure and enjoyment (Berridge and Kringelbach 2008). The question of whether animals have a sense of self beyond the ability to self-recognise and a desire to explore and develop such a self is one worthy of further study. It is an exploration whose answers will have significant implications for the nature of any leisure these animals experience or should have the right to experience.
Domestic animals’ closeness to humans can be seen to make fulfilment of their rights to leisure more complicated than perceiving wild animal needs for leisure. This is not just about human abuse of power – it is because human desires to experience leisure with these animals can create blindness to animal needs. As described in Danby’s chapter, we desire that the horse we ride feels just as fulfilled by hacking across the countryside, and seeing nature, as we (the humans riding) do. Or reflecting on Drummond’s analysis, that the guinea pig in the ‘Taj Mahal’ hutch we have lovingly worked on for the last month can discern the cross-species love and care that drove its construction. While the human aim may genuinely be for this little animal to be able to rest and relax in the ‘beautiful’ space created, a lack of species specific knowledge may mean that we engender stress in this animal with a structure that does not match their needs. In this regard loved domestic animals can suffer in the same way as human family members in well-meaning but misunderstanding families. For example, the aged parent with dementia who becomes distressed and fearful at a family get together, or the undiagnosed food intolerant child who really is made sick by the food at the same event. Core to these human experiences of leisure not being leisurely for some individuals can be a lack of understanding of both individuals and collective (in the examples given – diagnostic) needs. Meeting the leisure needs and fulfilling a right to leisure for both humans and animals requires understandings of diversity with regard to needs, desires and abilities of individuals and groups. It also requires careful reflection and introspection with regard to human agendas where human and animal leisure intersect. Further research and writing should aim to tease out these complexities of human agendas with regard to animal leisure and ways in which knowledge about diverse domestic animal groups can be better disseminated.
There is a need to link to historical breeding aims and objectives that have created some sub-species and breeds of domestic animals. Understanding biologically based, historically chosen differences within species can enhance animal welfare and wellbeing and indicate what leisure means for the diversity of these animals. This is already quite sophisticated with regard to dogs. For example, couch snoozing for greyhounds, long outdoor runs and competitive activities for border collies, parading for poodles. But this kind of understanding needs to be extended beyond this unique privileged species. Linking to animal researchers in the field of veterinary sciences, ethology and related fields will be important for enriching our understandings of what might constitute leisure for a range of species who share our human lives. This includes the possibilities that some animals, especially those who have been selectively bred to labour, may in fact experience the burden of leisure and have a biologically mapped need for non-leisure or meaningful occupation (i.e. work). These animals may need balance in their lives between rest, recreation and leisure, and work in the same manner that it has been argued that humans do (Sage 2017; Drydakis 2015, Gathergood 2013).
The reality for many of these bred-to-labour breeds is that the breeding of such animals simply ceases given the control humans have over the reproductive lives of these species when they are no longer needed for the job they were ‘created’ to do (Scherf and Pilling 2015; FAO nd; Hammond nd). From a traditional speciest perspective, this is the economically rational decision. However, it is a perspective that simply ignores any notion of animal agency or human obligations to species. The question is what are the obligations that humans have to individual animals and species in general? Having played God in the designing of these animals, do we then have the right to simply destroy a species by ceasing its breeding? Do we have the right to change the species by more human tinkering with genes, or do we have an obligation to preserve the species in the same way we now seek to preserve wild species and offer them the opportunities to engage in their ‘natural’ behaviour? These are all complicated, messy questions that bear future exploration inside and outside of a leisure context.
There is a need to continue to explore human:animal relations in leisure from cross-disciplinary perspectives. It is important to remember that biological sciences can only answer so much if we recognise animals as sentient beings. This is especially important when we remember that the vast majority of what we know of animals from the sciences has been gleaned from a position that has regarded animals as automatons – objects capable of movement but incapable of thinking and reasoning. The erroneous nature of this position is only just beginning to become fully apparent as we recognise an increasingly diverse array of animals as sentient beings. Indeed, it can be argued that instead of continuing to identify species as sentient one at a time when sufficient scientific proof has been gathered, we should simply abandon carte blanche the historic position and recognise all animals as sentient beings. Such a shift is arguably being led by social scientists rather than the biological scientists who objectified the animal, a situation that suggests that while we can listen to biological scientists to better understand some aspects of animal leisure, we should also listen to social scientists to better understand animals. The risk with the ‘animal turn’ across so many fields is that we will hunker down in our discipline-specific comfort zones, reducing the potential to maximise understandings of animal needs and desires by truly engaging in cross-disciplinary work.
This book has covered issues of animal rights and welfare in leisure and of human interests in relation to animal-oriented leisure. Humans and animals exist within the same space (i.e. The Earth) and they do so in an unequal power relation. Humans hold the power, most obviously demonstrated in their ability to decide when and how to kill animals. Based on this recognition, animal leisure and their rights and welfare are, and must be recognised as being, situated within a human-constructed and dominated reality. Given this, it is beholden to humans to recognise their obligations to animals, including their right to leisure and to utilise their power to ensure these needs are met in a manner that ensures the wellbeing and rights of animals for animals, not the placating of human emotions. Just as is the case with humans, a better understanding of animals can be gleaned via an understanding of leisure. In this way leisure is not something frivolous and on the edges of society, it is a core component of society and the lives of all (human and animal) who reside within it.
Andersson Cederholm, E., A. Björck, K. Jennbert, and A. Lönngren, eds. 2014. Exploring the Animal Turn: Human-Animal Relations in Science, Society and Culture. Lund: The Pufendorf Institute for Advanced Studies.
Banks, P., and J. Bryant. 2007. “Four-Legged Friend or Foe? Dog Walking Displaces Native Birds from Natural Areas.” Biology Letters 3(6): 611–613. doi:10.1098/rsbl.2007.0374.
Berridge, K., and M. Kringelbach. 2008. “Affective Neuroscience of Pleasure: Reward in Humans and Animals.” Psychopharmacology 199(3): 457–480. doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1099-6.
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.
Buller, H. 2014. “Animal Geographies I.” Progress in Human Geography 38(2): 308–318.
Carr, N. 2006. “A Comparison of Adolescents and Parents Holiday Motivations and Desires.” Tourism and Hospitality Research 6(2): 129–142.
Carr, N. 2014. Dogs in the Leisure Experience. Wallingford, UK: CABI.
Carr, N., ed. 2015. Domestic Animals and Leisure. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carr, N. 2015a. “Speaking of the Underrepresented Other: Looking Beyond Dogs and Horses.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by N. Carr, 1–13. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Carr, N. 2015b. “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., and J. Young., eds. 2018. Wild Animals and Leisure: Rights and Wellbeing. Abingdon: Routledge.
Clutton-Brock, J. 1989. The Walking Larder: Patterns of Domestication, Pastoralism, and Predation. London: Unwin Hyman Ltd.
Cohen, E. 2009. “The Wild and the Humanized: Animals in Thai Tourism.” Anatolia 20(1): 100–118.
Denny, E., and C. Dickman. 2010. Review of Cat Ecology and Management Strategies in Australia. Canberra: Invasive Animals Cooperative Research Centre. Accessed June 29 2017. www.pestsmart.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/CatReport_web.pdf
Drydakis, N. 2015. “The Effect of Unemployment on Self-Reported Health and Mental Health in Greece from 2008 to 2013: A Longitudinal Study Before and During the Financial Crisis.” Social Science & Medicine 128(March): 43–51. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2014.12.025.
Eddy, T. 2003. “What Is a Pet?” Anthrozoös 16(2): 98–105. doi:10.2752/089279303786992224.
Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN (FAO). nd. “Agrobiodiversity: Th Case for Conserving Domestic and Related Animals.” Accessed June 27, 2017. www.fao.org/docrep/v1650t/v1650t0y.htm.
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.
Gathergood, J. 2013. “An Instrumental Variable Approach to Unemployment, Psychological Health and Social Norm Effects.” Health Economics 22(6): 643–654. doi:10.1002/hec.2831.
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.
Guthrie, S. 1997. “Anthropomorphism: A Definition and a Theory.” In Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes and Animals, edited by R. Mitchell, N. Thompson, and H. Miles, 50–58. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Hall, L. 2006. Capers in the Churchyard: Animal Rights Advocacy in the Age of Terror. Darien, CT: Nectar Bat Press.
Hammond, K. nd. “Identification and Characterization of Domestic Animal Diversity.” Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN (FAO). Accessed June 27, 2017. www.fao.org/docrep/T1300T/t1300T01.htm.
Hart, L. 2003. “Pets Along a Continuum: Response to ‘What Is a Pet?’ ” Anthrozoös 16(2):118–122. doi:10.2752/089279303786992288.
Horowitz, A. 2009. Inside of a Dog: What Dogs See, Smell, and Know. New York, NY: Scribner.
Imhoff, D. 2010. The CAFO Reader: The Tragedy of Industrial Animal Factories. Healdsburg, CA: Watershed Media.
Markwell, K., ed. 2015. Animals and Tourism: Understanding Diverse Relationships. Clevedon: Channel View Publications.
Martin, K., L. Wood, H. Christian, and G. Trapp. 2015. “Not Just ‘A Walking the Dog’: Dog Walking and Pet Play and Their Association with Recommended Physical Activity among Adolescents.” American Journal of Health Promotion 29(6): 353–356. doi:doi:10.4278/ajhp.130522-ARB-262.
Mitchell, R. 1997. “Anthropomorphic Anecdotalism as Method.” In Anthropomorphism, Anecdotes and Animals, edited by R. Mitchell, N. Thompson, and H. Miles, 150–169. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Peterson, A. 2016. “Religious Studies and the Animal Turn.” History of Religions 56(2): 232–245.
Pisani, A. 2017. “Owner’s Outrage as Pet Mauled to Death.” The Messenger. Accessed June 28, 2017. http://messenger.smedia.com.au/portside-weekly/.
Pręgowski, M., ed. 2016. Companion Animals in Everyday Life. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
RSPCA. 2017. “Identifying Best Cat Management Practise in Australia.” RSPCA. Accessed June 29, 2017. www.rspca.org.au/facts/science/cat-management-paper.
Sage, D. 2017. “Reversing the Negative Experience of Unemployment: A Mediating Role for Social Policies?” Social Policy & Administration (early online) doi:10.1111/spol.12333.
Sanders, C. 2003. “Whose Pet? Comment on Timothy Eddy, ‘What Is a Pet?’.” Anthrozoös 16(2): 114–117. doi:10.2752/089279303786992198.
Scherf, B., and D. Pilling, eds. 2015. The Second Report on the State of the World’s Animal Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture. Food and Agricultural Organisation of the UN (FAO), Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture Assessments. Accessed June 29, 2017. www.fao.org/3/a-i4787e/index.html.
Schreiner, P. 2016. “Emerging Cardiovascular Risk Research: Impact of Pets on Cardiovascular Risk Prevention.” Current Cardiovascular Risk Reports 10(2): 8–21. http://doi.org/10.1007/s12170-016-0489-2.
Smith, A., C. Semeniuk, S. Kutz, and A. Massolo. 2014. “Dog-Walking Behaviors Affect Gastrointestinal Parasitism in Park-Attending Dogs.” Parasites and Vectors 7(1): 1–10.
Stigner, M., H. Beyer, C. Klein, and A. Fuller. 2016. “Reconciling Recreational Use and Conservation Values in a Coastal Protected Area.” Journal of Applied Ecology 53(4): 1206–1214. doi:10.1111/1365–2664.12662.
The Telegraph. 2017. “Creatures of the Deep: What Lurks in the Depths of the Ocean?” The Telegraph. Accessed June 18, 2017. www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/earthpicturegalleries/5313918/Creatures-of-the-deep-What-lurks-in-the-depths-of-the-ocean.html.
Winter, C., and W. Young. 2015. “Fatalities and Fascinators: A New Perspective on Thoroughbred Racing.” In Domestic Animals and Leisure, edited by N. Carr, 241–260. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
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.
Young, R. 2008. Environmental Enrichment for Captive Animals. Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.