Discussion Class Three: Owning Magical Creatures

Admin

Deputy Head

Subject: Discussion Class Three: Owning Magical Creatures Sun Aug 26 2007, 15:12

Should we allow witches and wizards to own magical creatures? Dumbledore owned a Phoenix and Hagrid an Acromantula, but is this right?

Discuss this fully, remembering to develop your ideas and arguments.

The total points available is 45, as well as 5 points for SPAG/QWC.

Have fun!

Eeylops' Owl Emporium, obviously, sells owls. The Magical Menagerie in Diagon Alley sells the following animals:

Quote :: enormous purple toads
gigantic tortoise with jewel-encrusted shell (probably a Fire-Crab)
poisonous orange snails (Streelers?)
a fat white rabbit that changed into a top hat and back
cats of every color
ravens
custard-colored furballs (probably Puffskeins)
sleek, black rats, rather more intelligent than normal rats

The possession of domesticated animals really has no debate. These animals are, at the present time, already sold and bought to any wizard wanting the animal, and thus outlawing something so commonly practiced would outrage and upset many. In fact, without domesticated owls, the entire mailing system of the wizarding world would collapse. However, I feel animals that can do significant harm to others present a problem. For instance, owning a dragon or a basilisk is obviously out of the question. These animals cannot be completely controlled by humans and thus could cause injury to innocent victims. Also, certain animals deserve to remain free and undomesticated because of their natural instinct to feel comfortable in their environment (i.e. unicorns, hippogriffs, etc.) Domestic animals should continue to be domestic, but I doubt bringing in animals from the wild and domesticating them would be something approved by the Ministry.

Subject: attach signature Sun Aug 26 2007, 19:58

I don't think witches and wizards should own magical creatures. Even though Hagrid and Dumbledore owned one. Their just like wild animals. Their habitat is in the wild, so thats were they should stay. If you take a magical creature from its habitat then it might cause some problems for you. Like if you didn't know much about the creature then you might not be able to train it or train it at all. If witches and wizards owned magical creatures then they should take very good care of them, because if the creature doesn't get treated the way it should then it wouldn't like its owner very much and even that could cause problems. So, I say that its better to just leave the creatures in the wild, because you don't know what to expect from the creatures they could like you but their wild so you really don't know. Discussion Class Three: Owning Magical Creatures Harry_11

Discussion Class Three: Owning Magical Creatures Harry_11

If the magical creature was injured in some way and a wizard or witch kept them for the recovery and the animal didn't want to leave I think that would be a good reason to keep one. If the animal wanted to be kept by someone then that would be a good reason too.

Certain animals/creatures are born in captivity, and wouldn't survive or even know the feeling to be free, so I think they would be better off with an owner to take care of them. But if someone captures a wild creature to take care of and such, I think it's wrong. The creatures are supposed to be in the wild, in my opinion. We can't force them to bend to our will, can we?

But I strongly think that certain creatures (Fawkes, for example) are able to be loyal and become even friends with their owners, and therefor, it's okay. We can't exactly forbid them to do that.

I agree with most of what is said above. Animals are just that animals. They don't think as humans do and therefore can't always be domesticated. Owning an animal takes time, effort and love. I beleive if you have all three you should be aloud to own an animal becasue it can enrich your life and the animals. However, taking animals out of the wild is wrong, unless injured, because how would you like it if someone took you frmo your home? Other animals born in captivity should have a home which will provide them with a much better life then living in a store. I also beleive that someone from the Regulation and Control of Magical Creatures should evaluate all people applying for a pet. This would make sure the animal is well cared for and will live a happy life.

Even the now called 'domesticated' creatures were wild once! And yet again we humans and wizards were arrogant enough to capture them and make them do work for us!

If a person creates a bond with an animal and likes to keep it and the animal also bonds with the 'owner' then I'm fine with it, not mattering if they're dangerous or not.

I do not agree though with domesticating Magical Creatures to do Wizards work though, I'm totally against the owl system and I don't even want to think how they breed all of those Owls to sell...

well owning a creature/animal is okay if it's for a companion or friend. But if the person owns the animal just to make it work for them and treats it badly, then that is not okay. An animal is like a being too, they probably have some feelings so the owner has to treat it with love like a having a pet dog or owl.

Just like in the muggle world, there are animals in the wizarding community that are pet type animals, like owls, toads and puffskeins. But also there are creatures that shouldn’t be kept as pets like dragons, erumpents and clabberts. I feel that the characteristics of the animal are the main factors in determining the domestication potential.

As Kat stated earlier, The Magical Menagerie sells quite a variety of strange creatures and I am hoping that there are rules and limitations on which creatures can be domesticated and in what conditions they must be kept, just like in regular pet shops in the muggle world.

As for the wild animals/creatures that do not make suitable pets (I am sure Hagrid would disagree), I feel it is necessary to keep them in their natural habitat. There are always exceptions to this, whether it is for safety of the civilians or for the creature itself or possibly for zoo-like purposes; I do not know if there is a zoo in the wizarding community but that would be quite interesting.

Obviously witches and wizards can own magical creatures as opposed to the simpler pets but it isn’t necessary to domesticate a unicorn just to set yourself apart from the non-magical community.

Well i think that it is ok to have a pet but there should be limitations. Like Hagrid, he shouldn't be trying to tame every single creature that is known to man. He has done a good job on some of them but not all of them.

I do think that you could have creature and use them to work but only if they like to. Yes there are some animals that like to do little jobs here and there for thier owners. I think that so long as they are not worked too hard that they will be fine to use as a working pet but like all other pets you must also love it and care for it

Whether or not an animal is magic shouldn't have anything to do with whether or not is is domesticated. Animals are animals. The wizarding world is no different than the muggle world in this case. In the muggle world there are animals that are born domestic and it is all they now know, like dogs and cats etc. Though they were once wild, they have been domestic for hundreds of years. Those animals are okay to keep as pets as long as they are not being abused (in which case there are repercussion). Wild animals such as tigers are not allowed as pets (only in special circumstances) which is smart because they are, for most people, beyond human controll and dangerous. Simillarly, in the wizard world, there are domestic animals, owls, rats, etc, which are kept as pets. And there are laws about breeding them and caring for them. There are also wild animals that are dangerous and they are not allowed as pets and should be kept in the wild. It is a good system in both worlds, as long as the rules are enforced. I see nothing wrong with owning a dog without magical abilities, therefore I also see nothing wrong with owning a cat with magical abilities. In the case of Hagrid and Dumbledore, I don't believe either of them actually owned the phoenix or the acromantula. Fawkes seemed to only stay with Dumbledore because he chose to. A phoenix was not a common pet and he was not really domesticated. He was more like a companion who chose to stay with his friend. And Hagird didn't really own Aragog. He rescued him and then visited him in the wild. They, again, were more friends than owner and pet. And I don't think the owl system is any different than muggles using horses for working ranches. They are work animals, and owls have more opportunity to take freedom than most work animals. As long as they aren't being abused I see nothing wrong with teaching an animal to work. Pigeons used to carry muggle leters. They still do sometimes.

I think it definiteley depends on what kind of magical creature it is. I mean, unicorns and dragons would not make good pets because they want to be free. But cats are pets and that is natural. It is just a matter of onpinion, i gues... Discussion Class Three: Owning Magical Creatures Aayes

Discussion Class Three: Owning Magical Creatures Aayes

It depends on the dangerousness of the animal. Dragons, for instance would be very dangerous and would not make good pets. But Phoenixes are calm and would make a great pet.

Dragons are just misunderstood - BIG TIME :D I believe they would make wonderful pets, if you knew how to act around them, that is.

Well of course they would make good pets if you didn't bother them.

But they might turn on you.

That's onyl natural, but if we keep thinking the worst of everything/everyone, we're not going to make any success here. It will take time, yes, and loads and loads of nerve, but we'll make through it.

I kind of lost my point there, but anyway...

For example; Unicorns! I personally think that they don't fit as pets. Why, you may ask? Well, I think they're just so beautiful and unique creatures that they belong in their own nature, free from all the stuff we would do to them.

But Blast-Ended Skrewts, on the other hand... :D

I believe that owning magical creatures is right, under certain circumstances. For instance, if someone wants to own a Kneezle or a Pygmy Puff, what's the harm in that? However if you have someone like Hagrid wanting to own Dragons or Blast-Ended Skrewts or things such of that sort it isn't right. Certain creatures can make great pets and like to be so.

That's another thing, if someone wants to own non-dangerous creatures as a pet then there shouldn't be anything wrong with it. They simply want and enjoy the company the creature provides. However, there will be times when people want creatures for other reasons other then the companionship they provide, that also isn't right. I think if we are to be allowed to own magical creatures it should be for that reason.

Sure, their will be exceptions to each of these, but what doesn't have an exception? As long as a person wants a magical creature for companionship (that isn't dangerous) then it should be no different then owning a regular animal as a pet.

Amby, I agree with you very much so. (we Gryffies rock on these lmao)

As Amby so wisely pointed out, some creatures like to stay as pets, because they might need the help we have to give them. Like... a cat with wings xD

Caring for a magical creature is a great responsibility. It's advised that you should at least have basic knowledge of what you are getting yourself into. It's easy to want to have one but to actually take care of it, feed it, nurture it; is a whole other thing. Wanting a magical creature just to have one, is silly. You need to research its habits such as what does it eat? Is it dangerous? Could it be trained? Will it obey you? How much will it cost to nurse it back to health if it gets sick? Clearly, you have to ask yourself these questions and more.
If that isn't enough, consider costs of its food, boarding, and special needs.
You wouldn't want to get something just to have to turn it back over to the ministry, would you?
While the thought of having a magical creature as a pet is awe-inspiring, one must consider all the responsibilities that go along with it.

I think the answer to this depends on the type of creature they are keeping as a pet. In the muggle world it is okay so keep an animal such as a guinea pig as a pet but not say a tiger. This is because they are more dangerous valuable and rare. Rare animals should not usually be kept as pets as they need to keep there life source going and most people who buy a pet only have one. I think this should apply to the wizarding world too. A phoenix should not really be kept as a pet because of it being endangered and rare whereas the flobberworm is not.

I believe to befriend a magical creature and give him shelter in a time of need is quite the marvelous idea, as long as the creature is released when it wishes to be. Having these creatures as "pets" is also fine, as long as you treat them with as much respect as they give you and make sure they get lots of love and care. However, if you are simply using a creature and for unvirtuous reasons, it is deemed wrong and even cruel.

I have always had issues with the domestication of creatures. On the one hand I have a problem with using creatures for labor. Muggles do this with horses, cattle, and other animals. I also think it's unkind to keep certain creatures pinned up. For example, when Hagrid was in school he had an acromantula locked in a cupboard. Such a creature should be allowed to run free (preferably away from humans, of course). However, if one is able to keep a creature as a pet without keeping it confined or using it solely for labour, I feel that it is helpful to both creature and person. For example, although Professor Dumbledore recieved help from his phoenix, and many do so with owls, they also show a lot of love and make sure they are not trapped in the situation. Also, if a creature is beyond the capabilities of a given witch or wizard, obviously it would be unwise to possess it. Lastly, I fully agree with a ban on experimental breeding. A blast-ended skrewt is an excellent example as to why this ban should exist.

I have always had issues with the domestication of creatures. On the one hand I have a problem with using creatures for labor. Muggles do this with horses, cattle, and other animals. I also think it's unkind to keep certain creatures pinned up. For example, when Hagrid was in school he had an acromantula locked in a cupboard. Such a creature should be allowed to run free (preferably away from humans, of course). However, if one is able to keep a creature as a pet without keeping it confined or using it solely for labour, I feel that it is helpful to both creature and person. For example, although Professor Dumbledore recieved help from his phoenix, and many do so with owls, they also show a lot of love and make sure they are not trapped in the situation. Also, if a creature is beyond the capabilities of a given witch or wizard, obviously it would be unwise to possess it. Lastly, I fully agree with a ban on experimental breeding. A blast-ended skrewt is an excellent example as to why this ban should exist.

Hmm, well, maybe you could if you got some kind of license. Like, when you start your first year at Hogwarts, you take a test and the professor for care of magical creatures will decide if you are ready to care for a magical creature or not. Maybe if you are responsible with your creature the second year, you get your license upgraded. Every year you can get your license upgraded, and when you leave Hogwarts you will have an official license that enables to to have any magical creature you passed for. But that would be the only way I would let a witch or wizard have a magical creature as a pet.

In my opinion, only fourth years and above should be able to have their own magical creature, aside from owls, toads, rats which should be open to anybody. However, there are limits you cannot have your own pet hippogryph of course. You should have your Care of Magical Creatures teacher sign off your creature, and let the professor decide on the capabilities of the student based on their performance in the class. We don't want people underprepared taking care of their own magical pet because, it could die due to maltreatment, wrong enviroment and it may even pose a danger to other students at the school.

As for witches and wizards out of school, they should be able to have any non illegal pet. For example dragons are illegal. They must make sure that they do not harm any of their neighbors property, which a niffler could easily demolish there lawn, or more.

This class is now closed. Well done to everyone who participated - it was very interesting to read your discussions.

Gryffindor
Kris: 40
magicguy93: 45
Caroru: 50
KatieBellaTrix: 40
Samantha Granger: 40
becca95: 30
amberg93: 40
hppamela: 40
Kael: 40

Ravenclaw
stephy: 40
polly: 40

Slytherin
Raistlin the Wizard: 40
Wytchkitty: 40

Hufflepuff
Kendra_McKie: 40
dragonweaver: 40
irishsweety7411: 40
Snape_Luffer: 40

» Discussion Class Four: Magical Creatures, Intelligent?
» Discussion Lesson: Ethics in Care of Magical Creatures
» Care of Magical Creatures Class Levels
» Oddie Riddle's Care of Magical Creatures Class
» Oddie Riddle's Care of Magical Creatures Class