This article highlights that their decision is based on an ability to "experience pain, distress or harm." In not all cases will that distress align with captivity.
Well-cared for dogs seem pretty happy, for example. They're in captivity but not suffering, and can live lives with social bonds, play, etc. Being separated from their humans can make dogs distressed. When one gets sick enough, euthanizing it, though sad, is probably the merciful thing to do.
If a small fish is in a large, well-maintained aquarium, is it in pain or distress because of its captivity? I've seen some very well-run aquariums, and if the fish are all suffering, it doesn't seem obvious.
I think the point is if you take their ability to suffer seriously, you don't take actions which subject it to pain or distress. But captivity doesn't strictly necessitate suffering.
But yeah, we could stop eating animals, or penning them in feedlots.
Well-cared for dogs seem pretty happy, for example. They're in captivity but not suffering, and can live lives with social bonds, play, etc. Being separated from their humans can make dogs distressed. When one gets sick enough, euthanizing it, though sad, is probably the merciful thing to do.
If a small fish is in a large, well-maintained aquarium, is it in pain or distress because of its captivity? I've seen some very well-run aquariums, and if the fish are all suffering, it doesn't seem obvious.
I think the point is if you take their ability to suffer seriously, you don't take actions which subject it to pain or distress. But captivity doesn't strictly necessitate suffering.
But yeah, we could stop eating animals, or penning them in feedlots.