L.P, I do not say that we should banning the ownership of exotics but you made it sounds like that you want it to be free of any regulations and no permit to owns these larger exotic predators as anyone can own them. Am I correct?
The Elephant in the Living Room
- Thread starter agirard2003
- Start date
regulations? sure, the same as all other pets. No permits. Until I show I am uncapable of handling the exotic, i should have the right to own them. I read your link. Not impressed in the least. Your claim was not verified.
No, not all animals are zoo escapees- that is not what I was trying to say. What I was trying to say was that just because an animal is in an area where it usually isn't does not mean that it is an escaped pet. As a matter of fact, in that link you posted, it states "By all indications, he said, the cat was healthy and showed no signs of being in captivity" which means that it was a native animal. No where in there did it mention genetics tracing it back to South America.
Getting back to my main point, animal cruelty laws have the minimum enclosure size covered and public endangerment laws have the irresponsible owners covered. Why add more regulations than that? What else needs to be done?
If you has bothered to read the WHOLE page in that link about the cougar, therefore that's why I typed (read the whole link), there are in fact, records of escaped cougars in Minnesota. Now my main question, why there are concerns about testing the cougars for DNA? Could it be that there are some SA cougars roaming in the North America?
Unfortunately for you guys, there has few incidents of exotics escaped or dumped by the individuals, not just zoos.
As for the laws, it do not says that that you need to have some education or being responsible for the animal welfare. I'm really glad that a permit exists to keep the public safe and keep the idiots from get their hands on the exotic predators.
Read the whole page in the link.
So are you saying that there shouldn't be any regulations and permits to owning the exotic predators? Sure you may be responsible, doesn't mean everyone is well-educated responsible people or at least sane people.
I'm really glad that regulations and permits existed.
Read the whole page in the link.
So are you saying that there shouldn't be any regulations and permits to owning the exotic predators? Sure you may be responsible, doesn't mean everyone is well-educated responsible people or at least sane people.
I'm really glad that regulations and permits existed.
and as i said before. Im glad you get your jollies from controlling others, despite FACTS not being on your side. I read your entire article. There is one blurb stating that they have seen cougars they believe to have been in captivity but nothing else. and your article says nothing, let me repeat NOTHING, about that cougar being SA in origin, nor does it mention finding any.
And, sure there are a few escapes here and there. There are from any animals. But guess what? People arnt dieing from them.
I did read the whole article- more than you it seems. No where in there does it say that the cougars are escaped nor does it even mention anything about South American genetics turning up in MN. I am not saying that it does not happen but it should not prevent responsible owners from being able to keep them.
As for the laws, it do not says that that you need to have some education or being responsible for the animal welfare. I'm really glad that a permit exists to keep the public safe and keep the idiots from get their hands on the exotic predators.
Do you really think that these laws keep the public safe? Safe from what? As mentioned before, the public HAS NEVER BEEN HARMED by a big cat with the exception of one incident that happened at the San Fransisco zoo (still think zoos are the only ones qualified?) Animal Welfare IS covered under animal cruelty laws. The animals must be properly cared for and in suitable habitats.
I keep thinking I'm going to bow out of this thread as its really beating a dead horse. We're free to have our own opinions, and I don't think anybody's will be changed at this point. I agree with permits, although I also agree that maybe the restrictions have been taken too far, as Lep's posting of the PA laws were helpful in seeing how they can be overdone, but that doesn't mean to throw them out altogether for every animal under the sun.
However, I see a comment like the one above and I'm not sure what you're saying so I have to ask...
Are you saying THE PUBLIC HAS NEVER BEEN HARMED by a captive big cat except one time? I must be missing some qualification on your statement because that's ridiculous.
I really don't want to be going back and forth over this with links, etc but a simple google search turned up this paper:
In the 4 years covered by the study, the media reported a total of 59 incidents in which people were seriously injured or killed by captive tigers—an average of approximately 15 victims per year (Table 2). In the United States, 27 people were reportedly injured and seven were killed; two were listed as having been attacked, but it was unclear whether they were injured or killed. In 20 of these cases, the injured victims required emergency medical care, in three cases the injuries were minor, and in the rest the severity of the injuries was unclear. Internationally, nine people were reportedly injured, 12 were killed, and two more were either injured or killed by tigers. In six of these cases the injured victims required emergency medical attention; the remaining cases were unclear.
In the United States, attacks were reported in Florida (n1/48); Texas (n1/45); Kansas (n1/44); California, Nevada, and Ohio (n1/42 each); and Arkansas, Colorado, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Mississippi, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota (n1/41 each). One death occurred in a zoo not accredited by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association (AZA), and the rest occurred where tigers were privately owned or in non-accredited private facilities (Table 2). Tigers in private ownership and non-zoo entertainment facilities were responsible for 75% of all injuries.
link: http://bigcatrescue.org/4-year-study-shows-tigers-500-times-more-deadly-than-dogs-in-us/
All of the attacks that you listed above were on people that were working with the animals directly. I am talking about the general public because the cries of those wanting the animals strictly over-regulated or banned are that these animals are putting other peoples lives in danger. I apologize for not making that clear.
I don't think captivity should be banned, but I do believe in oversight. There is oversight now (And I agree in theory that it may be too strict) BUT I truly believe if you went to no oversight/permits/regulation at all, just like buying a housecat, that incidents of death and injuries would rise significantly.
I don't know where you get the first statement from either. This is directly after the paragraph I quoted:
Injuries occurred equally between visitors and keepers in entertainment and private ownership situations, but less than half as many visitors as handlers were injured in zoos. Twice as many handlers as visitors were killed in private facilities. Victims ranged from the very young (3 years old) to adults. Seven children under age 10 were attacked by tigers. The two fatalities in this age group were killed by privately owned tigers. Victims were more frequently women in zoos and men in entertainment and private facilities. Attacks occurred most frequently when the victims came too close to the tigers when viewing them (n1/411 victims), handling or moving them (n1/48), being photographed with them (n1/47), or feeding them (n1/44), or the tiger escaped (n1/44).
OR
Was this teenager working directly with the animal?
A local teenager who was killed while having her picture taken with a Siberian tiger...
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/9005475/n...-kills-kansas-teen-posing-photo/#.UgvfqKzzrpI
