# "Wild" cat most appropriate for being a "pet"...



## lizardminion (Jun 16, 2012)

(Technically, domestic cats are wild cats as the only difference is being bred for skills or appearance, but unlike dogs, they don't experience much- if any- neoteny in behavior or appearance and they are just like tame individuals of their wild relatives. The only thing making them more suitable pets is their overall more docile attitude and less threatening size.)

What non-domestic wildcat would you- from your knowledge, or better yet, experience- say is the best suitable to be kept by non-staff (of any facility such as a zoo or "rescue" center) individuals such as hobbyist or exotic pet keepers? This means they aren't too big and and remain docile, and are more suitable in the domestic surrounding. I am not looking into keeping any myself, at least, not any time soon, but it is rather a topic of interest for me and I may also use it when proposing arguments. From my general knowledge, I'd think _Felis sylvestris sylvestris_ is most appropriate as they are the main species that man split the domestic cat from, and as far as I'm aware, domestic/house cats didn't go through much of a behavior shift. Is there any record of the Eurasian Wildcat (_Felis sylvestris sylvestris_) being kept in a domestic environment in modern times and how did they differ from domestic cats, behaviorally? (Breaking it down to simple English: Has any kept the Eurasian Wildcat as a pet and how did it compare to the common house cat?)


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 17, 2012)

lizardminion said:


> (Technically, domestic cats are wild cats as the only difference is being bred for skills or appearance, but unlike dogs, they don't experience much- if any- neoteny in behavior or appearance and they are just like tame individuals of their wild relatives. The only thing making them more suitable pets is their overall more docile attitude and less threatening size.)
> 
> What non-domestic wildcat would you- from your knowledge, or better yet, experience- say is the best suitable to be kept by non-staff (of any facility such as a zoo or "rescue" center) individuals such as hobbyist or exotic pet keepers? This means they aren't too big and and remain docile, and are more suitable in the domestic surrounding. I am not looking into keeping any myself, at least, not any time soon, but it is rather a topic of interest for me and I may also use it when proposing arguments. From my general knowledge, I'd think _Felis sylvestris sylvestris_ is most appropriate as they are the main species that man split the domestic cat from, and as far as I'm aware, domestic/house cats didn't go through much of a behavior shift. Is there any record of the Eurasian Wildcat (_Felis sylvestris sylvestris_) being kept in a domestic environment in modern times and how did they differ from domestic cats, behaviorally? (Breaking it down to simple English: Has any kept the Eurasian Wildcat as a pet and how did it compare to the common house cat?)


Actually, Lizardminion, domestic cat BREEDS DO exhibit a great deal of neoteny; a purebred Persian, for example, looks and acts no more like its wild ancestors than an English Bulldog looks like a wolf.  Behaviorally, there are many differences as well, even between feral cats and true wild cats.  I have personally owned and/or interacted with, one on one, with many species of wild cats, ranging from bobcats to Bengal tigers, so I do feel that I am in a position to say that.  

First, let me address those differences.  The biggest differences between even the most socialized wild cat, bred and raised in captivity, and a domestic cat has to do with its reactions to new or unfamiliar stimuli and with what behaviorists refer to as "resource guarding" behavior.  If your house cat is playing with something on the floor, say, a pencil, and you go to take it away, 99% of house cats will relinquish that object willingly.  If a tamed bobcat, cougar, or other wild cat is playing with something, and you go to take it away, you are very likely to wind up in the hospital as a result.  If your house cat is eating at its bowl, and you approach, the cat will probably ignore you and keep right on eating.  Approach a wild cat that is eating, and you've got a good chance of being attacked.  They are hard-wired to defend resources like food, knowing instinctively that it might be the last meal that they'll get for a long time; yes, this applies even to captive, bottle-raised animals that are fed every day.  Domestication has changed that behavior in house cats, but no matter how tame a wild cat is, it will never lose that instinct or that behavior, so YOU have to be the one to adapt.  Most wild cats, even those which have been extensively socialized, do NOT take well to strange people or unfamiliar settings, so putting that animal in a boarding kennel or even hiring someone to come care for it while you go off on vacation is not advisable at all.  Behaviors that can be easily corrected in a house cat, like jumping up on counter tops, are an essential part of wild cat behavior that you WILL NOT change, period, so you have to be the one to change what YOU do and alter YOUR lifestyle.

Ironically, the wild species that make that best pets are not the smaller cats.  My closest experience with European Wildcats was a 50% mix of Scottish Wildcat and domestic that I bottle fed from a kitten before her eyes opened.  At best, she tolerated humans...sometimes.  She never sought out interaction with me or anyone else.  At the most, she'd allow someone to pet her for a few minutes.  She'd let you know she'd had enough by biting.   Hard.   If she was in no mood to be touched from the start, which was about half the time, she'd start snarling and hissing as soon as she saw you.  Every account I've ever read of attempts to tame _Felis sylvestris sylvestris_ or _F. s. grampia_ has ended in failure, regardless of how close the cats were raised with humans.  They inevitably become standoffish and aggressive upon reaching a certain age.  The Highland Scots revered this animal for its untamable and determined nature.  These cats no longer are available in the US, btw, and efforts are being made in Britain to salvage this species from the edge of extinction, but it is probably already too late.

I've had four bobcats in my life.  Of those, ONE was a fully reliable pet, a neutered male I also bottle fed, but I honestly do believe he was a few bricks short of a full load.  The other three had moments of unpleasantness which could have ended badly for both of us had I pushed them or tried to be "alpha".  That does NOT work with cats the way it does with canines!  When a wild cat acts aggressive, you back off and leave it alone.  If it grabs something of yours, you have to either distract and tempt it with something else, or write that object off as a loss, because you're NOT going to take it back!  NO wild cat species can adapt to eating commercial cat food, btw.  You must feed high-quality raw meat, entrails, and skin, with vitamin supplements made just for those animals, and believe that does get expensive, time-consuming and messy!  Do you mind going to a slaughterhouse and getting bucketloads of freshly-slaughtered cattle stomachs, guts, lungs, hearts, etc., and bringing them home and cutting them up?  If you are the least bit squeamish, a wild cat is NOT for you!  Or, do you hunt deer and other game?  That is the other way I fed my animals.

My cougars were probably the closest to a house cat in behavior or temperament of all the cats I had, despite their size, but again, you still have that food aggression and guarding of toys, etc.  You have a lot more to clean up and a much larger food bill, and instead of being bitten and scratched if the cat gets angry, you can be killed.  Never let that thought get out of your mind when working with wild cats.  It's a lot like keeping venomous snakes, only you have to be MORE on guard, because a Rattlesnake won't decide to charge across a room and attack you, while a large cat just might.  There also are other issues, including Rabies vaccination.  There are no approved Rabies vaccines for non-domestic cats, which means no vet will vaccinate one.  If your cat bites or scratches anyone, however slight, health authorities WILL seize it and kill it to test its brain for Rabies.  If you like to have company over, you must have a 100% reliable means of separating them from the cat, no exceptions.  You cannot count on the cat not attacking a strange person in its territory or the person not doing something stupid that will result in an attack.  Forget going on vacation.  You will be stuck at home as long as you own the animal.  I've never had a house cat show more than curiosity over my caged reptiles, spiders, etc. and they soon learn to ignore those animals, but I've never had a wild cat that wouldn't go to absolute extremes to get to those animals, so they had to be kept absolutely separated at all times.  Many home owners insurance companies will drop you if you have a wild cat on your property, too.  Successfully keeping such animals requires 100% commitment from 100% of the household, and a total lifestyle change for all in most cases, because the animals are NOT going to change.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 7


----------



## lizardminion (Jun 17, 2012)

Thanks for the great amount of info, pitbulllady. You've provided a great amount of information and experience for me to consider when I begin writing articles for my website, as well as provided a view on what it's like for big cat keepers. Also, thanks for correcting me on my view of domestic cats.


----------



## AmysAnimals (Jun 17, 2012)

I do not agree with keeping wild cats as pets.  They are too big and too dangerous, IMO.  The only places that i think should have wild cats are sanctuaries and rehabs for wild animals.  Wild cats are not house cats and shouldn't be kept like that, in my opinion.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 17, 2012)

AmysAnimals said:


> I do not agree with keeping wild cats as pets.  They are too big and too dangerous, IMO.  The only places that i think should have wild cats are sanctuaries and rehabs for wild animals.  Wild cats are not house cats and shouldn't be kept like that, in my opinion.


While you're entitled to your opinion, Amy, wild cats CAN be rewarding pets for people who are willing to do their research and alter their own lifestyle, in ways that most people arn't willing.  I kept-and enjoyed-many species for many years, but it was very, very hard work, and I no longer have the time, money or energy to do that again.  I am absolutely, adamantly, 100% AGAINST ANY "exotic" animal bans, as this plays right into the hands of the very people who will just as happily take away YOUR animals, regardless of what they might be, and I'm talking about the Animal Rights movement.  To them, it is unacceptable for anyone to keep and breed and sell animals as pets, as food, as anything, and most of the "rescue" organizations are run by AR fanatics, who believe that they and they alone have the magic or whatever it takes to keep anything from a guppy to a zebra.

We-and by "we" I mean humans in general, you included-often keep animals which are very big and very, very dangerous.  How many of us here have horses?  Do you realize how big a horse is, and what its capacity for inflicting grave injury on a human is, and how many people get killed by horses each year?  Statistically, horses and dogs are far more dangerous than exotic cats, so should this mean that no one other than sanctuaries, rescues and rehab centers should be allowed to keep them? I kept big and small wild cats, wolves, wolf-dogs, venomous and large constricting reptiles, yet I've never been seriously injured by one.  My sister, who has horses, has been hospitalized THREE times due to being kicked, stomped or bitten by her "safe" horses, so unless you advocate banning ownership of any and ALL animals capable of inflicting serious harm to us puny humans, the "too big and dangerous" arguement doesn't fly.  I'm not wanting everyone to run out and get a cougar or bobcat, but for that matter, I don't want everyone to run out and get a Labrador, either.  People need to carefully choose animals based on so many factors, and what's good for the proverbial goose is NOT always good for the proverbial gander!  I personally can't deal with small yappy, hyper dogs, but for some people, that's their cup of tea.  Many people can't deal with large constrictor snakes, but I have never had an issue with them, and I've kept those animals since the age of 12, native Colubrids much longer than that.  Yet, there are many people who say the exact same thing about my snakes that you just said about wild cats, and do not believe anyone should be allowed to own them.  It's really just a matter of people believing that EVERYONE on the planet should like and want the exact same things that they themselves do, a matter of "I wouldn't want to keep/own this and *I* don't like this, so no one else should be able to have it or like it, either".  There ARE people for whom a wild cat can be a very good pet.  Trust me-those animals do not know of any existance other than what they grew up in.  They do not sit and pine away for the "wild" that they've never known.  I had cats that lived for 14-16 years, way past their lifespan in "the wild", and a friend of mine had a leopard that lived 24 years!  Animals that aren't "happy" do not live long, so we were doing something right!  I think that too many people base their opinions of the keeping of "exotic" animals in captivity on their own abstract notions of "freedom" and project onto the animals their own subconscious desire to be absolutely "free", whatever they perceive that to be.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Shell (Jun 17, 2012)

pitbulllady said:


> I kept big and small wild cats, wolves, wolf-dogs, venomous and large constricting reptiles, yet I've never been seriously injured by one.  My sister, who has horses, has been hospitalized THREE times due to being kicked, stomped or bitten by her "safe" horses


Just to point out that while yes horses are dangerous, you kind of make them sound horrible here lol...I've been around horses my entire life. Grew up on a large breeding/show stable. Been breaking since I was a teen, professionally training for many years. I was an excercise rider/trainer for Thoroughbred racehorses, and have been showing since I was 4 (lead line classes at that age). For many, many years (probably 2/3 of my life) I have been on 10+ horses a day (some days more), as well as all sorts of ground work. 

I have been injured yes, but nothing that required hospitilization (aside from the odd ER trip to be checked out, but was always sent home after). I've been kicked, bitten, and taken some pretty nasty falls. I've also not been one to stick to "safe" horses, like lesson horses or trail horses. Our own stable owned high strung show horses, as well as breeding stallions. I have trained many "problem" horses, and of course ridden racehorses who are known to be very unpredictable and often volatile.

I'm not trying to argue with you at all, Pitbulllady, I always value your posts and knowledge  I just wanted to point out from an experienced horse persons point of view that while they are dangerous, they aren't awful, especially if you know what you're doing. They certainly aren't for everyone, but with respect and knowledge you can be safe while working with them.

Sorry to derail the thread  PS PBL, love your info on wildcats, very informative.


----------



## AmysAnimals (Jun 17, 2012)

Pitbulllady you have some very interesting things to say.  I really enjoy reading what you write.  It really makes me think. I think that ANY animal must have research done on it before buying or adopting it.  I've done so much research on my animals and I still continue to research. While I still don't totally agree with owning wild cats, you've really opened my eyes a little.  

The most wild thing I've ever owned are my tarantulas lol. I have had dogs, cats, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, snakes, lizards, mice...I think I've owned just about everything lol not wild animals though I think I will stay away from those.  

I do not agree with putting bans on any animal.  It's not fair.  Like here in California we cant own ferrets, though there is an underground ferret society in California.  There are several other things banned here.  Why should an owner be banned from owning an animal?  Why should an animal be banned from a state?  It's cruel.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 18, 2012)

AmysAnimals said:


> Pitbulllady you have some very interesting things to say.  I really enjoy reading what you write.  It really makes me think. I think that ANY animal must have research done on it before buying or adopting it.  I've done so much research on my animals and I still continue to research. While I still don't totally agree with owning wild cats, you've really opened my eyes a little.
> 
> The most wild thing I've ever owned are my tarantulas lol. I have had dogs, cats, rats, guinea pigs, rabbits, snakes, lizards, mice...I think I've owned just about everything lol not wild animals though I think I will stay away from those.
> 
> I do not agree with putting bans on any animal.  It's not fair.  Like here in California we cant own ferrets, though there is an underground ferret society in California.  There are several other things banned here.  Why should an owner be banned from owning an animal?  Why should an animal be banned from a state?  It's cruel.


Banning animals IS indeed cruel, and that's something that most folks do not take into account, either that, or they WANT the animals to suffer.  The AR's claim that their goal is to stop animal suffering, but when they succeed in getting a ban pushed through, on anything, the animals' suffering increases.  Most of the animals affected will be abandoned to starve or die from any of countless ways, or will be killed, or, should the owners choose to take that risk and keep the animals, they will be forced "underground" and will no longer have access to veterinary care, proper housing, exercise or even proper food, so as to avoid raising suspicions that someone is keeping an illegal animal.  It's a no-win situation for the animals.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Louise E. Rothstein (Jun 19, 2012)

Animal bans inflict acute suffering upon people who care about the animals that are being banned.
They also encourage "witch hunting" of both the "bad" animals AND of people who don't like to abandon them.

These bans may not create ignorant bigotry...but they certainly exacerbate it.

Do they do any good?

All proponents think they do:
animal massacres,expulsions,et cetera do "solve" some "problems."

Is that "the only thing we can do...?"

-Certainly not.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## poisoned (Jun 21, 2012)

Well, all animal bans are not bad. i.e. Red necked turtles are banned here, because people released it in ponds and now it's taking over our native European pond turtle's habitats. But the pet industry found a workaround with Yellow necked turtles.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 21, 2012)

poisoned said:


> Well, all animal bans are not bad. i.e. Red necked turtles are banned here, because people released it in ponds and now it's taking over our native European pond turtle's habitats. But the pet industry found a workaround with Yellow necked turtles.


The ban on Red-Eared Sliders is like the ban on Burmese Pythons in Florida; it was put into place AFTER those animals had already established themselves in the wrong environment, and therefore the ban will have absolutely NO EFFECT AT ALL on those animals already in the environment.  It just punishes responsible owners who would otherwise be good keepers of those species.  It's like banning cars because some people get drunk and drive and hurt others.  If a person is caught with a banned animal, the person either has to pay a fine or go to jail, or both, plus they now have a criminal record, and the animal is taken away and killed, even though the owner might have been taking perfect care of it.  That is simply WRONG!

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Thistles (Jun 21, 2012)

Red-eared Sliders are banned here in Oregon, yet I have about 10 regular customers (I work at a petstore) who keep them. I also have dozens of families coming in every summer with their new slider hatchlings (doubly illegal) which they obtain in California and bring home without knowing they are breaking the law. I even had one guy who had ordered 6 sliders for his pond, and came to me after they "escaped" looking for advice on how to keep the 6 new ones he had ordered from escaping. He didn't like my suggestions, and said he'd consider a fence for the next batch if this group took off.

Clearly this legislation is highly effective.

I am from Virginia and used to work at a pet store there with a 600 gallon display tank. One of the inhabitants was a snakehead. About 8 years ago there was a huge SNAKEHEADS IN THE POTOMAC!!! scare, and our snakehead was seized and killed on the spot. The fish wasn't illegal to _own_, but it wasn't legal to _sell_. That fish wasn't for sale, but the officials claimed they had seen it for sale online. The store didn't even have a website. I was only 16 at the time, and I loved that fish. It was quite a trauma for little me, and certainly inhumane for the fish, which was never going to end up in a local waterway.

Yay personal anecdotes!

That said, someday I would like to own a caracal. I am in no situation to have one now, but I am responsible enough to know it! MOST people should not own wildcats, but it isn't the government's place to tell us that.


----------



## Amoeba (Jun 21, 2012)

A) Just buy a hybrid domestic cat. 

Here are some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savannah_(cat) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_(cat)

B) Do more research than anyone could possibly think of being necessary. If you want to keep a wild animal then you need to be facility quality in care and knowledge. 

I volunteer with a myriad of wild and big cats I will second pitbulllady on the cougar thing. If you work with them enough (particularly from a young age) they can be socialized with humans. IT IS A FULL TIME JOB! You must be consistent in this. Study how mother cougars act with their young and emulate this. YOU WILL GET BIT and SCRATCHED and IMO declawing is never an option for any cat. Do not hesitate in your actions, if you are apprehensive they will know. 

Here my (and other peoples) theory on wild cats. Animals like Lions, Tigers, and Cougars have the luxury of being top predators and therefore have nothing to fear. Small cats like Servals and Caracals are not the top and are sometimes prey, and they will and do act accordingly. Tigers chuff to greet you....Caracals hiss. 

Just so you are aware the grocery bill for a big cat is in the THOUSANDS. Even if they are just a little bit bigger than a domestic they should not be kept inside. 


Overall my advice to you: Volunteer at a facility, stop using the word tame to describe ANY animal,and do more research than anyone would want to.


----------



## poisoned (Jun 21, 2012)

pitbulllady said:


> The ban on Red-Eared Sliders is like the ban on Burmese Pythons in Florida; it was put into place AFTER those animals had already established themselves in the wrong environment, and therefore the ban will have absolutely NO EFFECT AT ALL on those animals already in the environment.  It just punishes responsible owners who would otherwise be good keepers of those species.  It's like banning cars because some people get drunk and drive and hurt others.  If a person is caught with a banned animal, the person either has to pay a fine or go to jail, or both, plus they now have a criminal record, and the animal is taken away and killed, even though the owner might have been taking perfect care of it.  That is simply WRONG!
> 
> pitbulllady


Well, owning is not illegal, just selling, so you can get yours in a near pond, plus you do something for environment.


----------



## pnshmntMMA (Jun 21, 2012)

I can solve this. Get a dog. Problem solved..


----------



## The Snark (Jun 21, 2012)

What is interesting about this thread are the widely varying viewpoints. This in turn is pointing dead at the fact that the 'one set of rules for keeping animals' does not exist. This discussion is irreducible. 
Allowances by everyone must be made. We are the thinking rational creatures. We should not make blanket statements but observations from our own unique experiences. Observations that will not apply universally as there will always be anomalies.
With that said, please continue. This is a fascinating enlightening discussion.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 22, 2012)

Why would anyone have any wild cat species as pet? They are just asking to get mauled or worse.


----------



## Amoeba (Jun 22, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> Why would anyone have any wild cat species as pet? They are just asking to get mauled or worse.


Why would anyone keep a tarantula as a pet? They are just asking to get their face eaten.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 22, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> Why would anyone have any wild cat species as pet? They are just asking to get mauled or worse.


Why would anyone want a dog? They're just asking to get mauled or worse.
Why would anyone want a horse?  They're just asking to have their skull kicked in.
Why would anyone keep cattle?  They're just asking to be gored.
Why would anyone want a house cat? They're just asking to get bitten or have their eyes scratched out, or their baby's breath stolen away.
Why would anyone want a snake?  They're just asking to be "poisoned" or squeezed to death.
Why would anyone want a parrot?  They're just asking to have a finger bitten off.
Why would anyone want a tarantula or a scorpion?  They're just asking to be "poisoned".
Why would anyone want to keep bees?  They're just asking to be stung to death.

Do you see the point I'm making here, LV-426?  There are risks inherent with keeping any animal, and often, those risks are greatly exaggerated by people who are either totally clueless, or who don't want us keeping ANY animals, or a combination of both.  I lived with wild cats for over(and this doesn't even count the bobcats I had as a KID) 20 years, and I didn't get mauled, or worse.  I never even got badly hurt.  I've been injured far worse just walking down a flight of steps or walking through the woods.  I just knew enough to not do anything stupid around the cats.  I changed MY behavior, since I could not expect them realistically to change theirs.  I was told, thoughout my childhood, that snakes would kill me.  Bar none.  That if I started catching them or refused to be afraid of them, I would never live to see my 15th birthday, because someone would find me dead out in my own backyard, right there on the spot where I'd been bitten.  Well, suffice it to say, I'm still here, and all of the people who'd warned me of my impending premature doom from snake bite are no longer around, and I'd wager I'm probably old enough to be your grandmother, as well.  IF your statement was true, I shouldn't be here at all.  But I haven't really defied any odds; I'm just one of hundreds of thousands of people who have kept wild cats and other carnivores, including venomous and large constrictor snakes, who haven't made the news, but of course, the media, and the H$U$ and other AR groups, do not want you to know about people like me.  We are a proverbial monkey wrench in their plans because our histories do not support their claims-AND yours-that it's pretty much inevitable that anyone who keeps "exotic" animals is going to be mauled or killed, just like they don't want to you know about the thousands of "pit bulls" that live out their lives as cherished family pets or service dogs, or the deer hunters who risk their own lives to free a White-Tailed doe from quick sand in an old abandoned rice paddy in the SC Low Country, or the dog breeders who maintain contact with their puppies' buyers 10 years later and still accept back a three-year-old, aggressive, spoiled Alpha dog when his buyer's family became scared of him.  People like us don't suit their agenda, but people like you fit in just fine and dandy with their plans because you choose to believe the AR's.  They count on people having that "if I wouldn't want it, no one else should be able to have it, either" mentality.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## Thistles (Jun 22, 2012)

Amoeba said:


> Tigers chuff to greet you....Caracals hiss.


That's what I love! My favorite T is H. maculata, so that should tell you a bit.


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 22, 2012)

I know what your point is. I once had a 11ft Burmese python my dad made me get rid of, at first I didn't like the fact he made me get rid of it. Now that I am older I realized that it was the best thing I could have done, the reason why is I got older and wiser. Seriously PitBullLady what is the point of owning a bobcat?  Bobcats, pit bulls, 20ft pythons, chimpanzees etc are pointless animals to keep. I'm not associated with Animal Rescue projects or organizations, I'm just a person with common sense. I like guns, I own a assault rifle, but I don't feel the need to attach a grenade launcher to it, or feel the need to own a fully auto belt fed machine gun. I love all animals but there are some animals that should not be owned by people.

---------- Post added 06-22-2012 at 03:57 PM ----------




Amoeba said:


> Why would anyone keep a tarantula as a pet? They are just asking to get their face eaten.


 when has a tarantula eaten someone's face off? We just had face eating zombie attack last month down here.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 22, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> I know what your point is. I once had a 11ft Burmese python my dad made me get rid of, at first I didn't like the fact he made me get rid of it. Now that I am older I realized that it was the best thing I could have done, the reason why is I got older and wiser. Seriously PitBullLady what is the point of owning a bobcat?  Bobcats, pit bulls, 20ft pythons, chimpanzees etc are pointless animals to keep. I'm not associated with Animal Rescue projects or organizations, I'm just a person with common sense. I like guns, I own a assault rifle, but I don't feel the need to attach a grenade launcher to it, or feel the need to own a fully auto belt fed machine gun. I love all animals but there are some animals that should not be owned by people.
> 
> ---------- Post added 06-22-2012 at 03:57 PM ----------
> 
> when has a tarantula eaten someone's face off? We just had face eating zombie attack last month down here.


Boy, someone has really been sucking hard on that H$U$/PETA Kook-Aid bottle, haven't they?  So you SAY you aren't "associated with Animal Rescue projects or organizations", a statement which shows you are clueless as to what "AR" stands for, but yet you 100% tow their line.  "AR" stands for "Animal RIGHTS" organizations-you know, kid, those people who think it should be illegal to own, keep, breed, sell, ANY animal, including your tarantulas?  Nope, didn't think you knew that.  They are powerful, well-funded...and rely on gullible people to believe their Big Lie.  They also rely on your attitude-the "if I am scared of it, or I don't like it, or I wouldn't want it, NOBODY should be able to have it" attitude, to accomplish their goal, and their goal is basically an Animal-Free Society, one where none of us can have any animals, for any reasons, period.  They are accomplishing this by two means: convince the gullible people that "Animal X" constitutes a human safety hazard, is too dangerous to people, the environment, or whatever, and/or convince the gullible that keeping "Animal X" constitutes cruelty and abuse in and of itself because no one is really qualified or capable of properly caring for "Animal X".  They get people like you to believe that it's cruel to keep certain animals, and that those animals are a danger to us all, so they should be banned.  In doing so, the AR's are also utilizing a highly effective wartime tool, one proven effective time and time again, the concept of "Divide and Conquer".  They convince the arachnid owners that the people who own "pit bulls", or bobcats, or pythons or whatever are BAD people who are putting you and everyone else's lives in danger.  They convince the owners of little foo-foo dogs that the big dog people are the problem.  They convince the livestock breeders that pet owners in general are a problem.  They convince the pet owners that the farmers and ranchers are cruel and evil people.  They successfully play sides against one another, so that most of you fail to realize that the ONE thing we have in common-animals-is what the AR's are trying to take away.  Instead of organizing against them, many do exactly what YOU are doing-you fall for their rhetoric, you believe that YOUR animals are safe from being taken, while you support groups like PETA, HSUS, ALF and the others in their concerted efforts to remove animals from our lives.  

Now, let's address that "common sense" thingie, shall we?  You say it's "common sense" for someone to NOT to want to own a "pit bull" or a bobcat or a Boa, which would imply that doing so constitutes a very high statistical rate of death or bodily harm to oneself for doing so.  So, let's look at those statistics, since it's numbers, not opinions, that matter.  I will refer you to THIS site: http://www.rexano.org/Statistics/Death_Odds_Exotic_Animal_2005.pdf .  In case you're wondering, it breaks down one's chances, both yearly and in an average human lifetime, of being killed by any given of many different types of animals, and compares those odds to the odds of dying by say, drowning in your own bathtub(I have to assume you own one of those...might want to consider getting rid of it when you see how likely it is to KILL you), suffocating in your own bedsheets, dying in a fall from a ladder, or, the most common form of non-natural death, dying in a car accident.  You have a 1 in 84 chance of being killed in or by a car in your lifetime; those are some pretty high odds!  In comparison, you have a 1 in 3, 582, 680 odds of being killed by a captive exotic cat.  Now, you still wanna let people own cars, or do you want to take those away, too, for our own good, of course?  More people get killed by TOYS than by exotic cats or large constrictor snakes!  Now, again, common sense says that the more dangerous something is, statistically, the greater the argument for banning it, right?  After all, common sense should not involve personal opinions, like "I don't like this" or "I'm scared of that", but rather, it should take a look at just what the risks REALLY are.  A ladder is clearly a greater risk to you than a "pit bull".  A bathtub is more likely to kill you than a mountain lion.  A flight of stairs is far, far more deadly than a Burmese Python.  If we really went by logic, and not by media/AR-led propaganda, we'd start with those things that actually do constitute the greatest chances of hurting or killing us, the things that take the most human lives each year.  COMMON SENSE is driven by logic, not by opinion or feelings, and logic is driven by facts and statistics, like it or not.  So, what would you recommend banning first...cars?  Stairs?  Chairs?  Alcohol...oh, my BAD...they TRIED that already, and it really worked out well, doncha think?  

Now, we've had THIS conversation before, but some folks are either newcomers or maybe their internet was down at the time, so I'll bring up the whole "pit bull" issue again.  I'm going to take a quote directly from the Center For Disease Control's site on dog bites, since it's often MISused to justify BSL(that stands for Breed-Specific Legislation, since you didn't know what "AR" stood for), and here goes: *"There is currently no accurate way to identify the number of dogs of a particular breed, and consequently no measure to determine which breeds are more likely to bite or kill."*  Identifying the breed of dog involved in any given incident is virtually impossible unless the dog had registration certification from a VALID registry, and the vast majority of biting/attacking dogs do NOT.  What a dog looks like, in terms of breed, is highly subjective, something I've discovered over the years.  I have had my Catahoulas referred to as "pit bulls".  My sister's Great Dane has been called a "pit bull".  I have overheard someone telling her kids that a freakin' GREYHOUND was a "pit bull" and warning them not to touch it!  To compound that problem is the one of media exposure. You-and probably everyone else on here-can no doubt quote many alleged "pit bull" attacks, maulings and deaths that have occurred over the years because we hear about them so much, and people who are clueless love to use the argument that we never hear about OTHER dogs killing people.  Case in point:  very recently, just in MY state, there have been two tragic deaths of children as a result of dog attacks.  NEITHER involved dogs that can in any way, shape or form be called "pit bulls".  I bet, though, that you were not aware of these horrific deaths, one of which involved a child actually being dismembered and disemboweled.  Why?  Because the dogs WERE NOT "pit bulls" or "pit bull types"!  The incidents were not reported outside of the immediate area where they took place.  The media has no interest in reporting a child being torn apart by a GOLDEN RETRIEVER, the breed of dog that tore the leg off of a baby and proceeded to tear out the child's internal organs!  And yet, if a short-haired, muscular dog growls at someone, it makes headline news all over the country because THAT is the type of dog you can get by with calling a "pit bull" and THAT is the type of dog that the media WANTS to report on doing bad things, because the AR's are the media's bedmates, and they know again that if they can convince the gullible that "Animal X" is too dangerous to be allowed, people will support getting rid of it, banning it...and then they can find a new "Animal X" to take its place in the media spotlight, until between that and the "cruelty/abuse" angle, there won't be anything left.  People believe that "pit bulls"-a non-existent breed of dog, a term that has become a catch-phrase for every short-coated dog between the weights of 20-250 pounds-are more dangerous because they never hear about the attacks by other types of dogs, and because the term "pit bull" has become so all-inclusive.  It's gotten into the public psyche, that any dog that acts aggressively or seems threatening in any way MUST be a "pit bull" because they are the only dogs that do those things, so that if you ask someone to ID the type of dog that barked at them from a street corner or chased their cat up a tree, the response is almost inevitably going to be, "it was a PIT BULL", even if the dog's registration papers say, "Labrador Retriever".  But, let's look at statistics again, shall we?  To really determine if "pit bulls" are more dangerous, let's look at dog attack statistics in places where they have been banned and theoretically no longer exist.  I'll start with Great Britain, which passed its Dangerous Dogs Act in 1991, totally banning American Pit Bull Terriers and anything that LOOKED like it MIGHT have APBT in it.  Since that time, hospitalizations(so you understand we're talking SEVERE attacks, maulings, not just ankle bites here)due to dog attacks have *INCREASED by 94%!* Reported dog bites/attacks have increased by *115%!* and we're NOT talking "pit bulls" here, because they have been banned since 1991 and the ban has been strictly enforced!  Closer to the US, Denver, CO, has had a strict ban on "pit bulls"(meaning any and all short-haired, muscular dogs)since 1989, and the city has seized and killed over 8,000 family pets, service dogs, etc., since that time, based purely on how the dogs LOOKED, not their behavior.  And yet, that city has seen a 15% increase in hospitalizations(again, so you do not confuse this with a little nip on the ankle)from dog attacks since the ban, and has the highest rate of hospitalizations from dog bites in the entire state!  Now, MY common sense says that if "pit bulls" really were the problem, those statistics should have gone DOWN, WAY down, as in practically non-existent, because only "pit bulls" are that dangerous, right?  So, if you get rid of the "pit bulls", but you're seeing an INCREASE in people being mauled and killed by dogs, what does your common sense have to say about THAT, LV-426?

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Hayden (Jun 23, 2012)

I was coming home from a party late one night and I had my pit bull with me, as I almost always do.  As I was walking from my car to my front door, I noticed four men breaking into my neighbor's house. They saw me and came running towards me, screaming. Gimli, who is a 40 pound snuggle muffin, bravely charged the men and held them back until I could call 911. He never bit, never growled, he just gave me enough time to escape. When the police searched them, they found several knives and a small pistol. I wouldn't be here if it weren't for my "vicious killer" dog, so I hope you can understand why it ruffles my feathers when people insist he should be destroyed. 

If you want to keep a python, neat. If you want to keep a chimpanzee, neat. If you want to keep tarantulas, neat. If your animals are well maintained, more power to you. You go for it. There's no such thing as an inherently dangerous animal. All animals have the POTENTIAL to be dangerous, even cats and dogs, but that potential can only be unlocked if they're dealt with irresponsibly. The stories you hear in the media are never "Chimpanzee with appropriate enclosure, diet, and mental stimulation magically teleports into owner's house and mauls them." Those stories start off "Chimpanzee kept in house as family member" or "man holding venomous snake" or "child left unattended with ____________." If those animals still aren't for you, then hey! You're in luck because I'm not forcing you to buy one. But the people who have them often build their lives around their exotics, and I don't think the answer to your fears is to take away something that gives their lives meaning and purpose. I see from your profile you like guns and death metal. Well, I think guns are dangerous and death metal causes teenagers to act out and I just don't see the need to have either of those things in your life. Of course, my opinion is coming solely from what I've read in newspapers or seen on television, but can we pull the plug on your hobby, too?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Jun 23, 2012)

*Middle of the road*

A non 'in situ' situation I personally found acceptable. I had to get permission to write this as the duet's lives are completely inviolable and sacrosanct.

Meet Scherezade, Scher for short, and Guinevere, aka Guin. Scher is a tiger from the environs of northern Burma. She is an elderly adult and by no means tame. When she developed acute chronic arthritis in her right shoulder she was destined for a bullet in the brain before being rescued. Guin is a Kaouthai cobra of middle age. Her fate was having her fangs broken off with pliers and she was to fight to the death with a mongoose for human entertainment. Fortunately, the only deaths that evening were several of the drunk drug runners when they got into a violent altercation and shoot out. Guin was reprieved of her fate but destined for a stew pot when fortune interceded. While her fangs are broken they are still present as sharp jagged hazards and her venom glands are intact.

Scher runs and rules the house. Everything in the house, and all activity, must meet Scher's approval. This approval is sometimes shown in her mannerisms and sometimes must be sensed through empathy alone. Empathy around her is mandatory. She is a massive deadly animal with a very moody disposition. The rule is Scher approaches you. Nobody ever approaches her. With that firmly established as inviolable law, she hasn't maimed or killed anyone and as long as the law is fully upheld and respected, the death and dismemberment clause is held in abeyance.

Guin is the exception in the Scher private space law. She was introduced into the house several months after Scher. For reasons unknown, Scher adopted Guin after only a few hours. A hitherto unknown aspect of Scher's personality came to light in an aloof but doting motherly attitude towards Guin. Guin in turn, when finding herself in the strange environment of a human abode with humans and a tiger present, adapted to the situation after about a month of sulking self imposed hermitage. 

Almost the first thing Guin did upon being turned loose in the house was invade Scher's room. Scher owns this room, a small bedroom downstairs. Nobody is ever permitted to enter the room while Scher is present or in the vicinity without her approval. It was a very steep learning curve for the humans to work out a modus opperandi for entering Scher's room for cleaning and to assist Scher when her artritis was so bad she couldn't stand up in the morning. The humans were stunned to look in on Scher to discover Guin contentedly coiled up on top of her.

Scher came to placidly accept Guin though why remains a mystery. For all her size, weight and bulk, Scher fine tuned herself and her movements to accomodate 10 feet of snake that is often in the way or under foot. Scher has never stepped on Guin and will often pause, sometimes with a paw held in the air, waiting for Guin to get out of the way. When Guin uses the internally heated tiger shaped cobra warmer it can become a very protracted endeavor for Scher to get out from under and on her feet. Scher provided everyone in the household with a lesson in decorum during these sessions. A demonstration of how she wants her household ran: Very slow, calm and methodical. Grace and poise, please, and large helpings of dignity and respect.

While Scher assumed the role of grande dame of the house, Guin became the slightly demented child. Guin is insatiably curious. When there is any activity going on, she has to get in the middle of things. Most of the time this is easily worked around but preparing meals became an arduous painstaking venture best performed when Guin is either asleep or out scarfing a rat. 10 feet of cobra draped all over the kitchen counter inspecting every inch of things and in constant danger of getting chopped or cooked can wear out the patience of several dozen saints.

Scher never displays her claws except in a certain stretching and relaxing exercise. If she adds a yawn you get a glimpse of a complete set of hardware that can make your knees go weak. Guin gave up being venomous before she came to the house. In all intents and purposes she is a constrictor and a rather fastidious one at that. She would rather not have humans around when she is glomping rats though she doesn't mind Scher's presence.

On the fastidious note, Scher is a cleanliness fanatic. She likes to have a shower and scrub once every day, water just cooler than luke warm, and the chamomile kafir lime shampoo please. When she gets into her custom made outdoor tub the 'don't touch' rule is laid aside as she likes a good thorough scrubbing. During the hot season she likes to have that tub filled afterwards so she can laze in it. During the bath time, or the sofa session, she tolerates her room being vacuumed and mopped and it better be a spotless job abd she will inspect, sniffing every corner. Her mattress must be very thoroughly vacuumed as well just in case a stray flea has entered the abode.

Guin on the other hand is always a little grubby. This causes Scher some concern and even axiety. Once Guin managed to slither into the canister of the vacuum. Scher, sitting mobile next to the vacuum and staring at it brought this to the human's attention. Guin was extracted and it was one of those rare occasions when she was carried, to Scher's approving if watchful eye, and put in the bath tub. She got a good soaking while Scher supervised. When Guin was clean Scher got in the tub. It was at this time that Guin decided she liked baths and Scher added a hot shower to her normal grooming demands. She has since discovered the shower massage water jet on her sore shoulder and partakes of the human bath once or twice a week.

While Scher and Guin have the run of the house during the day, the evenings are socialize time. They are joined by the humans where who gets to sit or laze where is decided. Scher sometimes claims all 7 feet of the sofa, butt and tail hanging off one end, head on the opposite arm. Occasionally, as this is the communal area, she can be cajoled onto her private mat on the floor. But if Guin joins her that is usually it for sofa sitting for anyone else that evening. Scher likes to watch videos. Her favorite is Siddartha. Grand vistas and high quality cinematography gets her attention. Guin likes the TV for the heat coming out of the top but she tends to slide off the back. To counter this she drapes about and you end up watching your video through snake coils.

I was introduced to the household in the capacity of alternative medicine. It was recommended that Scher get cortizone (or whatever feline equivalent) treatments for her shoulder but sticking a needle in her was out of the question. Nobody ever affronts Scher or Guin, EVER, is the way the household has remained peaceful. Since no visitors is the rule in the house, I was introduced in their normal unique way. The front porch and yard is seperate from the house and the non humans aren't permitted out there. I was allowed onto the porch where us humans chatted and sipped drinks. This was done on 5 occasions during which I caught a glimpse of Scher and Guin through the screen door. 

Scher aptly demonstrates her heredity in her awareness. She knew an intruder was on the front porch. She didn't need to look. It was obvious she knew in tiny little changes in her mannerisms. Her sense of smell, acute hearing, and an obviously manifested sixth sense. I was brought into the house on my sixth visit, in the evening during socialize time. I didn't approach Scher or Guin but sat on a mat on the floor. Scher had the sofa for a while then went into her room. A while later she came back out which was a strong sign of accepting my presence. She sat in the middle of the room. I could feel her senses were on full tilt. After a few minutes she relaxed and lay down quite near me. She was in protection mode. I was very busy trying to get over myself. An arms reach away from me was a wild animal about 3 or 4 times my size that could put me into oblivion in a few heart beats. Guin came out from her kitchen inspection tour. A few minutes after she coiled up next to Scher the atmosphere relaxed. 

I visited the household 2 more times for additional introduction. Then I helped hold a heating pad against Scher's shoulder which helped seal the deal that I was acceptable. The final test was another evening session when I practiced Reiki on her. It took me nearly an hour to get into a proper relaxed state of mind. A few minutes after that it was obvious Scher was aware of the treatment and appreciated it. Shaitsu, Reiki and herbal compresses have become part of her normal daily regimen now.


Scher and Guin's upkeep is funded by private individuals. Scher's food bill alone is around $15,000 a year. They are both contented and happy in their odd semi symbiotic environment. They have altered their life styles to accomodate the humans. In turn, the humans perforce have to live tiger and cobra centric life styles, accomodating the ladies every whim. Nobody may contact the humans and they have my solemn promise I will not divulge any information about them. They have approved this article. Their companions lives are, as stated, sacrosanct and understanding of this is expected. I have posted this to give an example of the lengths both wild animal and human have to go through to live together in a peaceful environment.


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 23, 2012)

pitbulllady said:


> Boy, someone has really been sucking hard on that H$U$/PETA Kook-Aid bottle, haven't they?  So you SAY you aren't "associated with Animal Rescue projects or organizations", a statement which shows you are clueless as to what "AR" stands for, but yet you 100% tow their line.  "AR" stands for "Animal RIGHTS" organizations-you know, kid, those people who think it should be illegal to own, keep, breed, sell, ANY animal, including your tarantulas?  Nope, didn't think you knew that.  They are powerful, well-funded...and rely on gullible people to believe their Big Lie.  They also rely on your attitude-the "if I am scared of it, or I don't like it, or I wouldn't want it, NOBODY should be able to have it" attitude, to accomplish their goal, and their goal is basically an Animal-Free Society, one where none of us can have any animals, for any reasons, period.  They are accomplishing this by two means: convince the gullible people that "Animal X" constitutes a human safety hazard, is too dangerous to people, the environment, or whatever, and/or convince the gullible that keeping "Animal X" constitutes cruelty and abuse in and of itself because no one is really qualified or capable of properly caring for "Animal X".  They get people like you to believe that it's cruel to keep certain animals, and that those animals are a danger to us all, so they should be banned.  In doing so, the AR's are also utilizing a highly effective wartime tool, one proven effective time and time again, the concept of "Divide and Conquer".  They convince the arachnid owners that the people who own "pit bulls", or bobcats, or pythons or whatever are BAD people who are putting you and everyone else's lives in danger.  They convince the owners of little foo-foo dogs that the big dog people are the problem.  They convince the livestock breeders that pet owners in general are a problem.  They convince the pet owners that the farmers and ranchers are cruel and evil people.  They successfully play sides against one another, so that most of you fail to realize that the ONE thing we have in common-animals-is what the AR's are trying to take away.  Instead of organizing against them, many do exactly what YOU are doing-you fall for their rhetoric, you believe that YOUR animals are safe from being taken, while you support groups like PETA, HSUS, ALF and the others in their concerted efforts to remove animals from our lives.
> 
> Now, let's address that "common sense" thingie, shall we?  You say it's "common sense" for someone to NOT to want to own a "pit bull" or a bobcat or a Boa, which would imply that doing so constitutes a very high statistical rate of death or bodily harm to oneself for doing so.  So, let's look at those statistics, since it's numbers, not opinions, that matter.  I will refer you to THIS site: http://www.rexano.org/Statistics/Death_Odds_Exotic_Animal_2005.pdf .  In case you're wondering, it breaks down one's chances, both yearly and in an average human lifetime, of being killed by any given of many different types of animals, and compares those odds to the odds of dying by say, drowning in your own bathtub(I have to assume you own one of those...might want to consider getting rid of it when you see how likely it is to KILL you), suffocating in your own bedsheets, dying in a fall from a ladder, or, the most common form of non-natural death, dying in a car accident.  You have a 1 in 84 chance of being killed in or by a car in your lifetime; those are some pretty high odds!  In comparison, you have a 1 in 3, 582, 680 odds of being killed by a captive exotic cat.  Now, you still wanna let people own cars, or do you want to take those away, too, for our own good, of course?  More people get killed by TOYS than by exotic cats or large constrictor snakes!  Now, again, common sense says that the more dangerous something is, statistically, the greater the argument for banning it, right?  After all, common sense should not involve personal opinions, like "I don't like this" or "I'm scared of that", but rather, it should take a look at just what the risks REALLY are.  A ladder is clearly a greater risk to you than a "pit bull".  A bathtub is more likely to kill you than a mountain lion.  A flight of stairs is far, far more deadly than a Burmese Python.  If we really went by logic, and not by media/AR-led propaganda, we'd start with those things that actually do constitute the greatest chances of hurting or killing us, the things that take the most human lives each year.  COMMON SENSE is driven by logic, not by opinion or feelings, and logic is driven by facts and statistics, like it or not.  So, what would you recommend banning first...cars?  Stairs?  Chairs?  Alcohol...oh, my BAD...they TRIED that already, and it really worked out well, doncha think?
> 
> ...


I think you have issues that's what my common sense says. You can make the argument that a bathtub is just as dangerous as a lion lets say, but a bathtub isn't going to turn on you when it's having a bad day.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 23, 2012)

Pitbullady, in your experiences would an african lion female be most "suitable" for care by a private "well informed" individual given their inherent social nature and social hierarchies?

Curious minds want to know.

@ LV-426 I think YOUR the one who has issues, pitbullady has shot down every one of your points and you have not provided a legitimate counter argument. Furthermore your commenting disparagingly on a field in which you have NO experience in.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Jun 23, 2012)

Re: Middle of the road. Please accept my apologies for the typos. I hadn't given that a final proof reading before it was approved and afterwards I didn't want to edit anything.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 23, 2012)

Yes saying a bathtub won't turn on you is saying the same thing about stairs, but their still gonna break your neck if you trip up... same with the bathtub. And unlike a large cat there is no warning when your going to trip up on the stairs or drown in the bath tub, a large cat is going to convey everything it can to someone who is paying attention that it wants to be left alone and today is not the day to play with it.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 23, 2012)

I always love to read your posts, Snark, even when we might not necessarily agree.  They have a tremendous wisdom about them, and of course, the odd quote now and then that I can steal and use for my own devices, lol.  But yes, as you and Hayden have pointed out, the danger in many of these animals is relative to the actions and behavior of the PEOPLE around them, not so much the animals themselves.  It is very ironic-in a truly disturbing way-how people who live in glass houses feel so free to throw rocks, for example, how someone who is into guns, something many people fear and want banned, supports banning animals.  Like a gun, an animal is most often only dangerous when a person does something stupid, but UNLIKE guns, most of the people injured or killed by animals, exotics especially, are those who own and keep the animals.  I am by no means a supporter of gun control; I've been a member of the NRA for the past 17 years, I hunt, and I own firearms.  I will stand up for the freedom to RESPONSIBLY own and operate firearms with my last breath, which is why to me, someone who wants to deny ME that same right to own the animals of MY choice is a traitor.  The move to ban this or that animal is part of the same mentality, often supported by the same groups, who want to ban gun ownership.  If you support one group, you support the other, because they are all part of a larger whole, an entire movement that is all about CONTROL, CONTROL, CONTROL.  When that particular sector of our society wins any battle, it hurts each and every one of us.  Some people just need to get their heads out of the sand, take off their rose-colored glasses, whatever it is they must do to see the WHOLE PICTURE and not just their tiny little corner of the universe.  They need to realize where the anti-exotic, anti-reptile, anti-"pit bull", anti-dog breeder, anti-EVERYTHING is coming from, who is behind it, and what is at stake.  What are you going to do, dear LV-426, when they come for your guns and your spiders, when everyone who would otherwise stand up for YOUR rights no longer will do so because you so willingly threw OUR rights under the bus, because of what you'd been told, been told by the groups who also support taking away your guns and your animals?  HSUS, PETA, Fund For Animals, the Nature Conservancy...all are pro-gun control, anti-2nd Amendment and back politicians who march in lock-step with them, just as they are anti-exotic, anti-"pit bull".  When you support them in any way, financial or just in theory, you support them all the way.  There is no compromising with these people, no expecting them to cut you any slack whatsoever.  THEY, unlike animal owners, are totally united in what THEY want, and that's why THEY are winning and WE aren't.  WE are too divided, too fractured, and have too many people in our midst who still, foolishly, fail to grasp that it's not just about "the other animal owners".  It's not just about the big cats, or chimps, or venomous snakes, or constrictors, or "pit bulls", or the dog breeders.  It's YOU as well.  When you hand the AR's any victory, however slight, you are cutting off your own nose to spite your face.

pitbulllady


----------



## Hayden (Jun 23, 2012)

Exactly. If it's not your hobby today, it will be tomorrow. For the record, I just want to say that I used the gun example as an example. My mother was invited to the Olympics in the '80's for rifle marksmanship and I shoot a longbow competitively, so I'm very gun friendly. We're both responsible with our weapons and find a great deal of pleasure in them, so I don't see the harm in having them.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 23, 2012)

PBL, you present an eloquent case and your attitude is born of long experience. If I may, however, point out, you are being reactionary. Not without due and just reason. However, you aren't addressing the underlying problem. Control is not the answer. I would venture to say the majority of control, laws, are made according to individual preferences and not the whole by and large. On the other hand, chaos isn't an answer either. As said in the movie 'Men in Black', the person can take it but people are dumb panicky dangerous animals.

The solution is obvious. Personal responsibility, born not of watching a persons favorite news bites but of knowledge gained from an open mind and discerning, is the solution. I'm anti guns. I own 4. I'm anti hunting. I've hunted to avoid starvation on a couple of occasions. I'm a former law enforcement officer. I hate most laws and wish they didn't exist. Personal responsibility born of respect for our fellow creatures is the solution. Laws and regulations are the stop gap until man kind grows up and starts acting responsibly. Respect. Respect of ourself. Respect of each other. Respect of all fellow creatures. Respect of mother earth. Respect and acceptance that we are all growing, all learning, that nobody is perfect. From respect comes tolerance. The underlying binding glue that will bring it all together is tolerance, acceptance, and 
compassion. 

If I may offer something weird, how about a quote: "Ye are all gods and are all children of the most high." Learn this. Realize this. Live it. And act in accordance with it towards your fellow animals.


So, how's my custom made super ridiculously tall soap box? Classy, huh?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## lizardminion (Jun 23, 2012)

pnshmntMMA said:


> I can solve this. Get a dog. Problem solved..


I effin' hate dogs. But alas, that is my opinion.

I only posted this thread just for the discussion and input of highly knowledgable and experienced users. I'm not really interested in owning any myself, but I've heard all the discussion against exotic pets, but especially wild cats, so I came here to listen to anyone's opinion and discussion on the subject. I posted here of all places because I know users here keep every animal legally possible.


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 23, 2012)

@ LV-426 I think YOUR the one who has issues, pitbullady has shot down every one of your points and you have not provided a legitimate counter argument. Furthermore your commenting disparagingly on a field in which you have NO experience in.[/QUOTE]

Lol, I don't need a counter argument, the zealous rambling alone speaks for itself. Why would I want experience in keeping lions and tigers and bears? If people want them they can own them that's fine with me, but keeping a bobcat or a lion really doesn't make much sense.


----------



## Hayden (Jun 23, 2012)

It doesn't make sense TO YOU. If that's what makes them happy, that's what makes them happy. I don't understand why people play golf. Doesn't mean they're stupid, it means I just don't play golf.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 23, 2012)

Tleilaxu said:


> Pitbullady, in your experiences would an african lion female be most "suitable" for care by a private "well informed" individual given their inherent social nature and social hierarchies?
> 
> Curious minds want to know.
> 
> @ LV-426 I think YOUR the one who has issues, pitbullady has shot down every one of your points and you have not provided a legitimate counter argument. Furthermore your commenting disparagingly on a field in which you have NO experience in.


Actually yes, any big cat will tell you that if you're going to keep big cats, a lioness is the closest you will get to being a "pet", because unlike most cats, including our domestic house cats, lions are hard-wired to be social, to live with and cooperate with each other.  I never kept any lions because I found out right off the bat, from contact with a friend's lions, that I was highly, highly allergic to them.  They have a lot of lanolin in their fur that really didn't agree with my immune system.  I also wasn't fond of how their fur felt.  It LOOKS sleek and short, like a Doberman's coat, perhaps, but in reality that fur is thick and dense and has the texture of a Brillo Pad.

And Snark, I'm NOT advocating control at all.  Far from it.  Thing is, there is a huge and powerful movement in the US today, exemplified by LV-426, that we need as much government control, over every aspect of our lives, as possible.  We are losing individual rights and freedoms, along with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, at an alarming rate in this country because so many people just expect the government to do everything for them, and believe me, the government is more than happy to comply.  Less freedoms for us means more power for them.  It's not just about what animals we can own, or whether we can own guns, either; it's right down to who raises our kids and what we can eat or drink.  Snark, did you know the mayor of NYC is trying to ban places from serving soft drinks that measure over 8 oz.?  Or, that one of our national Congressional members has entered Federal bills to declare sugar and coffee both as controlled substances, in the same category as heroin and cocaine?  THIS is what I'm talking about, and the push to ban this and that animal is just a little part of that bigger and more disturbing puzzle.   Problem is, many people have the attitude that it's the OTHER guy who needs to be controlled, while they themselves indulge in activities and hobbies that are also in the proverbial control crosshairs, but they somehow believe it will never affect them, as though they have some sort of preferential immunity.  Many of those people who want the government to step in and hold their hand and keep them "safe" by controlling/banning what OTHER people own fail to realize how connected they are to those "other people".  Most exotic animal owners also own guns, and many hunt.  Many, like me, are members of the NRA because they stand not only for the right to keep and bear arms, but for property rights, period.  Farmers, ranchers, hunters, and animal owners of all types make up a significant portion of NRA's membership.  If one faction of gun owners decides to throw another faction under the bus because they do not like what those people have, what good has been accomplished?  All you've done is weaken your base of support.
I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that people who are willing to sacrifice the liberties of others for the safety and protection of the government deserve neither liberty nor safety, and that makes sense to me.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## The Snark (Jun 23, 2012)

I'd like to answer the OPs original question. What wild cat....
We had a fire in the hills above the camp where my dad and I were caretakers. The wild critters came down towards the city. My mom let her dog Rags out for it's evening duties. It went around the dark corner of the house, yelped, and came running back about 2 seconds later with a gash that took around 150 sutures to close. A bobcat was apparently lurking there in the dark. 
So the answer is, no wild cat. Even a reasonably trustworthy one when startled can lay you to whale poop. They are equipped and that is one of their jobs.
Or my weird encounter. I was bringing in some straggler campers who got lost. I was riding tail. I saw a bobcat in a tree about 50 yards away. After we passed it came down and ran over to our trail and started following us. It was a lean and mean year for wild life up there with little forage, the deer herds almost non existent. What the darned thing hoped to gain by following a group of riders on horseback is anybodies guess. Well, first I had a good look at a bobcat in the wild at 50 feet away. It was around 20 inches tall at the shoulder and was at least 40 pounds at a guess. One BIG animal that if desperate could go after a horse... or a human. Then the wind shifted and the horses got it's scent. Frigging knothead rodeo and I end up with two riders getting thrown. Naww, you don't really want any big cat in your home making decisions about your life.

PBL. But we need law makers telling us how big our soda pop containers should be. We need every asinine law those plonkers can think up and shove in peoples faces. The complacent mindless homo stultus deserves every last bit of crap like that, running and ruling their lives. I call it the Lucifer principle. The only way stultus is going to wake up and act responsibly is if it first loses the lions share of it's freedoms to the diaper changing hand holding politicians.

Now, with my encounter with the bobcat. Let's look at the average yeehaw gun toting beer swilling NRA person and put him in my position. I had a 44 mag rifle, lever action open sights, 10 rounds in the magazine and a .357 single action on my hip. Just how many of those gun fanatics would have restrained themselves, not taken down the cat, got things sorted, and let everything live and go it's own way? You know darned well a large number of the gun nuts would have blasted the cat.
We invaded a hungry predators country. I had the legal right and even a USFS mandate to take the animal down, but I did not have the moral right. That is the underlying central issue. The dignity of a person. That cannot be enforced by laws and must be learned. Until then, stultus needs to get used to wearing those diapers. They asked for them and deserve them.


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 23, 2012)

I am actually against big goverment, but keeping a lion, bobcat, bear, anaconda is just ridiculous. That being said I never said person should not own one, just it doesn't make sense keeping a 1000+ pound animal. Those type of animals should stay in the wild. Unfortunately some people lack something and feel the need to own a dangerous animal. Seriously what need does owning lion, bobcat, fulfill?


----------



## skar (Jun 23, 2012)

People are irresponsible enough with domesticated animals .
I have to agree for the most part, aside from facilities that are established to care for such animals.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 23, 2012)

People are irresponsible enough with their own children as well...., same with just about anything really.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 23, 2012)

Off the subjeckt, I need to correct Shell a little bitty here. Horse: Knothead. Dumb as they come. Dangerous moronic ani-mules. Rocks for brains. If I aint paid, I'm not getting on one, near one, or tolerating fluffy minded horsey stuff. You're better off keeping a moody mountain lion in a room filled with Chinchillas.


----------



## lizardminion (Jun 24, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> I am actually against big goverment, but keeping a lion, bobcat, bear, anaconda is just ridiculous. That being said I never said person should not own one, just it doesn't make sense keeping a 1000+ pound animal. Those type of animals should stay in the wild. Unfortunately some people lack something and feel the need to own a dangerous animal. Seriously what need does owning lion, bobcat, fulfill?


What is so fulfilling about owning a tarantula? What is so fulfilling about owning any animal?

If we should ban animals because they are dangerous, then include domestic dogs. They've killed more people than giant snakes and wild cats combined in the same given time.
Should we ban exotic animals because nobody can take responsible care of them? Then we should ALL animals, people abuse domestic pets just as much as exotic pets, if not MORE. Hell, ban PLANTS while your at it.

LV-426, it is your opinion that there is no reason to own these animals. While that is your opinion, and I respect that, keep in mind that everyone else is not you, and like me, respect their opinion and leave them with their right to own these animals. That's what freedom is all about, after all. Fight regulation of all kind.
Hell, I don't smoke drugs or drink, but I support their legalization as well. I mean, look at Portugual for a great example. They legalized the substances. Drug usedidn't go up, but the crime rate did go down. (By that, I mean it stopped the drug gangs and such)

---------- Post added 06-24-2012 at 01:32 PM ----------




pitbulllady said:


> And Snark, I'm NOT advocating control at all.  Far from it.  Thing is, there is a huge and powerful movement in the US today, exemplified by LV-426, that we need as much government control, over every aspect of our lives, as possible.  We are losing individual rights and freedoms, along with PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, at an alarming rate in this country because so many people just expect the government to do everything for them, and believe me, the government is more than happy to comply.  Less freedoms for us means more power for them.  It's not just about what animals we can own, or whether we can own guns, either; it's right down to who raises our kids and what we can eat or drink.  Snark, did you know the mayor of NYC is trying to ban places from serving soft drinks that measure over 8 oz.?  Or, that one of our national Congressional members has entered Federal bills to declare sugar and coffee both as controlled substances, in the same category as heroin and cocaine?  THIS is what I'm talking about, and the push to ban this and that animal is just a little part of that bigger and more disturbing puzzle.   Problem is, many people have the attitude that it's the OTHER guy who needs to be controlled, while they themselves indulge in activities and hobbies that are also in the proverbial control crosshairs, but they somehow believe it will never affect them, as though they have some sort of preferential immunity.  Many of those people who want the government to step in and hold their hand and keep them "safe" by controlling/banning what OTHER people own fail to realize how connected they are to those "other people".  Most exotic animal owners also own guns, and many hunt.  Many, like me, are members of the NRA because they stand not only for the right to keep and bear arms, but for property rights, period.  Farmers, ranchers, hunters, and animal owners of all types make up a significant portion of NRA's membership.  If one faction of gun owners decides to throw another faction under the bus because they do not like what those people have, what good has been accomplished?  All you've done is weaken your base of support.
> I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who said that people who are willing to sacrifice the liberties of others for the safety and protection of the government deserve neither liberty nor safety, and that makes sense to me.
> 
> pitbulllady


Amen.
I am speechless just to the amount I agree to this.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 24, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> I am actually against big goverment, but keeping a lion, bobcat, bear, anaconda is just ridiculous. That being said I never said person should not own one, just it doesn't make sense keeping a 1000+ pound animal. Those type of animals should stay in the wild. Unfortunately some people lack something and feel the need to own a dangerous animal. Seriously what need does owning lion, bobcat, fulfill?


Same need that owning a tarantula fulfills.  Seriously, one of the most asinine questions a person can ask is "why would you want to keep a (fill in animal name/dog breed of choice)?"  I get asked that ALL the time when people find out I have spiders.  "Why would ANYONE want a tarantula??"  More people can accept that I have large snakes than can deal with the spiders.  To those people it is "common sense" to kill every spider on the planet, no exceptions.  Those people have the EXACT same mentality that YOU do, just applied to a different animal. I can guarantee that a lot of the people who know YOU have tarantulas are thinking that you "must be lacking something" in your life that feel the need to own what most people consider a repulsive, if not dangerous, animal.  Don't kid yourself that some of those people wouldn't consider banning them where you live, either, or that such a ban won't go through.  Doesn't make sense keeping a 1000+ pound animal?  Tell that to the horse people, since I don't know of any cat that weighs that much with the exception of one horribly obese liger that belongs to a guy here in SC.  I don't get any thrill from owning a dangerous animal, because  unlike you, I do understand that the risks/danger from something isn't necessarily related to its size, or whether I don't like that animal or wouldn't want it ,and the real risk of something certainly has nothing to do with what the AR's and the media want us to think.  I've already pointed that many ordinary, common things around your own house are more dangerous, in terms of actual risk statistics(as opposed to perception or opinion), than ANY animal.  But, I bet that won't disuade you from having a bathtub, or a car, even those ARE very clearly DANGEROUS.  And, like someone else already pointed out to you, you cannot anticipate or predict when you will fall down a flight of stairs, but if you're observant and attentive, you CAN tell what kind of mood an animal is in and determine how you need to treat it.  The vast majority of exotic animal keepers in the US have not been seriously injured, their animals have not escaped or hurt anyone, because those people understand what they have and do not fall into complacency, unlike the majority of dog owners, who tend to see those animals as four-legged humans.  
Now seriously, if your town or county or whatever decides to include tarantulas and scorpions and other arachnids in a one of those all-inclusive "dangerous animal" bans that are being passed right and left across the country, do you think that there are enough tarantula keepers where you are to keep it from passing?  Do you think you can stand alone without the support of the "pit bull" people and the "exotic" people and the "big snake" people?  Or, do you live in that fantasy world where you are immune to YOUR animals being banned and believe it will never happen?

pitbulllady


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 24, 2012)

pitbulllady said:


> Same need that owning a tarantula fulfills.  Seriously, one of the most asinine questions a person can ask is "why would you want to keep a (fill in animal name/dog breed of choice)?"  I get asked that ALL the time when people find out I have spiders.  "Why would ANYONE want a tarantula??"  More people can accept that I have large snakes than can deal with the spiders.  To those people it is "common sense" to kill every spider on the planet, no exceptions.  Those people have the EXACT same mentality that YOU do, just applied to a different animal. I can guarantee that a lot of the people who know YOU have tarantulas are thinking that you "must be lacking something" in your life that feel the need to own what most people consider a repulsive, if not dangerous, animal.  Don't kid yourself that some of those people wouldn't consider banning them where you live, either, or that such a ban won't go through.  Doesn't make sense keeping a 1000+ pound animal?  Tell that to the horse people, since I don't know of any cat that weighs that much with the exception of one horribly obese liger that belongs to a guy here in SC.  I don't get any thrill from owning a dangerous animal, because  unlike you, I do understand that the risks/danger from something isn't necessarily related to its size, or whether I don't like that animal or wouldn't want it ,and the real risk of something certainly has nothing to do with what the AR's and the media want us to think.  I've already pointed that many ordinary, common things around your own house are more dangerous, in terms of actual risk statistics(as opposed to perception or opinion), than ANY animal.  But, I bet that won't disuade you from having a bathtub, or a car, even those ARE very clearly DANGEROUS.  And, like someone else already pointed out to you, you cannot anticipate or predict when you will fall down a flight of stairs, but if you're observant and attentive, you CAN tell what kind of mood an animal is in and determine how you need to treat it.  The vast majority of exotic animal keepers in the US have not been seriously injured, their animals have not escaped or hurt anyone, because those people understand what they have and do not fall into complacency, unlike the majority of dog owners, who tend to see those animals as four-legged humans.
> Now seriously, if your town or county or whatever decides to include tarantulas and scorpions and other arachnids in a one of those all-inclusive "dangerous animal" bans that are being passed right and left across the country, do you think that there are enough tarantula keepers where you are to keep it from passing?  Do you think you can stand alone without the support of the "pit bull" people and the "exotic" people and the "big snake" people?  Or, do you live in that fantasy world where you are immune to YOUR animals being banned and believe it will never happen?
> 
> pitbulllady


You have a warped sense of what is dangerous. Of corse a bathtub can be dangerous, even a horse can be dangerous. But a horse has a purpose: you can ride them, race them, use them for work, etc. What can you do with a bobcat, lion, bear? You can't do anything with it but look at it.


----------



## Najakeeper (Jun 24, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> You have a warped sense of what is dangerous. Of corse a bathtub can be dangerous, even a horse can be dangerous. But a horse has a purpose: you can ride them, race them, use them for work, etc. What can you do with a bobcat, lion, bear? You can't do anything with it but look at it.


You can love them, have a priceless emotional bond with them. That's surely more rewarding than riding them. I love my venomous snakes with passion, I have a car to ride.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 24, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> You have a warped sense of what is dangerous. Of corse a bathtub can be dangerous, even a horse can be dangerous. But a horse has a purpose: you can ride them, race them, use them for work, etc. What can you do with a bobcat, lion, bear? You can't do anything with it but look at it.


Enlighten me what "purpose" does the tarantula in your avatar serve? You can't cuddle it, Im sure it does not appreciate being handled. Oh wait you can't do anything but look at it.  But wait there is more you CAN cuddle witha bobcat, lion or bear depending on the said animal's personality, AND interact safely with it, and it is even capable of, wow, get this, actually returning the affection lavished on it.

Should everyone go out and get a wildcat NO of course not, but should someone who is willing to put in the time, effort, and do the research, and educates themselves on the risks of owning such an animal be prohibited from owning one because their "dangerous"?

If you say anything but no to that question then you are a hypocrite, especially since you own guns.(Which are also dangerous in the wrong hands, and sometimes even in the right hands, "stuff" happens)


----------



## spydrhunter1 (Jun 25, 2012)

Interesting article on cockroaches recognizing handlers
Habituation of hissing by Madagascar hissing cockroaches (Gromphadorhina portentosa): evidence of discrimination between humans?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15519003
Invertebrates are so mindless after all....do they enjoy interaction, it's hard to say.


----------



## pitbulllady (Jun 25, 2012)

Tleilaxu said:


> Enlighten me what "purpose" does the tarantula in your avatar serve? You can't cuddle it, Im sure it does not appreciate being handled. Oh wait you can't do anything but look at it.  But wait there is more you CAN cuddle witha bobcat, lion or bear depending on the said animal's personality, AND interact safely with it, and it is even capable of, wow, get this, actually returning the affection lavished on it.
> 
> Should everyone go out and get a wildcat NO of course not, but should someone who is willing to put in the time, effort, and do the research, and educates themselves on the risks of owning such an animal be prohibited from owning one because their "dangerous"?
> 
> If you say anything but no to that question then you are a hypocrite, especially since you own guns.(Which are also dangerous in the wrong hands, and sometimes even in the right hands, "stuff" happens)


Thank you, Tleilaxu.  I have had many non-domesticated cats that were very affectionate, moreso than most house cats, who half the time act like you aren't even worthy of so much as a glance.  Bobcats have very dog-like personalities, actually.  They never outgrow their playfulness.  They love attention and love to interact with familiar people.  I have owned four bobcats, and only one was really "catty".  Most love to play fetch; they love to cuddle and "make biscuits" while being petted, just like a house cat.  You just have to respect their instinct to guard certain cherished objects and food. I spent many an hour with a purring bobcat on my lap.  My most aggressive and dangerous cat?  A TICA/CFA-registered, Grand-Champion-sired purebred Maine Coon...a DOMESTICATED breed!  He weighed 23 pounds at just one year of age, two years short of his full growth and maturity.  When he decided an object was his, you couldn't even get into the same room with him.  He nearly killed an APBT puppy and nearly bit in half the broomstick I had to use to save her after he'd actually carried her up on top of the refrigerator by her throat.  I wound up giving him to a friend of mine who also had exotics, and she tried to breed him to one of her bobcats.  He killed the bobcat.  None of my bobcats ever were as aggressive or as big as this blue-blood purebred domesticated cat. 

When you have a bond with an animal like a cougar or wolf, it's different from simply having a dog or cat, animals that usually will accept anyone.  You have to be knowledgeable about those animals and you have to work at gaining and keeping their trust, but it can be very rewarding and most of time, it is.  When it's not, it's because YOU did something wrong.  You really have to educate yourself, as you said.  I never was seriously injured by any of my animals, even though according to the Anti's, I shouldn't have even survived!  They ASSume that these animals are just so dangerous that an attack is inevitable, but as statistics(aka the basis of LOGIC, or "common sense")shows, I really didn't beat much odds at all.  Their affection and trust isn't just given to everyone, so when you have it, you know that you've EARNED it and it's up to you to maintain it.  It's like the difference between someone just randomly walking up to you on the street and handing you a plaque or trophy, just because they felt like it, and WINNING a plaque or trophy because you actually accomplished something significant and meaningful through your own work and efforts.

And yes, you are so right about guns sometimes killing even experienced gun owners.  I know I've been to three funerals in my life because of this; all three people were experienced gun owners and outdoorsmen.  Two were killed by their own firearms and one was killed by a close friend, so accidents DO happen with guns even in responsible and knowledgeable hands.  It's a mechanical device, after all, and mechanical devices can fail, in spite of our best efforts to avoid that.  When a device like a firearm fails, it can result in injury or death to the person operating it.  It's a calculated risk that anyone who owns or uses a firearm accepts, and it's a far greater risk, statistically, than of being attacked by a captive "exotic" animal.  People who use firearms often get complacent with them, and complacency is also the usual culprit behind injuries from captive exotic wildlife, when you fail to observe proper protocol and "etiquette", if you will.

pitbulllady

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 26, 2012)

Your still trying to defend the indefensible, you people can beat on me al you want but there really is no point in owning a bobcat, bear, tiger. And as for unconditional love, that's a lame excuse, I really don't think animals like that feel the same way you do for them. I live in Realityville, where common sense rules. You I have a tarantula on my avatar, but I know what they are and don't expect nothing from them.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 26, 2012)

LV-426. Sadly you are going dead against the majority sentiments on this forum. The people on AB keep exotic or wild animals for a vast number of reasons from very legitimate studies to incredibly selfish depredation. This thread has also brushed up against the extremely sensitive subject of government regulation and over regulation. As I posted earlier, the entire mess is irreducible and there cannot be a consensus except to agree to disagree. 

I would ask everyone who has weighed in on this thread, would you all please make an effort to recognize others points of view and attempt to understand how people came to the conclusions they have reached and expressed in this thread. Let's make this a learning experience.

I would also like to add, paraphrased, the words of Gerald Durrell, one of the world foremost collectors of wild animals. "Zoos should only exist to protect and breed endangered species and to teach mankind of the balance of nature and his place in the world."
I believe this attitude, which embodies the sentiments of conservation, should extend towards all persons who keep wild animals. But that is only my opinion.

Another Durrell quote. "We have inherited an incredibly beautiful and complex garden, but the trouble is that we have been appallingly bad gardeners."

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## jayefbe (Jun 27, 2012)

My lord, LV, practically EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOUR ARGUMENTS CAN BE DIRECTED AT TARANTULAS JUST AS EASILY AS YOU ARE USING THEM. That portion should be read as yelling. 

The fact that you can't understand the hypocrisy of your point of view is absolutely astounding. You've yet to make a compelling argument, and yet like an annoying adolescent, continue to make posts that are both mindless and baseless. This is an argument in which you are nothing but ignorant.


----------



## Thistles (Jun 27, 2012)

The Snark said:


> I would also like to add, paraphrased, the words of Gerald Durrell, one of the world foremost collectors of wild animals. "Zoos should only exist to protect and breed endangered species and to teach mankind of the balance of nature and his place in the world."
> I believe this attitude, which embodies the sentiments of conservation, should extend towards all persons who keep wild animals. But that is only my opinion.
> 
> Another Durrell quote. "We have inherited an incredibly beautiful and complex garden, but the trouble is that we have been appallingly bad gardeners."


 Snark, this is an issue with which I find myself grappling fairly regularly, and you are absolutely correct to say it is irreducible. I have not been able to find a consistent position that frees me completely of hypocrisy while still allowing me to live in modern American society. I favor small government and if asked to identify myself politically I generally align myself with the Libertarian party. I don't think that most people are rational or responsible enough to make only good decisions, but I think they should be allowed to fail. I also believe that failure is an extremely effective teaching tool, and that rational self interest will eventually have good results. The government should protect us from external threats, but not from ourselves. I am also an animal lover and a vegan. I do not think that animals should suffer for the sake of a human. I do not believe that we humans are inherently more valuable than animals. If I had to choose between a random human life and that of an endangered animal, I think I would choose the animal. It is so hard for me to reconcile this! People should be allowed to do what they want, but then how can we enforce excellent treatment of animals? If I had my way I would outlaw all breeding of domestic dogs and cats!

All of that said, I have many pets and work at a pet store. Ugh. I have often tried to justify my occupation to myself with varying degrees of success. I feel nothing but contempt for so many of my customers, but I continue to sell animals into situations that I know are inappropriate. I have no choice much of the time. I hate that aspect of my job. On the other hand, I love working with the animals themselves and my favorite thing is educating the customers. While I do have a lot of willfully ignorant imbeciles to deal with, I also have some wonderful customers who really appreciate their animals and who want to learn all they can about the proper care of their pets. I find helping these people and their pets very rewarding. It is no exaggeration to say that I save many animals' lives through education.

The pet industry has done a lot for me, personally, beyond just paying the bills. My pets have essentially saved my life by giving me a reason to live when I was severely depressed. But more than all of that, I think the animals I have been able to keep have helped other animals. I would not have the appreciation for wildlife that I have and the desire to help with conservation had I not kept pets. I now volunteer at a local "museum" which is really more of a zoo that houses many rescued wild animals and educates the public about our local ecology. I don't think my own personal enjoyment is enough to justify keeping animals, but I think a lot of additional good can come of it. Does this happen for everyone? No. But will some of these kids getting their first hamster or keeping a fish tank eventually grow up to be researchers or conservationists as a result of their early exposure to animal husbandry? Yes! There is so much more to say about this and especially the appalling state of the pet industry as it is now, but I do think there is some merit to it.

I think this rambling post, while a bear to read, accurately reflects my own conflict with these issues. The best I can do at this point is to try to minimize my own negative impact until I get all of this straight in my head.

A lot of people posting here are overly emotional and hostile about this issue. I completely understand why, but I think we could be a little more understanding and polite to people with differing views! There is no easy answer.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## The Snark (Jun 27, 2012)

Thistles, that was a wonderful eloquent post. Among other points, you have outlined the paradox I have been confronting for years. Owning animals is very much a learning tool and process. There isn't going to be any resolve to this thread because both polarities have valid arguments. Such is the way of life.

For myself, this thread is poignant and personal. I had an ongoing discussion-argument with Gerald Durrell spanning several years. My sentiments started with demanding in situ while he strongly espoused captive breeding. I admit in the end I came over to his way of thinking but I still feel in situ should always be pursued first and foremost. Either way, humans need to start acting more responsibly and money has to be stopped from running our planet into the ground. 

By the way, could you go pay a visit to Silver Falls for me some time?


----------



## Thistles (Jun 27, 2012)

I plan to go to Silver Falls this August, Snark. My mother and grandmother will be visiting Oregon, and I want to show them some of the sights. I'll take a picture for you.

I also agree that we need to save the whole ecosystem rather than just preserving otherwise extinct species in plastic boxes. But if the plastic box is all there is, it's better than nothing.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 28, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> Your still trying to defend the indefensible, you people can beat on me al you want but there really is no point in owning a bobcat, bear, tiger. And as for unconditional love, that's a lame excuse, I really don't think animals like that feel the same way you do for them. I live in Realityville, where common sense rules. You I have a tarantula on my avatar, but I know what they are and don't expect nothing from them.



So your against gun ownership as well, and tarantula ownership, you just said you can't defend the "indefensible" And keep those things is indefensible.

After all there is no point in owning any other animal or guns for that matter. 

@The snark having a different viewpoint is fine with me however when you want to take away MY rights(Or advocate for taking away my rights or other people's rights) to have certain freedoms then I have an issue.

If your referring to LV's posts he has not yet made one legit argument why everyone should be prohibited from owning said wildcats.(Especially if they are willing to take the time to do it right.) The only things I have seen are, they serve no purpose, and their "dangerous" While seemingly ignoring other dangerous things that are commonplace in our lives, such as the "gentle and trustworthy" Golden retriever dog, guns, cars, and others.(Which ironically should not be banned according to him) What I have come to conclude from his posts is that since he thinks they are _too_ dangerous and its impossible for anyone to take care of these animals, therefore they should be banned. And I have an issue with that.

He also overlooked the 150 people that die each year in worldwide due to, get this falling coconuts, should those be banned as well?

Here is a great example of the major flaw of his argument, the fact he also does not see its so wide ranging is also frightening.

"I think (Insert animal species here) should be illegal because they are dangerous and serve no purpose."
This can be used for anything snakes, dogs, spiders, tarantulas, anoles, various lizards, cats, mice, other small mammals, birds, fish.

It can also be applied to guns, for killing people, rock/rap music, for "inspiring" people to go out and kill others, computer games and others. The people generally making the argument for these complete blanket bans are far from rational in most cases, and we cannot count on our government here in the US to be rational anymore either.

@Thistles I am sure the general feeling of this thread would be a lot less hostile had LV made more reasoned arguments and actually gave good reasons for imposing a blanket ban on everyone.

Had he been like "I think wildcats should not be readily available to the general public due to the requirements of keeping such animals, and the challenges they pose are very different than the average pet, however should someone meet all their local laws and can prove that they can keep such an animal in a safe manner, then maybe they should be allowed to have one."

Then we would not be having such a heated discussion, even I am a fan of regulating such animals as the large constrictor snakes(I do not think retics and burms should be sold in average petshops nor be so easily available to get online), and other exotics however I am against an outright ban.

There IS a middle ground here, personally large constricting snakes, wild cats and large mammals are not my thing however I support the rights of people to keep them in a responsible manner and do not feel that an outright ban is the correct solution to deal with the problems and challenges that these animals can pose.
(Same with guns)


----------



## Thistles (Jun 28, 2012)

Ok, just because there seems to be only one view on these boards, I'll be devil's advocate. I don't care at all about any risk to the keeper. I care about the welfare of the animal. The requirements to keep these kinds of animals (not just cats) in particular make them ill-suited pets for almost everyone. Again, not because they might maul the keeper, but because so many of them are kept inappropriately and then ultimately surrendered to sanctuaries. The enjoyment that one responsible keeper gets is in no way worth the suffering of multiple cats languishing in the care of idiots who think it is cool to keep a tiger in their back yard, or worse, apartment.

Take Burmese pythons. They used to be very readily available in pet stores. They're beautiful and docile and to your average impulse-shopper at a pet store would appear to make great pets. Oh, they also get big enough that you might as well give them their own bedroom. How many of the people that bought these pythons were really ready to make an appropriate home for them and have the commitment and know-how to do so? Look at the surrendered Burm numbers and the euthanasia rate for your answer.

Owls in the UK are another excellent example. Here in the US, owl ownership isn't easy for the average citizen. In the UK, any fool can go out and buy one. After the Harry Potter craze, _thousands_ of people went out and bought fwuffy widdle owls just like Harry's.

Surprise! Owls are hatred with feathers and the nastiest bathroom habits ever!

So no wonder that there has been a huge influx of unwanted pet owls into rescues now that the rose-colored glasses are off and the would-be wizards are realizing what an owl is actually like. Again, I don't give a rip about the morons who thought Hedwig would make a good apartment pet and might have had their faces clawed off. I care about the poor birds who were kept so inappropriately and are now burdening someone responsible for the rest of their lives. Is the enjoyment of that one good keeper in thousands worth it? I'm not sure. Oh, and this is definitely applicable to any pet, not just large, predatory exotics.

Furthermore, who pays for the medical bills? Hospitalization isn't cheap. If I get bitten by a rattlesnake, there is no way I can afford the bill. How many keepers have enough money after setting up an enclosure and purchasing the animal to cover medical expenses from an injury? I know I don't have a savings account named "in case the P. ornata gets lucky." Who ends up absorbing the cost?

What about conservation? Collection for the pet trade? You talk about "rights," but is it really a "right" to condemn any other organism to a life in captivity, whether it is a comfortable existence or not? I don't think people have a "right" to keep a chihuahua. We do it, but is it ethical? Or just something we do because we can and we have for thousands of years?

All I'm saying is you are grossly oversimplifying the issue if you think the safety of the keeper and his neighbors is all that matters. It doesn't matter at all. Nice straw man, though.


----------



## bigjej (Jun 28, 2012)

pitbulllady said:


> ... So, let's look at those statistics, since it's numbers, not opinions, that matter.  I will refer you to THIS site: http://www.rexano.org/Statistics/Death_Odds_Exotic_Animal_2005.pdf .  In case you're wondering, it breaks down one's chances, both yearly and in an average human lifetime, of being killed by any given of many different types of animals, and compares those odds to the odds of dying by say, drowning in your own bathtub(I have to assume you own one of those...might want to consider getting rid of it when you see how likely it is to KILL you), suffocating in your own bedsheets, dying in a fall from a ladder, or, the most common form of non-natural death, dying in a car accident.  You have a 1 in 84 chance of being killed in or by a car in your lifetime; those are some pretty high odds!  In comparison, you have a 1 in 3, 582, 680 odds of being killed by a captive exotic cat.  Now, you still wanna let people own cars, or do you want to take those away, too, for our own good, of course?  More people get killed by TOYS than by exotic cats or large constrictor snakes!  Now, again, common sense says that the more dangerous something is, statistically, the greater the argument for banning it, right?  After all, common sense should not involve personal opinions, like "I don't like this" or "I'm scared of that", but rather, it should take a look at just what the risks REALLY are.  A ladder is clearly a greater risk to you than a "pit bull".  A bathtub is more likely to kill you than a mountain lion.  A flight of stairs is far, far more deadly than a Burmese Python.  .....
> 
> pitbulllady


I just want to point out a problem with relying solely on statistics without taking into account the background on the statistics. The reason you have a much higher chance of, say drowning in a pool ( one of the leading causes of death in children under 10 in the U.S. ) then of being killed by a captive nondomesticated animal is very much a function of the fact that there are far greater numbers of pools in the country then there are of nondomesticated large animals in private hands.  I am not commenting on anyone's arguments here, just want to make a point about using statistics. 

I have owned nontraditional pets for most of my life including snakes, tarantulas and yes a family American pitbull terrier. I will be the first one to stand up and defend the breed but I have also witnessed first hand ( both as a private citizen and as a pediatrician ) the results of irresponsibly bred and kept pitbulls, as well as other pets. Are regulations the answer? Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It depends on the situation. As others have pointed out, legislation is often drafted as a knee jerk reaction to a headline event and mass media hysteria. Unfortunately, irresponsible owners, breeders and sellers - and there are plenty of them, just peruse your various exotic pets stores, websites, CL, etc  - are as much to blame, if not more so, than anyone else since they should know better. Rather than ban a breed, or species, except in extreme circumstances, owners should be held accountable, both before the fact ( to get a license, for example, to keep a large nondomesticated predator, take a safety course akin to a gun safety course required by most states for a license, and show proof of appropriate housing, etc ) and after the fact if there is an escape or incident. There is a very interesting book written on this topic, if I remember the name I'll post it.


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 28, 2012)

The legit argument is someone with half a brain should realize its not wise keeping a large animal such as bobcats, bears, tigers, lions, etc. More for the animal's sake than the person. I am not against owning said animals but is it really wise to do so?


----------



## skar (Jun 28, 2012)

LOL. . .. there's is just as much if not more hipocrisy displayed here than from lv426. looks like a clique.
More acceptance and understanding in these preconcepted arguements. . .


----------



## desertanimal (Jun 28, 2012)

Hayden said:


> . . . If you want to keep a chimpanzee, neat . . . The stories you hear in the media are never "Chimpanzee with appropriate enclosure, diet, and mental stimulation magically teleports into owner's house and mauls them." Those stories start off "Chimpanzee kept in house as family member"


You never hear that chimps kept "with appropriate enclosure, diet, and mental stimulation . . ." maul owners because those conditions are never provided by owners.  Those conditions are provided by sanctuaries, which really don't consider themselves owners, but caretakers.  And sanctuaries tend to have very careful safety protocols in place that keep chimps and humans separate, just like zoos.  The problem with chimpanzees is that the only appropriate enclosure for them is huge and necessarily full of a bunch of other chimpanzees.  There *is* no way that's appropriate for a chimpanzee to keep one in the house, which is why they always end up in sanctuaries.  Primates live in social groups.  If you want to keep a primate appropriately for the primate, you need to provide it its appropriate social group.  If you try to keep a male chimpanzee in your house, things are especially bad.  Working around the natural behaviors of a male chimpanzee in the way that has been described for working around the natural behaviors of cats is going to involve accepting a beating every now and again and possibly, putting up with sexual coercion, if the chimp sees himself as a person or you and your friends as chimpanzees.  Unfortunately these beatings are not easy to withstand as a human (we're neither as strong or as tough as they are), so people aren't usually willing to put up with that sort of thing from a chimp pet.  Their tendency toward deliberate male-perpetrated infanticide is also rather difficult to put up with.  Not impossible to manage, but not too well-tolerated by the neighbors.

Keeping a chimpanzee as a "pet," in the way that chimpanzees are kept when they are "pets," is completely psychologically inappropriate for chimpanzees.  Works tolerably for babies (although really they should be carried 100% of the time by a maternal caretaker).  Doesn't work at all for adults.  Trouble with babies?  They turn into long-lived adults.

So I don't think it's "neat" when people want to keep a chimpanzee.  NONE of the people who actually do "keep" and care appropriately for chimpanzees think it would be "neat" to keep one (because they are the people who are cleaning up everyone else's failed chimp pet messes), and the people who think it's "neat" to keep one aren't going to keep it appropriately.

---------- Post added 06-28-2012 at 10:31 AM ----------




bigjej said:


> I just want to point out a problem with relying solely on statistics without taking into account the background on the statistics. The reason you have a much higher chance of, say drowning in a pool ( one of the leading causes of death in children under 10 in the U.S. ) then of being killed by a captive nondomesticated animal is very much a function of the fact that there are far greater numbers of pools in the country then there are of nondomesticated large animals in private hands.  I am not commenting on anyone's arguments here, just want to make a point about using statistics.


Thanks for pointing this out.  The relevant stats would be conditional ones.  What is the probability of being killed by a bathtub GIVEN that you have one in your house and use it?  Really what would be best is, what is the probability of bathtub injury PER bathtub?  That's what we want to know, really, when we're comparing dangerous things and animals.  What's the probability of injury per ladder?  What's the probability of injury per pitbull?  What's the probability of injury per automobile?  Or some standardized conditional probability would be best.  What is the probability of injury per minute of interaction with a pitbull?  Per minute spent on a ladder?  Per minute in a car>

It's obviously true that I am more likely to be killed by an automobile than a shark.  But I come into close proximity to many more automobiles per day than I do sharks.  I do not think that sharks are particularly dangerous, but this knowledge of how likely I am to be killed by each does not actually help at all to characterize the inherent danger of each.  You are also far more likely to be in an auto accident within 5 miles of your home.  The roads around your home are not inherently more dangerous than roads anywhere else, but because you live there, you drive within 5 miles of your home more often than you drive anywhere else and are exposed to a non-zero probability of an accident for much more time around your home than you are anywhere else.

While you are more likely to be killed by a bathtub than a mountain lion, *a bathtub is not more likely to kill you than a mountain lion*.  That statement by pittbulllady is fudging meaning of those numbers and implies that the bathtub is more dangerous than the mountain lion.  Any given bathtub, or any given encounter with a bathtub, is less likely to kill you than any given mountain lion, or any given encounter with a mountain lion, even though you are more likely to be killed by a bathtub than by a mountain lion because of your repeated exposure to a low, but non-zero probability of being killed by any interaction with a bathtub and your very, very infrequent exposure to a higher non-zero probability of being killed by an interaction with a mountain lion.

Pitbulllady actually hints at this very issue when she points out that we can't characterize the dangerousness of breeds without knowing how many dogs are out there for each breed.  That is quite true.  But you can't have it both ways.  You can do some slight of hand with the numbers to imply that bathtubs are more dangerous than mountain lions (that the probability of the bathtub inflicting injury on the people it encounters is higher than the probability of a mountain lion inflicting injury on the people it encounters) and then point out that we have know way of telling which dog breeds are more dangerous than others because we don't know about breed-specific/human encounter rates.  

Even though more people are killed by bathtubs than by chimpanzees, I will guarantee you that chimpanzees are more dangerous than bathtubs--that is, the probability of suffering injury conditional upon interacting with a chimpanzee is far higher than the probability of suffering injury conditional upon interacting with a bathtub.  Hands down.  No doubt.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## LV-426 (Jun 28, 2012)

My swan song: Get whatever wild animal you want and cant control, prepare for the day when you have to get rid of it because it mauled you, someone you know, or you can't afford to feed it or properly house it. Because you know deep in your heart you will never be able to fully give what the animal properly needs to live. You WILL end up getting rid of it.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 28, 2012)

@LV much better, anyways people can't control their own dogs and often get rid of them on a daily basis, same with cats and other normal pets. This issue as you know is a serious because a majority of people seem to be unable to control themselves and make an ill considered purchase of an animal.

Is it wise to own a wild cat, for myself it is NOT I lack the energy, and drive to make sure I can keep the said animals under my control, same with dogs, Im not a dog person, because I don't really have the drive to try and keep it under control and I know that any more dominant type of dog or mammal is going to walk all over me so in MY case these animals would be an unwise decision on my part. (Not to mention the financial burden, 15000 a year to feed them properly, screw that I quit.) The thing is people do not take these into account, until after they get the animal and there in lies the problem.

I am sure it is unwise for over 80 percent of people to be owning large exotics, actually almost any pet for that matter, but that does not mean we should punish the 20 percent who are willing to utterly dedicate themselves to this hobby and do things the correct way. And people get mauled and maimed by dogs as well, because they can't control such a "basic" creature. The issue you use is quite common for a lot of animals.

Is it wise for pitbullady or *someone else* who has taken the time to research, properly house, and care for such an animal to own one, I would venture a yes, it is within their capabilities to do so, this is of course that our hypothetical person has crossed their T's and dotted the I's when it comes to the ownership issues these animals pose. And it goes without saying that these people do not live an in urban setting where space is at a premium.

What is missing from your point here, though better than the ones made in the past, is you, and a lot of other people, fail to take into account the individual, there are some people well suited to own these animals, and can own these animals, because they have the personality, the knowledge and the finances to do so in a proper manner, we never hear about them, because keeping an animal properly does not generate a buzz like a hoarder who has several of these cats and in a fit of mental breakdown lets them lose and they have to be killed. This happened in Ohio.

Also people, as silly as it sounds, don't actually "know themselves" to well, which often leads to bad purchasing decisions on their part, be it a dog, cat, rat or whatever, those basic animals, needs are too much for them to handle let alone a wild cats. Ideally people should try and find this out first, either through research or working with said animals, like pet sitting for example to see what the nitty gritty is for owning them. Because once the "new animal charm" wears off for most people with any animal thats when the problems happen.

@desertanimal, no one here is stating that its OK for members of the general public to go out and buy these animals, especially on a whim, however if we have that one person who can and will provide what the animals need, then they should be allowed to have one. 

I personally am against the ownership primates in general, as you say they are ill suited for captivity, BUT if someone can comply with all the laws, and provide the proper food, enclosure, and care for said animal then maybe they should be allowed to have it. I think what we over look is the fact that it CAN be done by someone who has the space, financial resources and dedication to do so.


----------



## ScarecrowGirl (Jun 28, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> The legit argument is someone with half a brain should realize its not wise keeping a large animal such as bobcats, bears, tigers, lions, etc. More for the animal's sake than the person. I am not against owning said animals but is it really wise to do so?





LV-426 said:


> My swan song: Get whatever wild animal you want and cant control, prepare for the day when you have to get rid of it because it mauled you, someone you know, or you can't afford to feed it or properly house it. Because you know deep in your heart you will never be able to fully give what the animal properly needs to live. You WILL end up getting rid of it.


 Is it wise to do so? For most, no, no its not. For a good few though, yes, yes it is. Where the misfortune lies is in the animals in between that are handed over to the people that THINK they can manage one of these creatures and can't. The animals in between do suffer. 

 Why do we keep any of these animals? A thousand years ago dogs became an asset, cats became an asset, horses became an asset. Today we don't really NEED dogs, cats, and horses any more, so why still keep them? Because the interest us.

 Today, we are grateful to the people who had the strong enough interests to go out and collect these animals we call exotic pets, snakes, lizards, turtles, crocs, tarantulas, scorpions, centipedes, big cats and all of the other creatures that we find fascinating and keep them because they interest us. Would we have so many tarantulas in the hobby if there weren't a few who loved the hobby so much that they went above and beyond to bring us such beautiful tarantulas? Would there be so many snake morphs out there if there weren't enough people out there so thoroughly interested in having all of these different colors?

 People think the same about tarantulas, shouldn't people with half a brain realize that keeping tarantulas is dangerous? Large venomous bugs? The hospital bill if you get bit and have a bad reaction? It could kill you, and you still have the hospital bill to put up with later if you live. 

 The people who are good at keeping large cats are prepared and fully accept what could happen if they step on their cats tail, a world of hurt and possible annihilation. But then with that its going to get on the news when a irresponsible owner gets maimed by there cat and people are going to shake their heads because that person was "stupid for keeping a dangerous animal" and has made the responsible people look bad in the process.

 It all runs the same for every one here. Those who keep burms, those who keep t's and c's, those who keep venomous snakes, and large dangerous lizards. We aren't perfect, even responsible owners get tagged and end up on the news with some one wagging their finger calling them irresponsible in the first place for even owning such creatures. People shake their heads when an irresponsible gun owner kills them selves accidentally or one of their friends, people will shake their heads when a freak accident kills an experienced gun keeping vet.

There's no way around the head shaking disapproving glares that surround sensitive topics like this,  like sharks in the water there are people waiting in line to point fingers at our mess-ups and start yelling and screaming about how this shouldn't be allowed because its un-safe. Just wait, some punk who thinks they're cool is going to get bit by their tarantula and die, or one gets out in a house with kids and bites a baby. Heaven help us when that makes headlines.

In reality what we keep all of these different types of dangerous animals is for our own selfish reasons and fascinations, the danger thrills some, the beauty enthralls others, observing, interacting, $$$, you name it. On the flip side there are the people out there who disapprove of every thing we do no matter how well we keep our animals or try to explain to them. They are on the greater numbers with the social media directing their anger using our mistakes as fuel. We just have to deal with it in an appropriate manner and look good against the irresponsible people who make us look so bad.

Its not for most people but the few who can certainly deserve recognition. No on here is going out and buying a mountain lion tomorrow. We aren't defending the irresponsible here we are defending those who can take care and provide a happy healthy forever home for a large exotic cat/any large dangerous animal. With all we are also providing the information and sense for someone actually looking into getting one of these creatures. Hopefully those who aren't whole heart-ed are being dissuaded and those who are are getting the right perspective.


----------



## Thistles (Jun 28, 2012)

Tleilaxu said:


> I am sure it is unwise for over 80 percent of people to be owning large exotics, actually almost any pet for that matter, but that does not mean we should punish the 20 percent who are willing to utterly dedicate themselves to this hobby and do things the correct way. And people get mauled and maimed by dogs as well, because they can't control such a "basic" creature. The issue you use is quite common for a lot of animals.


 I think you are being extremely generous with your hypothetical percentages, but I'll bite. Does it mean we should "punish" 80% of pets by allowing irresponsible owners to have them just because that 20% of owners keep them well? That sounds pretty horrible. It isn't about "punishing" responsible owners. It is about doing what is best for the animals. Say I had a litter of 10 kittens and adopted them all out. 2 went to good homes. 8 ended up being adopted by people who beat them to death after they scratched, forgot to feed them or surrendered them to shelters where they ended up being euthanized. Is that ok? I mean, those 2 kitties might be having great lives with their good owners, but what about the other 8?



Tleilaxu said:


> I personally am against the ownership primates in general, as you say they are ill suited for captivity, BUT if someone can comply with all the laws, and provide the proper food, enclosure, and care for said animal then maybe they should be allowed to have it. I think what we over look is the fact that it CAN be done by someone who has the space, financial resources and dedication to do so.


 What he just finished explaining is no, it CANNOT be done. How do you propose to regulate it, anyway? Who decides what is adequate care?


----------



## The Snark (Jun 28, 2012)

And around and around. Every year a few dozen thousand chicks and bunnys are given as pets (toys really, if the truth be told) and the common method of disposal when the child tires of the animal is the toilet, for both dead and living. Along comes animal rights group Zorp and states quite legitimately the animals should be protected from this slaughter. Along comes X, a responsible animal owner and cries foul. How dare you impose laws restricting their personal rights to own any animal they want! And on it goes. The more rare, exotic or endangered the animal, the greater umbrage over it's abuse and the louder the persons rights groups yell in response. 

Does this sound about right for the two polarities?

PBL and other exotic keeper advocates, the fact of the matter is legitimate laws cannot discriminate. They must apply equally to all. Therefore, all your animal keeping expertise is invalid. You are no different than the child who plays with the baby bunny for a day then it gets flushed down the toilet. If you have the right to keep a dangerous rare wild animal in wholesome contented conditions, so does that child have the right to maim and torture the bunny.

We aren't going to resolve this issue as there is no single solution for all individuals.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 28, 2012)

Thistles said:


> I think you are being extremely generous with your hypothetical percentages, but I'll bite. Does it mean we should "punish" 80% of pets by allowing irresponsible owners to have them just because that 20% of owners keep them well? That sounds pretty horrible. It isn't about "punishing" responsible owners. It is about doing what is best for the animals. Say I had a litter of 10 kittens and adopted them all out. 2 went to good homes. 8 ended up being adopted by people who beat them to death after they scratched, forgot to feed them or surrendered them to shelters where they ended up being euthanized. Is that ok? I mean, those 2 kitties might be having great lives with their good owners, but what about the other 8?
> 
> What he just finished explaining is no, it CANNOT be done. How do you propose to regulate it, anyway? Who decides what is adequate care?


1. Your line of thinking here is overly idealistic sadly. 
And thats too bad for the other 8.(Im assuming you were screening the buyers and offered to take the animals back at anytime as a proper breeder would) Aside from that there was nothing you could have done about it, and it will always remain that way, heck its even that way with children, there are quite a few nasty stories going around about child abuse, at the same time there are good parents that dedicate themselves to their children, its the same with animals.

2. Yes it CAN be done whether you think it can be done or not is beside the point, its done well in some zoos, and smaller animal sanctuaries run by a few dedicated staff, there is NO reason why a single person and not properly care for a small group of primates if they have the knowledge and resources to do so. Its just your opinion that it cannot be done period and as a result no one should be allowed to do so.

As for who decides what is adequate I would hope zoos and other serious animal keeping facilities would have a major say in determining what is proper and what is not.



> PBL and other exotic keeper advocates, the fact of the matter is legitimate laws cannot discriminate. They must apply equally to all. Therefore, all your animal keeping expertise is invalid. You are no different than the child who plays with the baby bunny for a day then it gets flushed down the toilet. *If you have the right to keep a dangerous rare wild animal in wholesome contented conditions, so does that child have the right to maim and torture the bunny.*


@the snark no one is advocating the above scenario here in fact I am sure a lot of pet owners would like some reasonable regulation to help curb that, however as has been stated a complete ban is never the answer. Laws can be made that can weed out a majority of people, for instance a requirement that you need to have hands on training, permits and yearly inspections, keeping detailed medical records, ect.(For the larger more exotic animals) However laws are broken and there is no way to completely stop animals from ending up in the hands that should not have them, but you can't go punishing everyone else who does it legally as a result.

As for the bunnies and chicks not having them so readily available and only can be purchased from certain vendors will help, along with education to tell people about the care required for these animals, it worked with puppy mills in the US, most pet stores no longer sell their own dogs and either get them from shelters or breeders. However there are still problems that will never be fixed as long as the almighty dollar reigns supreme. (Along with the impulse buyers and the people who really do not value animals at all, and there is nothing that can be done about the latter, no matter how much education and facts you shove down their throat they won't change, its like the hicks in the south who kill any snake because "its a copperhead" even if you show them its not it won't matter.)

@bolded The logic here is horrible, keeping an animal properly=animal abuse? Really? According to that I have the right to beat up and kill someone because some else was treating that person nicely.

But if this is going to turn into a debate on animals rights and welfare then Im out.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 28, 2012)

Tleilaxu, I gave the bunnys and chicks only as an example of the argument. Outlawing keeping animals is not the answer. You will only create a black market that proliferates worse abuse. So instead the law makers target certain animals, regulating their ownership. That isn't enough for animal rights groups and is too much for the personal rights groups.

The one problem that I read is making laws that replace common sense is freaking monster idiotic. That grants homo stultus the implied right to act even more stupid.


----------



## Tleilaxu (Jun 28, 2012)

The Snark said:


> Tleilaxu, I gave the bunnys and chicks only as an example of the argument. Outlawing keeping animals is not the answer. You will only create a black market that proliferates worse abuse. So instead the law makers target certain animals, regulating their ownership. That isn't enough for animal rights groups and is too much for the personal rights groups.
> 
> The one problem that I read is making laws that replace common sense is freaking monster idiotic. That grants homo stultus the implied right to act even more stupid.


OK I got ya now, glad we are on the same page, it was a little tricky understanding your examples.


----------



## lizardminion (Jun 29, 2012)

LV-426 said:


> The legit argument is someone with half a brain should realize its not wise keeping a large animal such as bobcats, bears, tigers, lions, etc. More for the animal's sake than the person. I am not against owning said animals but is it really wise to do so?


Depends on the responsibility of those getting the animals. If one does their research and is prepared for the responsibility, involved, then yes, it is okay. When they get a pet because it's in their favorite movie and have no clue what to expect... well, they are the bad person. Also, life is about learning from your mistakes, but when people make it suffering from other's mistakes, that's when thinks start getting shifted in a bad direction...

Because someone mentioned it, I will note that when viewing statistics, although one such object is more common than another, you should consider the number alone. There is well more than 2 people who own big cats, try somewhere in the millions. And still, the odds of such an incident happening are not as common as you can assume.

Life has always been about survival of the fittest, including in humans, however much you disagree. It just so happens that the dumbest people are the ones who get hurt, but as life it a b----, it is inevitable. Perfection is non-existent, no matter how much you try. Utopia will non ever exist, even if were to, every other organism must be extinct. Life is about love and learning. Learning is experience. And part of experience is pain.


It's all about personal responsibility. And people are, or should be, entitled to it.


----------



## Thistles (Jun 29, 2012)

Tleilaxu said:


> 1. Your line of thinking here is overly idealistic sadly.
> And thats too bad for the other 8.(Im assuming you were screening the buyers and offered to take the animals back at anytime as a proper breeder would) Aside from that there was nothing you could have done about it, and it will always remain that way, heck its even that way with children, there are quite a few nasty stories going around about child abuse, at the same time there are good parents that dedicate themselves to their children, its the same with animals.


 EXACTLY! There is nothing we can do about the people who can obtain animals but shouldn't. As long as anyone can get a pet, there will be a lot of abuse and neglect. This is wrong.



Tleilaxu said:


> 2. Yes it CAN be done whether you think it can be done or not is beside the point, its done well in some zoos, and smaller animal sanctuaries run by a few dedicated staff, there is NO reason why a single person and not properly care for a small group of primates if they have the knowledge and resources to do so. Its just your opinion that it cannot be done period and as a result no one should be allowed to do so.
> 
> As for who decides what is adequate I would hope zoos and other serious animal keeping facilities would have a major say in determining what is proper and what is not.


 I think you are the idealist, actually. I am recognizing that it is far more likely for things to go wrong than well for the animal, while you are saying it's fine and dandy. Sorry, keeping a contented troop of chimps is really not feasible for a single person. What I am saying is that if it is legal for people to own these animals, most of the people who get them are NOT responsible, and the animals suffer. As a result, yes, for the sake of the animals, they shouldn't be legal for Average Joe to just go out and get. I don't care how rewarding A.J. finds them. The price the other pets pay is too high.

Zoos are some of the worst offenders. I'm sure what you are thinking of are the better-known and respectable institutions, but the majority of zoos are horrible. Esteemed researchers might be the best to determine minimum criteria for an animal's care, but there is a lot of room for individual interpretation in that. 



Tleilaxu said:


> @bolded The logic here is horrible, keeping an animal properly=animal abuse? Really? According to that I have the right to beat up and kill someone because some else was treating that person nicely.
> 
> But if this is going to turn into a debate on animals rights and welfare then Im out.


 His logic is sound. Your counterexample is very flawed. The thing about legislation is that it is universal. If person X can keep an animal, especially something as simple as a rabbit, then why can't person Y? You can make particular actions illegal, but at a certain point it becomes impossible to enforce and also pretty absurd. The 10 bunny commandments, or articles 1-600000 in bunny law: "Thou shalt not swing the bunny by the ears. Thou shalt not flush the bunny, but rather deliver it to the humane society for proper euthanasia when you tire of bunny pellets..."

And yes, it's an animal rights debate by default if you want to have a legitimate discussion about why we should or shouldn't keep animals like big cats.


----------



## The Snark (Jun 29, 2012)

Well, the OP asked what big cat is most appropriate and that digressed into whether or not any big cat. So, strictly speaking, the persons who have actually kept a variety of big cats or those with experience keeping them  need to be the prime authorities on answering the OPs query.

As for whether or not keeping any big cat goes, this discussion is identical to the gun control debate. IE, regardless of the gun, I demand the right to keep it. Be it single shot black powder target rifle or assault weapon with absolutely no practical use except to attack other human beings, I have the inalienable right to have it. Except, of course, gun keeping is supposedly a constitutional right. If you want to have your kid blast his own head with an Uzi, you have that right.

Then, let us move one step afield here. Being brutally honest, I've met a few politicians and I've followed the antics of many of them. Honestly, with most of them I wouldn't go out of my way at a party to chat with them. They are nearly all solidly in support of big $$$ which usually means stepping on the average person like most of us. They are usually incredibly opinionated but many of them lack sound judgment born of scientific rational deliberate thinking. In short, most politicians are NOT people I want making laws about how I run my life. Many of those, especially the ones that are gung ho to pass laws about our personal conduct, are really darned sleazy customers I wouldn't bother to take three steps to spit on. Thus, relying on laws and law makers to tell us how to live is in the same vein as handing a young kid an Uzi to blast his own head. Sometimes what they do coincides with what we want and we cheer them on but most of the time they are trying to replace our common sense and personal responsibility with blanket asininity. As example the marijuana laws that have cost billions of $$$, incarcerated thousands of people who are upright tax paying citizens and promoted the welfare of nobody. (Take a trip to LEAP, Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, for the truth of that matter)

So as far as keeping dangerous animals is concerned, we have two aspects. Protecting the person and protecting the animal. Clearly, the person has every right in the world to destroy him/herself as long as innocent bystanders aren't damaged in the process. But what about the rights of the animal? They have none. NONE. They have the right to a safe comfortable environment? No. That isn't the case in the wild. They have the right to a slow and painful death? Absolutely. 

So the debate swings over to, does the average human have the right to subject animals to painful or degrading treatment? Yes, he or she does, within some pretty loose bounds of reason. Therein lies the rub. Those sleaze politicians won't go there, protecting basic animal rights. Might upset the voting population. Leave that aspect to organizations like the SPCA and PETA.

There is no solution. Stupid people are going to harm, maim and kill animals and they will continue to have the right to do so because making laws about personal conduct is even worse.


----------



## lizardminion (Jul 2, 2012)

Thistles said:


> You talk about "rights," but is it really a "right" to condemn any other organism to a life in captivity, whether it is a comfortable existence or not? I don't think people have a "right" to keep a chihuahua. We do it, but is it ethical? Or just something we do because we can and we have for thousands of years?


I'm going to highlight this one a little bit. I strongly disagree with those who say it is unethical, as they are only animals, and animals are but only property, just like cars, guns, land, and accessories. People are left to do with animals whatever they want, be it good or bad. However, a righteous man takes care of his beasts, and those who are golden at heart will be responsible and provide a comfortable lifestyle for their animal. It is not right to treat people as people and ban anything just because a certain percent abuses this privilege, but to be responsible and deal with every individual, and whether or not to restrict their rights depending on their actions.
If keeping organisms under captivity is wrong, it shall also be wrong that you are entitled to your children, as children aren't free until they reach a certain age (in the U.S. and most countries, this age is 18) and you technically own your children until then. Child abuse happens just as often, probably more often than animals abuse, but it isn't put as a higher priority than animal abuse. If banning animals is as much as the best solution, then keeping your own child is just as wrong, yet, obviously no one advocates for the banning of children. It is definitely not freedom to take away people's way of living.
Freedom is only for the men and women. Should you think freedom is wrong for men, but right for animals, then move to a communist "utopia" where leaders don't care if you live in a cesspool, but care that no bunny, finch, or pillbug is harmed while you die is squaller.


----------



## bigjej (Jul 2, 2012)

lizardminion said:


> Because someone mentioned it, I will note that when viewing statistics, although one such object is more common than another, you should consider the number alone. There is well more than 2 people who own big cats, try somewhere in the millions. And still, the odds of such an incident happening are not as common as you can assume.


Millions? What evidence is this based on ? I dont think there are millions of big cats in existence, period, let alone in captivity. Unless you are counting my neighbor's fat cat as a big cat.


----------



## lizardminion (Jul 2, 2012)

bigjej said:


> Millions? What evidence is this based on ? I dont think there are millions of big cats in existence, period, let alone in captivity. Unless you are counting my neighbor's fat cat as a big cat.


Excuse me, I was only making a fair estimate. Having given it thought, and I should say somewhere in the 10,000 - 100,000 area. _Maybe_ the millions though, as wild cats can be a vague term, and ranges from lions and tigers to more common pumas and bobcats.
No, I don't consider any _Felis sylvestris catus_ as wild cats (obviously) but any cat species outside that, yes. That said, they're more common than one could assume.

Edit: According to the National Pet Owners Survey, there are 18.2 million exotic cats kept in the U.S., only 4000 of which are tigers.


----------



## The Snark (Jul 2, 2012)

Good web page: http://exoticpets.about.com/cs/bigcats/a/bigcatsaspets.htm


----------



## Thistles (Jul 3, 2012)

lizardminion said:


> I'm going to highlight this one a little bit. I strongly disagree with those who say it is unethical, as they are only animals, and animals are but only property, just like cars, guns, land, and accessories. People are left to do with animals whatever they want, be it good or bad. However, a righteous man takes care of his beasts, and those who are golden at heart will be responsible and provide a comfortable lifestyle for their animal. It is not right to treat people as people and ban anything just because a certain percent abuses this privilege, but to be responsible and deal with every individual, and whether or not to restrict their rights depending on their actions.
> If keeping organisms under captivity is wrong, it shall also be wrong that you are entitled to your children, as children aren't free until they reach a certain age (in the U.S. and most countries, this age is 18) and you technically own your children until then. Child abuse happens just as often, probably more often than animals abuse, but it isn't put as a higher priority than animal abuse. If banning animals is as much as the best solution, then keeping your own child is just as wrong, yet, obviously no one advocates for the banning of children. It is definitely not freedom to take away people's way of living.
> Freedom is only for the men and women. Should you think freedom is wrong for men, but right for animals, then move to a communist "utopia" where leaders don't care if you live in a cesspool, but care that no bunny, finch, or pillbug is harmed while you die is squaller.


 What the heck are you even talking about? You realize not everyone believes that _Homo sapiens_ is inherently more valuable than other animals just because we happen to be humans, right? Would you care more if your pet was stolen or an "accessory?" Animals are property under the law, but there are additional laws governing their treatment. You are actually _not_ allowed to do whatever you want with animals. There is, however, no law about how to maintain your stereo. You said it correctly when you said "privilege." That's exactly what pets are; it isn't a right. Nice slippery slope with the kids, though. And freedom? What? Freedom is not complete absence of law. Anarchy is beyond ridiculous. Where is communism coming in here? Stop using negative buzzwords and outlandish arguments. I don't think you even know what point you're trying to make.


----------

