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

[LV-426]

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 ----------

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]

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

 

[Hayden]

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?

 

[The Snark]

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]

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

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]

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.

 

[The Snark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[lizardminion]

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]

@ 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]

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]

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

 

[The Snark]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[The Snark]

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.