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

[lizardminion]

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 ----------

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[LV-426]

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]

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."

 

[jayefbe]

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]

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.

 

[The Snark]

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]

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]

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]

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]

... 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]

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]

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]

. . . 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 ----------

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.

 

[LV-426]

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.