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

[Tleilaxu]

@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]

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?

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]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

@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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Thistles]

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.