Should RESPONSIBLE people be able to own exotic (wild) cats?

I think everyone knows where I stand

Spotz

I think most people that want a wild kitty are not very responsible. Not everyone will take into consideration the time and effort it takes and that these animals are not "pets" and can cause a great deal of damage. A wild life specialist or naturalist that will allow the animal to live in a mostly wild state and is regulated to make sure the animal is taken care of properly is OK I guess.

I have read too many articles about people that just mistreat their animals because they weren't friendly enough or did some other thing that just came naturally to them and the owner didn't like. I also read about a child that has been mauled because the owner thought it would be OK with the child, or it was caged well enough to not get out.

I don't know much about your situation so I cannot say if it is wrong for you to have what you have. Maybe the circumstances have to be just right and in the best interest of the animal.

Teresa...if I understand you correctly...

Then you agree that responsible individuals should be able to own these animals?

Spotz

Don't forget automobiles....the single highest killer in the nation.

Over the past decade (or longer now) there have been roughly 10 people killed by wild cats. Over the same time period, there have been roughly 200 people injured by wild cats. More people are injured/killed by fist fights in a year than have been injured/killed by wild cats.

Regarding bans...they don't work worth a darn...example...Prohibition.

Bans don't protect freedom...in fact Bans are in direct contrast to any notion of freedom.

Spotz

I am all for not banning the right to own an Exotic pet, IF that person has enough knowldege to understand that animal and what the animals needs are.
It is like me and my Siberian Huskies, They take a lot of work to keep them happy. They must be excercised, brushed and combed, properly feed etc, etc. They are accomplished escape artist too as well as being notorious for killing small animals that just happen to get into their terriorty. I knew this when I started keeping this breed of animal.

Having taken that all into consideration I still have three of them and take it in stride. There is nothing grossier than to go out in the yard and find a small animal torn to pieces But I knew this and deal with it. I can't(want) get onto them because they are doing what is instinctive to them.

I agree that some should not own an exotic animal for all the wrong reason, but I also believe that a person should have a choice whether or not to own one after a strict interview to see if they are capable of raising and taking care of them.

Ok what you are saying makes sense, but who decides who is responsible? Maybe if there were better survailance or regulations then it would be ok. I just wonder how the animal feels about not being as free as it's wild counterparts.

Lots of people are really, well, stupid and see these animals as people and expect them to behave as such.

To keep them in a wild state, in a reserve, allowing procreation to preserve a species is very much OK with me. However these are not private owners are they?

Maybe I'm just wishy washy as there is no definate NO. I believe that 80% or more of people that have these beautiful animals shouldn't own any animals at all.

I'm not sure because I would like to know that whoever lets the people have the wild cats as pets are making sure they are responsible enough - do they provide some kind of background check, a test or what?

I know you are a responsible owner John, which is why I have no problem with you having Amber and Boris - they are so beautiful and judging by your posts, you are very knowledgeable about them, you make sure that they are spayed/neutered, etc etc. But i don't know about other owners and how does the state keep an eye on those owners?

I am not concerned with the people being injured, I am concerned with the well being of the cats. While small wild cats can live in the house with adaptations, large wild cats cannot. They need more in life than a cage in the back yard. I don't know if there is a way to regulate this. I guess that before you could get a license to have a wild cat you would have to show that you have the proper housing and the proper knowledge of their nutritional requirements? But I worry about lions and tigers being caged and trapped in a horrible life. Wasn't it Spotz that showed pictures of big cats that were rescued? People need to think that those cute little kittens grow into big cats with big needs. Becky

The well being of the cats...

Let's look at things a bit here:

Almost every single species of wild felid is severely endangered. Their natural habitat is being taken away from them at an alarming rate, and even worse, they are worth more money dead than they are alive. Their life span in the wild is generally 8~12 years for males and 10~14 for females, whereas in captivity their life span is 20+ years for both genders. In the wild they need such vast amounts of space because they are predators, and have to find/follow their prey. In captivity they don't have to worry about where their food is, because it is provided for them. Almost every single facility and person who owns one of these animals is considered a private entity. Zoos, Circuses, Sanctuaries, People...etc.

Lets look at the effects of bans on the well being of a species. For this we'll look at the Ocelot. Ocelots were very popular pets around the 60's they were initially taken from the wild (as were all animals in captivity) and then breeding pools were setup to minimize the effects on wild populations. Over the past decade federal and state laws have been passed such that it is all but impossible for anyone to own these animals, much less transport them for any purpose. Case in point, I personally know a breeder of ocelots, who has been breeding them for decades, seven generations to be exact. This last year was the sad end of her breeding career, because no zoo or other organization can transport one of her/their breeders to continue the lineage. Population growth in the animals natural habitat has placed it into an endangered state, and breeding for conservation has been effectively erradicated by bans passed "to protect the animal". Instead of protecting these beautiful cats, the bans have basically guaranteed their extinction.

Private owners are the key to the future survival of these species, as most, if not all will be extinct in the wild in just a few short years (maybe a decade). Zoos have breeding programs, but don't forget that zoos are almost always for profit organizations. As such organizations, Zoos rarely burden themselves with species which don't attract visitory. So only a few species are represented in the breeding programs, and even worse, the way the program is run, it is only designed to continue the existance of these animals for a few decades.

Furthermore, most Zoos are total "hands off" facilities, despite years of research and proof that "hands on" facilities have happier, and more importantly healthier animals. Recently New York passed legislation which is the strictest in the Nation, the fallout is scheduled to start within the next few months. But basically unless a person can meet AZA qualifications (including membership fees) then they cannot own these animals. Doesn't matter that they have owned them for decades, or that they have been USDA certified and inspected for years without issue. Doesn't matter how much experience or qualified they are. Only matters that they can be a member of the AZA.

To put this into perspective, it would be like restricting gun ownership to only members of the NRA. Or requiring anyone who wants to drive a car to be a member of AAA. It just doesn't make any sense.

Bottom line Bans only ensure the extinction of these animals, in captivity AND in the wild.

Spotz

I guess maybe the answer then is to prosecute people who abuse these animals by not providing them with the care, nutrition and caging that they require. But it is too bad that the animals have to suffer first, before anything can be done. Becky

Well...the way Florida is set up...

Is you have to have documented experience, you have to have adequate facilities 2.5 acres for most cats, and 5 acres for the larger ones.

You have to have proper facilities, and you have to pass inspection before acquiring the animal.

Once you have the animal, you are inspected randomly throughout the year to ensure the animals health. There is no warning to the inspection, the inspector just shows up and knocks on your door (or calls you from your gate...something like that).

Most of the Florida inspectors will work with potential owners, and existing owners to make sure that the animal is recieving the best care possible. However they are not shy about removing an animal from it's 'home' due to negligence or improper care by the owner.

The problem with freedom is that some people will always abuse it. Give people the right to own guns, and some will abuse the right, give people the right to drive cars, and some will abuse that right also. However, the benefits of allowing the majority the right to drive, or to own guns, or to provide proper care for these animals greatly outweigh the risks of a minority abusing the right.

Really it's no different than places passing regulations which arbitrially restrict the number of animals a person can own. Granted some people can't deal with more than four cats in their house, but many others can. There isn't an arbitrary rule that can be passed, every case is unique.

Bans are by their very nature Arbitrary, Regulations allow for case by case judgments.

Regulations do allow a broader margin for error, but more importantly they allow a broader margin for positive influences too.

Spotz

The Florida regulations sound reasonable to me. I believe ownership of exotic pets should be strictly regulated, for the sake of the animals themselves and also of those who may potentially have contact with them, e.g., neighbors. Which brings me to the subject of bans. I really agree with certain bans. For example, if New York or another large, highly populated city prohibits keeping a pet bear or gorilla in a residential building, that seems to be a sensible policy. The problem is, where is the line to be drawn? Is it fair to prevent one person from having a pet baboon in a 15-storey building, and yet allow another person to keep a cheetah (supposedly not very dangerous to humans, as we're too slow to "set them off")? To give another example, Germany is trying to maintain its wild hedgehog population, and it's illegal to keep them as pets. Many people take in underweight babies in the fall, and provide food and shelter to get them through the first winter. The temptation to keep them as pets would be too great if there weren't a law against it, as they're beguiling little animals. We have tenants. Although we're pet lovers, their leases prohibit any non-caged pets without our express permission (one family has a dog; 2 families have cats, all of them have rabbits). Why? So that we can exercise some control over what animals, and how many, are being kept on our property, as we would be the ones sued by irate neighbors, or entangled in legal (i.e., rent) disputes with other tenants "disturbed" by the pets. The clause in the lease also once allowed us to do something about a "messy" who had started collecting dogs and not giving them the proper care.
I don't think a universal or state-wide ban is the answer, but I think regulations that take property size, the physical and social environment, and the owners' qualifications into account are a good idea.

P.S. I'm not questioning your qualifications, John, but I wonder how many people who have even larger cats are as responsible as you are? I'd love to hear CharmsDad's take on this, as he's had to deal with the problem of exotic cats not being properly cared for and being confiscated.

I don't think there should be ban's on owning exotic cats, or even wolves for that matter. What I think is that a person who wants to own a wild animal should be required to get some schooling or education on their care and what it takes to be a responsible Wild animal owner, then they should be required to pass a test on what they know and have learned about Wild Animal ownership, and if they pass be issued a special license which would need to be renewed yearly by taking a new test each year, in order to have Wild Animal's as pets. In that way, we protect the animal's and the people who wish to have them in their homes. If a person doesn't pass the test in order to get the license, then they shouldn't be allowed to own an exotic animal.

JCat...

The New York ban is state wide. As are many many other states in the country. New York is the strictest though, by requiring AZA membership. Most other states allow exemptions for non-profit rescues, for educational organizations, and for organizations focused on preservation of the animals.

I have worked with MANY owners across the country who own these animals. From geoffry's cats to tigers. I have worked with organizations that rescue these animals from uncertain fates and or bad situations. It is extremely rare to find an owner of exotics who is uncaring and not providing proper care for these animals, all of the people I know who have these animals are infact some of the most responsible owners that I know of.

The biggest thing against responsible owners is that they tend to keep a very low profile. They aren't seen and aren't heard of. The majority of the news that is reported is focused around the irresponsible owners of the world. Last year, in New York there was a man with a Tiger in his apartment. He was already in violation of not only his lease, but existing state laws. The new ban only makes what he did...MORE...Illegal. (Does anyone see the flaw in this?)

Bans and even strict regulations only hurt the people who would otherwise be responsible owners. The irresponsible ones aren't likely to concern themselves with the legality of owning these animals, so bans have little to no effect on those who are irresponsible.

Spotz

Spotz, the NY example I gave stemmed from my imagination, though the guy in NY with the tiger and caiman was in the back of my mind. I've personally experienced a physical anthropologist's pet baboon, which I was terrified of, because this particular professor often brought him to class and chained him to the radiator, which was right next to my seat, and a neighor's huge alligator (I pet sat for him, crazily enough, and became very aware of how wonderful fingers are.) A former boyfriend, who was a Philly cop, had to deal with a rampaging gorilla in a small city apartment. I grew up with a blinded squirrel and a blind donkey, and have hand fed coyotes, and dealt with begging bears and timber wolves. I wouldn't trust myself to give the proper care to most wild animals, however, and would have real concerns about guests and neighbors. John's question is difficult to answer, because he stresses bans, and not regulations. There is obviously a difference.

A big difference.

Primates are a totally different species, generally extremely hard to deal with. I've had limited experience with them, and what little I've had was enough to make me leave it to the people whose passion is primates.

Give me a tiger anyday to a primate

Even though my passion is cats, I understand that other peoples passion is other species. It is my firm belief that bans are harmful no matter what the focus is. However I don't beleive that anyone and everyone should just be allowed unrestricted access to whatever the ban was focused on. Something has to be put into place that has the positive effects that the ban was for, without the negative effects of a ban. Regulations is the answer, and so the conversation here has also included regulations. It also seems to reason that if someone was trying to make a decision for or against bans, that they would need to know that there are indeed viable alternatives to banning.

Spotz

I don't want bans. I would rather have the people who have a passion for them have them. As long as they are responsible. It's not fair that a few bad people can spoil it for everybody. Some of those people may try to own them with or without a ban. Maybe if they could get away with it the care of the animal would not be so good.

Welcome John...I just hope I don't step on anyones toes (least not to hard )

Here's another picture to show...




More images at: http://www.casadelgato.com/Gallery/index.php?cat=4


Spotz

Great Pics both of you

You should get in contact with him John...his name is John too, and he started with two bobcats, and progressed to that cute cougar...perhaps he might have some words of wisdom for you

Spotz

Everybody talks about bans being obstacles to one's freedom and rights, etc. etc. But what about the rights and freedom of the animals?
I don't know about you but when I see these beautiful creatures pacing back and forth in their cages, it bothers me a lot. Yes, the pictures of humans and big cats together are quite awesome but so is a picture of a lion's pride in the savannah or a contented leopard napping up on a tree.
BTW, if one owns an exotic cat as a pet, aren't you required to declaw them?

For me, the trouble is that the answers are bigger than the questions. Define 'responsible'. So regulations are set up. Then there are people who cry foul at the minimum standards. Why are my 4.9 acres not enough? Who's to say that this animal needs 5 acres? Now, who polices all of this? We can't even guarantee the safety of children, much less animals. Where are the authorities getting all of these inspectors to make sure all the regulations are being followed? And who foots the bill? And finally, like anyhting else, the law abiding will follow the rules, and those who don't will find a way to slip under the radar. I don't know if I support a ban, per se, but I really do not know how to guarantee a safe environment for animals that are not domesticated and aren't essentially meant to be kept in privately-owned captivity.

I think John addressed the freedoms/rights of the animals well enough in his response.

There is no law anywhere that requires declawing. In fact there are more laws AGAINST declawing. So no, declawing is not a requirement nor is it absolutely necessary in owning these animals.

I work with a fully clawed cougar. She is just fine.

Spotz