TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Should RESPONSIBLE people be able to own exotic (wild) cats?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Should RESPONSIBLE people be able to own exotic (wild) cats? - Page 4

post #91 of 134
1/8/05 at 5:07am
I dont know why owning pygmy hedgehogs is banned in some states...seemed silly to me too, until I found it out and as owner of such I wanted to comply with all their rules. Still seems rediculous to me.
Reply
post #92 of 134
1/8/05 at 12:34pm
Hedgehogs are a protected species in Germany, and therefore keeping them as pets is banned, for fear that too many people would simply pull them out of their natural habitat. I imagine that's the reason why some U.S. states ban their ownership.
BTW, hedgehogs should never be given milk, because they can't tolerate lactose, and the resultant diarrhea easily leads to their deaths if they are small. The best thing to feed them is canned cat food if you don't have actual hedgehog food.
Reply
post #93 of 134
1/8/05 at 5:19pm
Thread Starter 
Just because an animal is a protected species does not mean there should be a ban on ownership. In Ohio, bobcats are an endagered protected species. I need a permit to own a bobcat and the state DNR comes out to inspect all the paperwork, to verify that the cat was not taken from the wild, but came from a breeder. So hedgehogs should be ok to keep, as long as they come from a breeder.
Reply
post #94 of 134
1/9/05 at 8:08am
Quote:
Originally Posted by AmberThe Bobcat
Just because an animal is a protected species does not mean there should be a ban on ownership. In Ohio, bobcats are an endagered protected species. I need a permit to own a bobcat and the state DNR comes out to inspect all the paperwork, to verify that the cat was not taken from the wild, but came from a breeder. So hedgehogs should be ok to keep, as long as they come from a breeder.
It's illegal to sell them here, for some reason. I'd be a bit sceptical, too, allowing them around children, because of the many parasites. We've taken in some underweight ones for the winter, and they've all had lung worms, in addition to incredible tick infestations. The ticks are a real danger here - borreliosis, viral encephalitis, Lyme's, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever are quite prevalent. We gathered up quite a few to weigh them in October, and one poor little baby had something like 37 ticks.
Reply
post #95 of 134
1/9/05 at 10:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kiwideus
John - I am with SnowLeop, you have made an excellent argument - I wish I could change my vote from undecided to against.
Actually, I'm proud to say that I read the arguments before I voted! So I'm included in the "against bans" category.
Reply
post #96 of 134
1/9/05 at 4:43pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnowLeop
Actually, I'm proud to say that I read the arguments before I voted! So I'm included in the "against bans" category.
Smart girl! (I assume you are a girl? If not, I'm sorry! )

I should have read the arguments first lol - but I voted before there were arguments. I just wasnt sure about it, and especially after seeing them at the place that Charms Dad showed us, I have nothing but respect for those magnificent cats and the people who take care of them.
Reply
post #97 of 134
1/9/05 at 10:11pm
A jaguar as a pet? In many ways these are actually more dangerous than lions or tigers. Jaguars have by far the greatest bite strength of all cats, and are the only large cat that kills by crushing the skull of its prey (as opposed to strangulation for others.) Because of this they actually need a stronger cage than that of a lion or tiger. Jaguars, the third largest cat, also climb extremely well, making them a much greater escape risk.

In spite of the claims here, all to often people get these animals to make some sort of "macho" statement, or to just show off. The animals held by private owners are generally NOT involved in any controlled breeding program and are therefore not viable to include in any species preservation program. White tigers in captivity are all inbred from a single tiger captured some years ago. There have been 6-10 sightings of white tigers in the wild in the past 50 years (depending on which source you check.) They appear to do quite well in the wild. The white coloration is a normal but recessive trait in Bengal tigers, they are not a separate species.

Quote:
For the most part Bans are a lazy, and ultimately ineffective means of addressing a problem.
Actually, most bans are in response to specific incidents which result in a general public outcry and are neither "lazy" nor as a result of AR influence. It is generally the county attorney that develops the wording. From a purely legal standpoint, an outright ban is far cleaner than a complex (and often convoluted) ordinance that tries (and fails) to address every species that might be presented and as such would be difficult to interpret and enforce and almost guaranteed to result in expensive legal challenges. Bans may be just as questionable from a Constitutional standpoint, but the fact that they are cleaner from an enforcement standpoint and less likely to be challenged is responsible management of public resources. As for the example about drinking and driving, I covered that earlier. A small percentage of individuals that did this is EXACTLY the reason that 18-20 year olds no longer can legally drink (as they could when I was that age back in the early '70s.)

Quote:
Most private owners actually provide a level of care equal to or better than commonly thought of organizations (such as zoos).
Not true at all. While there are certainly people that do provide excellent care, reputable zoos generally have much better funding and other resources and often provide far better care than most individuals woould ever be capable of.

Quote:
IMO though, it would stand to reason that a life that is less stressful would be more enjoyable. Instead of having to constantly to constantly wander looking for food, possibly going for days without eating,…
So are you saying we should remove all animals from the wild because it is inhumane to leave them there? The "they're better off living longer in a cage with a sedentary lifestyle" argument will not get you a lot of support.

Quote:
They just come up with an idea ( A BAN ) and that is the final word, because they say so. The people have no choice. That is wrong. Isn't that why our men and woman are dieing in other countries, to protect people from a dictator and to give them freedom of choice..
These are ELECTED officials, not dictators. When you take this kind of tone you'll turn people that may be sympathetic to your position against you. The people have plenty of choice, if they don't like an official simply don't elect them next time! When you start ranting this way you quickly lose any sense of legitimacy that you may have with your arguments.

Hunting vs keeping as pets
This is an odd comparison since these two are completely unrelated and I don't see that this has any bearing here. I know a number of people in Alaska that hunt moose as part food source. While they may seem gentle at times, these can be highly aggressive animals, particularly the males during rut.

Quote:
However the owners were charged with Animal Cruelty for allowing someone(s) to maliciously break into their animals enclosure.
You've so frequently posted "someone told me" information as facts I usually don't bother to respond, but this is another highly unlikely case. I don't know of any place in the US where allowing an animal to escape constitutes animal cruelty, and I seriously doubt there is one. There are many things they could have been charged with, but this simply isn't one of them.

As for "dumping" them as sanctuaries: These institutions would not be needed if so many people didn't get an "exotic" animal and then change their mind, get bored with the animal, or decide they were in over their heads. We get numerous calls from "responsible" people who are now trying to place an animal, and have to turn most away. The guy that gets a tiger so he can walk it on a leash around the neighborhood to show off, until one day it sees his 3 year old running and jerks away and mauls the boy, the family that raises the tiger to be a pet, only to have their teenage daughter get mauled, the guy that runs a road side "petting" zoo where he keeps breeding his tigers so he always has cubs (but then has to get rid if them when they get a certain size), the guy with no experience that gets a tiger to raise to act in the movies, but turns her into a neurotic animal because he didn't know what he was doing. And that's just a few of the local stories or stories about some of the cats that have ended up at our sanctuary. We have a long list, and all were "responsible" owners (and many of the animals came in with serious medical needs which had not been addressed for quite some time!)
Reply
post #98 of 134
1/10/05 at 8:13pm
I just received information regarding a report of two tiger cubs found wondering in western North Carolina. No one has filed a report about missing cubs.

Today I also received follow up information about a woman east of here that had 19 wolves seized for failure to obtain proper permits and improper care (most were greatly underweight and two ended up having to be euthanized for serious health problems.) After several months the animals were returned to her after she agreed to a number of conditions, mostly relating to building proper enclosures and providing proper care. I know one of the people that was leading the way to help her out, and he had asked me if I would provide some guidance. Well, the woman did get a couple of cages build, and bought the chain link fabric to build others, but not the poles or other hardware. She claimed money was getting tight, then turned around a spent several thousand dollars on fancy custom dog houses. (Regular inexpensive plastic ones may not look as nice but they would do - the poles and hardware are much more important at this point.) I understand there are some care issues again too. The people who were trying to help her are very frustrated and most have given up. Looks like animal control will end up having to seize the animals again and, once again, there will be a frantic search for a place to send the animals. Chances are pretty high at this point they'll end up being euthanized.

So much for the idea that all exotic animal owners care so much for their animals!!!

I've seen it far to many times. While there are plenty of people that take good care of their exotic animals, there are also plenty more that do not. These are the ones that got the animal in a spur of the moment decision, or because someone convinced them it would be interesting and the animal wasn't really any different than a domestic dog or cat, or more often just to show off. When the newness wears off the animal is the one that suffers. Shop around on the internet and you can get a tiger cub for a few hundred dollars. The seller made his money, he doesn't care. Now someone has a tiger with no experience, no knowledge, and most likely didn't bother to check local ordinances. The animal will become big, and strong, and dangerous, and expensive to feed . Then suddenly there will be a need to "immediately" find a place for this animal, or worse there will be a serious injury or death.
Reply
post #99 of 134
1/10/05 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad
I just received information regarding a report of two tiger cubs found wondering in western North Carolina. No one has filed a report about missing cubs.

Today I also received follow up information about a woman east of here that had 19 wolves seized for failure to obtain proper permits and improper care (most were greatly underweight and two ended up having to be euthanized for serious health problems.) After several months the animals were returned to her after she agreed to a number of conditions, mostly relating to building proper enclosures and providing proper care. I know one of the people that was leading the way to help her out, and he had asked me if I would provide some guidance. Well, the woman did get a couple of cages build, and bought the chain link fabric to build others, but not the poles or other hardware. She claimed money was getting tight, then turned around a spent several thousand dollars on fancy custom dog houses. (Regular inexpensive plastic ones may not look as nice but they would do - the poles and hardware are much more important at this point.) I understand there are some care issues again too. The people who were trying to help her are very frustrated and most have given up. Looks like animal control will end up having to seize the animals again and, once again, there will be a frantic search for a place to send the animals. Chances are pretty high at this point they'll end up being euthanized.

So much for the idea that all exotic animal owners care so much for their animals!!!

I've seen it far to many times. While there are plenty of people that take good care of their exotic animals, there are also plenty more that do not. These are the ones that got the animal in a spur of the moment decision, or because someone convinced them it would be interesting and the animal wasn't really any different than a domestic dog or cat, or more often just to show off. When the newness wears off the animal is the one that suffers. Shop around on the internet and you can get a tiger cub for a few hundred dollars. The seller made his money, he doesn't care. Now someone has a tiger with no experience, no knowledge, and most likely didn't bother to check local ordinances. The animal will become big, and strong, and dangerous, and expensive to feed . Then suddenly there will be a need to "immediately" find a place for this animal, or worse there will be a serious injury or death.
Purchasing tigers randmoly off of the internet is much much harder, unless you are in the same state of the seller. Recent FEDERAL regulation has seen to that, requiring USDA certification for both the seller AND now the Purchaser. I personally think that this was a very good choice.

And yes, not every owner is responsible, but the vast majority of responsible owners keep a low profile, so you rarely hear much about them.

I will respond to your previous post when I have the time to properly respond, I promise that I am not ignoring it, nor am I at a loss for something to say.

Spotz
Reply
post #100 of 134
1/11/05 at 12:33am
Thread Starter 
First of all, lets get one thing straight. I do not own my exotics because I am a show off!!!! I own them because I love these animals and I, LIKE MOST RESPOSNIBLE EXOTIC OWNERS, take very good care of them. Yes, it is TRUE and I have the facts to prove it, most RESPONSIBLE PRIVATE OWNERS do take better care of their animals than a lot of zoos. Yes, ban laws are lazy. Most of our elected officals do not want to bother to take the time to pass reasonable regulations. As stated before, it is easier to ban something. Lets see, New York just passed a ban law, mainly influeneced by one person who decided it was proper to keep a tiger in his apartment. Yes, this was stupid, but, should all New York exotic owners suffer because of this one fool??? New York city already had regulations in place. This guy should have been the one punished, not all owners. If you say yes, then I want to see a ban on alcohol, guns...I can go on. More people are killed and or injured by alcohol in a single day by alcohol, even since they raised the drinking age to 21. It isn't just the young kids drink and drive. Most people are totally irresponsible when they drink. We have regulations to help protect us. A ban on these items would be stupid. We couldn't ban them however, there is way to much money to be made from alcohol. You say these laws have nothing to do with the AR movement, you want to bet on that??? I know full well who push for these laws. Yes, there are other incidents too, like when someone gets injured by a large cat. More often than not, these incidents are blown up to make them sound worse, by our liberal media. For example, lets say you have an incident where a 10 year old child gets scratched by the family's tiger. Ok, maybe the injury does require medical care and even a few stiches, but, the girl is fine. News reports would sound something like this. Local todler mauled by famil'y pet tiger was rushed to the hospital today!! The media doesn't help either, they like to brain wash us. They can not just report the news, they have to exagerate. As for the irresponsible people who own exotics, what about the many irresponsible domestic pet owners out there?? What about the irresponsible person who buys a kitten for their child, because they think it is cute and then dumps the cat when it gets older, because the child doesn't want to take care of it. I guess we should ban domestics as well...right??? What about irresponsible PARENTS out there?? You know how many children die at the hands of their own parents??? Geez, maybe we should ban people from having kids!!! To make statements that most exotic owners, own these animals to show off, is just down right ignorant. Yes, I am sure there are a few, but should I suffer because of them...NO!!!! Oh, by the way, to show you how irresponsible I am, that I only own my cats to "show off" and don't really love them, maybe I should post on here, a log of the countless hours my wife and I spend taking care of our bobcats to make sure they are healthy AND happy. Maybe I should list all the things I have to give up in order that my cats are safe and happy. Hmmm, I can't think of the last time I went away for more than half a day, no vacations here, unless my bobs come with me. Lets see, countless hours reading on health issues, diet and care. I can go on!!! This is true for most exotic owners as well, not just myself. (As a side note, we can thank a USELESS ban law that now prevents my wife and I from visiting her family together. You see, her family lives in New York state, our LOVED bobcats are no longer welcome there. Yes, I am held hostage in my own country. I am no longer free to travel anywhere I want too, all in favor of a lazy no brainer ban law) Am I upset about giving up so many of my personal things to own these beautiful cats? The answer is NO, I would have it no other way. Am I upset about these ban laws?? Damn right I am. Will I fight these law makers to the bitter end defending MY RIGHT to own exotics, YES!!!! I am sure this post, at the moment, is a bunch of rambling, maybe I should have waited until I cooled down a bit. But hey, it must be the MACHO EGO part of me trying to make another statement. For the record, I have nothing to prove to anyone. I do not live my life to impress another human being. I live my life for me, my wife and our cats. I like to share my experiences with everyone here, not to show off. I, like most responsible exotic owners, never tell anyone that it is a walk in the park to own these animals. Anyone who has read all of my posts would know that. Anyone who has questioned me in private about exotic cat ownership was given responsible answers. I tell them like it is, it isn't easy. To properly care for anything that you love takes work. I did a lot of research BEFORE I got my first bobcat. I made a lot of phone calls to other exotic cat owners as well. They all told me the same thing. It takes most of your free time, money, patience, and most importantly, you must be responsible, if you want to own and care for one of these animals. None of them ever told me it was easy or that it was just like owning a domestic cat. Yes, the behavior of these cats are similar, but that is about as close as it gets between owning an exotic cat and a domestic. To show how exotic owners support each other and how caring we are, I may be opening up my hear to another bobcat. Not because I am macho, you can thank a useless ban law for this. You see, a 2 year old bobcat lost it's home in New York. Thank you ban laws....see how well they work By the way, to all of you who voted against ban laws, I salute you
Reply
post #101 of 134
1/11/05 at 10:04am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad
As for "dumping" them as sanctuaries: These institutions would not be needed if so many people didn't get an "exotic" animal and then change their mind, get bored with the animal, or decide they were in over their heads. We get numerous calls from "responsible" people who are now trying to place an animal, and have to turn most away. The guy that gets a tiger so he can walk it on a leash around the neighborhood to show off, until one day it sees his 3 year old running and jerks away and mauls the boy, the family that raises the tiger to be a pet, only to have their teenage daughter get mauled, the guy that runs a road side "petting" zoo where he keeps breeding his tigers so he always has cubs (but then has to get rid if them when they get a certain size), the guy with no experience that gets a tiger to raise to act in the movies, but turns her into a neurotic animal because he didn't know what he was doing. And that's just a few of the local stories or stories about some of the cats that have ended up at our sanctuary. We have a long list, and all were "responsible" owners (and many of the animals came in with serious medical needs which had not been addressed for quite some time!)
Yes, I agree with the fact that a sanctuary would not be needed if it wasn't for IRRESPONSIBLE owners. Hey, we wouldn't need local shelters for the MILLIONS of homeless domestic animals if it wasn't for IRRESPONSIBLE people either. Some people have to give up their animal because of, once again, useless ban laws. When some of these laws are passed, they do not even allow the grandfathering in of current owners animals. Yes, some people find they have gotten in over their heads. That is not a reason to pass bans. NEVER!!! Again, reasonable regulations in place would help promote responsible ownership. I did the research and I knew what I was getting myself into BEFORE I got my bobcats. I want to own a cougar one day and I will, but not until I am 100% ready to take on such a task. Responsible owners do not just say hey, I want a tiger and go out and buy one. Those are the fools who ruin it for everyone. The so called guy who walks his tiger around the neighborhood would be a fool as well and is NOT a responsible owner. You see, you make statements like this, but this is NOT what responsible owners do. I know this for a fact!! If someone's teenage daughter gets mauled (Hmmm, was this stated by our wonderful liberal media?), who's fault is it? If I had tiger, this would never happen. Why? because I would never let it happen. I would have the proper enclosure to ensure that no one would get into the enclosure, without me being there. That is where regulations would help. It would help people to understand what they are getting into. All these facts that you have stated are from the few irresponsible owners out there. Responsible people never make it into the news. Why? Because they take great care of their animals. The news would not want to report anything like this. There is no blood and guts in that story, so it is useless to them. By the way, as for the "petting zoos" or the so called "movie trainer". Guess what, most ban laws STILL ALLOW these people to do this. In some states, you can not get a permit to own such an animal unless it is for public display or if you are going to raise them for fur. That makes sense. Ban laws force people to do these things. Ban laws will now make things worse. Now who is the show off? The person who loves their animal or someone who has nothing better to do with their money than to spend it on a dead animals fur.
Reply
post #102 of 134
1/11/05 at 10:27am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CharmsDad
I've seen it far to many times. While there are plenty of people that take good care of their exotic animals, there are also plenty more that do not. These are the ones that got the animal in a spur of the moment decision, or because someone convinced them it would be interesting and the animal wasn't really any different than a domestic dog or cat, or more often just to show off.
John, look at what George actually said before getting your nose so out of joint. This was hardly an accusation directed at you. I might add that due to his job, he's highly qualified to comment on this matter. You've admitted yourself that there aren't just responsible owners, but irresponsible ones. It's not merely the exotic pets that are affected by such irresponsibility, but people in his line of work, who have to "clean up the mess", if that's possible. There's never just one side to any issue, and he has simply made points based on his experience.
Reply
post #103 of 134
1/11/05 at 10:33am

Let's keep the discussion objective. Whether all participants agree with you here will not affect bans in any way whatsoever.
Reply
post #104 of 134
1/11/05 at 9:19pm
Just catching up with this thread. Returning to John's question: should responsible people be allowed to own exotic (wild) cats?

With all due respect to Spotz and John who clearly love and care impeccably for their cats, I think wild cats are just that - wild. And I think the wild is where they belong. Not in an apartment. Not sleeping on a bed. Not in a big backyard enclosure.

I understand how many species of wild cats are becoming endangered, largely due to loss of habitat and poaching. It would be an enormous tragedy to lose any of these beautiful cats to extinction. But there has to be a better way than keeping and breeding these wild cats in captivity. I would rather see effort put into keeping the cats in their natural habitats, and working toward protecting these habitats, not an easy task, I know. But I fear that the good intentions of people in trying to protect these cats by keeping them in captivity takes away something very essential to these animals - their wildness.
Reply
post #105 of 134
1/11/05 at 10:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn
Just catching up with this thread. Returning to John's question: should responsible people be allowed to own exotic (wild) cats?

With all due respect to Spotz and John who clearly love and care impeccably for their cats, I think wild cats are just that - wild. And I think the wild is where they belong. Not in an apartment. Not sleeping on a bed. Not in a big backyard enclosure.

I understand how many species of wild cats are becoming endangered, largely due to loss of habitat and poaching. It would be an enormous tragedy to lose any of these beautiful cats to extinction. But there has to be a better way than keeping and breeding these wild cats in captivity. I would rather see effort put into keeping the cats in their natural habitats, and working toward protecting these habitats, not an easy task, I know. But I fear that the good intentions of people in trying to protect these cats by keeping them in captivity takes away something very essential to these animals - their wildness.
I have to respectfully disagree that captivity degrades these animals.

I've never argued that they should not be allowed to live in the wild. I've argued that life is generally of equal or better quality in captivity, but not that captivity is the only solution.

Is there a better option than captivity?

The truth still remains that the majority of the organizations out there pushing for strict legislation or worse yet all out bans, have absolutely no track record or history of actually trying to address the real issues facing the wild populations. Humans.

It has been decades since these animals were removed from the wild in any significant quantity for the purpose of captive ownership. Private ownership of these animals, at least in 'developed' countries, have absolutely no deterimental effect to the wild population. I can guarantee that if anyone did a blanket survey of every single organization that has these animals, from national zoos to individual owners, there would only be a very small number of animals directly removed from the wild. Almost every single animal in captivity has been bred in captivity for generations, no different than the 'domestic' cat.

What's worse is that as our populations grow into the native habitats of these animals, we don't adapt ourselves to co-existing with them, we remove their presence. Cougars used to call most of the USA home, but as human populations have grown, cougars have been forced out of their homes and hunted to the brink of extinction in some places. Example, the Florida Panther, a sub-species which used to call 4 states home, now only has a limited place in the southern part of Florida, in the swamplands that are the everglades. It wasn't captive ownership of these animals that caused this problem. The Jaguar is another example, this cat used to call areas of the states bordering Mexico home, they have been pushed down into mexico, again the population reduction not caused by captive ownership.

Perhaps the best example though would be Tigers, a specie not even native to the western hemispehere. There are more tigers in captivity world wide than exist in the wild now. Is this because people that own these animals in captivity have removed the vast majority of them from the wild? NO. It's because these animals are worth more dead than alive in most of their native habitats. At least the vast majority of captive owners want to keep their animals alive; even after being severely injured by on of his tigers, the main thing that Roy Horn was saying on the way to the hospital was 'Don't kill the cat'.

As for reintroducing these animals back into the wild...well where do we put them? I know Iowa has been trying to reintroduce Cougars back into the wild, yet I also remember getting into a discussion with some members regarding their desire to be able to remove these animals should they get too close to their home. As soon as people put these animals back into the wild, other people fight to once again remove them.

The world talks the talk when it comes to protecting these animals in their native habitats. But when it comes time to actually make these words a realty, the conversation changes focus to 'more important issues'.

The simple truth is that humans are the single greatest threat to this world, and to the worlds inhabitants. In many ways we have forgotten that we are not but a part of this world; we've forgotten, or chosen to ignore the consequences of our actions on others.We continue to take everything that we see as a possession, as an item to do with as we want. In doing so, we are leaving a swath of destruction that may prove impossible to fix. When we target a specific group of people and force them out of their homes or worse yet systematically eliminate them, it's called genocide. Yet when we do the same to plants, or animals, we just take it in stride and call it progress.

The current state of affairs world wide, makes captive ownership the only currently valid means of ensuring the existance of these animals. That is not to say that captivity is the only answer to saving these animals, just that captive ownership/management is the only option that has any significant chance of success currently. Even then, the outlook is far from rosy.

Captivity of these cats has shown time and again that they can thrive in captivity. In captivity these animals live longer and healthier lives and in the vast majority of cases happy lives. Captivity doesn't remove their wildness, rather it increases their trust in us. Example? Domestic cats, animals which have been in captivity for centuries. If captivity removed an animals wildness, then how did feral cats come to exist? Better yet, why is it that we can capture feral cats and usually restore their 'domestic' behavior? We earn their trust. See the only difference between a wild animal, and a domesticated animal, is trust. In the wild, we are competitors whereas in captivity we can be companions. They trust us to provide for their needs, but we also have to trust them.

Responsible ownership of these animals does not make them a lesser being. Responsibly owning a domestic cat does not degrade it, likewise responsibly owning a cougar doesn't degrade the animal either.

Spotz
Reply
post #106 of 134
1/11/05 at 11:18pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn
Just catching up with this thread. Returning to John's question: should responsible people be allowed to own exotic (wild) cats?

With all due respect to Spotz and John who clearly love and care impeccably for their cats, I think wild cats are just that - wild. And I think the wild is where they belong. Not in an apartment. Not sleeping on a bed. Not in a big backyard enclosure.

I understand how many species of wild cats are becoming endangered, largely due to loss of habitat and poaching. It would be an enormous tragedy to lose any of these beautiful cats to extinction. But there has to be a better way than keeping and breeding these wild cats in captivity. I would rather see effort put into keeping the cats in their natural habitats, and working toward protecting these habitats, not an easy task, I know. But I fear that the good intentions of people in trying to protect these cats by keeping them in captivity takes away something very essential to these animals - their wildness.
This is all good intention, but there is no such thing or place as "the wild' anymore. Maybe in the far reaches of places like Alaska and Africa, but even in Africa, the wild is well, not so wild any more. But as for being "wild" you must understand where most of these cats come from, that are kept by private owners. You do not just walk out into the wild, find a cat and bring it home. That would be impossible, unless it was a very young kitten or cub and is illegal in most cases. These cats are raised by humans, we are part of their lives and they are part of ours. Let me give you an example. Amber and Boris are bobcats, we all know that by now. (I have however, had a few people think Boris was a tiger ) Bobcats, in the wild, live a solitary life. However, Amber and Boris do not live such a solitary life as they would in the wild. In fact, Amber and Boris love each other and love my domestics as well. If you take one or the other out for their car ride (which they love by the way) when they return home, they can not wait to go seek out the one who stayed home. They great each other with head rubs and kisses. They do not do this in the wild, only in times of breeding do they come together. When I first wake up in the morning, I am always greeted with a bobcat on my back. If I sleep in too late, well, Boris is always there to wake me and tell me it's time to play with him. So, as you see, Amber and Boris do live a full healthy happy life. It may not be a life in the wild, but they do not know fully what life in the wild is. Yes, there are some behaviors that are governed by instinct, just the same as with a domestic cat. Hmmm, why shouldn't they deserve to sleep on a bed, they enjoy it So you see, there is nothing wrong with sharing your life with these beautiful cats. I enjoy my time with them and I know they enjoy their time with me. To have a conversation with a bobcat, or any other big cat, is truly special. I still long for the day I can go back and visit my cougar friend Shana. The last time I saw her, back in October, we shared some wonderful time and some good conversation. I had no idea what she was telling me, but I talked to her, she talked back and I got two huge wet cougar kisses from her as well When done properly, sharing your life with these creatures is truly something special. No, it isn't for everyone and it is hard work, I have stated that countless times, just like having human kids isn't for everyone, like me. I don't want any children, I have my cats, they are my children. Just one more thing to think about here. If it wasn't for humans and their desire to live with the wild animals, that little bundle of fur, the domestic cat, that everyone on here shares a common interest in, would not be in existence today. Look closely at your cat. See those tabby stripes? Those stripes are a reminder of where your cat came from...the wild
Reply
post #107 of 134
1/11/05 at 11:27pm
Thread Starter 
Spotz, I should have waited a few minutes and let you post. I would have saved my fingers By the way, very good post.
Reply
post #108 of 134
1/12/05 at 11:51am
Captivity diminishes (rather than "degrade", your word, not mine) what is inherent in the nature of an exotic cat - its wildness.

There is no question that animals, both domestic and wild, have suffered at the hands of humans. We are capable of causing great destruction, but we are equally capable of doing great good. There are currently many individuals and organizations trying to protect wild animals and their habitats, of course with varying degrees of success. It is an uphill battle, but one that is certainly worth fighting.

I believe it is somewhat presumptuous to assume that life is of equal or better quality for wild cats in captivity as it is for them in the wild. We make judgments on quality of life through what appeals to us as humans: comfortable surroundings, physical touch and affection. For humans these things are desirable and indeed, make for a good life. However, despite how beneficial we think these things are, it is an artificial environment for a wild cat. No matter how "improved" their lives are made by human interference, it is not how nature intended wild cats to live.

It is fascinating that wild cats can be taught to "trust" humans. But just because we *can* do this, does it necessarily follow that we *should*?

The comparison of the domestic house cat to the truly wild cats of the world is a bit like comparing apples and oranges - they're both fruits, true, but they're different.
The member of the feline family we're all familiar with, the house cat, was domesticated thousands of years ago and did not become so through captivity. Domestic cats learned to associate humans with food and took the next step of making physical contact with people. The cat in my yard, Scout, is considered a "feral" cat. Feral is not the equivalent of wild in the context of how we're using that word in this discussion. Scout simply showed up on my deck one night and stared at me through my glass door. For the past 2 years, he has continued to show up for food, water and shelter. Our agreement is that I will provide these things, and he will continue to grace me with his presence. Scout will stand very close to me now and will purr, and even show me his stomach sometimes. But he has done these things on *his* terms. I don't try to touch him and will not unless he makes clear that that is what he wants. He comes from generations of domesticated cats, and it is only through the irresponsibility of people who didn't neuter his parents, that he has had to revert to a *degree* of wildness in order to survive.

I understand that you did not take your cats from the wild, but that they were bred in captivity. When referring to the cats, the words "owned" or "ownership" are frequently used. I can't help but cringe at these words and I think this is the main point where our thinking diverges. Ownership reduces the owned, in this case, wild cats, to mere property. You may say that I'm getting caught up in semantics, but this goes to the heart of the issue. The controversy of the bans and the question of whether or not people should be able to "own" wild cats has little to do with the welfare and best interest of the cats, but everything to do with property rights. Having said that, I will again state that I've no doubt that the particular members here who have exotics truly love them and feel responsible for them and in no way view them simply as property.

The Animal Sanctuary of the United States in a non-profit sanctuary that provides care to hundreds of unwanted, abused and neglected exotic cats, as well as bears, wolves and other animals. The animals at the sanctuary are those that are displaced by the exotic pet trade, roadside zoos and breeding facilities. There are currently over 650 animals there. This is their take: "Those who breed endangered species in the US are simply doing so for personal gain. The continual argument is that if we do not allow for the breeding of endangered species in captivity, the species in question will soon become extinct. The reality is that if we do not assist the countries of origin by protecting what natural habitat is left, then many endangered species *will* become extinct. Raising endangered species in captivity is not the answer. All it does is increase an existing overpopulation of wild and exotic animals in captivity..."
Reply
post #109 of 134
1/12/05 at 10:33pm
Indeed there are plenty of organizations that are working towards protecting these animals in the wild. My original statment was that there is a difference between these organizations and the ones that seek to ban ownership of these animals.

Semantics is something that can be discussed all day long. Taken by its dictionary meaning, Degrade is synonmyous with diminish. Again, a semantic argument. We may use different words, the meaning is the same. I still disagree that having these animals in captivity degrades[my word]/ diminishes[your word] these animals. Captivity doesn't change the animal into something it isn't.

Since were on semantics...

Private owner is a blanket term which includes virtually every organization that owns these animals. There are very few publically owned animals. On a conservational standpoint, private ownership is a necessary part of protecting and saving these animals. Any and all knowledge gained throught private ownership, can be directly used to help protect and improve the lives of their wild counterparts.

Trust is not something that is "taught", nor is it something that is forced. Trust is something that is earned, and something that is given.

Your question regarding ability and choice is interesting, and a question that has blessed almost every decision ever made by a person. It is rare, if not impossible, to find a topic that has a single answer to this very question. These animals can trust us, does that mean that they should?

I reject the notion that quality of life in captivity is less than that of life in the wild. Granted there will always be an irresponsible owner that will provide a counterpoint to this argument, however for the majority of private owners from individuals to large corporations(zoos/sanctuaries/etc) these animals are afforded an environment that is accomodating to their needs in many aspects, aspects that life in the wild could only rarely[if ever] match. There is no presumption here, it is fact. Captive animals live healthier, longer lives, they demonstrate behaviorial patterns associated with happiness much more frequently in captivity than they do in the wild, so they also live happier lives.

What did nature intend for these animals? Better yet, what did nature intend for Humans? Did nature intend for us to live in cities, to build industries which destroy nature, to have such negative effects on other living beings? Did nature intend for us to become what we are now, after all we are just as much a part of nature as any other living thing, are we not? We know that we can coexist peacefully with these animals, and they with us. Surely if nature didn't intend for us to do so, it wouldn't be possible? With all due respect, nature is something that we have only began to understand, to follow the presumption that we understand fully what nature intended/intends is a gross misconception at the least.


Property or not?

For all legal and practical purposes, seeking to treat these animals as something other than property, creates numerous issues. This is not personal opinion, but rather a well studied and widely understood fact. Some of the most respected national organizations for animal welfare have statments on this very issue. To list but a few:

http://www.cfa.org/articles/guardian-vs-owner.html
http://www.avma.org/policies/animalw....asp#ownership
http://www.akc.org/canine_legislatio...s.cfm#guardian
http://www.naiaonline.org/body/artic...ardianship.htm
http://www.civicusa.org/animalrightsterrorists/id3.html

I am quite familiar with the Animal Sanctuary of the United States, and given their stance on private ownership and their history of pushing for bans at every opportunity, I would put not more credit in their statments than I would of a bald face liar. Their past actions, and their current functions have severely limited positive effect on the existance of these animals, in the wild or in captivity. Their stance on captive husbandry of these animals is just as negative:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wild Animal Orphanage - a.k.a. The Animal Sanctuary of the United States
Credible sanctuaries DO NOT take animals into classrooms, shopping malls or any other public entity, this practice is not educational.
Credible sanctuaries DO NOT play with the animals, allow the public to handle animals or use animals for fundraising purposes.
They keep the level of interaction with these animals to a strict minimum, they do not agree that these animals can be used in an educational capacity, and they vehemently attack anyone that does not agree with their opinions. Using The Animal Sanctuary of the United States for an example is a poor choice at best. The are in the same league as PETA or HSUS, their opinions are not much more than propoganda.

These animals can and do thrive in captivity, and just as the dog and the cat are considered "domesticated" these animals can "adapt to live in a human environment".

Spotz
Reply
post #110 of 134
1/12/05 at 10:38pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I believe it is somewhat presumptuous to assume that life is of equal or better quality for wild cats in captivity as it is for them in the wild. We make judgments on quality of life through what appeals to us as humans: comfortable surroundings, physical touch and affection. For humans these things are desirable and indeed, make for a good life. However, despite how beneficial we think these things are, it is an artificial environment for a wild cat. No matter how "improved" their lives are made by human interference, it is not how nature intended wild cats to live.
Hmmm, not to offend anyone here, but this sounds like words from the AR people, dare I say...PETA. I don't think we were ever presumptuous at all. I know I never said that the quality of life for my cats is better than that in the wild, but, it is a quality of life that they enjoy. It has been proven, that wild cats that live with humans in captivity, live a much longer life. They are never hungry and they never have to fight to survive. (this of course, is a cat raised with a dedicated responsible person) I know my cats are happy, I see it every day. Yes, they love affection, I am not assuming anything when I say that. One look at their face speaks volumes. Of course, then there are the times we spend communicating with each other. The little chuffs, barks and purrs. They miss us when we are not home. If we spend to much time away from them, they let us know. Of course, maybe Boris could tell you how happy he is, if only he could speak our language. Every morning when my alarm goes off, he is there waiting. As soon as I get out of bed, he jumps on my back and greets me with loud bobcat purrs As for people breeding these cats just for profit, yes, just as with anything we humans do, there are some that ruin it for everyone. They have to let their greed for money influence them. We have the same problem with domestic cat breeders as well. There are the ones who breed cats for the love of a breed and then there are the ones who do it to make money. I am not trying to make light of the fact that there are exotic cats in shelters, this is a very sad fact, one in which ban laws will now only increase. (As a matter of fact, I may be rescuing a bobcat from New York) I feel that with proper regulations, we can allow responsible caring people to own or should I say, share their lives, with these wonderful creatures, while less go to a sanctuary. I would love to see all of these cats go to good homes. But, it is a sad fact, since ban laws have been put into place in some states, these cats who were in loving homes, had to be removed and now live their lives in sanctuaries. Of course, some ended up going to a sanctuary, because the person who decided they wanted the animal, did not know what they were getting themselves into. Again, good solid reasonable regulations would help educate people. I feel if people really knew what they were getting into, some would not make the mistake of owning something they can not take care of. One thing is for certain, ban laws will only increase the likelihood of the illegal pet trade. Some people will still want to own these animals and will own them illegally. Of course, when they get caught, the animal will suffer. I don't want to see this happen, ban laws are useless.
Reply
post #111 of 134
1/13/05 at 9:42pm
I voted against all bans, but that isn't entirely correct. I think people should be allowed, if and only if, they hold up to inspection. ( I realize this would create a need for inspectors of such a thing, aside from the usual animal control and humane society.) I do think permits should be issued based on this. I just don't want to see bans lifted and then people turning a profit off of puppymill type endeavors. If the people can prove responsibility, by all means, let them have whatever they want, but I wouldn't want just anyone to get these animals.

Did that make sense?
Reply
post #112 of 134
1/13/05 at 10:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grissom
I voted against all bans, but that isn't entirely correct. I think people should be allowed, if and only if, they hold up to inspection. ( I realize this would create a need for inspectors of such a thing, aside from the usual animal control and humane society.) I do think permits should be issued based on this. I just don't want to see bans lifted and then people turning a profit off of puppymill type endeavors. If the people can prove responsibility, by all means, let them have whatever they want, but I wouldn't want just anyone to get these animals.

Did that make sense?
Absolutely!

Spotz
Reply
post #113 of 134
1/13/05 at 10:08pm
Thread Starter 
Quote:
I voted against all bans, but that isn't entirely correct. I think people should be allowed, if and only if, they hold up to inspection.
Good point, inspections would help ensure that the animals are in good health and that they have the proper secure enlcosures to protect the animal as well as the public. When I got my first bobcat, the DNR came out to my home to check all the paperwork to make sure that I was legal. They did not tell me when they were going to come out, they just payed a surprise visit. This idea of a surprise visit keeps you on your toes. These ideas work if you let them. Thank you for voting against bans
Reply
post #114 of 134
1/14/05 at 10:18pm
John - regarding your post (#110, this is quite the thread!), the first line of which reads : "not to offend anyone here, but this sounds like words from the AR people, dare I say...PETA" in response to a comment I made in another post. To clarify, I am not a member nor am I a fan of PETA or any other AR organization. My opinions and words are my own.

I wonder how the words "animal" and "rights" came to be considered "dirty words" when used together. There are always fringe elements in any philosophically-based social group or institution. Think of politics or religion, for example: there are plenty of radicals and extremists in both. However, we wouldn't abolish, or dismiss either religion or politics because of this fact.

I took a look at some of the websites mentioned by Spotz, which address the issue of "owner" vs. "guardian". Honestly, they left me shaking my head. These are "respected national organizations for animal welfare"? With the exception of the avma site, which only touched on the subject with a brief paragraph, it's quite apparent that what is most troubling to certain people about switching from the use of "owner" to "guardian" is that they see this as affecting their business. These are people who sell and breed companion animals (we won't get into the ethics of doing this while millions of pets die in shelters), members of the (their term here) "pet industry". The self-serving "info" on one site was from "Pet Business" Magazine. They are far less concerned with how the new terminology could impact animals' lives than they are with protecting their own hides. The problem for them is that the public might actually start viewing animals not as mere commodities, but as the sentient beings they are. Wouldn't that open up a can of worms!

It also turns out that the AR people don't have the corner on radical thought. Here's an excerpt from the civicusa site: (regarding AR "terrorists")

"THEIR GOAL IS TO KILL AND DESTROY ALL COMPANION ANIMALS

Why are government officials not only allowing this criminal activity, but joining in? The local city/county attorneys and law enforcement are either involved in this scheme and artifice, or they are too stupid to see through it."

I won't dignify the above passage with a response.

I would ask, though, that you consider that just as all people who have exotic cats are not macho idiots, not all people interested in the concept of animal rights are terrorists or extremists.

A quote from an earlier post regarding exotic cats: "on a conservational standpoint, private ownership is a necessary part of protecting and saving these animals. Any and all knowledge gained through private ownership can be directly used to help protect and improve the lives of their wild counterparts." I understand how research done by biologists, naturalists, vets with an exotic speciality, etc., might benefit the animals. I'm unsure of what an individual who keeps exotics could contribute to this end. Would you clarify this?

Another quote previously written by a member: "We (humans) continue to take everything we see as a possession, as an item to do with what we want." Doesn't this also apply to exotics if we say it's our "right" to breed and keep them?

It's troubling that there are so many (legitimate) wildlife sanctuaries in existence now in the US ,and like domestic animal shelters, busting at the seams. I realize that many of the animals are cast-offs from zoos and the "entertainment" industry, but some are from irresponsible individuals as well. I'm afraid that we've just created another category of animal to suffer the same fate as too many companion animals already do.

IMO the decision to acquire an exotic cat requires a great deal of thought about the ethics of doing so. Wild cats are supreme predators. Everything about their bodies is designed for one purpose: hunting. They're extremely fast, and in most cases large, powerful animals. That they can adapt to living with humans is remarkable. I'm just not convinced that it's right.
Reply
post #115 of 134
1/14/05 at 11:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat
It's illegal to sell them here, for some reason. I'd be a bit sceptical, too, allowing them around children, because of the many parasites. We've taken in some underweight ones for the winter, and they've all had lung worms, in addition to incredible tick infestations. The ticks are a real danger here - borreliosis, viral encephalitis, Lyme's, and Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever are quite prevalent. We gathered up quite a few to weigh them in October, and one poor little baby had something like 37 ticks.
The hedgehogs I am talking about are pygmy hedgehogs, very small...you can hold them in the palm of your hand. They are legal to own here in Iowa, but illegal in some other states, I found out. They actually make great pets and if you get one from a ligitimate breeder they are fine around children, no health problems at all. Hedgies are actually insectivorous (sp?) like anteaters...although many people think they are rodents. When June bugs are in season, that is their favorite snack! the crunching sound is gross, but enjoying them eating them is worth it!
Reply
post #116 of 134
1/15/05 at 12:50am
After reading through the last few pages of this thread that I had missed, I have a few comments...not that I really have any right or authority to comment, but just my personal opinion, which is what this thread, actually this whole forum is about. Charms dad...you had some very reasonable points, and I respect the way you tried to get them across. I don't think you meant to anger anyone, but yet, I can see how an exotic pet owner who is responsible might take offense at them. We have to look at both sides of it. Amber the bobcat loves and deeply cares for his bobcats and should not be treated as one of the irresponsible exotic pet owners who only want to show off. Surely there must be some way to allow truely responsible people to own these animals and yet keep the "show offs" at bay. And one more quick comment which I am sure will gain me no popularity...which bobcat is better off...the one loved and cared for in a private environment, or the poor bobcat who was unlucky enough to have been hunted (many states have hunting seasons for bobcats...Missouri is one) or accidentally trapped, and stuffed in someone's living room? So much for returning them to the wild.
Reply
post #117 of 134
1/15/05 at 8:47am
I think the key word in this is RESPONSIBLE. I feel there's nothing wrong with RESPONSIBLE people owning these animals. However, i think the bans are moving in because of the IRRESPONSIBLE people getting them just to say they have them, and whom are not taking proper care and precautions with them. I for one think it would be AWESOME to have my own bobcat!!!
Reply
post #118 of 134
1/15/05 at 10:44am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn
IMO the decision to acquire an exotic cat requires a great deal of thought about the ethics of doing so. Wild cats are supreme predators. Everything about their bodies is designed for one purpose: hunting. They're extremely fast, and in most cases large, powerful animals. That they can adapt to living with humans is remarkable. I'm just not convinced that it's right.
Ethics, Morality, Right vs. Wrong. All synonyms, and at the root of the terms, all ultimately opinions.

When it comes to creating a standard, such as legal regulation, the regulation cannot be based merely on an opinion, there must be sufficient evidence to back up an opinion. Almost everyone would agree with the statement 'Murder is Wrong' and in support of this opinion, there are very few circumstances where intentionally killing another person is beneficial to society. When it comes to owning pets, the answer is not nearly so clear.

  • The opinion that pets are wrong is not a common opinion.
    [A large percentage of people own pets]
  • The opinion that ‘wild’ animals cannot be made pets is easily disproven.
    [the common Dog and the common Cat can both be directly traced back to their 'wild' counterparts]
  • The opinion that 'wild' animals should not be made pets is nearly impossible to prove with facts.
    [There is little evidence to prove that 'wild' animals cannot thrive in a captive environment]
The notion that owning these animals is morally/ethically wrong, is an opinion. An opinion that I don't share, but one which I do respect as such nonetheless. I may believe that these animals can make a great pet in the hands of a capable individual, but I don't believe that everyone MUST comply with my opinion. I support reasonable regulations, not bans.

Reasonable regulations allow for standards to be established. Standards designed to ensure that an animal is able to thrive. Anyone who is willing to meet these standards would be permitted to own an animal.

Regulations respect a persons right to choose, whereas a ban removes any choice.

Freedom of Choice/Belief is one of the core values in the USA. Tolerance is another. Bans don't allow for either.

Spotz
Reply
post #119 of 134
1/15/05 at 11:09am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn
It's troubling that there are so many (legitimate) wildlife sanctuaries in existence now in the US ,and like domestic animal shelters, busting at the seams. I realize that many of the animals are cast-offs from zoos and the "entertainment" industry, but some are from irresponsible individuals as well. I'm afraid that we've just created another category of animal to suffer the same fate as too many companion animals already do.
Indeed it is, especially since as you mentioned, the vast majority of these animals are from commercial entities. Individual owners are much less likely to abandon their animals to a shelter than are organizations which rely on animals in their prime.

What's worse yet, is that most regulations introduced over the past few years, have sought to either ban ownership completely, or to restrict ownership to commercial organizations only. Organizations that are more likely to place high demands on their animals, to put their animals in more stressful environments, and ultimately to expose their animals to the potential of causing/recieving damage/harm. These strict regulations make little to no sense.

Most accidents involving these animals over the history of having them in captivity have happened predominantly in a commercial setting. Happening in Zoos, Circuses, Roadside 'attractions', and even reputable Sanctuaries. Yet recently proposed bans/regulations either exempt or don't seek to regulate these entities at all. Logical?

Reasonable regulations will help ensure that there are plenty of homes for these animals, but more importantly, they will help ensure that these animals recieve proper care and are ultimately able to live a long and happy life.

I firmly believe bans or unreasonably strict regulations requiring public exhibition of these animals, impose the biggest threats to these animals both in captivity and in the wild.

Reasonable regulation is the best solution, and the easiest way to ensure that these animals do not suffer.

Spotz
Reply
post #120 of 134
1/15/05 at 11:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by KTLynn
A quote from an earlier post regarding exotic cats: "on a conservational standpoint, private ownership is a necessary part of protecting and saving these animals. Any and all knowledge gained through private ownership can be directly used to help protect and improve the lives of their wild counterparts." I understand how research done by biologists, naturalists, vets with an exotic speciality, etc., might benefit the animals. I'm unsure of what an individual who keeps exotics could contribute to this end. Would you clarify this?
These biologists, these veterinarians, these naturalists, etc all have to have access to animals to study & to treat.

Almost all organizations are private entities, but even the individual owner of one of these animals can offer a biologist/veterinarian/naturalist/etc the opportunity to work with these animals.

Studing their behavior in captivity, be it in an environment which replicates their natural habitat or in an environment such as a persons house, is extremely useful. Studying their nutrutional needs, their general tempermants, their growth and their lifespans also is beneficial. The more we know about these animals the better able we will be to both preserve and protect them in the wild. In a captive environment they are both easier to study and generally less likely to become stressed in the presense of humans.

Spotz
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › Should RESPONSIBLE people be able to own exotic (wild) cats?