PUT EXTRA MONEY IN YOUR POCKET
https://www.ebates.com/r/SYBIL414?eeid=29041

Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Bears, Hyena, Sloths, Binturongs, Red Panda, Fossa, Seals etc.

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby Splashstorm » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:13 am

I think one would have to really understand all about the way a hyena clan works before they get one. I just hate labeling any animal as "dangerous." I know some definitely are (such as some aggressive poisonous snakes) but mammals that can bond with their humans tend to not be on that list. Most times (if not always) these animals don't see us as another of their species so we are exempt from their aggressions.
Past Pets: Sea-monkeys, 7 Cottontail rabbits, a Wakin goldfish, 2 cats & a betta fish.
Wishlist: Malinois, Alaskan wolf, hyena, liger (& other big cats), Arabian horse, dolphin, & much more!

~RIP my Cottontail rabbit Brownie AUG 15 2011~
ImageImage
User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby Splashstorm » Mon Oct 22, 2012 12:22 am

And I think if statistics show proof that an animal is not dangerous, then why should I be afraid? Especially if I know what I'm doing. You have a much higher chance of getting into a car crash than be mauled by your tiger.

And the statistics were not generalized (I just generalized them in my post..)
Chance of attack/injury:
Dogs .05%
Horses .02%
Chance of death on any given day .007%
Tigers & wolves .001%
Primates .0002%
Wolfdogs .00001%
Past Pets: Sea-monkeys, 7 Cottontail rabbits, a Wakin goldfish, 2 cats & a betta fish.
Wishlist: Malinois, Alaskan wolf, hyena, liger (& other big cats), Arabian horse, dolphin, & much more!

~RIP my Cottontail rabbit Brownie AUG 15 2011~
ImageImage
User avatar
the_unstable
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:46 pm

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby the_unstable » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:09 am

The edit button is available 30 minutes after a post is made.

I know some definitely are (such as some aggressive poisonous snakes) but mammals that can bond with their humans tend to not be on that list. Most times (if not always) these animals don't see us as another of their species so we are exempt from their aggressions.

Where are you getting this information? How much experience do you have with exotic animals? Sure, there are many species that bond well to humans but even so, that doesn't mean they're not going to get mad and bite you over some raw chicken or whatever. A bond is absolutely no insurance of your safety from that animal. They are wild animals, period, and we are never fully "exempt from their aggression". Even imprinted animals will display food aggression. A bond is not going to destroy a wild animal's instincts - "I need to protect my food so I can eat and live".

And I think if statistics show proof that an animal is not dangerous, then why should I be afraid? Especially if I know what I'm doing. You have a much higher chance of getting into a car crash than be mauled by your tiger.

And the statistics were not generalized (I just generalized them in my post..)
Chance of attack/injury:
Dogs .05%
Horses .02%
Chance of death on any given day .007%
Tigers & wolves .001%
Primates .0002%
Wolfdogs .00001%

Many exotic pet owners know not to report bites because the animal can be confiscated and euthanized, thus bite statistics (like many other statistics) are inaccurate.

Statistics are not going to determine whether an animal is dangerous or not. YOU need to use your brain to determine that. And of course you have a much higher chance of getting into a car crash than being mauled by a tiger - many people drive cars for several minutes or more a day, where as very few people own tigers.

As for those chance of attacks percentages, where are you getting that information and what is it even based on?
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Oct 22, 2012 1:20 am

Perhaps the right way to say it is they are more risky than other animals. Risk can be mitigated by knowing what you are doing and having experience but it never goes away entirely.
User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby Splashstorm » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:06 am

I know about food aggression, but that's not the same as an all-out attack. And I didn't get that info from anywhere. I just inferred it (but hear me out). Animals don't treat humans as another animal, which is why many times animals will play more roughly with another animal of their same species than with us. For wolves, you are told to make sure your animal doesn't imprint fully on people so that they will not direct their social aggression on you. And look at big cats and the way they play with each other. They don't play that rough with humans at all.

Many exotic pet owners know not to report bites because the animal can be confiscated and euthanized, thus bite statistics (like many other statistics) are inaccurate.


You have a point there, but if they were all-out mauled, that would be pretty hard to hide...

Statistics are not going to determine whether an animal is dangerous or not. YOU need to use your brain to determine that. And of course you have a much higher chance of getting into a car crash than being mauled by a tiger - many people drive cars for several minutes or more a day, where as very few people own tigers.

As for those chance of attacks percentages, where are you getting that information and what is it even based on?


Stats will not determine whether an animal is dangerous or not, but it DOES give you a sort of over-view of what you're dealing with. Of course every animal is an individual. I hope you don't think I'm assuming every animal is safe. For instance, if I had a tiger I would never allow people it didn't know to go near it because it's a wild animal. It's not going to come up chuffing and wagging it's tail like a dog. But, with a thought given to the stats, I also know I don't have to worry about being eaten every single day I'm with it.

And I just did the math on car accidents and they really do occur at a lower rate than tiger attacks.. However, heart disease and pet tiger attacks occur at almost the same rate (rate is taking population into account.)

The attack percentages are my own research. For example, for dogs, I found out how many are pets in America, then I look up how many have attacked people, then I just divide the attacks by the number of pets, and that gives you the percentage of the total population of that animal that is likely to attack in one year.

Perhaps the right way to say it is they are more risky than other animals. Risk can be mitigated by knowing what you are doing and having experience but it never goes away entirely.


That's true. You can't keep a lion like you would with a dog and expect everything to go fine and dandy.
Past Pets: Sea-monkeys, 7 Cottontail rabbits, a Wakin goldfish, 2 cats & a betta fish.
Wishlist: Malinois, Alaskan wolf, hyena, liger (& other big cats), Arabian horse, dolphin, & much more!

~RIP my Cottontail rabbit Brownie AUG 15 2011~
ImageImage
User avatar
the_unstable
Posts: 2231
Joined: Tue May 31, 2011 11:46 pm

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby the_unstable » Mon Oct 22, 2012 2:35 am

I know about food aggression, but that's not the same as an all-out attack.

Then what is YOUR definition of "attack"? Killed? Lost a limb? In need of stitches? I did not say that food aggression is the same as an attack. What I was saying is that food aggression will occur and we are not "exempt from their aggression". Food aggression is aggression.

Animals don't treat humans as another animal, which is why many times animals will play more roughly with another animal of their same species than with us.

I have raised two raccoons - they must be TAUGHT to be more gentle with humans than with their own kind (especially if they were not raised with siblings). They don't automatically know that they have to be careful with us.

I don't know much about wolves nor big cats, but I have heard stories. Again, these animals are taught to be gentle at a young age, and as humans, we must behave carefully with these animals to avoid injury. They will play rough with you if you really let them. They can hurt you by complete accident as well. I'm guessing the reason why you haven't seen videos on Youtube of people playing with big cats the way big cats play with each other is because that human would be injured.

Anyway, playing is one thing, but aggressive bites and attacks are different. They will still bite you the same way they bite their own kind, even if you taught them not to play rough with you. It doesn't stop them when they REALLY want to bite you. "They" refers to wild animals. This is going by my experience with raising raccoons.

You have a point there, but if they were all-out mauled, that would be pretty hard to hide...

The definition of "maul" from dictionary.com: "to injure by a rough beating, shoving, or the like; bruise: to be mauled by an angry crowd."
Even so, I believe I understand what you mean, but just because a person is not horribly, violently attacked to the point of being within an inch of their life doesn't mean they don't seriously need medical attention. I have read stories on this very forum of people getting injured by their pets and lying about it to doctors and other medical staff. Even if it looks like a bite, you continue to say that it is not for the safety of your pet.

Stats will not determine whether an animal is dangerous or not, but it DOES give you a sort of over-view of what you're dealing with.

Previously, you seemed to be arguing that they do determine this. As for statistics giving you an "over-view of what you're dealing with", I disagree for reasons stated already. They're not accurate. You're much better off using common sense rather than statistics to determine "what you're dealing with" - or whether or not an animal is dangerous, how likely the animal is to attack, etc.

But, with a thought given to the stats, I also know I don't have to worry about being eaten every single day I'm with it.

Another reason why statistics are not useful in these situations. Animals are individuals and situations vary. The tiger might be moody one day and not moody the next. You're safer with it on the not-moody day than the moody day, thus the "statistics" or chance of that animal attacking you are going to differ from day to day, moment to moment. Certain tigers are going to have a better temperament than others. YOUR actions are going to play a major role in your safety with that animal.

[/quote]And I just did the math on car accidents and they really do occur at a lower rate than tiger attacks.. However, heart disease and pet tiger attacks occur at almost the same rate (rate is taking population into account.)[/quote]
I'm apparently missing the connection. Car accidents and heart disease take lives, but what correlation does that have to tiger attacks?
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Oct 22, 2012 5:08 am

If you want your statics to be credible you need to cite sources even if you did the math yourself.

There is no number on how many tiger owners there are. We know everyone has a heart, so you can say x percent of people with hearts have heart attacks. You can't for tigers. If you based it on the total number of tigers then you just made the oppositions point for them. Many people have more than one tiger, lots even have 10 or more, so if we randomly assume that averages out to 4-5 tigers per owner of tigers if your info that owners get attacked at the same rate as people die from heart attacks based on number of tigers only, then reality would be owners are attacked at rates 4-5 times that of people dieing from heart attacks. But there's no way that's right.

But yeah having a heart is not voluntary and a tiger is.
User avatar
caninesrock
Posts: 2076
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 9:59 am
Location: Texas

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby caninesrock » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:39 am

I wasn't saying that anyone shouldn't own a dangerous extoic or that they should be banned. I was just saying that people should be aware of the danger and what they are getting into for their sake as well as the animal(s)' sake if they plan on owning a potentially dangerous exotic. I'm all for people owning whatever they want as long as they know what they are getting into.
Exotic Wishlist: high content wolfdog or wolf,low to mid content wolfdog, Coyote, Coydog, Black-backed Jackal, New Guinea Singing Dog, Red Fox, Gray Fox, Mink, Raccoon, Coati,and Kinkajou.

Domestic Wishlist: dogs, cats, ferrets, donkey, mule
User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby Splashstorm » Mon Oct 22, 2012 3:06 pm

Then what is YOUR definition of "attack"? ... I did not say that food aggression is the same as an attack. What I was saying is that food aggression will occur and we are not "exempt from their aggression". Food aggression is aggression.


My definition of attack? That would be like the animal lunging at you aggressively and biting you or trying to bite you. With food aggression, a lot of animals can be trained out of that and even if not, if you leave them alone they will not go after you. I know people are not exempt from this. Like I said, it's not uncommon for a dog to show food aggression, and that's Man's best friend, so of course a wild animal would be more intense when it comes to food.

Again, these animals are taught to be gentle at a young age, and as humans, we must behave carefully with these animals to avoid injury. They will play rough with you if you really let them. They can hurt you by complete accident as well.

Anyway, playing is one thing, but aggressive bites and attacks are different. They will still bite you the same way they bite their own kind, even if you taught them not to play rough with you. It doesn't stop them when they REALLY want to bite you. "They" refers to wild animals. This is going by my experience with raising raccoons.


Well yes, of course you have to train them to be gentle. Like with big cats, you can't play rough with them as cubs because if you do they'll think it's okay even when they're adults, which would most likely end up tragically for both owner and animal. But what I'm saying is that they won't direct their social aggression on to you, like how they would with another animal of their same species. And if it wanted to, most animals can inflict pain to us. In the end, it's whether or not they will choose to. I've heard of dogs attacking their owners, which means that in the end, no animal is truly completely safe, but that doesn't mean they are all dangerous.

And I think I would disagree about statistics not being useful. Which roller coaster would you rather go on? The one that says you have a 33% chance of falling off on, or the one that says you have a less than 1% chance? I know every animal is different, but the stats just show that tigers (and others) aren't as dangerous as so many people think they are.

I used the heart disease stat to compare with the tiger attacks so you can see how likely it is that someone will be attacked by their tiger.

If you want your statics to be credible you need to cite sources even if you did the math yourself.


10,000 tigers in the US (that are kept solely as pets.) http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nat ... usat_x.htm

15 tiger attacks a year:
"...incidents in the U.S. involving captive exotic cats since 1990. The U.S. incidents have resulted in the deaths of 21 humans, ... the additional mauling of 247 more..." http://bigcatrescue.org/2011/big-cat-attacks

The bigcatrescue site didn't specify which species of big cats were involved in any of the attacks, and so obviously it also didn't specify which of the tigers were captive or not. This is important to know because tigers owned as pets are less prone to attack than tigers in zoos or sanctuaries, as shown on the rexano website. But this also tells us that the attack percentage of privately owned tigers is less than the percentage I showed you guys.

If you based it on the total number of tigers then you just made the oppositions point for them. Many people have more than one tiger, lots even have 10 or more, so if we randomly assume that averages out to 4-5 tigers per owner of tigers if your info that owners get attacked at the same rate as people die from heart attacks based on number of tigers only, then reality would be owners are attacked at rates 4-5 times that of people dieing from heart attacks. But there's no way that's right.


No, it's correct because my data is based on what percentage of the population that already has tigers are attacked vs the percentage of all people in america who will die from heart disease (aka every who has a heart).
Past Pets: Sea-monkeys, 7 Cottontail rabbits, a Wakin goldfish, 2 cats & a betta fish.
Wishlist: Malinois, Alaskan wolf, hyena, liger (& other big cats), Arabian horse, dolphin, & much more!

~RIP my Cottontail rabbit Brownie AUG 15 2011~
ImageImage
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Oct 22, 2012 6:07 pm

Splashstorm wrote:No, it's correct because my data is based on what percentage of the population that already has tigers are attacked vs the percentage of all people in america who will die from heart disease (aka every who has a heart).


No it's not. What percentage of the population owns tigers? Why didn't you cite it?

No you based it on how many tigers there are. The 10,000 number is not accurate but let's pretend it is. 10,000 tigers does not mean 10,000 tiger owners. There are many people who have more than just one tiger, so there are not the same number of owners as tigers. We know how many people have hearts, we do not know how many people have tigers. We can make a guestimation that there may be an average 4-5 tigers per owner, meaning there are 4-5 times less tiger owners than you first guessed when you figured it as if there were 10,000 owners. So now you have rates at 4-5 times that of heart attacks.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Oct 22, 2012 11:17 pm

Feline Conservation Federation Census Documents Less than 3,000 Tigers in America
The FCF census revealed that the licensed tiger habitat in America consists of 468 facilities
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/9/prweb8805806.htm.
(notice the really sad thing here is more than half are in sanctuaries, so wont be bred. Only 129 are privately owned. The captive tiger population is fast heading to extinction).

So 15 tiger attacks our of 468 owners(remembering this is actually mostly zoos and sanctuaries as owners here). 3.2% of tiger owners have an attack by a tiger then.

Average one death a year for big cats from REXANO stats so 0.21% of tiger owners have an attack that results in fatality.

from CDC
About 600,000 people die of heart disease and 935,000 have an attack(live or die) in the United States every year–that’s 1 in every 4 deaths.

That means 0.30% of people with a heart have an attack each year. 0.19% Of people with a heart die from a heart attack each year.

Have an attack
3.2% of tiger owners
0.3% people with hearts

Die from an attack
0.21% tiger owners
0.18% people with hearts.

Seems tigers are much more dangerous than hearts after all ;) It really does help to use good info.
User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby Splashstorm » Tue Oct 23, 2012 3:29 pm

Yeah, I actually just saw that article you listed yesterday on the Rexano facebook page. -____-" haha Well, I guess I was basing it more on the percentage of tigers that will attack someone (not on the population of people attacked), and usually when someone is attacked they are not attacked by multiple tigers at a time. However, even with the way you did it, the percentage that came up is still very small. Most people would be shocked to hear the number is "only 3%."
Past Pets: Sea-monkeys, 7 Cottontail rabbits, a Wakin goldfish, 2 cats & a betta fish.
Wishlist: Malinois, Alaskan wolf, hyena, liger (& other big cats), Arabian horse, dolphin, & much more!

~RIP my Cottontail rabbit Brownie AUG 15 2011~
ImageImage
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby TamanduaGirl » Tue Oct 23, 2012 9:49 pm

Yeah I'd seen the info before when FCF originally came out with it but having the recent article made it easy to find.

I'm kind of surprised it's as high as 3% but the 15 number came from BCR and they are against us so the number could be skewed, like she would likely include accidental scratches and stuff.
User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby Splashstorm » Wed Oct 24, 2012 12:41 am

Why do you think 3% is a high number? And true, BCR could have exaggerated their findings, which would probably make up for the population of private owners who hid their wounds from doctors and such.
Past Pets: Sea-monkeys, 7 Cottontail rabbits, a Wakin goldfish, 2 cats & a betta fish.
Wishlist: Malinois, Alaskan wolf, hyena, liger (& other big cats), Arabian horse, dolphin, & much more!

~RIP my Cottontail rabbit Brownie AUG 15 2011~
ImageImage
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10330
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Re: Does anyone here own a Hyena?

Postby TamanduaGirl » Wed Oct 24, 2012 1:34 am

I would expect the percentage to be lower is all. Though It's nothing compared to deep sea fishing with 38% of working getting injured http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content ... 7.full.pdf

Being lazy for a change so from wiki
"It is estimated that two percent of the US population, 4.7 million people, are bitten each year"

Humaesociety.org
"Thirty-nine percent of U.S. households own at least one dog" so about 121,520,847(homes/people own a dog)

so roughly 3.9% of dog owners have a bite. So pretty good in that light.

It just seems like the tiger owners would do better. I mean they are taking higher precautions than with dogs so seems it should be lower.

Return to “Large Critters”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest