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

Animal Planet The Tiger Next Door

Tiger, lion, cougar, leopard, anything cheetah size or larger

Moderators: Ash, TamanduaGirl

User avatar
Michael
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Ohio, Prospect

Animal Planet The Tiger Next Door

Postby Michael » Mon Mar 29, 2010 12:26 am

Did anyone catch this show about the tigers at this guys place in Indiana? Also the show after it call Fatal Attractions. This is the kind of stuff I keep telling people exactly why tigers do not belong here leave them in the wild. Isnt a tiger more beautiful in the wild instead of behind a fence missing its claws and fangs. I have found so many places that call themselves a sanctuary but yet they breed and sale tigers. Also found petting zoos that buy tigers so they can charge people to get their picture taken with the tiger then sale it when i gets too big they buy two cats a season. I really do wish there was no need for my sanctuary but as long as people continue too breed and sale cats like this my place will remain full. I get calls all the time people looking for homes for their tigers and not just one most are for 3 or more tigers. Also the last few months I have had request for taking in 7 black bears in Ohio alone. I know we have too many laws in our country but you tell me the answer on how we need too get a hold on this. If sanctuaries are breeding and selling cats too use the money too feed the other cats this will only put more cats out there too return too the sanctuary. How many people do you know or heard of that buy a bear or tiger only too need too get rid of it within 5 years? The excuses I hear on why they have too get rid of it is they cant afford it , its getting too big, the vet bills are too high, we dont have the time too spend with it, our neighbors are complaining or they are just tired of it. Dont misunderstand me Im not some PETA kook I just get so tired of seeing the animals rehomed and shipped around and also returned too the auction over and over.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10336
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Mar 29, 2010 1:12 am

Yes sometimes things go wrong and big cats kill people at the rate of one a year out of 10,000 or so they claim are in the US.

Sometimes things go wrong and horses kill people at a much higher rate.

Sometimes things go wrong and people's kids kill people.

If every big cat in the US were dead and no one owned any that would cut the world population by more than half. I fail to see how that would be a good thing. The rate of starvation and early death and even human injuries and death due to big cat or big cat death due to human are much higher in the wild population than in the domestically kept population. So statistically even with some bad more survive and are well fed and healthy in captivity than wild population.

Wild tigers can also get driven from their territories by other tigers or humans but then have no where to go and will starve or be killed for getting to close to human populations.

Domestic tigers may lose their territories(homes) and need new ones but they find homes with new owners be they private or sanctuaries. Again they fair better in the captive environment.

If exotic sanctuaries adopted out animals to qualified homes(and they do exist), they would not be always full like they are. I know of good owners with great setups that have offered to take in animals from Sanctuaries who are crying they don't have enough room or funds to feed the animals, that person is always refused.

The only way to ensure bad things never happen to any species is for that species not to exists. The only way to ensure bad things never happen to animals in captivity is to not have them exist in captivity but bad things will still be happening to them in the wild and at a higher rate.

To minimize bad things happening to any species(including human and domestics) you need education(besides abstinence(never own one)). you need people willing to help each other, besides I'll take your animal from you, actually offer solutions, advice on helping them keep them, even a hand on helping them get things in shape sometimes.

As far as danger, which was the main theme of Fatal Attractions, there are many many more things people do every day without much thought that could kill them and do so more often than big cats.

Lots of well cared for exotic cats that haven't killed people or been mistreated http://www.youtube.com/user/BigCatHaven
User avatar
Michael
Posts: 90
Joined: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: Ohio, Prospect

Postby Michael » Tue Mar 30, 2010 1:02 am

I think that it should be harder for people too buy and breed large cats. No matter what anyone says too me from now on I will disagree that anyone should be allowed too own a tiger just because they want too. Im sick and tired of people saying its their god given right too own whatever they want. Rights my hairy a**..........people play that card so fast. Yes more people are killed by other means than a large cat every year. If someone is killed or hurt by a tiger its the owners fault not the tiger but the tiger will pay the price for it. I dont want too get into all that I just want owners too stop turning out so many large cats and them ending up in the wrong hands. What the hell kind of life is it for a tiger in a small cage walking in its own waste day after day pacing all day long, just so some idiot can say "yep I gots me a real live tiger". Now I have seen some real nice places too. Also I agree with helping someone as long as they want help and will keep things up. I also want people too remember WILD ANIMALS ARE JUST THAT WILD so many people forget that just because its born captivity makes no difference. Fish are born too know how too swim and tigers are born too know how too kill too survive thats what they do. You will see pictures with me in with one of my cats and one or two bears but after the cat and bears reach a certain weight I no longer go in. When I clean cages they are moved out into another caged area. I no longer go in with any of my animals and no one else is aloud too either. If any large cat owner says they trust their cat and feel totally safe with it then they have no buisness owning the cat and are in for serious trouble. No matter how much you think you know about large cats you NEVER know when it will attack just like bears. Large cats only threat in the wild is man they are not better off in captivity only safer. Ohio is too laxed when it comes to owning and selling large cats.
Tigerserv
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Postby Tigerserv » Tue Mar 30, 2010 11:07 pm

Even after all that, I still respect the rights of humans over the alleged rights of animals. Shame on me.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10336
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Postby TamanduaGirl » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:06 am

The only thing I said about rights was that there's no reason to give large exotic species more rights not to be harmed than large domestic species, or dangerous exotics more than dangerous domestics.

There are risks going in with big cats and risks to the cat to never go in with them as well. When you are hands off you need to sedate them for check ups and any small procedures. When you are hands on and say brush them regularly then you can feel them over for any problems and do check ups and maybe even some minor procedures without knocking them out. I believe the risk of dieing from anesthesia is smaller than the 1 in 10-15,000 of captive big cat attacks per year. And even then not every large exotic that attacks is put down though it is the norm in most locations. But then dogs that attack are often put down as well. I do not think most owners are deluded that their cats are perfectly safe but choose to take a calculated risk like everyone does every day with many things.

How is being safer not better off for them? They are protected not just from man but other big cats that would fight them for territory, diseases, the elements, starvation.
renwaldo
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:44 pm
Location: Surrey, B.C. Canada

Postby renwaldo » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:36 am

I agree with you entirely.

Having a fox, wolf or raccoon is one thing, they're small. If one attacks you you're unlikely to find yourself unable to escape. Animals as large as a tiger or bear are another thing, if one of them takes a snap at you there's less time to escape, and a tiger or bear bite is a heck of a lot larger than a fox's or a wolf's.

The only place for a domestic tiger or bear should be under the scrutinizing security of a researcher or zoo-keeper with at least a bachelors in some form of zoological study. I'm not saying they shouldn't be kept domesticated at all, I don't believe they should be kept as pets or 'animal companions.'

(Sorry Pat, I'm just being honest. Nothing against you or Sybil. :( )
RIP Martino, I'm sure Olivia misses you.
User avatar
BB
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:09 am
Location: Darwin,Australia

Postby BB » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:44 am

Maybe sterilisation of an animal helps to stop the unnecessary breeding of exotics like tigers, which some of them are really only kept as poser -value.(This might read wrong - I didn't mean every tiger..)
It is very hard to judge or to control who actually looks after these types of pets and who has them just locked up and doesn't really care.
I guess I value Michael's opinion and judgement since he owns a sanctuary and deals with this problem on a regular basis.
People get offended by comments like that, but if they are looking after their exotic properly I don't think the comment was directed at them in the first place anyway.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10336
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Postby TamanduaGirl » Wed Mar 31, 2010 1:56 am

When I counted attack up once on a site that kept track zoos and other such places like sanctuaries had more incidents that the private keepers.

There are plenty of domestic animals that can kill you. Choosing to risk your life is your prerogative. People do so by driving, plastic surgery, sky diving, showering without those little flower things to keep you from slipping. People should not be allowed to do anything that could get them killed unless they have a degree?

As to it risking the animals life, again why is one species more deserving of life than another? People risk their pets lives all the time. I don't crate my dogs when they go for a ride but many consider this an unacceptable risk to the dog's life. Police and search and rescue dogs could potentially be killed in the line of duty. Any horse you ride in sport could potentially break it's leg and might need to be put down.

Woman killed by pet wolves
http://www.phillyfuture.org/node/3877

Alyshia Berzyck, of Minnesota, was attacked and killed by a wolf on a chain on June 3, 1989. The wolf tore up her kidney, liver and bit a hole through her aorta. One month later, on July 1, 1989, Peter Lemke, 5, lost 12 inches of his intestine and colon and suffered bites to his stomach, neck, legs, arms and back in another wolf attack in Kenyon, Minnesota.

http://www.aws.vcn.com/wolf_attacks_on_humans.html

Large men have been put in ICU by domestic cats.

If you want to risk your life with a wolf that is your choice as it is a tiger owners. Why should others be told how they can risk their life but not you?
renwaldo
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2010 8:44 pm
Location: Surrey, B.C. Canada

Postby renwaldo » Wed Mar 31, 2010 2:30 am

Kindly stop placing false assumptions of your own into my mouth. I do not hold a bachelors degree of any sort, so I'm unsure why you would think I believe myself more deserving of a domestic tiger over anyone else, especially considering that. . . I really don't want one. Nor did I insinuate that one animal had a larger right to life over the other. I did say that I believe the only place for domestic tigers and bears should be in the arms of qualified professionals of animal study, perhaps that's where you misread me.

There is literally no comparing of tigers to slippery bath tubs. That's just. . . I don't even know where to start with that one. For one thing there's the issue of necessity; which do you think people truly need more: bath tubs or pets tigers? Than there is the fact that one is manufactured by us, the other a living organism that humanity didn't design any part of. On that last note bath tubs are stationary and can be easily maintained with minimal care, because you know, they aren't alive. Tigers (or any animal for that matter) posses their own free will and desires. They need shelter, stimuli, food and security, bath tubs don't. My bath tub doesn't get vicious with me when I'm mean to it.

In the wolf comparison I'm afraid I'm going to stand by what I said, they're less dangerous than tigers or bears. That isn't to say I don't believe them dangerous, sure I'll agree that a wolf can kill you. So can a bath tub apparently. However there's more factors to that than you think. Between tigers and bears vs. wolves and foxes, which couple do think will kill a person quicker? I'll give you a hint, the one that weighs more than us has an advantage.

There's simply more to this than statistics. Sorry, I'll say once again that I don't believe such large carnivores shouldn't be kept domesticated at all, I disagree with them being kept as pets. Furthermore I'd like to think Michael knows more about what he's talking about given his experience. Bachelor degree or not, this guy sees tigers 24/7.

(Ignoring the fact he can't write - sorry Mike. I think you want to write 'to' when you wrote all those 'too' s. :lol: )
RIP Martino, I'm sure Olivia misses you.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10336
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Postby TamanduaGirl » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:11 am

renwaldo wrote:Kindly stop placing false assumptions of your own into my mouth. I do not hold a bachelors degree of any sort, so I'm unsure why you would think I believe myself more deserving of a domestic tiger over anyone else, especially considering that. . . I really don't want one. Nor did I insinuate that one animal had a larger right to life over the other. I did say that I believe the only place for domestic tigers and bears should be in the arms of qualified professionals of animal study, perhaps that's where you misread me.


Now where did I do that?

If you want to risk your life with a wolf that is your choice as it is a tiger owners. Why should others be told how they can risk their life but not you?


And the previous conversation you agreed with said the reason tigers should not be kept is because they will be put down if they attack someone. Other animals including wolves and domestics are often also killed if they attack but you are not arguing to ban them.

The estimated 300,000 hybrids and captive wolves in the USA killed 10 people between 1986 and 1994 (about 1.25 deaths/year/300,000 hybrids) and injured many more. In contrast, the 50 million dogs in the USA killed an average of 20 people/year (about 0.11 deaths/year/300,000 dogs). Put another way, captive wolves and hybrids are 11 times more likely to fatally maul a human than a dog is. Additionally, bear in mind that many of those 300,000 hybrids actually have little, if any wolf in them. If the statistics were only for wolves and genetically high-percentage wolf hybrids, the rate of fatal attacks would be much higher.


Captive big cats kill on average 1 per year. Having a wolf is more dangerous.

No statistics aren't everything but I try to argue logic instead of emotions and statistics are evidence to use to support a logical argument.

If size and danger is the issue then horses need to be banned. They kill many people every year and many if not most weight more than tigers they can weight over 1,000 pounds while tigers average lower hundreds.

I think a part of the issue is possibly your definition of pet. Z who's videos I have linked you to keeps her's in large zoo like enclosures, sans grass as she lives in the desert but her cages are bigger than Micheal's(based on his website photos) with swimming pools for them but she is a private, so pet, keeper.

As for bath tubs kind of. You could choose to take a sponge bath or sit on a chair in the shower. It's not truly a necessity. It was only comparing risk taking not up keep as the discussion has been focused on risk as the show was. But a closer example is horses above or wolves. But horses, millions take the risk of horses every day, it's only excepted because so many have done it for so long. The only real difference is a horse wont normally be killed even if it does kill a person. Wolves still will.

As for him working with tigers so do many other people that do support the right to keep them privately(as pets). He sees the worst because he chooses to open him self up to that like any shelter worker.
Drache
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Drache » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:19 am

I know three people who keep tigers here in Texas. Those animals have more elaborate setups and better security to keep people safe than any zoo I have ever seen. They have better stimulation than most zoo tigers and their diets and vet care is at least as good, if not better. (Thanks to Texas A&M being so close!) When they step into their pet tiger's enclosure the only person at risk is them, and I don't think anyone has the right to take that choice away from them.

I realize that not everyone who owns tigers is going to care for them properly and safely. And I realize that animals like tigers are going to be less forgiving than a chihuahua when their owners make a mistake. But I have not seen anyone yet explain why the good owners should be punished because there are idiots out there who don't make safety and the animals' well-being a priority. This line of thinking doesn't fly, no matter if we are talking about pit bulls or panthers. I wouldn't want to see my friends' tigers ripped away from them when they are cared for better than the animals "in the arms of qualified professionals of animal study".

You don't need to have professional experience to be qualified to take care of animals, no matter what species they are. It helps I'm sure, but I've worked at enough vet clinics, animal sanctuaries, pet shops, and wildlife centers to know that sometimes the very best owners are stay-at-home wives or retired firemen who have turned the keeping of a particular exotic into their life's passion.

And why are tigers being referred to as "domesticated" in this thread? Since when have any tigers been domesticated? They are still wild animals no matter where they live, whether they are pets or not, and it is important for people who work with them (and other exotics) to always keep that in mind and respect it. At the very best some might be considered "tamed" or "socialized".

I definitely agree that people getting hurt by their pets is a serious problem, especially when the cause of these injuries often has to do with the owner not being safe or taking unnecessary risks. Perhaps there needs to be tighter regulations regarding their housing. Or inspections. But a blanket ban is unfair, ignorant, and counter-productive.
User avatar
BB
Posts: 1419
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 5:09 am
Location: Darwin,Australia

Postby BB » Wed Mar 31, 2010 3:49 am

I think it makes sense that people in zoos get attacked more than private owners as for some people it is only a job and they become complacent with the animals. I see it to being around the Saltwater crocs around here, people think " oh what should this lazy big croc laying over there do in this short amount of time while I walk here....." and the moment of surprise gets them....
I guess that is the same with a tiger. The zoo workers come in and feed or clean and sometimes don't realize the animal has moved.
Now, I'm sure there are dedicated people working in zoos, but as with all wild animals you have the risk. (see the killer-whale story)
Drache suggested tighter regulation in setups might help but in the end it is the owners or cares responsibility and choice, so really, the animal should not be killed when it attacks.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10336
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Postby TamanduaGirl » Wed Mar 31, 2010 7:54 pm

Drache wrote:And why are tigers being referred to as "domesticated" in this thread? Since when have any tigers been domesticated? They are still wild animals no matter where they live, whether they are pets or not, and it is important for people who work with them (and other exotics) to always keep that in mind and respect it. At the very best some might be considered "tamed" or "socialized".


I think you miss read in my posts where I was comparing the danger of keeping a tiger to the danger of other animals including domestic ones.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10336
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Postby TamanduaGirl » Wed Mar 31, 2010 8:08 pm

BB wrote:Drache suggested tighter regulation in setups might help but in the end it is the owners or cares responsibility and choice, so really, the animal should not be killed when it attacks.


Yes the odds of a captive bred and raised tiger having rabies is practically none so unless there is reason to suspect it was exposed or is showing signs then there's no reason to kill them.

In most places current laws would cover caging. If the animal does get out then you have public endangerment and animal at large charges that could be filed but people rarely do their job and file charges based on existing laws so instead pass bans.

Welfare laws can vary but one broad law to cover any species that says they must be kept properly contained, nourished and (maybe)enriched for their species could be used against any owner of any species. You may need to have someone testify as to the right way to keep and feed the species in a case if it went to trial but most animal cases it seems do not make it to trial and get plead out instead.

Right now you have the well quote cases of tigers in their own feces but they are never punished or helped. Only once the case gets bad enough to take the animal will that be done then charges are rarely filed. People don't do their jobs and enforce current laws like welfare standards. Making more laws wont change that.
Drache
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Drache » Wed Mar 31, 2010 10:29 pm

HyzenthlayForesight wrote:
Drache wrote:And why are tigers being referred to as "domesticated" in this thread? Since when have any tigers been domesticated? They are still wild animals no matter where they live, whether they are pets or not, and it is important for people who work with them (and other exotics) to always keep that in mind and respect it. At the very best some might be considered "tamed" or "socialized".


I think you miss read in my posts where I was comparing the danger of keeping a tiger to the danger of other animals including domestic ones.


I actually wasn't referring to any of your posts at all. :)

Return to “Large Exotic Cats”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest