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

Tigerserv
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Postby Tigerserv » Fri Apr 02, 2010 3:35 pm

Well, I can really talk this subject to death but I think that I can prove that a right to ownership of animals creates the greatest good for the greatest number. In an unregulated state, how many of them do we have that are in reasonably good health, passing on their genes? We have to give those who do a decent job full credit. Pass/fail is good enough.

Working the worst end, we end up wanting to solve the worst problems without regards to the entire system. Yes, you solve the problem of bad owners by getting rid of the species. You also lose that species.

The real "problem" is to keep enough viable species individuals to keep a viable gene pool. Restrictions on breeding are inspired by the problem of animals that become homeless, but they also prevent the species from renewing itself. We don't even know what percentage of pet lions become homeless each year, but that is a problem that is exacerbated tremendously by all these legal restrictions that the activists fight for. If the animal advocates didn't fight for those restrictions, there would be a million more potential homes for lions and tigers. I don't think that there is such a thing as an unwanted lion or tiger, just a potential home that has been outlawed.

Trying to solve the problem of homeless animals (who in nature only have the home that they scratch out of a wilderness) by going against the best interests of the species, by going against the greatest good for the greatest number, is a very basic and obvious mistake. Going for the greatest good for the greatest number would require allowing the absolute maximum latitude for people to breed and keep the animal, because like it or not humans own the Earth. That is the best strategy for those who care about the preservation of species.

As far as safety goes, there is already a lot of precedent for actually using physical force and legal sanctions against those who would kill nuisance animals to protect their livestock and crops (and their persons). It makes a lot more sense to reinforce the actions of those who would volunteer to keep and breed those animals. I don't have the slightest problem with using any animal as a resource for humans because doing so makes it necessary to support that species in large numbers. We could harvest all the orphan cubs that would otherwise die and have more than enough genetics from "the wild" with minimal impact.

Just to add a little: Every human who would give an animal a home is a resource for that animal. That resource does vary in quality and comfort but it's usually a lot better than not existing.
User avatar
veralidaine
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 10:06 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

Postby veralidaine » Fri Apr 02, 2010 10:29 pm

The reason I don't like the idea of strict regulations is that there is much room for abuse of that power. There is also the possibility that government, possibly under the influence of AR activists, can make them so restrictive that only a few people can get past them and a lot of people who might otherwise be excellent owners might decide not to bother. We don't want that. We want to encourage people to find out how rewarding exotic animal ownership is.

Also, it seems to me like saying that we need strict regulations is us telling the AR activists that they're at least partly right. And the thing about telling somebody they're right is, it gives them power over us. They'll use that power to twist our peace offering (that's what it essentially is; we're trying to compromise so that maybe they'll be happy with that when they won't) to their own devices. Basically, if we give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
Drache
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Drache » Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:36 am

^ That's a good point, but where do you draw the line? I agree that we shouldn't encourage the AR nutjobs if at all possible, but is it worth it to ignore the fact that animal abuse happens? Or that there are bad sources of these animals that need to be shut down? Or that certain animals can be a hazard to members of the public when they aren't kept properly? If we want to continue keeping exotics isn't it our job to make sure that there is plenty of care information and resources available to people who want to have an exotic in their life? Isn't policing our own the best way to make sure we aren't giving those same AR nuts and PETArds the horror stories of cruelty, neglect, and maulings that they turn around and use against us? Because it seems to me that if we don't take the initiative and stick together and be available to help newbie exotic owners and recognize the fact that certain people shouldn't own certain animals for certain reasons, there is going to be even more fodder available for the AR media shit-cannons.

The tricky part is coming up with a solution that doesn't restrict anyone unnecessarily. Animals are individuals and have different needs, so even basic rules about minimum enclosure size can be hotly debated. It's just the nature of the beast! (pun intended)
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10020
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Postby TamanduaGirl » Sat Apr 03, 2010 4:32 am

Policing ourselves is different than asking to be policed by authorities. Asking for regulations isn't policing ourselves.

Why are abuse laws that punish the offenders good enough for most domestics but not exotics? With exotics even one bad story among millions of good ones untold means we are not policing ourselves enough and need more laws. None of the regulations ever stop the problems totally so more bans are enacted.

When you allow regulations they turn into bans eventually because you never get perfect. Heck in Oregon we didn't have any history of problems with pets and were regulated but they passed a ban when problems arose in the news in other states. There are many state that started with reasonable regulations that passed to bans. Regulations are bans anyway because it's illegal unless you jump through legal hoops to get a permit that exempts you from the ban. Then they keep raising the hoops and adding more until they decide to set them on fire. Then they are gone and it's just a ban.
User avatar
veralidaine
Posts: 410
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 10:06 am
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Contact:

Postby veralidaine » Sat Apr 03, 2010 12:44 pm

Mhm, I agree with Hyzenthlay. Even if we want to believe that the government won't turn the regulations into a ban, we are still allowing for that possibility by asking for strict regulations.

I think the big thing we have to do is constantly be making comparisons between domestics and exotics until that double standard has disappeared.

If people acknowledge that there is abuse with domestic animals that can't be abolished, why is abuse with exotic animals so different?
Drache
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Jun 15, 2008 7:43 pm
Location: Houston, TX

Postby Drache » Sat Apr 03, 2010 1:59 pm

HyzenthlayForesight wrote:Why are abuse laws that punish the offenders good enough for most domestics but not exotics?


When did I say they weren't? For the most part, I think they are good enough. But the message pushed on just about every exotics forum or listserve I have ever been on is that exotics owners want absolutely no restrictions whatsoever because it "infringes on our rights to do whatever the hell we want with our animals" and at best I think that's pretty unrealistic.

veralidaine wrote:I think the big thing we have to do is constantly be making comparisons between domestics and exotics until that double standard has disappeared.


No matter how many comparisons you make, a tiger is not a dog. And instead of rebelling against that fact I think it's important to embrace it. Own it. Recognize it. I live in Texas and it is legal to own tigers here. There are more restrictions to own one than for dogs. There is a permit required, but it's not very expensive. It's $50 initially and has to be renewed each year. I can't remember the renewal cost, I think it might even be free after inspection of the animal. Other restrictions include: the animal must have a secure enclosure, it must be vet checked, you must have liability insurance on the animal.

I don't know about anyone else, but these are all things I would be doing anyways.

HyzenthlayForesight wrote:When you allow regulations they turn into bans eventually because you never get perfect.


That's not always true, and even if AR nuts want to do that, exotics owners have a voice too. But the number of exotics owners who get off their butts to get involved to protect their own rights is disappointingly low. No wonder PETA and HSUS kick our butts all the time.

HyzenthlayForesight wrote:Policing ourselves is different than asking to be policed by authorities.


I'm curious as to how you would do it without any kind of laws to back you up. Or do you believe that anyone and everyone should be allowed to own any animal they want?
Tigerserv
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Postby Tigerserv » Sat Apr 03, 2010 11:00 pm

It is a major offense to use someone else's abuse against a good owner, and the animal rights activists do this on purpose. The laws that they ask for and sometimes get passed are intended to be abused. No, I don't believe in requiring liability insurance because they don't require that for owners of dogs, horses, or cattle and they really put it to you on the price of that liability insurance that almost never has to pay out. Owners of tigers deserve equal rights.

It's really, really hard to abuse an organization that promotes, by positive means, the responsible and humane use of animals. "Non-abusive" is a vague, meaningless term. Reasonable people see it as only inflicting the pain, discomfort, and inconvenience that is necessary. We are dealing with people who are being willfully unreasonable and stupid (or obtuse if you want to use the fancy word).

Ignoring someone else's "abuse" is minding one's own business. Truly minding one's own business is an active, positive thing, not just an absence of snooping. When minding one's own business all energies are directed to maintaining and enjoying one's own animals and one's own life. If you enjoy helping people in trouble when they genuinely need it, then that is your prerogative. A lot more comes from people who offer it freely than from people who are forced, for so many reasons.

A human who has problems needs something added to him or her, not something taken away. A good citizen offers to help add that something. A social parasite takes advantage of the weakness of a human who is poorly. It could be summed up in a phrase: "He's a sicko, kill him... but be sure to get his wallet and his banking information."

Worrying about someone else's alleged abuse feeds those social parasites and serves no other purpose. It changes the balance between good and evil for the worse when they gain power and it costs us to lose anyone who has humanely cared for animals. A fact that people need to get through their heads: Almost everyone who has been beaten up by these goon squads was and is a good person. They were doing good works. We need those good works. Even allowing ourselves to forget them, to fail to appreciate them, has cost us. If we had appreciated them, if we had known them, we would have been part of their support network, they would have been part of ours, and we would have attracted a lot more people. Once the taint of intolerance got in there and we failed to erase that taint, we were in for a wild ride on the bad side of reality. This can still be changed.

Most of these people didn't do anything wrong, quite the opposite.

"Look to the light" is not an empty phrase. There is a reason for that and it's as necessary as breathing. The real abusers, the sociopaths, the social parasites, they have persuaded people to amplify every little problem with their targeted group until it seems that one person who has one tiger sleeping in his room is somehow the end of the world. It's abusive because... He's crazy because.... He's a hoarder because there is more than one animal in his house.... They want you to look at the dark bits, which are generally inconsequential, which are usually at worst totally harmless, and try to persuade you that one drop of sewage plus a gallon of wine equals one gallon of sewage. Except that the one drop may not be sewage and may be absolutely necessary for that wine to exist. A tiger is an extremely good thing, as they keep telling us, and a person who takes that slight risk by owning one, even if there is a slight risk to the public, is preserving an extremely good thing. The ARs know this somewhere in their minds, that's why they have to deny that tamed animals are good.

A lot can be changed by just telling the public that those people who own tigers are doing God's work, however you want to phrase it.

Funny thing is, if the work that a tiger owner was doing wasn't so extremely good, wasn't so special, it wouldn't be fought over like a pot of gold. That's what the abusers are after, is the gold. If it's spiritual gold, that's even worse, because that's the currency that they work in.
Lionsniper
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:32 pm

Postby Lionsniper » Mon Apr 05, 2010 1:53 pm

http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A ... 9440de4fb3
I hope this works, good video of tigers and their humans.
User avatar
TamanduaGirl
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 10020
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:42 pm
Location: Oregon, USA
Contact:

Postby TamanduaGirl » Mon Apr 05, 2010 4:03 pm

Owners want no regulations not the absence of any law at all. A good law will punish you for abusing an animal. A regulation makes the animal illegal to have unless you do X, X and X. You could be the best owner in the world and have a pet taken away if you didn't get a permit and for some reason people consider that a good thing.

If you ask for more regulations for exotics then that is saying the current laws aren't enough and they need more protection than domestics. People do not come and inspect your set up in order to have domestics.

Tigers are perceived to be different and every species and even individual animal is different but horses, steer aggressive and large breeds of dogs are potentially deadly too some I would argue more deadly. While big cats kill one person a year they don't escape and kill strangers. They kill people that work with them or were otherwise at the facility by choice and so taking that risk by choice. The potential exists but it hasn't happened yet. On the other hand domestics have killed innocent bystanders while running loose. But tigers need more regulations than domestics just because they are tigers and perceived to be more deadly. Like pit bulls need to be banned or regulated because they are perceived to be more deadly than other breeds.

By the way do you have any idea how hard and how expensive it is to get liability insurance on an animal? Even when it's in areas that require it for pit bulls. It's just about as good as a ban because it's just about impossible.

Just because you would be doing it anyway doesn't mean an official is welcome to come scrutinizing everything you do. With USDA and the petting zoo one inspector mistook a goat for a cow one time and after eventually being proven wrong held a grudge and was always looking for something wrong with that petting zoo. Even making stuff up like shade wasn't good enough for the wallabies unless it was shade out of reach of people petting them. Just because some people are strong enough to stand up to them doesn't mean everyone is. Many bullied by an authority would just give up. It's like being on probation all the time, you can't own animals unless supervised. That sort of thing is normally reserved for if you've done something wrong first to prove you need supervising.

Regulations turning into bans is true the majority of the time. Even in Florida their class 1 animals used to be allowed as pets under regulation and now are not allowed as pets and more keep getting moved to class 1. Even if you figure exotic owners deserve to loose their rights because they didn't stand up there are those that do and also loose their rights. Besides that you have disagreement among owners about what rights we should be allowed to have and what ones we should willing give up.

Policing yourself is just that. No police needed you just do the right thing. Helping police the community as a whole is encouraging and helping others to do the right thing. Then if all else fails you do have real police to fall back on. Again why can't they prosecute a tiger abuser under regular animal abuse laws?

I'm for laws and not regulations. Laws punish bad deeds. Regulations try to prevent bad things from happening. We all know that will never succeed. If you agree we need regulations to prevent bad things happening you may as well agree to a ban as it's been proven where there are heavy regulations that bad things still happen. so if you agree we need regulations to prevent bad things and the bad things keep happening then you need tighter and tighter regulations to stop the bad things. When that all fails you are left with a ban as the only way to prevent those bad things and you already agreed they need to be prevented.

While in an ideal world we all want to prevent all bad things we will never get 0% abuse without a ban. No tigers owned means none abused and no attacks(except by wild tigers on villagers). Otherwise you need to except bad things are part of life and will happen sometimes. You can punish the bad people when they do something bad instead of punish all people with regulations or a ban. It's like having the teacher stand at your should all during a test to be sure you don't cheat, yeah you wouldn't cheat any way but how does that make you feel? Regulations treat all owners as criminals who need to prove they aren't bad.
Tigerserv
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Postby Tigerserv » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:23 am

It's the same old story of trying to outlaw all the bad things that happen in the world. The people who do this steal our lives from us.
Tigerserv
Posts: 91
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2008 7:44 pm
Contact:

Postby Tigerserv » Wed Apr 07, 2010 4:30 am

When they did this to me I could feel them taking my soul and crushing the life from it, like squeezing it for some kind of juice. That's how I see what they did to lion and tiger owners in Florida. I can't see those "regulators" as anything but people who act the part of demons who want to steal life.

Conversely, implicit in my plaints is the fact that I want myself and others to own and love big cats. I have to make that explicit for reasons that I could write a book about. The Florida Wildlife Commission is "regulating" life by choking it to death. Real self-regulation includes the active support of life. We should not be burdened by the terms that a small "commission" of sociopaths would place upon us.
Lionsniper
Posts: 140
Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2008 1:32 pm

Re: Animal Planet The Tiger Next Door

Postby Lionsniper » Wed Dec 28, 2011 5:05 pm

Michael, I just saw a post where you directed comments to me so (Ugh), I feel I should reply. First off, I have nothing to hide (by taking awhile to respond) nor prove anything to anyone on here. This should be a community of people asking advice, sharing advice/experience.

To answer your question, I am 47 years old, raised my first 2 tiger cubs in NJ at the age of 26, moved to Florida and have managed various facilities, mostly unpaid, 10 hour, 7 day a week volunteering for the most part, one facility I actually got paid. I did not say you were jealous of me, what I meant is that many people are jealous of those who can go in with the big cats, comfortably and safely. I know what it takes to run a sanctuary, blood, sweat and tears, yet the sanc owners I worked for never went on about idiots owning bears, tigers, etc. and having hands on contact with them as adults. This works for you, you cannot discount those of us who can do this. As I get older, and the reason I have never acquired a large cat of my own, I get satisfaction in raising other people's cats and interacting with them, is because I have always sat on the fence about ownership simply because unless you are extremely wealthy and can provide very large enclosures for lions and tigers, they are best left in the wild. Otherwise, it is a jail sentence and most private owners have them because they need to say they have them for their ego. These people also declaw their cats, which tells you right there they have no idea how to handle them. IMHO, circus folk are the best big cat handlers in the world, they do not declaw, they provide stimulating enrichment for their animals, they provide large enclosures in their winter quarters when the circus is not performing. They are 24/7 with these animals. A good friend of mine, his 2 tigers passed at 18 and 20 years of age, he is not getting anymore because he got over the awe of owning them but more importantly when you get to be 47, will you be around the next 20 years to care for them, good point I thought.

There is actually only one woman who owns a lion in the US, Leesburg, FL, who really can handle this animal, very impressive and you can see the love between the 2 of them. I am interested to find out if he is declawed, and if he is I'll pass on the chance to help her out at her sanctuary as I find declawing cruel and unnecessary.

That said, for me to be able to feed, clean the cage, walk the cat and hang out in the cage and observe their behavior and interact with them safely ( I know when to leave) is a great priviledge, the bond with these animals is wonderful, hence the reason so many do it, I understand the liability risks to the owners but when you prove yourself or basically they see how their animals/cats react, there has never been a problem. For those who would want to own a big cat, put in the hours/years of volunteering, the grunt work, observe them and then let it evolve as it will, but your world should revolve around them, that is only fair if they are to be in captivity. If all you own is 1 cat and nothing else, it is not cost prohibitive, sans the enclosures if you do it right, but I have always had a menagerie of wild/exotic/domestic animals and would never give them up to afford even a cougar or leopard. I'll just continue taking care of other's cats, it is like I own them without all the expenses and I get to visit whenever I want. :mrgreen: PS I wish everyone a safe and happy New Year!
User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Animal Planet The Tiger Next Door

Postby Splashstorm » Fri Aug 10, 2012 6:38 pm

I see no reason why someone can't/shouldn't own a tiger if they are responsible enough to give it all it needs. And tigers are not dangerous. You are 3x more likely to die in a car accident than killed by your own pet tiger.
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
zebrafox
Posts: 391
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 9:51 am
Location: MI

Re: Animal Planet The Tiger Next Door

Postby zebrafox » Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:53 pm

Dogs kill more people per year than tigers, and injure infinitely more. Don't think that's a reason to ban dogs though. So why tigers?

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
User avatar
Splashstorm
Posts: 986
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2012 8:56 pm
Location: Wisconsin, USA
Contact:

Re: Animal Planet The Tiger Next Door

Postby Splashstorm » Fri Aug 10, 2012 7:58 pm

Yeah, they really do, EVEN when you take population size into account the dogs STILL kill at a higher rate.
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

Return to “Large Exotic Cats”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest