Seijun

If Patti suddenly stopped starting fights, do you think Free would take over as the "fight-starter"? ~Seij

Is Patti the one who starts the fights? Do both dogs enter the fight eager to show dominance or does one usually submit to the other either before or during the fight? ~Seij

I don't have time to skim through all the pages of that topic for the answers I need, so I'll just ask my question here: Are all your rotties female? How old are they? How old are the two that are fighting? Which of your rotties are spayed/neutered? ~Seij

[quote name='Cairn6'][quote]This statement is true because the sex organs are often what 'drive' a canine to show dominance aggression.[/quote] If this is true that perhaps xavierandrea should give it a try with her female. I feel so terrible about her situation.[/quote] I am not familiar with that topic, could you direct me to the topic you are referring to (the one about xavierandrea)? For wolf hybrid owners, when someone has two females or two males that are fighting, the first thing we ask is if they are spayed/neutered. If not, we advise that spaying/neutering be done. It works better with males though. Most of the time, when two females begin to fight, separation is the only solution. Female/female aggression in wolves/wolf hybrids can be [b]much[/b] more severe than female/female aggression in dogs though, so spaying may work better for female dogs than it does in female wolves/wolf hybrids. It is also generally accepted that the earlier in the fighting you get the two spayed/neutered, the less likely it will be that they will continue to fight. If two dogs have been fighting for years and are not spayed or neutered, then spaying/neutering probably won't have that much of an effect on their behavior. ~Seij

[quote]Intact males are more likely to exhibit dominance aggression than neutered males or females.[/quote] Yes, this is true. I have studied wolf behavior for 2 1/2 years now, and it is common knowledge among wolf/wolf hybrid owners that an intact male is much more likely to display dominance aggression than altered males and females. This applies to both dogs and wolves. (Intact [b]females[/b] can also be more aggressive than altered males/females and unaltered males, but this applies more to wolves than to dogs). This statement is true because the sex organs are often what 'drive' a canine to show dominance aggression. It is generally the more alpha canines who get to mate with the females. In wolf packs, during a certain time of the year, when the females come into heat, challenges can often occur among females and males, each wanting to reach the top of the pack ladder in order to have mating rights. In the end, whoever is alpha male will get to mate with whoever is alpha female. Challenges among the females are more common though. Removing the sex organs of canines takes out a lot of the canine's 'desire' to mate. Without as much desire to mate, they are much less likely to show dominance aggression in order to obtain a more alpha position for mating privileges. I am surprised no one else here has heard of this before. When male dogs fight, it is mostly for rank. When female dogs fight, it can often be to the death. Aggression between two females may or may not be fixed with spaying, it all depends on the individual dog. The same goes for males. ~Seij

I have husky mix who THINKS she's on a sled-dog team, especially when I take her out for her 'walk'. :D ~Seij

Never had a dog do that to me, but once when I was laying on my back the cat jumped off the bunk-bed and landed right on my stomach.. claws and all :x ~Seij

[quote name='Malamum']I can't really add anything to what the others have suggested but wanted to poke my head in an ask a really silly question. What is a coon? Is it a shortened term for a racoon?[/quote] Yes :D

Coon hounds were bred do howl, and do it loundly too! There is probably nothing that can be done to stop the dog from howling. It's natural for them to do it. It is also possable that there is a coon showing up at that time of the morning and the dog is baying at it. ~Seij

Geeze, talk about inbreeding :o I'm surprised [b]all[/b] the poor whites aren't full of deformaties.. I mean, I like them, but it seems a bit selfish to me if a person would go to such destructive lengths in order to produce them. ~Seij

Hmm.. I didn't know that stuff about the white tigers :( I thought that they were just freak occurances of nature, and I figured it was pretty rare. I guess not if they breed for it on PURPOSE. That ticks me off a little bit. I think the whites are very beautiful, but I don't think they should purposely breed for it. ~Seij

Make sure to do some research on the different breeds the pup is mixed with. Terriers can have high prey drive and border collies are very high energy dogs. I am sure though that this pup will make a wonderful addition to the family :D ~Seij

[quote name='Mutts4Me'] But the problem with tigers is that there's nowhere to release them. Their habitats are declining rapidly. Land is scarce, and so is prey. And for those who do exist in the wild, they're also at high risk from poachers who want them for their pelts and parts, which can sell at prices higher than some of the pricier drugs on the blackmarket. And as people expand into the former wildreness, tigers will continue to stumble into villages and be shot, or wander into a livestock field and be hunted. So I stand by my opinion that species preservation programs are all but useless, because unless something major happens, all the wild tigers will die, and there will be nowhere for the captive ones to go. [/quote] You disagree with [b]all[/b] species preservation programs just because tigers cannot ever be fully reestablished due to habitat loss? I am not trying to be rude or anything, and I may have misunderstood your words, but it seems a bit 'selfish' to dis all species preservation programs because not all are able to be successful... It sounds to me that it is not the preservers who should be hated, but instead it is development and a failure to protect wildlife habitat that should be hated. [quote name='Mutts4Me'] [quote]Also, PLEASE answer my other question as well. Would you consider a Big Cat owner a responsible owner if he had RESCUED his cat, instead of buying one from a breeder??[/quote] Only if that owner got non-profit sanctuary status and made efforts to bring in more animals. If they were only willing to take in that one rescue, just so they could have it as a pet, then they're still just someone trying to make something a pet that isn't a pet. Those are my honest opinions.[/quote] Not everyone is able to start and maintain a Big Cat Sanctuary. Isn't it enough if a person is able to give just one Big Cat a good home, even if it is with a private owner? I am not saying the person goes out and adopts from a sanctuary, I am talking about a person who takes in, say, a friend's unwanted Big Cat if a sanctuary could not be found for it. Keep in mind though, that even sanctuaries are not immune to tragedies. I have seen more than one sanctuary bite the dirt when they lost sanctuary property, or were unable to make enough money to care for the sanctuary residents. ~Seij

I don't think anyone really [b]needs[/b] a tiger as a pet. Like I said before, almost all pets are here because we want them, not because we really need them. Just as you may want a dog or a rat as a pet, some people want large exotic cats as pets. I can't explain why, but IMO, its not always to look cool, or to be able to say they have tamed a wild animal. My friend likes his tiger and lion as a pet, just as someone may like a dog as a pet. ~Seij

[quote]What's sad to me is that they're only deemed irresponsible AFTER a mishap, or something tragic happens. How do we determine responsibility beforehand? [/quote] Well, here I go on another "if" :wink: Right now, there aren't that many laws in place regulating exotic ownership. If you wanted a tiger, and they were legal in your area, then you could go out and get one. That's the problem. Almost anyone who wants a tiger can go out and get one no problem. Laws should be in place that would make it so difficult to obtain something like a tiger, that only the people best qualified to own one would be able to get one. If breeding was limited to only responsible breeders (i.e - does home checks, educates buyers, breeds limited litters, will take back unwanted animal if necessary) then ownership might also be limited to only responsible owners. Responsibility can't always be measures before the fact, but most of the time it can. Just like how shelters screen potential adopters, to make sure that person will be able to take care of the dog they adopt, so it might also be possible to screen potential exotic animal owners. However, as we all know, only very strict laws regulating exotic ownership would even come [i]close[/i] to accomplishing this goal. You ask me why someone would want a Big Cat for a pet. Well, honestly, I have no clue. Personally, I would not want one, but obviously, some people do. I have people ask me why I like to keep wolfdogs as pets. They just can't understand why anyone would want an animal that is so hard to take care of. Well, it's because I like them, just like some people like Chihuahuas, and would never own anything BUT a Chihuahua. Maybe some people just like Big Cats and like being able to spend their lives close to one, to watch how it behaves and grows, as opposed to seeing them just on nature programs. You may consider them dangerous wild animals, but maybe to someone who owns a Tiger, they are more like just an 800 lb kitty cat. I wish that there was a Big Cat owner here who could enlighten us as to why they would want to keep one, but there isn't. I never bothered to ask my friend why he wanted a pet lion and tiger, I assume it's because he loves being around them, and he wanted to know what it was like to live with one. Some times I see people who have pet cockroaches, now why in the heck would ANYONE want a pet [b]cockroach[/b]?? Well, they must have a reason, I just can't see it. I am not here to debate WHY anyone would want a pet tiger, lion, zebra, or whatever else it is that people like to keep as pets. If you think about it, every pet we have we got because we liked it. Something about that pet was so awesome you had to have it. In today’s modern world, most pets really don't serve any necessary purpose, other than to provide entertainment for their owners. Most of us have pets because [b]we[/b] wanted one. ~Seij

[quote] I'm starting to worry that I'm never going to get through to anyone. Which is silly, because everyone else posting on this thread already agrees with me, and I didn't need to do any convincing :) [/quote] :D I Kinda noticed I was the only one standing on my side. Don't let it get to you Amber. It's near impossible to change most of my opinions. I am used to standing alone with them anyway. [quote] I don't support "species preservation" programs in zoos, because it's not like they're ever going to be released into the wild anyway. They're just breeding to bring in money and swap animals with other zoos. [/quote] True, they do breed these animals to sell to other zoos, but if it's an endangered animal, the more breeding, the better. The more animals that are produced for other zoos, the better the chance is that someday numbers will be high enough to release them to the wild. Endangered animals cannot be restored in the wild through reintroduction unless there is a large enough and stable enough captive population. Take the Mexican wolf for example.. Their population once declined to less than 8 individual animals. In the late 1970's captive breeding operations began with only 5 individual animals. This was WAY too small a population to start reintroduction with. They needed help with breeding the wolves to produce as many as possible with the greatest genetic diversity as possible. They used zoos and wildlife sanctuaries to accomplish this (by buying, trading, and selling endangered animals, zoos are able to increase a particular animal’s captive population, giving them larger genetic boundaries, and therefore helping pave the way to endangered species reintroduction). By 1996, 150 animals were living in captivity in zoos and wildlife sanctuaries. It wasn't until 1998 that captive Mexican wolves were actually released into the wild to start off the reintroduction program. There are now only about 200 Mexican wolves in captivity, in 40 different zoos and wildlife sanctuaries. There are still less than 100 Mexican Wolves in the wild, but it is because of the breeding effort of zoos and sanctuaries that they even exist on this earth anymore. ~Seij

[quote name='Horsefeathers!'][quote name='Seijun'] Sadly, escaped and lost dogs and cats lose their lives daily to other hazzards, such as dogs, cars, and starvation. Escaped tigers aren't the only victims.[/quote] Way to divert the topic.[/quote] I'm not diverting the topic, I'm just pointing out that accidents happen. You can't use that incident as an example of why big cats shouldn't be kept as pets, since the same thing happens to so many domestic pets as well. One other thing I would like to point out, is that even some sanctuaries have had incidents where an animal has escaped its enclosure. [quote][quote]Since you seem to think that no Big Cat owner, no matter how well they care for their cat, is irresponsible, than do you or do you not think that sanctuaries are also irresponsible in their 'ownership' of the Big Cats they care for?[/quote] It's kind. of hard to take that question seriously. After all, would the sanctuaries even exist if not for all those "responsible" owners obtaining Big Cats?[/quote] Sanctuaries exist because if IRRisponsible owners obtaining Big Cats. If all owners were responsible, we wouldn't have much need for ANY sanctuaries now would we. It's the same way with dogs. If every owner and breeder in the world was responsible, we wouldn't have to PTS thousands of unwanted dogs every day. Why can you not take my question seriously? I'm just asking, do you consider sanctuaries responsible caretakers of Big Cats? Everyone here has such a high opinion of sanctuaries, but if it is a PRIVATE owner taking care of a Big Cat, you all seem to think that is something bad, even if that owner provides a life for his cat that is even better than what a sanctuary could provide. Also, PLEASE answer my other question as well. Would you consider a Big Cat owner a responsible owner if he had RESCUED his cat, instead of buying one from a breeder?? ~Seij

[quote name='bk_blue']This story is a good reason why people shouldn't keep wild animals as pets:[url]http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/14/1089694390429.html[/url] Escaped tiger killed during capture [/quote] Sadly, escaped and lost dogs and cats lose their lives daily to other hazzards, such as dogs, cars, and starvation. Escaped tigers aren't the only victims. Since you seem to think that no Big Cat owner, no matter how well they care for their cat, is irresponsible, than do you or do you not think that sanctuaries are also irresponsible in their ‘ownership’ of the Big Cats they care for? I have seen owners who take care of their cats as good as, or even better than, some sanctuaries. Would your opinion be any different if the owner in question had rescued his/her Big Cat, as opposed to buying it from a breeder? ~Seij

Amber, I am sorry to have offended you with my comparisons, I guess we just have a difference in opinion, that's all, and I can't see either of our opinions changing either way. I can understand the side you are coming from though, as a rescuer, having to see what happens when morons get animals they can't care for, and I can understand how much you must wish that people would just stop trying to make pets out of something that was never designed to fit the general description of 'pet'. Having followed closely the world of wolf and wolf hybrid rescue, I see every week what happens when people get something they can't take care of right. However, I am also a wolf hybrid owner and I have the opportunity to see what things can be like if an animal is taken care of properly and responsibly. Would it make any difference to your opinion if the number of big cat owners was so few and so rare that there was no need for big cat rescues? If every big cat in captivity had a large enclosure, was properly cared for, had plenty of environmental enrichment, and lived happily in this way for the rest of its days? IMO, if the animal is happy, that's all that really counts. I personally, do not support any bans on exotic/wild animal ownership. My main reason for this? It would punish the people who own wild/exotic animals but do everything right. Now, an animal that may have lived happily in their care for many years will be forced to take residence in a sanctuary. Sanctuaries are flooded, especially when bans come into place. Chances are that person's 'pet' who they have loved and cared for for many years, will have to euthanize. My second reason for not supporting bans? It's that bans on wild/exotic animals are biased. What would be considered wild and exotic? Most likely, only the largest wild/exotic animals, such as big cats, alligators, etc. would be banned. But why them? Why not all reptiles as well? Why would it be ok to ban Tigers, but not Burmese Pythons? How can a fair ban ever be put into place? Would private ownership have to be restricted to owning only animals that have been domesticated and designed for human ownership? ~Seij

I understand that they cannot be released to the wild, and I understand the purpose of sanctuaries. Not all wild tigers are that happy either. They have to work for their food, they have to compete with other tigers, and they are always at risk of getting killed by humans or other tigers. Not exactly paradise as I see it. ~Seij

[quote name='Horsefeathers!'][quote name='Seijun']It is no different than keeping a dog in a fenced in yard 24/7 and giving them plenty of toys to keep them busy, or keeping a cat in the house 24/7 and occupying their mind's with toys and games. [/quote] There is a huge OBVIOUS difference. Dogs (primarily) and cats, over many generations, have become domesticated and count on human contact for survival. Big Cats do not. Tame is not the same as domestic. So these cats "like" it. Have they ever known another life?[/quote] That's not the point I am trying to make. My point is, just because an animal is not living in the wild, does not mean it cannot survive happily in captivity. Many, many different types of 'wild' animals are kept as pets, and are quite happy, despite the fact that they are not domestic. I did not say they needed human contact, I am saying that, just like a dog in a fenced-in yard, they need toys or other objects to help keep their minds occupied. With the right sort of care, a captive tiger can live just as happily as a wild tiger. I looked at the Turpentine Creek website, are those cats not all in 'cages' too? Why is it ok to keep them in a fenced in area, but not ok for a private owner to keep his/her large cat in a fenced in area? I am not trying to say everyone should just go out and get a large cat just because they can live happily in captivity, I'm just trying to defend exotic pet owners who take care of their animals responsibly and who do have happy, well cared for exotics. ~Seij

A dog crate isn't the same as a Big Cat enclosure. These cats have plenty of toys and other environmental enrichment to keep them busy. It is no different than keeping a dog in a fenced in yard 24/7 and giving them plenty of toys to keep them busy, or keeping a cat in the house 24/7 and occupying their mind's with toys and games. And I am sure you all have seen how lazy and spoiled some house cats get ;) Just to illustrate to you how spoiled this lion is.. There are goats running everywhere at my friend's place, right outside the tiger and lion pen. I asked my friend if he ever had a problem with the lion trying to kill his goats, and he said "no, they're fine, the lion doesn't like [to eat] goats." ~Seij

Amber, Tigers and lions don't need as much room in captivity as they do in the wild because they don't NEED to hunt. I have seen my friend's lion and tiger, and the one word that fits both is L-A-Z-Y. They have no need to hunt, therefor they have no need of an extremely large habitat. They are happy to just lay around in the sun all day and sleep. Just because you can not give a tiger or lion acres and acres of room doesn't mean it is living in a cage. You seem to think that because an animal is a wild animal, it belongs in the wild and shouldn't be kept as a pet. This isn't always true. I think many of us have to be careful though by what we define as exotic or wild. Many people define an exotic/wild animal as being any animal that can be found living in the wild, in its natural habitat. All reptiles, and the majority of the bird and fish species kept as pets, are descendants of wild-caught animals, or are wild caught themselves. Even a pet as harmless as a cockatiel would fall under the name wild or exotic, as cockatiels are not a domestic animal, and can be found living in the wild, in their natural habitat. By many people's definition, the only non-wild/exotic animals out there are things like domestic dogs, cats, horses, pigs, etc. If you think lions and tigers belong in the wild because they are wild animals, then do you also think that because, technically, reptiles, most birds, and most fish are wild, they should no longer be kept as pets? If a captive bred, captive raised tiger is still 'wild', then is a captive bred, captive raised parakeet still 'wild'? One other thing.. If it is irrisponsable to own a lion/tiger because the laws in your area might change, then is it irrisponsible to own a pit bull since so many areas have started banning them as well? By your own deffinition, ANYONE who gets a pet who is it ANY risk of being banned in that area is now an irrisponsible owner. IMO, this sort of judgement isn't fair to anyone. There are places that ban SNAKES from being owned. I own snakes, history has showed that some places do ban them, so does that make me irrisponsible? I don't think you should label someone irrisponsible just because something [b]could[/b] happen to their pets. Sure, financial situations could cause a person to lose their pet tiger, laws could cause them to lose their pet tiger, a divirce could cause them to lose their pet tiger, but that ISN'T THEIR FAULT!. Any of us who own pets take the risk of losing our pet because of these reasons. I have seen TONS of dogs and cats PTS because of the reasons you listed above. That doesn't make their owners bad owners. You can say the reasons you listed are reasons you might not want to get a large wild animal like a lion or tiger, but you cannot say that they make someone irrisponsible who does buy a lion or tiger. ~Seij

I understand what you are saying. I have owned and worked with many different wild animals. I do not consider many to be 'pets' in the same sense as a dog or a cat is a pet. They can be kept as pets, but most should not be kept as you would a dog or a cat. The larger types of wild animals do not do well in a home setting and require a setting that mimics their natural habitat. ~Seij

[quote name='Dog Lover'][quote name='Seijun']Yes, that is all perfectly legal, UNLESS the animal is native to your area, (or the area you live in has specific laws about owning wild/exotic animals), then you have to have permits to keep it. Keep in mind though that just because an animal is a 'wild' animal does not mean it can't be kept as a pet. Reptiles, and most birds and fish kept as pets, can all be found in the wild. If you chose to define a wild animal as any animal that can be found in the wild, then pet parrots, snakes, lizards, and many fish, are all 'wild' animals. FYI, most of the 'wolf cubs' on that site are just wolf hybrids or dog mixes that someone has labeled a wolf. It happens all the time. I saw one that WAS pure wolf, so I sure hope the owner finds a responsible home for it. ~Seij[/quote] True, but then again you don't have to really worry about a fish attacking you. Well, unless it is a Pirana or something like that...Some people keep tigers as they would keep a dog and then are surprised when one day it attacks them. Like the guy who was mauled by his tiger and tried to blame it on a pit bull. :roll: Or the tiger incident with Siggy and Roy. People have got to realize that these are not domesticated animals. A wolf cub may be cute, but it's not a domesticated dog. It's wild...[/quote] There are some large snakes kept as pets that can and have killed small children and adults. Again, responsibility is a must, especially when owning an animal with the potential to kill you. When posting an ad there, it asks you the type of animal it is, and it gives you a list to chose from. Most of the people with the 'wolves' were actually selling wolf hybrids, but they have to put 'wolf' down as the animal type, as there is no 'wolf hybrid' choice. Wolves do not make good 'pets' but wolf hybrids [b]can[/b] make good pets. It all depends on how much wolf is in them and how experienced the owner is with keeping wolf hybrids. Only wolfdogs with very little wolf in them would have a chance of making a good pet for the average pet owner though. ~Seij