Exotic Animals as Pets

[Malamum]

I think in todays society so many people do things just because they can. People need to start to realise that just because they can do something doesn't always mean they should.

[StarFox]

[quote name='Mutts4Me']
That's great that your friend takes care of them. Most people don't. But there's still no reason for people to keep them, even if they can "responsibly" care for them. They're wild animals. Something like a lion or a tiger is not meant to spend its life in a CAGE. I don't care if it's a 1/4 acre habitat or a 20' x 20' cage, it's still a cage, and it's still a tiny fraction of the amount of land they should be able to wander. They'll never be able to live up to their full potential to be a skillful, graceful hunter.


GREAT POST Mutts!! :)

Just because you can buy and exotic dosn't mean you should, and it dosn't make it right. I CAN go out and shoot someone with a gun, but it dosn't make it right. I CAN hit someone with a car, dosn't mean I should, dosn't make it right.

Seijun this sentence realy bothered me:

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.

That is totally wrong. Just because a big cat dosn't hunt dosn't mean they need less room. And the reason the animals are lazy is probably a lack of room. You put any animal in an area that is too small for them they are going to be board, restless and become lazy. A wild animal dosn't need a lot of room only for hunting, they need exersize, they need to explore and discover things like they would in the WILD. You wouldn't keep a dog in a crate 24/7, why would you do that to a wild animal?

[Seijun]

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

[Horsefeathers!]

Seijun napisał(a):

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.

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?

[Jetta_Pup]

Amber,
i was looking at your? site thats pretty nice. there is a place near me. about 30min? called Tiger Haven www.tigerhaven.org you may seen it on animal planet if you watch it. they are really nice people ive talked to the owners over e-mail many times. they are super nice. they have alot of rescued tigers and other animals. but are NOT open to the public. no one sees the aniamls except authorized people. i guess cause most of them are abused or x circus animals etc etc and spent their whole lives w/ someone staring at them.
like i said i would like to rescue a pixi bob but thats WAY WAY dif than a tiger. yes a pixie can lay into you if he wants but still thats dif. im not too interested in having an animal that weighs 1/2 of what my truck weighs. if i want to see a tiger ill go to the zoo.

[Seijun]

Horsefeathers! napisał(a):

Seijun napisał(a):

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.

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?

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

[Jetta_Pup]

I'm not an expert or anything but i do have some common sense. the rescued tigers (big cats) have to be in cages they dont know how to live the life of a "big cat" you release them to the wild you might as well stick the needle in their arm.

there is people having to care for these cats cause the misfortune of people *trying* to keep them as pets. Zoos usually get some abused animals and try for a better life but they cant take them all thats where rescue comes in. those rescue cats would not be in thouse cages if they lived teh life a tiger should (in the wild)

[Jetta_Pup]

forgot to add. you might see those rescue cats in pens and fences but that dont mean they are happy. most of them are tortured souls that someone is just trying to help for the rest of their lives.

[Seijun]

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

[Jetta_Pup]

well i really dont think they are un happy in the wild. thats just what they do. i dont think they wake up in the morning and say "hmm wonder if a human is gonna try to shoot me today?"

its instinct to chase prey and fight for alpha status. thats what they are there for. kinda like its instinct for human to go to sleep and wake up every morning.

and for human to go to work. dont want to go to work but thats life. id much rather work every day at risk of a car wreck than spend my life in a cage/habatat. imagine staying in yoru house ALL day 24/7 all year long sure you have toys but what happens whenyou get bored of the toys?

now that i CAN say because i have 2 toddlers and i do not work i DO sit home all day every day and let me tell you its NOT fun.

[Shenanigans]

I can't believe that a parent would tell their kid that they could have a tiger so long as they can raise the money. I can't believe that a tiger sells for less than a Newfoundland (an animal that has been domesticated for the past 500 some odd years and is specifically bred to be docile and gentle with kids!). I guess it's too early for me to have my cynicism-o-meter on. What part of *really big cat, can see human as prey* escape these people.

Considering that my dogs after thousands of years of domestication still retain many if not most instincts from their wolf ancestors, including the thrill of the chase and hunt (albeit in different forms) no one is going to convince me that a tiger even bred 5-10 generations in capitivity is going to have a far lessened effect (to the extent that they are safe roaming outside their enclosure around people) of that instinct.

[Guest Mutts4Me]

[quote name='Seijun']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?

It's NOT. Everything else you've said, I've tried to take in stride. Everyone is going to have their opinions on things, and if you're convinced it's okay for your friend to have a pet lion and tiger, then I'm probably not going to change your mind. But to compare us with private owners is SICK.

Yes, the majority of our cats are in cages. CAGES, not Habitats. About a third of our cats are able to walk on grass. Do I think that's "ok"?! NO, and neither does anyone else who volunteers here. But what's to be done about it? They have nowhere else to go, and most of them were unhealthy and/or about to be euthanized before they came to live with us. So they live in cages now. We clean them every day, we feed them every day, and those who want it are given attention every day. We try our best to make the rest of their lives comfortable for them.

You know what? Most of our cats are happy. Some have been so abused that they hate people, and others dislike people for no apparent reason. But the average cat here lives in a concrete-floored cage. They have raw chicken brought to them every evening, and they're surrounded by people who love them. And they're happy. We walk next to them and chuff (at the tigers, that is), and they chuff back, rub on the bars, and ask us to pet them, which we do. And they're happy. They spend the days laying around, maybe playing with their toys. They don't have to worry about anything. And they're happy. But is that a good thing? Do you really think that's a good thing? It's %$#& sad, if you ask me. Something that royal and wild should not be content to lay on concrete all day and beg people to pet them. That's wrong.

As far as you comparing Big Cats to Pit Bulls and other pets, you missed my point. Yes, it is very hard to rehome a dog or a cat if it comes to that, and plenty of dogs and cats do get euthanized because their owners could no longer take care of them for whatever reason. But if rehoming a dog or cat is hard, then rehoming a lion or tiger is next to impossible. There's nowhere for them to go. Humane Societies have turn around rates, because they adopt their animals out. Sanctuaries don't, because the animals are there for life. So it doesn't take long to fill them up, and they don't have another opening until one dies. Pit Bulls are being banned. Do I think people should not get a Pit Bull because there's a chance it'll get banned? Not really. If you know your area's considering a ban, I'd say don't get one. If I had a Pit Bull, and it was suddenly banned, I'd move. That's not any harder than moving to a new home for whatever reason, but imagine trying to move with a Big Cat. You have to find some place big enough to build a new enclosure, and you also have to be able to build a new enclosure. I'm also biased, because I think Pit Bulls are excellent pets, and I hope that in the future, bans will be lifted. I think WILD animals are horrible pets, and I hope in the future the private ownership of them will be banned entirely.

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.

Yes I can. When I've seen what I've seen, I very well can say that. Our animals may largely be "happy," but they should never have to be there in the first place. And sadly enough, they're the "lucky" ones, the ones who actually found homes. We turn down hundreds a year, and other sanctuaries do, as well.

Jetta, I've heard of Tiger Haven. We did a big rescue about 2 years ago where we took in 21 cats from a breeding facility that was shutting down. There were 56 cats in all, and Tiger Haven took the rest. I wish we didn't have to be open to the public, either, but it's the only way we have to support the cats. Maybe one day... But maybe one day, if I'm going to make ANY wish, we won't even have a need to be open, because people'll wise up and stop keeping WILD animals as pets.

[Guest Mutts4Me]

It's kind of funny. After I sent that reply, I started listening to what was on TV. My roommate's watching Jurassic Park ;) The old guy's all excited about what he's been able to do, and Jeff Goldbloom says something to the effect of "Yeah, but your scientists were so excited about seeing what they could do, that they didn't have time to stop and wonder if they should do it."

There's no reason to have a tiger for a pet.

Anyway, I came back because you keep bringing up the whole "exotic" pet issue, how parrots and lizards are "exotic" as well, and should people not be allowed to have a snake or a macaw? And I don't know. We're so used to seeing those "exotics" in pet stores that we've mostly become desensitized to their "exoticness" of sorts. When I look at a pet macaw, I think of it as a normal pet. If I think about it as an exotic pet, I can't help but shudder and wonder how many generations back its ancestors were carted over to thios country, rolled up in cloth, packed tight, and being one of the few that actually survived. But when it comes to giving a definite answer, I wouldn't oppose someone's right to own a (captive bred) macaw, because, at the very heart of the issue, it's very unlikely that macaw will kill someone. The same could never be said for a Big Cat. Think Jurassic Park.

[Rusty&Chip]

Excellent posts Mutts4Me, I agree with you completely.

[Seijun]

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

[bk_blue]

This story is a good reason why people shouldn't keep wild animals as pets:http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/14/1089694390429.html
Escaped tiger killed during capture

July 14, 2004 - 9:27AM

A tiger that escaped from the home of a movie actor who once played Tarzan was shot and killed today after it lunged at a Florida wildlife officer who was trying to capture it.

At least two rangers approached the tiger, and one was going to try to shoot it with a tranquiliser gun. But the tiger lunged at one officer, who had to shoot in self-defence, said Jorge Pino, a spokesman with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission.

"Needless to say, the owner is very distraught. We're distraught," Pino said.

"Our concern was to recover this tiger alive and well."

A dozen wildlife trackers and sheriff's deputies had searched for more than 24 hours for the tiger, which escaped yesterday.

They had kept watch today around a two hectare area, hoping to catch sight of the 270 kg tiger named Bobo who escaped from a nearby home.

But Bobo eluded authorities and his owner, Steve Sipek, who developed a soft spot for jungle beasts after playing Tarzan in B-movies decades ago. Besides the six-year-old Bobo, Sipek has another tiger, a panther, a cougar and lions on his five-acre (two-hectare) compound.

Authorities had hoped to get Bobo back to his home, which is marked by a sign that reads, "Trespassers will be eaten".

The hunt, under temperatures in the high 30s Celsius, was made difficult because searchers couldn't spread out into an inhospitable area covered in scrubby palmettos, slash pine and palm trees because they didn't want to scare the tiger off.

But that offered little consolation to nearby residents, many of whom moved to the rural area so they could have room for their own pets to move about.

"What I want to know is when he was in captivity, how long did he go without a feeding?" Kim Smith, who lives on the edge of the search area on a similar lot, asked shortly before the shooting. She has seven horses, a mini donkey, a mini horse and two great Danes that she normally keeps outside.

"Tigers are predatorial. All of us moved out here because we're city people wanting a taste of the country. But this is a little funky," said Smith, who lives with her husband and their six preteen and teenage children.

During the search, neighbours could not reach their homes without passing a roadblock set up by sheriff's deputies. Everyone was offered a uniformed escort, but nearly all declined.

Wildlife officials had said they did not believe the declawed pet would attack. He's never been taught to hunt, killed anything or lived in the wild, though he did bite and severely injure a woman working inside his cage two years ago.

But an expert on tiger behaviour disagreed that Bobo had posed no danger, calling that notion "utter nonsense".

"Tigers are wild animals and they retain hard-wired instincts, and to say just because a tiger doesn't have his claws - So what? He still has his teeth and they're powerful," said Ron Tilson, conservation director at the Minnesota Zoo.

Sipek, clearly distraught over the escape, had told officials that he believed once they found Bobo, he could talk him into coming home.

"This guy's usually very responsible with his animals," said Cindy Corum, who has lived nearby for two years.

Still, in an area fast becoming part of the booming South Florida suburbs and only 5km from a public primary school, some people think the tiger should have had a new home.

Sipek's compound is about 16 km rom West Palm Beach, just off a main east-west thoroughfare.

"He never should have had these animals in the first place," said Andrea Newell, who grew up two doors away and was visiting her sister and mother in her childhood home on Tuesday.

- AP

Urrrrgh the whole thing just stinks. :evil:

[Horsefeathers!]

What's ironic is that this story appeared on the news as I was typing a response to this thread earlier tonight. I ended up deleting the whole thing just because I really dreaded hearing that it wouldn't have happened to a "responsible" big cat owner. I still believe "responsible big cat owner" is an oxymoron. :(

[Guest Mutts4Me]

Horsefeathers! napisał(a):

I really dreaded hearing that it wouldn't have happened to a "responsible" big cat owner. I still believe "responsible big cat owner" is an oxymoron. :(

Amen to that.

[Seijun]

[quote name='bk_blue']This story is a good reason why people shouldn't keep wild animals as pets:http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/14/1089694390429.html
Escaped tiger killed during capture


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

[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.
Way to divert the topic.

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?

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?

[Malamum]

I must admit I still don't "get it". As I said earlier the idea of actually owning a tiger etc as a pet would never have occured to me. I really am amazed that so many people seem to.

[bk_blue]

[quote name='Horsefeathers!']

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?

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?

The bottom line is that a person cannot take care of what is essentially a wild animal, nor should they. All wild animals should be IN THE WILD. I don't really like zoos, even. I would personally rather see an animal become extinct than stuck in a cage for the rest of its life, even though it may be the nicest cage imaginable. :-?

[Shenanigans]

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?

The difference being that sanctuaries keep large cats not because of a choice, but because they see a huge need for fthese animals who otherwise would be destroyed by people who made a choice to get them and then realised that taking care of a 500lb wild animal is not an easy task and made a choice to get rid of them. Like rescues, I'm willing to bet that sanctuaries wish every night before they go to bed that they didn't have to exist.

Why does a person have to keep a very large and very risky *wild* animal as a pet? I guess that's the question. I can't for the life of me think of any good reasons.

[Jetta_Pup]

I'll admit when i was a child i wanted a "big cat" for a pet, but who hasnt had that child hood dream? i never thought of it realistically. the problem i see is some incredibly stupid ritch people w/ incredibly spoiled rotten brat children. i dont knwo what that has to do w/ anything but i had to add it..lol

[Seijun]

[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.
Way to divert the topic.

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.

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?

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?

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