Why the tiger almost killed Roy.

In ,
Yngver being of bellicose mind posted:
"Alison" wrote:

I think in this case, that a show that could encourage people
to keep wild pets should spend the profits on the wild animals
that are kept as pets , sadly a law (brought in much too late )
to stop people keeping tigers as pets could mean the death of
many as they have no where to go .

As an editorial I read today stated, the fact that an experienced
tiger handler like Roy Horn could still be unexpectedly injured by
a tiger ought to go a long way towards discouraging people from
keeping tigers as pets, rather than encouraging them. And
unfortunately you are right that most of these pet tigers have
nowhere to go--since they are generally mixed breed, inbred, or in
other ways not genetically suitable for a breeding program, zoos
do not usually want them.

Indeed. Just yesterday I read on my ISP's news wire of a
Bengal/Siberian "*******" tiger in Ohio that roughed up it's owner
who was keeping the cat .... in an apartment! Good grief! Our
1500 sq/ft house is barely big enough for our 12 pound housecat!
--

~~Philip "Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"

In om,
Liz being of bellicose mind posted:
Animals, like people, have personality.
snip
Felines in general have a
very strong personality so they will react violently to any
violence committed against them - they will not curl up and
passively take beating like a Pointer would. People who deal with
animals must realize this and *never* use violence in their
training or in any other circumstance.

Agreed. But I'm sure there will be those out there who believe using
a fire extinguisher against a tiger who is mauling a human being is
unnecessary violence. They are fools.

Violence and inflicting
pain is almost exclusive of our species.

I disagree completely but... go on with your points.

I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict pain
upon their young or treat their young with violence.

Some animials EAT their young. That's kinda violent. Lots of animals
during courtship or males fighting over the right to reproduce
inflict serious pain on their opponent. Liz, what I think you are
overlooking is the level of inherited behavior NOT present in humans
compared to animals. Humans have to be socialized MUCH more so than
animals.

I see there´s a post by a behavioral
biologist and I´d really appreciate her comments on this.

As for having these "wild" animals as pets, I see nothing wrong
with that providing they live in a healthy environment, with
mentally healthy people (people who do not hurt them under any
circumstance) and obviously, with a good space for the animal´s
mental and physical health. Also, having these animals as pets is
an advantage for their species since they will be under a much
lesser risk of extinction. The most successful higher species (in
terms of numbers) are exactly those that we have domesticated for
whatever reason. I myself would love to have some tigers providing
I had the necessary resources to have them. I admire those
excentric millionaires that have private zoos (not those that keep
animals in cages but those that really work in their individual
habitats). I don´t think any animal could wish for a better life.

Playing God, eh? When you have enough money to buy an island or a
small country, go for it. LOL
--

~~Philip "Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"

In om,
Liz being of bellicose mind posted:
Animals, like people, have personality.
snip
Felines in general have a
very strong personality so they will react violently to any
violence committed against them - they will not curl up and
passively take beating like a Pointer would. People who deal with
animals must realize this and *never* use violence in their
training or in any other circumstance.

Agreed. But I'm sure there will be those out there who believe using
a fire extinguisher against a tiger who is mauling a human being is
unnecessary violence. They are fools.

Violence and inflicting
pain is almost exclusive of our species.

I disagree completely but... go on with your points.

I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict pain
upon their young or treat their young with violence.

Some animials EAT their young. That's kinda violent. Lots of animals
during courtship or males fighting over the right to reproduce
inflict serious pain on their opponent. Liz, what I think you are
overlooking is the level of inherited behavior NOT present in humans
compared to animals. Humans have to be socialized MUCH more so than
animals.

I see there´s a post by a behavioral
biologist and I´d really appreciate her comments on this.

As for having these "wild" animals as pets, I see nothing wrong
with that providing they live in a healthy environment, with
mentally healthy people (people who do not hurt them under any
circumstance) and obviously, with a good space for the animal´s
mental and physical health. Also, having these animals as pets is
an advantage for their species since they will be under a much
lesser risk of extinction. The most successful higher species (in
terms of numbers) are exactly those that we have domesticated for
whatever reason. I myself would love to have some tigers providing
I had the necessary resources to have them. I admire those
excentric millionaires that have private zoos (not those that keep
animals in cages but those that really work in their individual
habitats). I don´t think any animal could wish for a better life.

Playing God, eh? When you have enough money to buy an island or a
small country, go for it. LOL
--

~~Philip "Never let school interfere
with your education - Mark Twain"

In article et, 1chip-
lid enlightened us with...
In ,

Kaeli... I don't mind telling you to stuff it. You know from poop.


hahahaha!
You just kill me.
Such an eloquent debator.

Captive animals who cannot be released into the wild should be in
sanctuaries with lots of room and the best of care. They should
not be in hotels and circuses and little cages. They should not be
forced to perform for human amusement.
Want conservation? Teach people that animals deserve care and
respect, not that they exist to amuse us.

Because you are an extremist and a religious nut,

Um, allllrighty then.
If you say so.
ROFL
You don't read too well, do you?

I don't expect you
to get the big picture.

I don't expect you to get the fact that the big picture is not the one
where animals suffer for the entertainment of humans. You don't get
respect for life by making animals perform in acts on stages. You don't
get conservationism without respect for life.

You don't get the fact that an animal doesn't have to be physically
injured for it to suffer. Animal groups make sure the animals have a
minimal standard of care. Minimal. You know what that means? I'll put
you in jail for the rest of your life - you'll get care, you'll get
food, water, tv, and an hour exercise a day. Would you be satisfied with
that and think that was a-okay? How about breeders who keep their dogs
locked in cages all day, but keep them clean, watered, etc? They get no
love, no socialization, no play, but they're healthy. Is that a life?
It's about quality of life. But you wouldn't get that as part of your
big picture, would you?

-------------------------------------------------
~kaeli~
Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu
thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
-------------------------------------------------

In article et, 1chip-
lid enlightened us with...
In ,

Kaeli... I don't mind telling you to stuff it. You know from poop.


hahahaha!
You just kill me.
Such an eloquent debator.

Captive animals who cannot be released into the wild should be in
sanctuaries with lots of room and the best of care. They should
not be in hotels and circuses and little cages. They should not be
forced to perform for human amusement.
Want conservation? Teach people that animals deserve care and
respect, not that they exist to amuse us.

Because you are an extremist and a religious nut,

Um, allllrighty then.
If you say so.
ROFL
You don't read too well, do you?

I don't expect you
to get the big picture.

I don't expect you to get the fact that the big picture is not the one
where animals suffer for the entertainment of humans. You don't get
respect for life by making animals perform in acts on stages. You don't
get conservationism without respect for life.

You don't get the fact that an animal doesn't have to be physically
injured for it to suffer. Animal groups make sure the animals have a
minimal standard of care. Minimal. You know what that means? I'll put
you in jail for the rest of your life - you'll get care, you'll get
food, water, tv, and an hour exercise a day. Would you be satisfied with
that and think that was a-okay? How about breeders who keep their dogs
locked in cages all day, but keep them clean, watered, etc? They get no
love, no socialization, no play, but they're healthy. Is that a life?
It's about quality of life. But you wouldn't get that as part of your
big picture, would you?

-------------------------------------------------
~kaeli~
Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu
thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
-------------------------------------------------

In article , c864320
@yahoo.com enlightened us with...

As for having these "wild" animals as pets, I see nothing wrong with
that providing they live in a healthy environment,

Who decides what is a "healthy" environment? Who enforces that decision?
who pays for that enforcement?
Is a zoo healthy? A sanctuary? A back yard? Who polices the owners when
we can't even police the ones who abuse domestic animals?


with mentally
healthy people (people who do not hurt them under any circumstance)

Who decides what "hurt" is? Is it hurting them to train them with
physical methods, as some people do? If not, what constitutes hurt and
who gets to make that decision? Again, who polices these people and with
what funds?
We can't even police all the circuses to be sure they are all following
the guidelines / law.

and obviously, with a good space for the animal´s mental and physical
health.

Who decides how much space is enough and based on what? Who enforces it?
Is space all that counts? What about interaction / stimulation?

Also, having these animals as pets is an advantage for their
species since they will be under a much lesser risk of extinction.

Recent stats estimate nearly 7000 captive tigers in the US alone. That
is about the same as the number in the wild.
http://www.hsus.org/ace/19518

In fact, we don't have room in our sanctuaries / zoos for all the people
who thought they wanted them, then changed their minds. At 7000, the
sanctuaries are full. What if there were even more? What happens to them
then? Do we then have to kill them like we do our unwanted cats and
dogs?

The
most successful higher species (in terms of numbers) are exactly those
that we have domesticated for whatever reason.

So you advocate domesticating the tiger? Do you know how long
domestication takes? It isn't a couple generations. Should people be
able to keep them as pets before they are domesticated? Would you like
your children to run around the neighborhood where such was allowed? A
500 pound tiger who gets loose can do a lot more damage than a ****ed-
off Rottweiler.

There is a large difference between keeping an animal as a pet (private
home) and keeping a captive-bred wild animal in a large sanctuary
(Africa, etc).

-------------------------------------------------
~kaeli~
Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu
thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
-------------------------------------------------

In article , c864320
@yahoo.com enlightened us with...

As for having these "wild" animals as pets, I see nothing wrong with
that providing they live in a healthy environment,

Who decides what is a "healthy" environment? Who enforces that decision?
who pays for that enforcement?
Is a zoo healthy? A sanctuary? A back yard? Who polices the owners when
we can't even police the ones who abuse domestic animals?


with mentally
healthy people (people who do not hurt them under any circumstance)

Who decides what "hurt" is? Is it hurting them to train them with
physical methods, as some people do? If not, what constitutes hurt and
who gets to make that decision? Again, who polices these people and with
what funds?
We can't even police all the circuses to be sure they are all following
the guidelines / law.

and obviously, with a good space for the animal´s mental and physical
health.

Who decides how much space is enough and based on what? Who enforces it?
Is space all that counts? What about interaction / stimulation?

Also, having these animals as pets is an advantage for their
species since they will be under a much lesser risk of extinction.

Recent stats estimate nearly 7000 captive tigers in the US alone. That
is about the same as the number in the wild.
http://www.hsus.org/ace/19518

In fact, we don't have room in our sanctuaries / zoos for all the people
who thought they wanted them, then changed their minds. At 7000, the
sanctuaries are full. What if there were even more? What happens to them
then? Do we then have to kill them like we do our unwanted cats and
dogs?

The
most successful higher species (in terms of numbers) are exactly those
that we have domesticated for whatever reason.

So you advocate domesticating the tiger? Do you know how long
domestication takes? It isn't a couple generations. Should people be
able to keep them as pets before they are domesticated? Would you like
your children to run around the neighborhood where such was allowed? A
500 pound tiger who gets loose can do a lot more damage than a ****ed-
off Rottweiler.

There is a large difference between keeping an animal as a pet (private
home) and keeping a captive-bred wild animal in a large sanctuary
(Africa, etc).

-------------------------------------------------
~kaeli~
Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu
thinks you'd make a nice sandwich.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
-------------------------------------------------

(Liz) wrote in message news:

I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict
pain upon their young or treat their young with violence.

Male tigers will kill their own cubs. That's kinda violent.

(Liz) wrote in message news:

I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict
pain upon their young or treat their young with violence.

Male tigers will kill their own cubs. That's kinda violent.

Agreed. But I'm sure there will be those out there who believe using
a fire extinguisher against a tiger who is mauling a human being is
unnecessary violence. They are fools.

LOL. I like your sense of humor. Why would a tiger maul at a human? I
can think of only two possibilities: 1) he´s hungry, human is dinner;
2) a human hurt him in the past. Remember to always feed your tiger in
case you ever have one (please don´t take this literally, just a
joke). LOL

Violence and inflicting
pain is almost exclusive of our species.

I disagree completely but... go on with your points.

I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict pain
upon their young or treat their young with violence.

Some animials EAT their young.

I know. But the dead carry no traumas, do they? And yes, animals
dispute territory and females many times in a violent manner but
that´s two ADULT animals. Either of them can avoid the dispute if he
wishes to. He will only compete *willingly*. That cannot be compared
to a puppy being scolded or physically abused by his human parent, can
it? Does the puppy have a choice? Did the puppy choose to be scolded?
You can also state that hunting is always violent and I agree. But
again, the dead carry no traumas. I thought the whole of my post would
express my opinion more precisely but I see I left much room for
doubt.

Playing God, eh?

Are you playing God when you wish to have a pet even if this pet is
unusual? Are you playing God when you decide to "create life" by
having a child? How is this "playing God"? Remember that every
"domesticated" animal was wild at some point in the past.