I am surprised they allow people to drive in with the lions with no barrier. I know a couple places in the USA did this long ago but I doubt this would be legal in my country today.
I am surprised they allow people to drive in with the lions with no barrier. I know a couple places in the USA did this long ago but I doubt this would be legal in my country today.
Definitely not at Wildlife Safari. They do not even allow drive through cheetah any more. Lion Country Safari in Florida would be the only possibility, but I would kind of doubt it these days. Can anyone in Florida confirm?
I am surprised they allow people to drive in with the lions with no barrier. I know a couple places in the USA did this long ago but I doubt this would be legal in my country today.
I am surprised they allow people to drive in with the lions with no barrier. I know a couple places in the USA did this long ago but I doubt this would be legal in my country today.
All the five 'proper' safari parks in the UK have drive-through lion enclosures (so Knowsley, West Midlands, Woburn, Longleat and Blair Drummond).
The UK also has drive-through enclosures for tigers, American Black Bears, Grey Wolves, Dhole, and African Wild Dogs, as well as numerous ungulate species of course, and a few paddock birds and primates.
I don't think ~60% is a vast majority, but definitely a majority of U.S. states have at least a partial ban on exotic animals as pets. The following National Geographic article has some good information on exotic pets. Exotic Pets
By my count on the state chart, only 7 of the 50 states allow unrestricted exotic animal ownership. That means 43 out of 50 either ban ownership or require a permit. So yes I would consider 43 out of 50 to be a vast majority. Also that chart lumps all exotic animals together, so even if you are counting the ones where you can get a permit to own an exotic, that does not necessarily mean they will issue a permit for a dangerous animal like a lion or tiger. (I imagine some states do and some do not).
The article is a little more well balanced than some others I have seen (that are nothing more than rehashing of animal extremist propaganda). However the article is not completely unbiased as they give far more space to the statements of animal rights groups than animal ownership groups. Also, like so many media articles, they spout the statistics of these extremist groups as fact even though many of them (the 5000 pet tigers for instance) are outright lies. In the end, the author has not done sufficient research IMO and this article is clearly biased.
