Exotic animals on the loose in Ohio

Arizona Docent said:
The Washington Post article above already hints at this and quotes some outright lies that these groups perpetuate. If you believe their hype, every neighborhood in America you drive through has someone with a tiger or bear in their garage. This is hogwash.
Click to expand...

AZDocent: I think that there is truth in what you say in that there are people out there legitimately breeding cats for captive conservation purposes. You have made me aware that there are at least two legitimate cat facilities in California (Cat Haven and the Exotic Cat Breeding Center) that I previously thought were bad roadside zoo establishments or worse (like the compound in Ohio).

However there ARE people with big cats out there that SHOULD NOT have them. A few years ago a tiger got lose in Thousand Oaks (town north of LA) and was prowling through the neighborhood (http://www.toacorn.com/news/2005-03-03/Front_page/003.html). There was also the case of the people running the tiger "sanctuary" that had horrible, unsafe conditions for the tigers and for the people living around it and freezers full of dead tiger cubs: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/11/us/last-39-tigers-are-moved-from-unsafe-rescue-center.html


My point is that there is some truth that there are unregulated big carnivores out there and that idiots having dangerous animals is a REAL problem, albeit as you point out perhaps much more limited than media hype and extreme animal rights groups like PETA claim.
 
Last edited:
CGSwans said:
Boa constrictors, Burmese pythons and reticulated pythons. Venomous snakes and crocodilians to a lesser extent. If these are being counted the numbers in Ohio alone could easily be in five figures, not four.
Click to expand...

Or large dogs like pitbulls and rottweilers, as well as others. That could also cause the number to grow.
 
KCZooFan said:
Or large dogs like pitbulls and rottweilers, as well as others. That could also cause the number to grow.
Click to expand...

Dangerous exotics, but yes, there would probably be tens of thousands of dangerous dogs there as well, I'm sure.
 
I, like many Zoochatters have mixed feelings on this subject. It's not very realistic to think that a police dept in a relatively small town, or even a big city for that matter, would have the means to deal with this sort of situation in a way that's going to make everyone feel good about it. I have no doubt, stereotypical or not, that some of those police probably had the time of their lives with cart blanche to go mowing down a few dozen big-game animals. I'm sure it was a real Clint Eastwood moment for them. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I doubt it.

As for the exotics laws, there have been attempts to intensify them over the last few years. They've been trying to regulate venomous snakes and, big constrictors for years, perhaps for good reason. I have an odd perspective, as I keep a few reptiles in my home. No venomous or big constrictors, but exotics nonetheless. I spend hours a day maintaining them, not to mention finances. I truly care for them and take my reputation as a keeper personally, perhaps to an extreme extent if you ask my wife. Unfortunately, and it really pains me to say this, many of the folks I see at reptile shows and events do not share these sentiments. Many reptiles and exotics ARE impulse buys. They don't value the animal's well being in the same manner as they would a dog or cat. Many DO NOT think about the long term responsiblities and expenses of owning these kinds of animals. I've generally opposed a lot of exotics regulations due to the fact that the organizations and people behind them often paint exaggerated pictures of people like me. Accusations of mental illness seem to be all the rage with these people. At this point, however, if a common sense regualtory campaign were to come about, ie one that targets truly dangerous species and IMO the most important factor, SUBSTANDARD HUSBANDRY SKILLS, I'd be inclined to support it. I'm not talking about some nutball law banning leopard geckos and ball pythons, more like a licensing system that would do more to ensure that people buying exotics would have some kind of clue.

Tragic situation, even more tragic conclusion, but it would have been far worse if one of the fugitive animals would have actually mauled or killed someone.
 
CGSwans said:
In Australia the only potentially deadly animals that can be kept privately are some dog breeds (including dingoes in some states), venomous spiders and snakes, and saltwater crocodiles.

The dog breeds are highly controversial and if keeping of elapids and saltwater crocs was more widespread, it probably would be too. Personally I fall into what in Australia we call the 'small-l liberal' category that is named to distinguish from the conservative, free marketeer Liberal Party (the name does American heads in, I'm sure). I believe in government activism to increase opportunity and a basic level of social equity and security, and otherwise want the state to leave people alone.

However, I flatter Australian politics perhaps by thinking it is just a little more rational than the interest-group controlled American polity. In Australia nobody would ever dream that a private individual should be allowed to keep 50 big cats and bears without a) a recognised purpose for doing so, such as display, research or conservation and b) a rigorous regime of government inspection and licensing.

It sounds like, in this case, the animals were kept for public display. I don't know if there was any educational basis to this, though I doubt it. In Australia this would probably still be fine. It's hard, for instance, to justify the argument that all wild animals in Australian zoos are kept only for purposes that go beyond commercial operations. It simply wouldn't be true.

What appears to have been disgracefully lacking, however, is anything approaching the rigorous inspection and regulation that is reasonable to be expected. And this is where the wing-nut libertarian right in the US has blood on its hands. Whether its guns or tigers, these people put selfish interests ahead of public safety, and they deserve to be condemned. This zoo owner was clearly Mott a fit person to own big cats. Any rationally organised society would recognise that, but American politics is all too often irrational.
Click to expand...

That is a big reason you live in Australia not the United States. I love how certain people in here think that the Feds have any constitutional authority to regulate private ownership of anything, (including "dangerous stuff") .

And I like the term you used calling using extreme libertarians or whatever, better than slaves of the state.

Bad stuff happens, getting rid of freedoms because tragedies makes the tragedy even worse.
 
groundskeeper24 said:
I, like many Zoochatters have mixed feelings on this subject. It's not very realistic to think that a police dept in a relatively small town, or even a big city for that matter, would have the means to deal with this sort of situation in a way that's going to make everyone feel good about it. I have no doubt, stereotypical or not, that some of those police probably had the time of their lives with cart blanche to go mowing down a few dozen big-game animals. I'm sure it was a real Clint Eastwood moment for them. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I doubt it.

As for the exotics laws, there have been attempts to intensify them over the last few years. They've been trying to regulate venomous snakes and, big constrictors for years, perhaps for good reason. I have an odd perspective, as I keep a few reptiles in my home. No venomous or big constrictors, but exotics nonetheless. I spend hours a day maintaining them, not to mention finances. I truly care for them and take my reputation as a keeper personally, perhaps to an extreme extent if you ask my wife. Unfortunately, and it really pains me to say this, many of the folks I see at reptile shows and events do not share these sentiments. Many reptiles and exotics ARE impulse buys. They don't value the animal's well being in the same manner as they would a dog or cat. Many DO NOT think about the long term responsiblities and expenses of owning these kinds of animals. I've generally opposed a lot of exotics regulations due to the fact that the organizations and people behind them often paint exaggerated pictures of people like me. Accusations of mental illness seem to be all the rage with these people. At this point, however, if a common sense regualtory campaign were to come about, ie one that targets truly dangerous species and IMO the most important factor, SUBSTANDARD HUSBANDRY SKILLS, I'd be inclined to support it. I'm not talking about some nutball law banning leopard geckos and ball pythons, more like a licensing system that would do more to ensure that people buying exotics would have some kind of clue.

Tragic situation, even more tragic conclusion, but it would have been far worse if one of the fugitive animals would have actually mauled or killed someone.
Click to expand...

Exactly stricter licensing at the state level is the exact course of action in our federal system. It ensures responsible owners like you or potentially Docent keep your freedom, while keeping all of the nuttiest of the wackjobs off your backs.
 
Arizona Docent said:
Here is another quote and the phrase "interest groups" should raise a huge red flag (translation = PETA and their kin). "...reports from interest groups, 5,000 tigers are held by U.S. owners." This number is so out there it is ridiculous. As you may recall, some of them used to say there were 5,000 privately owned tigers in Texas alone (and they still say there are several thousand there). So the Feline Conservation Federation did an investigation, including interviews with some of the Texas humane groups that the extremists claim to have gotten their statistics from. Do you know how many Texas tigers there are in private ownership? Just over 300. Most of these are not "pet" tigers as the extremists claim, they are in private wildlife parks or similar.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the relevant "interest group" for the claim of 5,000 tigers in the US is the World Wildlife Fund, not the extremists like PETA.
 
I'll add my thoughts to this discussion. What happened was a tragedy on multiple levels. The owner seems to have intended for there to be harm. He let the animals out, damaged their cages making it difficult if not impossible for them to be contained, and opened the gates to allow them to roam freely. The authorities had no choice but to take the action they did. Jack Hanna has been an animal advocate for decades, but he knew that this situation was extremely dangerous for all concerned. I've met him a few times and know him to be a decent human being. Seeing him standing behind the sheriff I saw a man who was grief-stricken as we all were. I mourn the lost animals but I applaud the rational minds that attempted to save human lives. All of the zoo professionals should be praised for their input and expertise. It will profoundly affect them all.
 
groundskeeper24 said:
I, like many Zoochatters have mixed feelings on this subject. It's not very realistic to think that a police dept in a relatively small town, or even a big city for that matter, would have the means to deal with this sort of situation in a way that's going to make everyone feel good about it. I have no doubt, stereotypical or not, that some of those police probably had the time of their lives with cart blanche to go mowing down a few dozen big-game animals. I'm sure it was a real Clint Eastwood moment for them. I hope I'm wrong about that, but I doubt it.

As for the exotics laws, there have been attempts to intensify them over the last few years. They've been trying to regulate venomous snakes and, big constrictors for years, perhaps for good reason. I have an odd perspective, as I keep a few reptiles in my home. No venomous or big constrictors, but exotics nonetheless. I spend hours a day maintaining them, not to mention finances. I truly care for them and take my reputation as a keeper personally, perhaps to an extreme extent if you ask my wife. Unfortunately, and it really pains me to say this, many of the folks I see at reptile shows and events do not share these sentiments. Many reptiles and exotics ARE impulse buys. They don't value the animal's well being in the same manner as they would a dog or cat. Many DO NOT think about the long term responsiblities and expenses of owning these kinds of animals. I've generally opposed a lot of exotics regulations due to the fact that the organizations and people behind them often paint exaggerated pictures of people like me. Accusations of mental illness seem to be all the rage with these people. At this point, however, if a common sense regualtory campaign were to come about, ie one that targets truly dangerous species and IMO the most important factor, SUBSTANDARD HUSBANDRY SKILLS, I'd be inclined to support it. I'm not talking about some nutball law banning leopard geckos and ball pythons, more like a licensing system that would do more to ensure that people buying exotics would have some kind of clue.

Tragic situation, even more tragic conclusion, but it would have been far worse if one of the fugitive animals would have actually mauled or killed someone.
Click to expand...
Your thoughts on the police department no doubt crossed our minds as well.

Team Tapir
 
tschandler71 said:
That is a big reason you live in Australia not the United States.
Click to expand...

Well, I think it has rather more to do with where I was born.

I love how certain people in here think that the Feds have any constitutional authority to regulate private ownership of anything, (including "dangerous stuff") .

And I like the term you used calling using extreme libertarians or whatever, better than slaves of the state.

Bad stuff happens, getting rid of freedoms because tragedies makes the tragedy even worse.
Click to expand...

The problem is, millions of Americans demand unlimited freedoms without accepting the accompanying responsibilities, such as protecting the safety and rights of others. And does being entitled to own a machine gun or Bengal tiger really represent the pinnacle of freedom to you? Because there are lots of countries with plenty of privately owned machine guns and no protection of freedoms or human rights.

It's ok. Different world-view; I respect that. But when, for instance, I see the NRA respond to the latest mass shooting by rallying in the town that it happened, compounding the locals' grief, two words always come to mind. One is 'narcissists' and the other is 'thugs'.

It is always good for people to know how their country's politics are perceived in the world.
 
Tonight at Boo at the Zoo in Cleveland we had the privalege of discussing the incident in Zanesville with a keeper who has over 20 years experience working with large carnivores.As with alot of us mixed emotions were involved and despite obviously not being there feels that authorities probably took it too far.We also discussed at length how hard it is for zoos to get animals vs private individuals at exotic animal auctions.

Team Tapir
 
CGSwans said:
Well, I think it has rather more to do with where I was born.



The problem is, millions of Americans demand unlimited freedoms without accepting the accompanying responsibilities, such as protecting the safety and rights of others. And does being entitled to own a machine gun or Bengal tiger really represent the pinnacle of freedom to you? Because there are lots of countries with plenty of privately owned machine guns and no protection of freedoms or human rights.

It's ok. Different world-view; I respect that. But when, for instance, I see the NRA respond to the latest mass shooting by rallying in the town that it happened, compounding the locals' grief, two words always come to mind. One is 'narcissists' and the other is 'thugs'.

It is always good for people to know how their country's politics are perceived in the world.
Click to expand...

The mentality that we can just exchange freedoms for security is bogus, and eventually you end up with neither.
 
tschandler71 said:
The mentality that we can just exchange freedoms for security is bogus, and eventually you end up with neither.
Click to expand...

That's a great six-second grab for the television cameras. It's just never been supported by evidence. I suspect you will find the vast majority of citizens in Europe, Canada, Japan and Australasia - in other words, every developed democracy in the world except America - will disagree with you. But go ahead - tuck that gun under your pillow at night if it makes you feel better.
 
CGSwans said:
That's a great six-second grab for the television cameras. It's just never been supported by evidence. I suspect you will find the vast majority of citizens in Europe, Canada, Japan and Australasia - in other words, every developed democracy in the world except America - will disagree with you. But go ahead - tuck that gun under your pillow at night if it makes you feel better.
Click to expand...

I dont disagree. I lived in the US for 2 years and know much of what we hear in the Australian media is one sided propaganda.

In much of the US you are much safer than in Australia. Criminals are not so brave if they think there is a chance their intended victim may have a handgun handy. Thats why in Australia we have a higher rate of most crimes. For example we have 17 times the US rate of home invasions. The only areas with higher crime rates are inner city areas with low employment and high drug use. It is not the freedoms which cause crime.

Where I lived many people including me owned handguns and there was almost no crime.
 
tschandler71 said:
The mentality that we can just exchange freedoms for security is bogus, and eventually you end up with neither.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Unfortunately with a bias media and poor reporting most people in Australia don't even see we are loosing more freedoms every day.

"Australia's political system is broken and dysfunctional, characterised by a pathetic decision-making process that is aimed at getting good press rather than good outcomes for the country."

The media runs Australia and that is why we have become the true nanny state. I think England may be worse though.
 
Sporting shooter, by any chance, Monty?

Monty said:
In much of the US you are much safer than in Australia. Criminals are not so brave if they think there is a chance their intended victim may have a handgun handy. Thats why in Australia we have a higher rate of most crimes. For example we have 17 times the US rate of home invasions. The only areas with higher crime rates are inner city areas with low employment and high drug use. It is not the freedoms which cause crime.

Where I lived many people including me owned handguns and there was almost no crime.
Click to expand...

Mate, such outlandish statistics demand sourcing. I suspect I know where you got it from, but humour me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top