Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 2:07 am
robbieb Posted: Jan 5 2004, 10:56 PM
WELL NOW U CAN'T way to go Bush http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs ... otics.html
superlion Posted: Jan 6 2004, 12:24 AM
Good. I actually sent letters (ok, emails) to my representatives asking them to support this action. There have been TERRIBLE things happening to big cats because it was legal to own them privately... if you want to take care of one, get a job as a zookeeper Better off for you (hard to keep one fed), and the cat (probably better facilities and care than can be privately provided... did you think the neighborhood vet would treat your tiger if he had cancer or something? nahhh....)
Raindragon Posted: Jan 6 2004, 12:46 AM
That's great news! Finally something's been done about keeping these big cats as pets...
Jay Posted: Jan 6 2004, 01:20 AM
I'm not against such laws and I don't know the details of this law, but I suspect this will not make much of a change. There was already laws against bringing exotic animals (of all types and sizes) and plants into the U.S.. There are people who use so called "business" reasons to bring in such things. There are also black markets and smuggling operations. I hope the law makes the penalty so extremely severe that people aren't willing to take the chance. (That won't stop people that feel they are above the law, but if the penalties included life imprisonment, there probably wouldn't be two-time offenders.) I hope the law also closes more loopholes to prevent people from using "business" excuses. Only well established zoos that have existed for long periods of time should be allowed to bring in such things. (Even that might not be narrow enough, but it would certainly narrow down the "business" excuses tremendously.) Hopefully more states will also add bans.
On a side note... Superlion, is your avatar slowly turning into Gargoyles's ?
phantom Posted: Jan 6 2004, 10:01 AM
This is great news. Granted, there will stilll be illegal trade across the borders and all but at least those people can now be penalized. But it is a step in the right direction. Some animals are too endangered and others just too diffulcult to be good pets. And like Jay mentioned, hopefully more states will start putting up other bans as well.
Wally Posted: Jan 6 2004, 12:21 PM
We Dutchies already had that law, that also goes for wolves!
We are way ahead of you guys!
robbieb Posted: Jan 6 2004, 01:48 PM
anyways this law will probly have big changes because people cant breed own or anything like with these cats so animals suffering in cages cnag be let out into better conditions but what will happen to the animals most tigers are cross breeds so the zoos cant use them for breeding and things like that?
Dragon_of_doom Posted: Jan 6 2004, 01:59 PM
Thats great news!
kielo91 Posted: Jan 6 2004, 03:39 PM
Thank goodness for that. I was so ticked off at how people were keeping them as pets and treating them horribly. It just amazes me at how people can be so cruel. But I've known they are, but sometimes you just have to wonder: Why? Sure, some people are just vindictive creatures that love to torture anything they can find. Some find it pleasurable. It's utterly repugnant. But a lot of people are that way, and I fill with trepidation knowing that it still goes on. But I recognize that I am most likely to have no authority to stop it. We can only allow the government to stop it themselves.
As I was scrutinizing through the last paragraph of the article, I saw that my home state, Indiana, was not on the list for the tiger, lion, etc, banning. I'm going to cross my fingers and keep them crossed for the hope that IN will someday be on that list. And I also hope that all other states will soon become active in the prevention of keeping tiger, lions, and other exotic animals as pets. SL's right. Want one? Become a zookeeper.
superlion Posted: Jan 6 2004, 05:37 PM
Haha, Jay... Yes, but not intentionally... I was just having some fun with Photoshop and discovered I can draw eyes on it (haven't gotten brave enough for much bigger)... so yes, I drew that from scratch...
In regards to import of big cats, that's not near as big a problem as breeding them... there are big problems with people breeding the big cats for profit... hopefully the penalties for keeping the big cats will force anyone who is breeding the cats (without any regards to good genetics or husbandry, mind you) to take up more ethical pursuits in similar fields, like breeding rare lake Victoria cichlids (fish) or maybe stable mucking...
Capt.Rutlinger Posted: Jan 7 2004, 11:22 AM
yeah big cats don't desirve what some people did with them
BTW SL your avatar reminds me of a person we all knew very well
Wally Posted: Jan 7 2004, 11:32 AM
Nasym? Nasym's one is diffrint!
superlion Posted: Jan 7 2004, 01:28 PM
Gargoyle, as Jay said - also a big eye, but it was green. I answered Jay in my above post as to why it is so (unintentionally) similar.
Okapi_07 Posted: Jan 7 2004, 03:52 PM
i noticed that ohio (my state) wasnt on the banned list either in fact there used to be a man that lived right outside of town that had a male african lion (he kept it in the best conditions he could possibly provide not a torture chamber like some great cat owners) he also kept it very securely it only injured him once while playing with him(only a small cut on his arm) but both the man and his lion died in the last few years
this still doesnt mean that i think keeping large exotic animals is a good idea even if they are kept in good conditions
Crocsrule Posted: Jan 7 2004, 05:19 PM
A large city in BC banned the selling of exotic pets like parrots, some reptiles, hyenas, giraffes, elephants, big cats. Very interesting. I personally think anything not tamed should not be sold.
kielo91 Posted: Jan 7 2004, 08:45 PM
Parrots? I've heard of such banning, but certain kinds of parrots, though... It depends on what species the parrot(s) is, and if the person/people can take care of it appropriately. I have an African Grey parrot named Lexi. Ornery.
Okapi-- I agree with your conclusion there. Although the man may have kept the lion in the best condition he could possibly get it, the lion still needs things it doesn't have when kept in captivity. Even though zoos don't have everything animals have when in their natural environments, zoos are so much better than keeping them in homes, apartments, etc etc, even when provided enough space, food, water, etc. Hopefully you catch my drift.
robbieb Posted: Jan 7 2004, 10:59 PM
parrots are fine in good conditions i have a 11 year old blue and gold mecaw that we got when he was 14 weeks old he was hand fed by us and he is a sweet bird he talkitive and amused by thing alot (he laughs at stuff all the time and yells stop when we vacum cause its lound and says hello when the phone rings) but people who keep them in cages there entire lives are crule parrots cant live like that
Crocsrule Posted: Jan 8 2004, 10:14 PM
It's not cruelty it's that they don't want to sell them.
robbieb Posted: Jan 8 2004, 10:40 PM
? clarify
Crocsrule Posted: Jan 9 2004, 07:06 PM
I'm talking about my first post.
--------------------
WELL NOW U CAN'T way to go Bush http://animal.discovery.com/news/briefs ... otics.html
superlion Posted: Jan 6 2004, 12:24 AM
Good. I actually sent letters (ok, emails) to my representatives asking them to support this action. There have been TERRIBLE things happening to big cats because it was legal to own them privately... if you want to take care of one, get a job as a zookeeper Better off for you (hard to keep one fed), and the cat (probably better facilities and care than can be privately provided... did you think the neighborhood vet would treat your tiger if he had cancer or something? nahhh....)
Raindragon Posted: Jan 6 2004, 12:46 AM
That's great news! Finally something's been done about keeping these big cats as pets...
Jay Posted: Jan 6 2004, 01:20 AM
I'm not against such laws and I don't know the details of this law, but I suspect this will not make much of a change. There was already laws against bringing exotic animals (of all types and sizes) and plants into the U.S.. There are people who use so called "business" reasons to bring in such things. There are also black markets and smuggling operations. I hope the law makes the penalty so extremely severe that people aren't willing to take the chance. (That won't stop people that feel they are above the law, but if the penalties included life imprisonment, there probably wouldn't be two-time offenders.) I hope the law also closes more loopholes to prevent people from using "business" excuses. Only well established zoos that have existed for long periods of time should be allowed to bring in such things. (Even that might not be narrow enough, but it would certainly narrow down the "business" excuses tremendously.) Hopefully more states will also add bans.
On a side note... Superlion, is your avatar slowly turning into Gargoyles's ?
phantom Posted: Jan 6 2004, 10:01 AM
This is great news. Granted, there will stilll be illegal trade across the borders and all but at least those people can now be penalized. But it is a step in the right direction. Some animals are too endangered and others just too diffulcult to be good pets. And like Jay mentioned, hopefully more states will start putting up other bans as well.
Wally Posted: Jan 6 2004, 12:21 PM
We Dutchies already had that law, that also goes for wolves!
We are way ahead of you guys!
robbieb Posted: Jan 6 2004, 01:48 PM
anyways this law will probly have big changes because people cant breed own or anything like with these cats so animals suffering in cages cnag be let out into better conditions but what will happen to the animals most tigers are cross breeds so the zoos cant use them for breeding and things like that?
Dragon_of_doom Posted: Jan 6 2004, 01:59 PM
Thats great news!
kielo91 Posted: Jan 6 2004, 03:39 PM
Thank goodness for that. I was so ticked off at how people were keeping them as pets and treating them horribly. It just amazes me at how people can be so cruel. But I've known they are, but sometimes you just have to wonder: Why? Sure, some people are just vindictive creatures that love to torture anything they can find. Some find it pleasurable. It's utterly repugnant. But a lot of people are that way, and I fill with trepidation knowing that it still goes on. But I recognize that I am most likely to have no authority to stop it. We can only allow the government to stop it themselves.
As I was scrutinizing through the last paragraph of the article, I saw that my home state, Indiana, was not on the list for the tiger, lion, etc, banning. I'm going to cross my fingers and keep them crossed for the hope that IN will someday be on that list. And I also hope that all other states will soon become active in the prevention of keeping tiger, lions, and other exotic animals as pets. SL's right. Want one? Become a zookeeper.
superlion Posted: Jan 6 2004, 05:37 PM
Haha, Jay... Yes, but not intentionally... I was just having some fun with Photoshop and discovered I can draw eyes on it (haven't gotten brave enough for much bigger)... so yes, I drew that from scratch...
In regards to import of big cats, that's not near as big a problem as breeding them... there are big problems with people breeding the big cats for profit... hopefully the penalties for keeping the big cats will force anyone who is breeding the cats (without any regards to good genetics or husbandry, mind you) to take up more ethical pursuits in similar fields, like breeding rare lake Victoria cichlids (fish) or maybe stable mucking...
Capt.Rutlinger Posted: Jan 7 2004, 11:22 AM
yeah big cats don't desirve what some people did with them
BTW SL your avatar reminds me of a person we all knew very well
Wally Posted: Jan 7 2004, 11:32 AM
Nasym? Nasym's one is diffrint!
superlion Posted: Jan 7 2004, 01:28 PM
Gargoyle, as Jay said - also a big eye, but it was green. I answered Jay in my above post as to why it is so (unintentionally) similar.
Okapi_07 Posted: Jan 7 2004, 03:52 PM
i noticed that ohio (my state) wasnt on the banned list either in fact there used to be a man that lived right outside of town that had a male african lion (he kept it in the best conditions he could possibly provide not a torture chamber like some great cat owners) he also kept it very securely it only injured him once while playing with him(only a small cut on his arm) but both the man and his lion died in the last few years
this still doesnt mean that i think keeping large exotic animals is a good idea even if they are kept in good conditions
Crocsrule Posted: Jan 7 2004, 05:19 PM
A large city in BC banned the selling of exotic pets like parrots, some reptiles, hyenas, giraffes, elephants, big cats. Very interesting. I personally think anything not tamed should not be sold.
kielo91 Posted: Jan 7 2004, 08:45 PM
Parrots? I've heard of such banning, but certain kinds of parrots, though... It depends on what species the parrot(s) is, and if the person/people can take care of it appropriately. I have an African Grey parrot named Lexi. Ornery.
Okapi-- I agree with your conclusion there. Although the man may have kept the lion in the best condition he could possibly get it, the lion still needs things it doesn't have when kept in captivity. Even though zoos don't have everything animals have when in their natural environments, zoos are so much better than keeping them in homes, apartments, etc etc, even when provided enough space, food, water, etc. Hopefully you catch my drift.
robbieb Posted: Jan 7 2004, 10:59 PM
parrots are fine in good conditions i have a 11 year old blue and gold mecaw that we got when he was 14 weeks old he was hand fed by us and he is a sweet bird he talkitive and amused by thing alot (he laughs at stuff all the time and yells stop when we vacum cause its lound and says hello when the phone rings) but people who keep them in cages there entire lives are crule parrots cant live like that
Crocsrule Posted: Jan 8 2004, 10:14 PM
It's not cruelty it's that they don't want to sell them.
robbieb Posted: Jan 8 2004, 10:40 PM
? clarify
Crocsrule Posted: Jan 9 2004, 07:06 PM
I'm talking about my first post.
--------------------