17
   

Schools closed-exotic animals prowl Ohio - Sozobe?

 
 
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 07:22 pm
@dlowan,
I think the regulations in those 5 states, including Ohio, are unenlightened, for sure.
And yes, I was very surprised & quite angered at the fate of those poor animals, including the 18 rare Bengal tigers, which should have had "protected" status, surely? But I don't know what more the authorities could have done, in the circumstances, to protect those animals . It was a tragedy which should never have been allowed to occur.
If this incident leads to a tightening up of those states' regulations then at least some good may come of it.

Yes indeed, a properly controlled captive breeding program would have been a far more appropriate situation for those Bengal tigers, especially.
However, as we've seen in Oz, sometimes such programs come too late to save a species. Witness the fairly recent desperate efforts to save the last of the Tasmanian devils from extinction. Sadly, most likely way too late.
0 Replies
 
wayne
 
  2  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 07:44 pm
@hawkeye10,
I don't see any benefit to announcing where many of the animals were located when they were shot. The information is readily available to anyone who reads enough to understand the situation.
It matters not one whit if the tiger is 20 feet or 20 miles from the cage, what matters is the tiger is out of the cage.

There is nothing wrong with down playing the location in an effort to prevent the uninformed from raising a stink over something they don't understand.
That's not manipulation, it's tragedy.

If there is a need to be addressed, as a result of this tragedy, it is state laws allowing exotic animals to be kept privately.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 08:29 pm
Quote:
Most experts agreed that the Ohio officers had little choice but to kill the animals.

Unlike in television and movie portrayals, real tranquilizers take time to take effect, and the impact of a dart can make an animal aggressive or cause it to run.

Sedation "doesn't happen immediately," said Leigh Henry, a senior policy officer with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF).

In fact, a vet from a local zoo shot one of the tigers with a tranquilizer dart. But the animal started to run off, forcing officers to shoot and kill it.

Henry said that she believes the Ohio police did what was necessary.

"I'm not going to say who was right or wrong," she said. "I certainly wouldn't judge them for taking the actions that they did, when their primary responsibility was the safety of their community."

(See pictures of exotic animals rescued at the L.A. airport.)

Exotic Animal Shootings Highlight Need for Better Regs

Luke Dollar, program officer for National Geographic's Big Cats conservation initiative, said the public discussion should focus not on whether the animals should have been shot but on an absence of relevant legislation, which allowed Thompson's exotic-animal farm to exist in the first place.

"I hope we don't use this as a misdirected excuse to vilify or 'armchair quarterback' the men and women of law enforcement who were responding to an uncertain and dynamic situation with little chance of any good outcomes," Dollar said.

"This became an incident waiting to happen as soon as Thompson was able to buy that first tiger, then a lion, and so on. With proper legislation or regulation, we can prevent this from happening again."


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/10/111020-ohio-exotic-animals-shootings-thompson-farm-nation/

It is sooooo helpful when the experts are asked and their response is "we dont want to talk about it"....again reinforcing that the fix is in, that the truth and examination of the facts are not wanted.

This is what America has come to.....no wonder we are in trouble.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 08:52 pm
Labeling this a human interest story seems a bit off the mark because of the fact that a large number of animals were killed, but it's actually an apt categorization.

I don't see it as evidence of police misconduct or incompetence, and it doesn't illustrate a pervasive problem in Ohio or the US.

Exotic animals running loose in suburban neighborhoods is is hardly a weekly headline somewhere in the country.

It's unfortunate and sad that the animals were killed, and the numbers make it a bit shocking.

Whether it be the US, Australia or Timbuktu, I don't see anything uncivilized about private menageries. Yes, there should be laws that regulate the ownership of wild animals with the purpose of protecting animals and humans alike, but a blanket prohibition isn't appropriate. I've also no problem with nations prohibiting the export of native species, particularly when the species are endangered and the nation has the resources, laws and will to preserve them in their wild native habitat.

There's no reason why a private individual cannot properly care for wild or exotics animals, and there's nothing more civilized about a public zoo than a private one.

I think most of us will agree that we would prefer to see wild animals living in their natural habitats if the habitats can adequately support them, but there's no reason why a private owner, with sufficient means, cannot provide a habitat for these animals that is equal to or superior to a public zoo, and preferable to extinction in a natural habitat that can't support them.

dlowan
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 08:52 pm
@msolga,
I can remember when Harrods was able to sell such creatures.....though perhaps not Bengal tigers.

0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 20 Oct, 2011 09:10 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
but a blanket prohibition isn't appropriate
YOu do realize that this is the direction that America is going in, with intense pressure from leftist groups to get blanket bans passed in the states...right?

Quote:
I think most of us will agree that we would prefer to see wild animals living in their natural habitats if the habitats can adequately support them,
For most of these animals that were killed here that is a done deal...there wildlife days are over, if they are to survive at all it will be in captivity under the care of humans...it is that or nothing, not liking the choice is not relevant.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 07:55 am
@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
There's no reason why a private individual cannot properly care for wild or exotics animals, and there's nothing more civilized about a public zoo than a private one.


A private individual can, but it is clear that this one did not. That's where the lack of laws concerns me. There were numerous visits from authorities but they couldn't do anything because the laws for private menageries are actually much more lax than for zoos. If the guy had chosen to display the animals, he would have run up against a bunch more regulations.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 01:55 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
There's no reason why a private individual cannot properly care for wild or exotics animals, and there's nothing more civilized about a public zoo than a private one.


A private individual can, but it is clear that this one did not. That's where the lack of laws concerns me. There were numerous visits from authorities but they couldn't do anything because the laws for private menageries are actually much more lax than for zoos. If the guy had chosen to display the animals, he would have run up against a bunch more regulations.


I admit to not reading all of the linked articles, but of those I have read the only indication of how he treated these wild animals was a bit about his having declawed a tiger cub.

Clearly releasing all of the animals to run will was not caring properly for them, but at roughly the same time he did that he killed himself and so I don't think we can say he was acting in his right mind.

I appreciate that the declawing of the tiger club was illegal and that many animal rights activists consider declawing an inhumane practice, but it's hard to put it in the category of sadism or neglect. The owner may not have been sufficently sensitive to the pain the cub experienced during its recovery, but it was a temporary experience and there was no danger that the animal was losing it's primary method of defense.

If there were documented cases of cruelty and neglect, that should be irrefutable evidence, but I didn't read of any.

There was also brief mention that the man had once been charged with animal cruelty because he was unable to reach livestock to feed them, and they starved. Terrible suffering for the animals but I would like to see additional detail. Why couldn't he reach them? I would suggest that there is a difference between his just not wanting to be bothered, and his living alone and getting laid up in the hospital for a few weeks.

Again, I'm not looking to make excuses for the guy, but from what I can tell the difference in requirements triggered by displaying the animals is the need to register them. Registering these animals would not have prevented the incident.

roger
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 02:32 pm
@sozobe,
sozobe wrote:

There were numerous visits from authorities but they couldn't do anything because the laws for private menageries are actually much more lax than for zoos. If the guy had chosen to display the animals, he would have run up against a bunch more regulations.


Now that is not only odd, but completely unreasonable.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 02:34 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
Mr. Thompson, who had run afoul of the law dozens of times over questions of whether his animals were being fed regularly and kept in sanitary conditions, pleaded guilty to federal charges in April 2010 of possessing eight illegal firearms — five automatic weapons and three short-barreled guns whose serial numbers had been filed off, according to court documents.

[....]

Local law enforcement officials said they repeatedly visited the Thompson farm after receiving complaints, but could do little more than make sure that Mr. Thompson had the proper permits for keeping the animals. He did.

“We’ve handled numerous complaints, numerous inspections,” Sheriff Lutz said. “This has been a huge problem for us.”

Dave Sacks, a spokesman for the United States Department of Agriculture, said that under the federal Animal Welfare Act, the agency monitors exotic animal owners only if they exhibit the animals to the public for compensation.

The rub in Ohio is that U.S.D.A. does not regulate that sanctuary because Mr. Thompson does not exhibit his animals to the public for compensation,” Mr. Sacks said.

Will Travers, the chief executive of Born Free USA, a nonprofit advocacy group that supports wild animals and opposes the exotic pet trade, said that Ohio is one of only eight states that do not regulate exotic animals. It did briefly after a bear mauling, but Gov. John Kasich allowed the ban to expire.

“Ohio has a particularly bad record when it comes to exotics,” Mr. Travers said.


Emphases mine.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/us/police-kill-dozens-of-animals-freed-from-ohio-preserve.html
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 02:50 pm
@sozobe,
Quote:
We’ve handled numerous complaints, numerous inspections,” Sheriff Lutz said. “This has been a huge problem for us


After years of BS with this collection when the call came in from his men that the animals we roaming about I can will picture in my mind the knee jerk response of "Shoot the mother fuckers!"
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 02:55 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
I admit to not reading all of the linked articles, but of those I have read the only indication of how he treated these wild animals was a bit about his having declawed a tiger cub.


Ya, this guy was a mile deep in debt, had just spent all or most of a year in jail so he could not earn any money, and yet we are told that the animals were still getting fed on time. His neighbors say that he did not like people much but he loved his animals...I think we have reason to believe that this is true. The complaints about the collection had to do with animals getting loose, not of abusing them. Like most animal lovers he probably was not all that concerned about is animals getting loose because he trusted them, animals being out of their cages does not demonstrate abuse of them nor ill will towards them.
0 Replies
 
thack45
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 02:56 pm
@hawkeye10,
That's really quite a leap. It was a "huge problem" for them. It wasn't their only problem.
hawkeye10
 
  0  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 02:59 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:

That's really quite a leap. It was a "huge problem" for them. It wasn't their only problem.
No, a cop getting constantly needled with a problem that the law does not allow him to solve is the equivalent of nails on a chalkboard...how old are you anyway...have you lived long enough to know human nature?
thack45
 
  3  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:11 pm
@hawkeye10,
Laughing How many years does it take to know human nature?
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:14 pm
@thack45,
thack45 wrote:

Laughing How many years does it take to know human nature?
I will take your evasion as a "no"...
thack45
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:17 pm
@hawkeye10,
No. Just making a joke. Though I am curious if there is an age you have in mind. Then I promise to get back to the conversation.
Rockhead
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:20 pm
@thack45,
thack, here's what you have to understand about hawkeyes.

he is the master of deducing what other people are really thinking while they do what they do. all the while keeping his own quirky agendas secret from us.

I think in real life that he is the Green Lantern...
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 03:27 pm
@sozobe,
I don't know why I care, but I just can't shake the notion that this guy got a bad rap thanks to neighbors who (understandably) didn't like the idea of lions and tigers living close to their homes, a sheriff who was overwhelmed by media attention trying to deflect criticism from people upset over the animals being killed, and animal rights activists that simply can't abide these animals being privately (or publicly for that matter) owned.

There are plenty (too many) of stories concerning raids conducted by the authorities in response to complaints about animal cruelty that contain horrific accountings of how the poor animals were suffering. There's nothing like that in any of the reporting. None of the animals that were killed or captured were reported to have shown signs of abuse.

In any case, he's not around to defend himself and the story has come to a close. A shame all around.
0 Replies
 
Pemerson
 
  2  
Reply Fri 21 Oct, 2011 04:09 pm
The story is all over, the owner of the animals dead, and so many beautiful animals also dead. Terrible, I say.

I can't help but think nobody should be allowed to keep wild animals on private property. It never turns out a positive situation. Mainly because those that keep them or either nuts, well, just nuts. That's why there are large, large acre animal preserves. Like maybe a thousand acres?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 07/16/2020 at 11:55:19