America and pet laws..

I dont have any pets.

I would consider a dog at some point when my children are possibly a bit older but i doubt it would really happen unless it was a smallish type dog with a good temperament.

I know that cats and dogs are the general pet here in the uk but i have just seen another video on worldstar with a young tiger just casually playing around in some young guys apartment.

I have seen other videos with owners having all types of lions and grizzly bears and etc.

I remember a story awhile back with the man who committed suicide and let all his animals free from his land..lions, tigers, bears leopards etc!!

Im just interested in what the wildest pets you do have and why the laws are so lax in the usa and is it only in certain parts?!

How is this legal when you look at the potential of damage these animals can do in this unnatural enviroment?

This thread just took me back to 2006. There is this lake near my pad and it used to be the spot where I smoked out with my friends. Everyday you go you'd see the same people walking their dogs, playing with their kids, jogging, etc.. The lake isn't that big and the depth is like 10ft at most..

Well one night we went and the lake was blocked off with a sign that read " Do no enter.. Alligator in the lake "........... Im like wtf, what alligator! It was surreal to me because this lake was in the middle of a city and common animals you'd see were ducks and fishes.. They shut the place down and everyday different animal patrol would go in to catch the thing but no luck. SO they started setting up traps everywhere but even after few months, they couldnt catch it.. People in the community started getting nervous and before you knew it, all these major news stations were setting up camp to report updates .. Back then I was still reading the newspaper in the morning and updates would be on the frontpage.. Soon, people started capturing pictures of the alligator with his head barely above water and this whole thing was becoming like some kind of great mystery in the lake like Nessie.. After awhile, they said the alligator was getting bigger and smarter, about 8ft big.. 7 months later, it was still loose and they finally brought in the famous Steve Irwin the crocodile hunter but from what I remember, even he couldnt catch it..

I forget the details of what happened next but after almost year, they caught it.. That thing was fairly big and shit was mean looking.. It wasn't one of those crazy crocs you see in the documentary but I sure wouldnt have wanted to swim next to one that's for dam sure.

After investigation, police found out that somebody in the neighborhood had kept a baby alligator as a pet but when it got too big and hard to maintain, he released it into the lake.. Im not sure what happened to that motherfucker but he got hit with a huge fine and jail time..

I dont know about those people with exotic animals man.. That shit aint right.. fuckin americans with their love for weird animals ... I dont mind little dogs and cats but I aint trying to be fuckin Tarzan and shit.

Remember Animals are people too

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_6-IwMPjM

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

I dont have any pets.

I would consider a dog at some point when my children are possibly a bit older but i doubt it would really happen unless it was a smallish type dog with a good temperament.

I know that cats and dogs are the general pet here in the uk but i have just seen another video on worldstar with a young tiger just casually playing around in some young guys apartment.

I have seen other videos with owners having all types of lions and grizzly bears and etc.

I remember a story awhile back with the man who committed suicide and let all his animals free from his land..lions, tigers, bears leopards etc!!

Im just interested in what the wildest pets you do have and why the laws are so lax in the usa and is it only in certain parts?!

How is this legal when you look at the potential of damage these animals can do in this unnatural enviroment?

---

I had an iguana as a kid and knew some people that had a pot belly pig. I've known some people that had wolf hybrid dogs, pet deer, squirrel and raccoons but that is about as exotic as I've seen. I think the ownership of animals such as tigers is pretty rare. I'm sure there are some national laws about importing such animals but outside of that it is generally going to be up state and municipalities to decide these kind of things. I'd venture to say they are "lax" b/c for starters it is really not much of an issue and because there is still a sliver of individualism in the US where we don't tell other people how to live their lives.

"How are the laws so 'lax' in the United States?"


.....indeed, I guess we should just chain ourselves up and assume everything is illegal unless specifically stated that it is legal the way everyone else thinks.

Also lots of people especially EVERYONE ON WORLDSTAR don't typically follow rules, guidelines, regulations, laws, etc....whatever kind of authority Government has they just don't care about it and plead ignorance if they get caught.

Tyson owned a Tiger and Michael Jackson a chimp.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Master

Tyson owned a Tiger and Michael Jackson a chimp.

---

Some people have exotic pets. Some are legal some are illegal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

"How are the laws so 'lax' in the United States?"


.....indeed, I guess we should just chain ourselves up and assume everything is illegal unless specifically stated that it is legal the way everyone else thinks.

Also lots of people especially EVERYONE ON WORLDSTAR don't typically follow rules, guidelines, regulations, laws, etc....whatever kind of authority Government has they just don't care about it and plead ignorance if they get caught.

---

You dont see the laws being a teeny weeny bit lax when you can own a lion or hyena?

Remember we have domesticated animals, big cats, bears etc are wild animals and are not
pets, to large to strong and very unpredictable plus they can kill and eat you.
Why put yourself in danger, only a fool would own one as a pet.

Anyone that tries to make a pet out of a "wild" animal deserves to be eaten alive by it. There's no excuse.

For the record - it's only about 30 years ago that Harrods - that's the big famous store in London - stopped selling lions and tigers and whatnot.

Lions and what not are not kosher to own in the US. There are cases where people have gotten permits for one but it is rare. A lot of the laws vary from state to state.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

You dont see the laws being a teeny weeny bit lax when you can own a lion or hyena?

---

:vd: imp, it's that kind of thought process which leads to people banning salt, large sodas, and trans fats. The idea that "people are too stupid to handle freedom and liberty" (which is always implied even in this case) is dangerously idiotic. Would I WANT to live where people own lions and tigers that could potentially break out and harm myself, my family, my dog....no....but again there are laws in the US about what type of dog breeds you can have, insurance companies WILL NOT sell you homeowners insurance if you have a certain kind of dog. And hell most people who live to become adults aren't able to house or pay for exotic pets like Lions and Hyenas...however if they ARE able to and they are responsible with said pets what business is it of mine if they want to own those animals?


I believe the English are in dire need of a lesson on LIBERTY. If it doesn't affect you, your happiness, your pursuit of a better life for yourself, the safety of your family (which in this case, could be debated but only in terms of safety for the animal and security for those living nearby rather than an outright ban) then you should just let it go. Let people do what makes them happy so long as it doesn't detract from your natural rights....what is so difficult about that?

There needs to be some kind of regulation for these dangerous exotic pets, whereby you'd have to achieve some kind of certificate or qualification to own certain animals. The average joe shouldn't own a goddamn monkey or lion, that's insanity. I read Tyson's book where he was talking about owning his tigers and how dangerous they were. A tiger belongs in the wild, not in some rich, drug addicted asshole's mansion. Same with a monkey: these are wild, undomesticated animals. One thing we forget is pathetic the human body is physically compared to other similar-sized animals. A 100lb chimpanzee will rip your arm out of the socket and beat you with it. Physically we can't compete with these animals. I feel bad for a lot of these exotic animals, especially reptiles, that spend their decades of existence in a fucking heated tank so their owners can have a conversation piece. Buy a dog or a cat, you assholes.

I say this because I know first hand that most people aren't qualified to own a dog, let alone some exotic, undomesticated animal. I have a Rottweiler and from day one I spent so much time and energy socializing him with people and other dogs and animals so he would have a nice, friendly temperament. Which he does, but even still he is always weary and suspicious of strangers until they introduce themselves. If I just left him in the yard all day like a lot of meat heads do, he would be a real goddamn liability.

Yes I understand and support that Beanflicker, my point is that lots of people aren't qualified to raise kids but there aren't laws against them having kids. There are regulations they have to abide by to KEEP their kids though and that's my point.

Legion, a guy who used to post here (haven't seen him in a while) owned like every kind of deadly snake you could imagine. He had a few cobras if I recall correctly.

The kid issue is a tough one because, while obviously there are a ton of people having kids who just shouldn't be having kids and consequently raising them to be threats/burdens to society, that infringes more on personal freedom because who the fuck is anyone to say you can't take an unprotected deep-dicking and get knocked up. It's your body, whatever. All the government can do is, through social services, try to ensure that the kid is not being abused or neglected.

I don't think anybody is having their personal freedom trampled on by being denied the right to own an exotic animal that belongs in an African jungle.

We also have to consider the well being of the animal as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

We also have to consider the well being of the animal as well.

---

yes of course

I wouldn't want to own a tiger etc but I also don't think it is any of my business and frankly dumb people owning dangerous animals culls the herd a bit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by imp

You dont see the laws being a teeny weeny bit lax when you can own a lion or hyena?

---

:vd: imp, it's that kind of thought process which leads to people banning salt, large sodas, and trans fats. The idea that "people are too stupid to handle freedom and liberty" (which is always implied even in this case) is dangerously idiotic. Would I WANT to live where people own lions and tigers that could potentially break out and harm myself, my family, my dog....no....but again there are laws in the US about what type of dog breeds you can have, insurance companies WILL NOT sell you homeowners insurance if you have a certain kind of dog. And hell most people who live to become adults aren't able to house or pay for exotic pets like Lions and Hyenas...however if they ARE able to and they are responsible with said pets what business is it of mine if they want to own those animals?


I believe the English are in dire need of a lesson on LIBERTY. If it doesn't affect you, your happiness, your pursuit of a better life for yourself, the safety of your family (which in this case, could be debated but only in terms of safety for the animal and security for those living nearby rather than an outright ban) then you should just let it go. Let people do what makes them happy so long as it doesn't detract from your natural rights....what is so difficult about that?

---

No i dont agree.

You seem to get so uptight and frustrated so easily over anyones point of view thats different from yours?!

There are many deaths in this country from a certain type of breed dog thats usually of the pit bull type family.

I think alot needs to be done in controlling that issue and extending the ban on other types of dogs as well regardless of owners.

Lets just stick to the issue of the exotic pets and the freedom that many seem to have in owning these very dangerous animals.

And as already mentioned its not doing the animals any good either.

Its everyones business if they OWN these animals because no human on earth can know the potential of their animal and what it intends to do next.

Simple Scenerio - man has the right to own a few tigers and bears but one of them gets loose and goes on a rampage.

Uk scenerio - man has the right to own a dog but gets loose and goes on a rampage.

Its pretty obvious which pet has the potential to cause many deaths compared to a few maulings.

Both are wrong but im just trying to understand if its just a few states that are allowed to own exotic pets or if its the whole country.

Yes because I want people to open their eyes up and live a little freer...what's wrong with that?

Dog breeds aren't the issue the OWNERS are the issue. I've met loads of Pit Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers, Bull Terriers, Rottweilers, German Shepards, etc and they are some of the sweetest dogs I've ever come in contact with. To ban a breed would be a travesty. It's evil or incompetent owners that make for vicious/improperly socialized dogs.

You need to keep in mind I'm NOT advocating everyone having wild animals, I'm just saying some people CAN handle the added responsibilities that come with exotic pets.

Also keeping certain types of animals on wilderness/hunting reservations is actually HELPING some endangered species.



Maybe YOU want the government to hold your hand and kiss your boo-boo's all your life but I fucking don't

Come on, el kabong!

Lets not go there!

Ive met loads of dog owners with staffies and pit bull type dogs but it does not stop with the owner.

No owner on earth can control a dog 24/7!

Its fine having free will and freedom blah blah blah but in this discussion and in your country would YOU have any issue with new neighbours moving next to you with a tiger or grizzly??

Do you have kids?

Alright let's say for argument's sake you're right. There's a breed of dog that needs extinction because it's violent and always in trouble....now let's look at crime rates shall we? We'll notice that violent crimes are MAINLY committed by certain "breeds" of people, I mean obviously they aren't at fault, they were BRED to be that way. But we must, for the safety of the many, do away with these dangerous breeds of people. Do you see where that is leading? See the road that goes down?

There are GREAT dogs who just happen to be a breed that is considered (rightly or wrongly) dangerous. While I don't put 100% of the blame/responsibility of what that dog does or does not do on the owner a good 90% (at least) is on the owner. Some dogs, like some humans, are unable to function in a safe, reasonable, manageable way and for those I understand they either have to be sent away or put down but to just wipe out entire breeds is irresponsible and unnecessary. Because first it'll start with the pure breds, then it'll be half breeds, then mixes, and then what you take the next worst breeds and kill them off? Also yes some dogs NEED to be mean! Some dogs guard important things and that is their fucking job.

My neighbor wouldn't have a grizzly or a tiger because I live in a condo. But to address your point, that wouldn't happen unless I'm in the middle of the country where there are no Homeowners' Associations, City Ordinances, and so on....and if that was the case sure I'd be fine with it so long as I knew the owner and was cool with how the animal was kept and handled. Is that an irresponsible stance?

I don't have children of my own, I do have a dog and I have some young nieces. I care about my dog, I care about my nieces and yeah if any of the lot of them did something fucked up while under my care I would be held legally responsible for their actions and I understand and am ok with that because personal responsibility is important to the way I want to live.

I will state this, my dog has bitten and snapped at a fair amount of people (maybe 4 over the course of my dog's 10 years) and that is on me even though 100% of the people bitten or snapped at approached my dog in a manner that would incite a defensive snap. It is my job as owner to warn or make known the tendencies of my dog to my guests and company and even in doing so I stand responsible for the result of any injuries or damage sustained from individuals who came into contact with my dog in an improper manner.

If banning (not killing) every dangerous dog elimates any human death im 100% behind it.

Exotic animals belong in the wild and a certain amount in the zoo.

Im a human. And a human life is worth more to any type of animal no matter how nice or loyal that particular type of pet someone thinks it is as it relies on its owner for everything anyway, thats why their loyal.

I have nothing against dogs, or any type of exotic animal. I just do not believe that any type of typical average human being should own an animal such as the ones mentioned.

Im sure you wouldnt leave your 10 year old dog (if it was one of the known breeds) alone with you nieces as no matter how well you think you know your dog, any attack small or big could leave lifetime scarring or even worse.

In regards to the breed of humans that kill and are evil, they are put in jails or in some cases put to sleep (in your country).

I just think that owning an exotic animal or trying to be best friends with it has proven in many cases to end up being fatal..especially with Bears!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I wouldn't want to own a tiger etc but I also don't think it is any of my business and frankly dumb people owning dangerous animals culls the herd a bit.

---

I think it would be your business if you lived anywhere near it, because there's always a threat of the animal escaping and fucking shit up.

And when the animal does eventually end up fucking someone up, it's not just the owner that suffers - this magestic animal that belongs in a fucking jungle anyway gets killed.

If you own land, you can own exotics etc. Basically if you live in suburbia or city the chances are you have your hands full "owning" children or a poodle...tigers, bears and snakes that will swallow your poodle need not apply. The breed of a dog can be a smoke screen for some owners as all can do damage in the same enviroment left mismanaged and or untrained. The absolute worst I've been attacked in 23 yrs has been from all things a Husky. It is state to state as to what regulations are with regards to "wild or exotic" breeds-animals...some are grandfathered in rare cases, some require permits etc but personally...no small private dwelling or those in the proximity there of should house a fucking Tiger ffs. To Hell with OUR rights...they deserve better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I wouldn't want to own a tiger etc but I also don't think it is any of my business and frankly dumb people owning dangerous animals culls the herd a bit.

---

I think it would be your business if you lived anywhere near it, because there's always a threat of the animal escaping and fucking shit up.

And when the animal does eventually end up fucking someone up, it's not just the owner that suffers - this magestic animal that belongs in a fucking jungle anyway gets killed.

---

Actually the owner IS held responsible.... granted they aren't put down.


Want to see crazy there's a documentary on "The Cat Dancers" who were the cheap Siegfried and Roy. The movie offers insight into how shady it is to buy a fucking tiger. Plus those fucking Cat Dancers wereRREALLY odd.

You Americans and your freedoms: 'It's my home and it's my right to have a nuclear bomb in my bathroom. If it goes off, them's just the breaks'. Nutters. ;D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Actually the owner IS held responsible.... granted they aren't put down.


Want to see crazy there's a documentary on "The Cat Dancers" who were the cheap Siegfried and Roy. The movie offers insight into how shady it is to buy a fucking tiger. Plus those fucking Cat Dancers wereRREALLY odd.

---

Oh I understand that, but them being responsible gives me little joy when I'm walking down the street and I get mauled by a fucking tiger. I'm not interested in having my face and limbs ripped off or my jugular punctured.

I'd just assume not take the chance to be in that kind of predicament.

I'll have to check that doc out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

I'll have to check that doc out.

---

Just as a warning....once seen, you can't UN-see it. Those cat people are strange.

Cat Dancers (TV Movie 2008) - IMDb

There's the IMDB link to the documentary so you can find it

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beanflicker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

I wouldn't want to own a tiger etc but I also don't think it is any of my business and frankly dumb people owning dangerous animals culls the herd a bit.

---

I think it would be your business if you lived anywhere near it, because there's always a threat of the animal escaping and fucking shit up.

And when the animal does eventually end up fucking someone up, it's not just the owner that suffers - this magestic animal that belongs in a fucking jungle anyway gets killed.

---

Oh we are going to play the "what if" game. Well what if monkies fly out of my ass and attack you? This is a lot of hand wringing over nothing. There is almost no threat of a me being attacked by a wild animal so while I wouldn't own one I don't feel the need to go run to the gov't to make sure other people can't own them. Until the time comes where lions and tiger and bears oh my are attacking people with any type of frequency and regularity I think I'll just mind my own business. You should too.

alcohol and tobacco has killed and will kill more people than wild animals or wild animals kept as pets. And alcohol and tobacco are heavily regulated.....still doesn't keep people from making moonshine which also probably kills more people than exotic pets. Guns are heavily regulated and it doesn't keep people from stealing them, acquiring them illegally, and killing other people.


Laws don't always do what they are intended to do. Also laws don't make people free or safe, laws take away freedoms and in some cases make the world LESS safe (see prohibition of alcohol and of illegal drugs)

Humans are animals.

If I lived in America I should have the right to keep one as a pet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Humans are animals.

If I lived in America I should have the right to keep one as a pet?

---

Only if they're a midget.......sorry "dwarf" :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VictorCharlie

Oh we are going to play the "what if" game. Well what if monkies fly out of my ass and attack you? This is a lot of hand wringing over nothing. There is almost no threat of a me being attacked by a wild animal so while I wouldn't own one I don't feel the need to go run to the gov't to make sure other people can't own them. Until the time comes where lions and tiger and bears oh my are attacking people with any type of frequency and regularity I think I'll just mind my own business. You should too.

---

The "what if" game? Are you actually telling me that some average joe meathead owning one of the most effective, dangerous killing machines on the planet in a residential neighbourhood shouldn't be anyone's concern? I shouldn't have questions as to whether or not said meathead can properly contain a tiger? And I shouldn't have concerns about the animal's well being?

Bears and tigers don't attack people with any type of frequency because the average joe doesn't own these types of animals with any type of frequency.

I love the "reactive vs proactive" attitude, too: "we know it's dangerous and potentially tragic, but let's wait until some real bad shit happens before we do anything about it. And I'm not talking a few tragedies, I want tragedy to happen on a consistent basis before I start caring". Jesus Christ…

I'm all for personal liberty. I think all narcotics should be legal to use. You wanna shoot yourself up with heroin until you get gangrene and they have to cut off your arm? Be my guest. You wanna eat shitty foods until you're 800lbs and can't get out of your bed? Knock yourself out.

You want put others safety and the animal's well being at risk by owning an undomesticated killing machine that's going to be miserable? Go fuck yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Humans are animals.

If I lived in America I should have the right to keep one as a pet?

---

Only if they're a midget.......sorry "dwarf" :rolleyes:

---

I don't want a midget I want a big strong human. If I have the right to own any animal I have the right to own him.

Let people do what makes them happy so long as it doesn't detract from your natural rights....what is so difficult about that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by El Kabong

alcohol and tobacco has killed and will kill more people than wild animals or wild animals kept as pets. And alcohol and tobacco are heavily regulated.....still doesn't keep people from making moonshine which also probably kills more people than exotic pets.

---

Yeah but come on, can you really compare the number of people who use alcohol and/or tobacco with the number of people who own dangerous exotic pets?

People ALWAYS bring up these statistics. I hate flying, and people always bring up that cliched "ya know, you're more likely to get in a car crash than a plane crash". Yeah no shit, I drive a lot more than I fly. That doesn't ease my mind because I still know that if the plane goes down, there's going to be maybe half a minute of pure terror and despair followed by a horrible death. Give me the statistics on how many people survive plane crashes as opposed to car crashes.

Last year, more people were killed in fist fights than flame throwers, bazookas and atomic bombs combined. Does that mean someone's fist is more dangerous?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fenster

Let people do what makes them happy so long as it doesn't detract from your natural rights....what is so difficult about that?

---

See ownership of a human infringes on that person's natural rights....cute choice to go with that as your argument though :thumb:


Beanflicker, you're more likely to survive a plane crash than not...so there's that

Quote:

---

The "what if" game? Are you actually telling me that some average joe meathead
owning one of the most effective, dangerous killing machines on the planet in a
residential neighbourhood shouldn't be anyone's concern? I shouldn't have
questions as to whether or not said meathead can properly contain a tiger? And I
shouldn't have concerns about the animal's well being?

---

I'm saying you are making a huge deal about something that simply isn't a big deal. If you are going to ask the gov't to make a law telling people how they should/should not live their life then it should be over something important and meaningful. This isn't. Get back to me when being mauled by a wild animal is a real concern for even 1% of Americans.

Quote:

---

I love the "reactive vs proactive" attitude, too: "we know it's dangerous and
potentially tragic, but let's wait until some real bad shit happens before we do
anything about it. And I'm not talking a few tragedies, I want tragedy to happen
on a consistent basis before I start caring". Jesus Christ…

---

Being proactive for the sake of being proactive leads to bad laws.