When is it OK to keep wild predators as pets?

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805

originally posted by: Akragon
a reply to: Ashirah

I find it rather irresponsible to keep wild animals in captivity in general... the very idea of a zoo makes me ill

Though I do find it amusing that the same people who keep wolves or other vicious critters as pets, then end up getting their arm ripped off always wonder why it happened... and the animal is usually destroyed because of said persons stupidity

there is a reason why we have "domesticated" animals as pets... the wild is bred out of them...

Some pretty big blanket statements there...

Not everyone gets their arm ripped off; and if you do - you probably deserved it. Having spent time with wolves specifically; I can attest to this personally. Piss them off, beat them, scare them - they might react; but that's on you for not knowing how to handle your animal. Anyone who 'wonders why' probably shouldn't have ever owned the animal in the first place - and anyone who hasn't owned one or spent extended time in ones company cannot attest to the counter statements.

Let me ask you - where do you suppose the 'domesticated' animals come from? Someone, somewhere, has to breed and raise generations upon generations of animals to achieve this. Every dog breed started with wolves. All of them.

Dachshunds are generally more likely to bite someone than a wolf pet is. Don't generalize.

Dogs already exist. THere are more dogs than there are homes for them. Using the argument that dogs evolved from wolves is hardly justification for subjecting a wolf to captivity is it?

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I have mixed sentiments on this issue. When my wife was younger she worked at a game preserve in Louisiana where they kept tigers, lions, panthers, cheetahs, etcetera, that people were no longer able or willing to keep as pets. The preserve had an endowment that funded it so the animals were well taken care of. I thought the entire premise of trying to own a tiger was absurd.

Then I learned that there are more tigers owned by private citizens in the United States than in the wild (where retards hunt and kill them for mystical medicinal reasons). I now think it may not be a bad idea if they are properly cared for and allowed as much of a habitat as close to natural one as possible.

Rescuing wild animals who were kept captive and can no longer be released into the wild for their own sake is a far cry from keeping wild animals for fun or ego.

originally posted by: billyvonhelvete
If the person knows what they are doing, got plenty of space, big strong fences and show they can care and look after said animal...i dont see the problem, i know a person who has wolves, he has a lot of land, 16ft high fencing, signs every 10ft warning people whats on his land and to keep out for their safety. His pack are mostly friendly, but i wouldnt want to be in there without him. The pack are fed well, regular vet checks, and doesnt hesitate to call the vet if one has a problem he cant treat himself. Im all for responsible animal/pet owners, dangerous or not. If the animal looks healthy and happy, im happy!!
All the best.
B. V. H

How about if someone catches you and puts you in an enclosure from which you can't escape and feeds you well and gives you adequate medical attention and breeds you and sells your offspring just because they think it's a cool idea and want to look at you and tell people they've got one of you and maybe make some money off you. Would that be OK?

originally posted by: Tangerine

Rescuing wild animals who were kept captive and can no longer be released into the wild for their own sake is a far cry from keeping wild animals for fun or ego.

Did I say otherwise?

a reply to: Ashirah

Enlighten us that disagree?

I think OP will agree.
It's okay to want predators around when they look like this.



ATS

a reply to: randyvs

Yeah but....



... sometimes they're nuts.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: Tangerine

Rescuing wild animals who were kept captive and can no longer be released into the wild for their own sake is a far cry from keeping wild animals for fun or ego.

Did I say otherwise?

No, you didn't say otherwise. I didn't mean to imply that you had. I was more or less agreeing with you.

a reply to: TrueBrit

Your stance makes the most sense to me, and I will admit I was slightly torn on this subject myself given that we have rescued a piranha from a one-way ticket to his owner's toilet bowl. The piranha was killing this guy's fish that he kept it with - Inconceivable, right?

But some might say comparing a 4" fish to a massive, far ranging land predator is akin to comparing apples and oranges!

a reply to: Tangerine

Gotcha, thanks.

a reply to: Aliensun

I suppose I meant more in a moral sense in regards to the animal's physical and psychological wellbeing, perhaps I should have elaborated.

Thanks for your input though!

a reply to: Ashirah

Well this is the thing. If an animals choices are being homed with someone who will look after it, and termination, then of course there is a case for going ahead and offering it a place to live. I think that from a conservation point of view, there is nothing wrong with that, but keeping a wild animal as a genuine part of a conservational effort is entirely different to having one as a pet.

a reply to: DigitalJedi805

hmmm.... I could have sworn they came from magic lamps



By the way I trained dogs for quite a while in my past... i know where they came from... and quite a bit about their behaviours... it was a general statement... basically saying dumbasses shouldn't own animals

and wild animals belong in the wild... leave them where they belong

Don't try to own one because you want a prize pet... etc etc

a reply to: Ashirah

i live in ohio where there are no laws against owning any animal.
So some year back some guy had lions tigers bears .........oh my
Then one day decides to kill himself and but first let all the animals go.
And that is just stupid i mean send them to africa another farm whatever but they were
hunted killed tranqed ect...

And then in Cincinnati right down the road from me some man had comomdo dragons and
they bit him and he died from an infection and then was missing until friends from work found him 3 weeks later
they were eating him ..awful so no leave the damn wild dangerouse animals alone big and small
and dont wine when you get ate.

oh and the responce besides indian religions they should be able to keep wolves and stuff well i think my religion should let me keep tigers in my area running free and the ones who can catch those guys on bikes with all the color stuff on like they are in a race those are the god tigers

As a pet.....NEVER!

Two key words here.....wild and predator.

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805
Every dog breed started with wolves. All of them.

The dogs of today and not descended from the wolves of today. Wolves and dogs are descended from an extinct wolf. Today's wolves and dogs are on the same level biologically and therefore NOT the same animal.

Dachshunds are generally more likely to bite someone than a wolf pet is. Don't generalize.

You just generalized and then said, "Don't generalize"... Besides, I'd rather get bitten by a Dachshund than a wolf. One, I may need stitches, the other, maybe a funeral. The dangers of owning a wild animal are only a small part of why I think it shouldn't happen. The biggest reason is that it isn't fair to the animal.

I am against wild animals in captivity unless they're being rehabbed to enter into the wild again, or they're unable to survive in the wild. Only then, do I support it. And most people have no clue about keeping wild animals.

originally posted by: Ashirah
a reply to: TrueBrit

Your stance makes the most sense to me, and I will admit I was slightly torn on this subject myself given that we have rescued a piranha from a one-way ticket to his owner's toilet bowl. The piranha was killing this guy's fish that he kept it with - Inconceivable, right?

But some might say comparing a 4" fish to a massive, far ranging land predator is akin to comparing apples and oranges!

Not really.

I was going to mention that you see this problem in the aquarium hobby all the time. Just because you are talking about self-contained aquatic environments doesn't lessen the reality that you do have predatory fish and fish with their own special needs and requirements who wind up getting the short end of the stick because people don't bother to do their research and wind up getting something for which they aren't prepared.

Not only that but fish are not domesticated ... unless you are talking about the ridiculously selectively bred ones like fancy guppies and bettas.

I have befriended some wild predators in the time I have spent in the woods. Some were absolutely extraordinary experiences! After some time, some began to recognize me coming.

That said, it is only in certain circumstances that I feel it is appropriate to keep wild animals as pets. And then, only with the proper expertise and environment.

It only takes a few generations to start to see strong domesticated behavior though. The f3+ wolf hybrids I have worked with were all wonderful. The pure wolves were to, but needed someone who knew what they were doing to interact successfully. That excludes 99% of people, conservatively. hell, someone I know thinks the proper way to introduce herself to canines is to clamp their muzzles shut until they "submit." Oddly, she tends to be quite afraid of dogs, domesticated or wild, as she has been bitten numerous times during the first meeting.

a reply to: ketsuko

Yes, I tend to agree with that, especially when once again it comes down to the 'cool factor'.

Piranhas are widely thought of as ferocious animals and so the dip# that's never had anything more than a Walmart goldfish thinks how cool it would be to have this fish with a nasty reputation. I feel like many people that acquire other types of predators do it for that very reason. Or because they want to have that special bond with a wolf or big cat. Or merely because the animal as an adolescent is cute.

So far, I still have yet to see a person that keeps animals like these as pets name a worthy reason (in my opinion) as to why they do it. And allow me to specify that I'm referring to the pets scenario as opposed to rehabilitating or providing sanctuary to injured or abandoned animals.

Is there anyone that has (or plans on pursuing) ownership of wild predators that would care to explain why they choose to do so and not just explain what they believe is the proper way to handle/contain them? Allow me to reiterate that I'm not attacking anyone, just I personally would like to know what justifications I'm failing to grasp here.

a reply to: Tangerine

Well it absolutely does matter; but if you have the facilities and time to interact with the animal, and provide a habitat comparable to theirs in the wild, I see no 'unfairness' at all. And by comparable; I imply with hunting areas, breeding areas ( if that's your goal ), and a full array of flora and fauna to accompany it.

I'd fetch the YouTube clip of the man reuniting with his reintegrated Lion; the one that they never thought would reintegrate properly, but now leads a pride - walking up to the pride and being first greeted by his old friend with a massive cat hug.

To me, the 'end game' for any big cat, bear, or other predator that has had some manner of domestication ( assuming we're focusing more on the latter mentioned species' ) - should be reintegration of that animal. In the case of cats it would have to be at a fairly young age; 4-5 at most, so they have an opportunity to take leadership in an otherwise already dominated environment - but I feel my ideals in this respect offer both the ability for humans to enjoy interaction with the most primal of animals; and the ability for them to lead a 'normal' life back in their native environments. I also believe that after a few generations like this - humans would be able to encounter 'semi-domestic' ( as in not going to immediately attack you ) members of packs or prides that inherited from the aforementioned. Perhaps even leading to the ability for humans to use a Pride of lions for utility ( hunting comes to mind ) purposes. I don't think onerous distribution of lions to the public is right - but to those that can provide the proper environment, I don't see a problem.

There are limits to how 'fair' it is to the animal; but there are also ways to make it work for everyone.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

The fact that wolves and dogs descended from a previous generation doesn't negate my point. Domestic dogs are descended from one, very primal species at some point.

The Dachshund reference is likely a valid statistic - not a generalization, if I have to address it... But I believe you're nitpicking at this point.

As for your opinion on the matter; I can't say that I disagree with you... Note my last post ( should be immediately before this one ) and consider that I have much higher ideals than most would on having a predator as a pet.