It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

When is it OK to keep wild predators as pets?

page: 3
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

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?


It's not a justification; it's a response to your feelings that they are guaranteed to be vicious. It's not an argument for 'subjecting' captivity; it's an argument for the tame-ability of said animals.




posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:16 AM
link   

originally posted by: Akragon
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


Wish I knew which post this came from; but I can't agree more that dumbasses shouldn't own animals. Primal or not.

Per wild animals belonging where they belong; I've posted a few now this morning - but my first post this morning sums up how I feel about owning them and how it should be handled. In my opinion; in situations where you can provide a proper environment, breeding internally and releasing the animals early is the solution that works for everyone - you get to have a 'prize pet' ( as much as I dislike the term... I prefer 'primal friend' ), they get the environment that they would in the wild, and they get reintegrated to bolster the population, offer them some 'fairness', and resume the True primal nature of the animal.

- Everyone. I feel like I got a lot of negative sentiment; but there's a lot that I failed to mention about my feelings, and I hope some of my clarification was worthwhile.

Not everyone should be able to own a lion; but those that can provide a thousand acres that replicate the animals environment to a T, with the right mindset and ideals For the animals - should have the option.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:19 AM
link   
Just wanted to thank you for taking time to explain your point of view.

ETA: to digitaljedi805
edit on 5-2-2015 by Ashirah because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
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.


I'm glad someone seems to agree with me... And your friend needs a new approach tactic...

Your 99% is probably very conservative, too.

Actually knowing what you're doing, and thinking you know what you're doing are two different things. 20 Acres for a pride of lions isn't enough. An acre for a wolf-breed isn't enough. Interaction and environment should be absolutely perfect; or you're not doing it right.



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ashirah
Just wanted to thank you for taking time to explain your point of view.

ETA: to digitaljedi805


Well, I hope it wasn't too strongly stated or anything - but I have some strong feelings about it; and I hate for a negative opinion on myself because it was misinterpreted.

Thank you for mentioning. I had a lot of responses to get back to.



ETA: Doesn't seem to have mattered much.
edit on 5-2-2015 by DigitalJedi805 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 04:01 PM
link   
Something is not working on this thread. I have tried repeatedly to respond to a post and each time, part of the original and part of the response don't show up.
edit on 5-2-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)

edit on 5-2-2015 by Tangerine because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:26 PM
link   
a reply to: DigitalJedi805

I'm sorry, but what doesn't seem to have mattered?

I created this thread with an open invitation to those like yourself that have differing ideas than I do on this particular subject, because I just wanted to see if anyone had a reason besides 'well I like these animals, therefore I decided to obtain them.' Even looked elsewhere on the net to try to find some kind of rationale behind the actions of the owners of wild predators as pets but I didn't find what I was looking for.

I understand its going against the grain to admit you're for keeping the animals within the parameters of what you feel is fair for them, so I appreciate your voice. Do I necessarily agree? No. But I also don't feel you have sinister intentions, either. However, to me, if one truly loves and respects a wild predatory species, they wouldnt pursue ownership. I can only hope that maybe something or someone could eventually persuade you to rethink your stance.

One thing I am in agreement with you is that dumbasses shouldn't keep ANY animals, so there's that!



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 07:31 PM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Strange, I haven't had any issues yet. Try again if you don't mind?



posted on Feb, 5 2015 @ 08:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805

originally posted by: Tangerine

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?


It's not a justification; it's a response to your feelings that they are guaranteed to be vicious. It's not an argument for 'subjecting' captivity; it's an argument for the tame-ability of said animals.


The only part of this that I said is "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? " I didn't say anything about wolves being vicious.



posted on Feb, 6 2015 @ 10:08 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

Using the same qualifiers as before (the right expertise and environment), there can be a few justifications. Some are the typical "wildlife rescue," but another reason is to introduce more stable genetics into a given breed.

As many know, pure bred dogs are susceptible to a variety of genetic conditions. Personally, I suspect this is because of improper eugenics. Regardless, this is why some suggest mutts. However, it is only a matter of time before those issues start to trickle down and impact even mutts. By refreshing the genetic foundation and keeping health in mind, breeds can be re-created and then re-introduced to help stabilize the domesticated canine gene pool.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 02:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Tangerine

Using the same qualifiers as before (the right expertise and environment), there can be a few justifications. Some are the typical "wildlife rescue," but another reason is to introduce more stable genetics into a given breed.

As many know, pure bred dogs are susceptible to a variety of genetic conditions. Personally, I suspect this is because of improper eugenics. Regardless, this is why some suggest mutts. However, it is only a matter of time before those issues start to trickle down and impact even mutts. By refreshing the genetic foundation and keeping health in mind, breeds can be re-created and then re-introduced to help stabilize the domesticated canine gene pool.


Meanwhile, we let millions die every year for lack of homes. Breeding more is pure selfishness, no matter their genetics.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 02:20 AM
link   
Growing up, I had a friend who's mother was a certified wild life rehabilitator. I got to see all sorts of wild life animals at her house up close. But that said, it was a full time job a lot of these animals. For example, the barn owl with the broken wing, she had to go buy rabbits from the pet store, personally kill them, skin them, and give the rabbit to owl to eat in pieces. Was it pleasant? No, but it had to be done. She taught me that. She had raccoons, deer, you name it. I remember when a fawn came in because her mother got hit by a car. They were crossing the road. She kept the fawn in her bathroom temporarily and let me go pet it. Beautiful baby. Just beautiful! She was trying to find a petting zoo in the area to see if they could take her in. Eventually the fawn went here to live out her days being happily fed and petted and away from hunters. Children were able to get an education, the fawn was able to have a nice home. Win-Win!

My ex wanted a Capuchin Monkey. At the time my daughter was still in diapers and he refused to help change her diapers. Now, I knew the monkey would need to be in diapers, and I saw as another child I would be stuck changing with no help. As cute as they may be, I put my foot down. If he was helping, maybe. But it would just be something else in the house that would wind up being my responsibility and as it was he couldn't even take care of his own doctor's appointments, somehow THAT was my responsibility as well, so I new taking care of the monkey was on me too. And considering my daughter was special needs and was taking a LOT of energy out of me, I didn't have any more at the moment for a monkey. I had to prioritize. He was ticked about it, but oh well. He was like a child who saw the new toy in the store. The way I saw it, if he acted more grown up with some of the things around the house, I would have no issue with it because then it wouldn't have been all on me. I guess it depends on if you can care for the animal as to whether or not you decide to take one under your wing. Some however are just too dangerous to even remotely consider it.



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 04:23 AM
link   
a reply to: Tangerine

That's not the point.

There are a myriad of issues that converge on this topic, and it is significantly more complicated and interconnected than many seem to think.

I know the consequences of dogs without homes, through extensive experience. I know it well enough to state it's not as simple as "stop breeding." There are many different groups, many of which have conflicting ideologies and agendas. The fight for superiority leaves many canines homeless, or euthanized, while individuals argue hypothetical ideals.

With the growing encroachment of human civilisation on natural environments, this conversation will become more pertinent. What I personally advocate is a responsibility for the eugenics that have taken place for many years, and the creation of a more natural framework for something people will do regardless of cries from the "opposition."



posted on Feb, 7 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: Serdgiam
a reply to: Tangerine

That's not the point.

There are a myriad of issues that converge on this topic, and it is significantly more complicated and interconnected than many seem to think.

I know the consequences of dogs without homes, through extensive experience. I know it well enough to state it's not as simple as "stop breeding." There are many different groups, many of which have conflicting ideologies and agendas. The fight for superiority leaves many canines homeless, or euthanized, while individuals argue hypothetical ideals.

With the growing encroachment of human civilisation on natural environments, this conversation will become more pertinent. What I personally advocate is a responsibility for the eugenics that have taken place for many years, and the creation of a more natural framework for something people will do regardless of cries from the "opposition."


I'm of the opinion that we humans have messed with nature far too much already. Every time we humans think we can do a better job than nature, we screw up badly. I concur that we need to preserve nature but not by managing it. We need to leave it alone and protect it from our pollution and encroachment.



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join