A Little Bit of Everything

Posts tagged ‘ban’

The pending Ohio ban on exotics

Hi guys,

Somebody on a forum asked if somebody could write them a blog entry about the pending Ohio ban on exotics.  I wrote one and have decided to post it here as well.  Also, I reccommend you visit her blog, as she has tons of awesome information on keeping exotics;

http://www.thepetfox.net/

Here is the entry;

“Hello everybody,

I am not normally the blogger for this page but it has been requested that somebody write a post on a subject that is very close to my; the blog owner’s; and the rest of a large community’s, hearts. Earlier this summer, HSUS made an agreement with the farm bureau and Governor Strickland of Ohio on some regulations that would be passed. Included in this agreement was the prohibition of the acquisition of exotic animals. Effectively, Ohio, which has long been a state of freedom for exotic animal owners, was going to do away with that freedom without giving any warning or time for opposition. It was an extremely underhanded deal. HSUS failed to pass their last bill banning exotic animal ownership because of our community and so now they’re trying to slip it in without giving us time to react.

Perhaps a good thing to explain now; is how animal rights groups like HSUS work, and what their true objectives are. They want owning any animal to be banned. The reason they aren’t taking on the whole pet owners community is because they are cunning. They know that there is no way that they would be able to take on a group so large and win so they resort to following an old proverb; divide and conquer. They pick out the minority group and go after them; in this case, the exotic animal owners. The thing is, because those groups use bullying and intimidation tactics, the rest of the pet owners are nervous that they will have their pets taken away and therefore are more willing to agree with the AR groups in the hopes that they and their pets are left alone. The groups know this and use it to ostracise the minority group until it’s easy to take away their rights. This also ensures that once other groups are being targeted, the groups before them will not help them due to the fact that they were not helped when they were targets.

MAKE NO MISTAKE; AR GROUPS WILL EVENTUALLY GO AFTER EVERY PET OWNER. DO NOT LET YOURSELF GET SUCKED INTO THEIR MANIPULATION. BAND TOGETHER!

For those of you who are not already involved in the exotic animal community, here are some statistics to chew on. Approximately one person a year dies from a captive big cat attack, and one from captive venomous and non-venomous snake attacks(Deaths from other captive exotics are so small that they are not statistically significant). Approximately thirty three people die from dog attacks each year. Approximately sixty two people die from skydiving every year. These statistics illustrate two very big double standards. If thirty three people die from dog attacks every year, yet owning a dog is still perfectly acceptable, how does it make any logical sense to ban exotic animal ownership because of two deaths a year? And don’t try to use the ‘well, there are more dogs kept than exotics so the numbers pan out’ argument. That is a very flawed argument. You see, that argument assumes that as the numbers of captive exotics grows, so too will the number of deaths. Life does not work in perfect mathematical fashion like that. Yes, the number of deaths COULD grow, but they could also stay the same, or even reduce for all we know. So essentially, your argument is based on imaginary numbers. I’m pretty sure that politicians will agree that they want to base legislation on REAL numbers, not imaginary ones, and the real numbers tell us that more people die from dog attacks than exotic attacks.

The second huge double standard revolves around the fact that owning exotics is considered a hobby by a lot of people. You know what else is a hobby? Skydiving. Look back up at the statistics for deaths that come from skydiving; sixty two! Yet, nobody is calling out to ban that. Why is it that it is socially acceptable for a person to decide to skydive, fully knowing the risks, yet is not for a person to decide to own an exotic pet, fully knowing the risks. Well, I suppose you could say that not all prospective exotic pet owners know the risks, but I’m pretty sure I could say that about skydiving too. In fact, while it can be said that some people should not own exotic pets, the same could be say about dog owners and their dogs, and even parents and their children. The point is, people need to think about exotic pet ownership in the same light as similar hobbies, instead of singling it out, because that just leads to double standards and hypocrisy.

Last of all, I’ll leave you with this; exotic pet ownership is not a public safety issue as the AR groups would lead you to believe. If you search out the details of the twenty captive big cat attacks that have happened in the last twenty years (you can check this out at rexano.org), you’ll see that all twenty deaths were people that had voluntarily put themselves in that situation. Not one of them was a bystander.

-Daine”

So, I hope this has educated some of you who are not aware of the trials faced by exotic animal owners.

-Daine

Advertisements

‘Wild’ and ‘tame’

Those two words are used very often when talking about exotic pets especially when the speaker is against them, and I just wanted to discuss them.

When speaking against exotic pets, a statement that is very commonly used is, ‘these animals shoul be in the wild where they would be happy’.  Okay…I think people need a reality check.  1) The ‘wild’ is slowly becoming a month due to human encroachment, and 2) Do you know what it’s actualy like living in the wild?  It’s not all happy and free like people try and make it sound.

The typical life of an animal in the wild is very short and involves constantly worrying about being able to feed him/herself, constantly looking over his/her shoulder for predators or rivals and then dying a very painful death due to either disease, starvation, or being ripped apart by a predator/rival.

Now compare that to a life where the animal has quite a large enclosure filled with tons of things to keep him/her entertained, doesn’t have to worry about predators, and gets fed and loved regularly; which life do you think that animal would choose, given the choice?  If you still think that he/she would choose the wild, then you’ve got yourself extremely deluded.

Now I want to talk about the word ‘tame’ and the word ‘wild’ used as an adjective.  I strongly dislike both words and the fact that people think that an animal has to fit in either category.  ‘Tame’, I feel, implies servitude to humans, and then when an animal doesn’t want to do something a human has told it to do, it gets labelled as ‘wild’.  AR activists always say that ‘oh, an exotic animal is a wild animal and will always be wild’.  Well, an exotic won’t just do anything for you because you want him/her to and will lash out if pushed but then again, a domestic cat won’t either, and will probably lash out if pushed as well yet we don’t label them as ‘wild’.  The only real difference here is size.  Some people think that’s an adequate reason to ban exotics but I say, why should it be a problem?  If you respect the animal like you would any other human, and you treat him/her like the companion they are, size shouldn’t be an issue.

Referring to animals as either ‘wild’ or ‘tame’ is both simplistic and shallow in my opinion and I think it’s one of the things we have to get rid of before we can live in harmony with animals.

-Daine

Ontario man killed by pet tiger; let the ignorance fest commence

Okay, I know I haven’t posted in forever but I haven’t been sure what to post.  As you can probably tell, I prefer to post about topics and my opinions on those topics rather than what’s going on in my everyday life.  Well, I suppose this post is a combination so I don’t feel like I’m just prattling on about something nobody cares about.

Last week, a man in southern Ontario was killed by his pet tiger.  Coincidentally, this man was the leader of the Canadian organisation for exotic animal owners.  Of course, AR activists jumped on this immediately, as well as various neighbours who have been pushing to get rid of the exotic cats, with no success.  The AR activists have even gone so far as to push premier Dalton Mguinty to ‘regulate’ (read, ban) ownership of exotic animals.  Luckily, he seems reluctant to do so and would rather leave it to individual municipalities.  Hopefully, he will maintain this mindset.

In an attempt to exert some damage control, I have written this article.

‘No reason to ban exotic cats

Throughout North America, there have been many local governments coerced into passing exotic animal bans by both extreme animal rights activists and private citizens who allow fear to consume them and block out logic.  The pressure is usually doubled right after an incident because people believe that what has just been portrayed in the news, can happen anywhere.  In fact, this is the idea that AR groups are constantly pushing.

Recently, a man in southern Ontario was killed by his pet tiger.  Nobody can say how or why because nobody saw it happen but they all assume that the reason it happened was simply because tigers should not be kept as pets.  First of all, there’s a logical error in assuming what happened.  There are a variety of scenarios that could have led to the man’s death and I’m sure if you asked a seasoned exotic cat owner, they could tell you.  Second of all, if you think about the handful of incidents that have taken place in the last two decades in the situation of private ownership of big cats, you’ll realise that almost all the injured parties are the owners themselves.  There is very little danger to the public and in the case of responsible exotic ownership, there is no danger to the public.  The possible dangers of big cat ownership are something that the majority of people know going into it, therefore making it just like any hobby-related danger.  There have been many deaths due to hobbies such as freefalling and bungee jumping yet you don’t see people calling for those activities to be banned.  Therefore, there is no logical reason for exotic ownership to be banned while people are still able to take part in the above-mentioned activities.

To see details on incidents involving exotic cats, go to the statistics page on the website for REXANO, which stands for Responsible Exotic Animal Owners.  Under United States statistics, there is a list of those deaths related to captive big cats versus other causes of death, as well as a list of the big cat related deaths and some information on who was involved.  Of the twenty big cat related deaths between 1994 and 2008, only two were due to pets and those were due to bad choices made by the owner.  It is important to note that those people do not reflect the entirety of the exotic ownership community.  In fact, while the number of deaths related to big cats over eighteen years equalled twenty, thousands of other big cats were being kept with no problem.  It is estimated by officials that there are more tigers being kept in captivity in North America than there are left in the wild.  This would suggest that for every incident involving a captive tiger, there are possibly tens of thousands of captive tigers that have never hurt anybody.  Really, when you think about that, exotic cat ownership doesn’t seem so scary anymore.’

I sent this off to a newspaper in Ottawa and when they din’t reply to me (it’s the second time they haven’t even bothered to reply, grrr) I sent it off to a Toronto newspaper.  It is late but hopefully, they will see the importance of running it.  I could probably rant and rave about this issue a little more but I think I’m just going to sit back and see what happens with the toronto newspaper.

– Daine

Sexting Ban

First, I want to say that I was completely unaware of the concept of ‘sexting’ until I started hearing about it on the news so I don’t know what these statistics of ‘1 in 5 teenagers have sexted’ are all about.

Second, I don’t agree with taking naked/half-naked pictures of yourself and sending it to people; I have no idea what would possess people to do that.

Now that being said, I strongly disagree with this law that the government is creating (or has already created, I’m not sure) that is basically criminalizing sexting (correct me if I’m wrong but I’m pretty sure I heard there’s jailtime as well as a fine because sexting is being considered child pornography).

So, if I disagree with the act, why do I disagree with banning it?  Well think about the history of laws and bans that actually make sense.  Why ban smoking in public places? Because it negatively affects other people without their consent.  Why ban public drunkenness?  Because it negatively affects other people without their consent.  Why ban sexual assault or child pornography (and by that I mean, other people taking pictures of naked children without their consent)?  Same thing.  You see, those things all have to do with a person being affected who does not want to be affected.  That makes sense.

Now, take this sexting business.  A teenager makes the choice to take a picture of themself naked to send to a beau.  They certainly know the web well enough to know that they are taking the risk that lots of other people will be able to see it.  If they don’t take that into consideration, they are going to be negatively affected when others do see the picture.  The thing is, they are the only ones who will be negatively affected (and don’t give me that ‘their family, their friends etc.’ because shame and embarassment on their parts don’t count).  So, they make a choice and they get to deal with the consequences.

So what happens if/when this is criminalized?  Well, there’s suddenly a new precedent in courts and parliament.  Suddenly, it’s okay to take away a personal choice if it is perceived to be ‘not good’ for people.  That’s a really slippery slope guys.  I mean, where do we draw the line?  What will separate the choices we’re allowed to make from the choices we’re not?  With this sexting case as precedent, I’m sure that there are many other things that the government will be able to justify criminalizing.  Personally, this freaks me out.

-Daine