Felt sorry Terry a lil, but was more angry with him. - The Elephant in the Living Room (2010) Discussion

[–] seahorsespa 12 years ago

You are completely right. That idiot should have been fined or jailed for letting that animal die of electrocution. His farm was filthy, the cages were disgusting, NO animal should have to live like that. He was solely responsible for his filthy farm conditions killing that poor lion.

reply

[–] elzpeth 12 years ago

I agree with you. I just watched this for the second time. On my second viewing, it was even more obvious what a wretched soul Terry was. Obviously mentally ill, looking to the lions to provide him with a reason for socialization and interaction with society. What is doubly bad, is the fact that we most likely enabled this situation by financing his "disability" check. Was it really an "accident" that killed Terry crossing the railroad tracks right by his home, after the lions had been removed? He had lived there for years. So all of a sudden he forgets and pulls out directly into the path of an oncoming train?

reply

[–] MissKateRabbit 11 years ago

As much as I agree with your sentiments about him being mentally ill I dont think that he was trying to kill himself when he died as he had his son and another passenger in the car. I dont think he had good reaction timing and I personally dont think that he was bright enough to be able to pull off that kind of an elaborate(attempted)murder/suicide as the other passengers would have heard/seen the train coming and left the car.

I personally dont think that anyone should own any wild animal but if there are no laws against it then the people buying the animals should be stringently checked and checked again and again. Also, the whole pricing system is ridiculous.

Do the *beep* snow angel, Dude!, Do the *beep* snow angel!

reply

[–] IveBeenAMiner 12 years ago

I apologize in advance for the long windedness of this post, but I felt I had to throw my opinion in, even if it's not strictly about Terry, more about the issues of exotic animal ownership as a whole. I don't want to open hostilities or offend anyone, like you all I just want to say my piece. Though I do feel that Terry shouldn't be treated to harshly. Yes he wasn't smart for having those lions and what happened to Lambert completely broke my heart. Yes that wouldn't have happened had he not had Lambert in the first place, but it was still a freak accident and I felt more pity for Terry in that instance than anger. I was so torn when it came to Terry, I normally think people who have exotic pets are morons, but at the same time I could tell that Terry genuinely meant well and wanted the best for his animals. Which was most reflected in his willingness to give them to a better home. So I don't know what I feel with regards to Terry.

I spent all last summer working at a really great wildlife sanctuary/research facility, complete with grey wolves, mexican grey wolves, red wolves, cougars, black bears, coyotes, a raccoon, skunks, a porcupine, and some foxes. Working closely with these animals (no direct contact with any other but the wolves and even that was extremely limited) reinforced the philosophy I've always had that "what is a wild animal really good at...being a wild animal. It can and will kick your ass" The auction scenes in this film really made me sick, I kept remembering the case of one of the black bears at the sanctuary who had been kept as a pet. She was kept between 2 trees on a 3-6 foot leash for years before she was rescued. Situations like that really make me sick. At the same time I can understand how someone like Terry could fall in love with baby Lambert. While i was at the sanctuary a litter of oops-pups was born and I had the opportunity to hold a little baby wolf and for a moment as I was holding it all I could think was "mine" and I completely forgot about the predator it was going to turn into. Of course the pup didn't stay "mine" and I was able to shake off the moment of weakness.

But having that moment of weakness shed some light on the problem with people and exotic pets. I really feel there are two kinds of people at the heart of this issue, those are the naive ones who think a wild animal can be a domestic pet and the animal rights extremists who think It's a good idea to break into zoo's an release animals who have been in captivity their whole lives. Both think they have the animals best interests at heart, but really they have no idea what they're doing and are only thinking of themselves in the end. When you only see these animals on TV or read about them in books it's impossible to really understand them. It wasn't until I worked up close and personal with them that I realized that almost all my preconceived notions about them were wrong. If I who have loved and studied animals my who life could be so wrong about them than anyone can.

The issue of people owning exotic pets is probably never going to go away. As long as people are naive about the true natures of these creatures and there is access it will always be a problem. It's always the animals that end up paying the price for peoples naivety and selfishness. At the end of the day I believe that in theory everyone should have the right to own an exotic animal if they have extensive knowledge of the animal they want, first hand experience with them, financially able to have the a large enclosure, build proper enclosures, provide the correct diet and overall give them as close to the life they would have had in the wild. They shouldn't get them as babies (no matter how god damn cute they are) but should take the ones that people can't properly take care of or are unable for some reason to live in the wild. While this is a nice theory, majority of those who want/have these animals aren't able to do all that. So what are we to do? As far as I can see we have to start with making it illegal to have these animals (unless you're a sanctuary or the like), have harsher punishments for those who illegally have them and find ways to care for the ones who are no longer wanted. I know that's not a solution, but it's a place to start. To whomever is still reading I thank you for actually reading all this, I appreciate you're time and am eager for a response or opinions. That is all.

"SPANK ME HARD AND CALL ME REGIS!"~Colin Mochrie

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

"Even if they have the cash and the functional knowledge required, it is still an incredibly selfish thing to do."

Oh, you must be some non-selfish angel I'm guessing? God forbid that people do what they want in life, and care for another species of animal.

"People need to stop with the rampant anthropomorphisation"

What a coincidence, I was just going to tell you the same thing. These animals are not people and (with the exception of some animals like great apes) can adapt to life in captivity well if provided for. So I'm not exactly sure where you get off claiming that I'm committing an act of cruelty, an allegation I take pretty damn seriously.

BUGS

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

"...so that you don't hide your total lack of valid arguments"

MY lack of valid arguements?? MINE?? Ohh boy are you in for it Check this out.

"You seem a little bit confused, insofar as apparently you consider that caring for another species has anything to do with you putting a wild animal in a cage."

A "wild" animal, which in my animal's case is captive bred, is an animal...that I care for. So indeed, it has everything to do with my keeping of this animal in a cage. That is part of the process of caring for this animal. If it wasn't in a cage, it wouldn't be a pet...or cared for.

"And since your main argument is to say that people like you should be able to do what they want"

Yep, you got it.

"I'm gonna go on a limb and assume you aren't keeping exotic pets for some lofty goal besides your own petty pleasure."

Why yes, humans are innately pleasure-seeking. And now to you, this becomes a crime. Why, I wonder?

"Just because the State hasn't forbidden it doesn't make it a good idea, a tasteful idea."

Of course it's not a good idea because the state doesn't ban it. But it sure is a 'good' idea for -me-, because I love doing it. Do you think I care if you find it "distasteful?" What is that I don't even...pet keeping is not an art form

"If you want to kid yourself that you can override millenia's worth of hard-wired instincts and that a freaking cougar belongs in your living room, I guess that's your prerogative."

WOAH, maybe I'm going crazy here but did I say I have a cougar? Did I say that even if I did have a cougar that I would keep it in a living room? Please quote these claims of mine and I will then check myself into the nearest mental facility @_@ ...but if you can't..perhaps you should.

"These animals are not, and will never be human, but I fail to see how that disproves that keeping them in captivity for your personal entertainment qualifies as cruelty."

Why don't you tell me why it is cruelty? I believe that if the animal is psychologically, mentally, and physically well, that if the conditions its being held in allow the animal to perform the behaviors it would do so in the wild, no cruelty is being committed. Your turn.

"They are not pets, which is why you keep them in secured cages or on a leash."

But you see, ALL my pets are contained on my property, and when outside, on leashes. Although my dog is the only animal I use with a leash. That's also the law. Maybe you're one of those irresponsible people who allow your pets to roam outside to their own devices. If so, you are grossly misinformed on what constitutes proper, responsible animal ownership.

"There's a difference between conferring distinctly human qualities to an animal, and being deluded enough to think that you can suppress its nature and somehow not affect its quality of life."

There is little suppression of instincts occurring here, nor was that my goal. Sure, there are some restrictions that captive animals face, but they are still doing very well. Where is your proof of the contrary? If I wanted to be around humans, I'd hang around humans. I prefer to care for animals.

"A tiger will never read Descartes"

Learn something new everyday I guess @_@

"but it sure as hell will know it isn't free and mind living in your backyard."

And you know this...how?

"You are not doing a wild animal a favor by raising it as a pet, it's not noble, it's not brave, it's not smart and it's not even kind."

I think I'm doing the animals I keep a favor by caring about how I treat them, and to my eyes they are healthy and not subjected to the distress of the wild. I don't care if it's not noble, brave, "smart" (although I appear to be more so than you), and I don't think it's 'unkind' (or kind, it kind of just...IS). I'm waiting for your proof, not your emotional blabber. If this argument is about why I should adopt the emotions of you, an internet person, I can refute this easily. I don't care what you think, I don't agree.

"What I mean is, take my accusations of cruelty seriously, please do, because I wasn't jesting."

I would take it seriously if I thought you knew what you were talking about. But phew, not so.

"While you're at it, you might want to direct some of that seriousness on the reasons why you feel the need to bend some poor beast's instincts to fit your whims."

Trust me, I know my reasons

"Whatever disturbing kind of motivation/reasoning lies"

But something tells me you aren't willing to listen so I won't bother. You have your empty little mind made up. Haven't given me a SINGLE fact or even an interesting point of view to make me reconsider my actions. You just have me pegged as some kind of horrendous person. At least I have actual evidence of your denseness, and the hilarious irony of your insults regarding my arguments. At least I actually made some!

Take a deep breath and actually produce a reply without your subjective emotion.

BUGS

reply

[–] louisecracker 12 years ago

"not subjected to the distress of the wild". Ha! Sounds like what a scientist I once interviewed told me about people complaining about poor penguins having to live in the freezing cold...
Admit that you have wild pets for your own sake, because they're beautiful, exotic, that you're proud of having a bit of wilderness close to home. Don't say it's for the animals' sake.

reply

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

"Ha! Sounds like what a scientist I once interviewed told me about people complaining about poor penguins having to live in the freezing cold..."

Oh you're so right. They especially love the part when they get chomped on my leopard seals or when the food supply runs low. It's just their 'natural inclination'. If you're going to reply to me about this complex issue don't give me some half-wit smart ass comment.

"you have wild pets for your own sake, because they're beautiful, exotic, that you're proud of having a bit of wilderness close to home."

So? What's so wrong about this? All pet ownership is inherently selfish, and I can guarantee you that there is a matching animal rights loon for every animal owner. Are you mine?

BUGS

reply

[–] louisecracker 12 years ago

Your trying to say that it 's for the animals' sake. What does your last sentence even mean? You think penguins are happier in a zoo than in the wild?

reply

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

No I wasn't, I'm trying to say I want these animals and you have no right to tell me otherwise because I'm not abusing them. And yes I do. If I could choose a nice zoo over predator-infested waters as a penguin then I would.
BUGS

reply

[–] itsalltears 11 years ago

in that case, let us lock you in a cell where you'll be safe. you would be fed and cleaned up after and you wouldn't be abused, so no one would have the right to tell us we couldn't keep you locked up. much better than running the risk of being hit by a car or attacked by a mugger on the street, right?

reply

[–] GSmith9072 11 years ago

If I was as dumb as an animal I'd be all for it.

BUGS

reply

[–] louisecracker 10 years ago

Yeah well. Instead of a cage, why don't we throw you in predator-infested waters and see how long you survive.
Dumbass.

reply

[–] GSmith9072 10 years ago

Lol, where did that come from?

BUGS

reply

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

"I don't want to open hostilities or offend anyone"

You're going to have to deal with it.

"I normally think people who have exotic pets are morons"

So you consider me a moron I guess. But I wonder who the "moron" is when they lump hundreds of animals together. Define "exotic animal" please. Out of all the definitions, not one means 'large and dangerous', so either that was your misconception, or you're against people keeping ferrets, reptiles, sugar gliders, and birds. Are they all morons as well? Maybe judge people based on whether or not they are taking proper care of their pets, because they do exist. Our lifestyle really takes a hit from ridiculous sentiment such as yours. We want a chance to exist doing what we love like anyone else, but must take so much crap and unfair laws from people.

BUGS

reply

[–] 12 years ago

[deleted]

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

"but to animals who are not commonly kept as pets, because, you know, they're wild and stuff"

Erm...no that statement is totally meaningless. Snakes for instance are not popular pets because many people fear them, but many snakes are easy as hell to care for. Birds on the other hand ARE popular pets and many of them are indeed wild and have wild characteristics!

"They don't have millenia of genetic engineering"

!!!

"and taming behind them."

The word you're looking for is domesticated Ms.ignorance!

"all I have to say is that it's very grand of you to stoically bear the onslaught of violence directed at you"

Violence? Why am I not suprised.

"because people refuse to pat you on the back for being able to legally torment animals for the sake of your entertainment."

I just want them to leave their opinions out of my life. Especially when they are so shockingly, pathetically misinformed like someone I know of.

BUGS

reply

[–] IveBeenAMiner 12 years ago

Wow I'm very sorry that what I had to say based on my experiences with wild animals started an internet hissy fit on the parts of Caroline and Bugs. I wanted to open the floor for discussion, but how is a discussion supposed to be started if people take what is said as a personal attack and get all offended. I was saying what I thought based on my own experiences, everyone has different experiences and therefore different opinions. I am no moron when it comes to animals, and by exotics I simply meant any animal that hasn't been domesticated through artificial selection, self-domestication or both. I suppose I should apologize for not being clear on that one. I don't think animals who are wild should be made into anything else. They're not pets and never will be. I was also trying to say that in my experience I got some insight into how someone could fall in love with an exotic animal and want to keep them as pets. If people on both sides get offended and don't listen to the other side how is this problem going to be remedied? And if you want people to leave their opinions out of your life than don't start fights on the internet, throw your opinions down peoples throats and insult them when they disagree.

"SPANK ME HARD AND CALL ME REGIS!"~Colin Mochrie

reply

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

A "hissy fit"? Well sooorry for coming on to a discussion board and having a discussion. At the mercy of your discretion, I would like to continue...please? My name is not "bugs", maybe you're trying to be a smart ass with that one. So don't ask me why people get offended, ask yourself. Or maybe that was a subliminal blow because you don't appreciate my point of view, and you think I should consider myself lowly for it and take your calling of me as a "moron" in strides since I'm wrong and everything. I'd like people who consider me a moron and an enabler of cruelty to have actually evidence and/or a REAL argument against me other than their emotional BS. I'm waiting ever so patiently for your 'side' to take me on with something else other than their personal sentiment. I know what your position is and I've heard it thousands of times.

"And if you want people to leave their opinions out of your life than don't start fights on the internet, throw your opinions down peoples throats and insult them when they disagree."

Thank you for informing me. I know I have the inferior opinion and should take abusive language from your "side" even if I'm the only person making actual arguments around here and not suggesting that people should be banned from what they want to do with their life because of my personal feelings. Seriously, I know you're trying to be 'neutral' but you are coming off as a biased moron.

BUGS

reply

[–] IveBeenAMiner 12 years ago

Based on your responses you don't have the high ground on being biased, and I haven't seen any actual arguments or discussion from you thus far. Perhaps it's there but it seems to have gotten lost in all the defensiveness. So tell me madam what exactly are your arguments?

The issue I was getting at was the issue of having wild animals as a pet. I don's see any reason to obtain a wild animal as a baby and raise it into adulthood as a pet/in captivity. The situation is of course different if the animal was originally wild and can no longer survive in the wild for whatever reason. But I just can't see a reason that isn't moronic or selfish for obtaining a wolf, alligator, lion, elephant, tiger, porcupine, fox, hybrid etc and raising it as a pet. It's not in the best interest of the animal and usually will end up with someone getting mauled and the animal getting shot. Even if the animal doesn't go the way of Old Yeller it's never going to be truly happy spending it's life in a cage.

I'm aware of the conservation argument of course, and having worked with Red and Mexican Grey Wolves I understand how important the captive breeding programs are. But claiming that majority of the people who get rare animals are in to to save the species or even make any real conversation effort is just a lie. Yes there are those out there, but majority of the time it's people using these animals for attention or allowing uncontrolled breeding. If true conservation is the goal and it's actually being done correctly that great, but if someone just wants an exotic/wild/hybrid pet because they're awesome then there is no logical reason to have them.

So madam do present you're counter arguments. Why is it a good idea to have wild/exotics/hybrids as pets?

"SPANK ME HARD AND CALL ME REGIS!"~Colin Mochrie

reply

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

"and I haven't seen any actual arguments or discussion from you thus far."

Maybe I haven't produced any arguments because uh, you people immediately criticize pet keepers before we can say a damn word. As I've illustrated in my other post there, why should I sit here and accept the abuse and attacks on my lifestyle? Are you seriously asking me to argue that I am not a 'moron'?? On what grounds do you have to say such a stupid thing? You have not provided any evidence other than your personal sentiment and I'm not going to argue how you feel about something. I don't start friendly discussions with people who start out by calling me a selfish moron. Don't give me that selfish BS. All pet owners are selfish. No animals need to exist for our enjoyment. We do not NEED pets but they sure as hell make our lives better and my pets are just as important to me as they are to any other pet owner. THERE'S THE REASON. If I decide to get a wolf, it will be because raising an animal like that would be 10,000x more exciting than raising a dog. Dogs are great and everything but I want more. Do I also need to argue why people like sports and I don't? PEOPLE LIKE DIFFERENT THINGS. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to get. I won't be denied my passion because of your emotional opinions ("it's never going to be truly happy spending it's life in a cage"). Do you know how easily I can create an argument to make it sound like keeping dogs is cruelty? I'm doing just that right now.

"But claiming that majority of the people who get rare animals are in to to save the species or even make any real conversation effort is just a lie."

I never said that and I never will. I don't need to morally justify my pet keeping if dog owners don't.

"Why is it a good idea to have wild/exotics/hybrids as pets?"

See above. Because I want them. That's literally my argument.

BUGS

reply

[–] IveBeenAMiner 12 years ago

Because you want them isn't an argument, unless you're about 5. Yeah owning an exotic is exciting for you, but for the animal it isn't, they're the ones that get to suffer because you want them. They get to spend their lives caged and forced to act in a way that is not natural to them, wolves in particular have a natural fear of humans that creates aggression in those who are conditioned to be around humans. I get that people like different things, but it's one thing to like something and quite another to ruin a wild animals quality of life so you can have what you like. Also there are dogs who are treated cruel by their owners, but the fact of the matter is that majority are not and even more importantly dogs have been bred for centuries to want to be around humans, that is what's natural for them. Hell that's the reason they became domesticated in the first place, they self domesticated because it was advantageous to their survival for them to hang out with humans. The only natural thing for wild animals to do around humans is to either run from them or eat them, not to live near them or be in cages. A selfish reason like "because I want it" isn't in the animals interest at all and can only end badly for them.

"SPANK ME HARD AND CALL ME REGIS!"~Colin Mochrie

reply

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

"Yeah owning an exotic is exciting for you, but for the animal it isn't, they're the ones that get to suffer because you want them. They get to spend their lives caged and forced to act in a way that is not natural to them..."

Oh, so I take it then that you are against all forms of pet ownership outside of dogs and cats? I can easily say that about a hamster kept in a box with only a spinning wheel to keep it company.

"wolves in particular have a natural fear of humans that creates aggression in those who are conditioned to be around humans."

"dogs have been bred for centuries to want to be around humans, that is what's natural for them. Hell that's the reason they became domesticated in the first place, they self domesticated because it was advantageous to their survival for them to hang out with humans."

These quotes seem to contradict each other, as these wolves, or 'wild animals' have found it advantageous to pair with humans. In effect, we have taken them and selectively bred away their traits, resulting with many of them having physical deformities, to suit our needs. And yet this is not "selfish" to you. Selectively breeding wolves into dogs wasn't wrong then and it isn't wrong now.

Many dogs suffer from mental problems in captivity, but you view this as normal and you always will. The standard of pet ownership has been set for you because of the supposed success of one species, while a 'wild' animal, no matter how seemingly content it appears to be, will indefinitely have a life that will 'end badly for them'. There is no rule that animals must have an existence comparable to dogs to live well. Dogs have their natural instincts suppressed. They are forced to undergo castration. They are forced to eat corn-based garbage too. But you've accepted that. That is the difference. The dogs 'seem' happy and content to you. They probably are, despite their unnatural existence. Why can't a wild animal be? I don't care if they are in a cage if they are being provided for. And sometimes their natural instincts are suppressed. What matters to me is if this suppression will lead to suffering. This varies from each species. The hamster only needs a simplistic cage. The lion needs a spacious and stimulating environment with an enrichment program. That lion will probably be happier than many dogs. Whether or not the animal's quality of life is 'ruined' is not black and white like you make it out to be. Most animals don't have a perfect life in the wild and I do not consider myself to be a selfish moron to have them live with me instead. It would be logical to state that the most ethical way to live would be without any kind of pet, and to me that is not a life. I also shouldn't be forced to pick from the species you designated for me.

BUGS

reply

[–] IveBeenAMiner 12 years ago

I'd like to clear up the contradicting statements you brought up about wolves and dogs. Wolves as they exist today have a natural fear of humans, thus being around humans now causes aggression, that is something that isn't debatable it's a fact. Now it's time to clear up just how dogs were domesticated, because you seem to be misunderstanding what I've been saying. First, wolves as they were 1000's of years ago before dogs were domesticated did not have this natural fear of humans as they do now.

Fact: ancient wolves were not captured in the wild and selectively bred to become dogs, selective breeding (or artificial selection if you will) came much later. As far as archeological and DNA evidence can tell us ancient wolves and humans came together when humans were still considered a hunter gatherer society. Wolves hunted in packs, as did ancient humans. Ancient wolves at some point realized that following around groups of humans made them able to get more food. Wolves and humans soon began living in closer proximity, as a result humans would sometimes bring in wolf pups an raise them as pets. 99% of these wolves would either leave when they reached adulthood or would be killed for food/fur. The remaining 1% were those that were naturally more "tame", it's these "tamed" ancient wolves that sometimes stuck around with the humans of their own free will. Over time the "tamed" wolves would breed with other "tamed" wolves who hung around with humans and overtime they became more tame then their wild counter parts. It was also during this initial taming that humans began to see the perks of hunting with packs of these tamed wolves. Thus it became natural for early dogs to live among humans. The archeological record tells us that the first appearance of what can be considered a ancient dog vs and ancient wolf appears at around the time that humans largely switched from nomadic hunter gatherers to a more stationary society. It was at this point that we see the morphology differences between dogs and wolves in the archeological records. It is at this time that artificial selection really got started, it was noticed by the humans at some point that the smaller more docile ones did better around the home and the larger ones made better guard dogs and the faster ones became better hunters. We see evidence of all the current breed types (ie hounds, terriers, etc) by about ancient Rome/Greece. Artificial selection really took off resulting in the 400+ recognized purebreds and countless mixes we have today.

As to your issue of a dogs natural instincts being suppressed. It is a fact that it is natural for dogs to live among humans, it is also a fact that it is not natural for wild animals to do so, this is evidenced by their natural tendency to run away from/eat people when they encounter them in the wild. Wild animals may tolerate humans if raised with them, but it is still going against their natural instinct to do so. Dogs were artificially selected to do certain jobs, some were bred as companions, some as herders, some as guard dogs etc. Unfortunately in today's world the uses to which breeds were created for aren't really needed anymore. So unfortunately for many, they cant do what it is their instinct to do. This problem could be helped by more careful research on the dog owners part, by realizing what a dog was bred for and getting one to suit their needs, or finding ways to use the natural instincts in today's world. Frankly it's a persons own fault if they get a husky and complain that it wont stop pulling it's leash, or that their border collie wont stop herding cars, or that their pit bull is to strong. Yes it's unfortunate for the dog that they usually can no longer do what they were bred to, but it's not cruel and with a little effort on the owners part those instincts can be used in an effective way. The fact of the matter is that most dogs have a natural instinct to please their masters, it makes dogs happy to know that we think they did a good job.

We spay and neuter animals because there are not enough people to take care of the babies that would result and more and more dogs would die on the street or be killed in shelters. There is already enough of that, the population should be controlled.

I've said in previous posts that if person can provide the proper home for an exotic I really can't object, but a key feature of any proper home for a non-domestic animal is to not treat them as a pet. "Most animals don't have a perfect life in the wild and I do not consider myself to be a selfish moron to have them live with me instead". Yes life in the wild is hard, but wild animals can take care of themselves, they don't need humans to look out for them. Yes some die as babies, some stave to death, some die of diseases, but that's nature. They've got along fine without humans taking care of them for as long as there has been wild animals. Some do have perfectly happy lives in captivity, but to raise them from birth in captivity never gives them the chance to have their natural life, and that isn't fair to them. As previously stated, if for whatever reason an animal is not able to survive in the wild then that is a different case entirely. Though I am against captive breeding that is not strictly for conservation purposes. Wild animals who are captive should be spayed and neutered just like dogs unless a species is endangered and there is actually a goal of reintroduction into the wild. They are not pets and will never be and should not be treated as such because sooner or later that lion will start acting like a lion and eat it's owner if given the chance.

Lastly I really wish I personally was awesome and powerful enough to dictate who gets to have what animal everywhere in the world. But sadly I do not have that happy power. It is rather the history of society that has determined this. Certain animals were never domesticated, true this could still happen, but for now certain animals are still wild and are therefore are not now and will not ever be suitable pets.

"SPANK ME HARD AND CALL ME REGIS!"~Colin Mochrie

reply

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

"First, wolves as they were 1000's of years ago before dogs were domesticated did not have this natural fear of humans as they do now."

So you're telling me today's wolf is unlike the wolves of the past? Where did all of these fearless wolves disppeare to?

"Fact: ancient wolves were not captured in the wild and selectively bred to become dogs, selective breeding (or artificial selection if you will) came much later."

The thing that I don't think you understand is that the orgin of the domesticated dog is highly theorized. I don't see how you can state any of this as a "fact". All we can do at this point is make gusses with a bunch of fossils. I don't see how that can tell us much about how humans merged into companionship with wolves. I find it highly unlikely that the early relationship included no force or restrainment. Why is there no 1% of 'tamed wolves' in existence today? Or is there?

"It is a fact that it is natural for dogs to live among humans"

Uh, yeah right. That depends on how you define naturality. I'm pretty sure that humans imposed their lifestyles on these wolves/pre-dogs. The same is acheivable with foxes as well. That is against a natural 'plan'. Dogs may have specific purposes but I'm sure all do not enjoy being locked away from their humans for extended periods of time and haven't evolved to live that way.

"it is also a fact that it is not natural for wild animals to do so, this is evidenced by their natural tendency to run away from/eat people when they encounter them in the wild."

That's interesting because domesticated cats and many other domesticated animals run away from me and I know many 'wild' animals will approach people. You are focusing more on the sociability/lack of danger the animal posses, not it's domesticity. Many 'wild' mammals will act sociably if raised by a human more than many prey species of domesticated animals. Whether or not they run away is poor evidence to suggest that dog ownership is 'natural'.

Dogs and cats can revert back to their true state if not raised by people. Their 'natural' inclination to be with people disppears due to the absence of people. It may be true that some dogs are so screwed up by selective breeding that they cannot live without a human. We have created disabilities and deformities within them. I still think that domesticated dogs are very unnatural but they do fit better with humans because of the extensiveness of their selective breeding and their own genetic blue print that allows them to fit into a social lifestyle for average people. People still need to work around some dog's needs and behavioral issues and the same is required with wild animals (which is achievable by less people). There are many other pets we are not discussing that I'm sure you wouldn't object to that are semi-domesticated or may even exist in the wild in their current state like cockatiels.
Hamsters are not 'mean' to enjoy human companionship but do fine in captivity with a cage, wheel and chew toys. My pet small-spotted genet is actually less suited as a social-type pet than a lion or tiger would be. If lions and tigers were smaller (so that they can't accidentally kill you), I'm sure they would make reasonable pets. If they were smaller, they'd probably be more adaptable than other common pets.

"Some do have perfectly happy lives in captivity, but to raise them from birth in captivity never gives them the chance to have their natural life..."

Neither have I, and I'm doing just fine. Well, execpt when people infringe on my right to keep pets. It's fine if you want to project on to them your emotion on what's 'fair' but that really has no meaning to their existence and thought process. How the animal fares is what's really important, not what it's being denied.

"Lastly I really wish I personally was awesome and powerful enough to dictate who gets to have what animal everywhere in the world. But sadly I do not have that happy power."

You really wish you were some sort of totalitarian dictator over people's pet choices? It's obviously something you don't desire to do...or fully understand, so I beg that before you support any bans that you give someone's situation some serious consideration. It has an enormous impact on the lives of those who want to do it.

BUGS

reply

[–] GSmith9072 12 years ago

I would also like to add that yesterday I spent all day suppressing my dog's instincts. She constantly pulled toward every dog/bicycle/weird sounding vehicle but I stopped her. I yanked the leash, "NO!" and forced her to keep walking with me. She complained and certainly didn't seem happy. Her natural desire to chase and greet members of her own species was being decided on my terms. We left her in a crate at the hotel when we went somewhere where dogs aren't allowed (and she protested soundly). Is this unethical? Are these instincts somehow 'faux' compared to that of a captive born 'wild animal'?

BUGS

reply

[–] Seliny19 10 years ago

Lol you want confrontational? Fine let's be confrontational as no one on this seems to have the balls to destroy your imaginary ego. Hopefully a lion, a bear, crocodile etc rips your throat out and eats you. It's the only thing you useless fvcks deserve. There's a REASON why you think domesticated animals are boring. Because you fall into the same pathetic emotional human trappings of weakness. Boo fvcking hoo, you have issues mental and emotional and need a fvcking tiger to feel better about yourself and life and to be fulfilled. You're worse then a hipster. No one fvcking cares about your asinine emotional needs and urges of being so COOL AND DIFFERENT from everyone else by owning a lion. People with completely useless emotional issues like you SHOULD essentially be used for nothing more then meat fodder the animals you love so much. Don't blame the rest of society for your personal insecurity issues of needing a fvkcing bear to be your bff. You're no different then a crazy cat lady or an animal hoarder.

All you turds NEED those animals in your life because you have mental and emotional issues that you refuse to deal with. So go ahead live in your little fantasy world. Get ripped to shreds and eaten like that dumbass from Grizzly Man. After all we're all animals, and we're all just essentially meat. And someday your little love affair that you have with a wolf, tiger, or a bear will end up seeing you for what you are as nature intended. FOOD. Seriously I really hope you Darwin yourself out of existence and get turned into human chuck meat. It'd be hilarious! Hell it might even earn you a spot IN the Darwin Award books. Now doesn't that just make you feel more special and precious then you already do? Awww you special little snowflake! I bet you're white which is probably why you have such little awareness and a huge sense of entitlement and and want everything in the world for yourself. Nothing will placate your hunger to feel special and above everyone. It's disgusting and just sad that your issues of needing love to fill that hole in your fvcked up mindscape runs that deep.

reply

[–] GSmith9072 10 years ago

You haven't 'destroyed my ego' Seliny. You told me I deserve to die, told me I have a 'human emotional trapping' and claimed that I have a mental problem. I couldn't be bothered to read anymore of it. What compels you to rant and rave like a hot-headed ditz over someone keeping animals that they enjoy? If something I do kills me, that's my business. Why don't you go spew some whiny 5th grade death threats at race care drivers, or better yet, anyone that uses a car. I think you should take all of your instability-driven anger and put it to good use, while also minding your damn business.

BUGS

reply

[–] amandaef2000-917-397520 12 years ago

Thanks for the post. I think one reason some people get large cats, wolves, and bears is because of their beauty. As you pointed out they are cute as babies but they are naive about the nature of these animals.

reply

[–] KatzMeowz 12 years ago

Keeping two lions in a horse trailer is harsh! It's more than harsh, it's disgusting and cruel. I'm glad someone was willing to help build a better enclosure for them, but even that cage was too small and terribly cruel. How terrible for those animals never to be able to ever run. No one who actually cares for those lions, who TRULY loves them would ever make them endure such a fate. Terry didn't love those lions, he just love the attention that they brought HIM.

reply

[–] luvjd 12 years ago

I totally agree with you, and I will sure never understand anyone who professes to love another creature so much, yet has the presence of mind to continue videotaping its gruesome death.OBAMA/BIDEN 2012

reply

[–] SteveH2002 12 years ago

Same here, dcut. Toward the end of the movie, when Tim was turning up the pressure on Terry to release the lions, I wanted to reach thru the screen and physically shake some sense into Terry. If he loved the animals the way he claimed he owed it to them to give them a decent place to live.

On the other hand, it seemed pretty clear that the lions eased his depression, which seemed pretty debilitating. It's just too bad for all concerned he couldn't find that attachment with some less exotic pet.

reply

[–] conspirator52 11 years ago

I think he was let off lightly for what happened to Lambert.

The lack of maintenance to the electrical side of the cages was his responsibility and he didn't even make that aspect of the animal's welfare safe.

What a crappy way for such a majestic animal to die, calling out in pain and killed by the man who raised him, by his negligence.

_______________________________________

Anything lost can be gained again except for time wasted

reply

[–] HeatherAgain 11 years ago

The entire mess was always about Terry. He was selfish and lazy. Look at the place. Someone get on here and tell me that he kept up the place when he was younger and without the disability. I doubt it. People like that don't deserve domesticated animals much less wild ones. We all WANT a lot of things for whatever PERSONAL crisis we're going through but are supposed to be mature enough to meet that need through people, work......... not lions. I didn't see any reason why he couldn't work at a desk job. Everybody is supposed to have a job - even retired people, disabled people, etc. Otherwise your mind and body go to mush. That's our tax dollars at work for you. Makes me sick. I am not going to give him a break or try to not be too hard. The people who were supposed to care about him should have been hard on him and said NO when he wanted Lambert. They enabled him. I'm not giving them a break either. Shame on all of you.

reply

[–] xrongor 11 years ago

honey, i know you think that a job defines who a man is, but you are wrong.

"You only need matches and balls and I got those"

reply

[–] HeatherAgain 11 years ago

... but SELF-reliance does :)

reply

[–] xrongor 11 years ago

the telling scene was when he was showing the people in town the baby. he did not care one bit about the lions, he did it all for attention.

he deserves to go to jail for electrocuting that lion.

"You only need matches and balls and I got those"

reply

[–] MelH (31) 6 years ago

Gotta disagree with you about him deserving to go to jail for the electrocution. Yeah, his property appeared very uncared for, and he and his son and wife could have taken much better care of things, but most people would not have known of the grounding/electrical problem. Stuff like that happens to many people, and I'm sure other animals have died similarly. Doesn't excuse it, but I think it's too much to expect he should have known.

reply

[–] MissKateRabbit 11 years ago

Completely agree.

Do the *beep* snow angel, Dude!, Do the *beep* snow angel!

reply

[–] MelH (31) 6 years ago

Probably covered in other replies to original post - but along with being irked by much of what Terry did for selfish reasons, while those lion cubs were super cute, it was just irresponsible of him to put two unfixed lions together like that, that could/would breed. He never even gave that thought? Be it a lion or cat or dog or people - be responsible about breeding!

reply