http://flickr.com/photos/bunnyspice/137091617/in/photostream

An "accident" waiting to happen. This one is still a youngster who will grow up and be capable of breaking one's neck, so declawing will not help much.

When people start behaving like they have lost their sense of risk, regulations and enforcement to protect the public are not far behind.

The time has come for BC to follow others who have already put in legislation restricting such activity as shown in the picture.

I agree that there are some things that just should not be allowed when it comes to "owning" certain animals. However, when a person purchases something, takes it home, and then gets eaten by it...well. Shouldn't they just accept responsibility for their own actions?? Of course, they are being digested and so possibly can't do that, but - it doesn't have to become the responsibility of everyone else, does it?

Honestly, when are people going to be forced to stand up and take responsibility for their OWN stupid choices? Making laws banning exotic animals will likely just go the way of gun control. There will still be black market animals available to anyone who wants to purchase them. Perhaps a closer look at the "owners" would be more in line of a bright idea.

If they have a warning sign on their front door and a person enters anyways, that person should just have to take responsibility for whatever happens to them when they enter that property. And yes, people who cannot control their animals, if they were properly punished in a way that would adequately deter them and anyone else from doing the same thing in the future, well, Don't you think eventually people would "start to get it??

The stupidity of some people just goes beyond reason. Maybe we should just push for a law that bans stupidity. Then for most of the above comments I could be first in line to be arrested. LOL...

I remember the TV coverage of a single mom in Kelowna who had a huge python for a pet, the diameter of it bigger than a man's upper arm.

A little toddler was crawling around on the living room floor and petting it! It takes only a second or two for a snake that size to viciously bite a baby or worse yet, kill it.

The mother finally was persuaded to give up this *pet* but not without a prolonged struggle.

She simply wouldn't even consider the possibility that the snake might do what nature has programmed it for - kill and eat.

The thing about tigers is there is more tigers in the US as pets (10,000+), than there is in the wild in Asia. If we outlaw them as pets I think they will go extinct.

I think setting standards for having them as pets is reasonable, but a total ban is not called for for the 1% who are invovled in incidents. Nobody likes an animal abuser, but there is nothing wrong with responsible pet owners that just so happen to co-exist with exotic pets.

Maybe we should let a few tigers lose on some of the islands on the coast and make a sanctuary for them in North America where their survival can be assurred?

Chadermando? wondering if that is that the pen name for Glen "Moose" Scott?

Wildlife Act

Possession of wildlife
33 (1) A person commits an offence if the person has live wildlife in his or her personal possession except as authorized under a licence or permit or as provided by regulation.

Under definitions

“wildlife" means raptors, threatened species, endangered species, game or other species of vertebrates prescribed as wildlife

http://www.qp.gov.bc.ca/statreg/stat/W/96488_01.htm#section21

So, I am wondering what part of the wildlife act people, both government and citizens, don't understand. The Act is silent on whether it is exotic or indigenous.

The use of "wildlife” as a term in the section on prohibition of importing and exporting of wildlife, without the use of descriptors such as “exotics” and ”domestic” or “indigenous”, tells me that “wildlife” is an all inclusive term.

I am wondering whether it was ever tested in court by a good lawyer.

Funny one Owl (Moose thing), but maybe you can make some suggestions about how to save the tiger if there is no more wild left for them to be wildlife? I think people that abuse animals are the lowest form of being, and we still need to find a place for these animals when they are relocated from abusive situations. Shooting the animals on an endangered species list should be viewed as a tradgedy IMO.

Since we only met for a short while, Chadermando, you would not know that I could provide you with considerable knowledge and connections in that area. I'd be happy to have a coffee with you about the issue. Since you are into tourism, it may be up your alley. Ben and Elaine know a bit about mine and associated people’s backgrounds and must be chuckling if they read this.

As far as Siberian Tigers go, which is pretty well the type of tiger which is in private hands throughout North America, they, as with all animals in their natural habitat, need certain conditions to survive in the wild. In the Amur area of Russia and China, their staple is wild boar. Wild boar love pine nuts. So, one would have to set up an ecosystem which replicates that in one way or another. And, of course, that is only the tip of the iceberg. I think anyone who has some solid background in this and learning from history what happens when exotic species, even as small as microorganisms, are introduced to an existing ecosystem in equilibrium, will know that the challenge is virtually insurmountable.

The obvious place to create a reserve is in the location where habitat is being removed, not destroy two habitats – the original one and the host. Although it might be interesting to see whether two dominant species, tigers and grizzlies, can survive together. Notice from the link that the tiger range is enormous. 300 to 500 km2 per adult female, almost twice that for males.

http://www.phoenix.vl.ru/zoom/abtiger.htm

Notice the prime reason for habitat threat is logging. The spotted owl situation is miniscule compared to the Amur tiger’s predicament.

It is called overpopulation by the dominant species – man. Solve that problem and we got the rest of species survival beat. Until then, these animals will be relegated to modern zoos and preserves where their world will be nothing like the world they really belong in. Those animals brought up in such an environment will no longer be able to fend for themselves when re-introduced into their natural habitat, should that ever be possible.

Tigers are not pets. They never can be. It is not in their nature. Declaw them, de-fang them, and they are still dangerous. It is like playing with a loaded gun. It can go off at any time. There is no safety switch on a tiger.

Wait, I take that back abotu the safty switch. Rumour has it that "Moose" was shown one by a handler at a circus that passed through town recently.

;-)