The Right to Bear Lions and Tigers

[Emp]

The Zanesville wildlife release is a classic regulatory-personal freedom situation. Owner keeps dangerous wild animals in proximity to humans the animals would like to attack and eat.

"Safe and Humane conditions" is a red herring. Mental illness is a red herring. Possession of firearms under disability is a red herring.

The basic issue: As a matter of policy, should the government get involved? Does the "right" of the owner to do whatever he wants as long as he can afford to purchase wild dangerous animals supersede the right of his neighbors to be free from the danger these animals pose?

Civil libertarians, make the case please. I cant for the life of me understand why this situation goes unregulated.

[Titanxman04]

All I know is that it's incredibly sad to hear about those animals being killed. I don't know if there was a better outcome after their release, seeing as to the cost of capturing and re-releasing them in a sanctuary.

However, if the animal has a natural habit to kill you, you need to have a permit to possess such creatures.

[BBC 08]

These animals had herpes. The f*** is going on over there?

[Ledgewood]

I've been hearing that Ohio is one of the easiest states to own these types of exotic animals. They should change that.

Side note, I am so tired of seeing my facebook and all the comments sections on these news sites blowing up with people condemning the sheriff for going around and shooting these animals. I am sad they all had to die, too, but they all had to die. They tried using tranqs, but it they didnt really work and the animals just ran away. In a residential area, you don't have time to waste with these types of killer creatures roaming around and hungry. Even Jack Hanna (http://blog.officialticketcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Jack-Hanna-Sleepover1.jpg) said the sheriff did the right thing, and that dude wears khaki shirts! Problems like this (or any problem really) must be nipped in the bud, otherwise we have to do unpleasant things to fix them.

[Mrs. Garrett]

I've been hearing that Ohio is one of the easiest states to own these types of exotic animals. They should change that.

Side note, I am so tired of seeing my facebook and all the comments sections on these news sites blowing up with people condemning the sheriff for going around and shooting these animals. I am sad they all had to die, too, but they all had to die. They tried using tranqs, but it they didnt really work and the animals just ran away. In a residential area, you don't have time to waste with these types of killer creatures roaming around and hungry. Even Jack Hanna (http://blog.officialticketcenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Jack-Hanna-Sleepover1.jpg) said the sheriff did the right thing, and that dude wears khaki shirts! Problems like this (or any problem really) must be nipped in the bud, otherwise we have to do unpleasant things to fix them.

A few years ago a mountain lion made it's way into my neighborhood in Chicago. It was actually determined to be a wild animal, not someone's pet. Anyway we're talking Chicago in a neighborhood with tons of children. The police shot and killed the mountain and animal rights activists went nuts. But the fact is a tranquilizer takes time to work and people's lives are more important.

Nobody should own wild animals. They should be left in their natural habitat.

[MCXU]

The Zanesville wildlife release is a classic regulatory-personal freedom situation. Owner keeps dangerous wild animals in proximity to humans the animals would like to attack and eat.

"Safe and Humane conditions" is a red herring. Mental illness is a red herring. Possession of firearms under disability is a red herring.

The basic issue: As a matter of policy, should the government get involved? Does the "right" of the owner to do whatever he wants as long as he can afford to purchase wild dangerous animals supersede the right of his neighbors to be free from the danger these animals pose?

Civil libertarians, make the case please. I cant for the life of me understand why this situation goes unregulated.

I would have no problem with the Gov't regulating this type of activity/situation for the following reason.

Exotic predatory animals in there natural state are basically programed to seek, kill and eat other animals or humans. The risk that is put on the neighbors absolutely trumps the homeowners right in this instance and calls for regulation. The homeowner has no right to place unreasonable risk on a neighbor, without the neighbor having any avenue to mitigate the risk.

In order to keep the neighbors safe in a sitiation such as this requires the animals to be actively monitored and cared for at all times. There is no way for the neighbors to ensure this is happening. Should the homeowner neglect his duty to care for the animals, they will by their very nature do everything in there power to ensure their own survival (i.e. escape there cages and look for food, which will likely be the first neighbor they see.)

[Ledgewood]

What I think is a bad trend going on with peoples of my generation is that they mistake being active in politics and current issues with just taking some sort of stance. With things like the facebook and twitter, people make blow-hardy statements screaming and condemning authorities for killing animals without knowing all the facts. I find it soooooooo annoying. UGH. I was watching a local news show and they played viewer voicemails, and some lady was all angry and said, "there's no WAY you can convince me that you couldn't save those animals". Really?! No way you can be convinced? Even animal-loving experts backed the police, but there's just no way.

It's the same thing with the Occupy Wall St. movement. A bunch of cliche-repeating 20-somethings that have no clue but are supporting a giant movement cuz they want to be seen as politically active at the cost of knowing anything at all about it. I think it's a form of narcissism. There's a medium to use to be heard, so they yell and scream without knowing really why they are doing it. I always get shit from my friends cuz I don't vote for candidates (I do vote on issues), but they pick a side like its a sports team and support it blindly, and I think that's wayyyy worse.

Oh great now I'm blowing hard. Sweet irony!

[chico]

I have no problem regulating the keeping of wild animals. I don't like the term "exotic" because by and large these are wild animals who have a tendency to harm humans and really have no history or success of domestication. They should not be kept as pets - their place is in their natural habitat. I have no problem with jail time and fines for anyone keeping these types of animals.

The situation in Zanesville had no good side - it's tragic that the animals had to shot, but it had to be done in order to protect the population. The animals died through no fault of their own - they're merely doing what their instincts tell them.

Of course, if they're being raised to be eaten, then that's a different story.

http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue51/screens.scanlines.gif

[GreatWhiteNorth]

If the owner really cared about these animals, he should first find homes for them (e.g. zoo), or at least notify the proper authorities, and then he can commit suicide if that's what he wanted to do.

[X-band '01]

The owner let the animals loose before taking his own life. If anyone had been in the vicinity when that happened, is that not attempted murder?

What did people really expect to happen when you house lions and tigers and grizzly bears that are outside of their natural habitat? Of course it's sad that the animals had to be killed, but there was no other alternative.

I don't mind seeing deer in front of me when I'm taking a morning walk, but I'd have a problem if a Bengal tiger just came out of the woods. Of course, I don't think I'd be alive and posting here if that were the case, either.