Restricting exotic animals ownership is unnecessary

In that, animals don't hurt people unless the owner is irresponsible.

Same with guns, dynamite, and nerve gas.

Most such restrictions are based on zoning and on absolute liability.

Often Hollywood types will adopt some ocelot or something or will do the equivalent with some baby which I feel is a similarly motivated publicity move.

This guy had several Bengal tigers. OK, although endangered you can't say a significant portion of the world population of these animals went down here, and this wasn't an attempt to breed them anyway [surely], but still. Is it so easy to buy Bengal tigers?

Quote: FleaStiff

Most such restrictions are based on zoning and on absolute liability.

Often Hollywood types will adopt some ocelot or something or will do the equivalent with some baby which I feel is a similarly motivated publicity move.

This guy had 35 lions, 15 bears, and assorted wolves and cougars. He was very unstable having spent some time in jail, and he owned 100 guns, and had threatened to release to animals about 7 years ago.

The fact that his animals weren't taken years ago says a lot about inaction of local government. They had to wait until there was a tragedy for the animals. It could have been a tragedy for small children if they weren't lucky.

A bit off topic but somebody mentioned a sanctuary for exotic animals in Moapa, NV, about an hour from Vegas, open to the public. It is called Roos-n-more.

Quote: rxwine

In that, animals don't hurt people unless the owner is irresponsible.

Same with guns, dynamite, and nerve gas.

Dynamite and nerve gas... seriously? Public safety mandates that ownership is restricted and controlled. What reason would someone have for possessing and storing nerve gas? It doesn't work on zombies.

The restrictions aren't just in place for owner or public safety. It's also about protecting the local ecosystems should animals escape. Take the current situation with pythons running (slithering) wild in the everglades.

Quote: rxwine

unless the owner is irresponsible

That's a pretty big "unless".

I find that most people are idiots.
Wanting to own an exotic animal is a pretty good clue that someone is an idiot.

I live near where the town was in question, and of course, that's all the news around here.

Ohio laws are ridiculous. These have been chronicled anytime a person owns an exotic animal and gets attacked by it (like the Chimpanzee that mauled the woman's face in Connecticut). Eight states have no restrictions on animal ownership... that means, NO LICENSE OR ANYTHING REQUIRED.

To me, the whole story is almost funny. If it were a plot of a comedy movie with Adam Sandler, it would be banking at the box office (minus the suicide part). It is sad that animals had to die, but even PETA is calling for restrictions to be placed in these states.

Animals that are difficult to care for should be restricted. Anything that's permamently caged, fish, and domesticated cats and dogs, that's easy. You feed them, water them, clean up their shit, and you're done. Once you start to get beyond that into things that cannot be easily contained or trained, then you are in for a public safety and animal cruelty fight. Who takes care of the animal when you go on vacation? Where is the vet that will care for the exotic animal if required? What prevents the animal from attacking you or another person? What makes you qualified to take care of the animal?

My wife used to have ferrets and I considered that borderline. They would burrow into furniture, shit all over the place, and generally were a nuisance. A loving nuisance mind you, but a nuisance nonetheless. They had to go to a special vet to be taken care of.

Even Roy of Siegfried and Roy got attacked by one of his tigers.