Private Ownership Of Exotic And/Or Dangerous Animals - The Ethics Of Owning A Tiger

[Lensherr]

Netflix recently released their documentary mini-series Tiger King: Murder, Mayhem and Madness to much fanfare. It is a series about the feud between two big cat sanctuary owners and more broadly, the world of exotic/dangerous animal ownership in the USA (where the series takes place). As such, it raises questions about the ethics involved with private individuals owning exotic and/or dangerous animals like bears, big cats, apes, wolves, crocodilians, and venomous reptiles as pets or as a means to make profit (or both for that matter. Should private individuals and/or entities be allowed to do so in the first place, or should accredited zoological institutions be the only ones? If the former, how strictly regulated should the practice be, if at all? Feel free to respond to these questions or share your own thoughts on the topic.

 

[BoingBoingBoi]

for the animals you've listed, i don't think people should individually own them as pets. they should all be turned over to research institutes so scientists can study the animals and perhaps help conserve wild populations using their research.

my reasoning is first and foremost that these are wild animals rather than exotic or dangerous, so i would rather draw the line at "domesticated" or able to be domesticated rather than exotic or dangerous. pit bulls, dobermans, and rottweilers are dangerous, for example, or they can be, especially if not cared for properly. meanwhile, pigs, russian red foxes, hybrid wolf-dogs, and sugar gliders are 'exotic' in the sense of nontraditional pets, but they're also domesticated and have been bred selectively to become so.

i'm sure some will want to make a libertarian argument in favor of owning whatever won't kill you, but i think the risk to yourself and others outweighs this reasoning, in addition to the utilitarian concern that more good could be done if the animals were allowed to be researched instead.

 

[Save the Loli]

Depends if it is an endangered species or not. Endangered species are subject to wildlife trafficking and really do belong in a place where experts can care for them instead of some rando. Otherwise have at it. If you want an emotional support alligator than go ahead. If you want a bunch of bears in your backyard, go for it.

The real concern is who's selling these animals. Is it sustainable? Is there poaching or wildlife trafficking involved? And then are they selling these animals to just anyone who gives them the money? Just like with pitbulls there are types of people who should not be sold exotic/dangerous animals. It's an industry that needs regulation since there's shady shit that goes on in that trade and sometimes particularly stupid people end up owning pet lions.

i'm sure some will want to make a libertarian argument in favor of owning whatever won't kill you, but i think the risk to yourself and others outweighs this reasoning, in addition to the utilitarian concern that more good could be done if the animals were allowed to be researched instead.

But why should it be anyone's business that someone wants to take the risk of owning a dangerous animal? Since these animals are expensive, it's assumed the owner has money to cover injuries to themselves. And there's already huge liability for anyone whose animal mauls someone (or their animals). It doesn't matter if it's a pitbull or a tiger, it can bring huge civil and criminal penalties.

 

[whatever I feel like]

Bears and gators aren't endangered at all. What reason is there to prevent their ownership?

I'm not in favor of allowing animals to be mistreated (such as keeping whales and dolphins in tanks that are way too small) but if they have a decent life what reason is there to prevent them being owned?

 

[sasazuka]

If we're talking about private ownership of larger exotic animals of the sort you'd generally only see on safari, keeping them cooped up in a mansion is just cruel. However, if someone with hundreds of millions or billions of dollars had a private sanctuary with many square miles of land and they hire their own zoologist to take proper care of the animals, I don't think private ownership should be illegal outright.

Those old photos of actress Melanie Griffith when she was around 12 years old playing around with the family's pet lion in the pool and lying with it in bed are absolutely distressing considering how quickly things could have gone deadly for her if the lion hadn't been as well-natured as it seems in the photos.

 

[Princess Peaches]

I only really know about exotic reptile owners. Owning exotic reptiles is hard. You have to get tons of permits, training to deal with venomous bites. Typically the people who own exotic reptiles are building private sanctuaries and know what they’re doing.

That said, the pet industry is still bad. Bearded Dragons are an example of regulation: they only come from Europe from breeding stock, not Australian wild life.

TLDR: you should only own exotic animals if you are doing it for research or educational purposes. Your average person should not.

 

[Feline Supremacist]

Don't ruin my dream of hunting deer with my faithful pet cheetahs giving chase.

 

[Syaoran Li]

I'd only support someone having exotic pets if they can prove they have the training, knowledge, and equipment to take care of them properly. Otherwise it can pose a public safety risk and can even result in invasive species when some of these pets escape and become feral.

The Everglades has become home to a significant population of invasive exotic pythons because of this problem.

 

[RadicalCentrist]

for the animals you've listed, i don't think people should individually own them as pets. they should all be turned over to research institutes so scientists can study the animals and perhaps help conserve wild populations using their research.

Yeah and whose going to pay for the research? Lol

A bigger question raised by Tiger King is how the fuck did this glorious trainwreck evade our attention on this website

 

[Save the Loli]

Those old photos of actress Melanie Griffith when she was around 12 years old playing around with the family's pet lion in the pool and lying with it in bed are absolutely distressing considering how quickly things could have gone deadly for her if the lion hadn't been as well-natured as it seems in the photos.

How is that any different than rednecks taking pictures of their little kids petting pitbulls?

 

[Chad Nasty]

I'd have two questions:
1.) Can you financially handle the care of a tiger?
2.) Do you find degenerate furries to be deserving of God's judgement?

If the answers aren't both "Yes", you can't have one.

 

[Twinkie]

A bigger question raised by Tiger King is how the fuck did this glorious trainwreck evade our attention on this website

I haven't seen Tiger King but in general most of the people who own exotic animals like that are boomers who converse mainly on yahoo email groups or they network in other lowkey ways or IRL. They don't tend to show off a ton on social media.

 

[CivilianOfTheFandomWars]

If you can catch an alligator with a lasso and ride that thing to the supermarket, then at that point you deserve the gator.

 

[Sexy Senior Citizen]

Bears and gators aren't endangered at all. What reason is there to prevent their ownership?

They are alpha predators. They are built to hunt and kill almost anything within their local ecosystem, and they will kill you- possibly even unintentionally. For example, bears aren't necessarily hostile to human contact, but they are much stronger than they let on and will crush you in a bear hug if you let them.
These are not normal pets, and cannot be treated as such. If they escape, they will cause no end of trouble.

 

[Thumb Butler]

If you can catch an alligator with a lasso and ride that thing to the supermarket, then at that point you deserve the gator.

Even if it's eats the old lady who was foolishly trying to pet it?

 

[BoingBoingBoi]

But why should it be anyone's business that someone wants to take the risk of owning a dangerous animal? Since these animals are expensive, it's assumed the owner has money to cover injuries to themselves. And there's already huge liability for anyone whose animal mauls someone (or their animals). It doesn't matter if it's a pitbull or a tiger, it can bring huge civil and criminal penalties.

my reasoning would be because they're not only risking themselves, depending on the pet, so more than just the owner matter in the equation. if something big and dangerous, highly venomous, or highly invasive gets let loose or hurts somebody, the consequences could be very bad for everybody, so much so to the point that i would say that the government probably shouldn't let people have them just because they have some ridiculous amount of money.

so i'm saying that risks to others and other generally consequentialist considerations trump your right to own certain exotic pets.

again though, i'm not against people owning exotic pets. i'm more against idiots, however wealthy, owning dangerous wild animals and pretending they're pets and making the whole town suffer because of their stupidity. i also think it's basically impossible to argue that any wild apex predator would be better off or perfectly happy living in captivity.

 

[Richard Harrow]

As long as the animals are cared for and housed properly, it wouldn't bother me at all. If the owner has the means to provide good food, shelter, and medical care go for it. I'm sure property insurance would be a bitch in terms of liability but hell, people can own like 20 big ass dogs.

 

[Save the Loli]

my reasoning would be because they're not only risking themselves, depending on the pet, so more than just the owner matter in the equation. if something big and dangerous, highly venomous, or highly invasive gets let loose or hurts somebody, the consequences could be very bad for everybody, so much so to the point that i would say that the government probably shouldn't let people have them just because they have some ridiculous amount of money.

But there's already huge liabilities on owners who own dogs that chomp on kids. Irresponsible dog owners already can be sued into oblivion and in some states face years in prison for severe injuries/death their dogs cause. I think it would be perfectly fine to own bears or gators or cobras if similar laws existed everywhere, maybe even with more severe liability (like whatever manslaughter gets in that jurisdiction plus lifetime ban on owning animals like that again) because of the size of the animals, their venom, etc.

These arguments aren't much different than gun control arguments. Irresponsible gun ownership cause kids to hurt and kill themselves and others with parents's guns all the time and crooks steal legally-owned guns and commit crimes. Therefore we need serious control on guns, and that isn't a violation of the Second Amendment because no one needs to own an AR-16 with a long clip, right?

 

[That Ho Over Here]

I personally think there should be tighter licensing on creatures such as tarantulas, mostly for the arachnids' sake. I love em and used to work at a reptile center and the number of fucking idiots who buy them is unreal. They have little to no knowledge or common sense. Same with snakes and particularly tortoises, as the babies can be difficult to care for.

Luckily in this city the reptile center is pretty strict and won't home anything before having a long conversation, or several, with the potential buyer. They only house captive bred specimens and if you give them even a whiff of idiocy you'll be packed off quickly with nothing but a sad face.

I don't have any problems with people keeping more exotic animals as long as they have the requisite knowledge and experience to care for them properly. I know somebody who's got a sixteen foot Burmese python, housed in a specially constructed tank in a room set aside purely for that purpose. I also know people with caiman (powerlevel: I have a caiman license but want a far bigger property first) and I mean... they're caiman. They're generally pretty happy as long as they've got shit to eat and a place to swim.

The licensing system for such large snakes and caiman is rather good here imo: you're looking at a fee, a series of long conversations yet again and yearly inspections. With regards to the sixteen foot snake we also have to ensure that if moving her or giving her a health check, there is a person for every three foot of snake plus an extra person to ensure shit does not go south. I do remember vaguely a case where an idiot was throttled by a twelve foot Burmese python because he decided to let it out and feed it by hand, but I don't believe he owned the snake legally. I think the biggest issue is ensuring that people who own such creatures are strictly licensed, regulated and registered but it's difficult due to unscrupulous reptile centers and pet shops who haven't got any idea what they're doing.

I don't believe big cats should be kept privately on the other hand, because their needs are far more complex and people simply don't offer the space required. I've spent time working at a cat sanctuary and some of the conditions the tigers in particular were rescued from were shocking. Also there's simply no need to have a lion/tiger because you can't exactly take them for walks (incidentally we would take the rescued cubs for walks in reinforced collars and peoples' reactions were great). You could argue the same about snakes and caiman I suppose, and even to a degree certain species of spider.

I believe the difference lies in the complexity of the animal: for all intents and purposes most reptiles are walking tummies and are happy to just be themselves. Typically they don't require mental stimulation or socialization, or vast swathes of space to roam. Most of the problems I've witnessed arise when people treat them in an anthropomorphic way, behaving as though they are babies or surrogate children. If you want something you can cuddle, get a dog. If you want something beautiful and fascinating and enjoy observing animal behavior, get a tarantula or snake as long as you have the required knowledge and funds to support such a hobby.

 

[Cheeseburger Picnic]

I haven't seen Tiger King but in general most of the people who own exotic animals like that are boomers who converse mainly on yahoo email groups or they network in other lowkey ways or IRL. They don't tend to show off a ton on social media.

Spoiler: spoilers

Joe Exotic had a very dramatic internet feud with a crazy tiger lady through his web tv series and a ton of Facebook drama (including but not limited to accusing her of killing her husband and feeding him to her tigers).

Joe Exotic Country Music "Here Kitty Kitty"

There is one way to get a message across and that is with music. Everyone loves music. It is believed that in 1997 a women in Tampa Florida killed her husban...

www.youtube.com

Methed out samurai tier trashy and very publicly embarrassed himself all over social media. I don't know how we missed him either.