Much as I like Americans

[UK_Widowmaker]

It's an absolute disgrace, that ordinary people are allowed to keep Dangerous, Exotic, RARE species like this!...nowhere else in the civilised world would allow citizens to keep f****** Tigers!!!!!......STOP IT!...they're rare enough as it is!!!!

 

(as someone says in the comments)

 

"This idiot that owned these animals was in and out of jail, had previous charges for animal cruelty and was allowed to have these animals with little to no oversight. His compound had been visited numerous times by law enforcement and no one did a damned thing to shut him down. Ohio has the most lax laws on this sort of thing and what's most tragic is this could have all been avoided."

 

I can only just imagine the utter Carnage that could have been caused, had these highly stressed, dangerous animals, had been anywhere near a school!....It's Irresponsible of the Ohio regional government in the extreme!...I would be filing a lawsuit against the f*cking lot of them!

 

http://digg.com/news/lifestyle/ohio_police_kills_48_lions_bears_cheetahs_exotic_animals_escaped

Edited November 5, 2011 by UK_Widowmaker

[+Dave]

100% agree with you. And those animals are the ones who paid for this guy mistakes. I live in Ohio and they sure are making new laws quick because of this.

[+column5]

Cases like this are on the fringe, but we do have too many examples of animal hoarding here in the States. Although I am quite a proponent for the humane treatment of animals, I must put personal liberty and property rights first. A federal law against owning endangered species would probably be a good idea (I would have thought one was already on the books, but it seems not). After that it must be left to local communities to enact and enforce ordinances dealing with animal ownership, such as the maximum number of animals that can be kept in one house. As ever, enforcement is the problem as we cannot allow the authorities access to our homes without due process.

[UK_Widowmaker]

I'm very glad to hear that Dave!!

 

@ Column5...I agree with you to an extent...but even removing the animal welfare issue...it's like not legislating against 48 homicidal maniacs on the loose!...in the UK..the keeping of Tigers, Bears etc...is totally illegal...no exceptions whatsoever...end of!...only licenced Zoos or animal parks....and if a single animal escaped...bye bye licence...for good!

 

No-one could really 'hide' a Tiger surely?

[+Dave]

No-one could really 'hide' a Tiger surely?

 

Can you imagine the size of the litter box?

 

and don't call me Shirley...

[UK_Widowmaker]

Can you imagine the size of the litter box?

 

lol

[+Dave]

As ever, enforcement is the problem as we cannot allow the authorities access to our homes without due process.

 

100% true.....

[+hgbn]

I agree 100% with you m8 such dangerous animals only should live in 2 places. One in their natural habitat and 2 in licensed ZOO's Here in Denmark even lesser dangerous animals are outlawed. Such as Pitbulls and other " Combat dogs" There have been simply to much damage on peaceful people and there pets being attacked by those dogs. So a couple of years ago after some incidents of small kids being attacked those kind of dogs were banned. The right decision in my mind.

[+Dave]

Any dog can be made into a "combat dog" IMHO its the dog owner that mostly responsible for a dogs behavior. You treat them right and they will be right. Bring them up to fight and they will attack.

[+hgbn]

I agree with you Dave. But as long owners can't find out to handle these dogs probably. I think the common good of the other citizens are more important than allowing those kind of dogs to some dubious owners which in most cases anyway were biker related.

[+hgbn]

Just for the record. German Sheppard's, Rotweiler's and Doberman's are not concidered dangerous combat dogs here only a few species.

[UK_Widowmaker]

Four Breeds of Dog are Banned in the UK too.

Pit Bull Terrier

Japanese Tosa

Dogo Argentino

Fila Braziliero

Edited November 5, 2011 by UK_Widowmaker

[+hgbn]

The dog reflect its owner..

[+CrazyhorseB34]

No. Dogs are crazy and they will eat you.

[malibu43]

Just for the record. German Sheppard's, Rotweiler's and Doberman's are not concidered dangerous combat dogs here only a few species.

 

That's exactly why banning just pitbulls doesn't make sense. Like Dave said, any dog can be made into a "combat dog" (WTF is a "combat dog", BTW? Does it wear boots and know how to use a gun?). Pitbulls are (or are thought to be) dangerous because idiots raise them to be that way. It is true that they are (or may be) more agressive than other dog spiecies, but again, it's mostly an owner issue. Any dog speicies be agressive if raised to be that way.

 

(Not to drift off topic. I agree there's no reason for any private party to own Lions, Tigers, and Bears...)

[+hgbn]

It does makes sense. after the ban of those dogs there have been no incidents of unprovoked attacks of people, kids and their pets. Before there was an incident average each month. So the numbers speak for themselves.

[+Brain32]

Any dog can be made into a "combat dog" IMHO its the dog owner that mostly responsible for a dogs behavior. You treat them right and they will be right. Bring them up to fight and they will attack.

 

Yup I agree what I would control though are dangerous snakes, spiders and scorpions.

[malibu43]

I agree with you Dave. But as long owners can't find out to handle these dogs probably. I think the common good of the other citizens are more important than allowing those kind of dogs to some dubious owners which in most cases anyway were biker related.

 

 

It does makes sense. after the ban of those dogs there have been no incidents of unprovoked attacks of people, kids and their pets. Before there was an incident average each month. So the numbers speak for themselves.

 

 

More people are probably killed by drunk drivers every year than pitbulls. If that is the case, until owners can figure out how to handle their cars, we should probably ban cars for the common good. I'm sure we'd see a dramatic drop in the number of drunk driving deaths and related injuries.

 

The same arguement can probably be made for guns, knives, nails, hammers, rope, string, TV's, toasters, ovens, stoves, bycycles, pillows, and teddy bears. Successfully banning any one of these items would probably result in a dramatic drop in deaths related to their use/misuse.

Edited November 5, 2011 by malibu43

[Sakai]

Here in Maine, there has been a big issue in regards to banning pitbulls state wide. I don't agree, since I was a kid I have been around them. It is not the dog, it is irresponsible owners, that cause the real damage. I feel for the individuals that have been attacked, but I have also seen some pits that are so friendly they wouldn't bust a grape in a food fight. The honest to god truth is, more people are bitten by DALMATIONS each year then by pits.

[+hgbn]

The difference is just that the common good need transportation as well

[malibu43]

Again, sorry for going way off topic. But here are some interesting numbers:

 

1.) About 40 people (children) per year die by drowning in 5-gallon water pails. A person, during their lifetime, is 16 times more likely to drown in a 5-gallon water pail than to be killed by a Pit Bull.

 

2.) Approximately 50 children in the US are killed every year by their cribs - 25 times the number of children and adults killed by Pit Bulls.

 

3.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.

 

4.) Each year, 350 people drown in their bathtubs. You are 151 times more likely to be killed by your bathtub than you are by a Pit Bull.

 

5) Every year, more than 2,000 children in the U.S. are killed by their parents or guardians either through abuse or neglect. A child is more than 800 times more likely to be killed by their caretaker than by a Pit Bull.

 

6) It can be estimated that for every Pit Bull who kills, there are 10.5 MILLION that DON'T!

 

I can't claim that the source isn't totally unbiased: http://www.dontbullymybreed.org/

 

My wife and I almost adopted a pit bull as our first dog. I did a lot of research trying to understand what to do and learned a lot. We ended up getting a retriever mix instead (which ironically has some dog agression issues that we are trying to work through).

[UK_Widowmaker]

I have mixed feelings about Dog banning laws. Yes, dangerous dogs need to be dealt with...but here, the fact that Pitbulls are now banned...means the sort of irresponsible owners who are responsible for the ban...now train Staffies to be like the pitbulls they used to own!...then, they go to prison...and the poor Staffies they had end up in shelters.....bad news all round

[+hgbn]

Here in Maine, there has been a big issue in regards to banning pitbulls state wide. I don't agree, since I was a kid I have been around them. It is not the dog, it is irresponsible owners, that cause the real damage. I feel for the individuals that have been attacked, but I have also seen some pits that are so friendly they wouldn't bust a grape in a food fight. The honest to god truth is, more people are bitten by DALMATIONS each year then by pits.

 

The main difference is the force of their bite when they do bite... Like I said before I agree that the owners are to blame.. But some breeds do bite harder inflicting more damage as others.

[malibu43]

The difference is just that the common good need transportation as well

 

OK. You got me there. The common good don't need coconuts and palm trees though

 

3.) Approximately 150 people are killed every year by falling coconuts. Therefore, you are more than 60 TIMES MORE LIKELY to be killed by a PALM TREE than a Pit Bull.

 

[+hgbn]

I think the government here find it easier to control a ban on certain breeds than controlling the owners... Personally I don't have a problem with any breed of dogs. I love dogs and have had a German Sheppard.