Conference misery::feline_v1

    Assuming that the article is correct, what are your comments on
    this?  Should the leopard's owner assume all the responsibility?

    I am surprised that a state assembly would allow the non-
    professional to keep a wild animal. My first thought was that
    this would be unfair to the animal, but an even worse tragedy has
    now occurred.  I am so upset and saddened by this whole thing. 

    George Adamson in "My Pride and Joy", his book on lions, mentions
    several times, with specific examples, that wild cats are
    predisposed to attack and kill children and small adults.  He
    discussed an incident with a "tamed" lion he was attempting to
    introduce to the wild in Africa and a "tamed" small wild cat of
    his wife's, Joy, ("Born Free"). I am using the work "tamed" here
    very loosely -- Abramson never stated that a lion or other wild
    cat can be tamed or domesticated, only that some of them do
    become very affectionate with their trainers. 

    	    			Julie

    What a terrible tragedy.  I too feel badly for the cat in a way
    because he/she only reacted on instinct which leads me to further
    believe that such animals shouldn't be locked up or caged like that.
    They were born to be free.
    
    Judy
    

    
    So won't the cat be put down for this?  I thought there was a law
    that if a human is killed, the animal is killed too.  Or am I thinking
    of another country (Africa)?
    
    

    That usually happens, though I'm not sure there are any laws.  The
    feeling is that once blooded, the animal will be dangerous (right!).
    Actually, within the last week or so, a big cat killed a keeper
    after crashing through the glass front of his cage.  I think it
    was a white tiger.  In any event, it won't be destroyed because
    it is an endangered species.  One for our (their) side.
    
    Gary

    Re:  1408.4  "Explaining is not understanding" >

    < The feeling is that once blooded, the animal will be
    < dangerous (right!).

    I too, have been under this impression, but if I remember
    correctly, George Adamson contended that wild cats are
    extremely dangerous by nature.  Those that attack (small) humans
    are "normal".  The African authorities do attempt to track and 
    kill any cat which is known to have killed a human.  Maybe, they
    believe that blooded cats are even more dangerous.   

    				Julie 

    That is really what I meant.  I was being facetious by indicating that
    some people think that it takes blooding to get them that way. 
    If that were true, what made him make the first kill???
    
    Gary

    I, too, feel sorry for the cat (of course I also feel sorry for
    the child and the family), but, those big cats are wild and should
    be left that way (or kept in a zoo for people just to look at).
     I would love to have a pet like that, but I realize they are just
    too dangerous to keep and besides, its unfair to them.  Like .2
    said, they were born to be free and they should be. 

    Regarding your questions about whether the cat will be killed or
    not:
    
    I recall a while back a lion that attacked a young girl at a shopping
    mall.  The owner was supposedly a trainer and had brought the cat
    in for some event going on at the mall.  The lion was killed but
    I suppose that was because he was considered a danger to the other
    people in the mall.  
    
    I think I remember hearing about another lion or tiger attacking
    its' trainer and having to be killed.  That was a long time ago.
    
    Kathy                                                           

    On "wild" cats:
            
    Few of the larger cats make good pets.  Those that do normally have
    to be brought up from cubhood.
    
    The best in that regard (other than for housebreaking them) are
    African lions.  This is because they are social animals, forming
    "prides," which other large cats don't _naturally_.
    
    Nearly equal are cheetahs.  Cheetahs, though, are almost not cats
    (for instance, they are immune to feline distemper, but can catch
    _canine_ distemper).  They are also very fragile, being built for
    speed rather than strength.
    
    Mountain lions vary.  They can be _very_ shy.
    
    Tigers are not all that safe, but domestic tigers have been known
    of.  The only large cat I've interacted with (that is, no bars between
    him and me) was a half-grown Bengal tiger named Warren.  He was
    nice, and let me pet him.
    
    Leopards (and panthers, which are just black leopards) and jaguars
    are too high-strung.  Anything can set them off.
    
    Bobcats depend on the bobcat, but they're more domesticable than
    the larger lynx.
    
    On shooting "Mankillers":
    
    Any big cat that's a clear and present danger should be made
    nondangerous.  If the cat killed because of forces outside its control,
    though, killing the animal in turn is primarily an act of primitive
    (fundamental) vengance. Whether that's proper or not is a matter of personal
    philosophy.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    On the way into work each morning I listen to the Joe and Andy Show.
    Yesterday they had Maury Popovitch (Sp??) from the eveing show
    "A Current Affair". He mentioned the fact that right now in Texas
    there is going on an event called "Lion Shoot". It seems that for
    some time now some groups were raising lions to be used both as
    circus/night club acts as well as pets. They were raised from cubs
    and trusted people. However, sales were not going as well as they
    had in the past, so a Lion Shoot was started to boost revenue. 
    
    What this is - is for @ $6000 a tamed lion is placed in a cage,
    which is wheeled into some sort of enclosure where the door is opened
    and the lion goes out only to be shot at by some jerk who wants
    a trophy on his wall. The lion apparently cannot escape death and
    depending on how well the person shoots determines how long  is
    his death ordeal. 
    
    Apparently the SPCA's across the nation are up in arms and are trying
    to put a halt to these senseless killings - by people who think
    it is fun!
    
    With all this going on, I guess I want to know why do people insist
    on raising and keeping these kinds of animals. Does it make them
    macho or whatever? Are they just bored with life and need a little
    excitement, or maybe they feel the need to rebel as children do
    (sometimes).                                                
    
    And look who gets hurt/killed. Little children and/or frightened
    animals. Neither deserve to end up like this. My apologies for
    rambling on - these stories make me angry and frustrated.
    Pat
                                                                 

re:  .10

You said it!!!  The cats are not domestic pets, will never be domestic
pets, and should not be punished for behaving in an instinctive manner..
small children are the right size to be "prey"....the cats have the
will honed instinct to hunt prey which keeps them alive in the wilds.

The father of that little girl should be charged with murder....he is
completely at fault for this tragedy.  Maybe if they make it stick,
others will be less likely to take the cats and breed or keep them
in captivity in the first place.

    re. leopard kills child
    
    	I am MOST!!!! upset with this parent.  Small children are to
    be supervised with ALL pets, for the safety of both child and pet.
    Even my dainty, delicate, and unflappable Cardi-cat _could_ damage 
    a small child severely with a claw to the eye or something.
    
        To leave a very large animal of dubious domesiticity at large
    with access to small persons is the ultimate in abuse and neglect,
    and this child paid the ultimate price for a parent's wrong-doing.
    
    
    re. destroying the animal
    
    	I hope that this does not happen.  I've heard conflicting
    conclusions from various studies on the 'once blooded' subject;
    and I tend to discount the once-blooded-always-hungry theory as
    a rationalisation for revenge. [simmering here...] Even if the theory
    is incontrovertible fact, I do not see destroying a leopard for
    killing a child any more morally right than destroying a housecat
    for peeing on your white brocade sofa -- if other alternatives are
    available [i.e. zoos, wildlife refuges or ranches].
    
    
    re. 'big' cats as pets
    
    	[opinion alert here]  Not as house-pets.  When I lived in Alaska,
    I had a lynx that my dog [grey wolf/malemute] brought home as a
    ball of fur possessing teeth and claws.  She lived as an indoor/outdoor
    cat for four months, after which time she became an outdoor-only
    cat [she was looking at some of my mother's puppies as if they might
    prove to be reeeeeal tasty].  She had all of the woods and hills
    and stuff and was a wonderful companion on hikes and camping trips,
    but wasn't much as a 'pet' if you get my drift.
    
    	It would seem to me that if a relatively small 'big' cat such
    as a lynx got antsy and contentious [goodness knows, my little cats
    do sometimes], that the bigger the cat the bigger the problem would
    be.  Houses, apartments and cities are just too confining.
    
    	If someone wanted to own a large feline and had the space to
    allow it happiness and pose an extremely minimal risk to neighbors
    and neighbors' pets & livestock, I have no quarrel.
    
    
      Ann

    
    I share my living space with several wild animals - three parrots,
    a boa constrictor, and a tortoise.  They are all my companions,
    and (with the exception of one bird who isn't tame _yet_) are quite
    tame.  They are very affectionate toward me, even the untamed bird.
    
    HOWEVER, they are still wild animals and are treated with the an
    appropriately healthy dose of respect.  All three birds and the
    snake have drawn my blood at times; I have a bandage on my finger
    today from a bite inflicted by the tamest of my parrots.  I expect
    that they will draw blood in the future, too.  They are wild animals,
    and it is part of their nature.
    
    I cannot see how anything different can be expected of a wild cat;
    even my domestic cats have bitten or scratched from time to time.
    The major difference with large wild cats is the degree of damage
    they can afflict.  Even "affectionate play" with a wild cat could
    cause serious injury.
    
    When children come to my house, my animals ARE LOCKED IN ANOTHER
    ROOM.  To treat a wild cat's potential interaction with children
    less seriously than I treat my pets' interaction with them is, in
    my opinion, irresponsible and reprehensible.  The owner of the cat
    in question should be held responsible for the death of his daughter.
    
    A wild animal is, and always will be, wild.  They cannot be expected
    to go against instinct, and every safety precaution should be taken
    when dealing with them.
    
    Rita

    Re: 10   Shooting tame lions - I think that is absolutely disgusting.
    Is it really legal?

    Just to offend your sensibilities some more - this is done all the
    time with game animals in this country.  There are many "wild game
    preserves" that cater to these people.  I recall a particularly
    good, though disturbing, piece some years ago on the likes of '60
    Minutes'.  It showed a "hunter" shooting an albino deer (pretty
    rare, and hence worth $6K to shoot, as I recall) at close range.
    He messed it up so badly that the guide finally dispatched the poor
    creature (again, as I recall).
    
    Being a mere man, it's sometimes hard to maintain a Christian attitude
    toward people.
    
    Gary

    I thought the charm of owning an animal that is wild and dangerous
    was what appealed to rock singers.
    
    It is the cachet of owning an unusual and dangerous pet that attracts.
    
    Having foreseen the possible consequences, if it can be proved that
    the animal was kept without due care, then the owner should be charged
    at the very least with manslaughter.
    
    Permission to keep animals like this should be revoked immediately,
    these people are obviously not responsible and I do not believe
    that they have the welfare of the animal at heart.
    
    I think that the only excuse for keeping these animals confined
    is for breeding programmes to preserve the species.
    
    Regards
    
    kate
    UK

    Re .16 (Kate), earlier:
    
    >It is the cachet of owning an unusual and dangerous pet that attracts.
    
    Some.  Now, I doubt I'll ever be in the financial or logistic position
    to own lions, but I certainly wouldn't want one because it was
    dangerous!   In the various Joy Adamson books, it was clear that
    Elsa not only domesticated easily, but had some difficuklty adjusting
    to the wild.  Indeed, she loved sleeping on cots, and took advantage
    of riding the top of the Adamsons' Land Rover whenever she could
    (much to the detriment of the roof).
    
    In Wales, lions were once kept domestically, and Prince Howel Dda
    (sp?) promulgated laws on hopw to quarter them.  (He also peromulgated
    a law on the worth of cats of the smaller variety, FWIW.)
    
    >I think that the only excuse for keeping these animals confined
    >is for breeding programmes to preserve the species.
     
    If you have any pet, you "keep it confined," as it were, for protection
    of the pet.  My cats are "confined" to my house; _if_ you have a
    larger cat (which I would advise only with extreme caution, BTW),
    is it likely you'd cage it at night?  If so, then it isn't a pet.
    
    Side digression:
    
    A couple I met briefly had a pet monkey.  I don't recall the kind,
    but he was fairly big -- probably in the 40-pound range.  At night,
    he was secured to a leash that let him sit or stand, but not move
    away from the corner he was in.  I considered (and consider) thast
    very cruel, since it was obvious that he was a prisoner confined
    to an extremely small area at all times the husband and wife were
    asleep or out of their apartment.  If that were my monkey, the very
    least I would have done would have been to give him a room of his
    own, where he could play while I was absent.
    
    The monkey was a novelty; not a pet.
    
    End digression, with: some people get big cats as novelties, not
    pets.  Such people should not have animals, in my opinion.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    Somewhere in an earlier notes files was a series of notes around
    keeping wild animals such as lions, tigers, leopards, etc. One
    noter stated that such animals (in his state at least) was required
    by law to be caged at night.  In the Joe Savage saga it sounded
    as if he had restrained the cat but that it had escaped with another
    cat and came across the child. It seems as if the owner had become
    careless in restaining his cats, perhaps trusting them as if they
    were 10 pounds house cats; forgetting that their true nature, and
    weight,  differ from vastly from the common pussy cat. 
    
    I am sure that father would never have kept those cats had he been
    able to foretell the future, but he seemed to have slipped into a
    state of complacency (or carelessness ?). A case in point for not
    allowing such animals to be kept as household pets - or at least
    to have ** very **  stringent laws around their being kept as pets.
    
                    

    
    I must admit the thought of a pet Tiger appeals to me very much
    but I would never keep one as I always believe that no matter what
    the animal, be it a budgie or an Elephant or anything in between,
    you can never get rid of their wild instincts (my own opinion) so
    the smaller the animal the easier it is to cope if it turns on you.
    
    This _problem_ of keeping animals, I think, is all down to the owners
    due care and attention as I was reading in a Sunday paper this weekend
    that a pet RABBIT had chewed a babies finger off!!!!!
    
    1. Rabbits will nibble at anything close to their mouth.
    
    2. What was a young baby doing that near to an animal anyway? 
       (hygiene and all that) sp??
    
    3. The comments from the parents were "we couldn't understand it,
       the rabbit had only just eaten!!!" and "we are concerned because
       she will never play the piano now!!!"..... CAN YOU BELIEVE THESE
       PEOPLE?????
    
    
    People like that don't deserve children let alone animals.  This
    sort of thing makes me so mad!!!!  sorry
    
    
    Sharon T (UK)
    

    Are they sure it was a rabbit?  Maybe they have rats.
    

    
    Re: .19
    
    Ah come on.... are you sure you weren't reading the National
    Enquirer.
    
    

    re.19
    that story is continously resurrected as a "filler" along with
    the one about the cat suffocating the baby in the crib by 
    sticking its tail in the babies mouth...can't imagine where
    these stories orginated from but they pop up now and then with
    the name of the city and stuff like that changed..
    

    Re .22:
    
    > ...the one about the cat suffocating the baby in the crib by 
    >sticking its tail in the babies mouth...can't imagine where
    >these stories orginated from  ....
     
    That latter is a variant of the old story about how a cat will "suck
    the breath out of a baby."  _That_ story, which probably goes back
    to Medieval times, has been speculated to be the result that cats
    sometimes have been known to jump into baby cribs to investigate
    the small inhabiitants, and, particularly with regards to babies
    who have just finished nursing (and therefore have a milk-smell
    around their mouths), possibly sniff at their faces.  The action
    was interpreted to being an attempt to "steal" the baby's breath.
    
    Steve Kallis, Jr.

    There are lots of 'urban legends' about.  I read an interesting
    book on them (can't remember title or author - sorry) which speculated
    that they replace the old fashioned pastime of gossip/storytelling.
    
    They now form our oral tradition.  My favourites are the tarantula
    in the yucca plant and the poodle in the chinese restaurant.  These
    stories are never first hand, they alway happen to a friend of a
    friend and on investigation are unauthenticated.
    
    Perhaps the rabbit is another urban legend?
    
    Regards
    
    Kate

    
    re .24
    
    Probably is Kate, I never know whether to believe half the rubbish
    printed in the Sunday papers (Sunday People...I think???) but it
    was the part about what the parents were saying that made me laugh.
    
    Sharon T (UK)
    
    ps. it was definitely a bunny (if it happened at all) as they had
    a picture of him....he was really cute!!!
    

        Sharon, do they still wrap the fish and chips up in newspaper
    where you come from? It's the only way I used to come into contact
    with such rags as the Sunday People so I must assume that they do.
    
    8^)}
    
    Brian

    
    I guess they do Brian but I dont eat Fish & Chips anymore....A friend
    of mine showed this copy to me for that story only!!!
    
    I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR I WOULDN'T BUY THIS PAPER UNDER
    ANY CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!! just to clear my name...ha ha
    
    Sharon
    

    I bet that's what we all say
    
    
    
    Former UK resident