The lack of animal protection laws in The USA

The lack of animal protection laws in The USA
10-09-2008

Maybe this should be posted somewhere else, but nevertheless:

For all sorts of reasons I happen to be a big fan and supporter of The United States of America, however - in the last few years I have been made aware of the fact that America lacks a proper legislation on certain animal welfare issues. From what I can see on the tv it seems to be allowed to keep lions, tigers etc as "pets"!??? Hence, all the "cat rescue centers" that we find on the internet.

What the hell is the matter with this????!!!!

Comments?

10-09-2008

I agree with you, all those wild animals shouldn't be kept as pets, but only some states allow that. The states that I know that allow to keep wild animals are Nevada, Texas, and Florida, but I'm sure there is more I don't know about.

California is so strict about keeping wild animals that here we can't even keep ferrets as pets. California is even thinking of requiring that every single cat and dog has to be spayed or neutered to control the current population of cats and dogs in the state.

10-09-2008

Thanks mstickmanp!

I have no detailed information, either. I have mainly been made aware of this phenomenon thanks to the tv-channel Animal Planet as well as some internet sources. Like I wrote, I love The USA in general, but on this particular subject I am strongly critical.

Good to hear, though, that California (as usual) is in the lead in this, as well as in many other enviromentally related questions!

10-09-2008

It is a disturbing fact about the states esp. when they say you can pick up a lion cub for $300 (about £150).

From what I gather the problem comes because each individual state has its own laws on this, where as there should just be a blanket law for the whoe of the states.

It was reported on one program that a third of the states has no laws at all about keeping them. Another third requires you to obtain a licence (which is easily obtained) and the last third has a ban on them in private dewllings.

Proves the point I pointed out above about the laws!

10-09-2008

Thanks, taun! I agree!

Anyone else on this subject?

10-09-2008

Well I don't agree with keeping tigers, lions etc in the house as it's not really a good idea with safety etc.
But if someone with a lot of land wants to house them like a zoo would, then I don't see a problem with it myself.
However I would have a problem with someone obtaining one off the black market and that.

10-09-2008

When I worked at the Cincinnati Zoo, from time to time someone would bring in an adolescent lion they'd gotten as a cub. They treated it like a big house cat until it got to a size that they became afraid of it. Often these animals were not in good health and, in any case, what was a small zoo to do with them all? So what do you think happened?

10-09-2008

The zoo probably killed them, but did you not read my post?
Wrong to keep them in houses as situations like that happen, but I've seen private collections on TV keep animals better than some zoos.

11-09-2008

I think the main point is that some states have very relaxed laws on species, where really there is a need for stronger legislation. Tigers, yes. Ferrets hmmm probably not, unless you fear they are going to go feral - like New Zealand.

12-09-2008

Well.... I guess that all I can say is that I would like the US citizens on this web site to lobby as much as they can for better laws on this issue in The USA. Please do that when and if you can! The "Roadside Zoos" and the private keeping of lions in the backyard is a disgrace to The USA.

02-11-2008

i went to seaworld orlando, and one of the keepers said that one of there seals was a rescued pet, it is now illigal to keep large exotic animals at pets (similar to calafornia laws)

02-11-2008

It's not at all illegal to own large exotic animals, you are required to have the right permits though.

05-11-2008

Animal Cops Houston has some pretty wild examples of exotic animals as pets...though I'm not sure how representative it is...

I remember watching a documentary on the black market/exotic pet trade, and one wildlife official brought up the point of bringing these animals in as "pets" can actually negatively impact conservation efforts by zoos. I think he was referring specifically to tigers; because as all tigers are endangered, each one becomes extremely important in breeding efforts. However someone buys a tiger, chances are without a pedigree of some sort, and even if a zoo gets them they can't breed them for fear of mixing the genetic gene pools...? Or can someone correct me on this if I'm wrong...?

06-11-2008

Supposedly there are more tigers in the state of Texas than all of India. Often the tigers are purchased as cubs and the owners what to get rid of them when they become big. Often, but not all, tigers wind up in humane societies or tiger sanctuaries. Zoos can sometimes take them too. However in particular, AZA zoos are committed to participating in the tiger SSPs. These rescued tigers cannot be part of the SSPs, thus competing with SSP tigers for limited space. Because of the space constraints, the unknown parentage tigers in AZA zoos will take up space needed to maintain a sufficient captive population, of which there are three seperate populations (Amur, Sumatran, Malayan).

I hope this makes some sense.

06-11-2008

Wow...that's so sad. Isn't there a way to distinguish the different tigers though to make sure lines aren't crossed? There's a DNA Barcoding project that's happening in the arctic...hypothetically if it came down to it...could they do that and use the resuced tigers for breeding? Thanks for the response!