Actually, I just today read a quote from a link on the news banners on this site that has PETA stating there are 15,000 privately owned big cats in the United States. This number is beyond ridiculous.
The governor of Ohio is signing an emergency ban on owning all exotic wildlife. As i expected, it is quite a ridiculous piece of legislation. While many appropriate species will be regulated, IE venomous and large constrictors, there are also many flat-out stupid target species. The best examples I can think of include not just big constricing boids and pythons, but also ALL constricing snakes including ball pythons, sand boas and amazingly colubrid snakes such as corn and ratsnakes. Even more laughable is the fact that venomous lizards will NOT be regulated under this ban because the aren't big or fast enough to hurt anyone. Seriously. This is knee-jerk politics at it's best and groups such as PETA and HSUS that have wanted to ban reptile keeping all along will be taking full advantage of this tragic situation in order to pursue agendas that exisited long before. Ohio legislators should be ashamed that they never enhanced their laws to deal with owners like Thompson. They will now have to bow down to these interest groups in order to dodge public outrage. Word is that animal control will have expanded authortity to go after private owners as well. One person soils the bed, everyone has to wear diapers as a result. It's beyond stupid that common sense exotics laws cannot be enacted without any attempt to discern between what's truly dangerous to the public good and what isn't.
This is a tad off topic, but there's a section from the original article that has me confused: "Mr Thompson had been released from federal prison three weeks earlier after serving a one-year term on firearms charges, according to the AFP news agency." Was he released from prison three weeks before this incident? If so, who was looking after his animals during that year or did he just purchase them all? It just seemed like an odd sentence to me and I feel like I missed something.
I just listened to a portion of a talk radio interview with a fellow named Tim Harrison who runs an animal outreach program and seems to be spearheading a lot of the new legislation. From what he was saying, there were other caretakers than just Thompson. One of them was at the scene helping law enforcement identify species. Thompson had apparently been separated from his wife at the time of the incident as well, so she was nowhere to be found. Harrison was encouraging listeners to report exotics owners to law enforcement on the program. I'm not sure if people are going to be calling the law on kids with pet cornsnakes, but who knows. People get pretty overzealous when things like this happen. Another unrelated note: If Humane Society employees are granted authority to go to people's houses and enter upon satisfactory evidence as police do, then this is truly an insane idea. The little fish may be easy targets, but consider for a moment the details of Thompson's case. He owned a big piece of land in a rural area full of large exotic predators and firearms. He also was in hot water for not paying taxes. If these are the sorts of people being targeted, as Harrison alluded to there being at least a dozen like Thompson in Ohio, then they surely won't take intrusions by the local dog-catcher lying down. People like this in the US tend to have a strong anti-government attitude. If they are stupid enough to live with a few dozen big predators, then they're probably stupid enough to fight back when the law comes after them for something that the state just up and decided was illegal to placate public sentiment and protect officeholders. It could get pretty "interesting" up there.
Sadly, this sums it up perfectly IMO,in a civilised world we can only demand rights if we're prepared to accept their accompanying responsibilities. This guy was plainly not to be trusted with a gerbil, never mind the PT Barnum like menageries of potentially lethal carnivores that lax regulation and couldn't-care- less animal dealers allowed him to acquire.
This incident looks like it may have an effect on the movie, "We Bought a Zoo". Matt Damon and Scarlett Johansson's Zoo Targeted by PETA - E! Online What does everyone think about adding a warning message in the movie and advertisements?
Sorry I dont know where that statistic came from, It is just one I have read which stuck in my head. The fact is that home invasions are much rarer in the US as criminals don't like being shot. In Australia they are common. Deborah Costa lives in world of terror | thetelegraph.com.au
Actually mate, I'm afraid the 'fact' is that "home invasion" is not a consistently defined offence across states in either Australia OR the US. So ita actually impossible for national figures to be compiled and compared. If you can produce statistics for actual comparable crimes such as armed robbery or murder (ideally with/without use of a firearm) we could talk. As it is - I know the SSAA was bandying around the 17 times claim a few years back to try to justify over-turning the Howard gun control laws. But it simply isn't true because no such figure can be measured.
That's bizarre, and yet possibly one of the more sensible things PETA has tried to do. I know the line "all you need is a lot of heart" got some negative attention here a few weeks ago.
A google search produced this interesting website. NationMaster - Crime stats: Australia vs United States
It is ridiculous. By the time the movie is released (Christmas) the Ohio incident will be out of the news and no one in the general public will think a thing about it. Maybe action movies should all have a warning saying that it is not a good idea to drive a car fast or jump off buildings!
It is interesting. The take-away, for me, is that in the US firearms are *much* more likely to be used as part of a crime, but the presence of guns does not in itself increase the rate of crime. That's about what I would expect - they make criminal activity more dangerous, but not more common. One note of caution - some of those statistics are known to be very hard to get accurate statistics on, particularly the number of reported rapes. This is due to under-reporting of some crimes to police. I am also very inclined to think that collecting crime stats in the US, with its 10,000 or so police jurisdictions, would be a lot more error-prone, and subject to under-reporting, than Australia with its eight jurisdictions.
I don't know how closely the film's script follows the book, but Benjamin Mee's zoo is in England, where the legislation is very strict. In the documentary series shown on TV here, the dramatic climax was the visit of the Inspector enforcing the Zoo Licensing Act who had to give approval before the zoo could reopen to the public. As Javan Rhino has said, the Dangerous Wild Animals Act applies to private collections in a similar way - you have to have a DWA licence before you obtain an animal on the DWA list. Remember the wise words of Oliver Wendell Holmes that freedom of speech does not allow you to cry 'Fire!' in a crowded theatre just because you want to. Everyone has the right to be free from dangerous exotic animals in the streets, so in a civilised society there can't be a right to keep any exotic animal you want in any way you want to. Alan
The Columbus Zoo posted this: There's no audio since the video is designed to play in some of the noisier areas of the zoo where you wouldn't be able to hear it anyhow.
Thompson's widow attempted to reclaim the 6 animals today, going as far as showing up to the gate with a truck and horse trailer, before the Ohio Dept of Agriculture placed an indefinite quarantine on the animals. Full article at: LINK - WBNS TV