 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsCat AnecdotesHealth and BehaviorRescue CatKB.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Cat Forum / Health and Behavior / October 2003Why the tiger almost killed Roy.
I'm pretty sure most of you have heard of Siegfried & Roy and their tigers. In case you haven't heard, one of the tigers finally mauled their "trainer" Roy. (BTW, I am very against "training" wild animals to perform for human amusement) So, from the "take a lesson" department - the reason the tiger almost killed Roy... From: http://www.suntimes.com/output/news/cst-nws-roy06.html [quote] Horn told the tiger to lie down. When it refused, Horn tapped the cat on the nose with a microphone to get its attention. The animal grabbed at Horn's arm, causing the entertainer to stumble. The tiger then lunged at Horn, who tried to beat the animal away with the microphone. Audience members said the tiger dragged Horn off the stage by the neck. The attack barely missed severing Horn's carotid artery. [/quote] So, he irritates a 500 pound animal to get its attention, tries to force it to do something it doesn't want to do, then when it gets pissy, tries to get it to let go by beating it. I'd say it didn't work too well. When will people learn that eventually, the wild animal is going to decide it doesn't like being made to do something and decide it really is bigger than you? There is no such thing as a "tame" wild animal. If there were, we'd call them domesticated. *sigh* ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ All I ask for is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- Hi kaeli, It's was on the news over here. I dont feel any sympathy for the man at all . It's a shame these shows are still allowed in this day and age. The same as people keeping tigers as pets . I believe there are about 80,000 of them . Why aren't the welfare groups putting pressure on the venues and arranging boycotts and demonstrations? No shows - no performing wild animals . Alison -- > I'm pretty sure most of you have heard of Siegfried & Roy and their > tigers. In case you haven't heard, one of the tigers finally mauled [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace > ------------------------------------------------- >Why aren't the welfare groups putting pressure >on the venues and arranging boycotts and demonstrations? I agree that using wild animals for entertainment purposes is unfair, but I'm not sure how I feel about boycotting S&R. I recently went to Las Vegas and stayed at the Mirage. I visited the animal areas, and was surprised to learn that Siegfried and Roy spend a lot of money on conservation programs. In addition to the lions and tigers, they also have a dolphin facility. There was some work done on dolphin behavior there, which I remembered as being similar to my own behavioral research with chimpanzees. The ideal solution would be to cut the performing, and focus on the conservation. Maybe that's what they'll do going forward. I guess the point it, they have done some good for seriously threatened species, in addition to their show work. At least *part* of the ludicrous amount of money they make goes back to the animals. -Jen Half the people you know are below average. -Steven Wright > >Why aren't the welfare groups putting pressure > >on the venues and arranging boycotts and demonstrations? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that Siegfried and Roy spend a lot of money on conservation programs. In > addition to the lions and tigers, they also have a dolphin facility. That is totally and completely f'ed up. Dolphins and Orcas belong in the wild, period. It is completely wrong to cage an animal which swims literally hundreds of miles per day in a tank of any size. If you think this is "cool" or "educational" read the book "Behind the Dolphin Smile." > There was > some work done on dolphin behavior there, which I remembered as being similar >> to my own behavioral research with chimpanzees. Oh, great. A great ape user. -L. >If you think this is "cool" or "educational" read the book "Behind the Dolphin Smile." I never said this was cool (I wish it didn't happen at all). But it is educational. Where do you think conservation research is conducted? >Oh, great. A great ape user. Everybody has their own ethical line with animal research. I'm a biologist who studies biomedical concepts. I personally couldn't do anything invasive to chimps, or dolphins, or anything above rats, for one thing. And anything I would do to any animal would involve strict humane standards. Secondarily, some research is necessary. I specifically chose a research project that was purely behavioral, period. I don't enjoy torturing animals, and in fact I was pre-vet in college, because I wanted to go in to biotech as a veterinarian to ensure humane treatment for research animals. I agree that in an ideal world, no animals would have to be used in research. However, that's just not the reality of medicine. I'm sure whatever drugs you are taking to save your own health required the (hopefully) humane use of animals. My behavior study was about cognitive development in chimps, to compare it with humans. My point was simply that they (Siegfried and Roy and the Mirage) are at least putting some of their money back into animal conservation. I would definitely prefer if they didn't use the tigers at all. But if they are, at least they can give something back to the tigers. And that's what they do. -Jen Half the people you know are below average. -Steven Wright Hi, Jane Goodall is my hero . I read her book many years ago when she was young she went into the forests to study the wild chimps , rather brave of her. A while back some elderly research chimps were offered to rescue societies in America but sadly they couldn't help then due to the cost of keeping them in retirement .I don't know what happened to them . The drugs we use are tested on animals but mainly by guinea pigs and rats , not by chimps I hope. ( I still feel for the rats and GPs, though ) Humans are also used to study drugs after they've been tested on animals . I'm taking part in at a study in the Uk *Are new treatments for rheumatoid arthritis harmful to long-term health* . I flipping well hope not. LOL Alison > Everybody has their own ethical line with animal research. I'm a biologist who > studies biomedical concepts. I personally couldn't do anything invasive to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Half the people you know are below average. -Steven Wright In news:blu3op$327$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk, Alison <alison@Xallofus2X.fsnet.co.uk> being of bellicose mind posted: >snip< > The drugs we use are tested on animals but mainly by guinea pigs [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > health* . I flipping well hope not. LOL > Alison Regarding being a human lab rat, I too am on a controversial DMARD for a rare type of rheumatoid condition. An "off-label" use of ARAVA. Yes, ANYTIME you suppress your immune system response you do run a varying degree of risk that dormant (or in-check) cancer cells may now become active and spread. So there is always a danger but ... is the danger worth the risk so that you can conduct a decent quality of life. In my case, absolutely yes. I have blood draws every month to make sure my liver is handling the ARAVA metabolites well. BUT, it is the doctors who have prescribed this drug and not required the monthly blood panels who have had patients die on this stuff. -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > Hi, > Jane Goodall is my hero . I read her book many years ago when she was [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > societies in America but sadly they couldn't help then due to the > cost of keeping them in retirement I don't know of what situation you are talking about, but there have been many movements to get certain groups of chimpanzees moved to various sanctuaries. When LEMSIP in New York was closed, a number of chimps were moved to a few different sanctuaries in the US and Cananda, all of them were retired illegally against the wishes of the US government, by the director of that facility. Sadly, most of the chimps at LEMSIP ened up at the Coulston Foundation (funded by the NIH) - the research facility with the WORST history of animal welfare violations against non-human primates in the country. The most recent movement was for the permanent retirement of the NASA chimps to sanctuaries - but of course the government screwed that one up by refusing to put wording in the legislation that would protect the animals from ever being used in research again. 30 chimps went to Primarily Primates, and 111 went to the Coulston Foundation. Coulston it is the world's largest collection of captive chimpanzees, housing 650 chimps. As of 2002, Coulston was in foreclosue, but continued to peddle chimps to various seedy entities. There is currently a movement to get all of the Chimps at Coulston permanently retired. .I don't know what happened to them > . > The drugs we use are tested on animals but mainly by guinea pigs and > rats , The most used and abused research animal is the mouse. The regulations pertatining to humane research preactices (AWA) specifically exclude rodents and birds. >not by chimps I hope. All drugs are tested on non-human primates. As are most agrichemicals and other types of non-essential products in the marketplace. > ( I still feel for the rats and GPs, > though ) Humans are also used to study drugs after they've been > tested on animals . The only valid animal model is the human. Of all of the various experiments performed on the 15 chimps permanently retired to the Fauna Foundation from LEMSIP, not *one* of those studies have ever been cited in a research paper relevant to humans or human research. Some of these animals had been experimented on for over 30 years - and lived for that period of time in 5X5X7 ft. stainless steel cages. Not ONE SINGLE CITATION was used. Tell me where the value is, in the "information" gained from using these chimps. In light of this fact, how can their suffering be justified? Not one single piece of information was gained that was useful enough to be cited in another research paper. That's unconscionable. >I'm taking part in at a study in the Uk *Are new > treatments for rheumatoid arthritis harmful to long-term health* . I > flipping well hope not. LOL > Alison More people should volunteer to test investigational drugs in clinical settings. Especially people who have chronic and or fatal diseases. While you can gain information about organ reaction to test compounds in other mammals, the only vaild and relevant animal model is the human. And for the record, yes, I participate in such studies. -L. > >If you think this is "cool" or "educational" read the book "Behind the > Dolphin Smile." [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > required the (hopefully) humane use of animals. My behavior study was about > cognitive development in chimps, to compare it with humans. What facility did you work at? What organization did you work for? -L. > >If you think this is "cool" or "educational" read the book "Behind the > Dolphin Smile." > > I never said this was cool (I wish it didn't happen at all). But it is > educational. Not educational to anyone I know of. >Where do you think conservation research is conducted? In the wild. Good research is, at least. > >Oh, great. A great ape user. > > Everybody has their own ethical line with animal research. No, some people have no ethics when it comes to animal research. I have a whole list of them, if you's like me to continue... > I'm a biologist who > studies biomedical concepts. "Biomedical concepts" - What is that mumbo-jumbo for? Irrelelvant bullshit to justify using animals for profit? >I personally couldn't do anything invasive to > chimps, or dolphins, or anything above rats, for one thing. Oh, so mice and other "lower" species are ok? How nice. > And anything I > would do to any animal would involve strict humane standards. Secondarily, >some [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of medicine. I'm sure whatever drugs you are taking to save your own health > required the (hopefully) humane use of animals. You are making assumptions about me. I would be more than happy to forego any and all drugs to put an end to animal abuse at the hands of researchers. >My behavior study was about > cognitive development in chimps, to compare it with humans. At what facility? By whom was your research funded? > My point was simply that they (Siegfried and Roy and the Mirage) are at least > putting some of their money back into animal conservation. And the breed and sell white (and other) tigers and other big cats to anyone with enough money to pay for them - to be used in entertainment and other modes of exploitation. That's really "conservation" oriented. >I would definitely > prefer if they didn't use the tigers at all. But if they are, at least they can > give something back to the tigers. And that's what they do. Yep, a smack on the nose, a crack of the whip, subjecting them to domination and life in captivity. How humane. -L. > > I agree that using wild animals for entertainment purposes is unfair, but I'm > not sure how I feel about boycotting S&R. I recently went to Las Vegas and > stayed at the Mirage. I visited the animal areas, and was surprised to learn [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -Jen > Half the people you know are below average. -Steven Wright Hi jen , Thanks for explaining , I didnt know this . The reasoning here is The means just the ends.? I'm not convinced but I don't know enough about the actual research they do and what's involved. I know there are other consevation societies and research done else where. I think in this case, that a show that could encourage people to keep wild pets should spend the profits on the wild animals that are kept as pets , sadly a law (brought in much too late ) to stop people keeping tigers as pets could mean the death of many as they have no where to go . Alison > I think in this case, that a show that could encourage people >to keep wild pets should spend the profits on the wild animals that >are kept as pets , sadly a law (brought in much too late ) to stop >people keeping tigers as pets could mean the death of many as they >have no where to go . As an editorial I read today stated, the fact that an experienced tiger handler like Roy Horn could still be unexpectedly injured by a tiger ought to go a long way towards discouraging people from keeping tigers as pets, rather than encouraging them. And unfortunately you are right that most of these pet tigers have nowhere to go--since they are generally mixed breed, inbred, or in other ways not genetically suitable for a breeding program, zoos do not usually want them. > > I think in this case, that a show that could encourage people > > to keep wild pets should spend the profits on the wild animals [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > other ways not genetically suitable for a breeding program, zoos > do not usually want them. Indeed. Just yesterday I read on my ISP's news wire of a Bengal/Siberian "bastard" tiger in Ohio that roughed up it's owner who was keeping the cat .... in an apartment! Good grief! Our 1500 sq/ft house is barely big enough for our 12 pound housecat! -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" >> Why aren't the welfare groups putting pressure >> on the venues and arranging boycotts and demonstrations? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > -Jen > Half the people you know are below average. -Steven Wright I will also say, it is very apparent that Roy is the last one to blame the tiger. He was insistant as they took him away to not harm the cat. Karen > > > Why aren't the welfare groups putting pressure > > > on the venues and arranging boycotts and demonstrations? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Karen Maybe he wants to kick the cats a.s with an elephant gun himself! ;-) -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" I would venture to guess that the animal rights/welfare groups have thought this out further than you have. While these cats are captive, where would you release them to and to what end? There is some conscientiousness raising that occurs with performing wild animals, both pro and con. Controversy is a money maker and Las Vegas is about making money. Winners did not build Las Vegas. -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" >In news:bls0bd$ij6$1@news8.svr.pol.co.uk, >Alison <alison@Xallofus2X.fsnet.co.uk> being of bellicose mind posted: > Hi kaeli, > It's was on the news over here. I dont feel any sympathy for the [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace > > ------------------------------------------------- > I would venture to guess that the animal rights/welfare groups have > thought this out further than you have. While these cats are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ~~Philip As one who dunks his cats in water to discipline them, I don't expect you to understand that what is important is the quality of life for the animal. Captive animals who cannot be released into the wild should be in sanctuaries with lots of room and the best of care. They should not be in hotels and circuses and little cages. They should not be forced to perform for human amusement. Want conservation? Teach people that animals deserve care and respect, not that they exist to amuse us. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- In news:MPG.19ec6dd7426f6b9c9898ac@nntp.lucent.com, kaeli <infinite.possibilities@NOSPAMatt.net> being of bellicose mind posted: > > I would venture to guess that the animal rights/welfare groups > > have thought this out further than you have. While these cats [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > expect you to understand that what is important is the quality of > life for the animal. Kaeli... I don't mind telling you to stuff it. You know from poop. > Captive animals who cannot be released into the wild should be in > sanctuaries with lots of room and the best of care. They should > not be in hotels and circuses and little cages. They should not be > forced to perform for human amusement. > Want conservation? Teach people that animals deserve care and > respect, not that they exist to amuse us. Because you are an extremist and a religious nut, I don't expect you to get the big picture. Beyond the entertainment draw of Ziegfield and Roy's show, many people come away with a new respect for great cats and their treatment. My wife and I attended one show about 10 yrs ago. I was fascinated but the show also instilled in me a higher respect for the dedication, technique, and care one HAS to take with these large animals and the care one has to provide for their well being. Animal protection groups have given regular inspections to Ziegfield and Roy shows for a long time. But this does not preclude the cat from having a "bad day." -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > In news:MPG.19ec6dd7426f6b9c9898ac@nntp.lucent.com, > > Kaeli... I don't mind telling you to stuff it. You know from poop. hahahaha! You just kill me. Such an eloquent debator. > > Captive animals who cannot be released into the wild should be in > > sanctuaries with lots of room and the best of care. They should [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Because you are an extremist and a religious nut, Um, allllrighty then. If you say so. ROFL You don't read too well, do you? > I don't expect you > to get the big picture. I don't expect you to get the fact that the big picture is not the one where animals suffer for the entertainment of humans. You don't get respect for life by making animals perform in acts on stages. You don't get conservationism without respect for life. You don't get the fact that an animal doesn't have to be physically injured for it to suffer. Animal groups make sure the animals have a minimal standard of care. Minimal. You know what that means? I'll put you in jail for the rest of your life - you'll get care, you'll get food, water, tv, and an hour exercise a day. Would you be satisfied with that and think that was a-okay? How about breeders who keep their dogs locked in cages all day, but keep them clean, watered, etc? They get no love, no socialization, no play, but they're healthy. Is that a life? It's about quality of life. But you wouldn't get that as part of your big picture, would you? ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- > Hi kaeli, > It's was on the news over here. I dont feel any sympathy for the man > at all . As much as I hate animal exploitation, I still have sympathy for Roy Horn. Yes, he deserved it, but it would be sad for his family if he died from it. > It's a shame these shows are still allowed in this day and > age. The same as people keeping tigers as pets . I believe there are > about 80,000 of them . Why aren't the welfare groups putting pressure > on the venues and arranging boycotts and demonstrations? They are, all over the country and have been doing so for years. There is finally some attention being given to the subject. No shows - > no performing wild animals . bingo. -L. > As much as I hate animal exploitation, I still have sympathy for Roy > Horn. Yes, he deserved it, but it would be sad for his family if he > died from it. Hi L , I hope he doesn't die , I just don't feel sorry for him . He knows the risks and has the choice of whether to perform or not but the tigers don't have a choice. Alison > > It's a shame these shows are still allowed in this day and > > age. The same as people keeping tigers as pets . I believe there are [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -L. I tend to feel sorry for these large, beautiful cats. They are exploited for big bucks. I heard that the animal was "tapped" several times on the nose. Maybe it hurt. Carrying by the nape of the neck is what mama cats do and maybe this is what the big cat thought he was doing. -- Barb I can only please one person a day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either. >I tend to feel sorry for these large, beautiful cats. They are exploited >for big bucks. I heard that the animal was "tapped" several times on the >nose. Maybe it hurt. As to exactly what happened, I'm reserving judgment until Roy Horn is able to tell it. Most of what's been reported has been based on what the audience saw--or thought they saw. According to his manager, the tiger was distracted by something in the audience, and Horn tapped him on the nose to direct his attention away from the audience. It would have been even more horrible, I'd think, if Montecore had lunged out into the audience rather than deflected by Horn. But of course, that's also just the manager's spin on what happened. >Carrying by the nape of the neck is what mama cats do and maybe this is what >the big cat thought he was doing. You know, you could be right. No one's mentioned that yet. I'm sure if the tiger had meant to kill, Horn would be dead now. > >Carrying by the nape of the neck is what mama cats do and maybe this is what > >the big cat thought he was doing. > > > You know, you could be right. No one's mentioned that yet. I'm sure if the > tiger had meant to kill, Horn would be dead now. The tiger missed his carotid artery by mere centimeters. The only reason Roy is alive is because they got the cat off him. "Handlers sprayed the tiger with a fire extinguisher to force him to release Roy, who underwent about two hours of surgery." Cats, including tigers and lions, do not bite the neck to sever the artery - they do so to strangle their prey. Had Montecore not been forced off, he would have strangled Roy. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- > I tend to feel sorry for these large, beautiful cats. They are > exploited for big bucks. I heard that the animal was "tapped" > several times on the nose. Maybe it hurt. > > Carrying by the nape of the neck is what mama cats do and maybe > this is what the big cat thought he was doing. Was it a female tiger? Maybe she was crampin'. You know how dangerous that can be for a man! ;-) -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" I have to wonder how many times Roy pushed these cats to the breaking point before this happened? In any case whether you believe the big cats should be performing or not for human amusement, I hope Roy makes it and recovers. As for the tiger in question I have read that the last thing Roy would want is to blame the animal for any problems that happen. Also the white tiger is a rear breed and therefore will probably not be destroyed even though typical human nature is to do so. I think this incident is one of those reminders that all animals have that wild nature and will eventually at some point gravitate towards it. Even our own feline family members are of wild nature and will act on their own natural instincts.  SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > Hi kaeli, > It's was on the news over here. I dont feel any sympathy for the man [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace > > ------------------------------------------------- > I'm pretty sure most of you have heard of Siegfried & Roy and their > tigers. In case you haven't heard, one of the tigers finally mauled [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace > ------------------------------------------------- The tiger is probably more than a little frustrated at being caged up all the time and being "encouraged" to perform tricks on command. This is NO domestic kitty! Signature"Its the bugs that keep it running." -Joe Canuck >> I'm pretty sure most of you have heard of Siegfried & Roy and their >> tigers. In case you haven't heard, one of the tigers finally mauled [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > This is NO domestic kitty! And they'll probably kill the poor tiger because he's now "dangerous"! :( "Karen M." <mskitty@easystreetNOSPAM.com> wrote in news:blsdln$7iq$1 @nntp.psmfc.org: > And they'll probably kill the poor tiger because he's now "dangerous"! :( The latest I heard is the tiger is going to a zoo, because it is an endangered species. K >The latest I heard is the tiger is going to a zoo, because it is an >endangered species. Why would a zoo habitat be any different than the tiger habitat where the tigers live now? I'd guess in fact their current habitat is somewhat better than some zoos can afford to provide. > > The latest I heard is the tiger is going to a zoo, because it is > > an endangered species. > > Why would a zoo habitat be any different than the tiger habitat > where the tigers live now? I'd guess in fact their current habitat > is somewhat better than some zoos can afford to provide. Next time you're in Las Vegas, stop by the MGM to see the lion habitat. In the late afternoon when the lions become active, two humans play ball with the lions. The habitat has 2 1/2 large glass walls and a glass tunnel thru the habitat. No tricks or performing, just playing with a large pnuematic ball or two. http://www.a2zlasvegas.com/otherside/sights/lions.html http://www.vacationidea.com/articles/gallery/mgm_grand_Gallery6.html -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" >> The latest I heard is the tiger is going to a zoo, because it is an >> endangered species. > > Why would a zoo habitat be any different than the tiger habitat where the > tigers live now? I'd guess in fact their current habitat is somewhat better > than some zoos can afford to provide. He doesn't have to do tricks at least. I heard a report that there are more wild cats in captivity now than in the wild. Sad. Karen >> Why would a zoo habitat be any different than the tiger habitat where the >> tigers live now? I'd guess in fact their current habitat is somewhat better >> than some zoos can afford to provide. > >He doesn't have to do tricks at least. What sort of tricks did Montecore do in the S&R show? I ask because although I have not personally seen the show, friends who have say the tigers basically just walk around and sit or lie down on command. Not really what most people think of as circus tricks. Maybe someone else who has seen the show can clarify. I heard a report that there are more >wild cats in captivity now than in the wild. Sad. That is certainly true of white tigers, because they can't survive long in the wild. > "Karen M." <mskitty@easystreetNOSPAM.com> wrote in news:blsdln$7iq$1 > @nntp.psmfc.org: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The latest I heard is the tiger is going to a zoo, because it is an > endangered species. I sure hope the zookeepers put a TV with a VCR outside of the tigers' cage and play the tape of the tiger mauling Roy -- so the tigers' can have some entertainment! With all the money the tiger made for Roy, he should buy the tiger his own 10 square mile sanctuary. > > The tiger is probably more than a little frustrated at being caged up > > all the time and being "encouraged" to perform tricks on command. > > > > This is NO domestic kitty! > > > And they'll probably kill the poor tiger because he's now "dangerous"! :( No, thank goodness they are not blaming the poor tiger for its understandable reaction, at least the last I read. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ All I ask for is the chance to prove that money cannot make me happy. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- >> And they'll probably kill the poor tiger because he's now "dangerous"! :( > >No, thank goodness they are not blaming the poor tiger for its >understandable reaction, at least the last I read. In the Reuters report, it was stated that as Roy Horn was being carried away by the paramedics, he said "Don't kill the tiger!". I don't know whether the decision is ultimately his, but obviously if he can prevent the tiger from being killed, it sounds as though he will. Animals, like people, have personality. Some animals have a strong personality, some have a weak personality. A weak personality is characteristic of some species or breeds so most individuals in that species/breed have a weak personality and the same holds for a strong personality. To give an example of some breeds I´m somewhat familiar with, if you raise a Kuvasz or a Pitbull in a violent environment, they become vicious and dangerous animals. A Pointer or a Labrador being raised in that same environment usually becomes excessively shy and fear everything. The same has been observed among people. People who are raised in a violent home usually become either violent themselves (according to the FBI, all highly dangerous criminals were raised in such environments) or develop serious personality disorders (borderline, sociophobic, avoidant). Felines in general have a very strong personality so they will react violently to any violence committed against them - they will not curl up and passively take beating like a Pointer would. People who deal with animals must realize this and *never* use violence in their training or in any other circumstance. Violence and inflicting pain is almost exclusive of our species. I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict pain upon their young or treat their young with violence. I see there´s a post by a behavioral biologist and I´d really appreciate her comments on this. As for having these "wild" animals as pets, I see nothing wrong with that providing they live in a healthy environment, with mentally healthy people (people who do not hurt them under any circumstance) and obviously, with a good space for the animal´s mental and physical health. Also, having these animals as pets is an advantage for their species since they will be under a much lesser risk of extinction. The most successful higher species (in terms of numbers) are exactly those that we have domesticated for whatever reason. I myself would love to have some tigers providing I had the necessary resources to have them. I admire those excentric millionaires that have private zoos (not those that keep animals in cages but those that really work in their individual habitats). I don´t think any animal could wish for a better life. > Animals, like people, have personality. >snip< [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > animals must realize this and *never* use violence in their > training or in any other circumstance. Agreed. But I'm sure there will be those out there who believe using a fire extinguisher against a tiger who is mauling a human being is unnecessary violence. They are fools. > Violence and inflicting > pain is almost exclusive of our species. I disagree completely but... go on with your points. > I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict pain > upon their young or treat their young with violence. Some animials EAT their young. That's kinda violent. Lots of animals during courtship or males fighting over the right to reproduce inflict serious pain on their opponent. Liz, what I think you are overlooking is the level of inherited behavior NOT present in humans compared to animals. Humans have to be socialized MUCH more so than animals. > I see there?s a post by a behavioral > biologist and I?d really appreciate her comments on this. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > animals in cages but those that really work in their individual > habitats). I don?t think any animal could wish for a better life. Playing God, eh? When you have enough money to buy an island or a small country, go for it. LOL -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > Agreed. But I'm sure there will be those out there who believe using > a fire extinguisher against a tiger who is mauling a human being is > unnecessary violence. They are fools. LOL. I like your sense of humor. Why would a tiger maul at a human? I can think of only two possibilities: 1) he´s hungry, human is dinner; 2) a human hurt him in the past. Remember to always feed your tiger in case you ever have one (please don´t take this literally, just a joke). LOL > > Violence and inflicting > > pain is almost exclusive of our species. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Some animials EAT their young. I know. But the dead carry no traumas, do they? And yes, animals dispute territory and females many times in a violent manner but that´s two ADULT animals. Either of them can avoid the dispute if he wishes to. He will only compete *willingly*. That cannot be compared to a puppy being scolded or physically abused by his human parent, can it? Does the puppy have a choice? Did the puppy choose to be scolded? You can also state that hunting is always violent and I agree. But again, the dead carry no traumas. I thought the whole of my post would express my opinion more precisely but I see I left much room for doubt. > Playing God, eh? Are you playing God when you wish to have a pet even if this pet is unusual? Are you playing God when you decide to "create life" by having a child? How is this "playing God"? Remember that every "domesticated" animal was wild at some point in the past. > > Agreed. But I'm sure there will be those out there who believe > > using a fire extinguisher against a tiger who is mauling a human > > being is unnecessary violence. They are fools. > > LOL. I like your sense of humor. It's mature "cat humor" without being gay. > Why would a tiger maul at a > human? I can think of only two possibilities: 1) he?s hungry, > human is dinner; 2) a human hurt him in the past. Remember to > always feed your tiger in case you ever have one (please don?t > take this literally, just a joke). LOL Or, the tiger was taking his fresh catch to his other trainer as a "gift!" Cats do that ya know. In this case, it's the matter of scale that is in question. ;-) > > > Violence and inflicting > > > pain is almost exclusive of our species. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > I know. But the dead carry no traumas, do they? On the way to becoming dead, do you think the prey is making that journey without pain? > And yes, animals > dispute territory and females many times in a violent manner but [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > having a child? How is this "playing God"? Remember that every > "domesticated" animal was wild at some point in the past. Convoluted female rationalization beyond mere males to comprehend. ;-) -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > Or, the tiger was taking his fresh catch to his other trainer as a > "gift!" Cats do that ya know. In this case, it's the matter of > scale that is in question. ;-) Excellent point! I forgot that one. So only have a tiger if you live with no other humans! LOL > > Are you playing God when you wish to have a pet even if this pet is > > unusual? Are you playing God when you decide to "create life" by [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Convoluted female rationalization beyond mere males to comprehend. > ;-) Where´s the rationalization? I just asked why that was "playing God". > As for having these "wild" animals as pets, I see nothing wrong with > that providing they live in a healthy environment, Who decides what is a "healthy" environment? Who enforces that decision? who pays for that enforcement? Is a zoo healthy? A sanctuary? A back yard? Who polices the owners when we can't even police the ones who abuse domestic animals? > with mentally > healthy people (people who do not hurt them under any circumstance) Who decides what "hurt" is? Is it hurting them to train them with physical methods, as some people do? If not, what constitutes hurt and who gets to make that decision? Again, who polices these people and with what funds? We can't even police all the circuses to be sure they are all following the guidelines / law. > and obviously, with a good space for the animal?s mental and physical > health. Who decides how much space is enough and based on what? Who enforces it? Is space all that counts? What about interaction / stimulation? > Also, having these animals as pets is an advantage for their > species since they will be under a much lesser risk of extinction. Recent stats estimate nearly 7000 captive tigers in the US alone. That is about the same as the number in the wild. http://www.hsus.org/ace/19518 In fact, we don't have room in our sanctuaries / zoos for all the people who thought they wanted them, then changed their minds. At 7000, the sanctuaries are full. What if there were even more? What happens to them then? Do we then have to kill them like we do our unwanted cats and dogs? > The > most successful higher species (in terms of numbers) are exactly those > that we have domesticated for whatever reason. So you advocate domesticating the tiger? Do you know how long domestication takes? It isn't a couple generations. Should people be able to keep them as pets before they are domesticated? Would you like your children to run around the neighborhood where such was allowed? A 500 pound tiger who gets loose can do a lot more damage than a pissed- off Rottweiler. There is a large difference between keeping an animal as a pet (private home) and keeping a captive-bred wild animal in a large sanctuary (Africa, etc). ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- Kaeli, I don´t dispute most of what you said. I agree wholeheartedly that certain people are not fit to have pets as certain people are not fit to have kids. We could have legislators pass a law stating that one cannot have kids or pets without first getting a license. But what would be the requirements for the license to be granted? Besides, wouldn´t this conflict with freedom? Just as a side note, in Brazil you can only have a wild animal as pet if you get a license. The license in granted by our environmental agency only to those who can afford the animal and an adequate environment. The area where the animal will be kept must be ready when the license is requested and they will come and check to see if it is adequate for the species. The license is granted for one year at a time and every year someone from the agency goes to where the animal is kept to check if everything is in accordance with the law. If he finds anything wrong with the animal or evironment, the person loses the license and the animal is taken away to a zoo. Fortunately, very few people in this country can afford these licenses and only rarely the animal needs to be taken away. > Who decides what "hurt" is? Is it hurting them to train them with > physical methods, as some people do? In my opinion, it is. And I go a little beyond. I am against training animals. I have never trained any of my dogs or cats. I know I´ll get flamed for this but this is how I feel. > What if there were even more? What happens to them > then? Do we then have to kill them like we do our unwanted cats and > dogs? A license would take care of that providing the requirements to grant this license were strict and the license itself temporary. > So you advocate domesticating the tiger? Do you know how long > domestication takes? It isn't a couple generations. Should people be > able to keep them as pets before they are domesticated? Would you like > your children to run around the neighborhood where such was allowed? A > 500 pound tiger who gets loose can do a lot more damage than a pissed- > off Rottweiler. This is where I do not agree with you. What is domestication? According to the dictionary, it is adaptation to intimate association with human beings. If you get a tiger cub from a very young age and raise it in your house, it is domesticated. There´s a woman in the USA who lives in a farm and takes in all the tigers that people don´t want anymore. They are all lose. I saw pictures of her house and there are tigers sleeping on the couch, on her bed, in the living room floor, just about everywhere. When I last visited her site she lived in close association with 20 tigers. I know animals well enough to know that they do not attack out of thin air unless they are emotionally disturbed and they only become emotionally disturbed through physical or mental abuse. I´d bet this woman knows this too and trusts her tigers wholeheartedly. > > Who decides what "hurt" is? Is it hurting them to train them with > > physical methods, as some people do? > > In my opinion, it is. And I go a little beyond. I am against > training animals. I have never trained any of my dogs or cats. I > know I?ll get flamed for this but this is how I feel. Oh Liz. You are foolishly naive to be against "training." No good dog is an untrained dog. No cat is a good cat that is allowed to eliminate at will and destroy furniture in your house. Point in fact, Rusty is trained to use the people toilet and does so from time to time. God only knows what goes thru his furry little head that makes him choose the commode over the litter box but ... that's what he does. He is also trained to fetch balls of paper. He is also trained to NOT go outside even if the door is wide open. He won't do it unless I am outside and beckon him to come out. May I politely suggest that you "check" your feelings and not act on them. Your feelings on this matter is really a cover for laziness. It takes effort to do a good training job. -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > Oh Liz. You are foolishly naive to be against "training." No good > dog is an untrained dog. What is a good dog in your opinion? I love my dog and he´s a great superb dog, simply adorable. Would a good dog be one that sits when you tell him to? I don´t care if my dog is sitting or standing, that´s his problem. ;) > No cat is a good cat that is allowed to > eliminate at will and destroy furniture in your house. I never had to train a cat to use the litterbox. Every one of my cats have done it either instinctively (the ferals that I adopted) or learned to do it with their mother. I guess it´s in their instinct to cover their wastes so they will instinctively look for a place where they can dig. Do my cats destroy furniture? Yes. So what I do is I keep them out of the living room. The kitchen and bathrooms have nothing their claws could destroy, the beds are always covered with a comforter and the couch they like to scratch on is out of sight. They also love to scratch rugs but they haven´t been able to destroy any of my rugs yet. You can adapt your animals to you or you can adapt yourself to your animals. Spontaneity is one thing that I really appreciate, both in people and in animals. And I see that training takes away some if not much of spontaneous behavior. From what I have observed, untrained animals are much happier (or express their happiness much more openly) than trained animals. This is something that I have observed, it is not necessarily true. > Point in > fact, Rusty is trained to use the people toilet and does so from time > to time. One of my cats do it too. I wish they all would. Makes life so much easier. > > Oh Liz. You are foolishly naive to be against "training." No > > good dog is an untrained dog. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > you tell him to? I don?t care if my dog is sitting or standing, > that?s his problem. ;) A good dog is one that graduates from an obediance school. A dog needs to know who is boss, execute commands, and be taught what behaviors are good (ie, coming when called and "sitting") and which are bad (ie, jumping on people) . This includes those ditzy pug nosed little ankle biting yappers who occompany eldery blue hairs to the beauty salons. ;-) > > No cat is a good cat that is allowed to > > eliminate at will and destroy furniture in your house. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Do my cats destroy furniture? Yes. So what I do is I keep them out > of the living room. Big deal. The cat has to learn that ALL verticle surfaces are off limits for scratching purposes. They can be trained and I've done it with every cat I've had .... because stretching and clawing a verticle surface is the natural behavior. But not on our chairs, sofas, or the corner of any mattress. Such a behavior immediately resulted in a quick dunk under a running water faucet. Doesn't take long to make the connection. BTW, one of those tight nap door mats is usually an acceptable scratching surface. But take a clue: when the cat scratches, it's nearly always time to trim the talons. > The kitchen and bathrooms have nothing their > claws could destroy, the beds are always covered with a comforter > and the couch they like to scratch on is out of sight. They also > love to scratch rugs but they haven?t been able to destroy any of > my rugs yet. You can adapt your animals to you or you can adapt > yourself to your animals. Foolish people adapt to the undesirable behavior. Smart people retrain the animal. > Spontaneity is one thing that I really appreciate, both in people > and in animals. Spontaneity? LOL Please don't sexualize this, okay! If your cats and dogs want to hump in the middle of the living room and that's your amusement... whatever! > And I see that training takes away some if not much of > spontaneous behavior. > From what I have observed, untrained animals are much > happier (or express their happiness much more openly) than > trained animals. This is something that I have observed, it is > not necessarily true. Rediculous. Apparently you have never had much success in basic training pets so you have adopted this passive attitude. Our current cat does numerous tricks for our amusement (and in front of guests) as well as being toilet trained. This is an interactive cat. > One of my cats do it too. I wish they all would. Makes life so much > easier. So .... what are you waiting for? Get with the training program! -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > A good dog is one that graduates from an obediance school. A dog > needs to know who is boss, execute commands, and be taught what > behaviors are good (ie, coming when called and "sitting") and which > are bad (ie, jumping on people) . I definitively never felt the psychological need to exert authority over any of my pets. What´s so thrilling about this? Hey doggy, come here! Sit! Role! Gimmy your paw! I bet the dog is thinking, "The things I have to go through to get approval..." > But take a clue: > when the cat scratches, it's nearly always time to trim the talons. I don´t trim their claws. > Foolish people adapt to the undesirable behavior. Smart people > retrain the animal. Maybe smart people don´t have animals if they have to get out of their way to have them. There´s always another point of view to any subjective issue. > Spontaneity? LOL Please don't sexualize this, okay! If your cats > and dogs want to hump in the middle of the living room and that's > your amusement... whatever! Hey, how is spontaneity related to sex? Look at these two situations: (1) you come home from work and your child comes running, jumps on you and hugs you and (2) you come home from work and your child walks up to you, shakes hand and says "good evening." I´ll take the first one any time. You can picture the exact same thing with a cat or dog. You come home from work and the cat comes running to greet you. You come home from work and the cat doesn´t even look at you. How are these behaviors related to sex? > So .... what are you waiting for? Get with the training program! No way, thank you. ;) I try not to exert my authority over the cats in my household because I know I have no real power. Yes, I do have the parental role every once and a while but that is limited to hugs, baths, playing and the occasional discipline. However, I am also the servant to them as well where I must bring back money to the royal treasury, give them their treats, feed and water, and of course the cleaning of the royal litterbox. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > I definitively never felt the psychological need to exert authority > over any of my pets. What?s so thrilling about this? Hey doggy, come > here! Sit! Role! Gimmy your paw! I bet the dog is thinking, "The > things I have to go through to get approval..." > I try not to exert my authority over the cats in my household because I know > I have no real power. Yes, I do have the parental role every once and a > while but that is limited to hugs, baths, playing and the occasional > discipline. However, I am also the servant to them as well where I must > bring back money to the royal treasury, give them their treats, feed and > water, and of course the cleaning of the royal litterbox. Don´t they do an awesome job in conditioning us? ;) They sure do. Cats are definately smarter than us humans. SignaturePanther TEK: Staying On Top Of All Your Computer Needs! www.members.cox.net/catprotector/panthertek Cat Galaxy: All Cats, All The Time! www.catgalaxymedia.com > Don?t they do an awesome job in conditioning us? ;) > > A good dog is one that graduates from an obediance school. A dog > > needs to know who is boss, execute commands, and be taught what [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > come here! Sit! Role! Gimmy your paw! I bet the dog is thinking, > "The things I have to go through to get approval..." That's part of a dog's job description. ;-) > > But take a clue: > > when the cat scratches, it's nearly always time to trim the > > talons. > > I don?t trim their claws. You should. Or are is that asking too much? > > Foolish people adapt to the undesirable behavior. Smart people > > retrain the animal. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hey, how is spontaneity related to sex? >If you have to ask then..... you won't understand the answer anyway. > Look at these two > situations: (1) you come home from work and your child comes > running, jumps on you and hugs you and (2) you come home from work > and your child walks up to you, shakes hand and says "good > evening." I?ll take the first one any time. Did/do you have have (human) children? Better they NOT jump all over the furniture to greet you. -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > Kaeli, I don?t dispute most of what you said. I agree wholeheartedly > that certain people are not fit to have pets as certain people are not > fit to have kids. We could have legislators pass a law stating that > one cannot have kids or pets without first getting a license. But what > would be the requirements for the license to be granted? Besides, > wouldn?t this conflict with freedom? All laws conflict with freedom. :) > > Who decides what "hurt" is? Is it hurting them to train them with > > physical methods, as some people do? > > In my opinion, it is. And I go a little beyond. I am against training > animals. I have never trained any of my dogs or cats. I know I?ll get > flamed for this but this is how I feel. You train them every day. Training is merely the reinforcing of certain behavior (either through positive or negative reinforcement or by punishing). If you pet your cats when they come to you, you are training them to come to you. If you give them treats when they are good, they will be good more often. The problem with new dog owners is that they don't realize that by petting Fido when he jumps on them, they are training him to jump on them. The same thinking applies to cats. If you play with your cats in a rough manner, you are training them to play rough. > > What if there were even more? What happens to them > > then? Do we then have to kill them like we do our unwanted cats and > > dogs? > > A license would take care of that providing the requirements to grant > this license were strict and the license itself temporary. Not if enough people got licenses and then lost them, having to give up animals to zoos. Zoos run out of room. Our zoos here don't even want the "pets" that people can't have any more. The more people who could afford licenses, the more this would be a problem. > This is where I do not agree with you. What is domestication? > According to the dictionary, it is adaptation to intimate association > with human beings. If you get a tiger cub from a very young age and > raise it in your house, it is domesticated. No, it isn't. Not yet. We are on our way towards domesticating the tiger, but we are not there. And that's why people have to give up their wild "pets". They don't realize that it is still a wild animal. Ask anyone who works with those animals. Even the people who raise them professionally, such as zoos (ever see that program "growing up Tiger?"). They'll tell you that just because an animal seems tame doesn't mean it is domesticated. Domestication means the entire SPECIES has adapted to human association through selective breeding by humans for desired characteristics. That is, wolves are not domesticated, no matter where they were born. Anyone who owns wolves as pets would tell you this. Dogs, however, are domesticated. The best I've seen it explained is here - a site on keeping raccoons as pets. http://www.isleauhaut.net/maskd/domestication.htm > There?s a woman in the USA > who lives in a farm and takes in all the tigers that people don?t want [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > or mental abuse. I?d bet this woman knows this too and trusts her > tigers wholeheartedly. Of course they don't attack out of nowhere. Few animals attack with no provocation. S&R had tigers for 20 years before this happened. However, what provokes an animal can be something as slight as too much eye contact. ------------------------------------------------- ~kaeli~ Jesus saves, Allah protects, and Cthulhu thinks you'd make a nice sandwich. http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace ------------------------------------------------- > You train them every day. Training is merely the reinforcing of certain > behavior (either through positive or negative reinforcement or by [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > play with your cats in a rough manner, you are training them to play > rough. Communication problem here. I´m thinking of that traditional training where you repeatedly make the animal do something and whack it if it doesn´t or give it a biscuit or some praise if it does. Training: activity leading to skilled behavior; Conditioning: a learning process in which an organism's behavior becomes dependent on the occurrence of a stimulus in its environment; I did condition all of my cats to respond to whistling. I did not train them to respond to whistling. Every day, when I fill up their bowl of food, I whistle. After some time, they associated whistle with food. This is different from *imposing* a wanted behavior through positive or negative reinforcement. > Of course they don't attack out of nowhere. Few animals attack with no > provocation. S&R had tigers for 20 years before this happened. However, > what provokes an animal can be something as slight as too much eye > contact. That is true for people too. Some people can´t distinguish between being admired and being provoked. People who are aware they are good looking will most likely not take provocation from being stared at. An emotionally healthy animal can perfectly tell the difference between being provoked and being admired. It´s all in the body language and the smell. One who is admiring has their eyelids relaxed, their body relaxed. One who is provoking has tense eyelids (sometimes wide open), a ready-to-fight posture, and smells adrenaline. An animal who is deprived of learning proper body language because of a human who does not act according to his body signals (comes walking relaxed toward the animal and kicks him) will most certainly take provocation from any eye contact. Mentally healthy animals can easily tell if you fear them or if you admire them or if you want to hurt them. Some people (myself included) can easily tell what you are feeling, what you feel towards them, if you are lying or not, if you want to leave or stay, etc., just by looking at you. It´s all in the body language. > > You train them every day. Training is merely the reinforcing of > > certain behavior (either through positive or negative [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > towards them, if you are lying or not, if you want to leave or > stay, etc., just by looking at you. It?s all in the body language. Liz, human beings also have the self deceptive ability to project themselves onto/into other beings and interpret those thoughts/feelings as those of the other being. You're not so omniscient. -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > Liz, human beings also have the self deceptive ability to project > themselves onto/into other beings and interpret those > thoughts/feelings as those of the other being. If I got you right, this is what I mentioned before. A self-conscious person (excessively and uncomfortably conscious of their appearance or behavior) will tend to interpret everything in a negative way. If they are being stared at, they immediately think there´s something wrong with them when the other person might be staring at them because they like the clothes or the hair. This person will not *look* at another person to read the body signals, they will only see the action (being stared at) and jump to conclusions from that alone. Is this related to what you said above? > > Liz, human beings also have the self deceptive ability to project > > themselves onto/into other beings and interpret those [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > stared at) and jump to conclusions from that alone. Is this related to > what you said above? Try again. Re-read my observation. If you (the human) have a long standing disgust of eating chicken livers, there is a strong tendency to project on the cat that it too won't like chicken livers. Or because you are a vegetarian to some degree, you go to great lengths to see to it your cat gets the least amount of meat also (because you really don't want to handle meat yourself). The projection may well bring on health issues in the animal and your denial may well prolong the animal's suffering. Reverse it .... if the cat controlled your diet, you might be on the Atkins diet forever! LOL -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" c864320@yahoo.com (Liz) wrote in message news: I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict > pain upon their young or treat their young with violence. Male tigers will kill their own cubs. That's kinda violent. > I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict > > pain upon their young or treat their young with violence. > > Male tigers will kill their own cubs. That's kinda violent. Where have you read this? I have read something slightly different. Male felines will kill the offspring of other males for the female to go in heat soon and have his own offspring. How does he know if the offspring are his? Felines are territorial and the territory of the male overlaps with the territory of all the females in his area. If a new male disputes the territory and wins, he will know that none of the offspring are his and will go hunting and killing them all. > > I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict > > > pain upon their young or treat their young with violence. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > that none of the offspring are his and will go hunting and killing > them all. Ah, you mispoke. You HAVE seen felines inflict pain (including death) upon their young! How are you with interspecies violence? ;-) -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > Ah, you mispoke. You HAVE seen felines inflict pain (including > death) upon their young! How are you with interspecies violence? > ;-) Yep, I was unable to express clearly what I was trying to say. Of course killing is violent, hunting is violent, territory and female disputes are many times violent, eating own young is violent. Yet no emotional traumas are left on those who suffered violence either because they are dead or because they were there on their own free will. Look at an alcoholic coming home from work and beating his wife and/or kid to the point of breaking bones. Actually, it needn´t go that far to be violent. Some people don´t even need to be drug addicts to do it. Now, do we see this in nature? Have you ever seen an animal punish their young with cruelty? Or with real pain? Or have you ever seen an animal extravasate his/her frustrations upon their young? (Frustration is not exclusive of humans). I have raised litters of cats and of dogs and I have *never* seen a kitten or puppy cry when punished by their mother. I have watched Discovery Channel endlessly and I have never seen anything like it in nature. It seems to me that humans are the only species that can be real savages at times. Honestly, I think whipping a tiger or a horse or whatever to get them to do something is simply insane. Get the picture? > > Ah, you mispoke. You HAVE seen felines inflict pain (including > > death) upon their young! How are you with interspecies [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > whipping a tiger or a horse or whatever to get them to do > something is simply insane. Get the picture? I got the picture, Liz. From here, you just walked off the end of the pier. (splash down). BTW, while your out there flailing around in the water, Orcas (killer whales) usually play with baby seals ... bouncing them back and forth like a volley ball in the air before EATING them ... chomp chomp. Wadda ya think of that? Since we humans come into this world with the least amount of instinct, we have to learn what behaviors promote our survival. Often enough, something goes quite wrong in the learning process. For instance, did you know that women visit much more violence upon their children than men do? http://www.menweb.org/throop/battery/commentary/smiller-post.html http://www.aaanet.org/press/motherskillingchildren.htm -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" -- ~~Philip "Never let school interfere with your education - Mark Twain" > I got the picture, Liz. From here, you just walked off the end of > the pier. (splash down). BTW, while your out there flailing around > in the water, Orcas (killer whales) usually play with baby seals ... > bouncing them back and forth like a volley ball in the air before > EATING them ... chomp chomp. Wadda ya think of that? I think they´re dead. ? > > I have yet to see a mother or father in nature inflict > > > pain upon their young or treat their young with violence. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > new male disputes the territory and wins, he will know that none of > the offspring are his and will go hunting and killing them all. Actually I picked this up on one of those nature shows, but don't remember which one. I did find a website that makes the same claim. http://www.catcollection.org/tiger_info.html In looking it up, most other websites mentioned that the tigers killed cubs but didn't get as specific about whether they ever would kill their own. I'm curious about where you found the info on how they know the male knows if the offspring is his? It assumes that the female's territory is completely contained in the territory of one male; an assertion I didn't run across. Just curious. > I'm curious about where you found the info on how they know the male > knows if the offspring is his? It assumes that the female's territory > is completely contained in the territory of one male; an assertion I > didn't run across. Just curious. Sorry, I missed your post, only saw it today. I believe I have this in one of my "Wild Africa" videos and I´ve also seen it in Discovery Channel. Yes, the females´ territories are completely contained within the male´s territory. Male territories are many times larger than the territory of females. One curious thing that I have seen in Discovery is how two or three male cheetahs will team up to protect territory, hunt, and reproduce. They share the females without any fighting. There´s a tom in my neighborhood and my house belongs to his territory. Sometimes at night I can hear him fight in the distance so my guess is he´s defending his area. A feral female appeared here with kittens at the end of last year and this tom has not once showed any agressiveness towards these kittens even now that they are grown. I have no doubt this tom is their father. One very interesting thing that I noticed about this tom is that he will *not* allow the females to wonder out of my property while he allows the males to follow him. I wonder if he would behave in the same way towards the males if I hadn´t neutered them. Maybe he would. Maybe that´s a feline father teaching his young how to fight and defend territory to pass on his genes. << I admire those excentric millionaires that have private zoos (not those that keep animals in cages but those that really work in their individual habitats). I don´t think any animal could wish for a better life. >> But you're looking at it from your perspective, thinking what a housecat's life should be or something. A wild animal is altogether different and I doubt if we can understand what it is to be wild. I would bet the animals would choose their native environment to live in as wild animals despite the inherent dangers of that life over living a safe life in some little park/zoo/cage/circus forever. Candace (take the litter out before replying by e-mail) See my cats: http://photos.yahoo.com/maccandace "One does not meet oneself until one catches the reflection from an eye other than human." (Loren Eisely) > But you're looking at it from your perspective, thinking what a housecat's life > should be or something. A wild animal is altogether different and I doubt if [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Candace > (take the litter out before replying by e-mail) I agree if you compare a cage or zoo to the wild. Higher animals like comfort and an easy life just as much as we do (hey, we are animals too). We have a lot of jungle here and it is common to see "wild" higher animals living in close association with humans who live in the jungle. They like to sleep out of the rain, they like being cuddled with, and they love being fed. In every case, these animals are there in their own free will since they are all loose. BTW, we do not call "wild" animals wild animals. We call them exotic animals if they are from abroad and native animals if they are from our fauna. The word "wild" in Portuguese is more associated with viciousness than with undomesticated. Wild is more like savage. > BTW, we do not call "wild" animals wild animals. We call them exotic > animals if they are from abroad and native animals if they are from > our fauna. The word "wild" in Portuguese is more associated with > viciousness than with undomesticated. Wild is more like savage. Hi , Guinea pigs and tigers are exotics but there a hell of a difference between them . LOL Alison >> BTW, we d |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message