Responsible Keeping
  Home > Sonja K. > Sonja K. 's Blogs > I agree with this logic...

Blog :

I agree with this logic...

Posted by Sonja K. at 9/22/2012 1:29:54 PM

I agree with the logic in this article. 

NYPD: Mauled Man Chose to Jump into Tiger's Den

"When someone is determined to do something harmful to themselves," Breheny said, "it's very hard to stop that."

"Bashuta was returned to a holding area where it usually sleeps at night and will not be euthanized, zoo officials said."

"The tiger did nothing wrong in this episode," Breheny said.'

"Zoo officials said they would review safety procedures but stressed that the situation was unusual."

"We review everything, but we honestly think we provide a safe experience," Breheny said. "And this is just an extraordinary occurrence. ... Somebody was deliberately trying to endanger themselves."


Why can't this same line of logic be used when considering the actions by the one man in Ohio that released his animals... 

He made that choice to do so...

Instead, we have a flood of legislation aiming to take away our right to keep the animals we love.

The actions of one man should not have the power to deprive so many...

 Comments: View Oldest First  

L & A Lopez =0),
Posted At: 9/22/2012 2:47:44 PM  
Well I agree with this decision.

Sonja ,
Posted At: 9/22/2012 2:54:56 PM  


Lauren ,
Posted At: 9/22/2012 3:43:09 PM  

I am so glad to hear they're not going to do anything to the tiger... And agreed, why can't everyone be logical?

Jennifer White,
Posted At: 9/22/2012 5:30:51 PM  
I also agree. Its not the tigers fault.

Posted At: 9/22/2012 6:01:00 PM  

Not the tigers fault at all he was only doing what tigers too, it's kind of weird maybe he even scared the tiger XD some dude lands from the sky in your pen might be freaking scary. 

Emily Milton,
Posted At: 9/22/2012 8:20:04 PM  

Let's see here... it's A TIGER.  It is very large and very strong.  I think it's safe to say everyone here loves their exotics, but even those who own venomous snakes or crocodiles or aligators (hi Dan, where have you been?) isn't going to drag one on the sofa to watch a movie.  

Respect is rule #1 - respect the tiger.  He's just being a tiger.  The other guy was being a moron.  Props to the zoo for not euthanizing.

Luke Snell: Morelia In Wonderland,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 2:43:14 AM  

While I agree with the recourse of the zoo to realize that the animal was not in error and of your bridging philosphy of preserving the life of the animals involved, comparing it as an analogous scenario to the unfortunate circumstances that occured in Ohio is a bit of a stretch.  Merely my own views on the matter but I don't believe that private citizens who will struggle to provide adequate needs should be trying to house and care for lions and tigers and bears...oh my.  They should have never been haphazardly released because they should have never been there to be released in the first place.

Bart Sharrah,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 11:29:11 AM  
I saw something on the news about this yesterday morning and they speculated, based on what they found in this guy's home, that it was to be a publicity stunt to show how people are the aggressive species, not tigers. His, apparent, intend was to get back put unharmed.

@ Luke - I completely agree.

Bart Sharrah,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 11:30:09 AM  
Should read "out" not put.

Sonja K. ,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 4:03:48 PM  

Luke / Bart... Perhaps a bit far fetched, but that's what came to my mind when I read the article.

When I read Luke's comment, "They should have never been haphazardly released because they should have never been there to be released in the first place."

What came to my mind, honestly, and I am by no means looking to start a debate on whether one should have the right to bare arms, but what IF I was against those of the general public being allowed to possess guns in their homes because SOME people don't keep or use them in a manner that is in accordance with the law, those guns have the potential to fall into the "wrong" hands, and are thus a threat to the general society... would it be the same?

What IF were to say prohibition was for the good of the general society because all too often alcohol makes people do irresponsible things that put the lives of others in danger?

I would never personally choose to own a Tiger, Lion, Bear, Monkey, etc... But... should that right be taken from those that do - and do so in a responsible manner? I don't believe so. In my mind, there are greater threats to the general public that should be addressed with a greater sense of urgency than whether or not exotic animals should be banned.

My main point, I guess, with that connection was to point out that the multitude of restrictions and laws that are being proposed these days seem to be based on the actions of a few, but take away from the freedoms of the general public. 

I'm glad the animal is not going to be put down and that there wasn't talk of anything being closed down or discontinued or the need for safety rails, etc to be installed because of one person's actions.

There can be a plethora of laws passed in an attempt to protect the safety of the general public, but we can't stop individuals from making poor choices.

Sarah Sears,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 4:21:46 PM  

beautifully said sonja

Bart Sharrah,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 4:25:40 PM  
So the solution is to let anyone own anything they want? I don't agree with that in regards to animals or guns.

Niki ,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 9:03:41 PM  

This guy was an idiot. Wish the tiger had eaten him.

However, i'll just say i'm with those suspecting foul play in the Ohio incident.

Ed ,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 9:09:15 PM  

Well said, Sonja.   It's a sad fact of life that some people will be irresponsible, and it's a sad fact of life that bad things sometimes happen.   Regulations won't stop that, they will simply punish law abiding citizens.  And like you said, the danger to the public of getting mauled by a loose tiger is so ridiculously small it's not even on the statistical radar, and being harmed by a loose python is even less likely.  The idea that we have to pass a law to prevent any possible "bad" thing from ever happening again is leading this country down a very bad path.  

Luke Snell: Morelia In Wonderland,
Posted At: 9/23/2012 11:54:18 PM  

I hate the 'protect all rights' clause to 'protect our freedoms' excuse. 

This is about using a bit of good reason and common sense, not about limiting freedoms.  The right to bear arms in the instance to protect ones self from the oppressive rule of a tyrranical government is not quite the same necessary liberty as housing large cats in a private domicile.

And alcohol is far too lucrative of an industry for it ever to be banned again.  Despite the fact that it can be incredibly destructive and is probably more responsible for life discrepancies than say pot or cigarette smoking.

I get what you are saying and I agree ambout protecting people's 'rights' ultimately.  But as I said we shouldn't have a blank check on what we can possess when it falls outside of the balance of good reason and common sense.

Ed ,
Posted At: 9/24/2012 7:55:34 AM  

Ah, the old "good reason and common sense" argument.  Sorry, imo, that simply translates to "I want to define what the unwashed masses should and shouldn't own and then force my opinion on others.  And I am going to simply ignore rebutting points that people make."

You seem to ignore (well, when it's convenient) that bans/regulations don't work.  Big cats ARE regulated.  And guess what?  Those crackheads in Florida whose Burmese pythons supposedly killed their 2 year old didn't follow the regulations.  

And not only do you not weigh any positive effects against negative effects, you completely ignore that there could be POSITIVE effects.   Assuming bans work flawlessly to prevent "bad" things from happening, what about the positive things those bans will prevent?   Regarding big cats, if they are banned, you are limiting the number of people who can learn about these animals up close.  And bans create black markets, which come along with lots of negative effects on both humans and the animals.

You're argument basically boils down to "I think ______ should be banned because I think _____ should be banned."  Circular logic. :)

Luke Snell: Morelia In Wonderland,
Posted At: 9/24/2012 10:42:07 AM  

Ed, so where does common sense and wisdom fall in the process of defining boundaries?  As Bart said, so anything goes then? If you want it you should be allowed to have it, regardless?

And I realize that regulations and bans only function for those who respect them, I get that.

"Assuming bans work flawlessly to prevent "bad" things from happening, what about the positive things those bans will prevent?"

Care to explain what you mean here?  That is such a specualtive comment based on, well, nothing.  Normally regulations and bans are imposed when the 'bad' out weighs the prospect of the 'good'.  Since this post is specifically pointed at big cats, and you brought up the benefit of learning about these wondeful animals up close and personal in our that benefit justifies the risk of what can go wrong there, despite that there are zoos and educational insitutions where that very thing can happen in a much more controlled and proper environment for the cats?

A reminder: Sonja posted this to applaud the zoo for how they reacted to the situation.  I was merely pointing out the inaccuracy of the analogoy to the Ohio situation, because they are not the same thing at all.

Sonja, sorry for taking your thread in this direction.

Member Login
Forgot My Password

Our Newest Animals!


173833 Registered animals!
NEW!! See The Rest of the new Arrivals!
Thanks to everyone who helped test the new features. If you find any problems, please
Let Me Know.
Todays Birthdays

Copyright ©, All Rights Reserved. iHerp, LLC | Terms of Use 9/23/2019 5:33:20 AM |