Seijun

[quote]They are the same thing... But owning and breeding wild animals for your own enjoyment is something totally different altogether...[/quote] But you guys do the SAME THING with domestics!! Unless every single one of you here has NEVER [i]bought[/i] a dog or other pet, then you have no argument! If you think about it, domestic dogs as a whole have no essential purpose, even those who were used for hunting and protection. Those tribes could have survived without dogs for hunting and protection. Other tribes have lives without dogs, and they did just fine. There is not a single pet in the world that is essential for our survival! ~Seij

drjeffrock, what do you think we have been trying to get at? Why do you think we talk so much about RESPONSIBLE wild animal owners vs IRresponsible owners?? I've said, what feels like a million times, that the reason wild animal ownership should not be banned is because there are also RESPONSIBLE owners of them! It is EXACTLY like BSL! ~Seij

[quote][quote]"Wild animal "pets" can live happy and fulfilled lives in responsible private hands. This is FACT." [/quote] That is an opinion, not a fact. If anything, there's more research suggesting quite the opposite. [/quote] It is a fact because I [b]can[/b] prove it. [url]http://www.exoticcatz.com/photoalbum/[/url] [url]http://www.konnections.com/wolf1/[/url] These are all animals in captivity. The wolves are "pets," as are most of the cats. Look at those pictures, and try to convince me that they are suffering. They all look very happy to me. [quote]They can't still be a pack provider if they are they are the only wolf. That's what I meant. What kind of solitary life is that for an animal that is so social? [/quote] Well, if they were solitary, there owner wouldn't be very responsibe now would he. Any responsible wolf owner knows wolves need to be in groups :roll: [quote]Listen you can justify it all you want but taking an animals true home away is cruel. Sure animals could probabl have some sort of hapiness as pets, but honestly their true home is in the wild, where there true hapiness does lie.[/quote] Then why don't they all run back to the wild when they get loose? They don't. Most stay near human habitation. Isn't that evidence that they don't want to be out in the wild? [quote]There are wild animals, period. And wild animals belong in the wild where they can support themselves. [/quote] What is your opinion on "domestic" cats? They can live, and even thrive on their own and without human intervention. Feral dog packs have been found living in the woods, in the wild. Could that be evidense that dogs and cats (cats especially), belong in the wild? Like wild animals, if they are born and raised in captivity, that is the only place they can live. But also like wild animals, if they are born and raised in the wild, they can live there too. ~Seij

Ravyn, I LOVED your post! Especially what you said about instincts knowing no boundries. I would love to see someone try to define a "wild instinct." Is it hunting for food? Dog do this too. Is it running far distances? Anyone who has ever owned a sib knows they like to roam too. Is it attacking in self defence? Again, dogs will do this too. There is no line between wild and domestic behaviors. They are all instinct, plain and simple. Dogs have instinct. Tigers have instincts. Spiders have instincts. [quote]If that's the case then why are you here argueing on a Dog site ??[/quote] Because I like dogs too! I support the ownership of both wild and domestic animals. I am arguing here because this topic is in the "debates" section. It was meant to be debated, lol. [quote]Not only are other people put at risk.. But when the tiger kills you and is then put down.. When did the tiger get to make that choice?[/quote] It is not the choice of the dog either if it gets PTS for killing a baby who pulled its leg while the dog was hurt. The owner would be irresponsible for letting the hurt dog near the baby. If a tiger gets loose and kills someone, then it is the owner's irresponsiblity that is to blame. ~Seij

The point Mil is trying to make, cleared up once and for all: I think we all recognise that wild animals still have wild instincts. What she is trying to say is that [i]technically[/i], they are not "wild." A wild animal is an animal living in its natural habitat without the aid of humans. Since a captive tiger isn't in its natural habitat, and it needs humans to survive, then it is not "wild" by the deffinition of "wild animal." Therefore, we could call it exotic. Again, this is not saying that a tiger is domestic. This is all squabaling over deffinitions though. We are getting nowhere with it. Who cares, wild, exotic, whatever you want to call it, WHO CARES, the point is that we, the "wild" animal owner, feel we have just as much right to "own" and enjoy these animals as you have to own domestics. ~Seij

IMO, if an owner wants to get a Big cat and risk getting hurt or killed by it, that's their own choice to make, not ours. Should we ban skydiving because it kills people? No, because we understand that it is their choice to participate in a potentially dangerous activity. It is no different with wild animals. ~Seij

[b]Horsefeathers. Why do you have pets? Please tell me, I would love to know. I'm guessing it must be something for your survival. If you had pets just because you loved them, that would be selfish and wrong. Oh wait, if you used your pets for your survival, that would be using them for your benefit! How unjust! Lets join PETA and get ALL pets banned. :drinking: ~Seij[/b]

[quote] do you seriously feel there's nothing wrong with breeding them to confine for personal enjoyment?[/quote] Nope. We keep dogs and c@ts for personal enjoyment and novelty on a daily basis, why not wild ones? No one [i]needs[/i] pets of any kind in the USA (the driving reasoning behind PETA--they do not see a difference between dog, c@ts, and wild animals, and they also see that they are just a novelty for us, not a need). [u]We have pets for novelty[/u], both wild and domestic. Hey, don't try to go the way of AR's and try to imply that our wild animals are kept in tiny cages in the backyard. It is misleading and untrue. Technically, domestics also live a "confined" life. (And don't try to say that they were bred to accept this--some were, some weren't, such as Siberian huskies--also don't try to tell me that domestics have more enrichment. Pet wild animals can and are given just as much enrichment as any of our domestics). Another reason I think it is OK to own wild animals? Members here have yet to prove to me, or even give me an example, of how RESPONSIBLE breeding, selling, and subsequent ownership of wild animals is harmful to those animals. So far, I have only heard irresponsibility talked about. No one here has been able to support the idea that responsible owners actually harm their "wild" pets. If you can't show me that wild animals kept in responsible hands suffer or are not as happy as a domestic in responsible hands (using [u]supporting and factual information[/u]), then I fail to see what the harm is in participating in it.

[quote]No, they don't...because they don't know any different...not because they're happy with captivity and wouldn't change it given a choice.[/quote] Actually, as in what I said near the beginning of this post, when given the choice, escaped pet wild animals frequently return to human habitation. It is not often that I hear of a wild animal escaping and choosing to “turn wild.” It's like country people vs city people. If you are born and raised in the city, you will probably prefer the city to the country. If you are born and raised in the country, you will probably prefer that over the city. Is either one better than the other? No, it just comes down to what you are used to. I used to participate a lot in falconry. The hawks and falcons are let LOOSE to catch their prey. Some do take off and never come back, but most won't, especially the more intelligent ones like Harris hawks. The two Harris hawks we had actually knew our truck. When we were done hunting, they would fly onto the top of the truck and wait until we opened the carriers, then they would fly in. They did this willingly. They could have left at any time, but chose not to. Falconry would never have worked if the birds involved didn't willingly participate.

[quote] I can't believe anyone would say it's okay to own and breed and sell wolves as pets. . . . If you take away their freedom, you take away what a wolf is [/quote] Check the wolf link in my first post. Those wolves are "pets" and are obviously not suffering. In fact, they seem to be enjoying themselves. WOLVES CAN LIVE HAPPILY IN CAPTIVITY IF CARED FOR PROPERLY! They cannot long for the wild because they are captive and used to being captive. It's what they know. They are still wolves. Wolves who escape captivity often stay around human habitation. Other wild animals that escape frequently do the same. If they wanted to be "wild and free" so badly, they would head for the woods and never be seen again. As it is, this is usually not the case. The ones that do take off permanently are usually ones that are unsocialized, thus they stay away out of fear. At least, this is what I know based on the incidents I have seen. Some wild animals that escape will actually return to their specific homes, not just populated areas in general. [quote]Simply throwing two animals together just because they can and will reproduce is wrong.[/quote] It’s a common misconception that wolf/wolfdog breeders randomly throw canines together. Reputable ones put just as much work into their breeding projects as reputable dog breeders. As well, a reputable wolf/wolfdog breeder may produce LESS pups total than reputable dog breeders. Some breed one litter every other year, some wait even longer. [quote] I can understand wanting to avoid animal rights wackos, but that's the only part.[/quote] How can you not understand a person keeping quiet to keep their pets from getting banned? What if mentioning you own a pit bull is all it takes to get the whole city up in arms against you? Wouldn't you keep quiet as well, if not doing so would be likely to get your dog confiscated and killed? Wild animal owners face the same with their pets.

Ash: If you already have set opinions, why the heck are you trying to write a paper on this subject and looking for the opinions of others? Going into any controversial paper, you must have an open mind and equally explore both sides of the issue. [quote] And I don't see any real need to own a wolfdog? I mean dogs have been domesticated, why breed with a wolf? Why have a wild animal as a pet? . . . They said for a companion animal, well that's what a domestic dogs for. [/quote] Because people friggin' like them!! GAAHHHH!!!!! *bangs head into wall.* Different people like different pets. Domestics just don't fulfill every "companion/pet" desire that some of us have! You all are right. Domestics and wild animals are different. THAT'S THE POINT! Wild animals are different, that's why some of us like them more! [quote]They are robbing that animal of their true nature, and especially to take a species that was endagered as a pet is purely wrong. [/quote] It's the private wild animal owner that has actually saved some species from extinction. Zoos can only breed so many animals. Imagine the genetic pool that can be donated by animals bred by private owners! The Peregrine falcon and several other falcon species were saved due to the private breeding efforts of falconers (people who OWN these birds for PRIVATE novelty—yup, the big, bad, private owner). [quote]There can be all types of government standards to own a pet but how can you tell your wolf is happy? What about it's pack instincts, what about it's potential mate (if it's the alpha)? What about the thrill of the chase, and being a pack provider? It's robbing them of their nature and an injustice to society. [/quote] Can't. I just said regs were a start, not a solution. It is up to the owner to keep the animal happy. How do we tell our animals are happy? The same way you tell your domestic pets are happy. Pack instincts and potential mates are all possible and expected with captive pet wolves owned by responsible persons. Thrill of the chase is a myth. They hunt to survive. It is a risky, potentially deadly activity. It is not "fun and games" for a wolf to hunt. It is life or death. Why do you think wolves sometimes resort to hunting domestic animals? Because it is easier. If they all chased for fun, then we wouldn't ever see wolves get in trouble for hunting livestock or scavenging for human food at parks. In captivity, hunting is replaced by easy, free meals, and endless hours of playtime with pack mates and toys. [quote]and being a pack provider?[/quote] They can still do that in captivity. Being the pack provider is not something an alpha sits around dreaming about. It is instinct and comes with being alpha regardless of the environment. In captivity, they can still protect and lead the pack, and govern who gets food when. They are still the provider. [quote]It's robbing them of their nature [/quote] They are still wolves in captivity. They still have wolf instincts that they still express. It's not like we are forcing them to NOT be wolves. [quote]People release wolves when they get to be too much, and wolf dogs. They think because they have a wild nature they can survive in the wild when they werent taught the structure of pack behaivor, and they are giving truely wild wolves a bad name. [/quote] This is also a myth. Most people don't try to release their wolves/wolfdogs into the wild. [quote]"Like I said, people own them because they like them. This can be PROVEN. How do you PROVE that all wild animal pets "belong" in the wild?" That has to be one of the most ridiculous things i've ever heard, sorry. Because they come from the wild, and that's where they thrive.[/quote] They also can thrive in captivity. Bang. Thus, the statement about there thriving in the wild has been rendered non-supportive of the idea that they only belong in the wild. Now, there is one very big problem with the statement "belongs in the wild." Look up "belong." It means to own, as in property. Saying wild animals "belong" in the wild means literally that the animal "is the property of the wild." Why is this a problem? There are no rules written anywhere that say wild wolves belong to the wild. Wolves are not the "property" of the wild, especially since the "wild" has no constitutional or legal rights like people do. "Belonging" in the wild is an idea thought up by people, and is based entirely off of spiritualistic views that wild animals are somehow connected to nature. I will discuss this later. [quote]"No, actually, you only listed a reason why IRRESPONSIBLE people shouldn't have wild animals. My neighbor chains her boxer. Should people not be allowed to have boxers as pets because some people mistreat theirs? " I put my dog outside on a chain to while he goes to the bathroom. Theres laws requiring it in my parents neighborhood, and I wouldn't call that bad pet ownership. [/quote] I'm referring to a chain as permanent containment. Biggest problem here? You all are thinking of wild animals in humanistic ways and thinking of them as if they were taken from the wild and "forced" to live in captivity. -Animals are not humans. They cannot sit around and dream of being wild. They do not miss the wild. They do not care about the wild. They live in captivity and enjoy it. End of story. -Wild animal pets are bred in captivity. They never knew the wild, and do not miss it. -In the world of science, there is no spirituality in animals, no "one with nature" idea. Animals are governed by instinct. Instincts can function equally well in both wild and captive situations, thus wild animals are able to function equally well in either wild or captive situations (based on what they were born and raised in). Having a wild animal in captivity "damages their inner self" no more than does keeping a beagle from chasing rabbits in the woods. Ok, deep breath everyone. Now step back, and read. [u]Wild animal "pets" can live happy and fulfilled lives in responsible private hands.[/u] This is FACT. It can be easily proven using numerous examples. Now, because this statement is true, how can anyone here tell me that it is wrong for private owners to keep wild animals as pets if the animals do not suffer? I want you guys to actually support your views using facts this time. For example, if you found out that keeping a wild animal in captivity caused a chemical change that cut the animal's lifespan in half, that would be a supporting fact against responsible private ownership. An example of something that is NOT a supportive fact is the statement "wild animals belong in the wild." This is not a fact because it is an opinion that can only be supported by other opinions, not other facts. Got it? In order to debate properly, you must use facts. Debating using opinions is as pointless as debating the interpretations of the Bible. The other big argument you guys seem insitant in sticking to is that many wild animals have bad homes. FACT: We do not know how many wild animals are in good homes vs bad homes. Therefore, you can’t say their ownership is wrong because “more end up in bad situations than good.” ~Seij

[quote]It's wrong for anyone to breed an animal just because they can...to supply others. It's even worse when that animal isn't even a pet, it's a wild animal. [/quote] So you agree that all show breeding and breeding of pet animals including ALL Shitzus is wrong? That's what they are bred for, as supply, and bred because people can. They have no essential working purpose. [quote]Yet you say breeding/selling them is ok? Anyhow, it's true that wild animals in captivity most often face problems (mild to extreme) that they don't in the wild...[/quote] Yet they also EVADE many problems--starvation, disease, predation, etc. These are all irrelivent points anyway. Like I said, what matters is that they can live in captivity happily and healthy. You mention breeding and medical issues. These are only serious problems with irresponsible breeders. I am talking about responsible ones, not irresponsible. [quote]If they felt in their heart of hearts what they're doing is right, why keep it on the low down? [/quote] To protect their animals, that's why. People find out the guy down the street has pet wild animals, and they are likely to get the whole city to ban them. Then the guys gets his pets taken away, which will likely be euthanized. Owners also keep a low profile to evade AR types. Wild animal owners are often the target of AR types who do not beleive in keeping wild animals as pets. [quote]Eskimos are people and people have choices. We also don't have wings stapled to our backs, forced to fly...again, choice. I can't even say those comparisons you gave are apples to oranges, they're beyond. Again, why fake (for their happiness and well being) what they can have for real??? [/quote] The point I am making is that just because something is made for one environment does not mean it can't thrive in another. A wild animal born in the wild is happiest in the wild. A wild animal born in captivity is happiest in captivity. It's because that's what it knows and is comfortable with. They will be happiest only in what environment they were born and raised in, and know. Captive born and raised wild animals don't sit around thinking, "boy, I wish I was living in the [i]wild[/i]..." ~Seij

[quote]they should be looking into a different animal instead of trying to domesticate wolves. It's already been done, I wish people would stop trying. [/quote] We aren't trying. We enjoy the uniqueness and the challenges (as well as the benefits) presented by owning wild animals (including wolves). We are willing to put up with the hardships of wild animal ownership in order to experience this. To most people, these hardships are too much, but to responsible wild animal owners, the benefits far outweigh the hardships. If we had wanted domestic, we would have gotten domestic (BTW, many wild animal owners also own domestics, we don't have to pick just one or the other). The goal of the responsible wild animal owner is not to domesticate their wild animal, but to experience and enjoy that very "wildness" that makes them so unnatractive as pets to most people. :wink: ~Seij

[quote]Breeding them to simply supply those who love them isn't good, that's what puppymills do. [/quote] Ok, so if I want to buy a pet, I must use it for actual work? What about show dogs? I know there are some people here who breed them. The argument that a canine must have a working purpose is out of date, unless you want to suddenly scrap every show breeder in existance, or anyone why buys a show dog. You might also want to condem every dog breed that was ever created for companion purposes. Several breeds have been created simply as companions, including Shitzu's, a common and popular recognised dog breed. Also, what about pet mice? What is their purpose, other than to be a pet? Also, puppymills don't breed with health and temperment in mind, they don't screen potential buyers, they only take back unwanted animals to breed them, they breed only for money, and they breed as many animals as possible. Responsible wolf/wolfdog (and other wild animal) breeders are the exact opposite of all this. [quote] Wild animals might adjust (maybe even thrive in some cases) in captivity, but not all do...most don't.[/quote] Please prove it. There is no way I can think of to find out how many wild animals are currently doing well in captivity, as opposed to those who aren't. [quote]Also, far too many are sold to people without the proper permits or knowledge. There are far, far too many that end up sanctuaries to prove that. . . . I don't believe that's fair to domestic animals, let alone wild ones. [/quote] Unless you want to end domestic ownership, please don't tell me that irresponsible wild animal owners means NO ONE should be alowed to own wild animals. Also, I have already said about three times now that you don't know how many wild animals are dumped as opposed to kept responsibly. Sure they end up in sancs a lot, but dogs end up in shelters a lot. If all you ever got to see was dogs in shelters, you would be led to conclude that there are hardly any responsible dog owners. It might not be that way though. There could be plently of responsible owners, we just don't hear about them as much. Many responsible wild animal owners DON'T want exposure. Once when I tried to get info on Big cat ownership, I got almost nothing. I was told that this was typical. So much negativity surrounds wild animal ownership that wild animal owners are safer staying out of the way and unnoticed (how horrible is that--that people who love their animals must keep it hidden for the very safety of those animals). We only hear about the bad owners as a result. [quote]If you have to set up your property to resemble the wild for their comfort that should tell you something[/quote] Please refer to my example about Eskimos. BTW It doesn't matter what we have to do to make the wild animal happy in captivity. What matters is that it can be done. Should we take the fact that we don't have wings to mean that we were never meant to fly in a plane or go on parachute drops? ~Seij P.S - Out of curiousity if you were asked if you think responsible dog owners outweigh irresponsible ones or vice-versa, based ONLY on owners you have seen or read about, what would you say? MY respnse would be that irresponsible owners must outweigh responsible ones, because I could swear that I have seen or read about nearly twice as many irresponsible owners as responsible ones. That number would be multiplied a zillion times over if I spent more time reading the stuff on pet-abuse.com (to which new abuse cases are added DAILY).

[quote]Why is this not a valid argument? What is is the actual reason behind owning a wild animal? [/quote] Like I said, people own them because they like them. This can be PROVEN. How do you PROVE that all wild animal pets "belong" in the wild? [quote]They have to chain him at night, because he would tear the house apart. There goes one reason, why _not_ to have wild animals. [/quote] No, actually, you only listed a reason why IRRESPONSIBLE people shouldn't have wild animals. My neighbor chains her boxer. Should people not be allowed to have boxers as pets because some people mistreat theirs? [quote]A wolf will always stay a wolf. If it can survive in the wild and is made for the wild, why should it be kept in a place suitable for a dog? [/quote] Define a "place suitable for a dog." RESPONSIBLE wolf owners have large escape proof enclosures for their wolves. The wolves can run, play, and enjoy life. They may have been made for the wild, but they can still be happy in captivity if cared for properly. (Chaining and putting a wolf in a house or isolated kennel does not fall under the header of "properly"). If you are born to Eskimos, who have lived for thousands of years in colder northern regions, being sculpted to fit the land, does that mean that you could not enjoy living in Florida? [quote]I would also agree that there may be better wolf (hybrid) owners than some dog owners, but that does not make it better, does it? [/quote] Are you implying that if there are more bad owners than good ones, that this justifies abolishment of all ownership? Check my first post. I specifically mentioned that there is no way to tell if there are more bad wolf/wolf hybrid owners than good ones. For all we know, the number of bad [i]Pit bull[/i] owners could double that of good ones. We just don't know. [quote]In my opinion owning a wolf or a wolf hybrid (or any other dog-like hybrid for that matter) is nothing but pure selfishness without regard of the animals need or well being. [/quote] So you're saying that my wanting to own Shilo (the low content wolfdog in my avatar) is nothing more than pure selfishness? That I walk her twice a day, taking several hours out of my day to be with her, cramming all my college courses into two days to spend as much time with her as possible, is just an act of selfishness, and does not have regard for her needs or well-being? What should I do, have her PTS? Throw her out into the woods so she will have to find her own food, probably starving to death or getting killed? [quote]Where someone would require a license to own a wolf? With proof of the necessary knowledge and space.[/quote] Some places do require licenses. Fat lot of good that does. The people giving them out don't know what a wolf needs. Same for the people making the law. They say the wolf has to have x amount of space with x type of enclosure, but it's never correct. Anyone who knows wolves can look at the majority of these regs and know that it just isn't what a wolf needs. Also, how specific should such a law be? There are several ways to build a wolf enclosure. What about environmental enrichment? Companions? Best option is to make a rule saying x amount of space minimum per animal, x amount of height to the fence, requiring dig guard and something to prevent escape over the top of the fence, and then have someone come out to inspect the place before issuing a permit who actually KNOWS something about wolves (and I say this only about wolves, hybrids are too variable for regs to work on). I suppose that could be a form of blanket, but not the way I see it, because it gets more specific, and it would only cover wolves, not every animal species. When I talk of blanket rules, I mean negative things mostly, like the dumb rule in that one town saying that every dog needs a dog house elevated off the ground. Good intentions, but it doesn't work for everybody. Just remember, no amount of regs will ever get rid of every irresponsible owner. Regs cannot ensure that a person will give their wolf a healthy meat diet, or ensure that they will get it a canine companion. Regs will mostly just get rid of the ones wanting wolves for their apartments, or wolves chained out back--obvious things like that, but luckily, the things that define most irresponsible owners). Usually, a person won't spend thousands of dollars on fancy fencing for a wolf unless he/she genuinely intends to get one and care for it. Also, note that I am not proposing regs as a solution. It will never be the only solution. It is only a starting point. It is only ever a starting point… ~Seij ~Seij

[b]There actually IS a purpose for breeding wolf hybrids and wild animals as pets--so people who LIKE them can have them!! [/b] How is that any different from people who breed pet dogs? I'm so tired of people saying we already have domestics, therefore we shouldn't have wild animal pets or wild/domestic hybrid pets. [b]Wild animal owners can love their animals every bit as much as domestic animal owners, and wild animals can love their owners every bit as much as a domestic!! [/b]:x It is not just for money. Can't anyone get it through their thick brains that I can love my wolfdog every bit as my domestic dog, and I can love my wild hawk every bit as much as my domestic pigeon?? Not every owner gets them to look cool. Not every breeder breeds just for money. So quit the crud about how "people should not be allowed to have wild animals because there is no reason for it," or "why would anyone want a wild animal anyway." :evil: If wild animals weren't bred in captivity, people would just take them from the wild, yet another reason why captive breeding is important. One more reason for captive breeding? To give customers the chance to acquire healthy animals of sound temperment. Another thing--kept properly, WILD ANIMALS CAN ENJOY CAPTIVITY!! In other words, they can be HAPPY!! My snakes, turtles, fish, hawk, and wolfdog all say "ptooey" to anyone who says they would be happier in the wild! Please check [url]http://www.phoenixexotics.org/pgalbig.htm[/url] , [url]http://sybilsden.com/[/url] , and [url]http://www.exoticcatz.com/photoalbum/[/url] for plenty of pictures of happy, healthy, well cared for "PET" wild animals! Also check out this guy's "pet" wolves--do they look like they are suffering?? [url]http://www.konnections.com/wolf1/[/url] Ok, now to be more specific--IN GENERAL, wild animals are not good pets for novice owners, but neither are Siberian huskies. BUT, because many people don't research, they get them anyway. Wild animals get dumped and improperly cared for. Same with huskies, and thousands of other domestic animals. Yes, banning them all would solve this, but what would happen to everyone who loved and cared for their pets? Punish them too? Starting to sound like the pit bull regs isn't it.. YES, more regulation is needed for the keeping of wild animals. RELIABLE regs though, ones that actually work for and benefit the animal. Responsible people who love their wild pets will comply with these regs. The only people who get punished then will be the people who think it is OK to keep a bear in their garage, or a gator in the bathtub. Regs should be made with the purpose of weeding out the bad owners without hurting responsible ones. It can be done, but unfortunately, rarely is because the people who make such regs don't know squat about the animals the regs are intended for. About wolves: A wolf is by far, one of the most difficult wild animals to care for. Keep in mind, 99% of the wolves sold AREN'T actual wolves, people just say they are. I rarely see pure wolves show up in my rescue site. We have only had one possible pure wolf, and a handful of near pure wolves, despite the fact that many came into rescue with people thinking they were wolves. It is impossible to know how many good wolf owners exist and how many bad owners exist, so saying that wolves should not be kept as pets because most people who get them can't care for them is a completely invalid argument. Should people be allowed to have wolves? Sure, as long as they have the necessary knowledge and resources, and WANT to put up with the hardships of wolf ownership. In such a case, both the wolf and the human will succeed and enjoy life. How do you weed out who should and shouldn't have wolves though? Impossible to do. There is no such thing as a magic test to tell if you can own a wolf. [b]What you can do is make regs that require wolf owners to comply with the minimum amount needed to keep the animal healthy and happy. This will weed out a lot, but not all, of bad owners. Idiots could still get wolves, but the numbers would be lower. This applies to ALL wild animal pets![/b] Most importantly, NEVER BAN, and NEVR make blanket laws. There will ALWAYS be good owners and bad owners, good breeders and bad breeders. Never punish everyone for the irresponsible acts of just a few! [u]Ok, that's it for the first rant. ANYONE who has ANY reason to say that wild animals should not be kept as pets, I guarantee I can shoot that reason down, just so long as your reason has actual reasoning behind it, not just some vague opinion-based type junk!!! I maintain that there is absolutely NO good reason why wolves and wild animals should not be allowed to be kept and bred as "pets" by responsible persons, with only two exceptions, that being that if doing so threatens wild populations, or if doing so presents extreme risk of introducing damaging invasive species.[/u] :P :P :P BTW, to everyone who says wild should stay wild, just remember that is absolutely NOT a valid argument against wild animal ownership, as it is an opinion, and has no basis on actual fact. [b]ASH[/b]: Go to Yahoo, join the group called wolfdogZ. They have good info. If you want to know about wolf ownership, get your info from people who actually know things about them. Do not just get opinions from the general public! Also, if you want some more detailed info, PM me, I have a ton of papers wrote up about wolf and wolf hybrid ownership, basically covering any topic that could ever be conceived. I also know a lot of excellent sources as well. Oh yeah, I am SO worked up right now!! :evil: Bring it on! I'll defend my right to own exotic and wild animals 'til the day I die! :x :x :drinking: :x ~Seij P.S.-Sorry for the outburst--look at things from my perspective. Imagine you have an animal that you love, and it loves you. Now imagine that everyone around you doesn't think you should have it because they think that you could never truly love that animal, or that the animal could never truly enjoy life under your care, or that [insert any other reason conceivable that has no basis in fact or truth]. Wouldn't that make you mad too? Wouldn't it also make you mad if no matter how much you showed them to prove that you loved your pet and that it was happy with you, they absolutely refused to listen?

Well, I tried the fence thing. It worked!! We all hated it though. Especially the fence, which now looks like it was attacked by a beaver (Shilo chewed it up quite a bit—it was the only thing she could reach, luckily). We had her head up tight against one pole, and another leash tying her back end to another pole. Poor baby was absolutely terrified; her pupils were huge, she was slobbering, panting, and smelling like a skunk the entire time. She nearly broke her leg when she managed to turn herself upside down and get her hind leg through the fence. I felt so bad for her. We got her back end shaved and cleaned. Put some anti-biotics on it and some baby powder as temporary relief until we get a better powder. She came off more concerned with licking off all the powder than in attacking us for revenge. Right now she is just shunning us to the best of her ability—it feels like way back when we first got her—we can touch her, but for all intents and purposes, she treats us like we don't exist. I hope she gets over it soon, I want my companion back! :cry: ~Seij

The fence idea is great, I could try that (and would right this minute, but unfortunately, I have rotten luck, and it's RAINING today!! AURGGGG :evil: :evil: :evil: ) I know she couldn't chew the collar, but she would tear herself and it up with her front paws. Not sure how strong those collars are, but a simple thin plastic one would not last. Do they have them in heavy-duty plastic? If so, that might work, if we can get it on her. It would have to be a snap collar--something that could be put on as quick as possible. ~Seij

I'll try to get some Gold Bond.. Are there any popular stores that carry it? WalMart maybe?? [u]If hot spots are supposed to be kept dry, why are there so many [i]sprays[/i] advertised for it? People use it and say it works.. Just wondering... If there is any chance a spray could work, that would be the easiest and safest thing for us all right now. What about a spray with the fan? Lets the moisure evaporate, but also gives the spray a chance to do its work.[/u] I can try the crate idea, but I would probably only be able to get her in ONCE (once she knows what I'm doing, getting a second chance is impossible) and I can't keep her in there until it heals--I would have to let her out sooner or later, and she would be right back to licking it again. Treats aren't going to help this time, I tried already. I'll try to get a fan out there tomorrow, if we can find enough extension cords. I have no idea when I will be able to get anything for her in the way of medicine, depends on if I can convince my mom that I need something for this dog NOW. I tried the makeshift muzzle, but I was met with snapping teeth as soon as it got near her. A few times I started to get it on, but the second she felt it go around her muzzle, she turned into a 4-legged tornado. It's like trying to work with a completely wild animal that weighs almost as much as you do. I feel like beating my head into a brick wall :x Nice dog, but d*** impossible to work with when it is most needed :x :x :cry: ~Seij

I was worried about putting her out, whenever she is out in the open she is mobbed by flies. Fly spray doesn't really keep them off that well. I can't remember seeing anything on powders. Are there any specific brands/kinds that I should look for? I looked breifly on Google for powders but didn't find any. Are the powders easy to lick off? If they are, then she will deffinately take advantage of it. She's licked so much already that she has actually rubbed her lip raw. ~Seij

We don't actually have to touch the sore spot to get her mad. We had clippers borrowed from a relative, and the second they headed in the direction of her rump, I found myself with my hand inside her mouth. I don't think we've actually touched her wound once. She doesn't want us anywhere near it. I'm going to try buying some sprays for it, but even that is going to be a struggle to get on her. She's even starting to get upset when we touch her collor because she thinks we are going to start trying to go near her wound again. I put her back in her pen after we gave up trying to put a muzzle on her, and now she growls at my mom whenever she walks towards the pen. I'm really afraid that we are going to lose her trust completely if we can't find an easier way to get this done fast. She still wags her tail when I go near, but she's not at all happy with my mom now. I thought about those special collars, but it would have to be made of titanium to survive her. She would tear one of those collors to pieces in seconds. She has never liked anything to be around her head. ~Seij

Problem: Shilo has a "hot spot" on her rump. Unfortunately, even under the effects of Ace, my mom and I can't get near her wound to treat it. She becomes very aggressive if we start to get near the sore, and she becomes even more aggressive if we try to muzzle her. We don't have the money to take her to a vet, and we don't have anything strong enough to knock her out to where she wouldn't be awake enough to bite. Will the spot eventually heal if just left alone? She doesn't lick at it as much as she did the first day or two, so I was hoping if we left it alone it would just heal on its own. Please help me out here--I really do not want to get bit by this dog. I've seen her eat through cow bone, she would have no trouble biting my fingers in two. ~Seij

No, there are no known/proven populations of Indian dogs from the United States area. The dogs the Indians had were used for food as the Indians were pushed from there lands, and the remaining dogs gradualy interbred interbred into the introduced European dog populations. If you look at old photos showing Indians' dogs, most don't show actual pure Indian dogs, but show the ones that had been interbreeding with the European dogs for many generations. The dogs in the photos rarely resemble anything like the original pure Indian dogs (there are some old paintings that show what the original dogs looked like, that is, if the artists were being accurate). ~Seij

Activist: We Need More Deadly Hurricanes By Brian Carnell Thursday, September 1, 2005 This week, of course, the major news is the ongoing disaster in New Orleans where Hurricane Katrina has forced the evacuation of the city and likely killed thousands of people. And if animal rights activist Rick Bogle had his way, there would be many more Katrinas. On an animal rights mailing list devoted to primate research, Bogle posted a link to Tulane's main web site, noting there was no mention yet of the status of the university's primate research center, Covington. Animal rights activist Jean Barnes replied to that e-mail to the effect that she had talked to a USDA official who said there were no primate deaths at Tulane, but that there were other animals that were stuck in the facility. Bogle replied, [i]If there were no primate deaths at Covington over the past few days, then this must be the first time in a long time that a monkey hasn't died. We need more Katrinas.[/i] Barnes then replied, [i]Katrina would need to extend to DC to be most effective.[/i] Animal rights activists always get angry when their critics charge that they care more about animals than people, but Bogle and Barnes demonstrate the casual disregard for human beings that is characteristic of many activists. A hurricane that likely killed thousands of people and caused upwards of $50 billion in damages is a good thing, and would be even better if it would land elsewhere. Source: Primfocus: Tulane. E-mail messages, Jean Barnes and Rick Bogle, September 1, 2005.

-Anything can be food if you want it to be badly enough. :D ~Seij