Private Ownerships of Wolves

[Ash]

I'm doing a research paper for my government class at school, and one of my main focuses is on private ownership of wolves. Another point is wolf-dogs, but that's another debate, maybe.


How do you feel about people owning wolves? What kind of regulations do you think the government should put on private owneship of wolves?

Somebody I know online has an acquintance that owns wolves because 'he likes them'. She makes it sounds like he's very knowlegeable about wolves and only sells a select few and makes sure they are good providers for their wolves. He justifies his ownership of wolves becasue he's native american. I'm 1/4 native american, grew up on a reservation and went to a tribal school and never had a need for owning a wolf?

I'd love to get any opinions I can on this :)

[Malamum]

I don’t think there should be regulations about owning a wolf. I think it should not be allowed full stop.

Wild animals are wild and should stay that way. This is my opinion on all wild animals not just wolves.

[imported_raven]

I think, at least in some states of the USA and in most Western Europe there are regulations about hybrids, wolves and other wild animals.

I do know people who own a wolf hybrid and that animal is extremely beautiful. He is shy but as they go to the dogpark very often, I have never seen that animal even remotely in a fight or even acting agressive.

That said I think, there is absolutely no sense whatsoever in owning a wild animal or breeding a hybrid. Even dogs who have wolfsblood mixed in only a few generations earlier are still 'difficult' dogs, not recommended for the average dog owner.

When talking about dog care, one often hears 'wolves do this, wolves do that, the pack reacts like this...' but I think, it's clear that we cannot compare dogs to wolves in terms of social behavior.

Breeding hybrids is even worse. You take the natural shyness of the wolf towards human and mix it with the dog's need for companionship. A wolf will _not_ just get used to people when he grows up around them. He will always be shy and it will always be strange for him to be among people.

In my opinion Wolf hybrids or hybrids in general is nothing else than a money making business. There is no need for them at all.

Wolves are way more beautiful in their natural habitat without human interference.

[Rowie-the-Pooh]

[quote name='Malamum']I don’t think there should be regulations about owning a wolf. I think it should not be allowed full stop.

Wild animals are wild and should stay that way. This is my opinion on all wild animals not just wolves.[/quote]
Ditto! I don't see why people feel the need to own wolves? :-?

[imported_Irena]

[quote name='Malamum']I don

[Seijun]

[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?

[imported_raven]

[quote name='Seijun']
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.
[/quote]

Why is this not a valid argument? What is is the actual reason behind owning a wild animal?

I understand and agree of course, that not everybody who owns a wild animal does that because he or she thinks it's cool. As I wrote in my earlier post, I do know people who own a wolf hybrid - and I'm quite sure it is one as they got him from a wolf sanctuary and they know awfully lot about it. And I do think, they love him and don't just think it's cool.

They have to chain him at night, because he would tear the house apart.

There goes one reason, why _not_ to have wild animals.

Wild animals - and let's not talk about rabbits, birdies or fish - will never be as domesticated animals are. 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? I seriously fail to see the point in doing that. I would of course change my mind, if a wolf cannot care for himself or if someone (trained and with license) keeps wolves in order to gain knowledge about wolves so he can care for wolves who are wounded, etc..

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?

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.

And I love wolves...

Edit: If not making blank laws, how about making owning a wild animal an exception? Where someone would require a license to own a wolf? With proof of the necessary knowledge and space.

[Seijun]

[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

[Seijun]

[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).

[Seijun]

[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

[Seijun]

[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

[Ash]

Seijun

I don't think that anybody's said that wildanimals arent as loved by their owners as any other pets?

I guess i'm a bit prejudice, while they might enjoy their life in captivity their true home is in the wild. And people are doing an injustice of robbing them of that. I'm sorry I just don't agree with your ways.

I know that wolves and dogs are actually the same species but theres a big difference between being domestic. 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? I remember a while back pming somebody asking them about wolf-dogs because I haven't heard much about them and was truely curious. They said for a companion animal, well that's what a domestic dogs for.

I also was not recruiting any information off this site, just wanted to get a general idea of people's feelings. I'm glad that I see somebody's opposing views.

I think wild animals should stay wild period. People own them mostly for purely dumb reasons, 'they want to be closer to the wild', or 'they think they look cool'. They are robbing that animal of their true nature, and especially to take a species that was endagered as a pet is purely wrong. 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.

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.

My point of view is private ownership of wolves is wrong, if it's not studied for scientific research (I support wolf sanctuarys).

Some quotes
"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.

"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.

That's all I have time to reply too right now, I have a test to study for.
Thanks for the links S.

[Horsefeathers!]

I don't give a rip about debating whether they can live happily in captivity, or whether their owners love them as much as the average dog owner loves their dog. I just can't get past people thinking it's their right "because we like them." If liking something is enough to declare it your right, then look out for groups like NAMBLA and other wackos to come forward declaring their "rights" because they like something. If it's illegal (and I believe it is in some places), then it's not a right just because you like it. I don't care how much time and money people spend on them trying to make sure they're "happy" and all that. When you say things like "because we like them and it's our right," I fully believe that makes it self serving which puts the owners' interests above those of the animals they "love." That is the very definition of selfish. I suppose if I develop a desire to own biological weapons, no government entity has a right to tell me I can't since "I like them." The rest of the entire defense is pointless to me since I believe the initial "right" to do it because "we like them" defense is crap.

I follow the majority on this one, thinking wolf ownership should be illegal and that there is no good reason to own one. I do not consider "we like them" and "it's our right" good reasons.

[Seijun]

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

[Seijun]

[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.

[Seijun]

[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.

[Seijun]

[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.

[Seijun]

[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]

[Horsefeathers!]

[quote name='Seijun'][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]

I don't have any exotics or wildlife. What point are you trying to make? You can join PETA if you want to. Don't drag me into it.

Since you asked, I have pets that are throw-aways. I didn't decide one day that I wanted animals in my life simply because they were a "novelty." That answer your question? You're barking up the way wrong tree if you're trying to suggest that I support any kind of commercial breeding practices, or that I obtain animals out of sheer "desire" for them. That's certainly not an objective viewpoint, the very thing you claim everyone else is lacking, that you have bolded there. It's nothing but dripping sarcasm. I am as objective as anyone, and all I still see is a big smokescreen and "if I can't have mine, you can't have yours, either!"

[Malamum]

I was actually watching a show on animal planet the other day about a sanctuary in Thailand that rescues wild animals such as Sun Bears, Gibbon’s and other various types of Monkey’s that people have decided should be pets.

The show was heartbreaking and the thought of wild animals such as these being kept as pets is very disturbing.

I don’t care what country you live in and how much money you have, Lions, Tigers, Bears, and Wolves etc are NOT pets.

I bet if Mutts4Me were around she could give us a million examples of why wild animals (of course the big cats in particular) should not be kept as pets.

I can’t help it, but to me all these types of animals are not comparable to domestic cats and dogs - it’s like comparing apples to oranges.

I don’t think there is ever going to be facts that support either side of this argument. It’s always just going to be a matter of opinion.

[JackieMaya]

Wild animals should stay wild. Period. I can't think of one good reason (and Sejun hasn't given one yet) why wolves should be bred and/or kept as pets. "Because people like them" is definitely NOT a valid reason. Wolves are wild and should not be kept as pets.

With all the millions of unwanted dogs in shelters, you feel you need to breed wolves and wolf/dog hybrids because you like them?

I'm sorry, but all the arguing and bullshit "facts" you put out there are never going to change my mind on this, nor most of the other people on this forum.

Wolves are wild. Wolves should stay wild. The end.

[Ash]

[quote name='Seijun']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]


I am writting my paper on what I think the government should do to regulate/stop private ownership of wolves. And I do plan on explopring the other side of the issues. Infact I've been in contact with people who work with wolves, and they are willing to help me explore private ownership of wolves.

Because liking a wild animal, doesn't give you the right to privately own them, and take their natural rights away.

About you and your wolf-dog, I don't see a problem with it you take good care of yours, but you must realise MANY people don't. My boyfriends coworker and he was a very bad owner, kept it in a cage and stopped taking care of it, it got to be too much, and the poor thing died.

I don't really consider birds to be on the same level as 'bigger' wildlife animal owners. I mean I don't consider birds as potentially dangerous as say wolves, tigers, or bears.

Yes, I'm aware of wolves hunting domestic animals. They tore apart a St. Benard on somebody's porch back home last summer.

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?

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.

[imported_Millie]

Well, here we go again! "mauling" "attack" "murder" "vicious" "dangerous" "wild" are all sensational words that are used in the media to sell newspapers. Which paper would you think that the average Joe-Smoe would buy?
Headline - "Attack wild tiger mauls owner to death"
or
Headline - "Pet tiger carries owner to safety while suffering mild stroke"
or
Headline - "Attack dogs on the loose - get your guns ready!"
or
Headline - "Pet dog escapes owner"
The news media are quite well known for printing exaggeration and untruths. If we can say that the media, is printing "untruths" about our dog breeds, then how can we not say they are doing the same, for exotic animals?
As far as Siefried and Roy, Monteco sensed something was not right with Roy. Roy had not been feeling well, and knew he should not have been performing. Roy spent the night before partying for his birthday, and suffered a mild stroke. (at the time he did not realize this). When they entered the staging area, it was routine that Monteco would stay to Roy's right side. After a few steps onto the stage, Roy (who was not feeling well), staggered which caused him to miss a step. Monteco who loves Roy, sensed something was not right, grabbed him like a mother tiger would, and dragged him off stage. The problem was, that tigers do not realize their own strength compared to a human's frail body. So Monteco, severly injured Roy in the process.
It was not Monteco's intent, to "kill", to "maul", "to attack" Roy.

[quote name='"Michele"']I've read through this thread and IMO, I can really relate to what Sejun is saying but...take for example...remember Sigman and Froyd (spelling) the two guys that did shows with their tigers....now, these animals were raised from babies.....but they are still wild. Look what their hand raised tigers did. They mauled one of them, almost killing him. I am really torn about this topic. Bottom line, no matter how experienced you are in owning a wild animal, I think they belong in the wild.[/quote]

[ESSlover]

I'm so torn on this, I'm not even gonna try.. :lol:


But!!! Just wanted to say.. My confirmation teacher (who's a lawyer) used to work for Siefried and Roy! :lol: He also worked for Free Willy, and a couple other famous animals/owners. :o :lol: I'm not sure what he did, but I can tell you he got payed! :o :o :o :lol: :lol:

[imported_Millie]

Are we confusing the two words, "wild" and "exotic"? Domestic born and raised tigers are exotic, not wild. There is no "wild" areas for them to reside in anymore due to human encroachment. U.S. Tigers and other exotic felines, are bred and raised here in the states. Their "wild" instincts have changed, they would not be able to survive in the wild because they are now dependent upon humans for survival. Did you recently see the cheetah story on Animal Planet? Where two cheetah cubs, were raised by a human and the human released them into the wild. The one cheetah brother, did not know any better that Lions kill cheetahs, so he tormented the lions, until one male lion killed him. They also went after bigger game then the "wild" cheetah would naturally. Their instincts of being wild were almost gone. So you can not take a lion, tiger, cheetah, etc, that was bred domestically and return them to the wild, thinkig they are going to survive. Scientists, Rehabbers, Zoologists, have proven this as a fact and not fiction.


[quote name='"Michele"']I've read through this thread and IMO, I can really relate to what Sejun is saying but...take for example...remember Sigman and Froyd (spelling) the two guys that did shows with their tigers....now, these animals were raised from babies.....but they are still wild. Look what their hand raised tigers did. They mauled one of them, almost killing him. I am really torn about this topic. Bottom line, no matter how experienced you are in owning a wild animal, I think they belong in the wild.[/quote]