Jump to content

Private Ownerships of Wolves


Recommended Posts

I'm not really going to get into this, because I do want to own a "wild" animal one day (a parrot, pionus to be exact) but I just wanted to say Ravyn's posts are amazing, she really does make good points that make you think.

I just don't see where you can put a line between wild and domesticated, since all animals WERE wild at some point, dogs thousands of years ago, while some like rats have only been domesticated 200 years or so. SOme are still being domesticated, like birds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 193
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The point I'm trying to make is that I reversed the roles of your statement. Ah forget it-- It's pointless. Dont have much time for that one.

"Thus, having a wild pet for novelty is not evil either. "

Evil yes, maybe cruel and unjustifiable to me and some others yes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

Geeez... I leave for a few hours.... It was at 9 pages when I left about 3 hours ago.
Jess... I took your advice and read from page 4 on. All I have to say is :rofl:
I mean really comparing dogs, horses, birds, house cats, etc... to tigers is just plain ridiculous.
And I said it once but Ill say it again...
I am having a hard time believing Millie is a big cat owner. Why? Because big cat owners dont go around saying tigers arent wild animals. It is just the opposite. They will let people know to be careful around them because they ARE wild animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's basically 17 pages of "because we like them, it's our right to own them" and "if you have dogs, anyone who likes them should be able to have lions and tigers and bears, oh my."

Because someone asked 74829020394675 pages ago... speaking solely for myself, I do have a problem with keeping birds, reptiles, sugar gliders and such. I'm not on a mission to outlaw it, but I won't ever own them. I have goldfish, but those were "rescue," too. I do not believe a bird belongs in a cage... since someone asked.

Down in south Florida, there is apparently an increasing problem with "exotic" snakes that are not native to the area escaping or being released. This is jeopardizing people as well as natural balance. I didn't realize it was as big a problem as it was, but I read an article about it recently and it's apparently a rapidly increasing threat. I wish I'd paid more attention since it was just kind of browsing thing, but if I happen to dig it up, I'll post it. Heck, wasn't Alan just saying earlier about how some deadly non-native snake turned up in Florida? Then there is the snake that swallowed a six foot gator (and exploded, but still the thing swallowed it).

Anyway, though this isn't a debate about snakes (I was only pointing out one objection to ownership of non-native "exotic" animals), I believe owning "exotic" anythings is about more than a person's "right" to have them just because they think they're cool. Flip it any way you want to, but I still don't fall for that crap about comparing wolves to dogs and housecats (or horses) to tigers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]They don't come after us (in most cases) because of our error...we're just on them or in the way when they react. Tigers, I'm sure, come at you when it happens with the intent of getting you.[/quote]

It doesn't matter [i]how[/i] it happens. The point is that it does happen. You make a mistake with a horse, you could get killed. You make a mistake with a tiger, you could get killed.

Also, about tigers endangering other people besides the owner. I can't recall ever hearing of a tiger that escaped and attacked someone else. The attacks I have read about involved people who were deliberately interacting with the tiger. I'm not saying it never happens, but I can't recall ever reading about it. A tiger that gets loose won't just randomly start attacking people.


The following will be a long post, directed at everyone who says comparing tigers, wolves, dogs, cats, skydivers, horse, etc. to each other is like comparing apples and oranges.

Anyone who has had any schooling in English will remember the "____ is to ____, as ____ is to ____" questions. These questions basically force you to compare two seemingly unlike things. For example. [i]Black is to white as cat is to ____.[/i] The answer would be "dog." Black is to white as cat is to dog. Now, we all know that black, white, cat and dog, are all unrelated things. Black and white are similar only in that they are colors. Dogs and cats are similar only in that they are 4-legged carnivores. BUT, we were still able to compare them. Ok, if you think about it, it wasn't really [i]them[/i] that we were comparing. That is the key. It was the situations each was in. We were not saying black is the same as dog, and white it the same as cat. We were saying that black is the opposite of white, and dog is the opposite of cat. The situation of being opposites was what connected black, white, cat, and dog.
Another example. Apples and oranges. These are two completely different objects. But what if we consider the following statements:
[i]People eat oranges.
People eat apples.
Oranges grow on trees.
Apples grow on trees.[/i]
These statements do NOT say that apples and oranges are the same. Rather, these statements are saying that both the apples and the oranges face similar situations (being eaten, and growing on trees).
Now, let's apply this newfound knowledge to the wild animal discussion.

1 - [i]People get pets because they like them.
If you get a pet Labrador, that means you probably like the Labrador, and preferred it over all other breeds you possibly could have gotten (such as Chihuahuas).
If you get a wild animal pet, that means you probably like the wild animal pet, and preferred it over all the other animal types you could have gotten (such as domestics).
Therefore, it is illogical to say that there is no reason to own a wild animal since there are domestics, unless you would also say that there is no reason to get a Labrador since there are Chihuahuas.[/i]

2 - [i]Many wild animals are dumped because their owners fail to care for them.
Many domestic animals are dumped because their owners fail to care for them.
Therefore, it is illogical to say that wild animals should be banned because some people cannot care for them, unless you think that all domestic animals should also be banned.[/i]

Now, in those statements, I was not saying that wild animals and domestic animals are the same. Like with the apples and oranges example, I was comparing the situations each faces. Domestic and wild animals, although they are different things, face similar situations (getting chosen over other potential pets, and getting dumped). Let's try some more.

4 - [i]People who work with tigers choose to take the risk of getting killed.
People who skydive choose to take the risk of getting killed.
Therefore, it would not be logical to ban tigers because they could kill their owners, unless you are willing to ban all other potentially dangerous activities.[/i]

5 - [i]Tigers may kill their handlers as a result of a mistake the handler made. Horses may kill their handlers as a result of a mistake the handler made.
Therefore, it is illogical to ban tigers because making a mistake with one could result in death, unless you also want to ban horses.[/i]

Now again, I was not saying that tigers and skydivers are the same, or that tigers and horses are the same. I was saying their situations are similar. Even though the things themselves are not comparable, the situations they face are (both tiger ownership and skydiving are potentially deadly activities, and making a mistake with a tiger or horse could both lead to death). See what I am trying to say? [u]You CAN compare apples and oranges, tigers and horses, wild and domestic, by comparing their situations. Doing so [b]does not say [/b]that the things involved are the same/similar, It says their situations are.[/u] Therefor, if I choose to compare, say, skydiving and tigers, I understad that they are themselves two completely different things. It is their[i] situations [/i]that I am comparing because[i] it is their situatons that can be similar[/i].

And finally, I think I should point out a certain example in support of comparing seemingly unlike things (tigers, wolves, dogs, cats, skydiving, horses, etc,). This involved pit bulls and BSL. Someone wrote up a questionnaire. I do not remember the specifics, but it said something like, suppose you found out that more people died driving Saturns than died driving Jaguars. Would banning Saturns be an effect solution to this problem? Obviously, the answer was no. This was used to show how illogical it would be to ban Pit bulls because they killed more people than any other breed. This bit of writing was hailed as genius by dog owners, many I think even from Dogo. Now, was the writer saying dogs are the same as cars? Of course not! Dogs and cars are completely different, like comparing [i]apples and oranges[/i]. But the writer was not comparing dogs and cars. He was comparing their [i]situations[/i]. Saturns kill more people than any other car. Pit bulls kill more people than any other dog. Therefore it would be illogical to ban Pit bulls unless you also wanted to ban Saturns.
SO, to those of you who do not think I should use the comparisons I use, step back and think about the comparisons you yourself have used and supported in order to prove a point. Comparing two completely unlike things by comparing their situations is a common, viable, and highly effective way of proving a point.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]Anyway, though this isn't a debate about snakes (I was only pointing out one objection to ownership of non-native "exotic" animals), [/quote]

If you read my very first post, you will find that I did mention two exceptions to my stance on owning wild animals. One of those exceptions was invasive species. I mentioned that I DO NOT think people should be allowed to bring into their state/area, a wild animal that is at an extremely high risk for becoming invasive in that area should it ever escape--such as the snakes in Florida, an area that closely resembles that specie's natural habitat.

For example, if there existed a mouse in South America that was used only to tropica temps. I would have no problem with someone keeping that mouse in Alaska, but I would have a problem with it being kept in a highly tropical area of the USA.

Another example. Suppose someone wants to add a highly adaptive species of european crawdad to their fish tank than can survive both hot and extremely cold temps. This I would have a problem with, since this species of crawdad, being so adaptive, and being able to tollerate almost any envoronment, could thrive almost any part of the US. It would be at high risk for becoming invasive.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Seijun'][quote]Anyway, though this isn't a debate about snakes (I was only pointing out one objection to ownership of non-native "exotic" animals), [/quote]

If you read my very first post... [/quote]

The quote about snakes had nothing to do with your wild cat and wolf ownership defense. I was answering someone who was seeking opinions on the ownership of other "exotic" animals like birds, reptiles and such. That's why my post said:
[quote]Because someone asked... [/quote]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote]So how is it, that if you are saving these animals from bad homes that obviously you come into contact with every day, can you POSSIBLE condone those people owning those animals?
That's just a little hypocritical to me... I know that you keep saying you only support GOOD owners, and I fully respect that. I just don't understand how you can get in such a heated possition about people owning these animals when you are saving them from bad homes all the time.[/quote]

The reason is because I know a TON of very good owners, and even a handful of breeders, who truly love and care for their animals (one breeder even helps with rescue). I see a lot of saddness in the wolfdog world, but I also see the wonderful things that are possible when things are done [i]right[/i].

[quote]Wolves have already been domesticated once, I don't understand why anyone would do it all over again. [/quote]

We arent trying to redomesticate the wolf though. Wolves can be so different from any dog in existence. Everyone here has said at least once that wolves and dogs are different animals. Think about the dog breeds you prefer. You probably like them because they have certain qualities that no other dog breed has. The same applies to people who own wolves. That wolf is so different from any dog breed ever created. No dog can ever truly replace a wolf. Some people, as hard as it may be to understand, want the UNdomestic version of the dog :wink: They just aren't truly satisfied with the dog, because it does not fullfil every requirment they have.

[quote]That's just sick. Suppporting owning wolves, whether they were bred and rased in captive or not IS supporting taking them out of the wild. Because at one point those wolves ansestors were taken from the wild, and wolves are STILL being taken out of the wild to supply "new blood" into these "Pet wolves".
You can't argue that it doesn't happen still or never has, because if that were the case then there would BE no wolves livinging in captive in the United States, Canada, wherever. [/quote]

The original wolves were taken from the wild. The wolves used today for captive breeding came from fur farms. They are many, MANY generations removed from the wild. In one article I read, it mentioned how the temperament of captive wolves from these lines actually differs slightly from wolves from wild lines (the captive lines are more content in a captive environment, the ones from wild lines are more prone to trying to escape--basically, all those years in captivity has actually had a slight dampening effect on the instinct to roam). I have seen VERY few cases where wolves were taken from the wild to refresh captive lines. The wolves that are taken are typically "problem" wolves that would otherwise have been shot. This is just what I have heard though. Either way, it's not like we are always catching wolves from the wild for these breeding projects. For one thing it is hard to get a wild wolf. For another, it is illegal. There are enough captive wolves that the captive gene pool CAN be upheld without "fresh blood". There WERE wolf fur farms, and thus, plenty of wolves in captivity. There were enough that, today, we have more than enough wolves in captivity to keep the gene pool healthy as long as we breed correctly, and not haphazardly. The captive Arctic wolf population is an exception, and has actually started to become inbred because no new wolves have come in. So far though, I have heard of no plans to bring in fresh stock for them. IMO, if they were going to bring in fresh stock, it would have happened allready, especially considering that the demand is very high for Arctics. As it is, this hasn't happened.
Now, next... This whole thing about breeding captive wolves supports taking them from the wild because the original stock was from the wild... It happened a LONG time ago. It wasn't that much longer after the creation of GSD's. GSD's had wolf stock added. Should we not own GSD's because they had "wolf blood" added (not too long ago either!)? IMO, it is a weak statement. It WOULD be supporting taking them from the wild if it actually still happened on a regular basis, but it doesn't. Bassically, you are trying to condemm me for the actions of people generations before my time. Should no one own reptiles because their original stock came from the wild?

I think you made a good point about dogs being made for owning, and wolves not, but there is that fine line of domestication.. How long before an animal is officially domestic, and "made" for human ownership? Many people do not think the cat is domestic yet. I am one of them. How do you determine what is domestic, and what is not? After all, the qualities that people often attribute to domestics can also be found in some wild animals.

What about wild animals such as fish, reptiles, and birds? If you are against ANY wild animal as a pet, then I won't argue with you, BUT what I fail to see is how some people can support ownership of common, smaller "wild" animals, but be against ownership of less common wild animals, like wolves and fox... How can you be for ownership of one wild animal, but against the ownership of another? Where are you drawing a line at?


Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Mei-Mei'][quote] Should these people be allowed to have them provided they can do so responsibly? Certainly.

And who is going to judge responsible ownership? We haven't even established who can responsibly own a dog. Are we going to allow people to own tigers and wolves because people 'are capable of it?'

Why is it that human beings first response to seeing free creatures is to try to subjugate them? We see a tiger and want to cage it. We see societies that are 'non-civilized' and the first thing we want to do is to clothe them and teach them about Jesus. Why can't we merely appreciate the fact that some creatures do not need to be pets or projects, and do far, far better in the wild? In other words, why can't we appreciate beauty in its natural habitat?[/quote]

You said it all Mei-Mei......beautifully !!! :wink:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:-? I agree Michele.....Miss Millie bombed out a while ago and hasn't been back......

When and IF there are no more natural habitat for *wild* animals, these animals should go into sanctuaries that are built to closely resemble their natural habitat.(I'm talking acres and acres)
NOT to JOE SCHMO in Wyalusing to keep in a cage and show off to friends.
Where the animal is going to pace and linger till he dies.
Not saying Joe Schmo won't feed him right or give him attention but that's not quality of life for the animal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Anonymous

[quote name='Jessashelony']Personally... I think it would be AWESOME to own a big cat... Picture Princess Jasmine and her tiger (name escapes me at the moment) What a pretty picture? Laying down to take a nap with my tiger... Hugging my tiger when I am sad... Sounds magical and exciting...

But, it's just a day dream, a fantasy. I know that I could never get that kind of relationship from a tiger. I would never actually try to own one.[/quote]
Isnt it Raja, or something like that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote name='Jessashelony']Personally... I think it would be AWESOME to own a big cat... Picture Princess Jasmine and her tiger (name escapes me at the moment) What a pretty picture? [color=red]Laying down to take a nap with my tiger... [/color][color=red]Hugging my tiger when I am sad... Sounds magical and exciting... [/color]But, it's just a day dream, a fantasy. I know that I could never get that kind of relationship from a tiger. I would never actually try to own one.[/quote]

:lol: Honey, I'll buy you your very own stuffed Raja at the Disney Store !!! :wink: :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Create New...