You know people bragged about being able to shoot such exotic animals. A true, heartbreaking tragedy. Exotic animal ownership should be banned.
DS speaks the truth. As the natural & violent predators that we are, this was handled pretty clean. Eventually we can just clone them anyway lol, if we don't let them eat us first. If he news channels says that stupid "Lions , Tigers & Bears " joke one more time im going to kick my Voltron.
Bumblethumper, I got a question. Let's say, you and your mom was walking down the street and a fucking direwolf pops out in front of you. the direwolf goes after your mom. You got a gun. What would you do? I mean, Direwolves are supposed to be extinct so this could be the last one. I'm guessing you would let the direwolf eat your mom, cause what's one mom in a world full of moms to the last direwolf.
the reason I went direwolf instead of something like a tazmanian wolf or t-rex, is the fact I'm reading A Sword of Storms book right now. And another off topic, I popped in Narnia: Prince Caspian in my dvd player and the scene where the two kings dual, the kid was wearing a gold lion on a field of red. They're fucking lanisters! And Bumblethumper, dont read the books. They kill a lot of horses.
Point achieved! What about the horses on the property? What about the neighbors and THEIR animals? What you propose really shows that you don't know anything about the behavior of large predatory animals who are normally solitary and don't like the presence of others - they would fight over the food, the smaller, weaker animals would be killed or driven off the property and seek food elsewhere. That's a LOT OF LARGE, HUNGRY PREDATORS to try and contain, regardless of whether they were declawed and 'nice'. It wouldn't even be possible to drop food in there, at night, as the helicopters would scare the animals...and trucking it in would expose everyone doing it to a lot of danger and increase the chance of escapes. Not only that but without an accurate visual count, they wouldn't even be able to be sure none had escaped the land anyway. Try getting that in the dark. If they had been left in their cages, it would have been possible to remove and relocate all the animals alive. But they weren't. Even Jack Hanna said the killings were necessary. Obviously this guy didn't love them, or his family, enough to leave the animals where everyone was safe. And they DID SAVE SOME OF THEM. They didn't kill them all. Thank God for that. --Moony
A century ago, there were 100,000 tigers in the wild. In another century they could be gone forever. All along the way there will be cases like this where we decide to put humans first in one way or another. Money factors won't be much of an excuse if that happens. It might not make me popular around here but I would question the very notion that human lives are precious above all others. Most of these animals were killed pre-emptively on that basis. They mentioned one or two that had to be killed because they charged, they posed a direct threat. But the rest were slaughtered because they didn't want to risk potential human casualties. We can't tolerate a threat to humans. Better to have exterminated them all rather than suffer a single human fatality.
Would it be possible to just shoot the animals in an area that would just physically immobilize them, like in the leg or paw, then trap them, bring them to a veterinarian facility for treatment, then ship them off to a zoo or wildlife preserve?
If you miss, you then have a slightly wounded / highly annoyed tiger coming at you. Police officers don't shoot to wound, if they have to shoot, they'll shoot to kill, if only because its a more reliable way of stopping the threat.
1, the targets you mention are smaller and move faster than the rest of the body, thus are MUCH harder to hit. Have a friend try to hit your arm with something while you're waving it around, that's how difficult it is. 2, it takes several minutes to immobilize a large animal - those nature shows that show animals being shot with a tranquilizer gun edit out the several boring minutes it takes that animal to fall. In the meantime, the animal is pissed off and/or frightened, and mobile enough to kill anyone easily, not to mention can get a surge of adrenaline. Also, most vets are not equipped or knowledgeable in handling huge predators - that's why you call the nearest zoo in these situations, like they did. 'Large animal' vets are for common livestock like horses and cows, not tigers, wolves, and bears. --Moony
So about putting human lives to animal lives. Say you were there and a tiger is walking towards you licking its lips. It wants a Bumblethumper dinner. There are two choices, #1 shot to kill it to save your life or #2 try to tranq it and have no guarantees it will have any effect or the tiger has enough power to get to you and have its meal before falling asleep. What would you choose?
I propose that if such an incident should happen again in future, PETA members should be sent out to tranquilize and subdue the animals.
If they've got the tranquilizer guns the cops don't and can get there fast enough, I unironically support this.
I also wished the animals were tranqualized instead of being killed. But if the cops did'nt have any tranqualizers, what are they suppose to do?
you already know the answer. I personally wouldn't turn the gun on the tiger under any circumstances. And I wouldn't expect it to be done on my behalf. If that means I end up dead, and/or family members end up dead, so be it. It would seem this makes me a horrible person. Fortunately it is a scenario I am unlikely to find myself in as situations like this are easily avoided. I do tend to avoid hypothetical scenarios quite successfully in real life. Better to have a society where tigers don't end up on the loose. It's not hard to come up with things everyone can agree on. Where wild animals can live in the wild, and animals in captivity are properly provided for, both for their own health and safety and everyone else's. In this situation it would seem the rules dictated that it was more important to enshrine the freedom of this ex-con with an animal cruelty conviction to hoard dozens of lethal and highly endangered animals in cramped cages in his ramshackle farm, despite a history of escapes. So again, we essentially put the freedom of the human above the need of the animal to be adequately cared for. We also put the freedom of the individual ahead of the safety of the community. The irony in all this is that he apparently thought the rules were too restrictive, and yet through his actions he has created an aftermath in which rules will almost certainly be tightened significantly.
Uh, yeah, actually I do. What's your point? Please clarify unless your point is that of what Aernaroth or Moonscream posted, which I agree with. I think an animal that isn't moving and just resting on the ground would be pretty easy to shoot in the foot, no?
