The Right to Keep and Arm Bears

or dogs, tigers, or the fearsome Australian drop bear, really.

Over the years, humanity has domesticated several species, and some of them (namely dogs and horses) have been trained for protection and warfare. In more recent years, there seems to have been a massive backlash against people owning "attack" dogs, like pit bulls or Dobermans, and there's normally restrictions against owning "exotic" animals like tigers, alligators, bears, or snakes.

So, given our history of enslaving domesticating animal species to our will, why the relatively recent hate for individuals who seem bound and determined to try the same thing on their own? Shouldn't people be allowed to own exotic animals as pets, if they're prepared to accept the consequences of having a pet that can kill you on a whim?

for the mods

It's certainly a real issue. I've heard of the tiger being kept in a New York City apartment.

That just seems a bad choice.

If you're going to keep one, at least have a few acres for it.

edited 14th Jul '11 9:26:57 AM by blueharp

I'll present the most common argument used against domesticating tigers and the like; they still have an instinct which very strongly programs them to eat you. Or at least to react with enough strength at the wrong provocation that, while it wouldn't be fatal to another tiger, would most certainly kill you.

We've bred dogs and the like for hundreds of thousands of years, and not even all of them are safe. You get a tiger, you're endangering not just yourself, but anyone who associates with you, should your oversized cat get pissed off at an inopportune time.

Apparently hyaenas that have been raised by humans behave a lot like dogs. But I digress. Unless you have the space, time and resources... stick to cats. They don't care.

Better yet, stick to rocks. Or if you must pick a living creature, go with plants.

As for bears... do you want twelve feet of grizzly bearing over you?

Lions are at least pack animals, which means they'll be more inclined to work with you. Just keep them well fed.

edited 14th Jul '11 10:38:58 AM by GameChainsaw

@Blue Ninja: Your own use of 'enslaved' points to one big reason: Values Dissonance. The concept of animal cruelty was never strong in the 'old days' and still isn't in far-flung places that some people may well keep inappropriate animals but the authorities and neighbours don't care. What's also changed between then and now is people live much closer together and are therefore in greater danger of being attacked by or contracting freaky diseases off badly kept exotic pets. And by badly kept that definitely includes keeping tigers and apes as if they were dogs or cats - they weren't tamed in the past because their instincts are all wrong for that and they become too ferocious, and that's still true.

@Game Chainsaw: Feeding your pet lion will help a bit. But it also helps if you stay much bigger and stronger than it as it grows so it doesn't get ideas about challenging your position in the pack or decides you're a viable mate. So: keeping lions in the house is for serious steroid users only :)

That is going to be a lot of steroid.

The thing is that if you own a tiger, you're not the only one at risk. Don't your neighbours deserve some legal protection against getting eaten by your latest pet?

Not just your neighbour. Just about anyone within a couple of acre.

Well, yeah. I was speaking figuratively.

The space thing is also important. And proper security measures too. You think its hard to keep a cat in the house, how easy do you suppose keeping a tiger in is going to be?

Leaving aside the obvious perils of untamed predators, or even half-trained predators, what about the various states/counties that are banning ownership of dog breeds like Dobermans and Pit Bulls? You can't tell me that dogs are untrainable, or an inherant danger to all the neighbors.*

^{Well, you can, but I'm then going to see how far I can punt your chihuahua.}

And that's without even getting into "sporting" events like dog racing, let alone dog fights.

Thats not a position I know enough about to discuss reliably; this doesn't stop me from taking a shot apparently. I've seen arguments that pit bulls are no more dangerous than other dogs and can be raised fine. On the other hand, they're called "pit bulls" for a reason; they're fighting dogs. Not guard dogs, or hunting dogs, fighting dogs. Bred to fight other dogs to the death. Its why they're so bloody tenacious; you can put a round in one of those things and it'll still keep coming unless its physically unable to move or its CNS is shot.

edited 15th Jul '11 7:11:55 AM by GameChainsaw

The UK has some of the toughest bear laws in the world, and I'm perfectly fine with that. In any case I believe there would be a majority in opposition to any proposal to legalise bears any further. The fact that the police are also largely free of bear units is also something I'm completely fine with, especially when more than 80% of police officers are opposed to having to routinely patrol with bears.*

^{https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/posts.php?discussion=13105123380A78334000&page=3#56}

edited 15th Jul '11 7:16:11 AM by pagad

Suppose you raise a lion or tiger or bear or something like that but you cripple one or more of its legs while it's still young and harmless? That would neutralize a lot of the danger, but it does seem kinda cruel. I know we clip birds' wings so they can't fly and neuter all sorts of pets, but I don't know what the legal precedent is on breaking a pet's legs.

Uh, yeah. That would hurt the animal a lot. Possibly well after the fact. Break injuries that don't heal properly are probably going to keep hurting.

There's no reason to do that. Its better not to keep such animals at all than to deliberately mutilate them in such a harmful fashion just so we can enjoy their company.

So better to just amputate the whole limb, in other words?

It's not a bear, so it may be off-topic, but...

We can't skip this gem when we're talking about dangerous animals. I think it may have shown up in another thread already, but oh well.

*

edited 16th Jul '11 11:01:11 AM by Lessinath

...

How... stupid do you need to be?

I dunno.

He's obviously more competent at shooting than bad guys in films.

As I added in a hottip under the video, the video is quite likely fake because the entire channel that posted it is a promotion stunt for something that I don't care enough about to look into.

..

It's still awesome. And entirely believable, considering how stupid people can be. And if it IS real, it's not too shocking.

edited 16th Jul '11 11:03:55 AM by Lessinath