HelpWelcome to TalkStates - Moving, Relocation, City, State Forum
 |
Welcome to TalkStates - Moving, Relocation, City, State Forum, like most online communities you must register to post in our community, but don't worry this is a simple free process that requires minimal information. Take advantage of it immediately, Register Now or Sign In.
|
| Guest Message © 2010 DevFuse | |
Sign In »
Register Now!
Page 1 of 1
- You cannot reply to this topic
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Supporters
- Posts: 2,421
- Joined: 12-November 08
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Supporters
- Posts: 2,421
- Joined: 12-November 08
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 29-September 09
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Supporters
- Posts: 2,421
- Joined: 12-November 08
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 29-September 09
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Supporters
- Posts: 2,421
- Joined: 12-November 08
- Hermit
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 2,705
- Joined: 21-January 07
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Supporters
- Posts: 2,421
- Joined: 12-November 08
- Member
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 129
- Joined: 29-September 09
- Senior Member
-
- Group: Supporters
- Posts: 2,421
- Joined: 12-November 08
- Hermit
-
- Group: Moderators
- Posts: 2,705
- Joined: 21-January 07
Chimp Attack Victim Rejected For Transplant
Rate Topic:
#1
skytrekker 
Posted 26 January 2010 - 05:08 AM
Back to top
MultiQuote
#3
skytrekker
Posted 26 January 2010 - 10:52 AM
neither can I
#4
SheridanPDC
Posted 26 January 2010 - 10:57 AM
I hope the chimp was taken away from the irrisponsible person who allowed it to get out in the first place and probably had no business owning a wild exotic animal. That poor woman...
#5
skytrekker
Posted 26 January 2010 - 02:05 PM
The Chimp was shot dead.
#6
SheridanPDC
Posted 26 January 2010 - 09:11 PM
Probably for the best. It should never have been kept as a "pet". How do people even get their hands on these kinds of animals? I would think they would need all kinds of permits, special licence, special facility, ect. I hope the owner got some hefty jail times/fines.
#7
skytrekker
Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:02 AM
The Chimp had a previous history of erratic behavior -- the State of Connecticut has banned the use of Chimps as pets-- albeit too late.
The state currently bans 'big cats' as household pets- and also numerous reptiles, Crocodiles and Alligators; snakes including pythons and other constrictors- and all poisonous snakes and lizards.
The state currently bans 'big cats' as household pets- and also numerous reptiles, Crocodiles and Alligators; snakes including pythons and other constrictors- and all poisonous snakes and lizards.
#8
Wyoming53
Posted 27 January 2010 - 07:57 AM
What I fail to see is "Why can't person have an exotic animal if they want?"
If it has shots, and if they take reasonable care to provide the right kind of shelter, and, and this is a big AND, they assume responsibility for it.
It shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate what you can have as a pet. But the person should be liable for what they have.
In this case, major insurance should have been kept. Also, the person injured should have been rewarded monitarily just like if they were injured at work or by a vehicle accident. And the owner should have been taken to court, fined, and if needed, imprisoned.
These STUPID laws are being put into place because people won't take resposibility for their actions. It's too damned easy for a politition to write a law to protect the owner of the critter. Get rid of those laws and write a new one.
Article 1 (with no subsections, no addendums, no appeals, and no modifications in years to come.)
Each person shall be responsible for his/her actions.
If it has shots, and if they take reasonable care to provide the right kind of shelter, and, and this is a big AND, they assume responsibility for it.
It shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate what you can have as a pet. But the person should be liable for what they have.
In this case, major insurance should have been kept. Also, the person injured should have been rewarded monitarily just like if they were injured at work or by a vehicle accident. And the owner should have been taken to court, fined, and if needed, imprisoned.
These STUPID laws are being put into place because people won't take resposibility for their actions. It's too damned easy for a politition to write a law to protect the owner of the critter. Get rid of those laws and write a new one.
Article 1 (with no subsections, no addendums, no appeals, and no modifications in years to come.)
Each person shall be responsible for his/her actions.
Wyoming Heat.
#9
skytrekker
Posted 27 January 2010 - 10:41 AM
Wyoming53 said:
What I fail to see is "Why can't person have an exotic animal if they want?"
If it has shots, and if they take reasonable care to provide the right kind of shelter, and, and this is a big AND, they assume responsibility for it.
It shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate what you can have as a pet. But the person should be liable for what they have.
In this case, major insurance should have been kept. Also, the person injured should have been rewarded monitarily just like if they were injured at work or by a vehicle accident. And the owner should have been taken to court, fined, and if needed, imprisoned.
These STUPID laws are being put into place because people won't take resposibility for their actions. It's too damned easy for a politition to write a law to protect the owner of the critter. Get rid of those laws and write a new one.
Article 1 (with no subsections, no addendums, no appeals, and no modifications in years to come.)
Each person shall be responsible for his/her actions.
If it has shots, and if they take reasonable care to provide the right kind of shelter, and, and this is a big AND, they assume responsibility for it.
It shouldn't be up to the Government to dictate what you can have as a pet. But the person should be liable for what they have.
In this case, major insurance should have been kept. Also, the person injured should have been rewarded monitarily just like if they were injured at work or by a vehicle accident. And the owner should have been taken to court, fined, and if needed, imprisoned.
These STUPID laws are being put into place because people won't take resposibility for their actions. It's too damned easy for a politition to write a law to protect the owner of the critter. Get rid of those laws and write a new one.
Article 1 (with no subsections, no addendums, no appeals, and no modifications in years to come.)
Each person shall be responsible for his/her actions.
Connecticut is a small state area wise (5200 square miles, population 3.5 million) it has a dense population- over 660 people per square mile
Having wild exotic pets can be a threat to others- the Chimp in question was thought to be 'tame' and 'domesticated'-wild animals are unpredictable-
The state of Connecticut feels the public needs to be protected- and no matter how many owners of these 'exotic' pets take to insure their 'captivity' to protect the public- accidents can happen- as in this tragic case.
Its not a matter of 'Big' or 'small' government- its a matter of practicality and safety to the general public.
#10
SheridanPDC
Posted 27 January 2010 - 01:45 PM
skytrekker said:
Having wild exotic pets can be a threat to others- the Chimp in question was thought to be 'tame' and 'domesticated'-wild animals are unpredictable-
THIS is the main problem I see with wild/exotic pets. People get them as babies/cubs ect. and then think that they can be treated like a dog or cat or any other domestic animal. I think anyone wanting to have an exotic should have to apply for a permit, go through a certification class, enclosure inspection (yearly), mandatory vet check ups, ect. The # of people who take proper care of these types of animals vs. the # the idiots who don't have a clue can't be ignored- there's far more in the later group. And these are the people who's "pets" end up harming others.
I do happen to know a person that has a semi large wild (though not exotic) animal, and he has proper G&F permits, provides proper vet care & natural diet, and has a large, strong, secure enclosure for her. He never allows the animal out of the enclosure and never allows others to have physical contact with her. While I do think that more measures should be taken to make sure wild/exotics do not fall into the hand of the wrong people, I don't want to see tham banned all together; there are people who can take proper, responsible care of them.
#11
skytrekker
Posted 27 January 2010 - 04:21 PM
SheridanPDC said:
THIS is the main problem I see with wild/exotic pets. People get them as babies/cubs ect. and then think that they can be treated like a dog or cat or any other domestic animal. I think anyone wanting to have an exotic should have to apply for a permit, go through a certification class, enclosure inspection (yearly), mandatory vet check ups, ect. The # of people who take proper care of these types of animals vs. the # the idiots who don't have a clue can't be ignored- there's far more in the later group. And these are the people who's "pets" end up harming others.
I do happen to know a person that has a semi large wild (though not exotic) animal, and he has proper G&F permits, provides proper vet care & natural diet, and has a large, strong, secure enclosure for her. He never allows the animal out of the enclosure and never allows others to have physical contact with her. While I do think that more measures should be taken to make sure wild/exotics do not fall into the hand of the wrong people, I don't want to see tham banned all together; there are people who can take proper, responsible care of them.
I do happen to know a person that has a semi large wild (though not exotic) animal, and he has proper G&F permits, provides proper vet care & natural diet, and has a large, strong, secure enclosure for her. He never allows the animal out of the enclosure and never allows others to have physical contact with her. While I do think that more measures should be taken to make sure wild/exotics do not fall into the hand of the wrong people, I don't want to see tham banned all together; there are people who can take proper, responsible care of them.
You are totally right
A domestic cat- for example is domestic after living with humans for over 9,000 years- but a kitten must be 'socialized' with humans as a kitten at 7-10 weeks-or it can become 'feral' or semi feral.
Wild animals even raised from infant-hood do not have the same capability as a domestic cat to be suitable as 'pets'-no matter how they seem 'adapted'.
Their instincts are still wild- and they can easily turn on their human 'family' very quickly-with devastating results.
#12
Wyoming53
Posted 28 January 2010 - 05:23 PM
skytrekker said:
Connecticut is a small state area wise (5200 square miles, population 3.5 million) it has a dense population- over 660 people per square mile
Having wild exotic pets can be a threat to others- the Chimp in question was thought to be 'tame' and 'domesticated'-wild animals are unpredictable-
The state of Connecticut feels the public needs to be protected- and no matter how many owners of these 'exotic' pets take to insure their 'captivity' to protect the public- accidents can happen- as in this tragic case.
Its not a matter of 'Big' or 'small' government- its a matter of practicality and safety to the general public.
Having wild exotic pets can be a threat to others- the Chimp in question was thought to be 'tame' and 'domesticated'-wild animals are unpredictable-
The state of Connecticut feels the public needs to be protected- and no matter how many owners of these 'exotic' pets take to insure their 'captivity' to protect the public- accidents can happen- as in this tragic case.
Its not a matter of 'Big' or 'small' government- its a matter of practicality and safety to the general public.
Of course, you are right. In this day, it's the only thing that can be done is to control the people.
But my point is, 100 years ago, people were responsible for their actions. They owned up to it. Today, the government has to do that for them because people have lost their values.
In Wyoming, a lot of those values remain intact. I don't know of anybody that has filed a lawsuit in recent years. I'm sure it has been done, but it's not the norm.
If people had the foresight, the knowledge, and knew that they were going to be held responsible, they might not get dangerous animals as pets.
I befriended a mountain lion. It would eat out of my hand. It took years of camping in that area. Leaving meat, not threatening it in any way. But I would never try to domesticate it. I would not try and bring it in to towns. To me, it was nature in it's truest form. But I also think about responsibility in what I do. I own up to it. A lot of people don't.
Wyoming Heat.
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1