Call Goes Out to Ban Exotic Pets

[MobBoss]

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. We know it makes sense because ....

Its our system thats already in place?

I think the vehicle model works pretty good. i.e., if you make a mistake with your pet or with your car, insurance kicks in. If you do something that will obviously make the pet (or car) dangerous, then the criminal law kicks in. Don't drink & drive, and don't torture your pitbull ...

Except that owning a car is a necessity. Owning an exotic pet? Not so much.

And a car is ever so much more predictable. Pets arent.

We also have government regulation concerning car safety requirements. Do you propose similar sweeping regulation where exotic pets are concerned?

 

[El_Machinae]

It's why I specified HumVees. A car might be a necessity, but there are certainly vehicles sold that aren't necessities. I'm sure you know what I mean: you might need a car to get to work, but you don't need a 3000 lb beast that can go 0 - 60 in 8 seconds ...

Heck, most pets aren't necessities, so I see no reason to ban 'exotic pets'. A more dangerous car or a more dangerous pet can be regulated via the price mechanism of insurance.

 

[MobBoss]

It's why I specified HumVees. A car might be a necessity, but there are certainly vehicles sold that aren't necessities. I'm sure you know what I mean: you might need a car to get to work, but you don't need a 3000 lb beast that can go 0 - 60 in 8 seconds ...

Heck, most pets aren't necessities, so I see no reason to ban 'exotic pets'. A more dangerous car or a more dangerous pet can be regulated via the price mechanism of insurance.

All you are essentially saying its ok to have a pet that can tear somene limb from limb if you have the cash to cover it. Somehow that just doesnt sit right with me.

 

[Cutlass]

I think exotic pets should be banned if their species is at risk. If an animal is more dangerous than a pit bull, then maybe some type of owner's insurance should be required, but I don't see a reason to ban something dangerous if you've insured it properly.

I disagree. 2 points. 1, sometimes the animal is very dangerous indeed. And 2, sometimes when people find out they can't handle an exotic pet, they just release the thing into the wild. An alligator was found here recently in the woods. We're 2000 miles from the Everglades. There's a zoo in Nova Scotia that has a collection of big cats. Lions and tiger raised as pets until people realized that they can't handle it. If Florida there are invasions of South American snake species that people have released.

It's not just a danger to people or to species, it's cruelty to the animals themselves.

So I say no exotic pets at all.

 

[Formaldehyde]

It's why I specified HumVees. A car might be a necessity, but there are certainly vehicles sold that aren't necessities. I'm sure you know what I mean: you might need a car to get to work, but you don't need a 3000 lb beast that can go 0 - 60 in 8 seconds ...

Heck, most pets aren't necessities, so I see no reason to ban 'exotic pets'. A more dangerous car or a more dangerous pet can be regulated via the price mechanism of insurance.

The obvious difference is that, outside of a bad Steven King movie, your vehicle can't engage itself and then proceed to maim or kill a neighborhood kid.

I agree that any exotic or overly dangerous pet should require a huge amount of liability insurance. But I think a lot more needs to be done than just that.

 

[MobBoss]

It's why I specified HumVees. A car might be a necessity, but there are certainly vehicles sold that aren't necessities. I'm sure you know what I mean: you might need a car to get to work, but you don't need a 3000 lb beast that can go 0 - 60 in 8 seconds ...

Heck, most pets aren't necessities, so I see no reason to ban 'exotic pets'. A more dangerous car or a more dangerous pet can be regulated via the price mechanism of insurance.

And what about the control issue I mentioned? You are in absolute control of a vehicle you are driving. One can never truly control a wild animal.

 

[philippe]

they'll start with banning exotic pets and it will end in banning exotic poeple. damn lawmakers

 

[Shekwan]

Well until recently exotic people were banned in most places.

 

[El_Machinae]

And what about the control issue I mentioned? You are in absolute control of a vehicle you are driving. One can never truly control a wild animal.

Well, accidents are accidents. If you lose control of your vehicle or your cobra or your gun, bad things happen. That's what insurance is for. Let the market decide how much the insurance costs. If the animal is too dangerous, the liability insurance will be prohibitive. Or you could get a discount for proper containment, etc.

We allow people to drive with only $500,000 PLPD insurance, right? Even though the damage potential of a vehicle is many times that. We should be able to have a similar system for animals. Heck, make it a $5,000,000 insurance pool, or whatever.

 

[.Shane.]

When the Connecticut state Department of Environmental Protection came for the gila monsters,
I remained silent;
I did not own a gila monster.

Then they locked up the blue tongued skinks
I remained silent;
I did not own a blue tongued skink

Then they came for the ball pythons,
I did not speak out;
I did not own a ball python

Then they came for the magic unicorns,
I did not speak out;
I did not own a magic unicorn

When they came for my narwhal
there was no one left to speak out for me.

 

[LucyDuke]

I think exotic pets should be banned if their species is at risk. If an animal is more dangerous than a pit bull, then maybe some type of owner's insurance should be required, but I don't see a reason to ban something dangerous if you've insured it properly.

You're the last person I'd expect that from.

Pit bulls aren't inherently any more dangerous than golden retrievers. They simply get chosen more often by "thug" retards to take home and abuse. Same with Rotties, same with German Shepherds. They're not bred for aggression, they are trained for aggression. If you abused a Newfoundland the same way, he'd be the same dangerous.

Yes, they're strong, so are bulldogs and St Bernards. No, their jaws do not "lock". They're just regular dogs with a bad reputation.

 

[emzie]

Well, accidents are accidents. If you lose control of your vehicle or your cobra or your gun, bad things happen. That's what insurance is for. Let the market decide how much the insurance costs. If the animal is too dangerous, the liability insurance will be prohibitive. Or you could get a discount for proper containment, etc.

We allow people to drive with only $500,000 PLPD insurance, right? Even though the damage potential of a vehicle is many times that. We should be able to have a similar system for animals. Heck, make it a $5,000,000 insurance pool, or whatever.

Heh, state minimum insurance in Ohio was 25k. My agent thought I was planing some kind of fraud scheme when I asked it to be upped to 300k before I moved here.

 

[El_Machinae]

Lucy:

"More dangerous than a large dog", then?
I think my point doesn't change, though. If your animal can hurt someone, maybe insurance is better than banning. I've suggested the same when discussing the banning of some breeds of dog.

Augurey(xpost):

That's hilarious. A car can easily do way more than $25 in damage to someone. And if a person needs hundreds of thousands of dollars to be compensated, the odds that the car owner can provide those funds is negligible

 

[MobBoss]

You're the last person I'd expect that from.

Pit bulls aren't inherently any more dangerous than golden retrievers.

Actually, certain breeds of dogs are absolutely more aggresive than others. Thats simply a proven fact. Its easier to make a guard dog out of dobies/rotties/german shepards than say a similar sized dog with a much less aggresive demeanor.

Yes, they're strong, so are bulldogs and St Bernards. No, their jaws do not "lock". They're just regular dogs with a bad reputation.

They were bred to have much stronger muscles in their jaws. Of course certain breeds have a much stronger bite than others. Another simple fact.

 

[LucyDuke]

Lucy:

"More dangerous than a large dog", then?
I think my point doesn't change, though. If your animal can hurt someone, maybe insurance is better than banning. I've suggested the same when discussing the banning of some breeds of dog.

That's fine. My objection is to singling out specific types. It perpetuates the abuse cycle.

Actually, certain breeds of dogs are absolutely more aggresive than others. Thats simply a proven fact. Its easier to make a guard dog out of dobies/rotties/german shepards than say a similar sized dog with a much less aggresive demeanor.

They were bred to have much stronger muscles in their jaws. Of course certain breeds have a much stronger bite than others. Another simple fact.

That's simply bullpoop. They're stronger, sure, I don't dispute that, and yes, some have got stronger jaws than others just as some are stronger swimmers, but the popular rumor of pits having "locking jaws" is absolute nonsense. No, they're not inherently especially aggressive, aggression in dogs is learned. I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about.

 

[El_Machinae]

Nastyness really does have a breed component, though. We see it in lab rats all the time. Various breeds are cuddly, some are standoffish, and some are nasty.

 

[MobBoss]

That's simply bullpoop. They're stronger, sure, I don't dispute that, and yes, some have got stronger jaws than others just as some are stronger swimmers, but the popular rumor of pits having "locking jaws" is absolute nonsense. No, they're not inherently especially aggressive, aggression in dogs is learned. I'm sorry you don't know what you're talking about.

Please read what I posted. I didnt say they had locking jaws. But the strength of their jaws makes them extremely had to convince to let you go if they dont want to let you go.

Again, I just bought a new german shepard/Lab mix puppy. I just did a LOT of research on this, and what I read about dog breeds did indicate that certain breeds of dog are absolutely not recommended for families with small children or other small animals precisely because they are inheritly more agressive.

My turn to say 'I'm sorry you dont know what you are talking about'.

Nastyness really does have a breed component, though. We see it in lab rats all the time. Various breeds are cuddly, some are standoffish, and some are nasty.

Ooops.

 

[LucyDuke]

Please read what I posted. I didnt say they had locking jaws. But the strength of their jaws makes them extremely had to convince to let you go if they dont want to let you go.

Again, I just bought a new german shepard/Lab mix puppy. I just did a LOT of research on this, and what I read about dog breeds did indicate that certain breeds of dog are absolutely not recommended for families with small children or other small animals precisely because they are inheritly more agressive.

My turn to say 'I'm sorry you dont know what you are talking about'.

You bought a puppy? Damn, that makes you an expert. Sorry to challenge your obviously superior knowledge!

Nastyness really does have a breed component, though. We see it in lab rats all the time. Various breeds are cuddly, some are standoffish, and some are nasty.

Ooops.

Dogs are not rats. I shouldn't say "none", but any influence the dog's genes have on its aggressiveness is hugely overwhelmed by its training.

 

[Kerozine]

That woman that was attacked by the chimp should be thrown in jail. What a pathetic person, she takes an animal from the wild and then kills it when it wasn't convenient for her anymore.

I'm confused.

 

[MobBoss]

You bought a puppy? Damn, that makes you an expert. Sorry to challenge your obviously superior knowledge!

Apparently your superior knowledge didnt grasp that I also did quite a bit of research in doing so. I assure you, I know how to do research. Its kind of part of my profession.

By the way...what makes YOU an expert? Hmmm?

I covered probably about 20 websites like this one: http://www.petsdo.com/blog/top-ten-10-most-dangerous-dog-breeds

That all had various and specific information on dog breeds. As this one particular website says:

All dogs can be potentially dangerous, however some dogs are more dangerous than others. Various types of breeds can be considerably stronger and larger than a person of average size. Training, socialization and proper care can make a significant impact, however some dogs are by years of breeding more aggressive. After in depth research and analyzing the studies performed by the American Veterinary Medical Association, the CDC, and the Humane Society of the United States, we have compiled the top ten most dangerous dog breeds.

I found similar information all throughout my research consistently.

So, I guess all these people contributing to all these websites are wrong and you are simply the only one that knows better then right?