#also we should just--ban the exotic pet trade | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

orcinus-ocean · 5 years ago

Text

Just finished Tiger King...

...episode 7 (there’s another one right?), and I’m gonna write my fresh thoughts.

90+% of the entire thing was of course about Joe-Jeff-Carole-Antle-whatever craziness, and I’m not gonna get into what I think about that (exceptCarolekilledherhusband), but about the very last part of episode 7, where they actually talked about the animals, and their (questionable) welfare.

There were old clips of Joe where he spoke of how the animals didn’t belong in Oklahoma, and that people needed to “stop breeding them”. Don’t know what that was about, but I think it’s pretty clear that his attitude changed, and it’s not about the animals for any of these people.

Not for Joe, not for Jeff, not for Antle, and not for Carole. It’s all about them as cult figures, and the money.

Joe admitted to shooting five tigers. He says he “euthanized them”. That’s really not dug deeper into. What was the motivation? The circumstances? Did he kill healthy animals for the heck of it? Or were they really sick or injured? Why were they sick or injured?

Is it not legal to kill your own animal, even an exotic or endangered one? Say if you have (no idea what happened in this case, I’m painting up fiction now, as an example) a tiger or [insert exotic] which fell and broke its leg horribly, bones are sticking out, the animal is screaming and it’s obvious no surgery can fix it.

Do you then have to apply for a permit to put it down? Wait for a vet to come there, tranq it and euthanize it with a lethal injection? That can’t be right. It has to be legal for you to shoot the poor thing.

And furthermore, last I checked, “generic tigers” aren’t endangered. They don’t require the same permits as if you have, say, a pure Bengal tiger. Generic tigers are under different legislation. Can someone explain this further? How is it illegal to kill your own animal for whatever reason (unless there is evidence of undue suffering, which would make the crime “animal cruelty”, not “animal killing”), and were they generic tigers or not?

How is it illegal to sell tiger cubs? Was it just done without paperwork? Crossing state borders without permits? (I don’t know what’s required in tiger trade, but I know people still trade tigers legally.)

He admitted to depriving his chimps of being chimps. That they had sat in “cages next to each other for ten years”, and when he gave them away and they were let loose in a large enclosure, they immediately went and hugged each other.

Yeah, good that he admits to poor care and losing sight of the animals’ welfare. But that does not justify the conclusion I think many will make, that I think the film might have been implying - that because Joe mistreated his animals in some way - that means only sanctuaries should have them, or they should be in the wild. It was not overt, but I think that might have been the message.

One poor zoo does not make all zoos poor, just as one poor pet owner/breeder/whathaveyou (can be applied to any topic, not just animals) does not make them all bad, and does not make the thing itself wrong.

Zoos are now reminding people on social media that “we are not like them, we are REAL, accredited zoos! Bla bla AZA self-congratulation bla bla”, and I take time to remind them that there are also hundreds of responsible and caring PRIVATE OWNERS of big cats, who are not lunatics, crackpots, perverts, animal abusers or criminals.

And at the very end, the film faded out with a statement I’m incredibly sick of. They say there are “5000-10 000 tigers in America”.

That is a big, fat lie.

It’s an urban legend that keeps sweeping the internet. Everyone says it, everyone knows it, but the sources are just loose statements made by animal rights organizations, and exact numbers change every time you ask.

The Feline Conservation Federation made a thorough check of the real numbers some years ago, and came up with about ~2800 tigers in America.

The latest numbers from the WWF and Gobal Tiger Forum (2016) said that there were ~3900 tigers in the wild.

There are many species that are far more numerous in captivity than in the wild, but the tiger is the only one people keep repeating, because it’s “oh, shock and horror, not the tiger”. But there are not more tigers in the USA than in the wild. And even if there were, those tigers are not “missing” from the wild. They weren’t “stolen”. They are the ark.

The higher numbers, the better. Personally, I’d be thrilled if there were 10 000 tigers in America, as long as they’re being cared for and managed responsibly. That would mean the tiger is not as threatened as we thought.

But when people hear the urban legend “more tigers in American backyards than in the wild”, they think the tigers in America are the problem, not the lack of tigers in the wild, the poaching and habitat destruction.

This lie of “10 000 tigers in America” or “3000 tigers in Texas” was created by animal rights activists to fill people with revulsion and want to create bans on tigers. It is completely ludicrous, as the breeding and in-country trade of an endangered species should be made EASIER, not harder, if we wish to save it.

The animal rights people of course, don’t want to save it, as they hate captive breeding no matter what, and will fight it with all they have, survival of the species be damned.

That is why the “Big Cat Public Safety Act” is anti-tiger, anti-lion, anti all big cats and their survival into the future.

On this topic, I recommend the documentary American Tiger, and my article on tiger conservation.

#tiger king #tigers #tiger conservation #pet tiger #Carole killed her husband #American tiger #big cat public safety act #big cats #joe exotic

13 notes · View notes

pro-exotics · 5 years ago

Link

By Melissa Smith, original link above

Are you debating whether or not exotic pets should be legal or if it is ethical to own them? If you haven’t decided on whether you are “for” or “against” exotic pet ownership, the truth is that exotic pet owners are unfairly persecuted for no logical reason.

Exotic pet keeping is rapidly becoming a "taboo" in this country, thanks to the persistence of animal rights groups and the unfortunate tendency of many Americans to view animals as precious, innately pure, human-like beings. Wild animals are often celebrated as "free spirits," and it is thought that they cannot and should not be tamed by human greed.

The Truth for Your Debate

The cusp of the argument is that the ethics of exotic pet ownership differ not at all from traditional, so-called domesticated pets that few question the ethics of owning. To argue for exotic pets alone would be a debate for the keeping of pets in general, and it wouldn’t make a lot of sense for someone to be forced to take on that philosophical debate solely because they support exotic pet ownership.

Exotic pet owners want to enjoy the same rights as owners of traditional pets. The majority of anti-exotic pet arguments rely on the logic that exotic pets are significantly different from "normal" pets.

Comparing Traditional and Exotic Pets

Hatred of exotic pet-keeping thrives from the "fear of the other" psychology, or fear of something different. Why do people question some pets and not others? When someone sees a pet they are not familiar with, there must be a reason keeping it is bad. This is why parrots, which are very demanding pets, get less criticism than a less common exotic, including even other birds like a toucan.

What is an exotic pet? Where is the line drawn? Some exotic pets are also traditional pets such as budgies, chinchillas, and pet reptiles. How would one distinguish from the needs of a fox and a hamster? Hamsters can run for miles in the wild, which is something the largest hamster cage cannot replicate. Both species are subjected to unnatural conditions.

Context

The most common deception of anti-exotic pet arguments is that all exotic pets are somehow significantly different from domesticated and traditional pets. Opponents will try to remove exotic animals from the context of traditional pet owning ethics and elevate their status as something close to human. An example of this is the knee-jerk reaction people have when people "exploit" (sell, trade, re-home, etc.) exotic animals. This is seen as appalling for exotics, but unobjectionable in the context of dogs, horses, and other traditional pets.

Even the most socially acceptable domesticated pets have striking similarities. The only issue they don't have in common is environmental concerns from over-harvesting; however, domesticated pets impact the ecosystem in their own unique ways. People who are apt to find problems with the exotic pet trade while failing to see similar or even worse problems with the pets they find acceptable are using confirmation biases.

Debate Point 1: "Exotic Pets Are Dangerous"

Exotic pets, overall, aren’t dangerous, or the level of danger present reflects on the competency of the owner. First and foremost, exotic pets include a massive number of diverse species ranging from those the size of an eraser to the largest animals on Earth. Exotic pets can never be identified as dangerous as a whole; rather, we should define what danger means and which exotic pets are identified in the debate.

If danger means lethality, only extremely large exotic pets and venomous animals have killed people in the U.S. This is mostly limited to big cats, bears, wolves, the largest constrictor snakes, venomous snakes, and large ungulates (deer, camels, bison, elephants). It is only accurate to then state that large or extremely venomous animals are dangerous.

In comparison, medium-sized dogs have caused human fatalities, and these deaths are more likely to involve people who are not the owners of the animal (or living with it) or have not voluntarily interacted with it. Large and inherently dangerous exotic pets are often owned with more discretion, so while there is a valid point for regulating these animals (although bans are still unnecessary), none exists for the majority of exotic pets.

Smaller exotic pets are capable of inflicting harm by biting, but this is true of any pet that has teeth. All domesticated pets also can inflict injury, but this never receives the attention of an exotic pet-related injury, even if it is more severe.

Exotic pets are not more dangerous than comparably sized dogs and cats and are sometimes less dangerous. Exotic pets that pose an unusually high risk of severe injury or death are reasonably safe when owned by responsible people, although mistakes and isolated incidences of tragedy are inevitable—just as they are with any other pet—and that is just a part of life.

Dogs kill 30 people annually in the U.S. Large constrictor snakes kill 0-1 people per year. Big cats within the last 30 years have killed no more than 5 people in one year, although most years it is 0-1 fatalities annually. This figure includes accredited zoos.

There are substantially more dogs in the U.S. than exotic carnivores, but most dogs are too small (about 30 pounds and under) to cause fatalities and are easy to control.

People pay more attention to serious exotic pet attacks, even though they are extremely rare, due to sensationalism.

Most exotic pet-related fatalities involve the owner and willing individuals who interact with the animals, not the public; therefore, exotic pets are not a significant public safety threat.

Debate Point 2: "Keeping Exotic Pets Is Selfish"

Keeping exotic pets is not any more "selfish" than keeping domesticated pets. The argument of selfishness suggests that exotic pets are different from traditional pets, and this is simply not true. All animals are subjected to unnatural conditions, and this even includes dogs and cats. Accusing an exotic pet owner of being selfish is mostly an empty attack holding them to a higher standard when it is convenient for the accuser. It is a common, emotionally manipulative, demonization tactic.

Debate Point 3: "Wild Animals Do Poorly in Captivity"

Exotic pets are not “wild animals” and can adapt to captivity reasonably well. Animals that do not do well in captivity tend to breed poorly and make bad pets, so they do not last long in the pet trade. Exotic pets enjoy more popularity when they are adaptable to living with humans under the proper conditions.

Another variation of this topic is that wild animals have instincts that cannot be satisfied in captivity. All animals have instincts, and no animal, domesticated or otherwise, has truly adapted to living indoors with a human. An example is that indoor cats can suffer health problems and perform stereotypic behaviors which can be corrected using the same methods from the care of so-called wild pets.

Another common argument is that cages are too small and inhibit naturally free-ranging animals from roaming. All pets roam longer distances than enclosures allow. Studies show that most cats will roam a considerable distance from their home when permitted.

The worst argument people use is that exotic animals can survive in the wild and domesticated animals can't. This couldn't be further from the truth. There are several domesticated species thriving and reproducing in the wild including cats, dogs, and horses, while even true wild animals raised by humans require special rehabilitation before they have a chance to survive in the wild.

Debate Point 4: "The Exotic Pet Trade Hurts Wild Animal Populations"

This is only partially true for some species, particularly reptiles, fish and birds, which make up the majority of the illegal trade involving shipments destined for the United States. A good portion of the trade occurs locally, in the country of the animal's origin, which is not related to the trade in the U.S. but often is cited as related.

There have been some problematic trades that have affected wild populations prior to enacting regulations. The trade can be successfully regulated as are other industries such as hunting, although habitat fragmentation is the major cause of most declining populations that make resolving the situation more difficult or impossible.

A significant number of species in the exotic pet trade are now captive-bred, and the importation of threatened species has been reduced or eliminated. There always remains a threat from the illegal black market, which already has laws in place against it. To simplify:

The wildlife trade now has reasonable regulations in place.

The local wildlife trade is damaging but wouldn't be affected by bans in the United States and other countries.

In most cases, habitat fragmentation is the cause of species decline, resulting in any further species removal to be cited as an additional threat.

Debate Point 5: "Most People Cannot Care for Exotic Pets"

There are different animals in captivity, and some are harder to care for than others. Some dog breeds would be miserable in a traditional household, while some cats have traits that are very similar to the so-called wild traits of exotic pets. It is understood that these animals shouldn't be banned just because they are not suitable for most people. Instead, educating the public is the answer. Most exotic pets that are considered to be hard to care for are already less popular than unsuitable dog breeds like border collies, high-drive hunting dogs, and working lines of shepherd breeds.

Debate Point 6: "Can You Justify Exotic Pets?"

This is a typical argumentative trap that requires a response based on the assumption that keeping exotic pets is inherently wrong. Do not fall for this loaded question. If someone were to say "justify owning dogs", it would be seen by most as a silly question, as literally all of our actions could be seen as negative should we be required to establish them as inherently good in order to be unobjectionable.

This treads into some more severe philosophical questions (do we deserve to exist?) that places an unfair standard for exotic pet owners to meet in relation to everything else. Defending exotic pet owners with arguments (it's good for conservation, it saves animals from the wild, etc.) is indirectly supporting anti-exotic pet arguments.

Pros of Allowing Exotic Pet Ownership

While exotic pet ownership is not 'wrong' there are also some societal benefits people may want to take into consideration to further enhance how much of an injustice blanket exotic pet bans are.

Property rights: Pet owners should be able to choose the type of pet they want. The personal feelings of other people shouldn't impact the rights of others.

Mental health: Many studies show that pets could have a benefit for people who wish to own them. While the species studied tend to be dogs and cats, this likely applies to many more species.

Education: Pet owners continue to learn from their pets and may even pursue higher education from experiencing the care of unusual animals. Many owners contribute information to zoos that enhance our understanding of the natural world.

Economy: The exotic pet trade encourages the creation of many jobs including but not limited to exotic pet medicine, pet supplies, animal ambassador programs, and pet boarding.

Conservation: In some cases, exotic pet ownership has contributed to conservation efforts. Private owners have aided in species survival programs and offered knowledge for some species that are difficult to care for or breed. Some animals can be offered for in situ conservation programs.

#exotics #exotic pets #article

19 notes · View notes

howwelldoyouknowyourmoon · 5 years ago

Text

Sun Myung Moon could have spent a second spell in a US jail in 2007 – for encouraging poaching baby leopard sharks

Moon is no stranger to lawbreaking — he served thirteen months in prison in the 1980s for federal tax evasion and obstruction of justice.

Sun Myung Moon encouraged Bay Area Pastor Kevin Thompson by saying, “You need twenty boats out there fishing!”

Thompson was jailed for a year; he and his partners were fined $400,000 as part of their sentence.

In a non-prosecution agreement, $500,000 was donated by HSA-UWC (Unification Church of America).

“The world’s largest baby-leopard-shark poaching ring” was broken up. The fish are also known as tiger or cat sharks.

In a sermon given on August 17, 2003 by Kevin Thompson (above) captured on audiotape, Thompson said he personally informed the True Father [Rev. Moon] about the shark enterprise. “When I had the chance to tell our founder Reverend Moon about it … he told me, you know, ‘You need twenty boats out there fishing!’” he boasted. “He had this big plan drawn out, you know.” Thompson, a Brit who speaks with a northern accent, also said he had to convince the excited Moon not to expand the operation, apparently out of fear that it would attract notice.

In the same sermon he said, “We want the smaller the better.” Taking sharks less than 36 inches was banned in 1994 – which Thompson clearly knew by 2003.

Prosecutors said federal wildlife agents seized sharks ranging from 8 1/2 inches to 17 1/2 inches in length.

Animal cruelty Some of Thompson’s sharks died in transit. Federal investigators know the fate of at least 101 sharks sold by his shark ring. Those pups were put in large water-filled plastic bags, which were stuffed into cardboard shipping boxes and flown on a commercial airliner to an Illinois dealer. The bags, however, apparently contained insufficient water and oxygen, and the pups suffocated. Investigators tracked down 190 air shipments via only three airlines between 1996 and 2004, but there were probably more than double that number. Shipments by other means were not investigated.

One of Thompson’s fishermen told authorities his record single-day catch was 202.

Leopard sharks grow to 6-8 feet in length – as they grow almost all owners have to get rid of their sharks, usually by killing them.

Kevin Thompson’s wife, Masako, was the bookkeeper for the operation.

__________________________________

East Bay Express July 12, 2006

The Moonies and the Sharks

How a Unification Church pastor went fishing for converts and snagged an indictment as America’s most prolific poacher of baby leopard sharks.

Kevin Thompson is the pastor at San Leandro’s Bay Area Family Church [part of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification].

By Robert Gammon

… If attempts by Kevin Thompson and his cohorts to disguise their activities are any indication, it’s clear they knew for years that they were breaking the law. In 1994, the state Legislature banned the taking of juvenile leopard sharks — defined as those less than 36 inches long. Environmentalists had been fretting that overfishing the sharks before they were old enough to reproduce would eventually lead to their demise. Nonetheless, it was easy for Thompson’s ring to escape detection while shipping baby sharks as small as eight inches. According to court documents, the reverend and his helpers would simply mark the boxes “live tropical fish.” …

But the most damning details, as far the Unification Church was concerned, came from John Newberry, who was eighteen when he started shark fishing with Thompson. For decades, Moon and his top disciples have prided themselves in keeping church-connected businesses legally separate from church activities. When questioned, they have repeatedly maintained that even though church members own and operate the businesses, there are no formal ties to the church. But Newberry pierced that veil when he revealed that he and Thompson stowed their fishing poles, line, hooks, and bait, along with three of the church’s shark boats, at the San Leandro sushi warehouse owned by True World Foods. Newberry also disclosed that at the rear of the True World property was a large shack where they kept their live baby leopard sharks.

Full story:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-moonies-and-the-sharks/Content?oid=1081440&showFullText=true

__________________________________

▲ Sun Myung Moon fishing

FFWPU attorneys cut a non-prosecution agreement with the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco.

The 2007 case involved Ocean Church, part of HSA-UWC, and the alleged illegal capture of thousands of undersized – under 36 inches in length – leopard sharks out of the San Francisco Bay and selling them to aquarium dealers in the U.S., the United Kingdom, and the Netherlands.

As part of the deal, HSA-UWC founded by Sun Myung Moon, agreed to pay the government $500,000.

May we see a copy of the agreement?

No you may not, the U.S. Attorney’s office says.

Why not?

The parties agreed the agreement would not be made public.

https://www.corporatecrimereporter.com/secretsettlements022009.htm

__________________________________

Prosecutors Net Leopard-Shark Smugglers

February 13, 2007

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=7379593

AUDIO of Kevin Thompson available here

Federal officials have broken up a major wildlife smuggling ring led by a pastor at a San Francisco Bay area church. The smugglers pulled thousands of baby leopard sharks from the bay, then sold the live sharks to pet stores and private buyers around the world.

Authorities say the operation began many years ago. About that time, the weekly sermon at the Ocean Church in San Leandro, Calif., was devoted to an unusual topic: pet sharks.

“For the past 13 years, Ocean Church has had this little shark business,” Pastor Kevin Thompson said. “We catch these baby sharks, this big. And we sell them to pet stores, live.”

Thompson’s products were baby leopard sharks fresh from the San Francisco Bay. Customers paid up to $40 for each of the one- to two-foot sharks. Fish collectors loved them for their big dark spots and the elegant way they glided through the water.

But the business wasn’t legal. Earlier this year, Thompson and five other men pleaded guilty to wildlife smuggling and Thompson was sentenced to a year in jail.

Federal officials say Thompson ran a poaching gang that may have removed as many as 10,000 baby leopard sharks from San Francisco Bay.

At a press conference at the Monterey Bay Aquarium Monday, Lisa Nichols of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said the poachers caught hundreds of sharks a day during the breeding season.

“A majority of them would just fish, hook ‘em, bring 'em in,” Nichols said. “If you’re out there in the dark and nobody checks you, you take it back to your truck and you’re gone. If somebody shows up, they get dumped in the water and the evidence is gone.”

The ring began to fall apart in 2003, when a smuggling expert with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration saw a baby leopard shark that was for sale on a website and started asking questions. The investigation led him to the Ocean Church and Pastor Thompson [of the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification] and his partners, some who also happened to be his parishioners.

Monday, Nichols and other officials closed the book on this investigation by unveiling a $1.5 million plan to restore some the marshes where the leopard sharks give birth. More than $400,000 will come from Thompson and his partners as part of their sentence, and $500,000 will be donated by the Unification Church of America, to which the Ocean Church belongs. The rest of the money will come from foundations and conservation groups.

Lisa Nichols says the prosecution has helped drive other leopard shark poachers out of the business.

“Once we started openly prosecuting people in this case — after the investigation was at a certain level — word spread fairly quickly in the industry,” Nichols said. “Working undercover I tried to make attempts to buy in the last year and it’s pretty much shut down.”

Towards the end, according to investigators, some of these poachers asked their preacher whether they were doing the right thing. He responded, allegedly, that the poaching was God’s will.

After Monday’s press conference, Mike Murray said there are many reasons why the trade in baby leopard sharks should never be allowed to recover. One: that baby sharks don’t stay that way for long.

“They become very large: six, seven, eight feet in length,” said Murray, a Monterey Bay Aquarium staff veterinarian. “That’s a big fish.”

Too big, he says, for the fish tank in your living room.

East Bay Express July 12, 2006

The Moonies and the Sharks

Fishing was fundamental to Reverend Kevin Thompson’s ministry, but he kept catching the wrong kind. The easy part was luring young people to the shimmering waters of San Francisco Bay. Thompson and a few of his followers would load the teens onto the church’s boat, pull out the angling gear, and start talking about God and committing oneself to the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. “In the context of our church, we try to use boats as a training place for young people,” Thompson later explained to authorities. But the reverend said he and the hundreds of teens he took fishing over the years kept snagging fish they didn’t want. “We’d catch these sharks,” he said.

Leopard sharks, also known as tiger or cat sharks, are plentiful in the bay, and at some point in the early 1990s, Thompson and one of his followers realized they could make a lot of money if they stopped throwing them back in the water. Thompson learned that baby leopard sharks were a prized commodity on the black market. Pet dealers would pay handsomely for the exotic and beautiful fish, then sell them to people for their home aquariums.

Over the next decade, Thompson and a few of his fellow Unification Church members hauled at least six thousand of the sharks from the bay, according to an account one of his followers gave to federal investigators. Thompson admitted he sold the animals to wholesale pet dealers, who shipped them around the world. Earlier this year, authorities estimated the street value of the church’s operation at more than $1.2 million, making it the biggest baby-leopard-shark poaching ring environmentalists and federal investigators had ever encountered.

In January, a federal grand jury in Oakland indicted Thompson, two of his followers, and three shark dealers on felony charges. According to court documents, Thompson and several cohorts have confessed to at least some of their crimes, one of the dealers pled guilty last month, and the pastor, who is out on bail and has returned to preaching at his San Leandro church, faces up to eight years in prison. …

Full story:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/the-moonies-and-the-sharks/Content?oid=1081440&showFullText=true

__________________________________

Moon’s church to pay in shark poaching

February 13, 2007

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2007-feb-13-me-sharks13-story.html

__________________________________

Sushi and Rev. Moon

By Monica Eng, Delroy Alexander and David Jackson

Chicago Tribune staff reporters April 11, 2006

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/watchdog/chi-0604sushi-1-story-story.html

________________________________________

Sun Myung Moon was found guilty of US tax fraud and sent to Danbury prison in 1984

Guilty Moon. Law firm was paid $100,000 up front and $50,000 a month to obtain a presidential pardon for Moon. It failed.

Sun Myung Moon was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002

Four years in jail for corruption for the publisher of Moon’s Autobiography in Korea. Slush funds used only for book purchasing of the ‘Autobiography’ to push it up the best-seller lists exceeded 2 billion won. It was fraud.

In 1985 the Washington Times sponsored a fund for the Contras who committed atrocities, and trafficked drugs to the US

#Sun Myung Moon #fish poaching #jail #leopard sharks #Bay Area #San Francisco #Ocean Church #Family Federation for World Peace and Unification

1 note · View note

oselatra · 6 years ago

Text

Game and Fish ponders banning turtle harvest

Suspends licensing on importing venomous snakes.

At the urging of conservation groups, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission has sought public comment on whether it should ban the commercial trapping of freshwater turtles. States around Arkansas — Texas, Missouri, Louisiana, Tennessee and Mississippi — either limit or have banned trapping altogether. In Arkansas, commercial trappers are allowed to take an unlimited number of 14 species/subspecies of turtles from the wild. (However, two of those species aren't found in Arkansas and one does not survive shipping and handling and is not harvested, reducing the number of harvested species to 11.)

The commission included a question on the ban in an April survey seeking public comment on changes to state fishing regulations. The survey ended in May, and results will be presented to the commission at its July 19 meeting.

The Center for Biological Diversity petitioned the agency to consider the ban in August 2017. Signing on to the petition were the Arkansas Sierra Club, the Arkansas Watertrails Partnership, the Audubon Society of Central Arkansas, the Environmental Resources Center and two individuals. The petition cited declines in turtle populations from other factors — pollution, habitat loss, car strikes and incidental takes from fisheries — and said commercial harvesting was contributing to the decimation of populations.

On June 20, dozens of scientist members of the International Union for the Conservation of Nature sent a letter to the commission supporting the ban. The letter cited Arkansas trappers' figures that said more than 120,000 turtles were harvested between 2014 and 2016 from Arkansas, most of them large and sexually mature.

Keith Stephens, communications division chief for Game and Fish, said data from years 2004-17 showed 1.3 million turtles were taken from the wild in Arkansas.

Elise Bennett of the Center for Biological Diversity, who met with Game and Fish officials and trappers two weeks ago to talk about the issue, said she was told that it's likely only 60 percent of the take is being reported, so that the harvest numbers are likely much higher.

The problem with harvesting turtles is that it's not sustainable. Turtles, because they have few predators, are slow to mature, and the females lay eggs only once a year. There are many predators of eggs and hatchlings, so only a few survive predators and grow into mature, breeding individuals.

For example, because of their slow reproduction rate and egg/hatchling predation, snapping turtle populations could decline by half if only 10 percent were taken over a 15-year period, a Missouri study shows, Bennett said.

Turtles "just cannot withstand any source of removal. We're just losing them," said Janine Perlman, one of the signatories of the IUCN letter and a comparative nutritional biochemist and wildlife rehabilitator in Alexander.

Missouri banned all commercial harvesting of turtles this year, and Alabama and Florida also have bans. Other Southeastern states impose limits, including Georgia and South Carolina. Texas bans all commercial harvests on public waters and is considering expanding that to private waters.

Arkansas does ban the commercial taking of three species: alligator snappers (Macrochelys temminckii), box turtles (Terrapene spp.) and the chicken turtle (Deirochelys reticularia).

While Game and Fish has gathered information on turtle harvests, it has not been able to do population studies to determine the extent of the threat to the species that may be harvested. Bennett, however, is particularly concerned about the threat to the razorback musk turtle, because its harvest was recently banned in Louisiana, and turtle trappers there will no doubt look to Arkansas.

Most of the turtles taken are sliders, which go to the pet trade. Others are being exported to China, Bennett said, where they are used both for breeding and traditional medicine. Male turtles are canned for food.

Game and Fish spokesman Stephens said of the number of people who responded to the fisheries survey, 34 percent supported a ban, 37 percent opposed it and 29 percent had no opinion.

Turtle harvest licenses have declined sharply since 2007. That year, there were 146 turtle harvester and dealer permits, Stephens said. There were only 35 permits issued in 2017, only six of which reported harvesting turtles.

In any case, a ban on commercial harvest isn't imminent. In an email, Stephens wrote, "We don't have enough current data on overall populations to propose such a ban, but if it appears to be a significant concern with Arkansans, then we will definitely begin devoting resources to look into the status of those species further. If it was determined from the research that it is detrimental to the population of those species, then biologists would then come to the commission with proposed regulation changes, which would then be submitted for public review as well."

***

If you were planning on importing, breeding or selling venomous snakes anytime soon, don't. At its June 21 meeting, the commission decided to suspend its Wildlife Importation and Wildlife Breeder/Dealer permits for venomous or poisonous wildlife species for 120 days.

Game and Fish spokesman Randy Zellers said the suspension comes as the agency is revising its caging requirements for captive wildlife. The suspension does not affect persons already in possession of exotic or venomous species. Nor does it apply to people collecting native venomous species: If someone catches a copperhead and wants to keep it, "I wouldn't advise it, but it's not illegal," Zellers said. With the exception of birds, bats, alligator snapping turtles, ornate box turtles, hellbenders, Ouachita streambed salamanders, collared lizards and cave-dwelling or endangered species, people may hand-catch and keep up to six animals of native nongame wildlife species.

"We do have caging requirements for large carnivores and things like that, but nothing for the poisonous or venomous animals that are coming over," Zellers said.

Rattlesnake researcher Dr. Steven Beaupre, who is an ex-officio member of the commission, advised commissioners that the University of Arkansas, where Beaupre is a biology professor, must meet certain standards in its facilities for venomous or poisonous creatures "to prevent escapes or mishandling that could cause a dangerous situation." Beaupre has often been called by public safety officers to help remove venomous snakes from people's homes.

In what might be the weirdest story having to do with imported snakes in Arkansas, in 2004, Garrick Wales of Scotland, U.K., was found dead in a rental car at the Little Rock Regional Airport after receiving a shipment of four venomous snakes: a 14-inch twig snake, a 6-foot green mamba, a 4-foot black mamba and a 5-foot forest cobra in a wooden box. The state medical examiner confirmed he'd died of snakebite, though he didn't identify which snake bit Wales. (Oddly, the box of snakes was not in the car; a truck driver found the box about a half-mile from the car.) Arkansas has required importation permits since 2001; Wales had no permit.

Game and Fish ponders banning turtle harvest

#Game and Fish ponders banning turtle harvest

1 note · View note

ezatluba · 5 years ago

Photo

The next pandemic is already coming, unless humans change how we interact with wildlife, scientists say

Karin Brulliard

April 3, 2020

The new coronavirus, which has traversed the globe to infect more than 1 million people, began like so many pandemics and outbreaks before: inside an animal.

The virus’s original host was almost certainly a bat, scientists have said, as was the case with Ebola, SARS, MERS and lesser-known viruses such as Nipah and Marburg. HIV migrated to humans more than a century ago from a chimpanzee. Influenza A has jumped from wild birds to pigs to people. Rodents spread Lassa fever in West Africa.

But the problem is not the animals, according to scientists who study the zoonotic diseases that pass between animals and humans. It’s us.

Wild animals have always had viruses coursing through their bodies. But a global wildlife trade worth billions of dollars, agricultural intensification, deforestation and urbanization are bringing people closer to animals, giving their viruses more of what they need to infect us: opportunity. Most fail. Some succeed on small scales. Very few, like SARS-CoV-2, the novel coronavirus, triumph, aided by a supremely interconnected human population that can transport a pathogen around the world on a jet in mere hours.

As the world scrambles to cope with an unprecedented public health and economic crisis, many disease researchers say the coronavirus pandemic must be taken as a deadly warning. That means thinking of animals as partners whose health and habitats should be protected to stave off the next global outbreak.

“Pandemics as a whole are increasing in frequency,” said Peter Daszak, a disease ecologist who is president of EcoHealth Alliance, a public health organization that studies emerging diseases. “It’s not a random act of God. It’s caused by what we do to the environment. We need to start connecting that chain and say we need to do these things in a less risky way.”

Some 70 percent of emerging infectious diseases in humans are of zoonotic origin, scientists say, and nearly 1.7 million undiscovered viruses may exist in wildlife. Many researchers are searching for the ones that could cause the next animal-to-human spillover. The likeliest hot spots have three things in common, Daszak said: lots of people, diverse plants and animals, and rapid environmental changes.

They also are home to many of the likeliest zoonotic disease hosts: rodents and bats. About half of mammal species are rodents, and about a quarter are bats. But bats make up about 50 percent of mammals in the most biodiverse tropical regions, and while they are valuable pollinators and pest eaters, they are also astounding virus vessels. Bats have a superhero-like immune system that allows them to become “reservoirs to many pathogens that do not impact them but can have a tremendous impact on us if they’re able to make the jump,” said Thomas Gillespie, a disease ecologist at Emory University.

Increasingly, we make the jump easier.

Late last year, a horseshoe bat coronavirus is thought to have leaped in China, scientists say, where commerce in exotic animals is driven by luxury tastes in game and demand for parts used for medicinal purposes.

At a “wet market” in Wuhan linked to an early cluster of coronavirus cases, at least one store sold creatures including wolf cubs and masked palm civets for consumption. Such markets, experts say, feature stressed and ill animals stacked in cages, bodily fluids sprinkling down, as well as butchering — prime conditions for viral spillover.

Although horseshoe bats are hunted and eaten in China, how the suspected bat virus first infected people will not be easily deduced. An early cluster of cases was traced to the sprawling animal market, but it was closed and sanitized before researchers could track down what animal might have been implicated. And it was probably not the location of the spillover itself, which could have happened weeks earlier, possibly in November. Some of the first cases had no connection to the animal market.

Because the new virus isn’t identical to any known bat virus, somewhere between the bat and human beings, the virus mutated in at least one intermediary, perhaps the endangered pangolin, a mammal heavily trafficked for its scales, scientists say.

The 2003 SARS outbreak, which eventually was linked to horseshoe bats by scientists who spelunked through slippery caves lined with bat guano, was also traced to wild animal markets. Scientists think that coronavirus jumped from bats to masked palm civets — catlike mammals sold for meat — to humans.

“One of the key interfaces for these spillover events to occur are markets and the international trade of wildlife,” Chris Walzer, executive director for the Wildlife Conservation Society’s global health program, told reporters on Thursday.

In Africa, dwindling populations of large mammals mean game is increasingly from smaller species, including rodents and bats, said Fabian Leendertz, a veterinarian who studies zoonotic diseases at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin. While some is consumed for subsistence or traditional purposes, exotic meat sales are also a “huge economy” in the fast-growing megacities, Leendertz said.

“That’s something I would stop first,” he said. “The risk is not because the meat travels … but it results in higher hunting pressure and higher contact rate for those who go hunting and those who take it apart.”

The international trade in exotic pets such as reptiles and fish is also a concern, because the animals are rarely tested for pathogens that could sicken humans, Daszak said. So are large farms packed with animals, Gillespie said.

“When I think about what’s the primary risk factor, it’s influenza A that’s linked to pig and chicken production,” he said.

But harvesting and raising animals are not the only venues for spillover. Humans increasingly share space with wildlife and alter it in perilous ways, researchers say.

Lyme disease, caused by a bacteria, spreads more easily in the eastern United States because fragmented forests have fewer predators, such as foxes and opossums, that eat mice that host Lyme-spreading ticks, studies have found. Building leads to a closer coexistence with some wild animals, including bats, Leendertz said.

Scientists point to the 1998 emergence in Malaysia of Nipah virus, which has killed hundreds of people in several outbreaks in Asia, as a vivid example of spillover fueled by environmental change and agricultural intensification. The clearing of rainforests for palm oil and lumber and livestock displaced fruit bats, some of which ended up on new pig farms where mango and other fruit trees also grew, they say. Bats “drop more than they eat,” Gillespie said, and their saliva and feces infected pigs below. Pigs sickened farmworkers and others close to the industry.

“Wherever we’re creating novel interfaces, this is likely a risk that we need to be seriously considering,” he said. “It’s forcing wildlife to look for new food sources. It’s forcing them to change their behavior in ways that puts them in a better position to transfer the pathogen to us.”

As Earth’s human population hurtles toward 8 billion, no one thinks human-animal interaction is going to decrease. The key is reducing the risk of a devastating spillover, scientists say — and not by killing bats. But they acknowledge that cultural and economic pressures make change difficult.

The Wildlife Conservation Society and other groups have called on countries to prohibit the trade in wild animals for food and close wet markets. Anthony S. Fauci, the nation’s top infectious-diseases expert and the face of the U.S. response to the pandemic, said Friday that the world community should pressure China and other nations that host such markets to shut them down.

“It just boggles my mind how, when we have so many diseases that emanate out of that unusual human-animal interface, that we don’t just shut it down,” Fauci told Fox News’s “Fox & Friends.”

China, which briefly stopped the trade in civets after the SARS outbreak, announced in January a ban on the transport and sale of wild animals, but only until the coronavirus epidemic is eliminated. Permanent legislation is needed, said Aili Kang, executive director of WCS’s Asia program.

Not everyone agrees. Bans could cause markets to move underground, some say. Daszak noted that Westerners also eat wild animals — seafood and deer, for example. Instead, he said, trade should be regulated and the animals rigorously tested for pathogens.

Stronger surveillance for illness in wild animals — regarding them as “sentinels” — is needed, Leendertz said. So is a widespread realization that building in wild habitats can fuel public health crises, Gillespie said.

Many researchers say the coronavirus pandemic underscores the need for a more holistic “one health” approach, which views human, animal and environmental health as interconnected.

“There needs to be a cultural shift from a community level up about how we treat animals, our understanding of the dangers and biosecurity risks that we’re exposing ourselves to,” said Kate Jones, chair of ecology and biodiversity at University College London. “That means leaving ecosystems intact, not destroying them. It means thinking in a more long-term way.”

Joel Achenbach, Paulina Firozi and William Wan contributed to this report.

0 notes

bangkokjacknews · 5 years ago

Text

The dog-meat trade in Vietnam, are attitudes finally changing?

The #dogmeat trade in #Vietnam is sparking an increasingly heated debate, both among Vietnamese and in a wider international community.

While the consumption of dog meat doesn’t necessarily denote cruelty to animals, high and rising demand is driving a lucrative but largely unregulated meat market across the country. Roughly 5 million dogs are slaughtered for human consumption each year in Vietnam, according to the Asia Canine Protection Alliance (ACPA). In the absence of any animal-rights laws to protect them, traders are free to prioritize profit over humanity – and many do. “The dog-meat trade is governed by demand,” said John Dalley, co-founder of the Soi Dog Foundation, one of five members of ACPA. “You know, it’s a business. It’s demand, consumption and supply.” Before selling dogs to restaurants and slaughterhouses, (a Bangkok Jack Report) traders often pump the animals’ stomachs with liquid rice while they are still alive to make them heavier so as to earn more money per kilogram. The logistics of the trade can be even crueler. “Nine or 10 dogs are stuffed into a single cage and loaded on to trucks. Legs are hanging out, heads are out, literally over a thousand dogs per truck,” Dalley said. ACPA advocates for a ban on dog meat on the grounds that legalization would fail to end the abuse or address the health risks associated with the trade, including possible bacterial infections such as anthrax, hepatitis and leptospirosis, or even contraction of rabies. Regulations Vietnam has various regulations that apply to parts of the dog-meat industry, but enforcement is weak and easily bypassed, says ACPA coordinator Lola Webber. “The existing trade in and slaughter of dogs fails to comply with many of the compulsory animal-disease prevention measures,” she said. “In addition, the law requires that animals being imported, transported domestically and exported must be quarantined.” A key part of ACPA’s work is to encourage the enforcement of these quarantine regulations, in the hope that a costlier and less convenient supply chain will stunt the trade by incentivizing traders to leave it. “ would raise the traders’ costs,” Dalley said. “Their logistics problems would become very difficult – we’re talking thousands of dogs a week, and you’re going to have to keep them somewhere before you can transport them, you’ve got to have them all vaccinated…. If it is enforced then it’s going to put the price of dog meat up.”

An estimated five million dogs and cats are slaughtered and eaten in Vietnam every year. Most of the animals are snatched street animals or pets kidnapped from owners’ yards or gardens One of the most common and perhaps most dangerous arguments against the dog-meat trade in Vietnam and in wider Asia is that eating dog meat is somehow immoral. In fact, for many Vietnamese eating dog meat is perfectly normal and often considered a delicacy. Hal Herzog, an expert in anthro-zoology and leading psychology professor, says dog-meat consumption is a matter of culture. Tasty “Humans have been eating dogs for a long time,” he told Public Radio International. “It’s quite possible dogs were originally domesticated because they were tasty, but could also do chores.” Indeed, a tradition of eating dogs has been handed down from generation to generation in Vietnam. Long, a self-professed dog thief who sells canine meat to traders and middlemen, explained the intricacies of “how to cook a dog” at a meat shop in Ho Chi Minh City’s Tan Binh district. Huge fleshy chunks of dog meat retail for around 90,000 dong (US$4) per kilo at the shop. “Buy lemon, wine, garlic, chili, galangal, lemongrass and la mo , chop finely and mix it with the blood of the dog. Put everything inside the guts, tie it into pieces and boil it for around five minutes.

A dog meat restaurant in Hà Nội. — VNS Photo Bảo Hoa “I can prepare the meat for cooking in just 15 minutes,” he said, a dog under one arm in a green sack. “First you slit the throat quickly and let it bleed out, then boil some water. If a dog weighs 10kg I will prepare 7 liters of water … add some more tepid water and put the dog into the pot.” In this way, he explained, the fur is easily removed from the animal without cooking the meat. Then the dog chef removes the head, knuckles and internal organs and cleans the meat, preparing it for a range of delicately designed dishes. While he is technically a career thief, Long doesn’t perceive his work as particularly immoral and is genuinely passionate about dog meat. “I have been doing this for over 30 years. My father did it before me, my grandfather before him.” Exotic As Vietnam becomes wealthier, dog consumption is becoming more mainstream. Dog meat was once considered quite exotic, but is now far more accessible, less expensive and increasingly popular with lower-income demographics, according to Tran Gia Bao, Vietnam representative for the Soi Dog Foundation,. “Dog meat used to be a somewhat special occasion for male workers or friends to gather at the lunar month, but now it’s moved down to a broader market,” said Bao, “like construction workers, laborers and students, and it’s getting cheaper and more street-food style.” Despite clear links to disease, dog meat has nonetheless gained a reputation among Vietnamese consumers as a widely available, protein-rich, healthy alternative to other meats. It is also believed to be medicinal, to increase a man’s virility, and to warm the blood in cold weather, and is often associated with cultural superstitions. Most commonly, however, it is viewed as a tasty accompaniment to beer and good company. Still, attitudes are changing in some quarters. According to a recent VnExpress poll, 95% of respondents agreed the trade should be banned because it is illegal and barbaric. “You cannot justify boiling, cutting limbs off skinning dogs and cats alive,” said one poll taker. Of the 5% who voted against a dog-meat ban in the poll, many argued for legalization. “Pushed deeper underground, that black market will simply keep on thriving, and the dog-meat trade will get ever more pernicious for society,” another voter commented. Technically illegal Given that parts of the trade are already technically illegal, it is unlikely that regulations would be enforceable if the trade were legalized, ACPA says. For example, although some thieves are arrestedon connected charges, theft as a criminal offense often doesn’t apply to dog thieves. “Punishment for theft … only applies to the theft of goods that have a value of over 2 million dong,” or $88, said ACPA’s Webber. Regardless of whether a ban on dog meat would end the trade or not, society’s attitude toward domestic animals could still put them in danger of being traded or abused. Leopold Vincent, founder of the Vietnam Animals Cruelty shelter, says this attitude may be more related to the notion of ownership than love. “The dog is their property,” he said. “ it doesn’t mean that the dog won’t be sold to a restaurant or killed for consumption.” Families sell their dogs In fact, it is common for Vietnamese families to sell their dogs to traders as they would livestock, particularly in rural areas. “If the dog is noisy, if the dog is sick, if the dog is old, they sell it,” he said. “You know, there is the guy on the motorbike with the basket behind and he calls to people, ‘mưa cho đay’” (buy dogs here). Vietnam’s animal-rights community sees changing social attitudes as key to one day banning the trade. Paws for Compassion (PFC), a charity based in Da Nang, fights for animal welfare by teaching children more compassion for the animals around them. The general attitude is “that there are many around, so if the one I have is sick, hurt, or just not as I want it to be, throw it out and get another one,” said one of PFC’s co-founders. “We fight for animal welfare through education because … we feel that when kids interact with animals at a young age, they learn compassion, and that will cause a ripple effect.” ACPA employs a similar approach, but with an older target market. While progress is slow and the issue complex, ACPA believes attitudes toward dogs are beginning to change. “What we’re seeing across Asia actually is a growth in the pet industry,” said ACPA’s Dalley. “You’ve also got young people now, certainly the educated young people, who are far more animal-welfare-conscious.” - AsiaTimes – You can follow BangkokJack on Instagram, Twitter & Reddit. Or join the free mailing list (top right) Please help us continue to bring the REAL NEWS - PayPal Read the full article

0 notes

kristablogs · 5 years ago

Text

‘Tiger King’ would have been more disturbing if it had focused on the big cat trade

"Albino" tigers are often just captive individuals bred for specific, atypical features. (Uriel Sobaranes/Unsplash/)

This story originally featured on The Conversation.

Netflix’s new docuseries Tiger King takes viewers into the strange world of big cat collectors. Featuring eccentric characters with names like Joe Exotic and Bhagavan “Doc” Antle, the series touches on polygamy, addiction, and personality cults, while exploring a mysterious disappearance and a murder-for-hire.

To Allison Skidmore, a Ph.D. candidate at the University of California, Santa Cruz, who studies wildlife trafficking, the documentary didn’t bring enough attention to the scourge of captive big cats.

A former park ranger, Skidmore first started studying the issue in the US after the infamous death of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe in 2015. She was shocked to learn about how little oversight there was stateside. We asked her about the legality, incentives, and ease of buying and selling tigers.

How many captive tigers are in the US?

Unfortunately, there’s no straightforward answer. The vast majority of captive tigers are crossbred hybrids, so they aren’t identified as members of one of the six tiger subspecies—the Bengal tiger, Amur tiger, South China tiger, Sumatran tiger, Indochinese tiger, and Malayan tiger. Instead, they’re classified as “generic.”

Less than 5 percent—or fewer than 350—of tigers in captivity are managed through the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a nonprofit organization that serves as an accrediting body in the US. They ensure accredited facilities meet higher standards of animal care than required by law.

All the rest are privately owned tigers, meaning they don’t belong to one of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums’ 236 sponsored institutions. These are considered generic and fall outside of federal oversight.

There’s no legal requirement to register these generic tigers, nor a comprehensive national database to track and monitor them. The best educated guess puts the number of tigers at around 10,000 in the US. Estimates put the global captive tiger population as high as 25,000.

In comparison, there are fewer than 4,000 tigers in the wild—down from 100,000 a century ago.

The new docu-series <Tiger King> gives viewers a glimpse of the poorly regulated exotic-animal trade in the US. (Netflix/)

How do tigers change hands?

The Endangered Species Act and the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Fauna prevent the importation of tigers from the wild. So all tigers in the US are born in captivity, with the rare exception of an orphaned wild cub that may end up in a zoo.

Only purebred tigers that are one of the six definitive subspecies are accounted for; these are the tigers you see in places like the Smithsonian National Zoo and generally belong to the Species Survival Plan, a captive breeding program designed to regulate the exchange of specific endangered species between member zoos in order to maintain genetic diversity.

All other tigers are found in zoos, sanctuaries, carnivals, wildlife parks, exhibits, and private homes that aren’t sanctioned by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums. They can change hands in any number of ways, from online marketplaces to exotic animal auctions. They can be bought for as little as $800 to $2,000 for a cub and $200 to $500 for an adult, which is less expensive than many purebred dog puppies.

Can I legally buy a tiger?

The US is plagued with complicated and vague laws concerning tiger ownership.

However, there are no federal statutes or regulations that expressly forbid private ownership of tigers. State and local jurisdictions have been given this authority, and some do pass bans or require permits. Thirty-two states have bans or partial bans, and 14 states allow ownership with a simple license or permit. Four states —Alabama, Wisconsin, North Carolina and Nevada—have no form of oversight or regulation at all.

An overarching, cohesive framework of regulations is missing, and even in states that ban private ownership, there are loopholes. For example, in all but three states, owners can apply for what’s called a “federal exhibitor license,” which is remarkably cheap and easy to obtain and circumvents any stricter state or local laws in place.

You now need a permit to transport tigers across state lines, but there’s still no permit required for intra-state travel.

What’s in it for the owners?

Some see it as a business venture, while others claim they care about conservation. I consider the latter reason insincere.

Many facilities promote themselves as wildlife refuges or sanctuaries. These places frame their breeding and exhibition practices as stewardship, as if they’re contributing to an endangered animal’s survival. The reality is that no captive tiger has ever been released into the wild, so it’s not like these facilities can augment wild populations. A true sanctuary or refuge should have a strict no breeding or handling policy, and should have education programs dedicated to promoting conservation.

Bottle-feeding at a ‘pseudo-sanctuary’ in Southern California. (Allison Skidmore/)

Ultimately, tigers are big money makers, especially tiger cubs. The Animal Welfare Act allows cub petting from eight to 12 weeks of age. People pay $100 to $700 to pet, bottle-feed, swim with, or take a photo with a cub.

None of these profits go toward the conservation of wild tigers, and this small window of opportunity for direct public contact means that exhibitors must continually breed tigers to maintain a constant supply of cubs.

The value of cubs declines significantly after 12 weeks. Where do all these surplus tigers go? Unfortunately, due to a lack of regulatory oversight, it’s hard to know.

Since many states don’t account for their live tigers, there’s also no oversight regarding the reporting and disposal of dead tigers. Wildlife criminologists fear that these tigers can easily end up in the black market where their parts can cumulatively be worth up to $70,000. There’s evidence of US captive tigers tied to the domestic black market trade: In 2003, an owner of a tiger “rescue” facility was found to have 90 dead tigers in freezers on his property. And in 2001, an undercover investigation led by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ended up leading to the prosecutions of 16 people for buying, selling and slaughtering 19 tigers.

What role does social media play?

Posing with tigers on social media platforms like Instagram and on dating apps has become a huge problem. Not only can it create a health and safety risk for both the human and tiger, but it also fosters a false narrative.

If you see thousands of photos of people with captive tigers, it masks the true problem of endangered tigers in the wild. Some might wonder whether tigers are really so endangered if they’re so easy to pose with.

The reality of the wild tiger’s plight has become masked behind the pomp and pageantry of social media. This marginalizes meaningful ideas about conservation and the true status of tigers as one of the most endangered big cats.

0 notes

scootoaster · 5 years ago

Text

‘Tiger King’ would have been more disturbing if it had focused on the big cat trade

"Albino" tigers are often just captive individuals bred for specific, atypical features. (Uriel Sobaranes/Unsplash/)

This story originally featured on The Conversation.

How many captive tigers are in the US?

In comparison, there are fewer than 4,000 tigers in the wild—down from 100,000 a century ago.

The new docu-series <Tiger King> gives viewers a glimpse of the poorly regulated exotic-animal trade in the US. (Netflix/)

How do tigers change hands?

Can I legally buy a tiger?

The US is plagued with complicated and vague laws concerning tiger ownership.

You now need a permit to transport tigers across state lines, but there’s still no permit required for intra-state travel.

What’s in it for the owners?

Some see it as a business venture, while others claim they care about conservation. I consider the latter reason insincere.

Bottle-feeding at a ‘pseudo-sanctuary’ in Southern California. (Allison Skidmore/)

The value of cubs declines significantly after 12 weeks. Where do all these surplus tigers go? Unfortunately, due to a lack of regulatory oversight, it’s hard to know.

What role does social media play?

0 notes

robertmcangusgroup · 7 years ago

Text

The Daily Tulip

The Daily Tulip – News From Around The World

Thursday 7th September 2017

Good Morning Gentle Reader…. I'm reminded of the Who song "I can see for miles and miles and miles" this morning standing down at the ocean with an unbelievable view of the heavens, in the past 10 minutes I have stood here I have seen three meteors zip across the night sky and vanish over the distant horizon.... well, I hope that’s what they were…. The temperatures for today are a wonderful 29c High and a 22c Low ( in old terms that 84f and 72f ) the suffering that I do just living in Spain… We came up the hill today, or I should say Bella wanted to climb the hill, she seems to have her days when she wants to go to the Hermitage and others when she wants the ocean.. are well women are fickle like that, but I know what I want and it’s my morning brew so we turn and descend to the house, coffee, digestive biscuits and you, what a mix ….

CAN YOU BELIEVE IT…. A Half-Indian woman (wonder which half?) was on Monday crowned Miss Japan, the second year in a row a biracial person has won the beauty pageant. Priyanka Yoshikawa, 22 and who also has an elephant training license, said she would use her win to "change perceptions".... Well she's already changed mine, where did she get her Elephant Training License and the big question and Why???

LAST YEAR'S MISS JAPAN, ARIANA MIYAMOTO…. was the first mixed-race person to win the pageant. Critics complained then that a "pure" Japanese should have won, (In the UK they would have called that a racist remark). Only about 2% of babies born every year are biracial, or "haafu", (It seems you can only have this type of baby when you have a cold, Haafu!) the Japanese word for half. Miss Japan 2015 Ariana Miyamoto faced a backlash after she became the first "haafu" to win the beauty pageant "We are Japanese," Ms Yoshikawa told news outlet AFP. "Yes, my dad is Indian and I'm proud of it, I'm proud that I have Indian in me. But that doesn't mean I'm not Japanese." She credited her win to Ms Miyamoto, saying she had helped show "mixed girls the way". "Before Ariana, “haafu” girls couldn't represent Japan," said Ms Yoshikawa. "That's what I thought too. Ariana encouraged me a lot by showing me and all mixed girls the way." "I know a lot of people who are haafu and suffer," she said. "When I came back to Japan, everyone thought I was a germ." "Like if they touched me they would be touching something bad. But I'm thankful because that made me really strong." The pageant winner, also an avid kick-boxer and qualified elephant trainer, said that she hoped to change perceptions… (I honestly don’t make any of this stuff up! Hahaha) "When I'm abroad, people never ask me what mix I am. As Miss Japan, hopefully I can help change perceptions so that it can be the same here too." Ms Yoshikawa's win did not trigger the backlash that Ms Miyamoto received on social media.

TROUSERS-DOWN MINISTER STATUE PROTESTS NZ WATER QUALITY…. A larger-than-life statue of New Zealand's environment minister, fashioned from horse dung, has been left outside council offices in Christchurch. The work by artist Sam Mahon shows minister Nick Smith with his trousers round his ankles, genitals on display, defecating into a glass of water, the New Zealand Herald reports. It's a protest against the government's water quality policy, which aims to improve water quality in lakes and rivers. Opponents say it will relax standards, however, and could expose people to harmful bacteria. A last-minute court injunction by Environment Canterbury (ECan) failed to stop the protest. A court had banned the statue from being delivered to ECan last week, so it was carried to a public footpath nearby instead, its bare buttocks facing the regional council building. Answering critics who thought the statue protest crude, Mr Mahon said that "If you want to make a political comment about something, coat it in chocolate. So I've got the idea of what Nick's doing to us, and if people laugh on both sides, they'll swallow the medicine."

AUSTRALIANS GRAPPLE WITH NEW ID RULE FOR TAKEAWAY BOOZE…. Citizens in Australia's Northern Territory now need to produce photographic ID if they want to buy takeaway alcohol, it's reported. This means that more than 1,000 people living in the country's northernmost state will be unable to make a purchase, now that the Banned Drinker Register (BDR) has been relaunched by the authorities in an attempt to cut booze-related crime, The NT News reports. A register was attempted in 2011, but was replaced within a year with a mandatory treatment scheme for problem drinkers. Now that the BDR has been successful, bottle shop customers must produce photo ID, which is then scanned through machines linked to the BDR database. Trade associations, however, fear that glitches in the system could result in long delays, raising the prospect of violence against staff. A recent trial of the machines resulted in just that outcome, the Australian Hotels Association NT told the paper. The territory's Liquor Stores Association hints at further problems to come, given that the roll-out is happening on what is traditionally the busiest day of the week. "It's going to be a nightmare," LSANT president Faye Hartley said. "It'll take time to sort out and to start."

STAR WARS STAMPS RELEASED TO MARK LATEST MOVIE…. A special edition set of Star Wars stamps will be released to mark the latest movie in the sci-fi series. The set of eight, illustrated by artist Malcolm Tween, will be released to commemorate the upcoming movie, Star Wars: The Last Jedi, which launches in December. They will feature images of new and classic characters alongside spaceships from the films in specially-created scenes, Royal Mail said. Maz Kanata, Chewbacca, Supreme Leader Snoke, R2-D2 and C-3PO are among those that will appear on the collection. Four of the stamps will have details in fluorescent ink that will only be visible under a UV light. The stamps will be on sale from October 12. Royal Mail issued another set in 2015 to mark the release of Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

AFRICAN PYGMY HEDGEHOG FOUND ABANDONED IN LONDON UNDERGROUND…. The Royal Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Animals rescued an African pygmy hedgehog that was found abandoned in England. Workers at the Edgware Road platform of the London Underground found the hedgehog alone in a hamster carrier and contacted animal collection officer Jill Sanders, who rushed to the rescue. "I was relieved that the little hedgehog was still alive as it was far too cold for him," Sanders said. "He was crammed into a tiny cage and must have been very disoriented and frightened." The RSPCA noted that the African pygmy hedgehog is "one of Britain's latest pet crazes," but does not believe they should be kept as pets. "Like many exotic animals, they have very specific needs, which relate to where they come from in the wild," the RSPCA said. "An African pygmy hedgehog's natural habitat is the semi-arid areas of central Africa and in captivity it would therefore require a heated enclosure." The hedgehog, which rescuers named "Paddington," was taken to a hedgehog caretaker in London, as the RSPCA searches for its owner. "It's not clear whether he's been abandoned or if his owner left him behind by mistake so if anyone recognizes him we'd urge them to get in touch by calling our appeal line," Sanders said.

Well Gentle Reader I hope you enjoyed our look at the news from around the world this, Thursday morning… …

Our Young Budding Tulips today are hiding the reason Tiny Tim wanted to "Tip Toe Through The Tulips" ......

A Sincere Thank You for your company and Thank You for your likes and comments I love them and always try to reply, so please keep them coming, it's always good fun, As is my custom, I will go and get myself another mug of "Colombian" Coffee and wish you a safe day Thursday 7th September 2017 from my home on the southern coast of Spain, where the blue waters of the Alboran Sea washes the coast of Africa and Europe and the smell of the night blooming Jasmine and Honeysuckle fills the air…and a crazy old guy and his dog Bella go out for a walk at 4:00 am…on the streets of Estepona…

All good stuff....But remember it’s a dangerous world we live in

Be safe out there…

Robert McAngus

0 notes

ezatluba · 5 years ago

Photo

How Do We Prevent Pets from Becoming Exotic Invaders?

Outlawing possession does not appear to stem the release of alligators, snakes and other problematic species

By Jim Daley

October 7, 2019

This summer a professional trapper caught an alligator in a lagoon in Chicago’s Humboldt Park, following a weeklong search that drew crowds of onlookers and captured national headlines. Dubbed “Chance the Snapper,” after a local hip-hop artist, the five-foot, three-inch reptile had likely been let loose by an unprepared pet owner, say experts at the Chicago Herpetological Society (CHS). This was no anomaly: pet gators have recently turned up in a backyard pool on Long Island, at a grocery store parking lot in suburban Pittsburgh (the fourth in that area since May) and again in Chicago.

Keeping a pet alligator is illegal in most U.S. states, but an underground market for these and other exotic animals is thriving—and contributing to the proliferation of invasive species in the U.S. and elsewhere. As online markets make it steadily easier to find unconventional pets such as alligators and monkeys, scientists and policy makers are grappling with how to stop the release of these animals in order to prevent new invasives from establishing themselves and threatening still more ecological havoc. New research suggests that simply banning such pets will not solve the problem and that a combination of education, amnesty programs and fines might be a better approach. Many people who release pets may simply be unaware of the dangers—both to the ecosystem and the animals themselves—says Andrew Rhyne, a marine biologist at Roger Williams University who studies the aquarium fish trade. People may think a released animal is “living a happy, productive life. But the external environment is not a happy place for these animals to live, especially if they’re not from the habitat they’re being released into,” he says. “The vast majority of [these] species suffer greatly and die out in the wild.”

EXOTICS TO INVASIVES

Owners sometimes release alligators, as well as other exotic pets such as snakes and certain varieties of aquarium fish, when they prove too big, aggressive or otherwise difficult to handle. But unleashing them on a nonnative habitat risks letting them establish themselves as an invasive species that can disturb local ecosystems. According to one estimate, nearly 85 percent of the 140 nonnative reptiles and amphibians that disrupted food webs in Florida’s coastal waters between the mid-19th century and 2010 are thought to have been introduced by the exotic pet trade.

A study published in June in Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment found this trade is already responsible for hundreds of nonnative and invasive species establishing themselves in locations around the world. Examples range from Burmese pythons—which can grow more than 15 feet long and dine on local wildlife in the Florida Everglades—to monk parakeets, whose bulky nests atop utility poles and power substations around the U.S. cause frequent fires and outages. And because of the growth of direct-to-consumer marketplaces on Web sites and social media, “the trade in exotic pets is a growing trend,” both in terms of the number of individual animals and the variety of species kept, says study leader Julie Lockwood, a Rutgers University ecologist. “Together, those increase the chances that this market will lead to an invasion” of an exotic species, she says.

To date, the main way officials have tried to combat the problem is with laws that simply prohibit keeping certain categories of animals as pets. But the effectiveness of this approach is unclear. Even though Illinois has outlawed keeping crocodilians as pets for more than a decade, Chance is just one of many CHS has had to deal with this year alone, says its president Rich Crowley. He likens the problem to illegal fireworks, noting that bans on exotic pets are inconsistent from one state to the next. For Illinois residents, “there’s still a supply that is readily available, legally, across the border” in Indiana, he says. “There are people out there who are willing to take the chance of skirting the law because the reward of keeping [these] animals is worth the risk.”New research published recently in Biological Invasions underscores this point, finding that banning the sale and possession of invasive exotic species in Spain did not reduce their release into urban lakes in and around Barcelona. “For these invasive species, legislation for the management of invasions comes too late,” because they have already established themselves in the local environment, says University of Barcelona ecologist Alberto Maceda-Veiga, the report’s lead author.Phil Goss, president of the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers, says that instead of blanket bans, he would like to see ways for responsible pet owners to still possess exotic species—with laws targeting the specific problem of releasing animals into the wild. “We’re certainly not against all regulation,” he says. “What we’d like to see is something that will punish actual irresponsible owners first rather than punishing all keepers as a whole.”

TRAINING AND TAGGING

Instead of bans, Maceda-Veiga’s study recommends educating buyers of juvenile exotic animals about how large they will eventually grow and taking a permit-issuing approach that requires potential owners to seek training and accreditation. “You need a driving license to drive a car,” and people should be similarly licensed to keep exotic pets, Maceda-Veiga says. He and his co-authors contend that licensing, combined with microchips that could be implanted in pets to identify owners, could curb illegal releases.Rhyne agrees that giving buyers more information would likely help. “I think the education part is really important,” he says. “We should not assume that the average consumer understands (a) how big the animal will get once it’s an adult and (b) what the harm could be if it got out in the wild.” Crowley concurs and says CHS has worked with municipal authorities to make sure pet owners who might have a crocodilian that is getting too big for the bathtub are referred to the organization for assistance. Also, some state agencies offer alternatives to dumping an animal in the wild that protect owners from legal repercussions. Lockwood says devising responsible ways for owners to relinquish such pets could help. But for this to work, “you need to make it as easy as possible” to turn in an animal, she says. In 2006 Florida’s Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) established an amnesty program that allows owners to surrender their exotic pets with no questions asked. So far more than 6,500 animals have been turned over to the program, says Stephanie Krug, a nonnative-species education and outreach specialist at FWC. A few other states have followed Florida’s lead in establishing amnesty initiatives.

Rhyne says some of the onus for controlling exotic animals should fall on the pet industry itself. “If you don’t regulate yourself and make sure you’re doing your best not to trade in species that are highly invasive, you’re going to create a problem that [lawmakers] are going to fix for you,” he adds. Mike Bober, president of the Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council, says the pet care community is considering ways to proactively address the problem. “We look at that being primarily based in education and partnership,” he says.As for what became of Chance, the erstwhile Windy City denizen is acclimating to his new home at the St. Augustine Alligator Farm Zoological Park in Florida. An aerial photograph of the Humboldt Park lagoon adorns his enclosure—but he is back where he belongs.

0 notes

pro-exotics · 8 years ago

Link

Again, this is not my work and I take no credit.

1. Pet suitability judged by how many people own them

‘Exotic pet’ is just a term that means ‘uncommon pet’, and what constitutes such is completely subjective. Every animal that isn’t a dog or a cat, for some reason, can qualify. This includes other ‘domesticated’ animals. Very few people believe cats and dogs are the only animals people should own, because the stupidity of that position is obvious. What isn't so obvious is that thinking there is a simple way to classify animals by which are ‘exotic’ and therefore ‘unsuitable’ as pets is not different. There are no substantial differences between most animals and their needs in captivity no matter what they are.

Exotic pet = Uncommon pet

Wild animal = Animal that lives in the wild or is un-socialized (can be domesticated)

2. Everyone is OK with ‘working dogs’ and feral cats

Many people place domesticated animals in the suitable pet category, and exotic, or so-called wild animals in the bad pet category. But some exotic pets are easier to manage than some domesticated animals—even dogs and cats. Owners of ‘working’ dogs love to talk about how the average owner can’t handle their border collie, or ‘high-drive’ Belgian Malinois. Some of these dogs give ‘high-maintenance’ exotic pets a run for their money. Caring for feralized cats as pets is not unlike owning a wild cat from Africa, but you are free to do this. When some domesticated breeds require advanced care, possessing the same or more intensive traits of some exotics, and no one thinks they shouldn’t be available as pets, the talk about how unethical it is to have exotic pets amounts to prejudice against them for being non-conventional.

3. Hundreds of species, 2 semi-serious zoonotic diseases reported

Monkey pox, an outbreak originating from imported African rodents in 2003, is the ‘go-to’ example of disease that is brought up by activists to prove the exotic pet trade can result in a deadly pandemic. Salmonella, prevalent in some reptiles (and to a lesser degree in even dogs and other mammals) is also frequently mentioned. Just like all animals, non-traditional pets can carry pathogens. Some might even be transmissible to humans and cause mild illness. Despite the fear mongering, there is no incidence of severe illness spread from the most ‘unaccepted exotic pets’. In fact, the more common and accepted the pet, the higher the occurrence of notable disease. When it comes to lethal zoonotic disease, such as rabies, domesticated pets, notably cats, are the most common pet-type animal to contract it. The unaccepted exotic pet’s relatively low population and the fact that they most often do not come from the wild lowers their much overstated threat to public health.

4. Worst invasive species order: cats>plants>fish>pigs>....exotic pets?

Once again, while the always accepted domesticated pet species are not only what exotic pet owners are urged to acquire instead of what they want, said species are causing the environmental problems that people theorize can occur with exotic pets to an extreme degree…and very few people care or want to do anything about it! Cats have a widespread invasive presence in the environment, from Maine to California, Hawaii to Alaska. Other prominent invaders are fish and plants that do not come from the pet trade. How many people are passionate about stopping the ornamental horticulture trade? Some exotic pets that happen to be more accepted are causing big problems, although their populations are restricted to certain areas and may not even be established. What about the unaccepted exotic pets [exotic mammals]? There are just a few isolated populations of escaped captive animals that have been reported, mainly in Florida.

5. Job opportunities down the drain

Many veterinarians and vet techs specialize in exotic pets. Numerous retail stores fulfill the exotic pet niche. Many individuals begin their animal-related careers as exotic pet owners and some develop interest in the cause of animal conservation. The exotic pet trade develops job opportunities, strengthens the economy, and shapes lives. It should be accommodated and appreciated just like any other hobby involving the natural world.

youtube

6. Exotic pets are ‘dangerous’ when they are large, just like other animals

Wild animals aren’t dangerous. If they were we wouldn’t be able to leave our homes with all those squirrels and deer running around. Some animals are dangerous, of course, it just isn’t an inherent trait of so-called exotic pets or wild animals. There are both dangerous exotic pets and dangerous conventional pets. Tigers, being a powerful cat weighing hundreds of pounds, are dangerous. Believe it or not, your average cat would be just as dangerous if it were the same size, maybe even more. We need to stop labeling exotic pets as dangerous because it makes no sense and results in a grave injustice to exotic animal owners whose animals cannot be considered a public safety threat no matter how you look at it.

7. The ‘black market’ is already illegal

Most pets considered to be exotic are not majorly threatened by the pet trade. Most of those that are affected are mainly declining due to habitat destruction. The few exotic pets that are mainly threatened by the pet trade in modern times are collected and sold in their own country, or countries that are not the U.S. Most of these animals are birds and reptiles, the more ‘accepted’ exotic pet types. Some species have been impacted from unregulated collection in the past and while their populations might have sustained permanent damage, laws were put in place to prevent it from happening in the future. As the illegal wildlife trade is illegal and being dealt with accordingly and effectively, this is not a strong reason to strip people of their pets.

8. The right to own pets: as fundamental as it gets

The idea of someone making it illegal to own a dog or cat seems unfathomable. It is irrefutable that the ownership of these species has problems but no activist would dare try to ban the right to own them, they know they would be laughed out of the room anyway. Our culture recognizes the need for pets and it’s more profound than just for plain amusement. Pets have been shown to lower blood pressure and increase longevity in humans. Pets can improve mental health. Pets open up doors for people. The benefits of pets outweigh the negatives. That special pet might not be a dog. Some people gravitate towards unaccepted pet species instead of conventional ones (or both) and are denied in most states because it is an unpopular species. Banning someone’s pet deer, fox, or kinkajou is no different from banning someone’s cat, and it causes the same distress.

9. Cushiest ‘animal exploitation’ ever? People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones

It’s no surprise PETA is against owning exotic pets when they are against owning all pets, zoos, and use of animal products. But how does hate for owning exotic pets spread to average people who aren’t against barbeques, honey, and ice cream? Most people agree that the substandard conditions in battery farms need to change; yet just banning the entire industry is not what most consider to be reasonable. Such people are seething mad at the idea that someone wants to own a certain pet—and whether the pet’s care needs improvement, or if it appears to be pampered—that doesn’t stop them from declaring that exotic pet owners are selfish egomaniacs that need to have their pets taken from them.

They make make up, so they KNOW.

10. Remember when it was wrong to dictate other people’s lives?

“Should people be taking these animals out of equatorial habitats so they can be pets? We’re not crazy about that idea.”

-Colorado Parks and Wildlife spokesman Joe Lewandowski on the subject of allowing sloth sand kangaroos as pets in Colorado

Remember, there are millions of people who are more than ‘not crazy about’ what animal products you use or eat, what you spend your money on or what businesses you patronize, yet I don’t see officials scrambling to regulate such things based on their personal feelings.

I can provide counter arguments to that all day but when it’s all said and done, it should be my decision if I want to buy a non-endangered animal that is less harmful to the environment than a cat, less of a public safety issue than a dog [or equivalent], and has a public health threat status that is only theoretical and unlikely. When it comes to more dangerous pets, people should have the opportunity to acquire the rights to own them if they can demonstrate they have the proper facility.

When state wildlife officials are considering what ‘exotic’ animals should be legal—when arguments against it start to sound like: “I’m just not a fan” or “it seems pretty unethical to me” or “those animals really belong in the wild”—the only reasonable conclusion should be that those species should be legal and this should have never been a debate. This is especially true if the other arguments against the animal are nutty or just plain dumb, such as concerns that a sloth or a kangaroo might cause invasive diseases, habitat loss [in Colorado!], and parasites, and that indoor pot-bellied pigs might contract rabies, or ferrets might escape into apartment walls. These reasons have all actually been suggested.

When someone comes up with unsubstantiated reasons to prohibit certain animals, that’s their way of saying BECAUSE I SAID SO. And if that is your mentality, you’re no better than the people in this video:

youtube

#not mine #article

5 notes · View notes