"Dangerously Devoted" On Animal Planet

Theres this new show on animal planet last night I watched. It's about 3 people who own animals. One guy lives with his wife and has 7 snakes. Another guy lives on the road with his dogs, alligator, iguanas, and possums. The other lady has 200 dogs in her house. Guess who the people were made out to be the craziest? The guy with the 7 snakes and the guy with the alligator in iguanas. It's always the reptile people who are the craziest. They make the lady with 200 dogs and a rifle in her hand to "protect herself from other crazy people" (heh, yea, THEIR the crazy ones huh?) look completly normal.

I'm thinking about just not watching animal planet anymore. They are truly pissing me off. I'm getting tired of people saying I'm weird and crazy for having 3 snakes. And the people who are calling me crazy own a million cats and dogs. Yea, well guess what? I don't spend 200 dollars a month on dog and cat food. I don't have to get them rabies shots either, or once a month checkups. I don't have to take them for walks everyday or have one of my shoes chewed in half every other day.

Hhaha! Who's crazy now huh?

I didn't watch the show, so I may be way off... But sometimes we go into a show like that EXPECTING them to make the reptile lovers out to be nuts...so that is the filter we view it with, and that is what we'll see, regardless of how balanced it might have been presented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

I didn't watch the show, so I may be way off... But sometimes we go into a show like that EXPECTING them to make the reptile lovers out to be nuts...so that is the filter we view it with, and that is what we'll see, regardless of how balanced it might have been presented.

---

As this may be true, AP does always find a way to fit in how reptile lovers are cooks, and weirdo's who have no friends and live alone and talk to there snakes. I have watched enough to know.

I am so sick of networks coming out with shows to make people who own exotics pets seem insane. I read the info about this show and all it does it criticize people who own exotics. ALL ANIMALS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE DEADLY.

People need to realize that this is America. Land of the Free.. supposedly. Why should the government be able to tell us what pets we can and can't have? Who are others to judge us for owning our exotics and who are government officials to decide any of this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redstormlax12

I am so sick of networks coming out with shows to make people who own exotics pets seem insane. I read the info about this show and all it does it criticize people who own exotics. ALL ANIMALS HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE DEADLY.

People need to realize that this is America. Land of the Free.. supposedly. Why should the government be able to tell us what pets we can and can't have? Who are others to judge us for owning our exotics and who are government officials to decide any of this?

---

Totally. If i wanted to have a Bengal Tiger as a pet (which I don't) I should be alowed to. If it kills me, oh well! My fault! But keeping a few snakes, or even a few hundred snakes, would be a lot less scary and a lot less work than keeping a Bnegal Tiger.

i got two dogs but i loooooooveeeeeeeeeee my bp:snake:hes nice ad my freinds get creeped out by him its hallaries:gj:

Quote:

---

Totally. If i wanted to have a Bengal Tiger as a pet (which I don't) I should be alowed to. If it kills me, oh well! My fault! But keeping a few snakes, or even a few hundred snakes, would be a lot less scary and a lot less work than keeping a Bnegal Tiger.

---

If someone is hurt or killed because of their pet then that is their burden to bear. I will not tell you that you can't own a tiger because it may kill you. Thats not my place, nor is it anyone elses.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redstormlax12

If someone is hurt or killed because of their pet then that is their burden to bear. I will not tell you that you can't own a tiger because it may kill you. Thats not my place, nor is it anyone elses.

---

Just to play devil's advocate here a bit....should the sale and ownership of bengal tigers (for instance) be completely unrestricted and unregulated? Sure...if a doofus owns one and it kills him, his own fault. But what about when the same doofus doesn't cage it properly and it gets out and kills my child?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by redstormlax12

If someone is hurt or killed because of their pet then that is their burden to bear. I will not tell you that you can't own a tiger because it may kill you. Thats not my place, nor is it anyone elses.

---

That's exactly what I think as well. If we pay for it and we take care of it there should be no problem

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JLC

Just to play devil's advocate here a bit....should the sale and ownership of bengal tigers (for instance) be completely unrestricted and unregulated? Sure...if a doofus owns one and it kills him, his own fault. But what about when the same doofus doesn't cage it properly and it gets out and kills my child?

---

then that ONE person can be punished to the full extent of the law

I have to agree with BAM.

I stopped watching Animal Planet some time back. Fortunately Nat Geo Wild seems to be reasonable, if you can get it in your area. (We just moved to an area where it's not carried--I was bummed).

AP is nothing but a hsus propaganda machine now, nothing worth wasting your time to watch on there in recent memory anyhow

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMReptiles

AP is nothing but a hsus propaganda machine now, nothing worth wasting your time to watch on there in recent memory anyhow

---

:cool: That does seem to be the case.

Ill also have to agree with BAM about the another person being killed. That one person should be punished as if he killed the person. So then those people are not part of the community anymore.

After awhile people may get the message, and even then there will always be stupid people. Alot of people raise extremely aggressive dogs and promote this behavior. These dogs can be dangerous, just like any other animal. Though I do not think anyone should control the dogs we keep either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

I have to agree with BAM.

I stopped watching Animal Planet some time back. Fortunately Nat Geo Wild seems to be reasonable, if you can get it in your area. (We just moved to an area where it's not carried--I was bummed).

---

yea nat geo wild is pretty good thats what i have been watching lately

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by WingedWolfPsion

I have to agree with BAM.

I stopped watching Animal Planet some time back. Fortunately Nat Geo Wild seems to be reasonable, if you can get it in your area. (We just moved to an area where it's not carried--I was bummed).

---

I watch nat geo wild religiously.

i've watched animal planet pretty much my entire life so i'm usually able to find something to watch. one show i got into this year is fatal attractions. for those who havent seen it its about ppl who own dangerous animals that end up seriously hurting them but most often those people are killed. its never about dogs and cats though. its been like tigers, bears, reptiles (including venomous snakes) those kinds of animals. one episode really moved me and angered me at the same time. an old lady lived alone in the mountains somewhere, sorry cant remember exactly where, and she was feeding the bears outside her home. her friends and fellow oldies, no pun intended for you oldies here, knew and in their interviews repeatedly expressed a concern for this lady's safety. the lady always told them "oh the bears are like lambs they'll never hurt anyone or me."
but then in the same breath she'd casually mention "the big male" that was very aggressive and that she was afraid. the friends and fellow townsfolk felt their own concerns for her but did absolutely nothing. anyways long story short, the old lady, on the insistance of all her friends eventually stopped feeding the bears and they all went elsewhere...except for the big male. the night the lady was killed she heard a commotion outside, knew the big male was out there but was only thinking of the little bears safety so she went out to try to stop the big male from hurting the little ones as he'd apparently done before. sparing you all the horrific details, that bear needless to say ended her life. what upset and angered me was the neglect of the townsfolk who knew the old lady's life was in danger with that 1 bear around. if i'd been one of those townsfolk i'd have been all over the sheriffs to dispose of that aggressive bear to remove the risk to that lady's life. but no one did anything because the old lady expressed "trust" in that big male but in the same breath expressed fear for her life.
i would've been like "screw your trust in him! he's gonna get you!"
wild animals dont give a hoot & hollar about the trust you have in them, they only live by their instincts and if their instincts is saying you need to die for whatever reason, there aint a darn thing you can do to stop it, unless your quick with a shot gun.
i fail to understand people's need to own animals like that. almost all of these episodes mainly consist of friends/family of these people either having no clue that their friend/family member is in a dangerous situation or they just simply choose not to do anything to help the situation before it escalates to that persons demise and then when they die they always go "what went wrong?"
you failed is what went wrong!
if someone's judgement is clouded by their ego or "trust" in their animals then you step up and go "you know what? i'm not gonna sit back and watch this happen! I'm not gonna have to go to your funeral because you cant see reality until it bites you in the bum!"
ok now i'm ranting. sorry.
but yeah my point is, well, i've made my point, lol.
i watch alot of nat geo but i'm not sure if i've seen nat geo wild...maybe i have but just dont remember.
sorry for length of this post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMReptiles

then that ONE person can be punished to the full extent of the law

---

I think that it is easy to say this about a bengal tiger, this would be a "high risk" pet, but what if your mild-mannered collie or well-trained horse got loose and killed someone. It has already been noted that any pet can be dangerous..so let's take that into account. How many of you would be okay with going to prison on a manslaughter charge if your horse ran in front of someone's car and that individual ended up dead. Or if your normally non-aggressive dog got out and killed a small child (maybe the child was even teasing the animal, who knows). Now, compared to a tiger, the risk involved with owning these types of animals is ridiculously low, but there is still a risk. Think about this example (it is true BTW) - my mom was once attacked by a very calm dog that she had owned for several years, this animal subsequently had to be put down. The vet noted a dramatic personality change which was found to be due to a brain tumor. Now what if the situation had been different and the dog would have attacked another person in a situation that did not allow his/her escape. I'm sure in the hypothetical situation that another person was attacked there would have been a law suit but I would hate to see an incident like this result in prison time.

Quote:

---

if someone's judgement is clouded by their ego or "trust" in their animals then you step up and go "you know what? i'm not gonna sit back and watch this happen! I'm not gonna have to go to your funeral because you cant see reality until it bites you in the bum!

---

We voluntarily choose to put ourselves in dangerous or potentially dangerous situations daily. Crossing the street can be dangerous. Walking up or down the stairs can be dangerous. Using the hot tub can be dangerous. I for one do not need or want someone else meddling in the affairs of my personal life. If I so choose to keep a potentially dangerous animal such as a bear, a big cat, or a venomous snake, and understand and voluntarily accept the risks associated with keeping them, then what prerogative is it of anyone else say or influence otherwise? As adults, we have (and should have) the right to make our own choices in life...

then that ONE person can be punished to the full extent of the law.

it applies for any pet. if it gets loose and hurts someone it should be YOUR responsibility. i dont care if 5 other people around you own a tiger/dog/wolverine/whatever. you should be allowed to keep whatever you want, and only you should be punished accordingly if something bad happens, not any other person who keeps said animal

extenuating circumstances such as a brain tumor are not the issue here. its the perception of "dangerous" pets. a brain tumor is 150% out of the keepers control. keeping your pet that you know "could" harm others safely kept, is the issue

i didn't mean to offend anyone.
ER12 - i apologize if my remark has offended you in any way.
that rant was spurred on by my lack of proper sleep this last week + my pregnancy hormones + my tendency to get overly worked up by certain issues.
i know we all take risks and make potentially disastrous decisions every day and its those decisions that ultimately make us learn.
i just really hate it when friends/family members act surprised that someone close to them suffered some kind of tragedy when they knew the circumstances were bad and yet did nothing. thats all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BAMReptiles

you should be allowed to keep whatever you want, and only you should be punished accordingly if something bad happens, not any other person who keeps said animal

extenuating circumstances such as a brain tumor are not the issue here. its the perception of "dangerous" pets. a brain tumor is 150% out of the keepers control. keeping your pet that you know "could" harm others safely kept, is the issue

---

Okay, my example was a bit of a stretch...one of those freak highly unlikely occurrences, so I'll move on.

I don't quite understand your post though..I'm not trying to argue, just trying to understand what you mean. You note that that my example of animal aggression is not the issue but you had previously noted that if an animal (you did not specify any one animal so I assumed it applied to any) is aggressive then the owner should be punished to the full extent of the law. So...do you mean that only certain animals (e.g. dangerous pets) or certain (foreseeable) acts of aggression should be punished, or perhaps that acts of aggression that are beyond the keeper's control should not be punished? Your statement of "keeping your pet that you know could harm others safely kept" also confused me..do you mean that if you're doing everything you can (your caging is adequate, etc.) and the animal still gets out and hurts someone then the keeper should not be held legally responsible? Again, not trying to argue, I feel that I may agree with you on some points but may be misunderstanding your posts.

ah, i mean: if through means that are controllable by the owner the animal, which is KNOWN to be dangerous, ie: tiger/lion/rattlesnake/cheetah/whatever, gets free or whatever because of negligence on behalf of the owner, then that should be when they are punished.

lets use the brain tumor dog for instance. the dog was otherwise fine, until the tumor correct? well that was nothing that the owner had ANY control over and couldn't really prevent, so that's kinda outside the range of owner responsibility. unless they knew it had made him aggressive and still let him free roam anyways.

on the other hand, lets say you want a liger, fine by all means have one. i think that's your God given right. but, you need to keep caged and handled in a proper manner. now if it got out though a fault of your method of keeping it, that's when the punishment comes in.

in any type of instance like that it would basically be a case by case scenario of weighing the facts and information basically.

hope that cleared it up a bit.

i never care about stuff like this! haha i laugh it off! simply because there are ignorant people all around! if they wan't to choose a plain simple ignorant life....so be it!



i don't judge anyone not to be nice simply because i have better things to do then waste my time thinking negative thoughts of someone i barley know...