Tuesday, April 7, 2015

Sad Animals at BIG CAT RESCUE | Photo Tour!

Oh WOE IS ME. I'm trapped in a cage at BIG CAT RESCUE!
Big Cat Rescue of Tampa Florida has one of the biggest mouths of any animal 'sanctuary' that is trying to end the captivity of exotic animals in zoos, educational facilities, and private ownership. Like many other animal rights zealot-websites, they present manipulative photos of animals 'looking sad' in facilities that aren't theirs, or cherry pick photos of enclosures on rainy days so animals stroll through muddy conditions that don't appeal to modernized humans. Animals can only get wet and dirty in the wild.

Then, they amass millions of views on Youtube and Facebook likes showing off their 'happy' animals frolicking in captivity. These messages are so mixed, labradoodles envy them.

So I thought it would be amusing to collect some unflattering photos (they are licensed for free-use, so BCR can't sue me as they immediately do to any pro-pet person who uses their photos) of animals in Big Cat Rescue that some of their visitors have taken, not their expert photographer PR crew.

This is a great companion piece to my article Sad Animals in Zoos.  Scroll to the bottom for some great music for your tour!

An African Caracal stares longingly out of its "prison", pondering its highly anticipated death so it can one day truly be 'free'.

Stefanie kraus (CC BY-ND 2.0) Via Flickr

This lion wants to know what it did to deserve such a monotonous existence, being forced to pose for photos so Big Cat Rescue can rack up the dough from the exploitation.

Charles Barilleaux (CC BY 2.0) Via Flickr
Fran (CC BY-SA 2.0) Via Flickr

Tonga the white serval doesn't have a nose. Big Cat Rescue had it removed (cancer, the second picture is older) to keep the already very elderly cat from dying and freeing itself from the torture of permanent imprisonment. Look! He's so sad, he's drooling!

M.M.Meeks (CC BY-ND 2.0) Via Flickr

WHEN WILL THE EXPLOITATION END?? I just want to take a nap!

Charles Barilleaux (CC BY 2.0)  Via Flickr

'I roam HUNDREDS of miles in the wild, stalking prey in a glorious hunt, and here, I have a big doughnut on a string.'

Jimmy theSuperStar(CC BY 2.0) 

 HAAAALP!!!!

a200/a77Wells (CC BY 2.0) Via Flickr

 NOT LIKE THE WILD :(

Charles Barilleaux (CC BY 2.0) Via Flickr

Beautiful, Wild, Free, I AM NOT!

M.M.Meeks (CC BY-ND 2.0) Via Flickr

What is life like beyond the cage bars?

Jimmy theSuperStar (CC BY 2.0) Via Flickr
Charles Barilleaux (CC BY 2.0) Via Flickr
 

 

 Your soundtrack for these photos!!

 

"And I still...believe...living beautiful...*tear*...wild...and free"

Sunday, April 5, 2015

Tippi Hedren and Tim Harrison make Fools out of themselves on Fellow Fool, Colin McEnroe’s Radio Show.



The Case Against Owning Exotic Pets “Doesn’t Wash”


Colin McEnroe probably thought he was in safe territory jumping on the bandwagon of anti-‘exotic’ pet sentiment with his broadcast entitled The Case Against Owning Exotic Pets. I discovered the article , written by Josh Nilaya, before the show was recorded, and it spouted the same ol’ irritating nonsense (I can name 5 incidences where an animal defined as exotic caused an injury or death, so that means they’re too dangerous!).  After leaving a comment in the article’s comment section, I noticed this statement at the bottom of the page:



Please leave comments below, email us at Colin@wnpr.org, or tweet us @wnprcolin.


“Oh great!” I thought, here’s my chance to get the other side (the rational side) of the argument out there. I thought I’d email Colin some of my irrefutable points and interesting statistics. I received this reply:

My show is live from 1 to 2 p.m. ET and streamable at WNPR.org
 our call-in line is 860-275-7266
 love to hear from your side

This was a lie, as you'll see. Unfortunately, I missed the broadcast, so I wrote back to re-iterate (politely) that my previously email contained a link that refuted what Tim Harrison was saying in the now available recording of the show [that despite the fact that there are millions of dogs and only thousands of big cats, the percentage of dog-related hospital-requiring injuries is still higher relative to their population]. 

Colin’s show contained ZERO guests that supported the opposite side. My elaborate post was basically ignored as Colin replied with nothing but a link to the article and audio I was specifically talking about. 

Irritated, I sarcastically relied Thanks for sending me the link to the article I read three days ago.” He sarcastically replied “It now has the entire audio of the show you were asking about. You're welcome.”

I was hardly “asking about” the show, I was addressing the misinformation in the conversation that he took part in, and apparently forgot about (?). I replied “Yes, the audio that I was specifically TALKING ABOUT.”

And here was his gem of a response:
“Look, I get hundreds of emails every day and struggle to keep track of them all.
I was just trying to make sure you had the material you needed.
Maybe you need to spend a little less time with your nocturnal pet and a little more time out in the sunshine acquiring social skills.”

So there you have it. Colin McEnroe does not care about a balanced interview in the least bit. His site encourages emails, tweets, and calls, but apparently you are only acknowledged respectfully if you say the right thing, or agree with his ignorant view like a brainwashed tool. 

It is notable that he attacked me personally when I had done no such thing to him, describing my dedication for my pet as an indication that I lack social skills, a very common criticism from anti-weird pet people who don’t appreciate people who happen to have different lifestyles from their own.

It isn’t terribly surprising. Colin is a radio personality, not a thinker, and he is fully ignorant to the subject of exotic pets. He’s probably been educated about so-called wild animals from cartoons and movies.

What about Tim Harrison and Tippi Hedren? Two people who are way more experienced with dangerous exotics than I can possibly imagine?

Well, I could barely distinguish their comments from the stupid remarks of Colin.

Tippi was a privileged actor and former exotic pet owner, and Tim is also a former exotic pet owner—his past laden with many negligent offenses such as keeping a big cat cub in his basement (I’ve learned this from his own brother, Jim Harrison, the director of the Kentucky Reptile Zoo).

Colin begins his interview (after a very stupid, unfunny skit) of these two numbskulls by stating

“We are basically in favor of not having exotic pets…”
and
“There are all kinds of ways that this plays out that are not be good for the animal and maybe not good for you.”
and


“I kinda screamed when I heard Tippi Hedren was going to be on the show…”


Basically, he’s star struck by Hedren, and already has his mind made up about exotic pets even though he barely knows anything about them, perfect.


Tim says:

“I don’t want these in people’s homes for the public safety aspect of it and also for the animal’s safety too…”
and

“Chris Rock said it perfectly. He’s my big cat expert …
and
...the tiger didn’t turn on Roy, the tiger went ‘tiger’, and that was the greatest tiger show ever put on stage because that's what a tiger’s spose to do [Chris Rock said]. It’s not supposed to do magic tricks, jump through hoops…perfect house pet right? No. This is what we’re up against.”


NO ONE who advocates for exotic pet ownership advocates keeping animals in unsuitable environments like keeping a fully grown tiger in a house. I’m tired of explaining this, and I had to explain it to two people in the comment section as well. 

You can advocate horse ownership without encouraging people to keep horses inside houses, right? Also, the weak, emotional argument about what animals are ‘supposed’ to do is useless. None of our pets, domesticated or otherwise, are “supposed” to do anything.


Harrison and Hedren regularly make up specious ‘arguments’ that appeal to people’s ignorance and misconceptions about alternative pet care. While Colin keeps trying to probe more into Tippi’s interesting past with her vast collection of “working” big cats for her film Roar, Tippi seems to want to deflect that discussion to parrot out more irrational nonsense about captive animals.

 Here is a full quote regarding Roy Horn:

“Yes that tiger was really going right into instinct mode, uh, Roy had a stroke on stage, and it’s the instinctive dictate of these animals to take out, any being , animals, human, whatever, if they’re sick, old, uh, whatever. And um, poor Montecore had to say “gee sorry Roy, you’re my best buddy, you raised me fed me with a bottle and, we’ve had a lot of fun and you’ve taught me how to be so elegant up on stage but, you’re sick and I’m sorry, I have to take you out.”

I could not verify this bold claim about animal behavior anywhere. In fact, it sounds like a myth, and a stupid one at that. 

Tigers in the wild are solitary and do not have ‘buddies’ that they kill once they begin to wither. Wild tigers form large territories and want nothing to do with each other aside from breeding. Why would they risk their health killing a weaker tiger for no reason? In fact, I could only find one page addressing the claim—a non-scientific site but it made a ton of sense regardless—and they had this to say about healthy animals dispatching the dying and old:

“We’re not sure where these ideas come from. Perhaps it’s from not-too-scientific nature shows or a twisting of Darwinian ideas of natural selection. First of all, there is no known mechanism for nature to "purify the gene pool". Killing the old and the sick doesn’t have a direct benefit to the species as a whole.   In fact, animals which are healthy and robust enough to make it to old age have already made their contribution to the gene pool.   And it’s not as if the youngsters all get together and decide that killing the old will benefit everybody.”

Not to mention, if the tiger really wanted to kill Roy, without a doubt, he would be dead. I suspect Tippi is the type of person that, due to her status and influence, is never corrected regardless of how wrong she is.


Later in the conversation:



Colin: "I do want to talk about the state of laws here, I mean,… I’m guessing if I have a tiger I have an elephant, um somebody’s gonna come to my house…


“But I also assume there are a lot of things that I probably can own, that there are monkeys birds, reptiles, hedgehogs, prairie dogs, sugar gliders, things like that that I might want to own and I’m guessing, maybe I shouldn’t own them, but.. I would guess they’re also, aren’t gonna necessarily be laws that I can’t?”

Just in case you were wondering if these dunces were only discussing large and dangerous animals, they aren’t. Collin seems to think suger gliders (which he later says he DOESN’T even know what they are) , birds, reptiles, and hedgehogs are something he’s 'guessing he shouldn’t want to own', and get this, he even later says he has a clownfish.


Harrison replies that you can’t say a prairie dog isn’t dangerous because of zoonotics, something he fails to realize exists also in dogs and cats, and is rare to occur severely in both.


Colin brings up that someone will call up and say that dogs kill more people (they didn’t) or email him (I know at least one person did, but he didn’t give a damn) than exotics.



Tipi: “None of those statements wash”

Harrison: "You got maybe 10000 to 15000 cats nobody knows for sure.  You got millions of dogs. So the statistics go against what they’re saying. You need a license for a dog but you don’t need anything for a lion."

Colin: "It seems to leave a very important part out of the description anyway…"


As previously stated, I have shown that the statistics still hold up to our claims. I have yet to see any animal rights activist actually look at them. They seem to mindlessly assume that just because there are millions of dogs, that must mean that incidences from them are, percentage-wise, smaller. Not that exotic pet ownership is only OK if it is less dangerous than dog ownership. What sense would that make?


This next part of exchange is inconceivably idiotic.


Colin talks about how he used to want an ocelot as a kid because he saw one on TV.



Colin: "What would you have told my parents if they called you up as they often did and said “Collin wants an ocelot” what should we tell em, what’s the answer to that question?"

Tippi: “OK you’re dealing with an apex predator. These are top of the food chain, which means they have instincts that you cannot control and they’re..they, it’s their duty to take out any old sick lame, whatever. Or, it’s just of whim, that they have to take care of, in their own brain."

Again, she repeats the myth and enhances it into a fictional “duty” of apex predators. 

Speaking of apex predators, when I specifically search for it I can find some sites that call ocelots apex predators, but according to the definition of apex predators (no natural predators) an ocelot is not one because its natural predators include harpy eagles, anacondas, jaguars, and pumas. 

Being an apex predator also doesn’t mean ‘you can’t control it’, if that even means anything. All animals have ‘instincts’ whether they are an apex predator, herbivore or scavenger, period.



Tippi: "They don’t even like us. These animals don’t care about us. It’s we who think they’re so beautiful and so wonderful."

This just isn’t true! Big cats might accidentally kill their trainers but they are simply animals. They can care about you but be prone to accidental instinctual fits. My dog cares about me yet she growls angrily if I get too close to her food bowl because of an instinct, that yes, even dogs have!



Colin: "I got a clownfish that’s not the same as having a cheetah. Tim what’s your answer to that?"
Tim talks about lionfish being turned loose in Florida, and Chinese Carp.

Tim: "But when you talk about clownfish, I think it’s a disrespect."
"But when you have your clownfish, tell me the truth, do you think that clownfish is going to be totally happy in that aquarium for the rest of its life? Watch Finding Nemo and then make that decision."

 After Colin idiotically admits to being an exotic pet owner despite his cheerleading of Tippi’s nonsense, Tim goes on to cite a simple-minded and overrated (trust me on this) cartoon as a good source to see why clownfish shouldn’t be kept in aquariums. 

Tim also mentions Chinese carp, an invasive species intentionally introduced by farmers of catfish intended for human consumption.

In other words, Asian carp aren’t the result of any ‘pet trade’, but I guess the exotic pet trade is to blame for everything, including what it doesn’t cause. Let’s ignore the domesticated animal trade, which includes goldfish, a domesticated carp that has also invaded waterways.


And last but not least…


Colin: "Tippi do you feel the same way about some of these smaller animals I mean people get prarie dogs and hedgehogs and sugar glider, I mean, I don’t even know what a sugar glider is" (then you have no business taking a stance on this issue, ignorant idiot, this debate involves knowing some basic facts about animals including what they are).

Tippi: "On our education programs when the students come, my main statement is NOT. ONE. WILD. ANIMAL should be a pet. Whether it’s a little squirrel in your backyard or a Siberian tiger. NONE of them should be a pet. And that should just be a law, learn to respect those animals in their own environment…do NOT bring them home and put em in a cage. You’re either going to kill it, because it will die of a broken heart [WTF]..um…"


…I don’t even approve of the zoos, I feel so sorry for those animals….”



Tippi is an idiot for sure. I challenge her to even properly define what a ‘wild animal’ is. She is against any so-called wild animal, which probably translates to ‘only dogs and cats should be pets’, irrefutably dumb logic. 

She also declares that she’s against all zoos and feels sorry for all the animals in them (does that include her own?). Tim Harrison doesn’t fully take a stance against zoos, but still is an obvious fan of Tipi and her unbelievably dense statements, saying ‘but Tippi said a beautiful thing…’.


Therefore, these two just can’t be taken seriously. Tippi and Tim have virtually no excuse for the displays of ignorance present in this interview, only the ditzy novice Colin does. Understand that when you deal with animal rights, you deal with delusions and non-facts.

Wednesday, April 1, 2015

The Character of John Hargrove | Beneath His Surface



When I heard about John Hargrove’s book last year I couldn’t help but feel he was beating a dead horse. SeaWorld was and currently still is dealing with a hurricane of thoughtless criticism by people—most who are new to animal welfare/rights debates and seem to only direct their attention and vitriol to trendy ‘glamour beasts’ over other forms of common animal exploitation.

In light of Hargrove’s book release, SeaWorld released a video calling the former trainer’s character into question. It absolutely doesn’t have anything to do with the veracity of Hargrove’s statements or affect the substantive issues at play with killer whale captivity, and my feelings about him are separate from the debate, but it does provide some insight into the type of person Hargrove might be.

I honestly was affected little by the video (even as a Black person). Without it, I always had a low opinion of Hargrove, and it has nothing to do with him not being on my ‘side’. There are some people who share some of my beliefs about pet ownership freedom whom I absolutely despise, and I respect the character of Naomi A. Rose, Ingrid Visser, and other vocal opponents of cetacean captivity. I don’t question the moral compass of bloggers like Freedom for Orcas and Cetacean Inspiration at all. But I can’t stand Hargrove. Here’s why.

Last year I stumbled on this article for The Wrap: ‘Blackfish’ Star John Hargrove on SeaWorld’s Bullying Tactics and PR Blunders, Documentary’s Oscar Chances.

The first highlighted quote by Hargrove really irritated me.

“I am counting down the hours because I really want to get nominated, just for those whales, just for their voice,” the former SeaWorld trainer tells TheWrap “And SeaWorld, you’re really f–ked”

Why was Hargrove saying he wanted to get nominated, when it is not his movie [but a movie he simply just appeared in]? And even if he were the director, I would find that comment rather conceited, even if it’s under the guise of helping animals.

Both Hargrove and I were active in the comment section. After Blackfish didn’t get nominated at the Oscars (I admit, that was a very, very good day for me), Hargrove revealed more of his colors.



I couldn’t help but feel that again, this comment illustrates a fame/accomplishment-obsession over a positive goal for animals. Apparently, the goal of motivating A-listers to dissociate themselves from “an organization” is what I needed to do to ‘win’ the argument or value as a person in the eyes of the public (whatever he meant).

 A statement about the nature of the cause is unsurprisingly absent (i.e., I would expect a response like “let me know when you make a major positive difference in an animal’s life" from someone 100% motivated by passion for animal welfare).

This might not be definitive evidence, but in my eyes, he is attention-hungry, and is jumping into the SeaWorld hate bandwagon at the height of its trendiness for instant praise, financial gain, and adoration.

All of the comments, including mine and his, can be found here.

Defending Hargrove’s racist comments.

 Regardless of all that, I have to say something about the animal advocates that are defending Hargrove’s stupid, drunken spiel and constant use of the word n*gger. 

It is perfectly OK to call Hargrove out on his ridiculous actions and still be against SeaWorld’s choice of livestock. In other words, I find it pretty egregious that people are downplaying what clearly appears to be a typically uttered word in Hargrove’s vocabulary despite his inebriation.

Again, while that alone has nothing to do with the integrity of his statements (and for the reasons stated above, I personally find them highly suspect), advocates should be ashamed of his actions in that video. But their reactions are pretty predictable. 

Some have attempted to shame the bookstore that cancelled Hargrove’s book signing.   

People should respect their decision. Instead, they’ve stamped their feet and were outraged. It’s a perfect illustration of what happens when zealot-like activists don’t get their way. 

Despite making huge strides in manipulating the general public, one bookstore cancellation incites rage, even though the owner stated:

"The cancellation is a statement of our feelings about what is in the video”

Hargrove still has plenty of other book signings and undeserved exposure, he and his rabid followers can shake off this one defiant literature venue and get back to writing reviews against books they haven't read and toys they've never ordered.

There are also plenty of other less overtly conflicted people who hate SeaWorld, so they should have little to worry about.

So, given that Hargrove has questionable character, I would take some of his more extreme statements, such as “My phones have been tapped and I've been followed.” with a piece of Kosher salt.

Wednesday, March 11, 2015

New York City’s Ferret Ban is an Unacceptable Disgrace. Dr. Lynn Richardson is an Idiot.



You know, I actually thought common sense was about to prevail, but I was dead wrong. Months ago, I had heard that Mayor De Blaiso announced he would remove the egregiously irrational and moronic New York City ban on ferrets that has inexplicably existed for years along with plenty of other species.


While lifting the ban on one domesticated animal wouldn’t have exactly been a tremendous victory for softening the public’s abysmal attitudes towards truly exotic pets, I figured it would be a step in the right direction toward equality for all pet owners and their rights to obtain any pet they are financially and mentally equipped for, regardless of an animal rights activist thinking you shouldn’t have it or a logic-compromised health official using confirmation bias (or flat out lies) to determine there is something wrong with it.

Needless to say, I am almost embarrassed for New York City; supposedly progressive and considering the legalization of recreational drugs, but still continuing to disallow the ownership of animals that could never in a million years, even if it tried, pose the same threat to the Big Apple’s citizens as the very legal dogs and cats. 

These two species must be on some special can-cause-any-amount-of-harm-as-they-please-but-will-never-be-regulated list. In fact, the state of New York even prohibits BSL (breed-specific-legislation) and instead favors fairly assessing the animals as individuals. Despite deaths and disfigurement from dogs, and painful, prone to infection scratches and bites by kitties, apparently the fact that


“four ferret bites have been reported in New York City from 2008 to 2014. [Health Department staff say]


….and asinine speculations about the animals crawling through walls even though not one case of this has been reported (and really, who cares if there was?)  is enough to keep these ‘vicious’ pets illegal and considered ‘wild animals’, an utterly meaningless label for lazy thinkers.   

True wild animals live in or are from the wild, but some people consider any animal that is not domesticated to be ‘wild’, like a raccoon. However, ferrets are domesticated! So even that crude definition flops.

The vote was 3-2 to lift the ban yet 6 votes were needed, and 4 voters didn’t show up (a big thank you to them for this spit in the face to all that is reasonable and sane).

Who are the clueless people on NYC’s Board of Health that voted against lifting the ferret ban?

One of them is Dr. Lynn Richardson, a genius who had this to say:


"I have to say that, at this point, I'm not at all convinced that it wouldn't be a substantial health risk to allow ferret ownership in New York City," said board member Dr. Lynn Richardson.”


A SUBSTANTIAL health risk?? A tiny little ferret?? An animal that is owned across the country in 99% of states with zero fatalities and incredibly rare instances of significant harm (most or all occurring with defenseless infants and negligent decision-making) country-wide?

I have no choice but to conclude that Richardson is either a massive idiot or a member of the animal rights movement, not wanting people to open their eyes and start thinking ‘hey, if it’s unfair to judge ferrets for not being as harmless as fluffy pillows, what if…call me crazy…are we also being unjust to owners of more exotic animals and arbitrarily banning them just because we find it abnormal?’

When even harmless domesticated animals can’t catch a break, you can be sure that non-domesticated animals will never see the light of day in the city.

There was one faint glimmer of hope, I’d like to thank Dr. Joel Forman who was “struck by "the idea of equity” and expressed that it’s not fair to single out one animal for the same problems that legal animals cause [!].

Why, thank you Joel, that is actually ridiculously reasonable and fair. Too bad not everyone agrees with the idea of treating citizens with that level of respect.

Ferrets make superior pets to many dog breeds in apartments. I am dumb-founded that it’s perfectly legal to bring a border collie into your NYC apartment (a terrible, horrifically unsuitable breed for this) but the wonderfully space-efficient ferret is deemed inappropriate. Where’s Rod Sterling?