Shocking snake story; what pets would you ban?

keelanj69

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

depends on the fish, the water quality, the vegetation, cover, other species available etc.
You can keep a goldfish perfectly happy with ease, can you say yhte same about a Marlin?

True enough. What I'm saying is that you are not depriving your fish of any of its freedoms if it's cared for. If anything it has a constant supply of food, heat and safety. Isn't that what everything wants?

scwazrh

wazky wrote: »

That's called evolution.

Locking a bird in a cage is not.

What do you suggest I do with my birds then?Or my fish that are 4th generation bred in my tanks?Will I let my birds free and put the fish in the lakes?

wazky

dodderangler wrote: »

Birds have been kept in cages for hundreds of years

So have people.

Its not the ideal lifestyle for a human is it?

Pai Mei

scwazrh wrote: »

I don't keep birds in a cage just to "look" at them.I have 3 house birds who spend most of their time except sleep time out of the cage with me or other members of my family and a number of other birds which are kept in aviaries.Majority of pet birds are so far from their free flight ancestors that they simply will not survive unless cared for .

The old argument of not keeping birds in cages is similar to saying that humans should not live in apartments and work in offices because our ancestors didn't.

Okay sorry that's fair enough if you let your birds out and stuff I was originally just commenting on people who kept them in cages all day while the birds just flutter against the cage.

That last statement is ridiculous however

dodderangler

scwazrh wrote: »

What do you suggest I do with my birds then?Or my fish that are 4th generation bred in my tanks?Will I let my birds free and put the fish in the lakes?

Yes because then as you said they'd enjoy a few minutes of freedom before suffering a painfull death.
Buzzard or sparrowhawk will take your birds.
And pike or perch or trout will chomp your fish down

keelanj69

wazky wrote: »

That's called evolution.

Locking a bird in a cage is not.

I would argue that it is evoloution. It's not neccesarily good, but I don't fancy Archie the Canarys chances should he decide to fly out my window. He wouldn't have the skills to compete I'd imagine. He would be owl food before long.

dodderangler

wazky wrote: »

So have people.

Its not the ideal lifestyle for a human is it?

Dunno. Some people are pretty happy in prison. That's a cage isn't it

dodderangler

keelanj69 wrote: »

. He would be owl food before long.

An owl would be doing well to catch a canary.
A sparrowhawk on the other hawk would take it with ease

Wibbs

Ush1 wrote: »

Treating a dog decently means nothing. I know a guy who had pitbulls and one of his bitches was nice as pie to people but it used to kill birds and fight with another female he had. Eventually came home and it had ripped the other to pieces.

From what I've gleaned over the years, female to female dog aggression is common enough if kept together and nigh on impossible to change behaviourally. Neutering helps I gather. I seem to recall reading that female dogs are more likely to fight to the death compared to males. That males may growl and nip/bite at each other, but won't usually go for the kill. Funny enough I met a woman big cat tamer of the circus variety many years ago and she reckoned she trusted the males far more. That as the song goes the female of the species was deadlier than the male and more unpredictable. According to her take males could well be right dicks, but they let you know they were right dicks kinda thing.

Large animals with sharp teeth, particularly that eat meat, are dangerous.

True U, however it truly fascinates me that so many people live with a dog, which is descended from/related to and is an apex predator and yet so relatively few injuries and deaths occur from this arrangement.

Hell even those eejits who keep wolves in the US and other places are rarely enough attacked. To be fair wolves are rarely human aggressive and will usually avoid us like the very plague(though will kill a dog, even a very large breed, with nary a whim). The vast majority of attacks and deaths involve wolf-dog hybrids. Many of the famous "manhunter" wolves in European history appear to have been such hybrids. Dog=No fear of people + wolf=high prey drive and strength = bad fooking karma man.

Still if you look at and compare our other furry friends the cat, if dogs hissed, spat and scraped and nipped as much as your moggies we'd be crazy scared of them. Dogs in the vast majority of cases are remarkably reticent to attack and when they do it's bloody rare they don't give out clear warning signals beforehand. We can all be thankful for that.

wazky

dodderangler wrote: »

Dunno. Some people are pretty happy in prison. That's a cage isn't it

Well unless Polly the Parrot has committed attempted murder or smuggled in some class A drugs, why lock him in a cage?

dodderangler

wazky wrote: »

Well unless Polly the Parrot has committed attempted murder or smuggled in some class A drugs, why lock him in a cage?

Because he knows my deepest darkest secrets

A_Sober_Paddy

Juniorhurler wrote: »

Pit bull terriers or any other breed of dog specifically bred/evolved for fighting. I hate seeing young men walking about with them un-muzzled thinking that the hard look of the dog somehow portrays onto them.

I have a staffordshire Bull Terrier and his the friendliest dog i've never had, his so friendly with kids, but his very careful with them...when he was a puppy he loved jumping up on people and looking for them to play, but even with kids he would just sit with his tail going 90...

The breed of dog isn't dangerous its the owners of the dogs...blanket bans on breeds are a stupid IMO

biko

Small yappy type dogs would definitely get the axe, figuratively speaking of course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJz-yZUOgtM

keelanj69

dodderangler wrote: »

An owl would be doing well to catch a canary.
A sparrowhawk on the other hawk would take it with ease

I know, I know. On my estate we have an owl somewhere and a hawk. I couldn't remember if it was a sparrowhawk or not so I went with owl to illlustrate the point

Pai Mei

keelanj69 wrote: »

I would argue that it is evoloution. It's not neccesarily good, but I don't fancy Archie the Canarys chances should he decide to fly out my window. He wouldn't have the skills to compete I'd imagine. He would be owl food before long.

Canaries can survive in the wild wherever they are from. Archie has prob never been a wild bird so why would you expect it to be able to survive on it's own? Would you send a tiger who was bred in the zoo out to the plains of Africa and expect it to survive without teaching it something? It wouldn't be able to survive because it was bred in a cage.

DEFTLEFTHAND

The pitbulls apparently are extremely loyal and affectionate to their owners, even moreso than other breeds. To the point that some instances of aggression may be sparked by a desire to protect the owner from a perceived threat.

I'd be wary of keeping them for this sometimes unpredictable nature.

krudler

hfallada wrote: »

There was a house for sale in Dublin with a python. The thing was so big that it had its own room and was too big to take out of a house.

What was the house, Hogwarts?

keelanj69

Pai Mei wrote: »

Canaries can survive in the wild wherever they are from. Archie has prob never been a wild bird so why would you expect it to be able to survive on it's own? Would you send a tiger who was bred in the zoo out to the plains of Africa and expect it to survive without teaching it something? It wouldn't be able to survive because it was bred in a cage.

Oops. I thought that was the debate we were having. I thought someone was advocating dumping all our well fed, cushy animals into the wild.

dodderangler

Pai Mei wrote: »

Canaries can survive in the wild wherever they are from. Archie has prob never been a wild bird so why would you expect it to be able to survive on it's own? Would you send a tiger who was bred in the zoo out to the plains of Africa and expect it to survive without teaching it something? It wouldn't be able to survive because it was bred in a cage.

Not a zoo but these two were hand reared and brought to hunt in Africa
http://youtu.be/ld0RpYQTVGk

Wibbs

biko wrote: »

Small yappy type dogs would definitely get the axe, figuratively of course.

I reckon the small dog syndrome is down to the owners most of the time. Being small and not seen as physically threatening they can get away with behaviour that a bigger dog wouldn't and this informs their overall behaviour. EG Pekinese jumps on your lap and yips= ahhh isn't that cute, let's encourage that Versus German Shepherd jumps on your lap and barks = call the Gardai.

Pai Mei

keelanj69 wrote: »

Oops. I thought that was the debate we were having. I thought someone was advocating dumping all our well fed, cushy animals into the wild.

Not to get rid of the animals in cages now but to stop breeding animals just to be put into cages and therefore the number of animals kept in cages would decrease over time.

Juniorhurler

BeerWolf wrote: »

Get off your damn horse and being led by the media...

Yes, you may be right about people using THESE dogs as a 'status' thing - but they're generally irresponsible owners to begin with.

ANY dog with an IRRESPONSIBLE OWNER can be a nuisance and potentially dangerous...

e.g. - There's a pair of Labradors down my road that are bloody vicious, AND have killed a neighbour's pet terrier. I've lost count of the amount of Jack Russels being a total nuisance, etc. ... On the other hand, I own a Staffy, and she's incredibly gentle and pretty playful. But I'm sure you'd probably remain adamant to this and still have certain breeds stigmatized ...

Read ny other posts horsebox. Staffordshire bull terriers are a completely different kettle of fish to a pit bull.

razorblunt

I don't understand why people get snakes and leave them in a small tank and throw in the live/frozen mice. I'm not attcking folk that have snakes just genuinely wonder what drives them to get them and think this is a good idea.

It's like getting a dog and keeping I in its kennel within a wardrobe, to me anyway.

Regarding the dangerous breeds, obviously a lot is due to the owners and good owners keep firm control over their dogs, when you get these idiots using them as a status symbol is when you get into trouble.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

An Riabhach

Chin Stroker wrote: »

Two children strangled by a snake in Canada

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23583116

What animals/creatures should never be on sale to the public?

Obviously.....snakes.

Snakes are not "pets"-but people think tis cool to own one.,completely ignoring the fact that it could end up killing them or another family member.They cannot be domesticated,and the same can be said for other dangerous "pets" like scorpions and spiders.Twould be the same as somebody having a wolf as a pet instead of a dog......but of course there are amadáns out there,especially in America,who think they can keep tigers in their back gardens.

An Riabhach

wazky wrote: »

Cats.

Not because they are dangerous or anything, I just don't particularly like them.

They'll kill them filthy mice and rats,though..........;-)

kylith

Jimoslimos wrote: »

They've also been bred to attack humans, the Romans used attack dogs extensively during battle. Modern warfare (guns, shells, explosions, etc) has rendered that type of frontline role mostly obsolete and dogs are usually trained for sentry or detection duties. Attack dogs still have a role today, usually as police dogs for apprehending criminals - they'd be pretty useless if they were only bred for attacking other dogs.

Not the breeds we're talking about here though. Pit bulls and staffies are were bred to fight animals, German Shepherds to guard, Rottweilers were originally droving and hauling dogs. None of them were bred to fight humans. None of those breeds was designed to be human-aggressive, but some of them have been made to be through bad breeding and handling.

Police dogs are not equatable to the type of dangerous dog we're talking about. They are specifically trained to grab and hold suspects, not to attack them. A police dog who was unpredictable would not be allowed simply because having an unpredictable dog in a situation is dangerous. Similarly schutzhund (personal protection) dogs and guard dogs used by firms are very highly trained and do not mindlessly attack like a 'dangerous' dog; they are responsive to their handler at all times.

Unfortunately correct. Any owner of the above (or indeed any dog) should abhor the rise in puppy farms and intensive breeding to satisfy the demand for the latest "fashionable dog".

Absolutely. Any responsible owner should make sure to get their dog from a respectable breeder. Unfortunately reputable breeders usually have waiting lists and perform checks, so irresponsible owners, whether 'bad' or just unthinking, buy dogs for a couple of hundred quid from the boot of some guy's car, funding puppy farms. And it's not just restricted breeds; Bichon Frises, Cavaliers, and Westies are all farmed in this country with devastating effects on the breed's health and temperament.

REPTILEDAN88

Seasan wrote: »

Obviously.....snakes.

Snakes are not "pets"-but people think tis cool to own one.,completely ignoring the fact that it could end up killing them or another family member.They cannot be domesticated,and the same can be said for other dangerous "pets" like scorpions and spiders.Twould be the same as somebody having a wolf as a pet instead of a dog......but of course there are amadáns out there,especially in America,who think they can keep tigers in their back gardens.

How many snake deaths are there annually either here or in the US very very few now how many Dog bites and fatal attacks are there in both a hell of a lot.

I have a Bull Terrier too I don't need a dog like that to look hard and act the big man in public I have kept venomous snakes they are much scarier :pac:.
I walk my dog and go home and don't hang around street corners etc, not everyone who keeps either what are generally considered status dogs or exotics regardless of species do so just because they are cool, yeah they are cool but thats not just the reason they are kept, exotic keepers don't judge those keeping certain dogs or cats either its like people with no tattoos telling people you'll regret those when your older type of thing. How many dogs and cats are looking for homes in rescues and now compare that to reptiles bet its 4-5 times the amount of cats and dogs to reptiles, and its not like theres only a few people keeping reptile there 1000's and most keep a few maybe starting off with Cornsnakes, Kingsnakes, Leopard Geckos and Bearded Dragons etc and moving on to more advanced species like Iguanas and Tree Boa's etc.

Two Tone from Limehouse

REPTILEDAN88 wrote: »

How many snake deaths are there annually either here or in the US very very few now how many Dog bites and fatal attacks are there in both a hell of a lot.

I have a Bull Terrier too I don't need a dog like that to look hard and act the big man in public I have kept venomous snakes they are much scarier :pac:.
I walk my dog and go home and don't hang around street corners etc, not everyone who keeps either what are generally considered status dogs or exotics regardless of species do so just because they are cool, yeah they are cool but thats not just the reason they are kept, exotic keepers don't judge those keeping certain dogs or cats either its like people with no tattoos telling people you'll regret those when your older type of thing. How many dogs and cats are looking for homes in rescues and now compare that to reptiles bet its 4-5 times the amount of cats and dogs to reptiles, and its not like theres only a few people keeping reptile there 1000's and most keep a few maybe starting off with Cornsnakes, Kingsnakes, Leopard Geckos and Bearded Dragons etc and moving on to more advanced species like Iguanas and Tree Boa's etc.

What is the attraction in pet snakes? They're horrible bastards. Same with pet rats. I just don't get the attraction

REPTILEDAN88

Two Tone from Limehouse wrote: »

What is the attraction in pet snakes? They're horrible bastards. Same with pet rats. I just don't get the attraction

Whats Horrible about them so ?
That they keep rat, mice populations etc down by eating them and they were revered for this by the Romans (they bought Aesculapian Ratsnakes to England and released them into the wild and they are still around today) and still are in many parts of he world, only about 1/3 are venomous and they don't seek out humans to kill and will generally bite in stepped on or provoked like any other animal really.

Im not too fond of rats but wouldn't say they were horrible either apart from pissing on you the odd time you pick them up, they are pretty clean as they always groom themselves too, and can be thought tricks just like cats and dogs aswell.