A couple of days ago on the news I heard that someone has applied for a permit (or is going to) to keep several tigers at a training facility in Malibu, Ca. Understandably, there has been a very negative reaction among residents who fear the tigers will pose a danger to their community and especially to their children.
Perhaps the residents of Malibu remember the tragedy in Ohio when a man with a large number of exotic animals committed suicide after the released them. These beautiful lions, tigers and other animals were shot by police as they feared they would injure or kill humans in the area. This event opened up a lot of discussion about wild animals owned by individuals.
Many experts on exotics agree that the place for these beautiful creatures is in a zoo or other well-run facility staffed by experts. Top zoos have habitats to keep these animals secure and they know what they need to thrive, such as proper diet and they can provide them with the best veterinary care.
Tigers are so threatened in the wild that I feel captive breeding programs are the only way to prevent extinction, but that only experts should be caring for and housing these big cats.
When I see big cats languishing in roadside zoos, circuses, or private compounds, I feel such pity for them. The enclosures are usually much too small and they are denied everything that is natural for them. Add that to the inherent danger of keeping a wild animal(s) and it adds up to a bad situation all the way around.
The San Diego Zoo is world famous, and Los Angeles also has an excellent zoo. I'm sure there are many in other parts of the country. These facilities know how to care for these cats and other exotics.
In my area, there are a couple of large properties where the owners keep some wild animals, such as bison and zebras. This is entirely different from keeping large carnivores as these people maintain nice big pastures for grazing and the animals are well-kept and content. Bison and zebras are not dangerous, and they graze among horses and cattle.
Some states have laws against individuals keeping inherently dangerous animals, and in my opinion, every state should enact such a law.
Legally, in California at least, I can't speak for any other state, the owner of any exotic animal, or any animal considered "wild" is strictly liable for any injury caused by that animal. What that means is that a plaintiff in a personal injury lawsuit (or wrongful death suit if someone was killed) need not prove the defendant was negligent. It is enough that the defendant's animal(s) injured the plaintiff. All wild animals are considered inherently dangerous and thus the owner is strictly liable.
Domestic animals are not held to that standard. Dog owners are generally liable when their dog bites someone, but not strictly liable. In the case of a dog bite, there is some wiggle room, such as when a trespasser is bitten. However, there have been cases when a dog owner was held liable even when someone was trespassing on their property, or even if they were burglarizing the defendant's home!
Nothing in this blog should be construed as legal advice. This blog is for entertainment purposes only and if any reader has a legal question, they should contact their own attorney. Also, nothing in the blog creates any attorney/client relationship.
No comments:
Post a Comment