[FEL-L] What the anti-cat people have in store for next year!

[Tim Stoffel]

Folks, this is bad. Really bad.

    I have stumbled by accident on the plans that the AR fanatics and
the sanctuary folks are putting together to attack us for next year.
Basically, I suspect that the legislation they want to introduce next
year will prevent breeding of most big cats based on bloodlines. This is
a very sneaky end-around around the inability to pass ban laws. We are
going to have to get together in high gear to stop these radicals. They
are after our cats, and unless we find a way to derail them, we are
going to have a very hard time stopping these folks.
    I have the idea that this legislation will put most non-AZA zoos out
of business by preventing them from having the animals that have the
biggest attraction to the public.
    Above all, we need to watch every motion of these folks like a hawk
and be ready to jump on their every weakness.

THIS IS WAR!!!!!!

Tim Stoffel

--

The first letter is in response to the letter I posted as a suggestion
to stop the BC ban. This person is lurking on our lists and took the
time to respond.




Sir, you are terribly mistaken when you say banning private ownership is
a BAD thing!  

These animals are very cute when they are babies and bought by private
individuals who do not realize that THEY DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.  After
maturity, or even sooner, the animals cannot be controlled unless you
are an experienced trainer. Each one of the animals may eat in excess of
100,000 pounds of meat in their lifetime.  They are not to be treated by
regular vets but exotic vets, which will charge a minimum of $300.00
just to come to your home, not to treat the animal.  A basic 40 foot x
40 foot 9 gauge enclosure will run between $13,000.00 and $17,000.00 on
average and this does not include shelter, enrichments, toys, etc.
After 9 to 10 months, not such a good idea to have them as a pet after
all. Now they look for a home for the cat.  

The majority of all big cat sanctuaries in the United States are 501-c-3
non-profit organizations who rely solely on donations from the public to
not only support their own cats previously rescued, but be able to build
more enclosures and rescue more big cats.  If they cannot find a home
for the big cat, they are immediately euthanized, only because they are
homeless! Exhibitors travel with the animals for photo-ops, and in case
you are not aware of this fact, once the cubs are too large to use in
photos, if they cannot be placed in the few viable big cat sanctuaries
in the United States, the cats are euthanized so the owner doesn’t have
to continue to support an animal he specifically acquired for the sole
purpose of exploiting the cat and making money!  

ONLY AZA Zoos should be actively breeding, as they are the only one’s
who keep very specific DNA and RNA bloodline records to make sure the
bloodlines do not cross to be able to keep a pure blooded animal in
existence as long as possible.  Since the end of World War 2, 3
sub-species of Tigers have been completely wiped out due to poaching and
encroachment of their territories.  These AZA Zoos employ highly trained
individuals who are trying to save an entire species.  Yes, you can
breed if you are a private owner, but you will only get a “Mutt” Tiger.
These are all animals who needlessly suffer from abuse, neglect,
photo-ops, severe birth defects from inbreeding, etc.  The more “Mutt”
tigers that are bred, the closer the genetic pool swirls and eventually
these animals will all suffer from severe birth defects, if they survive
at all!

None of this proposed legislation is to protect the public from the big
cats, but to protect the big cats from the sheer STUPIDITY of the
public.  APHIS is re-evaluating it’s manual as we speak and there are
many of us who hope to present our case in front of the United States
Senate next year to ban all private ownership unless you are a zoo or a
sanctuary.

Extinction is forever and unfortunately individuals like yourself are
rapidly helping this endeavor of extinction along.   Do your research
before you go online and spread sheer and utter lies to an unsuspecting,
uninformed public.  YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! 

Valori T. Russell

Head Caretaker

Crown Ridge Tiger Sanctuary

vrussell at crown-ridge.com

573-883-9909

573-535-1630






Here is the reply I sent Mr. Russell:

On Fri, 2007-11-02 at 13:54 -0500, Valori Russell wrote:
> Sir, you are terribly mistaken when you say banning private ownership
> is a BAD thing!  

Ah! I love getting letters like this!

> These animals are very cute when they are babies and bought by private
> individuals who do not realize that THEY DO NOT MAKE GOOD PETS.

On what ground do you claim that big cats do not make good pets? I bet
you really enjoy the companionship of the cats you work with. One who
works with these animals in a loving, caring way cannot help but bond
with them. And this bond is a deep, abiding bond that has nothing to do
with the fact that the animal involved is a superpredator. So for all
intents and purposes, if you work with these animals, they are your
pets.

>   After maturity, or even sooner, the animals cannot be controlled
> unless you are an experienced trainer.

This assumes, of course, you want to be in the enclosure with the cat.
There is no reason one cannot very successfully raise these animals
without the need to go in with them. I do not go in with the cats in my
care. They can be loved safely and successfully through the fence.

>  Each one of the animals may eat in excess of 100,000 pounds of meat
> in their lifetime.

And your point is?

Assuming an average lifespan of 18 years, and feeding seven days a week,
most big cats would become obese on this much food!

>   They are not to be treated by regular vets but exotic vets, which
> will charge a minimum of $300.00 just to come to your home, not to
> treat the animal.

And your point is?

Our vets charge more than this.

>   A basic 40 foot x 40 foot 9 gauge enclosure will run between
> $13,000.00 and $17,000.00 on average and this does not include
> shelter, enrichments, toys, etc.


And your point is?

A well designed enclosure and its accessories is not cheap, and for good
reason. (I find your estimate low.) Yet, people spend more than what a
good enclosure costs on an SUV every day.

>   After 9 to 10 months, not such a good idea to have them as a pet
> after all. Now they look for a home for the cat.  

The unprepared owner might. Or, they learn really fast. The responsible
owners are ready for this stage.

> The majority of all big cat sanctuaries in the United States are
> 501-c-3 non-profit organizations who rely solely on donations from the
> public to not only support their own cats previously rescued, but be
> able to build more enclosures and rescue more big cats.


If these sanctuaries are able to care for all these cats, why can't
other people be able to care for them? The husbandry requirements of big
cats are not complex by the standard of many other animals. I would go
as far as saying a horse is harder to care for than a big cat.

Don't forget a lot of facilities that hold big cats for reasons other
than rescue are also 501(c)(3) and operate on donations.

A lot of the reasons that the placement of cats has increased is that
big cat owners are being legislated to death. A report issued by the
USDA a few years back indicated the big cat numbers in the US were
basically steady. If this is the case, why are the number of these
animals ending up in sanctuaries increasing? I am having to deal now
with two people with cats who are having to place their cats because
they were legislated out of existence. That is not fair to the owner nor
the cat.

According to Vernon Weir of the ASA, the vast majority of cats coming
into the ASA are from USDA licensed facilities, not private owners.

>   If they cannot find a home for the big cat, they are immediately
> euthanized, only because they are homeless!

Do you have hard statistics on this? I hear of very few cases of this.

>  Exhibitors travel with the animals for photo-ops, and in case you are
> not aware of this fact, once the cubs are too large to use in photos,
> if they cannot be placed in the few viable big cat sanctuaries in the
> United States, the cats are euthanized so the owner doesn’t have to
> continue to support an animal he specifically acquired for the sole
> purpose of exploiting the cat and making money!

 What is your definition of 'viable'? 

I think you will find there are more than a 'few viable sanctuaries' in
the US.

A viable sanctuary, in my opinion, should be breeding their worthy
animals in a conservation breeding program that is managed by a
voluntary committee to help ensure the survival of the species.

Cubs are produced in too large a number for many conservation breeding
programs. Let the cubs be evaluated, and only the fittest allowed to
carry on their genes. The rest can be given a short and happy lifetime,
and then euthanized. I don't personally like this, but it is population
management to replace that which occurs in nature (for instance, only 1
in 8 lion cubs makes it to adulthood in the wild. The mortality rate
drops sharply in adulthood.) European zoos have been culling cubs for
many years.

That said, I know many cats who do photo shoots when young go on to be
good adult cats.

> ONLY AZA Zoos should be actively breeding, as they are the only one’s
> who keep very specific DNA and RNA bloodline records to make sure the
> bloodlines do not cross to be able to keep a pure blooded animal in
> existence as long as possible.

What uniquely qualifies the AZA above any other management organization?
The fact that the animal rights people have been writing illegal
exemptions for them into their ban laws?

And, is there any advantage to pure-bloodedness? For the most part, a
tiger is a tiger. And a living mutt tiger is better than a dead or
extinct pure-blooded tiger.

Also, the number of tigers of each subspecies in AZA zoos is so low that
they will not be able to maintain a viable gene pool for more than a few
generations. And, their involuntary SSP breeding program has actually
killed cats in transport.

>   Since the end of World War 2, 3 sub-species of Tigers have been
> completely wiped out due to poaching and encroachment of their
> territories.

Will you agree with me then, that the human encroachment problem is
unsolvable? The only viable alternative is captive husbandry.

>   These AZA Zoos employ highly trained individuals who are trying to
> save an entire species.

In my opinion, they are too highly trained. Many AZA zoos I have been in
have their animal care and management programs hidebound by science.
These animals are actually getting worse care than their brethern in
smaller zoos and in private hands.

>   Yes, you can breed if you are a private owner, but you will only get
> a “Mutt” Tiger.  These are all animals who needlessly suffer from
> abuse, neglect, photo-ops, severe birth defects from inbreeding, etc.

Inbreeding is a bad thing. But, if there are plenty of tigers around to
breed with, inbreeding ceases to be a problem.

Also, has it occurred to you that most private cat owners take good care
of their animals? If there really are 10-20,000 cats in private hands,
why is it you only hear about a few of them getting into trouble. If you
love an animal, you are inclined to take good care of it. If this animal
helps you get your livelihood, you are likely to see to it that it is
well cared for, so the money will keep coming in. And is there any rule
which states that a person who makes money with an animal cannot have a
good bond with said animal, and therefore enrich each others' lives?

>   The more “Mutt” tigers that are bred, the closer the genetic pool
> swirls and eventually these animals will all suffer from severe birth
> defects, if they survive at all!

With enough cats, the opposite occurs. It is only when you restrict the
number of animals in the gene pool (by, for instance banning laws, or
'science' falsely so called) that you run into trouble.

And again, what is wrong with a mutt tiger, especially in captivity?

> None of this proposed legislation is to protect the public from the
> big cats, but to protect the big cats from the sheer STUPIDITY of the
> public.  APHIS is re-evaluating it’s manual as we speak and there are
> many of us who hope to present our case in front of the United States
> Senate next year to ban all private ownership unless you are a zoo or
> a sanctuary.

The APHIS manual will have no effect on private owners unless they are
APHIS licensed. And, the policy manual is just that: policy. APHIS has
already demonstrated in its policy that they bow to special interests
(like veterinarians, who make $$$ off owners complying with some of
their silly policies). I might even contribute to the policy manual, who
knows? 

At this time, I have the right to own a big cat, or any other animal I
choose to own. This is fundamental right, and goes back to the dawn of
civilization. You, too have the right to own a big cat....or not to own
a big cat. Why is it that a small group of cat owners is doing their
darndest to TAKE AWAY MY RIGHT TO OWN A BIG CAT WHILE PROTECTING THEIRS?
Am I proposing anything to take away your rights? No. If you really
believe in introducing this legislation, I urge you to immediately
euthanize all the big cats in your possession to show that you walk your
talk.

Any legislation entered at the Federal level (or at the state level in
most states) will be vigorously opposed by the rapidly growing body of
animal owners that love their freedom and love their animals. The AR
folks are in for a big fall. It is happening already as more and more
public official, law enforcement officers, and average citizens see how
evil they are. They will drag down with them the legislators they have
bought out to support their cause.

People will not easily give up their animals. Any ban legislation will
only create a black market. You don't want this and I don't want this.
But, if the black market is the only way that big cats are able to
survive, all the best to them.

> Extinction is forever and unfortunately individuals like yourself are
> rapidly helping this endeavor of extinction along.   Do your research
> before you go online and spread sheer and utter lies to an
> unsuspecting, uninformed public.  YOU ARE THE PROBLEM! 

I have done my research. It doesn't look like you have done yours. It is
sanctuary owners more than any other group (besides the AR folks) who
are misinforming the public!!

And, thank you for revealing yourself to the many responsible animal
keepers who are on the various cat lists. Its nice to know who are
enemies are!

Respectfully,
Tim Stoffel





And, here is the response I got back from him today:

We are attempting to save all big cats through pure blood lines.  While
there will be "mutt" tigers in existence for many years to come,
eventually the genetic pool will become so clouded all of the big cats
born will have severe genetic defects if they are genetically intact
enough to be born at all.  I will no longer argue this point with
someone who is so obviously closed minded and does not see the entire
picture.  Several Directors, including myself, working in/with
sanctuaries working unwanted, neglected, and abused big cats will
present our case in from of the US Senate next year.  This is where
legislation will affect the ultimate outcome of the plight of the big
cats and not through email with individuals like yourself.  You have
your opinions and I will have mine.  Fortunately mine are shared by more
than 134 Directors of Zoos and Sanctuaries. Our correspondence will end
here.   


BE FOREWARNED!!

For the lions,
Tim Stoffel