|
1-4 of 4 messages
|
Page 1 of 1
|
|
NV-Tiger, tiger burns not bright
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 17, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Interesting timing and location for false tiger at large anonymous report, only 2 weeks before Nye county, NV, hearing on animal zoning (oct 24th) that is proposing banning all cats and hybrids, monkeys, etc…on less than 2 acres and on over 2 acres you need to apply for special use permit, this includes public hearing for tiny 7 pound Bengal cats.
We are lucky here we have intelligent newspaper here, no anti exotic owner crap.
More background info here:
http://www.rexano.org//NewsArchivePages/SuspiciousFeb06Frame.htm
Increase in suspicious dead and live exotic animal dumping across the USA appears directly related to the legislation banning private ownership of exotic and wild animals<snip>
Z
--
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Oct-17-Wed-2007/news/17334419.html
Oct. 17, 2007
Tiger, tiger burns not bright
PVT
A reported tiger sighting caused quite a hubbub for children waiting for the bus to go to school last Friday morning.
Nye County Sheriff's Office Capt. Bill Becht said an anonymous phone call was received that reported a tiger being spotted in a North End neighborhood that provides bus service to several local schools.
Animal Control was contacted and called Nye County's Amateur Radio Emergency Services (ARES) unit to help patrol the area and monitor students walking to and from the bus stop.
Becht said members of the sheriff's auxiliary unit were also dispatched to the scene.
About a dozen ham operators began patrolling the area at about 5:30 a.m., but when there were no sightings by 8 a.m., activities were suspended.
As Becht bluntly put it, "There was no tiger."
|
| |
|
RE: NV-Tiger, tiger burns not bright
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Oct-19-Fri-2007/opinion/17379979.html
MARK SMITH
Oct. 19, 2007
Here come the wildlife ordinances ... again
Comes the tiger, gnashing its teeth, its fangs dripping in anticipation of a meal among our school-age population, innocently waiting for the bus at this or that corner.
Little Dakota daydreams about how much fun she'll have in Ms. Hoover's class ... even as the vicious, bloodthirsty beast creeps closer ... ever closer.
(Heck, this is as frightening to some as U.S. military flights out of Nellis droning over Pahrump. What? We weren't notified ahead of time? How dare they? Oh, and by the way: "I support the troops.")
The imaginary tiger created almost as much stir as the search -- successful, thank goodness -- for Chester A. Stiles, who got so shook up as the feds questioned him that he yarked all over the cruiser.
First it was an "orange" tiger, or the normal Bengal or Siberian model with black stripes and reddish hair.
But hold! Next it was stalking the streets, growling and snarling at the kiddies.
No, hold on, latest report is that it's strolling along Mesquite with the torn body of a black dachshund hanging from its jaws.
Didn't you hear? It just gobbled up Rob Roberts over by the school district office.
By morning I expected to hear that the tiger had knocked over a Rebel convenience store, taken hostages and stolen a sheriff's cruiser.
Well, so far, as was announced the morning after the alleged sighting, no one has found any evidence of a marauding member of the genus Panthera, or even hints that an orange tabby was lurking about. If you hear otherwise, demand proof.
But as Zuzana Kukor remarks in a letter in this edition, it seems more than a bit suspicious that the call about the animal was made just before a March 24 hearing on zoning proposals that would affect exotic animals.
One wonders: If the ordinances in question focused on wild birds, would we hear that the flying reptile Rodan had been spotted, orbiting the peaks of the Nopah Range, leering hungrily at the helpless elderly?
The whole business is worrisome on a variety of fronts.
If, as Scott Shoemaker writes, planning chief Jack Loman said people "have a right to know" what legal activities their neighbors are pursuing, then Loman has a peculiar outlook. My feeling is that the American people -- even those in Pahrump -- have a right to act legally without being bothered.
If it's legal for me to own a bright green fire engine, then it's nobody's business what is inside that oversize garage I have. If there is no law barring me from lounging around my pool enclosure naked, then no one has any right to know I've dropped my drawers.
There may be a right to know, although it certainly hasn't been enshrined in the Constitution; there is also a "right to privacy," to be left the heck alone when you're not annoying your neighbors or breaking the law. And even if you are suspected of fracturing the law, the state still has to proceed carefully or risk being shown the door when it goes to court.
Loman allegedly told Shoemaker he wouldn't want someone with a tiger living next door. But if it's legal for someone to possess that tiger, then Loman and anyone else with the same concern has a choice -- they can move somewhere else.
Zoning needs to make sense, period. It should not be used as a plaything for personal agendas or an excuse for groups or individuals to promote fear and ignorance.
I would not be for an ordinance that allows wildlife to roam the streets loose (but on the other hand, I certainly want to allow such wildlife to be executed out of hand). I think those, like Kukor and Shoemaker, who raise what may be called "exotics" have a responsibility to guarantee their animals are secure and are properly caged, penned, or whatever.
I also think the rules have to match the situation. A regulation meant to deal with lions and tigers needs adjustments built in before it can deal sensibly with ocelots, servals or caracals.
Now to be honest, I recently had the great good fortune to visit with Kukor and Shoemaker and see a variety of their animals.
Given the security they have established and clearly maintain, I would feel more endangered driving to and from their compound than while I am at it.
Their lion was so threatening that he was delirious when Zuzana rubbed his belly with a wire brush. Pepper the tiger nuzzled my face through the cage and then ignored me. The bobcat and the ocelot also indicated an utter lack of interest in my presence. (In any case, the cats are all declawed.)
Their new, young and nutty mountain lion kitten was like any feline kitten. She wanted to play. She would suddenly rush up, wrap her forepaws around my thigh and then press her face up against me. There was never a single hint of her teeth; she simply did not bite, period. And whenever she wrapped her paws harmlessly around my leg, Zuzana would spray her in the face with water to back her off. She is being trained to proper behavior around people.
These incredible, beautiful creatures are well fed, well watered, well treated, and even were they to escape from their seriously secure enclosures, I think they'd mostly be scared to death and probably be crying to get back inside.
I have no worry about ordinances unless they make no sense.
Wednesday's planned hearing by the county commission will be a chance to be heard. Scheduled for 8:30 a.m., one hopes it will put into play some common sense about animal protection and preservation.
|
| |
|
RE: NV-Tiger, tiger burns not bright
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Oct-19-Fri-2007/opinion/17379869.html
Oct. 19, 2007
Letters to the Editor
Wasting taxpayers' money
The following letter was addressed to the county commissioners, sheriff, emergency services, public and this newspaper:
I am sure you are aware of the latest rumor of an orange tiger on the loose in Pahrump, reported by an anonymous caller to the sheriff Oct. 11.
To be honest, I was not surprised since people with agendas, mostly extreme animal rights (AR) fanatics usually report fake big cat sightings across the USA, dump dead exotic animals or actually release harmless baby big cats and reptiles to incite public fear and hysteria before exotic animal legislation.
Note this phantom tiger incident happened only two weeks before a controversial Pahrump animal zoning hearing -- very suspicious timing.
As always, as a responsible big cat owner, I am offering my help with transport and housing in case this turns out to be a real case.
Same thing happened before a proposed Nye county animal control ordinance hearing in Tonopah last September. A properly crated baby mountain lion was found at the door of a privately owned Las Vegas zoo only a few days before the Nye ordinance hearing and it was all over the news.
Although reported to be malnourished to increase the sympathy for the supposed 'plight of exotics in captivity,' the cougar pictures clearly showed the animal was in good health.
In September 2001, a baby cougar boarded a conveniently empty school bus in Las Vegas -- Baby cougar and empty bus to make sure no human got hurt.
This coincided with multiple meetings discussing the draft of a proposed Clark County exotic animal ordinance. This incident was used by the proponents as an excuse to heavily regulate these animals, even though Nevada Wildlife already regulates native species like cougars and bobcats.
Since none of these cougars had a permanent ID (microchip or tattoo) as required by already existing state law, whoever released them did it illegally with a specific purpose. The Clark County ordinance still was not voted on and remains a draft, mainly due to finances -- it would require hiring two more animal control officers.
These baby cats at large or hoax sightings usually happen around legislative sessions. Increases in suspicious dead and live exotic animal dumping or hoax sightings across the country appears directly related to the legislation on private ownership of exotic and wild animals.
By instantly blaming private owners and increasing fear of exotic animal attacks during the legislative session, these staged incidents influence the legislators into passing taxpayers' money-wasting bills at the height of media and public hysteria.
I am sure you all know, according to the FBI, animal/environmental rights activists are considered the number one domestic terrorist threat. Releasing captive exotic animals or making false reports is illegal and should be prosecuted, if you can catch the suspect.
Is there a way to trace the callers of these tiger sightings and find out how legit they were?
This is not any different from somebody calling in a fake bomb scare that creates unjustified hysteria and causes government resources to be wasted on pursuing a nonexistent threat.
Then AR groups, or even hypocritical fellow owners who want to ban others and exempt themselves from the laws they push, create a "list of exotic incidents," which is extremely padded with these unconfirmed sightings and even include foreign or wild animal attacks.
They send it to legislators, sheriffs, commissioners, news, etc., where animal ordinances are proposed or where they want it to be proposed.
This furthers the hysteria to make it look as if there is an imminent threat of the American population being devoured by exotic animals and make sure animals get banned or heavily regulated, with the final goal of all of us being vegetarians and eliminating all animal use and companionship, step by step, exotics first, farmers/hunters next -- then all pets.
Why didn't the caller identify him or herself? Any honest caller would want to help with the investigation and make themselves available for further questioning about the animal and location.
Can this be investigated to find out who started this tiger hysteria and is wasting sheriff's and animal control time and taxpayers' money on prank phone calls?
ZUZANA KUKOL
|
| |
|
RE: NV-Tiger, tiger burns not bright
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on October 20, 2007
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This is regarding Pahrump ordinance, NV hearing on October 24th, 2007 at 8-30AM at Bob Ruud Community Center
http://www.nyecounty.net/Public_Meetings/agendas/BOCC/2007.10.23_24.Backup/TA-07-0004.pdf
that would ban monkeys and cat sand hybrids (including savannah, bengals...) under 2 acres.
Scott Shoemaker is from REXANO
Z
===
http://www.pahrumpvalleytimes.com/2007/Oct-17-Wed-2007/opinion/17331116.html
Oct. 17, 2007
Letters to the Edtior
Advertisement
Fear, ignorance, dismissal of facts
I oppose Nye County Zoning Bill 2007-13.
This bill was intended to address the issue of noisy kennel/rescue facilities in a residential area; it doesn't address it and brings in other items, such as trying to fix animal control through zoning.
It requires kennels to acquire a conditional use permit ($350 filing fee and subject to a public hearing) for all zones except for neighborhood commercial (and it must be an indoor facility). I thought the problem was the planning commission issued a kennel permit in a residential area ... uh, it sounds like they can do it again.
The bill should provide some zones where a commercial kennel is a permissive use, thus providing an incentive for kennels to locate in those appropriate zones, not requiring a conditional use permit and preventing the planning board from making the same mistake twice.
It defines a "residential kennel" as a private owner with up to 10 dogs, but what are you if you have more than ten … a commercial kennel? Do you need to get a conditional use permit?
Another item in this bill is the ban on "animal special conditions" (in other words, exotic animals, hybrids such as wolf dogs) on property under two acres and requiring a conditional use permit for such animals on residences two acres or greater, on top or the required registration and inspection of the animal facilities. The definition has the term "includes but not limited to" and lists animals from an elephant to hybrid cats that are smaller than the average house cat. This seems little extreme.
Seems like the zoning commission's answer to everything is to require a conditional use permit.
Instead of just complaining, I offered a solution (to the members of the ad hoc committee, that by taking animal special conditions and dividing them up into three classes (large, medium and small), make them a permissive use in zones that were applicable and get rid of the conditional use permit requirement, since the requirement for registering and being inspected was going to stay in the bill. The responses I got surprised me.
Most of the ad hoc committee liked the idea; it made sense to them, but Planning Director, Jack Lohman did not agree and maintained the conditional use requirement stay in the bill. I asked why.
He mentioned the animals are carnivores. Some pointed out many animals listed were herbivores or omnivores. Statistics prove more injuries occur from horses and cattle; nobody has been killed by a big cat at large since at least 1990.
Lohman contended the caging would be an issue for neighbors. If it is permissive to have a horse or livestock with enclosures on one acre, how does a cat enclosure vary from that? Many of the "animal special conditions" live in the house or enclosures similar to dog runs.
He stated these animals are "wild." I explained they are captive-born and -raised animals; they don't know how to hunt. He should be more concerned with the wild cougars, coyotes, snakes and scorpions.
Lohman made the blanket statement, because "the people have a right to know." I was confused -- people have a right to know what I own legally? Just because the planning director thinks so? I need permission, from the planning department for possessing an animal that is legal to have? I checked. People have a right to know what their government is doing, like placing a sewer plant next to my home.
He stated he wouldn't want someone with a tiger living next to him. If he never has lived next to a tiger owner or even talked to someone who does, how would he know?
Lohman didn't have data, statistics or other evidence showing the animals listed were a public safety issue, nothing illustrating how possessing them affected the neighbors or their properties. He had no justification for requiring a conditional use permit, for banning the animals listed on properties less than two acres, no reason why it was okay to have a 1,500-pound bull on one acre, but not a 25-pound serval.
The only reason presented was fear, ignorance and a dismissal of facts.
Scott Shoemaker
|
| |
|
Email Subscription
You are not subscribed to this topic.
Subscribe!
My Subscriptions
Subscriptions Help
Check our help page for help using
, or send questions, comments, or suggestions to the
Manager.
|
