|
21-23 of 23 messages
|
Previous
Page 3 of 3
|
|
RE: Reckless endangerment of our hobby
|
Reply
|
|
by yoyoing on March 12, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
Chuck,
To add to what you are saying, opponents of freehandling are responding to what they perceive as dangerous. The recent bite victims were actually performing routine tasks. Mathematically, this makes free handling infinitely safer than standard snake procedures.
I know this is silly, but supports your observation that everyone operating on the "safer" side of the spectrum needs to be careful about how they are viewed from those on the "even safer" side.
Hope that makes sense.
Jim
|
| |
|
RE: Reckless endangerment of our hobby
|
Reply
|
|
by Cro on March 12, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
At reptile shows, I have seen several individuals free handle snakes, so there is nothing subliminal about it Chuck, LOL.
I have also known free handlers at several zoos.
And I admire what Grace Olive Wiley did, she is one of my heros.
I really dont care much if free handling folks get bit or not, as long as it does not hurt the hobby with bad press. It is a calculated risk they are willing to take, and most times they get away with it, for the same reason that a snake usually does not bite a snake hook. If it is being gently handled and does not feel threatened, it has little reason to bite.
I do worry some though that it might influence younger folks to try to repeat the act, and those younger folks will not be sending the same calm signals to the snakes, and are in much more danger.
Best Regards JohnZ
|
| |
|
RE: Reckless endangerment of our hobby
|
Reply
|
|
by tigers9 on March 12, 2008
|
Mail this to a friend!
|
This absolutely makes sense, when you look at the latest big cat injuries or deaths, many lately happened in AZA zoo setting where person was not even in the cage but cat got their limb thru the bars or person was in the cage by accident, or the cat got out,and these cats were not used to have the person in the cage WITH them.
So in no hands on setting zoo/sanctuary, something happens almost every time the person and cat are in the same cage by accident, as it is not a routine for a cat to have this ‘meal/toy in shoes’ there without a barrier.
For our pet or show big cats, it is normal routine to have a person in the cage, to be taken out for leash walks, no big deal, and 99.999999percent nothing happens when hands on cats are in the same cage with a person.
So mistakes are more deadly with not trained no hands on big cats.
This to me makes no hands zoo/sanctuary cats more dangerous, considering these places are so ‘safety oriented’ they should have no accidents, and people like me who are 100 hands on should be dying all the time.
Yet, accident/death rate for hands on people is not as high as you would expect listening to people wanting to ban us or listening to zoo people who are not trainers and are just scared of what they personally fear rather than real danger.
I see no reason to be hands off with my cats considering the rate of accidents/deaths is higher with not tame caged cats (AZA zoos have around 300 tigers, private sector has few thousand, yet AZA zoos seem to be having extremely large amount of mishaps lately considering how few hands off cats their have).
Z
<<Posted By yoyoing
Chuck,
To add to what you are saying, opponents of freehandling are responding to what they perceive as dangerous. The recent bite victims were actually performing routine tasks. Mathematically, this makes free handling infinitely safer than standard snake procedures.
I know this is silly, but supports your observation that everyone operating on the "safer" side of the spectrum needs to be careful about how they are viewed from those on the "even safer" side.
Hope that makes sense.
Jim >>
|
| |
|
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.
|
