I think the people who let the thing get loose should be neutered.

i dont think there is a lot of precedent to suggest what a tiger might do while in a populated area. it may stay in the hills until it is hungry and then come down a grab someone, namely a hiker such as yourself. yes they could have tried to trap it, but it took them a week just to find it. clearly they did not have any sort of protocol setup for the trapping of wild tigers. i was talking to my sister last night and she said that the tiger passed behind her house in moorpark. its only natural to care about your family more than an animal.

given the lack of competency by the "authorities" to hand the situation, i have accepted the reality of the situation. could it have been handled differently, possibly, but the outcome was acceptable.


i would not be one of them, contrary to what my avatar would suggest.

Could you refer me, by code and section number to the laws enacted by the State of California that require the owner to notify authorities immediately upon an animal getting loose??? I would like to review them.

So far, the laws that would seem to apply to the owners are listed below. The punishment for breaking the laws listed below, however, is only a misdemeanor. That means a small fine and time at a county jail:

Cal Fish & G Code § 2190 (2005)

§ 2190. Liberation, shipment, or transportation of confined wild animals

It is unlawful for any person who keeps in confinement, with or without a permit, any wild animal of a species enumerated in or designated pursuant to Section 2118, to liberate, ship, or transport the animal except in accordance with the conditions of a permit first obtained from the department.

NOTE: THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF THE TERM “LIBERATE.” THE TERM SEEMS TO IMPLY A WILLFUL ACT OF RELEASING THE ANIMAL BACK INTO THE WILD. QUESTION WHETHER THIS COVERS AN ACCIDENTAL RELEASE, AS IN AN ESCAPE

Cal Fish & G Code § 2118 (2005)

§ 2118. Prohibited importation or release into state of live wild animals of listed species, except under revocable, nontransferable permit

It is unlawful to import, transport, possess, or release alive into this state, except under a revocable, nontransferable permit as provided in this chapter and the regulations pertaining thereto, any wild animal of the following species:

...
Order Carnivora (carnivores)
All species, except domestic dogs (Canis familiaris)
and domestic cats (Felis catus).

NOTE: TIGERS ARE AMONG THE WILD ANIMALS FOR WHICH A PERMIT IS REQUIRED (WELL, THAT IS OBVIOUS)

Cal Fish & G Code § 2150 (2005)

§ 2150. Permit for importation, possession, or transportation of animals; Application and fees; Revocation and denial; Exemptions

(a) The department or an eligible local entity, in cooperation with the Department of Food and Agriculture, may, upon application, issue a written permit to import into, possess, or transport within this state any wild animal enumerated in, or designated pursuant to, Section 2118, upon a determination that the animal is not detrimental or that no damage or detriment can be caused to agriculture, native wildlife, the public health or safety, or the welfare of the animal, as a result of the importation, transportation, or possession.

A permit shall be issued only upon application and payment of a nonrefundable application fee in an amount determined by the department pursuant to Section 2150.2. Application forms shall be provided by the department, or an eligible local entity, and shall be designed to ascertain the applicant's ability to properly care for the wild animal or animals the applicant seeks to import, transport, or possess. Proper care includes providing adequate food, shelter, and veterinary care, and other requirements the commission may designate.

(b) The commission shall revoke or deny a permit if it finds that a permittee or applicant has failed to meet, or is unable to meet, the requirements for importing, transporting, possessing, or confining any wild animal as established pursuant to Section 2120.

...

Cal Fish & G Code Sec. 12000 (2005)

§ 12000. Violation as misdemeanor generally; Certain violations as infractions

(a) Except as expressly provided otherwise in this code, any violation of this code, or of any rule, regulation, or order made or adopted under this code, is a misdemeanor.

(b) Notwithstanding subdivision (a), any person who violates any of the following statutes or regulations, as those statutes or regulations read on January 1, 2003, is guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of not less than one hundred dollars ($ 100) or more than one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or of a misdemeanor:

(1) Subdivision (a) of Section 6596.

(2) Section 7149.8.

(3) Section 7360.

(4) Section 1.74 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

(5) Sections 2.00 to 5.95, inclusive, and 7.00 to 8.00, inclusive, of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

(6) Sections 27.56, 27.65, and 27.70 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

(7) Sections 27.85 to 30.10, inclusive, of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

(8) Sections 40 to 43, inclusive, of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

(9) Sections 550 to 553, inclusive, of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

(10) Sections 630 to 630.5, inclusive, of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.

HISTORY:
Enacted 1957. Amended Stats 1961 ch 1815 § 2; Stats 1984 ch 1215 § 1.
Amended Stats 2003 ch 291 § 5 (AB 1420).

NOTE: PUNISHMENT FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE LAWS LISTED ABOVE

Cal Pen Code § 148 (2005)

§ 148. Resisting public or peace officers or emergency medical technicians in discharge of their duties; Removal of weapon from person or presence of public or peace officer

(a)(1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(2) Except as provided by subdivision (d) of Section 653t, every person who knowingly and maliciously interrupts, disrupts, impedes, or otherwise interferes with the transmission of a communication over a public safety radio frequency shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($ 1,000), imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

(b) Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a) removes or takes any weapon, other than a firearm, from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison.

(c) Every person who, during the commission of any offense described in subdivision (a) removes or takes a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison.

(d) Except as provided in subdivision (c) and notwithstanding subdivision (a) of Section 489, every person who removes or takes without intent to permanently deprive, or who attempts to remove or take a firearm from the person of, or immediate presence of, a public officer or peace officer, while the officer is engaged in the performance of his or her lawful duties, shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year or in the state prison.

In order to prove a violation of this subdivision, the prosecution shall establish that the defendant had the specific intent to remove or take the firearm by demonstrating that any of the following direct, but ineffectual, acts occurred:

(1) The officer's holster strap was unfastened by the defendant.

(2) The firearm was partially removed from the officer's holster by the defendant.

(3) The firearm safety was released by the defendant.

(4) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant stated that he or she intended to remove the firearm and the defendant actually touched the firearm.

(5) An independent witness corroborates that the defendant actually had his or her hand on the firearm and tried to take the firearm away from the officer who was holding it.

(6) The defendant's fingerprint was found on the firearm or holster.

(7) Physical evidence authenticated by a scientifically verifiable procedure established that the defendant touched the firearm.

(8) In the course of any struggle, the officer's firearm fell and the defendant attempted to pick it up.

(e) A person shall not be convicted of a violation of subdivision (a) in addition to a conviction of a violation of subdivision (b), (c), or (d) when the resistance, delay, or obstruction, and the removal or taking of the weapon or firearm or attempt thereof, was committed against the same public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician. A person may be convicted of multiple violations of this section if more than one public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician are victims.

(f) This section shall not apply if the public officer, peace officer, or emergency medical technician is disarmed while engaged in a criminal act.

HISTORY:
Enacted 1872. Amended Stats 1957 ch 139 § 30; Stats 1983 ch 73 § 1.
Amended Stats 1987 ch 257 § 1; Stats 1989 ch 1005 § 1; Stats 1990 ch 1181 § 1 (AB 1925); Stats 1997 ch 111 § 1 (SB 282), ch 464 § 1 (SB 57); Stats 1999 ch 853 § 8 (SB 832).

NOTE: WHEN THE ALLEGED OWNERS OF THE TIGERS WERE ASKED ABOUT THE ANIMAL, AND IF THEY OWNED IT, THEY ALLEGEDLY LIED. IF THE TIGER IS TRACED TO THESE PEOPLE, THEN THEY CAN BE CHARGED WITH INTERFERING WITH A POLICE INVESTIGATION, A VIOLATION OF PENAL CODE SEC. 148.

MEDMECH: IF YOU KNOW OF ANY OTHER LAWS, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/licensing/pdffiles/fg1518.pdf

This is a waste of time, but for your sake I'll spell it out for you. The permit holder must report any change of conditions listed in the permit. One of them happens to be caging. In law that's called a cover all.

Common sense plays a role as well, which seems to have left the building.

THERE IS ANOTHER TIGER!

ANYONE IN THE CONEJO VALLEY PLEASE BE AWARE.

:eek:

Chimps Escape, Attack Visitors at Animal Sanctuary in Calif.
The Associated Press


CALIENTE, Calif. (AP) - Several chimpanzees broke from their cages at an animal sanctuary Thursday and attacked two visitors, seriously injuring them, authorities said. Sanctuary workers shot and killed two of the powerful animals.

Officials did not immediately release the victims' names, but a television station reported that they were a couple who were visiting another chimpanzee that had been removed from their home years earlier for his own aggressive behavior.

One of those injured at the Animal Haven Ranch was airlifted to Kern Medical Center in critical condition, said Sheriff's Sgt. Jeff Hunt. Another victim was in serious condition, said Hunt, who did not know what kind of injuries they suffered.

KGET-TV of Bakersfield identified the victims as St. James Davis and his wife, LaDonna Davis, who were at the sanctuary to celebrate the birthday of Moe, who was taken from their suburban Los Angeles home in 1999 after biting off part of a woman's finger.

Moe was not involved in Thursday's attack, said state Department of Fish and Game spokesman Steve Martarano.

The Davises reportedly brought Moe a cake, but two other chimpanzees named Buddy and Ollie attacked St. James Davis, KGET reported, quoting local animal control authorities.

Dr. Maureen Martin, of Kern Medical Center, told the television station that the monkeys chewed most of Davis' face off and that he would require extensive surgery in an attempt to reattach his nose. He was transported to Loma Linda Medical Center University, she said.

LaDonna Davis suffered a bite wound to the hand, Martin said.

Buddy and Ollie were shot and killed following the attack, and two other chimps escaped from their cage, prompting sheriff's deputies, animal control workers, and Fish and Game officials to launch a search.

The wayward pair were eventually recovered by an Animal Haven worker. Martarano said one chimp was two miles from the sanctuary.

The Davises had waged an unsuccessful legal fight to bring Moe back to their West Covina home. They brought the chimp from Africa decades ago after a poacher killed his mother.

Animal Haven Ranch has held state permits to shelter animals since 1985 and serves as a sanctuary for animals that have been confiscated or discovered lost, Martarano said.

It is allowed to house up to nine primates at one time and is home to one spider monkey and six chimpanzees, he said. The permits are held by Ralph and Virginia Brauer, who could not be reached immediately for comment.

Chimpanzees can turn surly if not handled properly, said Martine Colette, animal director of the Wildlife WayStation, a sanctuary near Los Angeles where Moe was housed for a time.

"Chimps are notoriously strong and they have some very, very specific behaviors," Colette said. "If someone tries to confine them, they will definitely put up a fight."

"An average person who doesn't know chimp body language can't read them," she added.

AP-ES-03-03-05 2246EST

I propose we make Two big fences along the mexican border......

And turn tigers loose between them........

lol

:UNCLESAM: