In regards to the event,

Hey, I wasn't physically there. I cannot pass judgment on something I couldn't see. Neutral seems to be the best mode stick with at this point in time.

What really happened? Do we truly know if the actions were justified or not? If we don't, then all this is, is just dung-plops. If you decide to quibble, you will only forge more depigmentation of your naturally colored hair follicles.

I think we all agree on the same thing. But we all have different opinions about that thing. First off the owner is at fault....Nay, not the owner. The organization that allowed the owner to acquire the cat. This type of crap should not be allowed under ANY d*mned circumstances.

I have one cat, a traditional siamese female, who has never once hissed, clawed, or made any attempts to harm me. She loves to be nuzzled(and purrs sensing my approach). She is nearing her 5th year.

But a tiger is not domesticated. Even if it spent it's life in captivity, the killer instinct is still there. Compared to the felinus domesticus which has been bred and trained by humans for several millenia.

Declawing and defanging a wild cat will obviously not stop it from killing you. Not a cat that size anyway.

A cat's nature is to stalk. If one spots a cougar close range, eye to eye, chances are the cougar will run away. Unless of course, it is protecting it's territorial / family grounds.

After 7 days without food, the tiger would be on a voracious killing streak(Heck, I would!). Was the tiger really starved for 7 days without any food whatsoever?

So like I said, I wasn't there. I would like to think that the decision made was a wise decision. I would like to have faith in the authorities ability to keep the peace and protect the public.

The way I see it, is God gave us the rights to rule over the kingdom of earth. We are the "God"'s of this place. We have better judgment than animals, and we know what's best. We can decide whether to eat them or breed them. It's our choice. But I believe, like God is to man, we should love them with all our hearts and respect them for what they are. Oh no....Another philosopical compost heap, excuse me.:P

So, I think there are two extremes here being played out. Can you folks please clarify your positions?

Now that an expert opinion, how long whould they have waited, 9.675 days?

The reason the cat was shot there is because they COULD shoot it there, getting the animal into a place that you can make a clean shot is part of the deal.

If the Tiger was so smart it would have stayed in the brush, like a real tiger would.

Regarding tracking:

I'm not an Indian tracker but whenever someone has a wounded animal I seem to get the call. It's something that can only be learned on foot, in the brush with the animal present. In other words you have to see the particular animal move the branch, break the twig bend the grass move the leaves.

For some reason there is rarely an actual "track" present., so identifying the species, let alone the individual animal is somewhat of an art that take a long long long time to perfect. Without those life experiences it's hard to learn.

I do agree with that, lets start by busting the people who let them out of the cages.

Hey I like that idea.............. :D

It wasn't directed at you..(the vacating their bowels comment)..just the animals are more important than people crowd.

Lot of armchair generals with the benifit of hindsight proclaiming " If they had been in charge they would have done it different" you know the type. Usualy the ones who are squeamish about getting the mouse out of the trap that isn't dead yet......or the rat that lives in their garage....yet are so brave from a safe distance about a tiger that could tear a man limb from limb in an instant.

There may be charges filed against the couple who supposedly owned the tiger.

Two things have to happen first:

1. Establish that in fact they were the owners; and

2. determine what laws, if any, were broken.

Contrary to public belief, there aren't many laws on the subject.

In addition to that:

3). Did they purposely let the tiger loose;

4). or, the tiger escaped from its confinement.

I wonder if Truman said held similar views....

In Kaliforia there have been very strict laws since 1990 which clearly states that they have to notify authorities immediately if they get loose.

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: