What Use?

in | | Comments (4)

Today CNN reports of the death of a 10-year-old North Carolina boy who got too close to the cage of a 400 lb. Bengal Tiger. The tiger lived in a cage in the backyard of the boy's aunt, who was babysitting the boy. Evidently the boy ventured too close to an opening, whereupon the tiger grabbed the boy, dragged him into its cage, and mauled the boy to death. During the struggle, the boy's uncle killed the tiger as well.

Nowadays it's considered politically correct to rail against government intervention in citizens' lives. Big government is out; a cowboy I'm-gonna-do-what-I-damn-well-please mentality is in. As a result we get tragedies such as this. But I've got to ask: what possible need is there for a private citizen to own a Bengal tiger? (Or any wild animal for that matter?) Now here's the answer: there is no need. None. There is no credible reason for a private citizen to own a dangerous wild animal. So now we have one dead boy and one dead tiger.

Considering that tigers aren't native to North America, I seem to hear of pet tiger attacks far more frequently than seems possible. I hear of almost as many tiger attacks a pit bull attacks.

And there's no need for people to own them either.
K-

Categories

4 Comments

TW said:

I agree there's no need for this, but I doubt this family will keep tigers any more. Or at the very least, they'll have a hard time getting cheap labor to clean around the cages.

Joe Kelley said:

Couldn't you also argue there is no need for a private citizen to own a car (let's say Jaguar, to keep the cat theme going) with the capability of exceeding 70 MPH?

More kids die from car crashes than big cat attacks.

Kem White said:

No argument. But a couple of things distinguish a pet tiger from a car in my mind. First, realistically in this day, age, and country most people need cars. I personally could not get to work without one and it's not possible for me to live close enough to all the goods and services I need to be able to walk, ride a bike, or use public transit. A pet tiger is not required for most people to live satisfactory lives.

Second, cars behave in predictable ways. Granted other cars may behave unpredictably but if you operate your car in the manner it was intended it will not unexpectedly kill you. The same can't be said for tigers. They are wild animals that can behave unpredictably.

For me, people own pet tigers for only one reason: to satisfy their appalling ego and hubris. That, for me, is the reason the attack on this boy is so egregious.
K-

Joe Kelley said:

For me, people own pet tigers for only one reason: to satisfy their appalling ego and hubris. That, for me, is the reason the attack on this boy is so egregious.

No doubt. Seems rather irresponsible to me.

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Kem White published on December 16, 2003 1:15 PM.

But It's So Damned Efficient was the previous entry in this blog.

Today is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.