Dude Weather Subscribe to Secrets Minneapolis / St. Paul

The Rake: Magazine

Cat Scratch Fever

Share

About a year ago, on an April afternoon, Al Wolter drove to his neighbor’s house in Sandstone to help with a controlled burn. The neighbor, Cynthia Gamble, a wild-animal trainer, was his best female friend and the two regularly shared cocktails and sang karaoke together on his home machine. “She had an earthy sense of humor,” he said, an affectionate way of indicating that Cyndi could tell a good dirty joke. Gamble seemed to be most comfortable with male friends and often phoned Wolter to let off steam about personal problems. Lately, the problems had been mounting. Her business partner, Craig Wagner, had just left the state with a majority of their holdings, and her fourteen-year-old son Garrett was floundering in school.

Wolter unlocked Gamble’s front gate and, seeing that his friend wasn’t around, shot hoops for a while with Garrett. The two then walked through a pasture where a musk ox grazed and headed toward the modified pole barn Garrett shared with his mother. Inside the barn, the living quarters were separated by sliding glass doors from a row of twenty large cages. Three of the cages contained tigers, the B-grade animals Gamble had agreed to keep when her exotic-cat business, the Center for Endangered Cats, went bust. The animals were not trainable and Wolter knew that Gamble took care of them only because they had nowhere else to go. One in particular, a ten-year-old Bengal named Tango, was notably vicious. Said Wolter: “She knew this tiger was a killer.”

Cyndi wasn’t afraid of the tigers, cougars, jaguars, servals, coyotes, and caracals she’d trained and worked with for more than twenty years. Nor did she kid herself by considering them pets. She followed meticulous feeding procedures, especially with the tigers, which could consume more than ten pounds of food per day. Feeding them wasn’t what you’d call fun. It meant opening a small, six-by-eighteen-inch window and throwing in large chunks of the meat she kept in a freezer. Once, when Wolter was helping out, he tossed a slab and missed the window. When he moved forward to retrieve it, Gamble hollered in a booming voice, “Get out of there!” Wolter leapt back in a heartbeat.

Garrett entered the section of the barn where the cats were kept and walked toward Tango’s cage, which was partially covered by a sheet of plywood. Something made him yell and run for a .22 rifle, calling to Wolter to shoot the tiger. Unarmed, Wolter approached the cage, where Tango was roaring and leaping against the sides. A safety door—a remotely controlled guillotine contraption—had been left open, which was unusual, not to mention dangerous. It was then that he looked beyond the piece of plywood and saw a tableau that will remain with him always. His friend Cynthia Gamble’s nude and destroyed body lay limp on the floor of the tiger’s cage. Tango had stripped her of clothing before eating her breasts and both arms up to the elbows and then licking her clean of blood.

The tiger had to be tranquilized in order to retrieve Gamble’s body. And then, of course, it was killed. The news cameras rolled and reporters tried to explain how such a situation had come to be. They concluded that Cyndi, who two years previously had filed for bankruptcy and taken a job at a local casino, had been struggling to scrounge up enough meat to keep the tigers adequately fed. In fact, she’d fallen back on donations of road-killed deer. The tiger, given the opportunity, had attacked because it was starving. Tango and the other two cats were at least one hundred pounds underweight.

And so it was that Cyndi Gamble—passionate animal lover, professional wrangler in films and demonstrations, author, film editor, conservationist, amateur biologist, mother, wife, daughter, and ultimately victim to her life’s work—became the tragic public face of a very private and reticent network of exotic-wildlife owners. For that brief moment, the lights flashed on and the average person realized that some of their fellow Minnesotans kept tigers and lions and bears in their backyards next to swing sets and tomato plants. And then, just as suddenly, the lights flashed off again.

 

 

 

More videos of wild cat interactions:
Lion hugs a woman.
Lion hugs a man emphatically.
Lion greets an old friend -- a man he hasn't seen for a year.
Lion and ferret play. From the time we are children, our imaginations are filled with animals. We surround ourselves with furry companions—dogs and cats and rabbits and gerbils—that we imagine admire and love us. And when we want to test our limits and step up to examine our true place in the ancient pecking order, we surround ourselves with wild animals. We swim with dolphins, dangle in shark-infested waters, and have our yearbook pictures taken with purring white tigers. According to psychologist Chilla Bulbeck, who studies human relationships with dolphins and monkeys, zoo attendance “far exceeds that at professional sporting events; the amount of money spent by pet owners on their animals exceeds that spent by parents on baby food; and the amount of mail received by the U.S. Congress regarding the protection of animals exceeds that received in relation to Vietnam. It is claimed that wildlife programs attract higher audience ratings than soap operas, and natural history books are always high on bestseller lists.”

What we see when we look into an animal’s eyes—entertainment, sport, friend, food—depends on the particular way in which we’ve mythologized them. We project upon animals our fears and hopes. We manipulate them to our wills. And sometimes when we look, we see ourselves. As Schopenhauer wrote in 1851, “In the heart of every man there lies a wild beast which only waits for an opportunity to storm and rage, in its desire to inflict pain on others, or, if they stand in his way, to kill them.”

On the way to the grocery store or the boring nine-to-five job, it may seem as though the wild beast has been ultimately tamed, that Americans have clipped the fringes of wildness from our lives. Instead of, say, chasing down and killing a wildebeest, we get our thrills vicariously, through “extreme” television shows. When it comes to wildlife programs in particular, old gents like Marlin Perkins from Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom have been replaced by showmen like Jack Hanna and the late Steve Irwin, who delight in scaring us with their lighthearted to deadly wrestling with the natural world. Our lust to touch the untamed has taken us full circle it seems, to a time of gladiatorial combat with lions and bears, even if we are merely distant spectators. Perhaps people like Cynthia Gamble, people who own exotic animals, are not content simply to watch. More than most, they wish to skate along the thin ice of the pond.

Tammy Quist is another of Gamble’s neighbors in Sandstone, a town that seems to be a sort of wild-pet mecca (yet another neighbor, Lee Greenly, owns the wildlife park where country singer Troy Lee Gentry shot and killed a captive bear named Cubby). Quist has worked for years with large cats, but she doesn’t defend private ownership of lions and tigers. Her experiences instead have convinced her that the practice must end. Though Quist acknowledged that there are responsible owners, she said, “the cons outweigh the pros” and too often animals are mistreated or keepers are injured. Just weeks before Gamble’s death, Quist had expanded her nonprofit retirement home for rescued cats, called The Wildcat Sanctuary, from a ten-acre facility in Isanti County to a forty-acre spread in Sandstone. Unlike Gamble’s struggling business, which was concerned with showing animals in action films, wildlife videos, commercials, and other “edutainment” settings, Quist’s rescue operation is thriving. She reports that in 2005 alone, the Sanctuary rescued one hundred wild cats.

Many animals aren’t so lucky. Ask groups like PETA why they oppose the private ownership of exotic pets and they’ll say that when an animal like a tiger attacks a person, perhaps because of the actions of the person, perhaps because of the animal’s very nature, it’s the cat that pays the price. Often they are euthanized, such as after Gamble’s death. As of April, according to the PETA website circuses.com, big cats had killed seventeen people in as many years in the U.S. Most were professionals working with the animals; at least two were amateurs posing for photographs, a practice banned by the USDA. Since 1990, the site says, there have been 426 non-fatal injuries involving captive wildlife (including primates, bears, and elephants). These injuries often result from people sticking their arms where they don’t belong or idiotically breaking into zoo enclosures. PETA materials state that “70 big cats have been killed because of these [human-related] incidents.”

Mary Hartman, a Rochester woman whose young daughter was bitten in 2001 and dragged into the woods by a neighbor’s pet tiger, believes that keeping undomesticated animals “creates the illusion that you’re getting a piece of the wild.” The illusion, she said, disguises the reality, where animals are abused or neglected by people who don’t know how to care for them. Nor, she said, do these owners have much regard for the safety of other people.

Ironically, wildlife specialists note that while tigers are in danger of extinction in the wild, the captive U.S. population is reaching “epidemic” proportions. India is home to the largest number of wild tigers, with just under five thousand. It’s estimated that there are three times as many in our country, not including those in official zoos. Private owners argue that the numbers, which are based on scant information, have been exaggerated, yet it’s generally accepted among zoo officials that there are fifteen to twenty-five thousand privately-kept tigers living in the U.S. (the Humane Society of the United States puts the number at ten thousand). There are no official estimates for Minnesota, but Tammy Quist receives more than thirty calls per month from locals who can no longer handle their exotic cats.

Statistics like these led the state, in 2005, to enact a statute that prohibits “purchasing, obtaining, or owning certain exotic animals ... ” The list includes all cats (except domestic), bears, all non-human primates, and any hybrid cross between these animals. The law doesn’t apply to people with USDA licenses, such as research facilities, breeders, dealers, and zoos. Nor would the law have made a bit of difference to Cynthia Gamble. Existing captive wild animals were grandfathered in, though owners now have to register even these animals with the state Board of Animal Health. So far, the BAH has registered forty-six felids. The law hasn’t exactly coaxed enthusiasts out of hiding.

Last July, Congress began debating a federal bill that would ban most human contact with wild animals. Owners staged a mini-protest, posting to the web dozens of pictures of themselves lounging with their pussycat tigers and lions. No photo was more stunning than one submitted by a Czech tiger handler in Las Vegas. While animal-rights groups have Pamela Anderson and Tippi Hedren, exotic-animal owners have Zuzana Kukol, a passionate and sometimes irascible voice for liberty in these matters. She cites her background as a political refugee as the pilot light that heats her furor against restrictive legislation. Kukol, who is blond and has the body of a stripper, shows herself swimming in a brilliant turquoise pool, her head held erect, her hair dry and neat, and her teeth bared in a wide, pure white smile. The white tiger swimming beside her looks as flawless and expensive as a porcelain tchotchke in a casino gift shop.

The federal bill was sent to a Department of Agriculture subcommittee in August, where it awaits consideration. In a January letter to Cat Fancy magazine, Kukol wrote, “All it takes is one big cat attack or any rare incident involving an exotic species, for the local and state governments to go into action doing the only thing they know how to do—write and pass more laws ... If the government reacted this way to every non-animal-related accident we face in our lives, even balloons and chocolate would be illegal by now.” People acquire exotic animals in a variety of ways—through networks of friends and like-minded collectors, publications, and even zoos. The Association of Zoos and Aquariums provides accreditation to nearly all big-city zoos, yet, say critics, most are underfunded and overcrowded. Besides that, they tend to rotate their populations according to what the public most wants to see, tending toward the new and spectacular. The unpopular or otherwise unsuitable stock ends up going through the back door and into the hands of private sellers, or worse, international body-part traffickers. Conversely, the AZA has been adamant about not accepting animals that have been raised by private parties. Testifying before the House of Representatives, AZA board member Eric Miller explained, “This type of breeding decreases the genetic viability of the species and increases the risk of tainted bloodlines getting into American zoological collections and possibly wild populations.”

And so there exist dual castes of wild-animal ownership, forever separate, but often with similar objectives. As one observer who owns and works with servals and cheetahs put it, “We’d all rather see these animals in the wild.” But as the jungle and savannah disappear, “captivity is necessary to save them.”

The web serves as a veritable exotic-pet store. Sites like Gotpetsonline.com contain countless ads for sugar gliders and hedgehogs, along with the latest fashionable exotics like binturongs, coatimundis, lemurs, kinkajous (the enviable breed that bit Paris Hilton), Patagonian cavies, fennec foxes, genets, red pandas, and wallabies. Click down far enough and out come coyotes, musk oxen, camels, elephants, zebras and, incredibly, dingoes and seals.

Searching online is also a good way for a reporter to get her hands on elusive, publicity-shy exotic-pet owners. One ad, which read, “I am looking for a tiger of any breed, male or female. It will be very well taken care of and treated with the hospitality and respect that I believe these beautiful animals deserve,” led to “Georgette” in Texas. On the phone, Georgette had an ethereal voice and dreamy demeanor. She dozily sketched out her vision of a country haven for feral cats and other creatures that would live as peacefully as Elsa, the lion in the ’60s movie Born Free. “I just thought it would be cool, you know, to have a cub to lie around with,” she said. She hoped to buy a small farmhouse in her hometown. Her utopian vision included a barn where tigers would roam freely, depending, of course, on their personalities. “There’s a comfort level with animals and [they wouldn’t need cages] as long as they didn’t reach out past the boundary,” she explained.

The Animal Finder’s Guide is the oldest and most highly regarded resource for the private exotic-animal trade. It’s a simple, newsprint catalog sold only through the mail and published eighteen times per year. What it lacks in visual sophistication, it generously supplies in unalloyed, pornographic abundance. On the first page was an ad for a USDA-licensed zoo in Ohio that was going out of business. For $2,800, a lucky buyer could own three tigers, a bear, a coyote, a timber wolf, and two mountain lions. “All are hand raised and pettable,” read the ad, but just in case, a tranquilizer gun was included in the deal.

Another ad offered five free tigers. “I need to make room,” explained Tim, when reached by phone at his home in Indiana. Tim has dedicated three of his eight acres to twelve tigers, two leopards, a cougar, four bobcats, a serval, two ocelots, a binturong, a wallaby, and several hawks and owls. When asked whether three acres wasn’t, perhaps, a little cozy for all those animals, Tim clarified: “What they fucking like and what they fucking get are two different things.”

Quite a bit more, ah, practical than Georgette, Tim has a USDA license, though he’s not sure which type. “I don’t know and I don’t give a shit. I think I have a class B, whatever the fuck that is.” Were the inspections to get the license tough to pass? “It depends. The first inspector was some little faggot who tried real hard to find citations. All he could come up with was something about how I stored my brooms and shovels. He was just trying to show his fucking power.”

Given the regulations, the potential physical danger, and the sheer expense of feeding the animals (local sheriffs tip Tim off to road-killed deer), one has to wonder why he keeps such a large collection. “Because I love animals,” he said. “I think the business is fucked up. If [the government] would regulate it right, they’d make money. Not everybody should be allowed, though. They should attend husbandry courses. There should be registration for every animal. Housing, for example, should be specific: cage size, type of floor … ” Though Tim takes in rescues from “scumbags” who don’t properly care for their animals, he has no plans to stop breeding his own tigers in order to fight overpopulation. Of a particular male tiger, he said, “I’m not gonna knock the nuts off. I love dealing with the babies.” The Feline Conservation Federation is the premier organization representing wild-cat owners. According to its website, members include hundreds of people all over the world who are “interested in the propagation and preservation of all the wild feline species.” The organization teaches husbandry courses, lobbies legislators, works to preserve natural habitat, and generally advocates for responsible captive breeding. FCF members point out that captive wild animals tend to live longer than those in the wild.

The FCF’s most recent convention was held last July at an aging Holiday Inn in the Cincinnati suburbs. Presumably, the hotel was chosen because members were allowed to bring their animals. The three-day event took place primarily in a hall on the hotel’s main floor, just beyond a glass-enclosed swimming pool in the front lobby. Vendors displayed cat foods, nets, gloves, animal enclosure and insurance-policy brochures, and a variety of toys and tools attached to long poles. Programming included educational presentations, lectures, and even a field trip to the Cincinnati Zoo, where members were afforded a behind-the-scenes look at the small-cat exhibit. The zoo, notable for having housed the very last captive passenger pigeon, is the only facility in America doing research on all five endangered small-cat species: ocelots, fishing cats, Pallas’s cats, sand cats, and black-footed cats. Overall, the convention had the earnest, nerdy air of a gathering of amateur ornithologists or rock collectors.

At the opening-night cocktail party, a large buffet filled the center of the hall and a wide variety of feline-related auction prizes were on display. The crowd of more than one hundred members featured a good number of women in animal-print outfits and men sporting safari jackets, some with official-looking patches and embroidered names. Sitting at the back of the large room was board member (now FCF president) Lynn Culver, who, despite all the other attractions, had drawn a large gathering of admirers. Culver is an astonishingly prolific speaker, writer, researcher, volunteer, organizer, and wild cat owner. Unlike, say, Georgette or Tim, she is extraordinarily articulate and carries a mind-boggling amount of data in her head. She possesses a Judy Collins sort of natural beauty, and a thick mane of graying hair falls across her face in the easy manner of a woman unconcerned with her looks, making her all the more beautiful.

Dogs and cats are man-made, said Culver, playing with the bobcat kitten in her lap, but looking into a wild-cat’s eyes is akin to “looking into the face of God.” Back home, she and husband Bart have six cougars, thirteen bobcats, two Canadian lynx, three caracals, six servals, and thirteen Geoffrey’s cats. The Culvers started out with six bottle-raised cougars, each of which died of old age. Since then, they’ve mostly stuck to raising and selling smaller breeds. Nor do they have full contact with the adult cougars they adopt, as they did with those they raised by hand. The Culvers’ home videos show Bart and the original six cougars in their expansive rural habitat in the South. Bart rolls up a big snowball and a cat pounces, looking about as menacing as a kitten preying on a vicious ball of yarn. The cats leap and twist in the air as he jerks a piece of rubber hose with a deep-sea fishing rod. The images are transfixing, especially when the cats repeatedly race over to slap their paws on Lynn or her husband’s shoulders and stand, head to head, in long embraces.

Why not rescue America’s millions of homeless domesticated pets? Why not champion the cause of much-maligned breeds like the Rhodesian Ridgeback and Presa Canario? Because, explained Culver, the challenge isn’t to protect an individual creature but rather to save an entire species. As with adopting abandoned Chinese girls, it seems the fight to save a population dwindling on foreign soil is best waged here at home. The Culvers chose not to have children, in part because humans are not in danger of going extinct.

A number of women, in fact, have chosen rare, endangered, or potentially dangerous cats over parenthood. One, who lives in a Mountain Time state, owns two of only twenty Sokokes in the country. Sokokes are the size of regular housecats, but they are purely wild and hail from a small forest in Kenya. Africans do keep Sokokes as pets, but they also hunt them. That makes them prime candidates for importation and strict breeding by private conservationists. “Ms. Sokoke” worked many years for a municipal animal-control department, where she designed and facilitated an education program for repeat offenders. “I think people are really removed from nature,” she said. “Kids are learning this cyber-punk, bleak, end-of-the-world outlook. I read one study that showed that most kids think the future will be lonely and unclean and there will be no animals or plants left.”

She said the rare visitor to her suburban home (wild cats tend to keep the timid at bay) is always surprised that her animals are so manageable. “If an acquaintance meets my animals, they say, ‘Wow, you have really exceptional pets. They have personality and feelings.’ But mine are not exceptional. They’re like my kids. They interact, run around, and do their thing, and my house is animal-proofed like houses that are child-proofed.” While acknowledging the existence of “bad” circuses and roadside zoos, she said the majority of wildcat owners are responsible and passionate, regularly sacrificing for their beliefs. As an FCF board member said, “I don’t buy lunch at work. I eat leftovers because I think, There’s $4.50 that could go for wild cats.”

 

After much reading and searching and cajoling, I found a woman named “Lisa” who offered to show her Canadian lynx in its home setting. Driving through northern Minnesota toward her house, the twilight pushed into night. Finally, there appeared a long driveway that led to a large, newer two-car garage and a neatly cut expanse of lawn surrounding a tidy vegetable and flower garden. A sign that read, Caution! Regulated Animal on Premises, spurred the kind of thrill a person just doesn’t get pushing through the turnstile at the zoo.

Two thigh-high, mixed-breed dogs bounded out toward the driveway. Lisa was close behind. She apologized that she couldn’t shake hands. She’d taken her lynx to the vet for a check-up the day before and though it had been given Valium for the trip, the cat had managed a clumsy swipe that cut her hand, leaving it too tender to squeeze.

In the living room of her contemporary A-frame house, Lisa pointed toward the vast space above, where a couple of carpeted shelves were built into window ledges near the ceiling. She is a tall, substantial woman in her thirties who wouldn’t normally disappear into a room, except that this one is two stories tall. “It’s a lot of work,” she said of her lynx, sounding like a first-time mother. “He eats everything: wood carvings, shoes, leather … ” The home, which she shares with her husband “Bob,” a health-care practitioner at a local hospital, is comfortable and simply appointed. In fact, there is little evidence that the cat, “Lance,” spends his days inside with Lisa as she telecommutes from her office upstairs. One small concession is the toilet paper. Lance is mad for the stuff. They keep it in a large sealed storage bin next to the toilet. The only real damage the twenty-five-pound cat ever caused was to himself. The incident happened during one of his usual tears through the house. The chase, which thrills but ultimately frustrates the dogs, starts on the ground floor at the bottom of the spiral staircase. Lance zips up the stairs, perches on the short balcony that overlooks the first floor, and then leaps through the air to land on one of the carpeted ledges. From there he creeps along a three- to four-inch sill to the next window, where he rests or rebounds back onto the stairs to start all over again. Unfortunately, on this particular occasion, Lance leapt at the vertical molding along one window, expecting to grip it like a tree, and fell. He landed on the cast iron woodstove below, was paralyzed for a few hours, and didn’t walk normally for a week. He was ten months old at the time.

Outside, in the dark, Lisa led the way toward a small grove of pine trees a couple dozen yards from the house. A shape leapt up and landed on the wooden spool table near the locked door of a fifteen-by-fifteen-foot cage. Lance looked to be about the same size as the dogs, which happily chased each other across the grass. Lance had been registered with the necessary agencies, Lisa noted, though her compliance was reluctant. “I’m not trying to live secretly, but I don’t agree with it.”

With tufted ears alert, Lance circled the pen, his eyes fixed on Lisa and the Styrofoam tray of raw chicken parts in her hand. She nonchalantly entered the pen and set the meat on the table. In one fast, fluid movement, Lance leapt onto the table, snapped up the chicken, whirled around and dropped silently to the ground on all fours, before moving to a far corner to eat. When he’d finished, Lisa let the dogs into the kennel and exited. The three animals wrestled and played and scrambled around the enclosure, over and under tree limbs, the table, and Lance’s doghouse. At one point, the dogs paused and stood with their tongues hanging out, looking stupefied and tired. Lance made his move and in a split second sprang across the cage, landing square on a dog’s back and then leaping away to a safe place behind a branch. Thrilled, the dog whirled around to tag Lance back.

Being in the presence of a wild cat wasn’t like being around any other animal. Not only was there its sheer physical power and stunning and unrefined nature, which could play out in tragic encounters like Cynthia Gamble’s, but there was also the absolutely revolting smell of piss, which was almost visibly radiant. The odor encircled the pen by roughly twenty feet, even in the crisp, northern Minnesota night air. “It’s pretty strong,” laughed Lisa.

The smell literally makes Bob vomit. But that’s not the only reason he steers clear of Lance. Competition often exists between husbands and male pets, but when you’re talking about a lynx, well, that’s a different matter entirely. The standoff between the two began the day Bob and Lisa attempted to subdue Lance for a trip to the vet. Lance growled at Bob and they have never reconciled. That’s why the cat spends each night outside in the pen. If things ever became so contentious that she had to choose, Lisa acknowledged that she’d get rid of the lynx. As if on cue, her husband appeared at the back sliding door after finishing his work shift. Lisa shrugged, “Why would you own a lynx if you couldn’t snuggle?”

9 Reader Comments

Carole Baskin (not verified)02:47pm
Nov 20
Who Keeps Dangerous Animals as Pets? Reporters often ask, "Who keeps big cats as pets?" and their question is usually a request for contact information so that they can interview the people and get photos of them with their hands in the cages, or worse yet, rolling about on the ground with lions, tigers and other creatures designed to hunt and kill animals far more powerful than humans. It gets attention to publish such photos and that sells papers and ad space, but it also helps perpetuate the false notion that man can control such magnificent beasts. It is a romantic notion that attracts even the most intellectual in our society when we see such images splashed across the page.  As is often the case, the media is looking for eye candy and bizarre tales to titillate the public because the public is often deemed too dull to really understand matters of substance. It is a self perpetuating prophecy then that reporting entertainment and calling it news creates a society that is apathetic toward real news because it isn't considered main stream, and thus is often labeled as being the work of zealots with some imagined, anti cultural agenda.  Little do the reporters know that when they ask the question, "Who keeps dangerous animals as pets?" they are really asking one of the more profound sociological questions of our age. There is a stereotype; and as someone who grew up being described as a beautiful blonde (who would, of course, be stereotyped as dumb) I disdain stereotyping more than most, but if there is anything at which I excel, it is recognizing a pattern.  Despite my lack of formal education I score at the genius level in IQ tests because the tests do not measure what you know, but rather measure one's ability to recognize a pattern. I became successful in real estate investment by looking at hundreds of properties before buying one. I look at entire trends, or patterns of growth in areas to determine the best deals. I taught myself how to do all of my own legal work by pulling case files of similar cases and looking for what they all had in common and emulating the process. There was a time when I had 60 such foreclosures, evictions and quiet title suits pending in the same year and did them all pro se. I only ever lost one case and won it on appeal. After rescuing 56 lynx from a fur farm and discovering there was virtually nothing available in the literature to enable me to care for the cats I began meticulously detailing every meal, every incremental gain in weight and every observation in order to compile the data into information that could then be relied upon for future reference. This website is a culmination of much of that research and again, I taught myself how to build a website by looking at others and seeing what the good ones had in common. Regardless of the topic, there will always be exceptions to the rules, but in the case of people who possess wild animals those exceptions are so rare that they even further emphasize the commonality of the rest. The traits are so apparent in the manner of the person and the nature of their handiwork, whether it be a web site, a blog or the way that they exploit the wildlife in their possession that even the most gullible can see through the transparent veneer.  Some of the characteristics are embraced by both genders and others are gender related. What is almost universally shared by those who keep wild animals as pets, or props and even most of those who operate private zoos and sanctuaries is that they are uneducated, poor, unattractive, hot tempered, attention seekers. Marked differences in the genders are that men are usually slovenly, womanizing, have a criminal history or leanings, and are dependant on drugs or alcohol to manage their depression. Whereas women are most often blonde, fat, have low self esteem, are childless or estranged from their families, and prone to rages of jealousy. This generalization may sound harsh but you don't have to be a genius to observe the people involved and verify the validity of such statements yourself.  These characteristics are interrelated for obvious reasons. Those who are uneducated and unattractive have fewer opportunities for wealth, but it is human nature to blame others for misfortunes, rather than to look within, thus causing jealousy and rage. With a world of information at our fingertips, ignorance still passes from generation to generation because in some cases there is an expectation of the child that they can never do better than their parents. A child raised in an environment of domestic violence and expected entitlement without work is likely to grow up into an adult with the same attitudes and behavior. Thus it comes as no surprise that generation after generation of "tiger tamers" continue to try and support themselves from their trade even long after the public has decided that these are unacceptable ways to treat any animal.  Considering these personal traits it also makes clear the necessity of having something that makes them feel good about themselves. In the case of those who make pets of wild animals, there is a universal need on their part to portray themselves as having a bond with the wild that other "mere mortals" cannot achieve. They will always tell you that they have a special gift or training that sets them apart, so that THEY can pet the tiger, but YOU cannot. They call themselves "Educators" and drag their wild animals around from flea market to fair ground, espousing the reasons that OTHER people (the mere mortals) should not attempt to have these as pets, because only THEY are special enough to have such a pet. Roy Horn would surely have uttered the same sentiments just minutes before his tiger, Montecore, nearly killed him on stage in Las Vegas.  If you meet an exotic pet owner without a boa around their neck, or a tiger on a chain, within two minutes they have pulled out a dog-eared photo album of all of their pictures of them restraining animals that would never allow a human near them if they had the choice. In their eyes it is an immediate way to even the playing field and let others know that they are equals, if not superior. The overwhelming need to do so is a manifestation of the great lack of self esteem they feel but dare not admit, even to themselves. The mood elevating drugs (legal and illegal) and the alcohol are the only ways they can deaden themselves to the pain that cannot be remedied no matter how much they talk about their wild animal connection.  Abusing their animals and their families cannot give them a lasting sense of power. That is why they are often unmarried and estranged from their families. Their families can break free from them, but the animals are kept chained and caged, the way they might well have kept the people in their lives were it not an offense that could land them in jail. Men who could not attract a woman in any other way will often find that women (the blonde, overweight ones who have little sense of self worth) will do anything to please including cleaning his cages, his house and his underwear and giving him the affection that no woman of any self confidence would.  On the flip side of this gender role is the woman who is so physically and emotionally undesirable that no man will have her, but if she has a back yard full of tigers she can attract the attention of young men who come seeking a way to prove their manhood by subduing a wild animal that would kill him in an instant were the two to meet in a natural situation. It is the same unquenchable desire to feel empowered without paying the price of self introspection and change and could be likened to the gambler's quest for easy money without work. By the early 1990's science was beginning to discover the extent to which animals exhibited intelligence and emotion. Anyone who has ever had a pet cat or dog could tell you that they are intelligent and that they feel loneliness, anger, resentment, embarrassment, joy and a host of emotions, but it took science hundreds of years to catch up. Keeping wild animals captive began to be considered cruel and self serving as people became aware of the fact that the tiger in the cage could experience the pain of being held against his will. It became fashionable then for exotic pet owners to call themselves "educators" and some even manage to give an educational spiel but it doesn't matter how good the message may be; if you are standing their with a cougar on a leash, no one is hearing the message. They are just thinking how cool it would be if they could have a cougar on a leash. The litmus test is the fact that these people were not doing conservation education before they needed that label to justify their behavior and the minute they can't use the animal as a prop they wouldn't choose to be in the education business.  The roadside zoo operators and pseudo sanctuarians are, in many cases, just a more organized version of the exotic pet owner and have found ways to get the public to support their delusions of grandeur. They portray themselves as rescuers and martyrs for their cause. When they are poor and filthy and uneducated they can tell themselves and others that it is because they are so altruistic that all of their time and energy is being sacrificed for the good of the animals they have saved. They quickly learn that high profile rescues and having cute babies around bring in donations. They claim to breed the animals to save them from extinction, when none of the animals in these collections are really involved in any conservation breeding programs. They claim to be educating the public to save habitat and the planet by taking their cats out to parking lots in circus wagons and setting up a donation jar. Some do a better job of fooling the public than others and the media often plays into their hands, but the only real purpose they serve is their own self aggrandizement and a way to pay their bills without having to get a real job. This becomes abundantly clear when they have rescued dozens, or hundreds of animals and found that it is a reverse pyramid scheme that is ultimately doomed to collapse. While babies and new rescues generate money, they also add to the mouths that ultimately need to be fed. In some sanctuaries there is a practice of rescuing animals, for whom they have no space, and them forcing these animals to live in overcrowded groups. This is especially heinous in the case of big cats who are solitary by nature and hard wired to kill each other if they come in contact. That fact plays into the hands of these most abusive personalities. In some pseudo sanctuaries certain animals, deemed "too dangerous" are killed for no apparent reason than to make room for more rescues. These exploiters can rescue far more cats if the cats kill each other and for that reason these places are often closed to the public. If the fighting and killing becomes known to the public it is rationalized by the sanctuarian who protests that it is the cat's fault if they won't get along, claiming that they did their part to rescue the animal and if it insists on getting killed, then it is the animal's lack of gratitude at fault. The same irrational reasoning is used to excuse why they do not provide medical care for the animals by caustically replying to you, as if you were the idiot, that these animals don't get medical care in the wild. The same excuse is used for not providing contraception and the side benefit they get from that is that the cubs produced are often food for the rest of the animals in the group and if they need a new baby for photo ops or for media attention there is always one to use. In order to cover their misdeeds the policies in these kinds of places are to not give the animals names, under the guise of avoiding anthropomorphism, but the real reason is because there are virtually no state or federal laws that require positive identification of the animals and not having a name makes it even harder to track what has happened to an animal after it was "rescued." These operations invariably implode. When they do, the owners move away, abandon the animals, and tell themselves and the world that they have done their part and must retire because it has taken all they had, which was nothing to begin with. They will dramatically sweep a hand to their brow and announce that they are dying and that it is time someone else stepped up and took over. When they walk away from all of the animals that they so professed to love, they do so with no feelings of remorse because they are more affected by their sense of entitlement than to anything that resembles responsibility. They move to a new place, change their name and do it all over again.  The exotic animal "rescuers" are often the most vocal in opposition to ending the exotic pet trade. They rant incessantly about how greater restrictions on wildlife trafficking will mean that they have to euthanize all of their animals when that has never been true. Where laws have passed in the US banning the trade in wild animals there have always been grandfather clauses that allow the private owners to keep their animals until they die and there have always been exceptions made to organizations, such as accredited zoos and sanctuaries, but the ones screaming the loudest have no interest in meeting a higher standard. They use the opportunity as a platform for disseminating false information and blaming people who truly care about animals for all of their woes.  Even those "sanctuarians" who do not publicly speak out against more protective laws do virtually nothing to assist in their passage. Some may pay lip service to the activity but it doesn't take long to figure out that they know nothing of the pending legislation in their state nor at a federal level. They love to cite the IRS as their reason to not get involved, implying or stating that charities cannot participate in any way, but that isn't true. They frequently excuse their behavior by saying that they "don't like politics" or will say they are too busy with their mission to get involved. That makes as much sense as feverishly bailing out an overflowing bathtub and saying you are too busy or too averse to knobs to turn off the water. The fact of the matter is that they define themselves by being perceived as saviors and if there were no wild animals to save they would lose their only redeeming feature.  Keeping wild animals, especially exotic cats, came into vogue in the sixties, largely due to television shows that portrayed a person as being special if they had such a pet or relationship. Television programming created the illusion of a world where people could live with lions, tigers, bears, dolphins and all manner of wild animals. Our society, long removed from any real experience with nature, longed to believe that it was not only possible, but that the animals preferred captivity to living free. Ask almost any woman who has a back yard full of lions what her first memory of that attraction was and she will often cite "Born Free" as being that "life changing moment." They conveniently forget the fact that Elsa died very shortly after being abandoned by the people who raised her as a pet and then returned her to the wild with no pride and no hunting skills.  We now have nearly half a century of data on the subject of people who keep wild animals captive and yet until the time that you read these words you probably never saw an in depth investigation into the troubled and delusional minds of those who are the captors. And that begs an even more important question..."why not?"  Not to minimal its deleterious effects on the person practicing it, but consider how much attention has been focused on women who vomit after every meal to stay thin. Oddly, the initial instigator is one and the same in that television portrays the perfect women as being gaunt to the point of it being an unrealistic achievement barring bulimia or some latter stage disease. You can't check out in a grocery store line without seeing headlines about celebrities weight struggles, and yet, to my knowledge, no one was ever so fat or so thin that an innocent bystander was killed or mauled by coming in close contact with people who are diagnosed as being obsessed with their appearance. Just since 1990 there have been more than 650 incidents involving captive big cats in the U.S. So why is it that you rarely hear more than a passing comment about the mental instability of most wild animal owners?  I think it may be the same reason that it took me, someone who takes great pride in their ability to recognize a pattern, more than 15 years to see what was undeniably before my eyes. To look objectively at the similarities in these tiger-tamer-wannabees meant that I had to look within as well. Not only who I was; blonde, fat, uneducated, poor, lacking self esteem and estranged from my family, but who I am today. It wasn't until I was willing to take a good hard look in the mirror that I could plainly see underlying neurosis that so many of us share.  I am fortunate to not have grown up impoverished or in the presence of domestic violence. The very thing that makes so many "animal people" unemployable; their disdain for conformity, is what makes me successful in business, so I am fortunate to have been able to turn that to my advantage. My estrangement from my family was only because I felt like I wasn't good enough for them, and once I came to appreciate my talents we were rejoined and have worked together, side by side in caring for the animals. Having overcome obesity, cigarettes and alcohol I feel empowered and in control of my own life. Perhaps if I had not been so blessed, I would never have been able to cast the harsh light of reality on the mass illusion that I once shared. Mass illusion, because it extends to much of our society; not just those who are in possession of animals who were meant to live free.  It is that shared illusion that keeps the majority from wanting to wake from the dream. We hear about a man keeping a tiger and an alligator in his harlem apartment and we say that he "just wasn't thinking." We hear of a woman with 50 tigers in her back yard and no way to feed them and say she "just wasn't thinking." We watch as the lifeless body of a tiger who was shot to death for escaping is hauled away and say the person responsible "just wasn't thinking." Cruelty is not the result of "just not thinking." The fact of the matter is that WE just aren't thinking, and we are choosing not to think about the plight of the animals because our own participation in their abuse is something we are unwilling to face or change. We are a generation who was raised with zoos and circuses and even our religions proclaimed man to be master of all beasts, with little or nothing said about the command to be good stewards. We want to believe that our goodness is so palpable that even the most ferocious of animals would give up their freedom just to live in our homes. Even those who do not currently live that way often will say, "if I won the lottery, I'd have a pet tiger" as if to say that money is all that keeps them from indulging such fantasy. When we see that cute baby animal being cuddled on some talk show we choose to NOT think about where the animal's mother is, or how it came to be that he was taken from her to be used this way. When we pay to see a film about tiger brothers, even when we know that more than 30 tigers were used in the film, we choose to NOT think about where those animal will be a year from now.  If we acknowledge great suffering and choose to look the other way, how can we reconcile our conscience? When the answers are so easy and cost us little more than a few letters and phone calls to our legislators, and yet we are unwilling to do even that small thing to alleviate the suffering of tens of thousands of wild animals who are languishing in cages, possessed by a class of people who would be criminals if they treated people the way they treat their "beloved pets" how can we feel good about ourselves? Sometimes the truth hurts, but no one suffers more than the exotic animals when the only thing they have; their desire to live free, is taken from them. Big Cat Rescue's mission is to provide the best care we can for the animals we have rescued AND to end the abuses that cause so many exotic cats to be abandoned. We make it easy for you to do the same at the site below: www.CatLaws.com
Sari Gordon (not verified)07:48am
Dec 12
As I said to Lynn and others, many times over, not one person agreed to let me see their cats. "Lisa" was the only one. Even after crashing the FCF Convention (I was told by Marcus Cook, the PR person, that I would not be admitted), not one person agreed to let me visit. (Perhaps now that Cook has been freed from his FCF duties he'll have more time to handle his own problems rather than googling my name for dirt.) In fact, efforts were made to keep me away from cats in hotel rooms, the very same cats I was allowed to meet the following year. When I finally did meet Romeo and Diesel, I was blown away. I had an entirely different picture of cat ownership. Others have invited me to visit with them and I'm continuing to explore a story about private conservation as an alternative to the monopoly of zoos who currently deride the efforts of breeders who provide healthy, well-cared for breeding stock and retirement space. It's not easy to to sell a story about private conservation as it is about women being killed by tigers. Lynn, Zuzana and others: you didn't trust me, so I didn't see any examples of well-kept cats until it was too late. How does this cycle get broken? With small town general interest stories about neighbors with servals or racoons? Readers deserve facts. I worked my butt off (though not enough to gain entrance to the "skinny reporter" stereotype), to find the facts kept hidden from me. And the response, from sanctuary owners to private ones, is that stories aren't fair. I did a lot of research into the numbers. Cats don't kill people who don't already risk their lives by being around them. The mortality and injury rates, overall, are negligible. Even Tippi Hedren risked someone's life for that of a cat. The laws are insane: they are hard to follow, difficult to enforce and randomly enacted. I suspect that many big cat owners are supporting presidential candidate Ron Paul. I had plenty of information about cats being better kept than those in AZA captivity--not to mention the AZA's own instances of reckless and unhappy circumstances--but once again, where? Who? The story of good cat owners is out there, and I could have written it if I'd been given the chance. Carol Baskin, as a cat owner and unparalleled attention seeker herself, can easily speak to the joys and dangers of living with wild cats, but has distanced herself from the "uneducated," "poor," and crazy ones by taking in and profiting from secondhand cats. Every privately owned cat is secondhand--every one is either a species ambassador, whether they are "junk" tigers or privately bred snow leopards. None of them belong in cages, but, like gorillas and a thousand other species, cages can protect endangered species from us. If the only sources are the shocking and the shocked, don't be surprised when the media reports them.
Tom Kirby (not verified)02:04pm
Dec 12
Sari, this is hard to do. I met with a big cat owner in 2003 and even though I was introduced to him by a friend, we somehow just couldn't get a connection going and I have some idea why, although I don't know how much of it is accurate in that case. Owners are under attack. IFAW is literally spending millions on legislation here in the U.S., manipulating people, and even buying land and paying money to anyone who helps fight against private ownership. Even some SPCA organizations are spending large bucks doing the same thing. Then we have all the chicken manure stuff going on like dead animals dumped, tigers found wandering near people's menageries, and whatever it seems to take to push the agenda. Actual physical attacks, it takes only a few of them to cause a sort of mental paralysis. I have been doing what little I can to try to free people from that, and I have to doubt that I should except for the fact that people who try to stand still will be run over. People often don't know what to feel until they actually meet the animals. I know from my contacts with them that the animals believe in us. In my mind there is far more evidence for the positive nature of contact with animals than there is for the negative aspects, and the positive far outweighs the negative. Science fiction stories could be written about how far that could go and still be of net benefit to humanity. What we have at present is a deadly accident rate, for big cats overall, that is close to the death rate of humans handling horses, if not actually less. I'm simply not worried about it. I'm more worried about whether I will survive driving to work on ice this week. That big oak tree has laid a curtain of icy branches across the driveway that I don't dare touch. I haven't been out since Monday. The way it stands right now, I don't actually believe that bans against ownership have actually been passed by people of good will who are trying to do good things for humanity. If they have it hasn't been for a long time. I tend to dismiss everything that is inspired by animal rights organizations as anywhere from deluded to downright evil, and I remind myself that they do what they can to make people keep their heads down instead of speaking out or forming support groups. There is such a thing as the idea of a humane organization that rules by contributing good works and by being nice to people and animals. I think that some might even try to implement this. I also think that it is the way that should be done, but the idea took hold that a humane organization could not deal with people unless they were able to threaten them into compliance. Those threats may often be the reason for non-compliance, too. I guess that the best reason to get personally involved with animals is because this is where we live. Herbivores and predators created an ecosystem from which live with large brains and high mobility could evolve and prosper. They are still necessary to this system and we don't know all the answers. When we have problems, the thing to do is to maintain as best we can, make sacrifices, and work it out, even at the risk of our own individual lives because it is that important. To me a few human deaths and injuries are not an issue, and taking risks with living animals is far better than extinction.
Tom Kirby (not verified)09:53pm
Dec 13
Ask yourself what we ask Africa and Asia to put up with in the name of conservation of wild populations. They have nuisance animals that kill people quite regularly, a couple of hundred people are killed by lions each year in Africa. The conservationists seem to feel that this is not an issue. When you bring it to America, we have a lot of the animals and fewer human deaths. So what is really wrong when they talk about how dangerous the animals are? In America they are pretty well contained and no exotic has gone out and killed anyone. They do it at home. We're all worried about that but we're not worried about what lions do to African children or what tigers do to Asian children. Organizations run predominantly by white Europeans (I am a white European) demand one thing of people who have dark skin that they try not to even allow for people of white European stock. I'm saying that we can set aside the fear and paranoia in favor of doing good works for the animals.
Zuzana Kukol (not verified)01:50am
Dec 12
Dear Carole Baskin, your attempt to psychoanalyze exotic animal owners can be interpreted as practicing medicine (psychiatry in this case) without a license. Isn’t that illegal in the state of Florida? Maybe you need to ask your husband ,the attorney, he should know ... BTW, how do I fit in, you call female pet exotic animal owners fat, but the Rake magazine article claims I have a stripper body, so what’s up pussycat?
Tom Kirby (not verified)07:43am
Dec 12
For every Cynthia Gamble there are thousands of animal owners who do quite well each year, who enjoy their ownership and their companions with few problems outside of the ordinary. It takes an especially negative view of life to make the circumstances of her death the "public face" of animal ownership. To answer most of Carole Baskin's statements, I have to say, "I know you are but what am I?" This whole spiel that she wrote here describes herself and fortunately for the reader, she lost control of her rhetoric enough that she pretty well rips herself as well as her targets. Just compare it with the information that she gives about herself on her own website. Also, writers like Leonora Anton provide some clues into the character of this person who is a big cat owner at the same time that she does not like other big cat owners at all: http://bigcatnews.blogspot.com/2007/11/st-pete-times-big-cat-fight-by-leonora.html Anton talks about how Baskin's enemies are intent on using her past against her, but look at how Baskin talks about the pasts of other big cat owners and she started it. In her Big Cat Fight article, Anton talks about information that Baskin gave about herself, and you don't have to read between the lines. It's right there. Baskin was a teenage runaway who left an abusive home at the age of 15, took up with a mean drunk (15 year old girl, mean drunk of either gender, you fill in the blanks), then married another abuser, and just after leaving that abuser, took up with a married man by the name of Don Lewis, who she eventually married. For crying out loud, do some research and shuffle some names around, and Carole's long rant here against private owners becomes her own biography. Then you may realize that she actually believes that she has turned it around by becoming horribly negative and vicious against her own past and anyone who has had problems like she had. She also seems unable to understand why people would fight back who she has hurt, is hurting, or is trying to hurt. Maybe Carole Baskin simply can't understand the love of animals and like the stereotypical frigid nymphomaniacal person, she immerses herself in them to try to find out what a love of animals actually is. If she has found out I haven't heard about it and the way she talks looks like she hasn't. She even rails viciously against those who have had the experience. A perfectly normal human being knows what it is like to feel the love that a tiger can have for a human, or humans in general, and does not feel any need to put down other people for associating with tigers. Substitute the name of any other species, including human, if you want. Humans who have any clue what it is like to be a normal human, same thing. Normal or near normal humans also understand acceptable risk. Carole Baskin props herself up by exploiting her own rage against herself, which she has projected against the rest of the world. It's too easy for people to do this when this society needs anything but, but people drink it up and even pay for it when they should know better. She has also hitched her wagon to the animal rights groups, and those groups are collections of people who are spiteful against other humans and who only use the idea of love of animals as a weapon against other humans. As if the defects of her philosophy would not be painfully obvious without her affiliations with animal rights and her use of animal rights nastiness. Her "passion" is simply rage against the world and her mission is simply destruction. Leaving Baskin behind, and we needed to leave her behind more than ten years ago, there are many good reasons why the relationship between humans and animals should be hands-on, and why there is much to gain. Humans tend towards kindness to animals. This is why the shock and horror against Michael Vick's alleged actions, but this is also why people take the acceptable risk to live with giant predators or even with herbivores who can kick the stuffing out of giant predators. I'll be the first to admit that there are risks and problems, but the huge benefits greatly outweigh them. Humans can do more than any other species on Earth to maintain the comfort, the physical well-being, and the joy of living of any other living species. We have every right to think well of ourselves. We also have every right to enjoy associating with, living with, and caring for animals. We have earned the right.
Debra Sandlin (not verified)12:22pm
Dec 12
Tom, I don't know who you are but I couldn't have said it better myself. The fact is that there are always going to be two sides to the issue as with any other issue. My problem with Carole Baskin is that she is not honest. She uses inflated and sometimes false information, and goes after any and everyone who is doing what she has done (she has lived her dream and now wants to deny it for everyone else) and is STILL doing. If you ask me she needs to get rid of all of her CATS! She talks the talk but she DOES NOT walk the walk! I have my very own page of,you guessed it, LIES and incorrect information on her web site because I sent a legitimate complaint to the BBB reguarding her poor business ethics and abuse of there BBB logo (my letter to them is also on her site) you ask how did she know? The BBB sent the letter to her. I guess MONEY can by ANYTHING now days.
Lynn Culver (not verified)10:27am
Dec 12
Sari Gordon's spent over a year trying to gain trust from a community repeatedly burned by media’s tabloid mentality. The article was driven by a magazine editor's interest in our exotic world after a tiger killed its owner. Knowing that, red flags went up in many minds and so she lost many opportunities for cooperation. Cat Scratch Fever mentions the Feline Conservation Federation and its annual convention. Sari did not attend many of our events, and many of our members were suspicious of her intentions. Having nothing to be ashamed of, I shared with Sari about my husband and myself and our devotion to our cats, captive breeding and conservation. This view gained only a tiny mention in Cat Scratch Fever. Most of her story focuses on the negative. I am told this is because the Rake editor had final say, and I assume a profit motive that knows negative news sells better than positive resulted in much of Sari’s writing on the cutting room floor. I chose to express myself to Sari because I believe in what I do and I will defend my efforts on behalf of the FCF. I will continue to try to inform the media. I appreciate that Sari included her interview with another FCF member who shared her observations of what we all know; this generation of kids is too far removed from nature, and it will only get worse if animal rights (AR) movement has its way. It is increasingly important for the media to report on real dangers of a world devoid of our private sector wildlife populations. When will the media wake up to the serious problems going on with Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA) and their member zoos? . . The metropolitan zoo economic struggles, the incompatibility of combining breeding programs with intensive daily exhibiting, the failure for species managers to interest enough zoos into housing species to properly run an Species Survival Program (SSP), the many inherent difficulties of managing such small gene pools, not to mention the serious health problems endemic in some of the species chosen for management. The animal rights fanatics keep complaining that "11 states have not passed legislation and still allow private ownership" - what that really means is that 39 states have made it nearly impossible to provide any captive habitat of any sort, - and animal rights is not done yet. Next year they will have to change their chant to “9 states have not passed any legislation”, because mislead legislators passed new laws that prohibit the entire available private captive habitat in two more states. State and local regulations developed to be punitive rather than constructive are forcing responsible owners and professional facilities to send their felines into increasingly overcrowded sanctuaries, the last available habitat for felines. I am alarmed at the number of sanctuaries being founded by persons who subscribe to the animal rights agenda that wants the entire captive population rounded up into non-breeding concentration camps and managed into extinction. Endangered and threatened feline species populations preserved in captivity by the private sector are being so completely de-stabilized by ban laws that in the next decade that they will disappear from our society and there will be no bringing them back. The grandchildren of this generation will not have the opportunity to see these felines, let alone ever touch them. It is said that we will only love what we know. . . I see a future world full of different breeds of cars and computers and cell phones and not much else. None of this is necessary because education is always the answer. Problems can be solved by knowledge. America and legislators are listening to those who offer no educational programs, no science, and no encouragement. They are empowering animal rights, a religion that believes that they must take all life forms from us and sever all human contact with them forever. The Feline Conservation Federation is to be commended for developing and teaching its basic wild feline husbandry courses, for our members who mentor new owners, for all the knowledgeable and sharing articles published in our Journal, for our willingness to raise funds and support conservation through FCF research grants, for each of our efforts to build habitat for threatened and endangered cats, for sheltering these noble creatures from danger and providing them medical care, for educating everyone we meet about these great felines, and for volunteering our time and knowledge to help other owners and to support conservation of the wild. Lynn Culver, President, Feline Conservation Federation
Anonymous (not verified)04:04pm
Dec 12
The Baskin comment was the most arrogant piece of drivel I have ever had the displeasure of reading. Will someone please explain to me what a person's weight or hair color has to do with their ability to responsibly raise and bond with an animal? Is this woman truly as narcistic as her rantings would have her appear? She sounds like a truly dispicable human being.

Blogs

Sports

Baseball:
Warning Track Power by Alex Halsted
Sports:
On the Ball by Britt Robson

Society

Weather:
Dude Weather by Jimmy Gaines

A&E

Fiction:
Write Now! by Terry Faust

Retired

Hockey:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Style:
Hook & Eye
Misc:
Is This News?
Fiction:
Yo, Ivanhoe by Brad Zellar
Food:
Consider the Egg by Stephanie March
Wine:
Beyond the Cask
Food:
Food Fight!
Media:
To the Slaughter
Misc:
Outrage by Staff
Food:
Chef's Table
Guest Commentary:
Just Passing Through
Humor:
Spazz Dad by Todd Smith
Cars:
Road Rake by Chris Birt
Commentary:
Read Menace by Tom Bartel
Society:
The Adventures of Melinda by Melinda Jacobs
Politics:
Defenestrator by Rich Goldsmith
Food:
Breaking Bread by Jeremy Iggers & Ann Bauer
Books:
Cracking Spines by Max Ross
Music:
Hear, Hear by Staff
Art:
The Vicious Circle by 6 Critics
Secrets:
Secrets of the Day by Kate Iverson
Theater:
Seen in the City by Staff
Film:
Talk About Talkies by Staff