- Joined
- Apr 6, 2006
- Messages
- 3,152
- Purraise
- 86
I've just come on this thread and it makes me quite sad. I'm an Ohio resident myself--if I'd heard about it earlier I probably would've sent a letter, but I doubt it would have helped.
Why can't there be a middle ground? They are right to be worried that big cats will be dangerous to people, or that they will be mistreated by people who don't know how to take care of them--that sort of thing does happen--but banning them entirely is not the solution. Why could they not have a licensing system?--you know, get a license for the animals, make a requirement for the license to have a vet vouch for your ability to keep the animals, ensure that you have enough room for them and aren't keeping unattended children/disabled/elderly people in the same place (because let's face it, a bobcat is big enough to do damage to an infant even if it's only playing). If they banned any cat, they should limit only very large cats--tigers, for example--the sort that need a big enclosure and are usually kept in zoos, wildlife reserves, or as working/performing animals by professional animal trainers. Surely they could be persuaded to understand that a bobcat is not nearly the risk a tiger would be. Even a cougar isn't bigger than an English mastiff, the largest dog breed, though it's pretty big as far as cats go.
Have you considered talking to a lawyer about it? Maybe there is another way to keep your cats without moving away. After all, bobcats are owned by zoos and animal trainers, aren't they? If you could, legally, be declared something like that, maybe you could keep them.
Why can't there be a middle ground? They are right to be worried that big cats will be dangerous to people, or that they will be mistreated by people who don't know how to take care of them--that sort of thing does happen--but banning them entirely is not the solution. Why could they not have a licensing system?--you know, get a license for the animals, make a requirement for the license to have a vet vouch for your ability to keep the animals, ensure that you have enough room for them and aren't keeping unattended children/disabled/elderly people in the same place (because let's face it, a bobcat is big enough to do damage to an infant even if it's only playing). If they banned any cat, they should limit only very large cats--tigers, for example--the sort that need a big enclosure and are usually kept in zoos, wildlife reserves, or as working/performing animals by professional animal trainers. Surely they could be persuaded to understand that a bobcat is not nearly the risk a tiger would be. Even a cougar isn't bigger than an English mastiff, the largest dog breed, though it's pretty big as far as cats go.
Have you considered talking to a lawyer about it? Maybe there is another way to keep your cats without moving away. After all, bobcats are owned by zoos and animal trainers, aren't they? If you could, legally, be declared something like that, maybe you could keep them.