Walking past the newsstand today, I noticed that the cover story of Time is Saving the Big Cats. Looking at the online version of Time, it looks like they have a few articles on the topic. There's the main article, "Nowhere to Roam" (full text for subscription only), about the never-ending encroachment of humanity on cats' territory; "Out of the Wild", about the weird and dangerous practice of trying to make pets out of wildcats; and "Cats Up Close", eight photos (with stats) about cats.
These articles are very timely, given the spate of mountain lion problems in California. (Several mountain lions have been spotted in urban areas this summer, such as Palo Alto, where I work. One was shot and killed while it rested in a tree, where it had fled from a dog. Officers felt is was safer to shoot the animal than to tranquilize it, as a nearby grade school was about to let out.) I haven't read the main article in Time (I'll do so at the library), but I hope it discusses the ethical issues of human/animal co-habitation. What obligations do we have to the animals whose territory we take away?
The photos in "Cats Up Close" are good, although I think Time is being a bit loose in their interpretation of the term "big cats". Typically that term only refers to genus Panthera, the roaring cats (lions, tigers, and leopards). In these photos, Time includes the cheetah (Genus acinonyx), and the Iberian lynx, a small cat (Genus felis, same as your housecat). I'm just nit-picking; those cats have the same struggle as the big cats, and the more exposure they get, the better.
The more interesting thing I saw in that issue came from "Out of the Wild", where the article stated that "Only 20 states ban private ownership of big cats outright." In other words, it's legal to have a tiger as a pet in 30 status. That's crazy.
I am looking to work with big cats, (Assisting a Vetrinarian)If anyone can help me I would greatly appreciate it. Please e-mail me at [email protected]
Posted by: Teresa Kraemer | December 23, 2004 at 08:08 AM