Indiana Couple Kills Leopard in Backyard

[xl_target]

Indiana Couple Kills Leopard in Backyard

LInk to image--> http://www.outdoorlife.com/files/imagec ... rd_0_0.jpg

A couple from Indiana, looking to protect their pets from lurking bobcats, accidentally shot a much different feline Thursday night.

Indiana wildlife officials have tentatively confirmed the couple killed a leopard, which is believed to be someone's pet.

The woman and her boyfriend both wished to remain anonymous. But a friend, Donna Duke, reached out to WDRB.

Duke, who lives in the area, said that there had been a number of attacks against dogs and cats recently. Duke's friend has a number of cats, and was worried about their safety.

"She's got cats that are basically her family," Duke told WDRB. Duke says her friend contacted a local wildlife official, who initially thought the attacks might have been committed by a bobcat.

Each night the woman and her boyfriend would take turns watching the area from her roof.

On late Thursday night the woman was outside near her pool when she saw a dark shadow pacing nearby. That's when, Duke said, the woman's boyfriend grabbed a gun and shot what they believed to be a bobcat.

After hearing a "horrible squeal" they went to confirm what it was. To their surprise, it was leopard laying dead in the woman's backyard.

Duke says an Indiana Department of Natural Resources officer was contacted and immediately transported the body to Indianapolis for analysis.

"The cat in these photographs has been identified tentatively as a leopard," Phil Bloom, director of communications for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, told WDRB. "Perhaps an immature cat about 9 months old. DNR is attempting to determine who it belonged to, or where it came from."

"In any case, it would be someone's pet, since leopards are not native to Indiana, or for that matter, to North America."

Bloom says it is legal to own big cats in Indiana, but it requires a permit.

There is a wild life refuge about a mile from where the cat was found, but Tim Stark, the owner of nearby Wild Life In Need, told WDRB the loose leopard is not his.

Indiana officials are in midst of an investigation to find out where the animal came from.

LINK

[brihacharan]

[quote="xl_target"]Indiana Couple Kills Leopard in Backyard

LInk to image--> http://www.outdoorlife.com/files/imagec ... rd_0_0.jpg
[quote]A couple from Indiana, looking to protect their pets from lurking bobcats, accidentally shot a much different feline Thursday night.

Indiana wildlife officials have tentatively confirmed the couple killed a leopard, which is believed to be someone's pet.
"The cat in these photographs has been identified tentatively as a leopard," Phil Bloom, director of communications for the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, told WDRB. "Perhaps an immature cat about 9 months old. DNR is attempting to determine who it belonged to, or where it came from."

"In any case, it would be someone's pet, since leopards are not native to Indiana, or for that matter, to North America."

> Yes from the pic its undoubtedly a young & apparently well fed Leopard!
> Wonder where from did its owner get him / her?
> Leopards are very inquisitive creatures - Poor chap must've wandered to explore the neighborhood & got shot in the bargain.
Briha

[xl_target]

On late Thursday night the woman was outside near her pool when she saw a dark shadow pacing nearby. That's when, Duke said, the woman's boyfriend grabbed a gun and shot what they believed to be a bobcat.

After hearing a "horrible squeal" they went to confirm what it was. To their surprise, it was leopard laying dead in the woman's backyard.

It is definitely sad but I'm angered at the irresponsible owners more than anything.
I'm sorry, but you just don't let a Leopard out in a populated area.

[brihacharan]

On late Thursday night the woman was outside near her pool when she saw a dark shadow pacing nearby. That's when, Duke said, the woman's boyfriend grabbed a gun and shot what they believed to be a bobcat.

After hearing a "horrible squeal" they went to confirm what it was. To their surprise, it was leopard laying dead in the woman's backyard.

It is definitely sad but I'm angered at the irresponsible owners more than anything.
I'm sorry, but you just don't let a Leopard out in a populated area.

> Instead of shooting the poor Leopard - He should've let go a shot in the air to scare the animal away & then reported the incident to the authorities.
Briha

[essdee1972]

Why do they allow wild animals to be kept as pets? There was that incident sometime back of a large number of poor creatures escaping a private zoo and being shot by the cops.

An official zoo, even one as bad as the one we have in Mumbai, would have knowledgeable people, facilities, and above all, a budget to take care of the animals.

[BowMan]

Bloom says it is legal to own big cats in Indiana, but it requires a permit.

Why do they allow wild animals to be kept as pets?

I have never understood the reason for people to try and tame these magnificent creatures? More so laws that permit such actions? Why do they have to mess with nature and remove animals from their natural surroundings?

[TC]

Why do they allow wild animals to be kept as pets? There was that incident sometime back of a large number of poor creatures escaping a private zoo and being shot by the cops.

An official zoo, even one as bad as the one we have in Mumbai, would have knowledgeable people, facilities, and above all, a budget to take care of the animals.

+ 1

Bloom says it is legal to own big cats in Indiana, but it requires a permit.

Why do they allow wild animals to be kept as pets?

I have never understood the reason for people to try and tame these magnificent creatures? More so laws that permit such actions? Why do they have to mess with nature and remove animals from their natural surroundings?

+ 1

TC

[xl_target]

> Instead of shooting the poor Leopard - He should've let go a shot in the air to scare the animal away & then reported the incident to the authorities.
Briha

No Brihaji,
Shooting up into the air is a big no-no.

Remember, the 4th rule of gun safety:
All guns are loaded, always
Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy
Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target
Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.

See: http://indiansforguns.com/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=1635

I have never understood the reason for people to try and tame these magnificent creatures? More so laws that permit such actions? Why do they have to mess with nature and remove animals from their natural surroundings?

In the US, unless there is a specific law against it, it is legal. That is as it should be in any free country.
Apparently, this has not been much of a problem in Indiana before.

[BowMan]

In the US, unless there is a specific law against it, it is legal. That is as it should be in any free country.

Well maybe not if one realizes that 1) it is not really very safe. These are always a public health and safety concern. Remember instincts can be suppressed but not permanently 2) these animals do not make really good pets 3) these animals have evolved as free ranging creatures. They have instincts and behaviours that are intrinsically tied to their natural surroundings 4) by caging these animals you are forcing them to permanently loose their ability to survive on their own. In many cases people realize this too late and you have cases of orphaned animals which have to be then put down 5) many owners are not properly equipped to take care of these animals (this is apparent in the case of the poor leopard) 6) many of these species are not even native to lands where they are being kept as pets. We have some many documented cases of ecological disasters being caused by alien species being let loose unsuspectingly 7) in many cases these animals are obtained by nefarious means from animal traffickers.

There is an intrinsic difference in between animals that have become domesticated through the course of natural interaction between man and animal over the period of evolution and those that have not. Man has been living in the vicinity of dogs and tigers alike yet only dogs have managed to be domesticated and tigers have not?

A free country is a country that respects the natural rights of every individual to the extent that it does not allow him to impinge on the rights of another. Now if you must treat like alike then what right does a citizen have to restrict the natural rights of an animal of a species that evolution has failed to domesticate?

[xl_target]

In the US, unless there is a specific law against it, it is legal. That is as it should be in any free country.

Well maybe not if one realizes that 1) it is not really very safe. These are always a public health and safety concern. Remember instincts can be suppressed but not permanently 2) these animals do not make really good pets 3) these animals have evolved as free ranging creatures. They have instincts and behaviours that are intrinsically tied to their natural surroundings 4) by caging these animals you are forcing them to permanently loose their ability to survive on their own. In many cases people realize this too late and you have cases of orphaned animals which have to be then put down 5) many owners are not properly equipped to take care of these animals (this is apparent in the case of the poor leopard) 6) many of these species are not even native to lands where they are being kept as pets. We have some many documented cases of ecological disasters being caused by alien species being let loose unsuspectingly

There are morons in every country.

7) in many cases these animals are obtained by nefarious means from animal traffickers.

absolutely.

A free country is a country that respects the natural rights of every individual to the extent that it does not allow him to impinge on the rights of another. Now if you must treat like alike then what right does a citizen have to restrict the natural rights of an animal of a species that evolution has failed to domesticate?

Citizens of any country enjoy freedom when their government keep its nose out of their business, period.

I don't know of any country that officially equates animal rights with human rights. Sure, there might be organizations like PETA that advocate that but unless someone is seriously incapable of looking at things with the right perspective, animal rights usually don't trump human rights. Especially since humans are the ones writing the laws.
Of course, there is California (or Commiefornia as it is sometimes called) but that is pretty much a failed (and bankrupt) state. I guess that's what happens when logic is subordinated to feelings.

[BowMan]

I don't know of any country that officially equates animal rights with human rights.

Well in the modern world yes probably not. Now a days we have a lot of clamour about human rights. So if there are human rights then every human must have them and every non human must not.

However the word 'human rights' was first used in the 1680s. The English Bill of Rights of 1683 being one of the first legal documents which talks about something of this sort. Before we became such a selfish species as we are today there was always the concept of 'natural rights'. To quote from the American Declaration of Independence - 'When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them....' This leads me to your second assertion which which I could not disagree more.

Especially since humans are the ones writing the laws.

So while legal rights can be alienated the natural rights can not be owing to their being independent of laws, customs, beliefs, legal systems and so on. It is by this theory that we have rejected the divine rights of Kings. It is also from these Natural Rights that the concept of Human Rights descend. For if Human Rights have only a Legal locus standi then despotic or authoritarian governments are perfectly justified in suspending these rights for their citizens!? So please Human Rights are not written by Humans for what is written by one can be erased by another.

In some ways our modern civilization has regressed and we act now in a selfish manner but the ancients were much more enlightened in these matters. There is some sort of deep veneration and respect towards Nature ingrained in all ancient civilizations. They all allow one to take from nature what is necessary for ones needs but they forbade exploitation of nature for ones greed. Perhaps we should rediscover some of these tenants and we could relearn living in harmony with nature.

[brihacharan]

xl_target wrote:

No Brihaji,
Shooting up into the air is a big no-no.
Remember, the 4th rule of gun safety:
All guns are loaded, always
Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy
Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target
Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.

Hi xl_target,


> However in a situation like the one reported - How else could one scare the Leopard away?
> Maybe he should've fired on the ground - or shouted at the top of his voice - I stand educated if you could respond.
Briha

[xl_target]

xl_target wrote:

No Brihaji,
Shooting up into the air is a big no-no.
Remember, the 4th rule of gun safety:
All guns are loaded, always
Never let the muzzle cover anything that you are not willing to destroy
Keep your finger off the trigger till your sights are on the target
Always be sure of your target and what is behind it.

Hi xl_target,


> However in a situation like the one reported - How else could one scare the Leopard away?
> Maybe he should've fired on the ground - or shouted at the top of his voice - I stand educated if you could respond.
Briha

You own every bullet that come out of your gun. If your bullet comes down and hurts or kills someone at a distance, you are responsible. We know this happens; that people get killed when guns are fired up in the air so there really is no excuse to do that.
In this case, he didn't know it was a Leopard, he wasn't trying to scare it away. He was trying to kill whatever he thought was after his pets. Is that justified? I don't know, I wasn't there.

In some ways our modern civilization has regressed and we act now in a selfish manner but the ancients were much more enlightened in these matters. There is some sort of deep veneration and respect towards Nature ingrained in all ancient civilizations. They all allow one to take from nature what is necessary for ones needs but they forbade exploitation of nature for ones greed. Perhaps we should rediscover some of these tenants and we could relearn living in harmony with nature.

Bowman, Sometimes we wish thing were different and unfortunate circumstances like the killing of this Leopard didn't happen. We also wish that people were more respectful of animals and didn't needlessly kill animals.

I can't think of any civilization that put animal rights over human rights. Sure, there are some religions like Jainism that go to great lengths to avoid harming any living creature but in general, the more evolved life forms live of the less evolved life forms. That is a law of nature, isn't it? Herbivores live off plant life, carnivores live off the herbivores,
However, if something threatens me or mine and I have the means to resolve the threat, I will. I will defend my family and I will defend my pets. Most people will do the same.

[BowMan]

Bowman, Sometimes we wish thing were different and unfortunate circumstances like the killing of this Leopard didn't happen. We also wish that people were more respectful of animals and didn't needlessly kill animals.

I can't think of any civilization that put animal rights over human rights.

Its not so much above or below XL. It's just that when you have an animal that is caged and you go and tell your kids 'look that's a leopard' you are actually lying to them. Because what they are seeing is only the flesh and blood of a leopard but the spirit and instinct is all gone and it has been reduced to a domesticated cat. For heavens sake if you wish to see a leopard then take the trouble to go to its natural habitat and experience the thrill of watching a leopard with instincts and behaviours of a real leopard. But mind you please talk in hushed voices (if you must talk at all) and tread where there are no dry leaves because even the faintest of sounds and the leopard will be gone!

You did mention Jainism and that sect and its followers have my respect. However personally it is not for me as I am a non vegetarian and I think it is perfectly justified to hunt for ones needs like food and so on. Perhaps the kind of hunting that is carried out by an Inuit hunter who harvests a seal for his family but before he skins it he pours some snow in the dead seals mouth and recites a prayer to the soul of the animal and thanks the gods for his success. Not the kind of excess that drives Theo Roosevelt and his friends to massacre 11,400 animals in a single Safari! It is somewhat funny when TDR said 'I can be condemned only if the existence of the National Museum, the American Museum of Natural History, and all similar zoological institutions are to be condemned'. I thought the buck stopped there!?

[brihacharan]

xl_target wrote:
In this case, he didn't know it was a Leopard, he wasn't trying to scare it away. He was trying to kill whatever he thought was after his pets. Is that justified? I don't know, I wasn't there.

> Since he didn't know what was that trying to encroach upon his pets - Yet he took a shot - It could have been a burglar - I shudder to think the consequences thereafter
Briha