tiger cubs

Tiger cubs are so adorable you want to hold and pet them. But given the life cycles of too many, and the lessons of the 2011 Zanesville wild animal tragedy, the federal government might outlaw it.

(Matt Rourke, Associated Press)

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Five years after a Zanesville animal keeper triggered panic by unleashing tigers, lions and bears in Ohio's countryside, the federal government is looking anew at restricting the public's ability to pet and pose for pictures with young, potentially dangerous animals.

The risk to humans from petting an adorable 5-week-old tiger cub at a roadside zoo is not so much the issue. But to make tiger and bear cubs available for cuddles, ooohs and aahhs, wild animal parks rely on a breeding-and-handling ecosystem that animal-rights activists say results in cruelty and abandonment.

If the government would eliminate your right to snuggle with a big cat while that cat is still little, the activists say, then the larger ecosystem -- the one that helped Terry Thompson acquire 56 wild, dangerous animals that he released from cages before killing himself in October 2011 -- could be quashed.

Some people say this is overkill.

The federal government, which in March began tamping down on public handling of baby lions and tigers, wants to hear more from the public about proposed restrictions.

What it's about:

The move to restrict handling of wild animals by anyone other than professionals in accredited zoos or wildlife sanctuaries grew heated after Thompson, deeply in debt and reportedly despised by some neighbors, released 56 animals from his 73-acre Muskingum County farm, then killed himself with a gunshot.

The animals included tigers, lions, bears, leopards and wolves. In the ensuing panic throughout the countryside, police killed 49 of the animals.

Ohio clamped down on ownership of dangerous animals in the aftermath, first with an executive order, and then with a state law requiring a permit for ownership of dangerous animals including tigers, lions, bears, elephants, alligators, crocodiles and anacondas and pythons 12 feet or longer. The state made exemptions for animals already in possession if certain rules were followed.

How petting became an issue:

Not all states have laws like Ohio's -- and it took the Zanesville emergency to get Ohio to act. In fact, former Gov. Ted Strickland had signed an order in 2010 requiring exotic animals to be registered, but Gov. John Kasich let it lapse in 2011. Kasich signed a new, related order soon after the Zanesville animal mayhem, and state lawmakers went to work soon after that.

Yet regardless of state laws, a separate issue was unresolved in the eyes of the Humane Society of the United States, a group that fights animal exploitation. As the society and its allies saw it, abuses would continue as long as wildlife attractions could let visitors pet and pose with soon-to-be dangerous animals, then dump the animals when they were no longer useful.

"Zanesville was just the symptom of a much bigger problem," Anna Frostic, senior attorney for wildlife litigation at the Humane Society, said in a telephone interview.

So the Humane Society petitioned the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service to clamp down. The department had authority, according to the Humane Society, because it oversaw animal handling for any facilities that engaged in interstate commerce involving animals.

What the Humane Society wanted:

The petition asked the Department of Agriculture to explicitly prohibit any entity licensed under federal wildlife rules "from allowing members of the public to come into direct or unsafe close contact with big cats, bears and nonhuman primates of any age."

Help Prevent Another Zanesville - The Humane Society of the United States http://t.co/AScC19W3 — Animal Advocate (@Miles9906) October 19, 2012

The Humane Society was joined by the World Wildlife Fund and the Detroit Zoological Society, among others. They filed the petition exactly a year after the Zanesville incident, and amended it with additional petitioners in 2013.

How existing law had loopholes:

You might think animal abuse was already outlawed by the federal Animal Welfare Act, a 1966 law that regulates the treatment of animals in research, exhibition, transport and sales. But the Humane Society and allies said the language in the law and its related regulations was too vague.

For example, federal regulations require big cats to be "under the direct control and supervision of a knowledgeable and experienced animal handler." But what is direct control? Is it good enough to be standing nearby?

And regulations say that big cats "must be handled so there is minimal risk of harm to the animal and to the public." But what does that mean?

What the real issue was:

The overriding issue can be understood easily by considering a tiger cub.

Tiger cubs are most popular for petting and cuddling when they are between four and eight weeks old. By then, their immune systems are thought to be ready for human contact. But this can lead to premature separation from their mothers, to bottle feeding of formula rather than letting them get nourishment from their mothers' milk, and to exploitation, says the Humane Society.

The cubs are no longer considered safe for petting after eight weeks. They're often sold then, and many wind up in caged, deplorable conditions, says the Humane Society. Their entire existence, from breeding to eventual sale or dumping, was for the sake of exploiting a four-week period in their lives.

This has led to a skewed tiger population: There are 5,000 to 7,000 tigers in U.S. captivity, the majority kept in substandard conditions, Frostic said. That's about twice the entire population of tigers in the wild worldwide, she said.

Why there's a different view:

Critics, particularly companies accused of animal exploitation, sometimes call the Humane Society extremist in its animal-protection views. But the petition has been supported by a number of mainstream groups including the American Veterinary Medical Association. Even the Association of Zoos & Aquariums -- whose board members include the top executives of the Smithsonian's National Zoo and the Cleveland Metroparks Zoo -- said in late 2013 that it generally agrees with the petition.

Yet a different group, the Zoological Association of America, takes a different view. The Zoological Association generally represents smaller and new zoos as well as private zoos.

This is not the first issue over which the Humane Society and the Zoological Association have tussled. The zoological group views the Humane Society as radical, while the Humane Society says the zoological group supports weak standards for roadside zoos -- and each side says the other is wrong.

The Zoological Association of America is committed to animal welfare and public safety http://t.co/vn6heyEbwc — Facilities Chap (@SirFacilities) August 27, 2015

"Our members as licensees have witnessed first hand the power of exhibition and interaction in support of conservation of species," the Zoological Association told the federal government in a five-page letter. "Visitors to our facilities form a special connection with the animals they meet and are, as a direct result of that experience, motivated to support conservation work."

As for why the Humane Society is pursuing this, the Zoological Association said it is "merely an attempt by the petitioners to push their well publicized agenda to end interaction with all species and the eventual elimination of all public exhibition and animals in captivity."

Why Zanesville keeps coming up:

In correspondence with the government, the Zanesville animal tragedy gets cited repeatedly to explain why these changes are needed. But the Zoological Association said Zanesville makes a poor parallel:

"While tragic for the animals involved, what happened in Ohio was not a matter of deficient federal oversight and is hardly indicative of the activities of hundreds of responsible and lawfully licensed exhibitors overseen by USDA. In reality the number of facilities in the US possessing the animals in question is declining at a rapid rate due to state and local rules and regulations."

every time i drive through zanesville i always think in my head, "lions and tigers and bears oh my" 🐅🐆 — nikki (@nicoleperalli) January 21, 2013

Why the feds seem likely to act:

It has taken several years to get to this point. But in March, the Department of Agriculture issued a notice that non-domestic cats -- lions and tigers -- under four weeks of age have special needs and should not be exposed to public feeding and handling. Violating this will put a zoo or animal exhibitor out of compliance with the Animal Welfare Act.

Then on June 24, the department demonstrated it is not yet done. It reopened the public comment period on the Humane Society's petition -- even though by November 2013 it has received 15,379 comments -- and said it wanted to hear more.

It posed specific question, such as: What factors should be considered in determining whether an animal is suitable for public contact? What animals should be defined as dangerous? What constitutes sufficient barriers to keep the public away?

It will accept comments through August, then make a decision at a undermined time.

What this means for petting zoos:

Might this spell doom for petting zoos?

It depends "how you define petting zoos," Frostic said.

The Humane Society's petition concerns big cats, bears, nonhuman primates -- animals that grow up to be dangerous and whose life cycle too often involves abuse, she said.

As for worries about cows, goats, fowl and other farm livestock, "that's certainly not what we're after."