danlb_2000
Premium Member
But we don't know that she did either of these things. Not trying to defend her, just pointing out that we don't know if she actually did something illegal. Stupid, maybe, illegal , we don't know.
-
The new WDWMAGIC iOS app is here!
Stay up to date with the latest Disney news, photos, and discussions right from your iPhone. The app is free to download and gives you quick access to news articles, forums, photo galleries, park hours, weather and Lightning Lane pricing. Learn More -
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Woman Denied Entry at MK For Trying To Bring In Baby Bengal Tiger
- Thread starter PhotoDave219
- Start date
But we don't know that she did either of these things. Not trying to defend her, just pointing out that we don't know if she actually did something illegal. Stupid, maybe, illegal , we don't know.
betty rose
Well-Known Member
A lot can happen when you've been married for 13 years. Have you been looking in my window?
John Fowler
Member
I heard Tigger was the reason they didn't get in. He awaiting on the results from the paternity test.
You are right. We don't know for sure that she did such things, but it is a fairly safe assumption given the circumstances.
One would think that importing a wild exotic cat into the US would be a little more complicated that say, filling out the blue form at customs making it highly unlikely that she went through the proper channels to legally bring her pet to the US.
It is still possible that she did, but my money is not on that square.
Sora_Keyblade
Active Member
I'm worried about that poor tiger's well-being...
Didn't someone try to bring a comfort pig on a commercial plane recently? I'm all for therapy animals and such, but common sense needs to be applied once in a while.
Didn't someone try to bring a comfort pig on a commercial plane recently? I'm all for therapy animals and such, but common sense needs to be applied once in a while.
ABQ
Well-Known Member
I thought about that too regarding the AK not being used, but it could simply be a case of not having facilities for boarding like the zoo does and so forth. I'm positive they have the skill at the AK, but just it's not worth the risk introducing the tiger. Not that they couldn't keep it securely away from their other animals, but still.
WDW1974
Well-Known Member
Is this really serious? If so, then I am wondering why the OC Sheriff's that hang out at the entrance didn't arrest her. It isn't legal to have an animal like that sans documentation. And a week old?!? That flat out has to be either a mistake as that cub would be tiny and unable to survive on its own.
it's not that I don't think it is possible that some incredibly wealthy Dubai citizen could purchase anything in OTown, just that it sounds very off. Sure, Disney looks the other way all the time when wealthy guests conduct themselves in manners that would get the rest of us arrested. Who do you think buys those $38K Cindy's Castle replicas at Aribas Bros?
But a guy in Naples was just charged with a felony because he found a baby alligator (not a protected species in any way) that was injured, brought it home and let his son nurse it back to health (we are talking tiny gator that wouldn't have survived) and he is facing serious jail time now. A baby tiger is a whole 'mother matter.
I do love logging on here and never knowing what I'll read though.
it's not that I don't think it is possible that some incredibly wealthy Dubai citizen could purchase anything in OTown, just that it sounds very off. Sure, Disney looks the other way all the time when wealthy guests conduct themselves in manners that would get the rest of us arrested. Who do you think buys those $38K Cindy's Castle replicas at Aribas Bros?
But a guy in Naples was just charged with a felony because he found a baby alligator (not a protected species in any way) that was injured, brought it home and let his son nurse it back to health (we are talking tiny gator that wouldn't have survived) and he is facing serious jail time now. A baby tiger is a whole 'mother matter.
I do love logging on here and never knowing what I'll read though.
Unplugged
Well-Known Member
Are there any laws that require specific locations be "authorized" or preferred when dealing with law enforcement situations like this? My first thought is because it could be a legal issue, that Disney should not and would not want to be involved as a holding location. Just posing this consideration as I'm not a FL resident nor up on my animal laws.
Unplugged
Well-Known Member
Perhaps Mama tiger is relaxing by the pool back at their home in Golden Oak? If so, not a big deal as Mama's just a short limo ride away!
DManRightHere
Well-Known Member
At this rate how are people to respond to those taking advantage of disability and service animal? It is so fickle since we don't want to discriminate, but this is getting rediculous!
We went to Universal in February and as we exited the preshow we come into a room with a barking dog in a cage and two Universal employees standing at the cage..the dog was going crazy too as he did not want in the cage. It was odd but hey, we don't know the story...
We went to Universal in February and as we exited the preshow we come into a room with a barking dog in a cage and two Universal employees standing at the cage..the dog was going crazy too as he did not want in the cage. It was odd but hey, we don't know the story...
Katie G
Well-Known Member
Heard from a Guest Relations CM friend, this is totally real. The same person brought it into EC and MK the 2 days prior and there was a note on their booking about it.
I would've loved to see this one handled though. Kudos to the front line CM who had to deal with this craziness.
I would've loved to see this one handled though. Kudos to the front line CM who had to deal with this craziness.
PREMiERdrum
Well-Known Member
The "one week old" part has to be a mistake.
I have a friend who raises and trains tigers in TX. (a licensed, inspected, and highly reputable breeder, who's animals are among the best cared for I've ever witnessed. So save the speech.) I have gotten to see up close just how fragile these animals are for the first few weeks. Once they're stable and old enough to be taking trips like these, you only have a very short window where they can reasonably be controlled by even the best handlers in public settings.
No matter how this happened, it is upsetting. I'm curious as to if any criminal charges are on the table.
I have a friend who raises and trains tigers in TX. (a licensed, inspected, and highly reputable breeder, who's animals are among the best cared for I've ever witnessed. So save the speech.) I have gotten to see up close just how fragile these animals are for the first few weeks. Once they're stable and old enough to be taking trips like these, you only have a very short window where they can reasonably be controlled by even the best handlers in public settings.
No matter how this happened, it is upsetting. I'm curious as to if any criminal charges are on the table.
danlb_2000
Premium Member
WedwayPM
Active Member
One of the Pink Panther movies. 'Strikes Again' perhaps?
I have no idea, my friend Dorothy from Oz on Facebook posted it and I naturally reposted it here. Steve says he's heard it as well.
So I'm not really shocked… It's completely plausible. I've seen people try to take all number of animals in it and call them a " service animal"…
Either way, just the mere idea that this could be true? Funny as hell.
MissM
Well-Known Member
For what it's worth, here's Florida's laws pertaining to possession of wild animals. Florida has a "partial ban" on owning exotics.
FLORIDA CAPTIVE POSSESSION
No person shall possess any wildlife, including mammals, whether or not indigenous to the state, without having first secured a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, based upon the wildlife classification. Class I wildlife includes: snow leopards, leopards, jaguars, tigers, and lions. Persons in possession of these animals for personal use on August 1, 1980, were eligible for a permit in accordance with the provisions for Class II wildlife. No other Class I wildlife may be kept for personal use. Class II wildlife includes: servals, Eurasian and Canada lynx , cougars, panthers, bobcats, cheetahs, caracals, African golden cats, Asiatic golden cats, fishing cats, ocelots, and clouded leopards, and may be possessed for personal use in accordance with the provisions of a Class II permit. These requirements do not apply to any municipal, county, state or other publicly owned wildlife exhibit, any traveling zoo, circus, or exhibit that is otherwise licensed.
FLA. STAT. §§ 372.921, 372.922, 372. 935 (2008); FLA. ADMIN. CODE 68A-6.0011 et seq. (2008).
Source: http://wcclas.org/images/forms/StateStatutesSummary.pdf
Also:
No person shall possess any wildlife, including mammals, whether or not indigenous to the state, without having first secured a permit from the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, based upon the wildlife classification. Class I wildlife includes: snow leopards, leopards, jaguars, tigers, and lions. Persons in possession of these animals for personal use on August 1, 1980, were eligible for a permit in accordance with the provisions for Class II wildlife. No other Class I wildlife may be kept for personal use. Class II wildlife includes: servals, Eurasian and Canada lynx , cougars, panthers, bobcats, cheetahs, caracals, African golden cats, Asiatic golden cats, fishing cats, ocelots, and clouded leopards, and may be possessed for personal use in accordance with the provisions of a Class II permit. These requirements do not apply to any municipal, county, state or other publicly owned wildlife exhibit, any traveling zoo, circus, or exhibit that is otherwise licensed.
FLA. STAT. §§ 372.921, 372.922, 372. 935 (2008); FLA. ADMIN. CODE 68A-6.0011 et seq. (2008).
Source: http://wcclas.org/images/forms/StateStatutesSummary.pdf
Also:
Three Things to Know About Petting a Cub
There are a some lion and tiger cub exploiters still making the rounds at fairs, flea markets, parking lots and malls who are charging the public $10 – $25 to pet a baby lion cub or to play with a baby tiger cub. USDA regulations should over ride state regulations on this matter, but in Florida the FL Wildlife Commission has set its own standard that may differ a bit, but not much from USDA’s ruling.
Here is what the law says about that:
Cubs cannot be handled by the public before the age of 8 weeks because they are not old enough to have had their first kitten vaccination. Cubs need to be vaccinated at 8, 10 & 12 weeks of age to build up an immune response, so it is really irresponsible to allow contact before 12 weeks.
USDA defines a juvenile big cat as being any cub over the age of 12 weeks and does not permit public contact with cubs over the age of 12 weeks. Despite the fact that touching cubs between the age of 8 weeks and 12 weeks is potentially deadly to the cub, USDA does currently (2010) allow public contact with cubs over 8 weeks and under 12 weeks of age.
Source: http://bigcatrescue.org/state-laws-exotic-cats/
It seems highly suspect she would have the proper permits/authorization to transport, handle or make publicly available a week-old tiger cub under just about any circumstances legally. This is, of course, above and beyond the fact it's just unbelievably wrong morally on so many levels that I'm physically disgusted at the thought. That poor cub.There are a some lion and tiger cub exploiters still making the rounds at fairs, flea markets, parking lots and malls who are charging the public $10 – $25 to pet a baby lion cub or to play with a baby tiger cub. USDA regulations should over ride state regulations on this matter, but in Florida the FL Wildlife Commission has set its own standard that may differ a bit, but not much from USDA’s ruling.
Here is what the law says about that:
Cubs cannot be handled by the public before the age of 8 weeks because they are not old enough to have had their first kitten vaccination. Cubs need to be vaccinated at 8, 10 & 12 weeks of age to build up an immune response, so it is really irresponsible to allow contact before 12 weeks.
USDA defines a juvenile big cat as being any cub over the age of 12 weeks and does not permit public contact with cubs over the age of 12 weeks. Despite the fact that touching cubs between the age of 8 weeks and 12 weeks is potentially deadly to the cub, USDA does currently (2010) allow public contact with cubs over 8 weeks and under 12 weeks of age.
Source: http://bigcatrescue.org/state-laws-exotic-cats/