Express Yourself at WordPress

View original article here:

Residents of B.C. are not allowed to keep local wildlife as pets; you cannot keep a raccoon in a doghouse, or a crow in a cage, without a permit.
So how come anyone can keep an exotic animal in their home?
An exotic animal is still a wild animal; it is just wild in a different country, hence its exotic appeal.
But perhaps it is that removal from seeing tigers roaming through our backyards that has caused us to forget that they are still dangerous.
When Gangus, a 2 year-old Bengal tiger, swatted at Tania Dumstery-Soos and killed her last week, it was only doing what came naturally.
Tigers are killing machines, they are born to hunt, and should be respected as such.
Dogs are an excellent example of human triumph over nature. We have taken wild wolves and bred them for thousands of years to make them our lap dog companions. But even that doesn’t stop them from resorting back to their wild roots.
History has shown us that even the animals that we have bred domestically may still not be man’s best friends.
In August 2005, vicious attacks from pit bulls prompted a province-wide ban from the province of Ontario, and the breed has been banned from Winnipeg for over a decade. The owners can be blamed on many accounts, but not all.
So if animals that we have taken centuries to tame will still act out and attack people, isn’t it naïve to think that creatures that are very much wild will do any different?
There are those that argue that keeping a tiger is a valiant way to save the species, as there are more tigers in captivity than there are in the wild. But that does not means it is right to keep a 200-pound cat in your backyard.
Tigers in the wild command a territory of anywhere from 8 to 200 sq km, depending on the abundance of prey. They are also solitary creatures, and can live for up to 20 years. This is a stark contrast to the cramped quarters that the tigers in the cages of 100 Mile House were being kept in. When you confine creatures that are meant to live alone in vast spaces, perhaps keeping them in close quarters with other animals, you are causing them distress, only contributing to the danger. This compounded with a lack of activity and stimulation creates an even deadlier problem, because a restless tiger is a disaster in the making.
In this latest example of exotic ownership, not only did a woman lose her life, but an endangered species lost another misunderstood member that, if tried in a courtroom, would have been found not guilty by reason of insanity.
From big cats taken from India to small squirrels captured in Chile, the exotic animal trade is big business in Canada; and it is a dangerous and morally wrong trade that must at least be regulated, if not halted.
It is usually mere selfishness, and not conservation, that people have in mind when they purchase a tiger or other outrageous pet, which is no real basis for their argument to keep them.
Those that own or sell exotic animals say that many of the creatures are captive-bred, now; but that doesn’t necessarily mean any more docile than their outdoor cousins, and that practice may even promote inbreeding.
William Blake wrote, “A robin redbreast in a cage; Puts all of heaven in a rage.” It is about time that our government thought that way as well, before more lives are lost.

I swore that I would never put my photo on the internet.
With technology these days, a face could be digitally imposed on a donkey’s body and sent around the world in under a minute.
But online message boards and chat rooms have become so mainstream, so comfortable, that I didn’t hold out for long.
Online interactive communities are now big business, with sites like Myspace and Bebo boasting millions of users.
The latest fad site, Facebook, stems from the same idea as the others, (members have a personal profile page, a comments section and albums for photos), except that it is designed to help users keep in touch with people they have actually met in real life, as opposed to helping them meet new cyber friends. But also unlike Myspace, Facebook is more of transparent community.
Upon signing in, the homepage displays a ‘News Feed’ that informs the user of the comments and photos that people in his or her network of ‘Friends’ have been posting. This includes mundane messages, such as “Hi Sally, ROTFL,” to the more extreme, such as, “Rob, the engagement is OFF!”
Users can ‘Tag’ photos with the names of people in them, which not only show up on their friends’ ‘News Feed,’ but also on their personal profile. That means, that if someone posts an embarrassing photo, everyone in his or her network can view it.
And that’s what happened to me.
My ‘News Feed’ alerted that a ‘Friend’ had posted a photo of me. I clicked on the link, which took me to the photo. What uploaded was the most horrific photo I had ever seen of myself.
I was fully clothed, yes, but obviously intoxicated and acting less than professional. I contacted the ‘Friend’ that had posted the photo and demanded that he delete it immediately; which he did the following day without question.
This incident, although trivial, brought to my attention the ease by which your image can travel, and how powerless you are to stop it.
But what amazes me most about these community websites is the unending number of (very) young girls that willingly post scantily clad photos of themselves in their own photo sections. They have usually taken these pictures with their webcams, in their bedrooms, and think that either no one will recognize them, or that no one will care.
But these girls do not realize that once a photo is on the net, it is out there for good. There is no getting it back, no noticing the mistake and hitting the backspace button. No, that blurry photo of your 11-year-old daughter in her Sponge Bob panties could be the desktop background for a 72-year-old man in Russia right now; and there is nothing you can do about it.
Not only is it a danger to have these types of photos of children on the Internet, but it may also jeopardize their reputation or employment opportunities.
Are we becoming a more open society because information is so easily accessible? Or are we just being naïve to the fact that things that we do on the Internet can affect our future?
It is rare to not have your face on the Internet now, and short of keeping a bag over your head, there is little you can do to keep yourself off of it. And even though that photo of me was deleted, there may be more out there that I am not aware of.
At least I can be sure that I haven’t contributed to my own embarrassment, as in my younger days I resisted the temptation to add another nude and naïve body to the Internet.