‘Exotic’ Animals Hunted in Ohio

I’m sure many of you have already heard about the hunting down and killing of ‘wild’ animals who had been let loose by their keeper, Terry Thompson, earlier this week. Thompson apparently kept upwards of fifty animals, including lions, tigers, cheetahs, wolves, giraffes, camels, and bears on his property in Zanesville, Ohio. On Tuesday, he opened the cages they were kept in and then committed suicide. When locals began spotting these animals roaming around the area, local law enforcement stepped in and began a hunt for the animals. Rather than using tranquilizers to subdue and relocated the animals, most of them were shot dead. Numbers vary, but approximately only 6 of the animals were relocated using tranquilizers; at least 49 were killed. NPR reports on the story, as well as the New York Times  and many of the other major local news sources.

Thompson was an ex-con, having served time for illegal weapons charges. He also had a long history of complaints against him about cruelty to animals, and in 2005 was convicted for letting three cows and a bison die in his care. Local law enforcement had visited the property dozens of times over the years in response to complaints by neighbors with animal welfare concerns. Being well aware of the existence of these animals and the questionable conditions under which they were kept, it is particularly egregious that the sheriff is claiming they were in no way prepared for this kind of scenario. In other words, they were fully justified by their unpreparedness and by the imminent risk to ‘public safety’ to use lethal force when tracking down these animals.

On the one hand, this situation was grossly mishandled by local law enforcement who could have used tranquilizers to capture the animals rather than shooting them had they been trained to do so. The sheriff stated that they did not have the equipment or training to tranquillize the animals and that they did try to tranquillize one lion, but apparently missed and things got out of control. Jack Hanna argues that it is actually quite difficult to tranquillize an animal, particularly in the dark; the sheriff’s orders from the start were ‘shoot-to-kill’. This unpreparedness resulted in the unneccessary slaughter of at least 49 animals. In a state were there are no laws preventing individuals from ‘owning’ these types of animals, law enforcement agencies should be prepared to capture animals of this nature in a humane way, particularly within a county with such frequent previous problems with Thompson over his keeping of these animals.

On the other hand, this situation is endemic of a much more widespread problem involving global trade practices and state and federal legislation. The illegal capture and trade of wild animals is a global problem of epic proportions. In fact, illegal trafficking of wildlife is the third largest black market trade after drugs and arms and a hundred billion dollar industry. This illegal trade is part of what allowed Thompson to be able to acquire and keep these animals will little legal intervention. Because of Ohio’s lacking state laws regarding these types of animals, Thompson was within his rights to keep these animals in cages on his property. Some states have laws on the books (like Washington) that make it illegal for private persons to own ‘dangerous’ animals. Even in states where there are laws on the books, enforcement can be lax and individuals still continue to keep animals illegally in subpar conditions.

Of interest to me also is the way in which this story has been reported. The animals themselves are labelled as ‘wild,’ ‘aggressive,’ and ‘dangerous’–all terms which promote a discourse of fear and threat. News reports plead with people to keep their children inside and these animals are involved in a ‘hunt or be hunted’ kind of scenario. None of the reporting I’ve seen says anything of the animals’ experience or the ethics of slaughtering these animals without debate. Additionally, Thompson’s property was known as a private preserve. This is a reminder to be aware that any individual keeping animals can call themselves a preserve or a sanctuary, but this does in any way mean that the humans involved have the animals’ interests in mind.

This situation, while deeply depressing and sickening, is also a call to action. The global trade of ‘exotic’ animals and the keeping of these animals by individuals is a serious problem.

What can you do? Write to your local representatives and let them know your outrage at this situation and at the general legislation and enforcement related to keeping wild animals. OCCUPY your city and demand justice for humans and animals. Animals are part of the 99% too! Let your voice be heard!

Follow