Darnell Dockett's Tiger Purchase Being Investigated by Animal-Rights Activists

dockett-tiger-baby.jpg
Darnell Dockett via Twitter
Darnell Dockett's alleged tiger.


Animal-rights activists are blowing the whistle on Arizona Cardinals defensive lineman Darnell Dockett, who claims he recently purchased a pet tiger.

The Animal Rights Foundation of Florida informed us about a few potential issues with Dockett's purchase, including some laws about tiger ownership.

See also:
-Will Darnell Dockett Eventually Get Mauled by His Pet Tiger?

ARFF (get it?) tells us the state of Florida bans the private possession of tigers. Federal law also makes it illegal to move tigers and other big cats across state lines, except for a few exemptions. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, those exemptions include zoos, circuses, researchers, veterinarians, state universities, and a few others.

So, it seems hard to imagine that Dockett's a lawful owner of a tiger, as he alleges to be.

Dockett told 910 AM's Mike Jurecki that he got the tiger, although it seemed hard to believe. Here's a little back-and-forth between Dockett and reporters at training camp last week, posted by the Arizona Republic:
"Do you have a tiger, really?"

"Yeah, yeah. But I cannot tell y'all everything about that as far as legal reasons. That company with the four-letter word? We're going to keep them out of this. But yes, for everybody, I do have a tiger."

"Does it live with you here in Arizona?"

"I'm not going to tell you that . . . I cannot tell you."
That didn't exactly make sense, but he's insisting that he does own the tiger.

ARFF suspects Dockett got the tiger from a place in Miami.

ARFF's still trying to find out if the sale actually took place. Dockett posted just one picture of the tiger cub, Buddy, on social media, and Dockett's not in the photo.

Dockett claimed in 2011 that he bought an alligator and that claim was highly questionable, a Huffington Post report found.

Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.



Advertisement

My Voice Nation Help
26 comments
Keep Em Kool
Keep Em Kool

I would if I could, would save one more tiger from being killed for their fur or put in a cage where they lose half of their life expectancy!

Keep Em Kool
Keep Em Kool

YES! but only if they have the proper space and money to care for them. & he does no different then owning a Horse.

Audrey Mead
Audrey Mead

Not sure what the Pit Bull comment is about. They make amazing pets and I know a ton of people who have them as loyal, loving family members. They even make excellent service dogs. Like any other dog, it is about upbringing and training.

Jewel's Bakery & Cafe
Jewel's Bakery & Cafe

Absolutely not. They belong in the wild - free. They are not here for our amusement.

Tori Forte
Tori Forte

Absolutely. Why protect an idiot from himself?

Carlos Andrés
Carlos Andrés

NO!! These animals belong in the wild, chances are very high that this animal will be neglected or, end up in some zoo because its to hard to manage..

Gary Waterman
Gary Waterman

Should not! Its foolish that its gotten to where we even need to discuss it. Tigers eat larger animals. Humans= larger animals! Its a recipe for disaster. There needs to be a specific license for large and/or extremely dangerous animals. Crocs, tigers, elephants, Mountain Gorillas etc etc. I cant get a used car dealer license without a background check, 100,000 bond (which also means a good credit check) and a 90 day paperwork process. Large/dangerous animals should require some demonstration and proof of your ability to house it and care for it. But they should also not be kept as "pets". It should only be allowed if you are fostering the animal. Nursing it back to health or are part of a repopulation program for endangered species.

Xmasgirl Martinez
Xmasgirl Martinez

only licensed facilities should have dangerous animals.what if it got loose.people cant even control pit bull dogs much less a tiger!smh

Alan King
Alan King

If the animal was raised from birth around humans, it probably wouldn't work to put it back in the wild. But it should be handled in a professional setting that can cater to its needs and allow it to lead as normal a life as possible. Tigers are simply too large and unpredictable to be handled by pet "owners". Unless he has a preserve AND a degree (and staff) with numerous years experience in handling such animals, then he has no business doing this.

Michael Swann
Michael Swann

How the duck should he have the money to buy one, the cardinals have been terrible last couple of years...

RO Gee
RO Gee

WHAT A DOPE...TELL HIM TO TALK TO THAT OTHER DOPE FROM LAS VEGAS THAT GOT MAULED...SMDH

Jesse Adams
Jesse Adams

arff is just wasting their time lol. Docket does this shit all the time.

David James
David James

Definitely NOT! This is a case of too much expendable income, too few working brain cells, and the need for "male overcompensation." He should just buy a Hummer and be done with it.

Darin Spyderdog
Darin Spyderdog

absolutely should not! i worked with exoctic animals for a few years, and they should NEVER be considered pets

Stephanie Roberson
Stephanie Roberson

Of course not. Tigers belong in the wild. Get a large house cat instead.

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...