Exotic Pets - My Opinion

[Ailinea]

Since we started this in another thread, thought I'd bring it up haha. I wrote an extremely lengthy blog about exotic pets a while back, so give it a read if you have time: http://thesummerrose.blogspot.com/2011/03/exotic-pets-should-stay-exotic.html

You can, of course, skip to different points that seem most interesting to you instead of reading the whole thing lol. I know it's ridiculously long, I rambled too much. razz

Anywho, basically, my biggest reasons against exotic pet ownership are as follows:

• Taking away from perfectly good cats and dogs in animal shelters that are euthanized every day
  
• Does NOT help conservation, in my opinion, regardless of how many breeders claim they're "saving the species"
  
• The idiots out there that don't know what they're doing and often end up with dead, abused, dying, or starving animals or burden already overflowing sanctuaries and zoos with their irresponsibility
  
• The slightly higher risk of personal injury or death dealing with a wild animal
  
• The contribution to the exotic pet trade which is a serious, serious issue

Anyone else like to share their opinion? I realize it's a passionate subject and people are unlikely to change his/her mind in a debate like this, so let's just be as civil as we can be. smile  

[Akari_32]

My opinion: If you're going to do it, do it responsibly.

First, do you're research. A lot of exotics need more care and space then a lot of people can give them. Determine whats best for your life style and current budget. If you cant care for it, dont buy it!

Then, if you decide to get an Exotic pet, adopt! There are plenty of exotics out there that are in need of a new home.

If you cant find what you're looking for that is up for adoption, buy it captive bred (in the case of reptiles, birds, and the like.). A lot of Exotics are endangered because of the pet trade. Buying a wild caught Exotic does not help that status.

Having Exotic pets is never going to stop, just like people owning Pit Bulls is never going to stop. Its just something that has to be worked with.  

[Gabrielle_AnimalLuver]

I'm going to try to read it through but right now I'm a bit pressed. But I can't help but notice the majority of the points you list are true of breeding in general.

With the exception of conservation, and then it depends on the species in question. Not all exotics come from endangered animals. And if you have a wild animal that was raised in captivity, I find that to be different than running out and purposely taking an animal away from it's mother for your own purposes.

I agree that it's not saving the species, I know of no good breeders who claim that. To really "save" a species you'd have to be willing to try to reintroduce into the wild or allow them to live a natural life in some kind of sanctuary. Not keep them as a pet for your own amusement.

I think there can be some pro's to exotics. 1, cats and dogs are wonderful but let's be reasonable they are not for everyone. Allergies, or apartment regulations might prevent someone from having a so called "normal" pet. Rats are considered exotic and yet, they are very domesticated. Pets provide people with a sense of purpose and provide stress relief. Granted, these are still reasons why it's good for the person not the animal itself, but, dogs were exotic at one point before we domesticated them.

I just think that, like with non-exotics. There are good breeders and bad ones. And people NEED to know what they're getting into. The line between good and bad breeding practices is not always perfectly clear. But I think Akari has explained where to start.  

[Vanilla eXee]

You're going to have to define exotic before I can answer this in full but for now I'll just refute your points. Most rodents, reptiles, birds, and fish (basically anything outside of livestock, cats, and dogs) are considered exotic pets.

- Many people who own exotics also have dogs or cats, it doesn't really take too much away from them, and people who choose exotics over C&D probably wouldn't get C&D anyway because they may not be the right fit for their household.

- As for the breeding quip, here's one way breeders DO help in a very big way: The more captive bred animals, the less people will take them from the wild. Also, if there is trade in their body parts, captive bred animals can help alleviate this as well.

Take Russian tortoises for instance. If you see them at PetSmart, PetCo, or most other pet stores, they are wild caught. They are listed as vulnerable in the wild, and the method of capturing/shipping them here to be sold as pets is horrifying. They shove thousands of them in a tiny box and many don't make it, or arrive sick. People are still going to buy them, but if we can get them to buy captive bred instead, that's one less animal being taken from the wild, and eventually CB will replace WC in the store windows, and that really does help save the species.

- The idiots out there will still exist without exotics, they'll just go after cats and dogs (or maybe even children) instead.

- That depends on what wild animal we're talking about. There's a higher risk of injury when dealing with a dog than there is with the majority of exotic small (nonvenomous) reptiles, birds, rodents or fish. It doesn't matter if it's wild or domestic, if you bring a potentially dangerous animal into your home, there is the potential for danger. Even cats can sometimes be a threat.

-I take serious issue with people who try to take away my freedoms. Yes, there should be some type of limits or regulations when it comes to dangerous animals, but ALL EXOTICS should NOT be lumped into that category, and RESPONSIBLE owners should NOT be punished for the actions of irresponsible owners. That's like saying no one should have babies anymore because some people either abuse their children, or have children that grow up to become a danger to society.

Edit: One more thing: If exotics were suddenly banned, then guess what? When it comes to pets, there usually is no "grandfathering them in". Those us of who do have exotics would have to hide them, or else they would be taken away and put down. This happens when certain species of fish are banned, people who have owned them before said ban are now outlaws, who face fines and the destruction of beloved family pets.

 

[Ailinea]

Great replies! Thanks guys biggrin

I mention in my blog on the fine line of exotic vs. non-exotic (in response to how we should control exotic animal laws/etc):

Quote:

2. The banning of all exotic animals. This is, of course, a very extreme measure, and agreeably very unfair for responsible pet owners. It’s also a large gray area. What do you define as an exotic animal? Of course there are the big cats, the bears, the monkeys, and others, but an exotic pet is defined by most people as animals that have not gone through the process of domestication, such as our common house cats, dogs, ferrets, rabbits, parakeets, rodents such as gerbils and rats, livestock, etc. With that definition, exotic pets can and do include chinchillas, all snakes, lizards, frogs, sugar gliders, parrots, turtles, tarantulas, millipedes, cockroaches, scorpions, and other invertebrates, most fish, and many, many others that you can find in every day pet stores. So where do we draw the line? The big exotic pets get the most attention because they’re the most attractive and the most dangerous. Some groups would have you believe that all animals should be liberated, including cats and dogs, so there is no gray area. Do we have a right to pick and choose when it comes to morals? This is why exotic animal bans are difficult to legislate and enforce and that banning, in my opinion, is a poor method of dealing with neglectful owners.

Just like you said, I think it's unfair to punish the responsible pet owners for the actions of a few. This is why I'm in such a gray area when it comes to exotic animal legislation. I personally think an effective way is to have stricter regulations, licenses, and fees for specific "dangerous" or "risky" exotic pets. What pets do those include? Mostly big cats and non-domestic cats and dogs (like servals, bobcats, wolves, and coyotes), bears, raccoons, deer, hell, anything that's deemed a wild mammal or bird protected by the migratory bird act. Fish and most common reptiles might be pushing it too far, in my opinion. When it comes to those I'd say regulate specific rare, endangered, or uncommon species. Why? To show that the owner really cares about what they're getting into and aren't just purchasing something on a whim.

Although it seems like an obvious point, I never really took into consideration the breeding of exotic pets to reduce the illegal pet trade. While I don't agree that we should be breeding for animal parts, but for pets, these animals have to come from somewhere, right? Once a genetic line becomes too watered down, won't breeders have to go back to obtain a new genetic line, through wild caught or any means necessary? I guess I see the bigger picture here, that at some point owning an exotic animal directly or indirectly supports taking wild animals and placing them in captivity for our own purpose.

Also, in some instances, grandfathering is definitely in effect. Do you have any articles that can point me to the instances of people having to kill their pets or pay fines because they are now "outlaws?"

To Gabrielle's post: I have actually talked to several breeders in my debates on Facebook with Joe Exotic and his allies that they seriously believe that they are saving the species by breeding, with no intention of releasing any of their animals into the wild. Their argument is that eventually tigers will be extinct, and we will still be able to bask in all their glory because breeders have kept them in captivity. While I certainly see their logic, their flaw, in my opinion, is that they're seeing an "all-or-nothing" scenario without putting a cent towards real habitat conservation to save the species or be a part of captive breeding programs that will increase the number of animals in the wild. To me, it seems like a silly excuse to breed, sell, and profit. Do I think ALL breeding needs to stop? Absolutely not. I think that we do need some captive-bred animals for zoos and studies, but without human contact or living in people's houses as pets.

Unfortunately, when I went on a tirade last year on YouTube on exotic pets videos, I talked to a few people who did, in fact, take wild cubs from their mothers, thinking they were saving the animal by raising it as their pet. I would also take a cub from the wild if I think it needed serious help, but I would take it to a licensed wildlife rehabilitator to be released back into the wild. Having first-hand worked with the public in the "rescue" of baby wild animals, I can tell you that over 75% of the babies we receive at the rehab were kidnapped by well-meaning people when mom was perfectly capable of caring for the baby. But I digress.

Also, I'm pretty sure our pets rats are considered domesticated and therefore not exotic. Thought so anyway D:

Wow, sorry for the wall of text. Great points, I think this is the most thought-provoking conversation I've had on this topic ever haha. biggrin  

[Kipluck]

Ailinea

Since we started this in another thread, thought I'd bring it up haha. I wrote an extremely lengthy blog about exotic pets a while back, so give it a read if you have time: http://thesummerrose.blogspot.com/2011/03/exotic-pets-should-stay-exotic.html

You can, of course, skip to different points that seem most interesting to you instead of reading the whole thing lol. I know it's ridiculously long, I rambled too much. razz

Anywho, basically, my biggest reasons against exotic pet ownership are as follows:

• Taking away from perfectly good cats and dogs in animal shelters that are euthanized every day
  
• Does NOT help conservation, in my opinion, regardless of how many breeders claim they're "saving the species"
  
• The idiots out there that don't know what they're doing and often end up with dead, abused, dying, or starving animals or burden already overflowing sanctuaries and zoos with their irresponsibility
  
• The slightly higher risk of personal injury or death dealing with a wild animal
  
• The contribution to the exotic pet trade which is a serious, serious issue

Anyone else like to share their opinion? I realize it's a passionate subject and people are unlikely to change his/her mind in a debate like this, so let's just be as civil as we can be. smile

Okay 1st things 1st, I want to say, that while I can see we will disagree on many things (I don't like Joe, but Zuzana is a friend of mine, if that's any clue! wink ) I want to commend you on your arguments. They are are valid and rational, and I really do seem your point of view. I hate debating with people and it's all about emotion. You make sense. You are smart. I may not AGREE with you... but you are smart! mrgreen

Also, from that other thread, I think that is really funny about the rabbits. They ought to be mad at both Zuzana AND Carole if they have a problem at all. But personally, I think, just like rats, it is perfectly ethical to use animals as food for other animals. I love rats. I want them as pets. But I still think it is okay to feed them to your snakes. I think you should humanely kill them first, but yeah. And I feel the same way about rabbits.

But your blog post, I liked it. I disagreed with parts of it, of course, but it was well written and I will reference it here.

In regards to your first argument "Taking away from perfectly good cats and dogs in animal shelters that are euthanized every day": My thought is basically the same as Gabby's here.

Gabrielle_AnimalLuver

I'm going to try to read it through but right now I'm a bit pressed. But I can't help but notice the majority of the points you list are true of breeding in general.

With the exception of conservation, and then it depends on the species in question. Not all exotics come from endangered animals. And if you have a wild animal that was raised in captivity, I find that to be different than running out and purposely taking an animal away from it's mother for your own purposes.

I agree that it's not saving the species, I know of no good breeders who claim that. To really "save" a species you'd have to be willing to try to reintroduce into the wild or allow them to live a natural life in some kind of sanctuary. Not keep them as a pet for your own amusement.

I think there can be some pro's to exotics. 1, cats and dogs are wonderful but let's be reasonable they are not for everyone. Allergies, or apartment regulations might prevent someone from having a so called "normal" pet. Rats are considered exotic and yet, they are very domesticated. Pets provide people with a sense of purpose and provide stress relief. Granted, these are still reasons why it's good for the person not the animal itself, but, dogs were exotic at one point before we domesticated them.

I just think that, like with non-exotics. There are good breeders and bad ones. And people NEED to know what they're getting into. The line between good and bad breeding practices is not always perfectly clear. But I think Akari has explained where to start.

Cats and dogs are not for everyone. I love both cats and dogs. At a different point in my life, I will probably get both, and yes, I will rescue. But right now I live in apartments and work during the day and play at night and my lifestyle better fits my nocturnal sugar gliders, chinchilla, and reptiles with which I share my life. A dog or cat would be unhappy with this life at present. Well, a cat would be okay, but I can't HAVE a cat right now, and I can have what I do. Besides that, these guys fit my personality better. Just like you can't just stick any dog with any person and have it work. They just have to mesh. There are people who love pitties. There are people who are just Persian cat people. There are snake people. And dangitall, there are sugar glider people. This does NOT mean you can't rescue. There are PLENTY of needy exotics, too. Did you know MOST of my exotic pets are rescues? No, they never visited the city pound, but they were dropped off in a box on the doorstop of a pet store, or given away free in ads, or they called me directly for help when their pet was dying. (But some exotics DO go to your local shelter and are in URGENT care of a KNOWLEDGEABLE help because shelter workers often don't know what their specialized care is!)

Does NOT help conservation, in my opinion, regardless of how many breeders claim they're "saving the species" I agree AND disagree with you on this one. I do NOT agree with Joe from Big Cat ENTERTAINMENT's method of "conservation." All he is conserving is money.

BUT I agree 100% with the exotic pet trade conserving the way Vanilla mentioned!

Vanilla eXee

You're going to have to define exotic before I can answer this in full but for now I'll just refute your points. Most rodents, reptiles, birds, and fish (basically anything outside of livestock, cats, and dogs) are considered exotic pets.

- Many people who own exotics also have dogs or cats, it doesn't really take too much away from them, and people who choose exotics over C&D probably wouldn't get C&D anyway because they may not be the right fit for their household.

- As for the breeding quip, here's one way breeders DO help in a very big way: The more captive bred animals, the less people will take them from the wild. Also, if there is trade in their body parts, captive bred animals can help alleviate this as well.

Take Russian tortoises for instance. If you see them at PetSmart, PetCo, or most other pet stores, they are wild caught. They are listed as vulnerable in the wild, and the method of capturing/shipping them here to be sold as pets is horrifying. They shove thousands of them in a tiny box and many don't make it, or arrive sick. People are still going to buy them, but if we can get them to buy captive bred instead, that's one less animal being taken from the wild, and eventually CB will replace WC in the store windows, and that really does help save the species.

- The idiots out there will still exist without exotics, they'll just go after cats and dogs (or maybe even children) instead.

- That depends on what wild animal we're talking about. There's a higher risk of injury when dealing with a dog than there is with the majority of exotic small (nonvenomous) reptiles, birds, rodents or fish. It doesn't matter if it's wild or domestic, if you bring a potentially dangerous animal into your home, there is the potential for danger. Even cats can sometimes be a threat.

-I take serious issue with people who try to take away my freedoms. Yes, there should be some type of limits or regulations when it comes to dangerous animals, but ALL EXOTICS should NOT be lumped into that category, and RESPONSIBLE owners should NOT be punished for the actions of irresponsible owners. That's like saying no one should have babies anymore because some people either abuse their children, or have children that grow up to become a danger to society.

Edit: One more thing: If exotics were suddenly banned, then guess what? When it comes to pets, there usually is no "grandfathering them in". Those us of who do have exotics would have to hide them, or else they would be taken away and put down. This happens when certain species of fish are banned, people who have owned them before said ban are now outlaws, who face fines and the destruction of beloved family pets.

Captive born animals are healthier, they are better cared for, and mostly THEY KEEP WILD ANIMALS WILD. When you buy a healthy baby tortoise from a breeder at an expo you are NOT supporting the pet stores shipping wild caught adults under horrendous conditions. The HOPE of course that eventually pet stores will then stop ORDERING these poor creatures, and, if they sell pet reptiles at ALL, they will get them from reputable breeders who can give them healthy, captive born ones along with CORRECT care information (of which they now often lack).

So, YES, sometimes the pet trade SAVES THE SPECIES. And it's happened before. EVEN with the FUR trade. When chinchilla fur first got popular everyone had to have it. The hunting got to where they were almost extinct. Then one man, Mathias F. Chapman, got permission to catch and tame 12 chinchillas. He brought them to the US in the early 1900's and started some farms. The farms were primarily for fur, BUT all of our modern pet chinchillas are descendants of Chapman's 12. And most importantly, by making the commercial chinchilla trade a domestic one, he saved the wild chinchillas. That is a tangent, but as a chinchilla is one of my exotic pets it is a story that I remember and thing is illustrative.

The idiots out there that don't know what they're doing and often end up with dead, abused, dying, or starving animals or burden already overflowing sanctuaries and zoos with their irresponsibility
This, I just flat out AGREE with this. I just disagree with the solution. I think rather than banning ownership, those of us that HAVE researched should spend a good chunk of our time trying to educate others about PROPER animal care. I go to animal events, trade shows etc with information on sugar gliders, do free informational shows for scout groups, and make informational threads on message boards (like gaia) about various animals that I have experience with. And, believe it or not, more often than not I DISCOURAGE people from getting sugar gliders. I am constantly talking people OUT of getting them! I adore them and love them more than life... but they are VERY high maintenance (as are most exotics!) and just not right for most people and I am not afraid to tell people so.

The slightly higher risk of personal injury or death dealing with a wild animalOkay, this one, I kind of lean more towards the freedoms thing Vanilla mentioned. I am not saying some exotics are not more dangerous. PARTICULARLY cats and primates. Some dangers (like salmonella from my reptiles) I feel are a bit exaggerated (TEACH YOUR KIDS TO WASH THEIR HANDS AND NOT PUT TURTLES IN THEIR MOUTHS. Do we really need a LAW to tell us that?! rolleyes ) and pretty easily avoidable. I get bit, scratched, peed on, etc. I wash my hands, I use neosporin, etc. But, obviously, some animals are more dangerous. Chimps. Tigers. Bears.

Okay, here is my thing on that though. IF someone has taken all the precautions so that their animal is safe for the community (Double fences, etc. The basic thing MOST states require if you want to own them.) then the risk should be THEIRS to make. People can skydive, drive stock cars, etc. We shouldn't be able to risk OTHER people's lives (so, yeah, those people's who's raccoons maul babies should be held responsible. As should parents of babies who are attacked by pet snakes. The adults in those houses should be held accountable. (for the record, there are very few pets that I think are appropriate for unsupervised children) but we should be able to take risks with our own. That's just my opinion.

HOWEVER, there is another part to this. The ANIMAL'S welfare. Though I think she is a holier than thou hypocrite, I think Carole Baskin's cats live well (with the exception of those who WERE happy house pets and are now not given much human attention. I do not deny that many cats are totally happy with a hands-off approach, but I believe some of those hybrids were previously petted, stroked, etc. a lot, and they DO miss that when someone just DECIDES they would be better off "wild." ) But yeah, I think her set up is good. I also think Zuzana's is good. It is in Henderson Nevada, so yes, it is different and HOT, but her Tiger and Lion have swimming pools, etc. Their enclosures are just as good as most zoos, and she has experience that rivals most zookeepers. She is an example of someone that is a 1. private owner but has the 2. expertise and 3. set up to handle the large animals she owns. MOST PEOPLE DON'T. So do I think most people should be allowed to have a tiger? NO FREAKING WAY! Do I think Zuzana can? Sure. I would feel totally safe being her neighbor.

I think ideally there should be a license system. Not based on "Oh you pay the gov'ment $X a year and so you have a license!" but a knowledge of the species license, like taking a driver's license test. Then proof that you can provide an appropriate habitat. Also, any problems like, you know, eating your husband, and you get the animal taken away.

Well, and like you said in your blog, where do you draw the line? My Madagascar Hissing Cockroaches are pretty low maintenance and I can teach any boy scout to care for therm properly. Whereas, tamanduas are a species of anteaters. They have claws several inches long and dribble pee as they walk. I have a friend with THREE of them. I wouldn't recommend anyone following her lead.

As for your last point, "The contribution to the exotic pet trade which is a serious, serious issue" I totally AGREE, BUT like I mentioned, I feel like the solution to the ILLEGAL, WILD CAUGHT pet trade is to SUPPORT to LEGAL, CAPTIVE BORN pet trade. Support one, eradication of the other.

So I say Yay for Exotics with Education!


AAAAAAAND now I'll shut up for a bit and go to a play with my mom. blaugh  

[Gabrielle_AnimalLuver]

I just want to clarify one thing. Although it has been mentioned, everything that is not a farm animal, cat or dog is an "exotic" animal. In the sense that, a normal vet is not licensed to care for these animals. I think you need to specify non-domesticated, wild, or in the case of hybrids less than 4 generations.

Also to mention that I see where you're coming from that, to maintain a species at some point a wild animal is captured. But, this still doesn't mean taking them out of the wild. It may not be necessary either, to bring in fresh genes. I can't remember if it's guinea pigs or hamsters but they're all derived from the same ancestor. I think the "wild" ancestor is long gone and they simply can't introduce new genes. For those breeders who may want to, I'm sure in many, maybe not all, but many cases there's enough rescued from otherwise certain death, to provide breeding services. I hope I'm making sense, but for example. Tortoises are a very long lived animal. A breeder would only need to obtain 2 (okay I'm not a breeder, maybe they'd want more than one female) in their entire time breeding. I don't think it's far fetched to say that there's enough rescues to provide. Of course I haven't researched this as much as kip I should just let her respond lol. But hypothetically they did capture a wild that could have been released. The amount of offspring produced will save many other wild animals from then being caught to sell as pets.

And just as a side note, my "exotics" were all rescues. My two rats are from the SPCA. Mainly because I refused to buy ANYTHING from a pet store, but I don't know of any breeders who I'd want to support anyways, and our SPCA is filled with rabbits and guinea pigs and often rats and other small furry creatures as well. My first fish was a rehome, but that made me want to create my own community so my current fish are store bought from an aquarium store that sells nothing but fish (no puppies, so no mills) And WHEN (not if, when) I get my Bengal, I do really want to rescue. I would THINK this would be the kind of breed that shelters would get a lot because they are so active and SO vocal and sold at pet stores where people will absolutely buy them on a whim because they are so stuningly beautiful. Yet I have never seen them on petfinder. I would be willing to drive a few hundred kilometers to rescue one though. However if it's just not possible, and I may get sick of waiting. I do have one breeder that I have researched and really like. She does homemade cat food, socializes her cats, health checks etc.

I don't want to seem like I'm taking sides though, because in a lot of ways I agree with you.  

[Ailinea]

God I love you guys. Not just because you complimented me, Kip ( ;D ) but because this is the most intelligent conversation I've ever had on this topic lol. And so far anyone has yet to convince me to see the other side, but the way you're positing your opinion on the matter is helping me see a new light.

I'd like to get into a more lengthy response, but I'm tired and will have to get to it tomorrow. But I 100% agree with you on rescuing! I'm all for exotic ownership if you're rescuing an unwanted animal and not supporting breeding and you can PROVE you have the capabilities of raising said pet with exceeding standards.

Also, from what I've read from Zuzana, she definitely seems like she knows what she's talking about and definitely cares for her cats. I don't make judgements on the conditions animals live in until I see it myself or have compelling evidence to show me otherwise. While I don't like Joe, the pictures of his compound that I see looks like the cats are very well taken care of. He has that in his favor lol.

Anywho, I'll finish up later. Goodnight!  

[Vanilla eXee]

Ailinea

Great replies! Thanks guys biggrin

I mention in my blog on the fine line of exotic vs. non-exotic (in response to how we should control exotic animal laws/etc):

Quote:

2. The banning of all exotic animals. This is, of course, a very extreme measure, and agreeably very unfair for responsible pet owners. It’s also a large gray area. What do you define as an exotic animal? Of course there are the big cats, the bears, the monkeys, and others, but an exotic pet is defined by most people as animals that have not gone through the process of domestication, such as our common house cats, dogs, ferrets, rabbits, parakeets, rodents such as gerbils and rats, livestock, etc. With that definition, exotic pets can and do include chinchillas, all snakes, lizards, frogs, sugar gliders, parrots, turtles, tarantulas, millipedes, cockroaches, scorpions, and other invertebrates, most fish, and many, many others that you can find in every day pet stores. So where do we draw the line? The big exotic pets get the most attention because they’re the most attractive and the most dangerous. Some groups would have you believe that all animals should be liberated, including cats and dogs, so there is no gray area. Do we have a right to pick and choose when it comes to morals? This is why exotic animal bans are difficult to legislate and enforce and that banning, in my opinion, is a poor method of dealing with neglectful owners.

Just like you said, I think it's unfair to punish the responsible pet owners for the actions of a few. This is why I'm in such a gray area when it comes to exotic animal legislation. I personally think an effective way is to have stricter regulations, licenses, and fees for specific "dangerous" or "risky" exotic pets. What pets do those include? Mostly big cats and non-domestic cats and dogs (like servals, bobcats, wolves, and coyotes), bears, raccoons, deer, hell, anything that's deemed a wild mammal or bird protected by the migratory bird act. Fish and most common reptiles might be pushing it too far, in my opinion. When it comes to those I'd say regulate specific rare, endangered, or uncommon species. Why? To show that the owner really cares about what they're getting into and aren't just purchasing something on a whim.

Although it seems like an obvious point, I never really took into consideration the breeding of exotic pets to reduce the illegal pet trade. While I don't agree that we should be breeding for animal parts, but for pets, these animals have to come from somewhere, right? Once a genetic line becomes too watered down, won't breeders have to go back to obtain a new genetic line, through wild caught or any means necessary? I guess I see the bigger picture here, that at some point owning an exotic animal directly or indirectly supports taking wild animals and placing them in captivity for our own purpose.

Also, in some instances, grandfathering is definitely in effect. Do you have any articles that can point me to the instances of people having to kill their pets or pay fines because they are now "outlaws?"

To Gabrielle's post: I have actually talked to several breeders in my debates on Facebook with Joe Exotic and his allies that they seriously believe that they are saving the species by breeding, with no intention of releasing any of their animals into the wild. Their argument is that eventually tigers will be extinct, and we will still be able to bask in all their glory because breeders have kept them in captivity. While I certainly see their logic, their flaw, in my opinion, is that they're seeing an "all-or-nothing" scenario without putting a cent towards real habitat conservation to save the species or be a part of captive breeding programs that will increase the number of animals in the wild. To me, it seems like a silly excuse to breed, sell, and profit. Do I think ALL breeding needs to stop? Absolutely not. I think that we do need some captive-bred animals for zoos and studies, but without human contact or living in people's houses as pets.

Unfortunately, when I went on a tirade last year on YouTube on exotic pets videos, I talked to a few people who did, in fact, take wild cubs from their mothers, thinking they were saving the animal by raising it as their pet. I would also take a cub from the wild if I think it needed serious help, but I would take it to a licensed wildlife rehabilitator to be released back into the wild. Having first-hand worked with the public in the "rescue" of baby wild animals, I can tell you that over 75% of the babies we receive at the rehab were kidnapped by well-meaning people when mom was perfectly capable of caring for the baby. But I digress.

Also, I'm pretty sure our pets rats are considered domesticated and therefore not exotic. Thought so anyway D:

Wow, sorry for the wall of text. Great points, I think this is the most thought-provoking conversation I've had on this topic ever haha. biggrin

I'm sorry, I skimmed your blog post and then read the points you posted. I think that for more extreme animals like primates, big cats, etc, a lot of the things you say ring true. There should be more strict regulations on those and endangered species. That should be where you draw the line. Animals that are (we'll say) more dangerous than your average cat or dog, and animals that in taking them from the wild as pets, you would be severely hurting their wild population, assuming there's not already a thriving captive population. (In the case of axolotls, native to two lakes in Mexico, they are now almost extinct in the wild due to habitat loss. However, due to being studied so much as lab animals, they are extremely common and prolific in the pet trade. No new animals are taken from the wild, they are all from laboratory specimens, much like pet rats or mice.)

I also think, that in most cases, rather than making pet owning regulations more strict, why not make rules about selling them? In order to sell them you need to know how to take care of them, and only sell them to people who can reasonably handle and take care of them, etc. n** it in the bud that way. Obviously in this case I'm not talking about the really dangerous ones, but more animals that are on the borderline. Say, fennec foxes and wallabies, that type of thing.

As far as grandfathering exotics that were owned before laws banning them have gone into effect, take the story of Rocky the Snakehead. His owner bought him legally shortly before they were made illegal. He never actually knew that this had happened, but someone who visited his home reported him to the authorities. He was charged with a felony, I believe, given a fine, and they wanted to come take his fish away to euthanize him. Luckily, due to posting on MonsterFishKeepers and going on the news, he got a ton of publicity and after battling with them for a few months, they granted him a pardon. I can't find any articles saying what he was charged with, but during the battle I was active in the actual thread he posted on MFK, where he said he had to pay a fine and go to court over it. I'll try and find the thread for you and the page where he said that stuff.

I'll be damned if someone gets anti-exotic or reptile legislature out there and they come knocking on my door for my Lazy, that's for sure. She is captive bred, the person who bred her has been keeping and breeding them for longer than almost anyone else out there, he has very good husbandry practices and keeps up with all of the latest care techniques, he doesn't do it for the money, he does it because he loves the tortoises. There was no moral dilemma when it came to purchasing her. As for her care, she is very well taken care of, I make sure she has everything she could possibly want and that her habitat mimics the mountains of the middle east as closely as possible. And as for the danger worry, well, that's laughable. An angry mouse could do 10x more damage than she ever could. There's the salmonella risk, but if you're worried about that, then we should ban most of our food products, because a lot of those can be tainted with salmonella as well.  

[Shanna66]

ive only skimmed everyone elses posts and im not good at debating or making a long argument so ill just be posting my opinion

im fine with exotics so long as they are captive bred. im also aware that anyone who breeds exotics really isnt helping conservatin at all other than informing people about some species or trying to make some species more avaliable so they no longer have to be wild caught. the last reason is why i plan on breding crocodile skinks once i get some males and my girls grow up. if wild caught wasnt the most common way to find these animals then i wouldnt bother breeding.

im also fine with hybrids and keeping large cats, venomous snakes, and even wolves and foxes as pets. as long as you do what you need to make sure you, the animals, and other people remain safe and all the animals' needs are met i dont see an issue at all.

and me getting exotics doesnt addect me adopting from shelters at all. i still get all my cats from either the spca or find them as strays, and i got my dog from the shelter. if i wanted for example a wolf hybrid then clearly im looking for something that isnt a dog so a shelter would be of no use to me since they only have dogs and dogs are not the same as a wolf or wolf hybrid.

that was just an example, i have no intention of ever getting a wolf hybrid. the only wild dog-like animal i ever plan on owning is a fox. but once again, i dont want a fox becasue i like dogs, and getting a dog that looked like a fox wouldnt be the same. foxes act very different from dogs and require different care so the only way for me to get the experience of keeping a fox would be to keep a fox  

[Ailinea]

Fair enough. Let me move on to my next major point that I forgot to list in the original post.

Habitat! Our domesticated friends have been bred throughout thousands of years to depend on humans for survival and live with us, with the added convenience of behavior modification to make them "better" to live or work among humans.

Wild animals, however, are a different story. Cougars, lions, tigers, big cats and wild dogs (ahem, fennec foxes and wolves/wolf hybrids) encompass MILES of natural territory, exploring, sniffing, hunting, killing, mating, defending, raising litters, etc. Skunks have a predisposition to dig, dig, dig, and people that keep them keep them in cages with hard bottoms to prevent digging out. Monkeys and apes love swinging through trees throughout miles of forest or habitat and people keep them in diapers in cages in their houses or in outdoor enclosures that in no way mimic the diversity of the wild. Snakes slither through acres of habitat stalking prey, sunning, hiding, hibernating, and SO many people I know that own snakes keep them in tanks that are half the size of their bodies with a log, heat lamp, and hiding rock, feeding them dead mice and that's IT.

Are there exceptions? Of course there are, especially when it comes to snakes (most of you that I've seen pictures from have amazing habitats for your reptiles, and major kudos to you. However, form my own personal experience, the majority do not). We are stripping these wild animals from their own natural experiences. Even with large enclosures, big cats get a tiny fraction of natural territory. They don't get to hunt or stalk live prey for good mental and physical stimulation. When they do breed, they feed their cubs for what, 48 hours? before they're removed from the parent and raised by people to make them more comfortable being around humans, instead of letting mom and/or dad raise them. Why do we do all this? Because people want them. They have to have them. They have to cuddle or play with a unique, exotic, amazing species either to stroke their ego, show off to others, or have a dominance complex. We're not keeping them in captivity for the animals, we're keeping them in captivity for us.

I realize that exotic pet ownership will never end, but it can at least be reduced. Proper education is the way to do it, but showing people that YOU can keep this animal as a pet, but NO ONE ELSE CAN does not send that message. When people show up to malls or make TV appearances with cute baby animals on their laps, it does not tell people not to keep them as pets, it encourages them. Any many people seem to fall under the guise of "education" as an excuse to keep these animals as pets but end up further perpetuating the desire to keep them as pets.

Meh, I'm not really sure where I'm going with this at this point, and I've probably crossed that line of extremism with this post. But rest assured I still value your opinion haha.  

[Shanna66]

Ailinea

Fair enough. Let me move on to my next major point that I forgot to list in the original post.

Habitat! Our domesticated friends have been bred throughout thousands of years to depend on humans for survival and live with us, with the added convenience of behavior modification to make them "better" to live or work among humans.

Wild animals, however, are a different story. Cougars, lions, tigers, big cats and wild dogs (ahem, fennec foxes and wolves/wolf hybrids) encompass MILES of natural territory, exploring, sniffing, hunting, killing, mating, defending, raising litters, etc. Skunks have a predisposition to dig, dig, dig, and people that keep them keep them in cages with hard bottoms to prevent digging out. Monkeys and apes love swinging through trees throughout miles of forest or habitat and people keep them in diapers in cages in their houses or in outdoor enclosures that in no way mimic the diversity of the wild. Snakes slither through acres of habitat stalking prey, sunning, hiding, hibernating, and SO many people I know that own snakes keep them in tanks that are half the size of their bodies with a log, heat lamp, and hiding rock, feeding them dead mice and that's IT.

Are there exceptions? Of course there are, especially when it comes to snakes (most of you that I've seen pictures from have amazing habitats for your reptiles, and major kudos to you. However, form my own personal experience, the majority do not). We are stripping these wild animals from their own natural experiences. Even with large enclosures, big cats get a tiny fraction of natural territory. They don't get to hunt or stalk live prey for good mental and physical stimulation. When they do breed, they feed their cubs for what, 48 hours? before they're removed from the parent and raised by people to make them more comfortable being around humans, instead of letting mom and/or dad raise them. Why do we do all this? Because people want them. They have to have them. They have to cuddle or play with a unique, exotic, amazing species either to stroke their ego, show off to others, or have a dominance complex. We're not keeping them in captivity for the animals, we're keeping them in captivity for us.

I realize that exotic pet ownership will never end, but it can at least be reduced. Proper education is the way to do it, but showing people that YOU can keep this animal as a pet, but NO ONE ELSE CAN does not send that message. When people show up to malls or make TV appearances with cute baby animals on their laps, it does not tell people not to keep them as pets, it encourages them. Any many people seem to fall under the guise of "education" as an excuse to keep these animals as pets but end up further perpetuating the desire to keep them as pets.

Meh, I'm not really sure where I'm going with this at this point, and I've probably crossed that line of extremism with this post. But rest assured I still value your opinion haha.

well true, we can never give them as good a habitat or diet as they would have in the wild, but the same is true with cats and dogs to some extent and it all comes down to good pet parenting

most snakes are lazy and only travel to find mates or food, most dont feel the need to move at all otherwise so you can easily get away with a smaller enclosure for a snake. most species dont even like stretching out and prefer to stay curled up. and dead mice cant fight back and hurt your snake like live ones cat. and yes, death by rodent even happens in the wild

if your keepinga chimp and not giving it anything to play and climb on then you arent being a good owner because you are refusing to do what you need to care for your animal. i often see the exact same issue with domestic cats.

also we breed cats and dogs for the same reasons. mose people in the modern world dont need an animal to do a job, we keep them around becasue they are pretty and can provide companionship. i have cats for pretty much the same reason i keep reptiles, they are pretty to look at and i enjoy caring for them

and i do agree that showing off exotics and telling people they shouldnt keep them is kind of silly and has the opposite affect. ive wanted a snake ever since seeing a burmese a man was showing off to other kids while telling us all the reasons large reptiles make bad pets.

and different opinions are what make the world go round. so long as your polite and respectful im happy smile  

[Vanilla eXee]

If that's the case, you should be against all pet ownership, not just exotics. Why do we keep cats, dogs, or livestock? For us, not for them. Because we need companionship, protection, or food. Much in the same way that trying to convert the entire world to vegan will never work, trying to eradicate pet ownership is not the way to solve the problem. The problem will be best solved with education, hard work, and some sacrifice, of course. The people that breed, sell or catch animals for whatever use (pets, consumption, etc) need to be held more accountable for their methods, their treatment of animals, and they need to be taught to teach. The 'trickle down' method, so to speak. If the source is doing things the right way, and they pass on their knowledge with each animal they sell, then there will be much less of a problem.  

[Gabrielle_AnimalLuver]

I do pretty much agree with Allinea's last post. There are some animals, that even the best pet parent can not afford to care for properly, unless maybe they were filthy rich. Bears, big cats, wolves and primates. (I wouldn't throw snakes in there for the reasons Shanna explained.)

There are SOME benefits for the pet, no predation, but, these animals are on the top of the food chain anyway. No worrying about food being scarce, vet care and good nutrition can eradicate disease. But the amount of space these animals need is more than any normal person can afford to give them. And the stimulation they need is a lot more than even a very devoted and loving owner could give. Not to mention the danger factor. These are not only wild animals, which research has shown posses a larger adrenal gland than domesticated pets, they are also very very large and SHOULD something go wrong, it would almost certainly resolve in death. I don't mind if people want to put themselves in danger, but obviously there needs to be VERY strict laws to keep the public safe from them.

Here in Canada "exotic" animals are allowed but anything deemed a wild animal it's illegal to keep them under the wildlife conservation act. You need a special permit to own any legally. And they don't give permits to people who want a pet. It's for wildlife rehabers and people who work with these animals.

We have s**t laws for actual care of animals, but, the wildlife protection laws seem pretty good. I think a friend of mine caught a pet store trying to sell a monkey, obviously there's always those people who won't abide by the laws, but I'm pretty sure it's since been shut down.

Guinea's, ferrets, chinchilas, Degu's, rats, snakes, tarantula's, gecko's, turtles etc. THOSE are considered to be exotic and we see them a lot. I know a lot of people who take better care of their exotic than most people take of their cat or dog. Cats and Dogs may be domesticated, but, I've seen some dogs that were so obese they couldn't even walk.

When I get my Bengal, I plan to make cat walks all over my house. And probably do a raw diet.  

[Akiska]

As for examples of banned animals being taken and killed? Have you seen The Pit Boss on Animal Planet? While it's not an exotic, the city of Denver in Colorado has passed a ban on "Pit bulls" They interviewed a woman on there who was walking her dog that she owned before the ban, on a leash in the park, and they came, forced her to the ground, handcuffed her, and animal control took her dog. This woman had no clue even that the law had been passed and that her dog that she had for years who, I believe, was a therapy dog was now illegal.

Or the Vietnam veteran who had his pit bull specially trained to keep him in the house when he would sleep walk at night WITH A LOADED GUN. That dog is by training a certified service dog, and they took her away because her breed was now illegal.

These animals aren't exotic, but it is an example of what happens when you start doing bans.