- This topic has 29 replies, 1 voice, and was last updated 15 years, 8 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Sorry I have to agree with it wild animals belong just there, the wild, or in accredited zoos, not someones backyard, there are more than enough animals in the pet trade why add more?
ruffian wrote:Sorry I have to agree with it wild animals belong just there, the wild, or in accredited zoos, not someones backyard, there are more than enough animals in the pet trade why add more?
I don’t want to start a big debate, but it’s not nearly so black and white. Most animals we keep as companions, other than cats and dogs, are technically still ‘wild’ animals. While I agree wholeheartedly that some species* should not be kept with out at least special licensing, training and requirements on husbandry and housing, many ‘wild’ animals are kept and bring great joy to the people keeping them, and I will venture to say that many of said animals are probably quite comfortable in their lives.
There are a lot of animals kept improperly and abused– I know, and this makes me sick. I saw it every day when I worked in the trade, and it’s terrible. But that’s another issue completely… banning exotics wouldn’t solve that. Only education can.
*But who gets to decide what species? That’s the problem here… one person may think that this sort of thing is only needed on large predatory animals, while the next person might think it should be placed on all exotics. This gets heavily into opinions, which are based on that person’s experiences and knowledge… and isn’t that the key point in any political debate? A difference of opinions? There is no easy way of ‘fixing’ this.
Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.comThere are a huge number of fish that are already in the pet trade that should not be, same goes for reptiles, birds and mammals. These are animals that one should either need special training and monitoring to own or not be allowed to have at all. Not for the safety of others but for the animals well being. It was once estimated that less than 1% of Iguanas sold in the pet trade lived to adulthood, let alone lived out their lifespan. Many fish that are commonly sold in pet stores get WAY to large for most fish tanks, many you have to have tanks specially built to house, but people buy them because they are cute, never bothering to see that Goldfish grow to 1+ feet and live many years, or Arowanas grow to be 3-4 feet, and hunt by jumping straight out of their native waters at birds and large insects on trees. People would rather buy them, throw them into a small tank and stunt their growth, not caring what that does to the poor fish. Same goes for keeping Bettas in vases and tanks with no moving filtered water, just because one CAN do it, doesnt mean they SHOULD do it.
Jennifer it clearly says that animals that are not harmful to the environment, and animals that are so widespread that it would be impractical to try to control them would be left alone. This would cover pretty much any animal that is already in the pet trade, it will however prevent some more from being subjected to the pet trade.
I think that last stipulation is a good one about not messing with whats already out there, but I really dont want to see beaver, raccoons, possums, monkeys, lions, tigers, etc becoming common pets because very few people would give them a full, satisfying, natural life. Heck, most of them dont do that with dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, fish, turtles, birds, chinchillas, hamsters, etc. They just stick them in a cage when the novelty wears off and the animal is probably totally bored (and unhealthy) the rest of its life.
skigod377 wrote:Heck, most of them dont do that with dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, fish, turtles, birds, chinchillas, hamsters, etc. They just stick them in a cage when the novelty wears off and the animal is probably totally bored (and unhealthy) the rest of its life.
That’s true, and awfully sad. It’s disheartening to think that for all that we love and take excellent care of our furry family members, there are other pet owners who… well, do not. It would be even more unfortunate to see wild animals put in situations like that, so on that level permits and licenses for those who would honestly care for said animal make a lot of sense. Even though I don’t think I could ever bring myself to have a wild-born animal as a pet, unless it was injured in some permanent way that would make survival in its natural habitat impossible : ( Those actually raised with care in captivity might be another story.
ruffian wrote:Sorry I have to agree with it wild animals belong just there, the wild, or in accredited zoos, not someones backyard, there are more than enough animals in the pet trade why add more?
As someone else said… aside from dogs and cats, most ‘pets’ are wild species, just commonly kept as pets. Syrian hamsters are domesticated, but Russian Dwarves, Robo’s, Siberian Winter Whites, and Chinese hamsters are all wild species. We just keep them in captivity. All birds, except for chickens and ducks (which typically are not allowed as pets, how weird is that…) are typically wild species. Fish, ditto. Rabbits and guinea pigs are a bit of a grey area… Guinea Pigs are called cavies and live wild in their native habitat. And rabbits have to be tamed as babies, or they tend to go feral and wild. Snakes – wild. Lizards – wild. Turtles – wild. Gerbils – wild. Degus – wild. Chinchillas – wild. I don’t own a dog or a cat, but I do own hundreds of small animals, most of them of these ‘wild’ species. 😆 Though I will also point out, that the ones I have are many generations removed from their wild ancestors. I’d only take from the wild under extreme circumstances, like an orphan raised by a rehabber who wasn’t releaseable.
Most of the “exotic pets” that are being counted are NOT lions tigers or bears. They are little fellows, like my steppe lemmings (which make a far better pet than any dometic syrian hamster!) or my cute little possum. Yup, I own a possum. She’s a brazilian short tail possum. About the size of a hamster, cute, little, reasonably friendly. I see no reason why I would need a permit for these. An exotic over five pounds… maybe.
And your statement about leaving wild animals in the wild is rather naive… you are aware that Wild Spaces are being eradicated? There isn’t any place for alot of these animals to live in sustainable numbers anymore. It has been private owners and breeders who have kept these exotic endangered species alive. You really think zoos are doing it for the good of the planet? They are in it for the profit! And nothing more. Zoos are the ones who keep mass producing baby tigers every year, because they are cute and draw a crowd. Where do these cats go? A lucky few end up in sanctuaries. A few more are kept by the zoo to continue the cycle. Most are euthanized or sold to the highest bidder. The best zoo in Canada is known to inbreed parent to child for up to nine generations without batting an eye! I was shocked when I was told this! Frankly, I’ve seen big cats in private ownership who had a much better and longer life than in any zoo.
I have also seen what happens to tigers in the pet trade* in Canada, you really think its better than the zoo do, then you are the naive one, you dont think that they are bred for no reason and slaughtered and sold as pet food when past the cute stage? Oh not to mention that as long as they have caging that passes the minimal regulations they are unregulated other than they can sell them over the border or to someone without a permit, at least not legally. Many zoos work together to make the gene pools larger, do not condone the breeding of white tigers or lions, and really are doing it for the good of the animals.
Sadly because so few who take on these animals bother to properly care for them it will ruin it for the many, like your own province that has banned the ownership of Pitbulls.
*they bill themselves as “wild life rescues” but still breed their cats yep great way to ‘rescue’
You mean they ‘can’t’ sell across borders, easily. I’ve been there, and it isn’t easy. 😛 Unless you can prove that the animal is three generations removed from the wild, then you can get a permit to transport across borders. The key word being ‘prove’, that is the hard part. Though this only deals with endangered or threatened species. Some species are banned completely (like african rodents). The reason that the federal government doesn’t regulate much, is because each township does. It is very difficult to find a place to live anymore, that doesn’t have wild animal bylaws. I’m lucky enough to live in a place that doesn’t.
You can’t lump all breeders and owners in with the bad ones. Yes thre are bad ones. There are also very good ones. Just like there are for domestic species.
I still vote for some form of regulation, rather than outight bans. You want an exotic, I say fine. Just show that you can prove you can take care of it properly. Want a tiger… ok, but prove to me that you know what to feed it and where to get that food – and that you have a vet who will take it! Neither of these things is as easy as you think. Let alone caging/habitat. Anyone who buys an exotic from me has to prove to me they can take care of it. I turn away about ten people for every one who is responsible. And that’s just for hedgehogs and lemmings!
I think the governments really need to back off. They’re hurting the intelligent people in their efforts to stop the idiots. As usual. Banning exotics isn’t going to stop the bad people from owning them any more than gun regulation stopped the bad people from owning guns.
Just as you can not lump all zoos together.
The reason I dont like allowing them as pets is because the regulations are so minimal that it is cruel, IMO.
I may be foolish stepping in here, but I propose three points of common ground that may make this debate easier. (my apologies if I’m on a high horse here, I have trouble gauging that sometimes)
1. Animal abuse, be it a tiger kept in a box, a beaten dog, a goldfish suffocating in its own waste, or a dehydrated ball python being discarded along with its cracked enclosure… is horrible.
2. The standards of care and ethics held by zoos, rescues, and private owners alike, are best considered on a case by case basis, not lumped together. And as good zoos should not be shut down because of bad zoos, neither should good owners be forced underground due to negligent owners.
3. Defining which categories of animals are being spoken of in which context. (here’s the categories as I see them)
Domestic animals bred for (relative) docility and easy temperament (cats, dogs, chickens, white rats),
Easier exotics such as boas, lovebirds, hamsters, tarantulas, angelfish (the mostly harmless commonly kept exotics which retain their wild nature but which a determined but average human can keep happy without great effort or physical risk), and
Difficult exotics such as big cats, primates, snakes with medically relevant venom and very fragile creatures such as horned lizards (creatures whose contentedness in captivity requires a fair deal of work and/or whose captivity proves a potential physical danger to itself or humans)High horse aside, HR 669 seems to be a seperate topic then the mistreatment/ethics issue and theorhetically for a different purpose..
Personally I think that HR 669 is a horrible idea for several reasons. From what I understand, only animals that are specifically approved will be allowed to be sold, bred or transported across state lines. So… if the legislators remember cockatiels but forget to approve say… quaker parrots, that’s it for that species in captivity. And while the bill allows zoos to apply for permits to keep non-approved animals, it says nothing about breeding them.
And I suspect that the ‘ick’ factor make the approval process less objective than I would like. After all, don’t only wierdos and creeps keep cold blooded reptiles and bugs? Why approve them? And what’s the difference if a fish or two is left off the list? Or some darn noisy bird?
Then, there’s the fact that the United States is a huge place. Invasive threats should be dealt with at a smaller state level. The tropical gecko that could invade and party in Florida would dry out or freeze here in California. And the hypothetical calm, docile rodent that could damage agriculture here, would have a snowballs chance in heck of surviving in say… Wisconsin.
Lastly, lets say this passes and not much happens. Harmless critters off the approved list are bred, raised and sold under the table by hobbyists, and law enforcement doesn’t act all too often. Then there’s a situation where millions are breaking the law, and the police/feds get to pick and choose who to charge. A loud mouthed dissident has a daughter with an unapproved rodent? Bingo. Not very comforting from a social/legal/political standpoint. :negative:
Here’s an assessment of the law from PIJAC. http://www.pijac.org/files/public/US_HR_669.pdf
Me, I’ll be pestering my representatives. And if worst comes to worst, they can pry my tarantulas from my cold dead hands. 👿
ruffian wrote:Sorry I have to agree with it wild animals belong just there, the wild, or in accredited zoos, not someones backyard, there are more than enough animals in the pet trade why add more?
Wild animals, yes, I agree kinda with that. But that leads to the “where do you draw the line”. If you own a pet bird, that was bred to eat it’s food from a bowl, that’s hardly wild.
But something like a serval (sorry Thunderwing, it’s my opinion, I mean nothing against you personally), then I think they should stay in the wild where they belong.
And destroying the ‘wild’ animals that are being kept wouldn’t help the problem at all. I don’t know if that’s what the bill says or not (I haven’t read it).
Maplecarver, I am right there with you. 🙂
Volunteer mod- I'm here to help! Email me for the best response: nambroth at gmail.com
My art: featherdust.com
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
