FaunaClassifieds - View Single Post - Salmonella from Turtles VS Salmonella from Cantaloupe

12-08-2023, 04:27 PM

I think there is an underlying assumption in many such comparisons that a level of risk in an activity that is perceived to be unnecessary should be lower than that same risk in an activity that is perceived to be necessary. There's an additional hidden premise that keeping turtles isn't necessary, while eating (fruit) is.

As an example, people generally will accept a considerable number of deaths from car accidents, which are currently about 40,000 per year in the US. The number of deaths from amusement park rides is about 5 annually; if that number rose even to 100 people annually there would be an uproar.

The assumption that reptile keeping is unnecessary (or a luxury, or bad judgement, or whatever the marginalizing assumption is) is sort of supported by a link on the CDC page to a paper about zoonotic diseases from non-traditional pets (herps, fish, backyard chickens, small mammals). The support for marginalization is provided by the term 'non-traditional pet'. Maybe reptiles are, but fish are a pretty traditional pet (at least for the last couple human generations), and backyard chickens are traditionally more a part of US life than cats are ("In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the United States and Europe, cats were just beginning to be seen as household pets", source). Reptiles are becoming pretty mainstream, too, so maybe they ought to get lumped together with dogs and cats and all the other animals people keep around. It would keep the statistics fair, anyway.

There's more that could be said that just the fact that many people think owning reptiles is unnecessary and so shouldn't be done anyway. It is certainly relevant that a consumer has a right to expect that cantaloupe is either free of pathogens that could infect humans through normal use or that every reasonable precaution has been taken to prevent it from carrying pathogens. This isn't the case for turtles -- exactly the opposite, in fact, since the fact that they carry salmonella is widely known and cannot be avoided.

It is also relevant that things like owning reptiles might be considered a recreational activity, which at least in my state has a legal expectation that the participant is responsible for their own safety, and if they get hurt it is their own fault. "A participant in a recreational activity engaged in on premises owned or leased by a person who offers facilities to the general public for participation in recreational activities accepts the risks inherent in the recreational activity of which the ordinary prudent person is or should be aware. (WI 895.525 (3))" Very little rewording would be needed to make that apply to animal ownership and the inherent risks of which a prudent person should be aware. If a person accepts risks, then those statistics above are interesting but nothing more.

12-08-2023, 04:27 PM	#4
Socratic Monologue	I think there is an underlying assumption in many such comparisons that a level of risk in an activity that is perceived to be unnecessary should be lower than that same risk in an activity that is perceived to be necessary. There's an additional hidden premise that keeping turtles isn't necessary, while eating (fruit) is. As an example, people generally will accept a considerable number of deaths from car accidents, which are currently about 40,000 per year in the US. The number of deaths from amusement park rides is about 5 annually; if that number rose even to 100 people annually there would be an uproar. The assumption that reptile keeping is unnecessary (or a luxury, or bad judgement, or whatever the marginalizing assumption is) is sort of supported by a link on the CDC page to a paper about zoonotic diseases from non-traditional pets (herps, fish, backyard chickens, small mammals). The support for marginalization is provided by the term 'non-traditional pet'. Maybe reptiles are, but fish are a pretty traditional pet (at least for the last couple human generations), and backyard chickens are traditionally more a part of US life than cats are ("In the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in the United States and Europe, cats were just beginning to be seen as household pets", source). Reptiles are becoming pretty mainstream, too, so maybe they ought to get lumped together with dogs and cats and all the other animals people keep around. It would keep the statistics fair, anyway. There's more that could be said that just the fact that many people think owning reptiles is unnecessary and so shouldn't be done anyway. It is certainly relevant that a consumer has a right to expect that cantaloupe is either free of pathogens that could infect humans through normal use or that every reasonable precaution has been taken to prevent it from carrying pathogens. This isn't the case for turtles -- exactly the opposite, in fact, since the fact that they carry salmonella is widely known and cannot be avoided. It is also relevant that things like owning reptiles might be considered a recreational activity, which at least in my state has a legal expectation that the participant is responsible for their own safety, and if they get hurt it is their own fault. "A participant in a recreational activity engaged in on premises owned or leased by a person who offers facilities to the general public for participation in recreational activities accepts the risks inherent in the recreational activity of which the ordinary prudent person is or should be aware. (WI 895.525 (3))" Very little rewording would be needed to make that apply to animal ownership and the inherent risks of which a prudent person should be aware. If a person accepts risks, then those statistics above are interesting but nothing more.