All of these exotic laws are getting out of hand, your input?

Originally Posted by snowgyre

Painted Buntings (endemic to the SE USA, exported for pet trade)
Numerous species of Amazonian parrots
Pretty much any animal from Madagascar (especially wild caught chameleons and day geckos in the Phelsuma genus)
Bog turtles (scientists no longer publish locations for populations after several were poached for the pet trade)
Spotted turtles (depending upon locale)
Chimpanzees, other great apes (entire troops killed for one baby to sell in pet trade)
Reticulated pythons (capture of wild adult females for pet trade negatively affects wild populations)

The pet trade has been devastating for many more species than those listed above. Tropical animals are at the greatest risk, as these are often colorful and highly desirable. Tropical birds and mammals have been most affected, but reptiles are probably up there too... just less studied.

A lot of the animals you listed have population problems in the locations in which they originate, not overall populations (bunting, pythons). Also, to link a lot of the animals you did solely to the pet trade is a little bold. Many of those animals (bog turtle, chimps, apes in general) have had their populations demolished by urbanization or for their own local reasons. Apes and chimps are poached, I don't think that they are being taken out in the masses because of the pet trade. If there were no pet apes, there would still be a population problem. The pet trade isn't what is hurting those animals. My question is, if the bog turtle is wiped out in the wild is it not nice that there are breeders out there that are open and willing to help with repopulation instead of just saying, "Oh well, guess it is gone." With a little give and take we can help maintain a balance. Again, if you notice I didn't say everyone should be allowed to have pets, but I think that getting rid of permits and replacing them with bans is just hurting those of us that are doing it for the love of the animals.

Zach, you may be unaware that there is an actual legal distinction between wild and domestic animals. Because of the distinction, both persons and businesses are exposed to much greater financial (legal) liability when keeping wild animals. I am sure that some local law takes cognizance of these risks:

http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2011/1...ict-liability/

No I am aware of that completely. I think what I am asking is being misconstrued as far as peoples opinions. I am just wondering if people think that a lot of the current bans as far as personal pets are necessary. For example, the county I am about to move to was very seriously considering a complete constrictor ban. I think that this sort of legislation is only hurting people that really intend on caring for the animals. I am more than happy to get a permit and show that I am capable of taking care of my animal appropriately, but I want to at least have the option of showing that. I believe A LOT of animals in this world are not to be domesticated, but I think we are missing a good opportunity to take advantage of social and intelligent animals (again, I can guarantee that if raccoons were domesticated as much as dogs they would make far better aides). I am not saying I think I should be able to go out and buy an animal that is not only dangerous to me but to everyone around me. Bears, lions, tigers, moose, heck I am even ok with highly venomous reptiles or reptiles large enough to harm humans should they escape being heavily regulated. It is just insane that counties are starting to ban things like ball pythons. And as far as there being a difference between wild and domestic animals I get that, my point is to say that I think we should start working with more types of animals so that the list of "domestic" animals can grow larger instead of shrinking

Originally Posted by waddlecaudle

A lot of the animals you listed have population problems in the locations in which they originate, not overall populations (bunting, pythons). Also, to link a lot of the animals you did solely to the pet trade is a little bold.

The painted bunting occurs no where else in the world other than the Southeastern United States. Likewise, Madagascar reptiles occur no where else in the world naturally.

Continuing to harvest wild populations to sustain domestic populations is unethical, in my opinion. Pretending that the harvest sustained because of pressures from the pet trade are not contributing to the decline of several species is folly. These impacts are cumulative, and all impacts must be taken together as a whole in order to protect these species in the wild for future generations. To say that one factor may be "more important" to species decline than another factor is a moot point.... as habitat fragmentation increases, any harvest for the pet trade will be of greater relative cost to any wild populations.

As a wildlife biologist, we have failed in our duty to conserve a species if that species only occurs in captivity. The pet trade is not a salvation for species and should never be viewed as such.

I am an exotic animal keeper, yet I am responsible and don't own any species of special concern. I do not condone the purchase of animals from areas that do not have the regulatory capacity to protect those animals (e.g. reticulated pythons in Asia, many species of reptiles). Recognize that the pet trade has and continues to have impacts on some species in some regions of the world (including some of our backyards), and then you will gain credibility in your argument to have a regulated and sustainable pet trade.

^^entirely acceptable answer. I think that if the pet trade is really causing an impact on an animal of an area then something needs to be done. I guess as someone that kind of keeps to themselves and doesn't really care to go too exotic I don't realize how bad things are for certain breeds. I am one of those people that really only has interest in animals that I truly believe have an interest in me and that I am helping more than harming (even when taking into account natural habitat). I would like to see laws be in place that are looking out for animals where there is a mutual benefit between humans and animals. Again, I am likely naive in my understanding of the pet trade and I don't see all the problems but I feel that if good regulations were put into place to make sure you were obtaining captive bred animals we could actually help increase populations of some of the animals in the wild.

I am all for stricter regulations, like I say i just think people willing to put the time and effort into these animals, and are truly interested in their well being as a species, shouldd be able to work to attempt to domesticate them.

Thanks for the input