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

[waddlecaudle]

I am sure this is a forum where I don't have to detail how ridiculous some of the laws out there are getting as far as ownership of exotics. I know that asking for your input on exotic laws as a whole is opening a can of worms in a sense, but I do have two things I am hoping to get some input on.

1. One of the largest arguments I hear that drives me absolutely crazy, especially when it comes to mammalian species, when it comes to banning certain animals is that they aren't domesticated. My question is, what is wrong with starting the process of domestication of certain animals. I believe that it is a bad idea to have animals that could EASILY (key word) kill an adult in a home; tigers, lions, bears, etc. However, I think that domesticating certain mammals could be truly beneficial. Can anyone truly deny that, as great as a seeing eye dog is, that a seeing eye raccoon or monkey that can actually open things, find things, and do things for you would be more beneficial? What about having cougars for rescue teams or swat teams? As great as some dogs like Shepherds are at entering a room and taking down a bad guy... can you imagine what a cougar could do to take down an enemy. Heck, in a hostage situation you could literally just let a cougar in the room and say go if you had it domesticated and trained right. I'm not saying cougars would be good house pets, but to domesticate them for security or rescue reasons would make them an amazing asset to any team. And I know what everyone is saying, that is ridiculous. Well get this, I know it sounds crazy, but at some point all of the dogs in this world were wild and the idea of using them domesticated was likely thought of as crazy.

2. Another huge argument is for the protection and overall well being of a species. This one is really confusing to me for a simple reason. If we started domesticating and breeding animals like, say, the Andean Night Monkey, a century ago... do you think it would be on the endangered species list today? Can someone name me one animal that is openly accepted in the pet trade that is in any way, shape, or form worse of as far as population than it was before it entered the pet trade?

People keep talking about how we need to protect and save these animals, how we are destroying their environment and thus destroying them. Well what if we accepted that we are encroaching on one another and take the time to learn to work together?

Again I AM NOT saying that all animals of all types are able and should be domesticated. I am not saying that because an animal would be good for "domesticating" for use as a specific tool (as with the cougar with SWAT for example) that it would make a good house pet. I am simply saying that I think instead of figuring out how to avoid each other, we could all benefit from learning to work with one another.

People say it is cruel to detain these animals and keep them from the wild. At first, it may seem that way, but over time I think that would change. Heck, I let my dog outside and shut the door. She can run if she wants to but she stays, not because she doesn't know that she can run but because she realizes life is better in the safety and warmth of my home than out in there... something that wild dogs ages ago before domestication would have never done, and something that I think a number of other animals would be happy to learn themselves over a few generations.

Again, all input is appreciated as far as your views. I just can't really understand why these laws are getting so harsh. I am completely fine with having to register exotic animals and obtain permits after being able to show you are able to care for the animal appropriately, it isn't like I am trying to put animals in harms way. I am just tired of reading about pets that love their owners and have never had any issues as far as aggression, disease, etc. being "terminated" because they are simply deemed illegal for some crazy reason or another. Unfortunately, I feel that the recent legislation against mammals is soon to make its way over the reptile realm, if it hasn't started doing so already.

 

[waddlecaudle]

And to add to this because I don't feel I made it clear enough. I am most definitely not talking about destroying wildlife populations in order to supply the pet trade. I understand there are lots of issues when it comes to species numbers in the wild really getting hurt once the pet trade gets up and going. I am talking about taking a route in which native animals are incorporated into domestication programs (for example the Andean Night Monkey being domesticated in the Andes) and once the domestic population has grown enough to supply the pet trade (after many years of domestication) MAYBE then would I promote the spread of the animal to a more global domestication. For example, if we started domesticating bobcats now... then in 500 years bobcats may be fantastic pets, the population may be booming in the wild and in the pet trade, and it may be time to see if someone in London would be interested in buying some pet bobcats. I do not think this would be an overnight process, but I think that the way we are handling things now by downright banning interaction with these animals is going to only end up hurting everyone in the long run.

 

[Badgsx]

A cougar could never be trained for security or swat teams. Cats have a totally different temperament than dogs. Dogs are social pack animals that look to humans for guidance and are easily trained for whatever line of work we choose for them. We can manipulate their prey drives and protective instincts. With the exeption of lions, cats are independent solitary animals. They have no interest in serving people. Look at what we have managed with the domestic cat over the last 500 years. Sure we have different breeds and fur lengths. But the temperament is still the same. They are independent and look at us as equals rather than leaders as a dog does. There are some cats out there that are trained to do tricks but they do it when they want to. If their not in the mood they will completely ignore their owners. I also have known several cats that have escaped after moving with their owners and made their way back to their former homes. Cats don't have the loyalty that a dog does. Cats have plenty of intelligence, they are just a totally different animal than a dog and will never be as trainable.

 

[waddlecaudle]

Completely valid argument, honestly when I started the argument cats were the last thing on my mind. My big thing is smaller mammals. I think it is ridiculous that people can't openly work with animals like racoons or smaller monkeys that could definitely help as far as being service animals go.

Also, just because we are talking about it... do you think that if captive cats were forced into more social situations over long periods of time they could eventually inherit more social tendencies? I know that cats in general aren't considered truly domesticated, but I have a friend that works a lot with cats and his two cats that act like dogs (they truly crave company and attention). Surely if these two cats can pick up socialization it could be something that could be instilled more in cats than it is today, no?

This thread was posted when I was exhausted and the response was also when I was exhausted... I feel it likely doesn't make as much sense as I mean for it to haha

 

[AbsoluteApril]

Also, just because we are talking about it... do you think that if captive cats were forced into more social situations over long periods of time they could eventually inherit more social tendencies? I know that cats in general aren't considered truly domesticated, but I have a friend that works a lot with cats and his two cats that act like dogs (they truly crave company and attention). Surely if these two cats can pick up socialization it could be something that could be instilled more in cats than it is today, no?

I wonder if it is a trait that could be bred for? I have 3 cats (indoor only, I know how destructive cats can be to an environment) and one of them I adopted from a local shelter at 6mo old. his name at the shelter was Snuggles because he always wanted to be near people. He's incredibly social and affectionate. He's my kitty ambassador. He greets anyone that comes over, he always wants to be close. Right now he's squished between my legs and the footrest (i'm sitting on the floor). Anytime he can he lays at least part of himself on me. he's fixed of course, so no breeding trials here.


One of my girls was born here (I took in a preg. stray) and I've handled her since birth, I made sure to hold her all the time, a few times a day. Now I can pick her up and carry her around, she chills and lets me do it. I can't say she has a relaxed personality because she's rather skittish and neurotic otherwise (like most female cats I've interacted with). So for her it was more of a trained behavior.

 

[IMAJACOBIAN]

I beleive the behavior in cats can be both inherited and environmental. My wife and I have a 2 year old male cat that is not fixed or declawed. He is strickly an indoor cat and has never been outside except before we brought him into the house.

My 4 year daughter will grab him by the legs and drag him around the house and he just plays back. They will chase each other around the house without any toys involved. He does have a unique personality compared to other animals though. We pulled him from his mother before his eyes were open(mom was a sick alley cat) and bottle fed him until he was on solid food. He was also raised with a female Chihuahua that was not fixed either. They were best friends and would play fight without any aggression ever.

With lions, tigers, bears, etc. They can probably be trained similarly to a house cat, like when they want to do it. The problem is, when they don't cooperate, the consequenses of their actions. If a house cat bites or scratchs it can hurt or bleed and possibly get infected. It's not likely to cause much more direct danger to people than that. Lions, Tigers, Bears, etc will inflict serious injuries at the least and possibly death. Some people choose to take that risk, but it is a serious risk nonetheless.

I like the idea of using smaller primates. I will use the Ringtail Lemur as an example. They are very inteligent and definately capable of taking commands. If they weren't endangered, they would be a very good animals for the handicapped. At the Cincinnati Zoo, they have trained some of their Ringtailed Lemurs to hit targets and run in a certain pattern around the instructor that is working with them. They aren't 100% in following orders though, but still capable.

I beleive animals are capable of a lot more than the credit they are given.

I have a small group of Degus. They are so chewy that I don't use water bottles and keep bowls in their cages. Whenever they make a mess and fill their bowls up with bedding, they will squeak constantly until I start getting them new bowls of water. Same goes if their food runs out. I feel that that shows some inteligence even with such a small animal. They will also allow me to rub them on the side and back of their heads as long as I'm gentle and slow moving. They don't bite and will only nibble on your finger if you bother them. I have been wanting to build a maze for them to see if they can learn it, but it hasn't been at the top of my priority list. They will also sit on my lap or shirt when I have them out. They will let me pet them and not run off. I don't trust them 100% because they are still just small animals, but they do cooperate with me very well.

One of my Burmese pythons are the same way. If I enter my snake room and She's hungry. She will begin to pace her cage until I feed her. She doesn't do it if my wife goes in there. That, to me, doesn't show a high level of inteligence, but more than you would expect from a python. She will also let me get her out of her cage and sit coiled in my lap for hours in front of the tv. As stupid as it sounds, to me, that is her bonding with me. She has never once striked at me, even when feeding(though I'm still careful since she's 10+ft). She doesn't evens strike at her food any longer. She just goes over to it and starts swallowing. I still feed off tongs thoguh.

I feel that any animals can learn something new they never would in the wild. In the wild, they have to make decisions about what they eat and don't eat and learn how to be quiet while hunting etc. Many animals in the wild die in the process of learning their needed skills though. The strongest and most inteligent ones survive and thrive and become the future breeders in the wild. In captivity, you can also have some animals that are just more capable than the others. My Burms are a good example there. I only have one that acts the way I described and I have a handful of them.

 

[waddlecaudle]

I appreciate all of your responses, some interesting reads for sure. I just think that we don't give enough credit to animals. We think we are these great all-knowing creatures and everything else is inferior, but it is amazing what animals can do. Heck, even when I watch the gorilla cry because her pet cat died it makes me realize that for an animal to realize situations to the point of emotion they have to have some real level of intelligence.

I don't think BIG cats are something we should really ever try to domesticate because the risk doesn't really outweigh the reward. You are exactly right, a swipe from a tiger is life threatening; there is just something that really intrigues me about cougars, bobcats, etc. when it comes to search and rescue. People have already started domesticating cougars to a certain extent, and they have already been proven to have impressive intellectual capabilities.

 

[hhmoore]

Interesting topic; but it doesn't seem to fit under the heading of General Legislation Discussion

 

[waddlecaudle]

It did initially as I was intending on focusing on laws that are going into place to prohibit such things simply because, I believe, people don't understand animals and the care and attention some people are willing to give to them. Now it has definitely gone off topic and more into the general discussion category

 

[snowgyre]

Can someone name me one animal that is openly accepted in the pet trade that is in any way, shape, or form worse of as far as population than it was before it entered the pet trade?

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.

 

[waddlecaudle]

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.

 

[Lucille]

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/2011/12/29/bought-zoo-time-learn-strict-liability/

 

[waddlecaudle]

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

 

[snowgyre]

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.

 

[waddlecaudle]

^^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