# Site General > Pet Related Laws & Legislation >  Should People Be Allowed to Keep Exotic Animals

## William McCall

Fox news is doing a poll. As of right now we're losing. 73% of the people think We should not be allowed to keep exotic animals at our home. OK reptile nation it's time to show them how many of us are out there and what our opinions on the subject are.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/...as-house-pets/

----------


## purplemuffin

Voted.  :Roll Eyes (Sarcastic):  Looks like it's going to be a fun few weeks after all this mess.

----------


## kitedemon

me too!

----------


## William McCall

> Voted.  Looks like it's going to be a fun few weeks after all this mess.


Yep! USark are going to have their hands full :Sad:  :Sad:

----------


## DemmBalls

Voted and sent it to my friends and family.

----------


## LotsaBalls

I'm not trying to sound all bad axx or anything, but come try to take my snakes. I'm a vet, military not medical. And a bunch of sit at home stuffing their faces lazy people clicking that we shouldn't be able to do this or that shouldn't count for much. Sorry for the rant.

----------

Charlie And Lucy (11-14-2011),_RyanT_ (10-19-2011)

----------


## llovelace

voted  :Smile:

----------


## Jay_Bunny

Their answer for Yes doesn't exactly fit my answer so I said Other. 

While I believe people should be allowed to keep exotic animals, I don't necessarily believe exotics are not dangerous. A large constrictor can be dangerous. A macaw can be dangerous. Even some exotic fish can be dangerous. Does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to have them, no! 

I believe that as long as someone has the financial, mental, and physical ability to keep such an animal and can house and care for the animal appropriately, then they should be allowed to do so. Perhaps for the more dangerous species (like lions, tigers, and bears Oh My!) there should be a permit system where you have to have hands on experience and have your enclosure inspected prior to purchasing the animal.

----------

sandra (12-13-2011),Tarawr88 (12-13-2011)

----------


## Kinra

Sadly it only takes a few to make us look incompetent and like our pets are dangerous.   :Sad:

----------


## Bert Specht

As long as the owner is responsible and knows what they are doing

----------

sandra (12-13-2011)

----------


## RyanT

> I'm not trying to sound all bad axx or anything, but come try to take my snakes. I'm a vet, military not medical. And a bunch of sit at home stuffing their faces lazy people clicking that we shouldn't be able to do this or that shouldn't count for much. Sorry for the rant.


Amen.

This crap happens on such a regular basis...At least there were no actual reptiles involved this time.

----------


## llovelace

I'm sure that this poll, comes on the heels of the death at the animal refuge. That's the deaths of 2 owners over the years & animals released, it's funny how they sre saying his death may be a suicide, and he himself released the animals.   
The other owner was found hooded & bound.
I don't put anything past the fanatics such as peta, they have already proven that they are capable of murder.

----------

_minguss_ (10-19-2011),wolfy-hound (10-19-2011)

----------


## bishop40k

I am not going to get into too much depth on this, but it has been proven time and time again that ANY animal is dangerous, whether it's an exotic or domesticated.

 I voted that we should be allowed to, but with people getting confused on which animals are "exotic" or not, this will be an uphill climb.

 For some reason 1 tiger or something getting loose and not killing/mauling/injuring anyone is front page news, but 100's of dog attacks (per week) is just fine and not worth reporting.

----------


## babyknees

I don't think it's fair to lump all "exotics" together. I think keeping a tiger is a whole lot different than a ball python.

----------

_Redneck_Crow_ (10-19-2011),sandra (12-14-2011)

----------


## SpartaDog

2010, one year: 34 fatal dog attacks in the US.
1990 - 2008, 18 years: 8 fatal large constrictor attacks in the US.

I see a pattern.

----------


## Jay_Bunny

> I don't think it's fair to lump all "exotics" together. I think keeping a tiger is a whole lot different than a ball python.


It may be different in that tigers are bigger. But if you have someone who has years of experience working with these animals, has the money to properly provide vet care, food, and housing, has the space to provide a proper enclosure and can provide a secure, stimulating environment, I see no problem with that person having a tiger. 

I don't think anyone should have the right to say we CAN'T have these types of exotic animals. I just think there should be some kind of regulation to make sure the people who are getting and keeping these animals are not doing it the wrong way and not providing proper care for the animal or ensuring the safety of the public.

----------


## Bellabob

Voted. I clicked yes, but then I noticed the "house pets" in the title. I don't think people should have large, dangerous animals in their house (big cats for example) but snakes, lizards, fish, birds, and other small or just-not-that-active animals like big snakes.

For big cats, bears, and others, the people should have prior experience, have the proper knowledge and know-how, and have a suitable enclosure. A liscense would help too.

Also, I think people should have liscenses for keeping snakes (depending on the species). People should have a special liscense to keep large snakes like pythons and boas (again depending on the species of those pythons and boas).

----------


## snake lab

No way should peiple be allowed to keep big cats, bears, big primates. Only bad is gonna come of it and there is no enclosure big enough to give them a happy long life. Look i know people are gonna argue and thats not what im trying to do.  Its just like weapons. Should we as americans have the right to own guns? Of course we should. Should we be allowed to own fighter jets and tanks? Think about it. Unfortunattly we need laws to protect from idiots that have no right to own a mouse let alone dangerous animals like big cats and bears

----------


## LotsaBalls

There are plenty of laws that cover care of animals and safety of people. We dont need more laws maybe less.

----------

_minguss_ (10-19-2011)

----------


## djansen

> It may be different in that tigers are bigger. But if you have someone who has years of experience working with these animals, has the money to properly provide vet care, food, and housing, has the space to provide a proper enclosure and can provide a secure, stimulating environment, I see no problem with that person having a tiger. 
> 
> I don't think anyone should have the right to say we CAN'T have these types of exotic animals. I just think there should be some kind of regulation to make sure the people who are getting and keeping these animals are not doing it the wrong way and not providing proper care for the animal or ensuring the safety of the public.


 I think you and I see eye to eye on this one.  Ban all exotics together? NO WAY but I do think that it should be a lot more regulated, only qualified people should be allowed to house and care for them.  I also think it should be based on danger to people. A BP is an exotic but poses no threat to humans.  I may get flamed for saying this but I think large constrictors (retics, burms, rocks, anacondas, etc) should only be allowed to experienced people.  I think selling them at shows is ridiculous.

----------

sandra (12-14-2011)

----------


## snake lab

We do need less laws on certain animals but if we allow people to own a lion then whats next? Does that mean someone should be able to keep great whites in the pool? I dont know. For me it just makes no sence for people to be allowed to own animals that need miles of home range. Ever thought why pandas dont breed well in captivity? Its cause they hate it lol

----------


## aldebono

No way should you say that there is NO ONE who has the resources= space, time, knowledge, money, etc to care for a large animal like that. Our passion is ball pythons/ reptiles, what if their passion is a large carnivore? 

Not my choice of animals to keep. I would love to own a riding camel one day though.  :Very Happy:

----------


## snake lab

> No way should you say that there is NO ONE who has the resources= space, time, knowledge, money, etc to care for a large animal like that. Our passion is ball pythons/ reptiles, what if their passion is a large carnivore? 
> 
> Not my choice of animals to keep. I would love to own a riding camel one day though.


 I understand the point but heres one to think about. You name one zoo, sanctuary, or private establishment that has the adequate room for a lion to flurish. Or show me one place that has a forest environment for a bear with the range they need to be happy. You will not find one cause there is none. The only places are in wildlife preserves with thousands upon thousands of acres. Another problem is these private collectors make these wild animals have to adapt to humans. Thats not in their natural makeup. They are animals that see humans as threats therefore i dont see any good that can come by that. I also think. There should be a permit system for venomous species as well as big snakes. Im not saying make people pay through the teeth for them but regulate who owns them as far as making sure they are equiped to own such animals.

----------

sandra (12-14-2011)

----------


## snake lab

Heres just alittle more food for thought. If we dont have regulations to protect animals and people from idiots who choose to keep such animals without the proper care then more horrible things are gonna happen and thats gonna really put the heat on to ban everything exotic. It is sad but the people against what we do far out number the people that love what we do

----------


## Bill T

Wow. Ignorance at its finest shines again. 73%. Thats just pitifull. I agree some things are probably not the smartest idea to let loose around the house but given proper care and caging most animals live full rich lives and sometimes live longer in captivity than in the wild. And thats not to mention the education thats provided to individuals who come and see them. If people are that worried abt a couple little snakes that ball up as soon as they feel scared then they need to grow a pair.

----------


## SlitherinSisters

I'm on the fence with this one. I don't believe that just any idiot should be able to buy any exotic animal. If you want to own a tiger -or something else dangerous like a giant snake, you should have to take a class/test on basic care/safety, have a permit, and someone should come to make sure you have a proper facility/enclosure for the animal. I know these regulations are already in affect for most animals that are considered dangerous, but it seems like there needs to be a little more involvement so idiots don't keep their tigers in apartment buildings. Those are the people that give exotic pet owners a bad name. 

We had a family friend that had two pet cougars, they were "house cats". Once the cougars got out of hand the guy opened up the front door and let them out of the house. I think that if people like that had a permit and they knew the state knew about them having a pet like that they would be much more likely to make the correct decision when they no longer wanted the animal.

----------

_mues155_ (10-20-2011),sandra (12-14-2011)

----------


## snake lab

Just remember this statistic. 1.8 million people support peta worldwide and everytime some idiot who owns an exotic that gets out of hand only gives groups like peta more amunition. We need regulations in place to protect the responsible people from such idiots otherwise we will see large scale bans. Now as i fully support usark and respect the fight. We are and will always be outnumbered. This is why we need to do as much as we can to protect what we love to do. Peta has a nack of pushing their agenda and their power upon lawmakers against anything that has to do with animals. So some moron who allows a tiger to get loose has a direct influence on the reptile community.

----------


## Highline Reptiles South

Given this is a response to the whack job up in Ohio I doubt anyone is thinking ball pythons when they vote in this poll. They are thinking what they saw the past two days..lions/tigers/bears/wolves etc. And I am comfortable saying that ANY ownership of such animals should be highly regulated with set procedures and safety protocols as well as backup and emergency procedures.

----------


## Gloryhound

http://msnbc.newsvine.com/_news/2011...6124#c59146124

I wonder if this is some set up by HSUS.  Some things just don't add up.  Also the man obviously had mental issues.

----------


## mues155

I voted but kind of a dumb poll really. 
Most of the public probably dont think of exotic pets being parrots, or reptiles but more so big cats or bears. 

I think theres a HUGE difference in owning a HARMLESS exotic pet like a parrot or a non vemonous harmless snake, vs. owning a tiger, bear or wolf. 

Any yahoo can buy an animal online or at an exotic animal show to think its cool or whatever but most of the time the animal is not going to a responsible owner. Most exotics need a huge amount of care, most of which cannot be provided for in a rural home. 
I agree most exotic animals should be required a permit if owned. Managable non venomous snakes I dont agree should be in this category however.

----------


## snake lab

Theres no such thing as a manageable venomous snake if the owner is uneducated and inexperienced

----------


## trcmustang

I agree that there should be some sort of rules and regulations for keeping those type of exotic animals but who should be the ones to enforce those rules?  I can't even get the dog warden to return my phone calls on a dog complaint.

----------


## mues155

> Theres no such thing as a manageable venomous snake if the owner is uneducated and inexperienced


I said manageable NON venomous snakes.

----------


## mommanessy247

honestly i'm saddened by the news of those creatures escaping & having to be killed as a result but i'm baffled by something...
the part of the article i noticed was when it said..."the owner was found dead & all the animal cages were opened..."
umm....that concerns me but i didnt get a chance to finish the article.

----------


## snake lab

The whole situation could have been avoided. Not only has this guy been on police radar for years. Everytime animal control would go to his house he would threaten to open the cages and let them go. The police and animal control could have seized those animals a while ago. Its sad. And now look how many animals died because of ignorance

----------

_Reakt20_ (10-20-2011)

----------


## BbyBoa

> 2010, one year: 34 fatal dog attacks in the US.
> 1990 - 2008, 18 years: 8 fatal large constrictor attacks in the US.
> 
> I see a pattern.


according to the APPA, there are 46.3 Million households that own dogs in the US, not to mention the loads of strays out there.

There are 5 million households that own reptiles in general, and I am willing to bet most of them don't have "large" constrictors, so the actual # is much smaller.  My point is there is a MUCH greater chance of there being a dog attack. 

Even though I believe people should be allowed to keep large reptiles, so I probably agree with the point you were trying to make.  I just don't agree with how you tried to make it. You cant put one up against the other just due to shear numbers.

----------

krinklebearcat (10-20-2011)

----------


## TessadasExotics

> I'm sure that this poll, comes on the heels of the death at the animal refuge. That's the deaths of 2 owners over the years & animals released, it's funny how they sre saying his death may be a suicide, and he himself released the animals.   
> The other owner was found hooded & bound.
> I don't put anything past the fanatics such as peta, they have already proven that they are capable of murder.


What incident are you talking about? Surely not the one that just happened in Ohio? To my knowledge no one was bound and hooded, at least I have not seen anything saying such. The man did release his animals and then committed suicide. He released his animals so that they would attack and kill his neighbors.

----------


## TessadasExotics

Personally I am on the fence also with the ownership of exotics. I really don't think that just anyone should own big primates, bears or big cats. If someone owned 100's of acres of land and can provide top quality habitats and care to rival the best zoos. If they have the resources to take care of them the way they should be, then by all means get the training and certifications that should be required. Then renew the licenses and training annually and take care of these majestic beasts the way they deserve.

Now I don't think that all exotics should be listed in the same category. There should be regulations that every one should follow. If you own hots then you should be certified to do so. You should be responsible. Your animals should be microchiped. You should have antivenom for anything you own sitting at your nearest emergency center. If you own giant snakes such as Anacondas, Retics or Burms you should have to be registered and your animals chiped so that if said animals end up in the wild that person can be held liable.

We should be regulated to an extent. It would keep the idiots that want to end "exotic" pet ownership away. If we were regulated and done properly then they would have no grounds to stand on.
Just my 2 cents. Not every one should own what ever they so choose. Stupid is as stupid does.

----------

Caskin (10-20-2011),_FireStorm_ (11-07-2011)

----------


## snake lab

This whack job repeatedly made these threats to law enforcement and animal control in the past. This is why law enforcement takes the blame on this one. It is amazing to me how law enforcement knew of the threat and knew this guy was a threat would allow this to happen. Not to mention he had been convicted already for animal cruelty. It just boggles the mind. And the only animals that got tranqualized were the ones found on the property near or still in enclosures. I bowhunt in muskingum and licking county in ohio and i talked to my outfitter last night and he said the cops treated it like the wild west. They were on a shoot to kill mission, not a try and save mission. Its sad on so many levels.

----------


## Raptor

The issue is, "exotic" is a catch all term for anything that isn't a dog, cat, mouse, gerbil, guinea pig, hamster, or rat. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, and most fish species all all considered exotic, yet are easily bought at pet stores. Hell, even rare breeds of cattle/sheep/goats are considered exotic.

----------


## Slashmaster

> The issue is, "exotic" is a catch all term for anything that isn't a dog, cat, mouse, gerbil, guinea pig, hamster, or rat. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, and most fish species all all considered exotic, yet are easily bought at pet stores. Hell, even rare breeds of cattle/sheep/goats are considered exotic.


This. I'm all for having permits for dangerous exotics, permits that require a significant amount of experience and a demonstration to a state body that the individual is capable of taking care of the dangerous animal. I'm also okay with the banning of dangerous exotic animals (like here in IL) so long as they DEFINE what they think is dangerous.

The issue is with Change.org and Fox throwing around crap about how all exotics should be banned. Unless they plan on defining "exotic" as something that's dangerous (and further define THAT) all they're doing is having a knee jerk reaction.

I don't know what kind of pens the animals in question had. He seemed to have a "private collection" which implies a level of good husbandry. There should be regulating bodies that check every year to those permitted with dangerous animals to ensure all safety measures are being properly adhered to. He himself seemed to be a bit of a piece of work though, what with those threats. Not sure why those threats couldn't lead to the confiscation of the animals, legal or not - he was threatening danger to the community.

Kind of like, guns may be legal, but if you threaten to shoot a bunch of people, better bet you'd be arrested for it. I wonder why he wasn't?

----------


## Dragoon

I hope usark can keep us informed, we will be up against a firestorm soon

----------


## Brian Miller

I voted but it does not allow you to leave a comment.  I am still trying to get ahold of these people, it drives me crazy when they do these biased polls.  The problem is that they do not put things into prospective.  I want to seem them publish the data comparing FATAL dog attacks to FATAL reptile attacks.  If they do they will see the following: 
Dog Attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...ported_in_2011

and i could only find this for fatal reptile attacks
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._United_States

Because Fatalities needs to be the focus, when you talk about whether something is dangerous or not, i don't care about bites...

i have 5 kids, they all went through a biting phase (all kids do or atleast it is not that unusual) and bit me when they were toddlers, does that mean i can't keep them....because they are DANGEROUS?  :Razz:

----------


## shawn388

i voted yes as is it being dangerous  i say no  the family dog that everyone has can do the same thing if not more

----------


## Toxic Tessa

Voted as well.

It always irks me how naive some people can be in regards to exotic animals. Yes, they 'can' be dangerous, but most people who get injured by their exotic pets are individuals who 1.) don't properly know how to care and handle them, and 2.) do something really stupid. Of course there are exceptions to this rule.

I have been snapped at, bitten, stung, you name it by many of the exotics I have worked with -- and in no way do I blame the animal. All instances were my fault. 

The fact that people fail to realize that 'normal' pets like dogs and cats can be just as dangerous as an exotic makes me want to gouge my eye out with a rusty spoon. In my line of work, I have been on more than my fair share of dog mauling calls - and they are always some of the nastiest things I see. I've seen parts of faces taken off for goodness sakes. 

Any animal, I don't care if it's a bunny, has the potential of being dangerous.

----------


## enchinoman

Voted, yes of course! However there are idiots out there that have no business owning any animal. It is because of them that we are losing on the polls. The media has a field day every time there is an animal attack. I hate to say this but I wish there was some kind of method to weed out irresponsible owners.

This poll is worded in such a way that the majority will answer negatively!!!

----------


## FireStorm

I have to say I have mixed feelings about this. And of course it depends on how you define exotics. If you can't house it suitably and care for it, then you shouldn't own it. I'm generally anti more legislation (for anything, not just animal ownership). But, since people don't always have good judgement, someone has to enforce things.

My opinions changed dramatically a few years ago, when I started paragliding. Previously, I had always thought it would be awesome to own exotics (by exotics I do not mean reptiles, just to clarify). However, when I started paragliding I had the opportunity to fly wingtip to wingtip with wild birds of prey. I've had the pleasure of flying so close I could reach out and touch them if I let go of my brakes. These birds joined me in thermals on their own; I didn't pursue them. We hunted for lift together, and they stayed with me until I landed (I don't have the benefit of being able to flap my wings :Smile:  ). I've had experiences like this quite a few times at different flying sites and with different species...vultures, bald eagles, hawks...It really made my question why anyone feels like they have the right to take a bird, clip its wings and lock it in a cage. And no, I don't see any difference between parrots and birds of prey. It really seems like a selfish thing to do, and I can see how a similar argument could be made for other species.

----------


## Brian Miller

Here is the MAJOR problem as i see it.  Both sides are highly polarized,  we can't even agree on what "exotic" means.  There have been several attempts,  One groups sees exotic as non native.. well that was just too broad a catagorization...that would have to include ..gerbils, hamster and zebra mussels.  Not much of a camera-op for politicians.  Then there is the "dangerous and could result in injury or death...

According to the BornFree database there have been 75 deaths caused by "exotic" animals since 1990 and most of them occured in circus, zoo or sanctuary settings. (i put this link on "jungle jacks" public figure facebook page, somehow it got deleted, hmmm)
http://www.bornfreeusa.org/database/...r=2011&page=26

During that same time frame, according to the Centers for Disease Control there have been 210-420 deaths attributed to the family dog.  WTF
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1058122/posts (This article was from 2004.  I arrived at that number by using the 10-20 deaths per year cited in the article)

Political agendas really are the product of weak sense thinking aren't they.  

The answer needs to be education and for some species regulation and licensing. (if you want to keep bengal tigers or similar species, you should have to show that you have XX amount of acres, housing and handling capabilites that meet some type of standard.)

This is reasonable and expected if you think about it, Zoos are subject to oversight and inspection.  Its a free country and private property really do not exempt people from the same treatment.  At the same time, the special interest groups and the government have to agree to support and provide guidance to people who meet these criteria.  This "animals should not be kept in captivity", unless i'm the one doing it, standpoint really annoy me....(yes i mean you jungle jack)
thank you for your time
 ...soapbox - off

----------


## bloodpythons45

well it is fox news lol they arent serious about anything so dont worry  :Dancin' Banana:

----------


## sandra

> Their answer for Yes doesn't exactly fit my answer so I said Other. 
> 
> While I believe people should be allowed to keep exotic animals, I don't necessarily believe exotics are not dangerous. A large constrictor can be dangerous. A macaw can be dangerous. Even some exotic fish can be dangerous. Does this mean we shouldn't be allowed to have them, no! 
> 
> I believe that as long as someone has the financial, mental, and physical ability to keep such an animal and can house and care for the animal appropriately, then they should be allowed to do so. Perhaps for the more dangerous species (like lions, tigers, and bears Oh My!) there should be a permit system where you have to have hands on experience and have your enclosure inspected prior to purchasing the animal.


I agree, because some people cant properly house exotic animals; it would be ashame to see a beautiful creature die because someone thought it would be cool to keep one. But people who do have the right financial ability and the dedication should be able too! So conflicting lol

----------


## mr.spooky

voted yes





  spooky

----------


## drama x

I think people should be allowed to keep exotics, now if we are talking about hots thats a little different. I think people should still be allowed to keep hots WITH the proper documentation and liscense. I plan on keeping a hot snake or two someday.

----------


## zeion97

Voted yes..

Exotics animals make some of the greatest pets.. why we shouldn't be allowed to have them I've never understood, yes lions and tigers are different then burms rattlesnakes and even BP's. But in the end ANY animals has some amount of danger in owning. If they're going to ban exotics then why not ban cats and dogs? Or just take all of our rights all together And let us own nothing. Our pets an our community suffer blows constantly not just from people who have no idea what they're  doing and juwt want to be noticed, but from.politicians who only seek re-election and have nothing else they can attack.... only as a community can we keep what rights we have left!

----------


## WingedWolfPsion

It's Fox, did you really expect anything like a fair assessment?

----------


## BULLDOZER_1969

yes... and no, people who want to jump on the bandwagon and try to be cool or something and end up releasing them into the wild, or some retard who thinks it cute to take pictures of an infant and a 13 foot snake... no. People like me and I'm sure you who have a love for these animals and cater to their every need and are responsable with their animals... yes. In my 34 some years of loving these animals I have never been irresponsable with my animals.

----------


## pigfat

I didn't take time to read all the way through the posts, so I hope this isn't a repeat. I think the problem is that there can be 50 years of peace, where no one gets hurt by any exotic animal, and one bad incident can cause such an uproar that causes everyone to over-react and say that they are all dangerous. Look at statistical facts, what do you think causes more injuries in a year, dogs or snakes? Yet dogs arent getting banned "except pit bulls which is a whole other rant I wont start, even though its moreso the owners fault" I think the problem is that too many irresponsible people get these pets and have no way of properly taking care of them. I may be dumb, but I think its a good idea to own a license to own giant snakes. Make people go through a class taught by a qualified, experienced person so they can become EDUCATED about certain animals to make a much more informed decision about getting one. Once they go through the class, then they get a license to legally own one. Thank God we have to go through hunters safety courses to get a hunters license, otherwise there would be a lot of uneducated people out there being stupid. People who say "all exotics are dangerous" obviously need to be educated about the facts...its just ignorance because they dont understand or know all the animals.....hope this makes sense because I had SO many ideas popping through my head.

----------


## jsmorphs2

Keep voting  :Smile: . We can turn it around!

----------


## Kittycatpenut

I voted yes. I agree with the people above that said that a person should be able to own any animal as long as they can emotionaly, physically, and financially provide for it. I also agree that for the potentially dangerous species( big cats, bears, retics, ect.) people should have to get permits.
 What would one consider dangerous? Because dangerous could be considered simple biting or scratching. I've been bitten  or scrached many more times by my kittens/cats, dogs and mice than by Lily(bp) , and the mouse only bit me once.

----------


## Missy King

Honestly, I do think people should have to take a test or something. Not that, THAT matters much...look at all the horrible drivers. Of course, i also think people should take a test or get a license to have kids. That would probably cut down on a few things  :Smile:

----------


## OhhWatALoser

> Keep voting . We can turn it around!


oh we will whether they like it or not  :Smile:  just wondering how much it matters on a poll put up in October, but I think at the rate we're going we will pass the no's up by tomorrow.

----------


## WingedWolfPsion

We're winning.  :Smile:

----------


## satomi325

The poll doesn't specify what kind of exotic animal. They say "exotic" in a general sense. They give several choices to No, but only one Yes. I find it to be an unfair poll as some exotics are not dangerous.(FOX...go figure) Exotic animal is classified as anything other than companion animal (dogs/cats). So rats, ferrets, rabbits, hamsters, birds, reptiles, amphibians, etc etc are scientifically considered exotic. Any animal from Petco/petsmart are exotic. I don't think people realize that. Everyone who answered 'No' are assuming cougar in the closet and alligator in the bathtub scenario. I've experienced more dangerous dogs and cats than any exotic animal I've come across.

But I do agree with everyone who mentioned how people shouldn't own a lot of the more unrealistic pet choices....(big cats/apes/bears/etc etc)




> The issue is, "exotic" is a catch all term for anything that isn't a dog, cat, mouse, gerbil, guinea pig, hamster, or rat. Birds, reptiles, amphibians, and most fish species all all considered exotic, yet are easily bought at pet stores. Hell, even rare breeds of cattle/sheep/goats are considered exotic.


From a veterinary stand point, mice, gerbils, guinea pigs, hamsters and rats are classified as exotic animals.  :Razz:

----------


## Jay_Bunny

I feel if you can meet the nutritional, environmental, and psychological needs of an animal and you have the proper training to be able to care for such an animal, then I say there shouldn't be a problem with you owning one.

The key word in the above paragraph is IF. Take a big cat for example. These animals are extremely dangerous and have very specific requirements. First of all, you must have a thorough knowledge of its nutrient requirements and be able to provide that. Environment is also another biggie with these cats. And that doesn't just mean giving it enough space to run. You must be able to provide it with a stimulating environment and above all, an environment that does not include human interaction. People think big cats are just that, big house cats and that is far from the truth. If you want to keep a big cat, you must distance yourself from it and limit human - cat interaction to a bare minimum, only to move the cat for habitat maintenence, vet visits, and viewings from a distance. People think they can go into these cages and play with their "pet" tiger. It just isn't like that and you will get yourself killed treating a tiger like a pet.

Now, does this mean no one should be allowed to have them, no. But the person that does keep a big cat needs to keep in mind, its not a pet, its a specimen, an animal you choose to keep to observe and care for, not interact with.

----------

_zeion97_ (12-28-2011)

----------


## zeion97

> I feel if you can meet the nutritional, environmental, and psychological needs of an animal and you have the proper training to be able to care for such an animal, then I say there shouldn't be a problem with you owning one.
> 
> The key word in the above paragraph is IF. Take a big cat for example. These animals are extremely dangerous and have very specific requirements. First of all, you must have a thorough knowledge of its nutrient requirements and be able to provide that. Environment is also another biggie with these cats. And that doesn't just mean giving it enough space to run. You must be able to provide it with a stimulating environment and above all, an environment that does not include human interaction. People think big cats are just that, big house cats and that is far from the truth. If you want to keep a big cat, you must distance yourself from it and limit human - cat interaction to a bare minimum, only to move the cat for habitat maintenence, vet visits, and viewings from a distance. People think they can go into these cages and play with their "pet" tiger. It just isn't like that and you will get yourself killed treating a tiger like a pet.
> 
> Now, does this mean no one should be allowed to have them, no. But the person that does keep a big cat needs to keep in mind, its not a pet, its a specimen, an animal you choose to keep to observe and care for, not interact with.


That is IMO the best responses to a big cat I've read. As I state in my thread about Animal Planet, I don't personally think people should own those kinds of animals. BUT... I could never tell someone to get rid of there "pet" as long as they give it good requirements. That's like going up to someone who own a RTB an saying "you're snakes to big Tim to get rid of it"

It's not right... but that's life. And we have to stand together And fight for our rights. Whether it be by supporting the USARK or even just teaching a few kids about little BP's without each of us doing our best, we can kiss our rights good bye.
Doesn't mean we still won't hide hen in the basement though.  :Wink:

----------


## WingedWolfPsion

I would add, however, that training big cats using a treat reward system, while the human is safely on the other side of a fence, is extremely beneficial.  The more human-acclimated the animal is, the happier it will be in captivity (ie, less stressed, and much easier to manage).
No hands-on interaction isn't the same as no interaction.  Interaction with good barriers is good.

This is true for any large an potentially dangerous animal.  If someone owns a reticulated python, they know that they need to have another person present when the cage is open, period--and should always have backup when handling it.  But they do need to handle it, because an untamed retic is even more dangerous.  Alligators--same deal.  Don't put yourself in a position to be mauled and drowned, but if you ever want to move the animal, it's much nicer to be able to have it follow you than to wrestle it to the ground and tape its mouth shut.
It's not a pet, and you shouldn't pet it, but it should see humans as a positive thing--that makes its life far better than it would otherwise be.

----------

_purplemuffin_ (12-28-2011)

----------


## enchantress62

I'm coming in at the eleventh hour but I did vote about two weeks ago.  I think Ohio and the HSUS is thinking too black and white.  Take dogs for example, my sister in law found a wolf pup and was required by the state to have it registered, permitted, and she had to meet certain safety requirements in order to keep it.  That was fifteen years ago and the dog is no longer alive but each year she had to meet state regulations and complied.  Her wolf never bit anyone but my Chihuahua bit everything and everybody who came near.

My point is judging an animal by it's proximity to the wild is as bad as judging us for race or religion.  An animal is only a threat when people try to make it human.  Ohio could solve this problem by simply setting up guide lines for dangerous exotics and enforcing them.  Banning every exotic is only going to damage the economy even more then it is now.

----------

_zeion97_ (01-02-2012)

----------

