ASPCA and Exoctic Pets

[ShortStack]

I always thought the ASPCA was a great organization. They have commercials of sad, starving puppies and they take donations to help them. Great deal, right? Not so much. After reading in another thread about how they may not be so great for every pet owner, especially when it comes to exotic pets, I decided to do a little more research.

Let's look at a few of their views for a moment:

"The exotic pet trade is the trade and keeping of wild animals as pets, essentially contributing to the suffering of millions of animals, threatening public health and safety, disrupting ecosystems and driving species to endangerment and extinction."
The part that really gets me here is that this contributes to the suffering of animals, according to them. Now, a person will abuse/neglect any animal. Since when does simply having an exotic pet mean it will live it's life in suffering?

"Yes, it is almost impossible to meet the needs of an exotic animal in captivity. For example, many monkeys, reptiles, birds and wild cats travel several miles in a single day, so life in a cage or wandering around the house won't cut it. Since the vast majority of people who keep exotic animals cannot meet their needs, the animals often become the victims of abuse and neglect—they are caged, chained, tranquilized or even beaten into submission."
Hmm, wonder where they get their facts on this one? Again, a person can abuse/neglect ANY animal.

Now, for the most part they have been talking about animals such as monkeys, lions, tigers, bears, giraffes, ect. And okay, I can see it being unreasonable for a person to keep a lion in their home. That's a legitimate argument. However, they do consider reptiles, sugar gliders, and other small animals in thier arguments as being bad pets to keep. For instance:

"Parrots, reptiles and other small animals such as hedgehogs and sugar gliders are often mistakenly thought of as easy “starter pets” for children. The truth is these small exotic animals require very special care and maintenance and veterinary costs can be extreme."
Well, my personal thoughts are that all animals require special care. Ever animal must be fed, housed properly, and cleaned up after. Yes, a caged animal may require more cleaning (change of bedding being an example) or their environment may need to be more closely monitored (such as temperatures and humidity levels), but I don't think that means that it makes them a bad pet for a child. With any animal just about, the child is going to need help and to be taught the proper way to care for it. You cannot give a 3 year old any animal, whether it is a goldfish or sugar glider, and expect the child to totally care for it on their own.

Just some thoughts.

**All of the quotes were found here: http://www.aspca.org/fight-animal-cr...c-pet-faq.aspx on their website**

[mainbutter]

Yes, the ASPCA's position on exotics is, for lack of a "nicer word", stupid. They provide no sources for the claims that they state as fact, and seem completely uninformed on the modern reptile trade. For the most part, they seem to think that the trade hasn't evolved since the 1970s.

Don't fool yourselves, however. There are some positions taken by the ASPCA which have just enough validity that I can understand why they feel the way they do. It is a combination of both truth and ignorance.

Notably, mass importation in the 1970s through the early 90s was pretty terrible. It's gotten incredibly better, especially with the increased focus on captive breeding, not to mention:
- how much harder it is to smuggle
- increased shipping costs
- CITES costs
- decreased demand for wild caught animals

Anyone in herpetoculture should be aware of the plights of iguanas and savannah monitors back in the early 90s. You couldn't walk to into any pet shop anywhere in the country without seeing a tank full of savs and another full of iguanas. There must be statistics out there on how few survived to adulthood, but just think to yourself, how many adult iggys or savs did you see compared to how many hatchlings/juvies were around?

The ASPCA would look at the fact that every single pet shop in the country was keeping animals with specialized care, not providing it, and selling these animals in mass to children who wanted to have a dinosaur for a pet.

These days while the ASPCA has not changed their position on "exotics" (which isn't even a well-defined term), at least they don't focus their funds and time on it, rather they focus on cats and dogs.

We should certainly be aware that the ASPCA is an opponent of herpetoculture in principle, but be careful trying to lump them in with PETA and HSUS. IMO the ASPCA is to PETA as your most disliked politician is to Hitler.

[ShortStack]

I had no idea it was ever that bad. This probably shows my age (or my lack of it, lol) considering I wasn't born until '89. So I do understand where their view comes from a little better, but like you said, there's some ignorance in it. We must realize that our ideas of the world around us must change, because it is always changing.

[BbyBoa]

I agree with ya'll that the way they look at things is not fair to all exotic pet owners, but I just thought I would add some perspective. Even though they are totally unfair in there view you gotta look at where there coming from. The ASPCA never sees "good" situations, if they are involved it is always something horrible going on. Now is it fair to lump everything they see into everyone, absolutely not, but I wouldnt get the pitch forks out on them quite yet they see a LOT of really horrible situations and they are the ONLY people that do anything about it.

[ShortStack]

I agree with ya'll that the way they look at things is not fair to all exotic pet owners, but I just thought I would add some perspective. Even though they are totally unfair in there view you gotta look at where there coming from. The ASPCA never sees "good" situations, if they are involved it is always something horrible going on. Now is it fair to lump everything they see into everyone, absolutely not, but I wouldnt get the pitch forks out on them quite yet they see a LOT of really horrible situations and they are the ONLY people that do anything about it.

I get what you're saying. And I don't think that getting a mob of angry snake owners together going after them with pitchforks is the solution. I just wish that we could change some of their views. Like I said, they are also referring to people keeping animals such as lions, giraffes, bears, ect. and I agree that's crazy. But there are many responsible pet owners who keep "exotic" animals, and I wish not everyone was lumped together.

[wolfy-hound]

I don't see any issue with a person keeping ANY species as long as it's properly provided for. If it's a tortoise or a giraffe, as long as the owner takes proper care and has a good enclosure, who am I to say that a lion is a bad thing to own?

I've seen private owners with ten times better facilities for their monkeys than most owners have for their dog.

With 1 million people owning snakes in the US, how many are killing the pets? How many people dump that cute puppy when it gets 6 months old and they're bored with it? Yet the ASPCA isn't advocating outlawing dogs yet, are they?

The ASPCA, HSUS, PETA, are ALL starting with easy targets. Snakes are not the normal pet that most folks see walking on the end of a leash, leaping up to lick someone's face, etc etc. Once the downward slide begins, what's to stop it?

Think about the fact that you are saying that a lion is a bad pet. Why shouldn't someone own a lion if they have a proper habitat? How many people have been killed by pet lions in the US? How many are owned by private people who keep them in cages, healthy and contained and you'll never see them on the news because the lion doesn't get out and run down the mailman to bite him.

Even chimps. There's a TON of chimps held as private pets by people in the US. How many have gotten loose and maimed someone? Vesus how many have been properly contained and owned and cared for?

Are there bad homes for exotics? Of course. There's also bad dog owners, people who kill cats in the backyard by setting them on fire, people who buy a burmese to be the "cool" kid on the block.. and there's also laws on the book about the humane care of any animal held in captivity. How about we focus on helping make sure all pets/exotics/animals are cared for humanely, and focus less on the idea that certain animals shouldn't be owned vesus other animals we'd like to own ourselves? Remember that for every person you point at saying "You only want to own a lion because it's cool!" there's ten people pointing fingers at YOU saying the same thing because you own a snake.

[ShortStack]

You brough up a lot of good points that I didn't take into consideration, Wolfy. Thanks

[rdoyle]

Ok I think the ASPCA is right and wroung. Like someone said the ASPCA only see the BAD. All the deaths, mistreatment of all animals. To said that all the peolpe show now own one is wrong, But I think they are right about owning Big Cats or the little Wild cats. Right now there are more Tigers in the USA then there are in the Wild, and most of them are in privit owner. There was someone in New York, New york who had a tiger in his apartment. As giving a Child a pet and to think that he is going to take care of is told stupit on the Aduits part. The Good peolpe always have to stuff for the the Bad people done. Yea the ASPCA is Good the have help. But not all ASPCA is good. So you have to take the Good with the Bad

[wolfy-hound]

But if someone has a huge enclosure for his tigers, why shouldn't he own and enjoy tigers? There's plenty of laws in most states regarding what kind of enclosure and care a animal needs.

[floridayank22]

the question should never be if the animal has a bad repution then it shouldent be a pet, as long as a person can care for it in the proper way than i dont see an issue with what someone has, i could care less if my neighbor has a gold fish or a tiger as long as they both have everything they need to live. and i believe there should be some more strict laws as far as who can keep what kind of animal, and im not refering to just tigers and bears and what not but even dogs and cats...the answer is not to ban animals just restrict the idiots who can get one. all bans do is make people go find them harder, so if there is a better way to govern people i dont think there would be all these bad cases for the aspca to use against everybody, i also think they need to be better educated before they are out giving advise, if they are gonna want people to help the cats and dogs then stick with that and stay away from the world of exotics just my 2 cents tho

justin