Ban on pet primates

Anyone here have a pet primate? They are taking steps to ban them as pets...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...rss_topstories

i agree with them.... primates are to wild for the generl public to keep them as pets and treat them like another child.. but if you have had an internship at a zoo or something and get a permit I'd be fine because they know how to care for them...

Just to put it into perspective, Im sure some of the primate people think it would be unfair to ban all primates as pets. just as we snake keepers ( even the big big constrictors) would be unhappy to have our animals banned.

:) before people start saying that "YEAH! they SHOULD be banned!"

Primates are waayyyy different then snakes.

I feel they should be banned more because I feel sorry for them being treated like that, rather then the danger they are.I've seen monkeys caged in cages for years

From what I've heard, a Florida senator, Stevens(?) is trying to get all exotics brought in under the Lacey Act. Has anyone else heard this?

JonV

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by _Venom_

Primates are waayyyy different then snakes.

I feel they should be banned more because I feel sorry for them being treated like that, rather then the danger they are.I've seen monkeys caged in cages for years

---

Large snakes can cause serious harm to humans. There are large snakes living in FL. How, exactly, are they any different?

I bet you i cant name one person who keeps a monkey near me. but i bet you i can name quite a few that keep Hots and Large snakes!

I think responsible people should be able to care for them, if they are able to. I do not think your average joe should just up and get one. But i also dont think your average joe should be able to keep large snakes or hots either.

Burmese Pythons, for example, don't carry communicable, deadly viruses such as HIV, herpes, hepatitis A, and a few other ones(ebola, marburg, eh hem...).

http://www.merckvetmanual.com/mvm/in.../bc/171004.htm

Some reptiles only carry salmonella, and who really lets their 90 year old immune-suppressed grandmother or their 6 month old child handle the reptiles? It's in the fecal material and as long as proper hygiene is maintained, no one will get sick.

I don't see any retic wandering around with HIV...

A typical large boid also can't chase you down and rip your fingers off.
Most experianced primate keepers will tell you that it's not IF a primate will bite or attack you, it's WHEN. Almost every person I've talked to with a "pet" monkey or ape... the animal was UNDER 4 years old(usually under 2). Once they get larger and mature, they begin to act like primates should. That means biting and pushing the owner around to get status.
I volunteered at the local monkey rescue. They are not pets. Sadly, people get them, then discard them when they turn into monkeys instead of babys. They pull their teeth, and even in some cases amputate fingers! Poor diets, since the owner will feed them people foods and treats, lead to bone deseases.
It's very sad. I've only seen a couple folks that I feel were caring properly for primates.

over regulation is not the answer to the problem. The people who dont care about the law andwant to keep primates, will do so with no regard to the law, no matter how many are passed. ( Look at smuggling reptiles, you think those people care? Laws dont stop them! The money looks far better than a few years prison sentence, and a fine!) The same as the black market for guns ( over regulation only hurts the GOOD people, the RESPONSIBLE people) i can tell you, that if you went out on the street and talked with some people who you wouldn't even imagine as "shady", you'd be ABLE to find yourself a black market gun available.

The laws arent stopping people from doing what they want. why punish the responsible keepers? RESPONSIBLE keepers, wouldnt bring their pet primates out in public, and drive them around town. Responsible keepers would take measures to prevent that animal from escaping from their home. responsible people would also cage the animal in an apropriate enclosure that is escape proof, when friends come over. ( Wild animals are JUST THAT. WILD They are unpredictable, no matter how well you think you know them)
Ive spoken with one lady that used to keep them, she said they are NOT good "pets"nor are they for just anybody. They are like children, but worse, and need constant attention and stimulation. If these things stop being given, they can have problems. Responsible steps need to be taken to ensure the animal will thrive.

Im never for over regulation. It dosnt solve the problem.

and heck, HUMANS can carry all sorts of diseases. How many primates have the people who HAVE worked with them, met with these diseases? How many more humans have they met that have them ( That they KNEW about?). Kind of a moot point there IMHO. My chances are higher of dying by a deadly snake( Large, Hot... Whatever), than being attacked by a primate. Heck, my chances are higher of dying at HUMAN hands, than any animal..... I guarantee it. People are overreacting to a situation that is the first ive heard about in a pretty long time.

Well, following a news story about a chimp ripping off somebodies face you can expect the kneejerk politicians to propose legislation without even a week going by and without studying any data. And the Journalists will write about it in sensationalist terms to sell newspapers. The comparison to gun control is a good one Miss Moo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dsirkle

Well, following a news story about a chimp ripping off somebodies face you can expect the kneejerk politicians to propose legislation without even a week going by and without studying any data. And the Journalists will write about it in sensationalist terms to sell newspapers. The comparison to gun control is a good one Miss Moo.

---

Thank'ye Dale.

I understand the concern just as much as anybody , i dont want just anyone owning these animals either. But in the end, its the irresponsible keepers that cause the problems for everyone. ( Be it Guns, Snakes, Primates, Large Mammals)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooingtricycle

Large snakes can cause serious harm to humans. There are large snakes living in FL. How, exactly, are they any different?

I bet you i cant name one person who keeps a monkey near me. but i bet you i can name quite a few that keep Hots and Large snakes!

I think responsible people should be able to care for them, if they are able to. I do not think your average joe should just up and get one. But i also dont think your average joe should be able to keep large snakes or hots either.

---

Like I said.
It's not the danger to the human I'm worried about, it's the danger to the chimp/monkey.

Well, does that mean we shouldn't have any laws at all?
Let's let people own elephants if they want to! The fact is that some animals are overly dangerous for the average person to own. Why not regulate who can own them, by proving they know what they are doing to keep them?
If you are going to use a argument that people will keep them anyway, whether they are legal or not, then abolish speed limits, and laws against everything from jaywalking to murder. Laws don't prevent crime, but laws give you a way to punish those that act like idiots.
Most folks that keep dangerous animals DO keep them responisbly. But if you could just go buy a chimp at the local pet store, we'd see way more chimp attacks on people. Yes, there are more dog attacks on people than primate attacks. Yes, more people are killed by cars than by chimps. Does that mean we should subject chimps and monkeys to tiny cramped cages and have their teeth pulled and let everyone lock them into dank garages and basements, however they want?
I don't want my redneck neighbor to be able to own a elephant or a baboon. I want to know they at least had to go through a process of acquiring a license to own it first. I'm all for RESPONSIBLE ownership.. but unfortunately that involves people being responsible, which normally they are not.
Just my opinion, but I also don't want my redneck neighbor to own a ground to ground missile either. Too many morons, not enough time to bury all the bodies.

I'm not against the keeping of ALL primates. I'm not for the keeping of any primates I know about, however, but there are plenty of differences between species that I'm willing to consider them on a species by species basis.

I'm against the keeping of apes by private citizens. Gorillas, chimps, orangs etc are not pets. They are a level of creature higher than pet or domesticated animal(concerning responsible care of the animal). I don't believe any private citizen has the resources to properly take care of an ape, housing and food and social requirements go above and beyond the difficulty of raising children, and most people have a difficult enough time with that! Not to mention the dangers that the big apes pose, including the likelihood of transferrable diseases. I've been told by a good friend in the field of exotic mammals that her professor stopped working with orangutans and began working with large cats(tigers mostly) because he "came to his senses about how dangerous orangs were to work with".

Apparently when an orang gets pissy and attacks, he knocks you down and rips your kneecaps off with his hands, so you can't run away. Then he goes to work on you. Just what I've heard from someone I'd consider "in the know" ;)

The psych department at the college I went to keeps tamarin monkeys. From my experience, I'm certain they are not "pet" material either. I have a hard time imagining that there are any monkey species out there that would be suitable to keep by an individual for the sole purpose of personal enjoyment and entertainment.

For the most part I'm morally ok with keeping reptiles and birds and small mammals and fish for personal enjoyment, and keeping domesticated animals for the uses they have developed over the past couple thousand years(or more, I'm fuzzy on domesticated animal timelines), but there's certain classes of creatures that I don't think should be kept for entertainment. Do other people here have any kind of similar distinction?

This is both an issue for the health safety of would-be primate keepers and (more importantly imo)the health and safety of would-be captive primates. I'm not even considering public safety concerns at the moment, which certainly have strong and reasonable arguments supporting a ban on primates as pets.

This also doesn't touch the issue of primates caught in the wild, again a no-no for me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Let's let people own elephants if they want to! The fact is that some animals are overly dangerous for the average person to own. Why not regulate who can own them, by proving they know what they are doing to keep them?

---

This made me want to say one more thing.

I'm more ok with my neighbor keeping an Indian elephant(Not Africans though) or grizzly bear than any great ape, from a personal safety standpoint.

In the 70s, my family had a squirrel monkey for about seven years. The monkey was a great pet. Yes, we housed it in a cage, but we had an outside summer cage when it got warmer. We took it out of the cage on a leash. It was fed a monkey chow with additions of healthy human food. He gave his life in the end, but saved ours. Like a canary in the mines, he died from car fumes that would have caused our death. I agree with mainbutter that no ape should be kept by a normal family. I believe that there are species that can be kept, providing the owner is willing to learn the needs of the animal.

i think rather than banning them, they should rather require the owner to obtain a permit to own one. Add rules as to what is required to get said permit. maybe such things as classes taken on the proper care, as well as proof of adequate housing. That would weed out the impulse buying of them and make sure the owner really knows what they are getting themselves into.

A few more thoughts:

Given the choice, I'd vote this legislation down, and not because of any particular beliefs about primates as pets.

I saw a clip of a congressman defending the bill. He mentioned that many states and cities already have bans on primates as pets, but the states that allow primates as pets undermine the ability of other states to enforce laws, which is why they want to ban the sale and transport of primates across state lines.

I understand that it may be an issue for those states that do currently ban primates. However, this bill seems to me as if they're trying to take away the power of states to regulate their own animal laws. It puts undue pressure on a state that neighbors a primate-ban state as well. I don't want neighboring states dictating policy to one another.

Sometimes I feel like an anarchist and want all laws to just be done away with. grrrr it gets me riled up.

I think a huge ban everywhere would be a fine idea. Primates are NOT suited to captivity. It's hard to realize unless you have worked with or around non-domesticated mammals and birds, but wild animals are wild animals, you don't want to deal with 99% of them as "pets". It's fun to think about, but we don't understand nearly as much about them as we think we learn from amateur observations, and even if it seems like they do, they do NOT understand us. Pets are usually forced to base their behaviors around us off of fear of punishment and "learned helplessness", and that's just not a healthy state of mind for them to live in. It's a huge problem with dogs, who are actually suited to living with people, let alone primates! Even in dogs, for example, believe it or not, there are huge gaps of information about body language, and no clear answer on the ideal diet... and dogs are a VERY domesticated species! Primates are incredibly social and need to live in big groups with animals that understand and share their body language and behaviors. They have VERY complex social relationships within their groups that can't be created artificially well enough for their ideal mental and physical health.

I am not in favor of straight bans for ANY species, but I would LOVE to see VERY strict regulations for keeping certain species, primates being a big one.

Having worked in exotic mammal rescue, I've handled lots of animals most people never get the chance too (and been bitten by most). It makes it hard for me to decide on subjects like these, because for one, rescueing these animals that someone thought would make a good "pet" makes me very angry, especially when they mutilate the animal to try to control it.

But then again, what if I decide to keep one someday? I'm experienced, so its not a real issue, but not everyone is.

Strict policies on undomesticated animals is my vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Epona142

Strict policies on undomesticated animals is my vote.

---

That includes snakes then?

I think experts in primates, or reptiles for that matter, should outline husbandry, safety measures, and ecological considerations for specific animals and base any law on that and not on the latest propoganda or media circus our networks bombard us with everyday.

"Primates" is a very general term and can vary from animals that can fit in your shirt pocket to ones that can rip your arms out at the sockets.

Pythons or Boids are also very misunderstood and most people dont know the difference between a ringed python, a green tree python, ball or burmese. All they know is that big monster on the news. This is the mentality of the bills that we have seen lately.

That report about pythons spreading over North America is like a bad horror movie from the 50's, written poorly and not based on any scientific fact.

Quote:

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by Epona142 View Post
Strict policies on undomesticated animals is my vote.

That includes snakes then?

---

I apologize, you make a good point. Let me rephrase.

Strict policies on undomesticated mammals is my vote.

I'm not trying to argue with you, but elicit further explanation..

How about sugar gliders? Non-domesticated ungulates that are farmed in rural areas(everything from non-domesticated deer to musk ox)? ASFs?

Only the ungulates can I see an argument for them being domesticated to a certain degree.

I don't really consider any mammals except farm mammals, dogs, cats, and a handful of rodents(also farmed to a certain degree, such as rabbits and guinea pigs), to be domesticated. There are some non-domesticated mammals that I don't want to see any regulation over, except possibly in city settings(musk ox for example don't belong in a city, but I would have no problem with a complete lack of state laws about who is allowed to raise them in rural settings).

I don't understand why experience should decide whether someone can get an undomesticated social intelligent exotic animal (snakes not included, of course, sorry!). If an animal's natural living requirements are just too much to recreate in captivity [let alone expecting them to be a companion to people, too!] then experience shouldn't be the deciding factor. They are not suited to captivity and it's a matter of being intelligent, mature, civilized people and not giving into selfish urges to keep them as pets! We do NOT even understand the minds and bodies of these animals enough to assume we know what's best for them in captivity, there's nothing to be gained for them (educational programs are completely different subject, IMO) so it's just selfish to get them!

While I agree that middle to large sized primates are too much to handle when they decide to reak havoc, there is an inherent problem with banning anything this way...

...this is akin to a ball python taking out a child's eye, and then considering a ban on all ball pythons.

The idea here is that there is always the extreme example or exception to the rule, so, by that flawed logic, when something extreme occurs then a ban must be put in place.

This is clearly the wrong way to look at banning anything.

This is the same logic being used to consider banning large anacondas and pythons because of the local issue in Florida.

Anyone else care to chime in?

BrandonsBalls

I ran across this website (and it made sense to me), in that if someone decides to put themselves in front of wild animals, they must take responsibility for whatever happens, good or bad.

http://dont:cens0r::cens0r::cens0r::...ldanimals.com/

I think primates should require permits.

I only know one person that legally has one, and she got it to save it from being euthanized by a farmer (that had bought her to sell to a lab).

She tried to send her to the Macaque reserve in Texas, but due to being de-fanged she was not eligible. Which is one of my other concerns with people keeping pet primates. Defanging which ensures they can never be around other primates.

She has a zoo permit in order to keep this animal (similar to wolf keepers/breeders).

Had I not stayed in Soci, I would have finished my degree in Primatology, so for me this is an issue that I feel very strongly about, and therefore tend to avoid the Primate as Pets discussion.

I just do not feel that 99.9% of the population can meet their needs, and therefore the regulation should be very strict and governed by primatologists. Problem there is that I do not know any primatologists that would ever agree to sign on for something like this.

Bruce

I'm personally not basing my thoughts off of the recent event with the chimp, nor am I really even going into the dangers for people. I'm talking about "dangers" for the animal.

I'm simply considering the ethics involved when we limiti mental and physical health of the exotic animals. No doubt, that putting them in captivity does put their mental and physical health at risk for our benefit, no matter how great their accommodations and care may be.

snakes are a little different, because their requirements are very well understood and easy to replicate in our houses. It's a matter of individual liberty, for someone to put their health at risk with a snake, while with complex social animals, it's affecting both people AND animals.

Here is what I am thinking...if you enjoy keeping any exotic pet, you will not support the ban on primates. Once the ban on interstate sales of primates is in place what will be next? My bet is reptiles, big, small dangerous or not. The problem is primates are dangerous we all agree with that, however they are cute and fuzzy. If legislation bans the purchases of these cute fuzzy “little people” how easy do you think it will be for lawmakers to turn to the scary "alien" reptiles that "are taking over the country".

Exotic animal owners must ban together to keep our hobbies/businesses/passions legal. I agree that large dangerous exotic animals should need a permit to keep, however, bans are never the answer. I personally would never own a primate of any kind and I think most people cannot care for them properly, however if they acquire the proper permits and take the appropriate steps to ensure the animal has the best quality life possible then they should be allowed to own them.

Just the same as hots and large snakes here in Florida. Personally, I have seen the conditions some large snakes are kept in and I think the permit system they have in place here is great.

You cannot compare snakes with primates. Snakes are driven by instinct, not emotions. People can provide for a large snake as long as they take the necessary steps for protecting themselves, provide correct heating, space, and feeding. Its not rocket science.

Primates, however, are thinking, feeling, beings, with ideas of their own. A snake does not sit there and contimplate whether or not he likes you and whether or not he feels like attacking you because he's bored. (ok, well some of us have that one snake. :rolleyes: ) A primate, if not cared for properly (even if he is) makes decisions, thinks about things ahead of time, and can be offended by you. They are not too far down the pole than we are. They are sad, happy, angry, depressed, excited, and have personalities all their own. They are like two year olds with fangs!

I don't think your average joe can support a primate both physically, financially, and mentally. You just can't provide the kind of stimulation he/she needs.

I think strict regulations need to be put into place. I think anyone considering a monkey for a pet (regardless of species) should have to go through a few years of in depth education, a few years of hands on experience (can be done at the same time) and have a home study done with a full inspection on the primate's to-be enclosure. Then and only then can the person be eligible for a permit. And even then, I think yearly or bi-yearly inspections need to be done to ensure the person is caring for the primate correctly. A lot of work, but it would help ensure the safety of the primates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

I'm not trying to argue with you, but elicit further explanation..

How about sugar gliders? Non-domesticated ungulates that are farmed in rural areas(everything from non-domesticated deer to musk ox)? ASFs?

Only the ungulates can I see an argument for them being domesticated to a certain degree.

I don't really consider any mammals except farm mammals, dogs, cats, and a handful of rodents(also farmed to a certain degree, such as rabbits and guinea pigs), to be domesticated. There are some non-domesticated mammals that I don't want to see any regulation over, except possibly in city settings(musk ox for example don't belong in a city, but I would have no problem with a complete lack of state laws about who is allowed to raise them in rural settings).

---

No need to worry, a good debate is always healthy, and you bring up an excellent point! I guess sometimes I don't think about species such as sugar gliders or oxen, or rather, I tend to think of them as domesticated, as they are bred in captivity, and compared to some of the critters we had come through, quite "tame". But if I was to make another generalized statement (shame on me!) that also would not work properly.

This is a hard thing to ponder. How to do you regulate the ownership of potentially dangerous and easily abused animals without stepping on the rights to keep them?

I don't like seeing primates in regular homes, or baby tigers, or declawed bobcats (GR!), or anything of the sort.

I want to be able to keep foxes and wild cats and wolves if I choose to again.

But how to differentiate between experienced keepers like myself, and someone who buys a bobcat off the internet because its "Way cool". And who's to say that person buying that bobcat won't turn into a great owner and do the right thing? And who's to say they'll break off his teeth, declaw him, and then dump him in our rescue when he's torn up their house beyond belief. (True story, about five times over)

I like the ideas of permits and regulations . . . but I don't like the idea of some stranger coming to my house and telling me whether my facilities are good enough.

Its hard to find a middle ground here, where we regulate these animals without stepping on rights.

I also apologize once again for my generalized statement. I think my brain was fluff yesterday!

Yes, unfortunately most of us would love for other people to be regulated, while we would not be. Sigh.
I don't think I've seen/heard of more than half a dozen private individuals that keep primates(of monkeys or apes) properly. And of those half dozen people, almost every one has had a injury to themselves, or others, at the hands of their animals.
I do know of a lot of folks keeping large boids, venomous, or giant lizards, some without any incidents, most with minor ones.
I know TONS of folks with dog bite incidents. So what does that tell me really? Technically, that says that dogs should be outlawed. That's not going to happen, though is it?
Discussion is good. I hate that I feel there is a NEED to ban primates, but I just haven't seen any good in keeping them by private individuals. I know there ARE some folks good at keeping them, just those are so very rare.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

Yes, unfortunately most of us would love for other people to be regulated, while we would not be. Sigh.
I don't think I've seen/heard of more than half a dozen private individuals that keep primates(of monkeys or apes) properly. And of those half dozen people, almost every one has had a injury to themselves, or others, at the hands of their animals.
I do know of a lot of folks keeping large boids, venomous, or giant lizards, some without any incidents, most with minor ones.
I know TONS of folks with dog bite incidents. So what does that tell me really? Technically, that says that dogs should be outlawed. That's not going to happen, though is it?
Discussion is good. I hate that I feel there is a NEED to ban primates, but I just haven't seen any good in keeping them by private individuals. I know there ARE some folks good at keeping them, just those are so very rare.

---

EDUCATION. I say this over and over. Banning something keeps the people ignorant of it. It doesn't solve the problem - it just makes it more attractive to the underground traders. I grew up with a pet monkey. I hated that booger - he was MEAN! But, I can definitely remember good times when he would scratch my head looking for lice or something, or we would play peek-a-boo and stuff. I was fond of him even if he throws his food at me all the time and screams like a banshee if he feels neglected! My aunt and uncle (it was actually their pet, I spent summers with them) love him to bits. They don't treat him like a child or anything, they treated him like a pet MONKEY! But growing up with that monkey, I know I will never own one until I can devote all the time and effort that it needs! It is all about EDUCATION. Instead of spending all that money and energy keeping up a ban, spend the same money and energy educating people about them.

And permits is okay with me. They implemented a permit system for any snake with a potential of growing 8+ feet here in Florida. With the crisis happening in the Everglades, having somebody coming to my house to inspect my enclosure is a small price to pay to keep these snakes away from irresponsible owners.

Banning them all together does not accomplish the purpose. I am going to tell you, if you have a teen-ager and you tell him, NOPE! You can't have cocaine! No, no, no. He will just go to somebody else's house and get his cocaine fix from there. But, if you educate him on the effects of cocaine and why he should avoid it, you'll have a better chance of keeping him away from that stuff.

You hit the nail on the head right there. Education is the key.

I know that primate owners are saddened but I think primates are just too dangerous. Snakes, sure, they can kill you, but just look at the latest primate attacks. They're ripping people's faces off. To me, primates are just too unpredictable and powerful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMolenater2

I know that primate owners are saddened but I think primates are just too dangerous. Snakes, sure, they can kill you, but just look at the latest primate attacks. They're ripping people's faces off. To me, primates are just too unpredictable and powerful.

---

Death is less than ripping a face off?

Dogs can rip off a face too. But a nasty dog attack is not unusual news. A primate attack is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mooingtricycle

Death is less than ripping a face off?

---

For me, yeah.

Before you know it you will have to get a permit to go take a poop.

i think it's rather odd that the people here saying ban the primtates, could and have had their arguments applied to snakes and reptiles.

The HSUS has said that herps are not completely understood and their needs cannot be met in captivity Oh, not to mention that they are dangerous. But the educated herp people out there (and that number seems to be dwindling everyday), know better. It's pretty much the same argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheMolenater2

I know that primate owners are saddened but I think primates are just too dangerous. Snakes, sure, they can kill you, but just look at the latest primate attacks. They're ripping people's faces off. To me, primates are just too unpredictable and powerful.

---

I don't understand this argument. I've lived with a monkey that has not and never had ripped somebody's face off. Threw poop, yeah. But not rip people's face off or bite or attack or whatever. Owning a pet monkey where I grew up in the Philippines is pretty common. And all the monkey-owners that I know of still has their faces intact. And there was just that news in Las Vegas where a boy almost got eaten by a burmese python and then my brother-in-law owns one that has never tried to eat any human. And of course, there are all the pit bull horror stories and my neighbor whose pit bull is better behaved than my other neighbor's poodle.

So, tell me again what the difference is? Or, maybe you're saying that there is no difference? Primates, burmese pythons, and pit bulls should all be banned? Enlighten me. And don't use the argument about primates not domesticated whereas pit bulls are. If we are to ban all non-domesticated pets, I would have to give up my African Gray parrot, the snakes, the hamsters, the rats, and the cichlids. My dog is the only thing I can keep. And I submit that cats being domesticated is questionable.

Do not be fooled by the people behind all this nonsense they would like to ban every species of animal . Just as soon as they get one species banned they will use that as a starting point to get everything else banned. The animal radicals will never stop they want every species banned. Bill s373 does not make any distinction between ball pythons and reticulated pythons. bill 80 and s462 is for primates hr669 is for exotics. they want it all.

My personal paranoid theory is that PETA has finally grown a brain.
First they use the chimp attack story to ban primates, and in getting primates banned they expand it to include all "dangerous exotics". That'll probably get all exotic cats, large exotic canines, and all primates, and ugulates.
Then they will aim at the reptiles, citing the few attacks by large boids, incidents by venomous snake keepers, and the HUGE problem of released exotics that will take over the country. That will sweep the entire reptile section away, and snag any other small exotics such as ferrets and gliders and the like.. as the wording will be vague and include any non-domesticated exotic.
Then they will continue the breed bans, and the limited number of pets, until they get whole towns that have made it illegil to own dogs at all.
Cats will begin at loose and feral cat laws, then limited numbers, then finally, no cats.
The cats and dogs will be rushed along by making it illegil for anyone to breed them unless they are a licensed facility doing it professionally. That will eliminate almost everyone except puppy mills, which are then easy to shut down citing poor standards of care.
Then we'll all be sitting with NO pets, which is PETA's goal.

http://usark.org/uploads/S307%20USARK.pdf

While I think Peta would actually try something like that, I don't think it will actually go that far. I do think exotics are in trouble though. Personally I keep several "exotics". Ferrets, birds, snakes, rodents, and eventually lizards.

I think primates are a little different. I think there needs to be species specific regulations regarding keeping primates as pets. I just saw on tv yesterday, this lady had a brown cappuchin (spelling is terrible) monkey. She got her at 3 weeks of age. She was still a baby! She got her because she could not have a child of her own and apparently her husband said that for him adoption was out of the question. So they stole this little baby monkey away from her mother and cared for her just because the woman thought she needed a 'baby' to care for. Well when the woman finally had a baby, she thought the monkey would be aggressive towards the baby. Also turns out the monkey had developed diabetes due to too much human food. So they turned the monkey over to this sanctuary who is now currently caring for her. That is why I think that keeping primates should be under strict regulation so that people like this do not have primates. Primates are not substitute children. They are monkeys, not humans. They have specific dietary, environmental, and social needs.

If I ever decide I want to keep primates I am going to study my butt off and I hope there are regulations in place so that when I go to get a permit, I have to show I can truely take care of that monkey.

Many animals do not require permits though. I don't think non-exotics should have permits. Large snakes, venemous snakes, large birds, birds of prey, primates, and large lizards should all have permits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by anatess

I don't understand this argument. I've lived with a monkey that has not and never had ripped somebody's face off. Threw poop, yeah. But not rip people's face off or bite or attack or whatever. Owning a pet monkey where I grew up in the Philippines is pretty common. And all the monkey-owners that I know of still has their faces intact. And there was just that news in Las Vegas where a boy almost got eaten by a burmese python and then my brother-in-law owns one that has never tried to eat any human. And of course, there are all the pit bull horror stories and my neighbor whose pit bull is better behaved than my other neighbor's poodle.

So, tell me again what the difference is? Or, maybe you're saying that there is no difference? Primates, burmese pythons, and pit bulls should all be banned? Enlighten me. And don't use the argument about primates not domesticated whereas pit bulls are. If we are to ban all non-domesticated pets, I would have to give up my African Gray parrot, the snakes, the hamsters, the rats, and the cichlids. My dog is the only thing I can keep. And I submit that cats being domesticated is questionable.

---

House cats are domesticated, it's accepted worldwide as such.

I agree that arguments about the danger of primates can be very well related to the danger of snakes, and it is an argument I generally throw out the window. I'm also open-minded to monkeys as pets. There are plenty of places in the world that seem to have a fairly substantial number of pet monkeys.

However, on the subject of dangerous animals.. Do you think that tigers, african elephants, and brown bears should be legal to own? At some point, the argument of an animal being too dangerous does make a bit of sense. I would bet most people on these boards would readily accept some kind of venomous regulations(not outright banning, but require licensing). I know I don't want to see rattlesnakes available at any city petshop for some irresponsible kid to buy because it's "cool".

As I have stated before, I don't believe any apes should be kept by private citizens, because no one is equipped to adequately take care of them, and the dangers they pose (both through physical assault and the diseases they carry) far exceeds the dangers posed by any other animal currently kept by individuals. I feel safer around black mambas, estuarian crocs, african elephants, tigers, bears, you name it, than I would around a large male orang or chimp.

Well there is a problem. When you allow an entity to regulate one form of pet, or property, then you open the door for that entity to regulate every type of pet or property.

Its kind of like the gun owners in Europe that didn't care if the government regulated only one or two types of firearm, because they didn't own or care to own that type. Well then they started regulating all types. Same concept here, just less extreme.

A lot of people have the "It don't affect me" mentality. But sooner or later they find themselves being affected because they were unwilling to fight before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mainbutter

However, on the subject of dangerous animals.. Do you think that tigers, african elephants, and brown bears should be legal to own? At some point, the argument of an animal being too dangerous does make a bit of sense. I would bet most people on these boards would readily accept some kind of venomous regulations(not outright banning, but require licensing). I know I don't want to see rattlesnakes available at any city petshop for some irresponsible kid to buy because it's "cool".

As I have stated before, I don't believe any apes should be kept by private citizens, because no one is equipped to adequately take care of them, and the dangers they pose (both through physical assault and the diseases they carry) far exceeds the dangers posed by any other animal currently kept by individuals. I feel safer around black mambas, estuarian crocs, african elephants, tigers, bears, you name it, than I would around a large male orang or chimp.

---

Legal? Yes. Regulated? Double-Yes. If you have the experience, the finances, and the space requirements to own an African Elephant, why shouldn't you be able to? One of these days, my son is going to buy Michael Jackson's Neverland Ranch and restore the zoo (one of his dreams. He's 7-years-old whose favorite past-time is reading every kind of encyclopedia on all kinds of animals and catching all kinds of living things in the backyard). I sure wouldn't want his dreams dashed before it can even take-off just because the government BANNED it - Chimps, tigers, bears, and African Elephants included! Why should a zoo be limited to non-private institutions? Why can't a private citizen own one? You generalize when you say NO ONE is equipped to own a Chimp. Michael Jackson - a private citizen - was equipped with the caretakers, the finances, and the space to own a Chimp. There is no difference in disease prevention between the Jacksonville Zoo who owned a bunch of bonobos and if those same bonobos was in a private citizen's ranch.

But... it shouldn't be that Joe Bloe down the street can just go get an elephant just because he thinks he knows how to care for one. Read up on my post earlier on Education and Licensing.

Banning something dumbs down the population. It tells people they are too stupid to choose for themselves what's good and bad for them so let's have "somebody else who knows better" (usually a government body whose expertise on the subject is questionable or a handful of lobbyists whose agenda is not necessarily for the good of the human or animal) choose for them what they can and can't have.

Banning just tells the private citizen he is too stupid to know how to prevent disease propagation. Malaria and the West Nile virus is propagated by mosquitos - you can't ban mosquitos - you just educate the people to put on insect repellant.

Banning tells my 7-year-old, there is no way in tarnation that he can learn enough about Chimps to be responsible enough to own one, but, okay, he might be bright enough to know what to do with a "measly" ball python. I wouldn't want that for him. It's degrading!

On the other hand, licensing educates the people. Although, it can be imperfect, it, at the very least, attempts to provide the population the opportunity to educate themselves on how to care for something properly before they can own it. And of course, if education goes hand in hand with this it is even better - so that the people who desires to learn more on how to care for the species have a way of obtaining that knowledge.

You should also check out the story of Benjamin Mee - an ordinary private citizen - who has NEXT TO NO KNOWLEDGE of the Big Cats and all kinds of exotic animals, who has very limited finances, yet chased a dream and BOUGHT A ZOO! Complete with Tigers, Pumas, Leopards, Tapirs and everything else! You can probably go on wikipedia on it - or better yet, read his book "We Bought a Zoo". You can see how he overcame his lack of knowledge and got the proper permits to buy a zoo. My son LOVES his story. Mee is one of his heroes!

The reason I moved to America from the Philippines is because America has always judged in the side of freedom. America provides my children more opportunities to "be all they can be". If owning a Chimp is their dream, I will support that 200% and guide them to where they can find the best education on caring for Chimps. I am super sure that when they do decide to buy a Chimp, they will be ready and pass any licensing requirements necessary and provide a Chimp the best life possible.

But then, that's just me.

Man, I should start a blog! I can't seem to find a way to shorten my posts! Sorry for another long one.

Micheal Jackson did NOT have the resources to own a chimp. That is the reason Bubbles was eventually taken to a sanctuary, when he became too dangerous and unruly to handle, when beating and throwing him against the wall wasn't enough to intimidate him.
Think I'm exagerating? That's what Micheal testified to,w hen he gave his chimp to the sanctuary. The "trainer" beat a baby chimp to get it to behave. That's how baby chimps are controlled for commercials.
Is ANYONE equipted? Yes, certain private individuals CAN put enough money, time and effort into keeping any exotic out there. Will they? In 99% of cases, NO.