Should People Be Allowed to Keep Exotic Animals

[WingedWolfPsion]

We're winning.

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.