Ban on pet primates

[redpython]

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.

[anatess]

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.

[snakemastercanada]

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.

[wolfy-hound]

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.

[Typical_08]

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

[Jay_Bunny]

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.

[mainbutter]

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.

[Typical_08]

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.

[anatess]

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.

[wolfy-hound]

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.