Banning Ownership of All Exotic Animals

This subject is near & dear to my heart as I firmly believe
all private owership of exotic animals should be forbidden.
(except for licensed Animal Rescue & Humane groups)

I know everyone probably doesn't agree on this, but I'd like
to offer my first reason (of many) for banning private
ownership. What do you think?


Starving Bear Cub Euthanized
'Little Bear' Suffered Increasingly From Seizures

POSTED: 4:56 pm EST May 22, 2004

BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- A bear cub found starving last month at a Greene County residence filled with exotic animals was euthanized last week despite the efforts of veterinarians who tried to nurse it back to health.

The four-month-old black bear was euthanized after its condition deteriorated with progressively more severe seizures, said WildCare executive director Penny Stauffer.

"It was just heartbreaking," Stauffer said. "We'd gotten so close to this bear. He was like a baby."

The cub, which Stauffer and others named "Little Bear," was severely underweight and suffering from seizures when he was found -- along with several other exotic animals -- April 26 by Greene County sheriff's deputies.

Stauffer said the cub began suffering progressively stronger seizures last weekend that could not be controlled with medication.

She said black bear experts told her that the 5-pound bear should have weighed upwards of 20 pounds and would probably never be accepted at a black bear rehabilitation center because of his health problems.

After the decision was made, local veterinarian Tina Swanson euthanized "Little Bear" at Stauffer's home Wednesday night, she said.

The bear's carcass was taken to Purdue University for a necropsy. Stauffer said she hopes to receive the results of the examination in a week or two.

She said the bear's plight had touched a nerve with the public, who had besieged the center with offers of help and donations.

"It really touched us to see so many people cared about him," Stauffer said. "We certainly cared about him, too."

I agree with banning certain exotics. I don't think anyone should have a bear or a tiger in their backyard, but things would start to get fuzzy as to what is considered exotic. Some people consider ferrets exotic and they are banned in some places which I think is dumb seeing has how ferrets have been domesticated as long as dogs and cats. So I guess I agree with you, but it just depends on what you would consider exotic.

I also agree in banning exotics for private ownership in most cases.

I also agree and would add the term "wild" to "exotic." There are some animals not meant for captivity.

I should have specified which animals are condidered exotic/
wild in Indiana. Most states have similar "lists". Just a permit
is required here & anyone with the money can buy an animal.



IND. ADMIN. CODE tit. 312, r. 9-11-8 - Class III wild animals for which a permit is required

Sec. 8. A permit is required under this rule for the following Class III wild animals:

(1) Wolves which are purebred.

(2) Bears (all species).

(3) Wild cats (all species), excluding except feral cats.

(4) Venomous reptiles.

(5) Crocodilians that are at least five (5) feet long.

I agree with everyone else.
Ferrets are also illegal to own in California; most people (so I've heard) drive over to Arizona, where I guess they're not illegal to own, and smuggle them back to this state.

I agree. There is absolutely NO reason on earth that a individual needs to own a wolf, tiger, bear, etc.

There was some woman here for a while who owned a bobcat. (Which is illegal in Wyoming, probably why she left.) The poor thing looked totally miserable. She would dress it up in shirts and coats and make it walk on a leash. OMG. Such a pathetic plea for attention. I felt so sorry for the poor thing.

If wild animals must be kept somewhere other than their natural, wild habitat, then they should be kept in large preserves and sanctuaries, where they can have some reasonably natural life. They do not belong in wire cages, in people's basements or truck-stop parking lots. A fate worse than death, IMO.

There is a huge comprehension problem in the public today concerning the terms "tame", "wild", "feral" and "domesticated." You can "tame" many wild animals, especially if they are acquired as babies. I have a tame starling in my living room, for example. However, simply because one animal happens to be "tame" as a youngster, does NOT mean the species is, or should be, a domesticated species. Domestication takes a LONG time, and "taming" one prairie dog, bobcat or coyote does not count. In addition, "tame" is a relative term ... a coyote, no matter how tame, is NEVER going to act like a domestic dog ... a ground squirrel is never going to act like a hamster, etc.

I don't think its illegal to OWN a ferret in California, its illegal to BUY a ferret in California...so I'm guess breeders are also illegal.

I agree that most exotics shouldn't be owned...

Please define "exotic animal".

I don't think big cats or bears should be allowed, but the term "exotic" tends to include the reptiles I hold dear to my heart.

I agree that owning a wolf, bear, large cat etc is a bad idea. These animals, while they can be "tamed" still have wild instincts and can be quite dangerous to people who don't know what they are doing with them. Also, a lot of these animals have cirtian diatary needs that people either A can't afford or B don't know/care about them or C a combination of both, resulting in the animal suffering from poor heath conditions. Too, a lot of these animals are BIG critters that need a lot of space that owners cannot/will not provide them.
Now, I believe that some people take the word exotic too far. In some states, it's illigal to own/breed cirtan reptiles...reptiles that have been domesticated and breed redily in captivity. Some mutations dont even occur in the wild, yet it is illigal to own them. These reptiles are usually confiscated and put into zoos(rare) or killed. Some people want to ban owning of ANY reptile, which I can't see as being a reasonable solution. I bring up reptiles because usually the whole banning of exotics centers around our scaley companions. Rarely is the focus put on the animals that truely need to be free, like that black bear in the story.

I agree with most.

Although, I see it fine to own insects/small reptiles/lizards/geckos and so on.

I also agree with most of this.

I was wondering what you all think about my boyfriend's snake, Akuma. Akuma is a 10 year old albino Burmese Python. He lives in a large key locked cage, but they are already thinking about upgrading it. He is friendly, but still handled under extreme caution. Akuma is about 15 feet long and weighs about 80 lbs. What are your opinions on him? Should he be banned too? Just curious. :)

Was Akuma wild caught or was he from a breeder? Im not sure about the laws on Burmiese pythons but I think that so long as he is provided for and his needs are met, your boyfriend should be allowed to keep him. I don't agree with catching things in the wild, since most reptiles can are bread in captivity especially if they are endangered. However, if wild catching wasn't done, we wouldn't even have dogs! So where is the line drawn between trying to get a breeding stock to domesticate or just pillaging wildlife :confused: :confused: :confused:

I love seeing well cared for burmese. I would like to see restrictions on *who* can own them (since a lot of people buy the cute little babies and are unprepared for the 15 foot adult) but it sounds like your boyfriend is one of the good ones who actually wants the bug guys. They can be wonderful pets. :) I'd like to see him sometime if you get any pics. :)

Akuma was from a breeder and not wild caught. We aren't afraid he is going to be taken away; I just was wondering everyone's opinions. He was a tiny little guy when my boyfriend got him, but he knew he'd be big. I'll try to post some pics soon. My boyfriend has tons! :)

I think the law has to be more defined as under some of the proposed laws ferrets , chinchillas ,and monkeys are concidered exotics . I would have been in vilaction raising my chins.
I think each indaviual should have to go though a permitting process. I have 2 freinds that raise Bobcats one has never had a bad purchaser or sale. after 11 years. The other has nothing but trouble at least 1/2 of each litter is distroyed but wildlife officals in the purchasers state.
The first couple are very careful about customers and have a very stricked screening process. The also hand raise the kityens after 3 weeks of age a. in fact they are tolet trained they even flush after ward.
The 2nd does no socializing at all removes them at 6 weeks for sale not even fully weened.
It should be clear who I approve of . In fact in the next few years I will probly be getting one from the 1st couple. (after I no longer Merlin so many years)
These laws need to be very carefully worded, remember visous dog laws.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJFyrewolf36
I don't agree with catching things in the wild, since most reptiles can are bread in captivity especially if they are endangered. However, if wild catching wasn't done, we wouldn't even have dogs! So where is the line drawn between trying to get a breeding stock to domesticate or just pillaging wildlife :confused: :confused: :confused:

---

I also do NOT agree with capturing wild animals as pets. For one thing, we have more than enough animals already in captivity, we don't need more. Every day at shelters all across the country animals die, for nothing more than lack of homes. And not just dogs and cats, but also birds, reptiles, rodents, etc. Even our small rural shelter gets numerous exotic animals dumped, when people either get tired of them, or become overwhelmed when they didn't research them. Also, the number of wild-caught animals that die before reaching the pet-buying market is FAR greater than the number that live. The cost of those lives is too high to justify, IMO.

No one "caught" wild dogs to makes pets of them. Wild canids were domesticated long, long, long ago. The process really can't even be referred to as catching and domesticating, as the most likely scenario is that wild canids simply started hanging around primitive hominids' caves and fires, for warmth and food. In return, primitive man received the benefit of sharper noses and ears, to alert him to danger and prey. It was a mutal evolutionary process between two cooperative species. Sure, some wolf dens were undoubtedly raided for puppies, but the species as a whole evolved together toward a mutually beneficial goal: survival. This is a FAR different scenario than netting wild birds or dynamiting coral reefs to stun fish.

I'd like to see restrictions/lisencing for owning ANY kind of pet. So many people adopt dogs knowing diddly squat about them, how to raise them and so on..
There should be lisencing for owning children too.
Classes for both pet ownership and children should be free and in order to have a child or adopt a pet you need to pass the classes. Some people just dont have what it takes to own a pet or take care of another human life.


Of course, there'd always be people breaking the law and having children or buying animals illegally anyways, but it would give those who would like to have children or pets but they don't exactly know how to properly care for them.

I think it all depends on the person. If a person knows what their doing and can take care of them how they should be then I don't really see anything against it. The problem is when a bad person or a person who doesn't know what their doing gets ahold of one of these animals. So if we wanted the right to keep such exotic pets as bears or monkeys then we would have to find a way to determine who should be able to have one and who would not. I think a license would not be good enough, unless they send an inspector to your house to make sure you are prepared and have the know-how to take care of the certain animal you may want. So maybe a license with a inspector that comes and looks to see where u will be keeping the animal and also talk to the person a bit to make sure they know what their doing. Once I get my own land and house I hope to get some certain exotics like a monkey. But I don't have the knowledge to take care of one yet nor the means to care for it so thats why I am waiting.

I agree that most "dangerous" animals which need alot of control that most people don't have shouldn't be allowed to be kept. Now if we started to ban all "exotics and wildlife" well, I would be pretty upset. I love my skunky and he loves me back. There are many skunk owners who have very spoiled and happy skunks. Now, my skunk may bite if you handle him wrong and aren't me, but I avoid those situations. And that can go for many "domesticated" animals we have.

Of course...any animal in which a person cannot control easily like a bear or any of the large cats. They should have a training class and stricter regulations for it since it could be dangerous to themselves, the animals, and other people.

But banning of all "exotics and/or wildlife" I don't think should happen because there are alot of good owners and caretakers out there.

to me it also depends on the animal's welfare and habitat. If an animal can't be kept in captivity without sacrificing the things that make it happy and natural, then it seem cruel.

There is no 'one law' dealing with ownership of 'wild' or
non-native animals. Every state has different law requirements
and different animals on their lists. As I said, Indiana lists only
these;

1) Wolves which are purebred.

(2) Bears (all species).

(3) Wild cats (all species), excluding except feral cats.

(4) Venomous reptiles.

(5) Crocodilians that are at least five (5) feet long.

I don't care how 'trained' a person is to deal with these exotic
animals, they should not by available for private sale to anyone.

If they are kept at all, it should be by a group wholely dedicated
to caring for them in as natural an enviroment as possible.

ps. For all the ferret lovers, I did find a lot of groups fighting to
legalize ferrets as pets in every state. They are legal in Indiana.

Amen, Lizbud. It floors me that people own animals that are not domesticated and don't see how clearly selfish that is.

It is sad but what about this?

My moms Cockatoo, Angus *he was POTD April 4th* was a wild caught bird. Mom adopted him from someone who was really trying to care for him but the ladys bigger cockatoo was beating him up. Some people say that Angus should be taken away from mom and put in a zoo to be closer to his "natural environment". The problem with that is when he was caught, he lost most of one foot and a toe off the other. He also has stomach problems and can only handle eating cirtan things. He has VERY special requirements, ones my mom provides to the fullest. Mom loves and cares for that bird, and while I KNOW she would never ever go out and purchace a wild caught animal, she will rescue ones like Angus and care for them. Angus is also very fond of her too. When mom leaves, even overnight, he stops eating. She can't vacation without him! In his case, being relocated to a zoo would probibly kill him. I know this isnt the only case of a wild animal becomeing wholly dependant on human companionship. I know that catching the guy wasn't right but I also know that he is very very well taken care of. Sigh, I guess this is a moral delima for me...sorry I ranted on so much. :(

Being an exotic animal owner myself I do not think ALL exotics should be banned. I own two spiney mice, two hedgehogs, Madagascar Hissing Cockroaches, a tortoise, a gecko etc. I have owned a wolf and coyote in the past with family and they were well taken care of. ALL my of my exotics are kept as happy as possible. Hedgies are domesticated, as well as short tailed possums. However I still consider them exotics. I cannot imagine ever owning a Tiger, Leopard, Lion, Bear or any of the larger exotics ever. I do feel that all exotics, even small ones such as hedgies should be regulated. The USDA needs to regulate exotic animal ownership as well, not just breeders and dealers. There are many exotic animal owners out there who take fantastic care of their animals, providing adequate space, enclosures, food and veterinary care as well as environmental enrichment. Owning any exotic animal is something the owner really needs to think about before making such a commitment. For the most part I am not against owning exotics as long as the person knows what they are doing and has respect for the animals needs and wellbeing.

Just to share, here is a photo of my hedgehog Speedy getting a bath:)

http://img25.photobucket.com/albums/...Speedybath.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally posted by DJFyrewolf36
It is sad but what about this?

My moms Cockatoo, Angus *he was POTD April 4th* was a wild caught bird. Mom adopted him from someone who was really trying to care for him but the ladys bigger cockatoo was beating him up. Some people say that Angus should be taken away from mom and put in a zoo to be closer to his "natural environment". The problem with that is when he was caught, he lost most of one foot and a toe off the other. He also has stomach problems and can only handle eating cirtan things. He has VERY special requirements, ones my mom provides to the fullest. Mom loves and cares for that bird, and while I KNOW she would never ever go out and purchace a wild caught animal, she will rescue ones like Angus and care for them. Angus is also very fond of her too. When mom leaves, even overnight, he stops eating. She can't vacation without him! In his case, being relocated to a zoo would probibly kill him. I know this isnt the only case of a wild animal becomeing wholly dependant on human companionship. I know that catching the guy wasn't right but I also know that he is very very well taken care of. Sigh, I guess this is a moral delima for me...sorry I ranted on so much. :(

---

The issue is not with your mom - she simply provided a home for an animal that needed rescuing from a bad situation.

The fault lies with the people that took the poor bird from it's natural, wild home in the first place, injuring him in the process. And, ultimately, those people wouldn't be catching wild birds and selling them for a profit if there was not market for them. So, ultimately, the fault lies with the people who originally bought the bird from the people that caught it.

If no one bought wild-caught birds, there would be no profit to be made by trapping them, and it would stop. Just like puppy mills - if everyone quit buying mill puppies, the mills would go out of business. Supply and demand - without demand for a product, the supply ceases. That is what we can all do to make things like this stop, and save innocent animals - do not create a market for them by buying wild-caught exotic animals or puppy-mill dogs.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lizbud
(4) Venomous reptiles.

---

Ah, this is a complicated one. Chubby is "venomous". She has modified saliva glands that act as a venom t paralyze frogs. It is no, however, dangerout to humans. (Partially because the venom is absurdly mild, and partially because rear-fanged snakes don't have hollow fangs, and actually need to chew on you for several minutes before any venom gets flowing.)

Yet...I've heard people arguing to include Hognoses in this particular type of ban. I also have a lot of respect for people who keep "hot" (dangerous) snakes and I would like to keep one "hot" snake myself eventually.

It's a complicated thing to try and regulate.

Thank you Twisterdog, I do agree with you.

WolfChan, I assume Chubby is a Hognose. Why would they include an snake like the hognose in a ban like that even though they present no danger and some varites I think have been domesticated for years? *I admittedly don't know much about the hognose, save from what I read in Reptiles mag*

I respect anyone who cares for a "hot" snake the proper way. Some people really abuse and exploit the snakes. There should be some sort of licencing and testing program, to encurage proper care and handling of these creatures instead of just a full out ban.