Should keeping "exotic" pets be banned or controlled? (1 Viewer)

[John Cantelo]

Defining what constitutes 'exotic' is problematical, I realise, but most pets belong to relatively few species which could easily be excluded. There would remain plenty of animals for people to have as domestic pets. The existence of these are a fait accompli and the time is long past that we could bolt that particular barn door. This thought, that there should be controls, was sparked by two events. First the was opening of a specialist exotic pet shop in my neighbourhood. The second was a chat with a friend - an excellent birder - who keeps reptiles cheerfully telling me about a non-native snake that had escaped from a friend's care and lived free for three months undetected. He seemed remarkably unconcerned about the potential dangers. There's also the cautionary tale of pythons (?) and the damage they've wrought in Florida

So am I alone in worrying that the current 'fashion' for exotic animals risks introducing potentially harmful animals to our ecosystem? It seems a high price to pay for the faddish wish to keep something different. There's also the problem of introducing harmful diseases and depleting natural stocks. It's not something that I know too much about, but would like to be better informed about to make a reasoned judgement.

 

[Andy Hurley]

I agree with you John, but I think if people have to keep such wild animals in captivity, they should at least have to pass a test concerning their husbandry. At the moment, anyone can buy just about any animal from breeders incountry on the internet as there is no need for import licences etc. Proper regulation is needed with licences etc. But as long as animals are treated as objects and not as living beings, in the eyes of the law, then it is going to be a problem.

 

[kitefarrago]

I'm a bit surprised that you're jumping to the `let's ban it' option quite so quickly.

Fact 1: Any hobby/activity will attract at least some idiots who will do damage.

Fact 2: Regulating things like this intelligently is extremely difficult, and government seems to be rather bad at it.

How would you feel if somebody proposed banning all human beings from nature reserves? As a consequence the wildlife wouldn't be disturbed, so all the harm done by those who insist on watching animals go about their business would be negated. There would be plenty of birds remaining to be watched outside of protected areas, such as in people's gardens.

Regulating the trade in exotic animals is a different matter, and I agree that more should be done there (as in a lot of other areas...).

But it's really easy to target one group of hobbyists and decide it would be much safer/beneficial to the rest of the world if nobody was allowed to do what they do - after all, they could just change hobbies, couldn't they? I think for something to be outlawed the damage caused should have to be extensive, and it should be possible to make a proper scientific evaluation of same.

Andrea

 

[Andy Hurley]

I'm a bit surprised that you're jumping to the `let's ban it' option quite so quickly.

Fact 1: Any hobby/activity will attract at least some idiots who will do damage.

Fact 2: Regulating things like this intelligently is extremely difficult, and government seems to be rather bad at it.

How would you feel if somebody proposed banning all human beings from nature reserves? As a consequence the wildlife wouldn't be disturbed, so all the harm done by those who insist on watching animals go about their business would be negated. There would be plenty of birds remaining to be watched outside of protected areas, such as in people's gardens.

Regulating the trade in exotic animals is a different matter, and I agree that more should be done there (as in a lot of other areas...).

But it's really easy to target one group of hobbyists and decide it would be much safer/beneficial to the rest of the world if nobody was allowed to do what they do - after all, they could just change hobbies, couldn't they? I think for something to be outlawed the damage caused should have to be extensive, and it should be possible to make a proper scientific evaluation of same.

Andrea

I think the question opening the dicussion was "should they banned or controlled". I agree with your misgivings, but that doesn't get away from the potential abuse to these animals through neglect. Maybe if exotic pet store owners did some kind of vetting, and sold only to those that they deemed capable of managing such animals, and I believe some already do, then that would go a long way.

 

[Original PaulE]

I'm a bit surprised that you're jumping to the `let's ban it' option quite so quickly.

Fact 1: Any hobby/activity will attract at least some idiots who will do damage.

Fact 2: Regulating things like this intelligently is extremely difficult, and government seems to be rather bad at it.

How would you feel if somebody proposed banning all human beings from nature reserves? As a consequence the wildlife wouldn't be disturbed, so all the harm done by those who insist on watching animals go about their business would be negated. There would be plenty of birds remaining to be watched outside of protected areas, such as in people's gardens.

Regulating the trade in exotic animals is a different matter, and I agree that more should be done there (as in a lot of other areas...).




But it's really easy to target one group of hobbyists and decide it would be much safer/beneficial to the rest of the world if nobody was allowed to do what they do - after all, they could just change hobbies, couldn't they? I think for something to be outlawed the damage caused should have to be extensive, and it should be possible to make a proper scientific evaluation of same.

Andrea

The movement of animals from one ecosystem to another is proven to cause massive damage pythons in florida, grey squirrels in britain, ruddy ducks etc,etc
so a bit different from birders on nature reserves!
I'm of the opinion that keeping any wild animal in captivity is wrong! not just because of the risk of escapes,but i find the idea that animals are here just for our pleasure and to be used as we see fit to be wrong also, i think our intelligence as a species gives us a responsibility to look after the eco-systems of the planet not just exploit it for our own gain, i think that keeping animals as pets reinforces the notion that we are "in Charge" and that all other species are here for our amusement!

Cheers

 

[chowchilla]

Here in Queensland it's illegal to keep Rabbits, Hamsters, Gerbils and Ferrets whereas it is entirely legal to keep say, native snakes and lizards with a licence. 'Exotic' is a relative term I guess.

 

[coal tit]

Exotic pets.

Defining what constitutes 'exotic' is problematical, I realise, but most pets belong to relatively few species which could easily be excluded. There would remain plenty of animals for people to have as domestic pets. The existence of these are a fait accompli and the time is long past that we could bolt that particular barn door. This thought was sparked by two events. First the was opening of a specialist exotic pet shop in my neighbourhood. the second was a chat with a friend - an excellent birder - who keeps reptiles cheerfully telling me about a non-native snake that had escaped from a friend's care and lived free for three months undetected. He seemed remarkably unconcerned about the potential dangers. There's also the cautionary tale of pythons (?) and the damage they've wrought in Florida

So am I alone in worrying that the current 'fashion' for exotic animals risks introducing potentially harmful animals to our ecosystem? It seems a high price to pay for the faddish wish to keep something different. There's also the problem of introducing harmful diseases and depleting natural stocks. It's not something that I know too much about, but would like to be better informed about to make a reasoned judgement.

Hi john well who
would,nt want a bird eating spider or Burmese python (me for one ) people
will sell and buy anything if the price is right and that is well established
now across the world who in their right mind would want to buy a rock
python or Burmese python but people do you mention the cautionary
tale of pythons and the damage they`ve wrought in florida well from
watching (you tube) on here a day or so back pythons were breeding
in florida and they showed you some pythons along on their travels
there even went looking in central park where one has been found before
now they found racoons there a favourite food source of pythons, and they
went below the streets identifying ideal conditions for pythons, in 20
years time they said the way they are spreading their range could spread up to Washington dc by then, anyway I,m not really for any exotic pets be
them birds, or arachnids, mammals, even fish like zander (pike perch)
which either escaped or was introduced originally, the eco system knows
when something is not right and you tip it a bit to much and things get
misplaced and messed up but we,re testing our environment and planet
all the time with different technology look at the amazon basin the eco system there I know time will tell has it does in everything but if man
has done enough damage there the eco system will come back and kick us
all in the teeth not sure where we will go from there.

 

[RonW]

Here in the Netherlands they are trying to ban keeping exotics. The justifications they use are animal welfare and zoonoses and similar arguments. Problems with all those arguments is that there are no objective arguments to ban a lot of perfectly easy to keep exotics and not ban many of the pets we take for granted.
Sell them only to knowledgeable people? Every animal has it's needs you Ned to be educated about. Neglect? Ever seen those animal cruelty shows? Most of the problems, by far, are with "normal" pets.
Any damage or problems due to "exotics" pale in comparison with the problems due to our beloved pets. Just take cats, an extremely damaging exotic we actively release around our houses that kills millions of native fauna a year. Or dogs and horses that wound and kill many people a year. I could easily go on.
IF you think people should be allowed to keep pets at all, then there is no reason not to add to the menagerie, provided you can keep the animal properly and meet its needs, be it cat, dog, snake, lizard or bird.
Saying you should be limited to standard pets is like saying you should only drink water. You don't NEED anything else, alternatives are often bad for you or burden the environment. Variety is the spice of life, you just need to avoid the excesses, certainly not ban it altogether.

I think the question opening the dicussion was "should they banned or controlled". I agree with your misgivings, but that doesn't get away from the potential abuse to these animals through neglect. Maybe if exotic pet store owners did some kind of vetting, and sold only to those that they deemed capable of managing such animals, and I believe some already do, then that would go a long way.

 

[Sangahyando]

Some should be flat out banned. I think the idea of vetting potential future owners of (exotic) pets is a very good one, even though it'd require some effort. This should also extend to dog and cat owners, ideally.

Also, there should be something done about waterfowl and the rules of keeping it.

 

[John Cantelo]

I've not absolutely made my mind up about the issue myself, but I do think that, to an extent, we may be playing Russian roulette with the future of our environment. A large number of pets are probably of relatively little direct danger as they couldn't survive in the wild in the UK. However, why should take the risk with animals which could conceivably do so? Indirect threats, and not just to man, of 'alien' zoonotic diseases worry me too. I would certainly ban the trading in animals that do not already have a sustainable captive population.

 

[Mike Richardson]

At one time I used to keep and breed a number of exotic reptiles and amphibians, although I gave up the hobby 17 years ago. I now prefer to see them in the wild. However, I thought I'd mention a couple of points.

Firstly, keeping exotic animals is not new, however advances in husbandry and captive breeding have occurred over the years. With pet ownership you're always going to get individuals who mistreat their animals be it snakes, dogs, hamsters or horses. I don't think exotic pet owners are any more or less likely to abuse the animals in their care.

I would like to see an end to importing wild caught exotics as most species can be bred in captivity. Those that can't should not be kept by the casual hobbyist.

Although invasive/exotic species are a huge treat to biodiversity around the world, only a small percentage of such environmental damage is caused by escaped exotic pets. That's not to say that escaped pets don't have potential to cause huge ecological devastation and laws should be in place to prohibit the sale (and the keeping of) of 'non-native' species in areas where they have potential to cause harm (much like the strict laws Australia has in place).

In a British context I struggle to think of many exotic pets that have potential to cause significant environmental damage should they escape. Even the impact of the Red-eared Terrapin has been greatly exaggerated by the media (although their negative impact in much warmer countries with native turtles is well documented). 'Non-exotic' pets such as dogs, and most certainly cats cause much more significant environmental damage than any escaped reptile ever could.

 

[jurek]

I think not.

Exception might be few big and dangerous animals (big cats, venomous snakes etc). But they are already covered by pan-European law.

There is too many keepers of exotic parakeets to sensibly control them. And don't even start with all people who keep turtles or fish (and these also escape!).

From the point of view of animal cruelty, many keepers give their pets better conditions than public zoos (which actually often exchange/buy smaller animals from private keepers).

I think the problem of exotic escapees will be more sensibly controlled by banning trade or import, where there is limited number of places to be controlled.

Plus, most of invasive species are not pets but are introduced with cargo, agriculture etc.

Plus, there is a risk of raising yet another European bureaucratic monster. This was in case of zoo legislation. For example, a list of dangerous zoo species included Shetland pony.

 

[John Cantelo]

At one time I used to keep and breed a number of exotic reptiles and amphibians, although I gave up the hobby 17 years ago. I now prefer to see them in the wild. However, I thought I'd mention a couple of points.

Firstly, keeping exotic animals is not new, however advances in husbandry and captive breeding have occurred over the years. With pet ownership you're always going to get individuals who mistreat their animals be it snakes, dogs, hamsters or horses. I don't think exotic pet owners are any more or less likely to abuse the animals in their care.

I would like to see an end to importing wild caught exotics as most species can be bred in captivity. Those that can't should not be kept by the casual hobbyist.

Although invasive/exotic species are a huge treat to biodiversity around the world, only a small percentage of such environmental damage is caused by escaped exotic pets. That's not to say that escaped pets don't have potential to cause huge ecological devastation and laws should be in place to prohibit the sale (and the keeping of) of 'non-native' species in areas where they have potential to cause harm (much like the strict laws Australia has in place).

In a British context I struggle to think of many exotic pets that have potential to cause significant environmental damage should they escape. Even the impact of the Red-eared Terrapin has been greatly exaggerated by the media (although their negative impact in much warmer countries with native turtles is well documented). 'Non-exotic' pets such as dogs, and most certainly cats cause much more significant environmental damage than any escaped reptile ever could.

Thanks for your informed commentary - much appreciated

 

[stonechat1]

[...] With pet ownership you're always going to get individuals who mistreat their animals be it snakes, dogs, hamsters or horses. [...].

We all know from the news/media about persons who mistreat/abuse family members, patients or underage persons for who they should care. All over the globe! Though there are laws which clearly prohibits such behaviour.
Shell we ban marriages, hospitals, orphanage now?

 

[stonechat1]

[...] There is too many keepers of exotic parakeets to sensibly control them.

Totally wrong, Jurek. We, in Austria, have animal keeping regulations (laws) for the different animal species. Clearly regulated their special needs. I had a friend who keeped macaws. Based on the new laws he was forced to sell them because the aviaries were 30 cm too short and he didn´t have the opurtunity to enlarge them.
Keeping pets, no matter if birds or others, is very different in all countries and also the regulations if there are any. E.g. it´s not allowed here to keep birds on a chain. For macaws above 60 cm lenght the aviary has to be 6,0 x 2,5 x 3 m = 19.68 x 8.20 x 9.84 ft (lenght x width x height)for one pair plus and additonal weatherproof shelter , for every additional bird one must add again the half size. I doubt that therelike regulations are in the USA or anywhere else.
For those who like to get familiar with our regulations (cats, dogs, birds, reptils, hamsters, etc.):
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003860
Keeping of farm animals (horses, cows, sheeps, etc.):
https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=20003820

BTW, here also those cruel prong colars for dogs are prohibited, I see them regulary used in Poland and in the USA?

[...] From the point of view of animal cruelty, many keepers give their pets better conditions than public zoos (which actually often exchange/buy smaller animals from private keepers).[...]

About which zoo are you talking?
I´ve been a couple of years back in the Gdansk zoo and it was just sad. Bears keeped in a quadrangular enclosure behind iron bars. That´s the method they used before 40 years in Vienna´s zoo, the oldest zoo on earth but the best zoo in Europe in 2012! Go and see for yourself.

And AFAIK, from leading staff there, they get their animals not from private breeders but from zoos in Europe, selected by breeding program managers.

BTW, also in Germany there are a lot of regulations for pet keeping:
http://www.vetmed.fu-berlin.de/einr...e10/Rechtsvorschriften/Tierhaltung/index.html

 

[jurek]

Hi stonechat1,

Those species which can become established exotics are too numerous. Naturalized species in Europe are not macaws but common Ring-necked Parakeets or Monk Parakeets.

Then, it is impossible to control birds kept quietly or illegally. For decades there are rumours that there is a keeper in Switzerland who keeps Spix Macaws - nothing was found.

Yes, you may be unaware, but there is steady movement of small animals (fish, reptiles, birds, small mammals) between private keepers and zoos. Not least because zoos cannot care or breed properly small animals. If one zoo has 100 species of diverse birds or 200 species of fish, then few of them get a good care. If Vienna Zoo is your home zoo, check how many percent of species bred in 2013.

Then, sorry, I think 30 cm too short aviary is precisely the case of nonsense bureaucracy. Didn't you think to where these macaws were sold? Suddenly lots of better aviaries were built, or birds go into grey zone, or to the countries without the legislation?

That Shetland pony is a dangerous animal and a keeper cannot go into his enclosure is the current interpretation of zoo legislation in Poland. In Germany, a keeper of Bald Eagle or Himalayan Griffon is legally obliged to give them 25m2 heated winter quarter, because Bald Eagles being exotics, naturally need heat in winter. I am sure there are bureaucrats itching to have a new regulation, but as a taxpayer, I don't want to pay for such a law.

 

[njlarsen]

I have not read everyone's points even though some good ones have been made. I personally feel that a few species absolutely need to be banned from being held by people unless they have zoo training and permits. Those species should also be banned from occurring in pet stores etc. Burmese python is the flagship for this group.

For a lot of other species there should be stricter control, especially with import, but also to some extent with training of the prospective owner. Ban all import of wild caught birds, period, and for a lot of species that have poor population levels (everything except LC on the red-list), ban all import (to avoid problems with falsified statements of captive breeding).

Niels

 

[Jos Stratford]

Then, sorry, I think 30 cm too short aviary is precisely the case of nonsense bureaucracy.

I would disagree with you Jurek. If Austria has legislation to improve the standards of keeping animals, then it has to be welcomed. I fail to see it being a bit hassle for someone buying a macaw being totally overwhelmed by the added 'burden' of ensuring standards are met. Without 'nonsense bureaucracy', keepers could simply do what they want, stuff them in cages with a cm or so to spare, or whatever.

The only way for legislation can work is if it has defined limits, it can't be XX cm in length, but "ah who cares if you're 30 cm too short".

 

[Jos Stratford]

. In Germany, a keeper of Bald Eagle is legally obliged to give them 25m2 heated winter quarter, because Bald Eagles being exotics, naturally need heat in winter.

Maybe they are Bald Eagles from Florida

 

[Mysticete]

I get leery of exotic animal regulation legislation. Too often exotic becomes an umbrella term for "anything that isn't a cat or dog", which is a pretty broad category. And too often legislation is driven less from concern over the environment, and because "snakes are icky". For instance, ball pythons often get lumped into ban measures (because they are pythons), even though they are small and docile, and make excellent pets.

I absolutely believe things like large wild mammals (big cats, etc), large pythons (Rock,Burmese, etc), venomous snakes, etc should be strictly regulated, but most smaller herps really are if anything less problematic than household cats or invasive agricultural pests brought in on lumber or produce shipments.

I would like to see more regulation of the wild animal trade. I don't have an issue with critters like leopard geckos, corn snakes, etc, but those are all easily bred in captivity with no need for wild animals. Can't say the same with many of the more expensive and exotic herps out there, some of which are extraordinarly hard to breed or keep healthy in captivity for most people.