Banning "Exotic" Pets Is Senseless

I’m probably writing this under a false belief that the honest truth will have some sort of impact on current events and will educate people on a subject that is otherwise being neatly packaged to the public as undeniable truth. If you’re willing to see the subject of captive, privately owned 'exotic' animals with an open mind, this would be one glint of hope among a sea of intolerance to what has been irrationally demonized.

If I could select one thing for a reader to take from this, it would be that laws should never be enforced on the basis of public indifference combined with ignorance and false information. Among the people involved who are responsible for delivering the majority of information out there are legislators, public figures, celebrities, and several classes of activists. Many would like to control the mindsets of the uninvolved majority by deliberately skewing information as though there are no gray areas. Not untouched is a story that has resulted in a turning point in exotic animal legislation. Terry Thompson, owner of a menagerie of several large exotic animals, freed them from his private facility in Zanesville, Ohio under a state of apparent mental distress. Whatever the reason, he maliciously cost the animals their lives and may have ended the lifestyles of countless people.

There doesn’t seem to be any defined standard for the development of legislation resulting from single catalytic incidents. Often, it’s the severity of a situation that prompts people to consider laws, not the number of occurrences. Sometimes this can be a valid way to shape regulations, if common sense indicates there is a need for it. Some recent issues for consideration include bullying, extremely poor nutritional content in foods and regulations on “pet” exotic animals. Exotic animals in the pet industry should be regulated, just like anything else that involves a direct or potential negative impact on people and animals. Captive exotics are living, feeling beings that depend on humans for a quality life, and their needs are no less significant than any captive dog, mouse, or fish. I fully support reasonable regulations that will decrease the chances that pets end up in bad situations, such as the highly televised Ohio tragedy.

This is a typical statement that is often asserted without any assessment of its meaning. A pet is generally considered to be a companion animal that lives with its owner. Another aspect of this sentence is the term “exotic animal”, a word that elicits different ideas for different people. Most people don’t have qualms with keeping ‘exotic’ pets such as parrots, which are more demanding to keep than conventionally perceived. Owners and friends of owners of such ‘exotic’ animals incorrectly believe that the bans do not posses the potential to trickle down and harm their lifestyles. They also falsely believe that many groups active in creating these bans are not against many more conventionally kept animals and even domestics.

Why are exotic animals not “pets”? A statement I can agree with is that many exotic animals make bad pets, if bad is defined by what the majority of the public would expect out of their companion animal. Many exotic animals, or non-domesticated pets, lack the level of tameness and simplistic care that many are used to from, say, golden retrievers.

On the other hand, some domesticated pets can be just as, if not more, challenging to manage than some exotic pets. The key to the proper comprehension of this idea is that each animal varies on a species by species basis. Exotic animals have different degrees of care and do not fall under one class. Even domesticated animals such as different dog breeds can have more advanced care and will certainly have a poor quality of life in the hands of the wrong owner or living situation.

Consider this article by the ASPCA. Exotic pets are according to the article, difficult to care for, taken from the wild, bred in what are similar to puppy mills, harm the environment, spread disease, ect. Many of these statements do not apply to all situations, or are inaccurate and misrepresented.

In fact, some dogs and cats ARE “difficult” to care for, bred in puppy mills, harm the environment, and spread disease. They simply can’t be taken from the wild because they aren’t from the wild, but what difference does that make? Most exotic pets, especially the most controversial exotic mammals are rarely, if ever, taken from the wild. Here is another Animal Planet-associated article that lumps exotic animals together and attributes problems to them that are easily found in domesticated animals.

People may have chosen a specific set of pets that are ‘acceptable’ to keep based on the their usual temperaments, but a common illusion present is the validity of how this is somehow more ethical than choosing what is considered an alternative pet.

The common logic exercised is that exotics require a very high level of care (or that the animal’s needs could never be met because it is “wild”), therefore an exotic animal is likely to end up in a bad situation. This is partially true, depending on the species. However, animals such as big cats, bears, large primates and other such “zoo” animals, are widely exaggerated by media figures as having high incidents of being true pets with increasing demand.

Most people who own these animals privately are not keeping them simply as pets, or these owners have been involved with wild animals as an occupation. Permits for these animals in most states are issued for educational, sanctuary, and exhibition purposes. In other words, the bans would not apply to such owners. Permits are more likely to be issued to someone who is planning to make money off the captive animals than someone who is highly qualified and caring.

Leaving the controversial topic of privately keeping such large and potentially dangerous animals aside, there are far more owners of ‘exotics’, in which these animals are smaller and pose little or no threat to people, or at least equal to or less than the risk of owning many domesticated pets. If you have access to the internet or television, the numbers of attacks by dogs are evident. In this case, owners of 'pitt bulls' can also identify with facing the stigmas that result in proposed bans despite the occurrences of attacks resulting in deaths with other dogs.

"...second only to drugs and weapons on the black market". The thought of shady dealers profiting to such an extent over the selling of exotic animals such as tigers, servals, or even fennec foxes to the naïve public is enough to rattle the cage of any animal lover. I often see this statement alongside articles that cover the sporadic incidences of an escaped pet bobcat or discovery of a large boid in a bathtub. Many organizations hope that statements like these will enlist this depiction in your mind. Yet if one realized that the exotic pet trade applies to tropical fish, budgies, ferrets and chinchillas as well, the statement is far less incriminating. It’s already well known information that millions of people keep these ‘exotic’ animals, and most pet supply providers respond to the demand to care for them. It is the opinion of the Humane Society and other similarly-minded organizations that all these people deserve not to keep these animals because of the crime of the animals’ undomesticated statuses.

What makes dogs and cats so appropriate and ethical to keep to the majority of the public? There are animal rights groups existing that also seek to eliminate this practice. We may have evolved alongside our trusty companions, but common sense shows that this does not make these animals immune to mistreatment. In fact, it’s just the opposite. Unlike many exotics, dogs and cats are dying in animal shelters. Dogs and cats that become victims of animal cruelty can be found almost daily. I am subscribed to many organizations always in need of donations to attempt to deal with this massive problem that humans are not taking enough responsibility for. Some of these issues are so prevalent now, that they are largely ignored. Exotic animals may require advanced care, but they are currently, and most likely will always remain unpopular pet choices, aside from the unfortunate exotics that are victims of being sold by common chain stores, such as iguanas, hook bills, and ferrets. A real issue among all pets is their selling as merchandise in retail stores combined with cheap pricing. Many exotic animals are not inexpensive or readily available to such a scale.

That brings me back to the incident in Ohio that made national headlines, and the disbelief people experienced viewing the pictures of majestic wild animals deceased and sprawled across the farmland. The sheer emotional power from this incident is spawning several legislators to address this issue due to a sick man's actions. A situation of course which has never happened before.

I believe a change of perspective is needed to view the true severity of this conflict, or lack thereof. This situation, as rare as it was, did not result in any human fatalities. The animals paid the price for a cruel person’s selfishness. The mass deaths of 48 large species of carnivores that are frequently romanticized by people is upsetting, yet people do not take into account the dogs and cats that are being euthanized due to humans daily. I for one, do not value one mammal’s life over the other because one is more “beautiful” or “rare”. The captive animals also do not have any conservation value, and contrary to the media’s belief, they are not “rare” in captivity. Dogs and cats are also shot frequently in this country as menaces to societies, during police raids, or for being feral. We have many acts of horrible animal cruelty occurring in agriculture that would easily be resolved if the public was as adamant on banning exotics as they were on factory farming. How many critics of private exotic ownership have purchased dogs, or non-farm raised meats?

The Ohio incident was an incredibly exceptional case, one that should have been prevented by legislation barring a person convicted of animal cruelty from owning animals, even “only” a domestic cat. So why are people exploring bans and not regulations? Why are exotic owners being penalized for the state’s lack of any regulations for owning such a class of animal? As of current, the state is now just recently conjuring laws such as requiring owners of large exotics to register their animals and enacting confiscations of animals that are being abused. If there is a silver lining to this situation, I’m glad people are waking up on the lack of these minimum responsibilities.

Escapes by large exotics that are potentially dangerous are always a possibility, even with professional zoos. Incidences of people getting killed who didn’t knowingly place themselves at risk by living with or visiting a dangerous exotic are not only rare, they may not have ever occurred. The same cannot be said for dog attacks. The mental depiction of walking down the street and succumbing to a full grown Siberian tiger has not happened. And if it did or does ever occur, the resulting statistics that indicate your chances of becoming such a victim are still pathetically low. I would imagine that if such ownership were restricted to responsible owners of inspected facilities, those chances would continue to decrease to invisibility.

Yet people continue to push for bans, and do so rapidly when any isolated incident occurs. It’s as though private rights are hanging by a thread simply because it is an unconventional lifestyle and it will unfairly be eliminated if negative incidents occur at all. This is not holding them to the same standard of other commonalities in our lives.

Is it due to rampant narcissism and to show off to people who “only” have conventional pets? When did it become convenient to castigate a group of people for being individuals? I don’t understand why people do extreme sports, intentionally get drunk, or enjoy roller coasters. I like keeping domesticated animals, but also enjoy the challenge of keeping an exotic and the rewards of being able to experience the unique behavior and attributes to said animal.

I feel a sense of accomplishment when my pets are content in their quarters. It is a unique opportunity to achieve any possible level of bonding with such an animal, and intellectually stimulating to understand their dietary and behavioral needs.I wonder why this is difficult to empathize with.

I will not hesitate to object to any animal being kept improperly. Some species of animals just simply make poor privately owned household pets, due to either sheer size or its requirements for an unreasonable home habitat, social structure, and enrichment schedule.

However, I still feel that if someone can exhibit the qualifications, the permit should be available as long as the populations of these animals are regulated just like dogs and cats should be.

Owning animals of this stature is not a hobby, it’s a lifestyle. The proper owner will put the needs of the animals before their own conventional endeavors. The anti-exotic sentiment is largely the result of irrational stigma, and not much else.