Should exotic pets be illegal?

[Spinder]

Do you feel it should be illegal to keep wild "exotic" animals as pets? I very strongly feel that it should be, especially really large animals that are easily capable of killing humans, like primates, big cats, wild dogs, bears, and large reptiles. Sure they may be extremely cute, sort of cuddly and somewhat harmless when they're babies, but like all living creatures they do not stay babies for very long, and they grow up to be big and strong just like we do.

Far too many tragic and awful things have happened as a result of such ignorance. Far too many people have claimed such pets to be "sweet" and "gentle" and "mild mannered", only for the animal to suddenly turn wild and vicious one day and kill or seriously injure someone. I say they're wild and they should be left in the wild where they belong. Face it people, they are impossible to domesticate or fully civilize, and were simply never meant to be kept as our companions. They're just too unpredictable and dangerous.

Besides, most people who keep these animals around their homes are utterly clueless as to how to take proper care of them. Most of these animals end up leading unhappy lives, neglected and pent up in cages that are way too small for them. And many of them end up being ditched in the wild or otherwise abandoned because people don't realize beforehand how much it costs to feed and look after them (did you know that an adult tiger needs to eat about 30-40 pounds of meat a day?) They need to be free, out in the wild environment where they were meant to live.

[2D]

I have no problem with letting stupid people die by their own stupidity.

In fact, I have no problem with them dying in any way shape or form.

[quartermaster]

I'm fine with people owning exotic animals, it's far too common to ban things that are deemed "dangerous"; if a man wants a lion, withstanding that the lion is not "stolen," I imagine that should be his prerogative.

[INFERNO]

I think 3 things should apply. First, the animal is not to be on an endangered animals list or similar list. Second, the animal is to be obtained legally. Third, the animal, just like for a common pet, must be taken care of properly, otherwise, the person is to get fined and possibly imprisoned. In addition to this, the fine is to be larger than normal and the animal is to be removed from the person's custody and put into a haven for those animals or similar places. Depending on the treatment the animal endured, the person is to be placed on a list where they cannot own any non-human animal in their place(s) of residence, otherwise they have violated the terms of their parole. They also cannot work in a place that handles such exotic animals because they've demonstrated the proper training needed they do not possess and are unable to provide basic common-sense care.

[Spinder]

Well, I feel that at least non-human primates really should be outlawed, if no other kind of exotic pet. Citing the incident that happened last year (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/2009/02/18/2009-02-18_charla_nash_lost_eyes_nose_and_jaw_in_ch.html) where a woman's face, eyes, and hands were ripped off by a friend's pet chimpanzee, who had been her "domesticated" pet for more than 14 years and had even been a pet actor before.

[Kaius]

Travis' owner, Sandy Herold, used a butcher knife to stab the 14-year-old chimp, who was suffering from Lyme disease and had consumed Xanax - but the rampage only ended when cops shot the animal dead.

And there's your reason. As I've told you in a thread before in most cases of wild animal attack there's usually a reason for it that either is included in the article, or something the media left out to make it sound more dramatic. The primate consumed some hard hitting medication and also had a health issue, that yes fair enough should have been dealt with by the owner. But there is not enough evidence in that article to support that the animal did that off his own accord. If you have the space and the time to adequately keep a wild animal, are able to keep it healthy and maintain control of it, I agree with Inferno's 3 rule idea that it should be allowed. Wild animals are not toys, but they aren't as blood thirsty and out of control as the media portrays.

[Spinder]

True. The Lyme disease is a probable culprit, however the Xanax thing is unclear - she initially told the police that she had given the chimp the drug, but later denied it. But that still shows why they don't make good pets... if they're ill or under stress, the wild nature comes out and someone can and likely will get hurt. The owner really should have kept the animal securely locked up if it was sick, though.

[Kaius]

That just goes to show the owner wasn't able to properly care for it, otherwise it would have been treated quickly and responsibly, and they wouldn't have allowed it to get hold of any medications that could do harm to it. As long as the owner is able to take the right actions to look after it e.g. space, time, knowledge and patience it should be allowed given they follow the rules that were put down about it.

[The Batman]

True. The Lyme disease is a probable culprit, however the Xanax thing is unclear - she initially told the police that she had given the chimp the drug, but later denied it. But that still shows why they don't make good pets... if they're ill or under stress, the wild nature comes out and someone can and likely will get hurt. The owner really should have kept the animal securely locked up if it was sick, though.

You do know that the same thing can happen with a big dog right? It's not about what if these pets go sick and attack people, it's more about whether or the people can take enough care of them to make sure it won't happen.

[Spinder]

That just goes to show the owner wasn't able to properly care for it, otherwise it would have been treated quickly and responsibly, and they wouldn't have allowed it to get hold of any medications that could do harm to it. As long as the owner is able to take the right actions to look after it e.g. space, time, knowledge and patience it should be allowed given they follow the rules that were put down about it.

Yes, but that's the thing... most people aren't very responsible. But then again, other primates, especially great apes, are very intelligent animals, much more intelligent then we give them credit for, and so they learn to be very good at escaping from their enclosures and getting their hands on things they shouldn't... but that only furthers my point.

You do know that the same thing can happen with a big dog right? It's not about what if these pets go sick and attack people, it's more about whether or the people can take enough care of them to make sure it won't happen.

That's true.

But just to say, many exotic pets are also endangered animals and thus they should be with others of their kind in a zoo or a protected park where they can procreate and live normal lives....

[The Batman]

Yes, but that's the thing... most people aren't very responsible. But then again, other primates, especially great apes, are very intelligent animals, much more intelligent then we give them credit for, and so they learn to be very good at escaping from their enclosures and getting their hands on things they shouldn't... but that only furthers my point.
Most people can't afford these animals either, instead of banning and outlawing things you need to better regulate it. Just make it so they pets have to be trained and tamed and make sure that the person handling them has some training with that animal.

[Kaius]

Yes, but that's the thing... most people aren't very responsible. But then again, other primates, especially great apes, are very intelligent animals, much more intelligent then we give them credit for, and so they learn to be very good at escaping from their enclosures and getting their hands on things they shouldn't... but that only furthers my point.

Just because of that does not mean its a reason they should not be kept. Zoo's handle it quite well. The keepers are experienced and have knowledge on it. Read my last argument again, you'll see that i did include that the people that animal is in the care of would have to have the knowledge to understand how to look after them. I was also taking inferno's points into consideration as well.

I think 3 things should apply. First, the animal is not to be on an endangered animals list or similar list. Second, the animal is to be obtained legally. Third, the animal, just like for a common pet, must be taken care of properly, otherwise, the person is to get fined and possibly imprisoned. In addition to this, the fine is to be larger than normal and the animal is to be removed from the person's custody and put into a haven for those animals or similar places. Depending on the treatment the animal endured, the person is to be placed on a list where they cannot own any non-human animal in their place(s) of residence, otherwise they have violated the terms of their parole. They also cannot work in a place that handles such exotic animals because they've demonstrated the proper training needed they do not possess and are unable to provide basic common-sense care.

[Spinder]

Most people can't afford these animals either, instead of banning and outlawing things you need to better regulate it. Just make it so they pets have to be trained and tamed and make sure that the person handling them has some training with that animal.

That certainly sounds like a very reasonable compromise to me. I agree, they should be a lot more better regulated than they are at present, and perhaps if it would save more people and animals the misery of falling into the wrong hands, I think that would excellent. Like maybe you should need to qualify for a license to own these animals or something?

[-Silence]

I wouldn't make it illegal but I would make it to where for the bigger exotic animals they would need a proper license for. It would be hard to rule out all exotic animals because that includes many reptiles, birds, alot of "common" pets.

[INFERNO]

I wouldn't make it illegal but I would make it to where for the bigger exotic animals they would need a proper license for. It would be hard to rule out all exotic animals because that includes many reptiles, birds, alot of "common" pets.

I suppose that's fair enough but two questions. First, what defines "bigger", what animals are "bigger"? Second, many small animals can be quite dangerous and require very careful care, especially those that are extremely poisonous.

[2D]

It's pointless. There are things equally as dangerous in the hands of the masses. Should we ban motorcycles and cars then as well? Surely since they kill thousands of people per year it makes much more sense to outlaw them no?

[CaptainObvious]

I have no problem with people owning exotic pets so long as they take good care of them. Yes, they are often mistreated or get out of control. However, the government should deal with that, not just ban the animals outright to erase the problem.

[INFERNO]

It's pointless. There are things equally as dangerous in the hands of the masses. Should we ban motorcycles and cars then as well? Surely since they kill thousands of people per year it makes much more sense to outlaw them no?

But it's how they kill and injure people. Having a tiger in a cage can kill because it has a mind of its own while a car doesn't. A car killing others is due to our own reckless behaviours and actions whereas having a tiger killing others is due to the tiger and to ourselves for not taking care of it properly. A car needs different care than a tiger, mainly in the sense that a car cannot grow.

I think outlawing them in general isn't good because it's not really the problem, the problem is certain people are careless or don't know how to care for the animals but by banning the animals, we imply that it is the animals' faults, not ours.

[Scarface]

I personally don't think they should be banned because first of all any dog cat bird rat pr whatever can catch or be prone to anything an exotic animal is. It all depends on how responsible the owner is. Hell I have even Heard of a Skunk having his part of his but that makes that liquid stuff come out removed and they kept it as a pet. If you can take care of it afford/ be responsible for it. More power to them.

[ltimm]

I agree with a lot of you. Have a license for the animal and have some kind of official came to look at your house to make sure living conditions are right. If the living conditions are not right, take the animal. If it's young, try to incorporate it into a zoo. If it's older, put it in a animal park where they take care of the animals.

Personally, I would love to have an exotic cat.

[CaptainObvious]

But it's how they kill and injure people. Having a tiger in a cage can kill because it has a mind of its own while a car doesn't. A car killing others is due to our own reckless behaviours and actions whereas having a tiger killing others is due to the tiger and to ourselves for not taking care of it properly. A car needs different care than a tiger, mainly in the sense that a car cannot grow.

But if a tiger is properly contained it will be able to kill anyone, no? So really, a tiger killing someone is equally caused by some kind of human negligence as a car crash, even if the tiger does have a mind of its own and somewhat more autonomy than your average vehicle.

[Hatsune Miku]

As long as the owned takes care of it and meets the animals needs ( Space, certain kinds of foods, ect. )
As for danger, everything in the world is full of danger, you risk getting killed just by stepping outside, I'm not too concerned about how dangerous it is to own an exotic animal.