Exotic pets forum - Page 4 - Paw Talk - Pet Forums
Other Exotics Post here about any exotics not listed - and topics relevant to all exotics.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #46 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-14-2009, 08:34 AM
Paw-Talk Golden Member
 
mtmaughan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Virginia
Age: 33
Posts: 2,436
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kendalle View Post
me?

I am taking the real meaning of your points.
I didn't mean you, sorry. I meant the OP.

Maureen


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Six new rats
mtmaughan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #47 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-15-2009, 02:42 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 133
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mygala View Post
Actually, it isn't. If you committed a crime, you are guilty. If you didn't you are innocent. Under the precedent of English law, our justice system PRESUMES you are innocent. It doesn't say that, in so many words, in the Constitution. You can infer if from some of the protections we are afforded, but it is not stated specifically.
True enough, I had the two things stated separately when I mentioned them before. The constitution does provide property rights. Yes animals are property and are the most fundamental property. First we killed wild ones for food and clothing so you owned the body when killed. Then we raised them for food so we would not have to follow the herds any more. Not having to follow the herds meant we could farm the land since we were no longer nomadic. Human society was made possible due to animal culture.


Quote:
I think most legislators would agree that the purpose behind much criminal and civil law is to stop or limit people from doing behaviors that are considered detrimental to some aspect of society.
A law does not directly punish but it is put in place to make punishment possible. If murder were not illegal you could not be punished for it. A law is passed to make it illegal so those who commit the crime can be punished with the added hope that the punishment might prevent some of the murders from occurring.

Quote:
Just because your speedometer was off, doesn't mean you weren't speeding. You WERE breaking the law. ...AND you were breaking another law by having defective equipment. Ignorance of the law, or your intent are rarely pertinent.
That was my point actually. Try reading that again and in context. The point was that it was pointed out animal abuse on exotics or any pet animal is rarely enforced. The claim was long as the owner was trying, by giving a bunny cat food, to provide care there was nothing to prosecute. Ignorance of how to care for the animal does not mean they are not guilty of neglect. People would rather a ban than do their jobs and take people to court. People would also rather not pay the taxes to take offenders to court.

I bet murder and bank robberies would be much more common if almost no one ever got prosecuted for the crimes. There is no hope of the punishment detouring the crime if a punishment is rarely followed through on.

Abusing or neglecting an animal is harmful and should be a crime and should be punished when found.

Owning an animal is not harmful unless you abuse or neglect it which should be covered by the abuse and neglect laws and their enforcement.

As to the speed limits and driver's license laws those are for public roads. You can drive a car without a license as fast as you want if you own it or have permission and are on private land. They do not interfere with you property rights(what you can do on or with your property). There are also laws as to what can be driven on a public road but you can drive anything you want on private land.

animal bans to interfere with property rights, what I can have on my own land and what I can own.


Quote:
I will say that I've never heard of someone bringing one back from vacation. I do know that there are occasional "stowaways" in people's luggage (like scorpions or spiders) that they didn't know about. If it were a protected species, they'd be potentially liable.
I don't know the statistics on smuggling but I never hear of those cases you mentioned. I did hear of a man who smuggled a monkey under his hat on a plane and was busted only after landing due to someone noticing the tail come out from under his hat. A more recent case was a mother and daughter who brought a monkey back on their boat. It was a long court battle but they proved the monkey was smuggled.

Quote:
It depends on the species, its level of protection, your intent, and any applicable state or federal laws. If it is protected under the Endangered Species Act, you'd have to possess a CBW (LINKY) permit to breed it. However, no blanket assumptions here, animal law is very complicated.
I would have to look into that more. I know people breed and sell endangered exotics like lemurs but they just can't cross state lines and are sold as pets. As your link does mention this is not allowed with endangered native animals like ocelots.


Quote:
Have you never heard of reptile collectors? It's like art collecting or baseball card collecting, but with animals. They want to have THE rarest animal, even if they have to bend or break laws to get it. And most anyone in this aspect of the hobby can easily tell the difference between an endangered Cuban Croc, an Alligator and a CITES I African Dwarf Crocodile.
People will do anything but it seems odd to get an animal to show off to people who will be jealous and likely turn you in. Of course it seems odd to pierce your back will big hooks and hang your self on the beach for fun but it's been done. So I'm sure cases happen but the likelihood of getting caught/turned in is high unless they keep it secret defeating the purposed purpose of showing off.


Quote:
If you REALLY want one for the status, and have no clue of what the difference in health/quality is (or don't care), you might pay as little as half to a tenth of that, ...depending on what point in the smuggling chain you encounter.
I'm sure price is part of it but you could also get a captive bred bird that was not hand raised for less as well. Seems odd someone who is not smart enough to know the difference between hand raised and wild in quality of pet is smart enough to find and get involved in a smuggling ring of animals to get the cheapest price.

All would be totally a mute point any way if you just made the law that captive bred animals need a ID of some sort and the person keep proof of sale.

It is also a point to consider that banning them in captivity would not stop smuggling and would likely increase the efforts as there would no longer be a captive bred alternative.


Quote:
The "red tape" is there to protect the animals, so some idiot doesn't get the idea that it might be good to try some type of food or medicine that might cause problems.
under stood but she did go through channels. She could never get all departments to agree and they all had to agree or no change would be made. In the meat time the male had been losing weight and the one diet change the vet did make was to add a canned food he did not like and which also is commonly used as a diet food for overweight domestics. I know another keeper trying to get a zoo to make some changes now but has also had no luck. I also know a worse story but it's third hand info so wont share but trust the source.

I've heard of adding acids to the food of some anteaters (I never took care of any in my career). From what little you said, I imagine that if the keeper you referred to would have taken the time to do the diet supplement correctly, she would have been rewarded. However, if she worked for me and changed an animals diet without consulting myself or the experts, I'd have suspended her too (at the very minimum). It's foolish and potentially dangerous to do crap like that on your own. If you do that without talking to your boss and getting their approval, what happens if the animal goes to the vet on your day off and they administer something that conflicts with your supplement? Or maybe someone else decides to add another dose of acid to the diet? Communication is key when working in a zoo. It sounds like your keeper meant well, but didn't consult anyone about it.
A professional keeper, in a good zoo spends a significant portion of every day recording the care that the animals have received and any changes the keepers noted in the animals health or behavior. That way if a keeper is off the next day, the working keepers will know how long an animal has been limping, or not eating, or coughing, etc. Your keeper needs to learn to play well with others, for the sake of the animals (if not her career).

I know several keepers and they all say the keepers are rarely listened too. I do understand the need to keep everyone in sync when lots of people are responsible for an animals care but this does slow down and get in the way any changes needed in care. there is also a still a strong tendency to do things as they have always done or as the majority does without much further research into what is really best for each species.


PS I wasn't the one that worked in a pet store. But have worked caring for animals including exotics and the answer would be that it would depend on the situation.

Mary
Quasi - - - - Hyzzie - - - - - Pua - - - Jupiter - - - Kat

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

&
Angel Stewie

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TamanduaGirl is offline  
post #48 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-15-2009, 02:52 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 133
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brittney View Post
When people judge and say "I think"... When I see the rabbits running around and the birds flying free... there is something beautiful about seeing their true freedom. I think that is the true problem... people wanting what they want and not thinking about the animals.
"I think" is better than "I feel" if you know the difference. Logically isn't a well taken care of animal in captivity better than a starving or ill one in the wild? I know not all are starving and ill in the wild but it certainly is a hard life.

What matters most is, individually, is that animal healthy and reasonably happy? An animal born in human care wont miss the wild they never knew. Humans can miss what they never knew due to our advanced communication. You can miss Australia or the Wild West due to seeing movies and photos and hearing stories. Animals who never experience the wild wont miss it, and that is the majority of pets.

People who have pets can both appreciate their pets and the wild individuals of that species. The domesticly kept one isn't missing out, if kept well, it is just living a different life style.

Mary
Quasi - - - - Hyzzie - - - - - Pua - - - Jupiter - - - Kat

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

&
Angel Stewie

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TamanduaGirl is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #49 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-15-2009, 03:05 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 133
 
Actually looks like a decent law if enforced but only looked at the summery.

As to exclusion of wildlife they are usually covered under hunting restrictions and nuisance wildlife laws but they should still be covered for torture under the abuse laws, I think. But the problem then would it be torture to poison mice who infest your home, what about in a farmers field? It would need to get more detailed on exactly what is okay for which species and it what circumstances if you include wildlife.

Mary
Quasi - - - - Hyzzie - - - - - Pua - - - Jupiter - - - Kat

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

&
Angel Stewie

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TamanduaGirl is offline  
post #50 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-15-2009, 03:20 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 133
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brittney View Post
Do you honestly believe all of the [legally imported] wild caught animals are legal to take from their own country?
It's a trick question unless you add that as what you were replying to was about legal imports. I'd say if it happens it would be vary rare as you would need forged CITES paper work and USDA papers and F&W is involved too. I did take my anteaters to Canada for a visit and had to fill out paper work and call all kinds of people. Was a pain in the butt too. Vet inspection by USDA aproved vet and then a Canadian vet check at the boarder by their customs vet. More checking by F&W officials coming back in to the US. Could I have forged the papers, maybe if I had a copy and good equipment but they made calls and checked everything at the boarder. Forged papers would not have got me through. CITES source papers is an even bigger hassle. So some might but they could be making more money than smuggling exotics with forged papers.

Mary
Quasi - - - - Hyzzie - - - - - Pua - - - Jupiter - - - Kat

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

&
Angel Stewie

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TamanduaGirl is offline  
post #51 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-15-2009, 05:55 AM
Rodentologist
 
Jennicat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 1,941
  
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
That was my point actually. Try reading that again and in context. The point was that it was pointed out animal abuse on exotics or any pet animal is rarely enforced. The claim was long as the owner was trying, by giving a bunny cat food, to provide care there was nothing to prosecute. Ignorance of how to care for the animal does not mean they are not guilty of neglect. People would rather a ban than do their jobs and take people to court. People would also rather not pay the taxes to take offenders to court.
Actually, it is a combination of poorly written laws (or, in some cases, laws that are impossible to write) and lack of education on the part of animal control.

For the first part, the general statute typically requires something along the lines that an animal be provided with food. They don't say what kind of food. So although someone is killing an animal with stupidity, they are following the law.

How do you reasonably accomodate that? It's unreasonable to add the dietary requirements of every species into law. Especially for exotics, which sometimes have no agreed-upon dietary requirements.

For the second part, I think it's pretty unreasonable to ask your average AC officer to memorize the species requirements of every animal that any yahoo with enough money can keep as a pet.

We are as gods to the beasts of the fields. We order the time o' their birth and the time o' their death. Between times, we ha' a duty. - Terry Pratchett.

"Men have forgotten this truth", said the fox, "But you must not forget it. You become responsible, forever, for what you have tamed. - Antoine de Saint-Exupéry
Jennicat is offline  
post #52 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-15-2009, 06:35 AM
Paw-Talk Addict
 
Brittney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Age: 30
Posts: 1,446
  
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
It's a trick question unless you add that as what you were replying to was about legal imports. I'd say if it happens it would be vary rare as you would need forged CITES paper work and USDA papers and F&W is involved too. I did take my anteaters to Canada for a visit and had to fill out paper work and call all kinds of people. Was a pain in the butt too. Vet inspection by USDA aproved vet and then a Canadian vet check at the boarder by their customs vet. More checking by F&W officials coming back in to the US. Could I have forged the papers, maybe if I had a copy and good equipment but they made calls and checked everything at the boarder. Forged papers would not have got me through. CITES source papers is an even bigger hassle. So some might but they could be making more money than smuggling exotics with forged papers.
I did NOT say legal. This especially applies to reptiles. I happened to meet a couple birds that were illegally imported. One had to have an amputation because of an infection that happened to her during shipment. They were the only two that survived out of I think it was forty-some birds. The pictures were just sad of other animals. Just because these animals may not go to big pet stores... that doesn't make it uncommon. If there is a demand for rare or beautiful creatures, they will make it here. Breeding animals in captivity is sometimes pretty hard (or impossible), and sometimes just expensive. People see the profit they can make by taking animals which cost them nothing.

Quote:
"I think" is better than "I feel" if you know the difference. Logically isn't a well taken care of animal in captivity better than a starving or ill one in the wild? I know not all are starving and ill in the wild but it certainly is a hard life.

What matters most is, individually, is that animal healthy and reasonably happy? An animal born in human care wont miss the wild they never knew. Humans can miss what they never knew due to our advanced communication. You can miss Australia or the Wild West due to seeing movies and photos and hearing stories. Animals who never experience the wild wont miss it, and that is the majority of pets.

People who have pets can both appreciate their pets and the wild individuals of that species. The domesticly kept one isn't missing out, if kept well, it is just living a different life style.
Actually, no a starving one in the wild is just nature. Things like that happen, unless of course it caused by humans, and then we must stop what they are doing to cause this harm.

Just because they can't miss what they don't know doesn't mean they don't deserve it. I can't really miss something I've seen. Videos and pictures can never replace a real experience.

And, at some point these domestically kept animals had to come from the wild. I'm sure their wild born family wasn't very happy.

:-)
1 rabbit, 6 rats, 1 conure, 1 cockatiel, 1 lovebird, 1 cockroach

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
- Bracelets, Beads + Supplies!
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Brittney is offline  
post #53 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-15-2009, 09:13 AM
Paw-Talk Lifer
 
Kendalle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Iowa
Posts: 5,083
  
its not really a good law it excludes all live stock, all things that can be termed pest, and all wild life. Others you get a misdomeaner.

[/CENTER]

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Kendalle is offline  
post #54 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-15-2009, 10:49 AM
Curmudgeon
 
Mygala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tycho Base, Luna
Posts: 1,843
      
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
As to the speed limits and driver's license laws those are for public roads. You can drive a car without a license as fast as you want if you own it or have permission and are on private land. They do not interfere with you property rights(what you can do on or with your property). There are also laws as to what can be driven on a public road but you can drive anything you want on private land.

animal bans to interfere with property rights, what I can have on my own land and what I can own.
Property rights have little to do with the driving laws you mentioned. Those laws are written to specifically apply only to public roads and land. While you have some rights regarding your property, they are not universal. Depending on the wording of the law, it can apply to public areas as well as private property. If you think you can do anything you like on or with your property, you are sadly mistaken.


For instance, if you live in a city, you may be required to cut your grass, or refrain from watering during a drought. Obviously, you can't rob or murder someone just because they are on your property. Likewise, you can't deal drugs or make a meth lab on your property either. Zoning ordinances can even tell you whether you can build on your land or run a business on it.


Laws regarding animals are no different. The City, State and Federal Government can all tell you what you can keep and how you must keep it. I certainly don't want a meth lab next door to me, neither do I want my neighbors 12 year old son to keep Gaboon Vipers (or lions, or chimps, etc). He couldn't take care of them, the animals would suffer and they would also be a risk to me and my family.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
I'm sure price is part of it but you could also get a captive bred bird that was not hand raised for less as well. Seems odd someone who is not smart enough to know the difference between hand raised and wild in quality of pet is smart enough to find and get involved in a smuggling ring of animals to get the cheapest price.
To many (otherwise) very smart people, the price is more important than the origin of the animal. They think they are smart enough to overcome any problems that might arise. If you want breeders, you might prefer smuggled animals for their bloodlines and the fact that they aren't handfed.


Ultimately, depending on what species you are looking for, it's not all that difficult to find smuggled animals.



Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
All would be totally a mute point any way if you just made the law that captive bred animals need a ID of some sort and the person keep proof of sale.

It is also a point to consider that banning them in captivity would not stop smuggling and would likely increase the efforts as there would no longer be a captive bred alternative.
There is no 100% foolproof way to ID captive bred animals. Paper ID's and receipts are easily forged. Even it there was an attempt to legislate it, you'd run in to people such as yourself that argue "property rights!". It would be extremely difficult to get everyone to pay to get their animals marked, chipped, tatooed, etc. ...and the government wouldn't pay for it. What you ask for is just not reasonable in this society, at this time.


However, contrary to what you may think, banning them in captivity would GREATLY reduce smuggling. In many cases, wildlife officers may know the animal was smuggled, but proving it is impossible. As long as there is a legal market for some animals, smugglers will flourish. If you ban the animal, then you no longer have to prove it's smuggled, it's mere existence here is proof enough. Further, by banning an animal, you reduce the market for it. If it gets small enough, there is not enough demand to make large scale smuggling profitable.


Look at Ivory as an example. If it's banned, then it's easy to confiscate all you find. That reduces the market for it and slows the killing of elephants. However, if you start opening loopholes that let some into the market, then how do you tell which ivory came from legal sources and which came from poached animals?


Years ago, while there was a ban in place, elephant poaching was greatly reduced. Now that some countries (China and Japan for example) have partially lifted the ban, poaching has shown a huge increase. It's now at some of the highest levels we've ever seen. That doesn't bode well for the elephant.

Bob



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Mistress
"Cogito Ergo Zoom"
I think, therefore I drive fast.
Mygala is offline  
post #55 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-27-2009, 03:08 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 133
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mygala View Post
However, contrary to what you may think, banning them in captivity would GREATLY reduce smuggling. In many cases, wildlife officers may know the animal was smuggled, but proving it is impossible. As long as there is a legal market for some animals, smugglers will flourish. If you ban the animal, then you no longer have to prove it's smuggled, it's mere existence here is proof enough. Further, by banning an animal, you reduce the market for it. If it gets small enough, there is not enough demand to make large scale smuggling profitable.


Look at Ivory as an example. If it's banned, then it's easy to confiscate all you find. That reduces the market for it and slows the killing of elephants. However, if you start opening loopholes that let some into the market, then how do you tell which ivory came from legal sources and which came from poached animals?
So if people feel the burden of proof it to much trouble it's okay to remove the need for burden of proof. Doesn't seem like such a good idea to me. Having trouble if a name brand is a fake or not just ban the brand from being sold now you don't need to prove it. Can't say no one suffers for those fake items because children in sweatshops and all that.

How do you prove? Well you just keep a paper trail. For example some states allow raccoons but you need to keep the bill of sale from the breeder which is also a state permit for owning it to prove you didn't take it from the wild. The breeder in turn is USDA licensed and state permitted to breed them and inspected by both. Lose the paperwork you get a fine but if breeder can verify you did buy it from them you won't be as bad off as if they can't.

As for ID being invasive for some species yeah that could be a problem but I was responding to birds since that was the main focus at the time. A simple band is not invasive. It does shift the burden of proof to the animal owner to prove they got it legally but that is better than ban them all just so we can take everyone we see.

Mary
Quasi - - - - Hyzzie - - - - - Pua - - - Jupiter - - - Kat

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

&
Angel Stewie

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TamanduaGirl is offline  
post #56 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-27-2009, 03:10 AM Thread Starter
Adolescent Pup
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 133
 
Why laws prohibiting exotic animals do not work..(from NAPA)


1) As shown by both anti drug laws and laws prohibiting ferrets in CA, people are not stopped by such laws. Such laws have only created a black market for both, as seen by the fact that ferrets are often illegally sold in CA for as much as $800, while in other states, they can be acquired for as low as $60. Some people are willing to pay the higher price then to smuggle them in from other states. There are an estimated 500,000+ ferrets in the state of California.


2) Illegal pets have no rights. They are often euthinized when seized by authorities and the owners face jail and heavy fines. Due to the fact that opening a rescue shelter for exotics is near impossible in states where they are illegal and the fact that zoos cannot or will not take them, these animals are often doomed if found.


3) Owners of illegal pets often fear taking them to vets, thus they fail to get proper vet care and vaccinations. The vast majority of vets will not turn owners in, since they know the fate of illegal pets.


4) The very fact a species is illegal often gives rise to misconceptions about the species. Such as wivetales like skunks being born with rabies and weasels sucking blood of infants, both of which have been passed on as 'facts' by state fish & game depts or health depts, with NO scientific proof. Such misinformation often leads to slaughter of these animals in the wild.


5) Laws against exotics are often used as tools by groups who use this to convince people that these animals are wild. This causes owners to turn exotic pets loose in areas they are not native to and cannot survive in. Turning exotic pets or ANY animals loose into the wild is federally illegal without proper permits for the rehabbing of native species.


6) The majority of people who keep illegal pets often are law abiding people who moved from states where they are legal, sometimes not knowing till after they have moved that their beloved pet is prohibited. These people are often subject to blackmail by others, who use the threat of turning them in to force them to do as they wish. If the animal is stolen or abused by others, the owner is unable to even report it for fear of the law.


7) Over regulation of exotic animals hampers those who gain valuable knowledge about each species, as many breeders and owners learn far more from their animals then a limited number of zoological parks can on their own. Much of the knowledge gained about successful breeding, diet and husbandry on pygmy hedgehogs was gained by breeders, not by zoos. So the private sector does have their place in the world of exotic animal keeping.

8) As the world population increases and natural habitat decreases, captive breeding is our insurance for the future of many animals. There are FAR more endangered species then a scant 2000 zoos worldwide can breed, thus zoos end up with surplus of certain animals who the zoos either don't have room for or the animal has minor defects that the zoos don't want. This can mean anything from fur color that is not correct for the species norm (albinos, mutations) to serious problems such as clef pallet in cheetahs or heart murmurs in Florida panthers. These animals that are not fit for the zoo breeding programs would certainly find life better as a pet or in a private collection then as a stuffed trophy on the wall. These animals often CANNOT be rehabbed into the wild at all.

9) The criminal element who might keep illegal exotics, simply do not give a **** if they are legal or not. If they cannot get them from a breeder or broker, they will get them from the black market and from poachers, rather then from existing captive bred populations. Banning the exotics has no more effect on them then banning guns, drugs, explosives or anything else, since they are already willingly breaking the law. In short, only the law abiding citizens care about the laws.


NAPA wishes to help in creation of fair legislation regarding exotic animals as pets or in captive breeding programs. There are alternatives to making animals illegal, such as proper education of exotic animal owners in proper care and handling of these species, plus educating the public on them as well.

Mary
Quasi - - - - Hyzzie - - - - - Pua - - - Jupiter - - - Kat

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

&
Angel Stewie

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TamanduaGirl is offline  
post #57 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-27-2009, 07:08 AM
Curmudgeon
 
Mygala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tycho Base, Luna
Posts: 1,843
      
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
Why laws prohibiting exotic animals do not work..(from NAPA)



1) As shown by both anti drug laws and laws prohibiting ferrets in CA, people are not stopped by such laws. Such laws have only created a black market for both, as seen by the fact that ferrets are often illegally sold in CA for as much as $800, while in other states, they can be acquired for as low as $60. Some people are willing to pay the higher price then to smuggle them in from other states. There are an estimated 500,000+ ferrets in the state of California.
Again, you confuse the laws with law enforcement. What you are saying here is not that the laws don't work, it's just that they are unevenly, sometimes poorly enforced. There are some states that have strict laws, that strictly enforce them. In those states and areas, there is a high degree of compliance. If California would devote some time and energy to enforcing it's laws, things would change there. However, California is (and has been for the past couple of years) in the worst recession in modern history. Funding for things like animal control have been cut to the bone. There is no enforcement arm to speak of at this time. They have other things to worry about, like healthcare for poor children.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
2) Illegal pets have no rights. They are often euthinized when seized by authorities and the owners face jail and heavy fines. Due to the fact that opening a rescue shelter for exotics is near impossible in states where they are illegal and the fact that zoos cannot or will not take them, these animals are often doomed if found.


3) Owners of illegal pets often fear taking them to vets, thus they fail to get proper vet care and vaccinations. The vast majority of vets will not turn owners in, since they know the fate of illegal pets.
No one is forcing these folks to break the law. They choose to do so for their own vanity/greed/stupidity. The animals don't have legal rights, so it's completely on the owners for breaking the law and for what happens afterwards. If these people REALLY cared for their animals, why would they subject them to the risk of illness and death like this. Sounds like they care more for the bragging rights than the actual animals themselves.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
4) The very fact a species is illegal often gives rise to misconceptions about the species. Such as wivetales like skunks being born with rabies and weasels sucking blood of infants, both of which have been passed on as 'facts' by state fish & game depts or health depts, with NO scientific proof. Such misinformation often leads to slaughter of these animals in the wild.
This is just wrong. Stories like these predate the laws. I remember both of them from with I was a kid (and that was long before modern animal laws). In the '60s and before, you could legally keep native species as pets. This argument is just silly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
5) Laws against exotics are often used as tools by groups who use this to convince people that these animals are wild. This causes owners to turn exotic pets loose in areas they are not native to and cannot survive in. Turning exotic pets or ANY animals loose into the wild is federally illegal without proper permits for the rehabbing of native species.
Not sure what your argument is here. Non-domestic species, by definition ARE wild animals. They don't have the wild instincts bred out of them and can pose a danger to the owners and others. This is one of the main reasons they are illegal. There is no such thing as a "tame" or "domestic" big cat, bear, wolf (or hybrid), hawk, owl, etc.

Releasing captive bred animals or non-native species into the wild is a whole other class of stupid. There are SO MANY things wrong with releasing animals that I don't have space to list them.

Are you saying that you would allow people who would do these kinds of things the right to own a dangerous animal? If it's all the same to you, I'd prefer people who work with dangerous animals to have a bit of knowledge about them and the environment. This is a great argument why these animals should NOT be owned by the general public!


Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
6) The majority of people who keep illegal pets often are law abiding people who moved from states where they are legal, sometimes not knowing till after they have moved that their beloved pet is prohibited. These people are often subject to blackmail by others, who use the threat of turning them in to force them to do as they wish. If the animal is stolen or abused by others, the owner is unable to even report it for fear of the law.
I don't think you can call them law abiding when they break any law that they find inconvenient. In my experience, most people tend to move to where their animals ARE legal. I don't know of any instances (although I'm sure there are a tiny few) of people moving to places where the animals they are are illegal. This is more than a state issue. Interstate transport of illegal animals is a violation of the Lacey Act. The USFWS has little tolerance of this, and there is a good chance that any animal caught under these circumstances will be euthanized. If you care about your animals (as exotic owners all say they do), why would you move from where they were legal to a place where they could be caught and euthanized? That just doesn't make sense to me. That's why I find it hard to believe when you say "the majority". I'd like to know where your data comes from on this.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
7) Over regulation of exotic animals hampers those who gain valuable knowledge about each species, as many breeders and owners learn far more from their animals then a limited number of zoological parks can on their own. Much of the knowledge gained about successful breeding, diet and husbandry on pygmy hedgehogs was gained by breeders, not by zoos. So the private sector does have their place in the world of exotic animal keeping.
There are very, very few species that would fall under this heading. While I agree that there is a place where private ownership can contribute to the knowledge base (the Lubee Foundation is a prime example), I disagree that over regulation is a problem. Any individual is free to add to what we know. If they are dedicated and intelligent, the law is not an obstacle. That doesn't mean you can do it anywhere you want. You may have to relocate, but that's the way with any research facility or industry.

It's the people who CLAIM they are doing research that have problems. Most of these are just scams used to breed animals for resale, or to take in "research money". I know of two big cat "rescues" that breed and sell animals.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
8) As the world population increases and natural habitat decreases, captive breeding is our insurance for the future of many animals. There are FAR more endangered species then a scant 2000 zoos worldwide can breed, thus zoos end up with surplus of certain animals who the zoos either don't have room for or the animal has minor defects that the zoos don't want. This can mean anything from fur color that is not correct for the species norm (albinos, mutations) to serious problems such as clef pallet in cheetahs or heart murmurs in Florida panthers. These animals that are not fit for the zoo breeding programs would certainly find life better as a pet or in a private collection then as a stuffed trophy on the wall. These animals often CANNOT be rehabbed into the wild at all.
No, ...this is wrong on a couple of levels. Captive breeding is not our insurance.

First. No private individual could have done what it took to bring in and breed animals like the California Condor, Puerto Rican Parrot or Black-footed Ferret. The requirements of genetic selection on such small populations, the space required, the facilities needed to keep the animals wild and retrain them for release was staggering (both in money and manpower). Then there was the post release monitoring (which is still ongoing), negotiations with landowners and protection of of the reintroduced populations. The only one with pockets that deep was the US government.

Secondly, when you have small populations of animals, you have to keep strict genetic records to prevent inbreeding. Private owners don't do this. In fact, animals like white tigers are the product of inbreeding. Keeping animals with genetic flaws alive and then reintroducing them to the breeding population only weakens the species as a whole. Some of the things you mentioned (like albinism, cleft palates, weak hearts) would have died out immediately in the wild. It's contrary to the purpose you stated (keeping the species alive and well) to allow these defective animals to breed. Additionally, we don't want to interbreed species or sub-species. We strive to keep the wild genetic lines pure. Private owners hybridize Bengal Tigers with Siberian (Amur) Tigers, or even more outlandish things like Tigers with Lions. How do these things help the species? They don't, they help the breeders pocketbook.

(White Tigers are a controversial issue in zoos. While they are pretty, they are literally a waste of space. They're so inbred that they are useless from a genetic point of view. They take up space in zoos that could be held by animals that are much more genetically important in helping preserve the species. Why do zoos keep them? They are popular with the public and they bring in revenue.)

Third. Zoos don't have large numbers of surplus animals. Generally they don't breed animals unless there is already a place for offspring. When I worked in the Zoo, we spent far more time keeping animals from breeding than we did breeding them. For Example: In the US, there are only so many places in zoos that can accommodate tigers. When all of them are full, no zoos are given recommendations to breed. When an animal dies somewhere, then somewhere else a pair of tigers is chosen (based on current genetic representation in the population) to breed. These tigers may or may not be already housed in the same facility. Sometimes one or the other has to move in order to meet it's new, temporary mate.

And Fourth. Keeping animals in captivity isn't going to save species in the long run. Zoos know this. The habitat that is destroyed, is most likely gone forever. The real purpose of Zoos (and here I'm talking about AZA accredited Zoos, not roadside attractions, or Billy Bob's Bear Theater), is education. They teach that animals are wild, they have a right to exist, and that we need to live in such a way that allows some wildness in the world. Zoos teach that these animals are NOT pets, and they shouldn't be treated as such. They don't disallow that some private individuals own and work with these animals, but few of them claim (or treat them) as "pets".


Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
9) The criminal element who might keep illegal exotics, simply do not give a **** if they are legal or not. If they cannot get them from a breeder or broker, they will get them from the black market and from poachers, rather then from existing captive bred populations. Banning the exotics has no more effect on them then banning guns, drugs, explosives or anything else, since they are already willingly breaking the law. In short, only the law abiding citizens care about the laws.
OMG, talk about Old Wives Tales! This is the same argument used by everyone else who doesn't like any particular regulation or law. Just because other people break the law doesn't mean we should give you a free pass to break it, or get rid of the law. How lame. (How about "Big Cats don't kill people, People kill people!LOL)
I don't know where NAPA lives, but in my world, the laws DO have an effect. If they think the laws are better somewhere else, I invite them to go there. (Let me suggest Somalia, I'm sure you can keep any animal you want there).

Sure, we hear about crime, there is no place on Earth you can escape some amount of crime, but it's nowhere near as bad as places where there are NO laws, or in places where the laws are not enforced.

Laws regulating exotics (and the occasional "Ban") do have an effect, and things have gotten enormously better in just the past 20-30 years. Unfortunately, as law enforcement gets better, so do people who break the law. Unless we want to live in a Big Brother Society, we'll never be able to completely eliminate it. There are some people who will always abuse what freedoms they have, that's just the way people are.


Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
NAPA wishes to help in creation of fair legislation regarding exotic animals as pets or in captive breeding programs. There are alternatives to making animals illegal, such as proper education of exotic animal owners in proper care and handling of these species, plus educating the public on them as well.
You can educate the public until you are blue in the face, but the hard reality is that it only works sporadically, if at all. There is plenty of education out there on how to keep cats and dogs. Go in any bookstore and there whole sections full of information. The internet has countless sites dedicated to all aspects of husbandry and training..... And yet, just go to any animal shelter and talk to the staff. See how well all that education is working.

And cats and dogs are much easier to care for many large exotic mammals or birds or reptiles. Nor are they as dangerous, pound for pound, as some large cats or venomous snakes.

Relying on education to keep us (and the animals) safe from the stupid, arrogant people who would own them, is the height of stupidity. No matter how you say it, there are some animals that just shouldn't be owned by private individuals, and there are some individuals who shouldn't own any animal, ...at all.

A blanket legalization of these exotics makes them all accessible to the worst of our society. It's a disservice to the animals, and the people they will harm. You may be a good owner of an anteater. But to assume everyone else can be good owners of things like Tigers, Pumas, Gaboon Vipers and Taipans is just dumb. Animals like these animals kill people every year.

Bob



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Mistress
"Cogito Ergo Zoom"
I think, therefore I drive fast.
Mygala is offline  
post #58 of 63 (permalink) Old 09-27-2009, 07:20 AM
Curmudgeon
 
Mygala's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Tycho Base, Luna
Posts: 1,843
      
Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
So if people feel the burden of proof it to much trouble it's okay to remove the need for burden of proof. Doesn't seem like such a good idea to me. Having trouble if a name brand is a fake or not just ban the brand from being sold now you don't need to prove it. Can't say no one suffers for those fake items because children in sweatshops and all that.
First, owning a tiger is significantly different that a knockoff pair of jeans.
Secondly, with counterfeit clothes, you Can tell the difference if you look close enough.
Thirdly, it's not illegal to own a knockoff, it's illegal to sell them as authentic.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
How do you prove? Well you just keep a paper trail. For example some states allow raccoons but you need to keep the bill of sale from the breeder which is also a state permit for owning it to prove you didn't take it from the wild. The breeder in turn is USDA licensed and state permitted to breed them and inspected by both. Lose the paperwork you get a fine but if breeder can verify you did buy it from them you won't be as bad off as if they can't.
As I've already stated, paper can be counterfeited. Heck, people print money, you think they won't copy a form if they want? This is just no real solution. It never will be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by TamanduaGirl View Post
As for ID being invasive for some species yeah that could be a problem but I was responding to birds since that was the main focus at the time. A simple band is not invasive. It does shift the burden of proof to the animal owner to prove they got it legally but that is better than ban them all just so we can take everyone we see.
There are many ways the burden of proof is on us every day. We have to carry a drivers license, we need proof of insurance and registration.
Bird bands are dangerous. They account for numerous leg injuries every year. Ask any bird vet. I would never have them on one of my birds.

Bob



To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The Mistress
"Cogito Ergo Zoom"
I think, therefore I drive fast.
Mygala is offline  
post #59 of 63 (permalink) Old 12-25-2010, 01:59 AM
dex
Newborn Pup
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2
 
I don't understand why everyone here is so against owning exotic animals.

If my animal is born in captivity, given a proper diet, exercised regularly and raised in a loving home why should I not be able to own him?

It just makes me sad that so many are quick to judge when they too own animals, and likely love them just as much as I do. How would you feel if someone told you that you had no right to own your animal, and that it was wrong? Or that because animals are abused they were no longer allowed as pets?

Reading this thread, good points were brought up on both sides. But before you view exotic animal ownership so harshly, please be aware that caring and loving owners do exist. There will always be animals mistreated, brought in illegally, or abused. The answer is not in banning, but instead in education and conservation. Owning any animal should be thought out and researched thoroughly, whether dog, cat, or tiger.
dex is offline  
post #60 of 63 (permalink) Old 12-28-2010, 07:52 PM
Guarded by Waffles
 
christine's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Weatherford, TX
Posts: 2,921
 
Tigers have wild instict. They have not had YEARS of domesticating so it's their instinct. And most of the time BIG animals are kept in SMALL areas. When they revert back to their instinct then they get killed becasue they're deemed dangerous. Well duh they're dangerous! They have predatory instincts. Small exotics are one things, but big, wild ones are a complete different story!

Christine
Mommy to:
2 cats: Suess and Jezebel
2 horses: Winter and Junior
3 dogs: Panda, Maggie, Snoopy

And the rest:
5 cows, a bull and one mean buffalo

Gone but not forgotten:
Jester, cat
Waffles, dog
Gunny, ferret

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Check out
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
christine is offline  
Reply

Tags
animals, exotic, forum, pets


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome