Exotic Animal Bans... - Page 7 - Paw Talk - Pet Forums
Animal Welfare & Legal Issues Post articles, news alerts, and anything else pertaining to animal welfare. Legal issues and obligations regarding our pets such as renter's rights/responsibilities, vaccination laws, animal bans, etc. are also appropriate.

View Poll Results: Would you move to another state where your pets are legal if they became illegal?
Yes 106 78.52%
No 29 21.48%
Voters: 135. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #91 of 99 (permalink) Old 01-24-2012, 05:56 PM
Adolescent Pup
 
WingedWolfPsion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plattsmouth, NE
Age: 46
Posts: 148
 
Right, and if people aren't scared, they'll use every tactic they can come up with to MAKE them scared.
WingedWolfPsion is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 99 (permalink) Old 05-30-2012, 07:25 AM
Newborn Pup
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Usa
Posts: 8
 
Good sharing above there thanks for it.
But i can not understand why you had made the two post here for that........
Marksteven is offline  
post #93 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-04-2012, 10:36 PM
canis lupus familiaris
 
Blacksheep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Northern California
Posts: 552
 
Just saying but here in CA we have underground networks for banned animals. I'm not sure about hedgehogs or anything like that but at one point in time, I was VERY interested in getting a ferret. With some talking, I found a bunch of vets that treat ferrets (and likely other exotics) but you have to make special arrangements for them. Oh and on top of that, our local petco/petsmart sells exotic food for banned animals.

[B]
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Spyro
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Loki
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Luna
Blacksheep is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #94 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-11-2012, 09:38 AM
Newborn Pup
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7
 
I admit I do not know much about the banned animal lists but I can see why many of the animals would be on there. Some animals are wild and should not be kept as pets. However, it seems that list is starting to include animals that should be kept as pets and need loving forever homes.
Lions, for instance, are on the list and I can understand why. Ferrets being banned, however, seems wrong. I've read the reasons they are on the list and I just don't agree.
lolybear17 is offline  
post #95 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-11-2012, 01:16 PM
Adolescent Pup
 
WingedWolfPsion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plattsmouth, NE
Age: 46
Posts: 148
 
Wild Versus Domesticated

Obviously a person who keeps tigers should require permits, insurance, and some form of oversight--these are animals which might escape and, well, eat people.

However, the same cannot be said for ocelots. No one's ever been eaten by an escaped ocelot. With basic guidelines for how such animals should be kept, why aren't existing anti-cruelty laws good enough?

There's a movement in this country now to restrict or ban pet ownership, starting with the most vulnerable fringes. The phrase you used is a symptom of it--'some animals are wild and should not be kept as pets'. What does that mean? If an individual keeps an animal, does that mean that it is a pet...that they will pet it? What if the care they provide is superior to that provided by a zoo? What if they're propagating an endangered species in captivity, because it has virtually no habitat left, and there's no where else for it to exist?

Domestication is a process by which an animal evolves to become more suited to live with humans. I won't say that it's a process that we deliberately guide and control, because there's some evidence to suggest that the domestication of the dog was inadvertent, not deliberate. What we mean by 'more suited to live with us' changes between species, though. The koi fish is a domesticated species, yet it hasn't been bred for additional docility. Why? Because that wasn't necessary. Wild carp are docile enough already. Gerbils are a commonly kept pet--and have not been significantly altered from their wild form. They are not a domesticated species, because changing them wasn't needed to make them good pets. That's an important point to keep in mind.

Not all wild animals make bad pets. Not all domesticated animals make GOOD pets. The Spanish Fighting Bull is unquestionably a domesticated animal, and it would as soon kill you as look at you. It's not about 'domesticated' or 'wild', and it never was. Those are words used as tools by people who have an agenda, and they use them skillfully enough that very few people even notice they are being manipulated. It sounds good, so it must be true, right?

Think about it carefully the next time you see a proponent of animal rights talking about wild animals and domesticated animals, and pets. Remember that animal rights people want to end pet ownership. They consider it to be slavery, and they consider domesticated species to be an abomination.

See how easily they were able to skew the facts about ferrets, to claim that they're bad pets...to convince people that they are 'wild' even though they are domesticated animals. The truth is, ferrets aren't for everyone--neither is any other pet. It takes a very special person to own and properly care for a lion. It doesn't take an entire zoo--just someone who's willing to do things the right way. Those people DO exist. Why shouldn't they be permitted to pursue happiness in their own fashion?

A lion, housed correctly, has a reasonably good life. There are some things it would do in the wild that it doesn't get to do, but there are also benefits that it deeply enjoys--it's a trade off. That lion never starves, never goes thirsty, and is kept free of parasites, and treated for any injuries or disease it suffers. It enjoys social interaction (either by being kept with another, or with its keeper), toys to keep it from being bored, and peace.

Animal rights folks would tell you that the lion would rather be free. That's no more accurate than saying that the lion would rather be captive. It's an opinion that has nothing to do with what the lion actually wants. If the lion doesn't show signs of excessive stress, and appears to be content, then it's doing fine--that is the only conclusion we can draw, unless you want to try to telepathically communicate with a lion.

It's becoming increasingly true that there isn't anywhere left on earth for some species to exist, other than in captivity. This is as true for smaller species as it is for larger ones. An entomologist recently rescued a unique species of roach that lived in bat caves, by propagating them in captivity, and then sending colonies to a bunch of folks involved in the insect keeping trade. The roach was rescued hastily, because the cave it lived in...the only place on earth that it lived wild...was slated for Bauxite mining. It is assumed that this cave is now gone, and so is every wild roach of this species. Yet, they live on...because people are keeping them as 'pets'.

Should they go extinct because 'wild animals don't make good pets'? We have some hard choices to make. I've seen a view expressed which I personally found very distasteful, and had trouble understanding. It was that a species 'out of context' was worth nothing--that it was not worth saving. That it was useless, and should go extinct. This person felt that if no habitat was left to support a species, it should disappear.

I believe every species has intrinsic value, and should be saved, even if it means we must keep it, and provide what it needs to continue to survive.

Steve Irwin pointed out that humans love what they can touch and interact with, and that they will only save what they love. A world without non-domesticated pets is a world in which there is no wild left at all, IMO. When animals become an inconvenience to humans, something that is just in the way, rather than something to love, then they quickly perish.

No one should ever have to name a new, tiny chameleon "Brookesia triste' ("sad"), because it was found in a tiny patch of isolated forest next to an expanding city. That this little chameleon may go extinct so soon, leaving only a photo behind--that is the tragedy. A new roach "Simandoa conserfariam" ("live in many places"--because it exists only in captivity now), inspires more of a sense of wonder along with the sadness, doesn't it? It's not sad...it's alive. That means there is hope. Does the roach care that it no longer lives in a bat cave? It's found a new way to live. Isn't that what evolution is all about?

There's no way to leave things the way they were before we arrived on the scene. There are ways to help other species survive in spite of our presence. What is 'right' in all of this? Everyone will have to decide that for themselves, but be very careful before you tell someone else that their conclusion on the matter is the wrong one. Every course has consequences, both good and bad, and either way, something is lost.

So, do wild animals belong in the wild? Yes...if there is wild left for them. Do they not belong in people's homes or yards? That's a separate question--I believe that, sometimes, they belong there too.
WingedWolfPsion is offline  
post #96 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-14-2012, 12:56 PM
Newborn Pup
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 7
 
That was wonderfully put WingedWolfPsion. I suppose when I was thinking "some animals are wild and should not be kept as pets" I had in mind somebody keeping lions and tigers in abusive conditions. I definitely understand and agree with the points you made.
lolybear17 is offline  
post #97 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-23-2012, 06:42 AM
Newborn Pup
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Usa
Posts: 8
 
Good sharing above there thanks for it.
But i can not understand why you had made the two post here for that........


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Marksteven is offline  
post #98 of 99 (permalink) Old 06-23-2012, 12:51 PM
Adolescent Pup
 
WingedWolfPsion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Plattsmouth, NE
Age: 46
Posts: 148
 
Mark, I'm not sure who you are addressing, or what you mean.
WingedWolfPsion is offline  
post #99 of 99 (permalink) Old 01-15-2013, 07:58 PM
Newborn Pup
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 3
 
I do not support a outright ban. Permits yes. Reptiles should not be banned. That said large cats, bear ver large snakes, primates are more like zoo animals then pets in my book. And I am sure most people that care for them could agree with that. However of two places Florida, and Hawaii could not be blamed if they became strict. I own a conure and dog so I would not want someone to tell me I can not have a parrot or dog.
Arwen10 is offline  
Reply

Tags
animal control, bearded dragon, bearded dragons, cage bars, captive bred, dog park, exotic animals, exotic pets, exotic vet, fancy mice, farm animals, feral cats, flying squirrel, flying squirrels, german shepherd, guinea pig, husky mix, life cycle, pet owner, pet shop, pet store, pet stores, pet trade, prairie dog, prairie dogs, regular vet, spiny mice, sugar glider, sugar gliders, wild animal, wild animals


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