Paw Talk - Pet Forums banner

Would you move to another state where your pets are legal if they became illegal?

  • Yes

    Votes: 106 78.5%
  • No

    Votes: 29 21.5%
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
RSbunny said:
A lot of those animals that were on that list should not be allowed to be pets anyway....I mean seriously, do you think a kangaroo is going to be happy living in someone's backyard?

I also don't think that any of you realise just how lucky you are with the different types of pets you are allowed to own. Sugar gliders are a great example...they are native to my country and I have never seen a real one, we are not allowed to have them as pets, and honestly I'm not sure if I agree on that one. From what I have read they take a huge repsonsibility and not everyone out there owning sugar gliders will be providing them with their proper environmental needs.
QUOTE]

Just because Kangaroos are kept in captive situations, doesn't nessacerily imply that they're being thrown in a standard backyard.

Sugar Gliders definetly take work, but they're needs aren't anything a responsible person can provide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
elfomatic said:
However, exotic animal bans are often based on misinformation. They are also very generalized so a lot of decent pets get banned as well. Most times, professionals aren't consulted and research isn't even done. So, it is left up to the owners to petition the laws -- and most times the system doesn't even care what the pet owners think: There aren't enough exotic owners out there to make a difference so even if you know your stuff you are still fighting a loosing battle. It is sad, really.
Precisely. The information is often based on outdated data, or they just haven't looked into things specifically. Like boids no larger than 2 feet?! There are numers pythons and boas that get 2-6 feet but their girth is much to small to be a threat to anyone. I remember when NYC banned exotics, the law was so ridiculous they had taxonomic errors on the bill!!! Everyone thought it was a joke the original bill so ignorant and obviously not researched.

Lets pick apart some of those "dangerous" animal groups...


32 (I) FAMILY FELIDAE (LIONS, TIGERS, COUGARS, LEOPARDS, OCELOTS,
33 SERVALS, BUT NOT DOMESTIC CATS OR FERAL CATS WHICH SHALL MEAN DOMESTI-
34 CATED CATS WHICH WERE FORMERLY OWNED AND HAVE BEEN ABANDONED AND ARE NO
35 LONGER SOCIALIZED, AS WELL AS THE OFFSPRING OF SUCH CATS)

Yeah, tigers are dangerous. Bengal Cats and Chausies are not. They're hybrid cats with just a sliver of wild cat blood in them.

36 (II) FAMILY CANIDAE (WOLVES, COYOTES, FOXES, JACKALS, BUT NOT DOMESTI-37 CATED DOGS)

Again, wolves can be dangerous. I promise you my Fennec Fox, however, was no more threatening than a ferret. They only get to be three pounds!!

41 (V) FAMILY PROCYONIDAE (RACCOONS, COATIS)

Coatis are a handful, ringtails make fine pets.


43 (VII) FAMILY VIVERRIDAE (CIVETS, GENETS, MONGOOSES, BINTURONGS)

Genets fall into the category I just created for fennecs and ringtails. I wonder if whoever wrote the bill even knows what a genet is?

44 (3) ORDER EDENTATIA (ANTEATERS, ARMIDILLOS, SLOTHS)

Armadillos are boring, yes. Dangerous? I don't think so.

45 (4) ORDER MARSUPIALIA (OPPOSSUMS, KANGAROOS, WALLABIES)

Dama wallabies only get to be several pounds. Terrifying!


50 (8) ORDER RODENTIA (SQUIRRELS, PRAIRIE DOGS, BEAVERS, PORCUPINES,
51 GAMBIEN RATS, BUT NOT GUINEA PIGS, RATS, MICE, GERBILS OR HAMSTERS)

What does MICE mean? Domesticated fancy mice, or all mice. Zebra mice, pgymy mice, spiny mice are definetly not dangerous. I can possibly see the danger in a grey squirrel, but a flying squirrel could do little damage if it wanted to!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
I tried to post this using a quote, but I'm new to the board and may've screwed something up. If I post the same basic thing twice, I apologize.

All the animals in that list are NOT dangerous. The list is a broad and overexagerated blanket law. The original proposal for NYC was so absurd there were taxonomic errors in it! People thought it was a joke because the initial proposed ban was put together so poorly. If they don't even know what it is, how do they know if it thrives in captivity? If they ban whole groups of animals, what about the members of the group that do fine in captivity?

32 (I) FAMILY FELIDAE (LIONS, TIGERS, COUGARS, LEOPARDS, OCELOTS,
33 SERVALS, BUT NOT DOMESTIC CATS OR FERAL CATS WHICH SHALL MEAN DOMESTI-
34 CATED CATS WHICH WERE FORMERLY OWNED AND HAVE BEEN ABANDONED AND ARE NO
35 LONGER SOCIALIZED, AS WELL AS THE OFFSPRING OF SUCH CATS)

Yeah, Tigers are dangerous and if you want to keep one in Texas you have to get proper licensing and have your facility inspected. This law would also ban Chausie's and Bengal cats. Neither of these hybrid cats are dangerous at all.

36 (II) FAMILY CANIDAE (WOLVES, COYOTES, FOXES, JACKALS, BUT NOT DOMESTI-
37 CATED DOGS)

Once again, wolves are dangerous. I promise you, however, my Fennec Fox was no more dangerous than a ferret and not any bigger. In fact, he was friendlier than many ferrets I've met!

41 (V) FAMILY PROCYONIDAE (RACCOONS, COATIS)
43 (VII) FAMILY VIVERRIDAE (CIVETS, GENETS, MONGOOSES, BINTURONGS)

Ringtails (which are procyonids) make fine pets, as do certain species of genets. They only get to be several pounds.

44 (3) ORDER EDENTATIA (ANTEATERS, ARMIDILLOS, SLOTHS)

Armadillos are boring, yes. Dangerous? No.

45 (4) ORDER MARSUPIALIA (OPPOSSUMS, KANGAROOS, WALLABIES)

Dama wallabies only get to be several pounds. And to the person who mentioned Kangaroos in the back yard, just because the private sector is keeping one doesn't nessacerily its given a standard sized back yard. Sugar Gliders do need responsible owners, but they're nothing a responsible person can't keep! So many small marsupials are kept... mouse opossums, short tailed opossums, sugar gliders, none of which are dangerous.


50 (8) ORDER RODENTIA (SQUIRRELS, PRAIRIE DOGS, BEAVERS, PORCUPINES,
51 GAMBIEN RATS, BUT NOT GUINEA PIGS, RATS, MICE, GERBILS OR HAMSTERS)

A FLYING squirrel couldn't hurt you if it wanted to. What constitutes legal mice? Just fancy mice (mus mus)? What about zebra mice, spiny mice, pygmy mice... not exactly very threatening.

1 (III) FAMILY BOIDAE (ALL SPECIES WHOSE ADULT LENGTH CAN EXCEED EIGHT
2 FEET IN LENGTH)

Ridiculous! There are tons of boids (pythons and boas) that get between only 2-6 feet, and their girth is so minimal they couldn't be a threat to anything.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
RSbunny said:
Yes but there would still be a lot of irresponsible owners that wouldn't look after their Sugar Gliders....that's what I was saying. I wasn't talking about the responsible ones.

And with the Kangaroos, well sorry they shouldn't be kept in captivity. They are not pets, they have a very high potential to kill in seconds (and they have done so). I still stand my ground on that one too.
When you make blanket laws making animals illegal it also screws all the responsible owners. Many areas require proper licensing to keep exotic animals, which is understandable, but to deny everyone the capacity to keep an animal is infringing on their personal liberties.

Horses and dogs have a high capacity to kill too. As do cars. More people have died from horses or cars than have from large snakes or kangaroos. Its all relevant to being intelligent, responsible, and knowing your animal. I don't think supervelous laws should exist to protect people from their own stupidity.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top