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%
41 - 60 of 99 Posts

·
Herp Nerd
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
The problem with using the word "domesticated" is that it has no clearly defined meaning as far as a law is concerned. If you use the encyclopedic meaning that domestication is any plant or animal which has had its behavior, life cycle, or physiology altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions under careful human control for multiple generations, then that includes many things which most people would not consider "domesticated".

Rattlesnakes are frequently bred in captivity, have been for decades through many successive generations - a friend has at least four generations of one particular rattlesnake family. They're bred for color (even albinism), pattern, and temperament. Does that mean they're domesticated? Not by most people's belief. Snakes themselves have been kept and bred in captivity since ancient times, yet most people would consider them to be wild animals. In actuality, a good portion of reptiles available in the pet trade nowadays are captive bred and have been for many generations. While it isn't hard to find wild caught ones, and they're virtually indistinguishable from the captive bred ones... who makes the determination which one is legal and which one isn't? Prove it one way or the other.

Hamsters have only been kept and bred in captivity since the 1930s. That isn't very long when you consider the ferret was domesticated in ancient Egypt - yet some places consider hamsters to be perfectly acceptable, but the ferret a dangerous wild animal?

Simple fact is, most exotic animal laws come down to nothing more than pure ignorance. They don't have anyone qualified, nor do they have the resources, to properly enforce any kind of permit system or selective legality, so a blanket ban is simply more cost effective.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
2. To make owning a dog illegal just because it looks like a wolf. If it's not a wolf-hybrid, then you should be able to own it. A german shepherd/husky mix (aka a tamaskan) is no more dangerous that a husky, or a shepherd. If you can own those breeds seperately, then why can't you own the mix. Just because it looks like a wolf, doesn't make it a wolf.
I agree.I understand the risk of a hybrid but these are two domesticated breeds.

Wild animals should remain wild.Think of how long it took to get cats domesticated and even then if they get lose and have kittens they go right back to the begining.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
400 Posts
Ravnos said:
The problem with using the word "domesticated" is that it has no clearly defined meaning as far as a law is concerned. If you use the encyclopedic meaning that domestication is any plant or animal which has had its behavior, life cycle, or physiology altered as a result of their breeding and living conditions under careful human control for multiple generations, then that includes many things which most people would not consider "domesticated".

Rattlesnakes are frequently bred in captivity, have been for decades through many successive generations - a friend has at least four generations of one particular rattlesnake family. They're bred for color (even albinism), pattern, and temperament. Does that mean they're domesticated?
...Yes o_O Thats exactly what that means

Ravnos said:
Not by most people's belief.
..Not to be overly opinionated and rude, but that's because they're wrong. Somethings breed to be a certain way over some generations, thats domesticated, now whether it's for good (docileness, job adaption) or bad (aggressiveness, "attractive traits that 'cause pain ex. rabbits with ears so long they step on them and shred them)

A quick two cents on exotic/wild animals as pets, as long as they're from a social docile species with some intelligence and hardyness for good measure, can make better pets then something breed for thousands of years to be bitey *cough ferrets,godblesstheirsoulcough* and otherwise dislike human contact (totallynotferretsbtw)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I hate to see bans of animals where they are obviously clueless about the facts of the animals they are banning! Like ferrets in California... They think the ferrets will get loose and kill a lot of wildlife, but there has been NO proof of any cases of ferrets living feral and reproducing (they usually die if they get loose...) The truth is there are actually many many people in California who do own ferrets 'in hiding' already so IMO they should just allow them, since they are already in the state!

In Illinois the only animals I know are illegal are skunks and most native bird species (crows, native songbirds, etc...)
 

·
Will It Ever Change?
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
petpredicaments said:
Im pleased to see so many people said yes to the poll :)

lol oh yeah man, BRING IT ON!!!! Animal bans are just mildly ridiculous (some make sense). No one stops me from feelign at peace with my critter siblings
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,083 Posts
i actually think that it could be turned into something good. the law i mean... ok so you cant just go buy a hippo GOOD... you cant just go buy a bear GOOD... i think its ok if you are like ok so here are the animals you cant have as pets with out a permit. take them case by case. keep some people from being all oh look at how cute it is lets get it. and not care for it properly. but just refusing animals and illigalizing them is just stupid.
 

·
Will It Ever Change?
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
yeah if I ever had to apply for a permit to have a pet, i wouldnt care. I'm a person that puts in a whole load of effort to get something i'd like. ( i try not to 'want' it's such gluttony). im my own parent lol, i quiz myself to make sure i know everything i need, and i make sure im prepared. getting permits would stop all the spontaneous petshop buyers, as long as it either A) costs money (many people wont shell out an extra bit) or B) requires some kind of proof of capability
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,534 Posts
elfomatic said:
I agree, Deja. A lot of exotics -- like lions and alligators -- have no business being in big cities. Not only can they be dangerous when not cared for properly but it is wrong to house something like that in an environment totally unsuited for them.

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.
im living in an environment unsuited for me
i want to live in the woods right next to THE WILD
i dont think we should be living in big cities w/polution and all that either
Im sick all the time and i think it is the invironment i live in seriously
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
267 Posts
if you think about it, the animals would be better off in the long run, no owners to abuse them, they would all be free. But on the other hand I would do anything to keep my babies. Rats are also considered exotic.:mad2:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
710 Posts
I voted yes, as of now I don't have any exotics but my uncle owns snakes and they are in some places considered exotic...*shrugs* Honestly if they ban my animals they may as well ban me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
47 Posts
Let's just throw our exotics at shelters and let them die because of the over-populated shelters (sarcasm)!

A ton of people have exotic pets. If states banned exotics, many animals would be thrown into out-of-state shelters. That'd mean WAY more less room in shelters, and even MORE euthanasia!

If guinea pigs ever get banned in Pennsylvania, I don't know what I'd do. I'd be willing to move, but I don't think my mom would be able to afford it and get a job.

And what about people who own lizards? Are they just supposed to dump them into shelters?

Whoever thought of banning exotics is ridiculous. They have not considered the consequences, except for a few diseases. Diseases control the already over-populated human population.


There are just so many things wrong with crap like this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5 Posts
HI,I LIVE IN DUQUESNE AND I AGREE WITH YOU THEY SHOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BAN FARM ANIMALS I HAVE 2 POTBELLY PIGS AND THE BORO PASSED A NEW LAW LAST YEAR SAYING POTBELLY PIGS AND FARM exotic ANIMALS ARE BANNED SO THE 1 IS GRANDFATHER IN BUT THE OTHER ONE I HAVE TO REMOVE IN 20 DAYS OR I WILL BE FINED 600.00 A DAY FOR EACH DAY THE ANIMAL IS STILL HEAR IT ISNT FEAR WHAT THEY ARE TRYING TO DO AND I OWN MY HOME 1 NEIGHBOR DONT WANT THEM ON HER BLOCK AND RISED ALL KINDS OF MESS SO HE HAS TO GO AND I AM VERY HURT ABOUT THE WHOLE THING.IT IS GETTING REALLY BAD.:mad2:
 

·
laugh often
Joined
·
1,690 Posts
yeah my ultimate goal was to adopt an african striped mouse when I tried i found out they just got banned from the united states. i'm still bummed about that one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,925 Posts
I didn't vote, because you need another tab to vote on. I would have to say "no, because..." No, because I also have a family to think of and could not re-locate, and, seriously, if I already owned an exotic, it IS part of my family and I am not going to get rid of it. What, are they going to come searching door to door for them? I just wouldn't tell. This is America we live in, isn't it? Give me a break! Now you have my tail feathers in a ruffle!
 

·
Will It Ever Change?
Joined
·
7,346 Posts
I didn't vote, because you need another tab to vote on. I would have to say "no, because..." No, because I also have a family to think of and could not re-locate, and, seriously, if I already owned an exotic, it IS part of my family and I am not going to get rid of it. What, are they going to come searching door to door for them? I just wouldn't tell. This is America we live in, isn't it? Give me a break! Now you have my tail feathers in a ruffle!
lol i'm with you on that one, just don't say a word and really, who'll know
 

·
Zippy Chickenshorts
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
I could never live without my pets and if I had to I would move, however here in the UK there are not many pets I would concider having pets I suppose ban. I feel for all those people who may have formed a bond, trust or realationship, maybe even everyone of them things with any animal and may have to part from it, I agree that this is not a desition for the goverment to make, but for the public too! we are the ones who care for the animals, many stores will loose profit and many angry people may do damage, we have a right to and they better realise that sooner or later!
 

·
Zippy Chickenshorts
Joined
·
1,762 Posts
I do agree tho, that animals that truly do not belong in cities/towns even villages should not be held captive. How I see this is that we are looking after and offering the animals a home, which we have taken homes from by building on top of them. also the true domestic animal should be happy living with humans and otherwise should be released or 'given' to someone who is prepared to provide 'safe' and suitable living conditions close to their natal habitat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
133 Posts
Exotic pets that are illegal do get confiscated all the time. Family members or friends turn you in cuz they got mad at you that day, meter man peeks in the window, you call 911 and they see your pets and confiscate them while they are there, vets can't legaly treat your illegal exotics in most states.

No one makes you get a permit to own a stallion but they are dangerous. No one makes you get a permit for a goldfish but they take much more care than a fish bowl to be kept healthy. Do they not deserve to be kept healthy too? The permit laws are to baby step their way to a ban.

No law has ever prevented anything. When permits do not prevent abuse they will ask for more and more till they get the ban then keep adding species to the ban. They already ban some species of dogs and cats in certain areas. California even bans gerbils.

Laws are only meant to punish. Run a stop light get a ticket because you broke the law. What about owning an exotic pet should be punished? If it's with permit then it is still illegal unless you get "big brother's" permission. What about owning an animal without government permission deserves to be punished? If it's abused and neglected abuse and neglect laws should cover that, if it's not that issue should be addressed as well as enforcement but not a ban or permits. If it's safety a horse is more likely to kill you than a big cat. Neither need banned or permitted there are public endangerment, animal at large laws, and lawsuit options to deal with punishment of that.

It feels good to think we can prevent abuse if we pass X law but it wont ever happen. People need a license to drive but how many people obey the speed limit or drive well? Why don't they drive better they got a license it's supposed to prevent bad driving. California has some of the strictest laws, pets banned anyone else want an exotic need two yrs experience, state permit, USDA license, subject to inspections ect. They've had plenty of incidents of abuse, neglect, and exotics at large there from licensed facilities. But all those laws were supposed to prevent that?

Laws do not prevent anything they punish, exotic owners do not need to be punished.

Hamsters have not been kept as pets nearly as long as most of the exotic pets People are complaining should be in the wild. Foxes, bears, skunks, and lots more all have a longer history of being kept as pets. If they are kept healthy, happy and reasonable steps are taken for safety then there is no problem. If not neglect, abuse, and public endangerment laws would/should already address the problem.

As for problems it really is a small percent but it is news worthy because it's rare. And good owners are not news worthy nor are most attention seekers. They are like any of you and have a pet they love and prefer low profiles too keep their pets safe from people that think better dead than a pet. The problem isn't ownership It's a small percent of bad owners. Most people are not stupid enough to think a tiger will stay a cub forever. Most owners love their pets and will do what is best for them. I believe more domestics get abused and neglected percentage wise than exotics. No one has ever set a tiger on fire while still alive they have cats and dogs. Then, if a ban is to protect animals, ban cats and dogs.


Don't ban a species ban the deeds.


As for taking them from the wild that is a misconception. No tigers are imported only born and bred for many generations in the USA like parrots and your hamsters who have not been kept nearly as long as tigers have by people. The vast majority of exotics are born and bred as pets. Everyone prefers a healthy domestically bred and tamed pet to taking a wild one with unknown history and health and intact wild temperament. Just try hugging a wild raccoon and see if it is even remotely the same as a tame one. Laws on wild animals are strict and those few wind up with more expert folk.


These AR(animal rights) folks who push these ideas want even dogs and cats banned. They want no human animal contact. They are just picking on the less commonly kept pets first because we are fewer in number and an easier target. Hamsters, ferrets, hedgehogs, parrots, certain breeds of cats and dogs and even gerbils are all already banned in certain states and localities. Anywhere a ban is passed they come back year after year to add more species to the banned list.
 
41 - 60 of 99 Posts
Top