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%
81 - 99 of 99 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Bans are never the answer. Licensing (without excessive fees), even inspection--but not bans. (I think it's inappropriate to take the live feeder debate to this thread, so I won't comment on that).
 

·
Herp Nerd
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
Someone deleted all the other guy's posts and it makes me seem like I'm arguing with myself. :)
 

·
Resident Aquarium Nerd
Joined
·
9,930 Posts
Someone deleted all the other guy's posts and it makes me seem like I'm arguing with myself. :)
What other guy? :confused:







Ha, sorry, it's easier to click the button that deletes everything rather than individually delete several posts and PMs in addition to a ban when a troll flips out :rolleyes:.
 

·
Herp Nerd
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
I figured that's what it was. Never really understand people who zip into some place and immediately try to start fights. The exotic animal issue will always be a rough subject, especially when most of the public is - lets face it - ignorant. Calmly trying to educate is our only real option.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
I think one of the issues is the loaded word, 'exotic', itself. Some so-called 'exotic' animals are perfectly ordinary native species, such as corn snakes, and also long-established pet species that are not, QUITE, technically domesticated--such as hamsters.

Some of the pet-opposing AR groups have lobbied very hard to ensure that the public sees lions, tigers and bears in its mind, when it hears the term 'exotic', and that it does not see guppies, budgies, or gerbils.

They widely spread the idea that if an animal is not 'domesticated', then it cannot be a real pet. That includes most aquarium fish, most cage birds, most small mammals, and all reptiles and amphibians, insects, and arachnids.

They never acknowledge that some species don't need to be domesticated, because their natural temperament is already passive enough for them to make good pets when tame (ie, ball pythons, leopard geckos, gerbils)...or that some species don't need to be domesticated because you don't TOUCH them (amphibians, arachnids, fish).

Addressing that would be contrary to their agenda.

Domestication is a state that is readily ignored when it is inconvenient, as well. Ferrets are often considered to be 'exotic' animals, for example, in spite of the fact that they have been a domesticated species for longer than cats.

Make no mistake about it...if we give an inch, they will take not just a mile...they WILL take everything. Every time a law is passed restricting the ownership of any 'exotic', we lose another centimeter. We're in a defensive position, with no way to gain back any ground that we lose, and they will NEVER stop. We need to organize if we are going to retain our right to keep pets at all, much less the pets we choose.
 

·
Resident Zoologist
Joined
·
262 Posts
I think one of the issues is the loaded word, 'exotic', itself. Some so-called 'exotic' animals are perfectly ordinary native species, such as corn snakes, and also long-established pet species that are not, QUITE, technically domesticated--such as hamsters.

Some of the pet-opposing AR groups have lobbied very hard to ensure that the public sees lions, tigers and bears in its mind, when it hears the term 'exotic', and that it does not see guppies, budgies, or gerbils.
Or dogs or cats, both of which are technically exotic in North America.
 

·
Resident Zoologist
Joined
·
262 Posts
Ferrets are often considered to be 'exotic' animals, for example, in spite of the fact that they have been a domesticated species for longer than cats.
Actually, cats have record of domestication that goes back easily 4000 years, ferrets do not.....at best, they have about 700 years, verifiably. That being said, a number of insurance companies will deny you homeowners insurance if you own ferrets.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Exactly--black bears, corn snakes, and prairie dogs are NOT exotic in North America, but house cats and chickens are.

Domestic dogs migrated into North America with the people who became the native Americans, and I think we can say that they have been here long enough to be considered native, as this was a natural migration rather than a sudden introduction. (Humans and dogs traveled together everywhere long before the advent of agriculture). We can also safely say that humans are native to North America, although this is probably beside the point.

In fact, there MAY be a North American wild dog breed descended from early domestic dogs, similar to the Dingo and New Guinea Singing Dog, which lives in the swamps of the South. The dog has been named the Carolina Dog. There is evidence for and against its existence--if it is present, the dog is critically endangered.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
Actually, cats have record of domestication that goes back easily 4000 years, ferrets do not.....at best, they have about 700 years, verifiably. That being said, a number of insurance companies will deny you homeowners insurance if you own ferrets.
From Wikipedia:
"The history of the ferret's domestication is uncertain, like that of most other domestic animals, but it is likely that ferrets have been domesticated for at least 2,500 years."

I will grant you that cats are older, my mistake. I think that 2500 years is a fairly respectable span, however.

As for homeowner's insurance companies--give your business to good ones, not ones that penalize homeowners based on their choice of pets.
 

·
Herp Nerd
Joined
·
1,115 Posts
If they want to talk about 'injurious to native wildlife', the domestic cat is far more of a harm to our native species like song birds, insects, and small reptiles than any other introduced species. If they want to talk about the risk to humans, horses and dogs send far more people to the ER than any other animals. If they want to simply claim feral/not native, why aren't they suggesting we eradicate the wild horses from California? All the arguments they make for imposing blanket bans don't really add up, but they always go after the low hanging fruit. The things that are easy to vilify without fact, playing off people's fear and ignorance to get their anti-animal agenda passed. That's why they jumped with this thing in Ohio, or the pythons in the Everglades. It makes their argument so much easier when everyone is scared.
 

·
canis lupus familiaris
Joined
·
552 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
148 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7 Posts
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.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3 Posts
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.
 
81 - 99 of 99 Posts
Top