Pets & Animals >
Exotic Pets & Animals
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedShould the government restrict exotic pet ownership?
Results so far:
| Yes | 64% | 129 votes | Total: 202 votes | |
| No | 36% | 73 votes |
Yes
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesShould Exotic Pet Ownership Be Restricted?
There are many reasons why the ownership of exotic pets should be restricted and few, if any, why such private ownership should be allowed without restriction.
Few exotic pets are domesticated. While many species offered by profit-motivated companies are gregarious or social species, this does not mean that they will be docile throughout their lifespans. The young of such species can be very compliant, submitting to the dominance of their human owners throughout their childhood and early adolescence. But when they reach the equivalent to their "teenage years" that submission quickly disappears.
This is the age when social species start striving for placement in their social groups. They act out against the dominance of those in their social group who they have previously submitted to. This can be very dangerous to their human "pack mates" when they are physically powerful. Large cats, wolves and chimpanzees, for example, are easily capable of physically overpowering an adult human male, let alone a child.
Exotic pets typically have exotic needs and diets. While some owners may strive to learn and provide for these, many fail to do so. It is a sad fact of life that many owners of our standard domestic pets fail to be aware of or meet their needs, even though those requirements are fairly well understood and recognized.
Dogs and cats frequently arrive at animal welfare shelters with appalling injuries and/or dietary insufficiencies. I have volunteered in the dog ward of an SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) veterinary hospital and succored dogs that have literally been skin and bones or covered in mange or have multiple traumatic physical injuries.
It is possible that civilian ownership of pets of some species considered endangered could be beneficial to the continuance of that species. That such an approach would develop an evaluation that might save them from extinction. Continuing a species in captivity even as it dies out in the wild. While this would clearly be valuable, should it be unregulated?
Exotic species, especially those that are endangered, may benefit from private ownership, providing them with a continuance they might not otherwise have. But such ownership needs to be regulated and monitored, so the animals in question receive appropriate care; meeting their physical, medical , psychological and sociological needs. Such animals should be valued as family members and not just as potential financial incomes by their owners.
When such animals are also members of a threatened species their reproduction needs to be structured appropriately. Mating between pairs needs to be structured and recorded to maximize genetic diversity. When numbers are small the potential for inbreeding is increased, effective monitoring and recording of sexual interactions is essential in supporting the continuance of the species.
Learn more about this author, Perry McCarney.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
"I wish I was in Tijuana eating barbecued iguana." (Lyric from "Mexican Radio")
Oh, they just don't write 'em like that anymore! But Stan Ridgway and the boys from Wall of Voodoo no longer have to travel to Mexico just for barbecued iguana. Instead, they can indulge in that delicacy right here in the good ol' United States of America because green iguanas have overrun much of south Florida, parts of Texas, and the islands of Hawaii.
Considered as exotic or non-native species, green iguanas did not naturally migrate to the warmer climates of the United States.
However, anyone who subscribes to the theory of evolution would have to insist that iguanas would naturally expand their territory to include the northern climates eventually. And yet, oddly enough, many of those same evolution adherents will also insist that the iguanas do not belong in the Florida Keys, along the Rio Grande Valley, or munching on hibiscus flowers in the shadow of Diamond Head.
For some tree huggers, the process of habitat expansion automatically falls into the "unnatural" folder to be filed in the "aberrant" drawer of zoology whenever humanity has abetted the expansion. Arrogant, self-anointed ecologists treat the whole topic as if humanity were not part of earth's natural existence. On one hand, humanity (some will insist) benefited from evolution's "natural" selection. While on the other hand, humanity's involvement in any change to the planet clearly remains "unnatural".
How does logic such as that work?
If a migrating bird ingests seeds from the Brazilian kariba weed and drops them while flying over southern Florida, would environmentalists regard that as a "natural" spreading of the kariba weed? If so then exactly how does that process differ from a human taking an iguana as a pet and then releasing the iguana far from its original habitat after the fascination has waned?
Why do ecologists consider human involvement in anything as something "unnatural"?
If human involvement stands as the defining line between what scientists consider natural and unnatural then lawmakers will have to ban dogs in Hawaii. They'd have to prohibit parakeets in Peoria. Oh, and no more manned missions to space, the moon or beyond. In fact, air travel should also get the legal axe altogether because men weren't "naturally" meant to fly.
Incidentally, the Norway rat hitched a ride with humanity to expand its territory to include North America back in the 1700s. Europeans of the 18th Century did not intentionally broaden the rodent's habitat. Rather, that process just sort of unfolded naturally-with the help of sea-faring vessels built by humans. The rats came along for the ride as stowaways, the way an insect might hitch a ride on a bird's feathers when migrating from the US Virgin Islands to Virginia.
So, should the government restrict exotic pet ownership? Absolutely not!
Instead, exotic pet owners should pay hefty amounts of money for the privilege of owning a peacock, spider monkey, or ferret. In fact, pet ownership, in general, should come with far more financial burden than just looking through the classified ads for free kittens or baby pythons. Pet enthusiasts could still seek rare animals, but it would just cost them more than they might casually spend on such a hobby.
In other words, the government should make the notion of pet ownership so expensive that it becomes less appealing to the average, irresponsible schmedlock. The more a pet costs, the less likely it is that the owner will simply set the animal free after the pet's initial appeal has subsided.
Beyond the initial investment of money, micro-chipping truly dangerous animals such as pythons, monitor lizards or other predatory creatures would also give pet owners cause to think before owning and then randomly releasing such non-native species into the wild. On top of the data-chipping program, large resultant fines for any such pet caught in the wild wouldn't fit the narrow definition of government restriction because it would allow people to buy the exotic pets, but it would install a deeper sense of responsibility for the pet owner.
Smaller exotics, such as green iguanas or tropical fish are clearly harder to manage, even with current restrictions. Additional government regulations,however, would only serve to drive the black market for such rare animals further underground. Thus, making exotic pet sales even more difficult to scrutinize and regulate. Additional difficulty is the last thing the exotic pet industry needs. Instead, the government should encourage more responsible pet ownership through a series of incentives and deterrents.
Even with government regulations already in place, feral green iguanas have now overrun southern Florida so thoroughly that some counties recently created laws to describe how residents can legally kill the invasive lizards. One swift club over the reptile's skull and a quick beheading stands as the only legal, humane way of disposing of an unwanted feral iguana in some Florida communities.
That sanctioned means of disposal at least gives residents of Florida one effective non-toxic tool in battling the spread of the iguanas.
By the way, many recipes for delicious barbecued iguana do not require skinning the animal before cooking. An iguana on the grill differs only slightly from a chicken breast on the grill. Chicken skin is yellow while iguana skin varies in color. In today's economy, grilled wild iguana just might become the dish of choice for those struggling to get by in the West Palm Beach area.
A new hit song from Wall of Voodoo might sound something like this, "I'm glad I live in West Palm-uh, where I can grill my green iguana!"
Learn more about this author, Dennis Krivda.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Exotic Pets & Animals
- Flying squirrel versus the sugar glider: Which is a better pet?
