You must be logged in.
You must be logged in.
Should people be allowed to keep dangerous animals as pets?
Many jurisdictions (nations, states, cities) have rules concerning the types of animals that can be kept as pets. In many places someone can not keep a venomous snake, a crocodile, or a large cat with out at least obtaining a permit.
Since these animals have the capacity to seriously injure or kill someone if they escape, should there be restrictions on private citizens keeping them?
Personally, I wouldn’t want to live beside someone who had an alligator and a cougar in his basement. I’m for some type of legislation against the captivity of exotic pets, but I am unsure of how best to implement such an ordinance; perhaps it is up to specific jurisdictions in tandem with the advice from conservation biologists.
My dog is an American Pit Bull Terrier who is quite large and scary until one actually says hello to her and then she turns in to a big baby. Many do classify them as dangerous animals but they are really not; their owners are assholes who didn’t train them properly. Since this is the case, I would frame it as, if an animal is not able to be tamed then it can not be in a neighborhood.
Semantics: people do currently keep dangerous animals. Regulations allow it but still there are some horror stories. Remember the woman who had a face transplant a couple years ago because her friends monkey went “ape” on her. Don’t forget Sigfried and Roy, one was attacked by the tigers they worked with and those guys had decades of experience. What might be interesting is to know the statistics of how many “dangerous” animals are privately kept and how many problems there are. Seems that some incident comes up every few years, like the elephant sanctuary not far from me had a handler killed but they have a number of others and never had a problem. Having a dangerous animal may be no more risky than riding motorcycles or scuba diving.
I don’t mind people having these animals but in a responsible society they will have insurance to cover damages and those companies would be serious about how safe the pens are, what treatment the animals get, personal training and other things. If there are lions next door to me then I have a right to accept that or they have a right to move away and not subject neighbors to loud roaring at all hours. All these things are in place today. The biggest problem I have is the import of exotic animals that are not sterile. The Everglades became infested with pythons since a breed-able pair escaped from a pet store.
Humans are the most dangerous animals. Non human animals kill out of survival. Human animals kill for greed.
People should be able to own any non-sentient object that has been justly acquired.
and should be willng and able to bare the consequence of said acquisition
Humans can own any non-animal they choose. But as Rick Rule said, they are liable for the animal. Having a 10 foot croc is all fun and games until it death rolls the mail-man’s leg off.
As already mentioned, there should not be any restrictions on owning any type of animal. Don’t blame me though if you find you have no friends! If you own a dangerous animal you might find that that is the case as it will scare people away-another consequence of owning a dangerous animal.
People should be free to do as they please. Being free means being responsible for the consequences of your own choices. The idea that people be “allowed” implies that there is someone, other than people, around to “allow.” Which seems silly.
I own and operate a pet store that sells mostly reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates. Some of these could be considered dangerous, like some of the tarantulas, scorpions, large constrictor snakes. Recently the US FWS (fish and wildlife service) changed a regulation and banned the interstate transportation of several snakes (reticulated pythons, anacondas), a couple years ago they added Burmese pythons to the list. While I can legally keep and sell Burmese pythons in my state (Massachusetts) I can not transport one (even a baby) 45 min away to NH, where they are also legal to keep.
The anti-pet lobby (Humane Society of the US and other groups) keep trying to expand the list of “injurious” animals that are banned. They donate to (bribe) politicians, help fund pseudo-science TV shows (on Animal Planet, The Science Channel, etc.) to spread disinformation (like the Everglades are invested with pythons) and scare people into believing these animals to be killers. I would argue that the domestic cat is responsible for more wildlife destruction than a few Burmese pythons. And many more people are killed each year by dogs and horses, per pet, than by pet reptiles.
There are groups trying to counter-lobby the legislature but the general public doesn’t know or care that reptile keepers rights are being trampled. First they came for the pythons…
