Large Exotic Pets - Where do you stand?

I just read a news article about keeping exotic pets. I cannot find the article now because I can't remember which links I clicked to find it. It was talking about these people who take in animals that were originally kept as pets. These animals include lions, tigers, wolves, monkeys, etc. The article (and comments) are very anti-exotic animal keeping. I was wondering what your views were on the subject.

Personally, I feel if someone understands these animals are dangerous and are not pets, and can financially, mentally, and physically care for them, I think there should not be a problem with that. If someone wants to keep a tiger, and they can provide proper space, nurishment, enrichment, etc, and respect the animal as a dangerous wild animal (meaning, you do not wrestle with it, or go into an enclosure alone, or at all with the animal inside if you can help it), I think they should be allowed to do so. Of course there should be regulations in place that keep Joe Shmoe from keeping a cougar or elephant in his backyard. But if you have the proper facilities, why not?

For example, I want a Serval. I think they are beautiful. They are small African wild cats. I understand they are not a house cat. While they have the capacity to love you, they also have the capacity to tear your face off if they wanted to. With this understanding, if I had the finances and space to keep one, I'd really like to. Unfortunately they are illegal in this state for anyone but zoos, sanctuaries, and educational programs. Now, my dream job is to own a zoo, but that is a very costly venture and it may never happen. But if I could provide an enclosure large enough to house the Serval correctly, feed it properly, provide enrichment activities and provide proper vet care, why shouldn't I be allowed to keep one?

What are your thoughts?

I love Servals and Ocelots and I've seen Bobcats kept successfully. I think they're a small enough size that, if properly cared for and with a significant amount of land, house size and training/interaction, they can likely make wonderful pets. Do I think they should require some kind of licensing? To a degree. I think it would probably be better to do something more along the lines of required microchipping and required 'check-ins' by local Animal Control to ensure the animal is properly cared for and contained, and I feel as though some community awareness would be common courtesy. Neighbors would probably want to know if there was an African wild cat living in someone's backyard lol

As far as people keeping things larger than that, i.e., tigers, lions, etc.; I think that should require some form of licensing. They are incredibly powerful and intelligent animals that can get out of most enclosures and cause significant collateral damage. I think large, particularly endangered species (like the Tiger), should be exclusive to rescues and rehabilitation centers, just because the animal would be more beneficial to its species to be in the wild, helping to repopulate, if possible. Now, that being said, I knew someone who had a pet Mountain Lion that was a beautifully well-adjusted, well-maintained, sweet and affectionate animal that required very little extraneous effort on the keeper's part.

I love the idea that people can keep whatever animal they want, but I know it would be an incredibly abused privilege, like it is now. I would personally love to have wolves or wolf-hybrids, and I have a distant, distant dream of having a pet fox, because they are my favorite animal; but I know what they require as far as enclosures and feeding, and if I ever kept exotics like that, I would be willing to have Animal Control pay frequent visits to check the animals and enclosures.

All in all, I agree with you. I think if people have done their research and have the necessary space and finances and are willing to cooperate with local authorities, then they should be able to keep certain species. I don't necessarily think endangered species should be available to anyone except zoos, even if just for the sake of selective breeding to preserve a species.

I voted on the poll that you should be able to keep any animal with regulations. I lied. It was a slip of the mouse. I meant to vote that you should be able to keep some species with regulations. The majority of species in fact but there are certain species that just should not be kept in captivity. Primates are one. They just require far too much stimulation and enrichment. They have to have one on one interaction which is extremely difficult to provide ALL THE TIME and there is always the risk of behavioral issues. Elephants are another species that I think fits this category as well.

If I had a lot of land, I would build a zoo in a heart beat if I was allowed to. Its the people that try to keep cougars, bears, and tigers like housecats that bug me. These animals should NEVER live in close quarters with humans. They should have their own seperate enclosure and human interaction should be kept to a minimum. These animals are not cuddly house pets, they are wild animals. Should we be allowed to keep them, yes. Should we treat them like Fido or Fluffy, no.

Maybe I should go back to school and one day build a zoo. That would be fantastic. Expensive but awesome! I can dream, right? Maybe I might have to settle for working at a zoo, aquariuim, becoming a veterinarian, or running my own pet shop. We shall see.

I look at it this way. We live in a time where if the government gets a chance to regulate something, they will either regulate all of it over time or take it away completely over time. The slippery slope theory everyone harps about. This is America, sounds cliche, but it is and we are supposed to be able to do what we like as long as we are not hurting other people. Period.
I don't want elected officials telling me what I can and cannot do behind my closed walls, as long as I am not hurting another human being.
Sure, I know. That sound overboard and a little outrageous but I pay my taxes and expect the government to leave me alone at the end of the day.
If I have the means to keep a tiger, that's my business. If I have the means and want to keep a gartersnake, that's my business. I don't need to be told what to do with my time or my money by a bunch of elected officials that know nothing about who I am, or how much education I have, or knowledge I have about the animals I want to keep. They have enough to worry about trying to protect me from outside governments and they need to keep the roads clean and in good working order.

b_rickard wrote:

I look at it this way. We live in a time where if the government gets a chance to regulate something, they will either regulate all of it over time or take it away completely over time. The slippery slope theory everyone harps about. This is America, sounds cliche, but it is and we are supposed to be able to do what we like as long as we are not hurting other people. Period.
I don't want elected officials telling me what I can and cannot do behind my closed walls, as long as I am not hurting another human being.
Sure, I know. That sound overboard and a little outrageous but I pay my taxes and expect the government to leave me alone at the end of the day.
If I have the means to keep a tiger, that's my business. If I have the means and want to keep a gartersnake, that's my business. I don't need to be told what to do with my time or my money by a bunch of elected officials that know nothing about who I am, or how much education I have, or knowledge I have about the animals I want to keep. They have enough to worry about trying to protect me from outside governments and they need to keep the roads clean and in good working order.

Very well said. I would point out NYC and San Francisco as case examples for the slippery slope of allowing our government to ban actions that don't harm others in the name of public good. San Francisco has banned happy meal toys to prevent childhood obesity, thus taking choice away from parents. NYC is looking at (and very likely will) ban all sodas over 16oz also in the name of public safety as well as Happy Hour. Certain foods are now being considered banned as well such as movie theater popcorn.

You may say it's absurd to equate banning tigers (properly kept of course) with banning soda but I see them as one and the same. One is merely the beginning because very few people care about it and it leads to more and more restrictions (all for the public good though!) until we get to restrictions like these that are becoming commonplace in certain cities. I would also add that Police Cameras with lights and loudspeakers are now being deployed across Detroit and Chicago and unmanned drones are being used by the EPA to conduct surveillance on cattle farmers without warrants. Once you acknowledge certain rights that don't harm others can be given up for the public good, there's no line drawn to where it can end.

I am all for permits to keep sure these animals are being taken care of properly but who's right is to to tell anyone that they may not take proper care of animals they love if they want to and have the means to do so.

I completely understand you about the slippery slope thing, but I do think there needs to be SOME kind of regulation on keeping large dangerous exotics. You say you do not want the government in your business and lets say you want to keep a tiger. You have a nice big facility with plenty of space, enrichment toys, you've researched a proper diet, have all the proper training with keeping big cats. You get the cat and all goes well. You are a model big cat keeper and you do everything perfectly. There are not regulations whatsoever and you couldn't be happier. Life goes on.

Now, down the street, Joe Shmoe sees your tiger and figures he wants one for himself. He has a normal sized house, makes average money, but has little or no experience with big cats. But he wants one all the same and since there are no regulations saying he can't have one, he goes out and buys a tiger cub to keep in his house. Sure its cute and cuddly for a little while, but then he notices Fluffy is starting to eye him like a piece of candy. Fluffy is also tearing up his home and making his neighbors uncomfortable. He lets Fluffy out for a little exercise and wouldn't you know, tigers can jump a 6ft fence and Fluffy ends up eating Fido down the street. Now Joe has a problem.


You see where I'm going? Without SOME kind of regulation ANYONE can get these dangerous animals and keep them improperly. Now I'm not saying that no one should be allowed to have them. I'm saying there needs to be a system in place where you have to have a certain level of experience, training, knowledge, and resources to care for such an animal. Have a permit system put in place. Ok, Joe, you want a tiger. Here is what you have to do. You must construct an outdoor enclosure that has proper shelter from the elements. You must provide a nutritious diet and also provide enrichment activities for the animal. For public safety your enclosure must also include security measures to keep the animal from escaping. You must also have a minimum of (for the sake of the discussion I'm just putting out a number but who knows how much experience is necessary) 2 years experience working with the species with a licensed keeper (someone who also has a permit who is licensed to train prospective keepers). Once you have met these requirements you can apply for a permit and upon a passing inspection of your facility/enclosure, you will be presented with a permit to keep a tiger.

I don't see how that would be considered a bad thing. It keeps the animal safe and the keeper too.

I voted 'some species with regulations'. I agree with you 100% on primates. They require entirely too much stimulation to be safely kept by anyone who does not specialize in them.

But I also agree with b_rickard. While people should not have elephants living in an apartment, people should be able to keep what they want provided the animal is safe, healthy and happy; and no person is endangered.

i also voted "some"with regulations. there has to be some rules as to what people can or cannot own, you know?

Regulations are needed to make sure the animal is safe, healthy, and secure. If there were no regulations on keeping these animals, I could go out right now and buy a cougar to keep in my apartment.

Actually, that brings to mind something my mother told me. She used to work in a leasing office for an apartment complex. One day she and a co-worker had to enter a man's apartment to check the smoke detectors. They go in, and all seems fine. They make their way to the back of the apartment where they find a fully grown cougar. The cougar goes into the living room and is blocking them from leaving. My mother goes to the fridge where she finds meats and begins throwing bits of it down the hallway to distract the big cat. With the cougar pre-occupied they make their exit. Of course, cougars are definitely against the lease agreement so they have to force the guy to give up the animal. Apparently while they were making arrangements to rehome the big cat, my mother got to know the cougar and even brought me over to meet him (but I was too young to remember). They ended up rehoming the cat to a zoo but my mother went to visit on occasion and according to her the cougar actually recognized her. She said she went to the zoo and began calling the cats name "Banshee" (I didn't know this but we used to have a dog named Banshee. My mom said she named the dog after the cat because she adored the cougar so much) She said when she began calling his name, he came running across the enclosure. My mother stepped over the barrier that kept you away from the bars of the enclosure and she stuck her hand through the bars. She said the keepers went nuts. lol.

Again, I'm all for people being allowed to keep these animals, but only if they keep them properly. People try and keep them in their homes like pets, and they are not pets. They are wild animals and deserve respect. Heck, my cats are domesticated. They are simple housecats that only have a hint of thier wild ancestor past. Do you know how many times I get scratched or playfully bitten a day? I have scars! Now, make that housecat bigger than me and I'm going to get a whole lot more than a little scratch if they try to play. Its the same thing for big cats or other large carnivores. Sure, they can be super cuddly and not the slightest bit cuddly, but one wrong move can end in disaster. One claw can land you in the hospital. One playful bite can kill you. And that is what these people don't understand.

If I were to ever own a big cat (I'm not that interested in keeping them) I would have an outdoor enclosure. Human contact would be very limited and only reserved for having to move the animal to a holding pen while I cleaned the enclosure or while the animal is receiving vet care (and usually they put them under for that sort of thing) Other than that, I do not come into any contact with the animal.

That all sounds fine, but our government doesn't see the difference between a good keeper and a bad keeper!

Here is what needs to happen. Americans need to start taking responsibility for their own lives and their own actions! Period.

We are over regulated as it is and pressured by outside entities that want our hobby banned completely to worried about what ifs and maybe.

Sorry, I am a realist and when it comes to the government I am not convinced one iota that they are in this for our best interest or even the animals best interest. We do not employ lobbyist to sway their vote or their thinking so even a little regulation ends up being too much regulation.

But I would rather have too much regulation than some kid getting their face ripped off from because someone's chimp got loose. If there could have been regulations that lower the chances of bad keepers obtaining these animals, I'd rather have the regulations than no regulations. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions (or lack of actions) but there needs to be some kind of regulations.

ClarkeReptiles wrote:

But I would rather have too much regulation than some kid getting their face ripped off from because someone's chimp got loose. If there could have been regulations that lower the chances of bad keepers obtaining these animals, I'd rather have the regulations than no regulations. I'm all for people taking responsibility for their actions (or lack of actions) but there needs to be some kind of regulations.

What if we enforced laws on the books and held people accountable for their actions. If your chimp gets loose, and rips some kids face off, then you are held responsible as if you did it and face attempted murder, public endangerment, assault, and very heavy financial restitution to the victim. These consequences sound to me like encouragement for proper and secure housing that would lower the chances of bad keepers keeping them.

Regulations also have a way of ultimately banning what they govern. New York, California, DC, Chicago, etc have effectively banned firearms for law abiding citizens just through regulations. Good luck trying to get a concealed handgun permit in many states too even when there's a process. Virginia legislators took this "illegality creep" into account when designing our CHP process since they automatically grant it after a certain time period unless a specific reason is found not too.

I would like to point out (in general, not in response to your post) that HSUS and many people feel the exact same way about keeping ball pythons and corn snakes that some reptile people feel about keeping tigers and other larger animals. I've also often read that racks are inadequate housing and it's cruel to keep snakes as pets. Some people keep snakes in inadequate enclosures just like there's stories of exotic cats being improperly kept but I like to think that both instances are equally rare and shouldn't be used as talking points to ban ball pythons or tigers.

Good post Brian. I couldn't agree more.

Brian : thats true, it would make people be "more careful" but if there were protective laws against owning certain species or have requirements to owning them, the poor kid would've never gotten his face ripped off in the first place... the money, jailtime, and charges wouldn't be enough to me if something hurt or killed my kid (when i have one)... obviously its better than nothing but it still wouldn't make me feel better.

Regardless of how they think or their opinion, theres a difference between an animal the gets 4-5 feet at most in length and could'nt eat a rabbit and a 21 foot long animal that could easily kill a human. dont get me wrong, i dont mind any animals, as long as there tame, however, there is a difference between harmless cornsnakes or whatever and a 12 foot alligator lol. i agree with some of your post and i'm not in complete opposition but i do see where other people have points as well.

i know people who have retics and burms and other pets and as long as they are kept properly, its fine, but when irresponsible owners start doing things like letting them go or leaving kids unsupervised with them, thats when things start to go wrong and give people bad ideas about the animals or give the animals a bad rep.

What do the rest of you guys think?

Bobbykaizer wrote:

Brian : thats true, it would make people be "more careful" but if there were protective laws against owning certain species or have requirements to owning them, the poor kid would've never gotten his face ripped off in the first place... the money, jailtime, and charges wouldn't be enough to me if something hurt or killed my kid (when i have one)... obviously its better than nothing but it still wouldn't make me feel better.

What do the rest of you guys think?

If there were laws banning automobiles, then thousands of children would be alive today. I get a little peeved when an argument to bring more laws into our lives is done in the name of protecting the children. Sorry, I just hear the unstated comment that because I don't care for more regulations on our already regulated lives, then I don't care for our children.

yeah, i do agree with that. of course i dont want More regulations but i do believe some are needed. good car example, but as you see there are already regulations on those and people still do illegal things in/on/around them so puttinbg more laws on animals would just make it illegal to do certain things, not necessarily stop them from happening...

you can argue that some things should be regulated, but it ultimately goes back to my original comment. government will not stop at the 20 foot retic. Look at certain local laws governing snakes. I lived in Cedar Rapids, Iowa and ALL snakes even snakes I caught in my own back yard (constrictor snakes) were illegal to keep, no matter how big they were. It was because they were constrictors. So, they start at something big and work their way down.

What about guns? They kill more people than snakes, even retics! Why not ban them, across the board??
What about dogs? They kill more people than snakes, chimps, tigers, elephants, etc every year??
What about horses? ditto??
I can keep going..... It's not the animals is my point. It's irresponsible owners. If you are worried about your chimp jumping a fence and getting to a kid down the block, then I would suggest not keeping him! (I know you don't have one)
The same can be said about venomous animals. If you are scared your neighbor is going to be injected with venom and loose his arm while at your house, don't keep hots.

Like I said, we need to be realistic, we need to be able to judge what we can do in our own private space and take responsibility for our own lives and what we surround ourselves with.

A side note. I am not a republican nor a right wing conservative. I lived more than a decade in Europe.