Should legally owning DWAs be allowed?

[Holly2873]

A lot of people and even organisations like born free, are trying to end the owning of DWAs. I’d love to know your views on this. Do you agree? Disagree?

I’ve looked for other threads relating to this but didn’t find any so I made a new thread. Sorry if I’ve missed one.

 

[Chlidonias]

A lot of people and even organisations like born free, are trying to end the owning of DWAs. I’d love to know your views on this. Do you agree? Disagree?

What are your views on this?

 

[Holly2873]

What are your views on this?

If the animal is taken care properly and the handler has a lot of experience before owning one and don’t contribute to the illegal pet trade then I think it’s alright. Some people want animals that are out of the ordinary. As long as the animals needs are met. What about you?

 

[dillotest0]

I believe that, preferably, each 'Dangerous Wild Animal' is to be looked at on an individual basis - simply because some laws can be over-exclusive [or under-exclusive] as to exactly what constitutes a dangerous wild animal.
To speak of the DWA act in the United Kingdom, one of its main reasons-de'etre was to address a specific problem growing in the United Kingdom - lions would commonly be sold as cubs at pet stores, with many people happily picking the cute cubs up to bring them home - only for a few years down the line to be totally overwhelmed with what became as the cub grew older.
And if you have a thought about how these people were keeping these animals; most people were not keeping them, say on large open estates of land; though some people did. Most people were keeping them as they would a domestic cat - in a household environment, where lions had little room to move. And so to address in large part this problem; as well as a few others; the DWA license came to be.
And since then, the lion problem has largely been resolved; there are just a few private holders of lions in the United Kingdom these days. And many of them own privately-run zoos which are open to the public.
That's not to say the DWA license is perfect. Many male animals; domestics included; are known to be rather aggressive on occasion. Yet the license does not necessarily distinguish between the owning of male and female animals. A female domestic pig can be kept as a pet quite easily - but a boar can have aggressive tendencies. Some animals are also on-list largely for 'textbook' purposes - Gila Monsters are venomous animals, and so are included on the list. But their venom is hardly dangerous to most people, and the UK climate is rather harsh for the species to wreck havock on the environment in much the same way as feral cats and dogs do. Dogs and cats whereas as it stands have rather little restriction on movement; and scientifically-backed programmes of culling escaped cats have won the honour of scientists, but not so much the general public who are fond of these animals.
Some activists on the other side of the coin have discussed an alternative approach - a 'positive list' of animals - their main point being that when animals are placed onto a 'negative list', it ultimately opens the possibility of many animals outside the negative list being purchased; and even then being totally unsuitable.
Belgium is known for having one that was put into force - and even so it manages to remain rather liberal in regards to animal choices - the positive list there includes red-necked wallabies, Siberian and Eastern chipmunks, water buffalo, alpine ibex and guanaco.
So where do I stand then?
The idea of a 'pet' is a rather nebulous one. There are some 'pets' which claim the entire home [or in the case of dogs, the neighbourhood] as their territory. Some 'pets', like most rodents require more specialised enclosures to ensure wellbeing. And so I do think that in the case of a lion; the obvious would be to treat it as one of a more specialised calibre.
But then there is another crux - to produce lion pets, lions must breed. Major zoos have established breeding programmes and pedigrees for their lions; but in the private sector with such animals, there is no guarantee of breeding being done in a totally reputable way. There will always be some people who want to get lucrative off selling wild animals; to whatever expense of the animals' welfare.
But if the private sector can somehow manage to breed lions as ethically as possible; and maintain that the people who obtain lions are of competency; then it should not be a question presented with a banhammer - but one of a justice gavel. Many people in the private sector wish for the same thing many in the public sector do - to see their favourite groups of animals thrive for generations to come. Though I would prefer if the lions they bred were of established ecotypes in my opinion.

 

[Lafone]

I don't believe people should keep any animal for egotisical purposes. If people want a pet they could always get a non restricted animal with no great difficulty. Can you have a lion is not the same as should you.

I do believe in conservation and I have no issues with the keeping of wild animals for conservation and education in a regulated environment. I think good zoos or collections focusing on animal welfare, education and conservation and breeding carefully are amazing places and help to work against some of the damage that we as humans are doing to the planet. Hardly shocking really given I visit zoos and this is a forum about zoos.

I don't agree with organisations that believe all captivity is wrong. However I also don't agree with people who want a lion in their back garden so they can say they have one. Neither postion is helpful or, in my view, actually good for animals.

See also.

https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/why-zoos-are-good-for-animals.480964/

https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/zoos-should-only-keep-native-animals.137461/

https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/what-species-would-you-ban-from-zoos.476470/

https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/are-zoos-bad-or-good-for-animals.301283/

https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/obsessive-anti-zoos-are-a-headache.482898/

https://www.zoochat.com/community/threads/species-you-hate-to-see-in-zoos.466528/

 

[birdsandbats]

Daryl Richardson seems to own a DWA just fine.

 

[Aardwolf]

Daryl Richardson seems to own a DWA just fine.

That was totally where my brain went to first as well, before I saw the OP was from the UK.

 

[Jurek7]

Just to correct two mistakes at the beginning:

A lot of people and even organisations like born free, are trying to end the owning of DWAs.

Not. There are very few people interested in it, and organizations like that are fringe.

lions would commonly be sold as cubs at pet stores

No. This simply is not the case in countries without such laws (including several European ones) and did not happen in Britain before Dangerous Animal Act was passed.

Currently, there are no problems with escaping wild animals. Stories that in Texas there are hundreds of tigers kept in backyards and in New York there is a population of escaped alligators in sewers are urban legends. So there is no problem to solve.

Dangerous wild animals on the loose were also not a problem in Britain before this law was passed. And, as others pointed, the current law is already bloated. It covers venomous reptiles which venom is not dangerous to humans, carnivores no bigger than a domestic cat and wild bovids smaller and more docile than a domestic cow or goat.

Do you know that, according to British law, a dikdik is dangeorous wild animal? And gazelle, too? Just lumped with all Bovidae.*

Owners commonly point that money required to comply to bureaucracy goes directly off money for care of animals themselves.

Fringe organizations which propose such laws often have habit of creating pointless controversies to promote themselves, and often have a hidden animal rights agenda which they try to smuggle by other means.

There is little possible benefit of such regulations, other than unnecessary feed bureaucracy and give activists control other people. If anything, dangerous wild animal law should be reviewed and become less bureaucratic.

*Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 - Wikipedia

 

[Lafone]

Just to correct two mistakes at the beginning:

Not. There are very few people interested in it, and organizations like that are fringe.

No. This simply is not the case in countries without such laws (including several European ones) and did not happen in Britain before Dangerous Animal Act was passed.

Currently, there are no problems with escaping wild animals. Stories that in Texas there are hundreds of tigers kept in backyards and in New York there is a population of escaped alligators in sewers are urban legends. So there is no problem to solve.

Dangerous wild animals on the loose were also not a problem in Britain before this law was passed. And, as others pointed, the current law is already bloated. It covers venomous reptiles which venom is not dangerous to humans, carnivores no bigger than a domestic cat and wild bovids smaller and more docile than a domestic cow or goat.

Do you know that, according to British law, a dikdik is dangeorous wild animal? And gazelle, too? Just lumped with all Bovidae.*

Owners commonly point that money required to comply to bureaucracy goes directly off money for care of animals themselves.

Fringe organizations which propose such laws often have habit of creating pointless controversies to promote themselves, and often have a hidden animal rights agenda which they try to smuggle by other means.

There is little possible benefit of such regulations, other than unnecessary feed bureaucracy and give activists control other people. If anything, dangerous wild animal law should be reviewed and become less bureaucratic.

*Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 - Wikipedia

It wasn’t every pet shop nor that common but Harrods sold exotic animals including lions alligators and a baby elephant right up to the 1960s in the U.K. - to state it never happened historically is incorrect.

The main DWA was first passed in law in 1976 I believe.

It wasn’t as if you could buy a lion in a corner shop or easily etc of course.

Also there have been several very high profile animal ‘escapes’ (or suicide by animal) in the US in particular so I think you are constructing a ‘there’s no problem’ theory in the teeth of at least some evidence to the contrary. Unregulated ‘pet’ keeping mass breeding and illegal trade in animal by products are also a problem in some countries. I do t take the view anyone should be able to do everything because most people will be ok - what happens to the animals where there is abuse or neglect or incompetence.

I would agree with making it less complex and more sensible however to be clearer and also to help legitimate zoos operate more efficiently in terms of animals keeping and transfer.

 

[15399]

A lot of people and even organisations like born free, are trying to end the owning of DWAs. I’d love to know your views on this. Do you agree? Disagree?

I’ve looked for other threads relating to this but didn’t find any so I made a new thread. Sorry if I’ve missed one.

I see that you're new here, so welcome to ZooChat! In the future, it's important to be cognizant that, as an international forum, different acronyms may have different meanings in different places. In this instance, the acronym "DWA" in the US forum is almost exclusively used to refer to the Dallas World Aquarium. I for one, found it confusing when first reading the beginning of this thread since I've never heard "DWA" in a different context before. In the future, being cognizant of this and avoiding acronyms when they aren't universally recognized (e.g. you won't run into any problems calling an Asian Small-Clawed Otter an ASCO) will help make threads more accessible to all members. That being said, this does appear like an interesting topic, so thanks for providing a point for this discussion.

Some activists on the other side of the coin have discussed an alternative approach - a 'positive list' of animals - their main point being that when animals are placed onto a 'negative list', it ultimately opens the possibility of many animals outside the negative list being purchased; and even then being totally unsuitable.
Belgium is known for having one that was put into force - and even so it manages to remain rather liberal in regards to animal choices - the positive list there includes red-necked wallabies, Siberian and Eastern chipmunks, water buffalo, alpine ibex and guanaco.

Unfortunately, this 'positive list' can create a similar problem, by creating inconsistencies in what can and cannot be kept. Massachusetts has a state law banning all exotic pets (define as anything other than domestic farm animals, dogs, and cats) unless a species is specifically put as "exempt" from the law. While this list is fairly thorough when it comes to reptiles, and the mammal list is very short (thirteen species, ten of which are rodents, and the others being four-toed hedgehogs, sugar gliders, and bizarrely enough bison), but in terms of birds, the list gets a lot more complicated. Toucans, all parrots, emus, and ostriches are included on the "exempt" list, however some species of birds that are prevalent in aviculture, and would make much more reasonable pets than any of the four birds I mentioned, are not included. Examples include mousebirds, turacos, bulbuls, and exotic waterfowl. Ultimately, I find a "positive list" says less about what makes reasonable pets, and says more about what people have successfully lobbied to include on the list, for better or for worse.

 

[Great Argus]

If the animal is taken care properly and the handler has a lot of experience before owning one

Usually the people who have worked with potentially dangerous animals as a job aren't the ones keeping them as pets - they understand the risks and see no reason to put that kind of liability on themselves. Not always the case, but frequently it is. On the other hand there's plenty of people who think they know what they're doing and don't. It generally comes down to this:

Can you have a lion is not the same as should you

Just because you can buy a Lion, or a Honey Badger, or a King Cobra, 100% does not mean you should. A lot of risks and liabilities are taken on by purchasing such animals, both to yourself and your neighbors. And should you proceed to improperly take care of said animal and have it escape or hurt someone, you very quickly find yourself plastered all over the news. Some animals should be left to facilities and professionals that can maintain them safely and properly, plain and simple. One video of some guy wrestling with his docile adult male Lion does not mean it is suitable as a pet.

 

[15399]

Currently, there are no problems with escaping wild animals. Stories that in Texas there are hundreds of tigers kept in backyards and in New York there is a population of escaped alligators in sewers are urban legends. So there is no problem to solve.

Maybe not "escaping", but people releasing invasive species they no longer want is a serious issue in some places. In the northeastern US (and possibly other parts), red-eared sliders have become a serious invasive species primarily due to unwanted pets being released into the wild, and are now competing with more endangered, native turtles (e.g. Wood, Spotted, Blanding's). Yes, it's not tigers or alligators, but to say it is not a problem at all is objectively incorrect.

 

[Great Argus]

In the northeastern US (and possibly other parts), red-eared sliders have become a serious invasive species primarily due to unwanted pets being released into the wild, and are now competing with more endangered, native turtles (e.g. Wood, Spotted, Blanding's).

Same issue on the west coast with them pushing out the Western Pond Turtle.

 

[Astrotom3000]

Depends on what you mean by "people".

Zoos, aquariums, organizations, sanctuaries, rescue/rehab centers, and non-profits that focus on conservation, education, and housing/caring for injured/non-releasable/abandoned/unwanted/confiscated wild animals should all be allowed to own and house DWAs as long as they are properly cared for.

I do NOT believe that private individuals without the proper resources or expertise, and only doing it for personal satisfaction (i.e. people who just want a cool pet) should be allowed to own DWAs.

Maybe not "escaping", but people releasing invasive species they no longer want is a serious issue in some places. In the northeastern US (and possibly other parts), red-eared sliders have become a serious invasive species primarily due to unwanted pets being released into the wild, and are now competing with more endangered, native turtles (e.g. Wood, Spotted, Blanding's). Yes, it's not tigers or alligators, but to say it is not a problem at all is objectively incorrect.

The problem with Red-eared Sliders goes way beyond the United States. Feral populations now exist on every continent sans Antarctica. And some of those populations are even breeding, such as those in Australia.

 

[15399]

I voted for "it depends", mainly because in this thread it hasn't been defined what a "Dangerous Wild Animal" is. Do I think people should be allowed to own Lions, Tigers, and Bears (oh my!)? Absolutely not. Furthermore, venomous snakes, large primates, elephants, commonly trafficked species, and potentially injurious wildlife should not be legal as pets either. However, many animals *could* possibly be dangerous, but don't pose a substantial enough risk I feel they warrant being banned. Even something like a Prehensile-tailed Skink has a nasty enough bite a case could be made it is "dangerous" (although certainly not deadly), however I don't think there's a solid argument that people shouldn't be allowed to keep them as pets, provided they care for them properly and have done their research first (which should be true of ANY animal, exotic or domestic). It's also worth pointing out that Domestic Dogs can most certainly be "dangerous", as dog attacks are much more deadly than the attacks of many animals commonly referred to as "dangerous".

I think Massachusetts uses a good model in its criteria for what exotic pets should be allowed, even if I don't agree with every conclusion they've reached under this:

(4) Exemption Criteria: Animals exempted below are believed to meet the following criteria:

(a) Accidental release of the fish, amphibian, reptile, bird, or mammal will not result in an adverse effect on the ecology of the state;

(b) The animal in captivity, or escaped therefrom, poses no substantial danger to humans, either by injury or disease;

(c) Proper care of the animal is no more demanding in any major respect than proper care of domestic animals;

(d) Trade in the fish, bird, mammal, reptile or amphibian has no significant adverse effect on the wild population of such animal in any of its native habitats.

 

[Birdsage]

I voted for "it depends", mainly because in this thread it hasn't been defined what a "Dangerous Wild Animal" is. Do I think people should be allowed to own Lions, Tigers, and Bears (oh my!)? Absolutely not. Furthermore, venomous snakes, large primates, elephants, commonly trafficked species, and potentially injurious wildlife should not be legal as pets either.

Define “people”, “venomous snakes”, and “potentially injurious wildlife”.

 

[Jurek7]

IMassachusetts has a state law banning all exotic pets (define as anything other than domestic farm animals, dogs, and cats) unless a species is specifically put as "exempt"

I always compare laws and their effect between countries or states. It is often surprising and revealing, how many laws are worthless, because elsewhere functions very well with half as much laws. The main problem is bureaucrats admitting they are wrong.

Are most states with less restrictive laws much worse than Massachussetts? No. Has Texas plenty of pet tigers? Not.

people releasing invasive species they no longer want is a serious issue in some places. In the northeastern US (and possibly other parts), red-eared sliders

Talking about red-eared slider turtles as dangerous animals is incorrect.

Invasive species and mass trade of animals are a problem. However, they are different problem than keeping 'dangerous' animals and answered by different laws.

But you also illustrated the creeping scope of such laws and possibility of abusing them for banning harmless pets.

Zoos, aquariums, organizations, sanctuaries, rescue/rehab centers, and non-profits that focus on conservation, education, and housing/caring for injured/non-releasable/abandoned/unwanted/confiscated wild animals should all be allowed to own and house DWAs as long as they are properly cared for.

I do NOT believe that private individuals without the proper resources

There is no real difference between a private zoo or sanctuary and private person.

I completely support that any animal should be kept in a minimum standard of space, care, and including security, and laws enforcing it. However I don't support making a distinction between a zoo or sanctuary and private person in keeping an animal.

 

[15399]

Define “venomous snakes” and “potentially injurious wildlife”.

Venomous snakes as in all snakes that produce venom, including Elapidae, Viperidae, and some Colubrids.

Potentially injurious wildlife is as defined by USFWS under the Lacey Act:

Injurious wildlife are wild mammals, wild birds, amphibians, reptiles, fishes, crustaceans, mollusks and their offspring or eggs that are injurious to the interests of human beings, agriculture, horticulture, forestry, wildlife or wildlife resources of the United States.

 

[15399]

Talking about red-eared slider turtles as dangerous animals is incorrect.

Invasive species and mass trade of animals are a problem. However, they are different problem than keeping 'dangerous' animals and answered by different laws.

But you also illustrated the creeping scope of such laws and possibility of abusing them for banning harmless pets.

Your post I was quoting said "there is no problem with escaping wild animals". While not dangerous to humans, last time I checked red-eared sliders were still considered to be "wild animals".

 

[Jana]

There is no real difference between a private zoo or sanctuary and private person.

I completely support that any animal should be kept in a minimum standard of space, care, and including security, and laws enforcing it. However I don't support making a distinction between a zoo or sanctuary and private person in keeping an animal.

I agree with this. I wouldnt even make distinction between a government/municipality owned and private owned zoo/rescue/whatever and private collection. Only standard of care and ethics is important.

Maybe I´m feeling old but I fondly remmember the "wild" 1990s in my country when we (general public) had almost complete freedom to do anything we wanted. As long as you didnt hurt other people, everything was possible. And while I understand we need (in principle, not always as it is enforced) rules like CITES or dangerouc animals act, it goes against my very basic instinct to have positive list of species that private people should be allowed to keep. I was born in dictatorship where so much was forbidden, I absolutely dont want those times back.