Should legally owning DWAs be allowed?
- Thread starter Holly2873
- Start date
*sigh* I always forget about the mildly rear-fanged venomous species. Thanks for bringing this up. Let me back up a step. While I am not a toxicologist, I am certain that toxicologists would be able to give some sort of "threshold" of what a "safe" amount of venom is/a safe toxin level. While I wasn't thinking of hognoses when writing that post, there are some venomous non-snakes with similarly small levels of venom (i.e. many tarantula and scorpion species) that I do think can make reasonable pets and are in no way dangerous (unless you're allergic). While I do not know what the safe threshold for venomous snakes could be, I am certain it could exist in some capacity.Western Hognose Snakes:
If a threshold is too confusing, perhaps wording the law so that it bans "venomous snakes, except for: Hognose Snakes in the genus Heterodon, etc." listing the *very* small number of venomous snakes that could make safe, reasonable pets.
Aardwolf
Well-Known Member
One of the major concerns I have about the private ownership of dangerous wild animals is the succession plan. Suppose I built an enclosure on private property for a pet tiger (hypothetically, as it's illegal in my state to own big cats). I could probably design a fairly decent tiger enclosure, I'm a reasonably experienced big cat keeper and could provide good care, all of that.
Until I get hit by a bus one day. Then, who is going to take care of my tiger?
My wife? My parents or other family? I can tell you right now, they aren't going to be happy about that arrangement.
A zoo or a sanctuary is an institution, with redundancy in staff and a succession plan, so wild animals aren't left in this kind of lurch. Yes, a large dog, or a horse, or other domestic animal would also pose a problem in a situation like this, but would be a lot harder to find adequate care for than a tiger, or a gibbon, or what have you.
For the record, I am an exotic pet owner, albeit on a much smaller scale, as, I suspect, are a decent number of folks on this forum who have reptiles, birds, inverts, etc. I take a fairly tolerant line for what's an acceptable pet - but there are some species we need to recognize should not be in private hands for the safety of the public and the welfare of the animals. You want a lion (in the US)? Get a USDA Class C license. It's not *that* hard, and then at least there's some inspection and oversight.
Until I get hit by a bus one day. Then, who is going to take care of my tiger?
My wife? My parents or other family? I can tell you right now, they aren't going to be happy about that arrangement.
A zoo or a sanctuary is an institution, with redundancy in staff and a succession plan, so wild animals aren't left in this kind of lurch. Yes, a large dog, or a horse, or other domestic animal would also pose a problem in a situation like this, but would be a lot harder to find adequate care for than a tiger, or a gibbon, or what have you.
For the record, I am an exotic pet owner, albeit on a much smaller scale, as, I suspect, are a decent number of folks on this forum who have reptiles, birds, inverts, etc. I take a fairly tolerant line for what's an acceptable pet - but there are some species we need to recognize should not be in private hands for the safety of the public and the welfare of the animals. You want a lion (in the US)? Get a USDA Class C license. It's not *that* hard, and then at least there's some inspection and oversight.
equidae
Well-Known Member
All the DWA does is reduce the likelihood that people, without enough knowledge of a species or the space to give them a even slightly decent life, can own a species. There's still hundreds of wild animals being kept privately in the UK, from Przewalski's horses to fossa to rattlesnakes; it's not impossible or completely forbidden.
Do you seriously value perceived human freedom over animal welfare?
Last edited by a moderator:
In regards to exotic pets, while you may or may not agree with their reasoning, you have to admit there are valid reasons someone would want to regulate the exotic pet industry, whether that be concerns about human safety, concerns about ecological harm, concerns about animal welfare, etc. This isn't about freedom, and to complain about not having the "freedom" to own a pet tiger is a slap in the face to all those who lack the much more fundamental freedoms that unfortunately aren't nearly as widespread as they should be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Strathmorezoo
Well-Known Member
I think most of these posts are valid but what occurred to me was how many private individuals started off owning legitimate wild animals and then whent on to starting their own successful zoo
Last edited by a moderator:
For sure. It is quite intriguing that this pattern tends to take place quite often in the United Kingdom - in the United States you can get away with having a tiger in your backyard - but for better or worse in the UK when people figure they have the space and knowhow to maintain a tiger; they tend to reckon they can have a whole zoo. We've seen it with Wolds Wildlife Park, Lincolnshire Wildlife Park and probably a few eithers I've forgot that have all now managed to bring success and have acrewed happy visitors.
This is an interesting point, but the number of dangerous animals kept has always been small, so it is marginal problem. Besides, zoos also go bankrupt. So-called sanctuaries are notoriously poorly funded and lack money even without death of any manager. So this is not the difference.
Animal welfare (as well as trade of threatened species) is covered by different laws. You are mixing topics.
British Dangerous Wild Animal Act does not deal with animal welfare much. Barren cages of zoos in the 1970s were compliant with dangerous wild animals acts.
Are you unaware that zoos in Europe and USA run increasing number of so-called animal encounters? In San Diego Wild Animal park, you literally walk from an encounter with a serval, through a python to a cheetah.
Indeed, big proportion of people who revolutionized zoos and conservation grew from people who kept wild animal pets - Gerald Durrell and John Aspinall in Britain, for example. Today people with such interests find following their interest impossible and turn to passions not involving animals or nature.
Last edited by a moderator:
There are many thousands of privately kept dangerous animals here in the states, from tigers to cobras. I can think of numerous news stories of escaped dangerous animals that zoos or sanctuaries stepped in to help with. It's much smaller than many other issues, but I'm not sure I'd call it marginal either. There are numerous sanctuaries here with dozens of big cats.
Not hardly mixing topics. Animal welfare and ownership go hand in hand - there are many who should not be allowed to hold dangerous animals. Plenty of stories of venomous snakes being illegally held in apartments or escaping inadequate containment and roaming loose around the neighborhood. Backyard big cats are often held inadequately, and as @Aardwolf pointed out, who takes care of them should there be a problem? You can't just ask your neighbor "Hey, can you feed my tiger?" It's not uncommon for rescued big cats to be in poor condition. While some people may take excellent care of their exotics, many people are less than qualified. A quick look around the internet proves that much.
While true, many laws prohibiting it have been put in place for good reason. There are some silly ones yes, but it is harder to argue bans of species that actively are dangerous and cause problems. We don't need Piranha getting established in the warm waters of the southeast, nor should the highly venomous King Cobra be available to just anyone. In the US common sense is not as common as it used to be, and there is frustratingly little respect for how dangerous some wildlife is. Yellowstone National Park continues to increasingly have problems with idiotic human/wildlife conflict, and people get too close to sea lions and alligators for silly reasons. It can partly be argued that little exposure is to blame, but why is it so hard to give a big animal space? City and suburb folk continue to be the number one problem for the national park system. If they can't treat a wild animal properly, they certainly do not need a pet Lion or cobra at home! Acting like the days of being allowed to keep whatever you found available to buy should return because they were a good thing is in my opinion a very poor idea given the current state of affairs.
Lafone
Well-Known Member
No I am not ‘mixing topics’ and I ‘figured it out’ and ‘understand’.
I just don’t agree with you.
Disagreement is not lack of comprehension.
You state there is no link between the laws on keeping animals and welfare but that is incorrect in my opinion. Welfare is intrinsically linked as there are many cases of people having wild animals where they should not, to the direct detriment of the animal and it’s welfare.
As for why you’d want to ride an elephant in countries with clear welfare issues - you haven’t been doing it for 4000 years and it’s plainly a nonsense argument to dismiss welfare concerns for elephants on the basis ‘because I can’.
‘Should you’ is a question worth asking.
Knowing what the evidence is for poor treatment and abuse, knowing what the economic issues are. You suggest it is sensible to say it’s better to go and ride an elephant than visit a collection focusing on animal welfare. Again, I comprehend the argument. I disagree.
The notion the world exists only for the benefit of people, who should then be able to do whatever they like results in the very acts that lead to the laws you’re arguing against.
You suggest all those laws are founded without any basis but that is simply untrue as numerous examples in this thread have demonstrated. The fact that a dik dik is classified as a dangerous animal might be incorrect and the act worthy of amendment. But it’s fallacious to use that argument to suggest any restriction on owning dangerous animals is wrong.
kate person
Active Member
Personally I believe that if the animal is cared for properly, their needs are met and that they are not treated like normal house pets then it’s fine. I do think licenses should be stricter and harder to get though.
filovirus
Well-Known Member
I don't think so. This is a situation where I believe that any allowance, even under the most regulated and observed circumstances, open the door for unprepared or irresponsible owners to more easily gain access to an animal they can't properly, or safely, care for. (This overlaps with my political beliefs about possession of a particular class of dangerous object...)
There will always be people who are willing and able to care for complex and dangerous animals. But making access easier for them also means increasing access for everyone- including people who underestimate both the care required and the danger associated with DWAs. Of course, the same could be said for any kind of pet; there will always be people who are willing to exercise their high-demand dogs, and there will always be people who keep their husky or shepherd in apartments 24/7. Should we also, then, increase the licensing required for some types of dogs? I don't think so- the primary difference being that we ("we" from a US perspective) have the infrastructure in place to deal with dogs. Animal control and veterinarians who are trained to deal with dogs. If, say, an extremely venomous exotic snake gets loose in an apartment? Animal control and pest experts might be equipped to deal with native venomous snakes... not a comparatively massive king cobra.
An additional question for those in favor of it: How do you propose licenses be regulated? By what governing body and in what way? Are we talking home visits to ensure that proper care is possible- just an initial visit, or ongoing drop-ins to make sure everything is going well? Or are we talking "sign a form so you're legally liable, the rest is on you"? Lots of talk of regulation in this thread but little detail. What kind of budget should be allocated to this? Federal or state or local oversight?
There will always be people who are willing and able to care for complex and dangerous animals. But making access easier for them also means increasing access for everyone- including people who underestimate both the care required and the danger associated with DWAs. Of course, the same could be said for any kind of pet; there will always be people who are willing to exercise their high-demand dogs, and there will always be people who keep their husky or shepherd in apartments 24/7. Should we also, then, increase the licensing required for some types of dogs? I don't think so- the primary difference being that we ("we" from a US perspective) have the infrastructure in place to deal with dogs. Animal control and veterinarians who are trained to deal with dogs. If, say, an extremely venomous exotic snake gets loose in an apartment? Animal control and pest experts might be equipped to deal with native venomous snakes... not a comparatively massive king cobra.
An additional question for those in favor of it: How do you propose licenses be regulated? By what governing body and in what way? Are we talking home visits to ensure that proper care is possible- just an initial visit, or ongoing drop-ins to make sure everything is going well? Or are we talking "sign a form so you're legally liable, the rest is on you"? Lots of talk of regulation in this thread but little detail. What kind of budget should be allocated to this? Federal or state or local oversight?
In my country, SVS (State Veterinary Administration) is responsible for enforcing the law. Dont know what is the US equivalent, probably CDC? They deal mostly with infectious deseases and also welfare of captive and wild animals. They have an office in each kraj (county ?), a district with 0,5-1 mio inhabitants.
Prospective dangerous animal owner must ask for a license before he can buy any. After application is sent, SVS officers come on announced visit and inspect the enclosure if it fullfills requirements for both animal welfare and safety of personel/general public. This visit is paid by licensing fee. Each license lists species, maximum capacity and how long it´s valid. Officers inspect each licensed holding regularly (every 3 years) to prolong the license and there is fee every time. It could be state budget neutral, but can´t say for sure.
Licensing dangerous animals is separate issue on top of other laws that deal with wild animal ownership. Administering of registrations of CITES animals or issuance of exceptions from ban on native wild animal ownership - those are dealth with by local municipalities (they use a unified state-wide database). It is done localy because it´s huge task. For example, +60.000 Czech citizens own any CITES animal. But only ca 2.000 own any animal that is on official list of dangerous species.
Last edited:
USDA would be the US equivalent.
Thats a bit like what happens here. You have to show that you have a suitable place for this animal, who your suppliers are(food, bedding etc)and most importantly safety e.g is it escape proof? how are you going to handle the animal? Do you have a vet? Etc. Most countys also require a second carer who can look after the animal if something happens to you.
The_Leopard_Seal
Well-Known Member
I apologise for necroposting, but I think no. There are some animals (such as primates, venomous snakes and medium and large carnivores) that are inherently unsuitable for domestic life and therefore privately owning them should be illegal.
If a private owner is capable of providing everything an animal needs, i.e. they can produce something similar to a top quality zoo exhibit for the species taking into account space, enrichment, food, environment, veterinary care, etc, then I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be allowed to do so.
If you are unable to meet those requirements then you should not be allowed to keep that species.
If you are unable to meet those requirements then you should not be allowed to keep that species.
To me it's the same question as should someone own a car or a gun or a hunting knife?
Sure , right up to the point where they show they can not or will not handle it legally/properly.
Sure , right up to the point where they show they can not or will not handle it legally/properly.
The_Leopard_Seal
Well-Known Member
I don't think DWAs and objects like guns and hunting knives are comparable because guns and hunting knives are inanimate objects that can't escape on their own. Whereas a tiger or rattlesnake is more than capable of escaping from it's enclosure on it's own.
that's a fair point, but I think that is covered in the proper/legal caveat