animals that shouldnt be kept as pets
- Thread starter torie
- Start date
certainly we can agree to disagree on arowana. I do think for people who know how to look after them they are excellent fish, but for most people (especially the dreaded "impulse buyers") they are a poor choice. And things like red-tail cats etc shouldn't be sold at all, except maybe in very specialist fish shops that cater to the kind of owners that have massive tanks (yes, they are out there).
And as for the "only grows to the size of the tank", even pet shop owners tell this to customers, sometimes probably just to make a sale but more often just out of ignorance. It may fall into the same category as "goldfish have only a 7 second memory span" (or 3 seconds or 10 seconds or whatever the current fad is) -- it makes the owners feel better about cramming their fish into a little bowl
Try putting a neon into a 2 metre tank . . . and waiting . . . . and waiting . . . . . and waiting . . . . . .
Alan
Here in Canada there has been a story that made the front page of Sunday's Provincial newspaper. It featured a man who had been bitten on the hand by his pet cobra, and the hospital refused to administer his private anti-serum. Apparently a doctor or nurse in Vancouver cannot give a specific medicine to a patient if it is unknown to them. The idiot with the cobra (he'd had the pet for 5 years) had an unlabelled vial of anti-serum, but since he wasn't allowed to have it injected into his arm he has subsequently lost a lot of flesh off of one of his fingers. Also, his entire arm has gone a nice shade of grey and he's fighting to keep that particular appendage.
The Province of British Columbia hasn't reviewed its Wildlife Act for 25 years, and is in the process of updating it as of this moment. Right now anyone can purchase a cheetah, serval, caiman, cobra, whatever, without having to first gain a license for exotic creatures. Incidents like this cobra bite will hopefully alter future laws.
The Province of British Columbia hasn't reviewed its Wildlife Act for 25 years, and is in the process of updating it as of this moment. Right now anyone can purchase a cheetah, serval, caiman, cobra, whatever, without having to first gain a license for exotic creatures. Incidents like this cobra bite will hopefully alter future laws.
I have a molucan cockatoo and a harlequin macaw. Recued them both and I dont think that white cockatoos are suitable pets He is wonderful sweet and cuddly but I am sure he would be better off in the wild. Unfortunally I cant give him a mate . And most people I talk to who have cockatoos say that they are not for the faint hearted. I work with animals 365 days a year and see a lot of people who have animals they shouldnt have. And those have cats and dogs, let alone exotics. Maybe we should get furture animal keepers to pass a test?
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
The subject of exotic animals kept as pets seems to be an increasingly global problem. And though it was correctly remarked before that especially western countries are trying to restrict the problem by passing more and more laws, many people nevertheless can get the animals (more or less illegally) they want-if they have the money. A good example was a report I recently read about rich Saudi Arabians easily getting wild-caught dibatags or lesser kudus for their private zoos from Somalia; another is that of a Czech parrot breeder smuggling raven cockatoo eggs from Australia to the EU in his underwear or those Europeans keeping Chinese alligators and tomistomas as pets.
CITES and newer regulations make the animal traffic today harder than it was 20 or 30 years ago (when You could walk the street with Your pet cheetah...), but still the private sector of exotic pets is booming; look at American HPs like exotichobbyist or go to American animal or especially European reptile auctions; especially in the reptile/fish/arthropods sector there is nothing what You can not get if You have the right amount of cash. Even within states, official ruling on exotic can differ: while Kansas and Florida (the latter due to the many neozoas brought in over the years) are rather strict when it comes to exotics, e.g. Minnesota allows You to keep pygmy hippos and giraffes as "pets". Same is true for the EU; while the German federal state Hessen thinks of abolishing all exotic pets altogether (what rises the question about the definition of exotic pets, as neither budgie, tabby nor goldfish are actually native to Europe), a Belgium-based animal dealer shows on his HP that he can get You everything You want, may it be a Striped Hyena or a Marabou stork.
Although it seems to be ironic that the public eye watches every misdoing of zoos while millions of pets are mistreated and (more or less quickly) killed privately due to the dangerous combination of ignorance and incompetence (just think of the fish sold at the pet shops together(!) with the aquarium every day or the many, many rachitic reptiles brought to the vets...), one should not forget that in some parts zoos have played (and still play) a rather shady role in that exotic pet traffic; think of the destiny of some zoo surplus livestock, as mentioned in the book "Animal Underworld".
In the case of certain, possibly dangerous animals like big cats, venomous animals or large crocodilians and snakes, some states require future owners to aquire a
proove of competence - though this doesn't necessarily mean that "black sheep" are not around, keeping these animals without a permit/license.
On the other hand, it is also frustrating for responsible owners to be molested and harassed by a bureaucracy gone mad. Best example mentioned Hessen; it was now found out that the statistics displaying the numbers of household accidents involving exotic venomous pets that were used as justification for passing the law prohibiting the husbandry of possibly dangerous animals (more to follow...) were rigged up by an organisation called "ProWildlife".
I'm not saying that every animal species is suitable to be kept as a pet (absolutely NO!); I just want to point out that there are quite a lot of responsible and competent private owners around who can help more in establishing and maintaining ex-situ breeding populations of not-so-popular species like certain invertebrates, fish, amphibians/reptiles etc. than most zoos that have to focus on the animals interesting for the public. It's no wonder that f.e. the first successful rearing of many reptile or fish species (or cheetah; think of Rome 1965) has been accomplished by private owners, not zoos, who can dedicate more time and energy into those "not spectacular" species; not to mention important observations about feeding/behaviour etc. Better & easier interaction between zoos and these dedicated private owners could prove to be procreative; think of Münster Zoo's Turtle/Tortoise Project.
My advice would be a combination of carrot and stick: more severe and financially painful punishment of irresponsible owners and the illegal animal trade; use these fines to establish and maintain animal shelters for unwanted/confiscated former exotic pets. Make it more difficult for ignorant owners (and pet shops) to get animals; employ better educated staff at the customs authority, and improve the traceability of animal trading. But also make it easier for responsible and competent owners to maintain their breeding groups and work together with them to find the "black sheep" among them.
About the animals that should not be kept as pets: it depends on the individual situation; if a rich guy wants to keep lions, zebras or elephants and can provide excellent care, including a competent staff and can make sure that the animals are properly confined I wouldn't mind. Primates are a little bit different, especially in the case of the Great Apes, as mentioned humanisation could run contrary to the husbandry the animals really need. Not to mention the zoonosis problem...The question with all those private zoos is: what happens to these animals once the owner dies or can't afford the husbandry costs any longer-see Michael Jackson's Neverland Zoo...
And I can't think of a single sensible reason why a private person should keep an animal like a Black Mamba, an Eastern brown Snake or a Sea Krait...
CITES and newer regulations make the animal traffic today harder than it was 20 or 30 years ago (when You could walk the street with Your pet cheetah...), but still the private sector of exotic pets is booming; look at American HPs like exotichobbyist or go to American animal or especially European reptile auctions; especially in the reptile/fish/arthropods sector there is nothing what You can not get if You have the right amount of cash. Even within states, official ruling on exotic can differ: while Kansas and Florida (the latter due to the many neozoas brought in over the years) are rather strict when it comes to exotics, e.g. Minnesota allows You to keep pygmy hippos and giraffes as "pets". Same is true for the EU; while the German federal state Hessen thinks of abolishing all exotic pets altogether (what rises the question about the definition of exotic pets, as neither budgie, tabby nor goldfish are actually native to Europe), a Belgium-based animal dealer shows on his HP that he can get You everything You want, may it be a Striped Hyena or a Marabou stork.
Although it seems to be ironic that the public eye watches every misdoing of zoos while millions of pets are mistreated and (more or less quickly) killed privately due to the dangerous combination of ignorance and incompetence (just think of the fish sold at the pet shops together(!) with the aquarium every day or the many, many rachitic reptiles brought to the vets...), one should not forget that in some parts zoos have played (and still play) a rather shady role in that exotic pet traffic; think of the destiny of some zoo surplus livestock, as mentioned in the book "Animal Underworld".
In the case of certain, possibly dangerous animals like big cats, venomous animals or large crocodilians and snakes, some states require future owners to aquire a
proove of competence - though this doesn't necessarily mean that "black sheep" are not around, keeping these animals without a permit/license.
On the other hand, it is also frustrating for responsible owners to be molested and harassed by a bureaucracy gone mad. Best example mentioned Hessen; it was now found out that the statistics displaying the numbers of household accidents involving exotic venomous pets that were used as justification for passing the law prohibiting the husbandry of possibly dangerous animals (more to follow...) were rigged up by an organisation called "ProWildlife".
I'm not saying that every animal species is suitable to be kept as a pet (absolutely NO!); I just want to point out that there are quite a lot of responsible and competent private owners around who can help more in establishing and maintaining ex-situ breeding populations of not-so-popular species like certain invertebrates, fish, amphibians/reptiles etc. than most zoos that have to focus on the animals interesting for the public. It's no wonder that f.e. the first successful rearing of many reptile or fish species (or cheetah; think of Rome 1965) has been accomplished by private owners, not zoos, who can dedicate more time and energy into those "not spectacular" species; not to mention important observations about feeding/behaviour etc. Better & easier interaction between zoos and these dedicated private owners could prove to be procreative; think of Münster Zoo's Turtle/Tortoise Project.
My advice would be a combination of carrot and stick: more severe and financially painful punishment of irresponsible owners and the illegal animal trade; use these fines to establish and maintain animal shelters for unwanted/confiscated former exotic pets. Make it more difficult for ignorant owners (and pet shops) to get animals; employ better educated staff at the customs authority, and improve the traceability of animal trading. But also make it easier for responsible and competent owners to maintain their breeding groups and work together with them to find the "black sheep" among them.
About the animals that should not be kept as pets: it depends on the individual situation; if a rich guy wants to keep lions, zebras or elephants and can provide excellent care, including a competent staff and can make sure that the animals are properly confined I wouldn't mind. Primates are a little bit different, especially in the case of the Great Apes, as mentioned humanisation could run contrary to the husbandry the animals really need. Not to mention the zoonosis problem...The question with all those private zoos is: what happens to these animals once the owner dies or can't afford the husbandry costs any longer-see Michael Jackson's Neverland Zoo...
And I can't think of a single sensible reason why a private person should keep an animal like a Black Mamba, an Eastern brown Snake or a Sea Krait...
Last edited:
raven cockatoo eh? never heard of it!!!
that would be the English translation of the German name for the black cockatoos
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
Actually I translated the Czech description of the word without giving much of a thought to the concrete "Australian" name of it. Unfortunately, he didn't say what species-so I simply translated that instead of using "(fill term in here) BLACK cockatoo". Or should I have said, Calyptorhynchus sp., @pat? The guy I was talking to had a beautiful pair of Calyptorhynchus lathami, so to speak-that's why we started talking.
I wasn't aware that there were any of that species (legally) outside Australia, or is my information out of date?
Sun Wukong
Well-Known Member
Yes, they are kept and even bred in Europe. There are legal ways to get them (for an exorbitant price) and illegal ways (like the one I described as well as by secretly smuggling them over by boat to Indonesia and then selling them from there off to the EU). Due to the difficulty to obtain them directly from AUS and the uneven ratio between demand and offspring born in captivity, even common cockatoo species can still fetch a good price at the market-and this encourages said illegal operations, even with strict controls like the EU-Psittacosis edict around.
Some private persons keep animals far better than any zoo. Especially this is true for birds, reptiles, amphibians and invertebrates.
Actually, Gerald Durrell and John Aspinall - two men who created perhaps best zoos in UK - were private people keeping unusual pets. With the current legislation, they would never become what they were.
I think problem is rather in registration and control of captive animals than any species "not kept as pets".
Also, everyman should be well informed that most unusual pets require too much effort to keep for average person. Still people buy monkeys, wild cats, rare parrots etc. thinking they can be cared as easily as dog or budgerigar.
Actually, Gerald Durrell and John Aspinall - two men who created perhaps best zoos in UK - were private people keeping unusual pets. With the current legislation, they would never become what they were.
I think problem is rather in registration and control of captive animals than any species "not kept as pets".
Also, everyman should be well informed that most unusual pets require too much effort to keep for average person. Still people buy monkeys, wild cats, rare parrots etc. thinking they can be cared as easily as dog or budgerigar.
blaketheman
Member
This is sorta on topic, forgive me.
About a year or so ago I missed a special that was on the Animal Planet Foxtel (Australian cable company) channel.
It was called 'Big Cat Crisis' from memory which mainly foccussed on big cats in the US being kept as Pets.
Did anyone actually catch this show or know where I can find it?
About a year or so ago I missed a special that was on the Animal Planet Foxtel (Australian cable company) channel.
It was called 'Big Cat Crisis' from memory which mainly foccussed on big cats in the US being kept as Pets.
Did anyone actually catch this show or know where I can find it?