Should legally owning DWAs be allowed?

[Batto]

The positive list must be drawn up based on objective, non-discriminatory criteria;

Which has always been one of the blind spots of such positive lists. Given that different interest groups (ranging from P€TA / Vier Pfoten etc activists and enviromental agencies to zoos, pet shop owner associations and commercial breeders) with varying degrees of actual competence, factual knowledge, ideologies, political influence / lobbyism etc. are usually involved in the decision process, the criteria and thus results are at best compromises and rarely truly objective, with the involved political parties often making things worse. The Austrian and German Greens, for example, often bring up the commercial quantity of sold specimens as a criterion for the inclusion or exclusion of a species in a positive list, which does not translate well into reality with several reptiles. An infamous example for the lack of factual knowledge among these people was a suggested positive list published by the Green Party in Bremen, which, among others, included gerbils as hard to keep and thus not on their positive list. Their argument for this decision: its colloquial German name Rennmaus ("Running Mouse") indicates that the species has to run around a lot, which can't be provided by the average pet owner.

And while the EU procedure you mentioned appears(sic) to be fair, it is a very slow, inflexible, tenacious and time-consuming process that makes the implementation of retroactive changes, reactions and improvements anything but easy, to the detriment of actual and practical animal welfare management. Even more so since in the greater picture of EU politics, pets are not a major topic of interest, despite its emotional aspects.

 

[Batto]

To be fair, while many dogs (and other domesticated animals) are indeed dangerous and hard to care for, they aren't on the same level of dangerous (nor are they as difficult to care for) as DWAs. A wolf, chimpanzee or lion is far more dangerous and difficult to care for than any domestic dog.

While quite a number of medically relevant venomous species, like Latrodectus or Leiurus sp., are quite easy to care for and cause way less incidents and issues than, say, Belgian shepherds and Border collies. Which doesn't mean that everyone should keep them, but once again, illustrates the complexity of the topic.

 

[Batto]

How difficult and pricey is it to obtain a special permit?

Thanks in advance for the reply.

 

[TeaLovingDave]

because as the park with the most revenue in Europe, PD has the money to build new reptile enclosures.

That'd explain why they never *do* build new reptile enclosures, and merely stuff all those reptiles into sub-standard exhibits within Mersus Emergo with a high turnover and death rate!

Oh, wait.

 

[Great Argus]

A wolf, chimpanzee or lion is far more dangerous and difficult to care for than any domestic dog.

Many zoos do daily cleaning of wolf exhibits with the animals sharing the same space as the keepers. Equally it has been a long long time since any recorded wolf fatality in the USA iirc - something many dog breeds cannot say the same for. Prevalence doesn't help the dog breeds there, but implying a wolf is more dangerous is a bit incorrect I think. A sour Anatolian or mastiff is potentially a more dangerous situation than a wolf would be.

 

[Mickey]

Starting 2026, Austria is going a similar direction, with obligatory certificates of expertise for the private husbandry of parrots, reptiles and amphibians.

I didn't grasp your opinion though.

 

[Batto]

I didn't grasp your opinion though.

Long story short: Better than a positive list.

 

[AdmiralAlbatross]

So parrots and reptiles are not "exotics"? Well, that depends on the location and the species in question.
To be fair - that is one if not the main reason for any animal purchase...including all domesticated animals.

I agree, reptiles and parrots are exotics. I brought them into this conversation because those are the exotics that the average person usually has. Unfortunately, I have seen them kept in absymal conditions despite being a more common exotic pet.

Sure, people get pets simply because they want them, but it makes more sense to have a domestic animal as a pet. They have been bred to be companion and work animals. Their affiliation with and affection for us has been handpicked. They're designed to do best with our care in the habitats we can give then. Still, welfare is the most important to me. Some people shouldn't even own dogs given the conditions their owners provide...

If the average person can't properly recall train a Dog or have the willpower to keep a Cat indoors, I don't think the average person should have a Tiger or a Chimp either. [Yes, I know there are exceptional Dog/Cat owners out there, but unfortunately they are not the average owner]

 

[Batto]

but it makes more sense to have a domestic animal as a pet.

Getting any animal, domesticated or not, usually doesn't make any sense at all, with few rational exceptions such as productive lifestock, guide dogs etc. If you calculate in the individual emotional aspects, however, every animal purchase makes sense...

 

[EliasNys]

Thanks in advance for the reply.

I have searched but not found this information. Everything should be somewhere on this website though:
Waar kan je een dier aankopen of adopteren? | Huisdierinfo

Which has always been one of the blind spots of such positive lists. Given that different interest groups (ranging from P€TA / Vier Pfoten etc activists and enviromental agencies to zoos, pet shop owner associations and commercial breeders) with varying degrees of actual competence, factual knowledge, ideologies, political influence / lobbyism etc. are usually involved in the decision process, the criteria and thus results are at best compromises and rarely truly objective, with the involved political parties often making things worse. The Austrian and German Greens, for example, often bring up the commercial quantity of sold specimens as a criterion for the inclusion or exclusion of a species in a positive list, which does not translate well into reality with several reptiles. An infamous example for the lack of factual knowledge among these people was a suggested positive list published by the Green Party in Bremen, which, among others, included gerbils as hard to keep and thus not on their positive list. Their argument for this decision: its colloquial German name Rennmaus ("Running Mouse") indicates that the species has to run around a lot, which can't be provided by the average pet owner.

And while the EU procedure you mentioned appears(sic) to be fair, it is a very slow, inflexible, tenacious and time-consuming process that makes the implementation of retroactive changes, reactions and improvements anything but easy, to the detriment of actual and practical animal welfare management. Even more so since in the greater picture of EU politics, pets are not a major topic of interest, despite its emotional aspects.

For the new legislation for zoos in Flanders a panel that consisted of zoo directors, veterinarians etc. was formed. No animal activists were in the panel. Likely this is the same way the positive list was made, even though I can't find any info on that. Animal activism is really almost non-existant in Belgium nowadays, so I doubt they have many influence on politics too.

 

[Lafone]

To be fair, while many dogs (and other domesticated animals) are indeed dangerous and hard to care for, they aren't on the same level of dangerous (nor are they as difficult to care for) as DWAs. A wolf, chimpanzee or lion is far more dangerous and difficult to care for than any domestic dog.

Some dogs are on the same level of dangerousness. I would raise the topic of banned dog breed legislation which has arisen in the UK directly as a result of bad owners allowing dogs of particular types to cause severe harm and death to people (and other animals).

These domestic dog breeds have proved as dangerous in reality in some circumstances to having a tiger. There are of course more of them around so you get more issues. Now it might be argued some of these dogs are not as inherently dangerous as a tiger but they have a tendency towards behaviours which are exacerbated by bad owners and when they do go bad some of their characteristics (jaw strength and body weight and natural combativeness) play into injuries being much worse than they would be if your average Yorkshire Terrier went mad.

The law has come in because some people just won't choose to control these dogs or have safer breeds. The law on DWA is the same. It's just trying to ensure people do the right thing. It isn't aimed at the people who'd care for DWA as well as a registered zoo would. It's for people who would keep a tiger in a railway container or a serval in a bedroom (the former happens in the US for example, where there is little control, the latter in Europe where there is control but at least the control can be used to stop it when it is detected). Regulation is for people who want a tiger or a big fighty dog as an accessory. For those people, it wouldn't much matter which, the fighty dog is just easier to get in some countries.

What that says to me is there is a place for regulation in holding any animal and without regulation some people don't control themselves and some bad things happen. Regulation isn't saying all potential private owners are bad people, but some are.

Regulation isn't really for people who would do the right thing, it's for people who wouldn't. We don't have laws on murder so we are all put off committing it, we have them to deal with the very small number who go ahead. This is not to compare owning a tiger with being a killer but the legal basis and control is as valid for any animal ownership in my view and is as much, if not more, about welfare of the animal as it is about the potential harm it might do.

 

[Batto]

Animal activism is really almost non-existant in Belgium nowadays,

Somehow, I doubt that.

 

[Batto]

Likely this is the same way the positive list was made

You tend to assume quite a lot.

 

[EliasNys]

Somehow, I doubt that.

The only park where I know animal welfare activists still protest regularly is Boudewijn Seapark because of dolphins and shows with animals. And to be honest I don't mind these protest since it is simply a bad facility. Other than that, last protests seems to be for Polar bears in Pairi Daiza (2019) and sea lion shows in Antwerp (2018). The largest protest that took place in a zoo was actually to protest the closure of a zoo, pakawi park (2017 and 2023)

 

[Batto]

Protesting against zoos and marine parks is only one of various activities of animal right activists. Productive lifestock husbandry, slaughterhouses, animal transports, pets, circuses, hunting, fishing, falconery, equitation, commercial breeders, pet shops, feral pigeons, local wildlife, fur farms, animal hording etc etc. - depending on the individual and the organisation in question, they are engaged in all kinds of animal-related topics.

Just because you don't see them currently opposed to a topic that interests you doesn't mean that they don't exist.

 

[EliasNys]

Protesting against zoos and marine parks is only one of various activities of animal right activists. Productive lifestock husbandry, slaughterhouses, animal transports, pets, circuses, hunting, fishing, falconery, equitation, commercial breeders, pet shops, feral pigeons, local wildlife, fur farms, animal hording etc etc. - depending on the individual and the organisation in question, they are engaged in all kinds of animal-related topics.

Just because you don't see them currently opposed to a topic that interests you doesn't mean that they don't exist.

Ah yes, of course I agree with that and there is indeed a large amount of people that oppose many activities containing animals.( I should have better written anti zoo activists instead of animal welfare activists, now that I think about it) People just seem more reasonable when it comes to animal welfare in Belgium, at least based on what I hear from other countries. I have never met a Belgian that was against zoos (must also note that I live in a bit of a bubble though, if I had grown up in Brussels for example I'd have certainly met many such people). But of course many people oppose e.g. fur farming or foie gras farming, which is more justified to me, since these institutions, unlike zoos, most of the time don't want the best for their animals.