Exotic pet ban? should responsible owners be allowed to keep an "exotic" pet? like tigers,boas,Arctic foxes

Question

some people say that tigers will no longer have a natural habitat an will rely on loveing homes from us humans for the most part.. but should a person really be not allowed to own one if they are financialy able with enough room an love? what about boa snakes? or an artic fox. i personally think if a person is knoledgible financially capible an wants an "exotic" animal they should be allowed, most cases exotic animals love there owners an are happy... i mean if you outlaw that where does it stop? should they outlaw pitbulls? i wouldnt

come on i didnt say a "free for all" . of course people have to have handleing hours put in tests, inspections the whole nine yards.....

well people that do decide to own a exotic animal would have to buy one from a professional breeder, not by someone who plucked them out of the wild . so to not hurt the ecosystem. and strict about the people who release the boas into the wild those kind of people give owners a bad name.
corrupt government regulations an politics hurt wildlife more then a person who has a bobcat as a hobby and pet , but thats my opinion guess

Answer 1

Ownership of exotic animals should be highly regulated. Ownership should be with permits that allow possession in a proper natural environment. For example, keeping a white tiger in your house is stupid. I don't care if someone is a rich, magician. If you have an animal that is capable of killing you, then it isn't a "pet" and should be kept in a preserve-type set up.

Sale of large python species needs regulation. Any idiot with money can buy one and when they get tired of it or it grows too big, then the animal gets neglected or released into the wild. Releasing exotics into a non-native environment can cause lots of problems and possibly doom the released animal to death too.

Too many exotic breeders and pet stores just want money and don't really care about the well being of the animals. They sell to anyone and that isn't right.

I'm normally not the kind of person that likes a lot of laws and regulations but this is one example I'm all for them.

Answer 2

Okay, for the sake of saving a species, I do believe that such wild animals may be "owned". In such a place where their natural instincts are developed, and the animals thrive in a "natural" environment.
If however, this is about a person having a "pet", then my answer would be HELL NO. Wild animals are wild. They should not, in ANY way be domesticated. For the balance of the rest of Animal Kind, those animals need to be free, and participating in the food chain.

Where I live, pit bulls have already been banned. Any pit bull existing after the ban must be fixed. There is a charge for breeding. This is NOT because that breed of dog is dangerous (as a wild animal IS), it is because for the last decade, those dogs have been bred in the image of some music videos portrayal of a vicious killer. Those dogs have not been raised properly, and so have hurt humans. The ban isn't fair, but it happened because of the actions of people.

Animals need to be respected, as do the way they NEED to live their lives.

Answer 3

Owning a wild animal as a pet is NEVER a good thing. Not sure what you mean with the pit bull comment, pit bulls are not wild animals, so not sure what owning a dog has to do with owning an exotic animal. Also, if people are allowed to own wild animals and there is a demand for them, they will disappear out of their wild habitat even faster as poachers will capture them to sell on the black market if people are willing to pay excessive amounts of money for them. Adults will be butchered for their babies to sell as pets, and habitat will not be saved if all of them a removed to be sold as pets. You obviously have NO clue as to what an ecosystem is or how nature works if you think that wild animals made good pets. It is also quite debatable whether or not animals...especially wild animals are capable of "loving" their owners. Most cases of people owning exotic pets always end badly.

Answer 4

No, because they are not pets, they are wild animals & should be treated and respected as such.
The term "exotic pet" is an oxymoron, the emphasis on "moron".
No offense intended here, but anyone experienced & trained knows why they are called "handlers' or "keepers" and not owners of these wild creatures.
Pitbulls are not undomesticated, and when properly raised, are some of the sweetest, most fun loving pets around. It is all in how the dog is raised, not instinctive viciousness in the breed itself.
The exception would be the Canary-something type of dog breed that was owned by a convict, bred for killing, and kept for him by two San Francisco lawyers a few years back. Remember that one? The dog mauled to death a neighbor in the hallway of their upscale apartments. The lawyers, or at least one of them, is now serving time for that whole thing.
Thoughtful question though.

Answer 5

Define reponsible? Do you mean responsible like those who own Pit Bulls, and 100 pounds Presa Canario dogs and say "I'm sorry" when one of them kill inocent people?

And I guess Durg Lords would love the idea of having his very own Indian Tiger; that's is surely going to put down those girly Pit Bull owners.

I don't want exotics animals to get extinted but; I wouldn't trust on the wisdon of the average guy "millonare or not". Special places should be created for this animals where they and the public can be protected by professional and not by amateurs with "macho fantasies".

Answer 6

No I can't agree with you. These are wild animals and to try and domesticate them is wrong. The solution lies in more sanctuaries and protected environments for them to live in, a place that is as close to what they have now as we can make it.

Answer 7

I would LOVE a tiger!!! BUt i wory that people would not give exotic animals the care and attention they need :(