Exotic Animal Industry in the U.S.
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2012-02-01/exotic-animal-industry-us
The right to own pythons, tigers, chimps and other exotic pets depends on where in the US you live. The legal US wildlife industry doesn’t get much national attention unless someone is hurt, an exotic pet gets loose or an ecosystem is damaged. A new report links Burmese pythons released in the Florida Everglades to the severe declines of in the region's mammals. In Ohio police shot and killed dozens of exotic animals including wolves, lions, and bears reportedly set free by their distraught owner. As some fight for more regulation, breeders, brokers and owners of exotic pets say they are being unfairly targeted. Guest host Susan Page and a panel discuss battles over the legal wildlife trade.
Guests
Wayne Pacelle
President and C.E.O. of the Humane Society of the United States
Andrew Wyatt
president of the United States Association of Reptile Keepers
Zuzana Kukol
president and co-founder of Responsible Exotic Animal Ownership (REXANO)
Tim Harrison
director of Outreach for Animals, and advocate group for proper behavior around wildlife
Related Items
Program Highlights
Last fall, Ohio Police killed 49 exotic animals set free by their distraught owner. A recent report says Burmese pythons released into the Florida Everglades are causing severe declines in the regions mammals. This type of reports has brought scrutiny to the exotic pets industry. Guest host Susan page and our guests take a look at different arguments concerned with balancing personal rights, public safety, and environmental health.
Differences Between Exotic Animals And Other Pets
The Humane Society's Wayne Pacelle noted that the most common domesticated pets, like dogs and cats, belong in our homes, enjoy our companionship, and are capable of being trained. Tigers, large predatory animals, constricting snakes, and other exotic pets don't, he said. "There are no good outcomes for these animals," he said. "They almost always end up injured or dead or relinquished."
Exotic Pet Owners Speak
Zuzana Kukol of Responsible Exotic Animal Ownership has owned exotic cats and thinks ownership of such animals should be regulated no differently than that of domestic pets. Andrew Wyatt, of the U.S. Association of Reptile Keepers, has also owned snakes and pointed out that not all reptiles are "exotic." Wyatt admits that Burmese pythons and other invasive species are a big problem in the Florida Everglades, but he believes the problem is fairly limited.
Effect Of Animals On Environment "Devastating"
Pacelle disagrees with Wyatt and argues that advocates like Kukol and Wyatt "want to protect the right of private citizens to have dangerous predatory animals in their homes, even if they're causing ecological havoc, even if they're causing public safety threats, and even if the animals themselves are enormous victims of this trade," Pacelle said. Kuzol said that the number of people killed in the U.S. by exotic animals - about 3 per year - is much less than that of people killed by dogs, horses, and many other domesticated animals.
Wildlife Advocates Weigh In
A caller named Chet from Georgia, who is the executive director at the Georgia Wildlife Rescue Association, said that he has heard reports of what sounds like either an anaconda or a python in his state. He said that the snakes do seem to be moving further north and he has a sense that the problem might not be as well-contained as Wyatt believes. Chet has owned exotic snakes himself, but he does have reservations about anyone being able to enter a pet shop and purchase a snake that will eventually grow up to be enormous and potentially difficult to feed, handle, and care for.
You can read the full transcript here.
Related Video
Zuzana Kukol, of Rexano:
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Growing up in the South and seeing all of the invasive species that have run rampant - such as kudzu & nutria rats - it is imperative that all measures are taken to rid the Everglades of this danger. Many birds and animals found nowhere else in the world find a haven in this area. Do whatever is necessary to reduce or remove this threat - offer bounties, give tax incentives to business that will use the skins or meat of these snakes, send in the Florida National Guards. It is time to quit studying and do something!!
The thing with exotic animal owners is none of them will disagree with you. The Everglades are important and the invasive animals there need to be dealt with, however there is a lot of misconception about what's happening there and because of special interest groups it's been sensationalized. Larger threats to the Everglades are the Sugar Industry or Encroachment by developments and golf courses. Certain people want you to think that these animals have been released by neglectful pet owners, but that's not true. A small percentage may fall into that category, but most animals loose are there from natural disasters or brought in by import/export. There are many accredited, peer reviewed studies that prove that. The problem with sending in people or offering bounties, is there are native species that will be killed by doing this as well, as people go down there to kill any snake and get money for it. Also, feral cats and pigs do monumentally more damage and kill more animals and plant life then invasive snakes ever will. These are animals widely kept in captivity however, and way to large of a target for most of the NGOs attacking the snakes. This isn't even about the problem for most of them. It's about raising money they can use for whatever they want by saying they are combating this problem. If we want to save the Everglades, we need to address all of the issues, and starting with the most detrimental ones first seems much more logical.
Many organizations are pushing for the elimination of private ownership of exotic animals. Those who advocate for this kind of action are missing the point, however. The problem is not that people can own exotic animals, but rather that there is not a uniform standard to which individuals are held accountable. Standards of care and licensing of owners are not uniform from state to state, so you have responsible owners who provide well for their animals being punished because of those who make the headlines.
My brother owns several big cats in Florida, and he has made a monumental effort to go above and beyond any state and federal requirements for his animals. They have spacious enclosures, room to run and play, and enrichment opportunities to help keep them happy and healthy. Furthermore, my brother spent years achieving his big cat handler license. At the same time, there is a "sanctuary" in St. Augustine that has more animals than it can reasonably care for, and the cats are in cages that barely allow them to walk around. And yet owners such as my brother are being targeted right along with those who really should be shut down. Where is the fairness in that?
What should be done is to make ownership harder. Make licensing mandatory and federally regulated by an agency or department with enough funds to actually make the program work. Make regulations that are reasonable instead of setting the bar so low that anyone would be able to meet them. And then offer support to those who meet such requirements instead of treating them like criminals who just haven't been caught yet.
Elimination of private ownership is not the answer; holding them to higher standards by a supportive government regulatory agency is a step in the right direction.
All of that about ownership is fine. I've had animals all of my life and worked in the pet industry for years. At this point in time, responsible pet ownership is not the issue. The issue is how to stop, or at least mitigate, the damage that an invasive species is doing to a fragile ecosystem. I've been around boas and pythons and, as a whole, pythons are much more aggressive. Especially when they're hungry or scared. And they get big. What will it take - native species going extinct, having the Everglades off limits because it's too dangerous to go in, children disappearing and being found later in python stomachs? Because all of those are distinct possibilities if people are so busy talking and arguing about whose fault it is that nothing gets done.
It really boggles my mind that people are fine with "outdoor" pet cats and feral cats destroying the environment, but if another animal has an impact, even if it is miniscule compared to the cat, then it is those animals that need to be banned to "save the environment" while the cat is free to continuing killing.
I have three cats of my own and love them dearly, but I will admit they are pests, which is why they are kept indoors.
Banning cats from being pets or at the very least enforcing leash laws and getting rid of those ridiculous feral cat colonies would help the environments in the U.S. so much more than an exotic ban ever could. At least pet snake owners seem to be fine with the culling of feral pythons.
I guess exotic owners are easier to pick on though since there are fewer of them, even though dogs and cats are more harmful to humans and the environment, not to mention probably abandoned, abused and neglected just as much, if not more, than exotic animals.
IMO, it is just ridiculous to think that someone who owns a large snake and keeps it well fed and secured should have to give up their pet for "public safety," but its perfectly fine for someone to have a bunch of large, unsocialized dogs in their backyard, which are statistically more likely to get loose and kill someone.
Then again the HSUS wants dogs gone too. It'll just be harder than exotics because more people own them. They already advocate neutering pit bulls out of existence since its easy to demonize the breed and their owners.
You can't use the meat of the snakes since it contains mercury. Also a bounty would cause people to just say they caught ones when really they are just buying captive bred ones for $20-$30. It's a good idea, but you have to realize that many of these animals were killed off in 2010 from the freak frost they had. They believe there may only by 5000 of these animals and yes we do need to get them out of there, but banning the whole country from having them because of an isolated issue is just not fair nor right. HSUS has been using the death of a 2 year old girl in 2009 as the main reason for that. Now I can tell you in 2011 there were around 31 people killed by dogs, the youngest victim was 9 days old. Another victim was a 2 week old child killed by a lab-mix. What seems more dangerous now? I work with horses and pythons, believe me, the horses are far more dangerous.
Also the USGS "study" that says they are going to take over 1/3 of the US is very flawed and multiple herpetologists have come out against it, I mean come on the data was from Indian pythons, not the Burmese and several other studies have show they cannot survive in Northern FL.
You say it's time to quit studying, you do realize that every time they find one it is caught and brought in, some are killed some are not, but they are not allowed to stay in the wild.
I think really you need to work on stopping human encroachment in the Everglades, which to me seems like a far greater threat.
Well stated and a point I would like to add too. Perhaps the Burmese Pythons aren't natives of the Florida area, but the fact remains they are there and have reproduced and it's sad that people find it easier to blame the hobbyist for this than accept the reality that thousands of snakes were unintentionally released when the buildings they were kept in were destroyed in Florida by Hurricane Andrew.
Let's really break this down further !!! People excavate land and destroy the wildlife's natural environments and think nothing of it. How many of the endangered species were killed while this land was being excavated, back filled and set up fort private housing complexes and for private homes? Were the existing endangered species already thriving in that area given consideration and concern? NO
I'm really awed that people live close enough to the Everglades that it's their backyard and surrounds their property and they freak out when they find snakes or gators or other local wildlife on their property. Why wouldn't there be? They were there and humanity was the invasive species, not the wildlife.
The issue over private exotic animal ownership has gotten out of hand but I would expect nothing less from Wayne Pacelle and the Animal Rights Extremists pushing to end ALL animal usage.
Their push to end the breeding of dogs and cats as well as mandatory S/N says it all. Now the attack against private exotic ownership has escalated as they use unfortunate incidents to press for bans throughout this country; no state has gotten past receiving H$U$ propaganda and the push for such legislation. Many states have already passed a ban and many considering it.
I fear a government that fears animals more than I fear any animal that is privately owned and lives in a locked sealed cage.
I also find myself wondering how states benefit from the snake ban...Damage done, and most, if not all, the 'invaders' have died from the cold...even the sea turtle population was effected by the cold not from pythons or anacondas. I am certain that other natural species were effected and the pythons blamed.
The report I read was what I would consider un-scientific and yet the US Fish and Wildlife has decided to ban some species. How they intend on enforcement is beyond me with snake enthusiasts everywhere and now the few people going state to state with educational programs will no longer be available; they are out of business and the value of the education they provided will be lost.
Exactly how anyone can think there is some sort of benefit from putting people out of business and a blatant halt to educational programs is beyond the mindset for there now being a ban. No good will have come from it as in banning the ownership of any animal for any reason.
Until law makers realize the agenda of the Animal Rights Extremists, the attacks on pet owners will continue whether exotic or domestic...the attacks on our food supply and of course the animals used for entertainment. Ownership does NOT equal abuse/cruelty, although is what Wayne Pacelle and Animal Rights Extremists would like for you to believe...far from the truth!!!
Sorry Wayne, not buying your rhetoric. Hoping more people will wake up and stop supporting H$U$...We don't need another lobbyist group or the H$U$ anti-animal/killing machine.
The HSUS wants to get rid of dogs? Do you have any idea how laughably ignorant that statement is?
And contrary to your misinformation, HSUS supports pit bull ownership and opposes BSL.
Seriously, how much irrational nonsense can you fit into one sentence?? (That was a rhetorical question, not a challenge. Please don't try to exceed your previous effort.)
H$U$ supports what makes them 'appear' to be loving towards animals when it is a fact that Pacelle has never been close to any animal...They have to put something out there to appear to be helping animals when the facts demonstrate for themselves to be a lobbyist group and they are in violation of the 1995 Lobbying Disclosure Act.
Stop being blind sighted...
"One generation and out" -Wayne Pacelle
In my opinion, people just need to think about what a law against ownership of exotic animals is going to affect all that are involved.
AVERAGE PERSON that does not own exotic pets will barely be affected by this law in their day to day life.
EXOTIC PET OWNERS could lose their pets that they have loved and cared for, plus they could possibly go bankrupt if they run a small zoo or a breeding facility. If a breeding facility has 20 adult animals and 80 babies, where will all those animals go when the law is passed?
EXOTIC PETS will end up homeless and eventually most of them will be put down. According to the HSUS there are 2,000 non-accredited zoos in the US not to mention people that own exotic snakes, lizards, frogs, birds, etc in their homes. Now imagine that it's illegal to own them, your talking about a HUGE number of now homeless animals.
INVASIVE SPECIES LOOSE IN THE WILD: How will making exotic pets illegal affect them??? IT WON'T! They will still be there and the problem will be no closer to being resolved.
WILD EXOTIC ANIMALS: If they ban importing the animals into the US to be sold as pets then that could possibly help protect the animals numbers from decreasing in the wild.
If you want to make a federal or universal law regarding what is required to own certain exotic pets to make sure the person is knowledgeable and able to take care of the animals they aquire, that sounds great! Hiring more people to remove invasive species will at least bring down their numbers, but banning exotic animals that are endangered in the wild already. Do we really want to decrease the number of captive animals we have. We should be preserving them as one day they might be all that is left of their species. Someone told me there are more tigers in captivity than in the wild. Lets keep them all alive and hopefully living long lives with the captivity they've become accustomed too.
Spatulus, so there has never been a case of animal abuse or hoarding with cats or dogs?
Also what is your definition of domestic? Cause when 31 people died in 2011 from dogs and 0 from non-venomous snakes, which seems more dangerous. Not only that some argue that ferrets, chinchillas, hamsters, fish, and birds are all not domestic. Many argue that these animals have not been kept for centuries in captivity, yet Cleopatra kept ball pythons as pets as well as cats. In England we can trace back certain species to the 1800's which is the same length of time as many birds, fish, and small mammals. How long does domestication take? In a study with foxes, they selectively bred them for 40 generations and now say they act just like dogs. Also, some say that because they haven't been selectively bred for tameness they can't be domesticated, well then you can't really tame or domestic a fish either. Some animals are just calm by nature, I know someone that has hand fed wild garter snakes earthworms out in the wild. Dolphins also work well with humans even in the wild, but because of their care requirements the average person can't own one.
What about the above average person, what about those who can properly care for these animals, I mean if you can't properly care for a corn snake then you shouldn't have a dog or cat. There will always be idiots that do the wrong things, but hoarding is a psychological disorder. You could also be a cat hoarder and only have 3 cats, it's how much you can care for. A lot of animals does not make you a hoarder, but those cases aren't as interesting so they don't make it to TV.
So I ask, if I can take care of an exotic just as good as a zoo, why should I have it taken away?
Snakes thrive in captivity, herpetologists have proven this and honestly my corn snakes are far easier to keep than cats and dogs, I mean come on, you feed them once a week, provide them with substrate, a place to hide and a warm spot around 80 degrees and done! Cats and dogs need to be fed every day, have litter boxes cleaned everyday or close to it and dogs need to be take outside and need exercise. I'm sorry but from personal experience, my cats and dogs are far more work than my snakes.
Any animal can be dangerous, but many species of snakes are known for being docile, which includes the big ones. Horses are also large (far larger than even the record breaking snakes) and kill quite a few people each year. I personally work with horses and can tell you they are far more dangerous than any snake I've worked with.
If someone is not caring for any animal (exotic or not) properly they should have it taken away, but don't take them away from those who do take good care of them. When you ban anything it will only cause people to go underground. How well did the alcohol ban in America work? Those who do not abuse it are not the problem, those who abuse it will find a way to get it anyway. You take them away from the responsible people and the criminals will still keep them.
We are fine with reasonable regulations, but don't take them away from those of us who have done nothing wrong.
Perhaps if all the millions of dollars that has been donated based on the poor cat and dog ads had been spent to educate and to help preserve these animals instead of letting someone else deal with the responsibility, there wouldn't be so many dead, neglected and abused. There has been a big enough cash flow for HSUS to use that money for education and for the animals instead of using it for Lobbyist to fight against people's personal rights to choice.
People that are educated and know the difference really find great offense in those ads and commercials because we know the facts about where the donations don't go !!
I can't help but speculate is this an act of retaliation because these fraudulent actions are being widely exposed and surely is going to effect the funding campaigns for these "So Called" animal lover groups of activist? Why make this personal? Why not use the money for educating so these animals don't have to continue to suffer?
There are over 30 species of exotic reptiles that have been introduced into Florida. In addition, there are many more exotic species of birds, mammals and inverts which are now well established in that state. Most of these introductions can be directly tied to the exotic pet industry, which has been thriving in Florida since the 1960's.
No matter what other ethical or freedom of choice arguments one wishes to make regarding this issue, there is are no arguments coming from supporters of exotic animal ownership that address this problem.
in re Winston's post:
There are many species of introduced parakeets and parrots in Florida, but I think those can be looked at a little different than the invasive python issue. There was a native parakeet species in the U.S. until a little over 100 yrs. ago when man wiped it out. So the birds today are filling an environmental niche left open because of an extinction. As far as I know, there hasn't been a native python species in the U.S. So the pythons loose in the wild, and at this point in time it is moot how they got there, are a novel animal and are a definite threat to the stability of the Everglades ecosystem.
And to the poster who said large snakes are not a problem to handle: you've obviously never handled a python over 6 ft. They are aggressive, they have a temper and they are strong enough to be dangerous.
Is there no way to compromise? If people chose to own exotics they should have to fallow pre set guide lines and have a permit. I think that’s better than out right banning something. There are people who are qualified owners and they should not be punished because other are not.
Making excuses for some invasive species and not others is something you will not see those of us who own exotics doing. They should not be there period that is not what any of this is about. It is about loosing the right of ownership.
The loss of ownership will not suddenly get rid of all the invasive animals. It will only punish people that have nothing to do with the problem to begin with.
In FL. where I live there are already laws in place to prevent such incidents, there are programs in operation to help with the removal. It is those of us who love exotics and reptiles that push for places like the everglades to remain left alone for the native species that live there.
So lets keep in mind what this is about and what it is not about. Putting laws in place on top of laws already set in place does not make a lot of sense to me.
I would like to thank the representative from the Humane Society.
He represents the kindest and most noble of human virtues:
To protect the truly helpless around us- the animals.
People want to keep wild animals cooped up in cages, apartments, houses whatever just because they are interesting creatures. This is so unfair to the animals! They are kept prisoner, unable to live a natural life. Furthermore, they are in danger of neglect, being shot if they escape, etc. Finally, they are a danger to the people who keep them, their families, visitors, and any members of the public who encounter them if they escape. Keeping wild animals in such a way is thus just selfish. Even the best zoos are often not big enough to give these animals enough room to live normally. People who are so interested that they want to interact with wild creatures should get jobs with zoos or some other wildlife research facility, not keep the poor creatures locked up.
This comment is from the U.S. Geological Survey:
Regarding Mr. Wyatt's comments about the USGS Risk Assessment: To ensure objectivity, independent scientific review is required of every USGS publication. Peer reviewers are selected from experts with no organizational or close professional ties to the authors. Standards require a minimum of two reviews, after which the USGS authors must provide a detailed response to each review that explicitly states how each comment on the document was addressed. Adequacy of the authors’ responses to reviews is assessed by both research managers and independent scientists within the USGS. For this comprehensive Risk Assessment report, the authors went well beyond the requirements listed previously by soliciting reviews from 20 reviewers (18 of them external to the USGS). Members of the review group comprise a large portion of the global expertise on both the biology of giant constrictor snakes and the management of invasive snakes. In addition, the climate-matching methods presented in the report were previously published in the peer-reviewed journal Biological Invasions early in 2009, so that these methods have received both USGS peer review and standard journal peer review. The report’s authors reviewed virtually all of the peer-reviewed literature on giant constrictor biology, as well as much of the literature on snake management (a total of 671 papers and books) and survival in the wild.
Dan in Phoenix.
I have worked in the exotic animal field for over 30 years in the circus, zoos, and overseas and I would not want my neighbor owning any. Care of these animals is highly specialized and it should not be considered a right to own them. Accredited zoos in North America and Europe commit to a lifetime of care for the animals in their facilities and volunteer to adhere to a strict set of safety standards. Private owners do not do this. I personally feel that people who own dangerous animals are doing so to fulfill some type of need that might better be dealt with through therapy.
Dan in Phoenix.
I have worked in the exotic animal field for over 30 years in the circus, zoos, and overseas and I would not want my neighbor owning any. Care of these animals is highly specialized and it should not be considered a right to own them. Accredited zoos in North America and Europe commit to a lifetime of care for the animals in their facilities and volunteer to adhere to a strict set of safety standards. Private owners do not do this. I personally feel that people who own dangerous animals are doing so to fulfill some type of need that might better be dealt with through therapy.
The woman who is advocating for having these animals (with a "why not" response) clearly has no interest in the welfare of them. She is merely interested in her own self-aggrandizement.
I think that this is incredibly cruel to the animals involved. Anyone who thinks that they can provide adequate care, space, or other natural factors for these animals is insane. Most of these animals, especially those endangered (like tigers), don't even have enough room in their natural environment. How are they going to have enough room in your garage? This is not the intended fate of these animals. Wild animals need to be left in the wild. Setting all potential repercussions for humans owning these animals aside, I believe that these animals have the right to live in their natural environments without our influence.
This is from Dr. Mike Dorcas, the lead author of the new PNAS paper: PNAS is one of the most prestigious journals in the world, and we examined areas with pythons and not yet colonized by pythons or not yet heavily colonized. Regarding mercury as being responsible for declines: Mercury levels should be somewhat similar in the area heavily colonized by pythons and the area not long or not heavily colonized by pythons. Mercury is not likely to be the cause of the mammal declines because the bioamplification process would be expected to preferentially impact only the highest trophic levels, not deer or rabbits. Also, it is extremely unlikely that that mercury would have drastically increased in all the mammals to the levels required to eliminate most of the species. If that’s the case, why have all the birds and gators not disappeared too?
The Ocelot is a cute kitten, but when it grows up and can no longer be kept as a pet, what happens to it?
Same with chimps - the ones people see in the movies are babies. Adults are much stronger than any human, and can be ferocious.
Quoting "raw statistics" does nothing. For example quoting annual deaths from horses... out of how many horses in the US?