Lions and Tigers and Bears
Katy Steinmetz writes about exotic pets in the Missourian. She comes down squarely on the side of the St. Louis County chickens. (Chickens are exotic? Only in St. Louis County.) However, she’s not in favor of allowing larger, potentially dangerous animals as pets.
The column elicited some interesting comments about the downsides of exotic pet regulation, not all of which I agree with. Such as:
While on the surface your logic seems quite appropriate, but may I point out that all species, even your golden retriever, started out as a “wild animal” in some form or another.
Yes, but it’s been a really long time since our ancestors were coaxing wolves to come closer to the fire. The average golden retriever is ready to be a pet. The average wolf isn’t.
Any pet, regardless of species, can be a good pet, as well as be a bad pet. It’s all dependent on the humans involved.
Even lions? I don’t think so. Some big, dangerous, undomesticated animals are just objectively bad pets.
The commenter anticipates my thought about lions:
You may think a lion, tiger, bear, or chimpanzee may seem terribly dangerous, but they actually account for such a miniscule amount of deaths and injuries each year per capita.
Not convincing, because so few people keep those animals. I can accept that a wild cat roaming the mountains and avoiding people by nature isn’t dangerous, and a bear confined in a zoo isn’t dangerous. But it would be dangerous to allow these animals in residential neighborhoods. If more people had them in their houses, they would “account for” more deaths.
This is a good point:
One problem with regulation is it creates a lack of new people learning the regulated skills. The fewer people that live in areas that are “allowed” to own a species, the fewer can have enough contact with the animals to learn to be able to handle that species.
But I still don’t think that outweighs the safety issue. If people want to learn to handle exotic animals, they should work in a zoo, and learn the skills in an environment where they’re less likely to endanger others.
I am in complete agreement with you, Sarah. Ownership of wildlife is one area where I support government regulation, as in making it illegal. You are free to do whatever you want, in my opinion, with your own life, but owning a wild animal does not just involve your life. It includes the life of a undomesticated animal that you can not fully control – no matter how much you think you can.
Contrast this with the ownership of a gun. If you are responsible and do everything right with it, you are going to prevent an accident. Tragedies come either from errors or human decisions to use it in a harmful manner. You can do everything “right” with your ownership of a tiger or a python or a chimpanzee, but they are still wild animals who can harm people at any time. They should be banned from ownership in populated areas.
Comment by David Stokes — March 31, 2009 @ 1:14 p.m.
I agree with both of you, but then what do we do about Colt Pythons, Ruger Redhawks, and Beretta Bobcats? Paging King Solomon!
Comment by Mike S. — March 31, 2009 @ 1:30 p.m.
If it is wrong for private citizens to own wild animals then it ought to be wrong for the government to own them. Don’t they tell us that the government is acting in our interest? If this be the case, then the same rules should apply to the government as for us.
It’s the same with guns.
We ban them for everybody, including the government. or we allow everyone the same access to them.
I have yet to hear any advocate of gun control going that far. They seem to feel that a government made up of people is somehow superior and wiser than the general public operating in their own interest.
Its true that “if guns are banned, then only criminals will have guns”, but the rest of us would hardly be helpless. We’d be able to use body armor, chemical sprays, remote controlled devices and an array of exotic new technologies currently under development.
Wildlife, guns , whatever. The government shouldn’t have more rights than we do, if only because it gets its rights from our consent.
Comment by Ian Titter — June 18, 2009 @ 5:38 a.m.