Do you think wild primates should be allowed as pets?

[Ria]

That chimp attack that's been in the news was horrifying. I've read that the victim's face and hands were bitten off. If she survives, she'll never, ever lead a normal life again.

 

The chimp's owner, meanwhile, is publicly mourning the loss of her beloved pet and that she wasn't with him when he died. (To be fair, she's also sorry about her friend)

 

I find this extremely disturbing. I'm of the opinion that chimpanzees are wild animals...extremely powerful and unpredictable wild animals. I question why any state would allow someone to own such an animal. Certainly these animals are dangerous, and are smart enough to escape (thus potentially injuring others outside the home).

 

What do you think? Should banning ownership of wild primates be standard? Should this extend to other animals as well? (For example, I well remember having my baby twins out in the stroller one day in a public park when a woman walked by with two wolf-hybrids on leashes. They were half wolf. I love dogs, don't get me wrong, but I had babies that would have fit into the jaws of these wolves.)

 

Ria

[Tap]

I think that most states do have laws regarding primates, has anyone said on the news whether it was a legal pet in her area?

 

 

As far as the wolf reference, I grew up with wolf hybrids and I would have trusted any of our dog/wolf hybrids with my children. In my experience the hybrids are no more dangerous than a dog. You have to respect and train both.

[JudoMom]

I think that most states do have laws regarding primates, has anyone said on the news whether it was a legal pet in her area?

 

 

I would assume it was because it wasn't his first run in with the police from what I've heard.

[Jann in TX]

We had 'Tiny Bit' for nearly 2 years--once she started 'puberty' she went straight back to her breeder! My parents were 'friends of a friend' who had purchased her as a baby. They got tired of changing diapers and then felt guilty about neglecting her. Since our family 'loved' animals, my parents thought it would be a 'great' experience for us... well... I was only 8yrs old--but I CLEARLY remember that taking care of a monkey was WORK. My mom's arms were permanently scarred--monkey hated baths--but they were NECESSARY--monkeys STINK!

 

Sure we had some fun with her--she and our cat had a very unusual friendship that made some great home-movies.

 

Here is a picture I found online of a monkey like the one we had.

 

I can't imagine the responsibility of owning a Chimp... our little monkey's bites hurt enough!

 

I'm not against exotic animal ownership---but I do think that the animals need to be contained in an 'appropriate' environment...a home (without a cage/leash) is NOT an appropriate environment!

Edited February 18, 2009 by Jann in TX

[hornblower]

Municipalities here are slowly moving to ban ownership of exotics but it's still pretty splotchy and we don't have province wide standards.

 

I am generally opposed to exotics being kept as pets. I think we have enough problem getting people to look after cats/dogs/birds/reptiles and small furries properly. Primates should really not be kept as pets at all - I think their quality of life really suffers.

 

BTW, the BC SPCA will euth. any true wolf X that comes into their care. In reality though, most of what's being sold as wolfX is actually a malamuteX though so that doesn't happen often..... Loads of people have asked me if my dog is a wolfX - she's not. Mushers up north do stake their females out hoping for a wolf breeding, so further north true wolfX do pop up more often; terrible, inhumane practice IMO.

[Frontier Mom]

I think that most states do have laws regarding primates, has anyone said on the news whether it was a legal pet in her area?

 

 

As far as the wolf reference, I grew up with wolf hybrids and I would have trusted any of our dog/wolf hybrids with my children. In my experience the hybrids are no more dangerous than a dog. You have to respect and train both.

 

Actually, according to "The Factor" last night, most states DO NOT have laws about this in the US. Surprising I thought.

 

Yes, this is really horrifying and cruel to the poor animal acting upon its wild instincts.

[Tracey in TX]

There is no reason primates should be allowed as pets for a private home (zoo, aquarium, wildlife reserve, etc is a different category). Outside of domesticated animals or those raised for food, we should respect the place animals hold in our society--in the wild.

[Perry]

No.

[AnnetteB]

No. This ape had been out of control before and the owner allowed it to drink wine. They obviously were not fit owners.

[LaxMom]

There is no reason primates should be allowed as pets for a private home (zoo, aquarium, wildlife reserve, etc is a different category). Outside of domesticated animals or those raised for food, we should respect the place animals hold in our society--in the wild.

I agree. Animals who have been bred to be companions are unpredictable enough; expecting a wild animal to behave in a civil way in captivity is unreasonable and is almost guaranteed to end in the destruction of the animal.

 

There are special provisions that allow people who rescue / rehab wild critters to do so. Outside of that, there is no reason that a wild animal should be owned by a person.

[pqr]

Of course people should to have the right to own them. I get very tired of the constant knee jerk reactions every time a tragedy occurs. If the argument were that primates are being taken from the wild and this endangers the survival of the species than I might be in agreement, but that is not the argument that many are making. Rather people are arguing that they are dangerous, which is true but it is not a valid argument.

 

Swimming pools, fast cars, baseball bats, large dogs, guns, skateboards the list goes on all these things can be dangerous but they should not be banned. Simply because someone has an exotic pet should not and does not abrogate the basic rights of property. We can not run around passing laws that will eliminate every danger and we should not assault the basic rights of those minorities who may have a pet that most of us would not want.

 

If bans such as this go ahead how about those who own dangerous dogs German Shepherds, Rotts, Labs (poodles can and do bite and I still bear a scar from a Peek)? Will we all and up only being able to own declawed and toothless corgis?

 

If you wish to hold the owner responsible for damage done by the pet through demonstrable neglect or wanton disregard for public safety then so be it, I agree. However politicians and their sudden clamor for banning these animals demonstrate a lack of thought and inability to look beyond the moment. This, alas, seems to be endemic in the US.

 

For the record I do not have an exotic animal, but grew up in a place where people did. At least one person that my family knew was killed by a "pet" lion, but that has absolutely no bearing on his right to have owned said animal.

 

Freedom and independence mean the freedom and independence to be stupid and to act in a manner that may result in injury. As far as the injury to the woman's friend, I can only say that it is tragic but I suppose that the friend did know of the existence of the animal and made the decision to enter the home. If a lawsuit is bending, I agree, but banning…..No.

 

Let us remember the words of Prime Minister William Pitt in 1783 who demonstrated a greater understanding than many today possess.

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.

It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

 

This is a bigger issue than apes, it is a slippery slope and looks to the changing perspective that we seem to be adopting between individual rights and the necessity to provide the community with the false sense of security. This false security, they demand even at the cost of their freedoms. I for one will take the “animating contest of freedom†rather than the “tranquility of servitude.â€

[Nakia]

Absolutely not!

[lionfamily1999]

Of course people should to have the right to own them. I get very tired of the constant knee jerk reactions every time a tragedy occurs. If the argument were that primates are being taken from the wild and this endangers the survival of the species than I might be in agreement, but that is not the argument that many are making. Rather people are arguing that they are dangerous, which is true but it is not a valid argument.

 

Swimming pools, fast cars, baseball bats, large dogs, guns, skateboards the list goes on all these things can be dangerous but they should not be banned. Simply because someone has an exotic pet should not and does not abrogate the basic rights of property. We can not run around passing laws that will eliminate every danger and we should not assault the basic rights of those minorities who may have a pet that most of us would not want.

 

If bans such as this go ahead how about those who own dangerous dogs German Shepherds, Rotts, Labs (poodles can and do bite and I still bear a scar from a Peek)? Will we all and up only being able to own declawed and toothless corgis?

 

If you wish to hold the owner responsible for damage done by the pet through demonstrable neglect or wanton disregard for public safety then so be it, I agree. However politicians and their sudden clamor for banning these animals demonstrate a lack of thought and inability to look beyond the moment. This, alas, seems to be endemic in the US.

 

For the record I do not have an exotic animal, but grew up in a place where people did. At least one person that my family knew was killed by a "pet" lion, but that has absolutely no bearing on his right to have owned said animal.

 

Freedom and independence mean the freedom and independence to be stupid and to act in a manner that may result in injury. As far as the injury to the woman's friend, I can only say that it is tragic but I suppose that the friend did know of the existence of the animal and made the decision to enter the home. If a lawsuit is bending, I agree, but banning…..No.

 

Let us remember the words of Prime Minister William Pitt in 1783 who demonstrated a greater understanding than many today possess.

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.

It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

 

This is a bigger issue than apes, it is a slippery slope and looks to the changing perspective that we seem to be adopting between individual rights and the necessity to provide the community with the false sense of security. This false security, they demand even at the cost of their freedoms. I for one will take the “animating contest of freedom†rather than the “tranquility of servitude.â€

:iagree:

[Parrothead]

pqr has a point.

 

One monkey caused a great deal of pain and suffering so let's ban all monkeys. One homeschooling family abused their kids so let's ban all homeschooling.

[FO4UR]

pqr has a point.

 

One monkey caused a great deal of pain and suffering so let's ban all monkeys. One homeschooling family abused their kids so let's ban all homeschooling.

 

 

Are you calling me a monkey????:tongue_smilie::lol:

[katemary63]

Of course people should to have the right to own them. I get very tired of the constant knee jerk reactions every time a tragedy occurs. If the argument were that primates are being taken from the wild and this endangers the survival of the species than I might be in agreement, but that is not the argument that many are making. Rather people are arguing that they are dangerous, which is true but it is not a valid argument.

 

Swimming pools, fast cars, baseball bats, large dogs, guns, skateboards the list goes on all these things can be dangerous but they should not be banned. Simply because someone has an exotic pet should not and does not abrogate the basic rights of property. We can not run around passing laws that will eliminate every danger and we should not assault the basic rights of those minorities who may have a pet that most of us would not want.

 

If bans such as this go ahead how about those who own dangerous dogs German Shepherds, Rotts, Labs (poodles can and do bite and I still bear a scar from a Peek)? Will we all and up only being able to own declawed and toothless corgis?

 

If you wish to hold the owner responsible for damage done by the pet through demonstrable neglect or wanton disregard for public safety then so be it, I agree. However politicians and their sudden clamor for banning these animals demonstrate a lack of thought and inability to look beyond the moment. This, alas, seems to be endemic in the US.

 

For the record I do not have an exotic animal, but grew up in a place where people did. At least one person that my family knew was killed by a "pet" lion, but that has absolutely no bearing on his right to have owned said animal.

 

Freedom and independence mean the freedom and independence to be stupid and to act in a manner that may result in injury. As far as the injury to the woman's friend, I can only say that it is tragic but I suppose that the friend did know of the existence of the animal and made the decision to enter the home. If a lawsuit is bending, I agree, but banning…..No.

 

Let us remember the words of Prime Minister William Pitt in 1783 who demonstrated a greater understanding than many today possess.

 

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom.

It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."

 

This is a bigger issue than apes, it is a slippery slope and looks to the changing perspective that we seem to be adopting between individual rights and the necessity to provide the community with the false sense of security. This false security, they demand even at the cost of their freedoms. I for one will take the “animating contest of freedom†rather than the “tranquility of servitude.â€

 

:iagree::iagree::iagree:

 

I posted on the other "chimp" thread about whether *I* would ever own a wild animal and how foolish I think people who do are, so I won't repeat that here. I do believe that there should be laws in place, licenses, housing regulations etc, and stiff penalties for "accidents" like this chimp attack. Hold the owner accountable. But I DON'T want government outlawing everything to PROTECT us all from ourselves. Like the above post says - slippery slope. I believe in FREEDOM and it is too easy to loose and to hard to win back to be cavalier about giving it up in any circumstance. We must stop looking to government to be our "Daddy" so to speak. We DON'T want a "Nanny state" where we are considered too foolish to take care of ourselves. I want Freedom. Freedom to succeed, Freedom to fail, Freedom to be right, Freedom to be wrong. If I want that for myself, I have to grant it to others, no matter how much I disagree with their behavior. Come on people...think about it.

[HRAAB]

There is no reason primates should be allowed as pets for a private home (zoo, aquarium, wildlife reserve, etc is a different category). Outside of domesticated animals or those raised for food, we should respect the place animals hold in our society--in the wild.

 

:iagree: although I have to admit that even zoos bother me some. I would much rather watch a nature show on PBS.

 

Janet

[hornblower]

Well, I believe in the rights of wild animals to remain wild & in my opinion their right supersedes the rights of people who just want to 'have one'.

 

And I like big gov't. For ex. right around now, with the lack of oversight on the safety of our food, I'm wishing for a lot MORE powers & hard working public servants at the FDA and CFIA.

 

There are only a few places where I want the gov't to butt out: abortion, people's sex lives, same sex marriage.....

 

It is reasonable for the state to put in limits on the citizen's behaviours whether it's for the protection of the people, for the protection of the environment, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Taking a wild animal out of nature is IMO cruelty in and of itself, regardless of how it's taken care of. There have to be really good reasons (preservation of a species etc) to outweight that negative. Some personal whim to own one doesn't cut it.

[Perry]

Well, I believe in the rights of wild animals to remain wild & in my opinion their right supersedes the rights of people who just want to 'have one'.

 

And I like big gov't. For ex. right around now, with the lack of oversight on the safety of our food, I'm wishing for a lot MORE powers & hard working public servants at the FDA and CFIA.

 

There are only a few places where I want the gov't to butt out: abortion, people's sex lives, same sex marriage.....

 

It is reasonable for the state to put in limits on the citizen's behaviours whether it's for the protection of the people, for the protection of the environment, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Taking a wild animal out of nature is IMO cruelty in and of itself, regardless of how it's taken care of. There have to be really good reasons (preservation of a species etc) to outweight that negative. Some personal whim to own one doesn't cut it.

:iagree:

 

 

 

 

pqr has a point.

 

One monkey caused a great deal of pain and suffering so let's ban all monkeys. One homeschooling family abused their kids so let's ban all homeschooling.

 

There are lots of good reasons to homeschool. I can't think of any legitimate reasons for someone to own a chimp, only selfish ones.

[Tammyla]

No, I don't. And I believe, those who have potentially deadly animals should be insured and liable.

[Laura R (FL)]

I am currently fighting legislation regrading exotic reptiles. I am insured ($2 mil liability) and licensed (about $200 annually in permits). Why should I be punished for the irresponsibility of others? Does everyone pay for the permit? HA!

 

Where do you draw the line? Govt can be in some places and not others? It doesn't really work that way in the real world. What happened is a shame, but child abuse is a shame and happens much more frequently. Why aren't we regulating parenthood, requiring permits to breed, and banning dangerous parents or children? Of course, I am kidding.

[LaxMom]

Well, I believe in the rights of wild animals to remain wild & in my opinion their right supersedes the rights of people who just want to 'have one'.

 

And I like big gov't. For ex. right around now, with the lack of oversight on the safety of our food, I'm wishing for a lot MORE powers & hard working public servants at the FDA and CFIA.

 

There are only a few places where I want the gov't to butt out: abortion, people's sex lives, same sex marriage.....

 

It is reasonable for the state to put in limits on the citizen's behaviours whether it's for the protection of the people, for the protection of the environment, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Taking a wild animal out of nature is IMO cruelty in and of itself, regardless of how it's taken care of. There have to be really good reasons (preservation of a species etc) to outweight that negative. Some personal whim to own one doesn't cut it.

 

I agree. There is a difference in interfering in personal relationships and requiring people to meet minimum standards for things that can potentially harm others.

 

We already regulate operation of vehicles, gun ownership, etc. and those are objects that cannot act on their own to cause injury to others. Helmet laws exist in many states to require parents to protect their children on skateboards and bicycles, and there are laws on the books regarding inappropriate animal ownership, such as being able to keep a camel in your bathtub or bringing a lion to a theater. These seem ridiculous on the surface, but the unfortunate truth is that people do not seem to have mastered the obvious.

[Guest Katia]

Well, I believe in the rights of wild animals to remain wild & in my opinion their right supersedes the rights of people who just want to 'have one'.

 

And I like big gov't. For ex. right around now, with the lack of oversight on the safety of our food, I'm wishing for a lot MORE powers & hard working public servants at the FDA and CFIA.

 

There are only a few places where I want the gov't to butt out: abortion, people's sex lives, same sex marriage.....

 

It is reasonable for the state to put in limits on the citizen's behaviours whether it's for the protection of the people, for the protection of the environment, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Taking a wild animal out of nature is IMO cruelty in and of itself, regardless of how it's taken care of. There have to be really good reasons (preservation of a species etc) to outweight that negative. Some personal whim to own one doesn't cut it.

 

:iagree::iagree: Very, very well said. I agree completely.

[Danestress]

Just for the record.

[Audrey]

No, I don't. And I believe, those who have potentially deadly animals should be insured and liable.

 

:iagree:

[AuntieM]

(and why is it that I always want to put an "s" in front of your screen name....!!!)

 

If you have ever worked up close to a chimpanzee, you would know that you wouldn't want your kids near one without strong containment separating the them. I personally believe they are too dangerous to be kept as pets. I also feel it isn't wise to keep exotics unless one is willing and able to provide all the space, veterinary care, special diet & habitat required to keep them healthy in captivity. Personally, I don't think large primates should be kept in any unregulated facility.

 

Rather than set laws about what animals one can have or not have, I would prefer to see these laws address the steps necessary to protect others from injury or attack from such "pets." The laws should address perimeter containment, warning systems, liability issues, and proper disposition when these creatures are no longer desireable as pets. A person would them have the freedom to own such a pet as long as he can do so responsibly and according to the law. (Now enforcement, that's a whole 'nother issue!).

 

Okay, that's my 2 cents. Personally, after being in the company of chimps, I really am clueless as to why anyone would want to bring one into their home as a roommate...

[pqr]

Well, I believe in the rights of wild animals to remain wild & in my opinion their right supersedes the rights of people who just want to 'have one'. .

 

Come on now. Many of these animals are born into captivity, they could not be released. Would you euthanize them? How about birds? Should no one be allowed to keep a caged bird? Do their rights outweigh that of the elderly woman who keeps one for companionship? Fish are also wild animals, will you prevent a child having a few fish in a bowl? Just where do you draw the line?

 

I abhor cruelty to animals but keeping an exotic pet is not cruelty.

 

And I like big gov't....There are only a few places where I want the gov't to butt out: abortion, people's sex lives, same sex marriage..... .

 

You are being rather selective in your choices aren't you? Let me get this straight; you would have big government control my property rights, limit that wonderful "pursuit of happiness" that makes up so much of the American psyche, control my behavior by trumpeting the necessity to protect society. In essence the government may violate my rights and limit my freedoms and as long as they stay out of a woman's womb and away from peoples genitals... you are fine with this?

 

CS Forester would not be impressed.

 

It is reasonable for the state to put in limits on the citizen's behaviours whether it's for the protection of the people, for the protection of the environment, or for the prevention of cruelty to animals. Taking a wild animal out of nature is IMO cruelty in and of itself, regardless of how it's taken care of. There have to be really good reasons (preservation of a species etc) to outweight that negative. Some personal whim to own one doesn't cut it.

 

We are not talking about behaviors. We are talking about rights....property rights in this case. Behavior is... "drunk in public" which can be limited. Rights include owning property which should only be violated in the most extreme of cases, not where people simply hold an "opinion" about cruelty.

 

To return to your admiration for big government I would leave you with the words of Franklin.

 

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Edited February 19, 2009 by pqr

[1cat2ferrets]

I'm an animal lover but don't think chimps should be allowed as pets. A chimp is a wild animal by nature no matter how similiar they are to us.

People who have tigers, lions, and alligators as pets shouldn't be allowed to have them either! Much too dangerous.

[pqr]

People who have tigers, lions, and alligators as pets shouldn't be allowed to have them either! Much too dangerous.

Free people have the right to make stupid and dangerous decisions, that is the whole point of the thread. We have those who want freedom and those who would see it taken away in order to gain a false sense of safety.

 

As to the fur is dead .com avatar. Of couse it is, I don't see my wife wearing a live animal across her shoulders (that would be BOTH dangerous and cruel and who will coat check 20 live mink?). Further, fur may be dead but it is warm, soft and looks great on almost any woman.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

I'm an animal lover ...

 

Joanne

 

Only Mean people wear fur! :cursing:

 

 

 

Wow! Until now my kids just thought I was "Mean" based on how I graded math exams or restricted their sugar consumption. Now I can tell them my coat made me do it.

[Cricket]

pqr, you make some great points. I see that you are in Eastern Europe. I don't know if you were born and raised there, but either way I bet that gives you a different perspective on politics. The effects of strong government control over the populace I'm sure are still obvious there. It's hard to believe that here in America our ancestors fought a war to give us those freedoms you talk about and here we are a little more than 200 years later, happily handing those freedoms back to the government. It's rather frightening actually.

[lionfamily1999]

Free people have the right to make stupid and dangerous decisions, that is the whole point of the thread. We have those who want freedom and those who would see it taken away in order to gain a false sense of safety.

 

As to the fur is dead .com avatar. Of couse it is, I don't see my wife wearing a live animal across her shoulders (that would be BOTH dangerous and cruel and who will coat check 20 live mink?). Further, fur may be dead but it is warm, soft and looks great on almost any woman.

Can you add "lionfamily1999 aka Julie agrees with me" to your sig? It would save me lots of time ;)

Wow! Until now my kids just thought I was "Mean" based on how I graded math exams or restricted their sugar consumption. Now I can tell them my coat made me do it.

lol.......... it's not my fault, it's the muff!

[CactusPair]

This case makes me vomit. It's so senseless. Unbelievable.

 

No, I do not think that primates should ever, ever be kept as pets. They are wild beasts, not people no matter how many tricks they learn. It isn't fair tothe animals to treat like people and it's dangerous for the humans around them. A wild animal should lead a wild animal's life.

 

A scientist writing in Time.com said it was a matter of if, not when something like this would occur involving the chimp.

 

When I was about 4 yrs old I overheard a conversation in the locker room at swimming lessons about another girl being attacked in the face by a pet monkey. It was horrifying to hear, horrifying to imagine and I never forgot it.

 

I cannot fathom the suffering & misery of the poor woman who was attacked by this chimp. There are no words for such a tragedy. My heart aches for her.

[Liz CA]

 

What do you think? Should banning ownership of wild primates be standard? Should this extend to other animals as well? (For example, I well remember having my baby twins out in the stroller one day in a public park when a woman walked by with two wolf-hybrids on leashes. They were half wolf. I love dogs, don't get me wrong, but I had babies that would have fit into the jaws of these wolves.)

 

Ria

 

Wild animals should not be transformed into pets. This obviously includes chimps. I would also add iguanas and exotic birds to this. They are small by comparison but can still inflict harm not to mention the animal is not being served well by confining them in - what is for them - an artificial environment. Never a good thing.

 

People have trouble distinguishing between animals that can be domesticated and others that are wild and were meant to remain wild.

[hillfarm]

No, I feel that private individuals should not be permitted to own primates or other dangerous exotics. Neither swimming pools, fast cars, nor guns come across the backyard fence by themselves and pursue and maul the neighbors in their own homes. And while it is fine to debate the esoterics of it all, the woman with no face or hands remaining might beg to differ with the opinion that licensing and insurance will take care of everything. The fact remains that the danger to others is too great to allow dangerous exotics to be maintained in non-professional facilities. Would you support my right to keep my African Lion pride next door to your child's preschool playground? I'll be sure to get my paperwork in order, so that you can sue me after half of you child has been consumed.

 

I worked for many years in the marine mammal industry. I was involved in the regulation of professional facilities that housed dolphins, whales, pinnipeds (seals/sea lions), manatees, and polar bears. I never could understand the popularity of the dolphin swim programs. If I pointed you toward a cage of "tame" tigers that you could send you child into, would you do it? Those dolphins were large, very strong, wild animals and there have been many incidents of serious injury (deep slashes, broken arms and ribs, rammings, near drownings). And yet there is an unending stream of parents lining up to send little Johnnie and Susie in to swim with the dolphins and pose for the photo opp. So many people have such a distorted image of what the term wild animal actually means.

 

I often did joint inspections with a vet who did all captive mammals, so had frequent occasion to observe her primate inspections. Wow. Give me a grouchy killer whale any day! It is hard for most people to believe how much physical violence can be perpetrated by those cute primates. It is a terrifying thing to watch one become enraged and violent, even the small ones.

 

IMO, having worked with many captive wild animal species, I feel that we can never offer them anything vaguely close to their natural habitat. And I have seen some of the very best and most costly attempts in the world to do so. I feel that much of private exotic animal ownership is focused on meeting the needs of the owner, which practically never meets the needs of the animal. The vast majority of these animals I have dealt with (mostly after the crisis,when they have been dumped on some professional facility when the owner could no longer handle the extreme bahavior and care issues), has convinced me that they make terrible pets and are being used to stroke the egos and other psychological needs of confused owners. They are far too dangerous to be handled by inexperienced and unregulated individuals. And when they "go off", they often injure or kill someone other than the actual owner. So it is not about the owner's rights, but my rights as an American citizen, to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the right to not be eaten by my neighbor's lion or mauled by his primate.

Edited February 20, 2009 by hillfarm

[Janna]

has anyone said on the news whether it was a legal pet in her area?

 

 

 

 

I believe I read that there was a law requiring registering an animal greater than 50 lbs in a residential area and getting a state permit for such animal (in Connecticut). However, Sandra Herold, the owner of the chimp, was exempt from this law because she had the chimp before the law was made and there hadn't been any reason for such action *they felt* because he wasn't seen as a risk to public safety. Apparently, they were wrong. :glare:

 

My own personal opinion would be more along the lines of the fact that he was in commercials and had a Hollywood link.

 

But even still, I don't understand why she would be exempt from registering him. It's not like she couldn't keep him. He just needed to be registered. There must be quite a lot of cost involved with that or something because otherwise (and really, even still) it just doesn't make sense.

[Miss Sherry]

I'm glad that I do not have neighbors that own any wild chimps and I would not want to have neighbors that did. It wouldn't be a safe environment for my children or anyone else.

[Lovedtodeath]

No, I feel that private individuals should not be permitted to own primates or other dangerous exotics. ...The fact remains that the danger to others is too great to allow dangerous exotics to be maintained in non-professional facilities. Would you support my right to keep my African Lion pride next door to your child's preschool playground? I'll be sure to get my paperwork in order, so that you can sue me after half of you child has been consumed.

 

IMO, having worked with many captive wild animal species, I feel that we can never offer them anything vaguely close to their natural habitat. And I have seen some of the very best and most costly attempts in the world to do so. I feel that much of private exotic animal ownership is focused on meeting the needs of the owner, which practically never meets the needs of the animal. ... And when they "go off", they often injure or kill someone other than the actual owner. So it is not about the owner's rights, but my rights as an American citizen, to LIFE, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the right to not be eaten by my neighbor's lion or mauled by his primate.

 

:iagree:

 

I also agree with the majority of what pqr said, but I do not think exotic animals should be pets. Especially animals that can be dangerous. This includes large snakes and certain fish that I would not want released into my neighborhood, but of course, it happens.

[StaceyinLA]

I think owning them for circuses and entertainment should be banned as well. Zoos and wildlife preserves with natural habitats are one thing - exploitation and entertainment are another.

 

As for owning them as pets? ridiculous!! They are just too unpredictable.

 

And I'm sorry - I don't equate a wolf hybrid with a yorkie. We are not talking about the same danger factor and unpredictability. I don't even believe aggressive dog breeds such as pit bulls should be owned by most of the general population (considering the types of people in our area that own and breed them).

 

Yeah, yeah, I'm ducking and running...

[1cat2ferrets]

As to the fur is dead .com avatar. Of couse it is, I don't see my wife wearing a live animal across her shoulders (that would be BOTH dangerous and cruel and who will coat check 20 live mink?). Further, fur may be dead but it is warm, soft and looks great on almost any woman.

 

I'd post my response publicly, but don't want to be reprimanded from the moderator.

[Ria]

As to the fur is dead .com avatar. Of couse it is, I don't see my wife wearing a live animal across her shoulders (that would be BOTH dangerous and cruel and who will coat check 20 live mink?). Further, fur may be dead but it is warm, soft and looks great on almost any woman.

I'd post my response publicly, but don't want to be reprimanded from the moderator.

 

 

 

Joanne, like you I prefer my furs alive, warm, and purring. LOL. Ria

 

[1cat2ferrets]

what a gorgeous cat!! Is it a Bengal cat or an Egyptian Maui?

 

Got your PM, BTW. Thanks, I feel the same way as you do.:D

[Ria]

Lily is my 5-month old Bengal. She's a doll.

 

Ria

[1cat2ferrets]

Just got my first thread deleted by admin!!

I guess you can't speak your mind on here either.

[Spy Car]

Lily is my 5-month old Bengal. She's a doll.

 

Ria

 

That is a beautiful cat Ria.

 

Bill

[HRAAB]

Just got my first thread deleted by admin!!

I guess you can't speak your mind on here either.

 

I'm not going to speak my mind, only to say you're not alone in your feelings. :001_smile:

 

Janet

[Karen sn]

Just got my first thread deleted by admin!!

I guess you can't speak your mind on here either.

 

Welcome to my world.

[JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst]

Ria,

 

If you live in pqr's neighborhood you better lock up that cat-it's got earmuffs written all over it. :)

 

Seriously, this thread isn't about who loves animals the most-its about whether more legislation and regulation are more important than individual rights. Should legislation about normally common sense issues necessitate and justify limiting individual liberties and rights?

Edited February 20, 2009 by JumpedIntoTheDeepEndFirst

[Spy Car]

For myself, when it comes to personal "ownership" of exotic animals I think the principle individual liberty (which I strongly ascribe to) needs to be balanced with threats to public safety. Ones neighbors need the liberty of feeling free of animal attack, as much or more than one desires to keep a potentially dangerous pet.

 

But I'll admit balancing those interests can become difficult (if not unduly burdensome) when municipalities start banning things like "dog-breeds" out of knee-jerk response. So it's a difficult balancing act.

 

Further, in the case of Great Apes, I happen to believe that they are our closest non-human ancestors in evolutionary terms, and that primates deserve a special class of protection in terms of their welfare. Not that any animal shouldn't be raised with proper husbandry and under humane conditions, but that we have a "special duty" with Apes.

 

Bill

[Ria]

For myself, when it comes to personal "ownership" of exotic animals I think the principle individual liberty (which I strongly ascribe to) needs to be balanced with threats to public safety. Ones neighbors need the liberty of feeling free of animal attack, as much or more than one desires to keep a potentially dangerous pet.

 

But I'll admit balancing those interests can become difficult (if not unduly burdensome) when municipalities start banning things like "dog-breeds" out of knee-jerk response. So it's a difficult balancing act.

 

Further, in the case of Great Apes, I happen to believe that they are our closest non-human ancestors in evolutionary terms, and that primates deserve a special class of protection in terms of their welfare. Not that any animal shouldn't be raised with proper husbandry and under humane conditions, but that we have a "special duty" with Apes.

 

Bill

 

Yep. What he said.

 

Ria