This article from the New York Times discusses a new wave of restrictions on exotic animal ownership in the wake of the recent Ohio catastrophe with the deranged person releasing tigers, bears, etc. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/us/exotic-animals-business-faces-restrictions.html?pagewanted=all
This article is full of outright lies and misinformation - pure garbage spoon-fed to them by animal rights extremists! Here are a few examples. The Humane Society estimates there are 15,000 big cats in the United States. WRONG! There are at most 5,000 (due to a recent exhaustive survey by Feline Conservation Federation). But because the Humane Society says it, no one will question the number or ask them how they arrived at that statistic. Did anyone notice that two of the three species mentioned in the December exotic animal auction are actually domestic animals!!! Zebu (a type of cattle) and llama. Hello people. And yes, I am sure there is a rash of deaths caused by llamas . The article keeps referring to them as pets, and yet all of the owners listed are animal parks and ranches - not private pet owners. And look how it cites that regulations cause the endangered barasingha population on ranches to plummet. Are there occasional abuses and do some people have wild animals as pets? Of course they do - I am not blind. But animal rights extremists are unabashed media pimps (often by their own admission) and they will take any opportunity - such as the recent Ohio animal release - to trump up wild claims in the media. Remember, shutting down private breeders is their first wave. Their ultimate goal is to shut down all zoos (and even farms). Do NOT buy the lies!
@Arizona Docent: Why is Jack Hanna supporting some of these regulations if they will harm zoos and legitimate wildlife breeders? It seems like some baseline regulation is reasonable. The snake laws coming are necessary to keep idiots from releasing pythons into the wild from my perspective as a wildlife conservationist. It seems to me that the idiots who mismanage exotic wildlife that they have no business owning are dragging down the folks who may be doing legitimate wildlife breeding outside of the zoo world. How do you tell the good from the bad, is what it keeps coming down to. I don't know the answer. The AZA has cleaned up the zoo world with self-policing via accreditation. Why can't the legitimate breeders get together and do the same thing? That way they could drum out the idiots and get them shut down. I'm sure that this would be easier said than done, but until it is these laws and regulations aren't going away. It seems like much of this call for regulation is coming from the mainstream public as much as it is animal rights activists.
As I understand the article, Jack Hanna is working on the legislation for Ohio (which currently has none whatsoever). This is to force Ohio owners to be licensed, as they are in most other states. It does NOT say (at least I do not think so) that he is working on the federal legislation, which would severly curtail exotic breeding even by licensed individuals.
Actually adding various python species to the USFWS injurious wildlife list will not stop people from releasing pythons into the wild. While it may stop the import of large adult snakes - it would be pretty easy to import juveniles. And stopping interstate traffic of these pythons cannot be stopped unless there is a border stop at each state and a search is done of each car. While it is a decent start, it will do nothing but stop the legitimate interstate sales of these species. While Florida's new reptile laws are good, but it only slows the growth of the reptile trade in the state. These laws do not prevent further release of existing reptiles in the state. Also the incident in Zainesville was not the act of some idiot owning animals. But the last act of a desperate and angered man who wanted to cause problems for the people that wouldn't leave him alone. While he may not have provided his animals with the best or even proper care - this did not cause the incident. This scenario could be repeated anywhere, including an AZA accreditation facility. Even the best security policies could not stop an individual from repeating this incident. While there are differing opinions on how to curb this excess of exotics animals in the private sector, a compromise can be reached that would protect the rights of the animal owners and the safety of the neighboring public. The state of Florida has had much experience dealing with exotic animal ownership and developed a series of regulations that show responsibility to the animals and neighbors. As I mentioned before, the regulations are good, but not full proof. However they provide legitimacy to responsible owners and create penalties for irresponsible or illegal owners. Captive Wildlife Licenses & Permits Also to help curb the release of exotics animals into the wild, the state also holds several "amnesty days" each year at zoological facilities open to the public. These events allow of the complete surrender of exotics animals without any penalty to the state of Florida. These animals are then found a suitable home through a network of zoological facilities and responsible private owners. There is no more a problem with exotic animals in this country as there is with weapons, government debt, and energy consumption/waste. The debate of exotic animal ownership is not new. I'm sure a good research of archived news articles can prove this - incidents happen every year that incite people with loud voices to shout. However very little is often produced from these incidents other than an injury, death, a fine, and the threat of new regulations/laws. Like any issue, public interest will wane until the next public incident. Jack Hanna favors Ohio's drafting regulations because they are needed and he has a say in what is written to ensure fairness for animal owners. The AZA has not cleaned up the zoo world - they have only put a new coat paint on it and made examples out of the most public institutions. And legitimate breeders do have their own organizations with policies and ethics, but there will always be someone who screws it up for everyone. These organizations can exclude, not prevent people from making these widely public mistakes.
I have no problem with the state or federal government want to regulate large exotics or big invasive snakes. My issue with these supposed pending laws and regulations is the overall lack of clarity as to what qualifies as exotic. Jack Hanna says nobody should be keeping an exotic animal in their home, but I have to wonder how he defines the term. Burmese python? Okay. Tiger? Okay? Bear or wolf? Check. I wonder what happens when they get into the much more commonly kept reptile species such as ball pythons, leopard geckos or bearded dragons. I keep a few reptiles and would welcome anyone to take a look if they're interested in the quality of my husbandry skills. I just want to know, is my leopard tortoise injurious and dangerous? Is my green tree python? How about my uromastyx? I also have a tropical community tank. Do I need a permit? If so, how much money do I have to give the government to keep them from threatening to take these animals from me? It looks like payola to the max for the government, which will use the example of tigers and invasive snakes to blanket a much larger and less dangerous list of animals that will suddenly go from "on sale this week at Petco" to "exotic and potentially menacing to society". On a side note, the NYT piece mentions a "white tailed deer breeder". Really? I wasn't aware of a shortage here in the states. All you have to do is plant the right vegetables and you'll have your very own deer park, regardless of urban or rural location, breeding and all right outside the kitchen window.
Federal regulation would probably be unconstitutional except with the relation of the actual commerce. Licensing should be and is in most cases handled at the state level.
There are several reasons for breeding whitetails, and not for petting. Exotic animal owners sometimes breed deer as a meat source for their animals, or sell them to the outfits that hold the canned hunts. Larry Barger is big in raising deer - he owns a hunting ranch and was the president of the Whitetail Genetic Research Institute, which wants to make bucks bigger with more impressive racks for hunting. Others raise deer to sell the venison for human consumption. Check out Highland Farm.
Brevard Zoo lets you hand-feed White-Tailed Deer through a fence, so I'm assuming a knowledgeable deer raiser with good husbandry skills can possibly do this with some does. Probably no bucks though.
I'd like to see the AZA Animal Exchange listing for deer, to see how long most zoos actually keep a deer around. The real reason for raising whitetails is for meat and for hunting. Fenced-in deer hunting turning into real battle - New York Daily News
Michigan legalizes big carnivore-breeding..... : Bill legalizes breeding of large carnivores in Michigan
Article about how easy it is in some US - states to keep exotics : How are Rich People Able to Buy Exotic Pets Like Tigers?
