REXANO Why do we run away from acknowledging that many of our wild or exotic animals are pets?

Why do we run away from acknowledging that many of our wild or exotic animals are pets?

By Betsy Whitlock, December 31, 2008

I have recently given some thought to the whole process of fighting ban legislation by claiming that wildcats and other wild or exotics species are ambassadors, educational animals, commercial animals or breeding stock. Many of these animals are, but still many are simply pets. What’s wrong with that as a defense?

I realize that many lawmakers are more attuned to the idea that they should not interfere with commerce or species survival, but many laws and ordinances are in fact designed so as to protect the rights of people to keep pets. Most laws define pets as having special status like saying that ’domestic cats and dogs are exempt from this or that rule’. Maybe we should consider working harder to get equal status for wild or exotic pets and their owners.

It might be hard for the average lawmaker to accept that someone has a pet wild animal, but then for people who dislike domestic cats seeing them as pets might be an issue. The same can be said for those rare individuals that just hate or are afraid of dogs. These people don’t usually try to ban these pets since society accepts these species as companion animals. Maybe we need to try to get people to see more species as possible companion animals. This has worked wonders for horses as they are for the most part not only accepted as pets, but are even protected from liability or harvesting as meat animals in many states.

The argument that because our pets are “wild” and should not be cruelly confined doesn’t really work since no one has trouble with ‘cruelly confining’, not only cats and dogs, but also birds, fish and rodents as accepted pets. Surely if you are born with the ability to fly or swim, keeping you in a cage or tank is much crueler than letting a serval lounge on the couch?

The argument that these animals are not domestic so they can not be pets doesn’t really work either, since many wildcat species, along with wild caught birds, fish, horses and the like have been keep as pets for millennia right next to domestic cats and dogs. Don’t forget every domestic started out as wild long ago.

With the advent of CITES (Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species) and stringent enforcement which we all are aware of, our pets are not being taken from the wild, so the argument that you are removing endangered animals from wild places doesn’t work either.
The fact that some wild species end up in sanctuaries does not work as an argument, since there are millions of domestic cats and dogs in shelters and sanctuaries all over this country. Further, the fact that some pet owners are not capable or understanding of the needs of wild pets doesn’t wash, since the same can be said of accepted domestic pet owners.

The argument that these are inherently dangerous animals really does not ring true when you consider that there are many more injuries inflicted on the public from domestic dogs, cats and horses than wild pets are responsible for. The fear of escape put in prospective with the number of escaped and feral domestic dogs and cats is really a joke. Stray dogs bite people everyday but we don’t ban all dogs for fear of escape since they are accepted pets.

I think maybe in addition to all our other arguments, we should not really be afraid to say some of our animals are simply pets and then ask that others accept that. I accept that finches and fish, which for the most part can not be handled and show no affection for their owners, are none the less pets as do most people. Just because a particular species is not one’s cup of tea does not mean it can’t be someone else’s. I am beginning to believe that if we cannot get rid of species bigotry, saying that only this species, breed or type is a pet and the others can’t be, our days as pet owners of any animal that falls from grace are doomed.

Like so many things in life it is easy for the mass to decide that because they don’t like something that no one should. Just because Joe doesn’t look like “us” or act like us makes him bad or to be feared and excluded from certain privileges. That’s the thinking we should be combating, not just saying our pets are something other than what they are. Yes our pets are different in appearance, species, breed etc. from maybe someone else’s, but they still play the same role in our lives as someone else’s Golden Retriever or Persian cat.

Why is it that Joe Blow can choose to have what he considers an appropriate pet and we can’t? This is really a matter of discrimination not just against our animals but also against us, the wild or exotic pet owners, who choose pets not accepted by the masses.

This really is a private property rights issue since that is basically how the law deals with pets. The Animal Rights people might see it differently, but for the most part our laws are based on private property and our right to possess it. That is a front that we must not abandon as lost when facing ban laws and restrictive legislation. I for one believe I should have the right to be a pet owner, among many other things that others may define me as, are you?

Betsy Whitlock has spent her entire life with animals of one nature or another. She and her husband operate Belle Hollow Farms and Exotics, a USDA approved facility, located in Western North Carolina where they breed serval hybrids (Savannah cats) and are busy acquiring a breeding colony of Geoffroy's Cats. Her web site is Belle Hollow Farms & Exotics and she can be reached by e-mail at Bellehollow@wildblue.net