# Pet Coyote?



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

Saw this in my FB feed. I gotta say, seeing a full blood coyote wagging it's tail like a domestic dog is a little bit weird! Seemed very friendly, though had that typical coyote skittish behavior in the way it was acting.


----------



## BernerMax (Mar 15, 2013)

Wow its adorable, is it fully mature? I wonder if it will become aggressive as she matures-- super cute though...Does not seem like a wild animal at all....


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

BernerMax said:


> Wow its adorable, is it fully mature? I wonder if it will become aggressive as she matures-- super cute though...Does not seem like a wild animal at all....


I'm not sure, in the description it said she was bottle fed and hand raised.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

Regardless of the coyote being bottle fed and hand raised at some point it will show it's "wild" side because it is a wild animal (they aren't meant to be pets). I'm not saying that it's not adorable as hell because it totally is  but I just don't think it's a good idea. I would love to have a tiger but do you think I'm going to get it...no because it's a wild animal and no mater how much I hand raise it it's still a tiger and would kill me with a swipe of the claws (accidentally). i know coyotes don't have the claws or jaws of a tiger so it's a little bit of a bad example but the principle is the same...animals have instincts.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

A wild animal is a wild animal is a wild animal.
They will figure that out soon enough.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

HollowHeaven said:


> A wild animal is a wild animal is a wild animal.
> They will figure that out soon enough.


Ehh... Not necessarily true.

There are quite a few pet coyotes across the country and also coydog mixes. Exotics don't "turn" on their owners generally*. For every one story you hear of an exotic attack, there are a bunch of coyotes sitting at home eating popcorn on the couch with their peeps. There are pet coyote breeders in several state who pull and bottle raise their pups. They aren't your average pet and they certainly aren't a dog.

Requirements:
-Permit(s)
-Large Enclosure, 30'X30'
-Special vet, exotic
-Special diet, raw/prey model based
-Socialization from an early age
-Long, long walks or runs daily on private property
-Special long lasting toys

Ya'll should read the Daily Coyote. Really cool blog and book about raising a wild coyote cub. Its legal in her state. I also would suggest that for anyone who is interested in the bond between a rescue coyote and his human read this thread on an exotics forum. Its photo heavy. They have a really special relationship.

*I do not recommend anyone jump into a big cat's, wolf's, or other large mammalian's or bird's enclosure. Most responsible exotic owners understand that. They are companions, not pets. 30lb coyote is manageable and I wouldn't go any larger than that with an exotic. I do hope to own a fox some day.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> Ehh... Not necessarily true.
> 
> There are quite a few pet coyotes across the country and also coydog mixes. Exotics don't "turn" on their owners generally*. For every one story you hear of an exotic attack, there are a bunch of coyotes sitting at home eating popcorn on the couch with their peeps. There are pet coyote breeders in several state who pull and bottle raise their pups. They aren't your average pet and they certainly aren't a dog.
> 
> ...


But there's always that risk and exotics are absolutely not for everyone nor should they be available for everyone. I know there are exceptions but just not something that a person without extensive research should do. I've aspired to own a fox one day (I have ALWAYS loved foxes for some reason, I consider them my favorite animal and lucky animal) but I know that I probably won't be owning one any time soon...also have been looking up bennett's wallaby. I research a LOT of animals in my free time (I know instead of partying and going out with friends I would rather research animals *that's probably not out of the norm here though*)


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

kcomstoc, dogs have instincts, too. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable interacting with a well socialized coyote than I would with a _completely_ unsocialized Caucasian Shepherd, wouldn't you? 

Hollow, I can't speak for Wily's humans, but most of the exotics folks I know (and I know quite a few) never forget that. Just like people who have parrots (not technically domestic) understand that parrots are birds, people who have exotic mammals understand that their animals are not domestic dogs or cats. Although some exotic mammals do have a striking behavioral similarity to domestic ferrets. 
:bounce:


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> kcomstoc, dogs have instincts, too. Personally, I'd feel more comfortable interacting with a well socialized coyote than I would with a _completely_ unsocialized Caucasian Shepherd, wouldn't you?
> 
> Hollow, I can't speak for Wily's humans, but most of the exotics folks I know (and I know quite a few) never forget that. Just like people who have parrots (not technically domestic) understand that parrots are birds, people who have exotic mammals understand that their animals are not domestic dogs or cats. Although some exotic mammals do have a striking behavioral similarity to domestic ferrets.
> :bounce:


 ABSOLUTELY but that's just normal, those caucasian shepherds can be scary as hell (no matter how fluffy and cute they are)


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

kcomstoc said:


> But there's always that risk and exotics are absolutely not for everyone nor should they be available for everyone. I know there are exceptions but just not something that a person should do. I've aspired to own a fox one day (I have ALWAYS loved foxes for some reason, I consider them my favorite animal and lucky animal) but I know that I probably won't be owning one any time soon...also have been looking up bennett's wallaby. I research a LOT of animals in my free time (I know instead of partying and going out with friends I would rather research animals *that's probably not out of the norm here though*)


We must be be the same person because what's a party when you can stay home and watch videos of pet foxes?

I would definitely agree that coyotes and exotics aren't for everyone BUT I hate, hate, hate when people say they are going to turn on you. The coyotes in the links I posted are well past maturity. When exactly will they turn on their owners?! I vote... not anytime soon. I'm not a crazy person so I'm not going to delude myself into the thinking that a coyote will turn out loving and happy to see me if I pluck it out of the wild. The coyote in the video up there is a product of hard work and training!

Just Ducky: Love your Fennec avatar photo. I'm a Red Fox fan but man those Fennecs are adorable.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

kcomstoc said:


> ABSOLUTELY but that's just normal, those caucasian shepherds can be scary as hell (no matter how fluffy and cute they are)


lol Bingo. And when it comes to exotics, size _absolutely_ matters. The fact is, sometimes handlers make a mistake. And handler mistakes are what cause accidents. It is _always_ the human's fault. _Always._ But it's important to remember that a handler mistake with a coyote is not even remotely on the scale of a handler mistake with a tiger. Or a cobra.

@ RabbleFox - Thanks! His name is Pixel. He's five. <3


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> Ehh... Not necessarily true.
> 
> There are quite a few pet coyotes across the country and also coydog mixes. Exotics don't "turn" on their owners generally*. For every one story you hear of an exotic attack, there are a bunch of coyotes sitting at home eating popcorn on the couch with their peeps. There are pet coyote breeders in several state who pull and bottle raise their pups. They aren't your average pet and they certainly aren't a dog.



Yes but I would think a coyote that has generations of pet breeding (which I imagine would be selective, hopefully) behind it would be quite different from a wild bred coyote, or a coyote who's parents/grand parents were wild.

Which was this, I wonder.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> lol Bingo. And when it comes to exotics, size _absolutely_ matters. The fact is, sometimes handlers make a mistake. And handler mistakes are what cause accidents. It is _always_ the human's fault. _Always._ But it's important to remember that a handler mistake with a coyote is not even remotely on the scale of a handler mistake with a tiger. Or a cobra.
> 
> @ RabbleFox - Thanks! His name is Pixel. He's five. <3


When will he turn on you!??!?! Haha just kidding...

Coyotes are deceptive. They generally weigh less than 35lbs. Granted, those teeth can do some damage but unless you are an unattended 5 year old (never leave any young child with any animal ever...), a coyote poses little threat to you. Pet 'Yotes get to be skittish of strangers as they age. They like their people and tolerate or scamper away from those they don't know. Early bonding with any exotic is so critical that it makes rehoming of abandoned or seized pets really difficult.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

HollowHeaven said:


> Yes but I would think a coyote that has generations of pet breeding (which I imagine would be selective, hopefully) behind it would be quite different from a wild bred coyote, or a coyote who's parents/grand parents were wild.
> 
> Which was this, I wonder.


The Daily Coyote link I posted was the photo story of a wild coyote pup (eyes barely opened) raised as a pet. It was difficult but she managed. Definitely not something she recommends but it can work. Her book was pretty amazing.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

Found a different video of a pet coyote. Same name, different coyote. Looks like an adult. Seems pretty dang mellow, huh?


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Hollow - Typically, exotics are not selectively bred for traits. The idea is not to make a tiger with wider stripes or longer legs but rather to make a tiger. As such, most of the behavior changes you'll see in bottle raised babies come from heavy socialization rather than breeding. Although it is, of course, impossible to breed animals in captivity without exerting some influence. But with regards to intentional selective breeding for traits, if you have some time to kill you ought to Google the farm-fox experiment. It's pretty amazing how quickly they were able to truly domesticate silver foxes and what sorts of phenotypic changes they saw as a result of selecting exclusively for willingness to take food from a person's hand. (Or you can just do a quick Google image search for "domestic fox." The animals that look like no fox you have ever seen before are the result of the farm fox experiment.)

Rabble - lol I'm betting he has it penciled in for next Tuesday. :biggrin1:


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

i do not have a problem with anyone owning large exotic animals as long as they can provide for them properly, the horror stories you see on animal planet are usually the result of irresponsible owners. If the person understands the needs of the animal, and is willing to accept the risk that owning such an animal has, i do not see a problem


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> Rabble - lol I'm betting he has it penciled in for next Tuesday. :biggrin1:


Knowing a bit about Fennec behavior he's either written in "Kill teh human" or "Shriek loudly then pee on some stuff! Run around A LOT!". Its hard to say because I'm not an expert on reading a Fennec's chicken scratch.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

JustDucky said:


> Hollow - Typically, exotics are not selectively bred for traits. The idea is not to make a tiger with wider stripes or longer legs but rather to make a tiger.


I'm pretty sure she meant that she hopes they're being selectively bred for tame behavior, not for looks.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

JustDucky said:


> Hollow - Typically, exotics are not selectively bred for traits. The idea is not to make a tiger with wider stripes or longer legs but rather to make a tiger. As such, most of the behavior changes you'll see in bottle raised babies come from heavy socialization rather than breeding. Although it is, of course, impossible to breed animals in captivity without exerting some influence. But with regards to intentional selective breeding for traits, if you have some time to kill you ought to Google the farm-fox experiment. It's pretty amazing how quickly they were able to truly domesticate silver foxes and what sorts of phenotypic changes they saw as a result of selecting exclusively for willingness to take food from a person's hand. (Or you can just do a quick Google image search for "domestic fox." The animals that look like no fox you have ever seen before are the result of the farm fox experiment.)


I do know about the fox farm experiment. Saddening thing, but interesting I suppose.

But by selective breeding I mean breeding for temperament, like with the foxes.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> Knowing a bit about Fennec behavior he's either written in "Kill teh human" or "Shriek loudly then pee on some stuff! Run around A LOT!". Its hard to say because I'm not an expert on reading a Fennec's chicken scratch.


ound: 

No no, it's definitely not "Shriek loudly then pee on some stuff! Run around A LOT!" "Shriek loudly then pee on some stuff! Run around A LOT!" is a standing appointment. He does that every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday right after his Pilates.

Edit:

Kayota - Yes, I know she meant that she hoped they were being selectively bred for temperament. And to a degree they are. I don't know anyone who would breed a particularly reactive animal. But for the most part, these animals aren't being bred with an eye towards improvement. That was my point. And as the farm-fox experiment has shown, even breeding exclusively for one trait (will take food from a human hand) can create a cascade of changes (lopped ears, curled tails, color variations, two seasons a year rather than one, etc.) 

Hollow - If you know about the farm-fox experiment then surely you understand why breeding for temperament would potentially be a problem over time? Again, the idea isn't to create something different or to tailor a product to the market. If someone doesn't want a fox that acts like a fox, they should probably get a dog instead.


----------



## JohnnyBandit (Sep 19, 2008)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> Found a different video of a pet coyote. Same name, different coyote. Looks like an adult. Seems pretty dang mellow, huh?


This video thoroughly TICKED Merlin off... He HATES Coyotes


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I always thought that experiment was amazing and I dearly wish I had the $6000 to import one of those foxes.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Kayota said:


> I always thought that experiment was amazing and I dearly wish I had the $6000 to import one of those foxes.


Absolutely! Their results are mind boggling.

Also, I totally agree with you about the "importing a Russian farm-fox" thing. I've day dreamed about it a bit, too. They don't stink like non-domesticated gray (and red) foxes!


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

The Belyaev foxes! IT'S SO CUTE! 










Gaah... I know it's wrong to want one. But oh my god.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Kayota said:


> I always thought that experiment was amazing and I dearly wish I had the $6000 to import one of those foxes.


*~$9,000. Price goes up for importation and what not. 

Hollow, what is saddening about the experiment? The small cages? The fur farm aspect? The fact that they are working on domesticating an animal? I ask because a lot of people don't agree with it but for vastly different reasons. I'm always interested to hear what people think of it.


----------



## Rowdy (Sep 2, 2007)

I just find it terribly sad to see people "domesticating" wild animals. I like the thought that there are wild animals out there and people don't control everything.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Rowdy said:


> I just find it terribly sad to see people "domesticating" wild animals. I like the thought that there are wild animals out there and people don't control everything.


I think in the end I have to agree with this. Humans have messed with the natural world enough. In the past, we had a need for domesticating dogs and cats because they served a needed function, but we've moved far beyond that now. I feel like domesticating more species is just a 'because we want to' thing, and that to me is sad.

Edit: I am a big fan of the Daily Coyote though! I remember she talked about when Charlie -did- turn on her when he came of age and she had to defend herself with an elk antler. Pretty serious stuff.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

RabbleFox said:


> There are quite a few pet coyotes across the country and also coydog mixes. Exotics don't "turn" on their owners generally*.


It's not a matter of "turning on" an owner in my mind, it's a matter of a wild animal not being a dog and humans being unlikely to be able to truly meet their mental needs in the role of a "pet."


----------



## TRDmom (Mar 3, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> i do not have a problem with anyone owning large exotic animals as long as they can provide for them properly, the horror stories you see on animal planet are usually the result of irresponsible owners. If the person understands the needs of the animal, and is willing to accept the risk that owning such an animal has, i do not see a problem


I agree with that! Now, not many people ARE able to handle an exotic animal like a coyote. Its really one of those things where just because a few people are able to do it, should it be banned? One of those tough questions...


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

I just wanted to agree with Rabble, I love your fennec fox  super adorable. Anyway now that I said that I was just talking to my boyfriend the other day about wild horses...I'm not exactly sure how many there are now but I know at one point there weren't many because we were taking them and making them domesticated or you wanted a wild horse so you could break their spirit. I don't agree with taking things out of the wild and domesticating them because they were meant to be wild. But weird how since this line is already domesticated they couldn't go back to the wild so I don't feel guilty wanting to get one (foxes not horses lol thought I would straighten that out). Just how my particular mind works and just my opinion.


----------



## HollowHeaven (Feb 5, 2012)

RabbleFox said:


> Hollow, what is saddening about the experiment? The small cages? The fur farm aspect? The fact that they are working on domesticating an animal? I ask because a lot of people don't agree with it but for vastly different reasons. I'm always interested to hear what people think of it.


The fact that it's pretty much set up like a puppy mill. Foxes, that behave like dogs, that now have the sincere innate desire to be with people, are being forced to live in tiny wire floored cages and the only attention they get is mild handling and at feeding time. I wouldn't have an issue with it if their living conditions weren't so disgusting and they didn't have so many.
Unless things have changed since the last time I checked it.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

TRDmom said:


> I agree with that! Now*, not many people ARE able to handle an exotic animal* like a coyote. Its really one of those things where just because a few people are able to do it, should it be banned? One of those tough questions...


 That is very true BUT
I don't think it should be banned, i think for large exotics like this you should have a permit, and prove that you have actually invested time and research into the animal, and to prove you can provide quality care for the animal.But if you look at some of the zoos and circuses they provide the very bare minimum for those animals, and it's very sad, we should rethink the standards for ALL exotic animals in captivity..


----------



## TRDmom (Mar 3, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> That is very true BUT
> I don't think it should be banned, i think for large exotics like this you should have a permit, and prove that you have actually invested time and research into the animal, and to prove you can provide quality care for the animal.But if you look at some of the zoos and circuses they provide the very bare minimum for those animals, and it's very sad, we should rethink the standards for ALL exotic animals in captivity..


I'm not in favor of a ban either. I had sugar gliders in the past and they technically are "exotic" animals. Many bans (aimed at larger animals like tigers) would have included them as well.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

TRDmom said:


> I'm not in favor of a ban either. I had sugar gliders in the past and they technically are "exotic" animals. Many bans (aimed at larger animals like tigers) would have included them as well.


 I own a lot of reptiles, i am not really in favor of permits on small exotics like non endangered reptiles, birds, small rodents,ect.. I do think it shouldn't be so easy to get reptiles like alligators and crocodiles though


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Bans do a great deal of harm. There are a lot of people in the private sector who do conservation work and bans put a stop to that. Additionally, bans make it more likely for people to simply keep an animal illegally and to fail to seek veterinary care when it is necessary. California's ban on ferrets in an excellent example. Reasonable regulations on the other hand are, in my opinion, an excellent idea. They allow requirements in terms of housing and standard of care and should really be addressed on a species by species basis. For example, in the case of small animals that are plentiful in both the wild and in captivity (like sugar gliders) permits could be required only for breeders while in other cases permits could be required of anyone who possesses an animal of the regulated species. So then large animals like the Cougar or rare animals like the Black Footed Cat or vector animals like the Prairie Dog and so on would be regulated appropriately.

sassafras, would you agree that the same could be said for a lot of working dogs like the Border Collie and the Husky? I would argue that the onus is on the owner to provide for all of the needs of the animals they keep. And that includes enrichment activities. For a Boarder Collie, that could mean agility and for a fox that could mean providing toys to let him "forage" for his food. There are bad exotic owners just like there are bad dog owners. But there is nothing inherent to an exotic that precludes him from having all of his needs met. Those needs are just probably a little bit different from what you're used to.

Edit:

Adjecyca1 - I used to keep reptiles, too, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't think there should be bans in place but I absolutely think permits are a good idea for some of the giant constrictors, the crocodilians, and a good percentage of hots. When I can get a Monocled cobra for $90+shipping from Kingsnake and I don't need a shred of paperwork to do so, we have to admit that there is a problem.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JustDucky said:


> sassafras, would you agree that the same could be said for a lot of working dogs like the Border Collie and the Husky? I would argue that the onus is on the owner to provide for all of the needs of the animals they keep.


Well, yes, I think dog owners have a responsibility to meet their dogs needs but I don't think it's a valid analogy. Dogs have been domesticated for thousands of years. Wild animals likely have emotional/mental needs we don't even understand, let alone are capable of meeting properly. 



> But there is nothing inherent to an exotic that precludes him from having all of his needs met. Those needs are just probably a little bit different from what you're used to.


What I personally think precludes exotics from having all of their needs met is that they are not domestic animals and in some if not all cases we probably don't understand all of their behavior and needs enough to meet them. Can they live as pets? Sure, we can keep anything in captivity and call it a pet, and we can do our best to keep them happy. But in most cases I think it's probably not really comparable. YMMV.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Just curious: what do you base this on?


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

kcomstoc said:


> I just wanted to agree with Rabble, I love your fennec fox  super adorable. Anyway now that I said that I was just talking to my boyfriend the other day about wild horses...I'm not exactly sure how many there are now but I know at one point there weren't many because we were taking them and making them domesticated or you wanted a wild horse so you could break their spirit. I don't agree with taking things out of the wild and domesticating them because they were meant to be wild. But weird how since this line is already domesticated they couldn't go back to the wild so I don't feel guilty wanting to get one (foxes not horses lol thought I would straighten that out). Just how my particular mind works and just my opinion.


Assuming you're talking about in the US/Latin America then the "wild horses" aren't really wild horses. The mustangs that run free out west are descendents of domestic horses so feral horses might be a better description than wild. Training one isn't that much different than training any horse that hasn't had a lot of handling as a foal, most are quite confident of the natural world but can be spooky at first around people and cars and such. Once trained, I think they ride well since they are tough and sturdy and great for fast paced trail rides and trekking.

Now, if you mean the Przewalski's horse as a wild horse, then I agree that domesticating them would be a sad loss of an endangered subspecies.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JustDucky said:


> Just curious: what do you base this on?


I'm not certain how to answer this? I have opinions that a human household is not a substitute for a natural habitat and that there are likely aspects of that natural habitat we can't replicate, behaviors that a natural habitat allows that a human household doesn't, and that we probably don't fully understand the spectrum of natural behaviors of most species. 

I guess based on the difference between domestication and captivity, and the lack of understanding of the complexity of behavior even in our domesticated animals such on dogs and cats, let alone species we haven't been living with for thousands of years.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

So you have no experience with exotic animals, have done no research, and have no formal educational background in any relating field?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

LOL I do, but I didn't realize this was a pissing contest. But ok... My undergraduate work was in EEB (ecology, evolution and behavior), I am a veterinarian and I don't currently see exotics but I have in the past.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

I want to know the basis of your opinion. You have said that exotics should not be kept in captivity and the reasons you have given preclude _zoos_ from keeping them (and frankly preclude people from keeping dogs as well). I wanted you to post whatever it was that you believe supports that opinion. I was hoping for a journal article or _something_. 

I assume you would want some explanation if I said that _you_ are mistreating _your_ animals. I would like the same very basic courtesy.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> I want to know the basis of your opinion. You have said that exotics should not be kept in captivity and the reasons you have given preclude _zoos_ from keeping them (and frankly preclude people from keeping dogs as well). I wanted you to post whatever it was that you believe supports that opinion. I was hoping for a journal article or _something_.
> 
> I assume you would want some explanation if I said that _you_ are mistreating _your_ animals. I would like the same very basic courtesy.


Woah woah, I've been following this thread and at no time did I see anyone accuse you of mistreating your animals. Could you point out where you felt that was said?


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Woah woah, I've been following this thread and at no time did I see anyone accuse you of mistreating your animals. Could you point out where you felt that was said?


Sure.



sassafras said:


> Wild animals likely have emotional/mental needs we don't even understand, let alone are capable of meeting properly.





sassafras said:


> What I personally think precludes exotics from having all of their needs met is that they are not domestic animals and in some if not all cases we probably don't understand all of their behavior and needs enough to meet them.


I consider "not meeting my animal's needs" to be mistreatment. Don't you? And sassafras has said that no one who keeps an exotic animal can meet that animal's needs. That is quite an accusation.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> Sure.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I didn't get any sort of accusatory vibe from that post, no. Simply someone stating their general opinion on a subject, and their reasons for that opinion.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JustDucky said:


> I want to know the basis of your opinion. You have said that exotics should not be kept in captivity and the reasons you have given preclude _zoos_ from keeping them (and frankly preclude people from keeping dogs as well). I wanted you to post whatever it was that you believe supports that opinion. I was hoping for a journal article or _something_.


Zoos are not private homes and the reasons for animals being there are completely different, as are the enclosures. I don't think it's a valid comparison.

As for a journal article... how exactly am I supposed to find a journal article to support an opinion of "we don't know enough about these animals' behavioral needs to properly provide for them as pets" ?? Perhaps you could provide a journal article to the contrary?



> I assume you would want some explanation if I said that _you_ are mistreating _your_ animals. I would like the same very basic courtesy.


Well first of all, I didn't say you are mistreating your animals. And second of all, there are certainly things that I do with my pets that other people think are incorrect, but I don't demand journal articles to back up every difference of opinion. "Please provide a cite for why you don't think dogs should be crated for more than 5 hours a day." LOL


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I have a corn snake... Snakes are absolutely not properly domesticated any more than a fennec fox. Am I not meeting her needs?


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Oh for the love of god, people.


----------



## DaisyDC (Feb 24, 2013)

Shell said:


> Assuming you're talking about in the US/Latin America then the "wild horses" aren't really wild horses. The mustangs that run free out west are descendents of domestic horses so feral horses might be a better description than wild. Training one isn't that much different than training any horse that hasn't had a lot of handling as a foal, most are quite confident of the natural world but can be spooky at first around people and cars and such. Once trained, I think they ride well since they are tough and sturdy and great for fast paced trail rides and trekking.
> 
> Now, if you mean the Przewalski's horse as a wild horse, then I agree that domesticating them would be a sad loss of an endangered subspecies.


I've known and ridden Chincoteague ponies/crossbreds before, and they're great riding and sport ponies. All horses in North America are descended from horses brought to the continent by explorers; the original, truly "wild" equine population died out in the Pleistocene. 

Even the really "wild" subspecies aren't exactly wild. Pzewalski's horse went extinct in the wild and was reintroduced from captive/zoo stock, and the Tarpan isn't really a Tarpan anymore, it was bred back from domestic stock to look like a Tarpan, the way Heck cattle have been used to make an "aurochs."

On the topic of coyotes, foxes, etc., I love them and find them gorgeous, but wouldn't ever want to own them. I thought most states did have licensing for "exotics" but perhaps those don't fall under them? IMHO, I don't think most people are knowledgeable or skilled enough to provide the environment and care something like those need, because while it looks a lot like one, a coyote isn't a dog any more than a zebra is a horse.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> I didn't get any sort of accusatory vibe from that post, no. Simply someone stating their general opinion on a subject, and their reasons for that opinion.


Oh for goodness sake.

"Accusation: _n._ A charge or claim that someone has done something ... wrong."

I didn't accuse her (?) of rudeness. She hasn't been rude. I asked her to post what she bases her opinion on. If she has read anything peer reviewed that legitimately supports any part of her belief, I would probably find it extremely useful and would use it to reevaluate my protocols. And if she hasn't then that is worth consideration as well.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Seriously, you think a peer reviewed article proving a negative? lolderp.

You are welcome to your opinion of my opinion, but demanding "proof" of something that actually _can't_ be studied is kind of beyond any reasonable expectation. 

I do like how the value of my education dropped through the floor once you realized I had one, though. 


ETA: I'm not sure how this thread got all about you. I made a general comment about the OP and you took it personally I guess? If you are this shocked that opinions vary widely on proper care of pets in general then I don't think you're going to last very long on this forum... just wait for the next discussion about rewards vs corrections or raw diet vs kibble.


----------



## Shell (Oct 19, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Zoos are not private homes and the reasons for animals being there are completely different, as are the enclosures. I don't think it's a valid comparison.


Agreed on this. "Wild" animals encompasses a huge range of animals and thus a huge range of needs for health and living space and diet etc. The average person could probably meet the emotional and mental needs of a small snake or small turtle for example while very very few individuals could probably meet the needs of the larger mammals and reptiles. 
Domesticated animals have thousands of years of breeding behind them to live with us and we've selected for those suited to living with and around people, making it easier to meet their health and well being needs. Dogs can read human body language a whole lot better than people can read dog body language, they are the ones that have adapted to us. Truly wild (not just feral) animals have not.

Even zoos are finding out that the traditional model of a zoo with cages and smaller enclosures is damaging to the animals' health and well being which is why you see the trends towards the large roaming ranges for animals like giraffes and zebras and even the cage-free areas for small primates so they can travel around the zoo. Professionals at zoos spend many hours working towards providing suitable behavioral enrichment for the animals- puzzles and games and wild-like tasks etc- to keep them mentally healthy. Even then, some animals can display signs of mental illness from captivity . There are both pros and cons to keeping animals in zoos, where the benefits of captive breeding programs and providing sanctuary for orphaned animals or those with habitat loss might outweigh the potential damages to an individual animal. 
But few private owners can provide the physical space, safe containment, proper specialized vet care, and the behavioral enrichment programs that a good zoo can and in even fewer cases would the generalized benefits to a given animal species that can sometimes be found in zoos occur under private (individual, not "private" in the sense of non-governmental) ownership.

This is MY opinion and in no part of this am I saying that every person who owns a pet that doesn't have thousands of years of domestication in its background is mistreating it. But I agree that overall, wild animals have different, and generally more difficult to meet, needs that domestic animals.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> Oh for goodness sake.
> 
> "Accusation: _n._ A charge or claim that someone has done something ... wrong."
> 
> I didn't accuse her (?) of rudeness. She hasn't been rude. I asked her to post what she bases her opinion on. If she has read anything peer reviewed that legitimately supports any part of her belief, I would probably find it extremely useful and would use it to reevaluate my protocols. And if she hasn't then that is worth consideration as well.


There's a difference between saying "I don't like the idea of dogs being kept outside 24/7, to me it seems like dogs would prefer to be inside with their families." and "You are mistreating your dog by keeping it outside."

One is statement of an opinion, the other is accusing a person of wrongdoing.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

A corn snake is a bit different from a coyote or wolf.

We happen to have over 90% of the US's population of wolves up here. They run wild and free over thousands of miles of wilderness just as they always have. If I were a wolf, I'd pick that life over a life in an enclosure with my food given to me any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'm no expert, but even I, a domesticated human, feel a whole lot better when I get away from cities and am able to be in wide open spaces.

Wild animals have not been bred to enjoy the company of humans or crave to be around them. I don't see any value, to them, in being forced to be contained unless necessary.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

packetsmom said:


> A corn snake is a bit different from a coyote or wolf.
> 
> We happen to have over 90% of the US's population of wolves up here. They run wild and free over thousands of miles of wilderness just as they always have. If I were a wolf, I'd pick that life over a life in an enclosure with my food given to me any day of the week and twice on Sundays. I'm no expert, but even I, a domesticated human, feel a whole lot better when I get away from cities and am able to be in wide open spaces.
> 
> *Wild animals have not been bred to enjoy the company of humans or crave to be around them. I don't see any value, to them, in being forced to be contained unless necessary*.


I agree with this.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Fer pete's sake. I feel bad when I call my feral cats in for dinner and they run in from across the block and I realize the house cats won't ever get to run that far :/. I'm sure I would feel worse if I had a pet coyote and I saw a wild coyote running free across the fields. Doesn't mean the captive coyote is being mistreated, just that he can't do what free coyotes do.

I do have/have had ferrets and rabbits and Russian/Greek tortoises, but ferrets and rabbits are even more domesticated than cats are, and the small tortoises, although wild-caught, are considered agricutural pests in their native habitat, and I figure being a pet is probably better than being thumped by an angry farmer . Plus their needs are not particularly hard to meet.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

sassafras said:


> Zoos are not private homes and the reasons for animals being there are completely different,


Google "Feline Conservation Federation," please? The reasons aren't always as different as you seem to think.



sassafras said:


> as are the enclosures.


Especially with regards to reptiles, that is simply not true. And just like there is a real variety in terms of quality of zoo enclosures, there is a real variety in terms of quality of private enclosures. 

I also have a hard time embracing the idea that naturalistic enclosures are always preferable. I believed that strongly before we got our fox (because it seems so obvious) but he preferred sleeping on top of a cat tree over any of the (many) more species appropriate options I made available to him. My burrowing fox isn't a fan of burrows. 



sassafras said:


> As for a journal article... how exactly am I supposed to find a journal article to support an opinion of "we don't know enough about these animals' behavioral needs to properly provide for them as pets" ??


Skipping this because you said it again further down.



sassafras said:


> Perhaps you could provide a journal article to the contrary?


And I'll come back to this, too.



sassafras said:


> there are certainly things that I do with my pets that other people think are incorrect


How many of them think there is no possible way that you can meet your pets' needs? It's not the same as thinking that you are doing something specific the wrong way.



sassafras said:


> Seriously, you think a peer reviewed article proving a negative? lolderp.


And now you're being rude. But I have never asked for _proof_ of what you stated. I've asked for the source(s) of the information you used when forming your opinion.



sassafras said:


> but demanding "proof" of something that actually _can't_ be studied is kind of beyond any reasonable expectation.


So it's not possible to study behavioral or physiological differences between captive and wild populations of animals? Presumably, if captive populations were doing poorly that would be studied. And if someone wrote on the subject, they would most likely attempt to assess the problem. Isn't that why people started doing enrichment? So as I've said before, if you are basing your opinion on that sort of information I would _absolutely_ want to read what you had read. (And I mean that sincerely. I am always interested in learning what I can do better with regards to my animals.)



sassafras said:


> I do like how the value of my education dropped through the floor once you realized I had one, though.


Actually, I figured my chances of learning where you are coming from (and either allaying your concerns or learning something useful) would be a lot higher after you posted your background. That's why I asked about journal articles after your post. I don't typically assume that people read journals because most people don't.



sassafras said:


> I'm not sure how this thread got all about you. I made a general comment


...about a group of people. And I'm a member of that group. So it's not about me directly at all but it is about me generally. Sorta like if you posted an opinion about an entire religion, a member of that religion might disagree with you and be a bit miffed by what you said.

Now, back to your request: I've seen the way zoos have changed in recent years. I don't see displacement behaviors anywhere near as often as I used to. And the animals' enclosures and the enrichment provided by the zoos have demonstrably played a role in that change. There are lots of articles that, for example, assess the benefits of enrichment. And while I don't contend that we know _everything_, I do believe that we have gotten to the point that we know enough to do a pretty decent job. In other words, I don't think it's impossible to meet the needs of an exotic animal.

Edit: I should make a distinction that I didn't make. When I say I don't think it's impossible to meet the needs of an exotic animal, I don't mean it's possible for most people to meet the needs of _any_ exotic animal. For example, I think the number of individuals who could meet the needs of an elephant are vanishingly slim. However, I would contend that most people, with a bit of information, could do just fine with a bearded dragon.


----------



## DaisyDC (Feb 24, 2013)

This Canadian paper seems to be more of a metadata review than a study but it does appear to be from an international peer reviewed publication, in 2000, and addresses a lot of the points sassafrass is making:
http://bcspca.pub30.convio.net/asse...imal-legislation/appendix-c-framework-for.pdf

I do think that for the majority of people and the majority of animals, owning a "wild" or "exotic" animal is not a good idea. Those who can provide the care, knowledge and environment for them are the exception rather than the rule. I mean, how many people do we all see on a regular basis who are clueless as to basic dog care? Those have been domesticated for 30,000 years. They don't need a wolf.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JustDucky said:


> So it's not possible to study behavioral or physiological differences between captive and wild populations of animals?


That's not what my opinion is about. My opinion is that wild animals likely have behavioral needs that we don't even fully understand, let alone can satisfy artificially. How exactly do you propose to study such a thing?


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

DaisyDC - Ironically, a lot of the people who have no business owning a dog might do just fine with a king snake. x_x In all seriousness though, you're right. And that is why regulations regarding exotics are a good idea. But for some people, an animal other than a dog or a cat is a better fit. I have a friend who wanted a puppy but knew she wouldn't be able to accommodate a dog so she started researching other animals. She ended up getting a pair of guinea pigs. 

That article is profoundly sensible. I've read the abstract and the proposed framework and I'm reading the rest now. Thank you so much for posting it!

sassafras - Off the top of my head, I'd think the answer would be to study the animals in the wild. Perhaps something along the same lines as the Cambridge University meerkat study? And I think that sort of study is incredibly important. I agree with you that there is so much that we don't know. But where we seem to differ is that I don't think what we don't know weighs so heavily that we can't keep these animals responsibly. I think you might be letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.

A lot of the people who keep less common mammalian exotics (animals one would be more likely to find in a zoo than in a pet store) do educational outreach or are involved in conservation projects or take rescues. And people who keep reptiles privately are often incredibly adept at breeding them. Believe it or not, crested geckos (which are incredibly common in captivity today) were thought to be extinct not so long ago.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

JustDucky said:


> sassafras - Off the top of my head, I'd think the answer would be to study the animals in the wild.


I don't think I'm making my point... how do you know what you don't know about an animal's natural behavior? And how do you know when you know everything about it? 



> But where we seem to differ is that I don't think what we don't know weighs so heavily that we can't keep these animals responsibly. I think you might be letting the perfect become the enemy of the good.


I'm not sure I generally file private individuals keeping wild animals in captivity under "the good," but the point is taken.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

sassafras - I'd argue it's safe to assume that you never know everything. The only remedy is to learn more.  But in all seriousness, are you familiar with ethograms? The idea is that a species of animal is observed and all of the behaviors it exhibits are recorded. And the more hours researchers spend logging the animal's behaviors, the less likely it becomes that any behavior will go unobserved. Additionally, it becomes increasingly likely with more time spent logging that any behavior left unobserved is not a vitally important behavior because the animal does it so rarely. (And of course I concede that there will be exceptions. There almost always are.) 

I don't always file private individuals keeping exotics as "good," either. But I feel the same way about dogs and cats. As long as everything is done as correctly as current knowledge allows (proper diet, proper veterinary care, housing that vastly exceeds minimum legal requirements, etc.) and in as ethical a manner as possible (no mass importation of wild animals, no mill breeding, etc.) I think the benefits outweigh the harms.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

The benefits to whom?


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

JustDucky said:


> Adjecyca1 - I used to keep reptiles, too, and I have to respectfully disagree with you. I don't think there should be bans in place but I absolutely think permits are a good idea for some of the giant constrictors, the crocodilians, and a good percentage of hots. When I can get a Monocled cobra for $90+shipping from Kingsnake and I don't need a shred of paperwork to do so, we have to admit that there is a problem.


i understand where you are coming from with the crocs and hots, but honestly i do not feel it's needed for large constrictors..


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> i understand where you are coming from with the crocs and hots, but honestly i do not feel it's needed for large constrictors..


Burmese Python-infested Floridians might disagree with that. . .


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> Burmese Python-infested Floridians might disagree with that. . .


So because people irresponsibly release their pets we all should be punished, i don't live in Florida there are plenty of great owners who don't live in Florida who own these animals, where i live if my snake got out it would die, there is no way it would be able to survive. I understand needing more regulations where the creatures could become invasive, my my snakes in PA is not a threat to anyone or the environment..


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

What's stopping a Pennsylvanian from driving to Florida to release their python? I just think a permit and a microchip should be necessary. Pet stores hand out baby Burmese like candy .


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Also a lot of Boa and Python breeders are ONLY breeding captive bred snakes no more wild caught business, the snakes are more acclimated to living in captivity and some wouldn't be able to survive in the wild period. The snakes temperaments are changing they are becoming more and more docile because people are breeding for those traits, 20 years ago you wouldn't catch me dead with a reticulated python because they all had such NASTY temperaments, now all the ones i have met that are being bred are very calm and docile


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

sassafras said:


> The benefits to whom?


The people _and_ the animals. Don't forget that properly kept captive animals live longer than their wild counterparts. Properly kept captive animals have ready access to enough food and water, are protected from the elements, from humans with bad intentions, and from predators, and have access to both preventative veterinary care and emergency veterinary care should they be injured or become ill. Basically all of the reasons often cited to support house cats being kept indoors rather than outdoors are also sound arguments for the benefits of captivity.

You ought to read the article DaisyDC posted. It discusses this very issue in greater detail.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Willowy said:


> What's stopping a Pennsylvanian from driving to Florida to release their python? I just think a permit and a microchip should be necessary. Pet stores hand out baby Burmese like candy .


So what about people who abandon their cats or dogs? What about people who let their cats outside and they are impacting the environment negatively in all states, should we need a permit for a cat or any other animal that could potentially harm the environment?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> The people _and_ the animals. Don't forget that properly kept captive animals live longer than their wild counterparts. Properly kept captive animals have ready access to enough food and water, are protected from the elements, from humans with bad intentions, and from predators, and have access to both preventative veterinary care and emergency veterinary care should they be injured or become ill. Basically all of the reasons often cited to support house cats being kept indoors rather than outdoors are also sound arguments for the benefits of captivity.
> 
> You ought to read the article DaisyDC posted. It discusses this very issue in greater detail.


All of the wild species that humans have had advanced dealings with are currently on the verge of extinction. I do not have faith in the human race to not ruin everything we collectively touch. In my opinion, wild animals should be left alone and the circle of life (predators and elements included) left to do what has been working for far longer than we've been on this earth.

ETA: I do however think we need to have an active role in trying to fix what we've already broken, and save the species we've put in danger.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

I will say though that i wish petstores weren't able to sell large reptiles, or reptiles in general, they do not get them from good sources, and do not make sure the person buying the animal is knowledgeable


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Adjecyca1 said:


> So what about people who abandon their cats or dogs? What about people who let their cats outside and they are impacting the environment negatively in all states, should we need a permit for a cat or any other animal that could potentially harm the environment?


 I wasn't so much thinking about environmental damage as the fact that large snakes can, ya know, eat people and stuff. But hey. I guess it comes back to the other thread about how people should be required to take an education class before getting a pet.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Adjecyca1 said:


> i understand where you are coming from with the crocs and hots, but honestly i do not feel it's needed for large constrictors..


I believe I might need to qualify what I mean by "large constrictors." I'm really just talking about the big five: retics, burms, afrocks, anacondas, and scrubs. Afrocks, anacondas, and scrubs are uncommon so they don't end up in bad shape as often, from what I have seen, but retics and burms are so plentiful and so darned cute as neonates that they end up in rescue _a lot_. And all of the big five (all non-dwarf subspecies and locales included) have some pretty difficult requirements. A snake should never be kept in an enclosure so small it cannot fully stretch out. But with animals that break twenty feet as a matter of course that isn't an easy requirement to meet. You can't exactly put a reticulated python in a big fish tank from PetCo, you know? And again, I'm not advocating a full ban. I have personally known people whose enclosures for their reptiles far exceeded what you typically see in a zoo. But a simple permit and a yearly inspection is not a bad idea for these animals. The inconvenience would encourage most casual enthusiasts to consider a more suitable species and would greatly decrease the number of animals that are dumped because "they only get as big as their cage!" turns out to be utter nonsense.



Willowy said:


> I wasn't so much thinking about environmental damage as the fact that large snakes can, ya know, eat people and stuff.


That made me laugh.  My husband has pointed out to me on more than one occasion that when one is the size of a small deer, it is probably not wise to keep pets that can eat a small deer. I lose that argument every time.


----------



## BasenjiMomma (Feb 4, 2013)

Hmm you could not pay me to keep a coyote as a pet. But I have had some very negative interactions with them.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> All of the wild species that humans have had advanced dealings with are currently on the verge of extinction.


Quick counterexample: crested geckos.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> Quick counterexample: crested geckos.


Sorry; *Almost* all.

Edit: It's currently being assessed for endangered status?


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

You can argue all you want about being able to mitigate the negative effects of keeping wild animals in captivity and, to some extent, I'm sure it's possible for a very determined and conscientious owner to at least approximate a wild environment.

But...the argument still stands. Who, exactly, is this for the benefit of? It's selfish and cruel to contain an animal that was meant to be wild and live its life in the wild. There are only a few good reasons I can think of to do so, and these are for the benefit of the animal itself (rehabilitation, etc) or for its species (scientific study, public outreach programs, etc), not for the person or people keeping them. People who choose to keep a coyote for a pet are not doing the coyote any favors...it's for their own ego, not the good of the animal.

Even if a captive wild animal lives longer, I still argue that the quality of life is lower than that they would have living free. Every animal dies. Not every animal really lives.

Everything else you've put out here is just selfish straw-man arguments. Just because we want to or we can does not mean we *should*.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Sorry; *Almost* all.
> 
> Edit: It's currently being assessed for endangered status?


Yep. They were thought to be extinct until the 1990's when they were rediscovered. Some of them ended up in captivity where they are now amazingly plentiful. But that's not the case in the wild. So it's absolutely not an ideal situation but they certainly aren't at risk of being wiped off of the face of the planet forever, either. That happens with endangered animals that are bred in captivity sometimes, especially if not much of their natural habitat is left.

Edit: packetsmom - Actually, I did answer that question. You just don't seem to like my answer. And just an aside, I've seen pretty much that exact argument used to advocate that all cats should be outside cats. (And that no one should eat meat or use animal products.)


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> Yep. They were thought to be extinct until the 1990's when they were rediscovered. Some of them ended up in captivity where they are now amazingly plentiful. But that's not the case in the wild. So it's absolutely not an ideal situation but they certainly aren't at risk of being wiped off of the face of the planet forever, either. That happens with endangered animals that are bred in captivity sometimes, especially if not much of their natural habitat is left.


Right, so like I said, the wild population is endangered and we haven't done anything to help the situation. Captive populations of animals don't do ecosystems much good.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Right, so like I said, the wild population is endangered and we haven't done anything to help the situation. Captive populations of animals don't do ecosystems much good.


Absolutely agree there. But habitat conservation is pretty tricky, from what I understand. It needs to be enforced by the government in that area and sometimes that is a real problem. Plus there's climate change. So honestly, I don't know the answer. What's your thought on the right way to go about conservation?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> Absolutely agree there. But habitat conservation is pretty tricky, from what I understand. It needs to be enforced by the government in that area and sometimes that is a real problem. Plus there's climate change. So honestly, I don't know the answer. What's your thought on the right way to go about conservation?


I hadn't been talking about conservation specifically, other than when I mentioned that I think we should do what we can to fix what we've broken. I was talking about all the species that are dying off as a direct result of us getting involved with them. By 'us' I mean people as a human race, so yes, the government of any given area would be included in that.

Edit: Forgot to add; based on all the destruction we've caused for our own gain, I don't feel I can support us as a whole in getting involved in meddling with more things; ie; taking wild animals to make into pets.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

I have a question...

The coyote in the OP was an animal that was bottle fed and hand raised. While I don't know the details of how this person got the animal... what if it was a rescue? I see it all the time, people rescuing orphaned wild animals and raising it in captivity. While there are A LOT of irresponsible people out there, what do you expect them to do to an orphaned animal who can't find a refuge? I've been following this one case where a family rescued a baby fawn and raised it in captivity. It's caused no problems what so ever, yet people are trying to force them to get rid of it because it's a wild animal. 

We all know animals raised in captivity can not be released back into the wild, they'd die. So what do we do with them? There are lots of sanctuaries... but they have their limits too.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Rescues to me are a different situation, and in that case I support doing what we can to help when there is no other option.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Prime Directive? Honestly, that's the tactic I've chosen for dealing with wild animals. It's sad but that's the food chain. Plus, wild "orphans" usually aren't (especially fawns and bunnies; their mothers leave them alone so often that people find them alone and think they're orphans when they aren't). Every year the wildlife department puts out a news bit--"if you care, leave them there". They'll shoot fawns if you call them. I think bunnies get fed to the owls/eagles/hawks at the rehab place. 

If the mother was killed due to human actions, though, I would have a real hard time leaving the babies to die :/.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

Willowy said:


> *Prime Directive*? Honestly, that's the tactic I've chosen for dealing with wild animals. It's sad but that's the food chain. Plus, wild "orphans" usually aren't (especially fawns and bunnies; their mothers leave them alone so often that people find them alone and think they're orphans when they aren't).
> 
> If the mother was lost due to human actions, though, I would have a real hard time leaving the babies to die :/.


I basically agree with this. Again, except for situations where we've caused the imbalance, then I feel like it's our responsibility to try and fix it.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> I have a question...
> 
> The coyote in the OP was an animal that was bottle fed and hand raised. While I don't know the details of how this person got the animal... what if it was a rescue? I see it all the time, people rescuing orphaned wild animals and raising it in captivity. While there are A LOT of irresponsible people out there, what do you expect them to do to an orphaned animal who can't find a refuge? I've been following this one case where a family rescued a baby fawn and raised it in captivity. It's caused no problems what so ever, yet people are trying to force them to get rid of it because it's a wild animal.
> 
> We all know animals raised in captivity can not be released back into the wild, they'd die. So what do we do with them? There are lots of sanctuaries... but they have their limits too.


This is going to sound harsh, but unless it is an endangered species or a sanctuary with proper facilities is available to house the animal, then I really believe it should be released back into the wild to either survive or die. There are anecdotal stories of plenty of animals that were raised in captivity that were successfully reintroduced to the wild, from elephants to lions to wolves. I would hope that those who raised it would help the reintroduction be as smooth as possible. However, if the animal isn't equipped to live in the wild and it is no real loss to its species if it dies? I'm sorry to say, but that's part of life.

This is why I leave wild animals alone. I'm not qualified to do any of that and I leave it to those who are. We have 2 wildlife sanctuaries within driving distance which do this kind of rehabilitation work and they are nothing like my home.

All that being said, I think the argument in this thread, off topic as it might be (or not) is about keeping wild animals as pets, not about rehab. To me, there's a big difference between the two.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Ireth - Okay, I'm not sure if I quite understand your position so please correct me if I've misunderstood: Are you basically saying that you disapprove of conservation unless it is conservation of an endangered species? And that the species must have been endangered by people?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JustDucky said:


> Ireth - Okay, I'm not sure if I quite understand your position so please correct me if I've misunderstood: Are you basically saying that you disapprove of conservation unless it is conservation of an endangered species? And that the species must have been endangered by people?


I'm not ireth . But. . .humans have wrecked just about everything. Obviously that's the cause of a lot of animals being endangered and threatened. But also, what if the species is supposed to become extinct? What if that's the way the planet is supposed to develop? What if large carnivorous dinosaurs never went extinct (maybe meddling aliens and their conservation efforts? LOL)? Humans wouldn't have had a chance. It's hard to create a civilization when you're dodging velociraptors . 

Also, I watch too much Star Trek


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

But-but-but... Velociraptors were so cute! And feathery! :biggrin1:

How would you tell the difference, though? How do you decide which species we should let go extinct because they're supposed to and which we should preserve? And if humans screw up everything, how on earth could we possibly get something as complex as that right? Besides, if aliens had kept dinosaurs around long enough to keep us from developing, humans never would have been around to screw everything else up in the first place!


----------



## DaisyDC (Feb 24, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> DaisyDC - Ironically, a lot of the people who have no business owning a dog might do just fine with a king snake. x_x In all seriousness though, you're right. And that is why regulations regarding exotics are a good idea. But for some people, an animal other than a dog or a cat is a better fit. I have a friend who wanted a puppy but knew she wouldn't be able to accommodate a dog so she started researching other animals. She ended up getting a pair of guinea pigs.


Guinea pigs have been domesticated and used as a food source for longer than horses have been domesticated, and don't exist as a species in the wild, any more than an Angus or a Quarter Horse does. You might be able to argue they're nontraditional, but they're hardly "exotic"; they're a domestic species just the way a dog is. (Unless you'd also consider a horse "exotic.") There is a big difference to me in keeping an unusual but domestic species like a sheep or a guinea pig or an actual pig, as a pet and treating a wild species with no history of domestication, like a fox or coyote, as a pet. 

For wild animals like the coyote raised by bottle and with human contact, it would at best be a danger to release into the wild, and possibly a death sentance to the animal, either from lack of survival skills or because it would be seen as a nuisance by people, because it wouldn't have any fear of approaching them, which opens a big opportunity for danger. Those animals are going to have to live in sanctuaries or zoos, and that is a good purpose that zoos serve.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> But-but-but... Velociraptors were so cute! And feathery! :biggrin1:
> 
> How would you tell the difference, though? How do you decide which species we should let go extinct because they're supposed to and which we should preserve? And if humans screw up everything, how on earth could we possibly get something as complex as that right? Besides, if aliens had kept dinosaurs around long enough to keep us from developing, humans never would have been around to screw everything else up in the first place!


If the species is going extinct by reasons other than human involvement, I would categorize it as one 'meant' to become extinct. We shouldn't artificially preserve species for the hell of it anymore than we should hunt them to extinction for the hell of it. Mother nature has been doing just fine working those things out on her own. When we do meddle, it comes back to bite us. For example, the extermination of wolves in my neck of the woods has led to a huge coyote problem, which in turn has led to other problems. You remove one piece of the puzzle and it all falls out of whack.

That said, this day and age I'm sure the species becoming extinct due to natural causes as opposed to us screwing the earth up are a very slim number.

That is pretty off topic considering we were talking about keeping exotic animals as pets, but there you go.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Daisey - I know that they are domesticated (although I didn't before she told me - I thought they were like chinchillas!). Same as domestic ferrets. But at least around here in terms of veterinary care, both are typically classified as "exotics." And in the case of domestic ferrets, they are regulated as exotics in a few states. That's actually why I found that article so useful.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Yeah, but exotic vet care isn't quite the same as truly being exotic . With vets, "exotic" just means "anything other than dogs and cats". Dang, a lot of vets barely know anything about cats, even! But yeah. Can't get much more domesticated than a Dutch rabbit but I still have to take her to an exotics vet. . .


----------



## momtolabs (May 27, 2012)

SydTheSpaniel said:


> I have a question...
> 
> The coyote in the OP was an animal that was bottle fed and hand raised. While I don't know the details of how this person got the animal... what if it was a rescue? I see it all the time, people rescuing orphaned wild animals and raising it in captivity. While there are A LOT of irresponsible people out there, what do you expect them to do to an orphaned animal who can't find a refuge? I've been following this one case where a family rescued a baby fawn and raised it in captivity. It's caused no problems what so ever, yet people are trying to force them to get rid of it because it's a wild animal.
> 
> We all know animals raised in captivity can not be released back into the wild, they'd die. So what do we do with them? There are lots of sanctuaries... but they have their limits too.


I also followed the deer one and they just announced that they get to keep her!!


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

Like willowy said bunnies are considered "exotic" but I own one and I wouldn't say "exotic" just unusual and the bunnies now a days aren't even related to the wild ones.....so I've heard.


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

Domestic pets Vs Wild animals as pets. The mistake people make with exotics is putting them in the place of a domestic and thinking they are the same. They are not. Maybe they will not turn on you . but they deserve a high level of respect and care. And it is careless and disrespectful to treat one as you would a regular pet. because what happens if it DOES hurt you? That puts this poor animal in a bad situation and it is all the fault of the handler. there is a extra level of care and understanding you need to do when HANDLING exotic animals. Understand they are dangerous and not domesticated animals. I owned a giant python for years. She was very friendly but I never forgot the fact that she had many huge teeth that could easily put me in the hospital and the fact that even when she was only a tiny 6 ft long she was still strong enough to cause problems. Never handled her by myself. Always have another person with you when handling a wild animal that can over power you. Once my co-handler moved away I spent a year trying to find a zoo to take Fade. Which I finally did. People who treat dangerous exotic animals as pets get under my skin because its the animal that suffers when something goes wrong. not to say it will but it happens. they are not domestic animals.

and on a off note cause I LOVE snakes. and I cant help myself

Some people do not think constricting snakes have big teeth. I think they think of them like maybe a iguanas mouth with little razor sharp teeth. they think the only danger of them is getting constricted. They do have teeth. African rocks have many huge teeth.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

Fade said:


> Domestic pets Vs Wild animals as pets. The mistake people make with exotics is putting them in the place of a domestic and thinking they are the same. They are not. Maybe they will not turn on you . but they deserve a high level of respect and care. And it is careless and disrespectful to treat one as you would a regular pet. because what happens if it DOES hurt you? That puts this poor animal in a bad situation and it is all the fault of the handler. there is a extra level of care and understanding you need to do when HANDLING exotic animals. Understand they are dangerous and not domesticated animals. I owned a giant python for years. She was very friendly but I never forgot the fact that she had many huge teeth that could easily put me in the hospital and the fact that even when she was only a tiny 6 ft long she was still strong enough to cause problems. Never handled her by myself. Always have another person with you when handling a wild animal that can over power you. Once my co-handler moved away I spent a year trying to find a zoo to take Fade. Which I finally did. People who treat dangerous exotic animals as pets get under my skin because its the animal that suffers when something goes wrong. not to say it will but it happens. they are not domestic animals.


This is what I think about when I watch fatal attractions....the poor animal has to be killed because you had to be an idiot and do something that was CLEARLY not a good idea. Like that guy that let all of his animals out (bears, cougars, tigers etc...etc...) of their cage because he had nothing to live for and then killed himself. Who allowed this person to have the permits? Maybe his mentality was fine when he first got the animals but they should be checked up on biannually or something and sometimes they aren't. Like the episode where that tiger had escaped and they were trying to find out who it escaped from and the woman with like 17 tigers (maybe more I forget) and she was like "no it couldn't have come from me" and the living conditions of those poor tigers  and cubs, and she had a permit they just kept renewing it and really never checked on her. I know that this is just a tv show but they are telling true stories of what happened and usually the story ends the same. The owner was killed and then the animal was killed because of that owner.  just sad, nobody wins.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

kcomstoc said:


> This is what I think about when I watch fatal attractions....the poor animal has to be killed because you had to be an idiot and do something that was CLEARLY not a good idea. Like that guy that let all of his animals out (bears, cougars, tigers etc...etc...) of their cage because he had nothing to live for and then killed himself. Who allowed this person to have the permits? Maybe his mentality was fine when he first got the animals but they should be checked up on biannually or something and sometimes they aren't. Like the episode where that tiger had escaped and they were trying to find out who it escaped from and the woman with like 17 tigers (maybe more I forget) and she was like "no it couldn't have come from me" and the living conditions of those poor tigers  and cubs, and she had a permit they just kept renewing it and really never checked on her. I know that this is just a tv show but they are telling true stories of what happened and usually the story ends the same. The owner was killed and then the animal was killed because of that owner.  just sad, nobody wins.


That guy isn't the norm... Fatal Attractions is a lot of AR stuff. Its all the bad stories. Ever see a show about how the guy fed his tiger in the morning and LIVED!? Nope. Its not interesting to film a guy put meat in a pan and play with his tiger in an appropriate and safe way. Big cats are banned from Michigan and I think heavier regs should be enforced. It shouldn't be impossible to obtain them but kooks shouldn't be allowed to own such powerful animals.

I do not classify coyotes and foxes as dangerous exotics. You must respect them... yes. They are not dogs. But really... is this guy gonna kill his owner? He is truly a pet and loves he's people.

I see nothing wrong with getting an exotic and caring for it to the best of your knowledge. Most states regulate exotics of all sizes and a lot of cities ban certain exotics. Its hard for me to see where everyone is coming from when they say that the animals are unhappy in captivity. Why all the wags and kisses then? Foxes especially bond really, really close with their owners. They aren't a pet for everyone but they seem pretty content in their homes. Any good, responsible fox owner has a big enclosure, takes the fox on long walks, and makes sure they get plenty of chew on the human time. Not such a bad life?


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

I am going to rant cause I have a pet peeve on this subject. Excuse me If I am wrong on anything.

I don't have a problem with exotics I have a problem with how people handle them. Potentially dangerous exotic animals. ( an animal capable of inflicting great harm ) should be respected. People should not be careless around them. Every time you play with or interact with them people should not be careless and should not ever completely trust them. I know how rare attacks are. Do you know how rare it is for someone to get strangled by their giant snakes? Extremely! but that does not mean because only a handful of people ever had a problem that you should just assume it wont happen to you. they are still wild animals. so many people do not respect that. People that insist their tigers / wolves / lions / giant snakes / large predatory cats / bears...the list goes on...are pets and their friends...they should not be owning one. That is the greatest disrespect to me. >.< and it gets under my skin.

They are not domesticated for years and years and years like dogs. They will never be a domestic animal. Domesticating a animal ties into the way they process information. A dogs instinct I would go as far to say includes human interaction because we basically created them that way from breeding. A wolf or coyote processes information by the instinct they were given and what they learn. If I point my dog will take that information as something of interest even if I never taught him this because humans are bred into their basic functioning process. A Wolf would not ( unless perhaps it was taught too ) because humans carry no weight in their instinct. Why would a wolf or coyote care? They are wild animals no where in their instinctual makeup are humans actions important to them. Unless of course they have learned some things. Learning something new is not instinct. A wolf can learn things and even pass on what they learn to their offspring. Such as good places to hunt. ways to hunt. things to avoid. but their basic instinct is not the basic instinct of a dog. thus they will never have the same bond. Which is why they should not be treated the same. because they do not "reason" the same as a dog. they make look / act / smell like a dog but they will always have their instinct which is that wild factor in wild animals. and people should do well to remember that. Its respectful to the animals. They deserve our respect. and if one chooses to own one they should see it as a great privilege and responsibility not as a fun pass time.

Fade was 12 ft long when I finally turned her over to a zoo which was never my intent but it would have been irresponsible on my part to continue caring for her without another handler. If she mistakenly wrapped onto my neck instead of my arm she could have accidentally killed me if no one was around. Constricting snakes wrap their lower halves around things so they can stretch the rest of their body out to explore and basically counterweight itself also they can retreat back into what they feel is a safe position. Imagine a 150 lb snake doing this around your neck and how tight it would have to squeeze to counterweight the rest of its body..and how this could accidentally cause harm to a handler. Most exotic animal "attacks" I would imagine are not REALLY attacks they were accidents which is something you have to respect when handling large exotic animals. Most people who get strangled by their snakes are stupid people who feed them wrong. Handle them alone. Do not properly contain the animal. Trust them to much. 

There is a certain protocol to follow when you own a giant snake especially when feeding them. Any respectable herp would know this. but for some reason snakes attract a horde of stupid people thinking they are "cool" and then accidents happen. Fade would never attempt to bite someone as long as you respected her space and moods. We always did. but when she was in feeding mode...and had the animals smell in her nostrils...she would strike at anything that moved. she even bite herself once. Instinct took over and anything else did not matter. I know we were talking about coyotes but my point is...respect the animal for what it is otherwise people get careless.


----------



## RCloud (Feb 25, 2011)

I had a pet crow for many years that I had rescued as a baby. His name was Aesop, and he was found on the side of the road as a small baby, half dead. There were no wild life rehabs in our area, and it was by extreme luck snd long distance mentoring that we saved his life, and he grew up to be an incredible bird. He still lives in my mom's bsck yard, and comes in on occassion for tuna and eggs 

It's one thing to snatch a baby animal from it's mother, but if it's an orphan, and you are willing to take on that animal's needs, including perhaps an entire lifestyle change, then I say more power to you.


----------



## gingerkid (Jul 11, 2012)

ireth0 said:


> If the species is going extinct by reasons other than human involvement, I would categorize it as one 'meant' to become extinct. We shouldn't artificially preserve species for the hell of it anymore than we should hunt them to extinction for the hell of it. Mother nature has been doing just fine working those things out on her own. When we do meddle, it comes back to bite us. For example, the extermination of wolves in my neck of the woods has led to a huge coyote problem, which in turn has led to other problems. You remove one piece of the puzzle and it all falls out of whack.
> 
> That said, this day and age I'm sure the species becoming extinct due to natural causes as opposed to us screwing the earth up are a very slim number.
> 
> That is pretty off topic considering we were talking about keeping exotic animals as pets, but there you go.


Where do you draw the line a human involvement?

Ecosystems and food webs are so interconnected - including people - that I seriously doubt there is a single species on the planet that has not been impacted by human activity in some form or another, especially if one is a proponent of human-driven climate change. And, speaking as someone with a degree in evolution, species have been going extinct for billions of years before humans arrived on the scene... and new ones are also evolving all the time. Its just that it is a lot easier to see when a species goes extinct - like a dead pixel on a TV - than it is to pinpoint when a sub-species or specific population has evolved "enough" to be a separate species. Think of it as a spec of black appearing on a white screen, versus a gradient of black to white. I mean, where exactly do you draw the line for "grey"? or "light grey" vs. "medium grey"? Everyone will have their own opinion on the topic, and cladistics is very much the same. It is really all arbitrary anyway - a completely made-up system so humans can nicely categorize animals into neat boxes, when nature really doesn't work that way.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

The only time I ever owned a wild animal was when I was 18 years old, I found a Mourning Dove in the park, fishing line was so tightly wrapped around one of its wings that the wing was not salvageable. I took it in, named it Gypsy, she was healthy otherwise and lived for 2 more years before passing away. Was I a bad person for rescuing her?


----------



## DaisyDC (Feb 24, 2013)

That snake is going to give me nightmares for days! Eeek!



Fade said:


> People that insist their tigers / wolves / lions / giant snakes / large predatory cats / bears...the list goes on...are pets and their friends...they should not be owning one. That is the greatest disrespect to me. >.< and it gets under my skin.
> 
> They are not domesticated for years and years and years like dogs. They will never be a domestic animal. Domesticating a animal ties into the way they process information.


You've made the point I was trying to make earlier (vainly, apparently), much more clearly. Dogs and guinea pigs and horses have been domesticated, over millenia, and part of that domestication has selected out of necessity for better interaction with humans. Wolves and squirrels and zebras might be related to dogs and guinea pigs and horses, and can be kept, but they're not domestic like the latter species, and shouldn't be treated like they are, because ultimately they're not always going to act like they are.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

gingerkid said:


> Where do you draw the line a human involvement?
> 
> Ecosystems and food webs are so interconnected - including people - that I seriously doubt there is a single species on the planet that has not been impacted by human activity in some form or another, especially if one is a proponent of human-driven climate change. And, speaking as someone with a degree in evolution, species have been going extinct for billions of years before humans arrived on the scene... and new ones are also evolving all the time. Its just that it is a lot easier to see when a species goes extinct - like a dead pixel on a TV - than it is to pinpoint when a sub-species or specific population has evolved "enough" to be a separate species. Think of it as a spec of black appearing on a white screen, versus a gradient of black to white. I mean, where exactly do you draw the line for "grey"? or "light grey" vs. "medium grey"? Everyone will have their own opinion on the topic, and cladistics is very much the same. It is really all arbitrary anyway - a completely made-up system so humans can nicely categorize animals into neat boxes, when nature really doesn't work that way.


I draw the line insofar as it has a noticeable impact on the species. We do not generally *just* coexist with any other wild species without contributing to an unnatural rise or decline. Take Siberian tigers, for example. Because of us, there are now more in captivity than in the wild, and it's not unrealistic to presume that they will be extinct in the wild in our, or our children's lifetime unless drastic action is taken. If we had left them alone, they would probably be going about their business, doing just fine living as the dominant predator of that ecosystem.

I also doubt that there is a species that hasn't been impacted by people, thus my comment about current species becoming extinct due to natural causes being slim to none.

In regard to rescued animals as pets. Yes, that is a different thing. I'm mostly talking about people going out into the wild and taking animals so people can have them as pets, which is what all of these more exotics started as at one point or another in recent history. I do not believe they would have a better life anymore than I believe I would have a better life if I was removed from all danger and kept enclosed and fed food and water regularly by some alien species. Just because your life is longer and more predictable doesn't make it better.


----------



## Furfinsnfeathers (Jun 5, 2013)

Ok, so, I'd like to meet a tame Coyote. I've met wildlife rehabbers, and I've handled wolves (OMG, totally heavenly) Of course foxes are adorable, and that fennec is sweet. 
But not on my property-I have chickens. Unless you can train them to herd chickens...I'm out.


----------



## juliemule (Dec 10, 2011)

When i did wildlife rehab, a game warden brought an arctic fox to me. In Tennessee. Someone had kept her as a pet. She was quite tame, mature, but was not happy being kept in a pen, and I had huge enclosures in as close to natural environments as possible for native wildlife. She now resides at The Ark in Reno, NV.

I wouldn't recommend any wildlife as a pet. I've had to euthanize many deer, raccoons, fox, and coyotes that people had imprinted and they became aggressive once mature. It's not that they "turn on you", its just that they do what they do. Just like dogs bark and cats scratch. Especially when you can't fulfill their needs, they stress, become destructive, can be aggressive etc. I'm not a fan of exotic animals either, for the same reasons. My son worked for an exotic importer. It's pretty sad how the animals are kept to produce the babies, which are taken from the mothers shortly after birth, many die, just so someone can have a "cool pet". All of this is inspected and within code for the permits.
The animals are kept caged usually, get minimum health care (just to meet standards), poor handling since most are relatively wild, overbred, babies sold way too soon, all for profit.
Much like puppy mills that dog lovers think should be banned. Many of the animals are sold as trophies for canned hunts. Not something I'll support.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

I know that fatal attractions isn't the "norm" of people that own wild animals but at least learn something from it, like fade said about the snakes (sorry I don't know much about them so I'm just going to generalize) you have to respect them and know that if a tiger wants to give you a "hug" because you taught it to do so when it was little and cute (VERY BAD IDEA) and then it's big now and wants to give you that "hug" they could accidentally crush you under their weight or accidentally use their claws to get a better grip so the "hug" is tighter. Then you have some severe wounds that need to be taken care of. My point wasn't that fatal attractions is the everyday exotic pet owner, my point was learn from other people's stupidity (sad that they died but who is really at fault here?)


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Yeah, but exotic vet care isn't quite the same as truly being exotic . With vets, "exotic" just means "anything other than dogs and cats". Dang, a lot of vets barely know anything about cats, even! But yeah. Can't get much more domesticated than a Dutch rabbit but I still have to take her to an exotics vet. . .


Yeah, that's why I keep referencing the article Daisy posted. The word "exotic" is problematic. I am very much a proponent of licensing* for exotic "exotics" but not for domesticated "exotics." And I don't honestly know what should be done with a lot of the exotics sold in pet stores. An African Gray parrot is certainly a more difficult animal to keep happy and healthy and stimulated than my fox. And iguanas and chameleons, two of the worst of all possible first reptiles, are popular pets among novices. Chameleons have very exacting temperature and humidity requirements and iguanas have very particular dietary needs and get too big for most people. But a lot of pet stores insist on stocking them anyway. And pet birds and reptiles are not domesticated but very few people seem to find it objectionable when people keep them as pets - but only if they are the kinds of birds and reptiles sold in a pet store. (The irony of that makes me cringe, by the way, since I'm sure almost every single person here understands how bad it is to get a dog from a pet store.)

*I think that anyone who has any business having a fox or a coyote etc. should be willing to jump through a few hoops. Yes it's a pain but I believe that it is acceptable for responsible owners to be periodically annoyed if that means people who don't really want to do the work decide to pass on getting an animal that they will not be happy with and that will be miserable in their care. However, I think it would be a bit extreme to require licensing for people who want a pet bunny. But I dunno, given how many people apparently buy one for their kid for Easter and then discard it, maybe I'm wrong about that. But if you license bunnies, it's tough to make an argument against licensing dogs and I know most people would object to that. So... yeah. I don't know.



kcomstoc said:


> Like willowy said bunnies are considered "exotic" but I own one and I wouldn't say "exotic" just unusual and the bunnies now a days aren't even related to the wild ones.....so I've heard.


I had a room mate with bunnies a while back. They were very sweet and we both handled them _a lot_ but they didn't do as well with people as my fox does. I don't know what kind of rabbits they were (does that make a difference?) but I know that one of them in particular was very easily stressed. So domesticated or not, I think they were less happy as pets than my fennec. They were certainly less motivated to spend time with people.



ireth0 said:


> I'm mostly talking about people going out into the wild and taking animals so people can have them as pets, which is what all of these more exotics started as at one point or another in recent history.


I think you'd be surprised by how many of the "wild" animals kept as pets today trace their ancestors back to zoo stock. If zoos produce a litter of animals that they don't need, they will trade those animals with other facilities (usually public, sometimes private, *always* licensed) for other animals that they do need. And occasionally they will use a broker to place animals that can't be traded. The animals that people usually don't object to (meaning: the ones for sale in pet stores) are actually much more likely to either have _very_ recent wild ancestors or to be, themselves, wild. Most of the mammals people worry about are protected from that sort of thing by local laws where they are from and/or by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species. In fact, the first animals to no longer be imported in mass for pet stores were mammals. (That change took place back in the 1970's, if I remember right, because the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species took place in 1973 and it put a stop to a lot of the importation.) Birds were next (although some species are still imported rather than bred in captivity). Reptiles are beginning to follow suit.


Question for everyone: when is an animal no longer "wild"? Is it when they exist only in captivity, like ferrets? When the wild animal's domestic counterpart exists in a variety of breeds, like dogs? When there are a plethora of physiological changes, like Belayaev's foxes? When animals come in a variety of colors and patterns, like corn snakes and reticulated pythons? Or just a variety of colors, like chinchillas and sugar gliders? And what about animals like the New Guinea Singing Dog (aka the Highland Wild Dog and the New Guinea Dingo), which is basically a living fossil? They were domestic dogs, once upon a time. But like the Australian Dingo, they became part of the ecosystem of their island. And now, thousands and thousands of years later, there isn't a consensus on what to call them. They were originally classified as canis hallstromi and imported for display in zoos. But zoos later decided they were "just dogs" based on some of their behaviors (they want very much to be around people) and concluded that they didn't belong on display. So they sold off their stock. Now new technology (specifically, mitochondrial DNA testing) has confirmed that they are genetically identical to the Australian Dingo (no consensus on how to classify them, either) and a few zoos such as the San Diego Zoo are keeping them on display again. My point is that it's not really a black and white thing. So, especially with regards to legislation requiring permits, (which, again, I think is an excellent idea) what counts as "wild"?


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I just don't get why owning an exotic is bad if you can provide all that he/she needs by way of basic requirements, mental stimulation, vetting, and socialization. Not every person can or is willing to provide what a coyote needs but if you can... Why not? Most pet exotics are not riped out of the wild. They come from USDA licensed breeders who carefully select breeding partners. Then the kits/pups/cubs are pulled to be bottle fed after ten to fourteen days. Some are not pulled but still get handled daily. Depending on how you feel about mother's milk, you can pick which method you prefer for your kit/pup/cub. Most of the exotics I know/read about get more than an average dog would. Ex: raw food, a multitude of ever rotating toys, huge enclosure that they spend minimal time in, multiple daily walks, etc, etc. 

I currently belong to an exotics forum and have been researching foxes for... 6 years now? Right around 6. None of the foxes, coyotes, or wolves/HC wolf dogs have "turned" on anyone. And none of them have been given away due to the unhappiness of the animal or due to illegal seizure. It is extremely frowned upon in the exotics community to give away your pet because you got it and underestimated him or because you obtained/kept it illegally. Just as there are good dog owners and bad dog owners, there are good exotic owners and bad exotic owners. How many average dog people can honestly say they've been actively researching their breed of dog for 6+ years? That's what an "average" exotic owner should do to meet minimal requirements. I won't be ready to put down a deposit on a fox kit until approximately 2 years from now. That's another couple years of straight research ahead of me. How does it make selfish to want an animal that isn't considered "normal"? I don't just want another dog, I want a fox because I think a fox would work with my lifestyle. Isn't that hiw you choose dogs/cats/horses?


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I just don't get why owning an exotic is bad if you can provide all that he/she needs by way of basic requirements, mental stimulation, vetting, and socialization. Not every person can or is willing to provide what a coyote needs but if you can... Why not? Most pet exotics are not riped out of the wild. They come from USDA licensed breeders who carefully select breeding partners. Then the kits/pups/cubs are pulled to be bottle fed after ten to fourteen days. Some are not pulled but still get handled daily. Depending on how you feel about mother's milk, you can pick which method you prefer for your kit/pup/cub. Most of the exotics I know/read about get more than an average dog would. Ex: raw food, a multitude of ever rotating toys, huge enclosure that they spend minimal time in, multiple daily walks, etc, etc.
> 
> I currently belong to an exotics forum and have been researching foxes for... 6 years now? Right around 6. None of the foxes, coyotes, or wolves/HC wolf dogs have "turned" on anyone. And none of them have been given away due to the unhappiness of the animal or due to illegal seizure. It is extremely frowned upon in the exotics community to give away your pet because you got it and underestimated him or because you obtained/kept it illegally. Just as there are good dog owners and bad dog owners, there are good exotic owners and bad exotic owners. How many average dog people can honestly say they've been actively researching their breed of dog for 6+ years? That's what an "average" exotic owner should do to meet minimal requirements. I won't be ready to put down a deposit on a fox kit until approximately 2 years from now. That's another couple years of straight research ahead of me. *How does it make selfish to want an animal that isn't considered "normal"*? I don't just want another dog, I want a fox because I think a fox would work with my lifestyle. Isn't that hiw you choose dogs/cats/horses?


Because you're putting an animal in an unnatural situation because you *want* to. Not to benefit the species, not for conservation, not to help an animal that was injured, because you want to. There was a recent poster who was adopting a puppy her parents' dogs gave birth to, but she had to foster it with a friend for it's first year of life because her current life situation wasn't fit for a dog, and claimed rescues do it all the time, so why was it an issue? It's an issue because rescues only foster dogs because they *have* to. That person was giving the dog to her friend to take care of for a year because she wanted it, not because it was what was best for the dog.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

JustDucky- I didn't want to quote the whole thing so this is just the part you referred to me about. Some breeds of rabbits are more moody (compared to a holland lop a lionhead rabbit is much more stubborn) things like that. My holland lop loves my boyfriend and me (we've only had him for 5 months going on 6). We give him anything he could ever want, lots of chew toys (bunny safe), a minimum cage at the moment (we are going to build him a 3 level NIC cage soon) but the minimum is still 3.5 feet by 2.5 feet (so plenty of room to stretch out and run around) some bunnies get cages so small that they can only stretch out in and they can't really move or the bottom of the cage is wired and hurts their feet, lots of hay and veggies and pellets. He binkies and zoomies (definition of bunny happiness) whenever we take him out of his cage which is for at least 5 hours a day, maybe more and the rest of them time he sleeps in his cage happily flopping down. It's like a dog in the sense of they are happy out of their crate but while you're at work or busy or whatever they are sleeping for most of the day. Granted I want to let him out more often but we can't until we move in about a month or so. He enjoys pets, in fact sometimes he demands them by nudging our hands with his head.

EDIT: Also when we lay on the floor with him he climbs up on us and grooms us (gives kisses) or comes over to my boyfriend's head and will groom it  it's funny and cute to watch


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

RabbleFox said:


> I just don't get why owning an exotic is bad if you can provide all that he/she needs by way of basic requirements, mental stimulation, vetting, and socialization. Not every person can or is willing to provide what a coyote needs but if you can... Why not? Most pet exotics are not riped out of the wild. They come from USDA licensed breeders who carefully select breeding partners. Then the kits/pups/cubs are pulled to be bottle fed after ten to fourteen days. Some are not pulled but still get handled daily. Depending on how you feel about mother's milk, you can pick which method you prefer for your kit/pup/cub. Most of the exotics I know/read about get more than an average dog would. Ex: raw food, a multitude of ever rotating toys, huge enclosure that they spend minimal time in, multiple daily walks, etc, etc.
> 
> I currently belong to an exotics forum and have been researching foxes for... 6 years now? Right around 6. None of the foxes, coyotes, or wolves/HC wolf dogs have "turned" on anyone. And none of them have been given away due to the unhappiness of the animal or due to illegal seizure. It is extremely frowned upon in the exotics community to give away your pet because you got it and underestimated him or because you obtained/kept it illegally. Just as there are good dog owners and bad dog owners, there are good exotic owners and bad exotic owners. How many average dog people can honestly say they've been actively researching their breed of dog for 6+ years? That's what an "average" exotic owner should do to meet minimal requirements. I won't be ready to put down a deposit on a fox kit until approximately 2 years from now. That's another couple years of straight research ahead of me. How does it make selfish to want an animal that isn't considered "normal"? I don't just want another dog, I want a fox because I think a fox would work with my lifestyle. Isn't that hiw you choose dogs/cats/horses?


Wolves and coyotes, as well as foxes range over a large territory. They are used to having wide, open spaces to live on. It is selfish to take a wild animal and keep it in captivity just because you (not you as in you in particular, but you in general) want an unusual pet. It is not in the best interests of that animal nor its species if the reason you are keeping it is just because you want one. Often, we have to give up what we want for what is best for the ones we love. I may want to keep a wild animal in a pen or on a leash for various reasons, but none of those justify me doing it if that is not what's best for the animal, not even if I make it work for me or do my very best to make up for what I've taken away from that animal because, at best, I'm giving them so much less than they would have free.

Wild animals are not pets. They are wild. And there is a difference between some "exotics" and outright wild animals and there is a difference between rehabilitating wildlife and simply wanting an unusual pet, no matter what the costs to the animals involved.

Those are all just my opinions, but they come from someone who's seen what happens when people try to tame wild animals up here...it never ends well for the animal, even when it does end well for the person.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

ireth0 said:


> Because you're putting an animal in an unnatural situation because you *want* to. Not to benefit the species, not for conservation, not to help an animal that was injured, because you want to. There was a recent poster who was adopting a puppy her parents' dogs gave birth to, but she had to foster it with a friend for it's first year of life because her current life situation wasn't fit for a dog, and claimed rescues do it all the time, so why was it an issue? It's an issue because rescues only foster dogs because they *have* to. That person was giving the dog to her friend to take care of for a year because she wanted it, not because it was what was best for the dog.


Isn't that why anyone gets a pet? Because they *want* it. Could it not be argued that we put dogs in "unnatural" situations? Huskies and Malamutes live in the city of Miami's heat. Concrete and sand are hardly the far north.

Maybe I just don't see it because the smaller mammalian exotic experiences I have heard of have ended well for both fox and caretaker. Maybe I am a selfish and/or bad person to some. I dunno. I still plan on owning a fox in the future.

Edit: Thought. Wolves, foxes, and coyotes roam a large area to search for food, water, and shelter. If they have all three if those things in one place, I wonder how far they would distance themselves from this source on a daily basis. Animals cover distances for survival reasons, not for fun or exercise.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

One thing that, I think, illustrates how much we don't know what we don't know. . .small wildcats in captivity have, apparently, a really high rate of intestinal lymphoma. What causes it? Diet? Lifestyle? Breeding? Nobody knows. But it has filtered over into the wildcat hybrids like Bengals and Savannahs, which is how I know about it (cat forum). Several people on the forum have lost one or more pet Bengals and Savannahs to lymphoma at an early age. Is it worth all that just so people can have active spotted pet kittycats? (and don't get me started about what usually happens to the foundation cats used in hybrid breeding programs. Especially the sterile males ).


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

RabbleFox - This is kinda off topic but do you know anyone who keeps colonies of anoles and/or house geckos for their foxes? We feed pink mice and button quail as well as the usual plethora of insects but we've never fed reptiles and I've been kicking the idea around for a while.

Ireth - How long do you believe an animal must be bred in captivity before it is okay for people to continue to breed that animal in captivity? And why are you equating someone who abandons a dog with someone who does not abandon an exotic? That seems like an inaccurate comparison to me.

kcomstoc - lol Yeah, sorry. That post was super long. Aww! He sounds adorable. And OMG Holland Lops are cute! What's his name? And do you have pictures you can post? :bounce:

Pixel (our fox) likes to hang out on my pillow against the top of my head. He'll also snuggle down against the side of my neck. When he was a tiny baby we kept him in a smaller cage, too. We used an XXL canvas sided dog crate. Then as soon as he got a bit bigger he got his own room. Just like with your bunny, it wouldn't be safe to give him full run of the house so our study (which is about 11' x 12') is his "crate." It works really well since there is plenty of room for him to interact with enrichment toys while he is in there (and since I'm always looking for new enrichment stuff it's nice to not have size as a limiting factor). But he mostly sleeps when he's not out.

packetsmom - Are you a vegan? Or, alternatively, do you avoid all animal products from the grocery store and from restaurants and only eat animal products from sources you have personally vetted? The animals used for food (meat, milk, and eggs) are often subjected to _extremely_ unnatural and unquestionably cruel conditions.


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> RabbleFox - This is kinda off topic but do you know anyone who keeps colonies of anoles and/or house geckos for their foxes? We feed pink mice and button quail as well as the usual plethora of insects but we've never fed reptiles and I've been kicking the idea around for a while.
> 
> Ireth - How long do you believe an animal must be bred in captivity before it is okay for people to continue to breed that animal in captivity? And why are you equating someone who abandons a dog with someone who does not abandon an exotic? That seems like an inaccurate comparison to me.
> 
> ...


It was to illustrate how acting for your own interests, as opposed to the interests of the animal is selfish. I never accused anyone of abandoning anything.

ETA; I don't have a specific number of generations in mind that a wild animal should be bred until it's domestic. I think we shouldn't be breeding wild animals for captivity at all any more than has already been done.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Willowy said:


> One thing that, I think, illustrates how much we don't know what we don't know. . .small wildcats in captivity have, apparently, a really high rate of intestinal lymphoma. What causes it? Diet? Lifestyle? Breeding? Nobody knows. But it has filtered over into the wildcat hybrids like Bengals and Savannahs, which is how I know about it (cat forum). Several people on the forum have lost one or more pet Bengals and Savannahs to lymphoma at an early age. Is it worth all that just so people can have active spotted pet kittycats? (and don't get me started about what usually happens to the foundation cats used in hybrid breeding programs. Especially the sterile males ).


Okay, the hybrid thing is _seriously_ messed up. And it goes way beyond what happens to sterile males. The domestic cats that are used to create the initial 50/50 hybrids are totally disposable, too. And they have to be because as often as not the exotic cat will _kill the domestic he is supposed to breed_, even with the little guys like Geoffroy's cats.

I haven't heard about intestinal lymphoma (or any kind of lymphoma) in non-hybridized exotic cats. (Hadn't heard about it with the hybrids, either, but I have nothing to do with those people.) Is it just in the hybrids or do you know? I have access to a lot of experts through the Feline Conservation Federation and I'll certainly ask if any of them know what's going on. (Err, assuming it's not just the hybrids. Hybridizing animals is *NOT* smiled upon.)

Lymphoma is _super_ common in domestic ferrets, too, so I wonder if the causes might be similar?

Edit: 

Ireth - Okay, gotcha. That makes more sense. But if you don't think that wild animals that have been bred in captivity should never continue to be bred, why are dogs okay? I mean, genetically, they are wolves. They are classified as a sub-species of the gray wolf. And if we should undo the bad stuff people in the past have done and if breeding wild animals is always bad, why do dogs get a pass?


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Ferrets have been fur-farm bred for so long, it's not surprising that longevity is not their thing, no matter what the cause . I don't know if the cause of the lymphoma for them and for wildcat hybrids would be the same, although feeding a species-inappropriate diet to an obligate carnivore is bound to cause some intestinal issues, so who knows. Apparently even Bengals and Savannahs being fed a PMR diet still tend to get lymphoma, though.

I don't know for sure about whether the pure wildcats get lymphoma as often or just the hybrids. . .there is one person on my cat forum who is totally INTO exotics (including hybrids) and says she had a pure wildcat foundation cat once who died of lymphoma, but one cat is hardly indicative of the larger population. I Googled for more info and can't really find anything concrete, but it appears to be a well-known Thing among hybrid owners.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

JustDucky- his name is caleb  and there are lots of pictures of him on binkybunny.com go to the lounge my name is the same there and scroll for caleb's picture place lots of pictures

EDIT: he's laying down on my bed right now, just like he would in his cage even though he has full opportunity to run around and binky. Also if you want to talk so we don't clutter the thread PM me


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> Okay, the hybrid thing is _seriously_ messed up. And it goes way beyond what happens to sterile males. The domestic cats that are used to create the initial 50/50 hybrids are totally disposable, too. And they have to be because as often as not the exotic cat will _kill the domestic he is supposed to breed_, even with the little guys like Geoffroy's cats.
> 
> I haven't heard about intestinal lymphoma (or any kind of lymphoma) in non-hybridized exotic cats. (Hadn't heard about it with the hybrids, either, but I have nothing to do with those people.) Is it just in the hybrids or do you know? I have access to a lot of experts through the Feline Conservation Federation and I'll certainly ask if any of them know what's going on. (Err, assuming it's not just the hybrids. Hybridizing animals is *NOT* smiled upon.)
> 
> ...


Dogs are so far removed from wolves I don't think they can be compared. They've been bred away from wolves for thousands of years, and they've been bred specifically to coexist with us in our established environment. Currently, a domestic dog environment and a human environment are the same thing, that can't be said for humans and wild animals. Dogs were also bred to work with humans to perform a job (hunting, protection, vermin control, etc.). We didn't take wolves and breed them into dogs just because we wanted pet wolves.

ETA: Genetically we're also what, a gene or two away from gorillas? That doesn't make us the same thing, or even vaguely similar. I mean to say that, things that apply for humans do not apply for gorillas, and vice versa. We are separate and unique entities, even if we have similar origins.

In any given situation, the way a dog would react and the way a wolf would react are completely different.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Okay. I'll dig through the FCF archives and if I don't find anything there, I'll ask the folks at the FCF directly. There are a couple of zoo curators and a bunch of people who run rescues in the group so if anyone would know, I bet they would. If you're interested, I'll let you know what I find out.

With ferrets, if I remember correctly, the inappropriate diets are linked with insulinoma rather than lymphoma. And the adrenal cancers are linked to too-early spay/neuter. It seems like I read at some point that artificial lighting had something to do with lymphoma but I'm _really_ not sure on that. Although, I am curious: how many of the people who are doing PMR with the hybrids are just straight up feeding whole prey?


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

I have been watching Fatal Attractions after reading this thread (thanks guys) and I think that many of the problems could be prevented with proper care, housing, and safety precautions. Why would you stick your arm through a cage when the lion is accustomed to being fed through those very same cage bars?! Why would you go into a tiger enclosure with no one else around to call 911 if something happened? Why would you deliberately build the cages ten centimeters off the ground so the animals could stick their paws out??


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

Kayota said:


> I have been watching Fatal Attractions after reading this thread (thanks guys) and I think that many of the problems could be prevented with proper care, housing, and safety precautions. Why would you stick your arm through a cage when the lion is accustomed to being fed through those very same cage bars?! Why would you go into a tiger enclosure with no one else around to call 911 if something happened? Why would you deliberately build the cages ten centimeters off the ground so the animals could stick their paws out??


 SEE!!!! that's what I'm talking about people that are clearly not equipped or smart enough to have these kinds of animals. love the show but I mean people come on if you just did things smart then you wouldn't be dead.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Kayota said:


> I have been watching Fatal Attractions after reading this thread (thanks guys) and I think that many of the problems could be prevented with proper care, housing, and safety precautions. Why would you stick your arm through a cage when the lion is accustomed to being fed through those very same cage bars?! Why would you go into a tiger enclosure with no one else around to call 911 if something happened? Why would you deliberately build the cages ten centimeters off the ground so the animals could stick their paws out??


That show is so stupid and sensationalistic. "she didn't feed her pet tigers for 3 weeks, and suddenly they turned on her and viciously ripped her to pieces and cruelly ate her up!!!1!". Ya know, if I didn't feed my pet cats for 3 weeks I'm pretty sure THEY'D eat me too. Heck, the _rabbit_ would probably eat me if I didn't feed her for 3 weeks .


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

kcomstoc - Oh my goodness. O.O So fluffy! And the name Caleb is just perfect for him. <3 Why did you tell me about this place? I will be looking at bunny pictures for the rest of the day and it's totally your fault! lol

ireth - Actually, it's possible that that's exactly what we did.  If current theories are to be believed, people probably brought baby wolves home because they were cute'n'fluffy. And the ones that became aggressive as they grew up were killed while the ones that were not were allowed to stick around. And that probably happened over and over again throughout our history. Wolves that are raised with people have a lot of similar reactions to dogs that are raised with people. They are just a _lot_ more neophobic than dogs.

Kayota - On the nose. Proper safety protocol is _everything_ when dealing with a potentially dangerous animal. And even then, accidents can happen. But having redundancies in place and adhering to your protocol like your life depends on it ('cause it does) makes a huge difference. And (I'm totally going to sound like a broken record) that is why licensing is *so* necessary.

Willowy - Are there pictures of your bunny, too? Will you post 'em pretty please? O.O (I am in serious cute overload right now. lol)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

JustDucky said:


> Although, I am curious: how many of the people who are doing PMR with the hybrids are just straight up feeding whole prey?


The lady I'm talking about does. In fact, she feeds her hybrids LIVE mice and rabbits :/. But she also gives them kibble and canned so who knows.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

That is a huge pet peeve of mine. I *hate* that some people feed live. I can understand doing it occasionally as an enrichment activity if you are very careful about it but for all prey to be given live is just cruel. And in some cases (like with rabbits) it puts your animal at risk. I've seen a 12 foot burm who had been sliced open by a live rabbit's claws. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. Why take the chance?


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

Plus rabbits have a VERY strong kick (strong enough they could kill themselves if they do it too hard by breaking their spine)


----------



## ireth0 (Feb 11, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> kcomstoc - Oh my goodness. O.O So fluffy! And the name Caleb is just perfect for him. <3 Why did you tell me about this place? I will be looking at bunny pictures for the rest of the day and it's totally your fault! lol
> 
> ireth - Actually, it's possible that that's exactly what we did.  If current theories are to be believed, people probably brought baby wolves home because they were cute'n'fluffy. And the ones that became aggressive as they grew up were killed while the ones that were not were allowed to stick around. And that probably happened over and over again throughout our history. *Wolves that are raised with people have a lot of similar reactions to dogs that are raised with people. They are just a lot more neophobic than dogs.*
> 
> ...


Studies I've read have shown the exact opposite result. That when wolf and dog puppies are raised the same way, as the wolf pups mature they act very differently to dogs. To each their own though.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> packetsmom - Are you a vegan? Or, alternatively, do you avoid all animal products from the grocery store and from restaurants and only eat animal products from sources you have personally vetted? The animals used for food (meat, milk, and eggs) are often subjected to _extremely_ unnatural and unquestionably cruel conditions.


Nope...I eat primarily wild game and fish. What I eat really lived, was harvested sustainably, and every usable part of the animal is used. My dog eats more factory farmed meat than I do, but I plan on decreasing that.

I think, a part of the gap here is that I live and hunt in the same habitats as these wild animals. If I could, I'd spend more time out there and less time confined in a city or town. To me, that kind of life is every wild animal's birthright and it should not be up to us to deprive them of it just for the selfish reason of having a cool pet.

Perhaps if you've never ventured where they live, it's easier to say a pen should be an adequate substitute.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

JustDucky said:


> Kayota - On the nose. Proper safety protocol is _everything_ when dealing with a potentially dangerous animal. And even then, accidents can happen. But having redundancies in place and adhering to your protocol like your life depends on it ('cause it does) makes a huge difference. And (I'm totally going to sound like a broken record) that is why licensing is *so* necessary.


Yeah I know... And then there was the guy with like a hundred bushmaster snakes who kept making the same mistakes on purpose because he was proud of his bites... All seven or eight of them. He's going to die someday.

I don't know why you'd feed your animal live, ever... Just not worth it. My snake gets all f/t.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

What a discussion. 

Our biggest university of life sciences is busy making a 'positive list' of animals that can be safely kept as pets without hazards for the environment while at the same time have all their biological and physical needs met with minimal risk to their welfare, and our government plans on enforcing it in 2014. 

The mammal list has been revealed recently. Maybe JustDucky finds this result interesting, since she owns a fennec fox: Fennec foxes are deemed not a great danger to humans, but it shows a rather low inclination to be domesticated and in short: the final judgement is that it is not suitable to be kept as a pet. 
It's a shame the rapport is in Dutch and I can't seem to find an English translation. But here's a summary coming from last year, a sort of introduction to the positive list that came out recently, and it's in English: 
Framework to determine a positive list for mammals


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I'd like to see that list, if it can be found in English. That sounds really interesting.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

Interesting study summary  would love to see the list as well


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Ireth - Links, please? I'd love to read a few of the studies you are referencing. =)

Packetsmom - I'll note you didn't say what you do about your milk and eggs. The animals that are used to produce those are often treated worse than animals used for meat. Also, let's make a very low estimate and assume that between feed lot meat you have eaten yourself and feed lot meat you have fed to your dogs, you have made use of 10 chickens, 7 cows, and 3 pigs. That would still be 20 animals that "never really lived" and moreover endured a great deal of pain and fear on your account. Why is that more okay than people having exotic animals as pets?

I would also like to point out that it's possible that the majority of humans would not agree with your definition of "really living" if we were subjected to it. I personally would not like to be hunted and shot and to have all of my parts put to use. But perhaps I'm unusual in that regard.

Kayota - Some of the people who keep venomous snakes make me want to beat my head against my desk. There was a guy who regularly posted pictures of his cobras on a reptile forum I belonged to several years ago. He kept them in large Rubbermaid tubs under his bed. Sometimes there are no words, you know?

Avie - Please post the original? With Google Translate, the fact that it's in Dutch shouldn't be too much of an issue.

Edit: For anyone else who's interested, it seems sugar gliders and Russian Hamsters (you know, the dwarf hamsters you usually see in pet stores) also made the "do not keep" list, while apparently wild boar are okay if they are being used for production. Now I _really_ want to read the original.

(Here's the source I found: http://www.captivebredreptileforums...ologists/67295-netherlands-positive-list.html)


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I found the list for Belgium. . .it's in French but it also has the Latin name, so if you can't deduce the French name you can Google the Latin name: http://www.health.belgium.be/eporta...mals/authorisedanimals/index.htm?&fodnlang=fr

I am surprised that wild boars are on it, considering the trouble the U.S. is having with them. But maybe they don't go feral, survive and breed as easily in Europe?

I wouldn't mind if sugar gliders weren't allowed. I don't think they do well as pets . Even with good care their lifespans are a lot shorter.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Oh my goodness. So it's okay for laboratories and circuses to own the animals on the "not approved" list? Seriously?

Edit: And Chinchillas can be kept but only as livestock. So that means they are okay for fur farms but not for pets. Allowing prairie dogs is another interesting choice. In the US, they are considered a vector species.

Additionally, it looks like the animals that didn't make the "approved" list aren't actually banned. They just require a license, which is quite reasonable. I don't understand at all why laboratories and _circuses_ (especially circuses) shouldn't be held to the same standards as private individuals, though.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I'm sorry JustDucky, it's a download. So googletranslating an internet page is not a possibility. 
The download can be found here and here. But like I said, it's in Dutch and there's not an English summary of the rapport yet. 

The summary I posted before that is in English, comes from last year and was an announcement/introduction to the rapport I mentioned above and can be downloaded in the two links I provided.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> Ireth - Links, please? I'd love to read a few of the studies you are referencing. =)
> 
> Packetsmom - I'll note you didn't say what you do about your milk and eggs. The animals that are used to produce those are often treated worse than animals used for meat. Also, let's make a very low estimate and assume that between feed lot meat you have eaten yourself and feed lot meat you have fed to your dogs, you have made use of 10 chickens, 7 cows, and 3 pigs. That would still be 20 animals that "never really lived" and moreover endured a great deal of pain and fear on your account. Why is that more okay than people having exotic animals as pets?
> 
> I would also like to point out that it's possible that the majority of humans would not agree with your definition of "really living" if we were subjected to it. I personally would not like to be hunted and shot and to have all of my parts put to use. But perhaps I'm unusual in that regard.


You seem to have a rather odd obsession with what I eat, but I'll humor you. I rarely, if ever buy milk or commercially produced eggs. Most of my eggs come from a friend's hobby farm and the hens there are free range with a large enclosure. (Before you follow that tangent, please let me remind you yhat the hens are not wild animals and could not survive up here without some kind of protection. I'm wondering if your diet could hold up to this same amount of scrutiny?

Your arguments are invalid and lacking in substance. And yes, not every human is capable of life outside the places we've paved, tamed, and ruined, but again, humans are not wild animals and some are more domesticated than others.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Avie - Thanks very much! =) I can just use Google Translate's webpage and copy and paste the info into it. Not quite as easy but still a far cry from the old days when I would have had to buy a Dutch-English dictionary. 

packetsmom - My "rather odd obsession with what you eat" is to demonstrate that you are guilty of what you object to: forcing animals to live in utterly unnatural conditions for your own benefit. The animals that are produced in factory farms lived out on fields less than a century ago. Your obsession with "wild" is specious at best. These are still living creatures. And the frequency with which you do what you claim to object to strikes me as irrelevant. The fact is, you do it. And you think that's irrelevant?


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

In case anyone is wondering this is what it says in english (google translated ):

List of animals that can be held (positive list)

The positive list is a list that includes all the animals that can be held in Belgium. This list has been compiled due to the fact that some animals are not suitable to be kept as pets, for example because they need special care or because they are too dangerous.

To date, only a list of mammals not held for production has been developed. This list is set in a royal decree (. PDF) . Mammals not included in the positive list can only be held by:

zoos;
laboratory;
individuals who can prove they were already owners of the animals concerned before 1 October 2009 or who have young animals they already owned before that date;
individuals who have received approval of the Minister;
veterinarians, animal whether customers, temporarily detained for veterinary care for all that;
animal shelters;
circuses and traveling exhibitions;
commercial establishments for animals, provided they hold the animals for a short time and to the extent that they have entered into a prior written agreement with a zoo, an individual with a ministerial approval, a circus or traveling exhibition;


Focus on the positive list 

The following criteria were used to determine which animals could be included in the positive list

The species should be easy to hold and housing, without its physiological, ethological and ecological essential needs are affected;
The animal species should not be aggressive in nature and / or dangerous and must not include any other special danger to human health;
There should be no clear indication that the species is able to survive in the wild and to constitute a danger to native wildlife;
Must bibliographic data are available on the detention of the species;
If there are conflicting data on the ability to hold an animal species in captivity, it is considered that one or more of the above criteria are not met.


Have worked on the development of the positive list, not only scientists but also representatives of various unions of interest: professional association of animal traders, associations animal lovers and animal protection associations. A compromise was sought between the welfare of animals and the interests of those concerned.



The list of animals that can be held

Only animals included on this list may be freely held by everyone:

FRENCH NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME 
Wallaby bennett Macropus rufogriseus
Dog Canis familiaris
Chat Felis catus
Ferret Mustela furio
Ane (domestic) Equus asinus
Mulet Equus asinus x Equus caballus
Horse Equus caballus
Bardot Equus caballus x Equus asinus
Pig Sus scrofa
Lama (domestic) Lama glama
Guanaco Lama guanicoe
Alpaca (domestic) Lama pacos
Axis Chital
Red deer Cervus elahus
Sika Cervus nippon
Daim Dama dama
Beef Bos taurus
Buffalo asia (domestic) Bubalus bubalis
Goat (domestic) Capra hircus
Ibex Caper
Sheep Ovis ammon
Sheep (domestic) Ovis aries
Prairie dog Cynomys ludovicianus
Squirrel striped korea Tamias sibiricus
Tamia striated Tamias striatus
Chinese dwarf hamster Cricetulus barbarensis
Golden hamster Mesocricetus auratus
Campbell Dwarf Hamster Phodopus campbelli
Dwarf hamster Roborowsky Phodopus roborovskii
Djungarian dwarf hamster Phodopus sungorus
Gerbils Gerbillus spec.
Meriones Meriones spec.
Spiny mouse Acomys spec.
Harvest Mouse Micromys minutus
Dwarf mouse Africa Mus minutoides
House mouse (as livestock) Mus musculus
Brown rat (as livestock) Rattus norvegicus
Chinchilla (as livestock) Lanigera
Guinea Pig Cavia porcellus
Mara Dolichotis patagonum
Dègye Chile Octodon degus
Rabbit Oryctolagus cuniculus


Apply for a license 

If you want to have a pet that is not on the positive list, you must first obtain approval from the Minister. These amenities are far from being granted automatically. Minister collects for each request the opinion of the Commission of Zoological Parks, before deciding whether to grant approval or not. His decision within six months after receipt of the request. If the application is evaluated favorably, you receive approval.

Do you have a license for the possession of a species not included on the positive list? So, you must inform the Animal Welfare Service and CITES annually before the end of the year, the number of animals of the species you have, as well as changes made to their accommodation and their care in the last year.

If it appears that you do not meet the conditions of the license, or that you are violating the provisions of the Law on Animal Welfare (. PDF) , your license may be suspended or removed.

Which means I could have a bennetts wallaby which is something I MIGHT own in the future (it's not a definite thing and it'll depend on what happens in my future so....yea)  Tried to make it easier to read.....if it's worse just let me know and I'll fix it


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Oh my goodness! The bunny-bat! lol That is delightful! 










"Figure 8. Screen dump of the page in which experts were asked to exaptation ability of the species. The answers were then converted to a PEI, and was also the reliability of the estimate calculated."

kcomstoc - I think it only applies to the Netherlands. In the US, animals are regulated (at the national level) by the USDA and/or by Fish and Wildlife.

Edit: And I found my Fennecs. Chinchillas score 71.9 (in terms of ease of care) and Fennecs score 71.7. So I suppose they would allow fur farms to keep Fennecs, too, if they were used for that.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

I want to point out that Belgium and the Netherlands are two different countries.  Belgium has had a positive list put in place for a while now (since 2009, I believe). The positive list that'll be used from 2014 and onwards in the Netherlands is not the same as the Belgian list (though I'm not saying the species that are allowed are different).


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

I know it's only for Netherland and Belgium but they are legal in the U.S also, in some places. I have to re-research where though


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Avie - Oh! It was in Dutch so I just assumed "Netherlands." I'm sorry about that. So the list we are looking at is from Belgium, then? 

kcomstoc - I think they're probably legal (albeit often with a permit) in a lot of the U.S. I think they're like Fennecs and regulated on a state-by-state basis if you're not breeding them. (I'd bet the farm that breeders need to be USDA licensed, though.) Be sure to check County and City laws, too, if you eventually decide you want one. In Washington State, for example, most exotics are banned outright in King County (where Seattle is located) but just north in Snohomish County the only species that are banned are the species that have been banned at the State level.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

JustDucky said:


> kcomstoc - I think they're probably legal (albeit often with a permit) in a lot of the U.S. I think they're like Fennecs and regulated on a state-by-state basis if you're not breeding them. (I'd bet the farm that breeders need to be USDA licensed, though.) Be sure to check County and City laws, too, if you eventually decide you want one. In Washington State, for example, most exotics are banned outright in King County (where Seattle is located) but just north in Snohomish County the only species that are banned are the species that have been banned at the State level.


I know it can vary through counties even in the state, I'll have to double check before we actually get one, wouldn't want to own one illegally and not know it lol *forehead smack*


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

kcomstoc said:


> I know it can vary through counties even in the state, I'll have to double check before we actually get one, wouldn't want to own one illegally and not know it lol *forehead smack*


Right? That would seriously suck. Also, you probably need all of your paperwork in order for your vet to be able to see your animal legally. I know both of my vet clinics have Pixel's paperwork on file.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

JustDucky said:


> Avie - Oh! It was in Dutch so I just assumed "Netherlands." I'm sorry about that. So the list we are looking at is from Belgium, then?


What you translated said: "The positive list is a list that includes all the animals that can be held in Belgium." 
Then you said: "I think it only applies to the Netherlands." When referring to the Belgian list. So I thought I'd point out that the Netherlands and Belgium are not the same country.  

I'm not saying the list isn't flawed by the way. For example, reindeer are deemed to pose a high level of danger to humans? (on a scale of 1 to 6, with 1 being dangerous and 6 being not dangerous, reindeer score 1. Which kind of baffles me, because apparently this would make them less dangerous than brown bears who score 2. And then my mind starts to wonder... and I'm thinking I'd feel much safer keeping a reindeer in my backyard than a bear. Lol, maybe that's just me.)










Ummmm.... Yeah. No.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

Brown bears are CLEARLY LESS dangerous than a reindeer lol just kidding, but I know that regular deer are mostly alright unless it's mating season then they will kick you to death (or impale you with antlers) to get the female deer. It was on fatal attractions surprisingly enough


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Avie - I'm not the one who posted the translation. But I did skim over it and obviously I didn't read the intro (that mentioned where the list is from) very closely at all. :redface: So again, I apologize. 

Also, the reindeer/brown bear thing is very strange. And for my part, I'd rather have a brown bear _or_ a reindeer in my back yard than a wild boar!


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

Captive deer species (collectively) kill more people than captive large cats, comparatively speaking. Whether that's because deer are more dangerous or people just aren't as careful around them, I don't know.

But reindeer? People have those in roadside zoos all the time. Around Christmas, there's always a little pen in the Walmart parking lot with "Santa's reindeer!!!" getting donations. They're small. . .


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Willowy said:


> Captive deer species (collectively) kill more people than captive large cats, comparatively speaking. Whether that's because deer are more dangerous or people just aren't as careful around them, I don't know.
> 
> But reindeer? People have those in roadside zoos all the time. Around Christmas, there's always a little pen in the Walmart parking lot with "Santa's reindeer!!!" getting donations. They're small. . .


I'd guess its people underestimating the deer. It's cute and fluffy and doesn't have sharp teeth! Then they kick you... I've worked with horses for a while and know to respect the hooves. Not everyone does. They see "Horsey!" and are lucky when they don't get a hoof to the stomach for tramping around them loudly. 

No body underestimates the bear! Class and teeth speak for themselves.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

kcomstoc said:


> Brown bears are CLEARLY LESS dangerous than a reindeer lol just kidding, but I know that regular deer are mostly alright unless it's mating season then they will kick you to death (or impale you with antlers) to get the female deer. It was on fatal attractions surprisingly enough


One of my possible plans for the far future is to have a small fallow deer farm  The best way to prevent the males from injuring you is to avoid bottle raising them--that way they won't see you as a deer. And like the above said you have to give them space and respect, they aren't sheep or horses and aren't domesticated.


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

RabbleFox said:


> No body underestimates the bear! Class and teeth speak for themselves.


This. 

But I just can't wrap my mind around reindeer scoring that high at being dangerous to humans. I've met quite a few in Sweden last year, and they were friendly. And, like Willowy said... so small. Mini deer, lol.


----------



## sassafras (Jun 22, 2010)

Deer in rut are nasty mofos. They will mess you up.


----------



## Kayota (Aug 14, 2009)

sassafras said:


> Deer in rut are nasty mofos. They will mess you up.


Yeah, can't wait to get out with my camera this fall and try to catch some shots of them though! I had a really intense moment out at the refuge where I take my photos, I was hiding in a small stand of trees and a male deer came within several yards of me... Awesome! I was trying to be still so I didn't get a picture, though. I was definitely nervous!


----------



## Spirit_of_Cotons (Jun 21, 2009)

I don't wish to offend anyone on this thread, but I just wanted to state my own opinion. I think keeping any wild animal, unless it's a rehab facility or a zoo (that is obeying wildlife regulations), etc--that are along those lines are the only people that should be allowed to have a wild animal. Wildlife shouldn't be kept as pets. They're not suited as pets, they belong in the wild for a reason. They will show their true colors in one way during its lifetime. I think it's unfair to the animal to keep in like a domesticated animal; they aren't domesticated no matter how many people say they could be or will be. 

I'm not saying that those of you here that own foxes or any other wild animal are cruel or not taking care of your animal. I bet your animal has the best life than some dogs I know here. I bet your animal is very happy and content; I know you know that they aren't a domesticated animal and take caution upon doing anything with your wild animal. 

That being said, I'd love to own a wolf. I can't due to allergies and others factors and would never ever think of owning one because they're a wild animal. Wild animals belong in the wild to be free. And that's my two cents.


----------



## SydTheSpaniel (Feb 12, 2011)

I worked at a wildlife park once..... and we were cleaning the reindeer enclosure. (I don't know if it's been said, but reindeer are basically just "domesticated caribou") And I remember my boss telling me how dangerous they were and to be really REALLY careful around them. 

He was totally teasing me. Reindeer are awesome. LOL


----------



## Avie (Jul 10, 2011)

Hahah, your boss was a funny guy. 

Maybe someone was teasing the researchers making the positive list rapport, and they got so frightened and that's why they labeled reindeer 'dangerous'. 
Yes, that must be it.


----------



## packetsmom (Mar 21, 2013)

Caribou (wild reindeer...actually the same species...here we just call them Caribou if they're out in the wild and reindeer if people are farming them for meat) can get a little rowdy and wild, particularly during rut and they are bigger than the deer up here, but not quite as big as a whitetail down south. Each year, there is the "running of the reindeer" during fur rendevous and you can run with them. It's like the running of the bulls except no one dies, not even the reindeer...ok, it's pretty much just a 5k with reindeer running, too. 

I don't consider reindeer in quite the same category as wolves, coyotes, and foxes. While not really a domesticated animal, they've been kept and herded by humans for about as long as humans have lived anywhere near them. They are easier to keep than other deer and are quite tasty as well as pretty docile animals.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

I'm at work but really quick... Red foxes have been bred by humans for a long long time. Fur trade and all. This doesn't make them "domestic" except by law in my state. Any non-red Red Fox is a domestic animal.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Do you guys feel it was "wrong" of us to domesticate dogs and cats because their ancestors "belonged" in the wild?


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

packetsmom - "Running of the Reindeer"...? 0.0 OMG that sounds like the most awesome 5k ever! I'm just going to sit here and be jealous now. 

And also post this, even though it is probably about 99% off topic. But I can't resist so here you guys go:

*"Rope-A-Dope"* (I have no idea who wrote this but it's an amusing "stupid human story.")

I had this idea that I could rope a deer, put it in a stall, feed it up on corn for a couple of weeks, then kill it and eat it. The first step in this adventure was getting a deer. I figured that, since they congregate at my cattle feeder and do not seem to have much fear of me when we are there (a bold one will sometimes come right up and sniff at the bags of feed while I am in the back of the truck not 4 feet away), it should not be difficult to rope one, get up to it and toss a bag over its head (to calm it down) then hog tie it and transport it home.

I filled the cattle feeder then hid down at the end with my rope. The cattle, having seen the roping thing before, stayed well back. They were not having any of it. After about 20 minutes, my deer showed up - 3 of them. I picked out a likely looking one, stepped out from the end of the feeder, and threw my rope.

The deer just stood there and stared at me. I wrapped the rope around my waist and twisted the end so I would have a good hold. The deer still just stood and stared at me, but you could tell it was mildly concerned about the whole rope situation. I took a step towards it, it took a step away. I put a little tension on the rope, and then received an education.

The first thing that I learned is that, while a deer may just stand there looking at you funny while you rope it, they are spurred to action when you start pulling on that rope.

That deer EXPLODED. 

The second thing I learned is that pound for pound, a deer is a LOT stronger than a cow or a colt. A cow or a colt in that weight range I could fight down with a rope and with some dignity. A deer-- no Chance. That thing ran and bucked and twisted and pulled. There was no controlling it and certainly no getting close to it. As it jerked me off my feet and started dragging me across the ground, it occurred to me that having a deer on a rope was not nearly as good an idea as I had originally imagined. The only upside is that they do not have as much stamina as many other animals.

A brief 10 minutes later, it was tired and not nearly as quick to jerk me off my feet and drag me when I managed to get up. It took me a few minutes to realize this, since I was mostly blinded by the blood flowing out of the big gash in my head. At that point, I had lost my taste for corn-fed venison. I just wanted to get that devil creature off the end of that rope.

I figured if I just let it go with the rope hanging around its neck, it would likely die slow and painfully somewhere. At the time, there was no love at all between me and that deer. At that moment, I hated the thing, and I would venture a guess that the feeling was mutual.

Despite the gash in my head and the several large knots where I had cleverly arrested the deer's momentum by bracing my head against various large rocks as it dragged me across the ground, I could still think clearly enough to recognize that there was a small chance that I shared some tiny amount of responsibility for the situation we were in. I didn't want the deer to have to suffer a slow death, so I managed to get it lined back up in between my truck and the feeder - a little trap I had set before hand....kind of like a squeeze chute. I got it to back in there and I started moving up so I could get my rope back.

Did you know that deer bite?

They do! I never in a million years would have thought that a deer would bite somebody, so I was very surprised when ...... I reached up there to grab that rope and the deer grabbed hold of my wrist. Now, when a deer bites you, it is not like being bit by a horse where they just bite you and slide off to then let go. A deer bites you and shakes its head--almost like a pit bull. They bite HARD and it hurts.

The proper thing to do when a deer bites you is probably to freeze and draw back slowly. I tried screaming and shaking instead. My method was ineffective.

It seems like the deer was biting and shaking for several minutes, but it was likely only several seconds. I, being smarter than a deer (though you may be questioning that claim by now), tricked it. While I kept it busy tearing the tendons out of my right arm, I reached up with my left hand and pulled that rope loose.

That was when I got my final lesson in deer behaviour for the day.

Deer will strike at you with their front feet. They rear right up on their back feet and strike right about head and shoulder level, and their hooves are surprisingly sharp ... I learned a long time ago that, when an animal - like a horse - strikes at you with their hooves and you can't get away easily, the best thing to do is try to make a loud noise and make an aggressive move towards the animal. This will usually cause them to back down a bit so you can escape.

This was not a horse. This was a deer, so obviously, such trickery would not work. In the course of a millisecond, I devised a different strategy. I screamed like a woman and tried to turn and run. The reason I had always been told NOT to try to turn and run from a horse that paws at you is that there is a good chance that it will hit you in the back of the head.

Deer may not be so different from horses after all, besides being twice as strong and 3 times as evil, because the second I turned to run, it hit me right in the back of the head and knocked me down..

Now, when a deer paws at you and knocks you down, it does not immediately leave. I suspect it does not recognize that the danger has passed. What they do instead is paw your back and jump up and down on you while you are laying there crying like a little girl and covering your head.

I finally managed to crawl under the truck and the deer went away.

So now I know why when people go deer hunting they bring a rifle with a scope......to sort of even the odds!!

All these events are true, so help me God. They're not sweet and innocent like Bambi!


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

The story was funny but any wild animal would fight for its life like that. Almost every wild animal would bite in that situation if the story is true the guy should have expected that, doesn't change my opinion of deer at all and I don't have a problem with people keeping deer


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Oh I agree. But I still think the story is amusing. =)


----------



## curt3 (Jun 27, 2013)

I wouldn't want one for a pet, but she is super cute.


----------



## RabbleFox (Jan 23, 2013)

Most people who keep deer have bought them from ranch stock. No way they're wrangling wild deer and keeping them in a stall. A animal taken from the wild is not the same as a ranch animal taken from a deer/fur farm are much more domestic and used to human contact than their stolen from the wild counterparts.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Now I feel like I should have posted a disclaimer. I'll edit one in.


----------



## Willowy (Dec 10, 2007)

I believe the guy who wrote that is the humor columnist for Field and Stream. . .I really doubt he actually tried it . I'll see if I can confirm that.

ETA: Hmm, nope, author unknown: http://www.snopes.com/critters/farce/ropedeer.asp 
But I bet it ended up in Field and Stream at least once, LOL.


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

JustDucky said:


> That is a huge pet peeve of mine. I *hate* that some people feed live. I can understand doing it occasionally as an enrichment activity if you are very careful about it but for all prey to be given live is just cruel. And in some cases (like with rabbits) it puts your animal at risk. I've seen a 12 foot burm who had been sliced open by a live rabbit's claws. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. Why take the chance?


I had a snake that would not eat dead prey. It was raised on live and I tried everything. everything. She would not even show slight interest in pre killed food. Even IF I humanely killed the prey item right before feeding her she wouldn't show any interest at all. It was very difficult and put us in a bad situation. She was well grown when we got her because no one would take her because of her size. usually you can entice them to change over to pre killed food but she would not accept. They warned us about it before we got her. They said they could not get her to change over, I figured we had more experience so Id be able to get her too. yea right >.< She was captive bred not like she came from the wild or something. or at least thats what they told us. she was amazing otherwise. Very smart she changed my mind about reptiles. I always thought they had no personalities but she was amazing.
This is when she was younger.




I downsized and got more safe animals 
Scully is my 22 yr old iguana.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Willowy - lol Thanks for the Snopes article! That was a fun read, too. =D I'm going to edit my post and use their title. I like it better. ^^

Fade - If an animal absolutely will not take f/t that's a different situation. At that point you're meeting the animal's needs. But animals that can't be switched over to f/t are the exception, not the rule.


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

JustDucky said:


> Willowy - lol Thanks for the Snopes article! That was a fun read, too. =D I'm going to edit my post and use their title. I like it better. ^^
> 
> Fade - If an animal absolutely will not take f/t that's a different situation. At that point you're meeting the animal's needs. But animals that can't be switched over to f/t are the exception, not the rule.


 Yes but it scared me ! I would check her after meals for any scratches or bites. The worst wound she ever got tho was from herself when she bite herself striking at prey. She got her teeth stuck. and who wants to stick their hand in a feeding area with a snake that is in hunt mode to help get her teeth free >.< It took her almost 5 min but she was able too and didn't need to see her vet. Luckily most snakes are very agreeable to pre-killed food. Even the picky eaters will take advantage of a freshly killed meal since they are opportunists. They also like to ambush their prey when they aren't looking because most are cautious animal although I Think that varies with the species. African rocks live in africa with a bunch of other animals that could seriously harm them so it makes sense they are cautious. They have a lot more predators to contend with. Although after they reach a certain size they don't have to fear to much.


----------



## Adjecyca1 (Jul 25, 2010)

Fade said:


> This is when she was younger.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Beautiful snake! Love the setup! and i love the Iggy i have one too! IDK how old mine is, i got her as a rescue, she has health problems because she lived so long with an owner who didn't take care of her, i have already paid for 2 surgery on her and do you know how hard it was for me to find someone to do surgery on a reptile around here. She has a really weird back shape even the vet noticed it, he said it could be from the cage she was kept in before, she is a BIG iguana, like your as was kept in a 20 gallon tank partially filled with water. :'(. She was fed Iguana pellets and cat food.No lighting. Now she has a big cage home made, and a doggy bed to lay on(unlike most iguanas she doesn't like to climb much) and she REALLY likes comfy things anytime i open her cage she goes straight on my bed, so i got her a dog bed. She has all the proper lighting, and a diet with a lot of variety!

This was a few years ago


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

I don't blame you. Yikes! I've never heard of a snake biting herself. That's honestly kinda embarrassing. Poor baby. 

The worst of the worst, in my experience, are ball pythons and green tree pythons. Ball pythons will just randomly go off feed and green tree pythons can be notoriously difficult to switch onto mice. And the easiest are carpet pythons and scrub pythons, which are wonderful little garbage disposals that will eat just about anything. (But I'm biased. Morelia are my favorites. <3) 

I once had a Brazilian Rainbow Boa who was very stubborn about eating live. The worst part is that she liked to eat her prey breech and often didn't bother to constrict it first. So she would eat live mice butt first. It was unbelievably stupid. I finally got her switched over by feeding her undersized prey and modifying a trick that people use to power feed reticulated pythons. I'd let her get started on a live mouse and while her feeding response was still all geared up I'd offer her a warmed dead mouse on tongs. She'd take the dead mouse without hesitation. Eventually I was able to stop offering live. She would take warmed dead mice off of tongs just fine. But it took a few months to get her to make the transition.


----------



## Cindy23323 (Mar 31, 2010)

RabbleFox said:


> We must be be the same person because what's a party when you can stay home and watch videos of pet foxes?
> 
> I would definitely agree that coyotes and exotics aren't for everyone BUT I hate, hate, hate when people say they are going to turn on you. The coyotes in the links I posted are well past maturity. When exactly will they turn on their owners?! I vote... not anytime soon. I'm not a crazy person so I'm not going to delude myself into the thinking that a coyote will turn out loving and happy to see me if I pluck it out of the wild. The coyote in the video up there is a product of hard work and training!
> 
> Just Ducky: Love your Fennec avatar photo. I'm a Red Fox fan but man those Fennecs are adorable.


People constantly say that about Selene and Loki. Who are also way past maturity, they are now 5 and 6 years old.


----------



## kcomstoc (Mar 9, 2013)

I have to say this or I'm going to keep thinking it in my head but I just don't know if I could ever break an animal's neck (or however you kill the mice) to feed snakes (probably why I will never own one). I just think about it and shudder. not to say I don't like eating meat myself because to me meat is the most delicious thing I can think of to eat, but for me to personally have to break their neck I don't know if I would starve or not (I would probably make my boyfriend do it for me)  so ashamed that I'm such a girl about it and I know it's only for the snakes that can't eat the already dead mice (I could handle that feeding already dead mice to the snake) but still.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Cindy23323 - High content wolfdogs?

kcomstoc - Because of the quantity of mice and quail I feed, I just order from Rodent Pro. They are shipped on dry ice (already dead) and I keep them in my freezer. For people who just have a snake or two, though, it's generally easier to buy Frozen Rodent or Mice on Ice, which are stocked at Petsmart and Petco.


----------



## Fade (Feb 24, 2012)

Adjecyca1 said:


> Beautiful snake! Love the setup! and i love the Iggy i have one too! IDK how old mine is, i got her as a rescue, she has health problems because she lived so long with an owner who didn't take care of her, i have already paid for 2 surgery on her and do you know how hard it was for me to find someone to do surgery on a reptile around here. She has a really weird back shape even the vet noticed it, he said it could be from the cage she was kept in before, she is a BIG iguana, like your as was kept in a 20 gallon tank partially filled with water. :'(. She was fed Iguana pellets and cat food.No lighting. Now she has a big cage home made, and a doggy bed to lay on(unlike most iguanas she doesn't like to climb much) and she REALLY likes comfy things anytime i open her cage she goes straight on my bed, so i got her a dog bed. She has all the proper lighting, and a diet with a lot of variety!
> 
> This was a few years ago


your baby is beautiful! We got Scully from a rescue too. She was so overweight she could not climb more then 1 step at a time and she was very angry. After some time we realized she was very very friendly just needed some encouragement. After she started building a healthy amount of stamina we would not feed her unless she came down the stairs to get her food. She shed all the unhealthy weight. and became very active. She lived in that enclosure the snake was in for many years. ( Fade was gone by then ) Once she started really getting old we made a new one. Cause she can't climb anymore. Now we have a Cage we laid on its side its about 6 ft long by 4 ft deep. and we made it so the side folds down so its easy to clean. Its very simple. lined with laminate. A large water dish she can fit in. and a big 2 ft by 2 ft tub with towels in it she basks in. ( and poops in ) Nothing fancy anymore  but she only spends her time digesting in there and the rest she has free roam of the house. Mostly she just lays around. We can only account for the 22 yrs of her life. The rescue could account for 13 yrs from a couple different owners. but nothing beyond that. We have had her for 9. She eats collard greens / mixed organic garden greens / and a little fruit every meal for a treat. She likes a lot of stuff but her fav is green beans , bananas and watermelon. She will follow you around endlessly if you are eating any of those. She also begs at the table for food, She eats every 2-3 days. After digesting she will knock on her cage door. We will open it...she will climb out and go down stairs into the kitchen to get her usually waiting plate of food. Sometimes she needs to fuss around to get someones attention to let them know she is waiting for food. She also use to like to be outside on excursions but she is to old. 


yours looks wonderful. I think its interesting how the same species of green iguana can look so different. Ive always like the red and orange toned ones. I think ill probably always stick with a female. Every male I have met always tended to have mood swings and be not as friendly. They are also breeding them in different color morphs they are all GREEN iguana species like the blue "green iguanas" http://www.reptilepetsdirect.com/Aqua Blue Iguana.php they are beautiful


----------



## Cindy23323 (Mar 31, 2010)

JustDucky said:


> Cindy23323 - High content wolfdogs?
> 
> kcomstoc - Because of the quantity of mice and quail I feed, I just order from Rodent Pro. They are shipped on dry ice (already dead) and I keep them in my freezer. For people who just have a snake or two, though, it's generally easier to buy Frozen Rodent or Mice on Ice, which are stocked at Petsmart and Petco.


Yes


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

I just read through the thread real quick, so if I missed the answer to this, please point me in the right direction: 

JustDucky, what is your diet, out of curiosity? I know you were asking packetsmom the same question to prove your point, but when someone grills someone so hard about a point, I'm always wondering how they would answer the question themselves.

Generally, I'd fall into the "let wild animals be wild" camp if I had to pick a side but its not really so black and white an issue as that.


----------



## Alerondogs (Mar 23, 2011)

Haven't read all the posts yet but...



RabbleFox said:


> Ya'll should read the Daily Coyote. Really cool blog and book about raising a wild coyote cub. Its legal in her state. I also would suggest that for anyone who is interested in the bond between a rescue coyote and his human read this thread on an exotics forum. Its photo heavy. They have a really special relationship.



Daily Coyote is a great read and gives a fair, accurate view on living with an "pet" that is not a domesticated animal. IIRC she was bitten badly by her Coyote at least once and certainly had some challenges that one wouldn't expect living with a dog. I don't think it's unfair to say if you live with an undomesticated animal, they are likely to have less inhibition about biting you (and really biting) than the average dog. 

I had a pet skunk and despite researching them a lot before getting one, after I owned one I found there was a lot of sugar coating going on in the world of pet skunks. Most people who have pet skunks are bitten by them at some point. In talking to a well known pet skunk rescue person, she told me "If you have a skunk you're going to get bitten sometimes, it's just how it is". Unfortunately, that sort of info isn't all that public to people looking into owning a skunk. Instead, it's implied that skunks become biters due to mistreat or poor handling. They aren't huge but their teeth are fairly large, sharp and they tend to bite, hold on and shake when they're upset and it takes a long time for them to settle down when they get upset. 

I have also known multiple people with pet mink and they had very similar experiences. Their mink were far more difficult as pets than their ferrets - they were bigger, stronger, smarter and much less inhibited in the use of their teeth. 

I met a lady with pet foxes at a dog show, they didn't exactly sound like easy pets. She had them with her at the show because she no longer had a pen that would hold them at home and their enclosure wasn't yet finished. She initially kept her first fox as a house pet but she couldn't get him fully housetrained (this is another little talked about issue with pet skunks...) and even once he was neutered, his feces and urine had an extremely strong odor. This was a breeder of a fairly primitive rare breed dog and the foxes were still a pretty big challenge. 

People who love exotics and want their pets to be more accepted sometimes don't like to hear it but there is a difference between having an animal who is domesticated and one who is not. There's a reason that some animals, such as skunks or coyotes or foxes aren't commonly kept as pets (although there now are domesticated foxes  ) and the success rate for people, even very well meaning responsible people trying to keep them as pets is pretty low. 

I'm not saying no one should be able to have exotic pets but I think most people find themselves in over their head, thinking if they get the animal young, hand raise them and treat them well they will never have any aggression issues and the animal will be very "pet-like". Unfortunately it doesn't always work that way and IME it seems it most commonly does not. Most of these animals are very easy as babies and adolescents but once they hit maturity, they do tend to get much more difficult to keep as pets...at least in the way most people think of a pet.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

Cindy - They're beautiful. =) 

CrimsonAccent - I'm a vegan and have been for a few years now but I've been doing some reading lately that has me considering adding a small number of animal products (most importantly fish oil) back into my diet. I should also probably note that I don't personally have a problem, in theory, with people eating animal products. I primarily take issue with how they are most often produced in practice. (I know a lot of vegans disagree with me on that.) The carnivores who live in my home, however, are most certainly _not_ on vegan or vegetarian diets. 

ETA:

Alerondogs - I think you're absolutely right. A coyote is not a dog. A coyote will never be a dog. And getting a coyote when what you want from the animal is doggy behavior is guaranteeing that you will be unhappy with your animal. It would be like getting a bunny when what you really want is a pet that will sit on your shoulder and say "Hello!" and "Pretty!" 

People need to do their homework and make sure they know what they are signing up for. They also need to be honest with themselves about their level of commitment and just what sorts of challenges they are willing to deal with in an animal. But honestly, I think the same should be true for getting a puppy. You should research the heck out of your breed rather than just saying, for example, "101 Dalmatians sure was a great cartoon. I should get one as a pet!" Additionally, responsible breeders should make darned sure their potential customers both understand _and really want_ what they are taking home before accepting a deposit.


----------



## CrimsonAccent (Feb 17, 2012)

I didn't read the original reply but maybe that's better  So what would be satisfactory treatment of a food animal for you to eat it, if that makes sense. Like, maybe a local farm that doesn't operate on a large scale? (Don't have sufficient knowledge of a typical food farm to give examples or talk on it so if anyone has accurate links I'll take them!)

Also I will probably bow out after this, because I'm taking this off topic.


----------



## JustDucky (Jun 19, 2013)

CrimsonAccent - I haven't really sat down and thought about where the line would have to be for me personally. So I guess the answer is that I don't know. But in more general terms, I am extremely impressed with a few ranches I have read about: they pasture raise their animals, field harvest them (read: shoot them in the head with a rifle from a distance), and then use a mobile slaughterhouse to process the animal on site. I think that's probably the most humane of all possible approaches. 

Additionally, there are ranches that are Animal Welfare Approved. It's a voluntary process and their standards are the strictest in the United States. It's pretty interesting if you have the time to read about it:

http://www.animalwelfareapproved.org/


----------

