Opposing Exotic Animal Bans

[web wheeler]

I would like to call attention to proposed changes in the British Columbia Wildlife Act that could have a very large impact on owners of pet fish, birds, reptiles, and other "exotic" pets in Canada.

If possible, I would like to post links to further information, and even links to a petition, to oppose proposed changes to the Provincial Laws of British Columbia.

Is this possible, and is this the best forum location to post in?


Best regards,
Web Wheeler, new member

Post approved by Admins
The legislation - http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/fw/wildlifeactreview/
The petition - http://aqua-terra-vita.com/ATVIIR/CATAL/catal.php

[Blathach]

Please contact Marko, the Admin, via private message or email at Marko (A t )pets (D o T)ca

Thank you.

[jiorji]

so then you're FOR owning exotic birds and monkeys and rare fish stolen from the Amazon and brought to a pet shop to live in a tank?!?!

or reptiles that could never live their full life potential outside their own habitat? Did you know some animals' lifespan gets severly reduced once they've been captured as "pets"?

please explain why you're opposing this law that could be a good thing.

it just shows that we need to draw a line when it comes to owning pets. Before it was dogs and cats, now it's exotic birds and some monkeys. Where do we draw the line? It could lead to people owning panthers and lions. Ok this isn't in Canada, but i saw a man using a lion cub as a tourist attraction in Europe. If that particular country had such laws you oppose, that wouldn't have happened. What good is it to own a lion?!?!

And you might think it's ridiculous because you're probably just referring to fish, but again i say...where do we draw the line ? where does it end if there's no limits set?
I've heard of people owning ant eaters. I find that ridiculous. Some animals should NOT be taken out of their natural habitat like that. Domestication should have a limit and this is what this law offers and if there is a petition FOR this law, then I am for it, not against.

[LavenderRott]

Originally Posted by jiorji

so then you're FOR owning exotic birds and monkeys and rare fish stolen from the Amazon and brought to a pet shop to live in a tank?!?!

or reptiles that could never live their full life potential outside their own habitat? Did you know some animals' lifespan gets severly reduced once they've been captured as "pets"?

please explain why you're opposing this law that could be a good thing.

it just shows that we need to draw a line when it comes to owning pets. Before it was dogs and cats, now it's exotic birds and some monkeys. Where do we draw the line? It could lead to people owning panthers and lions. Ok this isn't in Canada, but i saw a man using a lion cub as a tourist attraction in Europe. If that particular country had such laws you oppose, that wouldn't have happened. What good is it to own a lion?!?!

And you might think it's ridiculous because you're probably just referring to fish, but again i say...where do we draw the line ? where does it end if there's no limits set?
I've heard of people owning ant eaters. I find that ridiculous. Some animals should NOT be taken out of their natural habitat like that. Domestication should have a limit and this is what this law offers and if there is a petition FOR this law, then I am for it, not against.

On the other hand - what if you rescue a baby racoon or skunk? You vet it, take care of it and due to your care ( as well intended as it was) this animal is not able to be returned to the wild. Should you be able to keep it or should it be euthanized because it is an exotic pet?

Many exotic fish, birds and reptiles are readily bred in captivity and available at your local pet store. Cockatiels and most parrots could be considered exotic to some people. I have had raised quite a few birds - from finches to African Grey parrots - all born right here in Michigan.

IMHO - this is another one of those areas where education is probably better then laws. You can bet that people who want to import wild caught exotics will find a way to do it and the people who will get caught up in the enforcement of this law are people who try to do the right thing.

[Lise]

I agree with LavenderRott.If you are a responsible owner and able to give an exotic a good quality of life,there is no reason not to own a captivebred exotic.A lion or tiger in your backyard or a monkey in a cage obviously do not have a good quality of life,but many people who have exotics are extremely aware of their needs.There are at least five species of parrot who would have been lost due to habitat destruction if not for captive breeding by private individuals.The pet trade has definately caused a decline in some species,but the loss of habitat now poses a much greater threat to most now.

[MyBirdIsEvil]

I didn't really understand a lot of this myself (I think some of the language is a bit different than in the U.S), but it sounds like they want to regulate specifically based on species, no matter whether the animal was taken out of the wild or not.

That means even if the animal was captive bred, has never seen the wild, and is readily available without effecting wild stock it may not be legal to own?