- Joined
- May 6, 2017
- Messages
- 20
- Reaction score
- 0
I know it is looked down upon to keep wild animals like opossums as pets, but is it ok if the animal can't be released in the wild?
If not what do you do with it
If not what do you do with it
This is highly dependent on the individual animal and life history of the species, and there are a lot of grey areas with this.I know it is looked down upon to keep wild animals like opossums as pets, but is it ok if the animal can't be released in the wild?
If not what do you do with it
A decent number of non-releasable eagles who aren't euthanized probably should be (my opinion). It can take years upon years just to get their stress level under control. We've had an eagle for 2ish years now and she still cannot cope with, well, anything. Like, you still can't walk too close to her flight cage. Downside of the government controlling what happens to every single rehabbed eagle.If a wild animal cannot function in the wild, in my opinion the most humane thing to do is euthanize. This of course would be done at the discretion of a veterinarian or wildlife rehabilitator. If I found an injured animal I would immediately bring it there.
The amount of stress on the animal for the process of "taming" it (to whatever extent you can actually get) is in my opinion not fair to the animal.
The only exception is for animals that could serve useful in public education. For example an eagle that will never be releasable going to a raptor centre so the public can learn about the birds. Since keeping a possum as a personal pet is not beneficial for public education, would be stressful to that animal, and would pose a potential health risk to you, I would not support it.
Of course this is all just my opinion though. You could counter me pretty well by bringing up feral cats
This is highly dependent on the individual animal and life history of the species, and there are a lot of grey areas with this.
I agree with what fern said in that if you have to work to tame the animal, then it's probably not in the best interest of the animal. However, many animals become tame or at least more amenable to being worked with when they have spent extended periods in captivity (only to be deemed unreleasable for whatever reason). At our clinic, depending on the species, we may contact different places around the country to see if they have space for a non-releasable red tailed hawk, owl, whatever. Birds are typically easier to place than a mammal.
If you cannot find a place interested in the animal, most reputable rehab places will euthanize since they know it's illegal to send it home with a volunteer (for example).
I personally have two pets, a rabbit and box turtle, that came from wildlife clinics I was at. Both were far too friendly with people (both possibly dumped pets, it's impossible to know). A little different than trying to take an opossum home, but both are still native wildlife species.
A decent number of non-releasable eagles who aren't euthanized probably should be (my opinion). It can take years upon years just to get their stress level under control. We've had an eagle for 2ish years now and she still cannot cope with, well, anything. Like, you still can't walk too close to her flight cage. Downside of the government controlling what happens to every single rehabbed eagle.
Uh...did you read my post at all?I personally believe that just because you could tame them into a pet doesn't mean you should. It sets a bad precedent that at least in my area wildlife groups are working very hard against. (Eg that DoDo video with a raccoon that someone rescued and turned into a house pet that became viral) There was a particular incident I am familiar with that led to a social media firestorm and a large loss of community funding, all due to a wild animal being turned into a pet and the public supporting that individual. I'm happy to go more into that in PM but it isn't appropriate for me to disclose the exact scenario here in public. Puppy I know we've had some good debates about this sort of thing in the past so if you want to open up one in PM I would be happy to do so
Turtles and rabbits are both species that are commonly kept as companion animals, and for that I can side with the grey area of them being pets. But animals that are viewed as wild only have no place in a private home, even if they handle it well themselves I do believe it has a negative effect on the value people place on the term "wild".
I just used eagles since they are a species useful for education and commonly sent to educational facilities. You make a very good point about the welfare of the individual birds, which opens up an opportunity for some lovely debate on which species are appropriate for long-term life in captivity.
I personally believe that just because you could tame them into a pet doesn't mean you should. It sets a bad precedent that at least in my area wildlife groups are working very hard against. (Eg that DoDo video with a raccoon that someone rescued and turned into a house pet that became viral) There was a particular incident I am familiar with that led to a social media firestorm and a large loss of community funding, all due to a wild animal being turned into a pet and the public supporting that individual. I'm happy to go more into that in PM but it isn't appropriate for me to disclose the exact scenario here in public. Puppy I know we've had some good debates about this sort of thing in the past so if you want to open up one in PM I would be happy to do so
Turtles and rabbits are both species that are commonly kept as companion animals, and for that I can side with the grey area of them being pets. But animals that are viewed as wild only have no place in a private home, even if they handle it well themselves I do believe it has a negative effect on the value people place on the term "wild".
I just used eagles since they are a species useful for education and commonly sent to educational facilities. You make a very good point about the welfare of the individual birds, which opens up an opportunity for some lovely debate on which species are appropriate for long-term life in captivity.
I personally believe that just because you could tame them into a pet doesn't mean you should. It sets a bad precedent that at least in my area wildlife groups are working very hard against. (Eg that DoDo video with a raccoon that someone rescued and turned into a house pet that became viral) There was a particular incident I am familiar with that led to a social media firestorm and a large loss of community funding, all due to a wild animal being turned into a pet and the public supporting that individual. I'm happy to go more into that in PM but it isn't appropriate for me to disclose the exact scenario here in public. Puppy I know we've had some good debates about this sort of thing in the past so if you want to open up one in PM I would be happy to do so
Turtles and rabbits are both species that are commonly kept as companion animals, and for that I can side with the grey area of them being pets. But animals that are viewed as wild only have no place in a private home, even if they handle it well themselves I do believe it has a negative effect on the value people place on the term "wild".
I just used eagles since they are a species useful for education and commonly sent to educational facilities. You make a very good point about the welfare of the individual birds, which opens up an opportunity for some lovely debate on which species are appropriate for long-term life in captivity.
However, if they go about it legally and the animal receives proper care, what are we complaining about? 'But the animal belongs in the wild!" they cry. Well, vegetarians/vegans may say the same thing about food animals more or less, so there's that.
All of these animals are viewed as wild somewhere in the world, many of them are not completely tame but have never been wild a day in their life.
As in, there's always going to be someone who thinks they can determine whether or not an animal is in a good situation welfare-wise based off of these viral videos we were talking about. If the animal is legally owned, why are people screaming about abuse/the person is horrible/whatever? They say the same bullcrap about food animals, and many of us aren't sitting here questioning their mental state. Sure, they're domesticated, but are they 'happy?'Not sure what you mean by "so there's that" - I think we can all agree a wild, non-domesticated species brought in injured is a far cry from a long-domesticated food producing species. I think there are similarities - a lot of beef cattle out on pasture most of their lives are pretty terrified of people, for example - but I'm pretty sure none of us agree with that particular argument as a reason for not eating meat or keeping wild animals as pets. I don't think the physical welfare of an animal is all to consider, as you alluded to in your story about a particular eagle; in a wild animal of a non-domesticated species, I think there is the very real possibility that despite receiving food, water, shelter and medical care, that animal is NOT in a good mental state and may never be.
Sure. But I'd estimate a huge percentage of wildlife seen through wildlife rehab centers are actually wild and have been every day of their life until that point...
My turtle is pretty social, but I think he's an outlier. He regularly seeks attention from my cats and actually headbutts them to get them to curl up around him. He also does really seem to know when it's me vs. someone else taking care of him when I'm gone. Whether or not these things happen to be flukes that happen consistently, idk.As an aside, turtles and rabbits are very different. Domesticated rabbit breeds are perfectly fine as companion animals - they are basically stupid cats. Now, non-social animals like turtles and reptiles are most certainly not domesticated at all - and I say this as a snake owner (and as a former rabbit owner as well). My relationship with my snake is one of mutual curiosity; I'm under no impression that he is a companion animal.
As in, there's always going to be someone who thinks they can determine whether or not an animal is in a good situation welfare-wise based off of these viral videos we were talking about. If the animal is legally owned, why are people screaming about abuse/the person is horrible/whatever? They say the same bullcrap about food animals, and many of us aren't sitting here questioning their mental state. Sure, they're domesticated, but are they 'happy?'
Also, an orphaned animal hand raised isn't going to be wild, which is what the main point was given the situation fern talked about. I mean, there are people who think dogs/cats shouldn't be kept as pets either. You can almost always argue both sides of the coin. When an animal shows no signs of distress (feather picking/self mutilation, anorexia, etc.), we can only hope that points to tolerance (at the very least). If the animal is actively seeking out its person, is it really that miserable under their ownership? Hypothetical question, because no one on this planet can possibly know for sure.
There are some ongoing studies looking at more objective parameters to assess stress in wildlife, but I don't know where those projects stand.
My turtle is pretty social, but I think he's an outlier. He regularly seeks attention from my cats and actually headbutts them to get them to curl up around him. He also does really seem to know when it's me vs. someone else taking care of him when I'm gone. Whether or not these things happen to be flukes that happen consistently, idk.
This is actually not very true despite it commonly being said.How about the fact it's illegal. At least in most places, it's illegal to keep native wildlife unless you are licensed as a rehabber.
Hmm. Is this absolutely complete? Because I'm fairly certain that there are native wildlife species that are illegal to own here. It was discussed in the exotics clinic at school.This is actually not very true despite it commonly being said.
Most state laws only specify bans on animals like native/exotic venomous reptiles, bears, big cats, and large canids or "inherently dangerous" species. A few states have no restrictions at all.. Most other native species (opossums, squirrels, raptors, etc.) aren't covered. A few states specify raccoons as either being illegal or requiring a permit. Actually, relatively few states actually outright say anything about native wildlife species in these laws other than bears/wolves/alligators/big cats. I had to sift through all of these laws a few months ago for a project, fun times.
You also do not really need a rehabber permit specifically. If a state requires a permit, you can apply for a permit just to own the animal (if required by your state). Most people are given the permit. If you are in a state where you need a permit and don't have one, they likely still wouldn't even confiscate the animal tbh. If it's not posing a threat to the public, getting loose and running around a neighborhood, whatever, no one is going to bother.
Fun fact, but in Alabama, it's illegal to have a raccoon but completely legal to have a lion (with no permit, might I add).
Summary of State Laws Relating to Private Possession of Exotic Animals is a decent source, their summary descriptions of the laws for each state are accurate.
ETA: Also want to mention that nearly any of the wildlife laws can be surpassed with a loophole. Maybe you can't have a raccoon as a pet, but you can harbor a raccoon with the intent to breed it for game/fur or harvest its fur (and with a trapping/fur license) in the state of Illinois. People get clever with this stuff, some people even go as far as hiring lawyers to interpret the laws and find them loopholes so they can get these animals.
It does say it is just a summary, but you can easily look up more stuff for your individual state to be extra sure.Hmm. Is this absolutely complete? Because I'm fairly certain that there are native wildlife species that are illegal to own here. It was discussed in the exotics clinic at school.
Maybe that's a county law or something.
Also, an orphaned animal hand raised isn't going to be wild, which is what the main point was given the situation fern talked about.
Domestication occurs over many generations and essentially creates a new species depending on who you ask. I don't know that true domestication of an animal has happened in a while (like in the sense that we domesticated wolves and created the dog kind of thing)? There is a fox population in Russia that has been more or less domesticated for research, though.I'm sure this is opening a whole other can of worms, but how do people feel about the purpose domestication of animals that are currently wild? Or breeding domesticated animals with wild animals?
I just don't understand WHY someone would want to have a wolf dog. Or a pet fox or raccoon. But then again, I don't see anything wrong with other types of pets, so I'm not sure. Thoughts?
Also, it's interesting eagles were mentioned as animals that can have issues in captivity. I worked at a nature's center with a golden eagle who genuinely liked people and was the calmest raptor we had. I didn't know this was uncommon. But, the barn owl on the other hand... he was intense lol
I've seen foxes mentioned as animals that have been domesticated somewhat recently. But most people claim they are not as tame as domesticated cats or dogs. And yet they couldn't survive in the wild. I honestly have no clue if they are considered domesticated but I thought they were. And I just don't get the draw.Domestication occurs over many generations and essentially creates a new species depending on who you ask. I don't know that true domestication of an animal has happened in a while (like in the sense that we domesticated wolves and created the dog kind of thing)? There is a fox population in Russia that has been more or less domesticated for research, though.
I know a few people who have wolf hybrids and for some people it's almost like a cult. Like, people who join a breed enthusiast group, but x100. There seems to be a certain type of person drawn to wolf hybrids, but that's just my anecdotal/judgy opinion. I don't really know what the draw is either. Some just end up looking like beefy huskies and they are considered 'inherently dangerous' in a lot of states. One of the people I know actually moved out of state so she could get a pair of hybrids. Guess it was really important to her. I understand the draw to own a 'cool' animal, but idk.
Eagles as a symbol for the US has always been ironic to me. Sure, they look impressive, but they cannot handle a damn thing in many cases. Some can, but they're just notoriously stressy/diva patients. I imagine the facility you have makes a difference too, as well as the reason for why the bird can't be released/how long its been captive. I've never worked with goldens, maybe it's a species difference?
Golden Eagles have frequently been domesticated and supposedly have a pretty good temperament for working and training as opposed to some other birds of prey. I know there are a few tribes here in America that hunt with birds too, but I can't find the link to be sure of what kind.Also, it's interesting eagles were mentioned as animals that can have issues in captivity. I worked at a nature's center with a golden eagle who genuinely liked people and was the calmest raptor we had. I didn't know this was uncommon. But, the barn owl on the other hand... he was intense lol
My snake is abnormally social as well (he loves being scratched under the chin for example), but you're right, they're very much outliers.