The Controversial Topic of Owning Exotic Creatures as Personal Pets

Humanity has always had a particular relation with what is viewed as ‘exotic’; from the time frame where anglo-saxons maintained zoos for individuals of dark skin to the period of the 1800s, where elephants were highly desired as personal pets, kept for pleasure, there has been the controversial topic of whether the action of obtaining such “objects” is immoral or just, for either owner or victim. Although the action of owning an exotic animal is appealing, there are multiple negative factors that are introduced as the population is able to own these exotic creatures; from, negligence to the dangers of extinction, the negative consequences of owning exotic animals enforce the fact that there should be a ban on the private ownership of exotic species, as they are indeed not pets.

Due to the easy access of obtaining such exotic creatures, there is a cycle of abuse that the animal must endure when the owner finds that they do not have the ability or the resources to take care of them. The first passage, “Ban Ownership of Exotic Pets,” introduces the fact that big cats, like the Bengal tigers, are “relatively inexpensive to obtain,” which is then expanded within the second passage, ‘License the Cats,” which states that these exotic animals from foreign lands are sold at the same price as “thoroughbred dog[s].” Due to this easy availability, the “man’s innate fallibility” leads to their inability to take responsibility of a wild animal, which is supported in the second passage as the reader is told that often at times, these animals “end up with people not fully prepared for the responsibility this kind of pet entails.” While these new owners, don’t want to , they often “becomes, in effect, an abuser,” due to their incapability to “devote the time and resources necessary to attend to the animal” or their inability to have a standard living space, leading to the “diminish[ment] of the quality of [the animal’s] life.” Often times, because of this realization, the owner then, attempts to sell their cat, “getting rid of their [exotic pet],” but these zoos typically don’t want or need more tigers because they already have their quota for the exotic cat filled. Those for the private ownership of exotic animals may state that in some areas, “it is possible for exotic cats to live well” and that “some wealthy individuals devote large tracts of land” to the resources of owning such exotic animals; however, the fact that these individuals are the exception as only “some owners’ are able to and because “it is possible” for large cats to thrive, illustrates the fact that most of these exotic animals end up in a home of negligence, thus emphasizing the fact that there should not be a license for individuals to own exotic pets.

Many times, these exotic creatures are close to possible extinction as there is a larger number of individuals buying and abusing these species then there is of the animals living in their natural habitat. For example, the native home of the Bengal tiger, India contains only “2,000 Bengals, or 5% of what it supported a hundred years ago” while in the United States, with the exception of zoos, there are approximately “12,000 privately owned Bengals.” This stark contrast in numbers represent the low population of the Bengals in their natural habitat due to “loss of habitat, hunting,and trading on… the black market,” while there are multiple individuals like Mike Tyson, who own three Royal Bengals. Those who are in agreement with the personal licensing of these animals may state that the problem is not as serious as it “appears on its surface;” however, just because it seems that the population of tigers in India “is not the end of the matter,” there is a “dangerously low” population of Bengals in their habitat with an increasing amount of privately owned Bengals. This itself could disrupt the ecosystem as the population of the Bengal tiger could go extinct, leading only to the reliance on breeding and private ownership, which already consists of abuse and negligence. Due to this fact, the ban on private ownership of these large cats could allow them to “roam at will in in wild places” instead of “find[ing] its way to the head of an endangered species list,” proving that there should indeed, not be a license on the ownership of these exotic animals.

Many of those who are in the support of owning these exotic animals privately state that to solve these problems that the animals are facing is to incorporate stricter licensing as the “problem lies in licensing.” They state that to limit the availability of purchasing exotic animals like the Bengal, there should be a costly process with “rigorous screening beforehand and a substantial licensing fee,” which would also entail that these beasts would be able to live on and ensure that they do “not become extinct.” However, even with these testings and fees, there will still be loopholes for these animals to become abused; not only is there still the possibility for negligence, but there is also the fact that the animals, like the Bengals, are still able to go extinct in their native country, only able to rely on the risks of being owned privately. With an outright ban, there is the protection of the animal from negligence and extinction, as well as the owner from “problem cats” who “may have harmed or frightened’ individuals. With already nineteen of the fifty states banning these animals, it shows that the fear individuals have of having their freedoms “threatened,” is not the case as these individuals understand that there is a line drawn between “needs and desires of the individual and the welfare of the larger community.” Because of this, it shows that, instead of licensing the owner, which could seem “oppressive and expensive”, there should be an outright ban, which “people… do not feel that their freedoms have been threatened,” stopping the private ownership of exotic animals.

While the issue of owning exotic animals such as the Bengal tiger remains controversial to this day, there is the fact throughout human history, the ownership of such animals leads to a multiple of negative consequences that could disrupt both the lives of the owner as well as the animal. With the issue of this topic, the multiple points of both the pros and the cons must be addressed, but ultimately, there should be the ban on private ownerships of animals as there is a line between what is a need and what is a desire. With the desire of owning such an animal, there could be harm to multiple parties, ensuring the fact that the private ownership of such exotic animals should not be recognized.