How do we define an "exotic animals?"
The position of the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) on keeping native or exotic wild animals as pets is as follows:
“The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) opposes keeping any native or exotic wild animal species, or their hybrids as pets. Doing so may compromise animal welfare, pose unnecessary risks to human and other companion animal health and safety, and may adversely impact the ecosystem. Veterinarians also are discouraged from performing surgical procedures on these animals for the sole purpose of making the animal a safer companion.”22
The CVMA’s statement discusses how current regional legislation does not support the keeping of exotics pets that pose a danger to humans, the environment, or are difficult to manage in captivity due to special husbandry or psychological needs. As well, the position statement marks the necessity for a clearer distinction between a “non-traditional captive-born”22 animal and a “wild species.” The domestication of smaller, non-venomous reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals are a minimal hazard to human health and safety if responsible pet ownership, quarantine protocols, safety, and hygiene protocols are followed.
The concept of “exotic pet” shifts with evolving societal perspectives, thus it is a difficult term to define. The CVMA states that a “nontraditional species,” such as a tiger, is not acceptable as a pet, since it is a risk to public health, safety, and other animals, both in captivity and if it were to escape. Acquiring an animal from the wild, which the CVMA does not support, may also negatively impact the conservation of its conspecifics in the wild and/or the ecosystem. If the long-term health, welfare, and husbandry requirements of the animal are not able to be satisfied at all stages of its life, or there is no qualified veterinarian available locally for the animal, then the CVMA also does not support the acquiring of such a pet.
The CVMA statement distinguishes between the different groups of exotic animal species, such as large carnivores, non-human primates, and large venomous reptiles. Despite the captive-born propagation of these species in private ownership, the CVMA is adamant that they do not make good pets, and provide a host of reasons. While such creatures may acclimate to their owners and people, giving the impression of tameness or domesticity, they are still a potential health and safety risk. In order to thwart some of these risks, many owners subject their potentially “dangerous” pet, be they large carnivores or primates, to surgical procedures so they are easier to handle. This can include declawing, tooth blunting or extraction, neutering, or descenting. There is also the potential that their owners do not have access to the correct, even basic, education regarding the animal’s behaviour, care, housing, nutrition, and training, which can lead to improper care and a reduction of the animal’s welfare. The position statement also discusses the ethical predicament that occurs if an animal reaches maturity and can no longer be kept as a pet. Releasing an animal into the wild is not an option, as it may not be able to fend for itself, and it can also be a hazard to the ecosystem or nearby humans. Options for relinquishment are often limited, since wildlife sanctuaries tend to have limited resources or room for the animals, and accredited zoos are not typically able to adopt exotic pets. Thus, euthanasia is often the only option for unwanted exotic animals.
For these reasons, the CVMA is adamant in their position statement that they do not support the private ownership of exotic animals, since there is not sufficient regulation and enforcement to ensure the animals are properly cared for. This puts them at a greater risk of experiencing poorer welfare than other domesticated pets. To propose a new licensing and regulatory system that extracts the successful aspects of public institutions, such as the Toronto Zoo, and apply them to private ownership, has the potential of improving the welfare of captive exotic pets. Thus, those individuals who are determined and passionate enough to submit to the graded licensing system and educational modules to be outlined in the coming chapters are privileged own exotic pets.
The Five Freedoms The concept of “Five Freedoms” refers to an “animal’s primary welfare needs [which] can be met by safeguarding” the freedom from hunger and thirst, from discomfort, from pain, injury, or disease, to express normal behaviour, and from fear and distress.23 Developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, the Five Freedoms state that “the welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state and we consider that good animal welfare implies both fitness and a sense of well-being. Any animal kept by man, must at least, be protected from unnecessary suffering.”24 The welfare of animals at the Toronto Zoo is well managed because there is a strong commitment to maintaining a high standard of welfare for its inhabitants, thus it is beneficial to explore the ways in which the zoo satisfies the Five Freedoms. The animals experience freedom from hunger and thirst, and freedom from sickness, such that they receive highly nutritious and regimented diet plans that resemble as closely as possible what they would receive in the wild. The zoo accomplishes this through the use of Ethograms, which catalog the behaviours performed by an animal, such as how much time and they would spend foraging or hunting in the wild. Dr. Dave Barney, the director of wildlife at the Toronto Zoo states that the Ethograms aid the zoo’s goal in extending the consumatory and refractory time animals spend obtaining nutrition from their food in captivity.25 The zoo has developed a way of providing larger quantity, lower in calorie, meals so that the animal spends the same amount of time manipulating and consuming their food as they would in the wild. For example, a mountain gorilla spends almost half the day foraging and eating. If this time were reduced, because perhaps the zoo delivered the food to them ready for immediate consumption, then it would take significantly less time to eat and may lead to stereotypies or other negative behaviours that animals tend to perform if they are not stimulated. This is especially true of higher cognitive animals such as gorillas or chimpanzees, who have been known to experience boredom, leading them to the abnormal behaviour of regurgitating their food because they require an occupation.32 This also applies to the zoo’s ambition of providing animals the freedom to express healthy, natural behaviours, by satiating their behavioural needs with stimulating, interactive activities and toys, such as those in a primate’s enclosure. Finally, the Toronto Zoo addresses the freedom from discomfort and fear, especially with regards to the transportation of the animals in, and out of, the zoo. Dr. Barney25 explains that animals do not have a concept of tomorrow, or the future, and this applies to our responsibility to provide them freedom from pain and discomfort. When an animal is in a poor state of welfare, perhaps it is ill or being transported in a vehicle and experiencing fear and distress, it unable to conceptualize that with in time, the very low state of welfare it is experiencing will relieve itself, as it is often only temporary. Should an animal require medical attention in the future, the Toronto Zoo prepares by rewarding their animal’s with treats for receiving needles and pain to acclimate them to the process and feeling. Likewise, an animal in transit cannot understand how long it will be in the trailer or carrier, whether the ride is fifteen minutes or fifteen hours. The zoo trains the animals who will eventually need to be transported for months in advance. Elephants and giraffes are walked into and out of trailers and containments as practice, so that when the day arrives to be transported, they experience as minimal an amount of distress possible. These methods are only a snapshot of the extensive forethought that the Toronto Zoo performs in order to maximize the welfare of their animals, and is very much the reason for the zoo’s status as a world-class establishment.
From Zoo to Backyard A public institution such as the Toronto Zoo, which boasts their commitment to the Five Freedoms, sets an excellent example and framework for the potential legislation and regulation that should govern the private ownership of exotic animals. The zoo is also an incredible resource, with an extensive library of animal care that contains information on behaviour, housing, nutrition, and lifestyle requirements of every animal in the zoo. In contrast to the structure of private ownership, where if one were to purchase even a more common exotic pet such as a chameleon or capuchin monkey, there is virtually no consensus or scientifically peer-reviewed database of information for necessary parameters of care. Furthermore, most major pet stores do not provide extensive, if any, information on how to care for exotic pets, or else they provide a generalized instruction for the care of all reptiles, and neglect species-specific requirements. There are to many divergences in the methods of care for certain for such an absence of information to be available or easily accessible to the public. With a lack of educational resources for even the most ambitious pet owner, the fact that there is no overarching, provincial restriction on the ownership of exotics becomes a major welfare issue. It is a primary duty of responsible pet ownership to provide the best care possible and demonstrate an understanding of the animal’s needs. The Toronto Zoo, as with most other public institutions, has access to professionally researched and scientifically supported resources for the care and keeping of all the exotic species in their possession. Access to such a compendium of information should be made public, and be synthesized into the aforementioned AZA manuals of care. The dissemination of the knowledge and resources which the zoo self-authors and has access to is a powerful educational tool with the potential to greatly improve the livelihood of exotics in private captivity.
“The Canadian Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) opposes keeping any native or exotic wild animal species, or their hybrids as pets. Doing so may compromise animal welfare, pose unnecessary risks to human and other companion animal health and safety, and may adversely impact the ecosystem. Veterinarians also are discouraged from performing surgical procedures on these animals for the sole purpose of making the animal a safer companion.”22
The CVMA’s statement discusses how current regional legislation does not support the keeping of exotics pets that pose a danger to humans, the environment, or are difficult to manage in captivity due to special husbandry or psychological needs. As well, the position statement marks the necessity for a clearer distinction between a “non-traditional captive-born”22 animal and a “wild species.” The domestication of smaller, non-venomous reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, and mammals are a minimal hazard to human health and safety if responsible pet ownership, quarantine protocols, safety, and hygiene protocols are followed.
The concept of “exotic pet” shifts with evolving societal perspectives, thus it is a difficult term to define. The CVMA states that a “nontraditional species,” such as a tiger, is not acceptable as a pet, since it is a risk to public health, safety, and other animals, both in captivity and if it were to escape. Acquiring an animal from the wild, which the CVMA does not support, may also negatively impact the conservation of its conspecifics in the wild and/or the ecosystem. If the long-term health, welfare, and husbandry requirements of the animal are not able to be satisfied at all stages of its life, or there is no qualified veterinarian available locally for the animal, then the CVMA also does not support the acquiring of such a pet.
The CVMA statement distinguishes between the different groups of exotic animal species, such as large carnivores, non-human primates, and large venomous reptiles. Despite the captive-born propagation of these species in private ownership, the CVMA is adamant that they do not make good pets, and provide a host of reasons. While such creatures may acclimate to their owners and people, giving the impression of tameness or domesticity, they are still a potential health and safety risk. In order to thwart some of these risks, many owners subject their potentially “dangerous” pet, be they large carnivores or primates, to surgical procedures so they are easier to handle. This can include declawing, tooth blunting or extraction, neutering, or descenting. There is also the potential that their owners do not have access to the correct, even basic, education regarding the animal’s behaviour, care, housing, nutrition, and training, which can lead to improper care and a reduction of the animal’s welfare. The position statement also discusses the ethical predicament that occurs if an animal reaches maturity and can no longer be kept as a pet. Releasing an animal into the wild is not an option, as it may not be able to fend for itself, and it can also be a hazard to the ecosystem or nearby humans. Options for relinquishment are often limited, since wildlife sanctuaries tend to have limited resources or room for the animals, and accredited zoos are not typically able to adopt exotic pets. Thus, euthanasia is often the only option for unwanted exotic animals.
For these reasons, the CVMA is adamant in their position statement that they do not support the private ownership of exotic animals, since there is not sufficient regulation and enforcement to ensure the animals are properly cared for. This puts them at a greater risk of experiencing poorer welfare than other domesticated pets. To propose a new licensing and regulatory system that extracts the successful aspects of public institutions, such as the Toronto Zoo, and apply them to private ownership, has the potential of improving the welfare of captive exotic pets. Thus, those individuals who are determined and passionate enough to submit to the graded licensing system and educational modules to be outlined in the coming chapters are privileged own exotic pets.
The Five Freedoms The concept of “Five Freedoms” refers to an “animal’s primary welfare needs [which] can be met by safeguarding” the freedom from hunger and thirst, from discomfort, from pain, injury, or disease, to express normal behaviour, and from fear and distress.23 Developed by the Farm Animal Welfare Council, the Five Freedoms state that “the welfare of an animal includes its physical and mental state and we consider that good animal welfare implies both fitness and a sense of well-being. Any animal kept by man, must at least, be protected from unnecessary suffering.”24 The welfare of animals at the Toronto Zoo is well managed because there is a strong commitment to maintaining a high standard of welfare for its inhabitants, thus it is beneficial to explore the ways in which the zoo satisfies the Five Freedoms. The animals experience freedom from hunger and thirst, and freedom from sickness, such that they receive highly nutritious and regimented diet plans that resemble as closely as possible what they would receive in the wild. The zoo accomplishes this through the use of Ethograms, which catalog the behaviours performed by an animal, such as how much time and they would spend foraging or hunting in the wild. Dr. Dave Barney, the director of wildlife at the Toronto Zoo states that the Ethograms aid the zoo’s goal in extending the consumatory and refractory time animals spend obtaining nutrition from their food in captivity.25 The zoo has developed a way of providing larger quantity, lower in calorie, meals so that the animal spends the same amount of time manipulating and consuming their food as they would in the wild. For example, a mountain gorilla spends almost half the day foraging and eating. If this time were reduced, because perhaps the zoo delivered the food to them ready for immediate consumption, then it would take significantly less time to eat and may lead to stereotypies or other negative behaviours that animals tend to perform if they are not stimulated. This is especially true of higher cognitive animals such as gorillas or chimpanzees, who have been known to experience boredom, leading them to the abnormal behaviour of regurgitating their food because they require an occupation.32 This also applies to the zoo’s ambition of providing animals the freedom to express healthy, natural behaviours, by satiating their behavioural needs with stimulating, interactive activities and toys, such as those in a primate’s enclosure. Finally, the Toronto Zoo addresses the freedom from discomfort and fear, especially with regards to the transportation of the animals in, and out of, the zoo. Dr. Barney25 explains that animals do not have a concept of tomorrow, or the future, and this applies to our responsibility to provide them freedom from pain and discomfort. When an animal is in a poor state of welfare, perhaps it is ill or being transported in a vehicle and experiencing fear and distress, it unable to conceptualize that with in time, the very low state of welfare it is experiencing will relieve itself, as it is often only temporary. Should an animal require medical attention in the future, the Toronto Zoo prepares by rewarding their animal’s with treats for receiving needles and pain to acclimate them to the process and feeling. Likewise, an animal in transit cannot understand how long it will be in the trailer or carrier, whether the ride is fifteen minutes or fifteen hours. The zoo trains the animals who will eventually need to be transported for months in advance. Elephants and giraffes are walked into and out of trailers and containments as practice, so that when the day arrives to be transported, they experience as minimal an amount of distress possible. These methods are only a snapshot of the extensive forethought that the Toronto Zoo performs in order to maximize the welfare of their animals, and is very much the reason for the zoo’s status as a world-class establishment.
From Zoo to Backyard A public institution such as the Toronto Zoo, which boasts their commitment to the Five Freedoms, sets an excellent example and framework for the potential legislation and regulation that should govern the private ownership of exotic animals. The zoo is also an incredible resource, with an extensive library of animal care that contains information on behaviour, housing, nutrition, and lifestyle requirements of every animal in the zoo. In contrast to the structure of private ownership, where if one were to purchase even a more common exotic pet such as a chameleon or capuchin monkey, there is virtually no consensus or scientifically peer-reviewed database of information for necessary parameters of care. Furthermore, most major pet stores do not provide extensive, if any, information on how to care for exotic pets, or else they provide a generalized instruction for the care of all reptiles, and neglect species-specific requirements. There are to many divergences in the methods of care for certain for such an absence of information to be available or easily accessible to the public. With a lack of educational resources for even the most ambitious pet owner, the fact that there is no overarching, provincial restriction on the ownership of exotics becomes a major welfare issue. It is a primary duty of responsible pet ownership to provide the best care possible and demonstrate an understanding of the animal’s needs. The Toronto Zoo, as with most other public institutions, has access to professionally researched and scientifically supported resources for the care and keeping of all the exotic species in their possession. Access to such a compendium of information should be made public, and be synthesized into the aforementioned AZA manuals of care. The dissemination of the knowledge and resources which the zoo self-authors and has access to is a powerful educational tool with the potential to greatly improve the livelihood of exotics in private captivity.