My Proposed Legislation
The primary aim of this essay, to propose a new legislation and regulatory system for the private ownership of exotic pets in Ontario, is as follows:
· Any exotic animal available for private ownership by an Ontario resident must have a corresponding, government-recognized, official manual of care for that animal available for public utilization.
· The private ownership of approved exotic pets functions on a graduated licensing system, such that certain species are considered at different levels of ownership.
· All exotic animals for which there lacks a government-recognized manual of care are restricted from being possessed outside of an approved public institution.
· Any Ontario resident, who is interested in the private ownership of an exotic animal, must possess the license appropriate for that level of species. They must also possess a government-recognized, official manual of care for that animal, or risk violating the terms of their license.
For those individuals who are in possession of exotics, which do not have a corresponding official manual of care, prior to the enactment of this regulation, a Grandfather clause applies. They will have acquired rights to continue to keep that animal, though they are strongly recommended to contact the authority which mandates and produces the manual of care, so that those animals in possession, but yet to have a corresponding manual of care, can be prioritized in the drafting and publishing of these manuals.
The implementation of a graduated licensing system for Ontario residents who wish to acquire an exotic pet would function similar to the process of the graduated driver’s licensing process where certain levels come with appropriate freedoms and restrictions. It stands to reason that the licensing level would increase with an escalation in the complexity of care required and/or the level of danger posed by the exotic pet. The method of distinction for species into their respective levels are inspired from the CVMA’s position statement on captive exotics. Thus, the highest level of license would allow the ownership of large carnivores, non-human primates, and large venomous reptiles. Lower level licenses would cover those smaller, non-venomous reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, invertebrates, and mammals, which pose a minimal hazard to human health and safety. There are, however, many ambiguous concerns with segregating exotic pets into “dangerous” and “non-dangerous” categories, which would in turn require different licenses. For example, chameleons are not a physical threat to humans, however they pose a threat for zoonotic disease. Almost all reptiles that are kept as exotic pets have been found to carry salmonella, and in a 2004 report, reptile and amphibian exposure was associated with around 74,000 cases of salmonella in the United States (Mermen et al. 2004) 26. On the topic of zoonosis, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention published a paper on the threat of contracting the Herpes-B virus from pet macaque monkeys.26 It stated that the virus is highly prevalent at a rate of 80-90% in the adult macaques and can lead to fatal disease transferred through biting, of which children were over three times as likely to be bitten. The paper suggests that macaques may be unsuitable as pets, given this risk, though baboons and chimpanzees have tested positively as well.
From the potential peril presented by large carnivore to the zoonotic diseases carried by almost all captive reptiles and certain primates, it is no surprise the CVMA discourages the private ownership of wild animals. Outside of the physical danger associated with an exotic pet, there is a mental and behavioural concern that should also be considered when ranking certain species along their respective level of licensing, and that is their cognitive abilities. A 2007 paper by Bailey et al. states that, “there are similarities in structure and function in the cerebrum within class Mammalia and that nonhuman animals are capable of higher levels of learning than those typically studied by neuroscientists.”27 In a 2010 essay by Broom, he debates our obligation to animals with higher cognitive ability and awareness, “whether or not the animal is known as an individual, similarity to humans, level of awareness, extent of feelings, being large, being rare, being useful or having aesthetic quality for humans. Cognitive ability should also be considered when designing methods of enriching the environments of captive animals.”28 Despite their popularity as companions, non-human primates have been considered inappropriate for private ownership. Using complaint and inquiry data from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in 2008, Soulsbury et al. found strong evidence against the suitability of primates as pets, since “it is unlikely that the welfare of pet primates can be adequately addressed in normal households.”29 Whether or not primates should be allowed for private ownership, it is evident that the higher cognition and sentience of a non-human primate, should it be permitted, ranks along the highest level of license required for exotic pets.
A round table discussion in 2011 sought the opinions of veterinarians and experts on the topic of exotic pet ownership. On the question of which exotic pets should be allowed, most answered that small mammals such as rabbits and certain reptiles such as ball pythons and box turtles are able to be domesticated well, but caution that certain reptiles such as chameleons should be only kept by “more knowledgeable hobbyists.”30 There is emphasis placed on the need to educate owners about zoonotic disease, and one expert notes, “a cobra kept for observation only, by an individual experienced with handling venomous snakes, in a well-provided, secure enclosure, under the care of a venomous snake-experienced veterinarian, with access to unexpired anti-venom, may be an acceptable pet. But, most people are ill-equipped to properly house even a budgerigar, in many cases, let alone something more complex.”30 When asked whether potential owners should be pre-screened or require permits, most veterinarians responded that certainly large primate, carnivore, and reptile owners should be pre-screened, require permits, and be inspected at least yearly. However, others were skeptical about the success of such a program, since it would be difficult to decide on the parameters. However, all experts agree that there needs to be more public education for a better understanding of the animal’s requirements, costs, and long-term commitment.
The legislation proposed in this essay would amalgamate the concerns of these experts into a new system. The primary focus would be treating exotic animals in private ownership with the level of care and consideration as a public institution such as the Toronto Zoo, where each animal is seen as an on an individual basis with their own welfare. This graduated licensing system for private ownership would require extensive research and deliberation, however; it can be composed of four levels of ownership.
· Level 1: Easily domesticated small mammals, non-venomous reptiles and amphibians
· Level 2: More complex mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, or those that pose a potential human health risk due to zoonotic disease
· Level 3a: Large carnivores and large venomous reptiles
· Level 3b: Non-human primates
The level 3a and 3b are parallel, such that non-human primates and large carnivores, such as chimpanzees and tigers, pose similar physical dangers due to potential, unpredictable aggression. However, primates also possess a higher level of intelligence, and so would require a similar license that accounts for the unique psychological and behavioural requirements of such a species.
To accompany each licensing level would be an educational and assessment component. In order to receive a certain level of ownership license, one must posses and demonstrate knowledge of the appropriate manual of care for that animal, and be subject to a pre-screening that would ensure the time and financial commitment is viable for the potential owner. Applying for the ownership of a level two animal would require the same procedure, with the addition of an in-person training session and possible testing opportunities, especially since some reptiles or species falling under level two may be carriers for zoonotic disease. As well, an assessment of the potential owner’s finances and knowledge of the commitment of effort and time, especially long-term would also be beneficial. The license for a level three animal would require all previously mentioned parameters, with the addition of a more extensive background check and personal interview, much like one would endure if adopting a child. This way, since level three species are pricey to maintain, as they are large carnivores or omnivores, a certified professional interviewer may assess the potential owner’s financial situation and personal intentions with such an exotic companion. As well, there would be multiple, mandatory training classes and educational modules to ensure proper knowledge of the animal’s behavioural and physical needs, as well as risk management should anything go awry. In support of this reform, a 2003 paper by Nyhus et al., the rate and nature of privately owned tigers attacking their owners or other humans in the United States is explored. The research concluded that the dispute of private ownership of dangerous exotics “has broad implications for tiger and large-carnivore conservation, public health, and animal welfare,” and they support, “the regulation of private ownership of dangerous exotic animals, and encourage scientific analysis of this contentious issue.”31
Conclusion The current paradigm of animal ownership, which prioritizes the needs and wellbeing of the human over the animal, requires a total shift. The lack of Provincial legislation in Ontario governing the ownership of private exotic animals ultimately condones the irresponsible ownership of exotic pets. It does so through providing no code or standard of care, vague guidelines, and little enforcement for monitoring those animals that are restricted at a municipal level reflect the need for reformation. The proposed legislation would impose a graduated licensing system and accompanying educational and assessment components to ensure that exotic pet owners are responsible, well-educated, and with full knowledge of the commitment they make to providing the best possible care and welfare for their exotic companion.
· Any exotic animal available for private ownership by an Ontario resident must have a corresponding, government-recognized, official manual of care for that animal available for public utilization.
· The private ownership of approved exotic pets functions on a graduated licensing system, such that certain species are considered at different levels of ownership.
· All exotic animals for which there lacks a government-recognized manual of care are restricted from being possessed outside of an approved public institution.
· Any Ontario resident, who is interested in the private ownership of an exotic animal, must possess the license appropriate for that level of species. They must also possess a government-recognized, official manual of care for that animal, or risk violating the terms of their license.
For those individuals who are in possession of exotics, which do not have a corresponding official manual of care, prior to the enactment of this regulation, a Grandfather clause applies. They will have acquired rights to continue to keep that animal, though they are strongly recommended to contact the authority which mandates and produces the manual of care, so that those animals in possession, but yet to have a corresponding manual of care, can be prioritized in the drafting and publishing of these manuals.
The implementation of a graduated licensing system for Ontario residents who wish to acquire an exotic pet would function similar to the process of the graduated driver’s licensing process where certain levels come with appropriate freedoms and restrictions. It stands to reason that the licensing level would increase with an escalation in the complexity of care required and/or the level of danger posed by the exotic pet. The method of distinction for species into their respective levels are inspired from the CVMA’s position statement on captive exotics. Thus, the highest level of license would allow the ownership of large carnivores, non-human primates, and large venomous reptiles. Lower level licenses would cover those smaller, non-venomous reptiles, amphibians, fish, birds, invertebrates, and mammals, which pose a minimal hazard to human health and safety. There are, however, many ambiguous concerns with segregating exotic pets into “dangerous” and “non-dangerous” categories, which would in turn require different licenses. For example, chameleons are not a physical threat to humans, however they pose a threat for zoonotic disease. Almost all reptiles that are kept as exotic pets have been found to carry salmonella, and in a 2004 report, reptile and amphibian exposure was associated with around 74,000 cases of salmonella in the United States (Mermen et al. 2004) 26. On the topic of zoonosis, the Center for Disease Control and Prevention published a paper on the threat of contracting the Herpes-B virus from pet macaque monkeys.26 It stated that the virus is highly prevalent at a rate of 80-90% in the adult macaques and can lead to fatal disease transferred through biting, of which children were over three times as likely to be bitten. The paper suggests that macaques may be unsuitable as pets, given this risk, though baboons and chimpanzees have tested positively as well.
From the potential peril presented by large carnivore to the zoonotic diseases carried by almost all captive reptiles and certain primates, it is no surprise the CVMA discourages the private ownership of wild animals. Outside of the physical danger associated with an exotic pet, there is a mental and behavioural concern that should also be considered when ranking certain species along their respective level of licensing, and that is their cognitive abilities. A 2007 paper by Bailey et al. states that, “there are similarities in structure and function in the cerebrum within class Mammalia and that nonhuman animals are capable of higher levels of learning than those typically studied by neuroscientists.”27 In a 2010 essay by Broom, he debates our obligation to animals with higher cognitive ability and awareness, “whether or not the animal is known as an individual, similarity to humans, level of awareness, extent of feelings, being large, being rare, being useful or having aesthetic quality for humans. Cognitive ability should also be considered when designing methods of enriching the environments of captive animals.”28 Despite their popularity as companions, non-human primates have been considered inappropriate for private ownership. Using complaint and inquiry data from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, in 2008, Soulsbury et al. found strong evidence against the suitability of primates as pets, since “it is unlikely that the welfare of pet primates can be adequately addressed in normal households.”29 Whether or not primates should be allowed for private ownership, it is evident that the higher cognition and sentience of a non-human primate, should it be permitted, ranks along the highest level of license required for exotic pets.
A round table discussion in 2011 sought the opinions of veterinarians and experts on the topic of exotic pet ownership. On the question of which exotic pets should be allowed, most answered that small mammals such as rabbits and certain reptiles such as ball pythons and box turtles are able to be domesticated well, but caution that certain reptiles such as chameleons should be only kept by “more knowledgeable hobbyists.”30 There is emphasis placed on the need to educate owners about zoonotic disease, and one expert notes, “a cobra kept for observation only, by an individual experienced with handling venomous snakes, in a well-provided, secure enclosure, under the care of a venomous snake-experienced veterinarian, with access to unexpired anti-venom, may be an acceptable pet. But, most people are ill-equipped to properly house even a budgerigar, in many cases, let alone something more complex.”30 When asked whether potential owners should be pre-screened or require permits, most veterinarians responded that certainly large primate, carnivore, and reptile owners should be pre-screened, require permits, and be inspected at least yearly. However, others were skeptical about the success of such a program, since it would be difficult to decide on the parameters. However, all experts agree that there needs to be more public education for a better understanding of the animal’s requirements, costs, and long-term commitment.
The legislation proposed in this essay would amalgamate the concerns of these experts into a new system. The primary focus would be treating exotic animals in private ownership with the level of care and consideration as a public institution such as the Toronto Zoo, where each animal is seen as an on an individual basis with their own welfare. This graduated licensing system for private ownership would require extensive research and deliberation, however; it can be composed of four levels of ownership.
· Level 1: Easily domesticated small mammals, non-venomous reptiles and amphibians
· Level 2: More complex mammals, reptiles, and amphibians, or those that pose a potential human health risk due to zoonotic disease
· Level 3a: Large carnivores and large venomous reptiles
· Level 3b: Non-human primates
The level 3a and 3b are parallel, such that non-human primates and large carnivores, such as chimpanzees and tigers, pose similar physical dangers due to potential, unpredictable aggression. However, primates also possess a higher level of intelligence, and so would require a similar license that accounts for the unique psychological and behavioural requirements of such a species.
To accompany each licensing level would be an educational and assessment component. In order to receive a certain level of ownership license, one must posses and demonstrate knowledge of the appropriate manual of care for that animal, and be subject to a pre-screening that would ensure the time and financial commitment is viable for the potential owner. Applying for the ownership of a level two animal would require the same procedure, with the addition of an in-person training session and possible testing opportunities, especially since some reptiles or species falling under level two may be carriers for zoonotic disease. As well, an assessment of the potential owner’s finances and knowledge of the commitment of effort and time, especially long-term would also be beneficial. The license for a level three animal would require all previously mentioned parameters, with the addition of a more extensive background check and personal interview, much like one would endure if adopting a child. This way, since level three species are pricey to maintain, as they are large carnivores or omnivores, a certified professional interviewer may assess the potential owner’s financial situation and personal intentions with such an exotic companion. As well, there would be multiple, mandatory training classes and educational modules to ensure proper knowledge of the animal’s behavioural and physical needs, as well as risk management should anything go awry. In support of this reform, a 2003 paper by Nyhus et al., the rate and nature of privately owned tigers attacking their owners or other humans in the United States is explored. The research concluded that the dispute of private ownership of dangerous exotics “has broad implications for tiger and large-carnivore conservation, public health, and animal welfare,” and they support, “the regulation of private ownership of dangerous exotic animals, and encourage scientific analysis of this contentious issue.”31
Conclusion The current paradigm of animal ownership, which prioritizes the needs and wellbeing of the human over the animal, requires a total shift. The lack of Provincial legislation in Ontario governing the ownership of private exotic animals ultimately condones the irresponsible ownership of exotic pets. It does so through providing no code or standard of care, vague guidelines, and little enforcement for monitoring those animals that are restricted at a municipal level reflect the need for reformation. The proposed legislation would impose a graduated licensing system and accompanying educational and assessment components to ensure that exotic pet owners are responsible, well-educated, and with full knowledge of the commitment they make to providing the best possible care and welfare for their exotic companion.