predetory mammals? Hrmm.. Do you own a dog? or a cat?..That is technically a predetory mammal. I think the key words are "wack job" and I'm assumeing your refering to the less domestic breeds of predetory mammals and likely the larger ones such and lions and tigers and bears? I've seen personally privately owned species of predetory mammals that where in far greater care then zoo kept ones. And I've seen pictures of ill kept ones.. Mainly due to the fact is it is a majority of these animals are imported Illegally by our current laws. So tightening up the laws instead of enforceing the ones we already have and tweeeking whats already there would just be stupid?
A majority of people only see the bad, because in news. negativity sells. You don't see articles written about private owners who are dedicated to the care of their pets, or the species preservation.
And technically my horse is a large mammal, don't think he's carnivorous.. but you never know! And he could kill me just as surely as any lion or tiger could. And not any tom dick or harry knows enough to care for a horse either.
So where is the line drawn?
The young man stated a very viable and imo better plan then to just BAN everything.
I'de be interested in seeing a list of endangered species that where bred in captivity by private owners and later used to re-introduce/add genetics to wild populations, expand zooalogical collections. I know of a few, But that would be interesting to toss on the table.
Banning something is never the answer, and as our gun advocate stated.. Once the goverment gets control. There will be no control. I personally never owned a gun, and have no interest in owning one. But I DO belive it is a persons right to able to own one if they are appropriately ceritfied,registed, ect, ect .. And I feel the same way about any animal ownership.
Fluffy and fido are just as capable of killing someone as the neibors pet lion. And chances are his owner knows a whole lot more about what he owns then fluffy or fido's owners do. Not always, hence permits.
And quite simply with habitats decreasing at an alarming rate where should all of these animals go? If we ban ownership of carnivorous mammals. Where should we put all of these animals? Deforestation does more damage then the pet-trade collection, Black market "parts" do more damage to these animals then the pet-trade. How much money has gone into preserving our reefs so they can be harvested for the pet-trade? How much funds have been raised by private owners wanting to preserve their pets natural habitats? How many people who collect these animals for the trade feed and care for their familys on what they make? And want to preserve their habitats for not only thier children but their livelyhood?
I wonder if some people even stop and think about these things before getting out their torches and pitchforks.
Unfortunately there isn't some magical land where all the animals can go and be free in nature. The reality is most of these species have no viable option then to either be soaked into the pet-trade or become extinct. We can't control humna reproduction, and encroachment on natural lands. But we as hobbyists can give these animals a home.
Just because an animals does as nature intended it to do which is to survive,reproduce, and play it's part in nature. Does not give our Gov the right to Ban it's husbandry. I've seen Zoo animals in such conditions I've wanted to toss my cookies, and private ones as well.. and the extreme opposite of both. But I've also seen children kept in such horrible conditions as well, and the xtreme opposite of that.
I vote we Ban children!