Keeping wild animals as pets increases the risk of disease and accidents for their keepers and the people around them, and causes suffering for the animals by not providing them with a suitable environment. For human and animal safety, there is a growing need for legislation to prohibit the keeping of wild animals as pets.
Not long ago, the animals that were considered pets were mainly dogs and cats, but with the recent exotic pet craze, it’s hard not to be surprised at the diversity of animals that are being kept as pets. In Korea, reptiles such as chameleons and snakes, monkeys, and tarantulas are still relatively limited. However, in other countries, wild animals such as bears, wolves, and tigers are kept as pets, which is questionable. In October 2011, a shocking incident occurred in the suburb of Zanesville, Ohio, in the United States. A man named Terry Thomson committed suicide after releasing more than 50 wild animals from their cages. Police were unable to capture the animals alive and had to shoot them for the safety of the residents. This incident highlighted the problem of wild animals being used as pets. Wild animals are animals that were not originally bred by humans and are born and raised in the wild. This incident made me realize that keeping wild animals as pets is obviously harmful to both the owners and the wild animals. I also felt the need to legally prohibit keeping wild animals as pets. In this article, I will discuss the need for such a legal regulation from two perspectives: human and wild animal.
First, I think it is necessary to regulate wild animals as pets for safety reasons, as they are more susceptible to disease and accidents. Pets that come from the wild lose their habits and become docile over time, but you never know when they will reappear. This means that humans are exposed to potential danger. An expert from the Humane Society of the United States says that wildlife-related incidents are underreported, making it difficult to get accurate statistics, but when you factor in diseases caused by contact with wildlife, the number is likely to be significant. Opponents of legal regulation will argue that it’s a matter of personal choice, and that legal regulation infringes on people’s right to choose whether they want to take the risks associated with owning wildlife. But when I think of the 4-year-old child who was bitten on the nose by her aunt’s cougar or the woman whose face was severely disfigured after being attacked by a friend’s chimpanzee, I want to ask why they had to be exposed to these risks, because they have a right to be safe. The true meaning of choice includes responsibility for that choice, and I question how they can be responsible for their already ruined lives. If we consider the risk of accidents and diseases that can happen not only to the keepers, but also to bystanders who have done nothing wrong, prioritizing safety over choice would be a better solution.
In addition, there is a need for legal regulation, as keeping wild animals can worsen relationships with neighbors. While owning a pet can be a happy process for a breeder as they interact with the animal, owning a wild animal can cause friction with neighbors as mentioned earlier. This means that the happiness you feel can cause inconvenience to your neighbors. This is illustrated by the fact that Terry Thomson had many arguments with his neighbors over his wildlife. Police believe that his release of the animals from their cages shortly before his suicide may have been in retaliation for the conflict with his neighbors. If keeping wild animals as pets had been legally prohibited, the relationship between neighbors would not have deteriorated and the animals would not have been killed in such a senseless manner. Humans are social animals and live in relationships with others. Law, as a social institution, is an important tool to minimize these conflicts.
From a wildlife perspective, legal regulation is necessary because the environments provided by captive breeders are not suitable for them. No matter how much we try to create an environment that resembles their natural habitat, it falls far short of what they would have had in the wild. Most breeders only provide small tanks or enclosures. How many keepers can confidently say that their wild animals are living a truly fulfilling life in these environments? If they were being kept because they wanted to be, they might be able to live with it, but living in a confined space is not the life they wanted. Living freely in the wild is where they should be, and where they want to be. In terms of animal ethics, wild animals have the same right to live a happy life as humans. Wild animals are still being sacrificed in small spaces today because of human selfishness.
In addition, there is a need for legal regulation because keeping them in captivity doesn’t protect them, it degrades their nature. Many people who keep wild animals say they started out to protect endangered species. This motivation is certainly laudable. However, wild animals that have been raised by humans can no longer retain their natural wildness. This puts them at greater risk. Some people may think that there is nothing wrong with keeping wild animals until they die, even if they lose their nature. However, it’s not realistic to keep wild animals forever. Eventually, they will either become unmanageable or have to be released back into the wild. The problem is, even if they return to the wild, they’ve gotten used to an environment where they can’t find food for themselves. They have nowhere to go. If we really want to protect endangered wildlife, the most important place to start is by protecting the nature they live in.
