Keeping Dangerous Animals As Pets

United States
July 3, 2012 5:45pm CST
This seems to be quite a problem recently, and it sounds like it is just getting worse. People keep poisonous snakes, spiders, lizards, large cats (like cougars, for example), bears and other animals not normally thought of as "domestic animals" as pets, and then something happens and someone gets hurt. Sometimes it is someone in the household, but other times these animals get loose and hurt some unsuspecting person. Even worse, some people realize that they are in danger and can no longer take care of the pet, so they just release it into the wild rather than try to find someone knowledgeable and capable to take the animal. What do you think of this issue? Should people be allowed to keep venomous and/or dangerous animals as pets? If so, then should they have to have some kind of training ... perhaps pass a safety course and be certified ... before they are allowed to have them? Does it matter whether or not the animal is native to the area? I mean, if cougars are native should someone be allowed to have one as a pet just because it is native to the area? Does it make them any less dangerous or perhaps more dangerous as they get used to people and would be more dangerous if they managed to get loose?
26 people like this
40 responses
@GardenGerty (157027)
• United States
5 Jul 12
This has always been a problem. Wild animals are not pets. It is scary to think of what people put their neighbors and family through to raise an exotic animal. I think they need to be registered, just as dogs are. Especially snakes and exotic lizards, turtles and insects.
@GardenGerty (157027)
• United States
6 Jul 12
This is only a generalization, but people are more cautious about snakes and other reptiles and bugs, but if an animal has fur they are going to try to treat it like a stuffed toy, although it is not. People who really want to be kind to animals do not try to raise them especially not in the city.
5 people like this
@GardenGerty (157027)
• United States
7 Jul 12
People also think their goldfish love them. Luckily they can do not damage.
3 people like this
• United States
7 Jul 12
I think you have a point about the "furry animal syndrome" ... well, that is what I am going to call it anyway. I agree that people do want to treat furry animals like stuffed toys. They do it with the larger animals like bears and cougars, the medium animals like bobcats (who are actually extremely dangerous but people tend to underestimate them based on their size and relative similarity to large house cats), and small animals like squirrels and raccoons. While any individual animal of one of these species could be a wonderful and loving pet, especially if it has been rescued as a baby like some of them are, overall these animals are dangerous ... yes, even the small squirrels and raccoons are dangerous ... and people should not try to bring them into their homes and try to make them family pets. Of course, that is just my opinion, but I really think that people should do a lot more research and put a lot more thought into these things before they act. The thing that surprises me, though, is that some people have convinced themselves that they have a "bond" with their reptiles as well. I know people that think that their snakes have formed an emotional attachment to them, recognize them, care about them, etc. Then, they are surprised when the snake or other reptile acts on its natural instinct and bites them or tries to strangle them, etc. I am not a reptile expert, but from all that I have seen and read, reptiles do not form emotional attachments ... most not even with their offspring ... so why would a person think that they would be an exception?
7 people like this
@topffer (42156)
• France
4 Jul 12
I think people should stuck to classic pets like cats and dogs. When they buy a dangerous animal, often illegally, people don't realize that it will grow and will become cumbersome someday. A few years ago, somebody released a cougar in a public forest not far from here. Despite of various beats, it has not been captured, but as it was seen times to times, the forest has been forbidden to the public during two years. Some animals does not seem dangerous, but they can be. Let's take the example of turtles. When I was a kid I had a land European turtle. The species was endangered in nature, and its sale has been forbidden in 1985. It has been replaced in pet shops by a water turtle coming from your country, the Florida turtle : the sale of this one has been forbidden in 1994, not because it is endangered, but because it is -- among other things -- endangering our local fauna. A Florida turtle grows quickly and can bite a child : people have put stupidly their "too big to keep at home" Florida turtle in rivers, and they are eating everything, from birds eggs to fishes and snails. In fact you can see them everywhere in my area, sunbathing in ponds or rivers where they live in groups, are reproducing well and have no predators. I think that we should not keep wild animals as pets, even if they seem harmless.
6 people like this
• United States
4 Jul 12
I definitely think that many people do not think it through and realize what the long-term implications might be when they decide to get a dangerous animal as a pet not only in terms of the animal itself but also in terms of how their circumstances may change over time, such as having a baby in the house or having to move, etc. When they are faced with these issues, I think that some people panic and make the wrong choice by releasing the animal into the wild, even though they might think they are doing the "right thing", because once again they do not think through the long-term consequences of their decision. You have brought up a great example of non-native species being released into the wild and having adverse effects on the ecosystem, even if the animal is not really considered a "dangerous" species. That is also a very real problem in many countries, and the governments have even done this and caused some of these problems themselves. I actually think that I might do a separate discussion on that issue, because it is a good topic for discussion in itself.
2 people like this
• United States
5 Jul 12
Yeah, I have seen shows on this sort of thing ... the government imports a non-native animal into a region to target a certain issue, and the animal ends up creating more of a problem than the original issue that it was meant to solve. I think that governments should definitely do long-term studies on these things before implementing these plans, especially since they are ultimately the ones that are supposed to be responsible for the health, safety and well-being of the people in the area, but it seems they are no more responsible than the pet owners that do not think about the consequences before getting a dangerous pet.
2 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
26 Oct 15
I agree people should not have these animals as pets.
2 people like this
@lampar (7584)
• United States
4 Jul 12
If these dangerous animal ownership rights is not available to these freaks people, they will have hard time coming out with method to hurt other people, where in the world can you devise a better plan that can cause public panic; endanger public safety and place everyone's life in a community in jeopardy after set free a dangerous pet from his home, a running loose venomuos snake, poisonous spider or wild cougar in a densely populated residential neighborhood is a much effective killing machine than using an assault rifle in taken out many life without the need to face up with the police SWAT team during the stand off. No, these freaks shouldn't be allowed to keep any of these dangerous animals as pet per se while living in a civil and modern society, they should be removed from city or town and order to live inside a jungle with these animals, then there will be no more issue.
3 people like this
@lampar (7584)
• United States
4 Jul 12
You see! I can't really come out with any 'sane' reasons why would any decent household or person want to keep these extremely dangerous animals as pet where there are many domesticated one available for adoption from animals shelter or can be bought from pet shop, except the owner has personal nefarious purposes in mind. Only a government funded private research instituion or government lab should have the privilege to hold these animals in captivity for scientifc research purposes only, not every John or Jane from the street, these animals are just not make as pet for any household, except to live in wilderness and jungle with their naturally evolved special feature in them.
2 people like this
• United States
4 Jul 12
Unfortunately, there are actually some pet shops that are allowed to sell these dangerous animals ... at least the venomous snakes and lizards as well as some of the spiders. The reputable ones keep records, but there are some that are not as honest and reputable, and I think that is where most of the danger lies. I know that Florida (and I would assume other states as well) try to monitor the sale and handling of these creatures, but I also think that more needs to be done before the problems that we are having now become any worse. I also know some places that allow large cats to be bred and sold to private owners. Again, they try to keep track of it, but there are too many instances where they obviously are not as aware as they should be, and this is brought to light when "accidents" happen that could and/or should have been avoided if proper care were being taken.
• United States
4 Jul 12
You have raised a good point that I had not even thought about - the fact that some people might intentionally use these animals to endanger the lives of others without having to take responsibility for it themselves. I guess that I never thought about people intentionally letting them loose hoping that they would harm someone, because I would never do that. I have always thought that the ones that let them loose were overwhelmed and possibly felt in danger with the animals in their possession and did not think through the long-term consequences that letting them free might pose to society but were more focused on the immediate threat that they felt to themselves or their families. Your point has raised an even stronger case for either not allowing people to own these pets or insisting that people who are allowed to have these animals be licensed and monitored to ensure that all the animals are accounted for until the animals (and their offspring, if any) die.
• Indonesia
4 Jul 12
it's not wise to keep dangerous animal at home since we live in society. but for those who can't stand to have those kind of dangerous animals, they should have certificate and under inspection from security chief or police. He must make sure that his animal won't hurt civil and environment
3 people like this
• United States
4 Jul 12
I agree that people who are allowed to keep these sorts of pets should have to go through some kind of training and be certified or something to ensure that they know how to properly care for the animals. Still, there are some things that are out of our control no matter how much care we take, such as natural disasters, and that sort of thing can put people in danger if the animals are able to escape during a tornado or something like that. On the other hand, I can also understand why there might be certain circumstances where having these pets is in the best interest of society, such as people that milk snakes and spiders for their venom to produce and anti-venom in case of bites, so I am not really sure that there is a "right" answer. I guess that it depends upon the situation and trying to prevent as many risks as possible.
1 person likes this
@rebelann (110754)
• El Paso, Texas
24 Oct 15
Personally I feel sorry for the wild animals who would be much better off in their own wild habitats, I mean too many of us can't even commit to the dogs and cats we take as pets then abandon. People need to leave Mother Nature alone, we've done enough damage it's time to let her heal.
3 people like this
• United States
25 Oct 15
I completely agree with the whole letting wild animals remain where they belong - in the wild. The only good exceptions that I can think of is when they are injured or orphaned and taking them in would mean that they could live rather than die in the wild. Also, there have been instances when populations of animals, such as wolves, have been put on a preserve to build up their numbers when they have neared extinction in an area. I think that is different, however, because they are not treated as pets and they are not intended to be there permanently ... well, at least not the future generations.
3 people like this
• United States
25 Oct 15
@rebelann We were taught to only kill for food or in an extreme case of self-defense. The stupid trophy hunters are doing neither, and I think that they should be put in jail, but that is just my opinion.
2 people like this
@rebelann (110754)
• El Paso, Texas
25 Oct 15
Yes exactly @purplealabaster those Wildlife Sanctuaries are responsible for reinstating the wolf after US trophy hunters had slaughtered all of them in the wild and now Yellowstone Park is beginning to look beautiful again, trouble is those d a mn trophy hunters keep lobbying for the right to kill for sport, I wish the laws would treat those Aholes as murderers, they do much more harm than good.
3 people like this
@ramapo17 (30457)
• Melbourne, Florida
30 Oct 15
When my husband was going away to college he gave his dad a baby alligator for father's day. Of course it was cute then. When my husband got home on break he was shocked at how big the animal got. The next break the animal was so big that his mother demanded he get that animal out of the house. He then gave it to a zoo.
2 people like this
• United States
30 Oct 15
@ramapo17 Oh my, I would think that if I was his father, I would have preferred one of those horrid neckties over an alligator, even if it was a baby one. I am sure that your husband probably did not think about how much they grow and how dangerous they can become, though, especially since he was still so young when he did it.
2 people like this
@rebelann (110754)
• El Paso, Texas
30 Oct 15
Poor alligator, it's always a shame when people give wild animals as pets.
2 people like this
@ramapo17 (30457)
• Melbourne, Florida
30 Oct 15
@rebelann my husband was just out of high school and he thought everything was funny. His mother should have put her foot down the minute it came in the house.
2 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
26 Oct 15
A lot of States have laws against having exotic animals at their home or apartment. I do not think they should be allowed except in their own habitat.
2 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
26 Oct 15
@purplealabaster That could have been a disaster if something had happened while they were procrastinating.
2 people like this
@Marcyaz (35316)
• United States
27 Oct 15
@purplealabaster Well at least the owner had time to find a proper home for him.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Oct 15
There are laws in some states, but I found that the law either is not enforced (if there is one) or is not consistently enforced. It took forever for a neighboring community to get the town to make a guy get rid of his "exotic" cats, and he was located directly across the street from a daycare center.
2 people like this
@jazel_juan (15747)
• Philippines
4 Jul 12
I have seen episodes in Discovery channel and natgeo where big python snakes..or boas have been found in homes and the likes.. it is scary that these animals are being kept as pets where in fact they should not be kept as pets. There are people who find thrills in such, some has tarantulas at home, i have a friend who does have that! I also have a friend who have an albino python which is scary as these animals do grow big and if the owner could not maintain it anymore then there is the possibility that they would get bitten or worse they would release it in a place not suitable for these animals... some are sold online and some are smuggled illegally as they can be quite expensive, personally they should just let these animals be and not be kept in homes as pets.
2 people like this
• United States
4 Jul 12
Yes, I have seen the shows on these channels as well, and that is partly what inspired this discussion. There is a really serious problem in several of the Southern states with pythons. Now it seems that boas are also appearing in the wild, and both species have been confirmed to be reproducing in the wild not just being released by irresponsible pet owners, although they do believe that some of the ones that are now reproducing in the wild might have been released by irresponsible pet owners. They also think some might have escaped from captivity rather than being set free while others were able to get free during some of the bad storms that have hit here the past several years.
1 person likes this
@ifa225 (14364)
• Indonesia
3 Jul 12
Well i don't think those who jad these kind of pets don't bother all of the question which pop up in your mind It is selfish to see them keep those pets while they don't think about other people's safety maybe if the people who is in charge in your town can make a strict law..they might obey it
2 people like this
• United States
3 Jul 12
It is not just in my town - it seems to be happening in a lot of places cross the US. Maybe this is not such a problem in other countries, but I suspect that there are still some problems with this sort of thing in at least some other countries as people tend to have a fascination with dangerous creatures. Besides, I am pretty sure that I have seen news stories about incidents in Australia, Cananda and the UK to name a few, although there might not be as much of in issue there as there seems to be here. I do think that more people need to start thinking about this sort of thing, and I definitely feel this issue needs to be addressed, although I am not entirely sure what steps should be taken. That is what inspired me to start this discussion, because I wanted to hear what other people thought and what solutions they might come up with.
1 person likes this
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
4 Jul 12
I think that people should consider very carefully the pets they decide to own. I think there are just some animals that aren't meant to be pets. They are meant to be free and giving in to their instincts. It is only so long that anything can deny its instinct. I think you bring up something good here with the education factor. If they are trained and educated in the ways of the animal they own, they have a greater understanding of what the animal is capable of and what it might require to have one. I have thought that it wouldn't hurt for some people to attend a program of sorts with certain dogs, if not all. Especially larger aggressive breeds. The latest fad that worried me was the wolf hybrids that people have. Although they may never act on it, their instinct is to hunt.
2 people like this
• United States
4 Jul 12
I also think that people should be educated in the care and handling of the animals that they have as pets ... and I am not just talking about the ones that we normally think of as dangerous. I agree about the dogs, although statistically there are actually more bites from small breed dogs than the larger breeds - the larger breeds tend to do more damage as they are bigger and stronger, which is why they are viewed as more of a threat. A horse is another good example. Many horses are docile, but they can still be very dangerous and people have been killed by them, even when the horse did not mean to harm the person. I actually really like the wolf hybrids, but I also understand your concerns. In some places it is illegal to own one or you need a special license to be able to have one, and I think that is a good thing. I have a few friends that have had them, and they were great animals, but my friends also knew how to care for them. It is the same thing with taking in an animal that has been abandoned and/or abused, if you do not know how to care for the animal, then you could be putting yourself, your family and even the animal's health and safety at risk.
@spazz435 (322)
• United States
3 Jul 12
I understand this completely. Everyone who owns an animal like this is believed to have a mental disorder in the form of thinking that they are above the idea of wild. And that if and animal has never lived in the wild, it will not act that way. And they think that they can over control the natural instinct factor. I feel that if you own an animal like this, that you need to take into consideration of the danger you are putting yourself and other people. I think that becoming certified would be a good idea, but it still won't protect you or other people from becoming injured if the animal gets loose. I feel that no one but zoos should have the right to own those kinds of animals. And with the other ones, leave them to the wilderness where they belong.
2 people like this
• United States
3 Jul 12
I do know that there are some animals that do become attached to humans, especially if they are raised from babies with the human. Still, you are right that sometimes the natural instinct takes over, and they might not even mean to hurt the person, but they might just get a little too rough while playing and seriously injure someone. They might not mean it, but that does not repair the damage that they can do, though. Then there are the animals like the spiders, snakes and reptiles. It does not matter how long you have them or when you got them, because they will never form a bond with a human no matter how much the human might hope they they will. I do not even understand why someone would want an animal like that as a pet, because there is no bond that forms, which is normally why a person has a pet. On the other hand, I do know that animal control officers and other professionals often have dangerous animals as pets. This sort-of makes sense, because it is their job to know how to properly handle and care for these animals. They sometimes take them in rather than kill them when the animals are not native to the area and cannot be released back into the wild but they don't want to kill them, either.
1 person likes this
@inertia4 (27961)
• United States
26 Oct 15
The answer is no, they shouldn't. Besides, these pets you are talking about aren't pets at all. They are all illegal as well. I know some people really admire those wild animals, I can understand that part. But to have one as a pet, in a house or even an apartment, is way off the hook.
2 people like this
• United States
26 Oct 15
The thing is that they are not all illegal. They might be illegal in some areas, but they are not necessarily illegal in others. On top of that, it is difficult for law enforcement or other government agencies to enforce the laws where they are illegal, especially when they are obtained through illegal methods.
2 people like this
• United States
27 Oct 15
@inertia4 I wish that they would at least work on ways of better monitoring and regulating these animals. In too many cases, they do not even properly monitor and regulate the places that legally sell these animals.
2 people like this
@rebelann (110754)
• El Paso, Texas
27 Oct 15
@inertia4 & @purplealabaster personally I'd love to see the government fine all pet stores that sell rodents, reptiles and aquatic animals, none of them are pet material and all should be left in the wild as Mother Nature intended. As has been pointed out by so many on this discussion, too many people don't even know how to actually take care of either a cat or dog and then too many stupid people just abandon them, it's so sad what we've done to the only real pets we have.
2 people like this
@moneywinner (1864)
• Brazil
3 Jul 12
In my opinion, persons absolutely should not be permitted to have dangerous animals as pets, don't know why some persons wants them living at their own home. They can be dangerous to your kids and an accident in this case can be fatal. Also, the animals should live where they belong, in the florest or some place like that, not in a jail.
2 people like this
• India
4 Jul 12
Hi friend, people are interested in doing strange things, so only they are doing this kind of things. But they must avoid this kind of unwanted activities, it is not good to keep dangerous animals as our pet. I am not interested in taking this kind of unwanted risks.
2 people like this
• United States
4 Jul 12
I agree that in most cases it is an unwanted risk that I would not be willing to take, especially since it could not only endanger my family and myself but also my neighbors. I think that there is a difference between a cougar in the wild and a cougar that has been in captivity, although they both pose a risk. I think that the cougar in the wild is more wary and tends to stay away from humans, but one that has been in captivity will be more at ease around humans and therefore more dangerous.
@MsTickle (25180)
• Australia
13 Jul 12
In this country you must be licensed to own most animals as pets. Protected native species, like birds and reptiles need a special licence...not just anyone can keep these. It is even illegal to sell cats and dogs as pets unless they are vaccinated, de-wormed and micro-chipped ( a normal little kitten will cost between 2 and 3 hundred dollars from a pet shop). This is in the hope that people won't treat their female pets like breeding machines, but it still happens. I have a friend who likes to spend money but they are always badly off. They breed their cattle dog and sell her puppies for hundreds of dollars but they neglect the poor dog and don't feed or house her right. She is a beautiful natured dog too. People will always abuse animals I feel. They crave the ownership without being fully aware of the responsibilities of owning a pet...be it a snake or a mouse or a bird or a leopard.
1 person likes this
@MsTickle (25180)
• Australia
13 Jul 12
Hi purp. I never thought of the microchip that way. Most folk here in the bush don't register or microchip their dogs. I think it's a bit silly really...if your dog is lost or stolen, it has to come to the attention of some authority before it can be associated with it's owner. Who's to say if a vet even checks a microchip for the owner. If the person with the dog is questioned, they could say anything about where they obtained the dog.
1 person likes this
• United States
14 Jul 12
I do know that pets with microchips are checked here by the vets, but it might just be in the event that the dog is found and brought to the vet to be checked out and to find its owner. They might not check the chip if someone brings in the dog as their own and just wants it treated and/or vaccinated, although I am not entirely sure what data is stored on the chip, so it might be checked if that data can also be obtained from the chip.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jul 12
I think that it is good that in your country you have to be licensed to own a pet. We are also supposed to be licensed to own many pets (including dogs and in some areas regular cats), but there are a lot of people that do not seem to think a license is necessary to own a pet, and it does not seem that there are any real measures in place to police them. In fact, I think that there are more measures in place to police dog owners than there are owners of venomous reptiles or insects. I do not like the idea of the microchips, though. I guess that it might be my paranoid side coming out, but it seems that if they can track your pet, then it is yet another means to track you. I think that there are already plenty of ways for the government to track us, and I don't think that they need to require another way. On the other hand, I have had a lost pet before, and I can see the issue from the other side as well, because it makes it a lot easier to locate your missing pet. Unfortunately, I have to agree that there will always be people that will abuse animals. I do think that many pet owners are more responsible ... or at least it seems that they are trying to become more responsible ... so hopefully one day there will be almost no abuse.
1 person likes this
@allknowing (130088)
• India
3 Jul 12
They have no concern for others. They can leave society and camp up somewhere else.
1 person likes this
• United States
4 Jul 12
LOL! Yeah, I was getting really frustrated once this site looked like it was up and running again, because it took over an hour before I could post anything, even though it seemed that others were not having a problem. So, you do not think that people should be able to keep dangerous animals as pets? I tend to agree with this for the most part, but I do see certain instances where this might be a valid thing, such as the people that milk venomous snakes and spiders to make the anti-venom. Also, there are some trained people, such as animal control officers, that will take in a dangerous animal rather than having it killed if it can't be released back into the wild. I think that these cases are the exception rather than the rule, however, and it seems that many people just want these animals because they think it is "cool" but have absolutely no idea how to properly care for them.
1 person likes this
@allknowing (130088)
• India
3 Jul 12
Vow!!! I did it. This is the first activity that went through after the problem that myLot has been facing
1 person likes this
@allknowing (130088)
• India
4 Jul 12
My nephew had a cobra and his mother had sleepless nights until he shifted it into the wilds.
1 person likes this
@simone10 (54192)
• Louisville, Kentucky
27 Oct 15
I have watched shows on the Animal Planet about people like this and the animals turn on them and either hurt them seriously or kill them. Most of these people were some kind of expert and yet, all it takes is to make a wrong move or turn away for a second or let their guard down and it's all over. If people like this who are experts can get hurt, what makes anyone else think they are better and it won't happen to them? I still remember many years ago when a lady had a chimpanzee and I think it was her friend who got attacked and had her face ripped off.
1 person likes this
• United States
27 Oct 15
I think that has happened a few times with chimpanzees, because we saw one where it happened with a guy. He turned his back for a minute and the chimp grabbed his hair and had him pinned to the cage while it was biting and scratching him. He didn't have his face ripped off, but he did need surgery to repair all the damage to his face and scalp. I do not believe that people really think about what they are doing and the consequences of their actions. You made a great point about the experts ... if this sort of thing is happening to people who are experts with these animals, then why would the average person think that he or she could do better?
1 person likes this
• United States
1 Nov 15
@simone10 Yes, it is those darn cute babies that get you every time. I think that part of that is programmed into our DNA ... or at least into the DNA of most people ... because if we really thought about all the problems and issues that can arise with having children, then logically we wouldn't do it. However, most of us cannot resist those adorable little babies, and I think that some of those feelings transfer over onto our thoughts about animals as well, because we are animals ourselves.
1 person likes this
@simone10 (54192)
• Louisville, Kentucky
1 Nov 15
@purplealabaster Exactly but people are caught up in the moment of how cute they are when they are babies. They don't think ahead to the time whey they are grown.
1 person likes this
@lokisdad (4226)
• United States
22 Jan 16
I don't think people should be allowed to have such animals as pets but they do it anyway and having training doesn't seem to make much difference it just puts a lethal weapon in their hands and if they are bad people then it makes the problem that much more dangerous.
1 person likes this
• United States
25 Jan 16
That is a good point. Everybody that owns these sorts of pets is not a good or nice person nor do they necessarily care about the health and welfare of the animal. I just thought that the ones that actually care about safety and the animals might benefit from proper training, because sometimes some of the accidents that happen could have been avoided with proper training.
1 person likes this
• United States
26 Jan 16
@lokisdad That is certainly true for a lot of things in life.
1 person likes this
@lokisdad (4226)
• United States
26 Jan 16
@purplealabaster its sad that the few rotten apples ruin it for the rest.
1 person likes this
@sherryeb (580)
• Duncan, Arizona
29 Oct 15
Raccoons are very cute, but troublesome. They are kept as pets, then they bite someone and that person has to go and have a series of rabies shots. Monkeys too.
• United States
29 Oct 15
I have heard some pretty scary stories concerning both raccoons and monkeys. I actually know somebody that got bit by a monkey and had to get rabies shots. I know that they can both make good companions depending upon the animal. However, I think that they also pose more of a risk than most people realize until it is too late.
1 person likes this
• United States
29 Oct 15
@sherryeb When I was young, our neighbor used to feed the squirrels out of his hands. He would open the door, and they would come right into his enclosed front porch so that he could feed them. He used to let me feed them as well. I never gave this a thought until I was older, but that was not such a safe thing, especially as these were not even squirrels that he was keeping as pets but rather whichever ones happened to be in his yard when it was feeding time. Fortunately, nobody ever got bit.
@sherryeb (580)
• Duncan, Arizona
29 Oct 15
When I was a child I used to visit a man that had monkeys in cages in his back yard. He would give me peanuts to feed them through the cages, but he stood there and supervised me so as not to get bit, that worried him some. My friends had a raccoon and it bit their daughter, also a ferret nipped at me once, scared me off of those critters for a pet, I thought they were so cute until that happened@purplealabaster
1 person likes this
• United Kingdom
13 Jan 17
Definitely not, nobody should keep a wild animal as a pet, it is SO bad for them, they don't have the right kind of diet or exercise which can make them really ill and they are wild animals, not domestic ones.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jan 17
I agree with you most of the time. I think that there are some instances where it is better for the animal (for example, my aunt rescued a bird and it became her pet), but most of the time wild animals should stay in the wild, especially if they have the potential to harm others or themselves. You also make a great point about us not being able to give them a proper diet and exercise, which can make them very ill.
1 person likes this
• United States
13 Jan 17
@Clairelouiser Oh, monkeys are SO cute, that I totally understand the desire to have them as a pet. I also understand that it is normally not in the best interest of the monkey or the family to have them as a pet. Raccoons are another animal that is adorable but should not be made into a pet. I do know somebody who rescued a baby raccoon, nursed it back to health and raised it. The raccoon had no fear of people and no skills, so they kept it as a pet, but normally that is not a good idea for the raccoon or the people around it.
• United Kingdom
13 Jan 17
@purplealabaster yes, if an animal is rescued and has no chance of rehabilitation then it should be kept and treated properly, but most of them should just be left where they are, monkeys are a prime example, so many people keep monkeys as pets and it almost kills the poor things.
1 person likes this