Las Vegas, NVÂ (April 23, 2007)–In response to a number of state legislators introducing bills to ban or curb private ownership of exotic animals in the name of public safety, REXANO (Responsible Exotic Animal Ownership) has been organized to refute claims that these animals are dangerous to the general public.
 “In the USA, only one person dies per year as a result of attacks by captive big cats, 1.5 by captive reptiles, 0.81 by captive elephant, 0.125 by captive bear and 0 by captive non-human primate. In comparison, 45,000 people die each year in traffic accidents, 47 by lightning, and 1,600 by falling from stairs. We have detailed information on our website www.rexano.org about our ongoing fight against uninformed legislators and animal rights (AR) activists.†says Zuzana Kukol, a Las Vegas tiger trainer and co-founder of REXANO.
REXANO is committed to protecting the rights of animal owners and supportive of responsible private ownership of exotic animals in any form, be it non-commercial pet or sanctuary, as well as commercial breeder or exhibitor.Â
“Most of the wild habitat is disappearing. The only chance to save many animals such as tigers from extinction is captive breeding in the private sector,who have the majority of available habitat” says Scott Shoemaker, co-founder of REXANO. “Since at least 1990, there has not been one death as a result of a captive big cat or reptile roaming at large.”
While state bills curbing exotic animal ownership failed to pass in Indiana and West Virginia this year, Ohio, Oregon, Missouri, Florida, Texas and North Carolina currently have active bills.  Both Iowa and Washington State’s bills have already passed and are waiting for their Governor’s signatures. Many states such as West Virginia plan to bring the legislation back next year.
Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:
- advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive
- advertisers must have evidence to back up their claims
- advertisements cannot be unfair.
According to the FTC’s Deception Policy Statement, an ad is deceptive if it contains a statement — or omits information — that:
- is likely to mislead consumers acting reasonably under the circumstances
- is “material” — that is, important to a consumer’s decision to buy or use the product.
“If it is illegal for businesses to advertise and sell products using misleading and fraudulent claims, why is it OK for legislators and lobbyists to introduce, gain public support and pass bills using fraudulent claims they can’t back up with facts?” asks Kukol. “These unneeded tax money wasting bills are appeasing the minority of special interest animal rights groups and a few individuals falling for the claims of imaginary threat at the expense of constitutional freedoms for a majority of Americans. Many animal businesses are regulated out of existence as a result of this deception.”
“There are no hard facts or statistics supporting the case for these bans, only so-called incident reports compiled by the various AR groups,” says Andrew Wyatt, President of NC Association of Reptile Keepers, www.NCARK.org. “These incident reports amount to scary stories about scary animals. Many are unconfirmed, manufactured and simply ridiculous. Deaths or serious injury are exceedingly rare. The reality is that you are more likely to contract the E.coli virus from eating spinach and die as a result, than die from being attacked by an exotic animal. Fear trumps freedom. Will America be coerced by inflammatory rhetoric from the AR Movement into over reacting to a non-existent threat by enacting overly intrusive animal bans? I hope not“.
“Even people who don’t own animals should realize that every time a new law is passed, the government powers and bureaucracy grow and our personal freedoms shrink,” warns Kukol.
“Animals are personal property. We oppose legislation that restrict the private ownership or use of animals, or that inhibits free trade of any animal provided it meets Ohio Department of Agriculture testing and import requirements,” adds Polly Britton, Secretary of the Ohio Association of Animal Owners, www.oaao.us.
“As long as animal welfare and public safety laws are followed, the private ownership of all animals should be protected in the USA,” says Shoemaker.
9 users commented in " Exotic Animal Owners Organization Response to Attempts to Curb Private Ownership of Exotic animals. "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a Trackbacki strongly object to this reasoning — the line of thought that holds that since habitat is disappearing responsible, caring pet owners should be adopting lions for conservation’s sake. give me a break. exotic hunting ranches here in texas use the same old line. to my mind, the only just response to disappearing habitat and threatened species is a redoubled effort to save these wild places the world over.
you write a lot about the supposed “rights” of human keepers, but nothing about the rights of these animals to live the way millions of years of evolution have designed them to live. do human rights to own these exotic cats come from our own evolution of larger brains and resulting global dominance? one would hope that our evolution will include a moral evolution that rights don’t come from might. that we may at some point fall in line with the moral concept that “those who have been given much, much is required.” i would suggest that the “more that is required” is a little less self-interest and clamouring for the right to possess and a little more generosity of spirit.
animals are personal property, polly britton? wasn’t so long ago human animals were personal property, too. The law on the books didn’t make it right then and it doesn’t make it right now.
EPOU (Exotic Pet Owners Uniting) supports the responsible ownership of any animals, regardless if they are a beagle, a goldfish, a tiger or a raccoon. The key is responsible ownership. And yes, animals ARE owned by people – that is why you have to buy them. Your average exotic pet owner loves their animal every bit as much as other people love their cats and dogs and parakeets. It is a fallacy to ascribe human emotions or motives to animals. Yes, animals have emotions – they feel things like affection and fear and happiness too – anyone who has ever owned most any kind of pet knows this. But they do not sit around all day thinking about how they wish they were “free”. Animals very much live in the now – from the simplest creatures to the most intelligent and complex ones. Nearly all exotic pets (at least the mammals) are born and raised in captivity, and have no way to process or understand the fact that their ancestors many generations back weren’t the same. Animals simply cannot think like that – they cannot think about things they do not know. Animals of all kinds feel safe and secure (and thus happy) when they know what to expect. I honestly believe that most wild animals have very few moments of “happiness”, because they are always having to worry about finding food, being someone else’s food, shelter, competition, injury, etc. Running through a field or a jungle does not make an animal happy. Feeling safe makes an animal happy. That is what we, as responsible animal owners provide for animals – a safe, healthy, and happy place.
First of alll, the concept of ‘wild habitat’ for many of these animals, especially the top predators, is rapidly becoming a nascent one. Unstoppable selfish human ambition will ensure we cannot push back the vanguard for development. We can’t even stop it here in the city I live in, let alone in the third world where most of this habitat is. Captive husbandry isn’t only necessary. it’s the last resort for many species. Any laws passed to curb or ban ownership of these animals is one step closer to extinction.
As far as as captivity being a sterile place, it is simply not true. If you spend any amount of time with properly housed big cats, you will find they rarely test the fence. They consider their habitat to be a ‘safe place’. Yes, they enjoy hunting, but would rathe their food be brought to them dead. Hunting is replaced by play with other cats or their keepers. And as far as not being ‘normal’ in terms of relationships, the big cats especially tend to love the people that care for them. In one case in particular, a cat once chose me to be it’s ‘personal keeper’, an honor he bestowed on just one other pserson. As such we had an espacially deep and meaningful bond. This bond was somthing that strengthened and sustained each of us– In a sense, the cat ‘tamed’ me and not the other way around. Unfortunately, my cat friend recently died. But so deep was our friendship that he would not take his eyes off of me even as he was taking his last breath. Deep bonds like this are the rule and not the exception with big cats, and every single one has a keeper or keepers that they ‘own’. It is very hard to call this unnatural– In fact, bonds like this with a magnificent animal, even in captivity, are the most basic and natural thing we as human beings can experience. IMHO, we would all be better people if we shared a bond with a magnificent big cat!
Mr. Harman’s response is animal rights rhetoric when claiming higher morality and comparing it to human slavery is very off center. Humans have had a relationship of use for work, domestication, food, clothing, pets, etc. To attempt to tell others they are wrong for these reasons is to also say we are morally wrong for having a domestic dog or cat also.
It is our responsiblility as humans to not let any animal become extinct and commerce has done that for other animals- increased their numbers. If someone chooses to be vegan or vegetarian- that is their right. It is also my right and just as morally correct to eat meat, have pets and wear leather. I see these big black and white animals everyday that aren’t indigenous to the US but are in every state. They have killed people. Most of us also have them in our freezers.
I believe those with higher moral standards are those that understand the web of life and don’t choose to remove themselves from or try to make others do so through legislation that incrementally removes our rights.
Animals are not my God and I won’t place them above humans. I will continue to keep my dogs and ‘other’ pets and not be morally wrong in any way. I had a debate with an animal rights activists once over her saying society is morally evolving….look around you, look at our children. Many would strongly disagree and some would even see where they have been brought up out of touch with real life causing many problems. Keeping PETA out of our schools would be a big help but also a big plus would be to teach them about living with the animals and the way life works. It’s not a fairy tale existence but a realistic one. If they are taught they have the same value as a rat, dog or tiger….makes for some serious psychological issues.
Would someone please kindly E-mail me and tell me why my comments do not appear here? I will take this problem to the top.
OK, problem explained. Never mind.
People absolutely should and must adopt animals to preserve their species. I’m not willing to give Greg a break on this. If ranches are breeding live animals and allowing a portion of them to be hunted, they are maintaining living populations of those animals. That’s all it takes to help them to survive, thus avoiding extinction. If you have a hundred black rhinos on a ranch, twenty babies a year, allow ten rhinos to be hunted, and that pays the bills, then you have a system that works to protect the species. It is only right that those who want to hunt an animal should pay to maintain its species.
Keeping pets is a lot better. If animals have rights like humans do, then this is the best implementation of those rights. Humans take the very small risks of keeping those pets. Those animals are well worth the risk when they have the same value as humans, obviously, and humans can best attend to their rights by making them part of the family, just like horses and dogs are. The feel-good stories about humans bonding with animals and having happy times are almost every single bit of the truth. Almost all of the experience is to the good.
Caring for someone who is of another species is the best expression of generosity of spirit that I can conceive of. If anything it seems to come too easily. This is because this is what we are and keeping pets is the best expression of what we are. We use our skills to help them live decent lives and they return love and life. Humans are born to do this.
Strictly limiting our contact with the real world is wrong, and enjoying the company of the animals and nature is right.
It’s right to keep animals as pets because it works.
‘ “Even people who don’t own animals should realize that every time a new law is passed, the government powers and bureaucracy grow and our personal freedoms shrink,” warns Kukol.”
Blah, Blah and more Blah!
Get over it, where the issue is safety you had better expect laws to be in place. Why do you think that America is such a great place to live in the first place? We have structure, we have rules, we have a system, and we care for everyone in our society, including our wildlife, that’s what makes our country so valuable.
Freedom does not mean free will to do whatever you want. It means, that every effort will be made to see that every man, woman, child, disable person, of every color, race, gender and ethnicity is treated with fairness and is protected. We cannot ensure safety without rules and regulations. Look at Iraq. Too much freedom, is not a good thing. We need these laws to protect our society/communities, and the many people in it. Animal owners, and the ones who live with the animals, and the animals themselves.
And, don’t think a wild animal does not have the INSTINCT that they are not “FREE” they know they are in a cage, they know they are sullen, they know that their life is not the way it should be. Why?
It’s called instinct for a reason.
Rights:
I believe in freedom in the US. I also believe in keeping things S-A-F-E
Have you noticed the No-Smoking signs in front of local businesses? Heck, even entire hospitals inside/out forbid people to smoke. Now, if a smoker is not allowed to let out one fraction of the carbon dioxide that a 4-cylinder automobile omits to PROTECT the public.
Why is it, that anyone can own an exotic animal that can spread a deadly disease, or mistake a 2-year-old child for a small pig that is for their snack! I am deeply concerned for the safety of the public, and I do hope that the legislation in Ohio will ban private ownership of tigers, lions and panthers before it’s too late.
I agree with you Gabrielle on this note:
“Gabrielle Collins said, in April 26th, 2007 at 8:59 pm EPOU (Exotic Pet Owners Uniting) supports the responsible ownership of any animals, regardless if they are a beagle, a goldfish, a tiger or a raccoon. The key is responsible ownership. And yes, animals ARE owned by people.”
Possible Solutions:
More regulations
Private owners: there should be more laws that would ENFORCE the proper care of the animals and the neighborhoods that the animals are living in. People need to be aware if a pack of lion cubs are moving into their area.
Breeders, should have to pay TAXES on the animals they are selling.
We need to be aware of where these breeders are/geographically. TO track the progress of the so-called-keeping them privately owned to avoid extinction.
—Lisa Miller
Ohio, USA
Leave A Reply