In this blog post, we examine the impact of keeping wild animals as pets on both humans and animals, and consider its validity and ethical implications.
Until recently, animals considered pets were primarily limited to common species like dogs and cats. However, in the current trend of exotic pets, the sheer diversity of animals kept as pets is astonishing. In South Korea, the range remains relatively limited to reptiles like chameleons and snakes, or animals like monkeys and venomous spiders. However, in other countries, people even keep wildlife like bears, wolves, and tigers as pets, raising questions about whether this is appropriate. A related incident occurred in October 2011 in the suburbs of Zanesville, Ohio, USA. A man named Terry Thomson released over 50 wild animals he kept in cages and then committed suicide. Among these wild animals were lions and tigers. Ultimately, police had no choice but to shoot and kill the wild animals to ensure the safety of residents. This incident brought the problem of wild animals kept as pets to the forefront. Here, “wild animals” refers to creatures not originally bred by humans, born and raised in nature. Witnessing this incident made it clear that keeping wild animals as pets is clearly harmful not only to the keepers but also to the animals themselves. It also highlighted the necessity for laws to prohibit keeping wild animals as pets. This article will discuss the necessity of such legal regulation from two perspectives: humans and wildlife.
First, I believe legal regulation is necessary for safety, as keepers of wildlife pets and those around them are vulnerable to disease and accidents. While pets originating from the wild may lose their instincts and become docile over time, there is no guarantee when those instincts might resurface. This means humans are exposed to potential danger. An expert from an American animal protection organization states that while accurate statistics on wildlife-related incidents are difficult to obtain due to underreporting, the number is likely significant when considering diseases contracted through contact with wildlife. Those opposing legal regulation might argue that accepting the risks of keeping wildlife is a matter of personal choice. Furthermore, some argue that legal regulation infringes on human choice. However, when one recalls the four-year-old child whose nose was bitten by an aunt’s puma, or the woman whose face was severely disfigured by an attack from a friend’s chimpanzee, one must ask why they should have been exposed to such dangers. They, too, have a right to safety. The true meaning of choice includes responsibility for the consequences of that choice, and it is questionable how one could possibly take responsibility for their already ruined lives. Considering the risk of accidents or diseases that could affect not only the keeper but also innocent bystanders, prioritizing safety over choice is a better solution.
Furthermore, legal regulation is necessary because keeping wild animals can strain relationships with neighbors. While keeping pets may be a process of bonding with animals and finding happiness for the keeper, keeping wild animals, as mentioned earlier, causes friction with neighbors. This means the happiness felt by the keeper can cause inconvenience to those around them. Terry Thomson’s numerous disputes with neighbors over keeping wild animals exemplifies this well. Police suspected that his act of releasing the animals from their enclosures just before his suicide stemmed from retaliatory behavior against his neighbors. Had keeping wild animals as pets been legally prohibited, neither the deterioration of neighborly relations nor the brutal culling of the animals would have occurred. Humans are social creatures who live within relationships with others. Laws, as a form of social regulation, are an important means to minimize such conflicts.
The reason legal regulation is necessary from the wildlife’s perspective is that the environment provided by captors is unsuitable for them. No matter how much captors try to create an environment resembling nature, it is woefully inadequate compared to the environment they originally lived in. Most captivity environments consist of nothing more than small tanks or fenced enclosures. How many captors can confidently claim these environments provide truly fulfilling lives for wild animals? If these animals chose captivity voluntarily, one might accept it, but living in confined spaces is not the life they desired. Living freely in nature is their rightful and desired environment. From an animal ethics perspective, wild animals have the right to live happily, just like humans. Because of human selfishness, wild animals continue to be sacrificed in these small spaces today.
Furthermore, legal regulation is necessary because keeping them captive does not protect them but causes them to lose their nature. Many people who keep wild animals claim they started to protect endangered species. Of course, this motivation deserves praise. However, wildlife raised by human hands can no longer maintain its inherent wildness. This becomes a factor that puts them at even greater risk. Some people might think it’s fine to keep them until they die, even if they lose their nature. But keeping wildlife forever is realistically impossible. Eventually, they reach a state where they become unmanageable or must be returned to nature. The problem is that even if returned to the wild, these animals, accustomed to an environment where they cannot hunt for themselves, cannot resume their original natural life. They are now lost, with nowhere to go. If we truly wish to protect endangered wildlife, the most crucial starting point is to protect the natural habitats where they can survive.
