WHY KEEP NATIVE AUSTRALIAN MAMMALS AS PETS?
We fully understand the desire to be close to, and engage with native animals. For some, it fulfills a desire to be closer to nature, others may have a deeper need to understand and care for native animals, or maybe it's as simple as wanting to cuddle a cute animal. There is nothing wrong with these desires - unless they threaten the welfare of these wild animals.
Removing the animals from the wild physically and ethically diminishes them. They are no longer wild, or free to live their lives in the wild to exhibit their natural behaviours. In being domesticated, we rob them of their wild nature. Whether they are physically caged or not, they are captive. Whether or not we mean it to happen, the moment they become "pets", their exposure to neglect, sickness, disease, malnutrition and cruelty rises astronomically. The majority of Australians abhor animal cruelty and prefer to see our native animals living a natural life in the wild - not a captive life for the amusement or profit of others.
There are no benefits to the environment, animals or to the public from keeping Australian animals - except for a small minority of people who confine these animals in enclosures for their own amusement or profit. Below, we examine the arguments that have been put forward to try to justify Keeping native mammals as pets. We provide facts that show why there really is no case for native mammal keeping. Click on the + sign to expose the truth behind each argument.
Removing the animals from the wild physically and ethically diminishes them. They are no longer wild, or free to live their lives in the wild to exhibit their natural behaviours. In being domesticated, we rob them of their wild nature. Whether they are physically caged or not, they are captive. Whether or not we mean it to happen, the moment they become "pets", their exposure to neglect, sickness, disease, malnutrition and cruelty rises astronomically. The majority of Australians abhor animal cruelty and prefer to see our native animals living a natural life in the wild - not a captive life for the amusement or profit of others.
There are no benefits to the environment, animals or to the public from keeping Australian animals - except for a small minority of people who confine these animals in enclosures for their own amusement or profit. Below, we examine the arguments that have been put forward to try to justify Keeping native mammals as pets. We provide facts that show why there really is no case for native mammal keeping. Click on the + sign to expose the truth behind each argument.
Native Mammal keeping is a legitimate Pastime
|
Actually in NSW and most other states and territories of Australia it isn't legitimate, unless you are a licensed zoo or wildlife park, it is not legal to keep native mammals in most states (with a few exceptions).
Only one generation ago "Big game hunting" was considered to be legitimate, and more recently caged chickens were acceptable. What was 'legitimate' a generation ago isn't necessarily so today. Hobbyist native mammal keepers represent less than half of one percent of the NSW population. The NSW government already allows over 600 native species to be kept. But we say enough is enough. |
What is legitimate?
Some people think keeping animals in enclosures like those in these photos is acceptable. Do you? |
Other states allow keeping many native mammals
|
This argument is hollow and deceptive. In fact most Australian states and territories do not allow keeping native mammals as pets - or allow only a very limited number of species to be kept.
Only two states allow broader numbers of species - South Australia and Victoria. In perspective, Victoria is the state widely condemned for continuing to allow duck hunting, and South Australia is the state that does not allow wildlife carers to rescue and rehabilitate wildlife. The way we see it, the majority of states have got it right. |
|
keeping pets improves human Health and well-being
|
The evidence that interacting with pets makes us feel better about ourselves applies almost exclusively to pet dogs and cats. Pet dogs in particular, have developed a special affinity with people (and vice-versa) over many thousands of years.
While older studies found that there may be health benefits to pet ownership, not one suggested there is value in adding new species to the list. But even if it was the case, is it fair to deprive wild mammals of their freedom - just to make us feel better about ourselves - knowing that we would be compromising their well-being? |
Keeping Quolls is better for the environmEnt than cats or dogs
Spotted Tail Quoll. Source Wikimedia Commons
|
This idea has been given credence by some long-term campaigners, but has long been opposed by veterinary surgeons, scientists and wildlife welfare specialists. While it sounds credible, it is only partially true that a native mammal such as a quoll would be a better pet in terms of the environment. Why? Because releasing pet quolls into the wild is actually problematic.
While the arguments sound reasonable on the surface, they are misleading. Studies show only that if mammals such as Quolls replaced cats as pets, it might benefit the environment. But there is no likelihood that quolls will every replace the millions of cats already in Australia. |
Perhaps surprisingly, Quolls don't make great pets; not in the same way that cats and dogs do. They are solitary animals, and quolls of the same sex engage in vicious fights - sometimes to the death: Not an ideal trait for a family pet. In fact a small-scale 1999 survey of people who had hand-raised quolls in captivity (for zoos and wildlife rehabilitation) asked participants if quolls would make good pets: Sixty-one percent said "No".
A feasibility study into keeping native mammals as pets was commissioned by the Australian Government in 2010. That report found that quolls could not be kept as "traditional pets". It said "eastern quolls’ susceptibility to toxoplasmosis, relatively short lifespan, low reproductive rate and potentially high cost may raise issues around market demand and financial viability. Their keeping raises potential conservation issues.” (g)
A feasibility study into keeping native mammals as pets was commissioned by the Australian Government in 2010. That report found that quolls could not be kept as "traditional pets". It said "eastern quolls’ susceptibility to toxoplasmosis, relatively short lifespan, low reproductive rate and potentially high cost may raise issues around market demand and financial viability. Their keeping raises potential conservation issues.” (g)
Native Pets could be an insurance population for threatened species
Click on this image to see an "Australian Geographic" article on this topic. (Credit: Marissa Parrott, Zoo Victoria)
|
The idea of an insurance population is that if a species is threatened with extinction, we would have a captive population that could be released back into the wild. But that assumes that we have 'fixed' the underlying problem that was causing that species to slide into extinction.
This "insurance" theory has been discredited. Several independent studies show that unless the animals have been kept in an environment that closely resembles their native habitat, they will not survive in the wild, because their ability to survive is lost quite quickly. Just how quickly depends on the species. A 2018 study showed how one endangered species lost its survival ability in just 13 generations.(a) A 2017 Australian Geographic article (Click image to the left) demonstrates how this applies in other Australian native species. The bottom line is - native mammals kept as pets are of little or no benefit as an insurance population. |
Native pets could provide educational opportunities and help people appreciate the plight of threatened wildlife
Effective wildlife education is best left to the experts. (Image Source Taronga Conservation Society).
|
It is suggested that native mammal keepers could provide new wildlife education opportunities. But Peggy Rismiller O.A.M. PhD (Biology), an internationally renowned, award-winning wildlife researcher says: “Formalised institutions such as our Australian zoos and wildlife parks currently provide community education and address conservation issues of most of Australia’s unique native mammals. They are constantly improving delivery of these programs by keeping abreast with new and evolving communication systems. These existing establishments have a far greater outreach and impact, nationally and globally, than private individuals keeping native wildlife could ever have.”
|
Dr Derek Spielman MVSc BSc PhD MACVSc (Wildlife Medicine) - formerly the Senior Lecturer in Veterinary Pathology at the University of Sydney says "The avicultural industry provides a very powerful and reliable counterargument. It is a multi-billion dollar a year industry in Australia alone and is largely based on Australian native species, many of them endangered or rare. It has not assisted effectively in the conservation of any Australian bird. It has worsened the plight of some of them through illegal harvesting and trade, through inappropriate releases into the wild, and through the spread of diseases." (b)
In a letter to the Australian, Nick Mooney, former wildlife management officer for the Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania wrote "Intimate contact can give empathy but translating that into action is rare. How many dog owners contribute to wolf conservation? Sure, it might work closer to home but I doubt there would be any long-term benefit. After all, do many budgie owners conserve wild parrots? Pets have been kept for thousands of years not doing their wild cousins a scrap of good".(c)
In a letter to the Australian, Nick Mooney, former wildlife management officer for the Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania wrote "Intimate contact can give empathy but translating that into action is rare. How many dog owners contribute to wolf conservation? Sure, it might work closer to home but I doubt there would be any long-term benefit. After all, do many budgie owners conserve wild parrots? Pets have been kept for thousands of years not doing their wild cousins a scrap of good".(c)
A levy could be put on the sale of native mammals to raise funds for conservation
|
It is suggested that a levy could be put on the sale of all native mammals (g), and the funds raised could be put towards conservation programs. We thought that sounded worth checking out, so we asked a former Director at the NSW Office of State Revenue (The NSW agency responsible for state taxes). His advice was less than encouraging.
|
He told us that the implementation of a levy on the sale of native mammals would require new legislation and/or regulation, and that the introducing a new tax is time consuming, expensive and politically unpalatable. As most hobbyist animal breeders don't have to declare income from their sales, and don't sell through pet shops, the identification, collection and compliance of a levy on wildlife sales would be difficult - if not impossible.
He said the combined burden of the implementation costs, the ongoing cost of administration, and complexity of compliance enforcement makes it likely that a good proportion of the levy would be offset by the costs of administration.To overcome these costs, and to raise enough to fund an effective conservation program - a levy would have to raise tens of millions of dollars - which could mean millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of native mammals would have to be sold. Yet many of those who promote wildlife-as-pets say thet "specialist animal keeping is not for the masses" (see below).
Taking all of the above issues into consideration it is unlikely that any NSW Government would give serious consideration to a proposal for a levy on sales of native mammals. Adding credibility to this is the fact that no state (even the ones which allow mammal keeping) has ever implemented a conservation levy on the sale of any native bird, reptile or mammal.
He said the combined burden of the implementation costs, the ongoing cost of administration, and complexity of compliance enforcement makes it likely that a good proportion of the levy would be offset by the costs of administration.To overcome these costs, and to raise enough to fund an effective conservation program - a levy would have to raise tens of millions of dollars - which could mean millions (or at least hundreds of thousands) of native mammals would have to be sold. Yet many of those who promote wildlife-as-pets say thet "specialist animal keeping is not for the masses" (see below).
Taking all of the above issues into consideration it is unlikely that any NSW Government would give serious consideration to a proposal for a levy on sales of native mammals. Adding credibility to this is the fact that no state (even the ones which allow mammal keeping) has ever implemented a conservation levy on the sale of any native bird, reptile or mammal.
The Arguments they Don't Mention
The arguments seldom discussed in public by people who want to keep native animals as pets include:
In the USA where sugar gliders are horribly exploited (see our sugar glider page), breeders make significant profits, leading to a black market trade where sugar gliders can be "mass produced" in facilities not unlike the cruel and unethical "puppy factories" that Australian authorities are fighting to close down.
In NSW, some years ago, lists of Australian birds and reptiles were created to limit the number of species that could be kept as pets. While many conservationists and welfare agencies were opposed, the lists were agreed by expert panels to limit the environmental and welfare damage this could cause. Some of the environmentalist's concerns having since been proven to be justified, yet hardly a year goes by that bird, reptile and mammal breeders don't lobby to increase the list of animals to be kept. There seems no end to the continual pressure put on by the community of breeders and traders. Recently, breeders, traders and hobbyists lobbied for up to another 130 species to be added to these lists.
Yet a 2010 research paper into wildlife as pets noted that "The welfare of native mammals kept as pets could be poor. The risk here is species-specific, and will depend on the needs of the particular species for suitable housing and stimulation, health care, diet and social life, and their vulnerability to stress, disease, and attacks by dogs and cats". (g)
- Breeders and traders stand to make a lot of money from the exploitation of wildlife, and
- Some hobbyists believe they have a 'right' to continually add the number of animal species they can keep in captivity.
In the USA where sugar gliders are horribly exploited (see our sugar glider page), breeders make significant profits, leading to a black market trade where sugar gliders can be "mass produced" in facilities not unlike the cruel and unethical "puppy factories" that Australian authorities are fighting to close down.
In NSW, some years ago, lists of Australian birds and reptiles were created to limit the number of species that could be kept as pets. While many conservationists and welfare agencies were opposed, the lists were agreed by expert panels to limit the environmental and welfare damage this could cause. Some of the environmentalist's concerns having since been proven to be justified, yet hardly a year goes by that bird, reptile and mammal breeders don't lobby to increase the list of animals to be kept. There seems no end to the continual pressure put on by the community of breeders and traders. Recently, breeders, traders and hobbyists lobbied for up to another 130 species to be added to these lists.
Yet a 2010 research paper into wildlife as pets noted that "The welfare of native mammals kept as pets could be poor. The risk here is species-specific, and will depend on the needs of the particular species for suitable housing and stimulation, health care, diet and social life, and their vulnerability to stress, disease, and attacks by dogs and cats". (g)
Specialist Animal Keeping is not for the masses
Mammal keeping enthusiasts say that specialist animals like wombats and kangaroos would only be for a small number of specially trained keepers. But based on the history of native animal keeping in Australia, such 'safeguards' tend to be set aside down the track, as lobbyists continue to push for more access to more animals. The issue remains the same either way - native animals are exploited for the profit and/or pleasure of a few, with little regard for the rights, freedoms or welfare of the animals.
This argument also counters their own suggestion that the damage caused by keeping wildlife as pets could be offset by a levy on the sale of wildlife (see above).
This argument also counters their own suggestion that the damage caused by keeping wildlife as pets could be offset by a levy on the sale of wildlife (see above).
No species kept as pets has ever gone extinct
As far as we know, that is correct, but it infers a causal relationship which doesn't exist. There is no suggestion anywhere that Grey Wolves Canis lupus continue to thrive because people keep domestic dogs.(c) Nor is there any evidence that the billion-dollar pet industry has contributed to the preservation of habitat for Felis silvestris lybica (the African wildcat considered to be the progenitor of most domestic cats). The statement is meaningless and the inference that the domestication of animals has contributed to their survival in the wild is a totally false.
Coincidentally, millions of Australian native animals are killed every year as a result of interactions with domestic cats and dogs.
Coincidentally, millions of Australian native animals are killed every year as a result of interactions with domestic cats and dogs.
SUMMARY
In summary, there are no compelling arguments in favour of keeping native Australian mammals as pets: We couldn't find even one that stands up to scrutiny. Consider this - every major animal welfare and conservation organisation in NSW opposes the idea, including the NSW Office of Environment & Heritage, which has a web page "Why you can't keep native mammals as pets" (link here).
If you like the idea of interacting with wildlife, but prefer to see out wildlife stay wild, consider volunteering with a wildlife rescue organisation. There are wildlife groups across most of NSW and there are many different ways that you can contribute as a part-time or full-time volunteer. Use your postcode to find a wildlife group near you, by following this link.
If you like the idea of interacting with wildlife, but prefer to see out wildlife stay wild, consider volunteering with a wildlife rescue organisation. There are wildlife groups across most of NSW and there are many different ways that you can contribute as a part-time or full-time volunteer. Use your postcode to find a wildlife group near you, by following this link.
REFERENCES
(a) Jolly, C. J., Webb, J. K., Phillips, B. L., & Jolly, C. J. (2018). The perils of paradise: an endangered species conserved on an island loses antipredator behaviours within 13 generations.
(b) Australian Association of Veterinary Conservation Biologists Newsletter, 2000
(c) Letters to the Editor, The Australian Newspaper, Nick Mooney, Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania, 1999
(d) John Bradshaw, The Animals Among us, 2017
(e) Saunders J, Parast L, Babey SH, Miles JV (2017) Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179494
(f) Amesbury S, former Director at NSW Office of State Revenue (1995-2000) personal communications.
(g) Cooney, Chapple, Doornbos, Jackson, Australian Native Animals as Pets - A feasibility study into conservation, welfare and industry aspects, 2010 (Rural Industries Research and Developmnet Corp)
(a) Jolly, C. J., Webb, J. K., Phillips, B. L., & Jolly, C. J. (2018). The perils of paradise: an endangered species conserved on an island loses antipredator behaviours within 13 generations.
(b) Australian Association of Veterinary Conservation Biologists Newsletter, 2000
(c) Letters to the Editor, The Australian Newspaper, Nick Mooney, Parks and Wildlife Service of Tasmania, 1999
(d) John Bradshaw, The Animals Among us, 2017
(e) Saunders J, Parast L, Babey SH, Miles JV (2017) Exploring the differences between pet and non-pet owners: Implications for human-animal interaction research and policy. PLoS ONE 12(6): e0179494. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0179494
(f) Amesbury S, former Director at NSW Office of State Revenue (1995-2000) personal communications.
(g) Cooney, Chapple, Doornbos, Jackson, Australian Native Animals as Pets - A feasibility study into conservation, welfare and industry aspects, 2010 (Rural Industries Research and Developmnet Corp)