A new article, Identifying inconsistencies in exotic pet regulations that perpetuate trade in risky species (Pratt et al., 2023), discusses the main consequences that result from the severely flawed and largely unregulated exotic animal trade in the United States, including increasing chances of disease spread and invasive species populations. These lax regulations persist despite exotic animals comprising approximately 50% of the U.S. pet population.
Focusing on analyzing the regulation of the exotic animal trade within the U.S.’s national borders, the authors reviewed state-level regulations that apply to the trade of vertebrate animal taxa across the country. Like the findings from research Born Free USA has similarly conducted on exotic animal laws in the U.S. for reports including Public Danger, Private Pain: The Case Against the U.S. Pet Trade and Their Lives for Your Likes: The Exploitation of Wild Animals on Social Media, they discovered that the definitions and classifications for regulating different vertebrate taxa varied greatly, and the terms ‘pet,’ ‘companion animal,’ ‘injurious,’ and ‘nonnative’ were inconsistent and vague across most states.
Concerningly, and counterintuitively, the authors also found that states implemented regulations that permit the trade of exotic vertebrate pets that are banned from import into the U.S, consequently increasing the already high public health and animal conservation concerns. Further, for those animal species permitted for import into the U.S., few restrictions exist to regulate the movement or monitor the location of these animals, despite emerging research confirming that invasive species are strongly overrepresented in the global pet trade in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, fish, and ants.
They found that states most frequently regulated trade in large carnivores, non-human primates, ferrets, turtles, tortoises, and snakes, though only 25 states (50% of the U.S.) regulated trade in constrictor snakes specifically (despite the confirmed facts that non-native boa constrictors, ball pythons, and reticulated pythons are known to pose high invasion risks in the U.S. through risk-assessment models and the Burmese python has affected parasite-host dynamics of native snakes and altered the ecology of zoonotic pathogens in southern Florida).
Several states did not regulate trade in amphibians, fish, birds, or hybrid animals at all. Just 22 states (43% of the U.S.) implemented laws that regulated trade in ‘dangerous’ wildlife, or animals that the state deemed to be inherently dangerous to human health and safety, the environment, livestock, agriculture, or the wildlife in the state.
In terms of enforcement, the authors discovered that violations of state laws were typically listed as misdemeanors, with just $1,000 as the median fine for violating state wildlife trade laws. The authors concluded that the failure of states to consistently regulate exotic vertebrate pet ownership coupled with such limited penalties for violating regulations has facilitated the continued possession of exotic pets in states where these animals are banned.
Therefore, the authors suggest that the U.S. transitions to a federally enforced list of vertebrate species that may be traded as pets, with all other vertebrate species banned from the exotic pet trade unless their potential invasion, disease risks, and danger to humans have been assessed and demonstrated to be low or nonexistent (Pratt et al., 2023). Of course, Born Free argues that all wild animals should be banned from private possession, as their welfare is severely compromised in captivity, and all wild animals pose a threat to human health and safety in environments that permit and encourage close physical contact.
The suggested strategy resembles one already adopted in Europe, known as ‘positive’ or ‘white’ lists, and has been implemented to some extent in several countries including Luxembourg, Cyprus, Malta, Italy, Lithuania, France, Slovenia, Spain, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Greece in attempts to mitigate the harms caused by the exotic pet trade (WAP, 2023). These lists designate the species which can be kept in private possession legally, and excludes all others, rather than the approach observed in the U.S., which allows the private ownership of all species unless explicitly banned in select states.
Although the Big Cat Public Safety Act was passed in 2022, which restricts the private ownership of and public interaction with most big cat species within the U.S., internet-based interstate trade in regulated species still occurs, even if these species are protected by federal law (Pratt et al., 2023).
The benefits of adopting positive lists in the U.S. are undeniable; in addition to being easier to enforce and more transparent than negative lists, they are evidence-based, meaning that they use scientific evidence assessed against strict criteria to determine which species are suitable to be kept as pets. They are also proactive instead of reactive; positive lists prevent new trends in pet ownership from emerging, whereas negative lists can only respond after private ownership of a new exotic animal becomes popular and, inevitably, problematic (WAP, 2023).
In the wake of social media and its role in exponentially increasing the desire for and ownership of exotic animals, it is necessary that the U.S. urgently adopts effective legislation that restricts this practice in efforts to protect the animals involved in this cruel trade and the health and safety of humans throughout the country from future (and potentially irreversible) harm.
References
Pratt et al., 2023. Identifying inconsistencies in exotic pet regulations that perpetuate trade in risky – 2023.pdf
WAP, 2023. https://www.worldanimalprotection.org.uk/blogs/positive-list
