Ethics of keeping wild animals as pets.

[SoutherDem]

I have a neighbor who rescues wild animals, raccoons, opossums, ground hogs, squirrels and a like, usually babies who mothers were killed, I understand this although I would take them to a local wild animal shelter which attempts to release the animals with as little human contact as possible, if it were me.

She raises them as pets, but as adults she does allow them to go and come as they wish using a doggy door. They are not frightened of people and have come to rely on my neighbor for a food supply even if they choose to not live in her house any more. I know she has the best intentions and in no way wants to harm the animals and they would have died if left alone as babies.

Please don't get me wrong I have dogs, cats and fish. The dogs and cats of course are now domesticated animals and were all rescues. The fish were purchased from a reputable pet store and are farmed not wild caught.

I don't mean to overly judge my neighbor and no matter if I or anyone agrees or not what she is doing is legal because none of the animals are protected and the city we live in only have regulations on dogs and livestock.

But, here are my concerns;
The animals are still wild enough to bring diseases to our dogs and cats.
Because they were raised around dogs and cats they are not afraid of them. So they have no fear of them although the dogs and cats in the neighborhood still think of them as prey (not everyone in the neighborhood follows the leash laws for dogs or keeps their cats in the house).
Traveling to and from her house causes them to cross roads more often than they would in nature and may get killed.
If they breed with fully wild animals will a wild crossed with a domestic cause a semi-domesticated breed which are too tame to function in the wild but too wild to be fed by my neighbor thus starve once weened from their mothers?

Like I said there isn't much anyone could do to stop her but what would you all do? Am I being overly dramatic and shouldn't be concerned or am I just as bad owning dogs, cats and fish? I am just seeking wisdom of others.

[mopinko]

1. unless this person is licensed and trained, she should be stopped.

us fish and wildlife will do that if she is turned in.
big hearts cause a lot of trouble. your concerns are quite valid for the most part, although if one of her "pets" mated with a wild animal, it would likely be the last she saw of it. hopefully.
i don't know where you are, but perhaps there are properly trained people who would end up with these animals if she weren't there. i suspect she would be given the opportunity to train and prepare for licensing if she is doing a good job.

but wild animals should stay wild.

[SoutherDem]

2. Thanks for the information

I will check with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife. Thanks for the suggestion.
Our state law states if it is a local animal (not brought in from another state or country) and not on the U.S. protected, threatened, endangered list it is legal.

[TorchTheWitch]

3. valid points to not care for a wild animal

These animals aren't domesticated but merely rather tame - big difference. They take advantage of her providing food but are still basically wild. The point about disease in particular is a very good one, and not just disease but various parasites as well.

I figure if you provide food and shelter for an animal it becomes your pet and are then responsible for its well-being and anything that animal does. This going half-way crap is completely unacceptable to me, aNd entirely selfish. She is hurting these animals long term and may be hurting others both animal and human by going half-way in caring for these animals but not taking responsibility for them and by extension everyone else in the vicinity and their pets.

The big huge enormous difference between the animals this woman cares for and our pets is that our dogs, cats, fish, birds and other pets are exactly that... they are part of our families, and we take FULL responsibility for their well-being and any damage they cause. And that makes ALL the difference.

If she wants these animals to get help then she should turn them over to the proper organization who knows what they're doing, keeping the animals safe and everyone else safe from them and doing what their experience and knowledge tells them is the best way to return them to the wild so the animals have the best chance at success back in the wild.

Her heart's in the right place, but she's doing it all wrong to the detriment of the animals and everyone else.

[Curmudgeoness]

4. I was a wildlife rehabilitator years ago

and I am completely opposed to taming wild animals. This is dangerous to the person having the pets as well as dangerous to the neighborhood, as you have stated. You are not wrong to be concerned. It takes special training to care for wild animals, and although she seems to be doing a good job raising them, these animals should stay wild.

So what would I do in your situation? Is there any wildlife rehabilitation facility in your area? If so, the first thing I would do is contact them to find out if there is anything that can be done---they will know the laws regulating this activity, if there are any, and will also care enough to try to keep this person and the animals from being persecuted. They may also be able to get her into their volunteer program, if they have one---she will learn the right and wrong ways to help these critters, and it appears that this is what she is most concerned about.

If there is no rehabilitator anywhere around you, try contacting your state's wildlife department (different states have different names for these agencies). Find out if there is a requirement to have a permit to raise native wild animals (most states do). Also find out if there is any law against keeping animals that would be considered rabies carriers (raccoons are one of the top vectors). You could also contact the Humane Society of the US about your specific state and what could be done. Without knowing what state you are in, I cannot address this further.