In this blog post, we’ll examine how keeping wild animals as pets affects both humans and animals, and consider the validity and ethics of this practice.
Until recently, the animals considered pets were limited to a few species, such as dogs and cats. However, looking at the animals being kept as pets amid the recent trend for exotic pets, one cannot help but be surprised by the sheer variety. In South Korea, the range of such animals is still relatively limited, consisting mainly of reptiles like chameleons and snakes, as well as monkeys and tarantulas. However, in other countries, people are keeping even wild animals—such as bears, wolves, and tigers—as pets, raising serious questions about whether this is appropriate. A shocking incident related to this occurred in October 2011 in the suburbs of Zanesville, Ohio, in the United States. A man named Terry Thomson released about 50 wild animals he had been keeping from their enclosures and then committed suicide. These wild animals included lions and tigers. Ultimately, to ensure the safety of residents, the police had no choice but to shoot and kill the animals rather than capture them alive. This incident brought to the forefront the issue of wild animals being treated as pets. The term “wild animals” here refers to animals that were not originally raised by humans and were born and raised in the wild. Observing this incident, I realized that keeping wild animals as pets is clearly harmful not only to the keepers but also to the animals themselves. I also felt the need for a legal ban on keeping wild animals as pets. In this article, I intend to discuss the necessity of such legal regulations from two perspectives: humans and wildlife.
First, I believe legal regulations are necessary for safety, as owners and those around them are easily exposed to diseases or accidents when keeping wild animals as pets. While pets from the wild lose their instincts and become tame over time, there is no way to know when those instincts might resurface. This means humans are exposed to potential danger. An expert from an American animal welfare organization notes that while it is difficult to obtain accurate statistics on wildlife-related incidents due to underreporting, the number is likely significant when considering diseases resulting from contact with wild animals. In response, those opposed to legal regulations will argue that it is a matter of personal choice to accept the risks associated with keeping wild animals. There is also the argument that legal regulations infringe upon human freedom of choice. However, when I think of the 4-year-old child bitten on the nose by a puma kept by his aunt, or the woman whose face was severely disfigured after being attacked by a chimpanzee kept by a friend, I want to ask why they had to be exposed to such danger. They, too, have a right to safety. The true meaning of freedom of choice includes taking responsibility for that choice, and I question how one can take responsibility for the lives of others that have already been ruined. If we consider the risk of accidents or diseases that can affect not only the keepers but also innocent bystanders, prioritizing safety over freedom of choice would be a better solution.
Furthermore, legal regulations are necessary because keeping wild animals can strain relationships with neighbors. While keeping a pet may be a process through which the owner bonds with the animal and finds happiness, keeping wild animals, as mentioned earlier, causes friction with neighbors. This means that the happiness felt by the owner can cause inconvenience to those around them. The fact that Terry Thomson had numerous disputes with his neighbors due to keeping wild animals clearly illustrates this point. Police speculated that his act of releasing the animals from their cages just before his suicide stemmed from a desire for revenge against his neighbors. If keeping wild animals as pets had been legally prohibited, neither the deterioration of neighborly relations nor the brutal killing of the animals would have occurred. Humans are social animals who live in relationships with others. Laws, as a form of social regulation, are an important means of minimizing such conflicts.
From the perspective of wild animals, legal regulation is necessary because the environment provided by keepers is unsuitable for them. No matter how much a keeper tries to create an environment similar to nature, it falls far short when compared to the natural habitat where they originally lived. For most keepers, the environment they provide amounts to nothing more than a small tank or a fenced enclosure. How many keepers can confidently claim that wild animals are truly living satisfying lives in such conditions? If these animals were being kept of their own free will, one might accept this situation, but living in a confined space is certainly not the life they intended to lead. Living freely in nature is the environment where they naturally belong—and the environment they desire. From an animal ethics perspective, wild animals have the right to live happily just like humans. Due to human selfishness, wild animals continue to be sacrificed in those small spaces even today.
Furthermore, legal regulations are necessary because keeping them in captivity does not protect them but causes them to lose their natural instincts. Many people who keep wild animals claim they started doing so to protect endangered species. Of course, such motives deserve praise. However, wild animals raised by human hands can no longer maintain their innate wild nature. This becomes a factor that puts them at even greater risk. Some people might think that even if wild animals lose their natural instincts, it’s not a problem as long as they are raised until they die. But raising wild animals forever is realistically impossible. Eventually, they either reach a point where they can no longer be cared for or must be returned to the wild. The problem is that even if they return to the wild, having grown accustomed to an environment where they do not have to forage for food, they are unable to resume their original natural way of life. They have now lost their place to go. If we truly wish to protect endangered wild animals, the most important first step is to protect the natural habitats where they can live.
