VIEWPOINT
Lions, Tigers and Bears…Oh, my Ohio.
From the Editor
On October 19, near Zanesville, Ohio schools closed, motorists were warned to stay in their vehicles, and officers armed with rifles searched for the all too real lions, tigers and bears of our childhood memories as they roamed free across the rolling hills near a private wild animal preserve in south-eastern Ohio. These animals were purposely set free by their owner, who then killed himself. Many are calling this the largest exotic animal escape to ever occur in the United States. The tally is staggering as 49 animals were put down including 18 Bengal tigers (Panthera tigris tigris), 17 lions (Panthera leo), 6 black bears (Ursus americanus), 2 grizzlies (Ursus arctos horribilis), 3 mountain lions (Puma concolor), 2 wolves, and 1 baboon, according to ABC News. Six animals, including three leopards (Panthera pardus), two Celebes macaques (Macaca nigra), and a young grizzly bear were eventually rescued and taken to the Columbus Zoo.
Not long before the Zanesville tragedy, the award-winning documentary film “The Elephant in the Living Room” was released, highlighting the counter-culture of people who privately keep exotic pets. The film featured officer Timothy Harrison of Oakwood, Ohio who has become an expert in dealing with the dangerous exotics that people have purchased as cute babies, and then grow into dangerous adults for which they can no longer provide care. The film shows just how easy it is to purchase an exotic animal in my beloved home state of Ohio. They go undercover at the notorious Mt. Hope Auction, cross the border for a Pennsylvania reptile show and cruise the aisles for venomous snakes, and leaf through “Animal Finders Guide”, somewhat of a Craigslist® for exotic animals.
According to the film, 30 states allow private ownership of exotic animals, and nine require no permit whatsoever. To put this in perspective, in Ohio I’m required to register my dog and purchase dog tags for her, but if I were to own a lion or a tiger, I’m not required to do anything. To quote Ohio Governor John Kasich, “We don’t have a clue in the state of how many (wild) animals there are; we have no inventory”. But we do have some estimates from the film “The Elephant in the Living Room”. It is estimated there are 15,000 exotic cats in private ownership in the U.S., 7.3 million reptiles, 15,000 primates, and more tigers in private ownership in Texas than there are in the wild in India. Think about those numbers Studbook Keepers! In addition to private ownership, the International Primate Protection League reported in September 2011 that 21,315 primates were imported into the U.S. in 2010. The primates were primarily imported from China (62%) by research labs. The species most commonly imported was the crab-eating macaque (Macaca fascicularis).
This topic hits home for me because both stories, the Zanesville tragedy and the film, are set in my home state of Ohio. I’m familiar with how easy it is to purchase exotics in Ohio because a retired co-worker of mine would go to many of the auctions, write down the prices of what the animals would go for, and bring the lists for me to see. It is amazing to see what one can purchase and for how cheap. Purchasing a lion cub is as simple as going to an electronics store and buying a television. It also hits home for me because I had a relative who worked as an officer in southern Ohio in a similar capacity as Timothy Harrison in the film “The Elephant in the Living Room”. I would hear the heart-breaking stories of how many of those exotic animals are kept in the hands of private owners. Now I know there are some people that will argue that there are plenty of private owners that do great work, and I am not disputing that, but nobody can deny that there are a tremendous amount of exotic animals in horrible circumstances.
Which brings me to the main point of my editorial: What should be the role of accredited zoos and aquariums when it comes to the issue of the private ownership of exotic animals? This is a call to action that must not go unheeded. If you stay in this industry long enough, you see things repeat themselves. Many years ago, a major magazine did an expose´ on the trade of exotic animals. Like today, it was a call to action, but our industry remained silent. We have a second chance to assume a leadership position on an important issue. If we are the premier experts on the care of exotic animals, then shouldn’t our industry be at the forefront of addressing this issue? Some zoos and associations have stepped up to the plate on this issue, while others have remained silent. As the subject-matter experts, our industry must show leadership in helping establish the proper expertise, permits, resources, facilities, and safety precautions it will require to privately keep exotic animals in the future.
Back in Ohio, the Columbus Zoo is part of an 11-member task force to address the issue of exotic animals. The task force includes the Columbus Zoo, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Humane Society of the United States, Knox County Prosecutor’s Office, Ohio Association of Animal Owners, Ohio Farm Bureau, Ohio Veterinary Medical Association, U.S. Sportsmen’s Alliance, and the Zoo Association of America. The state imposed a temporary moratorium on the sale of wild animals and any unlicensed animal auctions have been closed. It’s all a step in the right direction. As animal care professionals, it is our duty to educate our visitors and communities about the animals in our collections, but also the animals in their collections as well, which can sometimes be even more exotic and extensive than the ones at the zoo. Ultimately, our role as animal care professionals should impact animal welfare, conservation, and community relations, within and beyond the perimeters of our zoological institutions. That is where we can truly “foster the wonder” as AAZK President Bob Cisneros eloquently puts it in this month’s Letter from the President.
What do you think? Send us your thoughts on this important topic.
Contact the Editor at shane.good@aazk.org
Special Interview on the Topic of Private Ownership of Exotic Animals
The following interview is with Dr. Chris Kuhar, Curator of Primates and Small Mammals at Cleveland Metroparks Zoo. Dr. Kuhar served on a panel discussion at a local Cleveland college on the private ownership of exotic animals and is an active participant on the issue, both locally and throughout the state. I recently had the opportunity to discuss with him the many facets of private ownership of exotic animals.
AKF: What is your role in addressing private ownership of exotic animals in Ohio? Why are you passionate about this issue?
Kuhar: As Curator of Primates and Small Mammals, I receive a call every couple of months from a private owner who wants to get a pet primate. They may want anything from tamarins to chimpanzees, or worse, they already have the animal and are discovering the potential problems. The animals that end up as pets are usually hand-reared so they typically have behavior problems. Additionally, the owners can’t find good medical care or diet information. Often the pet primate that was so sweet is now becoming aggressive as it reaches sexual maturity. It’s a predictable story and it’s all very bad for the primate. On top of all this, they are typically a social primate being housed alone. All of these factors create a very bad welfare situation for that animal. I’d really like to see this prevented. That’s why I’ve taken an interest in this issue in Ohio.
Cleveland Metroparks Zoo has been vocal about the need to deal with this situation in Ohio. The fact that exotic animals often do not make good pets is an important education message that we try to convey.
AKF: Why is the issue of private ownership of exotic animals important to animal care professionals?
Kuhar: In my opinion, there are two major reasons. The first is that animal care professionals are focused on providing the best care possible for animals and ensuring their welfare. There are many animals out there that are just not receiving the care that they need. It is important for us to acknowledge that fact and communicate to the community outside of the zoo about our desires for a higher standard of care for these animals. Additionally, as animals are confiscated out of bad situations, they may end up in our zoos. We need to be prepared for that possibility.
Second, I think the average person who sees stories like the tragedy in Zanesville does not differentiate between accredited zoos and unaccredited zoos, sanctuaries and private menageries. As a result, for every bad exotic animal story, whether it’s a major news story or individuals becoming aware of poor animal care in their community, it can reflect poorly on accredited zoos and aquariums.
AKF: Explain what Ohio zoos are doing in regards to this issue their state.
Kuhar: The Columbus Zoo has obviously taken action by housing some of the animals from the Zanesville tragedy, but zoo directors from all of the AZA-accredited facilities in Ohio have issued statements to the state government asking for legislation to be created that would regulate exotic animals in the state. Many of the zoos also have education message points around why exotic animals do not make good pets. Until legislation is put into place, the zoos’ role is primarily one of education and advocacy.
AKF: What is AZA’s stance on this issue?
Kuhar: AZA has issued a statement reiterating the position that exotic animals do not make good pets. They have also stated that they urge Ohio to adopt some of the exotic animal regulations that other states have adopted.
AKF: Does the Zoo and Aquarium industry seem united on its stance on this issue, or are there any differing opinions?
Kuhar: There are some taxonomic differences. Some private breeders of reptiles, amphibians, birds, and fish are very successful and very professional. These individuals are important to the zoo and aquarium industry since they can provide much needed space and expertise that allows us to manage sustainable collections and not impact wild populations. The challenge lies in where to draw the line. How do we define “professional” and “expert”? Which species are OK to have and which species aren’t? Many states have different regulations because these questions are so hard to answer.
AKF: Common questions I hear pertain to accredited zoos’ relationships with exotic animal auctions. “Aren’t these auctions supported by zoos?” “Don’t zoos themselves obtain animals from these auctions?” “Don’t zoos dump surplus animals on these private facilities?” “How can you be sure that zoos aren’t contributing to the problem?” First of all, how do you respond to such questions?
Kuhar: AZA’s code of ethics directly states that members must follow disposition standards that do not permit the animals under our care to end up in situations where they may end up in the hands of individuals who are not qualified to care for them properly. Each zoo’s disposition policy is slightly different because of their individual situations, but the common thread running through AZA-accredited institutions is the ethical code which requires us to keep these animals’ best interest in mind. That may not have been the case in zoos of 100 years ago, but it’s what we try to do today.
AKF: The questions above point to a perception problem. Whether accredited zoos and aquariums have a relationship or not, when something bad happens, it seems the public inevitably still relates accredited facilities with “roadside zoos”. In other words, even the best facilities’ reputations are affected by problems in the worst facilities. Are we being proactive enough in addressing exotic animal issues in private ownership and roadside zoos?
Kuhar: I think that’s a great point. We may make a distinction between “us” and “them”, but that’s not necessarily the way the public sees it. That’s why accreditation standards are so important and it’s why it’s important for us to stand up and voice our concerns. We need to tell people why we’re different and what we’re doing to be different. This way, we not only tell people how hard we work to take care of the animals that are entrusted to us, but we can show people that this is an issue that shouldn’t be taken lightly.
AKF: Should private ownership of dangerous, exotic animals be banned? If not, where do we draw the lines?
Kuhar: It is my opinion that dangerous, exotic animals should be banned. The hard part is defining what a dangerous animal really is. It’s easy to say that lions, tigers, bears, or chimpanzees are dangerous, but what about a baboon or a clouded leopard? They aren’t as dangerous as the others, but they could certainly do a lot of damage to you in the wrong situation. It becomes a very hard decision.
AKF: As a Curator of Primates, would you draw a line there? Would you like to see no primates being sold into private ownership?
Kuhar: I would prefer that no primates were in private hands. There are definite physical dangers for some of the bigger animals and there are definite zoonotic disease issues with others, like macaques for example. However, there are serious welfare implications for all primates in private hands. It is very challenging for private owners to provide adequate veterinary care and the correct social environment for these animals. When those standards of care aren’t met, the welfare of these animals suffers. I’m just not able to justify making it legal for those very few individuals who may be able to meet the standards required for keeping primates while hundreds or thousands of others are kept in inappropriate housing situations. It would be better for animal welfare and human safety if it were illegal for primates to be privately owned.
AKF: One of the statistics from the movie “The Elephant in the Living Room” is that there are more tigers living in captivity in Texas than there are in the wild in India. How does the trade and ownership of exotic animals affect the conservation of species?
Kuhar: As long as there is a demand for exotic animals and a profit to be made there will continue to be pressure on wild populations. If individuals feel they can profit, there will always be the temptation to bring in animals from the wild and cheat the system. Even well-intentioned individuals can cause harm if they aren’t sure exactly who they are dealing with and with whom that individual has dealt. Perhaps more disturbing is the fact that there is growing evidence from research with primates that the presence of primates in the media detracts from the public’s perception that these species are endangered. Just seeing them in close contact with humans in commercials and in movies makes people take their conservation issues less seriously. We still don’t know if this applies to all species or what the specific factors that impact people’s perceptions are, but if the prevalence of exotic animals in private hands, and used in the media has the same impact, this would greatly compromise the goals of the modern zoo to educate and promote positive conservation impact.
AKF: If you could convince animal care professionals and their professional associations to do anything in regards to this issue, what would it be?
Kuhar: This is a complicated issue. Animal care professionals need to be aware of how their actions are impacting the bigger picture issue. Educate yourself about the wildlife laws in your community and advocate for more stringent laws when necessary. Educate the public, your family and friends, anyone who will listen about what zoos are doing to help wildlife and the importance of leaving the care of exotic animals to trained professional staff.