The Paradox of Keeping Exotic Animals as Pets

Rafael Andrés David Fernández; Ngaio Richards; Manuel Ignacio San Andrés Larrea; Víctor Briones Dieste; Pedro Brufao Curiel

doi:10.21697/seb.5848

Published: 2025-03-24

The Paradox of Keeping Exotic Animals as Pets

Rafael Andrés David Fernández

, Ngaio Richards

, Manuel Ignacio San Andrés Larrea

, Víctor Briones Dieste

, Pedro Brufao Curiel

Studia Ecologiae et Bioethicae

Section: Articles

https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.5848

Abstract

In the European Union (as elsewhere), there are many activities that involve animals and which must, as such, be subject to regulation. These include trade, livestock farming, fishing or for the purpose of environmental protection. Some of these regulations also cover the definition of “pet animals” which includes both domestic and exotic pets- whether from the natural environment (wild animals) or bred in captivity from originally wild animals. Species that have adapted to or undergone a domestication process present a series of characteristics that are more favorable for or conducive to coexistence with humans. This article explores whether exotic species should be viewed as “pets,” based on – by their very nature - being inherently incompatible with domestication, including their habitat/living requirements. In addition, it raises issues around, and rationale or drivers of, the practice of trading and acquiring exotic species as pets, when there is the alternative of keeping a domestic animal for this purpose instead.

Keywords:

domestication, companion animal, wildlife trade, legislation, welfare, pets

Download files

PDF

Citation rules

David Fernández, R. A., Richards, N., San Andrés Larrea, M. I., Briones Dieste, V., & Brufao Curiel, P. (2025). The Paradox of Keeping Exotic Animals as Pets. Studia Ecologiae Et Bioethicae. https://doi.org/10.21697/seb.5848

Cited by / Share

Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.

References

Ahmad, Hafiz Ishfaq, et al. 2020. “The Domestication Makeup: Evolution, Survival, and Challenges.” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 8: 103. https://doi.org/10.3389/fevo.2020.00103.
Google Scholar

Andrews, Christopher. 1990. “The ornamental fish trade and fish conservation.” Journal of Fish Biology 37: 53-59.
Google Scholar

Auliya, Mark, et al. 2016. “Trade in live reptiles, its impact on wild populations, and the role of the European market.” Biological Conservation 204: 103-119. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2016.05.017.
Google Scholar

Azevedo, Alexandre, Leonor Guimarães, Joel Ferraz, Martin Whiting, Manuel Magalhães-Sant’Ana. 2022. “Understanding the Human–Reptile Bond: An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Study.” Anthrozoös 35(6): 755-772. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927936.2022.2051934.
Google Scholar

Beck, Alan M., and Aaron H. Katcher. 2003. “Future directions in human-animal bond research.” American behavioral scientist 47(1): 79-93. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764203255214.
Google Scholar

Boitani, Luigi, and Paolo Ciucci. 1995. “Comparative social ecology of feral dogs and wolves.” Ethology ecology & evolution 7(1): 49-72. https://doi.org/10.1080/08927014.1995.9522969.
Google Scholar

Bush, Emma R., Sandra E. Baker, and David W. Macdonald. 2014. “Global trade in exotic pets 2006–2012.” Conservation Biology 28(3): 663-676. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.12240.
Google Scholar

Castellanos, Jose Miguel Beltrán. 2019. Fauna exótica invasora. Madrid: Reus.
Google Scholar

Clarke, Tara A., Kim E. Reuter, Marni LaFleur, and Melissa S. Schaefer. 2019. “A viral video and pet lemurs on Twitter.” PloS One 14(1): e0208577. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208577.
Google Scholar

Clevelandzoosociety.org. 2017. “Tortured, Not Tickled.” Accessed 10 January, 2025. https://www.clevelandzoosociety.org/z/2017/10/16/tortured-not-tickled.
Google Scholar

Collard, Rosemary-Claire. 2020. Animal traffic: Lively capital in the global exotic pet trade. Durham and London: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1080/08263663.2022.2055336.
Google Scholar

Comité Nacional de Prevención de Lesiones. 2020. “Consenso: niños y mascotas.” Arch Argent Pediatr 118(3): S69-S106. http://dx.doi.org/10.5546/aap.2020.S69.
Google Scholar

Commission Decision of 1 March 2004 adopting a list of materials whose circulation or use for animal nutrition purposes is prohibited.
Google Scholar

Commission Decision of 27 December 2000 prohibiting the use of certain animal by-products in animal feed.
Google Scholar

Commission Regulation (EC) No 865/2006 of 4 May 2006 laying down detailed rules concerning the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 338/97 on the protection of species of wild fauna and flora by regulating trade therein.
Google Scholar

Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES), signed in 1973 and amended in 1979 and 1983.
Google Scholar

Council Directive 70/524/EEC of 23 November 1970 concerning additives in feeding-stuffs.
Google Scholar

Council Directive 79/373/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the marketing of compound feedingstuffs.
Google Scholar

Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 concerning veterinary and zootechnical checks applicable in intra- Community trade in certain live animals and products with a view to the completion of the internal market.
Google Scholar

Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC.
Google Scholar

Council Directive of 29 November 1984 amending Directive 70/524/EEC concerning additives in feeding stuffs.
Google Scholar

D’Cruze, Neil, Lauren A. Harrington, Délagnon Assou, Delphine Ronfot, David W. Macdonald, Gabriel H. Segniagbeto, and Mark Auliya. 2020b. “Searching for snakes: Ball python hunting in southern Togo, West Africa.” Nature Conservation 38: 13-36. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.38.47864.
Google Scholar

D’Cruze, Neil, Lauren A. Harrington, Délagnon Assou, Jennah Green, David W. Macdonald, Delphine Ronfot, Gabriel Hoinsoudé Segniagbeto, and Mark Auliya. 2020a. “Betting the farm: A review of Ball Python and other reptile trade from Togo, West Africa.” Nature Conservation 40: 65-91. https://doi.org/10.3897/natureconservation.40.48046.
Google Scholar

Daszak, Peter, Andrew A. Cunningham, Alex D. Hyatt. 2000. “Emerging infectious diseases of wildlife--threats to biodiversity and human health.” Science 287(5452): 443-449. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.287.5452.443
Google Scholar

Davis, Christine. 1998. “Appreciating avian intelligence: The importance of a proper domestic environment.” Journal-American Veterinary Medical Association 212: 1220-1221.
Google Scholar

De la Fuente, María Fernanda, Bruna Monielly Carvalho de Araújo, Iamara da Silva Policarpo, Heliene Mota Pereira, Anna Karolina Martins Borges, Washington Luiz Silva Vieira, Gentil Alves Pereira Filho, and Rômulo Romeu Nóbrega Alves. 2023. “Keeping reptiles as pets in Brazil: keepers’ motivations and husbandry practices.” Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine 19(1): 46. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13002-023-00618-z.
Google Scholar

Driscoll, Carlos A., and David W. Macdonald. 2010. “Top dogs: wolf domestication and wealth.” Journal of Biology 9: 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/jbiol226.
Google Scholar

EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030: Bringing nature back into our lives (European Parliament Resolution of June 9, 2021).
Google Scholar

European Convention for the Protection of Pet Animals (Strasbourg, November 13, 1987).
Google Scholar

Graham, David L. 1998. “Pet birds: historical and modern perspectives on the keeper and the kept.” Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association 212(8): 1216–1219.
Google Scholar

Grant, Rachel A., V. Tamara Montrose, and Alison P. Wills. 2017. “ExNOTic: Should we be keeping exotic pets?” Animals 7(6): 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ani7060047.
Google Scholar

Hare, Brian, Irene Plyusnina, Natalie Ignacio, Olesya Schepina, Anna Stepika, Richard Wrangham, and Lyudmila Trut. 2005. “Social cognitive evolution in captive foxes is a correlated by-product of experimental domestication.” Current Biology 15(3): 226-230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2005.01.040.
Google Scholar

Hare, Brian, J. Call, M. Tomasello. n.d. Communication of food location between human and dog (Canis familiaris) Evol Commun Harrington. (in press).
Google Scholar

Hare, Brian, Michelle Brown, Christina Williamson, and Michael Tomasello. 2002. “The domestication of social cognition in dogs.” Science 298(5598): 1634-1636. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1072702.
Google Scholar

Hausmann, Anna, Gonzalo Cortés-Capano, Iain Fraser, and Enrico Di Minin. 2023. “Assessing preferences and motivations for owning exotic pets: Care matters.” Biological Conservation 281: 110007. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biocon.2023.110007.
Google Scholar

Hernádi, Anna, Anna Kis, Borbála Turcsán, and József Topál. 2012. “Man’s underground best friend: domestic ferrets, unlike the wild forms, show evidence of dog-like social-cognitive skills.” PLOS One: e43267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0043267.
Google Scholar

Jardat, Plotine, and Léa Lansade. 2022. “Cognition and the human–animal relationship: a review of the sociocognitive skills of domestic mammals toward humans.” Animal Cognition 25(2): 369-384. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10071-021-01557-6.
Google Scholar

Jensen, Per, and Dominic Wright. 2022. “Behavioral Genetics and Animal Domestication.” In Genetics and the Behavior of Domestic Animals, edited by Temple Grandin, 49-93. New York: Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/C2020-0-02188-2.
Google Scholar

King, Tracey A. 2019. “Wild caught ornamental fish: a perspective from the UK ornamental aquatic industry on the sustainability of aquatic organisms and livelihoods.” Journal of Fish Biology 94(6): 925-936. https://doi.org/10.1111/jfb.13900.
Google Scholar

Lauren A., Mark Auliya, Harry Eckman, Alix P. Harrington, David W. Macdonald, and Neil D'Cruze. 2021. “Live wild animal exports to supply the exotic pet trade: A case study from Togo using publicly available social media data.” Conservation Science and Practice 3(7): e430. https://doi.org/10.1111/csp2.430.
Google Scholar

Ley Orgánica 10/1995, de 23 de noviembre, del Código Penal.
Google Scholar

Lockwood, Julie L., et al. 2019. “When pets become pests: the role of the exotic pet trade in producing invasive vertebrate animals.” Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 17(6): 323-330. https://doi.org/10.1002/fee.2059.
Google Scholar

McKinley, Jean, and Thomas D. Sambrook. 2000. “Use of human-given cues by domestic dogs (Canis familiaris) and horses (Equus caballus).” Animal Cognition 3: 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1007/s100710050046.
Google Scholar

Mitchell, Mark, and Thomas N. Tully. 2008. Manual of exotic pet practice. St. Louis: Elsevier Health Sciences.
Google Scholar

Nekaris KA-I, et al. 2013. “Tickled to death: analysing public perceptions of ‘cute’videos of threatened species (slow lorises–Nycticebus spp.) on Web 2.0 Sites.” PloS One 8(7): 69215. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0069215.
Google Scholar

Nijman, Vincent, and K. Anne-Isola Nekaris. 2017. “The Harry Potter effect: The rise in trade of owls as pets in Java and Bali, Indonesia.” Global Ecology and Conservation 11: 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2017.04.004.
Google Scholar

Panter, Connor, Eleanor Atkinson, and Rachel White. 2019. “Quantifying the global legal trade in live CITES-listed raptors and owls for commercial purposes over a 40-year period.” Avocetta 43(1): 23-36. https://doi.org/10.30456/AVO.2019104.
Google Scholar

Pienaar, Elizabeth F., and Diane. J. E. Sturgeon. 2024. “Exotic pet owners’ preferences for different ectothermic taxa are based on species traits and purchase prices in the United States.” NeoBiota 91: 1-27. https://doi.org/10.3897/neobiota.91.109403.
Google Scholar

Podberscek, Anthony L., Elizabeth S. Paul, and James A. Serpell. 2005. Companion animals and us: exploring the relationships between people and pets. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar

Pouil, Simon, Michael F. Tlusty, Andrew L. Rhyne, and Marc Metian. 2019. “Aquaculture of marine ornamental fish: overview of the production trends and the role of academia in research progress.” Reviews in Aquaculture 12(2): 1217-1230. https://doi.org/10.1111/raq.12381.
Google Scholar

Price, Edward O. 2002. Animal domestication and behavior. Wallingford: CABI Pub. https://doi.org/10.1079/9780851995977.0000.
Google Scholar

Ramsay, Neil F., Pek Kaye Abigayle Ng, Ruth M. O'Riordan, and Loke Ming Chou. 2007. “The red-eared slider (Trachemys scripta elegans) in Asia: a review.” In Biological invaders in inland waters: Profiles, distribution, and threats, edited by F. Gherardi, 161-174. Dordrecht: Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-6029-8_8.
Google Scholar

Regulation (EC) No 1523/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2007 banning the placing on the market and the import to, or export from, the Community of cat and dog fur, and products containing such fur.
Google Scholar

Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 September 2003 on additives for use in animal nutrition.
Google Scholar

Regulation (EC) No 767/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 July 2009 on the placing on the market and use of feed, amending European Parliament and Council Regulation (EC) No 1831/2003 and repealing Council Directive 79/373/EEC, Commission Directive 80/511/EEC, Council Directives 82/471/EEC, 83/228/EEC, 93/74/EEC, 93/113/EC and 96/25/EC and Commission Decision 2004/217/EC.
Google Scholar

Regulation (EC) No 998/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 on the animal health requirements applicable to the non-commercial movement of pet animals and amending Council Directive 92/65/EEC.
Google Scholar

Regulation (EU) 2016/429 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 March 2016 on transmissible animal diseases and amending and repealing certain acts in the area of animal health (‘Animal Health Law’) refers again in its definition of ‘pet animal’ to an annex (‘an animal of any of the species listed in Annex I, which is kept for personal non-commercial purposes’).
Google Scholar

Regulation (EU) No 576/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 June 2013 on the non-commercial movement of pet animals and repealing Regulation (EC) No 998/2003.
Google Scholar

Savolainen, Peter, Ya-ping Zhang, Jing Luo, Joakim Lundeberg, and Thomas Leitner. 2002. “Genetic evidence for an East Asian origin of domestic dogs.” Science 298(5598): 1610-1613. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1073906.
Google Scholar

Schütz, Karin E., and Per Jensen. 2001. “Effects of resource allocation on behavioural strategies: a comparison of red junglefowl (Gallus gallus) and two domesticated breeds of poultry.” Ethology 107(8): 753-765. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1439-0310.2001.00703.x.
Google Scholar

Schütz, Karin, Susanne Kerje, Örjan Carlborg, Lina Jacobsson, Leif Andersson, and Per Jensen. 2002. “QTL analysis of a red junglefowl× White Leghorn intercross reveals trade-off in resource allocation between behavior and production traits.” Behavior Genetics 32: 423-433. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1020880211144.
Google Scholar

Shukhova, Sofiya, and Douglas C. MacMillan. 2020. “From tigers to axolotls: Why people keep exotic pets in Russia.” People and Nature 2(4): 940-949. https://doi.org/10.1002/pan3.10125.
Google Scholar

Siriwat, Penthai, K. A. I. Nekaris, and Vincent Nijman. 2020. “Digital media and the modern-day pet trade: a test of the ‘Harry Potter effect’and the owl trade in Thailand.” Endangered Species Research 41: 7-16. https://doi.org/10.3354/esr01006.
Google Scholar

Smith, Kristine M., Carlos Zambrana-Torrelio, Anne White, Marianne Asmussen, Catherine Machalaba, Stephen Kennedy, Katherine Lopez, et al. 2017. “Summarizing US wildlife trade with an eye toward assessing the risk of infectious disease introduction.” EcoHealth 14: 29-39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10393-017-1211-7.
Google Scholar

Thomas‐Walters, Laura, Amy Hinsley, Daniel Bergin, Gayle Burgess, Hunter Doughty, Sara Eppel, Douglas MacFarlane, et al. 2021. “Motivations for the use and consumption of wildlife products.” Conservation Biology 35(2): 483-491. https://doi.org/10.1111/cobi.13578.
Google Scholar

Toland, Elaine, Monica Bando, Michèle Hamers, Vanessa Cadenas, Rob Laidlaw, Albert Martínez-Silvestre, and Paul van der Wielen. 2020. “Turning negatives into positives for pet trading and keeping: A review of positive lists.” Animals 10(12): 2371. https://doi.org/10.3390/ani10122371.
Google Scholar

Tomasello, Michael, and Josep Call. 1997. Primate cognition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar

Toomes, Adam, Pablo García‐Díaz, Oliver C. Stringham, Joshua V. Ross, Lewis Mitchell, and Phillip Cassey. 2022. “Drivers of the Australian native pet trade: The role of species traits, socioeconomic attributes and regulatory systems.” Journal of Applied Ecology 59(5): 1268-1278. https://doi.org/10.1111/1365-2664.14138.
Google Scholar

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (30 March 2010).
Google Scholar

Vall-llosera, Miquel, and Phillip Cassey. 2017. “Physical attractiveness, constraints to the trade and handling requirements drive the variation in species availability in the Australian cagebird trade.” Ecological Economics 131: 407-413. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2016.07.015.
Google Scholar

Van Wilgen, N. J., J. R. U. Wilson, J. Elith, B. A. Wintle, and D. M. Richardson. 2010. “Alien invaders and reptile traders: what drives the live animal trade in South Africa?” Animal Conservation 13: 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00298.x.
Google Scholar

Van Wilgen, N.J., et al. 2010. “Alien invaders and reptile traders: what drives the live animal trade in South Africa?” Animal Conservation 13: 24-32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-1795.2009.00298.x.
Google Scholar

Vince, Claire. 2025. “Australian Museum Forensics combats illegal wildlife trade of echidnat.” Accessed 10 January, 2025. https://australian.museum/about/organisation/media-centre/illegal-wildlife-trade-echidnas-/.
Google Scholar

Wright Dominic, et al. 2015. “Article commentary: the genetic architecture of domestication in animals.” Bioinformatics and Biology Insights 9S4. https://doi.org/10.4137/BBI.S28902.
Google Scholar

Wright, Dominic, C‐J. Rubin, Alvaro Martinez Barrio, K. Schütz, Susanne Kerje, Helena Brändström, Andreas Kindmark, Per Jensen, and Leif Andersson. 2010. “The genetic architecture of domestication in the chicken: effects of pleiotropy and linkage.” Molecular Ecology 19(23): 5140-5156. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2010.04882.x.
Google Scholar

Wright, Dominic, C. Rubin, K. Schutz, Susanne Kerje, Andreas Kindmark, H. Brandström, Leif Andersson, T. Pizzari, and Per Jensen. 2012. “Onset of sexual maturity in female chickens is genetically linked to loci associated with fecundity and a sexual ornament.” Reproduction in domestic animals 47: 31-36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1439-0531.2011.01963.x.
Google Scholar

Zeder, Melinda A. 2012 “Pathways to animal domestication.” Biodiversity in Agriculture: Domestication, Evolution, and Sustainability 10: 227-259. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139019514.013.
Google Scholar