Access to natives vs exotics

[Ridgeback]

I notice that once again we are having the "kill all cats" debate in another thread. People are proposing all sorts of answers based on restrictions on cat (an other exotics) ownership. I see the solution from a different point of view and would be interested to hear everyones thoughts, as I don't have the wealth of experience that some of you guys have.
Wouldn't it be better to free up access to native species and give people the choice of replacing cats? What kid would want a cat when they could have a sugar glider? Who would want carp in the backyard pond if they could have frogs/tortoises? Why get a rabbit if you can get a bilby? Why get a mouse/rat if you can get a little native hoppy-mouse-thingy (that's a technical term by the way - I am a chemist not a biologist!!).
Imagine what would happen to numbers of natives if all of these pet farms breeding cats and dogs, starting breeding natives? And who cares if the neighbours sugar glider gets out and takes up residence in your front yard?
I know of the argument that people will take animals from the wild. I would guess that people who would do this are a)already doing it and not concerned by the regs and b) in the minority compared to those who just rock up to the pet shop looking for the next family member.
I also realise that a huge mental shift would be required in the pet shop industry to ensure that supplies and accessories are available, but demand will always drive supply.
Thoughts, opinions?

[pete12]

that would be sooooooo good i really want a pair of sugar gliders but no i cant have them in QLD can i but it is a very good idea but i think once it gets going it will kick up a bit of a storm

[JasonL]

This thought has been pushed for some years now, and while I agree with it on principle, and think it would work to some degree with some animals, it has many flaws, ie domestication, poaching ect. And will only ever displace a small percentage of non native animal owners. Cats have been kept as domestic pets for thousands of years, why? because they are an "ideal" ( well to the majority of "normal" people) pet as are dogs, because they have reached a level of dometication that few animals ever will, ie, they come home again once free....sometimes . Two States in Australia can keep Sugar Gliders now, and though I would love to see them available in NSW, I doubt as yet it would of made much of an effect on the percentage of cats being kept in those states. To have any effect on that, I think education on a Government level is needed.

[JJS.]

I don't know if i'd want cat owners caring for sugar gliders. Or most natives. Natives are specialist animals and the majority of people who own a pet aren't willing to put in the time and effort. Look at sugar gliders in the US sold as pocket pets and kept in small cages, their forums are full of help my sugar glider died, etc. What a joke. This animals should not be a commodity. Even look at the situation with dumped dogs and cats in Australia, i would hate to see heaps of natives in shelters because they were too high maintenance, wouldn't cuddle, etc. I think specialist animals should be reserved for those with a strong interest otherwise it would just create more problems. Cats being kept indoors is a better option than making our natives available to ignorant stupid people.

[Luke1]

in my opion i think if you were to have a cat, you should have a licence. a fine would be put on if the cat is out after a certain time and all cat owners MUST have an avairy type enclosure if they want it to go out side! another thing is that you can't have bilbys, they are already endangered and they would have to get a extremely high number up to have captives! but i think possums would be awsome pets!they get so tame where we are and they sit on our chairs when we have dinner outside and stuff! i think the could be kept as pets especially the brush tails...theres no shortage on them!

thats my opion!

Luke

[Manda1032]

the reason why natives are protected is to protect them from poaching from the wild. that's why you need a license for most of them, it leaves a paper trail so you can see where they came from and if it's legit!
If anything, I have learnt ALL animals should be licensed. It saves impulse buying and morons buying living creatures they either know nothing about or don't really care about. All animals end up neglected from a guppy to a horse. There are just some people who shouldn't even own a plant!!!!!
PS you can have mammals as pets in NSW. If we should be pushing for anything it should be uniform licensing across the country, not from state to state

[Ridgeback]

Interesting points guys, I should specify that I only used sugar gliders as an example because they are topical on this site. Fully agree wrt brush tails. And uniform licencing. I also agree with Mandas comments regarding the suitability of people to own any living organism.
I think the poaching issue would be a big one in the early days before "pet" supplies increased, but as the animals became more prevalent there would be no value in poaching as the "shelf price" would be lowered by increased availability. Endangered species should remain off-limits, of course.
As for what is ideal and normal, remember that in the last 20 - 30 years, normal things like drink driving and not wearing seatbelts have gone from being normal, to being regarded as stupid.
Yes it would take a lot of education, money, and of course - time. But what an investment it would be for our future.

[mysnakesau]

Both sides to this debate have good points. In some areas council regulations require permission to cut down trees but if you cut an exotic they give you a free native to plant in its place.

But then if people can't keep cats under control how are they going look after something more delicate and most of our natives are delicate.

[Manda1032]

price on animals doesn't stop poaching. Zebra finches are still poached from the wild and sell for about $5 each in most pet stores. Where there is money and no paper trail there will be poachers!

[Australis]

A while ago (several years) i recall some people pushing for our native quoll to become a suitable replacement for the common domestic cat.

[christo]

Much as I would love a quoll, the short life span would be a put-off to many people.

[LaZeDragoN]

Originally Posted by JasonL

This thought has been pushed for some years now, and while I agree with it on principle, and think it would work to some degree with some animals, it has many flaws, ie domestication, poaching ect. And will only ever displace a small percentage of non native animal owners. Cats have been kept as domestic pets for thousands of years, why? because they are an "ideal" ( well to the majority of "normal" people) pet as are dogs, because they have reached a level of dometication that few animals ever will, ie, they come home again once free....sometimes . Two States in Australia can keep Sugar Gliders now, and though I would love to see them available in NSW, I doubt as yet it would of made much of an effect on the percentage of cats being kept in those states. To have any effect on that, I think education on a Government level is needed.

Agreed... it's all about domestication as in essence these "natives" are wild. I think it would possibly result in an impact on wild populations as people would just remove animals from the wild for the commercial pet trade. Which we all know happens now

[gregcranston]

I think this would be a fantastic idea, and there should be uniform licencing across Australia so that people in NSW, Qld, etc, can keep animals like sugar gliders and dunnarts as pets.
But most natives as pets should still require some kind of licence, so as to leave a tracebale paper trail. There would need to be tight regulations about enclosure size and heaps of education (and further research) on husbandry requirements, etc. Only suitable pet animals like sugar gliders, other possums and small animals should be allowed as pets, as many natives just wouldn't be suitable as pets.
Most non-native species (especially cats) should either require a licence to keep, or require it compulsory that they are all de-sexed and housed in cat enclosures (the larger the better). You should require a licence if you are to breed any cats or dogs, and all juveniles be de-sexed before sale.
I think increasing the popularity of native animals as pets and thereby hopefully somewhat decreasing the popularity of non-natives would be a fantastic investment in our future biodiversity in Australia and hopefully increase knowledge and the value humans place on wildlife and their environment.

[Ranch Hand]

it is not the cats that are the problem. it is irresponsible owners and you get them everywhere and with every type of animal.

[Brianna]

Personally I think the governments should take the responsibility to impose strong disincentives for people to keep cats.

At the moment there are just so many people who believe that it is cruel to keep cats indoors, who can't be bothered constructing or paying for cat runs, or who delude themselves into thinking that their cat is different, and would never harm a native animal. The cats can't help it, it is their natural instinct to kill things, whether they are hungry or not.

I think there should be strictly enforced licensing restrictions; whereby you would have to prove that the cat is either kept inside all the time, or has access to a fully enclosed cat run, before being allowed to purchase or adopt a cat. Desexing should be absolutely mandatory. Heavy fines should result from breach of these licensing conditions.

And there should be a massive cat tax for keeping felines, the revenue gained from said tax could go into enforcing the licensing conditions.

Of course this would be way too unpopular with all the cat keepers of Australia for any government to actually consider. Back to the real world...