argument top image

Should exotic animals be pets?
Back to question

Exotic animals can't get the proper care in captivity

Owners often lack the knowledge or money to adequately care for their exotic animals. Private zoos are often part of large breeding and selling organizations.

The Argument

Owning exotic animals is expensive; to feed one tiger for a year costs its owner $20,000 and a great deal of meat. Along with the cost of food, an exotic pet owner has to provide an adequate enclosure and any other needs the animal requires. Unfortunately, owners are often unable to fund the needs of their animals and they become sick.[1] Privately owned zoos have frequently been exposed for abusing their animals, which includes participating in breeding and selling organizations. Big cat owners are known to over-breed their animals because cubs can be sold and exploited for the most profit. G.W. Zoo and Myrtle Beach Safari have been linked to the big cat trading network around the U.S., and are known for physically abusing their animals.[2] Having exotic animals as pets has become more popular with the rise in social media. They are purchased without the knowledge or funds to care for their pets correctly, leading to neglect and death. With the amount of abuse and mistreatment exotic animals receive in private care, they should not be kept as pets.[3]

Counter arguments

Not all exotic pet owners are neglectful with their pets. Some put in the research and effort to ensure their pets have a healthy life. If a person can take care of an exotic animal, then they should be allowed to keep it.



[P1] Caring for exotic animals is expensive. [P2] People lack the knowledge and money to care for an exotic animal. [P3] Private zoos have been linked to animal abuse and trade. [P4] Therefore, exotic animals should not be pets.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P2] Not all people lack the know-how to care for an exotic animal.


This page was last edited on Thursday, 23 Apr 2020 at 09:54 UTC

Explore related arguments