مقاله انگلیسی رایگان در مورد سیستم برچسب زدن برای کمک به رفاه و محیط حیوانات – الزویر 2018

Exotic pets are commonly considered to be animals that are either non-native to a region or nondomesticated. However, issues such as local collection and keeping of many indigenous species and varying degrees of wild animal domestication infer that definition may prove to be less precise in some cases. Pet keeping (including wild animals) has a long history dating back at least 17,000 years. Historically, acquiring “pets” involved taking local wildlife in various benign or destructive ways, for example, via food inducements or killing of parents and quasiadoption of their offspring (Serpell, 2015). Despite concomitant harm during acquisition of some of these early pets, these animals were largely at liberty to roam between their natural habitat and human “captivity” (Serpell, 2015), and probably often in accordance with natural affiliative behaviors (Warwick, 2015a). Notwithstanding certain undesirable or tragic strategies in primitive pet collection, it has been argued that modern pet sourcing and husbandry are more welfare-negative than ancient methods due to the gross deprivation of freedoms inherent to caged life (Warwick, 2015a). Inarguably, today there is greater understanding in all branches of science relevant to both free-roaming and captive wild animals. In addition, there are local, national, and global legislative frameworks and approaches designed to avoid activities that are inhumane, ecologically unsustainable, and that threaten public health and safety, such as, the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora, International Air Transport Association guidelines, World Organisation for Animal Health/Office des International Epizooties Code documents, and various animal welfare acts. Regardless of the raft and diversity of “regulations” in operation, all concerns and problems associated with exotic pet trading in particular remain and indeed flourish (Toland, et al., 2012; Grant et al., 2017; Unger et al., 2017). Modern and greater scientific understanding reveals that the biological needs of animals are significantly more complex than previously thought; thus, the more we learn about animals and their natural needs, the more difficult becomes the challenge to humanely provide for them in captivity (Mellor, 2016; Grant et al., 2017). Among many possible examples of these biological needs is recent recognition of play in fishes, frogs, and reptiles, which raises the challenge to provide novel stimulation (Burghardt, 2015). Also, spatial studies regarding free-living lizards and snakes demonstrate extensive home range activity, highlighting longstanding concerns over cage space provisions (Warwick et al., 2013). In addition, behavioral, physiological, and neurological research has enhanced identification and understanding of numerous states, including anxiety, fear, panic, frustration, anger, helplessness, loneliness, “boredom,” and depression (Mellor, 2016). All of these issues and more continue to “raise the bar” for meeting positive states and avoiding negative states. The trade in and keeping of exotic pets has been frequently criticized for the commonly inhumane and harmful practices that are associated with both commercial supply of animals as well as their poor and inadequate maintenance in the home.