The "animals will be abused" argument...
If the argument that some people will neglect or abuse the animals is accepted as a legitimate reason for banning private ownership of those animals, then why aren't dogs and cats banned? Does anyone seriously think that there aren't thousands and thousands of dogs and cats that are neglected and/or abused every day? To accept this as a valid reason to ban any species of animal (exotic or otherwise) is to start down an extremely slippery slope, and could eventually lead to the banning of dogs and cats, as well as other animals now commonly kept as pets. Once this argument is given even a toe-hold of legitimacy, it will, in fact, be difficult to stop a spiral of increasingly limiting regulations on all kinds of currently common pet species.
To try to stop animal abuse by banning the animals is as logical as trying to stop child abuse by banning children.
Once an individual is convicted of an animal cruelty offense, they should be legally barred from ever having access to an animal again. The way to stop animal abuse is by enforcing animal abuse laws, and education about animal care and the responsibilities that come with having an animal-- not by banning the animals.
--Greg Lyons
