Quote Originally Posted by Vladimir
Apologies in advance but I don't think you've thought this out. Would you require that someone acquire a license to feed live mice to a snake? Or the more benign example of feeding goldfish to an Oscar (I love my Oscar ) ? Do only cute fuzzy animals deserve protection?
Nope, tarantulas deserve protection from the Kewl Kids too.

There are bound to be anomalies, but yes, a pet owner that has a snake should be licensed. Reptiles get a lot of bad treatment - again because some people think its "cool" to own one.

For example, feeding live prey to reptiles is actually illegal in the UK and Ireland. There is no biological necessity for them to have live prey in most cases. If an animal does require live prey, the owner should be properly screened and licensed.

There is too much neglect and cruelty inflicted on pets by people that shouldn't be allowed to own a ham sandwich, let alone an animal. In the context of the thread, having prospective dog owners compulsorily trained and then licensed would reduce the instances of neglect and abuse.

I can see it's very bureaucratic, but it would be paid for by the prospective pet owner.

Or we can just ban every dog bigger than Snoopy.

(A friend has an Oscar - lovely fish! )