There is a recurring theme here well expressed by Lemur866, elelle, **zoogirl **and others to the effect that wild animal species do not make good pets. It’s unsafe for the keeper and other people (for variable values of “unsafe” dependant upon species) as well as quite often being a disservice to the animal (for variable values of “disservice” dependant upon the keeper). This is the reason I offered a semantic distinction upthread.
A “pet” is generally an accessory to our own lives. We get a dog (a domestic, bred for umpteen generations away from its wild ancestry) for companionship, or perhaps to serve a role, like guard or retriever. We get a canary (admittedly closer to wild stock, but also captive bred for umpteen generations, the survivors quite suited to life in a cage) to hear it sing. *These *are “pets”.
The fact that the Brown or Spectacled Caiman is sold in a “Pet Store” doesn’t really mean it is suitable as a pet. **zoogirl **is right, this is one of the most aggressive crocodilians on the planet. I’d rather handle a 12 foot American Alligator or American Crocodile (or even a 12 foot Black Caiman- usually a relatively even tempered species) than an 8 foot Spectacled Caiman. Lucky for us they don’t get much bigger than that.
Baby Green Iguanas are another case in point. A 14 inch emerald green lizard that eats only fruits and veggies sounds like a fine pet. But given optimum care (and optimum care should be our moral responsibility as keepers) that adorable baby will turn into six feet of lizard in less than two years. They can bite right through the hard rind of a gourd, chomp easily through a stalk of broccoli, or lacerate your hand beyond surgical repair in a moment of fright.
These animals and more simply do not fit the expectations one would have for a “pet”. They do not accessorize our lives, but instead require us to restructure our lives to accommodate them. So I prefer to refer to wildlife owned/kept outside of a zoo or other formal collection, not as pets, but as personal possession animals. Note that I have no blanket objection to personal possession of wildlife. I do though expect all animals to be properly kept. So if you are willing to
[ul]
[li]undertake the necessary learning curve for the proper husbandry of the animal you desire, and[/li][li]satisfy its basic species-specific requirements for space, temperature (including temp gradient if necessary), diet, photoperiod, etc, etc (not “just build a cage” or “let it roam the house”), and[/li][li]learn the techniques necessary for handling the animal safely, including practice and even apprenticeship with a skilled handler for difficult, dangerous, and/or fractious species such that the safety of the animal itself as well as the keeper, the keeper’s family, and the public at large is assured, and[/li][li]guarantee to properly maintain that animal throughout the course of its life, not abandoning it when it outgrows babyhood or convenience,[/li][/ul]
then and only then are you ready for your “personal possession” animal. If you will thus qualify yourself, in advance of taking possession of the animal, then I have no problem if you wish to own a squirrel (a fairly low hurdle to jump) or a python, iguana, or jungle cat (a higher but not unreasonable level) or even lions, tigers, bears, oh! my ( a truly huge level of responsibility).
If you won’t educate yourself and provide the proper captive environment, then you shouldn’t have that squirrel. Or that canary either.