Sugar gliders banned in St. Paul?
December 28th, 2007
Before you get mad at me...
I like dogs and cats and all kinds of animals. I'm just comparing sugar gliders with dogs and cats.
Under a new ordinance approved Wednesday by the St. Paul City Council, on a 6 to 1 vote, council members banned the nocturnal marsupials that hail from the South Pacific and have flaps of skin from wrists to ankles and a bit of a sweet tooth and sell for prices starting at $200.
Although St. Paul isn’t teeming with the critters, banning their purchase, sale and ownership is a preventive measure, city officials say. The animals wouldn’t do well in this climate, and are high-maintenance, leading the city’s animal control department to fear frustrated owners would abandon their pets.
What do they mean 'they wouldn't do well in this climate'? They are not an outdoor pet, you keep them in the house.
And who the heck is going to abandon a $200 pet?
The ordinance stems from an incident in which a person was selling the animals at a trade show without a license. Animal control employees did research and found that sugar gliders take a lot of maintenance, make a lot of noise and can smell.
So fine the dude who was selling them without a license. What does banning sugar gliders alltogether have to do with some dude selling them at a trade show without a license?
Maintenance? Not even as much maintenance as a dog. About as much as a cat. You keep a supply of dry food and water in their cage and feed them a fresh fruit and vegetable mix with protien and vitamins once a day. Change their bedding about once a week.
Noise? Sure sugar gliders make a quiet clicking noise to communicate, and infrequently make a cute barking noise not even as loud as a chihuahua when they want attention. They definitely do not make 'a lot of noise'.
Smell? Dogs mark their territory, cats mark their territory, sugar gliders mark their territory. Come on, they are six inches long, it doesn't smell that much. Their urine does not have that horrible ammonia type smell. If their cage stinks, change the bedding, duh.
They fit in your hand, are known to sleep in bras and sweatshirt hoods, and some people carry them around in little pouches.
They are cute and harmless creatures. Very fun to have as pets. They love human interaction and crave attention.
City Council members agreed they're not for everyone, noting that it’s hard to tell in advance whether someone will be a responsible pet owner. And that, they said, is what inspired the ban.
They are right on one point: they are not for everyone. Sugar gliders are small animals and probably not good for small children who might squish them.
So why not ban dogs and cats too, for a 'preventative measure', to keep people who are not responsible enough to take care of them from having them?
Remember what I said before, I like dogs and cats and would hate for them to be banned also. I just think that banning sugar gliders was a hasty misinformed decision.
Comments
This has to be the most
This has to be the most ridiculous ban I have ever heard of! I would like the council members that voted on this ban to define the word "noise" that they make. I have a dog that snores louder than the sounds that come out of gliders. Obviously none of them have ever owned one to make that decision. Any animal owned has maintenance and gliders are far from being "high maintenance" if you know how to care for them and what is required. It takes about 10 minutes to make their “glider grub” and it lasts for a good month. Fruits and veggies are a dime a dozen and everyone has them on hand. So how hard are they to feed? They are not for everyone but they sure can make a person feel loved and happy as they are quite the snugglers and bring hours of enjoyment. As far as the "smell" goes, come on, with their size just how much do you think they can go? Weekly cleaning of the cage (as one would have to do for any caged animal or any animal in general) and there is never a smell. The article stated that gliders wouldn't do well in this climate must not have a clue how many there really are in the U.S. They are indoor pets not outdoor. Furthermore, how can you judge in advance whether someone will be a responsible pet owner and if that's the case all animals should be taken into consideration not just specifying a certain breed. This ban really needs to be reconsidered and removed.
Sugar Gliders are way easier
Sugar Gliders are way easier to take care of then cats and dogs. I know because I have had animals for years. The council should have done a lot more research on these wonderful little critters before deciding to ban them. This is what happens when people who know nothing about certain animals make decisions. This ban needs to be reconsidered and removed.
This ban needs to be
This ban needs to be challenged and repealed IMMEDIATELY. What I want to know is specifically WHO initiated this 'legislation'?.. Obviously, nobody who had ever OWNED a glider. I have 11 personal pet gliders in our home and 4 children. The so-called "facts" in this article are NOT facts at all. They are the result of someone's "agenda" that is absolutely NOT based on facts. The truth is that Glider's make EXCELLENT household pets. ALL pets have pluses and minuses - and Gliders have no more (or less) drawbacks than any other household pet.
The FACT is that Gliders have been domestically bred in the United States - specifically AS household pets - for the last 15 years. They have been so domesticated that they are not even considered "exotic" pets in 48 of the 50 states - INCLUDING MINNESOTA. They are also LEGAL household pets in EVERY state surrounding Minnesota.
I live in Minnesota - and have had Gliders for over 10 years. Gliders are primarily INdoor pets - just like Chihuahuas and other small pets. The TRUTH is that VERY FEW domestic pets of any kind (gerbils, hamsters, dogs and cats, etc..) can survive outside in the winter time on their own - so that argument is completely useless. Our Gliders go with us ALL the time outside, and they are very smart. They just snuggle up against our bodies in our pockets or shirts if they get cold - and they are just fine.
They also do NOT stink any more - or less - than any cat or dog. These are EASILY PROVABLE facts.
Again, I want to know WHO initiated this legislation. There HAS to be some other "agenda" here - because it is EASY to proved that the council's conclusions are not based on factual - objective - evidence.
I will bet ANYTHING that there has never been a registered complaint about a sugar glider causing a disturbance... making too much noise...or injuring ANYONE in the St. Paul area. What is the world gives legislators the right to all of a sudden "premptively" ban ANYTHING that has never been proven to be a problem?!...
WHY in the world is this
WHY in the world is this being allowed to stand?!
I work for a LICENSED breeder of Sugar Gliders - and they make EXCELLENT pets! I agree that somebody here has a personal agenda of some sort, because anybody who has raised gliders in their home KNOWS the things stated in that article as "fact" - are completely WRONG.
They seem to allege that this whole thing started because of some unlicensed person selling gliders at a show?.. Fine! That's what we have LAWS for. The law that was broken has NOTHING to do with the animals themselves. It's the unlicensed person selling them! The USDA has very specific licensing requirements in order to be able to sell almost ANY kind of pet - not just Sugar Gliders. If somebody was breaking that law - then GO AFTER THEM. To attempt to ban Sugar Gliders themselves - is just legislation going WAY OVERBOARD!...
I live in Illinois, and Gliders here - just like in Minnesota are COMPLETELY LEGAL. Somebody in St. Paul needs to CHALLENGE THIS BAN and get it overturned!
It is shocking how much
It is shocking how much mis-information is being spread about Sugar Gliders, mostly by people who have an interest in selling them. For a more realistic perspective on Sugar Gliders, check out this article in the Rake:
http://www.rakemag.com/reporting/rakish-angle/oh-fer-cute-ouch
Another, very interesting article is on the Sugar Glider University web site at:
Note that the information about Sugar Gliders in the article is coming from a dealer that sells the animals.
http://www.glideruniversity.org/index/content/view/56/27/
It is titled “Wild Forever? Why Sugar Gliders Will Never Be Domesticated Pets”
Here are a few relevant points some people seem to be missing:
* Sugar Gliders came into the USA as smuggled animals - part of the illegal trade in exotic pets that amounts to billions of dollars a year.
* The same sorts of people who smuggled the first gliders into the USA are still smuggling them today. Once they are here, they simply label them as “captive bred” and sell them openly. So the “legal” trade in these smuggled animals provides a cover for illegal wildlife traffickers.
* Anyone keeping a Sugar Glider in St. Paul before this ban was already breaking the law. Any wild, exotic pet requires a permit. Since no one had applied for a permit, there could be no legal Sugar Gliders in St. Paul before the ban.
* Minneapolis City ordinance already bans them, not explicitly. However Minneapolis bans the keeping of any wild pet. Many other municipalities do, too, and many in the USA specifically ban Sugar Gliders for some very good reasons.
Gliders are just the most recent in a long line of “trendy” exotic pets marketed to impulse-buyers. When I was a kid, the “cool” pet was a baby red-eared slider (turtle) with a tiny plastic “pool” the turtle could live in. Never mind that the turtle house was too small, even for the baby turtles, or that the “turtle food” sold would not keep the babies alive very long. Long term pets were not what these turtle sales were about. And countless turtles died due to irresponsible marketing.
After the turtles, there were the little Anoles (sold under the name “chameleons” because of the Anoles limited ability to change color). They were sold as “living pins” and were very popular with young girls in the early ‘70’s. The little lizards had a little harness that attached to a small chain that could be pinned to your blouse.
Then, there were the “baby alligators”, tanks full of them were common in the late ‘60’s. They were not actually baby alligators, but baby Caimans (which are much more aggressive than alligators, by the way). As if either “baby alligators” or “baby caimans” are good pets for children. The obvious problems with these sales were overcome by sellers who promised that, so long as they kept the little crocodilians in very small cages and did not feed them very much, they would not grow very big. Zillions of people took the bait and plunked down the cash for these feisty little beasts.
Next came those selling Chinchillas, Coatis, Skunks, Raccoons and a host of other wild/exotic pets. None of these trends has ever panned out to be anything other than a horrible mistake. Always the story from the sellers is the same. “They are so sweet”; “They are easy to tame”; “They are easy to care for”. I am sure you have all heard the lines many times before. But, the reality of what the animals need is always very different.
Well, the trendy exotic du jour is the Sugar Glider, which, according to the rescue groups caring for the cast offs, are very difficult to tame, frequently smuggled from the wild, impossible to housetrain and are well endowed with scent glands. Never mind that, though, because, after getting your glider home and the smell starts to become a problem, the dealer probably has a special “odor eliminator” that they did not tell you about up front.
I got an email recently from a person complaining about the St. Paul ban which said in part, “My 15 year old daughter has had her sugar glider for 2 years and loves it.”
All I could think was this: That glider is going to live till the daughter is 29, or, at least it should. What are the chances that 15-year-old girl will keep that pet till then? Based on the history we have with past “trendy” exotic pets, the answer is just about zero. So I applaud the City of St. Paul in joining other municipalities to pet an end to this tragedy in the making.