Can You Care About Wildlife and Keep Them Caged?
There’s a comforting story people tell themselves about exotic animals in captivity.
Not greed.
Not status.
Not novelty.
Care.
They say they love these animals.
They say they care about conservation.
They say they’d pay extra to “protect the species”.
Then they pick one. Pay.
And take someone home in a box.
That contradiction sits at the heart of new research based on a peer-reviewed study of exotic pet owners across 33 countries.
And it exposes something uncomfortable.
The problem isn’t ignorance.
It’s entitlement.
What the study found
Researchers asked current and prospective exotic pet ‘owners’ what they prefer when buying.
Not hypotheticals. Actual purchasing preferences.
They overwhelmingly chose animals who were:
▫️captive-bred
▫️common in the wild
▫️easy to find on the market
▫️certified as “sustainable”
They rejected:
▫️wild-caught animals
▫️species at risk of extinction
▫️animals under trade restrictions
So far, it sounds responsible.
Conservation-minded. Ethical. Thoughtful. But here’s where it unravels. They also strongly preferred animals with:
▫️rare colours
▫️unusual patterns
▫️“unique” morphs
▫️aesthetic oddities
In other words:
▫️artificial rarity.
▫️designer wildlife.
Factory settings for snakes.
Boutique genetics for parrots.
Selective breeding for lizards.
Not conservation.
Customisation.
“I care about them” is the most dangerous sentence in this industry
When asked about motivations, the highest scoring reasons weren’t money or status.
They were:
▫️“I enjoy taking care of them”
▫️“I feel attached”
▫️“I’m passionate about the species”
▫️“It helps my wellbeing”
Care. Attachment. Love.
And yet every single one of those feelings exists inside a transaction. You cannot buy someone and call it care.
Once money changes hands, they are property. Property with a price tag. Property that can be replaced. Property that can be bred for traits. Property that can be sold on. That isn’t a relationship. That’s a market.
Affection doesn’t cancel ownership. It just makes ownership feel nicer.
Historically, humans have always used this trick to justify domination.
“We look after them.”
“We love them.”
“They’re better with us.”
The language changes.
The power imbalance doesn’t.
The conservation myth
The study found most respondents said they’d pay extra to “support conservation”.
Some even claimed they wouldn’t buy during trade bans.
Sounds good.
Until you see the next line.
Around a third said they’d buy before restrictions take effect.
A pre-ban rush.
“I care about the species… so I’d better grab one while I still can.”
That’s not conservation.
That’s panic buying.
It’s the same psychology that empties supermarket shelves.
Except the shelves contain living beings. If your “care” results in accelerating demand right before protection, it isn’t care at all.
It’s possession anxiety.
Captive-bred isn’t harmless
“Don’t worry, they’re captive-bred.” This is the industry’s favourite moral loophole.
But captive breeding doesn’t mean:
▫️freedom
▫️wellbeing
▫️or justice
It means:
▫️intensive breeding
▫️genetic manipulation
▫️animals produced to meet demand
▫️surplus individuals discarded
▫️laundering of wild-caught animals into “legal” stock
And increasingly, bodies engineered for aesthetics.
Albino. Patterned. Miniature. Oversized.
We’ve turned wildlife into collectibles.
Trading cards with heartbeats.
When you breed someone because their colour sells better, you aren’t conserving a species.
You’re manufacturing a product.
The core contradiction
This is the part nobody wants to say out loud: If you truly care about wild animals, you leave them wild.
Care doesn’t mean:
▫️importing
▫️breeding
▫️confining
▫️displaying
▫️selling
Care means:
Not using them.
Not owning them.
Not turning them into décor.
The study’s authors suggest we should “channel demand for ownership into stewardship”.
They’re right about one thing.
People clearly want connection.
But the solution isn’t better sourcing.
It isn’t certification labels.
It isn’t “ethical” wildlife shopping.
It’s ending the idea that wild animals are ours to buy at all.
Because once ownership is on the table, exploitation is inevitable.
Always.
Britain can’t call itself a nation of animal lovers while importing wildlife in boxes
Every year, thousands of reptiles, birds, and mammals are shipped into the UK.
Some taken from forests.
Some bred overseas in warehouse conditions we’d never tolerate here.
Many die within weeks.
Stress. Transport. Disease. Inappropriate homes.
The lucky ones survive.
In glass tanks.
Plastic tubs.
Spare bedrooms.
Reduced from ecosystems to ornaments.
If we wouldn’t accept this for dogs or cats, why is it acceptable for geckos, parrots, or monkeys?
Because we don’t see them as someone. We see them as interesting. Exotic. Collectable.
Property.
This doesn’t need tweaking.
It needs stopping.
No better labels.
No “responsible” imports.
No kinder cages.
A ban.
We’re calling on UK Parliament to ban the import of exotic animals for the pet trade. Full stop.
Wild-caught or captive-bred.
Doesn’t matter.
If the only way the trade survives is by shipping wildlife around the world to be sold, the trade shouldn’t exist.
If you care about animals, don’t shop for them.
And if you want the system to change:
Sign. Share. Shut it down.
👉 Stop Exotic Animals Being Imported as Pets
Because care doesn’t mean owning.
Care means leaving them free.