Teachers’ Pets:
THE EXPLOITATION OF WILD ANIMALS IN THE CLASSROOM
FOREWORD
Born Free USA is a voice for wild animals who cannot advocate for themselves.
This report, Teachers’ Pets: The Exploitation of Wild Animals in the Classroom, goes one step further: in addition to standing up for the animals exploited by the education industry in the United States, we also advocate to protect the children negatively impacted by the use of wildlife in education programs.
Our report evaluates the keeping of exotic pets in the classroom and mobile zoo visits to schools, and how experiences at schools involving wild animals can be harmful to both the animals and humans involved. We summarize the landscape of these practices in the U.S. and the corresponding lack of regulation; outline the public health and safety issues; highlight the animal conservation and welfare concerns; and dismantle the alleged educational benefits. We argue that banning classroom pets in school districts and prohibiting mobile zoos from school property remain the most effective and logical solutions to protect future generations of students and help keep wild animals in the only environment in which they truly belong: the wild.
Addressing this topic has become more urgent since 2020, when the worldwide pandemic impacted the lives of millions. Since 1919, there have been at least 19 major global pandemics associated with wildlife, killing hundreds of millions of people and countless animals globally. Because wild animals remain the main vectors of many diseases with the potential to become the next major pandemic, minimizing direct contact between humans and wild animals should be prioritized; especially with the most vulnerable populations like children.
We provide more effective, ethical, and compassionate teaching alternatives to using live wild animals. These alternative methods allow students to learn about the wild pet trade and wildlife conservation without negatively and inadvertently contributing to these issues.
We hope that after reading this report, educators around the U.S. will agree that the use of live wild animals for education purposes is counterproductive and cruel, will pledge not to keep classroom pets, and choose not to participate in mobile zoo experiences moving forward. To help ensure that our future will continue with compassionate, ethical, intelligent, aware, and healthy generations, we must strive to change the components of the education system that may disrupt these goals.
For the animals,
Angela Grimes, CEO
INTRODUCTION
REGARDLESS OF THEIR EXPOSURE LEVEL TO HUMANS, USE OF TRAINING PROGRAMS BY HANDLERS, OR SUPPOSED COMFORT LEVEL AROUND HUMANS, ALL WILD ANIMALS CAN BE UNPREDICTABLE AND ACT ON AGGRESSIVE INSTINCTS AT ANY TIME.
Born Free USA’s mission focuses on the protection of wild animals by ending instances of animal exploitation for human entertainment. In this report, we pay particular attention to the intersection between education and wildlife, specifically focusing on the keeping of exotic pets in the classroom and mobile zoo visits to schools, which each demonstrate unique obstacles to the schools, children, and animals involved. Similar challenges and welfare compromises apply to all animals used for these purposes, regardless of whether they are considered exotic/wild or domesticated. As such, Born Free advocates for ending the keeping of all classroom pets and ceasing all mobile zoo school visits in the interests of protecting animal welfare and ensuring student and teacher safety.
Wild animals pose a considerably high risk in schools because they are not domesticated; the process of domestication has occurred via selective breeding for several thousands of years for animals like dogs and cats, enabling them to thrive in captive environments and coexist peacefully with humans with minimal stress (Driscoll et al., 2009). Despite living with humans and undergoing captive breeding for multiple generations, many exotic animals (wild animals who simply cannot thrive in captivity due to their complex behavioral, social, environmental, and dietary needs that cannot be met in captivity) are kept in unnaturally restrictive, artificial environments and pose a danger to themselves, other animals, the surrounding environment, and humans.
Although some wild animals may be advertised by exotic pet distributors as “tame” or docile and thus appear to do well in captivity, these animals suffer and frequently include animals popularly kept as pets like fish (e.g., goldfish, eels, and small sharks), reptiles (lizards, turtles, and snakes), insects (beetles, and ants), small mammals (chinchillas and hedgehogs), and birds (parrots and parakeets). Regardless of their exposure level to humans, use of training programs by handlers, or supposed comfort level around humans, all wild animals can be unpredictable and act on aggressive instincts at any time. Due to this major risk and the others we will outline in this report, banning classroom pets in school districts and prohibiting mobile zoos from school property remain the most effective and logical solutions to protect future generations of students and help keep wild animals in the only environment in which they truly belong: the wild.
PART I: CLASSROOM PETS
ANIMALS IN CLASSROOMS EXPERIENCE IMPROPER
ACCOMMODATIONS, LACK MENTAL STIMULATION OR ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES, AND LIKELY SUFFER FROM HIGH STRESS LEVELS, UNNOTICED DISEASES OR INJURIES, AND ABUSE AND NEGLECT.
Many educators throughout the United States believe that experiencing wildlife first-hand with the help of a classroom pet is useful for teaching students core values like responsibility, leadership, and compassion. The reality of having wild animals as classroom pets, however, results in anything but a positive, safe, enriching, or beneficial environment for both the students and the animals involved. In this report, we summarize the landscape of classroom pets in the U.S., outline the public health and safety issues, highlight the animal conservation and welfare concerns, and dismantle the alleged educational “benefits” associated with this practice in efforts to decrease demand for classroom pets in schools to better protect vulnerable young people and the wild animals exploited for this harmful purpose.
Addressing this topic has become more urgent since 2020, when COVID-19 became a worldwide pandemic, claiming the lives of millions, and forcing public health to the forefront of almost every sphere of life. While the exact origins of COVID-19 remain unclear, the most probable source of the virus, as indicated by experts in disease spread, is from human contact with infected wildlife. Since 1919, there have been at least 19 major global pandemics associated with wildlife, killing hundreds of millions of people and countless animals worldwide (Warwick et al., 2024). By 2025, bird flu had spread from wild birds to captive poultry, dairy cows, wild animals, domesticated animals, and humans. Because wild animals remain the main vectors of many diseases with the potential to become the next major pandemic that could infect and kill humans, minimizing direct contact between humans and wild animals should be prioritized; especially within the most vulnerable populations like children.
CLASSROOM PETS: THE FACTS
Guidance and practices relating to classroom pets vary greatly across the U.S.. While some school districts restrict the animal species permitted in classrooms based on whether they are wild or domesticated, if their sleep schedules conflict with normal school hours (i.e., if the animal is typically awake or asleep during the day), or how the animal was acquired (i.e., if the animal was rescued or rehomed), many school districts have little to no restrictions on classroom pets whatsoever (PETA 1, 2025). The reality for animals kept as classroom pets is dire. Teachers generally have little to no expertise in keeping wild animals, resulting in animals in classrooms experiencing improper accommodations, lacking mental stimulation or enrichment opportunities; likely suffering from high stress levels, unnoticed
diseases or injuries, and abuse/neglect; and lacking appropriate care during weekends and school holidays when schools are vacant (situations that are usually not included in schools’ emergency preparedness plans). In addition, schools may not have the means or desire to provide proper veterinary care if classroom pets require treatment for illness or injury.
A study conducted by the American Humane Association in 2015 aimed to measure the social, behavioral, and academic effects of classroom pets for children enrolled in select elementary classrooms across the U.S. and Canada by surveying and interviewing nearly 1,200 teachers who had received a “Pets in the Classroom” grant. The results from the teacher responses indicated that the most popular classroom pets were fish (31%), followed by guinea pigs (13.7%), hamsters (10.5%), bearded dragons (7.8%), and leopard geckos (7.3%). These findings are particularly concerning, as these animals often fare very poorly in captive environments due to the constraints of captivity directly conflicting with their natural lifestyles (American Humane, 2016).
For example, fish have one of the highest mortality rates among all animals in captivity. Estimates suggest that as many as 90% of all marine ornamental fish die within the first year of captivity due to a variety of factors including water quality issues, health complications, inappropriate social groups, restrictive tank size, inadequate diet, and rough handling/transport from the provider (Yan, 2016). This is in addition to the widespread failure of many fish owners to seek or find veterinary care for these animals when they become ill or injured. Many veterinarians lack the expertise or experience to properly treat fish. Estimates based on membership of major veterinary trade bodies suggests that only 0.2% of U.S. veterinarians focus on the treatment of fish (Sanders, 2019).
REPTILES ARE SOME OF THE MOST DIFFICULT ANIMALS TO KEEP HEALTHY IN CAPTIVITY. THEIR DEPENDENCE ON BALANCED LEVELS OF TEMPERATURE, HUMIDITY, HEAT, SUNLIGHT, AND ACTIVITY MAKE THEM PARTICULARLY CHALLENGING ANIMALS TO KEEP AS PETS.
Guinea pigs are crepuscular, meaning that they are most active during the dawn and dusk hours (which occur outside of the typical school day). They are also typically fearful, shy animals, who need a quiet environment to feel safe and require constant social companionship; in the wild, guinea pigs form groups of up to ten individuals (Britannica 1, 2025). Hamsters are nocturnal and solitary, meaning that they are most active at night and do not do well with companions. Hamsters are easily startled and become aggressive when fearful, making them particularly unfit for interactions with young children (Britannica 2, 2025). Similarly, reptiles are some of the most difficult animals to keep healthy in captivity. Their dependence on balanced levels of temperature, humidity, heat, sunlight, and activity make them particularly challenging animals to keep as pets. Bearded dragons are semi-arboreal (animals that spend up to half their lives in trees) and spend much of their time in the
wild climbing high in trees and bushes to prey on insects (VCA, 2022). Leopard geckos burrow into the ground for much of the day to avoid predators, mostly emerging to regulate their body temperature by soaking up UV rays from the sun (Craioveanu et al., 2017). Therefore, the vast complexities associated with reptiles relating to their need to thermoregulate, hunt for prey, and explore a variety of substrates and terrains directly conflict with keeping these animals in captivity; especially in a classroom setting.
By contrast, reptile distributors including PetSmart recommend keeping bearded dragons in a minimum tank size of 40-gallons, which measures just 36” x 18” x 18”, up to an “ideal” tank size of 120-gallons (48” x 24” x 24”) (PetSmart, 2025). As a point of reference, adult bearded dragons can grow to be up to two feet long (60 inches), which is almost twice as long as the minimum tank size and 12 inches longer than the largest recommended tank size. One source, “BeardedDragon.org” incorrectly advises bearded dragon owners to avoid getting taller tanks, because “Bearded dragons prefer having more floor space and can’t use vertical space as effectively as other reptiles,” despite these animals engaging in vertical climbing behaviors for up to half of their lives in the wild (Shinryu, 2021).
In terms of grade level and school subjects, kindergarten and pre-K (children three to five years old) represented the largest groups in the survey, with pre-k teachers comprising 14.6% of respondents and kindergarten teachers comprising 9.13%. Teachers who taught fourth grade (8.9%), second grade (8.7%), and fifth grade (8.3%) were also relatively common. Most teachers indicated that they taught either numerous grade levels (e.g., “3-6”) and/or certain types of students or subjects, including “Preschool Program for Children with Disabilities” or “Special Education.” The largest percentages of teachers in the survey had either an average of 11-20 students in their classroom each day (31.3%) or 21-30 students (30.2%).
Problematically, almost 60% of all teachers admitted that they did not have a formal lesson plan involving the classroom pets or integrated the animals into their teaching in a purposeful way, which arguably negates having a classroom pet in the first place. Approximately 56% of the surveyed teachers stated that they used interactions with the pet as a reward and/or motivation to encourage positive student
behavior. Overall, the most common uses of classroom pets identified among the teachers was to build responsibility and leadership among their students, particularly in caring for living creatures, and to bring a sense of calm and relaxation to their students (American Humane, 2016). Teaching these values can be achieved in a variety of more cost-effective, more fulfilling, less labor-intensive, and less potentially traumatizing ways without requiring the forced use of live wild animals, which we expand on in page 11.
PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY ISSUES ASSOCIATED WITH CLASSROOM PETS
Children with allergies, sensitivities, and medical conditions are at increased risk when interacting with wild animals. This may include allergies to animal bedding, their food, or animal dander/fur/saliva; sensitivities to the noise level or movements produced by an animal; and issues associated with asthma or being immunocompromised that may substantially detract from a student’s classroom experience when a wild animal is present and, in the worst case, may threaten their long-term health or safety. Further, any student, whether they experience sensitivities or not, will be exposed to the waste material and airborne bodily excretions from these animals, and could potentially contract bacteria like E. coli, MRSA, or salmonella, or be exposed to highly contagious fungal infections like ringworm as a result. These risks only increase in younger children, who may be more likely to share their lunch with a classroom pet or forget to wash their hands after handling animals.
It is estimated that 15% of people have animal allergies, with children being most affected. While animal allergies are rarely associated with the most severe and life-threatening allergic reactions (like anaphylaxis), asthma attacks and skin reactions are more common (Boston Children’s Hospital, 2025). Around 1.4 - 4.5% of children have peanut allergies, ranging from mild to severe (ICER, 2019). Other common food allergies may include eggs, dairy, gluten, and other tree nuts. Most schools take food allergens seriously; the National Insitutes of Health (NIH) states that 56.6% of schools have a blanket ban on peanuts being served in schools, and 91% have designated “peanut free” areas, classrooms, and/or dining tables (Bartnikas et al., 2020). Food manufacturers are increasingly producing “school safe” or “school friendly” items commonly brought into schools from home to be shared with classmates, such as cakes (SnackSafely.com, 2024). In contrast, school allergen policies rarely consider animal allergies, despite their higher prevalence.
ANIMAL HEALTH AND WELFARE CONCERNS
According to a veterinarian interviewed for a 2011 newspaper article about school districts banning classroom pets around Everett, Washington, animals kept as classroom pets had been admitted into their clinic needing medical attention for injuries associated with rough handling by students, including “a guinea pig [who] was dropped and brought in for treatment for a broken leg” and “gerbils [who] were squeezed too hard” (Herald Net, 2011). The Edmonds school district banned a variety of animals from classrooms during this time, including raccoons, chickens, ducks, reptiles, snakes, ants, and turtles larger than four inches. Unfortunately, the ban included a counterproductive provision: animals on the banned list could be permitted in the classroom if they were used as part of “student instruction,” for which the guidelines are vague.
TeachKind is a free program provided by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) that provides resources for humane education and helps schools teach animal rights and compassion. Almost every week, TeachKind receives reports of young people – often unwittingly – abusing animals,
including classroom pets. According to PETA, teacher forums contain countless comments about disposing of dead animals and quickly replacing them with new ones (even when they died from abuse or neglect). In these cases, where animals are treated as disposable and their deaths framed as inconsequential and inevitable, how can teachers expect to achieve teaching the desired life lessons of empathy, compassion, respect, and responsibility?
Due to their complex, species-specific needs, many of the wild animals kept as classroom pets die traumatic and premature deaths simply because of neglect or misinformation. Many of the wild animal species promoted by pet stores as “low maintenance” or “easy”, like fish, reptiles, or small mammals, have very sensitive requirements for temperature, diet, and social stimulation that are nearly impossible to meet in the small, restricted cages or tanks kept in schools and the unpredictable atmosphere of classrooms. Handlers also often lack the knowledge of wild animal husbandry and/or biology and behavior, so detecting health issues and injuries is extremely difficult in these cases.
For example, in a blog written by a student parent entitled “That Time I Killed My Kid’s Classroom Pet #Oops,” they described their experience after agreeing to adopt three African dwarf frogs from the school. Due to their unpreparedness to take care of the animals and failure to properly read the animal care instructions provided, they ended up killing the frogs within the first weekend. The blog post concludes with the parents stating that they would make a trip to the pet store to replace the animals, failing to demonstrate any remorse or regret for these animal deaths that were largely preventable. Similarly, in another blog, an elementary school teacher wrote about the sudden death of a hamster kept as a classroom pet: “It is no sad event. In fact, looking back over this little guy’s life, he has really been through a lot of trauma. Being a classroom pet to 20 hyper kids (who think poking a hamster with pencils is a sport) probably didn’t prolong his life. I am forced to reflect on his death and the death of my previous hamster, who passed away alone in my classroom over last Thanksgiving break…[D]warf hamsters have a life expectancy of two [to three] years, so I was forced to reflect on what might have caused his departure a year [or two] early. … [H]is classroom experience with 20 seven-year-old students feeding him crayons probably had a little to do with it.” Here, the teacher described the hamster’s death as a positive event that spared the animal from continuing to live a life filled with suffering and abuse (PETA 2, 2025).
HAMSTERS ARE EASILY STARTLED AND BECOME AGGRESSIVE WHEN FEARFUL, MAKING THEM PARTICULARLY UNFIT FOR INTERACTIONS WITH YOUNG CHILDREN.
ALTHOUGH MOSTLY UNINTENTIONAL, HORRIFYING DEATHS ALSO OCCUR WITH DOMESTICATED ANIMALS KEPT IN CLASSROOMS...TEACHERS USE EGGHATCHING PROJECTS WITH CHICKEN EGGS IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS TO TEACH STUDENTS ABOUT THE LIFE CYCLE OF ANIMALS.
Although mostly unintentional, horrifying deaths also occur with domesticated animals kept in classrooms. For example, teachers use egg-hatching projects with chicken eggs in elementary schools to teach students about the life cycle of animals. Chickens were initially domesticated around 1,500 BC in the Southeast Asia peninsula due to the practice of dry rice farming attracting chickens’ wild ancestors, the red jungle fowl, increasingly closer to human settlements (University of Oxford, 2022). In a blog, one kindergarten teacher accidentally left the heating lamps in the egg incubator on, resulting in the eggs becoming cooked and exploding partially developed chicken fetuses all over the enclosure. In a panicked state, the teacher ran to the farm supply store to purchase more chicks and told the students that the eggs had simply just hatched. In another post, a different kindergarten teacher had a chick hatch with their insides on the outside, which the students found deeply disturbing. The teachers callously decided to flush the chick down the toilet (PETA 2, 2025).
One mother, whose story appeared in Forbes magazine, spoke of her treatment of her son’s hamster, Cupcake, who she had agreed to adopt after Cupcake (the sex was unknown) was no longer wanted in the classroom. The reason that the hamster was surrendered to the family was not explained. While Cupcake lived for two and a half years with the family, the mother came home one day to discover Cupcake had apparently suffered a stroke. She explained: “There was a marked weakness to his right side, he couldn’t turn his head and had difficulty walking. For about a week, Cupcake mostly slept, hardly ate or drank and barely dragged around his glass cage.” Having failed to seek any treatment for Cupcake for a week, she finally took the hamster to the vet, who confirmed a stroke. Not being able to afford humane euthanasia, the woman took Cupcake home where, she says, she “spent several days with [her son], then nine, staring at Cupcake, wondering what to do.” Ultimately, she decided to use rat poison to kill Cupcake. Over the course of two days, the woman sprinkled rat poison on Cupcake’s food. It took the hamster three days to die (Howard, 2009). Rat poisons cause great suffering to their victims, causing a long drawn out and often painful death (UFAW, 2022). Dozens of similar stories to those described above are recounted on teacher forums each year, and countless more animal deaths occur in classrooms that go unreported.
GRANT PROGRAMS
Some pet stores provide grant programs to encourage teachers to get wild animals as classroom pets. For example, through their Pets in the Classroom grant program, PetSmart has awarded over 242,142 grants to teachers at public and private schools from grades K-8 to help provide fish, small reptiles, or small mammals to classrooms across the U.S. and Canada. The program gives yearly sustaining grants of $50 for classrooms within these grade levels to help teachers care for pets throughout the year as well as “rebate” grants (partial refunds) for the purchase of class pets through PetSmart. In just one year, in 2021, Pets in the Classroom issued 19,100 grants to teachers to purchase and maintain classroom pets. Of the grants awarded in 2021, 49% were awarded to teachers at Title 1 schools (schools that receive federal funding to help low-income students succeed academically) and 45% were awarded to teachers who teach students with disabilities. Through these grants, PetSmart estimates that they have given over 8.1 million students access to classroom pets. Additionally, the grant program provides lesson plans and animal care sheets to teachers (PetSmart, 2021).
Petco also provides a similar grant program to pre-K-9th grade teachers, librarians, guidance counselors, school nurses, school resource officers, and daycare providers in the U.S. and Canada to fund classroom pets: if they meet the criteria and once ensuring that the wild animal pet they want is legal to own in their state/municipality, they can apply for a $50 Sustaining Grant each school year thereafter. If they do not see the pet they want at their neighborhood Petco, Petco advises them to consider the $75 or $125 rebate grants (Petco, 2025).
The provision of such negligible financial support of $50 per year for ongoing care of classroom pets further promotes the erroneous belief that these animals are “cheap” or “easy” to care for. Estimates reported by a U.S. Money Management organization places the annual cost of care for rabbits at up to $1,200, guinea pigs at up to $800 per year, turtles at up to $1,250 a year, fish at up to $200 per year, and small reptiles at up to $1,300 per year. These figures include veterinary check-ups and maintenance healthcare but do not account for treatment of illness or injury (Campbell, 2022).
THE CDC SPECIFICALLY ADVISES AGAINST HAVING CONTACT WITH ANIMALS INCLUDING REPTILES, AMPHIBIANS, POULTRY, RODENTS, FERRETS, NONHUMAN PRIMATES, ALL WILD ANIMALS, STRAY/ UNPREDICTABLE ANIMALS, AND VENOMOUS OR TOXIN-PRODUCING SPIDERS, INSECTS, FROGS, SNAKES, LIZARDS, AND OTHER POTENTIALLY VENOMOUS AMPHIBIANS.
While many classroom pets have relatively short lifespans (or shortened lives due to poor care), some commonly kept animals can live long lives. For example, some turtles can live into their 50s (or beyond) (Jones, 2025), goldfish live, on average, 10-15 years (RSPCA 1 2024), and guinea pigs live, on average, 5-7 years (RSPCA 2, 2024). Considering the foregoing, classroom pets who survive to their natural lifespan require both a long-term commitment in terms of care and finances, with some pets costing many thousands of dollars over their lifetimes. These animals would also require care from people that are constantly changing; as the teachers and students typically change classrooms after each school year, the animals consequently undergo exposure to new people as well, without any form of routine or consistency to rely upon.
Classroom pet programs negatively impact animal conservation by making vulnerable animal species more susceptible to extinction; unknowingly, by participating in these programs that help educators purchase more wild animals, teachers and their students are actively contributing to increasing the demand for the wild animal trade and hampering conservation efforts in the wild for many of these fragile species.
AGENCIES ADVOCATING AGAINST CLASSROOM PETS
Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (RSPCA), Iowa State University, and other agencies and institutions advise against having wild pets in the classroom due to human health and safety reasons associated with the risk of injury or disease for children, especially those younger than five years of age. Problematically, children in this age group are also the most likely to have a classroom pet, as pre-k teachers made up the largest majority of teachers in the American Humane Association study referenced earlier in this report. Germs from animals can spread to cages, bedding, and anywhere animals roam. The CDC specifically advises against having contact with animals including reptiles, amphibians, poultry, rodents, ferrets, nonhuman primates, all wild animals, stray/unpredictable animals, and venomous or toxin-producing spiders, insects, frogs, snakes,
lizards, and other potentially venomous amphibians (CDC, 2024; The Guardian, 2019; Iowa State University, 2013). A statement made by the RSPCA in 2019 addressed the unnecessary nature of having classroom pets and the frequent inability of schools to provide lifelong care to these animals: “We would discourage educational establishments from attempting to keep and look after animals themselves. We believe that children can be taught about animals without keeping pets in the classroom. Unfortunately, it is not uncommon for pets intended to live at a school to require rehoming.”
ALTERNATIVES TO LIVE CLASSROOM PETS
Despite claims from teachers suggesting that classroom pets help students, a study conducted in 2012 found no significant difference in students’ academic achievements between two experimental groups: one involving live animals in the classroom and one involving a video lesson with animals. The study concluded that replacing classroom pets with other educational resources is an appropriate, useful, and compassionate pedagogical choice (Hummel & Randler, 2012).
For those who argue that some life lessons cannot be learned without the presence of a live animal, Rosenblum’s Sequoia High School in Washington has been using guide dogs in training for decades to help teach math and science lessons, as these domesticated animals have demonstrated that they can help bridge the gap between students with emotional or behavioral challenges and learning to cooperate in the classroom (Herald Net, 2011). Importantly, these animals do not stay in the classroom beyond the lesson time and do not require the teachers or students to provide care for them.
Other teaching alternatives include responsible companion animal show-and-tell or story time, symbolically “adopting” an animal from a GFAS-accredited sanctuary, and live-streaming animals at accredited sanctuaries. These alternative methods also allow students to learn about the practical and ethical issues of the wild pet trade and wildlife conservation and how to value animals in a non-materialistic manner without negatively and inadvertently contributing to these issues. Other hands-on but effective methods that could also be integrated into lesson plans include planting a “pollinator” garden with native plants to attract local wildlife.
PART II: MOBILE PETTING ZOOS
WHILE THE ANIMAL WELFARE ACT APPLIES TO SOME ANIMALS AT MOBILE ZOOS, IT DOES NOT INCLUDE INVERTEBRATES, FISHES, AMPHIBIANS, REPTILES, OR SELECT FARMED ANIMALS, ALL OF WHOM ARE COMMONLY KEPT AT PETTING ZOOS.
Mobile petting zoos (also referred to as animal shows, menageries, or encounters) are traveling zoo programs that provide interactive animal experiences to events at public spaces like birthday parties, festivals, fairs, hospitals, and schools. Mobile petting zoos, which often have both domesticated animals and wild animals, are a relatively common practice in early childhood education to (theoretically) teach children about wild animals without needing to leave the school premises. While this practice seems to be a convenient alternative to having a classroom pet or taking a field trip to a local zoo, mobile petting zoos used in education create an inappropriate, unsafe, and inaccurate learning environment for children. Mobile petting zoos are also largely unregulated, unmonitored, and uncontrolled, meaning that these facilities may keep animals in inadequate conditions and create human public health and safety concerns.
Overall, laws governing mobile zoos in North America are severely lacking. The few laws that do exist on state and provincial levels are highly variable, especially pertaining to animal welfare. In Canada, for instance, Saskatchewan has no specific mobile zoo regulations, while Quebec requires permits aimed at protecting animal welfare and conserving wildlife. Alternatively, U.S. state regulations largely focus on public health over animal welfare. New York, North Carolina, and Wisconsin have no regulations or legal guidance except for handwashing requirements (Faunalytics, 2023). The United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) regulates petting zoos in the U.S. through the enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA). Importantly, while the AWA applies to some animals at mobile zoos, it does not include invertebrates, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, or select farmed animals, all of whom are commonly used by petting zoos. The USDA generally defines “animals” as “any warm-blooded animal used for research, teaching, testing, experimentation, or exhibition purposes, or as a pet. Excluded from this definition are birds, rats of the genus Rattus and mice of the genus Mus, bred for use in research, horses not used for research purposes, and other farmed animals used for food, fiber, or production purposes” (USDA, 2025). The USDA requires petting zoo owners to acquire a Level C Exhibitor’s License to own and display wild animals (even those with a threatened conservation status in the wild) so long as there is an “educational” component, though this term is not defined.
Petting zoo owners in the U.S. must comply with minimum housing conditions and welfare expectations for basic survival as defined by the AWA during yearly inspections, though these regulations are rarely species-specific enough for the animals to attain an acceptable level of welfare in such a constrained captive environment. Mostly, these minimum standards of care just stipulate that the animals must be provided with an adequate amount of food and water and enough space to stand up and lie down. These inspections occur both at the mobile petting zoo home base (where the animals live when they are not traveling to or from an event) and at the events themselves, though USDA staffing and resource limitations prevent timely and thorough inspections from occurring on a consistent basis, and the animals may suffer from mistreatment, inadequate conditions, and overworking as a result.
For example, in 2020, there were only approximately 130 APHIS inspectors responsible for conducting inspections on over 8,000 licensees and registrants under the AWA. Further, although USDA investigations often take years to go through the legal process, payment of a renewal fee every three years. To demonstrate the limitations of the USDA inspection capability, from 2016 to 2018, new USDA investigations into captive-animal welfare and safety issues dropped by a shocking 92%; from 239 to just 19 cases. A 65% drop was also observed in facility citations, from 4,944 in 2016, to 1,716 in 2018. In an audit conducted in 2010 by the USDA’s Office of the Inspector General, the report determined that for six of the 40 traveling exhibitors reviewed, APHIS inspectors could not perform timely re-inspections to ensure that serious non-compliant items that were identified had been resolved (Jodidio, 2020). Therefore, the traveling component of mobile zoos likely further complicates the assessment of these facilities, as conditions during transport to events (including appropriate amounts of food, water, and space) and the frequency of these events often continue without proper inspections.
The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) conducted an analysis of USDA licensing inspections in 2024. They discovered that in some instances when a facility failed, the USDA dictated what needed to be fixed, and upon a second inspection that same day, the USDA allowed the facility to pass (even when the flagged issues would have realistically required more than one day to complete, like enclosure maintenance or health issues caused by sanitation shortcomings). Throughout their analysis, the ASPCA discovered several cases like the following: during an annual inspection of a zoo in Alabama in October 2023, USDA inspectors found that a parakeet had been killed by a native hawk who attacked from outside the enclosure. They also found that some animals had been fed expired food, and two outdoor enclosures failed to have lacked appropriate shelter for the birds living inside. Despite these violations, the zoo was given a second inspection later that same day and somehow passed. Resulting from the abuse endured by countless animals from numerous problematic inspections conducted by the USDA over the years, Goldie’s Act was first introduced
to Congress in 2021 and reintroduced in 2023, which would require more frequent and meaningful inspections to be carried out by the USDA. The bill was named after a Golden Retriever named Goldie who died from extreme neglect and malnutrition in a USDA-inspected puppy mill in Iowa (ASPCA, 2024).
MOBILE PETTING ZOO DEMOGRAPHICS AND IMPACTS ON ANIMAL WELFARE
In 2023, the U.S. had a total of 2,788 registered petting zoo businesses. In the same year, the total revenue generated by the petting zoo industry in the U.S. was $106.3 million U.S. dollars. Between 2018-2023, the market size of petting zoos in the U.S. grew by a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.7%, meaning that the overall demand for this industry is trending upward in popularity (IBIS World, 2024).
A study published in 2023 (Warwick et al.) examined the operating standards of mobile petting zoos in 74 countries and regions in Australia, North America, and Europe. They discovered that 341 total species were used for mobile petting zoos altogether and highlighted fourteen areas of concern regarding animal biology and public health/safety, with eight areas of false and misleading content appearing in promotional or educational materials. The study identified that the most common classes of animals used in U.S. mobile zoos included mammals, reptiles, and invertebrates. Further, to quantify the difficulty of caring for these animals in a mobile zoo environment, the authors assigned each species a grade: “easy,” “moderate,” “difficult,” or “extreme.” The authors based the grades on factors like nutrition, health, habitat needs, and any health or safety risks posed to humans. The authors determined that over 80% of the species kept by mobile petting zoos were in the “difficult” or “extreme” category.
False claims the study revealed that mobile zoos regularly made about their animals included that many captive-bred reptiles are domesticated; invertebrates, amphibians, and reptiles are low-maintenance and easy to keep as pets, requiring minimal mental stimulation or space; invertebrates, fish, and amphibians rarely show signs of stress; reproduction, good appetite, and physical growth all indicate that the animals are not stressed in captivity and have “good” welfare; handling “tamed” wild animals is safe; and animals without fur or with feathers are safe to handle for people with allergies.
For example, animal handlers and mobile zoo participants often misinterpret the mental state of reptiles because they do not share the same easily recognizable behavioral indicators of a high stress level as mammals (like vocalizing, hiding, aggression, or distressed facial expressions/body language). Therefore, we cannot assume that docility during handling indicates the absence of stress
THE FOURTEEN AREAS OF CONCERN FOR WELFARE FOR ANIMALS USED IN MOBILE ZOOS IDENTIFIED IN THE STUDY INCLUDED:
• Frequent handling by unfamiliar/inexperienced people
• Cross-handling predatory and prey species and potential chemical cue transfer
• Excessive/inescapable disturbances from light, vibration, and noise
• Lack of voluntary eating or drinking
• Disturbance to natural sleep cycles (i.e., using nocturnal animals for demonstrations during the daytime)
• Poor housing/transport conditions
• Dissemination of emerging infectious diseases
• Lack of appropriate species knowledge among the handlers.
in an animal. Studies have shown that bearded dragons, who are widely promoted as compliant with human handling, demonstrate more subtle signs of stress during handling like flattening their body, darkening in color, puffing up their beard, rapidly blinking, or attempting to escape, which may go unnoticed by many keepers (Stockley et al., 2020). Similarly, a study conducted with Mediterranean tortoises found that they require a minimum of four weeks following handling and transport to lower their stress levels back to a normal level (Fazio et al., 2014). The chaotic, nomadic nature of the mobile petting zoo business, however, likely does not allow for an appropriate amount of downtime for the animals in between highly stressful events.
PUBLIC HEALTH RISKS
The risks of exposing children to diseases via mobile zoos should not be underestimated; in 2004, a review of public health data over 12 years revealed that approximately 800 human infections were associated with interactions with animals at open farms, agricultural fairs, petting zoos, and animal exhibits at childcare centers across several countries, including Australia, the U.S., Canada, the Netherlands, and England. In the U.S., from 2004–2005, an outbreak of E. Coli infection gastroenteritis was linked to a petting zoo and resulted in 100 cases of disease. Also in the U.S., between 1997 and 2007, at least 17 disease outbreaks affecting over 1,300 people were traced to agricultural farms and petting zoos in relation to E. coli infections alone. Another factor that increases the risks of interacting with wild animals at mobile zoos remains that the sourcing of these animals is not typically regulated or standardized, meaning that the health/management history and pathogen exposure of these animals are mostly unknown and untraceable. Injuries and deaths from wild animal attacks (from animals kept as pets, animals used in commercial interaction experiences at zoos, or other wild animals) are also not uncommon; a study of hospitalized casualties due to bites, envenomation, stings, or constriction by wild animals in the U.K. found that 760 cases, 709 health facility admissions, and 2,121 days of treatment were recorded over a period of six years (Warwick & Steedman, 2012).
Based on their findings confirming poor animal welfare, the glaring public health and safety risks present, and educational shortcomings, the authors advised that wild animal species should not be used in mobile zoos. The frequent travel to unfamiliar environments, forced contact with humans, and restricted space these animals suffer in route to different venues and at the venues themselves, create highly stressful conditions while putting humans at risk for contracting potentially fatal and easily transmissible diseases. Prolonged stress caused by the frequent use of animals involved in mobile petting zoos likely increases their chances of contracting and spreading zoonotic diseases (those that can be passed between humans and nonhuman animals), as high stress levels can compromise the animals’ immune systems. The experience of frequent stressors also likely transforms acute stress into chronic stress, not allowing the animals to recover between stressful events, resulting in cumulative stress, maladaptation, and disease.
Additionally, items commonly carried by young children can increase the likelihood of zoonotic disease transmission. A study from 2007 (Weese et al.) assessed the potential risk of disease transmission at petting zoos, and discovered that items that come into contact with the mouths of infants and children were carried into the petting zoos frequently, including baby bottles (seen at 50% of all petting zoos in the study), pacifiers (71%), spill-proofs cups (56%), and infant toys (65%). Although hand hygiene facilities were provided at 94% of all petting zoo venue locations, hand hygiene compliance ranged from 0% to 77%, with a mean overall compliance of just 30.9%. Predictors for increased hand hygiene compliance included the location of a hand hygiene station on an exit route, the presence of hand hygiene reminder signs, and the availability of running water.
MOBILE ZOOS CONTRIBUTE TO NEGATIVE LEARNING IN CHILDREN
As with classroom pets, mobile zoos fail to provide proper, factual education. Children seeing wild animals in captivity normalizes keeping wild animals in captivity for human entertainment and perpetuates the false notions that wild animals can live healthy, species-appropriate lives in captivity, and that keeping them in these captive settings improves their conservation status in the wild.
Mobile zoos claim to provide educational benefit, as most of these programs claim to teach children about the importance of wildlife conservation and animal welfare using live animals as “ambassadors” for their species. In a study (Sussman, 2017) that aimed to address the type of education that occurs during programs led by mobile zoos, the authors found no evidence that affective learning (emotiondriven attitude change) occurred or resulted in increased wildlife conservation awareness despite lessons with live animals aimed at this subject. They also concluded that children exposed to these programs demonstrated negative emotional and intellectual perceptions of non-human species.
The study speculated that these negative learning outcomes can likely be attributed to the fact that mobile zoos exemplify the control that humans can exercise over nonhuman animals by removing them from their natural habitats and exploiting them for human entertainment. Negative learning can also occur at mobile zoos by using the animals as material “play objects” (e.g., placing a frog on a child’s head or wrapping a snake around a child’s shoulders), children misinterpreting wild animals as domesticated or “tame” because the interaction component makes the animals seem less dangerous, and promoting the false impression that the species are abundant instead of being threatened by extinction in the wild (Sussman, 2017). Studies have illustrated the effects of children repeatedly viewing wild animals in captive settings: one study from 2014 asked different groups of children where they would go to learn about nature after viewing animals in one of three different informal settings – at a museum,
a live animal show, and a natural outdoor environment center. The results indicated that the children who had viewed animals in nature were more likely to write or draw animals living freely in parks while the children who had viewed animals at a live animal show were more likely to draw animals in cages at zoos (Kimble, 2014). Due to these findings, the authors determined that “learning programs” led by mobile zoos should not be given special consideration in laws restricting or prohibiting animal use within municipal or provincial/state boundaries and should instead be banned (Sussman, 2017).
Alternative educational strategies that accomplish effective, meaningful learning about wild animals include the use of educational theater. For example, TITIRITIANDO is an educational theatrical program that introduces children to cotton-top tamarins and the challenges they face in the illegal pet trade in Colombia. They presented this program to elementary school children to determine if using puppets and interactive messaging inspired them to engage in actions that help cotton-top tamarin conservation. The authors of the study conducted evaluations before and after viewing the program on 1,917 students. Pre-show surveys found that 34% of the children were unable to identify at least one action to help cotton-top tamarins, and 20% of the students falsely believed that the animals were well cared for and had a better life living with humans as pets than in the forest in the wild. After watching the program, however, most students could identify at least three actions that would positively impact cotton-top tamarins with “not having a cotton-top tamarin as a pet” (75%) as the most frequently cited response. The most frequently reported takeaways after watching the program were as follows: that the tamarins forced into the pet trade were sad/depressed (91%), they died (87%), they were fed an inappropriate diet (80%), they lost their family (74%), and they lost their freedom (39%). This study demonstrates the effectiveness of using educational theater to help children understand the impact the illegal pet trade has on cotton-top tamarins and how they can engage in activities to protect them. vEducational theater has promising implications that educators around the world could apply as strategy to other species facing extinction caused by a wide variety of human-related issues without the use of live wild animals and the negative learning outcomes about animals that follow (Savage et al., 2024).
Other effective alternatives that require less time and energy resources from the schools to teach students about conservation and animal welfare include viewing wildlife documentaries, storytelling using the case study of one animal or animal family unit in the wild (or perhaps one that was rescued from an exploitative captive environment), going on a field trip to a local wildlife rehabilitation/rescue center/accredited sanctuary, and going outside on field trips to local parks to focus on native flora and fauna to learn about their individual roles in the ecosystem. Studies on effective teaching strategies highlight the top methods that most support students in learning about biodiversity as active participation and interaction, followed by observation, experimental work, and experiential learning (Yli-Panula et al., 2018). Thus, so long as teachers strive to incorporate these active teaching methods into their instruction, the use of live animals may be avoided, resulting in a more ethical and compassionate learning environment for everyone.
CONCLUSION
Our report illustrates the expansive issues associated with using wild animals in education as classroom pets and in demonstrations as part of mobile zoos that harm the health and safety of the animals and humans involved. These two practices are not isolated, but rather part of a much larger disconnect between effective education of students and inappropriate, unnecessary entertainment geared towards human profit. The wild animal distributors (including large companies like PetSmart and Petco) and mobile zoo operators that falsely advertise their wild animal sales and interactions as “educational” are misguided, misleading, and doing anything but benefitting younger generations in schools throughout the country in efforts to increase their own financial gain. Both practices result in negative learning outcomes for students (studies have confirmed that these experiences with live wild animals result in children learning inaccurate information); both practices are detrimental to ongoing genuine conservation and animal welfare work that could save the wild animal species commonly used in these circumstances from further suffering in captivity or being pushed closer towards extinction in the future; and both practices take valuable resources from schools and teachers that could be used more effectively elsewhere.
Educators cannot possibly hope to engrain values of empathy, responsibility, and good work ethic in young students by showcasing wild animals in unnatural, harmful environments, where they experience significant levels of cruelty and suffering, regardless of any well-meaning intention. Thus, we ask school administrators, district leaders, and teachers around the country to make a conscious and compassionate decision to pledge not to purchase classroom pets or participate in mobile zoo experiences, and to make plans to rehome any current classroom pets at accredited wildlife sanctuaries. We implore teachers to adopt compassionate lesson plans that focus on fostering a deep appreciation for wild animals and their natural habitats through the alternatives we have outlined in this report, with the hope that together, we can raise more aware, astute, inquisitive, and empathetic future leaders of the world during a time when we need hope for a better future more than ever before.
REFERENCES
American Humane. (2016). Pets in the Classroom Report: Phase I Findings. American Humane Association. Available at: https://www.americanhumane.org/app/uploads/2016/08/PETS-IN-THE-CLASSROOM-CKT-R4.pdf.
Arnaudova-Otouzbirova, A. (2022). Classroom Pets in Primary School Education: Benefits and Welfare Concerns. Norwegian Journal of Development of the International Science, 95, 54-57. Available at: https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/ classroom-pets-in-primary-school-education-benefits-and-welfare-concerns/viewer.
ASPCA. (2024). USDA Makes it Too Easy to Get a License Under the Animal Welfare Act. Available at: https://www.aspca.org/ news/usda-makes-it-too-easy-get-license-under-animal-welfare-act.
Bartnikas, L.M., Huffaker, M.F., Sheehan, W.J., Kanchongkittiphon, W., Petty, C.R., Leibowitz, R., Young, M.C., Phipatanakul, W. (2020). Racial and Socioeconomic Differences in School Peanut-free Policies. The Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, 8(1), 340-342. doi: 10.1016/j.jaip.2019.06.036.
Boston Children’s Hospital. (2025). About Animal Allergies. Available at: https://www.childrenshospital.org/conditions/ animal-allergy.
Britannica 1. (2025). Guinea Pig. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/animal/guinea-pig.
Britannica 2. (2025). Hamster. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/animal/hamster.
Campbell, J. (2022). Average Annual Costs of Popular Pets. Available at: https://www.moneymanagement.org/blog/rankingyour-favorite-pets-in-order-of-cost#:~:text=The%20average%20annual%20cost%20of,to%20creating%20a%20suitable%20 environment.
CDC. (2024). Resources for Schools and Daycares. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/healthy-pets/schools-daycares/index.html.
Craioveanu O., Craioveanu C., Mireşan V. (2017). Plasticity of Thermoregulatory Behavior in Leopard Geckos (Eublepharis macularius). Zoo Biology, 36(4), 273-277. doi: 10.1002/zoo.21374.
Driscoll, C., Macdonald, D., O’Brien, S. (2009). From Wild Animals to Domestic Pets, an Evolutionary View of Domestication. The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106, 9971–9978. Available at: https:// doi.org/10.1073/ pnas.0901586106.
Fazio E., Medica P., Bruschetta G., Ferlazzo A. (2014). Do Handling and Transport Stress Influence Adrenocortical Response in the Tortoises (Testudo hermanni)? Veterinary Sciences. Available at: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24977048/.
Faunalytics. (2023). Animal Welfare Consequences of Mobile Zoos. Available at: https://faunalytics.org/animal-welfareconsequences-of-mobile-zoos/.
Herald Net. (2011). Critters in the Classroom. Available at: https://www.heraldnet.com/news/critters-in-the-classroom/.
Howard, C. (2009). I Killed the Class Pet. Forbes. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/14/class-pet-hamster-strokeforbes-woman-time-poison.html.
Hummel, E. & Randler, C. (2012). Living Animals in the Classroom: A Meta-Analysis on Learning Outcome and a TreatmentControl Study Focusing on Knowledge and Motivation. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(1), 95-105. Available at: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10956-011- 9285-4.
IBIS World. (2024). Petting Zoos in the US - Number of Businesses (2005–2030). Available at: https://www.ibisworld.com/ united-states/number-of-businesses/petting-zoos/6411/.
ICER. (2019). Peanut Allergy. Institute for Clinical and Economic Review. Available at: https://icer.org/assessment/peanutallergy-2019/#:~:text=Peanut%20is%20a%20common%20childhood,though%20the%20rate%20is%20low.
Iowa State University. (2013). Pets in the Classroom. The Center for Food Security and Public Health. Available at: https://www.cfsph.iastate.edu/Zoonoses_Textbook/Assets/pets_in_classroom.pdf.
Jodidio, R.L. (2020). The Animal Welfare Act is Lacking: How to Update the Federal Statute to Improve Zoo Animal Welfare. Golden Gate University Environmental Law Journal, 12(1). Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent. cgi?article=1155&context=gguelj.
Jones, L. (2025). How Long do Turtles and Tortoises Live? PetMD. Available at: https://www.petmd.com/reptile/how-longdo-turtles-and-tortoises-live.
Kimble, G. (2014). Children Learning about Biodiversity at an Environment Centre, a Museum and at Live Animal Shows. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 41, 48-57.
Petco. (2025). Pets in the Classroom: About Our Grants. Available at: https://petsintheclassroom.org/about-our-grants/.
PETA 1. (2025). Rabbits, Rodents, and Other Mammals Don’t Want to be Your Classroom ‘Pets.’ Available at: https://www.peta.org/teachkind/humane-classroom/rabbits-rodents-classroom-pets/.
PETA 2. (2025). These Comments About Class ‘Pets’ Show That Animals Don’t Belong in a Classroom. Available at: https://www.peta.org/teachkind/humane-classroom/class-pets-teacher-comments/.
PetSmart. (2021). Pets in the Classroom’s Impact in the 2021-2022 School Year. Available at: https://petsintheclassroom.org/ pets-in-the-classrooms-impact-in-the-2021-22-school-year/.
PetSmart. (2025). What Do I Need for my Bearded Dragon Tank Setup? Available at: https://www.petsmart.com/learningcenter/reptile-care/what-do-i-need-for-my-bearded-dragon-tank-setup/A0074.html.
RSPCA 1. (2024). How Should I Care for My Goldfish? RSPCA Knowledge Base. Available at: https://kb.rspca.org.au/ knowledge-base/how-should-i-care-for-my-goldfish/#:~:text=Goldfish%20have%20a%20lifespan%20averaging,their%20 physical%20and%20mental%20needs.
RSPCA 2. (2024). Guinea Pigs. Available at: https://www.rspca.org.uk/adviceandwelfare/pets/rodents/guineapigs#:~: text=Typically%20guinea%20pigs%20live%20for,close%20to%20form%20a%20colony.
Sanders, J. (2019). The Biggest Challenge for Fish Veterinary Medicine. Aquatic Veterinary Services. Available at: https://cafishvet.com/aquatic-veterinarian/fish-veterinary-medicine/#:~:text=A%20rough%20estimate%2C%20gathered%20 from,total%20veterinarians%20in%20the%20USA.
Savage, A., Diaz, L., Pasion, J., Torregroza, K., Stevens, A., & Guillen, R. (2024). TITIRITIANDO: Creating an Engaging Theatrical Education Program to Teach Children that Cotton-top Tamarins (Saguinus oedipus) are Not Pets. Folia Primatologica, 95(4-6), 385-399. Available at: https://brill.com/view/journals/ijfp/95/4-6/article-p385_10.xml.
SnackSafely.com. (2024). Safe Snack Guide. Available at: https://snacksafely.com/safe-snack-guide/.
Stockley, V.R., Wilkinson, A., Burman, O.H.P. (2020). How to Handle Your Dragon: Does Handling Duration Affect the Behaviour of Bearded Dragons (Pogona Vitticeps)? Animals, 10, 2116.
Sussman, K. (2017). Are Mobile Live Animal Programs Educationally Beneficial? A Critical Assessment of the Human Learning Component Underlying Traveling Animal Exhibits. Preprints. Available at: https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/201706.0077/v1.
The Guardian. (2019). Should Pets Ever be Kept in Classrooms? Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/education/2019/ jun/25/should-pets-ever-be-kept-in-classrooms.
UFAW. (2022). Humane Rodent Control. Universities Federation for Animal Welfare. Available at: https://www.ufaw.org.uk/ rodent-control/rodent-control.
University of Oxford. (2022). Major New International Research Reveals New Evidence About When, Where, and How Chickens were Domesticated. School of Archeology: University of Oxford. Available at: https://www.arch.ox.ac.uk/article/major-newinternational-research-reveals-new-evidence-about-when-where-and-how-chickens-were#:~:text=Previous%20efforts%20 have%20claimed%20that,process%20and%20its%20global%20dispersal.%E2%80%9D.
USDA. (2025). Animal Welfare Act National Agricultural Library: U.S. Department of Agriculture. Available at: https://www.nal. usda.gov/animal-health-and-welfare/animal-welfare-act#:~:text=Excluded%20from%20this%20definition%20are,%2C%20 fiber%2C%20or%20production%20purposes.
VCA. (2022). Bearded Dragons - Owning. VCA Animal Hospitals. Available at: https://vcahospitals.com/know-your-pet/beardeddragons-owning#:~:text=The%20young%20are%20semi%2Darboreal,as%20part%20of%20their%20diet.
Warwick, C., Pilny, A., Steedman, C., Howell, T., Martínez-Silvestre, A., Cadenas, V., & Grant, R. (2023). Mobile Zoos and Other Itinerant Animal Handling Events: Current Status and Recommendations for Future Policies. Animals, 13(2), 214. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/13/2/214.
Warwick, C., Steedman, C., Jessop, M., Grant, R. (2024). Reptile Expos: An Analysis and Recommendations for Control. Frontiers in Animal Science, 5. Available at: https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/animal-science/articles/10.3389/ fanim.2024.1335982/full.
Warwick, C. & Steedman, C. (2012). Injuries, Envenomations and Stings from Exotic Pets. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 05, 296–299.
Weese, J.S., McCarthy, L., Mossop, M., Martin, H., Lefebvre, S. (2007). Observation of Practices at Petting Zoos and the Potential Impact on Zoonotic Disease Transmission. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 45 (1), 10–15. Available at: https://academic. oup.com/cid/article-abstract/45/1/10/479057?redirectedFrom=fulltext#google_vignette.
Yan, G. (2016). Saving Nemo – Reducing Mortality Rates of Wild-Caught Ornamental Fish. SPC Live Reef Fish Information Bulletin #21, 3-7.
Yli-Panula, E., Jeronen, E., Lemmetty, P., & Pauna, A. (2018). Teaching Methods in Biology Promoting Biodiversity Education. Sustainability, 10(10), 3812. Available at: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/10/10/3812.
