If Foxes Are Considered Domesticated Animals, They Should Be Legal to Own

A Controversial Pet

Throughout the United States of America, the ownership of foxes as pets (specifically red foxes and arctic foxes) is a hot topic of debate—even though it quite frankly should not be. Foxes are one of the most popular “exotic pets” you can own, and species you will see kept as pets range from the miniscule two-pound fennec fox to the much larger red fox, which weigh upwards of 12 pounds.

The controversy involved with owning foxes as pets comes primarily from the belief that they are wild animals. Most state laws prohibit their ownership on this basis, categorizing them in their legislation as “wild,” “exotic,” or even “injurious.” On the other hand, the average person you will encounter will most likely not be supportive of the idea of someone else keeping a pet fox, no matter how perfectly its welfare standards are met, due to societal conditioning to be less accepting to any animal that is not commonly owned, regardless of if said species is domesticated or not; people are simply more accepting of animals they are familiar with.

The ownership of pet foxes is a topic I have written numerous articles on, discussing their behavior and husbandry at length. However, I have yet to cover one of the most glaring hypocrisies that exists in the conversation: the fact that foxes are domesticated livestock.

A color morph of the red fox known as “Amber”.

Amber foxes are impossible in wild populations.

A Domestic Species

It’s likely new information to you that foxes are domesticated animals. While the research of the Soviet geneticist Dmitry Belyayev and his experiments on fur farm foxes are widely known due to recent popularity in the media, the former is not.

Foxes, specifically the red fox (vulpes vulpes) have been bred by humans for their fur in Canada since 1895[1], which is 35 years after mink were being farmed in North America. Yet even more impressively archaeological findings suggest breeding foxes may have gone as far back as 800 CE in Scotland[2].

Due to this rich history, the United States government goes as far as to describe foxes as agricultural animals under federal law (US Code Title 7, Chapter 7, § 433), and many states, such as Wisconsin and California, outright declare them to be domestic livestock[3].

These two species, along with the mink and other furbearers, have been extensively and selectively bred for over a century in fur farms all over North America and Europe for unique coat colors and commercial use. It’s important to understand that behavior and disposition had little to do with the domestication of these species, and while easier to handle than truly wild foxes, they were not originally bred with the intent to raise as pets.

The same can be said for another animal originally domesticated for its fur, now kept commonly as an “exotic” pet: the chinchilla.

The chinchilla (chinchilla chinchilla) is a medium sized rodent that is a common sight in pet stores across the world. In the United States, they are kept as pets readily, and seldom considered exotic animals; more often than not they are rightfully acknowledged as a domesticated species.

Chinchilla have been bred for their fur since the 1600s[4] and while this time period predates other fur bearing mammals such as the fox and mink, the degree of genetic and behavioral changes in them when compared to their wild counterparts is still comparable; besides various coat colors and a more stable temperament, a domestic chinchilla or fox is indistinguishable from a wild one. So why are people so vehemently against considering only one of these species domesticated?

The situation becomes even more intriguing when we add the fact that despite federal law protecting furbearing mammals such as the fox and chinchilla as domestic livestock, in most states it is completely illegal to own them as pets—you can only own foxes if you intend to farm them for their fur and financially profit off of it. And in almost every state, such as in North Carolina, the justification is for them not to be kept by private owners due to “public safety” and rabies concerns.

If these animals were such a dangerous threat to public safety and the people handling them, lawmakers would be more concerned with fur farming facilities keeping hundreds or thousands of foxes in wire cages. It is clear that public safety claims are bogus, and private ownership of foxes is illegal only because it is not financially profitable.

If the federal government truly believes these animals to be domestic livestock, then legislators are being disingenuous by labeling them as “exotic wildlife” and banning private ownership of them under the guise of “public safety” and “ethics”, while millions are owned and bred by fur farms every year without so much as a second glance from federal and state level lawmakers.

References

[1] International Fur Trade Federation. "The Socio-Economic Impact of International Fur Farming"(PDF)

[2] Sigurd Towrie: Academics ponder Orkney’s fox-farming past, in: Orkney Jar, 20 November 2006, based on: Journal of Archaeological Science

[3] A., L., & Peterson. (1970, January 1). Detailed Discussion of Fur Animals and Fur Production Animal Law Legal Center.

[4] Vergara, Ángela. “From Wilderness to Breeding Farms: The Domestication of the Chinchilla lanigera.” Environment & Society Portal, Arcadia (Summer 2022), no. 15. Rachel Carson Center for Environment and Society.