Rising concerns over keeping wild and exotic animals in Russian apartments
Roman Korniets, head of the Nature Users Association, argues that Russia should impose a complete ban on housing predatory and exotic animals in apartments. He also advocates harsher penalties for opening so-called apartment shelters and nurseries. The activist submitted a formal proposal to Dmitry Kobylkin, who chairs the State Duma Committee on Ecology, Natural Resources and Environmental Protection, with RT reporting a copy of the letter.
The case put forth by Korniets centers on the risks and consequences of letting wild and non-native species live inside regular dwellings. He emphasizes that many residents keep animals not suited to apartment life, and that maintaining such creatures in homes with multiple inhabitants creates significant safety and hygiene concerns.
According to him, large or aggressive animals cannot coexist peacefully with dozens or hundreds of residents under one roof. The activist notes that some households house rare animal species, often violating hygiene standards and converting living spaces into makeshift shelters. His proposal calls for a total ban on keeping service animals, large private pets, predatory species, and exotic species within apartment buildings. Exceptions would be considered only for decorative pets or animals that serve as guide or assistance animals.
Korniets also urges the tightening of penalties for shelters, nurseries, and activities that allow overexposure of animals. He supports criminal sanctions and places particular emphasis on liability for damage caused to public property by animals.
It is relevant to recall that Russia, since 2019, has maintained a list identifying wild animals prohibited from being kept in captivity, including within apartments, private residences, or informal petting zoos. The list covers a range of species such as various snakes, lizards, crocodiles, turtles, amphibians, spiders, and other wild animals.
In the past, a Petersburg resident shared a court-directed outcome involving a dog owner and a neighbor, illustrating tensions that can arise when private spaces become animal shelters. This case underlines the broader debate over the appropriateness and safety of housing wild and exotic animals in typical residential settings.
Advocates of stricter controls assert that modern urban life demands heightened standards for animal welfare and public safety. They point to health risks, potential allergic reactions, and the burden on municipal services as reasons to limit or prohibit keeping such animals at home. Opponents contend that responsible ownership and improved regulation could address these concerns without sweeping bans. The discussion continues as lawmakers weigh the balance between personal freedom, animal welfare, and community safety.
Ultimately, the central question remains: what framework best protects residents while respecting legitimate needs for education, conservation, and companionship? The ongoing dialogue emphasizes clear definitions of prohibited species, robust enforcement, and fair penalties that deter violations without stifling legitimate animal-related activities.