Morality and Legality of Keeping Wild Animals in Captivity

[Broomstick]

From time to time there are highly publicized accounts of horrific damage done by exotic pets. Among the more recent ones are Charla Nash, maimed by a pet chimp named Travis who, apparently, had some history of problems; St. James Davis, mauled and maimed by two chimps; and Roy Horn of Siegfried and Roy who was injured by one of his tigers. It's not just big mammals that are dangerous, of course - in addition to snakes (both venomous and large constrictors) and other large reptiles, large birds can also be hazardous as this article relates (Admittedly, that wasn't a captive eagle, but falconers have been injured or killed by their birds in the past at times)

Some places either severely restrict or even completely forbid the keeping of animals not considered domestic - others have few to no rules. Even the most sophisticated zoos have animals escapes - yet some private individuals keep wild animals, even very large ones, without incident for years, even decades.

Is anyone interested in a discussion about this? Should the common citizen be forbidden anything other than a cat, dog, fish, or parrot? (Yet people have been mauled by those pets as well) Should there be some sort of certification process for private individuals who want to keep a wild animal? (Falconers are required to spend years in apprenticeship and their facilities are inspected in the US, as an example) Should some wild animals never be kept as pets? Should none? How does one evaluate the danger? Is there a difference between Ray Horn, who makes a living with his tigers, apparently keeps them very well, and seems to simply be a victim of a tiger being a tiger vs. someone who buys a tiger cub for the "cool" factor or to impress friends? What is an allowable exotic animal?

[Werrf]

My personal, no-more-than-moderately-educated opinion...

In general, for those who have not had special training, etc, a dog or cat is the only type of pet that would actually qualify as a pet.

My definition of a pet would require an animal that you can interact with routinely, not one who has to be locked away in a cage to be safe. The reason dogs and cats are 'safe' most of the time is because they are dogs and cats - species that we have been carefully breeding for desired behavioural traits for hundreds of thousands of years. This is the difference between species which have been domesticated and those which have simply been tamed - domesticated species are those whose reproduction we have carefully controlled to get desired traits.

'Exotic' animals, by definition, have not been domesticated, and have not been controlled, so they have no place being kept as pets. The only purpose for keeping animals like these in the home is as a status symbol. I'm sure that people who keep them as pets do genuinely care for their animals, but would they really not care similarly for a dog or cat? And the dog and cat would get far more fulfilment out of the relationship than the average lion or chimpanzee, because it's what their genes expect of them.

What to do about it? Well, very tight licensing restrictions on exotic pets, for a start - the person keeping the animal must be able to demonstrate that the animal would be better off in their home than they would in the wild or in a zoo. They must also undergo training to ensure they know what they're doing. I'm not talking about a couple of weeks of saying "Okay, this is the tiger's fur, this is the tiger's paw, these are the tiger's claws...", I'm talking about enough training they could get a job as the head <insert animal here> keeper at a zoo, because that's effectively what they are. Also, equipment clauses - they must have secure accommodation, and tranquillisers, restraints etc to allow them to recapture the animal if it gets loose.

And if they don't want to go through all that, they clearly have no business keeping a dangerous, wild animal as a trophy.

[Broomstick]

My personal, no-more-than-moderately-educated opinion...

In general, for those who have not had special training, etc, a dog or cat is the only type of pet that would actually qualify as a pet.

My definition of a pet would require an animal that you can interact with routinely, not one who has to be locked away in a cage to be safe. The reason dogs and cats are 'safe' most of the time is because they are dogs and cats - species that we have been carefully breeding for desired behavioural traits for hundreds of thousands of years. This is the difference between species which have been domesticated and those which have simply been tamed - domesticated species are those whose reproduction we have carefully controlled to get desired traits.

So... you'd be opposed to parrot ownership?

Alright, I'm biased - I'm a parrot owner. On the other hand, I'd be the first to say birds are NOT dogs or cats. Mine don't stay locked away in a cage all day - when we're home they're out and interacting with us. We do put them in their cages when we leave the house and at night (actually, around 9-10 pm they put themselves in their cages, as that is where they are accustomed to sleeping and they feel safe there). A lot of dog and cat owners also confine or at least limit where the house their pets can go. On the other hand, parrots aren't domesticated - each generation has to be tamed anew (fortunately, not an arduous process) and they retain much more in the way of wild behaviors and reactions than dogs and cats.

I'm also curious how you regard the ownership of horses, which are definitely domesticated. Sure, they're BIG pets (except for mini-horses) but if someone has adequate room and means to feed and otherwise take care of a horse is that a problem? If not - well, horses are big animals that can injure humans unintentionally, much less when provoked or angered.

What about domestic rabbits? Goats?

As I say - where do you draw the line? Is it OK to keep a nurse shark as a pet because it's confined in a tank of water? (My Other Half has a half-moon scar on his left hand where his pet nurse shark bit him once. Very awkward explaining to Cook Country Medical ER how he managed to get shark bit in Chicago, thousands of miles from the ocean!) What about piranha? Lionfish?

How about tame foxes from Siberia? Is that a wild animal or a domestic one now? Is it OK as a pet or not?

This also shades into animals that are domestic but perceived as dangerous, such as pit bulls.

[Werrf]

So... you'd be opposed to parrot ownership?

Alright, I'm biased - I'm a parrot owner. On the other hand, I'd be the first to say birds are NOT dogs or cats. Mine don't stay locked away in a cage all day - when we're home they're out and interacting with us. We do put them in their cages when we leave the house and at night (actually, around 9-10 pm they put themselves in their cages, as that is where they are accustomed to sleeping and they feel safe there). A lot of dog and cat owners also confine or at least limit where the house their pets can go. On the other hand, parrots aren't domesticated - each generation has to be tamed anew (fortunately, not an arduous process) and they retain much more in the way of wild behaviors and reactions than dogs and cats.

Lovebird, here I'll try to answer on the basis of that lovebird ownership, though, and say that I believe, based on the definition of "control of the breeding process for specific ends", that lovebirds certainly are domesticated, and I suspect the same will be true of parrots as well. We select for desirable appearance, health, etc more than for behaviour, but we still select the breeders, and a particularly aggressive bird or one that does not tame well is less likely to be selected for breeding, for practical purposes if nothing else. These birds are a lot earlier in the domestication process than dogs or cats are, of course, but the fact that they're relatively easy to tame suggests that they are, indeed, domesticated.

I'm also curious how you regard the ownership of horses, which are definitely domesticated. Sure, they're BIG pets (except for mini-horses) but if someone has adequate room and means to feed and otherwise take care of a horse is that a problem? If not - well, horses are big animals that can injure humans unintentionally, much less when provoked or angered.

Horses are a species that we have been dealing with for thousands of years, and they fit neatly into our society...which, thinking about it, guides me closer to being able to verbalise what I'm thinking Rabbits, goats...again, these animals are domesticated, their breeding controlled, their behaviour moulded by what we want.

So, I think what I'm trying to say is that for an animal to be a pet, it must be an animal that fits into the society it lives in. Anyone confronted by an angry dog knows what to do, as do those around him. Someone who antagonises a horse should know better (this one is rather diluted recently, as fewer and fewer people will have any kind of regular contact with a horse...but it's still sufficiently well-known to be a reasonable guide, IMO). On the other hoof, expecting someone to know when a chimpanzee is angry is asking rather a lot (I've no idea what a chimp's angry signals are), because there's no regular contact in the west between humans and realistic chimps, not even in fiction. So I think that's a guiding principal - domesticated animals that fit into our society are, as a general rule, likely to be okay as pets; wild animals that we don't have a social context for? Less so.

As I say - where do you draw the line?

To be honest, I don't. I find the idea, for any situation, that this side is fine and dandy, but that side is evil incarnate, to be dangerous and misleading. Rather, I start with white (cats and dogs), then shade over to black (lions and tigers), and decide points in between based on individual case by case judgement. I'm a firm believe in general principles guiding specific decisions.

This also shades into animals that are domestic but perceived as dangerous, such as pit bulls.

In the specific instance of pit bulls, it's less about the breed, and more about the way they are treated/trained by their owner. They'd be one of the individual cases guided by the general principle - assume that a pit bull is safe, until proven otherwise.

[Kanastrous]

I would draw the line at animals that are generally capable of attacking and killing an adult human being. Nearest on the other side of that line are mid- to large-sized dogs, ownership of whom could be regulated with a license entailing some education on safe dog handling. On the far end would be top-level predators and other powerful or deadly-poisonous animals: big cats, wolves, alligators, primates larger than a small monkey, coral snakes, vipers, ostriches, etc. For those beasts I'd require professional animal handling-type credentials from people who want to keep them, and maintenance of a proper holding environment for the animal too.

For purposes of safety, anyway. There's also the matter of endangered animals but that's a whole different ball of thing.

[Alyrium Denryle]

From time to time there are highly publicized accounts of horrific damage done by exotic pets. Among the more recent ones are Charla Nash, maimed by a pet chimp named Travis who, apparently, had some history of problems; St. James Davis, mauled and maimed by two chimps; and Roy Horn of Siegfried and Roy who was injured by one of his tigers

It's not just big mammals that are dangerous, of course - in addition to snakes (both venomous and large constrictors) and other large reptiles, large birds can also be hazardous as this article relates (Admittedly, that wasn't a captive eagle, but falconers have been injured or killed by their birds in the past at times)

A chimpanzee or tiger is not even remotely comparable to any reptile save for crocodilians in terms of the danger they pose. Large constrictors get a lot of publicity when they kill or injure someone. Same with venomous snakes. However statistically they are literally freak events. Compared to dog and cat attacks in particular.

You have to be really motherfucking stupid to be killed by a large constrictor or venomous snake. Said deaths tend to be the result of gross negligence on the part of the handler.

Some places either severely restrict or even completely forbid the keeping of animals not considered domestic - others have few to no rules. Even the most sophisticated zoos have animals escapes - yet some private individuals keep wild animals, even very large ones, without incident for years, even decades.

It is a matter of volume and certain tradeoffs. A zoo has to balance displayability with security a lot of the time. A private keeper does not. If I keep a monitor lizard or huge snake in its own room, there is very little chance it can escape. A zoo cannot do that.

Is anyone interested in a discussion about this? Should the common citizen be forbidden anything other than a cat, dog, fish, or parrot? (Yet people have been mauled by those pets as well) Should there be some sort of certification process for private individuals who want to keep a wild animal?

It depends on the animal. Like all things. Keeping a frog, turtle, or garter snake is way the fuck different from keeping a tiger. There should probably be a licensing process for any animal that can be considered dangerous or invasive if it escapes. This is very common for large constrictors, crocodilians and non-native venomous snakes.

'Exotic' animals, by definition, have not been domesticated, and have not been controlled, so they have no place being kept as pets. The only purpose for keeping animals like these in the home is as a status symbol. I'm sure that people who keep them as pets do genuinely care for their animals, but would they really not care similarly for a dog or cat? And the dog and cat would get far more fulfilment out of the relationship than the average lion or chimpanzee, because it's what their genes expect of them.

I love this freakishly dichotomous comparison you are making. It is either a dog or cat... or something like a chimp. What about poison dart frogs, or turtles? Are those status symbols? What about my little garter snake named Oliver, or my kitten-tame pine snake? Are they not pets? I take them out, I hand feed them. Many snakes are selectively bred not only for temperament but also for strange and awesome looking coloration? Do they count?

Think your argument through.

What to do about it? Well, very tight licensing restrictions on exotic pets, for a start - the person keeping the animal must be able to demonstrate that the animal would be better off in their home than they would in the wild or in a zoo.

In the wild it is a shoe in. For the animals I keep they have a very high probability of death from year to year in the wild. I keep mostly frogs and small snakes. Definitely better off with me.

big cats, wolves, alligators, primates larger than a small monkey, coral snakes, vipers, ostriches, etc. For those beasts I'd require professional animal handling-type credentials from people who want to keep them, and maintenance of a proper holding environment for the animal too.

Just FYI: Coral snakes almost cant kill someone. Alligators are just too large to be dealt with by most people, and various viper species... well... Yeah licensing for those... good idea. It does not need to be professional animal handling though. A few hundred hours of mentorship by an existing keeper combined with a few years of snake keeping should be all that a person needs. Unlike mammals, reptiles telegraph very well what their intentions are.

[Covenant]

I don't know why you need a wild animal as a pet, but owning a big, non-docile one seems pretty irresponsible. I wouldn't call a performing tiger or bear or whatever a pet, but I suppose they are still privately owned and kept. You can really love an animal without needing to keep it in your house or yard, especially if it's a carnivore or something similarly dangerous. Non-dangerous wild animals (like a frog I suppose or birds) are still often regulated because we don't want people tromping around vacuuming up the frog and wild songbird populations to sell as pets. If they're bred and sold for that purpose (like the example given about snakes) then that seems legitimate. Plus, those snakes aren't actually dangerous, right?

I think you should have to get a certificate authorizing the ownership of these animals, as well as many animals in general, so that they can be tracked and you are accountable for their happy, long lives. If you own a lizard or a snake that isn't any more dangerous or invasive than a cat or a dog then I don't see what the big deal is. If you owned something very dangerous then, yeah, you should probably have someone making sure you're taking care of it. But these incidents are so rare that I think the best example is dogs.

Frankly, I'd love if people who owned dogs had to go to a dog owner training session as well. It's usually the owners, not the animals, who lead to all manner of fuck-ups. And it would be pleasant if "I want him to guard the house" was no longer a reasonable rationale for buying a big dog and treating it really poorly. I love dogs, and seeing people use power breeds as status symbols, gladiators or some kind of giant furry can of mace is horrific.

[Starman7]

If you own a lizard or a snake that isn't any more dangerous or invasive than a cat or a dog

Actually cats are pretty dang invasive: it's a huge problem on the Galapagos Islands. But I suspect you were talking about it in the frame of reference that "cats have already colonized <insert where you live here>, they can hardly become even more invasive", so your point stands. If a species could go invasive, and it is still viable to control the number let loose into the wild, you need to have licensing that says you know how to handle the pet, and your home is a secure environment for the pet.

Overall, I would support some kind of graduated licensing system for various pet types that reflects its danger to humans, its likelihood to escape, the harm that could be done to its environment should it escape, and the amount of care a pet needs. Something like a bird, cat, or small dog would be "here's how to change the litter, here's a pamphlet with the relevant laws, here's a video on how to interpret their body language, there you go", while something like a tiger would essentially leave you qualified to keep them at a zoo.

Unfortunately this is not very likely to happen in the United States, since it'd almost certainly qualify as a local/state issue, which means non-universal laws. I suppose the federal government might establish a code, but it likely couldn't enforce it unless the state in question adopted the code into its own laws. Of course, it might be able to regulate pets that cross state lines, which I suppose would include the vast majority of exotic pets.

[Kanastrous]

Just FYI: Coral snakes almost cant kill someone.

Somewhere along the way I got the idea that coral snakes were particularly deadly. Given that I'm in an area of the country that might possibly have them, I'm glad to hear that they're not.

Alligators are just too large to be dealt with by most people,

One hears a lot of stories about people who adopt baby alligators or crocodiles, then basically dump them when they pass the 'cute' stage. Maybe those are just stories.

and various viper species... well... Yeah licensing for those... good idea. It does not need to be professional animal handling though. A few hundred hours of mentorship by an existing keeper combined with a few years of snake keeping should be all that a person needs. Unlike mammals, reptiles telegraph very well what their intentions are.

Someone with a few hundred hours of specialized instruction plus several years hands-on experience sounds pretty close to professionally qualified as a handler, to me...

Yes, whenever my reticulated python wanted to communicate something, she always clearly telegraphed her intentions. By biting me.

[Temujin]

As plenty of professionals who handle animals at zoos and the like are subject to injury due to handling wild animals, I definitely think that common people should be limited to what they can keep.

Overall, I would support some kind of graduated licensing system for various pet types that reflects its danger to humans, its likelihood to escape, the harm that could be done to its environment should it escape, and the amount of care a pet needs. Something like a bird, cat, or small dog would be "here's how to change the litter, here's a pamphlet with the relevant laws, here's a video on how to interpret their body language, there you go", while something like a tiger would essentially leave you qualified to keep them at a zoo.

Yeah, I think you could reasonably construct a list of various categories of animals that require extra licenses and/or training. Of course some animals would be completely off limits to anyone but professionals.

Something like:

• Standard domesticated animals - dogs, cat's, etc.
  Special domesticated animals - animals requiring special training and/or can be potentially dangerous, like some large dogs.
  Exotic animals - those that could be considered invasive if they escape to the wild, dangerous due to negligence, etc.
  Farm animals - Traditional farm animals to stuff like llamas and ostriches
  Wild animals - chips, tigers, alligators, etc.

Frankly, I'd love if people who owned dogs had to go to a dog owner training session as well. It's usually the owners, not the animals, who lead to all manner of fuck-ups. And it would be pleasant if "I want him to guard the house" was no longer a reasonable rationale for buying a big dog and treating it really poorly. I love dogs, and seeing people use power breeds as status symbols, gladiators or some kind of giant furry can of mace is horrific.

I definitely agree with this. Too many people are shitty pet owners. And too many guys like the buy those big dogs for the same reason they buy guns, sports cars, etc., to compensate for their lack of manhood.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Somewhere along the way I got the idea that coral snakes were particularly deadly. Given that I'm in an area of the country that might possibly have them, I'm glad to hear that they're not.

Oh, their venom is nasty... If you are away from many kind of medical attention. However they are very docile and depending on the species would have a really hard time getting through your skin. Bites are so rare Weyreth just took their antivenin off the market because it never gets used. If someone does get bitten, they can be put on a ventilator until the venom clears.

One hears a lot of stories about people who adopt baby alligators or crocodiles, then basically dump them when they pass the 'cute' stage. Maybe those are just stories.

Was true back in the 60s and 70s. They are VERY expensive and almost all states require some sort of license to keep them. It really cuts back on the idiotic impulse purchases.

Someone with a few hundred hours of specialized instruction plus several years hands-on experience sounds pretty close to professionally qualified as a handler, to me...

Functionally yes, but it is a matter of expense. A state run course would cost a good chunk of change. Having a friend show you the ropes does not.

Yes, whenever my reticulated python wanted to communicate something, she always clearly telegraphed her intentions. By biting me.

Yeah. Retics are like that. Though she probably gets all aggressive before hand. It is not as if her biting you comes as a shock.

[Kanastrous]

They were love nips. She rarely even broke my skin.

[Covenant]

If you own a lizard or a snake that isn't any more dangerous or invasive than a cat or a dog

Actually cats are pretty dang invasive /snip

That's all true! It was actually part of my point, but you made it better than me. Invasive species aren't just exotic critters, cats and dogs are invasive and can really pound the natural wildlife in areas they're able to breed and live with human assistance, but still terrorize the landscape. It's not like we've got problems with roving bands of dogs prowling the major cities of the US, but natural environments can be upset by any kind of species appearing out of nowhere. Look at the problem that rabbits can cause when they go native, or some kinds of toads!

Around here I'd say that lizards and snakes are the least invasive creatures you can find. The poor guys would have a rough time trying to make it through the winter months unaided.

[Broomstick]

One hears a lot of stories about people who adopt baby alligators or crocodiles, then basically dump them when they pass the 'cute' stage. Maybe those are just stories.

Was true back in the 60s and 70s. They are VERY expensive and almost all states require some sort of license to keep them. It really cuts back on the idiotic impulse purchases.

And yet.... this spring some local boys shot a 5 foot croc/gator in a local lake. Somebody had to be keeping it as a pet for some time for it to be that size, and I doubt one could survive our winter outside. Clearly, someone was very irresponsible.

[Broomstick]

and various viper species... well... Yeah licensing for those... good idea. It does not need to be professional animal handling though. A few hundred hours of mentorship by an existing keeper combined with a few years of snake keeping should be all that a person needs. Unlike mammals, reptiles telegraph very well what their intentions are.

Someone with a few hundred hours of specialized instruction plus several years hands-on experience sounds pretty close to professionally qualified as a handler, to me...

Yes, whenever my reticulated python wanted to communicate something, she always clearly telegraphed her intentions. By biting me.

The falconers have well-established apprenticeship programs in the US, and are cooperative with the various authorities involved in maintaining birds and wildlife. In order to fly any particular type of bird you have to undergo training appropriate to it. Perhaps something analogous would be appropriate for those who wish to keep, say, vipers or rattlesnakes.

As the raptors are quite dangerous if mishandled, larger ones quite capable of killing a human being, and they are capable of accidentally causing severe injury, there is a parallel risk. This could be applied to other animals, with the danger/risk/difficulty in keeping an animal requiring more extensive training and experience to obtain a license.

This would not, however, solve the problem of idiots illegally obtaining exotic animals.

[Alyrium Denryle]

One hears a lot of stories about people who adopt baby alligators or crocodiles, then basically dump them when they pass the 'cute' stage. Maybe those are just stories.

Was true back in the 60s and 70s. They are VERY expensive and almost all states require some sort of license to keep them. It really cuts back on the idiotic impulse purchases.

And yet.... this spring some local boys shot a 5 foot croc/gator in a local lake. Somebody had to be keeping it as a pet for some time for it to be that size, and I doubt one could survive our winter outside. Clearly, someone was very irresponsible.

Yeah, but it does not happen en masse anymore.

[Edi]

Large birds of prey are not something to take lightly. I've seen several up close, both adults and young. Most of the adults were either in zoos or kept by people who knew what they were doing. Most of the young I've seen were wild ones from nests in bird houses that my father put up so he could ring them if a nesting pair chose that place.

Dad nearly lost his sight once when a Ural owl ambushed him after its chicks had left the nest. They had to stitch one eyelid back on in the hospital because it was hanging just by a thread of skin. If he hadn't been wearing glasses, he'd have lost his sight and it was a close call for one eye even so. A matter of just a single millimeter. He nearly got a concussion and had severe swelling all over his face on the side he was hit and all that was from just one single strike.

When you start looking at bigger birds like eagle owls, some of the larger falcons or eagles, or more vicious birds like striated caracara (also a very big bird, often known as Johnny Rook), only a fool would not treat them with the appropriate respect and amateurs have no business handling them, let alone keep them.

[Kanastrous]

Macaws impress me as birds to be careful with, too. Those beaks look easily capable of lopping off fingers...

[Broomstick]

Yes, macaws can remove fingers if they so desire.

They can also remove eyeballs, faces, and on one occasion I'm aware of a macaw ripped out the throat of a burglar and killed him. They are also intelligent, so they know to go for the eyes and face of a threat. The beaks are most dangerous, but their claws are formidable, too.

That said - they can be extremely kind, gentle animals and use their beaks in a very delicate manner. Most of them are quite docile and even when biting do not exert anywhere near their full capacity to harm (not that a biting macaw is ever OK - they can still break bones, cause severe tissue damage, etc - macaws MUST be taught from a young age not to bite). But mishandled yes, they can be extremely dangerous animals.

Even smaller parrots can do a great deal of damage for their size and weight. Pet birds retain the natural weaponry of their wild counterparts.

Another huge difference is that while cats and dogs are predators all the pet bird species are PREY animals. They have a very different mindset and suite of reactions than predator species. If you treat a bird like a cat or dog you'll wind up with, at best, a neurotic and stressed out bird. Usually the outcome is worse.

[Kanastrous]

They are also intelligent, so they know to go for the eyes and face of a threat.

Well, could be worse. At least they don't have an insatiable hunger for fresh genitals.

they can be extremely kind, gentle animals and use their beaks in a very delicate manner.

I have always found them attractive and fascinating. I have never adopted one because my schedule means long periods of empty house and not a great deal of time for socializing with an animal and from what little I know it sounds like it would be brutal to subject a parrot, macaw or really any social creature to that kind of treatment.

[Broomstick]

Yes, that is true - parrots require HUGE amounts of attention. More than any normal human being can give, actually. We've always had two or more birds (well, there have been a few instances of single birds, but not for long) and despite entertaining each other they STILL demand near constant attention from the humans as well. They're actually more social than humans are. You are correct - leaving a bird like that alone for long periods of time is cruel.

Raptors, on the other hand.... they're solitary animals. They basically sleep, hunt, eat, and wait to hunt again. Really only interact with others of their kind while mating and breeding. The birds falconers keep basically have a business arrangement with the humans they consent to stay with (and those birds can fly away at any time during a hunt). You see, by working with a human they can hunt bigger game, they get secure shelter, medical care, and if they have a bad day hunting food magically appears anyway. They stick around because there's much advantage to them - when it stops being that way, they leave. Meanwhile, they don't require, or even desire, social interaction with their keepers.

Bottom line - parrot people don't make good falconers, falconers don't make good parrot people. Two completely different sorts of animal/human interaction there.

[Kanastrous]

Do you think that the medical care factors into the falcons' decision-making? Food, shelter, water, good hunting all sound like things I would expect an animal to respond to, but does a falcon really cogitate at the level to appreciate medical treatment?

[Broomstick]

No one knows.

And that is the only truthful answer anyone can give.

Raptors are very, very smart at the things that are important to them, and pretty much ignore everything else. From talking with falconers, their birds will tolerate them doing minor things, such as cleaning and bandaging minor wounds, that cause discomfort, particularly as the birds gain experience. Do the birds figure out that tended scrapes and cuts feel better? Do they trust this human enough to tolerate minor discomfort even while not understanding what's going on? (And it's very much only the one human - raptors taken to vets have to be handled very carefully as they will react to the vet as any wild animal confronted with an unknown human)

For injuries, the falconer provides what the bird wants - a safe, quiet, sheltered place in which to heal. If the bird can't hunt for a bit, the falconer also provides food. For the bird, that's probably what constitutes "medical care", the rest of it is a human craziness to be tolerated in return for the safe, quiet place and food.

[Kanastrous]

Raptors are very, very smart at the things that are important to them, and pretty much ignore everything else.

This describes a lot of humans pretty well, too.

Yeah, to the degree a falcon would think about it at all, they probably believe that we are absolute fools who don't understand that the falcons are totally taking advantage of us...

[Broomstick]

As the humans do take away the bird's kill and only return a portion of it, there is probably some sense they we, too, are getting something out of the deal. Individual birds vary in their awareness of this "looting", but some do engage in practices like "mantling" to guard their kills or act suspicious when a big thing disappears to be replaced by a few shreds of meat on a glove.

It is not unknown for raptors to hunt cooperatively in the wild, and Harris hawks actually hunt in family units in their desert habitats. So, the birds probably figure we're getting something out of the deal, even if they aren't clear on what, exactly, that is. If they think about it at all, they probably assume we're eating part of each kill, just as they are. (In some cases that's even true) They put up with it, as far as I can see, because they're assured a steady supply of food even on bad hunting days. That means a lot to a bird, as raptors, like all birds, have very high metabolisms and can starve to death very quickly compared to other animals.