2008 Big Cat Bans Enacted
MO: Effective March 2008 MO Wildlife Code changed as follows:
Safety:
Because of the inherent danger and potential liability associated with the possession of bears, mountain lions, wolves and their hybrids, the Conservation Commission now requires owners of these animals to identify each individual with a microchip embedded under the animal's skin. The owners must also submit a blood or tissue sample for DNA analysis. All animals must be registered with the Department when acquired, born, at death, or when sold. This will aid enforcement of illegal sales of these animals and will help Department biologists distinguish escaped and released captives from wild animals. MO Conservationist magazine Feb issue at magazine@mdc.mo.gov where Wildlife Code book for 2008 has been released.
Now help get SB 1032 passed at CatLaws.com.
OK: 5/7/08 Gov. Henry signed Senate Bill 1463 into law last week. Sen. James A. Williamson (R-Tulsa) introduced the legislation which prohibits the use of computer-assisted remote control hunting of wildlife. The bill also makes it illegal to engage in, sell, offer for sale, assist in or provide facilities for computer-assisted remote control hunting. Thirty-eight states prohibit Internet hunting, and a federal bill introduced in the U.S. Congress – S. 2422 and H.R. 2711, the Computer- Assisted Remote Hunting Act – would end Internet hunting nationwide.
UT: Internet Hunting Banned. Gov. Huntsman signed Senate Bill 164 into law. Sen. Michael Waddoups (R-6th) introduced the legislation which prohibits the use of a computer or other device to remotely hunt an animal.37 states now prohibit Internet hunting, and a federal bill introduced in the U.S. Congress – S. 2422 and H.R. 2711, the Computer- Assisted Remote Hunting Act – would end Internet hunting nationwide.
USDA roared out in support of Haley's Act HR 1947 http://www.bigcatrescue.org/laws/zPDFlaws/USDAcommentHR1947.pdf
2007 Big Cat Bans Enacted
2007 Private Possession of Dangerous Exotics Banned
FL: 6/29/07 Governor Crist, the people's governor, signed into law SB2766 a bill to regulate the possession of reptiles, but more importantly, included the requirement for a $10,000 bond to be posted by anyone exhibiting a Class I animal, which currently includes, lions, tigers, leopards and jaguars and by 2008 is expected to include cougars. On 12/6/07 the FWC drafted rules to implement the new law. More HERE
8/10/07 The Captive Wild Animal Technical Assistance Group made their recommendations to the Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission staff and you can read that HERE On 12/6/07 the FWC announced that by mid 2008 they will address such issues as: Neighbor notification in the event of an escape, neighbor notification before bringing dangerous wild animals into an area to live, re classifying the cougar from a pet to a Class I animal, public contact, defining sanctuaries, defining what constitutes a commercial use to crack down on Class I animals that are owned as pets under the guise of being a business, ending Internet hunting and transportation of dangerous animals.
IA: 5/17/07 Iowa bans Internet Hunting and on 5/27/07 Iowa made it illegal for a person to privately own or possess a dangerous wild animal and it is now illegal to breed or transport them into Iowa. Exotic pet owners won't have to give up their pets because the bill doesn't apply to animals currently owned by Iowans. However, the bill requires owners to register their dangerous wild animal. The animals must be listed with the state an electronic identification device must be attached or embedded into the animal.
IL: 5/25/07 The Illinois governor signed into law a bill banning the practice of killing live animals over the Internet.
KY, Eddyville: 2/16/07 Eddyville City Council adopted an exotic animal ordinance at a special meeting Monday night. The ordinance outlaws owning any exotic animal in the city. Prohibited animals include snakes, big cats such as lions, tigers or leopards, elephants, venomous rear-fanged species, alligators and gorillas as well as several other specifically named animals. The ordinance does not apply to any zoological garden accredited by the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, licensed theatrical exhibits, carnivals or circuses or any authorized wildlife rehabilitator or licensed veterinary hospital. Violators will be subject to a fine of not less than $500 nor more than $5,000, plus legal costs and attorney fees incurred by the city. The purpose of the ordinance is “to promote the public health, safety and general welfare” of city residents.
LA: 7/11/07 The Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries enacted regulations that prohibit private possession of lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, cheetahs, cougars and their hybrids as pets. People who legally had these animals as of August 15, 2006, when a state law requiring regulation of the animals took effect, can keep them but not breed or replace them. They must apply for permits and meet standards for cages, insurance, and microchips. The animals must be kept in safe and sanitary conditions. They cannot be taken from the premises except to receive medical care.
NY: 6/13/07 Assembly Bill 2612 and Senate Bill 784 passed by 2 to 1 margin to prohibit the taking of non-native big game mammals in fenced or other areas from which there is no means for such mammals to escape. This landmark legislation ends the unethical shooting of exotic animals held captive in fenced enclosures, otherwise known as "canned shoots" in New York.
SC, Chester County 3/19/07 passed an exotic animal ban. Because SC has no state wide ban in place, many counties have passed their own ordinances either banning or strictly regulating exotic animal ownership. York County has an ordinance banning exotic animals. Lancaster County has banned them as well, as has Fairfield County. Lexington County outside Columbia has a ban, as does the town of Mount Pleasant. Beaufort County has a ban as well. Lexington County's ordinance is just one page. It lists several types of "exotic animals" from lions and tigers and other big cats, to reptiles, bears, elephants and gorillas. Lancaster County's ordinance bans exotic animals, saying "no person, firm or corporation shall keep or permit to be kept on their premises any exotic animal as a pet for display or for exhibition purposes." More...
TX, Kaufman County: 3/22/07 Owners of lions and tigers and bears can forget about moving to Kaufman County. County commissioners voted 3-1 Monday to allow the five known owners of exotic animals in the county to continue keeping the animals but banned any others. Commissioner Jim Deller cast the lone "no" vote. He wanted a complete ban. "I don't want to see those kinds of animals in the county if we can prevent it," Mr. Deller said. "All the counties around us have banned them, except for zoos." A "dangerous wild animal" law that the Legislature passed in 2001 gave counties the choice of banning the animals or registering them. The vast majority of counties banned the listed animals, including exotic cats, bears, coyotes, baboons, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. The five entities granted the ability to continue their operations included Castle's Bears, owned and operated by James Hall; Terranova Enterprises, owned and operated by Doug Terranova; PrideRock Wildlife Refuge; Zoo Dynamics, operated by Marcus Cook; and Corey and Beth Junell. With the vote, commissioners effectively joined surrounding counties such as Ellis, Dallas, Collin and Van Zandt in banning such animals. Zoo Dynamics, in a separate decision by the State's Attorney's office, was forced to give up his non profit status and fined 10,000, with a subsequent fine of 100,000 if found guilty of illegally soliciting donations again.
TX, Lake Jackson: 2/7/07 voted to deny a proposed exhibit by Wynnewood, Okla.-based G.W. Exotic Animal Memorial Park at Brazos Mall. A PeTA investigation conducted last year at GW documented dead, dying, and injured animals; a serious lack of basic necessities such as food, water, and veterinary care; cramped cages; and untrained, insufficient staff who were intentionally cruel to animals. PETA's investigator witnessed a suffering lion whose leg had been torn off by tigers and tigers who were hit with a rifle butt. Two healthy adult tigers were killed, and their teeth were reportedly cut out to be given away as gifts. In January 2006, GW was placed on an 18-month probation and paid a $25,000 fine to settle U.S. Department of Agriculture charges that included dangerous animal-handling practices, filthy transport conditions, and failure to provide drinking water.
UT, American Fork: Banned the keeping of exotic animals, such as lions, tigers, bears, porcupines and pythons, which are not allowed in the city except in circuses, laboratory experiments, zoos and a few other facilities. The city chose to do this BEFORE it became a problem.
WA: In April 2007 HB 1418 was passed and will be enforced as of July 2007 that bans the possession, breeding and contact with all big cats including cougars and cheetahs. AZA zoos and sanctuaries that fit their description are exempt. More HERE
WI, Mayville: 2/13/07 Mayville, WI passed an ordinance prohibiting residents from keeping wild and exotic animals. The Common Council voted 5 to 1 to approve the wild and exotic animal ordinance after adding two amendments regarding exceptions. They are municipal zoos or those accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums; and traveling or fair exhibitions and petting zoos licensed under the federal Animal Welfare Act and by the USDA.
USDA Actions: On April 6, 2007 the USDA finally, permanently revoked the license of Lorenzo Pearson of L & L Exotics. More HERE. USDA adopted a policy stating the baby big cats under the age of 8 weeks and (by some inspector's interpretations) over the age of 16 weeks could not be handled by the public. They also define a big cat as lions, tigers, jaguars, leopards, cougars, cheetahs, and any hybrids thereof. Because many places will make you a volunteer for the day to circumvent the rule that prohibits contact with big cats by the public, USDA has defined what is and is not considered a member of the public. Public feeding of big cats has been barred as well, with the exception of a process by which food is sent down a chute, past an external barricade. More HERE.
USDI Actions: The USDI finally rendered their final rules
to enforce the Captive Wild Animal Safety Act which became law in 2003 but
has been unenforceable for the past 4 years due to the government's failure
to draft these rules. Read the Captive Wild Animal Safety Rules here.
CITES met in June 2007 and upheld a ban on the trade in
bobcat fur and all 171 countries railed against China's proposal to farm
tigers for their parts because the legal trade would be the death blow to
the wild populations since it is much cheaper to poach a tiger than farm
one. Sign our petition to save the tiger HERE.
VANCOUVER, B.C. 2/3/07:Vancouver City Council
has unanimously passed a motion banning people from keeping certain exotic
and wild animals as pets and banning businesses from selling them. They've
also requested Mayor Sam Sullivan write a letter to the Union of BC Municipalities
to consider a Province-wide ban.
Banned animals include such creatures as bears, large constrictor snakes, hyenas
and alligators. Businesses will be prohibited from selling everything from elephants
and birds of prey to venomous insects.
Council has also approved banning the use of exotic and wild animals in performances
and shows. Read
it here...
Ontario Canada: 2/14/07 Huntville council upheld a
ban on dangerous exotic animals. Read it HERE
The Jewish Community 2/28/07 speaks out against wearing fur. "Jews must not wear fur skinned from live animals," Israel's chief rabbi said in a religious ruling on Tuesday. "All Jews are obliged to prevent the horrible phenomenon of cruelty to animals and be a 'light onto nations' by refusing to use products that originate from acts which cause such suffering," Rabbi Yona Metzger said.
Europe: On 10th October 2007, 25 Non-Governmental Organisations representing 20 European countries, together with Members of the European Parliament and officials from the European Commission, attended a Reception at the European Parliament in support of animal welfare. The event saw the launch of an initiative to seek greater protection for wild animals kept in captivity in Europe at both a national and, where appropriate, pan-European level through enhancing the animals welfare provisions in the EC Treaty.
UK: November 21, 2007 an amendment to the Conservation Natural Habitats
Regulations declared it is illegal to possess certain exotic animals, including the Wild Cat without a permit from Natural England, an agency that is not inclined to grant
licences to private individual animal keepers and who's
stringent licensing criteria are unlikely be met by most keepers.
2007 Circus Bans
Circus Bans: Bans on circus that use wild animals have been enacted in a number of North American cities, (28 as of June of 2007) including Stamford, CT; Boulder, CO and Burlington, VT. Bans are pending in the state of CT and in Minneapolis, MN. Prince George, B.C. 4/30/07 bans performances using exotic animals and joins 20 other B.C. communities with similar bans. Austria and 100+ cities in England alone already ban the use of wild animals in circus acts. More HERE
Croatia: 1/1/07 The new Croatian Animal Protection Act prohibits the use of wild animals in entertainment, such as circuses or other animal shows. Croatian authorities announced plans to ban holding of dolphin species in captivity, bringing Croatia closer to a complete legal ban on dolphin capture.
Taiwan Bans Circus Animal Imports: 6/15/07 Importation and Exportation of protected animals including lions and tigers for circus acts is prohibited with fines up to $50.000. "The performances are negative education on environmental conservation. Personal pleasure must not be built on the suffering of other animals," officials said.
Circus elephants get their day in court to establish what constitutes mistreatment of animals. See ASPCA & API vs Ringling.
2007 Hunting Bans
AK: Governor Sarah Palin signed House Bill 220 into law this week. Representative Bob Buch (D-27th) introduced the legislation which prohibits any person from engaging in or operating computer-assisted remote hunting in the state.
MA: Senate Bill 2273 (formerly S.B. 860 and S.D. 1452), introduced by Senator Robert Creedon, Jr. (D-2nd), makes it illegal to participate in or facilitate the killing of an animal via the Internet. Governor Deval Patrick signed the bill into law 8/3/07.
NE: Legislative Bill 504, introduced by Senator Mick Mines (District 18), makes it a Class II misdemeanor to hunt through the Internet.
OR: Oregon passed a law based on Senate Bill 490 to ban the killing of live animals over the Internet. 34 states, including Texas, now ban the practice. Florida still allows this inhumane practice of shooting a live animal over the Internet. Oregon also passed Senate bill 572 to ban all canned hunts. The vote was 22 to 5. Fencing exotic mammals, feeding them by hand, and then shooting them, said Democratic co-sponsor Sen. Ryan Deckert, "is not Oregon." California, Wyoming and Wisconsin already prohibit canned hunts. A Federal bill, HR 2711, to ban Internet killing was introduced in June of 2007.
2007 Other Good News for Big Cats
President Bush reauthorized the 1994 Conservation Act to protect African Elephants, Rhinos and Tigers.
2005-2007 Big Cat Bans Enacted
Just since 2005, Arkansas, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland & Washington have passed legislation banning the ownership of certain dangerous animals such as lions, tigers, bears, wolves and primates, leaving only 11 states with virtually no regulations whatsoever.
In 2006 60 state bills were passed to protect animals of all types and 11 bills that would have harmed animals were defeated.
Between 2001 and 2006 the number of hunters in the U.S. decreased by 4%. Now only 5% (12.5 million people over the age of 16) are hunters. During the same time, the number of wildlife watchers, feeders and enthusiasts rose 8%.
View existing State Laws HERE
Help change the laws HERE
| Email this 1 MB video to a friend, right click here and "Save Target As" to your hard drive. |
2006 Bans on canned hunting of captive wildlife:
Alabama, Indiana, Montana, Oregon & Washington have bans on the practice and 26 sportsmen's groups (incl. Safari Club Int'l) are pushing for a similar law in Idaho. Mark Bell, President of the Idaho Sportsman's Caucus, said his coalition would be "relentless" in pursuing an end to what he calls "high-fence shooting" of elk. "It's not hunting, so I won't call it hunting. With public sentiment the way it is now with the recent escape of the those elk," he explained, "we don't see any need to allow or accelerate high fence shooting. This situation points out the pitfalls with allowing it. I wish we would have been more proactive," he admitted. "Now, we're in a crisis mode. All of a sudden the barn is on fire and we don't know if the fire truck is coming."
Internet Canned Hunts were banned in Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Maryland, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island
& South Carolina.
2006 Improvements in USDA's Animal Welfare Act/Enforcement
2006 April: Big cat contact and walking big cats on leashes banned HERE
2006 September: Carnivores may not be declawed or defanged HERE
2006 September: Expired drugs may not be used on exotic animals HERE
2007 USDA revokes 10 licenses of substandard big cat facilities. In prior years none were revoked in 2003, 2 were revoked in 2004 and only 1 was revoked in 2005. In most cases it took many years to bring the cases to a close and hundreds of exotic cats suffered until these places were shut down. More about Failed Big Cat Facilities HERE
2006 Protection in counties and cities
Indiana, Lyons Town Council: Bans exotic animals, including but not limited to tigers, lions, wolves or other similar animals that require a permit from any agency within the State of Indiana or any federal government agency on less than 1/2 acre.
Iowa, Cass County 10/19/06: 
The law outlaws
ownership of dangerous or exotic animals as pets.
Ohio, Elyria Sept. 7, 2006: The new law prohibits residents from keeping any poisonous animals, including fanged snakes and spiders; apes, baboons and monkeys; bears; cheetahs; crocodiles; constrictor snakes of 6 feet or more; coyotes; game cocks and other fighting birds; hyenas; jaguars; leopards; lions; lynxes; foxes; piranhas, pumas, snow leopards, tigers, wolves and birds of prey or animal, except a dog or cat, within 500 feet of an inhabited dwelling. Violating the exotic animal portion of the law is punishable by up to six months in jail and a maximum fine of $1,000.
2006 Protection in foreign countries
South Africa bans the private possession of exotic cats.
Australia bans the private possession of exotic cats.
Brazil bans big cats in traveling acts. More HERE.
Canada: Vancouver, B.C. may soon join Langley, Richmond, Surrey, Abbotsford, New Westminster, the City and District of North Vancouver and 12 communities outside the Lower Mainland in what has become a growing campaign by local jurisdictions to curb the trade in exotic pets. The bylaw also would ban the use of wild and/or exotic animals in public performances, events and exhibitions. The city has prohibited the use of such animals in circuses since 1992. The mayor of Vancouver is urging all of Canada to join in these bans.
China has banned the use of tiger parts in traditional medicine and made display or wearing of tiger parts an offence. China has also made certain offences in this connection punishable with death penalty. As of August 31, 2006 Chinese legislation outlaws the import and export of rare animals for commercial purposes. Exceptions will be made for scientific research, propagation, and cultural exchange. China expects to introduce legislation to ban the trade in dog and cat fur by the end of 2006.
European Union 10/16/06: The European Parliament
approved the ban of the sale of dog and cat fur as part of the first ever
European Community strategic plan on animal protection. Edinburgh West Liberal
Democrat MP John Barrett, recently appointed honorary vice-president of the
Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SSPCA), said: "This
is a historic turning point in the fight to ban this inhumane trade. "The
vote by members of the European Parliament sets in motion an EU-wide commitment
to ban the import of dog and cat fur products to the EU." Mr Barrett
said he had lost count of the number of constituents who had contacted him
to support his calls for a total ban on the trade.
Leonora Merry, parliamentary officer for the SSPCA, said: "The European
Parliament has recognized animal welfare is of great concern to millions
of EU citizens and to many consumers who demand ethically acceptable products."
India 9/6/06: NEW DELHI The Wildlife (Protection) Amendment Act was passed today. The Act provides for creating the National Tiger Conservation Authority and the Tiger and Other Endangered Species Crime Control Bureau (Wildlife Crime Control Bureau). India bans use of big cats in circus acts.
Ireland 10/20/06: Ulster is tamed with new
pet laws Legislation ends 30-year loophole that allowed people to keep wild
and exotic animals. More...
Ontario, Canada 12/7/06: The OMNR banned the public display of wildlife that has been taken from the wild stating, "Adult wildlife conceals pain and stress to their last breath. They will never display vulnerable behavior as it invites predation. Entertaining the public with injured wildlife has no place in the rehabilitation community and will no longer be tolerated.
United Kingdom: Bans Big Cats in Circuses. On 8th March, 2006 Department of the Environment Food & Rural Affairs (Defra) Minister Ben Bradshaw told the UK Parliament that big cats would be banned from traveling circuses under regulations that will follow the Animal Welfare Bill. The Scottish Parliament followed suit two weeks later with a similar ban. More HERE
2005 Big Cat Bans Enacted
Sweetwater Texas bans: lions, tigers, ocelots, cougars, leopards, cheetahs, jaguars, bobcats, lynx, servals, caracals, hyenas, bears, coyotes, jackals, baboons, chimpanzees, orangutans and gorillas, as well as any hybrid of these animals.
To see where your state stands, click HERE
Arkansas bans big cats
YARMOUTH PORT, Mass., April 21 /U.S. Newswire/ -- IFAW (International Fund for Animal Welfare - http://www.ifaw.org) announced today the passage of Arkansas house Bill 2681, which prohibits the ownership of certain dangerous, exotic pets, such as lions, tigers or bears. Arkansas now joins 23 other states in banning the ownership of exotic animals, including big cats.
"We applaud the Arkansas legislators who voted to pass this bill and particularly House Representative Phillip Jackson who originally introduced it, for their wisdom and foresight in protecting the public by prohibiting people from owning dangerous, wild and exotic animals," said Josephine Martell, IFAW Campaign officer.
Across the United States , legislators have come to recognize that private ownership of dangerous exotic animals is a national public safety threat. State legislation is currently being considered in several states, including Oregon , Maryland , Iowa , Ohio , and Missouri . However, 19 states have little or no regulations regarding private ownership of exotic animals, and eight states have absolutely no regulations or laws regarding the private ownership of exotic animals including big cats.
Tigers and other big cats such as lions, cheetahs, leopards and panthers, are being kept as pets in the United States in increasingly large numbers. There are an estimated 10,000 tigers in private ownership in the Unites States, with only 5,000 living in the wild.
"Big cats are animals that are born to be wild and should not be kept in backyards, basements or private homes," said Sarah Tyack, IFAW deputy director. "Owning exotic pets is cruel to animals and dangerous to people."
In 2004, there were 39 big cat incidents including one death, 11 injuries and 26 escapes in the United States alone. Since 1990, captive tigers have killed at least 11 people in the U.S. and mauled at least 70 more. In January 2005, near Eureka Springs , Arkansas , a Bengal tiger was set loose by its owner and spent four days in the wilderness before being captured. In November 2004, a tiger pulled the flesh off the hand of a woman at the Wilderness Drive through Safari in Gentry Arkansas. In September 2002, four lions are shot after running loose in Quitman , Arkansas .
IFAW has been working hard to encourage stronger state and federal legislation designed to prevent the needless suffering of captive wild animals and protect people from possible harm. With the urging of IFAW, Congress passed the Captive Wildlife Safety Act In 2004 banning interstate trade of big cats. In Arkansas , IFAW provided valuable expert testimony and provided case studies and big cat statistics to government leaders in both the House and Senate
Contact: Kerry Branon of the International Fund for Animal Welfare, 508-744-2068 or kbranon@ifaw.org
Indiana leads the nation by banning Canned Hunts
August 12, 2005
State: No more fenced hunting
Ruling closes loopholes in the law that allowed hunters to kill captive animals.
By Leia Baez
leia.baez@indystar.com
The state moved Thursday to shut down a controversial business: the hunting of semi-tame deer or exotic animals on fenced preserves.
"In America , our hunting tradition is for fair chase and for animals to have an avenue for escape," Kyle Hupfer, director of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, said in announcing the decision.
About 12 fenced preserves operate in Indiana , according to state officials. The facilities charge clients up to $20,000 to shoot trophy wildlife in a practice sometimes called canned hunting.
The DNR's move followed the high-profile trial of Russ Bellar, a Peru deer farmer who was convicted this year of charges he ran illegal hunts.
An investigation revealed that deer were drugged and selected from pens; sometimes bait was used.
Fenced hunting already is banned in Indiana , but loopholes allowed the hunts to go on. Now, after a grace period, the preserves must shut down at the end of next year's General Assembly, Hupfer said. The session is scheduled to end in March.
The ban includes exotic species such as wild boar, sheep, elk and zebra.
Charlie Fritz, 64, co-owner of Backwoods Preserve in Bremen , said he has used fenced hunting as a primary source of income for several years.
"I'm just trying to make a living," he said. "What I think is fair and what the DNR thinks is fair is two different things."
Doug Allman, public relations officer for the Indiana Deer Hunters Association, said a small percentage of hunters support shooting fenced animals.
"It's the industry that's for it because it's money-making," Allman said. "It caters to wealthy individuals that want to pay a large amount of money to kill a certain type of deer for its antlers. It's for trophy antlers."
The Associated Press contributed to this story. Call Star reporter Leia Baez at (317) 444-6301.
http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/
article?AID=2005508120535
301 KAR 2:082. Transportation and holding of exotic wildlife.
RELATES TO: KRS 150.010, 150.180, 150.280, 150.290, 150.305
STATUTORY AUTHORITY: KRS, 150.025(1), 150.180(6), 150.280
NECESSITY, FUNCTION, AND CONFORMITY: KRS 150.280 authorizes the department to promulgate administrative regulations establishing procedures for the holding of protected wildlife. KRS 150.180(6) requires a person transporting live wildlife into Kentucky to obtain a permit from the department. This administrative regulation establishes the procedure for obtaining a transportation permit for exotic wildlife, prohibits the importation and possession of exotic species with the potential to damage native ecosystems, and places restrictions on importing species that are potentially dangerous to human health and safety.
Section 1. Definition. "Exotic wildlife" means terrestrial wildlife species which have never naturally existed in the wild in Kentucky including starling (Sturnus vulgaris), English or house sparrow (Passer domesticus), and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto).
Section 2. Prohibited Species. (1) Except as specified in subsection (3) of this section, a person shall not import or transport through Kentucky or possess in Kentucky the following:
(a) Baya weaver (Plocius phillipinus);
(b) Blackbirds (Genus Agelaius), except native species;
(c) Cape sparrow (Passer melanurus);
(d) Cowbirds (Genus Molothrus), except native species;
(e) Cuckoo (Family Cuculidae), except native species;
(f) Dioch or red-bellied quelea (Quelea quelea);
(g) European blackbird (Turdus merula);
(h) Fieldfare (Turdus pilar);
(i) Flying fox or fruit bat (Genus Pteropus);
(j) Gambian giant pouched rat (Cricetomys gambianus);
(k) Giant, marine, or cane toad (Bufo marinus);
(l) Hawaiian rice bird or spotted munia (Lonchura punctalata nisoria);
(m) Jack rabbit (Genus Lepus);
(n) Java sparrow (Padda oryzivora);
(o) Madagascar weaver (Foudia madagascariensis);
(p) Mistle thrush (Turdus viscivorus);
(q) Monk or Quaker parakeet (Myiopsitta monachus);
(r) Multimammate rat (Subgenus Mastomys);
(s) Mute swan (Cygnus olor);
(t) Nutria (Myocastor coypus);
(u) Prairie dog (Cynomys spp.);
(v) Raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides);
(w) San Juan rabbit (Orytolagus cuniculus);
(x) Sky lark (Alauda arvensis);
(y) Song thrush (Turdus philomelus);
(z) Starlings (Family Sturnidae) including pink starlings or rosy pastors (Sturnus roseus), except for Indian Hill mynahs (Graclua religiosa);
(aa) Suricate or slender-tailed meerkat (Genus Suricata);
(bb) Tongueless or African clawed frog (Aenopus laevis);
(cc) Weaver finches (Genus Passer), except Passer domesticus;
(dd) White eyes (Genus Zosterops);
(ee) Wild European rabbit (also called the San Juan Rabbit) not distinguishable morphologically from native wild rabbits;
(ff) Yellowhammer (Emberiza citrinella);
(gg) A member of the following families:
1. Suidae (pigs or hogs), except for domestic swine;
2. Viverridae (civits, genets, lingsangs, mongooses and fossas);
3. Tayassuidae (peccaries and javelinas).
(2) Prohibited inherently-dangerous wildlife. Except as specified in subsections (3) and (5) of this section, a person shall not import or or possess in Kentucky the following:
(a) Adders or vipers (Family Viperidae and Crotalidae) (except native species);
(b) Alligators or caimans (Family Alligatoridae);
(c) African buffalo (Syncerus caffer);
(d) Bears (Family Ursidae);
(e) Cheetah (Acinonyx jubatus);
(f) Clouded leopard (Neofelis nebulosa);
(g) Cobras mambas or coral snakes (Family Elapidae);
(h) Crocodiles (Family Crocodylidae);
(i) Elephants (Family Elephantidae);
(j) Gavials (Family Gavialidae);
(k) Gila monsters or beaded lizards (Family Helodermatidae);
(l) Hippopotamus (Hippopotamus amphibius);
(m) Honey badger or ratel (Mellivora campensis);
(n) Hyenas (Family Hyaenidae), all species except aardwolves (Proteles cristatus);
(o) Lions, jaguars, leopards or tigers (Genus Panthera);
(p) Old world badger (Meles meles);
(q) Primates nonhuman (Order Primates);
(r) Rhinoceroses (Family Rhinocerotidae);
(s) Sea snakes (Family Hydrophidae);
(t) Snow leopard (Uncia uncia);
(u) Venomous rear-fanged species (Family Colubridae) except hognose snakes (Genus Heterodon);
(v) Wolverine (Gulo gulo); or
(w) Hybrids of all species contained in this list.
(3) Upon written request, the commissioner may authorize the importation or possession of the species listed in this section by circuses or for legitimate scientific or educational purposes by:
(a) A zoo or facility that is:
1. Accredited by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association ("AZA"); or
2. Designated as the official zoo of a municipality.
(b) A government agency;
(c) A college or university;
(d) A licensed or accredited educational or research institution; or
(e) A lawfully operated circus or rodeo; or
(f) A person or organization requesting exemption for medical purposes.
(4) A person may temporarily transport or display a prohibited animal listed in this section through the state for less than ninety-six (96) hours if at all times the animal is maintained within a confinement sufficient to prevent the animal from escaping.
(5) Possession of an inherently-dangerous animal prior to the effective date of the amendment to this administrative regulation.
(a) A person who legally possesses an inherently-dangerous animal as defined in subsection 2 of this section prior to the effective date of the amendment to this administrative regulation may possess the animal.
(b) The person shall maintain:
1. Veterinary records;
2. Acquisition papers for the animal; or
3. Any other documents that establishes that the person possessed the animal prior to the effective date of the amendment to this administrative regulation.
(c) A legally-possessed inherently-dangerous animal shall not be bred by a person who does not have an exemption as established in Section 2(3) of this administrative regulation.
(d) A legally-possessed inherently-dangerous animal shall not be replaced by a person who does not have an exemption as established in Section 2(3) of this administrative regulation.
(6) If any inherently-dangerous animal escapes, either intentionally or unintentionally, the owner of the animal shall immediately contact the department to report the escape or release.
Section 3. Exotic Wildlife. Unless listed in Section 2(1) of this administrative regulation, or otherwise protected by state or federal law, exotic wildlife shall not:
(1) Be classified as protected wildlife; and
(2) Require a permit from the department for possession.
Section 4. Transportation Permits and Certificate of Veterinary Inspection. (1) Prior to entry into Kentucky , an annual or individual transportation permit as established in 301 KAR 2:081 shall be obtained for all shipments of wildlife. Persons shall be responsible for applying for a transportation permit who:
(a) Receive a shipment of wildlife;
(b) Import wildlife for their own use or possession; or
(c) Transport wildlife into and through the state to a destination outside Kentucky ;
(2) A copy of a valid transportation permit shall accompany all shipments of wildlife into Kentucky .
(a) Individual transportation permits shall be valid for one (1) shipment of wildlife.
(b) Annual transportation permits shall be valid for multiple wildlife shipments for one (1) year from the date of issue. Annual transportation permit holders shall:
1. Notify the department in writing of any changes or additions subsequent to the original application so that an amended permit may be issued prior to subsequent wildlife importation; and
2. Notify the department by telephone Monday through Friday between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. at least forty-eight (48) hours prior to each shipment of wildlife of the date of expected shipment; source of the shipment; and the species being shipped.
(3) All shipments of wildlife shall be accompanied by a certificate of veterinary inspection stating that the wildlife is free of symptoms of disease. A federal quarantine certificate may be substituted for the certificate of veterinary inspection.
Section 5. The following animals shall not require permits from the department for importation:
(1) Alpaca (Lama pacos);
(2) American bison (Bison bison);
(3) Breeds and varieties of goats derived from the wild goat or bezoar (Capra aegagrus);
(4) Camels (Camelus bactrianus and Camelus dromedarius);
(5) Chinchillas (Chinchilla laniger);
(6) Cockatoos (family Cacatuidae);
(7) Domesticated races of ducks and geese (family Anatidae) distinguishable morphologically from wild ducks or geese;
(8) Domesticated races of the European rabbit (Oryctolagus cuniculus) distinguishable morphologically from wild rabbits;
(9) Domesticated races of mink (Mustela vison), if:
(a) Adults are heavier than 1.15 kilograms; or
(b) The fur color can be distinguished from wild mink;
(10) Domestic swine, except free-roaming or feral wild boars or wild swine;
(11) Domesticated races of rats (Rattus norvegicus or Rattus rattus) or mice (Mus musculus);
(12) Domesticated races of turkeys (Meleagris gallopavo) recognized by the American Poultry Association and the U.S. Department of Agriculture; but shall not include captive held or bred wild turkeys;
(13) Domestic yak (Bos grunniens);
(14) Gerbils (Meriones unguiculatus);
(15) Guinea fowl (Mumida megeagris);
(16) Guinea pigs (Cavia porcellus);
(17) Hamsters (Mesocricetus spp.);
(18) Indian Hill mynahs (Graclua religiosa);
(19) Llama (Lama glama);
(20) Parrots, lovebirds, cockatiels, budgerigar, parakeets (except monk parakeet (M. monachus), macaws (family Psittacidae);
(21) Peafowl (Pavo cristatus);
(22) Pigeons (Columba domestica or Columba livia) or domesticated races of pigeons;
(23) Ratites, as defined by KRS 247.870; and
(24) Toucans (family Rhamphastidae);
Section 6. Applying for Permits. (1) All applications for transportation permits shall be made on standard forms.
(2) The applicant shall indicate the source of supply of the wildlife.
(3) After the permit is issued, the permit holder shall retain a bill of sale or other written proof to show that the wildlife was obtained from a legal source.
(4) A permit holder shall show this written proof to a conservation officer upon request.
(5) Applicants shall possess an approved permit before acquiring animals.
(6) Failure to provide accurate, truthful and complete information on the application form shall result in:
(a) Immediate withdrawal or revocation of the permit; and
(b) Confiscation of the wildlife imported under the permit.
Section 7. Endangered Species. A permit shall not be issued for the transportation or possession of federally endangered or threatened species without obtaining prior approval from the commissioner. The commissioner may grant approval for legitimate scientific or educational purposes for:
(1) A zoo that is:
(a) Accredited the American Zoo and Aquarium Association; or
(b) Designated as the official zoo of a municipality;
(2) A government agency;
(3) A college or university; or
(4) A similar educational or research institution.
Section 8. Inspections. A person holding exotic wildlife shall allow a conservation officer to inspect the holding facilities at any reasonable time.
Section 9. Release. With the exception of pheasants and chukars, a person shall not release exotic wildlife into the wild.
Section 10. Incorporation by Reference. (1) The following material is incorporated by reference:
(a) "Annual Transportation Permit Application, July 2003 edition"; and
(b) "Individual Transportation Permit Application, July 2003 edition."
(2) This material may be inspected, copied, or obtained, subject to applicable copyright law, at the Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Resources, #1 Game Farm Road, Frankfort, Kentucky, Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.
(24 Ky.R. 427; Am. 869; eff. 10-8-97; 29 Ky.R. 1016;
1530; eff. 12-18-2002; 30 Ky.R.
404; eff. 10-31-03; 32 Ky.R. 53, eff. 7-13-05.)
NY LEGIS 692 (2004)
2004 Sess. Law News of N.Y. Ch. 692 (S. 7616) ( McKINNEY 'S)
McKINNEY 'S 2004 SESSION LAW NEWS OF NEW YORK
227th Legislature
Additions are indicated by Text.
Changes in tables are made but not highlighted.
CHAPTER 692
S. 7616
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - WILD ANIMALS - POSSESSION
Approved November 3, 2004 , effective as provided in section 7
AN ACT to amend the environmental conservation law, in relation to prohibiting the possession of wild animals as pets in New York state
The People of the State of New York , represented in Senate and Assembly, do enact as follows:
§ 1. Legislative findings. The legislature finds that keeping exotic animals as pets poses a serious threat to the health and safety of New York state residents. Wild animals, including but not limited to, monkeys, tigers and venomous snakes, are readily available for purchase throughout New York state.
Across the country, children have been mauled by tigers, asphyxiated by snakes, and bitten by monkeys. Wild animals kept as pets can transmit serious diseases to people, including Herpes B. Salmonella and Ebola virus.
Recapture of escaped wild animals is an expensive and perilous endeavor for municipalities. Other states already prohibit private ownership of certain wild animals as pets, a position supported by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA). New York must take similar steps to ensure the protection of the public and the humane treatment of wild animals.
§ 2. Subdivision 6 of section 11-0103 of the environmental conservation law is amended by adding a new paragraph e to read as follo9ws:
<< NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0103 >>
e. "Wild animal" shall not include "companion animal" as defined in section three hundred fifty of the agriculture and markets law. Wild animal includes, and is limited to, any or all of the following orders and families:
(1) Nonhuman primates and prosimians,
(2) Felidae (with the exception of domesticated and feral cats, which shall mean domesticated cats that were formerly owned and that have been abandoned and that are no longer socialized, as well as offspring of such cats), and hybrids thereof,
(3) Canidae (with the exception of domesticated dogs),
(4) Ursidae,
(5) All reptiles that are venomous by nature, pursuant to department regulation, and the following species and families: Boidae family, Asiatic (water) Monitor (V. Salvator), Nile Monitor (V. Nilocitus), White Throat Monitor (V. Albigularus), Black Throat Monitor (V. Albigularus Ionides) and Crocodile Monitor (V. Salvadori) and any hybrid thereof,
(6) Crocodilia.
§ 3. Section 11-0103 of the environment conservation law is amended by adding two new subdivisions 31 and 32 to read as follows:
<< NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0103 >>
31. "Pet" means an animal kept for the primary purpose of companionship that is normally maintained in or near the household of the owner or person who cares for such domesticated animal.
32. "Wildlife sanctuary" means an organization as described in section 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, and approved by the Association of Sanctuaries or the American Sanctuary Association, and that operates a place of refuge where abused, neglected, unwanted, impounded, abandoned, orphaned, or displaced wild animals are provided care for their lifetime or rehabilitated and released back to their natural habitat, and, with respect to any animal owned by the organization, does not:
a. Use the animal for any type of entertainment, recreational or commercial purpose;
b. Sell, trade, lend or barter the animal or the animal's body parts; or
c. Breed the animal.
§ 4. Section 11-0511 of the environmental conservation law, as amended by chapter 432 of the laws of 1997, is amended to read as follows:
<< NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0511 >>
§ 11-0511. Possession and transportation of wildlife
Subject to the provisions of section 11-0512 of this article, no person shall, except under a license or permit first obtained from the department containing the prominent warning notice specified in subdivision nine of section 11-0917 of this article, possess, transport or cause to be transported, imported or exported any live wolf, wolfdog, coyote, coydog, fox, skunk, venomous reptile or raccoon, endangered species designated pursuant to section 11-0535 of this title, species named in section 11-0536 of this title or other species of native or non-native live wildlife or fish where the department finds that possession, transportation, importation or exportation of such species of wildlife or fish would present a danger to the health or welfare of the people of the state, an individual resident or indigenous fish or wildlife population. Environmental conservation officers, forest rangers and members of the state police may seize every such animal possessed without such license or permit. No action for damages shall lie for such seizure, and disposition of seized animals shall be at the discretion of the department.
§ 5. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a new section 11-0512 to read as follows:
<< NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0512 >>
§ 11-0512. Possession, sale, barter, transfer, exchange and import of wild animals as pets prohibited
1. No person shall knowingly possess, harbor, sell, barter, transfer, exchange or import any wild animal for use as a pet in New York state, except as provided in subdivision three of this section.
2. This section shall not apply to the following persons and entitles with respect to wild animals owned or harbored by them solely for a purpose other than for use as a pet:
a. Zoological facilities licensed pursuant to 7 USC. Sec. 2132 et. seq. and accredited by AAZPA (American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums);
b. Exhibitors licensed pursuant to the Animal Welfare Act, 7 USC. Sections 2132-2134 who have demonstrated to the department, in accordance with regulations promulgated by the commissioner, that the sole purpose of which the wild animal or animals are used is for exhibition to the public for profit or compensation;
c. Research facilities as defined in the Animal Welfare Act, 7 USC. Section 2132(e), 2(e) which are licensed by the United States Secretary of Agriculture and approved under applicable state law;
d. Licensed veterinarians and incorporated humane societies, animal shelters, societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals or animal welfare organizations in temporary possession of wild animals;
e. State universities or other state agencies working with wild animals;
f. Wildlife rehabilitators licensed pursuant to the provisions of subdivision three of section 11-0515 of this title and regulations promulgated thereunder, who are tending to sock or injured wild animals;
g. A person having custody of a wild animal solely for the purpose of transporting it to a licensed veterinarian, wildlife rehabilitator, humane society or other entity authorized by this section to handle or treat wild animals;
h. A wildlife sanctuary as defined in subdivision thirty-two of section 11-0103 of this article;
i. A person with a falconry or hawk license pursuant to section 11-1003 of this article;
j. A person who is not a resident of this state who is in the state only for the purpose of traveling between locations outside the state. In no event shall this time period exceed ten days;
k. Reptile exhibitors licensed pursuant to section 11-0516 of this title.
3. Any person who possesses or harbors a wild animal for use as a pet at the time that this section takes effect may retain possession of such animal for the remainder of its life, provided that such person:
a. Has not been convicted of any offense relating to cruelty to animals or under a judicial order prohibiting possession of animals;
b. Applies to the department within sixty days of the effective date of this section, and obtains from the department, a permit pursuant to subdivision four of this section; and
c. Complies with all rules and regulations established by the department as requisites for ownership of such wild animals.
4. The department shall be required to issue permits authorizing possession of wild animals only to those persons who comply with the provisions of subdivision three of this section and with any regulations promulgated by the department thereunder. Such permits shall be valid in any jurisdiction within the state where possession of a wild animal is not prohibited by local law and shall be renewable biennially annually subject to continued compliance with the provisions of this section and with any regulations promulgated thereunder. The department shall forward copies of such permits to the clerk of the city, town or village in which each wild animal is harbored.
a. Permit applications shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following:
(1) The name, address and telephone number of the person who owns, possesses or harbors the wild animal or animals, including an acknowledgment that the person who owns, possesses or harbors the wild animal or animals is twenty-one years of age or older.
(2) The address of the location where the wild animal or animals will be kept, if different from the above.
(3) A detailed description of each wild animal owned, possessed or harbored, including species, gender, age and any identifying characteristics.
(4) The name, address and telephone number of the veterinarian, who will treat the wild animal.
(5) An acknowledgment indicating that the wild animal or animals will not be bred.
(6) A detailed statement establishing that the location in which the wild animal will be kept complies with all standards of care promulgated by the department, but at minimum complies with the standards for animal care set forth in the Federal Animal Welfare Act including, but not limited to housing, temperature, ventilation, drainage, sanitation, food, water, exercise and veterinary care appropriate to the species and sufficient to maintain the wild animal in good health.
(7) An acknowledgment that the wild animal will not be tied, tethered, or chained outdoors, allowed to run at large and that the wild animal will not be brought to any public park or commercial or retail establishment unless it is being brought to a veterinarian or veterinary clinic.
(8) An acknowledgment that possession, harboring or owning such wild animal does not violate any applicable federal, state or local law.
b. The department shall set annual permit fees for the possession of wild animals pursuant to subdivision three of this section in an amount determined to be reasonable but not more than eighty dollars per year for each wild animal. Permit fees shall be used solely for the enforcement of this section.
5. Prior to denial or revocation of a permit issued pursuant to subdivision four of this section, the department shall hold a hearing upon due notice to the person who owns, harbors or possesses the wild animal, at which such person shall have the opportunity to be heard. The provisions of the state administrative procedure act shall apply at proceedings held in accordance with this subdivision. The decision to deny or revoke a permit under this section shall be appealable.
6. Any person in possession of a wild animal as a pet that has been granted a permit pursuant to subdivision for of this section shall not breed, sell, trade, barter or exchange such wild animal.
7. A person possessing, owning or harboring a wild animal who is denied a permit pursuant to subdivision four of this section, or whose permit is revoked, shall surrender such wild animal to the department or an authorized agent thereof or a peace officer of this state or a duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals.
8. The department, any peace officer of this state or a duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals is hereby authorized to enforce the provisions of this section and issue notices of violation to persons in violation of this section, and shall have the authority to seize any wild animal held in violation of this section. Wild animals seized or surrendered pursuant to the provisions of this section shall be transferred to a duly incorporated wildlife sanctuary as defined in this section, or a zoological facility accredited by the American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums, or shall be humanely euthanized. The department shall also have the authority to seek injunctive relief in any court of appropriate jurisdiction to prevent continued violations of this section.
9. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person who knowingly breeds a wild animal or knowingly possesses, owns, harbors, sells, barters, transfers, exchanges, or imports a wild animal for use as a pet in violation of the provisions of this section shall be subject to the penalty of not more than five hundred dollars for the fist offense and not more than one thousand dollars for a second and subsequent offenses. Each instance of breeding, owning, harboring, sale, barter, transfer, exchange, or import of a wild animal in violation of this section shall constitute a separate offense.
10. Nothing contained in this section shall prevent any city, town or county from enacting more restrictive provisions governing the possession of wild animals for use as pets.
§ 6. The environmental conservation law is amended by adding a new section 11-0516 to read as follows:
<< NY ENVIR CONSER § 11-0516 >>
§ 11-0516. Licenses to possess reptiles for exhibition purposes
Notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary, the department may issue to any person a license revocable at its pleasure to collect or possess reptiles that are prohibited under this chapter, for exhibition purposes. However, a license to possess a venomous snake or snake of the boidae family pursuant to this section shall not allow a licensee to exhibit such snake in a school housing any grades prekindergarten through twelve. The department shall adopt regulations concerning the qualifications and duties of reptile exhibitors and the procedures for license issuance and revocation, including requiring a licensee to attend a four hour course approved by the department in one or more of the following areas of specialization:
1. crocodilians;
2. boids;
3. large monitor lizards; or
4. venomous snakes.
§ 7. This act shall take effect January 1, 2005 ; provided however that the department of environmental conservation shall promulgate any rules and regulations necessary for the implementation of this act on or before such effective date.
NY LEGIS 692 (2004)
END OF DOCUMENT
The tiger bill is on its way to Governor Sebelius.
The measure requires owners of exotic animals to keep them confined so that
they can't come in contact with people. It also makes it illegal to allow
such animals to run at large and requires their owners to carry $250,000
in
liability insurance.
The bill was drafted as a response to a fatal incident in August 2005. Haley
Hilderbrand, a 17-year-old Labette County High School senior, was bitten
by
a Siberian tiger at the Lost Creek Animal Sanctuary in Mound Valley,
southwest of Parsons.
The Senate passed the bill last week, and the House approved its
version yesterday, after making amendments. The Senate voted 38-to-two today
to accept the amendments, sending the bill to Sebelius.
http://www.wibw.com/home/
See Senate bill HERE
9/29/06
Beginning October 1, it will be illegal for individuals to import, possess, breed or sell certain dangerous wild animals as pets in Maryland.
The animals include lions, tigers, servals, monkeys, wolves, wolf-dog hybrids, alligators, crocodiles, raccoons, caimans, members of the dog family other than the domestic dog, and members of the cat family other than the domestic cat.
The new rules are aimed at the pet trade and do not apply to legitimate animals sanctuaries, research facilities or zoos and other exhibitors licensed by the United States Department of Agriculture that operate primarily to display animals.
"These animals might look cute and cuddly, but that doesn't mean they're not going to rip your face off or injure you in a very severe way," said Michael Markarian, Executive Vice President with the Humane Society of the United States <http://www.hsus.org/> . "These animals are time bombs waiting to explode - tigers, monkeys, bears, wolves, these animals should not be in our basements or our bedrooms - they should not be roaming the streets of our neighborhoods."
The law allows people who already had the animals to keep them, but only if they have notified the local animal control authority. Local governments can enact stricter regulations.
"Individuals are often just not equipped to care for these animals,
to provide them with their special dietary needs and we should leave it to
the professionals," Markarian said. "We cannot care for them in
a humane way by keeping them in people's homes."
No personal possession permits. Denial of personal possession is based on the rabies concern and a lack of an USDA approved rabies vaccination for wild felines. A public zoo park, museum, educational institution, or a person holding a valid state or federal permit for educational, medical, scientific or exhibition purposes may possess, trade, barter, import or sell wild felines. As of 2006 a sanctuary is defined as a 501 c 3, that does not buy, sell, trade, lease, or breed outside of the SSP and does not conduct commercial activity with respect to any animal.
UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 704
E1 (6lr0818)
ENROLLED BILL
-- Judiciary/Judicial Proceedings --
Introduced by Delegates Menes, Anderson, Barkley, Benson, Bronrott, Cane,
V. Clagett, Conroy, Cryor, D. Davis, Dumais, Feldman, Frush, Gutierrez,
Holmes, Hubbard, Lawton, Lee, Love, Madaleno, Mandel, Mayer,
McComas, McDonough, Moe, Montgomery, Parker, Quinter, Ross,
Shewell, Stern, Taylor, and F. Turner
1 AN ACT concerning
2 Criminal Law - Prohibition Against Wild Animals
3 FOR the purpose of expanding the list of animals that a person is prohibited
from
4 importing into the State, offering for sale, trading, bartering, or exchanging;
5 prohibiting the possession or breeding of certain animals; expanding the
list of
6 exceptions to the prohibition on importing into the State, offering for
sale,
7 trading, bartering, possessing, breeding, or exchanging certain animals;
8 providing for the enforcement of the prohibition by certain entities; authorizing
9 the seizure of certain animals under certain circumstances; establishing
10 procedures relating to the seizure of certain animals, including provisions
for
11 notice, hearings, costs, and the return of the animal under certain
12 circumstances; providing for the disposition of certain animals under
certain
13 circumstances; establishing certain procedures when the owner of a certain
2 UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 704
1 animal dies under certain circumstances; and generally relating to wild
2 animals.
3 BY repealing and reenacting, with amendments,
4 Article - Criminal Law
5 Section 10-621
6 Annotated Code of Maryland
7 (2002 Volume and 2005 Supplement)
8 SECTION 1. BE IT ENACTED BY THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
9 MARYLAND, That the Laws of Maryland read as follows:
10 Article - Criminal Law
11 10-621.
12 (a) (1) This section does not apply to [a person who:
13 (i) offers the species listed in subsection (b) of this section for sale,
14 trade, barter, import, or exchange to a public zoo, park, museum, or educational
15 institution; or
16 (ii) holds a valid State or federal permit to use the species listed in
17 subsection (b) of this section for educational, medical, scientific, or
exhibition
18 purposes.
19 (2) This section does not apply to an animal of a species of wildlife
not
20 kept as a household pet that is individually exempted from this section
under a
21 permit issued by the Department of Natural Resources]:
22 (I) A RESEARCH FACILITY OR FEDERAL RESEARCH FACILITY
23 LICENSED UNDER THE FEDERAL ANIMAL WELFARE ACT;
24 (II) AN EXHIBITOR LICENSED UNDER THE FEDERAL ANIMAL
25 WELFARE ACT THAT DISPLAYS THE ANIMALS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS
26 SECTION IN A PUBLIC SETTING AS THE EXHIBITOR'S PRIMARY FUNCTION;
27 (III) A PERSON WHO POSSESSES A VALID LICENSE OR PERMIT
28 ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES TO IMPORT, SELL, TRADE,
29 BARTER, POSSESS, BREED, OR EXCHANGE AN ANIMAL SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION
(B)
30 OF THIS SECTION;
31 (IV) AN ANIMAL SANCTUARY THAT:
32 1. IS A NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION QUALIFIED UNDER §
33 501(C)(3) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE;
34 2. OPERATES A PLACE OF REFUGE FOR ABUSED,
35 NEGLECTED, IMPOUNDED, ABANDONED, ORPHANED, OR DISPLACED WILDLIFE;
3 UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 704
1 3. DOES NOT CONDUCT COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY WITH
2 RESPECT TO ANY ANIMAL OF WHICH THE ORGANIZATION IS AN OWNER; AND
3 4. DOES NOT BUY, SELL, TRADE, LEASE, OR BREED ANY
4 ANIMAL EXCEPT AS AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE SPECIES SURVIVAL PLAN OF THE
5 AMERICAN ZOO AND AQUARIUM ASSOCIATION;
6 (V) AN ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER UNDER THE JURISDICTION OF
7 THE STATE OR A LOCAL GOVERNING AUTHORITY, A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
8 ACTING UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THIS SUBTITLE, OR A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR OF
9 A COUNTY OR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THAT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ANIMAL
10 CONTROL OPERATIONS;
11 (VI) A PERSON WHO HOLDS A VALID LICENSE TO PRACTICE
12 VETERINARY MEDICINE IN THE STATE AND TREATS THE ANIMAL SPECIFIED IN
13 SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH CUSTOMARY AND NORMAL
14 VETERINARY PRACTICES; AND
15 (VII) A PERSON WHO IS NOT A RESIDENT OF THE STATE AND IS IN
16 THE STATE FOR 10 DAYS OR LESS FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRAVELING BETWEEN
17 LOCATIONS OUTSIDE OF THE STATE.
18 (2) (I) THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A PERSON WHO HAD
19 LAWFUL POSSESSION OF AN ANIMAL SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS
20 SECTION ON OR BEFORE MAY 31, 2006, FROM CONTINUING TO POSSESS THAT ANIMAL
21 IF THE PERSON PROVIDES WRITTEN NOTIFICATION TO THE LOCAL ANIMAL CONTROL
22 AUTHORITY ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 1, 2006.
23 (II) THE NOTIFICATION SHALL INCLUDE:
24 1. THE PERSON'S NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE
25 NUMBER;
26 2. THE NUMBER AND TYPE OF ANIMALS BEING KEPT; AND
27 3. A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE ANIMAL OR A DESCRIPTION OF A
28 TATTOO OR MICROCHIP IDENTIFICATION OF THE ANIMAL.
29 (3) THIS SECTION DOES NOT PROHIBIT A PERSON WHO IS PARALYZED
30 FROM THE NECK DOWN HAS A DISABILITY THAT SEVERELY LIMITS MOBILITY FROM
31 POSSESSING AN ANIMAL SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION IF THAT
32 ANIMAL IS:
33 (I) TRAINED TO PERFORM TASKS FOR THE OWNER BY AN
34 ORGANIZATION DESCRIBED IN SECTION 501(C) OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE CODE;
35 AND
36 (II) DEDICATED TO IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF A PERSON
37 PARALYZED FROM THE NECK DOWN WHO HAS A DISABILITY THAT SEVERELY LIMITS
38 MOBILITY.
4 UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 704
1 (b) A person may not import into the State, offer for sale, trade, barter,
2 POSSESS, BREED, or exchange [as a household pet] a live:
3 (1) fox, skunk, raccoon, or bear;
4 (2) CAIMAN, FALSE CAIMAN, alligator, or crocodile;
5 (3) member of the cat family other than the domestic cat OR A;
6 (4) HYBRID OF A MEMBER OF THE CAT FAMILY AND A DOMESTIC CAT IF
7 THE HYBRID WEIGHS OVER 30 POUNDS; [or]
8 (4) (5) MEMBER OF THE DOG FAMILY OTHER THAN THE DOMESTIC
9 DOG OR A;
10 (6) HYBRID OF A MEMBER OF THE DOG FAMILY AND A DOMESTIC DOG;
11 (5) (7) NONHUMAN PRIMATE, INCLUDING A LEMUR, MONKEY,
12 CHIMPANZEE, GORILLA, ORANGUTAN, MARMOSET, LORIS, OR TAMARIN; OR
13 [(4)] (6) (8) poisonous snake in the family groups of Hydrophidae,
14 Elapidae, Viperidae, or Crotolidae.
15 (c) (1) A person who violates this section is guilty of a misdemeanor
and on
16 conviction is subject to:
17 [(1)] (I) if an individual, a fine not exceeding $1,000; or
18 [(2)] (II) if not an individual, a fine not exceeding $10,000.
19 (2) THE PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION MAY BE ENFORCED BY:
20 (I) ANY STATE OR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER; OR
21 (II) THE LOCAL ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY FOR THE
22 JURISDICTION WHERE THE VIOLATION OCCURS.
23 (D) (1) AN ANIMAL SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION MAY BE
24 IMMEDIATELY SEIZED IF:
25 (I) THERE IS PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THAT THE
26 POSSESSION OF THE ANIMAL IS IN VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION; OR
27 (II) THE ANIMAL POSES A RISK TO PUBLIC HEALTH OR PUBLIC
28 SAFETY.
29 (2) AN ANIMAL SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION THAT IS
30 SEIZED MAY BE RETURNED TO THE PERSON WHO HAD POSSESSION OF THE ANIMAL
31 AT THE TIME THE ANIMAL WAS SEIZED ONLY IF IT IS ESTABLISHED THAT:
5 UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 704
1 (I) POSSESSION OF THE ANIMAL BY THE PERSON IS NOT A
2 VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION; AND
3 (II) THE RETURN OF THE ANIMAL DOES NOT POSE A RISK TO
4 PUBLIC HEALTH OR PUBLIC SAFETY.
5 (3) (I) NOTICE THAT THE ANIMAL WAS SEIZED SHALL BE SERVED ON
6 THE PERSON WHO HAD POSSESSION OF THE ANIMAL AT THE TIME THE ANIMAL WAS
7 SEIZED BY:
8 1. POSTING A COPY OF THE NOTICE AT THE PLACE WHERE
9 THE ANIMAL WAS SEIZED;
10 2. REGULAR AND CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT
11 REQUESTED; OR
12 3. DELIVERING THE NOTICE TO A PERSON RESIDING ON THE
13 PROPERTY FROM WHICH THE ANIMAL WAS SEIZED.
14 (II) THE NOTICE SHALL INCLUDE:
15 1. A DESCRIPTION OF THE ANIMAL SEIZED;
16 2. THE AUTHORITY FOR AND THE PURPOSE OF THE SEIZURE;
17 3. THE TIME, PLACE, AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
18 SEIZURE;
19 4. A CONTACT PERSON AND TELEPHONE NUMBER;
20 5. A STATEMENT THAT THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE
21 ANIMAL WAS SEIZED MAY:
22 A. POST SECURITY TO PREVENT DISPOSITION OF THE
23 ANIMAL; AND
24 B. REQUEST A HEARING CONCERNING THE SEIZURE;
25 6. A STATEMENT THAT FAILURE TO POST SECURITY OR
26 REQUEST A HEARING WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE DATE OF THE NOTICE WILL RESULT
IN
27 THE DISPOSITION OF THE ANIMAL; AND
28 7. A STATEMENT THAT, UNLESS A COURT FINDS THAT THE
29 SEIZURE OF THE ANIMAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED, THE ACTUAL COSTS OF THE CARE,
30 KEEPING, AND DISPOSAL OF THE ANIMAL ARE THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PERSON
31 FROM WHOM THE ANIMAL WAS SEIZED.
32 (4) (I) BEFORE A SEIZURE UNDER PARAGRAPH (1) OF THIS
33 SUBSECTION OCCURS, THE PERSON IN POSSESSION OF THE ANIMAL TO BE SEIZED
34 MAY REQUEST THAT THE ANIMAL REMAIN IN THE PERSON'S PHYSICAL CUSTODY FOR
35 30 DAYS AFTER THE DATE THE ANIMAL WAS TO BE SEIZED.
6 UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 704
1 (II) DURING THE 30 DAYS PROVIDED IN SUBPARAGRAPH (I) OF THIS
2 PARAGRAPH, THE PERSON SHALL TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS TO COMPLY WITH
3 THIS SECTION.
4 (III) AT ANY REASONABLE TIME DURING THE 30-DAY PERIOD, THE
5 LOCAL ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY MAY INSPECT THE PREMISES WHERE THE
6 ANIMAL IS BEING KEPT.
7 (5) (I) IF A PERSON WHO RETAINS POSSESSION OF AN ANIMAL UNDER
8 PARAGRAPH (4) OF THIS SUBSECTION IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THIS SECTION
9 AFTER THE 30-DAY PERIOD HAS EXPIRED, THE LOCAL ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY
10 SHALL SEIZE THE ANIMAL AND PLACE IT IN A HOLDING FACILITY THAT IS
11 APPROPRIATE FOR THE SPECIES.
12 (II) THE AUTHORITY SEIZING AN ANIMAL UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH
13 SHALL PROVIDE NOTICE OF THE SEIZURE IN THE SAME MANNER AS PROVIDED IN
14 PARAGRAPH (3) OF THIS SUBSECTION.
15 (6) (I) A PERSON FROM WHOM AN ANIMAL WAS SEIZED MAY REQUEST
16 A HEARING IN THE DISTRICT COURT WITHIN 10 DAYS OF THE SEIZURE.
17 (II) A HEARING SHALL BE HELD AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE TO
18 DETERMINE THE VALIDITY OF THE SEIZURE AND THE DISPOSITION OF THE ANIMAL.
19 (7) (I) UNLESS THE COURT FINDS THAT THE SEIZURE OF THE ANIMAL
20 WAS NOT JUSTIFIED BY LAW, A PERSON FROM WHOM THE ANIMAL SPECIFIED IN
21 SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION IS SEIZED IS LIABLE FOR ALL ACTUAL COSTS
OF
22 CARE, KEEPING, AND DISPOSAL OF THE ANIMAL.
23 (II) THE COSTS REQUIRED UNDER THIS PARAGRAPH SHALL BE
24 PAID IN FULL UNLESS A MUTUALLY SATISFACTORY AGREEMENT IS MADE BETWEEN
25 THE LOCAL ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY AND THE PERSON CLAIMING AN
26 INTEREST IN THE ANIMAL.
27 (8) (I) IF THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR A HEARING WITHIN 10 DAYS OF
28 THE NOTICE OR IF THE COURT ORDERS A PERMANENT AND FINAL DISPOSITION OF
29 THE ANIMAL, THE LOCAL ANIMAL CONTROL AUTHORITY MAY TAKE STEPS TO FIND
30 LONG-TERM PLACEMENT OF THE ANIMAL WITH ANOTHER APPROPRIATE FACILITY
31 THAT IS EQUIPPED FOR THE CONTINUED CARE OF THE PARTICULAR SPECIES OF THE
32 ANIMAL.
33 (II) IF THERE IS NO ENTITY THAT IS SUITABLE FOR THE CARE OF
34 THE ANIMAL, THE ANIMAL MAY BE EUTHANIZED.
35 (E) THIS SECTION DOES NOT LIMIT A COUNTY OR MUNICIPALITY FROM
36 ENACTING LAWS OR ADOPTING REGULATIONS THAT ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE
37 PERTAINING TO ANY POTENTIALLY DANGEROUS ANIMALS, INCLUDING THOSE
38 SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS SECTION.
7 UNOFFICIAL COPY OF HOUSE BILL 704
1 (F) IF THE OWNER OF AN ANIMAL SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (B) OF THIS
2 SECTION DIES WITHOUT MAKING ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE TRANSFER OF CUSTODY
3 OF THE ANIMAL TO ANOTHER PERSON, THE ANIMAL MAY BE TURNED OVER TO ONE
4 OF THE ORGANIZATIONS SPECIFIED IN SUBSECTION (A)(1) OF THIS SECTION OR
5 EUTHANIZED IF NO SUITABLE LOCATION CAN BE FOUND IN A REASONABLE AMOUNT
6 OF TIME.
7 SECTION 2. AND BE IT FURTHER ENACTED, That this Act shall take effect
8 October 1, 2006.
Circus lions, tiger finally find new habitat
Mananthavadi: After entertaining lakhs of circus lovers and staying in tiny cages in relatively unhygenic conditions for years, 19 lions and a tiger return this evening from here to their natural habitat in Tirupati.
Three lions, 16 lioness and a tiger, part of the popular 'Jumbo circus' company, had been relocated in small cages inside the Ramagiri coffee estate, owned by a close relative of the circus company owner, after the Supreme Court directed banning exhibition of wild animals like bear, tiger, leopard and lion, Wayanad DFO V.P. Mohammed Sherif said.
However, their stay in the estate at Varavayal near here prolonged for seven years after activists of the Chennai unit of People for Animals (PFA), an environmental organisation, intervened and went for litigation for keeping the animals in 'unhygenic' conditions in the estate.
The national zoo authorities, as directed by the union environment ministry, finally arranged to transport the animals to Tirupati Sree Venkateshwara Zoological park, about 20 km from the hill shrine, where they will be kept separately in spacious cages for identification.
As per the settlement reached with the authorities, it has been decided to provide adequate compensation to the circus company for handing over the animals, most of which are in the 15-20 age group, the DFO said.
Accompanied by two veterinary doctors and 'probably' by the PFA activists, the animals would make the nearly 20 hour journey in seven trucks from here and are expected to reach the pilgrim town on September one.
http://www.manoramaonline.com/servlet/
ContentServer?pagename=manorama/
MmArticle/CommonFullStory&cid=1125298881438&c=MmArticle&p=
1002194839100&count=10&colid=1002258272845&channel=News
Lyons Town Council passes animal ordinance in Indiana
By Nick Schneider, ASSIGNMENTS EDITOR
LYONS - The Lyons Town Council took action Thursday night that will provide
guidelines for the current and future raising or the housing of domestic
animals, fowl, wild animals, or exotic animals by property owners or occupants
within the town limits.
The council unanimously passed an ordinance that will establish the authorized
use of real estate after a complaint was heard about a horse pen located
about 40 feet from a neighbor several months ago, according to council president
Scott Powers.
“We're just worried about what had happened a couple of months ago,” Powers
said prior to passage of the new regulations.
The ordinance does have certain exemptions that will allow for the “grandfathering” of
regulations - providing guidelines are met.
The measure - that will be effective immediately after publication in a legal
notice in The Daily World - makes it unlawful to house certain kinds of animals
on real estate that is smaller than one-half acre in size.
Under terms of the ordinance, property owners or tenants on land that is
under one-half acre will not be able to raise horses, ponies, cattle, hogs,
sheep, goats, llamas, or other similar domestic animals; turkeys, chickens,
peacocks, ostriches, and other similar fowl; deer or other similar wild animals;
or exotic animals, including but not limited to elephants, tigers, lions,
poisonous snakes, poisonous spiders, scorpions, constricting snakes, wolves
or other similar animals that require a permit from any agency within the
State of Indiana or any federal government agency.
Among the exemptions:
€ Properties already housing animals listed in the ordinance - prior
to enactment of the ordinance - will be allowed to continue housing those
animals provided they do not pose a threat to the health of the animals or
any of the town residents.
€ Those properties - one-half acre or larger in size - who have obtained
verbal permission from all property owners within 200 feet of the property
intended to house animals that are not posing a threat to the health of the
animals or any of the town residents.
€ Properties - under one-half acre in size - who have obtained written
permission with notarized signatures of all property owners within 200 feet
of the property of the property intended to house animals that are not posing
a threat to the health of the animals or any of the town residents, who submit
with petition in the form of a letter depicting placement and care of the
animals.
Violation of the ordinance carries a possible fine of up to $1,000 for each
offense and each day of continued violation will be considered a separate
offense.
Back to Top
Environmental authorities in Brazil are struggling to find permanent homes for 68 lions abandoned by circuses across the country.
Some of the animals were found roaming the roadside, hungry and diseased.
The number of rescued lions surged after new laws banning wild animal displays in some regions.
In one of the most recent rescues, police found five bedraggled lions roaming by the side of the road in the south-eastern state of Minas Gerais.
Many Brazilian states and municipalities have recently passed laws banning
the use of live animals such as lions in traveling circuses, leading some
owners simply to abandon them.
In one raid on a circus in the northern city of Belem, lions were described
by the Brazilian environment agency, Ibama, as being just skin and bone,
suffering from rickets and infections which caused them to lose their fur.
According to newspaper reports, abandoned lions are being cared for across the country, some in makeshift cages or even in police stations.
One was kept in a town's football field until a zoo found space for it.
Ibama wants all lions in Brazil to be sterilized and is trying to prevent further imports from their native Africa.
NEW DELHI - India's Supreme Court on Monday banned the country's
250
zoos from breeding programmes for their animals following allegations
by animal rights activists that indiscriminate breeding was leading
to overcrowding.
"We direct (that) no zoo shall permit any further breeding of
animals," Chief Justice Y.K. Sabharwal said.
The order from India's top court came in response to a petition filed
by PETA (People for Ethical Treatment of Animals) which accused zoos
of carrying out unsystematic breeding, endangering the animals.
The group said zoos were violating a cap on the number of animals,
such as tigers and deer, permitted to be bred in captivity and the
overcrowding had left zoos ill-equipped to look after the animals.
"Most of these animals in zoos are also genetically unfit for
breeding and their offspring can never be released in the wild," PETA
counsel Raj Panjwani said.
The group said only 18 of the country's 250 zoos had a proper,
planned breeding programme.
The court ordered an immediate halt to all breeding programmes in the
country's zoos, which hold around 41,000 animals. They also called on
local authorities to respond to PETA's request for experienced
veterinary units in zoos.
Story Date: 10/10/2006
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.
Ulster is tamed with new pet laws
Legislation ends 30-year loophole that allowed people to keep wild and
exotic animals
By David Gordon
20 October 2006
Long-awaited legislation on the keeping of dangerous wild animals is
due to take effect in Northern Ireland next month, Government
officials have revealed.
The move will finally bring the province into line with a law passed
three decades ago for other parts of the UK.
The 30-year-old loophole meant that a licence has been needed to keep
a dog but not more dangerous and exotic creatures.
Animal welfare charity, the USPCA, has welcomed the forthcoming change
as "long overdue".
It has repeatedly had to deal with the fall-out from the anomaly.
In the past 12 months alone, the organisation has seized a consignment
of baby crocodiles, snakes and other reptiles in Newry and a tamarin
monkey from a house in Craigavon.
There have also been a number of cases over the years of big cats and
wolves being kept as pets.
USPCA chief executive Stephen Philpott said: "The law change for
Northern Ireland was passed in 2004 but the legislation has still to
be brought into effect by being enabled.
"It's certainly long overdue.
"It will mean people will have to prove competence to keep dangerous
animals.
"This means suitability in terms of issues like insurance, fencing,
licensing and veterinary care.
"It's important for the protection of the public and to ensure the
welfare of the animals," Mr Philpott added.
The DoE confirmed the law change timetable in a statement to this
newspaper.
It said: "Regarding The Dangerous Wild Animals (NI) Order 2004, the
Department of Environment is working to have the Commencement Order
and Fees Order in place by the end of November this year.
"This means that anyone having dangerous wild animals, with certain
exemptions to include circuses, zoos and pet shops, will be subject to
this order," it added.
The USPCA was involved in high profile but unsuccessful big cat
searches in north Antrim in 2003.
The charity believes that a puma and a panther were both released into
the wild in July 2002.
They were thought to have been kept in a private collection
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/
New Exotic Pet Ban
by Jennifer Wilson - Wednesday, February 7, 2007
FAMILY MEMBER: Kristi Stanton poses with a picture of her ball python, Saphire, Monday evening after making an unsuccessful request to council for an exemption to its new exotic pets bylaw.
Huntsville council turned down two applications for exemptions to its new exotic pets bylaw Monday night.
Kristi Stanton and Chris Chapman made deputations to council requesting a bylaw exemption for their ball python and two cougars respectively.
Since the bylaw took effect in November, both Stanton’s snake and Chapman’s cougars have been living outside of the municipality.
“Obviously, it is a regulation that hasn’t been in place very long and I, on a personal basis, understand your attachment to your animals and the difficulty that this particular bylaw poses to you. Council has to balance that against the greater risk [these animals pose to the general public],” said Huntsville mayor Claude Doughty.
Chapman, who had been looking after the two cougars since they were babies, told council that domestic dogs are “more dangerous on average” than cougars.
“Very seldom do captive cats do any harm to anybody. We have everything in place to secure homes for them. We are just asking for the OK from council,” said Chapman, who noted the close bond that had formed between himself and the cats. “To me, they are friendly cuddly kitties, but I know a lot of people don’t share that [view].”
Prior to the bylaw passing, Chapman told council he had contacted Town officials, who told him that a grandfather clause, which would allow him to keep his cougars, might apply when the legislation passed.
However, according to Sara Brown, the Town’s director of physical services, the Town can opt to grant a grandfather exemption but is not required to do so.
Stanton, whose ball python Saphire currently resides with a friend, told council that she thought not enough background information was gathered for the bylaw’s creation.
“I almost feel like not enough research was done on the sub-species of boas and pythons,” Stanton told council.
“I am confused how you can still own a corn snake or a rat snake which can
grow significantly bigger than a ball python and it eats exactly the same things.”
Despite this, Town staff and councillors continued to question the safety risks exotic animals kept as pets posed to the public at large.
“The rationale behind any kind of bylaw like this is not to protect someone like yourself, who may be a responsible kind of individual with this kind of animal, but more to protect somebody who may not be responsible,” said councillor Brian Thompson.
Councillor Bill Beatty told council he felt that although owners may be comfortable housing their exotic pets, the animals could pose a great risk to safety officials in the case of a fire.
“One of the other issues I brought up and I got a nod and a wink, so to speak, from the fire chief was the concern if in fact there was a fire in that building or some incident where you had firefighters crawling around in the dark, the last thing you want to do with a snake or anything is have it bite you on the head as you knock the cage over.”
Washington Senate passes House bill to ban private possession of dangerous exotic animals
April 4, 2007
OLYMPIA, Wash. -- The Animal Protection Institute (API) and The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) commend the Washington state Senate for passing HB 1418, the "Dangerous Wild Animal Bill," after seven years of debate. The two groups are co-sponsors of HB 1418, which prohibits the private possession of dangerous exotic animals such as cougars, tigers, bears, monkeys, and dangerous reptiles.
"Washington is one of only 11 states with no laws regulating the private ownership of dangerous wild animals," says Nicole Paquette, Director of Legal & Government Affairs for API. "Passage of this bill will put Washington state at the forefront of nationwide progressive animal legislation by boasting one of the best state laws in the country."
"Today's action by Washington lawmakers will protect public safety and the welfare of the animals," says Jennifer Hillman, Washington State Government Affairs Coordinator for The HSUS. "Over the past seven years, incidents in Washington have ranged from attacks on people to abandonment of animals when owners can no longer care for them. Wild animals belong in the wild, not in basements or makeshift cages in people's backyards."
A recent investigation conducted by API examined both private owners and federally licensed facilities in Washington state and documented stories of serious, unreported attacks by animals; people, including children, being allowed direct contact with dangerous animals at USDA-licensed facilities, a violation of federal law; poor animal care conditions; and inadequate and unsafe barriers.
"We applaud the Washington state Senate for taking a strong stand on this issue and hope to see the state serve as a role model of progressive legislation other states will follow," adds Paquette.
Note: DVD b-roll and still images of exotic animals in Washington State available for download; email press@api4animals.org
http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases/
washington_exotic_pet_bill.html
CERTIFICATION OF ENROLLMENT
HOUSE BILL 1418
Chapter 238, Laws of 2007
60th Legislature
2007 Regular Session
DANGEROUS WILD ANIMALS
EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/22/07
Passed by the House April 16, 2007
Yeas 61 Nays 31
FRANK CHOPP
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Passed by the Senate April 3, 2007
Yeas 34 Nays 15
BRAD OWEN
President of the Senate
CERTIFICATE
I, Richard Nafziger, Chief Clerk
of the House of Representatives of
the State of Washington, do hereby
certify that the attached is HOUSE
BILL 1418 as passed by the House
of Representatives and the Senate
on the dates hereon set forth.
RICHARD NAFZIGER
Chief Clerk
Approved April 30, 2007, 2:12 p.m.
CHRISTINE GREGOIRE
Governor of the State of Washington
FILED
April 30, 2007
Secretary of State
State of Washington
HOUSE BILL 1418
AS AMENDED BY THE SENATE
Passed Legislature - 2007 Regular Session
State of Washington 60th Legislature 2007 Regular Session
By Representatives Lovick, Campbell, Lantz, O'Brien, Upthegrove and
Williams
Read first time 01/18/2007. Referred to Committee on Judiciary.
1 AN ACT Relating to the keeping of dangerous wild animals; adding a
2 new chapter to Title 16 RCW; and prescribing penalties.
3 BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON:
4 NEW SECTION. Sec. 1. It is the intent of the state of Washington
5 to protect the public against the serious health and safety risks that
6 dangerous wild animals pose to the community.
7 NEW SECTION. Sec. 2. (1) "Animal control authority" means an
8 entity acting alone or in concert with other local governmental units
9 for enforcement of the animal control laws of the city, county, and
10 state and the shelter and welfare of animals.
11 (2) "Potentially dangerous wild animal" means one of the following
12 types of animals, whether bred in the wild or in captivity, and any or
13 all hybrids thereof:
14 (a) Class mammalia
15 (i) Order carnivora
16 (A) Family felidae, only lions, tigers, captive-bred cougars,
17 jaguars, cheetahs, leopards, snow leopards, and clouded leopards;
18 (B) Family canidae, wolves, excluding wolf-hybrids;
p. 1 HB 1418.SL
1 (C) Family ursidae, all bears;
2 (D) Family hyaenidae, such as hyenas;
3 (ii) Order perissodactyla, only rhinoceroses;
4 (iii) Order primates, all nonhuman primate species;
5 (iv) Order proboscidae, all elephants species;
6 (b) Class reptilia
7 (i) Order squamata
8 (A) Family atractaspidae, all species;
9 (B) Family colubridae, only dispholidus typus;
10 (C) Family elapidae, all species, such as cobras, mambas, kraits,
11 coral snakes, and Australian tiger snakes;
12 (D) Family hydrophiidae, all species, such as sea snakes;
13 (E) Family varanidae, only water monitors and crocodile monitors;
14 (F) Family viperidae, all species, such as rattlesnakes,
15 cottonmouths, bushmasters, puff adders, and gaboon vipers;
16 (ii) Order crocodilia, all species, such as crocodiles, alligators,
17 caimans, and gavials.
18 (3) "Person" means any individual, partnership, corporation,
19 organization, trade or professional association, firm, limited
20 liability company, joint venture, association, trust, estate, or any
21 other legal entity, and any officer, member, shareholder, director,
22 employee, agent, or representative thereof.
23 (4) "Possessor" means any person who owns, possesses, keeps,
24 harbors, brings into the state, or has custody or control of a
25 potentially dangerous wild animal.
26 (5) "Wildlife sanctuary" means a nonprofit organization, as
27 described in RCW 84.36.800, that cares for animals defined as
28 potentially dangerous and:
29 (a) No activity that is not inherent to the animal's nature,
30 natural conduct, or the animal in its natural habitat is conducted;
31 (b) No commercial activity involving an animal occurs including,
32 but not limited to, the sale of or trade in animals, animal parts,
33 animal byproducts, or animal offspring, or the sale of photographic
34 opportunities involving an animal, or the use of an animal for any type
35 of entertainment purpose;
36 (c) No unes