Exotic Pets Threatened Due to Ohio's Pointless New Regulations on Animal Ownership
In 2011, Ohio exotic animal owner Terry Thompson committed suicide after setting over 50 animals loose. No civilians were injured, but the story received widespread media attention and Ohioans called for action. The state responded by passing the Dangerous Animal Act in record time, introducing rigid regulations for all exotic animal owners.
"To focus on this, and this law, as fast as they did and to pass it as fast as they did was nothing but a knee-jerk reaction," says Cyndi Huntsman, president of Stump Hill Farm in Massillon, OH. Hunstman and a few other exotic animal owners banded together to sue the state over the act, and in early March 2014, the court ruled to uphold it.
The Ohio Department of Agriculture told Reason that federal qualifications and requirements are too loose and don't properly manage the ownership of the animals, but Huntsman says that the new state restrictions are keeping neither society nor the exotic animals any safer. She adds that new insurance, veterinary care, and cage requirements make it very difficult for the owners to maintain their animals.
"It's very taxing for the individual," Hunstman says. "It has cost us over $70,000 [to comply]." The law extends to a variety of animals, including many reptiles and primates, but the one-size-fits-all legislation doesn't differentiate among common sense needs for accomodation.
"You basically need to have the equivalent of a maximum security prison," says Maurice Thompson, director of the 1851 Center for Constitutional Law. "You need to have a minimum two acre lot no matter what kind of animal it is. It could be for monkeys, and you still need a two acre lot. That same size that applies to monkeys also applies for a tiger, or a rhinocerous."
Yet as the current law stands, owners who can't comply with the regulations will be forced to surrender their animals, and sancturaries like Stump Hill can only take so many. The Department of Agriculture built a facility in Reynoldsburg, OH to take the remaining animals. It's unclear what will happen to the animals surrendered to the state facility, but Thompson says there is a better way to handle the threat of dangerous animals escaping and wreaking havoc.
"If the animals cause harm or if the animals are even loose and roaming the streets then you throw the book at these people," says Thompson. "Punishment or the prospect of punishment has a deterrence effect, and you have to rely upon the court system rather than over-the-top regulations to accomplish these goals."
Written and produced by Tracy Oppenheimer. Camera by Josh Swain and Amanda Winkler. Music by Krackatoa.
About 5:30 minutes.
Scroll below for downloadable versions and subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube Channel to receive automatic updates when new material goes live.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Hey, Tracy, ever live near a neighbor that owned lions and bears and kept them penned in rickety cages?
"Life finds a way."
Have you?
Yup.
And yet you're still alive.
I have no clue.
That's my point.
I give up. You win.
lions and bears ?
Oh My !
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RSDorQ4tCgM
I'm happy Miss Oppenheimer escaped that dangerous animal menagerie alive.
The only animals I keep in cages I captured while hunting The Most Dangerous Game
So, mostly bears? NTTAWWT.
And otters.
You know who else played the dangerous game?
*the most
Isn't that the point?
I'm thinking if you don't actually have enough room for your wild animal to roam around like it wants to then maybe you shouldn't own a wild animal.
You are correct. The problem this law addresses is the idiots who own big dangerous game and do not have the financial capability to build secure enclosures to protect both the animal and the neighbors.
It's a shame that the government has to get involved but as a landowner who has lived near a poor person (nothing against poverty) who owned several lions, a bear, and tigers for a time and then crated these creatures in inhumane and rickety shelters which left his rural neighbors in constant fear that their kids could be eaten by an escaped big cat. This guy already had other smaller exotic types escape over the years and had been severely bitten by one of his own big cats.
It's one thing to live around wild life that represents a clear danger (bear country or on an African savanna) but entirely another for a neighbor to introduce that danger into an unnatural environment without properly securing it.
Shit. Warning. Very incomplete sentence in my post. I wish this site had an edit toggle.
How could a poor person even begin purchase several lions, a bear, and tigers ?
He was poor BECAUSE he had them.
Shouldn't the same apply to domesticated animals? I seriously doubt my cat would appreciate being locked in the bathroom 24/7.
Your housecat is unlikely to kill someone if it escapes.
RBS's post wasn't about any danger the animals represent.
The point is the state is making ownership of dangerous exotics very expensive for several reasons, one of which is, in fact, the danger these animals present to the communities they are in.
You haven't seen my cat.
@ I.B. McGinty
I know I'm really late on this thread but I'll post this anyway . . .
Is this you? http://www.examiner.com/articl.....1-for-help
The Libertarian Promise =
"A Bazooka in every Closet, and an Illegal Weasel Brood in every Garage"
I'm partial to Madagascar Lemurs, but to each their own.
You can just call them lemurs -- the Madagascar part is implied.
Excuse me, miss Lemur-tologist
I hope your weasels get mange.
It's like meowschwitz in this state.
Quietschen Spielzeug spiele macht frei
So what was her previous plan if her animal ended up hurting someone? Just declare bankruptcy and tell them they're SOL?
Escape and potential danger does not enter into the minds of the average wild animal owner. Their large killing machines are "lard-asses who wouldn't hurt anyone much less be able to climb a fence." This is what my neighbor told me... and then he was injured a year later by one of his male lions.
That's kind of of my point. If you want to own dangerous animals, that's fine, but I don't consider it unreasonable to require you to demonstrate a capability to pay for any liability that might result.
I agree with you. I'm adding to your point. Though, to be fair, insurance is probably last on my list of concern when I see a powerful animal penned in a rickety cage within earshot. I say earshot because unless you've lived in a rural area not known for lion roars you cannot fully appreciate the fear this induces when it occurs.
Libertarian theory question here: in Libertopia, how should situations where someone creates a risk that, if realized, would cause injury or damage far in excess of what they are capable of compensating for?
e.g. something like the Elk River chemical spill, where Freedom Industries poisoned an entire areas water supply and then just declared bankruptcy, leaving everyone else to clean up the mess.
Well remember some libertarians believe that the limited liability corporation is itself a creation of the State and would not exist in Libertopia.
That would prevent sham bankruptcies where the company goes down while the still wealthy owners get off scott free. It wouldn't help if the owners are actually bankrupt too.
Well nothing really would help in that situation. I suppose you could go ahead and charge everyone who held shares in that company during the time of the chemical spill for the cleanup. I'd be ok with that to an extent.
Which seems to be a big hole then if you can be aware that someone is creating a situation that is likely to destroy your property in the near future, and be unable to do anything to stop it until it actually happens, even if its already obvious that it will be too late to do anything about it then.
If you can be aware that some occupational disaster is likely to happen due to an observable situation that somebody is creating, then somebody is criminally negligent and therefor can be directly charged with a crime if something does happen. Limited liability has nothing to do with that. Suck nine dicks.
If I see my crazy neighbor jury-rigging a homemade nuclear reactor in his backyard, I shouldn't have to wait until the meltdown occurs to be able to stop him.
Fuck preemptive rules and regulations.
no, it's one of the few regulations that are reasonable. If we lambast those with the same fervor, we'll just look like extremists (though I guess a lot of you guys are)
Ain't you the jackass who wants to force private utility companies to let capacity and access to competitors? Fuck you.
What private utility company has ever been truly private for Christ's sake? There is no such thing. Every single utility ever born out of whatever has had state funding just like every fucking silicone valley funded venture.
Statist money is all over private corporations.
Private companies don't become public property if they receive direct subsidies from the government. All it means is the government enacted stupid economic policies, and it should stop doing that.
Death, law is by its very nature preemptive. Can you be comfortable with your children living next to malnourished lions in rickety cages is my question?
Yes. And no.
No matter, I have little to no positive rights over the private real property of another. So I can voluntarily take defensive measures at my expense or I can voluntarily move at my expense. I can hold my neighbor accountable for his actual encroachments on my own property at his expense, if any happen.
This is rhetorical since I hate children and had I any of my own, I would probably encourage them to taunt the lions, because it is funny.
It's cute to have the kiddies taunt the hungry lions in the flimsy cages but in reality it's incredibly dangerous. Children are the most vulnerable to prey animals by far.
That's why it is funny.
Ok, death humor. I'll give you that.
And no, not all laws are "preemptive laws". Yes, laws do encourage people to avoid certain activities because of the punishment. That's not what preemptive means, though. A preemptive law is one that criminalizes certain activities that are not harmful by them self, because of the possibility that something bad might happen or the possibility that somebody else disapproves of might happen. In other words, paternalism. Fuck paternalism.
So leash laws are paternalism? A law prohibiting people from target-practicing with a long-range .22 in a suburban neighborhood is paternalism? Requiring a license to perform surgery on brains is paternalism?
There is a balance between outright fucking bad law and common sense structure to stop the idiots.
"So leash laws are paternalism?"
Yes.
"A law prohibiting people from target-practicing with a long-range .22 in a suburban neighborhood is paternalism?"
Hell yes. If I think I can safely target shoot in my suburban yard, which I do think, then I have the natural right to do so.
"Requiring a license to perform surgery on brains is paternalism?"
Yes. My profession requires a license. I don't think it should, and the educational requirement changes they are making (which don't apply to me) are absurd. Fuck occupational licensing. Pure protectionism.
Well, you could saunter over and have a man-to-man talk with him and give him a heads-up that he's heading toward rough times.
I had a neighbor with a mean dog he let run everywhere like all the rural dummies do. We were walking with the family down the street recently and I had grabbed a rather large club with the intention of flogging the possibility-of-something-bad-happening on four legs right in the fucking head. The nice neighbor with the shitty dog happened to notice and walked out to the road to chat whereupon I flat-out told him quite nicely, "This club is for your dog. I will crack his skull open if he attacks any of us." He responded, "If he attacks you, he deserves getting his head split open".
I both respected and resented that response because the idiot to this day has not kept his dog on his own property which has not only made my life miserable when walking the street with my family but has also put his dumb dog's life at risk.
Fact is, you have to do what you have to do to survive. If this involves negotiations or involving the sordid law- so be it.
You mean like drunk driving?
This is where the magic of the Dispute Resolution Organization comes in. The DRO representing the man would have to pay if the animals were to escape and do any damage. They would consequently charge him lots of money. This would mean that he could not afford to own these animals to begin with, so he would not own them. DRO model wins again.
Why not ship it to Texas, where tigers are totally legal? And then sue the cable company,
And Texas has its fair share of tragic stories. It is only a matter of time before Texas cracks down just like Ohio.
we all know that keeping powerful wild animals is dangerous and can be reasonably regulated (risk is an externality), but this law sounds like it's going overboard. Such facilities need to be affordable to keep so that there stays enough of them in existence to take in abandoned animals, and for research.
Certainly. There needs to be a balance.
Like the balance the Dreamy One is trying to find "between privacy and government intrusion"?
What a great tragedy for our society. Ha!
Wow. The Terry Thompson case is SO insane? SO implausible? so implausibly INSANE that I'm prepared to ignore the maxim "hard cases make bad law" and support rigid exotic animal regulations. Perhaps insane cases make acceptable law.
Start earning with Google. Just work for few hours and have more time with friends and family. I earn up to $500 per week. Its actually the nicest job Ive had. Linked Here http://www.CapitalPosts.com
Buy sweater chain necklace & wonderful quality low in wejewels.com. Our store offers jewelry necklace, sweater chain jewelry, mix and match jewelry. Fine workmanship and high material. Find the latest fashion wejewels.com, make a unique look.
not one of those rules would prevent a person form releasing the animals like the person did. as usual BS
You're right, I'm ashamed that hadn't occurred to me.
The only thing better than a knee-jerk reaction law is a completely ineffective knee-jerk reaction law.
Because with the latter, the original problem can happen again, giving you yet another chance to "address" it.
This is why I have my own island.
I missed this thread the first time around. Is it Dr. Moreau-ish?
Now I've learned Agile Cyborg's weakness is exotic animals.
These revived threads are annoying
At least they cut out the old comments now - you no longer have people arguing with the pseudonym they used 60 months ago and forgot about.
"Ohioans called for action"
This wasn't all that far from me and I don't know anyone who didn't think the authorities overreacted to this thing from the start.
AJB,
Too many negatives for me; are you saying the Ohio gov't did over-react?
Law enforcement and the media overreacted from the get go. As far as the statement "Ohians called for action". I just didn't ever see that.
Got it.
We get the same BS: 'Californians want higher minimum wage!' = Chron headline writer pitches lefty cause.
Meanwhile, in some other state, a lady whose face was ripped off by a chimpanzee is suing the state so she can sue the state for not regulating chimps.
She can't directly sue the state because they have some sort of law prohibiting lawsuits like that.
But it illustrates a problem states face - if they don't prevent something, they will get sued.
While it is the concern for public safety that drove this law, I am grateful for the number of people who also appreciate the respect for animal welfare these laws bring. I sat in the Ohio senate and listened to Cyndi Huntsman say her place "could" become AZA accredited, but she chooses not to because she didn't want to pay the money it takes to apply. That would have cost between $3,000 and $4,000. So how is it she's sunk over $70,000 into changes in order to keep her menagerie? Once again the owners speak and prove the points made by those who know - - - they are in this for PROFIT, and profit alone, with little regard for the quality of life they give their animals. And, they want to do things "their" way so they can complain that their "liberties" are being infringed upon. It's all about them, not the animals or their neighbors. At least if they spend the money to meet the laws, the animals have "won" something - a presumably better life.