Ohio judge hears testimony on exotic animal law

COLUMBUS — An animal owner told a federal judge on Monday that abiding by Ohio’s new regulations on exotic creatures would put some of her animals’ lives in danger and take away thousands of dollars from her business.

Cyndi Huntsman is one of four owners who are suing the state over its crackdown on possessing wild animals, claiming the law violates their property and First Amendment rights.

The lawsuit had its first hearing Monday before Judge George Smith in Columbus.

Ohio officials have defended the law as a common sense measure to address the growing public safety problem of private ownership of exotics animals.

State lawmakers worked with a renewed sense of urgency to strengthen the state’s regulations after a suicidal owner released dozens of creatures last year from an eastern Ohio farm in Zanesville. Authorities killed 48 of the animals, which included black bears, Bengal tigers and African lions, fearing for the public’s safety.

The law required owners to register their restricted animals with the state by Nov. 5. It also directs the owners to have their dangerous creatures implanted with a microchip before registration, so the wildlife can be identified if they get lost or escape.

The owners have taken issue with the microchip requirement, contending it puts animals’ health at risk because of the anesthesia required for the procedure. They fear animals with health problems or those who are older won’t wake up from sedation.

Huntsman likened the microchip requirement to a death sentence for some of her creatures.

“I’ll fight as long as I have to not to (microchip),” she told the court.

A veterinarian who cares for exotic animals in Oklahoma criticized the procedure as “cruel and unjustified” in some cases.

Dr. JoAnne Green, who said she was paid $4,000 to appear on the owners’ behalf, told the court that she has implanted microchips in more than a thousand animals, but still had concerns about tagging exotic creatures.

In a follow-up interview with The Associated Press, Green clarified that she had implanted hundreds of animals.

The state has argued in court documents that a microchip is “no larger than one or two grains of rice” and is typically injected in a minimally invasive procedure.

“The microchipping process is not any different in substance from (and indeed is less invasive than) vaccinating an animal,” attorneys for the state wrote in filings earlier this month.

While the law took effect in September, some aspects have yet to kick in. For instance, a permit process for owners won’t begin until next October.

Current owners who want to keep their animals must obtain the new state-issued permit by Jan. 1, 2014. They must pass background checks, pay fees, obtain liability insurance or surety bonds, and show inspectors that they can properly contain the animal and care for it. Otherwise, they will be banned from having them.

One of the factors of obtaining a state permit includes timely registration.

If owners are denied permits or can’t meet the new requirements, the state can seize the animals.

Huntsman said she couldn’t imagine handing over her animals to the state if she couldn’t meet the new regulations.

“They’re what we do,” she said. “They’re our life.”

Huntsman cares for more than 200 animals at Stump Hill Farm near Massillon, where she exhibits tropical birds, primates and big cats and offers educational programs to schoolchildren and the elderly. Huntsman’s animals also have been featured in television shows, commercials and magazine photo shoots. She also breeds certain species.

Huntsman estimates that she’d lose about $60,000 annually because of the state’s law. “With this ban, I have no buyers,” she said.

The law exempts sanctuaries, research institutions and facilities accredited by some national zoo groups, such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Zoological Association of America.

The owners also contend that joining the groups to get an exemption from the law means they would have to associate and fund organizations with which they disagree.

“They have a way of thinking that I do not,” Huntsman told the court.

Other owners in the lawsuit are Terry Wilkins, who owns a reptile and amphibian store called Captive Born Reptiles in Columbus; Mike Stapleton, owner of Paws & Claws Animal Sanctuary in Prospect; and Sean Trimbach, owner of Best Exotics LLC in Medway, where he breeds, raises and sells exotic animals.
http://www.zanesvilletimesrecorder.c...sey=nav%7Chead

I really don't see the issue with chipping. Don't they have injections to implant the chip? Like something they can do without anesthesia? Put one of them on a pole and inject the lion or bear or whatever. Seems like this person has another underlying issue with the law ( maybe cost)?

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

Izzys keeper would you like to inject a microchip into an adult lion or Bengal tiger without first sedating them? I wouldn't. These new laws are affecting all exotics in Ohio not just snakes. It completely sucks! I can't even get a dwarf retic without microchipping and proper permits. It is so strict that it almost feels like I'm not in America anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Izzys Keeper

I really don't see the issue with chipping. Don't they have injections to implant the chip? Like something they can do without anesthesia? Put one of them on a pole and inject the lion or bear or whatever. Seems like this person has another underlying issue with the law ( maybe cost)?

Sent from my A500 using Tapatalk 2

---

Get a grain of rice and see how big it is. Now think about the size of needle that would be required to inject it. Tell me if you really, really want to have that injected without some sort of anesthesia.

i was talking to my mom about snake bans and guess what a woman who doesnt even like snakes said " that HAS to be unconstitutional!" This is all bs.

Ridinandreptiles I like your mom. Lol it is unconstitutional imo. In a lot of people's opinions to seeing as that is the grounds of the lawsuit. I hope they can get this ban put to sleep. Honestly I don't have a problem with some aspects of it like the permits and possibly micro chips after a certain size but the list of illegal reptiles is retarded. Pretty much anything that averages over 10 feet as an adult is on the Ohio banned list. Honestly more people are severely injured by dogs each year than by all exotics together. This whole situation was spawned by the zanesville incident. Which is kinda shady in its self. Not saying I believe the conspiracy theory myself but it seems plausible.

I can't keep any of the large constrictors in NY. Biggest I can keep is a boa or BHP. I think the only way I could have one would be with an educator permit thing.

Sent from my Droid RAZR M using Tapatalk 2

Judge to decide if exotic-animal law is unfair

Ohio’s new exotic-animal ownership law came from a “Frankenstein-like bill” created by special interests with “no care given to the rights of owners,” the attorney for owners argued in federal court yesterday.

Robert M. Owens said in closing statements that the law and the rules set up to enforce it are unconstitutional because they provide only “false options” for owners that are “so onerous there’s going to be no way” they can keep their animals.

Owens represents four animal owners who sued the Ohio Department of Agriculture in November, saying that the law is unconstitutional. The civil hearing started on Monday in Columbus, and U.S. District Judge George C. Smith is expected to issue a ruling before Christmas.

James Patterson, the attorney for the Agriculture Department, argued that the law “clearly has been done in a constitutional manner” by the legislature, which has a legal right to create public policy and to look out for the general welfare of citizens.

“It’s not unconstitutional to regulate” the private ownership of exotic animals, he said.

The law was enacted after Terry W. Thompson, who lived near Zanesville, released dozens of his wild animals in October 2011 and then killed himself. Muskingum County deputy sheriffs killed 48 of the animals, including lions, tigers and bears, to protect the public.

The last witness in the case was John Moore, Thompson’s animal caretaker. Owens had him detail what he saw on Thompson’s farm the night the animals were released.

Moore testified that he drove to the farmhouse with a deputy and saw several lions, tigers and bears lounging along the property, some in front of their cages and some still inside cages. He said he helped the deputy search the house for Thompson and then secured one lioness in her cage before he saw Thompson’s body lying on the ground in the distance.

“Then a truckload of deputies came in with rifles,” Moore said. He said three approached the cage with the lioness he had locked up and shot it, execution style.

He said he then left the area and helped deputies compile a list of Thompson’s animals. Eventually, he said, he told Muskingum Sheriff Matt Lutz about the lioness’ shooting.

Moore testified that at least five of Thompson’s animals had been shot in their cages and that none of the animals he saw was exhibiting hostile behavior.

Lutz said in a phone interview after the hearing that Moore’s statement about deputies shooting a lioness in a cage “has no merit whatsoever” and that Moore “never told me any such thing.”

He said Moore was helping deputies with the animal list at a command post when the deputies began shooting animals.

“I don’t feel Mr. Moore could have witnessed a whole lot from the vantage point he had,” Lutz said.
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stor...is-unfair.html

Hey ER12 where do you find this stuff? I would love to be able to read more of it. I thank you very much for these post! I find it informative and entertaining as I live in this crummy state where all of this bs spawns. lol

Thanks for sharing brother. Is there anything that we could do to help (donate to lawyer fees, etc.)?

Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk 2