Q&A: A look at Ohio’s crackdown on exotic animals

ANN SANNER

Asso­ci­ated Press

COLUMBUS — Ohio Gov. John Kasich has put in place tem­po­rary mea­sures to crack down on pri­vate own­er­ship of dan­ger­ous wild ani­mals while tougher laws are writ­ten this fall.

Some ani­mal owner groups wel­comed the order, though oth­ers have blasted it as not going far enough. Crit­ics, includ­ing the Humane Soci­ety of the United States, say they would have pre­ferred a ban on the pur­chase and sale of exotic ani­mals. That’s what Kasich’s Demo­c­ra­tic pre­de­ces­sor, for­mer Gov. Ted Strick­land, ordered before leav­ing office in January.

Spar­ring over Kasich’s approach comes after dozens of lions, bears and tigers were shot to death by police in Zanesville two weeks ago after their owner freed them and then killed himself.

A look at some of the ques­tions and answers sur­round­ing the first-term Republican’s exec­u­tive order:

Q: Does the Kasich’s order ban the own­er­ship of exotic ani­mals, such as tigers and lions?

A: No. Under his exec­u­tive order issued Oct. 21, the state will work with health depart­ments and humane soci­eties to bet­ter enforce exist­ing laws. Kasich has directed the state’s Depart­ment of Agri­cul­ture to try to tem­porar­ily halt auc­tion sales of wild ani­mals and to shut down unli­censed auc­tions. He’s also ordered a review of the exist­ing state per­mits issued to peo­ple who own wild ani­mals. By con­trast, Strickland’s order called for a ban on the future own­er­ship, breed­ing, sale, trade or barter of wild ani­mals. Under his plan, Ohioans who already owned exotic pets would have had to reg­is­ter them with the state, and they would have been barred from breed­ing or sell­ing their boas, chim­panzees, tigers and other wild animals.

Q: How long does an exec­u­tive order last?

A: That depends on when the gov­er­nor spec­i­fies. Strickland’s order was effec­tive for 90 days and it included emer­gency rules. Kasich’s order is set to run out on his last day in office, though he can end it before then. An order is typ­i­cally used to put poli­cies in place immediately.

Q: What hap­pened to Strickland’s order?

A: It expired in April along with its emer­gency rules. The for­mer gov­er­nor issued the order in Jan­u­ary, just days before leav­ing office. Kasich did not renew the order. His administration’s lawyers say the state’s Divi­sion of Wildlife did not have the legal author­ity to enforce the direc­tive. The divi­sion han­dles native wildlife, such as deer, cer­tain bears and rac­coons — not non-native ani­mals, such as lions and tigers. A spokes­woman for the agency says no steps were taken to ful­fill Strickland’s direc­tive because coun­sel advised them leg­is­la­tion was needed before such action could be car­ried out.

Q: What did the Kasich admin­is­tra­tion do after his predecessor’s order expired?

A: The Kasich admin­is­tra­tion announced in April that a work­ing group of stake­hold­ers would con­vene to rec­om­mend leg­is­la­tion aimed at reg­u­lat­ing dan­ger­ous wild ani­mals. The group first met in June, and has been meet­ing monthly. Kasich’s exec­u­tive order directs the mem­bers to pro­vide their frame­work for a new law no later than Nov. 30. Kasich spokesman Rob Nichols said the work­ing group has not been directed to put Strickland’s ideas into law. But, Nichols said, “It’s a good guide to some of the things we’re think­ing about.”

Q: Are the work­ing group’s meet­ings open to the pub­lic or media?

A: No. Unlike leg­isla­tive com­mit­tees or appointed com­mis­sions, the work­ing group is not a pub­lic body. It does not have policy-making author­ity. It’s a group of 10 stake­holder orga­ni­za­tions that include the Ohio Asso­ci­a­tion of Ani­mal Own­ers, the Ohio Farm Bureau, the Zoo Asso­ci­a­tion of Amer­ica and the state’s nat­ural resources depart­ment among others.

Q: Would either exec­u­tive order have pre­vented Ohio ani­mal owner Terry Thomp­son from keep­ing and later free­ing 56 rare and dan­ger­ous wild animals?

A: It’s unclear. Strickland’s order could have led to Thompson’s ani­mals being taken away, says Wayne Pacelle, pres­i­dent and CEO, Humane Soci­ety of the United States. That’s because Thomp­son had a pre­vi­ous ani­mal cru­elty con­vic­tion from 2005, and he would have been in vio­la­tion of Strickland’s rules had they still been in place on May 1. In com­par­i­son, Kasich’s order draws atten­tion to a 1953 Ohio law that gives humane soci­eties the author­ity to enforce the state’s ani­mal wel­fare laws, includ­ing the abil­ity to arrest peo­ple. Laura Jones, a spokes­woman for the Ohio Depart­ment of Nat­ural Resources, said it’s pos­si­ble that local author­i­ties could have used that law to step in dur­ing the 2005 ani­mal cru­elty case.

Posted by AP News on Oct 30 2011. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS Feed. Comments can be made below.