Inligting

10 eksotiese troeteldiere wat wettig is in Texas


Melissa sorg vir 'n verskeidenheid eksotiese diere en het 'n sertifikaat in veeartsenykundige hulp en 'n baccalaureusgraad in biologie voltooi.

Wat is die wette oor eksotiese troeteldiere in Texas?

Alles is groter in Texas, so sê hulle. Alhoewel die massiewe staat moontlik 'n reputasie verwerf het omdat hulle dinge op hul eie manier gedoen het en dat hulle 'n groot aantal boere het, is groter eksotiese troeteldiere soos groot katte en bere nie wettig vir die algemene publiek sonder 'n permit nie. Oor die algemeen het die staat Texas relatief slap wette met betrekking tot eksotiese troeteldiere. Daar is nog steeds baie unieke en eksotiese troeteldiere wat u sonder 'n lisensie in Texas kan besit. Baie van hierdie spesies moet wettig bly omdat hulle min of geen bedreiging vir die openbare veiligheid inhou nie.

Wat om te weet voordat u 'n eksotiese troeteldier kry

Hier is 'n paar dinge om oor na te dink voordat u 'n eksotiese troeteldier van enige aard kry.

  • Dit kan moeilik wees om 'n veearts te vind: Dit is onwaarskynlik dat u u eksotiese dier na u plaaslike veearts sal kan neem. U tipiese veearts het waarskynlik geen idee hoe u u dier moet versorg nie. U moet 'n spesialis soek wat behoorlike mediese sorg kan bied. Dit sal waarskynlik uitdagend wees, en daar is miskien nie 'n gekwalifiseerde veearts in u omgewing nie.
  • Hierdie diere benodig 'n spesifieke dieet: Aangesien daar baie of geen navorsing met baie nie-mak troeteldiersoorte gedoen word nie, moet u veral aandag gee aan voeding, advies kry van eksotiese veeartse en tred hou met die huidige navorsing.
  • Ken u plaaslike wette: U moet altyd u plaaslike wette oor die besit van troeteldiere nagaan, aangesien dit van die wette van die staat kan verskil. U moet altyd eksotiese troeteldierwette nagaan, aangesien u dalk 'n permit benodig waar u woon. U kan dalk nie eers 'n dier besit waarin u belangstel nie.

1. Maki

  • Natuurlike habitat: Madagaskar
  • Grootte: Kan wissel van 1,1 oz tot 20 lbs, afhangende van die spesie.
  • Dieet: Wissel tussen spesies, maar hulle eet hoofsaaklik plantmateriaal.
  • Lewensduur: Groter spesies kan langer as 30 jaar leef.

Primate is in die meeste state onwettig. In Texas kan u egter enige soort maki besit. Die algemeenste is die ringsterte-maki, wat bekend gemaak is uit die film Madagaskar. Daar is ander spesies daar, soos die ruffed en bruin maki. Hierdie diere vaar eintlik baie goed in gevangenskap. In dieretuine word gesê dat hulle een van die maklikste soogdiere is om gelukkig te bly, en voer hulle min of geen stereotiperingsgedrag uit nie (pas en ander herhalende rye wat veronderstel is om verveling of spanning aan te dui).

Hulle kan relatief goedgesind wees vir primate, en dit is beslis belangrik vir 'n dier wat oor bytvermoë beskik. Tog word alle primate as veeleisend beskou en is dit nie troeteldiere vir mense wat nie bereid is om hul lewens rondom hul behoeftes te sentreer nie. Alle lemurs is bedreig. As gevolg hiervan kan hulle nie oor staatslyne verkoop word nie.

2. Luiaard

  • Natuurlike habitat: Tropiese reënwoude van Suid- en Sentraal-Amerika.
  • Grootte: Kan wissel tussen 7,9 en 17 lbs, afhangende van die spesie.
  • Dieet: Vreet gewoonlik blare, vrugte en insekte.
  • Lewensduur: 'N Luier met twee tone kan 20 jaar in die natuur leef, 30 jaar in ballingskap.

Texas is 'n luiaardvriendelike staat. Hierdie gewilde diere is in 'n unieke familie wat tamandoes insluit. Hulle is geneig om nie so gereeld as ander eksotiese produkte onwettig te wees nie, omdat hulle bloot buite rekening gelaat word met slegs primate, bere, groot katte, wolwe en ander spesies wat mense meer ken. Luiers is bekend as uiters sensitief vir spanning en vereis streng toewyding aan hul omgewing. Moet dit onwettig wees? Natuurlik nie. Hulle word ongelukkig as oulik en snoesig beskou, maar dit is een van die laaste spesies wat u gereeld wil hanteer. Gelukkig is dit nie maklik beskikbaar nie en die prys vir babas begin ongeveer $ 6000, dus dit is waarskynlik nie 'n impuls vir die meeste mense nie.

3. Kinkajou

  • Wetenskaplike naam: Potos flavus.
  • Natuurlike habitat: Sierra Madres in Mexiko tot in die suidooste van Brasilië.
  • Dieet: Eet meestal vrugte, veral vye.
  • Grootte: Kan 16-24 sentimeter lank wees. Kan tussen 3-10 pond weeg.
  • Lewensduur: 23 jaar in ballingskap.

Hierdie dier lyk soos 'n aap, maar hou eintlik verband met wasbere. Hierdie ongewone diere het 'n prehensile stert en 'n smaak vir lekkers wat hulle met behulp van hul lang tong kry. Die kinkajou is 'n nagtelike dier. Ongelukkig kan hierdie diere aggressiewe neigings hê wat onvoorspelbaar is. Daarom is 'n groot ruimte nodig om energie te verbrand. Andersins word gesê dat hulle eienaars nogal soet is. Anders as ape, het hulle ook 'n soet reuk. Kinkajous is wettig in Texas en 'n paar ander state, soos New York en Noord-Carolina.

4. Capybara

  • Wetenskaplike naam: Hydrochoerus hydrochaeris.
  • Natuurlike habitat: Bosse van Suid-Amerika, gewoonlik naby waterliggame.
  • Grootte: 3.48-4.40 voet lank. 20-24 duim in hoogte. Kan tussen 77 en 146 pond weeg.
  • Dieet: Hulle eet hoofsaaklik gras en waterplante.
  • Lewensduur: 8-10 jaar in ballingskap.

Die kapibara is 'n reusagtige knaagdier met gewebde voete. Dit is net so wettig in Texas as sy naaste familielid, die proefkonyn. Hierdie honde-grootte diere hou daarvan om te swem en benodig 'n diep waterbron om aan hierdie behoefte te voldoen. Capybaras is lief vir hul eienaars, en goed gesosialiseerde individue kan selfs soos 'n hond in 'n leiband loop en troeteldierwinkels en openbare parke verken.

5. Asiatiese luiperdkat

  • Wetenskaplike naam: Prionailurus bengalensis.
  • Natuurlike habitat: Kan in die hele Suid-, Suidoos- en Oos-Asië gevind word.
  • Grootte: Is ongeveer dieselfde grootte as 'n huiskat.
  • Dieet: Vreet meestal klein prooi soos knaagdiere.
  • Lewensduur: Tot 13 jaar in gevangenskap.

Dit is 'n nie-mak kat spesie wat, in teenstelling met groot katte, wettig is in Texas. Hierdie katte is eksoties, maar hulle oorskry nie die grootte van 'n gewone huiskat nie. Dit word gesê, dit is steeds uitdagende diere om te besit, en dit kan 'n menslike interaksie wees. Daar is mediumgrootte katte soos servale wat 'n hoër verdraagsaamheid vir menslike interaksie het (hoofsaaklik hul eienaars, tensy hulle baie goed gesosialiseer is).

Asiatiese luiperdkatte was die spesie wat gebruik is om die gewilde Bengaalse katras te skep. Hierdie katras het vlakke van sogenaamde wilde bloed uiters afgewater en is nie vergelykbaar met die besit van 'n ALC nie.

6. Kangaroo

  • Natuurlike habitat: Australië.
  • Grootte: Wissel volgens spesie, kan so groot wees as 6'7 "en weeg 200 pond.
  • Dieet: Wissel volgens spesies, maar almal is streng herbivore. Wei meestal op gras.
  • Lewensduur: Wissel volgens spesies, sommige kan in gevangenskap meer as 20 jaar leef.

Kangoeroes is wettig om in Texas te besit. Hulle benodig 'n groot en grasagtige area om rond te loop, dus oorweeg dit nie eens om 'n kangaroe te kry as u nie genoeg ruimte het nie. Voldoende omheinings is nodig om dit te beperk. Hulle kan meer as vier voet hoog spring en 15 voet in die afstand spring. Hulle kan nie huis opgelei word nie en vaar nie goed met huisdiere nie. Ideaal gesproke sou hulle die geselskap hê van 'n ander lid van hul spesie.

7. Callitrichids

  • Natuurlike habitat: Bosse van Suid-Amerika.
  • Grootte: Die grootste spesie is die goue mantel tamarin. Dit kan meer as nege sentimeter groei en tot 14 oz weeg.
  • Dieet: Insekte, vrugte en sap.
  • Lewensduur: Dit wissel volgens soort, die gemiddelde is in gevangenskap ongeveer 10-20 jaar.

Sommige apsoorte word as troeteldiere in Texas toegelaat. Een voorbeeld is die klein New World-aap genaamd callitrichid. Hierdie biologiese familie bestaan ​​uit marmoset en tamaryne. Selfs tamariene met katoenbedekkings, wat kritiek bedreig word, is wettig en word deur verskeie telers geproduseer. Hulle kan egter nie buite die staat verkoop word nie. As gevolg van hul klein grootte, is hierdie diere een van die gewildste spesies om aan te hou. Hou in gedagte dat alle primate relatief uitdagend is. Ongelukkig is hierdie klein ape van knaagdiere deurmekaar en het 'n sterk reuk wat hulle 'n slegte keuse as binnenshuise troeteldiere vir die meeste mense sal maak.

8. Gevlekte Genet

  • Wetenskaplike naam: Genetta genetta.
  • Natuurlike habitat: Inheems aan Afrika, noord van die Sahara en in suidelike Afrika. Is bekendgestel aan die suidweste van Europa.
  • Grootte: 17-22 duim lank. Kan tot 4,4 pond weeg.
  • Dieet: Het 'n gevarieerde dieet van insekte, voëls, vrugte en klein soogdiere.
  • Lewensduur: Tot 13 jaar in gevangenskap.

Hierdie klein, eksotiese troeteldier lyk soos 'n kat, maar dit is nie een nie. Dit maak dit soms wettig in lande waar eksotiese katte nie is nie. Hulle het die vorm van 'n mangoes, die gevlekte patrone van 'n luiperd en die geringde stert van 'n maki. Hulle lyk soortgelyk aan die onwettige (in Texas) en inheemse suidwestelike ringstertkat, wat ondanks die naam ook nie katte is nie. Genette kom in verskillende groottes voor en lyk asof dit met verskillende subspesies in gevangenskap gemeng word. Hulle hou daarvan om in bome te klim, maar kom ook af om klein diere te soek. Gevlekte genette het 'n beperkte aantal eienaars wat hulle suksesvol kan versorg vir die duur van hul 20+ jaar. Hulle is nie troeteldiere wat hou van knuffel nie en kan uiters skitterend wees.

9. Coatimundi

  • Natuurlike habitat: Reikwydte strek van die suidwestelike VSA tot Noord-Uruguay.
  • Grootte: 13-27 duim lank. 12 sentimeter lank aan die skouer. Kan tussen 4,4 en 17,6 pond weeg.
  • Dieet: Grondvullis, ongewerweldes en vrugte.
  • Lewensduur: Tot 16 jaar in gevangenskap.

Hierdie ongewone dier is inheems in Sentraal- en Suid-Amerika. Daar is verskillende soorte kasse in die troeteldierhandel: die bergjas, witneus- en Suid-Amerikaanse rooi laag. Dit is mediumgrootte diere (ongeveer so groot soos 'n groot huiskat) met groot vereistes vir die omhulsel, maar dit het die voordeel dat dit 'n interaktiewe en onderhoudende troeteldier is. Die staat Texas het geen probleem daarmee dat u hierdie dier besit nie, maar dit sal papierwerk benodig, aangesien dit deur die staat beskerm word.

10. Bosbaby

  • Natuurlike habitat: Afrika.
  • Grootte: Die grootste spesie is die bruin groter galago. Dit is gemiddeld meer as 12 sentimeter lank en kan tussen 2,6 en 3,3 pond weeg.
  • Dieet: Insekte, vrugte en boomsap.
  • Lewensduur: Kan tot 12 tot 16 jaar in gevangenskap leef.

Bosbabies, ook bekend as galagos, is eintlik nagtelike primate. Hulle is egter nie ape nie; dit is nouer verwant aan lemurs. Hierdie diere is relatief klein soos die naam aandui; die baie kleiner kleiner galago's blyk egter nie beskikbaar te wees in die troeteldierhandel in die Verenigde State nie. Die groter galago word gewoonlik gesien te koop. Hulle het die ongelukkige gewoonte om hulself met hul eie urine te vryf, wat onverwags 'n muskusreuk oplewer. Soos ape, sal hulle baie ruimte in hul omheining benodig.

Watter eksotiese troeteldiere is wettig in Texas?

Die vinnige antwoord is dat feitlik alle diere tegnies wettig is volgens die wette van die staat, maar slegs as u 'n USDA-gelisensieerde instelling begin. Diere soos tiere, bere, gorilla's en jagluiperds kan tegnies besit word as u 'n registrasiesertifikaat kan kry. Hier is 'n lys van opsommings van staatswette rakende eksotiese eienaarskap van troeteldiere.

Hoe kry u 'n eksotiese troeteldierpermit in Texas?

U kan 'n permit by die departement van dierebeheer of stadsdiens kry. As u land nie 'n departement het nie, kan u 'n permit van die balju kry. U moet gewoonlik wys dat u die dier veilig kan versorg en bevat. Die eienaar moet ook ten minste $ 100,000 aanspreeklikheidsversekering vir die dier hê. Die dierebeheer of die balju van die land moet onmiddellik in kennis gestel word as die dier 'n mens aanval of ontsnap. Versuim om 'n eksotiese dier te registreer, is 'n oortreding in Klas C. Eienaars sal daaglikse boetes opdoen weens die versuim om 'n dier te registreer.

Hoe om 'n eksotiese troeteldier te huisves

As u, nadat u u eksotiese troeteldier gekry het, besef dat die versorging van u gekose spesie meer betrokke is as wat u verwag het, is dit nie verkeerd om dit te heroorweeg nie. U kan tot die besef kom dat, ten spyte van u beste pogings en voornemens, u eenvoudig nie na hierdie dier kan omsien nie. Dit is 'n algemene voorkoms; dit kom gereeld voor by tradisionele troeteldiere.

Een opsie is om 'n dieretuin te noem. Hulle neem dikwels eksotiese troeteldiere van eienaars wat agterkom dat hulle nie daarvoor kan sorg nie. Baie mense kies om die dier weer op Craigslist te laat sien. Let daarop dat u voornemende aannemers deeglik moet ondersoek. Dit is ook tegnies 'n oortreding van die Wet op Dierewelsyn om 'n dier te "verkoop" as u nie 'n USDA-lisensie het nie. Om na Facebook te gaan en 'n groep eienaars te vind wat in u spesie spesialiseer, kan waardevol wees om leidrade te vind vir 'n nuwe huis.

Vrae en antwoorde

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n aap in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: "Vingerape" is klein ape, so ja.

Vraag: is krimpvarkies wettig in Texas?

Antwoord: Ja.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n jakkals in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Geen.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n otter in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Hulle word waarskynlik as voortrekkers beskou, dus nee, otters is waarskynlik nie wettig in Texas nie.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n fennec-jakkals in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Nee ongelukkig.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n wallaby in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Ja.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n poolvos in Texas te hê?

Antwoord: Jakkalse is onwettig in Texas.

Vraag: Kan u 'n toekan in Texas besit?

Antwoord: Ja.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n reier in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Geen.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n vlermuis in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Geen.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n sjimpansee in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Nee, en sjimpansees is nie regtig meer beskikbaar nie.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n wasbeer in Texas te hê?

Antwoord: Geen.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n beer in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: U benodig 'n permit in Texas, maar dit word nie aan troeteldiereienaars gegee nie.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n chinchilla in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Ja.

Vraag: Wat is 'n beginner?

Antwoord: Diere wat tradisioneel vir hul pels vasgevang is, soos wasbere, nerts, otter en bobbejane.

Vraag: Mag u alpakkas in Texas besit?

Antwoord: Ja.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om kapuchin, ape of gibbons te besit?

Antwoord: In 'n klein aantal state. Dit is almal wettig in Noord-Carolina en Nevada.

Vraag: Kan ek 'n opossum as 'n troeteldier in die staat Texas hou?

Antwoord: Waarskynlik nie, want hulle is inheemse diere en voortrekkers.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om enige groot katte soos tiere en bere in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Permitte word nie aan 'troeteldiereienaars' in TX gegee nie.

Vraag: Waar kan u 'n Asiatiese luiperdkat kry?

Antwoord: Soek telers aanlyn. 'N Troeteldierwinkel in Florida het dit onlangs gehad.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n muntjac-blaar te besit?

Antwoord: As u een kan vind en as dit wettig is in u staat.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n leguaan in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Ja.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n olifant in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Geen.

Vraag: Kan ek 'n otter in Texas besit?

Antwoord: Waarskynlik nie.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n mango in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Dalk 'n cusimanse. Die meeste mongoes is onwettig in die land.

Vraag: Is dit wettig om 'n koalabeer in Texas te besit?

Antwoord: Dit is nie wettig om van Australië af in te voer nie. Niemand het dit nie.

Vraag: Kan ek 'n ringstertkat (A.K.A mynboukat) in Texas besit?

Antwoord: Ek dink nie so nie.

© 2017 Melissa A Smith

Dave op 31 Augustus 2020:

Is dit wettig om 'n vrou te besit?

alissa op 17 Augustus 2020:

Ek wou nog altyd 'n katjie as 'n troeteldier in TX hê, maar ek wil nou regtig 'n kangaroe hê

Fennc jakkalsverslaafde op 17 Augustus 2020:

Awww ek haat dat ons nie Fenix-jakkalse in Dallas kan hê nie. Ek het dit al verskeie kere opgesoek en die helfte van hulle sê ja en die helfte van hulle sê weet ek is so verward

Diereliefhebber op 07 Augustus 2020:

Ek wil regtig jakkals fennec totdat ek hierdie webwerf ontdek het, en nou wil ek 'n maki hê

vreugde op 4 Augustus 2020:

is dit wettig om 'n Amerikaanse krokodil in Texas te besit

Melissa A Smith (skrywer) vanaf New York op 26 Julie 2020:

Jess: Sekerlik

Melissa A Smith (skrywer) vanaf New York op 26 Julie 2020:

Mathayus: Bel hulle, waarskynlik nie.

Jess op 8 Julie 2020:

Is dit wettig om 'n pou in Texas te besit?

lê lê op 06 Julie 2020:

Is dit wettig of bevoorreg om 'n suiker sweeftuig in Texas te hê?

Brittanje op 06 Julie 2020:

is dit wettig om 'n aap in Texas te besit?

Mathayus op 30 Junie 2020:

Is dit wettig om 'n dennepark in Texas te besit?

Melissa A Smith (skrywer) vanaf New York op 28 Junie 2020:

Olivia: Hulle is onwettig.

'N Vreemde mens op 27 Junie 2020:

Kan u 'n reier in Texas besit?

Matthew Tovar op 25 Junie 2020:

Is dit wettig om 'n coyote in Texas te besit

Olivia op 25 Junie 2020:

Ek het 'n wasbeerbaba, is dit onwettig om hom in Austin te laat lewe? Waarheen kan ek hom neem om die entstowwe te kry? Help asb

Liz op 18 Junie 2020:

Het ek 'n permit nodig om 'n aap in Texas te hê?

Onbekend op 13 Junie 2020:

Is dit wettig om 'n wolf in Texas te besit?

Elizabeth op 5 Junie 2020:

Kan ons 'n akkedis in Texas besit?

Een of ander willekeurige meisie op 14 Mei 2020:

Dang it Ek wou 'n jakkals hê, dink ek moet wag totdat ek beweeg

hallo op 18 April 2020:

Texas regeer omdat jy byna enige troeteldier kan besit

Winnie op 30 Maart 2020:

Is dit wettig om 'n eekhoring in Texas te besit?

Vickie Reed op 28 Maart 2020:

Ek wou nog altyd 'n sakapie gehad het, ek was baie alleen, en ek het vergeet dat dit vir my soveel geselskap sou wees, dat ek sjimpansees gehad het toe ek nog klein was, maar ek sou nie wou hê nie. Niemand van die grootte weet iemand waar jy kan nie vind die sakape in Texas en die koste, want ek hou nie van swendelary nie, en ek is te oud daarvoor

Yottabyte op 23 Maart 2020:

Kan u 'n wolf in Texas besit, en kan u 'n wolf oplei in 'n hond?

ajsha op 17 Maart 2020:

As ek 18 word, kan ek 'n eksotiese dier kry as ek uittrek, en kan nie besluit watter een nie. Dink u aan 'n kameelperd? of miskien siek word klein.

Dodo op 14 Maart 2020:

Texas suig omdat hulle jou nie toelaat om 'n jagluiperd te hê nie: na Texas

Nie ganna sit regte naam nie op 29 Februarie 2020:

Ek wil 'n aap vir troeteldiere hê as ek groot is

rae op 5 Februarie 2020:

ek is 'n groot vlermuisliefhebber en ek wou weet of dit wettig is om enige tipe vlermuise in die staat Texas te hê?

Hdhdjdjd op 14 Januarie 2020:

Ek wens ek woon in Texas

ek op 17 November 2019:

Kan ek 'n fret in T.X besit (ek het dit al)

mj op 28 Oktober 2019:

Is swartwitpense wettig om as troeteldiere in Texas te besit?

kan ek op 20 Oktober 2019:

so kan ek ook 'n aap hê

Tyler Tx op 31 Augustus 2019:

Is dit wettig om 'n Egiptiese vrugtevlermuis in Texas te besit?

Austin TX op 25 Julie 2019:

Wat van 'n nerts?

Spoonbills4Ever op 11 Junie 2019:

Kan u lepelrekeninge in Texas hê

BB op 06 Junie 2019:

Ek dink die bladsy van die teïsme het my regtig gehelp en ek probeer die bevolking in jagluiperds verhoog. Daar is nog net 6 800 oor in hierdie wêreld, en ek voel dat ek steeds 150 per jaar verloor deur jagters. Ons het miskien 'n toekoms sonder jagluiperds. hoe hulle op die aarde geloop het voordat ons almal gebore is.

L op 4 Januarie 2019:

Ja, jy kan 'n wasbeer in Texas hê, maar jy moet dit kry as dit 'n baba is, en papierwerk daarop en lisensie daarop. Ek het een gehad en sy het baba gekry en sy is van my gesteel

T op 29 Desember 2018:

Waarom kan ons nie 'n wasbeer hê as ons 'n kangaroe kan hê nie?

AP op 18 Desember 2017:

* Vieroog opossum. Ek het dit vanaf my tablet geskryf en dit is outomaties reggestel sonder dat ek dit agterkom.

AP op 18 Desember 2017:

Die grootste verrassings In wat Texas sonder 'n lisensie toelaat, is waarskynlik giftige slange en vlermuise. Albei word selfs vaker verban of beperk as primate, maar is heeltemal onbeperk in Texas.

Ons lisensieer eerder as om die meeste "gevaarlike" diere te verban (alhoewel ons eintlik net bekommerd is oor gevaarlike soogdiere): die enigste diere wat hier verbied word, is furders (as gevolg van 'n verkeerde interpretasie van die wet deur die TDPW, sluit dit ook fennecs in) en gordeldiere, beide oor siekteprobleme weens probleme wat nie met troeteldiere verband hou nie (pelsboerderye en kos onderskeidelik).

Aangesien ek 'n drie-band armadillo, ringtail en vier-jaar opossum wil hê wat ons * doen * verbyt my 'n bietjie, maar Texas is steeds beslis een van die beter state vir eksotiese.

ManNewt op 12 Desember 2017:

Gelukkig is bushbabies nie 'n slagoffer van die ESA nie


III. WETTE WAT REGEER OP EKOTIESE TROETELDIERE

Regtens gesproke is die eksotiese troeteldierkwessie in wese 'n kwessie van privaatbesit wat bots met die regerings se polisiemag om oorlas, openbare gesondheid en openbare veiligheid te reguleer. In hierdie afdeling word die verskillende vlakke waarop hierdie regulasies toegepas kan word, bespreek, hoofsaaklik op staats- en plaaslike vlak. Dit sal die verskillende soorte regulasies wat uitgevaardig is, ondersoek, of dit nou skemas vir registrasies, registrasieskemas of totale verbodsbepalings is.

A. FEDERALE WETTE

Die primêre fokus van hierdie referaat is op staats- en plaaslike regulasies van eksotiese troeteldiere, maar die enkele relevante federale wette verdien ook kort verwysing. Vanweë die beperkte aard van die federale regering kom die meeste regulasies op staats- en plaaslike vlak voor, waar die polisiemag algemene regulasies vir die openbare welsyn toelaat. Daar bestaan ​​egter federale wette wat wilde diere in gevangenskap in sommige grondwetlik opgesomde gebiede reguleer, soos handel in die buiteland en buitelandse beleid.

Die Amerikaanse federale regering het beperkte en opgesomde magte en mag slegs regeer op die maniere soos uiteengesit in die Grondwet. Daar is dus geen federale polisiemag nie. Kyk bv. , Verenigde State v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 566 (1995). Die Kongres is beperk tot die goedkeuring van wette wat handel tussen die lande en ander aangeleenthede in die Grondwet reguleer. Amerikaanse konst. kuns Ek, § 8. As gevolg hiervan is daar baie min federale wetgewing wat die besit van eksotiese diere beperk. Die saak is hoofsaaklik aan state oorgelaat om te besluit.

'N Paar federale wette, soos die Wet op Bedreigde Spesies, impliseer die reg van 'n private burger om wilde diere as troeteldiere te besit, alhoewel die fokus van hierdie artikel staats- en plaaslike beheer is. Vir 'n goeie oorsig van relevante federale wette, sien Nicole G. Paquette, Die status van gevange wilde diere in die VS: 'n oorsig van die probleem en die wette , Dierebeskermingsinstituut, by http://www.api4animals.org/1578.htm (2003). Sedert die artikel van Paquette geskryf is, het die Federale Regering die belangrikste federale beskerming van eksotiese troeteldiere, die Captive Wildlife Safety Act, goedgekeur ingevolge die bevoegdheid van die Kongres om die interstaatlike handel te reguleer. Amerikaanse konst. kuns Ek, § 8, kl. 3. Die CWSA verbied die handel tussen groot katte tussen lande en kan die aantal wilde diere wat in die troeteldierhandel verkoop word, aansienlik beperk. Sien Bush teken eksotiese troeteldiere aan , Int'l Fund for Animal Welfare, by http://www.ifaw.org/ifaw/general/default.aspx?oid=79437 (24 Desember 2003).

Aangesien regulasies op federale vlak aansienlik beperk word deur artikel I van die Grondwet, kom die werklike vermoë om private besit van wilde diere in gevangenskap te reguleer op staats- en plaaslike vlak voor. Die beginsel van federalisme waarop die Grondwet steun, meen dat die federale regering slegs gesag neem oor sekere opgesomde gebiede, terwyl alle ander magte aan die state voorbehou word. Amerikaanse konst. wysig. X. Ingevolge hierdie federalistiese stelsel is staatsregerings vry om te reguleer vir die algemene welsyn onder hul plenêre polisiemag, solank daardie regulasies nie die grondwetlike regte van staatsburgers inbreuk maak nie.

B. STAATSWETTE

Terwyl die federale regering beperk word deur die opgesomde magte wat in die Grondwet verleen word, het staats- en plaaslike regerings gewoonlik 'n plenêre polisiemag, wat hulle in staat stel om wetgewing vir die algemene welsyn in te stel. As sodanig is daar minder struikelblokke om eksotiese troeteldierregulasies op staatsvlak te aanvaar. Staatswette is makliker om te aanvaar as federale wette, en potensieel effektiewer as plaaslike wette vanweë die hulpbronne en kundigheid wat beskikbaar is vir afdwinging deur die staatsagentskap vir natuurlewe of die staatswetstoepassingsagentskap. Alhoewel dit dikwels moeilik is om dierebeskermingswette op staatsvlak te laat aanvaar, kan hierdie wette baie effektief wees as dit toegepas word.

Eksotiese troeteldierregulasies wissel van staat tot staat. Terwyl sommige state 'n algehele verbod op eksotiese troeteldiere het, benodig ander state bloot toestemming vir die besit daarvan, en sommige lande het hoegenaamd geen regulasies nie. Hierdie referaat is nie daarop gemik om die wette van al 50 state te dek nie, en ook nie die wette van duisende provinsies en stede in die land nie. 'N Fantastiese bron vir sulke deeglike inligting is die webbladsye van die Animal Protection Institute. Vir 'n klikbare kaart van alle staatswette en hul tekste, sien http://www.api4animals.org/323.htm Vir 'n kleurgekodeerde kaart van staatsregulasies, sien http://www.api4animals.org/372g.htm Vir die teks van alle staatswette rakende eksotika, sien http://www.api4animals.org/372.htm. Die doel van hierdie afdeling, eerder as om elke staat of plaaslike wetgewing spesifiek te bespreek, is om enkele voorbeelde van die belangrikste soorte regulasies te gee en hierdie benaderings met eksotiese troeteldiere te vergelyk.

Alhoewel daar geen eenvormigheid bestaan ​​in die wette wat die besit van eksotiese troeteldiere reguleer nie, kom daar drie sentrale veranderlikes voor tussen en tussen die wette van verskillende jurisdiksies: (1) die mate van regulering, (2) die diere wat deur die wet gedek word, en (3) die straf vir oortreding. Hierna word elkeen van hierdie veranderlikes om die beurt bespreek.

1. DIE GRAAD REGULASIES

Die mate waarin 'n staat die besit van eksotiese troeteldiere reguleer, is die belangrikste veranderlike, want dit is die kern van die wettigheid van eksotiese troeteldierbesit. Die mate van regulering word bepaal deur die strengheid waarmee die staat eksotiese troeteldierbesit wil reguleer. Aan die strengste punt het sommige state 'n volledige verbod op die besit van sekere diere. Aan die ander kant van die spektrum het sommige state glad nie regulasies nie, wat volle eienaarskap moontlik maak. Iewers in die middel is lisensiëringskemas, wat vereis dat die eienaar 'n permit van 'n staatsagentskap moet kry om eksotiese troeteldiere aan te hou. In hierdie afdeling word hierdie verskillende statute ondersoek, met die fokus op verbodsbepalings en lisensiëringskemas.

Veertien state het ten minste die meeste troeteldiere wat as eksoties beskou word, verbode. In wese verbied 'n verbod privaat besit van natuurlewe in gevangenskap heeltemal, anders as ander regulasies wat privaatbesit slegs beperk of voorwaardes gee.

Kalifornië is so 'n staat met 'n verbod op eksotiese troeteldiere. Die wetgewing maak dit 'onwettig om lewende diere in te voer, te vervoer of te besit wat beperk word in subartikel (c) hieronder, behalwe onder toestemming uitgereik deur die Departement van Vis en wild.' Kal. Kode Regs. tit. 14 §671 (a) (2004). Alhoewel dit aanvanklik 'n vergunningskema eerder as 'n verbod lyk, is die voorwaardes vir toestemming deur die Departement slegs van toepassing op kommersiële, navorsings- en opvoedkundige instansies, en geen toestemmings word verleen vir privaat troeteldierbesit nie. § 671.1 (b) (1). Die verbod geld nie net vir vervoer of invoer na die staat nie, maar ook vir die eenvoudige besitting van sulke diere.

Die wet verbied die besit van 'n groot verskeidenheid diere van alligators tot sebras, en tel hulle op volgens klas, orde, familie, geslag en spesies. § 671 (c). Die Kaliforniese regulasies noem selfs die rede vir die verbod op elke dier, en dui 'n 'D' of '' W 'aan, afhangend van die feit of die dier gelys is omdat dit 'n nadelige spesie is of omdat dit 'n welsynspesie is. Skadelike diere word "gelys omdat hulle 'n bedreiging vir die inheemse natuurlewe, die landboubelange van die staat of vir die volksgesondheid of veiligheid inhou". Welsynsdiere word gelys om die uitputting van wilde bevolkings te voorkom en om voorsiening te maak vir dierewelsyn. § 671 (b). Om een ​​of ander onverklaarbare rede word slegs soogdiere as 'welsynsdiere' genoem, miskien weens dieselfde denke wat agter die Wet op Dierewelsyn lê. § 671 (c).

Massachusetts verbied ook private besit van eksotiese troeteldiere. Massa-generaal Laws Ann. hfst. 131, § 23 (2004). Die wette daarvan erken die menslike veiligheid en die welsyn van dierewelsyn vir die regulering van private eienaarskap van wilde diere. Die verbod is bedoel om 'wilde diere te beskerm teen onnodige of ongewenste inmenging en teen onbehoorlike behandeling', asook om 'die openbare gesondheid, welsyn en veiligheid' te [beskerm]. ' Massa Regs. Kode tit. 321, § 2.12 (1) (2004).

Soos die wet in Kalifornië, verbied die Massachusetts-wet die besit van wilde diere sonder 'n lisensie. “Dit is onwettig dat enige persoon enige dier besit, onderhou, vermeerder of verbou, verkoop of aanbied sonder dat 'n geldige lisensie deur die direkteur in een van vyf klasse aan hulle uitgereik is.” § 2.12 (3). Lisensies word slegs om beperkte redes uitgedeel, en nie een hou dit in om diere as troeteldiere aan te hou nie. Die klasse waarvoor lisensies toegestaan ​​kan word, is vermeerderingslisensies, openbare kouslisensies, handelaarslisensies, besitlisensies en honde-opleidingslisensies. § 2.12 (3) (a) - (e).

Alhoewel sommige van hierdie klasse skuiwergate lyk wat eksotiese troeteldierbesit moontlik maak, is dit nie die geval nie. Die lisensies van die besitter word byvoorbeeld slegs gegee aan aansoekers vir voëls of soogdiere wat wettiglik voor 1 Julie 1980 besit is, en vir ander beperkte besittings, insluitend troeteldiere. § 2.12 (3) (d) § 2.12 (10) (l). Trouens, die regulasies vereis uitdruklik dat die Afdeling Visserye en Natuurlewe enige aansoek van 'n lisensie vir 'n troeteldier moet afkeur. '' Aansoeke om 'n lisensie ... wat beide aanvanklike aansoeke en hernuwings insluit, word ... geweier wanneer ... die aansoek is om 'n lisensie om diere as troeteldiere te besit, in stand te hou, te vermeerder of te verbou. ' § 2.12 (9) (a). Aansoeke moet ook van die hand gewys word indien die aansoeker se "doeleindes of bedoelings] gebaseer is bloot op nuuskierigheid, impuls of nuutheid, of om voorsiening te maak vir persoonlike vermaak of vermaak." § 2.12 (9) (b).

Die Massachusetts-wet maak voorsiening vir enkele uitsonderlike gevalle waarin 'n lisensie vir die voortplanting van klas 4 vir wilde diere in gevangenskap mag word. Dit sluit in wetenskaplike navorsing, opvoedkundige gebruik, kommersiële voortplanting (nie vir troeteldiere nie), honde-opleiding vir sportbyeenkomste (jag), bevolkingsherstelprogramme vir bedreigde en bedreigde spesies, diere-opleiding vir gestremdes, en lisensies vir diegene wat wettig besit. hul diere voor 1 Julie 1980. § 2.12 (10) (a) - (l). Geen van hierdie uitsonderings het egter betrekking op individuele eienaarskap van troeteldiere nie.

Die direkteur van Massachusetts van die Afdeling Visserye en natuurlewe reik ook 'n lys uit van vrygestelde spesies waarvoor geen permit nodig is nie. Massa-generaal Laws Ann. hfst. 131, § 23 (2004). Hierdie spesies moet aan vier kriteria voldoen: ten eerste kan die dier geen bedreiging vir 'n inheemse Massachusetts-ekosisteem inhou nie, tweedens, die dier kan nie 'n bedreiging vir die menslike gesondheid of veiligheid inhou nie, en die versorging van die dier is nie meer veeleisend as die versorging van "gewone mak diere nie ”En vierdens, die gevangenskap van die dier kan nie 'n beduidende nadelige uitwerking op die natuurlike populasie van die dier hê nie. § 23. Alle staats- en federale spesies wat bedreig, bedreig of spesies van besondere belang is, is 'kategories nie vrygestel' nie, wat beteken dat hulle nie by die lisensievrystellingslys gevoeg kan word nie. Massa Regs. Kode tit. 321, § 9.01 (3) (2004). Die diere wat onder hierdie lisensievrystellingslys gevoeg is, sluit onder meer boas en luislange, skinks, papegaaie, krimpvarkies, chinchilla's en vlieënde eekhorings in. § 9.01 (8) - (12). 'N Afsonderlike statuut kan ook fretten toelaat. Massa-generaal Laws Ann. hfst. 131, §77 (2004). Beer, tiere, giftige slange en ander gevaarliker diere is egter nie op die vrystellingslys nie, en ook geen primate nie, en hierdie diere sal waarskynlik nooit aan die kriteria vir privaatbesit in Massachusetts voldoen nie, soos uiteengesit in Mass. Regs. Kode tit. 321, § 9.01 (4).

Die wette in Kalifornië en Massachusetts dien as goeie modelle van eksotiese troeteldierverbod. Albei wette skep lisensiëringskemas vir die besit van wilde diere, hoewel geen staat private troeteldiereienaars toelaat om vir hierdie lisensies te kwalifiseer nie. Hulle verskil in die sin dat die Kaliforniese wet opsom watter spesies onwettig is, terwyl die Massachusetts-wet alle "ongemerkte" troeteldiere kategories verbied, en dan die uitsonderings opsom. Vergelyk Kal. Kode Regs. tit. 14 §671 (c) (2004) en genl. Genl Laws Ann. hfst. 131, § 23 (2004). Ten slotte verbied sommige state sommige eksotiese troeteldiere terwyl hulle dit toelaat. Nevada verbied byvoorbeeld private eienaarskap van alligators, jakkalse, coyotes en ander, terwyl troeteldierolifante, ape, wolwe en selfs yaks toegelaat word. Nev.Admin. Kode hfst. 503, §110, §140.

b. LISENSIERINGSKEMAS

Sommige state verbied nie eksotiese troeteldiere nie, maar hulle wil dit binne hul grense monitor. Hierdie state het lisensiëringskemas opgestel om eksotiese troeteldiere te reguleer deur staatsinstansies die mag te gee om permitte uit te reik vir diere wat as voldoende veilig beskou word. These permit schemes can ensure at least some degree of public safety and animal welfare. These regulations go by different names: some states issue “permits,” others issue “licenses,” and others issue “registration certificates,” though there is no practical difference. The Animal Protection Institute counts 14 such states. Summary of State Laws Relating to Private Possession of Exotic Animals , Animal Protection Institute, at http://www.api4animals.org/372g.htm (last revised Oct. 9, 2003). In essence, these schemes create regulatory requirements for captive wildlife within their states, which owners must meet in order to receive a permit. Without a permit, citizens may not possess an exotic pet.

Texas’s exotic pet law states, “A person may not own, harbor, or have custody or control of a dangerous wild animal for any purpose unless the person holds a certificate of registration for that animal issued by an animal registration agency.” Tex. Health & Safety Code § 822.103 (2004). The animal control office with authority over the location at which the animal is kept issues these registration certificates, or, if no such office exists, by the county sheriff. § 822.101. Permits are effective for one year, and can be renewed. § 822.103 .

Registration applications require a number of supporting documents, intended to assure public safety and animal welfare. Applicants must submit a detailed description of the animal “including species, sex, age, if known, and any distinguishing marks or coloration that would aid in the identification of the animal.” § 822.104(b)(2). They must also give the registration agency proof of liability insurance, a color photograph of each animal, a photograph and description of the animals’ enclosure including a scale diagram, and a signed statement by a veterinarian confirming that the vet “inspected each animal being registered not earlier than the 30th day before the date of the filing of the renewal application” and “finds that the care and treatment of each animal by the owner meets or exceeds the standards prescribed under this subchapter.” § 822.104(c)-(d). The law also requires the Texas Board of Health to establish standards for housing, with which registrants must comply. § 822.111(a). These standards should be established in a manner that protects public safety, prevents escape, and “provides a safe, healthy, and humane environment for the animal.” § 822.111(a)(3). Owners are also required to comply with the Animal Welfare Act , and keep a log of the animal’s veterinary care. § 822.112(a)-(b).

In the event of non-compliance with any of these requirements, a registration application should be denied, and in cases of falsification of any of the above documents, the certificate should be revoked. § 822.105 . The animal registration agency is charged with ensuring compliance, and is given the right to inspect facilities at any reasonable time. § 822.108 . If a certificate of registration is denied or revoked, applicants have a statutory right to appeal. § 822.105(c). If the certification is denied or revoked, the individual may not possess the animal, and commits a Class C misdemeanor if he or she continues to have the unregistered animal. § 822.113 . The offender may also be civilly penalized up to $2,000 per animal per day. § 822.114(a).

While states like Texas use permit systems to regulate exotic pets, other states employ them to supplement their bans. For instance, Michigan uses a licensing scheme to regulate those owners exempted from its ban on wolf-dog hybrids and large carnivores. Michigan bans acquisition and possession of wolf-dog hybrids and large carnivores, though it “grandfathered” animals already owned as pets at the time of the laws’ enactments. In order to maintain public safety and animal welfare, the state created a strict permit system for those owners who were allowed to keep their already-existing pets. Mich. Comp. Laws §287.1001-1023 (2004) Mich. Comp. Laws §287.1101-1123 (2004).

Owners who possessed a wolf-dog hybrid before June of 2000 are required to meet a number of conditions in order to obtain the necessary permit for their pets. For example, owners must be 21 or older, have no convictions for animal neglect or mistreatment or any felony convictions in the past 10 years, and must be knowledgeable in wolf-dog hybrid care. § 287.1004(4). The animals must also have a subcutaneous microchip implanted for identification purposes. § 287.1005 . Regulations also require that the wolf-dog not be tethered outdoors, nor be allowed to roam free. The housing facility must be locked, secure, “well-braced,” “securely-anchored,” built of specified materials, and of a certain square footage sufficient to protect both the general public and the wolf-dog’s welfare. § 287.1006(1). The regulations even dictate the maximum length of the animal’s leash, six feet. § 287.1006(3)(b).

For large carnivores (lions, leopards, jaguars, tigers, cougars, panthers, cheetahs, and bears), Michigan has identical regulations. No more of these animals may be bought, sold, or transferred, and those owned prior to the law are licensed and heavily regulated for human safety and animal welfare. Mich. Comp. Laws §287.1104 (2004). Each of the wolf-dog permit regulations regarding owners, microchipping, housing, and leashes is the same for large carnivores. § 287.1104(4), §287.1105, § 287.1106(1), § 287.1106(3).

Licensing schemes like those used in Texas and Michigan allow states to regulate exotic pet care in ways that help minimize threats to public safety and animal welfare. Along with the bans discussed above, such schemes are the most common form of regulating exotic pets, though other states have adopted even more permissive captive wildlife laws.

c. OTHER REGULATIONS

Like licensing schemes, other regulations allow exotic pet ownership while prescribing the conditions under which such animals may be kept or imported. Unlike licensing schemes, these other regulations are not as strictly enforced because, while owners are legally obligated to comply with the regulations, they are not forced to go through the permit process, or to prove that their animal is safely housed and humanely treated. These regulations may govern a wide variety of issues regarding animal care, such as limiting the number of animals a person may have, requiring veterinary examinations and inspections, or dictating the specifications for cages and enclosures. This section discusses a few state regulations that are neither full bans nor licensing systems, but that do govern private ownership of exotic pets.

As mentioned, Michigan explicitly bans wolf-dog hybrids, large cats, and bears, though it does not prohibit other exotic pets. It does, however, regulate certain aspects of their importation. The state completely prohibits the importation into the state of “any species having the potential to spread serious diseases or parasites, to cause serious physical harm, or to otherwise endanger native wildlife, human life, livestock, domestic animals, or property.” Mich. Comp. Laws §287.731(1) (2004). For other wild or exotic animals, Michigan regulates various aspects of their importation, such as requiring physical exams by vets, negative disease tests, and proper animal care and restraint. § 287.731.

Other states regulate only the importation of animals across their borders, but do not regulate the pets that are already there. Ohio, for example, allows “nondomestic” animals into the state only if they are “accompanied by a permit issued prior to entry and certificate of veterinary inspection,” are test-negative for infectious diseases and parasites, are in compliance with other state and federal regulations, and were legally residents in the state or country of origin. Ohio Admin. Code §901: 1-17-12 (Anderson 2004). Beyond this, the state of Ohio does not regulate exotic pets. Other states have similar approaches, including Washington ( Wash. Admin. Code §16-54-030 (2004) ) and Idaho ( Idaho Code §36-701, (2004)).

Until recently, West Virginia also had no statewide regulations, but after the 2003 monkeypox outbreak its legislature created an animal health control board to monitor the trade in exotic pets. Wise, supra . Iowa and Wisconsin are now the only states that have no state-wide regulations at all, and leave the entirety of the issue to local governments. Summary of State Laws Relating to Private Possession of Exotic Animals , Animal Protection Institute, at http://www.api4animals.org/372.htm (revised Oct. 9, 2003). The Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, however, spurred by the monkeypox outbreak, is seeking to strengthen existing importation rules to require veterinary inspection and certification for all animals, including exotic pets, imported into the state. Proposed Order of the State of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection Adopting and Amending Rules , Docket No. 02-R-07 at 11-12 (Nov. 13, 2003), available at http://www.datcp.state.wi.us/core/agriculture/animals/pdf/captive_wildlife.pdf (last accessed Aug. 26, 2004). See also Lee Bergquist, State Wants Vets To Inspect More Pets Proposal Targets Animals Brought From Out Of State , Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin), Jan. 15, 2004, at 01B.

The above illustrates the varying degrees of exotic pet regulations, from complete bans such as those in California and Massachusetts, to licensing schemes like those in Texas and Michigan, to importation restrictions like those in Ohio and Idaho, to the lack of regulations in Iowa and, until recently, Wisconsin and West Virginia. The degree of regulations is the most complex component of exotic pet laws, but a few other components should also be considered. The next section deals with a second crucial issue: to which animals do these regulations apply?

2. ANIMALS COVERED BY REGULATIONS

Independent of the degree of regulation (bans, permits, or other regulations), a second crucial variable is the types of animals covered by statutes. Of course, every state regulates different animals, and they even use different terms to refer to the class of animals being regulated: exotic, dangerous, inherently dangerous, potentially dangerous, wild, non-native, undomesticated.

Almost all states at least enumerate which animals their laws cover, and no states are so vague as to only use an adjective like “exotic” or “dangerous.” Delaware’s law, however, is an example of a more general prohibition: “No person shall bring into this State, possess, sell or exhibit any live wild mammal or hybrid of a wild mammal or live reptile not native to or generally found in Delaware without first securing a permit under this chapter.” Del. Code Ann. tit. 3 § 7201 (2004).

Unlike Delaware’s broad regulation of non-native wild mammals and reptiles, California’s regulations are extremely thorough when it comes to the animals covered. It enumerates a long list of prohibited species by their scientific and common names, including the typical exotic pets like tigers, primates, and wolves, as well as some more obscure animals such as scaly anteaters, stingrays, and pandas, to name just a few. Cal. Code Regs . tit. 14 §671(c) (2004). Most states are closer to California’s approach of enumerating which specific animals are prohibited, rather than the Delaware law’s broadness.

There are several species that consistently appear in state regulations. This may be due to their popularity as pets, their difficult care, and/or their special risk to human health and safety. Most regulations, though certainly not all, apply to at least large cats, wolves, bears, and venomous reptiles. Primates are usually covered, but because they are not as likely to attack, some states ignore them in formulating regulations. See, e.g. , Conn. Gen. Stat. §26-40A (2004).

Current events in a state often dictate which animals are covered by regulations. As was mentioned above, states that were at the heart of the 2003 monkeypox outbreak were far more likely to ban prairie dogs and other rodents. See sec. II, A, supra. Additionally, the state of New York took steps to ban some exotic pets shortly after significant news coverage of an incident in October 2003, in which officials discovered a 400 pound pet tiger and a 3-foot pet caiman in a Harlem man’s apartment. In June 2004, the New York State Senate and Assembly passed bills to ban private possession of tigers and other dangerous animals. S. 7616 and Assemb. 2684, 2004 Leg., Reg. Sess. (N.Y. 2004), available at http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=S07616&sh=t, and http://assembly.state.ny.us/leg/?bn=A02684&sh=t (last accessed Aug. 29, 2004). The media’s coverage of exotic pet incidents often stimulates public support for regulations of the specific animals at issue, be they prairie dogs or tigers.

However, unlike those cases in which the public strongly supports regulation, some species are far more controversial. Ferrets, for example, have been a bone of contention in New York City and California, where laws ban their possession. Opponents of the bans argue that ferrets are just as domesticated as cats and dogs, and pose no special health or safety risks. See, e.g., NYCFerrits.com, Ferret Ban F.A.Q.s , by http://www.nycferrets.com/ (last accessed Aug. 27, 2004). At the time of this writing, intense pressure by ferret advocates in California has resulted in the passage of a state senate bill that legalizes those ferrets already owned as pets. Californians for Ferret Legalization, Victory! SB 89 Goes to the Governor (Aug. 24, 2004), by http://www.ferretnews.org/update.html#082404 (last accessed Aug. 27, 2004). As will be discussed in section IV below, constitutional challenges to ferret bans have failed, as courts have affirmed state and local governments’ right to regulate or ban ferret possession. However, most states do not see ferrets as “exotic,” and do allow their possession as pets. See, e.g. , Mass. Gen. Laws Ann. ch. 131, §77 (2004) .

Some states also regulate hybrid animals, those offspring of mating between a domestic animal and its wild counterpart, usually wolves and dogs. Massachusetts, for example, explicitly bans such hybrids. “No person shall possess, sell, trade, breed, import, export or release a wild canid hybrid or wild felid hybrid, except as otherwise provided by rules and regulations of the division.” The statute defines such animals in broad terms as:

Any mammal which is the offspring of the reproduction between any species of wild canid or hybrid wild canid and a domestic dog or hybrid wild canid, or is represented by its owner to be a wolf hybrid, coyote hybrid, coy dog or any other kind of wild canid hybrid, or which is the offspring of the reproduction between any species of wild felid or hybrid wild felid and a domestic cat or hybrid wild felid or is represented by its owner to be a wild felid hybrid.

Mass. Gen. Laws Ann . ch. 131, §77A . Many other states include hybrid animals in their lists of regulated exotic pets. See, e.g. , La. Admin. Code tit. 76, §115 (2004).

As public interest in various exotic pets increases, an unregulated animal may be newly understood to pose a danger. In these instances, regulations may need to be altered to ensure public safety and animal welfare. State statutes usually reserve the authority to list new animals to the director of the state wildlife agency. Colorado regulations, for example, state, “The Wildlife Commission retains the statutory authority and duty to amend these regulations and to impose requirements, restrictions, and/or prohibition on possession of any of the listed species if and when further evidence comes to the Wildlife Commission's attention which makes such amendments appropriate.” 2 Colo. Code Regs . §406-8, ch. 11, #1103B (2004).

In the final analysis, there is no real universality about which animals are prohibited by exotic pet regulations. Interested parties should look to the relevant law itself to determine which animals are or are not permitted within a specific jurisdiction.

3. PUNISHMENT OF THE OFFENDER AND THE FATE OF THE ANIMAL

A third important variable in exotic pet laws is the consequences for violation of the statute, in both human and animal terms. The offending owner may be fined, imprisoned, or deprived of the animal. The animal herself may be confiscated, euthanized, or sent to a safer environment, such as a wildlife sanctuary.

Regarding the human consequences of violating exotic pet regulations, the owner could face a variety of punishments, varying in severity from prison time to fines to pet seizure. At the strictest end, several states consider non-compliance with regulations to be a criminal misdemeanor, punishable in some cases with prison time. See, e.g. , Mich. Comp. Laws §287.1115(1)(a) (2004). Some states fine exotic pet owners who violate regulations. In Texas, for example, offenders face fines of up to $2,000 per animal per day. Tex. Health & Safety Code § 822.114(a) (2004). In addition to (or instead of) imprisonment and fines, most jurisdictions will confiscate animals who are improperly or illegally kept in violation of regulations. Michigan uses all of these forms of punishment:

[A] person who violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor. The person shall be punished by a fine of not less than $250.00 or more than $1,000.00, plus costs of prosecution. However, a person who fails to obtain a permit as required by this act shall be punished by a fine, for each large carnivore for which the permit was required, of not less than $500.00 or more than $2,000.00, plus costs of prosecution. In addition, a person who violates this act may be punished by 1 or more of the following:

(a) Imprisonment for not more than 93 days.

(b) Community service work for not more than 500 hours.

(c) The loss of privileges to own or possess any animal.

Mich. Comp. Laws §287.1115(1) (2004). Note that this law allows for a complete loss of privileges to own or possess any animals in the future, an important remedy for protecting animal welfare. Michigan also provides for the civil forfeiture of large carnivores owned in violation of the regulations. § 287.1116 . The animal may be returned to the owner once the conditions are corrected and the owner demonstrates compliance with the law. § 287.1118(1).

As will be seen below in section IV , owners have asserted that the confiscation of their pets constitutes a deprivation of property in violation of the due process and takings clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Courts have disagreed, and affirmed agencies’ right to seize animals whose owners have violated exotic pet regulations.

Of course, in cases where the owner has abused the animal or neglected her in inhumane conditions, the owner should also face charges under separate animal cruelty laws.

The fate of animals seized from noncompliant owners can vary significantly. Most statutes put the discretionary authority in the hands of a wildlife director or other official to decide what happens to the animal. For example, Massachusetts’ law states that any animal owned or possessed in violation of the statute “may be seized and shall be disposed of by the director of law enforcement for the best interests of the commonwealth.” Mass. Gen. Laws Ann . ch. 131, § 23 (2004). In many instances, the animals will be euthanized. More humane officials will often try to place confiscated animals in the care of a reputable animal care organization, such as a wildlife sanctuary. Michigan’s law explicitly provides for such placement in sanctuaries or shelters, although it also allows placement in accredited zoos. In cases where the animal has injured or killed a human or another animal, however, the court may order its humane euthanasia. Mich. Comp. Laws §287.1120(4) (2004).

This section has addressed the three most important variables among different exotic pet laws: the degree of regulation (bans, licenses, and other regulations), the types of animals covered, and the human and animal consequences of statutory violations. While the discussion has so far focused on these variables in the context of state exotic pet laws, these variables are also crucial for comparing local laws.

C. LOCAL LAWS

Since local decision-making bodies frequently consist of small boards or councils, rather than the large bi-cameral legislatures of most states, regulations can often be more swiftly enacted at the municipal or county level. Cities and counties are also more subject to the whim of local residents, so regulations frequently come on the heels of attacks on the area’s children or other sensational exotic pet incidents. For example, while Wisconsin has no real statewide exotic pet laws yet, as mentioned above, a slew of local governments have swiftly passed ordinances limiting exotic pet ownership. The city of West Bend, Wisconsin passed an ordinance against exotic pets after a resident was seen walking the streets with a large snake around his neck, and Muskego, Wisconsin created a similar ordinance after a wallaby attack injured two children. Mike Johnson, Thiensville Exotic Pet Ban to Take Effect Soon , Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (Wisconsin), Feb. 19, 2004, at 05B. Because of the responsiveness and malleability of municipal and county governments, animal rights and welfare groups, along with concerned citizens, have begun to seriously target the local level for laws curbing captive wild animal possession. For a list of local ordinances regulating exotic pet ownership, see Ordinances Regulating Private Possession of Exotic Animals , Animal Protection Institute, by http://www.api4animals.org/375.htm (revised Feb. 18, 2004).

The specific details of these local laws vary in the exact same ways that state laws vary. The degree of regulation, the types of animals regulated, and the consequences for violations all differ from locale to locale. Essentially, the entire discussion above regarding the nuances of state regulations is equally applicable to local laws.

1. THE DEGREE OF REGULATIONS

First, the degree of regulation varies from bans to licenses to other regulations at the local level just as it does at the state level. However, based on the ordinances listed at the aforementioned Animal Protection Institute webpage, the vast majority of local laws are prohibitions or bans, probably because cities lack the infrastructure and resources to establish and operate licensing schemes. One such ban was passed in Surry County, North Carolina, where a 14 year-old girl was mauled by her father’s captive tiger. The county realized that “[b]y their very nature, inherently dangerous exotic animals are wild and potentially dangerous, and, as such, do not adjust well to a captive environment.” The county board of commissioners, therefore, banned all “inherently dangerous exotic animals” from the county, and gave current owners a year to get rid of their pets. Surry County , N.C. , Animal Control Ordinance art. VIII (2004), available at http://www.co.surry.nc.us/Commissioners/Ordinances/2004/251.pdf (last accessed Aug. 30, 2004).

Greenville County, South Carolina does not ban exotic pets, but rather uses a permit system. The county requires permit applicants to meet certain animal welfare and public safety assurances:

No permit shall be granted unless the applicant provides satisfactory assurances that said animal(s) is not capable of being returned to its natural environment (in the case of wild animals) and will be provided with sufficient good and wholesome food and water, proper shelter and protection from the weather, veterinary care when needed to prevent suffering, and humane care and treatment, and that the animal(s) will not be cruelly ill treated, tormented, overloaded, overworked or otherwise abused and that adequate protective devices are provided to prevent it from escaping or injuring the public. The applicant shall further specify the duration, method, location, dimensions of any cages, pens or confinement area … No permit shall be issued unless the applicant has complied with all state and federal regulations concerning the possession, display or exhibition of wild or vicious animals. All applicants must be eighteen (18) years of age or older.

Greenville County, S.C., Code§ 4-19(b) (2004), available via http://www.greenvillecounty.org/disclaimer/County_Ordinances_Disclaimer.asp?DirURL=http://www.municode.com/resources/gateway.asp?pid=12026%26sid=40 (last accessed Aug. 30, 2004). Denials or revocations of permits for violations of these welfare and safety concerns may be appealed to the county administrator. § 4-19(c).

These ordinances are just a couple of examples of the numerous local laws regarding exotic pets, though they do a give picture of the varying degrees of regulations, including bans and permit schemes.

2. ANIMALS COVERED BY REGULATIONS

Regarding the types of animals regulated at the local level, some governments enumerate particular animals, while others only generically reference “exotic” or “dangerous” animals. Due to the lack of wildlife infrastructure, in particular biological knowledge, local laws are less likely than state laws to be specific enumerations, and may simply refer to “wild,” “dangerous,” or “exotic” pets. However, the preferred trend, for the sake of effective enforcement, is to list which animals are prohibited.

In 2001, Boulder, Colorado replaced its old, un-enforced ordinance, which simply banned “exotic pets,” with a new ordinance enumerating precisely which animals are prohibited. The ordinance now covers ursids, felids, mustalids, venomous reptiles, procyonides, elephants, marine mammals, hyenas, edentates, viverrids, canids (excluding domestic dogs, wolves, and hybrids), marsupials, ungulates, primates, prosimians, and crocodilians. Boulder , Colo. , Rev. Code tit. 6, ch.1, 6-1-4(b) (2004), available at http://www3.ci.boulder.co.us/cao/brc/6-1.html (last accessed Aug. 30, 2004). After pressure from pet owners, the city abandoned its plans to ban some popular pets, including amphibians, crustaceans, and spiders. Greg Avery, Sorry, Flipper: Boulder Bans Exotic Pets , Scripps Howard News Serv., July 4, 2001.

As already mentioned, local events can also substantially affect which animals are regulated. In Texas and North Carolina, for example, municipal and county regulations of dangerous animals followed in the wake of tiger attacks. See sec. II, B, supra . The Surry County ban mentioned above, which followed a tiger mauling, applies to large cats, wolves, primates, venomous reptiles, and bears. Surry County , N.C. , Animal Control Ordinance art. VIII (2004), available at http://www.co.surry.nc.us/Commissioners/Ordinances/2004/251.pdf (last accessed Aug. 30, 2004).

3. PUNISHMENT OF THE OFFENDER AND THE FATE OF THE ANIMAL

The punishments for violation of local laws vary in the same way that state laws do. Some cities go as far as to authorize prison sentences for violations, while others rely on fines and confiscation to enforce the laws. In Chesapeake, Virginia, which has a permit system, violation of the ordinance resulting in the escape of an animal constitutes a class 2 misdemeanor, and the owner must pay the full costs of locating and subduing the animal. Chesapeake , Va. , Code ch. 10, art. 2, div. 1, § 10-49 (2004), available via http://library9.municode.com/gateway.dll/VA/virginia/2639?f=templates&fn=default.htm&npusername=10529&nppassword=MCC&npac_credentialspresent=true&vid=default (last accessed Aug. 30, 2004). In Toledo, Ohio, where some exotic pets are prohibited, each day of violation constitutes a separate offense of first-degree misdemeanor, and offenders face up to 6 months in prison, and $1,000 fine per offense. Toledo , Ohio , Code ch. 505, § 505.20(b), 501.99(a) (2004). Of course, the success of these local ordinances is generally determined by the desire of local law enforcement to go after violators.

At the local level, the fate of the animal after seizure is usually in the hands of a wildlife or animal control official. This official generally has the discretion to either euthanize the animal or send her to a sanctuary. The Surry County regulation, for example, states, “If the owner cannot be located, or has not claimed the animal within 3 days after taking and impoundment, the Animal Control Officer shall have the discretion to sell, adopt or euthanize the animal.” Surry County , N.C. , Animal Control Ordinance art. VIII § 4(e).

It should also be noted that local laws and state laws can be incongruous. For example, local laws may have stricter penalties, or some animals may be allowed under state law, but banned by the local government. In these instances, the stricter local law controls when it is an otherwise legitimate exercise of police power. Many exotic pet regulations explicitly grant this power to local governments. Michigan law, for example, states, “A local unit may adopt an ordinance governing large carnivores that is more restrictive than this act.” Mich. Comp. Laws §287.1121(1 ). See also , Cal. Code Regs . tit. 14 §671.1(a)(1) (2004). On the other hand, there may be instances in which the doctrine of preemption dictates that a state law trumps the local law.

Of course, owners of captive wildlife are unhappy with these regulations, and have sought to fight them in court. The following section details these attempts to challenge the enforcement and implementation of exotic pet laws.


15 15- Madagascar Hissing Cockroach- $.25-$3.00

Some may turn their head at the site of one or get grossed out, but many consider this pet to be one of their favorites. The Madagascar Hissing Cockroaches are native to the island of Madagascar and have a lifespan of 1-3 years. Their name comes from the hissing sound they make, which is made by forcing air through small holes in their bodies.

Madagascar Hissing Cockroaches are becoming widely popular as exotic pets, mainly because of their popular “hissing” sound, and their “taboo” factor. They also require minimal care, a small living area, and they do not fly or bite. However, be careful if you get a pair because these insects reproduce quickly and as a result you could have more than you bargained for. In fact they are known to have as many as 60 nymph roaches.


Kyk die video: Grade 1 Afrikaans FAL Nommers Numbers (Julie 2021).