S1093 and A1923, the latest versions of Nosey’s law, a bill that originally would have prohibited the use of elephants in traveling animal acts, has now expanded its reach to “prohibit the use of [all] wild or exotic animal traveling animal acts.”

Why is this a concern?  There are many legitimate animal exhibitions that inform and educate the public about exotic and wild animals that would be prohibited if this bill were to become law.

The current version of this bill, originally introduced in 2016, attempts to but fails to address the flaws in its prior iteration, which Governor Christie vetoed as one of his last official functions.

The definitions and provisions in the proposed bill, described here in relevant part, demonstrate the problems with the law:

“Performance” means any animal . . .  display, exhibition, exposition, fair . . . petting zoo, presentation, public showing . . .  trade show, or similar undertaking in which animals . . . participate as accompaniments for the entertainment, amusement, or benefit of a live audience.

“Wild or exotic animal” means any non-domesticated species of mammal, bird, reptile, or amphibian.

In previous versions of this bill, the terms “wild” and “exotic” were not defined.  The proposed definition above does not correct the prior deficiencies.  First, there is a problem with the term “domesticated.”

The terms “domestic” and “domesticated” have been interpreted by courts where those terms were not defined in statutes or regulations in suit.  See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Comella, 735 A.2d 738 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1999) (questioning whether a “dog” is a “domestic animal,” based on statutory analysis); Bueckner v. Hamel, 886 S.W.2d 368 (Tex. Ct. Appl. 1994) (affirming judgment based, in relevant part, on the exclusion of “deer” as “domestic animals”); City of Rolling Meadows v. Kyle, 494 N.E.2d 766 (Ill. App. Ct. 1986) (reversing holding that owner’s monkey was not a domesticated house pet); Turudic v. Stephens, 31 P.3d 465, 471 (Or. Ct. App. 2001) (concluding that “although the cougar may be more exotic than goldfish or hamsters, they are, nevertheless, indisputably family pets.”)

Instead of using the term “domesticated” the term “domestic” should be used.

“Domestic” should be defined as “domestic livestock” and “domestic companion animal” and “pet” should be defined as “domestic animal.”  Since these terms have been subject to court interpretation (see, e.g. People v. Garcia, 777 N.Y.S.2d 846 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2004) (asserting that the statutory definition of “companion animal” was unconstitutionally vague); Levine v. Connor, 540 F.Supp.2d 1113(N.D. Cal. 2008) (addressing the exclusion of poultry from the definition of “livestock” in the Humane Slaughter Act); State v. Nelson, 499 N.W.2d 512 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (reversing conviction for cruelty to a rooster, based on the definition of “livestock”), “domestic livestock” should be further defined pursuant to section 1 of P.L. 1995, c. 311 (C.4:22-16.1); “domestic companion animal” should be further defined pursuant to subsection u. of section 1 of 14 P.L. 1978 (C.2C:20-1).

It would be problematic to incorporate NJDEP’s definition of exotic mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian which means “any nongame species or mammal, bird, reptile or amphibian not indigenous to New Jersey,” since that would prohibit many animal exhibitions and fairs.  For example, domestic cattle are not indigenous to New Jersey.

Then, there is the issue with ferrets, which New York City has ruled are “wild” animals.

In addition to these issues with defined (or undefined terms) the proposed exemptions in the bill, presented below, do nothing to right size the problems with this bill.

This section shall not apply to:

(1)   exhibitions at a non-mobile, permanent institution or facility certified by the United States Department of Agriculture and accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, the American Sanctuary Association, or a similar organization as determined by the Department of Environmental Protection;

(2)   outreach programs for educational or conservation purposes conducted by a facility accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries, the American Sanctuary Association, or a similar organization as determined by the Department of Environmental Protection;

(3)   an institution of higher education exhibiting wild or exotic animals for research or education purposes; or

(4)   outreach programs for educational or conservation purposes conducted by governmental entities.

First, there is a concern about the arbitrary deference to accreditation by third parties, without reference to any specific animal care standards required.

Second, there are a number of non-governmental entities that are not institutional of higher education that conduct educational and outreach programs that help the public understand the importance and beauty of certain species.

As others have suggested, the language of the originally proposed bill, which would have prohibited the use of elephants in traveling animal acts, was much more preferable than these current versions.

 

NYC Council is at it again.

This time, they are considering an ordinance that will ‘prohibit the display or exhibition of many wild or exotic animals, with exceptions for accredited zoos, research facilities, religious ceremonies or celebrations, and educational or conservation-related programs or presentations.”

Clearly, the ordinance, if passed, would shutter all circuses that include exhibitions of wild or exotic animals, but it could also prohibit television programs filmed in NYC that display these animals.

As reported by Verena Dobnik, Associated Press, on Oct. 13, 5:22 pm at abcnew.go.com.

The New York legislation was first introduced about a decade ago by Councilwoman Rosie Mendez, a Manhattan Democrat. Another Manhattan Democrat, Councilman Corey Johnson, recently joined in, saying that “trucking wild animals in and out of the city strictly for entertainment purposes is not a humane way to be treating them.”

A hearing on the proposed ordinance (Int. No. 1233) will be held by the Council’s Committee on Health on Oct. 20. Councilman Johnson serves as the Chairman of that committee.

Notably, Johnson was co-sponsor of the pet store sourcing ban that has been discussed numerous times, including recent blogs: Pet Stores Under Attack-Mandatory Sterilization Preempted by State Law ; Pet Stores Under Attack-Pet stores do not contribute to local overpopulation ; Pet stores under attack-sourcing bans violate the Supremacy Clause ; Pet Stores Under Attack-Continued: Shelters, Rescues and Pet Stores sell the same product – dogs and cats ; Pet Stores Under Attack-Continued: The New York City Pet Store Law Violates the Commerce Clause ; Pet Stores Under Attack.

Not surprisingly, the animal rights “nonprofits” NYCLASS and HSUS support the ban.

Circuses and related associations, including Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Circus and the Circus Fans Association of America (CFAA), are opposed to the ban. As Feld Entertainment (parent of Ringling Bros.) explains on their website:

Through the circus, every year hundreds of thousands of children are exposed to magical experiences with lions, camels, and other exotic animals like nowhere else. Help us stop this bill and save the circus for generations of families to come. Don’t let animal extremists end a 146 year family tradition.

If you want your voice heard, you should testify at the hearing on October 20, 2016 at 10 am located at Council Chambers, City Hall, 250 Broadway, New York, NY 10007.