Mass. Exotic Pet Laws Unlikely To Be Relaxed Soon

Two weeks ago, shortly after releasing into the suburbs over 50 unusual animals he had kept on his property.   

Worried that the beasts might create a serious risk of death or injury to nearby residents, authorities later killed four dozen monkeys, wolves, lions, tigers and bears and captured six others.

As news of this slaughter spread across the media, many Americans were surprised to learn that in some states, Ohio being one, it is perfectly legal to own what the law generally refers to as "exotic animals."

Traditionally, federal law has placed few limitations on the ownership of exotic animals.  

Less than a decade ago, Congress first tackled the issue as part of a global effort to protect endangered species when President George W. Bush signed the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. The bill, which passed both the House and Senate unanimously, restricts the importing and trading of exotic cats but does not ban private ownership.  

Massachusetts is one of just a dozen or so states that ban the private ownership of exotic animals.  Mass. St. 131 sec. 23 prohibits the propagation, cultivation or dealing of undomesticated birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians that "are wild by nature."

The law authorizes the director of the Division of Fisheries and Wildlife to draw up a special exemption list of animals that do not fall under the statute. At present, Massachusetts residents can legally own certain breeds of fish, reptiles and small mammals.  Lions, monkeys, tigers and bears are not permitted.

You can find the complete list of legal animals here.

Even in states where ownership of exotic animals is not banned per se, other laws serve to regulate the practice. 

In Ohio, for example, some exotic animal owners have been sued by local authorities for creating what the law calls a public nuisance. In these cases, the argument usually hinges on whether the animals are being properly cleaned and cared for and whether the property creates the potential for environmental harm. 

Obviously, pursuing a nuisance case is more complex than simply charging someone with owning something illegal. That is why Ohio legislators are now talking about enacting a ban similar to that which exists here in the Commonwealth.

What exactly is the argument in favor of allowing citizens to own exotic animals? 

Many Americans chafe at the idea of the government imposing restrictions on the ownership of private property. And traditionally, that is what the law considers animals - private property. These citizens recognize that the animals must be properly cared for and prevented from causing harm to others, but otherwise it's not the government's role to impose outright bans on ownership. Indeed, it appears that Massachusetts is in the minority In banning ownership outright. Most states either place no restrictions, or create permitting schemes that allow residents to obtain permits to own exotic pets.

Given the massive publicity that followed the recent Ohio tragedy, it is unlikely that exotic pet laws will be relaxed any time soon.  

Still, the idea persists in some places that none of this is any of the government's business.  Indeed, the widow of the Ohio man that released the exotic beasts is poised to reclaim the half dozen animals that did not die in the aftermath, including three leopards, two monkeys and a young grizzly bear.