Dangerous wild animals; Class 1 misdemeanor to privately possess, sell, transfer, etc. (SB477)

Introduced By

Sen. Louise Lucas (D-Portsmouth)

Progress

Introduced
Passed Committee
Passed House
Passed Senate
Signed by Governor
Became Law

Description

Dangerous wild animals.  Makes it a Class 1 misdemeanor to privately possess, sell, transfer, or breed dangerous wild animals The bill would grandfather in the ownership of any existing lawful exotic animals; however, the owner of such animals is required to meet certain conditions in order to maintain possession of the exotic animals. The bill limits the possession of dangerous wild animals to facilities accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and bona fide sanctuaries. The legislation describes the procedures to be followed in the seizure and care of dangerous wild animals. Read the Bill »

Outcome

Bill Has Failed

History

DateAction
01/11/2012Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/12
01/11/2012Prefiled and ordered printed; offered 01/11/12 12101116D
01/11/2012Referred to Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources
02/09/2012Continued to 2013 in Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources (15-Y 0-N) (see vote tally)

Comments

Gary writes:

I am writing to voice my strongest opposition to SB 477 regarding banning “ dangerous animals”. I myself own many of the animals listed on the list and none of them have ever escaped or harmed anyone. I believe that the laws already in place are more than sufficient and this new law would only further expand the “big brother” that our government is becoming and treads on the rites of many Virginians. I also believe this to be a knee jerk reaction to those happenings in Ohio (which were committed by an insane man) if this crazy person had utilized some other form of placing the public in “danger” we would have heard nothing else about it. Again Va. already has inclusive laws on the books banning many exotics that could be deemed dangerous (bears, tigers etc.) and most Va. counties also have laws already on the books addressing this issue. I just cant see how banning a 2 pound marmoset and placing it in the same group as a 500 pound gorilla is fair or rational (just an example since the bill attempts to ban “all primates” among many other safe pets). I ask that you please leave our civil liberties and constitutional rites intact and continue to allow localities to handle which pets to be deemed restricted.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

I myself own many of the animals listed on the list and none of them have ever escaped or harmed anyone.

Good Lord, really? The animals on this list include lions, tigers, cheetahs, hyenas, bears, elephants, and cobras, among others. Which of those do you own?

Virginia Zoo's writes:

I AM WRITING IN RESPONSE TO THE HSUS PROPOSAL LETTER OF JANUARY 12, 2012 REGARDING 29.1-578 "POSSESSION, SALE, TRANSFER AND BREEDING OF CERTAIN ANIMALS UNLAWFUL". WE ARE OPPOSED TO THIS PROPOSAL IN ITS ENTIRETY.
THE PROPOSAL BY THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF THE UNITED STATES (HSUS) IS WRITTEN AND BACKED BY AN ORGANIZATION WHICH HAS NO CREDIBILITY OR EXPERTISE IN THE EXOTIC ANIMAL OR ZOOLOGICAL INDUSTRY WITH A PREPOSTEROUS AGENDA INCLUDING REMOVAL OF ALL CAPTIVE ANIMALS AND RETURNING THEM TO THE WILD, VEGAN DIETS AND NO MORE REGULATED HUNTING. THEY HAVE A MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR ANNUAL BUDGET FROM MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO ARE LED TO FALSELY BELIEVE THEIR DONATIONS ARE GOING TO HELP NEEDY PETS, WHEN IN REALITY 1% IS USED FOR THAT PURPOSE WHILE OVER 30 EMPLOYEES ENJOY 6 FIGURE SALARIES AND MILLIONS ARE SPENT ON MISLEADING MARKETING CAMPAIGNS AND LOBBYING FOR THE EXTREMIST ANIMAL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. ALL THE WHILE OUR LOCAL ANIMAL SHELTERS ARE BEGGING THE PUBLIC FOR MONEY TO CONTINUE OPERATIONS BECAUSE HSUS IS EXPLOITING THEM FOR FUNDS.
THE ANIMAL INDUSTRY DOES NEED REGULATION, BUT I BELIEVE VIRGINIA HAS THE PROPER LAWS IN PLACE TO MAINTAIN RESPONSIBLE OWNERSHIP, WHETHER IT IS AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A BALL PYTHON OR A PRIVATELY OWNED ZOO LIKE OURS WITH LARGE CARNIVORES. SECONDLY WE ARE ALL GOVERNED BY THE USDA AND ITS STRICT GUIDELINES FOR CAPTIVE MANAGEMENT AND APPROPRIATE CARE FOR ANIMALS IN CAPTIVITY. WE DO NOT NEED MORE LAWS, BUT CONTINUED ENFORCEMENT OF THE ONES WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE. INDIVIDUALS IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA WITH A VALID VIRGINIA LICENSE AND VALID USDA PERMIT SHOULD BE EXEMPT FROM ANY OF THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION.
THE PROPOSAL ALSO LISTS THAT UNLESS A FACILITY IS ACCREDITED THROUGH THE ASSOCIATION OF ZOOS AND AQUARIUMS (AZA), THEY SHOULD NOT BE EXEMPT. FORCING INDIVIDUALS TO JOIN A PRIVATE ORGANIZATION IN ORDER TO CONTINUE FUNCTIONING IS A LEGAL BATTLE WITHIN ITSELF. VIRGINIA AZA ZOO'S ALL RECEIVE STATE AND FEDERAL FUNDING!
IN CLOSING, I URGE YOU AND YOUR COLLEAGUES TO OPPOSE THIS BILL AND HB 1242 AND KEEP VIRGINIA AND ITS CITIZENS FREE FROM THE MONOPOLY OF HSUS. THE INCIDENT IN OHIO IS UNFORTUNATE, BUT IT IS AN ISOLATED CASE FROM A DERANGED INDIVIDUAL WHO WAS NOT A BONIFIDE ZOO. I AM AVAILABLE FOR HELP IN THIS MATTER AT YOUR CONVENIENCE. THANK YOU.

Jason writes:

I am writing to also OPPOSE SB 477 and HB 1242 regarding banning of all exotic species in Virginia. The laws in place in Virginia are adequate as long as they are enforced, The passing of either of these bills would prove detrimental to millions in Virginia. Private (non AZA) zoo's in Virginia see as many visitors annually as the state and federally funded AZA zoo's do, so how is it fair to force a family owned company to join a club like AZA in order to continue to survive? These bills would negatively impact the tourism in Virginia as well as many jobs. OPPOSE these bills and allow Virginians their constitutional right to pursuit of happiness.

Samantha writes:

I also STRONGLY OPPOSE SB 477 and HB 1242. Virginia doesnt need more laws on ownership of exotic animals. Horses kill more people annually than any of the "dangerous" animals on these bills yet they are not being banned. Come on Senator Lucas, has the Humane Society polluted you as well? Let Virginians continue to be FREE. What's next, banning our domestic dogsand cats because the Humane Society wants them free of the "bondage" of human companionship? Wake up Virginia.

Jeff Severts writes:

Who decides which animals are dangerous? Is there a standard? Or is this just a "fear tactic" definition. Many people consider snakes dangerous, but most of them on this list would be hard pressed to be defined as such. Show me proof that the animals on this list are necessary and, in fact, dangerous, and then I would consider revisiting it.

W Taylor writes:

This bill would force people to decide with putting their animals to death or becoming a criminal!

HSUS you make me sick!

Waldo Jaquith writes:

This bill would force people to decide with putting their animals to death or becoming a criminal!

It is obvious that you have not read the bill, because that's the opposite of the truth. § 29.1-581, entitled "Conditions for allowable continued possession," provides...wait for it...conditions under which people are allowed to continue to possess their animals. They have to be able to demonstrate that they had the animals prior to the law going into effect, they cannot acquire any more prohibited animals, they cannot have ever been convicted of abusing animals, they cannot have ever had an animal-related permit revoked, they cannot let "members of the public" touch the animal, they have to register the animal, they have to maintain liability insurance to cover damages that the animal could cause, and they have to provide notice to DGIF before transferring ownership of the animal to anybody else.

And if somebody can't comply with these terms? Then, under this bill, "dangerous wild animals seized and deemed forfeited shall be placed in the custody and control of an institution accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums or a wildlife sanctuary."

Velma Rigsby writes:

I am very against this bill and the HB1242 that has even greater liability. Many of us have homed these animals our whole life. Free from any incidents. They want to take our passion away, when we have done nothing wrong. The laws in place in the state of Virginia are working fine and have for many years.They need to take a look at incidents to the public...Hardly none. Most have been to owners,handlers, zoo keepers etc. NOT the public there is no reason to do this.What will suffer is the animals private owners can not pay for $100,000 or $200,000 liability to home one or two animals on this new list. I home primates that never come in contact with the public and have never harmed anyone. I provide wonderful caging and great care. My primates are a troop they love each other. Another thing listing all none human primates in one group also wrong. Many of these primates are very small and pose no great danger, they are not gorilla or chimps. Apes are not monkeys.And to not allow us to get more wrong.I have a Spider monkey now that needs a compainion.I should have the right to get him one. And to not let bonded pairs breed? My father owned exotics as well as none exotics just as I do. My children grandchildren should have this same right. It is like taking football from a ball loving family. Or banning wrestling or football or many things. Peoples passions are their passions..WRONG Leave our exotic laws as they are. They work!!

Waldo Jaquith writes:

What will suffer is the animals private owners can not pay for $100,000 or $200,000 liability to home one or two animals on this new list.

Just to be clear, owners would not have to pay $100,000. They would simply have to get an insurance policy that would cover a loss of that value resulting from the actions of their animals. This is exactly the same as a homeowner's policy or an auto policy, although simpler and less expensive, because it's covering only liability (damages resulting from the animal), not property (the value of the animal itself).

If a spider monkey presents little to no danger, then the cost of that insurance policy should be quite inexpensive. It's been a long time since I've worked in property and casualty insurance, but I'd guess that a policy for a relatively harmless animal would run less than $100/year. Covering two such relatively harmless animals wouldn't cost twice as much, but only a small additional amount for the additional one.

Velma Rigsby writes:

Not true because many people just hear the word exotics and they think danger..Do you realize many people that home exotics even have trouble getting homeowners insurance. We run a company and liablity cost a lot.. They lump primates as primates they think of chimp attacts. I have had hunting dogs kill animals on my property. The people down the road their horses are here several times a year..So my question is why do they not have to pay for liablity? My animals have never been out never left my home.. this is just not fair.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

Velma, the way that the insurance market works is that premiums (the amount you pay for insurance) increase proportionately to risk. The desire for profit pulls them up, but competition with other insurers pulls them down. The result is that insurance markets tend strongly to price accurately on the basis of risk. If the insurance for your animals are expensive, that would only be because actuaries who work for insurers have studied the rate at which those animals cause insurers to pay out for losses. If they were harmless, as you say, then insurers competing with each other would drive the price down to virtually nothing.

It is possible for non-dangerous things to result in high rates, but they have to be new risks, or risks that are not adequately understood. (Terrorism insurance, for instance, was impossible to get for a time after 2001, and then it was quite expensive. They didn't know how to calculate the risk after being blindsided by the World Trade Center. But within a few years, insurers figured out that terrorist attacks are so fantastically rare that the risk was negligible, and the price dropped accordingly. That doesn't apply here, though—people have been keeping exotics for centuries, and the associated risks are well understood.

People with exotics animals at their home would have trouble getting homeowners insurance because standard insurance companies who sell homeowners insurance have no interest in anything that's not found in a standard home. (It's a bit like going to McDonald's and ordering your burger medium rare. You've gotta go someplace else for that.) That problem is entirely unrelated to obtaining a liability policy specific to an exotic animal. Incidentally, having a liability policy for those animals might help get homeowners insurance, because that way the homeowners insurance company could specifically exclude incidents arising from those animals, knowing that the other company would respond.

Samantha writes:

Waldo- why is it you seem to defend this bill so much? You say you own exotics yet in every post defend the bill in some way. It appears as if you are an HSUS rep in sheeps clothing. The bill is NOT pro animal, NOT pro private ownership, NOT pro conservation, and certainly NOT constitutional. We are not fooled.

Waldo Jaquith writes:

I never said I own exotic animals. Also, sheep aren't exactly exotic. ;) You'll find that I support honest debate and fair representations of legislative effect. That's more important to me here than anything else. When somebody says "this law will make me have my animal put down," I won't let that go unchallenged. And if somebody said "monkeys kill ten people in Virginia each year," I would likewise call them out for dishonesty. I have no idea if this bill is necessary, but when opponents of a bill habitually lie about it, I've found that's a sign that it's needed.

Alice H writes:

Insurance companies are dropping people for too many dogs (like more than 2) and/or the wrong breeds. Can only imagine how they will react to wild animals. Expense might be the least of it - finding it will be the hard task.

This bill IS designed to eliminate ownership of these animals. That is how they (HSUS and local ARs) do it - list a bunch of hoops for everybody to go through so it will appear they are not reaching for a ban. This is the HSUS bill this year. The Governor is supporting it in exchange for HSUS not objecting to Sunday hunting. If HSUS is behind something it is a sure thing animals are being taken from people.

And yes, Waldo is an animal rights person. He has proved it over and over. Don't waste your time on this forum. Get down to the General Assembly and talk with the legislators.

Good Luck!

Waldo Jaquith writes:

And yes, Waldo is an animal rights person.

I am? What does that even mean? My wife and I raised eight turkeys and slaughtered them for Thanksgiving in November. (They were delicious.) Is that something that the Humane Society supports or opposes? I own a few guns, all of which I've hunted with at one time or another. Is that Humane Society down with that? I'm a strong supporter of lifting the Sunday Hunting ban—doesn't the Human Society oppose that? I ask because I have no idea—I don't know anything about them. I don't think I've ever seen their website, nor have I, to the best of my knowledge, ever met or encountered anybody who is affiliated with the organization.

I'm starting to get the sense that "an animal rights person" is anybody who disagrees with you, Alice. Is that hitting a little closer to home?

Don't waste your time on this forum. Get down to the General Assembly and talk with the legislators.

Yes, it can be difficult encountering facts that run counter to what you wish the truth to be. If that's too challenging to you then, by all means, flee! But it's almost always more productive to speak with your legislator than to post comments on a website, so that's certainly good advice.

Peggy writes:

I'm surprised there is so much opposition to this bill expressed here after the slaughter in Zanesville this fall.
I think it is perfectly reasonable to prohibit people from having exotic animals-- that's non-domestic, non-native animals-- unless they meet high standards.
It seems to me this bill allows people who already have exotic animals to keep them, they just have to show they have adequate insurance and meet other standards for responsible care.
And I don't think there is great need for breeding of and trade in exotic animals unless it is for bonafide conservation programs.
For these reasons, I fully support SB477.

Samantha writes:

Peggy - the problem is that non AZA facilities will be able to keep their animals only until the animal dies, then the private facility cannot acquire another one. The "bonafide conservation programs" in which you say breeding is ok, is mainly done by private facilities/private zoo's, not the AZA zoo's. So what will happen if this bill passes is a conservation nightmare. Fewer breeding animals equals extinct animals. There are already laws in place in VA to deal with only legitimate individuals/facilities owning exotics. Why is it people think we need more laws instead of enforcing the ones we already have? In Virginia, only facilities with bonafide educational programs, with proper State and Federal Licensure, who already meet standards for appropriate care and husbandry, can posess big cats/bears/alligators/etc. Bill 477 places ALL primates as dangerous and prohibited: this places a harmless marmoset smaller than a squirrel on the same list as a gorilla! SB 477 also places an Asian Leopard Cat (smaller than your house cat) on the same list as a 600 lb tiger! The problem is the general public fears what it does not understand and therefore condemns it. The public needs to understand this: Without the breeding programs done by private zoo's across the United STates, there will be no species of some tigers in 20 years, many primates will disapear forever. As nice as the AZA zoo's appear, they have a poor track record for breeding, but obtain the vast majority of their stock from private zoo's. The AZA is a glorified club for the federal and state grant funded zoo's and nothing more. Punishing those individuals and facilities who uphold high standards of care, but are not AZA or sanctuaries, because of one individuals poor choices in Ohio is simply ludacrus. The Constitution will have to once again be ammended to take away yet one more freedom Americans enjoy. We separated from England to get out from under the oppressive government thumb and here we are less than 150 yrs later, allowing the givernment to control every aspect of our lives. What is next? Your freedoms Peggy.....what is important to you is at stake. Perhaps not today, or tomorrow, or maybe even in your lifetime (though I believe we'll loose it all before too long)....but with every new law that takes a little, comes more and more until it's gone. Then we look up and wonder how it happened? Our freedoms are not taken all at once, but slowly. Oppose SB 477 and take a look at the laws we already have in place in VA. Then insist they continue to enforce those. That will keep Virginians safe, allow our childrens children to see rare and endangered wildlife, and educate the public on what a wonderful world we share with some amazing animals!

Waldo Jaquith writes:

I was totally with you, Samantha, until we got to these two bits.

The Constitution will have to once again be ammended to take away yet one more freedom Americans enjoy.

This isn't a constitutional amendment. It's merely a law, one of 30,826 that we have in the Virginia Code. Also, constitutional amendments very, very rarely take away freedoms. On the level of the U.S. Constitution, I can only think of one amendment that fits that description (prohibition), and on the level of the Virginia Constitution, just one more (gay marriage).

We separated from England to get out from under the oppressive government thumb and here we are less than 150 yrs later, allowing the givernment to control every aspect of our lives.

150 years later? That would have been 1862, so I'm pretty sure you're thinking of Virginia's secession from the United States and forming the Confederate States of America. I'm pretty sure most people believe that was actually a bad thing.

Samantha writes:

Youre right Waldo....my math was fuzzy as it was late when writing!lol