Unmatched coverage
The Dayton Daily News has covered the issue of exotic animals extensively. We will continue to follow the issue closely and bring you the latest news as it develops.
Seven exotic animal owners are challenging the state’s Dangerous Wild Animal Act for a third time.
The group recently filed a motion for a rehearing on an appeal decision made last month that upheld Ohio's law restricting the ownership of exotic animals.
The court’s decision — made by a three-judge panel — denied a plea by exotic animal owners, who alleged the law violates their free speech and free association rights.
The owners are asking that the appeal be heard by a full panel of judges, claiming the decision by the three-judge panel was flawed, according to Polly Britton, legislative agent for the Ohio Association of Animal Owners.
The motion was filed March 28 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit. Britton said there is no timetable when — if at all — a rehearing will be scheduled.
“We hate for things to be up in the air like this because people are affected by this,” Britton said. “They’re sweating bullets. These are issues that are very much of interest to these judges. We’re talking about free speech amendments, and when they hear that, their ears start to perk up.”
The seven owners sued the state, claiming the new Ohio Dangerous Wild Animal Act — which took full effect Jan. 1 — will negatively impact their business of breeding and selling exotic animals, while compelling them to join exempted organizations they don't support, such as the Association of Zoos and Aquariums and the Zoological Association of America.
A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit ruled in favor of the state, after a federal judge in Columbus upheld the state law in 2012 when the initial lawsuit was filed.
“The (Ohio Department of Agriculture) is pleased that the courts continue to uphold the constitutionality of the state’s much-needed regulations on dangerous wild animal ownership and had hoped that the latest ruling has laid the question to rest,” department spokeswoman Erica Hawkins said in a statement. “The plaintiffs have filed another appeal and that is their right so we will continue to defend the law in court until the appeal process concludes.”
Through the end of March, 33 permits had been issued to exotic animal owners, 42 permits were pending and none had been denied. The state will continue to work with owners during the permitting process. No animals have been seized by the state.
According to the motion for a rehearing, the owners said the "permit requirements are specifically designed to be totally unobtainable." It goes on to say the act "could have simply required Appellants to adhere to the standards of the AZA or ZAA without compelling Appellants to join either organization."
State officials phased in aspects of the Dangerous Wild Animal Act that Gov. John Kasich signed in June 2012. The first phase went into effect Sept. 5, 2012, prohibiting the sale or purchase of dangerous wild animals, including lions, tigers and bears.
“These elements of the Act serve to totally eviscerate the livelihood of the Appellants by barring the activities of their long-established businesses,” the motion said. “…The Act has reduced the economic value of the Appellant’s property to zero.”
Britton said there’s a “trickle-down effect” because exotic animal buyers and sellers aren’t traveling to Ohio to stay in hotels, eat at restaurants, buy gasoline, and generate income and sales tax for the state.
“There is no market,” she said.
Sean Trimbach — owner of Best Exotics LLC in Medway and one of seven owners on the lawsuit — said if a rehearing is scheduled, legal costs for the group will exceed $200,000.
While he is filing for a state reptiles permit, Trimbach said he is no longer pursuing ZAA accreditation because “we just simply ran out of money.” Trimbach said he recently had to euthanize seven of his animals because he was unable to afford about $70,000 in fencing upgrades to meet ZAA requirements.
He said if he had relinquished the animals to the state, the state would have charged him, in addition to transportation and other costs, like medical care and food.
“The state wanted the animals gone, and that’s what they’re getting,” Trimbach said. “This law doesn’t benefit anybody.”
Hawkins, though, said the state does not charge owners for voluntarily relinquishing their animals or for transportation. The law does allow the state to charge for costs associated with a quarantine, seizure or escape/release, she said.
The state built a taxpayer-funded, $2.8 million, 20,000-square-foot temporary holding facility in Reynoldsburg on the Department of Agriculture’s 150-acre campus property. Construction was completed at the end of February 2013, and since it opened, there have been 32 exotic animals that have stayed there, mostly alligators and bears.
About the Author