Contact Us

Home to Phoenix

Views and News

MM-0003

Points to oppose/contest:

1. Justification for law.

No justification was given for this law being needed nor for encouraging the counties to ban. A few well- publicized events may have been mentioned but no pattern of either endangerment nor abuse was shown nor were any steps taken to see if such a condition existed or not.

There were no surveys, no stats, no justification for the state getting involved, etc.

It is like banning computers because of a few well-publicized crimes or cars because someone became particularly upset over a particular accident. Dogs kill and maim more people in Texas each year than exotics will in decades but the state has not cracked down on them.

Declaring that something has to be controlled without saying why or making a proven case for it is an example of personal prejudice being applied to law and removing people's rights just because a person or group wants it that way. Should such illogic be applied to other areas? Should we ban household cleaners? Sexual minorities? Cultural practices? All are disliked by someone and there is just as much, probably more, justification for banning them to "protect society" in some group's opinion.

2. Imposition of insurance

Requirements for having insurance have only been applied in cases where a long-established record of failures to compensate victims has existed. Because many citizens of a state have been harmed and not recovered from the person doing the harm these states have mandated insurance as a condition for those activities using the argument that these injured people must be cared for at state expense otherwise.

There is no such pattern of defaults with exotic animals in Texas or anywhere else. As near as can be determined no person has gone unreimbursed for their injuries or losses so no pattern of defaults exists.

3. Inability to get insurance

Where states mandate insurance they also assume the obligation to see that it is made available to all who request it otherwise the mandate is unreasonable and unfulfillable. It is like demanding that pilots be able to flap their arms and fly as a condition for getting a license - unreasonable and impossible and a deliberate attempt to set up a de facto barrier to any person meeting the requirement.

Texas has not set up any insurance pool for owners who can not get insurance from other agencies.

4. Favoritism

The Texas law exempts members of certain private clubs or organizations which helped campaign for the law and which are at the same time the worst offenders in regard to animal welfare, injuries, and husbandry. ASA and AZA member organizations have a record of incidents far in excess of other organizations OR pet owners, making them the biggest danger to both animals and the public, yet they are given a blanket exemption from the new law as a payoff for services rendered.

Private morality judgments have no place in law.

5. Standards

The Texas law states that standards for keeping and facilities must be implemented by the counties but does not say that these must be reasonable nor does it set standards for the county people that must write and impose them to ensure that these people know anything about the care of the animals species involved.

6. Lack of qualifications for officials

The state of Texas has not set standards of education or knowledge for the county people who will be involved in supervising exotic animals. Most of these people are already acting without proper knowledge of proper care for domestic species and there is no standard of behavior or responsibility applied to these people, many of whom violate constitutional or property protections on a regular basis.

6a. Lack of accountability

In addition, this law creates, at state mandate, a class of law enforcement apart from the protections of due process, protections against police misconduct, Miranda and other rights. Enforcement of state law is passed to people who are not law enforcement personnel and who maintain they are no answerable to the protections applied to law enforcement officials. Enforcement officials are not even required to be officials of any government agency or entity.

7. Lack of redress

The current law removes the right of redress or appeal to higher authority over decisions at the county level. The state has therefor taken away the rights of the owners involved. Any wrong done by a biased, mistaken, or unknowing county is mandated to be appealed TO that county, setting up an obvious conflict and removal of right of appeal in unjust and illegal applications of STATE law.

The state has thus passed a law for which it denies any responsibility. This is unconstitutional at best and probably a cause for a major class action suit at the least.

8. Taking

The state has laid a legal framework for communities to shut down legal businesses arbitrarily. People who have established private zoos, breeding facilities, private preservation of endangered species, educational enterprises, film or other media companies, etc. can now be shut down and evicted or closed at the will of any county people who simply dislike these things.

9. Unfunded mandate

The state has establish no framework to support the counties in any way with this law that has been imposed upon them. There are no state facilities to take displaced animals, no state training in exotic animal care or concerns, no state vet or other support to counties NOR any funding offered to offset start-up or training, construction, liability, personnel, etc. costs, thus ensuring that counties have no support from the state for enforcing laws the state has thrust on them and their citizens.

Costs are set by the state and are not sufficient to cover the mandated services and time or expertise that will be required.

The state has no right to expect counties to shoulder all responsibility and cost for laws the state decides it wants but will not itself apply or support.

10. Summary

The state has passed a law that removes citizen's rights to own property of their choosing without justifying it and without supplying an avenue for appeal or redress. At the same time it has tasked the counties with all responsibility for a state law and will not support the counties in any way for its application or the consequences its application may bring upon them. The state has set no uniform standards for application or enforcement leaving arbitrary and possibly biased people to set them instead.

The law was pushed by and supported by people with private, personal, and financial agendas and serves only their prejudices and personal beliefs and NOT the best interests or welfare of the citizens of Texas OR the animals involved.

It will have a massive negative impact upon business, animal usage, husbandry, employment, property values, property rights, and the reputation of the state as well as its being irresponsible and removing constitutional rights to redress of grievances and disputes.

It is a bad and illegally written and imposed law and must be stricken down by honest state lawmakers or they will see themselves embarrassed when it is stricken down by the high courts of the land or by massive public disobedience.

Ray Rooney
rune.raion@att.net