Animal welfare: Keep cool head when writing law

In the aftermath of last month's escape of two chimpanzees from a Las Vegas home, there appears to be a broad and overwhelming consensus that Nevada governments must do more to limit exotic animal ownership, if not ban it altogether.

Americans love animals and react with indignation to any instance of animal suffering. The two chimpanzees, named Buddy and C.J., were living in cages before they broke out and fled into suburbia. Las Vegas police killed Buddy, and North Las Vegas police tranquilized and captured C.J. The initial question from many in the community: Why were the animals living in a house in the first place?

Politicians have seized on these concerns and promised to address the issue. State Sen. Michael Roberson, R-Las Vegas, already is working on a bill to prevent Nevadans from keeping certain wild animals as pets. On Tuesday, the Clark County Commission discussed exotic animal regulation.

But in the rush to act - to do something - local and state officials should avoid the pitfalls and unintended consequences that too often accompany legislation passed absent vigorous debate.

For instance, a few years ago, Congress passed a bill to limit the content of lead in children's products, rushing to respond to a recall of Chinese-made toys. The vote was nearly unanimous. The result was a bill that imposed onerous, costly testing requirements on goods that couldn't possibly contain lead; burdened thrift stores with the threats of huge fines; and drove countless small businesses into bankruptcy.

At the state level, the 2005 Nevada Legislature was too happy to pass feel-good sales and property tax breaks for energy-efficient construction projects. Even back then, everyone loved "green" incentives. Over the years, the law ended up costing local governments hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue without significant environmental benefits. Oops.

Animals have long had a role in Nevada's entertainment industry. Lawmakers have said they want to address exotic animals owned as pets, not entertainers. But it's not far-fetched to envision legislative language that could exceed intent.

Without meaningful opposition to cast a critical eye on new animal regulation, elected officials should act as if they're walking through an uncharted jungle - with caution.