Nevada needs strict laws for exotic pets

An Aug. 8, a Review-Journal editorial urged state and local officials to go slow when considering laws involving the ownership of exotic animals ("Animal welfare: Keep cool head when writing law"). But the only uncharted jungle Nevada legislators have to worry about walking through is the menagerie of dangerous, wild animals living in citizens' backyards across their state.

Should there be debate among lawmakers in Carson City over the implementation of exotic animal laws? Absolutely. Should that discussion be swift? Absolutely.

It was sheer luck that no Clark County residents were injured when two chimpanzees, Buddy and C.J., escaped from a backyard cage in a residential neighborhood earlier this summer. Even the officer who fatally shot Buddy said that he couldn't shake his memory of the Connecticut woman who lost her face in a chimpanzee attack, and he was right to remember it. Tragically, police are thrust into these situations across the country when dangerous, wild animals are legally permitted to be kept as pets.

If that officer was staring down a pet tiger on the loose - which has already happened in Nevada - he might recall the October 2011 tragedy in Zanesville, Ohio, when a man infamously set loose his collection of pet tigers, lions, bears, macaque monkeys and wolves, and then shot himself, leaving it up to police officers armed with little more than shotguns to take down the large, swift and deadly predators.

Unfortunately, Nevada is one of just six states that does not restrict private individuals from acquiring dangerous wild animals as pets. As a result, the state has become a haven for private collections of exotic animals. Just like the residents of the Las Vegas neighborhood where Buddy and C.J. escaped, citizens have no way to know if a tiger or chimpanzee may hop over their fence at any moment. This is a public debate that should have occurred years ago.

Sometimes it takes a high-profile incident to remind lawmakers just what's at stake with important policy decisions. That's what happened in Ohio, when within seven months of the Zanesville tragedy that left people cowering in barns and forced the closure of local schools, state lawmakers passed strong legislation that prohibits the acquisition of most dangerous wild animals as personal pets. Likewise, a lot of good can now come on the heels of the Clark County chimp escape.

These situations present a serious public safety risk, and there are never good outcomes for the animals involved. State Sen. Michael Roberson, R-Las Vegas, is leading the effort to protect public safety and animal welfare and turn this situation around. He is working to draft a bill for the 2013 legislative session that would prohibit future private ownership of dangerous, wild animals.

The escape of Buddy and C.J. was a terrifying example of what can go wrong when these animals are allowed to be kept in backyards, basements and garages. Private owners lack the expertise and resources needed to house and care for wild animals, often resulting in grossly sub-standard conditions, including the lack of basic necessities such as adequate food, shelter, veterinary care and companionship of their own species.

Taxpayers and sanctuaries are shouldering the financial burden for irresponsible individuals who acquire these animals due to weak or non-existent regulations.

Nevadans were spared this time, but might not evade harm in the next tragedy. Wild animals are dangerous; our laws don't have to be.

Holly Haley is Nevada state director of The Humane Society of the United States.