At U-Vet Werribee Animal Hospital, we cater for the special pets of this planet, the exotics. Nevertheless, all the zoos and accredited institutions could not possibly accommodate the number of unwanted exotic animals. Courts have disagreed, and affirmed agencies’ appropriate to seize animals whose owners have violated exotic pet regulations. In the exotic pet context, owners have asserted liberty and home interests in keeping their pets. Exotic pets that escape or are deliberately released by their owners also pose a threat to native species, habitats, and the public.
This case demonstrates the existence of a legitimate state interest in stopping attacks by captive wild animals, and it is precisely this interest that most often spurs regulation of exotic pets. Constant handling will make them superb pets for correct exotic animal lovers, and they are reasonably common in terms of exotic mammals. Considering that courts recognize public overall health and safety as genuine government interests, and since exotic pet regulations are rationally connected to securing the public overall health and security, owners have lost all such equal protection challenges. As such, there are fewer obstacles to passing exotic pet regulations at the state level.
As mentioned, Michigan explicitly bans wolf-dog hybrids, massive cats, and bears, even though it does not prohibit other exotic pets. The information on why exotics and non-domesticated animals make extraordinarily tough and inappropriate pets is all more than and readily accessible. Laws Ann ch. 131, §77A Numerous other states consist of hybrid animals in their lists of regulated exotic pets. Presently, their captive-bred populations are modest and they are (thankfully) unpopular as pets.
Exotic pet owners have argued that regulations unfairly discriminate against them compared to other pet owners, and have challenged these regulations as violations of the 14 th amendment. For other wild or exotic animals, Michigan regulates numerous aspects of their importation, such as requiring physical exams by vets, unfavorable illness tests, and suitable animal care and restraint. The suffering of the animals in the hands of unqualified and hapless purchasers seems to be of no concern in the profitable exotic pet trade.
In situations in which men and women do have legitimate house interests in their exotic pets, states have won due approach challenges by demonstrating that the depravation method was enough, consisting of notice and an chance to be heard. Similarly, in Kent , the court also held that the rational nexus among the exotic pet ban and public safety was sufficient to not violate Kent’s substantive due approach rights, despite the truth that Kent was technically deprived of his property because he owned the lion prior to the enactment of the ordinance.