The predecessor to the FWC (the agency name has changed over the years) was established in 1942 by an amendment to the Florida Constitution which became current Article 4, Section 9. It originally gave the Commission power over “birds, game, fur bearing animals, and fresh water fish of the State of Florida.” In later amendments to the Constitution this phrase was changed to “wild animal life and fresh water aquatic life.”

The FWC originally interpreted the 1942 language to give the agency power over captive wildlife in addition to Florida’s native free wildlife. In 1960 their attempt to regulate captive animals ended up in the Florida Supreme court with Barrow v. Holland, 125 So.2d, 749, 751 (Fla 1960). The Court ruled that the amendment did NOT give FWC power of captive animals. As a result, the Legislature stepped in and passed currently numbered Florida Statutes §§ 379.303, 379.304, 379.3761, and 379.3762 to add regulatory authority over captive wildlife to the agency’s powers.

In 2007 in house counsel for FWC produced a memorandum arguing that FWC’s powers over captive animals comes from BOTH the statutes and the Constitution. To the extent the power comes from the Constitution, their argument is that the agency’s powers cannot be altered by the legislature except in the very limited way provided for in the Amendment, which states “The legislature may enact laws in aid of the commission, not inconsistent with this section.”

The basis for this FWC position in the memo is that changes to the Amendment language since 1942 have rendered Barrow no longer applicable law and that references to the Constitutional powers in certain subsequent cases support this interpretation.

An analysis of those changes in language in the amendments to the Constitution and of the cited cases by attorneys at Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel & Burns, LLP and concurred with by University of Florida Constitutional Law Professor Joe Little reveals that the FWC argument is flawed and that FWC’s power over captive animals comes entirely from the statute, not at all from the Constitution (see https://www.jpfirm.com/news-resources/constitutional-authority-florida-legislature-ban-private-ownership-exotic-animals/ ). What the Legislature giveth, the Legislature can take away. Therefore it is clear that the Florida legislature has the authority to ban private ownership of big cats as other state legislatures have done.

WHAT CAN FLORIDA LEARN FROM OTHER STATES AND

WHAT SHOULD THE FLORIDA BAR RECOMMEND TO ADDRESS THIS PROBLEM?

https://vimeo.com/222234998/

There are only four remaining states that have no laws regarding ownership of dangerous big cats. Until 2011 Ohio was one of those known for having a very large population of unregulated exotic animals. Then, in a horrible incident known as “the Zanesville massacre” that made national news, Terry Thompson, an exotic animal owner, intentionally released 56 dangerous animals including 18 tigers and 17 lions and then committed suicide. As dark approached law enforcement officials were forced to shoot to kill 49 of those animals. Subsequently Zanesville’s Sheriff Lutz has become a strong advocate of national legislation to limit private possession of big cats (see his moving video at 4991058dae ) and the National Sheriffs’ Association has endorsed a federal bill severely limiting ownership of big cats (Big Cat Public Safety Act, H.R 1818/S.2990).

What renders almost all of the state laws largely ineffective is that they operate much like the Florida law that only prohibits owning the animals as pets. I.e. they exempt anyone who has a USDA license. This includes all of the roadside zoos who continue to keep these animals in conditions that are unnatural and cruel given what we know about how intelligent and sentient these animals are. The animals endure these conditions because, as described in detail above, trying to enforce regulations intended to protect the animals is simply not practical given the cost limitations associated with inspecting, investigating and prosecuting violators.

Fortunately the trend in state law has been NOT to exempt USDA licensees, but instead to recognize that both animal welfare concerns and public safety concerns dictate banning ownership outside of (1) the major zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, who operate under much higher animal welfare standards than the FWC or USDA standards, and (2) sanctuaries who are needed to care for the discarded or seized animals and do not add to the problem by breeding more cats. The trend toward not exempting all USDA licensees is evidenced in the laws in Washington State, Ohio, Kentucky and West Virginia (although the latter grandfathered in past USDA license holders who keep their licenses in force).

One logical provision common in these laws is a grandfather clause allowing current owners to keep their cats but prohibiting them from breeding or acquiring more. As a practical matter, sanctuaries have very limited capacity and there would be no place for confiscated cats to go if they were taken from all the private owners. The lifespan of these cats is 10-20 years depending on the conditions in which they are kept. Given the average age of the current big cat population, a law prohibiting further breeding outside the Species Survival Plans managed by the AZA zoos would result in most of the privately owned cats having passed on within a decade after the passage of a law.

Awareness is rapidly growing that the often cited biblical reference to “dominion over animals” does not mean they are like inanimate objects subject to our whim to be used for entertainment or exploited for gain without concern for their natural needs. It means we have responsibility for them. Trying to regulate a large number of private owners is simply not practical. It is time for Florida, once a stronghold of inhumane roadside zoos, to catch up to the growing understanding in our society that these iconic animals do not belong in tiny cages for someone to exploit by charging the public to gawk at them, handle them, or swim with them. Florida should follow the lead of the more forward thinking states that have banned private ownership and breeding outside of the AZA zoos and sanctuaries while grandfathering in existing owners who then have years to transition out of their big cat exhibition activities.

Howie is a genius! He wrote this for Marcia to present to the Animal Law Section so they can start the wheels moving to allow for a state ban on big cats in Florida.

Hi, I’m Carole Baskin and I’ve been writing my story since I was able to write, but when the media goes to share it, they only choose the parts that fit their idea of what will generate views. These are my views and opinions. If I'm going to share my story, it should be the whole story. The titles are the dates things happened. If you have any interest in who I really am please start at the beginning of this playlist: http://savethecats.org/

I know there will be people who take things out of context and try to use them to validate their own misconception, but you have access to the whole story. My hope is that others will recognize themselves in my words and have the strength to do what is right for themselves and our shared planet.

You can help feed the cats at no cost to you using Amazon Smile!

Visit BigCatRescue.org/Amazon-smile

You can see photos, videos and more, updated daily at BigCatRescue.org

Check out our main channel at YouTube.com/BigCatRescue

Music (if any) from Epidemic Sound (http://www.epidemicsound.com) This video is for entertainment purposes only and is my opinion. Closing graphic with permission from https://youtu.be/F_AtgWMfwrk

Get the future of podcasts.