Thirty minutes outside the Wisconsin Dells’ maze of flumes, rollercoasters, go-kart tracks and the duck boats plying the Wisconsin River, Jasmine is something of a minor local celebrity.
“I go to the pharmacy at ShopKo here in town and (people are) always, ‘Where’s Jasmine? Bring her in to see us!’ ” said her caretaker, Melanie Nawrot, 36, whose small capuchin monkey lives with her family in the city of Adams. “We go on the lake with her, a lot of 4-H clubs and Boy Scouts come and see her.”
Jasmine has been under the care of Nawrot since she was two days old after being rejected by her mother. Jasmine, who could live to be 45 years old, might outlive her and Narwot said she has made provisions for the family’s pet in her will.
But Jasmine is also a wild animal. Owning a monkey, or almost any other nonnative animal species, is currently legal in Wisconsin. It is among five states — Alabama, Nevada, North Carolina and South Carolina are the others — that have no bans on owning “dangerous” exotic animals.
A bipartisan measure making its way through the state Legislature would change that. Senate Bill 241 would ban ownership, breeding and sale of “dangerous” exotic animals including nonnative big cats, nonnative bears, apes and crocodilians. A companion measure, Assembly Bill 333, also has been introduced.
Exotic pets not affected by the proposal include venomous snakes and constrictors, monkeys including baboons and marsupials such as kangaroos.
Current owners of banned pets, such as tigers, lions and chimpanzees, would be allowed to keep their animals under the bill. Veterinarians, accredited and municipal zoos, circuses, federally licensed research facilities and wildlife sanctuaries also would be exempt, as would Circus World Museum in Baraboo.
Owners who violate the law would be subject to a $1,000 fine. If a dangerous exotic pet caused property damage or attacked someone, the owner could face a $2,000 fine.
The ban would not affect Melanie Nawrot or Jasmine, nor would it prohibit Nawrot from keeping her other exotic pets — a ring-tailed lemur and a pair of marmosets, another type of monkey.
And, as far as Nawrot can tell, SB 241 also would not immediately threaten Monkey Mommy LLC, the business through which she breeds, sells and offers monkeys for hire at special events and educational programs. Nawrot holds a dealer’s license from the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
Nonetheless, Nawrot opposes the legislation. She said local governments in Wisconsin can and sometimes do pass their own regulations, and that is good enough.
“I personally think we’ve been doing a really good job in Wisconsin with exotic animal owners,” she said, adding, “Why fix something that’s not broken?”
Bill, changes debated
SB 241, proposed by Sen. Van Wanggaard, R-Racine, was the subject of a hearing Oct. 1. The most passionate testimony centered on a not-yet-introduced amendment that some argued would weaken the bill.
The amendment would remove a provision forbidding members of the public from coming into direct contact with dangerous exotics, and exempt members of the Zoological Association of America as well as people and facilities licensed by the USDA.
The Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism reported in August about lax and fragmented oversight of exotic animal owners in Wisconsin, including by the USDA.
Three of the 15 speakers testified against the bill, including the executive director of the ZAA, the park director of Wisconsin’s only ZAA-accredited zoo, and a nonprofit reptile rescue and educational group. Out of those three, both ZAA-affiliated speakers said they would support the legislation if the amendment were added.
The 12 speakers testifying in favor of the bill included the owner of a big cat rescue organization, a wildlife rehabilitator, a veterinary assistant, animal advocates and zoo directors.
Even some proponents warned, however, that the measure contains loopholes that would make enforcement difficult. Some also told the committee that the proposed changes would gut the bill, leaving the state’s lenient approach to exotic animals largely intact. One speaker, Renee Benell of Fitchburg, questioned why other species such as snakes and monkeys were not included in the ban.
Dean Collins, Brookfield’s assistant police chief, told lawmakers the law would be “unenforceable” because it does not authorize officers to arrest owners who violate it. Collins also said unless the bill is amended to create a statewide database of animals, authorities will not be able to determine the owners of animals that escape or are released.
The amendment to exempt certain licensees and allow public contact with dangerous exotics has not been formally introduced yet, said Valirie Maxim, a Wanggaard staffer. The senator’s chief of staff, Scott Kelly, said the bill likely will get a vote near the end of October in the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee.
Wanggaard has said the measure was partially inspired by reports of a lion-like creature near Milwaukee, thought to be an escaped or released exotic pet, and a 2013 incident in which police and the Racine Zoo discovered rattlesnakes, alligators, crocodiles, a snapping turtle and a Gila monster in a Kenosha home.
Push for stricter bill
Melissa Tedrowe, the Wisconsin state director for the Humane Society of the United States, attended the hearing and said she hopes to work with lawmakers to refine elements of SB 241, particularly its grandfather clause.
Under the bill, people who owned dangerous exotic animals at the time the bill went to effect could keep their pets, but would be required to pay a fee and register the animals with their municipality. Enforcement of the law would be the responsibility of local governments, and owners would be required to notify local authorities if their dangerous exotic pet escaped.
In an interview, Tedrowe recommended that in cases in which existing exotic pets are grandfathered in, Wisconsin lawmakers should require owners to have a minimum five acres of land, have at least two years’ experience caring for such an animal or pass a written exam on caring for the species.
Tedrowe also said lawmakers should require exotic pet owners exempted under the grandfather clause to carry liability insurance in case the animal harms anyone or causes damage. In addition, she suggested any owner of a “dangerous” exotic pet be at least 21 years old and that all such pets be microchipped “unless a veterinarian says it’s not a good idea.”
Chuck Wikenhauser, director of the Milwaukee County Zoo, said in an interview that he was surprised to find out lawmakers were already considering an amendment. On behalf of all five Wisconsin zoos accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, Wikenhauser testified in favor of the bill but against the proposed amendment to allow people to come in contact with the animals and exempt those with licenses from the USDA or accreditation through the ZAA.
“A lot of roadside zoos or zoos that are less than adequate as far as their ability to manage animals with modern zoological standards have USDA licenses, and it doesn’t necessarily qualify them or make them prime candidates to home some of these dangerous exotic animals,” Wikenhauser said.
The Milwaukee zoo belongs to the AZA, an organization that Wikenhauser, who chairs the group’s accreditation commission, said has been the professional standard recognized by the federal and state governments for many years. Members of that organization, including the Racine Zoo where Wanggaard is a board member, are already exempt under SB 241.
But Zoological Association of America executive director Alan Smith, who opposes the bill unless it is amended, said in an email that “there are really no important differences” in terms of animal welfare and public safety between facilities accredited by the two associations. The ZAA lists Wildwood Wildlife Park and Nature Center in Minocqua, which is also licensed by the USDA, as its only Wisconsin member.
But Wikenhauser said broadening the exemption “waters down the bill.”
“If (the bill) is amended to include all of that,” he said, “I don’t think it’s going to accomplish what (lawmakers) had hoped it would.”
“reports of a lion-like creature near Milwaukee”
Which, of all things had people even looked at the crappy, grainy video closely, would realize was a house cat. I seriously can’t believe anyone was dumb enough to think that was a lion when it’s the size of a pot.
Legislation to restrict law abiding businesses engaged in wildlife education and citizens engaged in personal possession of exotic animals based on a hoax sighting, and one incident with reptiles is not warranted. CWSA, USDA, ESA, already are in place and greatly restrict and regulate ownership of dangerous cats.
HSUS won’t stop pushing their extinction agenda until they have forced their vision of “no wildlife in captivity” in all 50 states. AZA should take heed. Their zoos will be next. Their “exemption” can easily be undone.
Once HSUS accomplishes this first step to eliminating captive gene pools, do you really think they will stop introducing legislation? Of course not. Introducing legislation is a major fund raiser to them, it gets them lots of free publicity, and it increases their political power.
Hey AZA, you think HSUS won’t go after your right to keep elephants, big cats, big apes, big marine mammals at your member zoos? Are you forgetting the number of dangerous animals that have escaped, harmed and killed zoo keepers, and members of the public at your member zoos. And when HSUS has successfully carved away at your right to maintain these bigger species, then do you think HSUS won’t go after the medium animals too – after all, “wildlife belongs in the wild”.
Go ahead AZA, buddy up to HSUS. Give them credibility, help them build political power and then someday, you will get eaten up by the monster you fed.
This is the farce that Sb241/AB333 are largely based upon:
The “Milwaukee lion” which helped to greatly instigate this knee-jerk legislation has
been shown to be a domestic cat. The attached image clearly illustrates this is a small cat
and not an African lion or cougar/mountain lion. There is a link included where
a CNN video and the fuzzy “bigfoot” sighting-quality Milwaukee lion
video can be viewed. The two screenshots attached are from
that link. The better quality photo is the backyard where the “lion”
was sighted. This photo is the same exact spot where the “lion” walked. The
other screenshot (on bottom of attached image) is from the poor quality video
which was taken at only a slightly different angle than the clear photo. The
details pointed out with text speak for themselves! The Milwaukee lion is a
domestic house cat.
In addition, if members of the committee are familiar with
forced perspective, they will notice the cat is between the camera and the
concrete block with yellow flower pot in the background. Objects closer to the
camera will always appear larger than those farther away from the camera. It
can be seen that the lion is closer to the camera and in front of the concrete
block. A concrete block on its end is about 16″ and the lion does not
appear nearly that tall and should appear larger since closer to the camera.
The average domestic cat is 8-10″ tall.
LINK (these screenshots are after the 1:20 mark): http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/07/22/milwaukee-mystery-lion-moos-pkg-erin.cnn/video/playlists/wacky-world-of-jeanne-moos/
The fact that this is clearly a house cat is important for many reasons related to the two bills. The
“Milwaukee lion” which instigated this knee-jerk legislation has been
shown to be a domestic cat. The city of Milwaukee has spent potentially
hundreds of thousands of tax-payer dollars to search for this cat using highly
inappropriate and ineffective food items (Chicken McNuggets and summer sausages), when this video should have been investigated thoroughly and the problem resolved. In addition, an outright ban
would entice someone to attempt to keep one of these animals inside a home or
other inappropriate building or enclosure, thus increasing the chances of an
actual escaped exotic animal. Basing or illustrating merely an abstract need for
legislation on a farce such as this is simply not good practice, and
certainly should not be viewed of favorably by our legislators or public