COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A federal appeals court upheld
Ohio’s restrictions on exotic animals on Tuesday, rejecting a challenge
by owners who had claimed the law was too stringent and forced them to
join organizations they disagree with.
Seven owners had sued the
state over the regulations, arguing that the law violates their free
speech and free association rights.
The owners "believe that
private exotic animal ownership, free from government intrusion, should
be lawful," an attorney for them wrote in a court brief in August.
But
in its ruling, the three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Cincinnati said that the owners’ constitutional claims lacked
merit.
"The burden of regulation may, unfortunately, fall heavier
on some than on others, but that, without more, is not enough to render
this act unconstitutional," Judge Julia Smith Gibbons wrote in the
panel’s opinion.
Ohio has defended the law as addressing animal
welfare, public health and public safety concerns associated with
private ownership of dangerous wild animals.
State lawmakers
worked to strengthen Ohio’s regulations after a suicidal owner released
dozens of creatures from a farm in Zanesville in 2011. Authorities
killed most of the animals, which included black bears, Bengal tigers
and African lions, fearing for the public’s safety.
The law
required owners to get a new state-issued permit by Jan. 1 of this year.
They must pass background checks, pay fees, obtain liability insurance
or surety bonds and show they can properly contain and care for the
animal. Otherwise, residents are banned from having the wild creatures.
The
law exempts sanctuaries, research institutions and facilities
accredited by some national zoo groups, such as the Association of Zoos
and Aquariums and the Zoological Association of America.
The
owners contend that joining such groups to get an exemption from the law
means they would have to associate and fund organizations with which
they disagree.
The court said that the owners’ unwillingness to
meet permit requirements or seek exemptions under the law does not mean
that the measure compels them to join certain groups. "The act imposes a
choice on appellants, even though it is not a choice they welcome."
The
owners also challenged the state’s requirement that animals be
implanted with a microchip, calling it government intrusion on their
property.
The state likened the requirements to installing license
plates on cars, exit signs in buildings or fences in yards. And the
federal appeals court agreed.
"There is little difference between a
law requiring a microchip in an animal and a law requiring handrails in
apartment buildings," the judges said.
The owners’ appeal came after a federal judge in Columbus sided with the state in upholding the law in
2012.
Copyright 2014 The Associated Press. All rights
reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or
redistributed.