Ohio gets an overdue law to oversee wild-animal ownership

At long last, Ohio has recognized what most other states already knew: Animals capable of easily killing human beings are not suitable pets, and private ownership of dangerous wild animals is not in the greater public interest.

This week, Gov. John Kasich signed an overdue law that will ban future private ownership of tigers, grizzly bears, gray wolves, gorillas, hippos and other species categorized as dangerous wild animals, including some snakes.

Even though Ohio was the scene of the most dramatic abuse of private ownership of wild animals, it took six months for the legislation to work its way through the General Assembly, and along the way it was watered down in significant ways.

It can safely be said that the protection afforded to the citizens of Ohio is better than nothing, but not nearly as good as it could have been and should have been. The Legislature chose to bow to special interests: the present owners of exotic animals and the dealers who cater to and profit from those owners.

Ohio may someday have an effective ban on private ownership of wild animals, but it’s impossible to say when, since the law includes a grandfather clause for present owners of hundreds of dangerous animals scattered cross the state.

Zanesville incident

Amazingly five of those animals are in residence at the same private zoo formerly operated by Terry Thompson, who released 50 wild animals into the countryside near Zanesville before killing himself last October. Faced with the oncoming night and the danger that roaming big cats and bears represented, the Muskingum County sheriff gave the only order he could: shoot to kill. And so authorities killed 48 of Thompson’s animals, providing a visual image of dead big cats lined up for a post-mortem inventory that was seen around the world.

Six months later, and before the Legislature could bring itself to act, Thompson’s widow reclaimed five of the animals who survived that day from the Columbus Zoo, where they had been housed.

Now, at least, those animals will become subject to the restrictions of the new law, when it goes into effect. Current owners can keep their animals, as long as they register with the state, obtain the proper permits and maintain caging, care, microchipping and insurance coverage.

Anyone who finds these restrictions to be onerous probably shouldn’t own a dog or cat, much less a lion, tiger or bear. If they cannot pay to properly cage and feed an animal and provide it with veterinary care, they can’t afford it. If they can’t afford insurance coverage that provides some level of protection for their neighbors in the event of an injury, they should find another, less costly, less dangerous hobby.

A person has a right to buy a car, but doesn’t have the right to drive it without a license or insurance coverage.

That the legislature ignored such an obvious gap in Ohio’s need to oversee the proliferation of wild animals in the hands of private owners was remarkable. That it took the better part of a year for the Legislature to react to the Zanesville debacle is mind-boggling. And that there was back-patting and celebration over the eventual passage of a weak-kneed bill is nothing for which Ohio should feel proud.