ALERT: Suffolk County, NY Animal Program Ban

UPDATE 2/7/23: This remains with the Committee on Ways and Means and has not seen action since December 1.

UPDATE: This issue was tabled (postponed for further discussion) at the December 1 meeting.

Very basic summary:

1. Ban on any animal except domesticated dogs, cats, horses, pigs, cows, sheep, or goats being transported and then viewed by any audience. This applies even for animals born and raised in human care.
2. there are very few exceptions allowed: accredited zoos, aquariums, universities, colleges, or other such research facilities or environmental educational programs (note that environmental educational programs are not exempt if doing activities as common as giving animals food or treats);
3. each offense holds a fine of up to $2,500.

Resolution Number 1777-2022 is a broad-sweeping ban on “animal traveling performances or shows” which would include educational animal outreach and other programs for most species of animals. The term “wild or exotic animal,” as defined in the proposal, is broad-sweeping. Similar animal performance and traveling animal act bans are being proposed across the country at the local, state, and federal levels. Once again, this proposal uses the language “include but are not limited to” in the definition to make it seem it only applies to a small list of animals, but that is not true.

Animal rights and pseudo-animal welfare groups have fed legislators misinformation, so we, as stakeholders and animal welfare advocates, must do our job to properly educate them. In an effort to seemingly protect animals from abuse and neglect, it in fact only masks the issue and punishes law-abiding animal owners.

Full disclosure is never provided to the public as to the ramifications of these bans. Typically these are pitched to legislators as a way to end any animal abuse that may be occurring at small circuses and roadside animal shows. These superfluous animal rights bills amount to nothing more than pointless acts and schemes to feed the animal rights industry and incrementally remove animals from our lives. Animal welfare laws already exist to address any issues of cruelty or neglect. Current laws should be enforced without the continued unnecessary and repetitive legislation proposals which do nothing more than waste taxpayer money and allow legislators the veil to seem busy with “work” rather than addressing the hard issues.

This bill bans much more than lions jumping through rings of fire. It is a ban on taking a Greek tortoise into a classroom for an educational program about reptiles. It is a ban on taking a ball python, a red-eyed tree frog, a parakeet, and a hedgehog into a library for an educational show discussing the differences between reptiles, amphibians, birds, and mammals. It will ban the petting zoo at the Long Island Fun Fest. It is a ban on llamas and any other non-traditional livestock at fairs. Basically, if an animal other than a dog, cat, horse, pig, cow, sheep, or goat is placed into a vehicle and taken to any location where someone will see it, other than a veterinarian in a private room, then it would become an illegal activity, and you are a criminal. One could be fined $2,500 for taking a ferret into a classroom for a presentation.

The provided legislative intent is complete rubbish. It paints every animal owner as guilty of animal cruelty and makes other absurd claims. This type of animal rights propaganda misleads the reader and uses emotion to gain support. It is no different than the disingenuous television commercials with sad music that ask for donations by tugging at your heartstrings with footage of animals in need (while animals in need actually receive very little of that money).

While the examples we provide may not be the claimed intent of the law, the law could certainly be interpreted to include them. Any enforcement officer could apply this law to your educational outreach programs. The term “animal traveling performances or show” is so broadly defined that it can include any type of program and not just the type that the supporting legislators describe. Furthermore, their choice to specify differences in trained behaviors ignores all modern principles of operant conditioning and training, proving the draft was written without consulting actual animal experts.

The hearing before the County of Suffolk Ways and Means Committee is Thursday, December 1 at 12:30 PM in the Rose Y. Caracappa Auditorium of the William H. Rogers Legislative Building, 725 Veterans Memorial Highway, Hauppauge, New York. See the agenda at https://www.scnylegislature.us/DocumentCenter/View/87143/12012022-Ways–Means-Committee-Regular-Meeting-Agenda-PDF. It was introduced by Legislators Bergin, Richberg, Fleming, and Bontempi.

Read the full resolution at: https://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Suffolk-2022.pdf

Sample Messaging
(Three sample letters and also Talking Points)

Voice your opposition and educate legislators now!
TAKE ACTION by doing one or, preferably, all of the below.
Remember to be civil and professional at all times.

1. Send emails;
2. Make phone calls (631-853-6311);
3. Share the alert;
4. Attend the hearing if possible.

If calling, you can simply say: “I oppose Resolution Number 1777-2022 and the ban on animal performances and shows.”

Email list: Stephanie.Bontempi@suffolkcountyny.gov, Karen.Klafter@suffolkcountyny.gov, Manuel.Esteban@suffolkcountyny.gov, Irene.donohue@suffolkcountyny.gov, Leslie.Kennedy@suffolkcountyny.gov, communityaffairs@suffolkcountyny.gov, Frank.Tassone@suffolkcountyny.gov

Email Subject Line: NO to Resolution Number 1777-2022, animal performance ban

Sample Email

I oppose Resolution Number 1777-2022, the “animal traveling performance or show” ban. As a New York resident and dedicated advocate for animal welfare, I am informing you that this bill is bad government policy and it is bad for the people and animals in Suffolk County. This bill demonizes legitimate animal educators whose programs could easily be considered “animal traveling performances or shows.”

I am a fierce advocate of responsible animal ownership. It is unreasonable to punish those engaging in conscientious animal husbandry and outreach with such a misguided attempt to crack down upon those who are negligent. This bill is redundant, and a waste of taxpayers’ money.

Allow me to emphasize three of the major problems:

1. The overreach and unintended consequences are immense! The definition of “performance or show” would ban educational talks with a Greek tortoise at a school or library, for example.
2. This would be just another unnecessary and superfluous law! New York already has animal welfare laws.

Please take heed and be cognizant of the unintended consequences of this resolution. It infringes on the rights and freedoms of responsible animal owners who provide education regarding their animals to thousands of New York residents annually. Now those citizens could face a $2,500 fine for activities that educate and enhance their communities.

Such educational animal outreach events allow children to actually see animals in person. There are many ways to learn about animals, but seeing them in person leads to much greater appreciation, and fuels the desire to learn and to conserve animals and their habitats. This is an important benefit that is not cruel to the animals involved.

Do not lump the credible services provided by educators into the same category as acts of animal cruelty. The flagrance of this resolution is staggering. Who would imagine that taking a tortoise, parrot, ferret, or any other so-called “wild animal” (per the definition used) to a school for an educational seminar would be a crime? You will be making criminals out of people who just want to share their understanding of, and joy in their animals.

This is a biased, agenda hit-piece and should not pass! Thank you for your time and consideration on this matter. Hopefully, you will do what is right for local residents, the animals, and responsible animal owners and educators by stopping Resolution Number 1777-2022. Have a good day.

Sincerely,

[YOUR NAME HERE]

 

Talking Points

1. New York already has animal welfare and cruelty laws. Enforce those laws!
2. If someone is irresponsible with an animal in New York, he can be punished under existing laws.
3. This bill would make illegal the hundreds of beneficial, educational outreach programs performed each year by responsible animal keepers.
4. The definitions used in this resolution turn upstanding citizens into criminals.
5. The very programs that set forth the paths for tomorrow’s conservationists, veterinarians, and biologists will be banned!
6. It is unreasonable to punish those conducting responsible education programs as a misguided attempt to crack down upon those performing animal cruelty.
7. Books and videos are great, but actually seeing animals leads to much greater appreciation and fuels the desire to learn, and to conserve animals and their habitats.
8. Prohibitions such as this proposed ban demonstrate an irrational approach over common sense.
9. Collective punishment (punishment of everyone due to the actions of one or a few) is never a good government practice.
10. This bill is yet another solution in search of a problem.
11. This will be nothing but another superfluous and selectively enforced law that will punish responsible citizens.
12. The bill will yield scores of unintended consequences.
13. Why would someone who educates a classroom about reptiles or brings a hedgehog to a Scout troop meeting be expected to know about this law? Even worse, such a person will be heavily fined!

 

OTHER NOTES

1. We mentioned that even “environmental education programs” will not be exempt. In most of these programs, the trainer or handler gives treats or food to the animals. This is not natural behavior (for “wild animals” to take food from humans) and, per the definition, “at no time during an educational exhibition will any animal be made to performance behavior that is not intrinsically natural to the animal.” You can see how the misinforming claims made by the supporting legislators and animal rights groups versus the actual broad enforcement ramifications are very different.
2. By reading the definitions, it seems as though this not apply to common pet animals, including some reptiles, amphibians, and birds. However, those definitions are not applied to the prohibited act. Essentially, you can skip most of the definitions and just read the below:

   1. § 302-25. Prohibit Use of Wild or Exotic Animals in Traveling Performances

      No animal traveling performance or show may use wild or exotic animals, even if they are domesticated. This prohibition does not apply to an accredited and registered zoo, aquarium, university, college or other such research facility or environmental educational program. This prohibition further does not apply to a film, internet show, television or advertising, if such use does not involve a live public exhibition.

      WILD OR EXOTIC ANIMAL – a wild or exotic animal is also further defined an animal, either born in the wild or in captivity and any or all of their hybrids with domestic species, that does not belong to one of seven domesticated species: dogs, cats, horses, pigs, cows, sheep or goats. A wild or exotic animal raised with humans is not domesticated, but simply a wild or exotic animal that is more accustomed to humans and possibly considered tame. Some examples of wild or exotic animals include but are not limited to sloths, flying lemurs, armadillos, anteaters, primates and top carnivores.

      ANIMAL TRAVELING PERFORMANCE OR SHOW – when an audience is entertained at a location some travel distance from where the animals incorporated therein are normally kept or reside. It can also mean any exhibition or public showing involving the transporting of animals which moves from place to place.

      Read the full resolution at: https://usark.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/Suffolk-2022.pdf

      2. In this proposal, exotic animals and non-domesticated animals are defined as any animal that is native to a foreign country or of a foreign origin or character, is not native to the United States, or was introduced from abroad. However, the language and definitions used in 1777 will be used against all animal owners that do ex situ presentations – “No animal traveling performance or show may use wild or exotic animals, even if they are domesticated.”