By MaryHelen Swanson

Coming up July 5, at 6:30 p.m., the Chisago County Board of Commissioners will review a draft ordinance on prohibited animals. The draft recently received unanimous approval of the countyís planning commission.

Besides public testimony, the draft ordinance was reviewed by the county attorney and sheriffís department.

The ordinance, if adopted by the commissioners, will be a ìstand aloneî ordinance which may be enforced in cities as well as the county, a recommendation of Sheriff Todd Rivard.

The seven-page document that will be reviewed next week includes numerous items.

To begin, it states the purpose and intent of the ordinance as the countyís attempt to protect the public against the health and safety risks that prohibited animals pose to the community and to protect the welfare of individual animals that are held in private possession, all this pursuant to Minnesota Statute 145A.05 Subd (1) and (2).

It states that ìby their very nature, prohibited animals are wild and potentially dangerous and as such do not adjust well to a captive environment.î

Prohibited animal as defined in the ordinance means any animal that is not normally domesticated in the United States or is wild by nature.

The list of prohibited animals includes (but is not limited to): red panda, mongoose, dogs (other than domestic), cats (other than domestic), skunks, civet, walruses and seals, raccoons, bears, wolverines, hyenas, monkey, apes, etc., elephants, rhinoceroses, warthogs, hippos, crocodiles,

alligators and caimans, venomous reptiles (gila monsters and Mexican bearded lizards, vipers, pit vipers, sea snakes, cobras, coral snakes and related, and any rear-fanged snakes of the Colubridae family, any constricting snake over four feet or 20 pounds, insects considered life-threatening to humans, spiders, scorpions and related, piranhas and any regulated animal.

The ordinance will make it unlawful to own, posses, keep, harbor, bring or to have in oneís possession a prohibited animal in the county.

It will be unlawful to sell or trade any prohibited animal in the county.

It will be unlawful to possess non-native (to Minnesota) prohibited animals.

Wildlife sanctuaries or sanctuaries of any type will not be permitted in the county.

People who own, possess, keep, harbor or maintain prohibited animals on or before the effective date of the ordinance will be allowed to continue ownership as long as they meet all the requirements of the ordinance.

These people must, however, register their prohibited animals within 60 days of the ordinance adoption.

These applicants will be given a list of restrictions that must be in place before the registration is approved (its in the ordinance).

Any prohibited animal kept in violation of this ordinance may be immediately seized and a per-day fee will be charged for every day that the animal is impounded.

Violators of the ordinance will be guilty of a misdemeanor and each day that a violation occurs shall constitute a separate offense.

A complete copy of the draft ordinance may be obtained at the Environmental Services/Zoning office located in 243 of the Government Center in Center City. Or call (651) 213-8370 for more information.

Comment from Gloria Johnson, 6/30/06

It states that ìby their very nature, prohibited animals are wild and potentially dangerous and as such do not adjust well to a captive environment.î

We are not told by whose infinite wisdom and what their credentials are and that this assumption is accepted as a "given truth". This occurs time and time again and the public swallows it hook, line, and sinker without questioning or even consider questioning. Thus the original premise is flawed and one cannot come to many differing conclusions than those made in the rest of the ordinance. Ahh, ignorance is bliss...
prohibition is so much easier than regulation - the lazy way out.

"by it's very nature childbirth is potentially dangerous...by its very nature skydiving is potentially dangerous"...am I beginning to make my point?

Comment from Carla Heinke, 7/3/06

Once again Chisago County has arbitrarily amended an existing ordinance by denial, something the MN State Court of Appeals has recently ordered them not to do. Only this time, the County took one additional step and created a brand new ordinance to "allow" them to ignore the one on the books. Even a first year law student would know there's legal troubles ahead!

Comment from Lynn Culver, 7/7/06

I question the need and justification for this ordinance. The attitude that protecting the safety of the countyís residents justifies any and all benefit that the presence of nature's wondrous creatures can give to humanity is extremely phobic and I suspect is motivated more by a philosophy that seeks to divorce humanity from contact with nature.

The presence of domestic dogs and cats will insure that resident children and adults will make unavoidable trips to the countyís hospital. Yes, animals bite and scratch. So do human children. Itís unavoidable. But we accept their presence because it is important to humanity to have contact with other life forms. The emotional and social benefit greatly outweighs the risk of injury.

Same with properly confined exotic animals. Your attitude will attract like-minded people to your county and repel those who wish to understand nature in a more intimate way.

As my prosecuting attorney in my county commented, ìI wish the sex offenders had to be confined as well as large cats in this state ordinanceî. There are plenty of risks in life ñ teenage drinking and driving, depression and suicide to name a few. And in my opinion, your decision to eliminate all presence of all ambassadors of nature everywhere in your community will contribute to incidences of these two previously mentioned social disorders.

I donít know what is going on in Minnesota, but I sure donít want to live in your state. The vast majority of exotic animal educators, exhibitors, breeders, sanctuaries and private owners are knowledgeable and act out of love for the species. There will always be a few bad apples in every barrel, and that is the price we agree to pay for freedom and the right to pursue happiness. The only other choice is no freedom ñ and it appears your council has taken that road.

Lynn Culver