Reptile & Amphibian Forums

Hi Cindy.

Since the Terry Cullen case hit the news, both you and another poster named StephF have made posts in the discussion threads of the KS herp law forum regarding this case. In two of these posts, one by each of you, you each cited specific language of milwaukee animal ordinances specifically naming "crocodilians, constrictor snakes, carnivorous lizards..." etc. I cant find that specific language anywhere in chapter 78, below. Can you provide me with a link to the ordinance that includes that language? Prohibited animals are only described in very general terms:

http://cctv25.milwaukee.gov/code/volume1/ch78.pdf

78-5. Keeping of Animals Within City. 1. PERMITTED ANIMALS. No animal that is not a domesticated animal may be kept or brought into the city except as provided in ss. 78-20 and 78-23 or as otherwise authorized
by the commissioner. 2. CERTAIN ANIMALS PROHIBITED. a. Except as otherwise provided in
this chapter, no person shall keep within the city, either temporarily or permanently, any live fowl, cows, cattle, horses, sheep, swine, goats, chickens, ducks, turkeys, geese or any other domesticated livestock, provided, however, that such animals or fowl may be kept at places approved by the commissioner for slaughtering, educational purposes, research purposes and for circuses or similar recreational events. Upon approval by the commissioner, horses used for livery service may be kept within the city. No rabbits or guinea pigs shall be kept within any portion of any multiple dwelling.
b. No person may bring into or keep in the city an animal that a Wisconsin city, village, town or county has declared dangerous or vicious, has banished from the city, village, town or county or has ordered to be destroyed. The commissioner may declare such an animal to be a prohibited dangerous animal in Milwaukee upon receipt of an official written declaration from the other city, village, town or county setting forth the grounds for the declaration, the name of the animal, if known, and the description of the animal.
c. No person may bring into or keep in the city, for sale or otherwise, either for food or for any other purposes whatsoever, any animal which, in accordance with the recommendations of the Compendium of Animal Rabies Control from the National Association of State Public Health Veterinarians, Inc., is not able to be effectively vaccinated against rabies, or any animal dead or alive, bird, insect, reptile or fish which is otherwise dangerous or detrimental to health.

4. ANIMAL REMOVAL. The department or the humane society may confiscate and remove animals from a premises for violation of subs. 1, 2 or 3 or ss. 78-23, 25 and 31. The department may convey such animals to the humane society to be housed and handled appropriately. If necessary, such animals may be disposed of in a humane manner by the department, humane society or their designee.
----------------------------------------------------------------

Although reptiles are named in section c, it would seem then that no pet store in milwaukee should be able to either harbor or sell reptiles in general or "constrictors, carnivorous lizards, or crocodilians" and we both know that is not the case.
I did live in the city of milwaukee up until 1989. During the mid eighties, one of neighbors filed a complaint to the city about my animals. This person never saw any of my animals and none of my neighbors was every inside my house, and only heard about them from a pet store I did business with.
Two city inspectors (Building and Health Depts) made an appointment with me to inspect my premises. They did not have warrants issued, did not call animal control, break down my door, or shoot my dog. At the time, I had at least a dozen adult boa constrictors, and several adult burmese and reticulated pythons, several up to ~150 lbs, ~ 14-16 ft. in addition, I had two adult spectacled caiman, maintained similar to the way Terry does it- in a separate room in an 8 ft. metal stock tank fitted with a ramp for them to go in and out of it. In addition I had several adult nile monitors as well as numerous smaller colubrids and lizards. I also had a separate room where I bred rats, mice and gerbils. Although the inspectors were startled by the number and types of animals in my house, they were satisfied that nothing illegal was going on and the animals were all securely and humanely maintained. They did not issue any cease and desist orders, citations, or make me get rid of anything. They left and I never heard from them again. I was not yet credentialed in any way at that time. So why was I at least not cited for possession of illegal or prohibited animals. Terry was also not charged with possession of prohibited animals, according to the criminal complaint. Why is that?

In summary, certain reptiles either are, or are not, illegal to possess in the city of milwaukee, but why would anyone ever think that they are if you can buy burms, retics, boas, various monitors and tegus, to name a few, in a lot of milwaukee pet stores. I have also seen alligators 4-6 feet long exhibited in some of these stores, although they were not being sold . Any clarification you can provide would be greatly appreciated. Inquiring milwaukee herpers want to know! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Ed Stone.
Milwaukee WI Animal Ordinances

>>Hi Cindy.
>>
>>Since the Terry Cullen case hit the news, both you and another poster named StephF have made posts in the discussion threads of the KS herp law forum regarding this case. In two of these posts, one by each of you, you each cited specific language of milwaukee animal ordinances specifically naming "crocodilians, constrictor snakes, carnivorous lizards..." etc. I cant find that specific language anywhere in chapter 78, below. Can you provide me with a link to the ordinance that includes that language? Prohibited animals are only described in very general terms:
>>
>>http://cctv25.milwaukee.gov/code/volume1/ch78.pdf

Ed,

I never cited code, I cited the rules as explained by what animal control and the milwaukee PD has explained. I know there are two fines for harboring a "Carnivorous" lizard which is crocodilians and monitors. There is also a specific fine for crocodilians as well. I believe for the first offense it is $477 fine. Each additional offense is $477 plus $700ish additional. Of course when I tracked this information down 4 years ago, it took about 5 phone calls and an hour or so to obtain it.

The law in regards to snakes and the enforcement of it is in regards to the dangerous aspect of the animal. This is determined by the officer on the scene. I have had everything from 4 foot worm of boa constrictors labeled dangerous to carpet pythons to 10 foot rocks.

Also anything more than an american alligator will bring in the DNR and USF&W for their enforcement and the city does not handle it.

As I am seeing this after animal control is closed, I will reach out to them after the weekend and see what answers I can obtain as to what codes they use to go after crocodilians, etc. I will say that there has never been an occasion where animals were taken with out other charges pending (most often drug raids) or numerous complaints to the city were made. In fact I can only think of two such occasions in the 10 years I have been the contact for animal control. One was an apartment building where the guy let his alligator roam the hallways and terrorized tenants with it. The other I never got the full story because I was out of town, but it was last april. He was allowed to keep his RES and green iguana, the rest of his animals were seized.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

I apologize for misunderstanding what you said to me, but this is what StephF posted but I still cant find where this came from in either the city or county ordinances. I asked her to send me the link days ago but havent heard from her.
Do you know the source of this? I cant find those Sections or Code numbers on any Milwaukee city or county sites.

Posted by: StephF at Thu May 27 09:16:35 2010 [ Report Abuse ] [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by StephF ]
That he was apparently unable to comply with some basic Milwaukee statutes:

Sec. 6-2. Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning:
Domestic animal means a dog or cat.
Holding facility means an approved, temporary animal holding facility used for the purpose of returning animals to their owner, or impoundment at the municipal pound and maintained by the city.
Injured animal means an animal, domestic, wild or other, that is suffering from some sort of injury.
Municipal pound means the veterinarian, clinic, or facility under contract with the city to act as a municipal pound.
Rabid animal means an animal, domestic, wild or other, that has demonstrated symptoms of rabies or is suspected of being rabid.
Sick animal means an animal, domestic, wild or other, that has demonstrated characteristics of being sick, other than rabid.
Vicious animals means any animal, reptile, and/or fish that constitutes a physical threat to human beings or other animals.
Wild or exotic animal means any nondomestic animal, whether born or raised in captivity, or other warm-blooded animal which can normally be found in the wild state.
(Code 1968, § 21.03)
Cross references: Definitions generally, § 1-2.

>>I apologize for misunderstanding what you said to me, but this is what StephF posted but I still cant find where this came from in either the city or county ordinances. I asked her to send me the link days ago but havent heard from her.
>>Do you know the source of this? I cant find those Sections or Code numbers on any Milwaukee city or county sites.
>>
Nope I dont.

I know how the laws are applied first hand. I know what will get violations and what will not. I know what will get animals confiscated. So I basically abide by those laws. Being somewhat public to some extent with my rescue, I keep things on a keel with AC and what they enforce.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

If Steph posted it, it must be true.

>>If Steph posted it, it must be true.

SIGH.

Actually I know it takes time for them to get proper laws up on the website. I know this from looking at the dog laws as I own a breed that is legislated. The fencing requirement changed several years ago and it took almost 3 years to show the new version on the internet. BIG different from having to bury your fence a minimum of 12 inches to just needing a fence.

Another resource is the Department of neighborhood services. The are the folks that will go out on the complaints of animal laws.

I do believe this is the law that most animals are confiscated under, but as I said I will need to reach out to MADACC this week and see what info I can get from them.

PROHIBITED AND DANGEROUS ANIMALS (s. 78-23)

Any animal which, when unprovoked, bites or inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic pet or animal on public or private property can be declared dangerous. Any animal which chases or approaches a person in a menacing fashion or apparent attitude of attack without provocation upon the streets, sidewalks or any public grounds or on private property without the permission of the owner or person in lawful control of the property can be declared dangerous. An animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack, to cause injury to, or to otherwise threaten the safety of humans or other domestic pets or animals can be declared dangerous. (An animal shall not be deemed dangerous if it bites defending its owner or caretaker, protecting its young or another animal, defends itself against any person or animal which has tormented, assaulted or abused it, or is defending it's owner or caretaker's property against trespassers.) When an animal has been declared dangerous by the Department of Neighborhood Services, a Dangerous Animal Order will be issued to the animal owner or caretaker. Within 7 days, the owner has two options: 1) to comply with Sections 78-23-1 through 7 and 10 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances, or 2) have the animal destroyed by MADACC or a licensed veterinarian as pursuant to Section 78-23-11 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances. Sections 78-23-1 through 7 and 10 of the Milwaukee Code of Ordinances are as follows: Whenever an owner or caretaker wishes to contest an order, he or she shall, within 72 hours after receipt of the order, deliver to DNS a written objection to the order. The Department of Neighborhood Services then convenes the dangerous animal hearing panel.

I will add that in the 11 years since MADACC's inception only a few iguanas have been euthanized as well as 1 hit by car boa constrictor. They have actively worked to get all the reptiles out and to safe places. In other words, I make sure nothing dies.
-----
Cindy Steinle
PHFaust
Visit kingsnake on Facebook!
Follow Kingsnake on Twitter!

"Any animal which, when unprovoked"

That's a pretty broad statement, yes? Does walking past a snake provoke it? Sometimes...sometimes not. All animals have bad days.

>>"Any animal which, when unprovoked"
>>
>> That's a pretty broad statement, yes? Does walking past a snake provoke it? Sometimes...sometimes not. All animals have bad days.

Yep, total insanity. "Any animal which, when unprovoked, bites or inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic pet or animal on public or private property can be declared dangerous."

What animal DOESN'T fall under that category? A moth, maybe??

"Domestic pets" send thousands of people to hospitals and kill a dozen or so people every year.

And there are over 15,000 murders ever year in the United States. I guess Homo sapiens is a very "dangerous animal".

Maybe we need to make a new category, called "stupid animals." I think humans might be at the top of the list.

"Any animal which, when unprovoked, bites or inflicts bodily harm on a person, domestic pet or animal on public or private property can be declared dangerous."

Yep. Yet another example of a very poorly written by-law. The above provision would seem to be cause for an absolute ban on all cats, for there is not a cat alive that would not harm a small pet bird, hamster, gerbil, mouse, lizard, snake, turtle, etc. if it got the chance, is there?

That would seem to exclude all of Terrys animals since all of them were confined inside buildings and it was not possible for them to attack anyone, and it would seem to exclude all of the exotic animals and reptiles that I can recall being ever confiscated in the history of Milwaukee since all were confined to buildings that i can seem to recall. In fact, I would bet that since last week, more people in milwaukee have been killed and injured by collapsing county infrastructure than have ever been killed or injured by reptiles in the entire history of the city of Milwaukee. Lets not even mention the daily murders, drive-bys, armed robberys, rapes and child abductions that everyone takes for granted. Therefore I see absolutely no justification for the heavy-handed gestapo tactics of MADAAC at all, and their oppressive and inappropriate attacks on the taxpayers of miwaukee county demands a vote of no confidence and justifies the disbanding of that agency.

This section also exempts animals acting in self defense when provoked. We all know captive reptiles only attack in provocation, so all reptiles would seem to be excluded.

Yeah. Two wrongs don't make a right...except when Animal Rights gets involved.

Just from what little I've heard, does seem like the "Authorities" did get a bit carried away.

Hopefully the facts will come out in the end and any wrongdoing if any, by both parties, will be addressed.

You have people with that need to control and dictate to others, as well as their accomplices and willing partners, the media. I'm not condoning animal cruelty or neglect, but I honestly believe there are more, much more important issues for the "Authorities" to deal with.

jsc
-----
"As hard as I've tried, just can't NOT do this"
John Crickmer

Some could argue that one of millwaukee's most well known products is responsible for even more deaths than the rest of those things combined. But we know how well banning that worked Although some of my more notorious relatives and the Kennedy family (among others.) might argue that prohibition works just fine.