Owning Your Own 'Chupacabra'

Patch blogger Annie Bahringer wrote last week the in Port Washington. 

Of course, the term “Chupacabra” has, as she described, been used as a catch-all for any unexplained, hairless animal with any coyote-like quality to it at all. In Minnesota, for example, locals are still debating whether the roadkill "Chupacabra" found is proof of a mythical beast or simply a hairless badger. Here in Wisconsin, Juneau County residents claim to have stumbled upon some Chupacabra roadkill themselves.

In any case, strange and non-native animal sightings are an increasing phenomenon in the state of Wisconsin. Also increasing are reports of exotic pet owners.

As more and more people begin to own these exotic pets — ranging from snakes, to monkeys, to rare birds and fish — a greater frequency of irresponsible owners are releasing them into the wild. This poses a problem, not just for the animals themselves, but for local wildlife, and sometimes — if the species is well-adapted to the area — to private property or human lives. For example, feral pigs in Wisconsin are thought to be an escaped or released exotic species that pose such a nuisance that property owners may shoot them without any type of permit.

Surely there must be some type of strict regulation on exotic animals? The answer, however, may surprise you.

Any exotic animal regulation may be done at one of three levels. The federal government gets the first crack at regulation. Absent any regulation by the federal government, Wisconsin may make its own laws. Finally, at the local level, cities, villages, towns and counties can make their own regulations on any animals.

At the federal level, however, the government has very little authority to regulate exotic pets. The federal government's powers are limited to those specifically allowed in the Constitution. Noticeably absent from the package of federal powers is any sort of "police power."

By "police power," attorneys generally mean authority to regulate the health and safety of the people. The most expansive and often used federal power is, instead, the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Because of the limitation, with regard to exotic species, the federal government is somewhat silent.

The largest limitations at the federal level are the Endangered Species Act and the Captive Wildlife Safety Act. The Endangered Species Act severely limits citizen rights to own any animals categorized as an endangered or threatened species.  This, taken literally, recently surprised a woman in Virginia after she was slapped with a $500 fine when her daughter saved a baby woodpecker from a housecat.

The Captive Wildlife Safety Act still does not prevent individuals from owning exotic species, but makes it more difficult for suppliers to acquire such animals by restricting interstate transport and commerce of exotic species. Beyond these regulations, there is very little restriction on exotic species ownership at the federal level.

At the state level, the government has the authority and responsibility of passing laws to protect the health and safety of its citizens. This can be done directly through state statutes, or discretion can be handed down to the municipalities at the local level.

In Wisconsin, there is surprisingly little regulation on exotic animals at the state level. No statutes prevent or limit the ownership of exotic pets in the state, and administrative regulations only require that such animals be seen and cared for by a veterinarian. The state has, interestingly, restricted residents from owning local wildlife. On the issue of exotic, non-native species, the state has effectively decided to punt the decision to the local communities.

The local communities have come up with a hodgepodge of regulations. In some areas, including Mequon, there is no regulation of species outside of common pets. So, while it may be illegal to own one extra dog, Mequon would allow ownership of a penguin, provided the penguin was not listed as a threatened or endangered species and kept in good health.

By contrast, in Germantown, no person shall keep, maintain, or have in their possession any poisonous reptile, dangerous or wild animal or insect, including but not limited to poisonous insects and arachnids, poisonous snakes, constrictor snakes, any snake exceeding four feet in length, and a continuing list of examples of disallowed animals.

Thiensville becomes even more restrictive: "It shall be unlawful for any person or persons to keep, maintain or harbor an exotic animal on a property or in any residence, household or dwelling unit within the Village of Thiensville."

Locally, Saukville allows exotic pets, but limits their number. According to the village ordinance, an owner may have up to two exotic pets per lot. Any outdoor exotic pets require a conditional use permit from the village.  The village tries to define examples of exotic pets, but does so by a list of what it counts as an exotic pet, without clearly prohibiting the remainder.

Port Washington is more ambiguous in its regulations.

"No person shall keep animals or fowl, other than domesticated pets, within the city except upon permit granted by the Board of Health." 

Unclear is whether an exotic pet is or can be "domesticated." 

Again, the regulations are very diverse and exotic pet owners may shop from municipality to municipality to own their creatures.

In other words, all I have to do to keep my own Chupacabra is get a permit from the city of Port Washington. And should Port Washington refuse, I can always move outside of the city limits with my new pet.