Is Possession Really 3/4 of the Law?


If you possess or own exotic animals, you may have heard, even repeatedly, how possession of the animals equates to ownership.  This is far from true.  

There are several reasons why even exotic animal owners have been known to adopt such a farse.  

First, long-term possession of animals not typically kept as pets, such as dogs and cats, came into existence primarily as a result of wild animals, which were in rehabilitation but could not be released back into the wild due to some debilitating disorder or anomaly preventing a safe release for themselves and/or the public. Many states allow the use of such animals for educational reasons under a license or permit system.  In New York State, the license is called the "License to Collect & Possess".  

Wild animals, or wildlife, that is, animals existing in a wild state, are owned by the people of the state; hence, they are considered "state-owned".  In New York, the NYSDEC loves to remind the public how wildlife isn't ours, they belong to them [the state].  In reality, the animals belong to the people of the state who have then been forced to entrust the animals to the often irresponsible authority commonly referred to as the state's natural resource agency, in New York State, it is the Department of Environmental Conservation. 

Animals owned by the people of the state fulfill a common interest among the populace.  Because the animals live at large and wander from property to property, they are transient and cannot be considered as any one real property owner's personal property, even if a family of a wild animal species, such as groundhogs, for instance, set up living quarters on the land of a private individual.  Those animals are still considered communally owned and thus entrusted to the state for regulation and management. 

When exotic animals came along, there was really no category for them, especially legally and socially.  They seemed to be part of both worlds in that they were domesticated like cats and dogs yet were just as rare in captivity as the state's wildlife was and is.  Unfortunately the states, in extending their authority without going through any democratic process, combined privately-owned exotic animals with state-owned wild animals simply due to their eccentricities.  Hence, without any laws in place, the state of New York, in particular, made privately owned animals mandated to be licensed exactly as the animals born and raised in the wild were while in captivity.  

Society, even private owners of exotics, became used to such a system to the point where they do not question this licensing system in New York State.  But they should.  With the state equating personal property, which exotic animals typically are considered, with state-owned property, abuses are sure to occur and they have been, courtesy of the DEC.  

The second reason is how the state equates possession with ownership.  They virtually do not decipher between the two which is an abuse of process in and of itself.  I was surprised when talking with a staff attorney from the DEC that he didn't consider a difference between the two.  An attorney.  These are the experts who handle conflicts of personal vs. communal property and the fights which ensue involving both.  Needless to say, this was concerning to me at the time, and still is.   This revealed to me that there was a much deeper rooted problem in the belief system of the NYSDEC and possibly the state at large, in what contrives personal property in the animal industry and what does not.  In fact, the most recent proposed rulemaking endeavor sponsored by the DEC in September 2019 in which all exotic animals are declared as "dangerous" thus needing an additional license and approval from the most ill-equipped agency to do so, is the apex of the misunderstanding between state and privately owned property.  

The third reason may be the fact that it isn't uncommon for exotic animals to be traded, donated or loaned to different facilities by other facilities.  Private facilities may do so with AZA- or ZAA-accredited facilities and so forth.   This is particularly true for endangered species.  Because the free-flowing movement and transfer of animals without the exchange of money or other forms of payment occurs to the extent it does, it makes the concept of private ownership seem to have more of a fluid nature than permanent.  

Regardless of how or why an individual thinks of a wild or exotic animal, ownership is vastly different than possession.  It is no different than owning a cattle ranch and owning the cattle.  Likewise, it is no different than owning a dog or cat; even if one prefers to treat the exotic animal as a pet.  

Personal property is protected by the Constitution of the state as well as the nation; yet, many do not recognize this, even many exotic animal owners.  Until animals are stripped of the label "personal property" and are granted personhood or some type of similar legal status, animals will always be property if they are legally and adequately acquired.  No matter what law or regulation the government passes, it cannot remove the rights animal owners have in how they choose to enjoy the use of their property.  Hence, laws dictating mandates against using exotic animals as pets or needing licensure due to a perceived "danger" when there is none, are, in my opinion, unconstitutional and baseless.  

The act of assuming title over the personal property of another individual is referred to as the legal construct of "conversion" and it's illegal.  In New York state, another legal concept, "bailment", is also appropriate for use in the unlawful attainment of exotic animals from their true owner.  Other states have similar statutes such as Texas.  In fact, in Texas, it is also called  "conversion".  Both exemplary and compensatory damages may be indicated in cases involving conversion especially if there is sufficient evidence to support a cause of action for fraud.  Many times, when animals are involved, both concepts go hand in hand.  

It isn't clear as to what property can be considered promised to another by a simple change in its possession.   However, animals aren't property which changes title simply depending on who possesses it at any given moment.  

Exotic animal owners need to support their private interests in the animals they both possess but don't own outright and those which they do.  By failing to assert the rights to the enjoyment of their own personal property or other animal owners' rights and liberties to do so gives the regulatory structure already in place and meant to protect the public a weak foundation.   By doing so, it ensures the opportunity government players, such as the Special Licenses Unit staff in the NYSDEC, will gain in usurping our four-legged and feathered companions which inspire the exotic animal industry as much as they do.  By losing such inspiration, sometimes forever, causes a degradation in the quality of life this state "allows" the public who have interests that differ from those of common sources.   Owners and caregivers simply cannot allow this to happen.

Written by Carrie Leo - exotic animal owner and caregiver.

No comments: