The Sedona City Council held a first reading of an ordinance banning the display of “exotic” animals in public places during its May 27 meeting.
Although council and staff did not mention names during the session — bills of attainder are unconstitutional — Mayor Scott Jablow referred to “that individual person that’s doing this.”
John Robert Duff, 68, pleaded guilty in March to three counts of animal abuse in Yavapai County Superior Court for running an exhibit and busking operation near the mid-block intersection in Uptown.
The proposed language of the ordinance would ban the display of or performances involving wild or exotic animals unless the display were to take place with the permission of the property owner and were conducted by an individual holding a U.S. Department of Agriculture or Arizona Department of Game and Fish permit as a wild life exhibitor.
“Display” is defined as “to exhibit, show, hold or use for photographs with members of the public,” while “wild or exotic animals” are defined as “all mammals, birds and the nests or eggs thereof, reptiles, amphibians, mollusks, crustaceans and fish normally found in a state of nature anywhere in the world, including the offspring from two different wild animal species or genera.”
Sedona Police Department Patrol Cmdr. and Cottonwood City Councilman Chris Dowell told council that the language of the proposed ordinance, which he compared to similar ordinances in Los Angeles and Huntington Beach, Calif., was intended to address public safety and health concerns. Dowell said that the city had “seen an increase in wild exotic animal displays in Uptown,” which he quantified as “a couple of these felony cases. One case led to a felony arrest.”
“There have been incidents where people have been bit by animals,” City Attorney Kurt Christianson said. “The city’s received a notice of claim before.”
Dowell also described the proposed ordinance as being motivated by “ethical issues” and “compassion.”
During the discussion, Dowell offered council a handout listing diseases shared by humans and wild animals and played council a YouTube video of a street hawker feeding a mouse to a snake. “Does council want this type of thing going on up there where it’s in public view?” Dowell asked. He also raised concerns of whether children might be engaged in such encounters without their parents’ consent.
Jablow questioned the inclusion of the provisions allowing permitted display. “What I’m concerned about is, an individual goes and gets that fish and game permit, and still goes to the same location,” Jablow said. “The snake can still bite, the lizard can still bite … it still would be a possible hazard.”
“I’ve been bitten by all sorts of reptiles and I never got sick from it,” Councilman Derek Pfaff said.
“Probably the permit ting process with the city is, give us your COI, we want to see your certificate of insurance for $1 million or whatever it happens to be so that you can get your permit,” Dowell said.
“That would help. Make me feel better, too,” Jablow said. Dowell also noted that if SPD officers were to encounter a situation they felt was “more egregious,” “you could find something else within the [state] statute that works.”
Council and staff repeatedly returned to the point that the ordinance will apply to those who may be recreating with their pets in public regardless of whether they are exhibiting an animal for money.
“We may just have a citizen who’s on vacation who walks with their boa constrictor down the street, right? And we may have that conversation, where we’re like ‘hey, city ordinance says this, so please take your snake back to your hotel room,’” Dowell said. SPD currently plans to issue warnings before citations.
“‘Display’ is awfully broad,” Pfaff said.
“It’s for a live audience,” Dowell said. “We’d really have to show that your parrot on your shoulder, you were stopping and getting some value out of it.”
“If you happened to be walking your — ” Christianson began.
“Emotional support lizard, parrot, whatever?” Pfaff said.
“I have two neighbors that do that,” Jablow said.
“That’s likely not going to result in a warning,” Christianson said. “If you get a live audience, then you’re at risk.”
“PetSmart? What exempts them?” Pfaff asked.
“I can certainly look into that,” Christianson said. “They should probably have a license.”
“Back to somebody walking down the street with some animal on their shoulder, and people going up and wanting to take selfies, and a crowd starts to gather as people wait for their selfies, does that constitute an audience?” Councilwoman Kathy Kinsella asked.
“Yes,” Christianson said. “That would count as a display.”
“If somebody wants to invite somebody into their home and bring some of their reptiles to show to their kids, even if the guy gets paid, I don’t know that we really have any business poking our head into that,” Pfaff said. “My exception would be, doesn’t apply to [what] occurs on private property with permission of the owner.”
“I absolutely agree with that,” Jablow said.
“Would that also apply if a private property, a commercial property, wants to bring in an unlicensed circus?” City Manager Anette Spickard asked.
“I don’t think the city needs to get involved in private displays,” Christianson said. Dowell noted that injuries on private property would be covered by homeowners’ insurance.
“I don’t think any of it should apply. If it’s within somebody’s private home, I don’t think we ought to be regulating it, frankly,” Pfaff said.
No members of the public spoke on the proposed ordinance during the meeting.
The ordinance will require two public readings, with the next expected to take place on Tuesday, June 24.
