On November 27, 2012, the Humane Society of the United States (“HSUS”) filed its Motion to Intervene in Wilkins et al. v. Daniels et al., Case No. 2:12-CV-01010-GC., seeking to have the Ohio Dangerous Wild Animals Act (“DWA”) declared unconstitutional. Normally, a lawsuit involves the plaintiffs (who bring the suit), and the defendants (whom the suit is brought against). Sometimes, an entity who is not party to a lawsuit in progress seeks to become a party. Such a party must file a Motion to Intervene. Generally, to be admitted into the lawsuit, the intervenor must have an interest in the subject matter of the original suit. The Motion to Intervene was granted on December 3, 2012. This case is set to begin trial on Monday, December 10, 2012.
In its Motion to Intervene, HSUS has revealed its true intent with uncharacteristic candor. The message is simple:
- HSUS needs to prevail in Ohio in order to ensure its flow of private donations;
- HSUS plans to bring similar legislation in other states;
- If HSUS loses in Ohio, its ability to impose similar burdensome legislation in other states will be lessened; and
- HSUS spent significant organizational funds to push the DWA through.
(See HSUS Motion to Intervene, excerpts included at the end of this post.)
All members of the reptile community, as well as the exotics community, as well as anyone who is interested in a government that is not empowered to take private property from citizens without compensation and without due process of law, should join together in opposing the DWA in Ohio. HSUS has announced that it is poised to take this legislation to other states. If the State of Ohio upholds legislation that allows the DOA to take exotic pets from its residents without due process, it will set precedent for the taking of dogs, cats, and farm animals.
Please support the plaintiffs in Ohio. If they lose this case, they will need funding to appeal. If they win, they will need funding to address whatever modifications the legislature proposes in its stead. Polly Briton and the Ohio Association of Animal Owners (OAAO) need funding to keep this fight going.
Key Excerpts from HSUS’s Motion to Intervene:
“The Humane Society is funded in part by private donations, and its ability to generate continued donor support depends heavily on the success of its efforts . . . It follows that if the legislative achievements of the Humane Society —like the DWA
Act—are overturned, the organization will lose . . . financial support.”
“This case marks the first constitutional challenge to a state dangerous wild animal law, and many states are currently considering adopting similar laws to address the problem of private possession of dangerous wild animals. The Humane Society is expending resources to support passage of those laws and, therefore, the precedential nature of this lawsuit could have an impact on the organization’s other legislative efforts and future possible litigation concerning those legislative efforts.”
“[A] ruling striking down the [DWA] could have a significant impact on the Humane Society’s pecuniary and reputational interests.”
“[T]he DWA Act provides a concrete and substantial benefit to the Humane Society.”
“The Humane Society undeniably has an interest in upholding the DWA Act because the Humane Society was an active proponent of the legislation, directly participating in policy discussions to develop a legislative framework, analyzing proposed legislative language, and promoting passage of the bill.”
“The Humane Society . . . expended significant resources in order to ensure the law’s passage.”