A brief history on Statue 37-477
Statute 37-477 started out in the Nebraska Unicameral in 1985, as LB558. It appears to have originated from the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, due to vagueness in the then-current statute that they were trying to enforce regarding individuals keeping "wild" animals (either as pets or commercially).
The Commission had already banned the keeping of skunks, due to their high incidence of carrying rabies; but was concerned that they had possibly over-stepped their bounds, and wanted their authority to be properly mandated. There had also been a few incidents of people who had cougars running loose and (one instance) of a cougar having bitten someone, and the Commission wanted to be able to legally deal with those issues. The opinion of the Commission was that all the "large" cats were a danger to the public and the people who owned them.
At the time of the passage of LB558, there were reported to be 491 owners of wild animals in the state with non-commercial permits, 205 commercial permit holders, and 31 who had permits to keep them as pets. There was, however, no one who spoke to the Committee on Constitutional Revision (that did the hearings on LB558) in opposition to the bill. The Game and Parks Commission person who spoke to the committee expressed concern about the safety of the public at large and the individuals who owned the wild animals as pets.
There were several cat species that were specifically listed in the discussions of the bill: cougars, ocelots, and bobcats--all of which are technically classified as "small" cats as far as biologists are concerned. The Introducer's Statement of Intent only refers to "bears and large, carnivorous cats such as tigers and mountain lions" so it appears that...
- the final wording of the bill does not match the original intent of the Senator who introduced it, or
- the purpose of the bill was deliberately misrepresented (like LB25 was in 2007), or
- the wording of the bill was simply botched.
During the committee hearing, the banning of python snakes was briefly discussed, and the individual who was testifying from the Game and Parks Commission said "to us from the standpoint if they're going to be excluded, it might be more logical if they were in city regulations." But there was no explanation or discussion of why the regulation of snakes is most logically a city responsibility, but the regulation of exotic cats is a state responsibility. What's the difference?
Committee on Constitutional Revision and Recreation records:
