>From:    "Capt. Nodrog" <[log in to unmask]>
>>The Board of Health is holding to its original story that the law of
>>banning animals that are "wild, ferocious, fierce, dangerous or naturally
>>inclined to do harm" was always in place, it's just that in June they
>>decided to specify the animals they felt fell under this generalization.
>
>THe above paragraph is directly cut/paste from Joe's FML post.  Ok, Unless
>the "wild, ferocious... bloo blah...." animals are specifically mentioned
>in the text of the written and voted on law, then there is not any
>definition that is viable.  In fact, a bear could fall well outside of
>that law where it fails, at least from what Joe posted, to qualify any
>definition of those terms, and it also fails to specifically define any
>particular animal by genus or latin name or further define by Geneological
>strain.  Therefor, the law is fully subject to any amount or intrepertation
>and litigation...
 
Captain,
 
You better hide those brass monkeys from the health dept!  They're sure to
be considered wild and exotic!  That quote I included in my post was
directly lifted from the article.  They never specified any animal at first
and now they're trying to cover their butts.  I'm really hoping that these
lawsuits will knock some sense into those in office who don't do their
homework.  It's just a shame that people assume so much (about ferrets)
before they make a concerted effort to educate themselves.
 
Chiao!
 
Joe
[Posted in FML issue 2855]