Appellant Peter Renzo contends that the district court erred in
declaring that his facility, which houses and exhibits several large
wildcats, was not a public zoo and thus exempted from the permit
requirements. He also asserts that the Code's definition of public zoo,
insofar as it requires AZA accreditation, fails to pass a rational basis
review. We review the district court's legal determinations de novo but
give deference to the district court's factual determinations. Edelstein v.
Bank of New York Mellon, 128 Nev. „ 286 P.3d 249, 260 (2012);
County of Clark v. Upchurch, 114 Nev. 749, 961 P.2d 754 (1998) (applying
both standards of review in a declaratory relief action).
The district court found that, while Renzo holds a USDA class
C exhibitor's license,' his facility did not meet the definition of public zoo
because his tigers are "only a 'token collection," not an exhibit of a
permanent cultural institution. The record indicates that Renzo resided
at several different locations and owned various exotic animals throughout
the ten years preceding the district court action; at the pertinent time, he
had six tigers and a leopard. Nothing in the record explains what the
primary purpose of Renzo's business is or demonstrates that Renzo
exhibits the animals to the public on a regularly scheduled basis, although
he now asserts that he meets these factors. Further, Renzo admittedly is
not accredited by the AZA. Therefore, Renzo failed to demonstrate that he
'Under 9 C.F.R. § 1.1, a class C license is for exhibitors who are in
the business of showing or displaying animals to the public for
compensation. The term "exhibitor" covers a wide variety of activities,
including "carnivals, circuses, animal acts, zoos, and educational exhibits."
9 C.F.R. § 1.1.
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
2
(0) 194Th e
falls under the public zoo exemption, and the district court's finding is
supported by substantial evidence.
As for the latter factor, Renzo argues that the AZA
accreditation requirement for exemption is arbitrary and capricious in
that there is no rational reason for it. In order to withstand scrutiny
under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the
United States Constitution, the Code provisions must bear a rational
relationship to a legitimate governmental interest. See Wilkins v. Daniels,
913 F. Supp. 2d 517, 536 (S.D. Ohio 2012) (concluding that exotic animal
ownership implicates a limited property interest such that no fundamental
constitutional right is at stake and a rational basis review applies), aff'd,
744 F.3d 409 (6th Cir. 2014). Certainly, the Code itself meets this
standard as a law designed "to protect the health and safety of the public
and to promote the welfare of these animals." Lyon Cnty. Code § 7.07.01.
See Wilkins, 913 F. Supp. 2d at 538.
Moreover, the Code does not require accreditation by the AZA;
instead, it exempts from its permit requirements public zoos that are
accredited by the AZA. The exemption provision neither interferes with
any right to own exotic animals nor lacks a rational basis—it is not
unreasonable for Lyon County to conclude that a facility meeting AZA
accreditation requirements need not also meet the Lyon County
requirements. See generally Wilkins, 913 F. Supp. 2d at 534 (explaining
that, for freedom of association purposes, the government does not compel
the owner of regulated animals into qualifying for a wild animal act
exemption through accreditation merely by providing exemptions for
accredited owners). As a result, even if Renzo otherwise met the Code's
definition of public zoo, he cannot overcome the AZA accreditation
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
3
(0) I947A
requirement. And although Renzo suggests that his alleged "USZA"
accreditation should be accepted in lieu of AZA accreditation, nothing in
the record indicates that he made this argument before the district court
below, or before Lyon County officials in contesting his citation. See Old
Aztec Mine, Inc. v. Brown, 97 Nev. 49, 52, 623 P.2d 981, 983 (1981) (noting
that this court does not consider arguments raised for the first time on
appeal). For these reasons, we
ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.
J.
J.
Gibbons
cc: Hon. John Schlegelmilch, District Judge
Peter Renzo
Lyon County District Attorney
Third District Court Clerk
SUPREME COURT
OF
NEVADA
4
(0) 1947A ea.