Sedona council adopts ordinance regulating public displays of wild and exotic animals; small educators warn of unintended limits

The Sedona City Council approved an ordinance amending Sedona City Code Title 6 to adopt a new chapter on wild or exotic animal displays and performances, following extended public comment from volunteer educators and small-business operators and a split among council members over the measure.

The ordinance creates a broad prohibition on public displays of “wild or exotic” animals, with exceptions for shows on private property when the property owner consents and for displays by people who hold specified licenses; displays on public property must meet training, licensing and insurance requirements. Council members said the measure is aimed at protecting animal welfare and public safety; public speakers urged careful rewriting so small educators and individuals who occasionally show animals would not be blocked by the new rules.

Volunteer handlers and curators who present reptiles and other animals in Uptown Sedona told the council their work is educational and largely safe. “We teach people about nature. We teach them about wildlife,” said Seth Byerly, identifying himself as a curator of Animal Haven, which has run a reptile exhibit for more than two years. Derek Hill, a Sedona resident who volunteers at the Uptown exhibit, told the council the outreach has had strong positive effects on children and on volunteers: “It has changed my view… It helped me build a better life and world around me,” Hill said.

Other public commenters warned the ordinance’s licensing and insurance language could prevent legitimate educational programs from operating. Mike McAllister, owner of Radical Reptile Fund and speaking for the Arizona United Animal Care and Business Coalition, said the draft ordinance appeared to require a type of licence that does not exist for many common educational species: “USDA licenses only apply to mammals and birds, not reptiles,” McAllister said, adding that Arizona Game and Fish does not license many nonnative reptiles used in education. He urged the council to delay or rewrite the language so the city targets unsafe operators without “crushing legitimate beneficial programs.”

A member of the public, Alan Abohaj, said the draft could also sweep in casual, noncommercial activity: he described walking a 35‑year‑old pet parrot in public and said the ordinance as written would force owners into impossible licensing and insurance requirements. “Can you imagine if we walked up to either one of those agencies and asked for a license? They’d laugh at us and send us on our way,” he said, referring to state and federal agencies.

City staff and legal advisors told the council the ordinance includes an exception for private property displays with the owner’s permission and requires a license for public displays; staff said the city intends Arizona Game and Fish’s wildlife‑holding license as the practical qualification for most handlers. Kurt Harris, identified in the meeting as the city’s public works director and city engineer, told councilors the wildlife‑holding license is a two‑page application available from Arizona Game and Fish and is valid for three years. “Those are available from the Arizona Game and Fish… they’re a two page application and it’s good for three years,” Harris said.

Assistant City Attorney Monique Cody pointed the council to Arizona Game and Fish regulations (R12‑4‑401) that address exhibits of live wildlife; staff said the ordinance was modeled to reflect that regulatory framework. The ordinance also includes a public‑property insurance requirement; several commenters and a councilor questioned whether general commercial insurers will offer riders that specifically cover public animal displays.

Council members debated the scope and enforceability of the measure. Some said they supported the ordinance’s animal‑welfare intent but found the text overbroad and said it needed refinement so it would not unintentionally ban private displays or small educational operations. Others said the city should require at least minimal training or licensure before permits for public displays are allowed. City Manager Annette (first name used by staff during the meeting) told councilors the city already permits other temporary uses—such as buskers—in Uptown and could do similar permitting for animal displays on public property.

Chief Foley of the Sedona Police Department described how enforcement would be handled in practice and said officers and code enforcers generally begin with warnings and escalate only if necessary. “We do start off with a warning… we typically go to a written warning, and then on the third time it can result in a citation,” Foley said, describing the department’s standard approach to animal complaints.

After discussion, the council moved to adopt the ordinance. Council votes were not read aloud with a full roll‑call tally in the transcript; the motion to adopt was approved by the council with one dissent recorded.

What happens next: The new chapter adds licensing and insurance conditions for public displays and preserves an exception for private property with owner permission. Councilors said staff will monitor enforcement and return to the council if practical problems arise or if amendments are needed.

Public comment and council deliberations at the meeting made clear the ordinance’s main effect will be to require training, licensure and insurance for displays that seek to operate on city property; the council’s recorded action leaves room for staff to refine procedures, and several speakers urged the city to work with local educators and small businesses to rewrite specific language before enforcement begins.

The transcript shows detailed public testimony, staff legal references and a council vote approving the ordinance; staff told the council they will proceed with implementation and will field follow‑up questions about licensing categories, insurance coverage and enforcement thresholds.