Can a Wild-Animal With a Permit Be Considered a ''Nuisance'' ?
In Fairview Township v. Schaefer, 128 Pa. Commw. 79, 562 A.2d 989 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989), appeal denied, 524 Pa. 633, 574 A.2d 73 (1990), the Court addressed whether a court of equity had power to declare a tiger a nuisance in fact, even though the Pennsylvania Game Commission had authorized a township resident to possess the tiger when it issued an "exotic wildlife possession permit."
In that case, Fairview Township (Township) had instituted an action to enjoin Dennis Schaeffer (Schaeffer), a resident of the Township, from keeping a live tiger in captivity at his residence.
The Township maintained the tiger was a nuisance and a threat to the safety of all persons who lived in the Township.
The trial court ordered Schaeffer to remove the tiger from the Township and Schaeffer appealed.
On appeal, Schaeffer had issued a wild life authorization permit for the tiger.
Schaeffer argued that since his possession of the tiger was lawfully authorized, it could not legally be deemed to be a nuisance.
The Court upheld the injunction despite the lawfulness of Schaeffer's possession of the tiger.