The legal concept of emotional support animals is grounded in disability rights and the principle of reasonable accommodation. While federal and state laws may, in limited circumstances, allow individuals with qualifying mental or emotional disabilities to keep animals that would otherwise be restricted, those rights are not unlimited. Recent events in Nevada have brought those limits into sharp focus.
Earlier this month, Karl Mitchell, a 71-year-old resident of Pahrump, Nevada, was arrested on charges including resisting arrest and unlawful possession of a firearm by a felon. The arrest occurred after law enforcement officers entered his property to confiscate seven Bengal tigers that Mitchell claimed were emotional support animals.
Authorities did not move against Mitchell because tiger ownership is categorically illegal in Nevada. Instead, officials alleged that Mitchell failed to maintain the permits required by Clark County ordinances for keeping exotic or wild animals. Under county regulations, tigers are explicitly classified as regulated wildlife, along with numerous other species such as monkeys, wolves, kangaroos, giraffes, and large or venomous reptiles. Ownership without proper authorization is prohibited.
According to reports, Mitchell previously held permits and claimed to have operated a tiger rescue organization. However, the sheriff’s office stated that while officials had been aware of the presence of large cats on the property for years, Mitchell had been out of compliance with permit requirements for approximately two years. When officers attempted to seize the animals, Mitchell allegedly refused to provide access to the cages, leading to his arrest.
Mitchell later told the New York Times that he is a military veteran with post-traumatic stress disorder and asserted that a Department of Veterans Affairs physician had approved the tigers as emotional support animals. He reportedly provided a letter that appeared to support the claim, though neither the VA nor law enforcement had verified its authenticity at the time of reporting.
Legal experts note that even if a medical provider supports the use of an emotional support animal, the law requires accommodations to be reasonable. Courts and regulators consistently balance individual rights against public safety, zoning laws, and animal welfare concerns. The idea that a person could reasonably require multiple adult tigers as emotional support animals is widely viewed as implausible, particularly given the inherent risks associated with large predatory wildlife.
The case also drew public attention after Mitchell claimed that several of his tigers originated from Joe Exotic, the former zoo operator featured in the Netflix series Tiger King. Exotic publicly denied the claim, though the source of the animals is not legally central to the case.
Mitchell was released the same day as his arrest, and the investigation remains ongoing. His case underscores a broader legal reality: while emotional support animal laws serve an important purpose, they do not override permitting requirements or eliminate legitimate safety concerns. As courts have repeatedly held, the right to accommodation does not equate to a right without limits—particularly when exotic animals are involved.