AB238 Exotic Animal Ban
Oppose AB238 Animal Bans!
We desperately need people to show up for this hearing to show the committee that there is wide-spread opposition to this unnecessary and wasteful legislation.
Hearing: March 23, Thursday 1:30 pm in
of the Legislative Building,
401 S. Carson St., Carson City, NV
Video conferenced to Room 4406 of the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, 555 E. Washington Ave. Las Vegas.
Watch online: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Vote NO on AB238. When it comes to public policy surrounding the possession of wildlife, there are 3 main responsibilities to consider; public safety, animal welfare; and invasive species risk. All of these are thoroughly covered under current NRS, NAC, and local ordinances. So there is no reason for this bill.
The reason this bill is even here is clear and evident if you understand the agenda of the animal rights movement. AB238 is part of the massive, nationwide campaign by extremist animal rights organizations such as PETA, the Humane Society of the United States, and Animal Legal Defense fund to end all animal use including food animals and even domestic pets! Basically, these animal rights groups are the Bloomberg’s of the animal industry. They attack the easy targets first, in this case non-domestic animals, to get their foot in the door, then they keep coming back to take more and more. They are extremely well funded by kind hearted citizens, to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollar per year, and they use that money to destroy animal culture through legislation. While they have spent tens of thousands of dollars in Nevada on lobbyists and activists, they have not spent one penny to help any animals in Nevada.
Please contact Natural Resource committee members: Heidi.Swank@asm.state.nv.us, Lesley.Cohen@asm.state.nv.us, Chris.Brooks@asm.state.nv.us, Maggie.Carlton@asm.state.nv.us, Sandra.Jauregui@asm.state.nv.us, Justin.Watkins@asm.state.nv.us, Steve.Yeager@asm.state.nv.us, John.Ellison@asm.state.nv.us, Lisa.Krasner@asm.state.nv.us, Robin.Titus@asm.state.nv.us, Jim.Wheeler@asm.state.nv.us
Nevada Legislative Hotline connects to all offices:
800-995-9080, Las Vegas 702-486-2626, Reno/Carson 775-684-6800
Share your opinion with Legislators:
Nevada stakeholders and legitimate animal welfare advocates OPPOSE AB238!
- AB238 is a one-size-fits-all “solution” that won’t work to a problem that simply does not even exist.
- There is no justification for such extreme measures:
- In the past 11 years in Nevada, there have been 11 human deaths by animals in Nevada. 7 of these were by dogs and 4 by horses, with 0 (none) by any exotic/wild animal. In fact, there has only been one human death in Nevada over the previous 25 years by any of the animals designated in this bill, and that was an occupational hazard, a voluntarily, accepted risk by the trainer of a tiger. There was no risk to the public. Why are there no regulations proposed to ban dogs or horses as they have been the primary causes of animal related human deaths in this state?
- NRS 202.500 establishes guidelines for the designation of “dangerous” dogs. It is justly based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty. AB238 completely disregards these guidelines by declaring all exotic animals “dangerous,” even when they have shown no “dangerous” predisposition, nor interactions with the public.
- Many animals listed as “dangerous wild animals” are already prohibited in Nevada under NAC 503. AB238 takes a great deal of flexibility and authority away from NDOW staff and the Governor-appointed Wildlife Commission, who are the subject matter experts. The organization promoting this bill should present it to the Wildlife Commission who can use their, and NDOW’s, expertise to judge the merits of it. This does not belong in NRS, nor should it be decided by legislators with limited or no expertise pertaining to these animals.
- Each local jurisdiction in Nevada has the authority to, and in most cases already has, create laws pertaining to “dangerous wild animals” and ‘exotic animals’ that apply to their unique communities. 12 of the 17 counties already have laws. The 5 counties that do not have county codes pertaining to this have small populations of 970 – 5794 people (except Humboldt with 16,000), and no known issues with these animals in searchable history.
- Nevada embraces unconventional institutions such as legalized and regulated gambling, prostitution, marijuana use, agriculture, and so on, while still allowing local jurisdictions authority to further regulate as deemed necessary. This demonstrates Nevada’s inspiration to allow citizens to pursue their own happiness while still taking individual responsibility. AB238 is contrary to Nevada’s cherished diversity.
- AB238 is contrary to animal welfare and survivability. All this bill does is punish and criminalize well-meaning, law-abiding citizens. It does not stop criminals from breaking the law. If welfare was truly the concern, then it would allow for reasonable and attainable oversight and regulation to ensure good animal welfare practices. While there are a few exemptions, nearly all zoo, sanctuary, and entertainment animal keepers started as private owners before building into something bigger. Plus, the exemptions do not make any sense. It basically says that a person with a casino contract, who takes a tiger to the downtown strip, is somehow safer than a person who keeps a tiger in a secure enclosure on a 100-acre parcel?! Also, with animal populations in the wild rapidly declining due to deforestation, human encroachment, and poaching, the breeding bans are devastating to already fragile gene pools.
- AB110 in 2013 (https://www.leg.state.nv.us/Session/77th2013/Bills/AB/AB110.pdf) amended NRS 202.500 to not allow regulations against dogs solely based on breed, but does allow for an individual dog to be deemed “dangerous” based on the dogs individual actions and circumstances. AB238 is contrary to this principle by using collective punishment to penalize entire groups of animals and law-abiding animal owners based solely on assumptions with no justification. AB238 is Species Specific Legislation and is unjustifiably discriminatory.
- AB238 will have many unintended consequences. This will prevent some businesses from working in Nevada while bankrupting and inhibiting the growth of existing businesses. Also, sections of this bill (sections 8 -10) are excessively restrictive and punitive such as prohibitions based on citations, not convictions. Another section (14) is blatantly unconstitutional by forcing extensive consequences on a person before they are ever convicted of any wrong-doing.