Referred to the House Committee on Agriculture.
The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit zoological parks and safari parks from exhibiting, housing, managing, or breeding African and Asian elephants. Zoos and safari parks must stop those activities one year after enactment and transfer existing elephants to authorized nonprofit wildlife sanctuaries within three years.
Left emphasizes animal welfare and international precedent; right emphasizes federal overreach and costs.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that clearly states its purpose and provides basic prohibitions and timelines, but it lacks detailed mechanisms, funding authorizations, enforcement provisions, and comprehensive implementation procedures.
The bill amends the Animal Welfare Act to prohibit zoological parks and safari parks from exhibiting, housing, managing, or breeding African and Asian elephants.
Zoos and safari parks must stop those activities one year after enactment and transfer existing elephants to authorized nonprofit wildlife sanctuaries within three years.
The Secretary of Agriculture must study transfer feasibility within one year, may create grant support for sanctuaries, and produce public education materials.
Technically focused and sympathetic cause, but contains binding mandates with nontrivial costs and industry resistance, reducing odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that clearly states its purpose and provides basic prohibitions and timelines, but it lacks detailed mechanisms, funding authorizations, enforcement provisions, and comprehensive implementation procedures.
Left emphasizes animal welfare and international precedent; right emphasizes federal overreach and costs.
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Left emphasizes animal welfare and international precedent; right emphasizes federal overreach and costs.
Likely broadly supportive because the bill prioritizes elephant welfare and removes animals from inherently constrained captive settings.
Supporters will emphasize scientific findings and international precedent noted in the bill.
Cautiously sympathetic to animal welfare goals but concerned about costs, logistics, and conservation implications.
Will condition support on clear study results, budgeted grants, and operational plans to avoid failures during transfer.
Likely skeptical or opposed due to perceived federal overreach, new costs for zoos and taxpayers, and negative impacts on education, research, and local economies.
May prefer improving welfare standards rather than outright bans.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically focused and sympathetic cause, but contains binding mandates with nontrivial costs and industry resistance, reducing odds.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Left emphasizes animal welfare and international precedent; right emphasizes federal overreach and costs.
Technically focused and sympathetic cause, but contains binding mandates with nontrivial costs and industry resistance, reducing odds.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive policy change that clearly states its purpose and provides basic prohibitions and timelines, but it lacks detailed mechanisms, funding authorizations…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.