Referred to the House Committee on Natural Resources.
This bill amends the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 regarding captive wildlife. It updates which entities and personnel are covered, requires registration of individual prohibited wildlife animals with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and imposes post‑registration limits (no breeding, acquisition, sales, public contact, or exhibition).
Progressives emphasize conservation and opposes species exclusion
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive amendment to the Lacey Act that includes concrete mechanisms (registration, enumerated post-registration prohibitions, export/import exceptions, and a cancellation application process) and integrates those changes into existing statutory text, but it lacks explicit problem statement, funding/resourcing provisions, procedural timelines, and comprehensive accountability and enforcement features.
This bill amends the Lacey Act Amendments of 1981 regarding captive wildlife.
It updates which entities and personnel are covered, requires registration of individual prohibited wildlife animals with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and imposes post‑registration limits (no breeding, acquisition, sales, public contact, or exhibition).
It adds an export/import allowance for compliant facilities dealing with lawful foreign entities and creates a process to cancel mistaken registrations.
Technically narrow and administratively feasible, but faces predictable opposition from environmental advocates and possible interagency implementation questions.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive amendment to the Lacey Act that includes concrete mechanisms (registration, enumerated post-registration prohibitions, export/import exceptions, and a cancellation application process) and integrates those changes into existing statutory text, but it lacks explicit problem statement, funding/resourcing provisions, procedural timelines, and comprehensive accountability and enforcement features.
Progressives emphasize conservation and opposes species exclusion
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize conservation and opposes species exclusion
Likely skeptical overall.
Support for registration and public‑contact limits, but concerned that removing snow and clouded leopards from prohibited status weakens protections and may enable private ownership or trade.
Mixed but cautiously receptive.
Praises clearer rules for zoos and registration but worries about enforcement costs and unintended conservation impacts from species exclusions.
Generally favorable.
Sees the bill as protecting local zoos, clarifying regulated possession, and reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers, especially by excluding two species from the prohibited list.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Technically narrow and administratively feasible, but faces predictable opposition from environmental advocates and possible interagency implementation questions.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize conservation and opposes species exclusion
Technically narrow and administratively feasible, but faces predictable opposition from environmental advocates and possible interagency im…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a substantive amendment to the Lacey Act that includes concrete mechanisms (registration, enumerated post-registration prohibitions, export/import exceptions, and…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.