Louisiana House Bill HB854

Louisiana 2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/2/24
• Refer: 4/3/24
• Report Pass: 4/4/24
• Engrossed: 4/15/24
• Refer: 4/16/24
• Report Pass: 5/15/24
• Enrolled: 5/30/24
• Chaptered: 6/19/24
• Passed: 6/19/24

Caption

Provides for exemption to wildlife rehabilitation program rules

Impact

One of the most notable aspects of HB 854 is the strict liability clause, whereby individuals in possession of these animals are held responsible for any damages or injuries caused by them. This provision underscores the importance of encouraging responsible wildlife rehabilitation while ensuring that public safety is not compromised. With the proper training requirements established, individuals are also expected to gain awareness of wildlife care and the risks associated with holding these animals, minimizing the potential for negative interactions between humans and wildlife.

Summary

House Bill 854 introduces significant changes to wildlife management practices in Louisiana by allowing individuals to temporarily care for certain sick, injured, or orphaned wildlife, specifically squirrels, opossums, rabbits, and chipmunks, for up to ninety days. The bill establishes a framework whereby individuals can possess these animals under specific conditions, including the completion of wildlife rescuer training and the acquisition of a Special Purpose and Possession permit from the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries. This exemption is positioned to facilitate wildlife rehabilitation efforts while maintaining certain regulatory controls.

Sentiment

The reaction to HB 854 appears to be generally favorable among proponents of wildlife rehabilitation and animal welfare, as it provides a structured opportunity for individuals to assist injured wildlife. However, concerns may arise regarding the implications of strict liability and whether individuals are adequately prepared to handle these creatures, highlighting a dichotomy between wildlife preservation and public safety.

Contention

A point of contention surrounding the bill may involve its implications for local regulations on wildlife possession and rehabilitation. By allowing individuals to possess these animals under state guidelines, there may be instances where local ordinances regarding animal welfare are overridden. This can lead to debates around the balance of state authority versus local control in wildlife management, prompting discussions about the adequacy of training and oversight in ensuring humane treatment and care of wildlife.