Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB124

Wisconsin 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/24/23
• Refer: 3/24/23
• Report Pass: 10/5/23
• Refer: 10/5/23
• Engrossed: 1/25/24
• Refer: 1/26/24
• Failed: 4/15/24

Caption

The definition of public zoos and aquariums for purposes of captive wildlife regulations. (FE)

Impact

The amendment proposed in AB124 represents a significant modification to how public zoos and aquariums are recognized in relation to wildlife laws. By expanding the range of organizations that can be considered public zoos or aquariums, the bill may enhance compliance flexibility for these facilities. This change could facilitate operations for these accredited entities by allowing them to avoid certain licensing requirements thereby reducing regulatory burdens on smaller or less financially stable zoos and aquariums that are members of the Zoological Association of America.

Summary

Assembly Bill 124 seeks to amend the definition of 'public zoos and aquariums' under Wisconsin state law, specifically focusing on captive wildlife regulations. The existing law currently permits exemptions from license requirements for facilities identified as public zoos or aquariums. These facilities must either be state-operated or run by local government entities or be accredited by the American Zoo and Aquarium Association. The proposed legislation broadens this exemption to include accredited members of the Zoological Association of America, potentially impacting numerous facilities that qualify under this new definition.

Contention

While the formal discussions around AB124 are not explicitly documented, the expansion of the definition could lead to potential contention regarding wildlife management and regulation. Critics may argue that including additional accrediting bodies could weaken overall standards or oversight related to wildlife care and conservation. Furthermore, stakeholders within state and local governments may have differing views on the implications of reducing licensing requirements, highlighting a divide between those advocating for regulatory easing in favor of business operations and those prioritizing robust wildlife conservation measures.