LB64 seeks to change Nebraska law regarding captive wild life
Nebraska LB64, if passed and signed into law, will change 37-477 from outright banning a very few types of wild animals (namely, wolves, skunks, and members of the families Felidae[cats] and Ursidae[bears]), to requiring permits issued by the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission for the possession of all mammals and reptiles defined in LB 64 to be wild.
It will put owners of ALL wild animals on equal footing under the law, instead of prohibiting ownership of just a few species and leaving owners of entire classes of other animals essentially unregulated at the state level. (For example, 37-477 didn't even mention any non-native reptiles, some of which are becoming increasingly common.)
Nebraska LB64 addresses the issues of animal escapes, requiring timely reporting of an escaped animal to proper authorities.
Nebraska LB 64 for the first time defines an animal sanctuary, opening up the possibility of the creation of those in Nebraska.
Nebraska LB 64 will establish financial responsibility of exotic animal owners for their animals' actions, by requiring owners of captive animals to have liability insurance to cover possible injury/damage done by their animals. It also makes the owner of a captive animal responsible for costs incurred to recapture their animal if it should escape--unless the animal is intentionally released by someone else. In that case, the person who does the release is held responsible for the costs of recapture.
Nebraska LB 64 will require owners of wild animals to post signs on their property warning visiters and emergency first-responders of the presence of the animal(s).
LB 64 Likely to be Amended
In testimony in the public hearing on Nebraska LB64 before the Natural Resources Committee (February 10, 2011), it was stated that Senator Cornett and the Game and Parks Commission would work together to amend LB 64. It's unclear (until the amended version is released) what this bill will actually do.
The Nebraska Humane Society (NHS) in Omaha was the driving force behind Senator Cornett introducing the bill. From testimony before the Natural Resources Committee, it's clear that NHS wants to simply ban numerous exotic species--not simply "regulate" them. So it's unclear what the final bill will actually be like.
I testified in favor of LB64 in its public hearing, but that was in its as-proposed wording. My testimony also assumed that the "regulations" Game and Parks would end up doing would be well-reasoned, open to public input, and not simply a rubber-stamp massive species-banning machine. We need to watch this bill and see what it turns into before we decide to support it further--or oppose it.
