OGSR/Site-specific Location Information for Endangered and Threatened Species:
HB 7001 amends Florida Statutes section 379.1026, which creates a public records exemption for site-specific location information held by an agency about endangered species, threatened species, and species listed by a federal agency as endangered or threatened. The bill does not change the substance of the exemption itself; instead, it removes the scheduled repeal date that would otherwise cause the exemption to expire under the Open Government Sunset Review Act.
As a result, the bill makes the exemption permanent unless later changed by the Legislature. The exemption continues not to apply to site-specific location information for animals held in captivity. The act is set to take effect October 1, 2025.
The bill preserves and extends an existing public records exemption in Florida law by eliminating the October 2, 2025 repeal date in section 379.1026, Florida Statutes. This means agencies may continue to withhold sensitive location data for endangered and threatened species from public disclosure under chapter 119 and article I, section 24 of the Florida Constitution. The practical effect is to maintain confidentiality protections for wildlife location information to reduce risks such as poaching, harassment, or habitat disturbance, while leaving intact the exception for animals in captivity.
The available legislative history suggests the bill was noncontroversial and moved as part of the routine Open Government Sunset Review process. There are no recorded committee transcripts or votes indicating opposition, and the bill’s companion measure passed, with HB 7001 ultimately laid on the table after the companion bill became law. Overall, the sentiment appears supportive of continuing the exemption to protect sensitive species data.
No specific points of contention are reflected in the provided record. In general, bills of this type can raise tension between public access advocates and wildlife conservation interests, because they limit disclosure of government-held information. Here, however, the context shows no documented debate or split vote, suggesting any concerns about transparency versus species protection were either minimal or resolved in favor of preserving confidentiality.