AN ACT TO CREATE NEW SECTION 49-11-22, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO PROVIDE THAT IT SHALL BE UNLAWFUL TO KNOWINGLY ENTER A SHOOTING PRESERVE OR COMMERCIAL WILDLIFE ENCLOSURE AND KILLING, MAIMING, WOUNDING OR CAPTURING EXOTIC LIVESTOCK; TO PRESCRIBE PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS; TO AMEND SECTIONS 49-11-1 AND 49-7-1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, TO DEFINE THE TERMS "EXOTIC LIVESTOCK" AND "COMMERCIAL WILDLIFE ENCLOSURE"; TO AMEND SECTIONS 49-7-101, 49-7-141 AND 97-17-85, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, IN CONFORMITY TO THE PRECEDING PROVISIONS; TO BRING FORWARD SECTION 97-17-87 AND 69-29-1, MISSISSIPPI CODE OF 1972, FOR PURPOSES OF POSSIBLE AMENDMENT; AND FOR RELATED PURPOSES.
House Bill 1629 creates a new offense for knowingly entering a shooting preserve or commercial wildlife enclosure without permission or accompaniment and then killing, maiming, wounding, or capturing exotic livestock inside the enclosure. The bill defines both “commercial wildlife enclosure” and “exotic livestock,” with the latter covering certain non-native hoofed mammals and related captive animals raised for meat, sport, or exhibition. It also amends related wildlife statutes to align penalties and definitions with the new offense.
The bill establishes a layered penalty structure. A violator would be treated as committing willful or malicious trespass, subject to the existing trespass penalty of up to a $500 fine, up to six months in jail, or both. If the trespass also results in harm to exotic livestock, the offender would be guilty of a Class I wildlife violation, triggering a much higher fine, a short jail term, and a mandatory loss of hunting, trapping, and fishing privileges for at least 12 months. The bill also requires restitution to the enclosure operator or owner for the replacement value of the animal and related costs, and makes the offender civilly liable for damage to enclosure structures.
In addition to creating the new section, the bill amends Mississippi’s wildlife code to insert the new definitions into the chapter governing wildlife, fisheries, and parks. It also revises the general wildlife penalty provisions so that unlawful entry into a preserve or enclosure involving exotic livestock is expressly covered, and it cross-references the new section in the state’s trespass statute. The bill brings forward, without substantive change, existing provisions on malicious trespass and the Agricultural and Livestock Theft Bureau.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill text and caption is protective of commercial wildlife enclosures and supportive of stronger enforcement against poaching or trespass involving exotic animals. No committee transcript or vote record is provided, so there is no recorded debate to indicate broader support or opposition. Based on the structure of the bill, the measure appears aimed at deterring intentional intrusions and ensuring owners can recover losses when animals are harmed.
The main point of contention likely concerns the balance between property rights and wildlife-related enforcement on one hand, and the treatment of exotic animals as livestock on the other. Potential concerns could include the breadth of the definition of “exotic livestock,” the severity of cumulative penalties, and whether the bill creates special protections for private hunting or wildlife operations beyond ordinary trespass law. However, no specific objections or amendments are documented in the materials provided.
The bill would add a new section to Mississippi’s wildlife code and amend several existing statutes to create a specific offense for unlawful entry into shooting preserves or commercial wildlife enclosures involving harm to exotic livestock. It would also revise penalty provisions in the wildlife code and trespass law to incorporate the new offense, while establishing restitution and civil liability for damage to enclosures and losses to operators. Affected parties include preserve and enclosure operators, landowners, law enforcement, and individuals who unlawfully enter such facilities; the Department of Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks would also be affected through the updated definitions and penalty framework.
The bill’s framing is strongly protective of commercial wildlife enclosures and appears intended to deter trespass and animal harm through enhanced criminal, civil, and restitution remedies. Because no committee discussion or vote history is available, there is no documented public debate in the provided materials. The available text suggests a generally punitive and enforcement-oriented approach, with no visible signs of compromise language or expressed opposition in the record provided.
The likely areas of contention are the bill’s expanded protection for privately operated wildlife enclosures, the classification of exotic animals as livestock for penalty purposes, and the stacking of trespass, wildlife, restitution, and civil-liability consequences for a single incident. Critics could argue that the bill creates unusually strong protections for private hunting or wildlife operations, while supporters would likely emphasize property rights, animal welfare, and deterrence of poaching or vandalism. No specific stakeholder objections, amendments, or recorded votes are included in the materials.