Revises provisions relating to animals. (BDR 50-168)
Summary
AB 136 amends Nevada animal welfare law to require certain commercial establishments that sell access to live animals for public interaction to post a conspicuous sign at the point of payment. The sign must inform the public that if they believe an animal is in danger or has been subjected to cruelty, they may contact the local animal control authority, and it must include that authority’s telephone number. The required notice must be at least 8.5 by 11 inches and use bold type.
The bill also creates an administrative penalty for noncompliance: an owner or operator who fails to post the sign must pay $100 for each day the sign is not displayed. The requirement does not apply to accredited institutional members of the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, or its successor. The bill fits within existing Nevada cruelty-reporting law by adding a public notice obligation in settings where people pay to interact with live animals.
Impact
AB 136 changes Nevada Revised Statutes 574.053 by adding a new posting requirement for certain animal-interaction businesses and by defining “animal control authority” for purposes of the notice. It does not change the underlying cruelty offense, but it expands public awareness and reporting access by directing customers to local enforcement or animal welfare authorities. The bill affects owners and operators of commercial animal-interaction establishments, while exempting accredited zoos, and authorizes daily administrative penalties for violations.
Sentiment
The bill appears to have been broadly supported. It passed the Assembly unanimously, 42-0, and the Senate by a strong margin, 20-1. With no committee transcript available, the voting record suggests general agreement with the bill’s consumer-information and animal-protection purpose, along with limited opposition.
Contention
The main policy issue is the scope of the posting requirement and whether it should apply to all businesses that sell public access to live animals. The bill draws a clear exemption for accredited Association of Zoos and Aquariums members, which may reflect a distinction between regulated zoological institutions and other commercial animal-interaction venues. Any opposition likely centered on regulatory burden, signage compliance, or the fairness of exempting accredited zoos while regulating other operators, but the near-unanimous votes indicate little sustained controversy.