Includes wildlife animals as those subject to the animal cruelty provisions of the agriculture and markets law.
This bill amends New York’s aggravated cruelty to animals law to expressly include certain wildlife, in addition to companion animals, as protected under the statute. It would make it a crime to intentionally kill or intentionally cause serious physical injury to wildlife, other than insects, when done with aggravated cruelty. The bill defines aggravated cruelty as conduct intended to cause extreme physical pain or carried out in an especially depraved or sadistic manner.
The measure also clarifies that the new prohibition does not interfere with lawful hunting, trapping, fishing, taking wildlife under the Environmental Conservation Law, sound agricultural practices, pest management conducted in compliance with applicable laws, the dispatch of rabid or diseased animals, the dispatch of animals posing a threat to safety, or properly conducted scientific testing and research involving animals. The bill would take effect 90 days after becoming law.
If enacted, the bill would expand section 353-a of the Agriculture and Markets Law by extending aggravated animal cruelty protections beyond companion animals to include wildlife, while preserving existing exemptions for hunting, trapping, fishing, agriculture, pest control, public health actions, and approved research. This would broaden potential criminal liability for intentional, sadistic harm to wildlife and could affect animal cruelty prosecutions, law enforcement, hunters, farmers, pest control operators, and research institutions by clarifying where the statute applies and where it does not.
The available legislative history suggests generally favorable sentiment toward the bill. In the Assembly Agriculture Committee, it received a unanimous favorable vote of 23-0 and was referred to the Codes Committee, indicating broad support at the committee level. No opposing testimony or recorded debate is provided in the materials, so the overall tone appears supportive and noncontroversial in the available record.
The main points of potential contention are the scope of the new cruelty protections and the need to preserve lawful uses of wildlife. Supporters appear to favor extending animal cruelty law to cover wildlife harmed in especially cruel ways, while the bill’s detailed exemptions suggest an effort to reassure hunters, farmers, pest managers, public health officials, and researchers that ordinary lawful activities would not be affected. Any debate would likely center on how broadly “wildlife” is covered, how “aggravated cruelty” is applied, and whether the exemptions are sufficiently clear.