Prohibits the participation of certain animals in traveling animal acts; prohibits the department of environmental conservation from issuing permits or licenses allowing participation of certain animals in traveling animal acts; excludes certain permanent performing institutions; imposes a civil penalty not to exceed $1000 for a violation.
This bill would prohibit the use of certain animals in traveling animal acts in New York. The ban applies to “covered animals,” defined as felidae other than domestic cats, kangaroos, non-human primates, bears, and wallabies, when they are transported between locations in mobile or traveling housing facilities for performances. The bill also bars the Department of Environmental Conservation from issuing permits or licenses that would authorize such use, including exhibition, education, or endangered/threatened species permits.
The measure exempts performances held at non-mobile, permanent institutions or other fixed facilities, so it does not ban animal performances generally. It defines traveling animal acts broadly to include exhibitions, circuses, fairs, animal acts, petting zoos, carnivals, parades, races, rides, and similar public displays where the covered animals are made to perform or entertain audiences. A violation would carry a civil penalty of up to $1,000, and the act would take effect on December 31, 2026.
If enacted, the bill would amend the Environmental Conservation Law by adding a new section restricting the transport and exhibition of specified wild animals in traveling shows and limiting DEC permitting authority. It would directly affect circus operators, traveling exhibitors, animal trainers, and other mobile entertainment businesses that use the listed species, while preserving performances at fixed, permanent venues. The bill would also create a new civil enforcement mechanism through a monetary penalty for violations.
The bill appears to have broad legislative support, advancing through committee with favorable votes and ultimately passing both chambers by clear margins. The vote history suggests a generally positive sentiment toward restricting traveling animal acts, consistent with animal welfare concerns. At the same time, the presence of substantial minority opposition in the Assembly indicates that the measure was not unanimous and likely drew some skepticism about its scope or regulatory impact.
The main points of contention are likely the bill’s restrictions on animal entertainment businesses and the breadth of the animals and activities covered. Opponents may view the measure as an economic burden on circuses, exhibitors, and related industries, or argue that existing welfare rules are sufficient. Supporters, by contrast, appear focused on animal welfare and the perceived harms of transporting and using wild animals in mobile performances. The exemption for permanent facilities suggests an effort to distinguish between traveling acts and fixed institutions, which may have been a compromise point.