HB8480, the Protect our Pets Act, would amend federal criminal law to increase penalties for animal crushing under 18 U.S.C. section 48. For a first offense, the bill would raise the maximum penalty to 10 years in prison, and for a second or subsequent offense, to 15 years. The bill is framed as a tougher federal response to severe animal abuse involving crushing conduct.
The bill also creates a new federal offense for knowingly abandoning a domesticated animal or committing an act of violence that endangers a domesticated animal when the conduct occurs in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, or on federal land. This new section would carry the same penalty structure as the animal-crushing provision: up to 10 years for a first offense and up to 15 years for repeat offenses. The bill defines domesticated animal broadly to include living non-human mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians kept for pleasure or commercial purposes.
The proposal includes several explicit exceptions, making clear that it would not apply to ordinary veterinary care, agricultural husbandry, animal management practices, slaughter for food, hunting, trapping, fishing, other lawful sporting activity, predator or pest control, medical or scientific research, conduct necessary to protect human life or property, or euthanasia. These carveouts indicate an effort to target intentional cruelty while avoiding interference with common animal-use practices.
If enacted, the bill would expand federal criminal law by adding a new section to title 18 and by strengthening penalties under the existing animal-crushing statute. It would affect people who abuse, abandon, or violently endanger domesticated animals, especially where federal jurisdiction exists through interstate commerce or federal land. Because the bill was only referred to the House Judiciary Committee and no votes or hearings are provided, there is no recorded legislative outcome beyond introduction.
The available context suggests a generally supportive framing, with bipartisan sponsorship from Representatives Gottheimer and Lawler. At the same time, the bill’s broad definition of domesticated animal and its federal reach could raise questions about scope and enforcement, though the listed exceptions appear designed to limit controversy. No formal committee debate or recorded vote is available, so there is no documented opposition in the provided materials.
HB8480 would amend title 18 of the U.S. Code by increasing penalties for animal crushing and by adding a new federal offense for abandonment or endangerment of domesticated animals on federal land or in interstate/foreign commerce. It would create a new section 48A in chapter 3 of title 18 and update the section table accordingly, expanding federal criminal enforcement against severe animal cruelty while preserving exceptions for agriculture, hunting, research, veterinary care, euthanasia, and other lawful activities.
The bill appears to have a generally favorable and protective tone, reflected in its title, bipartisan introduction, and focus on stronger penalties for animal cruelty. No committee transcript or vote record is available, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment beyond the introduction itself. Based on the text, the measure is presented as a targeted animal-welfare bill rather than a broader regulatory proposal.
The main potential points of contention are the bill’s expansion of federal criminal jurisdiction and the breadth of the new offense covering abandonment or endangerment of domesticated animals. Stakeholders in agriculture, hunting, fishing, veterinary medicine, research, and animal management would likely focus on the exceptions section to ensure ordinary practices are not swept into the new penalties. Supporters would likely emphasize stronger deterrence for cruelty and abandonment, while any critics would probably question federal overreach, definitional scope, or enforcement standards.