Nevada committee backs bill requiring cruelty-reporting sign at live-animal attractions

The Senate Committee on Natural Resources on Wednesday voted to advance Assembly Bill 136, a measure that would require commercial establishments that sell access to live animals that interact with the public to conspicuously post the telephone number of the local animal-control authority and other reporting information.

The bill was introduced in the committee by Assemblymember Venetia Considine, who told the committee AB 136 was requested by a constituent, Gina Grierson of Nevada Voters for Animals. Considine said the requirement is narrow and aimed at businesses that sell access to live, non-domesticated animals for public interaction.

"This bill requires the posting of information on how to contact the local animal control authority in a situation where an animal ... has been subjected to an act of animal cruelty," Considine said. The draft language in the hearing would require a sign at the payment location that is at least 8.5 by 11 inches. If an owner or operator fails to conspicuously post the sign, the bill sets a penalty of $100 per day. The requirement would not apply to facilities accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums.

In questioning, senators and the bill sponsor clarified the scope. Considine and staff said the bill targets commercial attractions that charge for access to animals (examples cited in the hearing included facilities such as SeaQuest), rather than ordinary pet stores or private, small mobile petting zoos. Considine said the statutory reference for the conduct the sign is meant to report is NRS 574.100. She told the committee the penalty revenue is intended to go to local animal-control agencies to help offset response costs.

Gina Grierson, president of Nevada Voters for Animals and the constituent who requested the bill, testified in support by phone and described cases in which callers reported suspected animal cruelty to rescue groups or reporters instead of filing complaints with the official animal-control authority. "I am the constituent that my amazing assemblywoman put this bill in for," Grierson said, recounting examples where delays or routing of complaints to non-authorities hampered investigations.

The committee received no opposition testimony. After the hearing, the committee took a motion to advance the bill. The committee recorded the motion as "do pass," with a first and second; the chair called the voice vote and said "motion carries." The committee closed the hearing and assigned a floor statement.

The bill's enforcement and implementation details — including which local agency will maintain complaint logs and the process for assessing the daily penalty — were described during the hearing as matters for local animal-control authorities. The bill language available at the hearing required the sign to list the telephone number of the local animal-control authority and referenced enforcement tied to that local authority's responsibilities under state law.

The committee moves the bill forward to the next stage of the legislative process; further floor action and any amendments would be considered later in the session.