Panel hears bill to ban wildlife-killing contests; proponents call law preventive though contests not documented in state

Committee members heard testimony on a bill sponsored by Representative Kislak that would ban wildlife‑killing contests on public and private land in the state.

Sponsor Kislak said the bill was prompted by constituent concerns and by written testimony; he described contests in other states as events that award prizes for the number, size or weight of animals killed and said they often result in carcasses being discarded. David Brunetti, a Burrillville resident and one of the measure’s supporters, described contests as “wasteful” and said such events “encourage cruelty” and are not a science‑based wildlife-management tool. He told the committee the language in the bill is “restricted to fur bearers.”

Representatives of hunting organizations including Michael Woods of Backcountry Hunters and Anglers testified in opposition to the legislation as written. Woods said his organization does not support the blood‑sport format of these contests but argued that agency regulatory tools at the Department of Environmental Management (DEM) are the appropriate forum for any needed restrictions. He said he was not aware of any killing contests in Rhode Island during his 20 years of hunting and fishing in the state and urged regulators to retain authority to respond promptly if an event were proposed.

Katie Stennis (listed in the record as representing Humane World for Animals) described undercover investigations in other states that documented discarded carcasses, attendees joking about killing pregnant coyotes, and children present at events. She and others said indiscriminate killing can destabilize wildlife social structures and is not supported by science as an effective wildlife‑management tool.

Brunetti and Kislak told the committee they had spoken with DEM staff about current regulatory authority; Brunetti said DEM officials told him they were not aware of a statute or regulation that explicitly bans killing contests and that DEM currently lacks a fur‑bearer biologist. Committee members did not take a final vote; the chair recorded the hearing as concluded and left the record open for written testimony.

Background: Witnesses cited bans enacted in nearby states and argued the bill is preventive: it would prohibit competitions that involve the mass killing of certain fur‑bearing animals for prizes or cash. Opponents urged caution to avoid preempting agency rulemaking and to preserve regulatory flexibility.