Assembly committee hears AB136 requiring animal-interaction businesses to post reporting instructions; amendment narrows scope and adds penalty

Assemblymember Venetia Considine presented Assembly Bill 136 to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources on March 10, proposing that certain commercial establishments that sell access to live animals conspicuously post contact information for local animal-control authorities to facilitate reporting of suspected animal cruelty.

Considine opened the bill hearing by describing AB136’s intent as increasing public oversight and reporting when patrons encounter possible mistreatment. “This bill provides a critical step to increase the public's awareness and response when they encounter instances of animal mistreatment or cruelty within certain Nevada establishments,” Considine said.

Gina Greyson of Nevada Voters for Animals, appearing remotely, described multiple incidents she and others have tracked — including deaths and alleged neglect at boarding facilities, pet stores, and an interactive aquarium operation — and urged the committee to support AB136. Greyson recounted a boarding‑facility case in which she said a dog named Maura died after 11 days of boarding and that multiple other animals had died at the facility; she also described long-running concerns and media reporting regarding SeaQuest in Las Vegas. Greyson said the bill’s intent is to make clear to the public how to contact authorities rather than relying on social media or news outlets to trigger investigations.

Considine told the committee she is proposing two conceptual amendments. The first narrows the scope to require posting by “the owner or operator of a commercial establishment engaged in the business of selling access to live animals to interact with the public.” The text as amended would require a conspicuous sign — at least 8½ by 11 inches — placed in close proximity to the animal enclosure and listing the local animal-control authority; the definition of “enclosure” was broadened to include rooms, pens, runs, cages, hutches, tanks or fenced areas. The amendment also exempts facilities accredited by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums (AZA). The second conceptual amendment would make failure to post the sign a civil penalty of $100 per day.

Committee members asked practical questions about sign placement for businesses such as trail rides and who would enforce compliance. Considine said enforcement would generally be by the county’s animal-control authority where specified.

Testimony in support included Rebecca Gough, Nevada state director for Humane World for Animals, who told the committee public interactions with wild animals can be dangerous and “this bill will help educate the public on how to properly report concerns, ensuring that the appropriate authorities can investigate and take action when necessary.”

The committee also heard one caller in opposition, John Potash of Sparks, who said the mandate could be “ripe for abuse” and warned that lay members of the public may not understand normal husbandry for some species (for example, snow exposure for huskies or water schedules for certain reptiles). Potash said that if people flood animal-control agencies with calls out of misunderstanding, that could burden enforcement and lead to actions based on ideology rather than species‑specific husbandry standards.

Considine closed by saying the sign requirement would empower the public to report suspected mistreatment to the appropriate authority and that the amendments narrow the bill’s scope. The committee did not record a vote on AB136 at the hearing; the bill will advance through the legislative process with further review and possible amendment.