Committee advances Working Animal Protection Act over concerns about local control

Representative Rachel Rodriguez Williams presented House Bill 63, the "Working Animal Protection Act," asserting the measure is intended to protect "working animals" used in lawful commerce and to prevent local bans that would disrupt agritourism, rodeo, carriage operations and other activities the sponsor described as part of Wyoming's western heritage.

The bill would create two new provisions in state law. The first would prohibit counties and municipalities from enacting an ordinance, resolution or policy that terminates, bans, or unduly restricts a person from using a working animal in lawful commerce or animal enterprises. The bill defines "working animal" as a nonhuman animal used primarily to perform a specific duty or function in commerce or an animal enterprise, listing examples that include human service, hunting, agriculture, ranching, husbandry, transportation, education, competition, tourism, entertainment or exhibition. The bill also states it should not be interpreted to amend existing law related to animal care, public health or public safety; Representative Rodriguez Williams and witnesses stressed that animal-cruelty statutes would remain in force.

Supporters testified the bill is a preventive measure. Brett Moline for the Wyoming Farm Bureau Federation and representatives of livestock and rodeo industries said the bill prevents out-of-state activist campaigns from eroding traditional uses of working animals. Several sponsors and witnesses told the committee they had not seen significant local attempts to ban rodeo or other activities in Wyoming, but said they wanted a statewide safeguard in case those efforts increased.

Opponents told the committee the bill would unduly remove local control. Linda Burt of the Wyoming Coalition for Animal Protection warned the bill would strip counties of authority to act on local animal-welfare problems (for example, local animal-control ordinances addressing confinement or husbandry) and said the state does not currently face the local bans the bill aims to prevent. A veterinarian testifying by Zoom raised concerns that the bill's definition is broad and could unintentionally allow a person to evade local ordinances intended to prevent neglect or poor husbandry.

Committee members asked whether common livestock used in rodeo or husbandry (for example cattle) should be listed or excluded; the sponsor said the list of excluded animals (page 3) reflected a policy choice and that the committee could adjust species inclusion if it wished. Representative Davis asked whether changing mandatory wording from "shall" to "may" in one definition would reduce unintended consequences; the sponsor said she was open to policy decisions by the committee.

After public and Zoom testimony for and against the measure, the committee voted 8–1 to pass House Bill 63 to the next stage; Representative Provenza recorded the lone no vote in the transcript.