According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), the fiscal implications of SB 2969 are expected to be minimal at both the state and local levels. The bill creates a new criminal offense—trespass in a facility housing an animal—that targets individuals who unlawfully enter areas where animals are kept in facilities such as zoos or conservation centers. The base offense is classified as a state jail felony, with an enhanced penalty of a third-degree felony if the offender harasses the animal and causes it injury or death.

Despite the new offense category, the Legislative Budget Board anticipates no significant fiscal impact to the state. This assessment is based on assumptions that the number of prosecutions under this specific statute will be low and that any increases in correctional resource demands (such as incarceration or court costs) would be minimal and absorbable within existing systems. The state does not expect notable changes to correctional population levels or added costs for the judiciary or the Department of Criminal Justice.

Similarly, local governments are not expected to experience significant fiscal effects. Enforcement, investigation, prosecution, and supervision of these offenses are presumed to fall within the routine capacities of existing local law enforcement and judicial infrastructures. The bill's restitution provision—requiring offenders to compensate facilities for damage, including injury to animals—may shift some costs away from taxpayers by ensuring that perpetrators, rather than public funds, bear financial responsibility for damages.

In summary, while S.B. 2969 introduces a new criminal provision to protect animals in regulated environments, its implementation is projected to have a negligible financial burden on both state and local governments.

SB 2969 creates a new criminal offense, trespass in a facility housing an animal, with penalties ranging from a state jail felony to a third-degree felony if the animal is harassed and suffers injury or death. The bill also mandates restitution to the facility for any resulting damage or harm. It is aimed at curbing unauthorized entry into animal enclosures, particularly in settings such as zoos and conservation centers. The bill defines "harass" broadly and explicitly rejects certain common defenses, such as the argument that the enclosure was not properly secured.

While the bill is well-intentioned in its desire to protect animal welfare and public safety, several concerns make a No recommendation appropriate. First, the creation of a new felony offense adds to the growing body of criminal statutes in Texas without a demonstrated gap in existing law. Current trespass and animal cruelty laws already provide legal tools to prosecute harmful conduct in these situations. By establishing a new offense and assigning it felony penalties, the bill risks contributing to overcriminalization and excessive punishment for what may, in some cases, be non-malicious or accidental behavior.

Second, the bill's provisions place undue emphasis on punitive measures, even when harm results from unclear facility protocols, poor signage, or minimal security. Notably, the statute excludes the defense that enclosures were not properly guarded or marked as restricted. This could result in harsh penalties for individuals, such as children, tourists, or those with diminished capacity, who unintentionally cross into a restricted area. The absence of a clear intent requirement or a tiered penalty structure raises due process concerns and limits the discretion of courts to differentiate between willful misconduct and negligent error.

Moreover, by mandating restitution and setting a broad definition of “harassment” that includes any disruption of an animal’s behavior, the bill may open the door to inconsistent enforcement. Facilities might interpret minor disruptions as grounds for third-degree felony charges, particularly if injury to the animal can be demonstrated after the fact. This could result in prosecutorial overreach, undermining confidence in the fairness of the justice system and diverting law enforcement attention from more serious public safety priorities.

In light of these factors, unnecessary statutory duplication, disproportionate penalties, vague language that could criminalize non-malicious behavior, and the erosion of traditional defenses, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote NO on SB 2969. A more balanced approach would rely on better enforcement of existing laws, enhanced facility security, and administrative penalties for low-risk violations.

• Individual Liberty: The bill imposes new felony-level criminal penalties for individuals who trespass into animal enclosures, even in facilities open to the public, such as zoos or conservation centers. The bill's refusal to allow certain defenses, such as the lack of physical barriers or signage, may infringe on individual liberty by limiting due process protections and imposing severe consequences regardless of intent or mitigating circumstances. This could disproportionately affect individuals who unintentionally cross boundaries or who enter with good intentions (e.g., attempting to aid an animal or child).
• Personal Responsibility: The bill promotes personal responsibility by holding individuals accountable for respecting facility boundaries and animal safety protocols. It reinforces that there are serious consequences for disregarding property and public safety rules, particularly in environments where animals and humans are at risk. However, this principle is potentially undercut if the law does not distinguish clearly between malicious intent and accidental or misunderstood actions.
• Free Enterprise: There is minimal direct impact on free enterprise. However, zoos, aquariums, and conservation-related businesses may benefit from added legal protections and deterrence against disruptions that could harm animals or lead to costly damage. That said, by placing broad liability on individuals without offering facilities corresponding to duties (such as adequate signage or security), the bill risks shifting too much protective authority to the operators at the expense of fair treatment of the public.
• Private Property Rights: The bill strengthens protections for private and quasi-public property used for housing animals, enabling facility owners and operators to pursue restitution for damages more effectively. This supports private property rights by affirming the right to exclude trespassers and receive compensation for harm caused. Still, it raises concerns if facilities are not required to take reasonable steps to prevent unauthorized access, creating a one-sided protection regime.
• Limited Government: By creating a new felony offense with broad definitions and mandatory restitution provisions, the bill expands the scope of the criminal code. This runs counter to the principle of limited government, particularly if existing trespass and animal cruelty statutes already address similar conduct. The law’s potential to criminalize actions lacking malicious intent—and the lack of prosecutorial discretion built into its framework—may contribute to overcriminalization and unnecessary state involvement in disputes better handled through civil or administrative remedies.

• HB 1720 (Same As)