The bill directs the Secretary of the Interior to establish the Wildlife Confiscations Network, a voluntary, cooperative program built in partnership with a professional accrediting zoological association. The Network would support Federal wildlife law enforcement in the placement and care of confiscated animals, from the moment of seizure at ports of entry through placement or repatriation.
The measure also defines key terms, sets governance for membership, and creates a centralized mechanism to coordinate care.
At a Glance
What It Does
It establishes a voluntary Network, with a database of qualified facilities, and a committee to review membership applications. It also designates the Network as a single point of contact for federal wildlife law enforcement to place confiscated animals in care.
Who It Affects
Federal wildlife law enforcement, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and participating facilities (wildlife sanctuaries, aquariums, zoos, NGOs, universities) that join the Network.
Why It Matters
It aims to streamline care, preserve evidence, and improve the welfare of confiscated wildlife while reducing logistical bottlenecks at ports and entry points.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The act tasks the Secretary of the Interior with launching a Wildlife Confiscations Network as a voluntary partnership with a professional zoological body. The Network will coordinate the care of confiscated wildlife and plant materials from seizure to placement or repatriation.
It creates a living database of qualified facilities—such as sanctuaries, zoos, aquariums, and NGOs—that can provide immediate triage and long-term housing, and it establishes a committee to vet and approve member facilities. The Network will also serve as the single liaison point for federal wildlife law enforcement to arrange placement and care for confiscated animals.
Membership is open to wildlife sanctuaries, aquarium and zoological facilities, NGOs, universities, and related organizations. Applications must demonstrate appropriate permits and capabilities, and the Committee will approve or reject entrants.
Initial members will be appointed by the Secretary with stakeholder input, and subsequent members will be elected through a competitive process. The Act authorizes funds to build and sustain the Network each year from 2026 through 2030, signaling a formal, though private-partner-driven, approach to managing confiscated wildlife.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Secretary must establish a voluntary Wildlife Confiscations Network with a professional accrediting zoological association as partner.
The Network will maintain a database of qualified animal care facilities for immediate triage and long-term care.
A Network Committee will review and approve membership applications from listed entities (sanctuaries, zoos, aquariums, NGOs, universities, etc.).
The Network will act as the single point of contact for Federal wildlife law enforcement for placement and care of confiscated animals.
$5 million is authorized annually (2026–2030) to fund Network activities.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Findings and purpose
Section 2 lays out the rationale for the Act, tying wildlife trafficking to national security concerns, economic impacts, and the enforcement framework. It references the Lacey Act and Executive Order 13773 to justify a coordinated federal-private approach and notes capacity constraints at ports of entry. It also cites pilot efforts in Southern California and the goal of extending a national network to improve care, maintain evidence integrity, and align with government operations while leveraging a private-coordinated model.
Definitions
Section 3 defines key terms used in the Act, including CITES species, the Committee, confiscated animal, Network, qualified animal care facility, Secretary, and threatened or endangered species. It clarifies who may be involved and what kinds of facilities can participate, ensuring standardized interpretation across the program.
Establishment of the Network
Section 4(a) requires the Secretary to establish a voluntary, cooperative program, in partnership with a professional accrediting zoological association, to assist federal wildlife law enforcement with placement and care of confiscated animals. It sets the framework for the Network’s authority and scope.
Network Functions
Section 4(b) enumerates core functions: a cooperative response protocol for care and welfare, a database of qualified facilities, a Network committee to review applications, and the single point of contact role for enforcement agencies to coordinate placement and care.
Membership
Section 4(c) lists eligible applicants (wildlife sanctuaries, aquarium facilities, zoological facilities, animal rescue/rehabilitation organizations, universities, NGOs) and requires applications to demonstrate necessary credentials and capabilities to assist in placement and care of confiscated animals. The Committee will determine eligibility.
Committee
Section 4(d) details Committee composition, initial and subsequent membership selection, and terms. It includes representation from the USFWS, the accrediting association partner, and other animal-care entities, with staggered terms to ensure continuity and governance.
Appropriations
Section 5 authorizes $5,000,000 for each fiscal year 2026–2030 to carry out the Network. This provides funding for administration, facility coordination, and program operations to support the Network’s activities.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Environment across all five countries.
Explore Environment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Federal wildlife law enforcement gains a centralized, predictable contact for placement and care decisions, improving efficiency and evidence handling.
- The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service benefits from a streamlined workflow and enhanced capacity for temporary housing and care of confiscated wildlife.
- Participating facilities (wildlife sanctuaries, aquariums, zoos, NGOs, universities) gain a structured pathway for placement of confiscated animals and access to resources, expertise, and potential funding through the Network.
- The professional accrediting zoological association gains a formal, nationwide platform to coordinate best practices and ensure care standards across member facilities.
- Communities near ports of entry see faster and more consistent handling of confiscated wildlife, supporting law enforcement effectiveness and animal welfare.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal agencies must administer the Network, maintain the facility database, and coordinate with members, requiring staff and IT resources.
- The Department of the Interior and partner agencies bear ongoing program management and oversight costs beyond routine operations.
- Joining facilities may incur compliance and capacity costs to meet accreditation standards and to participate in Network activities.
- Private organizations may face additional administrative requirements (permits, reporting, documentation) to remain in good standing within the Network.
- Taxpayers fund the annual appropriations that underpin Network operations and governance.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is whether a voluntary, largely private-sector Network can reliably deliver consistent care and evidence integrity for confiscated wildlife across diverse jurisdictions, without a binding mandate or full government control, while remaining adequately funded and accountable.
The Network relies on voluntary participation by non-governmental entities and private facilities, which raises questions about coverage equity and minimum care standards across the country. While the bill creates a database and a governance mechanism, it does not establish binding penalties for noncompliant members or a universal enforcement mechanism to compel participation or ensure uniform quality of care.
The success of the Network depends on steady funding over multiple years, yet appropriations are limited to 2026–2030, with no long-range funding guarantee. Questions remain about oversight, accountability, and how the Network will interact with state and tribal authorities, existing facility networks, and port-of-entry logistics.
The bill also relies on a private partner for a function historically handled by government agencies, raising concerns about the potential for scope creep, variable care standards, and the need for robust data governance and chain-of-custody procedures.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.