Which U.S. states currently do not have explicit bestiality bans as of 2025?
Executive summary
As of reporting in early 2025, advocacy groups tracking state animal-cruelty statutes report West Virginia as the only U.S. state without an explicit statutory ban on sexual acts with animals (bestiality) [1]. Historical surveys and legal tables show that most other states have specific criminal statutes; resources note remaining gaps historically included Hawaii, Wyoming, New Mexico and others, but Wyoming enacted a ban in 2021 and recent advocacy updates single out West Virginia as the outlier [2] [1] [3].
1. A single outlier, by current advocacy counts
The Animal Legal Defense Fund’s January 30, 2025 update states plainly that West Virginia is the only remaining state without an explicit bestiality ban, after a multi‑year wave of state legislative changes [1]. That characterization is the clearest, most recent advocacy summary in the provided materials and should be treated as the leading count for 2025 [1].
2. How we got here: recent state-by-state change
Legal trackers and animal‑law compendia document a steady tide of legislatures codifying or strengthening bans over the last decade; for example, the Animal Legal & Historical Center compiles a table showing many states’ laws and notes recent additions have often been folded into cruelty codes [3]. The ALDF notes specific 2024 legislative updates in Louisiana, Oregon and Virginia that strengthened possession and cruelty‑related provisions, part of the broader pattern of reform [1].
3. Who used to be on the “no law” list and why counts shifted
Older public reporting and summaries from 2021 and earlier listed several states — including Wyoming, Hawaii, New Mexico and West Virginia — as lacking explicit bestiality statutes. Wyoming’s 2021 law change is an example of how those counts have shifted: Wyoming banned bestiality effective July 1, 2021, removing itself from earlier lists [2]. That underscores that historical lists can be out of date unless cross‑checked with recent legislative tracking [2] [1].
4. Legal gaps vs. prosecutorial tools: different pathways to accountability
The Animal Legal & Historical Center cautions that in states without an explicit bestiality statute, prosecutors sometimes rely on other criminal provisions — such as general animal cruelty, obscenity, or child‑protection laws — to pursue related conduct [3]. Advocacy groups therefore emphasize statutory clarity because ancillary charges can leave enforcement uneven and limit specific sentencing or protective measures [3].
5. Disagreement, limitation and the need for primary-source checks
The provided sources converge around West Virginia as the lone outlier in early 2025, but they differ in historical snapshots; popular articles from 2022 listed several states that since have acted [4] [2]. The analysis here is limited to the supplied materials: available sources do not mention any 2025 law texts, state codes, or official state legislative summaries beyond the ALDF and the Animal Legal & Historical Center compilation, so verification against each state’s current statutes or state legislative records would be required to be definitive [1] [3].
6. Why advocates focus on “explicit” bans and possession provisions
Advocacy organizations emphasize explicit criminalization because it creates categorical offenses, penalties and oft‑accompanying provisions that restrict animal possession by convicted offenders — measures shown as effective at preventing repeat harm [1]. The ALDF notes possession bans and related protective rules introduced or strengthened in recent legislative sessions as central to protecting animals [1].
7. Bottom line for readers and researchers
Based on the materials supplied, the clearest, most up‑to‑date claim in these sources is that West Virginia alone lacked an explicit bestiality statute as of the ALDF’s January 30, 2025 reporting [1]. Researchers should treat that as the working answer but consult state statutes or legislative services for final legal status because prior out‑of‑date lists and the use of alternative criminal charges complicate simple counts [3] [2].