Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/07/2004 01:55 PM House JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 275 - VETERINARIANS AND ANIMALS Number 1416 CHAIR McGUIRE announced that the final order of business would be HOUSE BILL NO. 275, "An Act relating to veterinarians and animals." [Before the committee was CSHB 275(L&C).] Number 1469 TRACIE AUDETTE, Owner, Fairhaven, said she is very concerned about the language on page 2, lines 9-14, and suggested that it needs clarification regarding the extra power being given to licensed veterinarians. She said she would like to see added to the bill, [after paragraph (4)] on page 2, language to the effect of: "Other standard practices commonly performed on farm or domestic animals in the routine course of farming or animal husbandry or animal care or treatment when performed by the owner, the owner's employee, or the owner's agent acting with the owner's approval." She also asked that attention be given to the fact that although "animal husbandry" is used in statute, it is not currently defined in statute. She relayed that she is an animal therapist and does physical rehabilitation, and although she is not currently practicing, she does have a business license under the category of animal husbandry. Number 1583 CAROL GIANNINI, Staff to Representative Harry Crawford, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 323, noting that she participated in "the original drafting of the bill that this was based on," said she is available for questions. In response to questions, she relayed that she has a copy of the Department of Law's suggested changes, and that Representative Crawford has other proposed amendments that she can explain. Number 1751 SALLY CLAMPITT, President, Alaska Equine Rescue (AER), said she wants to emphasize the need to keep language regarding minimum standards of care in order to empower licensed veterinarians to be involved in the process of determining the conditions of animals that are taken in as a result of cruelty cases. She said she is glad to hear testimony from Ms. Audette, but relayed that she has concern about replacing language regarding veterinary care with language regarding care provided by holistic practitioners. She added, "I'm not sure that it would be appropriate to make it a hardcore provision, here, on equal footing with veterinary care because it would seem to me, then, that it may also become a defense, here, of cruelty ... Number 1818 SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, interrupted Ms. Clampitt and suggested she call Representative Chenault's office and discuss her concerns regarding this issue outside of the committee process. MS. CLAMPITT, in conclusion, said she wholeheartedly supports HB 275. MS. AUDETTE, in response to comments, clarified that she intended that her suggested language be added to the bill rather than replacing any language currently in the bill. Number 1872 LISA ZEIMER, noting that she is an animal rescuer and owns three rescued dogs, said she thinks HB 275 is a great bill, is long overdue, and will go a long way towards securing the safety of and compassion towards animals in Alaska. She offered her belief that there is a link between animal cruelty and domestic violence, adding that there is a saying that in a house where people aren't safe, animals aren't safe, and visa versa. She went on to say: I think that animal cruelty prosecutions may indeed be able to prevent more serious prosecutions down the line. I think that ... if we were to pass this law, ... this could be a very powerful tool for interdiction. And ... by seeing animal cruelty, you're kind of getting a glimpse at the tip of the iceberg, and ... maybe some of these behaviors can be stopped in their tracks before they do accelerate and go into the realm of human victims. And I also feel that in terms of costs, if we don't pay now, we're going to end up paying more later, and I believe that with all my heart. MS. ZEIMER indicated that it is time to start holding those who commit acts of animal cruelty accountable for their actions. Currently, she remarked, it is the people like herself and others that are involved in the animal welfare community who step up to the plate and spend time, money, and emotional energy in cleaning up the messes caused by those who, often repeatedly, commit acts of animal cruelty. She suggested that society needs to get past the attitude of looking at animals as mere property; a broken leg on a puppy is whole lot different than a broken leg on a table, she added. She opined that passage of HB 275 would be in keeping with the spirit of the people of Alaska, and would be the mark of a civilized state and civilized society. CHAIR McGUIRE ascertained that no one else wished to testify, and noted that Representative Crawford was present. Number 2061 MS. GIANNINI, referring to Ms. Audette's suggested change, said she questions whether such additional language is necessary because she is not sure that the current language on page 2 excludes the type of care to which Ms. Audette referred. She also noted that page 5 contains an exclusion regarding conduct that conforms to accepted veterinary or animal husbandry practices. Turing to the issue of cost, she said: One thing that is not clear from the fiscal note is, in the past, when the state has taken animals from an owner and turns them over to [an] agency, my understanding is that the state (indisc.) is really liable for the cost of the care of the animal. And I believe that there have been several cases where considerable expense was put into medical care and treatment, and then the receiving agency has looked back to the state to be reimbursed for those expenses. One of the provisions in this bill is that [an] individual or an agency who now receives the animal under this bill does so knowing that they cannot go back and look to the state for reimbursement anymore. So ... that kind of savings, if there is indeed a savings, is not going to show up in the fiscal note, and I just think that's something that's important to think about when you're considering any fiscal note that's attached to this bill. CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether any thought has been given to including a provision that would allow for recovery of expenses from the original possessor of the animal. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG said he has given that issue some thought. REPRESENTATIVE GARA, relaying that he couldn't stay for the rest of the meeting, said: I'm very supportive of the bill. Certainly the ... testimony that people who abuse animals are also people who end up doing worse things in society is compelling to me. ... There's only one section of the bill that I have a comment on, and it's on page 4, lines 27 and 28. I ... would like to ... strongly punish those who engage in intentional animal cruelty, or what we consider to be animal cruelty. Lines 27 and 28 deal with reckless or accidental failures to provide care to an animal. It say's "reckless" right now, [but] there's [a proposed] amendment to move that also to criminally negligent, and I guess I would just say to the members of the committee - ... we're all trying to get after cruelty, we're all trying to get after intentional conduct - I would ask people to take a close look at lines 27 and 28 and decide what we want to do there about conduct that's not intentional, [conduct] that's irresponsible but not intentional. Number 2239 REPRESENTATIVE GARA, in response to a question, said he does not think he supports "the criminally negligent language," adding, "It's the only part of the bill ... that really deals with people who aren't intentionally out there trying to hurt animals." CHAIR McGUIRE asked whether he would support such language if it specified that the behavior results in the death of an animal or causes serious physical pain. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said: It's incorporating the standards in [proposed AS 03.55.100], which talks about providing food, providing water, providing ample surroundings for an animal. What I would not want to happen would be for a family to go on vacation, to come back, to realize that it just really screwed up [and] the family ... pet has suffered as a result of it [though] nobody intended to hurt the animal. The family then brings the animal into a veterinarian who would rightly and ... appropriately be very offended at what the family did, but then the veterinarian is so offended that they call the prosecutors, and then all of a sudden this becomes a crime. Maybe it should be, but that's ... a policy call I'd ask you to think about, and ask the sponsors to talk about. And [I] could probably ... be convinced, possibly, to go either way on that one - that's just the one that I flagged. Number 2299 MS. WRIGHT said: Exactly that same thing happened to me eight years ago with the neighbor's rottweiler that got loose and came over, and my limping around for eight years is a result of that. And yes, I do believe he was criminally negligent. And a guinea pig compared to a 175-pound rottweiler are two different things, but certainly this family did go on vacation and left the dog outside ... with no food, no care, and it got loose. ... So ... you're looking at different degrees of negligence and an accident. Well, accidents can happen with goldfish ..., but common sense enters into this at some point that a rottweiler left without food or care for a week is certainly different than a guinea pig. ... There ... [is] negligence and then there's real negligence, and accidents like that usually don't happen by responsible people. REPRESENTATIVE GARA said that in a circumstance wherein the owner left on vacation and said to himself/herself that the animal could just wait to be fed until he/she returns, that behavior is outrageous and that person should be punished. However, in a circumstance where one spouse asks the other to feed the animal before they go on vacation, he suggested that such behavior is probably not reckless, but noted that the legislature needs to be careful with what it defines as a crime. "And certainly the lower levels of conduct are grounds for you to lose your animal, but ... I would just want some discussion by folks about whether that's something we want to throw people in jail for, and you might convince [me] that it is," he added. MS. WRIGHT pointed out, though, that it's a responsibility to own an animal, whether it's a fish, a guinea pig, or a horse. And if a person forgets to arrange for an animal's care before leaving on vacation, he/she should use a telephone to ask someone to look after the animal. TAPE 04-63, SIDE B Number 2393 REPRESENTATIVE GARA relayed that he had a cat that he used to share chocolate with, but at the time he didn't know that cats shouldn't eat chocolate. He said he could envision such behavior as being considered reckless or criminal under the bill. MS. WRIGHT relayed that she has recently learned that she is not supposed to feed her dog grapes, and acknowledged that under the bill, doing so could result in her being guilty of reckless endangerment. CHAIR McGUIRE directed attention to the changes suggested by the Department of Law (DOL). [These suggested changes were presented and explained by Elise Hsieh from the DOL during the bill's last hearing]. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG indicated a preference for addressing each of the DOL's suggested changes as separate amendments. Number 2195 CHAIR McGUIRE referred to the DOL's suggestion to change "include" to "includes" on page 1, line 6, and labeled it Amendment 2. [None of the suggested changes were labeled Amendment 1.] [Although no formal motion was made] Chair McGuire asked whether there were any objections to adopting Amendment 2. There being none, Amendment 2 was adopted. MS. WRIGHT - referring to the DOL's suggestion to delete the word "daily" from page 1, line 8 - offered her belief that "daily" means every day and so should be included. CHAIR McGUIRE said she disagrees, and surmised that the relevant point is that the water be provided in sufficient quantity for the animal's good health regardless of how often a person chooses to provide it. MS. GIANNINI asked whether removing the word "daily" would allow someone to provide water only once a week. CHAIR McGUIRE remarked that even if such is the case, the relevant point is that the water is provided in an amount sufficient to maintain the animal's good health. Number 2065 CHAIR McGUIRE [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 3, to delete "daily and" from page 1, line 8. There being no objection, Amendment 3 was adopted. Number 2049 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG, noting that it is proper to use "include" rather than "includes" on line 6, moved that the committee rescind its action in adopting Amendment 2. There being no objection, the committee rescinded its action in adopting Amendment 2. MS. WRIGHT - referring to the DOL's suggestion that proposed AS 03.55.100(a)(2) be rewritten for clarity - said that there were several farmers that called the sponsor's office and objected to the definition of an outdoor shelter. Number 1997 CHAIR McGUIRE referred to the DOL's suggestion to add, on page 2, line 9, after "standards", the words "for the health and safety of the animals", and labeled it Amendment 4. [Although no formal motion was made] Chair McGuire asked whether there were any objections to adopting Amendment 4. There being none, Amendment 4 was adopted. MS. WRIGHT - referring to the DOL's suggestion to add to proposed AS 03.55.100(b), on page 2, line 14, the words, "In the event of a disagreement under this paragraph, the State Veterinarian will provide the professional opinion needed under this paragraph." - relayed the sponsor's belief that including such language could open the door to creating a fiscal note. She suggested that the court system could be looked upon to be the final arbiter in cases where veterinarians disagree. CHAIR McGUIRE said she agrees. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked the DOL to comment on the fiscal note issue. Number 1938 ELISE HSIEH, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), relayed that Kristin Ryan from the Department of Environmental Conservation could better respond to that issue. She added, however, that the idea behind this suggestion was that if a serious conflict between two veterinarians arose, then the state Veterinarian could weigh in with a final professional opinion. Number 1929 KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health, Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), relayed that the DEC has committed itself to maintaining a zero fiscal note even if the suggested change is adopted, because situations could arise wherein specialized veterinarians disagree when making a determination regarding treatment of an animal. For example, if a veterinarian who specializes in treating small animals is asked to make a determination of cruelty to a farm animal, he/she may not have the same type of expertise as a veterinarian specializing in farm animals. "We felt that the state veterinarian would probably be the best candidate to make a [determination] of standards of care, rather than the court system [which] does not have that expertise; ... the [DEC], again, has agreed not to increase the fiscal note to make that change," she concluded. Number 1897 REPRESENTATIVE HARRY CRAWFORD, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor of HB 323, remarked: When we were looking at this, we wanted the local veterinarian to be able to go out and make determinations. I don't know how you say that ... this is going to be only the final arbiter, because somebody may want to ... contest it at every step of the way. We felt that if we left it in the hands of the state veterinarian, which we have only one, that's not going to be present at the scene, then it's unworkable; we would have to get the state veterinarian there to make that final ... decision. And I think that's the reason we put this in here as having a licensed veterinarian making the decision on the scene. MS. HSIEH pointed out, though, that part of her suggested language is, "In the event of a disagreement under this paragraph". She elaborated: I'm talking about maybe two local vets. Maybe one local vet's been hired by someone who has 20 or 40 dogs that he typically takes care of ..., and then another vet comes in and says, ... "That guy's not taking care of his dogs." Well, the vet who gets paid to take care of those 40 dogs might not agree. I'm talking about that sort of local situation, where two local vets somehow get in a disagreement. ... In that case, to provide the professional opinion required under that paragraph ..., the state [veterinarian] can come in and listen to the two vets and sort of try [to] figure out what's going on or [if] someone has a biased opinion or a personal stake, and [then] provide a more neutral, professional opinion under this paragraph. This does not take powers away from the court in any sense; when someone petitions to get their animal back, I assume the courts are going to look at any information they have and try [to] make ... a reasoned decision using evidence they have. I hope that information is helpful to the committee. Number 1786 MS. WRIGHT suggested that perhaps this issue could be better addressed via regulation instead of statute. MS. HSIEH offered: You won't have the authority for regulations to allow the state [veterinarian] to provide the professional opinion under this paragraph unless this amendment goes through. I don't see where you'd have the [regulatory] authority to go ahead and do that. You'd just end up with vets who are disagreeing, and that will end up in a stalemate for [AS] 03.55.110 when someone goes to try and actually move on to the next stage, which is taking the animal. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that his wife is on the animal control board in Anchorage, and suggested that this issue will cause the DEC to "become quite a bureaucracy" and will cost the state money in the future. CHAIR McGUIRE - referring to the DOL's suggestion to add to proposed AS 03.55.100 a subsection (c) that would grant the DEC the authority to promulgate regulations to implement AS 03.55.100 - offered her belief that it is probably appropriate to grant the DEC that authority, and mentioned that a number of members have expressed concern about this issue. MS. HSIEH, in response to a question, relayed that statutorily, the state veterinarian falls under the purview of the DEC. MS. RYAN, in response to comments, added that AS 03.25 defines veterinarians and states that their duties are to be implemented through the DEC. She said: "It gives us the authority to embargo and detain animals and destroy animals; the state veterinarian has incredible responsibility for ... the control of animals and diseases that animals spread." She noted that AS 03.25.020 defines the duties of state veterinarians. Number 1490 MS. HSIEH relayed: As far as I'm aware, and the DOL, the only [veterinarian] that is statutorily specified is here in [AS] 03.25: it is in the Department of Environmental Conservation. The state [veterinarian] is very active and does a lot of things [pertaining] to animal and public health, and the connections between that. If, for some reason in the future, the state [veterinarian] ... were to move to another agency, I spoke with Debra Behr [Legislation & Regulations Section of Department of Law] ... and she said the revisors would just go through and change [the] statutes [that] needed changing. This would not be hindrance in any way. MS. RYAN, in response to further comments, said: "The responsibilities are to embargo and detain animals, and so while maybe we only have one veterinarian and it would be great to have more, that's their responsibility." Number 1387 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 5, to add to page 2, in proposed AS 03.55.100, a new subsection: "(c) The Department of Environmental Conservation may adopt regulations to implement this section." There being no objection, Amendment 5 was adopted. MS. GIANNINI - referring to the DOL's suggestion to delete from page 2, line 19, "on which it wishes to take action" - opined that if that language is removed, then the word "shall" on line 19 should be changed to "may", because this would prevent the Department of Public Safety from having to investigate a groundless complaint. CHAIR McGUIRE and REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG relayed that the committee would not be considering that particular suggestion by the DOL. MS. WRIGHT - referring to the DOL's suggestion to replace, "and under whose custody the animal is to be sheltered and cared for" with, "and a reference to their right to petition the court under AS 03.55.130" on page 3 [lines 3-4] - remarked that this is a good amendment and that the current language is an oversight. She noted that in the past, when irate owners have gone to where the abused animals were being sheltered, the animals have had to be moved. Number 1245 CHAIR McGUIRE labeled the foregoing suggestion by the DOL as Amendment 6. [Although no formal motion was made] Chair McGuire asked whether there were any objections to adopting Amendment 6. There being none, Amendment 6 was adopted. Number 1239 CHAIR McGUIRE made a motion to adopt Amendment 7, to replace "every" with "a" on page 3, line 10. There being no objection, Amendment 7 was adopted. MS. WRIGHT - referring to the DOL's suggestion to replace, "warranted by" with "reasonable under" on page 3, line 24 - remarked that [the current language] appears to conflict in the way it reads, and that [the suggestion] is fine. Number 1203 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 8, to replace "warranted by" with "reasonable under" on page 3, line 24. There being no objection, Amendment 8 was adopted. CHAIR McGUIRE referred to the DOL's suggestion to delete "a herd, collection, or kennel [of]" from page 4, line 30. MS. WRIGHT said that the sponsor would like to retain the word "collection" because there are people known as "hoarders" who collect large numbers of animals and neglect them. She mentioned Carolyn Boughton as an example of someone who did this in the Sterling area: 40-some-odd Bouviers were found partially frozen into the ground. She opined that it is important to keep the words "herd", "collection", and "kennel" because they are different words for the same thing. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG opined that keeping that language in the bill will make it harder to prosecute someone. The important factor is that the person has 10 or more animals regardless of what they are called. MS. WRIGHT asked what happens if someone only has 2 or more animals. REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied, "Well, then you'd want to change the number." Number 1116 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 9, to delete "a herd, collection, or kennel [of]" from page 4, line 30. There being no objection, Amendment 9 was adopted. [There was a brief discussion regarding how best to word the next amendment, which would address Ms. Wright's concern about situations in which more than one animal is being abused.] Number 1097 REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG [made a motion to adopt] Amendment 10, to replace "10 or more animals" with "more than one animal". There being no objection, Amendment 10 was adopted. Number 1057 CHAIR McGUIRE, noting that a majority caucus was in progress and that the committee no longer had a quorum, announced that HB 275 [as amended] would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|