Legislature(2015 - 2016)CAPITOL 120
04/01/2015 01:00 PM House JUDICIARY
Note: the audio ![]()
and video ![]()
recordings are distinct records and are obtained from different sources. As such there may be key differences between the two. The audio recordings are captured by our records offices as the official record of the meeting and will have more accurate timestamps. Use the icons to switch between them.
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB11 | |
| HB147 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | HB 11 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | HB 147 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
HB 147-ANIMALS: PROTECTION/RELEASE/CUSTODY
2:17:07 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX announced that the final order of business would be
HOUSE BILL NO. 147, "An Act relating to the investigation of
cruelty to animals complaints; relating to the seizure of
animals; relating to the destruction of animals; relating to a
bond or security posted for the costs of care for an animal;
relating to the inclusion of an animal in a protective order and
the crimes and arrests for violating that protective order; and
relating to the ownership of an animal upon divorce or
dissolution of marriage."
2:17:10 PM
REPRESENTATIVE LIZ VAZQUEZ, Alaska State Legislature, said the
bill amends the cruelty of animal statutes to require owners of
animals locally seized for neglect or cruelty to pay the
animal's costs of care through bond or other security. She
stated this shifts the burden from governmental agencies,
independent shelters, and rescue agencies to the animal's
owners. She pointed out that this will save tax dollars and the
lives of animals, as it also allows for the adoption and
rehoming of a seized animal if the owner surrenders them, fails
to pay the costs of care ordered, or post an ordered bond. She
noted it also amends the domestic violence statutes to allow the
courts to allow for the inclusion of animals, including their
temporary care in a domestic violence protective order.
Finally, she related, it amends the divorce of marriage or
dissolution statutes to require consideration of the animal's
well-being when adjudicating ownership or joint ownership.
2:18:48 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ referred to [Sec. 3, AS 03.55.120(c)(2)]
page 2, lines 23-24, which read
(2) the notice required in (b) of this section shall
be conspicuously posted at the premises from which the
animal was removed.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ advised that notice is to be placed in a
conspicuous place on the premises where the animal was removed.
[Representative Vazquez referred to the definition of "peace
officer," Sec. 2, AS 03.55.110(d)(2), page 2, lines 14-18, which
read:
(2) "peace officer" means
(A) an officer of the state troopers;
(B) a member of the police force of a
municipality;
(C) a village public safety officer; of
(D) a regional public safety officer.]
2:19:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ then referred to [Sec. 4, AS
03.55.130(d)(2)], page 3, lines 2-6, which read:
(2) posting a bond or security with the court of the
judicial district in which the animal was seized
within 10 business days after the court's order to
post a bond or security under this paragraph in an
amount determined by the court to be sufficient to
provide for the animal's care for a minimum of 30 days
from the date the animal was seized [REMOVED].
2:19:53 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ then referred to [Sec. 5 AS
03.55.130(e)], page 3, lines 17-31 through page 4, lines 1-3,
which read:
(e) ...Upon the expiration of a bond or security posed
under this section, the owner shall pay or post the
amount ordered by the court every 30 days thereafter
until a final disposition of the animal is ordered by
the court. If a bond or security posted under this
subsection expires, the owner fail to pay or post an
additional bond or security, and the court has not
ordered an alternative disposition, the animal shall
become the property of the custodian. The court of
the judicial district in which the animal was seized
may enter an order directing the owner of the animal
to pay the custodian an amount sufficient to provide
for the animal's care for a minimum of 30 days or to
post a bond or security for the same amount. The
court may hold a cost-of-care hearing for this
purpose. The court shall, if possible, hold a hearing
under this section not more than 10 business days
after an animal is taken into custody. The custodian
or, at the direction of the custodian, a peace officer
or person authorized to serve process shall provide
notice of the time and place of the hearing to the
owner of the animal. If the owner of the animal is
unknown and cannot be ascertained with reasonable
effort, the custodian or, at the direction of the
custodian, a peace officer or person authorized to
serve process shall conspicuously post the notice
required by this subsection on the premises where the
animal was seized.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ explained that the above provision sets
out the procedure on the bond and securities for the feeding and
care of the animals.
2:20:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ referred to [Sec. 8, AS 18.65.520(a)(15-
16)], page 7, lines 4-10, which read:
(15) prohibit your abuser from removing, harming,
or disposing of an animal owned or possessed by you,
your abuser, or any other person living in your
residence, or authorize you to remove an animal from
the possession of your abuser;
(16) grant you the exclusive care, custody, and
control of an animal owned or possessed by you, your
abuser, or any other person living in your residence;
and
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ described the above provisions as key in
that they prohibit the abuser from "removing, harming, or
disposing of the animal owned by you (the victim), your abuser
or any other person living in your residence or authorized you
to remove an animal from the possession of your abuser." The
following provision "grant you the exclusive care, custody, and
control of an animal owned or possessed by you, your abuser, or
any other person living in your residence." She advised there
has been a discussion regarding the word "custody" and expects
to amend it to "possession."
2:21:30 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ referred to [Sec. 9, AS 18.65.590], page
7, lines 25-27, which read
Sec. 18.65.590 Definitions [DEFINITION], in AS
18.65.510 - 18.65.590,
(1) "animal" means a vertebrate living creature
not a human being, but does not include fish;
2:21:42 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded to a question asked while off
record by Representative Millett and stated that the four red-
bellied fire frogs they discussed are under the protection of
this bill as they are vertebrates and not fish.
2:22:32 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked the reasoning in excluding pet fish.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered that Legislative Legal and
Research Services reviewed the bill and noted there are three
definitions of "animal" in the code. This definition is used in
[AS 25.24.990], the general definition of the Alaska Criminal
Code. He pointed out that it is also the definition used in
Title 3, the animal code. He noted that another provision
includes insects, and the sponsor felt that ... with respect to
fish, these definitions did not include fish.
REPRESENTATIVE MILLETT said that she bought red-bellied fire
frogs, and noted that expensive salt water aquariums are quite
an investment.
2:25:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that he would be happy to
include fish in the committee substitute.
CHAIR LEDOUX responded that her thought was not that fish were
expensive, but if people can get attached to a frog presumably
they can get attached to a fish.
2:25:23 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ replied that individuals and families do
get attached to fish.
CHAIR LEDOUX related that as a child had a pet goldfish and was
attached to it.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ stated she has two pet goldfish, although
she is more attached to her dogs and birds, than the fish.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG remarked that he had clams as a child.
2:26:03 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ submitted that the definition [of animal]
adopted in the committee substitute is set forth in AS
11.61.145(c), which read:
(c) In this section, "animal" means a vertebrate
living creature not a human being, but does not
include fish.
and, AS 11.81.900(b)(3), which read:
(3) "animal" means a vertebrate living creature not a
human being, but does not include fish;
and a definition including fish, AS 03.05.100(2), which read:
(2) "animal" means an animal other than a human being
and includes a mammal, insect, bird, fish, and
reptile, whether wild or domestic, and whether living
or dead;
and, AS 08.98.250(2), excludes insects, which read:
(2) "animal" means any animal other than a human being
including mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles, wild or
domestic, living or dead;
2:27:33 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised that those definitions were
rejected because they say whether living or dead.
2:27:44 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ referred to [Sec. 11, AS 18.66.100(c)(17-
18)], page 9, lines 28-31, and page 10, lines 1-2, which read:
(17) prohibit the respondent from removing,
harming, or disposing of an animal owned or possessed
by the petitioner, respondent, or any other person
living in the residence;
(18) grant the petitioner the exclusive care,
custody, and control of an animal owned or possessed
by the petitioner, respondent, or any other persons
living in the residence.
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted that the word "custody" will be
replaced by the word "possession."
2:28:27 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised that the sponsors are working
on a committee substitute with the Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault who suggested the bill not be
included in the domestic violence provisions "or any other
person living in the residence," because some of the people
would not be parties to the lawsuit and there could be problems.
He offered that a number of states that include animal
provisions in domestic violence orders also include any minor
child of the parties or household individuals living in the
residence. He surmised that the majority of other states do
this and there are a total of 30 jurisdiction that now allow
this.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked how minor children are involved in the
discussion.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that the pet could be owned
by the minor child.
2:30:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN questioned in terms of pets, whether
Madagascar hissing cockroaches would be included.
2:30:46 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX asked if that was a serious question.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN opined that his cousin had Madagascar
hissing cockroaches of which he was attached and questioned if
fish were included, whether there was a subsistence preference
for the fish.
2:31:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER surmised that when the bill was put
together the sponsors were thinking in terms of pets.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG answered "Not entirely."
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER noted that there is potentially a huge
economic pond when discussing an Iditarod dog team. He
requested that the sponsors consider including an exemption for
other kinds of stable animals, like horses.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG replied that in some areas of the law
there is an exemption for dog mushing, and offered that he had a
divorce case wherein the husband and wife owned a fine mushing
team and they alternated the Iditarod. Clearly, he remarked,
the [dog team] must be looked at as a valuable piece of property
and there is no intention to change that. He stated that he
just does not want to send the animals to a place where they
will be starved.
2:35:07 PM
REPRESENTATIVE KELLER reiterated [Sec. 8, AS 18.65.520(a)(17)]
page 7, lines 8-10, "grant you the exclusive care, custody, and
control or an animal owned or possessed by you, your abuser, or
any other person living person living in your residence; and
..." He said he has not determined a positive suggestion but
the legislation appears to favor a pet as opposed to a valuable
dog team.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised there has been some question as
to the intent of the domestic violence language. Currently, he
noted, there is a provision in the domestic violence forms and
Sec. 8, deals with what can be included in the petition filed
for a domestic violence order, he explained. Sec. 11, deals
with what the order may contain and the two sections track each
other, he further explained. Currently, a box can be checked
when seeking a domestic violence order, or that the judge can
check, but there is nothing in statute, he remarked. He advised
that this legislation will put it in statute so there is no
question. He explained that the sponsors are not trying to do
anything additional, just to codify the practice. The
intention, he noted, is to preserve the economic value of a dog
team and to ensure that the team is not being abused or
dissipated.
2:37:26 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX referred to [Sec. 8, AS 18.65.520(a)] page 7, lines
14-17, which read:
... It is not necessary to have an attorney to
obtain a protective order, but you may consult an
attorney if you choose. If you would like help
obtaining a protective order, you may contact the
nearest domestic violence program located at ______.
...
CHAIR LEDOUX advised that those sentences are different from
what it has been in the past.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated the intent is to set it out
specifically. In the past, he opined, it has gone under "(17)
and fit it under that." He advised that there will be testimony
regarding judges in other jurisdictions that with language like
this won't include animals. This provision ensures that pro per
litigants know about it, and the judges as well. He pointed out
that the Department of Public Safety publishes a pamphlet and
offers information on their web site, and with the passage of HB
147 it will appear in the pamphlet and on the web site. He
opined it will make a significant difference in the government's
actions.
2:38:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ related that it will make a difference
with law enforcement because often the respondent is aggressive
and possibly asserts control over the animal as a means of
leveraging control over the victim. She noted there will be
testimony with regard to that issue as animals are often used by
an abuser to control victims in preventing them from leaving.
She described this provision in the statute as empowering the
victim which is stronger than having it in a form.
2:39:37 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX quiered whether this allows someone who obtained a
domestic violence restraining order to remove the animal
themselves.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that usually when the order
is issued, a Writ of Assistance is also issued and the police
accompany the person. The victim is not sent out alone to
retrieve children, or animals, as the purpose is to protect the
victims, he expressed. He described that as the key to the
entire domestic violence procedure.
2:40:32 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ again referred to page 9, lines 28-30,
which prohibits the respondent from "removing, harming or
disposing of the animal owned or possessed by the petitioner,
respondent or any other person living in the residence." She
then referred to page 9, line 31 through page 10, lines 1-2,
"grant the petitioner of the exclusive care ..." and stated the
word "custody" will be replaced with "possession and control of
an animal owned or possessed by the petitioner, respondent, or
any other person living in the residence." She advised that
pages 12-16, are sections dealing with divorce and dissolution
of marriages that empowers the well-being of the animal in
deciding who retains the animal. She referred to [Sec. 20. AS
25.24.200(c)], page 15, lines 28-29,
(c) ... ownership of animals taking into
consideration the well-being of the animals,
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ then referred to [Sec. 18, AS
25.24.200(a)], page 15, lines 2-4, which read:
(5) if an animal is owned, the spouses have agreed to the
ownership or joint ownership of the animal, taking into
consideration the well-being of the animal.
2:42:22 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised that one is the divorce statute
and the other is the dissolution statute. He referred to page
15, line 14, which is included in the Petition for Dissolution
in that a party can include provisions concerning animals. He
described it as an important piece of the bill as a large
portion of the bill is to let the public know what they can do.
Often, he opined, one side of a divorce or dissolution is pro
per.
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned that if at least one side is pro per
regarding [Sec. 19, AS 25.24.200(b)], page 15, line 5-18, how
will the pro per party know that this exists as generally pro
per people do not read statutes.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded that this will be reflected
in the court form.
CHAIR LEDOUX asked if there is any place that provides that it
will be reflected in the court form.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG deferred to Nancy Meade, Alaska Court
System. He offered that with the concurrence of the Alaska
Court System, Sec. 16, was included which is the civil
jurisdiction of the Alaska District Court because there are
provisions for the costs of care at the beginning of the bill.
He noted that this section was added to be certain that a case
within the Alaska District Court's jurisdiction, money-wise,
could do this.
2:44:35 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG responded to Chair LeDoux that the
provision is on page 12, lines 7-8, [Sec.16, AS
22.15.030(a)(11)], and explained that it amends the statute
setting forth the types of cases within the Alaska District
Court's civil jurisdiction.
2:45:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE VAZQUEZ noted that the intent of the bill is also
to allow victims to have their pets protected by the protective
order. For example, Hurricane Katrina initiated the federal
government's realization that many pet owners would refuse to
leave a dangerous situation because they did not want to leave
their pet behind. She pointed out that the federal government
enacted a statute entitled Pets Evacuation Transportation
Standards Act of 2002. She offered that subsequent to filing HB
147, two constituents wrote that they stayed in abusive
situations because they were afraid to leave the dog behind for
fear the abuser would cause harm to the dog. Representative
Vazquez related that the sponsors provided a summary of an
excellent article that appeared in the National Council of
Juvenile and Family Court Judges, "Protecting Domestic Violence
Victims by Protecting their Pets," in the spring of 2010. She
pointed out that when victims are attached to their pets or
animals, they often endanger their own lives by going back to
care for the pet or animals. In cases of children, there are
strong emotional bonds formed especially when children are in a
chaotic dysfunctional environment as the pet can provide
stability. She described this as the intent of the legislation
to protect the victims by also protecting the pet.
2:48:00 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN stated that he noticed in the materials
there is a letter from the "Alaska Network on Domestic Violence
and Sexual Assault" that is voicing opposition to the proposed
statute change.
2:48:33 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX opened public testimony
2:48:58 PM
SHERRY RAMSEY, Attorney and Director, Animal Cruelty Prosecution
of the Humane Society of the United States, said she is in
support of HB 147, which provides a number of important tools in
the protection of animals. She advised she is particularly
enthusiastic regarding the provision allowing domestic violence
victims to request that their beloved animals are included under
the protection of the restraining orders. As a prosecuting
attorney, and in private practice, understands how important
this provision can be in protecting not only the animal but the
human victims. She remarked that an important study revealed
that up to 49 percent of domestic violence victims admitted they
delayed leaving a dangerous situation due to fear their animals
might be harmed or killed by the abuser if they left. She
related that another study shows a large percentage of victims
advising that their animals had been threatened or harmed by
their abusers. She explained that many studies demonstrate how
important it is to ensure that a victim can leave a dangerous
situation with her entire family, including furry ones. She
pointed out that animals are considered property in every state,
and because abusers often control every aspect of a domestic
violence victim's life, the abusers will often argue they are
the legal owner of the animal. She described the situation as
the abuser using that animal to manipulate the victim and he/she
won't let the victim remove the animal from the premises.
Ultimately, she said, victims might sneak back into the home to
try to retrieve an animal as they are fearful it could be
abused. She noted that the article referenced by Representative
Vazquez, she co-authored on the subject which was published in
the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges
quarterly magazine. She said the article offers examples of
issues revealed with regard to this, and it explains why the
specific language used in this bill is appropriate and best at
ensuring the law will be effective and enforceable. She offered
that she has worked in other states assisting in drafting and
passing these bills. As of 2014, she advised, there are 29
states, the District of Columbia, and Porto Rico that have
enacted legislation similar to include provisions for animals in
domestic violence restraining orders, as well as additional
bills pending around the country. She remarked that the results
have been an effective means to protect victims of domestic
violence, and that she has never heard of any of the laws having
any negative effect or unintended consequences. In fact, she
explained, she was sent a law from California to review which
expands this type of protection in not only adding animals onto
restraining orders, but all other protection orders, just as
juvenile, elder abuse, and civil harassment proceedings. She
surmised that California's original law to include animals in
domestic violence restraining orders has worked so well that it
is now being expanded for protection of more victims of abuse.
These laws make procedures within states consistent and ensure
that judges understand they can provide this relief, which some
judges do not. She explained that state laws are the only means
to ensure that human victims of domestic violence and their
beloved animals can be protected from an abuser. She urged the
committee to support this important bill.
2:54:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked if she was a professor, and what
courses she taught in this area
MS. RAMSEY responded (indisc.) and teaches animal law.
2:54:31 PM
KATHY HESSLER, said she is a clinical law professor at Lewis &
Clark Law School, in Portland, Oregon. Her areas of expertise
include animal law, and previously was a legal services attorney
and clinical law professor with a general civil and property law
practice for over 15 years, including domestic violence issues,
she said. She offered that currently she writes, teaches, and
lectures in the area of animal law. She described herself as a
person who has studied animal law issues for quite a while, and
that she is pleased Alaska is looking to change its laws in
three important ways. First, she pointed out, in addressing the
cost of care elements of this legislation the provision allows
the state to act in order to get an abused animal the care it
needs without cost to the taxpayers. It charges costs to the
owners who are already responsible for the animals, and who may
later be adjudicated as an abuser who caused the harm that
required the care. She said with reference to the protective
order piece, in 29 other jurisdictions it has been working well.
She stated that she is not aware of any adverse impact to the
domestic violence community, to the victims, or to the
administration of justice. She related that she has experience
in a number of jurisdictions that have elected, as a catch all
provision, to allow judges to do what they deem best for the
victim of violence. Although, she noted, some judges have been
disinclined, concerned, hesitant, and also refused to include
pets in the orders because they felt they did not possess the
authority. She noted that codifying is a current practice in
Alaska wherein the statute would make clear to judges, and pro
per parties, that this is an appropriate remedy to seek and that
it is important for a number of reasons. She explained, that
these pet provisions are included in the National District
Attorneys Association Manual on investigating and prosecuting
abuse, and is part of the training that this is the ideal way to
proceed.
2:58:19 PM
MS. HESSLER described the consensus about human and animal
violence, in that it is clear abusers use the animals to control
and punish victims. She continued that not dealing with pets
puts certain victims at risk and it is clear that protecting
animals leads to more safety for victims. She pointed out that
the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) treats animal abuse as
a serious crime to be considered. She noted that this bill does
not change ownership of the animal, as it is only a temporary
control, but it is important to animals and society that animal
abuse is taken seriously. She remarked that clarity is
important and within her research found that jurisprudence is
slim and muddled as judges do not have guidance, are not clear
on what they can do, some are adding custody, and most are
dealing with animals as property. She noted that the provisions
in this bill handle that question in an eloquent manner.
3:00:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked whether Ms. Hessler is familiar with
the letter submitted in opposition that was discussed earlier.
MS. HESSLER responded "I am."
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN pointed out that the Alaska Network
basically depicts that this will become a tool for abuser to use
and it will create a confusing system. He said it basically
does not support the legislation and asked how Ms. Hessler
responds to that.
MS. HESSLER noted that within the states she has reviewed or
worked in, she has not experienced [the Alaska Networks claims]
as [the law] has allowed victims to leave the home more quickly
and completely. The ownership issue relating to the animal can
be dealt with at a later time and through a safe venue, she
explained. It could be that the victims feel compelled to speak
to the abuser, but they certainly don't have to and the
protective order gives them the right not to, she remarked. She
described a situation where the pet is keeping the victim in the
home, or they come home to feed the pet, wherein [the law]
protects the victim as once the victim has control over the
animal, safety is at hand.
3:01:33 PM
SALLY CLAMPITT, President and Co-Founder, Alaska Rural
Veterinary Outreach, Inc. (ARVO), said the organization puts
together medical teams of volunteer veterinarians and assistants
to travel to remote villages where there are problems of an over
population of animals, usually dogs. The organization provides
very little to no cost clinics, vaccines, and general wellness
as its approach is addressing issues through prevention and
education. She offered that the committee may understand the
challenges in having pets in rural Alaska without any support,
and not just veterinary support, but there is nothing there for
many of the animals living in a subsistence based low income
community. She described that as a result, many of the
communities have developed procedures in which to deal with over
population that are heart breaking as they do not have humane
euthanasia, or can spay/neuter animals. She pointed out that
currently, and somewhat routinely, the communities destroy stray
animals which is traumatic and unpleasant, and children grow up
with this. She stated that any legislation looking at the big
picture of the importance of the relationship between animals
and their people is beneficial to all arms of animal welfare
that Alaska has to deal with. She said she recognizes the
struggle between animal abuse and domestic violence. She
further recognizes the invaluable healthy links between many
programs and disadvantaged people, everything from therapeutic
horseback riding to dogs that visit seniors, or children who are
terminally ill. There is an amazing uplifting experience for
these folks when they can have some sort of relationship with
animals and she sincerely hopes the bill passes.
3:05:22 PM
RONNIE ROSENBERG, President, Animal Control Commissioner,
Fairbanks Animal Shelter Fund, said that prior to living in
Fairbanks, she was a supervising attorney for three counties in
North Dakota for Legal Services of North Dakota and represented
several domestic violence shelters. She said she fully supports
the bill as in codifying the provisions there will be a
checklist for advocates that assist pro per people in domestic
violence applications and the issue of animals can be brought to
the court's attention right up front. The judges or magistrates
can make a ruling on that rather than people not remembering or
not thinking about it until later. In that manner, she opined,
it will protect victims and especially children living in the
home who are already in chaotic situations. Beyond that, she
stated, she fully supports the idea that perpetrators of
violence towards animals have to pay a bond and are responsible
for the costs rather than passing it onto the taxpayers. Over
the years there have been several cases where the cost became
quite large and, she noted, it has been hard to recoup those
monies without people either posting a bond or decide they will
relinquish the animal so the animal can receive proper care and
be adopted. She said she strongly hopes this bill passes and
asked that fish be included, as not too many years ago there was
a case with a huge tank of fish in a domestic violence situation
and the woman and her four children were very reluctant to leave
the home.
3:08:38 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG noted that the Alaska Council on
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault submitted a letter opposing
the bill as it did not feel that legislation was necessary. He
asked whether she felt legislation is necessary.
MS. ROSENGERG related that it is necessary in order to have
consistency as it gives direction to the court. She pointed out
that some rural areas have magistrates who are not attorneys.
She explained that this legislation leads to a full flow sheet
so that when people go to the court by themselves, or with an
advocate who is not an attorney, or even a paralegal, there is a
form the person fills out and it will spur their minds that they
should say something about the pet. She opined this will not be
an impediment in commercial kennels or dog mushing because it
will be treated as a business asset or, in fact, it could be the
victim who wants to have the dogs and the court will make a
determination based on findings of fact. She offered that she
is not certain why they are opposing this legislation as she did
not know they were opposing it.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG corrected himself and related that the
letter of opposition is from the Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence & Sexual Assault.
3:11:43 PM
METIS RILEY, Board Member, Straw for Dogs, said she supports HB
147, particularly regarding cost of care in that the financial
burden should be placed with the owner responsible for the care
they did or did not give, and not taxpayers, municipal shelters,
or law enforcement agencies. She offered that in her experience
she has seen the cost (indisc.) the care needed or not even be
able to be given due to ownership questions during seizure.
Also, she stated, this bill places responsibility onto the
owners of the animals who caused the neglect or abuse. In
addition, the other components of this bill are well researched
issues regarding the link between domestic violence and animal
abuse. She remarked that she believes that while this bill
provides pet health it is really about people and the people who
either need to be held responsible for their actions, or need to
be protected so they can protect their own animals.
3:13:24 PM
SYLVIA PANZARELLA, said she strongly supports HB 147 as she and
her husband are animal lovers and consider their pets to be part
of their family. Most people know that pets are living,
breathing creatures, great and small, who experience happiness,
sadness, fear, and love as they are not inanimate objects. She
stated that something must be done to help combat cruelty to
animals and their human families in that more protection must be
offered. She remarked that this bill is just one tool added to
the tool kit which has the bonus of saving Alaskans money. She
opined that as word gets out concerning this bill, all of the
mailboxes in all of the districts will be flooded with letters
of support. She asked that the committee support this bill as
it is an important bill.
3:16:19 PM
DR. ROBERT GERLACH, DVM, State Veterinarian, Office of the State
Veterinarian, Department of Environmental Conservation, said he
is available for questions regarding animal care or the
standards for animal care.
3:16:31 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked whether he would be involved in
any manner if the bill passes.
DR. GERLACH responded that his involvement is judgement and
evaluation for proper care of animals, as to whether the animals
were cared for properly, and whether there was improper care
with respect to cruelty to animals.
3:17:01 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to Sec. 1, [AS 03.55.110(c)],
page 1, lines 8-13, through page 2, lines 1-5, which read:
(c) Before a peace officer may take an animal and
place it into protective custody, the peace officer
shall request an immediate inspection and decision by
a veterinarian licensed under AS 08.98 that placement
into protective custody is in the immediate best
interest of the animal. If a veterinarian is not
available to perform an inspection, before a peace
officer may take an animal, the peace officer shall
communicate with a veterinarian who has, after hearing
a description of the condition of the animal and its
environment, decided it is in the immediate best
interest of the animal that it be placed in protective
custody. If the peace officer is not able to
communicate with a veterinarian, before the officer
may take an animal, the officer shall decide it is in
the immediate best interest of the animal that it be
placed into protective custody.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG described the provision as a procedure
that must be undertaken by the state or any level of government
if they seize an animal for abuse or neglect. He asked how this
provision works and the role of a veterinarian.
3:17:56 PM
DR. GERLACH replied that when abusive action is taking place, or
a complaint filed, that generally a peace officer would be
involved in determining if there was abuse or lack of care to
the animal. He explained that in the case where the peace
officer is unable to make a judgement, they would rely on either
local veterinarians or the state veterinarian's office to assist
them in the determination. He pointed out that the statute
reads that the animal has to have proper care with respect to
feeding and watering an animal and maintaining health, providing
medical care and health for the animal, and providing shelter.
He described that as broad and not distinct in that there is
room for interpretation. He said in this determination, the
goal is to establish an objective set of care standards that a
peace officer could institute when making an evaluation in an
investigation.
3:19:21 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that the state's laws are
carefully crafted and this bill does not affect that part of the
statutes.
3:19:48 PM
KATHRYN MONFRIEDA, Chief, Criminal Records & Identification
Bureau, Division of Statewide Services, Department of Public
Safety, advised that the division submitted a 3/27/15, fiscal
note.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG referred to the fiscal note with money
attached and submitted that he is not anxious to see this bill
go to the House Finance Committee for $2,900. He opined that
when a fiscal note is for small amounts of money, the
legislature's procedure is to submit a committee note that would
zero that out. He advised it is his intention to make a motion
at the appropriate time, otherwise it could delay the bill for
another year. He asked if the Department of Public Safety could
"live" with that.
MS. MONFRIEDA advised that the Department of Public Safety could
"live" with [zeroing out the fiscal note].
3:22:18 PM
PEGGY BROWN, Executive Director, Alaska Network on Domestic
Violence and Sexual Assault, advised that she is not an expert
in animal rights or animal welfare issues, and has worked at the
Alaska Network for 19 years. The Alaska Network determines
legislation by whether it is necessary and the impact on a
victim's safety particularly regarding protective orders and
statutes. She advised that protective orders are a critical
tool used for the victim's safety, especially in Alaska.
Previously, she offered, the Alaska Network worked with the
Alaska Court System regarding protective order forms and
"personal essential items," which includes pets and their names.
She opined that Alaska has a high relationship with animals,
animal companions, and being outdoors. She pointed out that
pets are included in the protective order forms, and the Alaska
Network has trained judges and attorneys, and that victim
service providers have advised that this inclusion is working.
She stated that the Alaska Network is opposing HB 147, as the
Alaska Court System currently has pets on the form and it
needn't be in statute. She advised that currently a victim can
obtain a protective order and have complete care, and possession
of their pets. She offered that shelter programs have on-site
kennels and relationships with various animal societies,
including people who care for animals in particular. She said
her point in the opposition is that the Alaska Network does not
believe there is a problem, and that pets are included within
the instructions for the protective order forms police officers
provide to victims. Currently, if the respondent is trying to
coerce the victim through threat or injury to the animal the
respondent would already be in violation of a protective order
provision. She described the legislation as redundant to some
degree, and at the worst degree "if it isn't broke, why are we
trying to fix it." She questioned whether there are unintended
consequences in adding a tool for an abuser in that the victim
would be in constant contact, or increased contact through
modification of the protective orders, of which the court system
would be additionally charged with monitoring. She related that
she had listened to testimonies regarding "animal cruelty,
animal welfare, animal rights, animal, animal, animal." She
expressed that putting this legislation into victim protective
statutes posed the question of getting a protective order for
animal cruelty, and asked why it has to be put with domestic
violence victims. She clarified that it is important she go on
record that there already are protective orders for victims to
have their pets, and that the crime of domestic violence goes
with the victim, not the animal.
3:30:09 PM
MS. BROWN noted that she had received a call from a victim that
was concerned this legislation would affect her current
protective order with pets. Ms. Brown said she appreciates the
intent of the bill, and the efforts for animals, but the Alaska
Network opposes this legislation.
3:31:20 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX questioned whether the Alaska Network has concern
with other provision of the legislation such as, divorce, and
who pays when an animal is taken out of the home. She surmised
that the Alaska Network's concerns are the protective order.
MS. BROWN responded that Chair LeDoux is correct.
3:31:59 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN advised that he is on the Alaska Network
on Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Pro Bono Panel, and has
worked on cases assigned by the Alaska Network. He described
himself as exceptionally dedicated to protecting the rights of
victims of domestic violence. He asked how a box gets on the
protective order form and why is it there. He explained that a
judge researching that issue would find it is not in the statute
and opined that something supporting that box should be in
statute. He said he agrees the domestic violence protective
orders work well and that there are many provisions on the form
that track the statute exactly. He offered that his worry is
having a box without statutory support, and that the Alaska
Network program may be undermined with the lack of statutory
support.
MS. BROWN said she mentioned this issue to the sponsors and
believes Representative Claman makes a valid point.
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he does not believe any municipality
should be housing a pets for eight or so weeks that is unrelated
to the domestic violence issues.
3:37:00 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX offered that she has the same confusion in that she
agrees "if it ain't broken, don't fix it," but she believes
Representative Claman is correct that because this procedure is
provided why not put it into a statute. She explained if it is
put into statute, the protective order forms can read exactly as
they have been reading, and the judge can refer back to the
statute. She asked whether her concern was that the legislature
would "monkey" around with the language on the petition as
opposed to actually having a problem with codifying it.
MS BROWN responded that the Alaska Network's issue is not with
codifying what is currently done, as the issue is of mixing
animal welfare with victim's rights.
3:39:06 PM
MS. BROWN replied to Chair LeDoux that she did not have the
section in front of her that her statement was referring to and
opined that there are a couple of sections that allude to
exclusive care. She stated she is testifying to the pieces of
custody and possession which are currently in the protective
order, regardless of ownership. She remarked that with regard
to codifying it, the Alaska Network agrees, but there are other
provisions around the protective order regarding the animal,
possession, and custody that the Alaska Network sees as
potentially very dangerous.
3:40:06 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered Representative Vazquez his
assurance that the legislation will not be opened up to domestic
violence as that is not the intent of the sponsors. He
explained that if it is not done in the House Judiciary Standing
Committee, and it came back from the Senate the House would have
to concur.
MS. BROWN stated "I have to see it to believe it."
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that is a fair statement and
unless there is a problem "we won't see it."
MS. BROWN agreed that it is a fair statement. She described the
concern of the Alaska Network is that protective order statutes
will be opened up and a lot can happen. She opined that it has
been proven that very well-meaning people, particularly with
animal welfare, can state that doing things in protective order
statutes may seem on its face to be good, but in practice can be
incredibly dangerous. For instance, she offered, if there is a
lot of interaction at the courthouse, how many victims have been
shot and killed at a courthouse. She asked the committee to
understand that on practical, real world concerns, the Alaska
Network is very picky about why protective orders should not be
opened up as before there were protective orders the homicide
rate of "women against men" was astronomical. Yet, she offered,
when protective orders were introduced the homicide rate of
"women murdering partners" decreased nation-wide by 70 percent.
She asked the committee to understand why the Alaska Network
takes a strong position opposing a bill in that currently there
are remedies so why have the legislation.
3:43:16 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX surmised that the Alaska Network is not concerned
whether the legislation was codified, but if in codifying it the
legislature would open up the statute and that bad things can
happen when titles are opened up.
MS. BROWN said she was testifying as to how the Alaska Network
perceives this legislation, but is aware that it is the
legislature's call.
3:43:52 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN said he understands the concerns raised
and he will work with the organization to reassure it that the
legislature is ensuring that the protective order statute does
not suddenly get turned into something undesirable.
3:44:25 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG stated that wherever this is put into
statute appears to be a help elsewhere. He referred to a 4/1/15
research brief by Chuck Burnham, Legislative Legal and Research
Services, and read: "As you know, 27 states have enacted
statutes that permit pets to be included in protective orders.
As the attached Table 1 shows, 18 of these states provide on the
forms used to petition for protective orders sections specific
to pets." In other words, he explained, at least 18 other
states have statutes as well as the forms and the purpose is to
provide certainty over time and stability. He stated that the
Department of Public Safety will be performing additional
services as a result of this legislation, such as information on
their website, and pamphlets as it is the sponsors' intention to
provide greater protection for the victims. He asked if that
provided solace.
MS. BROWN advised that law enforcement already does those things
and it is on the instructions of how to obtain a protective
order. She stated that the instructions are the notification
that law enforcement currently gives to victims and clearly
offers multiple avenues. She opined that the Alaska Court
System has the instructions on its website, and the notification
is currently in place. The instructions would have to be
changed to some degree, and she opined that pets are currently
part of that.
3:47:39 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG offered that the fiscal note indicates
the additional services provided.
MS. BROWN stated it is regarding updating the data base for law
enforcement.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG agreed and said they have a pamphlet.
MS. BROWN stated she was talking about the pamphlet and not the
data base.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked Ms. Brown to take a look and see.
3:48:08 PM
REPRESENTATIVE CLAMAN asked that in addition to the committee's
material that a copy of the protective order form be included.
3:48:36 PM
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG asked that the Department of Public
Safety provide a copy of the pamphlet to the committee.
3:48:58 PM
CHAIR LEDOUX closed public testimony after ascertaining no one
further wished to testify.
REPRESENTATIVE GRUENBERG advised it is the sponsors' intent to
provide a committee substitute.
CHAIR LEDOUX held HB 147 in committee.