Legislature(2003 - 2004)
04/06/2004 01:50 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 1303 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 1333 ELISE HSIEH, Assistant Attorney General, Environmental Section, Civil Division (Anchorage), Department of Law (DOL), relayed that she has sent the committee, via e-mail, a list of what she termed friendly, suggested amendments to CSHB 275(L&C). Referring to page 1, line 6 - proposed AS 03.55.100(a) - she suggested that the word "include" be changed to "includes". Referring to page 1, line 8, - proposed AS 03.55.100(a)(1) - she suggested that the word "daily" be deleted because it could [be interpreted to mean] providing potable water once a day, which, she opined, is probably not sufficient. Referring to page 1, lines 10-12 - proposed AS 03.55.100(a)(2) - she suggested that the language be changed to read: "(2) shelter; indoor shelter must be maintained at a temperature compatible with the good health of the animal; outdoor shelter must". She opined that the latter change will clean up the introductory phraseology [of paragraph (2)], characterizing the current wording as being very awkward. MS. HSIEH, referring to page 2, line 9 - proposed AS 03.55.100(a)(5) - suggested adding the words "for the health and safety of the animals" after "standards"; this will clarify the standards expected from the state veterinarian. Referring to page 2, lines 10-14 - proposed AS 03.55.100(b) - she suggested adding a sentence, "In the event of disagreement under this paragraph, the State Veterinarian will provide the professional opinion needed under this paragraph."; this will clarify that the state veterinarian will be the final arbiter of any disagreement between veterinarians making determinations under paragraph (b). Referring to proposed AS 03.55.100, she suggested adding language in a new subsection (c) giving the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) the authority to promulgate regulations regarding sufficiency of care under proposed AS 03.55.100(b); the language could read, "(c) The department of environmental conservation may adopt regulations to implement this section." She noted that the latter suggested change was recommended by Debra Behr of the Department of law. Number 1504 MS. HSIEH, referring to page 2, line 19 - proposed AS 03.55.110(a) - suggested deleting, "on which it wishes to take action", because the discretion to enforce against animal abusers should be with the Department of Public Safety (DPS) rather than with an unnamed, possibly private, organization that may or may not wish to act. Referring to page 3, lines 3-4 - proposed AS 03.55.120(b) - and noting that custodians of abused animals may be unwilling to have their location known, she suggested deleting the words, "and under whose custody the animal is to be sheltered and cared for", and inserting instead the words, "and a reference to their right to petition the court under AS 03.55.130", which would be more helpful to owners who seek the return of their animals. MS. HSIEH, referring to page 3, line 10 - proposed AS 03.55.120(d) - and remarking that, "every reasonable effort", connotes something that may be unending, suggested replacing "every" with "a"; the language would then read, "shall make a reasonable effort to locate the owner". Referring to page 3, line 24 - proposed AS 03.55.130(c) - she suggested, for clarity, replacing "warranted by" with "reasonable under"; she remarked that the word "warranted" could, in some circumstances, be more ambiguous than reference to a "reasonable" standard. Referring to page 4, line 30 - proposed AS 11.61.138(a)(6) - she suggested deleting the words, "a herd, collection, or kennel [of]", opining that that language is unnecessary and complicates enforcement. MS. HSIEH, referring to page 5, line 2 - proposed AS 11.61.138(a)(7) - suggested using language that would be more specific than, "with elements similar to a crime under this section". Referring to page 5, lines 4-5 - proposed AS 11.61.138(b) - and remarking that that language is very awkward, she suggested changing it to read, "Each animal that is subject to cruelty to animals under (a)(1)-(5) and (7) of this section shall constitute a separate offense." In conclusion, Ms. Hsieh opined that these suggested "friendly" amendments will make HB 275 stronger and easier to enforce. CHAIR McGUIRE mentioned that the committee would address the DOL's suggested changes at the bill's next hearing. Number 1655 TIM COLBATH, Founder, Alaska's Extended Life Animal Sanctuary, characterizing HB 275 as a major step in the right direction, simply offered his organization's support for the bill. Number 1687 ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant, Central Office, Division of Alaska State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), indicated that the DPS is in support of HB 275, and said he agrees with Ms. Hsieh's points, in particular the point about it being a bad idea to disclose to owners the location of their animals. He added, "I don't think it will be a burden for [law] enforcement officers simply to refer people to the statute or the courts so they can petition for return of their animals." He noted that law enforcement officers see a lot of cases of animal abuse, adding, "we've seen some ugly things." In response to comments, he said he agrees that there is a significant link between cruelty to animals and other crimes of violence; law enforcement officers and teachers are trained to look for cruelty to animals in juvenile behavior because such may indicate abnormal personality traits. Number 1759 CHRISTINE HEINTZ, after noting that she volunteers at Alaska Equine Rescue (AER) and that she has taken in unwanted and abused animals, mainly horses, on her own for over 20 years, said simply that she is in total support of HB 275. Number 1797 BARBARA BRINK, Director, Central Office, Public Defender Agency (PDA), Department of Administration (DOA), remarked that HB 275 proposes a huge change to current law, and indicated that she wanted the committee to be aware of the possible ramifications. She went on to say: My first question has to do with the amendment suggested by [Ms. Hsieh regarding] page 2, [subsection] (b), [lines 10-14]. Somehow this kind of, I think, muddies the water as to who makes these determinations of sufficiencies through water, shelter, space, et cetera because, frankly, in making this a class A misdemeanor offense, those determinations are going to have to be made by a jury. So perhaps we should put some limiting language in that section - [which] limits the state veterinarian and the veterinarians to providing opinions with [regard] to the sufficiency of evidence - to just simply engage in a prosecution. My next concern is, I just want to emphasize [that] currently, the law requires that a person knowingly inflict severe physical pain or prolonged suffering on an animal, or, with criminal negligence, they fail to care for animal and cause death, serious physical pain, or prolonged suffering, or that they kill ... an animal by using a decompression chamber. So everything in addition to that - [proposed] paragraphs [(3)-(7)] on page 4, ... [and proposed AS 11.61.140(a)(1)-(4)] - ... are all things that are not currently crimes and will be crimes under this new bill. ... And frankly, when we prosecute ... an assault against a person, we require that that person either be placed in fear of serious physical injury or that they actually suffered a physical injury, which is any pain or impairment. And here we're providing [that] if you recklessly fail to observe minimum standards of care for your pets, even if there is no injury whatsoever, you can be prosecuted and convicted under this section. So ... the broadness of this bill is rather enormous and, while I can't predict with accuracy exactly how many dollars it's going to cost the state and in particular my agency, I can promise you that this will be costly. MS. BRINK, in response to a question, noted that proposed AS 11.61.138(a)(5) simply says in part, "owns or is responsible for the care of an animal and recklessly fails to provide the minimum standards of care", and thus doesn't contain a damage element; the behavior could have had no deleterious effect on an animal and yet a person could still be prosecuted and convicted. Number 1971 SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska State Legislature, sponsor, suggested to Ms. Brink that she contact the sponsor to discuss the PDA's concerns. MS. BRINK said she would do so. Number 1984 ETHEL CHRISTENSEN, Executive Director, Alaska Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA), relayed that she has sent the committee some written comments, and offered her belief that mandatory jail time should be imposed for heinous crimes involving animal cruelty, and that drug and mental health counseling should be required for all other cases involving animal cruelty. She listed examples of cases that she characterized as heinous. She, too, remarked that people who are cruel to animals are also cruel to people, and noted that examples of such were relayed to her at a conference she attended in Seattle several years ago. In conclusion, she said [the bill] is long over due. CHAIR McGUIRE thanked Ms. Christensen for her work with the Alaska SPCA. Number 2084 SALLY CLAMPITT, President, Alaska Equine Rescue (AER), said she supports HB 275. She mentioned some of the animals the AER currently has in protective custody, and relayed that groups like the AER are willing to take on the expense and burden of providing the legislature with whatever support it needs [to pass HB 275]. She said she sees HB 275 as having many provisions that will make "the procedure" a whole lot easier, efficient, and faster, and hopes that the bill will result in more prosecutions. Current state law, as currently enforced, is a green light for cruelty and abuse, she opined, adding that cruelty to animals is "the unwanted child" of the judicial system and takes a back seat to many other issues. She went on to say: I don't believe that our organization or any other animal welfare group subscribes to putting animals before people. Nevertheless, to ignore the really ugly, ugly situations that go on out there would be very remiss ... as a moral responsibility. MS. CLAMPITT offered to share the details of cases that have occurred, reiterated that she supports HB 275, and urged the committee to make it as tough as possible. Characterizing current statutory language as vague, hard to enforce, and hard to prosecute under, she indicated that she would like to see the minimum standards of animal care left in the bill, as well as the new references to the behaviors that would become crimes. In conclusion she opined that HB 275 would get the job done, and asked the committee to support it. CHAIR McGUIRE, after ascertaining that no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony on HB 275 and indicated that the bill would be held over.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|