Legislature(2003 - 2004)
05/06/2004 08:16 AM Senate JUD
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
HB 275-ANIMALS AND CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
CHAIR SEEKINS noted that at the last meeting, members discussed
some provisions that were troublesome. He said over time, he has
worked with people from the equine industry, veterinarians, and
animal advocates to find a way to adequately protect animals
without being "extremist." He said in his proposal, Section 1
addresses the minimal standards necessary for animals. He noted
that because Alaska has a very small number of veterinarians,
the bill requires reasonable medical care to the extent
available and necessary. He added that his proposal also says
that the final determination of whether the standards of care
are met shall be based on the professional opinion of a licensed
veterinarian. He noted the department can adopt regulations to
implement Section 1 and that the bill is too open-ended in that
the department would set other standards for health and safety.
He said he believes his proposal contains a compatible
definition of the minimum standard of care.
SENATOR FRENCH asked why the sanitation portion of the bill was
left out of Chair Seekins' proposal.
CHAIR SEEKINS said his proposal addresses a reasonable
sanitation level and that no standard environment applies to all
animals. He said his proposal is designed to provide reasonable
guidelines and allows a veterinarian would make the final
determination as to what is a proper environment.
SENATOR OGAN expressed concern that some people believe animals
should have the same protections as humans. He explained:
I mean honestly, my daughter was on a tour in Kachemak
Bay for school. She was a chaperone for younger kids,
and the people that were giving the tour that hosted
the place where they stayed...were out there talking
about how the starfish murder the clams.... That's how
they described it to these kids and my daughter's
going they what? They murder the clams? I mean
honestly, there are some people out there that are, as
far as animal rights, an animal doesn't have a right
to murder another animal to continue to live, you
know, God or the natural order or whatever your belief
is set it up that way. So that's what I'm worried
about. Those are my concerns with these kind of bills.
Like I said, I have friends that have open-ranged
horses over in Kachemak Bay. It's a tough way for a
horse to make it through the winter. Some of them
might not have. I know there's one of them, a living
legend in our neighborhood that had a big old chunk
out of its rear end from where a bear got a hold of it
in the spring when it was born. So it's all pretty
subjective. One person's standard of good care will be
another person's level of outrage. Those are some of
my problems with putting some of these things in
statute.
CHAIR SEEKINS agreed with Senator Ogan and said according to his
veterinarian, his horses are the healthiest in Alaska, although
others might not believe they are appropriately cared for.
He then explained the second section of his proposal [Sec.
03.55.110] pertains to animal cruelty. He explained:
If you did believe here that there was some cruelty
that was taking place to an animal, it says you can
bring that complaint with a public or private animal
control agency or organization - the department, which
is here the Department of Environmental Conservation,
or with a peace officer....
So, let's say it's the Alaska Equine Rescue. They take
a look at the animal and they think in their opinion
there is no problem there. They may just not refer it.
If they think there is a problem there, they may refer
it to a peace officer. That peace officer then has the
process of - the availability of being able to go
through the process, to get a search warrant and to go
out and take a look. That is - when they get there,
they have several options. They can say well, I don't
think this warrants further investigation or if they
do think it warrants further investigation they could
actually place the animal or the animals into
protective custody. And then at that point, when that
police officer felt that that was necessary, they'd
have to request an immediate inspection and decision
by a licensed veterinarian and that placement into
protective custody is in the immediate best interest
of the animal. If no veterinarian is available to
perform an inspection, then that police officer must
communicate with a veterinarian who has, after hearing
a description of the animal and its environment,
decided it is in the immediate best interest of the
animal that it be placed into protective custody. If
the police officer is not able to communicate with a
veterinarian, before the officer may take the animal
the officer must decide it is in the immediate best
interest of the animal to be placed into protective
custody.
CHAIR SEEKINS said the word "seize" has been replaced by
protective custody, which he believes is the intent of most
people. He said, regarding where the animal would go, it could
be placed in the custody of Alaska Equine Rescue, the ASPCA, or
any organization that is willing to care for the animal during
the interim.
CHAIR SEEKINS described Sec. 03.55.130 to say that if, once the
animal is taken into protective custody, it appears the best
course of action is to destroy the animal, the police officer
would have to make contact with a veterinarian but, if contact
is not possible, the police officer would have to make that
decision.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if that section is identical to Sec.
03.55.130 in the original bill.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he thought so but said he changed the terms
to "protective custody" and "destroy." He said the proposal
provides that the court could make some decisions regarding
adoption and destruction. He noted the most difficult part of
the proposal for him was to get consensus on what constitutes
cruelty to animals in the first degree. He noted that, for
example, some people want to prepare a dog or cat for human
consumption. Because that topic gets into cultural discussions,
that section was removed. Instead the bill defines cruelty as
knowingly inflicting physical pain or prolonged suffering on an
animal, using a decompression chamber to kill, using poison to
kill, or failing to care for an animal, which results in the
animal's death. He noted that scientific research accepted by
government standards would not apply.
SENATOR OGAN expressed concern that the definition is too broad
in that a person could be charged with animal cruelty in the
second degree if that person left his dog outside and it was hit
by a car.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he had the most difficulty getting agreement
on the definition of animal cruelty in the second degree. He
said he believes the current animal cruelty law needs to be
expanded, especially in light of recent animal atrocities,
without including accepted practices in the state. He suggested
adopting the content of his proposal up to Sec. 11.61.142,
Cruelty to animals in the second degree, which could be
addressed next session. He said in effect, that would provide a
definition for minimum standards of care and would allow for
protective custody.
SENATOR OGAN moved to adopt a conceptual amendment [Amendment
1], which is the proposal offered by Chair Seekins, and includes
the material on pages 1 through 5, up to Sec. 11.61.142.
SENATOR OGAN clarified that the conceptual amendment would
replace the contents of CSHB 275(FIN).
SENATOR FRENCH commented that CSHB 275(FIN) passed the House
after a lot of hard work. He expressed concern that he was under
the impression the committee planned to remove one definition of
animal cruelty in the first degree and address steel jaw leg
holds, snares, and the problem of securing animals in the back
of pick-up trucks. He believes everything else in the bill has
been well thought through so he was asking what options he was
being offered.
CHAIR SEEKINS clarified that Amendment 1 would establish a new
committee substitute.
SENATOR FRENCH objected because he believed the bill before the
committee could be fine-tuned in a short time. He asked to hear
from the sponsor or staff about the proposed committee
substitute.
TAPE 04-65, SIDE B
MS. SHARALYN WRIGHT, staff to Representative Chenault, told
members she has received 113 telephone calls about this bill
since the last Senate Judiciary Committee hearing. The callers
want to see the bill passed as it is, however, because session
is nearing its end, the sponsor is willing to accept whatever
the committee passes out.
SENATOR FRENCH asked Ms. Wright to articulate further on the
phone calls she has received.
MS. WRIGHT explained that HB 275 has morphed from a one-page
bill to being combined with Representative Crawford's bill. The
House Judiciary Committee then spent 20 hours on the bill,
during which it took public testimony. Animal control officers
statewide scrutinized it. She added, "If I could say that most
of our communications came from Anchorage or Fairbanks or the
Mat-Su, I would tell you that but it isn't. Everybody everywhere
is concerned about the Karen Botley (ph) case - the most
egregious cases that we've had that are just a reflection of a
civilization that just shouldn't be and for these folks to be
able to continue to go on and abuse animals in this way, it's
just not correct."
MS. WRIGHT said she was unable to get a sectional analysis of
Chair Seekins' proposal [Amendment 1] but Representative
Chenault's intent was to deal with the worst cases. He has
worked on this legislation for four years.
SENATOR FRENCH asked if Chair Seekins' proposal deals with the
worst cases.
MS. WRIGHT said it probably does. She maintained, "I think it
was for your information but if this is actually what the bill
does, we're going to take it and run with it. I'm not here to
object."
SENATOR OGAN said he is appalled by animal cruelty cases like
everyone else and believes the proposed committee substitute
deals with those cases. He said in reality, only the worst cases
will be prosecuted. He is concerned however, that in reaction to
the worst cases, people will attempt to fix the situation by
"making it so that farmers cannot farm or dog mushers cannot
mush and there are those out there that don't want farmers to
farm or dog mushers to mush." He believes the proposed committee
substitute provides a good balance.
CHAIR SEEKINS took public testimony.
MS. SALLY CLAMPITT, Alaska Equestrians, thanked members for
taking this issue on at this late date and for their willingness
to leave the basics of the bill intact. She expressed concern
that Amendment 1 increases the defenses of cruelty statute to
include some of the disciplines of riding and training
practices. She noted that training practices were put in the
defenses of cruelty statute in 1998. She was not sure of the
need to defend a couple of disciplines of riding and training
practices as opposed to the condition of the animal or the acts
committed. She recommended that those provisions be removed. She
questioned why rodeos were included and said one person could
consider a lot of training practices cruel while another would
find those same practices acceptable.
CHAIR SEEKINS pointed out that training practices were included
in the version of the bill that was referred to the committee.
MS. CLAMPITT repeated that was put into statute in 1998 and was
slipped in at the very end.
CHAIR SEEKINS said he believes the proposed CS covers the
egregious situations and he does "not want to love it to death
and kill the whole thing."
MS. CLAMPITT agreed with that approach.
CHAIR SEEKINS announced that without objection, Senator Ogan's
motion to adopt Amendment 1 was adopted.
SENATOR OGAN moved SCS CSHB 275(JUD) and its attached fiscal
notes from committee with individual recommendations.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|