Legislature(2003 - 2004)
03/29/2004 03:27 PM House L&C
| Audio | Topic |
|---|
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
ALASKA STATE LEGISLATURE
HOUSE LABOR AND COMMERCE STANDING COMMITTEE
March 29, 2004
3:27 p.m.
MEMBERS PRESENT
Representative Tom Anderson, Chair
Representative Nancy Dahlstrom
Representative Bob Lynn
Representative Norman Rokeberg
Representative Harry Crawford
Representative David Guttenberg
MEMBERS ABSENT
Representative Carl Gatto, Vice Chair
COMMITTEE CALENDAR
HOUSE BILL NO. 467
"An Act establishing an Alaska Commemorative Coin Commission to
develop the design concepts and to make recommendations
regarding the final design of the Alaska quarter under the 50
States Commemorative Coin Program Act; and providing for an
effective date."
- MOVED CSHB 467(STA) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 275
"An Act relating to veterinarians and animals."
- MOVED CSHB 275(L&C) OUT OF COMMITTEE
HOUSE BILL NO. 323
"An Act relating to the care of and cruelty to animals, and to
reports of suspected child abuse or neglect by persons who have
a duty to investigate animal cruelty, abuse, or neglect."
- SCHEDULED BUT NOT HEARD [incorporated into CSHB 275(L&C)]
PREVIOUS COMMITTEE ACTION
BILL: HB 467
SHORT TITLE: COMMEMORATIVE QUARTERS COMMISSION
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) ANDERSON
02/16/04 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
02/16/04 (H) STA L&C
03/19/04 (H) STA AT 8:00 AM CAPITOL 102
03/19/04 (H) Moved CSHB 467(STA) Out of Committee
03/19/04 (H) MINUTE(STA)
03/24/04 (H) STA RPT CS(STA) 6DP
03/24/04 (H) DP: BERKOWITZ, COGHILL, LYNN, SEATON,
03/24/04 (H) GRUENBERG, WEYHRAUCH
03/24/04 (H) LETTER OF INTENT WITH STA REPORT
03/24/04 (H) FIN REFERRAL ADDED AFTER L&C
03/29/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 275
SHORT TITLE: VETERINARIANS AND ANIMALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CHENAULT
04/17/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
04/17/03 (H) L&C, RES
02/20/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/20/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/29/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
BILL: HB 323
SHORT TITLE: CRUELTY TO ANIMALS
SPONSOR(S): REPRESENTATIVE(S) CRAWFORD
05/15/03 (H) READ THE FIRST TIME - REFERRALS
05/15/03 (H) L&C, JUD
02/20/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
02/20/04 (H) <Bill Hearing Postponed>
03/29/04 (H) L&C AT 3:15 PM CAPITOL 17
WITNESS REGISTER
JOSH APPLEBEE, Staff
to Representative Tom Anderson
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: As staff to the sponsor, answered questions
about HB 467.
SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff
to Representative Mike Chenault
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Introduced HB 275 on behalf of the sponsor,
Representative Chenault.
CAROL GIANNINI, Staff
to Representative Crawford
Alaska State Legislature
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Answered questions about HB 275.
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General
Legal Services Section-Juneau
Criminal Division
Department of Law
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified about potential legal issues
arising from HB 275.
DIANE ZARFOSS
Alaska Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275.
CHRIS HEINTZ, Volunteer
Alaska Equine Rescue
Sterling, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275.
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant
Central Office
Division of Alaska State Troopers
Department of Public Safety (DPS)
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Requested that HB 275 provide authority for
peace officers to seize and, if necessary, destroy animals,
independent of consulting with a veterinarian.
SALLY CLAMPITT, President
Alaska Equine Rescue
Anchorage, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275, and
suggested changing the term "recklessly" to "knowingly".
BARBARA BRINK, Director
Public Defender Agency
Department of Administration
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: During hearing on HB 275, spoke of possible
effects on the legal system and anticipated increased costs.
KRISTIN RYAN, Director
Division of Environmental Health
Department of Environmental Conservation
Juneau, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified that Version S of HB 275 would
significantly decrease the fiscal note.
TIM COLBATH, Founder
Alaska's Extended Life Animal Sanctuary
Nikiski, Alaska
POSITION STATEMENT: Testified in support of HB 275.
ACTION NARRATIVE
TAPE 04-35, SIDE A
Number 0001
CHAIR TOM ANDERSON called the House Labor and Commerce Standing
Committee meeting to order at 3:27 p.m. Representatives
Anderson, Dahlstrom, Lynn, Rokeberg, Crawford, and Guttenberg
were present at the call to order. Representative Gatto was
excused in advance of this meeting.
HB 467-COMMEMORATIVE QUARTERS COMMISSION
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the first order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 467, "An Act establishing an Alaska
Commemorative Coin Commission to develop the design concepts and
to make recommendations regarding the final design of the Alaska
quarter under the 50 States Commemorative Coin Program Act; and
providing for an effective date." [Before the committee was
CSHB 467(STA).]
Number 0050
CHAIR ANDERSON, sponsor, explained that HB 467 follows the
federal authorizing legislation called the "50 States
Commemorative Coin Program Act." Annually over a ten-year
period from 1999 through 2008, the U.S. will issue coins with
state designs displayed on the reverse side. Each state could
design, develop, and submit a design representative of the
state. A quarter honoring the State of Alaska is scheduled to
be issued in 2008. This bill establishes an 11-member Alaska
commemorative coin commission, which will have the following
members: six public members appointed by the governor, one of
whom is chosen from a list submitted by the Alaska State Council
on the Arts; one student in an Alaskan public or private or home
secondary school; one member who is a resident of and appointed
from each of the four judicial districts; a majority and
minority member from each body of the legislature, appointed by
the presiding officers from the House of Representatives and the
Senate; and the governor or his/her designee.
CHAIR ANDERSON said the Office of the Governor will initiate a
public process to solicit narrative design concepts for the
quarter. The commission shall review and consider all these
concepts and submit to the United States Mint not fewer than
three and not more than five. When the mint provides the State
of Alaska with its final designs, the commission will review the
designs and make final recommendations to the governor.
CHAIR ANDERSON referred to the effective date of January 1,
2005, and explained that this follows the guidelines set by the
U.S. Mint to begin the design process 24 months prior to the
beginning of the year in which the quarter will be released. He
suggested this is timely because there will be two years to
prepare. He said the calendar year in which the Alaska quarter
is to be issued will coincide with events leading to celebration
of the 50th anniversary of Alaska statehood. He noted that he'd
sponsored another bill, HB 476, to try to get a commission to
coincide with the coin commission.
Number 0323
CHAIR ANDERSON, in response to Representative Dahlstrom,
clarified that if the committee did not take the responsibility,
it would default to the governor. He felt it would be better to
have a public process involved in the selection of a design.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why the commission would have 11
members, which he thought seemed large and unwieldy.
CHAIR ANDERSON indicated he wanted to have a broad perspective
with commission members from the arts, schools, judicial
districts, and both bodies of the legislature.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked why it would be necessary to have
legislative members on the commission.
CHAIR ANDERSON replied that there was interest and experience in
the legislature. He also said this number is comparable to
similar commissions he'd reviewed.
Number 0521
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said she thought it a good idea and
supported the uneven number of commission members.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG read from the bill, page 2, beginning
at line 4, "A Citizens Commemorative Coin Advisory Committee and
the United States Commission of Fine Arts will review the
designs and make recommendations." He asked if it was Chair
Anderson's understanding that these entities would review the
design separately or together.
CHAIR ANDERSON surmised that the review would be done
separately.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG noted that the governor would make the
final recommendation and the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury
would make the final approval. He asked if this was a new
process or similar to previous ones.
CHAIR ANDERSON replied that he thought it was similar. He said
he felt that without this bill, the governor would create a
commission and select staff. He wanted this authority to be
under the discretion of the House.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if "narrative design concepts"
had been done by other states.
CHAIR ANDERSON deferred to Mr. Applebee.
Number 0645
JOSH APPLEBEE, Staff to Representative Tom Anderson, Alaska
State Legislature, responded that when the Act was first
implemented it was discovered that some designs were unworkable
for coinage. The Act was amended to request that states submit
thematic narratives or design narratives. The mint creates the
actual design, he noted.
CHAIR ANDERSON commented that there is a small fiscal note
attached to HB 467, since the governor's office said it would
require a range 14, half-time position for two years to
administratively support the commission. In response to
Representative Rokeberg, he noted [that on page 2, line 1, it
says three to five] designs would be submitted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG surmised that the cost would be $10,000
to $15,000 per design just for administrative support, since the
fiscal note indicated a total of $82,300 over two years.
CHAIR ANDERSON explained that part of the expenditures were for
travel. He said this bill supports an important process.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG agreed.
Number 0835
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 467(STA) out of
committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying
fiscal notes.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion. He
recommended that the House Finance Committee consider removing
the legislative members and allowing the governor to appoint two
members, lowering the total to nine. This might decrease the
fiscal note and make the financing more manageable. He thought
the bill was a good one, but questioned who should be on the
commission and the total cost for getting the job done. He also
suggested the legislature, through its "leadership money," could
subsidize the legislative members and lower the full cost of the
proceedings. He said he supported having the other members,
previously mentioned, on the committee.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG withdrew his objection.
Number 0911
CHAIR ANDERSON, hearing no further objection, announced that
CSHB 467(STA) was reported from the House Labor and Commerce
Standing Committee.
HB 275-VETERINARIANS AND ANIMALS
[Contains discussion of HB 323, which was incorporated into
HB 275, Version S]
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would
be HOUSE BILL NO. 275, "An Act relating to veterinarians and
animals." [In packets, not yet adopted, was a new proposed
committee substitute (CS), Version S.]
Number 0965
SHARALYN WRIGHT, Staff to Representative Mike Chenault, Alaska
State Legislature, presented HB 275 on behalf Representative
Chenault, sponsor. She introduced Charlie, her pet dog, to the
committee. She thanked Representative Crawford's office for
being cooperative in "marrying" his bill, HB 323, with this one.
Referring to previous legislation that didn't pass, she
expressed concern that Alaska has fallen behind in terms of
protecting children, animals, and the elderly.
MS. WRIGHT said, on average, one child a day is mauled by a
large dog. She expressed concern for starved, abandoned, and
abused animals, and said animal abusers turn their anger towards
children, the elderly, and the defenseless. She reported that
her research over the past four years found that every serial
killer and serious child molester or abuser has a direct
correlation or relationship to harming small animals in their
childhood.
MS. WRIGHT explained that most of HB 275 was written to enable
and encourage police officers and veterinarians to investigate
and take action against animal abuse. The bill was kept simple
so the court system and the Department of Law wouldn't have to
attach a large fiscal note, and so the Department of
Environmental Conservation could arrive at reasonable standards
of care for the state veterinarian. She said the first section
of HB 275 defines the minimum standards of care for animals.
MS. WRIGHT referred to page 2, where the investigation procedure
and statutes that must be followed in order to seize an animal
are delineated. She said page 3, line 11, through page 4, line
15, allows for the destruction, reclamation, and adoption of the
seized animal.
Number 1336
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG moved to adopt the proposed CSHB 275,
Version 23-LS0940\S, Luckhaupt, 3/29/04. [No objection was
stated, and Version S was treated as adopted.]
CHAIR ANDERSON expressed frustration that this somewhat lengthy
proposed CS had just been presented to the committee.
MS. WRIGHT explained that Version S combines HB 275 with
Representative Crawford's bill, HB 323. Resuming her analysis,
she said page 4, lines 16-20, should be omitted in order to
avoid legal problems resulting from authorizing employees of
various departments to act as police officers. Page 4, lines
21-22, defines an animal. Page 4, line 23, through page 5, line
27, defines cruelty to animals in the first degree and allows
for penalties. Page 5, line 29, through page 6, line 31,
defines animal cruelty in the second degree. Pages 4-6 are
essentially Representative Crawford's descriptions and
definitions of cruelty to animals in the first and second
degree, unchanged, with the exception that Representative
Chenault's office took out reference to "department".
MS. WRIGHT turned to page 7, Section 5, which defines the people
and persons in the performance of their occupational duties with
respect to [paragraph] (8). [Section 5] clarifies exactly who
should report child abuse if animal abuse or suspected animal
abuse is found. She noted the high likelihood that if an animal
is being abused, a child is being abused. She pointed out that
her office had taken a lot of political "heat" on this provision
and had received many phone calls as there had been a
misunderstanding.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG referred to page 7, line 13,
requesting a definition of "practitioners of the healing arts".
MS. WRIGHT replied that this definition is outlined in statute
and that she'd been legally advised to use this phrase.
Number 1540
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN referred to page 4, line 29, where it says,
"(3) kills a dog or cat for the purpose of preparing or serving
the animal for human consumption". He pointed out that in some
cultures this is a common practice, and questioned Ms. Wright
about the consumption of a cat or dog in a survival situation.
MS. WRIGHT suggested the survival of a human being over the
survival of an animal would be a commonsense call.
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN commented that Americans have a cultural
bias about this issue.
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG questioned the provision that says a
person who commits cruelty to animals in the first degree if the
person kills or injures an animal by the use of a decompression
chamber. He wondered about the history of this provision.
MS. WRIGHT replied that this provision was already in statute.
She deferred the historical question to Representative
Crawford's office.
[Chairman Anderson passed the gavel to Representative Rokeberg.]
Number 1675
CAROL GIANNINI, Staff to Representative Crawford, Alaska State
Legislature, agreed with Ms. Wright that the aforementioned
provision is in statute now. However, "I'm told that it doesn't
happen anymore," she related.
Number 1701
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG drew attention to what became Conceptual
Amendments 1, 2, and 3, contained on a one-page amendment titled
"Conceptual Amendment and Clean Up Language." That document
read [original punctuation and spelling provided]:
Page 2 line 28 Seizure a of and lien of animals.
Remove "and lien on."
Page 2 line 9 remove "department" and insert the State
Veteranerian as employed by any Department in State of
Alaska.
Page 4 line 16 and 17 omit "certain department
employees as peace officers"
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG suggested the three sections of the
foregoing amendment be treated separately, as Conceptual
Amendments 1, 2, and 3. He asked about Conceptual Amendment 1,
relating to page 2, line 28.
Number 1740
MS. WRIGHT responded that she knew of no lien being placed on an
animal. She said there is a possible case before the court by
the ASPCA [American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals] in Anchorage. A mechanism other than a lien can be
used, she said, and someone who sues for recovery of damages or
costs when taking care of a seized animal can get a renewable
judgment. The aforementioned is easier, she opined, to collect
upon than a lien, which adds costs for the court and the
recorder's office and causes more conflict and aggravation. She
said she thought it better for the owner to give up ownership of
an animal, if ordered to do so by the court, or to pay the
caregiver of the animal up front without being sued.
MS. GIANNINI added:
Actually, the lien language is not in this version.
It was in our original bill. We provided that an
agency, the state, a person who took care of an
animal, automatically had a lien against that animal.
Part of that was because of the bonding provisions ...
that we envisioned in here. This conceptual amendment
in terms of this CS is appropriate because the lien
language has been removed, and it fixes the title [of
Section 03.55.120].
Number 1833
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 1
[text provided previously]. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 1850
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG read Conceptual Amendment 2, relating to
page 2, line 9 [text provided previously].
MS. WRIGHT explained that the state veterinarian, previously
employed at the Department of Natural Resources, is now employed
at the Department of Environmental Conservation. This amendment
allows for movement of that position.
Number 1892
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 2.
There being no objection, it was so ordered.
Number 1921
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG read Conceptual Amendment 3, relating to
page 4, lines 16-17 [text provided previously, with a verbal
correction saying it goes through line 20]. He said Ms. Wright
had previously spoken to this change [to omit "certain
department employees as peace officers"].
Number 1930
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG moved to adopt the foregoing
Conceptual Amendment 3. There being no objection, it was so
ordered.
Number 1970
ANNE CARPENETI, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services
Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law, noted
there was no referral of HB 275 to the House Judiciary Standing
Committee and so she wished to testify about the impact of the
bill here. Directing attention to page 5, lines 1-2, she said:
This is cruelty to animals in the first degree, which
is a class A misdemeanor. This provides that ... if
the person who owns or is responsible for the care of
an animal recklessly fails to provide minimum
standards of care for the animal under AS 03.55.100,
which is added in this bill on the first ... and
second pages -- and that's a concern to ... us because
we're concerned that this is vague. ...
That section that it cross-references says that a
person is required to provide medical care to an
animal at times and to the extent necessary to ...
maintain the animal in good health. And ... that one
sticks out particularly in my mind as something that
... people of good will who take good care of their
animals ... can disagree on.
MS. CARPENETI related that she has friends who'd send their dog
to a special clinic down south if it got sick, whereas she
wouldn't choose to do this with her pet. She was concerned
about this bill making it a crime not to meet standards. She
referred to a provision in current law, AS 11.61.140(a)(2),
which addresses the problem of negligent care of an animal. She
suggested substituting that provision for what was in
paragraph (5).
MS. CARPENETI noted that her second concern was taken care of
with the deletion of "peace officer". However, another concern
relates to page 3, lines 11-12, which changes the law to require
a peace officer first to consult with a veterinarian before
destroying an animal. There are some places in the state where
that would be difficult, she pointed out.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Carpeneti to review the
current statute, AS 11.61.140.
MS. CARPENETI noted that subsection (a)(1) prohibits knowingly
inflicting severe physical pain or long suffering on an animal.
She said that's included in the new bill. She explained that
paragraphs (1) and (2) are current statute; paragraphs (3) and
(4) are new. She said paragraph (5) [page 5] is cause for
concern because it cross-references the standards of care which,
for a criminal prosecution, are not clear enough. Substituting
present law, (a)(2), for paragraph (5) would provide the needed
clarity.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked if there were affirmative defenses
available under the current statute.
Number 2190
MS. CARPENETI replied affirmatively but wasn't sure if they were
identical. She pointed out that the second-degree provisions
are new.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG observed the small fiscal note from the
Department of Law's civil section and asked if Ms. Carpeneti was
representing that section.
MS. CARPENETI replied that she was representing the criminal
division, which didn't anticipate a fiscal note.
Number 2241
DIANE ZARFOSS, Alaska Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to
Animals, testified that her organization had been pushing for
this bill for many years. She felt combining HB 323 and HB 275
worked well. She alluded to the many examples of animal abuse,
saying that at one point she had been asked by the district
attorney's office to bring them some laws so they could
prosecute. She applauded the fact that this bill would increase
authority for state troopers and district attorneys, and offered
her belief that there was no fiscal note. This bill is
desperately needed, she opined.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG pointed out that the fiscal notes amount
to over $850,000. He suggested Ms. Zarfoss check with the
sponsor for further information.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked why the bill wasn't referred to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee instead of the House Resources
Standing Committee.
MS. WRIGHT said she hadn't made those decisions.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG opined that combining the two bills had
resulted in this route.
Number 2350
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM said, as chair of the House Resources
Standing Committee, she intended to request that HB 275 be
waived from that committee so it could be sent to the House
Judiciary Standing Committee.
TAPE 04-35, SIDE B
Number 2352
CHRIS HEINTZ, Volunteer, Alaska Equine Rescue, told members she
has provided foster care for animals for the past 20 years and
is in total agreement with HB 275. She said her organization
has been involved with a case of abused horses for the past 18
months. She thought it would be easier for prosecutors to do
their job, and easier to get care for suffering and dying
animals, if this bill passes. The present law is too vague, she
said; she gave the example of animal owners' claiming they
didn't have to feed their animals because no law says they must.
She said it's time there is a law.
Number 2303
ALLEN STOREY, Lieutenant, Central Office, Division of Alaska
State Troopers, Department of Public Safety (DPS), referred to
Version Q, page 3, line 11, "Destruction and adoption of
animals", noting that Version Q was the latest version of HB 275
that he had. Noting that this section refers to destruction
options for animals and requires a veterinarian's direction, he
said he felt a previous version of HB 323 had better language,
from a law enforcement point of view, since it allowed for a
peace officer to make the decision to seize or destroy an
animal, alone or in consultation with a veterinarian. He
explained that it is difficult at times for an officer to
contact a veterinarian due to remoteness; not allowing a peace
officer to make this determination independently could prolong
suffering for an animal.
CHAIR ANDERSON noted that the committee has Version S. He asked
whether Lieutenant Storey thought "may" should be changed to
"shall" on page 2, line 29. He questioned to whom an animal
would be delivered if it wasn't delivered to "a veterinarian, or
to a person, a public or private animal control agency, humane
animal treatment shelter or organization, or other custodial
agency".
LIEUTENANT STOREY replied that troopers often coordinate with
neighbors, family members, or friends of the owner to care for
an animal. He said he didn't think changing the language to
"shall" would prevent these types of placements for animals.
Number 2143
SALLY CLAMPITT, President, Alaska Equine Rescue, testified in
support of HB 275, saying it was badly needed. She opined that
Alaska's current cruelty laws are poorly written and extremely
difficult to enforce, and felt HB 275 would overcome these
serious issues. She commented, in reference to Ms. Carpeneti's
concern about vague legal language, that she felt it was
appropriate to reference standards of care and licensed
veterinary involvement to interpret what is adequate medical
care. She said a veterinarian's involvement in making that
determination should be sufficient.
MS. CLAMPITT suggested "recklessly" needed to be changed to
"knowingly" because it altered the level of accountability. She
opined that it is easy to demonstrate that someone may knowingly
fail to do something, but to prove that someone recklessly
failed to do something is much more difficult because this
implies malice and forethought.
Number 2005
BARBARA BRINK, Director, Public Defender Agency, Department of
Administration, noted that she didn't have Version S either.
She agreed with Ms. Carpeneti's testimony, saying the present
legal definition of cruelty to animals is clear and the proposed
changes aren't clear, even with attendant definitions. She'd
submitted an indeterminate fiscal note that indicates unknown
costs, she pointed out.
MS. BRINK said proposed paragraphs (3)-(7) and the entire
"cruelty to animals in the second degree" section criminalize
conduct that isn't currently a crime. Abandoning an animal or
striking an animal when driving and not immediately stopping and
notifying the owner and the appropriate law enforcement agency
would be examples of criminal behavior under HB 275. She
predicted a significant number of people would be charged under
these new criminal provisions, which would cost money.
Number 1923
KRISTIN RYAN, Director, Division of Environmental Health,
Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC), explained that
the state veterinarian works within this department and division
because his/her primary responsibility is to protect humans from
diseases that transfer from animals to humans, for example,
rabies, and mad cow disease. Noting that she hadn't seen
Version S either, she said she'd need to review this version
with the state veterinarian to determine a new fiscal note,
since she anticipated significant change.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked Ms. Ryan if she thought the fiscal
note would increase or decrease, and inquired where the state
veterinarian was currently assigned.
MS. RYAN replied that she thought it would decrease
significantly, since DEC wouldn't play a significant role other
than drafting regulations to define cruelty. This role
contrasts with the previous version of HB 275 that required the
state veterinarian to investigate cruelty cases, which resulted
in a large fiscal note. She said the state veterinarian, Bob
Gerlach, D.V.M., works out of the Anchorage office.
Number 1839
TIM COLBATH, Founder, Alaska's Extended Life Animal Sanctuary,
testified in support of HB 275. He opined that, especially with
the current amendments, the proposed law would be much better
than the current one.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG paraphrased the following portion of
Version S, page 6, line 3, paragraph (2):
while operating a propelled vehicle, knowingly strikes
and injures an animal and fails to (A) stop and (B)
notify both the owner and the appropriate law
enforcement agency;
He asked Ms. Brink if this is too broad and perhaps the
distinction between privately owned and publicly owned animals
needs to be made. He said he was asking her because she might
have to defend a person who had struck an animal.
MS. BRINK said she didn't know, but no distinction is made in
this legislation. She informed the committee that 80 percent of
people charged in criminal court can't afford private counsel.
She characterized the language in HB 275 as vague, broad, and
applying to many situations that might not be intended.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG asked when the "knowingly" standard
applies.
MS. BRINK replied that "knowingly" applies specifically to
"strikes" and the driver has a duty to stop.
Number 1654
REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if "knowingly" implies intent or
purpose or means accidental.
MS. BRINK responded that there is a legal definition: a person
acts knowingly, to a conduct or to a circumstance, when that
person is aware that certain conduct is of that nature or that
certain circumstance exists. The knowledge of the existence of
a particular fact, as an element of an offense, is established
if a person is aware of a substantial probability of its
existence, unless the person actually believes it does not
exist, is unaware of conduct, or circumstance that that person
would have been aware of had they not been intoxicated, we
presume that they are acting knowingly.
Number 1600
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD began discussion of what became
Conceptual Amendment 4. He asked for clarification on page 6,
lines 3-4, "and injures an animal". He pointed out that there
is no distinction between domestic and wild animals.
MS. BRINK replied that additional specificity in the language
would deter litigation. If the intent is to narrow the
provisions so not all people hitting all animals are included,
then clarification would help.
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD referred to hitting birds while driving
as an example and wondered if a conceptual amendment was
necessary.
CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify,
closed public testimony.
Number 1435
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD moved to adopt Conceptual Amendment 4,
inserting "domestic" between "a" and "animal" [and deleting the
word "an"] on page 6, line 4.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG objected for purposes of discussion. He
asked Ms. Carpeneti if and when a citizen must report striking a
wild animal.
MS. CARPENETI said she didn't know and offered to research this,
since [the Alaska Department of] Fish & Game might have related
regulations.
Number 1320
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG removed his objection.
CHAIR ANDERSON asked that Ms. Wright discuss this with
Legislative Legal and Research Services to ensure that changing
the language in this bill wouldn't affect regulations that
currently cover striking wild animals such as moose.
Number 1305
CHAIR ANDERSON announced that Conceptual Amendment 4 was
adopted.
Number 1277
REPRESENTATIVE LYNN offered Conceptual Amendment 5, to change
the semicolon to a comma on page 4, line 30, and add the words
"except for the emergency survival of a human being".
CHAIR ANDERSON, hearing no objection, announced that Conceptual
Amendment 5 was adopted.
Number 1208
REPRESENTATIVE CRAWFORD proposed Conceptual Amendment 6: on
page 3, lines 12 and 16, after "peace officer", add "alone or".
CHAIR ANDERSON, hearing no objection, announced that Conceptual
Amendment 6 was adopted.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG referred to the issues of "reckless and
knowingly" under the first degree crime in the bill. He asked
that the sponsors review this issue and that it be brought up in
the House Judiciary Standing Committee, the next committee of
referral. He suggested that those who had testified that this
was an issue might use a "knowingly standard" in the second
degree offense and keep the "recklessness" in the first degree
offense.
Number 1130
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG offered Conceptual Amendment 7, to
change paragraph (5), page 5, lines 1-2, as recommended by both
the attorney general's office and the public defender's office.
He asked if the sponsors were agreeable to this or whether it
should be referred to the House Judiciary Standing Committee.
MS. WRIGHT replied that attorneys aren't experts in veterinary
care and the only individual who can determine a standard of
care is an animal doctor, a veterinarian. She explained that
two individuals can differ in their opinions of a standard, but
the only expert is a veterinarian.
REPRESENTATIVE ROKEBERG said they were discussing legal
standards that concern prosecutors and defenders: whether the
current standard is criminal negligence and whether that should
be maintained, and whether or not the minimum standards are the
criteria. He recommended that this discussion continue in the
House Judiciary Standing Committee.
Number 0963
REPRESENTATIVE DAHLSTROM moved to report CSHB 275, Version 23-
LS0940\S, Luckhaupt, 3/29/04, as amended, out of committee with
individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes.
There being no objection, CSHB 275(L&C) was reported from the
House Labor and Commerce Standing Committee.
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business before the committee, the House
Labor and Commerce Standing Committee meeting was adjourned at
4:46 p.m.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|