HOUSE BILL NO. 179 "An Act relating to cruelty to animals and making failure to care for five or more animals in a single continuous episode a class C felony." REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, SPONSOR, explained HB 179. He stated that over the past several years animal control officers had had to rescue multiple animals at one time in the Mat-Su area. Troopers were issuing search warrants for individuals for alleged abuse. Cases of abuse were shocking, ant the bill worked to make five or more cases of abuse a class C felony. The bill would provide a helpful tool for prosecutors. He believed the gravity of the charge should reflect the gravity of the situation. He was clear that the legislation did not affect mushers who did a great job caring for their dogs. 9:47:34 AM MIKE SICA, STAFF, REPRESENTATIVE BOB LYNN, pointed to the legislation. Currently under statute there were seven counts of animal abuse: three class C felonies and four misdemeanors. He looked at page 1, line 8 of the bill: A person commits cruelty to animals if the person with criminal negligence, fails to care for an animal and, as a result, causes the death of the animal or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to the animal. Mr. Sica looked at page 2, line 11. The following would be a class C misdemeanor within the legislation: (If the animal cruelty occurs) with criminal negligence, contemporaneously fails to care for five or more animals and, as a result, causes the death of five or more animals or causes severe physical pain or prolonged suffering to five or more animals. Mr. Sica spoke to the indeterminate fiscal notes. He pointed to a "Stat Sheet" from the Department of Law (DOL) displayed the number of offenses and cases related to criminal negligent animal cruelty count 2 charge (copy on file). He stated that the numbers range from one charge and one defendant in 2008, to a high of 62 charges and 12 cases in 2011. He stated that the fiscal impact would be zero or almost zero. He stressed that the particular crime of animal cruelty was infrequent, high profile, and impactful. 9:52:07 AM PHIL MORGAN, ANIMAL CARE MANAGER, MAT-SU BOROUGH ANIMAL SHELTER, PALMER (via teleconference), thanked the committee for its time. He was currently driving to a location to address a situation involving a number of dogs and cats that had been neglected. He pointed out that work had been done on the issue beginning in 2009. Officers had gone to the location on a regular basis between 2009 and 2010 to check on the animals; the owners were in financial trouble and officers had checked on the dogs recently, which were found to be in a deplorable state. He supported HB 179, and believed it would help to enforce the issue. Animal shelters needed something substantial to help enforce the situation and he believed the current punishment was woefully inadequate. The situations were very stressful and costly on animal shelter staff, continued to get more difficult. He urged the committee for its support of HB 179. Co-Chair Stoltze noted that he had several family members that volunteered at the Mat-Su animal shelter. He wondered whether the proposed position was of the shelter, borough, or personal. Mr. Morgan replied that if was a combination of the borough manager, shelter, and personal position. Representative Wilson noted that some people who may have been accused of animal cruelty, were merely facing financial straits, and were not intentionally harming animals. She shared a story related to people who were having trouble caring for animals, because of their financial situation. She asked whether the people in the description would be charged with a felony. Mr. Morgan replied that he had not been to the site to provide more detail. He remarked that the animal cruelty charges were examined carefully, and he would need more information about the specific case. Co-Chair Stoltze wondered whether there was a non- judgmental clause that an individual could drop off an animal they could no longer care for. Mr. Morgan replied that no judgment was passed on people that approached the shelter for help. He felt the punishment should fit the crime. 10:00:55 AM Representative Neuman discussed testimony that people did not understand the gravity of the situation. He thought that people could get into financial distress and not understand that they were no longer able to care for animals. He wondered whether the punishment would Mr. Morgan replied that well minded people, just wanted to help one more animal. The point was that after people had been counseled and given other options he did not know what else could be done. Co-Chair Stoltze discussed that Anne Carpeneti, Assistant Attorney General, Legal Services Section-Juneau, Criminal Division, Department of Law would address the aspects of criminal negligence. Mr. Morgan remarked that he always wanted to understand the other point of view; however, there had to be a higher punishment once it reached the level of some of the cases he had seen. 10:04:59 AM KAYLA EPSTEIN, MEMBER, ANCHORAGE ANIMAL CONTROL ADVISOR BOARD, had no desire to make the issue an emotional appeal. The bill greatly addressed the crime, she expressed support for the HB 179. She pointed to an Anchorage case that involved dogs, cats, and birds. The case had taken over a year and had cost the municipality over $77,000 to care for the animals; once criminal neglect had been proven, they were able to remove an additional 55 animals. The organization believed that the punishment should fit the crime. She urged the committee's support of the legislation. Mr. Sica pointed out that he had discussed animal cruelty with Vice-chair Fairclough. He stated that the issue was not related to individuals who did not feed their dogs for several days, they were cases of severe neglect. He painted a sad picture of animals impacted by neglect. He discussed the public's level of outrage or scorn to fit the crime. 10:10:51 AM ANNE CARPENETI, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, LEGAL SERVICES SECTION-JUNEAU, CRIMINAL DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, noted that the department did not have a position on the bill. Representative Costello asked what the sentence range was for a class C felony. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the range was zero to five years for a class C felony. Co-Chair Stoltze asked Ms. Carpeneti to provide the statutory reference at a future hearing. Representative Costello wondered what penalties were in other states for comparable offences. Mr. Sica responded that there were other states that had tougher felonies, for even one count of animal cruelty. Representative Costello asked whether a person could fall under the law if dogs were loose and one got hit by a car. Ms. Carpeneti responded that in order to fall under criminal negligence it depended on the circumstance. She supposed it was possible for a person to be charged, if, perhaps a person let their dog out on a busy street during rush hour in Anchorage. Representative Neuman wondered how criminal intent was proven. Ms. Carpeneti replied that it was based on a person's responses, behavior, and other factors. She noted that a maximum fine for a class C felony was $50,000. Representative Neuman asked if the court would determine criminal negligence. 10:14:53 AM Ms. Carpeneti responded that she had already reported how the courts determined criminal negligence according to statute. She furthered that in a case of animal cruelty the court may look at factors related to failure to feed an animal, resources available, what the person was doing at the time. The department was ethically bound to the requirement to prove negligence. Representative Neuman asked for the definition of an animal. Ms. Carpeneti replied that an animal was defined as an vertebrate that was not a fish. Representative Neuman asked where trapping fell into the law. Ms. Carpeneti responded that the animal cruelty statute excluded hunting and conduct that was necessarily incidental to lawful fishing, hunting, dog mushing, or trapping activities. Co-Chair Stoltze asked about the practice of dog mushing and how it fell under the law. Ms. Carpeneti replied that the animal cruelty prohibition statute did not apply to generally accepted dog mushing, pulling contests, rodeos, or stock contests. Co-Chair Stoltze pointed to Bill Maher and remarks made about dog mushing. 10:18:44 AM Vice-chair Fairclough asked how the proposal was consistent with other parts of state statute related to domestic violence, sex trafficking, or child abuse. Ms. Carpeneti responded that the animal cruelty crime would be a class C felony. She furthered that third degree assault was a class C felony. She remarked that most domestic violence assaults were resolved at a class A misdemeanor, fourth degree assault level. Vice-chair Fairclough asked what other types of crimes qualified as a class C felony. Ms. Carpeneti replied that example of class C felonies were as follows: assault in the third degree; theft of $500 or more; larceny; and possession of many serious drugs. Vice-chair Fairclough noted that at some point it was necessary to change the way things were done. She wondered why it was not possible to take the animals away from a person for neglect or abuse. She believed it had to do with the due process and the time it took to prosecute. She asked if there was a different way to solve the problem. Ms. Carpeneti responded that the law did allow for an animal to be forfeited, and the person was required to pay for the care of the animal. She furthered that it was a class A misdemeanor to fail to care for an animal, under criminal negligence. The law specifically required that each animal be considered separate. 10:24:19 AM Vice-chair Fairclough wondered whether there was a different way to solve the problem. Ms. Carpeneti added that another provision in statute provided that there were currently some tools available. Representative Edgmon asked whether shooting an animal would be a misdemeanor. Ms. Carpeneti replied that it would be no crime at all, as long as prolonged suffering was not inflicted. Representative Guttenberg asked about the definition of a musher. Ms. Carpeneti replied that there was no definition of musher in criminal law. Ms. Sica pointed to a minimum standard of care in state law, which included reasonable medical attention. He noted that Doug Gardner was available to answer additional questions. 10:28:06 AM Co-Chair Stoltze CLOSED public testimony. HB 179 was HEARD and HELD in Committee for further consideration.