Bill Summary for Bill Number HB10-1124

Date: 02/03/2010

Final
BILL SUMMARY for HB10-1124

HOUSE COMMITTEE ON AGRICULTURE, LIVESTOCK, & NATURAL RESOURCES

Votes: View-->	Action Taken:
Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment C). The motion	Pass Without Objection TIE

Roll was taken at the earlier committee hearing upon adjournment.

01:37 PM

The committee reconvened.

01:38 PM -- House Bill 10-1124

Representative McKinley, sponsor, presented House Bill 10-1124. This bill makes a variety of changes to the animal welfare laws concerning animal control officers, the bonding requirements for animals seized during a neglect case, and reporting requirement including:

• prohibiting hiring an individual who has been convicted of a felony;
• requiring each governmental entity that employs animal control officers to issue identification cards that the officers must carry;
• requiring animal control officers to submit to, and pay for, a fingerprint-based criminal background check;
• aligning county training standards with the standards required by the state Bureau of Animal Protection (BAP);
• increasing the liability insurance entities are required to carry from $100,000 to $1,000,000; and
• changing the search warrant procedure from an administrative subpoena to a criminal search warrant.

Currently, if an animal is seized in a neglect or abuse case, the owner may pay a bond to cover the costs for care of the animal during the investigation to ensure that the impound agency does not dispose of the animal. The owner of the animal is responsible for all of the costs for the care of the animal. This bill amends the law to only require the owner to pay for the costs for care of the animal if the owner is found guilty. If the owner is found not guilty, the owner is entitled to recover the entire bond. If an animal is sold, the owner (if found not guilty) is also entitled to the entire proceeds from the sale of the animal. Under current law, the proceeds are used to pay for the cost for the care of the animal with any remaining proceeds going to the owner. Reporting requirements. The bill requires state and local entities to have information available to the public. The Department of Agriculture is required to place the dangerous dog database online for public access. Local nongovernmental entities that have contracted with counties to enforce the animal control regulations also are required to have information available during business hours concerning the number of animals impounded and the costs associated with impoundment.

01:40 PM -- Dr. Keith Roehr, Bureau of Animal Protection, spoke in opposition to the bill. He began by explaining the jurisdiction of the bureau. He discussed the existing bonding requirements and how these requirements will be affected by the bill. He answered questions from the committee concerning training requirements for animal control officers. Mr. Roehr distributed a handout to the committee (Attachment A).

01:53 PM -- Joe Stafford, Colorado Association for Animal Control Officers, spoke in opposition to the bill. He discussed how he conducts himself as an animal control officer. He explained that he is a commissioned agent for the Bureau of Animal Control. He also discussed differences in training and areas of specialty among animal control officers across counties.

02:00 PM -- Ron Wedow, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He described a situation that involved killing a dog after it had killed a deer, the reaction of a humane society officer, and the cost he incurred defending himself in court.

02:08 PM -- Dr. Barb Powers, a veterinarian with the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association, spoke in opposition to the bill. She explained that the bill would shift costs from animal owners to animal impounding agencies and described how the bill will negatively affect the welfare of animals. She discussed instances of animal abuse and answered questions from the committee. Dr. Powers clarified the provisions of the bill that she believed would enable acts of animal cruelty.

02:15 PM -- Kevin Bommer, Colorado Municipal League, spoke in opposition to the bill. He spoke about the provisions in the bill that relate to bonding requirements and how these would negatively impact local governments.

02:28 PM -- Jay Swarengen , an attorney with the Animal Law Center, spoke in support of the bill. He described the different categories of animal control officers and the differences in their training and other requirements. He discussed the authority and jurisdiction of animal control agents. Additionally, he described the costs of impounding an animal and the need for open records requirements for the contracts between animal control officers and counties.

02:41 PM -- Donna Garnett, the Director of the Urban Farm, spoke in support of the bill. She described some of the educational activities that they offer on their farm. She also described an incident involving the Humane Society and investigations they carried out on her property.

02:51 PM -- Lisa Pedersen, Colorado Federation of Welfare Agencies, spoke in opposition to the bill, and discussed efforts they are involved in relating to bonding requirements that are currently in statute. she answered questions from the committee regarding training standards.

02:54 PM -- Leslie Yoder, Director of the Humane Society of the Pikes Peak Region, spoke in opposition to the bill. She discussed the bonding requirements in the bill and the cost of caring for impounded animals.

02:59 PM -- Anna Pullaro, representing herself, described a situation that involved a tenant that owned neglected horses on her property. She discussed charges that were filled against her and her husband and how this has resulted in financial hardship.

03:16 PM -- Victoria Brodsky, representing herself, spoke in support of the bill. She told the committee about an incident involving one of her dogs who had been injured by her other dog and the response of an animal control officer. She discussed the expenses she incurred to keep the animals impounded and her associated legal fees. She also answered questions from the committee.

03:35 PM

The committee recessed.

03:48 PM

The committee came back to order.

03:49 PM -- Julie Justmen, Pueblo Animal Services, spoke in opposition to the bill. She responded to earlier testimony from Anna Pullaro involving neglected horses. She explained the costs that were assessed to the owners of the animals in the situation for veterinary care and board fees. She clarified that Pueblo Animal Services respond to complaints and do not spy on individuals. She answered questions from the committee regarding training of animal control agents.

03:55 PM -- Glenn Belcher, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He explained the injuries he sustained during the Gulf War and how a service dog helps him. He explained that he was not able to license his dog in the City and County of Denver because he is an American bull terrier (pit bull). He further explained that he believes that Denver's dangerous dog ban does not apply to service dogs and that this illustrates the need for additional education for animal control officers.

04:04 PM -- Carla Zinanti, Jefferson County Sheriff, spoke in opposition to the bill. She discussed the provisions of the bill that require a warrent for an investigation and explained how this would create difficulty for animal control agencies. She also discussed the bonding requirements in the bill.

04:06 PM -- Kevin Oconnell, representing himself, spoke in favor of the bill. He described an incident that involved an animal control agent impounding his dog on the suspicion that it was a pit bull. He discussed the costs that he incurred as a result.

04:09 PM -- Tamar Wilson, Colorado District Attorney Council, spoke in opposition to the bill. She explained her concern with the bonding provisions in the bill.

04:13 PM -- Linda Hart, Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs, spoke in support of the bill. She discussed the need for additional training and the need to change the existing bonding requirements.

04:18 PM -- Norm Renter, an investigator for the Dumb Friends League, spoke in opposition to the bill. He discussed his background and qualifications for working as an animal control officer. He also provided some examples of animal cruelty cases he has investigated. Mr. Renter answered questions from the committee.

04:37 PM -- Tim Walker, representing himself, spoke in support of the bill. He told the committee about an incident where his dog bit a veterinary technician and he was investigated by an animal control officer. He explained his understanding that veterinary technicians are exempt from current dangerous dog laws and that this illustrates the need for additional education requirements for animal control officers.

04:42 PM -- Andy Karsian, Colorado Counties Inc., spoke in opposition to the bill. He explained the negative impact the bonding requirements in the bill would have on counties and animal control agencies.

04:47 PM -- Jennifer Edwards, Animal Law Center, spoke in support of the bill. She summarized the opposition to the bill and discussed the aspects of the current law that need to be addressed.


BILL:	HB10-1124
TIME:	04:56:32 PM
MOVED:	Curry
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.001 (Attachment B). The motion passed without objection.
SECONDED:	Hullinghorst
		VOTE
	Baumgardner
	Curry
	Gardner C.
	Hullinghorst
	Looper
	McKinley
	Ryden
	Solano
	Sonnenberg
	Tipton
	Vigil
	Pace
	Fischer

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: Pass Without Objection


BILL:	HB10-1124
TIME:	04:58:01 PM
MOVED:	McKinley
MOTION:	Moved amendment L.002 (Attachment C). The motion was not acted upon. The bill was laid over in the amendment phase until February 9, 2010.
SECONDED:	Looper
		VOTE
	Baumgardner
	Curry
	Gardner C.
	Hullinghorst
	Looper
	McKinley
	Ryden
	Solano
	Sonnenberg
	Tipton
	Vigil
	Pace
	Fischer

Not Final YES: 0 NO: 0 EXC: 0 ABS: 0 FINAL ACTION: