SB77: relative to costs of care for animals seized in cruelty cases and prohibiting the future ownership of animals in certain animal cruelty cases.
Public in attendance: 40 in support, 10 opposed
This isn’t a horrible bill, but it needs some fine tuning of word selection, language to refund cost of care bonds if found innocent, first right of refusal for co-owners of animals who weren’t involved in cruelty, to name a few things that were raised in opposition. No vote completed at hearing.
——————-
SB161: relative to the definition of pet vendor
Public in attendance: 34 in support, 19 opposed
We need to do some work on this one, so stay tuned for next steps. But overall, I thought we did a great job explaining our concerns, including: unreasonable threshold to become a pet vendor, zoning concerns, public health concerns due to non-compliance and avoidance of detection, and trying to justify why responsible home-based breeders who breed for preservation, sport, etc., more often than not only dream about making a profit. No vote completed at hearing.
——————-
HB688: relative to transfer and inspection of animals
Public in attendance: 54 opposed, 2 in support
I think it was clear out of the gate that this bill is a mess, especially when presenting it Bixby had to explain all the amendments he was going to submit. We know he tried hard to get it right, but just went a little too far throughout the whole bill. The testimony given was superb and the committee seemed thoroughly invested in listening and understanding our concerns. We were able to repurpose a lot from SB161, but had to do a deeper dive in some areas, such as the lemon law, when to register, privacy concerns of database, etc. No vote completed at hearing.
