MINUTES OF THE
SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
Sixty-seventh Session
May 5, 1993
The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman R. Hal Smith, at 8:36 a.m., on Wednesday, May 5, 1993, in Room 119 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. This hearing was teleconferenced to the Cashman Field Center, Room 207, in Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Meeting Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster for Carson City and Exhibit C is the Attendance Roster for Las Vegas.
COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Vice Chairman
Senator Ernest E. Adler
Senator Thomas J. Hickey
Senator Mark A. James
Senator Joseph M. Neal, Jr.
Senator Dina Titus
GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT:
Senator Randolph J. Townsend
STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT:
Caren Jenkins, Senior Research Analyst
Rayanne Francis, Senate Committee Secretary
OTHERS PRESENT:
Mark McGuire, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society
Kurt Lapham, Investigator, West Coast Regional Office, Humane
Society of the United States
Linda Faso, Representing Self
Jan Rogers, President, Alliance for Animals
Grace Morell, Representing Self
Dr. Eugene L. Kirshbaum, Director, Dewey Animal Care Shelter
Ria Katz, Representing Self
Tina Trenner, Executive Vice President, KNEWS (AM Radio
Station), Las Vegas, Nevada
Charles Jenner, Representing the Clark County Public Works
Department, Animal Control and Animal Shelter
Judith Ruiz, President, Las Vegas Valley Humane Society
Roland Sansone, Owner, Frisky Pet Center, Las Vegas, Nevada
Tom Bentz, Legislative Coordinator, Nevada Alliance for
Responsible Animal Use
Alice Roth, Representing Self
Susan Callahan, Sole Proprietor, Galena Creek Ranch (Kortar
Kennels)
Willard Sharp, President, Nevada Dog Fanciers Association
Clayton K. Rice II, Legal Counsel, Responsible Dog Owners Group
Cindra Smith, Members, Responsible Dog Owners Group
Barbara Nosek, Representing Self
Darl Thiessess, Representing Self
Rita Hickey, Representing Self
Greg Brackett, NHSC
John Marlin, Member, Doberman Pinscher Club and Nevada Breeders
Alliance
Scott Gardner, Owner, Petland Incorporated, Las Vegas, Nevada
Deidrea Lear, Representing Self
Juanita Cox, Representing Self
Chairman Smith opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 402.
SENATE BILL 402: Imposes restrictions and requirements upon care and sale of certain animals.
Senator Dina Titus introduced herself to those attendance and explained that both she and Senator Randolph J. Townsend had sponsored the introduction of S.B. 402. She testified this piece of legislation was very similar to the "puppy mill" bill (S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session), which had unanimously passed out of the senate, but "died" on the floor of the assembly at sine die.
Senator Titus explained the introduction of S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session and S.B. 402 had been directly related to a situation which had taken place during the winter of 1990. She stated a puppy mill had been discovered in Elko, Nevada, where over 100 puppies had been kept in deplorable conditions. She continued by saying many of these puppies had been left out in the cold, winter weather to starve and freeze to death.
Senator Titus quoted that over 75 percent of families living in the United States own pets and many people were outraged when the story of this Elko puppy mill was printed in newspapers across the State of Nevada. She explained quite a few editorials had been printed in support of enacting legislation which would prohibit the existence of these types of puppy mills in the state.
Senator Titus stressed the importance of enacting S.B. 402 this session. She continued by saying many states surrounding Nevada had already enacted similar legislation. She emphasized puppy mills will locate in Nevada unless new laws are enacted which prohibit irresponsible breeders from setting up shop.
Senator Titus explained the intent of S.B. 402 could be categorized in the following ways: 1) the bill establishes certain minimum requirements for the care, housing and feeding of pets; and 2) the bill requires pet retailers to guarantee the health of pets sold to the public. She continued by stating this bill would protect the health and safety of animals to be sold as pets, while protecting consumers from unknowingly purchasing sick or injured pets.
Senator Titus explained the first 22 sections of S.B. 402 define the restrictions on animal care. She mentioned the bill contains provisions dealing with the size and cleanliness of animal enclosures, maintenance of adequate facility temperatures, etc. She assured those in attendance that a majority of pet shops, veterinarians and reputable breeders already follow the requirements set forth in S.B. 402.
Senator Titus explained sections 23 through 26 of S.B. 402 deal with protecting the consumer. For instance, these sections address what retailers are required to do in terms of being responsible for the health of every animal it sells and having animals checked out by qualified veterinarians on a regular basis.
Senator Titus stressed there were two major differences between S.B. 402 and S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session. She explained one of the provisions contained in previous legislation (deleted from S.B. 402), dealt with prohibiting the human consumption of cats and dogs. She felt this is a valid problem, but assured committee members that she would not object to reincorporating this language into S.B. 402. Senator Titus noted an assemblyman (of Asian descent) had objected to inclusion of this language in S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session. She noted this individual was not a member of the 1993 legislature, and admitted she was aware of some sentiment in the assembly to amend this language back into S.B. 402. Again, Senator Titus pointed out she would not object to the inclusion of this language, however, she stressed she did not want this language to create a controversy which might kill the bill.
Senator Titus remarked the second major difference between S.B. 402 and S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session, could be found in sections 27 through 30. She mentioned these sections deal with the enforcement of provisions contained in S.B. 402. She explained the current language in statute had been in existence for over 100 years, which declared that a member of the humane society had the right to cite individuals for cruelty to animals. She explained some pet retailers had expressed concern about current law based upon the fact that any member of a humane society could hurt their business by enforcing the law, as written. She continued by saying some extreme groups or political activists could possibly harass retailers and interfere with commerce.
To address this problem, Senator Titus stated the language contained in section 30 attempts to narrow the definition of exactly who would be eligible to enforce the laws contained in statute. She stressed only certain designated people, who had been appointed by a humane society and had completed certain training courses, would have the right to act as an enforcement officer. She was aware of one suggestion requiring that city or county animal control personnel be responsible for enforcing the provisions set forth in S.B. 402. She said she would not object to this approach, but wondered what the fiscal impact would be on local government.
Senator Titus emphasized considerable effort had been expended to improve S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session and to create a better bill. She pointed out that animal shelters, the humane society and legitimate pet store owners and breeders had been involved in developing S.B. 402.
Senator Titus explained an amendment to S.B. 402 would be presented by Mark McGuire, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society. This amendment would exempt cats from the bill, because the situation with cats is not as extreme. She also pointed out some individuals who operate half-way houses for cats might be detrimentally affected by certain portions of S.B. 402. She commented a second amendment would be presented by certain pet shops, which have contract agreements with veterinarians. Senator Titus emphasized she supported both of these amendments.
Senator Titus insisted that a major portion of the opposition to S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session, came from Bobbie and Joan Berosini and the owner of a small fish and bird pet shop in Las Vegas, Nevada.
Senator Titus pointed out concerns voiced by the Nevada Cattlemen's Association and the Nevada Farm Bureau (NFB) had been satisfied, because agricultural animals had been exempted from S.B. 402.
Senator Rhoads stated he noticed that agricultural concerns had been exempted from sections 1 through 27. It appears the remaining sections would still apply to agricultural animals. Senator Titus admitted she had utilized language recommended by the NFB and the Nevada Cattlemen's Association. Senator Rhoads declared he would discuss this with representatives of each association.
At this point, Senator Randolph J. Townsend introduced himself to members of the committee. He explained his comments to S.B. 402 would deal with the psychology of what takes place between puppies from "puppy mills" and the unsuspecting consumer. He pointed out that people who purchase domesticated animals are, more often than not, looking for companionship. Senator Townsend stressed the importance of obtaining a puppy with the type of personality which will result in a happy, well-adjusted pet. He declared puppy mills do not create an environment which is conducive to healthy, happy pets.
Senator Townsend asserted the influence of S.B. 402 was not strictly limited to the humane aspect of raising animals, but also touched on the matter of how pets interact with other animals and humans. He stressed a pet's ability to interact is a very important by-product of this legislation.
Senator Townsend commended Senator Titus for all of the effort she had expended last session, as well as during the interim, to correct the problem areas of S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session. He stated he felt S.B. 402 was a good piece of legislation and encouraged members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to support its passage.
Mark McGuire, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society, introduced himself to members of the committee. Further testimony, a newspaper article and recommended amendments to S.B. 402 is contained in Exhibit D.
In reference to section 28 of S.B. 402, Senator Hickey asked if the chief executive officer of a society (humane society) was elected or appointed. Mr. McGuire explained a chief executive officer was an appointed position, by the executive director. He stated the wording contained in section 28 had been derived from existing law in the State of California.
Senator Hickey inquired if the chief executive officer would be appointed by the humane society. Mr. McGuire said this individual would be selected by the executive director and approved by a vote or resolution of the board of directors of the humane society. The selected individual would then be referred to the district court to go through and approval process.
Senator Hickey inquired if the chief executive officer could revoke the right of any individual who had been empowered to enforce the regulations contained in S.B. 402. Mr. McGuire replied by stating Senator Hickey's observations were correct.
Senator Hickey referred to section 30, subsection 8 of S.B. 402. He inquired if a humane society had ever dissolved as in subsection 8(a). Mr. McGuire recalled an incorporated humane society in Las Vegas (Clark County Humane Society), which had dissolved and reformed under a different name (Humane Society of Southern Nevada). He said he was aware of similar circumstances, but none of these humane society offices had employed humane officers at the time they dissolved.
Senator Hickey inquired what possible reasons might there might be for a humane society to dissolve. Mr. McGuire explained the primary reason most humane societies dissolve is due to the fact they can no longer afford to operate. Senator Hickey asked if a humane society dissolved, would the enforcement cease as well. Mr. McGuire said this was correct.
Referring to language contained in section 32, subsection 4, Senator Hickey questioned the wisdom of requiring that local governments provide services without compensation of some kind. Mr. McGuire said his original intent had been to require a one-time $5 fee be paid to the district court for the filing and recording of an order appointing an enforcement officer. He said most of this is pre-existing language already contained in statute.
Senator Titus assured Senator Hickey pre-existing language contained in the bill had not been changed. The only change that had been made was to include a $5 filing fee for each enforcement officer. Senator Hickey said his only concern about the bill was to prevent an additional burden being placed on local government.
Kurt Lapham, Investigator, West Coast Regional Office, Humane Society of the United States, introduced himself to members of the committee. His comments and testimony is contained in Exhibit E. Mr. Lapham concluded his presentation by requesting that members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources support passage of S.B. 402.
Chairman Smith inquired if Linda Faso, at Cashman Field Center, would like to present testimony on S.B. 402. Ms. Faso, Representing Self, introduced herself to members of the committee. She explained she resides in Las Vegas and has been a resident of Nevada for over 20 years and had been involved in various animal issues for many years.
Ms. Faso read a letter from Karen L. Johnson, President, Animal Relief Foundation (ARF), which is the Humane Society of Elko County, Nevada (Exhibit F).
Ms. Faso explained she and Ms. Johnson support passage of S.B. 402. She insisted the only reason puppy mills were still in existence was to supply animals to pet retailers. She stated puppy mills were not only inhumane, but a consumer rip-off. Ms. Faso concluded her testimony by thanking Senator Titus for sponsoring S.B. 402.
Chairman Smith pointed out members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources were well aware of the circumstances surrounding the introduction S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session and S.B. 402. He requested that future presenters specifically address S.B. 402.
Jan Rogers, President, Alliance for Animals, introduced herself to members of the committee. She questioned the language contained in section 22, subsection 2, because laboratory animals had been exempted from S.B. 402. She asserted if an animal is suffering it should be treated by a qualified veterinarian or humanely euthanized.
Ms. Rogers concluded her testimony by stating she fully supports passage of S.B. 402, and insisted this type of legislation was long overdue in Nevada.
Grace Morell, Representing Self, introduced herself to members of the committee and commented she was testifying in support of S.B. 402. She said she did not have a vested interest in breeding or raising domestic animals, but wondered why breeders or pet stores would object to passage of this bill. She said many citizens are afraid to purchase animals from pet stores, because they are afraid the pet may have originated from a puppy mill. She concluded her testimony by stating, if pets were supplied by reputable breeders and retailers, all of the objectors would only profit by passage of S.B. 402.
Dr. Eugene L. Kirshbaum, Director, Dewey Animal Care Center, introduced himself to members of the committee. He stated he supports passage of S.B. 402, and wishes the bill was a bit stricter than currently written.
Mr. Kirshbaum explained he did have a few concerns and proceeded to voice his recommendations for amended language. Specifi-cally, the verbiage "any other person" contained in the first sentence of section 26, should be changed to "retailer." He continued to read further into section 26, and recommended that the language "may have been" (line 29) be redefined. Mr. Kirshbaum clarified his concern centered on "who is to judge what 'may have been'." He said the opinions of four different veterinarians may differ widely, based upon individual experience and knowledge.
Mr. Kirshbaum recommended a new subsection 7 be added to section 31. He said this new subsection should read:
7. Interfere with the accepted manner of destruction of excess animals in animal shelters, as set forth by local ordinances.
Mr. Kirshbaum stressed the definition of the term "humane society" was very open-ended. He emphasized it was important for the general public to understand this was a very generic term. He continued by explaining any group of four individuals could form a humane society and apply for tax-exempt status. Upon approval, this "humane society" could appoint the control officer(s) of its choice.
Mr. Kirshbaum stated his concerns centered on the fact that many of the local humane society's officers are not qualified to carry a badge. He stated the training these officers receive should be conducted by a reputable humane group that is nationally recognized. Mr. Kirshbaum stated the Humane Society of the United States has offered two courses in the Las Vegas area within the last 5 years, and not one of the humane society members in that area had attended. He stated the qualifications for appointment of an enforcement officer must be strict and the standards must be set at a high level.
Mr. Kirshbaum recommended that language, dealing with puppy mills in the State of Nevada, be much stricter. He commented language should be more specific to the problem of puppy mills, and stressed the fines should be higher and punishment more severe.
Chairman Smith encouraged Mr. Kirshbaum to submit his amendments in writing, as this would greatly assist the Senate Committee on Natural Resources in amending appropriate language into S.B. 402.
In reference to Mr. Kirshbaum's concerns relating to humane societies, Senator Titus asked him how he would feel if the county animal control units were responsible for enforcement. Mr. Kirshbaum replied by stating, wherever there were well-established animal control units (such as Clark County and the City of Las Vegas), these entities should have primary responsibility for enforcing S.B. 402. He continued by stating these animal control facilities already have funding problems and anticipated this legislation would only increase their difficulties. However, if they received monetary assistance and full-time enforcement officer(s) were hired, Mr. Kirshbaum voiced his opinion that this would result in a much more workable situation. He stated he felt strongly that local animal control officers be involved in making the determination of exactly when local humane society officers were qualified to carry enforcement badges.
Senator Hickey expressed his concern about jurisdictional problems which might arise in the Las Vegas area. He continued by pointing out many of the little cities in that area may have their own animal control facilities.
Senator Hickey asked Mr. Kirshbaum if there was a national standard for the training of humane society enforcement officers. Mr. Kirshbaum replied by saying no national standard existed. He continued by saying the accepted rule had been the standards set forth by two humane organizations: 1) the Humane Society of the United States; and 2) the American Humane Association. Mr. Kirshbaum stressed entities which may be calling themselves humane societies may not necessarily be affiliated with either of the aforementioned national organizations.
Mr. Kirshbaum told Senator Hickey that he and three other individuals could apply for a tax-exempt status and call themselves a humane society. He stressed their only qualification would be based upon the fact that they have named themselves the "Humane Society of Anything" and have applied for tax exempt status.
Senator Hickey expressed his concern about the open-ended nature of the training standards with which each humane society enforcement officer must comply.
Ria Katz, Representing Self, introduced herself to members of the committee and stated she was testifying in support of S.B. 402. She explained she operates a short- and long-term foster home for cats and hoped an amendment could be made to S.B. 402 excluding cats or, at the very least, foster homes for cats.
Ms. Katz said she volunteered her services to the City of Reno Animal Control Office, and mentioned she was aware of three or four other individuals who also operates foster facilities for cats. She presented a copy of a letter written by a neighbor of hers, Dan E. Cantrell (Exhibit G).
Ms. Katz stressed the importance of the service she provides to the elderly, as well as to individuals who may not be able to care for their cats for a variety of reasons. She encouraged members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to allow her to continue operating her foster home for cats.
Senator Titus thanked Ms. Katz for presenting testimony at the hearing and commended her on the service she was providing to both the community and cat lovers. Senator Titus explained she had spoken earlier with Mark McGuire, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society, and supported the exemption of cats in a home environment.
Tina Trenner, Executive Vice President, KNEWS (AM Radio Station), Las Vegas, Nevada, and Trustee, Animal Foundation, introduced herself to members of the committee. She supports passage of S.B. 402, with only one exception. In agreement with Mr. Kirshbaum's earlier testimony, she recommended that local animal control facilities be involved in the enforcement realm of S.B. 402.
As a trustee of the Animal Foundation, Ms. Trenner stressed it would create a financial burden for this facility to hire and train an enforcement officer. She emphasized the foundation truly supports the intent of S.B. 402, but could not afford the expense when it was attempting to spay and neuter every animal possible. Based upon financial considerations, Ms. Trenner recommended that committee members amend animal control facilities out of S.B. 402.
Charles Jenner, Representing the Clark County Public Works Department, Animal Control and Animal Shelter, introduced himself to members of the committee. He stated the Clark County Animal Control facility feels S.B. 402 is a fairly good piece of legislation, but has concerns about the enforcement issue.
Mr. Jenner stated passage of S.B. 402, as written, would place a very large financial burden on local government. He continued by explaining the county currently employs 13 animal control officers who handle over 51,000 calls annually. He stressed these officers are responsible for 480,000 citizens and territory covering a total of 8,000 square miles.
If S.B. 402 were enacted, Mr. Jenner wondered if the enforcement costs to local government would be funded by the State of Nevada. Chairman Smith responded by saying Mr. Jenner had posed a very good question.
Chairman Smith stated he had a very long list of individuals at the Carson City location who had expressed an interest in testifying against S.B. 402. He explained it was the committee's standard procedure to hear testimony from those supporting passage of a bill, before hearing testimony from those in opposition. Chairman Smith inquired if there were any other individuals in the Las Vegas location who wished to testify in support of S.B. 402.
Judith Ruiz, President, Las Vegas Valley Humane Society, introduced herself to members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Ms. Ruiz's testimony is contained in Exhibit H.
Senator Titus commented that she had spoken with Roland Sansone, Owner, Frisky Pet Center, Las Vegas, Nevada, prior to the hearing and stated he had some very reasonable amendments to S.B. 402.
Mr. Sansone introduced himself to members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. Mr. Sansone's recommended amendments to S.B. 402 is contained in Exhibit I.
Senator Titus asked Mr. Sansone to read a portion of the small print contained on the back of the Frisky Pet Center's warrantee agreement. Mr. Sansone explained the warrantee card specified that if a customer experienced any problems with a pet (within 2 weeks of the purchase date), selected veterinarians in the area would examine the animal at absolutely no charge to the customer.
Mr. Sansone continued by explaining the warrantee card also specified that a 100 percent, full cash refund would be available to the purchaser of a puppy which was born with a defect or developed a serious illness within a 1-year period following the date of purchase.
Mr. Sansone explained the Frisky Pet Center, in conjunction with the Animal Foundation, recommends its customers to a local veterinarian who charges very reasonable, low rates for spaying and neutering domestic pets. He explained any customer who spayed or neutered a pet purchased from the Frisky Pet Center, would be refunded $25.00 by the Frisky Pet Center.
Mr. Sansone stated every responsible pet retailer should keep detailed medical records on each pet sold, as did the Frisky Pet Center. He also pointed out the Frisky Pet Center also disclosed information on the origin of each puppy. He said this was an incentive for a retailer to obtain puppies from a reputable breeder.
Mr. Sansone concluded his testimony by saying it was appalling to think that puppy mills could even exist in the State of Nevada, and encouraged members of the committee to enact S.B. 402.
Chairman Smith pointed out the remainder of the individuals, who had signed the guest lists in both Carson City and Las Vegas, had indicated their opposition to S.B. 402. He asked if each individual would signify whether they are opposed in general to the bill or to a particular section of S.B. 402.
Tom Bentz, Legislative Coordinator, Nevada Alliance for Responsible Animal Use (NARAU), introduced himself to members of the committee. In response to Chairman Smith's previous question concerning opposition to S.B. 402, he stated his testimony would represent the opinion of a majority of the NARAU members.
Mr. Bentz drew attention to a handout (Exhibit J), which had been provided to committee members. He stressed this amendment listed 30 suggested amendments to S.B. 402 and was supported by 24 Responsible Dog Owners Groups (RDOG).
Mr. Bentz expressed his pleasure that a citizen from the State of California would view Nevada as a state of vision. He was much prouder of the fact that Nevada was a state of great heritage, whose citizens have strong feelings about state and individual rights, especially the rights of ownership of property.
Mr. Bentz asserted the NARAU feels its rights are constantly being infringed upon by terrorists who guise themselves under the label "animal rights activists." He stated the NARAU is concerned with animal welfare, but do not believe in animal rights. He commented he knew of NARAU members who are frightened about allowing their names to be associated in public with certain issues. He said these people had been targeted by individuals and/or groups who protested the members' right of animal ownership by trespassing and/or committing violent acts.
Mr. Bentz said the NARAU's greatest concern was the fact that any group of four people could form a humane society and have police powers. He stated the operators of the puppy mill in Elko had been punished under existing law and prosecuted by the local district attorney.
Senator Titus inquired what kind of sentence and/or fine had the operators of the Elko puppy mill received. Mr. Bentz explained he was not familiar with the particulars of the case, but imagined they had been prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Mr. Bentz suggested if the laws (under which violators of this type are prosecuted) needed to be strengthened, S.B. 402 was not the right approach. He hoped this bill would be referred to subcommittee and offered the NARAU's cooperation in working with subcommittee members to improve S.B. 402. He stated he had the impression there was considerable interest in having city and county animal control units enforce these laws, and felt this was a move in the right direction.
Mr. Bentz encouraged members of the committee to review the suggested amendments listed in Exhibit J. He stressed these amendments actually increased animal welfare. He continued by saying the NARAU feels animal welfare was being adequately addressed by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and through local animal control agencies, even in the rural areas.
Mr. Bentz said S.B. 402 would, most likely, pass through both houses of the legislature if it more closely resembled a kennel licensing bill (not a puppy mill bill). He continued by saying this bill must include both dogs and cats and contain language approved by a majority of people in the industry.
Mr. Bentz emphasized the fact that Bobbie and Joan Berosini had not been taken to court by the animal rights group "PETA" for cruelty to animals. He stressed the Berosini's had taken PETA to court for defamation of character and had, subsequently, won the suit. However, PETA has made a great deal of money by using the publicity from this lawsuit.
Alice Roth, Representing Self, introduced herself to members of the committee and stated she vehemently opposed passage of S.B. 402. She mentioned she had spoken with Assemblyman James W. McGaughey, who indicated he would do everything within his power to defeat this bill. If allowed to pass, S.B. 402 would have extensive and far-reaching ramifications.
Ms. Roth said animal shelters are already well-regulated by city and county guidelines. These same basic guidelines are extended to pet shops by the licensing entity and regulating authority. She pointed out that to enact S.B. 402, as written, into law would open the door to allow unwarranted police-type tactics and threaten our most basic of constitutional rights.
Ms. Roth said S.B. 328 of the Sixty-sixth Session had been proposed and given a proper burial. She recommended that S.B. 402 meet a similar demise. She stated the basis and intent of S.B. 402 left a lot to be desired and would benefit only a very select group of individuals, none of whom were responsible breeders.
Ms. Roth stated she felt existing licensing and leash laws were being enforced and pertained to the general public. She insisted that statistics of animal endangerment and cruelty were being fabricated and blown out of proportion by certain interests. She emphasized the comparison between the growth rate of Las Vegas since 1989 (33 percent) and pet problems had been misrepresented.
Ms. Roth took exception to Senator Titus's earlier statements, which were negative in nature, concerning the Berosinis. She mentioned that she had spoken at considerable length with the Berosinis, had attended the trial hearings and reviewed the court transcripts. Ms. Roth stressed the Berosinis were cleared of all charges and the animal rights group, PETA, had received extensive fines for leveling false charges. She insisted the Berosinis had not mistreated their animals.
Ms. Roth testified she had been a police officer for a period of 16 years and was well aware of the ramifications of improperly trained officers. She encouraged members of the committee to amend S.B. 402 with language limiting enforcement responsibilities to city and county animal control personnel.
Susan Callahan, Sole Proprietor, Galena Creek Ranch (Kortar Kennels), introduced herself to members of the committee. Ms. Callahan provided the committee secretary with a copy of a flyer describing the facility she owned and operated (Exhibit K). Ms. Callahan stated she had been a dog breeder for the over 30 years and specialized in breeding Siberian Huskies. She also stated she was considered to operate one of the top kennels in the world.
Ms. Callahan said she supported certain portions of S.B. 402 and was opposed to others. She emphasized she felt the bill set forth appropriate minimum standards on vaccination, care of animals, size of enclosures. She mentioning one portion of the bill would affect the operation of her kennel in a very important way. She continued by explaining section 19, subsection 4, prohibited and operator from placing an immature dog or cat with an adult dog or cat. Ms. Callahan declared her huskies were renowned for their mild temperaments, which she felt was due, in part, to the fact the 4-month-old puppies are put in the same enclosures (colonies) as 16-year-old adult dogs. She claimed this method was an integral part of each young dog's learning process, the benefits of which were calmer, smarter puppies.
Ms. Callahan pointed out the Canadian Mounted Police purchase Siberian Huskies from her facility, and she drew a direct correlation between the dogs' mild temperaments to the way the animals were socialized into colonies.
Ms. Callahan objected to sections 29 and 30 of S.B. 402, which deals with the enforcement issue and stated she had serious concerns about giving the humane society enforcement responsibilities. She explained she had been involved with the City of Reno's Animal Advisory Board for a 5-year period. She assured members of the committee that officers associated with the City of Reno Animal Control Office effectively performed their duties. She hoped these same officers would be the individuals responsible for enforcing S.B. 402.
Ms. Callahan said she had shown S.B. 402 to several of her neighbors who were not involved in the animal breeding business, but were doctors, attorneys and professors at the University of Nevada-Reno. She explained these individuals had been appalled by language contained in sections 29 and 30.
Senator Titus interrupted and called attention to the fact an attempt had been made to narrow the definition of enforcement currently contained in statute. She continued by stressing amended language specified that just not any member of the humane society could enforce the provisions of this chapter of the Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS). Senator Titus emphasized only a specially designated enforcement officer could perform these duties.
Ms. Callahan declared sections 29 and 30 should not even be in statute. Senator Titus pointed out original language contained in statute had been enacted over 100 years ago. She said she agreed with the basis for Ms. Callahan's concerns, but pointed out every attempt had been made to narrow the broad definition contained in existing statute. Senator Titus asserted she would not object to assigning enforcement duties to the city and county animal control officers, but envisioned she would have to wrestle with local government on the funding issue.
Ms. Callahan insisted more and more radical groups were becoming involved in the humane movement, who had absolutely no account-ability to a higher authority. She emphasized sections 29 and 30 were creating a dangerous situation and requested these sections be eliminated from S.B. 402.
Ms. Callahan stated she was also very concerned about exempting cats from S.B. 402. She reminded members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources that earlier testimony on the Elko "puppy mill" had revealed that cats had also been found (dead and alive) at the site. As a past member of the City of Reno Animal Advisory Board, she insisted cats were almost 60 percent of the problem. Ms. Callahan advised committee members to keep cats in S.B. 402, because cats needed the same protection provided to dogs.
Willard Sharp, President, Nevada Dog Fanciers Association (NDFA), introduced himself to members of the committee. He commented he had been a resident of Las Vegas since 1969 and, as president of the NDFA, represented 31 organizations. The NDFA had been formed in 1984 and operated the only "dog" park in the Southeastern United States.
Mr. Sharp pointed out the NDFA was opposed to passage of S.B. 402. Similar to previous testifiers, he stated the association had major concerns about the enforcement issue contained in sections 29 and 30. He recommended that city and county animal control facilities be given enforcement responsibilities, not humane societies.
Mr. Sharp testified, since 1988, the population of Clark County had increased 32 percent while the euthanasia of dogs dropped 1 percent. He stated Clark County had been rated number seven in the nation in its drop of animal euthanasia deaths.
Clayton K. Rice II, Legal Counsel, Responsible Dog Owners Group (RDOG), introduced himself to members of the committee. He explained RDOG was a coalition of breeders, pet shop owners, veterinarians and other interested parties.
Mr. Rice explained RDOG strongly opposed passage of S.B. 402. He stated the principal reason for their opposition was related to granting police powers to animal enforcement officers. He disagreed with Senator Titus's earlier statement that similar language was currently contained in NRS 574.040. He emphasized, "The powers to make arrests that are granted to officers are, in fact, the powers of the societies so incorporating." He insisted they are not police powers.
Mr. Rice insisted the legislature would be granting police powers by enacting section 29 of S.B. 402, as it was currently written. This language allowed a humane society enforcement officer the right to wear a badge, carry a weapon and use deadly force to prevent an act of cruelty against any animal.
Mr. Rice referred to a 5-page handout (Exhibit J) containing 30 recommended amendments to S.B. 402. He encouraged members of the committee to review this handout and consider the suggested changes, endorsed by a total of 24 other organizations. Mr. Rice explained S.B. 402 was too broad in nature and needed to be refined.
Senator James said he needed more clarification on what specific language currently existed in law. Mr. Rice said he had referred to NRS 574.040 earlier in his testimony. Senator James asked what part of the codification was the language contained within. Mr. Rice responded by saying the codification was in section 1. Senator James asked what was the subject of the chapter to which Mr. Rice had referred. Mr. Rice responded this was the chapter relating to the cruelty to animals. He stated sections 29 and 30 of S.B. 402 would, essentially, change all of NRS 574.040. He pointed out existing language contained in section 30 (lines 20 through 31) had been deleted and new language had been inserted.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the differences between existing and amended language setting forth the powers of an enforcement officer. Senator Titus asked Mr. Rice to suppose that section 29 of S.B. 402 had been deleted and existing language in statute on enforcement were still in effect. She asked him who could enforce the provisions of S.B. 402. Mr. Rice responded by saying the deleted language, contained within section 30 of S.B. 402, would be applicable. Senator Titus interrupted by insisting anybody would be able to enforce the provisions in existing law. She asked Mr. Rice if he felt amended language narrowed the definition of who would be eligible to enforce the provisions of NRS 574.040. Mr. Rice clarified that the amended language did not narrow the definition, because there were significant differences in language. He explained the amended language in line 3 of section 29 specified, "such force as may be necessary to prevent the cruelty." He said this is new language and would allow an enforcement officer to prevent an act of cruelty.
Senator James asked what was the date of origin of the existing NRS. Mr. Rice said the deleted language contained in section 30 of S.B. 402 was dated 1873. He continued by saying this language had been modified in 1885 and 1929.
Mr. Rice said the RDOG objected to the label "puppy mill bill." He stated puppy mills were actually exempted from S.B. 402 in its compatibility sections. He said section 19, line 5, exempts puppy mills when dogs are "permanently maintained in a breeding colony."
Mr. Rice said a recent article in the Reno Gazette-Journal had detailed problems associated with a cattery in the Sun Valley area. He pointed out Mark McGuire had inspected this facility in the past, and under the provisions of the existing statute. He argued there should be no discrimination between dogs and cats.
Cindra Smith, Member, Responsible Dog Owners Group, introduced herself to members of the committee. She stated she was a member of several animal welfare organizations, both canine and equine. She pointed out she has an educational background in law enforcement and animal care from three universities and one community college.
Ms. Smith asserted she had worked closely with animals in the past 30 years and had also been involved in breed-rescue for cats, dogs and horses. She remarked that she was a fancier and not involved in breeding animals.
Ms. Smith drew attention to the fact she supported the concept of S.B. 402, but had serious reservations about its passage into law. She stated Mr. Rice and Ms. Callahan had already presented most of her concerns, however, she expressed several specific problems with the enforcement aspect of the bill. She pointed out humane societies are nonprofit, charitable organizations and, sometimes, had extended political agendas that are normally funded by private individuals through donations or fund-raising. Ms. Smith pointed out there was a very real possibility that selective enforcement could take place. She wondered if the operator of a puppy mill made a $50,000 contribution to the local humane society, might the humane society relax its standards just a bit in this one instance?
Ms. Smith supported an amendment which would make local city and county animal control officers responsible for enforcing the provisions of this chapter in NRS. However, she admitted she had reservations about this due to the fact she had heard that certain activists in Clark and Washoe Counties were attempting to privatize animal control agencies. She continued by stating she recognized the possibility activists might also seek to take control of law enforcement agencies, as well.
Ms. Smith concluded her testimony by encouraging members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources to refer S.B. 402 to a subcommittee for further consideration.
Barbara Nosek, Representing Self, introduced herself to members of the committee. She apologized for speaking out of turn, but wanted to testify in support of S.B. 402. She particularly supported the revisions suggested by Dr. Kirshbaum.
Ms. Nosek pointed out most of the individuals who had presented testimony in opposition to S.B. 402 had objected to the sections dealing with the enforcement issue. She hoped this aspect of the bill could be dealt with in such a manner as to obtain a general consensus of all interested parties. Ms. Nosek concluded her testimony by thanking Senator Titus for sponsoring S.B. 402.
Darl Thiessess, Representing Self, introduced himself to members of the committee. He stated he was a native Nevadan and, while in college, had majored in husbandry and genetics. In the past, he had worked as a veterinarian's assistant and anesthesiologist and currently owned and operated a pet shop.
Mr. Thiessess commented that he was, currently, a member of the Reno Kennel Club and a founding member of the Sierra Nevada Collie Club. He pointed out he had been actively involved in raising and showing dogs for the past 30 years and had met his wife while participating in a class regarding the proper training of guide dogs for the blind.
Mr. Thiessess said his main objection to S.B. 402 was focused on the enforcement issue. He stated it would be a big mistake to empower individuals, who were associated with a humane society, with police powers. He likened this to "putting the fox in charge of the hen house." He knew of individuals who were members of humane societies who were also involved with radical animal groups.
Mr. Thiessess said S.B. 402 failed to make provisions for a state animal control officer who would be in charge of enforcing the provisions set forth in statute. He admitted that he knew the state was short of funds, but stressed the importance of creating this position. He pointed out humane societies were not answerable to anyone for their actions, whereas a state animal control officer would be answerable to the electorate.
Mr. Thiessess asserted it would be possible to own a pet shop, love dogs and sell quality animals (with a guarantee on each dog's state of health). He pointed out he did not sell animals from any kennel that he had not, personally, inspected. He requires that each kennel provide extensive health records on each puppy, and said these records were provided to the purchaser at the time of sale. In order to verify the health of each dog, he noted his pet shop requires that a veterinary examination be performed by the purchaser's personal veterinarian within 48 hours of the time the puppy was purchased.
Mr. Thiessess asserted he would oppose passage of S.B. 402 as long as the sections granting the humane society police powers remained intact. Additionally, he stated section 26 contained "health guarantee" language. However, this wording had the effect of placing the same restrictions on a private party selling dogs that are placed on a pet shop. He recommended that the broad definition contained in section 26 be narrowed.
Mr. Thiessess concluded his testimony by recommending that the members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources seriously consider creating a state animal control officer position. He insisted many of the problems associated with the enforcement issue would be resolved if the local enforcement officers were placed under a higher authority.
Senator Adler commented he was also concerned with language pertaining to the enforcement issue. He continued by saying current language in S.B. 402 would allow an enforcement officer to carry a concealed weapon.
Mr. Thiessess drew attention to another problem contained within section 30 of S.B. 402. He explained subsection 7 required that an enforcement officer complete 32 hours of training within 1 year of his/her appointment. If he were a newly appointed enforcement officer, Mr. Thiessess said that he could kill a lot of people in 12 months before receiving the appropriate training. He insisted the responsibility for enforcement should rest with the state, not the private sector.
Chairman Smith drew attention to the fact that the time to adjourn the hearing was rapidly approaching. He encouraged the remaining individuals, who wished to testify, to make their presentations as brief as possible.
Rita Hickey, Representing Self, introduced herself to members of the committee and explained she supported passage of S.B. 402.
In reference to earlier testimony provided by Mr. Bentz, who had indicated that it was easy to enforce existing laws, Ms. Hickey asked why were there so many puppy mills in the Pahrump area. She asserted that she had visited a puppy mill in the Las Vegas area and, after she had informed local authorities of the deplorable conditions, was distressed when she was informed nothing could be done.
Ms. Hickey insisted that ownership of an animal was a privilege, not a right. Since mankind had domesticated these animals and made them dependent upon them, she asserted we are now responsible for their well-being. She said pets give us joy and enrich our lives so freely, is it not time for humans to treat them kindly and humanely, instead of viewing them as profitable objects.
Ms. Hickey pointed out she was currently involved in changing the animal control ordinances in Clark County. She said she had noticed that many of the people who were opposing a change in the county ordinance, were also presenting testimony in opposition to S.B. 402. Ms. Hickey concluded her testimony by encouraging members of the committee to support passage of S.B. 402.
Greg Brackett, Nevada _________ (inaudible) and Sportsmen Conservation (NHSC), introduced himself to members of the committee. He said the NHSC had grave concerns relating to the wording and intent of S.B. 402. He requested that members of the committee refer this bill to a subcommittee for further consideration.
Mr. Brackett suggested an possible amendment to section 8 of S.B. 402. He requested that "an animal shelter, kennel or" be deleted from the bill. He stated this deletion would exempt private pet owners from the bill. Upon approval of this suggested deletion, section 8 would read:
"Operator" means a person responsible for the operation of a commercial establishment primarily engaged in the business of selling animals or items related to animals, or both.
Mr. Brackett concluded his testimony by explaining the NHSC is opposed to the present enforcement language contained in S.B. 402, but offered their assistance in the development of amended language.
John Marlin, Member, Doberman Pinscher Club; and Member, Nevada Breeders Alliance, introduced himself to members of the committee. He pointed out he was opposed to language contained in sections 28, 29 and 30 of S.B. 402. He said any proposed legislation granting police powers to any group, whether it be the overburdened animal control facility or a humane society formed by four people, is dangerous and frightening.
Mr. Marlin insisted the local and state policing forces are competent enough to enforce the state laws and are controlled by appropriate authorities. He insisted any departure, from allowing the proper authorities to oversee the enforcement of these provisions in statute, would create too many opportunities for individuals with their own agendas.
Scott Gardner, Owner, Petland Incorporated, Las Vegas, Nevada, introduced himself to members of the committee. He said he supported the enactment of reasonable and rational laws designed to protect the health and well-being of pet animals and the general public. After making several suggestions on amendments to S.B. 402, Chairman Smith asked Mr. Gardner if he would kindly provide members of the committee with written copies of his recommendations.
Deidrea Lear, Representing Self, introduced herself to members of the committee. She stated she had a professional background in the legal and veterinary field. She admitted the recent article in the Reno Gazette-Journal, about a Sun Valley cattery, had been written in response to an unfortunate experience she had with a sick kitten obtained from this breeder.
Ms. Lear presented a handout to members of the committee detailing the bad business practices of this Sun Valley cat breeder (Exhibit L). She also provided a folder containing additional material to members of the committee (Exhibit M, original in the research library).
Ms. Lear concluded her testimony by requesting that members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources enact S.B. 402.
Juanita Cox, Representing Self, introduced herself to members of the committee. She explained she was a former licensed judge with United Kennel Club (UKC), and an internationally-recognized breeder of horses, dogs and cats for over 25 years.
Ms. Cox asked who would be responsible for paying for the enforcement of S.B. 402, and why was more enforcement necessary when the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) already inspected commercial kennels and catteries. She also pointed out the Washoe County Health Department had been created for that express purpose and the health inspectors already had the appropriate training and funding. Ms. Cox wondered why it was necessary to pass a state law when local laws and ordinances were already in place.
Ms. Cox proceeded to review her specific concerns about language contained in S.B. 402. She concluded her testimony by stating changes to laws were sometimes suggested in response to isolated cases, such as the puppy mill in the Elko area. She remarked this type of response could actually hurt the kennels and catteries who were conducting their business in a responsible manner. She insisted there would always be a segment of society which would disregard the laws. Ms. Cox concluded her testimony by advising members of the Senate Committee on Natural Resources it would be wiser to allow local laws and ordinances to address the problems associated with negligent breeders.
Chairman Smith requested that Ms. Cox provide members of the committee with a written copy of her suggested amendments to S.B. 402 (Exhibit N).
Chairman Smith thanked members of the committee for their patience and to members of the staff for their cooperation. He also recognized the audience's interest and willingness to work on fashioning S.B. 402 into an effective piece of legislation. At this point, Chairman Smith referred S.B. 402 to a subcommittee consisting of Senators Titus (chairman), Adler and James.
There being no further business before the Senate Committee on Natural Resources, Chairman Smith adjourned the hearing at 10:49 a.m.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:
Rayanne J. Francis,
Committee Secretary
APPROVED BY:
Senator R. Hal Smith, Chairman
DATE:
??
Senate Committee on Natural Resources
May 5, 1993
Page 1