MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES. Seventy-fifth Session April 28, 2009

Transcription

1 MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Seventy-fifth Session The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chair David R. Parks at 3:36 p.m. on Tuesday,, in Room 2144 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. The meeting was videoconferenced to the Grant Sawyer State Office Building, Room 4412, 555 East Washington Avenue, Las Vegas, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. All exhibits are available and on file in the Research Library of the Legislative Counsel Bureau. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator David R. Parks, Chair Senator Allison Copening, Vice Chair Senator Bob Coffin Senator Bernice Mathews Senator Dean A. Rhoads Senator Mark E. Amodei Senator Dennis Nolan GUEST LEGISLATORS PRESENT: Assemblywoman Heidi S. Gansert, Assembly District No. 25 Assemblyman Mark A. Manendo, Assembly District No. 18 STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Randy Stephenson, Committee Counsel Michelle Van Geel, Committee Policy Analyst Shirley Parks, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Beverlee McGrath, The Humane Society of the United States Dennis Allen, Washoe County Sheriff s Office Joe Boteilho, Chief of Animal Control, Clark County Karen Layne, Las Vegas Valley Humane Society Stacia Newman, Nevada Political Action for Animals

2 Page 2 Chris Giunchigliani Gina Greisen, Nevada Voters for Animals/Citizens Barbara Kubichka, Save R NV Animals Erika Greisen Carol Infranca Chris Vaught, Concerned Nevada Pet Owners; Quick Silver Agility Club Don Moradian, Bonanza Kennel Club Ann Kinney Taren Kinney VICE CHAIR COPENING: Today s meeting agenda will be reversed. We will begin with Assembly Bill (A.B.) 199 and then move to Assembly Bill (A.B.) 15. ASSEMBLY BILL 199: Revises provisions relating to fights between animals. (BDR ) ASSEMBLYWOMAN HEIDI S. GANSERT (Assembly District No. 25): Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today on A.B Beside me is Dennis Allen who will give additional information on the bill. The bill states in section 1, lines 9 through 13, that a person shall not own, possess, keep, train, promote or purchase an animal with the intent to use it to fight another animal or sell an animal knowing that it is intended to be used to fight another animal. Basically, through this bill, section 1, lines 25 through 31, if someone is found guilty of owning, possessing, keeping and promoting an animal intended to be used to fight another animal, the first offense will be a gross misdemeanor; for a second offense, a category E felony, which shall be punished as provided in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) ; and for a third offense or subsequent offense, a category D felony, which shall be punished as provided in NRS Nevada is the only state where this activity is legal. The concern is that we would become a haven for animal fighting. This is why I brought the legislation forward. I have a letter from Allie Phillips, J.D., American Humane, stating strong support for A.B. 199 (Exhibit C). BEVERLEE MCGRATH (The Humane Society of the United States): Since Nevada is the only state where it is not prohibited to train, keep or possess dogs for dogfighting, it is attracting dogfighters. We see dogfighting is on the rise. One of the reasons is other illegal activities are taking place at the

3 Page 3 dogfight. Selling illegal drugs, weapons and, of course, there is gambling taking place. The gambling pocket can range from $10,000 to $50,000. We are concerned with the humane aspects of the dogfighting. One of these fights can last up to two hours. The longest dogfight on record lasted five hours. This is between two dogs, and they are trained to fight to the death. We think this is inhumane. The dog that loses is not given veterinary care and usually just left to die. You all have been given a packet (Exhibit D). These are graphic pictures from the handout packet. If this is not bad enough, we need to take into consideration the way these dogs are trained. They are trained to kill. Normally a young dog will not kill. These dogs are starved and beaten with heavy instruments and chains in order to get them to be aggressive. They are without food for several days and then taunted by another small animal. It is not unusual to see puppies and kittens thrown to these dogs as bait animals. They maul these smaller animals. The dog is put in a circular pen with the caged smaller dog or kitten in the center of the circle. At the end of the day the puppy and kitten are thrown to the dog. It is important to see these pictures. This is what we are opposed to. We are opposed to dogs lying there dying from injuries. How could anyone advocate this kind of activity? The Chicago Police Department did a three-year study and found that 70 percent of the perpetrators in these animal fights were also arrested for other illegal activity, 70 percent were dealing illegal drugs, 59 percent were gang members and 49 percent had been arrested on battery charges. Keep in mind the dogs are fed steroids and hormones that are usually obtained on the black market. I think that covers my testimony. I hope to have your support on A.B DENNIS ALLEN (Washoe County Sheriff s Office): I am a deputy with the Washoe County Sheriff s Office. We are here in support of this bill. This last year we have had several a cases of rooster fighting. Currently we have an ongoing investigation to possible dogfighting and other animal fighting. I cannot comment about the open investigation. We do have one investigation that we are looking into in regard to this issue. Currently training a dog with apparatus or by other means is not illegal. We have to catch someone in an actual fight in order to prosecute them. This bill allows law enforcement to investigate a suspicious situation, such as when they see a circular pen and apparatus or find steroids and other drug paraphernalia. The law officers will be able to take action before the dogfights.

4 Page 4 SENATOR RHOADS: The bill states, under Legislative Counsel s Digest, existing law prohibits a person from instigating, promoting or in any way engaging in the furtherance of any fight between animals in an exhibition or for amusement or gain which is premeditated by a person who owns or has custody of the animals, NRS If this is already in the NRS, why do we need the bill? ASSEMBLYWOMAN GANSERT: Nevada does not prohibit ownership of an animal to possess, train and prepare these animals for fighting. MS. MCGRATH: Just to clarify the issue, yes, dogfighting is illegal in Nevada. It is not illegal to train the dogs and then transport them to another area or state. The bill will give law enforcement an additional tool to prosecute these people. Law officers have no authority to arrest someone who is training an animal to fight. With A.B. 199 as a law, if they see the treadmills, the circular pens, dogs that are abused, then they can make a determination to arrest and prosecute the owner. This is the only state in the nation where it is legal to possess, train and keep dogs for dogfighting. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GANSERT: I am reading the bill again. It is addressing the act of animal fighting and states it is illegal to engage in the furtherance of an animal fight. It is not illegal to own a fighting dog. This is why we are adding subsection 2 to the bill, which says a person shall not own, possess, keep, train, promote or purchase an animal with the intent to use it to fight another animal. SENATOR RHOADS: The bill says, a person who owns or has custody of the animals. This is existing law. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GANSERT: It does state, a person shall not begin, cause, instigate, promote, carry on or do any act as an assistant, umpire or principal so the bill speaks to the act of the fight versus the ownership of the animal. A person can own the animal but if caught at a dogfight or a cockfight, this is where a person breaks the law, but not in merely possessing the animal.

5 Page 5 VICE CHAIR COPENING: Are there other questions from the committee? We will take testimony in Las Vegas. JOE BOTEILHO (Chief of Animal Control, Clark County): I want to bring to light the issue of animal ownership. There is someone who has 200 roosters, and they are being bred and raised for sale expressly for fighting. It is possible to order a fighting cock through this vendor. This is exactly what they are doing. It is not illegal to own these animals and breed them for this purpose. MR. ALLEN: There is a current investigation in which a citizen came forward with information about a house with a large barn in the back. The barn has a wood pen. When the person walked in, there was a Rottweiler-type breed on a heavy chain and another dog also in the pen, instigating the Rottweiler. Eventually, the Rottweiler would be let loose to mall and kill the other dog. Under current law, we cannot do anything about the situation. Under the new law, we could make contact and see that the person is training the dog to fight with the circular pen, chaining and being antagonized by another dog. SENATOR PARKS: Was this bill drafted after a model legislation from another state where they have had experience to enforce the law? ASSEMBLYWOMAN GANSERT: This bill was drafted by the Legal Division. I did not ask specifically for the language. They took what we had on the books and inserted this language. In the handout packet, Exhibit D, you will find the information for the consequences of a gross misdemeanor, Category E felony and Category D felony. In almost all the states these animal training for fighting issues are a felony except in New York, Texas and West Virginia, which have the punishment as a misdemeanor. Dogfighting is illegal in all the states. VICE CHAIR COPENING: There is further testimony in Las Vegas.

6 Page 6 KAREN LAYNE (Las Vegas Valley Humane Society): We do support A.B I would point out that this bill not only addresses dogfighting but also rooster fighting. STACIA NEWMAN (Nevada Political Action for Animals): I am here to express my concern and to support A.B CHRIS GIUNCHIGLIANI: I want to express my support both for the Committee hearing the bill and for Assemblywoman Gansert bringing A.B. 199 forward. Sometimes in legislation we find places where we have left loopholes. We thought we had closed it and we find we did not. That is the intent of this bill. Many of these fighters and trainers have learned how to circumvent State laws as well as ordinances. So we have to write specific, stronger language so that law enforcement and our code enforcement have opportunity to be able to enforce the law. In Clark County, the ordinance was updated, and it has been made very clear spectators will also be impacted similar to State law. I suggest the generic term animal to replace the term dog or rooster fighting in the bill. This will prevent any confusion as to specifically naming a species. GINA GREISEN (Nevada Voters for Animals/Citizens): I want to indicate my support of A.B BARBARA KUBICHKA (Save R NV Animals): We are opposed to animal cruelty. No one is for that. I have a handout that has been given to you for your information (Exhibit E). We do have issues with the language in the bill. We think the word animal needs to be more tightly defined. If you have a specific breed of dog, then say it. If it is a rooster, then say it. We determined the word animal is too generic. The definition of fighting is too loose. If you are against a dogfight as a blood sport or gambling on the outcome, say it. Some of the rural constituents are concerned even though herding dogs and hunting dogs are exempt; this could be a slippery slope toward confining them in their rodeo events, dog-herding events and other agricultural events they currently enjoy. With these changes I have outlined we will be supportive of the bill. SENATOR RHOADS: As I read it, the bill would outlaw bullfighting at rodeos.

7 Page 7 ASSEMBLYWOMAN GANSERT: The bill probably would outlaw bullfighting. No one has addressed this issue. I will tell you that the bill went through the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining with support from our rural members. We were more focused on vicious dogs. There are statutes to cover vicious dogs so that it does not get intertwined with dog or animal fights. The intent here is to capture people who own, possess keep, train, promote or purchase animals for fighting. SENATOR COFFIN: There may be a misunderstanding. Bullfighting is not bull on bull. Rodeo clowns joust with the bulls, for example. ASSEMBLYWOMAN GANSERT: Yes, this is correct. I was not addressing that issue. This bill speaks of animal-to-animal fighting. SENATOR RHOADS: Would not this be a better county regulation instead of the State? ASSEMBLYWOMAN GANSERT: We already have most of this in statute. This bill will close an existing loophole. It is appropriate for the State to close the loophole because of the misdemeanors and felony charges. It fits very well with the NRS in closing a loophole. VICE CHAIR COPENING: Are there other questions or comments? I will close the hearing on A.B. 199 and open the hearing on A.B. 15. ASSEMBLY BILL 15 (1st Reprint): Revises provisions governing sterilization requirements for dogs and cats. (BDR ) ASSEMBLYMAN MARK A. MANENDO (Assembly District No. 18): This bill provides that any sterilization requirements imposed by local ordinance for dogs and cats be posted in a conspicuous place by a licensed veterinarian in his office and in a conspicuous place in a park of government entity with jurisdiction over a public park in which cats or dogs are allowed. The measure also requires that a retailer or dealer who sells a dog or a cat must disclose to

8 Page 8 the purchaser any sterilization requirements for the animal imposed by local ordinance and that the animal was sterilized, with the date, name and address of the veterinarian who performed the sterilization. I want to mention that during the hearing on the bill in the Assembly we were asking for an amendment that would require pet stores to sterilize, but inadvertently when the language was deleted by a subcommittee it was a new definition that missed and should be deleted. You will find that on page 4, lines 38 through 45. Basically, this bill is for notification. MS. GREISEN: I asked Assemblyman Manendo to sponsor this bill because we are killing tens of thousands of animals in this State, many in Clark County, as it is the most populated county. This is a tragedy. It is fixable. In this economy it was difficult to get any other type of language on the bill, but this is the best we can do to provide information and education. As with many issues, if we can just provide information and education for the public, it is a good start. The background for this bill was given a lot of support from the Assembly. Most of the counties favored the bill. I have a story that helps illustrate the reason we need to sterilize our dogs. I was at a dog park with my sterilized dog and a beautiful Labrador retriever came up and urinated on my dog. It then ran away. As I went to get a bucket of water to clean my dog, this same nice Labrador retriever came over and urinated on my dog again. I walked over to the dog s owner and explained that in Clark County it is required to have an animal sterilized and I asked her if she knew this. She claimed that she took her dog to the veterinarian all the time and he had never told her this. The public-park idea came from my mom who suggested posting the notification about mandatory sterilization. I attend Clark County Animal Advisory Committee meetings. The last meetings have been specially called meetings to deal with vicious-dog declarations. It is sad to hear the owners come to the meetings with their dead dog that was mauled at a public park and hear about an owner who has a dog that was not sterilized and attacked another dog. One of the veterinarians said he loved to see dogs go to the public parks because it keeps him in business. There are so many attacks that occur in public dog parks by unsterilized dogs.

9 Page 9 There were two fatalities in North Las Vegas, babies who were mauled and killed within six months of each other by the family pet. In all these cases the attacks were by an unsterilized animal. There have been five such attacks just recently. If only we had known that sterilization would make a difference. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tells us that having a sterilized animal means less aggressive behavior in the animal. This is not just a safety issue but also a moral issue. Tens of thousands of animals in the shelters are killed every year. Just giving some information and education could make such a difference. Notification in the dog park and at the veterinary office could be conspicuously posted where pet owners would read it. People go to a pet store to buy an animal, and they see the notification and ask questions about the requirement for sterilization. It must be disclosed to the purchaser. If you want to breed your pet, then you need to get a permit. You cannot just go home and become a backyard breeder. This is what leads to the pet problem we have. I urge your support for A.B. 15. There is an amendment and I have some concerns about page 4, lines 38 through 45. This portion should be deleted entirely. Another issue that came up is not to sell a puppy before eight weeks of age. I will let Chris Giunchigliani speak to the amendment and these changes. SENATOR PARKS: In the previous language it specifies that the pet be accustomed to taking food or drink with no stipulation for an age limitation. Are you saying that is insufficient? Is eight weeks a minimum? How would someone know, other than the owner, that the puppy is this minimum eight weeks of age? MS. GREISEN: Pet stores should not be selling puppies. A pet store would have to provide verification of age. In all the disclosures the pet store would have to provide anyway, the bill states, shall not separate a dog or cat from its mother until it is eight weeks of age or accustomed to taking food or nourishment other than by nursing, which ever is later. Even eight weeks is a difficult time to remove a puppy from its mother. Once a puppy leaves its safe environment it is exposed to so many diseases. This is a standard age to separate puppies from the mother.

10 Page 10 SENATOR RHOADS: I am concerned as to why on page 4, lines 38 through 45 has been entirely deleted from the amendment. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI: I will support A.B. 15 if it is amended (Exhibit F). I will give a brief history and then respond to the questions. Assemblyman Manendo brought this bill forward for his constituent, Gina Greisen. We need this law as an authority in the counties. This necessary statute is needed to require the posting notification component to bring consistency across all of Nevada. Cities can do this through charter, but the counties would need to be empowered. The amendment that was drafted received a suggestion from Assemblyman Carpenter that it would be good to place the notification in other areas where the public gathers as well as the veterinarian s office. The language about the public park was added. The whole point here is to begin to educate the public about the responsibility of owning a pet. Sometimes they are not informed because our ordinances are hidden secrets to some extent. This is the initial intent of A.B. 15. Because so many animals have been killed in our shelters, I brought forth these problems. Part of the challenge is backyard breeders and the people who purchase a pet and do not know how to care for them. With the permission of the bill drafters, I have a proposed amendment that was suggested to the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources and would have required that pet stores sterilize a pet prior to sale. The question about hunting dogs, herding dogs and other service animals came up. I made the suggestion, based on existing law, to define a pet, and hence that is the language on page 4, lines 38 through 45. When the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources decided not to accept the sterilization suggestion in the bill, this definition remained in the bill. This is why I am asking that it be deleted. It no longer applies. A pet is already defined in State law, so it is not necessary to do it again. Further, it would actually weaken our current ordinances. We are not asking for any new information. It is already there. The bill is making sure that a pet is properly sold at an age when they are socialized and healthy enough. Stores are by law required to take an animal for certain shots. This would be a way to verify the animal s age.

11 Page 11 I also suggested the words if any be deleted from page 2, line 23 and page 3, line 40, as this is unnecessary language. Pet stores are already required to list the breeder s names and addresses. All animals come from a breeder initially, and listing their names is a way to protect the health of the animal sold. The purchaser could trace back to the original breeder if there was a problem with a puppy or kitten. The second part of the statement refers to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which is the overall fail-safe group that issues permits for large-scale operations. This properly delineates those breeders from the smaller-scale groups. This is basically housekeeping language for the bill. We are trying to do things that are reasonable. We respect and work with the breeding community. We have a breeder on the Clark County Animal Advisory Committee. We are finding ways to work together to promote the humane treatment of animals. This bill, if it is amended to delete the language which will undo what we want to do, is a step in the right direction to educate and give notification to the community. This would allow for conversation to go on in classrooms, parks and veterinarian offices. SENATOR RHOADS: I will check with the Legal Division on the issue of the deleted language. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI: If you go back to the original bill, A.B. 15, you will see this language was never there. The amendment that suggested adding the required sterilization came later. At that time, the exemptions for hunting dogs, herding dogs and service dogs were important to the amendment if the mandatory sterilization had gone into effect. It was tied to the sterilization issue. RANDY STEPHENSON (Committee Counsel): I am also Committee Counsel for the Assembly Committee on Natural Resources, Agriculture and Mining. When these hearings occurred concerning this bill and it finally did make it to our offices, it was somewhat jumbled up. The language was confused and stated that if there is a local ordinance requirement, then spay and neuter requirements do not apply. It was directly taken from our definition of pet. The issue we have with the bill s pet definition is that if it complies with the local ordinance, then the retailers should be in compliance with the local ordinance. They do not need it repeated in the statutes. I did not work on the bill, but eventually what was drafted seemed to work for everyone. This is how we came up with the language for section 3, subsection 3. This is the section Senator Rhoads is questioning.

12 Page 12 SENATOR RHOADS: I will look into this further. MS. NEWMAN: I am a board member of two organizations, the Nevada Political Action for Animals and a locally based group that was organized ten years ago, People Against Cruelty to Animals. We have seen the horrors of overpopulation of animals in Clark County. We are in favor of the amendment and the bill, A.B. 15. I hope you will pass this much needed legislation. ERIKA GREISEN: I am in middle school. I support A.B. 15. I am very familiar with the rules for pet owners and I want to be sure others, students and adults, are educated to these rules, too. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO: Erika Greisen is a constituent of my Assembly District No. 18 in Las Vegas. Her mother, Gina Greisen, is also a constituent and this is her bill draft request. Both of these young women are involved in their community. MS. MCGRATH: I will address Senator Rhoads briefly. We feel that if certain groups wish to be exempt from a local ordinance, they may do this at the local ordinance level, not in a bill that is about notification. I also want to speak to you about the eight-week-old puppy provision. Our organization has been doing an in-depth investigation on the smuggling of puppies from Mexico. These puppies are six weeks old. They are smuggled in under the rims of tires or in suitcases. It is next to impossible to find out if a puppy is five weeks of age, six weeks of age or if it can eat on its own. The veterinary division has informed us that when the incisor teeth are starting to protrude is an easy way to identify the puppy is eight weeks of age. There is a flood of illegal puppies coming into Nevada from Mexico. This section of the bill is another tool to prevent this from happening. MS. LAYNE: I am remaining neutral on this bill. It is important that as previously discussed, the proposed amendment, particularly page 4, lines 38 through 45, be deleted. We will then support the bill. I want to address the eight-weeks-of-age provision. The Las Vegas Valley Humane Society spays and neuters the animals

13 Page 13 before they are adopted. Our kittens are spayed and neutered at eight weeks of age. To determine their age, kitten s incisors are also beginning to protrude. SENATOR PARKS: There seemed to be an idea or some thought that if the pet owner had a female dog that it was best for the dog to have had one heat before they were spayed. Is there any logic to this idea? MS. LAYNE: There is also an idea in the public sector that believes cats drink milk. I can assure you that once they reach eight weeks of age, they do not need milk. Your question is along this same line. People get these ideas that are passed down over time. We do know that female dogs, for example, have very little probability they will get mammary tumors before their first heat. Once they reach the first heat the probability goes up substantially. By the time they have their first pregnancy, the probability is 50 percent. The newest research does indicate it is not in the best interest of the animal s health to have a first heat before sterilization. VICE CHAIR COPENING: We will hear those in opposition to A.B. 15. Come forward, we will hear all three of you. CAROL INFRANCA: I am opposed to A.B. 15. If it is considered, then it is critical that the amendment stays with it. Additional exemptions should be considered because the proposed bill does not exempt show dogs. Dogs shown in American Kennel Club (AKC) conformation events must be intact. The AKC events bring hundreds of thousands of dollars to Nevada. Conformation participants frequently boycott shows in areas where mandatory sterilization laws are in effect. According to AKC research, a midsize dog show will provide $588,000 impact. Participants spend money on food, lodging, gas and other expenses. Nevada currently hosts more than six midsize AKC events. There will be 1,000 registered dogs in confirmation events each year. This will pump more than $3.5 million into Nevada. I strongly encourage the addition of show dogs to the list of exemptions. I have a question about the need for the spay and neuter law for one community that mandates sterilization. I am concerned this may put us on the slippery slope to a mandate for other communities. In regard to the previous discussion on when to spay and neuter a dog, it is to be done after the growth

14 Page 14 plates have closed on the dog. We will give you more details on this issue with testimony from Chris Vaught. CHRIS VAUGHT (Concerned Nevada Pet Owners; Quick Silver Agility Club): We are opposed to the bill if the exemption list is deleted in the amendment. There is only one community in the State with the mandatory spay and neuter law. We do not need it for other communities unless someone is pushing to get mandatory sterilization across the State. We have concern about this issue. The local community can pass a local ordinance to meet this requirement. I do not want to debate the pros and cons of spay and neuter because my understanding of the bill is that it is only for notification purposes. We are not talking about spay and neuter. There is a growing body of scientific evidence that early spay and neuter is not healthy for an animal. I did send this Committee a letter with an attachment regarding spay and neuter in performance dogs. I did not address just performance dogs. With the performance dogs, there is a definite link between growth plate closure and sexual hormones. I am an agility judge. I travel across the country judging agility. I am a certified pet dog trainer. I see thousands and thousands of dogs in a given year. I can tell you by looking at those that run in my ring which are spayed early. They are gangly; they do not have the frame to support their structure and oftentimes they are riddled with injury. This is a very real concern. There are other cancers that concern dog owners. These cancers have been linked to early spay and neuter. Many disagree on when is the best age for spay and neuter in puppies. More research is needed at the local level to determine specifically the problems within a community regarding overpopulation. In Reno, the shelter has gone no kill. Their euthanasia has gone down by more than half while our population has skyrocketed. This tells me to decrease overpopulation is not only done through euthanasia. We need to address the problem from a more positive perceptive, by encouraging shelters to adopt a no kill philosophy. It is working here. Extensive education has been offered on voluntary spay and neuter programs. Incentives have been offered. One such offer was $5 to spay or neuter a pit bull. VICE CHAIR COPENING: The bill is addressing notification, not mandatory spay and neuter. I want to make sure we stay on track.

15 Page 15 DON MORADIAN (Bonanza Kennel Club): I am a breeder, owner and exhibitor of Samoyed dogs. Candy Roper, the president of the Bonanza Kennel Club, has provided a letter and packet handout for the record as she was unable to be here today (Exhibit G). She asks that you pay close attention to the documented facts on the last four pages of the packet handout. Voluntary spay and neuter has been extremely effective. Why would we try to legislate at the State level something that affects one community? The larger issue is for us to be aware of the environment that has brought this bill. I will read this quote from David Farve, J.D., at the 2004 Animal Law Institute Conference in San Antonio, Texas, A major goal of the animal rights agenda is to eliminate pet ownership in the U.S. [sic] by He said the animal rights goal is to change the legal status of animal owners by changing the word owner to guardian within state laws and local ordinances. This same group intends to push the sterilization of puppies so the species will eventually become extinct. It will be incremental elimination of human ownership of domestic animals and extinction of canine and feline species if animal rightists have their way. There are 139 of these types of bills in 33 states across our land, all being introduced at the same time. This is no coincidence. Citizens believe these bills are addressing a local problem and do not realize this is happening all over the nation. Are we really addressing a problem here when only one community has a mandatory spay and neuter bill and is trying to deal with it on a state level instead of a local level? This should be a local ordinance. There are issues on the animal rights agenda that are focused on taking away pet ownership and establishing a new status for the pet that will no longer be known as personal property. It is important that all of you are aware of this. VICE CHAIR COPENING: There is one opposition signed up in Las Vegas. While he is coming to testify, we will also call on someone in Carson City. MR. BOTEILHO: I am in a unique position to be in opposition to A.B. 15. There is great language in the bill to help educate citizens about animal care. Page 4, lines 38 through 45 are of concern for me. Clearly what we are talking about is responsible pet ownership. There has been testimony about mandatory sterilization. There is no mandatory sterilization in this State. There is one community that requires spay and neuter, but a pet owner can be a breeder, and get a permit within that

16 Page 16 jurisdiction. The pet owner can enjoy the pet, can show the pet and take the pet to field trials. Assembly Bill 15 is an education bill because Las Vegas kills 30,000 animals a year. I am opposed to the bill if we cannot delete on page 4 lines 38 through 45. MS. KUBICHKA: We are opposed to the bill. I supplied a handout to the Committee earlier today that discussed early spay and neuter considerations by Dr. Chris Zink D.V.M., who helps define the puppy growth-plate issue, Exhibit E. Show dogs or conformation dogs need to be intact and cannot be shown until they are six months of age. If the dog is a herding dog, it cannot participate in AKC events until the dog is nine months of age. The AKC has determined the growth-plate issue and is using care with registration age. Another aspect of overpopulation is the fact we import animals from other countries as requested. I see several holes in the bill as it is written, and some of the language needs a better definition. I suppose this bill eliminates random breeding. I can support that. The bill contradicts itself. I would like to point out that there is a difference between small breeds and large breeds. Small breeds grow faster, mature more quickly and reproduce sooner than a large dog. Larger breeds are slower to grow and slower to mature and breed. My breed of dog, a collie, has only one heat per year. The ridgeback breed will not mature until two years of age. The mastiff and Great Dane will mature at three years of age. It is not really feasible to set an age for sterilization. Among all breeds, there are many differences to consider. It has to be determined breed by breed. I oppose this bill. If it is considered, it will need to be tightened up. There are loopholes in it. Performance and conformation dogs were left out as well. ANN KINNEY: I am a breeder of smooth haired fox terriers. I am totally against this bill as it is written. I understand there is an overpopulation problem. Dogs are being killed in shelters and pounds. This is not the breeders fault. It is the puppy-mills fault. One of the best ways to stop this problem is to regulate the pet stores so they cannot sell living cats or living dogs. They buy their animals from the puppy mills or brokers who get them from puppy mills. When the bill states that the dog is a certain age and a store wants to comply, it encourages the

17 Page 17 black-market puppy mills to lie about the birthdates. Stop the sale of animals in the pet stores. Lake Tahoe has an ordinance that will not allow the sale of live puppies or kittens in stores. Pet stores do not need to sell animals to make money. Breeders are careful to make sure when they sell a dog or cat that their contracts will be binding, especially with the responsible care, spay and neuter issues. At one time I worked for a veterinarian, and I learned that a puppy needed to be at least six months of age before the spay or neuter procedure because of the growth-plate development. Early sterilization for dogs and cats can be detrimental to the health of the animal. VICE CHAIR COPENING: Is there something in the bill that you would like to specifically address? ANN KINNEY: I am totally against deleting the information on page 4, lines 38 through 45. The exemptions list needs additional language to include show dogs, show cats and service dogs. TAREN KINNEY: I am 17 years old. I am totally against this bill. My brother is in Iraq at this time. If this bill passes, he will not be able to show his dog whether conformation, agility or any other competition. The AKC requires that the dog be intact to compete. MS. GIUNCHIGLIANI: My amendment has created some of the discourse you are experiencing. I agree with the Lake Tahoe decision to ban pet store sales of puppies and kittens. We need another piece of legislation to follow up on these issues. We do not have time to do this now. This idea was brought up in the 1990s, but was strongly opposed by the breeders themselves. It may be time to look at it again. Nothing in this bill currently written requires a mandatory spay or neuter. This is solely an education bill. The NRS defines a pet in State law. There is no longer anything speaking of a pet in this section 3 of the bill. The language is no longer needed. For the individuals who want to keep the language in the bill, it is not tied to anything and so it does not have a place in the legislation. This bill is not about a conspiracy theory. It is about having a consistent education message for all constituents about the local laws that have been implemented help and empower people, including the good breeders. I apologize for offering the initial hearing on the amendment and the unintended threat to responsible

18 Page 18 pet owners. Good breeders are the key to our program, and this bill is not trying to impact them in any way. I would be available to help with puppy-mill legislation for next Session. MS. GREISEN: I appreciate the opportunity to come forward and give my testimony. I will direct this to the Chair. It is a little offensive to me that anyone would imply The Humane Society of the United States had anything to do with this bill except to support it. I wrote this bill. Susan Crisco, the former president of the Nevada Voters for Animals and a district attorney in Las Vegas, found the suggested language and brought it to me. It was my idea. I called Assemblyman Manendo because I have been hoping to do something with this issue for years. I created this bill. I first met Beverlee McGrath, The Humane Society of the United States, in this room. I asked her to support this legislation. The second thing I would like to clarify is the fact this bill has no spay or neuter amendment. This language has been taken out and had nothing to do with A.B. 15. I support licensed reputable breeders. I will work with Ann Kinney because we would like to see legislation to stop the sale of puppies and kittens in pet stores. We know this is an important issue from personal experience. Our family fell in love with a rescued dog from a pet store. ASSEMBLYMAN MANENDO: We have had a good dialogue on this issue. Education is proper, and posting notification is a good thing. I appreciate the process of the hearing on A.B. 15.

19 Page 19 VICE CHAIR COPENING: Are there any further comments or questions from the Committee? We will close the hearing on A.B. 15. It will be scheduled for a later work session. This concludes the business for the Senate Committee on Natural Resources. The meeting is adjourned at 5:07 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED: Shirley Parks, Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator David R. Parks, Chair DATE: