PHOENIX — The state House gave preliminary approval Wednesday to stricter laws against animal cruelty, but only after a proponent agreed to eliminate some key provisions — including a mandate to provide suitable drinking water.
On a voice vote, lawmakers voted to expand the definition of cruelty to domestic animals (pets) to also include failure to provide necessary shelter for a dog. What that requirement would entail depends on whether the dog is an indoor or outdoor pet.
Potentially more significant, the legislation would make it a felony to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fail to provide medical attention “to prevent unreasonable suffering’’ to any pet under that person’s custody.
Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, argued that, as worded, it would require people to provide more medical care for a pet than they could afford for themselves — under fear of a felony conviction that could land them in prison for a year.
The measure still needs a final roll-call vote before it goes to the Senate, which already approved similar language, but on a different bill.
What’s driving much of this is a high-profile case from Chandler last year involving a woman who said she was running an animal rescue operation out of her house. Police eventually found dead dogs in her freezer and dozens of others in poor condition.
“But because of vague statutes and legal loopholes, law enforcement had limited options,’’ said Rep. Matt Gress, R-Phoenix.
Part of the problem is that current animal cruelty laws include a requirement to show “protracted suffering to the animal,’’ language that animal rights advocates say often leaves police and prosecutors unable to act. Gress said that, given the language of the law, it ended up “leaving many of these dogs in insufferable conditions.’’
None of that convinced Kolodin.
“This bill imposes, under pain of criminal penalty, for folks who may not be able to afford a high level of medical care for themselves and their families to provide that level of medical care to a dog,’’ he said.
Kolodin acknowledged there is an exception in the measure for those who themselves are homeless. But he said that isn’t broad enough to cover those who are “couch surfing’’ with friends or others.
“It also requires those folks to provide their family pets with a level of housing quality that they themselves may not possess,’’ Kolodin said.
That goes to the requirement in the legislation to provide “access to shelter that is necessary and adequate.’’ Even for dogs that live outside, the measure would require a shelter that has “natural or artificial cover’’ accessible throughout the year.
It also mandates that the shelter be maintained in good repair and large enough to protect the dog from injury as well as to be able to stand, turn around, lie down in a natural manner, and maintain normal body temperature.
Outdoor shelters also would have to be kept “in a manner that minimizes the risk of disease, infestation or parasites.’’
“To me that is a cruel and unjust use of criminal law,’’ Kolodin said.
He also said much of this could be addressed with a provision that would allow pet owners to fight any charges by showing they are financially unable to meet the standards for treatment or shelter.
The Arizona Humane Society medical team sees a puppy for a checkup. Proposed Arizona legislation revises the definition of “cruel neglect."
“And that change has still not been made to the bill (which) leads me to believe that whoever is pushing this bill simply does not care that this will have unjust consequences on the folks who may not have the means that a lot of us enjoy,’’ Kolodin said.
But Sen. Shawnna Bolick, who wrote the original bill, said what the House approved was worked out with and agreed to by House leadership and stakeholders who were pushing for broader protections in the law. Those include the Arizona Humane Society.
“If Kolodin has issues, he should have contacted us,’’ Bolick, a Phoenix Republican, said after Wednesday’s vote. “He knows how to reach all of us.’’
Rep. Lupe Diaz had different concerns. The Benson Republican pointed out that the requirements to provide medical attention apply to “any domestic animal under the person’s custody or control.’’
“What if an animal comes up to your property and dies on your property?’’ he asked.
“Anything on your property is under your control,’’ Diaz said. “You could be subject to a felony.’’
She got the original proposal through the Senate on a 22-4 vote. But Bolick said she could not get the measure heard in a House committee to which it was assigned.
So Bolick worked with Rep. Walt Blackman to strip the language onto an unrelated bill in the House Government Committee which he chairs. But after a preliminary House vote last month, it became clear it was in trouble.
That forced Blackman to make last-minute alterations in a bid to secure more support.
One provision that disappeared from the final version would have mandated that pet owners provide “water that is suitable for drinking, as appropriate for the species.’’ That means not just a supply but water that does not have algae.
Also gone is a mandate for food that “is fit for consumption,’’ a category that includes not having maggots.
What it all came down to, said Blackman, was lining up votes.
“The two provisions were moved as part of broader negotiations to advance the legislation and secure wider support for the bill,’’ he told Capitol Media Services.
The final House vote could come as soon as Thursday.
