Print out an easy to hand out our Fact Sheet CLICK HERE
From lifesaving shelter and rescue directors opposing HB21-1160:
“We know the authors of this bill, we save animals every day, that are not healthy, and treat and make them healthy! We need to continue our mission and save every animal we can.”
“It is just coloring it the way they want it, so smaller shelters don’t have a voice!!!”
“We called [SCS Shelter name withheld] to see about possibly helping with a couple of behavior issues we have. Keep in mind ALL the shelters have posted they are there to help with all the Covid-19 scare. They flat out told us no they will not work with us. Because we are No Kill.”
HB21-1160 Sample letters to write to elected officials or news sources.
Frequently asked questions
“What can I do to oppose this HB21-1160 and save homeless pets?”
We need everyone to write and state opposition to the bill as written. You should say "as written" as that gives them the understanding you want to talk, not just yell at them. Write to your own representative and the sponsors. Look up your rep and senators here: http://leg.colorado.gov/legislators
Please write a letter to the sponsors ASAP:
Rep Monica Duran monica.duran.house@state.co.us
Rep Matt Soper matthew.soper.house@state.co.us
Senator Ginal joannginal52@gmail.com
“So I'm not the best at reading through all the language but if they determine the animal is not healthy or safe, they kill it correct? And who determines that and how?”
The Bill does not require PACFA licensees to kill a pet, but it does leave the door open for any pet assessed that is not “Healthy or Safe”. Also, it does not specify who can determine this. But it does mandate that each shelter and rescue address medical and behavior issues without any guidelines. So if you handle your pets differently than the sponsoring organizations, do they determine if you did the right thing?
“Who determines if the dog is exhibiting behavior that would result in bodily injury or death?”
It is not clear nor is it what bodily injury matters. That is why we think it is dangerous. If a 5 lb. dog nips at a person, or a cat scratches your arm, is that bodily injury? Does that justify a death sentence? Even with large dogs, is a growl exhibiting “EXHIBITED 17 BEHAVIOR THAT IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN BODILY INJURY” and should be killed? The language is too open ended for organizations to label animals not “SAFE” and opens the door for killing treatable pets.
But if an animal is dangerous, shouldn’t we not want them to be adopted out?
First of all, dangerous animals are already addressed in PACFA in the state. 18-9-204.5. Unlawful ownership of dangerous dog - legislative declaration - definitions CO - Colorado Revised Statutes Annotated C.R.S. 18-9-204.5 already addresses dangerous dogs. This bill makes ANY animal dangerous and expands the idea of what makes an animal ‘safe” . Secondly, the bill does not talk about dangerous animals in any definitive fashion. It leaves the door wide open. “It calls upon animals to be killed based on an animal’s “mental and emotional” state. Not only is there no objective definition of what constitutes mental suffering and no standards to how it will be applied, it legitimizes the killing of animals based on the animals’ perceived state of mind, giving people unqualified to make such a determination discretion to kill animals based on unenforceable, unknowable, and completely subjective criteria, even when — as is the case more often than not — simply getting the animal out of the pound can resolve any “mental and emotional” concerns” (from Nathan Winograd) https://bit.ly/3pXfkh2
“Didn’t this bill fail last year?”
Yes it did. It never made it out of committee. Last year the bill was SB20-164 and now it is HB21-1160 We opposed it last year, and with COVID and the General Assembly we are not sure if our opposition or other circumstances just put it on the back burner. Some language was changed, but the language of the bill still puts Colorado’s homeless lives at risk. The bill is an unfunded mandate on all municipal funded shelters to increase revenue (Often tax revenue) in order to meet the unclear legal requirements.
What will the bill cost PCFA organization to comply?
The bill was introduced by the 5 most funded shelters. The cost to smaller and rural shelters and rescues was not addressed which is a key issue with this legislation. The bill’s demands for animal care are broadly stated with no ability to discern what would or would not be compliant. Small organizations could fall out of a compliance, be fined or lose their license from PACFA for simply not understanding the bill.
“Why aren’t more PACFA licensees stepping up to oppose HB21-1160 ?”
They are some publicly, some privately to us. Unfortunately, it is hard for smaller orgs to stand up to the big orgs. There is a lot of money and power wielded by the large organizations. If you do not play ball, you may not get their help. This bill helps them garner more control over all PCAFA licensees. But there is safety in numbers, join us and call your partner PACFA licensees to join and keep control of your organization.
Why is Socially Conscious Sheltering opposed to No Kill?
We personally don’t understand why saving every healthy r treatable pet is disruptive. There are so many reasons given by regressive shelters, but this has been written about extensively so we are going to give you some links:
Have you ever heard of Socially Conscious Sheltering? - Ingela Canis
Socially Conscious Sheltering Proving Time Travel is Real - Aubrie Kavanaugh
Socially Conscious Sheltering - Ingela Canis
Socially Conscious Sheltering - Farm Foundation
Socially Unconscionable Sheltering - Nathan Winograd -
Freedom to Live - Davyd Smith
Freedom to Kill - Davyd Smith
But the SCS shelters will help any animal right?
No. Here is testimony from a No Kill shelter manager in Colorado: “We called [SCS Shelter name withheld] to see about possibly helping with a couple of behavior issues we have. Keep in mind ALL the shelters have posted they are there to help with all the Covid-19 scare. They flat out told us no they will not work with us. Because we are No Kill.”
What organizations support SCS?
There are only a few in Colorado that support SCS as a foundation: DDFL, HSPPR, Larimer County, Boulder Valley and Pueblo. Others will join or not come out against it because to do that would mean losing any access to the millions of dollars in resources these large shelters have. These large organizations leverage their money, lobbying and power to keep the smaller PACFA organizations under their thumb and scared to stand up.
Does the bill say you can’t transfer homeless pets if they are not “Safe and Healthy”?
SECTION 2 (b) “THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY FINDS, DETERMINES, AND DECLARES THAT EVERY HOMELESS DOG AND CAT DESERVES APPROPRIATE SHELTER, CARE, AND ENRICHMENT, AND THAT DOGS AND CATS THAT ARE HEALTHY AND SAFE SHOULD BE ADOPTED OUT, RETURNED TO THEIR OWNERS, OR TRANSFERRED TO ANOTHER ANIMAL SHELTER OR PET ANIMAL RESCUE BY ANIMAL SHELTERS AND PET ANIMAL RESCUES.” This says you cannot transfer a pet unless it is “Healthy or Safe” You will hear 7(b) negates this. It doesn’t as written.
Can’t you just talk to elected officials and let them know what is happening?
We met with them last year and again this year. Our concerns were unacknowledged as of march 20 2021.
But you can help. . Your voice matters but only fi elected officials hear from you. See our sample letters and the officials to be contacted CLICK HERE.
According to 990 for Larimer humane in 2019, look at page 25. A lot of money is in the line Lobbying nontaxable amount. Hundreds of thousands of dollars every year for from 2015-2019. And the organizations named above have put more money in and circle the wagons to stay on message
The supporters of this bill are well funded and can outspend us 100-fold in lobbying and public marketing. And they do. We need grass roots support to oppose this and help small rescues and shelters. Contact your representatives (see first question above).
What guidelines are there to determine if an animal is "safe" or not?
As far as we know, there is no clear guidelines, which is part of what makes this bill so dangerous. We simply do not know what it is that everybody is expected to comply with.
How are the criteria documented and made transparent for anyone to see? I mean, if I know of a dog considered "unsafe", where can I find out when it was evaluated, how, and by whom?
Nobody seems to know. Therefore, this bill needs serious amendments to make sense.
What kind of training do the people making these determinations have?
It seems that very often the training is very brief or even non-existent, depending on the location. Very rarely are there any official behaviorists involved. In addition, training is resource intensive, and some smaller organizations need time and money to address treatable behavior modification training. This bill creates an unfunded mandate for rural and already underfunded shelters.
What about shelters that do not have the money and staff for this?
As far as we can tell, they are simply out of luck and run the risk of getting shut down for rehabilitating and attending to medical and behavioral issues of animals considered (by the authors of this bill) "unworthy" or not to whatever standards they are implying in the bill. If these small, underfunded organizations fear reprisal, it will increase the killing of treatable pets in Colorado.
If there are (vague) legal requirements for how an animal is to be kept and evaluated, how can smaller operations be compliant if they do not have the funding or even access to what is needed?
The short answer is they cannot. This is an unfunded mandate. They run the risk of getting fined and/or shut down just for doing their best on a shoestring budget.
Wouldn't this kind of legislation make small rescues and shelters just disappear then?
Most likely, yes. They are already struggling financially, and many will simply be unable to keep up. With over 300 PACFA licensees, Colorado has the opportunity to save every healthy or treatable homeless pet. This bill sends us backwards to killing for convenience.
What happens to all the stray animals in rural areas if there is no official shelter nearby?
Depending on the area, without intervention by spay and neuter programs and no access to free or low-cost veterinary care, they will continue to suffer on the streets. Abandoned animals will breed out of control and will sometimes form packs to try to survive. Disease and various injuries will claim many and sometimes affect house pets as well simply by proximity. They will starve and end up abused by people who consider them a nuisance. Some will be victims of car accidents and many will unintentionally cause them as well. Eventually, more will end up shot or poisoned or killed in some other horrific manner, sometimes by individuals and sometimes by small-town governments that don't know what else to do.
But if this is such a bad bill, why is it even being considered?
It's authored by five large front range well funded shelters worth more than $200 million in assets and over $50 million in annual revenue. They can meet any standard, even as unclear as the standard in this bill. Their goal seems to be to gain control of the entire state and dictate how everybody else manages their operations.
Doesn't the No-Kill philosophy cause problems, like animals suffering for years in cages?
No. This is a myth perpetuated by people who want to eliminate No-Kill because it requires more caring individuals driven by passion and compassion instead of simply running numbers and maximizing profit. A well-run No-Kill shelter helps every single animal who wants to live. Period. Sometimes rehabilitation takes weeks or months or even years, but most often a perfect home can be located quickly. And animals have hope, just like we do. A better day is right around the corner. In Colorado Maxfund has been No Kill for decades. Humane Society of Fremont County service two entire counties and all the towns in Cuter and Fremont County and save over 95% of all animals entering their shelters for year. Most Colorado rescues do the same, some save 100%. Austin Texas has been the largest no Kill community since 2011 and just this month, LA has gone from a 55% save rate to over 90% and is celebrating No Kill status. If they can do it, Colorado can save every healthy or treatable homeless pet.
But isn't euthanasia a humane thing sometimes?
A: Yes. But it should be reserved for truly irremediable cases. (I.e., the ones who have no hope whatsoever of medical or behavioral remediation). To learn more about that read these publications:
What Shelters Owe Traumatized Pets
The definition of Euthanasia No Kill uses is a the dictionary definition. Regressive shelters use if for any animal killed in a shelter for any reason. Here’s the definition:
“the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy.”
Which means you cannot euthanize a healthy or treatable pet by definition.
I read that Colorado shelters kill over ten thousand of animals every year. Is this true and are they all terminally ill or dangerous to the point of being unsafe to be around?
In 2019 over 17,000 homeless pets died in the Colorado shelter system. We believe more than half were healthy or treatable. We do not believe the true number of legitimate euthanasia cases was all 17,000.
What exactly is the problem with this bill in its current form? It looks good to me.
It is very vague and puts all the control in the hands of the five extremely well-funded shelters and authors of this bill. These shelters have worked tirelessly for ten years to stop Colorado from becoming a No Kill state. This bill marginalizes many smaller organizations in the state. They will run the risk of being fined just for being unable to comply with the requirements or unwilling to kill on their more challenging animals. Wanting to save animals who take more time should not disqualify an organization from participating in Colorado lifesaving culture, it should be commended!
Why can't No-Kill and SCS philosophies coexist?
Maybe they can, but there is a core difference that has not been reconciled.
The bill outlines this very clearly with the clear dichotomy of the Socially Conscious requirement to save the life of a homeless pet ONLY if it is “Healthy and Safe”. Those words, unclearly defined, put the lives of every cat with the sniffles (URI) and every dog that has ever barked (not “Safe”) in danger of losing their lives.
No Kill uses the words “Healthy and Treatable”. And for clear reasons. Healthy and Treatable encompasses all easy ones and the smaller percentage (probably under 10%) that need medical attention or TLC/behavior help. It also recognizes that some homeless pets are "untreatable ''. This small percentage (single digits, as low as 1%) of homeless pets are truly irremediably suffering with a poor or grave prognosis of quality of life. That where the euthanasia, to its dictionary definition, becomes an option.
