Sample Letters about Colorado HB21-1160 to oppose the bill.
Print out an easy to hand out our Fact Sheet CLICK HERE
To see the coalition opposing this bill CLICK HERE
Frequently Asked Questions about HB21-1160
For more on the Bill CLICK HERE
This week! 4/16-4/22
Emails to just Senator’s Ginal and Coram. We want them to see the influx of opposition.
We recommend they say something like….
"Now that the members of the committee have heard our voice it is time the bill sponsors hear from us too!”
Please see their emails and phone below.
Senator Don Coram don.coram.senate@state.co.us (303)866-4884
Senator Joann Ginal joannginal52@gmail.com (303)866-4841
ALSO, if you have not reached out to the whole committee -
This is the Senate Agricultural Committee we need to ask to reject this bill. They will decide in committee if this bill moves forward to a vote. Please send your letters to these people! Time is running out. Make sure to add you organization to the letter if you represent and organization.
Here are the emails addresses you need to email the attached document to in an effort to help us kill this bill in the Senate. If you are a CONSTITUENT, please make that clear in your first sentence (see sample below) that you are a constituent of that particular senator. You can still mail all of them even if you are not a constituent to lend your voice.
Send emails to:
Senator Kerry Donovan Chair kerry.donovan.senate@state.co.us
District 5, Counties: Chaffee, Delta, Eagle, Gunnison, Hinsdale, Lake, Pitkin
Senator Jessie Danielson Vice Chair jessie.danielson.senate@state.co.us
District 20, County: Jefferson
Senator Don Coram don.coram.senate@state.co.us
District: 6, Counties: Archuleta, Dolores, La Plata, Montezuma, Montrose, Ouray, San Juan, San Miguel
Senator Rhonda Fields rhonda.fields.senate@state.co.us
District 29, County: Arapahoe
Senator Jerry Sonnenberg senatorsonnenberg@gmail.com
District 1, Counties: Cheyenne, Elbert, Kit Carson, Lincoln, Logan, Morgan, Phillips, Sedgwick, Washington, Weld, Yuma
—
Email Subject: Oppose HB21-1160
In the body of the email:
Dear Senator,
[Insert a Short personal note asking them to vote NO on HB21-1160]
Attach the document to the email.
—
Also, be sure to reach out to YOUR Senator and representative. Find them here: https://leg.colorado.gov/find-my-legislator
Sample Letters
If you are wondering why people are opposing HB21-1160, here are some sample letters we received that people are writing to elected officials.
People that oppose the bill are writing letters and here are some samples they we have received that you can use. Put them in your own words and add your concerns. They are provided as text here or a downloadable Word Doc. They are all free to use as is or edited.
Sample Letter 5 Good for an Organization
Sample Letter 1
DATE
<SENATOR> <NAME OF SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE>
I am reaching out to you as a volunteer for <ORGANIZATION> about HB21-1160 “CONCERNING THE CARE OF PET ANIMALS IN THE CUSTODY OF CERTAIN 102 PET ANIMAL FACILITIES.”
I oppose this HB21-1160.
My time volunteering is dedicated to the marginalized homeless pets in Colorado. What I see everyday are pets that arrive to our <SHLETER OR RESCUE> that are often neither “healthy or Safe” by the language in the bill. The “Healthy and Safe pets” are the dogs and cats that are lucky to come into the shelter system as they have a shorter length of stay generally and most if not all Colorado PACFA organizations successfully adopt and foster out these pets adequately.
The pets that need a little more love and care are the ones we have to dedicate time and resources to help find loving homes they can live forever.
The bill will put undue stress on a system already leveraged by the past year with a pandemic limiting shelter resources and an economy that has affected incoming revenue and volunteers. Most small PACFA organizations work hard, often as all volunteer to help save the lives of Colorado homeless pets. While we all believe homeless pets in our care should get the care and love of the highest quality, the bill puts organizations of the position where if the care we provide does not meet the standards of a handful of shelters with far greater resources, we may have to kill a homeless pet that just needs more time.
I am also not an adherent to Socially conscious sheltering. This approach to sheltering is based on a 50-year-old standard for livestock. Although the base “Freedoms” of the Five Freedoms that lay at the foundation of Socially Conscious Sheltering sound fine in and of themselves, it is based on the premise that the animal had no freedom to live. Something directly in opposition to modern day sheltering and rescue.
As someone the works every day, for no pay, to help save lives of homeless Colorado pets, I ask you oppose this bill. Do not let a handful of large shelters drive the operations of more than 300 PAQCFA Licensed organizations that would happily take their help with the vast resources and revenue they have available but are marginalized if not abiding by their decisions on how we save lives.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
NAME
TITLE
ORGANIZATION
Sample Letter 2
DATE
<SENATOR> <NAME OF SENATOR OR REPRESENTATIVE>
I am reaching out to you as a <Position – Volunteer, staff, etc.> for <ORGANIZATION> about HB21-1160 “CONCERNING THE CARE OF PET ANIMALS IN THE CUSTODY OF CERTAIN 102 PET ANIMAL FACILITIES.”
I oppose this HB21-1160.
The organizations backing this bill last year, and assuming they are the same this year, have vast resources. They are creating standards that marginalizes small and rural PACFA licensed organizations in Colorado. Although the bill looks like a compassionate law to help homeless pets, its endangers the lives of pets by putting the more than 300 APCFA licensed organizations that work with few resources to save lives in a precarious situation. If and animal is not “Health and Safe” according to the bill, they are candidates for “euthanasia”.
First, for a regressive organization, this is an excuse to kill a treatable animal.
Secondly, for a good organization it is a red flag that could be thrown from PACFA oversight if it is deemed the organization is trying to save a life, but not to the standard of the handful of wealthy organizations backing this bill.
While I all believe homeless pets in our care should get the care and love of the highest quality, the bill puts organizations of the position where if the care we provide does not meet the standards of a handful of shelters with far greater resources, we may have to kill a homeless pet that just needs more time.
Pets in shelters are under tremendous stress. Alone, in an unusual place where strangers are interacting with them every day. This often brings out behaviors that would not be present in a loving home. These pets could be construed as not “Safe” when they are simply in a strange environment and scared, shy or feel threatened. And because of the bill’s language, they should be candidates for “euthanasia”. Euthanasia has a definition, and it does not include individuals that are treatable. Most homeless pets are treatable. Some open admission shelters in Colorado save over 95%of all animals entering their shelters. But these organization will be marginalized at the whim of large powerful organizations that can pay to ensure their voice is heard.
Do not support this bill. Those of us in the trenches need your help to continue to save lives. If you want to help homeless pets, we can help create legislation that will do that with far greater benefit and less unintended consequences.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
NAME
TITLE
ORGANIZATION
Sample Letter 3
Colorado should not pass HB21-1160. This is a blatant attempt for a handful of large shelters to wield their power and influence over more than 300 PACFA licensed rescues and shelters and keep them under their thumb.
As a volunteer that works every day to save lives, I can tell you this bill has unintended consequences for homeless pets and makes the job I do, for no pay, harder as I work every day to save the lives of Colorado’s homeless pets. Please do not let this bill pass for the sake of Colorado’s homeless pets, shelter and rescues and their staff and volunteers.
If you want to improve the lives of pets in Colorado, work on insuring every PACFA licensee can pull from any PACFA licensee. This is one of our big challenges as a small organization. If PACFA is doing its job, then every licensee should be allowed to save pets regardless of the relationship between organizations.
Contact your representatives or senators and let them know you support small rescues and shelters and must OPPOSE HB21-1160.
Sample Letter 4
Colorado should not pass HB21-1160. Although this bill sounds like its about taking care of homeless pets, it is written in a way the opens the door for killing pets that are treatable. Colorado is a state that loves homeless pets. We adopt more than 100,000 a year. But there are still animals that do not make it out of the shelter alive when they should.
Euthanasia is a valid option for a small percentage of homeless pets entering the shelter system. When an animal is truly suffering from a medical condition veterinarian cannot address or the ridiculously small percentage of large dogs with irredeemable psychological damage that make them dangerous. But these numbers are smaller than most people thing.
The bill tries to say that the shelter system should save “healthy and safe” animals. This opens the door to kill anything outside of their definitions of these two words. Many animals are not healthy but completely treatable. The work achieved in the past decade for neo-natal kittens, parvo, puppies, cancer, and dozens of maladies are now highly treatable and save animals lives so they can go to a loving home.
For all homeless pets, except an exceedingly small number of large dogs, safety is not an issue. But the way it is written, if a cat in a shelter, scared, alone, maybe away from its family, scratches someone, ti could be deemed NOT “safe”. This bill opens the door for regressive managers to easily label an animal unhealthy or unsafe, and the homeless pet’s life could be forfeit.
Contact your representatives or senators and let them know you oppose HB21-1160.
Sample Letter 5
<DATE>
Dear Supportersl,
Thank you for generosity and interest in animal welfare issues. There is currently a bill proposed in Colorado, HB21-1160, which we think will stall, or possibly set back the great success MaxFund and more than 300 PACFA licensed rescues and shelters have made in the decades since we launched our No Kill Shelter in 1988.
MaxFund meets or exceeds the standards of care set forth in the bill. However, a few provisions are of concern:
• The inclusion of a SECTION 1 (2) seems odd and unnecessary, particularly when the title appears to reflect “branding” rather than the legal concepts articulated in the section. We would suggest that the section title be omitted, or at least be amended to be more accurately descriptive of the section content, such as the “Responsible Sheltering Act.”
• The idea that we need a law that “Healthy and Safe” animals should be saved is odd as these are the homeless pets Colorado saves already. Our need is not to legislate saving animals we already save. If we are interested in saving lives, we should be creating laws that promote the saving of marginalized homeless pets.
• The standard of care for companion animals should not be so high that only those who are deemed “perfect” are slated for adoption.
• SECTION 2 (b) defines SAFE to a dangerous standard for harmless pets with behavior issues. With respect to cats and most dogs in particular, the standard of “NOT EXHIBITED BEHAVIOR THAT IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN BODILY INJURY” seems unreasonable. I am sure you know of cats who do not wish to interact socially with humans, but who are content to live in a home near their humans. The cats in MaxFund’s care include those that might be deemed “reactive” or “shy,” but who are able to successfully integrate themselves in a home environment. There are dogs similarly that need compassion and training, but the vast majority of pets that receive attention come around to become loving pets. They often do become more social. Why should such animals be denied a loving home? This standard should be modified to account for such situations.
• Similarly, the standard of “realistic prognosis for a good quality of life” is of concern. SECTION 2 (2) (a) states “"HEALTHY" MEANS THAT A DOG OR CAT EXHIBITS NO SIGNS OF 14 ILLNESS OR INJURY OR EXHIBITS SIGNS OF ILLNESS OR INJURY FOR WHICH 15 THERE IS A REALISTIC PROGNOSIS FOR A GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE.” It is not clear whether this language is intended to incorporate a veterinary standard for “good” versus “fair” quality of life. But in any event, this standard also may be so high as to give a chance only to those animals deemed “perfect.” I am sure you are familiar with cats and dogs who, objectively, may have health-related strikes against them…blindness, deafness, congenital or age-related disabilities, controllable yet recurrent, chronic, or incurable illnesses, etc. We adopt out an place in foster many such animals, and they have live long happy lives. Yet, objectively, can it be said that their quality of life was “good”? Or was it only “fair”? As all of us age and accrue infirmities, our own quality of life may slide towards “fair” rather than “good.” But are our lives still worthwhile? Yes. Are the lives of animals who have accrued infirmities worthwhile? Yes, and they still should have a chance at happiness in an adoptive home. This standard should be modified.
Conclusion. Again, thank you for your leadership in animal welfare issues, I hope that you will give these comments serious consideration.
Sincerely,
Your Name
Your Title
Sample letter 6
I oppose HB21-1160 and you should too. The Socially conscious sheltering originated simply as an opposition to No Kill. It’s targeting small shelters and rescues, the vast majority of lifesavers in Colorado.
Whether the socially conscious sheltering folks like it or not, the No Kill movement challenged what was once the deadly status quo of sheltering. The shelter industry used to have workshops at conferences about how to more efficiently kill shelter animals. And it was not that long ago when it was the norm in shelters for dogs to be summarily categorized and killed, citing a label, as a handful of communities do in Colorado for pit bull type dogs. Fortunately for the dogs, Denver recently lightened that policy with legislation. Deadly shelter practices were put in the spotlight by the No Kill Movement and the results in the past 20 years have been dramatic.
Animal sheltering is an industry where it is not unusual for factions to attempt to claim the moral high ground. But we cannot blame platitudes for the bad behavior of some shelter managers. When a shelter failure happened in Colorado, Denver Animal Services , Denver Dumb Friends League, Larimer County, Boulder Humane and the other large well-funded shelters used the tragedy as an opportunity to seize the moral high ground and introduce this bill. Not for the benefit of animals. The HB21-1160 veiled language is about power. This is sheer hypocrisy considering the well-funded large shelters supporting it have incidents posted every year throughout the year of killing healthy or treatable pets.
Sample Letter 7
Colorado should not pass HB21-1160. The “socially Conscious Sheltering” bill is based on the weak attempt of livestock industry to present itself as treating animals humanely.
Socially conscious sheltering based it foundation on something called the Five Freedoms. This sounds nice, freedom from hunger, thirst, pain, etc. Of course, that would be something we want for the way we treat animals. But they are based on all these freedoms minus one. The freedom to live. The livestock industry literally produces animals to kill them. There is no freedom to live in the five freedoms, and therefore, no other freedom matters if you are sentenced to die.
How the sheltering community that create socially conscious sheltering chose the livestock philosophy to base saving homeless pets is incredulous.
The bill, without saying it out loud, opens the door to killing any animal that is not “healthy or Safe”. This means a cat with a respiratory infection, or a dog that only had three good legs, might be considered unhealthy and could be killed. If a 5 lb. dog bites someone, according to the definition of Safe in the legislation, he could be labeled unsafe and killed.
Do not fall for the language of this bill, it is all smoke and mirrors.
We expect more and should get it. Let’s make sure we save every healthy or treatable pet in Colorado.
Contact your representative or senator and let them know you support homeless pets. They must OPPOSE HB21-1160.
2 | P a g e
