Print out an easy to hand out our Fact Sheet CLICK HERE
HB21-1160 Sample letters to write to elected officials or news sources
The Opposition Coalition is growing each day information gets out on the bill.
HOUSE BILL 21-1160 “CONCERNING THE CARE OF PET ANIMALS IN THE CUSTODY OF CERTAIN PET ANIMAL FACILITIES”
The bill is here: https://leg.colorado.gov/.../2021A/bills/2021a_1160_01.pdf
Please contact the Sponsors and YOUR representatvies:
House of Representatives:
Monica Duran https://www.leg.colorado.gov/legislators/monica-duran
Matt Soper: https://www.leg.colorado.gov/legislators/matt-soper
Senate
Joanne Ginal https://leg.colorado.gov/legislators/joann-ginal
We have looked over this bill and spoke with animal welfare agencies, support organizations of PACFA licensees. We consulted with lawyers on this bill and government professionals. We are concerned about the unintended consequences of HB21-1160. First, we don’t know what the purpose, or result, of passing the first part of the bill would be. Currently, the major passage to the bill pertains to adopting out “healthy, safe and social cats and dogs”. This is not an issue in Colorado. These are easy to adopt pets entering our animal shelter system and currently, we are servicing these types of homeless pets well. If we are going to promote a bill to protect homeless pets; it should increase lifesaving, not keep it where it is. Or worse, endanger some homeless pets.
Our challenges come from marginalized homeless pets such as Wild or “feral” cats, pets with treatable symptoms or dogs in need of behavior modification. If we are passing a bill that is to increase the lives we save in Colorado, we think we should be looking at how to save marginalized homeless pets, not the ones we are already saving (Healthy and Safe). We believe the bill codified that marginalized homeless pets’ lives are forfeit if a shelter deems them unhealthy, reactive, or cats living in colonies without a traditional home.
If we are going to go through the effort of passing a bill, shouldn’t the bill improve our system, not just match what the system is already achieving? Much of this is already in PACFA as it stands. For the second part, the bill, and its creators, are targeting smaller underfunded organizations that are still doing great work in lifesaving. There are no funds offered to smaller orgs in this bill as submitted. But in order to change the criteria as written, shelters and rescues across the state, there is a risk that additional resources will be needed. If so, there should be a fiscal note provided for improving infrastructure and access to TNR, medical and behavior resources. The backers of this bill are comfortable with the additional expectations of care and behavior standards because they collectively have over $75 million dollars and assets totaling near $200 million. And they still save a lower percentage than lower-funded lifesaving PACFA Licensed organizations.
If the bill was offering to help underfunded organizations, small shelters, and rescue, with resources and/or financial aid, there might be some merit to its language looking to punish shelters that are challenged with kennel stress. But if these shelters cannot deal with it to the level of multimillion-dollar organizations, what are their choices? Be fined or kill an otherwise treatable homeless pet? Or get fined or shut down by PACFA The Coalition of opposition, mostly PACFA licensees, cannot support this bill as written and must actively oppose it for the good of Colorado’s homeless pets, small shelters, and rescues in Colorado.
We have sent comments and edits of the bill to last year’s sponsor and intend to continue to try to improve the lives of Colorado homeless pets by again offering changes to this bill. No Kill Colorado sent expansive notes before the introduction of the bill and edits to the bill sponsors and did not received a reply from any sponsors.
This year, Maxfund, HSFC, and NKC representatives met with the sponsors and stakeholders on March 19, 2021. Although only 3 representatives went to the meeting in order to keep it manageable, more than 40 Opposing COlorado organizations were represented. None of our concerns were acknowledged.
The lack of clarity in the bill summary are as follows:
SECTION 2 (2) (a) “"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.” Using only a “good” prognosis marginalizes a prognosis of “Fair” which in many cases requires minimal treatment or care. Last year, when this was brought up at a stakeholder meeting the CVMA representative agreed that there is a definition for good, fair and poor. Amputees, blindness, deafness, FIV, diabetes, etc. are all medical conditions that could provide a different prognosis depending on the medical personnel/shelter policy involved. The definition of “Healthy” is a low bar to meet and is being met in Colorado to date anyway for pets adopted, so this criterion does not seem to afford any additional protection to homeless pets in our state. “Healthy and Treatable” is the terminology we would like to see.
SECTION 2 (2) (b)
"SAFE" MEANS THAT A DOG OR CAT HAS NOT EXHIBITED BEHAVIOR THAT IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN BODILY INJURY OR DEATH TO ANOTHER ANIMAL OR HUMAN BEING. This affords no protection to the homeless pet community or “feral” cats. Is a cat scratch “bodily injury”? Should we consider killing every cat that scratches someone the ability to cause injury? Although supporters of the bill stated "(last year) that is because with home rule some communities could still make TNR illegal, home rule is in place for BSL (Breed Specific Legislation) but the state law denies BSL. So, by keeping this in this bill we are marginalizing healthy and treatable cats, smaller dogs, ferrets, etc. and endangering them by codifying the right for them to be killed. “Social” temperament is a low bar to meet and is being met in Colorado to date anyway, so this criterion does not seem to afford any additional protection to homeless pets in our state. From teh outset, this opens a path to shelter killing of treatable and harmless homeless pets.
"SAFE" MEANS THAT A DOG OR CAT HAS NOT EXHIBITED 17 BEHAVIOR THAT IS LIKELY TO RESULT IN BODILY INJURY OR DEATH TO 18 ANOTHER ANIMAL OR HUMAN BEING Colorado already has dangerous dog laws) (Colorado 18-9-204.5 C.R.S.). And they are sufficient. There is not a pandemic of dangerous dogs being released to the public from shelters or rescues and the current law addresses the issue to the same degree, so that would be redundant here. If it needs to be inserted as the criteria for a dog being a candidate for euthanasia, this current statue can be referenced for dangerous dog definition. The verbiage is also too broad. “exhibited behavior that is likely to result” allows too much judgment that does result in the death of dogs in our shelter system (Happy, Charlie 2017) https://www.kktv.com/content/news/Humane-society-responds-to-outcry-over-euthanized-dog-Charlie-426653351.html) The bar again is too low to meet and is will just codify the justification for the killing of treatable dogs for behavior, so these criteria do not seem to afford any additional protection to homeless pets in our state.
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.
THE SHORT TITLE OF THIS 10 SECTION IS THE "COLORADO SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS SHELTERING ACT". This is a clear indication of a strategy by the large organizations to impose a sheltering policy on all PACFA organizations. Although Socially Conscious sheltering is not clearly in opposition to other forms of sheltering strategies, in Colorado, the large shelters and the control they command refuses funds and support to organizations that do not (literally) sign on the dotted line for SCS. They are trying to codify obeisance.
Other information:
SCS is built on the “Five Freedoms” which are a product of the livestock industry. How the standards of an industry that raises animals to intentionally kill them meets the needs of animal sheltering is beyond us. The five freedoms to include the freedom to live. In addition, they are 50 years old. Colorado residents are progressive in their love for homeless pets and their lives. We need new strategies, not outdated regressive platitudes.
Without the freedom of life, all other freedoms are useless. What will help pets in Colorado is if we mandate lifesaving of healthy and treatable homeless pets. An act to insure that PACFA licensed orgs have better access to homeless pets in need. At the moment, shelters do not have to release pets to licensed rescues and shelters if those rescues want them. In addition, there is no mechanism to notify all PACFA licensed organizations of animals in need centrally, which can easily be done with an email list. But that is an option instead of mandatory.
The goal as we understood it, is the intended result of this law is to gain the trust of the general public that shelters are doing the right thing. How? Even if this law was passed, who will read it except for animal advocates? And even if they did, what part of this law will create goodwill for the general public?
The general public already expects our shelter system to protect animals, in fact, we believe the general public thinks shelters do more than it already does. These same organizations turned their back on a shelter in need last year and refused to accept transfers from the shelter. (HSFC).
The Humane Society of Fremont County asked that with any animal they transferred, HSFC would maintain the first right of return if the receiving organization put it on a kill list. And because of HSFC dedication to the LIFE of homeless pets, these four shelters abandoned this small shelter tin Canon City that runs off a fraction of their cost per animal and maintains a 95% or better save rate for years. HSFC should be looked to as a model for their lifesaving success, instead, they have been punished and marginalized and SECTION 1 Item (4) was written to insure punishing shelters like HSFC because of a single incident that was inspected by PACFA and remedied.
Other organizations have been refused funding from funds that come from Colorado license plate sales for not signing to be an SCS shelter. Some organizations sign it just to get funds. The word “extortion” come to mind. It may be legal to do this, but it sure is not in the interest of homeless pets when underfunded organizations could use those funds to save lives..
