S.B. 201 Shelter Animal Euthanasia Amendments: transcript

I don't think I've ever been in this committee before. Well, you have missed out. I'll tell you that. Thank you for, uh, taking some time for a Senate bill, uh, halfway with me, Kate from Best Friend's Animal Sanctuary Sanctuary, and she's gonna give a little bit of overview of how this bill came to be, and then I'll address some of the nuts and bolts of the bill. Awesome.

Can you guys hear me okay? Perfect. Thank you so much. I appreciate your time. Um, like Senator Grover said, my name is Kate Hall. I'm with Best Friends Animal Society. We've been working with Senator Grover on this bill and really appreciate his time and passion behind the issue. Um, this bill came about, um, because we wanted to see more positive life outcomes for our pets in animal shelters. Um, we know how hard working our animal shelter staff are, and sometimes due to budgeting or staffing constraints, they're not always able to care for all of the animals. And so we, we wanted to put something forward that would help them with this. Um, and so, uh, yeah, I'll let Senator Grover kind of explain what the bill is. Um, but I'm here to have answer any questions. Yeah, thank You. What, what this bill will do is it will codify, uh, the best practice. Most animal shelters across the state are, are doing this, and we're inviting the bill is inviting all animal shelters to reach out to our rescue organizations in their local area. This is not saying there's any one rescue organization they need to reach out to, but when they get an animal into their facility, just reach out to them within the first or second day. Hopefully. Uh, if you're not familiar with the process, the, an animal comes into their possession, however that comes. They have a five day stray hold. This does not affect that at all. So if the animal's still with them on day three and they've reached out to rescue organizations, a rescue organization doesn't respond, day four doesn't respond, then the stray hold applies. And then they can go ahead and euthanize, euthanize that animal. Also, if the animal's aggressive or sick or things like that doesn't affect any of the, of the current statutes. And so the onus I was, I was talking to a good sheriff today who brought some questions to me and he said, well, who has onus? Who, who's, who got the responsibility? Well, it's not our animal shelters. They do a great job. There are state agencies, they're working really hard, unlimited budget. The onus is on the rescue organizations to let themselves be known. Say, Hey, we're here. And many of these are mostly within each area, each of your own areas. It's not like they're gonna rescue an animal. You know, I live in Provo. You're not, you're usually gonna get someone from Cedar City Organization. They're mostly local organizations. So the onus is on the rescues. The next question is, who has this list of rescues? Well, again, I am very strong proponent of local control. So those animal shelters, whoever they work with is who they decide to work with. So, and they can decide if, if they work with a rescue, they don't like them, it doesn't work out, they don't work with them, they don't have to respond to them. That's fine. We're just asking that they make that attempt, and then who should they call when they have an animal? They can call whoever they want. And again, the onus goes right back on those rescues. The rescues are very aware and want to be notified. And then other question is, how do they do that? Well, we're not intending to have a new staffer or anything like that. It's can be some, it depends on each organization. They do what they want. An email blast, a text blast, say, we have Fido, that gay man, he's this type of dog. Are you interested? That's it. And the rescues reach out to them. If they do, then maybe Fido finds a family. If not, then Fido doesn't find a family. So the shelter has full discretion on what to do. Uh, we've worked with agencies up and down the state. We've worked with law enforcement as, as far as they've reached out to me. We got reached out today on the Senate floor and want to make sure that those concerns resolved. And that's, we think, and we believe with a careful, careful reading of the bill, the substitute number one addresses all that, which has already been, that's the bill that you have before you, that's passed through the Senate. And so that is the nature of the bill. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, I have one question for the, uh, sponsor, uh, Senator Grover. I am like, you've made my day because I had no idea we had a community cat act. Ooh. And I just learned that. And I think, I think like I know we have some obscure things in, uh, statute, but I think that wins the award for the day. So We all learned something, representative. So, um, anyway, uh, appreciate you bringing that to, to our attention. And, um, I, I guess I need to learn more about the Community Cat Act. There you go. So thank you. And I, I will say, I know it's not a question, but I have learned an awful lot in this bill. I'm, I'm not in my lane, but I do like what I'm learning, so Yeah, I hear you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just wanting to know, are the shelters, are all of them kill shelters then?

So, um, we have a few shelters that, in terms we define no kill as a shelter is reached 90% of animals that are not being euthanized. Again, this doesn't apply to animals that are deemed too dangerous by state or, or local law. And it doesn't apply to animals that are sick that need to be euthanized. Um, there are a few shelters that have yet to reach that threshold, and so we're hoping this will help them reach that. But most of our shelters are doing amazing work, and this is just something that will codify and help them continue to do that work.

May I ask a follow up question? Go ahead. Um, just outta curiosity, how many of these pets are euthanized?

I can get you the exact numbers. Um, I didn't bring the statistics with me today. I think it's around 11 or 1200 that we have left before. We can say that we're officially a no kill state, so we're super close. Um, but I can get you those exact numbers.

Thank you. Mr. Chair. How does an injury to an animal affect the process?

Sure. So, um, obviously if an animal is extremely injured or extremely sick, we will leave that discretion up to the shelters. They can decide whether or not to euthanize that animal. We don't want animals suffering. Um, and so our shelters, unfortunately have to make that call, but it sometime is the right call. Um, if an animal is injured and the shelter does not have the staffing or the funding support, this is a great way that this bill can step in and help. Um, these animals can be transferred to a rescue group, a nonprofit, even another shelter that does have those resources, and they can step in and help save that animal. Thank You. Yeah. And if I may answer too, this bill intentionally stays away from all of those gray spaces, and that all stays with a local agency. They decide what to stay where. That is not a place I want to go, so

Thank you, Representative Hansen. Sorry, Just have another question. So do you, I mean, like, do you really, um, go to the rescue, like you send them to the rescues? How, how many of them go to the rescues and how many of them are not, don't make it? Would that be currently? Yeah.

Yeah. Um, so I can get you those exact numbers. Um, again, I think it's around 11 or 1200 that could be sent to a rescue that aren't right now. So that's where the gap is. Um, but I'll get you those exact numbers. Thank you for asking. Yeah, it's about two to three a day. That's what I calculated. So,

Can you see me now? Yes, Go ahead. Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee. Um, my name's Rodney Hurst. I'm the Chief of police in Santaquin City, Utah. I'm also the current chair of the South Utah Valley Animal Services District. And we represent everybody, including Provo and everything south of Provo to the county line. And, um, I think this, for us, this bill still has some unclear expectations, and those unresolved definitions in our opinion, are gonna create some real problems for our shelter. Um, and, and one of the issues is, is I don't have a clear definition of what an animal rescue group is. So if I have a, let's say the Utah Hounds Man Association shows up and identifies as a rescue group. Am I supposed to turn over 25 feral cats to this organization? Because we already have a 90% success rate in saving dogs. Many shelters have more than a 95% success rate. Well, it's, and so this, the impact, the practical impact of this bill is largely about feral cats, not pets, you know, which raises a whole separate wildlife management concern that I'm not qualified to answer. But at the very least, we need a clear definition. We need a clear statement or a clear expectation on how the civilian shelter employees are supposed to do a background check on the directors, officers, or employees of these rescue groups, uh, per subsection four. And my fear is, and I'll end on this, my fear is, is, is if we don't have these clear expectations, the government entities or the local animal shelters are gonna have their own interpretation of this. And then we're gonna have a patchwork of inconsistent policies across the state. So I would just, we're not against it. We would just like clarification on those items. Thank you.

Hi, can you hear Me? Yes, we can go ahead. Go ahead. Hi, my name is Talia Butler. I'm the director of Salt Lake County Animal Services. I've been in county government for over 20 years, um, and we have dealt with literally thousands and thousands of animals. Um, about a third of the animals that come through Salt Lake County, which is, we intake by far the largest amount of animals in the state. About a third of them leave through rescue organizations. And so these partners mean a great deal to us and our ability to save animals. Um, this bill, the sponsor, there was actually some concerns in the bill, um, initially, and the sponsor was very easy to work with and, um, helped make the language good. Um, the, the request for this bill runs congruent with stray weight. So the time that we're holding an animal is not extended. It is already the required amount of time to hold an animal. It gives the option for rescues to take an animal that would be euthanized. There is an expense that goes with euthanizing an animal, the expense to, um, euthanize and dispose of the, of the animals. So the, the, this is not an ex, uh, there's no extended cost with this. There's no, um, increase in cost. Um, there's no increase in the amount of days that an animal stays at a shelter. Um, what this has the potential to do is save more animal lives. Um, and it also gives other shelters like us an opportunity to pull animals from other shelters throughout the state that maybe are struggling with cats or a specific breed of animal, where we may have a higher pool of adopters that can pull those animals. So, um, we are supportive of this Bill. Salt Lake County voted, uh, favorably for this bill, and I would just like to urge you to support SB 2 0 1. Thank you.

Sure. Sorry, just, uh, making sure my microphone is on. Uh, yes. Uh, my name is Ian Williams. I am the president of, uh, the Utah Animal Control Officers Association, uh, that represents animal control officers throughout the state and, uh, many of our, our shelters, shelter technicians and workers as well. Uh, our membership, uh, uh, is several hundred of those, uh, spread from the north end of the state down to the south. Um, where are you? I appreciate, where are you located, sir? Oh, I'm located in Salt Lake City, myself. Thank you. And so in Salt Lake County, um, but, uh, chair members of the house, uh, I am here today. Uh, initially when this came, uh, up in, uh, uh, our Senate, uh, uh, committee, uh, we took kind of a, a neutral stance. We appreciate Senator Grover and, uh, his work on this, his, uh, willingness to address some of the concerns and, uh, that resulted in, uh, the substitution bill. Uh, but there's still some additional, uh, concerns that we have. Uh, and so today, uh, we're here respectfully opposing, uh, the current form of Senate Bill 2 0 1. Um, first, some of our concerns here is that it's, uh, really doesn't address kind of the fiscal analysis or fiscal note. Uh, and we believe that's unacceptable for a bill that shifts real costs onto our political subdivisions, our municipal shelters, it's been addressed that the, we have a stray hold, and that, uh, with the substitution, the language made it so that timeframes can run concurrently. Uh, the practical reality is this, though euthanasia is almost never considered on day one. So in the cases where euthanasia is being contemplated, uh, SB two ones notice and waiting requirements would effectively add Holding days, days that require food, water, cleaning, medical care, staffing, time, kennel space. Those costs fall on municipalities and counties, and they're not accounted for presenting this bill is having little or no fiscal impact is, is really kind of misleading. Uh, second, uh, 2 0 1 creates inequity on who bears the burden. It said that the onus is on the, the rescues, you know, that they can make themselves known, they can come forward. Uh, but really it puts that burden on the shelter to make notification to reach out. Uh, and if you read that language, it really kind of primarily targets municipal shelters while granting exemptions in preferential treatment to those private organizations, whether it's rescue groups, um, a societies, uh, private animal welfare entities. So really, if the, the goal here is animal welfare, improved animal welfare, uh, statewide, this policy should apply or include all stakeholders, uh, equitably. Uh, you know, public shelters should not be singled out, uh, to carry, uh, cost and compliance risk. Um, the bill does make exception for dangerous dogs, uh, but not really for dangerous animals more broadly. It effectively prioritizes one species over another in a way that's inconsistent with public safety realities and shelter operations. Um, additionally, it's been pointed out that the bill does not, uh, establish penalties that was discussed, uh, kind of in the Senate side. Um, so it allows a broad and vague framework for how notices provided into whom. Uh, as, uh, our, uh, uh, shelter, uh, representative in chief Dun in Santaquin brought up, um, it, you know, taken together this reads less like a workable, enforceable policy and more like, you know, kind of an attempt to get general language on the books that could be tightened and expanded into more restrictive mandates in future sessions. Again, targeting only, you know, municipal shelters. And so, uh, it may not affect every shelter equally, we know there are some that are, uh, already meet and exceed, uh, parts. And it, the intent of this bill, um, but it will materially impact others, and it'll do so at, uh, local taxpayer expense. And without transparent accounting, we respectfully, you know, ask you to recognize these concerns and what this could mean for municipalities and political subdivisions. And, uh, join us in, in opposing, uh, senate Bill 2 0 1 as it currently stands. Thanks for your time.

Sorry. There you go. Sorry about that. So, my name is Stephanie Whitehead. I work for Payson City as an animal control officer. I am also on the board of the Utah Animal Control Officers Association. Um, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I thank you for the opportunity to speak today. If the true intent of this bill is to improve animal welfare, it is unclear why it does not apply equally to both public and private animal organizations. Public shelters already operate under strict policies and procedures and work every day to protect both the animals and the community They serve. Singling out public shelters while excluding private entities from similar requirements, can creates an imbalance that does not improve the outcome, and may in fact undermine safety and accountability. If private animal organizations maintain that they already meet these standards, and including them in the bill should not present any concern. However, if they are not currently meeting these standards, they should be held to the same level of accountability as public shelters. Applying consistent requirements across all shelters would better serve the state a goal of improving animal welfare while ensuring fairness and transparency. Although SB 2 0 1 has been amended to run concurrently with the state's five day hold period, it does not eliminate the financial burden placed on shelters. Animals require time to acclimate to new surroundings before they can be accurately evaluated for aggression. If shelters are forced to evaluate animals immediately to avoid additional costs, more animals may be incorrectly labeled as aggressive and placed on euthanasia lists upon intake. An outcome directly contrary to the bill stated intent. As this bill leaves shelters with only two realistic options, option one, immediate ele evaluation upon intake evaluating animals immediately upon intake does not allow sufficient time for acclimation stress. Fear, illness and environmental changes can cause animals to appear more aggressive than they truly are. This increases the likelihood of mislabeling unnecessary euthanasia. While the option may reduce the short-term cost, it undermines animal welfare and defeats the purpose of this legislation. Option two, allowing proper acclimation before evaluation. Most shelters already allow up to five business days consistent with standard state hold period under the spills. Shelters would effect effectively be required to hold an animal an additional three days if they wish to provide adequate acclimation time. This results in daily cost, ranging from approximately $12 to over a hundred dollars per animal, depending upon the shelter size, animal type, and medical conditions. For already underfunded facilities, this creates a financial burden. Additionally, the bill only allows dogs to be deemed aggressive despite the fact that any animal species has the potential to pos to pose the danger. Preventing shelters from designating other animals as dangerous in accordance with state, local, and federal laws creates serious safety concerns for both the staff and our public. In closing, while I appreciate the goal of improving animal welfare, SB 2 0 1 in its current form, poses significant risk to public safety, creates inequalities between public and private animal organizations, and places undue financial strain on local governments and shelter staff. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that this bill not be advanced without a significant revision. Thank you for your guys' time.

Took a minute to get to my camera on. My name's Brad Bishop. I'm the Police chief of the Payson City Police Department. I'm also the President of Utah Chief's Police Association, also a voting member on the, uh, LELC committee. Um, we have, we have discussed this bill in great length and in its current form, as you have heard from numerous individuals representing law enforcement. Um, we, we think there's a few extra steps that we need to take in order for us to be palatable for, for organizations. Um, I won't rehash those in, in, in the interest of time. Um, but, uh, we, we are concerned about the, uh, the, the animal groups that are not registered or, uh, deemed our normal, our normal customers. Um, chief Hurst pointed out that, that this bill leaves it wide open for certain certain groups to come in and claim that they're animal group. And, and our ultimate goal is to, to, to protection of our animals, uh, the protection of our, and, uh, work towards a goal that we can all be comfortable with. So for those reasons, um, we, we ask that the, the bill be held for consideration, um, at a later time or, uh, or more time to work on it. So thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Uh, having listened all this, and excuse me, can I reserve the right to make a motion?

We'd like to speak to it. I would, um, having listened to this and having worked with a shelter up in our area for while I was in the county, it appears to me in talking to several, that they're already operating pretty much on this form except for the notice part. The notice part, if you heard, is gonna delay activity. It'll cost more. It just adds things to 'em, and it doesn't bring in the whole padre of everybody that deals with animals. So I think the bill is probably gonna cost more. I, I also think that as been mentioned, not having a physical note is a problem. So I'm just gonna suggest we move to the next item and let this bill be worked on a little bit more at a later time.

I would, uh, strongly resist that motion. Uh, as we listened to the testimony you heard from a small group that is located in a small area that may or may not be doing what they need to be doing. And so that's for you to decide. But as far as fiscal impact, there is no fiscal note where there be an impact in individual shelters, and that's marginal, negligible. I've also wondered to myself, what is, how much does it cost to put on a website? Here's our animals today, send out an email. It doesn't cost anything. It's very minimal expense. And there's also concerns about, well, why are you not working with private shelters and public, well, we don't do anything with BYU. They're private. They get to do what they want. But we work with our state agencies, and these are, I think, very res, reasonable, best practices have been, as you said, have been done across the state and other parts of the state. Um, some of the testimony is completely not germane to the bill. And that's why I said before, we don't wander into those spaces as far as who does what and where, and which groups we don't want into that. The local control stays with that agency. They get to decide, if someone comes, said, we're a rescue, we want to take all their cats, whatever that individual agency decides whether they want to, regardless if Northern Utah's doing that, or Southern Utah's not that individual agency. And if it's supervised by a sheriff or however they organization, they could say, these are what we, these are the groups that we work with. These are the rescue groups we work with. And so, and I assume over time, if they saw that risk group was not helpful or problematic, they would take them off of their list. And so the bill is intentionally vague without strong mandates to encourage certain groups that are, or certain organizations that may not be doing this, which they're not very many, and keeping those pets possible pets, some of them are not. And we will be eliminated or euthanized available for families or rescues at organizations that may want them. And that would be around, again, the number that we did track down is 11 1,183 that are, that could be possibly placed that are not without this bill. So I'd resist that motion strongly.

Yeah, sure. I'm happy to. So, um, in the definitions for this bill, animal is defined as being dog or cat. Um, so for the majority of the bill, that is what it's defined as. Um, we did have some concerns, which we worked through with the Animal Control Association on what to do with dangerous dogs. They wanted some clear language in there that gave discretion to shelters to still be able to euthanize those. Um, we haven't had any calls about a dangerous cat, um, that would be deemed by the court to be too dangerous. And so that is the specification for dog. Um, but through the rest of the bill, it applies to both dogs and cats.

We shall see. It's always a pleasure to be here. And I do want to, uh, thank the committee for giving us another bite at the apple. Uh, we coming from the Senate, the legislation seemed to be pretty okay. And we've been working with stakeholders and since the last committee meeting, we've been working even more. And so before you, hopefully online, there is a first sub there. So you're speaking to Second Sub. Second sub, sorry. So I, yeah, I'd entertain a motion to do that, and then we can speak to that procedural. So we do it a little, a little differently. So we'll have you present and then the committee will decide if they want to adopt the sub. Okay. So we'll go ahead and present the second sub. We'll present as if we're presenting to the second sub then. Okay. And so I have, of course, with me, uh, Kate, who's been working on this bill diligently, and she'll go ahead and explain the nuances and differences between first and second sub.

Awesome. Thank you all for having us back. Um, my name is Kate Hall again. I'm from Best Friends Animal Society. Um, and yeah, we've been working really hard to compromise with the animal control officers, who I will just clarify. They are not directly impacted by this bill, but they shared some pretty strong concerns in our last committee hearing, and we really wanted them to feel like they were a partner in this. And so we have, per this new amendment issued three different changes. Um, the first one clarifies that the notification method is established by the shelters. Each shelter can choose what that notification method is. Um, the second change we made is that the rescue group must collect within two days of notice. We initially drafted this to permit rescues, three days to respond, um, in the event that a rescue would not be able to get to the shelter before 5:00 PM on the last day of the stray hold. Um, we are offering this as a good faith compromise, trusting our shelters will not euthanize immediately after the stray hold. And then the third and final change we've made just clarifies the release from liability in the event that there are bad actors. So that is the changes.

Thank Senator. And if I may, and so in working with the various, uh, stakeholders, there was also additional language is presented to talk about how we certify or govern rescue organizations. That's a little bit beyond the scope of this bill, but I did talk to the sheriff and say, well, that's something that we would be able to do in the next session. It's not germane to this bill either. So this is obviously a work in progress. And so that is the essential difference between this first and second sub.

Are, am I there? Yes.

Uh, I'm trying. Um, is it? There we go. There We go. Hi. Okay. I'm sorry. I had a two minute speech prepared. Um,

I am. Just speaking, um, as an individual. Um,

I, I'm opposed to it the way it is.

Okay. My name is Carrie Ward. I have worked at a large municipal animal animal shelter for 16 years in multiple roles, and currently serve as an executive director's assistant and grant ri grant writer. I'm speaking today in my personal capacity. Based on my professional experience. Um, the shelter rarely euthanizes for space. When euthanasia occurs, it is due to severe medical conditions, untreatable suffering or documented aggression that presents a legitimate safety risk. These decisions involve trained staff and often veterinary input. And these decisions are never taken lightly As an open admission, uh, municipal shelter, um, the shelter is legally required to accept every stray animal that comes through its doors, including cruelty cases, dangerous dogs, severe medical emergencies. Um, the shelter already complies with Utah's fine business stay hold, um, and actively posts at risk. Animals conducts rescue partners, uh, contacts rescue partners, and seeks place placement options. This bill requires additional notification and transfer timelines before euthanasia may occur. In practice, rescues and foster homes are already full. Extending timelines without increasing capacity does not create placement options. It increases confinement time, stress, disease, strain of staff, and taxpayers. When an animal has been professionally determined to pose a danger or is suffering, um, without reasonable medical resolution, delaying humane euthanasia does not improve welfare. Additionally, this bill provides no funding. Municipal shelters cannot turn animals away, yet they're being asked to absorb additional administrative and housing burdens without additional resources. Utah does not have a holding period crisis. Utah has a prevention crisis. If the goal is to reduce euthanasia, the most effective investment is funding and expanded access to spay and neuter services for both pet owners and shelters. Spay neuter efforts have fallen behind since COVID and the veterinary workforce shortage has created a crisis in preventing unwanted litters Legislation that addresses prevention will have the greatest impact in reducing unnecessary euthanasia at the source. Everyone shares the goal of protecting animals and serving communities responsibly. I respectfully ask that any legislator consider capacity realities, funding implications, and equitable application across all sheltering organizations. So thank you for your time.

Mr. Chair committee. I appreciate a few minutes of your time this afternoon. Um, and I also appreciate, uh, Senator Grover and Ms. Hall's, uh, work on this proposed legislation, particularly subsection five on the liability. Um, I didn't get this bill until, uh, he's our chairman here. I didn't get this spiel here until one o'clock this afternoon. So what board members I could round up and after discussing it with the shelter direct director, um, I think we would still be in opposition primarily due to subsection one. Just the lack of clarity, um, for us is a major sticking point.

Hello. Thank you for, uh, hearing me. I am Ryan DeRay. I'm with Salt Lake County Animal Services. I have, uh, been in, uh, with the county now for, for eight years, and over, uh, half of that as an animal control officer. Um, when I'm looking at this bill, why I am in support of this bill is looking at how it is, runs congruent, uh, to that stray hold so I can look, I know what my kennel capacity is, I know how many animals I have, and I can be planning ahead to how many, uh, when I need to reach out to rescues. So I do not need to hold them longer than the stray hold period. Um, I can look at what's, uh, what my officers are bringing in, um, what's coming into the shelter in the space that we have, and, and plan for that. Um, so I, I see this as an opportunity to, uh, work with all the rescue partners out there, uh, and to save more lives of these animals as opposed to, um, euthanizing just for space, adoptable animals.

Thank you Chair and, uh, members of the committee. Can we hear me okay now? Yes.

Uh, my name is Ian Williams. I am the President of the Utah Animal Control Officers Association. I've had more than 20 years, uh, in the animal control field, uh, starting out my career as an animal service officer, uh, and then even being director of a a municipal shelter. Um, currently, uh, the Utah Animal Control Officers Association is opposed to the current draft. Uh, the second substitution, uh, for a couple quick reasons that I'll enumerate. I know it's been represented, uh, here, that the, um, animal control officers really aren't affected by this. And while that may be true for some shelters, something like Salt Lake County is set up where there is a division between filled service officers and shelter staff. Uh, the field officers don't have to come in and clean and feed the animals in a, in a large facility like Salt Lake County. However, in many of our outlying municipalities and rural shelters, the animal service officers are doing the feeding, cleaning, uh, everything that would be directed by this bill. And so that's kind of our, our sticking point is that this bill doesn't, uh, affect everybody across the state. Uh, equally, uh, it will have an impact on municipal shelters. And our first and and more critical, uh, examination of, of the bill is its fiscal note. Uh, currently, the substitute fiscal note says the bill has zero ongoing cost, zero one-time cost, and no direct measurable cost to local governments. However, we feel that's misleading. The bill itself adds mandatory notice and waiting periods before euthanasia, including that two business day transfer and request and pickup, even though it came down from three days. Uh, it still means that there's additional shelter days, even with the concurrent language. The honest truth and practical truth of this is that nobody considers euthanasia on day one. We're gonna hold those animals for maybe the five business days before that becomes a consideration. And we're adding on at least two business days. So not including weekends. Um, but there is additional shelter days, the staffing, housing, feeding, cleaning, vet care, and liability. Uh, you know, for those shelters, when the bill was first introduced, its fiscal note acknowledged, uh, that added burden estimating at least $6,000 ongoing to county and animal shelters, uh, or county animal shelters beginning in fiscal year 2027, uh, that was since dropped, uh, since I believe with the substitution and the concurrent enrollment. But that's just not gonna be the case. There will be added days. Um, there's some other things we'd like, you know, put in. I'm not gonna take a whole lot of time, uh, but we'd like to see some owner requested euthanasia protections. Uh, a little bit of equity like was, uh, kind of mentioned, uh, some direction for rescues. Um, the bills language, it was argued last week that, uh, that the onus is on the rescues. There's, this isn't gonna affect municipal shelter operations, but the reality is it, it will impact our operations. Uh, there's no cost to putting an animal online or sending an email or, um, making, you know, a a phone call to rescue. Yeah, we're not worried about those costs. We're worried about the actual day and care costs. Uh, and we'd like to see that, uh, rescues, if we're contacting them and the onus is on them, then there should be some language in this that directs that. Right now, the language is only directing animal shelter operations. And so we'd like to see, uh, our Utah shelters, if, uh, we're gonna do this, uh, there should be some equitable language where rescues, uh, should prioritize Utah shelters and pull Utah animals before importing animals from out of the state. Um, lastly, just as, uh, uh, our, uh, uh, police chief, uh, Hurst indicated there's some ambiguity in some of the language in, uh, section one. Uh, we're a little concerned about the ambiguity and reasonable alternatives. It's still undefined in this bill. Um, there seems to be maybe some, uh, quality, a technical problem in the, uh, drafting quality subsection three A, one C, and D referred to notices described in subsection three. One, uh, A, but a is a holding period clause. The actual notice clause is in B. Um, this looks like just maybe a cross-reference error that should be fixed before the bill moves forward. Uh, so it looks to us that there's still some work that needs to be done. Uh, finally, uh, dangerous animal provisions we think are too narrow in sp species specific. The current substitute creates a carve out only for dogs that has been determined dangerous under state and local law. That protection should be broadened to cover dangerous animals generally not single out one species. While ignoring other legitimate public safety and zoonotic risk cases. Utah law already moved away from breed specific dog regulations. We stood with our legislatures in, in doing that. We believe this bill should avoid moving toward another species specific framework. And as I understand it, uh, the Utah legal cities and Town. Sorry, if

Yep. I'll do it right now. Sorry to to be long-winded, but you can tell No, That's fine. A lot of concerns that my membership has. And, uh, let,

It's not changing the current state law. What it's doing is indicating that only dogs can be exempted from this process and putting, uh, notifications out to our, uh, rescue partners. So we're saying we can prioritize, uh, public safety risk when it comes to dogs, but not any other animal in consideration. And that's something we, we worry about getting too narrow in that, uh, in the interest of public safety and again, even zoonotic risk cases, zoonotic diseases.

Um, can you see me? Not yet, but we're hoping soon. Okay. It keeps telling me that I am unable to ask it, and I tell it to start my video. Um, let's try this again. I apologize.

I have, I, I apologize. When I click the button to turn it on, it tells me that I need to give Zoom workplace access to my camera for my device. And I tell it that that's okay. I'm giving it permission to have access, but it doesn't do anything.

Hi. My name is Talia Butler. I'm the division Director of Salt Lake County Animal Services. I have worked in, um, county government for 22 years. Um, Salt Lake County takes in, by far the largest amount of animals in the state. I mean, by far the largest thousands and thousands of animals, 10,000 plus a year that we take in. And we could not be successful if it wasn't for our rescue partners. The rescue partners in our community and our community in general help to make our government shelters better, um, taking an animal off our hands or out of our care. It, it relieves the responsibility off of the public and puts it on a private organization. This saves taxpayer money, but I wanna get into a little bit about what else it does. Um, giving an animal to a rescue as opposed to euthanizing, it is better for our employees. It is better for the community. It gives shelters access to grants and fundraising and things that were not available before that. Um, but most importantly, it saves animals lives. This is, it seems almost crazy that we have to, um, make a law that says that we need to notify the public of animals that are available. That just seems like a reasonable thing to do. And yet, we still have, um, places in the state that are euthanizing a lot of animals. Um, we have never, once in the entire time that I've been at animal services have had a dangerous cat deemed by the court. Dangerous, um, thousands and thousands of cases. I mean, we have the most cases, and we have not had a cat deemed dangerous, but there are dangerous dogs. And the carbs out on this bill allow for those, those, those dangerous animals and for the sick and injured animals. So, um, I just urge you to be in support of this bill for the, um, shelter employees and our community. Thank you.

No. It runs congruent with the stray weight period. The fact is, is that any animal that comes to a shelter is at risk of euthanasia. That's just, that's the facts. They are homeless animals, every single animal. So having it congruent completely works. We should be notifying the public and rescues the minute an animal comes to a shelter anyway, in hopes that we can get it out as quickly as possible. Every single day that an animal is at the shelter, it's money wasted. If we can get that animal into a rescue or into a home, we're saving taxpayer dollars. So definitely there's no issue with it running congruent. And, and it, it, there is no cost in letting your rescue partners know that you have an animal that you would like them to rescue.

Um, so this bill, I believe specifically only is for cats and dogs. Um, and the answer is yes, we do have dangerous animals. Um, but we've had, we, they Would not, they would not be impacted. They would, yeah. This is not, they're not part of this bill.

All right. That work? Yes, we can hear you. All right. My name is Kirsten Munford. Um, I've been with larger animal shelters for over 20 years now. Um, I don't wanna take up too much of your time. Uh, I just wanna, uh, I'm opposed to this bill. Um, and I agree with the previous speakers in opposition to this bill. Um, as animal shelter professionals, uh, we care deeply about reducing euthanasia. Um, but meaningful change comes from prevention, expanding access to low cost, spaying neuter services, and addressing irresponsible breeding. Um, rather than restricting the professional judgment of those tasked with protecting both animals and the public, our responsibility is to balance compassion with safety, particularly, and stewardship of taxpayer resources. This bill, the well-intended, shifts the balance in ways that may create additional strain on shelters and communities without addressing the root causes of over overpopulation. Um, for these reasons, I'm opposed to this Bill. Um, thank you for your time.

Hi, my name is Siri Maine. I am the director of Weber County Animal Services. Um, I am also the director of Weber County, or, I'm sorry, the supervisor of Weber County Animal Control. Um, I am speaking in support of this bill. Um, very quickly, I'd just just like to say, um, I truly believe this bill would push for communication, collaboration between shelters and rescues, and gives and give animals a chance. As a shelter director, this gives a, excuse me, as a shelter director, not only does this give animals a chance, it holds myself and others in my position accountable to something greater than my own judgment. Um, as an animal control officer, I understand that my officers do not see animals when they are on their best behavior. More often than not, this is not a true indication of their personality, but a fear response to that, um, to, to what's currently, um, occurring to them, whether being chased around, um, whether they're being rescued from an abusive environment or, uh, an animal who knows nothing else, but to project aggression in order to self preserve. Um, currently our shelter protocols are that the officers intake the animals or take the animals to the shelter. And I will say, um, for Weber County Animal Services, I employ three full-time animal control officers. And my animal control officers take care of my Pharaoh room, and they take care of my dog quarantine room. And they're able to do all of their tasks as animal control officers as well. Um, without going over, um, in, in terms of overtime, um, my shelter staff, um, I'm sorry. After the animal control officers intake, the animals, my shelter staff care for the animals. It, um, many departments, um, are, have a hand to play. So my development department, um, will post the Animals for Adoption. They'll post the Animals for Rescue, uh, after a stray hold. That is, um, and, um, uh, excuse me, I'm sorry. Um, this takes us, um, well beyond the requirements of the bill and the Stray hold. Um, I, I will say, as a municipal shelter, I am given a very limited budget to do what I need to do for the fiscal year. Um, and, and we're able to do it. Um, it, it is not easy. It, it's, you know, um, this is not an easy path. However, uh, I, I wanna second everything Ms. Butler, um, said as well in her comments. Um, it, it does open us up for Grants. Weber County received, um, our first grant ever, um, in terms of promoting our foster program. Um, it's, we,

Yes. I'm sorry. That is all. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Stephanie Smith and I have volunteered in a lot of different capacities. First in California and here in Utah. And I have to say, it is wonderful volunteering in Utah 'cause it is quite different than in California. So a lot of good things are happening here. Um, I just, I'm hearing a lot of professional speaking, and when you talk about a budget, what I do is all outta my own pocket. So I understand budgets, and I've worked with a lot of shelters, rescues, just people on their own trying to make a difference for the animals. And, uh, professionally, I audit. So I find that when you're not tracking something, when you don't have procedures in place, a lot of things fall. If, if we don't have time for it, we're not gonna be doing it. So I think we need things in place, laws in place that encourage this type of collaboration. And I see the background of it where you have to plan and do transport and those transports, I mean, I've gone to Weber, I've gone all over. And those transports take a lot of collaboration and it takes time. And the same thing with polling fosters. Um, there's a lot that's going on in the background with people who are doing this out of their own pockets as well. We're all trying to come together, helping our municipalities, as well as helping our community. And so I just wanted to speak to all of you, just as a member of the public.

Go ahead. Paul Zuckerman, I, I, and, uh, my fellow volunteers work for best Friends Animal Society. Um, they will go far and wide in the state to try to save every animal. Um, I applaud that every animal needs a chance to live. Um, and if we can, uh, the key to this is getting coordination amongst many organizations. And I'm always hearing about a new rescue. There's many people out there. If, if they just knew about an animal, they would gladly take it in and give it its best chance for to find a home. I wanna remind us of a story of, I heard when I was teaching a child is on the beach throwing, um, starfish back into the water that had washed up. And there were thousands and a man comes along, surely you can't expect to save them all. And he said, the little boy says yes, but every one of them matters. And I threw that one back. So every, we're we're talking about large groups of animals here, but they, they are each individual beings that need to have the best chance to survive. I want us to keep that in mind. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'd like to make a motion that we adopt substitute two. The motion is to adopt second substitute Senate Bill 2 0 1.

I'll waive Senator.

I'D waive Representative Arthur Waive,

Yeah, I'd like to continue and, uh, make the motion that we recommend favorably substitute to Senate Bill 2 0 1. Motion is to recommend favorably second substitute Senate Bill 2 0 1.

I would just very briefly, I'll just say that I appreciate the work that has gone into the bill since we last saw it. Um, I understand the, the concerns that were raised by folks who were speaking against the bill. However, I do believe that while holding animals for, for a short amount of time on top of what is currently practiced could invariably lead to increased costs for those those days and effort, I believe that the, the time and the effort are worthy for this cause.

Yeah. Again, I appreciate, uh, the, the willingness of the committee to listen to this bill and give us a chance to work on it and get it to a better, much better spot. Uh, this policy is not quite perfected. However, this bill is really good. And what it addresses, there are other things in the A OC world and the animal control world and rescue organizations that any of you're welcome to open up Bill files next year and run those issues. Um, but this one is very specific to giving the chance for a pet to find a home by reaching out to rescue organizations and helping them find a place to be. And that's my summary.

Uh, all waive Summation is waived.

Sorry, I'm here. Yes. How, how did you vote?

Thank you. Committee. Thank you for taking time to, uh, listen to this, this legisl, this legislation. Um, this is the first time I've wandered into the world of animal shelters, euthanasia, retaining animals for X amount of time, all these different things. And it's fine. I don't mind 'cause it's what we do up here, but it came from, I, we just own two dogs. We have two little dogs in our home and we, we like these little dogs. And so it became aware of this issue of maybe giving some animals in certain circumstances, possibly a lease on life a little longer. And so that's what this bill intends to do. Um, I know there's different issues that have been brought up. Um, I do have a substitute there. Okay. So if you don't mind, I appreciate someone making a motion to adopt the second sub or first sub, sorry.

Yeah. I'd like to make a motion that we, uh, replace entitle body SB 2 0 1 with first sub SB 2 0 1.

Okay. And then this substitute then attempts to, I think we hope, I hope it attempts to, it solves most of the problems that have been brought to me between the bill filing and, and to, into the committee. And I'm with me, I'm having her introduce herself, and she's gonna help with the rest of the bill presentation. And you can also ask us questions and we go from there.

Thanks for being here. Yeah. Thank You for your time. My name is Kate Hall. Oh, your microphone up close. Yeah, sorry. So sorry to kind of Okay. You can pull it up to you so you don't have to reach forward. Perfect. Um, thank you guys for your time. My name is Kate Hall. I'm with Best Friends Animal Society. We've been working with Senator Grover on this bill and really appreciate his time and his passion behind the issue. Senate Bill 2 0 1 is a pretty straightforward bill, as I'm sure you've probably noticed, and I'm asking for your support to pass this through for three reasons. First, this bill is a pretty simple solution to a somewhat complex issue. It asks that shelters notify interested rescue groups of a dog or cat's intended euthanasia two days prior to it being euthanized. Um, this bill gives rescues notice and opportunity to pull these animals before they are euthanized. Second, Senate Bill 2 0 1 continues to uphold and maintain public safety. This does not apply to animals that need euthanasia in order to end their suffering, nor does it apply to animals that are deemed by state or local law to be too dangerous to enter a community. Third, and finally, this bill encourages communities to lean into public private partnerships. Um, our shelters are incredible and they do a lot of great things for their communities. We recognize that staffing and budgeting issues affect some shelter's abilities to meet the needs of all the animals in their care. So this bill encourages shelters to prioritize partnerships with organizations in their own communities who are willing and able to help in these circumstances. So, with that, thank you again for your time and we're happy to answer any questions.

That completes my presentation.

Yeah. So we've left that up to the discretion of the shelters to decide what works best for them. Um, a lot of these shelters have public websites or they have Facebook groups. And so if they want to create a Facebook group and the rescue groups can follow those, they can post their youth lists, um, every few days. If it's easier for them to post on their public website or just send an email out to a list that they've already created, um, we've kind of left that up to whatever the shelters are comfortable with.

Yes. Yeah. We're putting the burden more on the rescue groups to be engaged with these shelters and to be constantly checking these websites, being on those email lists if they're interested in these animals.

And, and I can add too, this bill has, has, there's no intent to, to make it more difficult or, or increase workload there on the, on the county animal facilities or things like that. And just is just, that's the intent there. So Provides that option.

Yeah, I, I have a couple questions. Uh, number one is, what, what's the penalty if they don't do it? If rescues don't respond? Is that what you're, Well, whoever's going to euthanize the animal, they don't, they don't advertise it for 48 hours or 24, whatever you decide. Uh, what if they don't do it, what's the penalty for them for not just saying, nevermind, I'm not gonna worry about it. So Is there a penalty associated? I don't see one here. No, I, I don't think so. I I don't have one for, for the rescue groups. Um, I'm not sure what that would be For the shelters. So what's the intent? I mean, what do you do? Go pick the animal up If they say we're gonna euthanize it and you say, no, don't do that, we're gonna come and get it. Do you guys go pick 'em up or?

Yeah, so our org organization does, there's a lot of rescues, um, that we have support from on this bill that are great partners with shelters as well. Um, and so yeah, the intention would be for the shelters to say, this dog or cat is going to be euthanized in two days. Does anyone want to come get it? And then they are able to respond to that.

Mr. Chairman, so this is just animals that they can't adopt out? Some of them are Or is it animals that might be injured or?

Yeah, some of them are. Um, they are animals that can be adopted out. A lot of times shelters will have lack of space for the animals, which causes them to have to make difficult decisions on euthanizing, healthy, adoptable animals. Um, there also are shelters that don't have a lot of funding and staff in more of our rural communities. And so they aren't able to treat a lot of the medical needs. And so that's what this bill would help with as well.

Not really. I, Okay. I don't know. I don't, I don't really understand what you're gonna get out of this. Be honest with you because you already checked to try to help 'em adopt the animals out before it comes to that, don't you?

Yes. Um, so this would just be codifying common practice. A lot of these shelters are already doing this. Um, there are a few that we are working with that are a little bit more difficult, um, with this process. And so we're just trying to make sure that more animals are being able to be saved.

So Mr. Mr. Chairman, so what's gonna make them change if there's no penalty? What, what, what's gonna make 'em, uh, are you gonna put it in the Newspaper that they're Not doing it or what? I mean, it's just a gentle caressing kind invitation that they do that.

And there's no, and it's a great question, Senator. He, 'cause there's a bill with a penalty, uh, some type of consequence would never pass. Would never pass. So the intent is to say, Hey, most shelters are doing this. We'd like to codify this and invite everyone to do this, make this a, you know, best practice. And, uh, you know, I don't, that's kind of where we're at right now. I'm not necessarily worried or interested in wandering into some type of penalty or fine, or things like that. Just wanting to bring everybody up the same type of expectation. That's what the bill would do.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Okay.

Hello. Sorry about that. It reconnected me. We can hear you. There you are. Go ahead Jessica. Hi there. Um, thank you so much for the opportunity to speak today in support of SB 2 0 1. I think that the big picture of this, um, to address Senator Hinkins is to make sure that euthanasia is a last resort. I run a nonprofit, uh, called Whiskers. We cater to seniors medical cases and special needs animals, those at highest risk for euthanasia. And so this is to make sure that euthanasia is a last resort increase, lifesaving collaboration between shelters and rescues, and standardize humane practices across Utah. As much as we'd like to think that this would be the option everywhere, that is not always the case. Um, so I come to this bill from the perspective of someone who has spent many years working hands on in feline rescue and in animal welfare, particularly with cats who come from high stress, high risk situations. One of the most important truths that I've learned is this animals, especially cats, often behave very differently in shelter environments than they do in a foster home or rescue setting. Fear, confinement, noise, unfamiliar handling can produce behaviors that look severe but are actually stress-based and temporary. These behaviors also go for dogs. Um, because of this, I strongly support the principal that, uh, in this bill, that shelters may euthanize an animal only when no reasonable alternative exists. And this is where it becomes tricky because we have shelters who are not reaching out to us and not making a concerted effort. The language recognizes that transfer to rescue, foster placement, or community cat programs are legitimate life-saving options that should be meaningfully explored. Rescue organizations are uniquely positioned to evaluate animals outside of a shelter environment, provide decompression time, and offer behavior support that shelters due to space staffing and time constraints often cannot. So I have personally seen cats labeled as aggressive in shelters become affectionate social companions once placed into quiet foster homes. And this goes for dogs as well. The bill also maintains important safeguards. It respects existing holding periods, allows euthanasia to prevent unnecessary suffering, and does not require shelters to release, uh, animals to organizations with cruelty histories or legal restrictions. And those protections definitely do matter. I appreciate that the sponsor is open to clarifying language around animals who have bitten so that public safety and humane considerations remain balanced. Uh, thoughtful refinement in, uh, that area can ensure that truly dangerous cases are handled appropriately while preserving opportunities for animals who can safely be rehabilitated. At its core, this bill, SB 2 0 1, is not about enforcing shelters to keep suffering animals alive. It's about ensuring that death is not the first or easiest option when reasonable humane alternatives exist. And I think that this is the key foundation of this. This bill elevates collaboration between shelters and rescues, aligns Utah with modern best practices in animal welfare, and most importantly, it saves lives. I support SV 2 0 1 and appreciate its focus on alternatives to euthanasia. One area I do believe needs clarification is allowing shelters to release sick or injured animals to rescue organizations prior to stray hold for immediate medical care, I myself have been involved in many severe medical cases involving cats, senior cats. It is not their fault. They end up in the shelter, and we have had cats that have to wait five days before we can give them medical care. Currently, the bill addresses early euthanasia for suffering animals, but not early transfer out for treatment. Adding this would close a critical gap and prevent unnecessary suffering and loss of life. It's extremely frustrating when shelters who do not have resources to treat an animal would opt for euthanasia rather than releasing the animal prior to the stray hold for immediate medical care. Of course, if those resources are not available, the goal is of course to prevent suffering. But I do believe this should be directly addressed. And I respectfully urge everyone's support of Bill, uh, of the bill, uh, SB 2 0 1 in addressing the medical treatment support prior to stray hold for immediate medical care.

Hi. Thank you. Um, chair members and committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. I am here in opposition of Senate Bill 2 0 1. Uh, I share the goal of improving animal welfare and increasing Debbie Life outcomes. Debbie, lemme

Uh, I am a animal control officer. Okay. Right now. Um, and I have been in the field, uh, for over 20 years.

Thank you. Um, whoops. Sorry. So, I share the goal of improving animal welfare and increasing live outcomes. Uh, but my concern with SB 2 2 0 1 achieves that goal by placing a new and unan unfunded mandate on public shelters, many of which are already understaffed, overcrowded, and operating with limited budgets while creating a tailored procedural advantage for rescue organization. This bill requires additional steps and additional time before a shelter can lawfully euthanize a dog or cat after the holding period has expired. That means more days of mandated care, food, water, cleaning, medical treatment, staff time and kennel space. Those costs are not theoretical. They are guaranteed and ongoing. Yet, SB 2 0 1 contains no appropriation. And as introduced lacks a meaningful fiscal analysis. A fiscal note is more than justified here. It is essential for honest policymaking. The legislature cannot responsibly weigh this bill without understanding the real cost per animal per day. The staffing and overtime impacts the disease control and medical expenses and the capacity constraints that will follow, especially in the rural shelters and high intake mini min, sorry, municipal facilities. Uh, this bill also places the burden of notification on shelter staff require requiring outreach to interested rescues. That term is vague, unbounded and administra administratively heavy. Many shelters already post animals on their websites and social media, which already gives rescues the opportunity to identify and pull animals. SB 2 0 1 shifts that monitoring responsibility onto public employees, adding paperwork and legal exposure while diverting time from public safety response, cruelty investigations and core services. I also want to raise a critical operation issue. The bill does not clearly address, which is owner requested euthanasia, or ORE municipal shelters provide ORE as an essential community service often for animals that are suffering terminal dangerously aggressive, or whose owners lack access to veterinary euthanasia. If SB 2 0 1 is interpreted to restrict euthanasia broadly, without a clear exception for ORE, shelters could be forced into unattainable untenable situations, prolonged suffering for animals, increased bite and safety risks, and more abandonment or dumping. I ask that explicit language be included to recognize and preserve ORE as an essential service and to clearly exempt it from any new notice and weight requirements. Most importantly, the benefits of SB 2 0 1 are not balanced. Public shelters are required to hold animals longer and carry the costs while rescues gain additional opportunities without corresponding obligations to share care expenses, respond within practical limits, or prioritize Utah shelter animals over importing animals from out of state. I respectfully ask the committee to hold SB 2 0 1 until it includes a transparent fiscal analysis and amendments that make the policy workable, such as funding support for added, holding explicit protection from owner request euthanasia and reforms that reforms that actually reduce shelter intake pressure. Thank

Uh, I'll move to favorably recommend SB 2 0 1 shelter animal euthanasia amendments to the full Senate.

I, I actually, I have a question or two that came, um, uh, I'm not sure. Is there a mandated holding period if that you have to. I mean, if somebody brings you an

Animal. So, so state law requires shelters to hold animals for five days. Um, and this language we adopted in the substitute this morning to hopefully clarify that. Um, but this would run congruent with that five day period. So on day three, they would notify rescues and then rescues would have three days to respond after that period.

That's, uh, that's very helpful. Thank you. Um, and what about, uh, help me with the owner requested euthanasia?

Yeah, so that is not addressed in this bill. Um, it is currently allowed under state law and we didn't want to burden shelters with more restrictions. And so we're leaving that up to the discretion of shelters to decide whether they accept that or not.

Thank you. That helps with my questions. Okay.

Yeah, I appreciate the, the discussion and, and back to, uh, the good Senator Hinkins question. It, there we're not about mandates. I'm not interested in mandates, but I'm tempting to solve a problem of inconsistency and establish, you know, practices that go across the state. Again, the majority of of shelters do this. And to the issue of the fiscal note, we did do a fiscal note and we did look at that very carefully. That was very important to me that we not have a fiscal note and we don't, and the sub second sub does solve those problems of burdening the shelters with additional days and things like that. So I would just, uh, ask that you consider this piece of legislation on its merits, on its standing and what it does not do. And trying to kind of weave that very narrow path to try to maybe keep a few animals here that can be, but otherwise continuing to allow those animal control agencies the to, to do the good work that they do.

Yes. Thank you. Senator Vickers. SB 2 0 1, uh, continues. Our relationship embraces private, private public partnerships to support our animal shelters, and also working with our animal shelters that work so hard to serve our communities. Uh, most and many of the shelters in our areas, our district are doing a fantastic job, if not all, but this bill does. It could. This bill encourages private partner, private partner partnerships by informing organizations that have asked to be informed of a shelter's intent to euthanize an animal two days prior to that animal's euthanasia. This notification gives the rescue opportunity, the rescues the opportunity to save that animal before the sh shelter euthanizes it. The rescue has one or this bill and the rescue has one additional day after that two a day notice to rescue that animal. We have passed through the substitute of version of the bill to be in alignment with the Utah Association of Animal Control Officers. To clarify, these notices run concurrently with a state mandate mandated to stray hold The shelter can choose to send the notification with more than two days notice, meaning animal will never have to be held past the state mandated stray hold. One of the things that this bill does is it still allows animal shelters the discretion to deny transfers to organizations that are accused of animal cruelty of neglect. And it provides broad discretion to our trusted animal shelters in terms of how they provide notice to their rescue partners. And that is this Bill.

Thank you, Mr. President and I, I just acknowledge the amount of hard work having run through many of, of these similar spaces that the sponsor and the teams he's working with are, are putting into bettering spaces that are challenging to work in. Uh, I'll be supportive of this bill. Thank you. Seeing no further discussion.

Yes. Uh, thank you. I I call this kind of the one day more bill, just one more day for some of these animals that to have a chance of being adopted and I would move that we pass first substitute se uh, 2 0 1 to the third reading calendar.

you Mr. Speaker. Uh, this bill, uh, is an acknowledgement of the great work that our animal shelters and our animal rescue organizations do. Um, it's a private, uh, par, uh, private public partnership arrangement where it's trying to help facilitate the rescue of some of these animals before they're euthanized. Um, right now, the way that this would, this bill would work is that it would allow these rescue organizations reach out to the shelters in their community and, uh, develop a relationship with those organizations. Those, uh, and then when an animal comes in that, uh, may need to be euthanized due to capacity, that they are able to notify those shelters that have expressed an interest, uh, or those re uh, those shelters or rescues that have expressed an interest within two days. And that allows those shelters or rescues to be able to, uh, have those animals transferred to their organization. Um, in the event that that doesn't happen, the state's stray hold laws, which is five days, would still apply. And so after those five days, uh, the animal shelter would be able to euthanize the animal if, if no other organization, uh, transfers within those two days. Um, this also, uh, allows those organizations that may be at capacity to be able to find some better options to house those animals so that way they can, uh, be able to find a home without having to be euthanized. Um, there has been a, a, a huge amount of support for this bill, a lot of coordination with the different animal shelters throughout Utah, different stakeholders. Um, on your, uh, on your desk is a paper from the 23 of these animal shelter organizations that are in support of this bill. Um, and so with that, I think this is a, this is a good bill. Uh, the, the underlying bill sponsor of the good Senator from Utah County has been working very hard with all the stakeholders to be able to put this together and find the right balance. Um, and with that, I conclude my presentation.

Thank you Mr. Speaker. Motion to amend that

Well on lines? Um, Is this a verbal amendment representative? Pardon me? I just, uh, it's a floor amendment. Verbal floor. Verbal amendments? Yes. Okay.

Line What, what line? Representative Line 34. Line 34. Okay. Got that.

Uh, after the word shelter, I would like to insert in a county of the first or second class. Okay. Representative? Uh, so line 34 would read an animal shelter in the county of the first or second class may euthanize an animal. That's that, that's what I'm trying to do. Yeah. That motion is in order. Would I speak to it?

Yes. You know, uh, I have a lot of sympathy for this, but, uh, our smaller counties, uh, it, we might be creating a, uh, what, uh, uh, economic hardship for 'em to, uh, hold these land animals longer. And, uh, I couldn't see, just quickly looking over at how it would be the best way to, uh, deal with, with the situation we might be creating for those smaller counties.

Ch Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to this amendment. I don't think that reaching out to animal shelters to or to, to animal rescue organizations is a huge hardship, and I think that all of the counties can do it.

Uh, Mr. Speaker, like a substitute motion.

Add that instead of on, on the same line, it can be in counties of the first class instead of counties of the first and second class.

Yeah. I don't think the people in my county wanna deal with this, so if people in Salt Lake wanna do it, they can do it.

I appreciate the, the, I believe I'm, I'm good with the substitute motion.

Uh, I, uh, I do, I don't like the substitute, second substitute motion. Um, I reject that. Um, if this bill originally came from rural counties, so this imply this, you could see on the letter of support, you have people, organizations from Kane, from Davis, from Carbon, from Iron, from Wayne, um, all across Weber. So this has, uh, broad support statewide has been talked about with a lot of these organizations. Um, one of the comments that was made is the undue, uh, hardship and burden that this would have on these organizations. But if you read the bill, that's not the case. Uh, the, the, the bill was drafted in a way to not have any undue burden on these organizations. There's already a state law that mandates that these organizations have to hold onto these animals for five days. And so as part of that, this timeline for notification of those organizations that have reached out to them and said, Hey, if you get some of these animals, let us know so we can be able to have those animals transferred. Organization. Um, that is, uh, two days, and these are supposed to run concurrently. And so at the end of those five days, these organizations are able to euthanize the, the animals without having to worry about, uh, having to wait additional times after that. So I, I reject the, the, the premise that this whole, whole, um, substitute is based on, and I think there's support for this across the state.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in opposition to the substitute motion, most especially because the Senate sponsor himself is from a county of the second class. And I believe that, uh, that in and of itself is, um, un, is an untoward motion. Um, I would also speak while I have the opportunity and opposition to the underlying motion to amend, um, the, the bill to only allow for this in first counties, the first and second class, um, as the floor sponsor stated, this is broadly supported across the state and is in general just good practice. Um, I don't think that the inconvenience in any way should be considered to outweigh the overall good that the bill seeks to accomplish. Um, I would ask that the body object or oppose the both the substitute motion, the underlying motion, and support the underlying bill. Thank you. Thank

Uh, thank you, Mr. Speaker. Um, there's been a lot of polite dancing around and I'm about to say the quiet part out loud. So there we go. All the eyes are over here now. Uh, they're over my time here. And I've, I've dealt with these bills as well that we have had a continual series of these bills, their animal shelters across the state. A new best practice becomes available, which makes sense. And the vast majority of them adopt that best practice because they say, that makes sense. We'll do it. We have two animal shelters that are being, can I say buts? Is that decorum all right? That, that are being buts and just resist adopting best practices. Remember before it was using carbon, carbon monoxide to euthanize animals. Well, all the animal shelters, Uintah injections, there were two of 'em that said, no, we don't wanna do that. We don't wanna move to injections. So we had to run a bill to make them do it. And there were others and it was always the same. Two, we're back again, all everybody's doing this except for two. I think there may be three or four, but really it's just these same two that won't do it, even though it makes sense. You read this building, you think, why do we have to tell 'em, do this doesn't just make sense. And here we are telling them to do it again. The problem really is that the governance structures of those two animal shelters, which both happen to be in counties of the second class, is poor. They have boards. The boards are appointed by their city councils, by the county commission, but the board members are very weak. They don't do anything about it. So I have city council members calling me saying, how come our board's not doing this? Like, I don't know, it's not my board, it's your board. Well, those local governments can't get their boards to do the work that they need to get them to do. So they're coming to us to run a bill, to put in state law to make their boards do what needs to be done. So I have hesitation that we're even having to do a bill at all because those local governments really should just be solving this problem. But for sure, I'll tell you those two problem county shelter shelters are in a county of the second class. So they're not, and they're not in, they my good colleague county of the second class. So I dunno if that makes him feel better or worse. But anyway, I'm not speaking for or against any of these motions. I'm just telling you so that we all know what we're talking about. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I speak against the substitute motion to amend, uh, the many people that I've talked to about this. I, I, I think these larger counties can easily do this. They're by far, they're the ones that are taking the most animals and numerous, whether it's the shelters or the animal control providers, uh, run by the government, they, they say that this makes sense, it can do it. So I'm speaking against the substitute motion to amend.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I call the question,

Yeah, I mean, to be honest, I just don't like the bill, but, uh, I feel like a lot of these groups that, that really love animals, they're, they're very passionate people, but, and, and they, they, I I feel like they're gonna start litigation on if, if people don't follow things correctly or, or do Well, I think that's, that's what this bill's about. Um, and I, I, I love animals as well, but I, I think they can, these, these groups, they'll start to get out of hand and that that'ss why I'm running this. Thank you.

for summation on your under underlying motion. I Think we've had a good debate on this and, uh, uh, I would appreciate your attention. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I also rise in opposition to this bill, and I'd like to give the county some context. We, we are making it harder for an, for our counties to resolve some really hard problems, but it's, it does, there's a financial hardship that the counties will bear as a result of this bill. So in my county, just so that you are aware, on an annual basis, it may cost up to $7,000 per year per dog. For cats, it is three to 5,000 years dollars per year. Now we need to have all options on the table, and I think all of us agree with the sentiment that animals should be able to find homes at our house. Four dogs have found homes, so we consistently love animals on our farm, but at the same time, we should not in increase this regulatory burden at the expense of local control year in and year out. As the good representative from Utah County has mentioned here on the floor, we debate this every time we make a change, so we make an adjustment in this space, and then a couple years later, we're making adjustments again and again and again. Let local control dominate this issue. We do not need to keep coming up here, having special interests move this forward again and again and again. We have made the decision, let our local communities who run these shelters decide, let us not force unnecessary regulatory expense or burden upon our local communities. And again, this is why I rise in opposition to the bill. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will the sponsor yield to a series of questions? Representative Loubet, will you yield to a series of questions? Yes. Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The bill says that a shelter may euthanize only after if no reasonable alternative exists. Mr. Speaker, can you, can you answer this for me? Who ultimately determines what counts as a reasonable alternative? Will the Mr. Speaker, will you be able to provide the line numbers you're referring to? I believe that's on line 32. Just Line 32. It's two A.

Uh, thank you Mr. Speaker. It is the shelter that makes that determination. Okay. Just a follow up question. There is what protects local shelters from liability? If someone later claims that that alternative, there was an another alternative that existed, Uh, the bill itself provides, uh, several different exemptions that it would fall under. So if this is an animal, uh, that is on a list of dangerous breeds, um, that does not apply here. And so in those situations, they'd be able to euthanize the animal if the animal is sick. That also falls into this, um, also under this bill, it's the organization, the rescue organization is the burdens on them to provide notice of their intent to be able to have animals or be an option for these shelters. Um, and so the shelters themselves, um, the have a lot of discretion under this bill to make those determinations.

Okay. Thank you. And one final question. If a shelter's already at full capacity and no rescue group takes the animal within the notice period, what practical options does the shelter have under this bill?

Uh, could you repeat the question, Mr. Speaker?

Yeah. If, if, if the shelter is at full capacity and no rescue groups are able to take the animal under the notice period, what other options do does the shelter have?

So, uh, under this bill, one, one thing I do wanna point out on line 76 through 78, it does talk about that an animal shelter that is not an animal shelter is not liable for an act or a mission under the section. If the animal shelter acts in good faith based on the information available to the animal shelter at the time of the act or omission. Um, and in this situation, if they don't have the capacity to be able to, uh, uh, handle at this time, I'm going to double check, but I'm pretty sure under the bill that the, this does not prevent an animal shelter from having to euthanize an animal, um, uh, as long as it's consistent with already existing state law.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I, I think this bill has good intent, but I actually rise in opposition, uh, because my main concern is making sure that there's clear guidance and workable options when the, the shelters are already at capacity. Um, and hearing from other of my colleagues who worry about the expense at hand when these are already at full capacity and they don't have workable solutions, and you have these groups that will just sue over it. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It's been an interesting discussion. If you've got a pet, whether it be a horse or a donkey, or a j*****s and representative Snyder's yard, uh, or a dog, or a cat or a bird, and you don't want it, take it to Kanab to best Friends Animal Sanctuary. Let it off at the highway and let it run up the canyon to their sanctuary and they'll take care of it. This happens all the time. They haul dog food and cat food in there by the semi-truck load. And when I was manager of my co-op, they were one of the largest power users there were because in the summer they provided air conditioning and in the winter they provided heating. So I see a lot of folks on this list, but if you've got something that's causing you a problem, take a trip to Kanab, have dinner at Houston's and drop your dog off. Thank you.

call The question, previous question has been called, which has the effect of any debate?

Back to your representative Blue Bay for summation. Thank You, Mr. Speaker and thank you colleagues for your questions on this and for, uh, your, your genuine curiosity of and, and desires to help what's best for these animals? Um, a lot of the concerns that, uh, I've heard raised are also governed by existing law. So there are already, uh, laws in the books that talk about how, uh, animals are, are, can be euthanized in the event of, uh, not enough, uh, capacity at a shelter. Um, but it gives a discretion to the shelter. Um, the biggest part of this bill, and what it's trying to do is not create a burden on these shelters. What it's trying to do is provide best practices so that these rescue organizations and shelters can coordinate and be able to have, uh, the ability where these shelters, they, they get to a point where they need to have these animals, uh, removed so they have more capacity for others, and allows those animals then to go to a rescue shelter and be able to get the care that they need and hopefully find a home or, and somebody who will be able to take care of them. Um, this bill is, has been, uh, had a lot of discussion, a lot of, uh, input from stakeholders across the state. And so I hope that, uh, that I might be able to get this body support on this and be able to help, uh, put in some good laws to help facilitate this, uh, transfer of animals and help reduce the number of animals that are euthanized. Thank you.

Yes. Uh, and we worked on this in committee and it was substituted. And the difference is that this language that's found out defines more specific, specifically what an animal organization is. And it moves from three days to two, the time that the rescues need to get on the ball and get that animal out of the shelter. So advantage to the shelters and also has clarifying language, which, uh, rescues may must maintain in order to be considered by shelters.

Vote. Senator Vickers Baldy Lewin Brammer Bus Colmore Escamilla Fillmore Aye. Grover Harper Kins Ipson Johnson. Juab McKay. Mikel Milner Musselman. Musselman Owens Pitcher Aye. Lum Rebe Sandal Stevenson. Aye. Stratton Vickers. Er Wilson Winterton. President Adams Aye. Second. Second. Substitute. Senate Bill 2 0 1. Having received 25 yay votes, zero nay votes. Four being absent passes this body and will be returned to the house for the signature of the speaker.

Thank you President. I'd like to make a motion to concur