MINUTES OF THE SENATE COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES Sixty-eighth Session May 24, 1995 The Senate Committee on Natural Resources was called to order by Chairman Dean A. Rhoads, at 2:00 p.m., on Wednesday, May 24, 1995, in Room 224 of the Legislative Building, Carson City, Nevada. Exhibit A is the Agenda. Exhibit B is the Attendance Roster. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman Senator Lawrence E. Jacobsen, Vice Chairman Senator Mark A. James Senator Mike McGinness Senator Ernest E. Adler Senator John B. (Jack) Regan Senator O. C. Lee STAFF MEMBERS PRESENT: Fred Welden, Chief Deputy Research Analyst, Legislative Counsel Bureau Billie Brinkman, Committee Secretary OTHERS PRESENT: Tony Yarbrough, President, Reno Kennel Club Sally Berger, Member, Reno Kennel Club Tom Benz, Executive Director, Nevada Animal Wise Use & Welfare Alliance Glenda Martinez, Director, Nevada Animal Wise Use & Welfare Alliance Juanita Cox, Chairman, People to Protect America Barbara DeLong, Self Eric Karlsen, Self Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada State President, Nevada Eagle Forum Mark McGuire, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society Kerri S. Bright, Spay/Neuter Clinic Manager, Nevada Humane Society Susan Asher, Assistant Director, Nevada Humane Society Norma Klenakis, Volunteer, Churchill County Animal Protection Society [CAPS] Theresa Summers, Board Member, Churchill Animal Protection Society [CAPS] Kathy Parker, Director, Humane Education, Nevada Humane Society Janet Arobio, Chief Investigator, Nevada Humane Society Dr. Richard Simmonds, Veterinarian Centra Smith, Self Bonnie DenDooven, Pet Store Owner/Retail Trade Joan Berosini, Lobbyist, H.E.A.R.T. [Human Effort and Rescue and Treatment] Grace Morrell, Self Pete Bachstadt, Self Darlene Bardsley, Self Tammy Russell Rice, Director, Sierra Nevada Collie Club Laura Langham, Secretary, Sierra Nevada Collie Club Clayton K. Rice II, Attorney Ira Hansen, Self Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation Ria Katz, Self Dan Molde, Member, Board of Directors, Nevada Humane Society June Grinstead, Member, Churchill Animal Protection Society [CAPS] Gary Griffith, Self Chairman Rhoads asked for a committee introduction of Bill Draft Request (BDR) R-1899. BILL DRAFT REQUEST R-1899: Urges Congress to adopt proposals that are equitable to all states for regulating air quality within area surrounding Grand Canyon. SENATOR LEE MOVED FOR A COMMITTEE INTRODUCTION OF BDR R- 1899. SENATOR REGAN SECONDED THE MOTION. THE MOTION CARRIED. (SENATORS ADLER AND JAMES WERE ABSENT FOR THE VOTE.) ***** Chairman Rhoads opened the hearing on Senate Bill (S.B.) 45. SENATE BILL 45: Establishes rights of owners of livestock. Chairman Rhoads talked about the influx of letters in reference to this measure and held up a manilla file folder of letters to indicate the amount of correspondence received in his office. He indicated the proponents and opponents on the measure were nearly equal and that letters had been received, not only from Nevada, but from all over the United States. Chairman Rhoads invited Senator Mike McGinness, Central Nevada Senatorial District, introducer of S.B. 45, to explain the measure. Senator McGinness reminded the committee his district encompasses Churchill, Esmeralda, Lincoln, Mineral, Nye, and White Pine counties, and parts of Eureka and Lander counties, about 55,000 square miles. He said it is important to understand the constituency that he represents as they are a large part of rural Nevada. He told the committee his constituency is greatly tied to the agricultural and livestock traditions of Nevada. Senator McGinness said S.B. 45 has generated not only controversy, but speculation and misinformation, as well. His remarks continued: For example, one editorial stated that the definition of livestock was amended in 1991 to include dogs and cats. In fact cats and dogs have been included in Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 561.025 since the original bill was passed in 1961. That is one of the least inflammatory comments that have been surrounding S.B. 45 since its pre-filing. Let me take just a few moments to clear up some of the other misconceptions about the intent of the bill. Senate Bill 45 is not intended to allow the abuse of domestic pets. The bill is not intended to permit cruelty to other types of animals that are more traditionally thought of as livestock, such as cattle, sheep and horses. Senate Bill 45 is not an assault on the "puppy mill bill" of last session, nor is it designed to weaken our state laws for the humane treatment of animals, domestic or agricultural. In fact, section 4 of the bill provides the limitation except as `otherwise prohibited or authorized by a specific statute or regulation...' Had I thought the intent to be otherwise, I would not have agreed to bring this bill to the Legislature. If you review NRS 561.015, the section that begins chapter 561, you will find that the 1961 Nevada Legislature established the following declaration of intent: `The purpose of this chapter is to benefit and promote the welfare of all the people of the state of Nevada and to promote the efficient, orderly and economical conduct of the various activities for the encouragement, advancement and protection of the livestock and agricultural industries of the state of Nevada.' This bill attempts only to further that original purpose. Nevada's ranching tradition goes back a long way. For many Nevadans it is a way of life that goes back for generations. Ranching and agricultural interests are an integral part of this state's economy and its history. Senate Bill 45 was requested to foster, promote and protect that way of life. I believe there are valid concerns from both the ranching industry and the opponents of this bill. I am sure that ranchers who rise early, work long and are known to care for their livestock even before they care for their own needs, would neither abuse their animals nor support a bill that made it allowable. I am also sure that the pet owners and members of the humane society or similar organizations who have opposed the bill in its present form, do not believe that ranching and agriculture in this state should be discontinued. What remains to be done, then is to amend the bill to address the various concerns, and although I brought this bill by request, I am willing to work with the parties involved to reach a solution that is fair and agreeable to all. Mr. chairman, thank you. Chairman Rhoads invited Tony Yarbrough, President, Reno Kennel Club, and a member of the Bonanza Kennel Club to come forward to testify on S.B. 45. Mr. Yarbrough indicated he also represents the Responsible Dog Owner's Group (RDOG). Mr. Yarbrough introduced Sally Berger, a member of the Reno Kennel Club and the Bonanza Kennel Club. She said she is licensed by the American Kennel Club to judge purebred dogs at their sanctioned events, and she informed the committee she is also a member of the Reno Animal Control Advisory Board. Mr. Yarbrough read from a prepared letter in a packet (Exhibit C) in support of S.B. 45. And he referred to other letters contained in that packet. Chairman Rhoads inquired why S.B. 45 is necessary if property rights are already protected. Mr. Yarbrough replied, "to protect our rights." He implied that some of the animal rights are being eroded by animal groups. Ms. Berger recited some examples from a prepared statement (Exhibit D). She urged support of S.B. 45. Mr. Yarbrough, in closing, stated there is a responsibility that goes with being a livestock owner. And that a measure such as this before the committee is "intended to target those people who are irresponsible." He remarked the municipalities are ultimately required to maintain animal control and tax its citizens to manage and dispose of unwanted animals. He said, "I believe that S.B. 45 will prohibit a broad-brushed application to punish or attack those responsible people. For a change, senators, we have a proactive opportunity. Please support S.B. 45." Chairman Rhoads asked Mr. Yarbrough for a case example of incidents in the last few years which have actually eroded the rights as outlined in S.B. 45. Mr. Yarbrough replied one particular incident he recalls is the San Mateo [County] puppy breeding laws that were the most restrictive of any laws that have been passed in the country. He said those laws are very restrictive and created so many unbelievable problems, not just for the citizens of that area, but also for the shelter and animal management. Mr. Yarbrough outlined the restrictions and indicated those laws have been amended three times, but they have become such an unmanageable problem, that the citizens of that California county are discussing repeal. Chairman Rhoads asked if S.B. 45 would override local jurisdictions, to which Mr. Yarbrough replied it would not. Tom Benz, Executive Director, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance, came forward in support of the concept of S.B. 45. Mr. Benz stated: To answer a couple of your questions senator, there is a bill in draft right now that wants to set mandatory spay/neutering for shelters, whether they are privately run or whether they are run by government entities. We have something in here that is probably 90 percent in compliance with shelters right now. But some people feel the need to put a law in that would take the rights of the owners of those animals, who would be the shelters, away from them and require them to have mandatory spaying and neutering. We maintain that when an animal goes to the shelter and is there for the legitimate amount of time, usually 3 days, that animal then becomes the property of that shelter. As property of that shelter, those people who run that shelter should be able to decide whether that animal is spayed or neutered or whatever the contractual obligations are for the adoption of that animal. That is a perfect example of what lies behind, waiting to come. The other thing that I couldn't do any more, because you can see with your own eyes, the need for this bill is expressed by the opposition that comes forward to stop this bill. If this bill didn't guarantee these rights... what other agenda could these people have outside of this room, other than to deteriorate those rights beyond what this bill is guaranteeing. There would be no need for them to protest this, if they don't have the intent to deteriorate these rights in some manner or form after this bill would become law. There has been some other criticisms that have been based that dogs and cats should not be livestock. We didn't make them livestock, the [19]61 law did that, but we think they should be livestock. And we think the rights of animal ownership should not be a right where you have one form of animal ownership that has a higher precedent or more rights than some other form of animal ownership. For instance, if I call my dog a pet, should I have more rights of ownership to that dog than you for your dog that you call a working dog on your ranch. And that has been leveled as criticism that I have seen while this bill was being tossed back and forth in the newspapers. One of the things that is most necessary, and why this law is so important, is because it creates uniform rights of ownership for all animals. Everybody that owns an animal will have the same uniform rights of ownership. The people who come before you to testify against this bill this afternoon will still have the same rights of ownership of those who testify in favor of it. They will not be denied any rights of their ownership. Therefore, you have to decide whether you believe animals have rights. If you believe animals have rights, and we should make bills describing those rights of those animals and giving them some specific place in our statutes, then this bill would prohibit that. They would have to come behind and change this bill to establish those rights that those animals have. If you said that this bill is going to change the animal cruelty law or that people are going to be able to treat dogs and cats in some cruel manner because of this bill, that is simply not so. The animal cruelty law is well intact and, in fact, the last session we added a lot of particular provisions to protect the cats' and dogs' welfare at the convinced participation of the owners of those animals. We testified in favor of parts of the "puppy mill bill" that we wanted to strengthen over what it was in its original form. We also knew that the dog kennels that are represented, the major breed clubs that have kennel owners, already meet higher standards than what that "puppy mill bill" required. We are talking about people who are responsible animal owners who have come to you with this bill. I would also point out the broad spectrum of ownership that has come to you in support of this bill. You have rodeo people, you have kennel club people, we have commercial reptile people involved, we have people from a very, very wide spectrum that have come in support of this bill as it is written. This bill has no intention of changing wildlife laws. This bill has no intention of making a loophole to be cruel to your dog or cat. What this bill does, and I reiterate one more time, by the evidence of the people who oppose it, is it sets the standard of ownership rights that is long past due being written down and placed into statute. We no longer will have to count on common law to protect those rights, this will be in statute. And if somebody wants to come and change those rights and take those rights away it will be in a hearing just like this to change the Nevada Revised Statutes. That is why we need this bill. Chairman Rhoads asked if this bill was modeled after a law in another state. Mr. Benz replied they had approached animal owners and asked them what rights they felt they needed protected. A questionnaire was furnished to animal owners and they were asked to list the 10 most important rights of ownership which needed to be protected. Glenda Martinez, Director, Nevada Animal Wise Use and Welfare Alliance, presented written testimony (Exhibit E) in support of S.B. 45. Juanita Cox, Chairman, People To Protect America, presented written testimony (Exhibit F) in support of S.B. 45. Barbara DeLong, Self, expressed support of S.B. 45 from the audience. Eric Karlsen, Self, indicated from the audience, when Chairman Rhoads called upon him, that he had expressed support of S.B. 45 through the Attendance Roster (Exhibit B). Lucille Lusk, Lobbyist, Nevada Concerned Citizens, indicated she has no particular livestock interests, but she feels the rights of the people need to be protected. She expressed this is one area where the rights of the people are under attack and she asked the support of the committee for S.B. 45. Janine Hansen, Lobbyist, Nevada State President, Nevada Eagle Forum, came forward in support of S.B. 45. She said that her group supports protecting the rights of people to control their own animals, and especially supports the tradition of Nevada to be able to further the industries in this state. Senator Jacobsen questioned Ms. Hansen about her family and the pets she owns. Mark McGuire, Executive Director, Nevada Humane Society, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit G) in opposition to S.B. 45. At this time, Mr. McGuire departed from Exhibit G to enterject a "couple" of points which have been made during previous testimony at this meeting that were not included in his prepared statement. He referred to the discussion about the responsibility of animal users and that animal rights, animal welfare and animal protection organizations are attempting to erode the animal ownership rights of people who are responsible. He remarked that laws are made and exist because not everyone is responsible. Mr. McGuire stressed there is no attempt on the part of any animal protection organization that he is aware of, to deprive the rights of responsible people to have animals. He said the intent is to insure responsibility for those who are not responsible. Mr. McGuire then continued reading from his prepared statement (Exhibit G). Susan Asher, Assistant Director, Nevada Humane Society, read a prepared statement (Exhibit H) expressing her opposition to S.B. 45. Chairman Rhoads announced the letters which have been received in his office in reference to S.B. 45 will be placed in the record. The packet of letters indicating support are Exhibit I and the packet of letters expressing opposition to S.R. 45 are Exhibit J. Kerri S. Bright, Spay/Neuter Clinic Manager, Nevada Humane Society, expressed her opposition to S.B. 45 in a prepared statement (Exhibit K). Senator Adler referred to section 4 (a) of S.B. 45 where it says that there is a right to raise livestock for human consumption. He said that seems to guarantee the people the right to eat cats and dogs. He wanted to know if that language is too broad. Chairman Rhoads interjected that perhaps that question will be answered later and if not, then he will call on Mr. Benz for a response. Norma Klenakis, Volunteer, Churchill County Animal Protection Society [CAPS], stated CAPS is an all volunteer nonprofit corporation that operates a shelter for displaced dogs and cats in Churchill County. She said they were concerned about S.B. 45 because of its very broad and permissive language. Ms. Klenakis referred to a Memorandum (Exhibit L) written by the Legislative Counsel Bureau [LCB] that shows S.B. 45 conflicts with existing state statutes. She said she feels this measure opens the door for activities that Nevada animal protection laws simply do not cover. She remarked that it seems like the proponents of S.B. 45 are agreeing that the activities they are performing now are already legal. She indicated if S.B. 45 is really about ranching and farming then it truly is unnecessary because there are provisions and protections for the agriculture and livestock industry in the state of Nevada. Ms. Klenakis briefly outlined the items in Exhibit L. Ms. Klenakis said she is an animal owner and she likes the activities that involve animals. She stressed that legally in Nevada the animals already have protection provided, but that the big concern is the categorization of the companion animals, the non-agriculture animals as being classified as livestock. She repeated the broad and permissive nature of S.B. 45 and the conflicts that it would cause with local groups such as the one she is representing. Theresa Summers, Board Member, Churchill County Animal Protection Society [CAPS] came forward in opposition to S.B. 45. She outlined her experiences with unwanted animals while working at the Churchill facility. She said in her opinion this measure is totally unnecessary. Kathy Parker, Director, Humane Education, Nevada Humane Society, talked in opposition to S.B. 45. She said this measure identifies all kinds of rights for animal owners, but it does not identify any of the responsibilities that go with animal owners. She outlined a list of responsibilities that she thought could be included in such a measure. Janet Arobio, Chief Investigator, Nevada Humane Society, came forward in opposition to S.B. 45. She told the committee that some of the members of her ranching and farming family, with roots in Pershing County, have expressed their opposition to this measure based on their own livelihood, animal husbandry practices, etc. Ms. Arobio continued her remarks from a prepared statement (Exhibit M). Senator James said he was reading Nevada Revised Statutes (NRS) 574 and asked if S.B. 45 is really in conflict with that statute. He referred to NRS 574.100, a chapter on cruelty to animals. He quoted from the statute stating all the things one cannot do to animals, i.e., not give them food, impound them without giving them sustenance. Senator James continued, stating NRS 574.100 says you cannot unjustifiably injury, maim, mutilate, kill, willfully neglect... a pretty specific list of things that cannot be done to animals to be cruel in any way. Senator James said S.B. 45 states one can raise animals, breed animals, use them for sporting events, transfer, euthanize, maintain, train, etc. It even says dispose, but if an animal was disposed of in a way that was cruel, then the law would be violated, according to Senator James. He said "generally the way a statute is interpreted is that the more specific takes precedence over the more general." Senator James remarked if this bill were to be passed, it could say "except as otherwise provided in NRS 574," making it clear that a person cannot be cruel to animals. And, he said, if that is the concern, then it can be addressed in that way. Senator James indicated all the testimony he had heard concerned not being cruel to animals, which he agrees with. But, he pointed out, S.B. 45 does not say one has a license to be cruel to animals just because one is the owner. Mr. McGuire asked if he could respond to Senator James' statement. He indicated one of the things his group repeatedly found was a series of substantial checks and balances in the course of investigating animal cruelty complaints. The problem, according to Mr. McGuire, is there are so many hurdles already that exist. This particular bill creates a larger number of hurdles in terms of what kind of a defense a person could put on just because of the language in S.B. 45. Senator James interjected there is a law against dog fighting and bird fighting. Mr. McGuire said the concern, in his estimation, is that S.B. 45 also defines sporting events as being a right of an animal owner to conduct. He remarked it all comes down to language. Senator Jacobsen asked Ms. Arobio if she had ever had to take the life of an animal to which she replied she had. She said she has to go through certain channels before taking the life of an animal. Dr. Richard Simmonds, Veterinarian, a concerned citizen, said he has been involved in animal control during the past 30 years, and is currently a member of the Washoe County Citizens' Advisory Board. He outlined his experience in other states prior to coming to Nevada in 1988. Dr. Simmonds remarked: I support S.B. 45 and believe it is needed to codify in law what is generally accepted in common law and by the American public and has been well stated already by Senator McGinness and Mr. Benz. I strongly believe in the responsible care and use of animals and have worked throughout my entire career to foster this. In the 30-plus years since I have graduated from Veterinarian school and because of my involvement in biomedical research, I have been very much involved in legal ramifications and aspects of animal ownership and care. And I have seen more and more draconian [Webster: relating to, or characteristic of Draco {Athenian lawgiver} or the severe code of laws held to have been framed by him. Harsh. Cruel.] law proposed regarding both pet and non-pet animal use and ownership. Fortunately, most of those proposals include one here in Carson City which was requiring spay and neuter, have been failed. I think S.B. 45 is needed to proactively head off such draconian proposals. I would like to reemphasize that nothing in S.B. 45 would encourage animal cruelty as has been alleged. In fact, Senator James, in response to your previous questions, section 4 specifically says that "except where otherwise prohibited or authorized by specific statute or regulation... Dr. Simmonds continued to talk about the rights of owners. Senator James interjected with the remark that the way to address a lot of the concerns would be to add a provision which says "nothing herein is intended to obviate NRS chapter 574 or provide a defense to anyone in any criminal prosecution under chapter 574." Dr. Simmonds said he understood that was what section 4 said. Senator James replied section 5 deals with the reproductive issues. Dr. Simmonds said he certainly would support that degree of change in S.B. 45. Dr. Simmonds indicated he wanted to touch briefly on euthanasia which had been talked about in previous testimony. He told the committee he is an investigator for the Nevada Board of Veterinary Medical Examiners and in that position he investigates for cause and review of veterinary practices. He said the statutory euthanasia language which refers to lethal injection of phenobarbital is limited to the use of the product by euthanasia technicians primarily at shelters and pounds. He indicated the information (Exhibit J) provided to the committee from the Legislative Counsel Bureau is erroneous because if anyone who euthanatized an animal in any other way in Nevada were to be prosecuted as is stated in Exhibit J, then every slaughterhouse worker would have to be prosecuted in Nevada. Dr. Simmonds added that in fact if phenobarbital were to be used in a slaughterhouse to euthanize animals, the food laws would be violated as it would be considered adulterated food. He said there is other language which could be used relative to approved methods of euthanasia. Upon conclusion of his comments, Dr. Simmonds indicated he supports S.B. 45. He said the purpose of the bill as Senator McGinness referenced in his statement, is to codify existent status and head off oppressive legislation. Dr. Simmonds stated: The degree of opposition to this measure, indicated by Mr. Benz, which has surfaced, leads me to conclude that my initial somewhat ambivalent feelings about the bill were wrong. And, in fact I think it is much more needed than I originally anticipated. Particularly some of the pressures from outside of this state, lead me to that conclusion. Centra Smith, Self, said she supports S.B. 45 and that she is in concurrence with the supportive remarks made thus far before the committee. She provided additional testimony on animals and pets. Senator Jacobsen asked Ms. Smith if her animals and pets were her personal, private property, to which she answered in the affirmative. Bonnie DenDooven, Pet Store Owner/Retail Trade, testified in support of S.B. 45. She noted the concept of this legislation has been in the works for 5 years. She said she personally needs this law because "through the propaganda that has come out there is a drifting perception that what I do might be on the fringes of legal or maybe even, in some instances, illegal." She told the committee she has a pet store and deals in live animals. And that through this drifting perception she is constantly having to address this issue. She urged the support of S.B. 45 so that Nevada's policy is known. Ms. DenDooven said her retail trade is in livestock by-products such as sheepskins. She said S.B. 45 would protect that trade. She stated it would show clearly that her businesses are operating under the law. Joan Berosini, Lobbyist, H.E.A.R.T. [Humane Effort and Rescue and Treatment] of animals, testified in support of S.B. 45. She then responded to charges lodged in earlier remarks by Mr. McGuire. She said her family has been viciously attacked by animal rights organizations which were aided and abetted by Mr. McGuire. She expressed her animals (orangutan) are heavily regulated. She told the committee that her animals have to be psychologically enhanced according to the USDA [United States Drug Act], apart from many other regulations. She said they are under the animal control and the regular cruelty laws. And she outlined the harassment they have undergone by animal rights groups. She concluded her remarks in that area by saying: I hope this committee comprehends the anger and disillusion and frustration of the peoples of America and particularly the west, over the constant onslaught and erosion of our basic rights, and understands the need for S.B. 45 so that other responsible people will not have to go through what we have been through. Ms. Berosini told the committee that with this bill people would be more aware of the difference between animal rights and animal welfare. She concluded by telling the committee animal rights seek to end man's use of animals, and animal welfare wants to see animals well treated. Senator Regan said he had been around Bobby's "kids" [orangutans] and they are welcomed in his place of business at any time. Chairman Rhoads invited the people who wanted to testify, in the interest of expediting the meeting, to please come forward two at a time. Grace Morrell, Self, read from a prepared statement (Exhibit N) in opposition to S.B. 45. She asked why pets are included in the bill. Senator Rhoads remarked that the committee did not write the bills, they simply heard them. And if testimony was persuasive enough, the language could be changed. Pete Bachstadt, Self, told the committee he wanted to address rights. He said in his estimation there are two types of rights: philosophical and legal. So he asked when animal rights are being addressed does it mean legal rights or philosophical rights. He stressed animals have no legal rights. He asked to whom do the animal cruelty laws apply. He asked if animals are personal property. He said they cannot own property, they cannot sue in their own behalf, and that the law does not apply to them in any fashion or form. In order to make a point, Mr. Bachstadt remarked "the law really does not affect animals as heavily as it would me if I did not wear my seatbelt." Mr. Bachstadt continued his testimony in opposition to S.B. 45 by reading a prepared statement (Exhibit O.) Darlene Bardsley, Self, indicated from the audience she was opposed to S.B. 45. Tammy Russell Rice, Director, Sierra Nevada Collie Club, and cochair of Sierra Nevada Collie Rescue, said for the record, the Sierra Nevada Collie Club is a member of the Collie Club of America and its Foundation. Ms. Rice introduced Laura Langham, also an officer of the Sierra Nevada Collie Club. Ms. Rice submitted written testimony (Exhibit P) in support of S.B. 45. She added, for the record, that she personally participated in 12-plus months of deliberations for what would have been sweeping revisions to Carson City's animal ordinance that were spearheaded by Mr. Bachstadt. She said as a result of that work, a reasonable resolve was ultimately entered and passed into law. Ms. Rice provided further testimony in support of her stance on S.B. 45. Ms. Langham, Secretary, Sierra Nevada Collie Club, co-chair of the rescue organization, and the Nevada State District Director of the Collie Club of America, spoke in behalf of S.B. 45. She explained that when a person buys an animal, they become owners of that animal and are then responsible for its welfare. She told the committee of her own personal experience of being a victim of an attack by an animal rights activist. She said she was in support of S.B. 45 so that her rights as an animal owner would be protected. Clayton K. Rice, II, Attorney, acting as legal counsel for RDOG (Responsible Dog Owners Group), a responsible dog owner's group made up of several hundred organizations throughout the state of Nevada, all of which support S.B. 45. He submitted written testimony (Exhibit Q) for the record. Mr. Rice focused on some questions which have been raised throughout the current hearing on this measure. He indicated it is legal to eat dogs and cats. Whether it is right or not is each individual's own moral belief. He then commented on the opinion written by the LCB (Exhibit J). He reiterated the statement by Dr. Simmonds that in that paper, the statement on euthanasia is wrong. That if one did what was suggested in Exhibit J, it would be illegal under many food additives. He added that the statement in Exhibit J is wrong in the area of contract law as well. Since a personal property right is being dealt with, contracts would take a paramount place because they are more restrictive than S.B. 45. Mr. Rice said, "Therefore, a contractual right that you enter into to spay and neuter your animal would be enforceable by these organizations." He suggested S.B. 45 would not prevent local, city and county ordinances and animal control and Nevada Humane Society from enforcing spay/neuter contracts. Senator James asked Mr. Rice if he was indicating that animals do not have rights. Mr. Rice replied "that is correct." Senator James then asked how could there be a law against cruelty to animals. Mr. Rice said that is the effect of legislation. That the treatment of animals is being mandated and that is what animal welfare is designed to do. Senator James inquired if he bought an animal and it was his property, then why could he not treat that animal however he wished. Mr. Rice replied because all people care greatly for animals and when an animal is being mistreated, then people who witness that treatment get upset. Mr. Rice pointed out animals do have a right not to be treated cruelly and that is what the legislation is about. He said he believed this measure should be included in [NRS] 574. Senator James said he wanted to be clear that the laws which have been passed must stem from something. He stressed a person cannot treat an animal in any fashion just because that person owns the animal. Mr. Rice said a person gets a severe emotional attachment to an animal and then they become a part of one's family. He recognized NRS 190.25 has always defined personal property as including animals, over a hundred years. He said the focus is on distinguishing between animal rights and animal lovers. And he recited some examples of legislation on animal rights in other states. He indicated his group will support any legislation like the "puppy mill bill", that legislates responsible dog, cat or animal ownership. Mr. Rice submitted letters of support from other entities on their behalf: Sierra Rottweiler Owners (Exhibit R); Great Western Rottweilers (Exhibit S); and Paws For Love (Exhibit T). Mr. Rice provided further testimony in support of S.B. 45. He gave an overview of animal rights and pointed out that past legislation has been designed to penalize ownership. He said this measure says that owners have rights too, and that is why his group urges the support of the committee of S.B. 45. Senator Jacobsen asked if a pen holding birds is opened and the birds are allowed to go free and then they are ultimately killed on the road, who was responsible for the loss. Mr. Rice said the person who opened the pens was responsible for the demise of the birds. There was further conversation between Senator Jacobsen and Mr. Rice. Ira Hansen, Self, said for the record, he is a member of the Coalition for Nevada's Wildlife [CNW]. He reported a vote by the CNW supported S.B. 45. He pointed out the CNW represents 27 separate sportsman's organizations and conservation groups. Mr. Hansen provided further discussion in respect to previous testimony. He stated, "The whole argument against this bill is without merit." Doug Busselman, Executive Vice President, Nevada Farm Bureau Federation, was next to testify. He read a prepared statement (Exhibit U) in support of S.B. 45. Ria Katz, Self, testified in opposition to S.B. 45. She told the committee she is a member of the Advisory Board of the Reno Animal Control. She said it is the masses who do not take care of their animals. She pointed out the Reno Animal Control usually puts down (kills) 16,000 animals per year. She said the spay/neuter program is down to 8,000 animals. She expressed S.B. 45 would allow irresponsible breeders. Don Molde, Member, Board of Directors, Nevada Humane Society, came forward to testify. He told the committee he is also a member of the Sierra Club, Lahontan Audubon Society, the Humane Society of the United States, a member of PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals), and a former board member of the Defenders of Wildlife Organization which is a wildlife advocacy group in Washington, D.C. He referred to a letter (Exhibit V) which had been distributed to the committee members. In addition, Mr. Molde said he had two points to make for the record: The first has to do with the philosophy. This hearing was opened with the philosophic comment that `God gave us all of this and it is ours to do with what we please, hopefully we will do it responsibly, but that is the way it is.' I would point out to you that is only one possible way of looking at things and that is not my view. My view is that we are all here on the planet together, humans and non-humans alike, none of us have anywhere else to live and from my standpoint that does give animals rights, and the only reason they don't have rights is because we don't invite them to the table. And that is so obviously self-serving that it is almost ridiculous to mention it. In any event, I can however mention that if this view were mine alone, I would not even be mentioning it, but I can bring you the words of .........such distinguished former Nevada resident as Mark Twain to support me on this and many of my friends and colleagues who share my view................ Secondly,......... my biggest concern, and I had not planned to go at it this way, but I feel compelled to do so, about this bill is that the least, very permissive, in offering a defense for people who in their view, may be treating animals properly and humanely and fairly, but in the eyes of others may not. And Mrs. Berosini's comments, I guess, reminded me of how to focus this. If you read the paper today........You may have noticed that the Nevada Supreme Court confirmed its previous decision which denies the Berosinis the $3.1 million judgment against PETA. And the portion of the paper that I read indicated that their viewing of the video tape, which allegedly shows Mr. Berosini beating the orangutans, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, was a persuasive bit of evidence in rendering their judgment. Now the Berosini case was tried without this bill being in place. The Berosini case was tried on the existing statutes including [NRS] 574 as mentioned.......If this statute had been in place, it would have offered the Berosinis another option, I think, and they probably would have been happy to have it and I don't know how the Supreme Court would have viewed the matter in that regard. But from my view that is the danger of this legislation. .......This legislation does not do animals a favor. I believe that it is permissive in allowing people to do more of what they may wish to do, and I think that the conflict between this and the cruelty statutes is quite obvious. I would hope the committee gives very serious consideration to this if it decides to go forward with the bill. June Grinstead, Member, Churchill Animal Protection Society [CAPS], pointed out S.B. 45 is not really a cattle and livestock bill. She remarked that cattle have not been mentioned today. She suggested S.B. 45 is very much targeted at the "puppy mill bill" and if it is passed it would put the "puppy mill bill" in great jeopardy. She urged the committee to oppose S.B. 45. Gary Griffith, Self, testified in opposition to S.B. 45. After much conversation, he said he is opposed to this measure because the language is too vague and too broad. He remarked the bill appears to be unnecessary and that people need to understand what the real objective of this bill is. He said any bill that grants livestock owners rights, and they have rights, should not relieve them of their responsibilities. Chairman Rhoads invited anyone in the audience that had not spoken, to come forward at this time. No one came forward. He then announced that any person who had heard testimony this day which they disagreed with or believed to be a false statement, to put it in writing to him (the chairman) and he will supply it to other members of the committee. He said a vote would not be taken at this time on S.B. 45. There being no further business to come before the committee, Chairman Rhoads adjourned the meeting at 4:30 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, Bi ll ie Br in km an , Committee Secretary APPROVED BY: Senator Dean A. Rhoads, Chairman DATE: Senate Committee on Natural Resources May 24, 1995 Page