By Howard Fischer
Capitol Media Services
PHOENIX -- Arizona lawmakers agreed Tuesday to close what some consider to be loopholes in state laws on animal cruelty.
But not everyone is on board.
On a 41-13 vote Tuesday, the state House gave preliminary approval to a proposal by Sen. Shawnna Bolick that would expand the definition of what constitutes cruelty to include failing to provide medical attention to prevent "unreasonable'' suffering by a pet.
That compares with current law which says only when such suffering is "protracted'' does someone break the law -- language that animal rights advocates say often leaves police and prosecutors unable to act.
Potentially more significant, SB 1658 spells out for the first time ever what is considered "cruel neglect'' that is illegal. And that includes failing to provide water suitable for drinking, food fit for consumption and, for animals that reside outside, sufficient shelter.
The bill, however, drew concerns from Rep. Rachel Keshel who said she worried about "unintended consequences.'' The Tucson Republican said she feared it could be read to restrict what ranchers can do with their own animals.
But the biggest complaint came from Rep. Alexander Kolodin who argued that the measure actually gives more protection to animals than to humans.
The Scottsdale Republican said it starts with a provision to making it a misdemeanor, with a possible six months in jail and a $2,500 fine, to fail to provide medical attention necessary to prevent unreasonable suffering for a pet.
"That requirement applies even if you can't afford to give yourself or your children that same level of medical care,'' Kolodin told colleagues.
He acknowledged that state law does require parents to get emergency treatment for children who are injured or ill. But Kolodin said the way the measure is worded it could conceivably require pet owners to get expensive treatment for things like cancer for their pets, treatment that they cannot afford for their children and that Medicaid does not cover.
And he complained about the requirement for shelter, arguing that mandate applies even for those who are homeless.
But Rep. Nancy Gutierrez, D-Tucson, pointed to specific language that exempts anyone "who has no place of residence.''
The efforts to kill the measure angered Rep. Walt Blackman. The Snowflake Republican who has multiple dogs agreed to sponsor Bolick's bill in the House after the original version faltered in the Senate.
"You don't like it, don't vote for it,'' he told foes. "But don't put roadblocks up so we can not take care of these animals when they're supposed to be taken care of.''
The bill is being pushed by the Arizona Humane Society.
Tracey Miller, director of field operations with the Arizona Humane Society told lawmakers during an earlier hearing that Arizona is getting a national reputation as a state where abuse is becoming more widespread. And she said the data bear that out.
Last year, Miller said, her team responded to more than 16,000 calls for service in Maricopa County alone. That, she said, is up 31% from a decade ago.
And of those, Miller said, 10,000 were cases of animal cruelty, a 29% increase.
"The way pets have been treated in our community is unacceptable,'' said Miller who had previously been a police lieutenant in Phoenix.
"It is our responsibility to ensure the well-being of these animals,'' she said. "They deserve better than the current laws that are in place.''
Prior efforts to tighten up laws have faltered, at least in part because of concerns by ranchers that they would be subject to new restrictions on how they could work and treat their animals. Bolick, a Phoenix Republican, said this version is designed to make clear it governs only "domestic animals,'' defined as mammals, birds, reptiles or amphibians that kept "primarily as a pet or companion or that is bred to be a pet or companion.''
What also is helping propel this year's version is a high-profile case from Chandler last year involving a woman who said she was running an animal rescue operation out of her house. Police eventually found dead dogs her in her freezer and dozens of others in poor condition.
Bolick said that situation was allowed to go on as long as it did because of current laws -- including the requirement for police to show that any suffering is "protracted,'' something she said which can be difficult to define.
What the legislation also will do, she said, is ensure there is a state law that covers all of Arizona, not just those communities and counties that have adopted their own -- and sometimes different -- ordinances and definitions.
But what's really crucial, Miller said, is tightening up all the language about what is neglect.
"I've been on too many calls for service where domestic animals have algae for water, maggots in their food,'' she said. "And the only way they can seek shelter is to dig a hole under an abandoned car.''
All of that, Miller said, is enough to get by under current law -- and insufficient for police intervention.
By contrast, SB 1658 would spell out that water has to be "suitable for drinking.''
It also requires that domestic animals have "food that is appropriate for the species and that is fit for consumption.''
And then there's the issue of shelter.
The language of the proposed new law requires that it be accessible throughout the year and have natural or artificial cover.
SB 1658 would require it be structurally sound, maintained in god repair, and be of sufficient size to allow a dog to stand, turn around, and lie down in a natural manner. Plus, it has to be maintained to minimize the risk of disease, infestation or parasites.
Tuesday's vote is not the last word.
The measure still needs a final roll-call vote in the House. And then it needs to go to the Senate which had balked at approving the original measure.
On X, Bluesky and Threads: @azcapmedia
