Vermont Legislature SmartTranscripts:

[Chair Matthew Birong]: We are live.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: It was so exciting to sit here.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Know your excitement resonating.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Kinda, I wasn't even joking.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes. Alright,

[Chair Matthew Birong]: everyone. Welcome back. It is 1PM little after 1PM on Friday, January 30. We are picking up work on h eight four one and act relating to miscellaneous animal welfare procedures. And we have the bill sponsor, Chea Waters Evans.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yes. Hello. I'm Chea Waters Evans. I sit over there normally on this committee, House Government Operations and Military Affairs. For those of you who are here or the beginning of this journey with the animal welfare, I apologize. You're going to hear the story about the goats again. But it's, you know, maybe you two will be excited about it. I mean, it's not exciting, but a few years ago, there were some goats in Charlotte that were being mistreated and somebody wanted to report it and they called our animal control officer who had moved to Florida and not told anybody. And then we don't have police in Charlotte. So they called the neighboring police who said, sorry, we can't do anything about it. Call the state police. They called the state police and the state police said, sorry, we can't really do anything about it. We're very busy, which is understandable. Are busy with actual things like murders and stuff. So I understand that like the goats weren't a priority. They are priority for some people, but I get it. And then they said called fish and wildlife and which fish and wildlife said, goats are not fish, nor are they wildlife. So then they said call agriculture, and they were like, well, there's nothing we can really do about it. They didn't have, like, enforcement capabilities. Right. So then it just started this whole journey of me trying to figure out where we could get help for it and then ended up eventually with some other a couple other legislators. We created the Department of or the Division of Animal Welfare, which is in the Department of Public Safety. The first job was to hire a director of animal welfare, who we heard from this morning. And then her charge was to within eight months of beginning her job to share a report, and we asked her for a bunch of information. You saw and heard about that report this morning. I did. So this bill is not really based on her report, although some things kind of interact or, you know, there's some crossover. I spoke with her, I spoke with some advocates from various animal welfare.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: And

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Other groups that are are animal adjacent and just wanted to make sure that we are coming up with something that is a good. Low ramping up to hopefully someday having a really good, solid, functional, multifaceted division of animal welfare. But we have to start somewhere. We don't have a lot of money, as you might have heard, in the state budget to start this kind of thing. So I'm going to It's only 16 pages. I'm not going to walk through the whole thing with you, but I'm going to point out some things and tell you why I thought it was a good idea to put it in this bill or why the advocates I spoke with thought it was a good idea to include it. You ready? Here we go. All right. The goat story wasn't that long, was it? I can tell it in great detail, as I have many times before. Okay, so the first thing is if you want to look at on page five. We are hopefully the director of animal welfare and the division of animal welfare can make some adjustments. Is a rulemaking? Decision rather than having everything be in statute that will streamline things and. Not be so involved in the process and stuff. The next part, if you're looking at line 14, you heard a little bit about it this morning is certified rabies vaccinator. Program, which we'll touch on later, but that is something that we wanted to add. Oh, wait, hold on. I skipped the good part, which is line 11. Cats, I have learned are the greatest, the most frequent carrier domestic animals that carry rabies, and they're not required to be vaccinated. Dogs are required to be vaccinated for rabies. And as we heard, this morning in testimony, from the director of animal welfare, dogs barely spread or get rabies anymore. So this provision line 11 would require outdoor cats to be vaccinated for rabies, which means registered like you would register your dog with the town to do so for cats. If you have an indoor cat that just has a nice catio, hangs out outside the window, that cat is okay. And that's a patio. It's a patio for a cat.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: It's closer to that term of art.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: It's a thing. It's like a screened in porch that attaches to a window for a cat to hang up

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: on. Mhmm.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah. So those cats are okay. They're not gonna get rabios hanging on the rabies hanging out on the catio. But if they're outside, you know, they're an outdoor cat, then then it's anyway, in my opinion. It is more efficient, less expensive and safer for everybody to require this now, rather than having everybody getting rabies and then dealing with that later on. That's just why that's in there. I believe there are some folks who enjoy cats very much who are not going to be fully supportive of that. But I also know that they love their cats a lot and don't want them to get rabies. So just think about that. The next, the bottom of page five. It gives the director of animal welfare the authority to inspect. Wait, is that the part? To inspect Yes, that's right. Because

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Sorry, we're still on time? Yes. Okay. Line Sorry, I lost

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: my focus.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: That's a good thing. So basically, the animal welfare director, anybody has the authority to inspect facilities, to have the same authority as the To inspect these facilities, it means that they are going to be able to prevent things from happening before it gets to a problem area. We are trying to take everything that everyone is doing from all over the place and put it under one roof. Right? That's one step to making it so. Just briefly, middle of page six, it's just allowing the Animal Welfare Fund, which has already been established, to accept gifts and donations. That's not unusual in state government. I cannot remember at the moment what other departments and divisions are allowed to do this, but I know that it's possible and other people did. So we're just allowing them to do that. And then page seven. Slide 16. We have limited the number of dogs that a person may have to 35. It does seem like a lot of dogs, but we I did consult with some folks who are have hunting kennels. We do not want to prevent them from having all the dogs they need to go hunting and to have that be a part of their sport. And so,

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: it

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: also though, if we top it there, then it can do some good work to kind of temper maybe a proliferation of puppy mills. Another job breeding operations that are unlicensed. Page eight, line 14. For mine, allows wolf hybrids. I want to say most, but I'm not sure. Many states do not allow for them, which means that sometimes these wolf hybrid animals end up in Vermont because they are allowed here, And they can be dangerous and cause injury to people. So this is allowing them you get if you want to get a license for a wolf hybrid, they have to be altered. State or neutered, so that they cannot make any more wolf hybrids. Moving on. We are Okay, that one's we already talked about a little bit. Okay, so page 10, section five at the bottom line 16. You heard a little bit about it this morning from the director of animal welfare about how if we have a certified rabies vaccinator program, those folks would be able to vaccinate animals for rabies without being a fully veterinarian. As we heard, there's a shortage. It's difficult for people in rural areas to get them. Vet appointments can be expensive. So allowing people to get this license to be a certified rabies vaccinator would mean that more people could get their animals vaccinated. We use the money from the dog licenses, we use some of it to do these rabies drops, where they drop the treats. Maybe they drop the treats in the forest from the plains for the animals to eat, right? And so that they don't get rabies. But wouldn't it be nice if we just nobody got rabies in the first place? Right? For as few people as possible. I keep saying people, but I mean animals. The people are not getting the problem. Exactly. It's not the problem right now. Okay, so that whole section is about the rabies vaccinator. There's a little bit in the bottom of page 11 about collecting some data. I think in general, that has been a problem across the state, which is why we started this to begin with. People are not collecting information and keeping it at all one spot. And it's really hard to make policy decisions and financial decisions if we don't know where we're working with. So that would be great. It's, I believe, shelters. Yes, and animal shelter and rescue organizations are gonna be reacquired to keep some data. I believe they do mostly keep it anyway. It's just they need to report it to the director of animal welfare. Are adding on page 12, we are adding pet dealers to the list of people who need to be have a certificate of or who can be denied a certificate of registration. It's already, it's animal shelters, rescue organizations, other entities where you could buy or sell a pet, just adding pet dealers to that list. And I know I'm talking fast, but it's Friday afternoon. Okay, so if we're on page 14 now. The reason why we want People to. Not bring unlicensed or unregistered organizations, bringing animals into our state is because there are a lot of. You could just show up with a truck full of puppies from South Carolina and nobody knows where they came from. Nobody knows if they've been treated for their various vaccines and all that stuff. What we really want to do is. It's a public safety and a public health issue, right, to make sure that we know where these animals are coming from. Just asking that they come from a registered place somewhere else. Same with the insurance, I think it's obvious why we would need pet dealers and animal shelters, etcetera, to have to be required to have insurance. Animals can sometimes do things that aren't safe and we want to make sure that people are protected. And then this last, let's see, last part. Ledge Council going to walk you through kind of the less boring things or the more boring things, but not boring because they're not important, but just because they don't need a why. They're kind of obvious. The only other thing I wanted to tell you about is you can see on social media if you're looking at on Instagram at a rescue organization that has puppies. I do this a lot. I do not want a puppy, but I want a puppy. So I look all the time. And you will see at the bottom of the advertisement, I'll say this animal is located in Tennessee, and this is the license number whatever organization is offering it up for adoption. And it would require this for Vermont. It can't require people in other states to do things, but it would require, if it was a Vermont based rescue or shelter of some kind to disclose that information in an advertisement where the animal is located and what the organization's registration number is.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Any questions for the number from the table? Sandy, sorry, rep this all. Friday.

[Representative Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: And back to requiring cats to be Yes. Do we know what we're going be asking for the fee for that? Is it going to be Ms. Dogs? I

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: believe that would fall under the rulemaking authority of the director of animal welfare. So that might be a good question for her. In my mind, it's the same. I guess we'll see how that works out. I believe it's $11 right now, right? For an animal?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Please.

[Representative Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Not allowing anybody to have more than 35 dogs. But it makes sense that if you were a You have a stipulation in there that Mrs. Smith down the road can't have 35 dogs, but the guy that uses them for having purposes can. Is there some You can put a cap on just personal collection of animals? We recently had an episode of D and D, about Tabor, where that house had 30 something dogs, and they were just all kinds of dogs. They were just a collector of dogs. The house collapsed, and it was terrible. And they were able to rescue some of them, and then not. But anyways, there's no reason for that person to have that many, or order of dogs. Yes. So I'm just wondering, I don't have a problem with somebody having 35 dogs if they are a breeder or a licensed hunter or You know what I'm saying? But nobody needs to have 35 dogs, as in personal. I don't know how you can do that.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Yeah, I know. I've thought about it a lot. I think. There's a line between sort of limiting what people can do with their own lives and their own. Stuff in a way, you know, the pets are their belongings, those things. I assume that there is a possibility that someone could have 35 dogs and everything could be fantastic. A lot of these situations where it's a pet running situation, I believe, has there are other factors, their mental health issues that need to be addressed. It's tricky because even if you say no, you can't have them and then they do, then can you go and just take someone's property? Not really. So it's like I was trying to find a balance between making sure that people who can. Who want to do those things recreationally or who want to be a reputable and responsible breeder can do it, but also maybe. If and to say if you are going to have 35 dogs, the ones that don't, the ones that are altered, don't count. So you can have as many dogs as you want if they're all spayed and neutered.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Any other questions for the member right now?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: No? Alright. We'll go to council. You.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: It

[Representative Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: was fun.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: And I did communicate with Chair Lamoille, we found it agreeable that this home, the bill find its way back down here.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Oh, yeah, that's right. It was committed to judiciary this morning on the floor, but that was not where it was supposed to go. Oh, it's gonna come back here. Oh, there. He did.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: I didn't miss it.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. He's like, back to each history you go, Eric. Please join us, sir.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Good afternoon, everybody. Eric Fitzpatrick with the Office of Legislative Counsel here to talk with the committee some more about House Bill number h eight forty one, an act of aging miscellaneous animal welfare procedures. I hadn't heard that that was committed to judiciary this morning. So Yeah. I didn't catch that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah. Raised it raised a couple of eyebrows.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It was

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: a real surprise to me. Alright.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Well, not that it's had anything to do with it, but as the committee probably knows, the judiciary committee is dealing with a separate bill that's related to animal cruelty and animal welfare that but more so because it's as I'm sure you know from the work you've done on this over the last couple of years, there are so many animal welfare related statutes that are kind of spread out across various places in the in the Vermont statutes annotated. Quite a few of them are entitled 13, the criminal code, because animal cruelty and, related provisions are criminal matters as well. So they're working on a bill that's, pretty lengthy and, has a little bit of crossover with some of what what's in this bill. I'll mention that as I do the walkthrough, but nothing contradictory, but more a crossover. So that they could be complimentary, but it's a good thing to keep in mind so that you don't pass contradictory things or they can be We do this in our office sometimes. You make sure that when the same section is amended in two different bills, that they make sense and they can work together instead of, counsel problems later on. So, with that bit of background, the big picture on H-eight 41 is it really doesn't deal with those criminal related provisions. It's more with the as Representative Waters Evans mentioned, in Title 20, the Department of Public Safety, the division of animal welfare that you created in 2023, became effective in 2025. Same with the director of animal welfare position. And so the first couple of pages of the bill, really, there aren't any changes. I really just included those because I thought it might be useful for when you're looking at the changes that are being proposed in the bill to sort of be able to see, well, here's what we have already. And this is existing statute that you folks passed a couple of years ago, which as I mentioned, became effective 01/01/2025, so roughly a year ago exactly. And so if you look at page one, you'll see right there in Title 20, that new chapter that was added, Chapter 190, Division of Animal Welfare, that's where the division is created. Turn over to page two, you'll see line 13 to 15, the Director of Animal Welfare, that's where that position is created, and they're in charge of the division. That's all lines fourteen and fifteen. What does the director of animal welfare do? Over onto page three, you see subsection B there, develop a comprehensive plan for the development, implementation, and enforcement of the animal welfare laws of the state. So again, you have all these laws that are spread out all over the Vermont Code, and the idea here is to kind of be able to have a comprehensive plan for how to enforce those and regulate animal welfare in the state. So I'm down on the page three onto the rest of page four, talking about what that plan, has to include. And from what I understood that, and you look at sort of the over on line 13 through 17 of page four, requires the Department, sorry, the Director of Annual Report to submit this comprehensive plan, to this committee, as I understood that happened this morning already. So, I figured it was perfect timing, perfect segue into the proposal here, which is really is to sort of augment some of what you already had that you passed a couple of years ago to add on some other responsibilities, duties, and types of authority for the director, because there are some stuff that you passed already. This adds a couple of other pieces. It adds some additional authority for the division as well. So you've got that, then that's going be in the first section, Bill, which we'll start to look at now, which is over on page five. So you've got can sort of think about the two in in the bill rather in sort of these two separate big picture. So one half is sort of adding to the authority, responsibility, and duties of the division and the director. And then in the second part, you're going to see also some specific regulations like you were just talking about, for example, with respect to the number of dogs and things like that. Those are more specific regulatory pieces involving, the animals themselves. So you got the duties of the sort of more structural government ops related stuff that you guys are so familiar with, as well as some details, regarding limitations, rules, that sort of thing, applying to sales, ownership, that sort of thing. So, first half, which I just mentioned, the division, and the director, that starts on page five, and Representative Waters Evans already spoke about a little bit about this, but starting in subsection E line seven, this talks about, the authority of the division to adopt rules. So this rulemaking authority doesn't exist in the Act 167 from a couple of years ago when he passed that did not have rulemaking authority for the division. So the proposal is to add it. There's two different types, permissive and mandatory. So if you look at line seven, Division of Animal Welfare may adopt rules to implement the provisions of this chapter. So that's a broad rulemaking authority. So any of the provisions of that chapter that the director feels could be usefully added to by rule, they have the authority to do that. It's not required. It's permissive. On the other hand, line nine, division of animal welfare shall adopt rules. And so these are two other things specifically that these rules are required. And those have to do with two different topics. First one is the outdoor cats that was also being discussed earlier. What does that have to, entail, so to speak, with the, outdoor cat? You'll see that they have to be vaccinated for rabies, spayed or neutered, and licensed. So those are the requirements that have to be in there. And because I don't know this myself, I know from talking to Michael Grady in our office, who you may remember is the attorney who worked on this bill a couple of years ago, saying that one of the problematic issues that comes up in that particular area is defining outdoor cats. So that's why, rather than trying to do that in statute, you'll see that that's delegated by rule, to the director as well. So vaccination, spaying or neutering, licensing, and including a definition of outdoor cats has to be included in the rule. And the second part of the, second issue that the rule has to address is their lines fourteen and fifteen, that certified rabies vaccinator program. That was also mentioned to you earlier. So that program has some broad outlines that you'll see when we get to it, but, also requirement that, the director adopt rules about the specifics about that. Because you see it's up to the director. When we get to it, the director is the one who's gonna be, certifying the, the vaccinators and developing this, training program for them. So that's not something that's far more detailed than you would ordinarily have in statutes, so it delegates the authority to come up with the details by rule to the director. Two other things that are So that's the end of the rulemaking piece. So now two other expansions of the Director of Animal Welfare Authority, you see in subsections F and G on page five. The first one subsection F gives the Director the same inspection authority as animal control officers have for pet dealers, as well as animal shelters, rescue organizations, and kennels, etcetera. So currently, municipal animal control officers have inspection authority. So this is just saying, director of animal welfare has that same inspection authority as they already So it sort of adds them to the list in a sense. And same thing, in subsection G, but not, with respect to inspection, that's about licensing. So currently, again, you have municipalities have authority over animal licensing, over things like, issuing the licenses, giving notices of violation, applying to the court for an injunction if somebody's violating their license, revoking or suspending a license if somebody violates the requirements, opposing penalties, all of those things, municipalities already have. So this, adds, the division of animal welfare to the entities who can also regulate licenses in that same way. So that's where again, so you think about it, sort of what's going on here. Oh, yeah. So there's essentially additional authority being added to the division in these several different ways that, I just mentioned. Little typo over on page six that I noticed, not a huge deal, but, line three that suspend licenses. I'm striking that because it appears twice. So I'll show it at the very end of lines four and five. You see it also says and revoke or suspend licenses. Strike those lines. So moving on now to the animal welfare fund also exists in current law. Again, was in the bill, that you folks passed a couple of years ago, and specifically provides for what monies constitute the fund that starts on line 11. So you have this surcharge that exists already with respect to licensing. You also have appropriations made by the General Assembly in Line 14, and it adds two other pieces. Any donations or gifts, and as Representative Waters Evans mentioned, that's very common. There are plenty of different places in statute where different entities are allowed to accept gifts and donations as part of their special funds. And it also adds, which also is not unusual in statute, a checkoff on the state income tax return. So that exists for a variety of things. The Greenup Fund has one, I think, for example, and Veterans Fund has one. There's a number of different ones that exist and you can check off. It's voluntary, but if you decide you want a portion of your refund to go to one of these causes, then you can check the box, and then it's automatically done by Department of Taxes. So it adds the Animal Welfare Fund to one of those entities that if a person wants to contribute a little bit via their tax refund, they can do it. So that's sort of the end of the kind of structural state government, piece of it. Although there are little bits of it sort of also, you'll see the inspection authority and things like that, we'll also see again. But now we're gonna move on to some more specifics relating to regulation of animals, that sort of thing, which, you also heard about a little bit earlier. So the first one though, starts really on page seven, and that's the dog ownership limitation that was discussed over here. Number of 35 dogs. One thing I'd point out too is that though, it's not, there are some exclusions. So if you look on page seven, line 17 to 19, when you calculate that number 35, don't include dogs that are less than four months old, or dogs that have been spayed or neutered. So, that 35 would only be either if they're older than four months and they haven't been spayed or neutered, then they that's how the number would accumulate.

[Representative Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Got a lot more.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Let's see, so that's that piece. All right, so turning to page eight. This has to do with wolf hybrids, and Representative Waters Evans is discussing this as well. This has to do with the fact that currently wolf hybrids are permitted in Vermont. This proposal is to add some limitations on that, and that has to do licensing and, again, spaying or neutering. So the idea is that in order because wolf hybrids have to be licensed currently, that's already required. And this says, all but in order to get a license for a wolf hybrid that's six months of age or older, there has documentation to provided that the animal was spayed or neutered. So that's how you get your license, it has to be. So if it's not spayed or neutered, then you won't be able to get a license, in that case, possession of the animal would, not be permitted under the statute. Anybody follow that so far? Mhmm. Alright. So moving on then, section three. This

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I got, like, one spot. Jeff, curious on just the wolf hybrid, maybe this is a better question for the gallery. But roughly, idea how many both hybrids are in the state? Is it a If they're late. Okay, never mind.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Thank

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: you. I believe it's hard to know, it's hard to keep track of that, because it's busy. It's really always registering that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I just wasn't sure because of the licensing, if it And was cataloged those

[Representative Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: that do come in and say, Oh, they're a shepherd mix.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Get pulled to the terrier.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Okay. So the next section you see is, really just a straightforward repeal of this particular section of law. And this is the, special license that is for breeders of domestic pets and wolf hybrids. So there's a special licensing system for breeders. And, if you can if you qualify for that, then, you don't have to pay sort of regular licensing fee that, say, an individual pet owner put on someone who's not a breeder. So this repeals that. For example, if you look at page nine, lines 14 to 15, and this sort of gets you the big picture. The domestic pets and wolf hybrids covered by the special license pursuant to this subsection shall be exempt from other licensing fees. So the result of repealing this section would be that your general licensing fees would apply to the breeder, just in the same way that they apply to any other owner or pets currently. So that's how that section would work. I believe representative Waters Evans also discussed section four over on page 10. This is adds the department sorry, the division of animal welfare to to the list of parties who can inspect the premises of pet dealers. Where you'll see that so the pet dealers premises may be inspected, the permissants of a permit. This can include an inspection, municipal animal control officer, law enforcement officer, and then line eight has the director of animal welfare. So, again, that's sort of expanding the authority of the director, similarly to the way we looked at in the first couple of sections of the bill. You established in the next section, which you've looked at the certified rabies vaccinator program. Again, this is run by the Director of Animal Welfare. You see over on page 11, lines one through three, the Director establishes this program to train humane officers as certified rabies vaccinators. That's going to be requirements and other elements that are developed by the director. And then under alliance six and seven, it's up to the director to certify a humane officer who satisfactorily completes the program. So again, this kind of goes back to what I was saying earlier about the rulemaking authority. This does not list all the requirements of the program and how it's going be set out in detail. That's the sort of thing appropriate for rulemaking. The statute of the bill earlier on specifically requires the director to adopt rules to describe how this program is going to work. A couple of requirements about certified rabies vaccinators, you see though in lines eight through 13, they can't accept compensation, and they're going to be immune from liability to the same extent as volunteers are who conduct or assist with rabies inoculations. So it's very similar to immunity that you have for various types of volunteer activity. Representative Hango.

[Representative Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: So does that mean that all of these certified rabies vaccinators shall be volunteers and not somebody who is, for instance, working for a veterinarian and the veterinarian decides that this person can work extra hours doing this program if they get certified?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: That's the way I read it. So not to say that that person who say is a veterinarian or a vet tech or whoever it may be, not to say they are prohibited from doing it as part of their job, it doesn't say that. But yes, I think the way I read this is if have this separate position, or I should, certified role as a certified rabies vaccinator, yeah, I'm reading that as being, they can't be compensated for it. That's a volunteer role. So moving on to section six, page 11, this has to do with some information collection that is already required when shelters and rescue organizations accept animals. So, they already required to collect this information. But the proposed amendment to the existing authority provides that adds to the list of entities to whom they have to report that information, the division of animal welfare. So they get the information as well about animals that are accepted by shelters and rescue organizations. And there's a slight tweak in language there. You'll see that the way it's written now, it says they have to make every effort to collect the information. The way the proposal is to say they shall recollect the information if it's available. So slight difference there. Over onto page 12, we kind of talked this a little bit already. And this has to do we're back to adding pet dealers to some of the other legal requirements that exist already. So for example, in section seven, and pet dealers do have to get permits under current law. So that's that's currently required. So this permits, you know, denial or revocation of the permit in the same circumstances as shelters or rescue organizations, etcetera, can have their licenses revoked. So, for example, if you look at line 10, that's existing law. If it's determined that the housing facilities or enclosures are inadequate for feeding, watering, sanitizing housing, then the license can be revoked. That's existing practice for rescue organizations, shelters, etcetera, and this adds pet dealers. So they're going to be subject to that same regulation. And the same with the penalties for violations. That's the next section, section eight. So if you fail to, comply, say with the terms of your license or these requirements for sheltering, that sort of thing, you can be subject to penalties. That's over on page 13. For example, if they operate without without having their, their license, they operate anyway. Or if they violate any other provision of the chapter, that's all like lines three through three through six. Any one of those things happen, the pet shop, the animal shelter, the rescue organization, etcetera, they can be fined. You see that line 6, $300, six month imprisonment, that's the existing penalty, which is a criminal misdemeanor. So this adds again, pet dealer to that list of entities that could be subject to those penalties as well. But the penalties already exist, this just adds one other entity who could be subject to them.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: There you go.

[Representative Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Why does this keep referencing pet shops if we don't allow them to operate in Vermont anymore, which was my understanding from another testimony on a different day?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It's a very good question. I don't know. I don't know about, if pet shops aren't allowed anymore and if they don't exist, then as it yeah, it shouldn't be there, but I'm gonna defer to the people who know more about this than I do as to whether or not that's the case.

[Representative Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: I heard that the other day that pet shops aren't allowed to take that.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Yeah, I think you identified yourself.

[Representative Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: Sorry, Lisa Mailett, Director of Animal Welfare. So pet shops are not allowed to sell cats and dogs, but they can sell rabbits, reptiles, all sorts of others. The Department of Agriculture, sorry, Agency of Agriculture does license those sort of pet shops, so that's separate from being investment. That's the distinction is that cats and dogs are not.

[Representative Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: Okay, so would this fall under the director of, would pet shops then fall under the director of animal welfare if cats and dogs aren't allowed to be sold there?

[Representative Sandra "Sandy" Pinsonault]: I have not read this bill, so if you have comments on it, I can get

[Representative Lisa Hango (Vice Chair)]: a couple Great, comments on thank you. If you would find out, because maybe that is in a different part of statute than this, Or maybe it should be in the agriculture statutes and not here.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thanks.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Back to you, Chancellor. All right, thank you.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So now we're moving on to, on page 13. This is the topic of, animals, dogs, cats, ferrets, wool, fibers that are imported into the state from out of state. So that's the kind of topic we're talking about for a moment. And currently, there's some current regulation in those situations. You see the existing laws there on page 13, starts on line 13, actually, at

[Unidentified Member A]: page

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: 13. Have to be line 14 should have to be accompanied by an official health certificate or similar certificate of inspection issued by line 16, a veterinarian licensed in the state or country of origin. So if it's coming in from out of state, gotta have some documentation associated with the animal. This adds, some other additional requirements in this situation. So the animals, being, coming into Vermont for purposes of sale, it's not not an individual who's bought it somewhere else, but if they're being brought to Vermont for purposes of sale, resale exchange, etcetera, then it adds over on page 14 that, if it is being, if the animal is being imported by, this is line five, by a shelter or rescue organization in another state, then that shelter or rescue organization must be licensed in the originating state. There's another layer of, requirement when an animal is imported for sale to Vermont. All right. Now we're going to there's a few other topics kind of in a row here. At the very end of the bill, you'll see, we're now we're on section 10, which is, page 14. And this has to do with requiring insurance. So pet dealers, animal shelters, rescue organizations, and keepers of animals for breeding purposes shall, as a condition of their licenses or certificates of registration because they have to be licensed or get certificates of registration. So as a condition of that, they are required to, maintain a commercial reasonable level of general liability. There's no big company fights in situations like that. I ran this language by Maria Royal, who's the attorney in our office who deals with insurance matters, and she had this first suggestion for how to do it. And she said, one way when you require insurance is you can, put it in as a condition of their licensure. So that's why that approach is taken here. You'll see there's an advertising regulation in section 11. This is when animals are advertised for adoption in Vermont. This is a couple of pieces of information that are required to be included in the advertisement. First one is the current location of the animal. And the second one is the advertiser's license number, if any. So if they advertise, that information has to be included. That's actually this language is somewhat similar to what I based it on is the there's some advertising requirements, for commercial sellers of cannabis. So, it's in their rules. It's in the cannabis control board rules. So, it just seemed rather than reinventing the wheel, when you're talking about advertising, you're talking about speech. So chose something that was in law already. Now there's a specific language for social advertising on social media accounts, which you also heard about earlier, that's over on the top of page 15. And this provides that with respect to social media accounts specifically, so not other kinds of advertising, then those requirements that we just talked about, location, advertisers' license number, only apply to advertisers located in Vermont or subject to 3,915. That's the section we just looked at. Those are people that import animals into Vermont for purposes of sale. So, and that if you're doing it via social media, that's when you would be covered by those requirements. And so, the last section of the bill, than the effective date, is what we talked about earlier, which is the check off on your income tax return. Again, it's a voluntary thing, not required. You see line seven, page 15. It's an opportunity, that's all it is, not required. And so individual returns on this form that the Department of Taxes develops, and this language was also, I read this by Kirby Keaton, who's our attorney who does taxation, and he actually came up with this suggestion himself. Based on the fact, as I mentioned earlier, the Children's Trust Fund, the Veterans Fund, Greenup, etcetera, also had these options on tax forms as well. So the language is really very similar to places that already exist in the Vermont Tax Code Title 32 for those other entities. So and essentially, this just allows you to have that portion of your refund deducted and and donated to one of those organizations if you if you choose to. Turning to the effective date on the very last page, the act takes effect on passage. And that's really it. Happy to answer any questions or follow-up on anything later on if people have questions later on, either way.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Great. Questions for council? I think between Rep. Waters Evans' introduction and your walkthrough, I personally have a pretty good understanding Good. Of the I don't know you have any immediate questions right now.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yep.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Great. Let's go on next tomorrow.

[Unidentified Member A]: I wanna take some time to look at

[Chair Matthew Birong]: the No.

[Unidentified Member A]: No. What I wanna say is I'd like I'd like to see a size I'm gonna print my own off, but do a size by side up Or we just had

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Hi.

[Unidentified Member B]: And the bill and see make sure that the report is comparing with this, and

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: we can tweak it and make it make it such.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Enthusiasm for the animal stuff. Alright. Thank you very much.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Absolutely. I forgot to mention one thing. I'll just add just for a second, just because I wanted to give the committee a heads up on the on the places where the house judiciary's bill are working on the same sections. And I meant to mention that as I was doing that. Apologies. Those sections? Yeah. They are since sections well, page six, the animal welfare fund. And, where's the rule making oh, page five. So it's page five and six. It's the rule making authority And the four pages. What I did you have sections? Yeah. It's section is that all in one section or section one? The section one? Yep. Pageant sections. Right. So the proposal in this bill is to add some rulemaking authority for the division of animal welfare. The house judiciary bill does the same thing on a different topic. They're they're talking about rules, related to forfeiture, criminal forfeiture, that sort of thing. Whereas here, as you remember, it's about outdoor cats being licensed, certified rabies vaccinator, that sort of thing. So it's different topics, but both having to do with rulemaking authority. And Animal Welfare Fund similarly, also adds some, revenue that would be going into the Animal Welfare Fund that is related to security that people are required to pay if their animals are seized in these forfeiture proceedings. Yeah, Chair Lalonde referenced that bill for us to do a flyby on some of the language next week. Right. Yeah. That makes sense. I think we targeted Thursday for that. Yep. That sounds good. Anything

[Chair Matthew Birong]: else from mister Fitzpatrick? All right, that runs us up. Did you have a question?

[Unidentified Member C]: I think so. It's not

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Go for it. We still have five minutes o'clock just next. Almost out of here, Era.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: So close. Mean, I'll move in that direction.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: I see a slide in the way.

[Unidentified Member C]: I'm not sure this question is for either, but I was wondering if there's any danger in the because it sounds like some of the authorities are being added to the animal welfare division that already exists among other people that work with animals. And since we're trying to streamline the chain of command when it comes to who does what with animals, I was just wondering, would there be any issue anticipated with potential confusion?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: It is an interesting question. It's probably one that you might direct not only to the director, but maybe, I don't if the plan is, but to have some people who serve in those other entities, who are in that list, two guys that come in and say, Hey, what do you think? Is it gonna be in some way creating some kind of cross purposes situation? Or would it be redundant? Or is it on the other hand, would it be helpful to have more people with the authority to do it? So I think those folks would be the best ones to ask that question too, but it's a good question.

[Chair Matthew Birong]: Anyone else?

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: All right. All right. Thank you all very much.

[Representative Chea Waters Evans (Ranking Member)]: Thank you so much.

[Eric Fitzpatrick, Office of Legislative Counsel]: Yes, happy to do it. Be back

[Chair Matthew Birong]: at 02:00 for the final order of business for the week, which is $5.88. A little bit more on OCR.