By Howard Fischer
Mail | X: @azcapmedia

PHOENIX — The state House gave preliminary approval Wednesday to stricter laws against animal cruelty — but only after a proponent agreed to eliminate some key provisions — like providing suitable drinking water.

On a voice vote, lawmakers voted to expand the definition of what is cruelty to domestic animals — meaning pets — to also include the failure to provide necessary shelter for a dog. What that includes depends on whether it is an indoor or outdoor pet.

Potentially more significant, it would make it a felony to intentionally, knowingly or recklessly fail to provide medical attention “to prevent unreasonable suffering” to any pet under that person’s custody.

But Rep. Alexander Kolodin, R-Scottsdale, argued that, as worded, it would require people to provide more medical care for a pet than they could afford for themselves — under fear of a felony conviction that could land them in prison for a year.

The measure still needs a final roll-call vote before it goes to the Senate, which already has approved similar language, but on a different bill.

What’s driving much of this 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 in her freezer and dozens of others in poor condition.

“But because of vague statutes and legal loopholes, law enforcement had limited options,” said Rep. Matt Gress.

Part of the problem is current animal cruelty laws include a requirement to show “protracted suffering to the animal,” language that animal rights advocates say often leaves police and prosecutors unable to act. Gress, a Phoenix Republican, said given the language of the law, it ended up “leaving many of these dogs in insufferable conditions.”

None of that convinced Kolodin.

“This bill imposes, under pain of criminal penalty, for folks who may not be able to afford a high level of medical care for themselves and their families to provide that level of medical care to a dog,” he said.

Kolodin acknowledged there is an exception in the measure for those who themselves are homeless. But he said that isn’t broad enough to cover those who are “couch surfing” with friends or others.

“It also requires those folks to provide their family pets with a level of housing quality that they themselves may not possess,” Kolodin said.

That goes to the requirement in the legislation to provide “access to shelter that is necessary and adequate.” Even for dogs that live outside, the measure would require a shelter that has “natural or artificial cover” accessible throughout the year.

It also mandates the shelter be maintained in good repair and large enough to both protect the dog from injury as well as to be able to stand, turn around, lie down in a natural manner, and maintain normal body temperature.

Outdoor shelters would have to be kept “in a manner that minimizes the risk of disease, infestation or parasites.”

“To me that is a cruel and unjust use of criminal law,” Kolodin said.

He also said much of this could be addressed with a provision that would allow pet owners to fight any charges by showing they are financially unable to meet the standards for treatment or shelter.

“And that change has still not been made to the bill (which) leads me to believe that whoever is pushing this bill simply does not care that this will have unjust consequences on the folks who may not have the means that a lot of us enjoy,” Kolodin said.

But Sen. Shawnna Bolick, who crafted the original bill, said what the House approved was worked out with and agreed to by both House leadership and stakeholders who were pushing for broader protections in the law. That includes the Arizona Humane Society.

“If Kolodin has issues, he should have contacted us,” the Phoenix Republican told Capitol Media Services after Wednesday’s vote. “He knows how to reach all of us.”

Rep. Lupe Diaz had different concerns. The Benson Republican pointed out the requirements to provide medical attention apply to “any domestic animal under the person’s custody or control.”

“What if an animal comes up to your property and dies on your property?” he asked.

“Anything on your property is under your control,” Diaz said. “You could be subject to a felony.”

The route to Bolick getting action on the bill has been far from direct.

She got the original proposal through the Senate on a 22-4 vote. But Bolick said Rep. Quang Nguyen, R-Prescott Valley, who chairs the House Appropriations Committee, refused to give it a hearing.

So Bolick worked with Rep. Walt Blackman to strip the language onto an unrelated bill in the House Government Committee that he chairs. But after a preliminary House vote last month, it became clear it was in trouble.

That forced Blackman to make last-minute alterations in a bid to secure more support.

One provision that disappeared from the final version would have mandated that pet owners provide “water that is suitable for drinking, as appropriate for the species.” That means not just a supply but also water that does not have algae.

Also gone is mandate for food that “is fit for consumption,” a category that includes things like not having maggots.

What it all came down to, said Blackman, was lining up votes.

“The two provisions were moved as part of broader negotiations to advance the legislation and secure wider support for the bill,” he told Capitol Media Services.

A final House vote could take place as soon as Thursday.