As we talked about a few weeks ago, the PAWS bill of 2014 was a wonderful example of how the legislature can be truly committed to protecting animals in Massachusetts.

After the tragic finding of a dog who had been sadistically tortured in 2013, the legislature acted to make sure other animals would not suffer this fate.

With the bill moving on a rapid timeline, concerns were raised that more laws regarding animal welfare needed strengthening. The legislature convened a task force to examine some of these issues. The task force included representatives from animal welfare groups including ARL, law enforcement, attorneys, animal control, and human service providers.

The Task Force

The task force report had numerous recommendations to improve animal welfare in the commonwealth:

• • It proposed ending the cruel requirement that animals seized from fighting operations must be euthanized, instead allowing individual assessment of animals.
  • It would clarify that drowning animals was inhumane.
  • Another recommendation was that landlords be required to check vacant properties for pets.

There were many other more technical suggestions that would strengthen animal welfare ordinances across cities and towns.

The results of the Task Force’s findings would be the basis for an extension of the PAWS bill, this one appropriately called PAWS II.

Legislation

Governor Charlie Baker signing PAWS II into law.

PAWS II was filed in January in 2017, largely mirroring the recommendations of the task force assembled in 2014.

The hearing for the bill was held in October of the first year of the session, and was reported favorably by the committee in December of 2017.

This gave PAWS II a much longer timeframe to get passed than the first PAWS bill.

In March of 2018, the Senate debated the bill.

Two months later, the House debated their version.

The two had to be reconciled, and on July 17, a conference committee was appointed to settle the differences between the two branches. The group had two weeks to come to an agreement.

The final agreement came late in the final day of the session on July 31.

The conference committee was able to secure many important proposals of the task force, including:

• • allowing increased reporting of animal cruelty by human service agency staff;
  • making animal control officers mandated reporters of abuse of elders, individuals with disabilities, and children;
  • requiring landlords check vacant properties for abandoned animals;
  • prohibiting the drowning of animals, update laws regarding animal sexual abuse, including prohibition on future ownership of animals;
  • ending mandatory euthanasia of animals seized from animal fighting operations and allows for individual evaluation of animals;
  • updating penalties and making technical changes improving enforcement of animal control laws, including improperly kept kennels.

The bill was engrossed in the late hours of the legislative session on July 31.

There were still the steps of enactment and being signed into law by the Governor.

Fortunately, both branches and the Governor recognized the importance of these common sense protections, and ARL was able to celebrate the signing of PAWS II at a ceremonial signing in September 2018.

PAWS II was able to move through the legislative process because of the hard work of legislators, staff, and advocates who contacted the legislature to make their voice known.

Want to learn more about how you can get involved in advocacy? Check out our Advocacy 101 post.

For many, August is a time to relax and take in summer.

Similarly, August is usually a quiet time in the legislature. It’s hot, elections are coming up, and formal business is usually on hold.

While August is a laid back time for people, August is a dangerous time for pets. Summer, even in New England, brings hot days and the risks that come with them.

The Animal Rescue League of Boston’s (ARL) Too Hot for Spot® Campaign annually encourages people to think before taking their pets out on the road with them. A minute to a store can quickly turn into 15 or 20 minutes. On an 80 degree day, a car can reach 120 degrees in minutes. For an animal, this can mean injury or even death.

A bill becomes a law

In the summer of 2016, Massachusetts became one of a limited number of states allowing private individuals to rescue animals from cars when their health is threatened by extreme temperatures.

Passage of this law was not easy, and required determination on the part of legislators, advocates, and the public.

The bill that would eventually become law was actually originally sent to study.

This is often the end of a bill’s consideration in the legislature. Fortunately, this was not the case here.

The bill was removed from study, and sent to the Senate where it passed 39-0. But it was the end of June, and with only a month left in the session, it was up against the clock.

The House saw this bill as a crucial effort to save animals lives, and took the unusual step of passing the bill in August.

After July 31 of even numbered years, any legislator can object to a bill, killing it. However, there was no controversy here, and the bill was passed and signed into law by the Governor in August of 2016.

This law is most known for its authorizing of civilians freeing animals in danger from vehicles. This is only part of the law.

The law, called “An Act preventing animal suffering and death” also limited the amount of time and the conditions in which dogs may be left outside. Prior to this change, dogs could be left outside for up to 24 hours, regardless of weather conditions.

What does the law really say?

View the full text of Ch. 140, Sec. 174F here.

The prohibition on leaving an animal in a car is clear:

“A person shall not confine an animal in a motor vehicle in a manner that could reasonably be expected to threaten the health of the animal due to exposure to extreme heat or cold.”

If you see an animal in a car, you must first try and locate the owner. If you can’t find the owner, call your law enforcement or your local animal control. They will try and find the owner as well, and will enter the vehicle if need be.

“After making reasonable efforts to locate a motor vehicle’s owner, an animal control officer…, law enforcement officer or fire fighter may enter a motor vehicle by any reasonable means to protect the health and safety of an animal”

What if you can’t find the owner and help isn’t arriving in time?

“After making reasonable efforts to locate a motor vehicle’s owner,  a person other than an animal control officer, law enforcement officer or fire fighter shall not enter a motor vehicle to remove an animal to protect the health and safety of that animal in immediate danger unless the person:

You have to notify law enforcement or 911.

• notifies law enforcement or calls 911 before entering the vehicle;

If the door is unlocked, you can open the door. If the door is not unlocked, you need to be reasonable. This is not an excuse to damage someone’s car; you must only use as much force as is necessary to enter the vehicle and remove the animal.

• determines that the motor vehicle is locked or there is no other reasonable means for exit and uses not more force than reasonably necessary to enter the motor vehicle and remove the animal;

You have to actually and reasonably think that the animal is in imminent danger in the vehicle. If you see an animal in distress and you truly believe that you have to enter the vehicle to save the animal, you may do so.

• has a good faith and reasonable belief, based upon known circumstances, that entry into the vehicle is reasonably necessary to prevent imminent danger or harm to the animal; and

You must stay with the animal until law enforcement or another first responder arrives.

• remains with the animal in a safe location in reasonable proximity to the vehicle until law enforcement or another first responder arrives.

This is the part of the law that allows you to break a window to save an animals life. You must follow every step. Not calling law enforcement, causing more damage than is necessary to remove the animal, or leaving the animal is likely to result in you being held responsible for the damage to the vehicle. Additionally, there must really be an animal in distress.

“A person who removes an animal from a motor vehicle pursuant to subsection (e) shall be immune from criminal or civil liability that might otherwise result from the removal.”

The law empowers individuals to save animals in distress from hot cars. ARL continues to advocate for people to think about what their trip entails before they bring their furry friends along—and never leave an animal unattended in a car!

The Animal Rescue League of Boston (ARL) drafts position statements to inform the public of our principles. These position statements include a variety of animal welfare issues, and are regularly evaluated.

ARL’s position statements can be found here.

This week, we spotlight ARL’s position statement on Declawing.

Declawing is not a simple nail trim, it is an amputation of part of a cat’s toe. While many who seek out declawing do so because of undesired scratching, cats who are declawed often see more behavioral problems due to pain and inability to exercise a natural instinct to scratch.

A year ago this week, New York made history by being the first state in the country to prohibit the procedure outside of limited exceptions.

Here in Massachusetts, a bill to prohibit declawing, filed by Senator Mark Montigny, emerged from the Joint Committee on Consumer Protection and Professional Licensure with a favorable report earlier this year.

ARL testified in favor of the bill at the hearing last July, coincidentally on the same day that New York signed their ban into law.

The hearing was an example of how powerful advocacy can be, with dozens of advocates and grassroots organizations testifying in support of the legislation.

ARL supports a ban on declawing, outside of when medically necessary for the animal’s health, because it puts the animal’s health first.

Understanding about this elective practice is spreading.

Earlier this year, VCA Animal Hospitals, Banfield Pet Hospitals, and BluePearl Pet Hospitals updated their policies to end elective declaw procedures, only doing so to treat pain or illness of the animal. With over 2000 locations in the US, this change in policy will have a monumental effect on elective declaws across the country.

Did you know… the Massachusetts Legislature is one of few in the country that meets full-time. They have two year-long sessions, with elections every two years.

In January of odd years, the Legislature convenes to consider bills and resolutions, conduct oversight, and make sure that state programs are funded through annual and supplemental budgets. Bills filed in January are considered through the rest of the two years, and must be re-introduced in future years (learn more about how a bill becomes a law here).

Most bills are filed before the bill filing deadline, which is usually towards the end of January at the beginning of the session. However, bills can be filed at any time. Often, bills filed after the bill filing deadline are prompted by events that show flaws in the legal system.

All bills, regardless of when they are filed, expire at the end of the session. While this technically is in early January, the legislature generally stops considering controversial matters after July 31 of the second year of the session.

Let’s look at PAWS I as an example of the steps required for a bill to become law in Massachusetts:

PAWS I Filing

PAWS I was filed after the shocking “Puppy Doe” cruelty case was investigated by ARL law enforcement in 2013. Around the country and even the world, people were horrified at the abuse this dog suffered. Often, cases like these highlight the weaknesses in our laws. Fortunately, the legislature sprang into action.

In October of 2013, ten months into the 188^th session, Senator Bruce Tarr (R-Gloucester) filed an aggressive bill to strengthen our laws and help prevent such cruelty from happening again. While this may seem early, the many deadlines of the legislature mean this was a relatively late file.

This shortened clock put this incredibly important legislation at a disadvantage from the beginning. The bill was sent to the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, which is responsible for conducting hearings for bills that would create or update crimes and penalties.

PAWS I Committee

The Joint Committee on the Judiciary Branch sees one of the largest volume of bills referred to it.

Committees must dispense with bills by a certain point in the session.[1]  However, in Massachusetts, each bill has the opportunity for public comment at hearing to address concerns with legislation, so it is not uncommon for bills to be worked on by the committee for a time after the hearing.

This is sometimes extended for bills filed later in the session, as they don’t have as much time to be considered. PAWS I was up against the clock as the committee hearing happened in mid-April, after the deadline to move bills out of committee.

In early July, PAWS I emerged favorably from the Judiciary Committee.  Unfortunately, not all bills favorably reported from committee become law, so there were several more steps to strengthen animal cruelty laws.

PAWS I Debate

July of even years marks the final month of the legislative session. While the legislature continues to work past July, they meet informally and will not take up controversial matters that require a roll call vote[2].  When the legislature meets informally, any one legislator can object to a bill, killing it.

On July 21, the PAWS I bill was amended by House Ways and Means and sent to House Steering, Policy and Scheduling, which sent the bill to the entire House for debate.  On July 30, with just 48 hours left in the formal session, the bill was put up for a Third Reading and debated by the House.

For a bill to become a law, identical language must be agreed to by both the House and the Senate, and it must be signed by the Governor. The Governor has 10 days to sign the bill, veto the bill, or do nothing.

If the bill is vetoed by the Governor, 2/3 of the legislature can override the veto, to make the bill law.  However, this can only happen by a roll call, so it must be sent to the Governor more than 10 days before the end of July.

On July 31, the Senate debated the PAWS I bill. There were some changes made from the House version. This meant that the bill would have to be reconciled in order to move forward. The end of the session was looming.

PAWS I – The Final Passage

Although the end of July marks defeat for most bills, when there is consensus in the legislature to move bills forward, they are able to continue.

On August 11, the Senate conceded to the House language, making the language identical in both branches.  With this progress, on August 14, the House and Senate took the final votes on the legislation, putting it on the Governor’s desk, where PAWS I was signed less than a week later on August 20.

Bills moving through the legislature have countless hurdles, but often their greatest opposition is time. Fortunately, because of a strong commitment in the legislature to strengthen the Commonwealth’s animal cruelty laws, animals did not have to wait for these crucial provisions to be signed into law.

However, partially due to this shortened time frame, there were things that the legislature wanted to further consider.  To accomplish this, they created the Animal Cruelty and Protection Task Force, of which ARL was a member.

This task force would issue a report that would become the basis for what would become PAWS II which became law in 2018.

PAWS I Timeline

10/7/2013           Senate   Filed

10/16/2013         Senate   Referred to the committee on Rules of the two branches, acting concurrently

10/31/2013         Senate   Rules suspended

10/31/2013         Senate   Referred to the committee on Judiciary

11/6/2013           House    House concurred

3/20/2014           House    Reporting date extended to Monday June 30, 2014, pending concurrence

4/3/2014             Senate   Senate concurred

4/17/2014           Joint      Hearing scheduled for 04/24/2014 from 01:30 PM-05:00 PM in A-2

7/7/2014             House    Accompanied a new draft, see H4244

7/7/2014             House    Reported from the committee on the Judiciary

7/7/2014             House    New draft of S767, S807, S1914 and H1182

7/7/2014             House    Bill reported favorably by committee and referred to the committee on House Ways and Means

7/21/2014           House    Committee recommended ought to pass with an amendment by substitution of a bill with the same title, see H4328

7/21/2014           House    Committee recommended ought to pass and referred to the committee on House Steering, Policy and Scheduling with the amendment pending

7/22/2014           House    Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next sitting for a second reading with the amendment pending

7/22/2014           House    Rules suspended

7/22/2014           House    Read second, amended (as recommended by the committee on House Ways and Means)

7/22/2014           House    New draft substituted, see H4328

7/21/2014           House    Reported from the committee on House Ways and Means

7/21/2014           House    New draft of H4244

7/22/2014           House    Substituted for H4244

7/22/2014           House    Ordered to a third reading

7/30/2014           House    Read third

7/30/2014           House    Amendment 1 adopted

7/30/2014           House    Amendment 2 adopted

7/30/2014           House    Passed to be engrossed

7/31/2014           Senate   Read

7/31/2014           Senate   Rules suspended

7/31/2014           Senate   Read second

7/31/2014           Senate   New draft substituted, see S2345

7/31/2014           Senate   Recommended new draft (Tarr, et al) for H4328

7/31/2014           Senate   Substituted as a new draft for H4328

7/31/2014           Senate   Ordered to a third reading

7/31/2014           Senate   Read third

7/31/2014           Senate   Passed to be engrossed – Roll Call #469 [YEAS 40 – NAYS 0]

7/31/2014           House    Read; and referred to the House committee on Ways and Means

7/31/2014           House    Committee recommended ought to pass with an amendment, striking out all after the enacting clause and inserting in place thereof the text of an amendment, H4388

7/31/2014           House    Referred to the House committee on Steering, Policy and Scheduling with the amendment pending

7/31/2014           House    Committee reported that the matter be placed in the Orders of the Day for the next sitting with the amendment pending

7/31/2014           House    Rules suspended

7/31/2014           House    Read second

7/31/2014           House    Amendment adopted, as recommended by the committee on House Ways and Means, see H4388

7/31/2014           House    Ordered to a third reading

7/31/2014           House    Rules suspended

7/31/2014           House    Read third and passed to be engrossed

8/11/2014           Senate   Rules suspended

8/11/2014           Senate   Senate concurred in the House amendment

8/14/2014           House    Enacted

8/14/2014           Senate   Enacted and laid before the Governor

8/20/2014           Senate   Signed by the Governor, Chapter 293 of the Acts of 2014

[1] This is known as “Joint Rule 10 Day”. Why? The rule that requires the bill be moved by that date is Joint Rule #10. It serves as a break in the session, where bills generally must get a thumbs up or a thumbs down.

[2] A “roll call vote” is a vote that consists of each legislator voting yes, no, or abstaining. Roll call votes are required for some bills.