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.