Is It a Good Bill or a Bad Bill?

People who are passionate about helping companion animals mean well and that includes some (but certainly not all) of the people we elect to represent us at the state level, senators and representatives alike. Every state is governed by laws that cover subjects ranging from agriculture to aviation to banks to corporations to counties to courts to education to elections to eminent domain to housing to insurance to professions and public works. You get the idea. Each state also has laws about animals some of which relate to animals generally (containment, livestock, rabies vaccination, dangerous dogs, sterilization) and some of which relate to crimes against companion animals specifically like torture, cruelty and neglect of dogs and cats.

Each state has its own process for how laws get enacted but the process is similar: a bill is filed by a state elected official  - a senator or a representative - and it is assigned to a committee for consideration. It can either die in committee (meaning no action is taken) or get a favorable vote (with or without changes being made) and then it is considered by the chamber in which it was introduced (house or senate). If it makes it through that chamber, the process repeats itself in the other chamber where it the bill may die or move forward. If the bill gets through the second chamber, it goes to the governor to sign or veto. The process is more detailed than that and involves more steps, but that’s the general sequence. If you are not familiar with the process in your state, please learn about it.  This is the information for my state that is published by the American Civil Liberties Union.

In my experience, very few people who want animals treated better know the laws in their own state. Some are written more clearly than others and all laws are open to some degree of interpretation which is why courts sometimes get involved. This lack of knowledge often extends to the very elected officials who promote bills they think will help animals. A contact of mine at a state attorney general’s office told me that state elected officials often do not know the existing laws, often do not write the bills they file and may not understand the effect their proposed bill may have on existing laws, often weakening laws that have been on the books for decades.

So, how do we animal advocates or concerned citizens know if a bill is a good bill or a bad bill? We need to examine the following things:

• Are the goals of the bill clear and is the bill even necessary? When it comes to issues related to animals, many look to state leadership for answers when they should be seeking change in their own backyards by working with city and county elected officials.
• Is the language (wording) in the bill plain enough that everyone who reads it will understand exactly what it means?
• Are the provisions of the bill enforceable? Any bill that is too detailed may prove to be unenforceable as written if the people tasked with enforcement have to guess or speculate.
• Is the bill too ambitious? If previous attempts to define a single word in an existing law have failed multiple times, a new bill that seeks to define that one word and also seeks 10 or 15 additional things will likely fail.
• Does the bill weaken existing laws? For example, if an action is currently a Class A misdemeanor in criminal law, the bill should obviously not reduce that level of crime to a Class B misdemeanor.
• Does the bill amend existing laws or is it a “stand alone” bill? If a bill seeks to change wording in an existing law, the bill should be brought to amend or change the law to avoid confusion.
• Are the words “shall,”  “may,” “and” and “or” used correctly? These words are not interchangeable. "Shall" means something is mandatory. "May" means something is optional. "And" means together and "or" means one or the other.
• Are the people promoting the bill or behind the bill informed and trustworthy? The person who speaks the loudest is not always the best person to follow. It helps to learn the motivations of the people promoting (or opposing) bills.

The bottom line is that a bad bill will always be worse than no bill for many reasons. Once a bill becomes law, it can be very difficult to get it changed. Bills that are not properly written also create the risk of losing some laws already on the books, many of which were hard won and have been in effect for decades.

A Good Bill

Like many states, Colorado sells license plates to the public for causes the public supports. One of those license plates is the “Adopt a Shelter Pet” plate. Funds collected from the sale of the plates goes into the “pet overpopulation fund” to be used by animal shelters to have animals spayed/neutered and to support education programs. Prior to the promotion of House Bill HB25-1137, shelters seeking money from the fund had to agree to not use the phrase “No Kill” related to their shelter operation or marketing. The Humane Society of Fremont County -  which holds 7 municipal contracts  - has proudly upheld the highest open-admission save rate in Colorado for 10 consecutive years and is considered a leading animal shelter in the country. Because it refused to comply with the requirement to ditch the “No Kill” label, it was prevented from receiving crucial funding. The primary purpose of the bill was to prevent funds being withheld from shelters that support the No Kill model of animal sheltering. A portion of the bill language states:

(c) The adopt a shelter pet account in the pet overpopulation fund receives money donated through the sale of the adopt a shelter pet license plate to be used for spaying and neutering animals in animal shelters and rescues and to support overpopulation education programs;

(d) The allocation of money in the adopt a shelter pet account is lacking in transparency and the public should have knowledge of the allocation of the money;

(e) Colorado should not favor one shelter model or ideology over another in shelter and rescue operations because all shelter and rescue operations work to place pets in adoptive homes, save animal lives, work in tandem with municipalities and counties, assist in the reduction of pet overpopulation, and are licensed pursuant to the pet animal care facility act."

An incredible amount of work was done by the primary supporters of the bill:  No Kill Colorado, the MaxFund No Kill Animal Shelter and Adoption Center, and the Humane Society of Fremont County, This bill represents a long-overdue correction to an unfair funding restriction that has penalized shelters like ours for standing by our no-kill values,” said Doug Rae, the Director of the Humane Society of Fremont County. “We are proud to lead this fight for fairness and transparency, but we need the public’s help to get this across the finish line.” Proponents of the bill fought hard for its passage after it was introduced in the house in late January. It passed the house in February and passed the senate in March after gaining support from the Colorado Department of Agriculture. The bill was being signed into law by Governor Jared Polis on April 17, 2025.

This is an example of a good bill. It sought to remove obstacles to receipt of funds by animal shelters that were based not on helping animals, but were grounded in the personal opinions of the members of the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Authority, some of whom are hostile toward No Kill philosophies. The law as enacted states, “the Colorado Pet Overpopulation Authority must not favor a particular shelter model when allocating money from the Adopt A Shelter Pet Account.”

A Bad Bill

Most states have laws about animal cruelty that are part of the criminal code. Such is the case in Alabama. The laws were enacted at different times in the history of the state and law enforcement officers are not trained in animal laws in the academy instruction they received to be certified. Laws about cruelty to animals (generally) and aggravated cruelty were enacted in 1977 and 2013, respectively. Laws about cruelty to dogs and cats (specifically) were enacted in 2000 as part of the Pet Protection Act.

There were two problematic animal bills filed in the 2025 legislative session which has now ended without either bill making it out of the chamber of origin. Both bills were promoted by the CEO of nonprofit organization based in Birmingham that holds numerous municipal contracts (and continues to seek more) despite the fact that it has a dismal live release rate for dogs and a less than stellar rate for cats. House Bill 149 was originally filed on February 4, 2025, and a substitute bill took its place on April 2, 2025 without the public having an opportunity to review the substitute. The bill did not seek to amend existing laws (which should have been the case) but was a stand-alone bill called the Alabama Dog Tethering and Outdoor Shelter Act. The original version of the bill would have reduced what was a Class A misdemeanor to a Class B misdemeanor. It includes provisions regarding food, water, shelter, collar size, enclosure size, enclosure height that are unenforceable as written.  Here are some examples:

(1) ADEQUATE FOOD. Food that is sufficient in amount and is appropriate for the particular type of dog to prevent starvation or a significant risk to the dog's health from lack of food. The term includes palatable, uncontaminated, and nutritionally appropriate food that is fed according to species requirements or is fed as directed by a veterinarian.
(2) ADEQUATE WATER. Water that is sufficient in amount and is appropriate for the particular type of dog to prevent dehydration or a significant risk to the dog's health from lack of water. The term includes potable water offered to dogs at suitable intervals according to the species requirements, or as directed by a veterinarian.
. . . . .
(4) PROPERLY FITTED. When worn by a dog, all of the following apply:
. . . . .
a. Appropriately sized for a dog based on the dog's measurement and body weight.
. . . . .
(1)a. Confined in a secure enclosure that has adequate space for exercise depending upon the age, size, breed, and weight of the dog
. . . . .
b. The tether does not weigh more than one-eighth of the dog's body weight.

This is an example of a bad bill. It sought to achieve too many things at once, many of which would have been unenforceable.  It would not have outlawed chaining of dogs as many people thought; it would have allowed dogs to be chained using a chain designed for dogs which are sold widely on the internet and at pet supply stores. The provisions in the bill related to "shelter" might have been of some value, but the state has a history with that one word. There have been multiple attempts over a  period of many years to define the single word shelter in the criminal code (three of which were brought by a former state representative who is now the state auditor). All failed. The senate chair of the Agriculture and Forestry Committee told me years ago that as long as a dog can get under a mobile home, that's  shelter. His personal views aside, I'm not sure why proponents of the bill thought that having a new bill to define that one word combined with numerous other things would make it through the legislative gauntlet. It would be like a tenant asking a landlord to fix a window, being told no, and then asking the landlord to fix the window, renovate all the rooms in the house and pay for landscaping. Not. Gonna. Happen.

In addition to issues with provisions of the bill being unenforceable, perhaps the more concerning issue is that the bill would have given authority to animal control officers to perform duties typically performed by certified law enforcement officers. The requirements to be an animal control officer in Alabama typically consist of having a high school diploma or GED and a driver's license. Most animal control officers are not trained in their animal control duties, much less trained in animal laws, investigative techniques, de-escalation techniques or probable cause determinations. Giving untrained civilians authority to seize animals could be dangerous – someone is apt to be shot and people in the vicinity of the property could also be endangered. Giving ACOs authority to seize animals could also result in unwarranted taking of animals in violation of the 4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they do not know the laws of the state and this could lead to litigation. As my  husband said very clearly when we were taking about the bill: “if you come on my property to take my dog, you better have really good health insurance.”

I am relieved this bill did not make it out of the house of origin, a fact that has put me at odds with some of my contacts in Alabama who mistakenly believe the bill would have done amazing things to help animals in our state. I understand they mean well but their failure to learn about existing laws and to think for themselves was a recipe for disappointment. Many people supporting the bill took their cue from the CEO of a nonprofit organization I mentioned above. She has an huge following in the state and speaks with the voice of authority regarding animal issues - including proposed legislation - even thought some of her comments were inaccurate. She has a lot of support by members of the business community in her area and is favored by the founder of a large nonprofit organization with national reach. All of this is despite the fact that more than half the dogs impounded by her organization in 2024 did not survive the process. I'm not sure that anyone with a record that poor should be considered a voice of authority on any issues related to companion animals. Including new laws. I would like to think there will be lessons learned from the fact that the bills she promoted did not leave the chamber of origin. I'm not so sure that will happen. It is easier for people to take the default position that state legislators don't care than it is to examine why the bills failed to better promote effective bills in the future.

For those in my state who are upset that House Bill 149 (and House Bill 249) did not survive this legislative session, here are a few things to consider.

• First, we actually have good laws in our state no matter what organization ranks our animal laws as subpar compared to most other states. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. But it's not like we don't have any laws at all. What is lacking is enforcement of the laws we have, an issue to be taken up with your local sheriff or chief of police and then brought to the public if those "top cops" won't cooperate so more people can get involved.
  
• Second, if you want change in a state that has conflicting cultures about the value of companion animals, you will likely get further by building relationships with law enforcement officials and elected officials provided you know what you want. It is not enough to know you want better for animals and say "I want things to change." It is not enough to protest or create petitions unless your message is clear. You need to be able to articulate exactly what you want succinctly and based on a clear understanding of the existing laws. To define shelter. To outlaw containing a dog using a logging chain. To make the existing state law about dogs running at large mandatory instead of optional. To have law enforcement officers and animal control officers trained on existing animal laws so they can be better enforced. To give counties in Alabama limited home rule so they can enact local laws to help companion animals. Those are efforts I would support. But I will not support a bad bill so you can tell yourself you are making a difference.
• Third, be mindful of the consequences of your behavior related to state elected officials. If you support or promote a bill that fails, ask yourself why that happened and develop a plan for the future. Lashing out at the very elected officials from whom you will need support in the future only damages the cause. Following the failure of a terrible bill in 2017 which resulted in name calling and harassment of state senators, one senator told me that behavior "had poisoned the well for any animal laws in the foreseeable future."  Get your frustration and anger out in other ways. Go for a really long walk. Exercise. But don't make us all look bad by screaming at elected officials with your hair on fire. That causes us all to be viewed through the lens of "crazy animal people" which helps no animals.
  
• Fouth, change begins at home. Cities in Alabama can establish their own laws so you will do better to examine laws for the city where you live and consider what you would like changed in your own backyard.  This is also done through relationship building with elected and appointed officials. I have long believed the culture in Alabama as a state will change when the culture changes at local level in more locations and the state as a whole becomes more progressive.  Huntsville, Alabama, is a good example of a city with good animal laws and there are plenty of other examples to be found using resources like Municode. If you want an ordinance about standards for dogs who live outside or you want an ordinance about commercial breeding inside city limits, let me know and I'll share mine.