Enacts the shelter animal rescue act which requires the release of a shelter animal to a rescue group upon request of the rescue group prior to the euthanasia of such animal.
NEW YORK STATE ASSEMBLY MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF LEGISLATION submitted in accordance with Assembly Rule III, Sec 1(f)
BILL NUMBER: A7155
SPONSOR: Weprin TITLE OF BILL:
An act to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to requir-
ing the release of a shelter animal to a rescue group upon request of
the rescue group prior to the euthanasia of such animal
PURPOSE OR GENERAL IDEA OF BILL:
Mandates collaborative working relationships between municipal shelters
and not-for-profit organizations in order to reduce taxpayer costs,
reduce the number of animals killed, and increase local economic activ-
ity and tax revenues through spending on adopted animals.
SUMMARY OF PROVISIONS:
Section 1: -This act shall be known and may be cited as the "Shelter
Animal Rescue Act" (SARA).
Section 2: -Amends the agriculture and markets law by mandating collabo-
rative relationships between animal shelters and other animal shelters,
non-profit adoption and rescue organizations, humane societies, SPCAs,
and wildlife rehabilitators in order to reduce public costs, length of
stay, and numbers of animals killed and sets minimal guidelines for what
steps and conditions must be met before an animal may be destroyed.
Section 3: -Sets effective date.
JUSTIFICATION:
The bill would require an animal who is scheduled to be killed by a
society for the prevention of cruelty to animals, humane society, pound,
or shelter, to be released instead to a not-for-profit animal rescue,
animal adoption organization, or organization for the prevention of
cruelty to animals if that organization requests the animal and agrees
to assume care of the animal and any associated costs, with exceptions
for animals who are irremediably suffering, animals exhibiting signs of
rabies, or dogs who are dangerous.
When animal welfare organizations work collectively to ensure that
animals are not put to death where responsible alternatives exist, more
lives are saved, wasteful taxpayer expenditures are reduced, revenues
for municipal and private shelters increase, and economic and social
benefits ensue to the community. The states of California and Delaware,
and several cities, including Austin, Texas, and Muncie, Indiana, have
passed similar legislation with overwhelming bipartisan support. In
California, the bill was approved by a vote of 96 to 12. In Delaware,
the bill passed both houses of the legislature unanimously. Austin's
City Council approved the bill unanimously and Muncie approved it by an
overwhelming margin.
In California alone, over 85,000 animals a year are being saved as a
result of its passage. In Delaware, killing has been reduced statewide
by over 90% for some animals. Both Muncie and Austin have placement
rates of roughly 98%.
EXPECTED OPPOSITION: The ASPCA and underperforming shelters may oppose
the legislation, as they have in other states, in a bid to prevent state
regulation of shelter operations. This may confuse legislators who want
to defer to the ASPCA's pedigreed name. Despite what their name
suggests, however, the ASPCA often lobbies on behalf of shelters that
oppose accountability, even to the detriment of animals in those shel-
ters. In the past, they have claimed that passing such legislation is
expensive, tantamount to handing the keys to the shelter over to hoard-
ers, and impacts public safety; however, similar laws in other states
have been an unqualified success and proved those claims to be
unfounded.
COST SAVINGS / ECONOMIC BENEFITS: The cost to implement the law would be
de minimus. Indeed, the bill will result in overall savings, as more
animals are sent to non-profit organizations, shifting the cost of care
from taxpayer to private philanthropy and eliminating expenses associ-
ated with killing animals and disposing of their dead bodies.
For example, a study of California's 1998 Animal Shelter Law provision -
similar to the one in the current bill - found that the number of
animals saved, rather than killed, increased in California from 12,526
before the law went into effect to 99,783 in 2010 - a lifesaving
increase of over 700%. That increase corresponds with an annual cost
savings of $3,497,283 for killing and destruction of remains (these
savings do not include additional savings related to cost of care).
In addition to direct savings as a result of legislated lifesaving
initiatives, a University of Denver peer-reviewed study also found posi-
tive economic impact to businesses and increased sales tax revenues due
to subsequent spending by adopters on those animals.
PUBLIC / ANIMAL SAFETY: The Shelter Animal Rescue Act would not change
longstanding, existing state law regarding dangerous dogs and dogs who
cause serious physical injury as already defined under Art. 7 § 123 et
seq. of the Agriculture and Markets Law. Since these dogs, animals who
are suspected of having rabies, and animals who are irremediably suffer-
ing are explicitly exempted from the notification and placement require-
ments of this act, there would be no negative impact on public safety.
Moreover, the University of Denver study of a similar law in Austin
found that while the placement of dogs climbed from 69% to 98%, the
percentage of dog bites deemed moderate or severe declined by 13% with
the greatest decline in the number of bites classified as "severe,"
which declined by 89%. Like SARA, the Austin ordinance excludes danger-
ous dogs from any adoption obligations. The study concluded that the
legislation was not only consistent with public safety, it improved it,
noting positive impacts on "public health, social capital, and community
engagement," all of which have "important implications for Austin's
ability to promote and sustain the health and well-being of both its
human and non-human animal residents."
Moreover, when California passed similar legislation, not only did it
result in a lifesaving increase of over 700%, but a study that analyzed
outcomes found that "there is no evidence that the problems predicted by
some when the law was considered, such as hoarding or exposing the
public to dangerous dogs, has ever materialized." To the contrary, the
law improved state and federal oversight of non-profit animal welfare
organizations.
PRIOR LEGISLATIVE HISTORY:
None.
FISCAL IMPLICATIONS:
To be determined. However, as noted above, studies and experiences of
similar laws in Texas, California, and Indiana found economic benefits
and cost savings outweighed any implementation costs.
EFFECTIVE DATE:
This act shall take effect immediately.
