After a tumultuous Spring and several life changes over the Summer, it was necessary to take a step back from legislative updates for a few months. With the beginning of fall and only a handful of weeks before the November elections, it now felt like the appropriate time to dive back in and continue updates of Michigan’s animal and veterinary legislation. Although there were a couple of newly introduced bills over the summer, I also went on a little deeper dive to find a few bills that had slipped through the cracks over the past two years and have included these as well.
Casting a broad net, the legislative activity of the summer was quite slow due to the rise of the novel coronavirus, COVID-19, general slow activity of the summer, and the upcoming elections. Nonetheless, a bill limiting the scope of practice of veterinarians was introduced as HB 6009. Additionally, bills HB 5808 and 5809 make it more difficult for those whose animals are confiscated by law enforcement to gain custody back. Given the ongoing public health concerns and continually mounting pressure from November elections, it becomes continually more unlikely that these bills, and many others, may gain momentum until later in November and December.
To find out when new updates are published or for real-time updates on significant bill changes or introductions, please follow me on twitter: @MattKuhnDVM
Newly Introduced Bills
HB 6009, introduced by Mari Manoogian (D, 40) on July 23rd creates a new law that aims to ban any surgical alterations to dogs that are done strictly to meet breed standards or for cosmetic reasons. This specifically includes debarking, ear cropping, tail docking, and removing dew claws and more broadly includes
“Any other surgical procedure that cosmetically or aesthetically alters the physical condition or appearance of a dog for the ease of handling or keeping the dog or to conform to an established breed standard.”
Although these procedures are allowed on a therapeutic basis for ongoing disease and, in general, veterinarians agree that these procedures should not be regularly performed, HB 6009 overlooks numerous examples of exceptions to this rule. For example, the docking of tails or removal of extra dewclaws can be a means of reducing injury in many breeds of hunting dogs. Further, such a bill would remove the ability of veterinarians to perform these procedures under controlled conditions with pain management leaving the potential that some owners may resort or unauthorized procedures without appropriate veterinary oversight — a clear animal welfare concern. As this bill significantly restricts the scope of veterinary practice, veterinarians should be wary of the precedent that it may set to further regulate medical procedures. This bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and has not yet moved.
HB 5808 and HB 5809 introduced by Douglas Wozniak (R, 36) on May 20th provide further details on policy for the seizure of dogs from owners who are found to be in violation of the law. These bills describe essentially identical changes to the law but in two different sections, specifically Sections 50 and 50b of the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.50 and 750.50b).
Under these bills, if a dog is confiscated by law enforcement, animals cannot be initially returned to the owners. Owners have 14 days to post a bond on their animals or they will be surrendered to the State. Further, if owners are found to be not guilty of a violation of the law, they are required to pay for all housing and veterinary costs incurred while their animals were in possession of law enforcement prior to obtaining custody of their animals. These bills have not moved since their introduction and are currently with the Committee on Judiciary.
Those That Went Unnoticed…
HB 4102, introduced by Steve Marino (R, 24) on the 29th of January in 2019 made a simple change to section 49 of the Michigan Penal Code (MCL 750.49) by adding “property, or any other thing of value” to a list of designated items that cannot be collected for the illegal use of animals such as dog fighting, baiting, or shooting. This no-nonsense bill adding further barriers to dog fighting and abuse received strong support in the House, unanimous consent from the Senate, and became law on 12/31/2019.
HB 5090 and SB 971 introduced by Sara Cambsensy (D, 109) on October 8th, 2019 and Michael MacDonald (R, 10) on June 17th, 2020, respectively, aim to prevent pain and distress in dogs used for veterinary research and training. As written, at a university veterinary hospital where almost all procedures involve education and training of students, without explicit permission from an owner a veterinarian would not be allowed to perform any procedure that would cause the animal distress. Additionally, research would not be able to be conducted on canines if it involved pain or distress, even if appropriate pain management is provided. These provisions are clear concerns for the advancement of canine health through research as well as the training of future generations of skilled veterinarians.
Lastly, although not included in the Senate version, HB 5090 requires that the potential pain of an animal be compared to that of a human to determine its severity. Such wording walks a thin line of directly associating pain in animals to pain in humans. This raises the suspicion that a third-party organization had significant sway in the verbiage used in crafting this bill. The House bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and has not moved since the introduction. The Senate bill was referred to the Committee on Judiciary and Public Safety and has not moved.
HB 4641, introduced by Sherry Gay-Dagnogo (D, 8) on May 21st, 2019, would make it a misdemeanor for a veterinarian to perform a devocalization procedure on a canine. Likely introduced with the best intentions, this bill does allow for therapeutic devocalization, however, neglects to address prophylactic devocalization or allow for veterinary determination when other instances of devocalization may be appropriate. This bill was referred to the Committee on Agriculture and has not moved since its introduction.
HB 4340, introduced by John Reilly (R, 46) on 3/12/2019 would restrict filming or recording individuals lawfully hunting or fishing with the intent to use such film or recording to harass that individual. A summary of arguments for and against can be found here. Although HB 4340 does not directly relate to animal policy, it is important for its resemblance to controversial Ag-Gag Laws that 25 states have attempted to enact of which six have succeeded. Ag-Gag Laws restrict recording on livestock farms if used to defame the producer or industry rather than being turned over to law enforcement, typically placing the animal agriculture industry and animal-rights organizations at odds in the legislature. If passed, HB 4340 could serve as a precedent or example for further legislation in Michigan to construct such a law for the livestock sector. This bill was initially referred to the Committee on Natural Resources and Outdoor Recreation but was amended with Substitute (H-1, link unavailable) and referred to the Committee on Ways and Means.
Significant Bill Updates
SB 419 requiring state registration of animal rescues has been reported favorably by the Committee on Agriculture and referred to the Committee of the Whole with a Substitute (S-2). A new summary of this bill is now available as well.
HB 5085 allowing veterinarians to speak with clients about the use of CBD in pets has had a dramatic change from its original script in the form of a substitute (H-1) and was referred from the Committee on Agriculture to the Committee on Ways and Means. A wonderful analysis was released after a hearing on the bill explaining its importance, showing no negative fiscal impacts to the state, with no arguments against its passage offered at the hearing.
In its current form, Substitute H-1 is very broad and would allow for almost any interaction with clients regarding cannabis / CBD, including making recommendations on use. Given the lack of peer-reviewed research available to properly inform clients on any clinically proven benefits to these products and the fact that no other state has gone so far as to allow veterinarians to prescribe CBD or cannabis products in pets, it seems likely that this bill will be again amended if brought up by the Senate to add further restrictions.
Updates on bills included in the March Update
HB 5577, that amends the Michigan penal code to strengthen animal welfare standards for dogs left outside in inclement weather has not moved.
SB 823 creating regulations for pet cemeteries has not moved.
SB 800 making it a 1$ fine to bait deer has not moved.
HB 5508 banning declawing in cats has not moved.
HB 5486 adding protections for service animals in training has not moved.
SB 780 requiring animal control officers to report suspected child abuse/neglect has not moved.
HB 5465 establishing a Rare Disease Review Committee has not moved. A fiscal analysis has been released and states the committee would cost the Department of Health and Human Services $70,000–200,000 per year but would not impact local units of government.
SB 666 and HB 5273 aiming to end the practice of pet leasing/loaning in Michigan have not moved.
HB 5239 creating an equine industry check-off program has not moved. It has a summary and fiscal analysis available which states that it is likely to increase administrative costs for the Michigan Department of Agriculture and Rural Development although the exact cost cannot be determined at this time.
HB 5203 creating a Small Farm Coordinator has not moved.
HB 5085 allowing veterinarians to speak with clients about the use of CBD in pets has had a dramatic change from its original script in the form of a substitute (H-1) and was referred from the Committee on Agriculture to the Committee on Ways and Means. A wonderful analysis was released after a hearing on the bill explaining its importance, showing no negative fiscal impacts to the state, with no arguments against its passage offered at the hearing.
HB 5125 regulating the aerial spraying of pesticides has not moved. A bill analysis, background, and fiscal impact has been released. Indeed, this bill stemmed from Kalamazoo County’s choice to opt-out of aerial spraying this past fall and would extend their time to do so in the future from 48 hours to 5 days. This would have no significant fiscal impact on state or local government. Although this is the fiscal impact of the bill itself, reducing aerial spraying for disease when deemed necessary by the State could have significant negative financial impacts due to increased disease spread in the future.
HB 4910 defining an Emotional Support Animal and reducing falsification of such animals has passed the house based on substitution (H-4). A bill summary states that this bill should have no fiscal impact on state or local governments. A companion bill, SB 610, has not moved. SB 608 and SB 609 also alter how Emotional Support Animals are regarded and neither has moved. This bill has been referred to the Senate Committee on Regulatory Reform.
HB 4911 is a tie-bar with 4910 to update language elsewhere in Michigan law to match the new language in HB 4010 and also passed the House and was referred to the Senate Committee on Regulatory Reform.
HB 4496 regarding the adoption of dogs used for research purposes has not moved but has moved from the Committee on Regulatory Reform to the Committee on Agriculture.
HB 4941 which alters how long an animal is held during a criminal trial has not moved.
HB 4931 making a dog sitting on a driver’s lap while driving a misdemeanor has not moved.
HB 4860 expanding the authority of the Large Carnivore Act has not moved. A bill analysis and fiscal analysis have been released. It states that this bill is not expected to impact time spent by MDARD on large carnivore licensure and as only a single license has been granted to date, this bill should have no fiscal impact. This bill moved out of the House Agriculture Committee on party lines and has now been referred to the Committee on Ways and Means despite opposition from several zoological and animal groups.
HB 4833 regulating the transport of deer both inter- and intra-state has not moved.
SB 429 which would require reporting of suspected animal abuse by veterinarians was amended from its original text and would no longer mandate that veterinarians report suspected abuse. As such, it does not have any real implications for either owners or veterinarians and is likely redundant with current Michigan law. This bill in its amended form has moved out of committee to the Senate floor but is unlikely to come up for a vote. A fiscal analysis now shows that this bill would have no fiscal impact.
SB 352 mandating reporting of animal abuse or neglect by child protective services employees has moved out of committee and is now awaiting the Senate floor. SB 353 which would make false reporting by such employees a felony has not moved despite the activity of SB 352. The aforementioned analysis of this bill (352) states that it also would have a negative fiscal impact due to increased costs from the necessary training of employees to spot animal abuse and neglect at the Department of Health and Human Services.
SB 419 requiring state registration of animal rescues has been reported favorably by the Committee on Agriculture and referred to the Committee of the Whole with a Substitute (S-2). A new summary of this bill is now available as well.
HB 4687 and SB 37 allowing for deer baiting passed both the House and Senate and were vetoed by the Governor.
SB 174, an amendment of the Animal Industry Act, has become law.
SB 316 regarding animals for fighting has been moved out of committee but not yet taken under consideration by the Senate. A bill analysis states that this bill would have a negative fiscal impact due to increased resource demands on law enforcement.
HB 4592 which would allow animal advocates in court has not moved.
HB 4593 regarding canine devocalization has not moved.
HB 4594 regarding the ownership of non-human primates has not moved.
HB 4595 regarding carrier pigeon regulations has not moved.
HB 4596 regarding community cat programs has not moved.
HB 4610 regarding community vaccination has not moved.
House Bills 4659, 4603, 4604, 4606, 4607, 4608, and 4609 have not moved. Of note, a bill was passed in New York with similar language as that of HB 4659, requiring information about Lyme Disease to be posted in state parks. Additionally, a fiscal analysis is now included with this set of bills.
HB 4092 regarding leaving pets in cars has not moved.
SB 63 regarding income tax deductions for service animals has not been moved.
HB 4035 regarding the prohibition of breed-specific legislation has been moved to the Committee on Way and Means with substitute H-1.
HB 4217 has now become law with the veterinary exemption intact in all forms.
HB 4455 designating the shelter pet as the state pet has not moved.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this blog are purely my own and do not reflect those of my employer or any organizations of which I am a member.
