Brief (1)
HB 2817 would clarify that animals taken by pounds would have ownership of those animals after the minimum three full day custody period established by law when those pounds are operated by the governing body of a political subdivision or a humane society operating an animal shelter as a pound.
In addition, the bill would make amendments to the law dealing with the spaying or neutering of dogs or cats before they are transferred to the permanent custody of a prospective owner by a pound, shelter, or humane society. The bill would clarify that the spaying or neutering may take place prior to the physical transfer of the animal and that if the prospective owner makes a deposit for spaying or neutering costs then that deposit would be not less than the lowest nor more than the highest cost of spaying or neutering in the community. In addition, the bill would provide that if the person does not reclaim the deposit within six months after receiving custody of the animal, the pound or animal shelter would keep the deposit and may reclaim the unspayed or unneutered animal.
Additionally, the bill would require that any premise located in the state conducting spaying, neutering, or any other practice of veterinary medicine be registered with the Board of Veterinary Examiners. Another provision permits the use of an innovative spay or neuter program not specifically meeting the requirements of law, if the pound or shelter obtains the approval of the Livestock Commissioner. Finally, the bill gives the Livestock Commissioner the authority to promulgate rules and regulations with respect to the neutering and spaying of dogs and cats.
Background
The bill was introduced at the request of a spokesperson from the Kansas Animal Health Department. At the hearing on the bill, a spokesperson for the agency indicated that some pounds and shelters were having difficulty interpreting the statute with respect to spaying and neutering and that the bill was an attempt to clarify the law. The Committee was told that the agency had convened a task force to work on the law and to make recommendations for its modifications. Several individuals submitted written testimony in support of the bill. One individual appeared in opposition to the bill and objected to the portion of the bill which gives the Livestock Commissioner the authority to approve innovative spay or neuter programs which do not specifically meet the requirements of law.
The fiscal note states that there would be no fiscal impact.
1. *Supplemental notes are prepared by the Legislative Research Department and do not express legislative intent. The supplemental note and fiscal note for this bill may be accessed on the Internet at http://www.ink.org/public/legislative/bill_search.html