Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Senate committee hears 'Working Animals' bill; sponsor and cities debate scope and definitions
Summary
Senate Bill 96 would block local governments from banning use of "working animals" for commerce or service. Sponsor Sen. John Fuller said the bill protects livestock guardian animals; municipal groups urged caution and asked the committee to narrow the bill to avoid limiting local animal and public‑safety rules.
Sen. John Fuller (R‑Kalispell) opened the Senate Local Government Committee hearing on Senate Bill 96 by saying the measure "establishes protection for working animals" and "is a simple bill," primarily intended to protect livestock guardian animals used in agricultural settings. "That's the purpose of this bill," Fuller said, describing livestock guardian dogs, donkeys and llamas as tools that reduce predator losses on ranches.
Opponents included Kelly Lynch, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, who said she was testifying "specifically on behalf of the cities." Lynch said the bill's definition of "working animal" is broad and could restrict local authority to regulate animals in urban contexts: "It's very broad and open ended," she told the committee. Lynch also noted that the Americans with Disabilities Act already protects service animals and questioned whether the bill would prevent local regulation of animals that create neighborhood nuisance or safety problems.
Ella Smith, representing the City of Missoula, described an existing local ordinance that restricts exotic animal exhibits and urged local discretion: "Given the history of animal exhibitions, there is a well documented history of public safety incidents involving escaped exotic animals," she told senators, and Missoula prefers to make such decisions locally.
Committee members asked a series of questions about scope, public safety and potential amendments. Sen. Ellsworth raised a hypothetical — "what if I had somebody... bring 12 alligators into a city park?" — to probe whether the bill would prevent local government from limiting dangerous exhibits. Fuller replied that the bill's definition of "working animal" covers enumerated categories (human service, transportation, law enforcement, education, competition or exhibition) and that amendments narrowing the language would be welcome; he described friendly amendments as acceptable.
Sen. Boldman and others asked whether horses should be excluded; Fuller said he had considered but intentionally left horses in scope because horses are used in some urban settings. Senators and the League warned of litigation risk and urged tightening of definitions to prevent disputes over emotional support animals, therapy animals, exotic species, and urban nuisance regulation.
No formal action was taken. Fuller closed by saying he would accept friendly amendments and asked the committee for a due pass.
Why it matters: SB 96 would limit local regulatory authority over animals in the name of protecting agricultural and working uses. Cities argued the bill could preempt carefully crafted local ordinances intended to address public safety, nuisance and safety concerns in denser residential areas.
What comes next: The hearing closed with senators encouraging the sponsor and stakeholders to refine the working‑animal definition before committee action.
