Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate 'Working Animals Protection' bill as cities warn of preemption risks
Summary
Senate Local Government heard testimony on SB 96, which would limit local bans on 'working animals.' Sponsor cited livestock guardian animals; cities warned the bill’s broad definition could preempt local zoning and trigger litigation. Sponsor said he would consider narrowing language.
Senator John Fuller opened the hearing on Senate Bill 96, a proposal to prohibit local governments from banning the use of working animals or animal enterprises in commerce or service. Fuller framed the bill around agricultural needs and livestock guardian animals, saying working animals "have an incredible importance in the Montana agricultural community" and recounting examples of guardian animals reducing predation.
Opponents — chiefly Kelly Lynch of the Montana League of Cities and Towns and Ella Smith speaking for the City of Missoula — urged caution. Lynch called the bill’s working-animal language "broad and open ended," warned it could strip cities of authority to regulate animals in densely populated settings (noise, nuisance, exotic-animal exhibits) and predicted litigation unless the definition is tightened. Missoula’s witness cited local public-safety concerns with exotic-animal exhibitions and urged local decisionmaking.
Committee members pressed the sponsor on liabilities, the ADA and Fair Housing intersections, and whether the bill should be narrowed to livestock guardian dogs or otherwise exclude horses and certain urban contexts. Senator Fern asked if posting warnings or liability insurance requirements should accompany protection; Fuller said civil liability insurance is prudent and that many guardians are posted. Fuller said he would be "friendly" to committee-driven refinements but indicated he intentionally kept horses in the bill because horses are used in urban parades and other contexts.
No executive action was taken at the hearing; the sponsor asked for a due pass and signaled willingness to accept amendments to address committee concerns.
