Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Animal Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee weighs SB96 to protect 'working animals'; cities warn language is too broad
Summary
SB96 would limit local ordinances that ban or create 'undue hardship' for defined working animals; sponsor framed bill around guardian livestock uses, while the Montana League of Cities and Towns and several cities said the definition is vague and could prohibit regulation of exotic-animal exhibitions and urban animal control.
Senator John Fuller introduced Senate Bill 96 as a measure to protect the use of working animals and to prevent local ordinances that would "terminate, ban, effectively ban, or create undue hardship relating to the job or use of a working animal," as the sponsor read the bill's operative section.
Fuller described an origin story involving a sheep producer who used livestock guardian animals to protect flocks from predators and said the bill's definition of working animals "means a non human animal used for the purpose of performing a specific duty or function in commerce or animal enterprise, including without limitation, human service, transportation, law enforcement, education, competition, or exhibition." He also said the definition excludes production livestock such as poultry, swine, dairy cows, beef cattle, sheep and goats.
Opponents urged caution. Kelly Lynch, executive director of the Montana League of Cities and Towns, said the language is broad, not clearly limited to animals performing essential services, and could force cities to allow many unexpected animals in urban areas; Lynch also noted that service animals are already covered under federal law and that counties already have statutory authority to regulate dogs. Ella Smith, representing the city of Missoula, said she was particularly concerned about the exhibition language and listed examples of wild and exotic animals that she feared could be exempt from local regulation if the bill were enacted.
City of Great Falls attorney Danielle Bradley echoed concerns that vague terms such as 'undue hardship' could expose municipalities to litigation and hinder routine public-safety regulations.
Committee members asked whether excluding cities from the bill would remove opposition and probed what phrases such as 'human service' mean in practice. The sponsor said the burden of proof would rest on an owner to show an animal performs a service and emphasized the bill was not intended to supersede common-sense local regulation.
Senator Fuller closed by urging the committee to pass the bill; the transcript records substantial questioning and opposition testimony but no formal committee vote.
