The Official Post-Session Report: How animal bills fared in the 2017 NM legislative session

House Bill 219

(Transfer Animal Sheltering Board)

Sponsor: Rep. Jimmie Hall (R-Albuquerque) / Substitute Bill Author: Rep. Carl Trujillo (D-Santa Fe)

Status: Passed & Signed into Law!

Many months before the legislative session began, APV began working with members of the veterinary and animal sheltering communities to work out a solution to a major problem: The Animal Sheltering Board, a board within the Regulations & Licensing Department that is tasked with regulating animal shelter euthanasia and other standards and distributing crucial spay/neuter money, has been unable to operate sustainably for lack of budget funding. This situation put the Board’s important mission at risk. While the legislature’s Legislative Finance Committee drafted its own solution—HB 219—our coalition developed our solution into a substitute bill, which was adopted in HB 219’s first House committee and passed both chambers.

The bill dissolves the Animal Sheltering Board, but creates a new 5-member “Animal Sheltering Committee” within the New Mexico Board of Veterinary Medicine that would retain the current Animal Sheltering Board’s duties regarding development of a voluntary statewide dog and cat spay/neuter program in conjunction with shelters and euthanasia agencies, as well as disbursement of moneys from the Animal Care and Facility Fund to facilitate low-cost spay/neuter services (by making recommendations to the Board of Veterinary Medicine for approval); the Board of Veterinary Medicine would assume all other relevant duties in the Animal Sheltering Act, including authority over euthanasia licensure and animal shelter standards. HB 219 would also bring local shelter veterinarians under the purview of the Veterinary Practice Act.

Thank Governor Martinez for signing HB 219! >>

House Bill 390

(Equine Rescue & Shelter Right of Refusal)

Sponsor: Rep. Nathan Small (D-Las Cruces)

Status: Passed the legislature, BUT pocket vetoed by the Governor

New Mexico’s state laws establish a “blanket” disposition for all livestock, including domestic equines. As a result, homeless equines in the custody of the NM Livestock Board (estrays, abandoned, seized or running at large equines) are routinely auctioned and are susceptible to being sold to so-called “killer-buyers” who then sell them for slaughter in Mexico.

HB 390 would create equine-specific sections of the New Mexico Livestock Code and other state laws to ensure that the nine equine shelters in the state will have the first right of refusal on stray, abandoned and abused equines. The bill was originally drafted without the auction option, but was later amended to allow auction, but only after equine shelters have the first chance to take in these horses. It was clear after the first hearing that the bill would have faced serious and likely fatal challenges to passing without the auction option. It was considered crucial to equine rescue shelters and other advocates to have the chance to change current law, which the bill provides.

Giving equine shelters primary access is expected to create a humane outcome for the limited number of horses typically in the custody of the NM Livestock Board each year (in 2016, the number was 64). As passed, HB 390 will greatly increase the humane outcomes for these horses and allow horse rescues to step up first and expend their donor funds caring for the horses—rather than being forced to bid high against others in auction, where a loss would potentially feed the horse slaughter pipeline.

UPDATE: Despite overwhelming support for this bill, Governor Susana Martinez did not take action on this bill by the signing deadline—and therefore the bill was automatically “pocket vetoed” and will not become law.

UPDATE #2 (5/11/17): Good news! Despite the veto of HB 390 that would have improved outcomes for equines, the New Mexico Livestock Board has agreed to propose changes to its rules to achieve the same first right for equine shelters to give horses a second chance at a new home and/or career. This move will revive the hard work of equine advocates during the session.

Senate Bill 268

(Prohibit Coyote Killing Contests)

Sponsors: Sen. Jeff Steinborn (D-Las Cruces) & Sen. Mark Moores (R-Albuquerque)

Status: Passed the Senate, but died awaiting House floor vote

SB 268 would have banned coyote killing competitions in which participants typically compete for prizes or entertainment by attempting to kill the most, largest, and smallest coyotes over a short period of time. At least 20-30 contests are held every year in all corners of the state, and they have resulted in outrage—not only here in New Mexico, but also nationally and internationally—for their promotion of wanton killing. A significant majority of New Mexico voters (by more than a two-to-one margin, according to a Dec. 2016 poll) find killing contests abhorrent. These competitions do nothing to help attract business, drive tourism, or address livestock depredation. In fact, emerging science shows that killing contests can often cause coyote populations to boom over the long term. Most ethical sportsmen oppose killing contests as a violation of fair-chase hunting values and the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation.

In the third long legislative session in which a coyote killing contest ban bill was proposed, this year’s bill made the most progress. It passed the Senate with a large bipartisan majority, similar to 2015, and passed its first and only House Committee. Sadly, by the time the bill reached the House floor, where it would have been carried by Rep. Matthew McQueen (D-Santa Fe)—with only a few days left in the session, and important fiscal matters still to be addressed—there was insufficient time for the House to take up this controversial bill.

However, we cannot lose hope. The mere fact that this bill nearly passed its final hurdle is a testament to the power of our collective advocacy, the support we have in both chambers and in both parties, and a true signal that this bill is certainly ripe for passage in 2019. So we will carry this momentum forward, because although it will require steadfast work, it’s only a matter of time before the last few stars align and New Mexico becomes the first state in the nation to pass a bill outlawing these horrific killing contests.

House Bill 123

(Animal Food Fee for Sterilization Program)

Sponsor: Rep. Carl Trujillo (D-Santa Fe)

Status: Passed the House, but died awaiting a hearing in Senate Finance Committee

More than 135,000 dogs and cats enter New Mexico’s animal shelters every year—and almost half of them are euthanized simply for lack of adoptive homes. A major cause of this outcome is the fact that spay and neuter services are unaffordable, inaccessible, or both in many of our communities. For years government officials have been asking for a mechanism to provide the level of spay/neuter funding our state needs to address this issue.

HB 123 offered the answer, by requiring large pet food corporations—which currently pay a minuscule $2 annually to register each of their products in order to sell them in our state—to contribute an additional $100 per product that would pay for spay-neuter services. HB 123 was enormously popular with rural and urban legislators and was supported by both Democrats and Republicans. HB 123 was considered a fiscally conservative approach to a problem that costs the state over $38 million a year to address through local animal control and sheltering costs. The smart and effective user-fee system with little to no impact on pet-owning households would clearly have enormous impact on the companion animal overpopulation problem. This fee increase would generate an estimated $700,000-$800,000 per year, covering the costs to spay/neuter about 6,000-11,000 animals of income-qualified New Mexicans per year, and help operate the statewide spay/neuter program administration.

After passing the House with an overwhelming majority and its first Senate committee, HB 123 stalled in the Senate Finance Committee when the committee chair, Sen. John Arthur Smith (D-Deming) inexplicably refused to hear the bill. This disappointing, devastating outcome means that until this bill can be heard again, tens of thousands more dogs and cats will die annually, after being born without the hope of a future home. This is especially true in our state’s rural communities with fewer resources and bigger challenges. But we vow to come back and try again. Other states already benefit from this effective funding mechanism, and New Mexicans deserve this obvious solution to keep our animals and communities safe and healthy.

Senate Bill 286

(NM Wildlife Protection & Public Safety Act)

Sponsor: Sen. Pete Campos (D-Las Vegas)

Status: Stalled in its first Senate Committee

With every year that passes, we see the wildlife destruction that indiscriminate traps and poisons cause on NM public lands. SB 286 would have prohibited the use of deadly poisons and outdated leg-hold traps on New Mexico’s public lands, unless the use meets one of several specific, narrow exemptions that allow for protection of public health, safety, and protection of important infrastructure and property. This bill would have better aligned the management of wildlife with modern conservation practices and protected wildlife, companion animals, and citizens who enjoy our state’s public lands. Traps and poisons are unnecessary and largely ineffective in managing carnivore species to protect livestock, and many non-harmful methods of predation deterrents—including pens, sheds, and guard animals—are effective and widely available. Restricting traps and poisons on public land makes economic sense, as “non-consumptive” wildlife watchers have a far greater positive impact on our state’s economy than trappers.

More than 100 countries and several U.S. states have banned or severely restricted traps, snares, and poisons. And yet, these outdated lethal tools are so ingrained into New Mexico’s institutions and industries that members of the Senate Conservation Committee, SB 286’s first committee, balked at voting on the bill at all. At the committee’s request, we worked to amend the bill and provided a Q&A document to address or refute criticisms of the legislation, but the committee schedule was already too full for the bill to be granted a second hearing.

We look forward to continuing to work with the bill sponsor and supporters (including previous years’ House sponsor, Rep. Bobby Gonzales (D-Taos)) to keep driving forward and engage in earnest discussions with stakeholders, including the Dept. of Game & Fish and the State Game Commission, to determine how we can better conserve and protect our state’s wildlife and prioritize public safety.

House Bill 210

(Cruelty to Animals Changes)

Sponsor: Rep. Daymon Ely (D-Corrales)

Status: Stalled in its first House Committee

Prosecution of some animal cruelty cases has not been possible because of the current wording of the statute, resulting in difficulty obtaining convictions for clear-cut cases of cruelty to animals. In some cases, prosecutors have stated that the current statute doesn’t permit them to file fourth degree felony charges for dehydrating and starving an animal, even to the death.

HB 210 would have amended the current statute to ensure that unconscionable acts such as recklessly abandoning, starving or dehydrating animals to death would be prosecutable as fourth degree felonies, and would have extended anti-cruelty protections to captive reptiles. Important work on the bill’s language took many weeks during the session, and the very full agenda of the bill’s first committee spelled problems for the bill being heard in all committees before the session ended. After compelling public testimony from the bill’s supporters, several House Consumer & Public Affairs Committee members peppered the bill sponsor with questions in an attempt to poke holes in the legislation with strange hypotheticals, completely disregarding the very real issue of clear-cut animal abuse cases never being prosecuted because the current law is not clear enough. The committee hearing ran out of time before the committee could vote, and the bill was not taken up again before the end of the session. But we will not give up our attempts to clarify our anti-cruelty laws so that the consequences of animal abuse more clearly match the seriousness of the crime committed.

Senate Bill 81

(Wildlife Trafficking Act)

Sponsors: Sen. Mimi Stewart (D-Albuquerque) & Rep. Gail Chasey (D-Albuquerque)

Status: Passed the legislature, BUT pocket vetoed by the Governor

Illegal wildlife poaching and trafficking has decimated threatened and endangered species across the world, and some of the illicit parts and products from these animals are being sold and shipped along and through New Mexico’s borders. There are zero U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service officers posted at NM ports of entry, making our state a welcome playground for wildlife traffickers.

Six other states have passed bans on illegal wildlife trafficking in order to bolster enforcement against these crimes, and SB 81 would make New Mexico the seventh state. The bill would crack down on the sale or trade of parts and products of critical wildlife such as elephants, rhinos, and cheetahs, and would grant state and local law enforcement the authority to arrest traffickers caught in NM.

UPDATE: Sadly, Governor Susana Martinez did not take action on this bill by the signing deadline, and therefore the bill was automatically “pocket vetoed” and will not become law.

House Bill 109

(Wild Animal Bite & Attack Procedures)

Sponsor: Rep. Stephanie Garcia Richard (D-Los Alamos)

Status: Stalled in its first House Committee

The experience of a New Mexico marathon runner last year rippled through national and international news—she accidentally startled a mother bear, who sadly but understandably attacked the runner to defend her cubs and then ran away, leaving the runner injured but alive. This was an unfortunate but understandable situation—most people would expect a mother bear to act just as she had in that circumstance. But this mother bear was tracked down and killed to be tested for rabies. Why? Only because state laws required it, even though bears have never been known to carry rabies in New Mexico.

HB 109 would have required our state agencies to take a more nuanced approach to managing human-wildlife contact in the future. It specified conditions where the state could or could not mandate euthanasia and rabies testing of an animal, and it required the following factors be taken into account in deciding how to handle an attacking animal: the species of animal, the circumstances of exposure and behavior of the animal at the time of the attack, the epidemiology or rabies in the local area, the animal’s history and current health status, and the likelihood the animal might have been exposed to rabies. No one is asking state officials to put human safety and health at risk—but a measured approach, balancing public health with wildlife coexistence, is key. Unfortunately, the bill stalled in the House State Government, Indian & Veterans’ Affairs Committee after a tie vote to table the bill.

House Bill 254

(Game Commission Legislative Appointments)

Sponsor: Rep. Matthew McQueen (D-Santa Fe)

Status: Passed one House committee but died in its second House Committee

The New Mexico Game Commission is a 7-member board appointed by the governor for the purpose of setting wildlife policy and overseeing the work of the NM Department of Game & Fish. The Commission was created nearly 100 years ago, when wild animals were largely valued only insofar as they could be “used” by hunters, anglers, and trappers. But New Mexicans’ relationship to wildlife has changed over the last century. Furthermore, Game Commissioners serve at the pleasure of the Governor, are not required to have any education or experience in wildlife conservation, and can be removed for no reason (for example, for simply disagreeing with the administration). This has resulted in almost always unanimous Game Commission votes on wildlife policies that are based less on science and more on the political will of the Governor’s office. And these policies can undulate radically from term to term, depending on who occupies the Governor’s office.

HB 254 would have adjusted the Game Commission appointment process in order to create a more balanced (across political, geographic, and interest areas) and more knowledgeable policy-making body by setting term limits; giving the Governor the power to appoint 3 commissioners, one from each congressional district; granting the bipartisan Legislative Council to appoint 4 commissioners across the sportsmen community, non-consumptive outdoor recreation community, agriculture community, and professional wildlife scientist community; ensuring that a game commissioner can only be removed for cause, not simply for an unpopular vote. While HB 254 passed its first House committee, it died in the House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Committee on a party-line table vote.

Senate Bill 126

(Change Livestock & Animal Definitions)

Sponsor: Sen. Pat Woods (R-Broadview)

House Bill 446

(Wild Horses in Statute)

Sponsor: Rep. Joanne Ferrary (D-Las Cruces)

Status: Both bills died in the House chamber

The 2017 legislative session saw a lot of debate about wild horses in New Mexico. As it stands now, because of a gap in statutory law and recent case law, there is no government agency with authority to humanely address wild horses unwanted on private land. The original SB 126 sought to solve this problem by simply clarifying in the Livestock Code that all horses (even wild ones) are livestock, so that the NM Livestock Board clearly had authority to capture wild horses on private land (which would then be treated as estray livestock, and sent to auction). APV felt the bill as introduced was seriously flawed, but understood why leaving the issue unaddressed would only exacerbate community frustrations that could put these horses at risk. So we worked with Sen. Woods to amend SB 126 so that it would not classify wild horses as livestock, but instead sets out a specific humane disposition process for those wild horses who are captured on private land by the NM Livestock Board after a landowner has complained. SB 126 would have insured that any wild horse captured on private land would be relocated to public land, transferred to a horse rescue or retirement facility, or provided last-resort humane euthanasia if the horse was sick or could not be relocated. With this compromise reached, we supported SB 126. The bill passed the Senate but died in the House Judiciary Committee without a hearing.

In response to SB 126’s introduction, HB 446 was introduced to explicitly transfer authority over NM’s wild horses to the Department of Game & Fish. It was apparent this was borne out of many wild horse advocates’ distrust of the NM Livestock Board over past miscommunications and disagreements about handling of wild horse populations in the towns of Placitas and Alto. But although the bill’s intention may have been good, it was clear to us that the Department of Game & Fish is not only unqualified to manage wild horses, but also a dangerously unwise choice to overtake authority considering the current scheme under which it manages other wild species: hunting and trapping—and lately, not always with adequate science to justify their actions and policies. Therefore, we opposed HB 446. It died by an 11-1 table vote in the House Energy, Environment & Natural Resources Committee.

Senate Bill 167

(Freedom from Unwarranted Surveillance Act)

Sponsor: Sen. Gerald Ortiz y Pino (D-Albuquerque)

Status: Passed one Senate Committee, but stalled in its second Senate Committee

SB 167 was another complicated issue tackled during the session that resulted in our opposition. The bill likely began as a bolstering of Fourth Amendment protections against illegal search or surveillance by government actors and as an attempt to provide protections for individuals’ privacy in their homes from the growth of drone technologies and use. But tacked onto that notion was an overbroad and vague prohibition against drone observation of any private property without consent, and ominously specifically protected farms and agricultural operations from observation by drones.

Considering the serious Constitutional issues in the bill, it looked a lot like an anti-whistleblower “ag-gag” bill. An Idaho law that similarly criminalized videotaping inside an agricultural facility was struck down by a federal judge as unconstitutional, finding that businesses that impact public health and safety are a matter of public concern and that whistleblowing (including that done by undercover investigators or journalists) is protected First Amendment speech. The broadness of the language also led to some absurd consequences, like a child flying a toy drone from her backyard over her neighbor’s backyard would, in and of itself, be a crime.

We raised our concerns in the bill’s first Senate Committee, leading to a “report without recommendation,” and then the bill stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee when it was still too problematic for passage.

This list of bills includes some of the most important issues during the 2017 legislative session that impacted New Mexico’s animals, but there were other pieces of legislation as well. Animal Protection Voters staff and volunteers worked long hours every day to monitor and react to every piece of pro-animal or anti-animal policy where our voice could make a difference. And one crucial result that we can all feel good about celebrating: Not a single bad anti-animal bill passed!

We send our utmost gratitude to each and every one of you who supported our efforts during the session. We couldn’t do this work without you!