Response to Proposed Ballot Initiative: Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act
We oppose the proposed ballot initiative that would change the Pet Animal Care Facilities Act (CRS 35-80-106.3).
While this proposal is well-intended, it is reflects a lack of information and is misnamed as the “Colorado Saving Shelter
Pets Act.” Underwritten by private parties from outside Colorado with extreme special interests and limited knowledge
of our state’s progressive, collaborative animal welfare organizations, this proposal would do far more harm than good.
This proposal severely inhibits two primary functions of animal shelters and animal control officers: reducing animal
suffering and supporting public safety in our communities. It removes vital authority from the professionals at Colorado
animal shelters to make decisions about the disposition of animals. This will result in needless, lengthy suffering for
some pets in the care of shelters and the prolonged housing of dangerous animals. As shelters reach capacity, their
ability to work with law enforcement to protect the public from dangerous animals in the community will be severely
limited.
The proposal implies that Colorado animal shelters unnecessarily euthanize pets, when in fact they do not. Statistics
show that Colorado is a national leader in saving pets’ lives thanks to the implementation of innovative and collaborative
programs that prevent pet homelessness, provide compassionate medical, behavioral and foster care, and promote the
placement of all adoptable pets.
Additionally, we oppose the proposal for the following reasons:




Certification of an animal as a danger to community. The proposal would allow an animal to be euthanized only
after an “independent certified animal behaviorist” deems in writing that the animal is “irredeemably hostile or
aggressive.” This requirement is unfeasible; there are currently five certified behaviorists in Colorado who
would be required to serve 280 shelters and rescues. The cost to these organizations to access the services of a
behaviorist, coupled with the cost of extended housing for the animal, would quickly force the closure of many
shelters, especially in rural areas. While waiting for evaluation, the need to provide care for the animal could
endanger other animals or the shelters’ staffs and would place an unnecessary financial burden on the shelter as
the animal languishes. If a behaviorist determines that a dangerous animal is rehabilitatable, the shelter may
have neither the resources nor expertise to successfully modify the animal’s behavior.
Ownership of animal. The proposal removes a shelter’s legal authority as owner of relinquished or abandoned
animals. Implications of state ownership are unclear, untested, and may preclude access to critical medical,
behavioral and foster care for the animal, and the opportunity for adoption. In addition, removing legal
ownership of pets from shelters not only creates unforeseen liabilities for shelters, but also for those who
relinquish their pets, for future adopters of homeless pets, and for municipalities.
Jurisdiction of decision for euthanasia due to extreme pain and suffering. The amendment removes euthanasia
decision-making authority for pain and suffering from shelter staff and instead requires a written opinion from a
veterinarian. Most Colorado shelters do not have veterinarians on staff and cannot afford veterinary
consultations for every suffering animal. (Of the 280 shelters and rescues in the state, less than 10 percent have
veterinarians on staff; the others would need to contract for this service.) This requirement would unnecessarily
and inhumanely prolong the suffering of pets in extreme pain.
Fiscal impacts. Excluding the filing of civil suits, the financial burdens of the amendment will fall on local and
county governments:
(1) by holding dangerous and suffering animals for longer periods (in many cases for multiple days and
even months), the overall cost of daily care and healthcare will increase dramatically
(2) additional capital expenditures will be required to increase the size of shelters to accommodate the
population increase
(3) the burden of animal sheltering may shift entirely to municipalities as the non-profit shelters
currently providing these critical services for governments could discontinue their services
(4) the 15% sales tax on the sale price of animals is untested; furthermore, there is no way to estimate
how much revenue would be generated, but it is unlikely to cover the costs sheltering pets until they
are adopted or transferred
(5) the Pet Overpopulation Authority currently receives pro-bono administrative support from the
Animal Assistance Foundation; AAF would need to hire additional staff to administratively manage
the new “saving shelter pets account” which AAF is not obligated to do
(6) the cost to shelters for retaining the services of independent certified behaviorists and contract
veterinarians could force many shelters to close their doors and no longer serve as safety nets to the
animals and communities they support.

Additional negative impacts. Shelters in rural areas with limited resources would be most vulnerable to fines and
penalties and may be forced to shut down due to their inability to comply with the new mandates or pay the
penalties for non-compliance. Closure of rural shelters would leave communities without any humane options for
stray and relinquished pets and could impact surrounding areas, including neighboring states, as the public seeks
animal welfare assistance elsewhere. Furthermore, shelters and rescue groups may be less willing to accept
transferred animals with health and behavioral issues given these new mandates.
Colorado employs a broad spectrum of strategies to prevent unwanted pet births, increase adoptions of homeless pets,
and ensure that as many pets as possible are reunited with their owners. Our shelters, rescues and animal control
organizations work proactively and compassionately to reduce euthanasia of homeless pets – without the need for
additional government regulation or oversight.
The programs and services suggested in the proposal are among those already in use at many Colorado shelters, which
serve as a model for the nation. Colorado does not need detrimental government mandates on shelter operations to
save more shelter pets. Instead, progress will continue to be made through the ongoing collaborative efforts of
communities and the animal welfare organizations that support them.