In wake of canine respiratory disease outbreak, Colorado bill targets pet facilities

A canine respiratory disease outbreak that sickened Colorado dogs last fall is motivating state lawmakers to find a legislative fix, but some pet care facilities say the proposed bill needs a lot more clarification to work.

The bill, House Bill 24-1354, would require licensed pet facilities to “make every reasonable attempt to notify” pet owners of an infectious disease outbreak within 24 hours of the facility learning about that outbreak.

Rep. Leslie Herod, the Denver Democrat sponsoring the bill, said the bill was in response to the dog flu epidemic that hit Colorado in the fall. There was an outbreak at her dog Clinton’s pet facility, which she learned about after she called to ask about the respiratory illness.

“I was then able to go to my vet and get information about how to properly protect my pet so that he didn’t become sick. And that’s what I did,” she said. “I’m grateful that I did not have to go through the thousands of dollars of expenses and the possible death of my pet and instead was able to take the proper precautions to keep them safe.”

The bill passed an initial vote in the House on Tuesday and needs a final vote there before crossing over to the Senate. It has no registered opposition, according to the lobbying report filed with the Secretary of State’s Office.

And while workers at pet care facilities say they understand the motive behind the bill, there’s still too much uncertainty about how it would be implemented and enforced.

Licensed pet facilities in Colorado are already required to follow cleaning and sanitation rules under the state’s Pet Animal Care and Facilities Act, said Jed Rosenberg, managing director at Beds-N-Biscuits in Wheat Ridge.

Beds-N-Biscuits staff take precautionary measures like requiring pet vaccinations and cleaning and disinfecting dog runs and water bowls daily or multiple times a day, Rosenberg said.

“We’re already doing the sorts of things to curb the spread of any virus or disease, and any reputable facility will notify owners of any sort of outbreak,” he said.

Rosenberg said he has a lot of questions about the bill’s current language, like what constitutes an outbreak – is it one dog or 10 dogs? Will testing be required to confirm a diagnosis with illnesses like kennel cough, where several different viruses or bacteria could be the cause?

“A dog could be sneezing because of allergies,” Rosenberg said. “All in all I think this bill is a good thing, but in order for it to be successful there needs to be more language in it.”

Amy Hillis, chair of the Professional Animal Care Certification Council, a third-party certification group for pet care providers, said she also understands where lawmakers are coming from by wanting owners to have better information to protect their pets.

But the current version of the bill is too vague, Hillis said, and would be hard to enforce.

Hillis also pushed back on the idea that the respiratory disease that spread this fall was mysterious or even novel.

Respiratory illness outbreaks are not uncommon, though state officials and veterinary experts are still determining why cases increased and dogs experienced worse-than-usual symptoms this fall.