►
From YouTube: 2/24/2021 - Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor
Description
For agenda and additional meeting information: https://www.leg.state.nv.us/App/Calendar/A/
Videos of archived meetings are made available as a courtesy of the Nevada Legislature.
The videos are part of an ongoing effort to keep the public informed of and involved in the legislative process.
All videos are intended for personal use and are not intended for use in commercial ventures or political campaigns.
Closed Captioning is Auto-Generated and is not an official representation of what is being spoken.
A
C
E
F
A
A
A
I
want
to
do
some
housekeeping
items
just
before
we
get
started
and
take
a
moment
to
go
over
some
of
the
things
that
I
think
will
be
pertinent
to
what
we're
doing
now
and
help
us
to
have
a
better
broadcast.
A
However,
there
are
various
ways
members
of
the
public
can
engage
with
us
and
participate
throughout
the
process.
As
in
previous
sessions
all
committee,
all
committee
related
information
is
available
on
nellis,
which
is
accessible
from
the
legislature
website.
There
are
four
ways
to
engage
with
the
committee.
These
include
registering
to
participate
in
a
committee
meeting
through
the
new
system
on
nellis,
which
places
you
in
in
line
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment.
A
You
can
share
your
opinion
via
the
legislature's
opinion
application
on
nellis,
and
you
can
also
view
committee
meetings
online
through
nellis
or
on
the
legislature's
youtube
channel
during
the
2021
legislative
session,
to
testify
on
a
bill
or
provide
public
comment.
Members
of
the
public
must
first
register
for
the
meeting
you
would
like
to
participate
in
committee
meetings
are
listed
in
several
places
on
nellis
and
to
register
simply
click.
A
The
register
participate
button
near
the
meeting
date
then
fill
in
the
required
information,
such
as
your
name
agenda,
item
you're
interested
in
and
position
on
the
bill
once
you're
registered
and
submitted.
You
will
see
a
you
will
see
a
confirmation
screen
and
you
will
also
receive
an
email
with
the
phone
number
and
id
to
call
at
the
time
of
the
meeting.
A
A
It
will
be
helpful
if
more
than
one
person
in
an
organization
wishes
to
comment
to
remember.
Ditto
is
a
good
response.
When
someone
someone
has
already
covered
your
points,
it's
good
to
say,
ditto
that
helps
us
to
get
more
callers
in
when
you're
on
the
phone
line.
Please
pay
attention
to
which
bill
is
being
considered
and
follow.
The
verbal
prompts
provided
by
the
bps
staff
do
this
so
that
you
know
which
keys
to
press
to
raise
your
hand
or
unmute
yourself.
A
Detailed
instructions
for
participating
committee
meetings
are
also
available
on
the
help
page,
which
is
linked
in
the
banner
at
the
top
of
every
page
on
nellis.
If
you
need
assistance
with
any
of
these
processes
or
if
you
would
like
to
receive
electronic
notification
of
the
committee
agendas
and
minutes,
please
contact
our
committee
manager
at
the
committee.
Email
listed
on
the
agenda,
any
exhibits
for
the
committee
must
be
submitted
electronically.
No
later
than
8
o'clock
am
the
day
before
the
meeting.
A
A
A
1218E.085,
it
is
unlawful
for
a
person
to
knowingly
misrepresent
facts
when
testifying
before
a
legislative
committee.
A
person
who
knowingly
does
so
is
guilty
of
a
misdemeanor.
The
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
may
ask
for
documentation
to
support
your
testimony
to
the
committee
members
during
these
virtual
meetings.
When
an
agenda
item
calls
for
a
vote,
our
committee
will
be
using
roll
call
to
do
so.
When
the
committee
secretary
calls
your
name,
please
answer
with
yes
or
no,
so
that
there
is
no
confusion.
A
A
We
have
senator
scheibel
susan
riggs
and
senior
and
lou
van
keevee.
I
probably
mispronounced
that
and
alex
velto
senator
schreibel.
Are
you
ready?
Please
begin.
G
Thank
you
so
much
tara
spearman
for
the
record.
My
name
is
melanie
scheible.
I
represent
senate
district
nine
in
clark
county
and
I'm
here
today
to
present
senate
bill
103
for
your
consideration,
which
prohibits
property
insurers
from
discriminating
based
on
the
breed
of
a
dog
at
a
property
a
by
way
of
background.
Unfortunately,
some
dogs
are
unfairly
deemed
dangerous
or
vicious
solely
because
of
their
breed.
However,
animal
experts
will
tell
you
that
dogs
are
not
born,
inherently
vicious.
They
are
trained
to
behave
in
a
dangerous
manner
in
2013.
G
367
of
the
same
session
authorizes
a
tenant
of
housing
acquired,
constructed
or
rehabilitated
with
any
money
from
the
account
for
low
house,
low-income
housing
to
keep
one
or
more
pets
within
his
or
her
residence.
Although
nevada
has
made
several
strides
to
become
a
pet-friendly
state,
residents
are
finding
themselves
in
a
position
where
insurance
companies
are
making
them
choose
between
being
able
to
obtain
or
afford
property
insurance
or
give
up
their
dogs
to
animal
shelters.
G
Many
insurance
companies
consider
a
dog's
breed
when
deciding
whether
to
offer
an
individual,
homeowner's,
insurance
or
the
rate
they
will
charge.
Even
though
research
has
demonstrated
that
there
is
no
reliable
data
supporting
making
a
distinction
between
breed,
nor
is
there
evidence
that
insurance
claims
for
these
breeds
is
financially
significant
for
insurers
in
a
list
of
factors
utilized
in
underwriting
homeowner
insurance
policies
provided
to
me
by
the
american
property
casualty.
Insurance
association
breed
of
dog
is
nearly
unique
in
its
targeted
application
based
on
homeowners,
lifestyle
decisions
unrelated
to
the
condition
of
their
home
or
property.
G
Nor
does
the
chart
or
the
accompanying
opposition
testimony
provide
any
connection
between
the
cost
of
a
dog
bite
claim
and
the
alleged
breed
of
the
dog
involved.
A
rise
in
the
volume
or
cost
of
dog
bite.
Claims
on
the
whole
does
not
indicate
that
certain
breeds
are
more
dangerous
than
others.
You've
also
received
written
testimony
from
the
national
association
of
mutual
insurance
companies,
which
has
absolutely
no
citations
to
any
scientific,
academic
or
other
authority
to
support
his
claim
that
certain
breeds
of
dogs
are
more
dangerous
than
others.
G
G
G
Thank
you
so
much
for
the
opportunity
to
present
this
bill
to
you
and
I
urge
you
to
support
sb
103
to
help
keep
nevada's
family
whole
nevada
families.
Whole.
I
have
a
group
of
experts
here
with
me
today
to
present
additional
details
about
the
bill
and
answer
questions
for
you
and
with
the
chair's
permission,
I
would
like
to
turn
the
microphone
over
to
susan
riggs
from
the
american
society
for
the
prevention
of
cruelty
to
animals.
H
Good
morning,
chair
spearman
and
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
susan
riggs,
I'm
senior
director
of
state
legislation
with
aspca,
as
senator
scheibel
mentioned
in
2013.
This
esteemed
body
passed
assembly
bill
110,
sponsored
by
your
colleague
the
honorable
james
warren
shaw,
the
bill
prohibited
government
regulation
of
dogs
based
upon
greed
throughout
the
state
in
favor
of
a
paradigm
that
addressed
the
nature
of
the
dog
based
upon
its
individual
behavior.
H
At
that
time,
then
assembly
member
orrin
shaw
was
quoted
as
saying
it
has
always
been
bad
public
policy
to
enact
ordinances
that
target
a
certain
breed
of
dog.
Without
considering
that
individual
dog's
actions,
the
statement
captures
the
growing
consensus
about,
among
both
the
public
and
private
sector,
that
breed
specific
laws
have
failed.
H
At
the
time
of
ab-110's
passage,
there
were
14
states
that
explicitly
prohibited
breed
specific
regulation
of
dogs.
This
number
is
now
grown
to
21
states.
These
states
add
to
a
long
list
of
organizations
that
have
looked
at
fact
and
science
and
reject
breed-based
regulation
of
dogs,
the
centers
for
disease
and
control
and
prevention,
the
american
bar
association,
the
american
veterinary
medical
association,
just
to
name
a
few.
H
First,
the
identification
of
breed
by
appearance
is
wholly
imperfect,
endeavor
even
by
experts.
The
national
canine
research
council
has
written
extensively
about
the
weakness
of
visual
identification
of
dog
breeds,
citing
numerous
expert
studies.
The
overwhelming
conclusion
is
that
it's
highly
flawed,
if
you're
in
doubt
I
challenge
each
of
you
to
do
a
web
search
for
breed
identification
quiz
like
the
one
that
I
included
in
our
support
letter
to
you
or
sb
103,
and
try
your
hand
at
it.
H
Even
as
a
seasoned
animal
welfare
professional,
I
am
regularly
unable
to
identify
breeds,
read
the
breeds
featured
on
the
quizzes
that
said,
property
insurance
companies
regularly
rely
upon
visual
identification
of
dog
breeds.
So,
as
the
saying
goes,
garbage
in
garbage
out
the
reliance
on
greed
and
determining
insurance
coverage
results
in
inter
inaccurate
and
inequitable
outcomes
that
should
be
corrected.
H
Given
the
variety
of
factors
that
have
been
shown
through
science
to
be
determinative,
it
is
no
surprise
that
local
governments
that
regulate
solely
by
breed
continue
to
see
high
bite
statistics.
The
approach
has
been
shown,
time
and
time
again
to
be
a
short-sighted,
knee-jerk
reaction
to
regulation.
That
does
nothing
more.
That
does
nothing
to
do.
Does
more
to
degrade
public
safety
than
to
improve
it?
H
Nevada
has
already
acknowledged
acknowledged
fact
and
science
and
its
ex
existing
dangerous
dog
law,
and
yet
the
law
isn't
as
effective
as
it
could
be.
As
long
as
households
with
restricted
breeds
are
denied
insurance
coverage,
it
is
important
to
note
that
this
bill
would
not
hinder
insurance
companies
underwriting
of
particular
risks.
The
contrary
allows
insurers
latitude
in
evaluating
insurance
for
such
risks
consistent
with
existing
state
law.
Sp
103
simply
states
that
each
dog
must
be
judged
independently,
based
upon
its
own
temperament
and
behavior
as
the
basis
for
its
underwriting
decisions.
H
H
In
direct
response
to
the
opposition
letter
received
by
the
american
property
casualty
insurance
association,
I
will
clarify
that
this
existing
law
in
no
way
requires
an
insurer
to
wait
for
a
personal
injury
to
occur
under
existing
law.
A
dog
can
be
deemed
dangerous
when
it
has
behaved
in
a
way
that
a
reasonable
person
would
perceive
to
be
menacing.
H
Sp
103,
specifically
reserves
to
the
insurance
companies,
the
use
of
sound
underwriting
and
actuarial
principles
reasonably
related
to
the
actual
law,
says
or
lost
experience
with
a
particular
dog.
As
such,
it
strikes
a
reasonable
balance
between
insurers
underwriting
autonomy
and
the
various
ill
effects
of
insurance
companies.
Treating
all
dogs
of
certain
breeds
as
bad
dogs
and
punishing
the
people
who
live
with
them
wisely.
Nevada
state
law
for
has
for
years,
has
required
government
entities
to
create
more
effective
policies
for
regulating
dangerous
dogs.
We
ask
you
today
for
your.
H
A
Thank
you
senator
do
you
have
others
that
are
going
to
testify.
I
I
was
looking
through
the
gallery
and
again
chair.
I
I,
my
name
is
very
hard
to
pronounce.
So
you
know
I've
been
called
a
lot
as
as
an
attorney.
You
often
are
so
again,
you
know
not
not
a
problem.
My
name
is
leedy
van
kavage
and
I
am
senior
legislative
attorney
for
best
friends,
animal
society,
I'm
based
out
of
utah.
We
have
more
than
50
000
supporters
who
live
in
the
wonderful
state
of
nevada
and
we're
right
next
door.
I
I
One
of
the
legislators,
legislature's
goals
should
be
that
every
consumer,
regardless
of
their
race,
has
adequate
homeowners
coverage.
The
history
of
discriminatory
insurance
practices
such
as
redlining
require
legislators
to
continually
examine
insurance,
company
policies
and
institutional
biases
that
can
result
in
racial
discrimination.
I
Even
if
these
practices
have
not
faced
scrutiny
in
the
past
insurance
companies
breed
discriminatory
lists
can
just
disproportionately
impact
people
of
color,
just
as
other
other
underwriting
guidelines
have
done
in
the
past.
Homeowner
insurance
exclusions,
based
on
a
breed
of
dog,
raise
a
similar
specter
of
discrimination.
I
I
A
research
fellow
at
harvard
analyzed
the
impacts
of
breed
discriminatory
legislation
on
race
and
found
that
there
is
a
correlation
between
dog
breed
type
and
race,
as
it
relates
to
the
perception
of
the
owners
in
linder's
study,
she
presented
six
photos
of
different
dog
breeds
and
asked
the
participants
who
they
thought
would
own
each
type
of
dog.
The
breeds
of
dogs
were
a
maltese,
a
collie,
a
german
shepherd,
a
an
american
pitbull
terrier
and
a
golden
retriever.
I
She
found
that,
unlike
the
other
five
breeds
that
were
tested,
pitbull
terriers
were
most
perceived
to
be
commonly
belonging
to
people
of
color,
specifically
young
black
males.
The
perception
was
consistent,
regardless
of
the
participants,
race
or
gender
linder,
concluded
that
pit
bulls
are
being
targeted
in
part
due
to
racial
bias.
I
In
another
scholarly
study,
ann
shiavoni
found
that,
in
the
context
of
rediscriminatory
laws,
the
laws
are
a
product
of
animus
against.
The
owners
of
such
breeds
are
at
least
the
stereotypical
owners,
because
arbitrary
breed
exclusions
and
property
insurance
may
result
in
a
discriminatory
impact
on
racial
minorities.
The
focus
of
insurance
questions
should
be
on
the
behavior
of
the
dog
in
2013.
I
I
testified
in
favor
of
senator
orrin
shaw's
public
safety
bill
to
prohibit
municipalities
from
discriminating
against
breeds
of
dogs
and
to
focus
on
the
behavior
of
the
individual
dog.
Like
miss
riggs
testified.
These
dogs
can
be
declared
dangerous
just
because
of
their
behavior
before
a
bite
nevada,
bypassing
the
behavior
based
bill
took
a
first
step
in
eliminating
the
bias
of
dog
breeds
and
their
owners.
We
respectfully
ask
the
committee
to
take
the
next
step
to
outlaw
breed
discrimination
and
the
disparate
impact
this
can
have
on
minorities
in
obtaining
insurance.
I
Please
vote
yes
on
senate
bill
103.
Thank
you
for
your
consideration
and
if
you
have
any
questions,
I'd
be
more
than
happy
to
answer.
A
G
Yes,
it
looks
like
we
have
two
more
with
brief
testimony.
Mr
belto
and
mr
dixon.
A
J
Good
morning,
chair
spearman
and
the
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
alex
velto,
I'm
an
attorney
in
nevada
and
I'm
lucky
to
serve
on
the
planning
commission
for
the
city
of
reno.
The
previous
speakers
dispelled
myths
about
dog
breeds
and
explained
the
interplay
between
dog
breed
and
race.
I'm
going
to
focus
on
sb-103
as
a
precursor
to
local
government
breed
restriction
reform
and
how
insurance
breed
restrictions
contribute
to
housing
and
security.
J
A
few
months
back,
the
city
of
reno
was
updating
its
zoning
code
and
we
looked
at
prohibiting
breed
restrictions
for
certain
developments.
Candidly
there
was
some
pushback,
but
the
pushback
was
largely
based
on
the
inability
for
property
insurance
to
be
purchased.
If
a
renter
or
homeowner
had
had
certain
breeds,
lack
of
insurance
has
always
been
used
as
a
way
to
kick
the
can
down
the
road
on
ending
breed
restrictions.
J
This
bill
removes
an
important
hurdle
for
local
governments
to
help
people
have
access
to
housing.
Local
governments
don't
have
the
authority
to
regulate
insurance,
so
it's
near
impossible
for
them
to
be
the
first
mover
in
promoting
breed
friendly
laws.
I
don't
know
how
many
of
you
have
dogs
or
cats,
but
we
all
know
people
who
are
obsessed
with
their
dogs
for
many
a
dog
is
more
than
just
a
companion.
J
It's
a
family
member
who
provides
emotional
and
physical
support
and
during
covid
when
people
are
socially
distant
to
protect
their
health,
a
dog
can
be
both
a
best
friend
and
a
lifeline.
The
reality
is,
though,
that
breed
restrictions
and
laws
and
policies
affect
people
in
different
ways
and
oftentimes
it's
on
an
economic
basis.
Some
are
lucky
enough
to
find
housing
that
accommodates.
J
Others
seek
out
internet's
internet
letters
out
of
necessity
to
maintain
their
residence
and
still
others
have
to
pay
for
higher
insurance
premiums
if
they
can
find
them.
However,
these
solutions
are
not
easily
available
to
everyone
and
for
people
who
are
already
in
a
state
of
housing
and
security,
struggling
to
pay,
rent
and
dealing
with
the
realities
of
cobit.
The
fear
they
may
have
to
give
up
their
pets
in
order
to
have
a
roof
over
their
head
should
not
be
a
consideration.
J
Breed
restrictions
disproportionately
affect
low
income
and
marginalized
groups,
as
housing
prices
rise
statewide.
The
housing
that
people
can
afford
with
their
dog
is
increasingly
slipping
out
of
reach
when
a
landlord
restricts
access
to
housing
based
on
the
breed
that
the
person
has
their
insecurity
increases
and
for
many,
the
choice
of
dog
ownership
can
be
the
biggest
hurdle
to
having
housing
security.
This
bill
is
very
important
and
I'm
thankful
that
senator
scheible
has
brought
this
issue
to
the
legislature,
and
I
appreciate
the
opportunity
to
voice
my
support
and
talk
about
the
bill.
K
We
come
before
you
to
support
sb,
103,
rediscrimination
and
housing
is
one
of
the
obstacles
to
keeping
pets
with
their
human
families,
the
doctors
who
want
to
bring
pets
into
theirs.
It
creates
more
surrenders
by
reducing
the
number
of
available
homes
for
shelter
animals.
K
So
the
path
to
free,
neutral
housing
in
nevada
is
what
starts
with
sp
103.,
as
others
have
referenced.
Breed
neutrality
is
already
in
the
public
law.
Breed
neutrality
says
that
there's
enough
evidence
of
well-behaved
dogs
of
all
genetic
backgrounds
in
various
settings
say
that
breed
has
no
bearing
on
risk.
K
Now,
as
in
the
sum
of
mentioned,
some
insurance
firms,
including
two
of
the
largest
already
practice
breed
neutrality,
those
are
usaa
and
state
farm
like
any
other
business,
they
aim
to
maximize
profit.
Perhaps
they
already
know
that
breed
discrimination
loses
business.
K
It's
not
so
easy
for
consumers
to
switch
them
with
property
insurance,
because
we
have
a
high
share
of
people
who
don't
own
their
homes,
and
we
have
a
high
share
of
homeowners
who
live
in
hoas
landlords
and
hoas
have
their
own
insurance
policies,
leaving
individuals
and
families
to
the
dictates
of
those
carriers.
K
It's
important
to
point
out
that
this
bill
includes
a
key
fair
minded
provision
that
gives
insurance
firms
the
opportunity
to
show
their
work
to
the
state
insurance
division,
but
we
should
make
them
because
breed
neutrality
says
that
there's
already
enough
evidence
of
well-behaved
dogs
of
all
genetic
backgrounds,
various
settings
that
say
it
has
no
bearing
on
risk
since
again,
there's
no
available
evidence
showing
a
predictive
relationship
between
genetics
and
propensity
toward
aggression.
What
explains
rediscriminatory
policies?
K
Well
for
one.
It's
obvious
that
most
of
these
dogs
are
large
and
quite
strong.
They
can
be
effective
in
certain
contexts
where
they
are
conditioned
and
trained
from
a
very
young
age
like
the
military,
the
police,
as
guard
dogs
and
important
chili.
As
fighting
dogs,
they
have
to
be
brought
up
that
way.
K
The
nightly
news
does
its
part.
We
know
they
do.
They
are
great
at
exaggerating
or
even
creating
the
appearance
or
illusion,
of
a
threat
associated
with
certain
people,
activities,
places
and
animals.
They
love
a
local
dog
bite
story,
especially
when
it
involves
a
stigmatized
breed
like
a
pit,
bull
type
dog
and
which,
in
turn
is
associated,
as
others
have
mentioned,
with
human
stigmas,
around
race
and
class.
K
Not
all
dog
bites
are
newsworthy,
though
many
are
not
even
reported.
That's
partly
why
researchers
at
esteemed
institutions,
like
the
cdc,
have
said
they
can't
find
a
relationship
between
breed
and
risk.
These
researchers
haven't
found
that
link
and
the
property
insurers
can't
show.
There
is
one.
The
evidence
says
that
we,
the
default,
should
be
breed
neutrality.
K
K
It
impacts
people's
lives
in
real
ways,
and
it's
often
heartbreaking
to
see
breed
neutrality,
reduces
housing,
insecurity
for
people,
pets,
people
and
pets
and
reaffirms
our
recognition
of
the
human
animal
bond
which
many
of
us
already
enjoy.
It
will
also
be
good
for
our
shelter
partners.
It
allows
them
to
do
more,
save
more
lives.
That
is
their
mission.
That's
how
they're
measured-
and
I
pointed
again
to
their
letter
as
well,
where
they
detail
exactly
how
it
impacts
organizations
with
that.
A
Thank
you,
mr
dixon
senator
scheible,
anything
to
add
before
I
open
it
up
for
questions.
A
Okay,
thanks
for
hand,
so
I
vice
chair
neil
and
I
just
saw
senator
settlemyres,
so
vice
chair
neil,
you
go
first,
senator
senator
settlemy.
Are
you
next.
D
So
I
guess
my
question
is
on
the
actual
bill
language,
where
let
me
pull
it
up.
It
was
in
103.
D
It's
the
second
part
of
the
bill
where
basically,
it
has
the
language
where
sub
three,
where
the
insurer
may
not
ask
or
inquire
about
the
specific
breed,
and
I
know
that
this
is
like
the
core
part
of
this
bill.
But
I
guess
what
I'm
trying
to
figure
out
is.
D
H
So
so,
there's
a
variety
of
questions
that
they
can
ask
outside
of
breed
the
size
of
the
dog,
the
weight
of
the
dog,
whether
there
have
been
incidents
with
the
dog
in
terms
of
aggression
or
bite,
history
or
anything
like
that,
has
it
been
deemed
dangerous
or
vicious
under
local
code
or
under
the
state
law
202.500.
H
So
there's
a
variety
of
questions
that
can
be
asked,
but
asking
about
breed
naturally
leads
to
a
bias.
Many
folks
don't
know
what
breed
of
dog
they
actually
have,
which
was
you
know,
kind
of
the
fundamental.
In
my
testimony,
which
is
you
know,
people
are
told
that
they
have
a
pit
bull.
H
They
don't
really
know
if
it's
a
pit
bull,
it's
hard
to
identify
what
type
of
dog
it
actually
is,
without
getting
a
dna
test
or
having
papers
for
it,
and
so
and
my
apologies
susan
riggs,
with
the
aspca
responding.
H
D
Yes,
yes,
so
I
just
had
a
question
on
so
that
so
the
study
that
was
presented
related
to,
I
guess
the
nexus
between
breed
and
people
of
color
and
having
a
disparate
impact.
What
I
didn't
see,
because
is
data
that
said
the
number
of
people
of
color
who
number
one
had
insurance
for
their
dog
and
then
had
denial,
and
I'm
also
trying
to
get
clarity.
Are
we
bringing
this
bill
because
of
the
disparity
for
people
of
color?
Are
we
bringing
this
just
in
general,.
I
If
I
may
answer
that
lady
vancavidge
best
friends,
animal
society,
I
we're
bringing
it
for
a
variety
of
reasons,
actually
and
and
until
covid
and
the
incidents
of
of
last
year
really
started
to
have
us
examine
policies
from
animal
shelters,
to
insurance
companies
to
housing
as
to
how
they
really
do
impact
people
of
race
and
things
that
we
never
thought
of
before
you
know
really
started
to
you
know.
Is
this
a
has?
Does
this
have
a
disparate
impact
on
people
of
color?
I
So
it's
kind
of
a
re-examination
and
that's
when
we
found
the
scholarly
articles
that
indicate
there
might
be
something
there.
You
know
it
it's
interesting
because
I
try
to
do
the
online
insurance
quotes
and
when
I
put
in
that,
I
you
know,
live
in
a
house
in
a
certain
area
and
I
have
a
pit
bull,
I'm
able
to
get
insurance.
But
if
I
put
that
I
live
in
another
city
that
might
be
more
of
a
minority
community,
I
can't
get
insurance
from
that
insurance
company
online.
I
So
that's
why
you
know
if
we
stop
asking
about
breed
of
dog,
it's
kind
of
like
a
don't
ask,
don't
tell
policy.
I
mean
you
can
base
it
on
behavior
80.
You
know
the
vast
majority
of
dog
bites
come
from
unsterilized
dogs,
so
you
can
ask.
Is
your
dog
neutered
or
spayed?
You
know,
but
again
you
just
can't
ask
about
the
breed
and-
and
I
would
love
to
find
you
know
to
get
more
information
on
exactly
you
know
the
research
and
and
and
who
is
being
discriminated
against
because
of
these
dogs.
G
And
I'd
like
to
respond
as
well
to
say
that
the
primary
purpose
of
the
bill
is
to
eliminate
rediscrimination
in
insurance
underwriting
because
it
is
not
actuarially
sound
and
because
there
is
not
data
backing
up
the
the
idea
that
certain
breeds
are
more
dangerous
than
others.
I
think
that
I
was
well.
Obviously
I
was
not
the
first
person
to
ask
the
question:
okay,
if
there
are
not
actual
differences
between
the
breeds,
are
there
certain
communities
who
are
going
to
be
disproportionately
impacted
by
the
use
of
rediscrimination?
G
And
I
think
that
the
answer
is
if
there
are
any
disparities,
those
are
going
to
ignore
to
the
disadvantage
of
people
of
color,
because
of
those
scientifically
or
academically
proven
studied
connections
between
or
perceived
stereotyped
connections
between
people
of
color
and
certain
grades
of
dogs?
Now
it's
not
the
same
as
saying
that
they
have
actually
been
discriminated
against
in
the
insurance
industry,
but
it
was
for
me
kind
of
a
threshold
question
before
bringing
this
bill.
G
Is
that
likely
to
be
breeds
that
people
associate
with
white
people
or
they
could
be
breeds
that
people
associate
with
people
of
color?
And
the
answer
was
the
latter,
and
so
I
think
that
it's
that
doesn't
make
it
the
sole
reason
for
bringing
the
bill
that
doesn't
speak
to
the
proven
actual
impact.
But
it's
the
best.
We
can
do
to
make
an
educated
guess
as
to
whether
or
not
disparate
impacts
are
being
experienced
or
would
be
experienced.
G
A
Thank
you
senator
settlemyre
and
then
senator.
C
Pickert,
sorry
about
that,
it
takes
me
a
while
to
figure
out
how
to
unmute
my
microphone.
I
apologize
anyways.
My
question
was
to
the
bill
on
the
first
page
of
line
nine
insurance,
based
solely
I
mean
they'll,
still
have
the
ability
to
look
at
the
number
of
animals
and,
of
course,
the
size,
animals
and
the
reason
I
ask
is
in
dose
county,
they
have
an
arbitrary
capricious
law.
At
least
I
think
it
is.
C
It
says
you
can't
have
more
than
three
dogs
on
a
property
regardless
of
the
size
of
the
animal
or
better,
yet
the
size
of
the
property
you
have.
But
again,
will
they
property
insurance
they'll
still
be
able
to
look
at
the
number
of
animals
and
the
size
of
the
animals,
and
then
the
second
part
of
that
question
is
on
paid
on
the
second
page
line,
nine
harvard
or
owned
on
the
property
or
is
known
to
be
or
so.
C
If
you
have
an
individual
that
continually
comes
over
to
your
property
and
that
dog
has
been
documented
to
be
a
biter,
you
know
I
go
to
the
common
law
rule
of
one
bite
right
and
under
the
common
law.
You
were
allowed
to
have
a
dog,
no
problem.
If
there
was
any
recorded
incidents
that
that
dog
bit
someone,
then
from
that
point
forward,
you
were
you,
knew
or
should
have
known
that
animal
is
dangerous
and
reliable.
C
H
I'll
attempt
to
respond
to
that
susan
riggs
with
the
aspca
in
regards
to
your
first
question.
Yes,
insurers
would
be
able
to
inquire
about
the
number
of
animals
on
your
property.
In
regards
to
the
second
question,
I
I
want
to
better
understand
the
source
of
the
question.
So
are
you
suggesting
animals
that
are
not
necessarily
owned
by
the
property
owner,
whether
whether
those
would
be
a
liability
under
an
insurance
policy.
C
Well,
I
can
see
that
if
you
let's
say
you
never
had
a
dog,
but
you
have
a
history
of
allowing
people
to
come
over
your
property
and
those
dogs
that
tend
to
come
over.
All
the
time
are
known
to
be
dangerous
shouldn't.
They
ensure
be
able
to
take
that
into
factor,
because
if
I'm
reading
this
language
right,
they
wouldn't
have
the
ability
to
because
they
were
not
harbored
or
owned
on
the
property.
C
But
yet
there
would
be
a
recorded
history
that
these
animals
had
a
tendency
to
be
on
this
property
and
that
the
property
owner's
not
taking
report
appropriate
remediation
to
ensure
that
individuals
aren't
injured.
So
then
it
wouldn't
be
appropriate
to
allow
the
insurance
company
to
factor
in
that
information.
H
So
that
that's
certainly
a
complicated
question,
the
liability
would
be
on
the
individual
who
actually
was
bringing
that
that
animal
onto
the
property,
not
the
actual
property
owner,
unless
they
were
aware
of
the
propensity
for
the
danger.
This
is
under
the
law
in
terms
of
how
the
insurance
provider
would
treat
that.
I
I'm
not
100
sure
I
think
you
know
the
policy
is
probably
different,
depending
on
the
insurance
company,
but
under
the
law.
H
If
there's
a
reason
to
know
that
that
a
dangerous
animal
is
coming
on
to
your
property-
and
you
don't
do
anything
to
prevent
that
and
put
other
people
in
harm's
way
under
the
law.
That
would
be
an
issue,
but
but
a
policy
provider
would
have
some
discretion
as
to
whether
or
not
that
that's
something
that
they
wanted
to
take
into
consideration,
but
certainly
from
the
perspective
of
owning
or
harboring
a
dog
on
your
property.
H
If
they
have
a
bike
history,
if
they
have
had
aggressive
acts,
then
that
would
be
something
that
could
be
taken
into
consideration
and
to
the
extent
that
an
owner
did
not
disclose
that,
then
that
would
be
broad
on
the
insurance
policy
and
then
there
would
be
an
exclusion
ultimately,
because
of
not
disclosing.
That
fact,.
C
I
appreciate
that
I
appreciate
that
chair.
Full
disclosure
actually
do
own
a
pit
bull
for
a
very
long
time.
In
that
respect,
and
I
appreciate
the
bill,
but
I
am
looking
forward
to
hearing
the
opposition
testimony
hopefully
they'll
be
allowed
the
same
time
frame
and
audio
visual
technologies
to
try
to
present
their
side
of
it.
I
don't.
C
And
the
concept
just
a
little
worried
about
making
sure
that
again,
if
you
know
or
should
have
known
that,
you
continually
have
people
come
on
your
property
with
dangerous
animals,
I
do
think
the
insurance
company
has
right
to
say:
hey,
you
probably
need
to
have
your
premiums
raised
because
you're
causing
an
issue
potentially.
Thank
you.
Thank
you,
chair.
A
Thank
you,
senator
sotomayor.
Let
me
put
everyone's
mind
at
ease.
We
will
have
a
total
of
20
minutes
for
each
segment,
20
minutes
or
support
20
minutes
for
opposition
20
minutes
for
neutral.
I've
asked
people.
If
someone
has
already
said
what
you
were
going
to
say
if
you
would
just
say
ditto,
because
that
allows
more
people
to
come
in
so
20
minutes
for
each
segment,
and
I
hope
that
answers
your
question
now.
Senator
senator
pickard.
L
Thank
you,
I'm
sure,
and
and
thank
you
senator
schreiber,
for
bringing
the
bill.
This
is
something
that
I
think
we've
talked
about
in
all
the
sessions
that
I've
participated
in
in
one
aspect
or
another.
I
I
recall
the
the
discussions,
particularly
given
the
breed
of
the
dog
and
and
the
propensity
for
dangerousness.
L
I
noticed
that
when
we're
talking
about
nrs,
200
or
202
500
that
has
to
it
had
they
have
to
bite
twice
within
18
months
in
order
to
be
considered
dangerous
or
if
they've
caused
a
fatality
in
doing
some
research,
though,
and
and
again,
I'm
a
dog
lover
used
to
train
and
show
dalmatians
and
and
have
been
around
dogs
my
whole
life.
L
So
I
certainly
am
sensitive
to
the
desire
to
make
sure
that
people
get
to
have
their
their
family
members
as
they
call
them.
I
just
wonder
we're
starting
to
dip
into
a
commerce
issue,
and
so
I
have
a
technical
question,
but
I
also
have
a
question
with
respect
to
the
statistics
that
are
being
banteed
about.
L
I
did
notice
the
dogbite.org
statistic
that
showed
that
that
pit
bulls
were
six
times
more
likely
than
the
number
two
cause
of
fatalities,
and-
and
you
know,
as
the
huffington
post,
you
know,
the
bastion
of
conservative
thought
right.
L
They
pointed
out
that
you
can
prove
anything
with
statistics,
although
they
did
point
out
that
you
were
twice
as
likely
to
die
of
a
bee
sting
than
a
dog
bite,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I'm
wondering
do
we
have
a
handle
on
what,
because
many
insurance
companies
don't
even
ask
about
the
breed
they
ask
about
the
propensity.
L
Do
we
have
an
idea
of
how
many
insurance
companies
ask
these
questions,
whether
or
not
they
make
their
their
insurance
determinations
on
solely
on
the
breed?
Do
we
have
an
idea
of
what
exists
out
there.
G
So
I
can
speak
to
a
couple
of
those
questions,
because
I
think
there
were
two
or
three
embedded
in
your
question
and
let
me
speak
first
to
nrs,
202.500,
the
dangerous
or
vicious
dogs
law.
There
are
a
couple
of
different
ways
under
that
law
that
a
dog
can
be
deemed
dangerous
or
vicious
fighting
you
know.
Two
unprovoked
bites
within
18
months
is
simply
one
way
that
they
can
be
shown.
G
If
it's
used
in
the
commission
of
a
crime-
and
I
mean
I
don't-
have
it
memorized-
I'm
looking
at
it
right
now,
but
I
I
do
know
that
they
do
not
that
it
was
specifically
designed
to
eliminate
the
first
fighter's
free
rule
so
that,
if
you
there
is
a
reason
to
believe
that
a
dog
is
vicious
about
ever
having
bitten
somebody,
it
can
still
be
declared
vicious
under
or
dangerous
under
202.500,
and
also
I'll
point
out
that
sb
103
provides
some
leeway
as
well,
because
that
includes
the
declared
or
known
to
be
a
dangerous
dog,
and
that
doesn't
mean
that
you
know
you
get
a
dangerous
dog
certificate.
G
It
means
that
you
know
somebody
else
has
reported
it
to
animal
control,
that
there
has
been
a
record
of
a
call
of
the
police
about
the
dog
and
then
the
pursuant
to
202.500
portion
just
says
that
and
we
use
these
factors
to
determine
whether
or
not
that
that
behavior
is
vicious
or
dangerous
to
the
question
about
the
current
state
of
insurance
policies.
I
think
this
is
a
great
question.
I
did
have
a
meeting
with
apcia.
G
I've
asked
them
for
this
information
and
they've
not
provided
it
to
me.
I
was
also
concerned
that
they
are
utilizing
statistics
from
dogbites.org
in
their
testimony
and
I
sure
hope
they
don't
use
that
when
they
make
determinations
on
insurance
policies.
So
I've
asked
them
for
the
source
of
the
data
that
they
use
when
they
are
underwriting
insurance
policies
and
they've
not
provided
it
to
me.
So
I
think
that
there
is
a
lack
of
transparency
there.
L
All
right-
and
I
appreciate
that
and
I'm
sure
if
I
can
just
follow
up
on
my
technical
question.
Yes,
thank
you.
No,
I
I
appreciate
that
and
I've
never
had
a
problem
getting
insurance
even
when
we
were
breeding
and
had
multiple
dogs
on
the
property,
but
that
was
also
in
a
more
rural
part
where
those
sorts
of
things
were
more
common.
L
So
I
I
don't
know
I
would
be
interested
to
see
what
the
insurance
companies
or
which
insurance
companies
actually
discriminate
based
on
dog
breed
alone,
because
I've
not
seen
that,
but
the
technical
question
is
having
to
do
with
section
one
sub:
two,
where
we
talk
about
sound
underwriting
and
actuarial
principles.
L
Normally,
when
I
see
this
language,
it's
a
defined
term,
yet
we
don't
define
sound
underwriting
and
actuarial
principles,
so
who's
defining.
That
is
that
going
to
be
left
up
to
the
courts
to
determine
what
is
sound
and
you
know
proper
actuarial
processes,
or
is
there
a
definition
that
we
can
point
to
so
that
everybody's,
clear.
H
Senator
pickard,
I
can
attempt
to
respond
to
that
susan
riggs,
with
the
aspca
so
outside
of
breed.
We
would
defer
to
insurance
companies
as
to
what
they
consider
to
be.
You
know
their
actuarial
basis.
So
so
you
know
absent.
You
know,
trying
to
point
to
breed
and
correlating
that,
with
the
propensity
for
an
aggressive
nature,
there
are
lots
of
signs
that
you
know
whether
or
not
including
those
that
are
set
forth
in
202.500.
H
H
You
know
how
many
dogs
are
in
a
household
whether
there's
been
a
history
of
aggressive
acts,
whether
they've
been
deemed
dangerous
or
vicious,
and
so
you
know
all
of
those
things
are
things
that
insurance
companies
can
take
into
account
and
as
long
as
they're
based
upon
you
know,
a
set
of
data
and
facts
that
you
know
they
would
normally
utilize
and
making
actual
actuarial
decisions.
L
Right-
and
I
appreciate
that-
I
just
you
know
as
a
former
breeder-
I
wouldn't
neuter
my
dogs
unless
they
weren't
show
quality,
but
you
know
at
the
end
of
the
day,
I
think
that
the
decisions
are
are
really
if
we're
leaving
it
up
to
the
insurance
company
to
define
what
is
a
proper
process.
L
We're
we're
kind
of
leaving
this
so
nebulous.
It'll
be
left
up
to
the
courts
to
decide
and-
and
so
I'm
concerned
that
we
don't
have
all
the
data,
we
need
to
make
a
an
informed
decision
in
this,
but
any
event.
I
appreciate
your
answers
and
thank
you,
madam
chair,
thank
you,
senator
scheible
for
reading
the
bill.
C
Thank
you,
madam
chair.
I
I
am
coming
at
it
from
a
little
different
angle.
I'm
a
former
meter
reader
and
you
know
I've
been
bitten
more
than
once,
and
so
the
and
and
by
the
way,
never
buy
a
pitfall.
C
C
What
the
insurer
may
not
ask
except
to
ask
if
the
dog
is
known
to
be
or
has
been
declared
to
be
dangerous
or
vicious
in
accordance
with
nrs
202.500.
So
how
long
is
that
dangerous
or
vicious?
C
What
what
is
that
process
entail?
How
long
does
it
take
and
then
the
other
part
of
the
question
would
be
if
we
heard
about
shelters,
does
the
shelter
policy
insurance
are
they
affected
by
the
quote?
Unquote:
dangerous
or
vicious
dog
that
has
been
so
declared
and
has
their
insurance
gone
up
the
shelter
policy
for
such
a
dog?
Are
they
under
their
means
of
working?
H
About
hardy
susan
riggs
with
the
aspca,
so
to
respond
to
your
question,
so
nrs
section
202.500
defers
to
local
animal
control
authorities
to
determine
how
they
carry
out
that
process.
Generally
local
government
provides
some
due
process
for
the
owner
to
provide
defenses.
For
example,
when
a
dog
took
a
menacing
stance,
was
someone
on
their
property?
I
mean
that's.
H
You
know
regularly
at
defense
is
if
there's
trespass
on
a
property,
but
but
the
local
authorities
actually
adopt
regulations
that
allow
that
process
to
be
carried
out
with
more
definition,
that
than
is
included
in
state
code.
So
I
don't
think
that
there's
a
single
response
to
that
and
that
the
shelters,
if
they're
on
the
line
and
are
able,
may
be
able
to
respond
to
you
how
they
address
the
designation
of
a
dog
as
as
dangerous
or
vicious
within
their
own
care.
G
I
think
mr
riggs
means
literally
on
the
line
we
have
some
people
who
are
calling
in
to
testify,
and
so,
if
they're
listening
now,
I
guess
this
is
our
request
that
when
you
testify
in
a
few
minutes,
you
address
it
under
hardy's
questions
in
your
testimony.
A
I
thought
miss
riggs
addressed
it,
but
we'll
continue
so
any
other
questions.
Committee
members,
I
don't
see
any
other
hands
up
so
now
we
will
go
to
testimony
on
the
bill.
First
support
you'll
have
20
minutes
and
each
person
will
have
two
minutes.
A
F
M
E-L-L-I-O-T-T
good
morning,
chair
spearman
and
members
of
the
committee,
I'm
mindy
elliot
with
capital
partners
representing
the
nevada,
humane
society.
We
would
like
to
thank
senator
scheible
for
bringing
forward
sp
103.
the
nevada,
humane
society
is
a
charitable
nonprofit
organization
in
the
only
open
admission,
no
kill
shelter
in
the
state
of
nevada.
M
The
mission
of
the
organization
is
one
of
life-saving:
promoting
animal
welfare
while
finding
homes
and
providing
care
for
over
one
hundred
thousand
homeless
pets
in
northern
nevada
senator
hardy,
we
will
be
providing
detailed
information
to
the
committee
as
it
relates
to
the
screening
process
that
the
shelter
undergoes
prior
to
an
adoption,
and
we
certainly
feel
that
sb
103
provides
an
excellent
roadmap
to
ensure
that
families
can
afford
to
adopt
all
breeds
of
dogs.
We
encourage
you
to
support
sb
103
and
we
thank
you
for
your.
F
F
E
Finding
the
right
home
environment
is
key
to
the
long-term
term
health
of
of
our
pets
and
and
as
much
as
this
bill
would
remove
cost
of
insurance
as
a
barrier
to
finding
the
right
home
environment
for
our
our
dogs
were
in
full
support
and
appreciate
the
senator
for
bringing
this
conversation
forward.
Thank.
F
B
J-E-N-N-I-F-E-R-H-A-U-G-E
good
morning,
my
name
is
jennifer
higg,
with
the
animal
legal
defense
fund
simply
calling
today
in
support
of
sb
103
for
the
record.
We
also
signed
on
to
the
coalition
support
letter
with
the
aspca
hsus
and
best
friends,
animal
society
in
written
testimony,
so
in
short,
ditto.
Thank
you.
F
N
Good
morning,
madam
chair
and
members
of
the
committee
for
the
record,
my
name
is
rebecca
goth,
r,
e
c
e
c
c.
A
g's
and
girls,
o
f,
is
in
frank,
ephes
and
frank,
and
today,
I'm
also
representing
the
nevada,
humane
society
as
their
clinic
manager.
First,
I'd
like
to
thank
the
bill's
sponsor
for
bringing
this
important
issue
before
you
today.
We
support
this
bill.
It's
important
to
keep
families
together
and
in
my
home
that
includes
my
dog.
N
F
F
F
N
O
Jill
vikina,
dobbs
j-I-l-l
space
capital
v
is
in
victor
a
h,
cchi
n,
a
space
capital
d
is
in
dog
o
b
is
in
boy
b,
is
in
boy
s
is
in
sam,
I'm
the
executive
director
of
the
spca
of
northern
nevada
and
on
behalf
of
my
organization
and
all
of
our
supporters.
I
thank
chairman
spearman
and
the
members
of
the
senate
committee
for
hearing
this
bill
today.
O
O
F
P
Morning,
ardella
canapa
rotoli,
a
r
d
e,
a
canapa
c-a-n-e-p-a
hyphen
r-o-t's
and
tom
o-l-I
good
morning.
Madam
chairwoman
and
committee
members,
I'm
here
on
behalf
of
myself
and
on
behalf
of
nevada
justice
association,
I'd
like
to
just
briefly
touch
on
some
personal
experiences
that
I've
had
with
breed
discrimination.
I
have
been
an
owner
of
many
bully
breeds
american
staffordshire
terrier
quote,
unquote.
Pitbull
I
experienced
actually
not
almost
not
being
able
to
find
housing
for
law
school.
P
I
had
to
get
a
letter
from
a
doctor
as
an
emotional
support.
Animal
and
after
actually
the
condo
units
met
my
dog
bella.
They
actually
ended
up
allowing
pit
pitbulls
and
fought
to
allow
them
later.
I've
also
experienced
not
being
able
to
obtain
insurance
for
housing
through
because
in
fact,
state
farm
was
one
I'm
hoping
now
that
they
aren't
rediscriminating.
P
As
a
lawyer,
I
think
it's
important
to
think
about
the
fact
that
there
are
incidents
there
are
times
there
may
be
dog
bites,
and
so
we
need
to
also
look
at
the
public
policy
of
when
an
injured
party
does
have
an
incident
being
able
to
have
insurance
available
for
the
potential
recovery
for
those
injured
parties,
and
if
you
have
insurance,
that's
not
going
to
ensure
or
is
going
to
reject
coverage
simply
because
of
a
breed.
You
now
also
have
an
injured
party
who
may
not
be
able
to
recoup
funds
simply
because
of
that.
P
F
Q
T-R-A-V-I-S-C-L-A-R-K
good
morning,
madam
chairwoman
and
committee
members,
I
am
testifying
on
behalf
of
nevada
justice
association
in
support
of
sb
103.
I
would
like
to
echo
ditto
to
miss
canada's
testimony.
Sb
103
assessed
the
standard
by
which
dogs
are
innocent
until
proven
guilty.
A
hallmark
of
american
law.
Discrimination
based
on
a
dog's
breed
appears
to
have
no
standard
amongst
the
insurance
companies,
depending
on
the
accompany
engaged
different
dog
breeds
appear
on
different
lists.
Q
Q
These
large
dogs
have
been
banned
on
almost
every
list
due
to
one
story
that
happened
in
2011.,
despite
the
rarity
of
such
an
issue,
these
dogs
are
now
discriminated
against
by
the
insurance
companies,
just
as
miscantha
testified,
moving
is
cited
as
one
of
the
top
reason
reasons.
Animal
owners
surrender
their
pets
to
local
shelters,
divorcing
people
from
their
pets
has
extreme
mental
health
issues,
as
was
testified
to
earlier,
and
this
burdens
the
taxpayers
with
more
abandoned
animals
in
2021.
Q
A
more
specific
instrument
is
needed,
rather
than
a
blunt
blunt
crushing
mr
picker
stated
that
pit
bulls
are
six
times
more
likely
to
be
dangerous.
I
want
to
be
careful
here
in
stating
that
pitbull
is
not
a
breed.
It
is
an
occupation.
Q
F
M
Good
morning,
madam
chair
members
of
the
committee,
my
name
is
grace
g-r-a-c-e
lopes
l-o-p-e-s.
Thank
you
for
the
opportunity
to
be
heard.
I
am
in
support
of
this
bill.
I
am
also
in
support
of
insurance
companies
being
able
to
assess
risk.
I'm
in
support
of
this
bill
for
two
reasons.
First
of
all,
the
breed
list
as
it
exists
today,
is
nothing
more
than
a
list
of
large
dogs.
M
It
is
not
actually
supported
if
insurance
companies
want
to
establish
whether
there
is
frequency
and
whether
there
is
severity
they
need
to
collect
the
proper
data
which
results
in
actually
supported
premises
and
that's
how
they
set
rates.
I
the
second
reason
why
I
support
this
bill
is
because
there
is
a
premium
ready
remedy.
Both
organizations,
the
eight
the
aipca
and
the
anemic
have
both
indicated
that
the
premium
would
be
outrageous,
but
they
have
not
indicated
that
they
have
the
data
to
base
their
their
studies
on
or
what
that
premium
would
be.
M
There
have
been
a
several
questions
asked
I
am
also
in
addition
to
being
in
the
insurance
industry.
I
am
also
the
chair
of
a
doberman
rescue.
There
were
several
asked
questions
asked
regarding
rescues
and
our
insurance
does
not
go
up
because
of
the
dogs
we
take
in.
Although
we
are
focused
in
new
england,
we
do
take
dogs
all
over
the
country
and
we
do
take
dogs,
because
people
cannot
get
insurance
in
the
nemac
letter.
F
R
R
R
R
We
support
removing
the
breed
bias
that
will
impact
not
only
the
victims
exiting
shelter,
but
also
those
that
have
moved
in
with
their
friends
or
family
abuse
in
nevada
impacts,
one
of
four
women
and
one
of
six
men
sometime
in
their
lifetime.
The
victims
that
we
have
served
are
40,
african-american,
35
caucasian
and
about
20
21
latino.
R
Insurance
restrictions
create
a
financial
barrier,
housing
that
will
leave
victims
with
pets
without
access
to
housing
when
they
should
be
celebrating
safety
and
healing
together
by
removing
a
restriction.
The
victims
don't
have
to
choose
again,
which
life
to
save.
Thank
you
very
much
for
this
opportunity
to
speak
on
behalf
of
support
for
senate
bill
103.
Thank
you.
F
B
B
I
specialize
in
research
and
data
that
is
used
to
govern
how
we
live
with
dogs
and
what
seems
like
a
dog
issue
becomes
a
social
justice
issue
when
populations
among
us
are
targeted
because
of
assumptions
made
about
pet
keeping.
The
research
that
apcia
has
relied
on
for
its
statement
is
concerning
to
someone
like
me,
who
is
thoroughly
familiar
with
the
body
of
literature
relating
to
dog
bites
and
dog
bite
related
fatalities.
B
The
agency
has
implied
that
there
are
sufficient
evidence
that
dog
bites
by
breed
label
can
be
tracked.
In
fact,
much
of
the
earlier
studies
that
included
breed
data
have
been
debunked
or
updated
by
the
original
authors.
The
cdc
has
even
feast
collecting
dog
bite
data
by
breed.
The
apci
apcia
asserts
that
certain
breeds
of
dogs
can
bite
with
the
force
averaging
1
000
psi.
B
It
is
impossible
to
base
such
a
claim
in
science.
F
certainly
would
not
cooperate
with
such
a
study.
Not
to
mention
psi
would
be
the
wrong
unit
of
measure,
even
if
it
was
such
a
thing
that
could
be
done
because
psi
measures,
gas
or
liquid,
approximately
40
americans,
have
come
to
dog
bite
related
fatalities
every
year,
despite
the
yearly
increase
in
human
population
and
dog
population.
That
average
number
never
changes
by
more
than
single
digits
in
either
direction.
Yet
apcia
has
included
a
full
color
chart.
That's
now
infamous
on
this.
B
During
this
hearing,
implying
that
being
killed
by
dogs
is
a
statistically
measurable
risk.
Additionally,
apcia
has
conflated
dog
bites
and
dog
bite
related
fatalities
in
their
reports.
A
very
serious
mistake,
while
the
charters
in
understatement,
like
I
said,
is
now
infamous
in
this
hearing.
It
is
worth
noting
that
the
apc
apcia
did
not
source
their
data,
a
continuing
problem
in
insurance
underwriting
practices.
Additionally,
the
also
now
infamous
website
that
the
apcia
uses
often
refers
to
scientists
with
whom
they
disagree,
as
quote
unquote,.
A
F
A
Okay,
so
we
will
start
now
20
minutes
for
those
in
opposition.
F
S
My
name
is
mark
segment
s
and
sam
e
k.
T
n
is
a
nancy,
a
n
and
I
represent
the
american
property
casual
insurance
association.
A
pcie
is
a
national
insurance
trade
representative,
broad
cross
section
of
the
insurance
industry
right
in
all
property
encapsulated
lines.
I
appreciate
the
author
taking
the
time
to
talk
to
me
and
allow
me
to
share
a
concern.
Apcia
opposes
legislative
regulatory
efforts
that
would
require
insurers
to
wait
for
a
potentially
devastating
personal
injury
loss
before
being
able
to
decide
whether
to
provide
or
continue
to
provide
coverage.
S
A
pci
apcia
understands
the
concerns
of
those
who
advocate
for
restrictions
on
underwriting
based
on
dog
ownership.
Some
people
believe
that
insurers
should
avoid
the
assumption
that
dog
may
be
vicious
merely
because
of
breathe
and
they
want
to
ensure
coverage
is
available
for
those
who
may
face
the
risk
of
significant
liability
claim.
Numerous
studies
have
been
published
on
dog
bite,
injuries
and
mentalities
by
breed.
More
than
4
million
dog
bites
occur
each
year
in
the
united
states,
with
associated
liability
claims,
totaling
797
million
dollars
in
2019.
S
S
A
Yeah
we've
allotted
20
minutes
for
for
each
one,
20
minutes
for
support
20
minutes
for
opposition,
and
so
we're
going
to
stick
to
that.
If
the
two
minutes
is
up,
please
feel
free
to
submit
the
rest
of
your
information
in
writing
to
our
committee
secretary.
Thank.
F
T
If
insurers
are
prevented
from
utilizing
risk-based
pricing,
that
means
some
customers
who
ordinarily
would
be
considered.
A
lower
risk
will
be
forced
to
subsidize
customers
who
present
a
higher
risk
of
loss.
The
elimination
or
erosion
of
risk-based
pricing
and
underwriting
in
the
end
means
that
some
customers
pay
more
than
their
fair
share.
T
F
A
As
much,
we
will
go
now
to
those
in
neutral
20
minutes,
20
minutes.
F
A
Hey,
thank
you
so
much
so
we
will
end
the
part
with
public
testimony.
Let
me
say
this
for
all
those
who
are
listening.
If
we
were
not
virtual,
if
we
were
doing
this
in
person
once
I
say
we
have
a
time
limit
and
there's
two
minutes,
trust
me
in
person.
I
will
gather
you
out,
so
I
don't
want
anybody
to
think.
A
There's
anything
different
and
those
of
you
who
have
served
on
this
committee
with
me
know
exactly
what
I'm
saying
two
minutes
for
each
person
and
we
will
not
allow
any
any
person
to
think
that
they
are
special
and
get
more
than
two
minutes
same
here
as
it
would
be.
If
we
were
in
person
thanks
a
lot
senator
tribal,
do
you
have
any
closing
remarks.
G
A
Thank
you
and
thank
the
your
your
team
for
presenting
this
morning.
So
with
that
I
will
close
the
hearing
on
senate
bill
103
and
we'll
open
it
up.
Public
comment
and
public
comment
is
two
minutes
each.
Thank
you.
F
A
A
Thank
you
so
much.
Thank
you
and
thank
you
committee
members
for
your
time
today
and
thank
the
presenters
for
your
time
today.
I
think
we
have
had
a
very
robust
conversation
about
senate
bill
103.
A
There
may
be
some
questions
which
are
remaining,
but
I
would
invite
individual
committee
members.
If
you
have
questions,
please
check
with
senator
scheible
and
she
can
get
you
to
the
person
that
might
answer
your
questions
about
bill.
So
with
that
we're
going
to
close
this
meeting,
and
we
will
see
you
again
on
monday-
we'll
see
you
again
on
monday.
Thank
you
so
much
and
have
a
great
weekend.
Okay,
bye.