local law enforcement — Referenced as having been involved in a repeat situation that escalated.
local sheriff — Identified as being present to testify about the law enforcement hesitation in the described incident.
Representative Sharpe — Referenced as the bill sponsor being addressed about the bill's intent and judicial discretion.
Representative Sharpe — Addressed as the bill sponsor in the discussion of common sense and judicial discretion.
Representative Sharpe — Used as an example in discussing bird dogs and whether they were adequately restrained.
Representative Sharpe — Referenced again as the owner of the bird dogs used in the example.
first witness in favor of the bill — The chair announced the first witness in support would begin testimony.
Susan Welker — Identified herself as a witness and thanked the committee, Representative Sharp, and Craig Redmond for helping advance the legislation.
Welker (first name unclear, likely Virgil/Virtual) — The transcript contains a garbled self-identification before Susan Welker speaks.
Craig Redmond — Thanked for helping put the legislation forward.
Craig Redmond — Craig Redmond introduced himself as a witness in favor of the bill and explained that he is representing himself while working with the sponsor and the MoFed Association on the legislation.
Representative Sharp — Thanked for helping put the legislation forward.
Susan Welker and Mr. Welker — Susan Welker and Mr. Welker recount the attack on their son in Quincy, Illinois, beginning with his walk in South Park on March 17, 2024, when three pit bulls approached from behind on a nature-trail area and attacked him on a hillside. They describe how he struggled, lost his clothes, crossed a creek while calling for help, collapsed, and suffered severe injuries including head trauma, a concussion, shoulder injury, ear damage, and kidney issues. They explain that a nearby resident saw him fleeing naked with the dogs chasing him and called 911, leading to police and emergency response. Their son was placed on a ventilator, spent three days in the ICU and five days in the hospital, and was initially thought to be near death, though he ultimately fully recovered after about a month off work. They also note the roughly $150,000 in hospital bills, the minimal penalties imposed on the dog owners, the lack of remorse or contact from them, and their discovery that the dogs had a history of escaping before the attack.
son of the witnesses — The witnesses say their son has recovered and they are willing to answer questions.
Michael Burton — Representative Michael Burton briefly addresses the witnesses, thanks them for coming and sharing their story, and indicates he is proceeding with an inquiry.
Michael Burton — Recognized as Representative Burton, who asks a clarifying question.
Michael Burton — The speaker refers to 'Representative Miller,' but the provided member list does not include a Representative Miller; likely a transcription error or different member.
Tony Dugger — Tony Dugger, a registered lobbyist for the Missouri Association of Sporting Dogs, testifies for informational purposes and asks the committee to consider how the bill’s language on adequate control applies to sporting dogs, since hunting dogs are often not on leashes while working.
Karen Strange — Identified herself as president of Missouri Federation of Animal Owners (MoFed) and representative of the professional houndsmen of Missouri.
Mr. Redmond — Referenced as someone Karen Strange is working with on the bill language.
Mr. Redmond — The witness also thanks Mr. Redmond for his work on the bill.
the sponsor — Referenced as someone being worked with to refine the bill language.
Scott Miller — Scott Miller is acknowledged and then takes the floor to ask whether American Kennel Club breed categories could be used to help define protected hunting or hounding dogs.
Scott Miller — Comments that he would put down his own dog if it caused similar damage.
Mr. Sharp — The witness thanks Mr. Sharp for presenting the legislation.
Chelsea Fallinger — Lewis County prosecutor Chelsea Fallinger is credited with initially crafting the language.
David Parrish — David Parrish identifies himself as the sheriff of Lewis County and says he has served since 2000.
Bob Baker — Testified in favor of the bill and said he agreed with Sheriff Perry's testimony.
Dean Van Schoiack — Called as Chairman during roll call.
Dean Van Schoiack — The chair, Dean Van Schoiack, is managing the discussion and guiding the exchange during this portion of the meeting.
Dean Van Schoiack — Closed the sponsor's questioning and announced the start of witness testimony.
Jim Kalberloh — Jim Kalberloh is called on as Vice Chair during roll call and again by name shortly afterward, then he begins speaking to inquire about the bill, asking whether the language on line three excludes cattle and livestock.
Jim Kalberloh — Likely the intended speaker when the transcript says 'Vice Chair Kebolo'; he is recognized to inquire.
Adrian Plank — Responded present during roll call.
Adrian Plank — Adrian Plank questioned whether existing law already carries similar penalties and whether the bill adds repeat-offender provisions. He then pressed on whether the bill would remove judicial discretion or common-sense judgment in minor cases, asking if the penalty language was intended to get law enforcement’s attention and whether a judge should retain flexibility. He also raised whether deleted lines 21 through 25 should remain in the bill, argued the measure seemed punitive, and noted the underlying issue involved a repeat problem. By the end, he acknowledged the bill would apply broadly but said it still offers useful guidelines and could be improved.
Adrian Plank — Addressed as Ranking Member Plank, who is recognized to ask questions.
Adrian Plank — Representative Adrian Plank is called on and continues a question about a past farm practice involving shooting a dog that threatened sheep, then asks whether his grandfather would have been jailed for doing that and whether such an incident would trigger an investigation today.
Danny Busick — Called during roll call.
Danny Busick — Danny Busick asks whether the dogs involved in the incident were euthanized, then shares a personal story about his young son being surrounded by dogs and another experience while inspecting a bridge when a pit bull approached him. He uses these examples to illustrate concerns about aggressive dogs and the intimidation some owners may enjoy their dogs creating.
Mazzie Christensen — Responded present during roll call.
Mazzie Christensen — Representative Mazzie Christensen responded to questions by walking through the state statutory definitions of adequate care and adequate control, applying those definitions to Representative Sharpe’s bird-dog example, and explaining that the example would likely still be permissible under current law. She then noted that attorneys may interpret the statute differently, but emphasized that the bill is intended to give law enforcement more tools and greater latitude in penalties, concluding by saying she hoped her explanation answered the question.
Mazzie Christensen — During the committee discussion, the floor is opened for questions or comments, and Mazzie Christensen then speaks to thank the witnesses for testifying, noting that their testimony helps members understand the purpose and reasoning behind the bills.
Jo Doll — Responded present during roll call.
Jo Doll — Asked whether ordinary pet misbehavior could trigger misdemeanor liability under the bill.
Jo Doll — A member is addressed as 'Representative Dahl'; this appears to be a transcription error for Jo Doll, who then proceeds with comments.
Kent Haden — Called during roll call; transcript rendered the name as Hayden.
Peggy McGaugh — Called during roll call; transcript rendered the name as McGaw.
Mark Nolte — Called during roll call; transcript rendered the name as Nelty.
Rodger Reedy — Rodger Reedy responded 'Here' during roll call, confirming his উপস্থিত/attendance.
Greg Sharp — Greg Sharp, the Fourth District state representative, introduced House Bill 1714 and explained that it addresses animal neglect by clarifying that neglect includes failure to provide adequate care, failure to provide adequate control, and knowingly abandoning an animal without making provisions for its care and control. He noted the issue affects many areas of the state and said the bill is a sensible solution. He also provided personal and district context, mentioning his experience in the legislature, his home county in Lewis County, and an anecdotal example about his bird dogs and fencing.