Posts Tagged ‘HB 1332’

Wow! It was pretty exciting to be at the Oklahoma state Capitol last night, and not just because of the weather!

Supporters and opponents of the bill showed up in force, and there was quite a bit of tension in the room. Only committee members and people who were on a list of speakers were allowed to be in the main room; the rest of us sat in adjacent rooms and listened to the hearing over the intercom system.

First off, two amendments to HB 1332 were introduced and discussed. Both amendments were approved with little debate; all committee members seemed to agree that they would improve the bill.

The first amendment, added by representative Peters, exempts out of state breeders from the licensing requirements so they can come into Oklahoma for trials and shows. They would not have to be licensed in Oklahoma to come in and participate in these events. People traveling through Oklahoma with dogs en route to shows, sales, trials, etc. in other states would also not have to obtain a license just to travel through the state.

The second amendment deals with part of the bill that really seemed to bother many people, including Rep. Charles Key, one of the most outspoken opponents of the bill during the evening. The bill (before amendment) stated that an animal control officer or peace officer (basically, a police officer) could come to a breeding facility and do an inspection at any time, and seize the property (i.e., the dogs) if violations were found.

Many people viewed this as a heinous violation of personal privacy, and a violation of our rights under the 4th Amendment to the US Constitution. HB 1332 was amended last night to remove the language about an animal control officer and a peace officer, and replace that with a representative of the Department of Agriculture.

This makes sense because the execution of this bill, should it become law, would be the responsibility of the Department of Agriculture, which is a state agency. Animal Control and Police Departments are city governments, and wouldn’t have jurisdiction in many rural areas (where many offenses are taking place).

This didn’t satisfy Representative Key regarding the privacy issue, but individuals’ privacy is not at risk because of this bill. Here’s why:

Say you want to operate a day care center in your home. You have to apply and be licensed by the Department of Human Services (DHS). Once you apply, DHS will come out and inspect your facility (in this case, your home) and make sure it meets the guidelines and standards that are necessary to be licensed as a day care center. Once you have obtained your license (and passed that inspection), then you are still subject to unannounced “spot checks” at any time, if a DHS worker wants to stop by and take a look around. If they do, and they find the children in your care are not being properly cared for, they will remove those children from your premises immediately and shut you down. There is nothing unlawful about this, nor in violation of the 4th Amendment, because you have voluntarily entered into that license by applying to have a day care center. By becoming licensed, you are submitting to the terms of licensure.

This bill is absolutely no different, except we’re talking about dogs instead of children! If you want to be a licensed breeder or shelter or rescue, and “sell” more than 25 dogs per year (adopting/rehoming are considered “sales” under this bill), then you are subject to the standards and requirements outlined by this bill.

So this won’t be Nazi Germany. Average citizens won’t have troopers storming into their homes in the middle of the night. This is no different than license requirements for all sorts of fields that currently require inspections, including barbers/stylists, estheticians, day care centers, restaurants, etc.

The USDA currently inspects and licenses “wholesale” operations that sell dogs to brokers (who in turn sell to pet stores, etc.). This legislation would expand the licensing to “retail” breeders, those that sell directly to the public. That would include breeders that sell over the internet, on the street corner, in parking lots, and that sell to pet stores.

This legislation would also require that licensed breeders (and rescues and other groups) permanently ID each dog, either by microchip or tattoo or some other type of permanent identification. The Oklahoma Veterinary Medical Association (OVMA) is a big supporter of this area of the bill because there has been a real problem with “baiting and switching” of puppies: Brokers who ship puppies to buyers out of state must obtain a certificate of health. Sometimes the dog they present to the vet to be examined is not the same dog they ship, and so unhealthy dogs are being shipped out of state. Unique identifiers on each animal would eliminate confusion as well as this fraudulent practice.

Everyone present—breeders, rescue organizations, legislators—agreed that commercial breeding operations that care little for the welfare of their dogs are a blight to our state. We just seem to have some different ideas on how to deal with these individuals. In particular, some small/hobby breeders who were present felt that they were being lumped together in the same category as “puppy mills.”

Rep. Key asked why we can’t rely on existing animal cruelty laws to solve the problem of irreputable breeders keeping animals in deplorable conditions. Rep. Lee Denney (the bill’s author, and also a veterinarian) said we could do that, but why wait for it to get that bad? She hopes this legislation could keep such conditions from occurring in the first place.

The Dept. of Agriculture can’t currently prevent bad conditions from occurring—and local authorities have to step in to enforce animal cruelty laws. This legislation would give the state dept. of agriculture purview to enforce minimum standards and hopefully prevent cruelty from ever occurring.

Christy Counts, Executive Director of the Central Oklahoma Humane Society, spoke in support of the bill. Christy described the horrific conditions we often see on the news of “puppy mill busts” and the state of the animals that are rescued out of these breeding facilities. She said these conditions are allowed to develop because there are no inspection protocols or means of regulation for this industry.

OK Humane receives calls every single week from people who have purchased a dog on a street corner or in a parking lot that soon became sick and even died; they want to know what OK Humane can do about it, what recourse we or they have. Right now, nobody can do anything.

So we take in as many as we can, and our donor dollars go to pay to rehabilitate these animals. For these reasons, Christy said, that this is a consumer protection issue. Our tax dollars are being spent to kill animals that are the offspring of the animals in this unregulated industry.

Christy also said that this bill affects what is a quality of life issue. More households in America have pets than have children. Pets are important to American families. Surrounding states have laws very similar to this one, so why can’t Oklahoma step up and follow the current trends in animal protection legislation?
So what happens now?

The bill has passed out of committee, which means it goes before the full House for a vote. There is also a companion bill in the Senate right now, in committee. Once it passes out of committee, it has to pass a vote on the full Senate floor. Once those things happen, the bill becomes a law. Of course, this is a long and arduous process of debate, revision and lots of press conferences. We are talking about government, after all…the ultimate bureaucracy!

There was a great deal of discussion last night, and I have finally finished transcribing my 10 pages of notes! I have a much better understanding of the bill. As the author herself said, this is not a perfect bill. But it’s the best shot we’ve had in a long time at regulating an underground industry that gives our state a black eye on the national scale and causes dogs unspeakable suffering every day here in Oklahoma.

To those of you who wrote and called the committee members, THANK YOU! Please take a few moments to call back and thank those who supported the bill, and if you’re a constituent of one of its two opponents, please (POLITELY) encourage them to rethink their vote (we’ll need every vote we can get in the full house, after all).

For contact info for all committee members, click here.

To read the full text of the bill, click here (note: this does not have the amendments; we’re working on getting it with amendments asap)

We went into this hearing with only 3 known supporters on the committee. By the time the vote was taken, we had 11 supporters. So ALL of us, working together, are responsible for that change! The people who spoke last night had influence, sure. But these legislators (hopefully) care about YOU, the constituents. So it really does make a difference. YOU really do make a difference.

If you have any specific questions that I didn’t address, please post a reply here. I’ll do my best to find your answers and quote my sources. I’ve made it my personal mission to know everything about this bill, and to dispel any misunderstandings about it. So if you aren’t clear on something, or there’s something in the way of you supporting it, ask away!

Please post all thoughts and responses, too, no matter which side of this issue you’re on.