Posts Tagged ‘house of representatives’

I’d like to address some concerns and incorrect assumptions that people are making about the effect of HB 1332 if it passes.

“I’m an out-of-state rescue that does adoptions to homes in Oklahoma. I use a vet in my own state. Do I have to have a licensed vet in Oklahoma, too? Do I have to be licensed under this bill if I do more than 25 adoptions to Oklahoma homes?”

Out-of-state rescue groups (and in-state groups, too) who do more than 25 adoptions in a year in Oklahoma have to be licensed under this bill. This does not have anything to do with how many animals you take IN from Oklahoma. If your rescue takes in 1,000 Oklahoma dogs, but only adopts out 10 to Oklahoma homes, you don’t have to be licensed here.

If you are an out-of-state rescue and you come to Oklahoma to do adoptions (like at a Petsmart or other location, or just to meet an adoptive family), you would simply have to have a vet of record in your own state. Oklahoma cannot force people to travel over state lines with unvaccinated animals to use an Oklahoma vet. See what I’m saying? If the law required you to have and use an Oklahoma veterinarian, it would be essentially requiring you to transfer an unvaccinated animal over state lines, which it can’t do.

This vet would have to be one that you contract with and pay for. The vet can absolutely be in your home town or home state–he or she DOES NOT have to be licensed in Oklahoma.

What everyone needs to keep in mind, too, is that these services that are required by this bill for minimum standards of care for animals are things that ANY reputable rescue should be already doing and should have a relationship with a vet who provides the care. If you are currently doing adoptions without a vet having seen each pet (and complaints routinely come in about places that are doing just that), then this is one of the things that would be an issue. Obviously, reputable rescues and breeders and humane societies have all their animals examined by a vet (and hopefully altered) before placement, so this wouldn’t be an issue.

A “veterinary protocol” does not mean that the vet has to do all the services, it just means that the rescue or breeder is following advice given by a vet for that particular animal. There are certain things that must legally be done by a veterinarian (i.e., surgery, Rabies vaccine, etc.) but other things that we can do ourselves under the guidance/advice of a veterinarian, such as deworming, vaccinating, etc. This bill does provide that these things must be done under the supervision/auspice of a veterinarian, because there are unsafe and ineffective protocol for vaccinations and deworming, and the adoptive owner/ purchaser can wind up with a sick animal, and no one is accountable for the vaccination or health care history.

I really do see what Sherry means about feeling mad about being treated the same as irreputable breeders/rescues. I think of it like airport security. I don’t like having to take off my shoes and not be able to take a bottle of water on the plane. I didn’t do anything wrong, but I still have to go through that inspection, just like everyone else who wants to get on the plane, because a few “bad apples” ruined it for the rest of us. But I go through it, because in the end, we’re all safer. But they have to make everyone go through the same screening process; it’s only fair. Inconvenient? A pain in the neck? Unjustified if you’re innocent? Maybe, sure. But it’s just the best way they can figure out, for now, to keep us all safer on airplanes.

This law isn’t perfect. But it’s the best thing we have right now to protect animals in Oklahoma. If a few people and rescues get their feathers ruffled, it’s still worth it for the good it can do. All rescues need to come together in support of this bill! Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater over our pride or over semantics. Let’s work together to get this bill passed.

Our opponents are working hard to spread rumors to divide us. KNOW THE TRUTH before you believe the hype and hysteria.