[Thursday, February 19, 2009] From the AKC-
Oregon House Bill 2470 will be considered by the House Consumer Protection Committee on Monday, February 23, at 3 PM in House Room E at the Capitol, 900 Court Street NE, Salem, 97301. The bill, part of a national agenda aimed at severely limiting the responsible breeding of dogs, does not address the needs of Oregonians, but would impose unreasonable limits on dog ownership, harsh requirements for responsible dog breeders, and unfair consumer protection provisions. These provisions do nothing to address problems associated with irresponsible dog ownership or breeding, but would punish responsible dog breeders with undue restrictions and requirements. The American Kennel Club, along with our Oregon federation, the National Animal Interest Alliance, encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Oregon to attend Monday’s committee hearing to voice your opposition to HB 2470; or, alternatively, to contact your elected officials in Salem and the committee members who will consider this bill and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not report HB 2470 out of committee.
The American Kennel Club’s mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC strongly supports the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship and training in appropriate behavior. The AKC believes that numerical limits do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. Instead, the AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
In addition to its many problematic provisions, if enacted, House Bill 2470 would:
Limit any breeder from possessing more than 25 intact dogs four months of age or older.
Impose significant and cumbersome operational requirements on all dog owners who own 10 or more intact dogs.
Require breeders to comply with an unreasonable consumer protection term of two years.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
The American Kennel Club encourages as many responsible dog breeders and owners as possible to attend the committee hearing on February 23. Here are the details:
Oregon House Consumer Protection Committee Hearing
Monday, February 23, 2009
3:00 p.m.
Capitol, House Room E
Salem, Oregon 97301
We also urge all responsible dog breeders and owners in Oregon to contact their elected representatives and respectfully urge them to oppose House Bill 2470; and to contact the members of the House Consumer Protection Committee and strongly urge them to not report HB 2470 out of committee.
For tips on testifying before the House Consumer Protection Committee, please click here.
For a sample letter to personalize, please click here.
For an e-mail form that will automatically e-mail your elected representatives, please http://www.leg.state.or.us/writelegsltr/.
To find out whom your elected representatives are, please click here.
House Consumer Protection Committee Members
Representative Brent Barton
900 Court St. NE, H-386
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1451
E-MAIL: brentbarton@state.or.us
Representative Jean Cowan
900 Court St. NE, H-376
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1410
E-MAIL: jeancowan@state.or.us
Representative Vic Gilliam
900 Court St. NE, H-384
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1418
E-MAIL: vicgilliam@state.or.us
Representative Paul Holvey
900 Court St. NE, H-275
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1408
E-MAIL: paulholvey@state.or.us
Representative Wayne Krieger
900 Court St. NE, H-381
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1401
E-MAIL: waynekrieger@state.or.us
Representative Greg Matthews
900 Court St. NE, H-379
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1450
E-MAIL: gregmatthews@state.or.us
Representative Chuck Riley
900 Court St. NE, H-274
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1429
E-MAIL: chuckriley@state.or.us
Representative Carolyn Tomei
900 Court St. NE, H-279
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1441
E-MAIL: carolyntomei@state.or.us
Representative Jim Weidner
900 Court St. NE, H-387
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1424
E-MAIL: jimweidner@state.or.us
Representative Matt Wingard
900 Court St. NE, H-474
Salem, OR 97301
PHONE: (503) 986-1426
E-MAIL: mattwingard@state.or.us
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Holding Shelters to Higher Standards
I would like to propose that NAIA (or anyone else) find a lawmaker who will support this bill idea.
Holding Shelters to Higher StandardsBy Cadie Pruss
Bringing home a new pet is exciting, but excitement can turn to grief if that pet requires expensive veterinary care. Animal shelters claim to “rescue unwanted animals”, but should they also “rescue new pet owners” by testing the animals that come in for adoption for certain medical conditions? I think so. Although health testing is expensive, people who are “adopting” an animal are often not looking for a “cheap” animal; they are looking to provide a service to the community by providing a home to a dog in need. If there is a shortage of good homes (which is the logical conclusion to the idea there is a pet overpopulation problem) , then consumers should be informed of which dogs are “healthy” and which are not.
Some states have “puppy lemon laws”, which only apply to breeders. This law should apply to anyone selling a puppy or adult dog. New dog owners don’t want to be burdened with high medical bills regardless of whether the dog came from a shelter or a breeder. Medical researchers have long known that dogs, purebred or not, get very similar diseases to humans. Just like people, dogs carry genes for cancer, allergies, and eye diseases just to name a few. Thanks to the effort of purebred dog breeders, there are now tests for some of the medical conditions that affect dogs. While purebred dog breeders use this information to help eliminate those genes from a breeding pool, individual dogs still “inherited” the conditions or not. Dogs don’t need to be purebred to be affected, so lets hold shelters to the same high standards that “puppy lemon laws” hold breeders to.
Common conditions such as Thyroid (hypo or hyper-thyroid) disease can be checked with a blood sample. It is true, testing a dog one time may not give “life-time” results, but testing at Michigan State University is very complete and can indicate if problems may occur in the future. Hip x-rays should be taken to determine if long term disabilities may occur. These x-rays should be sent to the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) for evaluation because x-rays are evaluated by a group of trained veterinarians who see a broad spectrum of hips and have the expertise to do a true evaluation. While this is particularly true of large breed dogs, hip x-rays should be taken of all dogs because hip problems are too costly and all dogs can have the potential to have hip problems.
All dogs should have their eyes examined by a Canine Eye Registration Foundation (CERF) certified veterinarian. Eyes do change over time, and so an eye check one time is not a guarantee that the dog will not suffer some future eye ailment, but it is a good starting point. A dog or puppy that shows clinical signs of impairment may be detected long before they show physical signs of impairment. High cholesterol levels also manifest themselves as eye “spots” occasionally and a CERF certified veterinarian can be the first to observe this condition that requires treatment.
Certain breeds suffer from serious diseases which can be life threatening, such as von Willebrand’s disease (vWD). This disease is the most common of the bleeding disorders. It affects many popular breeds such as poodles, shelties, Doberman pinschers, and Papillion’s just to name a few of the breeds. Because of the prevalence of mixes with these breeds (particularly poodles), and the severity of this disease, it should be an important test.
If you were buying a dog from a breeder, would you expect that dog to have some type of health guarantee? Reputable breeders often test the dogs they are breeding for genetic aliments. There are still far more aliments than there are tests, for example, there is currently no health test for epilepsy, but breeders do the best they can to avoid such a disease as that one, and test for the diseases for which there are tests. It is in the best interest of not just that breeder, but the breed as a whole to eliminate such problems.
Why are shelters and human societies not testing the dogs that come to them and only adopting out healthy dogs? Why are breeders held to a higher standard then those who are “rescuing” dogs. No new dog owner wants to spend thousands of dollars on veterinary care. Shelters will claim foul, but if we truly have an “overpopulation problem” – then good homes are in short supply and Shelters owe it to the adopting public to adopt out healthy dogs.
Holding Shelters to Higher StandardsBy Cadie Pruss
Bringing home a new pet is exciting, but excitement can turn to grief if that pet requires expensive veterinary care. Animal shelters claim to “rescue unwanted animals”, but should they also “rescue new pet owners” by testing the animals that come in for adoption for certain medical conditions? I think so. Although health testing is expensive, people who are “adopting” an animal are often not looking for a “cheap” animal; they are looking to provide a service to the community by providing a home to a dog in need. If there is a shortage of good homes (which is the logical conclusion to the idea there is a pet overpopulation problem) , then consumers should be informed of which dogs are “healthy” and which are not.
Some states have “puppy lemon laws”, which only apply to breeders. This law should apply to anyone selling a puppy or adult dog. New dog owners don’t want to be burdened with high medical bills regardless of whether the dog came from a shelter or a breeder. Medical researchers have long known that dogs, purebred or not, get very similar diseases to humans. Just like people, dogs carry genes for cancer, allergies, and eye diseases just to name a few. Thanks to the effort of purebred dog breeders, there are now tests for some of the medical conditions that affect dogs. While purebred dog breeders use this information to help eliminate those genes from a breeding pool, individual dogs still “inherited” the conditions or not. Dogs don’t need to be purebred to be affected, so lets hold shelters to the same high standards that “puppy lemon laws” hold breeders to.
Common conditions such as Thyroid (hypo or hyper-thyroid) disease can be checked with a blood sample. It is true, testing a dog one time may not give “life-time” results, but testing at Michigan State University is very complete and can indicate if problems may occur in the future. Hip x-rays should be taken to determine if long term disabilities may occur. These x-rays should be sent to the Orthopedic Foundation for Animals (OFA) for evaluation because x-rays are evaluated by a group of trained veterinarians who see a broad spectrum of hips and have the expertise to do a true evaluation. While this is particularly true of large breed dogs, hip x-rays should be taken of all dogs because hip problems are too costly and all dogs can have the potential to have hip problems.
All dogs should have their eyes examined by a Canine Eye Registration Foundation (CERF) certified veterinarian. Eyes do change over time, and so an eye check one time is not a guarantee that the dog will not suffer some future eye ailment, but it is a good starting point. A dog or puppy that shows clinical signs of impairment may be detected long before they show physical signs of impairment. High cholesterol levels also manifest themselves as eye “spots” occasionally and a CERF certified veterinarian can be the first to observe this condition that requires treatment.
Certain breeds suffer from serious diseases which can be life threatening, such as von Willebrand’s disease (vWD). This disease is the most common of the bleeding disorders. It affects many popular breeds such as poodles, shelties, Doberman pinschers, and Papillion’s just to name a few of the breeds. Because of the prevalence of mixes with these breeds (particularly poodles), and the severity of this disease, it should be an important test.
If you were buying a dog from a breeder, would you expect that dog to have some type of health guarantee? Reputable breeders often test the dogs they are breeding for genetic aliments. There are still far more aliments than there are tests, for example, there is currently no health test for epilepsy, but breeders do the best they can to avoid such a disease as that one, and test for the diseases for which there are tests. It is in the best interest of not just that breeder, but the breed as a whole to eliminate such problems.
Why are shelters and human societies not testing the dogs that come to them and only adopting out healthy dogs? Why are breeders held to a higher standard then those who are “rescuing” dogs. No new dog owner wants to spend thousands of dollars on veterinary care. Shelters will claim foul, but if we truly have an “overpopulation problem” – then good homes are in short supply and Shelters owe it to the adopting public to adopt out healthy dogs.
MT- BSL Legislation defeated
Friday, January 23, 2009]
Responsible dog owners won a decisive victory Thursday afternoon when the Montana House Local Government Committee voted 17-1 against a bill to ban "pit bulls" in the state.
House Bill 191 prohibited the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls". "Pit bulls" was defined to include Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and "any dog that has the physical characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established for those breeds by the American Kennel Club." If the bill had passed, all such dogs would have been seized and euthanized.
Approximately 100 responsible dog owners and breeders testified against House Bill 191, convincing the committee that breed bans are not an effective solution to animal control problems. In addition, the AKC sent letters of opposition to committee members and alerted tens of thousands of dog owners throughout the country about this legislation. The AKC believes the government should implement reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs and impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible dog owners.
The AKC thanks all those who testified against House Bill 191 in committee yesterday, and the many more who contacted the committee and their state legislators. We also thank the Montana House Local Government Committee for making a strong statement against breed-specific legislation.
Responsible dog owners won a decisive victory Thursday afternoon when the Montana House Local Government Committee voted 17-1 against a bill to ban "pit bulls" in the state.
House Bill 191 prohibited the ownership, harboring, or keeping of dogs described as "pit bulls". "Pit bulls" was defined to include Staffordshire Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, and "any dog that has the physical characteristics that substantially conform to the standards established for those breeds by the American Kennel Club." If the bill had passed, all such dogs would have been seized and euthanized.
Approximately 100 responsible dog owners and breeders testified against House Bill 191, convincing the committee that breed bans are not an effective solution to animal control problems. In addition, the AKC sent letters of opposition to committee members and alerted tens of thousands of dog owners throughout the country about this legislation. The AKC believes the government should implement reasonable, enforceable, non-discriminatory laws to govern the ownership of dogs and impose appropriate penalties on irresponsible dog owners.
The AKC thanks all those who testified against House Bill 191 in committee yesterday, and the many more who contacted the committee and their state legislators. We also thank the Montana House Local Government Committee for making a strong statement against breed-specific legislation.
Success is possible- but requires dedication
With each story of success comes the stories of endless hours of hard work and dedicated people who seem to "drop everything" to address the threat at hand. Thank goodness for those people. For those of you who feel you can not just "drop everything" - there is work for you to do too. Every little action helps. Tell your friends about your plight. Write letters; SEND MONEY to organization who are acting on your behalf. Tell all of the people who contact you about dogs that the precious resource of knowledgeable dog people is at stake. The list of actions you can take is endless.
The most important thing you can do, is read each success story looking for "lessons"- HOW did they manage to succeed. We can be successful, it just takes hard work and cooperation.
The most important thing you can do, is read each success story looking for "lessons"- HOW did they manage to succeed. We can be successful, it just takes hard work and cooperation.
VA- Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill Defeated in Virginia
Wednesday, January 28, 2009]
Virginia dog owners won a major victory on January 26, when the Virginia Senate Agriculture Committee defeated a mandatory spay/neuter bill by an 8-6 vote. Senate Bill 1151 imposed a mandatory spay/neuter requirement on dogs picked up by animal control more than once.
AKC opposes the concept of the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of responsible breeders and owners. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.
The AKC was pleased to assist the efforts of the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders in defeating SB 1151 by notifying over 600 Virginia dog club officials of this bill and encouraging responsible owners and breeders to attend the committee hearing.
The AKC congratulates the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders for this victory and thanks them for their tireless efforts on behalf of Virginia dog owners and breeders.
Virginia dog owners won a major victory on January 26, when the Virginia Senate Agriculture Committee defeated a mandatory spay/neuter bill by an 8-6 vote. Senate Bill 1151 imposed a mandatory spay/neuter requirement on dogs picked up by animal control more than once.
AKC opposes the concept of the mandatory spay/neuter of purebred dogs. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of responsible breeders and owners. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership.
The AKC was pleased to assist the efforts of the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders in defeating SB 1151 by notifying over 600 Virginia dog club officials of this bill and encouraging responsible owners and breeders to attend the committee hearing.
The AKC congratulates the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders for this victory and thanks them for their tireless efforts on behalf of Virginia dog owners and breeders.
CO- Successful defeat of "Puppy Mill Bill" HB1172
Please Note: Successfully defeating bills takes the EFFORT of many.
Yes, we DID defeat the so-called 'Puppy Mill bill' which was actually an HSUS 'let's get rid of dog breeders' bill! The bill went to its first hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday afternoon. After a grueling 4+ hours of testimony, the committee voted to kill the bill.
It was far from an easy defeat...we had to work for it since we went into the hearing with only 4 of the 12 votes solid against it. I have to say I have never been prouder of the dog community than during this time. Hobby breeders, the dog show community, small licensed breeders, as well as large scale licensed ! breeders came together to fight this bill being pushed by a common enemy HSUS. I couldn't have planned the whole thing better if I'd tried.
We went into the hearing room about 2 PM and we had a great turn out of people from all facets of the dog community. Our speakers were prepared and did a great job of speaking to the issues. Each planned speaker took a different point or view of the bill to speak about so we covered all bases. The Committee had already been educated about why we opposed the bill through letters and phone calls, and that wonderful NAIA tool - CapWiz! AKC also wrote us a letter of opposition and helped with gathering information and handouts. PIJAC from the pet industry alerted their members, and the licensed commercial breeders had several meetings with the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs to coordinate efforts and information exchange.
We knew that HSUS would be watching our website so we didn't put up a full alert there, but did play it pretty quiet until after the bill was actually introduced and we were ready for action from the Federation members and the dog show community. The Federation and our lobbyists had meetings with the sponsor of the bill on several occasions and stood firm in our position that this bill was not needed, their limit of 25 intact dogs was absolutely unacceptable, and improved nothing for breeding facility care of dogs over the existing PACFA (Pet Animal Care & Facilities Act) law that had been in place for over 14 years. There were some violations of this law over the past year that hit the media (and justly so) that had given HSUS the opportunity to attempt such a bill.
The Agriculture Department which oversees the PACFA program was aware of the Federation's concerns about the problems and they were reviewing changes in their procedures. As with many government agencies, they were under staffed because of funding limits under state laws. The Federation and the licensed dog breeders promised to help them in that area if they would improve their enforcement. This is a good program with people trying to do a job on a shoestring.
As usual, opposition gave testimony first so we made sure we gave good arguments against this bill. Everyone was respectful of the committee and the commercial breeders spoke of the pride they take in their facilities and care of their dogs, and how hard they work to do it right. They were as upset as anyone about bad breeders since it reflects on them negatively. In the case of one of the worse cases to hit the news, it was actually a commercial breeder who called in the situation to the PACFA department and asked that they investigate. All agreed that if raising fees was what was needed to get another inspector and get the program back on track, then that is what should happen. That had an effect on the thinking of the Committee about this bill.
The PACFA vets spoke well on their problems with enforcement and what they were doing to clean the problems up. The program had just gone through what Colorado calls a sunset review of how the program was working, which had been presented to the legislature a couple of weeks before, and problems as well as solutions were being addressed in that sunset bill. This gave us added ammunition to oppose HB1172 since increased enforcement and funding were being addressed already.
The opposition testimony took about 3 hours with 20 speakers. The supporters of the bill had 10 speakers who didn't get their chance to speak until almost 6PM. Everyone was tired, but the committee had been listening. When the supporters started in with their horror stories, the committee members commented that it appeared to be an enforcement issue, not a need for this bill or limits on numbers of intact dogs. We had done our homework, we were polite but firm in our opposition, and it was successful. In the end the author of the bill tried several amendments, including changing their 'magic number' to 50, but the committee wasn't buying it. They voted to not pass the bill out of committee 7-5. Dead and buried!
Again, the secret to our success was everyone putting aside our differences and pulling together, sharing information, being aware of what was happening in our state to set up the situation, and a tip from a fellow dog person early on for a draft of the bill. Also, an educated legislature and a great team of lobbyists. When it hit the legislature we were ready and waiting! We do know this will probably be back in a ballot initiative or referendum this summer, since the public is easier to deceive with emotional issues than a well prepared legislature, but we will also be ready for that battle. We will also be monitoring the PACFA program to make sure it gets the funding it needs and support to do the job it was created for. It is an excellent program and we did something right in creating it 14 years ago!
Linda Hart, Secretary
Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs
Yes, we DID defeat the so-called 'Puppy Mill bill' which was actually an HSUS 'let's get rid of dog breeders' bill! The bill went to its first hearing before the House Agriculture Committee on Wednesday afternoon. After a grueling 4+ hours of testimony, the committee voted to kill the bill.
It was far from an easy defeat...we had to work for it since we went into the hearing with only 4 of the 12 votes solid against it. I have to say I have never been prouder of the dog community than during this time. Hobby breeders, the dog show community, small licensed breeders, as well as large scale licensed ! breeders came together to fight this bill being pushed by a common enemy HSUS. I couldn't have planned the whole thing better if I'd tried.
We went into the hearing room about 2 PM and we had a great turn out of people from all facets of the dog community. Our speakers were prepared and did a great job of speaking to the issues. Each planned speaker took a different point or view of the bill to speak about so we covered all bases. The Committee had already been educated about why we opposed the bill through letters and phone calls, and that wonderful NAIA tool - CapWiz! AKC also wrote us a letter of opposition and helped with gathering information and handouts. PIJAC from the pet industry alerted their members, and the licensed commercial breeders had several meetings with the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs to coordinate efforts and information exchange.
We knew that HSUS would be watching our website so we didn't put up a full alert there, but did play it pretty quiet until after the bill was actually introduced and we were ready for action from the Federation members and the dog show community. The Federation and our lobbyists had meetings with the sponsor of the bill on several occasions and stood firm in our position that this bill was not needed, their limit of 25 intact dogs was absolutely unacceptable, and improved nothing for breeding facility care of dogs over the existing PACFA (Pet Animal Care & Facilities Act) law that had been in place for over 14 years. There were some violations of this law over the past year that hit the media (and justly so) that had given HSUS the opportunity to attempt such a bill.
The Agriculture Department which oversees the PACFA program was aware of the Federation's concerns about the problems and they were reviewing changes in their procedures. As with many government agencies, they were under staffed because of funding limits under state laws. The Federation and the licensed dog breeders promised to help them in that area if they would improve their enforcement. This is a good program with people trying to do a job on a shoestring.
As usual, opposition gave testimony first so we made sure we gave good arguments against this bill. Everyone was respectful of the committee and the commercial breeders spoke of the pride they take in their facilities and care of their dogs, and how hard they work to do it right. They were as upset as anyone about bad breeders since it reflects on them negatively. In the case of one of the worse cases to hit the news, it was actually a commercial breeder who called in the situation to the PACFA department and asked that they investigate. All agreed that if raising fees was what was needed to get another inspector and get the program back on track, then that is what should happen. That had an effect on the thinking of the Committee about this bill.
The PACFA vets spoke well on their problems with enforcement and what they were doing to clean the problems up. The program had just gone through what Colorado calls a sunset review of how the program was working, which had been presented to the legislature a couple of weeks before, and problems as well as solutions were being addressed in that sunset bill. This gave us added ammunition to oppose HB1172 since increased enforcement and funding were being addressed already.
The opposition testimony took about 3 hours with 20 speakers. The supporters of the bill had 10 speakers who didn't get their chance to speak until almost 6PM. Everyone was tired, but the committee had been listening. When the supporters started in with their horror stories, the committee members commented that it appeared to be an enforcement issue, not a need for this bill or limits on numbers of intact dogs. We had done our homework, we were polite but firm in our opposition, and it was successful. In the end the author of the bill tried several amendments, including changing their 'magic number' to 50, but the committee wasn't buying it. They voted to not pass the bill out of committee 7-5. Dead and buried!
Again, the secret to our success was everyone putting aside our differences and pulling together, sharing information, being aware of what was happening in our state to set up the situation, and a tip from a fellow dog person early on for a draft of the bill. Also, an educated legislature and a great team of lobbyists. When it hit the legislature we were ready and waiting! We do know this will probably be back in a ballot initiative or referendum this summer, since the public is easier to deceive with emotional issues than a well prepared legislature, but we will also be ready for that battle. We will also be monitoring the PACFA program to make sure it gets the funding it needs and support to do the job it was created for. It is an excellent program and we did something right in creating it 14 years ago!
Linda Hart, Secretary
Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs
Wednesday, February 4, 2009
MD- Anti-breeder bill to be heard Feb. 18
Date: Tuesday, February 3, 2009, 9:31 PM
The Maryland Dog Federation seeks your support in opposing SB
318, a bill that would be detrimental to the dog hobby and fancy.
Please be on the lookout for updates.
Please visit www.marylanddogfederation.com to read about Maryland SB318. Take
action today. This bill would impact dog show participants,
hobbyists, and handlers; law enforcement dog breeders,and service
dog breeders.
Please do THREE things TODAY:
1. Contact the sponsors(info below)
2. Plan to attend and/or testify against SB 318 on February 18, 1pm
3. Tell anyone who would be impacted by SB 318 to do the same (Crossposting permitted) If you are going to be able to testify- drop a line to
the maryland dog federation at marylanddogfederation@yahoo.com.
We want to hear from you, especially if you're planning to testify.
SB 318 could impose unrealistic and unnecessary space and
exercise requirements on anyone "with custody of" ten or more intact
dogs over 4 months of age. Anyone with "custody" of more than
10 "breeding" dogs older than four months of age would be subject to
restrictions concerning
· Housing
· Enclosures
· And mandates a minimum amount of time the dog must spend outsidethe enclosure being walked(2 hours a day)
Maryland Dog Federation strongly endorses your right to own, keep and breed dogs in a responsible and humane manner. We believe that responsible dog ownership is compatible with most living arrangements. Many Maryland residents are deeply committed to their dogs and the many sports of dogs, including conformation,
and obedience, agility, and many other wholesome activities that can
be shared among generations. All-breed dog shows generate millions
of dollars in entertainment revenue in the state. The Maryland
Dog Federation strongly opposes SB 318 bill on the following
grounds:
There is no exemption for people who show their dogs or participate in other dog sports, which require dogs to remain intact in order to compete.
It would not be unusual for a show breeder to have 10 intact dogs
over four months of age; for example, a couple of adult dogs and a
litter of puppies that have not yet gone to new homes.
Not only are there no exemptions for the hobby breeder, the law
specifically exempts PET STORES and PUPPY STORES!
Passage of this bill would also affect breeders of law
enforcement dogs, guide dogs, and service dogs. Because the aptitude
for work is not evident until they are older, future generations of
these dogs could be wiped out if they are required to be sterilized
at 4 months in order to remain where they are.
Simply having intact dogs doesn't mean they are breeding dogs.
Many breeds of dogs simply do not have the exercise requirements
mandated in SB 318.
The MDF believes the sponsor of this bill IS open to alternatives;
her objective is to eliminate true "puppy mills", not legitimate
breeders. However, we DO need to stop this bill on February 18th.
Please send thoughtful, polite, but firm message to the bill's
sponsors today:
Lisa Gladden (D-41, Balt City, also co-chair of Judicial Proceedings
Committee)
Miller Senate Office Bldg
2 East Wing
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3697
(301) 858-3697
Lisa.gladden@senate.state.md.us
Fax (410) 841-3142 (301) 858-3142
____________ _________ _________ _
George Della, Jr. (D-46, Balt City)
James Senate Office Bldg Rm 201
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3600
(301) 858-3600
George.della@senate.state.md.us
Fax (410) 841-3161 (301) 858-3161
____________ _________ _________ _
Richard Madaleno Jr. (D-10 Mont)
James Senate Office Bldg Rm 203
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3137
(301) 858-3137
Richard.madaleno@senate.state.md.us
Fax (410) 841-3676 (301) 858-3676
____________ _________ _________ __
Norman Stone (D-6, Balt County also, member of Judicial Proceedings
Committee)
James Senate Office Bldg Rm 216
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3587
(301) 858-3587
Norman.stone@senate.state.md.us
Fax (410) 841-3218 (301) 858-3218
____________ _________ _________ _
The bill will be heard by the Judicial Proceedings committee on 2/18
at 1pm. Contact information for committee members
The contact info for the additional committee members will be posted
on the Maryland Federations of Dog Clubs tomorrow.
Chair, Brian Frosh
Vice Chair, Lisa Gladden
James Brochin
Jennie Forehand
Larry Haines
Nancy Jacobs
Alexander Mooney
C. Anthony Muse
Jamie Raskin
Bryan Simonaire
Norman Stone, Jr.
Committee Staff: Susan Russell Shirleen
Pilgrim (410) 946-5510 / (301) 970-5510
Assistant to Chair: Lynn Hudson
The Maryland Dog Federation seeks your support in opposing SB
318, a bill that would be detrimental to the dog hobby and fancy.
Please be on the lookout for updates.
Please visit www.marylanddogfederation.com to read about Maryland SB318. Take
action today. This bill would impact dog show participants,
hobbyists, and handlers; law enforcement dog breeders,and service
dog breeders.
Please do THREE things TODAY:
1. Contact the sponsors(info below)
2. Plan to attend and/or testify against SB 318 on February 18, 1pm
3. Tell anyone who would be impacted by SB 318 to do the same (Crossposting permitted) If you are going to be able to testify- drop a line to
the maryland dog federation at marylanddogfederation@yahoo.com.
We want to hear from you, especially if you're planning to testify.
SB 318 could impose unrealistic and unnecessary space and
exercise requirements on anyone "with custody of" ten or more intact
dogs over 4 months of age. Anyone with "custody" of more than
10 "breeding" dogs older than four months of age would be subject to
restrictions concerning
· Housing
· Enclosures
· And mandates a minimum amount of time the dog must spend outsidethe enclosure being walked(2 hours a day)
Maryland Dog Federation strongly endorses your right to own, keep and breed dogs in a responsible and humane manner. We believe that responsible dog ownership is compatible with most living arrangements. Many Maryland residents are deeply committed to their dogs and the many sports of dogs, including conformation,
and obedience, agility, and many other wholesome activities that can
be shared among generations. All-breed dog shows generate millions
of dollars in entertainment revenue in the state. The Maryland
Dog Federation strongly opposes SB 318 bill on the following
grounds:
There is no exemption for people who show their dogs or participate in other dog sports, which require dogs to remain intact in order to compete.
It would not be unusual for a show breeder to have 10 intact dogs
over four months of age; for example, a couple of adult dogs and a
litter of puppies that have not yet gone to new homes.
Not only are there no exemptions for the hobby breeder, the law
specifically exempts PET STORES and PUPPY STORES!
Passage of this bill would also affect breeders of law
enforcement dogs, guide dogs, and service dogs. Because the aptitude
for work is not evident until they are older, future generations of
these dogs could be wiped out if they are required to be sterilized
at 4 months in order to remain where they are.
Simply having intact dogs doesn't mean they are breeding dogs.
Many breeds of dogs simply do not have the exercise requirements
mandated in SB 318.
The MDF believes the sponsor of this bill IS open to alternatives;
her objective is to eliminate true "puppy mills", not legitimate
breeders. However, we DO need to stop this bill on February 18th.
Please send thoughtful, polite, but firm message to the bill's
sponsors today:
Lisa Gladden (D-41, Balt City, also co-chair of Judicial Proceedings
Committee)
Miller Senate Office Bldg
2 East Wing
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3697
(301) 858-3697
Lisa.gladden@senate.state.md.us
Fax (410) 841-3142 (301) 858-3142
____________ _________ _________ _
George Della, Jr. (D-46, Balt City)
James Senate Office Bldg Rm 201
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3600
(301) 858-3600
George.della@senate.state.md.us
Fax (410) 841-3161 (301) 858-3161
____________ _________ _________ _
Richard Madaleno Jr. (D-10 Mont)
James Senate Office Bldg Rm 203
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3137
(301) 858-3137
Richard.madaleno@senate.state.md.us
Fax (410) 841-3676 (301) 858-3676
____________ _________ _________ __
Norman Stone (D-6, Balt County also, member of Judicial Proceedings
Committee)
James Senate Office Bldg Rm 216
11 Bladen Street
Annapolis, MD 21401
(410) 841-3587
(301) 858-3587
Norman.stone@senate.state.md.us
Fax (410) 841-3218 (301) 858-3218
____________ _________ _________ _
The bill will be heard by the Judicial Proceedings committee on 2/18
at 1pm. Contact information for committee members
The contact info for the additional committee members will be posted
on the Maryland Federations of Dog Clubs tomorrow.
Chair, Brian Frosh
Vice Chair, Lisa Gladden
James Brochin
Jennie Forehand
Larry Haines
Nancy Jacobs
Alexander Mooney
C. Anthony Muse
Jamie Raskin
Bryan Simonaire
Norman Stone, Jr.
Committee Staff: Susan Russell Shirleen
Pilgrim (410) 946-5510 / (301) 970-5510
Assistant to Chair: Lynn Hudson
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)