Puppy Mill Law Faces Legal Challenge
A Texas law that aims to prevent puppy and kitten breeders from abusing animals faces a judicial challenge, but advocates have come forward to defend the law.
The Humane Society of the United States and the Texas Humane Legislation Network filed an amicus brief Wednesday urging the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas to uphold the Licensed Breeders Act, which legislators passed during the 2011 session. The law requires all dog and cat breeding organizations to receive a license from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation and follow guidelines for animal care.
“Before this law ...
Comments (12)
Jim Smith
I am one of the plaintiffs in the Puppy Mill and Kitten Mill case. I was called by Ms. White and asked for comments, but I told her that because there was legal actions pending, I needed to clear things with my attorney first. He told me that there was no reason why I couldn't address the issues, so I called Ms White back (several times), got no answer, and she never returned my call. I called her back within an hour or two of her call. Obviously she didn't want input from the plaintiffs, or she wouldn't have waited until she had her article written before calling, and we would have had more than an hour to respond.
There are several reasons why this is bad law. First and foremost, even a meth dealer or porn publisher is afforded more rights under Texas Law than a Kitten or Puppy Breeder. The law is written in such a way that agents from the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulations can enter my property, with or without me being present, enter my private residence, confiscate my computer, files or other property, or my animals simply on their own recognizance. They do not need a warrant, and there is no oversight by any actual law enforcement agency or court. Once they seize my animals or property, there is no appeals process developed for me to protest their actions. The TLDC can also employ "Third Party Inspectors", such as members of Animal Rights organizations to do these functions for it.
If indeed, such puppy or kitten mills existed in Texas, the existing laws of the counties and states are such that local animal control could obtain warrants (with probable cause), inspect the operation and if needed, shut it down or insist on corrections. No need for an additional set of laws with these draconian features was ever shown.
HB 1451 is part of a nationwide push by animal rights organizations to deny us the ability to keep pets, have horses and ranching, rodeos and many other traditional Texas activities because it offends their vegetarian and vegan beliefs. It's their attempt to enforce their personal and religious beliefs on the rest of us.
Once this act becomes law (and it has) changing it, requiring fewer animals to meet the threshold, raising fees and fines will not require additional legislative action.
The fines that are being planned are outrageous. Things like a single instance of not washing a food bowl before adding additional food can result in a $500 fine. Not plainly displaying my license can result in a $1,500 fine. Because the TDLR is bound by the legislation that created it to operating on the funds that it generates, it's obvious that they plan to thoroughly soak the breeders they regulate.
It was obvious to me that inadequate research was done when the bill was written. Personally, I doubt that more than a dozen cat breeders in Texas are large enough to fall under this act, but it was projected that 600 breeders would be required to generate enough income to fund the agency.
I have been breeding cats for 20 years, and am active in various cat associations and breed groups. I have a clean, well maintained cattery. I love my cats and kittens, and I show in many cat shows. We have had several cats become the Best of Breed international, and have made 16 Supreme Grand Champions.
When this law was being written, no attempt was made to get input from breeders. The law was written by people with little knowledge of cats, breeding or animal husbandry.
Because I refuse to live under the threats imposed by this new law, I have reduced my cat population so that it doesn't apply to me. I simply can't afford it.
Jim Smith
Tom Walker
Jim Smith wrote a good thought provoking response. A well intentioned law could be written very badly, and apparently this one is. Beyond that, people who abuse animals get no sympathy from me.
Cindy Boling
Jim Smith does articulate very well his personal position on HB1451. However, anyone involved with animal rights causes knows that Texas (or any other State) does not enact laws for the protection of animals on a whim. Yes, animal rights organization have been urging change and then screaming for change for years (not months) to protect animals from "Mill" production. No one that reads any media coverage can deny the hundreds of Mills that have been found that keep animals as cash-cows - not living creatures. There certainly was lots of research done and lots of proof was provided before the Texas Legislature listened to the need for regulation. And...no one is going to conduct a home invasion for feed bowls not washed after each feeding. Bravo to the State of Texas for paying attention - we have a long way to go to protect pets in this State - but, again, bravo Texas. This is for Lily, a border collie shot by a FortWorth police officer without provocation.
Elizabeth Brinkley
9 Things You Didn’t Know About HSUS
1. The Humane Society of the United States scams Americans out of millions of dollars through manipulative and deceptive advertising. An analysis of HSUS’s TV fundraising appeals that ran between January 2009 and September 2011 determined that more than 85 percent of the animals shown were cats and dogs. However, HSUS doesn’t run a single pet shelter and only gives 1 percent of the money it raises to pet shelters, and it has spent millions on anti-farming and anti-hunting political campaigns.
2. HSUS receives poor charity-evaluation marks. CharityWatch (formerly the American Institute of Philanthropy) reissued HSUS’s “D” rating in December 2011, finding that HSUS spends as little as 49 percent of its budget on its programs. Additionally, the 2011 Animal People News Watchdog Report discovered that HSUS spends about 43 percent of its budget on overhead costs.
3. Six Members of Congress have called for a federal investigation of HSUS. In April 2011, six Congressmen wrote the IRS Inspector General showing concerns over HSUS’s attempts to influence public policy, which they believe has “brought into question [HSUS’s] tax-exempt 501(c)(3) status.”
4. HSUS regularly contributes more to its own pension plan than it does to pet shelters. An analysis of HSUS’s tax returns determined that HSUS funneled $16.3 million to its executive pension plan between 1998 and 2009—over $1 million more than HSUS gave to pet shelters during that period.
5. The pet sheltering community believes HSUS misleads Americans. According to a nationally representative poll of 400 animal shelters, rescues, and animal control agencies, 71 percent agree that “HSUS misleads people into thinking it is associated with local animal shelters.” Additionally, 79 percent agree that HSUS is “a good source of confusion for a lot of our donors.”
6. While it raises money with pictures of cats and dogs, HSUS has an anti-meat vegan agenda. Speaking to an animal rights conference in 2006, HSUS’s then vice president for farm animal issues stated that HSUS’s goal is to “get rid of the entire [animal agriculture] industry” and that “we don’t want any of these animals to be raised and killed.”
7. Given the massive size of its budget, HSUS does relatively little hands-on care for animals. While HSUS claims it provides direct care to more animals than any other animal protection group in the US, most of the “care” HSUS provides is in the form of spay-neuter assistance. In fact, local groups that operate on considerably slimmer budgets, such as the Houston SPCA, provide direct care to just as many or more animals than HSUS does.
8. HSUS’s CEO has said that convicted dogfighting kingpin Michael Vick “would do a good job as a pet owner.” Following Vick’s release from prison, HSUS has helped “rehabilitate” Michael Vick’s public image. Of course, a $50,000 “grant” from the Philadelphia Eagles didn’t hurt.
9. HSUS’s senior management includes a former spokesman for the Animal Liberation Front (ALF), a criminal group designated as “terrorists” by the FBI. HSUS president Wayne Pacelle hired John “J.P.” Goodwin in 1997, the same year Goodwin described himself as “spokesperson for the ALF” while he fielded media calls in the wake of an ALF arson attack at a California meat processing plant. In 1997, when asked by reporters for a reaction to an ALF arson fire at a farmer’s feed co-op in Utah (which nearly killed a family sleeping on the premises), Goodwin replied, “We’re ecstatic.”
Want evidence? Vist: www.ConsumerFreedom.com * www.HumaneWatch.org * www.ActivistCash.com
Revised February 2012. Complete sources and documentation available upon request.__._,
Sherry Rogers
I think all pets need proper space, I also think the majority of breeders are good (there are always bad apples). I'm just curious why in a Texas breeding program, dogs are allowed more space than my child in school???? O.K. Keep with me people :) - Here you go. By law in the State of Texas in a commercial kennel (this is the calculation the law provides to use) - For a 15 inch dog = 15 inch + 6 = 21....TAKE THAT TIMES ITSELF...21x21 =441 divide that by 144 (sq. inches in a sq ft.) that should equal 3.06 sq. ft(note the decimal point) for that dog. Just a little over 3 sq. ft or about 21 inches by 21 inches. My daughter being 56 inches + 6 = 62 TAKE THAT TIMES ITSELF 62x62 = 3844 divide that by 144 (sq. inches in a sq ft.) that should equal 26.69 sq. ft(note the decimal point) for that person (please correct my math if it's wrong). WOW, according to the new Texas dog laws my child would be better protected under the government being a pet than being in the school system... if we applied these commercial kennel laws in Texas to our schools each child should get 26.69 sq feet of space. Once I found out Texas cared more about dogs/cats and decided to allow them more space in kennels than Texas children in classrooms, I was not a happy taxpayer! Take those Texas calculations and measure your dog and then take those same calculations and measure your child or grandchild. I'm sorry, I just don't ever think animals should be put above people. I don't really believe we need 26 sq ft per child in the classroom, but I do believe our law makers need to be concentrating on the needs of our children more than anything else. Most kennels do not leave their animals in cages all day, like the Ar's make the public believe. Now lets just see how Austin, Texas is taking care of our children: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20111124-waivers-to-texas-class-size-law-triple-thanks-to-funding-cuts.ece
Marjorie Wren
I know Jim Smith and find him to be above reproach as a breeder. I am in total agreement with all said by him and Elizabeth Brinkley.
AR (Animal Rights) such as PETA and HSUS and Animal Protection Groups such as ASPCA and your local Animal Rescue groups are polar opposites, HSUS could easily be defined as an anti-animal lobbying group. Wayne Parcell actually contacted Ben and Jerrys Ice Cream Company suggesting that they substitute human milk in the ice cream instead of using cow's milk intended for calves. PETA killed 95% of the kittens, puppies, dogs and cats they got control of in 2011. They now claim the animals were too sick or injured to be treated and adopted out. The governor of Virginia the state they are headquartered in moved to have them designated as a slaughterhouse and not an animal rescue org. Sources: http://www.Humane Watch.org http://www.petakillsanimals.com/
The ASPCA and your local Animal Rescue groups take in, work with, heal and rehabilitate animals with adoption by loving families as their goal.
The laws such as those proposed in Texas and often written by representatives (or at least appear to be) of PETA or HSUS are not written to benefit animals, but to punish animal breeders. Most are redundant as laws against animal cruelty exist in all states. This one however violates the protections granted by our U. S. Constitution. No crime in the United States allows unwarranted access to private property or personal records without a judge agreeing with the necessity of those actions. Not to mention as Jim states no police oversight is required! These folks (wearing a HSUS or PETA or Animal Control uniform or whomever assigned the job by the administrators), of what caliber (what kind of back ground checks are required for the organization personnel) can enter your home, in the presence of your children left alone with an older sibling or teen aged babysitter, take pictures and load those animals up without your permission or presence. If no one is home, staging conditions works for HSUS. I've seen pictures taken by HSUS that were so obviously staged as to be laughable, if the intent were not so horrible. In one picture a goat in a tiny pen with no room to turn around was ankle deep in feces, problem was the goats white coat was absolutely pristine, not a spot of feces on it anywhere but viewers were expected to believe this was the goats normal live style.
This law is flat bad news for everyone, laws have a way of being added to, to cover more situations. Under what circumstances is this type of behavior justifiable to you, in your home. I don't live in Texas and this law offends me as a U.S. citizen, what rights are we expected to give up without a warrant or advance evidence of abuse, but what amounts to a fishing expedition?
But laws like this generate money for the politicians and administrators of these programs They will have little to no impact on true puppy/kitten mills or greedy backyard breeders who mistreat their animals. They will however decimate, violate our basic human rights though, rights never before allowed decimation by the Constitution of the United Staes of America.
Cile Holloway
As typical of those breeders opposing this state law, Mr. Smith makes multiple false statements about what the state statute actually does - which is establish basic humane standards and provide regulation for Licensed Breeder facilities.
1) The Law provides that Third party inspectors be an employee of "a state agency, or a local law enforcement agency or fire department"....... not animal welfare or rights groups.
2) Existing animal cruelty laws are REACTIVE laws -addressing serious neglect cases whereby- the animals may be dead or dying by the time they are discovered. The Licensed Breeder Act is a PROACTIVE law - establishing standards to ensure humane housing and care for the animals -working to avoid any cruelty or neglect situation.
3) For anyone doubting there is a serious problem with puppy and kitten mills in Texas - just read the newspapers or speak with animal welfare agencies dealing with these cases weekly.
4) More than four years of research and meetings with ALL stakeholders, including breeders, were held to draft an essential law to protect these animals. State legislators recognized the need for this law and took action.
5) The Law is about NOTHING more than protecting the dogs and cats bred and raised in large scale commercial breeding operations - and it is tragic and irresponsible that breeders continue to dispute the existence of this serious problem or the need to protect these animals.
Meme Me
Any law which violates due process is wrong.
Mh Av
Katie Jarl, the director of the Human Society’s Texas branch says; “The breeders doing things in a humane way have nothing to worry about; these are very basic standards.” That is a pure BS, show breeders have a lot to worry about. Cile Holloway works for THLN and she knows that the 2 breeders on the animal advisory committee were not allowed to vote until after the rules had been written. This is a very bad law that is damaging to show breeders who are passionate about their animals and give the best of care. HSUS has been attacking all AKC breeders and calling people who have been raided show breeders when in fact they are not. This is to slander all dog breeders painting them all with the broad brush as puppy millers. Funny but this bill never mentions commercial breeders or puppy mills. The following elucidates how this law was designed to be harmful to good show breeders.
This law does the following:
1. The rules say that all puppies/kittens must be raised separately from all other animals and including their own mother after they are weaned. This also means a singleton has to be raised alone. These pets then do not get the proper socialization and will be fearful of new sounds and places after being raised in such isolation.
Show breeders socialize their puppies from birth daily almost hourly. By raising them in a home environment these pets become well adjusted to the sights and sounds in a family home. This law and the resulting guidelines the committee chose to adopt are from the USDA guidelines intended for raising parasite free animals for research labs not for raising companion animals for the home environment. This is an affront to all show dog breeders who raise their dogs or cats in the home.
2. 91.102 The law requires that the floors, walls, and ceilings actually anything that comes in contact with the animal be impervious to moisture and water. Ceiling must be suspended tiles that can be replaced. (This means no house or home is suitable for raising pets.)
3. 91.101 (a) The law mandates temperatures between 40 and 85 degrees which ignores the fact that from birth to five weeks puppies must be kept at 98 degrees or they will die. A dogs normal body temperature is 101 degrees and this law mandates that dogs be kept at temperatures that are either to hot for some breeds or to cold for other breeds.
4. The fines for any infraction are five to ten times higher than any other licensed group in Texas including those that take care of children. They are five times higher than the national averages for such rules. The law is vague in many areas and leaves it up to the inspector to determine what is not spelled out in the guidelines. Its a $500 dollar fine just for not posting your license in the correct font type which is not spelled out in the guidelines as to what is an appropriate font size. A barber who deals with people and children is fined only $100 dollars for not using the correct font size. Look at how high these fines are compared to a license which gives the owner the right to work on human beings. The animal rights people will say they should be high to prevent abuse of animals, but something is wrong here when fines for animals are 3 to 5 times higher than fines for those to whom we entrust our children or our own bodies to for care.
These fines are not punitive for mistakes in paper work they are injurious and intended to drive all responsible breeders out of their hobby.
A Barber who works with children and has the same issues for keeping a sanitary environment
Class A: Paperwork violations
1st Violation: $100
2nd Violation: $300 to $500
3rd Violation: $700 to $900
Class B: SANITATION AND PUBLIC HEALTH VIOLATIONS
1st Violation: $200
2nd Violation: $400 to $600
3rd Violation: $800 to $1,000
Class C: Facility violations
1st Violation: $300
2nd Violation: $500 to $800
3rd Violation: $1,000 to $1,300 and/or up to 6-month full suspension
ADMINISTRATIVE VIOLATIONS
Class D:
1st Violation: $500
2nd Violation: $800 to $1,200
3rd Violation: $1,500 to $1,900 and/or up to 6-month full suspension
Class E:
1st Violation: $1,000
2nd Violation: $1,500 to $2,000
3rd Violation: $2,500 to $3,000 and/or up to 1-year full suspension
VIOLATIONS for Licensed Breeders for the same categories as above for barbers.
Class A - Paper work violations
1st Violation: $500
2nd Violation: $700 – $900
3rd Violation: $1,100 – $1,300
Class B Sanitation and facility violations
1st Violation: $750
2nd Violation: $1,000 – $1,250
3rd Violation: $1,500 – $1,750
Class C Facility violations
1st Violation: $1,000
2nd Violation: $1,250 – $1,500
3rd Violation: $1,750 – $2,000 and/or up to 6-month probated suspension
Class D Administrative violations
1st Violation: $1,500
2nd Violation: $1,800 – $2,100
3rd Violation: $2,400 – $2,700 and/or up to 6-month full suspension
Class E
1st Violation: $2,000
2nd Violation: $2,500 – $3,000 and/or up to 1-year full suspension
3rd Violation: $3,500 – $4,000 plus up to 1-year full suspension
5. Defines a breeder as anyone who possesses 11 or more intact females. Simply owning a certain number of intact dogs does not indicate a large-scale breeding operation. In fact in most states one must have 26 female dogs to be considered a commercial breeding operation. This low count which they intend to drop to 3 next year encompasses many small hobby breeders or sportsmen who produce only one or two litters a year. The law assumes every intact female will be bred every year and this is not how show breeders work. A show breeder tests the health of their breeding stock. Before these tests can be completed the dog must be two years old. They also do not breed their dogs while showing them. So a female might be two to three years old before her first litter if at all. Many show breeders never spay their retired show dogs because because spaying shortens the lifespan of the dog and causes a host of other diseases such as cancer. This law forces show breeders to to count all intact females even if they are not breeding them. This prevents show breeders from keeping future dogs to protect the gene pool. This law counts a female puppy as an adult. This law counts dogs you don't own if they are visiting on your property. This is directly injurious to show breeders who take care of each others dogs.
7. This law requires surprise inspections with no warning. No one wants to subject their home to surprise inspections especially since this is a hobby to them and not a business. Many live in their homes in suburban areas and cannot be labeled as a business or keep business hours. In fact many show breeders are at shows for extended periods of time. Further, as these inspections are unannounced, it is unclear what would happen if a breeder is not at home when an inspector has gone to the expense of traveling to visit them. This is a blatant violation of the 4th Amendment that reads: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Responsible breeders are NOT businesses. They are people who raise dogs in their home as hobby to improve the breed. This is a bold-faced run-around the Warrant requirement. First offense of not being at home to help with a surprise inspection is a $1000 dollar fine. THLN pushed these high dollar fines knowing that only commercial kennels could afford such fines in order to stop show breeders from participating in their goal of improving the breed. THLN did this knowing that show breeders travel through out the year to shows. This makes sure they get a high dollar fine.
8. This law says some dogs are exempt but leaves it up to the inspectors to decide which dog is exempt and which dog is not exempt. If you guess wrong then its $3500 dollar fine for each dog you guessed wrong about.
9. THLN told the legislature that this law could be self supporting by saying there were over 600 pet breeders in Texas at a time when there were less than 35 registered USDA Licensed breeders in Texas. Only 128 commercial breeders have applied for a license and so this program which costs 1.6 million dollars is not viable unless the licensing fees are ten times higher than they are now. This forces inspectors to make their budget up by fining breeders multiple times for small infractions.
What HB 1451 is creating is more laws that only the reputable breeders will be subjected to and will create more pointless paperwork to overburden the government system and take away from the already scant resources that should be used to stop the animals abusers that are already breaking existing laws!
Responsible breeders fall under this HB 1451. For them, raising, training, and showing dogs is a hobby and passion. They love their dogs and their puppies are born and raised in their homes. Trying to get a dog from these responsible breeders is like trying to adopt a child. They talk to you, they interview you, you go to their home. They LOSE money on their hobby because raising dogs properly, as those who own them know, is an extremely expensive endeavor. Putting extra burden and cost on these dedicated people who are already monitored by the AKC and private people is a total waste of taxpayer money and government resources.
It is important to remember that just because animal owners and breeders oppose a specific law does not mean they are ignoring abuse and suffering. There are already laws on the books to cover cruelty issues, otherwise the raids that all came about before this law was written would not have happened. In fact rescue groups were started by breed clubs to ensure that any dog that remotely looked like their breed would not wind up in a shelter. They also write into their contracts that the dog must be returned to them anytime the new owner can no longer care for the dog. This law prevents them from doing that by defining a breeder by how many dogs they have rather than what they do with those dogs.
The only reason this law was written by HSUS and THLN is that their goal is to end the concept of pet ownership by forcing all reputable breeders to quit breeding. If they were actually concerned with the welfare of animals they would have allowed those who know best how to care for animals to be a part of writing these rules. But they did not intend to allow that to happen. They wrote into this law who could serve on the animal advisory committee and they made sure that breeders were in the minority and that they could not vote during the rule making stage. The two breeders who served on this committee during the time the rules were written had no vote and could not change any aspect of the rules the animal rights members pushed. In fact it was so bad two committee members one a vet and the other a breeder resigned because it was clear this law was about forcing good breeders out of breeding altogether.
vernon
Jim Smith, Marjorie Wren, Mh Av – You three and all others like you need to take a breath, use some common sense and stop believing every email from your trade associations. And, Jim, you should seriously tamp down the hyperbole: “a meth dealer or porn publisher is afforded more rights under Texas Law than a Kitten or Puppy Breeder”? That’s pure nonsense and it shows that you know next to nothing about Texas law.
First of all, if any of you knew anything about the very conservative legislators who authored this bill (Will Hartnett, Phil King, Jodie Laubenberg, Jim Pitts, Dan Branch, etc.), you’d know that they are the LAST people on God’s Green Earth who’d support any of the falsehoods you’re perpetuating.
Secondly, do you truly believe that any one group will be successful in outlawing pets? That’s a ridiculous notion. But I heard some group is trying to pass a law that bans jet skiing. Another is trying to outlaw flying kites and another from wearing primary colors on odd days of the month. Those are just as believable as banning pet ownership.
Lastly I find it very interesting that the same people who profess their love for animals, those who dedicate so much of their lives to them are the same ones who spread lies and half truths about a very reasonable law designed to stop the most deplorable kind of animal abuse. But if you find that it’s just too difficult for you to meet the minimum requirements for breeding dogs and cats, perhaps you’re not as loving and responsible towards animals as you’d have us all believe.
Mh Av
Vernon you need to take a breath and understand that the goal of animal rights which THLN and HSUS represent are very much involved in doing away with pet ownership in this country. I have attended their workshops and they are very open about their ultimate goal. Here is a statement by "ISAR's approach to the dog breeding problem is revolutionary because our goal is to end virtually all breeding of dogs in the United States and to prohibit the importation of canines bred elsewhere." End all breeding, not perpetuate it." You can look at the facts or you can choose to ignore the problems with this law. I do believe the legislators were lied to about the numbers that could support this law and the actual intent of this law. It would be better to repeal it and put something better in its place than to force people to give up raising their dogs in their home. "We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding. ... One generation and out. We have no problem with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding."
-- Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice-President oF HSUS, formerly of Friends for Animals; Quoted in Animal People, May, 1993
THE TWELVE STEPS OF THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS AGENDA
The agenda is taken from "The politics of Animal Liberation" written by Kim Barlett, Editor of the Animals' Agenda, Nov. 1987 but a miminally modified version is part of the Green Party Platform for 2000.
THE AGENDA
Abolish by law animal research.
Outlaw the use of animals for cosmetic and product testing, classroom demonstrations and weapons development.
Vegetarian meals should be made available at all public institutions, including schools.
Eliminate all animal agriculture. (This is your food sources people)
End herbicides, pesticides, and other Agricultural chemicals. Outlaw predator control.
Transfer enforcement of animal welfare legislation away from the dept. of Agriculture
Eliminate fur ranching and end the use of furs.
Prohibit hunting, trapping and fishing.
End the international trade in wildlife goods.
Stop any further breeding of companion animals, *including purebred dogs and cats*. Spaying and neutering should be subsidized by State and Municipal governments. Commerce in domestic and exotic animals for the *pet trade* should be abolished.
End the use of animals in entertainment
Animal rights and Animal Welfare have markedly different philosophies. I understand that the legislators are moved to to something, but when you do not include those who are impacted by these laws in their construction egregious errors can and do occur. If this law was not intended to apply to those who do not breed as a business and do it for a hobby why were the numbers put so low and defined as only having an intact female rather than defining what one does with an intact female. It would be like saying you own 11 air conditioning units therefor you must be licensed as you must be an air conditioning repairman based upon the fact that you have 11 operating air conditioning units. That is the major problem with this law is it proposes care that is actually damaging to the breeding of dogs by those who only breed to show and improve the breed.
OPPOSITION POINTS
* HB 1451 authorizes the commission to establish necessary fees to cover the costs of administering and enforcing the commercial dog and cat breeder act. The objective is to make this program self-funding; however this goal is not achievable as factual data on the numbers of breeders to be regulated is lacking. The Fiscal Note claims costs of operation would be offset by generated revenue. Kennel license fees may have to be set at thousands of dollars to have a zero impact to the state.
* Increasingly, animal rights activists have broadened the term puppy mill until anyone who breeds a dog is fair game for attack. Even someone who only breeds an occasional litter is at risk of being labeled as a dreaded “puppy mill” by activists who do not approve of breeding or procreation in the first place.
* HB 1451 is not written to regulate dog and cat breeders in Texas. It is written to eliminate them. The Standards for Care; Confinement and Transportation adopted must meet federal USDA regulations at a minimum. Bill sponsors and proponents know they cannot be met in a home environment. This was noted by a member of the animal advisory committee during the rule making stage.
* HB 1451 assumes that an owner of 11 or more intact dogs or cats is not capable of managing and maintaining their animals in good health without state intervention. There is no correlation between numbers of owned animals and quality of care.
* The Texas legislature unveiled a budget will cut billions in spending to close the state's massive budget deficit estimated between $15 and $27 billion. Education, health and human services, and the criminal justice department will be hard hit and thousands of government jobs will be eliminated. It is unconscionable for lawmakers to even consider trading scarce funds for human needs and services in order to implement costly kennel inspections.
* Applicants must pay both a prelicense fee and a license fee. Fees collected will be used to pay third party inspectors. Unless license fees are exorbitant it is unlikely that inspection training and enforcement costs will be covered.
* Third party inspectors can include state agencies, animal control personnel, and any local law enforcement official including firemen. The wide variety of backgrounds, ability, experience, and resources for such a diverse source of inspectors is of concern as expertise in animal husbandry may vary widely and result in inequitable inspection results despite a state established training program.
* Inspectors are not required to provide advance notice to a commercial breeder before arriving at the facility.
* The threshold number used in HB 1451 is arbitrary and overreaching. Conscientious hobby and sporting dog breeders will be caught up by this definition and subjected to the onerous provisions of this legislation even though they are not businesses in the true sense. As written, HB 1451 requires licensure and inspection of kennels and catteries for simply owning intact animals even if breeding is occasional. Intact does not equal “bred”.
* The current definition will incorrectly classify and regulate many sporting dog owners as large commercial breeding operations. Although, these responsible dog owners may keep more than 11 intact females and occasionally sell dogs, they are not commercial breeders and should not be treated as such.
* HB 1451 requires licensure and inspection of kennels and catteries for simply owning intact dogs/cats even if breeding is occasional. Dog owners who breed even one or two litters a year or those who breed dogs to be used as working dogs, security dogs, herding dogs, livestock guardian dogs, service dogs, as well as dogs and cats for family pets will be severely impacted by the enormous cost of ordinance-compliant facilities.
* HB 1451 includes a definition for “controlling person” or any individual with even a 25% interest in the commercial breeder’s business or property. Controlling persons would include co-owners who would now be required to have intrusive criminal background checks.
* HB 1451 is part of a nationwide campaign to place dog breeding under government regulations and restrictions with which the average home-based breeder cannot comply. Lawmakers who write bills aimed at eliminating puppy mills leave the definitions up to those who lobby for the laws. As a result, publicity campaigns highlight kennels where hundreds of dogs are kept in poor conditions, but the bills themselves generally target and cause collateral damage to responsible hobby and commercial breeders with far fewer breeding dogs while not solving the problems of the largest kennels where problems may be found.
* HB 1451 requires examination at least once yearly by a licensed veterinarian. There are no guidelines for what is an acceptable veterinary report for documenting the exam. There is no measurable benefit to this mandated exam and serves only to increase maintenance costs for the breeder. Requiring yearly veterinary exams takes away the owner's right to choose how they take care of their property.
* Requires each adult intact female animal be provided with adequate rest between breeding cycles consistent with breed standards. Breed standards are set for physical appearance and do not address breeding cycles. Frequency of breeding is a decision that should be made by the owner in consultation with the owner’s veterinarian and not by legislative mandate.
* Cat physiology is not the same as that of a dog. Requiring rest between breeding cycles for cats can lead to reproductive problems, including a condition known as "cystic ovaries" which can render the cat sterile.
* Primary enclosure definition includes a room, pen, run, cage, or compartment. Standards to be adopted in Sec. 802.201 require that the commercial breeder provide all dogs over 12 weeks with an exercise area with 3 times more square feet than the dog’s primary enclosure. If the dog’s primary enclosure is a 10X10 pen or run the proposed rule would require daily access to an additional 300 SF area for every dog or 3,300 SF for 11 dogs.
* Facility standards and regulations, yet to be written, will be modeled after federal commercial standards and are certain to eliminate the ability to home-raise puppies. The 60-page Federal regulations are administered by USDA/APHIS as part of the Animal Welfare Act (AWA) which governs the humane care, handling, and transportation of commercially bred dogs. The AWA does not define either "commercial kennel" or "puppy mill” and was intended for use regulating high volume commercial facilities selling at wholesale to retail stores and outlets. The regulations were never intended for use regulating individual dog breeders in private residences. The regulations are not compatible with small home-based breeding programs.
* Compliance with Federal regulations would require small and mid-size sporting dog and hobby breeders to construct temperature, humidity, and diurnal lighting controlled kennel buildings costing tens of thousands of dollars.
* HB 1451 overreaches any perceived need to ensure humane conditions for dogs by attempting to regulate owners of a small number of intact dogs regardless of frequency of breeding or numbers bred. Not only the financial issues, but the life style changes will be enormous if HB 1451 is allowed to become law. Many counties have zoning restrictions which do not allow in-home businesses; labeling and registering breeders as commercial kennels because of the number of intact dogs owned will end many hobby kennels throughout the state.
* Under Sec. 802.004 Presumption of Use for Breeding added in committee substitute one is “guilty until proven innocent” and owners must prove to the Department intact dogs are not being used for breeding.
Ellen Mass
this law "HB1451" is a draconian travesty against our basic AMERICAN rights to have property and to protect it. The local anti-cruelty laws would be enough IF they were enforced. This 'law' does nothing to protect real, ethical, health knowledgeable breeders but instead makes it almost impossible for the average breeder who loves and properly cares for their animals to keep them! I no longer have a kennel operation (not because of this law - I moved where I can't have all my animals prior to thjs passing) most people who raise their animals in their HOME can NOT comply with much of this legal nonsense. this is nothing but a tactic by animal rights groups to stifle, kill off, exterminate any/all breeding. They are patient as they see their overall plan coming to fruition one step at a time. The big breeders - the ones who can/will comply with this law - will be next on the AR list. Remember, puppy/kitten mill, meth labs, marijuana cultivation, etc are ALL illegal yet happen every day! When is John Q Public going to stand up and BITE back??? I completely support TX-RPOA and other groups that are fighting for US!