[ SHOWGSD-L ] Fwd: Summary - March 1, 2012 Meeting - BAC- Texas Dept of Licensing & Reg
- From: Diane <texasgsds@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2012 07:05:17 -0600
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
> From: "mkralik" <mkralik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Date: March 9, 2012 1:25:22 AM CST
> To: "mkralik" <mkralik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Summary - March 1, 2012 Meeting - BAC- Texas Dept of Licensing & Reg
>
> Hello all,
>
> Thank you for your continued support in our effort to protect breeder rights.
> Below is an update regarding the status of the proposed rules implementing HB
> 1451 following the TDLR Breedersâ?? Advisory Committee (BAC) public hearing
> of March 1, 2012. (Video at http://www.tdlr.state.tx.us/bre/breCommittee.htm )
>
> HB 1451 http://www.license.state.tx.us/bre/brelaw.htm
> Rules http://www.license.state.tx.us/bre/Chapter%2091%20Proposed%20Rules.pdf
>
> 1. Next event â?? The Governor appointed seven-member Texas Commission
> governing TDLR will meet on Tuesday, March 27th, 2012, 9:00 a.m., at TDLRâ??s
> officesâ??1106 Clayton Ln., Austin, Tx., 1st floor public meeting room. This
> will be a public hearing at which interested persons can submit comments.
>
> 2. The recommendations from the Breeders Advisory Committee (BAC) agreed upon
> at the March 1, 2012 meeting will be compiled in a revised Rules draft, for
> consideration by the Commission at its March 27 meeting. That interim draft
> will be published on TDLRâ??s website, very close to the March 27, 2012
> meeting, according to Brian Francis with TDLR. The Commission has discretion
> to adopt or reject all or any of the BACâ??s recommendations. They will be
> taking public comment at this meeting and revising for final draft to be
> published in the Texas Register. This may be the last chance for our
> community to influence the Commissionâ??s decisions on the rules implementing
> the Breedersâ?? Program which were published in Texas Register on February
> 20, 2012.
>
> 3. TDLR Chair Frank Denton was excited about our turnout March 1st and was
> extremely complimentary of the way those of us attending conducted ourselves.
> IT IS VERY IMPORTANT to attend the March 27th meeting to show our numbers and
> professionalism!
>
> 4. Positive Highlights from the March 1st BAC meeting:
>
> · TDLR (not BAC) eliminated Pre-license inspection fee.
>
> · Inspection fees and right to assess additional Department â??expensesâ??
> may also be eliminated.
>
> · The attempt to prohibit non-licensed breeders from acting as or
> representing themselves as â??breedersâ?? was rejected by the BAC. They
> recommended amending the proposed rules to permit breeders who were not
> required to apply for a license to continue to refer to themselves as
> â??breeders,â?? provided they do not represent that they are â??licensed
> breeders.â?? This is an important issue for all breeders, as HSUSâ??s
> objective is to prevent anyone who is not a licensed breeder from referring
> to themselves, or acting as, a breeder. Additional support/comments on this
> subject are required, as a THLN attorney intends to challenge the BACâ??s
> positive recommendation.
>
> · Prohibiting unlicensed breeders from advertising was eliminated.
>
> · Definition of wire mesh for walls and ceiling was removed from Rules.
>
> · NO Third party Inspectors â??TDLR has decided to use existing TDLR
> personnel (who already do 1100 inspections/each/year) for all inspections.
> FTE or PTE will perform inspections as needed. (Note that, per TDLR, an
> additional training program will still be required for its in-house
> inspectors regarding the Breedersâ?? Licensing Act provisions, pursuant to
> RFP.)
>
> · The requirement that the licensed breeder must provide all veterinarian
> recommended treatment was eliminated by vote of the BAC.
>
> · Temperature/ventilation requirement was changed to AVMA recommended
> language. Relative humidity and lighting still need clarification. The ARAs
> on the BAC continue to try and force â??one size fits allâ?? & â??as
> necessaryâ?? decisions into the Rules regarding environment and other Rules.
>
> 5. Still need feedback regarding â??wire mesh floorsâ??, cage size, cage
> stacking, tail docking, dew claws removal, and ear cropping. Many breeders
> are far more skilled at this than a lot of Vets as evidenced by results.
> Regarding Breed standards (kept by the registries â?? AKC, UKC, etc., but
> developed/maintained by breeders over hundreds of years), TDLR needs to hear
> from those expert â??Breedersâ?? performing their own work in these manners.
>
> 6. Tipster Rewards Programâ??according to Denton & Charles Johnson, atty. for
> TDLR, the tipster is protected by Attorney General informant privilege.
> Additionally, in that process, the TDLR inspector will become the
> â??accuserâ??. This is supposedly modeled after â??Crimestoppersâ?? and Texas
> Parks & Wildlife Rewards program. This needs additional legal scrutiny. The
> BACâ??s discussion ignored the fact that adoption of this program is NOT
> statutorily required, as it is an optional provision. Additional comments are
> required to support our position that the additional cost to State of this
> program and potential for exposure of breeders to harassment and baseless
> complaints outweigh any benefits of adoption of this provision in the rules.
> Our position is that the tipster/reward program be eliminated from the Rules.
>
> 7. Program Cost - Commission Chair Denton discussed the program cost issue at
> length and appeared to retreat from the TDLRâ??s initial â??600 breederâ??
> estimate. Denton indicated fees are too high/out of line and that the overall
> fee amounts would be lowered in a desire to attract more breeders to the
> program.
> The discussion made clear that they had no factual basis for their statement
> that revenues generated from licensing would cover program costs. At their
> request, the Licensed Breeder BAC members estimated that there could be as
> little as 25-30 or as many as 100 breeders who could be expected to apply for
> a licenseâ??significantly less than the original 600-breeder estimate.
> Commissioner stated that their objective was to spend less than the original
> $565,000 estimate on the program to reduce costs. However, he elsewhere in
> the discussion acknowledged that program administration has been so costly
> thus far that it is unlikely program costs would be recouped. He indicated
> that reliance upon â??donationsâ?? (permitted by the proposed rule) would be
> necessary to fund the program. This is a critical issue for us, as it is
> HSUSâ?? stated intent to solicit â??donationsâ?? to support program costs.
> Use of the â??donationâ?? provision is not statutorily required, as it is an
> optional program. Additional commentary and legal research is required to
> persuade the Commission to omit the â??donationâ?? provisions from the
> proposed rules.
>
> 8. Grandfathering â?? No grandfather precedent exists in TDLRâ??s current
> regulations except for â??PROPERTY RIGHTSâ?? regarding Electricians and
> Architectural Barrierâ?¦needs further legal scrutiny.
>
> 9. Vet Care â?? Lori Teller (veterinarian on BAC) insists it is current Texas
> State Law that Vets must do â??hands onâ?? annual exams - said she called
> Exec Director of State Board. This should be verified.
>
> 10. Special Purpose Dog Exemption â?? Kirby Brown from Texas Wildlife
> Association verbally â??commentedâ?? regarding concerns about erosion of the
> statutory exemption in the Rules. There were several other written comments
> submitted challenging the proposed ruleâ??s attempt to erode the scope and
> applicability of the exemption. TDLRâ??s attorney commented that proof of
> exemption is included but not limited to what is listed in the Rules. He
> further stated that no initial affirmative proof of exempt status would be
> required by breeders claiming the exemption; such proof would be required
> only during inspections triggered by complaints. Additional
> challenge/commentary on this important issue is necessary, as the proposed
> rule weakens, if not undercuts, the legislative intent behind this broadly
> worded exemption.
>
> Discussion by both BAC members and TDLR attorney indicated misunderstanding
> of the terms of this exemption, which covers dogs bred primarily with intent
> for use in herding livestock, hunting, tracking, retrieving, competing in
> field trials, etc. In addition, the BAC recommended that the exemption should
> be applied equally to cats. They also appeared to presume that the exemption
> applied to (and protected) â??show breedersâ?? of dogs exhibited in
> conformation events. Unfortunately, it does not. However, we intend to lobby
> an amendment to cover show breeders in 2013. Much additional clarification,
> and advocacy, is needed on this issue.
>
> It is our observation that much of what has happened in this process is based
> not on expert experience and facts but on â??as necessaryâ?? opinions and
> emotional images conjured up by extremistsâ??i.e., temperatures cannot vary
> below 45°F (Akitas/Huskys/sled dogs love it at 20°F!) or above 85°F. For
> example, apparently no consideration or attention was given to the fact that
> newborn puppies DIE at 85°F, and need to be kept at least at 95°F for
> several days until their bodies can regulate their own temperature. Obviously
> strong comment by our community is encouraged regarding medically justified
> temperature variations and other factual examples as to how the proposed rule
> standards can harm, rather than protect, our dogs and cats.
> We will keep you informed regarding status updates in this matter, including
> links to the amended rules and agenda for the March 27, 2012 Commission
> meeting, when they become available.
>
> We also will be following up with all Texas legislators who voted FOR HB 1451
> to ascertain whether their vote was based on minimum USDA standards not being
> exceeded and to lobby support for our current position and for the
> prospective amendments we intend to seek in 2013, inclusive of a â??show
> breederâ?? exemption.
> Legislative contacts are particularly interested in areas in which the
> proposed Commission rules may have exceeded the statutory requirements.
>
> Please pass this on to your club members and members of your community to
> encourage attendance at the March 27th meeting.
>
> Thank you again for your continued support in this matter. Please do not
> hesitate to contact any of us with any questions or comments.
>
> Best regards,
> Martin Kralik mailto:mkralik@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Pat McCaslin mccaslin@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Anna Matthews annam2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
>
> cglobal.net
> Anna Matthews annam2@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
>
============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2011. All material remains the property of the original
author and of GSD Communication, Inc. NO REPRODUCTIONS or FORWARDS of any kind
are permitted without prior permission of the original author AND of the
Showgsd-l Management. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
Each Author is responsible for the content of his/her post. This group and its
administrators are not responsible for the comments or opinions expressed in
any post.
ALL PERSONS ARE ON NOTICE THAT THE FORWARDING, REPRODUCTION OR USE IN ANY
MANNER OF ANY MATERIAL WHICH APPEARS ON SHOWGSD-L WITHOUT THE EXPRESS
PERMISSION OF ALL PARTIES TO THE POST AND THE LIST MANAGEMENT IS EXPRESSLY
FORBIDDEN, AND IS A VIOLATION OF LAW. VIOLATORS OF THIS PROHIBITION WILL BE
PROSECUTED.
For assistance, please contact the List Management at admin@xxxxxxxxxxx
VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
SUBSCRIPTION:http://showgsd.org/mail.html
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
Other related posts:
- » [ SHOWGSD-L ] Fwd: Summary - March 1, 2012 Meeting - BAC- Texas Dept of Licensing & Reg - Diane
