[ SHOWGSD-L ] NAIA<>Oregon HB2470

From: Stormy Hope <Stormy435@xxxxxxx>
To: showgsd-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Sun, 3 May 2009 08:42:39 -0700
******* Please Crosspost *******

http://capwiz.com/naiatrust/issues/alert/?alertid262691&type=CT&show_alert=1

http://tinyurl.com/dx7ozp

Senate Hearing on HB 2470 May 12th
Write the Committee and Attend the Hearing!

May 1, 2009

The Senate Consumer Protection and Public Affairs Committee has
scheduled HB 2470 for a hearing and possible work session on Tuesday,
May 12th at 3:00 P.M. in Hearing Room B of the State Capitol Building.

We need each and every one of our Oregon members to write the Committee
today to begin educating them about how HB 2470 is not what is seems. It
might be viewed as feelgood legislation to do away with "puppy mills",
but HB 2470 is loaded with provisions that are controversial,
unnecessary, unenforceable and fundamentally unfair to responsible  
breeders.

Please also plan to join NAIA at the hearing on the 12th to ensure that
responsible breeders and the consumers who support them are well
represented!

Put your best arguments together, using the talking points we have
provided below if you like, to persuade members of the Senate Committee
that they should consider ALL of the facts and perspectives before
commiting to support this well-meaning but misguided bill. Suggest
instead that they appoint an interim work group comprised of the various
stakeholders in the process to study the issue and recommend solutions
to the next legislature that will enjoy consensus support.

Click here to read the latest amended version of HB 2470.

Explain that HB 2470 had the potential to strengthen Oregon?s already
outstanding animal treatment laws without unfairly targeting responsible
breeders solely on the basis of numbers. The version sent to the Senate
contains an unnecessary provision that is both controversial and
fundamentally unfair.

HSUS and animal rights activists will be putting a lot of pressure on
the committee to pass a bill with caps, because the numbers game has
become their central concern. Responsible animal owners and breeders
must continue to stand up and fight for genuine solutions based on
animal science, not emotion and an overall distrust of breeders.

It is especially important for people who wouldn't be directly impacted
by the caps in the bill to speak up and attend the hearing. If you are a
hobby breeder, a veterinarian or if you are simply an individual who
appreciates the quality puppies good breeders produce, let the Committee
know that caps are a flawed concept that increases the potential for
invasion of privacy and harassment. The terrible kennels that we all
want to shut down come in all shapes and sizes and are already illegal.
They can and have been successfully targeted using current law.

Let's all speak up for what Oregon needs and not allow our voices to be
drowned out by national interest groups and expensive advertising  
campaigns!

TALKING POINTS:

I am an Oregonian who supports efforts to improve care and conditions
for breeding dogs, but I am opposed to HB 2470.

Eliminating substandard kennels is a worthwhile goal, but HB 2470 as
amended goes too far by arbitrarily capping the number of intact dogs
that can be kept.

The House missed an opportunity to pass a bill that would have enjoyed
broad support by addressing standards of care without imposing an
arbitrary cap.

The version you are being asked to vote on contains an unnecessary
provision that is both controversial and fundamentally unfair.

HB 2470 should focus on facilities that are currently not subject to
oversight by any entity or the public and exempt other kennels, like
USDA breeders, who are already inspected by the federal government,
local animal control agencies and often by the AKC.

HB 2470 is well-meaning but unnecessary. Oregon already has one of the
strongest and best animal cruelty laws in the nation, we simply need the
resources to fully enforce them.

Similar bills with arbitrary caps ranging from 20 to 75 have been
introduced and rejected in several states so far this year. The two
states that passed this "model" legislation last year are now finding it
unenforceable.

Effective and enforceable animal laws strike a reasonable balance
between protecting the welfare of animals and the privacy of citizens
who keep animals in their homes.

If the bill's aim is to create minimum standards of animal care, why
shouldn't they also apply to shelters, pet stores and any other facility
that house and place dogs with the public?

Most breeders do what they do out of a genuine love of dogs, and a
desire to improve the breed, often going above and beyond to provide the
best care and treatment, and carefully place their puppies in the right
homes.

Responsible breeders should be treated as partners in helping to improve
kennel standards and eliminate bad breeders, but the amendments adopted
ignored their strongest objections and will alienate the very community
that can help most.

Animal organizations differ in their recommendations about the best
source of pets -- whether that should be a breeder, shelter, pet store,
rescue or even foreign country. It is important to recognize these
biases and not mistake ideology and marketing hype for facts.

The Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) the national fundraising
and lobbying organization promoting this bill is pushing similar
legislation all over the U.S. HSUS, which is not affiliated with local
shelters, opposes the breeding of dogs. When seeking advice on how to
regulate an activity or industry, it is dangerous to rely on a group
that would prefer that it be abolished rather than improved.

When it comes to proper animal care, it is the quality of care and the
conditions that matters, not quantity.

Numerical caps like the 50 dog limit contained in amended HB 2470 are
based on an arbitrary number and have been found to be unenforceable and
vulnerable to court challenges.

Number limit laws have never been successful in addressing irresponsible
breeding or negligent rescue operations.

People who maintain dogs responsibly and humanely and do not present a
nuisance to their neighbors should not be prevented from keeping them
because other animal owners might not be as responsible.

The goal should be to limit specific negative behavior, property
destruction, neighborhood degradation and abuse by focusing on actual
nuisances and confirmed reports of negligence or abuse.

What is needed is greater enforcement of existing cruelty and nuisance
laws to crack down on those who disobey the law, not more regulation for
law-abiding citizens.

A positive step would be to educate consumers about how to research the
source of their pets and distinguish the good breeders from the bad. In
that way we shut down substandard kennels by cutting off their customer
base.

Oregon's dogs deserve the best quality of care, but please do not rush
to pass flawed legislation that sounds good but will not meet its stated
goal.

I hope I can count on you to oppose HB 2470.


Stormy Hope
www.carpoc.org
AKC Legislative Liaison, GSDCA
Sunshine Squad <showgsd.org/sunshine.html)
GSDs and more

============================================================================
POST is Copyrighted 2008.  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. 

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@xxxxxxxxxxxx

VISIT OUR WEBSITE - http://showgsd.org
NATIONAL BLOG - http://gsdnational.blogspot.com/
============================================================================
[ SHOWGSD-L ] NAIA<>Oregon HB2470

Other related posts:
