Senate Agriculture Committee

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 25
The Puppy and Kitten Mill bill (SF 7) was scheduled to be heard in the Senate Agriculture Committee on Tuesday, March 24. Unfortunately, SF 7 did not receive a hearing.

As you may recall, the bill was laid on the table at the last hearing in this Committee, which means members wanted more time for discussion and were not ready to take a vote. On Tuesday, the Committee Chair asked that the bill be "called off the table" to allow for continued debate. The committee chose, by a majority voice vote, to keep the bill tabled. We are hopeful SF 7 will be called back in the near future.

PREVIOUS ACTION IN THE SENATE AGRICULTURE COMMITTEE
On January 27, 2009, the Puppy and Kitten Mill Bill (SF 7) was heard in the Minnesota Senate Agriculture Committee.

Senator Betzold (author of SF 7) spoke on behalf of the bill - showing a video and submitting pictures of inhumane breeding conditions, stating the basic problem, and explaining the key points of SF 7.

After approximately one and one-half hours of people testifying in support and in opposition to the bill, the Committee voted to "table" SF 7. This means a final vote for or against the bill was not taken at this hearing. Instead, it was laid on the table waiting for further action. It will need to be called back for another hearing in the same Committee in order to finish the discussion.

There were many comments from Committee members about the numerous calls they had received (the vast majority in support) so your voices were heard!

We hope this is the first of many hearings (both in the MN Senate and the House). Passing bills (especially on behalf of animals) is a long process. We will let you know when other hearings are scheduled and what action is needed.

Hearing: Discussion
Two puppy and kitten mill bills were presented: SF 7, authored by Senator Betzold, and SF 201, authored by Senator Dille. The Committee heard from both authors and discussed both bills.

SF 201
We are opposed to SF 201, Senator Dille's bill. As suggested in an earlier email alert, SF 201 is one of the weaker bills. SF 201 would require breeders with 20 or more breeding females to only register with their local animal control every four years (just as they do for feedlot inspections). In addition, there are no required state inspections in this bill. The only way there would be any inspections is if someone files a formal complaint, which is the situation that currently exists today and is not working. Inhumane breeders do not allow the public on their property; hence, conditions are not seen and complaints are rarely filed. SF 201 was only debated and no vote was taken.

SF 7
As for SF 7, the Committee deleted the section in SF 7 that restricted new breeders from having more than 50 breeding animals. It was our hope to stop more large breeders from getting into the business. SF 7 also required breeders with more than 50 breeding animals to not replace existing animals until their numbers went below 50. (PLEASE NOTE: This was 50 breeding animals (not total number of animals). Multiply 50 breeding animals by an average of 2 litters per year by 5 animals per litter = 500 total puppies/kittens. Other states have passed laws capping the number of breeding animals, and we felt this was an appropriate, conservative number.) Unfortunately, this section was removed by the Committee.

A minor amendment was also adopted to SF 7, stating that people can donate money to the Board of Animal Health for inspection efforts and allowing local governments to apply for grants from the Board for reimbursement of costs to them associated with breeding facilities.

Testifiers: Agree there is a problem
While testifiers varied in their opinion about SF 7 (breeders not supporting regulation, as expected), a common theme was heard: A problem exists. Senator Betzold summarized this for the Committee by stating: "We have now heard from all testifiers. It can be assumed that all breeders present today are 'good' breeders. Even these good breeders, by their testimony, agree that bad breeding does exist. There is a problem. It is our duty to do something about this problem."

Hearing: Opposition 
As expected, various breeders (small and large) testified against both bills. Small breeders viewed large breeders as the problem; large breeders viewed small breeders as the problem.

Amendment to reduce the number of animals protected
There was much debate on another amendment offered by Senator Erickson Ropes (District 31) on behalf of Animal Ark shelter in Hastings. The amendment recommended that the number of animals protected be reduced.

SF 7 states that a breeder is defined as someone "who is engaged in the business of breeding animals and possess 6 or more intact females for the purpose of breeding." Animal Ark's recommendation and Senator Erickson Ropes' amendment, however, attempted to raise that number to 40 adult breeding animals. (SF 201 proposed 20 adult breeding animals.) Thus, breeders with 39 or fewer breeding animals (plus litters from these breeding animals) would be exempt from the bill and any licensing or regulation.

This particular amendment did not pass, but it did raise concern about the bill amongst legislators. In our opinion, it is disheartening that an animal welfare organization would recommend that the number of animals protected be reduced and, as a point of process, add considerable confusion to the efforts.

Core problem: Inhumane breeding practices and conditions
Those who are involved in rescues and seizures of animals from inhumane breeders know that even smaller breeders can keep their animals in unacceptable and deplorable conditions. To suggest that licensing begin at 40 or more adult breeding animals, rather than six (per SF 7), does not address the core problem.

The core problem is inhumane breeding practices and conditions (not size alone). The only way to know if breeders are not properly caring for the animals is by regular state inspections. Reputable breeders do not fear regulation if they already act responsibly and follow proper care and breeding standards.

Strong support of SF 7 present
Many other representatives from various animal organizations, rescue groups and humane societies were present at the hearing in strong support of SF 7. As mentioned in earlier alerts, the effort behind SF 7 is a large coalition of citizens animal welfare organizations, animal control, veterinarians and others.

Posted with permission of Animal Folks Minnesota.