Final LD 964 Work Session Tuesday, May 26Joint Committee on Agriculture, Conservation & Forestry
It is unlikely that Maine's LD 964 will be counted among those breeder bills that were defeated across the nation... instead, it may help the count of passed bills rise. If this occurs, Maine will join the MINORITY of states as reported below.
As many of you know, The Sportsmen and Animal Owners Voting Alliance and other groups monitor animal rights industry legislation nationally. Accordingly, out of 30 specific Commercial Breeder bills associated with the animal rights industry followed across the country, current data supports the following (unofficial) statistics:
DEFEATED: Commercial Breeder Bills: 16
PENDING: 9
PASSED: 5
Maine's bill, LD 964 An Act Pertaining to the Breeding and Selling of Dogs and Cats, is identified as an HSUS Commercial Breeding Bill, and remains in the still pending column.
North Carolina is listed in the defeated column but they are waiting for the Rules Committee to make it's final determination whether or notthe breeder bills are worthy enough to survive the crossover deadline. The bills sponsor says it is dead.
With the passage of LD 964 (with or without an amendment) the ever growing foundation of incrementalism increases in strength as it pertains to the animal rights industry in Maine - already touted as #3 State in the country for having the best animal protection laws according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund http://www.aldf.org/. This rating points to Maine's success in restricting the rights of the people who responsiblyown, love, care for, and breed animals.
Among those who oppose bills like LD 964 are the responsible hunting and sporting dog owners and breeders, often of multiple dogs. State based animal advocacy groups boldly disparage the actions of ALL responsible dog owners and breeders for speaking out against their industry. Members and leaders within some groups frequently criticize and accuse responsible dog owners and breeders saying they are against 'animal welfare reform.' (Yet another term introduced by the animal rights industry.)
One claim is that responsible breeders opposing the animal rights industry will refuse inspections. There is nothing further from the truth for they are proud of their animals and the care they provide for them. It is the unwarranted, invasive, unjustified 'inspections'that they object to. Additionally, many responsible breeders believe the background check done on them before a breeding kennel license is issued is a form of profiling and unconstitutional. Their protests in these matters are justifiable.
Responsible hunting and sporting dog owners and breeders in Maine continue to be verbally slammed as the mistruths about them spread. In April, during a Senate session, one very influential legislator loudly, unfairly and publically criticized a group that is representative of dog clubs in the state. It is difficult enough in Maine for responsible dog owners and breeders without condemnation coming from a leading Senator!
Fortunately, there are many wonderful Maine legislators who have become sympathetic and supportive of specific concerns of responsible hunting and sporting dog owners and breeders. These legislators are very willing to listen and act on behalf of those who turn to them with legitimate fears pertaining to ever invasive and restrictive dog ownership laws. These legislators know that responsible dog owners and breeders care deeply about the welfare of the animals they own while understanding their rights to care for them are being unduly legislated. They understand owners of sporting and hunting dogsface a two edged sword because the animal rights industry detests hunting.
Responsible owners of sporting and hunting dogs are a unique group with unique needs of representation at the state level. In recognition of this, their statewide grassroots movement of alliances continues to grow and expand. A concerted effort is underway to further establish themselves with an official announcement regarding this endeavor anticipated soon.
LD 964 (LD 2010) An Act Pertaining to the Breeding and Selling of Dogs and Cats continues to morph far away from it's intended purpose. According to several reliable sources LD 964 appears to be alive and well. Chair of the Ag Committee, Senator Nutting, apparently may add an amendment to include lowering the dog license and municipal kennel license fees, turn all dog licensing fees over to the towns and create a NEW 1% sales tax on all pet food (excluding livestock food) and perhaps a 1% tax on horse tack. Estimates are that this will add $180,000 to the animal welfare program. A scrupulous review of the rest of this bill is necessary before deciding the reduced license fees are beneficial.
The overall, original intent of this bill cannot be taken for granted. In the fall of 2007 this bill emerged as a concept draft of LD 2010 - known to everyone who has been following for almost 2 years as originally emerging as 'the puppy mill bill' (another AR term). The bill had little to do with substandard kennels and everything to do with regulating responsible dog owners and breeders further. Legislators and many stakeholders have worked at great length to try to resolve the conflicting issues within this bill at each juncture. Nearly 2 years later there is STILL no agreement. It is important to remember that in the fall of 2008 when the LD 2010 work group concluded their task, there was never any agreement on breeding kennel definitions. Once a bad bill, always a bad bill.
The brand new 3 tiered breeding kennel licensing system is still part of the bill, and each new level of breeding kenneldefinition still has a price tag attached to it. Although some of the original language and sections of LD 964 have been changed/removed,the fact remains dog owners in Maine will go from having 1 breeding kennel definition with 1 set licensing fee - to now having several definitions based on the number of intact dogs and/or total number of dogs. The original proposed license fees were reduced somewhat, but the fact remains - the new definitionswill still result in higher fees and additional restrictions, limitations etc. Not to mention the new tax on pet food! LD 964 will directly effect all animal owners. Not too many people are paying attention to this fact though! Why?
Many proponents of this bill support the tax incentive, feeling it spreads out the burden of financing the animal welfare program to other animal owners/users. Proponents want to help the animal welfare department with it's funding problems.
Opponents of this bill and the tax incentive have remained steadfast in their opposition to LD 964 (LD 2010). The opposition may grow now with this proposed tax increase. There is a concern that this bill does little to ensure the welfare of dogs or cats or that it will aid in the elimination of animal abuse, neglector cruelty. Instead it appears to be a means to fund the severely over extended budget of the animal welfare program which is several hundredthousands of dollars in the red. Apparently there is a request for several hundred thousand more dollars to be added in the near future,just to keep the department in operation for this year.
There is renewed hope for those on both sides of these issues (outside of the animal rights industry goals) to work more cooperatively in the future. Those who only see abuse tend to forget that those who daily live with, love and care for their dogs have a lot to offer along the way to eliminate TRUE animal cruelty and neglect. For the time being though, it is far wiser and safer for those on 'this' side of the issue, to proceed with extreme caution before sitting down to the table to agree to anything; present the position boldly, strongly, and with unwavering conviction. Although some may say this means being extreme, it's not. It simply means communicating a transparent and truthful message - enough is enough! Drawing a line and standing firm on it is much better than losing any ground we may gain by encroachment. Compromise may very well have a place in most instances. But those who grasp the reality of the movement and momentum of the animal rights industry will not take risks. Maine is being hijacked by the animal rights movement in the name of compromise.
It seems more respect would be gained in the long run among constituents, stakeholders, legislators, and the department. A loud and noisy gong is one thing - a clear and clarion call is quite another. Can you hear it?
The SAOVA link (see sidebar) http://saova.org/Maine.html has information relative to contacting legislators and the committee. The Ag committee will meet on Tuesday May 26 for final committee vote on LD 964. Any and all help would be greatly appreciated.
Respectfully written on behalf of responsible Maine Hunting/Sporting Dog Owners,
Ann H. Short
AKC Legislative Liaison
SAOVA Maine Representative
VP Central Maine Brittany Club
Member Maine Bird Dog ClubMember National Animal Interest Alliance
