UPDATE 8/10/09. SB460 WAS NOT HEARD OR VOTED ON IN HOUSE FINANCE COMMITTEE. GENERAL ASSEMBLY WILL ADJOURN UNTIL 2010.
House Member List
House Finance Committee Member List
VERSION 5 and a new Fiscal Note are posted at the bill website. The current Fiscal Notes states: SB460 will not require AWS to inspect commercial dog breeders; counties will have the sole responsibility to investigate violations related to commercial breeding operations and to take the appropriate enforcement actions authorized by law. It is expected that most investigations would come due to complaints about specific facilities. The cost to counties of inspecting commercial breeding facilities cannot be determined without detailed information on the cost of inspections in each county as well as an accurate estimate of the number of commercial breeding facilities in each county; this information is not available.
HSUS, animal rightists, and Senator Davis are so desperate to pass this bill they are removing the enforcement mechanism. County Government and County Animal Control Departments have now been handed an unfunded mandate from Senators who have basically decided to wash their hands of responsibility for a bill they allowed to move forward.
Senate 3rd Reading vote on SB#460 on Wednesday, 08/05/09
NC SB460 Commercial Breeder Regulation passed the Senate by *one vote*. Next election, remember those Senators who supported this bill and voted to restrict your rights. Senators voting in favor of this bill did the bidding of out-of-state activists, not NC constituents. The majority of phone calls supporting SB460 are not from NC area codes.
IN FAVOR of SB#460 (23 votes)
Basnight, Blue, Boseman, Clodfelter, Dannelly, Davis, Dorsett, Foriest, Garrou, Graham, Hoyle, Hunt, Jenkins, Jones, Kinnaird, McKissick, Nesbitt, Purcell, Rand, Shaw, Soles, Stein, Vaughan.
AGAINST SB#460 (22 votes)
Albertson, Allran, Apodaca, Doug Berger, Phil Berger, Blake, Brown, Brunstetter, Clary, East, Forrester, Goodall, Goss, Hartsell, Jacumin, Preston, Rouzer, Rucho, Show, Swindell, Tillman, Weinstein.
ABSENT: Atwater, Bingham
Not voting (but not excused) Queen
Paired Brock [N] & Stevens [Y] (so neither vote was counted)
2nd Reading vote on the 4th edition of SB#460 on Tuesday, 08/04/09
IN FAVOR OF SB#460 (24 votes)
Basnight, Blue, Boseman, Clodfelter, Dannelly, Davis, Dorsett, Foriest, Garrou, Graham, Hoyle, Hunt, Jenkins, Jones, Kinnaird, McKissick, Nesbitt, Purcell, Rand, Shaw, Soles, Stein, Vaughan, Weinstein
AGAINST SB#460 (22 votes)
Albertson, Apodaca, Doug Berger, Phil Berger, Blake, Brock, Brown, Brunstetter, Clary, East, Forrester, Goodall, Goss, Hartsell, Jacumin, Preston, Queen, Rouzer, Rucho, Show, Swindell, and Tillman.
ABSENT: Allran, Atwater, Bingham, Stevens
SB460 FACT OF THE DAY: Fictitious Sales Tax Revenue
July 24, 2009. The fanatic supporters of SB460 are espousing a new claim that the licensing of commercial breeders will bring a sales tax revenue boon to North Carolina and offset the cost of enforcement by NCDA. This windfall of $720,000 in sales tax is based on the assumption that every one of the 15 females will be bred twice in one year and produce 5 puppies each litter. The estimate continues by using a multiplier of 200 licensed facilities.
This fuzzy math is problematic on several levels but the most glaring is that the Fiscal Note attached to SB460 plainly states that while there are at least 200 commercial breeders operating in North Carolina; of these, only 79 are known to have more than 15 female dogs.
200 high volume breeders do not equate to a state-wide crisis despite the hysterical opinions of HSUS and anti-breeder forces. Most certainly 79 kennels do not justify an expenditure in excess of $400,000 over the next few years during a budget crisis. This expense cannot be absorbed by NCDA and cannot be passed off to county animal control departments that are already understaffed and underfunded.
UPDATE 7/8. Senate Majority Leader, Tony Rand (D-Bladen, Cumberland), pulled SB 460 from today’s Calendar after it failed to reach a caucus consensus prior to the start of the Senate session. SB 460 was sent to the Rules Committee, possibly for more amendments. SB 460 was amended in Finance Committee to define as a commercial breeder anyone who maintains 15 or more adult female dogs and 30 puppies for the primary purpose of breeding. The bill authorizes standards NC Department of Agriculture to write standards of care, requirements for exercise, veterinary protocol, and record keeping. Mandates that commercial breeders can not breed female dogs without an annual certification from a licensed veterinarian that the dog is in suitable health for breeding. Authorizes inspections by the Department employee or local animal control officer of the records of the commercial breeder, the premises where animals are bred and maintained, and any animal used in the breeding program or their offspring.
SB 460 COMMERCIAL DOG BREEDERS - text, status, sponsors.
** TALKING POINTS TO OPPOSE SB460**
* SB460 is opposed by the Sportsmen’s & Animal Owners’ Voting Alliance, (SAOVA), North Carolina Responsible Animal Owners Alliance (NCRAOA), North Carolina Federation of Dog Clubs, North Carolina Sporting Dog Association, American Kennel Club, American Dog Owners Association, American Dog Breeders Association, The National Rifle Association, The American Sporting Dog Alliance, Appalachian Houndsmen Association, the North Carolina Veterinary Medical Association, major North Carolina farming associations, and many more organizations throughout North Carolina.
* Amendments and revisions to SB 460 ARE NOT ACCEPTABLE. Commercial breeder is now defined as someone who owns 15 or more intact females of breeding age and 30 or more puppies. The bill exempts kennels that operate for the purpose of boarding or training hunting, sporting, herding, show, or working dogs.
* Exemptions are NOT A GUARANTEE for future protection. HSUS has proven they will continue to lobby for increasingly restrictive legislation. This is the step or incremental method of gaining power over breeding and owning dogs.
* Regulations for commercial breeder facilities are yet to be established; however it is reasonable to assume they will be based on the same USDA commercial standards currently in place for animal control facilities, shelters, and boarding kennels. SUBCHAPTER 52J ANIMAL WELFARE SECTION .0200 FACILITIES AND OPERATING STANDARDS
* State licensing and regulation as a commercial entity will end dog breeding for anyone in a residential zoned area. The impact in rural-residential zoned areas will depend on the specifics written for each county and the final requirements for housing established by the NC Department of Agriculture.
* Bill supporters claim that small hobby breeders will not be affected. This is not true. Supporters claim the only reason to have 15 females is for mass producing puppies, i.e. continually breeding each female. Also not true. The bill supporters are activists, NOT dog breeders and have no firsthand knowledge of building or maintaining a breeding program. It is quite possible for someone to have 15 females without constantly producing puppies.
* Bill supporters will use photos showing the worst possible conditions in an attempt to create a wave of emotion strong enough to carry the bill forward. High emotion makes for bad laws and SB 460 is no exception. SB 460 will punish countless responsible breeders unnecessarily as a result of the actions of a few callous breeders in our state.
* SB 460 assumes that an owner of 15 or more dogs is not capable of managing and maintaining their animals in good health without state intervention. It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal-cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.
* Thousands of North Carolina citizens breed dogs without creating problems and they do not require state inspections. This is reactive legislation to the recent closure of a substandard kennel. The kennel closure and removal of dogs is evidence that current law adequately dealt with the situation.
* The cost to dog owners/breeders for construction of commercial grade facilities to meet state requirements will be enormous. It is irresponsible for legislators to force this expense on citizens who are already financially stressed in the current recession.
* It is wrong to use a numerical basis to begin excessive regulation of dog breeders; numbers do not correlate to quality of care. Laws for animal welfare and to prevent animal-cruelty are already in place to protect all animals whether it is one dog or one hundred.
* Promoted with the usual anti-puppy mill hype and emotion, the bills focus on labeling dog breeders, i.e., commercial=puppy mill to justify this over-the-top legislation. The term puppy mill has been promoted by animal rights activists in the same manner as a racial slur to cast a negative picture on the whole industry of breeding dogs; the goal is to eventually make all the words interchangeable, commercial=puppy mill=breeder.
* The definition of primary purpose is problematic. If a person maintains several dogs for dog shows or obedience trials and sells an occasional litter, what is the primary purpose of the dog? Is she primarily a family show dog or a breeding female?
* In this time of economic and financial stress North Carolina resources would be better used in other areas providing assistance and stability for its citizens.
|
