High Drama Faces Texas Dog Owners

• The Senate Criminal Justice Committee has scheduled a hearing on House Bill 3180 for tomorrow at 1:30 p.m. in hearing room E1.016. Sen. John Whitmire of Houston, who introduced identical legislation in the Senate, chairs the committee. This repressive bill passed the House by a 119-30 margin, with one abstention. If it passes a committee vote, it will face the full House.

• And animal rights group supporters played a dirty political trick by inserting kennel legislation into an unrelated business licensing bill for barbers, which was hijacked in the Senate. The rules were suspended and the vote came in the middle of the night - with no notice, no public hearing and no chance for debate. This measure, HB 2310, already passed the house, but the Senate amendments now must receive House concurrence. The head of the conference committee, Rep. Ed Kuempel of Sequin, vowed to kill the animal rights amendment. However, Kuempel collapsed of an apparent heart attack this week and remains in critical condition. Thus, the current status of the conference committee’s position on the legislation is not known.

• The third bill appears to be in limbo at present.

• The original bill defined everyone who owns 11 or more female dogs that are intact a commercial breeder, subject to intense regulation. Rep. Kuempel succeeded in expanding this to 11 or more females that produce 20 or more litters per year. However, we continue to oppose any numerical limits to dog ownership, as commercial kennels already are heavily regulated on the federal level, and other kennels already are subject to stringent animal cruelty and neglect laws in Texas.

• The possession of more than 50 intact females would be prohibited. We oppose numerical limits because the number of dogs has nothing to do with the quality of their care, and is an unwarranted intrusion on personal property rights.

• It allows counties and municipalities to impose more strict regulations. We oppose this because it would create chaos and is an unreasonable restriction on business that has no purpose.

• The state would establish a list of qualifications for a kennel owner, who also would be subjected to a criminal background check. Applicants for licenses would have to receive state-approved training as well. We oppose this provision because it is an unwarranted intrusion on the right to privacy that has nothing to do with the quality of care given to dogs. Moreover, state agencies lack the competence, experience and knowledge to set reasonable standards and qualifications for kennel ownership, or to conduct training. Kennel owners already are the experts in these matters.

• Annual inspections would be required, and more frequent inspections are allowed. This is an unnecessary intrusion on kennels that already are inspected by a team of federal officials at least once a year. In addition, inspections could be conducted by state employees, animal control officers, law enforcement officers and a new category called “registered breeder inspectors,” which is ambiguously defined in the legislation. Thus, any kennel could be literally harassed by many inspections every year, and we are deeply concerned that “registered breeder inspectors” will be contracted Humane Society employees who may have close ties to radical animal rights groups whose agenda is to drive kennels out of business. License holders and applicants would have to pay for the cost of these inspections. Licensees’ homes also would be open to inspection.

• The state would be empowered to require insurance, and there is no legislative oversight for the amount and kind of insurance required. Thus, the state could impose impossible or prohibitive requirements.

• An advisory committee would be established to create additional regulations and enforcement standards. Membership in this committee would allow or encourage dominance by animal rights radicals who despise dog owners and lack competence and expertise. There would be no legislative oversight of this powerful regulatory authority, which literally would be given a blank check.

• Each kennel owner would be required to keep extensive paperwork on the kennel and each animal. Also, many regulations about standards of care and housing are very ambiguous and open to subjective interpretation by enforcement officers, judges and animal rights extremists.

• License holders and applicants would be denied the constitutional right of appeal to the courts for any license denial, revocation or suspension, or for possibly severe financial penalties imposed for even minor or purely technical violations. High civil penalties (these are not fines, but require a licensee to pay a high financial penalty that would be cumulative and have the strong potential to destroy a family financially) also are imposed. For example, if a kennel has 30 dogs, the lack of one piece of required paperwork would call for 30 different financial civil penalties for every day of violation – up to 900 penalties a month for one missing form!

• A “lemon law” is included to make the breeder reimburse a dissatisfied buyer for the cost of a puppy and costs of medical care. The original bill set no limits on reimbursement, but an approved House amendment by Rep. Kuempel limits this to three times the price of the puppy. However, the bill still contains no protection for the breeder against unreasonable allegations and fraud by the purchaser or a veterinarian.

• And Humane Societies and animal shelters are exempted from any provision of the bill, even though they transfer ownership of thousands of dogs a year. However, rescue groups are included and may be regulated as commercial kennels.

The “Other” Breeding Bill