Reptile & Amphibian Forums

There is a new law coming up in Wisconsin that will make it next to impossible for smaller rescues to operate and could impact reptile breeders. If you deal with more than 25 animals per year in any form, you will be effected. This law is being introduced to combat the puppy miller folks who keep animals in horrid conditions. By loose comparison reptile breeders are the equivalent of puppy millers except that our animals are healthy. Please contact Governer Jim Doyle and request that this item gets vetoed.

Governor Jim Doyle
608-266-1212 (Voice)
608-267-8983 (Fax)
E-mail form: http://www.wisgov.state.wi.us/contact.asp
(Snail Mail) Office of the Governor
115 East State Capitol
Madison, WI 53702

This law is feeding on the warm fuzzy save animals theory rather than logically looking at solutions. It will also effect the amount of money that shelters get from the city/county they represent.

While we are at it, any advice to me in fighting this locally would be GREATLY appreciated.
Link

-----
Cindy
PHFaust

Email Cindy

Land of the Outcasts!

This is another example of how the law makers ignore the unpopular. You think that they would research such laws? (Is it illegal for your boa to have more than 25 babies?) The law does have it's place however, since puppy mills are indeed a problem. A lot of herp breeders and importers could also use a kick in the butt however. Limiting the mere numbers is an ignorant way for a quick fix to an age old problem. People will find loopholes, thus a more thought-out and constructive bill should be created.

When they made a law for rescues in VA that required a $100 permit, inspection, etc manditory inclusion in the business section of the phone book, etc, we all got together and wrote an amendment that was more livable.

Has this already passed the legislature? Is there somewhere online we can access the bill? What is the bill called? It will be next to impossible to get a bill like this vetoed, but it might be possible to stop it or better yet amend it to just stop the puppy mills if it is still in the legislature. It is difficult to write an effective letter without knowing what the bill actually says.

>>Has this already passed the legislature? Is there somewhere online we can access the bill? What is the bill called? It will be next to impossible to get a bill like this vetoed, but it might be possible to stop it or better yet amend it to just stop the puppy mills if it is still in the legislature. It is difficult to write an effective letter without knowing what the bill actually says.

The link is in the original post but ill add it here.

Right now the wording does NOT state reptiles, however the rescue organization group i am involved with did ask and reptiles are included in any where that the word ANIMAL is.
New law

-----
Cindy
PHFaust

Email Cindy

Land of the Outcasts!

I just eMailed them about this matter. It is so amazing how they take so many rights away from us each day. Please tell your friends to vote smart! Good luck!
-----
JustHerps - Reptile Supplies / Herp Supplies

I read the law, and reread it. They do start out using the word animal, but thats more in the overview. In the actual definitions of the law they use only the words dog, cat and mammal, not to include live stock. It defined pet breeder as a person who sells or offers to sell at least 25 dogs or
cats for resale as pets in a year, except that “pet breeder” does not include a pet dealer. My interpretation of this law would then be that reptiles are not included in the law. I think maybe someone needs to read the law better, and I admit it might be me, but I just dont see how it would affect reptile breeders.

New Amendment to PFL Bill page 4 line 2

Now reads as
Pet Dealer Means a person who sells, or offers to sell at retail, exchanges or offer for adoption, at least 25 reptiles, amphibians, birds other than farm raised game birds as defined in 169.01(2m) or mammals and other than live stock as pets in a year.
-----
Cindy
PHFaust

Email Cindy

Land of the Outcasts!

This is the second time the puppy mill law has come to light. The last time several reptile breeders went to Madison and talked to the committee that was reviewing the law. At that time they had agreed to rewrite it and not include reptiles. As I read it now, it appears that reptiles have not been included.

New amendment to PFL Page 4 line 2

Pet Dealer Means a person who sells, or offers to sell at retail, exchanges or offer for adoption, at least 25 reptiles, amphibians, birds other than farm raised game birds as defined in 169.01(2m) or mammals and other than live stock as pets in a year.
-----
Cindy
PHFaust

Email Cindy

Land of the Outcasts!

Page 4 line 2 now reads as

Pet Dealer Means a person who sells, or offers to sell at retail, exchanges or offer for adoption, at least 25 reptiles, amphibians, birds other than farm raised game birds as defined in 169.01(2m) or mammals and other than live stock as pets in a year.

Contact Governer Doyle regarding line item veto. This is part of the budget which must be passed. Governer Doyles Contact information is listed in orginal post.
PFL Bill Wording and amendment.

-----
Cindy
PHFaust

Email Cindy

Land of the Outcasts!

It's too bad this wasn't caught before the public hearing on 10-16. The way things are going it will require constant vigilance to catch these laws before it is too late.

The good news is, it appears to me that the bill has a long way to go before it is passed. If the legislative history on the link you provided is current, I think that the bill is still in committee. There has only been one reading of the bill. I'm not sure about WI, but in PA it must be read three times for passage. The bill was referred to committee and appears to still be there.

I will send my letters to the appropriate legislators and the governor, but think it would be a really good idea for someone in WI to look up the voting record for the original 2002 bill to identify any legislators who voted against it and try to work through them to get this bottled up in committee.

I don't understand the statement "this is part of the budget that must be passed". In my experience it is easier to stop these things in the legislature than to get a veto.

>>
>>I don't understand the statement "this is part of the budget that must be passed". In my experience it is easier to stop these things in the legislature than to get a veto.

From what I know about WI Politics is that when they want things to be passed under the rader they include them in the next years budget. In WI the budget must be passed in whole by a certain time. Our governer then has the option to Line Item Veto parts of the bills/budget. So what we are hoping for is that the governer vetos this portion. Something like this probably wouldnt make it on its own. It is far to broad and vague. As I said on the whole it is a good theory. We have several hideous mills here. In theory it would be great for mills to be regulated, however 1 inspection in 2 years aint gonna cut it. And cracking down on smaller shelters and rescues isnt going to help a hoot either simply because it is going to close an outlet that pet owners have right now to dump unwanted animals. Where are people going to go if i start refusing all the green iguanas that I get calls for because I cant afford to license my rescue?For a rescue that operates on around $100 a year in donations something like that would kill me. Meanwhile the puppy millers who this bill is aimed at and meant for simply need to keep their animals in better condition. But since many of the mills make huge amounts of money and rescues and shelters rely on donations it kinda ruins the shelters and rescues.

The reptile portion was added at as a last minute addition. When the bill initially went to the public thru a committee meeting, those opposed were pushed back to speaking until wella fter 5 pm and most of the committee had already left so they werent properly represented. The other problem was it was a late min meeting as well. Also at the time of the meeting the reptile portion was not part of the bill.

Ahhh the joys of the democratic process.
-----
Cindy
PHFaust

Email Cindy

Land of the Outcasts!

I've read this a number of times now, and I'm not seeing where it says reptiles at all. In fact page four line two, reads "or offers for adoption at least 25 mammals, other than livestock, as pets in a year"

I was wondering if perhaps you seen the new revisions at another link other than the one you originally posted. If so, could you pass it on? I've been searching but haven't found anything yet.

I'm not a supporter of Doyle anyway, so I can't say this shocks me.

Thanks,
Shelly

Im not a supporter of many politicians in WI lately. They seem as corrupt as they come. There was an addition put to the amendment that is in one of the new messages in this thread. I have also included the link below.

This is at statement from Ed Stone that was Mass Mailed to many people in the WI reptile industry.

"For those of you not familiiar with this bill, It was first introduced to
the legislature a couple of sessions ago. It would have required anyone
selling more than 25 animals of any vertebrate species (including herps) per
year to be licensed and inspected by WI Dept.of Ag, Trade , and Consumer
Protection.

DATCP would dictate the way you keep your animals.

The bill never passed. It was introduced into the last legislative session
to include only mammals.
IT's fate is unclear to me, but it was somehow killed.

It has been introduced into this session again. The text as it appears on
the legislature website is misleading in that it mentions only mammals. At
a hearing last week, an ammendment was "offered"
to include birds, reptiles, and amphibians. I dont know what the status of
the word "offered" means.
Read ammendment 1 on the url below.

Overall, the intent of the legislation is good. Puppy mills are a big
problem and should be regulated.
Exotics are a different matter. Do you want State Law Enforcement agents to
be able to enter your house and invade your privacy whenever they want. Do
you want your collection to be a matter of public record so your landlord
and neighbors (and thieves) can submit an open records request and find out
everything you have? Many of you have reptiles in municipalities that
restrict their ownership and you probably are not even aware of it. If this
passes everyone will know what you have and you may face legal penalties.

I just found out about it. There was a discussion thread on kingsnake.com
law forum, and I initially discounted it because I carefully reviewed the
text of the bill and it seemed to only concern mammals.
I just read this ammendment a few moments ago. I will need to look into
this more and keep you posted.

Review the names of the sponsors of the bill and of the amendment, and if
they are your reps, tell them to kill the amendment or they will not get
your vote."
Amendment To PFL.

-----
Cindy
PHFaust

Email Cindy

Land of the Outcasts!