There are actually two posts below, both crossposted with permission. Please note there are FOUR bills that need to be defeated, but there is only two weeks left to the legislative session, so there's hope!
Katrina
-------------------------------------
PLEASE FORWARD/CROSSPOST AS YOU THINK USEFUL!
West Virginia -- Population about 1.2 million -- gets the prize for the most bills aimed at clobbering normal pet breeding and rescue practices in a single legislative session. They have not one, two, or three such bills but FOUR of them.
SB 137, SB 277, HB 2620, and HB 2635 would all require *anyone
selling an animal* to be licensed as a pet shop. Each bill would
set up a state board with broad powers to write regulations for the operation of such pet shops and under the language of the bills those regs would not necessarily have to be approved by anyone.
Promoted as necessary to control diseases, danger to humans
and so on caused by 'exotic animals' (one AR web site says they
need SB 137 to keep people from buying African lions!) ALL of
these bills also regulate all sales of domesticated animals. In my opinion the real aim is to control breeding of ordinary pets.
None of these bills has gone very far in the legislative process. However there are less than three weeks remaining in the legislative session and things will happen fast from here on.
ACTION:
1. What we need first is a lot more players on the state pet law
list. If you have time to help, please send a blank email to:
westvirginiapetlaw-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
We'll be coordinating details there over the next few days.
2. If you know dog or other animal people in West Virginia, please contact them URGENTLY and ask them to join the list above. We need all of the following:
Dog people -- show people, performance, pet owners, trainers,
groomers, vets, pet stores, doggy day care providers, kennel
operators, 4H parents ...
Hunters ...
Cat people ...
Horse and other large animal folks ...
Farmers, believe it or not -- yes, these bills would make a farmer selling a cow into a pet shop.
We need *thousands* of West Virginia animal owners calling their
legislators, telling them "NO on SB 137, SB 277, HB 2620, and HB
2635!"
I'll be posting more 'what to do' within a couple of days.
West Virginia is lucky to have an active state list run by Colby
Homer. We have good support from exotic animal folks and others
-- but we need even more. Let's pitch in and help them dump
these bills!
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Virginia
------------------------------------------------
One of the complexities of the West Virginia picture is that there are four overlapping bills to deal with. Good grief, what a mess. However, after a couple more hours of study, what's clear is that all of these bills are bad and need to be beaten. All four bills will regulate *all* sales of *all* pets and nearly all other animals; SB 137 would also regulate breeding, even without sales.
Said another way, even if only one of these bills passes (and it
does not matter very much which one) the practice of home
breeding of normal pets is over in West Virginia. Their effects on the breeding and keeping of exotic pets are more varied but are in all cases open-ended -- that is, there are no important limits on the exotic animal power of the various boards that would be created under the somewhat different approaches.
It ought to offend West Virginia taxpayers to see legislators' time wasted with crap like this. But ... let's take a closer look.
Current West Virginia law does not define 'pet shop' or any
equivalent. Thus, pet shops are currently not regulated as places that sell animals -- though I'm sure they are regulated as businesses, required to have business licenses, pay taxes,
conform to zoning laws, and so on. As we go through the bills,
the first step will be to see exactly what they would regulate.
SB 137 defines pet shops as follows:
“'Pet shop' means a facility where an animal is kept for the purpose of sale or breeding.”
That's very broad -- it covers the premises (home or other structure) of anyone who has any animal for the purpose of selling it as well as anyone who has an animal with the intent to breed it. If SB 137 were to pass you wouldn't even be able to breed for your own purposes *without* selling unless you comply with pet shop regulations.
The bill establishes a board to make rules for pet shops and a
comprehensive permit and enforcement system. There are no
distinctions in the bill about the kind of animals involved
(domesticated, exotic, dangerous ...), indeed, any farmer planing to sell a cow is a pet shop. I wonder what the farmers will think about that? The definition also includes hunters, bird and cat breeders, reptile folks ... EVERYONE is in there.
SB 277 defines pet shops thusly:
“'Pet shop' means a facility where an animal is kept for the purpose of sale. The term excludes a facility subject to the
provisions of articles twenty or twentythree of this chapter ..."
Article twenty regulates dogs and cats; the only 'facilities'
mentioned are kennels, pounds and animal shelters. Article
twenty-three covers racing of horses and dogs and the facilities are stables, dog racing kennels and racetracks. Thus it seems that SB 277 would regulate anything that wasn't a kennel, shelter, pound, stable or track, including all of the usual meanings of 'pet shop' *and* anyone who as a hobbyist (farmer ...) sells any animal for any reason.
(The 'seems' is because articles twenty and twenty-three are long and complicated; I can't guarantee that I've found every 'facility' mentioned there. But there's no sign of anything overlapping the usual meaning of 'pet shop.')
This bill creates a three member 'exotic animal regulation board' with a nine-member technical advisory committee. As usual the board would have the power to write regulations for the legislature to approve or it could (if it wishes) call the situation an emergency so legislative approval isn't needed. But pet fanciers won't have to wait for the writing of regulations because of this:
"§19-9B-9. Pet shop registration required. Effective the first day of January, two thousand six, no person shall operate a pet shop in
this state unless he or she has registered with the Board."
There's a fee and record keeping is required. For exotic animals
the board can seize the animal and do exactly as it pleases, at the owner's expense. If you don't want to pay expenses in advance, then too bad -- the animal belongs to them.
SB 277 is the most carefully written of the four bills; except for requiring registration of anyone who sells any animal, it sticks to regulating exotic animals. However, because of the broad pet shop provisions, it is unacceptable, regardless of whether the exotic stuff is okay or not.
HB 2620 takes an altogether different approach. Rather than
saying what it would regulate, this bill would create a board called the "West Virginia Exotic and Domestic Animal Control Board" with broad regulatory powers. Regarding the board, the bill says its purpose is: "establishing duties; providing rule-making authority; requiring all sellers of animals to register; authorizing inspections; providing for testing, seizing and quarantining animals; and establishing criminal penalties." That about covers it, wouldn't you say? Again, the board may may make 'emergency' rules.
Further down, the HB 2620 also establishes the "West Virginia
Exotic and Domestic Animal Control Study Commission" and
says:
"(e) The Commission shall:
(1) Study the need for additional regulation in the area of domestic and exotic animal control in West Virginia, including but not limited to:
(A) Evaluating current applicable animal control and tracking law as to domestic and exotic animals;
(B) Creating a full and complete list of animals and species to be regulated by legislation; Suggesting standards for the possession, breeding, importation, transportation, care and treatment of domestic and
exotic animals;"
HB 2620 takes the cake for the messiest piece of legislation I've seen this year and ought to be opposed on those grounds alone. But no bill that just says "We're gonna create a board and give them power to do 'whatever'" should be passed.
Finally (and thank the Lord for that), HB 2635 differs only in details from SB 277.
An overall comment: All of these bills give far, FAR too much
power to unelected bueaucrats. If West Virginia does need to
regulate exotic animals then a law should create an appropriate
board to write regulations which should be approved by the
legislature. The 'emergency' stuff ought to be out of there -- WV has been around a few years without an exotic emergency and can probably get by for the two years it would take to write regs and get them approved. That approval process would include a public comment period and usually a hearing; the actual approval would be done by people you elect -- and can unelect if they don't do good work on regulation approval.
Why don't we deal with traffic violations by establishing a "Traffic Violations Board" with the power to make any regulations, establish and enforce any penalties it wants ... ? Heck, why not just give traffic cops the power to say what the speed limit is and what the fine is for speeding? Because this is the United States of America, that's why. We don't give bureaucrats large amounts of power to do whatever they like. We give them specific laws and regulations that have gone through a public approval process and we give them as little discretion as possible, so citizens are protected from the incompetent and even nasty people that sometimes get those (or any) jobs.
Taken together these bills present a picture of an AR
establishment that has a new idea for grabbing power over all
animals. "Let's proclaim an emergency situation with African Lions being sold on streetcorners." Baloney. Regulating maybe 10,000 ordinary pet breeders by proclaiming the need to regulate the handful of people who might sell a dangerous animal and trying to do the whole thing without going through normal rulemaking would be a tasteless joke, if it weren't fundamentally corrupt.
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Virgina
