January 25, 2006

VVAW - Report from Richmond

1/23/06 Richmond General Assembly

The VVAW Senate bills had their first hearing today at 9am before the Senate Ag Committee.

Senator Houck's dangerous dog bill has a lot going for it. Support it.

Sen. Ticer's whistle blowing bill, SB232, a VVAW bill, passed. It will now be voted on by the entire Senate before "crossing over" to the House for consideration.

Regarding VVAW's SB55, the lines are drawn as clearly as you might expect. The VFDC&B, VDOA, VACA and, much to my surprise after working so assiduously with Steve Escobar/VVMA to accommodate vets, even some vets aligned against licenses for backyard breeders, and its concomitant, breed as many and as often as you like, and without any accountability. What captured the meeting and the opposition for us like a fly in amber was Sen. Whipple's question to Maureen Hill-Hauch regarding the exemptions for breeders in our bill. "Aren't you exempted from licensing by this provision?" Sen. Whipple asked. "I haven't seen it", Hill-Hauch replied, "but even if we are, I still don't like the bill". Now I know how Columbus felt when he pitched a round earth.

VVAW turn-out was the same reliable people, who were outnumbered by professional lobbyists (Evans, Hill-Hauch, Kane) and backyard breeders (we may have to stop using this term since Hill-Hauch prefers "home breeders", evoking images of Mom and smells of apple pie, and grasping for a politically acceptable comparison with home schooling) by at least 4 to 1. Ever wonder how these breeders (wearing "No on SB 55" armbands) who claim to spend money like water and not make a dime on breeding find it so easy to come to these meetings? Could it be they're protecting their cash flow? Nah, it must be for love of the game. Maybe we could get them to do a seminar for us on time management and setting priorities.

Attending for VVAW: Debra Griggs (spoke), Anne Little (spoke), Pat Weakland (spoke), Pat Canning, Peyton Coyner, Kim Kincheloe, Virginia Kincheloe, Liz Clancy Ross, Betty Weakland, Don and Lillian

Speaking in opposition were Kane, Evans, Lisa Auerbach, Hill-Hauch, and Larry Land.

Minutes before the hearing Sen. Reynolds, one of the most admirable legislators, told Don that several vet friends/longstanding constituents opposed SB 55 for reasons unspecified, and asked if he should pull the bill. Don told him to make any decision he felt best, but that we had people to speak and a presentation to make. Sen. Reynolds then consented to introduce the bill, and did so with the information that there was the opposition as aforesaid.

Don spoke to the bill. Debra, Anne and Pat added their thoughts on the free ride breeders get, the tax burdens we shoulder in consequence, and the overabundance of dogs and cats.

Opposition was predictable. Evans reminded everyone about hunting and guns, Kane claimed euthanasia rates were below 3% and applied only to sick, old and vicious dogs, and Hill-Hauch coined the phrase "home breeders" to illustrate her claim that only the organization she represents (Dog Owners of America) truly cares for dogs and nurtures them individually and diligently in the home (well, backyard really… well, in cages really, but our members also live there, so it's home, damn it).

Larry Land/VACo and Denise Thompson/VML, both of whom had earlier seen the bill and so far as we knew before today were OK with it, expressed reservation "on second and third reading of the bill" of the burden imposed on localities by the licensing requirement. Afterward, Don spoke with Larry and will meet with him to point out the number of localities do this already and see if there is a way to demonstrate that any impact is more than offset by revenue and accountability.

Because of the vet opposition, allegations of unidentified SPCA opposition and the reservations of VACo (Larry Land) and VML (Denise Thompson), the bill if voted on would probably have failed. However, at this point Sen. Reynolds demonstrated why he has our deepest respect and asked that the bill be "passed by" for the day so he could determine precisely what the vet opposition was and whether the locality's licensure burden was meaningful or could be accommodated.

We MAY get one more shot at it next Monday.

There were several other things which simply amazed us today, not the least of which is that a vigorous and consistent opposition to VVAW bills generally including VACA and vets stand for the proposition that the unlicensed production of life is OK even when it leads inexorably to vast amount of excess, a substantial part of which will be killed in state-sponsored and sanctioned facilities at substantial taxpayer expense. Neither people nor government are acting responsibly, the aforementioned groups find that OK, and most others turn a blind eye. When the only voices raised (besides ours) support the breeding, killing and expense, what else is a legislator to do?

And those of you in the front lines coping with this overpopulation and this killing will continue to confront this evil as a consequence. That is appalling.

How it is that not one SPCA, humane society, or rescue group came to stand up and be counted in favor of SB55 is also appalling. We know from our contacts with you that this is not your position but it certainly can be made to seem like it is by a determined, self-serving opposition.

That VACA opposed the restrictions on indiscriminate breeding is likewise appalling. We know from many "grunts" that indiscriminate breeding is distasteful, and that lack of owner accountability is plainly wrong, yet VACA leadership opposed the licensing as an "undue burden". Consequently, not one animal control officer spoke up to welcome the potential for more funding, fewer animals to control, and fewer animals to kill.

Those in opposition don't oppose because of spay/neuter or chipping, but because the bill requires them to be licensed, and licenses will cost them money and get them on the tax radar.

And those who spoke in opposition would have the world and the committee believe only they care about companion animals. A new term was even created; these folks are not "backyard breeders" any more, but "home breeders" who do an extraordinary job of "socializing" the animals they breed and sell, not at all like those awful puppymills. And, yes, we heard again the cry "I don't do this for profit. Just ask my husband how much money we lose doing this. I do it because I just love the dogs and have strong contracts with all those we sell to." Maybe so, but why oppose a bill that exempts you from licensing if this is true?

And if all breeders are responsible, how is it a third to 60% of the dogs in Virginia's facilities are purebred? Sorry, Lisa Auerbach has impeccably reliable Pet Food Manufacturer statistics that tallied purebreds at no more than 60% of the total canine population, so this must be wrong. No. Lisa, not if purebreds in places are disproportionately represented as strays or give-ups.

Those of us there today, and those of you who took time to make contact with legislators about SB55, want backyard breeders to be licensed, and, when appropriate, to have a gross receipts based business license as well. As Anne Little put it when she spoke in support of SB55, she pays taxes, she is licensed, so why aren't they?

There is another chance for this bill next week, but not a guarantee. If you care about it, you better do something with your animal control, SPCAs, humane societies and rescues and county Treasurers or the opposition could very well dictate your future. At this time, Chairman Hawkins may well just put SB 55 to a vote with no further public input, so get onto the committee in person and argue as hard as you can to get this bill out.

Please, no emails of "thanks for all you do for the animals" in lieu of your personal effort to get this done. Copy us on the letter you send, send us a note about the call you made, tell us that you got your own SPCA or humane society or rescue group to do something.

Donald C. Marro Lillian S. Clancy