Senate Agriculture Committee Hearing on S.F. 7
Minnesota’s Puppy and Kitten Mill Bill
Outcome: Tabled
On January 27, 2009, S.F. 7 was heard in the Minnesota Senate Agriculture Committee and lasted two and one-half hours. Senator Betzold (the author of S.F. 7) spoke on behalf of the bill — showing a video and passing around pictures of inhumane breeding conditions, stating the basic problem, and explaining the key points of S.F. 7.
After approximately one and one-half hours of people testifying in support and in opposition to the bill, the Committee voted to “table” S.F. 7. This means a final vote for or against the bill was not taken at this hearing. Instead, it was laid on the table waiting for further action, which means it will need to be called back for another hearing in the same Committee in order to finish the discussion.
There were many comments from Committee members about the numerous calls they had received (the vast majority in support) so your voices were heard! Thank you! All your petitions, too, were delivered to Senators to reinforce public support of S.F. 7.
We will let you know when other hearings are scheduled so you can spring into action and make more calls.
Hearing
Two puppy and kitten mill bills were presented: S.F. 7, authored by Senator Betzold, and S.F. 201, authored by Senator Dille. The Committee heard from both authors and discussed both bills.
We are opposed to S.F. 201, Senator Dille’s bill. S.F. 201 requires breeders with 20 or more breeding females to only register with their local animal control every four years (just as they do for feedlot inspections). In addition, there are no required state inspections in the bill. The only way there would be any inspections is if someone files a formal complaint, which is the situation that currently exists today and is not working. How do we know a problem exists if state inspectors aren’t there to regularly check conditions? Fortunately, that bill was only debated and no vote was taken.
As for S.F. 7, the Committee deleted the section in S.F. 7 that restricted new breeders from having more than 50 breeding animals. It was our hope to stop more large breeders from getting into the business. This language also required breeders with more than 50 breeding animals to not replace existing animals until their numbers went below 50. (PLEASE NOTE: This was 50 breeding animals (not total number of animals). Multiply 50 by an average of 2 litters per year and 5 animals per litter yields and average of 500 puppies or kittens on the property.) Other states have passed laws capping the number of breeding animals. Unfortunately, this section was removed.
A minor amendment was also adopted, stating that people can donate money to the Board of Animal Health for inspection efforts and allowing local governments to apply for grants from the Board for reimbursement of costs to them associated with breeding facilities.
While testifiers varied in their opinion about S.F. 7 (breeders not supporting regulation, as expected), a common theme was heard: A problem exists. Senator Betzold summarized this for the committee by stating: “We have now heard from all testifiers. It can be assumed that all breeders present today are ‘good’ breeders. Even these good breeders, by their testimony, agree that bad breeding does exist. There is a problem. It is our duty to do something about this problem.”
Thanks to:
- Senator Don Betzold for authoring S.F. 7
- Testifiers Keith Streff, humane agent from Animal Humane Society (AHS); Beryl Board from RAGOM; Dr. Kim Culbertson, veterinarian from AHS; and Chera Engstrom, consumer.
- Nancy Minion, Second Chance Animal Rescue, for coordinating this legislation and the testimony
Opposition
As expected, various breeders (small and large) testified against both bills. Small breeders viewed large breeders as the problem; large breeders viewed small breeders as the problem.
There was much debate on another amendment offered by Senator Erickson Ropes (District 31). The amendment recommended that the number of animals protected be reduced. S.F. 7 states that a breeder is defined as someone “who is engaged in the business of breeding animals and possess six or more intact females for the purpose of breeding.” Senator Erickson Ropes’ amendment attempted to raise that number to 40 adult breeding animals. Thus, breeders with 39 or fewer breeding animals (plus litters from these breeding animals) would be exempt from the bill and any licensing or regulation. This particular amendment did not pass, but it did add confusion and raised concern about the bill amongst legislators.
Those who are involved in rescues and seizures of animals from inhumane breeders know that even smaller breeders can keep their animals in inhumane and unacceptable conditions. To allow breeders who have 39 or fewer breeding animals to remain unlicensed and not inspected does not get to the core of the problem. The problem is inhumane breeding practices and conditions and the only way to know if breeders are not properly caring for the animals is by regular state inspections. Reputable breeders need not fear regulation is they already act responsibly and follow current law and proper care standards.
Many other representatives from various animal organizations, rescue groups and humane societies were present at the hearing in strong support of S.F. 7. As mentioned in earlier alerts, the effort behind S.F. 7 is a large coalition of citizens, animal welfare organizations, animal control, veterinarians and others.
Articles:
Recent articles about the hearing and puppy mills in Minnesota have been written by Tad Vezner at the Pioneer Press. These articles can be found at the following links:
We hope this is the first of many hearings (both in the Senate and the House). Passing bills (especially on behalf of animals) is a long process. We will keep you updated on the next action you can take for the animals.
Thank you for your strong support and commitment to protecting animals.
