Is there someone looking to defeat the breeder bill in MN? You bet. The question is why?

As many of you know, I have been actively pushing to change Minnesota laws related to puppy mills. Being the dog mom to 3 former puppy mill dogs, this is an issue close to my heart. Minnesota has some of the largest commercial breeding facilities in the nation (many have between 600-1200 dogs and/or cats) and they are virtually unregulated.

Unfortunately, we seemed to have hit a snafu:

1. the House Agriculture Committee has yet to agree to hear the original bill House File 84 (H.F. 84) and Senate File 36 (S.F. 36), and
2. a new breeder bill [House File 1005 (H.F. 1005) and Senate File 955 (S.F. 955)] was introduced in the Agriculture Committee (February 28th).
   

I was frustrated to hear about the first one, but I was stunned with the second one. Why would anyone feel the need to introduce a new, competing breeder bill?

The original bill is pretty comprehensive. It includes state licensing for all commercial breeders, annual inspections and documentation on each animal’s disposition, and enforcement of the law through penalties and fines for noncompliance. So why was there a need for an alternate bill? Was something missing from the first bill that needed to be addressed? Or, was something else afoot here?

I knew I needed to start by looking at both sets of bills – side-by-side.

In the interest of time and space, I’ve summarized both bills below, but suffice it to say, this new bill is miles and miles from the first.

• It doesn’t provide for any monitoring of commercial breeding facilities in terms of animal care and sales.
• It lacks a defined process for reinforcement and leaves the local veterinarian in charge of certifying the puppies and kitties being sold by a commercial breeding facility are up-to-date on their vaccinations and are disease-free (10 days before they are sold or transported for sale).
• Most importantly, it essentially leaves everything as it is today. It maintains the status quo.

To say it is a much weaker bill would be an understatement. It’s really no bill at all.

So who would support such a weak breeder bill and why?

Shockingly, it turns out the bill was introduced on behalf of the Minnesota Veterinarians Medical Association (MVMA).

Yup. You heard me correctly. An association of veterinarians has chosen to introduce a new and competing bill that leaves Minnesota’s dog and cat breeding industry virtually unchanged. Wow. Veterinarians. Who’d have ever thunk it huh?

I couldn’t help but wonder why an association of veterinarians, medical doctors sworn to protect animals, would vote to keep breeder cats and dogs in a continued state of suffering.  Surely they had taken the Veterinarian’s Oath, like other veterinarians do when they graduate? Had they forgotten to use their “scientific knowledge and skills for the benefit of society through the protection of animal health and welfare”? Did they miss the part about swearing to use their knowledge and skills for “the prevention and relief of animal suffering”?  Or, do they just not take their oath seriously? Maybe to them it’s just a bunch of inconsequential words? Or could it be a matter of choosing money over scruples? Either way, I find it truly disheartening.

Why would a VETERINARIAN’s ASSOCIATION introduce a bill that essentially leaves Minnesota breeding dogs and cats to suffer? What could be their motivation?

Only the MVMA can answer that question, but what is clear is that the only real beneficiaries of this new bill are the commercial breeder and the local veterinarian. Wow. Good going MVMA. So glad we know where you stand now.

The question is what can be done now?

For me, I have chosen to focus on what I can do:

1. I will call the members of the Agriculture Committee to ask them to allow the original bills, House File 84 (H.F. 84) and Senate File 36 (S.F. 36), to be heard.

2. I will call the Governor to ask for his support to have the bill reviewed in committee.

3. I will continue to educate people about puppy mills and ask them to support the breeder bill that offers the best chance to address the puppy mill industry in Minnesota.

We may not end up winning this year, but at least I will know that I did everything I could to pass a bill that protects consumers and improves the living conditions for cats and dogs like Daisy.

I would much rather fight for a bill that does the right thing for Minnnesota’s breeding cats and dogs than support a bill that puts more money into the pockets of those who need it least.  How about you?

Original bill (H.F. 84 and S.F. 36) includes:

• A definition of all the parties impacted by the bill (dogs, cats, hobby breeders, commercial breeders, local animal control authority and pet dealer).
• Annual licensure for commercial breeders
• Reporting by the commercial breeder of the estimated number of dogs or cats intended to be housed in the facility, if they have ever been  have convicted of animal cruelty and whether they operate under more than one name or have ownership interest in a facility,
• A pre-license inspection within 60 days of the license application being received.
• An annual license fee of $250 (it’s $10 per animal but not to exceed $250).
• An annual report by the commercial breeder of how many animals they have at their facility.
• A requirement that the commercial breeder obtain and hold a USDA-license (this is important because many breeders are dropping their USDA license so they aren’t subject to inspection and can sell online)
• State reimbursement  to local governments for costs incurred for assistance in a seizure action.
• Creating a directory of commercial breeders
• Animal care guidelines, staffing requirements and when an animal can be sold, traded or given away (i.e., not before 8 weeks of age).
• Penalties and fines for noncompliance and criminal charges in cases of animal abuse.

New and weaker Bill (H.F. 1005 and S.F. 955) includes:

• A definition of cat, dog and commercial breeder.
• A certificate of veterinary inspection be completed by a veterinarian for all cats and dogs sold by the commercial breeder.
• A certificate to be completed at least ten days prior to the sale or distribution of a cat or dog which indicates that the animal was not found to have any signs of infectious or contagious disease.
• A requirement that the commercial breeder keep records on each dog or cat in their facility (how the animal was acquired and from whom, vaccinations given to the animal and by whom, identification numbers, description of the dog or cat, who received the dog or cat and any disease conditions diagnosed by a veterinarian).
• That the Board of Animal Health, a local animal control authority, licensed peace officer, or humane agent (of which there are 3 for the whole state of MN) inspect any formal complaint made of a commercial breeders and enforce the requirements.