Editors note:
The underlying post is a comment to a previous article titled “Call to Action! Back to Unregulated Puppy Mills?” posted here last week on April 4th. The original response is attributed to Debi and has since been rebutted by Susan Damron Krug whose comments are seen in bold in applicable placements.
This is an important discussion about what kind of people we are and what we care about. It is time for us all to think about the effects of the choices that we make and the choices we have and don’t make.
Debi begins: First off, I would like to ask who the author of the article is. The article says ‘Posted by Steve” but does not clarify who wrote the article. In commenting on the article, identification is required, so should it not be the same for the author of the article?
Let’s address the article bit by bit. Senator Brecheen is not allowing “to keep dogs in the dark, in filth, in tiny cages and without clean water. He believes they may be bred for two litters before being considered breeding females.” HB2921 was authored in the House by three, count them three, Yes, we can count Debi, can you? veterinarians: Richardson, Renegar and Denney. Sen. Brecheen is from an animal production background.
HB2921 would mandate that the standards of care would be no more stringent than USDA requirements. We can also read. Check out the Committee Substitute SECTION 3. B.1. Establish standards for care that are no more stringent than United States Department of Agriculture specifications for the humane handling, care, and treatment of dogs and cats;… Nowhere included in the bill does it say that they would be less. According to our reading, ‘standards of care no more stringent than USDA specifications’ means that the standards will be equal to or less, not greater than. Regarding your statement of breeding age: It is the current regulation of SB1712, and the proposed bill SB1919 that define an adult animal as 6 months of age or older and would allow for them to be bred. HB2921 defines an adult animal as 12 months of age or older and does not allow for any younger to be bred. Read again, there is no restriction on breeding age. In addition SECTION 2. 13. ‘”Intact female animal” means a female animal at the second estrus cycle or one and one-half (1 ½) years of age, whichever comes first and is capable of sexual reproduction; Looks to us like an Intact female animal, for purposes of determining whether a person is a commercial breeder is 18 months or older. Again, we can count it, can you – 1 ½ years equals 18 months.
HB2921 places the oversight of pet breeders under the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture. Yes, it is true that it would abolish the Oklahoma Board of Commercial Pet Breeders and the current rules. The OBCPB has proven time and time again to be an out of control board with no regard for legislative intent or the law. Consider their actions of citing without inspecting, We would like to understand how citing without inspecting is out of control, especially when the breeder refused to allow access to their facilities - illegal searches of breeders who do not fall under the regulations (what illegal searches?) and self proclamation of “we will continue to do so,” as published in the Tulsa World in October of 2011. Let’s consider that it is Sue Ann Hamm who wrote SB1712, funded the state agency created there from, sits on the board of this agency, and sits on the board of the Central Oklahoma Humane Society. This is a clear and definite conflict of interest and appearance of impropriety (bought and paid for legislation). Please explain how this would benefit her? To our knowledge, she gains no monetary benefit from sitting on this board, nor is she in the business. A conflict of interest would arise if she were to gain economically from the position. In addition, how is this any different from John Groendyke sitting on the board of the Wildlife Commission, a state agency with police powers, and donating to the agency in large amounts, greatly exceeding the amount Ms Hamm has donated? Are you prejudiced because she is a woman and donating a large amount of money to the state? Do you have any problems with her and her husband donating $32 million to the state for a diabetes center, and with him sitting on the board? Moving oversight and returning pro rata the funds to Mrs. Hamm removes further appearance of impropriety and removes the conflict of interest. How does this remove the conflict of interest, especially if there was none? And how is there a conflict between the Central Ok Humane Society, an organization dedicated to spay/neuter and adoption programs. Again, Ms Hamm derives no economic benefit from her position on the board. The Oklahoma Department of Agriculture has a long history of oversight in animal agriculture, (their history is in LIVESTOCK agriculture, dogs are specifically exempted from the definition numerous times in the act and rules regarding the department) so this would not be “outside their scope” as you claim. As for the “knowledge, experience and technical competencies of the existing board of directors (or advisory council)”, well, I believe this board has proven to be a detriment to themselves. Consider the statement of Rep. Gus Blackwell to the board regarding their behavior and competency at the proposed rule changes comment hearing earlier this year: “You have failed completely.”
You state that HB2921 “HALTS regulation of dog breeders for at least the next 18-24 months.” This is not a true statement. HB2921 allows for emergency rules to be implemented from the start, with rules to be promulgated by the Dept. of Agriculture. Current rules would remain in effect until July 1, 2012. There would be no lapse in time of regulation. The Department of Agriculture has stated that without the transfer of the rules, and with the emergency promulgation there will still be a lapse in regulation. You are forgetting that Oklahoma has had Title 4 and Title 21 for a number of years. Then there is always the Animal Welfare Act on the federal level. I am quite sure that the Dept. of Agriculture has the knowledge and expertise to implement the proposed emergency rules. Nothing is back to “square on” as you claim.
You state that HB2921 “does not even allow the Dept. of Ag to write new rules, requiring it to instead, to follow minimum USDA regulations.” Apparently you have not read the proposed bill fully, or are choosing to twist the verbiage contained in the bill. Let me quote a portion of the bill for you: Under Section 3, Paragraph B: “The Board shall adopt the rules necessary to enforce and administer the Commercial Pet Breeders Act of 2012, including but not limited to rules that:
1. Establish standards for care that are no more stringent than United States Department of Agriculture specifications for the humane handling, care, and treatment of dogs and cats; (this means USDA rules are the maximum in standards, as opposed to the present Act where USDA rules are the minimum in standards) How many ways do we need to explain to you that means the Dept. of Ag will not be able to write rules in excess of USDA standards which by most reputable breeders are absolute minimum standards by which they exceed? 2. Establish reasonable and necessary fees; 3. Establish provisions related to initial and renewal applications, revocation or nonrenewal of licenses, procedures for sale of animals, and procedures for making complaints; and
4. Establish any other rules deemed necessary by the Board.” I hope that this clarifies it clearly enough for you.
In your statements of the difficulties of moving oversight “under the same guideline as the USDA,” I am in disagreement with these. The USDA has been overseeing pet breeders for a great number of years. Think about how long, and the great number of USDA licensed breeders, have been under their oversight. USDA guidelines include socialization of the animals, so again, this is a misstatement on your part. Please read the United States Department of Agriculture http://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/33002-4-SF.pdf where the Inspector General found that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service had failed miserably in its attempts to regulate dog breeders, especially in Oklahoma where the most heinous of abuses occurred. Now tell us that the USDA has been doing a fine job regulating the dog breeders of Oklahoma.
In regards to your statements in the next paragraph, we have already addressed the breeding age issue above. For your next two paragraphs, I do not agree with the statements included. The OBCPB has acted heavy handed and illegally on multiple occasions. Please explain why they cannot seem to keep an Executive Director employed? Please explain the complete and utter disregard for the intent of the Legislature and the law? Please explain to what complete and utter disregard you are referring. The agency has used veterinarians in 165 out of 230 inspections. Please explain the complete and utter contempt for any and all breeders, good or bad, large or small, ad regardless of the standards of care given by said breeders? Please explain what utter contempt. Please explain why Angel Soriano, the Chair of said board, to my knowledge, has never been USDA licensed nor has raised a litter in over three years, yet is supposed to be the “Commercial pet breeder representative” of this board? Please explain where in the act is a commercial pet breeder representative required. Mr. Soriano was appointed by the Governor as a representative under Title 59, Section 5004. B. a.. “one member who represents the dog or cat breeding industry appointed by the Governor for an initial term of office of two (2) years.” Odd that he has chosen not to raise any litters since regulation has been in effect. Could it be that he could not meet the standards he and the board have imposed on the breeders themselves? You may take this up with Governor Henry who appointed him. Raising this issue with anyone else is simply complaining, which by the way, you are doing a marvelous job.
1. You are correct in your statement that “most of these breeders detest….” Responsible breeders do not want sub-standard kennels in our state , as this hurts the industry they love.
HB2921 is a much more common sense bill than the current situation or SB1919. Again, think of the differences in the definition of an adult animal. The Dept. of Agriculture does not need the current board as an Advisory Council, nor do I believe they want them in that capacity. They have much more than 2 years “experience” as an animal agriculture oversight agency. Again, their experience is in Livestock, animals who are our food source. Race horses are not regulated under the Dept. of Ag because they are not our food source. They are regulated under the Racing Commission. Would you suggest that the Dept. of Ag would be better equipped to regulate Race horses? The appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest would be gone, (again, what impropriety and conflict of interest) and so would the harshness and heavy handedness of this board. (How has the board been heavy handed? Have they shut down any kennels? Have they placed any one in jail? Their fines in total have been less than $3,000. Let’s remember that prior to this board, there were approximately 1100 USDA licensed breeders in the state. Yes, prior to this board there were, but immediately prior there were only 434, and the drop has occurred as internet sales have flourished, and as breeders have gone into the black market. And, in case you weren’t aware, this country has been in a Great Recession for the last four years. Pets are not a necessity and many people have had to cut back to the bare necessities and so have not been purchasing as many pets. Currently, with the actions of this board, that number has dropped to around 300. This board has cost the state much in needed revenue and loss of income for a number of veterinarians and suppliers. In a question of impropriety, do you think it is strange that veterinarians in the legislature are attempting to mollify the breeders? Could it be an attempt to gain business in their veterinary practice? That would be a conflict of interest.
Susan Damron Krug
