Fwd: LEGISLATIVE UPDATE! Today's Hearings on H.J.R.2 and S.J.R. 6 (Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board ) / H.B. 124 (OH Puppy Mill)

June 26, 2009

Mary O'Connor-Shaver <mshaver_0462

info

Wed, Jun 24, 2009 8:10 pm

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE! Today's Hearings on H.J.R.2 and S.J.R. 6 (Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board ) / H.B. 124 (OH Puppy Mill)

Dear Companion Pet Lovers ~

For those of you who were unable to attend today's hearings, below is a quick recap:

H.J.R. 2 - (scroll down to read article from Ohio.com. HUGE thanks to Nancy D. for passing this along!) http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=128_HJR_2. The resolution was amended and reported unanimously following testimony from the bill sponsors and others. The amen

dment removed the word implementation from the responsibilities of the board, making it only responsible for establishing standards. It also changed language to allow the two members of the board from statewide organizations that represent farmers to come from more than one organization.

Rep. Sayre and Rep. Ruhl gave sponsor testimony saying the bill would create a diverse board to oversee the treatment of Ohio's livestock and ensure the safety of the food supply. "The current heightened awareness around animal diseases and food safety have opened up a productive dialog among industry experts, and all agree that Ohio must take proactive steps to ensure that standards are in place to protect the well being of our livestock and safety of our locally grown food supply," said Mr. Sayre.

Mr. Sayre and Ms. Ruhl agreed the legislation supports those farmers that are doing things humanely, and does not tolerate those that are not. Many people testified on behalf of the bill, largely saying it is the best way to ensure Ohio's farmers continue to provide adequate care for their animals, and would help put consumer's minds at ease.

Kim Davis fr

om the Ohio Farm Bureau Federation said, "Our consumers can be confident in the care that Ohio farmers are giving their animals and in the safety and quality of the food we produce. It is our livelihood and our responsibility."

Tom Herzfeld, President of the board of the Ohio Poultry Association reiterated Ms. Davis' point and added, "From our perspective, the creation of the Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board is a natural progression of what we as egg producers have always stood for: taking thoughtful, proactive steps to make continuous improvements in how we produce safe, affordable food without ever putting animal care or quality at risk."

Many proponents also mentioned the importance of agriculture to Ohio.

Adam Ward, Acting Deputy Director of the Ohio Department of Agriculture said, "The importance of agriculture is evident - it is Ohio's number one industry and contributes over $98 billion to the Ohio economy."

Make Carper, President of the Ohio Cattleman's Association said his organization sees the board as, "an important step forward

in further establishing Ohio agriculture as a leader in the nation and the world."

Some witnesses suggested that passage of the ballot issue would avoid oversight of Ohio's farms by out-of-state entities such as the Humane Society of the United States.

"Groups like HSUS have been working in other states to pass measures that ban certain types of housing all in an effort to achieve their ultimate goal of eliminating animal agriculture," said Todd Stickley, President of the Ohio Pork Producers Council.

Rep. Richard Adams asked Mr. Ward for an example of something that would result in costs for funding the board. Mr. Ward said costs that would occur would be because of oversight, but he does not yet know how things would be done so the exact reasons are not clear.

Roger Wise, President of the Ohio Farmers Union testified as an interested party, saying the Union feels like the best way to produce a positive outcome for consumers, as well as farmers, is to work with groups like HSUS. "We feel like HJR 2=2

0and the Livestock Care Standards Board prevent this collaborative relationship between agriculture and animal rights groups and instead create an adversarial climate," he said. Mr. Wise also said they are concerned about the portrayal of farmers as villains, the "sketchy" details of the formation of the board, the creation of a hostile environment between farmers and regulators and the costs of implementing the legislation during hard economic times.

George Ondick also testified as an interested party, raising similar concerns about the costs of implementation, and adding he feels the bill is a hasty reaction to threats from HSUS. Large factory farms will inevitably control the board, he said. Ohio would be better off engaging in dialogue instead of amending the constitution.

Rep. Adams asked Mr. Ondick why he was interested in the bill. Mr. Ondick said he is an advocate for the responsible location of mega-farms.

Rep. Derickson said he did not see any representatives from Agribusiness on the board, and asked Mr. Ondick to explain why he expects factory farms to have an influence. Mr. Ondick said almost all the proposed members of the board would also be mem

bers of the Farm Bureau. Those individuals, along with the Department of Agriculture would push for the interests of Agribusiness, he said.

The only person to testify in opposition of the bill was Dean Vickers from HSUS. Mr. Vickers suggested the government take a serious look at farm factory practices in Ohio and consider encouraging civil dialogue instead of legislation. Representatives from Farm Sanctuary, a leading farm animal protection organization, reinforced Mr. Vickers' stance in a press release saying, "Their attempt to amend the constitution is a blatant power grab that seeks to subvert the will of the people."

Rep. Wagner asked what Mr. Vickers would say to farmers who think HSUS is trying to take control. Mr. Vickers said they just want to sit down with farmers and compromise for better conditions.

Rep. Okey asked Mr. Vickers if he believed HSUS is not already well represented by local humane society personnel on the proposed board. Mr. Vickers said they are not because only one person from the humane society is allowed.

Rep. Adams asked if HSUS's object

ive is to eliminate certain practices. Mr. Vickers said they would like to phase out the use of crates.

Rep. Pryor asked if letting a board that participates in deliberation would be better than the solution Mr. Vickers proposed. Mr. Vickers said HSUS is uneasy about the board makeup.

Rep. Murray said HSUS's testimony was completely false and announced his commitment to keep Ohio safe from their "big dollar campaigns."

S.J.R. 6 - (scroll down to read article from Ohio.com. HUGE thanks to Nancy D. for passing this along!) http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/res.cfm?ID=128_HJR_2. A group of resolution supporters led the parade of witnesses that included only the Humane Society of the United States as an opponent. The proposal was crafted to head off or weaken a potential HSUS initiated law that would deal differen

tly with livestock care than would the 13-member board that would be created if proposed constitutional amendment is adopted.

Sen. Wilson, a co-sponsor, said it would let professionals, such as farmers, veterinarians and food specialty specialists "do what they know best." Sen. Gibbs, a co-sponsor, said in testimony that animals that are not stressed are better and safer food producers.

Dean Vickers, Ohio director for HSUS, said, "This effort to amend Ohio's constitution by creating an industry dominated council to oversee farm animal treatment is poor policy and an obvious attempt to thwart meaningful reform."

Sen. Grendell led pointed questioning of Mr. Vickers about his organization's policies, beliefs and efforts in Colorado and California for enactment of laws or a constitutional amendment about animal treatment. Mr. Vickers defended his opposition, contending the Ohio Farm Bureau refused to "engage in meaningful dialogue" last February when the issue began to surface in private talks. He said he has met with 20 House members seeking support for a law change along unspecified lines the HSUS favors. He said the organization supports vegetarian diet

s, which would save animal lives, but recognizes that most people are not vegans. That stance is seen as a threat as a threat to the food production chain Ohio, he said.

Roger Wise, Ohio Farmers Union president, spoke against the resolution that would "prevent a collaborative relationship between agriculture and animal rights groups and instead create an adversarial climate." Appearing as an interested witness, he said the organization favors enacting negotiated regulations into law rather than a constitutional amendment.

Dr. Brad Garrison, president of the Ohio Veterinary Medical Association, spoke as an interested party. He said "significant veterinary representation" should be part of "any entity created to establish appropriate care and well being standards livestock...." He stressed the profession's commitment to proper animal care and noted their profession keeps up with ever-changing advancements in animal care. "My dairy farmers are using techniques they weren't 20 years ago."

Also testifying for the proposal to create a 13-member Ohio Livestock Care Standards Board were Adam Ward of the Ohio Department of Agriculture; Jeff Wuebker of the20Ohio Soybean Association; Tony Watchman of the Ohio Wheat Growers Association, representing corn growers, too; and Jake Wolfinger, of the Ohio Cattlemen's Association.

The Ohio Environmental Council submitted interested party testimony raising six questions about the need for a constitutional amendment and the speed with which the proposal is moving.

H.B. 124 - http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=128_HB_124. Several witnesses testified in support of the bill, saying the conditions puppies in kennels experience are horrible, and state regulation is needed to fix the problem.

Kellie DiFrischia, director of the Columbus Dog Connection, said, "The targets of this language are those who breed dogs in filthy, cramped conditions, without access to vet care, clean water or daily food." 32 other states have either passed or have pending legislation, she said.

Annelle Mullet, a resident of Holmes County, said her conversations with local dog wardens suggest local control is no longer an option. Government regulation would be more profitable for the good, she said.

Joe Rock, an employee with the Franklin County of Animal Care and Control supported Ms. Mullet's claim when he said, "In many cases, [the agencies] make the most of their limited resources, but to address a cruelty situation involving hundreds of animals is daunting at best and impossible at worst."

Suzanne Wilcox, a veterinarian, illustrated multiple situations in which puppies from kennels were mistreated and obtained diseases. "Breeders need specific guidelines and specific consequences," she said.

Rep. Hall asked Ms. Mullet if the lack of inspectors is a weakness of the federal government, and if the bill needs to specifically refer to pet shop inspections as=2

0well. Ms. Mullet said the bill does refer to pet store brokers, and as far as she knows there are two federal inspectors for the state of Ohio.

Mr. Hall asked Mr. Rock if his organization was able to inspect claims made by SPCA about improper care of puppies. Mr. Rock said the site was out of their jurisdiction, but the proper authorities are inspecting the claim now.

Rep. Weddington asked Ms. Wilcox if the common person would be able to identify issues with puppies. Ms. Wilcox said some are obvious, while other issues are hard for even trained professionals to recognize.

Many people also stepped forward in opposition, saying the bill is simply a way to drive commercial dog breeders out of business. The opponents said the fees incurred by breeders from the bill would be too much for breeders to endure.

Harold Neuhart, a member of the Ohio Professional Dog Breeders Association, said, "House Bill 124 will directly affect me, as well as our member breeders, to the extent that it will put us all out of business." He said the fees set forth by the legislation would cost breeders an additional $893.

Polly Britton, legislative agent for the Ohio Association of Animal Owners also testified against the bill, saying it is unfair and benefits those who are proponents of the bill. "To sum it up, this is an agenda driven bill that will financially benefit certain individuals while forcing commercial dog breeders out of business."

John Silva, past president of the Ohio County Dog Warden's Association, and Brad Cole of the County Commissioners Association raised concerns about the bill. Mr. Silva said some of the references are confusing and need to be cleared up for the sake of the public. He also brought up a number of issues including the lack of cer

tification requirements for inspectors, only using the Franklin County Court system to prosecute and the inability for county auditors to issue kennel licenses. Mr. Cole testified as an interested party, but suggested a number of revisions in his testimony, such as changing the definition of animal shelter, creating exemptions for licensure requirements for medical kennels, research kennels, and veterinarians and changing the definition of regulated dog intermediary.

Rep. Hall asked Mr. Neuhart if it would be difficult for him to get to a Franklin County Court if he was prosecuted. Mr. Neuhart said it would be. If someone does something wrong they should be tried in front of their peers in their own county, he said. Rep. Richard Adams asked Mr. Neuhart why so little kennel owners are members of the USDA. Mr. Neuhart said the ones who do things properly are not afraid of the USDA. In a later response to a question from Rep. Zehringer, Mr. Neuhart said the reason could be that some people are scared of the government.

Rep. Derickson asked Mr. Neuhart if he has been able to sell his puppies for between $500 and $2500 like previous testimony suggested. Mr. Neuhart said he usually gets between $50 and $300 for his puppies. "You people have been lied to," he said. He encouraged the members to come up to his kennel and see the conditions the puppies are in. "We aren't ashamed for you to come up there any day of the week," he said. To review the most recent USDA reports available online for Mr. Neuhart's kennel,

Mr. Hall asked Ms. Britton if she has seen instances in which rescue dogs are not properly taken care of. Ms. Britton said she has read about it, but does not know the frequency. Unfortunately some nice people take on more than they can handle, she said.

Rep. Zehringer asked Ms. Britton if the association would entertain the idea of making breeders who reach a certain point undergo USDA inspections twice a year. Ms. Britton said they would.

Mr. Weddington told Mr. Silva he has heard county courts do not have the capacity to take on kennel cases and asked if he knows of any counties that could handle it. Mr. Silva said he was not sure the Franklin County Court moves that much faster and suggested things be handled at a local level.

Mr. Hall asked Mr. Silva if the bill passed as is would force a lot of kennels underground. He also asked if it would put a burden on local dog wardens and sheriffs. Mr. Silva said he anticipates people finding ways to get around regulation, most likely by creating subdivisions. He also said unless people have the resources for increased inspection, anybody would be overwhelmed with the new workload.

A technical amendment was made to the bill to delete the word "commission" and add "director" in line 368 and to insert an underlined comma after "dogs" in line 793.

If you would like copies of all proponent/opponent/interested party testimony provided during today's hearings, please feel free to reply to this message.

Thanks for continuing to serve as a strong voice for the animals!

Mary O'Connor-Shaver

Cell: 614-271-8248

Columbus Top Dogs

http://www.columbustopdogs.com/

http://www.banohiodogauctions.com/

http://tejasanimalrefuge.ca/

http://www.lostpetusa.net/

LEGISLATIVE ALERTS: Please visit our Home page for pending legislation impacting the welfare of OH animals - http://www.columbustopdogs.com/

P.S. You or someone you know has requested you be added to the Columbus Top Dogs email list. If you do not want to receive emails from columbustopdogs.com, please reply and put "remove from list" in subject. Thank you!

-------

Hurry to harvest - http://www.ohio.com/editorial/opinions/48983066.html

State officials suddenly want a constitutional change for agribusiness

Published on Wednesday, Jun 24, 2009

Amending the Ohio Constitution is serious business, changes made by a statewide vote achieving a permanency not enjoyed by statutes or regulations. Rushing the process, as the legislature is prepared to do today with a proposed amendment on livestock farming, merely increases the chances of locking in details that would benefit from a fuller airing, with future modification tedious and expensive. In a state as big as Ohio, it can take millions of campaign dollars to give voters even a cursory understanding of a complex issue.

The livestock issue is anything but simple. Proponents, among them Gov. Ted Strickland and legislative leaders of both parties, suddenly have elevated the creation of an Ohio Livestock Standards Board to a top priority, citing food safety concerns. In the Senate, Bob Gibbs, a Lakeville Republican, noted last week's recall of tainted cookie dough. The connection appeared strained.

More telling20is a July 1 deadline for putting constitutional amendments before the voters in November, which the legislature can accomplish with a three-fifths majority in each house. Opponents, such as Dean Vickers of the state Humane Society, say the amendment would pre-empt an initiated statute his group would like to place on the ballot next year.

The Humane Society wants to phase out methods that immobilize animals such as hens, sows and calves in what it considers cruel conditions. He rightly fears the composition of the 13-member livestock board, with one practicing veterinarian and one member of a county humane society, would tilt in the direction large-scale farming operations. Vickers is threatening a competing ballot issue this fall.

Whatever problems exist in the food chain, Ohio is not having a food safety crisis. Thus, there is no compelling need to use the state constitution to enshrine quickly the composition and scope of a new state board, no matter how promising. The interests of the Humane Society must be balanced carefully against the economic impact on Ohio's farmers and limited to issues directly related to food safety.

That's a discussion that should take place in the legislature, with plenty of hearings and

expert testimony. Any new layer of oversight should be passed as a statute, subject to later adjustment if needed.

Amending the Ohio Constitution is serious business, changes made by a statewide vote achieving a permanency not enjoyed by statutes or regulations. Rushing the process, as the legislature is prepared to do today with a proposed amendment on livestock farming, merely increases the chances of locking in details that would benefit from a fuller airing, with future modification tedious and expensive. In a state as big as Ohio, it can take millions of campaign dollars to give voters even a cursory understanding of a complex issue.

The livestock issue is anything but simple. Proponents, among them Gov. Ted Strickland and legislative leaders of both parties, suddenly have elevated the creation of an Ohio Livestock Standards Board to a top priority, citing food safety concerns. In the Senate, Bob Gibbs, a Lakeville Republican, noted last week's recall of tainted cookie dough. The connection appeared strained.

More telling is a July 1 deadline for putting constitutional amendments before the voters in November, which the legislature can accom

plish with a three-fifths majority in each house. Opponents, such as Dean Vickers of the state Humane Society, say the amendment would pre-empt an initiated statute his group would like to place on the ballot next year.

The Humane Society wants to phase out methods that immobilize animals such as hens, sows and calves in what it considers cruel conditions. He rightly fears the composition of the 13-member livestock board, with one practicing veterinarian and one member of a county humane society, would tilt in the direction large-scale farming operations. Vickers is threatening a competing ballot issue this fall.

Whatever problems exist in the food chain, Ohio is not having a food safety crisis. Thus, there is no compelling need to use the state constitution to enshrine quickly the composition and scope of a new state board, no matter how promising. The interests of the Humane Society must be balanced carefully against the economic impact on Ohio's farmers and limited to issues directly related to food safety.

That's a discussion that should take place in the legislature, with plenty of hearings and expert testimony. An

y new layer of oversight should be passed as a statute, subject to later adjustment if needed.