Legislation in Iowa, notice of amendment simular to MN

[Debbie Meier]

Well, here we go, last week legislation didn't get far due to lack of state funding, they were wanting to get the state to inspect the USDA kennels, well, I guess an amendment was filed simular to what was indicated in MN, they are sending me an e-mail with links. They are wanting to put together a trust fund with donations for PETA and HSAS to help fund inspections. I'll post a link when I get it.

 

Deb

[Debbie Meier]

Guess I have some reading to do, just don't know what to think of all this mess, I don't know if this is simular to what they are trying to do in MN....

 

IMPORTANT PLEASE READ!!!!!!!

 

Once again we are asking for your help. The authors of HF 486 have introduced three amendments. Apparently they are trying to counter all of the objections that IaFed with the help of all of you have been able to convey to our legislators. But in addition to that they are also trying to slide through an entirely different slant on their original bill. We feel that this has been their intent from the beginning. I will include a link to the original bill as well as the amendment that alarms us. You can read it and draw your own conclusions. I will spell out the major points that we are INFURIATED with.

 

"The department may regulate a person who applies for or has been issued a certificate of registration"

"May" regulate, they have removed the complaint driven language from the original bill, in essence this will give the state of Iowa the authority to regulate and inspect your kennel, under existing Iowa code, which is different then USDA regulations in some areas.

 

"The department may deny the person's application or revoke the person's certificate of registration or license" "A person whose application for a certificate of registration or license has been disapproved by the department under this section or a person whose certificate of registration or license has been revoked under this section may contest the department's action pursuant to an evidentiary hearing as provided."

 

After they have taken your license away, then you can request an evidentiary hearing. This removes all DUE PROCESS from the action. You are guilty first, then given the opportunity to PROVE yourself INNOCENT!

 

AND LAST BUT NOT THE LEAST , AND THIS SHOULD HAVE EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU RUNNING TO YOUR PHONES AND COMPUTERS

 

"Care of Companion Animals Trust Fund" A trust fund comprising of moneys that can be accepted FROM PRIVATE SOURCES , and once this trust fund reaches a balance of $150,000 it can then be used to pay the expenses of the enactment and enforcement of this bill.

 

IN OTHER WORDS-- THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE GOING TO BE FUNDING THE INSPECTION OF YOUR KENNELS... DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT THEY WILL WANT TO HAVE ANY INPUT INTO THIS WHOLE PROCESS?

 

I am not college educated but even I can figure this one out. I truly hope this makes each and every one of you ANGRY beyond description. I also hope you feel fear, because this is scary. I know a lot of you have been helping, making calls, and sending emails and contacting your neighbors, relatives and friends. Now we need to turn that effort up by about 500%. I am including a link to the original bill, a link to the amendment and I am including email addresses for Legislators that we want you to contact. In addition each of you needs to contact your own State Representative for your district. I once again will include a link to a site to help you find that Legislator. Potentially we could be battling this for the duration of this session (3 weeks), I hope not, but be prepared to keep hearing from us. We are fighting hard for the commercial kennel industry in IOWA, we need for you all to fight just as hard. When we have won this battle, and we will WIN, we can all take a break and get back to the business of taking care of our animals instead of this NONSENSE.

 

Talking Points for your calls and emails:

1. Current state law provides for USDA to inspect USDA licensed facilities. USDA inspectors have less then 1/2 of the inspection load as do State Inspectors.

2. Removing due process by eliminating an evidentiary hearing before revocation of a License is not only bad legislation, but probably unconstitutional.

3. The commercial kennel industry in Iowa generates approximately $350 million dollars of economic activity in the state per year.. Ask your legislators if they want to "de stimulate" the Iowa economy to the tune of $350 million dollars.

4. The State cannot afford the cost that this duplication of inspections will add to the Department of Agriculture's budget and it is a huge conflict of interest to think that the Animal Rights Activists are willing to finance this program in order to influence the governments inspection process.

 

These are just a few suggestions of points you can use when you call and email your legislators.

DO IT NOW!!!! ENCOURAGE EVERYONE YOU KNOW TO DO THE SAME. LETS FLOOD THE CAPITAL WITH CALLS AND EMAILS. PROTECT YOUR INVESTMENT, PROTECT YOUR BUSINESS, YOUR CONSTITUIONAL RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK.

CLICK ON THESE LINKS:

TO FIND YOUR LEGISLATOR http://www.legis.state.ia.us/FindLeg/

TO SEE HOUSE BILL HF 486

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/...amp;hbill=HF486

 

TO SEE HOUSE AMENDMENT 1314

http://coolice.legis.state.ia.us/Cool-ICE/...amp;hbill=H1314

 

THESE ARE THE HOUSE MEMBERS WE NEED TO CONTACT PLUS YOUR OWN REPRESENTATIVE

 

Pat Murphy Pat.Murphy@legis.state.ia.us

Kevin McCarthy Kevin.McCarthy@legis.state.ia.us HOUSE SWITCHBOARD

Linda Upmeyer linda.upmeyer@legis.state.ia.us 515-281-3221

Ray Zirkelbach ray.zirkelbach@legis.state.ia.us

Jerry Kearns jerry.kearns@legis.state.ia.us

Kurt Swaim kurt.swaim@legis.state.ia.us

Michael Reasoner mike.reasoner@legis.state.ia.us

Cecil Dolecheck cecil.dolecheck@legis.state.ia.us

McKinley Bailey mckinley.bailey@legis.state.ia.us

John Whitaker john.whitaker@legis.state.ia.us

 

 

 

 

IaFED

Joe Gerst

Rob Hurd

[Tommy Coyote]

I don't understand. Is the purpose to try and close down the puppy mills? And legitimate breeders are getting caught in the middle?

[Pearse]

Guess I have some reading to do, just don't know what to think of all this mess, I don't know if this is simular to what they are trying to do in MN....

 

 

"Care of Companion Animals Trust Fund" A trust fund comprising of moneys that can be accepted FROM PRIVATE SOURCES , and once this trust fund reaches a balance of $150,000 it can then be used to pay the expenses of the enactment and enforcement of this bill.

 

IN OTHER WORDS-- THE ANIMAL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS ARE GOING TO BE FUNDING THE INSPECTION OF YOUR KENNELS... DO YOU SUPPOSE THAT THEY WILL WANT TO HAVE ANY INPUT INTO THIS WHOLE PROCESS?

 

Of course, there is no such provision in either the Iowa or the Minnesota bills. That is to say, that there is no provision by which agencies outside the government (state or local) would be permitted to undertake inspection.

 

Furthermore, both of these bills refer specifically to commercial kennels which are currently required to be licensed and inspected by the USDA.

 

In the Minnesota bill, this meant kennels that had greater than six breeding females and (not or) produced more than three litters of pups per year. The Minnesota bill had a specific exemption for "hobby breeders" which would cover just about every breeder of working Border Collies I know.

 

I can see why commercial breeders would be opposed to these bills but I'm not sure they have any effect on most breeders of working Border Collies.

[Debbie Meier]

Here in Iowa Hobby breeders are those that have 3 or fewer breeding age unaltered dogs, everyone else either needs a state license or a USDA License. We ended up on the phone list this time due to ours being a state licensed breeding kennel and boarding kennel even though we don't board. But since we have had clinics here we needed to be licensed and inspected as a boarding kennel. Like I mentioned I need to do more reading on it.

 

This is from the amendment that is being filed, I found a newspaper article from 3 days ago which had consistent wording:

 

Sec. 4. NEW SECTION. 162.17 CARE OF COMPANION

2 26 ANIMALS TRUST FUND.

2 27 A care of companion animals trust fund is created

2 28 in the state treasury under the authority of the

2 29 department.

2 30 1. The fund shall include moneys appropriated to

2 31 the fund from the general fund and any other moneys

2 32 available to and obtained or accepted by the

2 33 department from the federal government or private

2 34 sources for deposit in the fund.

2 35 2. Moneys in the fund are appropriated to the

2 36 department exclusively to pay the expenses of the

2 37 department in administering and enforcing this chapter

2 38 as necessary to ensure that persons who have been

2 39 issued certificates of registration or licenses by the

2 40 department comply with this chapter's requirements,

2 41 including rules adopted by the department.

2 42 3. The fund shall be separate from the general

2 43 fund of the state and shall not be considered part of

2 44 the general fund of the state. Notwithstanding

2 45 section 8.33, any unexpended balance in the fund at

2 46 the end of each fiscal year shall be retained in the

2 47 fund. Notwithstanding section 12C.7, any interest and

2 48 earnings on investments from money in the fund shall

2 49 be credited to the fund.

2 50 Sec. 5. CONTINGENT IMPLEMENTATION. The provisions

3 1 of this Act amending sections 162.11 and 162.12 shall

3 2 be implemented by the department of agriculture and

3 3 land stewardship only when the balance in the care of

3 4 companion animals trust fund created in section

3 5 162.17, as enacted in this Act, first has a balance of

3 6 one hundred fifty thousand dollars. Until that time

3 7 the provisions of sections 162.11 and 162.12 shall be

3 8 administered and enforced in the same manner as if

3 9 this Act had not been enacted. Within fifteen days

3 10 after the fund first has a balance of one hundred

3 11 fifty thousand dollars, the secretary of agriculture

3 12 shall publish a notice that sections 162.11 and

3 13 162.12, as amended by this Act, are being implemented

3 14 in the Iowa administrative bulletin. The secretary of

3 15 agriculture shall notify the Code editor of such

3 16 implementation during the same period.>

[jrbjojo]

I don't see what the problem with the bill is? I think iowa needs inspections considering it is the 3rd largest puppy milling state. I usually just read and don't reply but i live in the tri state area. ( bordering Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska) I have seen puppy mills and if this bill is to help end them I'm 100% for it all the way! If you are a Commerical Breeder and have nothing to hide what's the problem? Animals should have rights they are not the same thing as growing a Corn or Soy Beans crop and the people who act like they are make me sick! I'll support it if it's to end the misery that puppy mill dogs go through! If I got it wrong sorry But it came a cross to me as inspections would be a bad thing? If it's in favor of Puppy mills I'll start calling and emailing but the wording of the post seems like it's against puppy mills so I'm really not understanding what the problem is.

[Debbie Meier]

I don't see what the problem with the bill is? I think iowa needs inspections considering it is the 3rd largest puppy milling state. I usually just read and don't reply but i live in the tri state area. ( bordering Iowa, South Dakota, Nebraska) I have seen puppy mills and if this bill is to help end them I'm 100% for it all the way! If you are a Commerical Breeder and have nothing to hide what's the problem? Animals should have rights they are not the same thing as growing a Corn or Soy Beans crop and the people who act like they are make me sick! I'll support it if it's to end the misery that puppy mill dogs go through! If I got it wrong sorry But it came a cross to me as inspections would be a bad thing? If it's in favor of Puppy mills I'll start calling and emailing but the wording of the post seems like it's against puppy mills so I'm really not understanding what the problem is.

 

Iowa does have inspections, and I have no problem with inspections, our kennel is inspected annually by both the state livestock inspector and a licensed vet. As to the proposed bill, I stated that I don't know what to think, part of me thinks it would be good, part of me worries about what it will lead to. Your comment on the bill causing the end of the puppy mills, shouldn't mills already be inspected either by USDA or by the State, if the mills are not being inspected then it is either due to the current regulations not being enforced or due to the mills running under the radar and not getting their licenses? How does requiring state inspections change anything other then putting more restrictions on the kennels and/or commercial breeders that are already doing the right thing? The other thought, are the USDA regulations too lax'ed if so, why is all this effort being put forth on state level when it should be at federal?

 

 

Deb

[jrbjojo]

I know the USDA does Inspections but they don't do enough Inspections the puppy mills that get busted have violations after violations and not much if anything gets done. They don't come back and do follow ups like they should. I don't know if you've ever seen some of the animals that get rescued ramming pipes down the dogs throats to stop their barking, the dogs who are missing their eyes, teeth and lower jaws It's heart breaking, needs to stop. I hope this bill will help end that. Not put everyone who does that right thing out of business. I was confused to the wording of the post I wasn't attacking you personally I hope you don't feel as though I was. But I do believe it should be a state by state process because the Federal goverment would screw everyone up. I hope this Bill is to require them to do follow ups on violations! They are giving a lot more press to Puppy Mills right now and I hope that is what this bill is addressing. I'm not saying everybody should be closed down but the ones who are doing the things I listed above are the ones calling for more involvement. What I'm hoping for is heftier fines and the licenses to get pulled for repeted violations. I know not all Commerical Breeders are Puppy Mills. Just wanted to add that to make sure you understand my point of veiw on the subject. It's the Puppy Mills that need to go.

[Debbie Meier]

I don't know if you've ever seen some of the animals that get rescued ramming pipes down the dogs throats to stop their barking, the dogs who are missing their eyes, teeth and lower jaws It's heart breaking, needs to stop. I hope this bill will help end that

 

 

Did the dogs your describing come from licensed facilities or ones that are running under the radar?

 

 

Deb

[Debbie Meier]

We had our annual kennel inspection on Friday, I spoke to the inspector about the proposed bill that would have our state inspectors inspect USDA kennels. She said it was 50/50 as to whether the bill would pass. She said that it would require the state to hire 2 more inspectors, and the inspectors would be handling complaints, not just going in and inspecting any USDA kennel. Also, they could not enforce the more strict state laws but refer USDA violations back to the USDA for them to handle. She also mentioned that it is really tough to get anyone that is in violation shut down, the last one that she was trying put out of business took a couple of years with miles of political red tape. In an effort to just get the dogs out of the situation the inspector negotiated with the kennel owner, it ended in having the kennel owner signing the dogs over to ARL and the state never was able to prosecute.

 

We also spoke about the pressure they are under right now from people going out of their way to make complaints, they are getting contacted by people that just drive up driveways and then file complaints because they are not in agreement with housing regardless of how well the dogs are being cared for. It sounded like they were even getting complaints about mistreatment of dogs that were just being housed in conventional dog runs like ours, people not in agreement with dogs be housed in kennels feeling they should either be loose or in the house.

 

It's interesting that there appears to be a trend against kennels, on other lists I run into people that are against crates feeling that they are cruel and that dogs should have free run. I guess it evolution of what is acceptable and unacceptable.

 

Deb