Correcting misrepresentation of facts regarding the Dog and Cat Breeder Regulation Bill (S.F. 462/H.F. 702) and those who support it
March 2, 2011
The Dog and Cat Breeder Regulation Bill (S.F. 462/H.F. 702) was recently introduced in the Minnesota Legislature by authors Senator Barbara Goodwin and Representative John Lesch.
Animal Humane Society — among a coalition of many other animal welfare organizations and supporters in Minnesota — stand behind the bill. Learn why.
As is the case with most legislation introduced there are opposing viewpoints and various bills introduced. Unfortunately, Animal Ark in Hastings, Minn. is leading many to believe the coalition's bill is an effort to sabotage the passing of a regulation bill. That is not the case.
Check this page and the Animal Humane Society website often. Accurate information behind the coalition’s effort to pass the Dog and Cat Breeder Regulation Bill (S.F. 462/H.F. 702) is being provided to help the public make an informed decision about which bill they will support.
Coalition: The group behind the effort to pass the Dog and Cat Breeder Regulation Bill (S.F. 462/H.F. 702) to effectively stop the practice of inhumane breeding in Minnesota.
|
Animal Folks MN |
Minnesota Voters for Animal Protection |
Read accurate information regarding the following misperceptions communicated by Animal Ark:
MISPERCEPTION: The coalition has reportedly worked with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
MISPERCEPTION: Author of H.F. 702, Representative John Lesch, tried for several years to ban a variety of dog breeds throughout the state of Minnesota.
MISPERCEPTION: Animal Humane Society was called as a defense witness in the case against Kathy Bauck and neglectfully left the animals at Pick of the Litter Kennels.
TRUTH: Animal Humane Society was never called to testify in the 2008 case against Kathy Bauck, owner of Pick of the Litter Kennels in Otter Tail County Minnesota. Animal Humane Society Senior Humane Agent Wade Hanson was listed on the defense witness list (continue reading to learn why), but was never subpoenaed to testify.
In July 2008, the State of Minnesota filed charges against Kathy Bauck based on the findings of an undercover video taken at Pick of the Litter Kennels and given to the Otter Tail County Sheriff’s Office in May 2008. Due to accusations made by the defense against the sheriff’s office, Agent Hanson was called in as a third-party investigator to walk through Pick of the Litter’s facilities.
At the time of Agent Hanson’s inspection, Bauck had already been charged with five counts of animal cruelty, two counts of torture, and two counts of practicing veterinary procedures without a license — Bauck knew she was under investigation and subject to additional inspections.
In the undercover video, Bauck comments on what her employees should do when authorities arrive on the property. It is the belief of Animal Humane Society that Bauck had cleaned up her facility and was able to hide the atrocities that were happening there resulting in the counts against her.
Because of Agent Hanson’s findings on that day and their conflicting nature with the undercover video, he was placed on the defense witness list.
On August 29, 2008, Agent Hanson did the requested walk through of Bauck’s facilities with Otter Tail County Sheriff’s Deputy Keith Van Dyke. Animal Humane Society was in full support and agreement with the Otter Tail County Sheriff’s Department on the charges they brought against Bauck; however, on the day of his inspection, Agent Hanson did not find reason within the state animal welfare statutes to remove any animals and issued correction orders to Bauck regarding only environmental and health and safety violations. As a result, the prosecutor could have called Agent Hanson as a hostile witness in this case.
Animal Humane Society was not called to testify or further involved in the case or subsequent trial.
Click here to learn more about the case against Kathy Bauck and how a lack of regulation of commercial dog and cat breeders by the State of Minnesota is leaving animals to suffer at the hands of inhumane breeders.
UPDATE: Additional inaccurate information has been stated regarding this case and Animal Humane Society’s involvement. Unfortunately, Animal Ark is leading the public to believe that Agent Hanson was the sole investigator on the case leading the investigation and the criminal case against Kathy Bauck. That is not true.
As stated above, Animal Humane Society was called by the Otter Tail County Sheriff’s Office to conduct an agency assist. On August 29, 2008, Agent Hanson accompanied Ottertail County Sheriff’s Deputy Keith Van Dyke to the property. On that day, the sheriff's office was authorized by a warrant to identify and seize a large wooden box. The box was connected to an ATV exhaust pipe that Bauck used to euthanize animals. The role of Agent Hanson was to evaluate the welfare of the animals and the facilities they were subject to at that time.
Bauck had already been charged and knew she was under investigation; therefore, it is our understanding that because of these charges and her knowledge that authorities may be returning to her property she improved the conditions of her facilities and the care of the animals to meet minimum requirements. The only violations found that day were those for which Agent Hanson issued correction orders. Read a firsthand account of Agent Hanson's visit that day.
Why were the animals left on the property? The Bauck investigation and charges were brought forward by the Otter Tail County Sheriff’s Office, not Animal Humane Society. Otter Tail County allowed Bauck to transfer ownership of Pick of the Litter Kennels to her daughter and husband based on the findings of the undercover video. Because the charges filed were against Kathy Bauck and not Pick of the Litter Kennels, the sheriff’s office chose to leave the animals on the property and in the care of Bauck’s daughter and husband.
Unfortunately, Animal Humane Society and other authorities cannot remove animals based on the findings of a separate investigation. The conditions viewed prior were not in existence when Agent Hanson visited the property.
Animal Humane Society did not willingly play a role in Bauck’s defense. Agent Hanson’s report was used without interpretation by the defense and he was not subpoenaed or called as a witness.
Animal Humane Society is well aware of Bauck’s poor animal husbandry skillsets. It is not negligence on the part of Agent Hanson or Animal Humane Society, but the inadequate animal welfare laws of Minnesota that allow Bauck to continue to operate today. That is why neither Animal Humane Society nor any other authority or animal welfare organization has been able to close her operations.
Agent Hanson has 20 years of experience as a humane agent for Animal Humane Society and has rescued thousands of animals from abusive and neglectful situations. He has improved the lives of a countless number of animals because of his work as a humane agent and continues to do so today.
Inhumane breeding in Minnesota needs to be stopped. Speak up for animals like those at Bauck’s kennel by supporting S.F. 462/H.F. 702.
MISPERCEPTION: This is the first year there have been competing bills. S.F. 462 and H.F. 702 were introduced by the coalition to sabotage the passing of any puppy mill legislation.
FACT: As in past years, more than one bill addressing the needs of animals living in inhumane breeding facilities has been introduced. This is not an uncommon practice that occurs during the legislative process when addressing important measures (animal welfare, education, etc.). Bills are introduced throughout the legislative session — any legislative member can introduce a bill and there are no limits to the number of bills s/he can introduce.
The coalition introduced its first breeder bill five years ago, when the issue of inhumane dog and cat breeding practices was little known or understood at the Minnesota Legislature. Over the years, huge strides have been made in educating legislators and the public. Each year’s effort improves upon past efforts.
With compassion and responsibility to all companion animals, the coalition believes it needs to continue the forward progress the coalition has made and take this opportunity to improve upon the previous bill. S.F. 462/H.F. 702 is a comprehensive bill that is both fiscally responsible and allows for strong protection of dogs and cats living in Minnesota commercial breeding facilities.
The coalition did not introduce S.F. 462/H.F. 702 to sabotage any other bill. The fact that the coalition’s bill was introduced secondarily to another breeder regulation bill is a simple matter of timing.
Learn more about S.F. 462/H.F. 702 and why the Animal Humane Society stands behind it.
MISPERCEPTION: The coalition’s bill is nearly the same as competing breeder regulation bills introduced this year.
FACT: Although both bills are trying to achieve protections for dogs and cats in commercial breeding facilities, they are different. The coalition stands behind S.F. 462/H.F. 702 because it is both fiscally responsible and will allow for strong protection of dogs and cats living in Minnesota commercial breeding facilities.
If passed, S.F. 462/H.F. 702 will license and regulate dog and cat breeders with 10 or more adult intact animals and whose animals produce more than five total litters of puppies or kittens per year. Authority for inspections and enforcement is directed in the bill to the Minnesota Board of Animal Health (MBAH). In order to best utilize the inspector’s time (and address breeders who are compliant), S.F. 462/H.F. 702 allows for every-other-year inspections if a breeder has had two consecutive years of inspections with no violations. It also allows the MBAH to charge a re-inspection fee if they have to make multiple visits in one year to a facility that is out of compliance with state law.
One of Animal Ark's bills, H.F. 417, directs inspections and enforcement of dog and cat breeders to the Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine (MBVM) whose responsibility it is to license veterinarians in Minnesota. The MBVM has neither the resources nor the regulatory and oversight experience needed to implement licensing and inspections of commercial dog and cat breeding facilities. Its other bill directs oversight to the MBAH; however, both bills define a commercial breeder as one with 20 or more breeding animals. Unfortunately, many of the dog and cat breeders Animal Humane Society humane agents have investigated and rescued animals from would not be regulated if the standard for licensing and inspection was set at 20 breeding animals, leaving countless companion animals to suffer in inhumane breeding facilities.
Read more about S.F. 462/H.F. 702 and why it is a strong bill.
MISPERCEPTION: Members of the coalition do not have a legal lobbying presence at the Minnesota Legislature.
FACT: Those hired to lobby S.F. 462/H.F. 702 are registered lobbyists with the state of Minnesota and/or fall within the guidelines given by the state of Minnesota for nonprofit lobbying.
MISPERCEPTION: Animal Folks MN was not truthful in its discussion with Animal Ark regarding information on the Animal Folks MN website, and the coalition lied to the public about introducing a bill.
FACT: The unfortunate truth behind Animal Ark’s recording of its phone call with Animal Folks MN is that representatives from the two organizations were talking about similar, yet different, information. This created confusion; however, the phone call was edited and presented in such a way so as to discredit the good reputation of Animal Folks MN.
Neither Animal Folks MN nor the coalition was hiding the fact that a breeder bill would be introduced this year. For the past year, the coalition had been letting its supporters and other animal welfare organizations know it would again be introducing a bill during the 2011 legislative session. That information was noted in communications to supporters and posted on the Animal Folks MN website and other coalition members’ websites for the past year.
Animal Ark called Animal Folks MN. During this conversation, Animal Ark’s representative seemed upset that another breeder bill was being introduced and implied that the coalition did not share this information. Animal Folks MN confirmed that the coalition bill had not yet been introduced and re-stated that Animal Folks MN is part of a large coalition that has been working on a new bill for the past year. Information about the efforts to craft the new bill has been easily accessible through websites, emails and printed materials.
Animal Folks MN is a strong voice behind the effort to end inhumane dog and cat breeding in Minnesota. Rich with information about the industry of dog and cat breeding, puppy and kitten mills, extensive research and more, it is a comprehensive resource to learn more about the issue and the effort behind it. Ann Olson, executive director of the organization, has worked for several years with a core staff of community volunteers to bring an end to inhumane dog and cat breeding in the state.
MISPERCEPTION: The coalition has reportedly worked with the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
FACT: HSUS is not part of the coalition. This is not a national effort. It is a campaign led by local Minnesota animal welfare organizations, veterinarians and community members.
MISPERCEPTION: Author of H.F. 702, Representative John Lesch, tried for several years to ban a variety of dog breeds throughout the state of Minnesota.
FACT: Representative Lesch did not introduce a breed ban bill. He talked about the issue in an interview and at a town hall meeting after an incident in his district. Representatives from A Rotta Love, the Minnesota Animal Control Association, Second Chance Animal Rescue and the Humane Society of the United States contacted him to see if he would be willing to discuss the issue and how a dog’s breed is not the only contributing factor to a dog’s temperament.
After a couple meetings with Representative Lesch it was decided that the afore mentioned group, veterinarians, and experts in the fields of animal behavior and dog training would create a program where the responsibility of an animal’s behavior would fall on the owner of the dog, rather than banning certain breeds.
In 2009, Representative Lesch chief authored a bill that did just that — it created a system whereby someone who had a dog that was designated dangerous would be mandated to attend training on animal behavior and handling, among other requirements, in order to keep the dog. Unfortunately, the bill did not receive a hearing during hte 2009-2010 session.
The bill did not ban any breed of dog.