House Finance Committee Senate Bill 331 – Opponent Testimony Dec 1, 2016
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
House Finance Committee Senate Bill 331 – Opponent Testimony Dec 1, 2016 Chairman Smith, Vice Chair Ryan, Ranking Member Driehaus and members of the House Finance committee, thank you for your time and consideration. My name is Corey Roscoe and I am the State Director for the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), the largest animal protection organization in the country. On behalf of the HSUS and our Ohio members and supporters, I offer Opponent testimony on Senate Bill 331. We strongly oppose this bill because it will not protect animals or consumers, will strip the right of localities to regulate problematic local businesses and will be nearly impossible to enforce. [sub SB 331: Section 956.23] This bill will accomplish one thing should it become law. It will preempt localities from enacting pet shop ordinances that protect consumers and animals. Over 200 cities and counties across the country, and two cities in Ohio, have passed ordinances prohibiting pet stores from selling commercially raised puppies. Once elected local officials become educated on this issue and are presented with the facts they overwhelming vote in favor of cutting off the puppy mill-pet store supply chain and protecting consumers. There was a notion presented earlier this week in Sponsor testimony that we need pet stores to acquire certain breeds of dogs. However, according to the 2015-2016 National Pet Owners Survey by the American Pet Products Association, only 4% of dogs are even purchased from pet stores. The public does not need pet stores to find their perfect pet. Responsible breeders, breed-specific rescues and humane societies easily fulfill the demand. Petland has come to you, asking you to save its stores. The goal of pet shop ordinances are not to put pet stores out of business, but rather to require pet stores to follow a humane business model. What Petland isn’t telling you is that they have successful stores that don’t rely on the sale of puppies. They’re also not telling you is that the largest and most successful pet store chains in the country such as PetSmart, Petco, Pet People, and Pet Supplies Plus, do not sell puppies, nor do the majority of small, family-owned pet stores. Petland is an outlier in their own industry. You also can’t give Petland the operational consistency it claims to need because the chain already operates in different states and countries, each with diverse laws regulating pet stores. In fact, should this bill become law, Ohio would have pet store regulations unlike those in any other state, making regulations less consistent for Petland. Petland’s real problem is its reputation. Petland is known for misleading customers about where the puppies come from, forcing them to sign gag orders before being reimbursed for a sick or dead puppy, and utilizing predatory lending schemes. [sub SB 331: Section 956.20(A)(5), Section 956.19 - Qualified Breeder under sub SB 331, “(A) A breeder that keeps, houses, and maintains female adult dogs that is NOT a high volume breeder as defined in section 956.01 of the Revised Code.”] Under this bill, pet stores would be able to source puppies from some of the worst puppy mills in the country—those that are completely unregulated and unlicensed. Allowing pet stores to source from “low volume breeders” creates a massive loophole because there is no way for the state of Ohio to ensure that breeders across the country selling to Ohio pet stores are actually low volume, rather than large-scale puppy mills who have been able to avoid federal licensing. In June 2016, the state noted over 900 premises in Ohio were on the Ohio Commercial Dog Breeders program ‘action list,’ or those suspected of being high-volume breeding facilities not yet regulated under the 2013 ‘puppy mill’ law (SB 130) All 900 of these unregulated breeders on the ‘action list’ would be permitted to sell to Ohio pet shops under this bill. It’s highly doubtful all 900 of them are “hobby breeders.” In part because of this massive unlicensed breeder loophole, this would be the weakest pet store law in the country. Other states require pet stores to only source from only federally licensed breeders, including New Jersey, Connecticut, Maryland and Louisiana. It’s especially frustrating that this bill doesn’t require pet stores to only source from federally licensed breeders because a Petland representative testified in May that Petland stores only source from breeders that exceed USDA standards. If Petland is willing to make this claim, why wouldn’t this bill have this requirement? All dogs sold to pet shops in Ohio should be sourced from only licensed facilities. The Humane Society of the United States commends the Ohio Department of Agriculture for its enforcement efforts of the puppy mill law despite its own challenges: Ohio’s definition of a “high-volume breeder” is partly contingent on transactions (the number of dogs sold.) The already problematic enforcement of breeders will only be exasperated by giving legal approval for unregulated breeders to sell to Ohio pet shops. [sub SB 331: Section 956.20(B)(5)] This bill is also weaker than other state pet store laws because it would do nothing to protect Ohio consumers or aide them in making informed purchasing decisions. Other states require breeder information on each cage, for each puppy in a pet store, so that consumers can see where the puppy came from and research that facility before deciding whether or not to purchase a puppy. This bill, on the other hand, would not require any information to be given to consumers until just prior to the purchase a puppy making it difficult for consumers to make an informed buying decision. Pet shops should be required to conspicuously post breeder information to the general public at all times. [sub SB 331: Section 956.20; 956.22] The bill is largely unenforceable. Even if a pet store failed to meet the weak standards put forth, it is unlikely that the store would be cited because under this bill the enforcement agents would have to prove not only that the law was violated, but that it was violated “negligently.” Also, before citing a pet store for a violation, enforcement agents must send the store a notice and give the store time to correct. Pet stores will have absolutely no incentive to comply with this law, knowing that they will have an opportunity to correct any violation before they are cited. No other state pet store law allows for this because it would render the law meaningless. If passed as written, this will be the weakest pet store sourcing law in the country and that is why we urge you to oppose this bill. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. Corey Roscoe The Humane Society of the United States .