Puppy mill bill stalled in Raleigh
RALEIGH — The sight of maltreated dogs confiscated from a local kennel has been enough to provoke a “There ought to be a law!” reaction from local government leaders.
It turns out, there almost was.
A proposal to set licensing standards for puppy breeding operations cleared the N.C. Senate last year but ran into significant opposition from the American Kennel Club, the NRA and hunting groups as it made its way though the House.
The measure is eligible for consideration in the legislative summer session that begins in May, but prospects for its passage are decidedly mixed.
“I don’t think there’s any consensus amongst our caucus that’s something we want,” said Rep. Hugh Holliman, a Lexington Democrat and the majority leader in the House.
The legislative summer session in even number years is geared toward handling budget adjustment and pressing matters. Controversial nonbudget topics are typically — but not always — avoided.
Reps. Pricey Harrison and Maggie Jeffus filed one of two House companion measures to the Senate bill last year, and Harrison said fallout came swiftly.
“There was really strong commentary as soon as I filed the bill,” Harrison said, saying negative feedback came from local dog-owners and breeders alike.
It would have required anyone who had 15 or more breeding-age female dogs and who sold puppies to the public to register with the state and to obey certain health and welfare guidelines. Those rules would be developed by the N.C. Department of Agriculture.
“It’s very poorly written,” said Stephen Wallis, president of the N.C. Federation of Dog Clubs, which is an affiliate of the American Kennel Club. “They are stepping all over existing law.”
Wallis said there is already a dog breeding law on the books.
But Lee Hunter, director of the N.C. Department of Agriculture’s Animal Welfare Section, said that law only applies to breeders who sell to pet stores, research facilities and the like. It does not cover those who sell puppies that they have bred to individuals.
“What that bill will do is capture too many of the hobby breeders,” Wallis said. “It will put hardship on those breeders such that they would have to have commercial-level facilities to be able to breed.”
Wallis said the lawmakers pushing the bill were under the influence of out-of-state interest groups, who were dumping time and money into advocacy on behalf of the bill.
The Humane Society of the United States continues to lobby on behalf of the bill, putting up billboards and holding a “Puppy Mill Awareness Day” in Raleigh in May.
That involvement may in part explain the opposition from the National Rifle Association’s legislative action arm last year. In an alert to members, the NRA said the Humane Society’s real goal is a ban on sport hunting, and the NRA labeled the puppy mill bill as an incremental step.
“Don’t allow HSUS to take this critical first step in North Carolina,” read an NRA-issued action alert. Calls to the NRA’s legislative affairs office were not returned.
The bill also drew opposition from local hunters organized by the N.C. Sporting Dog Association. That opposition persisted even after language was added to exempt those who raise hunting dogs.
“That exemption would not last one starry night,” said Henri McClees, a lobbyist with the Sporting Dog Association. She also objected to language that would allow the Department of Agriculture to establish standards for housing and feeding dogs.
“I do not believe the state has the right to come in and tell me how much exercise I need to give a dog,” said McClees, who lobbied along with her husband, Joe, on the bill.
The McClees’ efforts in particular brought dozens of like-minded dog owners to the legislative lobby days last year, apparently swaying lawmakers who shied away from acting in the face of vocal opposition.
Kim Alboum, state director for the Humane Society of the United States, said there was “a lot of misinformation” floating around about the bill and proponents were working to convince lawmakers that the measure would not infringe on dog owners’ rights.
Alboum said the bill would allow local animal-control officers to intervene before encountering the kind of conditions that prompted Guilford County sheriff’s deputies to confiscate 97 dogs from Rush Kennel in Pleasant Garden.
“It has to go so far before they (animal-control officers) can do anything about it,” Alboum said.
Guilford County Sheriff BJ Barnes agreed. His department’s investigation of Rush Kennel took months. The proposed measure would allow law enforcement to act before dogs suffer and would free up investigative resources, Barnes said.
Alboum as well as opponents of the bill said they think it will move forward, but lawmakers expressed doubts, pointing to another animal-cruelty measure for contrast.
Susie’s Law is named after a dog that was badly beaten and burned. The man convicted of animal cruelty in the case got probation only, outraging many and sparking a push to elevate the crime so a judge could hand down jail time.
Both Sen. Don Vaughan, a Greensboro Democrat, and Harrison said they’ve gotten hundreds of e-mails and other correspondence in favor of Susie’s Law. That measure is expected to move quickly and garner the support of even some of those who oppose the puppy mill bill.
No similar grass-roots push for the puppy mill bill has surfaced yet, lawmakers said.
“I don’t think that there is momentum for that puppy mill bill in the short session,” Harrison said. “It’s too bad. It’s a good bill.”
Contact Mark Binker at (919) 832-5549 or mark.binker@news-record.com
s 460: Commercial Dog Breeder Regulation
Search News-Record.com
closeSearch News & Record Article Archives
Not all of the newspaper's content appears online.
*There is a fee for downloading some older articles.
