Two bills came through my email this week that have left me just this side of speechless. These would be Arizona HB2375 (Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited) and Maryland SB505 (Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited). Let’s review the fun points.
Arizona HB2375, Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited
The title sounds great doesn’t it? Let’s take a look at the animals that are included in clause “a person shall not own, possess, keep, harbor, import or transport into this state, have custody or control of or propagate dangerous wildlife” As written in the bill “For the purposes of this section, “dangerous wildlife” means the following animals and all hybrids, whether bred in the wild or in captivity”:
- All species of the order carnivora. Common names include: carnivores, skunks, raccoons, bears, foxes and weasels.: What the bill doesn’t point out is that the order carnivora also includes ALL DOGS AND CATS!
- All species of the following families of the order artiodactyla. including the family bovidae. Common names include: bison (buffalo), duiker, antelope, gazelles, goats and sheep: What the bill doesn’t point out is that bovidae also includes COWS as well as goats and sheep! (Although there is an exception for Water Buffalo, Bison, American Bison & Buffalo
- Don’t forget that the bill also includes practically every variety of non-mammalian pet
I don’t know what possibility is more frightening. Do the bill sponsors not understand the consequences of the legislation they have put forth? Or do they understand and hope the citizens don’t understand until too late?
Arizona HB2375, Possessing Dangerous Wildlife Prohibited: sponsored by Chad Campbell (D), Cloves C. Campbell Jr (D), Kyrsten Sinema (D), Nancy Young Wright (D), Edward Ableser (D)
Maryland SB505 (Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited)
At least this one is clear in the title. The purpose of the bill? “A RETAIL PET STORE IN THE STATE MAY NOT DISPLAY, SELL, DELIVER, OFFER FOR SALE OR ADOPTION, BARTER, AUCTION, GIVE AWAY, OR 14 OTHERWISE TRANSFER OR DISPOSE OF A DOG LESS THAN 9 MONTHS OF AGE.”
- Breeders who sell directly to the buyer
- Public or Private humane societes (not to be confused with the HSUS) and non-profit animal adoption organizations
- Adoption events operated by humane societes (not to be confused with the HSUS) and non-profit animal adoption organizations (i.e. rescues) out of or in connection with a retail pet store
- Optimum bonding in dogs occurs up to the 12 week mark as does the foundation of early training. The adolescent phase in dogs (typically 8-14 months) is the TOUGHEST for most owners to deal with. Way to set families up for failure.
- The blatent double standard. Its ok to ‘adopt’ dogs under 9 months so long as a humane society or rescue is ‘involved’. So it is an improvement for the dogs to come from a source where even LESS is known about the dog’s health/background/history? Again, way to set families up for failure
- The blatent attempt to make it impossible for people to raise dogs for a living and to force the ‘entry price’ up on dog ownership. anyone heard of the concept of supply and demand? What about material costs?
- Future editing could be ESPECIALLY problematic. ‘Tweaking’ of legislation does not undergo anywhere near the same level of public notification as the initial passing of a bill. It wouldn’t take much adjustment of the exemptions and/or age of sale to make selling OR adopting a dog essentially illegal.
Again, I don’t know what possibility is more frightening. Do the bill sponsors not understand the consequences of the legislation they have put forth? Or do they understand and hope the citizens don’t understand until too late?
Maryland SB505, Pet Stores – Sale of Dogs Less than 9 Months of Age Prohibited: sponsored by Lisa Gladden (D), George W. Della Jr. (D), Richard S. Madaleno Jr. (D), Catherine Pugh (D)
To those who think that these issues could never happen? I have two words: WAKE UP!