We knew it was coming......now we are in the battlefield right with everyone else.
This Senate bill was introduced by Senator Darling and is co-sponsored by Representatives J. Ott, A. Ott, Van Roy, Bies, Spanbauer
and Honadel.
The bill has been referred to the Senate committee of Agriculture and Higher Education, chaired by Sen Kathleen Vinehout.
The bill history, which tracks a bill's progress through the legislative process is online at http://www.legis.state.wi.us/2009/data/SB110hst.html. There is a link on this page to the full PDF of the bill.
Interested parties can sign up for the legislative notification service (free and on the state legislative homepage http://www.legis.state.wi.us/, right hand column). All you need is avalid e-mail and you can sign up to receive notification of activity on SB 110.
SB 110 focuses exclusively on setting up a structure for licensing and inspecting certain producers (commercial dog breeders, or puppy mills). There is no "puppy lemon law" component this time around.
"Commercial dog breeder" is defined in this bill as "a person who is engaged in the business of breeding dogs and who sells or offers to sell at least 100 dogs for resale in a year."
This bill would have no effect on facilities outside of Wisconsin. Out of state producers could still ship dogs in to dog auctions or other retail outlets without any state check on the heath of the animals being brought into the state.
The Department may inspect licensed facilities if there is "reason to believe" Wisconsin's animal cruelty laws (Wis. Stats. Ch 951) or the Federal Animal Welfare Act (7 USC 2131 to 2159) have been violated. The bill does not state how DATCP will chose to administer an inspection program (i.e. act on complaints, assign responsibilities to local governments etc.).
The bill also states that if DATCP finds violations that require corrections/re-inspections that the licensed facility may have to pay fees (to be determined in administrative rule) for the Department's time.
There is no mechanism to protect breeders/facilities against frivolous complaints. If DATCP responds to complaints (from citizens, neighbors etc.), and does inspect breeders/facilities that are not required to be licensed or facilities that are actually in compliance, there is no way to compensate for the Department's time. Neighbor disputes or animal rights activists have used inspection/complaint mechanisms to target dog owners, attempt to confiscate dogs, and create undo burdens on individuals who have to spend time and money responding in their defense.
