Passed through Ag committee by one vote!

And the bill will now go to the House Appropriations Committee.

Our Correspondent tells me that Del. Ware spoke against the bill
saying that it was poorly thought out and too much medicine for too
little illness. Del. Hogan was also strongly in opposition.
Vanderhye and Orrock were strongly FOR the bill; Orrock said in
effect "just pass it now and we'll fix it later." The actual vote
will be posted on the LIS website.

Cats were removed. There was a clarifying change in wording. Maybe
one more change that I've forgotten.

VERY close, folks. We had ~30 people there; our correspondent says
'probably more than the ARs.'

The Appropriations Committee will be interested in costs TO THE STATE
to enforce the bill. The only cost included in the fiscal impact
statement is one additional position for VDACS. That low cost is
because they've left out what will actually happen: The bill would
put all the larger commercial breeders out of business. They would be
replaced by smaller breeders, many of them intending to hide from the
law right at the beginning. If they're hiding from the licensing law,
will they fully comply with animal welfare requirements?

Enforcement against these smaller breeders will be much more difficult
and expensive. I can't estimate the state's share of that cost.

Nor is it possible to estimate how much it will cost the state to deal
with increasing out-of-state and foreign imports.

I think there'll be a very substantial cost to the state for
litigation and/or compensation to the operating businesses that the
law eliminates. But that number can only be guessed, and at the
moment, supporters of the bill are simply denying that this will
happen.

Back to work, folks.

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
******************************************
A follow-up report from our Correspondent: Your emails, calls, and
faxes made a huge difference. EVERY delegate and staff member she
spoke with was well aware of the issues and commented on the number of
emails. We have not won yet, but we have made the House aware that
there is a big controversy.

Another change that was made is the delay of the effective date from 1
July of this year (when Virginia bills become effective unless another
date is specified) to 1 July 2009.

We all need to contact our local Delegates with the messages we've
been using in the last few days: "This is a terrible bill that will do
nothing but harm to pets, pet owners, or Virginia."

We ALSO need to contact members of the House Appropriations Committee
with the message that "This bill is going to cost a ton more than the
impact statement says, because (A) There's going to be a lot more
enforcement action than has been costed, and (B) Litigation by
commercial breeders forced out of business is a certainty."

I think we have a good chance to kill this in Appropriations.

I'll post my emails on the subject of how bad the bill is, for use
with your own Delegates. As many folks as possible should VISIT their
delegates; that will probably require a trip to Richmond so try to get
an appointment ahead of time.

Having your delegate (the person you VOTE for, right?) aware of the
problems with this bill is important in more than one way:

1. He may be on the Appropriations Committee or he may contact a
friend who is, about your concerns.

2. If the bill gets through Appropriations the next step will be a
floor vote by the whole House; you want your Delegate to vote NO.

Will someone on VA-pet-law put together a contact info list for the
House Appropriations Committee?

Note that while we can call this 'PAWS for Virginia' among ourselves,
we need to be clear when speaking to the public that it goes well
beyond PAWS. PAWS would have brought USDA regulation to larger RETAIL
ONLY breeders. This would have increased their costs, but not so much
as to put them out of business. HB 538, however, has so many and such
specific requirements that when combined with the 50-dog/year cap on
sales I can't believe any breeding business could comply and be
profitable against competition that doesn't have to play by the same
rules. Since the requirements can't be enforced against out of state
(or foreign) businesses, and 'puppy moonshiners' who don't want to play
by the rules can hide, there WILL be competition.

In effect, HB 538 would OUTLAW all but the smallest dog breeding
businesses -- same tactic (with differences in the details) as in OK's
new bill.

It's certainly an interesting new AR tactic, outlawing breeding
businesses.

Thanks, everyone.

Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets