If you're in the Columbus area or can make it there this Wednesday morning at 9:30, your support is needed as the bill described below will be open for discussion, both pros and cons.
TIA to anyone who is able to get there...I, like many others, have to work and can't get away.
The Ohio House Agriculture Committee will hear testimony on HB 124, the
horrendous kennel licensing bill, this Wed, Sept 30, at 9:30 a.m. in room
018 at the Capitol in Columbus. This is the only item on the agenda. All
testimony (proponent, opponent, and interested party) will be taken. If you
have already testified, don't repeat the same argument; pick another
section of the bill to speak about or expand your argument to include
more/different points.
The agenda does NOT indicate a committee vote at this hearing.
Update: Latest on Wednesday HB 124 Hearing
According to Representative Hagan's aide Jordan Plottner, a substitute bill
for HB 124 is in the pipeline. He said that the changes will address some
concerns that came out of the stakeholder meetings with Rep. Weddington and
an independent meeting in Holmes County and will be more flexible than the
original. He said he would send me a copy of the new bill when he gets it
back from the Legislative Services Commission, but I have not received it yet.
However, getting it Monday or Tuesday won't help us with Wednesday
testimony because we'll actually have to read the bill before commenting.
So, IMO, those who wish to testify or write letters have three options:
oppose the bill as introduced; make a general statement about acceptable
provisions in a kennel licensing bill; or some combination of the two.
General areas of concern in the bill are
1. the new language in 955.02 that effectively eliminates the opportunity
for occasional breeders to avoid buying a kennel license;
2. the creation of a new state agency in a time when budgets are stretched
thinner than thin;
3. the overbearing standards;
4. the language defining an intermediary that will force breeders of a
single large litter (more than 8 puppies) to be licensed; and
5. the dubious due process provisions forcing all cases into a single state
court and requiring a second bond if an accused licensee wants to appeal an
impoundment.
