Wyoming is the first state to give a formal definition to the coined term of “Puppy Mill.”

Wyoming Senate Bill 100 was approved by the Senate on Tuesday, January 25, 2011, and has moved over to the House for approval. It was amended and the number of animals in the definitions of an “Animal Hoarder” and a “Puppy Mill” were removed. These had stated that an “Animal Hoarder” was anyone with 15 or more companion animals; and a “Puppy Mill” was anyone with more than 50 animals. The definitions are based now on the condition of the animals and their surrounding area. I have to ask, by whose definition?

Wyoming SB100 is aimed at pet breeders the Wyoming Livestock Board believes are more concerned with production and profits, as well as who they believe to be an Animal Hoarder. This bill is sponsored by Senator Gerald Geis of Worland. It was passed in the Wyoming Senate by a vote of 19-11 final roll call vote. The act is called the Cruelty to Animals Act, and will, if passed in the House, go into effect on July 1, 2011.

First, I have to ask what knowledge and experience the Wyoming Livestock Board has in Pet Animal Husbandry practices? The current Board includes four Representatives from the Cattle Industry and three Representatives from the Sheep Industry.  The Director and CEO of this Board is James L. Schwartz. There is not one person on this Board from the Pet Breeding Industry, nor is the State Veterinarian or any representative from the veterinarian profession on the Board. To quote from their own website, they have “Three Primary Functions: 1) Prevention/Education. Our goal is to prevent the introduction of disease into livestock populations.  2) Surveillance. In collaboration with private veterinarians and other agencies we conduct surveillance for reportable diseases to discover and contain them when they have been introduced. 3) Response. We are currently in the process of developing a management system to enable coordination of intra-agency and interagency disease response. Everything references cattle or livestock. There is nothing on the website that references dogs or cats, nor any Pet Companion Animal, at all.

With the removal of the numbers in the definitions listed on the bill, does this mean that if you have more than one animal in your home you will be considered an “Animal Hoarder”? If you are a breeder, and you have more than one animal (Hmm..it takes more than one to breed), are you now considered a “Puppy Mill”? In their definition of a “Puppy Mill”, they do not specify male or female animals. Does this mean that the family that owns one male and one female pet will be considered an “Animal Hoarder” and a “Puppy Mill?”According to Section 6-3-203, Part 111, Sub-section B, they state “The animals are kept in substandard conditions regarding the well-being of the animals…”, yet they fail to define what “sub-standard conditions” are.

Wyoming already has State Statute 11, Article 31 that covers animal cruelty, animal hoarding, and the treatment of animals. Specifically, section 11-31-102 deem dogs as “personal property”, so one would have to wonder about 4^th Amendment rights violations at this point. There is already another bill introduced in the Wyoming Senate, SF66, titled Wyoming Pet Animal Program, which creates a Wyoming Pet Animal Advisory Board. The only sponsor listed on this bill is “Agriculture”. This bill also allows for the creation of District Pet Animal Boards. Will this not create an issue of different Boards having different interpretations of what is considered an “Animal Hoarder” or a “Puppy Mill”, and different interpretations of “sub-standard conditions”?

This bill includes pet stores, pet shelters, pet rescues, pet kennels, pet sanctuaries and pet breeders. It has a broader base of what is defined as a “Pet Animal.”  The Pet Advisory Board, according to this act, will promulgate rules, is allowed to work with private organizations in pet animal protection and management, and will be allowed to accept monies from individuals to fund this new Board. Do you see the problems that will be created should this act pass as written?

Considering the fact that there are already statutes on the books that cover animal cruelty and the other issues they are attempting to address, I have to ask if more legislation is needed. In a time when the people are calling for less government, the federal government itself is implementing a spending freeze, and every state is facing budget issues at every corner, would it not be wiser to make the current legislation and government more effective? Legislators must look at 1) How can current laws be more effectively enforced; 2) Do we really need changes; and 3) Will changes be effective in achieving the goal we are attempting?

It would appear that the authors of both of these bills introduced have not fully thought through the possibility of unintended consequences as a result of these bills. What happens to the animals if owners and breeders find themselves in the situation of having to reduce numbers? How much sales tax revenue will be lost to the State Coffers? As a result of this, how many jobs will be lost? Does the state have the funds to pay for this newly created agency and the enforcement of these bills? Does the state have the funds to house any and all animals they will confiscate? What are the costs to the taxpayers of Wyoming?

Do not kid yourselves cattle producers, or any livestock producer or owner. Do not think they will stop with just Pet Companion Animals. You will be the next target. It is already happening in various locations. Whether you are a pet owner, pet breeder, cattle producer, livestock owner, whatever the case may be, now is the time to write your legislators and oppose these bills. State what it is you oppose in these bills and why, how it will affect you, and possibly suggest a better alternative.

Unfair legislation never accomplishes its intended goal. It only hurts the people who are doing it right, while the “others” simply slide further under the radar. Pet Legislation is a highly charged emotional issue. When legislation is based on emotions and worst case scenarios, this opens the door to legal disaster. Legislators must remember that they have to protect the responsible breeders and the animals, and do this without trampling on fundamental personal liberties.

To read Wyoming SB66 in its entirety, please follow this link:  http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2011/Introduced/SF0066.pdf

To read Wyoming SB100 in its entirety, please follow this link: http://legisweb.state.wy.us/2011/Introduced/SF0100.pdf

By: Debi R***