[pyrnet] Fw: The End of Pet rescue in Virginia?

["Barb Bowes" <bamb@monmouth.com>]

Printable version of this handout

The End of Pet Rescue in Virginia?
Information provided by Walt & Sharyn Hutchens, Timbreblue Whippets,
Lexington, Virginia, and the
Virginia-Rescue-Law email group at Yahoo.com ~ ~
www.groups.yahoo.com/group/va-rescue-law

About SB 260


The Law

During the spring 2002 General Assembly session, the Virginia Federation of
Humane Societies-a program of the Humane Society of the United States
(HSUS)-pushed though a bill,
SB 260, regulating animal rescue in Virginia.

The promoters of the bill stated that it had the support of the Virginia
Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders. According to VFDCB, it absolutely does
not support the bill in its final form.

Interestingly enough, this bill appeared shortly after a group of rescuers
"blew the whistle" on horrendous conditions at the Richmond pound. Their
activism finally resulted in the firing of the pound's management.

   Beginning July 1, 2002

Any rescuer accepting more than six animals a year must:

++ pay a $100 annual fee to the Commonwealth of Virginia;
++ register with the State Veterinarian's office as a Companion Animal
Rescue Agency (CARA).
This information will be available to anyone who requests it through the
Freedom of Information Act;
++ register all foster homes that accept more than two animals per year;
++ publicly post name, phone number, and home address in every pound in
rescue's service area, regardless of how wide it is;
++ be subject to an inspection of home at any time by the State
Veterinarian's office. No warrant is required.


The Result

Many national rescue groups are planning to, or already have, pulled out of
Virginia altogether.

Others have decided, rather than give up their privacy and Fourth Amendment
rights, to cut back the number of pets they rescue to six a year. Some of
these people and their foster homes, have saved as many as 100 animals
annually in the past.

Rescues are already rapidly losing foster homes, who are not willing to give
up their privacy for the privilege of providing a public service.

More animals will die in Virginia as a direct result of SB 260.
   What You Can Do

Write your state legislator and ask that SB260 be rescinded. This law serves
no public interest and represents a serious infringement of rescuers' civil
rights.

Tell your neighbors, friends, and adopters about this law and ask them to
write also.

Join the email list at Yahoo, Va-Rescue-Law. Send a blank email to:
va-rescue-law-subscribe@yahoogroups.com.

Visit our website at www.no-sb-260.com for updates on the fight for rescue
in Virginia and other ways you can help.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----


Why Virginia Rescuers Do Not Support SB 260


1. This law serves no valid public purpose.
There is no real problem that can be solved by this law. A law that has no
purpose should not be passed even if it does no harm. This law does a lot of
harm -- read on.

2. The law requires rescuers to give up Fourth Amendment protection by
allowing the State Veterinarian to enter and inspect their private homes
without a warrant.
Warrantless search is justified if there is a clear public benefit. For
example, if you get a restaurant license you can be inspected any time by
the health department because unsanitary food can kill people. But for
animal rescuers, no balancing public benefit comes from this loss of Fourth
Amendment rights.

3. This law exposes rescuers--mostly women--to needless personal risk
through disclosure of home addresses.
By finding your address at the pound, someone wanting your breed could come
to your door without any pre-screening, rejected adopters could harass you,
and people who want to dump animals will know where to go.

4. The law requires reports and record keeping. It may require a business
telephone number and listing, and/or a PO box. Rescuers will pay a
registration fee of $100/year.
This extra time and expense will do nothing for animals in need.

5. Animal rescuers serve an important whistle-blower function by reporting
problems at pounds and shelters.
This law greatly increases the power of political interests--the State
Veterinarians's office and those able to influence that office--to put
pressure on rescuers.

6. The law is so vaguely written that after weeks of discussion and asking
questions of those responsible, rescuers still don't know what some parts
mean.
What does 'open during reasonable hours' mean for a home? Some rescuers
cover several counties or even the whole state -- what pounds are in our
'service area'? There are many other questions still unanswered.

7. The office of the State Veterinarian says it is not going to write
implementing regulations, meaning that they'll make up the rules as they go
along.
We're already seeing that: the law says registration will begin on January 1
but the SV says a half-year registration will be required from July 1. The
law says nothing about strays, the bill's sponsor (Sen. John Watkins) says
his intent was to include only rescuers who accepted strays -- but the plans
to register everybody are in force.

8. No matter how hard she tries, no rescuer will be ever be able to say for
sure "I am legal."
It's simply too vague. When a law flunks this test, it's a bad law. Would
you want a speeding law that put up "Don't Drive Too Fast" signs in place of
a number of MPH if the local cop didn't like you?

9. This law was written without consultation with the group mainly affected,
namely active Virginia animal rescuers.

10. The law calls for a criminal penalty (a class 4 misdemeanor) for what
might be just a paperwork mistake.
Since you won't know if you're really legal, isn't that a little scary?
Might you think twice before trying to expose inhumane or other bad
conditions at your city pound? Remember that place on your last employment
application where it said "Have you ever been convicted of a criminal
offense"? Next time you might get to say "yes"!

11. The bottom line: Many more animals will die in Virginia because rescuers
and foster homes will either stop or cut back rather than give up the right
to privacy.