Who Is Behind Efforts to Kill Minnesota’s Puppy Mill Bill?

[Mike Fry]

Those who work on legislative efforts nationally and locally know that one of the most effective ways to kill a bill is to offer a competing alternative, thereby splitting the supporters of the cause, and giving opponents a rational excuse to vote down both bills.  This is especially true if there is broad support for the original piece of proposed legislation.

 

This fact combined with news of competing bills to House File 388 and Senate File 384 being introduced in the Minnesota Legislature have left many people wondering, “who is trying to kill Minnesota’s puppy mill bill?”

 

The potential answers to that question get stranger if people look deeper into who is supporting the new competing legislation.  It is a story that uncovers what could be either deliberate sabotage or incompetence within the animal welfare community.

 

The story begins a few years ago, when differing factions within the Minnesota animal welfare community were working on different approaches to regulating large-scale breeding operations in the state.  One faction had been working for many years on one approach that had little support at the legislature and no support at all from those outside the animal welfare community.  They had introduced bills repeatedly with absolutely no success at all.

 

Animal Ark had supported past efforts, but we realized a different approach needed to be taken.  We began seeking input from other organizations, including small, responsible breeders, like the Minnesota Purebred Dog Breeder’s Association, sheriffs and veterinarians.  The result was an interesting and widely supported new approach.  It resulted in new language with broad support.  But, a few animal welfare advocates clung to the old model.

 

When the Minnesota Legislature was approached with this new language, we were given a clear directive: get together with the animal welfare advocates working on other approaches, get on the same page, and deliver to the legislature a viable, single “compromise” bill.  We did just that.

 

The process of getting agreement was fairly long, and somewhat painful for all parties involved.  But we all together and succeeded.

 

The amended House File 253 in 2010 was the result of that challenging work. The new language was strong, tight and was supported by a remarkably broad spectrum of supporters.  Organizations that testified in support of this new language last year included Animal Ark, Second Chance Animal Rescue, RAGOM, the Animal Humane Society, the Minnesota Purebred Dog Breeder’s Association, veterinarians and others.

 

Beyond that, the Board of Animal Health had produced a fiscal note that was very favorable to the language.  The language got traction and quickly passed a couple of committees in the House.  This was more success than any of its predecessors had ever seen.

 

In the end, after some dramatic twists and turns, an amendment version of House File 253 came within a handful of votes of passing in the House, thanks to the leadership of Representative John Benson, and others.

 

Believing in the language and the importance of collaboration, Representative Benson held a series of meetings with the small group of opponents to House File 253 over the interim.  At these meetings, he asked for constructive input that would improve the language.  None was offered.

 

As a result, he introduced House File 388 this year, identical language to the “compromise” language that was House File 253 in 2010.  Immediately, a group of respected legislators signed on as co-authors.  A companion bill was introduced in the Senate (Senate File 384) and immediately gained more sponsors.

 

Then, more momentum got going.  A new Facebook page in support of the bills surged.  A grass-roots effort of letter writing resulted in news coverage, letters to the editor and petitions being spread around the Internet.  House File 388 and Senate File 384 were off to a strong start.

 

Then, something happened…

 

A little known web site (http://www.animalfolksmn.org) announced competing bills.  (The House version of this competing set of bills, it is worth noting, was authored by Representative John Lesch, the same representative that tried for several years to ban a variety of dog breeds throughout the state of Minnesota.)

 

A private individual apparently authors the web site AnimalFolksMN.org.  She claims to represent a “broad coalition” of organizations, but has continually refused to say who they are.  She has reportedly worked with the Humane Society of the United States.  However, an email received today from the President of HSUS, Wayne Pacelle, clearly states his organization has nothing to do with these competing bills.  Furthermore, AnimalFolksMN.org does not appear to have a legal lobbying presence at the legislature.

 

So, the question remains:  Who is AnimalFolksMN.org?  Who are they representing?  And why would they be working to sabotage the puppy mill bill?

 

We will continue to keep you posted as we learn more.

[Mike Fry]

Hi again, Dax,

 

You asked Animal Doc, but I will also try to answer your questions.

 

I do not feel it accurate to say that Animal Ark led "all" of the efforts relating to the previous bill.  Animal Ark certainly played a major role.  Additionally, it was Animal Ark that realized the animal welfare community needed to reach out to groups not directly involved in animal welfare.  We understood that we needed their input and assistance in getting a bill passed.

 

No "organization" passes a bill.  I know this could sound like mincing words.  But it is an important distinction.  The LEGISLATURE passes bills.  Organizations can only advocate for or against bills.  Animal Ark has been advocating for and against bills for more than 10 years.  Sometimes we have been successful and sometimes we have not been.

 

The introduction of a competing bill with different language than had been agreed to by a broad coalition is the issue here.  Why they would do that is anyone's guess.  At minimum it has set the conversation back to where it was more than 3 years ago.  It has also fractured the coalition and eroded support.

 

Last year, because there was only one set of bills, virtually all animal welfare organizations in the state were behind those bills.  On top of that, they had support from all of the other stakeholders we have already mentioned.  The introduction of the new bill has split the coalition, with some animal welfare organizations supporting the "new" bill, some supporting the "consensus" bill, and other stakeholders stuck in between.

 

To make matters worse, those who introduced the new competing bill were not honest with other coalition members about what they were doing.  That has further eroded support.

 

If this move had been done by an opponent of puppy mill regulation, it would have been a brilliant "divide and conquer" strategy.  What do you call it if it comes from within the movement?

[Dax Q.]

Animal Doc,

Are you saying that Animal Ark led all of the efforts to advance the previous bill of last year?

just trying to understand the cronology of events. Has animal Ark ever been succesful in passing legislation?

I am trying to understand the accusations coming from your orinization. I am not disputing anything written here as I am not qualified to opine. 

Thanks!

[animal doc]

Just to make it clear: my last comment was directed at Dax Q

[animal doc]

You need to get your information straight.  So much of what you said is not true. ;Just one example: You state"they have been been trying to advance this cause long before you appeared on the scene 10 months ago". Not true. Animal Ark has been working with this issue for many years and it was three years ago in 2008 ;that a broad spectrum of interested parties including shelters, breeders, veterinarians, etc. was gathered by Animal Ark to try to get a bill formulated that would meet a consensus and after many meetings and workshops that coalition accomplished that goal in the form of HF 253 now known as HF388.

[Mike Fry]

Excellent questions, Dax.  Why they would do this is a huge question.  I think some of your information may not be correct.  AnimalFolksMN.org has not, to my knowledge, ever "passed" legislation.  They started their group and page specifically to deal with the puppy mill issue.

 

Prior to this competing bill, the "coalition" that worked on HF 253 (that became HF 388) was about 38 different organizations.  I am still trying to understand which groups were actively involved in writing the competing language.  I have heard from at least a few that they were not.  I have also heard from some that they were told that AnimalFolksMN.org was only "fixing" errors in the language.  A couple of organizations specifically reported asking if the definitions and numbers were being changed, and they were told "no".

 

Why they would stab MNPBDA in the back this way, I cannot imagine.  Without the support of small, hobby breeders, they have no chance of passing a bill.  You can read more on that here:

 

http://animalark.ning.com/profiles/blogs/why-animal-welfare-advocates

[Dax Q.]

Hello, What incentive do the Humane Society, Animal folks et al have in "sabatoging" your bill? It is my understanding they have been been trying to advance this cause long before you appeared on the scene 10 months ago. They have succeeded in passing legislation for the betterment of animals. To date what bills has your orginization passed? Who is in your coalition? I am trying to understand both sides of this issue and would like your feedback.  I checked out Animal folks website. If you search puppy mills MN they are thefirst link followed by yours. Why say they are a littele known website when they get more hits than You? You lose credibility.

[Mike Fry]

Excellent observation Kaye.  Obviously, they knew about HF 388.  They officially agreed to the language of HF 388 last year.  They also knew that Rep Benson was working to get even broader support for the same language this year.

 

Please read my latest blog post on this topic...

 

http://animalark.ning.com/profiles/blogs/can-animal-ark-fix-the

[Kaye McArdell]

FWIW, I just sent the following email:

Hi - just visited your site. I was surprised to see omission of HF 388 and SF 384 on your Legislation page, both of which you must surely be aware of if you are truly serious about animal "mill" reform in Minnesota.

Here’s the link to House File 388 so that you can add it to your Web site (384 is the Senate’s companion bill):

  http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/bills/billnum.asp?Billnumber=HF388...
 

Thanks so much,

Kaye McArdell

<my contact information>

 

I'll share their response, if I get one.