Feb 232009

In Oregon, the 2009 Legislative Session is underway, and there are several proposed bills that would significnatly impact animals. Some of them are excellent, others are quite bad.  In this post I will briefly articulate the three bills I believe animal lovers must oppose. These bills are an outright attack on animals and their owners.


Please take a few minutes to review these bills and contact your legislators. Send email or snail mail, talk to them on the phone, arrange meetings, or attend hearings.   Please go to http://www.leg.state.or.us/index.html to read the bills and find contact information for your legislators. If you have not done this before, it may seem daunting, but it is really quite simple.  These legislators work for us, and all you have to do is get in touch and share with them your opinions!


SB391: would prohibit all exotic animal ownership in the state except for federally licensed exhibitors, breeders, and research facilities. It is unnecessary, counterproductive, and unjust.

1.      The historic record is unimpeachable—legally owned exotic animals have caused virtually no harm in Oregon. We have excellent laws that work.

2.      The rare problem that does occur with exotic animals invariably stems from the actions of people who are breaking current law. When people follow the current regulations of USDA, ODA, and ODFW, problems do not arise. If we merely enforce current law there can be no problems.

3.      This bill would reduce the population of knowledgeable and skilled animal experts who are precisely the people working within the state to prevent exotic animals from ever being a problem. Captive exotic animals pose virtually no threat of interbreeding with local animals.

4.      Keeping exotic animals is not intrinsically dangerous or cruel, despite what HSUS may claim.  In most cases, these animals are pampered, loved, and enjoy lives far superior to what they could have in the modern wild world or in a large zoo or other institution.

Simply put, we have laws that work.  This bill provides no benefit for any resident of this state: its only effect if passed would be to advance the personal agenda of people who erroneously believe that NO animal can or should be kept in captivity.

SB303: would allow the state to commission “humane officers” and empower them as peace officers to enforce animal related laws.

These positions could be filled by anyone, and the primary intent of this bill is to make it easy for Animal Rights zealots to gain entry to private homes to search for anything they can use to further their agenda. This is an absurd invasion of privacy.

Surely if we are going to empower civilians to start searching homes for illegal conduct our energies would be better spent on child welfare, drugs, terrorism and other central issues of our time rather than harassing animal owners in the hopes of finding the few bad seeds who are mistreating their animals.

HB2470: would impose strict new regulations for dog breeders. It is counterproductive, unnecessary, and unjust.

HB2470 would harm the animals of our state, and their breeders and owners, as well as consumers and numerous small businesses.

HB 2470 is not a puppy mill bill—it targets all breeders regardless of quality. Because it fails to target only substandard breeders, it is, quite simply, an anti-breeder law. It utilizes incorrect factors like number and enclosure size rather than the correct criteria: quality of care, conditions, and effective placing of any puppies. How many intact dogs people possess is irrelevant if they are able to care for them well.  Number limit laws have never successfully addressed irresponsible breeders, negligent rescue operations, or hoarders, and have been found to be unenforceable and vulnerable to court challenge.

HB2470 purports to solve a problem that simply does not exist in Oregon.  There are very few large-scale breeders in this state, and they are already required to be federally licensed and meet appropriate standards of care. We already have some of the strongest and best animal cruelty laws in the nation, making this bill unnecessary. Time after time people who provide substandard care for their animals have been shut down using existing laws.

HB 2470 attacks precisely those breeders who are providing the best care available and who serve as the most dependable source of healthy pets in our state. These are the very people who provide rescue resources when there are problems, as well as training and support for novice animal owners.

HB 2470 would have a significant negative fiscal impact by eliminating small businesses that routinely have charge of more than 25 intact dogs. These businesses include boarding kennels, daycares, professional handlers, and professional trainers. The bill infringes on privacy without conferring any benefits, and it exempts shelters and pet stores who are often the most egregious violators and who routinely keep animals far longer than other animal businesses.

HB2470 serves the agenda of animal rights organizations who seek to eliminate all animal ownership, but it would do nothing to prevent puppy mills, reduce the numbers of unwanted pets, or improve the lives of any animals. It was written without consulting any of the state’s genuine animal experts who almost without exception oppose this ill-conceived and misguided bill. If you believe there is a problem with the current animal laws in this state, let me suggest that you consult those of us who genuinely understand the issues and devote our lives to solving them: we would be happy to help draft and support a bill that would genuinely improve our state’s animal laws.

 February 23, 2009  Posted by at 5:59 pm Tagged with: , , ,

  5 Responses to “2009 Oregon Legislative Session: Bills Negatively Impacting Animals”

  1. So you know, I linked to this writeup in a blog post I just wrote that included complaints about HB 2470, since you’d already written this *G*

    Also, is there a list of the animals that senate bill 391 would effect? I agree with you on all your notes, but as a rat breeder, I need to know how much it applies to my home personally.

  2. Emily,

    Great! I do not think SB391 would impact you as a rat breeder. Of course that does not mean they will not add other animals later, but for now the animals affected are:

    Any member of the family Felidae not indigenous to Oregon, except the species Felis catus (domestic cat);
    Any nonhuman primate;
    Any wolf (Canis lupus);
    Any nonwolf member of the family Canidae not indigenous to Oregon, except the species Canis familiaris (domestic dog);
    Any bear, except the black bear (Ursus americanus)
    Any member of the order Crocodylia.

  3. TY! I didn’t think it would, but of course, it’s still not something I’m fond of 😉 I just figured since I couldn’t get the link to the bill to load, I’d ask. I also have Sugar Glider breeding friends, and those for sure are considered ‘exotics’.

    Hopefully soon we can have Oregon back 😉

  4. I tried reading 391, but I don’t understand all the {+}s and {-}s. I think it means anything with a {+} is now in the bill and {-} have been removed? It’s as if they don’t want te people affected to know what they are doing. I have hybrid cats, if I understand it, they are OK. But at some point, I would like the option to own an exotic. It’s passed the senate. Who do we talk to about stopping it now?

    • You got it! +++s are added, —s are removed… You are correct that hybrid cats are not illegal according to this bill, although it will be hard for anyone to make hybrid cats since the exotics are outlawed… Not to mention that many other animals are unfairly outlawed! It is heading for the Environment and Water committee in the House, but it may be ammended before it reaches committee. As soon as we know for sure, I will post here about it…

 Leave a Reply

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>