The Honorable Joseph Vallario, Jr.
Chair, House Judiciary Committee
Maryland House of Delegates
House Office Building, Room 101
6 Bladen St., Annapolis, MD 21401

RE:  Maryland HB 495 – Opposed

Dear Delegate Vallario and Respected Members of the Maryland House Judiciary Committee:

The American Rottweiler Club, Inc. (ARC), the parent club of the American Kennel Club (AKC) for the Rottweiler breed in the United States, representing thousands of dog owners, is writing to express our grave concern over Maryland HB 495, A Bill That Criminalizes The Ownership and Limits The Possession of Breeding Dogs.

Since its inception, the American Rottweiler Club has been deeply engaged in advancing animal welfare and the humane care and treatment of dogs.

ARC members and supporters devote significant time, effort and resources in educating the public on responsible dog ownership, dog bite prevention and safety around dogs, especially where children and the elderly are concerned, and supporting to scores of animal rescue and sheltering organizations across the United States through direct donations and grants and volunteer support.

The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to the cruel and inhumane treatment of dogs, the exploitation of innocent animals, and illegal, sub-standard breeding operations.

We therefore respectfully submit our official and unequivocal opposition to Maryland HB 495 and to any other bill which makes criminals out of law-abiding, tax-paying citizens and home and hobby breeders, or anyone owning intact dogs.

HB 495 is not only irresponsible, and sets a dangerous precedent for the type and scope of legislation, and exceeds the legal and constitutional scope of state legislatures.

In addition:

 HB 495 criminalizes dog ownership
 HB 495 fails to improve upon existing animal cruelty statues
 HB 495 places arbitrary limits on animal ownership
 HB 495 deprives dog-owing citizens of Due Process & Equal Protection
 HB 495 creates a proxy for warrantless searches and seizures
 HB 495 threatens animal agriculture & food production

HB 495 – Criminalizing Dog Ownership

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to criminalize dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

“For the purpose of prohibiting a person from owning, possessing, controlling,
Or otherwise having custody of more than a certain number of breeding dogs
at anytime;”

We take exception to the very language of HB 495, which alludes to “possession of intact dogs” as if intact dogs were in nature a dangerous, illegal substance, such as crack cocaine – and needing to be heavily regulated as illegal drugs.

We question whether the State of Maryland truly intends to set a precedent of criminalizing the ownership of dogs, and the ownership of breeding dogs, as statute can and will be interpreted to criminalize the ownership and breeding of any animal.

HB 495 – Criminalizing Dog Breeding

HB 495 seems to take aim at anyone engaged in the breeding of dogs, and makes criminals out of vast majority of breeders who are responsible, law-abiding and caring individuals or establishments, deeply dedicated to the welfare of dogs.

This misguided bill seems to stem from a misrepresentation that owners of breeding stock, intact dogs, or multiple dogs are presented as de facto “puppy mills” – which is certainly not the case.

We respectfully point out that the term, “puppy mill” is highly inflammatory and deliberately misleading.

Most home and hobby breeders – as well as the vast majority of commercial kennels – operate under a set of standards set forth not just by the state, but by the very organizations to which we belong, concerning the care, treatment, feeding, and training of healthy dogs.

We would like to make very clear  that any substandard and inhumane conditions at kennels – whether they be commercial operations or privately-owned home or hobby kennels – are still substandard and inhumane, and therefore subject to the strict enforcement of Maryland’s anti-cruelty statutes.

Sadly, it is the lack of enforcement, and the lack of state or municipal funding for enforcement, combined with a lacking of understanding of basic animal husbandry, that often is to blame for allowing such conditions to exist.

We therefore recommend to the Committee that strong enforcement of the State’s animal cruelty laws are the correct remedy to such filthy and cruel establishments, but that criminalizing the ownership and breeding of dogs – or criminalizing the ownership or breeding of any animals for that matter – is not only a misguided approach, but may in fact constitute a serious violation of the 14th Amendment.

Constitutionality Of Imposing Limits On Animal Ownership

It is the contention of the American Rottweiler Club that the State would exceeds its authority by attempting to regulate the ownership or possession of property – a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Maryland HB 495 states,

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING DOGS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

The Committee of course is fully aware that the 14th Amendment makes clear that:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

We therefore ask if it is the intent of this Committee to see that the rights of tax-paying, law-abiding and dog-owning citizens in Maryland be abridged, and is it the intent o f HB 495 to deprive such citizens not only of Due Process but Equal Protection as well?

Unintended Consequences Of HB 495’s  Limits On Animal Ownership

In placing arbitrary and highly subjective limits on animal ownership in the State of Maryland, we respectfully ask you to consider the host of unintended consequences brought forth by HB 495.

Would the Esteemed Members of the Committee be then able to legally discern the difference between “breeding dogs” and the ownership, possession, control, charge or custody if such language applied to “breeding horses”, “breeding pigs”, “breeding goldfish” or any other animal, whether said animals were livestock or pets?

We would also ask that the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee strongly consider what impact any future amendments, even a slight amendment, which would substitute “animals” for the word “dogs”.

This potential future amendment of HB 495 would then read as follows:

10–624.C) A PERSON MAY NOT OWN, POSSESS, CONTROL, OR OTHERWISE HAVE CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 50 BREEDING ANIMALS OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS AT ANY TIME.

Such an amendment may have a serious, if not devastating impact not only on the State’s agricultural industry but on the overall economic health of every county and district in Maryland.
What would happen to the farming community, the poultry or egg industries in Maryland should HB 495 limit the number of “breeding animals”? No more than 10 breeding hens over the age of 4 months?

What then of the impact upon Maryland’s famous seafood industries, fishing, crabbing and tourism?  What would happen to the restaurant industry in Maryland if no one could possess or own more that “50 breeding animals” OR “more than 10 breeding animals over the age of 4 months’?

It is quite clear that passage of HB 495 would lead to a series of unintended consequences and the risk of multiple legal actions against the State of Maryland from every industry sector in the state.

Imposing Commercial Facility Standards On Home & Hobby Breeders

HB 495 mandates the implementation of rigid engineering requirements for enclosures for anyone owning 10 or more intact dogs over 4 months of age without regard to the fiscal impact that such standards would have on targeted breeders or the enforceability of such requirements.

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

HB 495’s Arbitrary Enclosure Requirements Are Booby Trapped Backdoors To Anti-Dog, Anti Breeding Legislation

The enclosure requirements specified in HB 495, may seem innocuous, however they are anything but. There are numerous issues for the Committee to consider:

1. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are not in any way based in science concerning the humane treatment of dogs.
2. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back door to anti-tethering laws, the intent of which is to criminalize the safe and humane restrain and containment of dog
3. These arbitrary enclosure requirements are a back to placing limits on the ownership, keeping breeding of hunting dogs, sled dogs and ownership and keeping of American Pit Bull Terriers.
4. These arbitrary enclose requirements leave open the issue of enforcement – what personnel will be responsible for the enforcement of this clause?
5. The arbitrary enclosure requirements are a backdoor to warrantless searches and seizures, as detailed below.

HB 495: Criminalizes Humane Restraint & Containment

A primary flaw of HB 495 is criminalization of the humane and responsible restraint of dogs by imposing “enclosure” requirements.

If addressing animal cruelty is the intent of the bill’s sponsors, the American Rottweiler Club places itself at the disposal of the Committee to help facilitate the deeper understanding of animal husbandry, be it dogs or any other animal.

For thousands of years, the leashing or tethering of dogs has been a time-honored and humane means of safely containing or restraining dogs.

HB 495 eliminates by stature the very method of safe and humane restraint or containment, thereby significantly reducing, if not eliminating entirely, the ownership, breeding and keeping of multiple, intact dogs, and in particular, sled dogs, hunting dogs and American Pit Bull Terriers.

HB 495: Outlawing Hunting Dogs Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Hunting Dogs

Thousands of hunting dogs and dog owners in Maryland will fall under HB 495 and its provisions will lead to the extermination of innocent dogs and heartbreak for Maryland’s dog-owning citizens.

It is important to point out to the Committee the types of hobby breeders and dog enthusiasts impacted by this clause, which includes:

 Hunting Dog Owners/Field Trial Enthusiasts – Hunters and those participating in Field Trials own large numbers of intact dogs, such as Hounds or Sporting Dogs, such as German Shorthaired Pointers.  These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Maryland Sportsmen’s associations should be alerted to the impact of HB 495 upon hunting and field trial activities throughout the state.

HB 495: Outlawing Sled Dog Via Criminalization Of Humane Restraint & Containment Of Sled Dogs

Sled dogs are kept in teams, or packs, and the imposition of said arbitrary enclosure requirements thus criminalize the keeping of sled dogs.

 Sled Dog Enthusiasts/Mushers – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say sled dogs, such as Alaskan Malamutes, Siberian Huskies and other Northern breeds are tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

Numerous sled dog and mushing organizations should be altered to the threat that HB 495 presents.

HB 495: Outlawing American Pit Bull Terriers Via Criminalization Of  Humane Restraint & Containment

Literally thousands of dogs, dog owners, breeders and fanciers of the American Pitbull Terrier will be impacted by HB 495.

 American Pit Bull Terrier Owners/Breeders – These dogs are traditionally by “staked out” – that is to say tethered, a traditional and humane means of restraint or containment.

The American Pit Bull Terrier is the second most popular breed recorded by the country’s second largest registry, the United Kennel Club, and the most popular breed registered by the American Dog Breeders Association, the country’s third largest registry.

In addition, numerous specialty registries will be impacted by HB 495, such as the All American Dog Registry and other single breed registry.

We question if is the desire to eliminate American Pit Bull Terriers from the State of Maryland through backdoor legislation such as HB 495?

HB 495: Criminalizing Humane Restraint & Containment Of Farm Animals

Whether it is the intention or not of the Committee to limit the ownership, breeding, passion of farm animals, it is clear that with just a minor change, HB 495 quickly becomes a bill that threatens all animal agriculture in the State of Maryland.

Similar bills have been introduced in recent days in state legislatures across the country, backed by, if not authored by, the Humane Society of the United States, an organization with a stated goal of eliminating all animal agriculture.

Anti-containment laws are the foundation upon which HSUS has built is state legislative strategy, from chickens in California to hogs in Iowa.

Sleepy state legislators may be unaware of the anti-animal agriculture activity happening in other states, however to quote the CEO of the Humane Society of the United States, Wayne Pacelle, who summarized his philosophy over ten years ago in Animal People News:

“We have no ethical obligation to preserve the different breeds of livestock produced through selective breeding … One generation and out. We have no problems with the extinction of domestic animals. They are creations of human selective breeding.”  - Wayne Pacelle, CEO, Humane Society of the United States

It is of course the presumption that all animals raised for food production in Maryland and in the United States be treated humanely,

However, it is quite clear that HSUS-backed legislation such as HB 495 is a backdoor attack upon ALL breeding of animals, food, livestock or pets.

Elimination Of Hobby Breeders Via Unreasonable Exercise Requirements

We would respectfully ask if it is indeed the intention of the sponsors of HB 495 to eliminate home & hobby breeders from the State Of Maryland?

It is abundantly clear that the intent of this bill is to eliminate the vast majority of h criminalize dog ownership – starting with the very title of the bill – and adding the language of this bill under the criminal code, as follows on Line 4:

10–624.C) (D) (1) A PERSON WHO OWNS, POSSESSES, CONTROLS, OR
OTHERWISE HAS CHARGE OR CUSTODY OF MORE THAN 10 BREEDING DOGS
OVER THE AGE OF 4 MONTHS SHALL PROVIDE FOR EACH DOG:

(I) AN ENCLOSURE WITH:
1. AN INTERIOR HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 6 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE HEAD OF THE TALLEST DOG IN THE ENCLOSURE WHEN THE DOG IS IN A NORMAL STANDING POSITION; AND

HB 495: Eliminating Breeding  Animals Though Criminal Statute

The care, health and well being and the welfare of ALL animals is covered with a wide umbrella under the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes.

Yet the sponsors of HB 495 seek to again set arbitrary limits upon home and hobby breeders that are nearly impossible to meet – and perhaps that is most telling about the intent on not just this provision but the entire bill.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.

(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

EXAMPLE: A hobby breeder owns 10 breeding dogs, and is therefore subject to HB 495, is now required to spend 20 hours a day exercising dogs, unless medically precluded by certification from a veterinarian.

It is unreasonable to expect that a home or hobby breeder does not a) already provide adequate exercise for the health of their dogs, and b) to prescribe such arbitrary exercise regimen via criminal statute and c) to require certification for exemption from a veterinarian.

HB 495: Eliminating Breeding of FARM Animals Though Criminal Statute

We respectfully request the Committee again consider the possible amendment OR substitution of the word “animal” in place of the word “dog”.

Poultry farmers, hog farmers, cattle producers, egg producers – indeed any and all farmers or animal agriculture concerns should be alerted to the threat to animal agriculture and food production in the State of Maryland via criminal statute.

(II) UNLESS THE DOG “ANIMAL”  IS CERTIFIED BY A DOCTOR OF
VETERINARY MEDICINE TO BE MEDICALLY PRECLUDED FROM EXERCISE, A
MINIMUM OF TWO EXERCISE PERIODS EACH DAY FOR A TOTAL OF AT LEAST 2
HOURS OF EXERCISE EACH DAY.
(2) THE EXERCISE REQUIRED UNDER PARAGRAPH (1)(II) OF THIS
SUBSECTION:

(I) SHALL INCLUDE REMOVING THE DOG “ANIMAL”  FROM ITS
PRIMARY ENCLOSURE AND ALLOWING THE DOG TO WALK FOR THE ENTIRE EXERCISE PERIOD; AND

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

HB 495: Criminalization Of Standard Exercise Equipment

It is important to point out that HB 495 criminalizes the use of standard exercise equipment typically used to assist in the health and training of performance and hunting dogs.

(II) UNLESS PRESCRIBED BY A DOCTOR OF VETERINARY
MEDICINE, MAY NOT INCLUDE USE OF A TREADMILL, CAT MILL, JENNY MILL,SLAT MILL, OR SIMILAR DEVICE.

We’d like to ask the Committee Members if the same standards applied to humans, would they like to see the criminalization of the use or ownership of treadmills or any other exercise device unless the need for such a device (treadmill, etc. ) has been certified by a doctor as medically necessary?

Indeed, the manufacturers of all exercise devices made for or used by pet owners, home or hobby breeders should be alerted to potential infringements of lawful intra- and interstate commerce.

HB 495: Enforcement Issues
We ask the Esteemed Members of the Committee to consider what personnel at the local or state level will be responsible for identifying “intact breeding dogs”?

HB 495, left to the subjective interpretation of breed identification of local animal control or police, or humane societies will criminalize ordinary dogs and make criminals of dog owners and send innocent dogs to their deaths.

It is the position of the ARC that that the liability incurred under HB 495 is an unintended consequence of significant magnitude.

Increased Surrenders, Overburdened Shelters & Out-Of-Control Budgets

Shelters in cities where breed specific laws have been enacted have seen a sharp spike in owner surrenders, which in turn increases sheltering costs and euthanasia of formerly-owned dogs.

This is directly due to the fact that many dog owners become fearful of new, anti-dog, anti-breeding laws, and find it difficult, expensive to comply or cannot afford to move out of town or out of state with their dogs.

The impact of anti-dog, anti-breeding laws is the swelling of already overburdened shelter populations, budgets that quickly spiral out of control, and the unnecessary euthanasia of healthy dogs.  Instead of functioning life-saving stations, local shelters will become death camps for innocent dogs.

HB 495:  Eliminating Presumption Of Innocence

HB 495 eliminates the presumption of innocence making all dog owners of multiple “intact dogs” guilty and without recourse.

Under the rules of our judiciary, it is unimaginable to think that a state government would create a reverse onus – thus shifting the burden of proof from the state to the accused.

This bill is counter to the very principles upon which our democracy stands.

Our response is to respectfully remind the Committee Members that our judicial system operates upon the presumption that all citizens in the United States are innocent until proven guilty, not the reverse.

Furthermore, there is no hearing or an appeals process by which may defend themselves against charges.

HB 495: Proxy For Warrantless Search & Seizure

It should be noted that HB 495 contains the proxy for warrantless searches and seizures, seriously compromises the constitutional protections to which all citizens are entitled under the guise of animal protection.

Civil liberties groups and criminal defense attorneys should be alerted to the fact that HB 495 is a smokescreen to lower the threshold of evidence needed to support the issuance of search warrants.

We respectfully ask the Committee Members just what would constitutes “probable cause” under HB 495 – just a law enforcement officer’s word that pets may be intact, OR have not had the prescribed 2 hours of exercise on a given day?

Surely the State’s existing animal cruelty statutes more than adequately cover any acts of cruelty, such as the deprivation of food and water, or in cases of negligence.

HB 495:  Lowering Thresholds of Evidence For Probable Cause

Furthermore, the issuance of any warrant under HB 495 would be based on a visual ID that the alleged dogs have testicles OR would it then be a case of “probable cause” to demand inspection of the abdomen of a female dog to check for evidence of a scar from spay surgery?

A) the basis for “probable cause” is nothing more than the subjective and arbitrary opinion of alleged “intact breeding dog” by local animal control or police with no legal or rational basis

B) is done so in the context of reverse onus clause, thereby eliminating the presumption of innocence.

In contemplating the enforcement of HB 495, there are any number of situations that would be the basis for bypassing Due Process:

SENARIO A:   Warrantless Search of Premise

The mere possession of multiple “pitbulls”, “sled dogs” or even hunting dogs – which are all traditionally staked  – would now constitute a criminal act under HB 495, thus allowing law enforcement officers access to the premises without a warrant.

EX:  A police officer drives by a home and sees a multiple dogs staked in the yard.  The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “intact”, the presence of which is “illegal”.  The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act.  The police officer now may access the premises and bypasses the need for a search warrant.

SCENARIO B:   Warrantless Searches – Traffic Stops

Driving with a “intact pit bulls, hunting dogs, sled dogs”  or “showdogs” in a car constitutes a criminal act in that possession of a “more than 10 breeding dogs over the age of 4 months” is an illegal act

EX:  A police officer on highway patrol or traffic duty sees a car with a dog inside. The officer has no probable cause for a traffic stop (speeding, seat belt or other violations).The officer (subjectively) identifies the dogs as a “intact breeding dogs”, the presence of which is “illegal”.

The dog owner is presumed guilty of a criminal act.  The police officer now has “cause” for a traffic stop.

HB 495: Violations Of Equal Protection

HB 495 also sets the stage for issues with Equal Protection, in that owners of “intact dogs” or “targeted breeds – ie. American Pit Bull Terriers” or owners of hunting dogs or sled dogs, are subject to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, which is then subjectively and/or arbitrarily applied.

The Equal Protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects against arbitrary government action by requiring similar treatment of those who are similarly situated.

HB 485 clearly violates Equal Protection by singling out owners of multiple “intact dogs”, and granting exemptions to those “similarly situated”, such as in:

10–624 (B) THIS SECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO:
(1) A PUBLICLY OPERATED ANIMAL CONTROL FACILITY OR
ANIMAL SHELTER;
(2) A PRIVATE, CHARITABLE, NONPROFIT HUMANE SOCIETY OR
HB 495: Violations Of Equal Protection Cont’d.

ANIMAL ADOPTION ORGANIZATION;
(3) A VETERINARY FACILITY;
(4) A RETAIL PET STORE;
(5) A RESEARCH INSTITUTION; OR
(6) A BOARDING FACILITY.

The provisions of HB 495 are completely without merit, as the State Of Maryland has not proven nor cannot prove, a rational or legal basis upon which to base these provisions.

HB 495 also begs the questions, “Are owners of a spayed or neutered dogs entitled to any greater Constitutional protections than owners of intact or breeding dogs”? AND,

“Are dogs in shelters, retail stores, veterinary or boarding facilities entitled to any fewer protections than privately-owned, intact dogs”?

HB 496 Fosters Selective Enforcement & Racial Bias/ Racial Profiling

We urge the Senate Judiciary and Government Operations Committee to reconsider and reject this bill, since it is already quite clear that should HB 495 become law, it could only be enforced selectively and subjectively.

However, there is an even greater risk in HB 495 as it relates to Unequal Protection, which is where race or ethnicity comes into the equation, and the potential for the abuse of our justice system is great.

There is a pervasive myth, perpetuated throughout the media, that the majority of dog owners of alleged “pit bull dogs” are “gang members, criminals, and drug dealers”. This notion is completely unsubstantiated and without merit.

However, this outwardly racist viewpoint is interpreted by most to mean that “pit bull dogs” are owned by those in the minority community.

It becomes a question of which dog owners will be selectively targeted for enforcement and prosecution by local authorities and to what extent will law enforcement engage in racial profiling.

HB 495 leaves to the door open to abuse of powers by local law enforcement officials and creates a number of questions.  For instance:

• Will minority or poor dog owners be targeted for enforcement over non-minority or middle class dog owners?
• Will owners of hunting dogs or American Pit Bull Terriers be targeted for enforcement?
• Will HB 495 be used to dispense with evidence thresholds necessary to establish probable cause and create a proxy to bypass Due Process?

Civil Rights & Constitutional Issues

HB 495 presents a multitude of civil rights issues and constitution challenges, including but not limited to unequal protection, violation of due process, removal of the presumption of innocence, selective enforcement, interference with lawful activities and

HB 495 also sets the stage for unequal protection in that owners of subjectively targeted breeds or intact or dogs of breeding stock are thus arbitrarily and subjectively held to a different and higher legal standard than other dog-owning citizens, for which the State Of Maryland has not proven nor cannot prove a rational or legal basis.

And since dogs are considered private and valuable property, violations of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments are of concern, as outlined in the attached report by the Centers for Disease Control and the AVMA.

Expensive Legal Challenges

HB 495, with its many issues and potential infringements of civil rights and constitutional protections, would place the State Of Maryland, and the counties and municipalities in the state in a position of defending against what could be a multitude of lawsuits brought on behalf of dog-owning citizens.

The American Rottweiler Club respectfully points out that HB 495 is fraught with issues not only with regard to public safety, but issues that make HB 495 a potential minefield of expense, legal issues, unintended consequences and a waste of valuable taxpayer dollars.

Legal challenges to the constitutionality of such legislation is now underway in other states, including Pennsylvania, where a large group of plaintiffs, including dog owners, breeders and enthusiasts has filed suit against lawmakers there.

Closing Thoughts

In closing, the American Rottweiler Club rejects the criminalization of responsible dog ownership, the flawed concept of outlawing or eliminating though heavy-handed regulation the lawful breeding, ownership, and custody of dogs – or ANY animals.

We formally oppose the erosion by proxy laws of the civil rights and liberties guaranteed to all citizens of the United States under the guise of animal protection.

The American Rottweiler Club, having conducted a thorough analysis of this bill, concludes that Maryland HB 495 would:

• Criminalize dog ownership
• Fail to protect the welfare of ALL dogs
• Interfere with legal activities
• Create a proxy for warrant search & seizure under the guise of animal protection
• Deprive citizens of Equal Protection & Due Process
• Threaten animal agriculture and food production
• Violate 4th, 5th & 14th Amendments
• Incur liability for local, county and state governments
• Waste valuable tax-payer dollars

HB 495:  In Summary

The American Rottweiler Club urges the State Of Maryland and the Esteemed Members of the House Judiciary Committee to act appropriately and responsibly to protect the welfare of animals through the effective enforcement of existing animal cruelty and animal control laws.

We respectfully ask if the Committee not allow deep-pocketed special interest groups who back HB 495 and similar bills to prevail over the safe and humane treatment animals while seriously eroding the constitutional protections of everyday citizens.

We urge the Committee Members to reject HB 495 in its entirety, and not allow this dangerous and misguided piece of legislation, no matter how well- intentioned, to bring about the destruction of innocent dogs, eliminate the responsible and ethical ownership of dogs, discriminate against owners of intact dogs, and deprive people of their civil rights.

We thank you for your attention to this very important matter and remain committed to providing the State of Maryland with expert advice in matters of animal husbandry and the humane care and treatment of dogs.  We would be honored to be called upon to serve.

Very truly yours,

Gwen Chaney
President
American Rottweiler Club, Inc.

w) www.AmRottClub.org

cc: American Rottweiler Club Board, Peter Piusz, Delegate

IMPORTANT:  Below is the ACTUAL language of MD. HB 495
FISCAL AND POLICY NOTE
House Bill 495  (Delegate Smigiel, et al.)
Judiciary

Criminal Law – Crimes Relating to Animals – Limitations on Possession of Breeding Dogs

This bill prohibits a person from owning, possessing, controlling, or otherwise having charge or custody of more than 50 “breeding dogs” over the age of four months at any time. A person who owns, possesses, controls, or otherwise has charge or custody of more than 10 breeding dogs over the age of four months must provide each dog with an enclosure of a specified size and, unless the dog is certified by a doctor of veterinary medicine to be medically precluded from exercise, a minimum of two exercise periods each day for a total of at least two hours of exercise, in a certain manner, each day.

A violator is guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a maximum fine of $1,000.
Fiscal Summary
State Effect: Minimal increase in general fund revenues due to the bill’s penalty provision. No effect on expenditures.

Local Effect: It is assumed that the requirements of the bill can be handled with existing budgeted resources in most jurisdictions. To the extent a more rigorous enforcement program is determined to be needed in any jurisdiction additional resources, including overtime, may be needed.

Small Business Effect: Minimal.

Analysis
Bill Summary: The bill’s provisions do not apply to: (1) a publicly operated animal control facility or animal shelter; (2) a private, charitable, nonprofit humane society or animal adoption organization; (3) a veterinary facility; (4) a retail pet store; (5) a research institution; or (6) a boarding facility.

Current Law: The Secretary of Health and Mental Hygiene may prohibit the importation, selling, trading, purchasing, bartering, breeding, raising, keeping, or possession of any animals found to be dangerous to human health and safety. This authority does not apply to domestic cats, dogs, or ferrets; animals used for agricultural, scientific, or educational purposes; animals used for public exhibitions; or any animal that the Secretary determines is not a threat to human health and safety. These provisions may not be construed to prohibit the breeding, raising, keeping, or possession of turtles by a person who has obtained a permit. (See Health-General Article § 18-219.)

To determine if dogs are being treated inhumanely in violation of any law, an authorized director of a humane society, accompanied by a sheriff or a deputy sheriff, may inspect a premises:

• where a person is engaged in the business of buying, selling, trading, or breeding

dogs; or •of a kennel where 25 or more dogs are kept.

A person who makes such an inspection must give prior written notice of the time and date of the inspection to the owner or occupant of the premises.

In Baltimore City, the Baltimore City Health Department is required to enforce these inspection provisions. Enforcement in Baltimore County is handled by the Baltimore County Department of Health, Division of Animal Control or an organization approved by the Baltimore County government.

These premises inspection provisions do not apply to premises:

• where dogs are kept or bred solely for medical or related research or laboratory tests;

• operated by a licensed and regularly practicing veterinarian; or where hunting dogs are housed, if the buying, selling, trading, or breeding is incidental to the main purposes of housing, keeping, and using dogs. (See Criminal Law Article § 10-616.)

HB 495 / Page 2

Local Fiscal Effect: Because dog kennels and businesses may be inspected for humane treatment under State law and local ordinances, it is assumed that the requirements of this bill can be handled with the existing budgeted resources of local jurisdictions.

The number of facilities statewide with more than 50 breeding dogs older than four months is unknown. The number of facilities covered under the bill with more than 10 dogs older than four months is also unknown. Washington County believes that it has one kennel with approximately 50 dogs that may expand to a 75 dog capacity. Worcester County advises that there are two persons in the county licensed as a dog kennel with more than 50 dogs. By local ordinance, each of these counties requires licensing for kennels with more than six dogs. Based on a limited survey of local jurisdictions, the Department of Legislative Services advises that the bill’s requirements can be handled with the existing budgeted requirements of most local jurisdictions.

Montgomery County advises that there are two facilities in the county with more than 50 breeding dogs. The county also advises that enforcement of the bill’s exercise requirement would necessitate additional expenditures for overtime pay (at $44.86 per hour) for two Animal Services Division officers to do surveillance at each of 18 facilities in the county for a 24-hour period, twice yearly, at an annual cost of about $38,800. To the extent a more rigorous enforcement program is determined to be needed in any jurisdiction, some additional resources, including overtime, may be needed.

Additional Information
Prior Introductions: None.
Cross File: SB 318 (Senator Gladden, et al.) – Judicial Proceedings.

Information Source(s): Judiciary (Maryland District Court); Office of the Attorney

General; Baltimore City; Kent, Montgomery, Washington and Worcester counties,

Department of Legislative Services Fiscal Note History: First Reader – February 11, 2009 mlm/kdm

Analysis by: Guy G. Cherry Direct Inquiries to: (410) 946-5510 (301) 970-5510

—————————————————————————

Read the American Rottweiler Clubs Response To MD. 495