So much has happened in the last few days, that I must take the time to memoralize my thoughts.
Just when I thought things could not get worse for the WAO animals, I read an email from a person whom thought I should know that the WAO animals living in Texas may be in great danger.
From: Robert Henneke
Date: February 18, 2011
To: Lesley French Henneke
Subject: HB251
I thought you'd find the attached bill by Rep. Hilderbran of interest.
Rob
Here is my letter to my State Representative:
From: Kristina Brunner
To: jose.menendez@house.state.tx.us
Sent: Tue, February 22, 2011 11:02:24 AM
Subject: HB 251
Dear Representative Jose Menendez:
I would urge you to vote NO on HB 251, authored and filed by Rep. Hilderbrand on Feb. 18, 2011.
As it is, Sec. 821 and Sec. 822 of the Health and Safety Code contain provisionsthat are unconstitutional, void of due process, and conflicting with other statutes -including Government Code and Rules of Civil Procedure. The amendments proposed by this Bill would only serve to make it more confusing, more arbitrary, and more onerous.
As an example, this Bill proposes to eliminate Sec. 822.102(a)(5), removing the exemption for veterinarians, humane societies, animal shelters, and those who hold rehabilitation permits from the Department of Parks and Wildlife. As a result, all these people (including wild animal sanctuaries), if they own or harbor any “dangerous wild animals,” as defined in Sec. 822.101, would be subject to registration requirements -the fee for which this Bill raises tenfold ($50 raised to $500)- even if the animal is only being cared for temporarily.
At the same time, it leaves intact the provisions of Sec. 822.102(a)(8), allowing any college or university to keep any number of “wild and dangerous” animals as mascots, with absolutely no restrictions.
Indeed, This Bill would also require a “wild and dangerous” animal to be kept five or more miles from any church, day care, or school. Yet apparently next-door to a hospital or nursing home is fine. Since a college is a school, this means that an owner must keep their animals five miles away from the very place that is allowed to have the same animals roaming free!
Should the application for registration be denied or revoked for whatever reason, this Bill proposes no hope of appeal or review. The denial or revocation is final. Then the animals may be seized and in all probability, destroyed.
Finally, the requirement for $100,000 of liability insurance is replaced with wording that essentially gives the Commissioner carte blanche to set whatever level of insurance he wishes, and owners would have no choice but to purchase that amount, no matter how safe their facilities may be.
In the great State of Texas, there are over 300 USDA exhibitor licensed facilities, whereas most of these facilities are non-profit 501(c)(3) corporations caring for thousands of displaced or abused exotic wild animals. The Bill’s unintentioned outcomes would be the destruction of these animals (to include tigers, lions, cougars, bobcats, servals, caracals, bears, wolves, non-human primates, chimpanzees, etc.) and the elimination of hundreds of jobs throughout our State. If this Bill passes “as is,” the public outcry when these animals are eventually destroyed will be overwhelming, as no reasonable person would ever condone killing these majestic animals for political reasons.
This Bill is not good for Texas.
For these reasons, I again urge you to please, vote NO on HB 251.
I also welcome a discussion regarding the current HB 1362, Dangerous Wild Animal, as it pertains to wild animal sanctuaries, since I have intimate knowledge as to how a wild animal sanctuary should lawfully operate in Texas.
Sincerely,
Kristina M. Brunner
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
San Antonio, Texas
(210) XXX-xxxx
And now, if you can believe this - the Bill has gone to Committee -- the House Committee on Culture, Recreation & Tourism, of all things! What, animals are now "recreational devices?" This Bill is a nightmare...not entertainment!
Here are the Texas Culture, Recreation & Tourism Committee members:
Chair: Rep. Ryan GuillenI've enlisted the help of several people to get the word out that this Bill will kill animals, not save them. I pray this Bill dies before it makes it to the floor for a vote.
Vice Chair: Rep. Gary Elkins
Members: Rep. Joe Deshotel
Rep. Dawnna Dukes
Rep. Tracy O. King
Rep. John Kuempel
Rep. Lyle Larson
Rep. Walter "Four" Price
Rep. Todd Smith
Then surprise, surprise, there's another bill on the same subject introduced by a former Bexar County Commissioner, Lyle Larson:
What is IFAW and GFAS' opinion of the bills?
--- On Tue, 2/22/11, Jessica.Anderson @ > wrote:
From: Patty Finch [mailto:patty@sanctuaryfederation.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:43 PM
To: 'Amy Kerwin'; 'A'Brunzo, Gail'; 'Robinson, Ian'
Subject: RE: a concern - HB251
Thanks Amy, the main people working on the bill want an exception made, but only for GFAS accredited or verified facilities, which would be a good thing. Several of us are working on it, including our Board President, thanks!
Patty
From: Robinson, Ian [mailto:irobinson@ifaw.org]
Sent: Sunday, February 20, 2011 12:47 PM
To: Patty Finch; Amy Kerwin; A'Brunzo, Gail
Subject: RE: a concern - HB251
Also it will only apply to new applications after the bill passes in September – so we need to get a move on…
I hate animal politics. The animals always lose in the end.
Later:
I decided to write each committee member on the Texas Culture, Recreation & Tourism Committee, to let them know that this is truly a bad bill all around:
From: Kristina BrunnerTo: Ryan.Guillen@house.state.tx.us; Gary.Elkins@house.state.tx.us; Joe.Deshotel@house.state.tx.us; Dawnna.Dukes@house.state.tx.us; Tracy.King@house.state.tx.us; John.Kuempel@house.state.tx.us; Lyle.Larson@house.state.tx.us; Walter.Price@house.state.tx.us; Todd.Smith@house.state.tx.usSent: Wed, February 23, 2011 9:58:03 AMSubject: Vote NO on HB 251 and HB 1546
Texas House of RepresentativesHouse Committee of Culture, Recreation & TourismAustin, Texas 78711
Rep. Ryan Guillen (Chair)Rep. Gary Elkins (Vice Chair)Rep. Joe DeshotelRep. Dawnna DukesRep. Tracy O. KingRep. John KuempelRep. Lyle LarsonRep. Walter “Four” PriceRep. Todd Smith
February 23, 2011
Dear Honorable Committee Representatives:
I would urge you to vote NO on HB 251 authored and filed by Rep. Hilderbrand on Feb. 18, 2011, and HB 1546 authored and filed by Lyle Larson on Feb. 21, 2011.
HB 251
As it is, Sec. 821 and Sec. 822 of the Health and Safety Code contain provisions that are unconstitutional, void of due process, and conflicting with other statutes -including Government Code and Rules of Civil Procedure. The amendments proposed by this Bill would only serve to make it more confusing, more arbitrary, and more onerous.
As an example, this Bill proposes to eliminate Sec. 822.102(a)(5), removing the exemption for veterinarians, humane societies, animal shelters, and those who hold rehabilitation permits from the Department of Parks and Wildlife. As a result, all these people (including wild animal sanctuaries), if they own or harbor any “dangerous wild animals,” as defined in Sec. 822.101, would be subject to registration requirements -the fee for which this Bill raises tenfold ($50 raised to $500)- even if the animal is only being cared for temporarily.
At the same time, it leaves intact the provisions of Sec. 822.102(a)(8), allowing any college or university to keep any number of “wild and dangerous” animals as mascots, with absolutely no restrictions.
Indeed, This Bill would also require a “wild and dangerous” animal to be kept five or more miles from any church, day care, or school. Yet apparently next-door to a hospital or nursing home is fine. Since a college is a school, this means that an owner must keep their animals five miles away from the very place that is allowed to have the same animals roaming free!
Should the application for registration be denied or revoked for whatever reason, this Bill proposes no hope of appeal or review. The denial or revocation is final. Then the animals may be seized and in all probability, destroyed.
Finally, the requirement for $100,000 of liability insurance is replaced with wording that essentially gives the Commissioner carte blanche to set whatever level of insurance he wishes, and owners would have no choice but to purchase that amount, no matter how safe their facilities may be.
HB 1546
The proposed Bill has one significant change to the original Dangerous Wild Animal Bill (HB 1362):
an organization that is an accredited member of the American Zoo and Aquarium Association, the American Sanctuary Association, or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries;
At this time, ASA and GFAS are non-profit sanctuary accreditation institutions which have a number of non-profit sanctuaries under their organization. In order for a sanctuary to be accredited, an application must be completed; an inspection of the applicant must be conducted by the accrediting institution; and/or a fee must be submitted and accepted by the accrediting organization. Today, joining ASA or GFAS is voluntary.
As HB 1362 stands, wild animal sanctuaries are not exempted from the Dangerous Wild Animal Bill unless it is an incorporated humane society, or animal shelter, or if a person holds a rehabilitation permit issued under Subchapter C, Chapter 43, Parks and Wildlife Code.
Unfortunately, when this Bill was written, it did not include 501(c)(3) tax-exempt non-profit animal sanctuaries, and therefore, many sanctuaries are currently operating illegally in the State of Texas. Rather than include non-profit animal sanctuaries as part of HB 1546’s exemption list, the Bill states only ASA or GFAS approved sanctuaries may be exempted from the mandates set forth in this Bill. That means, membership with ASA or GFAS will no longer be voluntary, but rather, mandatory in order to operate a non-profit 501 (c)(3) animal sanctuary in the state of Texas:
I am not aware of any law that mandates that a non-profit corporation must belong to or is accredited by another non-profit corporation.
Therefore, what remedy will the House put in place in the event that a:a. Non-profit animal sanctuary does not want to join ASA or GFAS, if made mandatory to join, either because the non-profit corporation does not want be a part of a political animal organization (which may or may not represent their political views) or cannot afford the yearly membership or inspection fees;
b. The sanctuary cannot meet the accreditation standards set forth by ASA or GFAS;
c. An accreditation sanctuary fails to meet any additional standards imposed on the sanctuary by either ASA or GFAS at some future date;
d. A sanctuary, that meets accreditation standards for both ASA and GFAS, but both accrediting organizations choose NOT to accredit the facility due to political or personal reasons;
e. ASA or GFAS no longer want to accredit sanctuaries in the State of Texas; and/or
f. New accreditation non-profit organization would like to compete against ASA and/or GFAS in Texas—would the House Bill be modified once again to include the new accredited organization?If the issues raised above are not addressed in HB 1546, then many sanctuaries will be forced to operate illegally in Texas—once more. Therefore, what governmental body will be directly responsible for seizing and destroying exotic wild animals residing “illegally” in various wild animal sanctuaries throughout this State?
In Texas, there are over 300 USDA exhibitor licensed facilities alone, not including various non-USDA regulated animal sanctuaries (classified by the IRS as exempted non-profit 501(c)(3)) which currently cares for thousands of displaced or abused exotic wild animals. These Bills’ unintentional outcomes would ultimately be the destruction of innocent animals (to include tigers, lions, cougars, bobcats, servals, caracals, bears, wolves, non-human primates, chimpanzees, etc.) and the possible elimination of jobs throughout our State.
These Bills are not good for Texas or its animals.For these reasons outlined above, I again urge you to please, vote NO on HB 251 and HB 1546. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Kristina M. BrunnerxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxSan Antonio, Texas 78251(210) xxx-xxxxx
My polite response:From: Ryan Guillen Ryan.Guillen@house.state.tx.us
To: Kristina Brunner
Sent: Sun, February 27, 2011 11:19:36 PM
Subject: RE: Vote NO on HB 251 and HB 1546
Kristina,
Thank you for the e-mail. Please know that your input and concerns are very important to me.
I greatly appreciate you bringing this concern of yours to my attention. Please be assured that I will look at HB 251 and HB 1546 carefully in committee and take into consideration your stance on the issues.
Please don’t hesitate to call on me if I can be of further assistance.
Yours in Public Service,
Ryan Guillen
Texas State Representative
From: Kristina Brunner
To: Ryan Guillen Ryan.Guillen@house.state.tx.us
Sent: Mon, February 28, 2011 6:50:25 PM
Subject: Re: Vote NO on HB 251 and HB 1546
Dear Representative Guillen:
I thank you for your thoughtful consideration as you discuss HB 251 and HB 1546 with your fellow Representatives.
I would like to add one additional comment if I may. Instead of crafting new legislation that may be detrimental to existing sanctuaries and its animals, may I suggest this State uphold current laws regulating nonprofit charities and animal care? Pressure should be brought to bear on certain State and Federal agencies whose fiduciary responsibility is to protect the public from misappropriation of funds, violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and stronger enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
I make this suggestion, as there are hundreds of exhibitors and non-USDA licensed facilities in Texas that rely on charitable contributions to fund their organizations. Like any other business operating in this great State, there are those individuals seeking opportunities to mislead the public regarding their charities' operations—essentially defrauding citizens out of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year by nefarious sanctuary owners/board directors and failing to provide proper care of their animals, potentially putting our communities at risk from animal escapes or attacks.
Case in point – The Wild Animal Orphanage (WAO) Investigation in San Antonio, Texas:
Five years ago, the Texas Office of Attorney General (Charitable Trust Division) was provided with a tremendous amount of evidence proving several WAO board of directors were directly responsible for, or had direct knowledge of, misappropriation of charitable funds; defrauding the general public via newsletter appeals and claims made on its website; falsifying WAO tax returns (IRS Form 990s); falsifying employee W-2s; misclassification of “contract workers;” personal use of WAO vehicles, equipment, tools, and supplies by directors and their family members; inappropriate use of County community service restitution workers, and so forth.
According to WAO internal documents, the Attorney General Assistant, James Anthony, consciously elected NOT to pursue this case as the attorney believed he had “more important” cases to deal with and believed this “animal case” did not rise to the level of prosecution. Never mind that during the last five years, over 70 document exotic wild animal deaths took place at the WAO due to, what I believe, was a lack of veterinarian care, improper diets, and the destruction of healthy animals, so as to free up “cage space” for new arrivals. The WAO made tens of thousands of dollars annually by taking in animals for cash ($5,000 per big cat, $1,500-$2,500 per non-human primates, etc.), promising the former owners their animals would receive lifelong care in large natural habitats. The WAO would send out newsletter appeals requesting immediate donations for the newly “rescued” animals claiming they arrived in “critical condition” and needed expensive medical treatments when in fact they were healthy when they first arrived. Animals were “warehoused” in small quarantine cages for months or even years, and it was not uncommon for the WAO to destroy certain animals once they became a financial burden to the organization.
In addition, for the last five years, a tremendous amount of evidence was also provided to the USDA/APHIS Western District Director, Dr. Robert Gibbens, proving the WAO violated numerous tenants of the Animal Welfare Act. Internal communications revealed the USDA/APHIS and the WAO board of directors were aware of the violations and yet both the WAO Board of Directors and the USDA/APHIS failed to comply or prosecute these violations in accordance with the AWA regulation.
In my opinion, no-notice in-depth and consistent APHIS inspections should be conducted semi-annually to ensure sanctuaries exceeds the basic requirements of food, water, and shelter, and to ensure animals are properly contained within their habitats. In the WAO case, often times inspection discrepancies were identified orally by the inspector to the staff and not documented in the APHIS inspection reports. It is my opinion; the USDA was laxed in its inspections of the WAO property, thereby enabling the directors to cut corners in animal care and containment for the last decade or so.
Like the OAG prosecutor, the USDA/APHIS consciously chose NOT to pursue charges against the WAO Board of Directors for violating the AWA.
If the House Committee of Culture, Recreation & Tourism is concerned with the health and welfare of Texas communities situated near exotic wild animal sanctuaries, then I urge this Committee to open an investigation in to why the Texas OAG and USDA prosecutors fail to protect Texans and its animals from unscrupulous non-profit corporations—as exemplified in the WAO case. The OAG and USDA must take each case of fraud and/or animal abuse/death seriously and not discriminately choose the type of case he or she would like to prosecute. For if law enforcement agencies refuse to uphold our current laws, then how will new laws benefit our communities and its animals?
Thank you for your kind consideration regarding this important issue. If you would like additional information regarding the WAO case, please do not hesitate to contact at me at (210) xxx-xxxx or by return email.
Sincerely,
Kristina Brunner
I don't expect to hear from the Committee again, but at least I was able to put forth my views. It they create and ratify a bad bill, then I can at least say "I told you so!"
Later: I received a second response via snail mail. Simply put, this was a kiss-off letter.
Later: I received a second response via snail mail. Simply put, this was a kiss-off letter.
No comments:
Post a Comment