A Third Bad Bill!

I learned last week that there is another Bill lurking out there - SB958.  Essentially, it is the exact same Bill at HB1542.  I cannot believe this is happening...  What will happen to all those animals out there not protected by all these crazy Bills as discussed in previous posts.  Has everyone in the State of Texas lost their minds?

Bill: SB 958

Legislative Session: 82(R) Council Document: 82R 8893 NAJ-F
Last Action: 02/25/2011 S Filed

Caption Version: Introduced
Caption Text: Relating to the regulation of dangerous wild animals.


Author: Wentworth
Cosponsor:


Subjects: Animals (I0035)


Actions: (descending date order)


Description Comment Date Time Journal Page


S Filed 02/25/2011


S Received by the Secretary of the Senate 02/25/2011 Later:

Well, I emailed the Senate Committee on Agriculture & Rural Affairs, as this Committee was assigned to debate this Bill:

From: Kristina Brunner
To: Craig.Estes@senate.state.tx.us; Carlos.Uresti@senate.state.tx.us; Glenn.Hegar@senate.state.tx.us; Juan.Hinojosa@senate.state.tx.us; Mike.Jackson@senate.state.tx.us
Cc: Leticia.Vandeputte@senate.state.tx.us

Sent: Wed, March 9, 2011 7:57:38 PM
Subject: Please Vote NO to SB 958

Texas Senate

Attention:  Senate Committee on Agriculture & Rural Affairs

P.O. Box 2910

Austin, Texas 78768-2910

Sen. Craig Estes  (Chair)

Sen. Carlos Uresti (Vice Chair)

Sen. Glenn Hegar (Member)

Sen. Juan Hinojosa (Member)

Sen. Mike Jackson (Member)

CC:  Senator Leticia Van de Putte    

March 9, 2011

Dear Honorable Senators:

I would urge you to vote NO on SB 958 authored and filed by Senator Wentworth on Feb. 25, 2011.

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 [ASA], or the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries [GFAS];

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 SB 958 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 most  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 SB 958 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 Senate 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 Senate Bill be modified once again to include the new accredited organization?

If the issues raised above are not addressed in SB 958, 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. 

A Federal amendment to the Lacey Act Amendments (Public Law 108-191-Dec, 19, 2003), (2) (C), defines an accredited sanctuary as:

(i)            a corporation that is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) of the Internal Revenue Code 1986 and described in sections 501(c)(3) and 170(b)(1)(A)(vi) of such Code;

(ii)          does not commercially trade in animals listed in section 2(g), including offspring, parts, and byproducts of such animals;

(iii)         does not propagate animals listed in section 2(g); and

(iv)         does not allow direct contact between the public and animals.

The federal law does not state that an accredited sanctuary must belong to ASA or GFAS.

I am concerned that this proposed Bill will once again redefine what an “accredited sanctuary” is in the State of Texas.  May I suggest including the wording from the amendment to the Lacey Act Amendment in a new Texas Bill instead of what is proposed in SB 958, so that there is no confusion as whom or what is exempt from the original HB 1362 and no sanctuary will have to operate illegally?

As it is currently written, this Bill is not good for Texas or its animals. 

For these reasons outlined above, I again urge you to please, vote NO on SB 958.   Thank you.

Sincerely,

Kristina M. Brunner

XXXXXXXXXXXX

San Antonio, Texas  XXXXX

(210) XXX-XXXX (Private)

P.S.  I have already written the House Committee reviewing their version of the same Bill submitted by the Senate and I have already written my House Representative. 

The question is, who will actually respond to this e-mail?  Anyone?