Read about HB1546 Recommended to the Local and Consent Hearing

Not surprisingly, HB 1546 is very much SB 958 with one major addition.  HB1546 states a sanctuary must either be accredited by GFAS or ZAA. 

Cshb 1546 Final

Either HB 1546 will pass or SB 958.  Either Bill will end up hurting WAO animals as neither GFAS or ZAA will ever accredit the now defunct WAO or its successor at this time.  What is going to happen to the animals that cannot get accredited?

Will GFAS or law enforcement be forced to kill the animals?  And before you think the sanctuary animals not accredited by GFAS or ZAA will be absorbed by other existing sanctuaries, think again.  Right now the WAO has over 20 big cats still looking for a new home. 

I cannot believe all of this is happening right now. 

Here are what others are saying about this terrible Bill:

On Apr 18, 2011, Terri Werner wrote:

They are still working on the wording of the bills. I believe it will pass so we still need to email or call with our thoughts and wording.

On the two bills (SB 958 Wentworth, and HB 1546 Larson) I have asked for clarification that it states AZA Certified for sanctuaries, (just to make sure if it gets passed they understand that sanctuaries cannot be Accredited) and they allow FCF and ASA to also be accrediting parties so we have a choice and don't have to go with GFAS if we can't do AZA. These two bills will probably become one and can pass without any further hearing, so get your voice heard now. So basically, if you are a sanctuary, you will have to be accredited by one of these groups to be exempt from the other stuff they are trying to pass.

As for Hilderbran, we need to restate that the insurance should not be raised, the registration fees not be raised and being within 5 miles of a church or daycare is rediculous. Even if sanctuaries are exempt from all of this, it will greatly effect others and possibly have a bunch of animals that need to be rescued.



Sent: Tue, April 19, 2011 3:19:18 PM
Subject: Re: bills


On 958 it is clearly for non-USDA licensed facilities who are closed to the public, and do no exhibiting - those facilities which are also exempt by the Global Federation of Sanctuaries would be exempt from all oversight from state or county. Historically, the defination of "sanctuary" is that of a "pure sanctuary", not the zoo type sanctuaries. (no offense - don't mean that in a negative way, just that sanctuaries that exhibit are, just that, exhibitors, same as zoos - with slighly different messages and animals not paid for or deliberately bred, but animals given to the facility because they lost their previous homes.


That kind of non-exhibiting sanctuary needed to be defined by the F & W to allow these non-profit organizations to be included in the list of entites allowed to transport in interstate commerce the prohibited cats of the CWSA.

The Wentworth bill does two things - it creates a new category of exempted facility that is COMPLETELY non-regulated by any state, county or federal agency, and which must answer to the GFS only. And it takes away some of the previous exempted facility types - targeting the humane society - since that is an exemption category that does not require non-profit status, and has been used by some Texas residents to their advantage.

Wentworth's bill should be KILLED. It does nothing for any of the USDA licensed facilities. It does not recognize the good done by sanctuaries or educators, and it elevates the HSUS sanctuary association above the state law.

I highly urge Texas feline stakeholders to lobby the Texas legislature to vote no on this bill. It is not designed to help any exhibitor, any conservation educator, or any sanctuary. It is designed to aid the Humane Society and to isolate private sector controlled wildlife from the public, to shun any wildlife education or exhibiting, and it furthers the 'mabnage to extinction' mentality that is working to destroy captive gene pools and the use of wildlife in educational purposes.


From: "InsyncExotics@aol.com" InsyncExotics@aol.com
To: lynnculver@hughes.net; tigress1@tigerlink.org; heidi@bigcatcare.org; kbrunner@xxxx
Cc: marcia@murphymessenger.com


Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 1:04:14 PM
Subject: Re: bills


Hi,


I just talked with Senator Wentworth and this is his comments.

This bill was designed to give sanctuaries a place to be registered. According to 1362 it was left up to the counties to either ban or regulate DWA. What has happen is most of the counties that decided to regulate have not set up the registry that they should have done. BY LAW it states that if the county chose to regulate, that county should also provide a place to register.

So if you do not have a place to register, (which you should press your county to do so) and IF you want to be classed as what they call a "TRUE" Sanctuary which in most cases is required in order to continue operating, then you must be verified or accredited by Global. No other accrediting agency will be added to the bill at this time.

"Commercial activity" is breeding, buying, selling, trading. Not being open to the public UNLESS the accrediting or registering agency deems this as commercial activity. It doesn't mean that you can't provide guided tours in groups that are considered a controllable size.


OK so that's what I have so far. Sorry

From: Kristina Brunner
Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011
Subject: Re: bills


I was afraid this was going to happen.


Breaks my heart because of this Bill no one will accredit the WAO animals left behind in San Antonio. Now that I have learned that IFAW and Global have decided they want nothing further to do with the WAO except loan them $5k per month with a promise that they will be paid out from the estate, I have a horrible feeling the WAO animals will literally be caught in the cross-hairs of animal rights groups and the government.


This is not what I had envisioned when I started the WAO investigation back in 2005. All I wanted to do was save all the animals. Now it looks like less than half will survive after all is said and done. And there is nothing I can think of that will change this situation.

What is strange is the ZAA is listed on the Final HB 1546, so I'm not sure why Wentworth is saying only GFAS is on the Bill at this time. Makes me wonder if he has even read the bill (See attached).

Tomorrow is day to see whether or not SB 958 sails through the Local & Consent hearing. I'm sure it will and 958 does not list ZAA, so I guess this will be the bill that will be signed by the governor.

This is truly a sad day in Texas...k

Later: 

Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 5:07:17 PM
Subject: HB 1546

I just received a phone call from Larson's office. They told us that they are adding ASA to this bill.

FYI