Update on HBs 251 and 1546

Yesterday evening two House Bills were up for public comments.  I head yesterday's public hearing started around 8:30pm and did not end until around 12:15am.

Here is what I was told:

HSUS, PPI, WRR, and a few other animal groups were for the Bills as they were written.

There were several sanctuary's there to speak out against the Bills.

After the public hearings, the Bill authors indicated there would be re-writes to both Bills.  So now, I am waiting to see what was changed.

The sad thing is, it was made publically clear that the reason why these Bills are being discussed is because certain parties wants to close down one particular sanctuary in Texas.  Sadly, the Texas House and Senate Committees are being used by animal rights groups and a local DA to do the deed they cannot lawfully do right now as the laws are written.

What upsets me the most is that no one took this much interest in shutting down Ron and Carol Asvestas.  IFAW enabled the Asvestas for years, and did nothing to save the hundreds (if not thousands) of animals placed in the Asvestas' care. 

I guess as long as you are "buddy-buddy" with the right animal group, you can do no wrong!

Later:  I have heard from several folks about the HB meetings, and the following write-up pretty much sums up what everyone has told me as to what transpired yesterday evening.

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 1:41 PM

Subject: Re: Final letter

Sorry I didn't get back with you guys earlier, but didn't get back home until 4:00 this morning and I'm just now getting to my office.

Ok, On HB 1546 (Larson) we all stated to vote neutral on this because it exempts sanctuaries. We did state the only thing we would change is that we should not be forced to be accredited by GFAS and if they are going to make us get "accredited" by one group, they have to add others such as FCF, ASA and any others. So if you want ASA involved, send a letter to House Rep. Larson (they are going to amend it today probably). Larson admitted that this bill was because of the lawsuit Primarily Primates went through with PETA and they wanted to define a sanctuary to protect others from lawsuits. So we agreed with the terms of sanctuary, just don't make us sign on to an animal rights group with certain agendas, or any organization that we may or may not agree with. This could get political and groups only accredit sanctuaries that they like, and not based on their operations.

ON HB 251 - This really was because of the Tumas's lawsuit in Kerr County and the reps finally admitted all of this new bill nonsense was because of them. The Tumas (I think that's their name) were there and got up and told everyone that we were all there because of them and they were sorry. We heard from them and from their testimony and from seeing photos of their place, it does appear they were unfairly attacked, but that is beside the point.

We let the Reps know we are pissed about some of the writing and that we already have laws in place that are working. So long story short, Hildebran asked for our input on what we like and don't like. Austin Zoo has a board of director that is a lobbyist and he's been a tremendous help. They didn't like the wording either. We did not like fees going up, insurance, having to be accredited by GFAS etc. So he has been putting some wording together that protects us all.

At the last minute yesterday they did say we were grandfathered in. Anyone who has been in compliance with their county is exempt.

They heard us and hopefully they will keep their word (?)

Skip [Trimble] was not there although had a rep. Honestly, I think they weren't heard very loud because all of us zoos, sanctuaries, and class c exhibitors expressed loudly what we thought. AT the end the Reps got it.


If you have anymore input or questions, it needs to go to Larson and Hildebran

Much later:

Here are the minutes and witness lists for both HB251 and HB1546:

HB 251 and 1546 Minutes

Witness List for HB251 and HB1546 - 041311