Animal Politics--Texas Style

I haven't reported in a while on the status of the three bad bills, so here is an update:

HB251 died in committee. 

HB1546 died in committee.

SB958 will hopefully die in committee this week.  For you see, the Senate approved SB958 as it was written and it was then sent to the House.  The House attached five (5) amendments to the Bill and sent it back to the Senate.

Okay, now the Senate did not like the attached House amendments, so the Senate called a conference committee.  The conference committee must meet to iron out the differences between the original Bill and the amendments the House wants added to the Bill.

Now the conference has to meet today in order to iron out the differences.  If the committee cannot work out the issues, then the Bill dies.  If the committee reaches some sort of consensus on the Bill amendments, the Bill then must be voted upon and passed  by the Senate before the Bill can go to the Governor's Office.

The Conference Comittee is made up of the following individuals:   Appointed (05/24/2011)
Wentworth (Chair)
Eltife
Hegar
Uresti
Watson

I hope this Bill dies in conference, so that in two years, a new and more appropriate Bill can be drafted and passed.

I am all for accountability and ensuring that sanctuaries obey Texas and Federal laws.  That means Federal, State, and local agencies enforcing the laws currently on the books before adding more legislation to the mix that will certainly target certain sanctuaries based on their political leanings. 

Want to send a message to fraudulent sanctuaries?  Demand the Texas OAG, USDA/APHIS, and IRS prosecute fraud cases to the fullest extent of the law.  This will send a message, loud and clear to the sanctuary community, that animals will NOT be used to line the pockets of greedy sanctuary board directors/facility operators.  Non-profit corporations are businesses and should be treated no differently than for profit corporations.   It's time people learn non-profit corporations are not the personal piggy banks of the sanctuaries' directors and board members.

Whether or not SB958 passes, I can say this has been one crazy legislative session as it relates to animals.  I guess this is animal politics, Texas style. 

Here is SB958 Senate version:

SB00958S

SB958 Engrossed Version

SB00958E

The House version:
SB00958H

And the five (5) amendments!

SB00958H21 - Amendment Submitted by Guillen

SB00958H22 - Amendment Submitted by Laubenberg

SB00958H23 - Amendment Submitted by Hilderbran

SB00958H24 - Amendment Submitted by Tracy O King
SB00958H25 - Amendment Submitted by Van Taylor

Later:

H House appoints conferees 05/26/2011

H House grants request for conference committee 05/26/2011

House Conferees: Appointed (05/26/2011)
Larson (Chair)
Price
Kuempel
Guillen
Rodriguez, Eddie

Much Later:

Well as of May 2, 2011, the conference committee agreed upon language that both the House and Senate found acceptable.  Keep in mind, that unless a sanctuary is recognized or accredited by ASA prior to May 1, 2011, all other sanctuaries must become a member of Global Federation, else cease to exist.  Looks like HSUS now has control of exotic wild animals in Texas.  Tigers and lions today, my dogs and cats tomorrow?

Final Sb 958 Ccr Bill Text


Later:

If you are wondering why Representative Larson is pushing this Bill hard, well, look no further:

http://www.lylelarson.org/1/archives/05-2011/1.html

Also, this weekend, I presented SB 958, which benefits animal sanctuaries in Texas, specifically Primarily Primates, a sanctuary in District 122. Primarily Primates serves as a home to wild animals that have been used in lab tests, former zoo animals, abandoned pets and a couple retired congressmen, so we hear. Without organizations such as Primarily Primates, these animals would likely be euthanized.  In 2001 the Texas Legislature enacted the Texas Dangerous Wild Animals Act to protect citizens from the threat presented by the increase in dangerous wild animal ownership in Texas. The Act doesn't ban the ownership of dangerous wild animals by Texans; rather, it requires owners to register such animals with a local animal registration agency, pay a fee, and ensure the proper care, treatment and enclosure of such animals. The Legislature has exempted certain categories of animal welfare entities from the Act because such entities are needed to ensure the well being of previously owned dangerous wild animals. Animal sanctuaries, however, are not currently included under these exemptions.  An animal sanctuary is a facility where animals are brought to live in a protected situation for the rest of their lives. SB 958 provides a more extensive definition of "wildlife sanctuary" in order to ensure that only legitimate, accredited sanctuaries will be exempt under the Act. The bill also allows organizations accredited by the Global Federation of Animal Sanctuaries (GFAS) and the Zoological Association of America (ZAA) to be exempted under the Act. I am happy to report that SB 958 passed the House of Representatives 143-1 yesterday.

So why is Primarily Primates hot to get this Bill passed?  Well, we can all thank PETA for that!

 http://groups.google.com/group/ar-news/msg/18f7c8a396473e43?pli=1

From ANIMAL PEOPLE, April 2009:


Cumulative cost of PETA-funded lawsuits againstPrimarily Primates may reach $1 million


SAN ANTONIO--Judge Solomon Casseb III of the 288th Judicial District Court of Bexar County, Texas, on March 11, 2009 rejected Primarily Primates' motion for a summary judgement dismissing the latest round of four years of PETA-funded litigation against the sanctuary. Primarily Primates has since August 2006 been a program of Friends of Animals.

"This order only means that Judge Casseb believes there are issues to be decided by a factfinder," FoA president Priscilla Feral told ANIMAL PEOPLE. "We have not yet discussed a trial setting with opposing counsel," Feral said, "but we believe the earliest jury trial setting will be in December 2009 or January 2010."

Plaintiff Carl Hensley, a neighbor of the Primarily Primates sanctuary in Leon Springs, Texas, acknowledged in deposition that he filed the case in 2008 after two attorneys who have been employed by PETA approached him with the idea. Hensley also acknowledged that PETA is paying his legal expenses. Hensley contends that Primarily Primates is operating in violation of the Texas Dangerous Wildlife Act and the Texas legal definition of an animal shelter. The Dangerous Wildlife Act, restricting private possession of a list of species including several kept at Primarily Primates, includes an exemption for "an injured, infirm, orphaned, or abandoned dangerous wild animal while being rehabilitated, treated, or cared for by a licensed veterinarian, an incorporated humane society or animal shelter, or a person who holds a rehabilitation permit."

Hensley's lawsuit argues that "The dangerous wild animals at PPI are not injured, infirm, orphaned or abandoned, and therefore the exemption does not apply to themS.the exemption authorizes only temporary housingS.PPI is not a licensed veterinarian, an incorporated humane society or an animal shelter."

Continues the Hensley lawsuit, in reference to previous litigation involving Primarily Primates and PETA, "PPI is also actively seeking to bring additional dangerous wild animals to its Serene Hills facility. In May 2007, PPI filed a lawsuit against Chimp Haven," a sanctuary in Shreveport, Louisiana.

The lawsuit sought the return to Primarily Primates of seven chimps who were retired to Primarily Primates by Ohio State University in February 2006. The ex-OSU chimps, two others who died soon after arrival, and an endowment of $324,000 for the chimps' habitat and upkeep were sent to Primarily Primates over the objections of OSU researcher Sally Boysen.

Supporting Boysen, PETA sued to try to force Primarily Primates to send the chimps to Chimp Haven.

While that case was underway, Primarily Primates founder Wally Swett resigned after 28 years as president, and Primarily Primates formally became a project of Friends of Animals. The PETA case seeking to send the chimps to Chimp Haven was dismissed, but five weeks later, while FoA was just beginning to restructure and make improvements at Primarily Primates, Primarily Primates was placed in receivership by the Texas Office of Attorney General, based on allegations forwarded by PETA.

The seven surviving former OSU chimps were relocated to Chimp Haven during the receivership. The Texas Office of Attorney General in April 2007 rejected the PETA claims against Primarily Primates, ended the receivership, and agreed to "fully and completely release, acquit, and forever discharge Primarily Primates," Swett, other staff and board members, and Friends of Animals from "all claims" brought against them in connection with the seizure. In addition, the Texas Office of Attorney General agreed to try to help Primarily Primates recover the former OSU chimps from Chimp Haven.


However, Chimp Haven appealed a February 2008 Bexar county court order to return the chimps to Primarily Primates, and in February 2009 won a Texas Fourth Court of Appeals ruling that the Bexar county court did not have jurisdiction over the case.

"Primarily Primates may well be entitled to the return of the OSU chimpanzees, but that issue is for the Travis County probate court to decide," ruled Appellate Judge Catherine M. Stone. Rather than incur the cost of refiling the case, FoA opted at that point to leave the chimps at Chimp Haven.


Feral told ANIMAL PEOPLE that Primarily Primates and Friends of Animals spent more than $50,000 defending against the initial PETA-backed case; spent more than $240,000 to regain control of Primarily Primates after it was placed in receivership; and have already spent more than $80,000 defending against the Hensley case.


PETA and the plaintiffs aligned with PETA have not disclosed their legal expenses, but the American Justice Partnership Foundation estimates that plaintiffs on average incur about 60% of the cost of pressing a lawsuit, while defendants incur about 40%.


This ratio would suggest that total cost of cases involving Primarily Primates since 2006 now exceeds $925,000--more than the total income of the sanctuary in all but two years before FoA annexed it. Under FoA direction, according to the most recent available IRS Form 990 filings, Primarily Primates has approximately doubled both public support and program-related spending.


The cases involving Primarily Primates and PETA appear to be the longest-running and most costly series of litigation among animal charities currently before U.S. courts. However, a defamation case filed in August 2004 by the British Columbia SPCA against the Animal Advocates Society may be as expensive. Animal Advocates Society president Judy Stone is using her home equity to fight the lawsuit, due for trial later in 2009.
--
Merritt Clifton
Editor, ANIMAL PEOPLE
P.O. Box 960
Clinton, WA 98236

Thank you, PETA.