OPPOSE SB 3367 Holding Period for Animals

I'd like to call your attention to another bill we've been

following. This is SB 3367. This bill originally had the stated

purpose of extending the holding period for animals in private

shelters from 72 hours to 120 hours. However, the House has added a

very troubling amendment that would allow shelter or humane society

officers to destroy seized animals for the purposes of "population

control." This could mean that animals seized in animal cruelty

cases (such as breeders' animals) could be destroyed while the

defendant is waiting for trial. Not only is that a problem, but

extending the required holding period for animals from 72 hours to

120 hours is itself a problem. No one seems to have considered who

is going to pay for the extra two days of care for these animals or

where they are going to be kept when the shelters are full.

Please contact the members of the Senate Judiciary committee below

and ask them to OPPOSE SB 3367. This bill is on the calendar now.

Below is my letter to Sen. Beavers, the chairman of the committee,

which I copied to all of the committee members.

Carlotta

sen.mae.beavers@capitol.tn.gov, sen.doug.jackson@capitol.tn.gov,

sen.doug.overbey@capitol.tn.gov, sen.diane.black@capitol.tn.gov,

sen.dewayne.bunch@capitol.tn.gov, sen.mike.faulk@capitol.tn.gov,

sen.brian.kelsey@capitol.tn.gov, sen.jim.kyle@capitol.tn.gov,

sen.beverly.marrero@capitol.tn.gov

Dear Senator Beavers,

I'm writing you as head of the Senate Judiciary Committee about

Senate Bill 3367, the bill that would extend the holding period for

animals from 72 hours to 120 hours. This bill was already

problematic from the start but the amendments added to it in the

House make it genuinely alarming.

I realize that it sounds very appealing and compassionate to extend

the holding time for animals at a shelter/humane society from 72

hours to 120 hours but a couple of important questions need to be

asked. How are shelters going to pay to house and care for these

animals during this additional time? And, where are they going to

house the animals when the shelters become over-crowded? The fiscal

note for this bill says there will be no impact to state government.

However, it's impossible to believe that local shelters will not need

a great deal of additional funding from some source to care for these

animals for longer periods of time. This needs to be carefully

considered before this bill is voted on.

In regard to the amendments added by the House, Amendment 1 would

have very serious consequences. It states that agents or officers of

a shelter or humane society may destroy seized animals for purposes

of "population control." Not only is "population control" a vague

concept which could mean over-crowding in the shelter or population

control on a national level, but these actions could lead to

destroying animals being held in court cases before a trial. This

would deny a defendant due process of law or the possibility of

having his/her animals returned at a later date should they be found

innocent. This amendment quite obviously goes too far and would

trample on someone's personal property rights. Animals with known

owners which have been seized should not be destroyed at the whim of

a shelter or humane society.

I hope you will give consideration to these points when you are

considering this bill. It's my belief that this bill began with good

intentions and has now been side-tracked. I don't think the

consequences to animal shelters in terms of costs and space

requirements have ever been thought all the way through.

Sincerely,

Carlotta Cooper

Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance — Tennessee

Tennessee Pet-Law