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
No comments:
Post a Comment