My comments were used out of context and without permission. This blog is to clarify my thoughts on SB 95.
Since I have not reread the bill since I wrote the original comments in May and June of 2009 and I haven't checked to see if the modifications are available online, I don't know which, if any, changes would impact my original thoughts. That said, even if the bill has changed very little, I am still asking my senator to support the bill.
I know that many involved in rescue don't like the provisions that deal specifically with rescue organizations in Ohio. I understand not wanting someone to come to your home unannounced to do an inspection. However, if I want to stop the person who calls them self "rescue" and keeps dogs in deplorable conditions, then I have to be willing to be inspected. So do you. Basically it involves pulling up our big girl panties and agreeing to walk the talk.
I believe shelters, pounds and humane societies should be included in the bill and this is the biggest sticking point for me. If even one shelter, pound or humane society in this state is as abusive (or more so) to their charges as some of the breeders and hoarders, they should be included. We all know there is more than one of each type that fits the bill. I don't like letting them off the hook and I don't agree with the statement that the intention of the bill does not include these groups - it's a pen stroke to include them and they should be required to follow the same standards as everyone else. Still, I'll support the bill even if shelters, pounds and humane societies are exempt because half a loaf is better than none. There are other parts of the bill I don't care for, but here's what I dislike even more:
1. It's the beginning of summer, the outside temperatures are reaching 75-80 degrees which means the inside temperatures of unventilated buildings are easily reaching 85-90 degrees and as the temperatures rise outside, so will they rise inside. Dogs are suffering and it is only going to get worse.
2. Of course, if it were November 25 the situation would be the same except we would be talking about temperatures in the high 20's or low 30's and dogs would be suffering from the cold.
3. I don't like the fact that "rescue organizations" have literally no oversight at all in Ohio. Whether they are an individual or whether they are listed as a 501(c)3, "rescues" literally have carte blanch in most cities, towns, counties to do whatever they want. Unless a specific city, town or county requires licensing and annual or biannual inspections, they can pretty much house and care for hundreds of dogs anyway they want with no intervention.
5. I think "rescue" should have a clear definition whether it is one person or a group or a large organization and I don't think it is a bad thing to hold rescue groups accountable. Should a state authority be able to set adoption fees? No, I don't think so, because ultimately, that will result in cherry picking which dogs rescue groups can afford to take in - I don't know if Kelli's explanation is accurate as that is not what the bill says, however, I would be willing to chance it in order to have rescue groups included in the bill.
6. I don't like taking in dogs that are so matted I can't tell their heads from their tails - literally.
7. I don't like taking in dogs that must have an eye removed because it was in a fight with a larger dog that hurt it so badly that enucleation is the only pain free option available.
8. I don't like months of antibiotics for severe ear infections that return for a year or two until we are able to finally get on top of them.
9. I don't like severely damaged feet and legs from cages in poor repair or dog fights that result in either large medical bills and/or amputations.
10. I don't like malnourished dogs that are anemic from fleas and ticks literally sucking their life blood away.
11. I don't like what is going on in Ohio among some breeders and among some who call themselves rescue because what they are doing is harming dogs.
12. I don't like females coming into rescue with pyometra and only having hours to save them.
13. I know that I can not justify dogs continuing to suffer until the "perfect law" is written because the perfect law doesn't exist but the dog's suffering does.
SB 95 is not perfect, it never will be. I don't have all of the answers but the fact is, neither do any of you. Every individual be it breeder or rescue has a different opinion on what constitutes "good and appropriate care." We have personality differences between members of the same rescue group and those of different groups. We each think "our" way is the best. We all believe we know what a good law will look like and of course it is "our" version of the law. Bottom line is none of this is helping the dogs. There may be parts of this bill I really dislike but enough to actively fight it???? No, I want to see a bill in place that will help the dogs.
Sadly, while we all argue among ourselves, dogs are suffering. So while I have said many, many times that no law is better than a bad law - I have to change my position - this law will help stop the suffering and that's something everyone should agree on.
Dogs are dying while we continue to have a pissing contest with one another over this bill. We need to recognize the perfect bill doesn't exist and it can not be written because someone will always disagree with some part. We need to stop perceiving the bill as a personal affront to our ability to rescue and see it as a bill to help the dogs. This is not about individuals it is about the dogs that need our help. Unless someone has a better bill ready to go right now (and McKenzie's law is not better - it's a nice try but not the answer) then I'm supporting SB 95. Ohio dogs are suffering. Now. It needs to stop. Now. So for what I hope is the last time, pull up your big girl panites, suck it up and support SB 95.
