New Page 0

I am certain that many of you have been anxious to find out what is happening with these important bills, and why it has been so long since you heard from me/MHS about them. As I have often explained about the inner workings of politics in our Capitol in Lansing, it is a feast or famine work cycle. Long periods of slow or no movement followed by sudden and rapid movement. I appreciate how frustrating this is for you, so as always, I thank you for your patience. I didn't want to contact anyone until everything that has been going on over the past two months was finally played out.

organizations from whom such interference was not expected. The Michigan United Conservation Clubs (MUCC), the Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB), and the Michigan Veterinary Medical Assn. (MVMA) each raised concerns and objections. Also, as expected based on past experiences with them, the United Kennel Club (UKC, based in Kalamazoo and representing breeders of hunting dog breeds), and the Michigan Assn.for Pure Bred Dogs (MAPBD) testified against the bills at the Public Hearing held on the bills.

In the case of the UKC and MAPBD, their concerns were general and based on their belief that the Michigan Humane Society and all other humane societies in our state are joined in a conspiracy along with the most radical of national animal rights organizations to over-regulate dog owners/breeders to death, and to ultimately stop pet ownership. They also hold a grudge against MHS because of the dove hunting controversy and referendum. No amount of logical discussion or reasoning with them, now, or over the years, seems to be able to convince them we are not against pet ownership. Thus, on simple political prinicple, they continually oppose anything any humane organization proposes.

Senator Valde Garcia, the primary sponsor of the bills, eventually met with them to try to give them an opportunity to express their concerns. They also told the Senator that they do not even believe there is a dog overpopulation

problem, and that the bills should not include cats at all? In the end, even he couldn't get them to withdraw their opposition. He (and the MHS) did agree with one of their reasonable amendment requests: that only public animal control or private humane society shelters that are in compliance with state laws and regulations that govern their operations be allowed to receive monetary grants via the law these bills would create. Sadly, the UKC's and MAPBD's opposition runs contrary to the best interests of many of their own members who operate breed rescue/adoption groups that would be beneficiaries of grants.

In the case of the MUCC and MFB, substantive issues were raised that went to the very heart/purpose of the bills. Now, at this point, you may be rightly asking yourselves: Why would the MUCC and MFB have any concerns with bills that have nothing to do with their areas of concern (hunting & conservation; farming practices)? The bills are to find more donation dollars to increase the number of dogs/cats who are sterilized and adopted, and to improve

Both groups had two primary concerns: 1) They did not want the bills to provide grants to improve enforcement of state anti-cruelty laws by actually allowing the hiring of more enforcement officers or increasing enforcement actions.

They (and their numerous legislative allies among Reps. and Senators) fear that hunters and farmers would be targeted as violators of cruelty laws. We explained that lawful hunting, trapping, and animal husbandry practices (among other activities) are specifically spelled out in one of the state anti-cruelty laws as exempt from being construed as cruelty. We also pointed out that the MHS had already altered the bills so that only state-licensed public animal control and private humane society shelters would even be eligible for such grants as they are the only entities in the state (besides the police and sheriffs depts.) that are allowed to enforce anti-cruelty laws. In other words, no state non-profits, such as animal rights groups whom they fear, would even get such grants. (In fact, we had also earlier amended the bill so that the non-profits in the bill that can get grants must be primarily involved in rescue-S/N-adoption.)

2) They also feared that anytime a humane society received a grant for S/N and Adoption increases or anti-cruelty law enforcement improvement, that would enable them to take the money from their budget that would have been used for such activities and shift it over to another part of the budget that allows them to engage in legislative advocacy, notably including promoting bills or referenda that hinder or halt hunting. Their concerns in this regard are directly

re-elections). It has grown worse now that term limits has established a revolving door, and has also robbed the Capitol of legislators with an institutional memory about issues that continually arise. Although we have strong support for SBs 951-952 in the Senate, the House is full of people who know nothing about the history of the dove hunting controversy, and who have no memory of the MHS's long history of passing bills that are not related to hunting or farming issues. For this reason, Senator Garcia and the MHS had to take the opposition of MUCC and MFB seriously and meet with them to seek amendments that would address, if not totally resolve, their concerns.

Thus, between the time you heard from me about the first Public Hearing held on the bills in the Senate Finance Committee and now, when the legislature went into its first recess of the summer, Senator Garcia and I on behalf of the MHS (along with Steve Heaven of the Capitol Area Humane Society---who was a welcome addition to our negotiations, the Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, and the Michigan Association of Animal Control Officers) met with

representatives of the MUCC, MFB, and others to collectively work together to address these concerns. The goal was to either win their support, or at least obtain their neutrality, on the bills.

I am grateful to report that, especially thanks to the tireless efforts of Senator Garcia and his staff, we were able to get the MUCC and MFB to agree to some amendments and to ultimately take a neutral position. Those amendments

essentially do two things: 1) The bills now clarify that grant recipients cannot use a grant to shift funds over to other areas of their budget. And 2) grants related to anti-cruelty law enforcement can only be used to: "Improve knowledge of the proper care of animals pursuant to state animal anti-cruelty laws by educating the public and training personnel authorized by law to enforce state animal anti-cruelty laws."; "Support and enhance programs that provide for the care and protection of animals pursuant to state anti-cruelty laws."; or "Purchase equipment and supplies for

As in all negotiations in a free-wheeling environment like legislative politics, everyone gave a little and everyone got a little. In the end, we must be glad the bills are alive and have an improved political chance of survival in a very contentious and partisan atmosphere in Lansing.

Just when we thought we were ready to go back to the Senate Finance Committee and have the vote to refer the bills favorably to the full Senate for their vote, another unexpected event occurred. In the very last two weeks of legislative session before summer recess, a legislative staffer told Senator Garcia's staff that it was illegal for our bills to require grant recipients to send written reports back to the MI Dept. of Agriculture to explain how the grants were spent----so that the Dept. could ensure the money was spent in accordance with the law. They claimed that since the grants come from private donations by taxpaying Michiganians, and in some cases go to private entities (non-profit shelters and groups), the state couldn't require such compliance reports. I asked for a copy of such a law before we proceeded further, and by the time everyone got done looking into this, and concluded that there was no such law, we had lost our window of time and the legislature went into summer recess. (The "bad" news.)

The legislature may be back in session for a day at a time occasionally throughout the rest of the summer, and I assure you that Senator Garcia's staff and I will watch very closely for ANY opportunity to have a Hearing and move the bill a bit farther along in the process. This is especially important because since this is an election year they are going to be taking many recesses, and since we have to get the bills through the House and back to the Senate (the chamber of origin) for a concurrence vote on any changes made in the House, we do NOT have a lot of time to get these bills passed.

1) Write, email, fax, or phone Senator Nancy Cassis, the Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, and politely ask her to schedule SBs951-952 for a Hearing and Vote AS SOON AS she possibly can, including if there are any chances to do that during single session days this summer. Let her know we can't waste any time and need to keep moving the bills along, especially now that we have everything worked out regarding their content. Let her know that you are aware of her great respect for animals, esp. cats, and that you are counting on her to help us!

2) If you have not yet done so, be sure and contact your own State Senator, and State Rep., and ask them to support SBs 951-952. Not only will they not cost the state anything, but grants will be a big help to local governments who are reducing or even eliminating animal control/welfare services because of the lean financial times and budgets in our state. Remind them how many millions of public and private dollars are tragically spent on pet overpopulation, and about the serious nature of violence toward animals.

And, also, please remember how IMPORTANT you are in this process. I cannot tell you enough how many legislators react positively when they hear from their constituents and others in our state. Without this type of grassroots backup support, nothing I do alone would be sufficient! So, my sincerest thanks to each of you!