WAIT! RE: 2470 and Burns Puppy Mill

March 19, 2009

Dear Representatives Holvey and Komp -

In light of what has transpired in Burns Oregon this week I am angry and while I am going to try to temper that anger I do feel that you need to hear my thoughts as well as my proposed suggestions and plea if you will; I will try to be brief but this is a story of ten years in the making.

How is it that Ted Tellefson became who he is today? I will tell you it was not for a lack of responsible breeders trying to educate him as well as refusing to sell him dogs. In 1999 I was contacted by Mr. Tellefson by telephone, at that time he told me he lived in Prineville and that he wanted to supplement his income by breeding and selling Golden Retrievers as pets, he had a genuine love for the breed in his words. I spent a good deal of time explaining to Mr. Tellefson in several phone conversations what all was involved in being a responsible breeder and that while yes there was money to be made breeding and selling dogs there was also potential for loss as well as heartache and death of beloved companions if uneducated people just set out to become breeders, not to mention the impact on the innocent dogs and public.

I explained to him the importance of affiliations, mentorship, and a sense of community. That all of these items were necessary to be successful, and for the majority of responsible breeders breeding was a bi-product of their love for the breed and the sports related to canines. That breeding was not generally their first and foremost aspiration. I made him aware of the American Kennel Club (AKC) Golden Retriever Club of America, (GRCA) Pacific Rim Golden Retriever Club of Oregon (PRGRCO) websites, phone numbers, etc as well as other resources. I tried the education route, and I tried to use "kid gloves" with Mr. Tellefson, but bottom line when push came to shove I flat out refused to sell him dogs. I then contacted my peers through out the state, my local Golden club, other Golden clubs nation wide as well as the GRCA and various all breed and breed specific rescue groups. I put in a phone call to the Crook County Sheriffs office ( I was unable to find specific information for dog control) to apprise the county that there may be a problem brewing in Prineville. I know also that others that live in the area did the same. I do not know if the county ever responded to any of these efforts. I can tell you I was told that since I did not live in Crook County and I was not adversely affected my heads up was appreciated but also discounted. So basically I was just spending my time emptily lamenting to a bureaucracy. That did not detour me however...

Moving forward - I know it to be a fact that besides myself, several other responsible dog owners/breeders/rescue volunteers took the time to not only try to educate Mr. Tellefson we also attempted to educate the general public to beware of him specifically, and perhaps most importantly how to go about looking for a responsible breeder. So there you have it - this is how Mr. Tellefson (in part) became who he is today. A man with close to 200 dogs with no customer base. He chose to ignore the offerings from many to educate him. And we the people who care for the breed were actually able to educate some of the general public hence helping to dry up his customer base. Unfortunately this took nearly 11 years and in that time frame we all can see today what happened.

Now please indulge me this pick a breed, any breed (purebred AKC recognized breed). Go to that breeds parent club web site and look for information on how to purchase a puppy. I am confident you will agree the information is out there, and easily accessible. Here are a few to check out, top 4 breeds by AKC registration statistics.
* Labrador Retrievers http://www.thelabradorclub.com/
* Yorkshire Terriers http://www.ytca.org/frame_index2.html
* German Shepherd Dogs http://www.gsdca.org/base/index.php
* Golden Retrievers http://www.grca.org/

On to my suggestions, I strongly urge the Oregon State Legislators to embrace looking to education over legislation. Please re-look at who you are accepting mentorship from and please look to the models in place by the NAIA, our own local bred, born and raised Animal Welfare lobby group.

Reference: http://www.naiaonline.org/
Specifically this link and the ones it leads you to: http://www.naiaonline.org/resources/legislative.htm

Please do not penalize Oregon's honest, respectful, responsible breeders with ambiguous state wide limits, unseasonal demands on the status of how they choose to manage their private property (dogs in Oregon are defined as private property) - suggesting that all unaltered dogs over the age of 4 months are a liability of some sort. Please look to pro choice in the interest of the individual animal and a citizens rights to maintain their property as they see fit.

Reference: http://www.therio.org/
Specifically this link which talks about health concerns re spay/neuter: http://www.therio.org/displaycommon.cfm?an=1&subarticlenbr=192

Please give "us" the benefit of doubt in dealing with our customers, lemon laws that do not protect the seller as well as th buyer surely will prove to be failure. Education over legislation here is paramount.

Let us not open Oregon up to litigation that is not in Oregon's best interest. Can we revisit the spotted owl, or should we? Oregon like the rest of the nation is struggling to survive some very tough social and economic times. Do we really need to become a "police state" where our animals are concerned?

I ask too that you look into the USDA files regarding class A and class B dealers/brokers. * Where does Oregon stand here, how many class A USDA dealers are listed? How many class B brokers are listed and what are the definitions of each of these? Who will HB2470 affect? Pet stores who are clearly not referred to as responsible places to purchase dogs or responsible breeders who are who ALL the experts suggest the public look to?

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/reports/A_cert_holders.pdf

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/efoia/downloads/reports/B_cert_holders.pdf

* Class A is a Dealer and Class B is a Broker. In closing please take the time too to read (copy below) and reflect on what is going on in Kentucky right now and I beg of you to please please look to better mentorship. My vote is for NAIA!

Sincerely, Gina Heitz
District 22

Attachment: March 18, 2009 Michael J. O'Connell, Esq. Jefferson County Attorney Hall of Justice, Suite 2086 600 W. Jefferson Street Louisville, KY 40202 Dear Mr. O'Connell: As you know, this law firm represents several entities and individuals currently involved in litigation with Louisville Metro Government ("the City") concerning the legality of Louisville's animal ordinance. The purpose of this letter is to notify the City of what appears to be a new, and likely an illegal, practice of Louisville Metro Animal Services ("LMAS") relating to the sale of puppies. From what we have learned, it appears that LMAS has recently been using questionable law enforcement tactics in an effort to enforce a provision of the animal ordinance in circumstances where it is not even applicable. The apparent targets of this effort are animal owners engaged in the occasional sale of puppies -- a perfectly legal and unregulated practice. One of LMAS's typical "sting" operations seems to go as follows. LMAS will identify a potential target --someone with puppies for sale -- by reviewing advertisements for sales of puppies in the newspaper or elsewhere. An LMAS employee will contact the seller of the puppies and pose as an interested buyer. The LMAS employee will solicit an invitation to view the puppies at the seller's home. The "undercover" LMAS employee will view the puppies at the seller's home and will then arrange surreptitiously for LMAS officers or police officers to appear at the home -- without a warrant -- and demand entry. Puppies and dogs will be seized from the home and the seller will be cited for attempting to sell a puppy without a "Class A Kennel License." The animals are then effectively held for ransom at LMAS until the owner complies with a host of extraordinary burdens imposed by LMAS -- including microchipping, spaying or neutering the animals, and imposing exorbitant fees and fines. There may be variations on this theme, but in each scenario LMAS appears to be using questionable techniques to enforce an inapplicable law. Section 91.027(A) of the animal ordinance prohibits a sale, or advertisement for sale, of an animal by any person required to be licensed under 91.020 and 91.023. Section 91.020 requires that “dogs” be licensed. Since “dogs” are defined elsewhere as canines “four months of age or older,” there is no prohibition on the sale of puppies under four months. Section 91.023 requires licenses for, among other things, persons who operate a "Class A Kennel or Cattery." A "Class A Kennel or Cattery" is defined as an "establishment where dogs and/or puppies or cats and/or kittens are kept for the primary purpose of breeding, buying, or selling such animals…" One who operates a Class A Kennel is required to pay a yearly license fee of $150 and must comply with numerous other requirements. See 91.120 (requiring, among other things, that owners of Class A Kennel facilities comply with the standards applicable to boarding kennels, which mandates individual enclosures for each animal, daily cleaning of the enclosures with disinfectant, and floors constructed of metal, fiberglass, concrete or three inches of gravel). Plainly, all animal owners who sell a litter of puppies are not operating an "establishment" for the "primary purpose" of selling animals and therefore are not required to obtain a Class A Kennel License. As such, it appears that LMAS is engaged in a blanket effort to enforce a provision of the ordinance against people to whom the provision does not apply. It is bad enough for LMAS to (either intentionally or unintentionally) misapply the laws for which LMAS bears the responsibility of enforcing. But it is extremely troubling that, in furtherance of this clear misapplication of the law, LMAS is using law enforcement techniques that are constitutionally suspect. It may be the case that this new enforcement effort results in ancillary "benefits" to LMAS in the form of revenue raised from selling the seized puppies to the public as adopted animals or extracting high fees from people to “reclaim” hisor her animals. Regardless, the current practices of LMAS as set forth above must cease or my clients will be forced to take appropriate action. Finally, we continue not to understand how the director of LMAS, Gilles Meloche, is able to enforce any provision of the animal ordinance in light of the fact that he is not, and is not qualified to be, a peace officer within the meaning of Kentucky law. I will look forward to your response regarding the foregoing. Thank you. Michael J. O'Connell, Esq.