MARYLAND - Oppose Maryland Guardianship Bill HB912

[trinitydobes]

MARYLAND DOG OWNERS!!! If you are in Maryland, please get on board with fighting this bill and contact others in Maryland. If we become guardians of our dogs, we will lose a ton of rights. Others will be able to sue us on behalf of our dogs, just imagine HSUS suing you on behalf of your dog because you are abusing him by forcing him to go to dog shows or compete in Schutzhund, or French Ring Trials!!! This one is dangerous. There are those that say it's just a word and makes no difference, they've been saying that for years, but it DOES make a huge difference. If you think it doesn't, then why do you think there would even be such a bill? We must not let this happen. This legislation has been lobbied strongly by HSUS - remember the law of unintended conseequences!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Oppose Maryland Guardianship Bill HB912
Posted on February 20 2012,
www.wordpress.marylanddogfederation


On March 1st, 2012, the Maryland House Environmental Matters Committee will consider House Bill 912, which seeks to change the word "owner" to "guardian" in numerous places within state code. This would likely result in a dramatic restriction in the rights of owners and veterinarians to protect and care for dogs.



Contact the sponsors and members of the Environmental Matters Committee before March 1st and let them know you OPPOSE HB 912.

If passed, HB 912 would:

Change the definition of who must obtain a kennel license from one who "owns or has custody of 15 or more unspayed dogs..." to one who "is the guardian or has custody of 15 or more unspayed dogs over the age of 6 months and sells dogs from 6 or more litters."
Stating that county license fees must be paid by "guardians", and striking all reference to "owners"

Changing county nuisance and vicious dog provisions from being the responsibility of the "owner", to being the responsibility of the "guardian".

The concept of replacing the term animal "owner" with "guardian" was first introduced about a decade ago in San Francisco by an extreme animal rights group. Since then, only a few municipalities and one state have passed laws recognizing animal guardians.

While some animal owners may chose to refer to themselves as "pet guardians", "guardian" is a legal term that carries significant legal implications and repercussions when codified. "Guardians" have an obligation to always act in the best interest of their "wards". The Maryland Dog Federation is concerned that mandating the term "guardian" rather than "owner" will irreparably alter the human-canine relationship and may even reduce the level of responsibility an owner is currently required to maintain. It may result in being less responsible for the proper care of a dog. Using the term "guardian" instead of owner may restrict the rights of owners, veterinarians, and government agencies to protect and care for dogs. It may also result in frivolous and expensive litigation.

Many animal laws in Maryland at the local levels would need to be harmonized with the state law at a significant cost to taxpayers.
Changing our status to "guardians" in Maryland could seriously and negatively impact pet ownership as we know it.

How would "guardianship" affect service dogs?

If dogs are to be considered "wards" and we owners their "guardians", how could insurance companies cover animal related claims if animals are no longer considered property under state law?

How will "guardians'" constitutional rights be protected if animals are seized without proper warrant or just compensation?
How will our pets, now "wards", be controlled, quarantined, and sometimes euthanized due to zoonotic diseases such as rabies? How will shelters deal with their "guardianship" responsibilities?
It is always in animal species' best interests to reproduce. As "guardians", how will we justify spaying and neutering our animal "wards" if we are legally required to act in the best interests of our pets?

The MDF feels this is a poorly thought out concept and eschews the slippery slope it presents.

While proponents claim that this promotes better treatment of animals this is simply not the case. In a study conducted by UC Davis' School of Veterinary Medicine, and published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Medical Association (J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2009 Apr 1;234(7):896-900), it was found that owners residing in a municipality that legally designated them as "guardians" were no more attached to their dogs than those living in a municipality without "guardian" designation; nor did such a "guardian" designation result in an enhanced bond between owner and dog.



Additional Resources:

Read AKC's policy position statement "'Guardian' v. Owner"
www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/position_statements/Guardian_v_Owner.pdf
View and print AKC's handout The Dangers of Guardianship
www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation/dangers_guardianship.pdf
AVMA: Ownership versus Guardianship
www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/ownership.asp
"Evaluation of Owner attachment to dogs on the basis of whether owners are legally considered guardians of their pets"
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Evaluation%20of%20owner%20attachment%20to%20dogs%20on%20the%20basis%20of%20whether%20owners%20are%20legally%20considered%20guardians%20of%20their%20pets.


How You Can Help:

Contact the bill sponsors TODAY to warn of the unintended consequences of HB 912...

Delegate A. Wade Kach
[phone], [phone]
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3359 (toll free)
[e-mail]

Delegate John A. Olszewski, Jr.
[phone], [phone]
1-800-492-7122, ext. 3458 (toll free)
[e-mail]

...AND...

Contact the House Environmental Matters Committee prior to the March 1 hearing and ask the members to vote "no" on House Bill 912. The contact information is as follows:

Delegate Maggie McIntosh (Chair)
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate James E. Malone, Jr. (Vice Chair)
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Pamela G. Beidle
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Elizabeth Bobo
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Rudolph C. Cane
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Alfred C. Carr, Jr.
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Barbara A. Frush
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate James W. Gilchrist
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Cheryl D. Glenn
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Anne Healey
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Patrick Hogan
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Marvin E. Holmes, Jr.
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Jay A. Jacobs
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Stephen W. Lafferty
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Herb McMillan
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Doyle L. Niemann
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate H. Wayne Norman, Jr.
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Anthony J. O'Donnell
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Charles J. Otto
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate A. Shane Robinson
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Dana M. Stein
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Cathleen M. Vitale
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate Michael H. Weir, Jr.
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

Delegate C.T. Wilson
Phone: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]