What have your State legislators done for you lately?

Lions and tigers and bears… Oh my!                      But parakeets?

Gorillas and crocodiles and wolves… Oh my!           But canaries?

Note: there is an update, and response from Representative Low, later on this page...

Have you considered the fact you might never be able to have another bird?  Never be able to take your bird out of the house, or be fined $500 - $1,000?  No more GPC Fair?  Sounds bizarre doesn’t it?

That legislation was proposed in the Missouri House of Representatives on January 24, 2008 as House Bill 1847.  Before you get too upset, it will probably not go through… at least this time…

I have to admit, my days of political activism faded with the sixties, but this week I was calling politicians.  The first I heard of this came from Irene Pepperberg, then Cliff Patterson and then it snowballed.

So what’s it all about?  Apparently Missouri has a problem with wild animals kept as pets.  The bill is available here, as a Word document, or PDF, or directly from the State website.  The bill makes it illegal to keep wild animals as pets, and outlines a program of enforcement, penalties and licensing for existing animals that may be retained.  The amazing thing is the definition of wild animals, which explicitly includes, “Birds, including parrots, parakeets, finches, doves and pigeons, and canaries”.

Before I get into more detail about the language of the bill, here is information about the people behind it.

The bill’s sponsor is:

Beth Low, Democrat, representing District 39 of Kansas City

    (573) 751-4485, beth.low@house.mo.gov

Co-sponsors are:

Sara Lampe, Democrat, representing District 138 of Springfield

    (573) 751-1460, sara.lampe@house.mo.gov

Maria Chappelle-Nadal, Democrat, representing District 72, University City

    (573) 751-4265, maria.chappellenadal@house.mo.gov

All three started in the House in 2004, and should be running again this year…

Feel free to contact them, if fruitless actions help assuage your anger.  I called all three, identified myself as associated with GPC and spoke with staff members who dutifully took my contact information and promised return calls…  No callbacks.  Ms. Low also failed to reply to an email inquiry.  Hey what the heck, Low and Lampe could tell my phone number wasn’t in their district.  I don’t know about Chapelle-Nadal, since she is from this area and we have members in her district.

Chapelle-Nadal did give Cliff a one line email response saying, “It was an oversight to exempt the birds.  It will be taken care of so there won't be a problem later on.”  Now that makes about as much sense as the bill’s language, because birds were not “exempted” they were specifically included with the language quoted above.

So it appears the bill’s sponsors don’t like birds, don’t understand the intent of the bill, or don’t understand the language of the bill.  Without feedback from legislators we can only conclude from its language it intends to eliminate pets except for dogs and cats, they didn’t mention fish, and impact the business channels supporting pet owners.  I spoke with PetSmart’s corporate counsel for legislative initiatives, and they hadn’t heard of this bill yet, but were interested.  I thought a business lobby would be an effective ally in this.

Most of this activity was on Monday and Tuesday, January 28-29, after the bill was introduced the preceding Thursday.  By Wednesday we had word the bill was “dead,” but I’m not sure the source.  The State’s bill tracking website still lists the status as, “Read 1st time January 24, 2008 and copies ordered printed.”

Let your Representative know how you feel about this legislation.  Find your representative on the Missouri House of Representatives’ website .  On the lower right-hand corner of the page is a place where you enter your ZIP code and find your legislator’s contact page.  Please note, you must use your nine digit, ZIP+4, code.

Part Deaux

 Ok, an update on the legislation.  Call me lazy.  I wrote the preceding article on Sunday, 2/3, after contacting the legislators Tuesday, 1/29.  The following week I did get some feedback.  Rather than rewrite the previous article, here is an update…

I feel better from the perspective pet birds will not be impacted.  I’m not sure I feel good about legislators introducing bills without having read or understood their content and implications.  Following is an email from Beth Low, the bill’s sponsor.

Dear Trey

HB 1847 is based on ASPCA boilerplate legislation.  The goal is to provide a modicum of oversight for the breeding, selling and ownership of wild animals.  You may not be aware that this is a significant problem in Missouri, where we have no laws governing the proper care, registration, etc of wild animals.  This has made Missouri the go-to state for purchasing large cats, just to name one example.

The language regarding birds will be changed in committee (should the bill receive a hearing) so that birds will be listed among the exempted animals (along with gerbils, for example).  However, the overall goal of making sure that wild animals are properly and responsibly cared for, and are tracked by local authorities for the benefit of public health and safety, will remain intact.  As you may note, the bill has not yet been assigned to a committee.

Thank you,

Rep. Low

So Representative Low scores a point for responding to my email.  I have a hard time with the excuse that the language is the ASPCA’s fault.  If a legislator wants to use outside resources, fine, but I don’t think legislation is a cut-and-paste activity.  Representative Low presents the bill as “a modicum of oversight for the breeding, selling and ownership of wild animals.”  While there is some language about care standards for animals, it applies only to the narrow group of acceptable owners, essentially medical and research institutions.  The overall effect of the bill is to make the keeping of these animals illegal.  And that seems to be what “will remain intact” if and when the bill moves forward. 

So I still don’t understand clearly what the intent of the bill is.  If Representative Low’s description of its intent is accurate, it still seems like a bad document.

Someone will have to help me with my Missouri legislative procedures.  Others have said the bill is “dead.”  Representative Low points out the bill has not been assigned to a committee, which seems to imply that is a required next step in its lifecycle.  Maybe it is the Committee’s job to figure out what the bill is supposed to do and then (re)write it so it makes sense.

Besides Representative Low’s email, I also got a call back from a legislative aide in the office of one of the co-sponsors.  I apologize for not getting the Representative’s name; I was on a weak connection, having trouble hearing.  She did acknowledge the language regarding birds WOULD be changed IF the bill went forward, again implying that would be unlikely.  Apparently this bill raised quite a reaction from concerned organizations across the country.

So “bird people” are pretty well organized and aware of what goes on in legislatures across the country.  We can relax on this one, and leave it to the reptile folks to carry on the battle, since their pets will become illegal…