2007 Maryland General
Assembly Legislative Wrap-Up
by William E. Erskine, Esq.
|
The Maryland General Assembly
meets in Annapolis each year for 90 days to act on more than
2,300 bills including the state’s annual budget. The 423rd
Session began January 10, 2007 and adjourns April 9, 2007.
As the registered state lobbyist for the MVMA, my
responsibilities include monitoring legislation |
 |
having the potential to impact animal
welfare or the practice of veterinary medicine.
When legislation of interest to the MVMA
is identified, copies and analysis of the legislation are forwarded
electronically to the MVMA board of directors. The board is informed
of relevant policy positions taken by the AVMA. This exercise
culminates with the MVMA board issuing a lobbying directive to
either 1) actively support the legislation through writing and/or
testimony, 2) actively oppose the legislation through writing or
testimony, or 3) remain neutral on the proposed legislation and not
actively support or oppose the bill.
2007 Pending Legislation
This year’s legislative session got off to a rather slow start,
probably a result of the November elections. There were far fewer
pre-filed bills. Nonetheless, we are starting to see some familiar
legislation (familiar in the sense that similar bills have been
introduced in previous years). Some of the legislation of interest
to the MVMA includes:
SB 821 Confinement of Pigs During Pregnancy and SB 822 Steel
Jawed Leghold Traps- Prohibition.
Similar bills have been introduced in each of the past four years.
In the past, the MVMA has chosen to oppose legislation prohibiting
confinement of pregnant pigs. (The AVMA position statement currently
endorses the use of gestation crates – although it does recognize
the problems associated with such use.) The hearings on this issue
tend to be very emotional. The MVMA and one or more veterinary
practitioners will speak at the hearing in order to educate the
legislators about the science of animal welfare as it relates to the
available sow housing alternatives. Specifically, our speakers will
inform the legislators about the problems associated with each
alternative housing arrangement including the very real problem of
aggression in group housing scenarios so that the legislators can
make an informed decision that promotes the welfare of the animals.
With respect to the trapping law – SB
822, the MVMA has in the past elected to support the prohibition of
steel jawed Leghold traps. (The AVMA position statement considers
use of such traps to be inhumane.) My personal view is that use of
steel jawed Leghold trap should be prohibited if an equally viable
alternative method of trapping exists. At previous hearings,
advocates spoke in support of Leghold snares that were made of steel
cable with a rubber coating to protect the animal’s leg. This seemed
like a reasonable trapping alternative. This year’s legislation on
the one hand seems to promote the use of such a leg snare trapping
system. However, the bill has so many restrictions on the design of
the snare that its ability to actually catch an animal is very much
in doubt. Nonetheless, the MVMA will again this year support the
prohibition of the use of steel jawed traps.
SB 696
SB 696 generally prohibits leaving dogs outside and unattended by
the use of restraints (i.e. rope, chain or tether) during certain
hours and under certain conditions. This legislation is very well
intended but unnecessary . The harm sought to be proscribed by the
legislation is already illegal under existing laws against the abuse
and neglect of animals (see Criminal Law Article Section 10-604).
Highlights of SB696 include:
1) A person may not leave a dog outside and unattended with the use
of a restraint between the hours of midnight and 6 a.m. (regardless
of weather conditions); or
2) During periods when the National
Weather Service has issued a heat advisory, hurricane or tropical
storm warning or when the temperature is below 32 degrees (its not
clear if use of an outdoor shelter or dog house would obviate these
concerns); or
3) In a manner that unreasonable limits
the movement of the dog.
The bill also prohibits the use of certain types of collars
described as pinch-type, prong-type or choke type collars. However,
the bill also prohibits the use of collars made primarily of metal.
(It is not clear why this prohibition is necessary so long as the
collar is properly fitted to the animal.) Finally, the bill requires
a restraint that is at least five times the length of the dog as
measured from the tip of the dog’s nose to the base of the tail. In
no event; however, may the restraint be less than 10 feet long. (It
is not clear that this proposed minimum length requirement will in
all circumstances promote the animal’s safety and welfare. There is
concern that if the restraint is too long it could under certain
circumstances pose a risk of entanglement or choking hazard. Also,
sometimes it may be appropriate to use a shorter restraint to
separate animals from one another. For the reasons the MVMA will not
actively support passage of this bill. The appropriate action is to
support the enforcement of existing laws against animal abuse and
neglect.
SB 267
The final piece of legislation of interest to MVMA members is SB
267. This bill would change the negligence tort law in Maryland from
the current doctrine of Contributory Negligence to a new doctrine of
Comparative Negligence. Under the current doctrine of Contributory
Negligence, a plaintiff who negligently contributes to his own
injury is completely barred from making any recovery whatsoever
against the other party. By way of example, if the plaintiff is one
percent responsible for causing his own injuries, he or she is 100
percent barred from making a recovery against the other party
notwithstanding the fact that the other party may be 99 percent
responsible for the damages. Many (especially trial lawyers) feel
that this is a harsh result.
On the other hand, the doctrine of
Comparative Negligence softens this result by allowing the plaintiff
to recover despite being partially responsible for his or her own
injuries. In the example given above, the plaintiff would receive 99
percent of his total damages from the primarily negligent party.
This on its face seems to be a reasonable outcome; however, business
and insurance companies are very much against this approach because
they fear that it will foster more litigation (and it will!).
In my previous life as a trial lawyer, I used to dream of the day
that Maryland would adopt the doctrine of Comparative Negligence. I
can personally attest to the gate keeping effect the current
doctrine of Contributory Negligence has. Civil litigation is so
complex, time consuming and expensive that normally only the most
meritorious of cases are brought by trial lawyers who typically only
get paid if they win. In all candor, a change in doctrines to
Comparative Negligence would in fact foster more litigation and
would not be good for the veterinary profession or business in
general. On behalf of its members, the MVMA will actively oppose
this legislation.
We Invite Your Input
I would like to invite any member with strong or different opinions
on these or other issues to feel free to contact me. I really do
enjoy hearing from the membership and it helps me to be more
effective for you in Annapolis. My e-mail address is
WEE@reese-carney.com.
Since July 2002, Mr. Erskine has
served Legal Counsel & Registered State lobbyist for the MVMA. |
For Pet Owners
New Page 1
|
