|
CONNECTICUT DOG FEDERATION, INC.
Position Statement Relative To
Raised Bill No. 6320 An Act Concerning the Inclusion of Humane Education in the Public School Curriculum
The Connecticut Dog Federation is OPPOSED to Raised Bill No. 6320 as presently written.
We accept the concept of humane education in public schools as a means to promote the proper care and protection of animals, particularly dogs. Such care and protection is incorporated into our mission statement.
New York State passed a law in 1994 requiring a humane education program in elementary schools under state control or supported wholly or partly by public money of the state, and is presently considering program extension into secondary schools similarly controlled or funded. No provision was made for accepting third-party funding or for consulting with animal welfare organizations in setting up the program.
We reject the proposed acceptance of funds from third-party donors to support the creation and implementation of a humane education program. Donated funds from private entities inevitably carry stipulations regarding their use. Any such stipulations would be unacceptable to us.
It is obvious that this bill is essentially a word-for-word copy of withdrawn bill H.B. 6565 An Act Concerning Humane Education in the 2009 session. That bill included acceptance of funding from third-party donors, required consultation with animal welfare organizations (for source material?), and specified certain animal welfare organizations by name. The only significant wording difference between H.B.6565 and H.B. 6320 is the deletion of three specifically named animal “welfare” organizations. Despite such deletion, the intent of H.B. 6320 remains very clear.
It is no secret that certain groups representing themselves as animal “welfare” organizations are, in fact, animal “rights” organizations. Their literature and web sites very clearly state their agendas which, with regard to companion animals, are in direct conflict with our right to own such animals and to promote their proper care.
Passage of this bill with the requirement to accept private funds and to “consult” with animal welfare organizations would set a bad precedent. It would open the door for other private entities to demand equal treatment in promoting their agendas through the public education system.
Two significant areas of concern arise regarding the present wording:
- (1) Section 1(e) states that, using funds from third-party donors, “the State Board of Education shall consult with animal welfare organizations to develop a curriculum of humane education” that would be “distributed to” local and regional boards of education. This wording appears to mean “invoked upon”. If so, this would be another unfunded mandate thrust upon those boards of education, many of which are financially stressed in a troubled economy. Section 2(e) states that “the State Board of Education shall assist and encourage local and regional boards of education to include the teaching of the principles of humane education”. This wording indicates that participation by boards of education would be optional. If so, the wording of Sections 1(e) and 2(e) appear to be self contradictory .
- (2) No provision is made for financially supporting such a program, including curriculum updating and ongoing in-service teacher training, after its initial implementation. Again, this would constitute an unfunded mandate.
|
