Please vote YES on HB109 by Delegate Holly Seibold, YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer, YES on HB388 by Delegate Katrina Callsen, and YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy.

Hello, my name is Robert Nellis, and I'm a constituent from VA House of Delegates District 15 (Laura Jane Cohen) and VA State Senate District 35 (David W. Marsden) . I'm writing to ask you to vote: YES on HB109 by Delegate Holly Seibold; YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer; YES on HB388/SB89 by Delegate Katrina Callsen; and, YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Vote to help our community!

Please find the attached opposition letter for VA SB 138 on behalf of the American Chemistry Council (ACC). ACC has concerns about the bill's scope but is open to working with the sponsor and other members for amendments. Thank you so much for your consideration.

SB163 expands an exemption related to herbicide application provided to volunteers for local governments that was established in 2024 to volunteers for state agencies. In addition, it clarifies that volunteers that choose to become pesticide applicators or technicians are exempt from licensing fees in the same manner as state employees are exempt assuming they only use the certification as park of their work. This is a no cost, commonsense bill that would greatly expand efforts to control invasive plants on public state land under the supervision of the agency in charge. At Machicomoco State Park, our volunteer led organization is working to address multiple natural resource issues. In the past few years we have documented approximately 170 acres of land, about one quarter of the park, that has been taken over by the invasive Callery Pear due to the discontinuance of annual meadow mowing as the land came under state control. Our current efforts to control this and other invasive plants could be greatly expanded if this bill were to become law. We are certain that this issue goes far beyond the state park which we serve. Thank you.

Hello, my name is Robert Nellis, and I'm a constituent from VA House of Delegates District 15 (Laura Jane Cohen) and VA State Senate District 35 (David W. Marsden) . I'm writing to ask you to vote: YES on HB109 by Delegate Holly Seibold; YES on HB88 by Delegate Amy Laufer; YES on HB388/SB89 by Delegate Katrina Callsen; and, YES on SB163 by Senator Ryan McDougle. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands. Together these bills will support Virginia’s efforts to combat invasive plants and the damages they are causing to our farms, our forests, our health, our parks, and our economy. Thank you for your time and consideration.

I support HB109 and SB163. Invasive species cause serious ecological damage and economic loss. Allowing them to be sold in Virginia is highly irresponsible and should be stopped. Allowing volunteers to use herbicides to control them would help reduce the problems they cause.

Vote to help our community!

In 2024 the law was changed to allow volunteers, under appropriate supervision, to apply herbicides for the purposes of controlling invasive plants on land owned by local governments. This bill simply expands the law to apply to volunteers working with state agencies on state owned land such as State Parks. At Machicomoco, many invasive plants are thriving unchecked by DCR. Nearly one-quarter of the parks 645 acres have been taken over by the invasive Callery/Bradford pear over the past 8 years (how that happened is another matter). The volunteer-led Friends of Machicomoco organization has committed countless volunteer hours in efforts to remove these invasive trees, however, we need passage of this bill in order to make a lasting impact on the parks ecosystem. Please pass this commonsense, no cost bill that would enable and engage volunteers to make efforts to reclaim portions of our Virginia Public Lands impacted by invasive plant species.

I would like to limit invasive species in Va. Therefore I am encouraging voting yes for these bills.

We must do better to protect our natural surroundings. Invasive plants are costing Virginians millions of dollars each year. These bills will help stop the spread of invasive plants across the Commonwealth by allowing regulators to add plants to the Noxious Weeds List based on merit and science, by ensuring that invasive plants are not planted along our state highways, by empowering local jurisdictions to raise funds to treat and control invasive plants, and by giving state agencies flexibility to use volunteers to help control invasive plants on state lands.

Sb186 is the companion bill to Hb 322 Truth in Labeling and public transparency for food--We ask you to support the bill so that consumers know what they are buying and eating. This bill was passed by this committee and both the House and Senate. Please support Sb 186 to insure truth in labeling meat and poultry. Thank you. Virginia Cattlemen's Association Jim Riddell

Vote to help our community!

Please oppose SB344 as it does not include exemptions for USDA licensed zoos. Only accredited zoos are exempted and this is discriminatory.

Please oppose SB344 as it does not include exemptions for USDA licensed zoos. Only accredited zoos are exempted and this is discriminatory.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, The members and supporters of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance urge you to AMEND SB 344. According to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, there are 127 current/active wildlife exhibitor permittees in the Commonwealth. At this time, the language of SB 344 does not recognize or provide an exemption for wildlife exhibitor permittees to hand-raise and trade their young animals. The General Assembly gave DWR the authority to issue these permits and annual reports are submitted by licensees every year. In spite of this very established system, certain legislative offices are completely unaware. These individuals/facilities have a working relationship with the Department and their personal veterinarians. An exemption for wildlife exhibitors must be added to the language of these bills. Without it, the legislation remains highly and obviously prejudiced towards law-abiding citizens. The wording on hybridization should be struck from this bill. It is built on the misinformation of PETA. Crossbreeding is a natural occurrence and a form of “genetic exchange.” It can play an important role in fortifying species and enables adaptations. It can promote disease resistance and has the potential to form new species. PETA is using a hybrid lemur that used to live at Natural Bridge Zoo as the basis for this proposed ban. This is completely ridiculous. If you do a little research into lemurs, you will discover that hybrid lemurs have been documented in the wild. These animals in particular are known to form hybrid zones and hybridization has been an important driver of their diversity. It is one reason that the island of Madagascar is so special. Lemurs are a prime example of why hybrids matter. Please amend this bill. The VAOA urges you to oppose SB 707. This legislative effort is attempting to criminalize veterinarians and dictate the every action of the pet owner. Whether you like the idea of bark softening or not, there are legitimate reasons that some owners make this decision for themselves and their pet. Supporters of this legislation argue that it is unnatural—but it is also unnatural to spay and neuter. In spite of this, most of us choose to have our pets fixed and they go on to lead very contented lives. The State is already scrutinizing owners for their decisions regarding their animal’s water, diet, vet care, and the choice of if/when to euthanize. These decisions should be carefully made between an owner and their veterinarian. This is no place for the government. The issue of bark softening is no different. Deciding to deem something illegal should never be taken lightly. Some prohibitions simply open up Pandora’s box and ultimately do more harm than good. They can also lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion. What kind of mechanism will be in place to ensure that those who have already chosen to have this procedure performed on their pets will not face prosecution? How will the State protect these owners so they do not face harassment by neighbors and animal control? This law could easily be applied in ways the sponsor does not intend. It is vulnerable to abuse. Please reject this bill. Heidi Crosky, Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

Dear Delegates, I own Fort Chiswell Animal Park in Wythe County. We are licensed through the game department. If SB 344 passes, we need it to be amended to include an exemption for all DWR exhibitors. We do not understand why the legislature would segregate a small amount of animal owners for criminal charges unless it is to get rid of us. The entire section of the hybrid language must be removed. This is just another scheme to get rid of small zoos who house multiple species together. Jeff Archer Fort Chiswell Animal Park

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, the Exotic Wildlife Association (EWA) writes in support of the members and supporters of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance and respectfully urges you to vote NO on House Bill 112/Senate Bill 344. EWA is a national association of alternative livestock owners and breeders dedicated to wildlife conservation, protecting the exotic wildlife industry, and promoting responsible animal stewardship. While we support reasonable regulation, HB 112 is unethical, arbitrary, and harmful to both animal welfare and responsible small businesses for the following reasons: Animal Welfare Concerns The bill’s premature separation provision fails to recognize that bottle-raising is often necessary to save offspring rejected, injured, or orphaned. Requiring a prior written veterinary order creates an impractical barrier that could result in preventable animal deaths. Responsible caretakers regularly provide this lifesaving care. In addition, the bill assigns the Department of Wildlife Resources sole authority to determine the “natural time of weaning” without species-specific standards, creating vague requirements that invite inconsistent and arbitrary enforcement. Scientifically Unfounded Hybridization Ban The prohibition on hybridization ignores well-established genetic principles, including hybrid vigor, which can improve health, adaptability, and conservation outcomes. Hybrid breeding programs are an important conservation and livestock management tool. The bill also assumes different mammalian species cannot be housed together, which is impractical and unsupported, and would impose unnecessary financial and operational burdens on responsible owners. Harm to Small Businesses and Farmers HB 112 disproportionately harms small farmers, breeders, and wildlife professionals who ethically manage alternative livestock. Its vague and restrictive language creates legal uncertainty, threatens livelihoods, and undermines sustainable agriculture and conservation. Vague and Overreaching Language Key terms, including “natural time of weaning” and housing restrictions, lack clear scientific definitions or due process protections, exposing responsible animal owners to arbitrary enforcement. Recommended Amendments At a minimum, we recommend: • Removing the hybridization clause. • Allowing emergency neonatal care, including temporary separation for up to 72 hours until a licensed veterinarian can assess the animal. Conclusion HB 112 is misguided, impractical, and harmful to animal welfare, conservation, and responsible small businesses. We respectfully urge you to reject this bill and instead pursue balanced legislation that protects animals while supporting responsible caretakers. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Dear Members of the Virginia General Assembly,I am writing to respectfully express opposition to HB112, SB344, and HB1238. While animal welfare is an important and shared priority, these bills raise serious concerns regarding regulatory overreach, economic impact, unequal treatment among organizations, and unintended harm to disabled veterans living with TBI and PTSD.Commerce and Small Business Impact. Virginia’s animal-related businesses, including breeders, pet retailers, and specialty operators,already function under significant federal, state, and local oversight. The additional restrictions and expanded enforcement authority proposed in these bills create increased compliance costs, operational uncertainty, and financial strain. Many of these businesses are small, family-run, veteran-owned enterprises. Layering new mandates on already regulated operations risks discouraging lawful commerce and reducing economic opportunity within the Virginia Excessive regulation does not automatically translate into better outcomes, particularly when responsible operators are already complying with existing standards. Over expansion of Local Authority (HB1238) would allow local governments to impose permitting requirements, fees, and potentially restrictive or inconsistent ordinances on pet shops and companion animal dealers that vary by locality, making it difficult for businesses to operate consistently across jurisdictions. Allowing local discretion increases the likelihood of uneven enforcement, duplicative standards, and administrative burdens that disproportionately affect small operators.These bills risk creating regulatory imbalance between commercial operators and other types of animal organizations. If entities are exempt from requirements imposed on licensed businesses, it places compliant, tax-paying enterprises at a competitive disadvantage.All organizations should be subject to consistent and standards. Legislation should not favor one over another without clear justification.Many disabled veterans with TBI annd PTSD involvement in animal care and animal-related business provide structure, therapeutic engagement, and economic independence. Individuals living with Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI) and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) often benefit from: Routine and responsibility animal care,Reduced isolation through daily engagement,work environments,Meaningful purpose and community involvement. Restrictive legislation that threatens small animal enterprises may unintentionally remove both livelihood and therapeutic stability from veterans who rely on these operations. Policies should consider not only regulatory goals, but also the human impact on those who have served our nation. Conclusion HB112, SB344, and HB1238, as currently written, risk: Expanding regulatory authority beyond reasonable scope Creating inconsistent local enforcement,Placing disproportionate burdens on small businesses,unfair competitive conditions. Undermining veteran-owned enterprises and therapeutic engagement I respectfully urge you to reconsider these measures and work with stakeholders—including small business owners, veterinarians, veteran advocates, and responsible animal organizations—to balance solutions that protect animal welfare without harming lawful commerce or vulnerable communities. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Abbitt Aaron Hoffman, AFA Legislative Representative Retired U.S. Army Sergeant,Colonial Heights, Virginia

I am writing to ask you to vote against the passing of SB 344. I am a USDA licensed zoo owner and have over 30 years of experience working with wildlife. I have hand raised many different species and believe that this bill is not in the best interest of the animals it is supposed to protect. The base assumption for the bill is that the hand rearing of wild animals is a bad thing. While I agree that allowing animals to be raised by their parent(s) is important when they are going to be released into the wild, the majority of animals born in zoos will remain under human care for their entire lives. Hand rearing forms a bond with humans that can allow for improved care and decreased stress throughout their lives. An individual that has been raised by humans often learns to be comfortable with a wider range of experiences than a parent raised animal. The animal human bond that forms can allow for smoother and less stressful changes to routines and medical care. I have in my care an African crested porcupine we call Theo. He came to us as a baby and I hand raised him. When he was 2 years old, he developed a tooth infection. I was able to easily load him up, take him to the vet, and hold him while the vet examined him. When he needed a CT scan to assess the issue, he allowed me to hold him in my lap while the vet administered general anesthesia, and to comfort him as he came out of it. The treatment included more than 8 weeks of oral antibiotics. No matter how hard I tried to hide the medication in various foods, he refused to take it. I had to pick him up twice a day and squirt the liquid in his mouth. Even though he didn’t like it, he trusted me enough to let me give him the medication. I truly believe, and my vets agree with me, that Theo would not have survived that infection if he had not been hand raised. Had we had to capture and restrain him for every examination and treatment, the stress, alone, could have caused death from capture myopathy. While it is, of course, possible to build a bond with animals without hand raising them, nothing replaces the bond of hand rearing. I have numerous other examples of hand raised animals allowing medical care that other animals wouldn’t tolerate. In stressful situations, wild animals will move away from people out of instinct. Our hand raised animals often actively seek us out when they are stressed or hurt. When we can decrease their stress and quickly address medical concerns we can provide better lives for the animals we care for. While I understand that hand rearing may not be the best option for all species or for all individuals (such as those being raised to return to the wild), I feel that the ones best suited to make that decision are the people who care for the animals on a daily basis. As our facility is not open to the public and only provides off site educational visits, we are not currently eligible for, nor can we afford, accreditation. For the very reason that we are a small facility, with a limited number of species, we are able to work more closely and spend more time with each individual animal than some larger facilities. Due to our experience, we have been asked to hand raise animals for accredited facilities in the past. Under this bill, we would no longer be able to help raise these animals nor could make the decision to raise our own. I believe that this bill is not in the best interest of the animals and ask you to vote no to SB344.

Dear Members of the Virginia House Committee on Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources, I am writing to respectfully express strong opposition to SB344. While I appreciate the intent to promote responsible wildlife management, this legislation creates significant unintended consequences for Virginia’s veterans, small businesses, and the very standards of animal welfare it seeks to protect. First, the bill’s restrictions on captive mammalian wildlife separation timelines and commercial hybridization will disproportionately affect small-scale breeders, licensed exhibitors, agricultural operations, and specialty animal businesses throughout the Commonwealth. It is unfair to NOT Exempt Facilities because they don’t have membership in Certain organizations. Many of these operations are veteran-owned. Veterans frequently transition into agriculture, animal husbandry, and wildlife-related enterprises as a means of rehabilitation, entrepreneurship, and financial stability. By imposing rigid separation mandates and commercial prohibitions without adequate flexibility for species-specific husbandry practices, SB344 risks eliminating legitimate income streams and discouraging veteran entrepreneurship in Virginia. Second, the commercial impact extends beyond individual breeders. Feed suppliers, veterinary practices, equipment manufacturers, educational facilities, transport providers, and rural tourism operations all form part of an interconnected economic ecosystem. Restricting lawful breeding and commerce will reduce economic activity in rural communities, increase regulatory burdens, and potentially drive responsible operators out of state. Virginia should be fostering responsible commerce, not creating regulatory uncertainty that harms compliant businesses. Third, from an animal welfare standpoint, the bill’s rigid four-month separation requirement does not adequately account for species-specific developmental timelines. In many cases, earlier separation—when conducted under established husbandry standards and veterinary guidance—is essential for proper socialization, disease prevention, and behavioral management. Overly prescriptive mandates can unintentionally compromise animal welfare by preventing best-practice interventions tailored to individual animals. Good welfare policy should be science-driven, flexible, and developed in consultation with licensed veterinarians and experienced animal professionals—not structured around blanket timelines. Furthermore, responsible breeders and animal professionals already operate under existing state and federal regulations. Rather than enhancing welfare, SB344 risks penalizing compliant operators while doing little to address bad actors who already disregard the law. Virginia has long balanced conservation, commerce, and animal stewardship. This legislation disrupts that balance without clear evidence that current regulatory frameworks are insufficient. For these reasons, I respectfully urge the Committee to vote NO on SB344 or substantially amend it to protect responsible commerce, veteran-owned businesses, and practical, science-based animal care standards. Thank you for your time and consideration. Respectfully, Abbitt Aaron Hoffman Legislative Representative American Federation of Aviculture

Data Centers take up vast tracts of land (197 - over 400 acres) and consume hundreds of gallons of water and thousands of megawatts in electrical consumption. Data centers will severely tax and lower water tables especially during periods of drought and extended drought through excessive consumption. These Data centers will overburden electric grids and substations as well especially during peak consumption periods. Why can't Data centers use public water systems from water treatment plants or desalination water from the Atlantic or the Chesapeake Bay? Why can't they use retention ponds and recycle water they are using through specialized cooling systems much like a radiator, cooling coils or other modern cooling systems? Who is going to pay for the higher demand? Are these Dta centers going to be given tax breaks? Are consumers going to pay the higher utility bills because of these data centers?

Nature Forward strongly supports SB553. This is a reporting bill which would provide transparency on how much water municipal suppliers are providing to data centers. Knowledge is power! Virginia’s Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) is in the process of creating Regional Water Supply Plans and this data is critical to the success of those plans given the fact that Virginia, namely NOVA, has a higher concentration of data centers than anywhere else in the world. For data centers using water cooling, this information is critical. Please vote “yes” in support of SB553.

Please OPPOSE SB707. I am the Legislative Liaison for the VA Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders. We were formed in 1971. We represent hobby breeders and kennel clubs across the state. We are affiliated with the American Kennel Club (AKC). SB707 wants to make it illegal for a qualified veterinarian to perform the life-saving procedure of softening a dog's bark. In other comments a vet has described this procedure. I own Shetland Sheepdogs (shelties), a herding breed known for their fondness for barking. They can't help it- they were bred this way over many decades to herd sheep on the vast and windy hills of the Shetland Islands. A loud bark carries a good distance and communicates with the sheep. A loud, frequent bark is not good in close-in urban settings. I live in Arlington and my neighbors are very close. All of my shelties over the last 20 years have had their barks softened. They bark a lot but their barks are low volume. My neighbors think they are great. They are happy, healthy dogs who excel at performance events like agility. Not all dogs are so lucky. A few years ago in Charleston, SC a dog showed up on a stranger's porch with her muzzle taped completely shut with black electrical tape. Her badly swollen tongue protruded between her jaws. The lower jaw was actually broken. Her face and head were badly swollen. She could not eat or drink. All because she barked too much. She was taken to the Charleston Animal Society . She was named Caitlyn. Over several years she was saved and brought back to health. Scars across her muzzle remained. Her final home was with the prosecuting attorney who got her abuser convicted. Her story is well documented on the web. How many other Caitlyns are out there that we don't know about. Please don't criminalize this life-saving procedure. If a specific veterinarian does not want to do it they don't have to. It is not necessary to ban it. PLEASE OPPOSE SB 707. Thank you, Alice Harrington, Legislative Liaison, VA Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders.

Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee, The members and supporters of the Virginia Animal Owners Alliance urge you to AMEND SB 344. According to the Virginia Department of Wildlife Resources, there are 127 current/active wildlife exhibitor permittees in the Commonwealth. At this time, the language of SB 344 does not recognize or provide an exemption for wildlife exhibitor permittees to hand-raise and trade their young animals. The General Assembly gave DWR the authority to issue these permits and annual reports are submitted by licensees every year. In spite of this very established system, certain legislative offices are completely unaware. These individuals/facilities have a working relationship with the Department and their personal veterinarians. An exemption for wildlife exhibitors must be added to the language of these bills. Without it, the legislation remains highly and obviously prejudiced towards law-abiding citizens. The wording on hybridization should be struck from this bill. It is built on the misinformation of PETA. Crossbreeding is a natural occurrence and a form of “genetic exchange.” It can play an important role in fortifying species and enables adaptations. It can promote disease resistance and has the potential to form new species. PETA is using a hybrid lemur that used to live at Natural Bridge Zoo as the basis for this proposed ban. This is completely ridiculous. If you do a little research into lemurs, you will discover that hybrid lemurs have been documented in the wild. These animals in particular are known to form hybrid zones and hybridization has been an important driver of their diversity. It is one reason that the island of Madagascar is so special. Lemurs are a prime example of why hybrids matter. Please amend this bill. The VAOA urges you to oppose SB 707. This legislative effort is attempting to criminalize veterinarians and dictate the every action of the pet owner. Whether you like the idea of bark softening or not, there are legitimate reasons that some owners make this decision for themselves and their pet. Supporters of this legislation argue that it is unnatural—but it is also unnatural to spay and neuter. In spite of this, most of us choose to have our pets fixed and they go on to lead very contented lives. The State is already scrutinizing owners for their decisions regarding their animal’s water, diet, vet care, and the choice of if/when to euthanize. These decisions should be carefully made between an owner and their veterinarian. This is no place for the government. The issue of bark softening is no different. Deciding to deem something illegal should never be taken lightly. Some prohibitions simply open up Pandora’s box and ultimately do more harm than good. They can also lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion. What kind of mechanism will be in place to ensure that those who have already chosen to have this procedure performed on their pets will not face prosecution? How will the State protect these owners so they do not face harassment by neighbors and animal control? This law could easily be applied in ways the sponsor does not intend. It is vulnerable to abuse. Please reject this bill. Heidi Crosky, Virginia Animal Owners Alliance

Members of the Agriculture committee, I appreciate your consideration of my comments. I am scheduled in back to back surgeries this morning at my practice and am unable to attend in person. I’m hoping to provide some clarity on the debarking procedure described in this bill and dispel some misinformation regarding this procedure. The debarking procedure is a simple, short (less than 5 minute) procedure in which a small notch is made in the vocal cord of the dog. The result is a softened bark. It does not eliminate the dog’s ability to vocalize (the term devocalization is a misnomer). Other dogs still respond as normal to the softened bark. The procedure is performed with pain relief during the procedure and to go home, and dogs rapidly recover and return to normal within an hour after the procedure. Rumors that it is done through the neck or with anything but a small surgical instrument are simply sowing controversy. This procedure has saved many dogs from euthanasia, rehoming, placement in a shelter or being subjected to “training” with collars that give the dog an electric shock every time it barks. Nuisance barking that is recalcitrant to any and all training methods can also be very disruptive to neighbors and result in people having to leave their homes or be evicted due to neighbor complaints. People with Traumatic Brain Injuries also often struggle with full volume barking and may have to rehome beloved companions and even service animals that could have remained with a softened bark. This procedure is never done lightly, amd is done very infrequently. The professional judgement of the veterinarian in charge of each case should be relied upon to make the decision on whether to bark soften. Painting every case with the same brush is folly, as it is for any medical procedure. I would request that you consider amending this bill to contain language that allows the procedure to be performed at the discretion of the veterinarian, in circumstances where training has failed or become inhumane. If the vote is delayed, I would be happy to discuss with any or all members of the committee in more detail. Again I appreciate your time, and careful consideration of your vote on this bill.

Members of the Agriculture committee, I appreciate your consideration of my comments. I am scheduled in back to back surgeries this morning at my practice and am unable to attend in person. I’m hoping to provide some clarity on the debarking procedure described in this bill and dispel some misinformation regarding this procedure. The debarking procedure is a simple, short (less than 5 minute) procedure in which a small notch is made in the vocal cord of the dog. The result is a softened bark. It does not eliminate the dog’s ability to vocalize (the term devocalization is a misnomer). Other dogs still respond as normal to the softened bark. The procedure is performed with pain relief during the procedure and to go home, and dogs rapidly recover and return to normal within an hour after the procedure. Rumors that it is done through the neck or with anything but a small surgical instrument are simply sowing controversy. This procedure has saved many dogs from euthanasia, rehoming, placement in a shelter or being subjected to “training” with collars that give the dog an electric shock every time it barks. Nuisance barking that is recalcitrant to any and all training methods can also be very disruptive to neighbors and result in people having to leave their homes or be evicted due to neighbor complaints. People with Traumatic Brain Injuries also often struggle with full volume barking and may have to rehome beloved companions and even service animals that could have remained with a softened bark. This procedure is never done lightly, amd is done very infrequently. The professional judgement of the veterinarian in charge of each case should be relied upon to make the decision on whether to bark soften. Painting every case with the same brush is folly, as it is for any medical procedure. I would request that you consider amending this bill to contain language that allows the procedure to be performed at the discretion of the veterinarian, in circumstances where training has failed or become inhumane. If the vote is delayed, I would be happy to discuss with any or all members of the committee in more detail. Again I appreciate your time, and careful consideration of your vote on this bill.

Good morning, My name is Nancy Fisk, I speak to you today on behalf of the dedicated dog owners and fanciers whose Kennel Clubs are represented by the Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders, of which I am President. I stand opposed to S B 707, “Devocalization of Dogs, a prohibition.” The term Devocalization is misleading because when correctly performed by a veterinarian, the procedure does not devocalize dogs, but instead “Bark Softens” them. They continue to bark, however the noise level is reduced from a sharp, piercing sound. The dogs remain happy, healthy and able to bark as they had prior to the surgery, simply barking in a reduced, less piercing tone. The surgery is done only after attempts at behavior modification have failed. When done it often keeps well-loved pets in their homes . Many breeds, particularly herding breeds, are hardwired to bark because the behavior is part of jobs they were bred to do for centuries. This instinctive behavior is stronger in some dogs. and simply cannot be trained or condition out of them. Many owners of Collies and shelties, among other breeds, would have no recourse but to surrender or euthanize dogs that cause constant neighbor complaints, in spite of training attempts. These owners love their dogs and want to keep them in their homes but often find it impossible to do so. Dogs surrendered to shelters have difficulty finding new homes due to their persistent barking. The actual procedure is simple, nearly pain free and bloodless. It is done under injectable anesthesia , the surgery is performed orally by removing a small amount of tissue from the vocal folds with a biopsy tool, or often by laser. This tissue removal reduces the noise causing vibrations. Pain meds and sedatives are given for a few days for comfort, and to prevent any slight risk of scaring. The procedure takes less than ten minutes, with dogs recovering quickly. In fact, neutering and spaying are far more invasive and painful surgeries that people are encouraged to do to keep their pets safely in today’s environment. Please vote NO on SB 707, Allow Virginia’s concerned dog owners to make personal decisions in the best interest of their dogs, together with the advice of their veterinarian Do not demonize well trained Virginia veterinarians for helping these dogs/owners. Please Vote NO on SB707 Nancy Fisk, President. Virginia Federation of Dog Clubs and Breeders nancybfisk@aol.com