|
TESTIMONY OF ROBERT FISK, JR.
President & Director of Maine Friends of Animals
IN SUPPORT OF L.D. 599 “An Act To Protect Household Pets and Other Small Animals from Poisoning.”
COMMITTEE ON NATURAL RESOURCES
March 8, 2005
Senator Cowger, Representative Koffman and distinguished members of the
committee. I am Robert Fisk, Jr., President and director of Maine
Friends of Animals. We are Maine’s largest animal protection group, and
our mission is to promote the humane treatment of animals
thougheducation, advocacy and legislation. We are very pleased that
Rep.
Glynn and his wife Lori have submitted this legislation, which we
strongly support.
Each year, by some estimates, about 10,000 dogs and cats are victims of
accidental poisoning by automobile antifreeze. Death of pets that could
have been prevented. As you have heard these coolants are
extremely toxic and its sweet taste make it a lethal combination even
with very small amounts ingested. I have included with my testimony an
article about how one person set in motion the passage of this
legislation in California. Her puppy’s slow and agonizing death became
the impetus for her to have a bill submitted that simply added a
bittering agent that would prevent this needless family tragedy from
happening to others.
So often when human interests meet the well being of animals, the
animal loses out. This is a situation in which needless animal
suffering and deaths can be prevented with a minimal amount of cost and
effort by human beings. Adding a bittering agent would cost the
manufacturer only 2 or 3 cents per gallon.
The bittering agent is already being produced and has been used for
some time as an aversive agent for a wide variety of products, such as
putting it on cables that mice might otherwise chew into. The agent
denatonium benzoate also has no adverse effect on the automotive
cooling system.
Representatives from the manufacturers of the antifreeze will argue
there is a liability associated with the environmental fate of the
bittering agent, but counter to industry claims the agent is safe for
the environment. They may also point to current federal legislation to
do the same thing, but we all know how long it takes to get federal
legislation passed. The truth is this legislation can be implemented
with a minimum of inconvenience and cost.
I would suggest that the manufacturers could create some positive PR by
doing the right thing. It certainly cannot hurt to be perceived as
animal-friendly to all those millions who dearly love their pets. I
would suggest a little notice on the antifreeze container saying
something like it is “pet safe” similar to tuna processors with their
‘dolphin safe” label. Isn’t that product good will worth two cents a
gallon?!
This is a rather rare situation in which needless animal suffering and
death can be prevented with a minimal effort on behalf of a
manufacturer. We urge the committee to vote ‘out to pass’ on L.D.
599. |
