March 25, 2026 · Agriculture Committee · 5,583 words · 13 speakers · 55 segments
If you'd please stand, Rep. Newman will lead us in prayer, followed by the pledge by Ranking Member Miller.
Let's pray. Father, today again, we come before you acknowledging that all that we do, all of our words, all of our thoughts, our actions, and our desires, are before you and are seen. Lord, I pray that you would help us to live with a clear conscience before you, to honor you in all that we do and to do our best to honor the state and the people of Ohio. Lord, today as we hear the information from these witnesses and consider the business before this committee, we pray for your help that we will do that honorably, with wisdom and with goodness in our hearts toward you and toward our neighbors. In all this we pray in the name of Jesus.
Amen. Amen. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
Thank you. Will the clerk please call the roll?
Chair Klofenstein, here. Vice Chair Newman, here. Ranked member Miller?
Present.
Representative Barhorse?
Present.
Representative Brent?
Representative Cockley?
Here.
Representative Dean?
Representative Heiner?
Representative Moore is excused.
Representative Mullins?
Here.
Representative Peterson?
Yes.
Representative Schmidt?
Representative Sims?
Here. Mr. Chairman Quorum is present.
We have a quorum. I'll proceed as a full committee. the minutes from the last meeting are on your iPads. Please review them. Are there any objections, corrections to the minutes? Without objection, the minutes are approved. We will continue as a full committee. I now call House Bill 406 for its first hearing. I recognize
Vice Chair Newman for a motion. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion to amend with substitute Bill 1580-1.
The sub-bill is in order. Will you explain the sub-bill?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. This sub-bill comes from the bill sponsors and adds clarity to the definition of raw milk and raw milk products and who is permitted to sell it under the bill.
Are there any objections to the sub-bill? Hearing none, the sub-bill is accepted and And this will conclude the first hearing of House Bill 406. I now call House Bill 676 for its third hearing for opponent testimony. We have Susan Vogt for opponent testimony. Please come forward. Thank you. Welcome to committee and proceed when you're ready.
First of all, thank you very much for giving me this opportunity to speak to you. My name is Susan Vogt. I am the president of the Red Riding Hood Rescue Project in Middletown, Ohio. We're a USDA-licensed wolf dog sanctuary. I come to you as an expert on wolf dogs. I'm here to oppose this bill. I was in Ashtabula on the fur and urine farm. I was there because we rescued three of the animals from that so-called fur farm. To stand among those animals in that horrific place was the saddest thing I've ever witnessed. I'm here to be a voice of reason, and I'm here to tell you about wolf dogs. But first, I want to tell you why we're here today. discussing this. It's not because we have a wolf dog problem. It's not because wolf dogs are causing incidents. They're not in the news and they're not running at large. We're here because a fur farmer in Ashtabula, Ohio, happened to have wolf dogs as part of his animal stock. He ran his business, licensed by the state, for over 50 years without a single inspection. So we're here not because wolf dogs are dangerous. We're here because of one guy. So then, who are wolf dogs? They're wonderful, intelligent, very clever dogs, dogs by law. They're silly. They have really big feelings, really big emotions, jealousy. They have a sense of self. They will plot and plan to steal your tools and run away with it and laugh as you try and get them back. But they're not dangerous. They are neophobic animals. So that means they're fearful animals. What that means is that they will run from perceived danger. They won't stalk you or chase you. So I'm just trying to set the stage for what's really happening here. We rescued three animals, three wolf dogs from this fur farm. They were known only as C114A, C114B, and F19. I want to tell you about them because they're more than a number. C114A is a little smidge of a wolf dog with a broken tail from her confinement. She was shivering in fear underneath the protective body of her cage mate, C114B. He trembled in fear as well. He had whale eyes. He was frightened. And this was on the day of rescue. The Ashtabula dog wardens described C-114B as very sweet. He still is. He's not dangerous. F-19 was a wolf dog that was kept in the coyote section. I call it lobster cages. These are dogs in lobster cages, hanging suspended, wire-bottom cages. This guy collected the urine and sold it. So he kept them in these tiny hanging cages. That's why we're here. F19 was sick, injured, atrophied, and not expected to survive the night. He was in a cage so small he couldn't lie down all the way, nor could he sit up. He was hunched. He ended up coming home and rehabbing in my basement. That's how dangerous he was. He was in my care for three and a half weeks as I got him back to strength before going to our sanctuary. These aren't dangerous animals. These were victims of a fur farm that was licensed by the state. These animals are not a commodity. They are dogs. We renamed them Zoe, Sweet Zephyr, and Little Dante, and they're thriving. They're doing well. We just had our annual vetting Sunday. They're in a good place. But this bill is concerning because it is discriminating against wolf dogs without merit. I will support a legitimate bill that requires inspections of such facilities, a bill that would prevent the inhumane keeping of animals and spread of disease. I will support a bill that lays out standards of animal welfare for such facilities. But I will not stand by and watch this proposed bill single out the less than 11% of animals that were on that fur farm, the wolf dogs, and call them dangerous and lay discrimination laws on them. The only danger to the community was Gutman, the fur farmer, and the disease and health risks on his uninspected property. So again, why are we singling out the wolf dogs? As I mentioned, the fur farm wolf dogs made up less than 11% of the animals on this fur farm property. They were not dangerous. I'll tell you what they were. They were fearful. They were stressed. They were sick. They were injured. They were starved, and they were dying of cold. They were freezing to death. Ninety animals froze to death. They were trapped in small wire-bottom hanging baskets with no bedding, no protection from the elements, no proper diet, no vet care. They had a rusty coffee can of frozen water. They stared in fear and hopelessness those that were still alive. Our sanctuary entire mission is to educate the public on wolves and wolf dogs They neophobic they afraid they timid they shy Hollywood and fairy tales have villainized them for years and the last thing we need is a piece of legislation that does the same thing They aren't villains, they aren't dangerous. This bill is a distraction from the real issues that went on in Ashtabula a year ago. The fur farm wolf dogs were simply sad victims that had no protections, and they're a scapegoat today. I have another problem with this proposed bill. It is completely ignoring all the other animals that were on the fur farm property. 90% of the animals are being not talked about. The coyotes, the foxes, the wild boar, the mink, the skunk. So how this bill thinks it could prevent another ashtabula from happening when it's disregarding 90% of the animals that were on that property is beyond me. It's discrimination without merit, and it would not have prevented Ashtabula from happening. Again, we don't have a wolf dog problem. We had a fur farmer in Ashtabula who was also a breeder, and he included wolf dogs in his collection of animals. We had one bad egg, and he's gone. But this bill, if passed, could have consequences we aren't prepared for. Good owners may have to forfeit their loved dog based on unreasonable and unjustified regulations you proposed. I met a person today who is a dog owner here to speak. We just met today. You are labeling these dogs as dangerous and penalizing good owners. And that's not the solution here. One sanctuary, our sanctuary, and the other fellow Ohio sanctuaries can't pick up the pieces if these dogs are forfeited. So what do we do with these beloved pets that now are being relinquished because of this proposed bill and the requirements being laid on them? Instead of punishing reasonable owners because of a fur farmer that ran a business with no inspections under a state license, how about we target the problem? Propagation permits should come with inspections. The dogs aren't the problem. So I'm here to ask that we focus on what happened in Ashtabula, prevent it from reoccurring, inspect properties that have propagation permits, and not get into discrimination. It's not warranted and it wouldn't solve the problem. So we can't support this bill and the lack of justification that comes with it. That's all I have, and I thank you for listening.
Well, we appreciate you being here today. And are there any questions from the committee for the witness? We appreciate it. Bob? Or Peterson?
Not a question, if you'll allow. but I would say that the best farm dog we had was a wolf dog we didn't know it at the time but it was one of the employees dogs but he was exactly as you described sweet, kind, playful I have chased him for tools unsuccessfully you have to wait until he wants to give him back to you he was the best groundhog dog we ever had thank you for sharing that that was my experience also thank you for sharing that
any additional questions we appreciate you being here today thank you very much next up for opponent testimony we have John the board
thank you all for letting me be here I come here as John the board I am with the owner of Southern Ohio Sanctuary I also come to you as the Lawrence County Dog Warden for Lawrence County. As Susan said, these are great animals. And I want to touch on the other parts of things. We're here about a wolf dog law that they want to pass that's trying to make the wolf dog look worse than what it is with invoking these new things for dog tags, being $100 and $100,000 with liability insurance, enclosures that they want to enforce. But here we are looking at a statistic from 2005 to 2025. I don't know if you all got a copy of it when I sent it in. But the pit bull is known for 66% of the bite rate to people and fatalities. But here we are discussing wolf dogs. Pit bulls are still allowed to be service dogs. They don't have to be muzzled. They don't have to be chained. But yet, just the 20th of this month, a law was put into play called the Avery Law, where a pit bull attacked a girl named Avery Russell. As far as I know, in the state of Ohio and any state that is in the United States, there has never been a law that had to be invoked for a wolf dog in any fatalities. But yet we got the Avery Law in effect, where pit bulls have attacked a girl and invoked a law for Ohio. And like I said, there's no laws for that. But here we are talking about wolf dogs that have no regulations against the dog that has known to have, what is it, 300 and some fatality. And if you look at the graph, not a wolf dog bite one. There's no fatalities, no nothing in the chart showing that a wolf dog has ever hurt anything. But yet we're talking about wolf dogs and the restrictions that's being put on wolf dogs to private ownership. are wolf dogs being targeted when they have not had the fatality rate that any pit bull has had and still yet the pit bull can still be service dogs to be in front of people and up in their faces without any restrictions against them that's basically all I was going to touch on because Susan did touch on a lot of the other stuff but that's one of the things is why are we targeting an animal that has no bite rate like the pit bulls and the ruttwallers and other breeds out there that can still allow to be in the public eye that has the death rate that they do. But other than that, that's all I have for that. And I thank you all for your all's time because Susan did cover a lot of it for me that I was going to talk about. But that's what I was wanting to get across is mostly the bite rates and stuff that all the animals that are out there.
Thank you for being here today. Rep. Newman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for coming in to testify today. I appreciate the chart that you gave us. We do have that in front of us, and we can see the numbers you were pointing to. These are statistics from dogbites.org, and it looks like they're nationwide. Sir, are you aware of any organization or statistics like this kept on the state of Ohio that has similar numbers just for Ohio?
I haven't seen it before. This is the only thing we could ever find, was to go through the dogbite.org to keep it comfortable. I don't know if there is a specific state-by-state if they do it that way or if it's just one national database.
Just a quick question, and more in regards with you as a dog warden. Have you had any experience ever in the negative side with a wolf dog?
No, I have not. And even at that, I have only rescued one wolf dog from Lawrence County as a rescue. And as a dog warning down, 90% of our shelter is with pit bulls, and 95% of the calls we go out on is pit bull related, whether it be nice or aggressive. And most of the time it is a pit bull or pit bull mix that we're going out to retrieve. It's usually not just a regular mixed dog or a matthew, most of them would call them, but it's mostly pit bulls that we're going after.
Brett Bar-Hirsch. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, sir, for your testimony today. The wolf dog and the pit bull, I would assume that the same narrative is bad owners create bad pets, right, and bad dogs. And I know the pit bull is much more susceptible to that with just its natural protective demeanor. So is that a fair assessment that bad owners have bad pets and sometimes that pet is the victim because of basically like an upbringing, like a child would be?
Yes. I'd say you could have bad owners as well. But I'm looking at the statistics of, you know, one, the bite rate, whether provoked or unprovoked, is at, you know, whatever it was for them, was it 390 deaths in a 16-year span? This is doing both provoked and unprovoked bites. Thank you.
Rep. Sims?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your testimony today. You asked the question I guess rhetorically a couple of times regarding why the wolf dog is being targeted quote Why do you think that the wolf dog may be targeted
That's what I was trying to find out from why it is being targeted. I don't see nothing wrong with the wolf dog itself. Even as a rescue, a dead rescue in them, like Susan said, they're mostly fearful and they're sweet-loving animals. So that's what I'm trying to get. because I don't see nothing bad about the wolf dog itself, and that's what I was trying to find. Why is all of a sudden with the Asher Beulah case, all of a sudden the wolf dog is being targeted? So, you know, as a whole, why is it being targeted? I don't see where it needs to be targeted because I don't see nothing in the statistics or even as me rescuing them and as a dog warden where there is an issue with the wolf dog itself. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Representative Brent.
Thank you for the chairman. To the witness, thank you for coming in before. I'm assuming this is your first time providing testimony at the Statehouse. Very proud of you. Thank you. You did a great job. So with all of that, tell us a little bit more on what would be the burden on if this bill is implemented for the everyday person.
What I'm looking at, I'll do it as a saying from a dog-warning standpoint. So if this bill was to pass and it was to go into effect and put the birding on the owners having the $100 tag, the $100,000 insurance, and then they have to give up their animals, do we have enough animal rescues such as mine and Susan's? Do we have enough animal control places to put these dogs whenever these people start to give up their animals because they can no longer take care of them? And what is going to be the recourse if, you know, all this happens? How are we going to find all this to take care of these dogs? We're going to have a ton of euthanasia going on, not only for probably the wolf dog, but most all the other dogs, too, just to be making room for these dogs coming in. Follow-up?
Thank you, Chairman. From the chairman to the witness, you know, we're one of the biggest topics that's coming up for all of us state reps and state senators is property tax. This bill, if I remember, actually puts a lien. Correct me if I'm right, LSE. It puts a lien, a tax lien on the person. It's like why she gets that. So with this and we're just everybody's concerned about property tax. I want to keep my house like everybody else wants to keep their house. What is that going to look like? How are you processing all of that? I want to make sure I'm saying this right. This could be our backdoor way of really just taking people out of their homes. What are your thoughts on this being an actual tax lien on somebody for having this particular breed of hybrid of dogs?
To me, raising the tags on the dogs, some of the people may be in a, how would you say, a lower poverty part, but they could afford their dog with the way it is now. But when you start trying to force in more than $100,000 worth of insurance, you're looking at probably, what, $350, $400 more on a year for your insurance, if not more. And then you've got a pit bull that doesn't even have to have that, and here it's done invoked another law for the dangers of that dog. But yet we're going to penalize this dog that doesn't have nothing, So regardless of what the taxes are on the property or not on the property, we're invoking something on something. I guess you would say I kind of look at it as just infringing on somebody's rights or whatever to have an animal and then just telling them they have to do it. Just like within some of this bill, we have the part where it says in the house. It tells me that more or less we have to be married in order for me to have a wolf dog in the home to somebody because if it's in the home, then it's got to go to another room. But yet the pet bull that has the worst fatalities to people doesn't have to have none of that. And he could be in a room, but he could potentially bite or hurt, and he doesn't have to go through the same thing. Regardless of the property taxes or no property taxes, the wolf dog is still being singled out to have to have all these regulations put against it instead of like the other ones that are more dangerous than what this one is.
We appreciate your testimony today. Thank you. Next up for opponent testimony is David Baldock. Welcome to committee. And you can proceed when you're ready.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I own Wolf Dog. Hopefully you watched the Winter Olympics, and there was a clip during the end where they showed Nazgul, the Czechoslovakian wolf dog. He had gotten loose and ran behind the cross-country skiers right down the lane and crossed the finish line. And they showed pictures of him being petted at the finish line, being hugged. There was no danger from this escaped wolf dog of some neighbors. And then later on YouTube, they had an actual interview with the owners. and they said normally we live close to this trail and we take him down there and watch the skiers but it was Olympic so we left him in the house or wherever they kept him and he got loose and he was just looking for us and as they showed the pictures of this interview they showed this wolf dog rubbing up against the legs of its owner jumped up on its hind legs licking the face of its owner you can tell just as the lady from the rescue said how sweet and wonderful these dogs are. I've owned a number of wolf dogs for the last 40 years, and they are intelligent, loving, loyal, nurturing, fun, as you mentioned a couple of times. They will steal your hat or your gloves, and companionable. So it is not automatically dangerous. apparently House Bill 676 is being driven by the fairy tales of the big bad wolf and little red dragon hood's grandmother and the three little pigs getting their house blown down but that's fairy tales, that is not true any dog breed can have a vicious or dangerous individual and can cause problems and as he said the pit bulls, bulldogs Frenchies, Terriers, Huskies, Malamutes, catalogs, they can all be at one time or another have an incident that causes them to be in the news. It's brought on by mistreatment, improper care, or may in some cases be genetics of that individual. and as he mentioned the Avery Law has taken effect in Ohio and it strengthens the regulations against vicious dogs and dangerous dogs and the law specifically says it's based on behavior not breed and to a point maybe the pit bull should be targeted but this sound and sensible approach on Avery's Law is based on the behavior of the dog, not the breed of the dog. And as has been stated before, I believe that the House Bill 676 is a gross injustice to caring and responsible owners of wolf hybrids. Saddling these owners, including me, with over 20 regulations, ranging from the extra fees and the almost ridiculous containment rules, is just not appropriate. And the most distressing part, as Sue mentioned, is that targeting pet owners in no way fixes the problems that have occurred in Ashtabuda County. And the facts that you've heard or may not about that incident, wolf urine sells for $200 a gallon. So it's a valuable commodity. Wolf pelts are for $1,000 a piece. and there is also markets for fox urine, coyote urine, bobcat, bear, raccoons. Not sure what the skunks were there for, but maybe they have a market too. This operator at one time held the commercial license from the ODNR for wild animal propagation. Cost $40. And as mentioned, no inspections, no oversight, no even requirements to allow inspections. And it makes, as was mentioned, no mention of the other animals that were abused at the Astabula location. The foxes the coyotes the skunks raccoons possums wild boars and perhaps a bear I don know for sure about that one This bill comes veiled as an agricultural regulation and I don know why but it just about a small group of pet owners not engaged in any agricultural production. I own 160 acres of cropland and at one time milked Jersey cows. No farmer wants PETA or the Humane Society or other groups telling them what they can and cannot do on their property. But on the other hand, when the animal suffering is so great, how can citizens or politicians not address those issues? But they should not address them by going after an entirely different group of people. That's missing the target by a long shot. The House bill has no provisions to address, regulate, improve the animal welfare on fur and urine farms in Ohio. In fact, it was mentioned previously in testimony that we don't even know how many of these farms exist in Ohio. That question was asked with no answer. Or how many of them have 400-plus animals like the farm in Ashtabula did? Or have conditions under such deplorable conditions that were found there? One would hope that those numbers would help drive the appropriate legislation and not this knee-jerk attack on wolf hybrid owners. And just to be clear, what this bill does to the owners of wolf hybrids, not including the penalties for not following it, there is a $100 annual fee plus the local dog license, evidence of neutering or spaying, visible signs on the property, warning of danger. A, it's false, and B, that's probably inviting hunters and other people to approach that farm. So those signs would be a disaster. Microchips, that's always a good idea. Notification of any address changes, tags on the collar at all times or you're in violation, notices of transfers of ownership and notice of bad behaviors, answering questions about chasing, biting, aggression towards animals. Most of my hybrids do not like cats, So I don't know if that would be on there or not. And is that unique to wolf dogs to go after cats? Confinement at all times and lock pens with tops. A very expensive undertaking. Fenced yards with tops. Notify all house guests there is a hybrid inside with no possible contact with that guest. That's an invasion of privacy, amongst other things. off-preferences on a chain-linked tether, not more than six foot. When I use a leash on my dog, it's a 28-foot expandable one, and we get along just fine. They don't need a chain. There's a statement in there that says muzzle that wolf dog. And the liability insurance with companies that insures wolf dogs. I don't know if there's any such companies that exist that specifically state that they will insure wolf dogs. I have liability insurance on my farm, and it does say I am a dog owner, and I pay some premium for that, but I don't even know if they would even address owning a wolf dog. Liability plus, that's, as stated, currently wolf dogs are considered canines, regular dogs. That's why they're licensed locally. notify if the hybrid is loose or unconfined me and my dog go out twice daily on a mile hike around the back 40 every day twice I've got to call somebody and say we're going for a hike no, notify of all bites notify if the animal attacks another animal does that include woodchucks because like he said he does like to go after the woodchucks and I appreciate that notify vets or trainers one long time ago a long story about taking my hybrids to obedience classes but the short story is the dogs passed, the owners failed so the other rule about surgically debarking I would think that's a good rule but wolf dogs don't usually bark they communicate with wolves with quiet communication rarely if they're barking there is a real problem, but that's not a symptom of a wolf dog. I'd also like to point out that this bill seems to be somewhat unenforceable due to the lack of definition of a wolf dog. As a farmer, we spend a lot of time learning breeding specifics. Crossing cattle to obtain better genetics is usually about the percentage. How much percent Angus do you want over Simitol, Jersey over Brown Swiss, Beefalo, my aunt used to raise, is a cross between buffalo and any beef breed, and there are certain percentages that qualify them to be registered as beefalo, and it gets complex as you cross a wolf dog with another dog or a wolf dog with a wolf. You get high percentage hybrids, you get low percentage hybrids. which ones are considered a wolf dog and which ones would fall under this bill. It doesn't really state it in clear terms. Is it 50%? My first wolf dog was 50%, and you would think it was a dog, and she was one of the sweetest animals. She would even hide a kitten under her belly and get it inside if she wanted to. 25%, 12%, 3%, what is a wolf dog? In today's world, there's even DNA testing on animals that can determine the percentage of ancestries, but none of that has been addressed. In conclusion, I believe this and hope that this committee would send this bill to the back of the line and look for actions that would be more likely to prevent future misuse of the agricultural umbrella on fur and urine farms, even if only to address the extent of the problems or increase the fees for such farms to determine the scope or potential of these issues. Please do not destroy the companionships of so many of us and our very sentient, loyal pals, our wolf dog. Thank you.
Thanks for being here today. Are there any questions from the committee? Yes.
Representative Brent. Thank you, Chairman. From the Chairman to the Witness, thank you for coming and providing us testimony today when it comes to this. This is, when we did Avery's Law, it was in the Public Safety Committee, which I sit on currently now for my eighth year. And now I've been sitting here on agriculture now for eight years. So I've been talking a lot about a lot of dogs. The only time I like to talk about dogs is Cleveland Browns. But I digress. One thing we learned about in the Avery's Law is that our dangerous animals are going to have to have the $100 fee. And now this bill is going to add additional $100 fee. My pockets feel broke. My pockets feel broke. I'm feeling real broke. And I'm trying to get a better understanding because my colleague was just telling me about looking at a dog. I can't tell the difference when you look at these mixed breed dogs on what is what. you probably know better than me, how would somebody even know that this is even this type of dog off of looking at it or determination, and how often could we misdetermine what type of dogs they are? Because you can't always really just tell by looking at them.
Absolutely. You cannot tell what's a F1 in a low-percentage dog. They have characteristics. They could look like a German Shepherd. They could look like their parent, cattle dog, whatever, or they could look like a wolf. And people would just say, oh, that's the one. And it could be a low percentage. So it is absolutely difficult to tell by looking what is the wolf.
One quick follow-up for you, Chairman. Thank you. I don't know. I've just only had a miniature pincher. may she rest in peace, my little five pound things of love. But as a previous dog owner, I would not know how could somebody determine and make sure that we're not entrapping thousands of innocent dogs across our state with this type of legislation. Because I just really would not know, and I want to help some of my colleagues who just told me that they were planning on buying dogs and make sure that we wouldn't fall into this too. I don't know. I didn't think we could. Thank you, Chairman.
It appears there's no further questions. We appreciate your testimony today.
Thank you.
Thank you. This concludes the third hearing of House Bill 676, and with no further business before the committee, we are hereby adjourned.