Opponents tell Ohio House panel proposed wolfdog rules would punish owners, urge inspections of fur farms

Opponents of House Bill 676 told the Ohio House Agriculture Committee on March 30 that the bill’s breed-specific rules for wolfdogs would unfairly penalize responsible owners and would not have prevented the abuses uncovered at an Ashtabula fur and urine farm.

"This bill is concerning because it is discriminating against wolfdogs without merit," Susan Vogt, president of the Red Riding Hood Rescue Project in Middletown, told the committee. Vogt said her sanctuary, a USDA-licensed wolfdog rescue, had taken three wolfdogs from the Ashtabula site and described severe injuries and neglect she witnessed there.

Vogt and other witnesses said the public-safety and welfare problem in Ashtabula was the operator and the lack of inspections, not the animals. "The only danger to the community was Gutman, the fur farmer, and the disease and health risks on his uninspected property," Vogt said, arguing the committee should require inspections of propagation permits and set welfare standards for farms rather than impose breed-based prohibitions on pet owners.

Lawrence County dog warden John DeBoerde told the panel he had not seen a wolfdog-related fatality in the data he could find and contrasted that with higher bite and fatality figures attributed to pit bulls. DeBoerde said local licensing currently treats wolfdogs as canines and questioned why the bill singles out wolf hybrids for additional fees, containment requirements and liability mandates.

David Baldock, a long-time wolfdog owner who addressed the committee later, listed provisions he said are in the bill or would likely be enforced under it — including an additional $100 annual tag, a reported $100,000 liability-insurance requirement, microchipping, strict confinement standards (fenced pens with tops or permanent enclosures), signage on property, notification requirements, and possible muzzling in public. Baldock said many of those measures would be costly, potentially unenforceable and could force owners to relinquish animals to rescue networks that lack capacity.

Committee members pressed witnesses on specific claims and data sources. Vice Chair Newman noted a chart submitted from dogbite.org showing national statistics and asked whether comparable Ohio-only figures exist; witnesses said they were not aware of a similar state dataset. Representative Brent raised a concern cited in testimony that the bill could create a lien on property and asked witnesses what that would mean for ordinary owners and for property-tax-sensitive households.

Witnesses repeatedly urged the committee to focus legislation on regulating and inspecting fur and urine farms and on raising oversight for operators, rather than making owners of wolf hybrids bear significant new costs and penalties. "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," Vogt said.

The committee concluded the third hearing with no vote on House Bill 676. Members thanked witnesses for testimony and indicated follow-ups on clarifying language and data could be requested before any further action.