IN THE NEWS
|
Midwest states tackling humane issue; Ohio vote next By Lisa M. Keefe 10/9/09 | |||
|
|
FEDERAL
HR3501 – The Happy Act - Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (“HAPPY”) Act
Title: To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses. Sponsor: Rep. McCotter, Thaddeus G. (introduced 7/31/2009) Cosponsors(1) Latest Major Action: 7/31/2009 Referred to House committee. Status: Referred to the House Committee on Ways and Means.
The Library of Congress link here.
A BILL
To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction for pet care expenses.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Humanity and Pets Partnered Through the Years (HAPPY) Act'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) According to the 2007-2008 National Pet Owners Survey, 63 percent of United States households own a pet.
(2) The Human-Animal Bond has been shown to have positive effects upon people's emotional and physical well-being.
SEC. 3. DEDUCTION FOR PET CARE EXPENSES.
(a) In General- Part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to additional itemized deductions for individuals) is amended by redesignating section 224 as section 225 and by inserting after section 223 the following new section:
`SEC. 224. PET CARE EXPENSES.
`(a) Allowance of Deduction- In the case of an individual, there shall be allowed as a deduction for the taxable year an amount equal to the qualified pet care expenses of the taxpayer during the taxable year for any qualified pet of the taxpayer.
`(b) Maximum Deduction- The amount allowable as a deduction under subsection (a) to the taxpayer for any taxable year shall not exceed $3,500.
`(c) Qualified Pet Care Expenses- For purposes of this section, the term `qualified pet care expenses' means amounts paid in connection with providing care (including veterinary care) for a qualified pet other than any expense in connection with the acquisition of the qualified pet.
`(d) Qualified Pet- For purposes of this section--
`(1) QUALIFIED PET- The term `qualified pet' means a legally owned, domesticated, live animal.
`(2) EXCEPTIONS- Such term does not include any animal--
`(A) used for research or owned or utilized in conjunction with a trade or business, or
`(B) with respect to which the taxpayer has claimed a deduction under section 162 or 213 in any of the preceding 3 taxable years.'.
(b) Clerical Amendment- The table of sections for part VII of subchapter B of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by striking the last item and inserting the following new items:
`Sec. 224. Pet care expenses.
`Sec. 225. Cross reference.'.
(c) Effective Date- The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2009.
A bill making the rounds on Capitol Hill marries two feel-good propositions — tax cuts and pet ownership — to generate a novel idea: A tax break of up to $3,500 per person for pet care expenses. The measure is a legislative long shot. But it’s been championed by a veteran Hollywood tough guy and by a conservative Michigan congressman [Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-Mich], and has drawn the enthusiastic support of animal rights groups eager to promote pet ownership during economic down times. … The tax break would apply to more exotic pets as well, so long as they’re being owned within the bounds of the law. Any “legally owned, domesticated, live animal” would qualify, under the terms of the bill. According to the ASPCA, a cat costs about $670 a year on average to take care of, while dogs are about $200 a year more expensive. The tax break would be capped at $3,500 per person, regardless of how many animals a taxpayer owned. Davi, the owner of four dogs and a cat, said the concept of using the tax code to promote pet ownership occurred to him a few months ago, in thinking about the stimulus package passed by Democrats in Congress — a package, he said, that he opposed. Davi’s cousin runs a prominent California animal rescue foundation, D.E.L.T.A. Rescue, and is always looking for ideas that would get more pets adopted, he said. Why not let people deduct expenses like pet food and veterinarian bills from their taxes, like child care expenses or mortgage interest can help reduce your tax burden?
S1709 – HR3519 - (10/21/09)- The Senate version of the Veterinarian Services Investment Act was introduced Sept. 24 by Democrat Debbie Stabenow of Michigan with support from Republican John Thune of South Dakota and the backing of a bipartisan slate of 19 additional co-sponsors. The Senate bill (S. 1709) is the companion bill to H.R. 3519, which was brought before the House in July. Both bills would establish a competitive grants program to relieve the nation's veterinary shortages and support various related activities, including recruitment, retention, and continuing education programs for veterinarians and veterinary technicians. More than 90 organizations have endorsed the VSIA, including every state veterinary medical association, specialty boards, and farm groups. A few important differences exist between S. 1709 and H.R. 3519. In the Senate version, grant recipients are required to match federal funds with 25 percent of in-kind support, whereas the House bill mandates a higher rate of 50 percent."A lower funding threshold, especially in times when budgets are so tight, is really necessary," said Gina Luke, an assistant director of the AVMA Governmental Relations Division. The AVMA has played a key role in getting VSIA introduced in Congress. In addition, S. 1709 includes language directing the Agriculture secretary to promulgate regulations implementing the grant program within one year of enactment. The House bill does not. And finally, the titles of the bills vary slightly: H.R. 3519 is the Veterinarian Services Investment Act while S. 1709 is the Veterinary Services Investment Act. The AVMA prefers the latter title. Neither bill specifies a dollar amount, only "such sums as necessary" to fulfill the objectives outlined in the legislation. S. 1709 was referred to the Committee on Agriculture. H.R. 3519 has been under consideration by the House Agriculture Committee since July. H.R. 3519 has 30 bipartisan co-sponsors. The day the Senate bill was introduced, Rep. Adrian Smith of Nebraska spoke on the House floor about why the VSIA is needed to ease the national shortage of food animal veterinarians. The AVMA's Gina Luke said the Association has a strategy to get the VSIA passed in the current 111th Congress, and it includes a vibrant grassroots campaign involving AVMA members. Go to http://thomas.loc.gov/to see who's supporting the bill. Type in the bill number and select co-sponsors. Also visit the AVMA-CAN Government Action Center on the AVMA Web site (www.avma.org) by clicking on "Get Involved" in the Advocacy section. For more information about the bill, contact Gina Luke at the GRD at (800) 321-1473, Ext. 3204, or at gluke@avma.org.
(10/22/09)- It started with Tuesday but passed on a Thursday. U.S. Sen. Al Franken’s first piece of legislation -- to create a pilot program to get disabled military veterans about 200 service dogs and study the impact -- passed the Senate today as part of the 2010 defense authorization bill. The defense bill now awaits President Obama's signature. Franken, long a dog lover, said he was inspired to offer the bill after he met Luis Carlos Montalvan and his dog, Tuesday, at President Obama's inauguration in January. (More on his story here.) The measure seems a near perfect first piece of legislation for the newly-minted Franken. It involved dogs (sweet), veterans (honorable), is relatively cheap (about $5 million in the $680.2 billion bill) and had Republican co-sponsors in the House and Senate (bipartisan.) Perhaps the only thing that would have made it more perfect would have been had the measure mandated the dogs be trained by 4Hers (farmers and kids!) The bill won't get dogs to all veterans who await them, nor will it supplant the work non-profits do to fund dogs for vets. Instead, it will deliver dogs to about 200 veterans who will be enrolled in a multi-year study to determine the cost and benefits of the companion animals.
ARIZONA
City of Holbrook – (10/14/09) - The City of Holbrook’s animal ordinances have recently undergone some changes that went to the city council for approval on Oct. 13. If those changes are approved, there will be more rigid requirements for pet owners. But, as of Oct. 1, a new state statute has gone into effect that is expected to motivate pet owners to keep a tighter rein on their animals. According to an amendment to the Arizona Revised Statute that relates to dogs and cats, the owners of pets picked up by animal control officers will face stiffer fines and could find their pet spayed or neutered without their permission. In every instance where a pet is impounded there is a fee associated with its release. City ordinance states that for the first impound the cost is $20; the second is $50, the third is $80; the fourth $160 and for each impoundment after that the fees will double. In addition to those fees, the state statute prohibits animal control from releasing a pet to its owner if it has been at large unless one of the following applies: the dog has a current license; the dog or cat has been already spayed or neutered and implanted with a microchip for the purpose of identification at the pet owner’s expense; or if the condition of the animal hinders spay or neutering. In that instance, the surgery will be postponed until the animal is deemed able to be spayed or neutered. Otherwise, an animal that is picked up and isn’t already spayed or neutered, will be surgically altered before it is released, regardless of what the owner would want to have done. In addition, the owner will also be paying the bill for the surgery. “Basically, if the animal is not licensed it will be treated as a stray and even if the owner claims the pet it will be treated like a new adoption,” stated officer Merrill Young, with the Holbrook Animal Control. For an unlicensed animal that is not already altered, the cost to a pet owner for retrieving that pet will cost quite a bit more than a pet already licensed. There is a $20 impound fee, $5 license fee, $10 vaccination fee and a $50 surgical fee; a total of $85 to have a pet back that is now spayed or neutered whether the owner wanted the surgery or not. On top of those fees is a $5 daily maintenance fee for each day that the dog is housed in the shelter. “The maintenance fee will not be charged for people who try to claim a pet on Sunday when we’re closed and not for the time from when the animal is claimed and when the surgery is scheduled,” explained Young, adding that the animal must be kept at the shelter until after the surgery. UPDATE: (10/16/09) - The Holbrook City Council received its copy of the revised animal control ordinances for first reading at Tuesday’s council meeting. Overall, the changes were viewed as positive, though some concerns were addressed by the council. “I have a concern regarding section 3-5-12. I’m just wondering why this was added,” asked Vice Mayor Matt Searles. The section he referred to governs the housing of horses and other livestock. The ordinance states the corral area for horses and livestock must be not less than 40 feet from all lot lines and 20 feet from any residence. The housing of rabbits and fowl must not be less than 20 feet from all lot lines. “My wife raises rabbits, and I don’t see why I can’t have their hutches next to my home or property line. If I’m obeying all the other ordinances already in place regarding smell, noise and cleanliness, why should I, being a good pet owner, be punished by putting my pens where I choose on my property?” asked Searles. “This is already an existing city ordinance. It’s just been relocated to be a part of the animal control ordinances,” stated Animal Control Officer Merrill Young. Councilman Kent Darris noted that under horse enclosures it states that there shall be a minimum of 100 square feet of corral or barn area for each horse on subject lot. “That's a very small area for a horse, just 10 feet by 10 feet, I think a minimum should be higher,” stated Darris. City Clerk Cher Milage located a city ordinance stating a minimum area should be no less than 400 square feet, and Young agreed that the ordinance minimum could be brought up to the city requirements.
Other changes presented in the animal control ordinance includes a change defining an “at large” animal.
The definition of an appropriate vaccination was clarified to state that rabies vaccinations must be state certified, with the new addition stating that a licensed veterinarian must administer rabies vaccinations.
Under section 3-5-3 regarding public nuisance, the additions include that an animal may not urinate or defecate on private property of others without immediate removal of any animal waste by the owner.
Section 3-5-4 regarding public nuisance was removed. It stated that any animal (except cats) with the city shall be kept in a pen, corral, pasture or similar enclosure to prevent roaming at large; and that no such animal shall be kept within 50 feet of any occupied structures, which are not occupied by the owner.
An addition to ordinance 3-5-5 regarding disturbing the peace states that any persons keeping or maintaining any animal within the city limits shall maintain that property so that any animal waste does not emit strong odors or cause a public health hazard.
An addition to 3-6-2 states that an impounded dog will not be released until a rabies vaccination is administered and paid for by the owner.
Copies of the document presented to council may be requested at the city offices, located at 465 First Ave.
Douglas – (10/21/09) - The city moved closer to final resolution concerning the amendment to the City Code concerning ownership and care of dogs and cats during tits meeting on Wednesday October 14. During the meeting, City Attorney Juan Pablo Flores presented the proposed changes to the existing ordinance. Those changes include:
• Doing away with the two-dog limit per owner.
• Doing away with references to kennels.
• Put more responsibility on the owner of the animals to make sure it has proper care including food, water and shelter.
• Increase potential fines to $150 to a maximum of $500.
• Give the owner of an impounded dog up to seven days of notice to claim the animal.
Final reading of the amendment will take place during the November meeting.
ARKANSAS
Cabot – (10/21/09) - After more than a year of trying, Cabot finally has a new animal-control ordinance.
The ordinance, which limits the number of dogs and cats per household to four in any combination, was approved unanimously Monday night by the seven council members present. The vote for the emergency clause, which makes the law effective immediately instead of in 30 days, was 6-1. Adermen made four changes in the draft of the ordinance before they voted to approve it. The draft limited the number of dogs and cats to eight. Alderman Ann Gillham asked for the reduction in number and two other changes. She asked that the age before pets are counted to be extended from 12 weeks to 16 weeks and prospective foster homes for unwanted pets exclude rental houses. Alderman Ed Long asked for the emergency clause to be included. Long is chairman of the committee that has dealt with proposed changes to animal-control laws in Cabot. A year of working on the ordinance is long enough, he said. In response to questions from other council members, Long said leaving the emergency clause off would change nothing. The previous ordinance limited the number of dogs per household to four and there was no limit on cats. Residents with more than four dogs now are already in violation of city law, he said. And since there was no law limiting cats, residents would be allowed to keep the ones they have now even if their total number of dogs and cats is more than four. However, grandfathering applies only to those animals in homes as pets now. If they die, they can’t be replaced if replacing them makes the number of dogs and cats exceed four. In addition to limiting the number of dogs and cats to four per household, the ordinance bans selling or giving away animals in parking lots, parks, flea markets or any other outside area.
The ban does not apply to humane societies, animal control agencies or nonprofit agencies sponsoring pet adoptions that have obtained approval from the head of Cabot Animal Control. The ordinance includes a $30 fee for relinquishing unwanted pets. The fee is reduced to $15 for residents taking care of strays who provide a current newspaper clipping to show they have tried to find the owner. The new ordinance continues the ban on pit bulls and says it is unlawful to harbor a public nuisance animal which includes the following:
Any animal repeatedly found running at large. Any dog or cat unleashed in a public park or recreation area.
Any dog or cat that damages, soils, defiles or defecates on any property other than its owner’s.
Any animal that fouls the air with offensive odors.
Any animal that attacks without provocation anyone in a public right-of-way.
Any animal in heat that is not confined to prevent the attraction of other animals.
Any animal that chases cars.
Any feral cat colony that is not vaccinated and sterilized.
Barking dogs that disturb the neighbors.
Fayetteville - (10/25/09) - Quieting a barking dog can sometimes be a handful. Keeping 80 dogs quiet could be near impossible. That's why a proposal to construct a 6,250-square-foot building to house a doggie day care service to accommodate up to 80 dogs is raising concern among neighboring residents and businesses. At issue is the construction of the Barking Bed and Breakfast on a roughly 2-acre site on Old Farmington Road near Interstate 540. The development is next door to the Value Place Hotel, offices and duplexes on Greenpoint Trace and an undeveloped wooded hillside. Residents and hotel operators have voiced concern the sound of 80 barking dogs could get annoying. Up to 25 dogs could be allowed in the fenced-in outdoor yard area at one time. The commissioners tabled the request for a conditional-use permit because they believed more information was needed before a decision could be reached. The city has a noise ordinance that doesn't allow noise above a certain decibel reading. However, since barking is almost never a constant sound, it isn't measured that way, said Kit Williams, Fayetteville city attorney. When it comes to dogs the measurement becomes more of a question of "nuisance," said Andrew Garner, a senior planner with the Fayetteville Planning Division.
CALIFORNIA
(10/31/09) - The next couple of weeks will be busy for those interested in the issue of cat declawing in California. Several cities are weighing proposals that would ban declawing or affirm opposition to the practice within their city limits.
· The city of Los Angeles' public safety committee will look at the issue Monday at its 9:30 a.m. meeting.
· On Tuesday afternoon, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors will consider an ordinance that would prohibit onychectomy (declawing) and flexor tendonectomy procedures on cats except when necessary for a therapeutic purpose.
· The Beverly Hills City Council is slated to discuss a ban on nontherapeutic animal declawing at its meeting Thursday night.
· The Malibu City Council will consider a resolution opposing cat declawing in the city at its Nov. 9 meeting.
· On Nov. 10, the Santa Monica City Council is expected to have a second reading of a measure that would ban onychectomy and tendonectomy except for the medical necessity of the cat.
The issue has gained urgency because of a pending California law that gives the state authority over medical scope-of-practice issues and prevents cities and counties from passing ordinances banning medical procedures starting Jan. 1.
(10/11/09) - AB241 & AB243 VETOED BY THE GOVERNOR !!
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 241 without my signature.
This measure would make it a crime for any person or entity to own or control more than
50 unsterilized adult dogs or cats for breeding or raising for sale as pets. I support
measures designed to prevent animal cruelty and that punish persons engaged in the
abuse of animals. However, this measure simply goes too far in an attempt to address the serious problem of puppy mills. An arbitrary cap on the number of animals any entity
can possess throughout the state will not end unlawful, inhumane breeding practices.
Instead this measure has the potential to criminalize the lawful activities of reputable
breeders, pet stores, kennels, and charitable organizations engaged in raising service and assistance dogs.
For these reasons, I am unable to sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
To the Members of the California State Assembly:
I am returning Assembly Bill 243 without my signature.
This bill would require a judge to make an order prohibiting a person convicted of specified animal-related crimes from owning, possessing, or caring for any animals for a minimum period of time. This measure is unnecessary. Judges already have the discretion to enter an order forbidding persons from caring for animals if it’s warranted.
Making this order mandatory could unjustly impact individuals who make a living working with or caring for animals. Consequently, I am unable to sign this bill.
Sincerely,
Arnold Schwarzenegger
On the other hand:
(10/16/09) - In a time when politicians are looking to cut everything they can -- from budgets to costly programs -- one thing remains sacred: cow tails. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed a bill this week banning the painful practice of tail docking that he once mocked as being a waste of legislators' time.
Schwarzenegger's spokesman Aaron McLear said the governor has a record of supporting animal welfare legislation, including upping penalties in 2006 and 2009 for dog fighting, and in 2005 banning the sale of puppies under eight weeks old. "In the summer, when the governor made the comments, he was saying the legislature ought not be having hearings on cow tails but ought to be focused on a solution to our budget." "We never said we didn't like the bills," he said.
(10/25/09) - The business of wills and trusts for animals is a rapidly growing area of law in California and the nation, experts said. At least one Riverside County woman has turned it into a business, offering, for a fee, a home for pets that outlive their owners. A California law passed last year allows pet owners to set up legally binding trusts. These documents allow pet lovers to set aside money and specify how their animals will be cared for, right down to scheduling every feeding and trip to the park. Currently, 39 states have enacted pet trust laws, according to Michigan State University College of Law's Animal Legal and Historical Center. The new trend marks the first area of law that treats animals -- in this case, domestic pets -- as "legal persons," said David Favre, law professor editor of the Animal Legal and Historical Center. A person can leave money for the care of a pet, but a dog or cat can't actually inherit property. Not that people haven't tried. NAME OF LAW: SB 685 SIGNED: 2008 WHAT IT DOES: Allows Californians planning for their deaths to set up legally enforceable trusts for their pets. Previously, the law allowed only honorary trusts for pets.
Auburn – (10/25/09) - Should the city ban pitbulls or put restrictions on their owners? It’s a question Auburn City councilman Kevin Hanley has put forward to city staff. In a recent memo, Hanley asks city manager Bob Richardson and Police Chief Valerie Harris to consider a pitbull ordinance to be placed on a future city agenda. In the memo, Hanley suggests two ideas: one is to ban pitbulls and other fighting breed dogs from city limits. The other idea is to put certain restrictions on those types of dogs and list them on a dangerous dog registry. Some possible restrictions could be fence height and enclosure rules those owners would need to make sure were in place on their property. Also, Hanley thought limiting owners to one pitbull or fighting breed dog per household could be effective. Hanley requested that a proposed ordinance be placed on a future city council meeting agenda for discussion among members and the public. UPDATE: (10/29/09) - A report on how the city could handle animal problems may be a month away, but elected officials have already received plenty of feedback from the public. Auburn City Councilman Kevin Hanley has asked city staff to look at ways to address problems with fighting-breed dogs such as pitbulls. His possible proposals to either ban the breed completely from city limits or impose restrictions drew reaction from people on both sides of the issue. “I’ve received probably a dozen or more e-mails a day and a lot of cell phone calls,” Hanley said Wednesday. “I’ve been receiving a lot of phone calls from both residents concerned about pitbulls and what to do about them and lots of suggestions.” On Wednesday, Auburn City Manager Bob Richardson said the city attorney and police chief are taking the lead on compiling information for a report on what possible actions the city council can take regarding pets and their owners. He estimated that the report would be before the council in about a month. Councilman Bill Kirby said he thinks it’s a good time to take a look at the city’s current laws and whether they can be improved. Hanley added that over the course of e-mail and phone conversations he has learned that state law prohibits Auburn from outright banning a breed from the city. He said the law outlines that cities can only enact ordinances related to mandatory spay-and-neuter breeding requirements.
Beaumont – (10/19/09) – The Beaumont City Council is scheduled to adopt an ordinance that makes spaying and neutering pets mandatory when it meets Tuesday night. The council approved the first reading of the ordinance two weeks ago. The ordinance states, in part, that no person "shall own, keep, or habor an unaltered dog or cat." Under the ordinance, owners or custodians of unaltered dogs or cats must provide a certificate of sterility or obtain an unaltered dog or cat license. The meeting is at 6 p.m. at the Beaumont Civic Center, 550 East Sixth St. UPDATE: (10/23/09) - Beaumont’s city council approved the mandatory microchipping, Neutering and spaying of animals Tuesday, but not before hearing several people — mainly out-of-towners — criticize the pending decision. Domestic animals that are found at-large and transported to a shelter will now be required to have a identification microchip implanted if
an owner wishes to retrieve them.
Escondido – (10/14/09) - The city of Escondido is attempting to change a law that may affect the hundreds of pets currently in shelters. Nearly 600 animals at the Escondido Humane Society need to be adopted. In good times, shelter officials said there are only 300 animals available. "Other cities allow more pets than we do. The county certainly allows more pets than we do, said Escondido City Councilwoman Olga Diaz. The city currently allows people in apartments or smaller homes to have one cat or dog, while homes on bigger lots can have two pets. Under a proposal from Diaz, people in bigger lots -- at least 10,000 square feet -- would be able to adopt a third animal. Properties bigger than 20,000 square feet could adopt a fourth pet -- but that only affects 25 percent of Escondido residents. "That seems a reasonable accommodation for those people who have a couple animals to get a couple more," said Costello. Opponents of the proposal disagree, and many fear it could lead to an increase in stray animals and complaints from neighbors. "More dogs that means more noise and more complaints," said Escondido City Councilman Sam Abed. The Humane Society said that would not happen because all of their pets are spayed or neutered and they try to find responsible pet owners. "We hope that anyone has it in their heart and is able is able to take in another dog or cat at this time. It would be great," said Costello. If the ordinance passes, it will go into effect immediately.
Kern County – (10/23/09) – Kern County Animal Control is proposing sweeping new restrictions. The Issue - Kern County Animal Control will be holding a series of public workshops to address revisions to the Kern County Ordinance Code relating to Animal Control regulations. Workshops have been planned in six different towns throughout the county. Amendments to the code include new definitions, licensing and fee requirements, animal care requirements and penalties. The Impact - Two ordinances have been proposed in Kern County to amend animal control regulations and to establish licensing and permit fees. Proposed amendments state that "no person shall own, operate, conduct or maintain in the unincorporated area of the county, a commercial animal facility, a non-commercial animal facility or rescue/sanctuary without first having obtained a permit as prescribed by the director of animal control". A "commercial animal facility" is defined as "any person who engages in the business of boarding, breeding, buying, letting for hire, training for a fee, or selling dogs or cats." In order to obtain a permit, facilities must apply with the Department of Animal Control and provide how many dogs/cats are kept at the facility. The amendments also propose that the department may have the right to inspect facilities at any time. A list of animal care requirements have also been offered for consideration including food and shelter standards, pet store and grooming facility obligations as well as veterinarian care requirements. (Click here to see full list of proposed requirements). Other areas to be revised include penalties for permit/fee violators, adoptions and impoundments, animals creating a nuisance and pubic education programs. A separate ordinance proposal has been made to address licensing and fees. The proposal includes licensing fees for altered/unaltered dogs and cats, commercial animal facility permits, impoundment fees and adoption fees. License fees for owning an unaltered dog range from $75 to $195. Also, commercial animal facility permits range from $50 to $125 depending on the number of altered animals a facility maintains. The fee triples if more than one-third of a facilities dogs or cats are unaltered. Please see the fee/permit proposal for more details. For more information, please visit www.co.kern.ca.us/acd, or contact Guy Shaw, Director, at (661) 868-7102. If you have any further questions please feel free to contact PIJAC's Michael Maddox at (202) 452-1525 or via email at michael@pijac.org
Kingsburg – (10/20/09) - It will be more expensive to license your dog or get a parking ticket in Kingsburg after the Kingsburg City Council approved raising the fees Oct. 7. The council upped licensing non spayed and neutered dogs from $8 a year to $25 and parking tickets go up $3 per ticket. The increase in dog license fees is to encourage people to spay or neuter their dogs, said Ashlee Winslow, Kingsburg community services coordinator. Dogs that are spayed are neutered are free to license. The increase is also for the city to recoup some of the costs associated with picking up stray dogs like maintaining the city kennel and trying to locate the dog's owner. The cost for senior citizens to license unaltered dogs will be $15.
Lake Elisnore – (10/14/09) - Lake Elsinore residents will now be allowed to let their dogs play without a leash at McVicker Canyon Park’s lower ball field under a new set of rules. City Council approved the new “off leash” dog rules Tuesday during a council meeting, amending the city’s Municipal Code, which required dogs to be on a leash within all city parks and facilities. The amendment now permits dogs in city parks when on a leash except in specially designated “off leash” areas at such times and in accordance with rules as posted. Owners are responsible for cleaning up and removing all droppings left by their animals. Off leash hours at McVicker Park are from dawn to 10:30 a.m. So far, McVicker Park is the only city park approved for off leash dog use. Lake Elsinore dog owners petitioned for “off leash” dog use during the council’s Sept. 22 meeting. Council agreed to a three month trial run. According to council reports, dog owners agreed to self-police and pick-up after their dogs under new rules in exchange for the off leash play area at McVicker Park. The council is investigating its options for building a permanent dog park in Lake Elsinore. Staff reports are expected by November. The new ordinance is effective immediately. City Council plans to evaluate the effectiveness of the new rules at McVicker Canyon Park, council reports said. View the city’s new rules and regulations.
Long Beach – (10/24/09) - Animal Care Service (ACS) manager John Keisler’s mission of making Long Beach the safest large city in the country for people and animals took a significant step toward actualization and accomplishment at Tuesday night’s Long Beach City Council meeting with a recommendation developed by 1st District Councilmember Lowenthal and her staff, and co-authored by Councilmembers Gary DeLong and Patrick O’Donnell. The recommendation, number 25 in the Departmental Communications section of the agenda, comprised four goals, which addressed decreasing the number of unwanted animals with active promotion of low-cost spay/neuter; reducing the number of impounded animals with a citywide licensing program that includes cats and other as yet unspecified animals; increasing the number of animals returned to their owners and reducing euthanasia of unclaimed animals through licensing and microchipping; and expanding education and volunteer training programs to support ACS’s goal and the city’s municipal code enforcement. Requiring a straying pet to be microchipped is an insurance policy to make sure that the pet is returned to his or her owner. Mandatory spay/neuter for cats over 4 months old is already in place in the municipal code (LBMC 6.16.085) and is key to reducing shelter overpopulation and abandoned and euthanized cats. Enforcement of the code and the new recommendations is what will help bring about the change, however, and there were some opinions about effectiveness of community outreach. Keisler described ramped-up efforts by his staff in controlling breeding, including “stings” on Pennysaver and Craig’s List ads. Cat licensing, Lowenthal said, was the issue that raised the most discussion and concern among residents as well as at least one councilmember. Vice Mayor Val Lerch stated his longstanding support of cat licensing. “Personally, I think that cat owners should be held to the same responsibility as dog owners,” Lowenthal said. Lowenthal also stated that the costs and enforcement will be discussed during the 60-day review, and Keisler added that ACS will work on projections for each of the programs that reflect costs and benefits in a reasonable manner. With regard to “other” animals referred to in the cat-licensing program, Keisler told the Pet Post that it would definitely not be house aquariums—a desperate fear expressed openly by Vice Mayor Lerch, who has been unsuccessful in finding little spiked collars that fit betas—but quite possibly horses. He said that horses have been found wandering in open areas, and once encountered one who had been burned in a barn fire. There was no identification on this or any of the other horses; they generally show up at the shelter. After discussion and comment, the recommendation passed unanimously, 9–0.
Los Angeles County – (10/23/09) – Los Angeles Zoning Changes to Hurt Kennels & Breeders. The most recent revision is to allow breeding of dogs by current kennel owners IF they apply for and get a conditional use permit within 5 years (approx. $8500 and a public hearing, not guaranteed to
happen) A huge thanks to Stormy Hope for all of the info ! The Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning has announced a public hearing on Wednesday, October 28th to discuss proposed zoning changes affecting kennels. It is vital that concerned breeders become involved with this process NOW! Once this proceeds to the Board of Supervisors it will be very hard to obtain modifications or to defeat the measure.
Regional Planning Department Meeting
Wednesday, October 28th
9am
320 West Temple Street
Room 1355
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Summary of the Proposed Changes - Policy Change
All boarding kennels with a breeding facility as an accessory use shall stop all breeding activities within five years of the effective date of the ordinance.
Definitions
"Boarding facility for dogs and cats" has the meaning set forth in
Section 10.08.065 of Title 10 (Animals) of the Los Angeles County Code.
(From Title 10) "Boarding facility" means an animal facility used for
the care and temporary boarding (including day care) of dogs and cats
and other animals normally kept as pets, in return for consideration,
not including an animal hospital which only boards animals receiving
medical treatment. (Ord. 2009-0043 § 2, 2009.)
"Breeding facility for dogs and cats" has the meaning set forth in
Section 10.08.070 of Title 10 (Animals) of the Los Angeles County
Code. Said definition shall only apply to the breeding of more of
than three dogs and five cats. (From Title 10) "Breeding facility" means an animal facility engaged in the business of breeding dogs and cats or other animals normally kept as pets for sale or exchange in return for consideration. (Ord. 2009-0043 § 3, 2009.)
Zoning Changes
M-1, M-1 and ½, M-2 and M-4 Zones – breeding facility for dogs and
cats and boarding facilities are added as a use requiring a
conditional use permit. (This could mean a heavy fee increase.)
Zone A-2 (Heavy Agricultural) and M1 (Light Manufacturing) – Boarding
facilities replaces kennels as a permitted use.
M-1 Zone – Dog breeding is deleted as a permitted use.
The staff report claims that Los Angeles County Animal Care and
Control has experienced a significant increase in the number of case
of overbreeding dogs at licensed kennels. The report states that the
county has had to seize hundreds of puppies and adult dogs due to
these conditions. It would be helpful to get the department to provide
documentation of these seizures as I am unaware of any news articles
about such events.
Further, we understand that the Department of Animal Care and Control
is developing new regulations and standards for kennels – possibly
including specific requirement for flooring, space etc. It is
imperative that breeders and kennel owners get involved in this process.
AKC legislative liaison Stormy Hope is coordinating breeders and
kennel owners to work on these issues. She can be reached atstormy435@aol.com
You can also contact the AKC Government Relations department at doglaw@akc.org
for copies of the proposed zoning changes.
Malibu – (10/12/09) - On October 12 the Malibu City Council voted against a motion for a citywide ban on cat declawing. CVMA President Dr. Mark Nunez and SCVMA President Dr. Timothy Metzger were among several CVMA members who took many hours out of their day to travel to Malibu and wait their turn to testify at the evening meeting. Dr. Lisa Newell and Dr. Dana DePerno of Malibu also spoke against a declaw ban, saying they perform laser declaw only as a last resort. "We are opposed to a ban on declawing," testified Dr. Nunez. "We do not want to see cats declawed routinely. We do believe that it is an option of last resort. We believe that this should be a decision between a cat owner and their veterinarian. The decision should be made by the professionals; it should not be made in the City Council chambers." Sharon Barovsky, Council Member and Mayor Pro Tem, challenged some of the points made by those proposing a declaw ban. Ms. Barovsky said she had done some research and that, although it had been asserted that many European countries banned declawing, in fact none of them did. She also wondered if veterinarians in favor of a declaw ban would prefer to euthanize a cat rather than declaw it.
Other Cities Considering Ordinances on Cat Declaw
City ordinances to ban cat declawing are being proposed in several other California cities, including Berkeley, Santa Monica, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.
In 2009, the CVMA sponsored SB 762, which becomes state law on January 1, 2010. It prohibits cities and counties from passing ordinances that ban medical procedures that are legal statewide. Now some cities and counties are trying to enact declaw bans before the January 1, 2010 deadline.
The CVMA believes that medical decisions should be made by clients in consultation with their veterinarian and is opposed to these ordinances. Veterinarians must be allowed to counsel their clients on all available medical treatments that are in the best interest of their patient. The unintended consequences of cat declaw bans will be cat relinquishment and euthanasia.
If your city or county is considering a ban on veterinary procedures, please contact the CVMA at 800-655-2862 or lgentner@cvma.net
CVMA Letter to the Santa Monica City Council
CVMA Position Statement and Fact Sheet on Cat Declawing
Marysville – (10/19/09) – Continental AirLines refuses to ship Pit Bull Puppy. News10 is working on a story brought to us by an upset woman who lives in Sacramento. Dawn tried to fly a pit bull puppy on Continental Airlines to a family in Tennessee. The puppy was rescued from the shelter in Marysville. But Continental Airlines has the following policy: Continental Airlines will accept American Pit Bull Terrier puppies which are between 8 weeks and 6 months of age provided they do not weigh more than 20 lb (9 kg). All American Pit Bull Terriers more than 6 months old or weighing more than 20lb (9 kg) will be refused. Crossbreeds with American Pit Bull Terriers are also excluded from this embargo. This embargo is due to the danger presented to our aircraft and our customers.
San Diego County – (10/29/09) - Pet owners who violate relatively minor animal-related laws in unincorporated San Diego County or in Department of Animal Services contract cities will soon be able to attend the pet owner version of traffic school rather than be assessed the full fine amount. A 5-0 San Diego County Board of Supervisors vote October 13 established the Responsible Pet Ownership program, along with an $80 fee for attendance, effective November 12. Successful completion of the program will give the prosecutor authority to reduce or eliminate fines and to remove a conviction from a violator’s record. The three-hour class would cover topics such as proper animal care, animal laws and pet ownership responsibilities. The program is expected to be conducted at least once a month at the county’s San Diego animal shelter on Gaines Street near the University of San Diego. The Department of Animal Services would provide certification of completion to the court or prosecutor as appropriate while eligibility for attendance would be determined by the prosecutor. Qualifying offenses include leash law violations, animals left unattended in cars and other minor neglect violations. The initial fee of $80 per attendee is expected to recover full costs for the program’s operation. The Department of Animal Services will review the fee annually and recommend adjustments to the Board of Supervisors as necessary to cover costs based on average class attendance and class costs.
San Francisco – (10/26/09) - The Board of Supervisors City Operations and Neighborhood Services Committee approved on Monday, legislation that would make it illegal to declaw cats in San Francisco. The full board is expected to vote to approve the ban next Tuesday, Nov. 3. Supervisor Ross Mirkarimi, who introduced the legislation, said that “we believe that there are a great number of reasons why that this should be banned” noting that the practice is “animal cruelty.” The ban was recommended by The City’s Animal Control and Welfare Commission. Declawing is illegal in 20 countries, including most of Europe, Brazil, Japan and Israel. In the United States, Norfolk, Virginia and West Hollywood have such bans. Los Angeles, Santa Monica, Berkeley and Beverly Hills may follow suit. Violators of the ban, such as any one who declaws or a pet owner who approves of the declawing, could face up to six months in jail or a fine of up to $1,000. The proposed ban would have to go into effect by the time a new state law does. A state bill approved by California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger would prohibit any city from enacting such a ban after Jan. 1, 2010. The California Veterinary Medical Association opposes San Francisco’s proposed ban. The group says declawing should be left up to veterinarians and not politicians. It also advocates for uniform statewide laws governing veterinarian practices.
San Jose – (10/26/09) - On the heels of a deadly freak accident, San Jose is exploring a law to make the city the first in California — and possibly the country — to address the issue of bicyclists riding with leashed dogs. Councilwoman Nancy Pyle is convening a meeting Wednesday night to gauge public opinion on whether the city should clamp down in some way to prevent what happened to Beverly Head on Sept. 16. The retired 62-year-old San Jose phlebotomist died after she hit her head when she got tangled up in a dog leash while walking along a popular South San Jose trail. The dog in question was one of two pets being pulled alongside a bicyclist. Urged by Head's grief-stricken husband, Pyle's office is studying whether the current laws regarding the safety of the city's trails are enough. Current code mandates that owners must keep their dogs "under control'' at all times, and kept on leashes of up to 20 feet in city parks. Whatever we do, we'll be breaking ground on this issue.''
Santa Barbara – (10/16/09) - MANDATORY SPAY-NEUTER IN SANTA BARBARA COUNTY
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS HEARING
Tuesday, November 3, 2009 9:30 A.M.
105 E. Anapamu Street Santa Barbara, CA, 4th Floor - Santa Barbara County’s Board of Supervisors will VOTE for/against passage of a mandatory spay-neuter ordinance on November 3. The proposed ordinance will be mandatory for all dogs 6 months of age or older.
Click the link for further information and contact info.
Santa Monica – (10/4/09) - On September 22, the Santa Monica City Council held a meeting to prepare an ordinance on the restriction of animal "declawing" or amputation of the toes of animals, with a request for the ordinance to take effect no later than December 31. Councilmember Gleam Davis said that declawing has been banned in other countries including England, Switzerland, Australia, Wales and Italy, and that there have not been any reports of negative impacts as a result of the restrictions. "So it seems to me that the mutilation of animals to perhaps make it easier for their adult owners is probably not something we want to promote in Santa Monica." Dr. Armaiti May introduced herself as a practicing veterinarian. She attended veterinary school at University of California Davis, where she was never taught how to perform the declaw procedure. May added that she is a member of the California Veterinary Medical Association and that the CVMA does not represent her interests or speak for her regarding this matter. "This is a money-making procedure that veterinarians are unfortunately continuing to perform, but there's no reason to perform it, and there are more humane alternatives," she concluded. Dr. Mark Nunez, president of the CVMA, which represents more than 6,000 veterinary professionals throughout California, described why he opposes the ban. "With current surgical techniques including laser surgery, and current pain management medication, this procedure is not as painful, and the outcomes are not as disastrous, as many of the proponents of this ban would have you believe...This procedure is considered to be a procedure of a last resort after other methods of behavioral training have failed. Veterinarians are not getting rich off of these procedures and veterinarians are not just adding it on to a routine spay or neuter procedure, like one would super-size a meal from McDonald's. The procedure should only be done in an effort to save a cat's life, because a cat in some situations may be sent to a shelter to be euthanized, if no other option is available." The council eventually voted to draft in an ordinance in order to ban declawing in the city, landing on a five-to-one vote. The ordinance is anticipated to be voted on by November. UPDATE: (10/30/09) - A controversial veterinary procedure to clip the claws of feline paws can no longer be performed in Santa Monica after the City Council voted on Tuesday to ban the practice that animal rights advocates have described as amputation. The ordinance, which will take effect 30 days after a second and final reading next month, will prohibit onychectomy — also known as declawing — and flexor tendonectomy from being performed on cats. With a 6-1 vote, the council passed the ordinance on first reading, which is when a public hearing is held. Councilman Richard Bloom was the lone dissenting vote, believing that while declawing should be discouraged, taking away the option would lead to a far worse outcome for the cat. "If those who state that the proposed ban would lead to the death of cats are correct then we will be complicit in that outcome," Bloom said.
His proposed amendment to the ordinance that declawing be allowed only to prevent abandonment, relinquishment and euthanization after veterinarians counsel pet owners on alternatives was shot down. Another amendment that prohibits licensed medical professionals to package declawing with other surgeries was also denied. Councilman Bobby Shriver, who did vote for the ban, supported the amendments. The ordinance comes just months before a new state law that would restrict cities from banning declawing goes into effect on Jan. 1. The only other California city with a ban is West Hollywood. The ban has been opposed by various veterinary professional groups, including the California Veterinary Medical Association.
Watsonville – (10/27/09) - Owning a vicious dog in Watsonville just got more expensive. Under new regulations, approved by the City Council on Tuesday, owners of vicious canines will be required to micro-chip their dogs, buy $100,000 of liability insurance and pay a premium for a pet license. Owners who don't follow the rules and whose dog injures a person or animal could be found guilty of a misdemeanor and land in jail for up to six month. The rules apply to potentially dangerous or vicious dogs. A potentially dangerous dog is defined under state law as those that attempt to bite or bites a person without provocation or seriously injures or kills another domestic animal. A vicious dog acts in an aggressive manner, inflicts severe injury or kills a human being without provocation. Dogs designated dangerous or vicious also will be required to wear a fluorescent collar, and be kept inside or in a secure yard. They may be required to wear a muzzle when in public. Owners also will be required to post warning signs on their properties in English and Spanish and notify in writing mail carriers, utility workers, public safety officers, landlords and others who might come into contact with the dog about the risk.
West Hollywood – (10/12/09) - In light of recent anti-puppy mill retailer protests in and around West Hollywood, council member Jeffrey Prang has been working with the Animal Legal Defense Fund and Companion Animal Protection Society (CAPS) to write a bill banning retailers from selling non-rescued animals. According to Mr. Prang, “We can set the tone for a national dialogue over the treatment of our companion animals - as we did for cat declawing - by setting a standard for their humane treatment in West Hollywood.” His proposed ordinance would ban the sale of any companion animal by a retailer unless 1) the retailer/seller is the breeder and is certified as a humane source for companion animals or 2) the animal can be certified as rescued. As the city found with its stringent controls on gun sales which drove the few gun retailers out of town, Mr. Prang pointed out that, “if you legislate it out of existence you can’t say anything about it.” Drafts of the legislation are currently being molded, so the shape of the final ordinance remains murky until advanced to council.
COLORADO
Denver – (10/11/09) - On Monday, an administrative judge ruled that Denver Animal Care and Control must remove the pit bull breed label from Kevin O'Connell's dog. O'Connell's attorney, Jennifer Edwards of The Animal Law Center, said the reversal could be a first step toward combating the controversial ordinance that bans pit bulls from Denver. "This ruling absolutely disqualifies Denver in having any expertise in breed determining," Edwards said. Breed determination, Edwards said, is the crux of the city's ability to enforce its ban on pit bulls.During a July business trip, O'Connell left Dexter with friends who live in Denver. Animal control was called to the residence on an unrelated incident and saw Dexter in the backyard. Officers suspected Dexter of being a pit bull and seized him. A few days later, the dog was subjected to a breed examination, during which he was found to have a majority of pit-bull characteristics.O'Connell challenged the finding. Animal Control director Doug Kelley said that this is not the first time a classification has been lifted and it is not uncommon for dog owners to contest exam results. "This is the example of why we have this process in place," Kelley said, "and this outcome only demonstrates that it is working." Once a confiscated dog is labeled a pit bull, it can no longer live in or visit Denver. Dogs in violation may be relocated or euthanized. The exam panel is made up of two animal-control officers and a veterinarian technician, each of whom completes an exam of the dog to determine its breed characteristics, Kelley said. Edwards, who presented testimony from American Kennel Club judges and professional dog handlers during the hearing, said the city's process is inadequate and called the examiners unqualified. She said this ruling could lead to more dog owners coming forward to challenge the results of exams. But Kelley said city dog examiners receive special training and field experience in determining a dog's breed based on its physical characteristics and traits.
Denver – (10/21/09) - A task force is changing the rules for dog breeders in Colorado in an effort to crack down on so-called puppy mills without changing the law. The HSUS has been fighting for tougher anti-puppy mill laws in Colorado, but a bill that would have limited the size of breeding facilities was shot down in a House committee this year, after breeders said it would put them out of business. The debate accomplished something, though, supporters said. Breeders later agreed to an increased licensing fee to pay for another investigator and it opened the door for the task force doing the rule review. The task force is made up of state regulators, breeders and animal rights activists, and it is revising rules for dog breeders line by line. Dog breeders were at the table, as well, as task force members discussed how large cages should be, how long dogs should be left in them and how often the dogs should be exercised. "The dog breeders play a big role in that. We want what's best for the dogs," said Carmen Rebord, a licensed dog breeder. The members also considered making the rules for cleaning, sanitation and tethering stricter. This is the task force's third meeting on the rules, and while the HSUS said some issues can be addressed through rule changes, others will have to be done through the law. Task force members hope to finish revising the rules by the end of the year so they would go into effect next year.
Lakewood – (10/21/09) - A task force is meeting to go over rules for dog breeders after Colorado lawmakers rejected legislation that would regulate the industry. Kate Anderson, administrator of the state’s Pet Animal Care Facilities Program, says the meeting today is looking at how to regulate issues like cage sizes without seeking new laws. She says the state can use its rule-making authority instead.
The House Agriculture Committee killed a bill last February that would have cracked down on puppy mills after opponents said the measure would have been tough to enforce and could hurt legitimate breeding facilities. House sponsor Beth McCann of Denver says she doesn’t plan to try again next year because she doesn’t believe a bill would pass.
CONNECTICUT
Milford – (10/21/09) - Some residents of a condominium complex in Milford, Conn., said that they are opposed to the opening of a new dog day care. The building sits close to a railroad track. On the other side of the tracks is a 30-unit condo complex and residents who live there do not want her moving her business into the area. Some of the residents said that the railroad tracks between the building and the complex don't offer enough room because of the noise the dogs would make. They also said that while they do live near train tracks, the noise is intermittent. The planning and zoning committee in Milford will discuss the matter on Tuesday night.
Wallingford – (10/9/09) - The Town Council will begin discussions on whether to grant the town's animal control officer more authority when it comes to clamping down on vicious or dangerous dogs, but the animal control officer said she doesn't need it. Vincent Testa, the council's Democratic vice chairman, has placed an item on the agenda for Tuesday's council meeting titled "discussion and possible action on whether to refer to the Ordinance Committee an ordinance regarding vicious pets." Testa said he placed the item on the agenda to start a dialogue on the matter - which could possibly lead to an ordinance being adopted or the council debating the matter and deeming to take no action - after a constituent approached him with a complaint that a dog the constituent owned was severely attacked by a neighbor's dog.
D.C., WASHINGTON
(10/7/09) - Congress on Thursday passed a 2010 agriculture appropriations bill that includes a provision establishing an inspection system that could allow China to export poultry to the United States again. USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service will be required to conduct audits and on-site reviews before certifying Chinese plants to ship poultry products to the United States. The U.S. meat industry has asked Congress to remove barriers to Chinese poultry imports to avoid potential retaliation by China on U.S. meat exports. National Turkey Federation President Joel Brandenberger called the bill a "milestone for all meat and poultry producers" given China's importance as an export market for many U.S. agricultural commodities. "The turkey industry is confident in USDA's ability to ensure the integrity of our food system through strong and effective regulation," Brandenberger said in a statement. The legislation, a compromise of versions passed in each chamber, now goes to President Barack Obama to be signed into law.
(10/9/09) - Ninety-five members of Congress this week urged Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to immediately provide further assistance to the ailing U.S. pork industry. USDA already has purchased about $180 million of pork products for federal food programs in fiscal 2009. The lawmakers request that USDA:
- Buy an additional $100 million of pork for various federal food programs, with emphasis on purchasing meat from sows in order to reduce breeding stock to reduce hog numbers.
- Work with federal agencies to address swine disease surveillance on farms, related diagnostic and vaccine development, and swine industry support.
- Work with the U.S. Trade Representative to open export markets to U.S. pork, particularly China.
Additionally, the lawmakers are asking Vilsack to continue to review other USDA programs for other possible opportunities for assistance to the pork industry. To view a copy of the House of Representatives letter, click here: click here. To view a copy of the Senate letter, click here.
DELAWARE
Dover – (10/21/09) - The General Assembly tackles plenty of thorny issues -- tax increases, spending cuts, gay rights -- but when lawmakers try to regulate dogs it can come back to bite them. Seemingly simple bills aimed at protecting dogs from mistreatment suddenly face criticism from unexpected quarters, while Delaware's upstate-downstate divide consigns other well-intended bills to the doghouse. Despite those difficulties, several legislators are determined to craft bills this session to protect man's best friend -- while not arousing the ire of the many different constituencies that care deeply about dogs. Rep. Melanie George Marshall, D-Bear and owner of a Lab-Great Dane mix named Freedom, is one of them. Concerned about puppy mills -- high-volume breeding operations with inhumane conditions -- Marshall introduced House Bill 95 to prohibit owning more than 25 breeding dogs at a time. But that bill, which also would limit female dogs to one litter per year and ban all but vets from cropping ears or tails, ran into problems almost immediately. Breeders opposed it. Kennel clubs opposed it. Veterinarians opposed it. The fact that it adopted recommendations from the Humane Society of the United States didn't help. The society, which operates no shelters but lobbies state and federal lawmakers on animal-rights issues ranging from egg farms to the fur trade, is viewed by some as a fringe organization. "The puppy mill bill, when we first introduced it, it did generate a lot of conversation," Marshall said. "We definitely had conversations with folks within the agricultural community, within the kennel community, within the veterinary community," Marshall said, adding that she "heard very loudly from all the various groups that they wanted to make sure they weren't being painted with a broad brush." According to its Web site, the Humane Society of the United States supports laws "designed to regulate, deter, and reduce companion animal breeding. ... The HSUS opposes the sale of dogs, cats, and other animals through pet stores and other commercial operations." Marshall acknowledged that some view the humane society as hostile to traditional notions of pet ownership, but she said she feels comfortable taking the society's advice.
Dog-related bills pending in the General Assembly:
• House Bill 2: Increases penalties for animal fighting and attendance at animal fights. In Senate Judiciary Committee.
• Senate Bill 21: Mandatory six-month prison term for animal fighting, possession of fighting animals and providing a premises for animal fighting. In Senate Judiciary Committee.
• House Bill 77: Makes it clear that courts can award custody of a pet to a petitioner for a protection-from-abuse order. In Senate Judiciary Committee.
• House Bill 78: Prohibits the sale of puppies less than 8 weeks old. In House Judiciary Committee.
• House Bill 95: Prohibits the possession of more than 25 breeding dogs at one time. In House Agriculture Committee.
• House Bill 278: Prohibits the sale of dogs and cats in open-air markets. In House Judiciary Committee.
• House Bill 293: Prohibits keeping a dog outside in extreme weather, also regulates tethering and enclosures. In House Housing and Community Affairs Committee.
FLORIDA
S122 - Relating to Sale of Dogs and Cats - Requires that additional information relating to the genetic disorders to which dogs and cats are susceptible be included in the written notice that
pet dealers provide to a consumer at the time of sale, etc. APPROPRIATION: $82,669.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 07/01/2010. 10/05/09 SENATE Filed
Marion County – (10/27/09) - Earlier this month, the Marion County Code Enforcement Board delivered the verdict that Patricia McBee had dreaded: It declared her collies Skye and Gracie, and her Australian shepherd puppy Frosty to be "dangerous dogs."Animal control officers confiscated the dogs in September after two eyewitnesses said they circled and nipped at China, a neighbor's dying cat. Board member Tom Gaver, who did not vote with the majority, said he didn't think this case was the kind the county ordinance was designed to address. Cases that come before the board often involve habitual offenders. There were no filed complaints against McBee's dogs until last month. "I don't know if I can make a fair decision," Gaver added after the Oct. 14 hearing. What is considered "fair" in regard to dangerous dog laws is being hotly contested these days - both locally, by McBee and her allies, and nationally by lawyers and advocacy groups. At issue is whether the burden of proof for declaring a dog dangerous is so low that normally docile pets are being lumped together with truly aggressive dogs. The local effort, at least, is getting some attention from government: Last week, County Commissioner Mike Amsden called for the dangerous dog ordinance to be revised. "I almost feel like it's a one " size fits all, and I don't think that it's necessarily appropriate that one size fits all because everyone has a little bit of a different set of circumstances," Amsden said. Commission Chairman Jim Payton said he agreed with Amsden's assessment and called for a workshop, conducted with the idea that there would be ‘some change" to the ordinance. But change might be coming, after all. Commissioner Amsden noted that the intent of the ordinance was to protect humans from dangerous dogs, but that it seemed increasingly that domestic animals, in which "natural instinct" likely governed their behavior, were being snared by the law. The commissioner suggested the board could draw from regulations enacted by other communities or national groups. "In fairness to the pet owners and to the pets, and to the victims and to the victims' pets, we should probably take a little bit broader look at it," Amsden said. Members of the Greater Ocala Dog Club will continue to discuss the county's dangerous dog ordinance. Their next meeting is at 7 p.m. Nov. 3 at the Gander Mountain store in Ocala.
Mary Esther – (10/24/09) - The circus is in town, but not everyone is happy to see it. The Animal Rights Foundation of Florida recently contacted Mary Esther City Attorney Bruce Bowman to ask the city to enforce its ordinance preventing circuses from forcing animals to perform by causing them pain. The Animal Rights Foundation’s complaint was sent directly to Bowman, who did not forward it on to anyone at City Hall. William Bradley with the city’s Code Enforcement Department said he had not received any complaints about animal abuse related to the circus. If the city does get a complaint, Bradley said it would be investigated by the Panhandle Animal Welfare Society, which contracts with the city on animal care needs. Renee Storey, vice president-administration of the Cole Bros. Circus, said the animals are not abused. Storey said Cole Bros. Circus, like other circuses, works closely with the U.S. Department of Agriculture to make sure its animals are not mistreated. The USDA is constantly updated on where the circus is traveling and can inspect operations at any time. Click here - To read a statement regarding the circus animal care policies and the Mary Esther ordinance regarding animal performances within city limits.
GEORGIA
Gainesville (10/24/09) - The Executive Director of what is now the Humane Society of Northeast Georgia in Gainesville says he would support a law requiring cat and dog owners to spay and neuter their pets. Rick Aiken says the Humane Society staff is now able to pursue their true mission, to keep animals as long as they are physically and mentally stable until they can find a home for them. The Humane Society no longer takes strays; that ended when the facility's contract with the county ended and the county shelter opened. Aiken said its time there’s a law requiring spay and neuter. "Until we wake up and pass ordinances and make people responsible for animals being allowed to breed, it will continue; I very much believe that if we're going to stop this problem, it is going to take requiring spaying and neutering or some type of licensing fee to get it spayed or neutered."
Madison County – (10/21/09) - Investigators still don't know exactly how a dog broke loose from its chain and attacked a 5-year-old boy inside a neighboring house Friday in Hull. Friday's mauling was the 43rd dog-on-human bite called in to Madison County officials this year. Madison County commissioners will discuss an amendment to local law Monday that would give the animal control officer the right to take dogs and euthanize them after one human attack. UPDATE: - (10/26/09) - A new amendment to the Madison County animal control ordinance will lessen the chances of dangerous dog attacks, officials say. Madison County commissioners agreed at their Monday meeting that they should add an amendment to the county animal ordinance to address dangerous dogs. The amendment will give the county's animal control officer the authority to impound dogs that attack and injure people. Georgia law gives owners 60 days to pen and get liability insurance for a dangerous dog or potentially dangerous dog - a dog that bites someone without being provoked. The new amendment will give the county power to impound the dog during that process. The law targets dogs that cause injuries that require medical attention, Youngblood said.
HAWAII
(10/28/09) - The state Department of Health is investigating citizens' complaints about feral cats at Kakaako Waterfront Park, but the problem is not limited to that Honolulu neighborhood and the public nuisance needs to be dealt with islandwide. The unfettered cats, and the malodorous urine and feces they leave behind, pose a potential health risk, make public parks less hospitable to people and present a tainted image to tourists who think of Hawaii as paradise. The investigation of the burgeoning feral cat population should not begin and end at Kakaako Waterfront Park.
IDAHO
Mountain Home – (10/4/09) - During a meeting Monday evening, the Mountain Home City Council proposed additional changes to the city's animal control ordinance, including restrictions on owning more than three pets in multiple family units. If signed into law, the revised ordinance may include eliminating pet turn-in fees at the city animal shelter while cutting annual licensing fees for cat owners.
Pocatello – (10/30/09) - A newly formed group that seeks to change the city's vicious dog ordinance plans to pack City Hall Wednesday during a special meeting being held by the Animal Shelter Advisory Board. The special meeting was called to take public comment on the issue. The advisory board plans to review the city ordinance that deals with vicious animals, and could recommend changes. The City Council, however, will have the final say on any proposed changes. Anderson encouraged members to also voice their concerns during Thursday's regular City Council meeting and keep the pressure on until the city agrees to change the ordinance. Among other things, the group wants to get rid of language in the ordinance that states dogs can be labeled vicious if they are in an "apparent or perceived" manner of attack, and to include a clause that requires dogs labeled as vicious to be assessed by a separate group not associated with Animal Control. They also want to change the part of the ordinance that says that after a second offense, animals labeled vicious "shall" be destroyed. They would like to change it to "may" be destroyed. Group members also agreed to ask the City Council to include the issue during one of its month study sessions. "This is an important issue that needs to be looked at in a study session," Anderson said. "Let it be known, these are just a few of the recommendations we have and additional recommendations we want to be presented to the City Council and advisory board during a study session." Anderson said a group called Portneuf Animal Welfare Society has formed in an effort to help animals and their owners. The group is trying to raise funds to do things like provide animal owners whose dogs have been labeled vicious with legal assistance, and purchase dog and cat food for animal owners who can't afford it. Any donations for the group can be sent to "Portneuf Animal Welfare Society, P.O. Box 1603, Pocatello, ID 83204."
ILLINOIS
(10/28/09) –FYI - From Congressman Mark Kirk, 10th District, Ilinois
Dear Friends,
Knowing of your continued interest in animal rights, I am writing to update
you on my work in Congress.
The Fur Products Labeling Act of 1951 requires manufacturers to label animal
fur garments with the name of species used, manufacturer and country of
origin. But a loophole in the law exempts labeling products that cost less
than $150.
The Humane Society recently discovered that fur from dogs killed in China
are used in clothing sold in the United States. Due to their low cost, no
disclosure of the dog fur is required by U.S. law. In my view, Americans
should have the right to know whether the clothing they purchase contains
animal fur - especially if the fur comes from dogs.
This week, I signed on as a cosponsor of H.R. 2480, the Truth in Fur
Labeling Act of 2009. This bipartisan legislation would eliminate the $150
loophole and require the disclosure of all fur products. The bill would
allow American consumers to make more informed purchases.
As a member of the Congressional Animal Protection Caucus and a recipient of
the Humane Society's Congressional Leader Award, I will continue to support
this legislation as it moves forward.
Thank you again for your continued interest in animal rights. Please feel
free to forward this email along to other interested constituents or share
it on your Facebook or MySpace page. As always, do not hesitate to contact
me at 847-940-0202 or via my Web site should issues of concern to you come
before the Congress.
Sincerely,
Mark Kirk
Member of Congress
Aurora – (10/8/09) - There was more barking than usual at Tuesday night's City Council committee meeting, as aldermen debated whether to move ahead with a $63,000 dog park on the East Side.The proposed park is part of an $800,000 renovation-in-progress at Phillips Park. Begun in 2007, the renovation will eventually include a skate park, a volleyball court, a splash pad and a walking path with exercise stations. The city is about halfway through the project, according to Rosario DeLeon, the city's chief operations officer, and has spent about $430,000 so far. But the renovation was planned before the economy took its biggest tumble, and now, with a looming $19 million deficit projected for the city next year, some aldermen are questioning whether to scale back the expensive project or put it off entirely. Alderman Rick Lawrence, 4th Ward, balked at the price, questioning why a dog park would be so expensive. Lawrence's West Side ward has a dog park, which he describes as "a fenced-in area with grass, and it works very well." Alderman Leroy Keith, 9th Ward, questioned whether the dog park should be built at all. However, he said, if the city doesn't complete that part of the project, it stands to lose the entire matching grant. The full City Council will consider the issue at its regular meeting on Oct. 13. M&M Peters Construction is owned by the brother of Alderman John "Whitey" Peters, and Peters plans to abstain from the vote.
Chicago – (10/6/09) - Owners of dogs making excessive noise that “unnecessarily disturbs” their human neighbors soon will face fines of between $50 and $250 a day under an ordinance Chicago aldermen approved without dissent today. Under the measure, which takes effect Nov. 17, the noise would have to occur continually for at least 10 minutes or intermittently for “a significant portion of the night.” It also would have to be louder than the average conversation at a distance of 100 feet or more. Police or animal control officials could make that determination, or three residents from different addresses could sign a complaint. Enforcement, however, is always key when the City Council approves such ordinances. Here's how the measure defines excessive noise: “repeated or habitual barking, whining, crying, howling (and) whimpering.” It's aimed at dogs but also would apply to any animal. Without such an ordinance, police and animal control workers have no authority to intervene when people make complaints about loud animals.
Elgin – (10/16/09) - At Wednesday's Elgin City Council meeting, about 30 people showed up to protest a proposed pit bull ban by the city council. Two councilmen, John Prigge and Bob Gilliam, have openly advocated a pit bull ban.
Hebron – (10/11/09) - Several dog owners, is concerned about a little-enforced, little-known zoning provision in Hebron that limits the number of dogs that can be owned to two per household. Any more than that is considered a kennel and cannot exist in a residential area. The issue again will be discussed by the Village Board at its Committee of the Whole meeting Monday. No vote will be taken, but the board likely will try to reach a consensus on the contentious issue. A vote is expected to be taken at the board’s Oct. 19 meeting. The dog ordinance discussion largely was triggered by Village Board member Susan Ritzert, who has a neighbor with four dogs. Ritzert has said that the dogs often barked, had been in her yard numerous times, and had trampled her garden. Ritzert has said that others in Hebron had similar complaints. One of the problems the Village Board is trying to resolve is a conflict in its own ordinances. Although Hebron’s zoning ordinance effectively limits dog ownership to two, the village also adopted the McHenry County Animal Control ordinance that does not limit dog ownership to a specific number. If Hebron officials decide to keep the limit to two and more vigorously enforce the requirement, it would be the most stringent in the county. Cary, Fox River Grove, Huntley, McCullom Lake and Wonder Lake all limit the number of dogs in a household to three. Johnsburg, Lake in the Hills, Marengo and Algonquin limit it to four. Alden, Bull Valley, Crystal Lake, Harvard, Island Lake, Lakemoor, McHenry, Richmond, Spring Grove and Woodstock have no limit. Village Trustee Jim Kastner has proposed that Hebron change its definition of a kennel in its zoning ordinance. Kastner suggested that Hebron classify a commercial kennel and a private kennel. A private kennel could be in a residential area but would need a special- use permit.
LaSalle County – (10/15/09) - The La Salle County Board's Animal Control Committee is ready to recommend the county join with most other local counties in establishing a split-fee system for dog registration fees. Under the proposal, the registration fee for dogs not spayed or neutered would be doubled. At its meeting Wednesday, the committee also reached agreement that the county should require all dogs also be microchipped to assist with owner identification. The committee plans to have the necessary ordinance drawn up and approved by the committee at its next meeting in time to be voted on at the full County Board meeting Friday, Nov. 20.
Park Ridge – (10/15/09) - The Park Ridge City Council held off on moving forward with new laws pertaining to "dangerous dogs" this week in order for suggestions from the Park Ridge Recreation and Park District, and possibly some residents, to be incorporated into the ordinance. The proposed ordinance does not ban or set regulations for specific dog breeds, and also prohibits residents from keeping dogs for the purpose of dog fighting. Removed from the ordinance was a definition that declared an animal dangerous if the unprovoked animal approached any person "in a vicious or terrorizing manner" or "in an apparent attitude of attack." Some residents expressed concerns at Monday night's council meeting about what actually constitutes a dangerous dog and what a "known propensity" really means. The City Council is expected to resume discussion of the dangerous-animals ordinance at a Committee of the Whole meeting scheduled for Nov. 9.
INDIANA
Bloomington – (10/26/09) - The Bloomington City Council approved a change the city's animal code Monday night. The new ordinance limits the number of cats and dogs a resident can own to 19. The legislature's fight in the last session over puppy mills inspired the campaign. The state's puppy mill bill said local governments could also regulate animals. But, the deadline is December 31. The proposed changes included guidelines for pet stores to reveal the history of the animals they sell, restrictions on how pets may be housed and a limit of 19 animals per household.
Elkhart – (10/6/09) - The City of Elkhart continues to weigh the pros and cons of a proposed ban on pit bulls. A special committee was formed to look into the issue and later make a recommendation to the City Council. That nine-person committee will get together Tuesday night to discuss the proposal. The committee includes people on both sides of the issue. As written, the original proposal would ban pit bulls within city limits, but grandfather in current pit bull owners provided they meet certain requirements like muzzling their dogs and getting $300,000 worth of insurance. Some committee members hope the ordinance will be changed so it doesn't single out one breed. The committee is scheduled to meet a total of four times and will give its recommendations to the City Council by November 1. A vote could come in mid-November. UPDATE: (10/25/09) - The ad hoc committee appointed to study and make recommendations to the Public Health & Safety Committee of the Common Council of the City of Elkhart for a new animal control ordinance will meet on Tuesday, October 27, 2009, at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, 229 S. Second Street, Elkhart. The meeting is open to the public, but no public comments will be heard. UPDATE: (10/28/09) - A new animal ordinance for Elkhart that started as a proposed ban on Pitbulls isn't ready to go yet. A committee of experts has been studying the issue for a month. The committee was originally scheduled to present new legislation to the city council early next week, but the nine-member commission needs more time. After four meetings, the group has made its way through two-thirds of a 30-page draft, including a section on licensing and restraining vicious and dangerous dogs. The committee plans to meet twice next week and hopes to have a draft of the ordinance ready for the public soon after those sessions. The group still hasn't discussed a possible ban of specific breeds, like Pitbulls.
Lafayette – (10/14/09) - Under a proposed amendment, citizens may be permitted to house additional pets if they are willing to pay for them. The Lafayette Animal Control Commission suggested Tuesday that the city's current ordinance, which limits the number of animals to three cats and three dogs per dwelling, be altered to allow people to purchase permits in order to own more pets. In September, the commission discussed a proposal that would increase the total number of pets to seven with a maximum of five dogs per home, but that proposal was reconsidered after receiving public comment. According to Laura Bartrom, chairwoman of the commission, an individual interested in getting a permit to have more pets would have to have his or her home inspected to ensure the animals would be properly taken care of.
She said the price of the permits would be decided after receiving feedback from local law enforcement agencies to determine the cost of each inspection."I think that is an excellent compromise," Bartrom said. "It was good to hear all of the sides of the debate." Lt. Chris Weaver of the Lafayette Police Department said once news of a possible limit increase got out, he got feedback from citizens that was overwhelmingly negative."
IOWA
Ft. Dodge – (10/4/09) - In Fort Dodge, the new Animal Control Ordinance Review Committee may discuss the possibility of banning the breed. But there appears to be no support for a pit bull ban among the candidates for mayor and City Council in this year’s election. Here, those candidates discuss their thoughts on the possibility of a pit bull ban.
MAYOR
Councilman Matt Bemrich: ”I would not want to ban the breed,” he said. ”My first instinct is that a responsible dog owner who has a pet that might be considered vicious because of its breed should not be penalized because their dog hasn’t done anything wrong.” ”My first instinct is to deal with the people that cause the problem,” he added.
Bemrich said he thinks the city should adopt a ”zero tolerance policy” regarding dogs running loose.
Councilwoman Cindy Litwiller: ”I think we need to look at ways to take additional precautions,” Litwiller said. ”I don’t think we need to go so far as to ban them.” The candidate said she believes the dogs should be muzzled while they are being walked. She added that pit bulls should be kept in fenced-in kennels in which the fence extends beneath the surface of the ground so that the dogs can’t dig their way out. Litwiller said she believes a liability insurance requirement for pit bull owners should be considered. She added that the city’s $2 fee for dog licenses needs to be reviewed.
COUNCIL AT-LARGE
Andy Fritz: ”I do not believe that a breed specific ban is the answer,” Fritz said. ”I think we’ve got the right laws in place.” He said he thinks the existing animal control laws need to be more vigorously enforced. He added that residents have a role to play in that enforcement by reporting problems like dogs running loose.
Eugene Newsome: Newsome owns a pit bull named Baby. ”She’s never, ever, ever attempted to show a hostile attitude toward anyone,” he said. Not surprisingly, Newsome is opposed to a pit bull ban. However, he said he would support a measure requiring pit bull owners to have liability insurance. ”I think that would calm some of the fears of the public,” he said.
Dennis O’Farrell: ”The way I see it, it’s not fair to ban the breed,” O’Farrell said. ”The fair way to handle it is to deal with each dog individually.” The candidate said he believes a dog’s training, handling and use is more important than its breed in determining if the animal will behave in a vicious way.
Robert ”Barney” Patterson: He is opposed to a ban on pit bulls. ”I really don’t think we should be singling out any one breed of dog,” he said.
COUNCIL, 2ND WARD
Rita Carlson: ”I believe we shouldn’t target one specific breed,” Carlson said. She said she thinks the existing animal control laws must be enforced.
Councilman Don Wilson: ”I would not support a total ban on pit bulls,” Wilson said. He said he believes any dog that bites a person should be confined to a kennel with walls at least six feet high.
COUNCIL, 3RD WARD
Margy Halverson-Collins: The candidate said she wants to wait until the Animal Control Ordinance Review Committee issues its recommendations before she offers an opinion on the issue. That committee will submit its report to the council by the end of December. She said that dog owners must accept responsibility for their animals.
Halverson-Collins said pit bulls ”are not a family dog.”
Richard Higgins: During a Sept. 21 City Council workshop on animal control laws, Higgins went to the podium and told the elected officials that he was in favor of a pit bull ban. He’s since changed his mind. ”I would not support banning pit bulls at this time until I have more information on this particular issue,” he said Wednesday. Higgins said if he’s elected he’ll try to raise dog license fees in order to generate money to hire a second animal control officer.
COUNCIL, 4TH WARD
Tom Hemann: ”I’m not in favor of a ban on pit bulls at this time,” he said. ”However, I feel that they should be contained in a manner that they would not be at risk of injuring any one person or animal. If it showed vicious traits than it should be banned on an individual basis.” Hemann said he’s not a fan of pit bulls. ”I feel they are intimidating because of their looks and bark and I wouldn’t trust their personality,” he said.
Kelly Hindman: Hindman opposes a pit bull ban. He said some of those dogs ”might be fine pets that don’t cause anybody any problems,” Hindman said he wants to see the recommendations of the Animal Control Ordinance Review Committee before he offers any suggestions.
Marshalltown – (10/11/09) - Recent changes to dog ordinances within the city of Marshalltown have some questioning what will become of their animal if it is caught roaming loose or happens to bite an unsuspecting person. Pertaining to a dog found at large - regardless of breed and wandering the neighborhood - a violation would mean its owner or keeper will face a first-offense fine of $25. The second offense would impose a $100 fine with mandatory spaying or neutering of the dog at the owner's expense. The animal will also have to be micro-chipped and its owner would have to acquire necessary insurance. A third offense would subsequently result in forfeiture of the animal to the Animal Rescue League. Though giving the canine to the ARL does not mean mandatory euthanasia. The animal would be subject to the same health and behavioral assessments in order to qualify for potential adoption, just as any other dog the organization receives. changes have been made to all animals that bite without provocation in order to further protect citizens and not release a potentially harmful threat back into the community. If a dog has a propensity to chase, snap or bite, it can be declared vicious and as a first offense will also be subject to mandatory spaying or neutering of the dog at the owner's expense, as well as an imposed fine of $100. The animal will have to be micro-chipped and its owner would have to acquire insurance on the animal. A second offense would result in ARL forfeiture. All ordinance revisions allow for appeals to be made toward the city in regard to violations.
Sioux City – (10/23/09) – Four candidates discuss taxes and dogs. When talking about Animal Control's new shelter, each mentioned the council's decision to ban pit bulls and redefine vicious dogs, which has generated controversy. "I'm not for banning breeds," Fitch stated. "I don't believe that's right. Next it will be German shepherds and then dobermans." Rappolt said, "The vicious dog ordinance is an issue that needs to be dealt with now and not wait for a court decision." He proposed formation of an ad hoc committee to make recommendations. At least a half dozen dog owners have taken their cases to court.Rixner countered, "I voted for it. I'll vote for it again." However, he said of the dog ordinance, "I'm willing to tweak it." Padgett added, "The larger issue is the irresponsible owners. ... We need to put more teeth in our laws dealing with owners." Candidate Keith Radig had to work and could not attend the forum.
KANSAS
Clay Center – (10/25/09) - Owning a dog or cat in Clay Center could get a whole lot more costly. Animal control officer Amy Taylor recommended to the City Council's Laws and Ordinances Committee to raise fees all around. Taylor recommended increasing dog tag fees from $1 for males and spayed females to $5 for dogs that have been fixed; and from $2 for unspayed females to $10 for dogs that aren't fixed. Taylor also wants to increase the impound fee, currently at $20 plus an additional $5 for an overnight stay. For those cases that go to court for nuisance violations, Taylor would like to see a stair stepping fine from $40 the first time, $60 for the second time, and $100 for the third time. City setting up to handle cats - Registration and nuisance violations will eventually be extended to cats. Taylor recommended the city change its ordinance to include cats in the maximum number of animals people are limited to have inside their home, which is currently a maximum of three dogs. The city ordinance does not allow people to keep poisonous, vicious animals, but there is currently no maximum on any other animal allowed by ordinance. A person can have as many parakeets, hamsters, cats, etc., provided they are kept them in a "sanitary" manner, Robinson said. Robinson said police can write tickets for cats, but don't have the ability to pick them up yet. Taylor also recommended the following changes in the animal control ordinance:
-- Referencing banned dogs by a list rather than explicitly in the ordinance. This would give animal control the flexibility to add breeds that may become a problem as they become a problem. Currently pit bulls and any mix of pit bulls are banned by city ordinance.
-- Requiring dogs be vaccinated for rabies "as the state recommends" rather than every two years. If the area has an unusually high number of rabies cases, the state may recommend yearly vaccinations instead of every other year.
-- Mandating that shelters for dogs kept outside in pens and on chains be big enough to house the dogs. Some people are getting around the animal cruelty ordinance by having shelter, buts its not large enough for the animal they're supposed to house, Taylor said.
-- Taylor said she'd like to not allow owners chain their dogs "because it is a hazard" but she is not recommending that at this time. Many people chain their dogs temporarily while putting them out to relieve themselves, she said.
-- Not allowing dogs/cats to be in vehicles for longer than 5 minutes if it's hotter than 80 degrees or colder than 30 degrees.
Prairie Village – (10/23/09) - Barking dogs in Prairie Village may find themselves being hauled away by police. The city just adopted an ordinance that will allow Animal Control officers to remove a dog from a fenced back yard if it is barking constantly and annoying neighbors. "What the ordinance allows us to do as a last resort, if we're not getting anywhere with the homeowners, it does allow us to go into the yard; take the dog and impound it," said Schwartzkopf.
Survey: Does Barking Ordinance Go Too Far? The dogs would be taken to an animal hospital at 75th Street and Wornall Road, and the pet's owner would receive a court summons. Pet owners would have to pay a $20 per day boarding fee if their dog is picked up, plus fines if they're convicted.
Wichita – (10/31/09) - Graves and Ellen Querner of Spay-Neuter Kansas offered basic pet care tips, from providing adequate food, water and shelter to recommended vaccinations. Graves also covered some ordinances that pet owners need to know about, including one limiting tethering of dogs and another prohibiting the feeding of cats outdoors. For owners of pit bulls, Graves said the city is going to start "actively enforcing" new laws pertaining to the breed. Effective July 1, Wichitans are allowed to own no more than two pit bulls, and those dogs must be spayed or neutered, licensed, vaccinated against rabies and microchipped.
KENTUCKY
Frankfurt – (10/4/09) - Kentucky is no longer top dog when it comes to coon hunting. Illinois has landed the Professional Kennel Club's world coonhound championships, a 10-day event that had been held in Kentucky for nearly two decades. While residents of Salem, Ill., prepare for the arrival of nearly 2,000 of the nation's best hounds later this month, business owners in Kentucky still are chafing that they lost an event with an economic impact of up to $3.5 million. "It's going to be a terrible blow to this area," said Randy Mabry, owner of Willow Pond Southern Catfish Restaurant in the western Kentucky community of Hardin. "When those guys are here, they spend a lot of money." Kentucky officials were caught off guard by the Professional Kennel Club's decision to move the event to Illinois, said Gil Lawson, spokesman for the Kentucky Tourism, Arts and Heritage Cabinet. "We did not know about this until after the decision had been made," Lawson said. Jo Kathmann, president of The Tourism Bureau of Southwestern Illinois, said her organization estimated the economic impact of hosting the world championship and related events at between $3 million and $3.5 million.
Independence – (10/6/09) - What constitutes a vicious dog in the city of Independence could change next month. Independence City Council heard the first reading of an ordinance modifying the definition in an earlier ordinance of when a dog is vicious at the regular meeting Monday Oct. 5. In the existing ordinance, a dog must bite a person to be considered vicious. Two sentences in the new ordinance provide for officers to cite a dog’s owner if it has the “propensity” to be vicious or if the enforcement officer has to take “defensive action” against the animal or if the officer feels “immediate apprehension of bodily harm.” City Council also amended the existing ordinance to include language restricting the ownership of exotic animals and increased the amount of insurance required for the owner of a dog determined to be vicious from $100,000 to $100,000 per person and $300,000 per occurrence. The city decided not to enforce an outright ban of pit bulls because council did not feel like it was needed. “I think this is common ground. It’s not breed specific, but it has more enforcement and teeth to our current ordinance.” http://www.journalenterprise.com/articles/stories/public/200910/21/sebree10212009_news.html City Council will hear second reading of the ordinance at their regular meeting Nov. 2.
Newport – (10/20/09) - Some dog owners in Northern Kentucky may not have to pay for dog licenses soon. Newport city commissioners are considering getting rid of most city dog licenses. The city manager says the dog licenses aren't widely enforced -- except for vicious dogs. Newport does require the owner of any dog classified as vicious -- which includes pit bulls -- to get a microchip and a $100,000 insurance policy.
Sebree – (10/22/09) - With only four of its six members present, the Sebree City Council during a special meeting held Wednesday, Oct. 14, approved the city’s tax rates for the 2009-2010 fiscal year and made a decision about a potential animal control ordinance the council has been contemplating for months. On the agenda was discussion of the animal control ordinance. Webster County Dog Warden John Dunn was present to discuss the county’s ordinance and how it applied to Sebree. After some discussion, the council agreed to abandon the ordinance it was considering, but instructed city officials to review existing city laws regarding animal control to determine if the city should keep them or take some other action regarding them.
Whitley County – (10/30/09) - James and Phyllis Walters live close to the Knox-Whitley Animal Shelter in rural Whitley County where hundreds of animals arrive each month. And they claim in a lawsuit that the noises the dogs are making are simply too much to bear. The Walters claim in the lawsuit that the constant barking is causing them “severe insomnia,” injuries to their mental health, and loss of their propertyvalue
LOUISIANA New Orleans – AKC ALERT: The New Orleans City Council is scheduled to consider and vote on Councilwoman Cynthia Hedge-Morrell’s mandatory spay/neuter proposal at its regular meeting on Thursday, November 5th. The American Kennel Club (AKC) strongly opposes this ordinance. It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in the New Orleans area again contact the members of the New Orleans City Council and politely yet strongly urge them to oppose this costly, ineffective, and unenforceable proposal. The AKC also encourages all interested parties to attend Thursday’s hearing to show a united front of opposition to the proposal. If enacted, the ordinance will: Require all dogs six months of age or older (with few exceptions) to be spayed or neutered or force owners to purchase costly $50 breeder permits to keep any dog intact. Limit female dogs from whelping more than one litter per year, or whelping a litter if the female is younger than 18-months of age. Permit the Louisiana SPCA (LA/SPCA), which will be responsible for enforcement of this ordinance, to determine whether or not an applicant for a breeder license has "space determined to be suitable...in which to breed dogs and raise puppies." Impose significant fines for those who are found to be in violation of the ordinance, with the income from the fines to be used to further finance the LA/SPCA’s animal control efforts. AKC’S OFFICIAL POSITION: The American Kennel Club opposes mandatory spay/neuter laws. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously. Additionally, we strongly support and actively promote a wide range of programs to educate the public about responsible breeding practices and the responsibilities of dog ownership. The American Kennel Club is joined by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals(ASPCA), the American Veterinary Medical Association(AVMA), and the National Animal Interest Alliance(NAIA) in opposing mandatory spay/neuter laws. To view AKC’s full legislative alert on New Orleans’ MSN proposal, including contact information and resources, please go to: http://www.akc.org/news/index.cfm?article_id=4001. For more information and the latest developments on the New Orleans mandatory spay/neuter proposal, please contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org Terrebonne – (10/13/09) - Action: Held for 30 days discussion on how to improve animal control regulations and leash laws because residents have complained that some dog owners allow their pets to intimidate neighbors. Action: Approved a grant agreement with PetSmart Charities for $10,000 to help pay for the mobile pet clinic that will perform low-cost spay and neutering procedures for local pets. Notes: Pet owners will still have to pay for the procedures, but the money pays for the clinic to travel from Metairie to Houma one day every two weeks. Baltimore County – (10/13/09) - Tougher laws regulating pet cemeteries in Baltimore County should spur improvements in operations, maintenance and safety of the facilities, officials said. Prompted by complaints about poor management from cemetery lot owners, the County Council expects to enact legislation at its session Monday that will require cemetery managers to maintain the grounds and keep maps and records current or face fines of up to $1,000. Records should show the pet owner's last known address, the site and size of each pet grave and the location of unused lots. MASSACHUSETTS SB2172 – (10/21/09) - The Massachusetts Senate passed a comprehensive measure Oct. 21 updating the state’s antiquated statutes that govern animal control in the commonwealth’s 351 communities. Senate Bill 2172, sponsored by Sen. Patricia Jehlen (D–Somerville), provides the first significant revision of these laws for decades and contains several sections that would improve, with lasting effect, public safety while enhancing animal welfare in Massachusetts. “The effectiveness of Senate Bill 2172 is thanks to the panel of expert consultants who aided in its creations,” said Jehlen. “From dangerous dogs and feral cat colonies, to animal hoarding and wild animals in urban settings, animal control officers face daily challenges. This bill will give them more tools and skills to protect the public as well as animals.” Senate Bill 2172 also contains a voluntary check-off on state income tax forms to allow residents to fund spay/neuter programs in Massachusetts and training for animal control officers throughout the commonwealth. The bill also updates definitions, including those for kennels, and removes references to the county system, which is no longer widely utilized for animal control. “Senate Bill 2172 was drafted by animal welfare experts facing these issues on a daily, if not hourly, basis, including animal control officers, dog owners, veterinarians, law enforcement and state agency representatives,” said Manny Maciel, president of the Animal Control Officers Association of Massachusetts and New Bedford animal control officer. “We are pleased that the Massachusetts Senate is willing to provide animal control officers with the tools that they require to carry out our duties and to effectively protect the public and animals.” Senate Bill 2172 now moves to the House of Representatives. To read SB2172, click here. Boston – (10/26/09) (update SB2172) - A bill on Beacon Hill would ask taxpayers to contribute a portion of their tax refund to support spay and neuter clinics in an effort to reduce the number of stray animals throughout Massachusetts. The voluntary contribution replaces the intent of the original bill, which would have allowed municipalities to charge up to $35 for a pet license for spayed and neutered animals and $50 for intact animals. But after much debate on the Senate floor between Jehlen and Sen. Michael Knapik, R-Westfield, the cap was dropped. "It may sound like a lot, but under the current system, there is no cap and there is no floor," Fitzpatrick said. The tax contribution "is not going to generate nearly the revenue that the fee would have." Cindy Nicholson, president of the Eastham Dog Owners Association, said there would have been little support for an increase in license fees. "Nobody wants any more taxes than are already put on us," she said. But Nicholson said that she would not be surprised if municipalities raise pet licensing fees in the near future. "In light of what is going on with the economy, towns are looking for any way to earn revenue," said Nicholson, who works at Eastham Town Hall. The bill, which passed the Senate last week, shortens the amount of time stray dogs are held by animal control before given up to adoption from 10 days to seven. The difference of three days would save Barnstable $54 for each animal that stays the full term, according to Charles Lewis, a Barnstable Animal Control Officer. Each town has a different animal holding system, so the amount saved would vary. Some towns have their own kennels and others employ private facilities, Lewis said. "The money really isn't the issue," Lewis said. "The dog is more comfortable the quicker you can get it into a permanent situation." UPDATE: (10/29/09) - A bill filed by Senator Mark Montigny (D-New Bedford) has passed the Massachusetts Senate after being attached to a piece of legislation filed by Senator Patricia Jehlen (D-Somerville). The bill would create a statewide spay and neuter program, improve mandatory spay and neuter laws for shelters, and reduce the number of homeless animals and costs associated with providing such animals care. "For anyone who loves animals as much as I do, this day couldn't come soon enough," said Senator Montigny, a longtime animal rights advocate. "Our pets become members of our immediate families and we should ensure that they are treated appropriately.” A voluntary check-off-box would be added to the state income tax form to generate money for the "Homeless Animal Prevention and Care Fund." Other provisions in the bill would address dangerous dog laws, create consistency in holding times for strays, and prohibit certain methods Eastham – (10/23/09) - Almost a decade or so ago, creating a town beach for dogs seemed like a good idea. The beach at the end of Dyer Prince Road didn't have a paved parking lot, and it wasn't one of the popular beaches for swimmers. But it was already popular with dog owners, who liked to let their pets run free. Of course, dogs unleash something of their own: poop. So when selectmen passed regulations in March 2000 that allowed dogs onto the town-owned portion of Dyer Road beach in the summer, when all other town beaches are closed to pets, they required that owners pick up all dog waste. But now, with Internet sites touting the beach, and dog owners by the hundreds taking advantage of it, some Dyer Prince Road neighbors are fed up and have been complaining to selectmen. "One possibility is that we won't leave it as a dog beach anymore," Selectmen chairman Martin McDonald said. He said the board will likely put an article on the spring town meeting warrant to reinstitute a dog ban on the beach or tighten up enforcement. Part of the problem is the influx of people from out of town who see the beach on a Web site or hear about it from another pet owner. Sites such as The Chatham Beach Dog and The Dog Lover's Companion to New England direct dog lovers to the beach, some incorrectly calling it "leash-free" and not mentioning that a beach sticker is required. "It's unhealthy, and there's been enough people knocked down and scratched by these dogs." One resident, who owns the property directly north of the town beach has his own solution. He recently put up signs banning dogs from his portion of the beach. He was already upset that dogs ran free, not just on town property, but on his. He was really angry when the Dyer Prince beach and his own beach were closed to swimming for more than a week this summer after water tests showed high levels of disease-causing enterococcus bacteria, which is found in human and animal feces. "No one knows the reason, but you don't have to be a scientist to figure it out when there are 75 to 100 dogs down there on a low tide," Mashpee – (10/7/09) - The Town of Mashpee, MA is urging the City Council adopt an anti-pet law, including a ban on pit bulls. The American Rottweiler Club is adamantly opposed to breed-specific legislation as ineffective and even dangerous in the prevention of dog bites. The breed-specific anti-pet ordinance was driven by residents upset by the fact that new neighbors who own “pit bulls” moved into the area. The dogs have not bitten anyone, however, neighbors are not happy and petitioned the town to pass a ban. Mashpee residents will vote on the ordinance on October, 19th at a live town hall meeting. A copy of the proposed ordinance is available at the Mashpee link above. UPDATE: (10/16/09) - On Monday, residents at Mashpee town meeting will vote on a proposed pit bull ban ordinance. Thankfully, the board of selectmen has already voted unanimously against this breed-specific legislation (BSL), which is a misguided attempt to protect Mashpee's human citizens from truly dangerous dogs of any breed. The Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (MSPCA) opposes BSL; prevention of dog bites is more complicated than simply focusing on one breed of dog. Breed-specific laws are not effective. They do not affect dangerous dogs of other breeds and they unfairly brand all dogs of a particular breed, regardless of their behavior, as dangerous. Many such laws have been challenged and overturned on constitutional issues. The true cause of dog-related threats to public safety is pet owner irresponsibility. More effective approaches are increasing fines, classes on dog ownership and obedience training, and mandatory sterilization of dangerous animals. Dog bites can be prevented by increasing animal control, dog licensing compliance, and reporting loose dogs; passing an ordinance to minimize dogs bred irresponsibly and indiscriminately for aggression; and limiting tethering, a known factor in dog bites. For more information, please see www.mspca.org/bsl or contact us at advocacy@mspca.org. UPDATE: (10/19/09) - A petition that would limit the number of pit bulls residents can own was voted down in Mashpee Monday evening. The bylaw was submitted by a couple who had neighbors with six pit bulls moving in next door. The proposal, which would only allow people to own one pit bull, got mixed reactions. The couple that proposed the bylaw has since moved. Mashpee – (10/20/09) - Because of an editing error, there was an inaccuracy in Sunday's Page A1 story about a proposed pit bull bylaw in Mashpee. In Denver, two animal control officers and a veterinary technician were in agreement that a dog was a pit bull or had a majority of pit bull characteristics. They were later proved wrong after the owner had his dog examined by American Kennel Club officials and other dog groups. Waltham – (10/20/09) - The state's second-highest court ruled Monday that a landlord may be held accountable if a tenant's pit bull goes on the attack, specifically singling out the breed as one known to have a propensity for aggression. In its argument, the appeals court made use of a 2008 state Supreme Judicial Court decision that found pit bulls are "commonly known to be aggressive." In that decision, the SJC determined police officers may not have to "knock and announce" their presence to execute a search warrant if a pit bull is on the premises. The ruling comes as Senate lawmakers debate a bill that would define dangerous dogs and allow any person to file a complaint with a local hearing authority to designate a dog as dangerous. If the hearing authority determines a dog is dangerous, the authority could require owners to keep their dogs restrained, confined and, when away from home, muzzled and leashed. The authority could also require owners of dangerous dogs to obtain a liability insurance policy of at least $100,000, provide identifying information about their dogs to local animal control officers, get their dangerous dogs neutered or spayed, or euthanize them. The proposal, sponsored by state Sen. Patricia Jehlen, D-Somerville, has been the subject of debate in the Senate in recent weeks and has been held up by Republican opposition to fee increases authorized under the bill. Another bill heard on Beacon Hill last week would prohibit insurers from denying homeowner insurance policies based on ownership of a specific breed of dog. The proposal would allow insurers to deny policies to anyone whose dogs have been deemed dangerous. Worcester – (10/24/09) - The Senate passed the bill, called “An Act Further Regulating Animal Control,” on Wednesday. It was sent to the House Ways and Means Committee yesterday for the House to begin considering. Robert J. Fitzpatrick, chief of staff for the bill’s sponsor, state Sen. Patricia D. Jehlen, D-Somerville, said dog owners should not be overly concerned. The proposed law establishes a uniform cap on what communities can charge. At present, most can charge as much as they want. Municipalities that are still under the seven remaining county government systems that limit the license fee to $3 for a spayed or neutered dog and $6 for one that isn’t have the option of moving out of that system and into the one that has no license fee limit. All but seven of the county-governed municipalities have done that, Mr. Fitzpatrick said. Worcester County is no longer under a county government system. Central Massachusetts communities have no limit on what they can charge for dog licenses, but many charge between $6 and $17 for a spayed or neutered dog and between $10 and $20 for intact dogs. All have late fees. All dogs 6 months and older must be licensed each year; the annual deadline varies from town to town. Mr. Fitzpatrick said the proposed law doesn’t do much to change what is now happening in communities. “Now municipalities set their own fees at whatever level they want. The new law says dog license fees are set by a municipality, but it does put in a cap of $35 and $50,” he said. The proposed law, he said, attempts to update animal control laws that have not been revised since 1946. For the past four years, legislators have been working on the revisions with the assistance of several agencies, including the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the Animal Control Officers Association of Massachusetts, the state Department of Agriculture and the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners. A $3 surcharge on license fees was taken out of the proposed law after opposition from the state Municipal Clerk’s Association. It was earmarked to fund spay and neuter programs and training for animal control officers. The bill does provide for people to contribute to those purposes through a voluntary income tax checkoff. The secretary of the state Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners, said the fee caps were set high so that the law does not have to be revised for a long time. MICHIGAN Eastpointe – (10/12/09) - Eastpointe is the latest metro Detroit community to approve an ordinance aimed at owners of vicious dogs and other animals deemed dangerous, in hopes of reducing attacks on humans and other pets. In the past year, Farmington Hills, Allen Park and Mt. Clemens adopted similar laws. Officials in Royal Oak are considering an ordinance. Eastpointe approved its ordinance Tuesday. The non-breed-specific ordinance requires owners of vicious dogs to have a second license and at least $100,000 in liability insurance. The dogs must have microchips implanted under their skin to track their whereabouts. Other Michigan cities that have enacted vicious dog laws: Farmington Hills' non-breed-specific dog ordinance aims to make sure residents take precautions with their animals to ensure safety. "We've had a couple of cases since the ordinance was created, but it has been effective because people have become more mindful," said City Manager Steve Brock. Mt. Clemens passed its dangerous animal ordinance in August. Owners of pit bulls, American Staffordshire Terriers and mixes of the breeds must license the dogs with the city. The dogs must be on leashes and muzzled while outside. Waterford, the first community in the state to ban pit bulls and American Staffordshire Terriers in 1990, has had an increase in ordinance violations this year that officials attribute to new residents in the township. In Allen Park, officials decided to adopt a vicious dog ordinance last year after a councilwoman's dog was killed by pit bulls wandering the city Grand Rapids – (10/14/09) - The state isn't doing it; Kent County says it doesn't have the resources. The Michigan Department of Agriculture is no longer inspecting pet stores. In August, budget cuts forced the MDA to discontinue licensing and oversight. "So by default it trickles down to animal control", says Bridie Bereza, spokesperson for the Kent County Animal Shelter. The laws are still in place. Pet stores are supposed to be getting their animals checked by a veterinarian. But, no one is enforcing it. "So, the concern that we have is, who's controlling this? Who's in charge here of the pet shops and it's nobody anymore", says Dr. Terry Faber. He's the veterinarian that treated a puppy that had parvo. He says when the dog's owner brought her in, it had no official paperwork. "Most places will have paperwork they'll have a vet come-in and examine the pet and vaccinate the pet, so it minimizes the chance for disease to be spread." He says in this case, the customer was given a full refund. But, the problem remains. There is no oversight and according to the MDA it's not likely to change anytime soon. "Until it does, if it ever does, buyer beware", says Dr. Faber. Grand Rapids – Kent County - (10/16/09) - - The Kent County Health Department is considering raising fees on many of its services. Health Department leaders say they need to raise fees to keep up with the rising cost of doing business. The Department will hold a public hearing Monday to find out what you think. The Kent County Health Department offers a wide variety of services, from immunizations to animal adoptions. But, it could soon cost more for some of those services. Deputy Health Director Bill Anstey says, "It's more that the costs of delivering those services have gone up and our fees need to reflect that." Anstey says many of the fees have not gone up in three to ten years or more. Now the Health Department is proposing increasing fees for everything from restaurant inspections to swimming pool checks to well permits. There's also a new fee for spaying or neutering pets. Currently the animal shelter doesn't do it's own spaying and neutering, but with its new facility and surgical suite, it could in the future. Anstey says, "Potentially have all the animals that are adoptable spayed and neutered. That means somebody could come in and say, that's the one I want. Go through the interview process. Get approved. Pay the adoption fee. And then take their animal home that day." The Kent County Health Department will hold a public comment session on Monday, October 19 at 11:00 a.m. at its headquarters at 700 Fuller Avenue Northeast. The fee increases still have to be approved by the Kent County Commission. If approved, the changes would go in effect December 1, 2009. Royal Oaks – (10/4/09) - Royal Oak's city attorney is looking to nearby communities for ideas on strengthening an ordinance controlling vicious dogs — and doing so without singling out breeds considered vicious, such as pit bulls. Royal Oak's ordinance limits a household to three dogs, prohibits them from running at large, requires owners to clean up after their dog and prohibits residents from owning a vicious dog, one which has bitten or harmed a person. City Attorney Dave Gillam is looking at how ordinances elsewhere deal with fencing and muzzle requirements for dogs that have a tendency to bite. Several Macomb County communities have traveled that road in recent weeks. Center Line's 2-month-old ordinance requires owners of the pit bull breeds to keep the dogs muzzled and on a short leash when not in the house or an outdoor enclosure. That may be too strong, City Councilwoman Mary Hafner said; the reference to specific breeds should be eliminated, and the ordinance shouldn't be used for "good family dogs" with no record of misbehavior. Eastpointe's ordinance, tentatively approved, doesn't single out the breeds but requires muzzling and a short leash for any dog declared vicious. A Mount Clemens ordinance adopted a month ago singles out pit bull breeds, requiring muzzles when out of the house or a capped outdoor enclosure. Royal Oaks – (10/28/09) - An animal rescue group wants to take Royal Oak police to court after a pit-bull mix dog was destroyed within 24 hours of it fighting with another dog and biting two men on Sunday. The dog was with a woman police said adopted the animal from the Paws for Life rescue in Troy in August, though a rescue group spokeswoman said the woman was only fostering the dog until it could be adopted out. An animal control officer showed up and took Rocky away, but not the other dog," she said. "We contacted Royal Oak and they said if we had proof of his rabies vaccination they would release him in a couple of days." Protz-Sanders said she talked to Royal Oak police several times Monday after faxing over his proof of vaccination and medical papers. "He was microchipped and we were the legal owners," she said. "If Rocky had been any other breed of dog this would have been handled differently. We feel this was rushed and we don't know why we weren't given an opportunity to explore the incident or provide a proof of ownership. Because he was a pit bull we feel the law wasn't followed — he wasn't given a chance." She added that her group, which has successfully adopted out over 600 dogs and cats in the past two years, is looking for an attorney to take their case. Protz-Sanders claims the animal control officer intimidated the woman who had the pit bull into giving the dog up by raising issues about the cost of quarantine and legal penalties. The Royal Oak City Commission is working on a vicious dog ordinance following several severe dog attack incidents involving pit bulls. However, Jahnke said the anticipated ordinance does not single out a particular breed of dog. Southgate – (10/6/09) - Owning a vicious dog in the city soon could become more expensive. MINNESOTA Austin – (10/21/09) - Service dogs for people now may be off their leashes under an ordinance amendment approved Monday by the Austin City Council. Council members voted unanimously to approve the change to an ordinance related to animals prohibited from running at large in the city. Under the change, the provisions of that ordinance no longer apply to a certified dog accompanying a blind person or someone with a disability, as well as dogs used in official police activities with the police department's permission. Elk River – (10/5/09) - In response to a series of new state laws, the Elk River City Council recently adopted an ordinance to deal with dangerous and potentially dangerous dogs. We can’t legally say that the breed is specifically not allowed because statute forbids us from doing that,” Kluntz said. “We can’t be prejudiced against any particular breed. We have to evaluate each particular dog to their actions.” Glencoe – (10/31/09) - Glencoe City Council will meet at 7 p.m., Monday, in the city council chambers. Second readings will be given to banning dog kennels from residential areas as well as an ordinance change defining a dog kennel. First reading will be given to an ordinance change limiting the number of dogs and cats at one residence. The council meeting is open to the public and can be viewed on the local cable TV access channel. Rochester – (10/27/09) - You may soon have to pay for violations like having a broken windshield, having an unleashed dog, and more. The Rochester city council will soon take a formal vote on an administrative fines ordinance that could make it more attractive for police to fine you. Each fine would be 60 dollars. Fines could also be issued for things like an unregistered or unleashed dog. City officials say 600 to 800 animal violations go unpunished every year, at least partly because the overloaded court system can't handle them. The ordinance is not in effect yet, but could be voted on at the council's next meeting on November 2nd. Willmar – Kandiyohi County - (10/21/09) - A proposal to adopt a county ordinance that would address dangerous animals, animals running at large and prohibited animals has the strong support of Kandiyohi County Board Chairman Dennis Peterson. A proposed ordinance that was presented Tuesday to the commissioners does not include a licensing component. If approved, the ordinance would provide law enforcement with a “tool” for action, said Peterson. Currently, if there is a dog in the county that is causing problems, or horses or cows that are repeatedly on the road or in a neighbor’s yard, about the only thing law enforcement can do is tell people to “work it out with their neighbors,” said Sheriff Dan Hartog. Last year, when a dog reportedly bit several people in the northern part of the county, the Sheriff’s Department had to seek special permission from the commissioners to have the animal destroyed. The proposed ordinance creates options for more direct action. “It’s a good move in the right direction,” said Peterson. A public hearing will be held at 10:15 a.m. Nov. 17. St. Paul – (10/18/09) - St. Paul is about to be one step closer to having another off-leash dog park in its inventory. On Wednesday, the city council will hold a public hearing and vote on changes to an aging master plan for the Lilydale egment of Lilydale-Harriet Island Regional Park, which hugs the west bank of the Mississippi River from the High Bridge upstream toward the Interstate 35E bridge. Among the changes is the designation of an 8.5-acre area — likely a prairie — where dog owners could unleash their pooches to grab a Frisbee, practice hunting retrieving or just run around. In the past year, advocates for such areas have become a powerful force in St. Paul and Ramsey County politics, as they've packed public meetings and raised awareness of St. Paul's dearth of off-leash areas. Currently, the city operates only one, in Arlington/Arkwright Park on the East Side. Ramsey County operates four parks, with Battle Creek Regional Park on the Maplewood border being the closest to St. Paul. While Lilydale is technically in Dakota County — it's operated by St. Paul — dog-park advocates note that a park there would provide access for a different region of the city. MISSISSIPPI Aberdeen – (10/6/09) - Concerned residents in the Meadowlane neighborhood have taken their issue to both city and Monroe County officials – the issue of banning pit bulldogs (American Pit Bull Terriers) in the City of Aberdeen. “We now have five of these dogs in our neighborhood,” concerned citizen Brick Young said. “These dogs can be extremely vicious and even deadly – we need to have something done so that we do not have problems of that nature in Aberdeen. Young, along with other residents from the neighborhood, have brought the topic of pit bulls in front of both the city’s aldermen and the county board. Young and his group first approached the Aberdeen Board of Aldermen on the issue during the September 2 meeting. It was tabled until the following meeting. At the September 16 meeting, Young and other once again brought the notion of banning pit bulls in Aberdeen before the board. The board tabled the measure at the request of city attorney Robert Faulks until October. Monroe County Board of Supervisors President Randle Gray said the county would also have board attorney John Creekmore address the issue. “There is definitely a hazard with these animals,” Gray said. “We will see what our options are. This is a very serious matter.” CLICK HERE FOR ALL CONTACT INFO. Jackson – (10/20/09) – In other action Tuesday, the council's Rules Committee held preliminary discussions on revising the city's dangerous-dog ordinance to restrict or ban certain breeds, such as pit bulls. Weill, who chairs the committee, favored a breed-specific ordinance. Weill said he would ask the city's animal-control officers to provide information about dog attacks in the city and take up the matter later. The council passed an ordinance in 2006 requiring owners to register dogs deemed dangerous by city officials and keep them inside or in an enclosure. The measure did not name specific breeds. Ridgeland passed an ordinance earlier this year limiting owners of pit bulls and several other breeds deemed dangerous to one dog per household. Officials in Madison have considered a ban on certain breeds. UPDATE – (10/20/09) - CONTACT INFO: Please use the following snail mail and e-mail addresses when writing to the Jackson, Mississippi city officials regarding proposed breed specific legislation. Jackson – (10/12/09) - There's a new push to beef up animal cruelty laws in Mississippi. The group is targeting folks at the Mississippi State Fair. "Mississippi - Fighting Animal Cruelty Together" or MS-FACT is asking fair goers to sign their petition to enact felony cruelty laws in our state. Mississippi is one of four states in the country without felony animal cruelty laws for cats and dogs. MS-FACT just formed in February. Mississippi is the only southern state to not have a felony cruelty law," said MS-FACT President Tiffany Frautschi. If you are interested in learning more or signing the petition MS-FACT will have their booth in the Trademart the duration of the state fair. Or you can visit their website www.ms-fact.org. MISSOURI Columbia - (10/23/09) - Chickens were on the table last night at a Columbia City Council dinner discussion — figuratively speaking. Although opinions varied slightly among city council members on whether to allow an ordinance that would let city residents keep chickens, the general consensus was that it should at least be considered. Current ordinances allow one chicken per half-acre, disallowing most residents from keeping chickens on their land. “I am in favor of an ordinance that would allow chickens,” Mayor Darwin Hindman said. Fourth Ward Councilman Jerry Wade said the city shouldn’t rush into it, though. “There are issues we need to talk about.” The city/county Board of Health had discussed the idea multiple times, but board members couldn’t come to an agreement and could not pass a recommendation on to council. Stephanie Browning, director of the Columbia-Boone County Department of Public Health and Human Services, attended yesterday’s pre-council meeting dinner to speak to members about the proposed ordinance. “My bigger concern is how we can deal with some of the inevitable nuisances that will result,” she said. Browning seemed most concerned with the idea of having to obtain neighbors’ consent to keep the chickens near their property. Complaints about noise and manure seem most likely, but she said some neighbors are simply not going to get along. She wants to have resolutions ready for all anticipated problems. Another concern is exactly how many chickens someone could own. Columbia’s animal control ordinance now specifies a limit of four cats or four dogs per property. Browning would also like to see a limit on the number of chickens to four. Columbia – (10/28/09) - Proposed changes to the Central Missouri Humane Society’s pet adoption policy were challenged last night by an overwhelming chorus of support for the existing policy.The CMHS board of directors, meeting at Delaney Hall on the Columbia College campus, heard public comment from 19 people, most who said that verifying pet ownership with landlords and checking veterinary care records are vital to ensure animals are being adopted by responsible owners. A new policy on the agenda for the board’s consideration eliminated the landlord verification and vet care requirements. The board took no action on the proposed policy, but instead worked to create a committee that will be responsible for revising and drafting a new policy. Board members said changes are needed to allow for more adoptions, which they contend would result in fewer animals being euthanized. Board member John Shrum said the board needed to pull proposed changes off the table and put a committee in charge of coming up with a new draft. The board directed that a draft be available for its review by Dec. 8. Senath – (10/14/09) - Several residents of Senath attended the Senath City Council meeting in support of keeping their family pets, which would be taken from the homes as stated in a recently proposed ordinance banning pit bulls from the city. Alderman Patsy Davis said the city's dangerous dog ordinance has not been followed properly. City attorney Johnny Dalton added the only difference between the proposed ordinance and the active dangerous dog ordinance was that the current ordinance did not specify the pit bull breed as prohibited in the city. "It did define pit bulls as a dangerous dog, but not prohibited," Dalton said. He added that if a dog was considered dangerous under the ordinance, then there were specifications on how the dog was to be kept. The council decided to postpone the passing of a new ordinance and attempt to fix the problem by more strictly enforcing the current dangerous dog ordinance. NEBRASKA Lincoln – (10/14/09) - At an informal council hearing Monday, Spatz pressed health officials to speed up their months-long process of looking at cracking down on the owners of dogs that bite people. The city already has a dangerous dog ordinance, but health officials are considering beefing it up by increasing fines, citing owners of first-time offenders and other measures. Spatz is not inclined to wait much longer. He said he plans to introduce some kind of legislation to deal with dangerous dogs. "I'm going to do something if the health department doesn't," he said. UPDATE: (10/19/09) - The city of Lincoln appears to be moving toward enactment of new laws that are tougher on dangerous dogs and their owners. In a Local View column in Sunday's Journal Star, Bruce Dart, director of the Lincoln-Lancaster County Health Department, said the department wants to boost fines for owners whose dogs are frequently at large or not restrained properly. The department wants to enhance penalties for frequent offenders.At least two city council members, John Spatz and Jon Camp, want the Health Department to move quickly. Dart, citing the cost of DNA testing and accompanying complexities, wrote that the department is not yet ready to recommend banning certain dog breeds. "If this does not prove to be effective, we still have the option of implementing breed-specific legislation or other solutions," he wrote. It will be interesting to see if the department's reluctance to single out specific breed will stand up to public pressure. The topic deserves further exploration as it moves through the public process. Laws that aim specifically at pit bulls are becoming more prevalent and have survived legal challenges. It should be pointed out that under a new state law that went into effect this year, owners can be charged with a misdemeanor for the first time their dog bites someone and a felony the second time. In an urban environment, however, more comprehensive and stricter laws against dangerous dogs and irresponsible owners are appropriate. Omaha – (10/23/09) - When Omaha put into effect its dangerous dog ordinance a year ago, the teeth of it was to identify dogs that could hurt someone and their careless owners. But there was more to it and now some owners aren't happy about it. The Nebraska Humane Society has been getting many complaints about the penalty for a stray not being spayed or neutered. It costs $300 to get the dog back the first time, $600 the second and $1200 the third time and owners don't like it. Owners can get most of the $300 back if they get their dog sterilized and micro-chipped. But some dog owners we talked with would never do that to their pure bred because it would hurt the value. The Humane Society understands but says that's the price you pay if your dog gets free. Omaha upped the fee with the thinking that dog owners who aren't using the services should pay more if animal control has to get involved. NEVADA City of Las Vegas – (10/20/09) - Bill No. 2009-44 – Requires that dogs and cats over the age of four months be spayed or neutered, except under specified circumstances, and requires the microchipping of dogs and cats before they can be recovered from impound or adopted. Sponsored by: Councilman Steven D. Ross Las Vegas – (10/20/09) - In an effort to address pet overpopulation, the Las Vegas City Council will today introduce what would be the toughest spay-and-neuter ordinance in the region. The proposed ordinance, largely modeled on regulations adopted last year by North Las Vegas, would require that all dogs and cats older than 4 months be spayed or neutered, except under special circumstances. The ordinance would also require that dogs and cats have microchips implanted before being adopted or recovered from an impound facility. The tiny devices include owners’ addresses to aid recovery of lost pets. The proposal would exempt residents with dog or cat fancier permits, breeder permits or professional animal handler permits. A few weeks ago, Ross said, he gathered people on all sides of the issue — including breeders, shelter officials and other spay-and-neuter proponents, veterinarians and others — to gauge support, which he said was near universal. But there is opposition to the proposal, which will be voted on in a later council meeting. When Las Vegas officials sent a version of the ordinance to the city’s 126 licensed pet shops, owners expressed concern about a provision that would require them to provide the city with a list of the names and addresses of dog and cat purchasers.The list would allow city officials to follow up with the buyers to make sure their new pets have been sterilized. Not all breeders are pleased with the ordinance either. Ken Sondej, a locally based American Kennel Club legislative liaison, said the AKC “strongly opposes mandatory spay and neuter.” Sondej said the four-month provision is especially troubling. Most dogs shouldn’t be sterilized before at least 6 months old. For certain breeds, the procedure should be postponed until at least 2 years old. Sterilizing these animals before they’ve fully developed can cause immunological and other medical problems, Sondej said. Instead of mandating spaying and neutering, local governments ought to do more to educate pet owners so they can make the best decision, Sondej said. “The decision should be left to the veterinarian and the owner, not a politician,” he said. Those who fail to spay or neuter their pets would face $225 fines for the first offense. A second-time violator would be fined $500. Every time thereafter, the offender would face a $1,000 fine. According to county officials, adopting a mandatory spay-and-neuter policy is still a possibility down the road. UPDATE: (10/25/09) - The committee designated by the Las Vegas City Council to review a proposed mandatory spay/neuter ordinance will hold its first meeting on November 3rd. It is vital that concerned fanciers and responsible dog owners and breeders become involved with these proceedings. The proposed ordinance is burdensome, overly restrictive and will significantly increase burdens on responsible owners and breeders. Las Vegas City Council Committee Meeting Provisions of the Ordinance The Silver State Kennel Club is working with the city council to address their concerns with the ordinance. Legislative Liaison Ken Sondej who can be reached at 4winds@viawest.net is coordinating speakers for the committee meeting. You can also contact the AKC Government Relations Department at doglaw@akc.org for additional information. Thank you your attention to this important issue. Washoe County – (10/11/09) - Mitch Schneider, the new manager of Washoe County Regional Animal Services, would like to see widespread microchipping, perhaps backed by law. The American Humane Society released a 192-page independent evaluation of Washoe animal control, and one of its recommendations was to institute cat licensing in the county. "I do support a one-time microchipping and licensing of cats," Schneider said, "but I prefer to call it registering." Schneider envisions cat microchipping and registration being voluntary but strongly pushed at first. Then, like with seat-belt laws that started out voluntary but now are required, he sees a steady progression toward an actual ordinance requiring it as benefits such as taxpayer savings reveal themselves. He predicts the cost of registration at $5 to cover staff time. NEW HAMPSHIRE (10/31/09) - Dear Members & Friends, Attached you will find the 2009 Final NH Legislative Report. As you can see, this year was a good one for NH pets and their owners. Dog Owners of the Granite State (DOGS) with the help of their lobbyist, Yvonne Nanasi, worked successfully to ensure that the views and opinions of pet owners and breeders were listened to in Concord. We are proud that our legislators are willing to protect their constituents against proposed radical laws that would negatively impact pet and animal owners in our state. This year many of our members joined Yvonne in Concord to testify or sign in “For” or “Against” several bills. Our members were steadfast in their commitment against bad animal legislation. We not only went to Concord in person, we made more phone calls and sent more letters and emails to our legislators than ever before. 2009 has been a year of Legislative Awakening for many pet owners in our state. DOGS has kept our members informed with weekly emails. We have provided suggestions and specifics about what they could do to help us, demo letters, points for or against a bill and carpools were provided whenever possible to anyone that asked. We were also invited to and attended several kennel club meetings to talk about legislation. In 2009 DOGS reinstated its NH non-profit corporation status. Our volunteer Board of Directors has worked hard to make DOGS successful. In late 2008 DOGS was desperate for donations to be able to re-hire Yvonne as our lobbyist for 2009. Yvonne has been helping us fight bad animal legislation for 2 years at a greatly reduced rate. We would like to hire her back for the 2010 legislative session and once again we need your help. In 2008 our individual members came together and sent checks for $25 or more and several Kennel Clubs donated generously. Every dollar sent was personally acknowledged by our former secretary Marion Hopkins. Marion resigned her long-standing position with DOGS in early 2009 when she felt that DOGS was back on it’s feet and could carry on without her. I would like to thank Marion for her many years of dedication to DOGS, we miss her. This year DOGS has been busy working on more exposure and education. Our club accepted a private donation of website hosting where we set up a website for our members. The web address is www.nhdogs.org. Our site provides legislative updates, NH laws and current local animal articles from cruelty cases to changes in town animal legislation. We also own the website name nhpetsonline.com which is developing slowly. We hope to use this site to provide education such as general pet info, health, training etc. This site is in the early stages of development. DOGS is interested in volunteers to help us with ideas, construction and upkeep for this website. Contact us at dogs@nhdogs.org if you would like to help. This year we spent a little on bumper sticker magnets – I Own A Dog (or Cat) & I VOTE! You can purchase one of these magnets through our website using pay pal. With this final legislative report and DOGS update we must once again ask for your donations. No donation is too small and all donations will be acknowledged and gratefully accepted to help us with 2010 legislation. All donations will be used to hire Yvonne as our lobbyist, to purchase fundraising items and to help with the minimal costs of running this non-profit. Yvonne attends every hearing and fights for our rights. It is not always possible for our members to go to Concord on a daily or weekly basis. We must have a presence in Concord to fight bad bills or we will quickly lose our rights to animal ownership as some states have already. Kennel Clubs and pet related establishments that donate will be offered a link to their website at nhdogs.org. We invite anyone to feel free to add a link to our website. In closing, DOGS extends our most sincere Thanks for your continued support of our organization. Our success and the freedom to be pet owners in NH depend on you. Warm Regards, Joyce Arivella President, Dog Owners of the Granite State Dog Owners of the Granite State (DOGS) 2009 NH Legislation Summary Report During the 2009 NH Legislative Session, DOGS earmarked some 20 bills that would impact ownership, breeding, training and working with dogs and other companion animals. Due to the involvement of our members voicing their concerns to legislators, all of the bills had favorable outcomes. The final dispositions of the major bills that we were involved in are summarized below. DOGS is a NH non-profit organization and an American Kennel Club affiliated federation that represents NH dog and other companion animal owners. Our members are involved in all aspects of pet ownership. To become a supporting member of DOGS’ programs and our legislative advocacy efforts contact Joyce Arivella, DOGS President, at DOGS@NHdogs.org New Laws – Legislation Enacted in 2009
Bill # Summary Status DOGS’ Comments HB 148 Requires an annual veterinarian statement for exemption from rabies vaccination and declares that an official health certificate is prima facie evidence of transfer of a dog, cat, or ferret. Signed into law by the Governor. Effective 9/29/09. Chapter Law 296 The Senate Wildlife Committee chose not to incorporate DOGS’ amendment into the bill. DOGS is working with the State Vet to introduce a bill next session that incorporates the clarifying language into the transfer requirements. HB 247 Changes the law pertaining to domestic animal cruelty complaints. Instead of the state veterinarian, the first on site responder, will be the local law enforcement agency, animal control officer, state police, or sheriff, with jurisdiction over where the animal is kept. Signed into law by the Governor. Effective 8/21/09. Chapter Law 123 DOGS supported this bill that was requested by the State Veterinarian. The State Vet’s office has jurisdiction over the investigation of a complaint but the first responder will include someone with law enforcement training. HB 345 Allowing licensed physical therapists who are graduates of a relevant certificate program and with proof of malpractice coverage to practice on animals. Signed into law by the Governor. Effective 1/1/10. Chapter Law 311 DOGS supported the bill. It was the result of a collaboration of the state veterinarians’ and the physical therapists’ associations. SB 13 Declaring the Chinook the official state dog. Signed into law by the Governor. Effective 8/7/09. Chapter Law 62 DOGS supported the bill as the Chinook is a recognized AKC breed that is indigenous to the US and a popular choice for dog-sledding. SB 137 Eliminates Plan A from the state spay/ neuter program thereby providing additional funding for Plan B. Plan A allows the animal shelters to provide a voucher at adoption to reduce the cost of spaying/neutering a dog/cat. There are no income criteria for being able to qualify for a Plan A voucher. Plan B provides dog or cat spay/neutering for a nominal co-pay for persons that participate in certain low-income programs. Signed into law by the Governor. Effective 1/1/10. Chapter Law 98 DOGS supported the bill. In 2008, an identical measure was proposed by DOGS and defeated. SB 156 Extends and add members to the commission to develop an animal care worker professional classification. Signed into law by the Governor. Effective 7/16/09. Chapter Law 262 DOGS supported the bill. The addition of a representative from the community college system and members who raise livestock will benefit the development of this profession.
of euthanasia for dogs and cats.
The City Council is expected to vote next Wednesday on an ordinance amendment that would add several restrictions for dog owners, some specifically directed at pit bulls and Presa Canarios. Additions to the ordinance are based on recent changes by other communities such as Allen Park, Waterford Township and Wyandotte. Other than pit bulls and Presa Canarios, according to the amendment, a vicious dog is one that has bitten before. If the amendment is adopted, residents with vicious dogs would have to show the animal control officer proof of liability insurance of at least $100,000. Owners of vicious dogs will have to pay between $200 and $500 annually for dog licenses. The licenses currently cost $5 for spayed or neutered dogs and $10 for unspayed or un-neutered animals annually. When outside, the dogs must be kept in enclosures with at least 6-foot walls, secured in concrete, with lockable gates. When inside, all doors and windows need to be secured so the dogs cannot run or jump through screens.“We needed a more stringent pit bull ordinance to keep the animals from attacking in the first place,” Animal Control Officer Aaron Bertera said. Bertera said there haven’t been any specific attacks or problems, but that the ordinance needed to be firmed up. The council, police and the city attorney still are revising the ordinance. Owners of vicious dogs also would have to have a sign at least 8 by 10 inches with at least 2-inch letters and only the words “PIT BULL DOG,” for example. Additionally, all vicious dogs would have to pass the AKC’s canine good citizen program. Other discussion has involved tattooing and micro-chips to identify vicious dogs when they are at large. The ordinance currently being discussed doesn’t ban new dogs from coming into the city as other communities do, but any new dogs would have to comply with the restrictions. “Those restrictions would be on the dog from the time they come into Southgate,” Lannen said. Those who did not comply with the ordinance could be fined and could have to remove their dogs from the city. UPDATE: (10/24/09) - An updated version of a vicious dog ordinance has been sent back for review so City Council members can do more research.The council was expected to vote Wednesday on an ordinance amendment that would add several restrictions to dog owners, some specifically directed at pit bull and Presa Canario breeds. Response from the community caused council members to rethink the proposed ordinance. Additions to the ordinance are based on recent changes by other cities such as Allen Park, Waterford Township and Wyandotte. Other than pit bulls and Presa Canarios, according to the amendment, a vicious dog is one that has bitten before. The changes officials are discussing include liability insurance of at least $100,000 and a requirement that owners of vicious dogs pay between $200 and $500 for a dog license instead of the $5 or $10 for non-vicious dogs. Other parts of the amended ordinance say that the dogs must be kept in an enclosure with at least 6-foot walls, secured in concrete, with a lockable gate. When the animals are inside, all doors and windows need to be secured so they cannot run or jump through screens. Additionally, all vicious dogs must pass the AKC’s Canine Good Citizen Program. Other discussion has involved tattooing and micro-chips to identify vicious dogs when at large.
Dangerous dogs definitions As defined by city ordinance 10-91 a: a “dangerous dog” means that a dog:
•Has when unprovoked, inflicted substantial bodily harm on a person on public or private party.
•Has killed a domestic animal when unprovoked while off the owner’s property.
•Has attacked one or more person on two more occasions
•Has been found to be potentially dangerous and after the owner has been informed of this, the dog aggressively bites, attacks or endangers the safety of humans or domestic animals.
•Has previously been declared a dangerous dog pursuant to Minnesota Statues, sections 347.50 to 347.565 by the animal control authority or another jurisdiction.
A “potentially dangerous dog” means that a dog:
•Has when unprovoked, inflicted a bite on a person or domestic animal on public or private property.
•Has when unprovoked chased or approached a person, including a bicyclist, on the streets, sidewalks or any public or private property, other than the owner’s property, in an apparent attitude of attack.
•Has a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, causing injury or otherwise threatening the safety of people or domestic animals. •Has previously been declared a dangerous dog pursuant to Minnesota Statues, sections 347.50 to 347.565 by the animal control authority or another jurisdiction.
City of Jackson, Mississippi
Mayor Harvey Johnson
P.O. Box 17
219 South President Street
Jackson, MS 39205-0017
(601) 960-1084
(601) 960-2193 - Fax
bpree@city.jackson.ms.us
219 South President Street
Post Office Box 17
Jackson, MS 39205-0017
Phone (601) 960-1035
Fax (601) 960-1032
Chok Lumumba
clumumba@city.jackson.ms.us
Tony Yarber
tyarber@city.jackson.ms.us
Jeff Weill (Committee Chair)
jweill@city.jackson.ms.us
Kenneth Stokes
kstokes@city.jackson.ms.us
Frank Bluntson
fbluntson@city.jackson.ms.us
Charles Tillman
tillmanc@city.jackson.ms.us
Margaret Barrett
mbarrett@city.jackson.ms.us
Tuesday, November 3rd
9am
City Council Chambers
400 Stewart Avenue
Las Vegas, NV 89101
Retained (held-over) Bills for Action in 2010 Legislative Session
|
Bill # |
Summary |
Status |
DOGS’ Comments |
|
HB 191 |
Adds bicycles to the liability exemption activities for landowners who permit access to their property. |
Retained by the House Judiciary Committee. |
DOGS requested adding Dog-sledding to the activities covered in the bill. |
|
HB 431 |
Requiring certain engine coolants to include an aversive agent so they are less likely to be consumed by animals. |
Retained by the House Commerce Committee. |
DOGS supports the bill. |
|
HB 630 |
Prohibits live greyhound racing in NH by 2010 but allows the retention of simulcast. |
Retained by the House Local & Regulated Revenues Committee. |
DOGS opposed the bill. The greyhound tracks are properly regulated to ensure proper care of the dogs. |
Defeated Bills
|
Bill # |
Summary |
Status |
DOGS’ Comments |
|
HB 220 |
In animal cruelty cases, allows a civil proceeding in addition to the criminal proceeding which will allow the municipality and the shelters a more efficient way to recoup the costs of caring for the confiscated animal(s). Owners would be required to post a $2,000 bond for each animal for both the civil and the criminal cases (doubling the current requirement). |
Killed in the House |
Numerous DOGS members testified and wrote letters in opposition to this onerous measure. In Vermont, a similar law resulted in an owner being found innocent in the animal cruelty criminal case but because they were found guilty in the previous civil proceeding their animals had been adopted and unable to be returned. |
|
HB 278 |
Increasing the penalty for mistreating service animals from a misdemeanor to a felony.. |
Killed in the House |
Legislators felt that the current RSA 167-D:9 is sufficient punishment in these cases - a class A misdemeanor carries a penalty of up to a year in jail. |
|
HB 337 |
Requires that those selling more than one cat or dog per year obtain a temporary license for $25, valid for 60 days. No more than two temporary licenses can be obtained in a year. |
Killed in the House. |
The bill was requested by HSUS to identify “puppy mills”. DOGS maintains that the current laws regarding licensing breeders and sellers as well as the animal cruelty laws provide sufficient regulation. A similar law was enacted in Maine that proven costly, burdensome and without benefit. |
|
HB 427 |
Requires licensure for horses. |
Killed in the House. |
DOGS opposed the bill as numerous members also own horses and saw no benefit to this costly measure. |
|
HB 559 |
Added an animal rights member to the NH Fish and Game Advisory Council. |
Killed in the House |
DOGS opposed the bill as the animal rights activists who supported the measure would not be a beneficial addition to the Council. |
|
HB 59 |
Requiring employers of employees who have service dogs to place signs prohibiting other animals access to their facilities. |
Killed in the House. |
DOGS opposed the bill as an onerous and unnecessary burden on employers. |
|
SB 19 |
Provides liability immunity for municipal entities that allow dog parks on their lands. |
Killed in the House |
DOGS supported the bill. |
|
SB 140 |
Establishes a certification process for licensed chiropractors to practice on animals. |
Killed in the Senate |
Unlike the successful bill allowing physical therapists to practice on animals, the chiropractors needed to collaborate further with the veterinarian community. |
NEW JERSEY
Fanwood – (10/13/09) - Municipal leaders in Fanwood are considering an ordinance that strengthens the borough’s leash law, making it illegal for a dog to run free on private property, except in its owner’s yard.To be introduced at a borough council meeting tonight, the new ordinance revises the language of the existing dog-at-large statute. Presently, the borough’s ordinance states dogs may not run off-leash on a public street or in parks, buildings or any community space. But private properties are excluded from the statute. The council will consider approving the ordinance at its second reading, which is expected on Nov. 10.
Howell – (10/21/09) - Following months of examination, a dog ordinance that once riled the residents of Howell has been brought back to the table to largely positive reviews. The original ordinance, which was slated to have been adopted in February, would have limited the number of pets a resident is permitted to have to five dogs or cats, or a combination thereof. Officials said the intent of the ordinance was to protect animals from abuse and neglect. The law was drafted after Monmouth County Board of Health officials, in conjunction with the Associated Humane Societies and the Monmouth County Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, removed a number of dogs from a township kennel. But pet owners rallied against the dog ordinance, claiming it would punish many individuals for the misdeeds of a few. The public convinced the governing body at a Feb. 17 hearing that the measure was too broad and unconstitutional and the Township Council voted against its adoption, instead calling for the formation of a committee to explore possible solutions. These solutions were researched over the course of the year by a committee of residents and experts headed by Township Attorney McKenna Kingdon. The final amended dog ordinance was a discussion item on the agenda for the Oct. 6 council workshop meeting. The ordinance, as amended, establishes commercial breeders, dog kennels, shelters, pounds, training facilities and pet shops as a conditional use within the Special Economic Development (SED) zone and Highway Development (HD), HD-2 and HD-3 zones. It also revises the licensing requirements and definitions, which were the cause of concern among residents, regarding breeders, boarders, training facilities and pet shops. The purpose of the revised dog ordinance is to protect the general welfare of residents from irresponsible dog ownership, to encourage commercial entities to locate an adequately sized property, to regulate, but not limit, the number of dogs on a property, and to recognize that dogs are not considered livestock. Kingdon elaborated on revised licensing requirements, which was also a main function of the ordinance. Although there is not a definitive date yet, the dog ordinance will be on the agenda for introduction, public hearing and adoption in the coming months.
Margate – (10/21/09) - After months of planning, the Margate City Dog Park will officially open 1 p.m. Friday with a ribbon cutting ceremony. It will be open 8 a.m. to dusk seven days a week. A planned registration last week was cancelled due to the rain, but dogs can be registered at City Hall. Owners must furnish proof of current rabies and distemper vaccines, and dogs must be licensed. Registration is $30 for one year. Deputy City Clerk Rosemarie Freed said those who register now will get the advantage of a few extra months, as their registration will be good through the end of 2010. A yellow tag will be given out that dogs must wear around their neck at all times in the park. Entrance to the park is via a keypad lock. Park rules state that the owner is responsible for any action of their dog and liable for any damages suffered by a person or another animal. No prong, pinch or metal choke collars are permitted, and no children under 12 are permitted in the park. Professional dog walkers may not use the park for professional purposes, and no sick dog or dog in heat is permitted. The full set of rules is provided upon registration.
NEW MEXICO
Rio Rancho – (10/25/09) - In October 2008, the City Council approved the formation of the Rio Rancho Animal Welfare Task Force. Our commission was to review and offer proposed changes to ordinances with the goal of improving animal welfare. At our initial meeting, Mayor Tom Swisstack challenged us to look into where the city needs to be in regard to protecting animals years from now, not just where it should be today. We’ve spent hours taking public input and researching ordinances to find the ones best suited for the unique environment and culture of Rio Rancho. Other issues the task force are tackling include standards for pet stores, animal shelters, boarding kennels, grooming parlors and hobby breeders. We are creating standards for animal day care centers, animal rescue groups and animal foster homes. The task force has been wrestling with updating Rio Rancho’s animal ordinances for almost a year. This may seem too long for those who are anxious about animal welfare issues in our city, but it has been time well spent. The task force is doing its absolute best to consider all views and balance the needs of our citizens with the welfare of our animals. This has been a long and often rocky road, but one well worth traveling because, in the end, the Task Force will present to the mayor and City Council proposed changes that we believe best serve both the animals and citizens of Rio Rancho. [The public is welcome to attend any of the Rio Rancho Animal Welfare Task Force meetings which are held on the first, third and fifth Mondays of the month. Each meeting has time set aside for public comment. Anyone may also contact the city staff member assigned to the task force, Barbara Bayer, at the Meadowlark Senior Center (891-5018) or the chair of the task force, Patricia Feeser, DVM, at her office High Desert Animal Hospital, 892-4412.
White Sands Missle Range – (10/21/09) - Responding to an increase in the on post pet population the White Sands Missile Range Police Department has assigned officers to enforce animal welfare laws. All pets on WSMR are to be registered, implanted with a radio identification chip, wear a collar with identification tags, and if outside their yard, kept on a leash. While not required, it is strongly encouraged that all pet be spayed or neutered. Police will also be enforcing Animal welfare laws on the installation to ensure that all pets are treated properly. Animals on post should have food, plenty of clean water, proper shelter and a clean environment. Water and shelter are especially important during the hot summer months on WSMR. The penalty for animal neglect could cost service members a
reduction in rank and several hundred to several thousand dollars in fines. Civilians could end up in jail for a criminal violation. To report a violation call Police Dispatch at 678-1234.
NEW YORK
Bethlehem – (10/15/09) - Residents on Pineridge Place are in the midst of a cat fight over feline feces that has some residents comparing their cul-de-sac to a litter box. Bolen appealed to the town board in early September, asking them to adopt a law similar to that in Ravena. Cats in that town must be identified by tags and will be trapped if they're running at large. The town's animal control officer will return the feline to its rightful owner if it has the proper identification. The law was originally created to stop feral cats, but has also helped curb the number of domestic cats wandering town streets. The women are organizing a petition drive and want to discuss with town officials about town-wide cat laws that would ban owners from allowing their felines to run at-large.
New Windsor – (10/23/09) - (Stewart Military Base) - A Marine Corps concern about breeds of dogs living on bases has prompted assessment reviews by the ASPCA. One of those review teams came to New Windsor Thursday to assess family dogs at the Stewart Terrace Housing adjacent to Stewart Airport where a Marine Corps Reserve unit shares the Air National Guard Base. One of the ASPCA’s SAFER animal behavior experts, Susan Britt, examined the animals. “Our invitation here was to look at six dogs on base, to evaluate them to determine whether they would be staying on base with their families,” she said. As of noon, she examined three of the six pit bulls and found them safe to live in their current homes.
Pomfret – (10/19/09) - The Pomfret Town Board listened as Lakeshore Humane Society volunteers explained a purrr-plexing issue during its recent meeting. All kidding aside, the group of a half dozen volunteers was looking for the town to acknowledge what is literally a growing problem within the area. "This summer we have been inundated with phone calls from people in the town of Pomfret community. Many people found they have homeless cats in their environment," said Lakeshore Humane Society volunteer Anne Bowers. "I am here to ask the board for some acknowledgement of this problem. We are seeing and hearing people in Pomfret with problems that need to be addressed. I realize that includes a commitment of money and time and planning, but it is something that we recognized." Bowers read aloud an informational sheet provided by Ally Cat Allies, the cats' leading advocate, according to its Web site. According to ACA and Bowers, the Trap/Neuter/Return method is the only effective and humane way to manage feral cat populations. Pomfret Councilwoman Pat Christina, who coordinates the bi-annual rabies clinics in the town, seemed receptive to the idea and recommended that the village of Fredonia also be informed of the issue so that a joint collaboration could be made possible. The board held no further discussion on the request during their meeting Wednesday but the issue is now on the table.
Southampton – (10/22/09) - Southampton Town officials and representatives of the Southampton Animal Shelter Foundation met last week to discuss the foundation’s bid to take over operation and management of the shelter next year. The meeting ended with the foundation agreeing to rework its bid to reflect town requests that the foundation kick in more dollars to run the shelter during the first year of the proposed three-year contract, Assistant Town Attorney Joseph Burke said. The foundation is chaired by Southampton philanthropist Susan Allen, who contributed more than $1.4 million to help build the shelter in 1999. Other changes are also planned at the shelter. Ms. Kabot said animal control officers will take on duties of shelter employees, including animal training and aggression testing. Councilwoman Anna Throne-Holst, who is running against Ms. Kabot for the supervisor seat this November, has objected to folding animal control into the animal shelter because of the additional workload for the control officers. She did not return a call seeking comment this week. The town does not want dangerous dogs to be adopted and that the town will seek to have the foundation continue current policies at the shelter.
NORTH CAROLINA
Aberdeen – (10/22/09) - A fact-finding trip to a dog-training facility gave members of the Town Board a better idea of what K2 Solutions Inc. hopes to establish in Aberdeen. Though Lane Kjellsen, founder and president of K2 Solutions, is asking for significantly more property in Aberdeen, he is currently training 130 dogs on five acres bordering a residential area. Zell also added that the noise of dogs barking was no more of an issue at the facility than trains going through town or the sounds of detonations coming from Fort Bragg. The dogs respond to commands to be quiet immediately. The facility has about 40 employees who specialize in different aspects of the training and maintenance of the dogs. Zell also commented on the obedience of the dogs and the training process that they go through for eight hours a day. Kjellsen told the Town Board at its Oct. 12 meeting that K2 Solutions pays $5,500 for each dog to enter the program. This cost excludes transportation of the dogs, veterinary services and the time spent training them. Overall, Zell and Liles thought the tour gave the board members a clearer picture of what activities would go on in Aberdeen if the board approves a change in the zoning ordinance to allow a dog-training facility in an area zoned for heavy industrial. Zell said he particularly likes that K2 Solutions is contracting directly with the military, and he sees the potential to bring more military contracts to the area with this operation. He said he also likes that K2 Solutions is a local company wanting to expand in Moore County. Both Liles and Zell see the project as a potential contributor to tax revenues with more people coming to the area and living in Aberdeen for the training. The main question the board has to consider is whether or not a kennel, itself, will be a good fit in the heavy industrial zone. The board is especially concerned about what types of kennels the amendment would allow because parts of Aberdeen's downtown are zoned heavy industrial. "Is the next kennel going to be as good as the one they run?" Zell said. "It has to work for the town. That's our concern." If the board approves an amendment to the zoning ordinance, it would be narrowly tailored to allow a facility like the one K2 Solutions is proposing, but it would also protect the downtown. K2 solutions wants to act quickly on the property because it is under contract with the U.S. Marine Corps to train 112 Labrador retrievers for special operations by December. The company lost a lot of time on the project in its failed negotiations with Moore County over potential property in Vass. At its next meeting, the board will discuss the wording of the proposed text amendment.
Bladen County – (10/8/09) - Bladen amends animal control ordinance - What happened: The board unanimously approved a request to amend the Bladen County Animal Control Ordinance by deleting the spay-and-neuter requirement. Because the spay-and-neuter paperwork has posed a problem for rescue groups moving animals out of state for adoption, Wayne Stewart said in a memorandum to County Manager Greg Martin, the amendment would allow these organizations to pull animals free of charge. Stewart is director of the Bladen County Health Department. - Why it matters: Stewart told the board that based on discussions with the Animal Control staff, it appeared that the requirement posed a detriment to animal adoption. Stewart said he had gone before the Animal Control Advisory Board in August when it decided to raise its flat adoption fee from $15 to $25 for citizens. The cost to spay or neuter a dog, Stewart said, varies from $45 to $85 in the surrounding area. Rescue groups often receive a discount. - What they said: Commissioner Margaret Lewis Moore voiced concerns that some rescue groups appear to be charging for the animals pulled from the county's Animal Control shelter. "Why would we not charge for the animals?" she asked. "The animals that we pull are not the ones people usually adopt," said Krista Hansen of A Shelter Friend of Bladen County. "Often, they have mange and heartworms. You don't make money with these animals. We're in it for the lifesaving."
Cumberland County – (10/2/09) - Cumberland County commissioners will be asked Monday to include criminal penalties in an animal control ordinance after a recent incident frustrated law enforcement officials. As a result of the incident, acting County Attorney Harvey W. Raynor III said sheriff's deputies and animal control officers discovered they cannot seize dangerous animals without an owner's permission. Including criminal penalties in the ordinance, which was endorsed by two commissioners Thursday, would enable investigators to obtain warrants to not only search private property but seize animals threatening public safety, Raynor said. Currently, animal services officers may get administrative warrants. But they cannot take animals with those warrants. UPDATE: (10/4/09) - Cumberland commissioners expected to act on new dog rule. Cumberland County Board of Commissioners - When and where: 9 a.m. Monday (10/5/09) in Room 118 of the Cumberland County Courthouse. What to expect: The commissioners will consider amending an animal ordinance to permit seizure of dangerous dogs without an owner's permission. Why it matters: A group of northern Cumberland County residents say they were threatened by a neighbor's dog, but county officials say they couldn't impound the animal under current rules. UPDATE: (10/5/09) - Cumberland County Commissioners passed an amendment to an ordinance Monday in an effort to protect citizens from dangerous dogs. Commissioners voted unanimously to support a misdemeanor penalty if owners refuse to surrender a dangerous dog. According to the amendment, a dangerous dog is one that has killed or injured a person without being provoked, a dog that has been determined to be potentially dangerous, or a dog that is owned primarily for fighting. "If you have a dangerous dog situation or potentially dangerous dog situation or even a vicious dog situation, you want to be able to take that dog into custody as quickly as possible to provide the public with a more safe environment," said Interim County Attorney Harvey Raynor. "What we had was a situation where we saw that there was a hole in our ordinance and that by putting this misdemeanor penalty in, that would correct that and allow us to take a dog when the home owner or the dogs owner was not willing to surrender it," said Raynor. Director of Animal Control Scottie Harris says the amendment will allow animal control officers to get dangerous dogs off the streets faster, making Cumberland County a safer place to live."We're not forcing the issue or trying to charge people criminally. That's not our intent behind the ordinance. However, we needed a way to be able to go before the court system if an owner chose not to give us the right to the animal, then we still have a way to seize the animal," said Harris.
Richmond County – (10/6/09) – Commissioner Dillman also questioned the possibility of revisiting the idea of a leash law in the county. “I keep getting calls from people who see dogs without collars bothering children and adults,” Dillman said. Commissioner Thad Ussery said it’s too hard to enforce a leash law in the county because, “you have to have a little cooperation from the people, too.” The commissioners discussed that the county’s animal control officers will respond to calls of dogs running around without tags and collars and the county does have a dangerous dog ordinance that says if anyone is bit by a dog, animal control will respond, and if the dog is deemed “dangerous” it will be put to sleep.
Robinette added that it might be worth looking into specific dog bans like other county’s have for deer-hunting dogs and the like. “Developers need to have specific rules for their subdivisions, too,” Robinette said. They all stressed that until there are more specific laws on the books, the best way to keep people and animals safe is to keep dogs on a leash, but to also make sure the animals have a name tag and their rabies tag on the collar because if a dog is picked up by animal control and there’s no proof of a rabies vaccine, it could be put to sleep.
OHIO
(10/13/09) - As Nov. 3 approaches and the debate over Issue 2 escalates, Ohio's two largest humane societies and smaller ones, including Geauga Humane in rural Geauga County, today announced their opposition to the proposed constitutional amendment. They join the Ohio Farmers Union, organic food proponents and environmental groups opposing the plan to create a Livestock Care Standards Board that would determine how billions of cows, chickens, pigs, sheep and goats are treated here. The Cleveland Animal Protective League, Geauga Humane and Capital Area Humane serving Greater Columbus say Issue 2 would not be good for farm animals, as the 13-member board appointed by the governor and legislators would include just one humane officer. "County humane societies had no voice in this proposal and no representation during discussions about the role and composition of the proposed board," said Cleveland APL Director Sharon Harvey. "As county humane societies that are empowered to appoint humane agents who enforce Ohio's animal protection laws, including the protection of farm animals, we should have had a voice in the role and composition of this board."
Columbus – (10/6/09) - Pet enthusiasts pushing for the regulation of puppy mills took their fight to the Ohio Statehouse Tuesday. Lawmakers listened on as supporters argued for Senate Bill 95, which would establish license requirements and set standards of care for dog breeding kennels. DiFrischia said a total of 32 states have passed or have pending puppy mill legislation. Proponents of the legislative action showed video of injured dogs confined in cages as evidence that the unregulated industry of pet breeding needs rules. But State Senator Bill Seitz (R-Cincinnati) is concerned that the legislation contains excessive restrictions and fees that penalize good breeders. “The general framework of the bill I agree with, but the reason these bills have always failed previously is that the proponents go too far in the other direction,“ Seitz said. The bill’s sponsor, State Senator Jim Hughes (R-Columbus) said action is needed and he welcomed input that would lead to a bill that passes into law.
Columbus – (10/14/09) - A group seeking to ban dog auctions in Ohio has the green light to begin collecting petition signatures toward a goal of putting the issue before voters next year. The Ohio Ballot Board yesterday certified that the proposed "Ohio Dog Auction Act" contains only one proposed law, clearing the way for the Coalition to Ban Ohio Dog Auctions to begin collecting the 120,683 valid signatures needed by the end of this year to have the legislature consider it. If the General Assembly fails to act within four months, the coalition then may collect an additional 120,683 signatures to get the issue on the November 2010 ballot. The proposed law would make it illegal for anyone to auction or raffle a dog in Ohio. It also would prohibit bringing dogs into the state for sale or trade that were acquired by auction or raffle elsewhere. The General Assembly has considered banning dog auctions as part of legislation to regulate commercial dog breeders in Senate Bill 95 and House Bill 124. But O'Connor-Shaver said proponents of the legislation have watched it languish for four years and are "committed 110 percent" to get the ban on dog auctions enacted themselves.
Fremont – (10/16/09) - City hall was packed Thursday night to hear Fremont police Chief Tim Wiersma, Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates' Jean Keating and Sandusky County's deputy dog warden Gina Halbisen debate pit bulls. Councilman James Melle, who is chairman of the laws, rules and ordinance committee, said before the meeting that the purpose was to gather information before considering any legislation. At another meeting at 6:30 p.m. Nov. 5, Ledy VanKavage, of the Best Friends Animal Society out of Illinois, will speak about pit bulls.
Louis County – (10/23/09) - Two weeks after authorities seized 20 of her dogs, a Lewis County woman accused of running a filthy dog-breeding farm said she plans to reduce the number of dogs on her property to about 50 — a two-thirds reduction. Hahn, 26, and Lewis County authorities have given conflicting accounts of just about every detail since the Oct. 7 seizure. Officials described a house crammed with 100 dogs and floors and furniture blanketed with feces, while Hahn disputes both of those claims.Hanson said Hahn has made no effort to retrieve the 19 remaining dogs from the shelter. Hahn said nobody at the shelter will return her phone calls and she wants to reclaim two of the dogs, which she said are older and are family pets. The recent seizure has brought attention to Lewis County’s breeder-friendly laws, which do not limit the number of dogs one person can possess.Those laws could change soon. A new state law that takes effect Jan. 1 will limit to 50 the number of dogs one person can have in their possession at any time. It also requires handlers to provide dogs with proper space, light and exercise. With this month’s seizure in mind, Lewis County commissioners are pushing for even stricter laws. They want the 50-dog limit to apply to a property rather than an individual. Four people live at Hahn’s five-acre parcel, meaning that even when the new state law takes effect, Hahn could actually add to her dog population. “That’s a huge loophole right there, because they could have 200,” Hanson said.
The county plans to hold a public hearing to discuss the proposed ordinance, but no date has been set.
St. Marys – (10/20/09) - City Councilors next week will get their first look at an ordinance regarding the trapping of cats — feral and domestic — one that also could lead toward a tag system for the felines. Members of the St. Marys Safety Committee, as well as approximately a dozen and a half citizens — attended the meeting to discuss the issue of trapping cats. The issue surfaced last week during a city council meeting when a resident approached councilors regarding the trapping of domestic cats that were then transported and released in the country. City Law Director Kraig Noble provided committee members with a memo detailing possible options for councilors to consider. Noble said during his research on the topic, he found few laws specifically addressing the issue of cats. Freewalt said he plans to work with city officials, Zink and St. Marys Police Chief Greg Foxhoven to come up with a proposal that he feels will benefit all parties. Safety-Service Director Tom Hitchcock said the measure, in its first form, will be presented to councilors Monday. “We’ll do our best effort to put an ordinance together,” Hitchcock said. Freewalt said the ordinance would be read three times, allowing the opportunity for public input. The mayor also said the ordinance could change from its initial form when, and if, passed by councilors. The next meeting of the St. Marys City Council is scheduled for 7 p.m. Monday at the city building located along East Spring Street. UPDATE: (10/27/09) - City Councilors Monday night held the first reading of an ordinance addressing cats — feral and domestic. The issue surfaced during the Oct. 12 council meeting and again at a safety committee meeting the next week. Following the Oct. 12 meeting, councilors asked City Law Director Kraig Noble to draft a measure regarding the trapping of cats and the process that follows. The measure was debated and Noble provided the ordinance Monday to councilors for a vote. According to the ordinance, no person who owns a cat can let it run at-large. Residents can apply for an identification tag for a one-time fee not to exceed $10. The ordinance also prohibits the trapping of cats unless a person applies for a permit to live trap the animals. If a person, who has obtained the proper permit, traps a cat and it can be identified, it must be brought to a holding agent as designated by the safety-service director. The cat’s owner can retrieve the animal from the agent by paying a fee not to exceed $50.If a cat cannot be identified, it may be brought to the agent — who can then destroy the animal in a humane manner. Anyone who is found to have trapped a cat without a permit would be guilty of committing a minor misdemeanor. A minor misdemeanor is punishable by maximum fine of $100. Council President Dan Hoelscher said the permitting process and any other details would be handled by Safety-Service Director Tom Hitchcock. Hoelscher said only traps provided by the city can be used to live trap the animals. The measure will be back for its second reading at the next council meeting. The next meeting of the St. Marys City Council is scheduled for 7 p.m. Nov. 9 at the city building located along East Spring Street.
Whitehall – (10/22/09) - After almost two years of turmoil in Whitehall government, Issue 32 on the Nov. 3 ballot will allow voters to determine whether they consider embattled City Councilwoman Jackie Thompson a champion of the residents battling cronyism at City Hall, or a woman using a bully pulpit to implement her own agenda. Thompson is the subject of the city's first recall. On the Nov. 3 ballot, voters will be asked, in the affirmative, "Shall Jacquelyn Thompson be allowed to continue as Council At-Large?" A "no" vote removes her from council; a "yes" vote keeps her on council. For the past two years, dozens of residence have attended each council meeting speaking in opposition or support of a variety of issues Councilwoman Thompson has presented, the most divisive and emotional of which was a twice-failed effort to ban pit bulls in the city. However, the reasons for seeking the removal of the councilwoman, elected on her third attempt at office in 2007, are numerous, C.J. Thompson said. C.J. Thompson listed some of those reasons on the recall petitions that were circulated in August and September.
OKLAHOMA
Shawnee – (10/24/09) - State animal rescue laws may have been broken at an adoption fair this week for about 100 dogs saved from an alleged puppy mill, Pottawatomie County Sheriff Mike Booth said. At the very least, industry standards for animal rescue were ignored, animal rights groups allege. Homes were found for about 90 dogs at an event Thursday coordinated by the Tri-County Humane Society and the local newspaper, The Shawnee News-Star. "Their hearts were in the right place, but there are proper ways to find homes for dogs like these,” Booth said. "The problem is that it’s probably too late to do anything about it.” Hundreds of people from across the state came to the adoption fair, and all but about 15 dogs were placed in new homes, organizers said. Booth said he got numerous calls from animal rights groups Thursday saying laws that require legitimate animal rescue groups to spay and neuter animals before putting them up for adoption may have been broken. While Thursday’s adoption fair on the surface seems to be a success, it went against industry standards for animal rescue. "Many of these dogs are probably going to end right back in puppy mills or in a shelter,” Counts said. Counts said breeders likely coveted the adoption fair looking for new stock. And families that adopted pets may find that their new companion doesn’t have the social skills to be around people yet. Pottawatomie County District Attorney Richard Smothermon said he’s gotten numerous calls from animal organizations complaining about the adoption fair. Some also pressured him to file charges against the Bethel Acres women operating the alleged puppy mill, he said. "It’s like everything else, there needs to be an investigation by law enforcement to warrant charges,” Smothermon said. "So far, I’ve gotten nothing.” Booth said his office is planning to look into both issues with the dogs and consult with Smothermon.
PENNSYLVANIA
Clairton – (10/9/09) - The Clairton City Council met this morning to discuss recent problems involving pit bulls and police officers. An animal control specialist said at the meeting that the city of Clairton is not the only community dealing with a dangerous animal problem; however, the city is taking action to prevent animal attacks and animals from being shot by police. the city of Clairton is beginning to crack down on pit bull and other dog owners. “We have not really been pushing this ordinance, but it’s time that we start getting strict with the ordnance,” said Clairton Mayor Domenic Virgona. “Everyone having a dangerous dog such as a pit bull and Rottweiler and so on must register their dog with the city of Clairton. They must also be on a leash and if they’re going to walk the dog on the street, it must be muzzled.” Also, the mayor says that anyone who disobeys that ordnance will face a $500 fine. The mayor also says that a ban on pit bulls in the future is not out of the question.
Collier – (10/28/09) - A couple who own a full-bred Rottweiler and a half-breed Rottweiler say in a federal lawsuit filed Tuesday that they sold their house and moved out of Collier because of harassment by the township's animal control officers. Geoffrey and Bonnie Turosak say the harassment began after a neighbor, who allegedly lets her dog run free, complained that Bonnie Turosak was walking her Rottweilers on leashes July 29, 2008, when one of them broke free. It scuffled with the neighbor's dog, leading its owner and other neighbors to pressure the township to prosecute the Turosaks under the state's dangerous dog law. All charges were dropped during a Dec. 2 magistrate court hearing, the lawsuit says. Because of the failed prosecution and some minor acts of vandalism, the Turosaks put their home up for sale. The sale was finalized Oct. 2, and the Turosaks moved to another community, according to the lawsuit. Their lawyer, Richard Schomaker, said the couple declined comment because they don't want to attract attention in their new home. The head of a local Rottweiler group declined comment for fear it would draw negative attention to her Rottweiler. A Collier official and a representative of Triangle Pet Control Service of McKees Rocks couldn't be reached for comment. Triangle provides animal control for Collier, according to the lawsuit. The Turosaks adopted their dogs from the Animal Rescue League of Western Pennsylvania.
Harrisburg – (10/8/09) - New standards governing cage size, exercise, and veterinary care go into effect Friday (10/9/09) for the roughly 300 licensed commercial dog kennels in Pennsylvania. Under a law signed a year ago by Gov. Rendell, kennel operators who keep more than 59 dogs a year, or sell one or more dogs to a pet store, must house dogs in larger cages than before, and provide daily exercise and regular veterinary care for breeding dogs. The new law also forbids cage stacking and wire flooring in cages, and imposes kennel temperature requirements. State dog wardens will be deployed starting Friday to inspect commercial kennels to ensure compliance, according to the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement. Those found in violation might receive citations or lose their licenses. A federal lawsuit filed by breeders challenging the constitutionality of the dog law was unsuccessful. Jessie Smith, special deputy secretary of the Bureau of Dog Law Enforcement, said the stricter standards - widely regarded as the toughest in the nation - will significantly improve conditions for thousands of dogs living in kennels.
Harrisburg – (10/18/09) - In a last-minute effort to pass the state's dog law last year, lawmakers included the creation of an all-veterinarian health board to mollify the Pennsylvania Veterinary Medical Association. The PVMA, which represents 1,900 veterinarians, argued that the legislature was not qualified to set standards for commercial kennels. The bill, signed by Rendell last October, called for a nine-member Canine Health Board to draft broad regulations governing temperature, flooring, ventilation, and lighting to improve conditions for dogs in commercial kennels. Those regulations require an extensive review by agencies and the legislature that could last up to two years. The major provisions of the dog law, which bans cage stacking and wire flooring and requires larger cases, exercise, and semiannual veterinary care, went into effect last week. But at a public review hearing held Friday by the Department of Agriculture, the scope of the proposed regulations generated surprising criticism from the PVMA, which has an appointee to the board and board members among its membership. Robert Lavan, chairman of the PVMA's governmental and regulatory committee, said the regulations lacked "scientific basis" and go beyond "the limited scope of the board's authority." Lavan also said they would increase costs for breeders and the price of puppies. His testimony stunned one board member, who called it "completely uninformed." "These are the most complete set of regulations for pet dogs ever written," said Karen Overall, a research associate in neurobiology at the University of Pennsylvania Medical School, appointed to the board by Rendell. "The PVMA's legislative committee has stepped over the line and turned into lobbyists for dog breeders." Lavan said after the hearing that he did not oppose the board per se, but had issues with its administration and a lack of consultation with commercial kennel owners. He also said there was "dissent" among the board members. Overall said that while there was some disagreement over certain aspects of the regulations, the differences had been worked out, and that the full document had won unanimous approval. The regulations are based on model building design and mechanical standards and were drafted in consultation with experts, and a lawyer, to meet the requirements of Attorney General Tom Corbett, Overall said. Each of the four legislative caucuses, the PVMA, and Penn's Veterinary Medical School appointed members of the board. Rendell appointed three members. The Professional Dog Breeders Association, which uses the same lobbying firm as the PVMA, also opposed the regulations, calling them "excessive." Several animal-welfare groups, including the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals; DogPac, a political action committee in Philadelphia; and United Against Puppy Mills, of Lancaster, testified in support of the regulations.
Lancaster County – (10/1/09) - Some local municipalities may terminate contracts with the Humane League of Lancaster County next year, citing the rising cost of doing business with the shelter. But a shelter official this week fired back, saying the nonprofit agency is teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Without some change, she said, the shelter is two to three years from bankruptcy. "We lost about $600,000 in 2008 providing animal-control services," she said. The $1-per-capita rate proposed for 2011, she said, "would completely solve our problem. It wouldn't cover our full costs, but we do a huge amount of fundraising each year and we have an army of volunteers. We just need enough support to avoid going out of business." Municipalities leaders are balking at the League's increase in rates for service. And, while Brown said most of the county's 60 municipalities have contracts with the League for 2009, "only a small handful" have signed up for 2010. Under the current contract, municipalities pay the League 30 cents per resident. That rate is doubling in 2010 and will increase to $1 per resident in 2011. Previously, municipalities paid a flat rate of $100 per dog dropped off at the shelter. That was unworkable, Brown said, because "it was a constant fight over where each animal came from. Stray animals do not observe municipal boundaries." Now, some municipalities are looking for options, including providing animal shelters of their own. I think the police chief and I are pretty much resigned to the fact that we're going to have to do it here," East Lampeter Township manager Ralph Hutchison said earlier this month. Elizabeth Township supervisor Rodney May said providing the service would mean building kennels and learning state dog laws — a major commitment of time and resources. "I personally don't want the township to be in the dog business," he said. East Petersburg manager James Williams said the borough typically takes six dogs to the League in a year — meaning the 60-cent rate would cost them $445 per dog. The proposed rate for 2011 would bump that to $742 per dog. Borough Council President Cathleen Panus called the rate "ridiculous" and said, "What they're charging and the way they're going about it is unreasonable." East Cocalico Township supervisors have already approved a 2010 contract with the League, saying they have between 30 to 40 stray dogs per year. Denver Borough also has approved a contract for next year. East Lampeter Township officials also approved a 2010 contract but said they would explore options for caring for dogs on their own by 2011. League officials are seeking alternatives in concert with a group of municipal managers and police chiefs, including possible avenues for state and local support.
RHODE ISLAND
Providence – (10/24/09) - A financially troubled slot parlor seeking bankruptcy protection will pay $5 million as it attempts to end the last greyhound races in Rhode Island because the sport is costing the track money, attorneys said Friday. UTGR Inc., the owner of the Twin River gambling hall, has agreed to pay the Rhode Island Greyhound Owners Association $2 million to end racing at the track if the restructuring plan is approved by a federal judge, according to court documents. The dog owners would receive an additional $3 million if Twin River successfully emerges from bankruptcy. U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Arthur Votolato was expected to consider the plan at a Nov. 17 court hearing.
Providence – (10/26/09) - David A. Holden, a retired Pawtucket police captain and former director of the Rhode Island Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, is the new director of animal control for the City of Providence. The appointment by Sybil Bailey, city director of human resources, puts in charge a man who supports Pawtucket’s municipal ban on pit bulls. Rather than press for Providence to enact the same ban, however, Holden has other priorities. He said he wants stepped-up training for the facility staff, more public education about spaying and neutering and other pet issues, and establishment of a more formal assessment process to determine the adoption potential of animals. Pawtucket is the only Rhode Island municipality with a pit-bull ban, which does allow people who owned pit bulls at the time of enactment of the law to keep and replace them. Holden, who oversaw the Pawtucket animal control facility for three years while a policeman, said Pawtucket enacted the ban because it had a problem with pit bulls. Owners of pit bulls also are required to carry insurance. In Providence, he said, “I don’t see any ugly issue with pit bulls raising its head right now.”
Warwick – (10/21/09) - Monday night, the Warwick City Council approved an ordinance that restricts how long dog owners can leave their pets outdoors, particularly during extreme weather conditions, and without adequate shelter and food. A similar ordinance is already in place in East Providence. Warwick is only the second city in Rhode Island to adopt the measure. Dubbed the Responsible Pet Owners Act, it will become effective once signed into the books by Mayor Scott Avedisian. The council voted unanimously for the measure. The new ordinance will authorize Warwick’s animal control officers to fine first-time offenders $100. Second-time offenders will be fined $200, with officers possibly seizing their animal. A third offense would result in a $400 fine and the animal automatically being seized. Warwick Animal Shelter director Ann Corvin said there might be instances where the animal control officer would deem it necessary to seize an animal during a first offense. There are some specific guidelines for animal control officers to go by. These guidelines are based on standards established in the Tufts Animal Care and Condition, or TACC, scale, which was developed at the Tufts Veterinary Hospital in Massachusetts.
SOUTH CAROLINA
Orangeburg – (10/6/09) - Council agreed to look into Animal Control complaints raised by a Neeses area woman.Karen Lindsey said despite her efforts to cooperate, she’s “lost two dogs” and been threatened with $1,000 in fines in a dispute with Animal Control over the last five months.She urged council to reduce the potential $1,000 fine for a violation of the ordinance to a more manageable $25 and to increase the length of time dog owners would have to reclaim pets from three days to 14 days.“A lot of people see dogs as family members,” she said.Councilman Harry Wimberly expressed surprise that a $1,000 fine could be levied.“Who set these fines? They’re not written,” he said. “We adopted such nonsense?” As pointed out by Lindsey, the county’s Web site states that “there will be a $15 charge per animal reclaim and a $10 per day boarding charge. Any violation of Orangeburg County animal ordinances may be fined up to $1,025 per violation and/or 30 days in jail.” Councilman Heyward Livingston, who represents the Neeses area, said, “one of the problems is she hasn’t got a whole lot of cooperation from the county when she called.” “I’m getting no answers from anybody,” Lindsey said. Council Chairman Johnnie Wright said, “We are sympathetic to what you’re saying. The (animal control) ordinance is coming up for review and we’ll consider what you’re saying. We can’t settle it all tonight.” UPDATE: (10/20/09) - Orangeburg County cat and dog owners will be issued a first violation warning only under a proposed animal control ordinance revision. County council, meeting as a committee of the whole Monday afternoon, instructed county attorney D’Anne Haydel to draft the fine schedule for the new ordinance. The fines are the only change authorized by council. Councilman Willie B. Owens proposed the first violation warning and a $150 fine for a second violation. A third violation would be handled under Section 1-8 of the Orangeburg County Code of Ordinances. The county Web site says any violation of Orangeburg County animal ordinances may be fined up to $1,025 per violation and/or 30 days in jail. Haydel said the current fine is high because animal control violations involve the owner facing the charge before a county magistrate, part of the unified state judicial system. Council was advised it had a number of options for the animal control ordinance, such as including everything allowed by state law, or a total repeal and rewriting of the measure. Animal Control Program Manager Ben Boensch said there is nothing his department can do under the current ordinance regarding exotic or non-domesticated animals, or wild animals. Council unanimously accepted Councilman Harry Wimberly’s motion to consider cats and dogs only during the meeting. The motion held that other components can be studied at a later time. “If we don’t have the facilities to handle animals other than cats and dogs, let’s just stay hands off,” Wimberly said. “That reduces potential liability.” The draft will be reviewed during a scheduled committee-of-the-whole meeting Oct. 26. UPDATE: (10/31/09) - Towns that depend on Orangeburg County to handle their pet problems will be going back to the drawing board under a proposed new animal control ordinance. The state requires the county and its towns to have agreements in place before the county’s Animal Control office can operate inside the towns’ limits, county attorney D’Anne Haydel said during a County Council committee meeting Monday. Animal Control Program Manager Ben Boensch said some municipalities, such as Orangeburg, Norway and Santee, handle their own animal issues. The towns that depend on the county for enforcement, “can’t just adopt the new county code in order for us to enforce it,” Boensch said. “We will need to revisit contracts with them and start working on that intergovernmental agreement.” Council is considering a new ordinance to replace the current animal control regulations. Boensch recommended that the impoundment fee be increased from $15 to $25 for a first offense. The fee will remain $30 for a second offense and $50 for a third offense. Impounded animals not claimed after three business days will be euthanized unless the Maude Schiffley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals agrees to accept the animal for adoption, he said. “State law says if the animal is positively identifiable by an identification tag or implanted microchip, it must be held 21 days,” Boensch said. Public notice of impoundment will only be posted on the county Web site. Under the proposed ordinance, animal control officers will be allowed to pursue roaming animals onto private property, excluding residences, in order to enforce the ordinance, Boensch said. The proposal would also give Boensch the authority to determine if an animal is dangerous as defined by state law. Such animals must be registered with Animal Control. The new ordinance will allow the owner of a dangerous animal to reclaim it only once. “They will not be eligible for redemption thereafter,” Boensch said. Other proposed regulations would require a certificate of inspection for commercial breeding operations and prohibit exotic animals.Council previously approved the issuance of a written warning for a first animal control violation. Second violations would be fined $150 and third violations $500. Council will hold a public hearing on the proposal during its Nov. 2 meeting, when it is also scheduled to give second reading to the ordinance. Third and final reading is tentatively scheduled for Nov. 16.
Parris Island – (10/9/09) - Most of the pit bulls, Rottweilers and canine-wolf mixes assessed at Marine bases in South Carolina this week get to keep their Marine dog tags. Of 85 dogs from the three breeds checked by experts from the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, only two were found to be so aggressive as to pose a danger to Marines and their families. Those two will have to leave base housing. Two others showed aggressive tendencies but one will work with a trainer and another will be neutered. The Marines have banned the aggressive breeds, because their "dominant traits of aggression present an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of personnel."
SOUTH DAKOTA
Hot Springs – (10/13/09) – Building Inspector report. It is not uncommon for law enforcement and code enforcement to coordinate efforts where certain situations effect both offices. This office often assists Animal Control, a division of the police department, when animal complaints turn out to be zoning violations. It is my belief that most dog kennel violations stem from people either not knowing or not understanding the zoning laws regulating dog kennels in residential districts. It can be somewhat confusing, but here is an explanation in a nutshell.
A “kennel” is defined in the municipal code as ‘any lot or premises on which four (4) or more dogs, more than six (6) months of age, are kept.’ Simply put, if you have three dogs, it is legal. If one or more of the dogs have pups, that is also legal. But, if you are keeping more than three dogs that are more than six months of age on the premises, it is considered a kennel operation, which is not a permitted use in a residential district.
There are certain permitted ‘uses’ in various zoned districts, and there are certain uses that are ‘permitted on review.’ Uses permitted on review are uses that are allowed by the City Council on a case-by-case basis. It is required that neighbors are made aware of the mandatory public hearing regarding the proposed use before it is approved.
A kennel, or dog breeding operation, is not a permitted use in any residential district. It is not a use that is permitted on review, nor is it listed under customary home occupations. In fact, habitually barking dogs, common in kennel operations, are a declared nuisance by city ordinance.
Approved kennel locations are specifically addressed in the municipal code.
Animal hospitals, kennels, and pet shops are permitted in Highway Service districts, away from residential districts.
Kennels, or dog breeding operations, are considered for-profit businesses. As such the revenues from dog breeding operations are taxable. The S.D. Department of Revenue is made aware of all illegal dog breeding operations.
Animal complaints are fielded by the ACO (Animal Control Officer). The ACO usually makes a personal visit and informs the occupant of the violation and issues a verbal warning. If warranted, he may issue a citation.
Animal violations can result in fines in the amount of $25 per violation. For example, an unlicensed, unvaccinated dog could cost $50. A repeat violation would be double that, or $100, and another repeat violation would again double, $200, totaling $350, and so on. Continued violations may be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution.
If a complaint is forwarded to this office by the ACO due to an illegal dog kennel operation, a courtesy notice is issued to the property owner.
If it is a rental property the tenant is also sent a copy of the notice. A date is given as to when the violation is expected to be corrected. Property owners are responsible for any zoning violations on their property.
If the notice goes unheeded the matter is referred to the Public Safety Committee where recommendations are made as to how to proceed.
Typically those recommendations would be to send a Notice And Order to discontinue the illegal activities by a certain date. If that order is ignored then water service to the property may be terminated until the nuisance is abated, or the matter may be referred to the City Attorney for prosecution, or both.
TENNESSEE
Baxter – (10/23/09) - In an effort to control the number of dogs and cats in the city of Baxter, city codes inspector Bob Lane proposed an ordinance to the Baxter planning committee last night to do just that. The ordinance states that two or fewer cats are allowed on any lot a half-acre or less, three dogs or cats on any lot from one to two acres, and no more than four dogs or cats on two acres or more, unless zoned for a veterinary clinic or a boarding or grooming business. No dogs would be permanent at these locations, so not to exceed the number based on the lot size set above. Any dog found vicious by nature or has an aggressive behavior or has a history of such behavior will have to be kept in a pen or inside a structure and cannot be tied as a means to control that dog. People who would not be in compliance would be given a reasonable amount of time to get in compliance. Lane said that the city ordered equipment to start catching cats, which are also a problem. Committee members expressed that they should put exceptions in before recommending it to the full board. The committee decided to look at some exceptions to add to the ordinance and re-visit it next month before taking it to the full board for approval.
Dandridge – (10/13/09) - The Dandridge City Council rejected a proposed ban on pit bulls and will start from square one on the issue.Town Administrator Jim Hutchinson said earlier Tuesday evening that city councilman denied the proposal as written. Hutchinson says the city is re-working the proposal to read "vicious dog" instead of naming a specific breed. A workshop on the revisions will be held the first Tuesday in November. A vote is expected in December.
Dyersburg – (10/23/09) - The Dyersburg Board of Mayor and Aldermen approved an attorney's invoice for $4,781.25. McCright moved to approve the invoice, with Chaney adding a second. Moody noted the vicious dog entries listed on the invoice and asked if the city's new vicious dog ordinance was resulting in convictions in court. Holden said the ordinance is achieving results and the entries on the invoice are from the city attorney representing the city in court in vicious dog cases. He offered to give Moody statistics on the new vicious dog ordinance later in the week. Moody declined. The motion passed unanimously.
Jackson (10/9/09) - The city of Jackson is proposing "breeder permits", anti-tethering, and pet limits (no more than 6 dogs or cats over the age of 6 months). The hearing is Thursday, October 15 @ 4pm. UPDATE: (10/16/09) - An hour long discussion on animal-control proposals focused on three
issues Thursday at Jackson City Hall:
A $50 fee for owning more than six dogs and cats.
How animal-control laws are enforced.
How animals can be kept on property.
City officials, animal organizations and area rescue groups were part of the discussion.
Mayor Jerry Gist's crime task force has recommended that Jackson residents pay a $50 fee if they own more than six dogs and cats. The City Council has delayed a vote on that proposal and other animal-
control laws until next month to allow city officials to consider the task force's proposal and an alternate proposal from City Councilman Frank Neudecker. Neudecker said Thursday he wants to allow people to own as many pets as they want as long as the animals are properly maintained and not a nuisance. He asked that a definition for nuisance be placed in the task force's proposal. The restriction would be on dogs and cats older than six months. If a violation occurred, the pet owner would have 30 days to appeal.
Among the exceptions to the six-animal limit are rescue groups, owners of show dogs and breeders, who would have to get a special permit. UPDATE: (10/23/09) - Jackson officials and residents on both sides of a proposed animal control ordinance exchanged sharp words on Thursday over a mandatory spay and neutering rule and the arrangement of the afternoon's meeting. The meeting was the second held in hopes of producing a compromise proposal since the City Council postponed a vote on the rules earlier
this month. Another session is set for 4 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall. The ordinance, drafted in the spring by Mayor Jerry Gist's crime task force, would require most dogs and cats be spayed or neutered to
prevent reproduction unless their owners pay for a $200 breeding permit. It would create a low-cost spay and neutering program funded by animal control fees that could be contracted out to a local nonprofit. Robin Cannon, a member of the legislative committee of the American Rottweiler Club, also charged that the mandating of spaying and neutering interferes with property rights and veterinary practice. Some supporters of the spay and neuter rule also portrayed Cannon, who is from Kentucky, as an out-of-town interloper and painted breeders who allied with her as “high-spending elitists”. Councilman Frank Neudecker was concerned about local veterinarians being able to handle the increase of spay and neuter work the new law could bring. Neudecker said he has doubts that the ordinance will be voted on
by the council in November. AND WE JUST HAD TO INCLUDE THIS LITTLE DITTY : City Council members got a couple impromptu canine anatomy lessons from Jackson residents on Thursday during a public discussion of the mandatory spay and neuter rule in the animal control ordinance proposed by Mayor Jerry Gist’s crime task force. The rule would require most pet owners to buy a $200 breeding permit if they do not have their animals surgically altered to prevent reproduction. The ordinance would have at least a portion of those fees filtered into paying for a low-cost spay and neuter program. “It’s not an on-the-spot exam or something?” Councilman Ernest Brooks II asked when council members discussed enforcing the new rule. “You can only do that with the males,” said one woman. In discussing the need for the spay and neuter rule, another woman proclaimed: “One of the things the dogs have learned to do is how to get it done through the fence.” “Oh,” Brooks responded. “I’ve got a vivid picture now.” For additional article, click here. UPDATE: (10/28/09) – SPAY NEUTER RULE STANDS WHILE PET LIMIT FALLS (2 PAGES AT LINK) …
Memphis (10/27/09) - Starving, thirsty and sometimes ailing, more than 200 dogs and cats were in the care of volunteers Tuesday after law enforcement officers raided the City of Memphis Animal Shelter. Shelby County Sheriff’s Deputies executed a search warrant at the shelter, 3456 Tchulahoma, after a tipster complained about abuse and cruelty to the Shelby County District Attorney General’s Office. “From what we’ve seen this morning, it’s evident there’s been some neglect,” said Shelby County Sheriff Mark Luttrell, who said he’d been told of deficiencies in staff training. Ten shelter employees and city Animal Services administrator Ernest Alexander were relieved of duty as the investigation continued, and Dist. Atty. Gen. Bill Gibbons said criminal charges were possible.
Washington County – (10/30/09) - The Washington County-Johnson City Animal Control Center is pushing for a new law that would require animals over the age of six months to be spayed or neutered. Under the proposed ordinance, pet owners who choose not to spay or neuter their animals would have to obtain a permit to have an unaltered animal.
TEXAS
"ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 2004-0808 to increase the maximum contract amount; approving and authorizing second amendment to contract between the City of Houston and PETDATA, INC for Animal Licensing Services for Houston Department of Health & Human Services - $380,000.00 - General Fund" I'm sure that this is a followup to the letter that Houston veterinarians have recently received informing them that the city is going to "deputize" them to enforce pet licensing laws. (Click here to read) However, enforcement of pet licensing laws has proven to be a waste of money in other cities and can cause kill rates to rise. The reason is that responsible people are going to be responsible WITHOUT laws. Irresponsible people will remain irresponsible and still will not license their pets no matter how many laws are passed. And when irresponsible people are faced with fines for not having licenses or being over the pet limit, they will DUMP the pet. (read more at the link) UPDATE: (10/21/09) - The above ordinance was passed by the Mayor and City Council this morning. It is very disappointing that our city leaders continue to spend our tax dollars on programs/laws that will NOT save lives, especially when our city claims to have a several million dollar shortfall. This $380,000 could have been used on so many programs that would save lives and we would see the benefits almost immediately. Our vet bills are going to go up because vets will, most likely, be forced to hire additional staff to process the extra paperwork they are now required to handle. This again PUNISHES the very people that BARC needs, people who adopt and care for animals. (For full article, click here.) Please click HERE for further reading and information !
Wake Village – (10/19/09) - What used to be on the Wake Village municipal law books as part of a nuisance ordinance is now a separate ordinance regulating dangerous animals. The law, which the Wake Village City Council approved last week, is a 17-page ordinance regulating kennel operations, confinement of a dog on its owner premises, destruction of dangerous dogs or animals, criminal penalties for violations, impounding of dogs, release of animals , reclaiming of animals and rabies control.
UTAH
VIRGINIA
A message to dog owning sportsmen about protecting their traditions, avocations and livelihoods from anti-hunting, anti-breeding, animal guardianship advocates. Forwarding and cross posting, with attribution, encouraged. The message below was posted to Virginia residents by the Sportsmen's and Animal Owners' Voting Alliance (SAOVA). SAOVA is a nonpartisan volunteer group working to protect Americans from the legislative and political threats of radical animal rightists. It is the only national organization fighting this struggle for both sportsmen and animal owners, natural allies, in these arenas. Visit our website at http://saova.org for this program's goals, methodology and list signup details.
VHDOA’s 2009 Election Endorsements
After careful consideration of their bill sponsorships, voting records and other actions, the Virginia Hunting Dog Owners’ Association endorses Bob McDonnell, Bill Bolling and Ken Cuccinelli in the November 3, 2009 general election. Each of these candidates has demonstrated commitment, competence and unusual support for Virginia’s sportsmen and animal owners.
Governor
Bob McDonnell is a strong 2nd Amendment advocate. Moreover, as Attorney General he vigorously pursued greater dog fighting penalties while blocking Norfolk’s extralegal attempts to reduce pet owners’ rights. He also has shown the managerial and political skills to be great chief executive.
Creigh Deeds has a discouraging anti-dog owner General Assembly record. Since 2005, Sen. Deeds voted for the animal rightist Humane Society of the U.S. breeder restriction bill which became the first such law in the country, abstained from voting on a bill that required impounded dogs to be spayed or neutered before being returned, and voted for a bill that allowed anyone to apply to a magistrate for a dangerous/vicious dog summons, bypassing law enforcement and animal control officers. He also introduced a bill that singled out hunting dog owners for draconian trespassing penalties far in excess of those applicable to hunters without dogs.
Lt. Governor
Lt. Governor Bill Bolling’s General Assembly voting record on issues important to sportsmen and animal owners is a positive one. Ms Wagner has no legislative record and her appointed administrative resume is unimpressive.
Attorney General
Sen. Ken Cuccinelli has served seven years in the General Assembly. HSUS actively opposes his candidacy. His record defending your interests is long and broad. Not only are his votes carefully considered, he’s willing to take on bad bills in committee and on the Senate floor, speaking against them as he did on the animal rightist's repeated efforts to change Virginia’s K-12 education curriculum. Sen. Cuccinelli also voted against HSUS’s breeder restriction bill and numerous other ill-considered anti-pet owner measures. He’ll be a tough, but fair minded Attorney General.
Delegate Shannon’s legislative record is in stark contrast to Sen. Cuccinelli’s. Del. Shannon has voted for virtually every anti-sportsmen, anti-pet owner bill to come before the House Agriculture Committee or on the floor since he came to the General Assembly. Since 2004 there have been many important big and small House votes. His is reliably an anti-vote .
House Race Endorsements
More races are contested this election than in the recent past, but only a few are expected to be truly competitive. Despite this, your votes could decide key contests, including seats on the critically important House Agriculture, Natural Resources and Chesapeake Committee, where Delegates Eisenberg, Hogan, Saxman and Shannon will be replaced. Equally significant, we need to vote for supportive legislators and send others a message. The following incumbents continue to cast carefully considered votes on issues important you and deserve reelection:
Terry Kilgore, R, District 1
Bill Carrico, R, District 5
Dave Nutter, R, District 7
Morgan Griffith, R, District 8
Charles Poindexter, R. District 9
Danny Marshall, R, District 14
C. Todd Gilbert, R, District 15
Kathy Byron, R, District 22
Benjamin Cline, R, District 24
Steve Landes, R, District 25
Edward Scott, R, District 30
Jackson Miller, R, District 50
Rob Bell, R, District 58
Watkins Abbitt, I, District 59
Thomas Wright, R, District 61
R. Lee Ware, R, District 65
Kirk Cox, R, District 66
S. Chris Jones, R, District 76
Salvatore Iaquinto, R, District 84
Brenda Pogge, R, District 96
Albert Pollard, D, District 99
Lynwood Lewis, D, District 100
This candidate analysis has a limited scope. We make no pretense of evaluating candidates' positions on taxes, education, health care or social issues. To the degree that hunting and dog ownership are important to you, we offer this review to be combined with other, personal considerations to determine your vote on November 3rd.
Remember, the world is governed by those who show up.
Please forward and share this message widely.
Sincerely,
Bob Kane
Virginia Hunting Dog Owners' Association
Greene County – (10/21/09) - Greene’s supervisors will hold a public hearing Tuesday, Nov. 10 to hear what citizens have to say about a proposed new county leash law. The decision was made shortly after the regularly scheduled meeting Oct. 13. Current ordinance states that “no dog shall be allowed to run at large, or remain unconfined, unrestricted or not penned up at any time” - but only, says county administrator Barry Clark, “in subdivisions that have requested that they be covered.“ The amended ordinance will cover the entire county with the exception of agriculture and conservation zones.
Danville – (10/23/09) - Danville City Council approved a pooper-scooper ordinance Thursday night that makes not cleaning up animal waste a Class 4 misdemeanor subject to a fine of up to $250. No one entered any objection to the plan during a public hearing held before council members voted on the new law, which passed unanimously. The new law covers pets that are not cleaned up after on both public and private property. City Manager Lyle Lacy said signs will be installed in city parks and along the Riverwalk Trail to let pet owners know the penalties for not obeying the law. Private property owners will be able to file complaints with the Danville Police Department, take out a warrant and testify in court about people who allow their pets to leave unwanted waste on their lawns. In the work session following the regular meeting, Paulette Dean, executive director of the Danville Area Humane Society, showed a presentation outlining the dangers and cruelty in keeping dogs chained outdoors. Dean is asking for a new law that would allow animals to be chained for a maximum of three hours total out of any 24-hour period. Dean said Humane Society is willing to put up $5,000 to help people purchase dog lots/kennels for their pets, and will also arrange to have the animals spayed or neutered for free if their owners agree to get them off the chains.Councilman Gary Miller questioned whether three hours was too short a period of time, but other members said they felt the time limit was fair, matching limits in place in other communities in the state. Dean said she would accept a fairly lengthy period of time before the law goes into effect so it can be adequately advertised, and to give people time to save money for proper enclosures for their pets. Council members proposed choosing July 1, 2010, as the date it would go into effect if the ordinance passes. A public hearing will be held before City Council votes on the measure.
WASHINGTON
Bridgeport Bar – (10/23/09) - Douglas County Commissioners on Monday unanimously approved a “no loose dog” zone for the Bridgeport Bar area after repeated stray and wild dog attacks. But not everyone agrees that a new “no loose dog” zone should be created. The commissioners received two e-mails Monday from people opposing the law. The law would expand Bridgeport’s “no loose dog” zone into the more rural area of Bridgeport Bar. Stanton said at Monday’s hearing that the situation needed to get under control. “People need to be responsible for their animals and it is not acceptable for people to be afraid.” Commissioner Dale Snyder said that the county is no longer considering having people licence their dogs, which the commissioners did consider in their first ordinance draft. Snyder said the mayor of Bridgeport told him that enforcing the licensing of rural dogs would pose an undue financial hardship to the county. “We’re only looking at a leash law so that your dogs can’t run loose,” he said. “That’s just part of being a responsible pet owner.” Stanton said after the meeting that the new ordinance is effective immediately. He said the fine for having a loose dog has not been determined yet. Stanton said an agreement with the city of Bridgeport, which will be enforcing the no loose dog zone, should be completed in a couple of weeks.
King County – (10/28/09) –
By singling out raw diets, the County government is implying danger that is not proven and creating burdens not reasonably related to the problems they are trying to prevent. Kibble and canned pet foods have extensive, documented histories of pathogen contamination. By not including these types of foods within their regulations, the County is creating an uneven commercial playing field and placing an undue
competitive burden on the sellers of raw pet foods. Please be aware that technically, sellers of freeze-dried raw pet food and treats, if the products were raw at the time of manufacture, can be considered subject to these regulations. Even meat wholesalers - if they know they are selling to persons or groups using the goods for pet food - would be subject to all these regulations.We recognize the right and duty of the County to protect the health and safety of its citizens. Requiring safe handling instructions on all raw pet food labels would be a reasonable way to address their concerns.The regulations they are currently requiring are not reasonable at all. The point of these regulations seems to be aimed at discouraging the feeding of raw pet food. In fact, we have already heard from some raw diet retailers, including a veterinarian, who have indicated that they will stop selling raw diets if these regulations are adopted. That means that consumers will end up with fewer choices in where to buy raw diets, and that could affect your ability to continue feeding raw diets. Perhaps more important, if these regulations are enacted, it also sets the stage for even more restrictive regulations for raw diets in King County and could become a model for elsewhere in the nation. This could be the first step on a slippery slope to prohibit the feeding of raw diets.
I strongly encourage residents of WA to submit your concerns about these regulations to the Board. If they do not hear vigorous opposition to their unfair requirements for unproven concerns, the sellers of raw
diets in King County will be singled out with financial and bureaucratic burdens, and your raw diet choices could become limited. Make your voice heard. Don't allow King County to unfairly begin to legislate how
you choose to feed your animals. Public Health will be accepting comments on these regulations through November 13, 2009. Comments can be submitted online (Click here to go to the Seattle/King County Health Services website and scroll to the bottom of page) You can also see the latest summary update ( 9/15/09 ) of the proposed regulations at the above link. Look at the top of the listing entitled "Download PDFs". Comments submitted after November 13, 2009 can be sent directly to the Board of Health online. Click here to go directly to the BOH online.
The final briefing for the King County Board of Health regarding the new regulations will be held on *December 10, 2009*.
Oak Harbor – (10/2/09) - City officials will recommend that the Oak Harbor City Council repeal the city’s breed specific legislation that automatically designates pit bulls as “potentially dangerous dogs” warranting specific restrictions. It’s a good idea to abandon the section of city code for many reasons, not the least of which is the practicality of enforcing the rule. As the Humane Society points out, it can be difficult to identify a dog’s breed, especially when dealing with mutts.
WEST VIRGINIA
Ceredo – (10/5/09) - Dog owners, animal shelter workers and others are asking the Ceredo City Council to consider repealing a town-wide ban on owning pit bull terriers. A petition drive has generated about 70 signatures in the Wayne County town, and opponents of the ban packed City Hall on Monday to speak against it. Sue Brown of Little Victories Animal Rescue Group in Barboursville hopes the ordinance can be changed to require muzzles for the dogs instead of banning them outright. Council members tabled the question, saying they want to study the breed and meet with Brown before making a decision.
Charleston – Kanawha County - (10/1/09) - Kanawha County officials will have another set of public hearings on the county's new animal tethering ordinance to see if that dog hunts. Bear hunters and breeders of hunting dogs in particular have asked questions about the county's new ordinance, which restricts how and when dogs can be kept outside. Members of the Kanawha County Commission approved the new regulations in August, but decided to wait six months before they start enforcing the ordinance to fine-tune the measure or work out any bugs. Kanawha County humane officials asked for the ordinance to prevent residents in unincorporated parts of the county from leaving dogs chained outside for long periods of time in bad weather without adequate food, water or shelter. But members of the West Virginia Bear Hunters Association, American Kennel Club and others said the ordinance went too far in restricting how dogs could be treated, and argued its "one-size-fits" all language doesn't apply to all breeds of dogs. Christopher Smith, a lawyer who also raises dogs, told county commissioners Dave Hardy, Kent Carper and Hoppy Shores at a regular meeting Thursday that he supports the intent behind the ordinance, but worries the language in the regulations are too ambiguous. Smith provided an alternate draft of the ordinance he said cleans up the language and makes the ordinance clearer. Some of his suggestions are fairly simple. In the ordinance approved by the county, dogs are not permitted to be kept outside in temperatures above 85 degrees. Smith inserted the word "Farenheit." County officials decided to have meetings between humane officials, bear hunters and others interested in the ordinance to hammer out an agreeable ordinance. County officials will also have more public hearings to talk about the regulations. Click here for additional article.
South Charleston – (10/1/09) - South Charleston City Council voted unanimously to pass the dangerous dog ordinance with only minor corrections Thursday night, even though several dog owners were on hand to object to some of the language. The ordinance goes into effect immediately. Owners of dangerous dogs, as defined in the ordinance, have 60 days to register for a permit. In other business, the council accepted a proposed ordinance from resident Karen Miller for deer hunting within South Charleston. The proposed ordinance will be presented to the ordinance committee where it will be reviewed and evaluated before council considers it for approval. The ordinance will likely have terms that limit the amount of land needed in order to hunt. Miller's ordinance proposed a plot of no less than 10 acres.
WISCONSIN
Dunn County – (10/11/09) - Nine resolutions
Member approved, with little discussion, nine prepared resolutions, and one that could have major impact said, “We support letting free enterprise run its course in the dairy industry.” Elimination of a current five percent surcharge on certain agricultural chemicals and organic crop insurance is the goal of two resolutions. It was contended that organic farmers don’t receive higher yields than non-organic farmers. Therefore, insurance rates shouldn’t differ. The resolution, “We support state legislation to mandate individual animal identification” attracted some attention. One opponent wondered if ear tags would be a requirement for chickens, cats, and similar animals. Proponents, however, said forced identification is working well in the vegetable industry where a producer who is causing problems can be identified almost immediately.
Other adopted resolutions:
• We support legislation prohibiting local units of government regulating animal care and welfare and granting this authority to the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP).
• We support change to one federal milk marketing order and one class of milk. (Presently, there are four classes of milk.)
• We oppose climate change legislation at the state and national level that would increase costs to production agriculture.
• We oppose government run national health care center.
• We support land classification being controlled at a local level.
Kenosha – (10/21/09) - State investigators are trying to determine what caused the deaths of six greyhounds at the Dairyland dog track in Kenosha, including four that bled to death. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection is testing the food the dogs ate to see if the deaths are due to a food-borne illness. The state Division of Gaming is also investigating. Gaming administrator Bob Sloey says two dogs that died last weekend came from different kennels. The first four deaths, since August, involved dogs from the same kennel operator. The investigation comes as dog track operators decide the future of Dairyland. It lost $3.4 million last year. Attendance so far this year is down 19 percent.
Kimberly – (10/6/09) - The Village Board changed its leash law ordinance to not only require restraint, but also prohibit animal owners from allowing their dogs to bark at, run up to or otherwise harass passersby. Trustee Mike Hruzek, who works as a mail carrier, sought an ordinance change. He initially sought setbacks and signage requirements for those using electronic fences in effort to let people know that seemingly free-roaming dogs were indeed restrained. Fox Valley Metro Assistant Police Chief Mark Recker weighed in on the issue this spring, saying the village's ordinance requiring owners to restrain their dogs applied to electronic fences. Hruzek said the ordinance change is a good solution. Police Chief Erik Misselt suggested the changes passed on Monday after considering discussions on setbacks and whether to grandfather those who already have electronic fences in place. Such an ordinance would be difficult to enforce, he told trustees by memo. There would also be a problem with enforcing electronic fencing at a setback while physical fencing would be allowed up to the property line. Harassment by dogs rather than the method of restraint is the issue, he wrote. Misselt said the changes allow officers to enforce the ordinance on irresponsible pet owners rather than penalizing those who invested money on fencing.
Madison – (10/21/09) - The state Assembly is set to take up puppy mill legislation this week, which would require tighter regulation of dog breeders in Wisconsin. The bill has broad bipartisan support, with 71 out of 132 Assembly lawmakers signing on as co-sponsors. The proposal would force breeders who sell more than 25 dogs a year to be licensed, allowing the state more freedom to investigate breeders before issuing a license. Authorities could also suspend or revoke that license if violations are discovered. Supporters of the bill say this legislation is a major step forward in protecting dogs and shutting down puppy mill brokers. But some opponents take issue with the number of animals that places a breeder under supervision by the state. UPDATE: (10/23/09) – AKC ALERT - The Wisconsin Legislature is scheduled to consider Assembly Bill 250 and Senate Bill 208 on Tuesday, October 27. These bills have been significantly amended to require reasonable standards of care for all who sell over 25 dogs per year, as well as animal rescues and shelters. AB 250 excludes from the definition anyone who sells 25 or more dogs in a year if those dogs result from three litters or less. The AKC appreciates the significant effort made to protect the health of dogs, as well as ensuring both hobby and commercial breeders are included in the regulatory process.
Though the bills differ slightly, they will require:
- Animal shelters, animal control facilities, dog breeders, dog breeding facilities, dog dealers, and out-of-state dog dealers to be licensed. "Dog breeder" is defined as anyone who breeds, raises, and sells 25 or more dogs in a year.
- Inspection of facilities prior to licensure, and once every two years thereafter. Inspections may occur any time during normal business hours.
- Licensees to adhere to prescribed standards of care, including sufficient food and water, providing veterinary care, and providing proper enclosures for dogs.
- Licensees to keep detailed records regarding each dog kept on licensed premises.
- The Department of Agriculture to establish an advisory committee to assist in writing rules made pursuant to the bills. This advisory committee will be comprised of a variety of members, including small and large-volume breeders and a representative of a dog sporting association.
We remain concerned, however, about several provisions. As currently written, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) is permitted to increase breeder licensing fees if necessary to cover administrative costs. With no limit on fees that range from $250-$1,000, this provision could make dog breeding cost-prohibitive and potentially put many responsible dog breeders out of business. We also recommend that a grandfather or warning provision be included, so that breeders will be given an opportunity to obtain a license and come into compliance with the new law prior to being fined or imprisoned. To find the names and contact information for your Representative and Senator, visit the Wisconsin State Legislature’s web site. UPDATE: (10/27/09) - Large-scale dog breeding facilities, sometimes known as puppy mills, will now be regulated in Wisconsin. By a 96-0 vote, the Wisconsin Assembly voted Tuesday to approve a bill to regulate the facilities, which will now require licenses from the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. Sen. Pat Kreitlow (D-Chippewa Falls) is the author of the Senate version of the bill and Rep. Jeff Smith (D-Eau Claire) the author of the Assembly version. Under the measure, breeders who sell more than 25 dogs annually would have to get a license. The state would investigate the breeder before issuing a license and could suspend or revoke it for violations. “Assembly passage marks one of the final steps towards finally shutting down the bad breeders in Wisconsin and protecting those who truly care about the dogs they raise,” Kreitlow said. “We’ve worked hard with all interested parties to develop a bill that will provide needed standards of care while also protecting responsible breeders,” Smith said. “This bill is the product of numerous conversations, and represents the work of individuals and groups across Wisconsin that understand the need for regulation.” The bill grants the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection rulemaking authority for the dog breeding industry. An advisory committee composed of individuals from interested groups will participate in the rulemaking process. UPDATE: (10/31/09) - A bill that would regulate dog breeders in response to the growing number of puppy mills in Wisconsin has passed the State Assembly unanimously and now moves on to the State Senate.
Village of Pewaukee – (10/12/09) - Some members of the Village Board are open to considering some type of vicious dog ordinance, though anything it will pass might not be much of a deterrent to keeping such an animal, according to the board's attorney. The board directed the Police Department to provide an analysis of dog-related incidents and see whether there are any trends. Based on that information, the board will determine whether a new vicious dog ordinance should be enacted. At the board's Oct. 6 meeting, Village Administrator Scott Gosse reported there were three options the board could look at: a breed-specific ordinance that would prohibit certain breeds in the village, an ordinance that is based on repeated incidents by the same dog, and referring to state statutes, which the village currently does.
WYOMING
Casper – (10/8/09) - Casper has a big barking dog problem and something needs to be done about it. In an article Feb. 6 in the Casper Star-Tribune, The Answer Girl said Casper does have an ordinance that deals with barking dogs. Ordinance 6.04.010 (paragraph 24).
LEGISLATION IN OTHER COUNTRIES OF INTEREST
AUSTRALIA
(10/25/09) – Maltese added to dangerous dog list. They may look friendly and loveable, but the little Maltese terrier has joined the NSW government's list of ill-tempered dogs. The Maltese terrier was involved in 12 attacks on people across NSW in the July-September period, according to the latest Dog Attack Register. It is the first time the dog has featured in the "top 20 attacking list" on the register launched in January. "This is obviously a surprising outcome, but nonetheless a reminder that any dog has the potential to attack, regardless of breed," Minister for Local Government Barbara Perry said today.
(10/21/09) - Time to ban pit bull terriers? Should there be a mass euthanisation of pit bull terriers in Australia? - A recent horrific attack by a pit bull terrier which held a man’s hand in its jaws until the dog was killed, has sparked an urgent call for a national approach to deal with such dangerous breeds. And as councils are accused of failing to enforce strict laws aimed at controlling and eventually eliminating such breeds, Victorian RSPCA president Hugh Wirth has said states should now consider banning pit bulls. However, Michael Beattie from RSPCA Queensland was not so keen to send the pit bull to the great dog kennel in the sky... PLEASE GO TO THE LINK TO DOWNLOAD THE AUDIO DISCUSSION. UPDATE: (10/27/09) - PROPOSED State Government legislation to toughen penalties on restricted breeds of dogs has received a mixed reaction from dog owners. Following a serious dog attack in Epping Premier John Brumby last week announced the Government would legislate to give councils greater powers over restricted dog breeds. “If there is a restricted dog and it’s running along the street, with no collar and not muzzled, that dog will be taken in by council and it will be put down,” Mr Brumby said. But while Sunbury Canine Club secretary Colin Hamilton said the club did not have any restricted breed owners as members and in principle was not opposed to the legislation, he had concerns. “Councils have to know what certain breeds are,” he said. “If they can just put down any dog that they think looks dangerous I don’t agree with that. ‘ The American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia has condemned the announcement. Through the association’s website ,president Colin Muir said legislation aimed at a particular breed of dog did nothing to tackle the problem of attacking dogs. “It punishes responsible owners with good dogs,” he said. “Irresponsible owners with offending dogs just simply change breed or ignore laws anyway.” Council infrastructure director Steve Crawley could not say where council stood on the proposed legislation. “With the announcement made (last) Monday, council doesn’t yet have specific details related to the proposal, so it is too early to say how much of a difference it will make in Hume,” he said.
(10/31/09) – Farmers permitted to kill bats - THE State Government began issuing licences for the shooting of flying foxes this week, even though its own advisory panel warns that shooting the animals breaches animal cruelty laws. The Government's new shooting protocols, finalised this week, say hunters must find and kill baby bats with a blunt instrument if their mothers are shot to prevent them dying a lingering death. NSW is now the only state to permit bat shooting after Queensland banned it last year. The NSW Farmers Association says fruit growers must protect their crops from foraging bats. A coalition of 60 environment groups is seeking a ban.
(10/1/09) - Every now and then changing attitudes demand reform of various activities and industries. We’ve seen it in recent years with a growing demand for free range eggs over those produced in batteries. Another example is the ban on tail-docking for certain breeds of dogs. Now, attention has turned to the horseracing industry. The issue until last week at the top of the agenda was the growing outcry against jumps racing, which had seen too many horses and jockeys die. It has been overtaken somewhat by the controversy over new rules that limit the number of times a jockey can whip a horse during the course of a race. Jockeys have bucked at the new rule, saying it actually adds a level of danger to what is already a hazardous activity. And some vets involved in the horseracing industry have chimed in to support them, arguing that the whips involved produce nothing but noise. Used to focus a horse’s attention and thus exert control over it, they can help prevent serious falls, the consequences of which are far more serious than any concern about the whips’ use. Add to that the new rule that mandates the use of padded whips and arguments about the horses’ discomfort carry even less weight, claim the jockeys. Seeing the jockeys are the ones in the best position to know the likely consequences of the new rule and the possible negative outcomes, it seems only logical that they are listened to so that a workable safe and humane rule can be designed.
Kangaroo Island – (10/27/09) - The Kangaroo Island Council is proposing to limit cat and dog ownership on the island.Residents are already limited to two dogs, but the changes would limit residents to a total of two animals, in a choice of two dogs, two cats, or one of each.The mayor, Jayne Bates, says feral cats are a big problem on the island and most residents recognise the need to protect the environment."This plan I think also is the first time any council's suggested such a move, but we have had very little comment, so there doesn't seem to be a lot of community concern about the changes," she said."Most people on Kangaroo Island understand the need for responsible pet ownership in such a unique environment."Ms Bates says previous plans did not go as far to limit pet numbers."The last plan was there was a maximum of two dogs on each property, excepting working dogs," she said."But while your cats had to be desexed, microchipped and registered, there was no limit on the amount of cats you could have, so we are bringing the cats in line with the dogs. "We've got a huge problem on Kangaroo Island with feral cats, certainly they are doing a significant damage to the environment, but this is one way by changing our by-laws to actually make the ownership of cats quite restricted."
Monash – (10/25/09) - DANGEROUS dogs that are found unregistered or not desexed in Monash will be put down, Monash Council says. And if the Mayor had his way, there would be no dangerous dogs in Monash or the rest of Australia. Residents who own restricted breed dogs in Monash must have the dogs registered and desexed, keep them in an enclosure, put up signs on their properties to warn people that a dangerous dog is on the premises, and have them muzzled and on a leash at all times when in public. The Perro de Presa Canario (or Presa Canario) and the American pit bull terrier are the two dangerous or restricted breed dogs known to exist in Australia. Residents who register dangerous dogs pay a higher fee of $93 for registration, and if a restricted breed dog is involved in an attack, the council will impound the dog and evaluate on a case-by-case basis whether to destroy the animal. Mayor Paul Klisaris welcomed the proposed changes to legislation, but said he would prefer there to be no dangerous dogs in Monash at all. “If I was the legislator, there would be a blanket ban (on dangerous dogs),” he said.
Melbourne – (10/24/09) - NEW laws allowing councils to kill unregistered dangerous dogs found roaming the streets, without owners having the right to appeal, have been flagged by the State Government. Following an attack by an American pit bull in Reservoir last weekend, Premier John Brumby said new “tougher” legislation would be introduced into Parliament in 2010. State Government spokesman Chris Owner said the changes were about improving community safety and sending a message to the minority of irresponsible dog owners. “In 2005, the government introduced laws defining restricted breeds and the strict conditions that owners must comply with,” Mr Owner said. “In November 2007 we increased penalties to $2300 for minor and $14000 and six months jail for serious dog attacks. “Next year we will introduce new legislation that will toughen penalties even further and give Councils greater powers to control restricted breeds.” But the American Pit Bull Terrier Club of Australia president Colin Muir slammed the proposed changes as reactionary and ill informed. “I’ve really got concerns that a few hours after an incident the government announces legislative changes,” Mr Muir said. “That can not be well thought out public policy.” Mr Muir said enforcement and legislation needed to be targeted at responsible ownership “irrespective of breed”. Educating owners was the key to addressing dog attacks, Mr Muir said. Public condemnation often led to the wrong type of people – irresponsible owners “who shouldn’t own a goldfish” - seeking out pit bulls. The proposed changes would see owners of restricted breeds lose their right to appeal to the courts if their dog is unregistered and seized by a local council.
Queensland -Brisbane – (10/21/09) - A statewide database established to track the owners of dangerous dogs has recorded the details of nearly 1000 animals since its inception in July. Tough laws introduced in July give councils and police enhanced power, by way of fines of up to $30,000, to ensure that dogs that have "offended" are fenced, muzzled and microchipped and possibly destroyed. Renewed focus has also fallen on the owners of the state's estimated 1500 regulated dogs. A Queensland-wide database which tracks owners as they move between council jurisdictions has attracted 920 entries since it was established in July. Before the legislation's introduction, owners of regulated dogs could escape the scrutiny of authorities and their animal's history by simply moving to a new local government area. Local Government Minister Desley Boyle has urged councils to continue to making the register a priority.
Tasmania – (10/27/09) - ALL domestic cats in Tasmania will have to be microchipped and desexed under new laws tabled in Parliament yesterday. The contentious Cat Management Bill 2009 requires that the owners of Tasmania's estimated 92,000 pet cats compulsorily microchip and desex them if they are older than six months. Only registered breeders of pedigree cats will not be required to spay or desex their animals.
VOTE: Do you agree with the new laws? No cats or kittens will be able to be advertised or legally sold until they are at least eight weeks old and have been neutered and microchipped to individually identify each cat and its owner. The fine for selling a cat that has not been neutered will be as high as $6000, while owners of cats without identification microchips implanted under their skin will face a $2400 penalty. The new cat control laws are likely to add more than $200 to the cost of owning a cat as a pet. Desexing a female cat at a registered vet clinic costs between $150 and $175, while an electronic microchip imprinted with address details of the cat's owner costs about $40 to implant under the cat's skin. The draconian new legislation also proposes that any cat left unclaimed by its owners at a cat management facility such as a council pound or the Hobart Cat Centre for more than five days can be euthanased without its owner's permission. Local councils, Forestry Tasmania and the Environment Department also will be able to declare any area of land such as a council park, reserve or national park as a prohibited cat zone where any cat can be legally trapped, seized and humanely destroyed. Farmers also will be able to destroy any cat caught on their property if it is found more than one kilometre from any nearby homes. The new laws, which are likely to be passed by both houses of Parliament before December, are designed to control the estimated 150,000 feral and stray cats living across the state. The draft cat management legislation was tabled in Parliament yesterday by Primary Industries Minister David Llewellyn. It has the broad support of the Greens and the Liberals and is expected to be debated and passed in the Lower House next week. But Liberal primary industries spokesman Rene Hidding said he still had concerns about the lack of additional funding to accompany the Bill.
West Australia – Joondalup – (10/12/09) -Suburban Cats to be Legally Trapped & Euthanized under new Local Cat Laws - Cat ownership in WA is under siege by local cat laws newly introduced by the Shire of Swan and soon to be implemented by the City of Joondalup. Cat owners will be penalized by fines if their cat unwittingly trespasses onto a neighbours property without their permission. The ultimate penalty is the trapping of your beloved moggy by a neighbour in a trap supplied by the shire and the impoundment and possible euthanization of your cat if you can’t locate it within 7 days. The legal trapping of cats opened up by these new local cat laws will only encourage vigilantes who hate cats to have an ‘open season’ on cats in their neighborhood. The Cat Haven, a well known Perth based cat rescue group have already reported incidences of cats caught in traps being drowned in lakes. A horrible death for any animal with no chance of escape – and astonishingly still a set of laws introduced in such poor format by local councils that policing these laws is almost impossible. Very little forethought went into the ultimate outcomes that these laws would fester, if councils honestly thought that residents of their shire would act responsibly under these new laws they have already been witness to the folly of their naivety.
Yass – (10/28/09) - Recent dog attacks reported in the national media have prompted Yass Valley Council to again reiterate its stance on dangerous and restricted dog breeds. Changes to the Companion Animals Act have increased the provisions available to council to control dangerous and restricted dogs. These include higher penalties for non-compliance, council's Director of Planning and Environmental Services, Paul De Szell, told the Tribune this week. "Officers authorised under the Act have the power to seize a restricted or dangerous dog if the officer is satisfied that any of the control requirements have not been complied with" Mr De Szell said. Owners of restricted dogs - American Pitbull Terriers, Japanese Tosa's, Argentinean Fighting Dogs and Brazilian Fighting Dogs - must notify Council within 24 hours if: 1) the dog has attacked or injured a person or animal; 2) the dog cannot be found; 3) the dog has died, or is being kept at a different address. It is also an offence in NSW to sell, acquire or breed dogs on the restricted list. All restricted and dangerous dogs must by law be desexed and it is an offence to sell or give away a dangerous or restricted dog. Council has recently given notice to a member of a rescue organisation for advertising the rehoming of an American Pitbull at Irvine Square. Mr De Szell said an American Pitbull Terrier is currently being kept at the Yass Pound and the animal cannot be released until the owner provides appropriate identification and ownership papers. He also said an owner of a restricted or dangerous dog can be issued with a fixed penalty notice of $1,320 for failure to comply with the specific requirements of the Companion Animals Act. A maximum penalty of $55,000 or two years imprisonment or both can be applied if a dangerous or restricted dog attacks or bites a person. Dependent on the circumstances, these offences may also result in the seizure and destruction of a dog. A man was convicted at Yass Local Court earlier this year for breeding and selling American Pitbull Terriers in the local area, Mr De Szell said. Yass Valley Council will be conducting inspections at the homes of all people registered as owners of restricted or dangerous dogs to ensure that they are complying with the legislation. These dogs must be contained in an enclosure that is fully enclosed, constructed and maintained. One or more warning signs must be displayed on the property and the animal must wear a distinctive collar and muzzle whenever outside its prescribed enclosure. For more information please phone Yass Valley Council on 6226 9234.
CANADA
Quebec – (10/15/09) - While new measures aimed at shutting down Quebec puppy mills were applauded yesterday as a good first step, Montreal animal welfare activists called for the provincial government to go farther. Quebec needs tough new laws and penalties for animal abuse if it wants to clean up its reputation as the puppy mill capital of Canada, front-line animal rights workers contended yesterday. The measures announced last week by provincial Agriculture Minister Claude Béchard, including 15 new inspectors and $1 million to upgrade facilities run in Quebec by the SPCA and the Society for Protection of Animals (SPA), will not deter animal abuse, said Alanna Devine, the Montreal SPCA's director of animal welfare. In Ontario, a perpetrator of animal abuse can be fined up to $60,000 and sentenced to two years in prison; that's a far greater deterrent than Quebec's penalties - fines that range from $600 to $1,800 and carry no prison time, she said. "We would like to see the same penalties that exist in Ontario," Devine said, decrying the minister's vague promises to amend Quebec legislation as insufficient.
CHINA
(10/21/09) - On September 18, a number of Chinese law experts announced that they had drafted an animal protection act. China currently lacks a comprehensive basic law on animal protection. The underdeveloped legal system is thus unable to put all animals under effective protection. Thus, scholars suggested drafting China's first law on the protection of animal welfare, so as to cope with problems such as animal abuse and desertion in accordance with laws. The law is expected to make animal owners more responsible and thus cut the government's expense in this regard, prevent livestock breeding pollution and encourage the virtue of caring for animals. The draft also includes a proposal to revise the Criminal Law to define the crimes of animal abuse, animal desertion and spreading video or photo messages about animal abuse. The drafting of the animal protection act has attracted public attention since the day it was announced. However, a survey carried out in June shows that over 80 percent of respondents support an animal protection law and over 75 percent agree that those who abuse animals to death should be criminally prosecuted.
Beijing – (10/12/09) - Animal welfare experts are calling for tougher laws after a woman was found hoarding dozens of cats in her tiny Beijing home. A series of online pictures have sparked outrage among pet lovers since they were released on a cats website movshow.com last week. Netizens released private information about cat owner Liu Hong, and criticized her as a cat abuser. "Perhaps it is not proper to say the woman 'abuses cats', but the cats deserved a better healthy living environment, more food and better mental care," said Zeng Li, who is in charge of the Lucky Cats organization, a homeless cat protection non-government organization founded in 2001. "A pet owner should assure that whether they could afford dogs or cats' welfare when adopting them. If not, there will be a harm to the animals." She called on the government to legislate new laws, which better protected animals and also to raise awareness among the general public. China has long been under fire from abroad for animal cruelty, triggering nationwide calls for specific legislation on animal protection by legal experts and animals lovers. "It is time for legislation," said Lin Shiting, who has been helping homeless cats as a volunteer and for advocating animal rights for many years. Lawyer Wang Zheng said China has the Law on the Protection of Wild Life, which mainly protected those endangered species. "But it doesn't take pets and other general creatures into consideration. There is even no any penalty for hurting or killing animals," he said. Wang said the country should issue a specific law on animal welfare and to crack down on animal mistreatment like the US, India. Animal abusers should be punished with jail and hefty fine.
Zeng Li said the basic point in animal welfare is to prevent animals from unnecessary pain and disease and give them the right to life. A draft of the country's first law on animal welfare so far is under proposal, which requires a fine of and two weeks detention for those found guilty of animal cruelty.
Shanghai – (10/14/09) - Raising a dog in Shanghai should be easier, cheaper and better regulated. At a recent meeting about a new law regarding dog ownership, local citizens and pet experts complained about the hassle and cost of dog ownership, asking for changes in the law, said Zhang Yi, director of Shanghai Pet Union. "We suggest that the procedure of applying for a dog license be easier, the cost of a license be cheaper and the law enforcement, in case of detecting dogs without a license or stray dogs, be humane," he said. Raising a dog in Shanghai costs from 500 yuan ($73) to 2,000 yuan per year for a license, depending on where the owners live. And applying for a license needs approval of neighbors and a neighborhood committee. Dogs without a license will be taken away if found. "Raising a dog is more of a personal decision like raising a baby. Neighbors and a neighborhood committee have no right to decide," Zhang said. In August a legislator had suggested a ban on walking dog in public areas, blaming dogs for damaging lawns, leaving waste everywhere and disturbing the peace. "Pet dogs bring most people troubles or even harm, and only a few people fun," Deng Zixin was quoted as saying by Shanghai Oriental Morning Post. A Shanghai Municipal People's Congress spokesman confirmed such a law is being drafted by the local public security bureau, but no details have been released.
IRELAND
(10/13/09) – Tail Docking Ban - Plans to ban the tail-docking of dogs have met with stiff opposition in the NI Assembly Agriculture Committee. Department of Agriculture officials said a tail-docking ban would apply to all breeds and include working dogs. Some committee members, however, argued that many working dogs would damage their tails as a result of any ban. The department said it would consider the results of a scientific study in Britain on tail-docking before introducing the new legislation. A tail docking-ban has been introduced in Scotland, while in England and Wales it has left to vets to judge whether puppies being offered for tail-docking were suitable candidates. The proposed ban in Northern Ireland would include making it an offence to take a dog across the border for tail-docking.
(10/8/09) - A ten-fold increase in the cost of a dog licence from £5 to £50 could lead to a rise in the number of abandoned dogs, Ian Paisley Jnr has said. The DUP MLA said since the planned increase was revealed he had been "inundated" by calls from dog owners. Mr Paisley said more dogs could be abandoned if owners were "unwilling or unable to meet these charges". "Furthermore, we strongly believe that there should be special measures for senior citizens," he said. The proposals go out to consultation next month and June 2010 is the target date for their introduction. The new Dog Control Order would also force owners to microchip their pets at a cost of £20-£30. For the first time there would be an offence involving dog on dog attacks and will have to be kept on leads in public places. Mr Paisley, who is the chair of the Stormont Agriculture Committee, said he had been lobbied by members of dog walking groups, who believe the new laws would actually have "a detrimental impact not only on dog owner responsibilities, but also on those people who would find themselves unable to pay these new licensing charges". He said there were parts of the laws he would support, which deal with the safety of the public and dog owners themselves, especially against aggressive dogs. Agriculture Minister Michelle Gildernew said that the current fee was simply too low. "It is widely acknowledged as being too low, it doesn't send out a signal of responsible dog ownership and it doesn't give councils the resources they need to properly control any dog related issues," she said. She said they have suggested exemptions for elderly people, those on low incomes and discounts for neutered animals. Ms Gildernew added that for some elderly people in isolated areas a dog was a "necessity" and helped guard them. "This, for me, is about tackling the people who have dogs who use them as a method of control and who have dogs that are maybe intimidating people in a housing estate or an area and trying to ensure responsible dog ownership," she said. There is no dog licensing scheme in the rest of the UK and in the Republic a license costs 12 euros.
NEW ZEALAND
Manawatu – (10/23/09) - Local Government Minister Rodney Hide announced a review of the Dog Control Act last week. However, Mr Hide, a proponent of more freedom for responsible dog owners said that a review of the Act is not a priority and is still a couple of years away. Spokesperson for Local Government New Zealand Dianne Hale said that dog laws are highly emotive for many people. "Protecting the public from dangerous dogs should be at the forefront of a review of the Dog Control Act," she said. "It's the irresponsible owners that raise their dogs to be aggressive, and don't take the necessary steps to protect the public that can give all dogs owners a bad name." Mr Hide said that everything across the board will be looked at, such as whether micro-chipping works, banning dangerous breeds and even licensing owners. "There is potential merit in investigating targeted licensing of owners who have committed offences under the Act or high-risk offenders that are not being dealt with through the Courts," said Mrs Hale. There is still criticism of the micro-chipping legislation which has proved a valuable tool in reuniting dogs with their owners, however questions remain as to it's effectiveness in protecting the public from dangerous dogs. Local Government New Zealand welcomed news of the review and is looking forward to considering its role in any decision making.
RUSSIA
Ivanov - (10/21/09) - Moves to ban animal cruelty in Russia
Hundreds of animals are being forced to perform death-defying stunts at packed circuses in Russia, where there are no laws to ban animal cruelty. The Zapashny Brothers' Circus in Ivanov, is located near Moscow, where the lions and tigers are the main attraction and thousands flock to see them. Circuses like this attract huge crowds, in contrast with Europe where the introduction of animal welfare laws has outlawed shows in most countries. In Russia, there are over 300 animals performing in circuses and there is little or no opposition to it. The few in Russia who oppose the use of animals in entertainment have a tough quest. VITA is a Moscow based animal welfare charity. Its president, Irina Novozhilova, said 'People's conscience is not at the level where they see circuses as cruel. 'To the contrary, there is a belief here in Russia that children need to be taken to circus so they are taught how to love animals. 'But circuses cannot teach you anything. Children are seeing slaves, not animals.' An average of 20,000 people a week attend the circus we visited. As long as the audiences keep coming, the animals will keep performing.
Siberia – (10/18/09) - Tiger success story turns bleak: poachers decimating great cats in Siberia Jeremy Hance, mongabay.com
There were two bright spots in tiger conservation, India and Russia, but both have dimmed recently. Last year India announced that a new survey found only 1,411 tigers, instead of the previous estimation of 3,508, and now Russian tigers may be suffering a similar decline. The Siberian Tiger Monitoring Program—a collaboration between the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS) and several Russia government organizations—has found evidence that after a decade of stability the Amur tiger's (popularly known as the Siberian Tiger in the west) population may be falling. This year's annual survey, which covers only a portion of tiger habitat in Russia, found only 56 adult tigers: a forty percent decrease from the average of 95 tigers. While the cause of this year's decline may be weather-related, researchers fear something far more insidious is going on. Amur tigers are poached for the lucrative black market in tiger parts, including tiger skins, meat, and other body parts for use in traditional Chinese medicines, even though the effectiveness of these medicines has never been proven. Amur tigers (Panthera tigris altaica) are the largest tiger subspecies, making it the largest cat in the world. From 1995 to 2005 the Amur tiger population had remained steady while most other subpopulations suffered declines. In 2005 the last survey of the whole Amur tiger population found 428-502 tigers. This has made Siberian tiger conservation a cause for celebration—until now. Three subspecies of tiger already vanished in the 20th Century: the Javan, the Balinese, and the Caspian tiger.
TAIWAN
Taipei – (10/19/09) - The Taipei City government plans to enact laws to protect household pets by requiring ample living space and proper food, a newspaper said on Monday. The Taipei Municipal Institute for Animal Health is drafting the bill on raising pets, which would become effective if passed by the Taipei City Council. The bill, based on a similar bill adopted in Japan, would set specific requirements for raising pets and outline penalties for violations. It would set rules on raising pets, such as outlining enough living space and proper food and drink for pets, the daily said. "The regulations will start with rules on raising dogs and cats, and later be expanded to other pets," Yen Yi-feng, director of the institute, was quoted as saying. "We will invite conservation experts, veterinarians and scholars to design rules like how much time a dog owner should spend walking the dog, and what is the proper food and drink for the pet," he said. The institute also plans to print a guide for pet owners to teach them how to raise pets, he added. However, some Taipei residents fear that if the regulations are too strict, some pet owners might abandon their pets. Taipei pet owners have registered some 129,000 dogs and cats with the animal health institute, accounting for 82 per cent of the dogs and cats in Taipei City. However, there are tens of thousands of stray dogs and cats on Taipei streets, most of which were purchased as pets but were abandoned when they grew old or became ill.
United Arab Emirates (UAE)
Dubai - (10/8/09) - Dog owners who allow their animals to wander in prohibited areas such as shopping malls and beaches will be fined up to Dh500 (US$136), the municipality warned yesterday. Fines will also be handed out to owners of dogs that are not wearing collars and masks, officials said as they extended a campaign to educate people about local pet laws. Hashem al Awadhi, the head of the veterinary services section, said pet owners were required to register and vaccinate their animals against common diseases, and carry health certificates and vaccination records. He also said owners should purchase animals and birds only from places certified by the municipality.