Articles of interest
- Strange news came out of San Francisco recently: The city government is mulling a ban on the sale of tropical fish, of all things. If that seems dumb, consider that last year San Francisco's Animal Control & Welfare Commission recommended a ban on the sale of practically all pets. That didn't happen, but the recent silliness shows that animal rights activists are still on the move.
- As far as we can tell, the lobbyists at the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) � an animal-rights lobbying group not affiliated with any real hands-on humane societies � are not behind the proposed guppy sales ban. But HSUS hasn't been totally silent on the issue of prohibiting people from purchasing the pets of their choice.
- HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle was actually lukewarm to last year's proposal, but not because he thought banning pet sales was a bad idea. As Pacelle told the Los Angeles Times, he understands that an incremental approach might be more practical than a broad move:
- I think the best thing would be to start with [banning] the sale of dogs and cats from these pet stores. I think [with a ban affecting more species] you attract a set of additional opponents that sink an otherwise achievable goal.
- In other words, Pacelle just prefers a more politically feasible approach, even if it would take longer to implement.
- As it turns out, Pacelle is no stranger to the species-by-species argument.
- In the October 1990 Full Cry magazine, Pacelle (then with the anti-hunting Fund for Animals, which later merged with HSUS) spoke highly of the concept:
- We are going to use the ballot box and the democratic process to stop all hunting in the United States ... We will take it species by species until all hunting is stopped in California. Then we will take it state by state.
- Pacelle later told the Associated Press, "If we could shut down all sport hunting in a moment, we would."
- Pacelle was never (back then, at least) shy about his ultimate goals. But he was very calculated about the means to achieve it, as he is today.
- Pacelle told the Sacramento Bee this month that HSUS's role is distinct from PETA's in that HSUS uses a "different tactical approach." Specifically, as he put it, "PETA tries to be provocative and influence the culture, while we deliberately try to be mainstream in view, but not in action."
- We agree with Pacelle's words � probably because we're reading between the lines. As New Yorker writer Michael Specter put it in his profile of PETA co-founder Ingrid Newkirk:
- It has been argued many times that in any social movement there has to be somebody radical enough to alienate the mainstream�and to permit more moderate influences to prevail. Newkirk and PETA provide a similar dynamic for groups like the Humane Society of the United States �
- (Specter seems to think HSUS is actually more moderate than PETA. But evidence suggests that it's all an act and that the two groups have the same goal.)
- PETA would end the sale of pets today if it could. Wayne Pacelle appears satisfied to take a long-term approach, going species by species, and appearing mainstream along the way. But PETA needs HSUS to make its gains, and HSUS needs PETA to make it look moderate.
- The San Francisco Chronicle, the city's biggest newspaper, ridiculed the proposed goldfish ban and opined that the Animal Control & Welfare Commission ought to be abolished or severely reformed. That certainly seems more appealing to us than turning fishbowls into contraband.
Are wild horses native to US? BLM view challenged
By SCOTT SONNER, Associated Press
Associated Press June 5, 2011 02:27 PM Copyright Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Sunday, June 5, 2011
(06-05) 14:27 PDT Reno, Nev. (AP) --
American history textbooks teach generation after generation that the wild horses roaming the Western plains originated as a result of the European explorers and settlers who first ventured across the ocean and into the frontier.
But that theory is being challenged more strongly than ever before at archaeological digs, university labs and federal courtrooms as horse protection advocates battle the U.S. government over roundups of thousands of mustangs they say have not only a legal right but a native claim to the rangeland.
The group In Defense of Animals and others are pressing a case in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that maintains wild horses roamed the West about 1.5 million years ago and didn't disappear until as recently as 7,600 years ago. More importantly, they say, a growing stockpile of DNA evidence shows conclusively that today's horses are genetically linked to those ancient ancestors.
The new way of thinking could carry significant ramifications across hundreds millions of acres in the West where the U.S. Bureau of Land Management divides up livestock grazing allotments based partly on the belief the horses are no more native to those lands than are the cattle brought to North America centuries ago.
Rachel Fazio, a lawyer for the plaintiffs, told a three-judge appellate panel in San Francisco earlier this year that the horses are "an integral part of the environment."
"As much as the BLM would like to see them as not, they are actually a native species. They are tied to this land," she said. "There would not be a horse but for North America. Every single evolutionary iteration of the horse is found here and only here."
Judge Mary Schroeder, former chief of the circuit, asked: "Just like polar bears?"
"Yes," Fazio answered, "they belong there."
The lawsuit cites researchers who say the most recent science backs her up and that the concept is widely accepted by most of the scientific community, with the most notable exception being the BLM itself.
"It's significant because BLM treats the wild horses like they are an invasive species that is not supposed to be out there," Fazio said in a recent interview with The Associated Press.
A reversal of that long-held belief could have the effect of moving the native horses to the front of the line when divvying up the precious water and forage in the arid West.
BLM maintains the horse advocates are perpetuating a myth and many ranchers claim it's part of a ploy to push livestock off public lands.
"There are plenty of horses out in the Nevada desert," said Tom Collins, a Clark County commissioner who has a ranch outside of Las Vegas and has run cattle on U.S. lands in Arizona, Idaho and Utah.
"Most of these folks, maybe their father slapped them or their mother didn't love them, so now they are in love with these wild horses that aren't really wild," he said
BLM devotes "Myth No. 11" on its Web site to the "false claim" that wild horses are native to the United States.
"American wild horses are descended from domestic horses, some of some of which were brought over by European explorers in the late 15th and 16th centuries, plus others that were imported from Europe and were released or escaped captivity in modern times," it says.
"The disappearance of the horse from the Western Hemisphere for 10,000 years supports the position that today's wild horses cannot be considered `native' in any meaningful historical sense," BLM explains. It acknowledges the horses have adapted successfully to the Western range, but biologically they did not evolve on the North American continent
Jay F. Kirkpatrick, a leader in horse reproduction research who directs ZooMontana's Science and Conservation Center in Billings, Mont., is among those who say BLM's view is outdated.
"On the face of the science, it is just absolutely incorrect," said Kirkpatrick, who has studied reproductive physiology for decades since earning his degree at the College of Veterinary Medicine at Cornell University.
"It wasn't the predominant horse on the continent but it was here. It is native to North America," he told AP.
Kirkpatrick, who actually supports roundups as a necessary tool to control herd populations, said the key to determining if an animal is native is where it originated and whether or not it co-evolved with its habitat.
The mustangs "did both, here in North America," he said, beginning about 1.4 million years ago. He said they eventually crossed the Siberian land bridge into Asia before going extinct locally as recently as 7,600 years ago.
"This isn't about history, it's about biology,' Kirkpatrick said. "The Spanish were bringing them home."
Ross MacPhee, curator of the Department of Mammalogy at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, agrees. He said the mustangs are classified as Equus caballus, which "evolved from more primitive forebears" in North America.
"There is therefore no question that it is `native' within any reasonable meaning of that word � much more so than bison, for example, whose immediate ancestry is Asian," MacPhee said. "Yes, it disappeared from our shores for a few thousand years, but that has no bearing scientifically on whether it is historically `native."
BLM officials said they can't comment on pending litigation, but referred AP to their Web site descriptions and a leading scientist who agrees the agency's version is closer to the truth.
"Horses did evolve in North America but they went extinct 10,000 years ago," said Michael Hutchins, executive director of the Wildlife Society, a nonprofit scientific and educational association in Bethesda, Md.
Today's mustangs are "a domesticated, feral version that had gone through many, many generations of selective breeding to use as beasts of burden and were brought back to North America," he told AP. "They are a mishmash of domestic horses. They are not native. They are not wild horses."
If they are native, then so too are camels, cheetahs and lions that roamed the continent before extinction about the same time, Hutchins said. But they are not, he said, partly because the same ecological conditions no longer exist, the climate changed and most big predators gone.
Kirkpatrick said Europe's domestication of the horse over about 6,000 years may have changed the nuclear makeup of some genes but "it remains the same species and retains the same social organization and social behaviors that evolved over 1.4 million years."
"It matters not a Tinker's Damn if the ecology has changed," he said. "E. Caballus is the same species that disappeared."
The case pending in the 9th Circuit could go a long way toward determining future management of the animals and has the potential to send BLM back to the scientific drawing board before it can resume seasonal roundups of thousands of mustangs it says are damaging the environment.
The case already has cleared an unprecedented legal hurdle in that the appellate court is entertaining arguments about the merits of the law at all.
In previous similar challenges, courts have denied requests for emergency injunctions to block pending roundups based on conclusions plaintiffs failed to prove significant harm was imminent and/or they were likely to ultimately succeed in proving the government broke the law.
Then in a sort of "Catch-22," by the time a non-emergency hearing arrives, the BLM already has completed the roundup and persuades the judge the case is moot, any damage already done.
But that may be changing.
David Schildton, a Justice Department lawyer representing BLM, was following that script when he told the Ninth Circuit panel in January that "a live controversy" would have to exist for the court to act.
"And since the gather has already occurred and approximately seven horses were humanely destroyed because of pre-existing conditions, I don't know that there is effective relief," he said.
Not necessarily, said Judge Johnnie Rawlinson.
"The remainder of the horses could be returned," she said. "The overall claim for relief is these horses were being taken from their native habitat. If the horses are being housed at a long-term or short-term facility, they could be reinstated to their native habitat."
The 9th Circuit ruling is still pending. But the judge in Sacramento who denied the original bid in September to block a 1,700-horse roundup in the Twin Peaks area along the California-Nevada line adopted a similar position in April when he refused BLM's request to dismiss the case.
U.S. District Judge Morrison England Jr. ruled it could go forward because "effective relief can still be granted" if plaintiffs prove BLM violated the National Environmental Policy Act or the Wild and Free-Roaming Horses and Burros Act of 1971.
"This court could conceivably provide relief in the form of an order returning all animals in ... holding facilities to either Twin Peaks or the West until all requirements of NEPA are met," he said.
BLM agrees Congress wants the horses treated as part of the environment, Schildton said, but the focus should be on protecting the land itself not affording the horses special treatment.
"They are not an endangered species," Schildton said. "The effect on the horses themselves would be part of the environmental study... but the ultimate question is, `Does this proposal bring about a significant environmental impact?'"
Fazio said BLM misinterprets the law.
"The whole purpose of this act is to protect the wild horses from capture, harassment, branding and death," she said. "Multiple use if fine, but where lands are designated for horses � this icon of the West, this embodiment of freedom � you have to make a priority out of protecting them."
Federal judge rules in favor of hunting in National Wildlife Refuges
June 19, 2011 12:00 AM
The lengthy battle over hunting access on dozens of units of the 100 million-acre National Wildlife Refuge system has ended and hunters can declare a victory, according this week's report for the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance (USSA). In April, federal Judge James S. Gwin ruled for sportsmen across America by granting judgment in favor of the U.S. Sportsmen's Alliance Foundation (USSAF), the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other defendants while denying a lawsuit aimed at closing hunting on National Wildlife Refuge System parcels. After this ruling, an appeal process was opened and it was expected that that notoriously radical anti-hunting group, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), would file an appeal, but the appeal deadline closed on Monday with no appeals filed.
"This long sought win is a great victory for hunters everywhere, and reinforces the process of keeping national wildlife refuges open for hunting, by hunters," said Bill Horn, the USSA director of federal affairs.
This long-running case began in 2003, when the Fund for Animals, which later merged with the HSUS, filed a lawsuit to stop hunting on 39 refuges. The USSAF, along with other organizations, intervened on behalf of sportsmen. The anti-hunting groups later expanded the lawsuit to nearly 60 refuges and the USSAF continued to defend this case for eight years.
Judge Gwin's April ruling stopped HSUS's attempt at using the National Environmental Policy Act to close hunting on these refuges. In making the decision, the judge noted that "Plaintiffs, however, are not entitled to an inviolate sanctuary for their preferred uses � Congress has determined that, to the extent possible, hunters, fishers, observers, photographers, and educators must share the refuge."
The 1997 Refuge Improvement Act, championed by the USSA, made hunting, fishing and other wildlife oriented activities priority uses on refuge units. The Act also mandated hunting and fishing activities be "facilitated". Now, 14 years after passage of the Act, Judge Gwin's ruling firmly rejects Plaintiffs' attempt to "end run" the Act.
"The majority of national wildlife refuges were created to be open to hunting, and now hunters everywhere can continue to legally pursue their interests on these great public lands," said Walter "Bud" Pidgeon, USSA president and CEO. "With the end of this prolonged battle, this solidly reaffirms that hunting is a priority use of refuge land wherever and whenever compatible with wildlife management."
National Wildlife Refuges provide vast opportunities for hunters seeking waterfowl, big game, furbearers, and much more, while helping maintain optimal wildlife populations.
The National Wildlife Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 empowered the Fish and Wildlife Service to open refuges to hunting when compatible with the purposes for which the refuges were established.
In another victory for hunters this week, a proposal that was pushed by the HSUS and other anti-hunting extremists, which would have prohibited necessary and legal practices used to effectively manage wildlife and predator species, was overwhelmingly defeated in the U.S. House of Representatives reports The Outdoor Wire. The bill, an amendment to the Agriculture Appropriations Bill, was strongly opposed by the NRA and other pro-hunting organizations.
"This was yet another defeat for the anti-hunting agenda being pushed by the Humane Society of the United States", said Chris W. Cox, executive director for NRA's Institute for Legislative Action. "The NRA will continue to fight to protect America's hunting heritage from those who seek to eliminate it."
Marc Folco is the outdoor writer for The Standard-Times. Contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org
STATES - in alphabetical order
Jasper - City Council held a work session to talk to the folks regarding a vicious dog ordinance. Mayor Sonny Posey says there are ways to detect whether or not a dog is, or could be, vicious. The city intends to train it's animal control officer to be able to make those calls. Although the mayor has changed his mind about specific breeds there are plenty of people in town still asking the city for the ban. The council says it definitely wants to improve on the current vicious dog ordinance which requires someone to get bitten or injured *before* action can be taken.
Montgomery - City Council took a first bite out of the nuisance dog problem by setting higher minimum fines for those who disregard the city's animal ordinance, but some city officials say the changes will not end there. Chairman Jim Spear said the committee should attempt gradual changes to the ordinance, other committee members made it clear that they want to continue to explore other remedies, especially in regard to dog breeding. That could mean pet licenses, especially for breeders, and possibly even limits on how many dogs an individual is able to have at one residence.
Haskell - city is currently considering an ordinance that would ban pit bulls within the city limits
Glendale - (06/14/11) City Council voted unanimously to move forward and draft an ordinance to ban the sale of commercially bred dogs and cats in pet stores in the City of Glendale -- and instead offer rescued pets for adoption. The ordinance will be presented before the Council for another vote -- but its passage is expected, given last night’s vote, the positive response from Mayor Laura Friedman and a city attorney well-versed on the issue of puppy mills
Irvine - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF IRVINE, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTIONS 4-5-420, 4-5-1111 AND 4-5-1112 TO THE IRVINE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO ANIMAL WELFARE. Section 4-5-420, entitled “Mandatory spay or neuter upon third impoundment of unaltered dog,” is hereby added to the Irvine Municipal Code
Los Angeles - (06/03/11) City Councilman Paul Koretz introduced a motion that would ban pet stores and individuals from selling animals born at puppy, kitten and rabbit mills. The motion asks various agencies, including the Los Angeles Police Department and the city attorney's office, to study the feasibility of making it illegal for stores to sell animals from puppy mills. His initiative also calls for the Department of Animal Services to work with licensed pet stores to make shelter animals available for adoption. "By adopting and implementing this law, we will greatly diminish the role of puppy mills, get animals adopted, reduce the burden on the city and create a more humane L.A..” Motion will go to the City Council's Public Safety Committee for review.
San Francisco - Board of Supervisors considers banning the sale of all pets. First vision was simple and straightforward: To curtail puppy mills and kitten factories, the sale of cats and dogs should be banned in San Francisco. The Humane Pet Acquisition Proposal is protect everything from Great Danes to goldfish. And guppies, gobies, gouramies, glowlight tetras, German blue rams. No fish, no fowl, no reptiles, no amphibians, no cats, no dogs, no gerbils, no rats. If it flies, crawls, runs, swims or slithers, you would not be able to buy it in the city named for the patron saint of animals.
SB156 - AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 9 OF THE DELAWARE CODE RELATING TO DOGS. Bill amends the minimum standards set forth in Chapter 9, Title 9 of the Delaware Code with respect to the primary enclosures and tethering of dogs. The Bill establishes a formula for calculating the proper enclosure size for housing a dog in lieu of the current provision, which requires consultation of the Code of Federal Regulations. It also clarifies when the space requirements and limitations do not apply. The Bill further establishes more detailed requirements for persons who tether their dogs, including a prohibition on tethering of dogs under 4 months of age and a prohibition of tethering any dog between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless it is only for a period of less than fifteen minutes.
Referred to Senate Judiciary Committee
Madison County - Board of Commissioners has passed a new ordinance limiting the number of dogs/cats a person/entity can have.
Tampa - Governor Scott signed new legislation into law that changes Florida's definition of a "dangerous dog." Under the new law, dogs confiscated from fighting rings will not automatically be labeled as 'dangerous.'
College Park - officials will enact a “dangerous dog” registry next month that some critics say is very close to canine profiling. Residents owning dogs that have, without provocation, bitten someone during the last 12 years, will be required to register their pet with the city clerk’s office. Pit bull, Doberman, Rottweiler and German shepherd owners, will also have to register their dogs whether they have ever attacked someone or not. Registration will cost a $25 annual fee. Those who fail to register their dogs will face fines and confiscation of their pets. Critics are upset that no public hearings were held before the dog registry became law.
Porterdale - (06/06/11) City officials are considering restrictions on pit bulls and/or certain breeds of dogs. Councilman Mike Harper asked his fellow council members to consider banning pit bulls. Mayor Bobby Hamby suggested that the town have its attorney research the possibility of placing restrictions on certain breeds. City Attorney Tim Chambers said the town may be able to regulate certain breeds, ban certain people from owning certain breeds or ban breeds from certain locations. The council agreed unanimously to research whether certain breeds can be banned in the town and moved the discussion to a future work session. Regular scheduled council meetings are the 1st Monday each month. Work sessions are on the 2nd Tuesday and 4th Thursday each month. All meeting are at City Hall at 6:30 PM, 2400 Main Street Porterdale, GA.
HB1166 - Amends the Humane Care for Animals Act. Provides that the definition of a "companion animal hoarder" means a person who is in possession of 7 or more companion animals in addition to other requirements. Amends the Animal Control Act. Provides that a person must obtain a permit from the Board to possess 7 or more companion animals. Provides that a failure to receive a permit for the possession of 7 or more companion animals is a violation and a person is guilty of a Class B misdemeanor and a second or subsequent violation is a Class 4 felony with every day that a violation continues constituting a separate offense.
HELD OVER TO 2012 in the House Committee on Agriculture & Conservation
HB4714 - A bill to regulate the ownership, possession, sale, and breeding of pit bulls; to prohibit the ownership or possession of a pit bull after a certain date; and to prescribe penalties.
Referred to the Committee on Regulatory Reform UPDATE - (06/09/11) Chairman of the Regulatory Reform Committee in the state House, Rep. Hugh Crawford of Novi, does not plan to move on the bill, his office confirmed this afternoon. “I have no intention of running this put bull legislation in my committee,” Crawford told the Free Press. “I don’t think it’s a dog problem, I think it’s a people problem. And I don’t think the state needs to be in the business of being canine police.”
Jackson County - (06/21/11) board of commissioners earlier this year to mandate 'vicious' dog owners to carry $100,000 in liability insurance is now "off the table".
Manchester - Dog ordinance review. Village’s dangerous dog ordinance, which was updated by the council in 2008, states that a dangerous dog is one that “bites and attacks a person or domestic animal with provocation; any dog that bites of attacks and causes serious injury or death to another domestic animal while the domestic animal is on the property or under the control of its owner; any dog with known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack or to otherwise endanger the safety of people or other domestic animals; or any dog deemed a dangerous dog by a court of law.” Trustee James Dzengeleski mentioned possibly banning specific breeds of dogs in the village, such as pit bulls. That thought was quickly squashed by other council members, saying banning certain dogs doesn’t eradicate a problem. More discussion will take place at the next village council meeting, which be at 6 p.m. July 7 in the village chambers, since the Fourth of July holiday falls on a Monday.
Saginaw - (06/07/11) City Council meeting, five of the seven members voted in favor of the new version of the ordinance. This third version addresses how dogs can be tethered. One would require owners of so-called dangerous dogs, such as pit bulls, Rottweilers, German shepperd’s, bullmastiffs and Presa Canarios to pay a $20 fee per dog to register them. If a dog has a tendency to attack, or has attacked before, it will also need to get registered. The other ordinance requires all owners to keep their dogs on leashes when they're out. Also, owners cannot keep their dogs tethered as the primary means of confinement and cannot own more than three dogs over 4 months old. UPDATE (06/20/11) City Council passed the contentious "dangerous dogs" ordinance after a year of debate, which requires owners of designated breeds - pit bulls, presa canario, bull mastiffs, rottweilers and German shepherds -- to register their pets at the City Clerk's office for $20, post a sign in the front of their homes stating "Dog on premises" and keep their animals either on a leash or within a 4-foot pen. The measure passed 5-3, with Councilman Dennis Browning, Councilman Andrew Wendt and Counclman Larry Coulouris dissenting. City Council cast an 8-0 vote in favor of another ordinance that forbids tethering as a primary means for confinement and limits the number of dogs owned by a single resident to three.
St. James - (06/07/11) City Council adopted two new ordinances that address public safety issues. On a first reading, council members passed a lengthy ordinance regulating ownership of dangerous dogs, dogs and cats running at large(amendment to Chapter 10) and potato guns. Final readings of both ordinances will be June 21, 2011. Both ordinances may be seen and reviewed at City Hall.
Kearney - officials plan to revisit the pit bull ban there after a resident brought the matter before the board in order to allow her dog to return home. They are seeking public input. Please encourage the Kearney officials to pursue a breed-neutral ordinance that holds dog owners responsible for the actions and behaviors of their dogs, regardless of the breed of dog they own.
Webb City - (0613/11) City Council meeting was emotionally charged, with a first reading on the proposed smoking ban and a second reading on an ordinance banning pit bulls that are not registered with the city. Mayor John Biggs cast a tie-breaking vote. The ban means it will be unlawful to have a pit bull in the city limits unless it was registered with the city before the ordinance was adopted, and numerous restrictions will apply. The penalty for violating the ordinance is a fine of $200 to $500.
Butte-Silver Bow - (06/03/11) commissioners have once again rejected Commissioner Terry Schultz's proposed breed-specific regulations (8-3 vote).
Thank you Judy Schreiber Dwornick
A3156 - An Act concerning threats against certain animals and amending P.L.1983, c.261. Creates crime of threatening the life of certain animals.
A4145 - An Act concerning the confiscation, impoundment, and forfeiture of animals, and amending and supplementing Title 4 of the Revised Statutes
A4159 - An Act concerning animal cruelty and designated as “Patrick’s Law,” and amending R.S.4:22-15, R.S.4:22-17 and R.S.4:22-26
S241 - An Act concerning threats against certain animals and amending P.L.1983, c.261. Creates crime of threatening the life of certain animals.
Mount Laurel - township is getting tougher on dog owners whose pets pose a danger to the community. Officials have proposed a 2000 percent increase, from $50 to $1,000, in the fine levied for municipal code violations against those responsible for potentially vicious canines. An additional penalty of incarceration would remain unchanged at up to 30 days in municipal or county jail. A municipal judge would determine whether a dog is labeled vicious or dangerous
Salem - City officials will be looking to crack down on vicious dogs running loose in city streets, following resident reports of the dogs becoming an increasing problem. According to Solicitor David Puma, under New Jersey state law, a municipal court judge can determine a dog to be vicious or potentially dangerous following an incident where the dog attacks a person or another domestic animal. Once a dog is found vicious or potentially dangerous by a judge, the dog’s owner must adhere to certain guidelines and regulations, including: Registering the dog with the city, keeping it on a leash and muzzle in public, keeping it housed in a secured area, and meeting certain insurance and licensing requirements. The city’s animal control officer is authorized to hold regular inspections to make sure the dog’s owner meets the law’s requirements. If the owner fails to remain in compliance, the dog can be immediately seized, and in extreme cases, put down.
AB7964 - AN ACT to amend the general business law, in relation to requiring certain safety measures where animals are housed or displayed. Requires a working fire suppression system as well as an alarm system which is directly connected to the police or fire station in any permanent structure where animals are housed or displayed; does not apply to farms or circuses.
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture
S5172 - AN ACT to amend the agriculture and markets law, in relation to unlawful tampering with farm animals
Referred to the Committee on Agriculture
Ellenville - public hearing is scheduled for June 27 to gain public input on the ongoing problem of dog attacks in the village, particularly concerning pit bulls. Mayor Jeff Kaplan said there are "dangerous dog" laws, licensing laws, and leash laws in the village. "The question is A: Do we establish requirements and restrictions that go beyond what's out there now, and B: How do we go about doing it? It's not an easy issue but it's one that we need to discuss." He said the village could establish laws that ban certain breeds from the downtown area, but said that dog owners might protest such a ban. Kaplan directed Village Attorney Peter Berger to draft a local law to be discussed at the June 27 meeting and voted on at a later date.
Suffolk County - IR 1545-2011 - Legislator Jon Cooper's proposal to effectively prohibit the sale of dogs by retailers in Suffolk County had its first public hearing last week, with comments overwhelmingly in favor of the bill. Proposal will be voted into law during the August 16 meeting of the Suffolk County legislature. The bill defines "breeder" as "any person who breeds nine or more dogs per year." This definition is not consistent with the NYS language exempting residential breeders selling or offering to sell fewer than 25 animals from regulation.
Thank you Mahlon
Rockingham - (06/14/11) Council members discussed the proposed amendments to city ordinance that addressed the tethering and chaining of dogs within city limits. Effective July 1, the amendment “gives property and pet owners a reasonable way to restrain their dogs,” said Rockingham Police Chief Robert Voorhees. The amendment does not address a time limit for tethering, because Voorhees said that is not enforceable
Cleveland - city council held a safety committee meeting today to review a draft of a breed neutral dangerous dog ordinance. The draft ordinance has been introduced by Councilman Matt Zone. Councilman Zone has been working with the Ohio Coalition of Dog Advocates over the last six months to create a breed neutral dangerous dog ordinance to replace Cleveland's current breed discriminatory ordinance. The ordinance was unanimously voted out of committee. (UPDATE) (06/06/11) City of Cleveland voted to overturn their current breed specific law in favor of a breed neutral one Thank you Dawn dstretar@.... and Jodi Preis
Thank you Jodi Preis, Jean Keating and Dawn dstretar@....
Oakwood - city council considered a vicious dog ordinance that is breed-specific. Ordinance proposed in Oakwood contains breed-specific language. Therefore, even if Ohio state law is repealed, Oakwood would still consider “pit bulls” to be “vicious” dogs. In fact, Oakwood goes further than state law by defining “pit bull” as Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, and mixes of these breeds. The city places additional restrictions on the ownership of any of these kinds of dogs. Per the mayor, the council will consider the proposed ordinance again during the July 11 city council meeting at the City Building at 30 Park Avenue. A work session before the meeting begins at 6:00 PM. The meeting begins at 7:30 PM.
Ridley Township - Commissioners have enacted a comprehensive ordinance detailing what constitutes a farm animal, defining exotic animals, and prohibiting the ownership of such animals within the township. Residents who already own one or more of the prohibited animals are out of luck, because the new ordinance contains no "grandfather clause." Any person who holds a permit for any of the animals listed in the section of the ordinance defining farm animals has until the end of the calendar year to remove it from the township. The farm animals section specifically prohibits hybrids, micro or miniature variations of any of the animals listed in the section. Exotic animals include any animal that is not normally domesticated in the United States, or is wild by nature. The exotic animals category lists 50 prohibited animals, including elephants, alligators, hyenas, lions, tigers, monkeys, chimpanzees, baboons, rhinoceroses, giraffes, camels and kangaroos. Exempted from the wild birds section are birds normally kept in cages, such as parakeets, parrots, canaries, finches, lovebirds and myna birds.
HB5690 - AN ACT RELATING TO ANIMALS AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - DOGS
SB140 - AN ACT RELATING TO ANIMALS AND ANIMAL HUSBANDRY - DOGS
Kenton - (06/07/11) board of aldermen meeting, city officials passed an ordinance regulating the ownership of pit bulls and rottweilers. It should be noted that Kenton has neither an animal control department or an animal shelter.
Thank you Jodi Preis
HB56 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the regulation of certain animals
FILED for Special Session
SB35 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the regulation of certain animals
FILED for Special Session
SB958 - A BILL TO BE ENTITLED AN ACT relating to the regulation of dangerous wild animals.
FILED for Special Session
Waco - City has an ordinance that requires anyone who chooses not to sterilize their cat or dog to get a Intact Animal Permit. The annual cost for the permit is $35.00 and can be obtained at the Humane Society of Central Texas on 2032 Circle Road in Waco. The grace period for Waco pet breeders to get a permit has expired.
Vancouver - city council is considering a ban on “pit bulls” after a recent attack there. The mayor and city council are clearly divided on this issue, but at least two city councilors have taken up the cause, and in emails seemed to be supportive of placing a discussion of a ban on the city council’s docket. UPDATE (06/20/11) at the city council communications, a majority of the council's seven members said they're not interested in hearing about breed-specific legislation to ban pit bulls. Rather, the council said its interest lies in adding more bite to the city's dangerous dog laws.
Cornell - city's currently considering a dangerous dog ordinance that is believed to be breed specific. Residents are encouraged to attend the next several city council meetings in the event the rumors are true, and the city is looking at BSL. Regular meetings of the City Council take place on the 1st and 3rd Thursday of each month at 8:00 p.m. (May – September) in the City Council Chambers.
Thank you Heidi and Jodi Preis
IN OTHER COUNTRIES – OF INTEREST !!!
(06/23/11) Parliament approved banimposed on the fighting dog breed Perro de Presa Canario commonly known as Presa Canario, and none of the dogs are known to be in New Zealand. Associate Local Government Minister Craig Foss said the ban, recommended by the local government select committee, was a precautionary measure to stop the breed becoming established here. The presa canario is on the banned list along with breeds including the American pitbull.