Archives of older material
from the Legislation page
9/10/2009 - IWCA LC
Letter to CA Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger re:
VETO AB 241
as Amended 8/24/2009. Included after the letter is the
Department of Finance's Bill Analysis.
8/25/2009 - IWCA LC
Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE AB 241 as Amended 8/24/2009.
Included after the letter is the Department of Finance's
Bill Analysis.
8/4/2009 - IWCA AKC
Delegate's Letter Re:
OPPOSE AB 1122 as Amended
6/29/2009.
Included after the letter is the Department of Finance's
Bill Analysis.
7/8/2009
- IWCA AKC Delegate's Letter Re:
Oppose
SB 250 as Proposed to be Amended
Included after the letter is the
Department of Finance's Bill Analysis.
6/30/2009 - IWCA LC Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE AB 241 as Amended 6/23/2009 -
VOTE ‘NO’ ON AB 241
6/23/2009 - IWCA LC Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE Tennessee HB 386 & SB 258: “Commercial Breeder Act’ – Amendment
Pending
6/23/2009 - IWCA LC
Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE AB 1122 as
Amended 5/14/2009.
NOTE: The hearing is scheduled for today on
this bill and AB 241’s hearing date has been postponed to 6/30 the same
date SB 250 will be read for the first time in the Assembly Business and
Professions.
6/1/2009 - IWCA LC Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE SB 250
as Amended 5/28/2009
5/27/2009 - IWCA LC Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE SB 250 as
Amended 5/5/2009
5/8/2009 -
IWCA LC Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE AB 1122
as Amended 4/23/2009
4/30/2009 - IWCA LC Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE California SB 250 as Amended 4/21/2009
4/30/2009 - IWCA LC Opposition Letter Re:
OPPOSE
California AB 241 as Amended 4/13/2009
4/21/2009 - The IWCA LC submitted another letter
concerning an amendment to
Tennessee SB258,
stating the IWCA's continued opposition to the bill and including the
following:
It is our understanding that the House Judiciary Committee is considering
an amendment to H.B. 386. The IWCA agrees with the AKC in its support of
reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of
dogs without restricting the rights of owners and breeders who take their
responsibilities seriously.
4/20/2009 -
IWCA LC Opposition Letter Re: H.R. 669 – ‘Nonnative Wildlife Invasion
Prevention Act’
4/14/2009 -
IWCA LC Opposition Letter
Re: California AB 241 to Limit Ownership of Intact Animals
4/13/2009 -
IWCA LC
Opposition Letter Re:
Maine LD 964:
‘An
Act Pertaining to the Breeding and Selling of Dogs and Cats’
4/13/2009 -
IWCA LC Opposition
Letter Re:
Florida SB
2002:
"An
Act Relating to Commercial Dog Breeding"
4/8/2009 - IWCA LC
Opposition Letter Re: Tennessee SB 258: “Commercial Breeder Act’
A similar letter of
opposition was
also sent concerning
Tennessee House Bill 386,
companion to the
above bill.
4/7/2009
IWCA LC Opposition
Letter RE: Texas HB 1982
4/3/2009 SB 250 amended late 4/2/09 -
revised IWCA
Legislation Committee letter.
4/2/2009 OPPOSE SB 250 - Mandatory
Sterilization of Cats and Dogs, California.
SB 250, in a nutshell, requires owners of intact dogs to pay
a new license fee or have their dogs sterilized. Read the
IWCA Legislation
Committee letter.
3/9/2009 -
IWCA
Legislation Committee letter concerning
Illinois SB 0053 / Licensing – Dog Breeder.
10/24/2008 - Good work,
everyone!!!
Update:
MA HB 5092 Will Not Move Forward!
10/10/2008 - Massachusetts HB
5092 may be scheduled for hearing on Thursday, 10/23/08. Contact the
Massachusetts Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional
Government to oppose this bill.
Detailed information on the contents of the bill, talking points,
and legislative contacts may be found at:
http://www.akc.org/
http://www.massfeddogs.org/
http://adoa.org/
Some of the most egregious
provisions inserted in HB 5092 include:
• Mandatory Spaying and Neutering of dogs at (or over) the age of 12
months
• An annual $500 `intact permit' for each dog that is not
sterilized. Requirements for
the permit are very difficult to meet, incomplete, discriminatory
and presuppose an unreasonable level of knowledge of the canine
breeds by law enforcement officials.
• Establishment of unreasonable nuisance laws that can result in the
forced
sterilization, banishment, or euthanasia of dogs. The legislation
strictly limits the right of appeal by requiring a dog owner to
prove the citation was unreasonable or in bad faith. A magistrate
may, or may not, grant a hearing. There is no provision for appeal.
• Eliminating the practice of humane tethering, without exception
• Grant broad powers to every municipality to ban or restrict
specific breeds of dogs.
Nancy Munroe White
IWCA Legislative Committee
Read the
IWCA Legislative Committee's
letter to Senator Anthony W. Petruccelli
9/21/2008 -
IWCA Legislative Committee letter to
Alderman Edward Burke concerning the
Chicago
Mandatory Spay/Neuter ordinance.
9/5/2008 - Representative Bill Caul of Mt. Pleasant introduced
Michigan House Bill 6395, which proposes to strictly regulate
virtually all responsible dog breeders.
Read the
complete article, which includes contact information for the
members of the House Agriculture Committee.
8/22/2008 -
CA AB
1634 Sent to Reconsideration.
8/22/2008 -
IWCA Legislative Committee letter to
Senator Romero and
Senate Members.
8/21/2008 - Once again, AKC
opposes AB 1634:
AKC
URGENT ALERT: CA AB 1634 to Change - AKC Vigorously Opposes!
8/18/2008 - EVERYONE PLEASE
READ these letters
by the IWCA Legislative Committee:
To Senator Gloria Romero and
Senate Members: IWCA-LC AB 1634 #11
To Senator Tom Torlakson and
Members of the Senate Appropriations Committee:
IWCA-LC AB 1634
To AKC President Dennis Sprung
and Board of Directors:
IWCA-LC AKC AB 1634 Letter
8/14/2008 -
CA AB
1634 Amended Again - "Based on the latest amendments the AKC has
moved to a neutral position on AB 1634." Click the link to read the
full article.
AKC's
AB 1634
Frequently Asked Questions
CALIFORNIA AB 1634 –
"Mandatory Spay/Neuter" Bill
California AB 1634 "Mandatory Spay/Neuter" bill was introduced in
2007 and has undergone 10 rounds of amendments. The most current
amendment is dated 5 August 2008. Detail on the content &
evolution of the bill may be found at: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/
Assembly Bill 1634 is now scheduled for the Senate Floor Session
Monday, August 11th, and will be item #137.
YOU are urged to contact your state senators (any/all affiliations)
and ask them to vote “NO” when AB 1634 comes before the Senate
Appropriations Committee. At this time, FAX or telephone is the
preferred contact media.
There are a number of websites*** where you can find out how to
contact your senator(s), additional analysis, cross-references &
opinions (these are only a few of the very pro-active organizations
addressing AB 1634): - NAIA: www.naiaonline.org; - SaveOur Dogs:
http://www.saveourdogs.net/; - DPAC: http://dpca.org/Legisltv/bills/CA1634.htm;
- PetPAC: http://www.petpac.net/; - AKC: http://www.akc.org/pdfs/canine_legislation.
***Please NOTE: the above websites are only listed to provide you
with easier & quicker access to additional information and contact
data related to CA AB 1634. Content of these links is solely the
property and reflects the opinions of each organization.
The following is a brief ‘summary’ of SOME of the most ‘damaging’
provisions (included or omitted):
1) Complaints, unsubstantiated with no witnesses required, may be
filed against a pet owner.
2) AB 1634 fails to provide reasonable ‘Due Process’ for the accused
even though no substantiated complaint is provided.
3) An unsubstantiated complaint is sufficient to convict thus
providing the defendant with no opportunity for arbitration or a
hearing and, therefore, no provision for defense.
4) The ‘defendant’ (owner of the accused pet/animal) is assumed
‘guilty’ and therefore, punitive action in the form of forced
pet/animal sterilization may result for any ‘alleged’ offense,
germane or otherwise.
The de-facto implication of this law, as currently proposed, is that
intact animals are illegal and the owner of the animal(s) is given
no recourse.
Needless to say, this premise has much broader consequences than
forcing sterilization of pets for virtually any or no reason. The
California Department of Finance (DOF) noted in its’ 1 July 2008
analysis, this bill may be expected to result in more animals being
abandoned or surrendered to public animal control facilities, thus
significantly increasing the demands on the General Fund and
associated cost to the taxpayers. Similarly, increased demands on
the animal control facilities will lead to further euthanasia of
animals due to over-crowded conditions.
3/7/08 - LITIGATION AGAINST
THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES - see the
FACT SHEET
Good afternoon, I am writing
to you on behalf of Concerned Dog Owners of California. I know many
Clubs are having meetings in the next few weeks. We will be sending
out a request by mail but I wanted to get this to you as soon as
possible.
Concerned Dog Owners of California is challenging the Los Angeles
law in the courts. We are working on the actual filing as we speak.
Some of the other Directors and I will be meeting with the law firm
tomorrow to review the direction.
Obviously this is an expensive undertaking Georgejean; we need to
raise $100,000. And we need a big chunk of that quickly. So we need
both kennel clubs and individuals to make donations. We will be
getting a mailing out but in the interim, here is a fact sheet and
we would appreciate any help you can give us.
I'm sure you're thinking what do you have to do with the City of Los
Angeles. The issue is that this is the battleground. The Animal
Extremists are using this win as a springboard to go to cities all
over California. Once our lawsuit is filed, we think (but cannot
promise) the action will halt while everyone waits to see the
outcome. And if we win, MSN is dead in California.
Donations can be mailed to CDOC-ACTION at 22647 Ventura Blvd #108,
Woodland Hills, CA 91364 or done online at www.cdocaction.org.
Cathie Turner
Executive Director
(818) 519-2141 - cell
NOTICE TO KY DOG OWNERS: It is
URGENT that you call the Legislative Message Line
and let your senator/representative along with Senator T. Buford,
know that you DO NOT WANT SB 206!!!
Legislative Message Line
1-800-372-7181
http://www.lrc.ky.gov/RECORD/08RS/SB206.htm
SB 206 (BR 2347) - T. Buford
AN ACT relating to the Animal Control Advisory Board.
Amend KRS 258.117 to add two members nominated by the Humane Society
of the United States to the Animal Control Advisory Board.
Feb 29-introduced in Senate
Mar 4-to Agriculture & Natural Resources (S)
GOOD NEWS: Announcement from
the founder of The Rabies Challenge Fund - the proposed mandatory
rabies vaccination at 3 months old is defeated in Maine thanks to
dog owner response!
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008
Greetings All!
I've just returned from the Maine Agriculture Committee's work
session on Section 7 of LD 2171, the proposed legislation which
would have amended the Animal Welfare law to require that puppies be
vaccinated against rabies at 3 months instead of at 6 months as the
law currently stands.
The official word from the Co-Chair of the Committee, Representative
Wendy Pieh, was: "Your testimony plus the followup that we have all
received has made the decision that the rabies vaccination time will
NOT be changed."
"The followup" that the committee members received was SEVERAL
HUNDRED E-MAILS in opposition to the amendment -- they were
swamped!! The response was so overwhelming that even the Director of
Animal Welfare, Norma Worley, who wrote and pushed the amendment
requested that it be deleted!
MANY, MANY THANKS for responding to the action alert! Contacting the
committee made a huge difference in the lives of Maine dogs, and the
law will not be changed as a result!
Regards,
Kris
Kris L. Christine
Founder, Co-Trustee
THE RABIES CHALLENGE FUND
www.RabiesChallengeFund.org
BAD NEWS: MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER AT 4
MONTHS OLD IN LOS ANGELES, CA
READ THE
OFFICIAL PRESS RELEASE FROM THE LA MAYOR
2/27/2008 - also reported on
the CNN News website:
MAYOR VILLARAIGOSA SIGNS
SPAY/NEUTER ORDINANCE INTO LAW
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa on
Tuesday signed one of the nation's toughest laws on pet
sterilization, requiring most dogs and cats to be spayed or neutered
by the time they are 4 months old.
A new law in L.A. requires that puppies be neutered by the time they
are four months.
The ordinance is aimed at reducing and eventually eliminating the
thousands of euthanizations conducted in Los Angeles' animal
shelters every year.
"We will, sooner rather than later, become a no-kill city and this
is the greatest step in that direction," Councilman Tony Cardenas
said as he held a kitten at a City Hall news conference.
Councilman Richard Alarcon, who like Cardenas is a co-author of the
bill, brought his two pet Chihuahuas to the event to be neutered in
a van operated by the city.
The ordinance does exempt some animals, including those that have
competed in shows or sporting competitions, guide dogs, animals used
by police agencies and those belonging to professional breeders.
The average pet owner, however, must have their dog or cat spayed or
neutered by the time it reaches 4 months of age (as late as 6 months
with a letter from a veterinarian). People with older unneutered
pets and newcomers to the city with animals also have to obey the
law.
First-time offenders will receive information on subsidized
sterilization services and be given an additional 60 days. If they
still fail to comply they could be fined $100 and ordered to serve
eight hours of community service. A subsequent offense could result
in a $500 fine or 40 hours of community service.
The ordinance brings the nation's second-largest city into line with
about a dozen of its neighbors that have similar laws.
Many states require animals adopted from shelters to be sterilized,
and New York City requires the same for animals bought from pet
shops, but restrictions such as those in Southern California are
rare. A 2006 Rhode Island law requires most cats to be sterilized.
A measure similar to Los Angeles' passed the California Assembly
last year but did not gain state Senate support.
Los Angeles animal shelters took in 50,000 cats and dogs last year
and euthanized approximately 15,000 at a cost of $2 million,
according to city officials.
Bob Barker, the retired game-show host who famously ended every
"Price is Right" show with a call for sterilizing pets, pushed for
the law's adoption and was among those at Tuesday's news conference.
"The next time that you hear me say, 'Help control the pet
population, have your pet spayed or neutered,' I can add, 'It's the
law in Los Angeles,"' a jubilant Barker said.
Handy TOLL FREE NUMBERS -
Capitol Switchboard
Here are some toll-free numbers for the Capitol Switchboard:
1-866-220-0044
1-866-340-9281
1-877-851-6437
1-888-355-3588
1-800-833-6354
1-800-450-8293
1-877-762-8722
1-877-762-8762
__________________________________________________________
FEDERAL
HR2491 - Law on Trusts for Pets in the House Ways and Means
Committee text available upon request
SA 3723 - NEW PAWS: Exception is similar to SB 1139 - anyone who
sells not more than 25 dogs/cats from not more than 6 litters per
calendar year (whichever is greater). If the kittens/puppies are all
sold at retail, and not for resale, the breeder would NOT have to be
federally regulated as long as the dogs/cats are bred or raised on
the premises of the "seller". In addition a total of 25 other dogs
and cats not bred or raised on the premises can be sold (allows for
rescue or former show/breeding pets). New PAWS has some additions -
most notable is the concept of the "certified third-party
inspector". This can be a nonprofit organization certified by the
Secretary of Agriculture to inspect breeding facilities. Instead of
having inspections by USDA inspectors one could choose to comply
with standards established by a certified third-party inspector.
Breeders could have the HSUS, or perhaps AKC inspectors, coming into
their homes - probably with a hefty fee. But the standards and
inspection protocols must be "at least as protective of animal
welfare as those promulgated by the Secretary" according to the
Animal Welfare Act. The USDA standards don't work well for a
home-based cat fancier with female breeding cats and kittens
wandering in the house among their altered pet cats. USDA standards
are designed for commercial facilities with animals in separate
primary enclosures impervious to moisture. There are also provisions
for the importation of dogs and cats into the United States from
foreign countries. Regulations would be promulgated within 24
months, so we don't know what to expect here. The ability of the
USDA to apply to court for a temporary restraining order or
injunction increases the ability to protect animals covered in the
existing Animal Welfare Act. A attempt by Sen Richard Durbin (D-IL)
to attach a amended-partial PAWS (2005) to the Farm Bill (HR2419)
amendment failed and was "ordered to lie on the table".
UPDATE:
Senator Durbin has revised SA 3723, removing all references to
expanded breeder regulation and third-party inspection. The new
amendment contains restrictions on puppy imports which, should they
become law, would not only be unenforceable, they wouldn't
adequately protect U.S. dogs' health or wellbeing. It is obvious
that the PAWS supporters have not abandoned, only postponed their
efforts to license and regulate the private sector.
STATES - IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER
ALABAMA
Anniston - Passed an ordinance defining a "vicious dog" as: any pit
bull terrier, which shall be defined as an American Pit Bull Terrier
or Staffordshire Bull Terrier or any American Staffordshire Terrier
breed of dog, or any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element
American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or
Staffordshire Bull Terrier as to be identified predominantly as
American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier or
Staffordshire Bull Terrier. text available upon request
Dothan - officials are considering a tougher law that would prohibit
any dogs - or cats - from being loose outside, even on private
property and requiring a $5 per animal licensing fee could help fund
an affordable spay/neuter program. The committee suggested a higher
fee, like $50, if the animal has not been altered.
ALASKA
Kenai - proposed change to the Animal Control ordinance regarding
kennel permits, renewals, application, location, property values and
noise nuisances. There is no distinction between hobby or commercial
breeders in the ordinance. There is no grandfather clause and each
application must be renewed each year subject to approval or
disapproval. partial information is available upon request.
ARKANSAS
Little Rock - Board of Directors to regulate pit bulls and classify
them as a dangerous breed, but they stop short of banning the dogs
in an ordinance. Under the proposed ordinance, Little Rock residents
still will be allowed to have pit bulls, and new residents can move
with their dogs into the city after the ordinance passes. But they
will have to register them with Animal Services, pose for a
photograph with the dog, sterilize the animal and pay an additional
fee to have a dangerous breed permit. The dog would have to be kept
indoors or in an outside enclosure. If outside the enclosure, the
animal would have to wear a muzzle. If a registered dog were to bite
someone, the owner's dangerous breed license could be revoked. The
ordinance, which limits owners to two dogs per household, would
apply to American pit bull terriers, Staffordshire terriers,
American Staffordshire terriers and any mix of those breeds.
CALIFORNIA
Sacramento - Ballot Initiative to prohibit mandatory sterilization
of puppies and kittens
Sacramento - Ballot Initiative to prohibit mandatory chipping of
animals and humans.
Sacramento - Ballot Initiative to lift restrictions on the number of
pets a person can own
Sacramento - Ballot Initiative to forbid the killing of animals
unless seven conditions were met, such as lack of empty cages or
kennels and the determination that the animal is not a feral cat
that could be sterilized and released.
Sacramento - Ballot Initiative to cap license fees
Modesto - City Council committee will be discussing changes in the
animal control ordinance that would put more teeth into penalties
that police can levy against animal owners whose pets run loose,
show vicious behavior or don't have licenses. One change would
declare some animal code violations a misdemeanor instead of an
infraction, enabling officers to arrest reckless pet owners for
repeated offenses. It also would give officers more authority to
seize dangerous dogs. The other change would restore a former police
practice the city attorney scuttled this year. It would allow
officers to bundle fines for multiple animal code infractions on a
single ticket.
Riverside - proposal of a new series of flat fees, replacing a
matrix of fees for a la carte services that its chief veterinarian
described as confusing and complicated. Owners would be asked to pay
$25 for spaying or neutering cats and $50 for dogs, regardless of
size. Owners now are charged according to the animals' weights.
County would begin vaccinating all cats for rabies and ensuring that
all dogs and cats are free of intestinal worms before turning over
the animals to the new owners, an important measure to ensure public
health. County shelters also would begin to implant scannable
microchips in all dogs and cats before turning them over to new
owners and collect a fee for that service. County also would raise
boarding fees to $12 per day for stray or impounded animals.
FLORIDA
Boca Raton - Palm Beach County - County commissioners have approved
a new and revised schedule of fees for Palm Beach County Animal Care
and Control, including: ďż˝ Increased fees for licensing
non-sterilized dogs and cats -- up from $38 to $75. - Requiring pet
owners whose un-neutered animal is picked up by animal control to
pay $300 to have the animal returned. Commissioners have also
endorsed a mandatory spay and neutering program for all dogs and
cats. Boca Raton hasn’t made it mandatory, the idea of responsible
pet ownership is contained in city code.
Miami-Dade County - new proposed local law banning tying dogs to any
stationary object, such as a house, fence or post. If this law
passes you are still allowed to tie your dog up, as long as you stay
near them and keep a very close eye. What you can't do is tie your
dog up and leave them all alone.
Palm Beach County - proposed Animal Care and Control fee increases
for Rabies License Tags Fees; Service Fees and Citation Fees;
provide direction regarding mandatory spay/neuter of dogs and cats;
and provide direction regarding backyard breeding of dogs and cats.
Mandatory spay/neuter of all dogs and cats in PBC, intact license
fee of $75 per dog or cat per year and breeder permits - you will be
able to apply for a breeding permit by paying a $100 fee, filling
out an application from Palm Beach County Animal Care & Control,
allowing AC&C to come and "inspect" your home, and AC&C will do a
"background check" to insure you aren't a criminal. Passed -
Effective 01/01/08.
Volusia - officials expect to take another look at laws meant to
reduce the number of dogs and cats euthanized every year in the
county. County attorneys have started reviewing mandatory spay and
neuter laws from other areas.
INDIANA
DuBois County - Jasper - County Commissioners are considering a
proposal that calls for all dogs and cats to be licensed annually.
If an animal is spayed and neutered, the price could range from $1
to $5 a year. If an animal is not spayed or neutered, the fee could
range from $150 to $200 per animal. The figures are examples, not
recommendations. A key is that any license fee for intact animals be
higher than a veterinarian's charge for spay/neuter surgeries. The
proposal included dog and cat census forms to be mailed with
property tax forms. License fees would be used to pay for an animal
control officer and associated costs.
Ft Wayne - City Council unanimously supported stricter rules for
owners of pets that bite, for tethering animals and for owners of
animals that repeatedly break the law. Under the law, pets who bite
while on the loose or who are tethered must be spayed or neutered.
The law also created a "potentially dangerous" label for dogs, that
allows for other restrictions for the animals based on the severity
of the bite, but all animals labeled potentially dangerous must be
spayed or neutered. For harsher bites, the owner could be forced to
attend educational classes, muzzle the animal while off a leash and
confine the dog in a kennel while alone. The bill also restricts how
dogs can be tethered. It prohibits dogs from being tethered
overnight, tethering a dog younger than 6 months old or for tethered
dogs to be within 3 feet of the property line or right of way,
including sidewalks. Approved 12/04/07 and must formally approve the
law during its regular meeting next week.
IOWA
Camanche - City Council decided to table approving the first
consideration of an ordinance regulating the existence of pit bulls
within city limits until a full council could be present for the
discuss. The city never noticed a problem with pit bulls within the
city, the question is whether the city wants to be proactive or
reactive to a dog attack. The issue will be placed on the next
council agenda for further discussion.
UPDATE: City Council decided to stop trying to potentially enact an
ordinance regulating the existence of pit bulls within city limits.
Dead 12/03/07
South Sioux City - city council voted to approve breed specific
regulations for dogs. The new legislation targets pit bulls and
other breeds considered aggressive and risky to the public, though
the council will have to approve the measure two more times. The
proposed law says owners must register and micro-chip dangerous
dogs, pay an annual fee of $65, take out a liability insurance
policy of at least $250,000, secure the dog in a pen meeting
specific requirements, post warning signs on their property and
leash and muzzle the animal in public. First reading11/26/07
KANSAS
McPherson - City Commission will discuss pit bull regulations
KETUCKY
Frankfort - Pam Rogers of the Kentucky Humane Society commented that
come the first of the year they will in fact be pushing for
forfeiture bonds on any animals taken. It is also written in a way
that you are guilty no matter what.
Louisville - A bipartisan group of Louisville Metro Council members
unanimously approved modifications to the city's dangerous-dog
ordinance yesterday, including one that would drop unaltered dogs
from the definition of those that could be considered dangerous. The
subcommittee also modified how Metro Animal Services would deal with
unlicensed animals. The law says a dog is "at risk" of being
dangerous if it menaces, chases, displays threatening or aggressive
behavior to people; causes physical injury to domestic pets or
livestock; is found unrestrained; or is unaltered. The
subcommittee's revision strikes unaltered from that definition.
Another major change comes in the way Animal Services officers would
deal with unlicensed pets. Under current law, officers can issue
citations or impound unlicensed animals. The subcommittee discussed
that subject for about 45 minutes yesterday before deciding that
officers should first warn owners of unlicensed pets, allowing 15
days to get the animal licensed. If they don't comply, the owners
can then be cited and will have to pay a $30 fine plus the cost of a
license, which is $9 for an altered animal and $35 for an unaltered
animal. Animal Services would be allowed to impound the animal if
the owner fails to license it 30 days after receiving the citation.
MAINE
Maine has quietly passed extremely restrictive laws, in the last 2
years, and continues with more bills up for review in Jan. There are
so few dog breeders in the state, that Maine was literally
blindsided, and was not aware of these bills. The few breeders in
Maine are now trying to prevent more legislation, and the mood of
the legislators is not favorable to dog breeders, so the existing
laws are now on the books.
1) 5 or more intact dogs/cats require a state license and
inspection.
2) contract requirements for our animals, above and beyond our own
contracts
3) rabies licenses now going to the state, so they can track down
people with 5 or more intact animals.
4) advertising law - if people sell more than one dog/cat in a
calendar year, they must have a state license # or a vendor's #,
obtained from the Department of Agriculture.
5) sales tax
6) inspection of records
7) inspection of homes, if dogs kept in the house
There is a bill that just passed at the emergency session, to create
a breeder's certificate. The intent of this bill is not currently
known.
MARYLAND
Baltimore - County Council members rejected last night a measure
that would have placed the region's toughest restrictions on pit
bull owners, siding with dog owners who argued that singling out the
breed would be unfair and likely ineffective. By a 6-1 vote, the
council killed a proposal that would have required pit bull owners
to keep their dogs in concrete-based kennels and post warning signs
on their lawns. The author of the proposal, Councilman Vincent J.
Gardina, was the only member to vote in favor of it. Defeated
11/15/07
MINNESOTA
Apple Valley - city council approved stricter rules for aggressive
dogs which could mean forcing some of them out of neighborhoods. As
of December 1st, 2007, any dog labeled dangerous will no longer be
able to live in a residential area but instead must live in an
industrial area. Dangerous dogs are not determined by breed but are
dogs that when unprovoked, cause serious bodily harm to humans.
MISSOURI
Independence (Jackson County) - city council has decided to amend
their current animal ordinance to one of breed specific restrictions
of 'pit bulls' by: 1. Spaying/neutering. 2. Microchipping. 3.
Muzzling whenever outside of home or kennel and on a 3 foot leash.
4. Obtaining $100,000 insurance. 5. Registering each year with at
least 2 photos on file. 6. Outside enclosure specifically defined.
7. Signage visible from nearby road. 'Pit bulls' are defined as "Any
dog that exhibits those distinguishing characteristics which
substantially conform to the standards established by the American
Kennel Club for American Staffordshire Terrier, or Staffordshire
Bull Terriers, or substantially conform to the standards established
by the United States Kennel Club for American Pit Bull Terriers,
including any mixed breed of dog which contains as an element of its
breeding as the breed of Staffordshire Bull Terrier, American
Staffordshire Terrier, or American Pit Bull Terrier."
Independence - (Jackson County) UPDATE - dog owners are advised to
maintain close supervision of their pets following city council's
first reading on a vicious dog ordinance. Ordinance, which will go
into effect following a second reading during the Dec. 3 meeting,
owners will be fined $500 if a dog bite is reported. The animal must
also be registered with the city as a vicious animal. Council
elected to remove specific dog breeds from the ordinance in hopes of
avoiding court challenges. Ordinance lists four criteria in defining
a vicious dog, including: Any dog that has caused death or serious
injury to a person engaged in lawful activity. Any dog that has
attacked or bitten, without provocation, a person engaged in lawful
activity. Any dog that has killed or injured another animal after
the owner has been given written or verbal notice to keep the animal
confined or muzzled. Any dog that has been declared to be vicious by
a physician attending to a person who has been bitten or attacked by
said dog. Passed 11/05/07
Joplin - City Council discussing proposed ordinance changes aimed at
cutting down on animal nuisances in the city, recommending
restriction on people from keeping litters of puppies and kittens
for up to six months of age - health department recommends that be
lowered to 10 weeks of age. Another change would prohibit feeding
feral animals.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
Concord - HB 1301 - AN ACT relative to the definition of service
dogs. This bill expands the definition and use of service dogs to
apply to persons with recognized seizure disorders. text available
upon request
Concord - HB1293 - AN ACT relative to eligibility requirements for
the state animal population control program. text available upon
request
Concord - HB 1298-FN - AN ACT making changes to the
veterinary/medical/optometric education program. text available upon
request
Concord - HB1143 - AN ACT relative to penalties for failure to
provide outdoor dogs with necessary shelter. text available upon
request
Concord - HB 1314 - AN ACT relative to animal cruelty. This bill
removes “worrying� from the list of legal reasons allowing the
killing of a dog. This bill also makes it illegal to take the life
of an animal without lawful authority text available upon request
Concord - HB 1430 - AN ACT relative to the application of animal
cruelty laws to horse and dog race tracks text available upon
request
NEW JERSEY
Trenton - A-909 - to forbid traditional animal-testing methods if
there is a federally recommended alternative (passed Assembly)
A-4026 - Require courts to issue protective orders against animal
abusers
A-2645 - Permit tenants to keep pets provided they are spayed or
neutered and properly cared for and controlled
A-2649 - Revamp the animal cruelty laws, upgrading offenses, hiking
minimum fines and adding new offenses for hoarding, euthanizing
improperly, failing to provide minimum care, committing animal
cruelty in the presence of a child and "cruel commercial
exploitation"
A-3192 - Create a civil action against the owner of a pet that hurts
or kills another's pet (passed Assembly)
A-4171 - Provide pet food safety standards
A-4217 - Allow a civil action for injury or death due to tainted pet
food, with up to $15,000 in loss of companionship damages
S-161 - a new offense for injuring an animal while committing or
fleeing a crime (passed Senate)
Trenton (additional)- a bill introduced yesterday (11/20/07) that
would revise state law regarding dangerous dogs, allowing the court
to send a dog home under certain conditions even after the canine
has been declared "vicious" by a judge. The proposed law is
retroactive to Jan. 1, 2007. New law would insert language usually
found in human criminal cases, requiring the prosecutor to prove the
dog was not provoked "beyond a reasonable doubt," according to a
copy of the bill The proposed bill also removes a requirement that
the dogs re leased under the aforementioned conditions be tattooed
with a registration number. Under the current law that deals with
canine violence, a dog can be labeled "vicious" if the state or
municipality proves the animal attacked without provocation
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque - "Importation Rule" for non-native species coming into
New Mexico. This rule concerns "non-domestic" animals of all kinds
(birds, reptiles, amphibians, arachnids, etc.). The basic idea is
that anyone bringing any such animal into NM must obtain a vet
inspection, obtain a permit 2 weeks in advance, and pay a fee of $25
per animal.
Bernalillo County - County Commissioners have drafted extensive
amendments to the current animal ordinance. Proposed changes include
but are not limited to:
- Hobby breeder site means a non-commercial animal facility or
premises operated by a person involved in controlled breeding of
dogs or cats which are registered with a recognized registry
organization, or which are a member of a breed which is not eligible
to be registered, if that breed has been approved by the county
manager or his designee.
- Multiple animal site means a non-commercial premises where more
than six dogs, or cats, or any combination thereof, over three
months of age must be spayed or neutered, if they're not bred or
sold for resale, testing, research, or laboratory experimentation.
- Hobby breeders are required to have a permit and their premises
may be inspected. Unsterilized adult dogs have be separated by sex
when not being bred or otherwise approved.
- No person or household shall own, harbor or keep more than four
dogs, cats in any combination thereof over the age of three months
without a valid professional animal permit, hobby breeder site
permit, multiple animal site permit, or shelter permit.
- A hobby breeder or multiple animal 'kennel' must include 75 square
feet per dog weighing less than 30 pounds; 100 square feet per dog
between 30 and 59 pounds, and 125 square feet per dog over 60
pounds.
- Puppies can only be bartered for, sold, given away or other
transfer or conveyance from the residential location listed on the
litter permit or hobby breeder permit.
- All dogs must be licensed and micro chipped. - All tail docking
and ear cropping must be done by a licensed veterinarian.
Bernalillo County (con't) - proposed mandatory S/N changes to the
ordinance. It appears the exemption for "show dogs" has been removed
and a "special permit" is required. To obtain a "special permit" you
must have records for a microchip. (The county has no way to store
information regarding microchips and/or tattoos.) Ordinance limits
six dogs or cats or combination per household. Leashes may not
exceed 6 foot.
Bernalillo County - UPDATE 11/26 meeting - Commissioners considered
new proposals include higher license fees and mandatory
micro-chipping. Cruelty laws would be expanded to include
negligence, failure to provide basic veterinary care, and the
amateur practices of ear-cropping, tail docking, and removing the
dog's ability to bark. higher permit fees for people who breed and
sell animals, along with stricter record keeping requirements and
inspections.
NORTH CAROLINA
Denver - Lincoln County Commissioners are now looking into adopting
an ordinance that would limit the number of animals allowed for each
acre of land.
Orange County -. is about to implement a 3 hour limit on tethered
dogs, except for training and events, but then it would be a max. of
7 days (???). Additional language not currently available.
OHIO
Crawford County - Dog Warden wants to inform all owners, keepers and
harborers of dogs belonging to the breed commonly known as pit
bulls, that due to a recent Ohio Supreme Court decision, these dogs
shall be covered by liability insurance coverage in the amount of
$100,000. These dogs must be properly confined in a locked kennel
with a top, a locked fence or other locked enclosure that has a top.
While these dogs are off the premises of the owner, keeper or
harbored, they must be walked on a chain-linked leash or tether that
is not more than 6 feet in length and under control of a person of
suitable age to adequately restrain such a dog.
St. Paris - Village Council passes dog control legislation. The
ordinance specifies that owners of dogs commonly known as "pit
bulls" must file ownership acknowledgement with the county dog
warden, and that pit bull puppies are only legal to own up to three
months of age. Vicious dogs, under the ordinance, must be kept in a
confined kennel with secure roof and sides, and when not on the
owner's property must be kept leashed and muzzled, in accordance
with the Ohio Revised Code. The owners must have "beware of dog"
signage as well and will be liable for all damage caused to parks or
public property by their dogs. Passed 12/03/07
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma City - State Representative Lee Denney has introduced his
Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act. The draft of the
bill states that people who sell more than 25 dogs a year must get a
Quality Assurance License. To quality for a Quality Assurance
License breeders must be at least 21-years-old and pass a written
exam. They must also meet some basic requirements including breeding
standards, housing and sanitation, veterinary care, exercise and
socialization and lineage certification. The requirements will be
enforced by inspectors
Oklahoma City – City of Oklahoma City's policy of not allowing pit
bull terriers to be adopted from its animal shelter violates state
law, an appeals court has ruled. The Oklahoma Court of Civil Appeals
found Oklahoma City's policy breached state law that bans "breed
specific" regulation of dangerous dogs by a municipality. As a
result, Oklahoma City's rule was unenforceable, the appellate found.
"The plain meaning of the statute forbids (the) City from regulating
potentially dangerous or dangerous dogs by breed," the ruling
states. "The Policy adopted by City's Animal Welfare Superintendent
does just that. Therefore, the Policy is in conflict with the
statute and must fail."
OREGON
Salem - SB0570 - Requires Office of Emergency Management to prepare
written animal emergency operations plan to provide for animals
during major disaster or emergency. text available upon request
Salem - SB1017 - Requires that certain public or private officials
report suspected animal abuse. Requires that veterinarians and
certain public or private officials report suspected animal neglect
in first degree. text available upon request
SOUTH CAROLINA
Charleston - County Council already has laws in place that say stray
animals must be sterilized before they are returned to their owners,
but County Council would modify those laws under two amendments
expected to pass council this week. If the modifications are
approved, pet owners could have their dogs neutered by the
veterinarian of their choice and no animal would be neutered or
spayed sooner than five days from the date it is picked up. County
law exempts pets if a veterinarian advises against sterilization, if
the owner can prove the pet participated in a nationally recognized
conformation or obedience show within the past year, or if the pet
assists a disabled person.
SOUTH DAKOTA
Webster - City officials are leaning toward approval of an ordinance
that will ban many exotic and not-so-exotic pets. The measure is
designed to deal with vicious animals. Among those that would
generally be outlawed would be pit bulls, Rottweilers, Doberman
pinschers, porcupines, ostriches, wart hogs and boa constrictors.
The proposed new ordinance would exempt animals from being
classified as vicious if their actions are consistent with
protecting property and owners of dangerous dogs and other vicious
critters would be grandfathered in.
TENNESSEE
Brownsville - city officials are looking at two tough new
ordinances. Under scrutiny are any breed of so-called vicious dogs
 especially pit bulldogs, and they are about to be illegal in
Brownsville. City leaders have also taken steps to restrict the
number of pets residents of Brownsville may own. Under the new
vicious dog ordinance it will be illegal to own a pit bulldog. The
ordinance states, “It shall be unlawful to keep, harbor, own, or
in any way possess a pit bull dog� in Brownsville. The ordinance
allows current pits to stay with their owners but only under strict
guidelines that include registering the animals with the city,
paying an annual permit fee, housing them appropriately and buying
liability insurance covering each animal
Dyersburg - city is currently reviewing the MTAS (Municipal
Technical Advisory Service - Knoxville, TN) pit bull ordinance
banning all pit bulls. The proposed ordinance, if passed, mandates
registration of the animals and outlaws ownership of new pit bulls,
mandates the dogs must be muzzled while being walked, with leashes
no longer than four feet and walked by person with the physical
ability to restrict the dog's movement, existing vicious dog
ordinance requires animals deemed dangerous to the community to be
housed in a fenced cage with a concrete base and padlocks. Resident
who do not comply with the registry can have their dogs seized and
impounded. This ordinance is in place in several cities in
Tennessee, some dating back for several years. In addition, its
important to note that Dyersburg sits in the same general area where
three pit bull bans recently passed.
Knoxville and Knox County - board members agreed to ask the county
to change its policy regarding "Level 1 Dangerous Dogs" to require
that these animals be spayed or neutered at owners' expense.
Currently, only dogs classified as "Level 2 Dangerous Dogs" are
required to be altered. A "Level 1 Dangerous Dog" is defined as an
animal that has met one of the following criteria:
-When unprovoked and while on the property of its owner, attacked a
person on two or more occasions within the prior 24-month period.
-Has within the prior 24-month period, while off the property of its
owner, engaged in any behavior when unprovoked that reasonably would
have required a person to take defensive action to prevent bodily
injury.
-Has, when unprovoked while off the property of its owner, bitten a
person or domestic animal, causing a minor injury.
Board also decided to ask that additional language be added to the
city ordinance and new language added to the county ordinance
dealing with owner responsibility. The new language would stipulate
that if a dog owner shows continuous disregard for animal laws, the
right to petition for the dog to be destroyed takes effect. The
Board's recommendations will now go before the County Commission for
consideration.
Rockwood (Wate) - Mayor Mike Miller is drafting an ordinance to ban
pit bulls banned within city limits. The ordinance will go before
the Rockwood City Council at its meeting on January 21
TEXAS
Irving - City Council unanimously approved an ordinance that bans
tethering unattended dogs any time, any place. Passed 11/01/07
WASHINGTON
Spokane - City's "dangerous dog" ordinance is unconstitutional
because it denies pet owners the right of due process, a Superior
Court judge ruled Friday (11/30/07) in a case that may have
far-reaching effects.
WASHINGTON, DC.
Washington, D.C.- Public Safety Committee sent a new policy, which
allows adoption of pit bulls but attaches breed-specific guidelines,
forward to the full board with no recommendation. Before May 2007
all pitbulls not claimed by owner were euthanized. May 2007 the
Virginia attorney general's opinion that breed-specific euthanasia
violates state law, so the shelter has set up procedures to transfer
pit bulls to approved breed rescue groups, and has euthanized based
on the animal's score on a temperament test. A majority of the
"supervisor-appointed" Animal Advisory Committee members wants the
policy to have no mention of any breed. The policy recommended by
Animal Care and Control Director Tom Koenig and his staff lists
breeds "known to be used to illegal activities" and puts tight
controls on who can adopt them.
WISCONSIN
Madison - AB 567 Amendments:
1. The '8 breeding females' benchmark in the definition of a
'commercial breeder' has been removed and the number of dogs sold in
a year has been changed to 50. Thus, now only those who sell 50 or
more dogs in a calendar year are covered by the licensure portion of
the bill.
2. The 'puppy lemon law' portion of the legislation has been
modified. Specifically, the substitute amendment now allows for the
seller of the puppy to provide a list of potential breed specific or
individual puppy specific health issues/problems associated with
that dog or breed. If a purchaser receives this list provided by the
seller, they would then NOT be eligible for a right to remedy for
these issues laid out before the sale by the seller.
3. Under the substitute amendment draft, the seller would have the
right to a second opinion from a veterinarian of their own choosing
prior to providing a remedy.
4. The draft clarifies that no communicable disease the puppy gets
after leaving the care of the seller is not eligible for a right to
remedy. Likewise, any action or inaction by the purchaser causing
damage or harm to the health of the animal is specifically exempt
from the right to remedy. text available upon request
Madison - SB308 Amendments:
1. The '8 breeding females' benchmark in the definition of a
'commercial breeder' has been removed and the number of dogs sold in
a year has been changed to 50. Thus, now only those who sell 50 or
more dogs in a calendar year are covered by the licensure portion of
the bill.
2. The 'puppy lemon law' portion of the legislation has been
modified. Specifically, the substitute amendment now allows for the
seller of the puppy to provide a list of potential breed specific or
individual puppy specific health issues/problems associated with
that dog or breed. If a purchaser receives this list provided by the
seller, they would then NOT be eligible for a right to remedy for
these issues laid out before the sale by the seller.
3. Under the substitute amendment draft, the seller would have the
right to a second opinion from a veterinarian of their own choosing
prior to providing a remedy.
4. The draft clarifies that no communicable disease the puppy gets
after leaving the care of the seller is not eligible for a right to
remedy. Likewise, any action or inaction by the purchaser causing
damage or harm to the health of the animal is specifically exempt
from the right to remedy. text available upon request
Menomonee Falls - village board seems to be focused on a limit law
for no apparent reason. So far the village attorney seems to be
taking the easy route by merely adopting the ordinance from an
adjoining village. There is a question regarding grand father
clauses, and/or fancier licenses
12/6/2007
Levine,
Barker, California Healthy Pets Coalition, Kick off Year Two of
Assembly Bill 1634 Effort - see information on
PetPac
12/7/07 update: This amendment
is not yet attached to the Farm Bill at this time, but that could
still happen - contact your Senators and ask for "no attachment" of
SA3723.
12/4/2007
From The Cat Fanciers’
Association: A Review of the New “P.A.W.S” Amendment
PAWS amendment (SA 3723) to the federal Farm Bill H.R. 2419
Today we received the text for an amendment to the huge Farm Bill,
H.R. 2419, submitted by Senator Richard Durbin (D - IL). The
language is very similar to the "PAWS" bill (the Pet Animal Welfare
Statute of 2005) "discussion draft". (The amendment text with an
integrated document, prepared by Sharon Coleman, inserts the
language into the existing AWA is available.)
SB 1139 PAWS failed to pass in the Senate in 2006 because it did not
have enough support. The only "hearing" was a discussion in the
Senate Subcommittee on Research, Nutrition and General Legislation
chaired by the primary author, Senator Rick Santorum. There was some
talk about revisions but the draft version did not go any further.
NEW PAWS: Exception is similar to SB 1139 - anyone who sells not
more than 25 dogs/cats from not more than 6 litters per calendar
year (whichever is greater). If the kittens/puppies are all sold at
retail, and not for resale, the breeder would NOT have to be
federally regulated as long as the dogs/cats are bred or raised on
the premises of the "seller". In addition a total of 25 other dogs
and cats not bred or raised on the premises can be sold (allows for
rescue or former show/breeding pets). Now some may feel that selling
7 litters or 26 kittens is a "high volume" activity. However, female
pedigreed cats of many breeds need to deliver a litter approximately
8 months apart to avoid uterus infections or loss of condition. This
means a household with perhaps 4 or 5 female cats would usually have
over 6 litters and therefore be considered a "high-volume retailer"
subject to unannounced inspection, regulation and standards that are
designed for commercial housing of animals. Many small or moderate
high quality breeders would have to be regulated.
New PAWS has some additions - most notable is the concept of the
"certified third-party inspector". This can be a nonprofit
organization certified by the Secretary of Agriculture to inspect
breeding facilities. Instead of having inspections by USDA
inspectors one could choose to comply with standards established by
a certified third-party inspector. Breeders could have the HSUS, or
perhaps AKC inspectors, coming into their homes - probably with a
hefty fee. But the standards and inspection protocols must be "at
least as protective of animal welfare as those promulgated by the
Secretary" according to the Animal Welfare Act. The USDA standards
don't work well for a home-based cat fancier with female breeding
cats and kittens wandering in the house among their altered pet
cats. USDA standards are designed for commercial facilities with
animals in separate primary enclosures impervious to moisture.
There are also provisions for the importation of dogs and cats into
the United States from foreign countries. Regulations would be
promulgated within 24 months, so we don't know what to expect here.
The ability of the USDA to apply to court for a temporary
restraining order or injunction increases the ability to protect
animals covered in the existing Animal Welfare Act and CFA has
previously supported this.
Some preliminary research today reveals this amendment was made on
November 15, 2007, but not seen until today. Previous PAWS
collaborators included the AKC, HSUS and AVMA but none so far have
positions on their websites. Many dog fanciers, cat fanciers,
organizations, clubs and veterinarians joined the opposition.
STRATEGY - On July 27, 2007 the House passed its version of Farm
Bill legislation, H.R. 2419, “The Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act
of 2007,” by a vote of 231-191. This is a total package of $286
billion over five years. The bill has already passed through the
Senate Agriculture Committee. Now Senate floor debate on the bill is
underway with numerous other amendments to cover besides this one.
Should the amendment remain in the Farm Bill that eventually passes
on the Senate floor the bill would then go to a Conference Committee
to resolve differences with the House version. We would then contact
those Committee members to express our views. This will be an
ongoing process over a period of months.
WHAT TO DO NOW:
1. Your help to prepare for a strong efficient response will be
greatly appreciated. Know who your own two senators are. We will
want every cat and dog fancier to send a letter by FAX to their own
two Senators telling them of concerns with Amendment SA 3723 asking
them to vote no on the Senate floor. Suggested points to make will
be in a future alert.
Complete Senate Roster contact information (Word)
2. Let us know if you have any
personal contacts in your Senators' district or Washington, DC
offices. Give us feedback on any responses you receive.
3. It will be important for us to build an opposition list of clubs
and organizations as we did before. Discuss the Amendment provisions
with your club and be ready for a club officer to send a letter as
soon as a list is formed.
Home-raised kittens and puppies are the optimum for fine pets. We
will not have a cat fancy or preserve our pedigreed breeds if
individuals must be subjected to commercial standards and home
inspections. Some may suggest raising the threshold for
"high-volume" breeders/sellers as a way to differentiate "hobby"
breeders. Though this is always a possibility, the door would then
be open for future lowering. Once the AWA begins regulation of any
persons who sell directly at retail there is no going back.
Many organizations, clubs and individuals worked well before to
defeat the original PAWS. I am confident that we can do this again
with your input and help.
Text of
Amendment SA 3723 (PDF)
An integrated
document with language inserted into the Animal Welfare Act
(PDF)
Joan Miller
CFA Legislative Coordinator
Below is a
letter from the Legislative Director of the DPCA - good info, good
links:
From time to time I will be
posting information regarding legislation that will directly affect
Dobermans, DPCA, or the fancy as a whole. I will attempt to keep
these posts short with links to the appropriate information. Below
are some of the things that we need to be aware of and will require
action from as many people as possible.
Levine, Mancuso, Barker, et al, plan to be back with AB1634 in CA.
There are also serious problems in Miami-Dade Co. which Pam Gray is
deeply involved with. We have problems in San Antonio, and a host of
other cities and counties - some of which are BSL aimed at "pit
bulls" but others addressing MSN. Wisconsin has in the works the
worst "puppy lemon law" ever seen. And finally, a "new PAWS" seems
to be surfacing as an amendment to a federal farm bill. Some of
these are still being analyzed for acceptability.
It's nearly impossible to keep up will all of this. Everyone needs
to become pro-active whether it be through NAIA, PetPac, or the
various pet-law lists. Everyone needs to respond when a call goes
out for emails, calls and faxes regarding an issue. Just because it
isn't in your hometown, doesn't mean you can skip writing. Tell them
you live elsewhere but have family in their area, or attend shows in
their area, or vacation there. Tell them you won't drop another red
cent in their city/county if they impost BSL or MSN. (Support the
shows there by going, but do no shopping or dining off the
showgrounds).
Several things have been offered as a means to let government
officials know you're out there. One is the Christmas/Holiday Card
Challenge by DPCA and ARC. This is intended as a subtle way to let
the officials know how many pet owning constituents they have. Here
is the link to the Challenge - just DO IT!!!
http://dpca.org/Legisltv/cardchallenge.htm
Also, several times a week, check the paws4laws site for updates.
Jan Cooper of the American Rottweiler Club is maintaining this site
with up-to-date information.
www.paws4laws.com
Still another important thing for those of us in California is the
Initiative Project. Be sure to read the instructions - imperative to
read them so that every name listed will count. The signatures on
each page must be those of registered voters from the same county.
You will need copies for nearby counties. Take these to work with
you, to the shows, to training classes, etc. We have until mid-April
to gather around 700,000 signatures - not an impossible task.
www.wethepeopleusa.us
I hope to have more comprehensive information on the DPCA
Legislative page by the end of the week. I'd better not be squeaking
by on 3 or 4 hours sleep, ignoring my housework, and wearing out my
fingers at the computer for nothing. Eight or ten people can't do
this alone. Every person reading this message MUST respond or as
stated before, sharing your lives with companion animals will be a
thing of the past.
Dana Johnson
DPCA Legislative Director
permission to crosspost
VACATION IS OVER---PLEASE RESTART YOUR EFFORTS TO FIGHT AB1634---
We fully appreciate your needs to
take a breather. Unfortunately, the proponents are relentless,
and year-end is just around the corner!
Californian and Non-Californian Pet Lovers:
Please Forward as Appropriate
Forwarded
below this email is a Fanciers update from the CFA on the City
Council vote last night re a MSN & microchip ordinance for the city
of Huntington Beach, CA. The proposal was modeled after the
ordinance for dogs passed in Los Angeles County last year, except
cats are added. Sadly, the Council voted 4-3 to approve the
drafting of such an ordinance despite the fact that the city has
very low shelter intakes and euthanasias. Proponents skipped
over the fact by using Los Angeles and state-wide statistics to
justify the need. Once the draft is approved,
it will make Huntington Beach the
first city in California to adopt a MSN & mandatory microchip
program.
Why should we care?
We should be very alarmed at how easily such draconian laws can get
enacted with total disregard for pet owners' rights or concerns.
The Huntington Beach proposal was practically a verbatim copy of the
Los Angeles County proposal, with the exception of shelter
statistics. In doing a little research into the language, we
gleaned some insights into how dog owners in Los Angeles County got
blindsided with the MSN & microchip ordinance in 2006. We had
absolutely NO CLUE it was coming until we saw the announcement on TV
that the ordinance would become effective within days!
The "Morphing" of BSL to MSN -
How could this happen? Most dog breeders in the greater L.A.
areas are residents of the County. How was it possible that we
knew nothing about the MSN until after the ordinance was enacted?
We've been scratching our heads wondering since. Now, we
believe we've discovered the answer to our puzzle -- we didn't pay
attention to BSL, or anything not directly related to our interests.
The L.A. County MSN began as a Breed Specific Legislation (BSL)
targeted at Pit Bulls and Rottweilers. The excuse was that the
breeds were over-represented in shelter intake and euthanasia.
As the legislation progressed, the tenor of the debate changed --
somehow, it became an accepted assumption that there's an urgent
"pet overpopulation" problem that needed drastic actions, and MSN
was the only humane choice. Oppositions to the proposed
ordinance focused singularly on the breed specific nature of the
proposed legislation and argued quite effectively about the inequity
of BSL. At the final meeting, in what must have appeared to
the politicians as a great compromise, the Director of Animal
Services dropped the breed specific focus and requested an
"equitable" legislation that would be applied to all dogs.
This new proposal was unanimously approved and adopted!!!
Emboldened by their overwhelming success in L.A. County, the Animal
Rights folks proceeded to try imposing AB1634 on the State.
Now that AB1634 is postponed, possibly till January, they have
adopted a multi-pronged attack strategy - they are getting MSN
legislation passed at city and community levels, and they are
lobbying the State Senate Local Government Committee hard behind the
scenes to smooth passage of AB1634 out of the Committee. Below
are quotes from the
Official AB1634 Site:
Where does the bill stand?
The bill is
currently being held in the Senate Local Government Committee. The
coalition and Assemblymember Levine are working with the Committee
to update the bill so that the version passed on to the Senate for a
full vote is acceptable to the members while still fulfilling the
core goals - reducing the killing of healthy, adoptable pets and
saving California millions of dollars in the process.
The
Local Government Committee may hold the bill as long as January,
2008, before passing it out of committee. The CAHealthyPets.com
website is currently undergoing a facelift, please check back
periodically for the latest news.
In fact, if you're a
constituent of Senator Christine Kehoe
[District stretching east-west from
Spring Valley to the Pacific Ocean, and north-south from Del Mar to
Downtown San Diego. Includes Del Mar, Lemon Grove, parts of San
Diego, Casa de Oro-Mo, La Presa, and Spring Valley], you
need to get all your neighbors and pet related business owners
together and pay some visits as well as write letters and make phone
calls to her. She is working very hard in lobbying her fellow
Committee Members on behalf of Levine to try to get AB1634 out of
the committee! Somebody there ought to look into her campaign
finances. All San Diegans and perhaps Orange County and
Riverside County pet lovers need to get together and CANVASS her
district to let her constituents know what she's up to, and to bring
pressure to bear. She was elected to the State Senate in
November 2004, so she'll likely be running for re-election next
year. For a brief summary of her personal and political
history, see
here.
She has consistently been rated highly by
PawPAC on Animal Rights issues. We're not familiar with
the Who's Who in the AR movement, but if memory serves, quite a few
of PawPAC's "Honorary
Board Members" are celebrity supporters of PETA and/or HSUS.
This long
dissertation leads us back to Huntington Beach. We should
not and cannot allow the AR folks to continue perpetrating their
lies without fighting back! It's not simply Huntington Beach -
it's a city with low shelter intake and euthanasia that can be held
up as a "brave and progressively humane" example for the rest of the
State to emulate!
It could be used to politically "challenge" the L.A. City Council.
We have ONE more
opportunity to defeat the MSN & Microchip in Huntington Beach BEFORE
the draft is approved. The
Council vote was 4-3 in favor, so all we need is to change ONE
Council Member's vote to kill the proposed ordinance!
We (i.e. Everybody regardless of
where you live) need to Flood the City Council Members with
Opposition emails and phone calls, pointing out the
deceptive statistics, the high costs and practical impossibility to
enforce, the burdensome costs to seniors, the violation of pet
owners' privacy and property rights, etc.
Huntington Beach residents,
contact and Meet with ALL the
Council Members to clearly state your opposition As Soon
As Possible! In fact,
Orange County residents may want to do the same. It
appears Mayor Pro Tem Debbie Cook may be close to the end of her 2nd
term on the City Council. Depending on the City's charter, she
may be up against term limit and may look to "job hop" within Orange
County in 2008.
Call the City Council office at
714-536-5553 to schedule appointments with Council Members.
The following chart is a list of Huntington Beach City Council
Members, their votes on MSN & Microchip, and their email addresses:
For a list of
"Frequently Called Phone Numbers" for Huntington Beach, see:
<http://www.ci.huntington-beach.ca.us/Government/frequently_called_phone_numbers.cfm>
Everybody PLEASE
re-start your efforts to fight AB1634. We fully appreciate
your needs to take a breather. Unfortunately, the opposition
is relentless, and year-end is just around the corner!