|
USKBTC Legislative Newsletter
February 2005
In this Issue:
- Summary of 2005 AKC Canine
Legislation Department alerts
- More on Illinois bills
- More on the Texas Alert
- Connecticut Rabies Law
- No Puppy Mill Bill in
Connecticut
- Houston, Texan house bill
663
- Forum on Condo Rules in the
State of Florida
- Travis County, Texas Animal
Control Bill
- Racine, Wisconsin bill
requiring breeder permits
- Empowered Action Seminar in New York
sponsored by AKC
Our January Newsletter’s opening
statement was, “Dog laws continue to
be in the news to the extent that it
behooves all of us to watch our regional
and local papers for activity. You
would not want a ‘bad’ law to sneak by
you.” The following Legislative
Alerts from the AKC Canine Legislation
Department certainly reflect the truth
of that statement:
- 02-23 Vermont Considers Breeder
Licensing
- 02-18 California State Bill Would
Prohibit Ear Cropping
- 02-11 Illinois Looks at BSL. Word as
of 2/23 is that this bill was defeated.
Click link to read article at QCTIMES.com.
- 02-08 Breeder Licensing Bill
Introduced in Illinois
- 02-08 West Hollywood, CA Considers
Crop/Dock Ban (UPDATE)
- 02-04 BSL Introduced in New Mexico -
Update!
- 02-03 Fanciers, Hunters Concerned
About Texas Cruelty Bill
- 02-03 Virginia Breeders Face
Licensing and Mandatory Spay/Neuter Bill
-Update!
- 02-01 Oklahoma May Permit BSL in
Cities -- Updated
- 02-01 Washington State Dog Owners:
We Need Your Help!
- 01-28 Georgia Considers BSL
Full details of these alerts may be
accessed at the AKC
website.
2/25 Alert from AKC
ILLINOIS
BSL Defeated in IL, OK
(Friday, February 25, 2005)
AKC is pleased to report that thanks to
strong opposition by responsible dog
owners, two state-level breed-specific
initiatives have been stopped in their
tracks. In Oklahoma, Sen. Reynolds
recently dropped his support of SB247,
which would have allowed municipalities
to enact breed-specific laws. Without
the Senator's support, the bill
effectively died in committee.
On Wednesday, HB1128 was defeated
in the Illinois House Committee on
Agriculture and Conservation by a vote
of 9-6. The bill would have repealed an
existing state law that prohibits
breed-specific dangerous dog
legislation.
Full details can be found at the AKC
website.
More on Illinois from the Pet-Law
List
The situation in Illinois isn't looking
good. Lots of pet animal
bills, some with a dozen or more
co-sponsors, and no strong
organization leading the fight.
Here's a list of current bills; I hope I
found them all but no guarantees! Click
the link to view The Illinois Legislative
website for complete details on the
proposed bills.
HB 315 -- Animal Population Control
Act. Requires all dogs and
cats to be registered (fine of $100 for
failure to register), sets up a
fund for low cost spay/neuter to be
funded from a $3 surcharge on
rabies vaccinations and a $1 checkoff on
tax returns.
HB 707 -- Amends the Illinois Animal
Welfare Act to replace the
term 'pet shop operator' with 'animal
caretaker.' The new definition
of animal caretaker is so broad that it
covers everyone who sells or
gives away a pet, including breeders.
An animal caretaker must
be licensed by the Illinois Department
of Agriculture and the
Department may inspect an AC's premises.
It adds to the usual
animal care requirements that animal
caretakers must provide a
'stimulating and enriching' environment.
Punishments are
increased. 'Hoarder,' already defined
very broadly is made even
worse by further broadening the
definition to keeping 'a number of'
companion animals in poor conditions.
A second hoarding offense
is a felony and each day the conditions
continue is a separate
offense punishable by 1 to 3 years in
prison and up to a $25,000
fine.
SB 1063 -- Seems to replace the
word 'the' with the word 'the' in
the requirements for rabies vaccination.
This is most likely a
legislative maneuver -- what is often
called a 'spot' bill because as
filed, the bill merely holds a spot for
the real thing.
Many states have requirements that bills
be filed well in advance of
the first legislative action so citizens
have time to discover and
discuss them; maybe plan action. The
'spot bill' is a way to evade
that requirement -- the real content
will be amended in, in
committee. Most likely we won't know
what's really in these bills
until the first committee
hearing.
SB 1064 -- Seems to replace the
word 'and' with the word 'and' in
the Animal Control Act. Another 'spot
bill.'
HB 1128 -- Changes state's 'deeds
not breeds' law so it will permit
BSL.
HB 1238 -- Seems to replace the
word 'the' with the word 'the' in
the Humane Care For Animals Act.
Another 'spot bill.'
HB 2406 -- Long, complex changes
to Animal Welfare Act. Among
important changes; 'rescue group' is any
group or person that does
rescue; 'companion animal' (ARspeak for
pet) is any dog, cat, or
horse, or anything else you or most
people think is a pet; foster
homes are limited to four animals not
including owned animals and
must be sponsored by a rescue or
shelter.
All the following will need a state
license: pet shop operators, dog
dealers, kennel operators, cattery
operators, guard dog service
operators, animal control facilities,
animal shelters, dog daycares,
animal rescue groups, humane societies,
and foster homes. All of
those must allow inspection of their
premises at any time (not just
'reasonable hours') by the department.
There are record keeping
requirements. Breeders are exempt from
license requirements
provided they have five or fewer intact
females and 'deal' only their
own get.
Can you say, 'Divide and conquer'?
Rescue is this year; breeders
next, once the rescuers are "under
control."
HB 2447 -- Current law allows
localities to register dogs and cats.
This would require registration but
would make microchipping and
use of the microchip number as
registration number, optional. A
registration fee is required but the
requirement for registration of
litters is removed. It also deletes the
requirement that microchips
operate at 125khz.
HB 2717 -- Seems to replace the
word 'and' with the word 'and' in
the Humane Care For Animals Act.
Another 'spot bill.' UGH!!!!
Taken together, these bills give the
state complete control over
transfers of animals. In practice, that
control would be exercised
by your local animal control. Of course
that assumes the most
important parts pass; we don't know how
that will turn out. Some
bills do conflict; in those cases the
committees will adjust things,
either by killing one or more bills or
by merging provisions of one
into another. The spot bills could be
used to cover holes (although
there are very likely already plans for
their contents) -- there's one
for each of the four main pieces of
existing animal law.
I haven't done a lot of this, but this
is the worst mess I've ever seen,
and by far the largest single-year
push.
Walt Hutchens
Timbreblue Whippets
Virginia
TEXAS
Texas Action Alert!
Information From Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance
Please cross post and
circulate.
Note change from last alert: HB 326 has
been moved to the House Committee
on Agriculture & Livestock. Contact
each member of House and Senate
Committees and ask them NOT to set
hearings on these bills. Tell them you
OPPOSE HB 326 and SB 172.
AKC has an action alert on their web
site home page www.akc.org. For copies of these bills (which
are identical), go to
ww
w.capitol.state.tx.us and type the
bill number in the box.
Express your opposition directly to the
bill’s sponsors listed below:
Representative Toby Goodman, who
received the “Humane-itarian Award” from
Texas Humane Legislation Network in 2003
and Senator Chris Harris, who
previously was honored by Humane Society
of North Texas.
There is nothing wrong with the existing
Animal Cruelty Law. Every session
of the legislature, “Animal Rights”
activists propose an amendment to the
existing Animal Cruelty Law. The
“Animal Rights” Agenda is to stop all
use,
breeding, and ownership of animals
whether you eat them, wear them or pet
them.
Talking Points
HB 326 and SB 172:
- Cancel out “intentionally and
knowingly” committing a crime by adding
“or
recklessly” which eliminates an owner’s
intent.
- Make it illegal to “train or
condition” an animal to fight with
another
animal. Companion bill HB839/SB258
defines “dog fighting equipment” as:
including a harness, treadmill, cage,
decoy, pen, house for keeping a
fighting dog, feeding apparatus, or
training pen. Treadmills are commonly
used to keep dogs in shape for many
American Kennel Club and United Kennel
Club conformation and performance
events.
- Blurs the lines for exempting
hunting, fishing and trapping as common
wildlife management practices and
encourages prosecution of
sportsmen.
HB 326
Author: Representative Toby Goodman
Phone: (512) 463-0562
Fax: (512) 475-1178
Mailing Address for all House Committee
members:
PO Box 2910
Austin, TX 78768
For additional information, contact:
Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance
Mary
Beth Duerler
(210) 822-6763
Now on to other legislative action
identified through concerned members and
other legislative resources.
CONNECTICUT
Connecticut Rabies Law
For those of us with old dogs and dogs
with health problems, this law would
be a blessing to us and our vets! Any
support would be greatly appreciated. -
Please cross post!
Lise O'Neill
ALERT
Connecticut Bill #864 An Act Concerning
Exemption to Rabies Vaccination
Requirements needs your help! This bill
is currently languishing in committee,
and pet owners need to come forward to
get it moving before it dies. As you
are aware, current law in CT requires
that dogs and cats be
vaccinated for rabies. This is a
requirement regardless of the health of
the animal. This legislation has been
introduced this session and will allow
an exemption from the rabies vaccination
requirement where a licensed
veterinarian determines that it would be
harmful to the animal and a titer test
result from a veterinarian is submitted
in lieu of the vaccination
certificate.
Please contact one or more of the
following committee members and
request they raise the bill for public
hearing. Please include the bill
number as noted above.
Senator Andrea Stillman, Co-chair
Phone: 1-800-842-1420
Representative Ric
hard Roy Co-Chair
Phone 860-240-8585 or
1-800-842-8267
Senator Ed
ward Meyer Vice-chair
Phone: 860-240-8585 or
1-800-842-8267
Representative Edward Moukawsher Vice-chair
Phone: 860-240-0527, or
1-800-842-1420
PLEASE CROSSPOST THIS URGENT MESSAGE TO
ANY AND ALL APPROPRIATE
LISTS: ACTION IS NEEDED
IMMEDIATELY!
If you would like to review the full
text of the bill, review its
status, or locate your legislator,
please visit the CT General
Assembly website. Questions about
this bill may
be sent to Liz
Burne, or Amy
Stegall.
Please put "rabies" in the email subject
line.
NoPuppyMill Bill in CT
If any of you have the time and
inclination to drop a quick note of
support to those indicated below (mostly
members of the State Environment
Committee), it would be very much
appreciated. Senator McKinney and
Representative Fahrbach are proposing
this Bill which reads in part: "Be it
enacted by the Senate and House of
Representatives in General Assembly
convened that chapter 435 of the general
statutes be amended to prohibit the sale
of dogs under the age of one year by pet
shops". The obvious goal being to put
puppy mills out of business and also,
hopefully, to stop pet shops from
selling puppies. The more people they
hear from, the more likely they are to
pay attention to this important subject.
Anything you can do would be much
appreciated. Thanks.
Stillman, Alberts, Chapin, Giuliano, Greene, H
ennessy, Kalinowski, Mioli
,
Mushinski, Piscopo, Urban, McKinney, Roy
, Me
yer, Moukawsher, Ba
cker, Cook, Davi
s, Harris, Ja
rmoc, Jutil
a, Me
gna, M
urphy, O'R
ourke, Pe
rone,
Spallone, W
ilber,
Willis
Copy the letter below or write one of
your own and send to the above
addresses. Be sure to put your name,
address and phone number. Thanks
Dear Environment Committee Members:
I would urge you to please support the
proposed Bill 5010, which would prohibit
the sale of dogs under one year of age
by pet shops. The majority of petshops
in Connecticut do not sell puppies and
seem to have no trouble staying in
business. The horror stories I've heard
from some of the people who have
purchased sick animals from pet shops
are heart breaking and would not happen
if we could just solve the problem of
puppy mills, nationally.
If people wish to purchase a pure bred
dog, there are many reputable breeders
available, or they can contact the
various rescue organizations. If they
want a wonderful companion, there are
numerous shelters with dogs of all
ages.
Please support this Bill and put puppy
mills out of business.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
TEXAS
From the Houston Chronicle
Legislation aims to bring gag order more
bite
Houston, Texas
House Bill 663
- The section applies only to the
unincorporated area of a county with a
population of 275,000 or more that is
adjacent to a county with a population
of 3.3 million or more.
- It will be a public nuisance to
allow dogs to bark or make other noises
outdoors if someone nearby finds the
noise objectionable
- In determining whether a noise is
objectionable, several factors may be
considered, including the time of day
the noise is produced, the proximity of
the noise to other premises and whether
the sound is recurrent, intermittent or
constant.
Legislation being proposed would make
barking dogs in Montgomery County a
public nuisance. In the meantime, anyone
disturbed by a neighbor's pesky pet
should contact the Montgomery County
Animal Control Office at 936-442-7738.
Source: Texas Legislature
Click review the entire
article.
FLORIDA
Information taken from "Open Forum on
Condo rules in the state of Florida"
From Pet-Law list 2/20/05
Yesterday (2/19) there was an open forum
on condo rules in the state of Florida.
There were several state legislators and
other officials involved in legal
matters involving condominiums and home
owner associations, including the
recently appointed Condo Ombudsman. I
made a short presentation on Citizens
for Pets in Condos and gave our proposed
rule (not to ADD rules, but to "soften"
rules in place in many condo and home
owner association to allow people to
have pets). My little speech was
well-received and there was applause.
Many people picked up the cards I left
with info on the online petition and
some signed the paper petition.
Here are the proposed rules:
Allow home owners to keep pets in their
privately-owned dwellings as long as
owners are responsible for their
pets.
Only prosecute
members/owners who fail to clean up
after their pets in common areas, or
fail to restrain them responsibly (e.g.
in elevators), or fail to fix scratched
or torn screens visible outside the
units, or in any other way disturb the
peace or cause bother or annoyance to
other residents.
Reasoning:
- Pet rules generally discriminate
against seniors, which
violates the intent of federal law. It
is wrong to decide before the
fact that seniors are unable or
unwilling to properly care for pets.
- There are numerous ways pets have
been shown to help keep their
owners healthier. (See Citizens for Pets
in Condos)
- Pet rules are now unevenly enforced.
Dog owners are
discriminated against more often than
cat owners. Dogs can actually
help prevent robberies.
- It is a fact that, in spite of these
pet rules, many people
keep and hide pets in their privately
owned dwellings. This fact
implies that a lot of people would be
relieved if pet rules were
"lightened."
- Condo associations would have less
expense fining and
prosecuting people with pets.
- People who don't want pets around
might be willing to bend if
they knew that the law still required
responsible pet ownership and that
their community and peace would be
unharmed.
- Rules regarding pet ownership in
condos and HOA-governed housing areas
should be in line with rules in the city
and state of residence. As long as other
co-owners/co-residents are not adversely
affected, any home owner should have no
more and no fewer restrictions than
others in the larger community.
I am looking for any support I can get
with this effort.
- sign the online petition
- print off the
paper petition
- leave copies with breeders, pet
stores, groomers, vets, etc.
- send me any information you can
about pet restrictions in condos or
homeowner associations in YOUR state.
For instance, Lois N. sent me this
information:
"In California there is legislation
requiring both Condos and Trailer parks
to allow pets. One of the sticking
points they allow only one pet and have
weight limits. No one has taken this to
the appellate court yet, but if you try
to pass such a law make sure your
statute reads that a person in a condo
or trailer park can have up to the legal
limit of pets allowed by a
jurisdiciton." From Maida, Citizens
for Pets in Condos petition,
The Petition Site
link, and information on the health benefits
or pet
companionship.
TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS
From Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance,the reasonable voice regarding
animal issues.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an
animal welfare organization, not "animal
rights" and, yes, there is a difference.
Permission granted to
crosspost.
Residents: Animal-control proposals
flawed.Most give leash-law thumbs up,
but not other regulations.
American
-Statesman Staff
Wednesday, February 23, 2005
A set of proposed animal-control rules
is flawed and needs work in several
areas, Travis County residents said at a
public hearing Tuesday. The residents
addressed the Travis County
Commissioners Court at its weekly
meeting. The commissioners are
considering a set of rules proposed
after a dog mauled an 8-year-old girl
near Lake Travis. The regulations would
apply to unincorporated areas of Travis
County and cities without animal-control
regulations already on the books.
Seven residents, accompanied by others
in the audience, said they are
dissatisfied with the proposed
regulations. Concerns cited include the
almost exclusive focus on dogs, the
requirement to register pets each year
and the definition of which dogs are
dangerous and thus would be subject to
more stringent regulations. The most
common suggestion was to approve only
the page of regulations
dealing with leash laws. It would
require a leash no longer than six feet
long for all dogs not on the owners'
property or in designated areas such as
parks. Other regulations deal with
rabies shots, who will determine whether
a dog is dangerous and the levels of
insurance required to keep dangerous
dogs.
"When I came to the county and said,
'Let's pass a leash law,' I meant,'Let's
pass a leash law,' " said Cathy Olive, a
member of the Austin Animal Advisory
Commission, "not all this other
extraneous stuff." The commissioners are
scheduled to vote on the regulations
March 8. They did not respond to
individual complaints, although
Commissioner Gerald Daugherty made his
thoughts clear at the hearing's end.
Daugherty told the audience he wants
"something that allows us to deal
aggressively" with a domesticated animal
that attacks another domesticated
animal. He said that,at an earlier
meeting, more residents expressed
concerns about attacks against other
domestic animals than about the attack
on the 8-year-old girl. State law
already addresses animal attacks against
humans.
The commissioners extended the deadline
for public input to 5 p.m. Friday. After
Friday, the county will begin crafting a
new set of draft regulations, which
commissioners will consider March 8.
Comments can be sent by mail or e-mail
to any of the commissioners' offices.
The addresses are available at www.co
.travis.tx.us or by calling
854-9555.
To share information, subscribe or
unsubscribe, please send an e-mail
message to rpoa@texas.net.
Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #205-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: (210) 822-6763
Fax: (210) 822-9038
Website:
http://www.responsiblepetowners.org<
br>
RACINE,WISCONSIN
(Permission to cross post.)
The City of Racine's Ad Hoc Animal Task
Force meets again, Thursday, February
24th to discuss proposed changes to
their animal controlordinance. This
meeting will be held at 5:30pm at City
Hall, Rm 103. The public is invited to
comment. It is very important for
area fanciers to attend and voice their
opposition.
The proposal includes the following
section on breeders permits:
Sec. 10-40. Breeder's license
required.
Any person in possession of a female cat
or dog who intentionally or
unintentionally causes or allows the
impregnation of the cat or dog, or makes
the female cat or dog available for
breeding purposes; or any person who
offers for sale, sells, trades for any
compensation or gives away any litter of
dogs or cats during any license
yearshall obtain a Breeder's license for
each litter of cats or dogs.
(a) All Breeders shall record the
following information, make it
available when requested by authorized
animal control personnel and
retain for a period of no less than
three years:
- Name of the female cat or female dog
giving birth to the litter
and animal license number.
- Physical description of the female
cat or female dog giving
birth to the litter.
- Date the litter was born.
- Number of puppies or kittens in the
litter.
- Name, address, telephone number of
each buyer or new owner of
any puppy or kitten sold or transferred
and the date the animal was
obtained.
(b) All Breeders shall:
- Furnish to each buyer or new owner
of a puppy or kitten the Breeder license
number.
- Furnish to each buyer or new owner
of a puppy or kitten the breeders
informational pamphlet and animal
license pamphlet provided by the health
department.
- List their Breeder license number on
all public notices advertising the sale
or free giveaway of any members of the
litter.
(c) Breeders may not offer a puppy or
kitten under the age of eight weeks for
sale, trade, or other compensation or
free giveaway, with the exception of
animals taken to the Humane Society or
other
recognized designee.
(d) It shall be a condition to the
issuance of any Breeder's license that
the Health Officer or Humane Officer or
their designee shall be permitted at any
time to inspect the premises and all
animalslocated at the premises.
(e) Any owner or person having custody
of a dog or cat which has been neutered
within fourteen weeks after giving birth
to a litter and relinquishes the litter
to the Humane Society or recognized
designee, or who relinquishes the cat or
dog along with their litter to the
Humane Society or recognized designee
within fourteen weeks of the birth date
of the litter shall have all breeders
license requirements waived.
(f) Any owner or person having custody
of a dog or cat, which has been altered
within fourteen weeks after giving birth
to a litter and gives away the litter
for no compensation, shall have the
Breeders license fee waived upon
condition that the Breeder report
destination homes of the litter. All
other requirements stated apply.
(g) The Breeder's license fee shall be
$100.00 for each litter ofcats or dogs.
Only one license shall be issued per
animal in any twelve-month
period.
The Dog Federation of Wisconsin believes
this proposal to be intrusive, punitive
for responsible breeders and owners, and
potentially destructive to the Greater
Racine Kennel Club - which
promotes and fosters responsible dog
ownership. We urge fanciers that cannot
attend Thursday's meeting to call (262)
637-7162 or email Alderman Cherri Cape who is
overseeing this proposal. If you live in
Racine, also contact your own district's
alderman in addition to Alderman Cape.
Contact information may be found, on the
left side of the
page linked.
Kelly Wichman
President, Dog Federation
of Wisconsin
NEW YORK
AKC Empowered Action Seminar hosted by
their Canine Legislative Department to
be held for New York dog owners on April
1, 2005 in Syracuse, New York
Friday, April 1, 2005 the AKC
Legislation Department is hosting a
seminar at the New York State
Fairgrounds in conjunction with the Salt
City Cluster of Dog Shows. The seminar
is free and limited to the first 50
participants (by reservation only).
Discussion to include:
- Current issues facing fanciers on
the local and state level.
- Ways dog fanciers can influence this
legislation.
- Techniques for effectively combating
undesirable bills.
- Methods for establishing mutually
beneficial relationships with
lawmakers.
- How New York dog owners can get
involved.
For more information please contact Ro
se Marie Mais.
Legislative Alert Newsletter
Editors
Den
ise Benincase, New York
Ro
se Marie Mais, New York
"The purpose of this newsletter is to
keep the membership informed of the
canine legislative issues around the
country. The articles within each
newsletter may not express the opinions
of the editors or the USKBTC club, and
are provided for informational purposes
only."
Last Updated: 02/28/2005, 9:37 am
|
