|
USKBTC Legislative Newsletter
March – April 2005
Another very busy period of time has passed in the
legislative arena affecting our animals. Bills are
being introduced one on top of the other. Most of them
if passed could have a detrimental effect on our lives
with our dogs. We are sure that there are even more
that have not come to our attention. It behooves all
of us to be involved and on the alert or we could be
severely restricted in our activities with our
dogs.
The AKC lists State and local Federation information
plus more at
AKC Canine Legislation
At Pet Law you
will also find a list. This group also has an email
list that is often very revealing.
Should you be interested in a site where a person can
sort out which groups are animal rights activists and
how much funding they have, try going to Activist
Cash
An article on the National Animal Interest Alliance
site, Animal Shelter & Rabies
animal shelter businesses "assure more rabies in
American pets” may perk your interest.
We, the editors of this newsletter, thank all of you
who have in any way participated in providing
information contained in this publication and wish to
encourage you to freely continue toparticipate. If
anyone has a specific state they would like to be
responsible for the data provided, please feel free to
contact us. The area is so very big that not only is
any help appreciated, but definitely it is
needed.
Table of Contents
Click the links below for easier access to specific
legislation by region.
Canada
Germany
Illinois
Oklahoma
Florida
Vermont
Nationwide Action
Alert
West Virginia
California
The Animal Council
Connecticut
New York
New Mexico
Tennessee
Return to Table of Contents
CANADA
Just a FYI for posters across North America, the
province of Ontario Canada has banned a "Pit Bull
Terrier" American Pit Bull Terriers, American
Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers and "a
member of a class of dogs that have an appearance and
physical characteristics that are substantially similar
to dogs referred to in any of clauses (a) to (d);
("pit-bull")." So for all we know, this can cover
anything from Mastiffs to a too big Boston Terrier.
Needless to say that anyone who keeps a Boxer, Akita,
Rottweiler, German Shepherd etc., is also worried that
this will have ripple effects in their breeds as
well.
For a general idea of what this ban entails, you can
read the Ontario Legislature
record.
This ban comes despite the efforts of breed enthusiasts
and dog lovers across Canada, who tried to prevent the
ban. Other parties who have made efforts to prevent the
ban include kennel clubs, including the CKC, veterinary
associations, including the CVMA and OVMA, Humane
societies both national and local, animal controls
across the province and country, victims of dog
attacks, and even municipalities in Canada that have
banned breeds with little effect in lowering dog
attacks. The person leading this charge in breed
banning, Attorney General Michael Bryant, has been
uncooperative, to say the least, in hearing the other
side of the issue. His party, the bulk (if not all)
Ontario Liberals have voted to ban these breeds of
dogs, despite their members and their families having
owned or currently owning these breeds, and more
importantly, despite the litany of information and
facts presented to them as to why breed bans simply
don’t work.
I’m sure interested parties will be working on ways to
revoke this ban, However suffice it to say that there
has been a serious blow to dog lovers in Ontario and
Canada today and dog lovers across North America.
Whether it means they will lend their support, or
simply not show or transfer or sell their puppies to
this area (and I don’t blame them) is up to you. If
you’re interested in learning more, please use the link
to the Dog
Legislation Council of Canada’s website.
Return to Table of Contents
GERMANY
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,1144582,00.ht
ml
Germany's Constitutional Court has struck down a
federal law forbidding the breeding of dangerous dogs.
At the same time, the country's highest court said a
ban on the import of four breeds of attack dogs was
legal.
Return to Table of Contents
ILLINOIS
Illinois house bill 1128 is stalled in the State's
House Committee on Agriculture and Conservation. It did
not pass out of the committee by a vote of nine to six.
The bill would have amended an existing dangerous-dog
law, making it legal to propose breed-specific
legislation.
This is a NEW LAW introduced Feb. 25 (the day that HB
1128 was defeated). This new law is SB 1790 and will
SPECIFICALLY and ARBITRARILY declare as dangerous ALL
1) Pit bulls. (2) Rottweilers. (3) German shepherds.
(4) Huskies. (How will
they define THIS??) (5) Alaskan malamutes. (6)
Doberman pinschers. (7) Chow Chows. (8) Great Danes
(9) St. Bernards. (10) Akitas.
This law was introduced by Sen. Martin A. Sandoval
Click for Mr Sandoval's Contact info
Senate email and
contact info.
House email and
contact info.
Please write your brief, cordial, and to the point
letters, each addressed separately. Please take the
time. This is important.
Return to Table of Contents
OKLAHOMA
Senator Jim Reynolds, sponsor of Oklahoma Senate Bill
247, dropped his support of the bill, killing the
legislation. The bill would have allowed municipalities
to include breed-specific mandates in their
dangerous-dog legislation.
Return to Table of Contents
FLORIDA
from Maida, Citizens for
Citizens for Pets in Condos has gone "legitimate"
with a real web page name: www.petsincondos.org
Read the new article on the web site,"Ret
iree wins fight with no-pet policy to keep
dog."
We now have 779 signatures on the online petition, plus
a number of paper petitions that are floating around.
I have posters and "business" cards and paper petitions
that I can mail out to anyone in Florida who would like
to help publicize this effort - changing Florida
legislation to allow responsible people who own their
own homes to keep pets.
Return to Table of Contents
VERMONT
(Re: the term “Pet Merchant”)
Bill S-066 which
proposed: " (15) "Pet merchant" means any person
who operates a pet shop or who acts as a dealer sells,
exchanges, donates, or offers to sell, exchange, or
donate animals. Duly incorporated humane societies
that make animals available for adoption are
exempt." has been amended to create a study
committee with the following purposes and
structure:
An act relating to the welfare of animals.
Reported recommending that the bill be amended by
striking out all after the enacting clause and
inserting in lieu thereof the following:
Sec. 1. STUDY COMMITTEE OF THE PET MERCHANT
INDUSTRY
(a) A committee is established to study the sale,
exchange, and donation of animals by merchants in the
state of Vermont under chapters 194 and 199 of Title
20. The committee shall determine the best approach to
long-term regulation of the sale, exchange, and
donation of animals by pet merchants in the state of
Vermont. The committee shall study:
- Administration of the licensing or registration of
pet merchants, including whether Vermont should follow
the regulatory framework utilized in New Hampshire;
- Enforcement of any licensing or registration of pet
merchants and any prohibition on the unlicensed sale,
exchange, or donation of animals, including whether to
require proof of licensing prior to advertising the
sale, exchange, or donation of animals;
- Funding available for the enforcement of pet
merchant licensing or registration requirements;
and
- Delegation of some or all enforcement duties to
humane societies, sheriff's departments, or other local
or municipal entities.
- The secretary of agriculture, food and markets or
his or her designee;
- A member of the senate to be appointed by the
committee on committees;
- A member of the house of representatives to be
appointed by the speaker of the house;
- The commissioner of taxes or his or her
designee;
- A member of the Vermont humane federation appointed
by the society;
- A member of the Vermont Federation of Sportsmen's
Clubs appointed by the federation;
- A member of the Vermont League of Cities and Towns
appointed by the league;
- A member of the American Kennel Club appointed by
the club;
- A member of the Vermont cruelty task force
appointed by the task force;
- A member of the Vermont sheriffs' association
appointed by the association;
- A veterinarian from the Vermont veterinary medical
association appointed by the association;
- A representative of the Vermont federation of dog
clubs to be appointed by the club; and
- A pet breeder working from the breeder's home to be
appointed by the secretary of agriculture, food and
markets
(c) The committee may elect a chair and a vice chair
and may hold public hearings. The legislative council
shall provide professional and administrative support
for the committee.
(d) All members of the committee shall serve on the
committee for the duration of the study unless
circumstances dictate a permanent replacement.
Vacancies shall be appointed in the same manner as
original appointments.
(e) The committee shall report its recommendations in
the form of proposed legislation by January 15, 2006 to
the house committees on agriculture; judiciary; and
government operations; and the senate committees on
agriculture; economic development, housing and general
affairs; judiciary; and government operations. The
report shall include recommendations by the committee
for the regulation of the pet merchant industry in
Vermont.
And that when so amended the bill ought to
pass.
Return to Table of Contents
TEXAS
Thanks to all of you, HB 326 did not pass! The bill
is pending in committee and it is at the discretion of
the Chair Representative Rick Hardcastle whether to
bring it up again. The hearing was held on March 29
with organized opposition from a variety of animal
interest groups, including Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance (RPOA). This wouldn’t have happened without
the extensive lobbying efforts from the
Agriculture/Ranching organizations. (RPOA) only rode
their coattails.
A substitute bill was submitted, but it only added
THREE more defenses “ the practice of veterinary
medicine by licensed vets, Professional Rodeo Cowboys
Association sanctioned rodeo activity, and persons
euthanizing animals at an animal shelter. The bill is
so bad, everyone wants to bail out. Texas Humane
Legislation Network (THLN) is developing their next
plan of action and has already been on Talk Radio in
San Antonio urging listeners to support the bill and
contact Representative Hardcastle. THLN is not
telling people what the bill really says however.
Instead they are tweaking emotions by recounting
endless horror stories of animal cruelty, which we all
agree are heinous crimes. “Loco,” the poor little
blind dog, was paraded before the legislators at the
hearing, just as in 2001. Talk about “exploiting an
animal!”
RPOA deals with animal cruelty on a daily basis with
our statewide Purebred Rescue Program. We are in the
elementary schools teaching children to be kind to
their animals. No one cares more about stopping animal
cruelty than we do, but this bill represents an agenda.
News reporters aren’t reading the bill, but rather
count on THLN to tell them what is in it!
This legislation is very important to Humane Society
of the United States (HSUS), PETA, and all. Jay
Sabatucci, representing the HSUS regional office in
Dallas, spoke in support of the bill.
RPOA has spoken to committee member Representative
Betty Brown’s office and was told to keep up the
pressure as incoming calls are now 50-50. RPOA will
do another alert next week as we need to thank the
committee and urge them once again NOT to pass this
bill. RPOA has been contacted by some media persons,
but declined to be interviewed for now.
This story (below) was in the San Antonio Express-News.
You’ll enjoy the remarks by Gib Lewis below who
summed it up perfectly.
“I’m a rancher, and I’ve never heard so much BS in my
life as I’ve heard this morning by the advocates of
this bill. That’s it. That’s my comment,” said former
House speaker Gib Lewis, a lobbyist who said he
attended the hearing because he personally opposes the
bill, not for any of his clients.
San Antonio News
Immediate Help Needed to Oppose Texas BSL
(Thursday, April 07, 2005)
Attention Texas dog owners! Rep. Al Edwards of Houston
is sponsoring HB1096, a bill which would exempt any
cities with a population of over 1.9 million from the
current state law prohibiting breed-specific
legislation. (Currently this includes the City of
Houston only, but rapid growth in Dallas and San
Antonio means these cities would be included in the
near future.) Passage of the bill would immediately
permit eligible cities to enact dangerous dog laws that
ban or restrict certain breeds. HB1096 passed through
the House quickly and has now been referred in the
Senate. Help is needed urgently to stop this
legislation.
For more informations go to AKC News
Return to Table of Contents
Nationwide Action
Alert! TX SB 1111 - BSL Threat
SB 1111 “allows” the city of Houston to pass Breed
Specific Legislation.
FROM: Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
April 6, 2005
Texas needs your help. HB 1096 has passed on
the House Floor and moved to the Senate Criminal
Justice Committee as SB 1111. HB 1096/SB 1111 would
exempt Houston from existing state law prohibiting
Breed SpecificLegislation.
SB 1111 does that with one sentence: “Subchapter D [in
existing state law]does not apply to a municipality
subject to this chapter.” Rep. Edwards’bill
establishes a new “Subchapter F” to apply to Houston
(with a population of 1.9 million or more).
Rep. Al Edwards has publicly stated to the media that
he hopes his bill is amended to apply statewide.
Edwards personally stated to Responsible Pet Owners
Alliance that he wants to regulate Rottweilers and
“pitbulls” AND exempt Houston from existing state law
prohibiting same.
Anti-Pet legislation is on the rise. Illinois
recently attempted to pass legislation regarding
Dobermans, German Shepherd Dogs, Akitas, St. Bernards,
Great Danes, Chow Chows, Alaskan Malamutes, Siberian
Huskys, Rottweilers, and so-called “Pitbulls.” There
is no such registered breed as “pitbull,” which is a
generic term. You can’t regulate what you cannot
identify.
Click and Sign the petition to protest HB 1096/SB
1111.
Talking Points:
- SB 1111 will not stop dog attacks in Houston.
- SB 1111 should be amended to add existing language
in state law which prohibits Breed Specific Laws in
municipalities.
- Texas, California, Colorado, Florida, Illinois,
Maine, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Oklahoma and
Virginia all have a provision prohibiting
municipalities from passing Breed Specific Legislation.
SB 1111 would be taking a step backwards for the great
state of Texas.
- Breed Specific Legislation punishes many
responsible pet owners who own dog breeds deemed
dangerous by excessive media coverage. Good dogs never
make the news!
- Ironically SB 1111 author Senator Rodney Ellis also
authored the James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Act to combat
hatred and prejudice in Texas, wrote legislation for
race based insurance reform, and is a legislative
leader in civil rights.
- Breed Specific Legislation is canine profiling and
discrimination against certain breeds of dogs,
regardless of temperament, training or behavior. Many
so-called “pitbulls” are great family dogs and pose no
threat to the community.
- Although SB 1111 doesn’t name breeds of dogs, the
publicly stated intent of Rep. Al Edwards is to
regulate Rottweilers and “pitbulls” in Houston sometime
in the future.
- The recent tragic incident in Houston was an attack
by dogs in violation of existing leash laws in a
problem neighborhood. This should not reflect on
“good” dogs and their owners in Houston or
elsewhere.
Please contact all listed below.
Mailing address for all Senate Committee members:
PO Box 12068
Capitol Station
Austin, TX 78711
SB 1111
Bill Author: Senator
Rodney Ellis
Ph: (512) 463-0113 Fax: (512) 463-0006
Senate Criminal Justice Committee members:
Chair: Senator
John Whitmire
Ph: (512) 463-0115 Fax: (512) 475-3737
Vice-Chair
: Senator Kel Seliger
Ph: (512) 463-0131 Fax: (512) 475-3733
Senator
John Carona
Ph: (512) 463-0116 Fax: (512) 463-3135
Senator
Rodney Ellis
Ph: (512) 463-0113 Fax: (512) 463-0006
Senator
Juan Hinojosa
Ph: (512) 463-0120 Fax: (512) 463-0229
Senator
Steve Ogden
Ph: (512) 463-0105 Fax: (512) 463-5713
Senator
Tommy Williams
Ph: (512) 463-0104 Fax: (512) 463-6373
To share information, subscribe or unsubscribe,
please send an email
message.
>
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #205-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: (210) 822-6763
Website: http://www.r
esponsiblepetowners.org
$15 Annual dues (January - December)Publishing a
quarterly newsletter and "announcement only" e-mail
list to keep our membership informed!
Return to Table of Contents
WEST VIRGINIA
There were four of these bills to start with: SB 137,
SB 277, HB
2620, and HB 2635. SB 137 was partly folded into SB
277 which
passed out of the Senate last week. The two house
bills (HB's) are sitting in the Ag Committee.
With the WV Legislature session winding down,
everything but SB
277 is probably dead -- that one, however, is very much
alive and since it would require registration of
everyone selling any animal, very dangerous. Plus the
exotic animal provisions are "awful."
The details begin with a definition:
“'Pet shop' means a facility where an animal is kept
for the purpose of sale. The term excludes a facility
subject to the provisions of articles twenty or
twenty_three of this chapter ..."
Taking account of articles 20 and 23, this means that
anyone selling an animal who is not a for-profit
kennel, animal shelter, animal pound, stable or race
track, would be a pet shop. That would include
show/hobby breeders as well as farmers, hunters who
sell a dog now and then, your aunt Jane who sells a
puppy to one of her kids ... everyone.
'Sale' is defined so it includes any exchange at all;
even just giving a dog away would be a sale.
Most of the bill deals only with pet shops that sell
exotic animals. Someone who never does that, wouldn't
have to worry about most of it. However, there is one
very important 'all hands' provision:
"S19-9B-9. Pet shop registration required. Effective
the first day of January, two thousand six, no person
hall operate a pet shop in this state unless he or she
has registered with the Board." Everyone who sells any
animal has to register, even if they don't sell
exotics. There is a fee for registration and lists of
registrants would be a public record, available to ARs
for harassment.
SB 277 would only give the board power to write
regulations for
those pet shops that sell exotic animals. However,
"you can count on a bill being proposed in a year or
two, to regulate dog, cat and other breeders." If SB
277 passes and you register as it requires then they'll
have all the addresses, for enforcement of the next
step.
'Exotic animal' is defined as any animal that isn't
either (a)
domesticated, or (b) native to West Virginia. Thus,
selling or giving away any non-domesticated pet (such
as a turtle, snake, or fish) that isn't found wild in
West Virginia makes you a 'pet shop selling exotic
animals' and subject to everything in the law. Yeah,
if you don't make anyone mad you probably wouldn't get
caught.
"Possession' of an exotic animal is also regulated and
that part of the bill is absolutely awful. It's 'one
size fits all' for anyone possessing a
non-domesticated, non-native species, requiring you to
post signs saying you have a (prairie dog, guinea pig,
hamster, sugar glider, parrot, cockatiel, canary,
harmless snake ... as well as any of the dangerous
exotics), have a plan for its destruction in case of
escape, obtain a permit from the state if you want to
breed it ... this part of the bill was taken from a
common AR model law for "dangerous" exotics."
"WARNING: Guinea Pig On Premises" LOL ... can you
believe
these people are paid for their work? Yeah, I can
laugh, but
among the bad results of passing this bill would be the
abandonment of many exotics. Some will be dumped at
animal
shelters, some, elsewhere. Smart public policy, isn't
it?
SB 277 is typical AR 'divide and conquer' and also
shows their "get what you can now, come back for more
next year" approach. If you've got a few minutes,
please help WV pet breeders and
owners: Email the WV House Ag Committee at the
addresses
below and tell them that SB 277 is a really bad
idea.
West Virginia House Ag Committee Email Addresses
rbeach@mail.wvnet.edu
rtabb@mail.wvnet.edu
wlstempl@mail.wvnet.edu
gcrosier@mail.wvnet.edu
aevans@mail.wvnet.edu
pschoen@mail.wvnet.edu
eanders1@mail.wvnet.edu
bhamilt@mail.wvnet.edu
sargento@mail.wvnet.edu
eldridge@mail.wvnet.edu
tennis@mail.wvnet.edu
rfragale@mail.wvnet.edu
tlouisos@mail.wvnet.edu
dmartin1@mail.wvnet.edu
bpaxton@mail.wvnet.edu
dpethtel@mail.wvnet.edu
marypoli@mail.wvnet.edu
rswartzmiller@hotmail.com
dwells@mail.wvnet.edu
lwillia1@mail.wvnet.edu
rcanter1@mail.wvnet.edu
oleggett@mail.wvnet.edu
john@overington.com
wromine@mail.wvnet.edu
rthompsn@mail.wvnet.edu
Return to Table of Contents
CALIFORNIA
CA Ear Crop Bill Passes Committee
Wednesday, April 06, 2005
AB418 passed out of the Assembly Committee on Public
Safety late yesterday afternoon. The bill, which would
ban ear cropping of dogs, now moves to the Assembly
Appropriations Committee for fiscal analysis and then
on to the full Assembly.
Although several concerned fanciers attended
yesterday's hearing, they were considerably outnumbered
by supporters of AB418. Additionally, the bill analysis
that will follow AB418 throughout its path in the
legislature lists only three organizations - AKC, NAIA
Trust and The Animal Council - and 22 individuals who
opposed the legislation. Fanciers MUST speak up in
greater numbers if we are to defeat this bill.
UPDATE: CA BILLS, MORE
April 5, 2005
(Last publication date 3/21/05 Appropriate forwarding
encouraged.)
Preserving Our Right To Own And Breed Animals Is Your
Responsibility
IN THIS ISSUE:
- CA AB 762, GROOMER REG. POSTPONED TO JAN. 06
- CA SB 914 HEARING (PUPPIES) POSTPONED TO 4/18
- CA AB 418 EAR CROP BAN PASSES COMITTEE
BRIEFLY NOTED:
WEST HOLLYWOOD, CALIFORNIA will be represented pro bono
by the law firm of Sedgwick, Detert, Moran & Arnold,
LLP in the lawsuit, California Veterinary Medical
Association v. City of West Hollywood (Case No.
SC084799). Orly Degani, a Sedwick Special Counsel in
the Los Angeles office drafted this 2003 ordinance
prohibiting declawing of cats and will handle the
litigation. Ms. Degani also drafted the 2004
California legislation which will prohibit the
production of fois gras in California beginning in
2012.
NATHAN J. WINOGRAD will has been included in the May
2005 issue of Metropolitan Home Design 100 “The Best of
the Best: People, Places,Extraordinary Things.” Under
his leadership, Tompkins County, New York became the
first community to achieve no euthanasia of both
healthy and treatable animals including feral cats.
That shelter is also the only animal shelter certified
by the U.S. Green Building Council. Nathan is now a
private consultant on shelters. click for information.<
br>
FOSTER CITY, CALIFORNIA where the city, bird and
cat
advocates have worked cooperatively to spay and neuter
the Bay
Trail cat population is the location of a benefit art
show of Robert Barbutti’s incredible photographs:
“Living on the Rocks - Artistic Photography of the Cats
from Project Bay Cat.” All the proceeds from show
sales will benefit the Homeless Cat Network and Project
Bay Cat. The show is being held March 21 through
April 28 at the Foster City Art Gallery in the
Recreation Center, 650 Shell Blvd, in Foster City. A
gala reception for the art show will be held on Friday,
April 8 from 7-9 pm at the Gallery. The photos are
described as “stylized pieces reflecting the true
nature of the homeless cats living in the rocks along
the trail and capture their varied emotions, from
curiosity to pride, and peacefulness to tender
affection. The pieces are truly moving, simply
gorgeous, and will change the way people view feral and
abandoned cats. For more information about the
photography, please visit
Robert
Barbutti Photography
For more information about the Homeless Cat Network,
please visit Homeless Cat
Network
CALIFORNIA CENTRAL VALLEY AR JUGGERNAUT will
continue in Stanislaus County with a public meeting
Wednesday, April 13th, 6:00 p.m. - 8.00 p.m., Harvest
Hall in the Agricultural Center, 3800 Cornucopia Way,
Modesto, CA. (Contact the Chief Executive Office at
(209) 525-6333. The revised ordinance will be reviewed
and public comment taken.
The revision eliminated cat licensing, makes
microchipping voluntary, $100 breeder permit and $100
unaltered dog license except for certain exceptions at
$28 including owners who register and participate “in
an American Kennel Club (AKC), United Kennel Club
(UKC), or other state or nationally recognized
organization and be a member of a parent club or
organization for the purposes of showing, training,
agility trials, or hunting and provides documentation
to the Department of Animal Services of such membership
and participation in the above animal activities; or
registers and participates in a cat fancier or other
state or nationally recognized organization and be a
member of a parent club or for the purposes of showing
cats and provides documentation to the Department of
Animal Services of such membership and participation in
showing cats.” Our long time readers will remember
similar proposals in early versions of the City of Los
Angeles ordinance revisions were in the late 90’s.
Ginny Barrett, then working at the American Humane
Society, put great effort into creating these
categories in exchange for fancier support of very high
differential dog licensing. These were rejected by all
interest groups across the board as improper and
discriminatory public policy giving a public benefit,
at the discretionary determination of animal services,
to a small group based on participation in private
activities.
CALIFORNIA VETERINARY MEDICAL BOARD will meet
April 12
and 13 at U.C. Davis with the Legislative Committee
report late
Tuesday afternoon. See the agenda
THERE OUGHT TO BE A LAW against ear cropping and
then docking according to the web site,
Stop The Crop
CALIFORNIA AB 762 also by Koretz, to add new
provisions to the Business and Professions Code to
develop training, licensing, or certification standards
for animal groomers who engage in the bathing,
brushing, cleaning, styling, and appearance maintenance
of animals as a retail service, or the handling of
animals in preparation for these services had been
referred to the Assembly Business and Professions
Committee but will be held over without hearing until
January, 2006.
CALIFORNIA SB 914 by Senator Christine Kehoe
(D-39) of San Diego to create a new misdemeanor crime
of animal cruelty by adding a new Section 597z to the
Penal Code for anyone other than an organization tax
exempt under Internal Revenue Code Section 501©(3) or
public animal shelter or contractor to sell, give away,
or otherwise transfer any dog under eight weeks of age
now in the Senate Business, Professions and Economic
Development Committee has had its hearing postponed
until Monday, April 18 at 2:00 P.M. in Room 3191, State
Capitol. We oppose this bill as drafted. See our March
21 publication for details.
CALIFORNIA AB 1426 introduced February 22 by
Assembly Member Carol Liu (D-44) of LaCanada/Flintridge
would amend existing Penal Code Section 597u expanding
the express provisions of prohibited euthanasia methods
and codifying Attorney General Opinion No. 01-103,
“that it is a violation of the state’s animal cruelty
laws for an animal control officer or humane society
officer to use the intracardiac administration of
euthanasia on a conscious animal in an animal control
shelter or humane society facility if the animal may
first be rendered unconscious in a humane manner or if,
in light of all the circumstances, the procedure is
unjustifiable” passed out of the Assembly Public Safety
Committee today on unanimous vote following a parade of
activists on hand for the hearing on the ear crop
bill.
CALIFORNIA AB 418 authored by Assembly Member
Paul Koretz (D-42) of West Hollywood prohibiting
cropping ears of dogs in California passed out of
Assembly Public Safety Committee late Tuesday afternoon
after being on call following the first vote at the
conclusion of the late morning hearing on which it
failed to obtain the 4 votes needed to pass.
This bill will go on to the Assembly Appropriations
Committee for an expedited process due to lack of
fiscal issues and then to the Assembly Floor. There
will not be another policy hearing until the bill would
reach a Senate Committee. Should the bill reach this
point, opponents attending the hearing must be prepared
as to procedures, presentation and strategy. The
fanciers who appeared at today’s hearing were earnest
and heartfelt but seriously outgunned by persevering
and professional supporters.
As we reported previously, the Bill Analysis from the
Assembly Public Safety Committee will follow the bill
through the Assembly Floor. Each year, we publish
extensive instructions for requesting inclusion on the
Analysis to indicate the strength and depth of the
position. Our “ACTION ALERT: CA EAR CROP BAN” of March
16 as well as an AKC web site notice and direct
communications to dog clubs contained these
instructions. The current Bill Analysis opposition
list includes only 3 organizations - us, AKC and NAIA
Trust and an individual count of only 22. The analysis
was as balanced as possible under the circumstances,
but the opposition has so far made a weak showing. We
particularly need to address the veterinary and
criminal issues. Veterinarians who can speak to the
safety and innocuous nature of cropping need to be
heard. More attorneys need to oppose making criminals
of our fanciers. There are 80 members of the Assembly,
so a floor fight will be no small task. If your
organization had submitted a request and was not listed
on the Bill Analysis, please contact us.
ORGANIZATIONS, i.e. dog clubs, particularly those for
the cropped breeds, should still submit on letterhead
letters of opposition on AB 418 directly to the
Committee Consultant and ask to have the organization
included on the official listed opposition AS THE BILL
MOVES FORWARD. All breed clubs should be concerned
about entries over the long term. The Consultant will
update and verify the list as the bill moves forward in
the Assembly. The Senate process would start over
again. INDIVIDUALS are included by count but not
listed individually. Mark the letters, “AB 418 - Dogs:
animal cruelty: ear cropping -OPPOSITION.”
Kimberly A. Horiuchi, Committee Consultant
Assembly Public Safety Committee
1020 N Street, Room 111
Sacramento CA 94814
FAX: 916-319-3745
Committee Office Voice phone: 916-319-3745
Continue to lobby your veterinarians, because Mr.
Koretz assured the Committee that the support of the
California Veterinary Medical Association was delayed
only because of the timing of their next executive
board meeting.
Return to Table of Contents
THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
has created a backup distribution list through Yahoo
Groups. If you are a direct recipient of this message,
please help us through this process and conserve our
resources on clerical work by joining the list. Paste
this URL into your browser and follow the instructions
to join. At present, the Yahoo list will only be used
if or when this service is unavailable. Select
“Individual Emails.”
T
he Animal Council Indivicual Emails
a service of THE ANIMAL COUNCIL
P.O. BOX 168, MILLBRAE CA 94030
Contact us at The Animal
Council
Incorporated 1991, tax exempt under IRC Section 501©(4)
Online news updates published sporadically since 1997.
To be removed from the original distribution list only
or change address, reply to this message. Legislative
tracking subject to change. CA bill and law
information.
Return to Table of Contents
CONNECTICUT
The following was printed in the Hartford Courant
this morning. Thought it might be interesting for all
dog people.
Connecticut legislators are considering putting
insurance companies on a leash to help homeowners with
dogs.
Dog owners have long been ticked off that many insurers
deny homeowners or renters policies to people with
breeds reputed to be aggressive or vicious, such as pit
bulls and Rottweilers.
In the past, bills banning breed discrimination have
died quickly. But this session, a close vote is shaping
up on the insurance and real estate committee, and the
bill’s champion, Rep. Robert W. Megna, D-New Haven, is
seeking more nods from fellow Democrats. Unsure whether
the bill has legs, Megna had the committee table it
Tuesday and will ask for a vote Thursday if he has
enough support. “It’s so unfair to say you’re not going
to underwrite anyone who owns a particular breed,”
Megna said. Over the past decade, several insurers have
created dog blacklists, singling out a dozen or more
breeds - from Akita to Great Dane and many breed
mixes.
The bill would ban such blacklists, but insurers still
could choose customers and charge premiums based on an
individual dog’s history of biting or attacking, and on
whether the dog caused any claims within the past three
years. Insurance lobbyists, however, are protesting the
bill, saying it is unworkable and would raise
administrative costs by eliminating the current method
of calculating Rover’s risk. Industry officials warn
that all homeowners’ premiums would rise if insurers
are prevented from minimizing their dog-bite claims.
The claims are covered under the liability portion of
homeowners’ policies.
Dogs bite more than 4.7 million Americans each year,
and 800,000 victims get medical care - about half of
them children - the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention reports.
Home insurers paid an estimated $321.6 million on U.S.
dog-bite liability claims in 2003, according to the
latest data available. That was down from $345.5
million paid on about 20,800 claims in 2002, according
to the industry’s Insurance Information
Institute.
Statistics for Connecticut alone are not available. But
Allstate, the largest home insurer in the state, says
it paid $849,000 on 35 dog-bite claims here during the
first half of 2004. The 35 included 10 involving German
shepherds, four involving pit bulls and one involving a
beagle. Insurers say they base their lists on their own
claims data, media articles, and information from
animal organizations and the CDC, including
breed-by-breed statistics on fatal dog attacks.
Insurers’ breed lists affect dog owners who buy a home
for the first time or move, or shop for a renter’s
policy to cover belongings. A dog owner also could face
the problem at renewal time if the insurer asks about
breed, or if a dog bite claim has been made during the
year. Lying about a dog on an application gives the
insurer the right to cancel a policy if the truth comes
to light.
Although industry lobbyists insist the market for home
insurance is competitive, it is a tough market for
consumers with blacklisted dogs. They have fewer
insurers to choose from, and may end up with specialty
insurers that charge high premiums. The Connecticut
Insurance Department says it received about 35
complaints last year about insurers’ rejection of
certain breeds.
Some, like Meriden police Sgt. Joyce Amann, have faced
heart-rending decisions. A few years ago, when Amann
and her husband were about to buy a house, an insurance
agent told her it would be uninsurable because of their
two Rottweilers, even though the dogs had never bitten
anyone. The couple shopped around but had to accept
coverage with a $5,000 deductible, costing nearly
$2,000 a year, from Lloyd’s of London. The policy was
too expensive to keep, Amann said, so after about six
months, she gave the dogs to her parents, who live
nearby, and got cheaper insurance. “It ripped my heart
out,” Amann said.
In the last three months of 2004, five homeowners
applied to the Connecticut FAIR Plan - an insurer of
last resort - because of dog problems. The plan offers
much narrower coverage than regular insurers - and
won’t cover dog bites by a dog that has already bitten
someone. Supporters of the bill acknowledge the
potential for tragedy, but question the fairness of
tarring entire breeds.
“If we’re not going to be profiling in our own society,
why should we be profiling with dogs?” said Rep. Diana
Urban, R-North Stonington, a co-sponsor of the bill.
It’s the deeds, not the breeds, that count, dog
enthusiasts say. Besides, they add, dogs such as the
golden retriever that aren’t blacklisted are also known
to attack. “It’s really the owners who cause
irresponsible dogs, not the breed of dogs,” said Lisa
Peterson, a spokeswoman for the American Kennel Club.
“If the dog is well-behaved, there is no reason to deny
or cancel insurance.”
The Kennel Club has a “Canine Good Citizen” program
used by some insurers, including Nationwide, to accept
a dog that would otherwise be rejected. The program
confers a certificate on a dog that has passed a
10-step test showing it is well-behaved and
controllable.
Insurers should be allowed to weigh breed, just like
“any legitimate risk that distinguishes a particular
applicant from another,” said Robert Hartwig, senior
vice president and chief economist of the Insurance
Information Institute. “The simple fact is that some
[breeds] are more vicious than others.” Removing
insurers’ consideration of breed will mean customers
with vicious dogs will be subsidized by those who don’t
own them, Hartwig said. Susan Giacalone, counsel to
the Insurance Association of Connecticut, said choosing
a potentially dangerous dog is like choosing to buy a
Corvette, which would cost more to insure than a sedate
sedan.“Everything you take on has some consequence to
it,” she said.
Insurers are also facing bills banning breed bias in
New York, New Jersey, Maine and Vermont. Although the
Connecticut bill would let insurers evaluate each dog,
“that would be a tremendous burden,” said Jay Jackson,
a lobbyist for the Property Casualty Insurance
Association of America. “You’re going to have to go out
and interview the dog.”
Sen. Louis C. DeLuca, Senate Republican leader from
Woodbury and an opponent of the bill, joked that
insurers may have to send out a “dog psychologist” if
it passes.
Dean Cawthra of Shelton, however, is cheering for the
bill after an upsetting episode in 2003. After 26 years
as his insurance provider, Nationwide refused to renew
his policy unless he showed proof his two chow chows -
who had never bitten anyone - were surrendered to a
shelter or destroyed, he said. He dumped Nationwide
instead.
“People are losing good pets; they’re heartbroken,”
Cawthra said. “It’s too bad insurance companies have so
much clout in the state of Connecticut. I hope they
don’t this time.”
Return to Table of Contents
NEW YORK
Support a good bill - From the Long Island Coalition
of Dog Fanciers
Senator Dean Skelos and Assemblyman Anthony Seminerio
have proposed changes in New York State law that will
be good for responsible dog owners. Senate bill #S2289
and Assembly Bill # A4897 will prohibit insurers from
canceling or refusing to issue homeowner insurance
policies based on the breed of dog owned. This
legislation has been proposed before and has not
passed. Please copy and distribute the following
petition to all your New York friends and neighbors.
Petitions have been very successful in the
past.
Return to Table of Contents
NEW MEXICO
April 1st the governor signed New Mexico’s Dangerous
Dog Act. This is indeed a loss for New Mexico and a
solid win for the Animal Rights goal to end the
ownership of dogs. The law can be used against
responsible dog owners -- and the law fails to address
the root causes of dog bites. So when this law proves
ineffective, the Animal Rights activists will have
reason to call for even stronger punitive
measures.
Indeed, this session had another bill that banned some
breeds, declared others dangerous, and completely
outlawed tethering for any reason whatsoever. The bill
did not make it out of committee. However, the appears
that the bills were intentionally written so they could
be merged.
The Animal Rights activists, media, and others have
taken a low-risk situation (1% of serious injuries and
0.012% of fatalities) and created such a state of fear
about dogs that the New Mexico legislature and governor
have supported the need to do something – anything,
regardless of its effectiveness.
This has also happened at the local level. In December
2004, the Valencia County Commission declared a
“dangerous dog” emergency for the entire county.
Residents were considered to be under imminent threat
of attack by dangerous dogs. This is for a county
where the reported dog bites are nine times LOWER than
the national average. The commission adopted a
“dangerous dog” amendment to the animal control
ordinance, which is similar to the state law that the
governor signed today. The campaign AGAINST dogs has
been effective.
Finally, look at Albuquerque. Last year at a rescue
conference the mayor emphatically stated that the
Animal [Rights] activists are “in,” and the “others”
are “out.” Since then, the Animal Rights activists
have drafted a new animal control ordinance for
Albuquerque. The ordinance will soon go to the city
council. The Animal Rights activists intend for the
ordinance to promote a more “progressive” public
mind-set toward animals and to end the “callous
societal attitude toward animals” that “still exists in
Albuquerque.” In this ordinance, if a dog barks for
more than five minutes, that barking is considered to
be the result of animal cruelty and the dog can be
seized without a warrant. Again, the campaign AGAINST
our ownership
of dogs is at work.
Animal control issues need to be based on reality and
not rhetoric. So far, the rhetoric offered by the
Animal Rights activists and others has been effective.
For these reasons, please accept my special thanks for
those of you who
offered support in OPPOSING New Mexico’s Dangerous Dog
Act. Your help is greatly appreciated.
Ron Gustafson
505-864-3513
Return to Table of Contents
TENNESSEE
Breeder Licensing Bills Introduced in Tennessee
Monday, March 07, 2005
,br>
Hobby breeders could soon be considered "dealers" in
Tennessee if H148 or its companion S1686 are enacted.
Both bills would require anyone who breeds and sells
more than one litter of puppies per year to be licensed
as a "dealer." In Tennessee, dealers must be inspected
by the state and pay anywhere from $125-$1000 annually
for the cost of a license, depending on the number of
animals sold. Dealers must also keep records of the
names and addresses of individuals to whom they have
sold pets.
A new Legislative Alert has been posted on the AKC's
Web site. To view this alert, please click on the AKC link. Posted by AKC Canine
Legislation Department.
Legislative Alert Newsletter Editors
Denise
Benincase, New York
Rose 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: 04/09/2005, 7:18 pm
|
