USKBTC Legislative Newsletter
May, 2005

Table of Contents
Click the links below for easier access to specific legislation by region.
On the Federal Level
Florida
Texas
Ohios
California
Connecticut
New York
Massachusetts
Dog Bites Article/a>

Return to Table of Contents
ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL

From the AKC Legislative Department
Senator Santorum Introduces Legislation to Strengthen Enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act.
Friday, May 27, 2005

Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) today introduced legislation which will bring under federal regulation persons who import large numbers of dogs for resale, individuals who sell dogs at retail through the internet or the mass media, and high volume breeders who sell dogs at retail. The legislation also strengthens the U.S. Department of Agriculture's ability to enforce compliance with the Animal Welfare Act and to identify persons who are evading the Act. The legislation is co-sponsored by Senator Richard Durbin (D-IL).

The bill, called the "Pet Animal Welfare Statute" of 2005, or "PAWS", includes provisions advocated by the AKC as an alternative to the "Puppy Protection Act" introduced by Senators Santorum and Durbin in the 107th Congress, which the AKC opposed. The new legislation continues the current regulation of breeders who sell puppies at wholesale. However, it extends regulation to breeders who sell at retail and whelp 7 or more litters a year and persons who acquire and resell at retail more than 25 dogs a year which they did not breed. The legislation continues the current exemption for retail pet stores, but defines "retail pet store" more narrowly than present regulations. The legislation exempts breeders who whelp fewer than 7 litters a year and raise the puppies on their own premises unless they sell puppies for resale.
For complete article go to AKC News ID 2513
For a later article on Senate bill 1139/house bill 2669 check AKC News 2514

Federal Bill About Pet Travel Regulations

Click on the NAIA website with some explanations about this bill.

Return to Table of Contents
FLORIDA

Immediate Help Needed on Pending Animal Control Proposals in Florida
Monday, May 23, 2005
For complete article click link to AKC News.

There are currently four ordinances being proposed at the county level in Florida which have the potential to dramatically impact the rights of fanciers and hobby breeders. Your help is needed to defeat these proposals and protect the rights of Floridians to responsibly breed, show and own unaltered animals.

Palm Beach County
Palm Beach County is considering numerous changes to their existing animal control ordinance. First, the definition of hobby breeder has been revised to limit these breeders to 2 litters or less annually. Anyone who sells more than 2 litters per year will be defined as a "pet dealer" and required to comply with excessive regulations that significantly expand the state pet dealer law. The proposal also allows for inspections without a warrant, mandates microchipping and makes a host of other changes.

Concerned dog owners are encouraged to attend the monthly meeting of the Animal Care and Control Advisory meeting on June 27th at 7pm where fanciers will address this proposal. The meeting will take place at the Animal Care and Control Shelter at 7100 Belvedere Road in West Palm Beach. For additional information about Palm Beach please contact the Boca Raton Kennel Club or Golden Retriever Rescue of Mid-Florida.

Orange County
The proposed rewrite of the Orange County animal control ordinance affects many areas of dog ownership. First, it establishes a "pet dealer" defined as anyone who engages in the sale of more than 2 litters or twenty dogs per year. Although the definition is consistent with state law, in Orange County this classification will require compliance with added registration requirements and inspections. It will also require that any time an animal is left alone there be an emergency contact available.

The county is also extensively rewriting their dangerous dog ordinance. Area fanciers are concerned about the lack of an exemption for dogs that have been provoked, as well as a vaguely defined process for designating an animal dangerous. Finally, the proposal makes changes to the existing nuisance ordinance, substantially changing many definitions and limiting tethering of animals. Concerned dog owners are encouraged to express their concerns at the public workshop that will be held on June 2nd from 6pm - 8pm at the Orange County Commission Chambers, 201 S Rosalind Avenue, Orlando.

For more information on Orange County legislation contact the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs at 407-322-8980 or email

Sarasota County
In 2004, Sarasota County officials considered and rejected a measure that included breeder licensing and permits. The proposal was sent to a working group for further study and that group is expected to soon make recommendations to the Animal Advisory Committee and City Council. Although AKC is hopeful that the working group will be recommending against these changes, it is important that fanciers remain vigilant and continue to monitor this proposal. To get involved with canine legislation in Sarasota County, please contact the Mid-Florida Golden Retriever Club.

Citrus County
A newly introduced proposal would restrict owners to a cumulative 6 dogs and/or cats and would prohibit breeding and sale of dogs or cats from a residential structure unless a special permit is obtained. Breeders would be subject to government inspections. Purebred dog owners are strongly encouraged to attend the public workshop on this proposal which will be held on June 2nd. For updated information regarding the yet-to-be determined time and location contact the County Commissioners office at 352 -341-6560. For additional information on Citrus County please contact the Inverness Kennel Club.

The American Kennel Club strongly supports reasonable, enforceable legislation to govern dog ownership. We further understand the challenges that come with formulating animal control laws that will keep communities safe and harmonious without punishing responsible pet owners. Unfortunately, the proposals being considered in Florida do not achieve that balance. We encourage purebred dog owners to take part in the various workshops noted above and to work with legislators in crafting reasonable, nondiscriminatory measures.

To assist you in your efforts, the Canine Legislation Department offers information packets, brochures, talking points and model legislation pertaining to breeding restrictions, limit laws and dangerous dog proposals. Please contact AKC Dog Law. to request appropriate materials. You may also wish to contact the Florida Association of Kennel Clubs.

For more information, contact:
Florida Association of Kennel Clubs
President, Diane Albers
407-322-8980

AKC’s Canine Legislation Department
919-816-3720

Return to Table of Contents
TEXAS

Mandatory Spay/Neuter Ordinance Proposed in Austin
Tuesday, May 24, 2005
For complete article click link to AKC News.

Purebred dog owners in Austin—we need your help! The city's Animal Advisory Committee recently approved a proposal that could have a devastating impact on our sport. The measure, which now goes to the City Council for consideration, includes a mandatory spay/neuter provision for all dogs and cats over 6 months of age unless one purchases an intact animal permit at a cost of $100 per animal per year. Owners will further be required to microchip their intact pets.

Austin's proposed ordinance also places restrictions on breeding within the city unless one obtains a $500 breeding permit for each litter produced. Breeders must display their permit number in advertisements and make it available to new owners on the bill of sale or transfer.First-time violators will face an expensive $150 fine for each animal cited in addition to payment for any required permits. Upon a second offense, the city will seize and sterilize the owner's animal(s). Even intact-animal owners traveling through or visiting the city could face charges if they do not carry proof of ownership in another city, or if they allow their unaltered dog to run loose.

The ordinance under consideration in Austin will do little to address the city's problems with animal care and control. Instead, it will hurt responsible hobby breeders, those who dedicate much time, money and love to breeding well-tempered, sound dogs for the pet-buying public. If breeding regulations are enacted, these small breeders may be forced out of existence, denying puppy purchasers a conscientious, knowledgeable, source of purebred dogs.Additionally, hundreds of fanciers who show but do not breed their unaltered animals may have no choice but to give up their enjoyment in the sport.

Low-cost spay/neuter programs, strong enforcement of reasonable leash laws, and public education campaigns to teach people about responsible dog ownership are all better ways to address animal control concerns. Urgent help is needed to fight this unfair legislation! What You Can Do? Contact Austin City Officials immediately and respectfully ask them to oppose this punitive ordinance.

City of Austin Link reaches all members of the council.
PO Box 1088, Austin, TX 78767

Mayo r Will Wynn
Ph: (512) 974-2250, Fax: (512) 974-2337

Mayor Pro Tem Jackie Goodman
Ph: (512) 974-2255, Fax: (512) 974-1888

Councilman Raul Alvarez
Ph: (512) 974-2264, Fax: (512) 974-1887

Councilwoman Betty Dunkerley
Ph: (512) 974-2258, Fax: (512) 974-1886

Councilman Brewster McCracken
Ph: (512) 974-2256, Fax: (512) 974-1884

Councilman Daryl Slusher
Ph: (512) 974-2260, Fax: (512) 974-3212

Councilman Danny Thomas
Ph: (512) 974-2266, Fax: (512) 974-1890

Points to Consider

• MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER PROPOSALS ARE NOT THE MOST EFFECTIVE WAY TO SOLVE ANIMAL CONTROL PROBLEMS Mandatory spay/neuter is an ineffective solution to animal control problems because it fails to address the heart of the issue—irresponsible ownership. Mandatory spay/neuter laws are extremely difficult to enforce and can be evaded by irresponsible animal owners by not licensing their pets. More regulations increase the workload of already financially strained animal control offices, making it even more difficult for them to perform their duties.
  
• MANDATORY SPAY/NEUTER PROPOSALS ARE UNFAIR TO RESPONSIBLE DOG OWNERS AND BREEDERS Responsible owners should be allowed to use their own discretion in determining whether to alter their animals. Spay/neuter requirements target all owners regardless of their actions. Spay/neuter requirements would restrict the many responsible breeders who raise and breed purebred dogs for the purpose of showing. These breeders make a serious commitment to their animals with the intention of promoting the sport of purebred dogs and improving the individual breeds. Spaying and neutering is a surgical procedure that may not be right for all animals. A licensed veterinarian should perform these procedures only after consultation with and a thorough examination.
  
• A BETTER SOLUTION IS AVAILABLE Strongly enforced animal control laws (such as leash laws), and increased public education efforts are better ways to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. A public education campaign would help teach community residents about how to properly care for their pets, as well as the need to be a responsible pet owner.

1. HB 1096 still includes Breed Specific Language.
   
2. The Engrossed Version of HB 1096 (which is before the Senate) has never been heard in the Criminal Justice Committee. It was never discussed.
   
3. Only the “Substitute Version of HB 1096” was voted out of committee.
   
4. Senator Ellis has lied to us and knows this is not the bill voted out of committee.
   
5. HB 1096 imposes stricter rules on responsible dog owners.
   
6. We’re not against regulating dangerous dogs but Texas already has well written regulations in place. Existing law allows cities to pass stricter regulations than state law, so why do we have the state legislature telling cities what to do?

• Expands the definition of vicious dog to include one that has killed or caused serious physical harm to a person (without provocation), has killed another dog (without provocation) or has been trained or used for fighting purposes.
  
• Grants owners whose dogs have been deemed vicious the right to a hearing, full adjudication, and an appeal.
  
• Requires strict care conditions for vicious dogs.
  
• Limits owners to one vicious dog per household.
  
• Provides that officers who preside over vicious dog hearings must have completed courses in canine behavior.

• CA SB 914, MAY 9 AMDMNTS., DEVELOPMENTS
  
• CA AB 418 EAR CROP BAN "HELD" IN COMMITTEE
  
• CA AB 647, FERRETS, RELEASED FROM SUSPENSE
  
• CA AB 1428, CLONING BAN - HOUSEKEEPING

Last Updated: 06/02/2005, 3:57 pm