USKBTC Legislative Newsletter
October-November, 2005

Following is only a sample of the legislative actions going on throughout the Country. Too numerous to list are actions to make it unlawful to have specific breeds within specific legislative areas. There are also endeavors to limit the number of dogs a person may have and to require special licenses in order to breed as well as to restrict the number of litters a person may have. It behooves each and every one of us to familiarize ourselves with our own legislators' actions and be prepared to either endorse the good one or fight the bad ones.

TEXAS

From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance,the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas. Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization, not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference. Permission granted to crosspost.

Re: Jerry Dunham, Austin Great Dane enthusiast, who is not a member of Responsible Pet Owners Alliance and is not representing RPOA in any manner or capacity regarding Austin legislation.

The American Kennel Club and Responsible Pet Owners Alliance (as the AKC state federation for Texas) have opposed the Mandatory Spay/Neuter and Breeder Permit Ordinance being proposed in Austin, Texas as being unenforceable and ineffective. San Antonio and Austin previously defeated these same proposals in 1991-92, which have been proven failures in the cities who passed them at that time. More recently the city of Corpus Christi refused to even consider a similar ordinance.

To date, the Austin Animal Advisory Commission (AAAC) has been unable to find a city councilman to sponsor their controversial proposal. However the AAAC hasn’t given up as it is heavily weighted with “animal rights”extremists. This proposal is an agenda, not a solution. The “Animal Rights” extremists chant: “Don’t breed, don’t buy while shelter animals die” and don’t want animals bred for any reason, whether you eat them, wear them or pet them. Obviously if no one breeds, we'll have no pets in 10 years.

Word has been received that Jerry Dunham, Austin Great Dane enthusiast, is asking for representation from all AKC breed, kennel or sport clubs (cats and dogs) at a meeting tomorrow night (Thursday, Sept. 29).

This is to inform everyone that Jerry Dunham is NOT representing RPOA in this respect nor is he even a member of RPOA. There is no way to make this very bad legislation palatable. Dunham says: “I understand that for some the only answer to any S/N ordinance is ‘NO!’ This is not the meeting for that argument.” So if you oppose the Austin S/N ordinance, you are not welcome.

Dunham says the purpose of the meeting is to generate a series of proposals to be presented to the Austin Animal Advisory Commission. These proposals will include definitions of a responsible owner of intact animals to be exempted (or have fees greatly reduced) by an amendment and discuss more reasonable fees and fines than are in the current proposal. Dunham is attempting to exempt himself from the ordinance.

Dunham appears to be organizing his own group which will be in direct conflict with the more educated opinions of the American Kennel Club, United Kennel Club, American Dog Owners Association, National Animal Interest Alliance, the Cat Fanciers’ Association and The International Cat Association and many others who oppose this legislation.

RPOA urges you to just say “No” to Dunham.

From Responsible Pet Owners Alliance, the reasonable voice regarding animal issues in Texas. Responsible Pet Owners Alliance is an animal welfare organization, not "animal rights" and, yes, there is a difference. Permission granted to crosspost.

December 9, 2005

El Paso pet lovers need your help. Title 7 Animal Code Revisions will be voted on next Tuesday, December 13th. After two years in idle, all of a sudden the proposal is on a fast track. City officials probably assume that most pet owners are too busy with the holiday season to notice! As usual the “Animal Rights” activists are pushing their agenda to end all use, breeding and ownership of animals for any reason – including pet ownership. El Paso is a hotbed of animal rights extremists, including “Pets Alive” and Steve Best, the El Paso University professor who openly supports Animal Liberation Front (ALF).

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance opposes provisions for: Litter Permits, Canvassing pet owners’ private homes, and Mandatory Microchips. Microchips should be encouraged but mandatory microchips will be discriminatory to low income pet owners. If the pet owner can’t afford the microchip, will Animal Control confiscate and kill their pet? The Litter Permit gives animal control permission to inspect your premises at any time without a search warrant. Instead of buying a Litter Permit, many pet owners will just tell Animal Control to take the dog when they have a litter. Canvassing was discontinued in San Mateo County, CA, in 1992 because “it was not cost effective and didn’t promote any goodwill whatsoever.”

These proposals will only result in more animals killed and exacerbate animal problems, which are loose animals in low income neighborhoods and feral cats. RPOA sent information to the El Paso Times, mayor, city manager and city council members and included a 5 page document of Solutions to Animal Problems without a legislative component. Please contact the city officials below to express opposition to this Proposal.

El Paso City Officials:
2 Civic Center Plaza 10th Floor
El Paso, TX 79901

Mayor John Cook Fax: (915) 541-4501
City Manager Joyce A. Wilson Fax: (915) 541-4866
Councilwoman Ann Morgan Lilly Fax: (915) 541-4380
Councilwoman Susie Byrd Fax: (915) 541-4348
Councilman Alejandro Lozano Fax: (915) 541-4258
Councilwoman Melina Castro Fax: (915) 541-4213
Councilman Presi Ortega Fax: (915) 541-4360
Councilman Eddie Holquin, Jr. Fax: (915) 541- 4262
Councilman Steve Ortega Fax: (915) 541-4134
Councilman Beta O’Rourke Fax: (915) 541-4300

Responsible Pet Owners Alliance
900 NE Loop 410 #205-D
San Antonio, TX 78209
Phone: (210) 822-6763
Fax: (210) 822-9038

CALIFORNIA

Subject: AKC Legislative Alert: CA Governor Signs SB861 Into Law

Despite months of strong opposition from countless responsible California dog owners and a host of animal organizations including the American Kennel Club, the Sacramento Council of Dog Clubs and The Animal Council, Governor Schwarzenegger signed SB861 into law on Friday, October 7th. The legislation takes effect January 1st, and several municipalities have already indicated their intent to move forward with mandatory spay/neuter requirements for certain breeds. We encourage all dog owners to remain vigilant for these types of proposals and to begin preparing grassroots opposition campaigns now. Preparation should include development of reasonable dangerous dog legislation as that can be offered as an alternative to breed-specific ordinances. Should a discriminatory measure be introduced in your community, please contact the AKC's Canine Legislation Department for assistance
To view this entire alert, please click on the following link: AKC News

Canine Legislation Department
American Kennel Club

A Legislative Alert has been posted on the AKC's Web site by the Canine Legislation Department of the American Kennel Club.

San Francisco Passes Breed-Specific Mandatory Spay/Neuter
Thursday, November 17, 2005

Yesterday, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors unanimously approved a breed-specific ordinance that will require "pit bull" owners in the city and county to spay or neuter their dogs unless they obtain a $100 breeding permit. The legislation defines "pit bulls" as American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers and any dog displaying the physical traits of these breeds. Fines for failing to comply range from $100 to $1000 and can, on the second offense, include six months in county jail. The ordinance was passed despite strong opposition from AKC, other animal interest groups, and responsible dog owners.

To view this entire alert click on the following link: AKC News

COLORADO

Proposed Pit Bull Ban Loses Some Of Its Bark
City Considers Allowing Only Residents To Have Dogs, But With Restrictions

POSTED: 9:59 am MDT September 27, 2005
UPDATED: 10:53 am MDT September 27, 2005

AURORA, Colo -- The City of Aurora has decided to move forward with a proposed pit bull ban after months of discussion. For the first time, the entire Aurora City Council met Monday night in a study session to talk about the proposed ban on pit bulls. The council members decided they want to move ahead with a ban that would grandfather in current pit bulls living in the city if the owners decide to meet certain requirements.

As of now, Aurora said all pit bull owners must be at least 21 years old, must pay a $600 annual license fee, must muzzle their dog when they're away from the home and purchase liability insurance of at least $100,000. If owners don't purchase a license within 60 days after the ban is enacted, the dog could be put to death. Owners must also spay and neuter their dogs, keep them securely on their property and post a warning sign about pit bulls near the front door.

Although most pit bull owners feel this ban is unfair and unnecessary, the city said something must be done because more dogs are showing up in Aurora these days because of Denver's ban on the dogs. "We are also having problems with this particular breed. They are the No. 1 bite breed represented in the city at the current time. They also are the No. 1 animal that is impounded at the animal shelter," said Cheryl Conway with Aurora Animal Care.

Several owners complained that the new ban groups good and bad owners in the same category -- essentially punishing responsible pet owners. Before the ordinance becomes law, the city council must still hold public hearings and then take a final vote. So far, two metro area cities have passed some form of a pit bull ban. On May 9 Denver banned all the dogs from city limits. Starting Nov. 1, Commerce City will ban new pit bulls from coming into the city. Current Commerce City residents will be allowed to keep them, as long as they meet registration and insurance requirements.

ILLINOIS

Canine Legislation Department
American Kennel Club

Illinois Dog Owners Face Multiple BSL Threats
Friday, December 02, 2005

AKC and dog owners in Illinois are organizing against state and city measures that ban or severely restrict specific breeds of dogs. Phone calls, e-mails, and letters to legislators are urgently needed to stop these unfair proposals: For full detains click on the following link. AKC News

NEW JERSEY
,br> Here is a complete list of contact info for both the sponsors of NJ A. 4425 - Dog Trainers Licensing Act AND the contact information for the COMMITTEE which this bill was assigned to!
SPONSORS:
Assemblyman CHRISTOPHER J. CONNORS - Republican
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/connorc.asp
District Office: 620 West Lacey Rd., Forked River, NJ 08731 (609)-693-6700

Assemblyman BRIAN E. RUMPF - Republican
http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/members/rumpf.asp
District Office: 620 West Lacey Rd., Forked River, NJ 08731 (609)-693-6700

NATIONAL

PAWS (Pet Animal Welfare Statute of 2005)

A Senate Subcommittee hearing was held on November 8, 2005. Following that the AKC sent a lengthy email with questions and answers regarding this proposed statute to the AKC delegate email list. There has been a significant amount of misinformation about this proposed statute you may find it of interest to review these questions and answers plus some other discussions regarding this from the same list list. The following link will take you to this material.
PAWS Senate Subcommittee Hearing

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, and are provided for informational purposes only."

Last Updated: 12/13/2005, 9:59 am