United States Blue Kerry Terrier Club, Inc.
About Us
About Breed Info Events Community Contact Us Donations Join Us Shop Rescue Search USKBTC Home

Content in this Section:

The Working Kerry
Is The Kerry A Dog For You?
The Kerry As A Pet
Grooming
Training
Breeding
Feeding Your Kerry
Paint Them Warts and. . .
Herding
Kerries On The Loose
Agility With Nicky
Considering Purchasing A Puppy?
The Comical Life
Shakespeare Goes to Montgomery
Kerry Blue Terrier Collectibles
Scissor Search
Ear Pasting
Post Clippering Suggestions
Labour and Delivery
A Word About Pet Stores
Looking for the Right Dog
"Winterize" Your Dog
And Baby Makes Four
Training Tidbits
Trained Dog=Better Citizen
Terriers in the Mix
Kerrytoons
The Literate Kerry (Vol. 1)
The Literate Kerry (Vol. 2)
Talk to Your Kerry
The Literate Kerry (Vol. 3)
The Literate Kerry (Vol. 4)
Fireworks Worries
Fireworks Survival Tips
The Literate Kerry (Vol. 5)
The Literate Kerry (Vol. 6)
The Literate Kerry (Vol. 7)
Unstinking a Skunked Dog
The Literate Kerry (Vol. 8)
Training Tidbits - Part 2
The Literate Kerry (Vol.10)
The Literate Kerry (Vol.11)
AKC Forms
Legislative News (Dec04)
Adult Kerries, Puppy & Litter Information
The Literate Kerry (Vol.13)
Legislative News (Jan.05)
Lead Training for Puppies
Legislative News (Feb. 05)
Performance Newsletter 2/05
The Literate Kerry (Vol.14)
Legislative News March-April 05
Legislative News April-May05
Shampoo Tips
Legislative News May -June 05
Loss Prevention Tips
Legislative News 7- 05
Caution In The Kitchen (AKC Gazette)
Legislative News Summer 05
My Most Special Dog
Holiday Foods Can Upset Your Pet
PAWS Senate Subcommittee Hearing
Legislative News Oct-Nov 05
Picture Yourself with a KBT
Legislative Newsletter 1/06
Family & Pet Friendly Gardens & Lawns
Identify Your Dogs
Paws to Remember
Cold Weather Canine Care
Disaster Preparedness
Responsible Dog Ownership Day
AKC GAZETTE Columnist
The Kerry Hearing Dog
Early Neurological Stimulation
Legislative News 10/07
Legislative News 11/07
Legislative News 12/07
Legislative News 1/08
Legislative News 2/08
Legislative News II 2/08
Legislative News 3/08
Legislative News 4/08
Responsible Dog Owners
Breed Information: Living With Kerries
  Legislative Newsletter 1/06

USKBTC Legislative Newsletter
January 2006

Legislative activity across the nation has been “fast and furious” on both the local and state level. The PAWS issue is still active. Proposed bills have ranged from Breed Specific legislation to ear cropping restrictions, breeding limits and licensing requirements and many other restrictions that could affect our ownership of the dogs we love and restrict our activities. This report is only a sample of what is going on across our country and with the speed action is taking place some may be already in place while others are still in progress. Please get involved in your local and state arena. Get informed and act to stop those bills that are overly restrictive to our rights as dog owners.

NEW JERSEY
AKC Legislative Alert: 'Pit Bull' Bill Introduced Again in New Jersey
[Tuesday, January 24, 2006]
Sen. Sharpe James has once again introduced his annual version of the Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Licensing Act (S801). Nearly identical legislation was introduced and soundly defeated in two previous sessions. S801 would allow a municipality to:

  • Require a special license for all "pit bulls" ($150-700)—including "American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers, Staffordshire Terriers and any dog determined to be a pit bull type." Licenses may be denied to anyone who has been convicted of a criminal offense or animal cruelty, as well as anyone who lives with someone convicted of those crimes.
  • Require anyone who owns a dog to prove that it ISN'T a pit bull (municipality will visually inspect the dog to determine whether it is a pit bull). Very few municipalities have staff with any breed identification knowledge or experience.
  • Require confinement in a permanent enclosure (including a secure pen AND a 6-ft. fence).
  • Require pit bulls to be muzzled when off owner's property and leashed (3-feet long or less). Also, the leash must be approved by an animal control officer.
  • Send an animal control officer to inspect the enclosure and the licensee's property at least monthly.
  • Require liability insurance for owners.
  • Violators are subject to fine up to $1000/day.
  • Seized dogs will be placed in no-kill shelter until properly adopted or until the dog dies of natural causes.
For the full article please click on the following link AKC News


AKC LEGISLATIVE ALERT
As expected, legislation that would allow cities and counties to enact breed-specific legislation has once again been introduced in Oklahoma, this year by Sen. Cliff Aldridge. S1569 would repeal an existing law that forbids regulating dogs by breed. This new Legislative Alert has been posted on the AKC's Web site. To view this alert, please click on the following link AKC News

Canine Legislation Department
Multiple Breed-Specific Bills Introduced in Oklahoma
[Thursday, January 26, 2006]
Four separate bills providing for the repeal of Oklahoma's ban on breed-specific legislation have now been introduced. These include S1569 by Sen. Cliff Aldridge and S1702 by Sen. Susan Paddack. Rep. Paul Wesselhoft is also moving forward with his promise to allow cities and counties to enact breed-specific legislation through the introduction of two bills: H2657 and H2658. To view this entire alert, please click on the following link AKC News VIRGINIA
AKC LEGISLATIVE ALERT
Under a new bill proposed in Virginia, all dogs and cats acquired from dealers, hobby breeders, pet shops and adoption agencies would be have to be sterilized and microchipped. Sponsored by Sen. W. Roscoe Reynolds, S55 defines a "dealer" as any person who sells or transfers companion animals (with the exception of rescue groups). The bill further defines "hobby breeder" as one who breeds and places one litter per year. Responsible dog breeders will most certainly be impacted by this legislation! This new Legislative Alert has been posted on the AKC's Web site. To view this alert, please click on the following link AKC News

COLORADO
AKC LEGISLATIVE ALERT
At the behest of the Colorado Municipal League, Sen. Lewis Entz has introduced S54, a bill that would once again permit cities and counties to enact breed-specific ordinances. A state law prohibiting such legislation was enacted in 2004 with support from the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs and other concerned animal organizations. This new Legislative Alert has been posted on the AKC's Web site. To view this alert, please click on the following link AKC News

UPDATE
Colorado Bill Would Once Again Permit BSL (UPDATED)
[Wednesday, January 25, 2006]
UPDATE!
The Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs reports that S54 was heard by the Local Government committee today on Tuesday, January 24th. 8 witnesses testified in opposition to the bill, including the Colorado Federation of Dog Clubs, with only one in support. The committee subsequently voted 4-3 to defeat the bill and then postponed it indefinitely. Congratulations to all concerned dog owners who contributed to this win!

CALIFORNIA
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 19, 2005
West Hollywood, CA: “We will now take steps to ensure that the ordinance is rescinded and that the city refrains from enforcement thereof.” Please see CA Vet. Medical Assoc.
CALIFORNIA VETERINARY MEDICAL ASSOCIATION APPLAUDS COURT DECISION ON WEST HOLLYWOOD LAWSUIT
Decision affirms powers of state consumer protection boards
Los Angeles: On November 30, 2005, the California Superior Court in Los Angeles ruled in favor of the California Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and against the city of West Hollywood, California in a case that drew international attention. The CVMA sued the city of West Hollywood in March 2005 to overturn the city’s ordinance banning animal declawing, except for defined “therapeutic” purposes, within city limits. The November 30 ruling upheld the CVMA’s assertion that local ordinances may not infringe on licensed professionals’ state-granted rights to practice within the scope of their licenses. The ruling affirms the authority of the state’s regulatory framework and the powers of state consumer protection boards.

“Judge Bascue’s ruling sends a clear message to West Hollywood and all other California cities that local municipalities cannot pass ordinances that ignore the authority of California’s state licensing and regulatory oversight boards,” said CVMA President Eric Weigand, DVM. The practice of veterinary medicine is highly regulated in California, and the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act specifically regulates whatveterinarians may or may not do within the scope of practicing veterinary medicine. The California legislature has delegated to the California Veterinary Medical Board the authority to carry out and enforce the provisions of the Veterinary Medicine Practice Act.

“The court reached the proper ruling,” said CVMA attorney Daniel Baxter of Wilke Fleury Hoffelt Gould & Birney, LLP. “We will now take steps to ensure that the ordinance is rescinded and that the city refrains from enforcement thereof.” It’s important to have one set of rules regulating the practice of veterinary medicine in California. If each one of the 478 California cities had its own set of rules, it would be confusing for pet owners and difficult for veterinarians to provide care for pets. Ultimately, this could create a chaotic situation. “Decisions regarding the practice of veterinary medicine should be left to veterinarians, who have the best interests of the patient and animal owners in mind,” added Dr. Weigand. “The court’s decision ensures that pets in West Hollywood and throughout California will receive the best care available, as consistently regulated by California law.”

The CVMA is not alone in disputing cities that pass local ordinances thatconflict with state regulations. The California Department of ConsumerAffairs, which regulates veterinarians in California, issued an opinion a year ago that emphasized local governments are prohibited from enacting legislation in an area already regulated by a state agency. For more information about this press release, or to schedule interviews with CVMA spokespersons, contact Melissa Stallings at the CVMA at (916)649-0599. To access past CVMA press releases, visit the CVMA Media Center in the News Room at CVMA

The California Veterinary Medical Association is the largest state veterinary medical association in the United States, with more than 5,400 members. Founded in 1888, its mission is to serve its membership and community through innovative leadership and to improve animal and human health in an ethically and socially responsible manner.

VERMONT
Update on ear cropping bill:
VT Ear Cropping Bill Moves Forward
(Wednesday, February 01, 2006)
S250, a bill to prohibit ear cropping in Vermont, passed out of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Friday and now moves to the full Senate. The bill was amended slightly to clarify that owners will not be penalized if they have their dogs' ears cropped in another state where the practice is legal. The new version also includes references to Vermont veterinarians' general support for the bill, as well as a list of countries that currently ban ear cropping. Please click on link for more information. AKC News

A new Legislative Alert has been posted on the AKC's Web site.
VT Considers Ban on Ear Cropping
[Wednesday, January 04, 2006]
Sen. Ann Cummings has introduced S250, a bill to prohibit ear cropping in Vermont. Violators would face a civil penalty of up to $3,000 for a first offense. Those who commit subsequent violations or who perform the procedure without anesthesia would face criminal charges. The bill does not prohibit owning, showing, buying or selling a dog with cropped ears. Licensed veterinarians would be permitted to perform ear cropping procedures only for "therapeutic purposes." According to S250, prevention of ear infections will not be considered therapeutic. To view this alert, please click on the following link AKC News

INDIANA
Marion, Indiana - Needs help
GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. _42_-2005,AN ORDINANCE AMENDING GENERAL ORDINANCE NO. 13-2000,ANIMAL CONTROL ORDINANCE
General Ordinance No. 13-2000 is hereby amended and replaced as follows:
It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of The City of Marion by reducing the number of stray dogs and cats and to regulate the breeding practices of pet owners and breeders through legislation which is both reasonable and enforceable. The council finds that each year thousands of dogs and cats are euthanized in the City of Marion because they are not wanted.
(A)Definitions. For purposes of this ordinance, the following terms shall be defined as set forth below:
  1. Animal means any living non human, warm or cold blooded, vertebrate creature, or reptile, domestic or wild.
  2. Animal Shelter means any premises designated by the City as a site for impounding and caring for animals, confined under this Code section.
  3. Animal Control Officer means those persons designated by the Animal Control Service to enforce this Code section.
  4. Animal Control Service means the persons, partnership, corporation, association, or society designated by the Common Council of the City of Marion to enforce this ordinance.
  5. Owner means any person owning, harboring, or keeping any animal.
  6. Restraint means confinement to the premises of the owner, while on or being outside those premises while accompanied by a responsible person keeping control of the animal, being on a leash, chain, or confinement in a fenced area.
  7. Abandonment means the voluntary relinquishment of possession by the Owner with the intention of terminating his or her ownership for 72 hours, but without vesting possession in any other person.
  8. Dog House means housing that is specifically made for housing of a dog, with an opening on one side for the animal to enter, and with a roof or an "igloo" style.
  9. Humane Society means the Marion Grant County Humane Society, Inc.
  10. Identification means bearing either a microchip, rabies tag, tag with owner's name, address, phone number, or tattoo applied by a licensed veterinarian.
  11. Unaltered animals means an animal that is intact or has not been spayed or neutered.
(B)No owner shall fail to keep any of his or her animals under restraint at all times. All dogs and cats must have some type of identification at all times. Any person who violates this provision of this code and upon deemed guilty shall pay a fine not less than Fifty Dollars ($50.00) for the first offense, One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for second offense, and Two Hundred and Twenty Five Dollars ($225.00) for third offense.
  1. Provided, however, if the unrestrained animal causes bodily injury to another person or animal the fine will be not less than One Hundred Twenty Five Dollars ($125.00) and the Court shall conduct a vicious canine hearing relating to the animal.
(C)Unrestrained animals may be taken by the City Police Department or an animal control officer, and impounded in a animal shelter, and there confined in a humane manner. Impounded animals shall be kept for not less than (72) hours unless reclaimed by their owners. Animals not reclaimed by their owners within seventy-two (72) hours may be humanely disposed of by the Animal Control Service or adopted by a new owner.

(D) An owner reclaiming an impounded animal shall pay a fee to the person in charge of the animal shelter. That fee shall be equal to the actual cost of housing the animal, not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) per day. If those fees are not paid, the animal shall be humanely disposed of or adopted by a new owner. The owner shall be deemed guilty of an ordinance violation.

(E) This section of the ordinance shall apply to unaltered cats and dogs to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents of the city by reducing the number of stray dogs and cats.
  1. Every owner of an unaltered dog or cat that is a least six months of age shall obtain an "unaltered animal license" annually, for each dog or cat, issued by the Humane Society for the amount of forty-three dollars ($43.00). The forty-three dollars ($43.00) shall be deposited in a fund set up by the Humane Society that is specifically for altering animals at a discount for qualified members of the community. (a) If an unaltered animal is found without an "unaltered animal license", the animal shall be impounded by the Animal Control until the owner obtains the proper license. If the license is not obtained within Seventy-two (72) hours, said animal shall become the property of the Animal Control and either humanely disposed of or adopted to a new owner. (b) If an owner obtains and "unaltered animal license" and within 30 days gets said animal altered, than the fee of the license shall be reimbursed back to the owner. (c) Revocation of "unaltered animal license". The "unaltered animal license" shall be revoked if the owner allows his or her animal be unrestrained two times or be outside of a secured six sided enclosure while in estrus (heat) or to produce a litter of young. (i) After the Animal Control Service has filed a complaint in the municipal court, the court after hearing all the evidence shall make a final determination as to whether the person should have his or her license revoked. If the court finds that revocation is appropriate, it shall enter a judgment ordering alteration of said animal within Thirty (30) days. (ii) If the owner does not comply to have his or her animal altered the owner shall be subject to a habitual offender hearing. (d) An "unaltered animal license" shall not be required for dogs used by law enforcement agencies, service dogs, or animals not suitable for alteration as certified by a licensed veterinarian.
  2. Any dog or cat adopted, sold, given away, or traded by the humane society to a new owner of the city must be spayed or neutered by the age of six months or within 30 days, whichever is later. If the animal is not spayed or neutered by said time for the cost of the alteration. The owner shall be cited with a violation of this provision. If the owner is found guilty the fine shall be the cost of the alteration.
  3. Major Breeder's Permit. (a) A major breeder's permit shall be obtained by: (1) Any person who intentionally causes the breeding of multiple cats or dogs or makes a cat or dog available for breeding purposes; or (2) Any person who offers for sale, sells, trades, or receives other compensation for the young of a cat or dog. (b) The breeder shall: (1) Not allow the birthing of more than one litter per female dog or cat in a 12-month period; and (2) Furnish the Animal Shelter with information on the birth of each litter of dogs or cats as may be required by the Animal Shelter to register that litter of dogs or cats with Animal Control, and to be assigned a litter number for each litter. The breeder of this litter must obtain the name, address, phone number of buyer, and must immunize all animals in each litter. (c) The cost of the Major Breeder's Permit shall be $100.
  4. Minor Breeders Permit. (a) A minor breeder's permit shall be obtained by: (1) Any person who intentionally or accidentally causes the breeding of a single cat or dog; or (2) Any owner or person having custody of a dog or cat that has delivered a litter or caused the delivery of a litter, who chooses not to relinquish the animal to the Animal Shelter and also chooses not to have the animals spayed or neutered shall cause the animal to be implanted with a microchip and register the dog or cat within 30 days of having received notice to accomplish this procedure for Animal Control; (b) Any such person shall: (1) Be allowed to breed only one dog or one cat which results in the birthing of maximum of one litter in a 12-month period; (c) Any owner or person having custody of a dog or cat which has delivered a litter, who chooses not to relinquish said animal to the animal control and also chooses not to have the animal neutered, will be required to purchase a major breeder's permit at the rate of $100 plus any applicable kennel/cattery permit fee. The permit shall be issued provided all requirements of this section are met.(d) The cost of a minor breeder's permit shall be $50. Provided, however, that the breeder may be reimbursed $40 of the $50 cost in the event that the breeder spays or neuters the breeding animal within 10 weeks of the birth of the litter.
(F) No owner shall allow his or her animals to become a public nuisance. Animals who engage in excessive, continuous or untimely barking, harassing persons, chasing vehicles, habitually attacking other animals, trespassing upon school grounds, or trespassing, damaging private property shall be deemed a public nuisance, and shall be impounded.

(G) The person responsible for any animal which has bitten a person or another animal must report the incident to the Animal Control Agency, or local Law Enforcement. Any animal which bites a person, or which has possibly been exposed to rabies, shall be quarantined for not less than ten (10) days in an animal shelter, in a kennel, or with a veterinarian. During quarantine, if the animal is confined in the animal shelter, a charge equal to the actual cost of housing the animal, not to exceed fifty dollars ($50.00) per day shall be paid to the Humane Society. Also during the quarantine period, the owner must vaccination certificate for his cat or dog that is being quarantined. If proof of vaccination cannot be supplied, the animal will be vaccinated by a veterinarian at the owner's expense before release. Upon receiving information about any animal which has bitten a person or which has possibly been exposed to rabies, the Police Department shall notify the animal shelter. If a veterinarian determines that an animal in quarantine is a possible rabies carrier, the County Health Office shall be notified. Any necessary action shall be to confirm the diagnosis and disposal of the animal.

(H) Each owner of a dog/cat which dog/cat is above the age of six (6) months must procure a rabies vaccination for the animal. At the time of the vaccination, the owner shall purchase a rabies tag from the veterinarian. The animal must wear the tag at all times. Any person who is found to have violated this provision of this code shall pay a fine of not less than Thirty-five dollars ($35.00) for the first offense, Seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the second offense and One hundred twenty-five ($125.00) for the third offense.
  1. However if the unvaccinated animal causes bodily injury to another person or animal the fine will be not less than One hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) and the Court shall conduct a vicious canine hearing relating to the animal.

(I) This section of the code applies to the care of animals:
  1. No owner shall recklessly fail to provide animals with sufficient good and wholesome food and water. Any person who violates this provision and found guilty shall pay a fine not less than Fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense, One hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense, and Two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225.00) for the third offense.
  2. No owner shall recklessly fail to provide animals with proper shelter and protection from the weather. Any person who violates this provision and found guilty shall pay fine not less than Fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense, One hundred dollars ($100.00) for second offense, and Two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225.00) for third offense.
  3. No person shall recklessly fail to provide veterinary care for animals. As used in this section, "veterinary care" means proper grooming, medical treatment, and vaccinations against common disease. Tail docking, ear cropping, or spay/neutering, when done by an individual who is not a licensed veterinarian, is a violation of this section. Any person who is found to have violated this provision shall pay a fine not less than Seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the first offense, Two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225.00) for the second offense, and Three hundred sixty dollars ($360.00) plus be deemed a habitual offender for the third offense.
  4. No person shall recklessly beat, cruelly ill-treat, torment, overload, overwork, or otherwise abuse any animal. Any person who is found to have violated this provision shall pay a fine not less than Seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for the first offense, Two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225.00) for the second offense, and Three hundred sixty dollars ($360.00) plus be deemed as a habitual offender for the third offense.
  5. No person shall harbor any animal for the purpose of animal fighting. If an owner possesses, harbors, or trains an animal that is bearing a scar, a wound, or an injury consistent with participation in or training for animal fighting contests, such evidence shall be prima facie evidence of the commission of harboring an animal for fighting purposes. Any person found guilty of this provision shall pay a fine not less than Eight hundred dollars ($800.00) for the first offense, Two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) and be deemed as a habitual offender for the second offense. Any animal found in this condition shall be impounded at the Animal Shelter until a judgment has been made in a court of law.(a) If a person is found guilty of harboring animals for the purpose of fighting, the animals that are in question shall become the property of the Humane Society and be humanely disposed of.(b) If the person is found not guilty of this provision he/she is not liable for any expenses occurred while animal is housed at the Animal Shelter and the animals in question shall be returned to the owner.
  6. No owner shall abandon any animal. If a person is found guilty of this provision the fine shall be not less than Fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense, One hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense, and Two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225.00) for the third offense.
  7. No person shall own, store, sell, or purchase any animal fighting paraphernalia including, but not limited to, treadmills, cat mills, spring poles, or animal fighting literature. Animal fighting literature can only be purchased by Animal Control Services for the purpose of investigation. Any person found guilty of this provision shall pay a fine of not less than Six hundred dollars ($600.00) for the first offense, One thousand four hundred dollars ($1,400.00) for the second offense, and Two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) plus be deemed as a habitual offender for the third offense.

(J) No animal shall be tied or fastened by any rope, chain, or cord that is directly attached to the animal's neck. Restrained animals must wear a properly fitted collar or harness made of leather or nylon, not of the choker type. This is not to prohibit the proper use of choker collars in the training of animals. The tying device shall be attached to theanimal's collar or harness and shall be at least twelve (12) feet of free length. All animals tethered on the owner's property shall not be able to get closer than three (3) feet from any fence or from another tethered animal. No animal will be tethered for 24 hours per day. Reasonable exercise will be provided for the animal by the owner.

(K) Animals found in cruel, abusive, neglectful situations or abandoned, as defined in the section above, may be promptly impounded if no immediate contact with a responsible person can be made; provided however, that the Animal Control Officer shall attempt to leave written notice on the door of the residence telling the location of the animal and the reason for impoundment. Animals so removed will be impounded and held at the Animal Control Agency or designated facility until such time the violator is in compliance with this chapter; provided, however, that in no event shall this period exceed three (3)days, at which time the animal shall become the property of the Animal Control Agency, unless an extension is necessary for the Animal Control Officer to have ample time to prepare a court case if prosecution is warranted. In the case of animals impounded for quarantine at the Animal Control Agency, the animal will become property of the Agency if not claimed by closing time of the Agency on the eleventh day of quarantine. Animals impounded for reasons beyond the control of the owner, such as, but not limited to, house fire, death of the owner or arrest of the owner, will be held for 10 days during which time a reasonable effort will be made to contact the owner and/or their representative. After the tenth day of impoundment, the animal will become the property of the Animal Control Agency. An Animal awaiting disposition by the court shall remain in the custody of the Animal Control Agency, unless such disposition is made, or placed in a foster home until legal arrangements have been completed. Animals so removed may be transported to a licensed veterinarian for examination and/or treatment. If, in the opinion of said veterinarian, the animal must be destroyed, euthanasia will be performed immediately. Cost of treatment, euthanasia and/or care shall be the responsibility of the owner/agent.

(L) All animals kept inside or in a pen, tied, fastened, leashed, or enclosed by a fence shall be kept in a sanitary manner. No animal shall be kept in feces, mud, water, or with any debris. The person responsible for the animals shall regularly maintain all areas of the animal confinement. Any person found guilty of this provision shall pay a fine not less than Fiftydollars ($50.00) for the first offense, One hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense, and Two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225.00) for the third offense.

(M) Persons responsible for an animal, except visually impaired person working with service dogs, shall immediately remove the animal's excrement from public lands, sidewalks and right of way (property between sidewalks and streets) or from the property of another.

(N) Any person operating a motor vehicle who causes injury or death to an animal shall stop at once, assess the extent of injury, and immediately notify the owner or the Animal Control Service or the Police Department.

(O) No animals shall be left unattended in a vehicle in excessive heat (based upon Standardized Veterinarians Report) or when the conditions in that vehicle would constitute a health hazard to the animal.

(P) This section of the ordinance shall apply to "vicious canines".
"Vicious canines include:
  1. Any canine which, according to the record of the appropriate authority; provided, this section shall not apply to animals under the control of a law enforcement or military agency:(a) Did bite or attack once, causing wounds or injuries creating a potential danger to the health or life of a human being without provocation in a public or private place where the person was conducting himself peacefully and lawfully; (b) Required defense action by any person to prevent physical injury or property damage, where the dog has acted without provocation, in a public or private place where the person was conducting himself peacefully and lawfully; (c) Could not be controlled or restrained at the time of a bite or attack upon a animal or person; and
  2. Any canine owned, harbored or trained primarily or in part for the purpose of canine fighting.

(Q) A canine shall be declared a "vicious canine" only after the Animal Control Service has received an Affidavit of Complaint by an individual under oath, stating all pertinent facts to support the allegation that the canine is vicious. If the Animal Control Service determines the complaint is valid, the Animal Control Services shall file a complaint in municipal court. The City Judge, after hearing all the evidence, shall make the final determination as to whether the dog qualifies as a "vicious canine".
  1. Any owner of a dog which qualifies under these statues as a "vicious canine" must: (a) Register the canine with the Animal Control Service within three (3) months of the effective date of the ordinance, which registration shall include two color photographs of the canine. (b) Notify the Animal Control Service immediately if the canine is given or sold to a new owner, providing the Animal Control Service with the new owner's name, address, and telephone number. Registration will continue, but the new owner must comply with the other provisions of this statute. (c) Notify the Animal Control Service immediately if the canine becomes loose or unconfined, attacks livestock, another domestic animal or human being, or inflicts any property damage. (d) Notify the Animal Control Service of all offspring born to the canine.(e) Notify the Animal Control Service of the death of the canine.(f) Confine the canine in a humane way inside or outside of the owner's property, in a "secure enclosure" (as described in Section E of this Code) so that it cannot escape of its own volition. The owner's property must contain a sign easily readable to the public saying "Beware of Dog". (g) Allow the canine to go off the owner's premises only when it is muzzled and kept on a leash or restraint, no more than six feet long, under the control of a responsible person.(h) The canine must be "tattooed" or have a microchip placed in the animal by a licensed veterinarian.(j) Upon a second unrelated bite conviction, the canine may become the property of the Marion-Grant County Humane Society, by order of the Court, to be humanely disposed of. A violation of this section of the ordinance shall be subject to the penalties described in all other parts of the ordinance. In addition, the City Judge in his/her discretion can order the canine impounded in the Humane Society, at the owner's expense, until the owner complies with the terms of this section, or can order the destruction of the animal when necessary, to preserve the public health, safety and the welfare of the community.

(R) No owner shall keep more than four dogs or cats, in any combination, that are over 6 months of age that are unaltered. This does not apply to any government animal control agencies, animal rescue organizations, humane societies, or societies for the prevention of cruelty to animals that have implemented an ongoing spay/neutering plan. All unaltered cats and dogs over the amount of four shall be removed by the animal control service and upon found guilty of this provision shall pay a fine of Fifty dollars ($50.00) for the first offense, One hundred dollars ($100.00) for the second offense, and Two hundred twenty-five dollars ($225.00) and be deemed as a habitual offender for third offense.

(S) No person shall place or keep any of the following animals within the city limits of the City of Marion: any and all hoofed animals, including but not limited to poultry, equine (horses, mules), porcine (pigs), bovine (cattle), sheep or goats. This section shall not apply to ducks, geese, or swans which are confined in an owner's yard containing a pond or other water area.

(T) It shall be unlawful and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance for any person to use, place, set or cause to be set within the city or upon lands owned by the city any traps except cage type live traps approved by the Animal Control Agency and used for the control of unrestrained or potentially dangerous animals. This prohibition shall not apply to any trap specifically designed to kill rats, mice, gophers or moles so long as the owner of the property is aware of the location where the trap(s) are set and monitors said trap(s) at least once every 24 hours. Traps discovered by the Animal Control Agency to have been unlawfully set in the city may be seized and used as prima-facie evidence that a violation hasbeen committed. Upon conviction, said trap(s) shall be forfeited to and disposed of by the Animal Control Agency.

(U) Any person who shall become apprised of the death of any animal owned by that person shall, within 12 hours thereafter, cause the same to be removed from the premises and taken to the Animal Control Agency, veterinarian or cemetery for disposal.

(V) The Animal Control Officer shall have powers in the enforcement of this Code section. No person shall interfere with, hinder, molest, abuse, or fail to provide identification to the Animal Control Officer in the exercise of these powers.

(W) Any person who violates any provision of this Code section shall be deemed guilty of an ordinance violation and upon conviction shall be fined not less than Twenty-five dollars ($25.00) for the first offense, Seventy-five dollars ($75.00) for second offense, and One hundred twenty-five dollars ($125.00) for third offense, unless any provision of this ordinance declares otherwise. The maximum fine for any offense shall be Two thousand five hundred dollars (2,500.00). Each day any violation continues or occurs shall be deemed a separate offense.

(X) A person shall be declared a habitual offender only after the Animal Control Service has filed a complaint in the municipal court. The City Judge after hearing all the evidence shall make a final determination as to whether the person qualifies as a habitual offender.
  1. A person shall be declared a habitual offender if:(a) Offender has been found guilty of four or more of the same provisions in the last seven years, or;(b) Offender has been found guilty of seven or more on any combination of the provisions in the last three years; or (c) Offender has been found guilty of a provision of this ordinance which designates the Offender as a habitual offender; or (d) Offender has been found guilty of any section of Indiana Statue Codes 35-46-3-7 thru 35-46-3-13.
  2. Any person found guilty of being a habitual offender shall not own, have possession of, or harbor any animals for a minimum of one year but not more than five years as determined by the court. Any animals owned or in the possession of the habitual offender at the time of judgment shall be surrendered to the Humane Society and become the property of the Humane Society.
  3. Any person after being found guilty of a habitual offender who continues to own, harbor, or have possession of an animal in violation of an order entered pursuant to subsection X(2) above shall pay a fine of Two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500.00) plus be subject to a court hearing for being in contempt of court.

Y. Severability and Effect. If any provisions of this ordinance or any application thereof, is held invalid, the invalidity shall not effect other applications of the provisions or terms of this ordinance which reasonable can be given effect without the invalid provision or term or the application thereof. Notwithstanding any provision of this ordinance, this ordinance shall not be construed to repeal any former ordinance as to any offense committed against such former ordinance or as to any act done, any penalty, forfeiture or punishment so incurred or any right accrued or claim arising under the former ordinance. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and any and all necessary approval by the Mayor and due publication.

PASSED AND APPROVED by the Common Council of the City of Marion, Indiana, this _____ day of _________________, 200 .
Common Council Members, City of Marion, Indiana

Alan Miller 765-677-2574
Del Garcia 765-662-9981
Steve Wright 765-668-2280
David Homer
Ann Secttor
Justin Murrell
Henry Smith 765-664-0507
Don Batchelor 765-668-4403
Mark Smith 765-677-2353
Mayor Wayne Seybold
City of Marion,Marion Municipal Building
301 S. Branson, Marion, IN 46952-4052
Phone: 765- 668-4404

CALIFORNIA
latimes.com : California Long Beach May Lift Ban on Dog Breeding
# Officials act after the American Kennel Club threatens to yank its championship show.

By Stephen Clark, Times Staff Writer
Long Beach is moving closer to lifting its long-standing ban on dog breeding after the American Kennel Club threatened to pull its lucrative championship event out of the city. The issue has sparked a debate in Long Beach, with critics of the change saying it would lead to more stray dogs that would have to be put to death by animal shelters. At stake could be millions of dollars in revenue the city receives from the Kennel Club's annual event.

"It's a passionate issue," said Vice-Mayor Jackie Kell, an outspoken animal advocate. So passionate, in fact, that another council member, Val Lerch, said he received more than 250 e-mails on the matter, easily outpacing those he got on airport expansion or a proposed liquefied natural gas plant. The controversy started in 2003, when the American Kennel Club warned city officials that the ban could stand in the way of Long Beach becoming the home of its championship event. The club promotes the breeding and welfare of purebred dogs. The ban prohibits anyone from breeding dogs — or any other animal — within city limits or operating kennels for the purpose of breeding. But it fails to provide the city with the ability to consistently monitor or manage dog breeding, city officials said.

"We have illegal breeding in the city, but we can't do anything about it unless someone discovers it or tells," said Kell, who sits on the board of the Golden State Humane Society. Long Beach is one of the few remaining cities in the state that ban breeding. City officials decided this year to draft a proposal allowing dog breeding on a limited basis. Dog activists contend that breeding would lead to a lower rate of adoptions of stray dogs from shelters, and then more dogs would be killed. They would rather see the breeding ban — in effect since 1982 — strengthened.

"This is like a slap in the face. There are no shortage of dogs or pets," an activist told council members at a recent City Council meeting. Legal breeding "could get out of hand. This will only mean a death sentence for more dogs." The proposal calls for a $140 breeding permit and a background check on the applicant, and it would restrict breeding to one litter per year. It also would allow animal control officers to enter the homes of suspected breeders without a warrant, making enforcement easier. But dog activists, seeking a compromise, say the proposal needs to be tightened to discourage underground breeding. They want higher permit fees to offset the costs of monitoring, and stiffer penalties that go beyond suspending or revoking a permit for violations. They also want dogs to bear microchips to keep track of them if they get lost.

At a meeting this month, the council delayed a vote on the proposal and agreed to allow dog activists to help revise it. It is to be presented in February. "That's what we were hoping for," said Justin Rudd, a local animal rights leader. Rudd said he supports responsible dog breeding, but not at the cost of euthanizing stray dogs. Jack G. Smith, president of the Long Beach Kennel Club, a local affiliate of the national group that holds regional shows in the city, said he looks forward to revising the proposal. "All ideas should come to the table and be explored," he said. "We all want the same thing."That same thing, both sides say, would mean higher adoption rates and fewer dogs euthanized. According to the Bureau of Animal Control, the kill rate of dogs has been steadily declining, but so has the number adopted. Long Beach euthanized 1,520 dogs in 2004, down from 2,053 in 2003 and 2,586 in 2002. But the number of dogs adopted in 2004 was 1,233, a drop from the 1,418 adopted in 2003 and 1,454 in 2002.

Activists fear that legal dog breeding could further worsen the chances of stray dogs being adopted. "The logic is there's not enough homes for all the animals; they're homeless," said Shirley Vaughan, president of Friends of Long Beach Animals, a nonprofit group that promotes the welfare of animals. "And if we're breeding more animals, then those animals that get placed in a home take away a place from a shelter animal." There is no evidence to support that view, said Ron Arias, director of the city health department. Few purebred dogs end up in shelters. Carol Roemer, a retired Long Beach City College art professor, supports breeding dogs — responsibly. She bred her late cairn terrier — Tykie, a purebred champion — twice in the 1990s, producing three puppies the first time and two the second. To avoid violating the ban, she bred Tykie in Garden Grove. "It's not fun to try to get around something like that because I feel like I was a responsible breeder," said Roemer, explaining that the puppies not used for showing were neutered.

Roemer wants to see an ordinance passed allowing responsible dog breeding and cracking down on breeders who use dogs "to make money." But some say the American Kennel Club holds too much sway over the city. The organization is interested in making Long Beach the permanent home of the annual championship, but a dog-breeding ban could be a deal breaker, club officials said. "We think it's a great place for the dog show," American Kennel Club spokeswoman Daisy Oaks said. But she added that the dog-breeding ban was a "sticking point" in negotiations. "We've been very clear that it's important to us if we're going to look at [Long Beach] as a permanent home." "The AKC opposes unreasonable breeding restrictions, and we support our local clubs' efforts to work with city officials to find reasonable compromises that work best in their communities," Lainie Cantrell, director of public relations, wrote in an e-mail. "We have been working with local fanciers and city officials on the Long Beach issue for the past few years, and we are pleased that Long Beach is considering removing the ban."

The annual championship, which has also been held in Orlando and Tampa, Fla., brings in millions of dollars in convention and tourism revenue. In 2003, the event brought about $4.6 million to Long Beach, along with national television exposure. It is scheduled to be held in Long Beach in 2006 and 2007. This leads many dog activists to believe that profit, not animal welfare, is the driving force behind the proposal. "Is there anyone in favor of increased breeding who is not monetarily benefiting?" an activist asked at the December City Council meeting, drawing applause from other dog activists. Animal rights leader Rudd said: "I think it's sad when it gets to that level — when dollars can speak louder than death rates." But city officials deny that the American Kennel Club is calling the shots. "I don't think the AKC has that type of influence," City Manager Gerald R. Miller said. "It wasn't the AKC that was influencing my recommendation to look at the ordinance. It was not the economic impact or national recognition. Those are good things, but I'm more pragmatic…. I saw a potential problem" with enforcing the ban. Steve Goodling, president and chief executive of the Long Beach Area Convention and Visitor's Bureau, said the championship dog show is so valuable partly because it takes place in December — a month that is usually slow for conventions. "However, that is not the main reason everyone was looking at this ordinance," he said. "The main reason is it's an ordinance that many have looked at and said it's not enforceable."

ILLINOIS
Cat Fanciers' Association
Heads up - Illinois HB4367, 1/4/06
Appropriate forwarding is appreciated.
Fanciers;
Welcome to 2006 !!
Today a very bad bill was introduced by Rep. William Black in Illinois called the "Vicious DOG Attack Victim Relief Fund Act". Low and behold HB 4367 is full of provisions very detrimental to CATS, including feral cats. And it also adds ferrets to the Animal Control Act. And it changes the dog breed specific law prohibition. You can read a short synopsis and full text (26 pages) by going to the Illinois General Assembly website - insert the bill number on the left side. http://www.ilga.gov/_ ILGA

We will be carefully analyzing this bill but an initial reading shows several reasons why CFA will urge fanciers, rescuers, pet owners and feral cat caretakers to vigorously oppose this legislation. Here are some highlights:

Many provisions in the Animal Control Act have previously applied only to dogs - HB4367 changes most of the existing law to add "and cat" as well as "and ferret". Cats could be considered "dangerous" and/or "vicious" by law. For instance a cat would be deemed a "dangerous animal" if ("unmuzzled and unleashed") he poses an "imminent THREAT of serious injury to a person" or is a cat who injures another companion animal. A "vicious" cat would be one who actually "causes physical injury" to a person. A cat owner could, after a hearing, find themselves guilty of a felony, with the animal subject to "enclosure or euthanized". The animal must be sterilized and microchipped and cannot be sold or given away without approval from the County or court. A bad-actor at a cat show or in a veterinary office could be in pretty serious trouble in Illinois.

HB4367 prohibits any "companion animal" to be "at-large" and cats may be impounded. As we have seen in other areas of the country ordinances like this can lead to feral cats, stray cats and even owned free-roaming cats being rounded up and killed. This is unheard of in a State law.

Cats would be required to be rabies vaccinated. CFA supports rabies vaccination but only for cats at risk of exposure because of the fibrosarcoma potential. Illinois is a State without a rabies threat. The 2004 National Rabies Compendium was just published in December and shows Illinois had zero cases in cats tested for rabies.

The County Boards are authorized to require registration of cats and they may impose a registration fee with a differential for intact dogs or cats. "Registration" is simply another word for a "cat tax".

The definition of feral cat has been narrowed. The term "owner" now "may include a feral cat caretaker" participating in a trap-neuter-return program. This specific designation of "owner" will deter many from initiating TNR to stop unchecked reproduction as it would mean increased liability, cat "registration" fees and compliance with the "at-large" prohibition or other laws. An "owner" would be any person who knowingly permits an animal to remain on any premises occupied by the person (This would include rental property.)

There are shelter reporting requirements for animal control that are needed.

Last but not least - HB4367 takes away the current Illinois restriction on ANY regulations or ordinances specific to breed. The bill says municipalities could not "prohibit ownership" based on breed. This opens the door to all the other laws that could be based on breed - mandatory spay/neuter, limits on numbers, etc.

This bill has been assigned to the House Rules Committee. Watch for further information and alerts with Committee contacts when the bill is scheduled for a hearing. In the meantime - please make your views known to the Author of HB4367, William Black: Representative William Black
Springfield Offic
Springfield, IL 62706
217-782-4811
217-782-1873 FAX
District Office:
7 E. Fairchild
Danville, IL 61832
217-431-1986
217-431-2088 FAX

Send us a copy of your letter.
Joan Miller, CFA Legislative Coordinator
CFA

ILLINOIS
BSL on the Move in Illinois!(From AKC Legislative Department)
[Thursday, January 12, 2006]
Immediate help is needed to stop two poorly written bills that would hurt responsible dog owners in Illinois !
HB4213 Background:
Introduced by Rep. Michael Tryon on December 1st, 2005, HB4213 automatically deems American Pit Bull Terriers, American Staffordshire Terriers, "pit bulls," Pit Bull Terriers, Rottweilers and Staffordshire Terriers vicious and requires owners of these and other dangerous dogs to maintain liability insurance . As AKC reported last month, the bill further restricts the regulations for keeping these dogs, including requiring them to be muzzled and leashed whenever outside their owners' residence, even in a fenced back-yard. Fines for violations will increase to a minimum of $1001. For the full article go to AKC News

COLORADO
Now there's a Proposed Breed Ban in Parker, Colorado...
First it was Denver, next Aurora and Commerce City, Colorado. Now Parker (just SE of Denver).
As of 1/18/06 Success! And a nice surprise.

By a unanimous vote, the Parker Town Council decided to scrap the BSL ordinance. A combination of residents, experts, vets, and dog fanciers, came together and gave great and factual testimony.

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.)
TX-RPOA E-News, January 23, 2006
Tomorrow El Paso, TX is considering amendments to their Title 7 Revision atcity council meeting to delete Mandatory Pet Microchips and Canvassing pet owners private homes for code compliance. The revision just passed lastmonth and includes an unenforceable litter/breeder permit. Our letter to the El Paso Times, city manager, mayor and city council members is below. Mayor Cook can be faxed at: (915) 541-4501. City Manager Joyce A. Wilson fax: (915) 541-4866.

TX-RPOA E-News, Tuesday, January 10, 2006
Permission to forward and crosspost.
Please contact Senator Jeff Wentworth and the San Antonio Express-News toexpress opposition to Breed Specific Legislation; contact information is below.

The San Antonio Express-News obviously has a campaign in high gear torescind our state law prohibiting breed specific legislation in Texas.Senator Jeff Wentworth has contacted the newspaper's editorial board for their support and this is their second article on the subject, the first article being very biased against certain breeds of dogs. Responsible pet owners who own these breeds weren't even mentioned which isn't unusual for the media. The Texas Municipal League has adopted a resolution for the same purpose -- seeking repeal of our state law. We'll put their resolution out on this list at a later time along with a letter to the editor from RPOA which was published last week. We strive to keep this list low volume, not easy with all the anti-pet legislation being proposed.

The woman in the news who recently had the face transplant was attacked by a Labrador Retriever, adopted from the pound. Everyone sympathizes with the victims and families of severe dog attacks, but legislation should be written to address all dogs, not certain breeds. There are now over 50 breeds of dogs named in Breed Specific Legislation. Where will it stop? Letters to the editor at the SA Express-News may be sent to: Express News
E-mails to Senator Jeff Wentworth may be sent to: Jef f Wentworth

Editorial: Legislation should protect people from vicious dogs
Web Posted: 01/08/2006 12:00 AM CST, San Antonio Express-News

Too many Texans have been killed or injured by dangerous dogs while the owners of the vicious animals avoid any criminal liability. Texas Sen. Jeff Wentworth is considering legislation that would impose stricter control and criminal liability on the owners of dangerous animals, the Express-News recently reported. The San Antonio Republican told the newspaper that he is likely to target vicious breeds of dogs. We applaud Wentworth's effort. This approach is common sense. The Express-News report noted that of 300 fatal dog attacks from 1979 through 1998, half involved pit bulls and Rottweilers. The most recent fatal pit bull attack in Bexar County was in November when a 64-year-old man was killed in southern Bexar County. Currently, state law bans regulation that treats certain breeds differently, and an owner isn't criminally liable unless a specific dog already has been deemed dangerous. For most canine breeds, an attack on humans is an aberration. With pit bulls and Rottweilers, it is no surprise. If the owners of these dogs fail to keep them restrained, they should be penalized when one of the animals attacks. Texans shouldn't have to fear being mauled when they jog, take a walk or mow their lawns.

The specifics of the legislation would be worked out before the next regular legislative session, scheduled for next year. Legislation with the same goal failed to pass in the last session, but lawmakers should try again and consider banning vicious breeds from cities. Human life and safety should always be placed ahead of animals.
Responsible Pet Owners Alliance

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: 02/01/2006, 9:45 pm

© 2008 USKBTC. All Rights Reserved.