|
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:
- Animal means any living non human, warm or cold
blooded, vertebrate creature, or reptile, domestic
or wild.
- Animal Shelter means any premises designated by
the City as a site for impounding and caring for
animals, confined under this Code section.
- Animal Control Officer means those persons
designated by the Animal Control Service to enforce
this Code section.
- 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.
- Owner means any person owning, harboring, or
keeping any animal.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Humane Society means the Marion Grant County
Humane Society, Inc.
- Identification means bearing either a
microchip, rabies tag, tag with owner's name,
address, phone number, or tattoo applied by a
licensed veterinarian.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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:
- 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
- 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".
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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
|