House Bill 124 was heard by the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee. No action was taken on the bill. Additionally, Senate Bill 95, HB 124's companion, was temporarily sidelined while the Senate dealt with Ohio's budget crisis. However, since Governor Strickland signed a new budget into law on Friday, July 17th, the AKC expects developments regarding these bills soon.
Take advantage of this additional comment period. Don't delay- contact your Law Maker Today!!!
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ohio. Show all posts
Monday, July 27, 2009
Friday, July 10, 2009
OH- City of Fairborn to enforce the ban on pit bulls
Fairborn Enforces No Pit Bull Ordinance
The ordinance banning pit bulls from the city of Fairborn passed in May 2008 and now city officials have decided to enforce it. In an interview posted on the WHIOTV.com website, City Manager Deborah McDonnell said, "We are asking residents to move the dogs to other locations and find other homes for them."
The city plans to begin the enforcement process by mailing letters to residents who own pit bulls letting them know about the ordinance.
The ordinance defines a pit bull as:
A. an American Pet Bull Terrier;
B. an American Staffordshire Terrier;
C. is an Staffordshire Bull Terrier;
D. displays the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds;
E. is of mixed breed or of other breed than listed above which breed or mixed breed is know as A pit bull, pit bull dog or pit bull terrier; or
F. exhibits those distinguishing charachterists which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for pit bull dogs or pit bull teriiers.
This same city ordinance (#1171.06, I) states that 5 dogs or cats constitues a kennel and shall be regulated as permitted within the zoning districts specified. This is not 5 INTACT dogs or cats- this is 5 total!!
The ordinance banning pit bulls from the city of Fairborn passed in May 2008 and now city officials have decided to enforce it. In an interview posted on the WHIOTV.com website, City Manager Deborah McDonnell said, "We are asking residents to move the dogs to other locations and find other homes for them."
The city plans to begin the enforcement process by mailing letters to residents who own pit bulls letting them know about the ordinance.
The ordinance defines a pit bull as:
A. an American Pet Bull Terrier;
B. an American Staffordshire Terrier;
C. is an Staffordshire Bull Terrier;
D. displays the majority of physical traits of any one (1) or more of the above breeds;
E. is of mixed breed or of other breed than listed above which breed or mixed breed is know as A pit bull, pit bull dog or pit bull terrier; or
F. exhibits those distinguishing charachterists which substantially conform to the standards established by the American Kennel Club or United Kennel Club for pit bull dogs or pit bull teriiers.
This same city ordinance (#1171.06, I) states that 5 dogs or cats constitues a kennel and shall be regulated as permitted within the zoning districts specified. This is not 5 INTACT dogs or cats- this is 5 total!!
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Puppy Mill Bills Across The Nation
Puppy Mill Bills Across the Nation
Contributed by Tammy Miller - Posted: February 27, 2009 4:58:24 PM
Thanks to Columbus Top Dogs.com out of Ohio, I'm getting regular legislative updates from its home state and from across the country.
There is a surprising level of activity on the issue of puppy mills. Here's the latest roundup on legislation that might affect mass breeders ...
Colorado - Bill introduced January 21 to limit the number of dogs breeders could maintain has been tabled.
If it comes back up, it could also mandate regular veterinary exams and prohibit those convicted of animal cruelty from gaining a breeder license.
Connecticut - The state could pass new regulations that allow double-the-money-back from stores that sell pets found to have chronic diseases or disabilities.
Illinois - Bill introduced January 19 know as Chloe's Bill. If passed it would create a Dog Breeder License Act, which would limit the number of breeding dogs to 20 for each breeder.
And -
- Prevent those convicted of felony animal abuse from obtaining a breeding license.
- Require dog breeders to house dogs in areas heated, cooled and vented - without wire flooring.
- Require stores and breeders to provide buyers with full medical histories and spay/neuter information.
Indiana - House Bill 1468 defines a commercial breeder those whelping more than 10 litters in any 12-month period. It might also ...
- Limit breeding dogs to 30 per location.
- Require registration with the state.
- Exercise once per day.
- Maintenance of sanitary conditions and proper ventilation and natural light.
- Require commercial breeder to offer a guarantee.
- Set veterinary care standards and limits on litters a breeding female can whelp each year.
This bill passed easily in the Indiana House and is set to go a Senate committee.
Montana - Columbus Top Dogs reports 189 dogs were seized from a mill in December, which prompted the introduction of an anti-hoarding bill.
Breeders with 20 or more adult dogs could be required to register with the state and submit to annual, surprise inspections.
Nebraska - Bill introduced on February 2 could by April, 2010 limit commercial breeders to 75 dogs over the age of four months. It could also set standards for breeding ages and establish standards for living conditions.
Ohio - A new bill is in the works similar to the one introduced in Indiana.
Folks in the animal welfare movement are hoping to introduce a ballot initiative in 2009 to ban dog auctions.
Oklahoma - The Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act (HB 1332) has made it out of a committee vote and next goes to the full House.
This act mandates USDA standards for kennels sending out over 25 dogs, cats, kittens or puppies each year. Cage minimum standards are included.
Pennsylvania - A house bill has pass with a 192-0 vote. This one impose criminal penalties for medical procedures not performed by a licensed vet - including c-sections, tail docking and surgeries to stop barking.
It now goes to the Senate.
Tennessee - HB 386 would require any breeder with more than 20 animals to pay a $500 licensing fee to the state. More than 40 animals increases the fee to $1,000. A mandatory inspection program is also established with minimum standards for care and housing.
Another bill might prohibit public animal sales such as those in parking lots and along the roadside. It would also prohibit the use of live animals as prizes for contests, raffles or promotion and restrict sales at flea markets.
Washington - Bills are being considered to regulate large breeders and to set humane standards such as limits to the number of dogs and standards for care and housing.
Tom Grad
Contributed by Tammy Miller - Posted: February 27, 2009 4:58:24 PM
Thanks to Columbus Top Dogs.com out of Ohio, I'm getting regular legislative updates from its home state and from across the country.
There is a surprising level of activity on the issue of puppy mills. Here's the latest roundup on legislation that might affect mass breeders ...
Colorado - Bill introduced January 21 to limit the number of dogs breeders could maintain has been tabled.
If it comes back up, it could also mandate regular veterinary exams and prohibit those convicted of animal cruelty from gaining a breeder license.
Connecticut - The state could pass new regulations that allow double-the-money-back from stores that sell pets found to have chronic diseases or disabilities.
Illinois - Bill introduced January 19 know as Chloe's Bill. If passed it would create a Dog Breeder License Act, which would limit the number of breeding dogs to 20 for each breeder.
And -
- Prevent those convicted of felony animal abuse from obtaining a breeding license.
- Require dog breeders to house dogs in areas heated, cooled and vented - without wire flooring.
- Require stores and breeders to provide buyers with full medical histories and spay/neuter information.
Indiana - House Bill 1468 defines a commercial breeder those whelping more than 10 litters in any 12-month period. It might also ...
- Limit breeding dogs to 30 per location.
- Require registration with the state.
- Exercise once per day.
- Maintenance of sanitary conditions and proper ventilation and natural light.
- Require commercial breeder to offer a guarantee.
- Set veterinary care standards and limits on litters a breeding female can whelp each year.
This bill passed easily in the Indiana House and is set to go a Senate committee.
Montana - Columbus Top Dogs reports 189 dogs were seized from a mill in December, which prompted the introduction of an anti-hoarding bill.
Breeders with 20 or more adult dogs could be required to register with the state and submit to annual, surprise inspections.
Nebraska - Bill introduced on February 2 could by April, 2010 limit commercial breeders to 75 dogs over the age of four months. It could also set standards for breeding ages and establish standards for living conditions.
Ohio - A new bill is in the works similar to the one introduced in Indiana.
Folks in the animal welfare movement are hoping to introduce a ballot initiative in 2009 to ban dog auctions.
Oklahoma - The Oklahoma Pet Quality Assurance and Protection Act (HB 1332) has made it out of a committee vote and next goes to the full House.
This act mandates USDA standards for kennels sending out over 25 dogs, cats, kittens or puppies each year. Cage minimum standards are included.
Pennsylvania - A house bill has pass with a 192-0 vote. This one impose criminal penalties for medical procedures not performed by a licensed vet - including c-sections, tail docking and surgeries to stop barking.
It now goes to the Senate.
Tennessee - HB 386 would require any breeder with more than 20 animals to pay a $500 licensing fee to the state. More than 40 animals increases the fee to $1,000. A mandatory inspection program is also established with minimum standards for care and housing.
Another bill might prohibit public animal sales such as those in parking lots and along the roadside. It would also prohibit the use of live animals as prizes for contests, raffles or promotion and restrict sales at flea markets.
Washington - Bills are being considered to regulate large breeders and to set humane standards such as limits to the number of dogs and standards for care and housing.
Tom Grad
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Bills introduced in NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
HSUS Off To Fast Start In 2009, But
Dog Owners Triumph In VA And MT
Beware Bills Introduced In NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
And Expect Legislation Soon In TX, MA, WI, MI, IN, OH, OK, AZ, NM
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived:
Dog owners will face unprecedented and potentially devastating challenges in 2009, and it will take dedication and commitment to protect our rights. Sitting on the sidelines simply is not an option. It will take standing up and making your voice count.
The radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), buoyed by the victories of 95% of the state and federal candidates it endorsed in the November general election, has struck quickly in 2009 with legislation in 10 states that would severely restrict the rights of dog owners. Our sources also tell us that HSUS-anointed legislation will be introduced shortly in at least nine more states.
HSUS has launched this full-court press in only three weeks, and dog owners must act quickly and decisively or they will be overwhelmed.
However, there is some good news. This week, dog owners won the first two rounds in Virginia and Montana with the sound defeat of mandatory spay/neuter and breed-specific legislation.
In Virginia, HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were s trongly in support of Senate Bill 1151, which would have mandated the spaying or neutering of any dog taken to an animal shelter for a second time. The legislation was killed this week by the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee by an 8-6 vote.
This bill would have had a strong impact on hunting dogs, especially, and would have opened the door to many animal rights group kidnappings of hunting and companion dogs. Animal rights group kidnappings are becoming more common, and their goal is to take dogs to distant animal shelters were they will be euthanized.
In Montana, HSUS attempted to ram through breed-specific legislation after its usual media bombardment of inflammatory news stories, but it was killed in committee by a 17-1 vote after a reported 150 dog owners attended a hearing to voice opposition. Only three people spoke in favor of the bill.
While breed-specific legislation most often is seen as about “pit bulls,” many local ordinances have extended it to several other breeds ranging from Rottweilers to German shepherds. Moreover, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is concerned about this kind of le gislation because we see hunting breeds as next on the list of HSUS targets. Animal rights group websites frequently and falsely portray hunting dogs as vicious, some states are seriously considering banning or restricting hunting with hounds, and all hunting breeds were targeted specifically in failed federal legislation just two years ago.
HSUS-inspired legislation introduced in eight other states would affect all people who raise dogs. Those states are New York, New Jersey, Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois and California. Legislation also will be introduced soon in Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is taking an active and aggressive role to defeat this legislation, which takes aim at people who raise dogs as an avocation and reflects the HSUS agenda of working toward the complete elimination of domestic animal ownership in America. We are urging dog owners to join with us to work to defeat this dangerous legislation.
Here is a synopsis of the legislation that has been introduced in each state:
New York
It looks like HSUS has learned a new trick in New York and trying for a rerun on an old one.
Legislation has been introduced that would require every dog and every dog owner to complete certified obedience training as a condition of licensing. Another bill would mandate microchipping of all dogs in order to get a license for them. Assembly Member Jose Peralta (D-Queens) introduced both bills.
AB 1540 mandates obedience training and certification. No dog could be licensed without an obedience training certificate, and no owner could buy a dog license without undergoing training. Ironically, Peralta exempts residents of his own city from the legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this kind of legislation, which places a substantial burden on dog owners, bears no relationship to the realities of most dog ownership, is a solution in search of a problem, will result in a decrease in rabies and licensing law compliance, and will cause many pets to be abandoned when their owners can’t afford the services of a certified school.
Obedience courses are not available in many rural areas, and certification inevitably leads toward favoritism toward certain methods of training that are not endorsed by many dog owners. In addition, many dog owners are skilled trainers themselves and have no need for such services.
In many urban areas, a basic obedience course costs $1,000 or more. No evidence is shown that would justify imposing this kind of burden on the vast majority of dog owners. Moreover, many people simply will not be able to afford to provide this kind of training, especially in today’s poor economy, and this will force people to abandon their pets or fly under the radar without licensing their dogs or obtaining rabies vaccinations.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
The second bill, AB 255, requires all dogs in New York to be microchipped by the age of four months.
In addition, a state registry would be created for microchip data for every dog in the state and their owners.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes mandatory microchipping, which is controversial among some dog owners. Other options are available, such as name tags or tattoos. We also strongly oppose creating a state registry, which allows animal control agencies to go on a “fishing expedition” to enforce a variety of other laws, and thus invades the privacy of everyone without cause.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
Both bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New York dog owners to=2 0contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee:
We also are studying two other pieces of New York legislation.
The first is a bill redefining a “pet dealer” in a way that might lead to including hobby breeders. Last year, failed legislation would have brought all hobby breeders under strict “pet dealer” regulations. This year’s legislation creates some ambiguity in this regard, but basically does little to change the law. This alarms us, as it might lead to an attempt to make amendments on the floor similar to last year’s bill. Here is a link:
The second bill, AB 2069 would impose stringent regulations on boarding kennels, which include training kennels and day care services. It is a backdoor approach to regulation, because it is based on health code compliance (not on animal law) and requires health department inspection and certification.
We see much potential to harm kennel owners without any good reason from this approach, which also creates a new and cumbersome level of bureaucracy.
We are very alarmed that this legislation is both an attempt to redefine animal care as a public health issue, and to give health inspectors unrestricted access to kennels when there is no proof of any relationship between kennels and human health concerns in the community. We see it as an attempt to add another unjustified regulatory burden on kennel owners.
Here is a link to the legislation:
New Jersey
New Jersey dog owners=2 0are facing one of the toughest and most restrictive pieces of breeding legislation in history this year, and a second bill will have a heavy impact on lost hunting dogs.
Anyone who sells five or more dogs, cats, puppies or kittens in a year would have to be licensed and inspected as a commercial breeder and also as a pet dealer, which means facing Draconian restrictions and truly devastating fines and penalties.
That translates into a person having only one litter of puppies a year, in most cases. Even hobby breeding of the smallest possible scale would be unable to survive this legislation.
The legislation also pays snitches to turn in breeders, and the reward can be in the thousands of dollars.
AB 1591 is sponsored by Assemblywomen Joan M. Voss (D-Bergen) and Dawn Marie Addieggo (D-Burlington). It is before the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
A breeder is defined as anyon e who sells five or more dogs and cats a year. A pet dealer is defined as anyone who sells even one dog or cat for use as pets. A breeding facility is defined as a building or kennel, including a home, where two or more dogs or cats are kept for breeding.
Those definitions snag up everyone who raises dogs, and many people who simply keep a couple of dogs for hunting or pets.
The law also prohibits anyone from selling more than 25 dogs and/or cats a year, and specifically bans brother-sister matings.
Every word in the bill is inspired by HSUS and its agenda to eliminate animal ownership in America.
Every breeder (that’s you) must register with the Department of Health, which the legislations specifically says will develop regulations and standards of care through working closely with the radical HSUS. The bill says that the regulations also will cover spaying and neutering. Specific care and kenneling requirements also are covered. Extensive paperwork, veterinary examinations, and guarantees to buyers also20are required. A veterinarian must inspect and perform stool tests on every dog or puppy no longer than 14 days before a sale.
Anyone who buys or sells a dog without the proper New Jersey license, or who violates any of the above provisions, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000, heavy fines and imprisonment.
Even a first offense for a minor technical violation will result in a $5,000 civil penalty, fines and a ban against selling a dog or cat for five years. Someone who buys a dog or cat from an unlicensed breeder faces a $1,000 penalty for the first offense.
Accused dog owners will be denied their constitutional right to a day in court. They will be allowed only an administrative hearing before the same agency that charged them.
A frightening provision is that anyone who turns in a breeder will get 10-percent of the civil penalty as a reward, but not less than $250. Snitching by animal rights fanatics could become full-time and lucrative jobs in New Jersey if this bill passes!
0A
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly urges all New Jersey dog owners to contact members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to voice clear opposition to this terrible legislation, which will destroy a lifetime of work by many of the most dedicated and high quality hobby breeders in America.
Here is a link to the committee members’ contact information:
New Jersey dog owners also face a second piece of bad legislation, AB 1568, which requires all dogs taken to an animal shelter to be sterilized before they are reclaimed by their owners.
This legislation will have a strong impact if a dog gets lost while hunting and is taken to an animal shelter by a good Samaritan, is found by an animal control officer or is kidnapped by an animal rights activist.
Exemptions are possible only for currently active show dogs or show champions. No exemption is provided for field trial, performance or hunting dogs.
In addition, a dog can meet the requirements for being spayed only by having a tattoo put on its belly by a veterinarian.
AB 1568 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein (D- Mercer and Middlesex). It’s committee assignment has not been published.
Here is a link to the text of AB 1568:
Maine
Maine’s animal control director, Norma Worley, has clearly established herself as a staunch supporter of animal rights who is pursuing a personal crusade against people who raise dogs. There have been numerous reports of confrontational approaches to dog owners and heavy-handed enforcement since Worley’s appointment, and her writing and comments quoted in newspapers closely echoes HSUS position papers. She also uses the same derogatory labels as HSUS to describe people who raise dogs.
Worley rammed restrictive draft legislation through a task force, and now has presented it to the Legislature. The task force made few changes in the draft legislation prepared by Worley, and she wrote a report to the Legislature that ignored the views of most dog ownership advocates and made it falsely appear that they concurred. The attached minority reports recommended even tougher laws, and the Maine Federation of Dog Clubs refused to submit a minority report because of the biased nature of the participants and process.
This legislation would strip away dog owners’ constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment under the law, and eliminate constitutional requirements for search warrants, seizure warrants and appeals to a court of law. It is typical of all HSUS-backed legislation, which is designed to reduce dog owners to the status of second-class citizens.
Dog and kennel owners also would have their license costs increased dramatically, in order to pay for hiring many more enforcement personnel and funding a bureaucracy that recklessly overspent its budget by $600,000 last year. Worley claims that this extra money was needed to care for dogs that were seized, but we can’t imagine how it would cost $600,000 to provide short-term care for fewer than 300 dogs and cats. That would be more than $2,000 per animal!
The draft legislation requires anyone who owns five or more dogs to get a kennel license and be inspected by the state. Hunting and field trial dogs were mentioned specifically in this requirement.
Anyone who owns more than five female dogs that have not been spayed would be classified as a breeding kennel, subject to intensive regulation and inspection. Hunting, show, sled dog and field trial kennels would be exempt from this requirement, but only if they are municipally licensed and offer fewer than 16 dogs for sale in the year.
Anyone who sells even one dog would be classified as a vendor. They are required to follow complex disclosure rules to buyers, offer contractual guarantees, and have a veterinarian examine each dog or puppy that is sold.
Please read Worley’s report and the proposed legislation, which is located about midway through the document:
Worley sent the proposed legislation to the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Maine dog owners to contact each member of this committee and tell them why you are opposed to the legislation. Here is a link that lists all committee members: Each name links to a page with contact information.
FLORIDA
Almost every dog and cat in Florida would have to be spayed or neutered under the terms of House Bill 451.
Sterilization would have to be done within 30 days of an animal reaching four months of age, which is an age that much recent research has shown may be medically dangerous.
The only exceptions would be for severe medical risks, or if a municipality passes an ordinance that allows dogs registered with an approved registry to be licensed as a show animal, an animal actively engaged in competition, a guide dog, or a dog used by police officers or the military. Certain registries, such as Field Dog Stud Book, have not been approved in any place that has mandatory spay/neuter laws.
No dog or cat could be bred in Florida, except by virtue of a county ordinance allowing the sale of a breeding permit.
In the absence of a county ordinance, no one could breed a dog or cat in Florida. However, the legislation also allows counties to impose more strict ordinances, and even to ban all dog breeding outright.
Stiff fines are provided, and a third offense becomes a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time.
The preamble to the bill, which describes the reason for it, is based on several faulty or inaccurate presumptions. None of the stated reasons have been documented, and much research contradicts several of them.
Florida’s legislative session officially begins in March, and it is not known at this time what committee will get HB 451. It was introduced by Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orange County.
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
We also urge all Floridians to contact their own legislator and express your opposition to this legislation. Here is a link page for each legislator’s contact information:
Illinois
Illinois House Bill 0198 is one of the most repressive and malicious pieces of animal rights legislation ever introduced in America. It takes aim at people who are hobby breeders of hunting dogs and other breeds of purebred dogs.
Anyone who owns more than three intact females and sells puppies would be classi fied as a commercial breeding kennel, subject to high fees for licensure, rigorous inspections, the forfeiture of several constitutional protections, mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks by the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, forfeiture of the right to redress in a court of law, heavy loads of paperwork, unworkable standards of care, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial records.
In addition, no one would be permitted to keep or own more than 20 dogs that are not spayed or neutered. No dog could be bred unless it is inspected by a veterinarian. Also, people would not be able to raise a litter of puppies inside their home if other adult dogs are present. It would be illegal to keep more than three dogs together, which would apply to the number of dogs kept inside a home, ban the common practice of kenneling a pack of hounds together and eliminate large fenced lots to allow young dogs to get plenty of exercise.
There also is an ambiguous provision that requires the state to pass judgment on the “qualifications” of a kennel license applicant before issuing a license. This would be an entirely subjective judgment by the kennel inspector, as the legislation does not define adequate qualifications.
Only veterinarians could euthanize a dog, which causes terrible suffering and agony if a veterinarian cannot be located quickly.
Dog owners also could face heavy fines and loss of licenses for irrelevant violations, such as surface rust on wires, a few cobwebs, a knocked over water bowl or chipped paint. Temperature requirements would make it impossible for people to acclimate hunting, herding and performance dogs to weather conditions, thus creating danger for the dogs. Fine and civil penalties would multiply exponentially, and even minor offenses have the potential to destroy a dog owner financially and cause the loss of her or his home and lifetime savings.
The legislation also contains numerous powers to seize dogs, or to require their owners to turn them over to an animal shelter within seven days of license revocation, or if a dog owner is incorrectly licensed.
This legislation, which is clearly out of the HSUS playbook, is being sponsored by State Rep. John A. Fritchey (D-Chicago). It has been cosponsored by Reps. Angelo Saviano, Deborah Mell, Jack D. Franks, Daniel J. Burke, Greg Harris, Michael J. Zalewski, JoAnn D. Osmond, Keith Farnham, Lou Lang and Harry Osterman (click on a name for a link to a contact page). It’s Senate counterpart, SB 53, will be sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D- Mt. Prospect).
The bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee. The House has not yet completed committee assignments, and the names of committee members are not yet available.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to contact their senator and representative to voice opposition to HB 0198 and SB 53 to voice their opposition. In addition, we ask dog owners to contact the bill’s cosponsors to ask them to withdraw their support for the legislation.
The bill’s formal name is the Dog Breeders License Act. HSUS and other animal rights groups are nicknaming it “Chloe’s Bill,” for a dog allegedly rescued from an Illinois “puppy mill.”
HSUS has focused many of its resources on Illinois, and recently named a new State Director, attorney Jordan Matyas. We have received confirmed reports that Rep. Fritchey is sending correspondence about this bill directly to Matyas, and the replies to constituents are coming directly from HSUS.
Propaganda for the bill makes it sound like legislation to stop poorly operated commercial kennels, which have been dubbed “puppy mills” by HSUS. However, the bill actually targets small scale hobby breeders of purebred dogs. Large commercial kennels already are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Illinois, and all kennels are under the jurisdiction of state animal cruelty laws.
Matyas and his cronies also continue to spread their agenda of canine destruction in neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which are expected to see similar legislation very soon, and in the City of Chicago.
Chicago
We are receiving some indications that a strong response from dog owners and veterinarians has put a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate on the ropes. This ordinance, which is focused on destroying hobbyists in the city, has been a top priority for HSUS, Matyas and their allies from the wealthy and powerfu l PAWS animal rights group in Chicago.
The animal rights groups were stung by support for dog owners from the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA), and also by research by the American Sporting Dog Alliance, which shows the incredible success of the city’s sheltering program. The success of Chicago’s animal shelters has come very close to the ideal of not killing any healthy and adoptable animals, and destroys much of the rationale for the ordinance.
The CVMA and ISVMA have taken strong and courageous stances against the proposed ordinance, as have several animal sheltering and rescue organizations. Here is a link to some of these position statements:
In essence, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance compromises the relationship between a veterinarian and patient.
For government to mandate veterinarians to perform certain medical proc edures also is a violation of at least two provisions of the American Veterinary Medical Association Code of Ethics, as was a requirement in the original proposed ordinance that would require veterinarians to report people who own dogs that are not spayed or neutered, documents show.
In addition, many veterinarians and dog owners oppose universal spay/neuter mandates because much of the most recent research shows elevated risks of serious and potentially fatal medical conditions from pet sterilization, especially at an early age. Because of this, veterinarians believe that the decision should be made on an individual basis by weighing benefits and risks as part of the client/patient/veterinarian relationship.
Veterinarians and sheltering group leaders also say that the proposed ordinance is very divisive and will harm the kind of community support that is needed to continue with the success of Chicago’s animal shelter alliance.
Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai proposed the ordinance, and HSUS, Matyas and PAWS are its major proponents.
PAWS has even attempted to use strong-arm tactics against the veterinarians, by strongly hinting that it will ask its supporters to boycott any individual veterinarian who doesn’t support the ordinance.
Because of the veterinarians’ opposition, HSUS and the two aldermen have backpedaled on some of the requirements of the initial proposal. A revised ordinance draft removes the requirement for veterinarians to turn in their patients who have not sterilized their pets. In other communities that have passed sterilization mandates, compliance with rabies vaccination and licensing laws has plummeted because of the requirement to report violations.
However, the revised ordinance has not changed the requirement for pet owners to prove that their animals have been sterilized to get a license. In other communities, this has caused a dramatic decrease in licensing revenues, and the Los Angeles animal control program has become bankrupted since a spay/neuter ordinance was passed a year ago, and doesn’t have enough money to enforce it or even to operate its animal shelters now.
Other changes in the revised ordinance are softened language about the alleged health benefits of sterilization (which has been seriously questioned by much recent research), a greater emphasis on preventing dog fighting and dog attacks (even though research indicates that this is questionable, at best), and the elimination of heavy fines for a third offense.
It is clear that the real purpose of the ordinance has nothing to do with its stated purposes. Instead, it is directed at law-abiding people who raise dogs.
Existing city ordinances prohibit allowing a dog to roam, and dog attacks would be addressed if they are enforced. It is not directed at dangerous dogs, as Illinois already has a strong dangerous dog law. Nor is it directed at dog fighting, as Illinois law makes this a felony, and only about seven percent of the dogs in America are from “pit bull” breeds and crosses. Nor is it directed against criminals and the drug culture, as an existing Illinois law forbids most convicted felons of possessing a dog that has not been spayed or neutered and microchipped, or which has been shown to be dangerous.
The ordinance is directed against law-abiding dog owners. It requires all dogs and cats20over six months of age to be sterilized. Exceptions are made for show and competition dogs, although the “Catch 22” is that no registry meets the requirements. A dog can be bred, but only if the owner is willing to pay a fee of $100 per dog, keep extensive paperwork and submit to a background check.
It also ignores the fact that 70-percent of the dogs in America already are sterilized.
And it ignores the fact that Chicago already has serious budget problems and cannot adequately fund the animal control and shelter program.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Chicagoans to contact their alderman to voice opposition to this proposed ordinance. Here is a link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:
Also, please contact local organizers to coordinate with us and a newly forming Chicago group that is opposed to the ordinance. They are Karen Perry (ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net), Margo Milde (mrm1206@yahoo.com), Michele Smith (msmith@cmscrescue.com) and Ami Moore (DOGDORIGHT@aol.com).
We hope that Chicago City Council takes a long hard look at other cities that have passed spay/neuter mandates recently, such as Fort Worth, which saw rabies compliance plummet and rabies cases soar before it scrapped the ordinance; Louisville, which faces a federal lawsuit, and brutal home invasions to enforce the ordinance have led to the destruction of the private animal rescue network; several cities which saw shelter admissions and euthanasia rates soar while license revenues fell; and most of all20to Los Angeles (see below).
California
Animal rights groups in California were soundly defeated last year when they attempted to get a statewide law mandating pet sterilization, and its key proponent in the legislature was trounced in the November election. That’s not surprising, as a Parade Magazine poll last year showed that 91-percent of the people oppose sterilization mandates.
This year they are trying to take their failed doctrine to the local level again, starting with Santa Barbara and Riverside counties.
But they don’t want to talk about Los Angeles, which passed a spay/neuter mandate a year ago and created a disaster zone for animals and taxpayers alike. Since the ordinance was introduced, shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared far beyond the level created by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, and declining license revenues have driven the city’s animal control agency into bankruptcy, documents show.
The situation has become so critical that Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick urged the mayor and city council to privatize the sheltering program, in a letter dated December 22, 2008. Chick pointed out that the animal control budget increased from $16.2 million in FY 2005-06 to $22 million in FY 2007-08, in order to pay operating expenses and the salaries of 300 employees. In addition, she wrote, the city is paying off bond issues to build and repair animal shelters at the rate of $12.4 million a year.
This is balanced against revenues of only $2.8 million, which now are in steep decline because of major losses in licensing revenues following the ordinance.
Widespread employee layoffs and animal shelter closures have been discussed, and Chick said no money is available to enforce the spay/neuter and other animal ordinances, or to perform many other public services.
Chick suggested turning the animal shelter program over to private nonprofit groups, which can operate them much more economi cally and efficiently, her letter shows. The city would provide the animal shelter facilities at no charge, and the private groups would operate them.
What happened in Los Angeles also underscores the murderous intent of animal rights groups toward dogs and cats. On one hand, it is widely documented that spay/neuter mandates invariably cause major increases in animal shelter admission and euthanasia rates for several years. They kill innocent dogs and cats unnecessarily!
But the current economic situation in California further underscores the brutality of the animal rights agenda.
At a time when many pet owners are losing their homes or facing job losses, anyone who cares about animals should be showing compassion for both dogs and their owners. Anyone who cares should be doing everything possible to keep pets in their homes, or to provide short-term fostering programs until people get back on their feet and can reunite with their pets.
Instead, Los Angeles has passed an ordinance that will make it much harder for people to keep their pets in a tough economy, or if they have lost their homes.
The dogs are paying the price.
In Los Angeles, passage of the ordinance reversed a 10-year-long rapid decline in shelter admission and euthanasia rates, and this needless destruction of a successful sheltering program has been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Shelter admission and euthanasia rates continued to fall for the first six months of the most recent fiscal year, despite the rapidly worsening foreclosure crisis, but this progress was destroyed in the six months following the ordinance’s introduction by skyrocketing shelter admission and euthanasia rates.
Shelter admissions declined steadily from 34,692 in 2001-02 to 25,553 in 2006-07, but shot up 19-percent to 30,513 following passage of the ordinance. All of the increase occurred in the six months after the ordinance was introduced. Undoubtedly some of this increase is the result of the foreclosure crisis, but California’s housing economy has been in deep trouble for most of this pe riod when shelter rates continued to improve.
The euthanasia rate rose even more steeply since the ordinance was passed, by 22-percent, from 6,070 to 7,414. Once again, the entire increase occurred after the ordinance was introduced. This follows a steady decline from 17,509 in 2001-02 to 6,070 in 2006-07.
The good news is that adoptions increased by 30-percent and owner-reclaimed rates rose by 10-percent. But the bad news is the divisiveness of the ordinance within the animal welfare community, which caused rescues to decline somewhat in the six months after the ordinance was passed.
Santa Barbara
Now it’s Santa Barbara’s turn to face the brutality of the animal rights agenda, as a task force created to provide non-mandatory ways to reduce shelter populations and euthanasia has become a stacked deck of people who want to bring the failed and discredited policy of mandatory pet sterilization to=2 0this county. We hope the county supervisors are wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Los Angeles and several other cities.
Dog owners on the task force may get some help to counterbalance the presence of Dr. Ron Faoro, the group’s chairman. Faoro strongly supports mandatory pet sterilization and has rode roughshod over the committee on several occasions.
The guest speaker at the Feb.18 task force meeting will be noted California veterinarian John A. Hamil. Dr. Hamil, who has spent a lifetime studying animal shelter admission and euthanasia issues, is strongly opposed to spay and neuter mandates. Hamil says mandatory measures make the problems worse, not better, and also are undesirable or counterproductive for several other reasons.
Here is a link to Dr. Hamil’s views about the defeated statewide mandate: He is very articulate and knows what he is talking about.
Task force members have been denied access to needed statistical data to put shelter and euthanasia numbers in perspective. After several years of miraculous success, Santa Barbara’s sheltering system saw large increases in both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates in the past year. Those increases are generally attributed to the economy, and the foreclosure crisis has hit Santa Barbara especially hard.
Data has been concealed about why the euthanasia rate has increased by more than 2.5 times the admission rate in the first six months of 2008. Admissions went up by 554, or 14-percent, but euthanasia increased 313, or 35-percent.
This simply does not make sense, except as a deliberate policy decision to kill more animals. The situation is made even more inexplicable because owner redemptions increased by 4.9 percent and adoptions increased by 12-percent.
Data also has not been made available to allow analysis of the admissions rates, such as a projected increase in enforcement, and the actual reasons why owners=2 0are surrendering dogs. Effective decisions are not possible without this information, which is being kept from the task force and public by animal services department personnel.
All of the evidence shows that a spay/neuter mandate will make shelter and animal control problems worse during economic hard times when many people are losing their homes and jobs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is preparing a strategy to address these economic problems compassionately and effectively. Our proposals will include tax credits and rebates for people who adopt dogs and cats from animal shelters and rescue groups, tax incentives for people who are willing to provide temporary foster care or rescue services for displaced pets, exempting people who foster or rescue from pet limit and other animal control laws, and changing state funding formulas to penalize shelter programs that kill healthy and adoptable animals when all other alternatives have not been explored.
Minnesota
Two years ago, Minnesota dog owners had a close call with devastating animal rights legislation that was narrowly defeated in the legislature.
It’s back, and HSUS is throwing its full weight behind it.
SF 7, introduced by Sen. Don Betzold (D-Fridley), has been introduced into the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
This bill exempts what it calls “hobby breeders,” which means someone who has fewer than six intact females over six months old.
But it includes most people who actually are hobby breeders in real life, most of whom own at least six intact females, even though they may not be used for breeding in any year. Numbers add up quickly when retired dogs, older puppies, dogs being evaluated, dogs in competition, hunting dogs, breeding dogs and just plain pets are counted.
Most hobby breeders would have to undergo e xtensive licensing investigations, inspections (possibly including a veterinarian, police officer or animal cruelty officer), license fees, paperwork, mandatory microchipping, and standards of care that are vaguely defined.
One standard of care is especially alarming, in that it gives the state the undefined and unlimited power to develop and enforce “additional standards the board considers necessary to protect the public health and welfare of animals….”
The law also gives the state the power to seize animals when undefined standards of care are not met, and provides civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each alleged deficiency. Criminal charges, fines and imprisonment also are provided for violations.
The right of appeal to a court of law is denied. Instead, an accused dog owner is allowed only an administrative hearing before the state agency that is prosecuting him or her.
Here is a link to the legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Minnesotans to contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to committee members and contact information: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1001&ls=#members.
Colorado
Colorado dog owners face some restrictions under HB 1172, sponsored by Reps. Elizabeth McCann (D-Denver) and Randy Fischer (D-Larimer). HSUS and other animal rights groups are supporting the legislation.
This legislation requires licensing and inspection, limits the number of un sterilized dogs a person may own, and requires a veterinary examination before a dog can be bred.
No dog breeder (including hobby breeders, who are defined as someone who produces fewer than two litters of puppies a year) in Colorado will be able to own or keep more than 25 dogs over six months of age that are not spayed or neutered, if the legislation passes.
In addition, no one would be allowed to breed any dog without an annual veterinary examination and certification of suitable health.
Existing law also was amended to allow inspectors unrestrained access to a dog owner’s home, kennel, property and records at any time, day or night, upon consent of an “administrative” search warrant. An administrative warrant circumvents constitutional guarantees of court review of a search warrant application.
Here is a link to the text of this legislation:
HB 1172 is now before the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance asks Colorado dog owners to contact members of this committee to oppose this legislation as being needlessly intrusive and restrictive.
Committee members are: Representative Curry, Chairman; Representative Fischer, Vice-Chairman; Gardner C., Hullinghorst, Labuda, Looper, McKinley, McNulty, Pace, Solano, Sonnenberg, Tipton and Vigil
Here is a link to contact information for committee members and all other legislators:
Upcoming Legislation
Texas – Breaking news: McAllen, TX, is considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. We have not had time to research this in depth, and will make a full report soon. Here is a link to a news article about it: However, McAllen is only the beginning. All Texas dog owners will face a fight this year. Animal rights groups, including several with direct ties to the ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and HSUS, are hoping to take their successes in Texas cities to the state level. Buoyed by their success in ramming through spay/neuter mandates in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, they are backing a bill aimed at all dog breeding statewide. Several organizations, centered around the Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) are pressuring the Legislature to “study puppy mill issues,” and legislation is in the works to restrict dog breeding statewide. Supporters of dog breeding legislation always claim that it focuses on commercial kennels, which they call “puppy mills.” But the legislation invariably focuses much more on small hobby breeders in its actual text.
Wisconsin – Dog owners narrowly turned back highly restrictive breeding and lemon law legislation last year that would have devastated hobby breeding of purebred dogs. Animal rights groups have substantial support in the legislature, and have vowed to come back with an even tougher bill this year. Political gains in the Legislature by animal rights groups make Wisconsin ripe for a major push again this year. HSUS is pouring resources into the state.
Indiana – Kennel and breeding legislation is expected here following a major drive by HSUS in the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan region. Billboards have been spotted in several places, and anti-breeder newspaper articles are proliferating.
Ohio – Dog owners were able to block legislation tightening animal control laws and another bill that would have destroyed hobby breeding in the Buckeye State. However, sponsors and supporters of this legislation vowed to reintroduce it early in the current session. They have stronger support in the Legislature now than they did last year, following the November election.
Michigan – Anti-breeder legislation is expected early here, following withdrawal of devastating legislation late last year after American Sporting Dog Alliance disclosures of the text of the bill, which had been hidden even from its sponsor.
Massachusetts – HSUS has announced that it will try again to get an anti-breeder law passed here.
Arizona – A major push is expected for mandatory spay/neuter legislation here. Residents are battling local legislation in several counties, as well.
New Mexico – Mandatory spay/neuter legislation and overly zealous enforcement of animal cruelty laws are expected here in 2009.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web. Our email is asda@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us
Dog Owners Triumph In VA And MT
Beware Bills Introduced In NJ, NY, ME, FL, MN, IL, CA, CO, VA, MT
And Expect Legislation Soon In TX, MA, WI, MI, IN, OH, OK, AZ, NM
by JOHN YATES
American Sporting Dog Alliance
This article is archived:
Dog owners will face unprecedented and potentially devastating challenges in 2009, and it will take dedication and commitment to protect our rights. Sitting on the sidelines simply is not an option. It will take standing up and making your voice count.
The radical Humane Society of the United States (HSUS), buoyed by the victories of 95% of the state and federal candidates it endorsed in the November general election, has struck quickly in 2009 with legislation in 10 states that would severely restrict the rights of dog owners. Our sources also tell us that HSUS-anointed legislation will be introduced shortly in at least nine more states.
HSUS has launched this full-court press in only three weeks, and dog owners must act quickly and decisively or they will be overwhelmed.
However, there is some good news. This week, dog owners won the first two rounds in Virginia and Montana with the sound defeat of mandatory spay/neuter and breed-specific legislation.
In Virginia, HSUS and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals were s trongly in support of Senate Bill 1151, which would have mandated the spaying or neutering of any dog taken to an animal shelter for a second time. The legislation was killed this week by the Senate Agriculture, Conservation and Natural Resources Committee by an 8-6 vote.
This bill would have had a strong impact on hunting dogs, especially, and would have opened the door to many animal rights group kidnappings of hunting and companion dogs. Animal rights group kidnappings are becoming more common, and their goal is to take dogs to distant animal shelters were they will be euthanized.
In Montana, HSUS attempted to ram through breed-specific legislation after its usual media bombardment of inflammatory news stories, but it was killed in committee by a 17-1 vote after a reported 150 dog owners attended a hearing to voice opposition. Only three people spoke in favor of the bill.
While breed-specific legislation most often is seen as about “pit bulls,” many local ordinances have extended it to several other breeds ranging from Rottweilers to German shepherds. Moreover, the American Sporting Dog Alliance is concerned about this kind of le gislation because we see hunting breeds as next on the list of HSUS targets. Animal rights group websites frequently and falsely portray hunting dogs as vicious, some states are seriously considering banning or restricting hunting with hounds, and all hunting breeds were targeted specifically in failed federal legislation just two years ago.
HSUS-inspired legislation introduced in eight other states would affect all people who raise dogs. Those states are New York, New Jersey, Maine, Florida, Minnesota, Colorado, Illinois and California. Legislation also will be introduced soon in Texas, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Oklahoma, New Mexico and Arizona.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is taking an active and aggressive role to defeat this legislation, which takes aim at people who raise dogs as an avocation and reflects the HSUS agenda of working toward the complete elimination of domestic animal ownership in America. We are urging dog owners to join with us to work to defeat this dangerous legislation.
Here is a synopsis of the legislation that has been introduced in each state:
New York
It looks like HSUS has learned a new trick in New York and trying for a rerun on an old one.
Legislation has been introduced that would require every dog and every dog owner to complete certified obedience training as a condition of licensing. Another bill would mandate microchipping of all dogs in order to get a license for them. Assembly Member Jose Peralta (D-Queens) introduced both bills.
AB 1540 mandates obedience training and certification. No dog could be licensed without an obedience training certificate, and no owner could buy a dog license without undergoing training. Ironically, Peralta exempts residents of his own city from the legislation.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes this kind of legislation, which places a substantial burden on dog owners, bears no relationship to the realities of most dog ownership, is a solution in search of a problem, will result in a decrease in rabies and licensing law compliance, and will cause many pets to be abandoned when their owners can’t afford the services of a certified school.
Obedience courses are not available in many rural areas, and certification inevitably leads toward favoritism toward certain methods of training that are not endorsed by many dog owners. In addition, many dog owners are skilled trainers themselves and have no need for such services.
In many urban areas, a basic obedience course costs $1,000 or more. No evidence is shown that would justify imposing this kind of burden on the vast majority of dog owners. Moreover, many people simply will not be able to afford to provide this kind of training, especially in today’s poor economy, and this will force people to abandon their pets or fly under the radar without licensing their dogs or obtaining rabies vaccinations.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
The second bill, AB 255, requires all dogs in New York to be microchipped by the age of four months.
In addition, a state registry would be created for microchip data for every dog in the state and their owners.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly opposes mandatory microchipping, which is controversial among some dog owners. Other options are available, such as name tags or tattoos. We also strongly oppose creating a state registry, which allows animal control agencies to go on a “fishing expedition” to enforce a variety of other laws, and thus invades the privacy of everyone without cause.
Here is a link to the text of this bill:
Both bills have been referred to the Assembly’s Agriculture Committee. We urge New York dog owners to=2 0contact Agriculture Committee members to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to members of the committee:
We also are studying two other pieces of New York legislation.
The first is a bill redefining a “pet dealer” in a way that might lead to including hobby breeders. Last year, failed legislation would have brought all hobby breeders under strict “pet dealer” regulations. This year’s legislation creates some ambiguity in this regard, but basically does little to change the law. This alarms us, as it might lead to an attempt to make amendments on the floor similar to last year’s bill. Here is a link:
The second bill, AB 2069 would impose stringent regulations on boarding kennels, which include training kennels and day care services. It is a backdoor approach to regulation, because it is based on health code compliance (not on animal law) and requires health department inspection and certification.
We see much potential to harm kennel owners without any good reason from this approach, which also creates a new and cumbersome level of bureaucracy.
We are very alarmed that this legislation is both an attempt to redefine animal care as a public health issue, and to give health inspectors unrestricted access to kennels when there is no proof of any relationship between kennels and human health concerns in the community. We see it as an attempt to add another unjustified regulatory burden on kennel owners.
Here is a link to the legislation:
New Jersey
New Jersey dog owners=2 0are facing one of the toughest and most restrictive pieces of breeding legislation in history this year, and a second bill will have a heavy impact on lost hunting dogs.
Anyone who sells five or more dogs, cats, puppies or kittens in a year would have to be licensed and inspected as a commercial breeder and also as a pet dealer, which means facing Draconian restrictions and truly devastating fines and penalties.
That translates into a person having only one litter of puppies a year, in most cases. Even hobby breeding of the smallest possible scale would be unable to survive this legislation.
The legislation also pays snitches to turn in breeders, and the reward can be in the thousands of dollars.
AB 1591 is sponsored by Assemblywomen Joan M. Voss (D-Bergen) and Dawn Marie Addieggo (D-Burlington). It is before the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
A breeder is defined as anyon e who sells five or more dogs and cats a year. A pet dealer is defined as anyone who sells even one dog or cat for use as pets. A breeding facility is defined as a building or kennel, including a home, where two or more dogs or cats are kept for breeding.
Those definitions snag up everyone who raises dogs, and many people who simply keep a couple of dogs for hunting or pets.
The law also prohibits anyone from selling more than 25 dogs and/or cats a year, and specifically bans brother-sister matings.
Every word in the bill is inspired by HSUS and its agenda to eliminate animal ownership in America.
Every breeder (that’s you) must register with the Department of Health, which the legislations specifically says will develop regulations and standards of care through working closely with the radical HSUS. The bill says that the regulations also will cover spaying and neutering. Specific care and kenneling requirements also are covered. Extensive paperwork, veterinary examinations, and guarantees to buyers also20are required. A veterinarian must inspect and perform stool tests on every dog or puppy no longer than 14 days before a sale.
Anyone who buys or sells a dog without the proper New Jersey license, or who violates any of the above provisions, is subject to civil penalties of up to $10,000, heavy fines and imprisonment.
Even a first offense for a minor technical violation will result in a $5,000 civil penalty, fines and a ban against selling a dog or cat for five years. Someone who buys a dog or cat from an unlicensed breeder faces a $1,000 penalty for the first offense.
Accused dog owners will be denied their constitutional right to a day in court. They will be allowed only an administrative hearing before the same agency that charged them.
A frightening provision is that anyone who turns in a breeder will get 10-percent of the civil penalty as a reward, but not less than $250. Snitching by animal rights fanatics could become full-time and lucrative jobs in New Jersey if this bill passes!
0A
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance strongly urges all New Jersey dog owners to contact members of the Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee to voice clear opposition to this terrible legislation, which will destroy a lifetime of work by many of the most dedicated and high quality hobby breeders in America.
Here is a link to the committee members’ contact information:
New Jersey dog owners also face a second piece of bad legislation, AB 1568, which requires all dogs taken to an animal shelter to be sterilized before they are reclaimed by their owners.
This legislation will have a strong impact if a dog gets lost while hunting and is taken to an animal shelter by a good Samaritan, is found by an animal control officer or is kidnapped by an animal rights activist.
Exemptions are possible only for currently active show dogs or show champions. No exemption is provided for field trial, performance or hunting dogs.
In addition, a dog can meet the requirements for being spayed only by having a tattoo put on its belly by a veterinarian.
AB 1568 is sponsored by Assemblywoman Linda R. Greenstein (D- Mercer and Middlesex). It’s committee assignment has not been published.
Here is a link to the text of AB 1568:
Maine
Maine’s animal control director, Norma Worley, has clearly established herself as a staunch supporter of animal rights who is pursuing a personal crusade against people who raise dogs. There have been numerous reports of confrontational approaches to dog owners and heavy-handed enforcement since Worley’s appointment, and her writing and comments quoted in newspapers closely echoes HSUS position papers. She also uses the same derogatory labels as HSUS to describe people who raise dogs.
Worley rammed restrictive draft legislation through a task force, and now has presented it to the Legislature. The task force made few changes in the draft legislation prepared by Worley, and she wrote a report to the Legislature that ignored the views of most dog ownership advocates and made it falsely appear that they concurred. The attached minority reports recommended even tougher laws, and the Maine Federation of Dog Clubs refused to submit a minority report because of the biased nature of the participants and process.
This legislation would strip away dog owners’ constitutional rights to due process and equal treatment under the law, and eliminate constitutional requirements for search warrants, seizure warrants and appeals to a court of law. It is typical of all HSUS-backed legislation, which is designed to reduce dog owners to the status of second-class citizens.
Dog and kennel owners also would have their license costs increased dramatically, in order to pay for hiring many more enforcement personnel and funding a bureaucracy that recklessly overspent its budget by $600,000 last year. Worley claims that this extra money was needed to care for dogs that were seized, but we can’t imagine how it would cost $600,000 to provide short-term care for fewer than 300 dogs and cats. That would be more than $2,000 per animal!
The draft legislation requires anyone who owns five or more dogs to get a kennel license and be inspected by the state. Hunting and field trial dogs were mentioned specifically in this requirement.
Anyone who owns more than five female dogs that have not been spayed would be classified as a breeding kennel, subject to intensive regulation and inspection. Hunting, show, sled dog and field trial kennels would be exempt from this requirement, but only if they are municipally licensed and offer fewer than 16 dogs for sale in the year.
Anyone who sells even one dog would be classified as a vendor. They are required to follow complex disclosure rules to buyers, offer contractual guarantees, and have a veterinarian examine each dog or puppy that is sold.
Please read Worley’s report and the proposed legislation, which is located about midway through the document:
Worley sent the proposed legislation to the Legislature’s Agriculture, Conservation and Forestry Committee. The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging Maine dog owners to contact each member of this committee and tell them why you are opposed to the legislation. Here is a link that lists all committee members: Each name links to a page with contact information.
FLORIDA
Almost every dog and cat in Florida would have to be spayed or neutered under the terms of House Bill 451.
Sterilization would have to be done within 30 days of an animal reaching four months of age, which is an age that much recent research has shown may be medically dangerous.
The only exceptions would be for severe medical risks, or if a municipality passes an ordinance that allows dogs registered with an approved registry to be licensed as a show animal, an animal actively engaged in competition, a guide dog, or a dog used by police officers or the military. Certain registries, such as Field Dog Stud Book, have not been approved in any place that has mandatory spay/neuter laws.
No dog or cat could be bred in Florida, except by virtue of a county ordinance allowing the sale of a breeding permit.
In the absence of a county ordinance, no one could breed a dog or cat in Florida. However, the legislation also allows counties to impose more strict ordinances, and even to ban all dog breeding outright.
Stiff fines are provided, and a third offense becomes a misdemeanor charge with possible jail time.
The preamble to the bill, which describes the reason for it, is based on several faulty or inaccurate presumptions. None of the stated reasons have been documented, and much research contradicts several of them.
Florida’s legislative session officially begins in March, and it is not known at this time what committee will get HB 451. It was introduced by Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orange County.
Here is a link to the actual legislation:
We also urge all Floridians to contact their own legislator and express your opposition to this legislation. Here is a link page for each legislator’s contact information:
Illinois
Illinois House Bill 0198 is one of the most repressive and malicious pieces of animal rights legislation ever introduced in America. It takes aim at people who are hobby breeders of hunting dogs and other breeds of purebred dogs.
Anyone who owns more than three intact females and sells puppies would be classi fied as a commercial breeding kennel, subject to high fees for licensure, rigorous inspections, the forfeiture of several constitutional protections, mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks by the state police and Federal Bureau of Investigation, forfeiture of the right to redress in a court of law, heavy loads of paperwork, unworkable standards of care, and the forcible invasion of personal and financial records.
In addition, no one would be permitted to keep or own more than 20 dogs that are not spayed or neutered. No dog could be bred unless it is inspected by a veterinarian. Also, people would not be able to raise a litter of puppies inside their home if other adult dogs are present. It would be illegal to keep more than three dogs together, which would apply to the number of dogs kept inside a home, ban the common practice of kenneling a pack of hounds together and eliminate large fenced lots to allow young dogs to get plenty of exercise.
There also is an ambiguous provision that requires the state to pass judgment on the “qualifications” of a kennel license applicant before issuing a license. This would be an entirely subjective judgment by the kennel inspector, as the legislation does not define adequate qualifications.
Only veterinarians could euthanize a dog, which causes terrible suffering and agony if a veterinarian cannot be located quickly.
Dog owners also could face heavy fines and loss of licenses for irrelevant violations, such as surface rust on wires, a few cobwebs, a knocked over water bowl or chipped paint. Temperature requirements would make it impossible for people to acclimate hunting, herding and performance dogs to weather conditions, thus creating danger for the dogs. Fine and civil penalties would multiply exponentially, and even minor offenses have the potential to destroy a dog owner financially and cause the loss of her or his home and lifetime savings.
The legislation also contains numerous powers to seize dogs, or to require their owners to turn them over to an animal shelter within seven days of license revocation, or if a dog owner is incorrectly licensed.
This legislation, which is clearly out of the HSUS playbook, is being sponsored by State Rep. John A. Fritchey (D-Chicago). It has been cosponsored by Reps. Angelo Saviano, Deborah Mell, Jack D. Franks, Daniel J. Burke, Greg Harris, Michael J. Zalewski, JoAnn D. Osmond, Keith Farnham, Lou Lang and Harry Osterman (click on a name for a link to a contact page). It’s Senate counterpart, SB 53, will be sponsored by Sen. Dan Kotowski (D- Mt. Prospect).
The bill has been referred to the House Rules Committee. The House has not yet completed committee assignments, and the names of committee members are not yet available.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Illinois dog owners to contact their senator and representative to voice opposition to HB 0198 and SB 53 to voice their opposition. In addition, we ask dog owners to contact the bill’s cosponsors to ask them to withdraw their support for the legislation.
The bill’s formal name is the Dog Breeders License Act. HSUS and other animal rights groups are nicknaming it “Chloe’s Bill,” for a dog allegedly rescued from an Illinois “puppy mill.”
HSUS has focused many of its resources on Illinois, and recently named a new State Director, attorney Jordan Matyas. We have received confirmed reports that Rep. Fritchey is sending correspondence about this bill directly to Matyas, and the replies to constituents are coming directly from HSUS.
Propaganda for the bill makes it sound like legislation to stop poorly operated commercial kennels, which have been dubbed “puppy mills” by HSUS. However, the bill actually targets small scale hobby breeders of purebred dogs. Large commercial kennels already are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the State of Illinois, and all kennels are under the jurisdiction of state animal cruelty laws.
Matyas and his cronies also continue to spread their agenda of canine destruction in neighboring Wisconsin and Indiana, which are expected to see similar legislation very soon, and in the City of Chicago.
Chicago
We are receiving some indications that a strong response from dog owners and veterinarians has put a proposed citywide spay and neuter mandate on the ropes. This ordinance, which is focused on destroying hobbyists in the city, has been a top priority for HSUS, Matyas and their allies from the wealthy and powerfu l PAWS animal rights group in Chicago.
The animal rights groups were stung by support for dog owners from the Chicago Veterinary Medical Association (CVMA) and the Illinois State Veterinary Medical Association (ISVMA), and also by research by the American Sporting Dog Alliance, which shows the incredible success of the city’s sheltering program. The success of Chicago’s animal shelters has come very close to the ideal of not killing any healthy and adoptable animals, and destroys much of the rationale for the ordinance.
The CVMA and ISVMA have taken strong and courageous stances against the proposed ordinance, as have several animal sheltering and rescue organizations. Here is a link to some of these position statements:
In essence, a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance compromises the relationship between a veterinarian and patient.
For government to mandate veterinarians to perform certain medical proc edures also is a violation of at least two provisions of the American Veterinary Medical Association Code of Ethics, as was a requirement in the original proposed ordinance that would require veterinarians to report people who own dogs that are not spayed or neutered, documents show.
In addition, many veterinarians and dog owners oppose universal spay/neuter mandates because much of the most recent research shows elevated risks of serious and potentially fatal medical conditions from pet sterilization, especially at an early age. Because of this, veterinarians believe that the decision should be made on an individual basis by weighing benefits and risks as part of the client/patient/veterinarian relationship.
Veterinarians and sheltering group leaders also say that the proposed ordinance is very divisive and will harm the kind of community support that is needed to continue with the success of Chicago’s animal shelter alliance.
Aldermen Ed Burke and Ginger Rugai proposed the ordinance, and HSUS, Matyas and PAWS are its major proponents.
PAWS has even attempted to use strong-arm tactics against the veterinarians, by strongly hinting that it will ask its supporters to boycott any individual veterinarian who doesn’t support the ordinance.
Because of the veterinarians’ opposition, HSUS and the two aldermen have backpedaled on some of the requirements of the initial proposal. A revised ordinance draft removes the requirement for veterinarians to turn in their patients who have not sterilized their pets. In other communities that have passed sterilization mandates, compliance with rabies vaccination and licensing laws has plummeted because of the requirement to report violations.
However, the revised ordinance has not changed the requirement for pet owners to prove that their animals have been sterilized to get a license. In other communities, this has caused a dramatic decrease in licensing revenues, and the Los Angeles animal control program has become bankrupted since a spay/neuter ordinance was passed a year ago, and doesn’t have enough money to enforce it or even to operate its animal shelters now.
Other changes in the revised ordinance are softened language about the alleged health benefits of sterilization (which has been seriously questioned by much recent research), a greater emphasis on preventing dog fighting and dog attacks (even though research indicates that this is questionable, at best), and the elimination of heavy fines for a third offense.
It is clear that the real purpose of the ordinance has nothing to do with its stated purposes. Instead, it is directed at law-abiding people who raise dogs.
Existing city ordinances prohibit allowing a dog to roam, and dog attacks would be addressed if they are enforced. It is not directed at dangerous dogs, as Illinois already has a strong dangerous dog law. Nor is it directed at dog fighting, as Illinois law makes this a felony, and only about seven percent of the dogs in America are from “pit bull” breeds and crosses. Nor is it directed against criminals and the drug culture, as an existing Illinois law forbids most convicted felons of possessing a dog that has not been spayed or neutered and microchipped, or which has been shown to be dangerous.
The ordinance is directed against law-abiding dog owners. It requires all dogs and cats20over six months of age to be sterilized. Exceptions are made for show and competition dogs, although the “Catch 22” is that no registry meets the requirements. A dog can be bred, but only if the owner is willing to pay a fee of $100 per dog, keep extensive paperwork and submit to a background check.
It also ignores the fact that 70-percent of the dogs in America already are sterilized.
And it ignores the fact that Chicago already has serious budget problems and cannot adequately fund the animal control and shelter program.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance urges Chicagoans to contact their alderman to voice opposition to this proposed ordinance. Here is a link to the web pages of each of the aldermen, where you will find contact information:
Also, please contact local organizers to coordinate with us and a newly forming Chicago group that is opposed to the ordinance. They are Karen Perry (ouilmette4@sbcglobal.net), Margo Milde (mrm1206@yahoo.com), Michele Smith (msmith@cmscrescue.com) and Ami Moore (DOGDORIGHT@aol.com).
We hope that Chicago City Council takes a long hard look at other cities that have passed spay/neuter mandates recently, such as Fort Worth, which saw rabies compliance plummet and rabies cases soar before it scrapped the ordinance; Louisville, which faces a federal lawsuit, and brutal home invasions to enforce the ordinance have led to the destruction of the private animal rescue network; several cities which saw shelter admissions and euthanasia rates soar while license revenues fell; and most of all20to Los Angeles (see below).
California
Animal rights groups in California were soundly defeated last year when they attempted to get a statewide law mandating pet sterilization, and its key proponent in the legislature was trounced in the November election. That’s not surprising, as a Parade Magazine poll last year showed that 91-percent of the people oppose sterilization mandates.
This year they are trying to take their failed doctrine to the local level again, starting with Santa Barbara and Riverside counties.
But they don’t want to talk about Los Angeles, which passed a spay/neuter mandate a year ago and created a disaster zone for animals and taxpayers alike. Since the ordinance was introduced, shelter admission and euthanasia rates have soared far beyond the level created by the mortgage foreclosure crisis, and declining license revenues have driven the city’s animal control agency into bankruptcy, documents show.
The situation has become so critical that Los Angeles Controller Laura Chick urged the mayor and city council to privatize the sheltering program, in a letter dated December 22, 2008. Chick pointed out that the animal control budget increased from $16.2 million in FY 2005-06 to $22 million in FY 2007-08, in order to pay operating expenses and the salaries of 300 employees. In addition, she wrote, the city is paying off bond issues to build and repair animal shelters at the rate of $12.4 million a year.
This is balanced against revenues of only $2.8 million, which now are in steep decline because of major losses in licensing revenues following the ordinance.
Widespread employee layoffs and animal shelter closures have been discussed, and Chick said no money is available to enforce the spay/neuter and other animal ordinances, or to perform many other public services.
Chick suggested turning the animal shelter program over to private nonprofit groups, which can operate them much more economi cally and efficiently, her letter shows. The city would provide the animal shelter facilities at no charge, and the private groups would operate them.
What happened in Los Angeles also underscores the murderous intent of animal rights groups toward dogs and cats. On one hand, it is widely documented that spay/neuter mandates invariably cause major increases in animal shelter admission and euthanasia rates for several years. They kill innocent dogs and cats unnecessarily!
But the current economic situation in California further underscores the brutality of the animal rights agenda.
At a time when many pet owners are losing their homes or facing job losses, anyone who cares about animals should be showing compassion for both dogs and their owners. Anyone who cares should be doing everything possible to keep pets in their homes, or to provide short-term fostering programs until people get back on their feet and can reunite with their pets.
Instead, Los Angeles has passed an ordinance that will make it much harder for people to keep their pets in a tough economy, or if they have lost their homes.
The dogs are paying the price.
In Los Angeles, passage of the ordinance reversed a 10-year-long rapid decline in shelter admission and euthanasia rates, and this needless destruction of a successful sheltering program has been exacerbated by the economic crisis.
Shelter admission and euthanasia rates continued to fall for the first six months of the most recent fiscal year, despite the rapidly worsening foreclosure crisis, but this progress was destroyed in the six months following the ordinance’s introduction by skyrocketing shelter admission and euthanasia rates.
Shelter admissions declined steadily from 34,692 in 2001-02 to 25,553 in 2006-07, but shot up 19-percent to 30,513 following passage of the ordinance. All of the increase occurred in the six months after the ordinance was introduced. Undoubtedly some of this increase is the result of the foreclosure crisis, but California’s housing economy has been in deep trouble for most of this pe riod when shelter rates continued to improve.
The euthanasia rate rose even more steeply since the ordinance was passed, by 22-percent, from 6,070 to 7,414. Once again, the entire increase occurred after the ordinance was introduced. This follows a steady decline from 17,509 in 2001-02 to 6,070 in 2006-07.
The good news is that adoptions increased by 30-percent and owner-reclaimed rates rose by 10-percent. But the bad news is the divisiveness of the ordinance within the animal welfare community, which caused rescues to decline somewhat in the six months after the ordinance was passed.
Santa Barbara
Now it’s Santa Barbara’s turn to face the brutality of the animal rights agenda, as a task force created to provide non-mandatory ways to reduce shelter populations and euthanasia has become a stacked deck of people who want to bring the failed and discredited policy of mandatory pet sterilization to=2 0this county. We hope the county supervisors are wise enough to learn from the mistakes of Los Angeles and several other cities.
Dog owners on the task force may get some help to counterbalance the presence of Dr. Ron Faoro, the group’s chairman. Faoro strongly supports mandatory pet sterilization and has rode roughshod over the committee on several occasions.
The guest speaker at the Feb.18 task force meeting will be noted California veterinarian John A. Hamil. Dr. Hamil, who has spent a lifetime studying animal shelter admission and euthanasia issues, is strongly opposed to spay and neuter mandates. Hamil says mandatory measures make the problems worse, not better, and also are undesirable or counterproductive for several other reasons.
Here is a link to Dr. Hamil’s views about the defeated statewide mandate: He is very articulate and knows what he is talking about.
Task force members have been denied access to needed statistical data to put shelter and euthanasia numbers in perspective. After several years of miraculous success, Santa Barbara’s sheltering system saw large increases in both shelter admissions and euthanasia rates in the past year. Those increases are generally attributed to the economy, and the foreclosure crisis has hit Santa Barbara especially hard.
Data has been concealed about why the euthanasia rate has increased by more than 2.5 times the admission rate in the first six months of 2008. Admissions went up by 554, or 14-percent, but euthanasia increased 313, or 35-percent.
This simply does not make sense, except as a deliberate policy decision to kill more animals. The situation is made even more inexplicable because owner redemptions increased by 4.9 percent and adoptions increased by 12-percent.
Data also has not been made available to allow analysis of the admissions rates, such as a projected increase in enforcement, and the actual reasons why owners=2 0are surrendering dogs. Effective decisions are not possible without this information, which is being kept from the task force and public by animal services department personnel.
All of the evidence shows that a spay/neuter mandate will make shelter and animal control problems worse during economic hard times when many people are losing their homes and jobs.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is preparing a strategy to address these economic problems compassionately and effectively. Our proposals will include tax credits and rebates for people who adopt dogs and cats from animal shelters and rescue groups, tax incentives for people who are willing to provide temporary foster care or rescue services for displaced pets, exempting people who foster or rescue from pet limit and other animal control laws, and changing state funding formulas to penalize shelter programs that kill healthy and adoptable animals when all other alternatives have not been explored.
Minnesota
Two years ago, Minnesota dog owners had a close call with devastating animal rights legislation that was narrowly defeated in the legislature.
It’s back, and HSUS is throwing its full weight behind it.
SF 7, introduced by Sen. Don Betzold (D-Fridley), has been introduced into the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee.
This bill exempts what it calls “hobby breeders,” which means someone who has fewer than six intact females over six months old.
But it includes most people who actually are hobby breeders in real life, most of whom own at least six intact females, even though they may not be used for breeding in any year. Numbers add up quickly when retired dogs, older puppies, dogs being evaluated, dogs in competition, hunting dogs, breeding dogs and just plain pets are counted.
Most hobby breeders would have to undergo e xtensive licensing investigations, inspections (possibly including a veterinarian, police officer or animal cruelty officer), license fees, paperwork, mandatory microchipping, and standards of care that are vaguely defined.
One standard of care is especially alarming, in that it gives the state the undefined and unlimited power to develop and enforce “additional standards the board considers necessary to protect the public health and welfare of animals….”
The law also gives the state the power to seize animals when undefined standards of care are not met, and provides civil penalties of up to $5,000 for each alleged deficiency. Criminal charges, fines and imprisonment also are provided for violations.
The right of appeal to a court of law is denied. Instead, an accused dog owner is allowed only an administrative hearing before the state agency that is prosecuting him or her.
Here is a link to the legislation:
The American Sporting Dog Alliance is urging all Minnesotans to contact members of the Senate Agriculture and Veterans Committee to voice strong opposition. Here is a link to committee members and contact information: http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1001&ls=#members.
Colorado
Colorado dog owners face some restrictions under HB 1172, sponsored by Reps. Elizabeth McCann (D-Denver) and Randy Fischer (D-Larimer). HSUS and other animal rights groups are supporting the legislation.
This legislation requires licensing and inspection, limits the number of un sterilized dogs a person may own, and requires a veterinary examination before a dog can be bred.
No dog breeder (including hobby breeders, who are defined as someone who produces fewer than two litters of puppies a year) in Colorado will be able to own or keep more than 25 dogs over six months of age that are not spayed or neutered, if the legislation passes.
In addition, no one would be allowed to breed any dog without an annual veterinary examination and certification of suitable health.
Existing law also was amended to allow inspectors unrestrained access to a dog owner’s home, kennel, property and records at any time, day or night, upon consent of an “administrative” search warrant. An administrative warrant circumvents constitutional guarantees of court review of a search warrant application.
Here is a link to the text of this legislation:
HB 1172 is now before the House Agriculture, Livestock and Natural Resources Committee.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance asks Colorado dog owners to contact members of this committee to oppose this legislation as being needlessly intrusive and restrictive.
Committee members are: Representative Curry, Chairman; Representative Fischer, Vice-Chairman; Gardner C., Hullinghorst, Labuda, Looper, McKinley, McNulty, Pace, Solano, Sonnenberg, Tipton and Vigil
Here is a link to contact information for committee members and all other legislators:
Upcoming Legislation
Texas – Breaking news: McAllen, TX, is considering a mandatory spay/neuter ordinance. We have not had time to research this in depth, and will make a full report soon. Here is a link to a news article about it: However, McAllen is only the beginning. All Texas dog owners will face a fight this year. Animal rights groups, including several with direct ties to the ultra-radical People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) and HSUS, are hoping to take their successes in Texas cities to the state level. Buoyed by their success in ramming through spay/neuter mandates in Dallas, Houston and San Antonio, they are backing a bill aimed at all dog breeding statewide. Several organizations, centered around the Texas Humane Legislation Network (THLN) are pressuring the Legislature to “study puppy mill issues,” and legislation is in the works to restrict dog breeding statewide. Supporters of dog breeding legislation always claim that it focuses on commercial kennels, which they call “puppy mills.” But the legislation invariably focuses much more on small hobby breeders in its actual text.
Wisconsin – Dog owners narrowly turned back highly restrictive breeding and lemon law legislation last year that would have devastated hobby breeding of purebred dogs. Animal rights groups have substantial support in the legislature, and have vowed to come back with an even tougher bill this year. Political gains in the Legislature by animal rights groups make Wisconsin ripe for a major push again this year. HSUS is pouring resources into the state.
Indiana – Kennel and breeding legislation is expected here following a major drive by HSUS in the Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana and Michigan region. Billboards have been spotted in several places, and anti-breeder newspaper articles are proliferating.
Ohio – Dog owners were able to block legislation tightening animal control laws and another bill that would have destroyed hobby breeding in the Buckeye State. However, sponsors and supporters of this legislation vowed to reintroduce it early in the current session. They have stronger support in the Legislature now than they did last year, following the November election.
Michigan – Anti-breeder legislation is expected early here, following withdrawal of devastating legislation late last year after American Sporting Dog Alliance disclosures of the text of the bill, which had been hidden even from its sponsor.
Massachusetts – HSUS has announced that it will try again to get an anti-breeder law passed here.
Arizona – A major push is expected for mandatory spay/neuter legislation here. Residents are battling local legislation in several counties, as well.
New Mexico – Mandatory spay/neuter legislation and overly zealous enforcement of animal cruelty laws are expected here in 2009.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance represents owners, breeders and professionals who work with breeds of dogs that are used for hunting. We also welcome people who work with other breeds, as legislative issues affect all of us. We are a grassroots movement working to protect the rights of dog owners, and to assure that the traditional relationships between dogs and humans maintains its rightful place in American society and life.
The American Sporting Dog Alliance also needs your help so that we can continue to work to protect the rights of dog owners. Your membership, participation and support are truly essential to the success of our mission. We are funded solely by your donations in order to maintain strict independence.
Please visit us on the web. Our email is asda@csonline.net.
PLEASE CROSS-POST AND FORWARD THIS REPORT TO YOUR FRIENDS
The American Sporting Dog Alliance
http://www.americansportingdogalliance.org
Please Join Us
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
OH- House Bill 223 says 9 breeding females is a "puppy mill"
If you are in Ohio, please ask your representative NOT to support House Bill 223 - also known as the "Puppy Mill Bill" which will license and regulate all kennels with 9 or more breeding females in the state. Currently the bill is sitting in committee with no hearings scheduled.
Since no hearings are scheduled, but this bill has a number- YOU NEED to contact your representative and let them know that 9 intact females is NOT a puppy mill!
Since no hearings are scheduled, but this bill has a number- YOU NEED to contact your representative and let them know that 9 intact females is NOT a puppy mill!
Monday, August 6, 2007
Ohio- Two State Laws Upheld Bred Specific Legislation
http://www.sconet. state.oh. us/Communication s_Office/ summaries/ 2007/0801/060690.asphttp://tinyurl. com/32kzha
Opinion Summaries Two State Laws, Toledo City Ordinance Regulating Pit Bulls Upheld As Constitutional 2006-0690. Toledo v. Tellings, 2007-Ohio-3724.Lucas App. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975. Judgment reversed.Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., concur.O'Connor, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremec ourtofohio. gov/rod/newpdf/ 0/2007/2007- Ohio-3724. pdf Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremec ourtofohio. gov/ROD/newpdf/ . In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."(Aug. 1, 2007)
The Supreme Court of Ohio today held that two state statutes and a Toledo city ordinance that restrict and regulate the ownership of pit bull dogs do not violate the constitutional rights of dog owners. In a 7-0 decision authored by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Court reversed rulings of the 6th District Court of Appeals that held the challenged laws unconstitutional. The case involved Paul Tellings of Toledo, who was cited by a dog warden for violating a city ordinance that limits ownership of dogs identified as pit bulls to one such animal per household, and imposes specific muzzling and confinement requirements whenever a pit bull is off its owner's premises. Tellings entered a plea of not guilty in Toledo Municipal Court. He subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, challenging the constitutionality of Toledo Municipal Code 505.14(a) and two state statutes R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4) (a)(iii). The challenged provision of R.C. 955.11 includes all pit bulls within its definition of a "vicious dog."The trial court conducted an extensive hearing on Tellings' motion, and several witnesses testified for both parties regarding the traits and characteristics of pit bulls. The court found that as a breed, pit bulls are not more dangerous than other breeds, but that the evidence supported the city's claim that pit bulls present dangers in an urban setting. Based on that finding, the trial judge issued an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the challenged laws as a reasonable exercise of the government's police powers. Tellings appealed to the 6th District Court of Appeals, which reversed the municipal court's decision. Citing the Supreme Court of Ohio's 2004 decision in State v. Cowan, the court of appeals held that the Toledo ordinance and challenged provisions of state law were unconstitutional on the basis that they denied pit bull owners procedural due process. The 6th District also held that the challenged laws denied pit bull owners equal protection of the law, and were unconstitutionally vague because they lacked a precise definition of what dogs qualify as "pit bulls."The city appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case. Writing for the Court in today's decision, Chief Justice Moyer reversed the 6th District's holdings on each of the constitutional issues raised by Tellings.With regard to Tellings' procedural due process claims, the Chief Justice distinguished the facts of this case from the facts of Cowan, in which the Supreme Court held that a dog warden could not unilaterally determine that a dog was "vicious" based on a reported attack on a person without giving the owner notice and a hearing."In Cowan, the dogs were determined to be vicious under the first two subsections of R.C. 955.11(A)(4) (a) because they had caused injury to a person. Thus, the case concerned the dog warden's unilateral classification of the dogs as vicious," he wrote. "However, in this case, the `vicious dogs' at issue are those classified as pit bulls under the third subsection of R.C. 955.11(A)(4) (a). Unlike the situation in Cowan, the General Assembly has classified pit bulls generally as vicious; there is no concern about unilateral administrative decision-making on a case-by-case basis. The clear statutory language alerts all owners of pit bulls that failure to abide by the laws related to vicious dogs and pit bulls is a crime. Therefore, the laws do not violate the rights of pit bull owners to procedural due process."In rejecting Tellings' substantive due process and equal protection claims, Chief Justice Moyer noted thatthe trial court heard extensive testimony regarding problems associated with pit bulls in urban settings, and cited that evidence as grounds to sustain the constitutionality of the challenged statutes."The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people," Moyer wrote. "The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined; (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed.... The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dogs."Chief Justice Moyer's opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only, and entered a separate opinion expressing her "disapproval" of R.C. 995.11(A)(4) (a)(iii), the provision of state law classifying all pit bulls as "vicious dogs." She wrote that data cited by the trial court regarding pit bull attacks did not reflect inherent violent characteristics of the breed but rather arose from deliberate efforts by some owners, including drug dealers, to increase a dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or aberrant training." Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal," wrote Justice O'Connor. "Because the danger posed by vicious dogs and pit bulls arises from the owner's failure to safely control the animal, rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned."
Contacts Adam Loukx, 419.245.1020, for the City of Toledo. Sol Zyndorf, 419.244.7482, for Paul Tellings
Opinion Summaries Two State Laws, Toledo City Ordinance Regulating Pit Bulls Upheld As Constitutional 2006-0690. Toledo v. Tellings, 2007-Ohio-3724.Lucas App. No. L-04-1224, 2006-Ohio-975. Judgment reversed.Moyer, C.J., Pfeifer, Lundberg Stratton, O'Donnell, Lanzinger and Cupp, JJ., concur.O'Connor, J., concurs in judgment only.
Opinion: http://www.supremec ourtofohio. gov/rod/newpdf/ 0/2007/2007- Ohio-3724. pdf Please note: Opinion summaries are prepared by the Office of Public Information for the general public and news media. Opinion summaries are not prepared for every opinion released by the Court, but only for those cases considered noteworthy or of great public interest. Opinion summaries are not to be considered as official headnotes or syllabi of Court opinions. The full text of this and other Court opinions from 1992 to the present are available online from the Reporter of Decisions: http://www.supremec ourtofohio. gov/ROD/newpdf/ . In the Full Text search box, enter the eight-digit case number at the top of this summary and click "Submit."(Aug. 1, 2007)
The Supreme Court of Ohio today held that two state statutes and a Toledo city ordinance that restrict and regulate the ownership of pit bull dogs do not violate the constitutional rights of dog owners. In a 7-0 decision authored by Chief Justice Thomas J. Moyer, the Court reversed rulings of the 6th District Court of Appeals that held the challenged laws unconstitutional. The case involved Paul Tellings of Toledo, who was cited by a dog warden for violating a city ordinance that limits ownership of dogs identified as pit bulls to one such animal per household, and imposes specific muzzling and confinement requirements whenever a pit bull is off its owner's premises. Tellings entered a plea of not guilty in Toledo Municipal Court. He subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the charges against him, challenging the constitutionality of Toledo Municipal Code 505.14(a) and two state statutes R.C. 955.22 and 955.11(A)(4) (a)(iii). The challenged provision of R.C. 955.11 includes all pit bulls within its definition of a "vicious dog."The trial court conducted an extensive hearing on Tellings' motion, and several witnesses testified for both parties regarding the traits and characteristics of pit bulls. The court found that as a breed, pit bulls are not more dangerous than other breeds, but that the evidence supported the city's claim that pit bulls present dangers in an urban setting. Based on that finding, the trial judge issued an opinion upholding the constitutionality of the challenged laws as a reasonable exercise of the government's police powers. Tellings appealed to the 6th District Court of Appeals, which reversed the municipal court's decision. Citing the Supreme Court of Ohio's 2004 decision in State v. Cowan, the court of appeals held that the Toledo ordinance and challenged provisions of state law were unconstitutional on the basis that they denied pit bull owners procedural due process. The 6th District also held that the challenged laws denied pit bull owners equal protection of the law, and were unconstitutionally vague because they lacked a precise definition of what dogs qualify as "pit bulls."The city appealed and the Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments in the case. Writing for the Court in today's decision, Chief Justice Moyer reversed the 6th District's holdings on each of the constitutional issues raised by Tellings.With regard to Tellings' procedural due process claims, the Chief Justice distinguished the facts of this case from the facts of Cowan, in which the Supreme Court held that a dog warden could not unilaterally determine that a dog was "vicious" based on a reported attack on a person without giving the owner notice and a hearing."In Cowan, the dogs were determined to be vicious under the first two subsections of R.C. 955.11(A)(4) (a) because they had caused injury to a person. Thus, the case concerned the dog warden's unilateral classification of the dogs as vicious," he wrote. "However, in this case, the `vicious dogs' at issue are those classified as pit bulls under the third subsection of R.C. 955.11(A)(4) (a). Unlike the situation in Cowan, the General Assembly has classified pit bulls generally as vicious; there is no concern about unilateral administrative decision-making on a case-by-case basis. The clear statutory language alerts all owners of pit bulls that failure to abide by the laws related to vicious dogs and pit bulls is a crime. Therefore, the laws do not violate the rights of pit bull owners to procedural due process."In rejecting Tellings' substantive due process and equal protection claims, Chief Justice Moyer noted thatthe trial court heard extensive testimony regarding problems associated with pit bulls in urban settings, and cited that evidence as grounds to sustain the constitutionality of the challenged statutes."The trial court cited the substantial evidence supporting its conclusion that pit bulls, compared to other breeds, cause a disproportionate amount of danger to people," Moyer wrote. "The chief dog warden of Lucas County testified that: (1) when pit bulls attack, they are more likely to inflict severe damage to their victim than other breeds of dogs; (2) pit bulls have killed more Ohioans than any other breed of dog; (3) Toledo police officers fire their weapons in the line of duty at pit bulls more often than they fire weapons at people and all other breeds of dogs combined; (4) pit bulls are frequently shot during drug raids because pit bulls are encountered more frequently in drug raids than any other dog breed.... The evidence presented in the trial court supports the conclusion that pit bulls pose a serious danger to the safety of citizens. The state and the city have a legitimate interest in protecting citizens from the danger posed by this breed of domestic dogs."Chief Justice Moyer's opinion was joined by Justices Paul E. Pfeifer, Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Terrence O'Donnell, Judith Ann Lanzinger and Robert R. Cupp.Justice Maureen O'Connor concurred in judgment only, and entered a separate opinion expressing her "disapproval" of R.C. 995.11(A)(4) (a)(iii), the provision of state law classifying all pit bulls as "vicious dogs." She wrote that data cited by the trial court regarding pit bull attacks did not reflect inherent violent characteristics of the breed but rather arose from deliberate efforts by some owners, including drug dealers, to increase a dog's aggression and lethalness through abuse or aberrant training." Almost all domestic animals can cause significant injuries to humans, and it is proper to require that all domestic animals be maintained and controlled. Laws to that effect are eminently reasonable for the safety of citizens and of the animal," wrote Justice O'Connor. "Because the danger posed by vicious dogs and pit bulls arises from the owner's failure to safely control the animal, rational legislation should focus on the owner of the dog rather than the specific breed that is owned."
Contacts Adam Loukx, 419.245.1020, for the City of Toledo. Sol Zyndorf, 419.244.7482, for Paul Tellings
Thursday, July 26, 2007
OH- "Canton Adds Bite to Dog Law"
Canton adds bite to dog law document.title = "Canton adds bite to dog law"; Tuesday, July 10, 2007 By ED BALINT REPOSITORY STAFF WRITER CANTON In a move targeting pit bull owners, City Council toughened the dangerous and vicious-animal law Monday night. Council unanimously amended the ordinance on first reading- meaning the ordinance was introduced at Monday's meeting, but did not receive the two additional readings that most legislation receives before approval. Councilman Greg Hawk, D-1, said he believes the legislation will take effect upon the mayor's signature. With dog complaints more prevalent in the summer, Councilman Donald Casar, D-at large, said the revamped dangerous and vicious animal law should be implemented as soon as possible. Since proposing a stricter law aimed at pit bulls about a month ago, Councilman Joseph Carbenia, D-9, said he's heard more complaints about pit bull-related attacks. Carbenia decided against banning pit bulls outright. "This way they can have (pit bulls)," he said. "They just have to follow the rules." Plus, "outright bans are going to be challenged in the courts, and they're going to create obviously some legal issues that restrictions might not," Kris Bates, assistant city law director, said recently. The new law means that unlike any other breed of dog, a pit bull is now considered vicious simply because of the breed, Bates said, and doesn't have to engage in violent behavior. The owner of a pit bull can be charged with a third-degree misdemeanor if restrictions are not followed, including confining the dog to the backyard and carrying insurance, even if the pit bull did not attack another dog or a person, she said. The same penalty and conditions also apply to other violators of the dangerous and vicious animal ordinance. "It should be a good weapon to battle irresponsible pet owners," Bates said. VICIOUS ANIMAL RESTRICTIONS Under the law, which revises the existing vicious animals ordinance, a pit bull must be confined to a backyard with a six-foot fence. The pit bull can be walked only if on a leash and muzzled. And the owner must have $100,000 in liability insurance, a new requirement. Pit bull owners - and the owners of other animals considered vicious under the law - are entitled to a hearing before the safety director at which the owner can challenge the charge. A hearing was added to comply with an Ohio Supreme Court ruling on a vicious-dog case, Bates said. Without the hearing, Bates said she believes the law may not be enforceable. Pit bulls were not listed specifically in the existing law, passed in 1986, which says: "No person shall knowingly keep, maintain or have in his possession or under his control within the city any dangerous or carnivorous wild animal or reptile of wild, vicious or dangerous propensities." Under the revised ordinance, a dangerous and vicious animal means "any animal that belongs to a breed commonly known as a pit bull dog, whether full blooded or mixed breed." That's the new part. Dangerous and vicious always has meant: -- Any animal with a known propensity, tendency or disposition to attack unprovoked, to cause injury or to otherwise endanger the safety of human beings or domestic animals. -- Any animal which attacks a human being or domestic animal without provocation. -- Any animal owned or harbored primarily or in part for the purpose of fighting or any animal trained for fighting. Animals on the dangerous-animal list already are banned and cannot be owned by a resident unless an exemption is granted through the mayor's office. No dogs, including pit bulls, were on the list. However, the law still bans baboons, elephants, gorillas, sharks and other animals. Carbenia said he wanted to zero in on pit bulls because, "You're more likely to get bit by a pit bull in this town than a coyote." And when pit bulls get loose and cause harm, their owners should be held accountable, he has said. COUNTY DOG WARDEN Evert Gibson, the county dog warden, said he sees "nothing wrong" with the city strengthening its dog laws. Gibson's office monitors owners of pit bulls to make sure they comply with state law by having adequate insurance and meeting other requirements. In the early '90s, a pit bull owner argued that the dogs cannot be considered a vicious animal simply because of the breed and that state law was too vague. But the Ohio Supreme Court sided with the state. According to Jill Rowland, an attorney on the research staff at the Ohio Legislative Service Commission, the court said the public knows what defines a pit bull based on behavioral traits, including the strength of its jaws. But in 2004, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled part of the Ohio's dog law unconstitutional, because it did not allow for a hearing for the owner of a dog that was said to have attacked a neighbor, Rowland said. State lawmakers have not revised the law, which makes its enforcement questionable, Rowland said. Reach Repository writer Ed Balint at (330) 580-8315 or e-mail: ed.balint@canton.com
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)