Iowa Legislative Recap
Print This Article
[Monday, March 01, 2010]
Recently, both houses of the Iowa General Assembly passed versions of House File 2280, which seeks to provide for regulation of commercial establishments that handle dogs and cats. The now–enrolled version of this bill provides the following:
Major Provisions:
•With only one small change regarding racing Greyhounds, the bill continues to use the definition of "commercial breeder" currently found in Iowa law. While arguably low, the threshold contained in the definition—a person must own or harbor four or more breeding males or females to be considered a commercial breeder—was not under consideration for change by this bill. If an individual was considered a commercial breeder or kennel before this bill passed – they will be considered one now. The exception to this is kennels that raise greyhounds for racing. Henceforth, they will be considered commercial kennels, regardless of whether they sell, lease exchange their dogs for a consideration or offer to do so. As always, we encourage all breeders to ensure that they know, understand and follow the laws of their jurisdiction.
•The bill does not change the current law that exempts noncommercial kennels (dogs for the purpose of hobby, hunting, training, show, field, obedience, and guard dog kennels) from having to adhere to the requirements that commercial establishments must adhere to.
•The bill will permit the Iowa Department of Agriculture to monitor a commercial establishment for the limited purpose of determining whether the permittee is providing the proper standard of care. Such inspections may be conducted only during normal working hours, and only if the Department has reasonable cause to suspect that the permittee is not providing for the required standard of care. Reasonable cause is to be proven only by a written complaint made by an identified person or a USDA report for federal licensees ordering the correction of a breach in standard of care.
•Pounds, animal shelters, research facilities, pet shops, boarding kennels, commercial kennels, dealers, commercial breeders, and public auctions are now required to maintain records. The Iowa Department of Agriculture is permitted to inspect those records.
•The bill empowers the Iowa Department of Agriculture to develop care and conditions standards for commercial establishments.
•A person operating a commercial establishment that violates a standard of care will be guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to a civil penalty of up to $500; and will be provided a period of up to 15 days to come correct care and conditions violations. A person operating a commercial establishment without being licensed will be guilty of a simple misdemeanor and subject to a civil penalty of up to $1,000.
•The fee to license a commercial kennel is $175.
If you live in Iowa and have concerns about HF 2280, please contact Governor Chet Culver and express your concerns. The Governor has three days from the day he receives the bill from the General Assembly to veto the bill.
Governor Chet Culver
State Capitol
1007 East Grand Avenue
Des Moines, IA 50319
(515) 281-5211
Showing posts with label Proposed restrictions. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Proposed restrictions. Show all posts
Monday, March 1, 2010
Monday, July 27, 2009
OH- There is still time to comment on HB 124
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!!!
Take advantage of this additional comment period. Don't delay- contact your Law Maker Today!!!
DE- Bills Target Dog Licensing, Housing and Tethering
Delaware Bills Target Dog Licensing, Housing and Tethering
Posted: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 4:32 p.m., EDT
Delaware legislators have passed a measure that seeks to transfer control of the management of dog licenses from the state to individual counties. Legislators are also reconsidering laws that govern primary enclosures for dogs and tethering.
Under House Bill 233, which was recently passed by both the state House of Representatives and Senate, each county would be responsible for issuing the various dog licenses. Currently, dog licenses are issued by the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
The bill grants the counties the authority to determine license fees, appoint licensing agents, enact rules and regulations regarding licensing and provide applications for the following:
•Individual dog owner licenses
•Retail dog outlet licenses
•Kennel licenses
A “retail dog outlet” is defined as “any premise where dogs are sold, offered or maintained for sale, on a retail basis.”
Those who fail to obtain the appropriate dog license would be subject to a fine of at least $50.
The bill, which has been sent to the governor to be signed, would go into effect Jan. 1, 2010.
Click here to view HB 233.
In addition, Delaware legislators have introduced a measure that sets forth amendments pertaining to primary enclosures and tethering.
House Bill 293 establishes a formula for calculating the proper enclosure size for housing a dog. The required floor space is equal to: (length of dog in inches + 6) x (length of dog in inches + 6) x 2.
Size requirements do not apply to:
•Any dog temporarily kept in a smaller enclosure for purposes such as crate training, transportation, or pursuant to a veterinarian’s order.
.
•Any office of a licensed veterinarian.
.
•Any temporary kennel facility where dogs are kept for grooming, boarding, training or other purposes for less than two consecutive weeks (as long as there is sufficient space to allow the dog to turn about freely and to stand erect, sit and lie down in a comfortable, normal position).
.
•A licensed retail dog outlet where dogs are kept on display to patrons of the retail dog outlet during its normal business hours (as long as there is sufficient space to allow the dog to turn about freely and to stand erect, sit and lie down in a comfortable, normal position).
The proposed measure also sets forth instances in which wire flooring may be used in primary enclosures.
HB 293 provides more detailed requirements for the tethering of dogs. The tether would have to be a minimum of either 10 feet-long or three times the length of the dog (which ever is shortest) and allow the dog convenient access to shade, shelter, food and spill-proof water containers.
Tethering would be prohibited under the following circumstances:
•If the tether and/or related attachment(s) is not appropriate for the animal’s weight.
.
•If the tether is attached by means of a pinch-type, prong-type, or choke-type collar, or if the collar is unsafe, or is not properly fitted.
.
•If the tether inhibits the animal’s free movement or causes injury or entanglement.
.
•If a dog is less than four months of age.
.
•Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; unless the tether is used for less than a 15 minute period of time.
Posted: Thursday, July 23, 2009, 4:32 p.m., EDT
Delaware legislators have passed a measure that seeks to transfer control of the management of dog licenses from the state to individual counties. Legislators are also reconsidering laws that govern primary enclosures for dogs and tethering.
Under House Bill 233, which was recently passed by both the state House of Representatives and Senate, each county would be responsible for issuing the various dog licenses. Currently, dog licenses are issued by the state Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control.
The bill grants the counties the authority to determine license fees, appoint licensing agents, enact rules and regulations regarding licensing and provide applications for the following:
•Individual dog owner licenses
•Retail dog outlet licenses
•Kennel licenses
A “retail dog outlet” is defined as “any premise where dogs are sold, offered or maintained for sale, on a retail basis.”
Those who fail to obtain the appropriate dog license would be subject to a fine of at least $50.
The bill, which has been sent to the governor to be signed, would go into effect Jan. 1, 2010.
Click here to view HB 233.
In addition, Delaware legislators have introduced a measure that sets forth amendments pertaining to primary enclosures and tethering.
House Bill 293 establishes a formula for calculating the proper enclosure size for housing a dog. The required floor space is equal to: (length of dog in inches + 6) x (length of dog in inches + 6) x 2.
Size requirements do not apply to:
•Any dog temporarily kept in a smaller enclosure for purposes such as crate training, transportation, or pursuant to a veterinarian’s order.
.
•Any office of a licensed veterinarian.
.
•Any temporary kennel facility where dogs are kept for grooming, boarding, training or other purposes for less than two consecutive weeks (as long as there is sufficient space to allow the dog to turn about freely and to stand erect, sit and lie down in a comfortable, normal position).
.
•A licensed retail dog outlet where dogs are kept on display to patrons of the retail dog outlet during its normal business hours (as long as there is sufficient space to allow the dog to turn about freely and to stand erect, sit and lie down in a comfortable, normal position).
The proposed measure also sets forth instances in which wire flooring may be used in primary enclosures.
HB 293 provides more detailed requirements for the tethering of dogs. The tether would have to be a minimum of either 10 feet-long or three times the length of the dog (which ever is shortest) and allow the dog convenient access to shade, shelter, food and spill-proof water containers.
Tethering would be prohibited under the following circumstances:
•If the tether and/or related attachment(s) is not appropriate for the animal’s weight.
.
•If the tether is attached by means of a pinch-type, prong-type, or choke-type collar, or if the collar is unsafe, or is not properly fitted.
.
•If the tether inhibits the animal’s free movement or causes injury or entanglement.
.
•If a dog is less than four months of age.
.
•Between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.; unless the tether is used for less than a 15 minute period of time.
Monday, July 20, 2009
AL- Three Dog Limit?
Three Dog Limit?
July 17, 2009 - 4:12 PM | by: Brooks Blanton
When it comes to man's best friend, how many is too many? Cities and towns across the country struggle with how to balance the rights of pet owners with their neighbors who complain about too many dogs. Many cities have recently enacted or are currently considering ordinances that would limit the number of pets per household within city limits, unless the owner applies for a special license. Earlier this month the Reading, Pennsylvania City Council set the pet limit to six. In May the Village of Wheeling, Illinois recently said four was enough and the city of San Marcos, Texas was a little more generous saying four dogs or a combination of seven dogs and cats was plenty of pets for one house.
The City of Jacksonville, Alabama recently considered an ordinance that would put a three pet limit on any homes inside the city. Some homes housed at least 15 dogs and last year one home was found to have 34 dogs inside. While a few houses seemed to be bursting at the seams with dogs and cats and their neighbors complained loudly, the mayor asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance limiting the number of pets to three.
"It's a really tough issue because it's one of those things where your rights end and mine begin," said Jacksonville Mayor Johnny L. Smith. "People have a right to have dogs and we don't want to limit that. Their neighbor has the right to be comfortable on their premises as well."
Public meetings filled up after word got out that the council was considering a cap similar to those found in other Alabama cities. Some residents who owned just a few pets joined those who had several, to let the council know how they felt about the idea.
"The government's got no right to tell me how many dogs I can have," one angry dog owner told the city council. "This is a free country and that's what it's based on."
Many residents who own more than the proposed limit say as long as they take care of their animals, the city shouldn't limit how many they can have. Others saw the proposed ordinance as a big-brother style government intrusion on rights. But Kurt and Jill Turner, who live next to a house with at least 15 dogs, see it differently.
"There's an old saying," Kurt Turner, a city firefighter, told the council and fellow residents at a July meeting. "Trouble isn't trouble isn't trouble until trouble is at home. And this is at my home."
The Turners say city residents who opposed the ordinance should try living next to the noise and smell that comes along with 15 dogs in one yard. They say simple pleasures of home ownership, like kids playing in the backyard or cookouts, is not possible when you have foul smells and constant barking coming over the fence.
"I would like to invite any of you to come over and have an evening on our back porch without gagging or puking," Jill Turner said as she addressed the crowd. "We've complained to the police, we have made informational reports with the street department, the dog catcher."
Despite the Turner's comments, city leaders killed the idea this week. But they warn this isn't the first time and probably won't be the last time they have to deal with too many dogs and cats. Mayor Smith says it's one of the most prominent issues that small and medium sized cities struggle with and says he won't be surprised if the Jacksonville City Council to deal with houses overrun by cats and dogs again.
"When you buy a home you need to be comfortable when you walk into your back yard as well," Smith says. "Too much government restricts folks, but if it interferes with other's peoples rights then maybe we're going to have to do something."
July 17, 2009 - 4:12 PM | by: Brooks Blanton
When it comes to man's best friend, how many is too many? Cities and towns across the country struggle with how to balance the rights of pet owners with their neighbors who complain about too many dogs. Many cities have recently enacted or are currently considering ordinances that would limit the number of pets per household within city limits, unless the owner applies for a special license. Earlier this month the Reading, Pennsylvania City Council set the pet limit to six. In May the Village of Wheeling, Illinois recently said four was enough and the city of San Marcos, Texas was a little more generous saying four dogs or a combination of seven dogs and cats was plenty of pets for one house.
The City of Jacksonville, Alabama recently considered an ordinance that would put a three pet limit on any homes inside the city. Some homes housed at least 15 dogs and last year one home was found to have 34 dogs inside. While a few houses seemed to be bursting at the seams with dogs and cats and their neighbors complained loudly, the mayor asked the city attorney to draft an ordinance limiting the number of pets to three.
"It's a really tough issue because it's one of those things where your rights end and mine begin," said Jacksonville Mayor Johnny L. Smith. "People have a right to have dogs and we don't want to limit that. Their neighbor has the right to be comfortable on their premises as well."
Public meetings filled up after word got out that the council was considering a cap similar to those found in other Alabama cities. Some residents who owned just a few pets joined those who had several, to let the council know how they felt about the idea.
"The government's got no right to tell me how many dogs I can have," one angry dog owner told the city council. "This is a free country and that's what it's based on."
Many residents who own more than the proposed limit say as long as they take care of their animals, the city shouldn't limit how many they can have. Others saw the proposed ordinance as a big-brother style government intrusion on rights. But Kurt and Jill Turner, who live next to a house with at least 15 dogs, see it differently.
"There's an old saying," Kurt Turner, a city firefighter, told the council and fellow residents at a July meeting. "Trouble isn't trouble isn't trouble until trouble is at home. And this is at my home."
The Turners say city residents who opposed the ordinance should try living next to the noise and smell that comes along with 15 dogs in one yard. They say simple pleasures of home ownership, like kids playing in the backyard or cookouts, is not possible when you have foul smells and constant barking coming over the fence.
"I would like to invite any of you to come over and have an evening on our back porch without gagging or puking," Jill Turner said as she addressed the crowd. "We've complained to the police, we have made informational reports with the street department, the dog catcher."
Despite the Turner's comments, city leaders killed the idea this week. But they warn this isn't the first time and probably won't be the last time they have to deal with too many dogs and cats. Mayor Smith says it's one of the most prominent issues that small and medium sized cities struggle with and says he won't be surprised if the Jacksonville City Council to deal with houses overrun by cats and dogs again.
"When you buy a home you need to be comfortable when you walk into your back yard as well," Smith says. "Too much government restricts folks, but if it interferes with other's peoples rights then maybe we're going to have to do something."
Monday, July 13, 2009
MA- Devocalization is not inhumane
LETTER: Devocalization is not inhumane, 07-11-09
The Herald News
Posted Jul 10, 2009 @ 03:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly-funded, out-of-state animal rights groups are trying to outlaw a medical procedure that saves lives.
Devocalization, more properly described as bark softening, is a humane procedure when properly done to help keep loved dogs in homes when all efforts at behavior modification have failed to stop the barking. Like any surgery, a vet has to know how to do it. In Massachusetts a handful of surgeons perform the surgery.
Is it reasonable to say a life-saving surgery (for instance heart by-pass surgery) should be outlawed because some surgeons botch it and some results are bad? No. Is it reasonable to outlaw spay/neuter surgery because some dogs die during the procedure or have serious long-term health problems afterwards? No.
I suggest you check the NAIA link on that one to learn more.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdfNational to
What’s going on?
National groups that support themselves by raising funds on animal issues, like the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and other out-of-state animal rights groups squeeze the last dollar out of people who truly care for animals by calling a rare procedure cruel and the media buys in.
Having been an owner and lover of dogs for more than 50 years, a trainer, a breeder, dog show judge and involved in dog rescue, I can tell you from firsthand experience this procedure saves lives. We encourage people with noisy dogs to train them, try non-surgical methods, but if they fail, there is debarking.
Some people are so disturbed by barking they will abuse a dog. Our rescue groups have seen it all. Our national rescue workers reports include, “We have gotten in several extreme abuse cases where the dog was abused because of its non-stop barking. Oven cleaner down the throat; throat slit open; bailing wire tying the dogs muzzle.” http://www.illinoissheltierescue.com/debark.html
I also heard of a of a dog turned into a rescue with an electronic bark collar embedded in its throat. (Jpeg attached)
Alanna Kelly of Massachusetts has a wonderful dog named Striker that at an advanced age is winning all kinds of awards as an agility dog. Kelly debarked Striker for his own safety. “I was threatened he would be killed if he continued to bark,” she said. Kelly reported the threat to the Police and had Stiker’s bark softened. Striker has never had a problem since and is still happily barking away – just more softly.
I own one 16-year-old dog that was debarked when a neighbor complained. She has never had a complication or problem since.
Despite claims to the contrary, debarked dogs don’t have emotional issues with being debarked.
Contrary to what animal rights groups, such as the Humane Society Veterinary Medical group — formerly called the Veterinarians for Animal Rights — suggest, the AVMA has a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association also has taken a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. Properly done, the surgery is quick, nearly bloodless and recovery is quick.
It should also be noted that cats are not devocalized. Why are they included in the bill? Maybe the out-of-state animal rights person who wrote the bill now pending before the state Legislature didn’t know that.
The bill, promoted by a 15-year-old animal rights activist and written by an out-of-state group, would ban this life-saving procedure.
Many legislators signed on after a massive Internet campaign that didn’t get the facts straight.
True animal lovers would not want to remove the last tool we have to save a happy noisy dog from being separated from a family that loves it.
Charlotte McGowan
Newton
The Herald News
Posted Jul 10, 2009 @ 03:23 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highly-funded, out-of-state animal rights groups are trying to outlaw a medical procedure that saves lives.
Devocalization, more properly described as bark softening, is a humane procedure when properly done to help keep loved dogs in homes when all efforts at behavior modification have failed to stop the barking. Like any surgery, a vet has to know how to do it. In Massachusetts a handful of surgeons perform the surgery.
Is it reasonable to say a life-saving surgery (for instance heart by-pass surgery) should be outlawed because some surgeons botch it and some results are bad? No. Is it reasonable to outlaw spay/neuter surgery because some dogs die during the procedure or have serious long-term health problems afterwards? No.
I suggest you check the NAIA link on that one to learn more.
http://www.naiaonline.org/pdfs/LongTermHealthEffectsOfSpayNeuterInDogs.pdfNational to
What’s going on?
National groups that support themselves by raising funds on animal issues, like the Humane Society of the United States, PETA and other out-of-state animal rights groups squeeze the last dollar out of people who truly care for animals by calling a rare procedure cruel and the media buys in.
Having been an owner and lover of dogs for more than 50 years, a trainer, a breeder, dog show judge and involved in dog rescue, I can tell you from firsthand experience this procedure saves lives. We encourage people with noisy dogs to train them, try non-surgical methods, but if they fail, there is debarking.
Some people are so disturbed by barking they will abuse a dog. Our rescue groups have seen it all. Our national rescue workers reports include, “We have gotten in several extreme abuse cases where the dog was abused because of its non-stop barking. Oven cleaner down the throat; throat slit open; bailing wire tying the dogs muzzle.” http://www.illinoissheltierescue.com/debark.html
I also heard of a of a dog turned into a rescue with an electronic bark collar embedded in its throat. (Jpeg attached)
Alanna Kelly of Massachusetts has a wonderful dog named Striker that at an advanced age is winning all kinds of awards as an agility dog. Kelly debarked Striker for his own safety. “I was threatened he would be killed if he continued to bark,” she said. Kelly reported the threat to the Police and had Stiker’s bark softened. Striker has never had a problem since and is still happily barking away – just more softly.
I own one 16-year-old dog that was debarked when a neighbor complained. She has never had a complication or problem since.
Despite claims to the contrary, debarked dogs don’t have emotional issues with being debarked.
Contrary to what animal rights groups, such as the Humane Society Veterinary Medical group — formerly called the Veterinarians for Animal Rights — suggest, the AVMA has a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. The Massachusetts Veterinary Medical Association also has taken a position supporting the procedure as a last resort. Properly done, the surgery is quick, nearly bloodless and recovery is quick.
It should also be noted that cats are not devocalized. Why are they included in the bill? Maybe the out-of-state animal rights person who wrote the bill now pending before the state Legislature didn’t know that.
The bill, promoted by a 15-year-old animal rights activist and written by an out-of-state group, would ban this life-saving procedure.
Many legislators signed on after a massive Internet campaign that didn’t get the facts straight.
True animal lovers would not want to remove the last tool we have to save a happy noisy dog from being separated from a family that loves it.
Charlotte McGowan
Newton
Friday, July 10, 2009
MA- July 14 is a big day for dog law
Massachusetts Alert: 15 Bills to be Heard on Tuesday, July 14th!
From AKC
[Thursday, July 09, 2009]
The Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government has scheduled consideration of 14 dog-related bills at its meeting on Tuesday, July 14th. Another bill of importance, HB 344 (see info, below) will be heard concurrently by the Joint Judiciary Committee. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Massachusetts federation, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (MassFed), encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts to take action: attend Tuesday’s committee hearings, and/or contact the committee members and your elected officials in Massachusetts and let them know whether you support or oppose the bills (as highlighted below) they will consider on Tuesday.
Bills of concern to be heard by the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (Tuesday, July 14; 10AM, Room A-2 of the State House in Boston):
The AKC and MassFed both support HB 1977, which seeks to strengthen Massachusetts’ dangerous dog laws. Its provisions include:
•Allowing dogs previously declared to be “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit “at risk” behavior within 24 months after being designated as “at risk”
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared “at risk”.
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared as “dangerous”.
•Includes due process protections for dog owners.
The AKC and MassFed both oppose HB 1997, which seeks to impose many controversial new dog laws, including:
•Requiring that dog owners with intact dogs acquire an intact animal permit along with a health certificate (which will require state-prescribed vaccination protocols) while in compliance with all other licensing laws. Municipalities are to set the fees for intact animal permits by rule.
•Allowing municipalities to ban or further regulate specific breeds of dogs.
•Deeming certain commonplace acts as nuisance behaviors, the punishment for which could result in euthanization of the animal.
•Severely limiting the means by which an owner may humanely restrain their dog.
The AKC and MassFed both also oppose SB 774, which seeks to severely restrict the rights and operations of most responsible dog breeders in Massachusetts, including:
•Requiring anyone with four or more dogs to obtain a kennel license.
•Limiting the number of intact dogs six months of age or older a person may own to 25.
•Restricting the breeding of dogs to those between the ages of 18 months and eight years of age.
•Imposing strict, hard-to-comply-with, and expensive engineering standards for kennels.
•Allowing inspections of kennels, including private residences, without notice and at any time.
•Mandating strict exercise requirements for dogs kept in a kennel.
Other bills which will be considered by the Joint Municipalities Committee include HB 3704 (animal shelters), SB 763 (dangerous dog registry), SB 778 (spay/neuter fund), HB 1968 (dangerous dogs), HB 1969 (seizure/impoundment), HB 1975 (cat sterilization), HB 2008 (vicious dogs), HB 2015 (vicious dogs), HB 2016 (vicious dogs), HB 3589 (veterinary technicians), and SB 784 (rabies vaccinations). Click here to read MassFed’s positions.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts contact the members of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government listed below. Let them know that you support HB 1977, and oppose both HB 1997 and SB 774.
Senator James B. Eldridge, Chair
Room 213-A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089
James.Eldridge@state.ma.us
Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, Vice-Chair
Room 513
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1578
Fax:617-722-1117
Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us
Senator Susan C. Fargo
State House
Room 504
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1572
Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us
Senator Anthony D. Galluccio
State House
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1650
Anthony.Galluccio@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas P. Kennedy
State House
Room 109-E
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1200
Thomas.P.Kennedy@state.ma.us
Senator Richard R. Tisei
State House
Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1206
Fax: (617) 722-1063
Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us
Representative Paul J. Donato
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative David B. Sullivan
State House
Room 279
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone:617-722-2230
Fax: 617-722-2821
Rep.DavidSullivan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Sean Curran
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.SeanCurran@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr.
State House
Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2011
Fax: 617-722-2238
Rep.AngeloPuppolo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Pam Richardson
State House
Room 448
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2582
Fax: 617-722-2879
Rep.PamRichardson@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative Brian M. Ashe
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.BrianAshe@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Timothy R. Madden
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2810
Fax: 617-722-2846
Rep.TimothyMadden@hou.state.ma.us
Representative F. Jay Barrows
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2488
Fax: 617-722-2390
Rep.FJayBarrows@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Robert S. Hargraves
State House
Room 237
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2305
Fax: 617-722-2598
Rep.RobertHargraves@hou.state.ma.us
At Noon on July 14th, a different committee, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, will consider House Bill 344, which seeks to:
•Make it illegal to debark a dog in Massachusetts in most circumstances.
•Impose unreasonable penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $2,500, for those found in violation of the bill.
The AKC believes that much misinformation exists about debarking of dogs. When performed by a veterinarian, debarking is an acceptable medical procedure that is often done as a "last resort" when all other methods of modifying a dog's behavior have failed. For many responsible dog owners, debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet's noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. The decision to debark a dog is one that is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian.
Both the AKC and MassFed oppose House Bill 344.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts are strongly encouraged to attend Tuesday’s hearing in opposition to HB 344 (Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston); and/or to contact the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and let them know that you oppose HB 344, and encourage them to do the same.
Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, Chair
State House
Room 416-B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1639
Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us
Senator Steven A. Baddour, Vice-Chair
State House
Room 208
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1604
Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us
Senator Gale D. Candaras
State House
Room 213B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1291
Fax: 617-722-1014
Gale.Candaras@State.MA.US
Senator Jack Hart
State House
Room 109-C
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1150
John.Hart@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas M. McGee
State House
Room 112
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1350
Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us
Senator Bruce E. Tarr
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us
Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2819
Rep.GeneOFlaherty@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Christopher N. Speranzo
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative James H. Fagan
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Fax: 617-722-2346
Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Colleen M. Garry
State House
Room 238
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2380
Fax: 617-722-2847
Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Marie P. St. Fleur
State House
Room 43
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2030
Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@hou.state.ma.us
Representative John V. Fernandes
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2215
Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative James J. Dwyer
State House
Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2014
Fax: 617-626-0831
Rep.JamesJDwyer@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Danielle W. Gregoire
State House
Room 26
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2080
Rep.DanielleGregoire@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Lewis G. Evangelidis
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Daniel K. Webster
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2487
Rep.DanielWebster@hou.state.ma.us
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Owners at www.massfeddogs.org.
From AKC
[Thursday, July 09, 2009]
The Massachusetts legislature’s Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government has scheduled consideration of 14 dog-related bills at its meeting on Tuesday, July 14th. Another bill of importance, HB 344 (see info, below) will be heard concurrently by the Joint Judiciary Committee. The American Kennel Club (AKC) and its Massachusetts federation, the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Dog Owners (MassFed), encourage all responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts to take action: attend Tuesday’s committee hearings, and/or contact the committee members and your elected officials in Massachusetts and let them know whether you support or oppose the bills (as highlighted below) they will consider on Tuesday.
Bills of concern to be heard by the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government (Tuesday, July 14; 10AM, Room A-2 of the State House in Boston):
The AKC and MassFed both support HB 1977, which seeks to strengthen Massachusetts’ dangerous dog laws. Its provisions include:
•Allowing dogs previously declared to be “at risk” to have the designation removed if the dog does not exhibit “at risk” behavior within 24 months after being designated as “at risk”
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared “at risk”.
•Providing for duties of local animal control when a dog is declared as “dangerous”.
•Includes due process protections for dog owners.
The AKC and MassFed both oppose HB 1997, which seeks to impose many controversial new dog laws, including:
•Requiring that dog owners with intact dogs acquire an intact animal permit along with a health certificate (which will require state-prescribed vaccination protocols) while in compliance with all other licensing laws. Municipalities are to set the fees for intact animal permits by rule.
•Allowing municipalities to ban or further regulate specific breeds of dogs.
•Deeming certain commonplace acts as nuisance behaviors, the punishment for which could result in euthanization of the animal.
•Severely limiting the means by which an owner may humanely restrain their dog.
The AKC and MassFed both also oppose SB 774, which seeks to severely restrict the rights and operations of most responsible dog breeders in Massachusetts, including:
•Requiring anyone with four or more dogs to obtain a kennel license.
•Limiting the number of intact dogs six months of age or older a person may own to 25.
•Restricting the breeding of dogs to those between the ages of 18 months and eight years of age.
•Imposing strict, hard-to-comply-with, and expensive engineering standards for kennels.
•Allowing inspections of kennels, including private residences, without notice and at any time.
•Mandating strict exercise requirements for dogs kept in a kennel.
Other bills which will be considered by the Joint Municipalities Committee include HB 3704 (animal shelters), SB 763 (dangerous dog registry), SB 778 (spay/neuter fund), HB 1968 (dangerous dogs), HB 1969 (seizure/impoundment), HB 1975 (cat sterilization), HB 2008 (vicious dogs), HB 2015 (vicious dogs), HB 2016 (vicious dogs), HB 3589 (veterinary technicians), and SB 784 (rabies vaccinations). Click here to read MassFed’s positions.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
It is imperative that all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts contact the members of the Joint Committee on Municipalities and Regional Government listed below. Let them know that you support HB 1977, and oppose both HB 1997 and SB 774.
Senator James B. Eldridge, Chair
Room 213-A
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1120
Fax: (617) 722-1089
James.Eldridge@state.ma.us
Senator Patricia D. Jehlen, Vice-Chair
Room 513
State House
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1578
Fax:617-722-1117
Patricia.Jehlen@state.ma.us
Senator Susan C. Fargo
State House
Room 504
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1572
Susan.Fargo@state.ma.us
Senator Anthony D. Galluccio
State House
Room 218
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1650
Anthony.Galluccio@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas P. Kennedy
State House
Room 109-E
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1200
Thomas.P.Kennedy@state.ma.us
Senator Richard R. Tisei
State House
Room 308
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1206
Fax: (617) 722-1063
Richard.Tisei@state.ma.us
Representative Paul J. Donato
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.PaulDonato@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Joyce A. Spiliotis
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Rep.JoyceSpiliotis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative David B. Sullivan
State House
Room 279
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone:617-722-2230
Fax: 617-722-2821
Rep.DavidSullivan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Sean Curran
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.SeanCurran@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Angelo J. Puppolo, Jr.
State House
Room 146
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2011
Fax: 617-722-2238
Rep.AngeloPuppolo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Pam Richardson
State House
Room 448
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2582
Fax: 617-722-2879
Rep.PamRichardson@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative Brian M. Ashe
State House
Room 540
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2090
Fax: 617-722-2848
Rep.BrianAshe@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Timothy R. Madden
State House
Room 167
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2810
Fax: 617-722-2846
Rep.TimothyMadden@hou.state.ma.us
Representative F. Jay Barrows
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2488
Fax: 617-722-2390
Rep.FJayBarrows@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Robert S. Hargraves
State House
Room 237
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2305
Fax: 617-722-2598
Rep.RobertHargraves@hou.state.ma.us
At Noon on July 14th, a different committee, the Joint Committee on the Judiciary, will consider House Bill 344, which seeks to:
•Make it illegal to debark a dog in Massachusetts in most circumstances.
•Impose unreasonable penalties, including imprisonment of up to five years and/or a fine of not more than $2,500, for those found in violation of the bill.
The AKC believes that much misinformation exists about debarking of dogs. When performed by a veterinarian, debarking is an acceptable medical procedure that is often done as a "last resort" when all other methods of modifying a dog's behavior have failed. For many responsible dog owners, debarking is the only alternative to euthanizing or surrendering their canine companion to a local shelter when their pet's noisy behavior continually disturbs the community. The decision to debark a dog is one that is best left to the dog owner and his veterinarian.
Both the AKC and MassFed oppose House Bill 344.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in Massachusetts are strongly encouraged to attend Tuesday’s hearing in opposition to HB 344 (Gardner Auditorium, State House, Boston); and/or to contact the members of the Joint Committee on the Judiciary and let them know that you oppose HB 344, and encourage them to do the same.
Senator Cynthia Stone Creem, Chair
State House
Room 416-B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1639
Cynthia.Creem@state.ma.us
Senator Steven A. Baddour, Vice-Chair
State House
Room 208
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1604
Steven.Baddour@state.ma.us
Senator Gale D. Candaras
State House
Room 213B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-1291
Fax: 617-722-1014
Gale.Candaras@State.MA.US
Senator Jack Hart
State House
Room 109-C
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1150
John.Hart@state.ma.us
Senator Thomas M. McGee
State House
Room 112
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1350
Thomas.McGee@state.ma.us
Senator Bruce E. Tarr
State House
Room 313-A
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: (617) 722-1600
Bruce.Tarr@state.ma.us
Representative Eugene L. O’Flaherty
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2819
Rep.GeneOFlaherty@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Christopher N. Speranzo
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Rep.ChristopherSperanzo@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative James H. Fagan
State House
Room 236
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2430
Fax: 617-722-2346
Rep.JamesFagan@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Colleen M. Garry
State House
Room 238
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2380
Fax: 617-722-2847
Rep.ColleenGarry@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Marie P. St. Fleur
State House
Room 43
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2030
Rep.MarieSt.Fleur@hou.state.ma.us
Representative John V. Fernandes
State House
Room 136
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2396
Fax: 617-722-2215
Rep.JohnFernandes@Hou.State.MA.US
Representative Katherine Clark
State House
Room 252
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2220
Fax: 617-722-2850
Rep.KatherineClark@HOU.State.MA.US
Representative James J. Dwyer
State House
Room 39
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2014
Fax: 617-626-0831
Rep.JamesJDwyer@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Danielle W. Gregoire
State House
Room 26
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2080
Rep.DanielleGregoire@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Lewis G. Evangelidis
State House
Room 473B
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2263
Rep.LewisEvangelidis@hou.state.ma.us
Representative Daniel K. Webster
State House
Room 542
Boston, MA 02133
Telephone: 617-722-2487
Rep.DanielWebster@hou.state.ma.us
For more information, contact AKC’s Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org; or contact the Massachusetts Federation of Dog Clubs and Responsible Owners at www.massfeddogs.org.
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!!
Thursday, July 9, 2009
MA- HB344: Devocalization law could harm more than it helps
HB 344: Devocalization law could harm more than it helps
By Beth Coughlin, Boston Dog Laws Examiner
Only July 14th the Massachusetts State House of Representatives will be holding a committee meeting regarding House Bill 344 (HB344): An Act Prohibiting the Devocalization of Dogs and Cats.
On the surface, many dog-lovers may say "good law".
When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.
Certain breeds, including shetland sheep dogs and several breeds of terriers are high-alert dogs. Regardless of the training methods you use: positive reinforcement, punishment, desensitization, homopathy and even medication, they will continue to bark in a manner that can cause nuisance dog complaints.
Likewise, some neighbors will opt to complain even if a dog's behavior is below the threshhold set by nuisance dog laws.
This law does not view the potential risk of being euthanized due to nuisance complaints a "legitimate health risk". While many dog owners would agree that there are some people too ready to devocalize, this is a topic that should be handled from an education, not legislation approach.
While all other options should be explored prior to resorting to devocalization, better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark then in a shelter wondering if "tomorrow is the day."
Contact your representative and let them know this is a bad law when you look at the larger picture. In the sheep's clothing of animal welfare, animal rights activists have advocated turning a legitimate veterinary procedure into a Felony Offense.
For more info: Full text of HB344
By Beth Coughlin, Boston Dog Laws Examiner
Only July 14th the Massachusetts State House of Representatives will be holding a committee meeting regarding House Bill 344 (HB344): An Act Prohibiting the Devocalization of Dogs and Cats.
On the surface, many dog-lovers may say "good law".
When you really dig deeper, below the surface this is really bad legislation that has the potential to land otherwise potentially great dogs in death row awaiting destruction because they have a proclivity for barking.
Certain breeds, including shetland sheep dogs and several breeds of terriers are high-alert dogs. Regardless of the training methods you use: positive reinforcement, punishment, desensitization, homopathy and even medication, they will continue to bark in a manner that can cause nuisance dog complaints.
Likewise, some neighbors will opt to complain even if a dog's behavior is below the threshhold set by nuisance dog laws.
This law does not view the potential risk of being euthanized due to nuisance complaints a "legitimate health risk". While many dog owners would agree that there are some people too ready to devocalize, this is a topic that should be handled from an education, not legislation approach.
While all other options should be explored prior to resorting to devocalization, better safe in a home with a smaller, raspy bark then in a shelter wondering if "tomorrow is the day."
Contact your representative and let them know this is a bad law when you look at the larger picture. In the sheep's clothing of animal welfare, animal rights activists have advocated turning a legitimate veterinary procedure into a Felony Offense.
For more info: Full text of HB344
Wednesday, July 8, 2009
CA- New pet proposal needs to be sterilized
LOCAL VIEWS: New pet proposal needs to be sterilized
By MICHAEL M. ROSEN - For the North County Times | Sunday, July 5, 2009 12:11 AM PDT
"If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence," Will Rogers once said, "try ordering somebody else's dog around."
California legislators must have precisely such a glorified view of their own power, as the state Senate in June narrowly approved Senate Bill 250, a proposal that would mandate the sterilization of most cats and dogs.
The measure would require owners to sterilize all dogs and cats within six months of birth or otherwise obtain an "unaltered dog or cat license," if the governing city or county provides such a license. Thus, if your municipality hasn't set up a licensing system for "unaltered" animals, you may have no choice but to neuter Fido.
And even if the owner obtains an unaltered pet license, any violation of a state, city or county ordinance "relating to the care and control of animals" ---- including permitting the pet to "roam at large" ---- could result in revocation of the license. So if Fido escapes from your house, even once, kiss the canine jewels good-bye, even if they're licensed.
Worst of all, that same violation could preclude you from ever getting a license again.
Needless to say, the bill is bad news for pet owners. It's costly, it's unfair and it doesn't work. The good news? There's still time to stop it.
After squeaking past the Senate on a 21-16 party-line vote, following a failed first reading, the measure on Tuesday passed through the Assembly's Business and Professions Committee.
Next up: the Appropriations Committee, where tougher sledding is expected, considering the state's horrific budget problems.
Last week, the California Department of Finance concluded the bill "would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund," in part because "given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines."
Proponents of the bill contend that the state budget won't take a hit because implementation will be foisted onto cities and counties. Even if that's true, though, how is it any better to shift the costs to struggling local governments?
As Valley Center's Susan Sholar, the legislative chairman of the Silver Bay Kennel Club, asked me (rhetorically), "why do our state officials seem more worried about mandatory castration of our pets instead of balancing a budget, keeping our teachers in the classroom and our fire and police department up to full manpower?"
Basic fairness to pet owners is another major concern. The moderate National Animal Interest Alliance decried the bill's "one-strike-and-you're-out" policy, which includes minor offenses.
And opposition to SB 250 spans the ideological spectrum, notwithstanding the party-line vote approving the bill. One self-styled "progressive" criticized the measure in the San Francisco Chronicle for "forc[ing] low-income families to obtain a veterinary procedure they cannot afford while imposing penalties and fees, all under the threat of having to surrender the pet to animal control authorities-during a recession, no less."
Foes of the bill also include the ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association, while proponents of force sterilization, not surprisingly, include radical animal rights groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.
One other wrinkle: traditional Judaism, among other faiths, prohibits animal sterilization as contrary to nature. God endows his creatures with the ability to "be fruitful and multiply," and we usurp his role when we destroy that endowment. While SB 250 contains loopholes, it still imposes a heavy burden on the practice of religious beliefs. In its lawsuit seeking to overturn on constitutional grounds the city of Los Angeles's forced sterilization program, Concerned Dog Owners of California cited this concern.
Critics of the bill also question the effectiveness of mandatory spay/neuter laws. Indeed, one study of Santa Cruz County's compulsory sterilization program found the county's euthanasia rates were substantially higher than in adjacent counties with no such laws and 44 percent higher than in San Diego County.
Similarly, an NAIA report established that the city of Los Angeles's dog euthanasia rate declined by 67 percent during the five years prior to its enactment of a mandatory spay-neuter law and leaped by 30 percent afterward. These are deeply disturbing statistics.
Ultimately, "if people want to have the dogs we love in the future," one North County woman with a therapy dog told me, "we need to fight for our rights and against law-abiding dog owners being turned into criminals."
Or, as Will Rogers might have said, let's persuade Sacramento to stop ordering our pets around.
MICHAEL M. ROSEN, an attorney in Carmel Valley, is the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. The views expressed are his own. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.
By MICHAEL M. ROSEN - For the North County Times | Sunday, July 5, 2009 12:11 AM PDT
"If you get to thinking you're a person of some influence," Will Rogers once said, "try ordering somebody else's dog around."
California legislators must have precisely such a glorified view of their own power, as the state Senate in June narrowly approved Senate Bill 250, a proposal that would mandate the sterilization of most cats and dogs.
The measure would require owners to sterilize all dogs and cats within six months of birth or otherwise obtain an "unaltered dog or cat license," if the governing city or county provides such a license. Thus, if your municipality hasn't set up a licensing system for "unaltered" animals, you may have no choice but to neuter Fido.
And even if the owner obtains an unaltered pet license, any violation of a state, city or county ordinance "relating to the care and control of animals" ---- including permitting the pet to "roam at large" ---- could result in revocation of the license. So if Fido escapes from your house, even once, kiss the canine jewels good-bye, even if they're licensed.
Worst of all, that same violation could preclude you from ever getting a license again.
Needless to say, the bill is bad news for pet owners. It's costly, it's unfair and it doesn't work. The good news? There's still time to stop it.
After squeaking past the Senate on a 21-16 party-line vote, following a failed first reading, the measure on Tuesday passed through the Assembly's Business and Professions Committee.
Next up: the Appropriations Committee, where tougher sledding is expected, considering the state's horrific budget problems.
Last week, the California Department of Finance concluded the bill "would result in a substantial increase to the General Fund," in part because "given the current economic climate, requiring the owners of dogs and cats to pay for sterilization procedures would result in more animals being abandoned or surrendered because of the owners' inability to finance the sterilization procedure and pay additional fines."
Proponents of the bill contend that the state budget won't take a hit because implementation will be foisted onto cities and counties. Even if that's true, though, how is it any better to shift the costs to struggling local governments?
As Valley Center's Susan Sholar, the legislative chairman of the Silver Bay Kennel Club, asked me (rhetorically), "why do our state officials seem more worried about mandatory castration of our pets instead of balancing a budget, keeping our teachers in the classroom and our fire and police department up to full manpower?"
Basic fairness to pet owners is another major concern. The moderate National Animal Interest Alliance decried the bill's "one-strike-and-you're-out" policy, which includes minor offenses.
And opposition to SB 250 spans the ideological spectrum, notwithstanding the party-line vote approving the bill. One self-styled "progressive" criticized the measure in the San Francisco Chronicle for "forc[ing] low-income families to obtain a veterinary procedure they cannot afford while imposing penalties and fees, all under the threat of having to surrender the pet to animal control authorities-during a recession, no less."
Foes of the bill also include the ASPCA and the American Veterinary Medical Association, while proponents of force sterilization, not surprisingly, include radical animal rights groups like PETA and the Humane Society of the United States.
One other wrinkle: traditional Judaism, among other faiths, prohibits animal sterilization as contrary to nature. God endows his creatures with the ability to "be fruitful and multiply," and we usurp his role when we destroy that endowment. While SB 250 contains loopholes, it still imposes a heavy burden on the practice of religious beliefs. In its lawsuit seeking to overturn on constitutional grounds the city of Los Angeles's forced sterilization program, Concerned Dog Owners of California cited this concern.
Critics of the bill also question the effectiveness of mandatory spay/neuter laws. Indeed, one study of Santa Cruz County's compulsory sterilization program found the county's euthanasia rates were substantially higher than in adjacent counties with no such laws and 44 percent higher than in San Diego County.
Similarly, an NAIA report established that the city of Los Angeles's dog euthanasia rate declined by 67 percent during the five years prior to its enactment of a mandatory spay-neuter law and leaped by 30 percent afterward. These are deeply disturbing statistics.
Ultimately, "if people want to have the dogs we love in the future," one North County woman with a therapy dog told me, "we need to fight for our rights and against law-abiding dog owners being turned into criminals."
Or, as Will Rogers might have said, let's persuade Sacramento to stop ordering our pets around.
MICHAEL M. ROSEN, an attorney in Carmel Valley, is the secretary of the San Diego County Republican Party. The views expressed are his own. Contact him at michaelmrosen@yahoo.com.
PA- Proposed limiting pets in Reading advances
Last Update: 7/7/2009 12:22:00 AM
Proposal limiting pets in Reading advances
By Don Spatz
Reading Eagle
A City Council committee on Monday agreed to a proposal that would limit city residents to no more than six pets - not counting fish - unless they apply for a $50 city permit.
To get that permit, the residents would have to let the city inspect their homes to see if they're appropriate for housing more than six animals.
"It's so we don't have six Great Danes in a town house," Barrie Pease told council's Public Safety Committee.
Pease is chairman of the city Animal Control Board that's recommending the change.
The permits would have to be renewed annually. Renewals would cost $25.
The proposal also calls for a $75 fee for a permit for exotic animals like large snakes or other non-native animals.
The Animal Rescue League of Berks County enforces the city animal ordinances. A few weeks ago it took 22 dogs from a home on South 181/2 Street, leaving four dogs there, Executive Director Harry D. Brown III told the committee.
The pet permit proposal is taken from similar measures in Allentown, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Bethlehem.
Wyomissing, Sinking Spring and Shillington have similar limits on the number of pets.
The committee agreed to make some changes and forward the proposal to the entire council.
If the proposal passes, residents would have three months to comply, but Pease said residents with more than six pets would not necessarily have to get rid of any.
If they apply for a permit, they can have more than six pets - if the city believes they can handle them, Pease said.
But the proposal will be rewritten to allow the city to confiscate pets if it determines that someone temporarily relocated pets to skirt the ordinance rather than bring them back.
The proposal also would give police authority to seek a search warrant to enter a home to investigate.
The same proposal also would place tight restrictions on any dog that bites or attacks anyone without provocation, or has a history of it.
The city's former dangerous dog ordinance focused on breeds deemed dangerous, but Commonwealth Court last year threw it out.
Contact Don Spatz: 610-371-5027 or dspatz@readingeagle.com.
Proposal limiting pets in Reading advances
By Don Spatz
Reading Eagle
A City Council committee on Monday agreed to a proposal that would limit city residents to no more than six pets - not counting fish - unless they apply for a $50 city permit.
To get that permit, the residents would have to let the city inspect their homes to see if they're appropriate for housing more than six animals.
"It's so we don't have six Great Danes in a town house," Barrie Pease told council's Public Safety Committee.
Pease is chairman of the city Animal Control Board that's recommending the change.
The permits would have to be renewed annually. Renewals would cost $25.
The proposal also calls for a $75 fee for a permit for exotic animals like large snakes or other non-native animals.
The Animal Rescue League of Berks County enforces the city animal ordinances. A few weeks ago it took 22 dogs from a home on South 181/2 Street, leaving four dogs there, Executive Director Harry D. Brown III told the committee.
The pet permit proposal is taken from similar measures in Allentown, Harrisburg, Lancaster and Bethlehem.
Wyomissing, Sinking Spring and Shillington have similar limits on the number of pets.
The committee agreed to make some changes and forward the proposal to the entire council.
If the proposal passes, residents would have three months to comply, but Pease said residents with more than six pets would not necessarily have to get rid of any.
If they apply for a permit, they can have more than six pets - if the city believes they can handle them, Pease said.
But the proposal will be rewritten to allow the city to confiscate pets if it determines that someone temporarily relocated pets to skirt the ordinance rather than bring them back.
The proposal also would give police authority to seek a search warrant to enter a home to investigate.
The same proposal also would place tight restrictions on any dog that bites or attacks anyone without provocation, or has a history of it.
The city's former dangerous dog ordinance focused on breeds deemed dangerous, but Commonwealth Court last year threw it out.
Contact Don Spatz: 610-371-5027 or dspatz@readingeagle.com.
Sunday, June 21, 2009
CA- Legislators consider a limit on pet ownership
California Legislators Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to
limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state
Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on
Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a
combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for
breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than
that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer
or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia
procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or
other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control
officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation.
Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert
stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession
of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the
animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size
of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the
animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane
care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under
which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the
euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly
healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest
facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the
incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in
breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the
public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee
on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Click here to view the bill.
http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/06/18/california-legislators-to-consider-bill-on-limiting-ownership-of-intact-dogs-and-cats.aspx
California Legislators to Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m., EDT
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to
limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state
Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on
Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a
combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for
breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than
that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer
or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia
procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or
other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the
Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control
officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation.
Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert
stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession
of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the
animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size
of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the
animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane
care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under
which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the
euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly
healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest
facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the
incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in
breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the
public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee
on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Click here to view the bill.
http://www.petproductnews.com/headlines/2009/06/18/california-legislators-to-consider-bill-on-limiting-ownership-of-intact-dogs-and-cats.aspx
California Legislators to Consider Bill on Limiting Ownership of Intact Dogs and Cats
Posted: Thursday, June 18, 2009, 4:22 p.m., EDT
California legislators are poised to hear a measure that seeks to limit the number of intact dogs and cats a person may own. The state Assembly recently approved the bill, and the Senate Committee on Public Safety is scheduled to hear the proposal on June 23.
Assembly Bill 241 would prohibit any person from having more than a combined total of 50 unsterilized dogs and cats that are kept for breeding or raised for sale as pets. Those in possession of more than that would have to spay or neuter the excess animals or sell, transfer or relinquish the animals within 30 days. If necessary, any euthanasia procedures would have to be performed by a licensed veterinarian or other qualified person as pursuant to regulations adopted by the Veterinary Medical Board.
AB 241 authorizes a peace officer, humane officer or animal control officer to take possession of any animal that is kept in violation. Violators would be guilty of a misdemeanor.
The Pet Industry Joint Advisory Council (PIJAC) has issued an alert stating that AB 241 would impose an “irrational ban on the possession of dogs and cats irrespective of the quality of care provided to the animals.” PIJAC argues that there is no correlation between the size of a breeding facility and the quality of care provided to the animals. According to the organization, the only way to ensure humane care of animals is to establish and enforce reasonable standards under which breeders may keep them.
PIJAC specifically expressed concern that the bill would “require the euthanasia or relinquishment of dogs and cats that are perfectly healthy and being maintained with the best possible care in the finest facilities.” PIJAC also claimed that the bill would increase the incidences of defects in dogs and cats by limiting the diversity in breeding stock.
In its alert, PIJAC called on members of the pet industry and the public to contact state Senators and members of the Senate Committee on Public Safety and speak out against the proposed bill.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
NY- Strict Breeders Bill introduced in New York State Senate
New Strict Breeders Bills Introduced In New York State Senate
[Friday, May 01, 2009]
Two new bills in the New York State Senate would severely limit the operations of responsible dog breeders in the Empire State. The American Kennel Club opposes these bills, and strongly encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in New York to contact the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which currently has cognizance of both bills, and respectfully express their opposition to the bills.
Senate Bill 4515 would require the registration and regulation of animal breeders. SB 4515 features many problematic provisions, including:
•Defining "breeder" as any person who breeds three or more animals for sale per year for profit. Any person defined as a "breeder" will be required to obtain a breeder license annually. The definition exempts from the definition duly incorporated humane societies. The threshold contained in this definition is overbroad and will apply the vast majority of dog breeders, thereby making enforcement impossible.
•Imposing stringent engineering requirements for animals' primary enclosures. As currently worded, these strict requirements will apply to all locations where dogs are housed, including the private residences of those classified as a 'breeder' under this law. This will potentially require thousands of dollars in extensive upgrades to be made to some individuals' residences.
•Mandating twice-a-year inspections of breeders' facility to be conducted at the breeder's expense. This additional, undefined fee could significantly the resources breeders need for caring for their animals. Additionally, due to the low threshold contained in the definition of "breeder" listed above, the number of inspections required under this new law will create an enforcement nightmare for New York state officials.
•Limiting "pet dealers" in New York to obtaining dogs only from New York State licensed "breeders." This requirement will inhibit many responsible purebred dog breeding programs by arbitrarily limiting operations; and will affect the health of many breeding programs by unreasonably and arbitrarily limiting gene pool diversity.
Senate Bill 4690 seeks to impose ownership limits and allow seizure of certain animals. The AKC opposes the following measures in SB 4690:
•Limit any person from owning more than 50 unsterilized dogs. The AKC believes that numerical limits do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. Additionally, this definition does not exclude dogs under a certain age; as such, many responsible purebred dog breeders could inadvertently exceed this arbitrary limit by having several large litters.
•Allow any police officer, any agent or officer of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or any agent or officer of any duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals to seize dogs kept in violation of the proposed 50 dog limit if certain due process requirements are met. The bill does not detail the fate of animals seized pursuant to this bill.
•Amend the existing definition to "pet dealer" to include any person who engages in the sale or offering for sale of more than nine animals per year for profit at wholesale or to the public, including breeders who sell animals directly to consumers or at wholesale. By expanding this definition, more New Yorkers will be required to adhere to the many statutory provisions required of pet dealers in New York.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned New Yorkers are strongly encouraged to contact the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee listed below. Respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose both Senate Bill 4515 and Senate Bill 4690, and urge them to do the same.
New York Senate Agriculture Committee:
Senator Darrel J. Aubertine, Chairman
Room 903,Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2761
E-mail: aubertin@senate.state.ny.us
Senator William T. Stachowski
Room 802,Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2426
Fax: (518) 426-6851
E-mail: stachows@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Velmanette Montgomery
Room 306, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY12247
Phone: (518) 455-3451
Fax: (518) 426-6854
E-mail: montgome@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Neil D. Breslin
Room 502, Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2225
Fax: (518) 426-6807
E-mail: breslin@senate.state.ny.us
Senator David J. Valesky
Room 416, Capitol Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2838
Fax: (518) 426-6885
E-mail: valesky@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Catharine M. Young
Room513, Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3563
Fax: (518) 426-6905
To e-mail Senator Young, click here.
Senator James L. Seward
Room711B, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3131
To e-mail Senator Seward, click here.
Senator George H. Winner, Jr.
Room415, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2091
Fax: (518) 426-6976
To e-mail Senator Winner, click here.
Senator Michael Ranzenhofer
Room315, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3161
Fax: (518) 426-6963
To e-mail Senator Ranzenhofer, click here.
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
[Friday, May 01, 2009]
Two new bills in the New York State Senate would severely limit the operations of responsible dog breeders in the Empire State. The American Kennel Club opposes these bills, and strongly encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in New York to contact the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee, which currently has cognizance of both bills, and respectfully express their opposition to the bills.
Senate Bill 4515 would require the registration and regulation of animal breeders. SB 4515 features many problematic provisions, including:
•Defining "breeder" as any person who breeds three or more animals for sale per year for profit. Any person defined as a "breeder" will be required to obtain a breeder license annually. The definition exempts from the definition duly incorporated humane societies. The threshold contained in this definition is overbroad and will apply the vast majority of dog breeders, thereby making enforcement impossible.
•Imposing stringent engineering requirements for animals' primary enclosures. As currently worded, these strict requirements will apply to all locations where dogs are housed, including the private residences of those classified as a 'breeder' under this law. This will potentially require thousands of dollars in extensive upgrades to be made to some individuals' residences.
•Mandating twice-a-year inspections of breeders' facility to be conducted at the breeder's expense. This additional, undefined fee could significantly the resources breeders need for caring for their animals. Additionally, due to the low threshold contained in the definition of "breeder" listed above, the number of inspections required under this new law will create an enforcement nightmare for New York state officials.
•Limiting "pet dealers" in New York to obtaining dogs only from New York State licensed "breeders." This requirement will inhibit many responsible purebred dog breeding programs by arbitrarily limiting operations; and will affect the health of many breeding programs by unreasonably and arbitrarily limiting gene pool diversity.
Senate Bill 4690 seeks to impose ownership limits and allow seizure of certain animals. The AKC opposes the following measures in SB 4690:
•Limit any person from owning more than 50 unsterilized dogs. The AKC believes that numerical limits do not address the underlying issues of responsible ownership and proper dog care. Additionally, this definition does not exclude dogs under a certain age; as such, many responsible purebred dog breeders could inadvertently exceed this arbitrary limit by having several large litters.
•Allow any police officer, any agent or officer of the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, or any agent or officer of any duly incorporated society for the prevention of cruelty to animals to seize dogs kept in violation of the proposed 50 dog limit if certain due process requirements are met. The bill does not detail the fate of animals seized pursuant to this bill.
•Amend the existing definition to "pet dealer" to include any person who engages in the sale or offering for sale of more than nine animals per year for profit at wholesale or to the public, including breeders who sell animals directly to consumers or at wholesale. By expanding this definition, more New Yorkers will be required to adhere to the many statutory provisions required of pet dealers in New York.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
Concerned New Yorkers are strongly encouraged to contact the members of the Senate Agriculture Committee listed below. Respectfully yet strongly let them know that you oppose both Senate Bill 4515 and Senate Bill 4690, and urge them to do the same.
New York Senate Agriculture Committee:
Senator Darrel J. Aubertine, Chairman
Room 903,Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2761
E-mail: aubertin@senate.state.ny.us
Senator William T. Stachowski
Room 802,Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2426
Fax: (518) 426-6851
E-mail: stachows@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Velmanette Montgomery
Room 306, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY12247
Phone: (518) 455-3451
Fax: (518) 426-6854
E-mail: montgome@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Neil D. Breslin
Room 502, Capitol Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2225
Fax: (518) 426-6807
E-mail: breslin@senate.state.ny.us
Senator David J. Valesky
Room 416, Capitol Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2838
Fax: (518) 426-6885
E-mail: valesky@senate.state.ny.us
Senator Catharine M. Young
Room513, Legislative Office Building
Albany, New York 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3563
Fax: (518) 426-6905
To e-mail Senator Young, click here.
Senator James L. Seward
Room711B, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3131
To e-mail Senator Seward, click here.
Senator George H. Winner, Jr.
Room415, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-2091
Fax: (518) 426-6976
To e-mail Senator Winner, click here.
Senator Michael Ranzenhofer
Room315, Legislative Office Building
Albany, NY 12247
Phone: (518) 455-3161
Fax: (518) 426-6963
To e-mail Senator Ranzenhofer, click here.
For more information, contact AKC's Government Relations Department at (919) 816-3720, or e-mail doglaw@akc.org.
Saturday, March 28, 2009
KS- Local Battle in Wichita
Wichita, KS – The Wichita City Council has given preliminary approval to an ordinance that would severely impact the rights of local dog owners. Anyone wishing to own more than two dogs or cats must obtain an Animal Maintenance Permit (AMP), at which time they may own up to four dogs or cats. Owners of “pit bulls” may not apply for an AMP and must sterilize their dogs. The proposal imposes several other restrictions, including banning “pit bulls” from dog parks and limiting the number of dogs a person may have at a dog park at any time. AKC has submitted a letter and memo to the City Council and is working with local dog clubs to stop this ordinance.
ND- South Heart, 3 dog household limit
South Heart, ND – The South Heart City Council has recently placed a three dog limit on all households in the town. AKC wrote a letter of opposition to the mayor and city council requesting they repeal this ordinance
NM- Local Battles- Torrance County, New Mexico
Torrance County, NM – The Torrance County Commission is considering a proposal which will require breeders to obtain kennel licenses and purchase business licenses (which they may not qualify for). The proposal also includes strict limits and other vague and unenforceable language. The Government Relations Department has written a letter to the county commissioners and sent materials to local fanciers who are working to educate the commissioners about reasonable animal control legislation and help draft alternative language that will work for this rural county.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Proposed animal population law is a bad idea
Proposed animal population law is a bad idea
Editorial • March 4, 2009
A bill recently introduced by State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, would be bad law.
SB 250 would require mandatory spay and neutering of all animals unless the owner applied for and was granted a license to own an unaltered animal.
Don't have an animal and don't care? Well, you should because this law would hit you in the pocketbook if anyone decided to enforce it.
The state financial analyst estimated a similar bill that was defeated a year ago would cost millions, all of which would be borne at the local level. This law also would create more bureaucracy to review and decide on the licenses and would place a heavier burden on local shelters in terms of enforcement and housing animals who were surrendered when their owner could not pay the license fee or the spay/neuter fee.
The sad part about proposed laws such as this is they are not necessary. There are solutions that have worked in other places, and they could work in California.
One of those places is Canada's Calgary. The Calgary municipal shelter cut euthanasia rates from 50 percent to a handful of the 5,000 dogs picked up annually. It was done mostly by making spaying/neutering economically feasible, especially for poor people, and by educating people about pet ownership.
They started by focusing on dogs and are now focusing on cats.
The Calgary solution is one that should continue to be successful without heavy-handed enforcement.
It has succeeded in bringing together people who love mutts and people who love purebreds, and has reduced the problem with strays.
Animal control officers are viewed with respect and affection and referred to as Animal Courtesy Officers.
In contrast, bills such as the one introduced by Florez set up adversarial situations between pet owners and animal control. It is not clear how his unaltered animal licenses would be granted, or who would review applications and decide. The criteria could vary from city to city and between city and county.
It would require people to pay to have a pet altered without offering help. The only low-cost spay-neuter clinic in Tulare County charges from $30 to $50 to alter a cat and from $55 to $125 for a dog. Private vets can charge double or more those prices.
What would a family do if those prices were out of reach? Turn the dog over to a shelter for either adoption or euthanization, most likely.
That does not appear to be a good way to reduce the number of animals being euthanized in our shelters, nor does it respect the attachment the family may have to its pet.
Florez is off base with this one. Let's hope the other senators do not follow his lead.
Editorial • March 4, 2009
A bill recently introduced by State Sen. Dean Florez, D-Bakersfield, would be bad law.
SB 250 would require mandatory spay and neutering of all animals unless the owner applied for and was granted a license to own an unaltered animal.
Don't have an animal and don't care? Well, you should because this law would hit you in the pocketbook if anyone decided to enforce it.
The state financial analyst estimated a similar bill that was defeated a year ago would cost millions, all of which would be borne at the local level. This law also would create more bureaucracy to review and decide on the licenses and would place a heavier burden on local shelters in terms of enforcement and housing animals who were surrendered when their owner could not pay the license fee or the spay/neuter fee.
The sad part about proposed laws such as this is they are not necessary. There are solutions that have worked in other places, and they could work in California.
One of those places is Canada's Calgary. The Calgary municipal shelter cut euthanasia rates from 50 percent to a handful of the 5,000 dogs picked up annually. It was done mostly by making spaying/neutering economically feasible, especially for poor people, and by educating people about pet ownership.
They started by focusing on dogs and are now focusing on cats.
The Calgary solution is one that should continue to be successful without heavy-handed enforcement.
It has succeeded in bringing together people who love mutts and people who love purebreds, and has reduced the problem with strays.
Animal control officers are viewed with respect and affection and referred to as Animal Courtesy Officers.
In contrast, bills such as the one introduced by Florez set up adversarial situations between pet owners and animal control. It is not clear how his unaltered animal licenses would be granted, or who would review applications and decide. The criteria could vary from city to city and between city and county.
It would require people to pay to have a pet altered without offering help. The only low-cost spay-neuter clinic in Tulare County charges from $30 to $50 to alter a cat and from $55 to $125 for a dog. Private vets can charge double or more those prices.
What would a family do if those prices were out of reach? Turn the dog over to a shelter for either adoption or euthanization, most likely.
That does not appear to be a good way to reduce the number of animals being euthanized in our shelters, nor does it respect the attachment the family may have to its pet.
Florez is off base with this one. Let's hope the other senators do not follow his lead.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
WV- Professor fights proposed ban on animals at Marshall University
Professor fights proposed ban on animals indoors
by Ashley Adkins
A new policy proposed by the Marshall University Board of Governors that will ban animals from buildings on Marshall's campus may soon pass.
According to proposed Policy No. GA-15, domestic animals are not suitable to bring on campus because people may have a fear or an allergy associated with the animal, the animal may be a nuisance or a distraction and animals can be unpredictable and can exhibit uncontrollable behavior.
The policy says that all the factors present both a safety and health hazard for the university community. Service dogs are the only exception to the new policy because they are authorized on campus at all times.
Bill Palmer, professor of history at Marshall, is one faculty member who will feel the effect of this proposal. He has been bringing his dog, Nemo, a black labrador retriever, to his office on the quiet weekends for about five years.
"My objection to the policy s that it just makes no statement as why this is a problem. It makes no effort to contact or reach out to people that might be effected by it. I think that's very shortsighted," Palmer said.
Palmer said he's willing to listen to what the Board of Governors has to say about the policy but he thinks some guidelines could be set up instead of banning animals from buildings.
Karen Kirtley, assistant vice president for the administration, said the policy was created to defer a potential liability against uncontrollable animals.
Kirtley said she wants students and visitors on campus to understand that dogs are permitted as long as they are on a leash.
"We're trying to take a pro-active approach," Kirtley said. She also said other schools throughout the country have similar policies.
The policy says dogs are permitted outdoors on university property at all times if the dog is on a leash and kept under control and under the possession of the owner. The owner must show responsible care for the dog and ensure safe behavior of the dog, which includes preventing the dog from chasing wildlife. Dog owners are prohibited from bringing a dog on campus, including a service dog, if the dog does not have proper immunization and is not wearing a rabies vaccination tag. Owners are also responsible for cleaning up and disposing of waste properly while on campus.
The policy states it is modeled after the Huntington City Ordinance 507, which states dogs must be on a leash or confined to the owner's property.
At first, Palmer was bringing Nemo to his office but he said he decided to see how Nemo would react in the classroom setting. He said after serious consideration of issues involved with his dog, he began to allow Nemo to sit in the class. The first class Palmer took Nemo to was one he taught last summer.
"As far as I could tell he handled it just well and the students loved him," Palmer said. "The students find him an interesting presence in the classroom and I think he very much contributes to a healthy atmosphere."
Since then, Palmer has brought Nemo to classes he has taught this academic year. He said Nemo sleeps a majority of the time.
Kirtley said the university recognizes the important role domestic animals have in the lives of students and employees.
Keshia Runyon, junior English literature and history major from Huntington, was a student in one of Palmer's classes. She said he would bring Nemo to the class and the dog would act great. She also said he was the best dog to have the pleasure to meet.
"It would be disappointing to not have Nemo in the class because he's a vital part," Runyon said.
"He has never barked at anybody, he's never growled, much less tried to bite or be threatening to anybody," Palmer said. "He stops and lets people pet him."
He said the history department secretary has even deemed Nemo "the world's best dog."
Palmer has written a letter to University President Stephen Kopp, expressing his concerns. He said one part of the policy mentions how dogs can cause allergies in students but he argues that service dogs can cause allergies as well.
"The author of the policy does not seem to be aware that Seeing Eye dogs can cause allergies in students, too," the letter says. "Do we want to ban them from the classroom too on those grounds? In fact, pet dander on the clothing of any student in the classroom, whether they have their pet with them or not, can also trigger allergies. Should we then ban all students with pets because somebody might be allergic to the dander on their clothing?"
Palmer said he has never received any complaints about having Nemo in class with him and he gives his students the option to object anonymously about having the dog in the room.
He said he has a friend who teaches at Harvard University who told him that dogs frequently play along Harvard Yard and even faculty at Harvard, including a law school professor, bring their dogs to their offices. He said the Yeager Scholars visit the University of Virginia as a field trip every year and the group always sees dogs playing on the lawn.
In his letter Palmer states, "If Harvard, and even the Harvard Law School and the University of Virginia aren't freaking out about pets, why does Marshall have to? Isn't this the kind of place we'd like to be, a unique community, with a kinder, gentler atmosphere, rather than some quasi-police state, where people in power simply assume the bad faith of their community?
"Would we like to be on Leno, as we almost certainly will be, being lampooned as the "pet-hostile" university? Marshall has been teaching students since 1837. This can't be the first time people have brought pets to campus."
The letter references the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" because the talk show host made fun of West Virginia for the Barbie ban.
Palmer said he is circulating petitions and urging students who have been in his classes to write letters to the president about the issue. He said he has also started a group on Facebook and is creating T-shirts that say "Save Nemo."
He said students willing to write letters against or for the policy can submit the letters to him and his secretary until 10 a.m. on April 6.
Kirtley said the policy is under review in the administration. The policy will be discussed on April 30 during the Board of Governors meeting.
Ashley Adkins can be contacted at adkins428@marshall.edu.
by Ashley Adkins
A new policy proposed by the Marshall University Board of Governors that will ban animals from buildings on Marshall's campus may soon pass.
According to proposed Policy No. GA-15, domestic animals are not suitable to bring on campus because people may have a fear or an allergy associated with the animal, the animal may be a nuisance or a distraction and animals can be unpredictable and can exhibit uncontrollable behavior.
The policy says that all the factors present both a safety and health hazard for the university community. Service dogs are the only exception to the new policy because they are authorized on campus at all times.
Bill Palmer, professor of history at Marshall, is one faculty member who will feel the effect of this proposal. He has been bringing his dog, Nemo, a black labrador retriever, to his office on the quiet weekends for about five years.
"My objection to the policy s that it just makes no statement as why this is a problem. It makes no effort to contact or reach out to people that might be effected by it. I think that's very shortsighted," Palmer said.
Palmer said he's willing to listen to what the Board of Governors has to say about the policy but he thinks some guidelines could be set up instead of banning animals from buildings.
Karen Kirtley, assistant vice president for the administration, said the policy was created to defer a potential liability against uncontrollable animals.
Kirtley said she wants students and visitors on campus to understand that dogs are permitted as long as they are on a leash.
"We're trying to take a pro-active approach," Kirtley said. She also said other schools throughout the country have similar policies.
The policy says dogs are permitted outdoors on university property at all times if the dog is on a leash and kept under control and under the possession of the owner. The owner must show responsible care for the dog and ensure safe behavior of the dog, which includes preventing the dog from chasing wildlife. Dog owners are prohibited from bringing a dog on campus, including a service dog, if the dog does not have proper immunization and is not wearing a rabies vaccination tag. Owners are also responsible for cleaning up and disposing of waste properly while on campus.
The policy states it is modeled after the Huntington City Ordinance 507, which states dogs must be on a leash or confined to the owner's property.
At first, Palmer was bringing Nemo to his office but he said he decided to see how Nemo would react in the classroom setting. He said after serious consideration of issues involved with his dog, he began to allow Nemo to sit in the class. The first class Palmer took Nemo to was one he taught last summer.
"As far as I could tell he handled it just well and the students loved him," Palmer said. "The students find him an interesting presence in the classroom and I think he very much contributes to a healthy atmosphere."
Since then, Palmer has brought Nemo to classes he has taught this academic year. He said Nemo sleeps a majority of the time.
Kirtley said the university recognizes the important role domestic animals have in the lives of students and employees.
Keshia Runyon, junior English literature and history major from Huntington, was a student in one of Palmer's classes. She said he would bring Nemo to the class and the dog would act great. She also said he was the best dog to have the pleasure to meet.
"It would be disappointing to not have Nemo in the class because he's a vital part," Runyon said.
"He has never barked at anybody, he's never growled, much less tried to bite or be threatening to anybody," Palmer said. "He stops and lets people pet him."
He said the history department secretary has even deemed Nemo "the world's best dog."
Palmer has written a letter to University President Stephen Kopp, expressing his concerns. He said one part of the policy mentions how dogs can cause allergies in students but he argues that service dogs can cause allergies as well.
"The author of the policy does not seem to be aware that Seeing Eye dogs can cause allergies in students, too," the letter says. "Do we want to ban them from the classroom too on those grounds? In fact, pet dander on the clothing of any student in the classroom, whether they have their pet with them or not, can also trigger allergies. Should we then ban all students with pets because somebody might be allergic to the dander on their clothing?"
Palmer said he has never received any complaints about having Nemo in class with him and he gives his students the option to object anonymously about having the dog in the room.
He said he has a friend who teaches at Harvard University who told him that dogs frequently play along Harvard Yard and even faculty at Harvard, including a law school professor, bring their dogs to their offices. He said the Yeager Scholars visit the University of Virginia as a field trip every year and the group always sees dogs playing on the lawn.
In his letter Palmer states, "If Harvard, and even the Harvard Law School and the University of Virginia aren't freaking out about pets, why does Marshall have to? Isn't this the kind of place we'd like to be, a unique community, with a kinder, gentler atmosphere, rather than some quasi-police state, where people in power simply assume the bad faith of their community?
"Would we like to be on Leno, as we almost certainly will be, being lampooned as the "pet-hostile" university? Marshall has been teaching students since 1837. This can't be the first time people have brought pets to campus."
The letter references the "Tonight Show with Jay Leno" because the talk show host made fun of West Virginia for the Barbie ban.
Palmer said he is circulating petitions and urging students who have been in his classes to write letters to the president about the issue. He said he has also started a group on Facebook and is creating T-shirts that say "Save Nemo."
He said students willing to write letters against or for the policy can submit the letters to him and his secretary until 10 a.m. on April 6.
Kirtley said the policy is under review in the administration. The policy will be discussed on April 30 during the Board of Governors meeting.
Ashley Adkins can be contacted at adkins428@marshall.edu.
Friday, March 20, 2009
WV- Criminalizing Dog Breeding
From HB 2843:
NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to define a commercial dog breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more adult dogs for the purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. The bill requires a commercial dog breeder to obtain a valid business license. The bill provides limitations for how many dogs a commercial dog breeder can maintain; when a commercial dog breeder may breed female dogs; how a commercial dog breeder may dispose of dogs; requires them to maintain records of animal sales, purchases, breeding history and veterinary care. The bill further provides that the Commissioner of Agriculture, any consulting veterinarians or any animal control officer may inspect the facilities of a commercial dog breeder. The bill also provides that any violation of this section is a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $2,500 or a jail term of not more than one year or both.
West Virginia Bill A Radical Attempt At Limiting Dog Ownership
From AKC
[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]
West Virginia House Bill 2843, sponsored by Delegates Daniel Poling of Wood, Virginia Mahan of Summers, Nancy Guthrie of Kanawha, Roy Givens of Brooke, and Tom Azinger of Wood, seeks to define commercial dog breeders and to impose limits on the ownership of dogs. Similar to many bills introduced in legislatures across the country in 2009, HB 2843 is part of a radical national legislative agenda aimed at limiting the freedoms and liberties of Americans by attempting to restrict the number of animals they can own. The American Kennel Club (AKC) opposes this legislation, and encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia to contact their Delegate in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward. Additionally, AKC encourages all concerned breeders and owners to attend tomorrow's committee hearing and voice their opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC has a zero-tolerance policy regarding animal cruelty. We strongly support the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior–regardless of whether dogs are kept in a kennel, shelter, or even someone's home. AKC also believes that restricting Americans' liberties by imposing numerical ownership limits does not address issues of responsible dog ownership and proper dog care. Instead, the AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of all dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
If enacted, HB 2843 would:
* Define "commercial dog breeders" as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over one year of age.
* Require business licensure of commercial dog breeders.
* Prohibit commercial dog breeders from owning more than forty unsterilized dogs.
* Limit the breeding age of female dogs to between 18 months and eight years of age.
* Require commercial dog breeders to keep records for at least five years.
* Mandate inspections of commercial dog breeders' facilities, including private homes, twice annually; and allow inspections of such facilities without proving probable cause or obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate.
* Impose fines of up to $2,500, or jail for up to one year, or both, for each violation, without opportunity to correct prior to charges being levied.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia are encouraged to attend tomorrow House Agriculture Committee hearing and voice their opposition to HB 2843.
West Virginia House of Delegates Agriculture Committee
Wednesday, March 18th 8:30AM
House Government Organization Room 215-E
State Capitol Complex, Charleston.
All concerned breeders and owners in West Virginia are strongly encouraged to contact their elected officials in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward.
To find out who your elected Delegate is, click here.
HB 2843's sponsors:
Delegate Daniel Poling
Room 223E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3137
E-MAIL: dpoling@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Virginia Mahan
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3102
E-MAIL: vmahan@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Nancy Peoples Guthrie
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3156
E-MAIL: nguthrie@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Roy Givens
Room 221E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3129
E-MAIL: rgivens@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Tom Azinger
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3202
E-MAIL: tazinger@mail.wvnet.edu
Ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee:
Delegate Sam J. Argento, Chairman
Room 216 E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3112
E-MAIL: sargento@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Robert C. Tabb, Vice-Chairman
Room 210E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3274
E-MAIL: rtabb@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Allen V. Evans, Minority Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3399
E-MAIL: aevans@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Ray Canterbury, Minority Vice-Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25303
PHONE: (304) 340-3131
E-MAIL: rcanter1@mail.wvnet.edu
NOTE: The purpose of this bill is to define a commercial dog breeder as any person who maintains twenty or more adult dogs for the purpose of the sale of their offspring as companion animals. The bill requires a commercial dog breeder to obtain a valid business license. The bill provides limitations for how many dogs a commercial dog breeder can maintain; when a commercial dog breeder may breed female dogs; how a commercial dog breeder may dispose of dogs; requires them to maintain records of animal sales, purchases, breeding history and veterinary care. The bill further provides that the Commissioner of Agriculture, any consulting veterinarians or any animal control officer may inspect the facilities of a commercial dog breeder. The bill also provides that any violation of this section is a misdemeanor subject to a fine of not more than $2,500 or a jail term of not more than one year or both.
West Virginia Bill A Radical Attempt At Limiting Dog Ownership
From AKC
[Tuesday, March 17, 2009]
West Virginia House Bill 2843, sponsored by Delegates Daniel Poling of Wood, Virginia Mahan of Summers, Nancy Guthrie of Kanawha, Roy Givens of Brooke, and Tom Azinger of Wood, seeks to define commercial dog breeders and to impose limits on the ownership of dogs. Similar to many bills introduced in legislatures across the country in 2009, HB 2843 is part of a radical national legislative agenda aimed at limiting the freedoms and liberties of Americans by attempting to restrict the number of animals they can own. The American Kennel Club (AKC) opposes this legislation, and encourages all concerned responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia to contact their Delegate in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward. Additionally, AKC encourages all concerned breeders and owners to attend tomorrow's committee hearing and voice their opposition to this bill.
The American Kennel Club's mission includes working to protect the rights of all dog owners and promoting responsible dog ownership. The AKC has a zero-tolerance policy regarding animal cruelty. We strongly support the humane treatment of dogs, including providing an adequate and nutritious diet, clean living conditions, regular veterinary care, kind and responsive human companionship, and training in appropriate behavior–regardless of whether dogs are kept in a kennel, shelter, or even someone's home. AKC also believes that restricting Americans' liberties by imposing numerical ownership limits does not address issues of responsible dog ownership and proper dog care. Instead, the AKC supports reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of all dogs without restricting the rights of owners or breeders who take their responsibilities seriously.
If enacted, HB 2843 would:
* Define "commercial dog breeders" as any person who maintains twenty or more unsterilized dogs over one year of age.
* Require business licensure of commercial dog breeders.
* Prohibit commercial dog breeders from owning more than forty unsterilized dogs.
* Limit the breeding age of female dogs to between 18 months and eight years of age.
* Require commercial dog breeders to keep records for at least five years.
* Mandate inspections of commercial dog breeders' facilities, including private homes, twice annually; and allow inspections of such facilities without proving probable cause or obtaining a warrant from a neutral magistrate.
* Impose fines of up to $2,500, or jail for up to one year, or both, for each violation, without opportunity to correct prior to charges being levied.
WHAT YOU CAN DO:
All responsible dog breeders and owners in West Virginia are encouraged to attend tomorrow House Agriculture Committee hearing and voice their opposition to HB 2843.
West Virginia House of Delegates Agriculture Committee
Wednesday, March 18th 8:30AM
House Government Organization Room 215-E
State Capitol Complex, Charleston.
All concerned breeders and owners in West Virginia are strongly encouraged to contact their elected officials in Charleston, the bill's sponsors, and the members of the House Agriculture Committee who will consider this bill tomorrow and respectfully yet strongly urge them to not move HB 2843 forward.
To find out who your elected Delegate is, click here.
HB 2843's sponsors:
Delegate Daniel Poling
Room 223E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3137
E-MAIL: dpoling@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Virginia Mahan
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3102
E-MAIL: vmahan@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Nancy Peoples Guthrie
Room 227E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3156
E-MAIL: nguthrie@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Roy Givens
Room 221E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3129
E-MAIL: rgivens@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Tom Azinger
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3202
E-MAIL: tazinger@mail.wvnet.edu
Ranking members of the House Agriculture Committee:
Delegate Sam J. Argento, Chairman
Room 216 E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3112
E-MAIL: sargento@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Robert C. Tabb, Vice-Chairman
Room 210E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3274
E-MAIL: rtabb@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Allen V. Evans, Minority Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25305
PHONE: (304) 340-3399
E-MAIL: aevans@mail.wvnet.edu
Delegate Ray Canterbury, Minority Vice-Chairman
Room 231E, Building 1
State Capitol Complex
Charleston, WV 25303
PHONE: (304) 340-3131
E-MAIL: rcanter1@mail.wvnet.edu
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
AK- Arkansas Seeks to Require Annual Licenses of Up to $1000for Dog Owners and Handlers
Arkansas Seeks to Require Annual Licenses of Up to $1000 for Dog Owners and Handlers
From AKC
[Monday, March 16, 2009]
A bill has been introduced in the Arkansas Senate that requires owners of 12 or more dogs of any age to purchase an annual license for the right to maintain ownership of the dogs, regardless of whether the animals are on your property.
"Owner" is defined as someone who meets any of the following criteria:
* Has a right of property in a dog or cat
* Keeps or harbors a dog or cat
* Acts as a custodian of a dog or cat
Senate Bill 864 would require any owner of 12 to 24 dogs and/or cats to obtain a $250 annual license. If you own over 24 dogs and/or cats, then you must pay $1000 each year. This would place severe financial hardships on responsible dog owners without addressing the real problem of irresponsible dog ownership.
The following are exempted from the license requirements:
* A veterinarian or veterinary facility that provides services under the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Practice Act
* A boarding, kennel, or grooming facility that acts as a temporary custodian in exchange for compensation
* An agency of the federal, state, county, municipal or other governmental or political subdivision acting under official duties
* Any entity owned or managed by a state or local government agency that is responsible for animal control
* Research facilities
In addition, the bill allows for a warrantless inspection by an animal control officer or other public health or safety official upon any complaint "or upon his or her own motion". This may include an inspection of the animals as well as the facility.
AKC is opposed to egregious requirements that punish responsible dog owners while doing nothing to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
What You Can Do:
Contact the sponsor of Senate Bill 864 and politely, yet strongly express your opposition to Senate Bill 864:
Senator Sue Madison
573 Rock Cliff Rd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 442-2997
E-mail: madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ask them to oppose Senate Bill 864. Their contact information is as follows:
Senator Ed Wilkinson (Chairman)
Box 610
Greenwood, AR 72936
Phone: (479) 996-4171
Senator Ruth Whitaker (Vice-Chair)
PO Box 349
Cedarville, AR 72932
Phone: (479) 474-0911
E-mail: whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator David Johnson
2511 Valley Park Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: (501) 682-6107
E-mail: johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jim Luker
PO Box 216
Wynne, AR 72396
Phone: (870) 238-8588
E-mail: lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Sue Madison
573 Rock Cliff Road
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 442-2997
E-mail: madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jerry Taylor
6203 Ridgewood Drive
Pine Bluff, AR 71603
Phone: (870) 879-3233
E-mail: taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Robert Thompson
414 West Court
Paragould, AR 72450
Phone: (870) 239-9581
E-mail: thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Henry "Hank" Wilkins
717 W. 2nd Avenue
Pine Bluff, AR 71601
Phone: (870) 536-6366
E-mail: hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us
Additional Resources:
Click here for AKC’s "Disagree Diplomatically" brochure
Click here for AKC’s "Make Your Contact Count" brochure for suggestions on how to effectively communicate with legislators.
From AKC
[Monday, March 16, 2009]
A bill has been introduced in the Arkansas Senate that requires owners of 12 or more dogs of any age to purchase an annual license for the right to maintain ownership of the dogs, regardless of whether the animals are on your property.
"Owner" is defined as someone who meets any of the following criteria:
* Has a right of property in a dog or cat
* Keeps or harbors a dog or cat
* Acts as a custodian of a dog or cat
Senate Bill 864 would require any owner of 12 to 24 dogs and/or cats to obtain a $250 annual license. If you own over 24 dogs and/or cats, then you must pay $1000 each year. This would place severe financial hardships on responsible dog owners without addressing the real problem of irresponsible dog ownership.
The following are exempted from the license requirements:
* A veterinarian or veterinary facility that provides services under the Arkansas Veterinary Medical Practice Act
* A boarding, kennel, or grooming facility that acts as a temporary custodian in exchange for compensation
* An agency of the federal, state, county, municipal or other governmental or political subdivision acting under official duties
* Any entity owned or managed by a state or local government agency that is responsible for animal control
* Research facilities
In addition, the bill allows for a warrantless inspection by an animal control officer or other public health or safety official upon any complaint "or upon his or her own motion". This may include an inspection of the animals as well as the facility.
AKC is opposed to egregious requirements that punish responsible dog owners while doing nothing to address the issue of irresponsible dog ownership. Instead, we support reasonable and enforceable laws that protect the welfare and health of purebred dogs and do not restrict the rights of breeders and owners who take their responsibilities seriously.
What You Can Do:
Contact the sponsor of Senate Bill 864 and politely, yet strongly express your opposition to Senate Bill 864:
Senator Sue Madison
573 Rock Cliff Rd.
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 442-2997
E-mail: madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Contact the members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Ask them to oppose Senate Bill 864. Their contact information is as follows:
Senator Ed Wilkinson (Chairman)
Box 610
Greenwood, AR 72936
Phone: (479) 996-4171
Senator Ruth Whitaker (Vice-Chair)
PO Box 349
Cedarville, AR 72932
Phone: (479) 474-0911
E-mail: whitakerr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator David Johnson
2511 Valley Park Drive
Little Rock, AR 72212
Phone: (501) 682-6107
E-mail: johnsond@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jim Luker
PO Box 216
Wynne, AR 72396
Phone: (870) 238-8588
E-mail: lukerj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Sue Madison
573 Rock Cliff Road
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Phone: (479) 442-2997
E-mail: madisons@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Jerry Taylor
6203 Ridgewood Drive
Pine Bluff, AR 71603
Phone: (870) 879-3233
E-mail: taylorj@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Robert Thompson
414 West Court
Paragould, AR 72450
Phone: (870) 239-9581
E-mail: thompsonr@arkleg.state.ar.us
Senator Henry "Hank" Wilkins
717 W. 2nd Avenue
Pine Bluff, AR 71601
Phone: (870) 536-6366
E-mail: hwilkins@arkleg.state.ar.us
Additional Resources:
Click here for AKC’s "Disagree Diplomatically" brochure
Click here for AKC’s "Make Your Contact Count" brochure for suggestions on how to effectively communicate with legislators.
Monday, March 16, 2009
NV- Multiple Bills introduced at once
SB 241
as introduced:
* would regulate anyone who wants to breed and sell dogs, regardless of the number.
* would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies.
* would also impose numerous other regulations and subject anyone who breeds and sells dogs to random inspections.
As written, SB 241 would:
Define "Breeder" as "a person who breeds cats or dogs for sale".
Require an annual application and $500 license fee for anyone who breeds cats or dogs for sale.
Require an inspection of "the premises upon which the breeder proposes to operate" prior to a license being granted and authorize the Nevada Department of Agriculture or any authorized representatives to conduct a records inspection at "all reasonable times." The bill is unclear as to whether these inspections could include private homes.
Prohibit breeding a single cat or dog beyond two litters during its lifetime.
Mandate microchipping of all dogs prior to sale.
Prohibit anyone who is not in compliance with a court order for child support from obtaining a breeder's license.
Include ambiguous exemptions for those who are housing domestic dogs or cats as pets or caring for another person's dog or cat in a home environment and those participating in the exhibition of dogs.
AB 15
As introduced:
*requires pet sellers, veterinarians and public parks to post notices of any local ordinances requiring sterilization of dogs or cats
SB 133
As introduced:
* expands the prohibitions under existing law to include a person who possesses any animal with the intent to use the animal in a fight with another animal or to engage in certain other acts that are prohibited under NRS 574.070. The bill, however, is under going amendment that will require
(1) an "operator" to provide specified minimum floor space calculated as
((6 inches+length of animal) squared) / 144 = required square footage. An animal 18 inches long would require 4 square feet. (6+18)=24 24*24=576 576/144=4 It prohibits stacking of cages.
(2) daily exercise periods totaling at least one hour for each dog in which the dog is removed from the primary enclosure and given free mobility for the entire exercise period by either leash walking or giving the dog access to a space at least four times the size of the primary enclosure. Mechanical exercise devices are prohibited.
(3) Requires annual veterinary exams and exams "prior to each attempt at breeding," prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, "where needed, humane euthanasia to be performed only by a licensed veterinarian using techniques identified as “Acceptable”.
(4) Prohibits breeding consecutive heat cycles or breeding dogs younger than one year.
(5) Limits breeders to 50 or fewer breeding animals.
----- Note the above provisions are not yet officially published ---
SB 132
As introduced:
*this bill prohibits a person from tethering, chaining, tying or otherwise restraining a dog using a device that is less than 12 feet in length or for more than 9 hours during a 24-hour period or from placing a dog in an outdoor enclosure for more than 9 hours during a 24-hour period unless the dog weighs a specified amount and the enclosure is a certain size.
To be used longer than 9 hours the pen must be at least 60 square feet for dogs under 20 pounds, 120 square feet for dogs under 60 pounds, 160 square feet for dogs under 100 pounds, and 200 square feet for dogs over over 100.
It exempts a dog that is: (1) being treated by a veterinarian; (2) being used for hunting or being trained to hunt; (3) participating in a dog show; (4) being kept in a shelter or boarding facility or temporarily in a camping area; (5) temporarily being cared for during a rescue operation; or (6) being used as part of an agricultural operation.
as introduced:
* would regulate anyone who wants to breed and sell dogs, regardless of the number.
* would require all breeders, regardless of how many dogs owned, to pay a $500 annual fee in order to breed and sell puppies.
* would also impose numerous other regulations and subject anyone who breeds and sells dogs to random inspections.
As written, SB 241 would:
Define "Breeder" as "a person who breeds cats or dogs for sale".
Require an annual application and $500 license fee for anyone who breeds cats or dogs for sale.
Require an inspection of "the premises upon which the breeder proposes to operate" prior to a license being granted and authorize the Nevada Department of Agriculture or any authorized representatives to conduct a records inspection at "all reasonable times." The bill is unclear as to whether these inspections could include private homes.
Prohibit breeding a single cat or dog beyond two litters during its lifetime.
Mandate microchipping of all dogs prior to sale.
Prohibit anyone who is not in compliance with a court order for child support from obtaining a breeder's license.
Include ambiguous exemptions for those who are housing domestic dogs or cats as pets or caring for another person's dog or cat in a home environment and those participating in the exhibition of dogs.
AB 15
As introduced:
*requires pet sellers, veterinarians and public parks to post notices of any local ordinances requiring sterilization of dogs or cats
SB 133
As introduced:
* expands the prohibitions under existing law to include a person who possesses any animal with the intent to use the animal in a fight with another animal or to engage in certain other acts that are prohibited under NRS 574.070. The bill, however, is under going amendment that will require
(1) an "operator" to provide specified minimum floor space calculated as
((6 inches+length of animal) squared) / 144 = required square footage. An animal 18 inches long would require 4 square feet. (6+18)=24 24*24=576 576/144=4 It prohibits stacking of cages.
(2) daily exercise periods totaling at least one hour for each dog in which the dog is removed from the primary enclosure and given free mobility for the entire exercise period by either leash walking or giving the dog access to a space at least four times the size of the primary enclosure. Mechanical exercise devices are prohibited.
(3) Requires annual veterinary exams and exams "prior to each attempt at breeding," prompt treatment of any illness or injury by a licensed veterinarian; and, "where needed, humane euthanasia to be performed only by a licensed veterinarian using techniques identified as “Acceptable”.
(4) Prohibits breeding consecutive heat cycles or breeding dogs younger than one year.
(5) Limits breeders to 50 or fewer breeding animals.
----- Note the above provisions are not yet officially published ---
SB 132
As introduced:
*this bill prohibits a person from tethering, chaining, tying or otherwise restraining a dog using a device that is less than 12 feet in length or for more than 9 hours during a 24-hour period or from placing a dog in an outdoor enclosure for more than 9 hours during a 24-hour period unless the dog weighs a specified amount and the enclosure is a certain size.
To be used longer than 9 hours the pen must be at least 60 square feet for dogs under 20 pounds, 120 square feet for dogs under 60 pounds, 160 square feet for dogs under 100 pounds, and 200 square feet for dogs over over 100.
It exempts a dog that is: (1) being treated by a veterinarian; (2) being used for hunting or being trained to hunt; (3) participating in a dog show; (4) being kept in a shelter or boarding facility or temporarily in a camping area; (5) temporarily being cared for during a rescue operation; or (6) being used as part of an agricultural operation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)